All_Pro_Bills

Suburban middle/upper class liberal white women are too busy running their kids around town to various activities and Summer camps in their gas guzzling Escalades and Suburbans (with "Demand Climate Change Action Now" bumper stickers in a demonstration of no self-awareness) to have any time to worry about gun control laws as long as urban black young men are the majority of the people getting killed.

Thx. I'm familiar with the Council on Foreign Relations.

But they can recite the social justice classification hierarchy of victims from memory so the fringe nutjob set find them both to be immensely qualified.

And how do you know this? There's only a couple ways. You have firsthand knowledge or you have reports from trusted sources. But reports also indicate they're targeting hospitals, schools, malls, and old folks homes with missile strikes while avoiding any military targets. And didn't Ukrainian Nazi militia's murder Ukrainians of Russian descent in the Eastern provinces from 2014 to 2022?

I'd be curious to objectively understand what specific "rights" and "freedoms" poster believe Ukrainians have under Zelensky that support the conclusion they have more "democracy" than Russians do under Putin. For example, Zelensky's jailed journalists and outlawed opposition political parties in alignment with a couple things Putin has done. I think its pretty close to a draw.

She fits right in with the rest of the administration. If you've ever seen some of Biden's cabinet level appointees testify to Congress they don't know anything about doing their job either. It fits with hiring the dumbest person you can find as long as they check off all the diversity and inclusion boxes on the application.

It's been great for the Washington neocons, psychopaths, and other assorted war lovers. None of them have been killed, yet. But I'm holding out hope Satan will soon summon them back to Hell.

Of course we already know with 100% certainty that any official investigation will fail to determine the identity of the responsible individual and the case will be closed without any charges being filed. Even though everyone with a pulse and a heartbeat knows exactly who the primary suspect is here.

The censorship and media community have decided its in your best interest to not include the fact the shooter was associated with BLM because in their opinion it's an unnecessary detail. No need to worry yourself about how that might impact motive or the selection of the targets. Maybe that association did impact the actions of the shooter or maybe it didn't but let's avoid having that conversation. Or maybe the person is simply mentally deranged? Leaving out some facts to spin the story in the appropriate direction is a tactic commonly referred to as lying by omission. Or maybe the investigating super sleuth reporters employed by these major news outlets will reveal the shooter is one of those Black, White Supremacists we've been hearing so much about recently? But seriously, my expectation is since the shooter is some cross dressing weirdo they'll be portrayed in some fashion as "the victim". Watch and see.

Are you getting battlefield intelligence reports from some credible source on the ground? I ask because there's been little to no official statements about the composition of forces committed to combat. And not much news about the offensive other than vague statements about progress being "slow".

That's a totally absurd conclusion. Any historian or scholar proficient in the study of the WW2 era is capable of quoting many prominent figures of that era, including Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt, Eisenhower. Perhaps military commanders might still study the tank and battle tactics and words of Rommell, but does that imply they're fans of the Field Marshall? How that knowledge of historical quotes and writings assigns some ideological view escapes me. And this Mom group being some secret Nazi organization? Because of some cryptic and secret signals some crackpot twitter users are reaching with to label them as evil? It has to odor of desperation because they're starting to lose the war on the modern battlefield of culture.

I stand by that statement, in the current version of American politics and the media all that matters is what you can get people to believe. The truth is to be avoided. Watch the news and listen to how its presented. An event and then an opinion. And in politics the Democrats a just a lot better at fooling people or the people they fool are a lot easier to fool. Look how many brain-dead idiots still believe Trump campaign official colluded with Russian government assets. 7 years of nothing and waiting for that indictment. But they still believe. I know lots of these folks. I ask logical and reasoned questions and they just give back the blank stare.

If you live long enough, you'll observe a pattern of behavior in politics. They never solve any problems because solving a problem eliminates a problem, and eliminating a problem means one less problem to use as a campaign issue. Given that theory there will be no reparation payments. Just talk of reparation payments. Like "vote for me and I'll give you $5 million dollars each". Ha, ha, fooled you again!

Jack Smith's political associations and job resume support the conclusion he's DNC operative posing as a Special Prosecutor. He's a professional scumbag.

