All_Pro_Bills

The question should be do you believe human activity is primarily responsible for climate change? (Taking the quote from Joe's post): "The ocean temperatures off the coast of Baja California are much warmer than usual right now," Swain says. "As much as 3 to 6 Fahrenheit — that's a pretty significant increment of additional hurricane fuel." The part that's provable is hurricanes use warm ocean temperatures to gain strength. Observations and measurements support that. The problem is the other part of that assessment, warmer than usual, is made using ocean temperature readings of around 100 years or maybe a lot less. How do you know what the average ocean temperature, or in the example, warmer than usual, has been over a more extended course of time, say 100,000 years or a 100 million years? Is it higher, lower, the same? Maybe relatively speaking current ocean temperatures are lower than that average, or maybe higher? Nobody has any clue for certain what "normal" climate conditions have been over the course of geological time. These climatologists might be right about things or they might just be pissing into the wind with their eyes closed.

Words, music, and typing by Karine Jean-Pierre

Now, now, AG Merrick Garland will not stand by while malcontents smear the good name of our men and women in Federal law enforcement dedicated to public service and upholding the law. Unfortunately, for those dedicated agents, Wray and Garland will discipline, re-assign, or fire them if they attempt to investigate and pursue any cases against protected politicians slithering around Washington DC.

Does anyone actually believe everyone's income should be equal? How would such a society function?

The jury's still out on whether the imbeciles are on the side believing its human caused climate change or the side concluding we're experiencing the natural cycle of temperature variation cycles the Earth has gone through for billions of years.

Biden again shoots himself in the foot, this time in traditional blue state. How much clearer can it be his mind is spent? Two weeks late is one problem. How are the Obams people running the WH allowing him to speak without a prepared and sanitized script. How could they let an opportunity to cite climate change and blaming the fire on Trump for some obscure regulatory change they'd claim altered the Earth's orbit which then led to the fire?

Q meets in a secret underground lair built in a hollowed out volcano and has a space laser at a moon base which they plan on using to attack liberal cities.

Citing the New York Times as a source of truth is an automatic 10 point deduction on a standard IQ test.

Yes, all those ungrateful people that lost family and friends along with their homes and personal possessions should just shut up and consider themselves lucky to still be alive and thank all their irresponsible public officials so the Russians and Chinese don't get the jump on the folks in Washington.

Its likely that Russia isn't going to be dislodged from their positions inside Ukraine short of NATO countries sending in combat troops to push them out. Few are advocating for that and certainly nobody in a decision making capacity at this time. That's not "appeasement", that's a realistic assessment of the situation. We can debate when it started, who started what, and who did what, but that's not going to change the facts and conditions on the ground as of today. If we want to say Putin is 100% to blame it doesn't change the current dilemma faced by the Ukrainian forces. Its about as important at this point as arguing 1st class dinner table etiquette on the deck of the Titanic as the ship's about to go under. I know there's clamoring for providing F-16's ASAP but apparently it takes an extended period of training to come up to speed on the aircraft. Maybe the people expecting them to be flying sorties already watched Independence Day a few times and saw how an alcoholic crop dusting single prop pilot came up to speed on an advanced fighter jet (I think they might have been mostly F-15's and some F-16's) in a couple hours of classroom instruction and are wondering why its taking so long?

While the FBI infiltrates various groups in undercover capacities for legitimate reasons, its rare they actually allow serious crimes like murder or kidnapping to be carried out. Like a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan. They didn't let them kidnap her and then bust the perps. They busted them prior to the scheduled kidnapping attempt. So I think its perfectly reasonable to ask why they would let the J6 "plan" execute when the risk to the Capitol were obvious and clearly the potential for violence was high? Especially if they had enough solid and compelling evidence for arrest and indictment. Maybe they should be compelled to answer that question? Otherwise, an idea that is floating around out there that they let it happen on purpose to create an incident that could be exploited for political purposes has some life.

Two black hats.

Feel free to use it!

