All_Pro_Bills

No hoax dude. What we witnessed in 2022 from Joe Biden's Philadelphia MAGA extremist rant speech was pure evil and fascism in the making. The Marine guards with the background bathed in red light. Very sinister. The man that ran in 2020 on a platform as the great unifier of the country two years later demonizing half of its citizens. The unifier. Now that's a hoax.

You can think up a host of scenarios such as the one above that any reasonable person, meaning the majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, would agree with but defining a specific set of "rules" around abortion for what is and isn't allowed and passing legislation isn't the problem. The problem is an issue resolved is no longer an issue. The political parties get lots of mileage out of pro and anti abortion positions and rhetoric. And eliminating that rallying cry issue from the political landscape by Federally legislating a solution would deprive politicians of valuable political capital. What politicians and many organizations on both sides of the debate that enjoy social influence while making a decent living prefer is an endless debate on pro-life and pro-choice which is what we've got.

Doxing and threats! Because the Left is committed to democracy. As long as they make all the rules.

Want? Under demented Biden and his stormtroopers we already have fascism. So congratulations to you.

Maybe they'll charge Trump with the Jimmy Hoffa disappearance too?

Anyone interested in the State level librarian training programs? Nevada appears to have a particularly grueling set of requirements. https://www.everylibraryinstitute.org/requirements_to_become_a_librarian_by_state?msclkid=6a66fc2a994112d4e60e98f81909230d&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Website Discovery - Every Library Institute&utm_term=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.everylibraryinstitute.org%2F&utm_content=URL contains https%3A%2F%2Fwww.everylibraryinstitute.org%2F It appears none of the States require a certified librarian to demonstration the ability to evaluate pornographic material to determine what is suitable for children under the ages of 6. So the question a women poses on one of the film clips "are you a trained librarian" is irrelevant. Given this common sense might be given some consideration rather than leftist-babble and sloganeering.

Given the 1st Amendment protecting free speech is under assault, if you say something you know is not true then you could face criminal prosecution for mind-crimes by special council Jack Smith. Remember that next time your wife asks you if she looks fat.

The core problem is this front office squanders away a lot of draft capital. Maybe Elam isn't the best choice for CB2 when the camp evaluation and competition is over. If its Jackson then fine. But you can't use a first round pick on a guy that's going to sit on the bench in year 2 and expect you're going to replace the talent you lose through attrition or free agency through the draft. On top of it I recall they traded up a couple spots for Elam in exchange for their 1st and other picks. Previously they spent 3 high picks on the DL and for me Rousseau is the only one that's shows any promise. Not a lot of production from that investment. I see the same problem with the ILB competition. A 3rd round pick used to draft Wiliiams and he might be buried at 3rd string on the depth chart. If the idea was spending a 3rd rounder on a replacement for Edmunds then that plan might be a flop. And if the idea was drafting for a potential high ceiling player and for him to ride the bench in year one then maybe the pick could have been put to better use at another position? This team is in the Super Bowl window and potential turned to production 2 seasons from now is no help. As for the player competition at a couple positions in training camp the coaches are left with what the front office gives them to work with to find the best 11 on both sides of the ball.

I do. And sometimes I find typos and syntactically incorrect sentences which I need to correct. But what's this pysop nonsense you're committed to? In this case are you saying agent Chan didn't conspire with Facebook to suppress the story and told the truth under oath when he said no such arrangement or effort existed? Correspondence and meetings on cooperation between the FBI and Facebook refute that claim indicating he did work with Facebook and he did lie under oath when he said the arrangement didn't exist. That appears to be the truth rather than some attempt at psychological misdirection. So just admit you're wrong.

Well, you didn't refute what I said so I take that as admission you know you're full of crap.

Your side is the party running the psyop. That's why you attempting to defect that onto the other side is so comical.

Who ordered agent Chan to direct Facebook to run the "code red"? And who gave that person that order? And all the way up the line to the originator. Who's really running the show?

All of this disclosure of the relationship between Facebook and the FBI is well and good but what we need to know is which "top dog" inside the government (or outside?) originated and gave the order to the FBI to suppress the laptop story and the investigation? Who is the person at the top of the organization calling the shots and giving the orders? That's what we need to get down to here. Not just focusing on foot soldiers carrying out orders. They're just Pawns in the game. Expose the King. Who's giving the orders to Comey and Wray? Who's giving orders to Barr and Garland?

