Leaderboard

The left loses their sh1t today. The Jack Smith trial re:J6 is effectively over. Now, we just need some reasonable court to throw out the b.s. lawsuit in NY and the b.s. conviction in NY and we are back to a democratic republic again. For now, tyranny lives. But it's taken a severe blow.

I find it hard to believe that his man, that has been tossed to obscurity, suddenly had the biggest scoop of the 21st century

Jack Smith is just another low life criminal from a Dickens novel.

Only totally uneducated retards quote Politifact. It is NOT factual. It's just far left political, kinda like PMSNBC, CNN, The View or any other far left Nazi rag.

You perverts will say anything to protect that babbling pedophile, won't ya? lol

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Oh how the left lies. Headline: "Teachers who won't teach the Bible will lose their license." Reality, the curriculum calls for teaching how the Bible influenced the founding of the nation. And I'm sure the curriculum also calls for teaching about John Locke and his Natural Rights writings. The headline is designed to feed off the prejudices of the left. This author wants the left to get mad that the right would force teachers to teach the Bible. And they should be mad, if that actually happened. But it won't. Because that isn't how we think.

The fall out from the debate is delicious.

Oh no!!!?? Pride is not sexual! What is the matter with you to suggest otherwise??? LOL The lgbtqrls++ only do themselves harm. Lose credibility and then whine when they do not get it. 100 stabs of indecency... one of the worst cases of sexual suicide LOL

Oklahoma schools head Ryan Walters: Teachers who won't teach Bible could lose license Oklahoma educators who refuse to teach students about the Bible could lose their teaching license, Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters said in an interview with NBC News on Friday. Walters issued a memo Thursday instructing all Oklahoma schools to teach students in grades five through 12 about the Bible’s influence on the nation’s founding and historical American figures. Schools will also be required to stock a Bible in every classroom. In an interview with NBC News, Walters said if a teacher refuses to follow the Bible instruction mandate, they’d face the same consequences as one who refuses to teach about the Civil War. The punishment could include revocation of their teaching license, he said, a process that requires a vote by the Oklahoma State Board of Education, which Walters chairs. “Any teacher that would knowingly, willfully disobey the law and disobey our standards — there are repercussions for that,” Walters said. “So we deal with that on a case-by-case basis, but yes, teachers have to teach Oklahoma Academic Standards and this is absolutely going to be part of them.” Walters’ new rule on incorporating Bible instruction was immediately criticized by civil liberties and religious groups. The Jewish Federation of Tulsa and the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations both said in statements that Walters is inappropriately promoting Christianity in schools. … A spokesperson from the Oklahoma attorney general’s office said in an email that existing law already allowed teachers to use Bibles in the classroom during instruction and that, “There is no legal authority for a memo from the Superintendent to require content.” Walters said he feels confident that his order will survive legal challenges because of the justices then-President Donald Trump appointed to the Supreme Court. “He’s helped provide a path for us to be able to do this as states,” Walters said of Trump. He added that if Trump wins a second term in November, “it will help us move the ball forward, even more so than this.” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna159548 The f-cking Christian Taliban dictatorship is on the march. Handmaid’s Tale is real. Remember these are the same red states who in recent decades tried to stop or discredit the teaching of evolution

Newsom surged after the debate. He went from +900 to +614. Trump is up to a 59% chance and Biden down to 33%: https://www.thelines.com/odds/election/ Former President Donald Trump and incumbent President Joe Biden are the election betting favorites for 2024. Current Trump election odds have him at -145 to win the Presidency. Trump has a 59% chance of winning following the June 27 debate. Incument President Joe Biden is +203 to become President again and owns a 33% chance of winning again. Gavin Newsom, the likely choice to replace Biden as the Democratic nominee if the party pivots, saw his Presidential odds surge following the debate as he is now +614 to win.

I see you've quit being a fish monger to become a fear monger.

It is vastly important. You can't win an election with just money, but not having money can lose you one real fast. Sure, the TV and talk shows that are liberal friendly will be out spreading the word about how great the democrats are and how evil trump is, but that simply just does not replace a powerful and effective media campaign. And those cost money and lots of it. In a tight race it makes all the difference. And there are a lot of swing states where the race is going to be somewhat tight. Not having the cash to flood the airwaves is going to be a major blow. On a side note, I suspect trump's chances of actually going to jail just shot up meteorically.

