Search results for query: *

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/debate-is-conscription-moral.9898/

This is like the libertarian version of the "life in the US is slavery, because if you don't get a job you won't have money to buy food" argument.

So let's rally behind the egomaniac loser that trains his fire on fellow members of his own party that are insufficient suck ups or tell him thi gs he doesn't want to hear. That's an interesting definition of loyalty you have there. Yeah, he was attacked and it didn't do anything, because...

Right, you can look at an example of that happening to equally combative but more disciplined guys like Desantis and Zeldin.....wait.

That's why it says your dog and not "any dog".

The ruling only says that you can't sue the officer for damages. It doesn't affect anything else. Your statements still aren't admissible as evidence, evidence derived from those statements is also still inadmissible, all the other rules of evidence are still in force. You just can't sue over it.

Supposed to protect "civilized people" Includes the Brits Pick one.

It's entirely possible that homosexuals are significantly more likely to abuse kids than heterosexuals, but given that such behavior is incredibly rare in the first place, "more likely" is not the same as "dangerously likely", which is the leap in the logic Whitestrake and his ilk are making.

It is entirely possible to stand against something firmly and forcefully, and do so in a way that isn't repellent to the unconvinced. The problem is you don't seem to be interested in taking a stand, you seem interested in the repellent opinions and are hiding behind the claim that it's about...

Yeah, if there's a phrase more stereotypical of gen Z than "two married gay men adopting children is a disgusting violation of Christian ethics and should not be tolerated by society" I can't think of it, you're totally gaining ground. The problem isn't that you have a moral stance. It's that...

It is not playing the victim to suggest that your arguements are so counter productive that they make more sense as an attempt to support Rubin by sabotaging the opposing viewpoint, since you're tying anti-Rubin sentiment to you and your absurd rhetoric. It's just saying you suck at making any...

So, are you phrasing your objection to those in the most offensive terms you can get away with in order to poison the well by framing the opposition to this in terms no decent person would use, or are you one-upping that and actively trying to rally support for Rubin by inspiring everyone else...

I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be a hi point of some kind, which means it is in no way a sweet gun.

Not really. Like, whatever you think of Bush's decision to invade Iraq or his reason for doing so, there are two very important differences: 1. We left, and always intended to leave. 2. Bush made the decision to fight, and then in the next election a year later, the voters approved that...

Canadian Freedom Convoy / Convoi de la Liberté

I think Bradbury got pretty close.

That's enough. No more comments about the jews or thier influence or whatever here. I'm going to regret saying this, but if you want to discuss that, do it in a dedicated thread, not here. And Whitestrake, if you get involved in that topic, you had better phrase whatever you say with extreme...

How to annoy star trek fans, star wars fans, and democrats all at once.

Is steak and shake considered fast food by most people? My impression is that they don't.