HIV at center of latest culture war after Tennessee rejects federal funds
The tensions in Tennessee began in the fall, when Republican Gov. Bill Lee voiced disapproval of two HIV grant recipients spotlighted in conservative media — a task force on transgender health issues and Planned Parenthood. The conflict escalated late last week when the state announced that after May 31, it would no longer accept any money from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for testing, prevention and surveillance of HIV.

State officials said they would continue to support HIV testing and prevention but would focus on first responders, victims of human trafficking and mothers and children. In contrast, the federal program prioritizes men who have sex with men and transgender people, particularly in communities of color, who are at greatest risk of HIV, according to federal surveillance data.

“It’s pretty hard not to think that part of the motivation is to restrict funding to groups we don’t like and don’t want to support,” said Wayne Smith, who runs a faith-based HIV prevention program in Knoxville that will lose about $10,000 for
testing each year.

In Texas, religious employers brought a suit arguing they shouldn’t have to pay for HIV-prevention drugs that are mandated by the Affordable Care Act, and in September, a federal judge sided with them, citing the right to religious freedom.


One of those who sued the federal government is a Christian-operated corporation called Braidwood Management, which is owned by Texas Republican megadonor Steven Hotze. Hotze claimed the Affordable Care Act requirement that health plans cover PrEP would make his company, quote, "facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior." And so this federal judge in Texas, Reed O'Connor, sided with Hotze. In his ruling, the judge said that Hotze was able to prove that the PrEP mandate substantially burdens his religious freedoms.

this judge is on the dole

The Texas Attorney General's Office has made a habit of filing lawsuits against the federal government that land in O'Connor's court.

Since 2015, almost half of challenges to the federal government that Texas filed in district courts here landed in O’Connor’s courtroom, attorney general’s office records show.

One of America’s most partisan judges just gave Navy SEALs permission to defy a direct order

yep red state Judges just acting on the Law not how its written ... But by his religious views on the matter ... we see it all over the nation now GODs justifies more discrimination over Justice

HIV at center of latest culture war after Tennessee rejects federal funds
The tensions in Tennessee began in the fall, when Republican Gov. Bill Lee voiced disapproval of two HIV grant recipients spotlighted in conservative media — a task force on transgender health issues and Planned Parenthood. The conflict escalated late last week when the state announced that after May 31, it would no longer accept any money from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for testing, prevention and surveillance of HIV.

State officials said they would continue to support HIV testing and prevention but would focus on first responders, victims of human trafficking and mothers and children. In contrast, the federal program prioritizes men who have sex with men and transgender people, particularly in communities of color, who are at greatest risk of HIV, according to federal surveillance data.

“It’s pretty hard not to think that part of the motivation is to restrict funding to groups we don’t like and don’t want to support,” said Wayne Smith, who runs a faith-based HIV prevention program in Knoxville that will lose about $10,000 for
testing each year.

In Texas, religious employers brought a suit arguing they shouldn’t have to pay for HIV-prevention drugs that are mandated by the Affordable Care Act, and in September, a federal judge sided with them, citing the right to religious freedom.


One of those who sued the federal government is a Christian-operated corporation called Braidwood Management, which is owned by Texas Republican megadonor Steven Hotze. Hotze claimed the Affordable Care Act requirement that health plans cover PrEP would make his company, quote, "facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior." And so this federal judge in Texas, Reed O'Connor, sided with Hotze. In his ruling, the judge said that Hotze was able to prove that the PrEP mandate substantially burdens his religious freedoms.

this judge is on the dole

The Texas Attorney General's Office has made a habit of filing lawsuits against the federal government that land in O'Connor's court.

Since 2015, almost half of challenges to the federal government that Texas filed in district courts here landed in O’Connor’s courtroom, attorney general’s office records show.

One of America’s most partisan judges just gave Navy SEALs permission to defy a direct order

yep red state Judges just acting on the Law not how its written ... But by his religious views on the matter ... we see it all over the nation now GODs justifies more discrimination over Justice

how do you know that judge is on the dole? just by saying it?

read the bill of rights wayne. you can’t peoppe to
force that which violates their generally accepted beliefs. you don’t have to like it, that’s the the bill of rights matters. no one has to fight for their rights when everyone agrees with them. the bill of rights only matters if you respect those rights even when you hate the context.

i dont especially like that context either. But the bill of rights matters, even if it’s not convenient for you,,wayne.

I hate what’s said on MSNBC, but they have the right to say it. I hate art that shows the Virgin Mary covered in feces, I hate meetings of the Black Panthers, but i like living in a country where they have the right to do what they believe.

The bill of rights is meaningless, if you’d only grant those rights when it’s convenient for you, when it costs you nothing.

Just read the bill. it’s not hard. they probably made a pop up book version somewhere. You can’t deny the right of someone else to freely exercise their religion as they, not you, see fit. the right doesn’t only exist when you feel
like granting it.

Quite the path they’ve chosen, I wouldn’t want to see them end up like sub-Saharan Africa.
46 men — including a high school football coach and a youth pastor — were arrested during a multi-agency operation targeting sex trafficking in North Texas and 30 church leaders in Tennessee and Georgia were convicted of sex abuse crimes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quite the path they’ve chosen, I wouldn’t want to see them end up like sub-Saharan Africa.
46 men — including a high school football coach and a youth pastor — were arrested during a multi-agency operation targeting sex trafficking in North Texas and 30 church leaders in Tennessee and Georgia were convicted of sex abuse crimes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and no democrat or atheist has ever been arrested, ever.

Pete, i hate to break it to you, but our system of due process doesn’t allow you to trash freedom of religion to all of 330 million of us, because 46 people who go to church, got arrested.

Not how it works, and it’s a stupid argument, no clue what or who you were responding to. Did someone claim that everyone who goes to church is perfect?

how do you know that judge is on the dole? just by saying it?

read the bill of rights wayne. you can’t peoppe to
force that which violates their generally accepted beliefs. you don’t have to like it, that’s the the bill of rights matters. no one has to fight for their rights when everyone agrees with them. the bill of rights only matters if you respect those rights even when you hate the context.

i dont especially like that context either. But the bill of rights matters, even if it’s not convenient for you,,wayne.

I hate what’s said on MSNBC, but they have the right to say it. I hate art that shows the Virgin Mary covered in feces, I hate meetings of the Black Panthers, but i like living in a country where they have the right to do what they believe.

The bill of rights is meaningless, if you’d only grant those rights when it’s convenient for you, when it costs you nothing.

Just read the bill. it’s not hard. they probably made a pop up book version somewhere. You can’t deny the right of someone else to freely exercise their religion as they, not you, see fit. the right doesn’t only exist when you feel
like granting it.

how do you know that judge is on the dole? just by saying it?

Really Jim now sarcasm alludes you?

Of course you don’t see an issue with 50% of cases get sent to his desk from Religious zealots.

Who see how he rules not by the bill of rights that you quote as if to grant him an excuse. He rulings seem to always involve anti government religious overtones ..

Seem this guy would rule against any contraception agreeing it promotes un married Sex

But these religious nuts who feel anti hiv meds is promoting gay sex
Have no issues paying for others viagra ..

Not sure how a business offering health insurance can list what treatments are acceptable

Jim as expected sees discrimination as a religious right and freedom..

This is the new religion in the Right in America.. don’t like something and then scream religious rights

And some judges and the SJC will agree with them because their allegiance is to god before the nation or its laws
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how do you know that judge is on the dole? just by saying it?

Really Jim now sarcasm alludes you?

Of course you don’t see an issue with 50% of cases get sent to his desk from Religious zealots.

Who see how he rules not by the bill of rights that you quote as if to grant him an excuse. He rulings seem to always involve anti government religious overtones ..

Seem this guy would rule against any contraception agreeing it promotes un married Sex

But these religious nuts who feel anti hiv meds is promoting gay sex
Have no issues paying for others viagra ..

Not sure how a business offering health insurance can list what treatments are acceptable

Jim as expected sees discrimination as a religious right and freedom..

This is the new religion in the Right in America.. don’t like something and then scream religious rights

And some judges and the SJC will agree with them because their allegiance is to god before the nation or its laws
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Not sure how a business offering health insurance can list what treatments are acceptable"

No kidding. Because you only care about the Bill Of Rights, when it's the rights of liberals being discussed. Americans can not be forced to abandon their religious beliefs at work. That's how. The Bill doesn't specify that you have to agree with the context in which someone is asserting those rights.

I'm not saying I agree with the stance those Christians are taking. I just agree the Bill Of Rights gives them that right. If I owned a business that provided health insurance, I'd absolutely want to cover HIV treatment, but not recreational birth control and not gender transition treatments. You want it, you buy it. Leave me out of it.

and no democrat or atheist has ever been arrested, ever.

Pete, i hate to break it to you, but our system of due process doesn’t allow you to trash freedom of religion to all of 330 million of us, because 46 people who go to church, got arrested.

Not how it works, and it’s a stupid argument, no clue what or who you were responding to. Did someone claim that everyone who goes to church is perfect?

Poor victim
Nothing to do with it, I don’t care and neither does HIV/AIDS care what religion anyone is.
Being religious doesn’t make you immune to disease or snakebites.
Most of the infected in sub-Sahara Africa aren’t gay or drug users.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Not sure how a business offering health insurance can list what treatments are acceptable"

No kidding. Because you only care about the Bill Of Rights, when it's the rights of liberals being discussed. Americans can not be forced to abandon their religious beliefs at work. That's how. The Bill doesn't specify that you have to agree with the context in which someone is asserting those rights.

