Leaderboard

This is why you don't drink from the conspiracy swamp--you end up with brain fever. I have no idea who Julie Kelly is, but apparently she's either as dumb as a bag of hammers or has no hesitation about misleading people who are. And what a nonsense thread we have here. Oh, noes! The FBI covered up the classified documents! Get this: they are classified--at whatever level--and they are stored as evidence. They should be covered. The FBI can't spill white out all over the original documents to "redact" them. The documents must be maintained and inventoried, but they shouldn't be exposed, FFS. This thread is 100% as stupid as some yahoo complaining because the crack pipe from a drug bust was put in a ziploc bag. Those sneaky cops! Jeebus.

None of us need to listen to either of them speak to select the definitive winner. Biden won by a mile.

not today but now that you mention it...

See, I don't actually think it's appropriate to take kids to an adult-oriented drag show anymore than any other adult- oriented event. I have no issue saying that, but you never asked, so I guess once again you need to be spoon fed everything.

I think violent mobs physically tearing down statues is more threatening. And when you add in the fact that these mobs are incredibly stupid as well... https://globalnews.ca/news/7101452/madison-wisconsin-hans-christian-heg/ If they tore down the statue of an abolitionist...by your own logic, they must have felt threatened by it as well? Why do you think they tore down the statue of an abolitionist?

In the first place, when referring to a person, the past tense of hang is hanged. In the second place, you are not fooling anyone. The FBI and Justice Department know all about the Federal Rules of Evidence. You do not. You look at a photograph and think you've "aha-ed" something out of it. But you don't know a damn thing about Federal Rules of Evidence. You aren't an expert, you aren't even a novice.

I fear that the vapid rhetoric may actually be believed from the backroom. And they might think that the Laffler Curve is absolute and revenues need to be zero. I heard about some plan to fund the government solely using tariffs which is crazy. If the leadership believes their rhetoric we may see a catastrophe, which would fulfil the current hyperbole about our current state.

A lot of factors impact the value of money, the availability of goods, peoples expectation of future price increases. If your [somewhat over-simplified] dictum were true, inflation would always be crazy high, when in reality monitary policy usually does a fine job keeping inflation near their 2% target. Though not unreasonable, this too is supposition more than fact. The Laffer Curve you're likely alluding to is a useful starting place. Obviously the higher tax rates gets the more diminishing returns will eventually occur. But just because there are sweet spots of efficiency doesn't mean that increasing the taxes will not increase revenue. Plus reality is more complicated than a Laffer Curve, for example the tax revenue is often spent on things that eventually contribute to the private sector economy (infrastructure, education, research, etc) But in any case, my point is that politicians don't even seem comfortable talking about how to increase revenues when clearly that is a necessary thing that will have to occur sooner or later given the reality of what people overwhelmingly expect from their government.

If you're arguing the numerical advantage of Russia's munitions, how is it a moot point that a large portion of them miss their target and turn out to be duds even if they hit? That's the exact opposite of moot. If # of artillery shells was the determining factor of the war, it would be over already. The reality is that Russian equipment has always been garbage. It was garbage during the Cold War, and they've only fallen further behind. Combine that with the fact that Russian training, leadership, C&C and intelligence is all dogshit. Look back at Summer 2023, when Russia was losing artillery systems at a 4:1 or worse ratio, despite firing 7x more shells per month. A lot of it has to do with public perception and Vladimir Putin's info ops. The slow-roll nature of all of the equipment being donated has been a direct consequence of limp escalatory threats from the Kremlin, and prevaricating on it here. The Red Line has been feebly threatened by Putin, but continuously pushed by NATO, over and over. We call their bluffs, but it's an agonizingly slow process. First it was long range artillery, then it was tanks and AA systems, then it was cluster munitions, then fighter planes, then permission to strike within Russia...the piecemeal nature has been tortuous and costly. Arguments like the ones you're making here, however, are actively making the situation worse. It's the narrative that Putin is pushing - and you're buying into it and the negative feedback loop it leads to. The situation is hopeless, so we might as well stop supplying aid, which makes to situation worse, making it seem more hopeless, and so on. I'm not sure you really have: Man, look at all that progress Russia's making...they're advancing daily...from one blade of grass to the next.

And TBH, the Dems have been destroying the fabric of democracy for the past 8 years now, minimum. It's debatable if there even is democracy in the US now.

No, but i figured i better dumb it down as you were clearly struggling with it. Well done, you got it correct this time. What you were actually claiming is that i said it was only gov't spending and i never claimed that. You're coming along nicely. But that's different than what we were discussing. When the gov't puts money into the economy, it puts upward pressure on inflation. I really can't make it easier than that. The economists disagree. You're attempting to avoid simple truths and obfuscate the issue because the truth doesn't suit your echo chamber talking points.

