All_Pro_Bills

You're just speculating on what might or might not be sealed. So it might be prudent to not call it something that the available facts don't support and take a wait and see approach. That said, if somebody was actually charged with insurrection or treason that would be broadcast 24/7? Or leaked? Sealed or no sealed when it benefits to reveal something or if it might be damaging to the defense's case there's no hesitation. What baffles me is how anyone can perceive the government at this point as some bastion of ethics and virtue. You guys must be on some heavy hallucinogenics to buy into that view. Or have a vested interest in big government like being on the payroll. Or getting lots of free government support or grants or funding for something or another. And per the insurrection narrative. My conclusion to this point based on the available evidence is there was violence committed on that day but the characterization of it as insurrection is an exaggeration of the risks posed by the threat and circumstances of the event. And I'm willing to adjust that conclusion when and if more and better information becomes available. I think that's a reasonable approach. But in any event you still cannot name any insurrectionist charges regardless of what excuse you might want to use. So your assessment that its insurrection is just not supported by the facts you have available so why do you continue to insist that is what it was here? Presumption of innocence here rather than guilt by accusation. So let's come back to this when we get a read out all the charges, trial, and convictions or acquittals.

Consider Nancy's goal has nothing to do with getting down to the truth. Consider the goal is simply to confirm their already pronounced views. This was biggest threat to democracy since the civil war. And as a result the committee's findings will require the submission of some draconian legislation to prevent it from occurring again. To identify extremism and criminalize certain activities now protected under law. In some way characterizing political descent as extremism. Criminalizing political descent. That's the goal. For the love of God isn't that obvious to everyone already? How much clear can it be made? Entertaining any counter-arguments or contention to that narrative and the eventual conclusion might just be a headache to be avoided. Why bother as they're not going to listen to or consider any of it so what's the point other than for theater?

Now you're changing the subject again. But okay. But we need to establish some facts first. How many of the suspects have been charged with insurrection? Give me a number. And then we can discuss the validity of calling the events of 1/6 that term. So if you please, post the names of those defendents here.

Your responses only reinforce my argument and confirm my conclusions. You just can't help yourself from making continuous comments about the event to deflect from the argument that regardless of the event the process here is a farce. And listening to and reading the comments from the committee members you are in alignment with their statements to date too. So what's the point of this charade? What's the point? So they can say we checked of the official line item on the scoresheet? Do you really believe after assembling and reviewing all the "evidence" they're going to determine it wasn't "the biggest threat to democracy since the civil war" after all? And that their initial conclusions were wrong? Do you really think they're going to allow any counter-arguments or questioning outside the pre-determined outcome and narrative of the event? Or consider anything thinking or logic "outside the box" they've already built? You really think that? If you really think that I would either question your judgment or conclude you cannot be objective and honest about what this is all about. Its all BS. Like the late-great George Carlin used to say. And absent BS the entire political process would disintegrate. He was spot on..

Now I think you're attempting to use satire or humor here. "Participating in an honest investigation into what happened that day." Really? You're kidding me, right? That's what you believe the objective is here? You should know by now that honesty and politics are mutually exclusive concepts. Members selected for the committee are required to answer "yes" to the following questions. Are you a Democrat or a Republican? Do you believe the actions of 1/6 constitute the greatest threat to our democracy since the Civil War? Will you let your political views prejudice your ability to objectively view and judge the actions and events that lead up to and occurred on 1/6? The outcome is already determined. The report is already drafted. And regardless of anyone's preconceived notions or conclusions or political and social views I find it impossible that anyone with a shred a common sense can't see that too. You know that just as much as I do. Anyone that's paying attention here and says they believe this is going to be fair and impartial is a liar. Plain and simple. I'm calling them out. Posters can question or criticize my specific views on the topic or other topics. Go ahead if that flimsy rebuttal is all anyone's got. But my views are inconsequential to the actions and motivations of the committee and you cannot possibly deny the certainty of a "guilty" outcome. And what I hate more than almost anything is dishonesty. And this committee process is fundamentally dishonest. There's a 100% probability they'll find everything they've already stated previously to be correct. If there was a absolute certain bet I could make that I have 100% certainty of winning I'd put my life savings on this outcome. No way they conclude anything else. The deck is stacked, the dice are fixed. This is purely a show trial to give the pre-determined outcome and suggested changes to policy and law the stamp of legitimacy it lacks without going through the motions. Is the term Kangaroo Court?