I'm not saying I agree with the stance those Christians are taking. I just agree the Bill Of Rights gives them that right. If I owned a business that provided health insurance, I'd absolutely want to cover HIV treatment, but not recreational birth control and not gender transition treatments. You want it, you buy it. Leave me out of it.

Yeah Jim, this same judge ruled that the Navy SEALs didn’t have to get the vaccine and banned the Navy from discharging them. That is pure BS because apparently shall not kill. Does it apply?. to Navy SEALs who suddenly feel getting the vaccine was it was against their religion like I said Christians, picking and choosing which religious freedoms they want to use and win total BS. And shockingly the supreme court ruled against the judge like I said, holds 50% of the cases that come out of Texas regarding government and religion

The bill of rights has never been so abused until conservatives used it as it as a weapon I just don’t know why you can’t see that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah Jim, this same judge ruled that the Navy SEALs didn’t have to get the vaccine and banned the Navy from discharging them. That is pure BS because apparently shall not kill. Does it apply?. to Navy SEALs who suddenly feel getting the vaccine was it was against their religion like I said Christians, picking and choosing which religious freedoms they want to use and win total BS. And shockingly the supreme court ruled against the judge like I said, holds 50% of the cases that come out of Texas regarding government and religion

The bill of rights has never been so abused until conservatives used it as it as a weapon I just don’t know why you can’t see that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not just one judge. Other judges (Supreme Court I think?) ruled that Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters Of The Poor cannot be forced to violate their religion in terms of what they offer employees in health insurance.

"The bill of rights has never been so abused until conservatives used it as it as a weapon"

Liberals use the Bill Of Rights every single day, while doing things that infuriate conservatives, but they have that right. When MSNBC and CNN claim that I hate everybody, when liberals burn the flag, when artists use public money to hang paintings of Jesus covered in feces in public museums. Those are all things that I find revolting and deeply insulting, but I'd never, ever say that the left doesn't have the right to exercise those rights.

Wayne, it's very easy to grant rights to people who you know will only exercise those rights in ways you agree with. The test of the Bill Of Rights, is whether or not you'd guarantee those rights to those who exercise them in ways that make you sick. I'm fine guaranteeing those rights to those I disagree with. Clearly you are not, because you spend a lot of time whining about it.

If you're OK with limiting those rights to situations you agree with, that means conservatives will do the same thing when they're in charge. You want Donald Trump being able to decide when Freedom of The Press exists and when it doesn't? Or Freedom Of Speech? I'm not OK with that..

Here's the exact wording from the constitution...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The state doesn't decide what's a legitimate religious belief, we decide that for ourselves. And the state cannot interfere, within reason (no human sacrifices).

And I'm sorry to break it to you, but nowhere in that phrase does it say that freedom of religion only applies as long as you happen to be OK with it.

Liberal snowflakes seem to think they have a constitutional right to never be offended. I'm a conservative catholic living in CT. I'm used to being offended.

Nobody said democracy is supposed to be easy. People who disagree with you on everything, have the same exact rights that you have.

apparently shall not kill. Does it apply?. to Navy SEALs who suddenly feel getting the vaccine was it was against their religion like I said Christians, picking and choosing which religious freedoms they want to use
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're saying Christians are hypocrites if they serve in combat?

Theologians have LONG interpreted that commandment as "thou shall not commit murder". Killing someone in self-defense, and also in a just war, has long been considered in keeping with that commandment.

You just make it up as you go along.

Dearest Jim, when was the last time you saw a US flag burnt?

You're saying Christians are hypocrites if they serve in combat?

Theologians have LONG interpreted that commandment as "thou shall not commit murder". Killing someone in self-defense, and also in a just war, has long been considered in keeping with that commandment.

You just make it up as you go along.

Iam no biblical scholar but I know the Ten Commandments don’t say Thou shall not murder.

And as if you ever went to war . There’s no such thing as a just war it’s all about kill or be killed

Theologians have LONG interpreted that commandment as "thou shall not commit murder". in a just war, has long been considered in keeping with that commandment.

Where did you get that lie from the the theologians from the crusades
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Iam no biblical scholar but I know the Ten Commandments don’t say Thou shall not murder.

And as if you ever went to war . There’s no such thing as a just war it’s all about kill or be killed

Theologians have LONG interpreted that commandment as "thou shall not commit murder". in a just war, has long been considered in keeping with that commandment.

Where did you get that lie from the the theologians from the crusades
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m not lying. the catholic church recognizes the principle of just war. Your ignorance, doesn’t make me a liar.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250236/just-war-theory-and-ukraine-would-war-with-russia-be-in-accord-with-catholic-teaching

You're saying Christians are hypocrites if they serve in combat?

Theologians have LONG interpreted that commandment as "thou shall not commit murder". Killing someone in self-defense, and also in a just war, has long been considered in keeping with that commandment.

You just make it up as you go along.

Just war, that statement is so open to interpretation, so many hundreds of thousands have died in the worlds holy wars in the name of Christianity. Who determines one particular war or conflict is just?

i’m not lying. the catholic church recognizes the principle of just war. Your ignorance, doesn’t make me a liar.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250236/just-war-theory-and-ukraine-would-war-with-russia-be-in-accord-with-catholic-teaching

St. Augustine in the 4th century Yep Jim what a convincing argument
You just proved my point some edict from the crusades

Just another example of religious people wanting to pick and choose when and how they wish to excise their beliefs to justify when convenient

St. Augustine in the 4th century Yep Jim what a convincing argument
You just proved my point some edict from the crusades

Just another example of religious people wanting to pick and choose when and how they wish to excise their beliefs to justify when convenient

you mis-read it. in july, pope francis said war can be just and there is the right to self defense.


this is too stupid to believe you’re serious

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2022/07/pope-francis-confirms-right-to-defense-but-insists-on-rethink-of-just-war-doctrine

you mis-read it. in july, pope francis said war can be just and there is the right to self defense.


this is too stupid to believe you’re serious

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2022/07/pope-francis-confirms-right-to-defense-but-insists-on-rethink-of-just-war-doctrine

We just killed a isis leader in Africa were those forces acting in self defense? We attacked them

Just accept it jim when politicians politicized the vaccine mandate the conservatives and their supporters in their efforts to continue to push their agenda and switch gears to the religious freedom argument which is totally bogus..

I had a friend who’s sons in the Air Force but he’s a trump fan bought into all the vaccine lies . Who insisted he was going to get a religious exemption.. after the military mandated the shot. He’s baptized that the extent of his faith
But he had a choice follow order or get out… he got the shot..

Not sure why conservatives suddenly feel disobeying orders is fashionable in today’s military talk about a woke idea.. what’s next for people in the military no iam not going to attack that enemy position it’s dangerous and I might die says my religion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From a sitting Air Force General recently

“Lethality matters most,” he added, according to Task & Purpose, a military publication. “When you can kill your enemy, every part of your life is better. Your food tastes better. Your marriage is stronger.”

And I bet he goes to church on Sundays :btu:

Haven’t you noticed the people callously saying someone “should’ve just complied” are the same ones SCREAMING “DO NOT COMPLY” when it comes to vaccines?!

DO NOT COMPLY when it comes to election results they don’t like?!

Poor victims
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Haven’t you noticed the people callously saying someone “should’ve just complied” are the same ones SCREAMING “DO NOT COMPLY” when it comes to vaccines?!

DO NOT COMPLY when it comes to election results they don’t like?!

Poor victims
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
After watching all the video available, I can’t blame that guy from running. These cops are going to do time.

After watching all the video available, I can’t blame that guy from running. These cops are going to do time.

The police have been given status in the nation in the last 20 years police have always been respected but it seems our conservatives want them to worshiped to be beyond scrutiny.. the same thing has happened to our military from baby killers to people whom were convicted as war criminals pardoned and adopted as a hero by the Right .

The police dress and are equipped as if they were in Iraq . Not with out some justification seeing the Right allows all manner of weapons to be available to be used against them..

But I’ve said this before in Iraq I could not shoot and kill any Iraqi because I thought or I feared for my safety . Or simply because they ran
But if the pointed or fired a weapon it was game on.

But in my own country the police have the power and the mindset that allows them to kill unarmed persons . Because they feared for their life. I get it it’s a dangerous job but I would expect they understood that

But my same principle applies to police if someone points a gun or fires at you or come at you with a blade then it’s game on .

But in today’s polarized landscape
Any police criticism or accountability is considered left wing radicalism

Police training needs 24hrs of mandatory training focused on You Are not above the law.. and here’s why
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The police have been given status in the nation in the last 20 years police have always been respected but it seems our conservatives want them to worshiped to be beyond scrutiny.. the same thing has happened to our military from baby killers to people whom were convicted as war criminals pardoned and adopted as a hero by the Right .

The police dress and are equipped as if they were in Iraq . Not with out some justification seeing the Right allows all manner of weapons to be available to be used against them..

But I’ve said this before in Iraq I could not shoot and kill any Iraqi because I thought or I feared for my safety . Or simply because they ran
But if the pointed or fired a weapon it was game on.

But in my own country the police have the power and the mindset that allows them to kill unarmed persons . Because they feared for their life. I get it it’s a dangerous job but I would expect they understood that

But my same principle applies to police if someone points a gun or fires at you or come at you with a blade then it’s game on .

But in today’s polarized landscape
Any police criticism or accountability is considered left wing radicalism

Police training needs 24hrs of mandatory training focused on You Are not above the law.. and here’s why
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile devicel

lies

police aren’t to be worshipped, everyone in the right calls for training and rooting out the bad apples

what you’re oblivious to as always, is that it’s your side peddling in politically convenient horsesh*t, they they’re all racist and all bad and engaged in a plot to commit genocide against blacks, despite the data being crystal clear that’s not the case. That they need to be defunded.

