This guy isn’t happy that Minchey’s coming to UK:
So technically it’s not completely a done deal (yet) he will be at UK if I read all this correctly.
This guy isn’t happy that Minchey’s coming to UK:
They wanted this fraudulent little SOB to be a VP. This turd may very well flee the country. He is guilty as hell of fraud.
Sure, I get your argument. I just feel like there’s a more efficient way to, gulp, distribute that wealth so that it is not so concentrated to 400 or so individuals.
There was a period of time after the gilded age, but before Reagan, where we were a very prosperous nation and the difference between classes was a lot more manageable. 40 years of trickle down economics created this.
DON'T COME TO FLORIDA YOU LEFTIST *****!
No, yours is. All economic activity doesn't somehow cease if Elon Musk has less money. Ridiculous argument.
MP has been reading Steven Covey. It's called "Critical Conversations" and it's a very effective book for getting to the truth with people.WTF? I like MP but dayum.
"Head of state."??? "I oppose aggression." But you support us blowing up a country's air defenses, flying into it, dropping special forces, kidnapping their head of state, and killing everyone who gets in our way. Oh, and blowing up a TOMB just for fun while we're at it.
Explain.
I do get banned for mine. And as for the rest of it:
"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational." - Charlie Kirk
It's not my quote, it's Kirk's. That's what he thinks.
Actually it's very arguable, and perfectly legal.Do you actually think our Founders would have supported a president being able to unilaterally just order an invasion of another country to kidnap and depose their head of state? NO ONE DOES. This isn't what America was supposed to be. That's inarguable.
Gun death are gun deaths. He's referring to his own shooting. Worth the price of the Second Amendment to him.Now show us in the quote where Kirk mentioned shootings and murders based on left wing political speech, the point you're flailing about trying to make.
The president shouldn't be notifying or even asking for permission. They shouldn't be doing it at all. If Congress wants to declare war and invade someone they can get the votes to do so. Then the executive can execute that. Nothing else. For too long has the legislative branch abdicated its power. We are not a monarchy. Or as you so succinctly just posted, "no kangz."Actually it's very arguable, and perfectly legal.
Lemme guess, we were supposed to endanger special operators lives by notifying people in the very same legislature whom literally called for sedition against the CIC amongst our troops a few weeks ago?
Yea, why would another 200K American deaths have mattered?
His argument is contrived (fake), emotional, and childish. It shows a stunted intellect and a desire to manipulate. You'd be best to ignore this fool.Good Lord, he is making the most logical case possible here. Yes, freedom is going to carry some risk of murders and other crime.
So does communism and socialism and tyranny, albeit most deaths are then caused by the government.
The leftist politicians want to try and force commuters to use the public transit system (both buses and trains). The problem is that it’s even less efficient to use public transit for most cities/towns outside of the immediate downtown area than the horrible traffic is. So essentially this would try and get people who are already mad about sitting in traffic for an hour to go 8 miles each way from work to extend that commute to 1.5 hours while taking three buses and a train, and that’s not even taking into account the fact that the Boston train systems are insanely unreliable at best.Looks like Massachushits has finally just said screw it and decided to limit how much a person can drive.
![]()
Beacon Hill hears bill to reduce driving in Massachusetts
A bill is advancing through the Massachusetts State House that would seek to reduce the amount of miles residents travel in their personal vehicles in order to meet state climate mandates.www.bostonherald.com
Oh, he's on ignore. Occasionally I hit show ignored content to mock them for a page worth of idiocy.His argument is contrived (fake), emotional, and childish. It shows a stunted intellect and a desire to manipulate. You'd be best to ignore this fool.
The problem here at its core is, you can't discern a military action from a state of warThe president shouldn't be notifying or even asking for permission. They shouldn't be doing it at all. If Congress wants to declare war and invade someone they can get the votes to do so. Then the executive can execute that. Nothing else. For too long has the legislative branch abdicated its power. We are not a monarchy. Or as you so succinctly just posted, "no kangz."
A 'special' military action. Or as Fox News said, an "extraordinary military action."The problem here at its core is, you can't discern a military action from a state of war
, because it's not convenient for an argument that originates from dishonesty. Don't lecture us on separation of powers when you have legislatures openly calling for sedition, and UNELECTED robed judicial tyrants continually undermining things like immigration which are clearly the domain of the executive branch.