All_Pro_Bills

I ask that question because I believe the only way for Ukraine to "win" what has become a war of attrition is for the US or some other NATO member country to commit combat forces on the ground. We haven't reached that tipping point yet as the clear strategy is to supply more and more sophisticated weapons deliveries. The latest commitment being the pledge of F-16's. By the time these aircraft are delivered and the flight crews trained I don't think these aircraft will make much of a difference. My conclusion based on what information is available is what Ukraine needs more than anything is a large number of well trained soldiers rather than more advanced weapons systems. At this point I don't expect Ukraine can field such a force on their own as this war of attrition just by shear numbers favor Russia. The soldiers would need to come from someplace else. Obviously, any decision to become involved in combat operations would take this conflict in an entirely different and unknown direction. As officials out of Washington has said they're prepared to do "whatever it takes for as long as it takes" I think that's where we're eventually headed. They won't say it because the American public absolutely is against such a more but that's what it's going to take. So I'm watching for subtle clues and comments intended to soften up the public to the idea. In some 6-9 month time frame we'll begin to hear louder and louder calls from the standard war hawks about the need to directly intervene..

Let's say you're correct. If it's the only way to stop that are you willing to support the commitment of US forces to combat operations?

Generally, I think people who believe words are equivalent to violence have never experienced real physical violence. Never been in any serious physical confrontation, been punched in the face, shot at in some military conflict, or had to step in to protect somebody else from physical harm by confronting another person or persons. When you approach the idea from the perspective of experience with actual violence it's hard to convince somebody that words are violence. What libs that say words are violence really mean is I don't like your opinion so demand you shut up because facts or truth don't matter.

Generating "hate" is big business for the Left. It manufactures issues for them to politicize to gain power. To their credit, the strategy works pretty well. For everybody else, not so much.

Like a player that instigates a fight in hockey. They irritate their opponent in order to instigate confrontation. To create an incident. To create an incident of social injustice. Common sense tells you that anyone living by current moral and ethical standards of social behavior will object to that sort of thing. So somebody objects. Which gives the Social Justice crowd, their supporters on the left, and their media allies broadcast the thing 24/7, then queue the rage about oppression and hate and bigotry and dare I say, white supremacy. It's their game. And if you don't object they push it to the limit until you do. What's next? Some weirdo pumping the neighbors Cat on the corner in a wig and lipstick? At some point its going to come down to dropping the gloves and punching them in the face. That's what they ultimately want. Which then gives the government goon squads and gestapo units waiting in the wings the green light to start rounding up objectors and sending them off to re-education camps. Thank you to Chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution for the playbook. The difference is Mao's goons didn't have to worry about the Chinese citizens of that era opening their door and lighting them up. The potential of that might curb some of the enthusiasm on the American left.

I'd suggest our difference of opinion is centered on the definition of evidence. And while I didn't use the word "evidence" in my response for the sake of argument I'll retract references to that word. And for the sake of that argument I'll define "evidence" as testimony or exhibits presented in a court of law as evidence. All of which has yet to happen. Given that, I'll center my argument around the legal concept of sufficient "probable cause" to provide the likelihood that a crime has been committed. Probable cause being the threshold of reasonable suspicion a court would use to issue warrants or agree to proceed with a case against an individual. Evidence a prosecutor would claim to have when presenting a case for an indictment to a grand jury. So given the large amount of suspicious activity supported by witness statements, physical items, and transactions like bank wire transfers of money from one account to another in the name of suspected individuals under scrutiny, would you agree there is probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed which requires a more thorough and detailed investigation by the Department of Justice? One additional comment: It's intriguing to me that both statements by Bobulinsk and the FBI whistleblower's statements about the FBI form FD-1023 document both, and most importantly independently each other, refer to Joe Biden as "the big guy". Tell me that's a coincidence.

