myata

It was Hamas before now China and still I see no connection. Let's make it even simpler: is wrong to break into a house, beat, rape and kill the residents? Should it be stopped, bloody and murderous attack or invited to continue (and spread? guess)? Or it depends on the reason in the head of the attacker, day of the week and whatever you think/say? It's a simple question really. What is your problem?

Folks I'm chatting the mob converts in another thread and honestly, you don't look not much better here. Do you understand the difference between a) I do something to get a better result and b) I wash my hands, do nothing and stand aside and c) I blow up everything that doesn't go my way and see what happens. Which one? Let's try again?

A psycho in the heat of a murderous spree, bombing hospitals shooting civilians, families, children. OK have to talk to him now - really curious. We learn something new here every day. How could one know?

I want nothing to do with "conservatives" in whose world murderous thugs can be anathema or "genius", "very smart" or "very honorable" depending on the day of the week or the latest lecture of their Lying Idol. Call it animal farm, left or right wing, but its a sick and dark world of the deep past. If you cannot explain it rationally it means something. Your brain is trying to tell something to you. You can turn it off sure, but as history shows very clearly, it's never good for you.

You mean like one psycho saw blue light and another red, that triggered their murderous spree? That would be the difference in the psychos minds, and we were talking about the reality. Don't see the difference? Just to clarify, you would do that while the former is planning attacks on his neighbors and the other, September 11? Only out of curiosity? And nothing unusual about that?

So you chose to repeat Putin's (Hitler's 100%) propaganda points? And no other ideas? Since when "something belonged to someone some time ago" or "some part of population speaks something" is a valid excuse for an aggressive war? Let's understand it for clarity, before going any further: do you agree with Hitler's and Putin's excuses for their war? International law, independence, security doesn't mean anything, from now on? Anyone can invade and attack anybody for pretty much any pretext like look he speaks another language gotcha? Only one question then: that makes you think like who? Like responsible citizen in a modern democracy? Or like Putin and Hamas? So we were talking about essential differences and here's what you came up with. OK. And Hitler's context was unique too, in your private reality? Why Hitlers context couldn't be "unique" while every other murderous thug can claim it, in your private model of law and morality? So, no general principles exist in it, any longer? Jack is a criminal and James, "sketchy" because so you say? Congrats. That's a natural result of turning off own brain and parroting dumb, not even close to smart or plausible, lies. No that's just dumb. I said before I cannot have no discussions with the folk who create their own private realities. It sure within their right, but no rational conversation is possible in such cases. It would be a waste of everybody's time. But at least the condition can be verified objectively now.

OK, let's look at it rationally and objectively: Hitler invaded neighbor countries, killed, tortured and kidnapped thousands. Putin invaded neighbor countries, killed, tortured and kidnapped thousands. Hamas invaded a neighbor country, killed hundreds and kidnapped scores. Where is the difference, in your objective view? Why Putin is not Hitler today, and why Hamas isn't fallowing, very obviously, their, Hitler and Putin's, blueprint? Jack has sketchy shoes and James invaded home and killed his neighbors, whole family, sketchily. Same word. No problems with terminology? Oh and does that make Hamas "sketchy" too? And what about Hitler? He'll want to argue that he didn't do much different why single him out? What would be the essential difference, rationally and objectively? Is there?

Democrats have full responsibility for removing the speaker of the House. This is just a fact. And this is, the consequence. Obviously.

Then you can explain it rationally, and maybe we could agree. You only have to explain, rationally and factually how Putin is not Hitler, and what makes them essentially different? Barging into the neighbor's home arms blasting, kicking, kidnapping, raping and killing is called "sketchy", is that right? Being charged with multiple war crimes just sketchy? It can be that Hamas has something to do with it but you haven't explained it and it's far from obvious. By the way, Putin's Russia kidnapped thousands of people, including children from Ukraine, and killed tens of thousands in a brutal entirely unprovoked invasion. You fail to see similarities here? Why and how, can you explain?

