All_Pro_Bills

I got to tell you. You ruined my day by posting a picture of Satan here. I can only guess this picture was taken right after she was told that Jeffery Epstein was killed in jail and she realized her husband's sexual activities on his private island with under-age girls would not be revealed. But you've failed to address my fundamental argument. And since you can't or won't do that I must conclude you know I'm right.

Good answer. Or attack Federal buildings and property in DNC controlled jurisdictions where crime committed by party members is legal. But whatever side of the issue you're on we all know what's going on here. And if anyone wants to pretend its not about this one thing then go ahead. But let's be honest about it. These round ups of "suspects" related to 1/6 have got nothing to do with "terrorism", or "justice", or a group of unarmed people trying to over-throw the government. Hell, Joe said yesterday you'd need nuclear weapons and F-15's to pull that off. What its all about is the political party in control using the events at the Capitol, whether genuine or manufactured, as pretense for an attempt to use the power of the State to oppress and silence its political opposition. If you don't understand that you're just sleepwalking through life.

She's projecting. And clearly playing defense with that flimsy explanation. And on top of its she's plain ugly..

You spoke the magic word - Merit. Eliminating merit or the system of meritocracy is at the heart of everything the left supports. And everything they oppose. In their minds nothing is earned. Everything is the result of privilege or the lack of privilege. And their most recent fantasy is that its all based on race. Its at the core of some very stupid ideas which boil down to eliminating the assessment of qualifications or ability in deciding anything. Imagine how pro sports or the Olympics would look like if the concept of merit and ability were eliminated. Too many tall NBA players or too many fast track athletes on the national team. That's the world they seek. The liberals dream world is one completely devoted to mediocrity and the pursuit of a lowest common denominator to create an under-performing and dysfunctional society.

A "theory" is generally some conclusion that is supported by a set of observable facts and data but falls short of being accepted as fact. And what we do is gather and analyze more information, facts, objective data and observations, and statistics in order to validate or invalidate the theory. As these facts are gathered they support the theory or suggest other causes or other more plausible theories. I just don't see how critical race theory passes any of these objectives tests. It appears to be a subjective interpretation of history created by the authors while bypassing the scientific method of validation and invalidation. For example, concluding the primary reason behind the Revolutionary War was so the colonies could maintain the system of slavery. Its possible this could have been a factor but there is no evidence to support the conclusion it was the primary factor. It is the author's subjective opinion. The evidence and documentation and data of the period suggests the primary driver was the desire for independence from the Britain and the rule of the King. None of the important documents of the time, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and others emphasize the support of slavery at the expense of other objectives and principles. The preponderance of evidence that points to other factors should invalidate the assumption that slavery was the primary cause. But the originators of this theory ignore the data and cling to their narrative. The core of the theory is that "Race" is the primary driver of all social, political, and economic relationships. Whites share a collective persona and blacks share a collective persona and nothing exists outside of these persons. All white people share an inclusive and exclusive list of traits and that all black people share an inclusive and exclusive list of traits. But we can invalidate this conclusion by looking at demographic data in different aggregations such as income or education levels. A wealthy white person has far less in common with a poor white person than they have with a wealthy black person. And a wealthy black person has far less in common with a poor black person than they have with a wealthy white person. I would argue the prevailing factor determining status and person attributes in a "Capitalist" dominant culture has nothing to do with race and everything to do with income. And I can development an alternative view of culture and classifications using income to explain all the negative consequences faced by the poor. Consequence of being poor which are shared by whites and blacks. Privileges of being wealthy shared by whites and blacks. From statistics and simple observations. Observations the authors of CRT ignore. Observations that better explain how culture works in this country. And that's the flaw in CRT. I could go over each and every one of their key conclusions and provide an alternative explanation for every one of them that is much more plausible based on the examination of facts and data available. And invalidate the entire theory. But ideologists don't want to listen to facts or statistics. They just want to believe. At best the authors of CRT suffer from confirmation bias when analyzing facts and data. At worst they are knowingly perpetrating a fraud for some purpose other than "teaching history". What they are teaching is a flawed subjective interpretation of history and culture. And frankly if the objective is to "teach history" we can view events of the past from the perspective of others without CRT.

And then in 2022 "fight" to restore the filibuster when the Republicans gain control of the Senate.

it would be a lot quick to just throw a grenade in the middle of the group and see who falls on it. There's your winner!

A Bocces and a Mighty Taco would look good down in the business district here too.

Raise you hand if you think any productive individuals or businesses are contemplating expanding or locating inside the city limits of Buffalo this morning?

Please refrain from using binary gender terms. It could trigger a panic attack in progressives as they attempt to dial their crisis councilors.

