All_Pro_Bills

Given the government has proven absolutely nothing to this point and that after 6 months there is still a lack of facts and evidence pushed into the public domain I think its acceptable for posters to throw out theories from all angles. As facts become available those facts can either support or not support the various scenarios. And we can dismiss those that are invalidated over time. These range from suggestions the entire thing was a government set up to the participants were traitors. I don't see how any of us can conclude we know for sure what did and didn't happen along with motives and intent. We're still in the discovery phase. I'm certainly open to the idea I might be dead wrong here and I would hope other posters can take that position too. it seems the sensible thing given what we don't know. And what we don't know seems like more than what we do know. And while I have my biases and inclinations when it comes to a government I see as demonstrating a consistent pattern of abuse of power and a bigger threat to our freedoms than any demonstrations we've witnessed on the left or on the right I could be wrong here. And so could the conclusions to this point of anyone else be wrong here too.

The FBI is a law enforcement agency that has been corrupted by political appointed leadership that uses the agency as a mechanism for political objectives. So when you have a rogue agency run by rogue elements fostering a lawless culture you can't expect people in that agency to follow any set of rules. One thing I found comical is the imaginary and propaganda-like persona of virtue and duty of the agency created by the TV networks and the entertainment industry contrasted with unethical and troubling behavior.

As professional experts at mis-information and deception they lie. That's their primary function. To trust the intelligence agencies of this government to tell the truth requires you to be dropped on your head until you lose consciousness and then when you wake up get hit by rocks on the head until your skull caves in.

The NSA spied on Carlson. They admitted it. After putting out some fake excuse and getting busted. Now claiming it was because his name came up in their snooping on some foreigner. But his name was illegally unmasked and his personal communications were leaked to specific media outlets. Both acts are crimes. And they won't reveal who leaked the info, or investigate, or name the official who ordered the unmasking. There are only a few members of the executive branch authorized to do this. One of them is the national security director. My bets on them. So there's your example.

And I'm 120% in agreement with you. Its doesn't make sense for some mouthpiece that is viewed as a consistent liar and untrusted source of information should be trying to convince the public to do get the shot. The message should be coming at the local level from primary care physicians and other trusted sources at the community level. Not some all powerful entity demanding obedience and compliance to their edicts. That isn't working. And imposing negative consequences for non-compliance is hardly within the realm of "democracy". And if you're vaccinated then you're protected to the maximum extent possible so stop obsessing about what other people choose and choose not to do. And even with people that are hospitalized there are several very good treatment protocols, and others in the process of approval reviews by the FDA, the medical community has developed over the past 1 1/2 years that have resulted in greater survival rates and fewer critical cases. The risk of death in healthy and younger people is close to zero. The stats from the CDC and other sources support this conclusion. If you or someone you know is at a higher risk then you need a personal plan to take the necessary precautions. Stop with all the expectations that civilization must adapt all aspects of life to ensure your personal safety.

What the current crop of social justice liberals fail to see is how Carlson merely talks about the thing the original liberal used to support. Distrust of big government, big corporate control, wall street control, forever wars, an intrenched deep state running the government regardless of the views of the electorate. When these traditional liberals are guests on his show they are mostly in violent agreement. That big oppressive government controlled by corrupt and powerful rich and elite oligarths control the entire system. One of them pointed out this week that if you want to know what drives Pelosi just look to Raytheon and Goldman Sachs. That's who she works for. Just like the guy across the isle. And in the Senate. On both sides. The system sucks. That's what Carlson is pointing out along with the absurdity of most of these social justice activists and causes. They avoid true economic issues and lead to absolutely nothing. A diversion. You want to help the inner city poor? How about diverting $50B from the defense budget for one year. Submit that bill on the House and Senate floor. See who votes yes. And get rid of the people that vote no. There you go! Economic social justice problems solved! Its not that hard if you've got people in charge actually trying to solve the problem instead of pretending to solve it while stuffing their own pockets and the pockets of the wealthy with loot from the Federal treasury.

But the COVID vaccines were not developed to target Delta. And are less effective against it. And Delta might be more infectious but it will likely be less lethal. So a goal of preventing serious illness and death is more realistic than a goal of stopping the spread. That can be done by identifying and protecting those most at risk. Its going to spread regardless of whether people get the current vaccines or not. Unless somebody can rush out a vaccine that targets Delta. I don't know if that's possible. Its going to spread regardless of lockdowns that are not going to be successful as the previous lockdowns didn't do much of anything except cause a lot of economic harm with adverse social impacts like a big increase in suicides, drug and alcohol abuse, and depression. My belief is we're just going to have to ride out this wave and make due. The wave should produce a lower case count, a shorter cycle, and a much lower death rate. And subsequent waves should follow the pattern until it fades over time.