Not to mention the fact that they constantly endorsed overt references to Trump's assassination, and incited their followers to harass, intimidate and threaten members of the GOP, right up to the point where one of their cultists brought a rifle to the congressional baseball game and started shooting Republicans.

Fixed it for ya.

Yet again, you are a victim of your own purposeful ignorance. Read the ruling. Nowhere did any of it allow for the President to order the military to assassinate someone...

Robo-season!

Biden lied constantly during the debate. Sometimes he has just being disingenuous, like when he talked about "all the jobs that he created", when it was just jobs coming back after covid, or when he cited the job losses from covid as being directly attributable to basic Trump policies. Then he told bald faced lies like "He just told people to inject a bit of bleach", he told his his lies about Trump's tax cuts, his lies about the border, and when he said [paraphrasing] "Trump referred to people who served in the military as "idi10ts and losers" or whatever the actual quote was. Biden was his own vile, repugnant, brain-addled self, but leftards still like to think of him as capable, honest and caring.

You have no care for being truthful here at all, do you? I mean, none. Just thread after thread, you push lies and then run away.

Didn't robosimp get mad at Trump for listening to Russia/Putin? Now he's listening to Russian propaganda and touting it as the truth.

Somebody forgot to tell CNN and the rest of the schmucks that vote democrat. lol

Donnie declassified the docs. Jack Smith is illegitimate as he wasn't approved by congress therefore he's probably gonna end up in jail

It has me wondering. Biden was too old to run for president in 2020. He was senile even then, and it took illegal alien voters and election fraud to get him in that office. O'Reilly suggests that the Biden campaign might have actually grown a brain here? Not sure I buy it. The people pulling Biden's puppet strings aren't going to let him off the hook that easily.

Yeah why would anyone give a scoop about Democrat politics to O'reilly? It would be more believable if it came from Anderson Cooper. I think this is O'reilly taking a shot and releasing this "scoop" so if it actually happens he can take credit for it.

Well sharpen your pencil and connect the dots below: As to feeling fooled, I think betrayed might be a better word. I feel foolish for ever having supported this, and when I say all that was required was nothing, this is what I mean: Ya know what, I would even have settled for a little of this: But none was forthcoming...

In the end, your extreme exaggerations here, make you worse than anything Trump says.

I don't know how many different ways to point out that the measure used is inadequate to understanding the growth of the public service. But I will point out that the baseline year chosen was deliberate since it was as the Conservatives were reducing the size of the public service. In 2015 when Trudeau took over there were 257k public servants There are now 357k public servants Here's the official statistics. https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/population-federal-public-service.html

I'm not a fan of public debauchery like drunkenness, flashing... There are several public celebrations where this is encouraged. But you can't reign in such things unless you reign in the cult of the self, of indulgence, and of self indulgence. Consumer Society measures success on the amount of noise, attention and attendant money changing hands. The more the better.

Well for sure, you see this all the time in sports. Teams frequently score on their own goal to lull the opponent into a false sense of security. You are such an !diot

No, now you are dismissing evidence. Before you said there was none.

