Might I suggest having the National Guard actually run the next few elections until we are sure the rats have all be cleaned out?
I wonder who at Fox has been compromised and how it happened? Pure money? Blackmail? Did dems sneak in a few HR people who slowly polluted it over the years with biased hiring and disciplinary practices (very common tactic elsewhere)? Even if we do identify the source of the corruption I'm not sure it is worth trying to save or burn it down and switch to news that still actually cares about the US.
Anyone know the last time networks had to pull a call like this?
Tomorrow? Good sir, the salt mines are already overflowing with wealth. The main guy* from Young Turks already needs needs a medic.
*I don't have a clue their names; I'm only watching because they were the stars of the melt down videos from 2016.
I would be against it then, because having someone die under your supervision is not the same as murdering them. It could be entirely your fault, but even that would just be negligent homicide unless you were acting in some way malicious towards the deceased.
Consider a parent watching over a child. Many children sadly die because the parent made a mistake or sometimes just didn't act fast enough to stop a tragedy. Those cannot be compared to the horrible cases where parents purposefully kill their kids.
Politifacts rates this claim Pants on Fire because the current number is up by 99k, not 100k.
XP
Ya, the "Difference: (D-R)" is an estimate. The center columns show true D vs R.
There are two sets of numbers.
One is R vs D vs Neither
The other breaks down Neither (not sure how) into R vs D.
R vs D has R leading now. The break down has D leading, but once again they don't give good details on how the split happens.
The wording, sans any political bias, seems mostly fine (I take an issue with calling someone with arms unarmed because a single punch can still be lethal).
The problem is that there are those with an agenda who will massively twist the wording. That'll be a problem with or without a given law and I'm not sure I like the idea of not having laws just because leftist are trying to twist the wording of those laws. That seems like a heads they win and tails we lose situation, since either they get to twist laws or they get to have lawlessness.
What we really need is something to prevent twisting definitions. Murder is murder. Self defense is not murder. Trying to make self defense into murder is wrong. But we shouldn't get rid of murder to stop this, we should instead focus on getting rid of the people twisting self defense into murder.
If the FBI are compromised they just need to get one democrat judge to seal the specifics of the case 'for protection of the minors identity' to hide it. We will all know, but that'll be enough for liberals to ignore it.
It is the only crime where sharing evidence of the crime to try to get prosecution is itself a crime, and if dealing with corruption, the ones trying to get the original crime prosecutor may find themselves the target of criminal action.
When the courts originally ruled such laws as being legal, they did make an few exceptions. One example being doctors sharing medically necessary images for healthcare related purposes. One such exception was made for the public good/serving significant social interest, and while I think a case like this should be able to fall under such an exception, the courts have never clarified it further.
I don't have ANY pictures of myself anywhere.
Completely off topic, but if you have family, especially kids, consider taking a few photos. Maybe celebrating Christmas, maybe at a birthday party, or even just doing something common around home. One day God will call you home, and it may be sooner than you or your family is prepared. Having a few photos will help them look back and remember the good times, even decades later.
I'm not saying post them everywhere. You don't even need put them online or even make them digital, just a few physical photos kept in an album only your family ever gets to see is good enough. Just something that one day your kids can show their own kids or grand kids.
There is no evidence that they did anything to protect the 14-year-old girls.
Does this really surprise anyone? The FBI aren't local police who care about those in the community. They are the organization that spreads child porn (they claim through honey pots but the number that are caught compared to the number of unique visits per month are far too different). They ignore crimes that don't fit the narrative and are extremely selective in what they enforce. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they plant evidence for political purpose.
Just look at how they've behaved over the last four years. A possible racist incident with no victims gets a full team assigned (but only the sort of racism that fits the narrative, other forms are outright ignored). At the same time actual child abuse cases may get a single agent assigned and it seems their job isn't to actually save the kid, but to expose the case if it hurts conservatives or bury the case if it hurts democrats. And if possible, make up evidence, such as when they helped fake data to start the whole Russia hoax.
Support you local police because they care for the community, but at this point the FBI are effectively the enforcement division of the DNC.
So if you just bulk up and carry everything to car without a cart, have you ascended beyond the test?
Anyone mind dropping a quick summary what happened for those of us who rather not patronize their site? Thanks.