I guess I hit the bullseye here. And I'm not a pus-sie leftist so I don't have any safe space. The entire concept is childish and just shows how mentally and emotionally weak these progressive really are here. Why anyone is afraid of them is a mystery. They're scared of their own shadow and will cry and curl up at the first sign of stress. But insurrection is insurrection. Right? Destruction of Federal property is destruction of Federal property. Right? Attacking Federal and local law enforcement is still attacking Federal and local law enforcement. Right? I've got no problem with enforcing the law and seeing justice served at all here. But you need to ask yourself why you support conditional application of the law. All over the law and order theme here but ignoring all kinds of violence elsewhere. Maybe its your dumb ass political views? Maybe the fact not a single person has been charged with insurrection should give you a clue. Or is that too difficult to comprehend?

According to the Portland DA planning and carrying out an attack on a Federal building while carrying riots shields, body armor, and helmets along with assorted weapons is not a criminal offense.

You listen to and watch great classic comics like Pryor and Carlin and they simply take apart and attack the establishment. Fast forward to today and guys like Colbert not only don't attack the establishment, they dutifully support it by being critical of people that question it. What goes through their mind during the conversation is this. How dare anyone attempt to apply critical thinking and logic in questioning the official narratives about everything that the government provides to you. No discussion and debate is allowed. The words of our omnipotent overlords shall not be challenged. You will believe what you are told to believe. And if you continue to question the narratives I will be forced to name you the name we dare not speak. I will accuse you of the worst possible transgression, being a "Trump supporter". A disciple of the messenger of Satan. And as such you should be burned at the stake for expression such words. And that's a glimpse into the mind of the insane "Progressive" movement. As for Colbert, I guess it like they say "when a persons livelihood depends on not believing something its impossible to get them to believe it".

Because invoking the battle cry of racism is the quickest and easiest path to shut down any debate. As from that point forward anyone that disagrees is obviously a racist.

Traditional liberal of the 60's questioned and criticized the government and distrusted "the establishment". Today the "liberals" of the 21st century are the establishment and would like nothing more than to outlaw all criticism and opposition to "their" government. The oppressed have become the oppressor.

Rep. Waters, the very person that encouraged supporters to get in peoples faces and get confrontational", is just trying to get in front of the curve by blowing more smoke to counter the developing story that the FBI played a significant role in what is looking like another "false flag" event. Facts are pointing to the use of informants and assets (potentially leadership) inside the liberty movement that were coached and directed by the FBI to initiate and incite violence. This is a well established and common practice of the agency. One term for it is "entrapment". As several persons known to be prominent actors in the event were not indicted while anyone caught jaywalking near the Capitol on 1/6 has been arrested and held without bail in solitary confinement under maximum security logical and critical thinking points to something being amiss. But of course all the usual apologists, dimwits, dullards, and lobotomized progressives will proclaim "nothing to see here" because Google and Facebook say it isn't so. The narrative that will be pushed by their stooges in the press is the Trump campaign is responsible for the planning violence and is trying to deflect blame to other parties. Or so says "anonymous" sources. or perhaps truthfully "imaginary" sources.

First off, Mr. Winslow is a known critic and opponent of the former Trump administration. A Trump hater. So lets understand his motivation. And that motivation is not necessarily the pursuit of the truth. That's a common theme in lots of places including the media. Like CNN which employs a multitude of former FBI officials playing the role of journalist and analyst. Can you guess what they always conclude when the motives and conduct of the FBI are questioned? The questions being asked about FBI involvement in 1/6 have nothing to do with this guy pictured above. Its purely for dramatic effect. The question is what role did the FBI and other law enforcement or intelligence agencies play in the planning and execution of the events that lead to the violence at the Capitol on 1/6? Did informants or assets act on directives from the FBI to riot? To create an incident? To create the pretext for passing "terror" legislation aimed at domestic enemies of the government? We don't know. But what we do know is this tactic has been used by our government before both domestically and internationally. And what we do know is the legal filings appear to admit the government had "assets" embedded in certain groups and at the event. What we don't know yet is what role they played. What we do know is the government has no interest in telling us what role they played. So what are they hiding? And for the media we've pretty much figured out their role. To run interference as a propaganda and information distribution racket in service of the State. And given how many times they've been on the wrong end of the truth when it comes to these "conspiracies" I can't understand why they've got any credibility left to even speak. At this point who can believe anything they say?

Yes, no process is 100% perfect all the time and the mRNA vaccines are around 94% effective in generating the antibodies in the systems of the population getting vaccinated. Which means it didn't work for 6% which remain sustainable to the virus. The risk is not knowing if it worked for you. An antibody test would determine if it worked on any specific person or if they have "natural" immunity or if they have no antibodies and no immunity.

