I cannot fathom how one would use their constitutional rights to smuggle someone into the country, but I did already state I don't think smugglers are doing good, or the right thing.

I would, however, fully support someone standing on their legal rights to help people who are deserving asylum, or at least to help offer the opportunity to apply for it.

I don't get the same feeling, that this guy (hero) flaunts the law to help people flaunt it. I got the idea he used the law to protect them....within the law. Without a signed warrant or conviction, they aren't yet illegals any more than you are after speeding but not being caught. They aren't even named suspects.

Note, I never said anything close to "by any means necessary", because I don't support any such thing. You said that. I said because democracy is broken and the majority is stymied by the minority, stopped from legislating solutions, sometimes "flaunting the law" is the only method left to avoid callously walking away and letting innocents be returned to certain death. A far cry from any means necessary, which would have people murdering border agents to let in everyone. I didn't even say "ends justify the means." I said "Sometimes the wrong method is the only path to the right outcome." That's desperation, not justification.

What drivel.

Baker made his point, you just recognize the idiocy of it so claim he must mean something else, but he means to have you believe exactly what he said....and he means to be instructing people from the pulpet on how to vote, something that until recently was considered illegal, but today it's fine so long as he's saying "vote Trump".

Churches aren't non profits, they simply claim that status because they are protected from having that status removed because "religion". There is NO scrutiny, not higher scrutiny. Name one recognized religion that's lost it's non profit status.
Edit: BTW, From the IRS-Churches that meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS. (Hardly more scrutiny, since there is no scrutiny at all)

Non profits don't pay their leaders millions, buy them multiple jet planes, build hundred million dollar buildings, or keep billions in assets while claiming to not be able to fulfill their mission statement for lack of funding. Preachers beg directly from the pulpit for money for their 5th jet plane God said they need... they don't get the money from side hustles, although they get money that way too, but that's their personal income (although it's often laundered through the church to avoid taxes).

Religions are non prophets....meaning they have, and follow no prophets as practiced.

First, I said that about his arguments....but I'm not saying it DOESN'T apply to the person.

Second, those are my informed opinions supported with factual evidence and etymology, not stated flatly as fact, not repeated as facts. You know that....so no, it doesn't apply.

Discussing anything with Bob is never self serving, it's a distasteful public service. Using verifiable fact to contradict nonsense proffered as fact is a civil responsibility, not an enjoyable privilege.

Keep off my pen.
This is my quill, and this is my pen. This one's for writing, and this one's for sin.

I am so glad you said that!

Does that also apply when you label someone "dumb, Infantile, pathetic, stupid," etc?

Or is that just self serving?

Remember, I need your pen.

This applies to innocent people most of all. Stfu.

I think you people miss the point. She is in the wrong, disrespectful, and insulting from the get go. He's being a douche intentionally to get under the skin of people like her who believe they have no obligations to be decent human beings, people who leave their messes for others to clean up without qualms because somebody will take care of them. She was being a dumb bitch before he arrived, leaving her cart where it blocks both the parking spot and endangers the neighboring car, and could easily damage others by rolling, that's why cart return spots exist. Maybe his car has been repeatedly damaged by inappropriately abandoned carts, we don't know his motivation for demanding others not be irresponsible. He maybe should have just moved it and a few others to block her then sat back and recorded her outrage, and not engaged with the douchey nutjob....but that wouldn't have the desired effect.

Guaranteed she litters, despite her claims....she absolutely records him without permission, something she claimed was illegal when he did it. Rules don't apply to people like her. Civility isn't part of their makeup, neither is accepting social obligations...She must be a Trump supporter.

He was calm and polite at first until she went full superbitch on him immediately.

I fully support being a dick to dicks, and a douche to douches. I would have supported him knocking her phone out of her hand like she tried multiple times...turnabout is always fair play, and she was the disrespectful douchebag first and best....eventually blocking handicapped parking in her disrespectful rage after trying twice to break his camera/phone.

If you're doing something wrong that could harm others and someone calls you out, YOU are the asshole, not the upright citizen who saw something and said something. If you get outraged at being called out for ignoring your responsibility, you are the douchebag that deserves public shaming.

Excellent, treading that fine line between parasitism and commensalism.

