All_Pro_Bills

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.

The left wants a cultural transformation of American society to mirror how the CCP treats Chinese citizens right now. Eventually eliminating all rights and freedoms and replacing them with privileges granted by the government to subjects of the State. The determination of privileges will be based on personal ESG scores (they've already instituted the system with corporations and businesses). Your personal social credit score will determine what privileges you are granted by the state in return for your obedience to the State's social and economic policies. So for example, if you don't express allegiance to their Transsexual doctrine or Diversity compliance metrics you won't qualify for a home loan because your social credit score is too low for the banking system run under Stakeholder Capitalism to qualify you for a loan.

None of your responses have refuted my contention in any way. We've got a clearly mentally comprised commander in chief. It's a credible theory somebody else is driving the agenda. One repeating situation we see is where an unknown person is directing the President on which questions to answer and when to get off stage. Who has the authority to command the President to be silent? Theoretically nobody. But we witness that in practice. The idea with theories is to investigate to find things that either support or refute the theory and I see nothing offered anywhere to refute my contention President Biden is a figurehead, fake President.

Didn't Trudeau appoint himself president-for-life of Canada during COVID?

I'm not clear how your response addresses my suspicions and theory about what's going on currently in the White House.

The difference is we knew what those people were doing. Can you produce the names of the inner circle calling the shots now? These people are not there to advise Biden. They're there to replace him. This administration is the 3rd term of the Obama administration. What exactly is Susan Rice's role inside the WH? What actual duties does she perform? She's Obama's inside person. There to manage day-to-day. If you look at Biden's career and 2020 campaign he's spent a lifetime staking out safe middle of the road positions. The far left focus is definitely out of character. Prior to January 2021 he's supported none of this. It's clearly somebody else's agenda. That agenda belongs to the Obama wing of the party. Those are the people running the WH. The elected President? Not so much. A shadow government. So if people not elected are driving the agenda and not the President is this still a democracy?

My suspicion is what's in place in the Biden administration is not a group of advisors assisting the President but instead a group of advisors assuming the role of President where the actual person elected by the voters acts as front man to mouth their decisions to the public. A facade and nothing more. And who are these advisors? Do we know their names? They are unelected unknowns working in the shadows. What is their source of direction and agenda? How did they come to their positions? Who decided they should be making policy and determining the actions of the executive branch and overall American domestic and foreign policy? Is having a President in charge of our government an illusion? More importantly, why is no one in any official capacity raising these questions? I call this a "soft" coup or if some prefer a quiet insurrection. No gunfire, no protests, no hearings. No media stories. Just a quiet takeover of the White House.

Extremist MAGA supporters brought in to protect white liberal neighborhoods!

I get the Jets and Giants on the local CBS and FOX network affiliates and of course any NBC and ABC/ESPN games. National games like London. So I count 9 games for sure. I bought a digital antenna for $35 at Bestbuy which picks up CBS CH3 and FOX CH29 in Philadelphia. So that adds the Bills game at Philly so at least one more game and any AFC Bills games the local market might pick up.

The neocon types that have a stiffy for the DC war machine but are totally oblivious that 90% of the world outside of Western Europe has had enough of this military intervention approach to addressing every problem?

Because the cops get paid to look the other way. Meanwhile, the illusionists have created a domestic ideological pissing match between what's called the left and the right that distracts everyone from the fundamental truth that is simply all about greed and money.

I'm less concerned about Trump than I would be if he held the mechanisms of power. But he doesn't. That's the worry with Biden. And I haven't heard of a single whistle blower coming forward to allege Trump took any payoffs or influence money from Chinese government and CCP/PLA related entities but there are a several that pointed to and implicated Biden and there's lots of forensic accounting trails to follow up on. Our President is compromised. But its worse. The CCP has done an outstanding job of what they call "elite capture". Dumping money into all kinds of US domestic organizations and individuals that has created a bond of "common interest" which enables a domestic network of advocates and agents that come to the Chinese regime's defense when any criticism or disparaging remarks or concerns are sent their way. Because the CCP is smart and now these people depend on their goodwill for a significant portion of their compensation. In sports, look how the NBA is co-opted by Chinese money. Academic institutions and research organizations have been completely infiltrated. But we're told its xenophobic or imaginary to point it out. All from the loudest voices of the people getting the biggest payoffs.

I suspect you've built up a substantial emergency reserve and retirement fund while those folks driving the $100K autos are stretched to the max and one missed paycheck away from trouble. Lifestyle maximizers. My dad would call having a sizable rainy day fund as having some degree of financial independence and he would follow that up by saying "if you don't have some level of financial independence you'll never have any real freedom". I think there's some truth to that statement. Several years ago my previous assignment ended and as I had some emergency money I didn't have to jump at job opportunities or offers that didn't seem right. I could wait until the right opportunity came along, which it did. I haven't had a car payment for 10 years and don't miss it.

They admire the guy that can get their research projects funding.

Maybe the administration can try something different like telling the truth about the President's physical and mental condition? Like releasing his latest health evaluation to the public. Maybe the members of the media that have to sit through these charade press conferences where they are given questions to ask with pre-determined answers on queue cards that the President reads back to them, can ask some real questions such as why can't we ask unrehearsed questions, and why is the President incapable of forming a coherent response to questions that aren't on those queue cards? Maybe Congress can demand answers about the silent coup in progress where an unelected and unknown person is assuming the role of President and sitting in the Oval Office making day-to-day decisions? .