There are hundreds of thousands of cops. there are some really bad ones who need to be rooted out. most are trying to do a difficult, dangerous, and vital job.

why anyone would ever do it, given what they can expect from the left, is beyond me. Look no further than the history of current liberal kingpin al sharpton.

accurate police criticism is fine. suggesting that they are systemically racist, is typical liberal crap. in most urban areas, the police is the one single urban institution that works the way it’s supposed to.

it’s all a diversion, a distraction, a smokescreen.anything to avoid an honest conversation about what’s going on in the cities

wayne, you’re a prison guard, and you said the most hateful peoppe you e ever
met are the ones who go to church. worse than the prisoners yiu guard.

you’re not to be taken seriously here. .

here’s the deal. We need most cops to be where most violent crime happens. That’s poor urban areas. because that’s where most cops are, and where most violence takes place, it’s where most tragedies will inevitably occur. it’s not about race, it’s about socioeconomics.

to the left, all they want to talk about is race, because even they know they look stupid talking about anything else.

l

lies

police aren’t to be worshipped, everyone in the right calls for training and rooting out the bad apples

if that was so the would have voted for the george floyd justice in policing act. but it was killed by republicans over Qualified immunity which is has been abused and now is a get out jail free card for some and the name of the Bill didn't help


what you’re oblivious to as always, is that it’s your side peddling in politically convenient horsesh*t, they they’re all racist and all bad and engaged in a plot to commit genocide against blacks, despite the data being crystal clear that’s not the case. what's that saying perception is reality and to many black its their reality followed That they need to be defunded.

There are hundreds of thousands of cops. there are some really bad ones who need to be rooted out. most are trying to do a difficult, dangerous, and vital job. Its police culture Jim... not individuals learn the difference please

why anyone would ever do it, given what they can expect from the left,So no police are liberals ? Got it is beyond me. Look no further than the history of current liberal kingpin al sharpton. Oh Al sharpton again please get a new scapegoat


accurate police criticism is fine. suggesting that they are systemically racist, the people who live it would disagree is typical liberal crap. in most urban areas, the police is the one single urban institution that works the way it’s supposed to.

it’s all a diversion, a distraction, a smokescreen. for what purpose Jim? and from what


Why is the truth always seen as lies by conservatives ?




30 year in corrections aka Law enforcement .. even inside prisons we deal with the same issues do you think violent criminals stop being violent after they go to Jail ? .. we have cameras everywhere but maybe were trained differently... but we still have a culture to overcome . And staff who stepped outside the line sure they get removed . but the image still sticks to the good people who are left to carry on

Why is the truth always seen as lies by conservatives ?




30 year in corrections aka Law enforcement .. even inside prisons we deal with the same issues do you think violent criminals stop being violent after they go to Jail ? .. we have cameras everywhere but maybe were trained differently... but we still have a culture to overcome . And staff who stepped outside the line sure they get removed . but the image still sticks to the good people who are left to carry on

so everyone who voted against a bill you liked, is in favor of police brutality.

As always, zero facts, zero honesty, zero common sense. just more “conservatives are all evil, and all the world’s evil exists on the right” simpleton nonsense.

you think something is true because it comes from the left.. that’s not evidence of anything.

so everyone who voted against a bill you liked, is in favor of police brutality.

As always, zero facts, zero honesty, zero common sense. just more “conservatives are all evil, and all the world’s evil exists on the right” simpleton nonsense.

you think something is true because it comes from the left.. that’s not evidence of anything.

so everyone who voted against a bill you liked, is in favor of police brutality.

well if you try to pass bills that Republicans introduced that would encourage — not force — police departments to end the use of violent tactics like chokeholds and no-knock raids. that sounds about right .

Even in my prison we couldn't use choke holds for decades :btu:

WOW Jim do ever do any research.

The House passed the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act on Wednesday night with just one Republican vote. And that one Republican now says it was an accident.

so everyone who voted against a bill you liked, is in favor of police brutality.

well if you try to pass bills that Republicans introduced that would encourage — not force — police departments to end the use of violent tactics like chokeholds and no-knock raids. that sounds about right .

Even in my prison we couldn't use choke holds for decades :btu:

WOW Jim do ever do any research.

The House passed the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act on Wednesday night with just one Republican vote. And that one Republican now says it was an accident.

no knock raids have an obvious place. there are times where it’s better for police to not have to announce that they’re on scene. Some people might react negatively to that. I’m sorry if that’s going too fast for you.

biden said this week that police shouldn’t shoot to kill. he said they should “shoot to stop”. this is the president,. liberals can’t understand that reality trumps utopia. we should ask cops to shoot guns out of peoples hands. super. how come
no one ever thought of that, it’s so simple!!

when you elect an alzheimer’s patient, this is what you get.

when you post that they voted against it, without a syllable as to why, it’s because you don’t know why. you’re just regurgitating talking points. Tell me why they said they oppose the bill.

Here’s a list of effective change since the Rodney King beating:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here’s a list of effective change since the Rodney King beating:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ask any police department human resources officer, they’ll
disagree. there’s a lot more sensitivity training , etc. maybe that stuff is a waste.

I saw a CNN report tonight that said some of the memphis cops on that video, were hired after the city lowered the hiring requirements in an attempt to increase diversity. i’m sure that diversity comes as a great comfort to the victims family.

diversity really is overrated in some professions. Quality and competence is a lot more important, isnt it?

not a lot of improvements in gun laws after sandy hook. because both sides dig in amd refuse to compromise. both sides elect too many jerks.

ask any police department human resources officer, they’ll
disagree. there’s a lot more sensitivity training , etc. maybe that stuff is a waste.

I saw a CNN report tonight that said some of the memphis cops on that video, were hired after the city lowered the hiring requirements in an attempt to increase diversity. i’m sure that diversity comes as a great comfort to the victims family.

diversity really is overrated in some professions. Quality and competence is a lot more important, isnt it?

not a lot of improvements in gun laws after sandy hook. because both sides dig in amd refuse to compromise. both sides elect too many jerks.

One of the facts seared into my head is that when Derek Chauvin was convicted for murdering George Floyd, he was only the 7th cop to be convicted of murder since 2005, out of the 15,000 police killings in those 16 years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One of the facts seared into my head is that when Derek Chauvin was convicted for murdering George Floyd, he was only the 7th cop to be convicted of murder since 2005, out of the 15,000 police killings in those 16 years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because most deaths are justified, and the ones that aren’t self defense are mostly good faith mistakes, which is t murder. . i’m sure there were murders that went unpunished, but very few

do you ever consider the other point of view? the cop, who didn’t ask to be put into a life or death situation where they have to make a decision in a fraction of a second. There will be tragedies. no way to avoid it. we need to mimimize it, but there’s a reality to accept.

and for sure, it’s not always about race.

because most deaths are justified, and the ones that aren’t self defense are mostly good faith mistakes, which is t murder. . i’m sure there were murders that went unpunished, but very few

do you ever consider the other point of view? the cop, who didn’t ask to be put into a life or death situation where they have to make a decision in a fraction of a second. There will be tragedies. no way to avoid it. we need to mimimize it, but there’s a reality to accept.

and for sure, it’s not always about race.

You’re wrong

“One of the facts seared into my head is that when Derek Chauvin was convicted for murdering George Floyd, he was only the 7th cop to be convicted of murder since 2005, out of the 15,000 police killings in those 16 years.”

It’s a statistical impossibility the other 14,993 of those were without police fault. Normal human error for difficult tasks is on the order of 50%. A typist with near perfect scores still has a 1% error rate. 1% of 15,000 is 150. We’re easily a few short.

As far as dangerous jobs, Police officers are not even in the top twenty for fatal otj incidents.

Wonder why cops are taught to yell “stop resisting” and “drop your weapon” after firing a gun, because bystanders will remember they said it and their memory will automatically reverse the order of the events to make it make sense. Their testimony will support cops, because of this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’re wrong

“One of the facts seared into my head is that when Derek Chauvin was convicted for murdering George Floyd, he was only the 7th cop to be convicted of murder since 2005, out of the 15,000 police killings in those 16 years.”

It’s a statistical impossibility the other 14,993 of those were without police fault. Normal human error for difficult tasks is on the order of 50%. A typist with near perfect scores still has a 1% error rate. 1% of 15,000 is 150. We’re easily a few short.

As far as dangerous jobs, Police officers are not even in the top twenty for fatal otj incidents.

Wonder why cops are taught to yell “stop resisting” and “drop your weapon” after firing a gun, because bystanders will remember they said it and their memory will automatically reverse the order of the events to make it make sense. Their testimony will support cops, because of this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i didn’t say “without police fault”. in fact, i said no doubt some
murders were overlooked. n

what’s wrong with you? if i say “some
murders went unpunished”, how can you accuse me of saying the police are never wrong?

you’re either unbelievably stupid, or unbelievably dishonest. my money is on dishonest. there’s nothing you won’t say, nothing you won’t accuse me of saying.

You’re a pathological liar, you can’t stop. you’re like trump.

i didn’t say “without police fault”. in fact, i said no doubt some
murders were overlooked. n

what’s wrong with you? if i say “some
murders went unpunished”, how can you accuse me of saying the police are never wrong?

you’re either unbelievably stupid, or unbelievably dishonest. my money is on dishonest. there’s nothing you won’t say, nothing you won’t accuse me of saying.

You’re a pathological liar, you can’t stop. you’re like trump.

Poor victim, accusing me of saying that you said the police are never wrong, you're always kinda sorta saying things like "Because most" it's baloney and means nothing.

