Youtube comments of @level Joe (@leveljoe).
-
302
-
203
-
193
-
155
-
144
-
97
-
95
-
90
-
83
-
76
-
62
-
58
-
57
-
55
-
55
-
50
-
47
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
39
-
38
-
35
-
33
-
32
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
If you see racism everywhere, maybe it's them, maybe it's you or maybe it's both?
When you assume racist motives behind actions you are assuming you know another's thoughts and feelings and you simply can't do that (for the most part) untill the question is asked and the words are spoken.
He mentioned the rat infested comment by Trump, isn't the city actually rat infested? The assumption/narrative is racism.
Why is it so hard, why is it such a stretch to think he is taking literally about rats?
I am not discounting the existence. I AM saying that two people can see an event and have a separate and different interpretation of it.
Racisms come in every color and background, but only hearing about one is getting tiresome. We all feel those feelings others give off.
I was told last year I was being racist for asking a merchant about the upcoming business on BLK Friday.
What kind of game it that? Was that racism by me, him, or both? Was it simply him having a bad day?
Is the avoidance of eye contact racism, is it fear, or is it the same?
I don't want to be part of the problem, but why do I need to walk on eggshells every time I talk to another person? That constant worry I feel, is that racism?
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@TheOleHermit
Why are you asking and answering your own questions?
Are you trying to sound smart?
They are serialized because every weapon of the same type is indistinguishable from another without those numbers.
One-off weapons for personal use do not require serialization. They are not mass produced.
I have a gun that was my father's with no serial numbers. It's perfectly legal.
People need weapons to defend themselves and oppose a corrupt government. The fact that you asked that tells me you're not American or a child. England did not prohibit the possession of arms, and the framers added the Second Amendment for the citizens to oppose their own government should it become corrupt. The 2A, at its writing, allowed citizens to own the same arms as any army (ships, canons, repeating arms, muskets, swords, everything). Most of the weapons used by Americans in the Revolutionary War were privately owned. And the framers intended those weapons of war to be in the hands of citizens AND the standing military.
Do you seriously expect a corrupt government's own military to overthrow itself?
That's not logical. That's why our citizens are allowed to possess the same weapons of war.
Think what you want of militias, but that is what's keeping Ukraine out of Russian hands.
As for J6, that was a protest, not an insurrection. The protestors were not armed, and they went home on their own. No one was charged with insurrection. No one.
Hyperbole...
Where did I say anything about schools? Where did I say it is acceptable? Murder is already illegal, and yet they still do it. Guns are illegal in most of Europe, and yet mass attacks still happen.
It's not guns, it's evil people who find a way to harm innocent people. Let's protect our children like we protect anything else that's valuable.
My guns have never hurt anyone.
Nice try though...
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Avenger222 As the Georgia secretary of state told radio host Erick Erickson, there are 75,000 pending voters among a record total of 7 million registered in the state. Of these, 9,224 are minors under 18; 2,935 used a fake address; 3,393 are not citizens, and 5,842 were already registered.
Of the remaining applications, 75 percent submitted erroneous Social Security information. Almost a quarter of those “sloppy forms” came from a registration effort by the New Georgia Project, a group founded in 2014 by Stacey Abrams, the Democratic nominee for governor.
Abrams seems unconcerned about voter integrity, telling a crowd in Jonesboro that the "blue wave" would include "those who are documented and undocumented.” She later claimed she didn’t mean to imply noncitizens should actually vote.
While journalists have chased down the Georgia rabbit hole, law enforcement and citizen watchdog groups have uncovered serious voter fraud problems that have received almost no national attention.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@uo9990 Ask yourself why they had to tase ( "s") him.
He is the one who escalated the situation. Had he complied with lawful orders, he might be alive today and a free man today.
Society has rules.
What's more, you aren't arguing from the same standpoint as the OP. The OP is saying it was only the taser, while you are saying it was a combination of factors. That's partially true, BUT it was the dead guys choices that gave the cops no other options.
They could have not used the taser and wrestled with him for another 20 minutes, that too very easily could have killed him. That contact may have injured the police, so the taser was justified.
Wrestling raises blood pressure.
Cocaine raises blood pressure.
Running raises blood pressure.
People can and do die from taser use. If they are shocked at a specific point in the heart's rhythm (the T wave when the heart repolarizes), the heart can quit functioning normally. But that is not what happened here, he survived the shock.
I am a medical professional, and I can say without a doubt that people with heart conditions should absolutely not use cocaine or engage in sporadic strenuous activities like running out of the blue.
I want to know where the closest AED was, but we aren't arguing that, are we?