Here's some things we do know: Hunter was on the board of directors of Burisma, a Ukrainian company, where he had no apparent and applicable business experience during a time his father, the VP of the United States, was charged with leading US/Ukrainian affairs. A PC repair shop owner stated he held a laptop that one Hunter Biden dropped off for service and when the machine was fixed he failed to pick it up after several attempts by the shop owner to contact him. A receipt produced by the shop owner bares the signature of Hunter Biden. The shop owner called the FBI and initially they had no interest. Later, they contacted the shop owner, visited the shop and took the laptop into Federal possession. There is is presumed to have sat on a shelf under lock and key. Prior to the 2020 election the existence of the laptop was revealed in the media. Former members of the Intelligence community issued a statement that they concluded the laptop was Russian disinformation. Later it was proven they lied. As former CIA official Morrell who led the effort to craft the statement, causally stated in Congressional testimoney the reason was, "because he wanted Biden to win". Tony Bobulinski, a former partner of Hunter Biden, has made public statements and provided depositions verifying the authenticity of a portion of the laptop's e-mails along with alleging the current President received payments the partnership firm laundered from foreign source. Meetings, attendees, topics, payments, transactions, discussions. The infamous "10 percent for the big guy". Joe Biden being the big guy. Some of the alleged payment were made from entities linked to the CCP in China. Recently an FBI whistleblower has stated Biden received a $5 million bribe from a Burisma executive. The whistleblower also revealed the FBI has been in possession of an FBI document, form FD-1023, dated 6/30/2020 which details the crime. The FBI has been stonewalling efforts by the House Oversight Committee to acquire the document but has relented this week. Is there enough smoke to believe there's a fire here? Seems so. Will DOJ act? Doubtful. So lets see exactly who is above the law now.

I'm surprised by your perspective. I would have expected this news would send you into a state of euphoria. But your comment is a little more tempered. In the business we call it managing expectations. Maybe that feeling of impending doom comes from being a Bills fan? I know I have it. Things are looking exceptionally well for the team, winning game after game, up by double digits but in the back of your mind you have that fear that something is going to go terribly wrong at some point. And many times, it does go wrong at the worst possible moment. Recently in the playoffs. If only for the mental health of all of us the Bills need to win it all this year!

First the US IC said the evidence points to the Russians blowing up Nordstream but without providing any supporting evidence. Now, months later, they've changed their story. Throwing some Ukranian special operations group under the bus. And we're supposed to believe them. Both times. Sadly some do. Then the Russians blew up the dam flooding the countryside and several towns. Of course the press just runs with the story like they've been trained to do. Never asking a question or looking more closely. Give it a week or two and they'll change this story too.

So are you're saying, regardless of evidence and allegations, you'll continue to defend Biden up until the moment a jury renders a verdict of guilty?

But the leftist mob is much more efficient and effective at the game. Plus their dogma provides them many more opportunities. Since they can pick one victim or another from a wide variety of oppressed groups. Allowing them to constantly gripe and cry about one thing or another being done to somebody by white supremacists.

Yes, I believe global inflation would certainly have been much lower under Trump. Under Biden, excessive stimulus, bigger deficits, sanctions, asset seizures and confiscation, disruptions of global supply chains beyond the impacts of COVID, disruptions of oil and gas trade and agreements, draining the SPR, deteriorating relationships with the rest of the world (minus European vassal state). I've got a light workload today so I can do this all day!

An "ongoing investigation" into the Biden family which the FBI expects to conclude in December of the year 2153. Until then officials cannot comment on any details or specifics of their findings.

Winning? Certainly that doesn't include American working people as all they're winning is a higher cost of living with this administration. But enjoy your winning.

Republicans, you mean all of them? I think you're just mad I thought of the slogan "if you can't beat 'em, then cheat 'em" first! It's catchy, right?

Even if true its the role of parents to decide what is in the best interests of the child. That's the entire point people are making out there. Are you paying attention? Teachers, and educators, have no role in that regard. These indoctrination specialists should mind their own business. What I love about them is they're so committed to the ideology that it blinds them to the fact this is a fight they are going to lose. They think they're smart but they're too stupid to figure it out.

Thank you. I enjoy the comics and words from all the well compensated political whores you follow. Also, I'm eagerly waiting to see what "emergency" you guys dream up for justification to expand mail-in ballot fraud and abuses for the 2024 election.

So following the Democrats motto if you can't beat 'em then cheat 'em?

I just remember Montour was nothing to write home about with the Sabres and suddenly became extremely productive when traded to the Panthers. I believe he was less than enthusiastic about being traded to Buffalo and sandbagged it to get out. But given how bad that team was I don't blame him.

When you realize all the simpletons that believed the Russian collusion hoax still believe it even when faced with official investigations that have proven it to be a hoax. Idiots.