I expect almost every single liberal sees burning or removing a Trump political sign from public or private property whenever them come across one is the appropriate action. In their minds you might as well be flying the flag of the Third Reich in front of your home. As Trump is the ultimate evil, there are no legal, moral, or ethical boundaries in place governing what actions can be taken. Plus they've extended this "no holds barred" attitude to anyone they understand or suspect of being a MAGA member or collaborator. Fascism and the threat it poses to democracy must be stopped at all costs. What escapes these simple minded idiots is they're employing the very fascist and undemocratic tactics and actions they claim the other guy will initiate if he takes office. They've already destroyed the democracy they fear will be destroyed by the evil they're dedicated to stopping. But they're lack of self-awareness will never allow them to admit that.

You have a simplistic "white hat" vs. "black hat" view of how the world works which inhibits your ability to see there are no "good guys". The only truth that exists is "perspective".

Well, the Democrats are obsessed with doing whatever it takes to defeat and eliminate Trump. Whatever, it takes. Full blown TDS. And in the remote chance Trump somehow secures the party nomination for Presidency and wins the general election what are the Democrats going to do? Are they going to graciously concede the election, wish the new administration well, embrace a new era of cooperation, and declare the election was free and fair? Absolutely no f'ing way. As Trump is evil personified to them, the liberals see no legal, moral, or ethical boundaries or limits or standards of any kind of behavior that should stand in their way to do whatever must be done to defeat their archenemy. For them its Thunderdome. No rules, two men enter, one man leaves. That's what so stupid about most conservatives. They foolishly play the game against an opponent that ignores the rules and sees or respects no rules.

I wonder if Trump would have quietly and slowly just slipped into obscurity over time if the Democrats weren't intent on seeking revenge for 2016 with these indictments that in the process turned Trump into a martyr figure?

Still Democrats refuse to acknowledge this is curiously suspicious and a clear act to disguise one's identity for purpose. So, if one of the libs discovered a spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, or significant other was using a secret alias e-mail account they'd conclude "nothing to see here"?

Nobody is prohibited from seeing a doctor. But there are rules at the Federal and State level defining and governing how reimbursements to providers are handled. I don't know what the rules are in every state but here in New Jersey if your income is below a certain level the cost of Medicaid coverage can be zero. Or at a minmum subsidized by the program. I expect the rules governing the plan in other States are similar. Medicare is not free. Medicare Part A pays 80% of hospitalization costs. Medicare Part B covers doctor's visits and other services. A deduction for coverage is generally made from the recipient's social security check for Part B. Medicare Part C, Medicare Advantage, is typically provided at cost to the member from commercial carriers such as Humana, for costs not covered by the governments Part A and B plans. It could also cover prescription drug costs and is known as Medicare Part D. There are also State level plans that cover drug costs for seniors. Residents under 65 can check out Medicaid for assistance programs.

There are government agencies with the mission of controlling and managing narratives, news, and public opinion through cooperative or coerced relationships with social and mainstream media outlets. Along with this a legion of former government figures and officials embedded at networks like CNN, MSNBC,and FOX spreading the government's message in roles as commentators and "experts". A cursory attempt to examine the twitter files involving Twitter and Facebook interaction with many government entities will yield a clear view of how much of this operates.

The stated strategic objective is to "do whatever it takes" to support democracy. Now that we've read the required public service announcement. Does it need to be anything more than a target of opportunity chance to mess with Russia and disrupt their objective to spread their influence in Europe, ME, Asia, and Africa? It's just not a real good plan from the folks in Washington from an execution perspective.

I've heard this sentiment from many and I don't think the Republican as a group have the answers but exactly what has this administration accomplished to better America? What's the case for another 4 years?

Your evasive. Tell me what it does require? If it doesn't require a conviction what does it require? An accusation? Like a witch hunt? Punishment without guilt beyond a reasonable doubt along with a presumption of innocence is the foundation of the legal system. So one more time. What's required to invoke 14a on a citizen? Please, no more of your hoax horse crap.

Here's the finger. Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Engaging in an insurrection or a rebellion is a prerequisite for disqualification from office. But nobody engaged in an insurrection or a rebellion. There was no such event. No person was charged. No person was convicted. A committee report doesn't correspond to law. And lots of people throwing around the word insurrection just means they're entitled to their opinion. But that's all it is, an opinion. And opinions are not the basis of invoking constitutional amendments. So the section is not applicable.

My study is on hold pending a simple answer to a simple question you are refusing to provide. So right back at you.