The cops made mistakes, but they didn't kill him. His life decisions killed him. The cops didn't save him (that I can agree with), but that's not always possible.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sovelissskirata8105
Look how hard you try to pervert this...
Where did it say miscarriage?
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
Once again, nowhere does it say anything about a miscarriage.
Nowhere did it say the fruit departing is death. The fruit departing the mother is birth. An early (premature) birth.
Mischief is the death of the child.
Even if your ridiculous translation (that you pulled out of thin air) was accurate, it's clearly up to the father to decide the punishment because (according to you) it was a wrongful death. It says nothing about the woman destroying the child up in her belly.
If it was the death of the mother as you think, it would have been murder. That would also be wrong.
Also, "he will pay as the judges determine" indicates that the premature birth (or death according to you) of the child was a wrongful act that needs to result in punishment by the state, and that punishment is in addition to what the father does.
Either way, the death of the child (in my view or yours) leads to repercussions for the person that caused it.
You're losing this argument 20 ways to Sunday.
It's funny. Your fixation on this one passage is all you have, and you have it all backward.
You then went on to say this passage was to be ignored because it could lead to "an eye for an eye."
So which is it?
Do we use it or ignore it?
God knows the child before it is born. If the child was a blank slate, what would there be to know?
Mehhh, you'll ignore this part because there is no room for you to twist it to your liking.
I eagerly await your response.
lol
3
-
@sovelissskirata8105
Hold your horses. Your opinion CAN'T be based on this passage. The passage is clearly in direct opposition to what want it to say.
Look, kid, it's obvious you're making most of this up.
Your older version is a Bible app???
WTF
If you're using an "older version" of the Bible, which version is it?
If you're going to prove you're not making it up as you go along, it needs to contain the word miscarriage in this passage, as you said it does.
It's funny that you expect me to believe that your version is older but uses modern vernacular.
"Premature pregnancy..."
What is a premature pregnancy?
Talk about word salad!
You're right about one thing, premature birth usually (but not always) resulted in death in those times, and that's why the punishment was dependant on the result of the premature birth (life or death).
Haha
If it was a miscarriage as you claim, what more "mischief" could occur if the child is already dead? If "mischief " is the death of the mother, they would have simply said the strife killed a pregnant woman.
You're making absolutely no sense.
lol
You are still ignoring that the act resulting in the loss of the child is a punishable act, and it's not the mother's choice.
How inconvenient for you.
You then go on about, "...is a fine,not an eye for an eye."
then your next statement says it's, "...a life for life in this case." That makes zero sense.
Is it life for life or a fine?
You really don't know...
Where did I say anything about the separation of church and state?
Are you high???
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yes yes yes, wouldn't it be great if the United States didn't worry about anyone but themselves.
They should let earthquake and hurricane victims alone.
They shouldn't take refugees from the homelands they love.
The pirate ships need to earn a living.
Let Russia and China "annex" all neighboring land they want because it really is none of their business.
Let ISIS educate the Christians by removing heads.
NORKOR has every right to flex its political and nuclear muscle.
How dare they provide food, water, education, shelter, clothing, money and security.
Wouldn't it be a better world, yes yes yes...
If only we didn't bomb, no one would die.
You two really are ridiculous, pie in the sky dreamers.
Ya know, on second thought, it would make my paycheck alot bigger if the US didn't spread it around so much.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ann,
I know you struggle with depression and im not sure why I'm even typing this. It might be because my own life is hard right now. Its not depression that i feel, but I am trying to work my way up a hill of sorts. Its just that im getting older and parts of my life are not what i would like, or hoped they would be at this point.
I can't say I understand what depression is like for you, but from my perspective, you are a person with many goals, hopes, and dreams that works incredibly hard to reach them. Your opening smile and what you teach us in your videos have real value to us viewers. You show us what can be, and is possible.
If you ever find yourself in the dark place of depression, please pull yourself up even though you don't feel like it because we need your inspiration. I'm glad the world we live in gives us a little glimpse of people like you who don't let the fear of the unknown completely stop you from doing what you've never done before.
You are proven capable of doing such great things even though the challenges were great. You are an inspiration and although i dont lnow you personally, I wish I knew more people like you!
Thank you!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@marcilk7534
Haha
You are using short term fluctuations to bolster your argument???
That's extremely weak. Try sustained costs, the true cost.
After all, would you preferably pay $4 once and 3.25 the rest of the year or pay $3.62 all year?
Simple math here...
The yearly average for a gallon of gas was highest under Obama in 2012 (roughly half way though his 8 years) at 3.36.