With the stipulation that only members and supporters of the Titans are allowed to serve on the committee.

If you need a ventilator you have serious breathing issues and likely cannot speak. Unfortunately, I've been a recent visitor to ICU a couple times and have observed this firsthand with a lot of conversations and interaction with doctors and nurses. These patients generally don't do a lot of talking. Or much of anything else for that matter. The problem is you can trot out any spokesperson you want and throw out all these fear and alarm messages targeting the unvaccinated. But there is just no credibility with a lot of people no matter who speaks it. See my 1,000 word "straight talk to the government" speech on page 1445 for more on credibility..

Is this medical satire?

its not really anti-vaxers that's the problem. The problem is the government itself. If the government was a single person it would be easier to explain and resolve. And if the government was a person I might say something like the following to explain the hesitancy some have: "Listen, the fact is you have no credibility with a lot of people. Your story is riddled with a lot of inconsistencies and contradictions. And you change it using the excuse of following some science but when people look at your pronouncements and changes to your story a lot of them don't appear to follow that science. You worry about mis-information and you attempt to stop it. But a lot of people you say are spreading mis-information are experts that just disagree with your conclusions and policies. Like the researcher that identified and developed the mRNA processes some of the vaccines are based on. And his posts and comments get blocked. Or laughing at and blocking talk about the Lab origin story for over a year and then all of a sudden it becomes credible. That looks bad. That looks like you are hiding something or trying to avoid some conversations about your program and goals. And lets face it, you're the biggest source of mis-information in the entire world. You might not agree with or like that assessment but that's how people see you. Somebody that's full of crap trying to stop others from calling you out. Your minions say the vaccines are "safe" but what does that really mean? If I look at the numbers more people that have died or had serious and reported adverse side effects from these COVID vaccines its way more than what has been reported for all other vaccines combined over the past 35 years. That doesn't sound safe. And we have absolutely no idea what negative long term consequences might arise from the vaccines. So just say that. There's likely some subgroup of the population that its dangerous to but you still push this one size fits all lets gets everyone the shot. This makes it look like you are ignoring facts, ignoring science when you claim to follow it. This makes you look like somebody that can't be trusted. You continue to ignore a big part of the population that got sick, recovered, and generated antibody resistance to COVID naturally. But you keep insisting they get vaccinated too. Which violates a lot of medical concepts and logic like the concept of "medical necessity". Avoid or reject the risks of unnecessary procedures. Also, children shouldn't be vaccinated if they have zero risk of adverse impacts. And suggesting they should get a shot simply to protect other people is ridiculous. The idea of vaccination is to protect yourself. At least it used to be before COVID. The rules here should be consistent with what the rules are for all other viruses and if they aren't you need to explain rationally why they are not consistent. Which you won't do. In summary, you think you are above being questioned or challenged, you think your authority is absolute. But it is not. You need to stop lying about everything and tell the truth. Then people might get on board with the goals here and they might see you again as somebody with credibility. Somebody that's a leader. somebody they can trust"

I'll admit it. I'm cynical when it comes to people that are always trying to "help" other people. In general I think everyone acts out of their own self-interest. So if somebody I don't know wants to help me I usually start thinking about what's in it for them? I think that's how all this activism stuff works. What it comes down to is "its all about the money!" I've concluded all these professional activists are a subset of liberal arts graduates that clearly understand they can't make a comfortable living wage doing anything productive in the private sector. So rather than live a subsistence level lifestyle they turn to professional activism as a career that will pay a decent wage through government grants and programs, and funds voluntarily or involuntarily "donated" from private sources. This could just as easily apply to the political class too. They're always on the look out for people to "help" or a cause to take on. Causes are the lifeblood of the activist industry. But the key is well-funded causes. Moving from cause to cause as the funds to support one cause or another dry up and become available elsewhere. Now the top career move is fighting systemic racism. These are people media stooges interview on TV at protests to tell the stories of oppression. Disguising it as if they're interviewing some average person in the target community when in reality they're talking to some professional out-of-town activist that flies in for the event. And the flies out after the protest to go elsewhere to another protest or back home. All expenses paid. Its the same couple hundred activists everywhere. Watch and learn. When the money runs out for the cause of the day they'll be on their merry way to another fully funded problem. The fact the target audience may not want help or doesn't buy their narrative is not important.