As I said "It’s a statistical impossibility the other 14,993 of those were without police fault. Normal human error for difficult tasks is on the order of 50%. A typist with near perfect scores still has a 1% error rate. 1% of 15,000 is 150. We’re easily a few short."

There's been no change in police behavior, if anything it's gotten worse.
Police have gotten more militant and look more like an army than ever.

Poor victim, accusing me of saying that you said the police are never wrong, you're always kinda sorta saying things like "Because most" it's baloney and means nothing.

As I said "It’s a statistical impossibility the other 14,993 of those were without police fault. Normal human error for difficult tasks is on the order of 50%. A typist with near perfect scores still has a 1% error rate. 1% of 15,000 is 150. We’re easily a few short."

There's been no change in police behavior, if anything it's gotten worse.
Police have gotten more militant and look more like an army than ever.

you’re a lunatic.


on this issue, the data is crystal crystal clear. probably 700,000 cops, god knows how many millions and millions of interactions between them and citizens in a year. and a dozen or so times out of those millions, there’s a tragedy. that’s not systemic anything. it’s barely a rounding error.

but hey, democrats can either distort that, or talk about slaughtering the unborn, or any it’s a great idea for men and little girls to share bathrooms. so i get why they want to talk about their warped, distorted take on this issue.

i’m reacting to what the data actually is. you’re reacting to what you wish the data was.

you’re a lunatic.


on this issue, the data is crystal crystal clear. probably 700,000 cops, god knows how many millions and millions of interactions between them and citizens in a year. and a dozen or so times out of those millions, there’s a tragedy. that’s not systemic anything. it’s barely a rounding error.

but hey, democrats can either distort that, or talk about slaughtering the unborn, or any it’s a great idea for men and little girls to share bathrooms. so i get why they want to talk about their warped, distorted take on this issue.

i’m reacting to what the data actually is. you’re reacting to what you wish the data was.

Jim
Show the data then, it only exists in your imagination.

No government agency even started collecting that information till 2019 and what has been collected “does not assess or report whether officers followed their department’s policy or acted lawfully.”

National Use-of-Force Data Collection
The FBI created the National Use of Force Data Collection in 2015, in partnership with law enforcement agencies, to provide nationwide statistics on law enforcement use-of-force incidents.

The FBI began collecting this data from law enforcement agencies on January 1, 2019. The most recent data is available on the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer website.

The data collection Includes:

National-level statistics on law enforcement use-of-force incidents
Basic information on the circumstances, subjects, and officers involved
The National Use-of-Force Data Collection offers big-picture insights, rather than information on specific incidents. The collection does not assess or report whether officers followed their department’s policy or acted lawfully.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete, here the washington post says 14 unarmed
blacks were killed by police in all of 2019.

spin that into an epidemic. good luck. you got any data to suggest there’s an actual epidemic of racist assassinations at the hands of white cops? or are you lying as usual?

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/police-black-killings-homicide-rates-race-injustice

pete, here the washington post says 14 unarmed
blacks were killed by police in all of 2019.

spin that into an epidemic. good luck. you got any data to suggest there’s an actual epidemic of racist assassinations at the hands of white cops? or are you lying as usual?

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/police-black-killings-homicide-rates-race-injustice

You’re the only one making this a racist cop issue
That’s not the Washington Post, it’s the Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning think tank that’s been criticized numerous times for its sloppy self serving reports.

Show the data “or else we know you’re lying”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’re the only one making this a racist cop issue
That’s not the Washington Post, it’s the Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning think tank that’s been criticized numerous times for its sloppy self serving reports.

Show the data “or else we know you’re lying”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you. ritocozed me for saying police deserve no criticism, which i never came close to saying. You’re saying i’m the only one making this a racist cop issue? the left doesn’t have a field day making this a racist cop issue time after time? really?

It must be exhausting/frustrating when the data so often spits in the face of the narrative you’re enslaved by.

Jordan, R-Ohio, pointed to the "disparagement" of law enforcement overstressing police forces across America.

"We're not getting enough good people applying because of the disparagement on police officers," Jordan told NBC's "Meet the Press." Gym a lying seditious scumbag who should be on trial like the foot soldiers already charged and convicted


police are the victims FYI most people don’t want to be cop because the hours and shift work blows and the pays poor unless you’re in a big city or a state trooper in the NE
See article below


https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Statistics don’t lie

Sadly, the trend of fatal police shootings in the United States seems to only be increasing, with a total 1,060 civilians having been shot, 220 of whom were Black, as of December 20, 2022. In 2021, there were 1,055 fatal police shootings, and in 2020 there were 1,020 fatal shootings. Additionally, the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 5.9 fatal shootings per million of the population per year between 2015 and December 2022.

now here comes what’s called 13/50 argument

The “13/50” argument is an overused and under-analyzed conservative talking point, one that unfortunately aids in perpetuating lies about the black community and in casting an unfounded presumption of guilt onto black people. The argument proposes that while black people make up only 13 percent of the population of the United States, we commit 50 percent of all known crime. Occasionally, the 50 percent statistic will vary, sometimes only referring to murder or more broadly to violent crime. Nonetheless, because this argument lacks truly concrete evidence

I posted the entire article because Gym Jordan lies as easily as he breathes

Question for Jim are you against police unions. Seeing your an anti union guy?

A letter to the American public: 3 common misconceptions about pay and rural policing Wanting equitable wages for rural cops is not about greed or ingratitude, it’s just economics

Every news cycle brings competing headlines: should we defund cops, or pay them more to halt the exodus of experienced officers? While big papers cover big cities, I’m here to remind the reader that rural police officers and police agencies aren’t exempt from the influence of inflation and market pressures. The same financial pressures that translate into problems with retention make an already-difficult field an even harder sell for recruiting.

In that case, what do West Virginia, Oklahoma, Florida, South Carolina, Arkansas and Georgia have in common? They all have bills pending to increase pay for (mostly state) law enforcement officers. While some of the raises are substantial, the effects on officer salary would be modest, partly because starting pay is so low now, and partly because it’s been a long time since the last pay boost. In Oklahoma, it would be the first raise troopers have seen in seven years.

Proposed pay increases for state troopers – many of whom live and patrol in relatively remote locations – are a concern for local agencies, which lose seasoned officers when nearby departments pay higher salaries. In response, a group of Arizona legislators drafted a bill that stipulates starting pay for deputy sheriffs cannot be more than 5% below the average salaries of the two top-paying law enforcement agencies in the county. Whether it passes or not, that lawmakers saw a need for such a bill raises a question: what assumptions are standing in the way of paying officers fairly (enough to keep them loyal and working hard) no matter where they work?

Since I write about small, rural and remote agencies, let’s answer that by addressing three common misconceptions about pay and rural policing.

1. POLICE WORK IS A CALLING SO COPS WHO WORRY ABOUT PAY ARE IN IT FOR THE WRONG REASONS

It may be a calling, but most cops are not volunteers with lucrative day jobs. Having bills to pay and families to support does not negate a sense of mission, or mean that officers who want decent compensation are greedy. It means they’re normal humans, with a sense of responsibility for their families and personal obligations, as well as their communities.

Wanting to be able to participate in recreation is healthy and helps to manage stress, but even camping costs money. Wanting to be able to pay off debts, build up savings and provide for a child’s education is responsible, not mercenary. Wanting to rent or buy a house in a safe neighborhood is sensible, not pretentious.

Problems created by extremely low pay in law enforcement came under much-deserved scrutiny after the investigations in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, but the problems didn’t go away. Simplistic search results of national averages for police pay camouflage the very low pay factoring into a mean of about $60,000 a year. There are still plenty of places – hundreds, if not thousands of agencies – where officers are paid in the low 30s each year.

2. IT COSTS LESS TO LIVE IN RURAL AREAS, SO LOW PAY IS FINE

This one is simple: in a lot of rural places, it’s really expensive to live. Rural and remote policing takes place in and near tourist destinations like national parks, coastlines and ski resorts. Rural cops work in vast ranchlands, mountains and deserts that have become trendy rich-people playgrounds, driving up prices for buyers and renters. In many western states, where distances are huge and geography is hostile, there simply may not be housing as urban dwellers know it, affordable or otherwise. Rising rents and lack of availability force officers into commutes that devour ever-larger shares of their household budgets.

[RELATED: When housing costs hinder hiring]

In one example, Park County, Colorado covers more than 2,000 square miles, with only about 18,000 residents. The sheriff needs 18 deputies; he has eight. A recent pay hike increased deputy starting pay to $48,000 per year but the average house in Park County costs close to $600,000, and there is nearly no multi-family housing. Chiefs and sheriffs in Colorado and Idaho are cutting overnight patrols, launching fundraisers for basic equipment like ballistic vests, and going to war with their county or city administrations over inadequate budgets. Those constraints overflow into lagging pay for officers, with few adjustments for cost of living, let alone raises.

Small increases are promptly consumed by higher employee costs for healthcare coverage and retirement contributions. Smaller employee pools and fewer providers drive up insurance premiums, keeping officers from ever seeing an actual increase on the pay stub. The more remote the place, the more expensive are groceries, car repairs, gas prices and medical care. Smaller towns also make it harder to find jobs for spouses and to find child care when the jobs are available.

3. THE BENEFITS MAKE UP FOR THE PAY, THOUGH

While that was probably true once, it’s not anymore.

Until the past 30 years, law enforcement was considered a stable, if not high-dollar career path with a brass ring at the end in the form of a modest but dignified retirement. Healthcare was a given. Now healthcare as a benefit still technically exists, but the costs of premiums fall more and more on the officer rather than the employer. Once upon a time, healthcare benefits that covered the officer and dependents were a given; now it is common for only the employee to be covered. Coverage for dependents is “available” with the premium deducted from payroll, sometimes subsidized by the agency, but often at full price. When that is the case, dependents may be barred from shopping on the ACA market for more affordable options because, technically, they already “have insurance available.”