Looks like a high ranking Chinese defector is spilling the beans on COVID and other topics. Which in part could explain the sudden about-face on the lab theory. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9699221/Has-Chinese-official-defected-Rumors-swirl-diplomat-told-DC-Wuhan-lab.html https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2021/06/17/breaking-chinese-defector-confirmed-as-top-counterintelligence-official-n398374

Anyone along the political spectrum that thinks conflict or war with Russia, or for that matter China or any other country, is some desirable and positive event is more or less insane and shouldn't be in any decision making capacity much less be listened to for their views. For starters the majority of these "hawks" never saw combat and if you speak to combat veterans you'll find the majority view war as a last result based on their personal experiences. I'd like to ask these war advocates how many "boots on the ground" their families are offering up for the cause? They always seem to ask others to do the dirty work of the actual fighting and dying. My view is any time you can de-escalate the risks of a potential lose/lose scenario conflict its a good thing. And even though I'm no fan of the Biden administration he appeared to do that much to the surprise and disappointment of the war-monger sect.

From what I've seen the Biden/Putin meeting was constructive and productive. Which is a good thing when staring down 100's of nuclear ICBM's and contending interests. But is would seem the MSM is disappointed the encounter was not the contentious and hostile interaction they and all the Russia-phobes were demanding. Rather than one as described by the participants as having been constructive and civil.

Well there are really two separate issues going on. The first is the "need" to lower greenhouse gas emissions to manage global temperature changes. The second is the "need" to replace hydrocarbon based energy sources when the cheap and easy to find oil supply starts to run out. The solution to replace oil and gas with electricity is a convenient and handy answer to both questions. But that leads to another issue which is the objective of electrifying all applications of hydrocarbon produced energy in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining the currently living arrangements, growth trajectories, and continuous increases in energy consumption required to support that growth (not even to mention advances in developing nations) is a pipe dream and a dead end. There is no way this is going to happen through the deployment of solar panels and wind turbines. The resources necessary don't exist on the planet or reside in countries or regions where there is resistance to developing them. The capital expenditures will exceed current estimates by many multiples. And our society and population are not at all equipped or ready to handle the radical changes to lifestyles and living conditions that will result. And counting on some yet to be developed technological breakthrough in energy production isn't much of a strategy either. The oil age provided a one-time bump in growth through a very efficient and cost effective means of producing large amounts energy and driving growth and progress but once its gone the human race will revert to trend unless something is found that produces more energy more efficiently and at less cost. Wind and solar and other renewables at current efficiencies at current cost just won't cut it. We need to stop fooling ourselves and work to find an effective long term solution.

The problem is they won't stop. Because to true believers of CRT its not a theory or "teaching tool" its an ideology, a belief system. And ideologists or people of faith are not driven or moved by logic and facts. Debating with believers that racism is not the core and primary driver of American culture is like arguing with Christian Fundamentalist that God does not exist. Debating with them that we do not live in 1860 but rather 2021 is futile. Trying to convince them that White people don't sit around all day in groups thinking of ways to discriminate against Black people is useless. Whatever the issue or cause, Its just simply impossible to reason with ideologists and fanatics. But their ultimate goal is not to bring an awareness of history or eliminate racism but rather to replace and eliminate the core cultural beliefs and values of America with something that aligns with this ideology. To impose the values of a specific sub-culture on the dominant culture. Through coercion and if necessary through force. This isn't about racism its about power. Transferring power and control of society to them and people that hold similar views. Its about using the concept of racism as leverage to gain power. Its deception at its best. How stupid and weak are people that either buy into this or remain silent against their best interests? Either compromise your values and or fight them. For me, I don't see anything there I particularly care about going along with so the choice is pretty clear.

Is what's happening climate change or climate cycles? After all the Earth was a lot warmer and lot colder at various times in many cycles for billions of years. Without any humans around. 715 million years ago the entire Earth was covered by ice. About 100 million years ago the Mid-West US was an inland sea. Then cooler, then warmer, then cooler. The last ice age ended about 12,500 years ago. CO2 concentration is now a bit over .04% of the atmosphere. What about the other 99.96%? Does that have any impact? Seems not as CO2 is all that matters. And what about water and air pollution? Misuse and mismanagement of land? Respect for the habitat of other species? The alarming extinction rate of animals on the planet? Destruction of coral reefs and the pollution of the oceans? Over-fishing of the oceans? All kinds of stuff that "environmentalists" appear to have forgotten about while chasing big grants and paychecks for "green" energy. But that's what happens when political ideologists take over the cause.

OK, the story I saw indicated about 50% of CDC staff had been vaccinated. But "assumed" the remainder either refused or had reservations. Assumed. So most likely less.