Fine I will go back and continue to repeat facts while you continue to pretend Bush V Gore is the exact sam as trumps ongoing attempt to steal the election. I have to tell you I have limited appetite to spend my preconceived free time on endless internet arguments with strangers that just go around and around The problem isn’t you quoting the RULING the problem is your claim that the existing law says things that it doesn’t say. To be clear Kavanaugh didn’t simply look up ehat the existing law clearly says. He applies his own novel interpretation of it. This is the interpretation that Kavanaugh has created. It’s not written in any existing law as your previous post seem to suggest. Since you want quotes here is the dissenting opinion: We took this case to resolve “[w]hether section 666 criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions the official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.” Pet. for Cert. I. The majority today answers no, when the answer to that question should be an unequivocal yes. To reach the right conclusion we need not march through various auxiliary analyses: We can begin—and end—with only the text. See National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense, 583 U. S. 109, 127 (2018). We “understan[d] that Congress says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N. A., 530 U. S. 1, 6 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). By its plain terms, §666 imposes criminal penalties on state, local, and tribal officials who “corruptly” solicit, accept, or agree to accept “anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded.” §666(a)(1)(B). Use of the term “influenced” captures quid pro quo bargains struck before an official act is taken—and therefore bribes—as everyone agrees. Brief for Petitioner 17; Brief for United States 21; cf. Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 404–405. The term “rewarded” easily covers the concept of gratuities paid to corrupt officials after the fact—no upfront agreement necessary. Dictionary definitions confirm what common sense tells us about what it means to be rewarded. A “reward” is “[t]hat which is given in return for good or evil done or received,” including “that which is offered or given for some service or attainment.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2136 (2d ed. 1957). The verb form of the word is no different. To “reward” means “to . . . recompense.” Ibid. (defining “to reward” as “[t]o make a return, or give a reward, to (a person) or for (a service, etc.); to requite; recompense; repay”). Both definitions thus encompass payment in recognition of an action that an official has already taken or committed to taking. And neither requires there to be some beforehand agreement about that exchange, i.e., a quid pro quo…..See Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U. S. 142, 150 (2023) (“ ‘[W]e cannot replace the actual text with speculation as to Congress’ intent’ ”). … Crucially, no one disputes that when it was initially enacted, §666 prohibited both bribes and gratuities. Ante, at 4. Similarly significant (though unmentioned by the majority), Congress imposed the same 10-year maximum term of imprisonment for a violation then as it does now. See §666(b) (1982 ed., Supp. II); cf. ante, at 14 (describing it as “unfathomable that Congress would authorize a 10-year criminal sentence for gifts to 19 million state and local officials” without federal guidance).  Starting with this historical disadvantage regarding the scope of the statute, the majority must show that Congress made major changes to §666 that might account for the sans-gratuity interpretation the majority adopts today. But several features of the statutory and legislative history convince me of the opposite.  For one, Congress said that it was not making major changes to the statute. The 1986 revisions to §666 were part of a package of changes that Congress specifically deemed “technical and minor.” Crucially, no one disputes that when it was initially enacted, §666 prohibited both bribes and gratuities. Ante, at 4. Similarly significant (though unmentioned by the majority), Congress imposed the same 10-year maximum term of imprisonment for a violation then as it does now. See §666(b) (1982 ed., Supp. II); cf. ante, at 14 (describing it as “unfathomable that Congress would authorize a 10-year criminal sentence for gifts to 19 million state and local officials” without federal guidance).  Starting with this historical disadvantage regarding the scope of the statute, the majority must show that Congress made major changes to §666 that might account for the sans-gratuity interpretation the majority adopts today. But several features of the statutory and legislative history convince me of the opposite.  For one, Congress said that it was not making major changes to the statute. The 1986 revisions to §666 were part of a package of changes that Congress specifically deemed “technical and minor.” H. R. Rep. No. 99–797, p. 16 (1986); see also Criminal Law and Procedure Technical Amendments Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 3592. And the revisions themselves are largely in keeping with this characterization. Relevant here, Congress teased out a “corruptly” mens rea requirement and swapped the previous “for or because of ” language for the current “intending to be influenced or rewarded” phrasing. Id., at 3613. None of this, on its face, evinces clear congressional intent to extract an entire category of previously covered illicit payments from §666. … I could go on, but let’s recap: 1) Your insinuation that the Kavanaugh was simply looking up and then relaying existing written law without providing any opinion or interpretation as if he was a co-op student is incorrect amd not what Supreme Court cases are about . His ruling was his interpretation of the existing law not his recitation of that. 2) The reasoning he provided for his interpretation of the law is easily dismantled by the dissenting opinion. The idea that congress intentionally decided not to limit the amount of rewards that federally-funded officials could receive from people and interests they have authority over even if in the millions is absurd 3) Everyone know that quid pro quo arrangements are are easily circumvented with a wink amd a nod and indirect communications and to suggest lawmakers didn’t limit that is also absurd 4) Does anyone believe that America is better off with these cash rewards now legally payable to public officials? Who other than republicans like Thomas who are constantly on the take suports that? I bet that makes you giggle. Being a brownshirt thug is your fantasy

Back to the original question, I remembered a few more. He lied when he said that no soldiers died on his watch. It's like he completely forgot about Afghanistan. Trump was also right that Biden was completely wrong when he said that Israel wanted a ceasefire. Trump said no they don't want a ceasefire, they want to get the job done and we should let them. And you're getting in the way. And that is very true.

Who did you think you were fooling with this link? Your make-believe doesn't magically become reality because you linked the landing page for a government website. 🤣🤣 Are you trying to prove you're the dumbest person on the forum? You're making a strong case for it.

None of Joe's problems are going to get better before November. He's not getting younger. The border won't close itself. Inflation isn't easing. Housing won't get cheaper. Food won't get cheaper. Gas won't get cheaper. His cognitive decline won't suddenly reverse. Kamala is still his VP Jean-Pierre is still going to be his press sec. He's toast.

To be realistic, all citizens are being treated equally. If, for whatever reason some are so paranoid they feel mistreated, the laws today prevent discrimination of any type. They have legal recourse if they get discriminated upon. Now, if I do not like to hear or see or be part of your sexual orientation discussion or even, that is not discrimination, that is my right as well. If I ask you to shut up and get away from me is not discriminatory, it just mean get away form me , i personally do not like you. If I am pissed that you block off my streets and use my police for crowd control wasting my tax money so you can dangle your dork and tits in public to prove you are underappreciated..., that pisses me off. So actually, you are more than equal because you able do this.

Is this real? What the F*ck. I think it is time to treat all citizens equal now. If these bunch were heterosexual march then there would have been lots of arrests.

The later for sure. Lying about extra marital sex is a given. Lying about whether or not someone died as a result of your command is disgraceful.

There is no PROOF that Trump banged that skanky porn star. EVERYTHING Trump said about UNELECTED JOE is a fact. The only LIAR was Joe.

Awww little guy .... so butthurt you're afraid to talk to me directly now? Thank goodness you've got the "Cdnfox made me cry" support group handy to help you through your emotional trauma

I think the only reason she is so popular is because she looks like she has an extra chromosome. She is like the climate William Hung. Everyone loved him because they thought he was retarded.Everyone just seen them and thing "Awwww look at them giving them a chance, we must cheer them on."

ROFLMAO - that's all you've got? I typed 2020 instead of 2021 and you feel all proud of yourself now? LOLOL!!! Sure kid - there you go. There's your big victory you've been shooting for! You managed to outwit me into making a minor typo LOLOLOL Now you can look at yourself in the mirror again after all those beatings LOL - what a broken little person you are. But i have to admit i actually laughed out loud for a bit at that one

500 votes can easily be overcome. Plus, there were what, 75 or 80 candidates the split the votes? https://www.elections.ca/Scripts/vis/candidates?L=e&ED=35090&EV=58&EV_TYPE=3&PROV=ON&PROVID=35&QID=-1&PAGEID=17 It is the first by election that trudeau lost out of 8 by elections and it is good he lost but I would not jump up and down. It is the GTA after all and a liberal stronghold. Where Ontario goes, there goes the government. Hopefully Ontario will come to understand he has to go. You are a f'n 1diot. I spew nothing. I discuss with logic, you puke out without thought.

Does anyone in here NOT think that it's Obama and his team that's really in charge? It isn't Joe making the big policy decisions.

On the subject of lies: AP: False claims made during the debate

I kinda feel bad for Joe just because dementia is a terrible disease for the person and everyone around them. Normally in that case the family would step in and get them some help. Take away the keys and unplug the stove for the safety of them and others. Democrats, however, have given him access to the nuclear codes. Wild times

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg66xe59zyeo This is the conspiracy rag previously cited/defended on these forums, the propaganda arm of a Chinese cult.

No - I think the point stands that the person who started this publication is involved in this group and the group originates from China out of a health cult. They used to (probably still do) hand out leaflets on the street. They are indeed persecuted by China's government but two wrongs doesn't make a right. I maintain that if people feel it's ok to try to associate individual crimes with immigration without mooring it to statistics, trends or what not then it's more than ok to examine who is behind foreign influence in the media, the type of people they are, and who they're supporting.

The Globe and Mail is conservative. Epoch Times is a cult propaganda arm. But I guess innocent until proven guilty. And in your case, also after proven guilty.

2016 Democrats losing their shit because Trump won: I mean, it goes on and on and on. ‘Not Our President’: Protests Spread After Donald Trump’s Election And some of those protests got violent. But that doesn't matter because they are on your side, right? Its only when the right does it that it becomes reprehensible.