And retirements? Those still exist, but they’re not the Golden Parachute the public thinks they are. Even in a solid defined-benefit system, they pay only a percentage of base pay; the lower the base pay, the lower will be the pension, and many law enforcement officers are not eligible to participate in Social Security.

Some states are experimenting with hybrid or defined-contribution (401K style) retirement plans as cost-cutting measures, and the change is negatively affecting retention. As recruiting lags and seasoned officers leave, taking institutional knowledge with them, Alaska and Kentucky are reworking their retirement plans. What they lose outweighs the savings. Likewise, Utah cut its retirement percentage to a meager 35% of base pay after 25 years, instead of the previous 50% at 20 years. The state’s first responder agencies have paid the price in turnover, as burned-out and disappointed workers left for other states or other fields. Like Kentucky and Alaska, Utah’s legislators are backtracking, hoping to stem the hemorrhage.

IT’S NOT GREED OR INGRATITUDE, IT’S JUST ECONOMICS

Law enforcement as a profession differs from urban to rural areas only in scale; in all settings, the job has become more complex. Training and education requirements are higher, and there are increasingly fraught interactions with the public at very high legal and social stakes. It’s no longer a career field where a high school graduate can learn on the job and make a solid middle-class living.

Instead, we’re getting a real-time economics lesson in compensating wage differentials: jobs that are unpleasant, that require higher skill levels, or that are dangerous, require higher levels of pay to attract enough people to do the jobs. It really is that simple. Officers in lower-paying localities, with marginal benefits and variable leadership, can read headlines announcing Target’s new starting pay and wonder if they are making a wise choice. When Walmart raises starting pay for truck drivers to $110,000 per year, it’s easy to see how a job requiring a gun, a Kevlar vest and the possibility of getting prosecuted for a mistake might seem less attractive than it used to be. There may not be Target stores in the country, but truck drivers can live there if they want to.

Market pressures are squeezing current officers and applicants alike. The need to adjust pay scales arises from “a failure of consideration” – in other words, what was once an acceptable level of compensation has so decreased in value that officers simply are no longer willing to do the work for the same rate of pay. In fact, they can’t, and they’re voting with their feet.

Jordan, R-Ohio, pointed to the "disparagement" of law enforcement overstressing police forces across America.

"We're not getting enough good people applying because of the disparagement on police officers," Jordan told NBC's "Meet the Press." Gym a lying seditious scumbag who should be on trial like the foot soldiers already charged and convicted


police are the victims FYI most people don’t want to be cop because the hours and shift work blows and the pays poor unless you’re in a big city or a state trooper in the NE
See article below


https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Statistics don’t lie

Sadly, the trend of fatal police shootings in the United States seems to only be increasing, with a total 1,060 civilians having been shot, 220 of whom were Black, as of December 20, 2022. In 2021, there were 1,055 fatal police shootings, and in 2020 there were 1,020 fatal shootings. Additionally, the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 5.9 fatal shootings per million of the population per year between 2015 and December 2022.

now here comes what’s called 13/50 argument

The “13/50” argument is an overused and under-analyzed conservative talking point, one that unfortunately aids in perpetuating lies about the black community and in casting an unfounded presumption of guilt onto black people. The argument proposes that while black people make up only 13 percent of the population of the United States, we commit 50 percent of all known crime. Occasionally, the 50 percent statistic will vary, sometimes only referring to murder or more broadly to violent crime. Nonetheless, because this argument lacks truly concrete evidence

If you look at the rates blacks are shot by police and compare that to the black makeup of the entire US population, it's disproportionate. But it's a silly way to look at it, because violent crime doesn't happen universally or evenly throughout the country. Most violent crime happens in poor urban areas, and common sense suggests that's where you'll have most dangerous encounters between cops and civilians.

If you compare the rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens, it's not so disproportionate. But that fact doesn't fire up the left base, so they fall back to the nonsensical argument.

Blacks don't need to be white to prosper. As a group, they need to embrace a culture that emphasizes better decision-making.

It's not about race. It's about socio-economics and culture. Black kids born to 2 loving, committed parents, do just fine. White kids born to single teenage mothers who have a chaotic life, struggle.

But all the left sees is race. It's not accurate. It's not helping to solve the problem. But it helps democrats win elections.

If you look at the rates blacks are shot by police and compare that to the black makeup of the entire US population, it's disproportionate. But it's a silly way to look at it, because violent crime doesn't happen universally or evenly throughout the country. Most violent crime happens in poor urban areas, and common sense suggests that's where you'll have most dangerous encounters between cops and civilians.

If you compare the rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens, it's not so disproportionate. But that fact doesn't fire up the left base, so they fall back to the nonsensical argument.

Blacks don't need to be white to prosper. As a group, they need to embrace a culture that emphasizes better decision-making.

It's not about race. It's about socio-economics and culture. Black kids born to 2 loving, committed parents, do just fine. White kids born to single teenage mothers who have a chaotic life, struggle.

But all the left sees is race. It's not accurate. It's not helping to solve the problem. But it helps democrats win elections.

Well as usual what you’re claiming is sorta kinda true, but misses whats happened in black communities since the beginning of the war on drugs.
There’s a reason blacks are imprisoned at 5 times the rate of whites and it has become a self propagating mechanism.

Since the late 1980s, a combination of federal law enforcement policies, prosecutorial practices, and legislation resulted in Black people being disproportionately arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for possession and distribution of crack cocaine. Five grams of crack cocaine — the weight of a couple packs of sugar — was, for sentencing purposes, deemed the equivalent of 500 grams of powder cocaine; both resulted in the same five-year sentence. Although household surveys from the National Institute for Drug Abuse have revealed larger numbers of documented white crack cocaine users, the overwhelming number of arrests nonetheless came from Black communities who were disproportionately impacted by the facially neutral, yet illogically harsh, crack penalties.
Far easier targets to arrest and convict.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you compare the rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens, it's not so disproportionate. But that fact doesn't fire up the left base, so they fall back to the nonsensical argument.

Moving the goal posts again .. sadly Jim you can’t provide and data for your conclusion.. “rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens”

but yet you claim your conclusion is factual, what is this nonsensical argument? I’ve posted statically Analysis and the fallacy of the 13/50% rule I knew you would use as a defense. And of course , The myth of the absent Black father excuse. You don’t disappoint

There’s a lot of single parents in America

If you compare the rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens, it's not so disproportionate. But that fact doesn't fire up the left base, so they fall back to the nonsensical argument.

Moving the goal posts again .. sadly Jim you can’t provide and data for your conclusion.. “rates at which blacks get shot, to the proportion they make up of areas where most violent crime happens”

but yet you claim your conclusion is factual, what is this nonsensical argument? I’ve posted statically Analysis and the fallacy of the 13/50% rule I knew you would use as a defense. And of course , The myth of the absent Black father excuse. You don’t disappoint

There’s a lot of single parents in America

Every time I point our where you're wrong, I'm either moving the goal post of engaging in false equivalence.

Earth to Wayne...there isn't a huge amount of violent crime in leafy, upper middle class suburbs. That's why comparing rates at which blacks die by cop to their makeup of the general population, means absolutely nothing. Cops on Nantucket don't routinely find themselves in life or death situations with guns drawn. So you exclude the outliers.

In another thread, you mentioned you aren't a biblical scholar (big shock), Add to that list, that you're not a statistics scholar either.

Wayne, what's the rate at which blacks are murdered in general (not just by cops), compared to their makeup of the general population? It's also much higher. Yet most blacks are murdered by other blacks. Is that because of white racists? Or is it because of socioeconomics?

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/verbruggen-fatal-police-shootings

From the Manhattan institute...

"these data and studies rebut the most extreme accusations of racial bias, in which police officers are thought to be killing nonthreatening black men with astounding frequency"

Cops don't shoot people at random, uniformly across the country. It's something that's mostly concentrated in the big cities, so that's the universe you look at.

Chapter 1 of any statistics book.

Of course there are racist cops to be rooted out. But there's nohting even close to an epidemic of police killing of blacks.

Wayne, if you took all the black kids struggling in the cities, doomed for poverty and violence, please tell me which of the following two things would help them more? Which would lead to more of them climbing out of poverty?

(1) giving them white skin, or,

(2) giving them 2 parents who love each other and their kids, who are deeply committed to ensuring their kids have a good future, who read to their kids every single day and are involved with keeping tabs on their education?

Which would be more valuable?

So you exclude the outliers.
.

Except when you use Brentwood TN? Isn't that the one you use to talk about how great TN is while ignoring all the stats about how far behind the state of TN is?

Except when you use Brentwood TN? Isn't that the one you use to talk about how great TN is while ignoring all the stats about how far behind the state of TN is?

You lie about this again, and again, and again, and again. Because you know you are clobbered by the truth.

I never, ever said, or even came close to saying, that every single square inch of Tennessee is great.

Here's what I always say, and you know it, which shows you're the scummy liar.

There are many places in TN, and in NH, and FL, where I would never, ever want to live. There are also many places in CT where I would never want to live.

Here's what makes those states "better"...there are specific places in those states (like Franklin, TN, or Hollis/Brookline, NH) that (1) offer a very nice quality of life that's attractive to a huge number of Americans, AND (2) which also have super low total taxes (state + local).

Paul, I have asked you many times here, to name for me one single place in CT that offers s great quality of life, with super low state+local taxes. I don't think you have ever responded, because stupid and dishonest as you are, even you know you can't answer it honestly without it being obvious that I'm correct.

