TakeYouToTasker

Tyrod is/was one of the most exciting quarterbacks to watch I've ever seen. He made a handful of plays, nearly every game, which I may have prior assumed to be unmakable. This cuts both ways though, as he undoubtedly singly handedly drove the stock prices of Mylanta and Jack Daniel's to all time highs.

I was pretty sure that would be your answer when I asked. Voting is a complicated issue. If an individual believes the franchise is a fundamental right, residence, or lack there of, is an unjust barrier as it serves to disenfranchise our most vulnerable citizens. If, however, the franchise is a privilege earned by merit there is a valid conversation to be had about restricting the vote to those who are stakeholders (net tax-payers) and those who serve.

It's almost surreal.

No, no... let him go. This shooting was perpetrated with a shotgun, which many on the left claim is the ideal weapon for home defense, and have insisted that they have no interest in going after. Let him prove himself to be a liar, and demonstrate that the gun grabbers really do want all of your guns, even shotguns, which they prior claimed was a bridge they'd never cross. When he does this it makes your own argument stronger.

What about the homeless? Should they be permitted to vote, or is being in poverty so grave a crime that it should strip an individual of their rights?

The same philosophical underpinnings which elevate the right to free speech, the right to self-determination, the right to freedom of religion, also elevate the right to bear arms. You cannot undercut the elevation of one of those rights without doing so to all of your rights, as you've made a statement that it is OK for the government to infringe on the natural human rights of it's citizens. Either the individual is elevated, and freedom is sacrosanct; or the Enlightenment was wrong and man should live in captivity under monarchs. You can't have it both ways.

Up to, and including, determining who will lead our government.

Shots fired. Things are going to start moving now.

So saying things you personally disagree with on social media is an impeachable offense?

What was he wrong about? The only statement he made was that he was "working to confirm rumors". Do you have evidence that he did not work to confirm any rumors?

What does that even mean? Does he listen fondly to Richard Wagner?

Here's another: https://truepundit.com/fbi-comeys-memo-leaker-secretly-appointed-federal-agent-never-passed-full-fbi-background-check/ The professor and friend James Comey described as both his attorney and a direct employee of the FBI, whom Comey gave access and leaked classified information through, never passed his FBI background check.

Here's one: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/world/europe/chile-bishops-resign-sex-abuse-francis.html Every single Bishop in Chile has offered the Pope their resignation over the child abuse/trafficking scandal.

No one can take away your right to own a gun, they can only violate it.

Andrew Sullivan never used to be this bad. I remember a time when his work at least demonstrated the shadow of balance, and was readable.

... It would be easier to make a list of the items listed that were not falsehoods.

My point is that you're having an emotional reaction to an intellectual problem. You can't feel your way through difficult circumstances. As I said, mass shooting deaths are a tragic circumstance; but they aren't a massive societal problem. This won't ease the pain of those suffering though the loss, but it doesn't change the facts.

A person is more likely to die drowning in their own bathtub over the course of their entire life than they are to die in a mass shooting event, school or otherwise. It's a tragic circumstance, but it's not a massive problem. The only way it becomes a massive problem is if it's demonstrated that the shootings are often directly linked to bad actors in our government as a method of distraction from the things that are more important and impactful. Watch this: https://www.bitchute.com/video/k42r4sP690HL/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/k42r4sP690HL/ This video was banned from Youtube.

No, I don't much care about the ongoings of a bunch of terrible and inbred relics of the pre-Enlightenment.

Enough that the exhibit could have it's own wing at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum.

As I think more about this, the article doesn't state that he necessarily had 58 terabytes of child porn, but that they were "related to" child porn. Could have been 58 terabytes of anything. Or, it's possible he could have been a centralized purveyor.

!@#$ing monster.

Hillary 2016: Government Small Enough to Fit Inside Your Presidential Campaign

My advice is to stop measuring gradients of propaganda, and reject outlets that propagandize.