A number of factors, or maybe one. We need to make up some horseshit story to protect a political figure we support from the truth and the consequences to the agenda we endorse.

What I can't understand is how, according to US government and Ukrainian government media outlet reports the Russians can't seem to hit anything but shopping centers, apartment buildings, schools, and hospitals with any of their missiles.

First, year after year the draft broadcast cuts to commercial every time the Bills are "on the clock" and now no live preseason games! But with maybe only 5 or 6 roster spots up for grabs there's not a lot of intrigue.

Early on the established science proclaimed the COVID19 virus was of natural origin. Just ignore that bio-research lab, partially financed by NIH grants, down the street that is experimenting with genetically altering the exact same virus.

You do realize the House Oversight Committee has released next to nothing of the evidence they've stated is in their possession? Such as bank records of accounts and transactions, names and ownership information on various shell companies used to launder payments.

Well, the media's controlled withdrawal from the narrative is a series of tactical retreats. From no influence peddling and it being a Russian dis-information operation to its real but there's no influence peddling to Hunter was running a "business" but Joe Biden didn't know of his son's business dealing to Joe knew but didn't discuss anything with his son to Joe knew what Hunter was up but didn't participate to Hunter was selling the illusion of influence but Joe didn't know So next: Joe participated in the illusion of influence but didn't get any money and didn't do any favors. So that leaves us with the Biden's running a con on the chumps paying them off that thought the money they gave the Biden's would translate to political favors. On the record, I'd like to get the perspective of the people that made these payments. $5M is a steep price to pay for an illusion. I suspect they had a different understanding of the arrangement with the Biden's and can clearly articulate what they received in return. Subpoenas for these folks too.

I suspect professional axe throwing gets more viewers than most women's sports. Saw this listed on the ESPN schedule a few times. Unlike softball or football, probably not something you want to organize a pick-up game around at a picnic with friends and family after they've all had 4 or 5 beers!

My insights on grand jury are real life experience not anecdotal. And my intent is not to defend or condemn Trump. My intent is to provide some firsthand insights into the grand jury process while pouring a little cold water on the idea the prosecutor's case must be solid for the grand jury to produce an indictment. It's a rarity a grand jury will vote for "no indictment". A glitch in that argument equating the indictment with a "strong case" is the grand jury only hears the evidence and testimony the prosecutor wants them to consider. While that might be "sufficient evidence to support a conviction" it's not the totality of the case the prosecutor will likely present, and the grand jury considers nothing the defense might present because the defense doesn't participate except under the the most unusual of circumstances. A jury trial is significantly different than a grand jury session. At a jury trial the prosecutor and defense can lay out their case to the jury with opening statements. The defense can raise motions with the court on issues like probable cause for things like searches and warrants, the admissibility and suppression of evidence, and present witnesses or expert testimony that will counter or refute the expert and witness testimony brought to the trial by the prosecution.

Always got to have the last word, don't you?

Hoax!

I provide some insights from actual experience with grand juries and your response correlates to my post how exactly? Just weird buddy.

Have you ever served on a Grand Jury? I have, 3 times. Currently on my 3rd stint through October. Grand Juries at the County and Federal levels. Getting an indictment isn't all that hard. Anyone that's also served on a Grand Jury should know what I'm saying. The prosecutor presents the charges and reviews the legal codes identified in their case. A witness or two, usually a police officer or an official investigator is called and sworn in and then asked a series of questions pertaining to the events, actions, and persons involved in the alleged violation of the law. Major cases might involve more evidence and more testimony. All the testimony and evidence are supportive of the government's case and the specific charges. There is no defense, or defendant, or witnesses supportive of the defense present. The jury can deliberate on the charges or go right to making motions to vote to indict or not indict and then vote, ask questions about the investigation of witnesses, or address legal questions to the prosecutor. The question the jury needs to answer is did the prosecution present sufficient evidence that warrants an indictment based on the law and the evidence of a crime? In the 3 sessions to date of my current grand jury service we've heard about 20 case presentations and in only 1 case the Grand Jury voted not to indict. And in that case the prosecutor suggested to the jury the case should be remanded to a lower court.