It takes more than words, and many politicians don't seem to get it. They came to believe that their role is to perform in the political circus as opposed to fulfilling the role and responsibility delegated by the citizens. The gap can be very wide. Democrats could have shown it by stating clear principles of power sharing; and by refraining from toppling the House at the first opportunity presented ironically, by their arch-enemies. Great talking means very little when deeds show the contrary.

Should one attend public events in Nazi Germany, "in the interests of science"? Professor of Manitoba university thinks, sure. Putin, a totalitarian dictator trying to fill the shoes of Hitler, perpetrates a brutal war of aggression in Europe and needs any signs that the resistance to his policies in the Western world is wavering. He paid all expenses for the couple to participate in his pet "event". In plain words, Putin, a charged war criminal, paid these folks to give him a show of support. The forum was sanctioned by Ottawa in September for "generating and disseminating disinformation and propaganda." "It is basically a Putin-curated, Kremlin-curated propaganda-fest," said Marcus Kolga, founder and director of DisinfoWatch and a senior fellow at both the Macdonald-Laurier and CDA institutes. "They tried to intimidate me," she said. "They ... implied that I should be ashamed of myself. And I said, 'I'm not ashamed.'" (Prof Desai) She says it's a privilege for an academic "to meet such people, to be able to converse with them, to understand what was happening in such key moments." Meeting and conversing with modern Hitler and his entourage, "a privilege"? How can individuals with this level of moral judgement and responsibility lead students in Canada? And how can and will it reflect on the school and Canadian academic community as a whole? While there are worrying signs that academic freedom is suppressed on the country's campuses we can observe grotesque examples like this in plain sight.

Correct direction, comrades! Third world cannot wait.

This lines for an epic showdown - didn't have to be but no avoiding the conclusion that both sides are seeking that, for attention, drama, chaos whatever other reasons. Moderate Republicans will be pressed the hardest, including the rightfully sounding arguments to resolve this quickly "in the interest of the people". So give in to the lying mob - or be seen, and shown as the cause of the chaos (not those who orchestrated it). Election prospects, standing in the party, positions all and everything at stake. Not a great place to be in, 1933. We'll just have to see as it plays out. Reminiscent (without individual parallels) of the early 1930 atmosphere in Germany. A big win for the party of chaos (not, as yet GOP - that remains to be seen). If moderates stand their ground, the country is without the House for some time. Chaos. Or their stooge gets the prize and his Master, another card in his stack. Controlled chaos. Just great. All of that courtesy of the Democrats. For free even, enjoy. They could have handled this intelligently and smartly. Heading up to the possibility of another shutdown, squeaky clean for the entire country (minus the lying mob converts this cannot be helped easily as the history already knows) we are doing (attention: not the same as "saying") everything to work for the people. No need to say anything, just see for yourself. Nope. No such luck. Took the bait in a gulp without a moment's reflection. Gaetz laughing. The party of chaos is getting the election year of controlled (by them) chaos, the best outcome for them. Dems, what did you get out of the move? Democratic speaker, right? In a rosy Barbie dream reality: again? More importantly, what will the people get and where they will place the blame, with some help? Brains are there for a reason.. OK, forgot. So it's lining up to be an eventful stretch. Didn't have to be but looks like both parties in the ride long forgot the original idea, and reason. It's going to be fun (for them). They think.

It all is relative you know. "Centrists" (in the lying mob's definition) can call for elimination of elections, independent courts and justice system. And the "mainstream" (in the same frame of reference) would be OK with that. Now would America want that, for itself and its future?

Both sides have been working hard for this. Non partisanship at its best. Good luck!

Yes but there are different ways to address it. A responsible way from the government would be to make it transparent and clear: in cases where content is copied without permission, the owner is entitled to some compensation. Showing or sharing a link has nothing to do with copying content; only passing information where it can be found, the news stand is two blocks on the left. One may or may not follow the link. A link is not the content, obviously. The companies could refrain from copying the content that doesn't belong to them and for everything else, take the government straight to the court (we will pay as always, unfortunately). That would be a smart and responsible way to deal with the problem.

