All_Pro_Bills

So ignore 40 years of judicial activism from liberal judges and pretend it somehow just started with the current Supreme Court? Got it.

You want idiocy. How about the pregnant man emoji? The abject height of stupidity and leftist fantasies. Reality check: men cannot get pregnant. But try to get hardcore leftists to say it. They're so committed to their fantasies they can't even admit reality when hard scientific factual evidence is staring them in the face. That's how delusional they've become. Or something used through history by civilization like the Sumerians, Egyptians, Mayans, Greeks, Romans, and modern societies is "racist". Math. How's that work exactly? How about mostly peaceful protests? That's was a good one! Or putting professional disinformation spreaders in charge of identifying and censoring disinformation. Hilarious. They just move from one hustle and con to the next.

As you continue to demonstrate the fundamental problem for neo-liberal ideology is the Left is at war with reality.

All of us here know that Fox is a right leaning news outlet. That's obvious. And almost all of us here are aware that with the exception of Fox, almost every major media outlet leans left. In your opinion, do you think the likes of CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, ABC, and so on, present a fair and balanced fact centered view of events and opinions unbiased or filtered by political and social ideology or their personal views and beliefs?

Is there a job description or posting of something out there for DHS Division for Spreading Disinformation? Something like the ability to spread establishment disinformation and protect false narratives by suppressing and censoring inconvenient facts and opinions that invalidate those establishment narratives. And counter those sources by labeling them as disinformation. In other words, lie your ass off and deceive everyone. Censor free speech to protect freedom of speech. And most importantly... keep everyone safe! Remember tyranny is freedom!

Russian sympathizers on the board? You're out of your fringin mind. Get help.

I'm sure all the draft experts will be giving the Jets an "A" for last night's first round. The problem is winning the draft and the off season is not the same as winning football games on the field starting in September. So maybe hold off on the Super Bowl reservations and big talk for now?

Hey.. I don't make policy. I just try to interpret what's going on the best I can. I'm sticking to my basic premise this war could have been avoided with a genuine effort and desire from all parties to reach some mutually agreeable compromise. Its a shameful waste of life and a cause of much unnecessary suffering. But all the involved parties only see conditions and circumstances through the lens of their interests and views, dig in their heels, and fail to understand or assess the interests and positions from the other guys viewpoint. Like it or not, Russia views NATO as an extension of the US government and the Pentagon. And sees the European countries that belong to the alliance as vassal States doing the bidding of America while putting the interests of their countries on the back burner. That's not my view. That's just me comprehending their view. I don't see another $33B as leading to any type of resolution other than prolonging the war. Why not just take that $33B and offer each Russian soldier that defects or surrenders $100K each? If my math is correct that would cover 330K soldiers, essentially the entire Russian force. That might end the war and get nobody killed? Shamefully, that unconventional approach won't feather the nests of the defense industry and retiring Pentagon Generals that join their BOD's when they "retire".

There are no spending limits given the primary US policy objective to weaken Russia through a proxy war strategy of fighting them down to the last Ukrainian.

I believe they're also referring to conventional and nuclear hyper-sonic weapons which fly at speeds of about 3,600 MPH. I'd deffer to the expertise of others but from what I understand there is no reliable defense against those types of offensive missiles.

To bankers and analysts whose salaries and $300K+ compensation packages & million dollar bonuses depend on peddling the "growth" story nothing ever looks bad. Don't expect negative opinions to ever come out of their mouths or get typed into their keyboards. The economy would need to grow at a 10% nominal clip to account for 8% inflation plus 2% real growth. Just remember whatever bad happens is Putin's fault and whatever good happens is due to Biden's adept handling of the economy.

I'd say that almost all of Musk's business ventures depend on taxpayer subsidies, credits, or direct government payments in one way or another. But I do think his purchase is good for the free and fair exchange or ideas and opinions on the platform. I'm just wondering how the authoritarian establishment and their supporters are going to address the threat to their monopoly on thinking? The potential that Twitter users will likely be able to exchange ideas without every idea and opinion being measured and judged against some official narrative or group preference of thought must be frightening to them all. One thing for certain they'll be generating lots of panic over the dangers that free speech poses to society. Which is comical and a complete misrepresentation of their real concern. What they want to say is anyone that disagrees with me should continue to be silenced,

Stating the obvious, its okay for the "correct" type of billionaires that will impose censorship to protect official narratives and block challenges and contradicting facts and opinions to the left's sacred beliefs and all sorts of woke myths to own and control media. To the left Musk is just the "wrong" billionaire as he doesn't appear to share their ideology or belief system. For the left, the possibility that Musk is committed to imposing what is viewed as traditional free speech protections aligned with some definition held by libertarians is a danger. They can rationalize and generate all kinds of excuses but that's it. Fear of losing control.

If I understand it correctly the rationale is the relationship between the campaign and national committee with the lawyers was officially categorized as "legal" when in fact the work was "political". Including what Durham alleges was obfuscating the paper trail by transferring payments through the law firm to various 3rd parties connected with the production of the Russia dossier. After examination, the FEC invalidated the classification of the contact as legal services and representation which null and voids client/attorney privilege. As is customary with dealing with the Clinton's and legal issues, watch for lawyers to suddenly get depressed and start committing suicide.