While slavery was immoral and an afront to basic human rights by current standards of civilization it wasn't legally defined as a crime. Under "the rule of law" in place prior to 1863 slavery was legal depending on legal statutes like the designation of "free" States or not that were in place prior to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, Juneteenth, and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. It's a subtle distinction but a distinction none the less. I'm not sure where you're going with your comment but if you're making the argument reparations are supported based on some violation of law and the commission of a crime, I'd counter that the argument has no legal basis.

Good enough. I was in a July 4th ruling a Federal judge presiding over a case detailing government/social media censorship has issued a temporary injuction agiant Biden administration specific individuals and agencies prohibiting them from contacting social media companies and their employees. On queue, NYT reports the move endangers effort to fight the ever present danger of misinformation. But like Bill Maher said, just give me the facts and leave your opinion where it belongs on the Op/Ed page, and I'll decide for myself what is misinformation.

I prefer to break things down by defining the battle as a contest between objective thinkers vs. subjective thinkers. And not so much left and right With that in mind I'd like to add a #4. 4) The belief that speech requires regulation and censorship to fight "hate speech". While I accept the concept that some objective criteria can define "hate" its use is currently defined subjectively. Somebody feeling '"threatened" by what you might say is highly subjective yet requires you to be silenced and censored. Threatened in what way? Physically, mentally, emotionally? The issue of subjectivity is observable simply by how one person feeling threatened and others are not. It's an argument consistent with beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There's no defined standard. A nefarious actor could abuse the term "hate" and use it as a weapon to silence others that disagree with their positions rather than out of genuine concern of harm. That's exactly what we see currently when people scream "hate" and are unwilling to articulate and defend their views objectively through the use of reason and logic.

They want these shootings to continue until public sentiment for stricter gun ownership laws becomes acceptable to a large majority. They can't take away the 2nd amendment but they can convince people to disarm themselves. You can bet your bippy those midnight SWAT units with full body armour and military grade weopons the regime sends to visit their political enemies and critics won't be disarming anytime soon. Democrats publicly denounce these killings while doing nothing to crack down on criminals and the mentally ill that commit these shootings (they don't dare offend the drug companies whose products the killers are on). Privately, they celebrate them as each one brings them closer to the objective of facing an easier time of controlling a population of dissenters incapable of self-defense. Some specific posters here might add that's what authoritarian regimes always do which is seek a monopoly on violence.

Ya know, I was watching a documentary on Jim Morrison and The Doors and along with focusing on the band, the music, and Morrison's demons, it also dug into the counter culture movement of the '60's. The attitudes and anti-establishment views. Today these baby boomers comprise a large voting block of Democratic voters. It was quite a contrast to today where these children of the 1960 counter culture stll believe they're fighting the system while having no self-awareness that they are the system. They've convinced themselves that white supremacist MAGA members control society while oppressing all sorts of groups and minorities when in fact liberals control almost every major public and private institution. It's quite a delusion in order to deny the truth they are now the oppressors they spent much of their youth protesting and fighting against. Kill the establishment. The establishment is dead. Long live the establishment. Oh if you prefer The Who. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Sometimes the walls come tumblin' down!

I wonder how many of those morons actually believe all this leftist hocus pocus freak show crap and how many are just faking it out of fear of being doxed and canceled? The first group are idiots while the second are cowards.

I don't know and I don't care because whether its happened or not isn't the point. Its where you stand on the issue of public decency. Because the point is whether or not people who will find it offensive will be told by the high priests of the social justice movement to just deal with it. You know what, I'm going to correct myself. It has happened. Men pretending to be women undressing and exposing themselves in women's locker rooms and bathrooms to women and teenage girls. In those cases the man's "rights" to prance around naked in front of women they're not intimate with is vigorously defended by the left.

A nice 12 minute dissertation on the $$$$$$ factor and other inconvenient details.

In order to function, every society requires some standards of social decency and acceptable behavior. Over time those standards change, and they have in our country. But I don't think it can ever evolve to the point where some dude can expose his junk to women and children and the correct social response is for them to turn around and not look.