I just found out that the FDA has approved ivermectin, in the USA usually used for worming livestock, for the treatment of rosacea (adult acne). Applied topically, it seems to work by killing enough of the demodex mites (or maybe it does something else).

Worked for a friend of mine, comes in large, horse-friendly containers.

Something to check, flea controls often cause seizures...they did in my Golden retriever, and are listed as a side effect for many.
Not sure if that's a possibility in your dog, but it should be something every dog owner considers before applying pesticides to their pets.

"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

They didn't state as much, aka they don't feel that obstruction of justice didn't occur.

"Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."

Or, in other words, the justice department doesn't have the legal authority to pursue charges against a sitting president; that job lies constitutionally with congress.

@bobknight33

Bob, understand something, please,

I'm not opposed to changing my mind, but when I read "The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

And he says "SEE! Total exoneration!!!" It's not bias to call a spade a spade, saying the report SAYS what it SAYS is not Anti-Trump. >>>>>>It's pro-facts.<<<<<<<
Stop the bullshit that the report found nothing. That is simply not true.

And on obstruction, he all but said that he would if he could, but the law didn't permit him to make a call because he's an agent of the justice department.


"Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."

Since you are ignorant of the law and incapable of finding it yourself, here is section 7214 ....read it and get back to me, I'll explain how it applies.



26 U.S. Code § 7214. Offenses by officers and employees of the United States

(a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents
Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States—
(1) who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law; or
(2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation, or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of any duty; or
(3) who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his office or employment; or
(4) who conspires or colludes with any other person to defraud the United States; or
(5) who knowingly makes opportunity for any person to defraud the United States; or
(6) who does or omits to do any act with intent to enable any other person to defraud the United States; or
(7) who makes or signs any fraudulent entry in any book, or makes or signs any fraudulent certificate, return, or statement; or
(8) who, having knowledge or information of the violation of any revenue law by any person, or of fraud committed by any person against the United States under any revenue law, fails to report, in writing, such knowledge or information to the Secretary; or
(9) who demands, or accepts, or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly as payment or gift, or otherwise, any sum of money or other thing of value for the compromise, adjustment, or settlement of any charge or complaint for any violation or alleged violation of law, except as expressly authorized by law so to do;
shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. The court may in its discretion award out of the fine so imposed an amount, not in excess of one-half thereof, for the use of the informer, if any, who shall be ascertained by the judgment of the court. The court also shall render judgment against the said officer or employee for the amount of damages sustained in favor of the party injured, to be collected by execution.


Edit: I'll save time, here's the other law he's violating which unambiguously states he had no choice but to turn them over immediately.

26 U.S. Code § 6103. Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information
(11) Disclosure of information regarding status of investigation of violation of this section
(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

Edit: allow me to save time again, by not following 6103 (11) (f) and furnishing the return requested in writing by the chairman of the Ways and Means committee, he undeniably violates 7214 (a) (3), which comes with a 5 year sentence. Understand now?

6-8 weeks before the gap between the skull even starts to close, so yeah, i'd generally be staying away from applying intentional pressure to the top of the head for a good period of time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterior_fontanelle

So what? Get off your high horse, buddy, the clip you were specifically whining about is American media....and we are the undisputed leader in partisan media and get honorable mention for bat shit insanity.

Yes, you are making those comparisons.
"The left and mainstream media do more to divide us than anyone else."
Even being exceedingly pedantic, when you take anyone, divide and remove the left and mainstream media, then compare them to what's left, "anyone else", you've made a comparison with anyone not left or mainstream media, including all right wing media. Any normal reader would assume you are making a direct comparison with only right wing media. You're coming off as dishonest as JJ or Trump here.

LOL....I've seen the right wing media nonsense outside America too, Murdoch isn't American and didn't start here, the big three have international fame and fans, and in Europe, Africa, Australia, and Asia right wing media is quite often even more dishonest and bat shit crazy than in America (see Russian or some African state run tv) so my argument would still apply...but you were complaining about an American television show, so maybe first take your own head out of your own ass, then blow all that backed up shit out....I think you're totally full.

CGP Grey's Humans Need Not Apply is *related=https://videosift.com/video/Humans-Need-Not-Apply

Humans Need Not Apply has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg.