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.

CNN folks!

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.

Also quite true. There is no rational way to argue against the obvious here...although...a lot o' people try. Its a joke now though. The whole thing is one tragic joke. Unfortunately...the joke's on the entire population because... NOBODY is better off now, than they were under the Trump presidency.

Your sources are frequently nothing but more subjective opinions.

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.

I'd love to see Biden try to say "categorically and vehemently" lol.

OMG you're stupid. I have no idea how I so grossly overestimated you prior to this. THE ECONOMY TANKED BECAUSE WE WERE ALLEGEDLY FACING AN APOCALYPTIC VIRAL OUTBREAK. When people stop going to work, because they're not allowed to go to work, the economy shrinks. IE, "tanks". Get it? The true test of a leader in that scenario is: "Does bread keep getting to the table in this obliterated economy?" The answer was "YES!" The second true test of a leader in that scenario (which is heavily dependent on the first test) is "Was civil obedience maintained", and aside from the violent riots that the Dems and CNN incited with their constant stream of lies and hiding of video evidence, the answer is again, "YES". FYI your credibility has sunk to 2% of what it was before you posted in this thread.

The American people have already lost their country so the debate is meaningless.

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

It's unclear what your position is, but it sounds a lot like you are proposing that this law is okay (in spite of the constitution) because some students in some classrooms might not take it seriously? If that's the case, it's really quite beside the point. The Constitution doesn't constrain the government only in cases in which something might be effective. And I'm not worried about students being converted by a single poster. I'm rightly concerned that this is the first leap down the very slippery slope. There is every reason to take this law very seriously. I mean, the question of a law mandating the Ten Commandments in the classroom was before the SCOTUS in 1980 and the answer was so obvious they didn't even need to hear the case to strike down the law. And now, nearly 50 years later the fanatics are taking another run at it because of this crazy court.

Ah, so you're just talking about fiscal policy spending. Sorry you used the word monetary previously which caused me to assume you knew more about this topic and were making a better argument than you actually are attempting to make. No I'm the one claiming that there are many factors and it's complicated. You're the one trying to say it's largely government spending. Government intervention in a market does impact prices. A great example of this in the US is that we have a private market for healthcare alongside Medicare paid for by the government. This marginally causes some healthcare inflation but other factors are even greater. Bicycles are one of thousands of examples of goods that began increasing in price during 2020. Showing that inflationary forces were already infolding profoundly before the government stimulus spending started. By the time we get to 2022 its impossible to know how much of that inflation was due to what. You're attempting to draw very specific policy conclusions that are in reality unknowable and are more variables than you're willing to acknowledge, apparently for the purpose of your idiological dogma.

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.

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.

How are they obsessing? They certainly notice... but noticing the unusual is not obsessing. Who is this us you think are not being realistic?

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.

This kind of collusion with a single candidate is still obviously unethical and why CNN rightfully fired her.

I wonder if Trump will listen to advice and just let Joe speak and not try to interrupt him. It is going to be difficult for Trump to have to debate Joe and Jake Tapper too. And did CNN already hand over their questions to Biden well in advance? As they did for Hillary before she debated Trump? Think about that, this network GAVE their list of questions to the Democrat presidential candidate in advance. They wanted one side to have a clear advantage over the other. A supposed news organization.

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.

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.

What's right is upholding existing anti-corruption laws, not weakening them. I suppose it's possible legislators will be motivated to write stronger laws that prevent their getting k̶i̶c̶k̶b̶a̶c̶k̶s̶ gratuities but what are the chances?

Julie Kelly is an Irish champion pool player and sheep farmer.

All Chinese-made technology products (hardware or software) that can connect to the internet or a network (satellites etc) should be banned from the country. This includes any EVs with such capabilities. The West probably should have never traded so much with the country in the first place.

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.

Trudeau resign? Never! The man is the ultimate narcissist. His inflated sense of self worth and righteousness has created this mess. He'll have to be thrown out, kicking and screaming the entire time.

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.)

You dol!t!! Who said anything about "terms" except for you, trying to save face and ...you lose ... once again. I said : "Give it up butter cup. Harper won 3 Chretien won 3 majority elections. Oh and Justin of course won 3. ...We all know you are a closet Justin lover LOL" I said won elections... you try and try and no matter what, you come across as a fool because your reading comprehension fails you each time LOL Who said anything about "terms" except for you, trying to save face and ...you lose ... once again. Hey, back at ya "We can always count on you to out-dumb yourself as soon as your dumb is pointed out" F*cked up again eh?? LOL

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.

Unless one is interested in basic equity, fairness, and doubling a potential draft pool.

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

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?