Its all out there. You should catch up on events and diplomatic conversations that occurred prior to the invasion.

I'm sorry. I expected that given your 1939 analogy I thought you'd be in alignment with the idea of attacking China. Otherwise, I assume we wait until they attack Taiwan and you can start citing references to 1941 and the Japanese Empire's invasion of China, Korea, or other Asian nations. As for diplomacy, there was little to no diplomacy in addressing Russia and their security concerns which US official dismissed without even addressing. Just do what we say was the negotiating position. That worked out great for everyone. Some inside the NATO alliance suggest many member nations want to prolong the war as long as possible as a way to weaken Russia regardless of the costs to the Ukrainian nation and citizens. I tend to believe that. My final assessment is that given the Russian military's piss poor performance against Ukraine's forces are we overstating or miscalculating the threat presented to Western Europe and the U.S. by Russian conventional forces? I expect that in a head-to-head fight against our land, sea, and air services the American military would likely annihilate the Russia forces in a matter of weeks if not days. So what are we really worried about?

Leaving it to the professionals should make everyone nervous as the recent track record on decisions to engage in foreign interventions is a disaster. And looking up and down the bench at the current administration I'd say strategic thinking is not a strength of the team. I mean, what's Washington's strategy here with Ukraine? To pump weapons into the country fueling a war of attrition down to the last Ukrainian? Because that's sure how it looks. And if you really want to invoke the 1939 analogy and some "Minority Report" approach to policy maybe we should attack China on Monday before they attempt to invade (or maybe not invade) Taiwan sometime in the future? And perhaps identify and eliminate all kinds of potential bad actors all over the world. Because they might do something really bad later.

So apply those lessons of the past to current scenarios you believe look similar and assume a similar outcome if you don't act? Kind of hypothetical based on your assessment that you can accurately forecast the future. What if you're wrong and acting now makes the future worse than if you did nothing? What if acting now leads to nuclear war that destroys humanity 5 years from now. What if not acting leads to world peace and prosperity for the foreseeable future? You can't know the answer. So its an unknown risk either way.

You can post as many ridiculous Putin references as you want. Frankly, its beyond stupid. Russia can't even beat a 3rd rate power in a direct confrontation but they've infiltrated and control aspects of the US government and the public. Who could believe such nonsense? I guess, you and lots of other mystical thinkers. And sit by idly? That's not what I said and you know it. I asked what strategic interest Ukraine represents to the U.S.? But you keep ducking the question. What is so critical to our interests that some encourage our military to become involved directly? And risk a potential nuclear exchanges if things escalate out of control. What if Russia wins here? What if the Ukrainians prevail? What happens if the mostly likely outcome occurs and they negotiate some sort of compromise? What is going to be different for Americans in any of those scenarios? Now I ask all of this with the belief that with more effort from all involved parties, a little extra diplomacy and negotiation of a mutually beneficial agreement that satisfied all interested parties could have reached that avoided this terrible conflict and loss of life. Along with avoiding all the 2nd and 3rd order consequences that have been set in motion by the war, the economic and social disaster, and the sanctions that will likely impact the entire world in a very negative way. A lot of bad events have been set in motion that at this point can't be stopped. So ring up one more in the loss column for Washington's nation building effort.

I asked about American strategic interests. What is so important to risk a nuclear exchange and the lives of our military personnel to get involved in a direct confrontation? What strategic asset or support does Ukraine supply to America? What difference in the lives of American's would it make if Ukraine was independent, or aligned with the West, or aligned with Russia?

Putin? Stop playing the village idiot here. But okay, articulate the U.S. strategic interest in Ukraine beyond the democracy myth. What is so strategic and important to put the lives of US service personnel at risk?

And taking the risk of a potential nuclear exchange to directly engage in a war for non-strategic interests isn't good policy.

Because its the best excuse they can come up with that doesn't assign any accountability for the problem to them. The bad news is prices are going even higher!

But the origins of American slavery did exist for hundreds of years in West Africa before the first Portuguese settlements appeared on the scene. And the practice was facilitated by Arab slave traders working with African tribes and kingdoms that captured and sold other Africans into slavery. With the initial Western Hemisphere market being South American and Caribbean sugar plantations. And later the U.S. south. I'm curious to know if CRT's version of the origin and practice of slavery indict both Arab and black African participants in the practice and include them in the theories oppressor/oppressed social model? Or is their involvement overlooked or does the stories timeline start later?

Well you don't know either but you're willing to engage in speculation and conjecture of wrong doing. Neither of which constitute or substitute for facts much less legal evidence or meet a threshold of burden of proof. And suggest the meeting raises suspicions of impropriety simply because one of the participants, the lawyer who first met with Fusion GPS that day was...... wait for it......Russian! Perhaps the problem here is nothing more complicated than a severe case of xenophobia?