All_Pro_Bills

Do you? I guess you're a ***** expert at everything. I'm expecting to see you on Jeopardy next week.

Although there's a lot of hoopla and virtue signalling from western sources worrying about those poor Africans and Middle Easterners almost all the grain shipments out of Ukraine were going to Europe. So its not like Africa/ME are suddenly being deprived of grain with the agreement ending. They were already getting screwed.

You're obsessed with characterizing things in emotional terms while avoiding the meat of the argument. In this case the Democrats claim that censorship doesn't exist while attempting to censor speakers from speaking. What are they so afraid of? That's what we're talking about.

Which party denies they're censoring the American public and "unapproved" experts but proved their complicity by attempting, and failing, to censor public testimony from individuals they were afraid to let speak freely? If anyone's trying so hard it's you attempting to justify and ignore censorship. What I'm doing is pointing out and applauding efforts to protect the principles of freedom and democracy. While you side with the authoritarians and censors. Shame on you.

Are you drunk this morning? As this makes no sense.

An amazing job of exposing themselves as fascist censors and big government storm troopers gleefully supporting trampling over the 1st amendment rights of American citizens.

Kennedy gave testimony at a hearing on government censorship where Democrats attempted to censor and block him from testifying all while claiming no such government censorship programs and efforts exist. Basically demonstrating the behavior they claim doesn't exist. Just amazing. Lying mofo's can't even get their story straight.

In reality QB's don't beat each other because they're never on the field at the same time. They beat the other guys defense. Also, of the three QB's , Allen, Burrow, and Mahomes, Allen had the least effective supporting cast of offensive line and skill players. That absolutely had an impact on the results each QB produced. As for the defenses, from a talent perspective I think the three teams are fairly close. The problem with the Bills defense has been its predictability. When facing great QB's that's a terrible trait. You know which 4 guys are rushing and how they're coming at you the line blocking calls are easy and the QB pre-snap reads are too.

Garland needs to refer these cases to a special prosecuter. But he won't.

Same old tired ass argument. But, but, but Trump allegations that don't cite details. Divert, deflect, and deny. The Biden's are as dirty as Pigs in a mud hole and referring to Trump as some reason to ignore their graft and corruption is reprehensible and dishonest.

Many seem to have amnesia when it comes to recalling how in January 2017 Democrats urged electors in various swing States to change their vote during the electoral certification to Hillary because the election was stolen. But of course light can be bent and subtle nuances and differences can be cited to see this as something other than election interference or an attempt to disrupt the certification process.

I wouldn't expect Trump to have the ability to develop a coherent plan any more than I would expect Biden to address a media Q&A without a list of scripted and pre-defined questions and answers. But I would expect that Trump's co-conspirators would have some level of competency to develop a "plan" that had a chance of working. What was the plan? Storm the Capitol building. Have a few dozen crazies engage in physical confrontation with Capitol Police while the majority of the protesters mill about inside the building taking tours and selfies? Then when the government marshals a force big enough to engage the protest and they enter the Capitol to perform a sweep and clear mission what was the plan? For the protesters to hit back at fully armed SWAT and other heavily armed law enforcement and military personnel with the canes and fanny packs? It seems like that was it.

it would make me happy if you could admit there was no insurrection plan. Even the slowest and dullest among these folks would upon review of the "plan" have concluded it had zero chance of success. So why do it? Go back and don't come back until you bring me something that might work. The idea that some sort of elaborate conspiracy and grand planning effort proceeded the events of the day is frankly, ridiculous and I won't believe it unless you've got access to the power point deck and the execution plan for 1/6 that you can upload to PPP.

A well scripted failure. Human history's best example of the worst insurrection plan and execution ever. The basic objective of the plan appeared to be "let's occupy a single building and then declare ourselves in control of the country". But overlooked were some details like no weapons, a group comprised of mostly out of shape old people, and most critical no support from any public institutions like some elements of the military that could use "force" to make it all happen. The worst insurrection ever. Maybe that's why nobody wants to take "credit" for the planning? It was embarrassingly awful.

Much of the emphasis behind the original affirmative action idea was based on preferences to address income inequality and economic disparities rather than racial quotas.

Either you trust a an all-powerful central government with power concentrated in Wahington or you don't. If you don't then you want control and power distributed back to the the States and localities which makes it impossible for a small group of people or interests to gain authoritarian or dictatorial powers. Centralized authority is prerequisite for dictators. And the trend in America has been to put more and more power in the hands of Washington. Specifically the executive branch. That's really it. Nothing to do with either major party being good or evil. This is true. Name one dictator that ruled without the ability to concentrate overwhelming power in a central location or organization? They aren't any. Break up Washington. Then stop worrying.

You're betting wrong because I don't care but you've skirted the core of my argument. Well done sir... Given no comeback I'll update and tell you why. In your example I'm pretty certain the person was chosen for ability. In the Snow White re-do they were chosen because of their appearance. That's the point you avoided.

All valid points. But I'd add that most of the DEI business decisions at companies are not driven to "make money" but rather to meet some internally and externally measured ESG score. And the executives that push these actions don't care about profits. They'll be long gone to their next big career opportunity at another firm or some non-profit organization gig. Like the executive that parented that Bud Light marketing campaign. A total disaster for the company but she'll surface somewhere at some point with a big promotion as a reward for pushing the agenda. If not, why do it? Out of principal and belief! Ha, ha. For the buckeroo's. Otherwise, the remaking of traditional "white" stories into a "people of color" cast with various social undertones has lost its luster at the box office. It was fresh and new about 15-20 years ago but now its a tired old formula. In this case Snow White is not white. Did anyone notice? The movie ticket buying public eventually catches on to these hustles. Rather than recycling old stories with new casts the writers and script developers in Hollywood should use some of their brain power and imagination to come up with some original content featuring a diverse cast. That might be a better product that viewers would shell out $20 to see. The other thing I'd like to mention is the act of "cultural appropriation". I'm guessing its a one-way street. It's okay to steal traditionally "white" stories and transform them into stories of diversity. Nobody screams about that or maybe even realizes the point. But what if somebody decided to make a Native American movie with all white actors comprising a tribe on the plains or an African tale of Zulu warriors? I'm sure the outrage meter would go right past 10!

Its not a super top secret that he's litigated claims against pharma companies. Along with companies like Monsanto that have caused harm to people and the environment. So what? Lawyers do law. Traditional Liberals should love the guy. The new crop of liberals that love them as much big government and big corporations as they can handle, not so much. They've transformed into the people and the establishment they used to fight against but they're too blind to the truth of it all to see.

Move violent than say, this mostly peaceful protest repeated for many nights in a row? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/antifa-burn-american-flags-storm-courthouse-portland

If you offer Hunter a couple grams of hi-grade, uncut blow he'll definitely show up for an interview.

Not hate buddy. I have no personal feelings about the person one way or the other. It's called reality. I highly recommend it. It's been clearly demonstrated she can't/won't answer the simplest of questions nor does she appear to be properly prepared to engage the media. If you can't answer basic policy questions there's no purpose to have press q&a and therefore no need for a press secretary.

This qanon thing is a hoax. It's a conspiracy theory ginned up by leftists about a secret cabal of right wing extremists that believe all kinds of conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theory about people believing conspiracy theories. Cool, right? The libs have got quite an imagination considering they're morons.

Wondering how it feels to stand up there dodging and ducking questions while knowing the only reason you got the job was to fill a quota for black lesbian diversity hires?

You're deluding yourself. The regressives are the Nazi's. They're the people demonstrating authoritarian tendencies while using the power of government and media to attack their enemies.