2004 was 1.85
2005 was 2.27
2006 was 2.58
2007 was 2.80 ("official" start of recession)
2008 was 3.25 (a 1 year spike and an election year, and a 0.1% growth in the economy durring a full blown recession)
2009 was 2.35 (-2.6% growth, Obamas 1st year, AND the "official" end of the recession)
2010 was 2.78 (2.7% decent growth and price goes up???)
2011 was 3.52 (1.5% poor growth and price is still up???)
2012 was 3.62 (2.3%, less growth than 2010 but price is almost $1 higher, no correlation with economy!)
2013 was 3.51 (1.8%)
2014 was 3.36 (2.3% growth and price drops)
2015 was 2.43 (2.7% growth and price drops)
2016 was 2.14 ((1.7% down, Obama was on his way out and price drops)
2017 was 2.42 (2.3% growth)
2018 was 2.72 (not $3, price peaked durring a booming economy, a 2.9% growth)
2019 was 2.60 (2.3% growth, the same growth rate as Obama in 2014 but $1.02 cheaper)
2020 was 2.17 (-3.4% and covid)
If you lie, you've lost credibility.
Cherry picking data is as good as a lie.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Airstrikes on Syria out of the blue (killing brown people),
the plan for $15 minimum wage is dead (leaving the poor behind),
free college tuition is dead ( leaving the youth behind),
$2000 stimulus checks are dead (leaving the middle class behind),
new people are still getting Covid and dieing (leaving the old behind),
executive orders are wrong is now executive orders are ok when I do them (leaving his standards behind),
complaining about interracial couples in commercials (leaving the abc community behind),
killed women only sports (leaving women behind),
...
Add you own favorite here.
The only class he hasn't "touched" (not literally of course, he wants them in front of him) is children. Imagine that!
...but yes, let's worry about the tax returns of the former president...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cicron10 it comes from Lyndon Baines Johnson to Barack Hussain Obama. That's alright though, you are a young pup...
Oh, and where are the convictions for "treason"????
That's alright, let me tell ya. When you fabricate stories, you don't have a shred of evidence, when you don't have evidence, you won't have a conviction.
It's awesome that you used the word "winning". Your leadership told you it couldn't be done, the jobs are gone, your money is our taxes, perpetuated wars they said we shouldn't be in, wanted open boarders for terrorists, spies on political opponents, used the federal government as a political weapon, don't get me started on the Clinton's, uses smear campaigns, fake news (lies) and destabilized peaceful allies and on and on and on...
Now we are winning, Big League.
You're probably getting tired of winning. #walkaway
You nuts are so far out there now that you don't realize, you'll never will again.
4 more 4 45
MAGA
Forward (lol)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kylealexander7024 I don't think you understand what will happen if you defund the police. In the end it doesn't matter, it's not going to happen anyway.
It's not a like flipping a switch and boom, the police are defunded.
Every city, county, state, and the federal government would need to agree it, and that is not going to happen. The masses want law and order (at least the feeling of it).
If your politicians take that away they dont stand a chance of getting reelected.
The police are not going away.
The police unions are not going away as long as we have politicians selling out to the special interest groups (unions) to get their votes.
So the bad cops remain.
Let's say you could get the union to let the bad cops go...
Ok, we still have the "fog of war" and mistakes will still be made unless you hamstring the police.
Police are not going to do the job if you take away their ability to defend themselves. No one would want the job because cops will be killed in droves.
To prevent the next Tamir Rice incident (I hope you're familiar with the case because if you're not this will not make any sense) police must wait to react to keep their jobs, and delay the application of deadly force. If police can't react instantly to what seems to be a deadly weapon then they die from waiting to be sure it is a real weapon when it actually is a real weapon. If they react they're fired, if they don't react they die. That's a hell of a choice.
The world sucks and I wish it didn't. Violence is the tool of criminals so police need to be able to stop it in action and that also sometimes means using deadly but justified force without being able to ask questions first.
Don't get me wrong, what happened to George Floyd should have never happened and the police officer who knelt on his neck should never be a free man, but what if we treat him (the cop) like your sister was.
Maybe he has PTSD or some other poor excuse for poor life choices.
It'll be his defense you just watch.
He'll say "I have a recognized medical condition and I couldn't stop myself."
The dregs of society...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hcaballero1992
lol
No, it's not bigoted.
I could play your game and whine that you called Vindman "him/his" when he has a name and his gender was not expressed in the video, but that would either be silly or you too are a bigot.
You said, "Be a man..." where did I list my gender?
There you are being a bigot again!
For all you know I may be a Ukrainian, are you saying Ukrainians are rats?
You're a bigot times 3!
But I won't play your game because I'm not a passive aggressive child.
...anyway...
I'm not hiding anything. If I wanted to I could easily delete the post. My words are still posted sunshine.
Vindman is from the Ukraine, is he not?