Guillotine and hanging are generally much more merciful than lethal injection or electric chair. You would think that democrats would be more in favor of them for those reasons. Wonder why not?
So this made me think, isn't that how all other crimes work? If you get caught fully intended to commit a crime but don't fully succeed, you still are charged with the crime you intended. For example, anyone trying to prey on a child who ends up in a police sting still gets full charges as if they preyed on a child (except in California). So why don't we do the same with first degree murder?
I see people make the counter argument here that Jesus was not talking about child abuse, he was talking about causing children to lose their faith in Him.
The simplest response to this is "Well yes, but being abused as a child gives Satan plenty of leverage to turn the abused child away from God."
People love quoting this verse when it comes to pedophiles, but seem to forget it when it comes to vocal liberal teachers in grade school or other similar influences that result in children turning from God as they grow up. Even on the matters of faith I have deep questions about, I refrain from bringing them up around children because I don't want to lead them down the wrong path.
Or just try Mathew 4 or Luke 4 where the devil literally quotes scripture to Jesus.
When you look at the churches that are okay with adultery and prefornication, that let single mothers (and I don't mean widows) teach children's classes, that let men who divorce their wives after being caught cheating take on leadership roles... well I end up having a hard time finding a good church left.
Yes, Jesus spent his time with sinners. He took care of them, taught them, and forgave them. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not saying to kick out any imperfect people, there would be no one left at church. But the level of sexual immorality that churches tolerate if not embrace in their leadership must be making Satan very happy right now. When Jesus saved the adulterer's life and told her to go and sin no more, He forgave her. But does the Bible ever say He gave her a leadership position among His followers? Not that I recall.
That we see even worse now showing up in church leadership is no surprise. We have all header that you should never give the devil an inch because he will take a mile. Well churches have been giving him an inch for decades now, so anyone shocked that he has been able to infiltrate churches this deeply can only be underestimating how cunning Satan really is.
You can't argue with people incapable of logical thought. They react emotionally and compared to mainstream media you have little chance of being able to emotionally manipulate them better than the likes of fake news and democrats. That's assuming you even want to emotionally manipulate them. Likely you are going to be stuck trying to treat them as rational humans and are going to be constantly disappointed.
We can't really do much as long as the media keeps reporting on a biased fashion and the majority of people listen to the media. My father is a life long conservative and I still have a hard time getting him to understand just how biased main stream media is.
The best thing we can do is continue to educate people on how much the media lies. Only then will we be able to get stories reported accurately at which point voters will be able to prioritize issues with how they vote. Until then most people aren't even going to be aware of it and if you bring it up they'll view it as the only time anything like this has happened and you must be a racist for focusing on it.
If you expect democrats to care about consistency or not be hypocrites, you are going to be in for a world of disappointment. Biden could literally admit to molesting children and democrats would rally behind him.
They ignore, and in some cases out right attack science they do not agree with. The problem is that they have such a lock on universities that most scientist are left with the choice of shutting up and not touching certain topics or else they'll lose their career. Even scientist with tenure, which was supposed to be this thing that enabled scientist to go study things society doesn't want them to study.
And even with the science they like, it is more like lusting over how person looks compared to loving who they are. Their 'affection' is skin deep, they ignore all the qualifiers scientist tie to their research, and they completely misrepresent results to serve a political purpose.
Even in a field like Sociology, which does have a number of loony leftists making up crackpot theories, there are still a number of reasonable scientist doing good research, but then the left will take that research, twist it to fit an agenda, and then run with it. It'll be half way around the world before the scientist can even publish a post correcting them, and at that point the scientist risks his career for daring to oppose the left by clarifying his research.
To give an example, scientist will show that the average woman earns less than the average man because of her life choices (works less hours, less willing to risk her safety at a job, less seeking of higher stress positions). The scientist will then show that once you adjust for those factors, women are paid more than men. That is to say, a man and woman working the same hours in an equally dangerous and stressful job, the woman will be paid more. But liberals will completely ignore 75% of what the scientist shows and go running around screeching that women are paid less so we need to pay them more, completely ignoring that, apples to apples, women are already paid more. If the scientist protests the abuse of his research, he will be canceled for being anti-woman. They even canceled a scientist for wearing a shirt a female friend gave him because they thought it was sexist.