Wasn't Trump acquitted of this in the 2nd impeachment trial? Of course some might use the fact it was a Republican Senate that rendered a not guilty verdict without acknowledging the fact the current House "Committee" is stacked with Democrats that have already expressed their view the former President is complicit. So what's the moral here? Politics and impartial justice are mutually exclusive.

What's your basis for believing a corporate mandate would hold up in court? And wouldn't a mandate generate the circumstances where the employer is assuming some liability for any adverse outcomes if they make it some condition of employment? I wonder as I work for a fairly large health care sector company and while they are encouraging employees to get vaccinated they have declined to mandate vaccination. So if experts are deferring this requirement how can the uninformed and potentially clueless make the decision to require it?

Have you seen any statistics on how many people have "natural" immunity from antibodies produced from previous infection and recovery? They should be added into the vaccinated totals. The goal should be immunity and vaccination is one method to acquire immunity. But so its getting sick and recovering. Its unclear why the CDC and other agencies refuse to count them.

Polling sources indicate black and brown communities have the highest percentage of unvaccinated. So CNN mis-information. But what do you expect from CNN? The entire network is staffed with second-rate political hacks. Shocking right? But here's what got me laughing out loud while reading this thread. So posters here supporting our fledgling Police State think its okay for government agents to kick down somebody's front door, break into their home, wrestle them to the ground, have a couple agents hold them down, while a 3rd one points a gun to their head, and a 4th one injects them with a biological substance that can be best described as experimental gene therapy with no data, statistics, or insights into the long-term safety affects of the substance. Something that might cause no long-term effects or maybe it will like cancer or heart failure or some other condition. Nobody knows for sure. If they say they do they're lying. All that's okay. But its a violation of basic human and Constitutional rights to ask somebody for ID to vote. You're simply aghast and outraged at the premise. That's funny. So maybe a condition of involuntary vaccination should be the government assuming all personal injury liability for any adverse conditions that might result? Or better yet, maybe an active trust funded by all the people advocating and demanding mandatory vaccination personally guaranteeing the safety of people forced into it with their personal assets? That seems fair to me. There are valid medical reasons why some people cannot or should not be vaccinated. Such as high risk health issues or issues physicians might have regarding "medical necessity". Such as people that have antibodies already. And to be clear. This is my view. A view from somebody that got the 2-shot Moderna vaccine. It was my decision. Just like its the decision of others to do or not to do it. So mind your own business.

I spent a lot of time recently listening and reading the views of a lot of liberal thinkers and bloggers. Not the current crop of social justice types but people that hold more conventional and traditional liberal views on issues like economics, opposition to government, and issues of poverty. What I discovered was that although I view my personal positions as more right to center than these "left" thinkers I found myself agreeing with the majority of their conclusions and positions. And as a result I've adjusted my perspective on the way I view and assess the motives and actions of institutions like the media. One of those adjustments is questioning the current left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative disagreements and conflicts over various social issues. As a result of this adjustment in thinking I've concluded the media is just another instrument of distraction. A generator of conflict. Used by the wealthy and powerful 1% elites to draw attention away from themselves and focus the publics attention on other issues. While pitting them against each other in order to divert all attention away from themselves and their actions. The "differences" between the Democrats and Republicans are "fake". An illusion perpetrated against the voters. The Clinton's, Bush's, Biden's, Chaney's, and other political "royalty" are a single entity. They attend the same Ivy League schools, the same social circles, the same life experiences. They are all members of the elite political class. Their policies are 99% the same. Nothing fundamental changes. They're supported by the big corporate sector. Big social media, Wall Street, the defense industry, Drug and Health insurance companies, and others. Companies that push social justice and "diversity" while continuing to exploit workers, make huge profits, destroy communities, and pay the social justice crowd off so they focus on other targets. The unelected elements of government. What some call the "deep state" that is unchanged or uninterrupted regardless of which party or which administration is in charge. Political appointments, career political operatives embedded in the agencies and departments. The intelligence community. All working for the elites. Something I never thought about was the fact that the President and Vice President are the only elected officials in the entire Executive branch of government. State government, slightly different. These forces and others work to distract the public from real issues of economic justice. Like how the rich have become obscenely wealthier while the poor got poorer and the middle class got smaller. They stage conflicts between segments of the working and middle class. So the 1% are free to steal everything and anything not bolted down through the back door. And screw everybody and get away with it without anyone noticing. The public spends more time debating the merits of transgender bathroom rights than it does discussing and debating the merits of a $850B defense budget. How that money is spent, who benefits, what wars we are in or getting into and why. Why we have 600 overseas military bases. Why will have troops in Syria, still bomb places like Somalia, what's our role in Yemen with the Saudi's? Its time to wake up. Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative, everybody. And push back. And demand answers and real changes.