Vindman tried to prevent the Ukraine from investigating Biden, did he not?
I never mentioned Vindman's loyaties, did I?
I NEVER mentioned anyone trusting or not trusting Vindman, did I?
You are bashing me for assumptions that you THINK I made, all while making your own.
If you're going to behave like a moron, at least try to be soft and quiet about it...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dee_seejay we are roughly the same age then, so, you will know why the following questions matter...
Do you walk into your neighbors house and tell them how to raise their children, spend their money, and tell them and what direction they should take with their lives? If the neighbors are fighting with each other, do you insert yourself and begin to council them or take sides?
Seriously, do you?
If not, why not?
What do you call a person in your country who does that? I know you have a word for it.
You see, for the most part, the media IS left leaning, do you know what that means? You do realize that for the most part journalism has taken an ugly and unethical turn? No longer are they neutral and unbiased. People on left used to not see that but that isn't the case anymore. It has left the shadows and it is openly seen and discussed now.
Do you remember when Obama weaponized the federal government against his opponents?
Ya see, if you are unaware of the life Americans are living every day, you don't understand why or how things matter. I have to "catch you up". But the worst part is that you fail to believe me when I relate my life experience/history, as if you have lived it too and would (somehow) know better than I. Please, tell me what your perspective is that gives you unique insight into events here and how it is that you would know better than the person actually living it?
Enlighten me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anonymousanomaly9538 I believe that you see easy answers to those questions and on the surface, I'll agree that (without other details) I might also agree, but with the addition of other factors and details those answer could be significantly different.
If I have wronged someone (accidentally or purposefully), filed bankruptcy, or failed to pay taxes a court could force me to release my property. I could be forced to give up my land for the public good. It sucks but that's life sometimes.
A life is more valuable, but it can also be forfeited as a penalty for causing the death of another, or for trying to cause harm or death to another.
The classic example comes to mind, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler when he was a child, would you?
You would be killing and innocent (at the time) person but you know for a fact that by doing so, you would save the lives of 6 million people. This is an impossible scenario but it illustrates that the other details do matter.
On your last statement, you used the word "unjust" and asked if it's right to do something unjust. The two words contradict each other.
It is either right and just, or it's wrong an unjust. It can't be both.
The people you described as peaceful. Is it possible for me to wrong you and not cause you physical harm?
Sure, you could be on your way to the hospital with a sick or injured loved one (or yourself) and I could purposefully block the road causing you to become stuck in traffic. A death could result and I never touched you.
I could peacefully remove your rights and never physically touch you and your only way to regain those rights could be through force against me. What do you do?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrnice7570 lol
Who said it was 1 acre???
I can sell my land at any time I choose to. Once the land is paid for, it is mine until I die or until I sell it, but I don't need to die to sell it. The land doesn't own me if I can walk away from it whenever I want.
From what you're saying, I have doubts if you are even an adult because you don't have a firm grasp on property ownership.
If I don't own the land, why can I choose to plant trees or row crops? If I don't own the land, why can't you cut down those trees or crops if you feel like it?
Because the land is not yours.
Because the land is mine.
It's like me saying that I could walk up to you on the street and take your phone and walk away from you without you being justified in stopping me.
Would you care if I did?
By your logic, you can own nothing, even your own body, because everything is of the earth.
We exert dominion over our surroundings, or we become prey to those who will. As a polite and organized society, we agree to the terms of living within it, and one of the first and most basic concepts is ownership.
Do you not own anything???
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@victor2511suku
Have you analyzed the dada?
Or only part of it?
What caused the "Little Ice Age"?
Why did it end?
Why has the Earth continually warmed since then?
Why have other planets in our solar system warmed at the same rate as Earth?
I realize that it is a lot to unpack, but, the correlation is significant, as are the other trends.
I'm not sure why you want to ignore the fact that science is not exact, it is a best guess. Every scientist worth his or her salt, will tell you they don't know what they don't know, and every discovery will lead to more questions. That is key to take into account, and I don't hear it in your opinions.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but you sound as if it is "settled science", so much so that you think that someone with a differing opinion must be wrong. Well, how dare I be skeptical especially when there's trillions of dollars at stake...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@klstrat996 show me what law the old guy broke and I will support you.
So far, you're the only one that's really bringing race into this (race card).
You assumed I'm white from what?
"You people..."
Yeah, that's a racist comment.
If you want to know the truly ironic thing, if the shooter was black and the attacker was white, we never would have seen the footage, it would never would have been on the news, and no one in America would care. Welcome to the reality of 2018!
The assumption that, in this situation, race matters to whites (if roles were reversed, blah blah blah) is also a racist comment.
I felt the guy had a right to shoot, be he white, black or any other color.
