All_Pro_Bills

So you believe free enterprise can't exist without government interference?

I think you're on the right track here. It doesn't make any sense to view a country as the number one threat to your security and then turn around and send them 100's of billions of dollars in trade every year. Maybe the first thing to do rather than some knee jerk spending spree is to make sure you've got some systemic plan in place that lines everything up pointed in the right direction. A problem with the don't buy any Chinese goods approach is the shelves in stores like Walmart would be almost empty. And things like medications and drugs depend on materials and manufacturing sourced from China. But all this didn't happen overnight. It happened over 30 years of corporations and the Chinese government of systematically stripping all the productive capacity out of the US economy and moving it offshore. To places like China. And it didn't happen by accident either. It all happened by design. One big thing to do is get a read from all the S&P 500 companies on where their allegiances are here? Are they with America? Or are they with China? Or most likely they're just in it for the money. Want to start somewhere. Force these firms to pick a side and act to demonstrate that pick. Are they with us or against us?

The vote is proof they understand a Congressional "commission" would be political theater. Plain and simple. The investigation is best handled by the DOJ and DC prosecutors with the court system used to facilitate all legal proceedings. Congress by nature is a partisan body. To suggest the Democrats would not take advantage of such an opportunity to discredit their political opposition is absurd. The idea they're seeking some "truth" is a fantasy. They've demonstrated this through the entire Trump administration and basically proved nothing. If the shoe was on the other foot the Republicans would do the same and the Democrats would be balking at the idea of a commission. A lot of times politics is governed by the saying "where you stand depends on where you sit". This is one of those times. Also to suggest that journalists will do some "investigation" is not likely. Our media doesn't investigate anything. They're provided some established narratives and suggest anyone or anything that disagrees is debunked or conspiracy. They are nothing more than mouthpieces for the State. If Watergate occurred today Woodward and Bernstein would have been shoved out of the newsroom for daring to challenge and investigate the establishment. They have less credibility than Congress. Which is hard to do.

A divorce which may have some cause/effect connection to his relationship with the deceased sex trafficker and Mossad operative Jeffery Epstein. Maybe we find out more with the Maxwell trial unless potentially implicated acquaintances can kill her too.

Recently my organization entered into a contractual arrangement with another firm on a specific project. The project manager of the other firm used to work in my organization. I know them well both professionally and personally. Even though their employment history with our company is fairly common knowledge I was compelled to file a conflict of interest disclosure. This describes the nature of the conflict and the plan to mitigate and address any potential situation where this conflict of interest might exist. That is the major issue with these "reporters" and "commentators". They have a lot of conflicts of interest either disclosed or undisclosed. Like the networks employing commentators like the director of national security, or the CIA, or the NSA, or some other agency. They quite simply cannot be and are not completely objective when the need might arises to be critical of some act committed by some group inside the intelligence community. Which brings me to my main point. Almost nobody in the media does any kind of investigation. When investigating crimes and improprieties it is critical to examine relationships and connections between victims and perpetrators in many aspects. But our current rendition of the free press is given the narrative and they run with it. One of the main tools of investigative journalism is uncovering and finding personal and professional relationships that exist in the area your investigating. That's a logical way to get to all the facts and connections, connect the dots, and uncover the truth. I go back to the Wuhan Lab theory that the official narrative called "debunked". But some facts are that the NIH had contracted the Wuhan Lab to the tune of $3+M to perform some research. Using an intermediary "bag man" company, EcoHealth. This isn't a secret. This I suspect to avoid things like disclosure and freedom of information requests as private contractors are exempt (lots of government organizations use this approach to hide things from disclosure). The NIH owes the public an explanation. So far they have been silent. And independent press would turn up the heat on them to do so. So far the press has acted like their main concern is to see this story go away. Its also not a secret that WHO contracted the very same EcoHealth to assist in performing their investigation of the lab. Guess what they found? So why didn't EcoHealth either decline the WHO contact because of a conflict of interest, investigating an organization and facility where they had a large financial interest and role, or simply clearly disclosing that conflict of interest? Why did WHO hire them knowing this? And why didn't the networks with so many resources and reporters "out" this arrangement? And why did independent investigative journalists that did report on the arrangement get shut down? As you said the media is the DNC. How can we expect people telling us the "news" to be fair and objective when they have so many disclosed and in most cases undisclosed conflicts of interest? These are not run of the mill political party members we might meet and discuss things with over drinks in some local bar. These are high-level activists in a political party with its own interests that clearly conflict with the public interest maintaining a free press. While there are abuses of this in other political philosophies the conflict of interests between the DNC and a free Press is systemic. If you look at dictatorships one of the first and critical things they do is bring all press and media under the control of some ministry or department they control. We're on that path but we can't allow that to happen.