If I moved to a nice leafy suburb of NH, I'd pay 0 state income tax and 0 state sales tax, probably more in local property taxes but nowhere near enough for it to even out. And I wouldn't give up a single state service that I currently enjoy here in CT. In fact, last time I checked, the university of new hampshire was a lot cheaper than UCONN, despite having almost zero state taxes.

Paul, don't take my word for it! Look at the data. Which states are people leaving, which states are they moving to.

The "outliers" in those states, are the value proposition offered by those states. CT has exactly, and I mean exactly, zero similar outliers. There isn't one single town in CT with comparable tax burden. Not one. If I am wrong, please share with me, please enlighten me.

Scummy liar,

If I moved to NH today I'd save more than $10k a year in state income tax, god knows what we pay in annual state sales tax (must be 10k a year), and give up absolutely not one single thing. And I'd enjoy those savings every single year, a fortune over a lifetime. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. For what? What do I get?

Go to realtor.com and look at Hollis, Brookline, Bow, or Amherst NH. They can't build $650,000 houses fast enough. You think it's all meth heads moving there, all trailer trash that's scooping up those beautiful colonials? All a bunch of fat, ignorant rednecks, eating fried twinkies and watching Hee Haw re-runs all day? Or is it hard working, successful, productive families? Which is it?

And the cost difference between CT and those places, will increase over the next 15 years, CT will have no choice but to drastically raise taxes as the idiotic promises that the liberals made to labor inions, come due. The money isn't there, not even close. So taxes will skyrocket. Look at the estimates of our unfunded debt - not good. That's why every cent of retirement savings we have is in Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s, any idiot could see these huge tax hikes coming, so we are insulated against it.

Paul, I have never come close to saying "throw a dart at a map of TN and it will hit a place nicer than anything in CT". But I did the math for my brother to show him what he'd save. And I visited him in Franklin. It's as nice as, say, Avon CT, at a fraction of the cost. There's no comparing the cost. ANd he didn't lose a single service after he moved.



None of you can respond to what was actually said. Not a one.

You lie about this again, and again, and again, and again. Because you know you are clobbered by the truth.

I never, ever said, or even came close to saying, that every single square inch of Tennessee is great.

Here's what I always say, and you know it, which shows you're the scummy liar.

There are many places in TN, and in NH, and FL, where I would never, ever want to live. There are also many places in CT where I would never want to live.

Here's what makes those states "better"...there are specific places in those states (like Franklin, TN, or Hollis/Brookline, NH) that (1) offer a very nice quality of life that's attractive to a huge number of Americans, AND (2) which also have super low total taxes (state + local).

Paul, I have asked you many times here, to name for me one single place in CT that offers s great quality of life, with super low state+local taxes. I don't think you have ever responded, because stupid and dishonest as you are, even you know you can't answer it honestly without it being obvious that I'm correct.

If I moved to a nice leafy suburb of NH, I'd pay 0 state income tax and 0 state sales tax, probably more in local property taxes but nowhere near enough for it to even out. And I wouldn't give up a single state service that I currently enjoy here in CT. In fact, last time I checked, the university of new hampshire was a lot cheaper than UCONN, despite having almost zero state taxes.

Paul, don't take my word for it! Look at the data. Which states are people leaving, which states are they moving to.

The "outliers" in those states, are the value proposition offered by those states. CT has exactly, and I mean exactly, zero similar outliers. There isn't one single town in CT with comparable tax burden. Not one. If I am wrong, please share with me, please enlighten me.

Scummy liar,

If I moved to NH today I'd save more than $10k a year in state income tax, god knows what we pay in annual state sales tax (must be 10k a year), and give up absolutely not one single thing. And I'd enjoy those savings every single year, a fortune over a lifetime. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. For what? What do I get?

Go to realtor.com and look at Hollis, Brookline, Bow, or Amherst NH. They can't build $650,000 houses fast enough. You think it's all meth heads moving there, all trailer trash that's scooping up those beautiful colonials? All a bunch of fat, ignorant rednecks, eating fried twinkies and watching Hee Haw re-runs all day? Or is it hard working, successful, productive families? Which is it?

And the cost difference between CT and those places, will increase over the next 15 years, CT will have no choice but to drastically raise taxes as the idiotic promises that the liberals made to labor inions, come due. The money isn't there, not even close. So taxes will skyrocket. Look at the estimates of our unfunded debt - not good. That's why every cent of retirement savings we have is in Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s, any idiot could see these huge tax hikes coming, so we are insulated against it.

Paul, I have never come close to saying "throw a dart at a map of TN and it will hit a place nicer than anything in CT". But I did the math for my brother to show him what he'd save. And I visited him in Franklin. It's as nice as, say, Avon CT, at a fraction of the cost. There's no comparing the cost. ANd he didn't lose a single service after he moved.



None of you can respond to what was actually said. Not a one.

Suck my #^&#^&#^&#^& you #^&#^&#^&#^&ing POS

Suck my #^&#^&#^&#^& you #^&#^&#^&#^&ing POS

the truth hurts i see.

for the 12th time, please point me to a nice CT town that has similar tax costs to what can be enjoyed in some of the towns in NC, NH, FL?

answer: there are none. Zip.

that doesn’t mean all of TN is nicer than all of CT. It does mean there are places in southern states where you get more for your dollar. America is realizing that, and the data speaks for itself.

the truth hurts i see.That is not lying.

for the 12th time, please point me to a nice CT town that has similar tax costs to what can be enjoyed in some of the towns in NC, NH, FL?

answer: there are none. Zip.

that doesn’t mean all of TN is nicer than all of CT. It does mean there are images in southern states where you get more for your dollar. America is realizing that, and the data speaks for itself.

I never said you said TN was better as we all know it is a crappy state.

You constantly point out the outlier. I could care less about the outlier. I'm more concerned about the states as a whole.

As I said the way you talk to people shows what a POS you are and shows why there is not one person here you are friends with who will call you up to do anything. You can say Kevin is your friend but is he really? You are toxic.

I never said you said TN was better as we all know it is a crappy state.

You constantly point out the outlier. I could care less about the outlier. I'm more concerned about the states as a whole.

As I said the way you talk to people shows what a POS you are. You are toxic.

you’re more do concerned about the state as a whole. sure. so you put zero thought into which town in CT you’d live in.

in any event, america clearly doesn’t share that logic. that’s why they’re moving in huge numbers to states that, as a whole aren’t better than CT, but have specific places that are as nice as CT at a lower cost.

My brother lives in Franklin TN. He doesn’t care that Memphis is a mess. Just because it’s in the same state?

Americans want what the best of CT has to offer, but they don’t want to horribly overpay for it. Turns out they don’t have to.

you. ritocozed me for saying police deserve no criticism, which i never came close to saying. You’re saying i’m the only one making this a racist cop issue? the left doesn’t have a field day making this a racist cop issue time after time? really?

It must be exhausting/frustrating when the data so often spits in the face of the narrative you’re enslaved by.

Obviously you’re lying again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re more do concerned about the state as a whole. sure. so you put zero thought into which town in CT you’d live in.
Sorry don't understand that gibberish - isn't that the word you use when you're showing your low class
and trying to insult people?
in any event, america clearly doesn’t share that logic. that’s why they’re moving in huge numbers to states that, as a whole aren’t better than CT, but have specific places that are as nice as CT at a lower cost. I live in a great town. I do care about the state as a whole. It shows my compassion and empathy for others less fortunate as myself. It also demonstrates the Repub. (lack of empathy).

My brother lives in Franklin TN. He doesn’t care that Memphis is a mess. Just because it’s in the same state?

Americans want what the best of CT has to offer, but they don’t want to horribly overpay for it. Turns out they don’t have to.

Using Frankling TN as an arguement is using out an outlier- which you said earlier (when you went off the handle - keep the guns away from angry Jim!) should be disgarded. We have stats for 350M. people which show D run states are richer and healthier and R run states are poorer and less healthy. Pretty compelling evidence.

And your whole arguement was proven wrong when I posted stats showing migration to Fl. hasn't changed over the last 50 years or so. Approximately 850 per day. No difference between when Rs where gov or when Ds were governing. How many times have you posted that argument yet it was proven 100% wrong?

Using Frankling TN as an arguement is using out an outlier- which you said earlier (when you went off the handle - keep the guns away from angry Jim!) should be disgarded. We have stats for 350M. people which show D run states are richer and healthier and R run states are poorer and less healthy. Pretty compelling evidence.

And your whole arguement was proven wrong when I posted stats showing migration to Fl. hasn't changed over the last 50 years or so. Approximately 850 per day. No difference between when Rs where gov or when Ds were governing. How many times have you posted that argument yet it was proven 100% wrong?

So I've asked you 10 times now, why there aren't any similar outliers in CT (towns with high quality of life and very low taxes), and not once have you come close to answering. Those outliers are the value proposition offered by those states.

The fact that FL has always had migration, doesn't even come close to refuting my point. Just because my grandparents retired there doesn't mean I'm going to retire there. There has to be something about the state that makes me want to move there.

When FL had democrat governors, they didn't implement a big state income tax (like they did in CT). It was still a conservative state, it's never been considered a blue state.

When people decide to move to one state or another, I don't think they put a lot of emphasis on how bad the cities are, unless that city is very close to where they want to live. Memphis, TN is a sh*thole. That hasn't stopped Franklin from becoming a BOOMING suburb. Same with FL, NC, NH. If a state has beautiful and low cost suburbs, most people won't be scared away if that state also has gross cities an hour away. I doubt there's a state in the country that doesn't have some awful cities within. CT has Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, Waterbury. You seen those places lately? I have.