Then you try to bolster your argument by posting about a situation where the authorities got it wrong, guess what, most people haven't heard of that case before, I certainly never have. yet somehow you want to judge a whole race of people and me, by it.
How is that fair?
You can't just go around attacking your fellow man, period, full stop.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ceriaocrovada7648 you see, that's where you're wrong.
The government is not a middleman, the government is us, all of us, the money will come from, to, and by you and me! The ultra rich will just move, hide, or invest their money where it can't be touched.
Also, just what makes you think that the money will end up back in the US economy instead of another country? That money will enable some people to take vacations, buy foreign made goods, some people will send the money back to their country of origin, some people will spend the money on drugs, there are many other ways but all this will send money (trillions) to other countries. It is a global economy...
Do you mind if I ask your age (a range is good too)?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-ie2ns1jp5i
Was he alive before he ran?
Yes
Was he alive before he used cocaine?
Yes
Was he alive before wrestling with the police for an extended time?
Yes
Was he alive before he mixed drugs and alcohol?
Yes
Did he quit moving after all of that?
Yes
Did he die after all of that?
Yes
Using a taser is not without risk, but it is not "highly risky". He lived through being tased, and if the taser was at fault, he would have died instantly.
Did he die instantly?
No
Are you now claiming that front cuffs and belt waist strapping would have saved him?
You're moving the goalpost again...
He very, very, very likely would be alive if he had complied with lawful orders.
Tell me I'm wrong.
They tased him because he was resisting arrest. They would have had to tase him to get him into the restraints you mentioned too.
I'm not a cop, I'm an RN.
That's why I know you're full of shit and guessing about what killed him.
The dude was a ticking time bomb and could have died with his next BM. According to you, the person who prepared his last meal would be partially responsible for that.
You're so aggressive about this, are you a drunk in poor health, using drugs, and on the run from the law too?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sovelissskirata8105
Just so you're good, I'll switch to the oldest version of the King James Bible. The 1611 version.
It uses "smiteth" for kill, as in verse 12 and 15. There is NOTHING in 22-25 about a miscarriage. No smiteth of babies, so no, no miscarriage.
You're not being honest.
What's more, in verse 26 it says, "...smite out the eye of his seruant (servant)."
and in verse 27 it says, "...smite out the man seruants tooth."
Clearly when parts of the body are lost and/or destroyed, the word "smite" is used to describe the loss. Why not "smite the woman's fruit" for an injured or dead baby?
Because that ISN'T what the oldest and best version (according to you) is saying.
It is obviously a description of a premature birth (not pregnancy).
Looks like you were cherry picking, doesn't it.
Since you need a red herring, I'll help you find my quote the same way you initially help me find yours. It's in Psalms 139, I'm sure you won't be "pretty lazy and bad faith arguing" and you'll find the exact verse yourself. Don't cherry pick now!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sovelissskirata8105
I asked you what a specific verse meant to you, and you called that cherry picking.
That made it clear you didn't wish to speak with civility. It was and still is, projection.
You behaved as if I would not discuss any of the rest of that chapter when I was the one to include more of it.
You've made a joke of the Bible by picking and choosing what parts you will accept (the true definition of cherry picking), and I owe you nothing.
That one verse is at the center of this whole discussion and without knowing what you thought it was telling you, there was no way to move forward.
I ignored it, and I eventually received an answer. You couldn't even post the passage, so I did.
You NEVER said which version you were using, ever, but you made it clear that "older" was better so I used the oldest (the 1611 King James), which thoroughly confused you.
You continued to ignore the most obvious and most widely accepted meaning based on the terminology used in that entire chapter. Why?
Because I used what you used, an interpretation.
Ok, I removed the "interpretation" and went to the original language. Apparently the most exact language (the original Hebrew) was " moving the goalposts" because it demonstrates you are wrong.
lol
Who was it that wanted an older version of the King James and then refused to use it?
You
If you have questions. You need to type them out so I can read them. I'm not psychic.
To answer your new question...
Why does the husband demand punishment...
Because the harm done to his wife was enough to interupt the gestation. It jeopardized the life and health and long term viability of his offspring. The act could have caused life long consequences for the woman, husband, and child.
I can only guess that you're asking that question because you're unable to extrapolate those consequences I've listed ( or others) from your own life experiences.
That is yet another sign of inexperience.
What age range are you?
I'm guessing 17-25.
You are bull headed enough, but lack the subtly and temperance of a full adult.
Am I right?
I'm asking because it would explain a great deal of your stubbornness while faced with overwhelming evidence.
You were also crying and threatening to quit posting.
Like I care...