A problem is that in the public sector (government and education) the mechanisms for scientific inquiry, expression of professional opinion, debate over conflicting and inconsistent "facts" and "data", have been disabled and inhibited by political agendas. Social media platforms classifying anything that disagrees with a particular conclusion as "misinformation" or "debunked". MSM media outlets doing the same. Like the recent public awakening of the lab origin theory. The media got it wrong from day one and dug in their heels. This theory has always been plausible. And you can bet your ass the media won't be issuing any apologizes and double bet your ass they won't be saying Trump was right. It may be as simple as they all balked at the theory because Trump suggested the possibility. And it presented another bashing opportunity to label him racist and xenophobic. And they'd rather start themselves on fire in the middle of the street than admit he was right about anything. Or maybe they're all on the CCP payroll in some fashion? Another theory concerning the CDC is the organizational intelligence of the agency has been dumbed down to the point of systemic incompetence by decades of diversity and preference hiring. But a deep-dive on that one might belong on another topic board.

Pretty much it. Pick almost any current topic. In this case all the a-holes were insisting the lab theory was "debunked", when it wasn't, In reality, it was suppressed and fact-based scientific discussions of potential scenarios were ignored and censored. What is clear as day is these social media and main stream media organizations have no interest in the truth. And they fear open and intelligent conversation and debate. But other than suppressing opposing narratives what their end game? And who are the working for? Looks like they're working for China. There needs to be a national intelligence investigation into how and why China yields so much influence with social media and MSM. Is it the money? Or some other allegiance? Perhaps they are the real insurrection? And all else is just distraction?

Guilty? Isn't that for the courts to decide? Did I miss the convictions? Did you run your own personal investigation? And yes, I will ignore your posts from this point forward and thank you for that advice..

The embedded professional bureaucracy inside the government is intent on punishing him and any allies for daring to interrupt their racket.

They make this sound like the 2nd seize of Troy. Hell, it was a Tupperware party compared to the nightly battles for the Portland Federal Court House. But your handlers in the party have advised you to pretend that didn't happen, right?

That appears to be your standard answer when "cornered".

That depends on what you mean by "caused"? Was slavery a contributing factor that lead to the Civil War? Yes. Was it the only factor? No. Was it the biggest factor? No.

I got the Moderna vaccine but I also have concerns. You have to be oblivious to have no concerns given the circumstances. The vaccines were quickly developed, tested, and administered. In record time. While credit is given to the efficiencies, focus, and resources that Operation Warp Speed brought to the table a thinking person might wonder if any corners were cut? Or is this a new approach to the development process that can be a lifesaver in the future? Who knows for sure. Also, the mRNA approach to the vaccine is based on the field of Gene Therapy. An area science still views as "experimental". Its a distinctly new approach to vaccines and in the classical definition of how a vaccine works very different. And while by all accounts they are working well, with a small numer of adverse side effects reported, there's no data or studies on long term affects or implications. The implications can range from absolutely nobody suffers any long term effects or thousands of people start dropping dead of some unknown condition. Lastly, for people that had COVID and recovered there is no need to get vaccinated. The illness and recovery would generate the antibodies in their immune system. This fact seems to be lost in the conversation. The fact its a common and clearly understood process add to the mystery. Nobody asks or answers the question why does anyone that already has antibodies need the vaccine? Its a waste of vaccine supply and a violation of medical principles governing unnecessary treatments. Would they recommend that I get the flu vaccine a couple months after I had the flu? Doubt it. So why is COVID different? Tell me that please. Frankly, nobody has the right to pass judgment on you because you're either curious or concerned enough to ask questions and want answers while insisting the so-called "experts" back up their conclusions with credible and verifiable facts. When they don't do that it leads to all kinds of alternative explanations and confusion.

