Why do all our enemies kill puppies?

As well he shouldn't. He owes no apologies.

Pretty sure Puerto Ricans know how to take jokes.

Bullets are cheaper. If you're enough of a waste that we have to kill you to stop destroying society, we don't need to waste money on any pomp and circumstance.

Perfect

Keep it rolling. Rat on the guy above you to cover your ass.

Send the US Marshalls to raid the home of her boss and get her boss to flip on her boss. KEEP IT ROLLING. FILL THE DRAGNET.

That sure as shit wasn't you. You're a race fag.

Anyways, I expect anyone strong enough to kill God, is strong enough to take the mantle of responsibility for themselves. The ones who aren't should not have been strong enough to simply replace Him.

I'm using the collectivist "you". There's a reason I asked for my flair to be "Secret Jewish Subverter" on the KiA2 subreddit when it was first directed at me. As a collectivist, you can accept collective punishment for things you explicitly didn't do; but your ideology did. Just as you would be willing to take credit for shit you didn't do.

I don't need to disagree with a faggot to recognize his character flaws. "Your Body, My Choice" is funny too. He's still a retarded faggot. I don't care that you think I shouldn't disparage him when I agree, but I agree with people I disparage all the time. This is a common occurrence when talking to any and all humans.

Primarily, my problem with him is that he's dedicated to killing the Populist Right by any means necessary, and should be gate-kept out of it as an actual subversive. Kinda like Liz Cheney. I don't need to listen to Liz Cheney's arguments over and over again to see if I can publicly dispute them each time. She had her chance, and she needs to go. Fuentes can go to considering both of their work was cited by Obama to campaign against Trump.

I would bet we agree on 90% of everything except for the most important thing, should Whites or should jews rule in America (and Europe)?

We clearly don't because you don't even have the right premise. Europe isn't ruled. It's not a political body. The US is ruled, but it's a Liberal state. It doesn't fall into racial hierarchies. Then again, neither does Europe. At best, several states within Europe are states where the domestic population would prefer having leaders that represent their ethnicity. But you aren't taking that into consideration because you're worried about race, not ethnicity. You want to know if I think the members of your preferred political construct that you made in your head, regardless of values, should be at the head of all western governments, regardless of the means they got there and what they represent. You also are pretending white jews don't exist, when jews aren't a race.

So, the whole question is flawed, and we really don't agree on shit.

As expected. It's the same in the UK as well.

Who'd think that all those scientists, doctors, and engineers would be so expensive!

That sounds more believable than what was presented. I've had those incidents where a Leftist just loses their shit and goes berserk, nearly to the point of violence. However, you were not saying that you were having a political conversation already that you were besting them in because you your rhetoric was highly developed and you simply countered all of their points with elegance and grace until they got upset.

That kind of attitude is what is being framed by the OP, and is what I'm challenging.

What an asshole.

I love it.

They won't pass a categorical imperative, and that's why we don't do it.

However, not a single killing in the first film was extra-judicial. Each of them were legitimate acts of self-defense.

It's a simple rhetorical device to try and give the Leftist an opportunity to say, "I should be in charge of the decisions of tolerance".

This is followed up with Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance, whereby Harry Callahan becomes an absolute hero if he ignores the bank robberies and shoots someone in the head because they have a "Nixon Now" bumper sticker.

The film doesn't answer this because Dirty Harry is literally a response to the fact that the left-wing government has allowed crime to run absolutely rampant, including serial killing pedophiles. Callahan is more concerned with stopping evil than he is with virtue signaling to San Francisco's ideals.

THIS IS BECAUSE SAN FRANCISCO IS MORE CONCERNED WITH VIRTUE SIGNALING THAN STOPPING SERIAL KILLING PEDOPHILES

The film isn't asking who should be in charge of making determinations about intolerance. It's saying YOU are already in charge of that tolerance, and you are tolerating serial killing child rapists, while being intolerant to his gruff language. Harry isn't the mayor, he's a hero trying to save people within a broken system. Your broken system.

What's great is that the sequel to this movie actually addresses this concern. Harry ends of having to kill a conspiracy of corrupt cops that are assassinating judges, prosecutors, witnesses, and criminals because they are actual vigilantes and tyrants who made the decision of tolerance on their own.

Empires are like meth.

Not even once.

It's never worth it.

"Yes, we were aiming at you. Yes, Trump is just in the way."

The State Department is a Fabian Socialist shithole. I can only hope that Rubio is enough """"center-right"""" to at least reduce their attempts to destroy the country.

Media: "Who radicalized you?"

Me: comes closer and whispers into their ears

Me: "You."

I appreciate you are a registered democrat. Have you been able to use your presence in their primaries to your advantage?

Same, except an anti-theist. I'd rather we actually not need to use the Church as a Crutch, but apparently some motherfuckers are a bit dense and killing god was not the best move.

Basically, they ideologues don't think it's possible for someone to stop being a Leftist and move right without becoming a class/race traitor who's only doing it for money. It's part of their narrative.

There's a major flaw in this. There's a missing percentage of non-retarded psychopaths with extreme power and control. There used to be more of them, but there are more than a few Tony Blair's out there.

They are. Frankly, I'm glad people are getting reminded of this. I'm worried that they weren't being reminded of this during the late stages of the campaign, especially since the Dems were pushing Agenda 2025 instead of, you know, these. BUT, it could also be used to show Trump that there is a political populism around the issues he started with, which will sway his decisions on who to appoint.

Let's assume that's correct. How much are we going to save in the long run by removing millions of illegal immigrants in crime reduction, welfare reduction, housing program reduction, healthcare reduction, education reduction, wage increases, higher employment, and a reduction in home prices?

It's not even based. It's just the law.

This is genuinely uncontroversial shit. That whole "family separation" argument always was. We don't send kids to jail for the crimes of their parents. No, that doesn't mean you just don't send the parents to jail for committing crimes.

It's because you faggots always think "everyone who disagrees with me is a jew", and you've been calling me a jew for... jesus, seven consecutive years?

Yes, I tend to agree.