HEY! I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK! 🤪

No, you were not. You made a complete assclown out of yourself, again, and conjured up your own retarded definition for what "term" means out of nowhere. 5 years is/was the Constitutional maximum term limit to a parliament, and that's since been limited to 4 years. That doesn't mean you didn't serve a term if you don't go to max. That's nothing but the standard mental gymnastics you do to assuage your ego after humiliating yourself with your clueless bullshitting.

That would be fun to watch, a fight between a man and a horse .

IMO...What happened on Jan 6 has Demoncrats shaken to this very day. That's why they had Pelosi's sham trial and why they harp about it now. There was a small city's worth of people there, from all over the USA, just to protest the sh1t that went on during that election. We all watched it happen and we've all seen the videos. As far as "insurrections" go...that was not. All that was, was thousands and thousands of American citizens who felt their presidential election was stolen. I figure it was too. This scares the sh1t outta the Demoncrats. Is there evidence of cheating? Fckin' Eh Bubba! Lots of it. But when it came right down to it, the SCOTUS would not hear it because they did not want to decide on a presidential election. But...millions...Hell hundreds of millions globally...know or strongly suspect the Demoncrats cheated. You would be wise to never forget that. If this October election is suspect...whatsoever...at best the government will lose all trust and credibility. At worst... What has always knocked me out, is the Demoncrat's level of raw hatred for Trump. And I'd like to opine on that if I may. Ask most Libbies, "Why do you hate Trump?" The answer is generally that he's a boor. A cad. Practiced sketchy business. A loud obnoxious pr1ck. They forget that he was also one of the most loved TV and movie celebrities in the world. I didn't like his show but...anyway...Trump was a bonified celebrity. But when Trump declared war on the political class...when he openly said what everyone was thinking...he bought himself a war that I don't think anyone imagined could even happen. He threatened the Holy Globalist Agenda. He exposed it at every rally. And America loved it, because finally there was a realistic opportunity to tell these "elite" "Up Yours! We see what you're doing and...Up Yours!" Trump threatens the global plan. THAT cannot be tolerated. There is no other reasonable explanation for why the justice system, the media, and the bureaucracy would turn on him like they have. If he wins this...the "elite" will get even uglier.

so if you believe in him don't have any gods before him. Pretty simple. Doesn't even say you can't have beliefs that are equal or different. I would argue in today's context not to put any religion or ideology before christianity. They should have equal standing not be elevated to higher place. You know like by flying their flag or something.

Come back when you have an actual argument to make instead of just waving your hands and making proclamations and false attributions.

This is a very nice post and it takes a more nuanced view of what education really is, but it doesn't really apply to this scenario. I didn't think it worth trying to go to a deeper level when we can't get agreement on basic facts--which is what I'm talking about: basic facts. A sign on the wall of the classroom that says "Hydrogen is the lightest element" is understood by students to be a statement of fact. By virtue of presenting that unqualified statement of fact in the classroom, we are telling them that it's true and that they should believe it. The expectation is that it is presented as a statement of fact because it is true. It has been endorsed. The same thing is true when you put a sign on the wall that says that the (Christian) god is the one true god. That's an unqualified statement of fact. In no way is it appropriate for the government to be mandating religious indoctrination of any kind to students. And it's really quite absurd that this is even a matter of debate. America exists because people were forced to flee religious government simply to have the freedom to worship (or not worship) as they pleased. That's why the establishment clause exists, to explicitly create the wall between church and state so that both might flourish.

I've been public school teacher for 20 years. I think this statement would be widely and vigorously rejected by educators. Obviously you're right that they're there are some facts we want students to know. But I think the concensus would be that the purpose of schools is not to tell students what conclusions or judgments to draw from those facts, but rather how to be a skilled and critical thinker able to ask questions, navigate information, and have some boarder perspective of different points of view.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/417938/donna-brazile-finally-admits-she-shared-debate-questions-with-clinton-campaign/ This link says questions and not topics. With the exception of FOX, for the most part, the mainstream media are quite supportive of the Democrats and go hard against the Republicans. If this debate was to be held on FOX with Sean Hannity as the moderator, Democrats would have major concerns about fairness, and rightfully so.

I can think of at least one million better ways to spend my time tonight rather than watching this debate. I know the candidates well and their positions. No new information is going to be gleaned.

That's because you're over-simplifying a thing that has several causes and is likely too many variables to fully understand or calculate. I'm familiar with Austrian school orthodoxy, but actual economists know that inflation is not limited to one thing. Simple Example: At the start of the pandemic the price of bicycles and all bicycle-related supplies suddenly soared. Even low quality off-brand bikes were not to be found. Production of many components was disrupted at the same time that lock-downs and social distancing caused demand for bikes to increase. A similar phenomenon occurred for ceetain goods and services worldwide. Aditionally, once people understand that inflation is ocurring, they anticipate future price increases which itself actually contributes to inflation because the population is primed with a willingness to pay higher prices. This is why even after fiscal policy factors you're referring to are long over, inflation still can still increase for years. But the big fiscal policy pandemic spending you're referring to did not kick in until 2021. Stimulus checks, etc. And the monetary system from March of 2020 until March of 2021 was at near deflation levels. Gas prices plummeted to about a dollar per gallon in 2020. Yet, at the same time, the price of many consumer goods and services (and the components of those goods and services) were widely skyrocketing. If it were true that monetary policies were the only thing driving up prices, then inflation would be more evenly distributed across industries. But in reality the consumer goods and services that spiked during lockdowns (food, vehicles, entertainment, and housing) have experienced far bigger price increases.