You're not holding any cards in this game. None. As blue states lose population, not only do they lose tax revenue (which is hurting CT), they also lose congressional seats, and thus electoral votes.

So I've asked you 10 times now, why there aren't any similar outliers (towns with high quality of life and very low taxes), and not once have you come close to answering. Those outliers are the value proposition offered by those states. No they're not. R governor press release "Look we admit our state sucks as a whole but we have outliers that are great. We keep statewide taxes low so if you have a good income you can move to an outlier town and send your kids to good private schools and not have to worry about those "others" who can't lift themselves up by their bootstraps"

The fact that FL has always had migration, doesn't even come close to refuting my point. Just because my grandparents retired there doesn't mean I'm going to retire there. There has to be something about the state that makes me want to move there. So show us the stats that say 850 a day are moving there bc of Rs policies? You have never done that and can't, yet have touted that fact repeatedly until I destroyed that arguement.

When FL had democrat governors, they didn't implement a big state income tax (like they did in CT). It was still a conservative state, it's never been considered a blue state.

When people decide to move to one state or another, I don't think they put a lot of emphasis on how bad the cities are, unless that city is very close to where they want to live. Memphis, TN is a sh*thole. That hasn't stopped Franklin from becoming a BOOMING suburb. Outlier - look at your first year actuarial book as you stated earlier bc it seems like you don't know what that word means Same with FL, NC, NH. If a state has beautiful and lo cost suburbs, most people won't be scared away if that state also has gross cities an hour away. CT has Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven. You seen those places lately?

Cities are where poor people live and if someone increases their income, they move out. They live their bc of better access to transportation, social servicers, etc. - the things that poor people need. You haven't figured that out yet?

Cities are where poor people live and if someone increases their income, they move out. They live their bc of better access to transportation, social servicers, etc. - the things that poor people need. You haven't figured that out yet?

so you deny that those outliers are the value proposition offered by those states. But that’s precisely where people are moving in big numbers. so how can not be their value proposition?

Youre denying facts that you dont like.

so you deny that those outliers are the value proposition offered by those states. But that’s precisely where people are moving in big numbers. so how can not be their value proposition?

Youre denying facts that you dont like.

I never denied the fact that 850 people a day are moving to Florida. I just showed you that 850 people a day have been moving to Florida for years regardless of what party was in control. You haven't been able to show that they are moving to Florida bc of Desantis' policies but have been claiming that. I have never claimed that the 160 cities are better than the 225? cities in Fl or Tenn, etc. Just that overall Conn. is richer, healthier, etc than those states.

I never denied the fact that 850 people a day are moving to Florida. I just showed you that 850 people a day have been moving to Florida for years regardless of what party was in control. You haven't been able to show that they are moving to Florida bc of Desantis' policies but have been claiming that.

You denied that having lost cost suburbs with a high quality of life, is a value proposition of red states. But that's where the people are moving to in big numbers, which is proof that people do think that's the value proposition.

You denied that having lost cost suburbs with a high quality of life, is a value proposition of red states. But that's where the people are moving to in big numbers, which is proof that people do think that's the value proposition.

So the "value proposition" is as follows:

Move to the outliers towns where there is a good quality of life if you have enough money but if you don't have enough money, you are out of luck and we really don't care about you enough to raise our taxes to try improving your life.

So the "value proposition" is as follows:

Move to the outliers towns where there is a good quality of life if you have enough money but if you don't have enough money, you are out of luck and we really don't care about you enough to raise our taxes to try improving your life.

"if you have enough money"

What you failed to admit, is that the required amount of money to enjoy those towns is far less than what's required to enjoy the suburbs of CT, which is the obvious (to everyone except you), entire point.

"raise our taxes to try improving your life."

Funny, one of the many questions you keep dodging is this one...what am I getting from the state of CT for my taxes, that I wouldn't get in NH if I moved there?

I keep asking that, you keep dodging.

If higher taxes were the reason for a higher quality of living, people wouldn't be fleeing high tax states. This is the point. People are realizing that you don't get anything for those exorbitant taxes here in CT, unless you're a public unionized employee. Most aren't.

Paul, I immediately concede there are statistics that are much more favorable to CT than for FL or TN - average education, health, life expectancy. That's obviously true. Impossible to deny. What is easy to deny, is that the state is the reason why. If you moved to FL, why would anyone believe that you'd suddenly become fat, lazy, stupid? People decide these things for themselves, the state government isn't your mother. Liberals push that nonsense to justify the taxes. America is waking up to the reality that it's not true.

You have to be pretty wealthy to enjoy CT, and CT has an awful lot to offer wealthy people. So wealthy people will want to live here and stay here. That doesn't mean the state made them wealthy. Catering to wealthy people, and making people wealthy, are very different things.

There's a big, big difference between correlation and causation.

So why do the majority of the stats show that the states historically run by D admins. rank higher than the majority of the states run by R admins? Just a coincidence or is it a philosophy the 2 parties have? Studies based on 350M people is a pretty credible group and the stats show the Ds states rank better than the R states.

So why do the majority of the stats show that the states historically run by D admins. rank higher than the majority of the states run by R admins? Just a coincidence or is it a philosophy the 2 parties have? Studies based on 350M people is a pretty credible group and the stats show the Ds states rank better than the R states.

This has been asked and answered many times. Democrats, on average, are wealthier than Republicans. That's correlation, not causation. There's nothing in conservative ideology that leads to poverty. But todays brand of liberalism is more attractive to people who are already wealthy, than todays brand of conservatism.

This is another example of "everything is OK when democrats do it", because not long ago Wall Street leaned right, and liberals never stopped attacking the GOP for catering to the super rich. Today the rich lean left, and - voila! - all of a sudden it's not a bad thing when your side caters to the wealthy.

You asked, I tried to answer. Is there any chance you can show me the same courtesy? What services to I get from the state of CT thanks to my taxes, which I would lose if I moved to NH thanks to their not having state taxes?

If I moved to NH, I'd still work hard, I'd still like to read, I'd still watch my kids like a hawk and make sure they were doing their homework, I'd make sure I limited their screen time and got them into healthy activities. I'd still exercise and eat right. The state government of NH would not force me to give up my healthy habits.

It's got nothing to do with the state government. In my case, I'd have a ton more money to spend on my kids, better private schools, nicer vacations together, I could afford better colleges for them.

Paul, it's probably at least $15k a year in my pocket (more like 20k a year now that my wife is working) that I'd save. I don't get anywhere near that from the state of CT that I wouldn't get in a nice suburb of NH.

Please tell me what I'm getting for that money, that I wouldn't get in NH. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over an entire career. And what do I get for it? A bill that the state of CT will hand me, for promises they made on my behalf to labor unions, which couldn't be funded even with the stupid taxes we currently pay. That's what I'll get. UCONN is very expensive (cheaper to pay out of state for public university in FL, and that is fact), our roads suck, our cities suck, our electric bills just went up 50% if you have Eversource, gas is expensive, we pay local car taxes annually that moost states don't charge...it goes on and on and on.

A US court in Texas has struck down a 30-year-old law that barred people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns.
The court, as part of the ruling, dismissed charges against a Texas man found guilty of harassing and stalking his girlfriend and also in possession of arms despite a ban.
The decision follows a Supreme Court ruling in June expanding gun rights.
The US justice department is expected to appeal against the order.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said that Congress had determined the law "nearly 30 years ago".


Red states once again putting gun owners before victims and common sense

GOP Rep. Clyde hands out assault-rifle lapel pins to House colleagues

Yep another example where changing the Gun culture has failed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

GOP Rep. Clyde hands out assault-rifle lapel pins to House colleagues

Yep another example where changing the Gun culture has failed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It really has been a cultural change. Read Ryan Busse’s book Gunfight. He was a gun manufacturer ceo who has an interesting perspective in the change to the ‘couch commandoes’ types in the last few years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It really has been a cultural change. Read Ryan Busse’s book Gunfight. He was a gun manufacturer ceo who has an interesting perspective in the change to the ‘couch commandoes’ types in the last few years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

couch commandoes’

I like that term. I love to see these people when the decide to get off the couch then they play Dress up for effect

Another example how simplistic originalism endanger Americans

Zackey Rahimi was, one presumes, not the kind of upstanding citizen the justices had in mind.
Over a six-week stretch from December 2020 to January 2021, Rahimi took part in five shootings around Arlington, Tex. He fired an AR-15 into the home of a man to whom he had sold Percocet. The next day, after a car accident, he pulled out a handgun, shot at the other driver and sped off — only to return, fire a different gun and flee again. Rahimi shot at a police car. When a friend’s credit card was declined at a fast-food restaurant, he fired several rounds into the air.


Or, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit put it in vacating Rahimi’s conviction for illegal gun possession, “Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal.”


So now we’re back to assessing the constitutionality of laws. Only if you can find the hunt down obscure, colonial-era statutes to determine if there are counterparts to modern rules

Makes no sense :btu:

George Washington NEVER said or wrote any of the following quotes cited by gun nuts, Republicans and even judges:

1. When government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern.”

The quote seems to originate from an online publication: The American Wisdom Series presents Pamphlet #230, "President George Washington's Thoughts on Firearms." The author provides no citation for the quotations used.

The library has yet to find an explanation for this misquote or a similar quote of Washington's that was confused for this statement.


2. “When a nation mistrusts its citizens with guns it is it sending a clear message. It no longer trusts its citizens because such a government has evil plans.”

The library has yet to find an explanation for this misquote or a similar quote of Washington's that was confused for this statement.

3. “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty, teeth and keystone under independence.”

This quotation does not show up in any of Washington's writings, nor does any closely related quote.