I approve of Biden's performance to date because the administration is screwing everything up exactly like I figured they would. So my Plan A to survive the biggest social and economic disaster in history is right on schedule. Thank you Joe..

Proponents of CRT like the author of the above statements are unwilling to discuss "facts and statistics" because the facts and statistics can support a number of theories. While it is true that facts and statistics do exist, what supports CRT is a subjective interpretation of those facts and statistics mixed with the opinions of the observer and a casual dismissal of other potential causes that the data and statistics can be used to support. An argument can easily be made to process those facts and statistics to reach a multitude of alternative conclusions that are in conflict with CRT. For example, citing poverty statistics of specific minorities and concluding systemic racism is the root cause of poverty where things like education level and family stability (e.g. 2 incomes better than one) are more likely sources of causes that can explain poverty. What standard or advanced statistical and scientific methods have been used to validate CRT conclusions and dismiss other potential conclusions? Those are conversations they don't want to have with anyone.

Perhaps Chuck should be relaying this message to members of his own party such as AOC and member of "The Squad" who appear to have a different view. Of course he can fall back on the narrative of how the party nurtures a "diversity" of opinion angle if he wishes. While he pontificates to others of course. But it is apparent that with several loud critics of Israel inside the party and the administrations goal to re-enter the nuclear agreement with Iran some realignment of alliances might be necessary. Israel has stated in no uncertain terms that a deal that allows Iran to acquire materials and capability to produce nuclear weapons is unacceptable. Just why the Biden administration, and Obama before him, have an obsession with closing a deal with Iran is unclear. If the nuclear deal is re-entered and it allows Iran to proceed it will prompt Israel to act. To say all hell could break loose is an understatement. But at some point party members that see themselves as both ardent supporters of Israel and the Democratic left may need to may a choice. Its one or the other but it can't be both.

Who cares what these ass-clowns have to say?

Clever. That's not what I'm talking about but you know that. And I rest easy knowing there's one thing you can't tell me. And that one thing is what I say isn't true.

Whatever the story is here still a lot better than far left lesbians wearing flannel shirts and combat boots..

Almost all the charges are for disorderly conduct and trespassing. What the administration and their accomplices in the media want to avoid is looking like the fools they are for whipping up the troops and creating all kinds of buzz around the event. And then see those expectations crash and burn. It will be damage control mode from here forward. My guess is they start to walk back expectations in the next few weeks with some stories put out hinting at lower expectations to their followers while starting to replace the "insurrection" narrative with another theme. My guess is main narrative shifts to how blocking "The Commission" allowed all these traitors to escape justice. Even though everyone from the level of genius to idiot knows its real intent is pure political theater. But intelligence is not a prerequisite for believing all the horse crap the government puts out. All it requires is a lazy mind, a lack of curiosity, and blind obedience to authority. The exact opposite of what makes a real democracy work.

A child's mind and body are not developed enough for them to make this kind of life changing decision. And parents that encourage or facilitate such transformations at a young age are negligent and absent in their responsibilities as parents. For many reasons, including psychological. buyers remorse is extremely high in sex change surgeries. That comes straight from the transgender community and from medical practitioners. Look it up.

One other value I saw was a campaign slogan I saw "Make Crime Illegal Again". I'd say that's a right wing value.

Because unorganized and individual students and citizens are no match for the power and force of the government but its another story if the Governor tries to push around powerful and organized public labor unions?

Imagine the outrage from the very same people that support and organize these events if the headline read "University of New Hampshire hosted special graduation celebration for ‘White Students’ and other ‘non-diverse’ identities." Diversity as currently practiced is divisive and not inclusive. Which defeats the purpose of the whole concept. .

That's about 40% downside. I think most investors would consider something near a 40% drop in their equity portfolio value to be a crash. But don't just focus on equity markets. We need to watch debt markets and currencies too. I mean what would even a 2% rise in interest rates do to the housing and debt markets? What are the consequences of interest payments taking up 1/3 of US Federal budgets? If the dollar suddenly losses purchasing power what implications does that have for a country that imports much of what it consumes?