I'd be curious to hear what solutions anyone has to the problem. My expectation is some grassroots movement of centrist thinking people running for office at local and state levels, and later through a national party organization run candidates for Federal offices. All while keeping to the mission and not succumbing to the temptations of the lobbyists and the existing parties. But the timeline for that might be 10 to 15 years and the road to that goal is paved with lots of potholes and traps that would be set along the way by the forces preferring the two party system. Another path might be centrist Democrats and Republicans agreeing to forma third party by breaking away from their current affiliations but this seems less likely to me.

The problem is all credible political figures expressing and supporting viable solutions and polices that represent the interests of the majority at the center are consistently attacked, discredited, and marginalized by the uni-party establishment. Which leaves citizens and voters such as myself, and what I suspect most others here, to make a lose/lose "lesser of two evils" choice which leaves my actual interests unrepresented. My inclination for reluctantly preferring Trump vs. Biden was based on my conclusion his Presidency would do less damage than a Biden administration. Based on the record to date I believe that to be correct but that belief provides little comfort because everything is such a mess.

First, they don't see Nazi's as a major problem. These people aren't "MAGA types". They're clearly visible and accepted remnants of German WW2 occupation and collaboration with the SS. Assisting in the "rounding up" and extermination of Ukrainian citizens that Hitler and his mob deemed to be undesirables. Meanwhile, in 2023, the Pentagon is trying to identify and expel "extremists" from the US services while the Ukrainian military embraces Nazi paramilitary group members as the core of their most effective combat troops. Do you see the irony there?

Wars are fought on the battlefield and in the press. Lots of propaganda and sleight of hand. The attack on the Kakhova dam being the most recent incident of finger pointing. You can't trust anyone. And counting on the media to tell the real story? Forget it. I don't trust Washington or Moscow. What I do trust is employing reason and logic, being objective, and assessing events with a touch of common sense. Like the NordStream pipeline attack. Immediately the Russians did it? Why would they do that? Common sense says just turn the valve off. That initial theory has more or less been put to bed and the current tale is some Ukrainian group was responsible. I'm not entirely sold on that story either as there are lots of loose ends there too. And my reason and logic says there's a problem with this conflict in providing unlimited assistance without some clearly articulated objectives for what officials say "however long it takes" Without defining what "it" is. As this is now a war of attrition and I don't see Ukraine winning a war of attrition with Russia that would leave the remaining path to victory being direct NATO or US involvement in combat operations. Perhaps Americans remain unconcerned by this prospect because they expect the war to be fought "over there". But don't count on it.