You ignored the crazy theory embedded there - that Hillary Clinton is poised to take the Democratic nomination.

Still of your own making, devoid of all reality.

This is an awful idea... this is some kind of 8D chess a person in an insane asylum would play that makes no sense.

So you're already setting the stage because you know he's a blithering dolt who's mind has been badly deteriorating for the past four years.

Uh, yeah it did... "On a 6-3 party-line vote, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that state officials may accept “gratuities” from people who wish to reward them for their official actions, despite a federal anti-corruption statute that appears to ban such rewards." It's f-ing absurd. What's next? Police officers get to accept "gratuities" from people they don't ticket? We pay judges $100,000 gratuities if they dismiss our case? That's how it works third world governments.

Well, dude, you’re sitting here joking about how a Supreme Court, including two members who have accepted substantial gifts, just decided that politicians can accept bribes if the bribes are paid after the deed is done and called a “gratuity.” That’s crazy.

Jack Smith will and apparently has, hung himself in his zeal and hatred. Lol...which once again proves that Tweenkie little Libbies simply cannot resist cheating.

I guess you know more women like that than I do. Agreed. Which is why so many women don't like being physically beaten into submission by men.

True. But I think when most of us ask for equality, what we are asking for is respect and personal dignity.

January 6 was about one person and one person only: Donald Trump. It was not about a concept, or a group of people. It wasn't about any other election except for Trump's. It was specifically about Donald Trump The J6 "Stop the Steal" rally was organized specifically by Trump, for Trump. How you do get around the obvious: Over and over and over and over, Trump excoriated his supporters to do one thing and one thing only: STOP THE STEAL. He told them that America would be destroyed if they did not Stop the Steal. (Psst! They didn't manage to Stop the Steal, and America is not destroyed at all.)

HAHAHAHA! Where?!? Twice in the same thread, you dumb muppet. I get that it's upsetting when people show how much of an assclown you are, but you do it so regularly, and so obviously, that the solution is to think before you post something stupid. Ranting emoji spam doesn't convince anyone of anything. 🤡

How many ass's have you laughed off? There must be quite a large pile somewhere.

If you tamper with the evidence at the scene, the evidence chain is compromised. That creates some pretty serious problems for them moving forward

I would wonder how much of this is real. As for computers you may have heard of the Huawei matter? 🤔

They had there chance under trudeau, and he rubs shoulders with.the same type of people. And maybe he should be a MP 1st. He is not suited for the rough world of politics. He is another Ignatieff and will be treated the same way. And for him and the country to be successful , he will need to govern like a conservative. He is just of waste of time.

He is free to staunchly oppose entirely imaginary allegations. Like exemptions for Democrats on the Alien Lizard Overlord's food menu.

August, I suspect that your post was written by an old man who lost his marbles. Whatever. This is a banal, useless thought, that you repeat like a broken record, screeching it over and over again in posts innumeberable. Europe evidently wasn't civilized in summer of 1914, because they embarked in the most disastrous (and pointless) war the world's ever seen shortly thereafter.

Only for the record, I would attempt to answer, if there was even a trace of a meaning in the question or comment. Alas. So again, In this world now, we have made the rule against unilateral, violent aggression. We do have such cases unfolding. So, our options are limited to, either enforcing the rule; or doing away with it and thus tacitly encouraging this and all future aggressive wars. There are no words-only solutions to this conundrum.

This is again a false analogy and either the author does not understand the difference that is quite obvious, or deliberately attempts to confound it. 1914 was a war that was caused by a conflict of imperial interests and triggered by actions of certain personalities. In the world of that time, there were no mechanisms to prevent it. Now, we have, purportedly at least, a world security framework and it has clear guidelines and rules that specifically and clearly disallow and prohibit brutal force and aggression in the relations between countries. So when one country decides to violate them, without any rational argument there are no other options for a resolution than: 1) enforce the declared rules and restore the order: by the way, what we have in our everyday life, or 2) let go of the rules, discontinue them and have no order. One simply cannot have a pretense of an order, and its egregious, blatant and obvious violation of it at the same time and place. It remains to note that the second case would not at all lead to any peace, because the aggressor was rewarded, can repeat same behavior anywhere and any time; any one imitating the aggressor could do the same with no consequences; effectively leading to the state of the 16-18 century, only with nukes. And this is nothing less than a certain, confident setting for an all-out nuke war, nothing would do it more certainly. Now, what isn't clear here? What could be the confusion?