I suggest you might want to define the means which this policy would be enforced as the government could be faced with an enforcement issue. What if 50 or 60 million people refuse to comply? What if 30 or 40 percent of the population tells you to go pound it? Are you going to go door to door with Federal agents, hold people down, and inject them with two doses of the vaccine? What if these agents are greeted at the door with a hail of bullets? Pretty soon you run our of living and breathing agents that want to stay that way. And if the vaccines prove to be ineffective against this variant while vaccinated people get sick you're going to have a bigger issue. These people running the show and calling the shots here hold no absolute power and can be removed through the voting booth or other means given the proper circumstances.

There's a couple concepts here: If the vaccine works then an infected person should not be able to infect you. if anyone is worried the vaccine won't protect them from the Delta variant that's a different problem. I don't remember anyone ever worrying about somebody having the flu infecting them when they got the flu shot. Or that even being mentioned. So what's so different about COVID? People with the same conditions that died of COVID also die from the flu every year. Everyone does not need to be vaccinated to reach some level of herd immunity. if you were previously infected and recover you have antibodies that grant immunity. This is what the vaccine does without the illness part. So count people with immunity not just vaccinated only. For some reason this large slice of the population is treated as if it doesn't exist. And vaccinating people that are already immune just to check off the box on somebody's clip board is a waste of resources and violates the concept of "medical necessity". If you are low risk of getting seriously sick or dying you do not need to be vaccinated. And this decision should be made by the person, family, and their doctor. Not the government's one size fits all approach to managing risk. Everyone's risk is not the same yet policy treats everyone the same. This is not sensible. This also violates the concept of "medical necessity". Almost all children under 12 fall into this category. The long term safety and side effect risks of the mRNA vaccines is unknown. This is part of the area of Gene Therapy. Its pretty much at the Wright Brothers level of development if you compare it to the aviation industry. Even the scientist that identified and perfected the mRNA technology suggested caution (although he was blocked from social media for spreading "misinformation". The guy who invented the stuff! Makes sense). I got the vaccine but I certainly don't believe all the "information" disseminated" by the various government bureaucrats. Keep your head up and don't limit your sources of information on the topic to the "official" story tellers. Most importantly if you think the government has the right to force people to get vaccinated do you think there are any limits on what the government can force you to do? What about other vaccines? What about other medical procedures? If the government can force you to do anything from a medical perspective perhaps they can decide to kill terminally ill patients upon diagnosis. No treatment or hospice. Just a trip to the back of the building for a brief ceremony and then a blindfold and firing squad. You might say that's absurd and it would never happen and its likely it won't but give them an inch and they take a mile is a fitting concept when dealing with a government that might see no limits to its power and nobody with the ability to stop them.

Watching the network news is now consistent with watching the Simpsons new segments. The networks must be partaking in the comedic art of satire because their interpretation of events and their opinions are so ridiculous and absurd that anyone viewing the broadcast with a connection to reality has to come to a conclusion they are either making up crap or making fun of everything.

The usual suspects across the country are starting to wind up the panic machine. But as viruses mutate they generally become more infectious but less lethal. So I would expect the hospitalization, ICU, and death counts to be proportionally lower than the previous waves. The vaccines are expected to provide at least some level of protection which could make any infections of vaccinated people even less severe. People at general risk are the same as before. Elderly and people with health issues like overweight, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, respiratory diseases. Personally, I'm against vaccinating children under 12 as they have close to zero risk of serious illness and even less risk of death. Vaccinating them violates the concept of "medical necessity".

It needs to be clear how the FBI operates when they "break up plots of violent extremism". Simply, through their involvement they manufacture the plots they break up. The absence of the FBI in these situations would result in no plot and nothing to break up. No big headlines about the effectiveness and professionalism of the FBI and no big extremist threats for the government to use to support their agenda. Its like the window replacement guy that goes around town at 2 AM throwing bricks through storefront windows. And the next day he comes in to fix it all. In this case the FBI informants and operatives planted the idea of kidnapping the Governor within the group, helped develop that plan, and then arrested them all for the plot the FBI created. More BS but at this point BS is all our dysfunctional government produces.

I saw news the the first person was sentenced in the 1/6 fiasco. A man named Paul Hodgkins, who was not charged with property destruction or assault - yet according to prosecutors "contributed to the collective threat to democracy". He was sentenced to 8 months in jail. Prosecutors had sought 18 months. We get a constant chorus of advocates shouting the narrative they love to throw around, the buzz-term "threat to democracy". Insurrection they say! However, no charge of this here. I find irony here. For when the time comes, and it will, for an actual threat to our democracy and the Republic to present itself from some foreign entity such as Russia or China, or someone else the "insurrectionist" will be the first in line to serve and defend our nation. The political ideologist demanding blood here most likely will not. They most likely will be cowering in fear in their basements totally dependent for their safety and the preservation of their precious democracy on the very same people along with their brothers and sisters in arms that they despise. Admit it, that's irony!

Right or wrong Cops are taught to observe for specific types of "suspicious" behavior and activity. From the cops mind set you look like "you don't belong here" and that creates suspicion". My buddy Stan, who is black, was leaving the office late a few years ago and got pulled over about 1/2 mile down the road after exiting the office parking lot. Our office is located in an area with multi-million dollar homes owned by very well compensated members of the corporate executive class. If you go out at lunchtime into the shopping areas, especially in the Summer, you can observe the corporate wives going in and out of the stores and workout places coming and going in their Escalades, Range Rovers, and other hi-end SUV's. Though I must say in my encounters with them I found them to be quite pleasant people and not what I expected based on expected stereotypes. But back to the main theme. So a black man driving around late on a week night in an exclusive mostly-white community where the cops haven't fired a weapon in active service since the War of 1812? Cops think "you don't belong here". There you have it. They asked a bunch of questions, where satisfied with the answers, and let him go. I got pulled over in Buffalo many years ago for "no reason". Visiting friends for a couple days. Driving a car with out-of-state plates at 2 AM in the morning on a week night. Cops think "you don't belong here". They asked a bunch of questions, where satisfied, and let me go. In my youth I made a trip to Toronto to connect with a friend that moved up to Canada, to Oakville I recall, got us all tickets to a concert. The next day after partying most of the night we went out into the downtown area, Yonge Street, and did some walking around before we left to cross back to the U.S. Everyone else I'm with goes into some store and I wait outside wanting some cool air. Looking all hung over and a little messy two Toronto cops approach me and start asking questions. What's you're name, you have ID, what are you doing here. Because the cops think "you don't belong here". I answer their questions, they are satisfied with the answer, and the continue their patrol, and I leave. Somebody I worked with on a job years ago used to work for US Customs at the border. There are three of us talking with him. He says if he was working Customs and didn't know us he would question us because of our appearance. "Your black, you have a scraggly beard, and you have long hair" and "all three of you are young men" we are told.

Yes, I've been through diversity and cultural workshops in a few different jobs and I found them to be non-confrontation and generally constructive. And a nice departure from the duties of the job for a couple days! The audience is typically a group of 20 to 25 business and technical employees representing a diverse demographic across age, race, gender, etc, from many organizations. In the most recent cultural workshop an activity was a structured 5 minute "getting to know you" session where everyone was asked to describe their background, life experiences, and positive influences on their lives to date. An insight I found most interesting was that although the group was "diverse" by the standards of demographics and grouping the stories everyone told had more in common than not. Which I think is a significant point. People might look different but fundamentally they all really quite similar. Which reinforces my view that most social issues and problems are driven by class, education, and income disparities than other factors.

I think we can agree on many things. And if people are violating the laws and principals of fair and equal treatment they need to be dealt with and suffer the consequences. And the system should not protect them. And not a single one of us should tolerate them or support that behavior. I'm all for elimination of institutional and legal forms of discrimination. And any biases those systems might generate. But where do you draw the line between legal protections of fair and equal treatment, proper and uniform (or color blind) enforcement of those protections, and the imposition of a mechanism for forcing private citizens into a belief system against their will? Such as a black man who dislikes white people or a white man that dislikes black people. Is it any business of "The State" that they "feel" that way if their beliefs do not result in any harm to either party? Harm as defined by conforming or not conforming to the above mentioned legal protections. Is it the role of government, through either schools or other institutions, or private corporations to indoctrinate its citizens and employees into some subjective social belief system like CRT and impose consequences for non-compliance? Don't these actions violate the very principles and freedoms our system provides. Is it moral and ethical to force people that do no real harm to each other to like each other? Or at the very least pretend to like each other?