I'm guessing that you'll now disparage my age, oh well...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@archigal That depends on what type of building is being built. What is the purpose of the structure? Where it is going? What amount of money is going into it?
What is the owner's preference?
You could use titanium if you wanted to, but like I said, as soon as you put holes in it for windows and doors, attach it to a foundation, and cover it with a roof you have weak links that allow the structure to fail.
Not only that, you've also priced the average person out of that option for a new house.
You started this with the impression that brick is some magical building material. It is good for certain result, but protection from tornadoes is not one of them.
If you could design a building that you would be willing to guarantee that it would offer 100% protection from tornadoes, what would it cost per sq. ft. over traditional materials?
Waaasy too much.
Life is about practical solutions to common problems. In residential construction, brick is not it, wood reinforced with hangars, straps, and fasteners is. That is why it is used as often as it is. Tornadoes are a rare occurrence. They do happen from time to time and are worth making changes for. That is why building codes have changed, but there is no guarantee of safety.
You are basically saying those people died because they lived in building that are more than 30 years old. Should we kill the environment by rebuilding everything?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheOleHermit
So, in one breath, you're saying we don't need superior weapons to defend ourselves, then in another, you say we can't oppose the military because they have superior weapons.
It can't be both.
Tanks and airplanes need fuel, maintenance, and resupply. The pilots have families and friends, they need food, electricity, shelter, sleep, and they need to get to those weapons. It's incredibly easy to interrupt those "needs" on and off base if there are no front lines and they have no idea who the "friendlies " are.
Fighting wars is easy, preventing them is hard.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
News flash....
Disgruntled employee is upset.
Film at 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4...........…......
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@swirvinbirds1971 Trump used his executive authority to prohibit the communication of information (by Vindman), that he (the executive branch) determines to be classified, sensitive, top secret, or not to be disclosed to anyone without prior authorization.
He did not follow the president’s directive.
Trump was at the top of his chain of command.
He was not "sacked". He was moved mid-assignment and was not promoted.
Vindman torpedoed his own career by testifying.
As for Yevgeny Vindman (the brother), this is why he was fired...
"LTC Vindman is a hard working officer, but he frequently lacks judgment and has
difficulty understanding the appropriate role of a lawyer in an organization. He fully
supports SHARP, EO, and EEO.
During the prior reporting period and early portions of the reporting period, LTC
Vindman performed his duties satisfactorily. Over time, LTC Vindman displayed
increasingly poor judgment and failed to learn from his mistakes. On multiple occasions, his unprofessional demeanor made NSC staff feel uncomfortable. Despite
express guidance from his supervisor, he continued to add himself to meetings with
senior NSC staff where he did not add value. LTC Vindman’s substandard performance – his lack of judgment, failure to communicate well with his superiors, and
inability to differentiate between legal and policy decisions – cause him to lose the
trust of NSC senior leadership.
LTC Vindman is an attorney of average ability, but he lacks judgment on critical
issues. In a stressful and high-pressure work environment, his performance did not
live up to the extremely high standards of the NSC Legal Affairs Directorate. Owing to the early termination of LTC Vindman’s detail to the NSC, it was not possible
to prepare a DAForm67-10-1A.
And this time, Mr. Eisenberg wrote:
In the prior reporting period, LTC Vindman demonstrated potential, but he did not
grow professionally after the extension of his detail assignment to the NSC. With
additional counseling and experience, LTC Vindman’s performance may improve.
He would benefit from additional experience in a slower-paced work environment subject to less pressure and scrutiny. In time, he may become a better attorney."
Any other questions?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lucycassidy2709 I'm glad that was your last comment. It certainly wasn't a reply.
Children often take their ball and go home when the game is too challenging.
You haven't done the research to form an educated opinion.
You went off on tangents stating what was obvious but lacked any true depth of knowledge to realize how entrenched your opinion is.
I didn't imply that 10% was the lower limit of stars with a habitable zone, but that it was the upper limit. From there, the number drops off exponentially.
The issue is NOT the number of galaxies, stars, or planets, but the number of stars that will allow a habitable zone, and the number of planes that are capable of supporting life.
The number is not HUGE.
It is not "what is possible."
It is "what is reasonably possible."
Sure, it's possible that Santa could exist, but it is not reasonably possible.
You don't even seem to grasp how incredibly fortunate we are that life exists here.
We have and have had more varied individual forms of life than all the stars because the earth is so conducive to life, but only one LUCA.
In all of the billions of years of Earth's history and throughout all the different environments that have existed on Earth, life has only formed here once.
Your expectations are not reasonable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One more thought, if someone uses "other" - American, isn't it usually to identify the race that they identify as?
Putting your race first is racist wouldn't you say?
