nobody's_hero
Member

Congress doesn't write the bills. Their staffers and lobbyists write them and they just rubber stamp them.

Probably. The strongest candidate to run against him was that Tom Davis guy from way-back-when. Figured if anyone would've had a chance it would have been him.

The real question is: why do South Carolinians boo Graham but won't vote him out of office?

All I'm going to say is this: "Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. But a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. "Now it happened that the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom, and the rich man also died and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.' "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things. But now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.'" LSB]

Does this mean the intern that was making Feinstein's voting decisions for her techically lost her seat in office as well?

It's not always a matter of 'going after the true enemy'. Sometimes the 'fake enemy' comes after you and you can't just ignore them away. You might actually have to go through them to get to the 'true enemy.' (and believe me I'd love nothing more for them to just shut up and take a seat on the sidelines somewhere while people who know what's really going on can deal with the problem but FAT CHANCE of that happening, so it is what it is) Like in GA primaries 2022. We tried to get rid of the RINO turds but the leftists flooded the open primaries to protect incumbents. Who am I supposed to be angry at? The elites, or all the useful idiots who allowed themselves to be used (or outright willfully acted) to keep establishment politicians in power? Like, why should I have to even deal with these people? They're leftists, they should be minding their own damn party's business. Well, it's because they put themselves in the way. You don't always get to choose who fights you. You can not-want-to-fight-them all you want. Won't change anything if they want to fight you.

Spoiler alerts please. Some of us who haven't finished this game were expecting some sort of grand boss fight at the end. You mean all we are ever going to get to fight are the level 1 enemies in the tutorial level? Such a disappointment. (It's true though. You'll only get to fight their foot soldiers.)

\\

A leftist with anger management issues? Now there's something you see practically every day.

Perhaps ironically, it was the abolitionists who eventually followed the least libertarian means of meeting their goals. Which is another paradox the libertarians find themselves in, due to self-constraints placed upon themselves: the ends not justifying the means, and all. Right or wrong notwithstanding, our oppressors do not place such constraints upon themselves. Regardless of moral arguments, it is important to understand, that is why they are much more efficient at meeting their goals.

They also lack repentance. Every time one of their policies or agendum fails, they do any of the following three things, instead of admitting fault, asking forgiveness, and turning away from (repenting) from their error: They blame their opposition. They claim they were unable to know that it would fail, or that the policy/agendum wasn't true to its core. They ignore it and move on as if nothing happened.

Made possible by us single-male childless worker slaves. If these parents had to spend $21,000 per child in annual tuition, only to get the 'results' they are getting, the whole system would collapse.

Even if we trust the integrity of the polls, it still doesn't show anything true about the verity of whether Trump or Biden have the best platform that would resolve many of the fiscal and monetary problems in our country.

Favorability probably runs higher with republicans. Although, favorability doesn't necessarily mean they'd vote for him. Probably just means they respect him enough to hear him out.

If you want to accelerate a "civil" war, then that's how you do it. It's just another reason why the Biden Regime needs to be resisted.

Right. Nothing to see here, comrade... v2zckmz

I wonder if DHS will accept reports where election tampering has been evidenced through video footage, audio recordings, and data analysis from outside sources... :confused:

Check this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?564142-A-Christian-Denomination-That-Stands-Against-Tyranny

He would definitely be a breath of fresh air for Argentina. Also calling out the pope like that takes balls, but nothing he said was untrue.

Exactly. Trump's decisions during the 2020 COVID nonsense, alone, have proven that he's not fit to be President again. He was tested, and he failed.

I think what I've said applies to both groups. Fundamentally, it all goes back to one's philosophical precommitments, and Democrats have assumptions about human nature and what constitutes "the greater good" in society before they advance any public policy, whether they're the rank-and-file supporters, or the politicians within the Party. Nonetheless, I do agree that Democrat leaders are controlling the helm of public opinion and action through an agenda-driven crusade to eradicate any opposition to their political goals. But that agenda is, itself, based upon certain axioms of Democratic thought which assume State power is a given.

I agree that there's an element of that in their dismissal of any solution which requires citizens to arm and protect themselves; but I also believe that it's their anthropological and political philosophies which hinder them from "thinking outside of the box" in any serious resolution to crime. By the tenets of those philosophies, Democrats have blinded themselves to real, meaningful solutions because they presuppose that the civil government ought to be the first-responder to any problem within society.

The solution is so simple, but Democrats are philosophically incapable of thinking rationally and reasonably about what to do about crime. Obviously, the solution is to empower citizens by allowing open-carry of firearms, which will be a safe and effective deterrent to would-be criminals. Instead, Democrats will further complicate the issue by ignoring the root causes, blinded by their own hubris.

What if she charges them with insurrection? Don't see why she couldn't, with such a broad definition for that these days: Your support:

This sounds like a going-wide-around-the-elbow-to-ass solution for what should be handled by the people of Kentucky in a recall election. No new definitions are needed. The people of Kentucky need to demand that McConnell be recalled. If they're unwilling to do that, then it doesn't really matter who is in that seat since the people don't seem to care. Maybe the LP's efforts would be better utilized getting signatures to make it happen.

If the bar for what constitutes as evidence of election fraud were as low as the bar for what constitutes insurrection these days, there would be a fuck-ton of election officials sitting in jail right now. But two-tiered justice system and all that.