Ohh I wouldn't talk more about the obvious difference between "supporting" and "not bringing down with all might"? Or maybe it's genuine, so in you personal life, whatever you don't happen to support you just destroy, bring down without a moments thought? Or only the politics? So the previous speaker did bad things to Democrats. Sure there may be enough ground to conclude that he couldn't count on their support. But, judging objectively, is the current situation better, for them and for the country (and for the world)? Do you act for the better in the reality or like an automaton, or a spoiled child, without much reflection? If your act could not improve the situation (for the people) should you still proceed - or think a bit more?

At some point you may be able to say that. If someone is deeply entrenched there may be no miracles, no ways to work with them constructively. But it takes more than words, way more than just saying it to show it and to prove it.

Why couldn't you people talk straight and use clear, meaningful words? I've no idea what you mean by "cover". But it's you who toppled the Speaker and with it, the ability of the House to function that's a fact of this reality and there's not a grain of doubt who caused it and who is responsible. Yeah right, we torpedoed the House but it was all the doggy's fault. Really frightening here is the seeming absence, vacuum of responsibility on both sides. That is frightening.

It seems to be clear that extreme partisanship is not good for the country and the citizens, whatever colors it painted in. I want to propose a path to a possible way out, imperfect and fragile as it is: the Constitution group of representatives, and the citizens. No major change is required. All can run as it does now. Only, the representatives who are interested and can support policies and decisions in the interests of all citizens, not in speeches and on paper but in the reality, regardless of stripe and affiliation agree on two (only) rules: - They can meet and talk to each other; and - In any situation that requires competent and responsible decision, they commit to attempt, genuinely and sincerely, to seek a solution in the interests of the country that can be supported by the majority of the group, regardless of affiliation, etc. As it was thought and intended by the founding fathers. Only these two. They do not have to renege on and reject their principles and traditions; to give in or collaborate with the opponent; nothing like that. Only an open conversation and honest consideration, nothing more. If, having tried their best they could not find a solution or at least outline possible directions to it, nothing is lost and they can go their separate ways. But if they manage to find it, they agree to bring it back to their respective caucuses as an alternative to unproductive partisanship. Look, we thought about it together and here's a possible way out. Why wouldn't you try it as well? Nothing lost but just maybe it could point a way out of this sickening to numbness partisan game. With each revolution it brings the democracy closer to the state of chaos and decay.

Yes. It looks to me that you can't understand that political system exists, or supposed to, not for the parties and politicians that play in it and run it but for the country and its citizens. This is the main source of your conundrum, imo.

It's just too bad that between the government that is so used to be run in an environment completely devoid of any notion of transparency and accountability - to the extent that it treats it as its privilege and "prerogative", and the social media companies whose primary interest is profit, it's so hard to find out the truth. This style of quasi-democracy is running out of time. Where citizens cannot know, democracy cannot thrive.

So Jordan is the frontrunner now. You dumped McCarthy and will get Jordan, an open Trump loyalist - or a long period of chaos in the House right at the time when multiple crises are developing. Who gained? Who is it - and you, by the way working for? Doesn't take much to figure out, really. Congrats, you're doing it again. No enemy will accomplish what stupidity does. Easily. Keep talking to yourself in a dreamland. It's known to solve many problems.

OK, to round it up: Matt Gaetz can always count on you to blow the House up whenever he wants it. Easy, and factual too. Now, who was supposed to influence whom, in this wise strategy?

Look we were just talking about the lying mob tactics. But what is this? Where, in what world, "not supporting" means "blow up"? Seriously I'm beginning to doubt, is it the same thing in the context of intelligence, reason and responsibility? And here's another one. Refraining from "endorsing" has to mean "blowing the House up" and nothing less. Oh my. Difficult case.