TakeYouToTasker

I'd say that Jim Brown is a human being with warts and flaws just like the rest of us, and that he has done some bad things in the past. I'd also so that that his work with youth trying to escape the gang life has probably impacted more lives in a life-changing positive way than his prior transgressions did negatively. I'm curious though, why that matters. Are you trying to say that Jim Brown's opinion doesn't matter because of unrelated things in his past? If that's the case, can you please give me your comprehensive list of sins that disqualifies you from being heard, nullifying the value of your position on other matters. If not, I'd like to know what the point of bringing Jim Brown's past into the matter has to do with this specific argument, other than an attempt to engage in logical fallacy by Poisoning the Well, silencing dissent through character assassination.

Hear me out: offer the Raiders a 1st round pick for EJ.

You can change your name, not your gender. He's a dude named Chelsea.

It's impossible to know for sure, but some slaves likely did participate in the building and furnishing of pyramids. The pyramids most certainly were built by and for slave owners, however; and slaves were entombed along with their masters.

As little love as I have for Joe Arpaio, he would have been a political prisoner, which is scary to contemplate.

He can call it a concentration camp all he wants. "con·cen·tra·tion camp ˌkänsənˈtrāSHən ˈˌkamp/ noun plural noun: concentration camps a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 193345, among the most infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz." Now, is Tent City a concentration camp?

Tent City is a concentration camp? You're an idiot.

The major problem is the advent of the unitary executive. Our government wasn't designed to have a "President whose job it is to get things done" outside of the scope of their specifically designated powers.

This is stupendous.

I'll add "logic" and "arguments" to the list of things you aren't bright enough to do correctly.

No, you're not.

Anyone who hasn't gone through the proper channels of having their status legalized over a 20 year period isn't interested in becoming legalized. If that's not a priority for them, then they don't need to be here.

That's not how logical argument works. You've made a positive assertion. It is your obligation to defend it. You don't get to make fiat declarations and pretend that they stand as fact until someone else comes along to prove a negative.

Racist institutions you ask? Howard Dean tells us "You're a racist if you vote Republican"

This law does not apply to the President and Vice-President, as receiving gifts is one of the protocols of the office. Both must report gifts with a value in excess of, I believe, $350. The giver of the gift must differentiate if the gift was intended to the sitting President (or Vice), or the Office of the President. In the case of the first, the sitting President is free to keep the gift when they exit the Office.

I'm giving 50/50 odds, given her background, that she has raised this poor child to believe they are transgendered.

I would posit that the fact we're talking about the system dismissing these cases is evidence of the system working. Further, I always find it hilarious that the political left is always screaming about how bigger, stronger government is the answer to most problems, but fail to recognize that the police are the acting executive arm of the government when they make their case.

If you're interested, you'll both probably enjoy Daniel Boorstein's The Image: A Guide to Pseudo Events in America It's absolutely illuminating.

Actually, it's that "There is nothing wrong with Antifa! They are fighting Nazis!"

I'd say it's reasonable to care about individuals espousing a broken ideology accounting for well over 100 million deaths over the course of the last century; and even more reasonable to care about violent militant Communist agitators assaulting people and destroying property. You don't think that's reasonable?

Wait, what? Trump is a Leninist?

No !@#$ing way... That's not real and I'm not getting Rick-rolled by clicking that link. No way that's true.

Wait, what? Not that Richard Nixon was a conservative, he wasn't, but before you say things like this you should really do some reading and learn about the original charter of the EPA under Nixon. Trump's stated goal was to return the EPA to that original charter. On the EPA, the two are exactly the same.

If that was the case, it would still put me at least 12 months or so ahead of you. With that said, I have no problems with posters who have bad opinions, or different opinions which I happen to disagree with. Case in point: I don't have you on ignore. 34 doesn't have a long history of intentionally ruining otherwise potentially interesting discourse. He's just dumb and has a deep authoritarian streak, and he's only been at it for a week. I doubt many here, if any, have him on ignore at this point. Gatorman has been at it for so long that a sizable number of regular contributors have him on ignore to improve our board experience, and your constant engaging him both encourages him to stay at it, and makes his nonsense visible again. But you don't give a !@#$ about the quality of the board, or anyone else's experience, so keep on douching it up.