Americans are not any specific race, we are the "melting pot".
I have grandchildren that are of african, german, swiss, manx, irish, and who knows what else heritage.
They are Americans.
Here is the only place that matters, that SHOULD matter.
Like I said, you can do what you want, but let's actually recognize what it is that is being said.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@popperpoppler4569 You need to focus and read those cases before you comment on what the rulings indicate.
One more time, the SC did not change its opinion/interpretation on the second amendment.
They let the states decide (not them). They did not in any way make it easier or more difficult, or broaden or narrow the definition or practice. That was left to state governments (states rights).
Then...
The SC removed that ability from the states because they were implementing unconstitutional practices. They did not broaden or narrow the second amendment by definition or practice. They merely prevented the states from trampling on rights they had no authority to.
What's more...
The SC said (and im paraphrasing) the constitution does not give rights directly because rights exist without it. The rights predate the constitution and are not open to adjustments or limits by the government.
It's funny that now the evidence that you used to support your argument is meaningless because you all of the sudden don't agree with the definition.
You started this with...
"...the interpretation has really only gotten broader over the last century or so."
Your words, but now your saying they were actually more strict up to the Mcdonald case you provided as support. That's much less than a century, wouldn't you say?
This conversation should be linear in nature, but your "evidence" timeline is all over the place and in no way supports your comments.
I said, "How has the interpretation become broader?"
Only then did you mention "scope" and you keep trying to use that instead. You even said, "I actually agree with your interpretation", but here we still are...
You said their (the SC) interpretation became broader in this case. How? As they always have (supported by cases you provided) they believe that the second amendment is unlimitable by them, the states, or federal government.
You can't just cherry pick a few parts that sound good from the cases. The basis of the rulings are there.
They didn't simply say "yes", "no", or "this is what we are going to do", they said why and the why's matter. The why's are always consistent in regards to the 2nd because it is not to be infringed upon. I'm certain you know what that means when it says "shall not be infringed". They certainly do.
The SC never said you can't carry in public. They never said firearms must stay in the home.
They never said they must be registered. That has only come from lower courts in the states.
Only lower courts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@B.Whittaker Once man left Africa we have been negatively affecting the planet.
Just look at North America. Before man arrived there was super fauna (giant bears, sloths, saber toothed tigers, dire wolves, mammoth, horses, camels, giant beaver...) and they are gone in the geological blink of an eye.
We are a non native species and we must alter the environment to survive, and no, noone is making positive change. Everyone who lives a life outside of a sustainable hunter/ gatherer method (a neutral impact) has a negative impact.
There is no "positive" impact.
Are you willing to starve because you need glasses and can't find food, or die from an tooth abscess or a ruptured appendix because modern medicine is detrimental to the environment?
He'll no you're not.
We are not going to transcend, we are what we are and we prevent evolution ever time we use technology to prevent slow, horrible, 100% curable, and preventable deaths.
The ONLY way to "reduce" our impact is to kill off 99.99% of all people and maintain that number without any technology.
That is what it takes to bring about your pie in the sky utopia.
Don't be ridiculous...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dylanthompson5400 the indigenous didn't care for the land.
They open burned to make hunting more productive, shaping the land to their desires.
They also killed off the mega fauna as well as each other, and kept human slaves.
So, no, just stop.
If the indigenous didn't own the land, they shouldn't have killed for access to it.
And...
Thanks for not answering a single question.
You can't because your argument falls apart (like I said before).
If you don't own your body, can the majority decide we don't want you to reproduce, speak, or live, and you'll be fine with that because it's not yours? Are you not an individual?
To own the land (or bodies) so that we can survive with some semblance of peace, security, or self guided direction, so that we can even exist, we must exploit it/them.
If we share the land, when was the last time you pulled weeds in the field next to me? Isn't it your responsibility too?
You're all talk.
1
-
1
-
@dylanthompson5400
Why did the first peoples kill each other?
Was it wrong for them to kill each other?
If so, why?
It's like you want to sound philosophical, but your lack of answers demonstrates that you don't live in that world you claim we all do. Hollow words have no true meaning, so your quote is without merit.
You can't pick and choose what, where, or how much we have control of our environment. It is all or nothing.
Do you heat and cool your home?
Do you earn over $32k per year?
Do you decide what to wear before you leave your home?
You exert ownership of yourself daily. You own your actions, thoughts, and words. You buy, sell, and trade something to meet your needs. You use goods for your own purposes.
You don't work your neighbors land, so you need to accept that the responsibility (ownership) is his, not yours.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kaizaro4377 oh, well if that is case, Trump inherited this mess from Obama, seems like a fair comparison.