These "buyers" are not paying $250K for a work of art. They are paying $250K for access to the President, political favors, or some quid-pro-quo and likely taking the art and either dumping it in the trash or putting it down in the basement in some out of the way corner. Any other explanation is invalid and this is such an outlandish abuse of the system that I find anyone who would defend it or make excuses complicit and supportive of systemic corruption practiced by the Biden's Its disgusting.

JB projects weakness and frailty which might be the perfect symbol for an empire in decline. His rambling and confusing statements and answers to questions are becoming more frequent. And its impossible for me to accept in any way the belief he is fully executing all the duties of the office and there are no forces or individuals in the background calling the shots here.

It is an important question. Along with a question I posed a couple weeks ago which is given there was no defense in place against "the plot" what actually stopped the "insurrectionists" from taking more serious and damaging actions? What happened is consistent with looters breaking into a store with no cops in sight and just stealing the gum and candy near the register while leaving the flat screens and home entertainment equipment behind. It would appear to make no sense and require some level of explanation.

So I'm watching a short segment on Carlson with professed liberal comedian Jimmy Dore. Found his perspective interesting. His somewhat outside-the-box assessment might be worth a look regardless of your perspectives here. His basic premise is the left used to focus on discussions concerning economic disparities and issues. But now all discussions are centered around identify politics. And the reason for that is the establishment has found a way to co-op the progressive movement including capturing the discussions on identity and race issues, and as a result it has avoiding discussions on economics and left them free to loot and pillage society without any focus on those activities. All these discussions on things like CRT are just smoke and mirror diversions. "You want to help black people then give them free college, a living wage, medicare for all. What did Biden do? Made Juneteenth a holiday and gave government workers another day off". So is this the game here? Simple misdirection? You've got elite billionaires, cultural & social elites, intellectual elites, elite corporate CEO's & BOD's, elite politicians, and I should add the military industrial complex. All beating the drum of racism. All getting rich while the rest of us, black, white, brown, run faster and faster while falling behind. While they redirect the focus away from themselves and on to the average guy in the street. Its not their fault their collective elite class is so well off and everyone else is not. its the fault of all those damn white supremacists, all white people, except them of course while paying off the attack dogs on the left to steer clear of them and find other targets. Pitting the citizens against one another, the identified oppressor and the oppressed fighting against each other over table scraps while leaving them free to do pretty much what they want. Unnoticed and getting away with it. Robbing us all blind while our backs are turned faced off against one another. I think this guy is on to some good insights. I bookmarked his site.

Things like this statement: "And we must be the leader of the free world. If we don’t do it, nobody good is likely to do it or has the capacity to do it. I really mean it. I genuinely mean it. So, it’s the thing, Don, that is the only time — and by the way, the first time I walked down stairs and they played “Hail to the Chief,” I wondered, “Where is he?”

One step at a time my friend. Lets find out why Nancy didn't call the cops in the face of obvious danger from "insurrectionists". It will come out eventually.

That's your best? Come on smarty. Shoot some holes in my theory. I want real feedback.

