Invisible Man
Member

Interesting. I take it you’re suggesting that his indirect connection to Trump via their mutual associates in the Epstein circle might have made him biased in Trump’s favor.

"We shouldn't judge Trump by how he governed when he was in office. We should support him because next time he will be different." I have a different view. Every moderately good Trump did in his first term was done to satisfy conservatives at the expense of his own personal policy views. As a lame duck he will no longer have any incentive to pander to conservatives.

Indeed. And also a difference between "a burden" and "unrealistic." When I was a youngster in the Boy Scouts I went on a high adventure canoe camping trip at about 5-foot tall and 90 lbs., and on our portages I had to carry either a 90-lb. canoe or a 90-lb. backpack. For me at that time, to call that a burden would be an understatement. Admittedly, I could barely do either. But Lanza was a 150-lb., 5'9", 20 year old, carrying what I'm pretty sure was much less weight than that.

Can you find anything that contradicts what I said, specifically the text you bolded? There's no need to trust my opinion. If you really think it's unrealistic, let's actually add up the weight. But before we do, when it turns out to be not unrealistic, I'd like to hear what excuse you are going to come up with ahead of time.

This is just the first place I found when I looked. So if this isn't accurate, let me know. But according to this article, which I should say doesn't come from a source I respect, here is what he took: I haven't added up the weight, but seeing the list I don't see why that's necessary. It doesn't look like anything at all unrealistic.

Just once would suffice.

It sounded like you were saying the people who sued Jones really are crisis actors.

Sarcasm?

He made specific false accusations about specific people that resulted in other people believing him and harassing and threatening those people he falsely accused. So the victims of his slander sued him for damages, and rightly so.

You seem to be struggling to decide whether you want to have your cake or eat it.

You mean by accessing the text message that referred to Sandy Hook that they weren't supposed to know existed?

So, which is it? AJ's lawyer's did intend to send that material? Or they didn't?

What all can you tell us about these so-called MAGA candidates besides the fact that Trump endorsed them?

Please let there be a recording that gets leaked of Jones' response when he found out his lawyer did that.

Of course. How can that even be a serious question? Unfortunately, the problem isn't that people gloss over that part. It's that they utterly misrepresent it as if it authorized government regulation of gun ownership and somehow limits the right to keep and bear arms that the sentence goes on to say shall not be infringed. . It doesn't. That myth is easy to disprove. But if the Constitution really did mean that, then that would only serve as another example of the Constitution being wrong. If that version of the Constitution is the one you say you're all for, then Collins' question about why you're here is still a good one, Bronze member or not.

What an infuriatingly dumb post. I'm going to drop out of this thread before I start cussing.

This is just a weird thread. Even if you're not a one-issue voter, it doesn't matter. You could be a ten-issue voter, and I bet Crenshaw is diametrically opposed to everything we stand for here on 9 of those 10 issues and iffy on the tenth one. Seriously, what does he have in his favor at all? I don't see it. So what if you think he's electable? Obama was electable. Did you support him because of that?

So basically, you want to become the same thing as the people you just called magatards?

This may be a dumb question on my part, but what practical difference does it make if the US recognizes some land as its own country or not?

Perhaps. But that's not supported by that image from the medical encyclopedia that you posted if that's what you're saying.

Sure it's legit. But notice what it actually says. It does not say coronavirus=common cold, like the comment on the right claims. It merely says that the common cold is an example of a condition cause by a coronavirus. But everybody already knew that and it's never been a controversial claim. And it has nothing to do with the fact that the virus that causes COVID-19 is also a coronavirus, even though COVID-19 is not the common cold. So what's the point?

Angling for the youth vote has been tried by numerous politicians numerous times. And as a strategy to stake winning or losing a whole election on, it has a proven record of failure. Generally speaking, young people are dumb, and they don't vote anyway. Sure there are exceptions. But you don't win elections on the exceptions.

How so? Do you think that the security people in every private business are states? Not all states are equally bad. But all states are both established and maintained by conquest and not voluntary agreement.

I don't think there's a single description. But there is no service or product provided by the state that they wouldn't be able to have available in the marketplace for them if they demand it. The argument that these people need to be conquered and taken over by some state so that this state can protect them from being conquered and taken over by some state doesn't make sense to me.

These kind of questions where people look to an impersonal state government made up of strangers hundreds of miles away from the people it rules over legislating one-size-fits-all rules about things like this are good illustrations of why that's no way to answer these questions. Take those state laws out of the picture, and when people stop deferring to "the law" (which here just means the make believe laws legislated by those governments) and start developing localized communities where people share cultural mores, know one another, have an understanding of who is responsible for what kids, and where senses of honor and shame play their proper roles. The dictum, "it takes a village to raise a child," has been totally bastardized by the left, because they redefine the word "village" to mean the entire country under the rule of distant regime. But if you take the word "village" to mean what the word really means, that very same slogan totally undermines all the policies of the left, because everything they do destroys and disempowers the small local communities that are signified by the word "village" and replaces them with the opposite. I don't like the idea of setting a specific number of an age of consent that's the same for everyone. But if we have to have that, then 17 is setting it too old.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Marenco again." I finally got around to watching a good chunk of the video.

I don't see how you get that from what I said.

I had not seen that detail. I agree that if that's really what happened, it makes a big difference.

https://freebeacon.com/culture/inside-the-woke-meltdown-at-one-domestic-violence-organization/

No. But I can't imagine them being able to pass themselves off as adults either.