Perhaps you've missed my point. While racism exists to some degree I'm convinced the left (and perhaps the right) has no desire to resolve those circumstances. This movement carries the banner of a self-serving agenda. Driven by intellectuals and aristocrats. Not by people in communities living the experience. Successful crusades result in no need for crusaders. In this case resolving and addressing issues of racism would result in the elimination of these social movements. Also, we've had close to 60 years of programs and policies yet the consensus on the left is that things in 2021 are worse then ever. It might as well be 1860 based on their view. How is that possible? Are you suggesting this is true? That no progress in race relations or tolerance and fair treatment of others has been made since the Civil War? Confronted by facts that assessment is delusional. Yet it drives all our social discussions. All I want is an open and honest discussion of the current realities not discussions and false remedies based on the political delusions of the left. Nothing more nothing less. Not some pursuit of remedies based on a fantasy world that doesn't exist. Its simply not possible to define proper solutions without aligning with reality and reality is something the radical left which is allowed to drive the social agenda refuses to engage with when it comes to the current status of race relations.

Or the left does understand all of this and their agenda is just a big con to use race issues to gain power, influence, and control of society and all social and political narratives. You suggest they are unaware or stupid. I suggest they might just be sneaky and devious. Once we realize they are all full of crap and know they are full of crap but push their crap for their own purposes we can understand the "rules of engagement" here. Its hard to beat a cheater in a "fair" fight if you insist on playing fair. That means stop trying to understand and compromise with them and start playing the game by the same rules. The key problems conservatives face when battling the left and things like CRT is they don't have a clearly articulated vision or agenda defining what they stand for and support along with most of them lacking guts to get down in the dirt and fight. The left doesn't want to compromise and reach consensus. So stop engaging the left like you're going to do that. The left want obedience to and compliance of their agenda. Otherwise, I like your animal comparisons. I have a lot of wild life around my home and I see squirrels tussle with other squirrels, deer tangle with other deer, even rabbits fight each other which is sometimes comical to see. And other wild life. But they do it without intent to kill. I think one of the only species that kill one another are primates. A branch of which humans are descended from. That might tell us something important too.

And all Constitutional rights protecting freedom of speech are suspended. So comply and please surrender all your guns next. Do not attempt any original thinking or critical thinking. These are dangerous and subversive concepts for the people. Any attempt at forming your own views, views that have not been approved by the high council are deemed illegal. And punishable. Please report any friends, co-workers, or family you think are attempting individual thought to the proper authorities. We will ensure they are re-trained and indoctrinated properly in the new ways. This is all done in order to protect our democracy. Please pay no attention to any other concepts like individual freedom and liberty. Pay no attention to our real motives. We are also censoring all history and stories about how dictatorships arise and gain control for the obvious reason that we are following the dictatorship 101 playbook. Thank you for your obedience. But unfortunately it will not be rewarded in any way. We will mobilize all the resources of society and use them for our own purpose and leave you with nothing.

I don't think Trump will run again or even be relevant in 2024 but the Democrats can't allow a group of small ultra-left fringe elements inside the party control the entire national agenda. Because if that continues I suggest this union of 50 States will not hold together for much longer.

I think a lot of posters such as yourself understand the point I was attempting to make. But some do not and they go to the usual place with the argument. Which disappoints me. But my insight applies to almost everything we hear coming out of the government or the media today. My point is not to express concerns about who won or who lost the election. Nor to it to express my viewpoints on whether or not the election was fair. Or is it about being a supporter or detractor of Trump. Or to judge the claims on threats to democracy. My point is to call out BS when I see BS. And my alarm at how easy people accept statements of political and media actors that are unprovable and unsupported by any solid evidence. Transforming subjective opinion to truth and fact without the necessary facts or truth to back it up. And there are a lot of ridiculous statements and assertions made by a lot of politicians and people in the media that is plain BS. Statements like this was "the most secure election in history". There is simply no way anyone can prove this to be true or false given 200+ years of history, the number of Presidential elections, and the information available to verify this claim. As I said earlier in order to lie you first need to know the truth. Nobody can possibly know the truth about such a statement or create a forensic evidence trail to back it up. Its a belief, pure and simple. And perhaps an uninformed belief too. Ultimately the problem is we are in short supply of critical thinking across the entire social and political spectrum and that shortage allows these idiots to express these outlandish views and statements. And go their merry way unchallenged. Personally, over time, I have developed a quite cynical attitude toward the government and the media. My base assumption is they lie about whatever they have to and make crap up to support everything else when the need arises. Good or bad it a view defined by observation of their behavior. And like somebody from Missouri I will ask "show me".

The theme of my argument has nothing to do with who won or who lost. So you tell me what backs up the big talk about "the most secure election"? Lack the courage this morning to actually comment to my post? What I'm looking forward to is watching you and a few other characters squirm and contort reality when faced with the facts what you believe is a lie. What will you do then? Deny, right?