Are you attempting sarcasm? Here's some facts. Maybe you are familiar with the concept of facts? Or maybe not? Or perhaps the concept of logical thinking. Let me illustrate a lesson in that subject below. Everybody knew there was going to be a big demonstration that day. That's a fact. Everybody knew there was dissatisfaction among the protesters with the election results. That's a fact. Everybody knew there was "talk" of disrupting or stopping the certification of results in the House. That's a fact. And therefore the risk and threat of violence was present. That would seem obvious to anyone paying attention. That's a fact. Everybody knows the the Capitol Police suspecting potential trouble requested the call up of National Guard to deploy at the Capitol. This request was made before and during the protest. 5 times this was requested. That's a fact. Everybody knows the Sargent at Arms who reports to the Speakers office rejected all requests for National Guard troops both before and during the attack. That's a fact. What we don't know is why the requests from the Capitol Police were rejected. And why the Guard wasn't called up in the face of obvious danger. But the House Speaker knows, the person heading the inquiry. Do you think she should provide some explanation? This seems like an important non-decision and it begs an answer. The problem is this is not a question the speaker would like to answer. Rather it appears to be a question the speaker does not want to answer. What are the implication of an honest answer? Now we get into molding these facts to define a theory. So one logical conclusion and theory might be there was a desire to let the violence happen. For one reason or another. We need the above question answered factually to disprove or confirm this theory. But we don't have that answer, yet. We can speculate but we do not know. So the theory is a valid theory that meets the criteria for being a theory. It produces a conclusion supported by facts that needs more facts to prove it true or false. It might be unpopular to many here but again, its also a fact nobody here can disprove it. They can ridicule and reject it or choose not to believe it for some reason. They can do the same to me personally. But none of that will prove it false. As the way to prove or disprove theories is to ask questions, gather facts, and apply those facts to see if they support or don't support the theory. That's why I also conclude 1/6 is equivalent to the Reichstag fire in Germany staged by the Nazi's. it aligns with the type of event, an attack on the seat of government power, the need for pretense followed by similar objectives. 1/6 was allowed to happen to create an excuse. Like the Nazi's used the fire as an excuse to neutralize their biggest political opponent which was the communists in Germany. In the case of 1/6 the Democrats are looking to neutralize their biggest threat which is 75 million Trump voters. So they followed the script created by the Nazi's. And why reinvent the wheel when it works?

How do you know what expertise or experience or knowledge I might have on the subject? You don't. Maybe you prefer to let "experts" do the thinking for you but I know what I see and I know the topic from dealing with it firsthand. You don't need to be a professional neurologist to identify mental confusion any more than you need to be a hematologist to stop a finger cut from bleeding. Biden losses his train of thought on a consistent basis. And losses awareness of his physical surroundings, wandering, walking off. Like losing his focus at press unrehearsed press conferences. This isn't stuttering. This is obvious. And its likely to get worse to the point of him being unable to continue.

Its not stuttering. Its mental confusion. Its a loss of mental capacity. There's a big difference.

False Flags. A CIA overseas specialty also used by FBI and other domestic agencies. Not out of the question it was employed on 1/6. Considering about a dozen operatives that are known to the government but charged or arrested had roles at the Capitol event. And likely the objective of the 1/6 False Flag at the Capitol was devised to be the equivalent of the Reichstag fire in Nazi Germany that provided the justification for consolidating power under the party. Only this time consolidation under the Democrats.

All kidding and jokes aside this is a serious situation that calls for some compassion. Its obvious Joe Biden is suffering from some cognitive and mental impairment issues. Given the age factor I can only assume its of a degenerative nature. If you've had the misfortune of having a family member go through an ailment of this nature you will clearly see the "signs" of the condition in his behavior and actions. The biggest thing I can't understand is how Jill Biden could allow her husband, somebody I assume she loves and cares for, to be subjected to and used by forces inside the party to play front man for their agenda. Because this is not his agenda. These are not his words. They belong to somebody else. A simple cursory review of his political record will provide all the evidence necessary to support that conclusion. Shame on her and shame on them for putting the guy through what I can only expect will conclude with embarrassment and humiliation. And shame on the party leadership for using Biden and subjecting him to the public spotlight when he should be retired enjoying whatever is left of life.

House Democrats on Tuesday blocked a bill which would require the Director of National Intelligence to declassify information related to the US government's investigations into the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic - and in particular, what role the Wuhan Institute of Virology may have played in the outbreak. The bill failed in the House by a vote of 216 - 207. Said House Rep Wenstrup one of the members introducing the bill on the House floor, "The best disinfectant is sunlight and that's what we can provide today." "The bill first establishes that we must identify the precise origins of COVID-19 because it is critical for preventing a similar pandemic in the future." "I cannot stress enough that this bill is not controversial by any means," he continued. "In fact, it passed the Senate in May with unanimous consent — not one senator objected. Not Senators Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, not Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. If those four members can get on board with this bill, should not we be able to do the same?" I guess not. So what's the objection of House leadership? Chinese masters and Dr. Fauci don't like it? Any of the usual Deep State apologists want to whip up some excuse here?