User

Not stupid at all, when you jump in here to say things like this: "It really does not matter who is right or wrong honestly. " Nevermind all your past comments. But, if you are now saying clearly, or at least the first I have seen it "Israel has a right to exist and therefore to defend themselves." Good.

Perhaps, but you can't articulate why. In this thread you are the one defending the terrorist thugs who killed, raped, tortured, and took hostages targeting innocent women and children.

Thanks for proving you don't understand predictions based on presumptions and assumptions are anything but certain.

Well, for as long as folks in the international community, like you, also continue to act like there is not a right or wrong, as if those like Hamas are right to think Israel should not exist at all... that certainly is not going to help. If people keep trying to kill Israelis, then yes, Israelis are going to keep defending themselves. That doesn't somehow mean Israel shouldn't.

Well, there is a truth to who owns the land and who does not own the land and your post here is entirely too vague... as if there is some kind of moral parity between Israel and Palestine going on. Hamas wants ALL of the land. It does matter who is right. As it stands now, Hamas launched one of the most horrific acts of terrorism and death upon the Jewish people in Israel since the Holocaust. They raped, tortured, murdered, and took hostage innocent women and children. They purposefully targeted them for that. The solution at this time is for Israel to eradicate Hamas and destroy any leadership/infrastructure that keeps them in power.

I have mixed feelings on this one. The Constitutionality question is 50/50 here. There are some precedents against it in the past already... including a previous SCOTUS ruling but they were a 5/4 decision then on a questionable legal theory test that this court might flip on... That aside though, there are so many more important things going on that this is just a political stunt for the most part and I don't like using classrooms as political proxies like this. There shouldn't be any of this garbage in a public school classroom, for the same reasons why I adamantly oppose the liberals shoving their crap like the LGBTQ flags into the schools. Either way, all the more reason I support school choice. So much power over children in such a monopoly is wrong and ripe for abuse like this. Parents need a way out.

So... Hamas stays in power and keeps killing Israelis. That is your plan. That is what you support.

This is not a statement of fact. It is a presumption of his motives, which are contrary to his public statements. His stated motivations were to expose the hospital's dishonesty and corruption. The Hospital was lying to the public. Like anyone who finds themselves in a position of a whistleblower like this, they do in fact take risks that go against policy or laws to expose the truth. That is true. The extent the DOJ is going to target him and get him though, the threats they have made to his wife, all point to yet again another instance of politically motivated lawfare, especially with the public statements made by the Federal Prosecutor bringing the case against him.

I wonder if the same people who think you can't simply declare yourself to be an Indian and it be true also believe you can be a man and declare yourself a woman and it be true...

Well, that is certainly what the Democrats are threatening with all their calls to expand the court.

So... Hamas stays in power and keeps killing Israelis with your plan.

Good thing SCOTUS has not become such a thing.

You are making an entirely different argument now. If your position is now that you support Ukraine fighting on to be able to negotiate from a position of strength, joining NATO, etc... great. Then not much disagreement from me there.

No, he has not. You guys are all upset he has a rich friend and he goes on vacations with him. Oh no! *GASP*

The Supreme Court is not all government officials, and you are not right about gifts for federal judges in general. The President can accept gifts from Americans, the restrictions mainly apply to foreign governments. It is a separation of powers issue between the branches of government. The laws and rules that apply to Congress are made by Congress. That all said... the issue here was a claim of bribery. Gifts are not bribes. Employee gift giving and receiving is bound by company policy, not any particular law. If you can't accept more than 200, that is not a law.

Oh man, the revisionist history... The way this went down, Biden and his team covered up the fact that they found classified documents and the fact that the case was turned over to the DOJ was hidden as well. It went on for 2 months before the midterms and after... only later did the news finally break and Biden was forced to make a public statement... and then the FBI started searching even more to fine more. None of this was above board... and if the news didn't break the story who knows what or when we would have never known any of this or if Garland would have really appointed a special prosecutor or not or if the FBI would have ever searched or not... They hid this for political purposes during the midterms. You don't get to act like Biden was some saint after the fact. Nor does any of this discount his mishandling of so much material as he did.

He has more disdain here than he does for a criminal thug in Canada running the streets armed for violence, stabbing people, robbing them, and maybe killing them...

This continues to be your problem. You claim to have "explicitly" conceded, but in reality you prefaced it with saying you were throwing my "buffoonish nitpicking back in my face, an "IF" qualifier, italics, and a laughing emoji. No, I did not take that seriously at all, I still don't. When you clear up that you are clearly not just conceding, but admitting that what you did was wrong, when you spent days trying to contrive the timeline to literally support a 3 hour narrative to the lengths you did... then we can move on. I was honestly asking the question, the point was obvious, that Trump is as guilty for causing what happened on January 6th as Pelosi and other Democrats like our sitting VP were for causing the summers long violence around the BLM protests.

The issue is not my memory. You cannot articulate anything here.

How was it underhanded? How was it solely based on their politics? Where is the corruption? You just ask the questions to imply something you can't actually articulate. It is dishonest at best.

How am I opposing equality?

To think you are trying to impugn people who have dedicated much of their lives to the law and who were fully vetted by the Senate and public confirmation hearings like this...

You prefaced that with an "IF" qualifier and followed it up with a laughing emoji. No, you did not explicitly concede at all. Your continued dishonesty is evident by your saying that was "explicit" when you clearly conditioned it on an "IF" qualifier and then laughed. I am not convinced you honestly answered, just threw that out there to make a point...

Sure… other than all the classified documents he had stashed all over his properties.

Yes, repeatedly throughout this discussion, he claimed negotiations were the "only" way out.