Search results

This is ridiculous. The next man in the White House had better prosecute the tyrants abusing their office like this.

It's really frustrating seeing historically ignorant people moan and complain about movements they're johnny-come-lately's to, isn't it?

To be fair to Grimalkin, he's at least proposing a strategy he thinks will be effective.

This might salvage his chances at lasting after what he did with the budget.

The Obama administration already did that. It's just becoming more visible now.

The officer who stroked out did so the next day as well. I think that was Sicknick? I may be misremembering though.

'Always' is a very strong word.

In all seriousness, that could be a glorified hearing aid. What's happening there doesn't look good, but this isn't enough to come to any solid conclusions.

...Are you serious? Because how she actually got where she was, was by hitching herself to Bill Clinton. She had literally no other political qualifications than 'former first lady' when she was handed a Dem Senator seat in a safe district, and she was a chronic screw-up as Secretary of State...

It does matter. What you said demonstrates that you possess the same kind of authoritarian knee-jerk reactions common to much of the political left. There's a reason all the harshest forms of tyranny have come from the left end of the political spectrum, you're demonstrating that rather well, I...

I'd rather see it get completely restaffed, and start looking into the prosecutorial, prison guard, and FBI malfeasance.

There is a legitimate role for something like the FBI in policing interstate crime. It's become so corrupt at this point though, that dissolving the current organization and starting from scratch might be the best move.

This is a good start. Now acquit the rest or sentence them to 'time served,' given last I checked nobody did enough damage to be convicted of worse than a misdemeanor. Then start charging the thugs who've been running this circus.

So, your claim is 'accountability is totally happening, you're just never going to actually here about it.' How exactly is this supposed to be reassuring?

Show us some examples of people being held accountable then.

This kid will bring his own punishment on himself. The circle of idealogues he's going to move himself into, the lack of trust anyone with any sense is going to have towards him, he's earning himself a sort of hell on earth. He's bringing in his own punishment, and it isn't going to be pleasant.

He's definitively not presidential material, but he can at least be useful sometimes in the Senate.

Do I really need to say that you should never marry someone of poor character in the first place? I would have thought that went without saying, which is why I said, 'if they reasonably can.' Because you don't want to marry if your options are not reasonable.

That'd be part of it. There's a lot of factors that go into successful or unsuccessful parenting, and what impact that has on the child. A couple of really important ones that require having two parents in the home to have at all are: 1. Modelling commitment. The parents staying together...

I'm sorry, but this is not supported by the patterns we see in society. Also, as any competent child psychologist can tell you, having both parents present is very important to healthy emotional development of a child.