Not the Babylon Bee but on topic. Which is making fun of social justice liberals. Because its so easy! Take the quiz. While the typical DEI position requires no expertise of any sort, it does require a collection of attitudes toward your fellow men and women, an ability to utter shameless platitudes and clichés, and embrace a clearly identifiable and primitive Manichean worldview grounded in paranoia. If you aim to become a promising candidate for a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) position, either in the corporate world or in academia, you can easily discover if you have the necessary self-conscious virtue by taking this five-minute employment aptitude survey. Answer “Yes” to the following statements if you agree, and add or subtract the points assigned for each question based on your Yes answer. Then score yourself by comparing your results with those in the chart at the end. Good luck! 1) I am not appreciated for my many talents. +3 2) I am inherently suspicious of others. +3 3) I believe that America is the land of opportunity. -3 4) I believe that I have access to truths denied to others. +5 5) I believe that I must work hard for my reward. -3 6) I believe in a world that is divided into oppressors and oppressed, exploiters and exploited and that these groups are easily identified by the color of their skin. +5 7) I believe that I can work to give in-groups preferential treatment while simultaneously saying that there are no racial or gender preferences at our institution. +3 8. I believe that I should bring my “authentic self” to work, irrespective of any other considerations. +5 9) I believe, like Frederick Douglass, that in America, one can pull oneself up “by the bootstraps” to succeed. -7 10) If I fail in my job, I immediately search for the reason in causes external to me, such as the “system” or the “unearned advantages” available to other people. +7 11) If people question me and ask for evidence for what I say, I immediately attack them for their “resistance” to the truth that I offer in my story. +5 12) I believe that “indigenous” forms of knowledge such as the “medicine wheel” and the “talking stick” should be incorporated into our scientific discourse. +7 13) I always list my pronouns in my email signature and social media profiles. +3 14) I recognize that today’s “Diversity” office resembles the Soviet Union’s old Political Commissariat, where political ideologues occupied positions to report on the political reliability of those who actually worked to accomplish the mission. -10 BONUS POINTS: If you know this but believe it’s a good thing. +15 15) Anyone who disagrees with the lofty goals of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” is guilty of “diversity resistance.” +5 16) I believe that a doctorate in education, sociology, or gender studies is every bit as important and impressive as a doctorate in physics. +3 17) When people respond to my charges of “racism” in a particular company or university, with bothersome requests for evidence, examples, or proof, I complain of being attacked, invalidated, and dehumanized rather than taking the opportunity to prove my point. +5 18) I believe that “stories” and “narratives” are just as important and as convincing as knowledge grounded in logic, reason, and the scientific method. +7 19) As women are 50 percent more likely to earn bachelor’s degrees than men, this shows we need to do everything we can to support women in higher education. +3 20) I am familiar with the racialist statement “skinfolk aren’t always kinfolk,” and I look with suspicion at persons with whom I share the superficial characteristic of race but who disagree with me. +7 21) I routinely drop the word “systemic” into conversations. +3 22) I use the terms “white supremacy” and “white privilege” comfortably and un-ironically, without awareness that they are equivalent to scapegoat devil terms such as the bourgeoisie, or Kulaks, or International Jewry, or infidels to explain all the bad that happens. +5 23) I believe that the best method for advancing our knowledge and understanding of the physical world is logic, reason, and the type of inquiry we call the scientific method. -10 24) I believe that people like Ijeomo Oluo, Paulo Freire, Ibram Kendi, and Derald Wing Sue have important things to say about our society that get to the inner truth. +5 25) I don’t pay much attention to the fantasies, “stories,” and pseudoscience of Ijeomo Oluo, Paulo Freire, Ibram Kendi, and Derald Wing Sue. -7 26) I believe in something called “diversity science,” which substantiates the basic beneficial tenets of the diversity agenda. +5 27) I believe that “diversity science” is pseudo-scientific twaddle fabricated by off campus nonprofits and imported into universities and the corporate world. -10 28) The Brazilian educationist Paulo Freire and his Pedagogy of the Oppressed inspires me to work for social justice, emancipation, and against oppression in all its forms. +5 29) I know that Paulo Freire was a crypto-Maoist who borrowed almost all of his education theory from Mao Zedong’s murderous Cultural Revolution, which Freire greatly admired. -5 BONUS POINTS: If you know this but believe it’s a good thing. +15 . 30) I believe any disagreement with my worldview can be overcome with more “education.” +3 31) I divide society into “oppressors” and “oppressed,” “exploiters” and “exploited,” and I know that this is a primitive Manichean way of looking at society that resembles a medievalist world divided into “infidels” and “believers.” +5 BONUS POINTS: If you do this and believe it’s a good thing. +5 32) I believe in “inclusion and belonging” as fervently as any member of Reverend Moon’s Unification Church believes in “peace and unity.” +3 33) I believe that I have attained “critical consciousness” and that those who disagree with my ideology are afflicted with “false consciousness” and must be taught to embrace a new belief system. +5 34) I believe that “critical consciousness” and “false consciousness” constitute a tautological contrivance that updates Karl Marx’s notion of “class consciousness” for race and gender sensibilities. -5 BONUS POINTS: I recognize that critical consciousness is the latest play on Plato’s cave allegory from his Republic of the 4th century B.C. -5 DOUBLE-BONUS POINTS: If you know the foregoing and believe they are good things. +15 I don’t know who Plato is. +10 35) I believe that the poetry of Audre Lorde is profound, particularly her “master’s tools” line. +2 36) I recognize that Audre Lorde’s “master’s tools” line is pedestrian. -7 37) “Inclusion and belonging” sounds too close to a cult slogan for me to feel comfortable with it. -7 38) I believe that I should be called “Doctor” just like Jill Biden because I wrote a 120-page “dissertation” for my Ed.D. that explores my feelings about the education program I just completed, and which required zero research. +7 39) I am thrilled—thrilled—that “I finally get to use my master’s degree” in educational leadership to bring people to critical consciousness. +3 Good candidate? You make the call! +40 and above: Welcome aboard, commissar! Get ready to Do the Work! +39-30: Not the perfect package but you’re ready to share authentic stories, struggle against “supremacy,” and do some dismantling! +29-20: A few more weeks of amplifying “marginalized voices” should bolster your score +19-10: You’re not committed enough—time for a “difficult dialogue” and a “courageous conversation,” capped off with a “Brave Space” +9-0: Hands behind your back—your struggle session is through that door. -1 and below: Racist!