As for the little photo op that President Trump didn't hold for Biden. Wasn't Biden just there 4 years ago and didn't he spend 8 years as VP and a major portion of his life there as senator?
I don't doubt he needed the meeting, with his mind in the crapper, he can't get off a stage without Jill whispering to him "this way Joe".
As for you "examples" of Trump's "racism", how much time did he spend in prison?
Those things (if true) have been illegal for a long long time. Surly you will point out what his sentence was?
No?
Rich people, especially those in business regularly face litigation. Is that news to you?
It shouldn't be. Lots of people become litigious when there is the possibility financial gain from deep pockets.
Perhaps you didn't look into any of this on your own, it's ok I'll give you time to do it and drop the bombshell that EVERYONE on the left had been scratching for the last 4 1/2 years and has been unable to do.
One last question, has Biden as president condemned those same people along with BLM and antifa?
No?
Must be a racist!
But, we already knew that, didn't we slugger?
He actually is the racist that the left has so desperately wanted Trump to be. You get what you pay for...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As the Georgia secretary of state told radio host Erick Erickson, there are 75,000 pending voters among a record total of 7 million registered in the state. Of these, 9,224 are minors under 18; 2,935 used a fake address; 3,393 are not citizens, and 5,842 were already registered.
Of the remaining applications, 75 percent submitted erroneous Social Security information. Almost a quarter of those “sloppy forms” came from a registration effort by the New Georgia Project, a group founded in 2014 by Stacey Abrams, the Democratic nominee for governor.
Abrams seems unconcerned about voter integrity, telling a crowd in Jonesboro that the "blue wave" would include "those who are documented and undocumented.” She later claimed she didn’t mean to imply noncitizens should actually vote.
While journalists have chased down the Georgia rabbit hole, law enforcement and citizen watchdog groups have uncovered serious voter fraud problems that have received almost no national attention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chevon1920 In that case, the "economic recovery" must also be caused by Bush?
See how that works?
Obama
During Obama, people died of Influenza alone by the hundreds of thousands (and were hospitalized by the millions.
Where was/is your outrage?
Not to mention other outbreaks like Ebola (that he brought into the US), SARS, swine flue, and Zika.
Or, deaths from his warring efforts.
Where was/is your outrage?
Insurance premiums were skyrocketing and carriers were dwindling.
He made promises that rates would be cheaper and we could keep our carriers? What happened? He sent billions to terrorist countries, guns to Mexico, built cages to house children, deported more illegals that Trump, expanded wars... want me to go on?
Trump
As for the wall, it WAS started and now they are talking about removing what has been built. For what possible purpose? More illegals of course. Why? More voters from Mexico for demoKKKrats. If walls are such a bad thing why did Biden need one (and a standing army) for inauguration??? That's what real dictators do.
So, covid 19 is President Trump's fault?
You're joking, right?
He improved the economy, lowed fuel prices, slowed the hemorrhage of jobs to China, lowered unemployment rates and created jobs, slashed wasteful spending, started a southern boarder wall,... want me to go on?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kylealexander7024 yes, yes, yes.
16, white, knees.
I've got it, ok.
You've said it 3 times already.
Why were you in handcuffs?
What were you doing while you were kneeling that they escalated the use of force?
Maybe you didn't do nothing.
Maybe it seemed like nothing.
Maybe you were resisting.
Why all those questions you might ask. It's a good story, especially with the current events, but you do realize that there could easily be more to the story other than the narrative that all/some cops are bad.
I don't mean all that is an insult, but you have to realize that you're just a random person on the internet and I know nothing about you.
As for the protesters...
By your own admission you said, "the majority of people", not all.
Either it's peaceful or it's not, there is no in-between.
It only takes one person to change it from a lawful demonstration to one that must be stopped. I think you probably already know this.
it might not have been you or the people you came with, it could have been someone, somewhere else, that you couldn't see, that started it and that's the momentum that started the ball rolling.
You also said "there going to get attacked back".
Ahhh, here's the rub...
That's called a riot and not a protest. At that point you have become a criminal and the majority of Americans are no longer on your side. Count me as one of them.
Burning, blocking traffic, throwing explosives, bricks, stones.
Maybe if you managed to kill one of em you might feel better?
You see, I'm biased. I was a fireman for 20 years and that kind of thing doesn't fly with me. The roads stay open, you don't set fires, and you don't injure people.
All cops are not bad, I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen police put themselves in harm's way to help someone that they don't know. I've seen them save lives and they have saved the lives of people that I know.
People are angry and I understand that. I'm angry about what happened but I'll not be forced to do what is wrong or turn into the person that I'm angry at.
Does that sound reasonable or does that make me a bad person to you?
One of us is right here and one of us is wrong, who is it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1