The only thing I’m sure of in this scenario is somehow McM (the lawyer) is gonna get paid
Gabbard a Terrorist
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
I filed an uncollectible lien. Per usual
Look, do you want to control the outcome here, put this all behind you today, or go in front of that mean ole' judge. Here you can have a hand in the outcome; there, you're at the whim of what he ate that day. What do you say? Give me a good faith number I can take back there, and let's see where this goes.
And I'm the scumbag selling software...
I wish my dad could read this after I told him I wasn't going into politics or applying to law school.
You’ll have to excuse small government, conservative Aloha. He’s quite comfortable with the government putting people on lists and surveiling them.
Good grief, just a few moments ago, on CNN, Dana Bash seriously asked Senator Tammy Duckworth if Tulsi Gabbard is a “Russian asset.”So Tulsi goes on Fox and criticizes Kamala and goes on Terrorist watch list next day. Who the hell is the dictator?
Trump reveals why Tim Walz is a 'shocking pick'
Trump said the Democrat ticket would 'want this country to go communist immediately.'www.dailymail.co.uk
These people are certifiably insane.
I’m a logical dude. You like to proclaim how Conservative you are while extolling the need for an ever growing CIA, FBI, Military, NSA.
Conservatism isn’t a la carte. You don’t get to pick the parts of government you want shrunk. You’re ideologically inconsistent and a major fraud. There is nothing Conservative about you.
You some strange form of libertarian. Stop posting to me, your opinions are worthless.
Wanting radical change of the statuts quo also isn't conservative, though.
In the strictest definition of conservative you are correct. In the political definition you are not.
I think there is a lot of conflation of conservatives with those wanting policies favored by the right.
The philosophical underpinnings of conservatives is the recognition of a set of principles that recognize (1) a value to tradition, (2) a suspicion of unfettered "reason" based on a recognition of the limitations of human intelligence, and (3) the costs inherent in all change, with radical change perhaps being exponentially more costly, not linearly so.
Once you throw those away, I'm not sure the policy positions those on the right favor are any more defensible--maybe less so--than the ones on the left.
Last edited:
Yeah. Yeah. What you wrote is essentially Chesterton’s Fence. Chesterton didn’t account for myriad functions that at best serve no real purpose and more likely degrade quality of life.
Edit: a self serving enterprise will always grow to serve itself.