4. “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate. Here is the actual text from Washington's speech:


A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."



Source:
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/

Not my research on the topic but a great example of how those who cite and support originalism . Quote things that were never said and make their own interpretations to someone written words

George Washington NEVER said or wrote any of the following quotes cited by gun nuts, Republicans and even judges:

1. When government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern.”

The quote seems to originate from an online publication: The American Wisdom Series presents Pamphlet #230, "President George Washington's Thoughts on Firearms." The author provides no citation for the quotations used.

The library has yet to find an explanation for this misquote or a similar quote of Washington's that was confused for this statement.


2. “When a nation mistrusts its citizens with guns it is it sending a clear message. It no longer trusts its citizens because such a government has evil plans.”

The library has yet to find an explanation for this misquote or a similar quote of Washington's that was confused for this statement.

3. “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty, teeth and keystone under independence.”

This quotation does not show up in any of Washington's writings, nor does any closely related quote.

4. “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate. Here is the actual text from Washington's speech:


A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."



Source:
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/

Not my research on the topic but a great example of how those who cite and support originalism . Quote things that were never said and make their own interpretations to someone written words

FFS, if you’re going to bash “originalism”, maybe you should have some small clue what it is. Originalists rely on the original text of the constitution. has any influential originalist, ever, made a constitutional argument because they saw on the internet that george washington said something? that’s all that conservatives ever rely on?

jesus god almighty man. try a little harder. where do you get this garbage?

FFS, if you’re going to bash “originalism”, maybe you should have some small clue what it is. Originalists rely on the original text of the constitution. has any influential originalist, ever, made a constitutional argument because they saw on the internet that george washington said something? that’s all that conservatives ever rely on?

jesus god almighty man. try a little harder. where do you get this garbage?

Apparently the same place as you.
You need look no further than Alito’s opinion overturning Roe where he cited opinions of four British judges as the basis for his argument.

“ of the standard the Court has applied in determining whether an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is never- theless protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Solicitor Gen- eral repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruc- tion of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, but the great common-law au- thorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a post- quickening abortion was a crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently the same place as you.
You need look no further than Alito’s opinion overturning Roe where he cited opinions of four British judges as the basis for his argument.

“ of the standard the Court has applied in determining whether an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is never- theless protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Solicitor Gen- eral repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruc- tion of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, but the great common-law au- thorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a post- quickening abortion was a crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s stupid to reference british judges. all he had to do is say “the idea that protection against illegal search and seizure was designed to allow for infanticide, is stupid, and obviously not what’s in the constitution.”.

Apparently the same place as you.
You need look no further than Alito’s opinion overturning Roe where he cited opinions of four British judges as the basis for his argument.

“ of the standard the Court has applied in determining whether an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is never- theless protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Solicitor Gen- eral repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruc- tion of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, but the great common-law au- thorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a post- quickening abortion was a crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

although he was apparently responding to a comment from the solicitor general. doesn’t matter if abortion is a crime or not, that’s not what the supreme court decided. overturning roe did not make abortion illegal. it returned the question to the states where it belongs. The supreme court didn’t say that states cannot outlaw abortion. your side doesn’t seem to grasp that. the supreme court decided, correctly, that it’s not a federal issue. The constitution specifies the things that are federal issues, and says everything else goes to the states.

At the state level, have the argument about whether or not it should be legal.

FFS, if you’re going to bash “originalism”, maybe you should have some small clue what it is. Originalists rely on the original text of the constitution. has any influential originalist, ever, made a constitutional argument because they saw on the internet that george washington said something? that’s all that conservatives ever rely on?

jesus god almighty man. try a little harder. where do you get this garbage?

Jim you complete missed the point of the article. These quotes that never existed were used by Originalist to defend their views on Gun ownership and the 2A ..

And to use an originalist logic against them the 2nd amendment applies to Muskets seeing when it was written.. but of course they play linguists gymnastics to twist out of their own claim it’s about the original Text:faga:

Jim you complete missed the point of the article. These quotes that never existed were used by Originalist to defend their views on Gun ownership and the 2A ..

And to use an originalist logic against them the 2nd amendment applies to Muskets seeing when it was written.. but of course they play linguists gymnastics to twist out of their own claim it’s about the original Text:faga:

who used those fake quotes?

No i didn’t miss the point of your post, which was to attack the gop for using bogus facts to win a political argument. my point, is that you don’t care when democrats say the police killed michael brown when he said hands up don’t shoot which he never said, you don’t care when your side says pro lifers motive is to
enslave women, when they said rittenhouse carried the rifle illegally across state lines. etc…. you have no principles. zip.

And to use an originalist logic against them the 2nd amendment applies to Muskets seeing when it was written.. but of course they play linguists gymnastics to twist out of their own claim it’s about the original Text:faga:

The 2A does not mention or specify muskets. An originalist would not interpret that the Constitution is stuck on muskets. That would not be originalist logic.

The 2A does not mention or specify muskets. An originalist would not interpret that the Constitution is stuck on muskets. That would not be originalist logic.

Then their not very original are they
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then their not very original are they
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They interpret on the words in the Constitution as they were defined when the Constitution was written.

Are you saying that they should interpret on words that are not in the Constitution? That would be Progressive, not original.

Then their not very original are they
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

originalists stuck to the actual original language wayne. show us where in the 2a, it says anything about muskets, and then you have a point. Until you can do that, you have no point and you’re embarrassing yourself.

This subject has been debated a number of times, pulling a well armed militia together back then was easy, every home likely had the same arms in order to join a potential fight with the British, who had the same arms.

Since armament used by foreign powers has changed, should all citizens be allowed access to military grade weapons to join the militia, which likely will never be required, unless you have been binge watching Red Dawn while reloading shells. Might happen in Ukraine, but any conflict coming our way is coming from the air, or maybe we sane people need to arm ourselves better to protect ourselves from the increasing threats from the far right. Case in point the rise in power grid attacks or the daily mass shooting happening anywhere.

This subject has been debated a number of times, pulling a well armed militia together back then was easy, every home likely had the same arms in order to join a potential fight with the British, who had the same arms.

Since armament used by foreign powers has changed, should all citizens be allowed access to military grade weapons to join the militia, which likely will never be required, unless you have been binge watching Red Dawn while reloading shells. Might happen in Ukraine, but any conflict coming our way is coming from the air, or maybe we sane people need to arm ourselves better to protect ourselves from the increasing threats from the far right. Case in point the rise in power grid attacks or the daily mass shooting happening anywhere.

i’m not making a conservative argument about gun rights. i’m making an argument about what an originalists is, and what an originalist isn’t.

I’d like to see more restrictions, but we probably need to amend the constitution first. that’s our system. If democrats can get to ignore parts of the constitution they don’t like when they’re in power, then republicans can do the same thing when they’re in power. That’s too much power. Safer if everybody is subject to the same
exact limitations.

here’s a question, how come when you mention gun violence you always limit your opinion to mass shootings, when those account for a small percentage of gun deaths? why is all the talk about assault rifles, when those are involved in a tiny fraction of gun deaths? why don’t we prioritize the issue that claims so many more lives? handgun violence in the cities, and now fentanyl deaths, are a much much bigger problem. Yet The left never, ever mentions them.

i’m pretty sure i know what the answer is. but i’m curious to know what you’d claim the answer to be.

i’m not making a conservative argument about gun rights. i’m making an argument about what an originalists is, and what an originalist isn’t.

I’d like to see more restrictions, but we probably need to amend the constitution first. that’s our system. If democrats can get to ignore parts of the constitution they don’t like when they’re in power, then republicans can do the same thing when they’re in power. That’s too much power. Safer if everybody is subject to the same
exact limitations.

here’s a question, how come when you mention gun violence you always limit your opinion to mass shootings, when those account for a small percentage of gun deaths? why is all the talk about assault rifles, when those are involved in a tiny fraction of gun deaths? why don’t we prioritize the issue that claims so many more lives? handgun violence in the cities, and now fentanyl deaths, are a much much bigger problem. Yet The left never, ever mentions them.

i’m pretty sure i know what the answer is. but i’m curious to know what you’d claim the answer to be.

Maybe Jim you would agree the average every day gun death by a single gun isn’t likely putting the average American at risk, unless your living in a high crime area or behind the counter at the local liquor store or 7/11. What now is a threat to the average citizen or their children IS a mass shooting at a school, a mall, your local Walmart or some far right nuts taking out your entire cities powe grid.

Maybe Jim you would agree the average every day gun death by a single gun isn’t likely putting the average American at risk, unless your living in a high crime area or behind the counter at the local liquor store or 7/11. What now is a threat to the average citizen or their children IS a mass shooting at a school, a mall, your local Walmart or some far right nuts taking out your entire cities powe grid.

so you’re not concerned about the carnage taking place in “high crime areas”?

bob, WAY more people are killed by handguns and fentanyl, than are killed by rifles. it’s not even close. we should address all those problems obviously, but basic common sense says you prioritize the ones that are doing the most damage. isn’t that common sense?

sounds like you’re saying those people living in high crime areas are more expendable than the far smaller number of middle class white kids who are endangered by mass shootings with assault rifles

you came very close to saying that explicitly. liberals don’t often say the quiet part out loud.

Maybe Jim you would agree the average every day gun death by a single gun isn’t likely putting the average American at risk, unless your living in a high crime area or behind the counter at the local liquor store or 7/11.

Wow, So the people getting shot every day aren’t your “Average Americans”?

Sounds like somebody’s White Privilege is showing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow, So the people getting shot every day aren’t your “Average Americans”?

Sounds like somebody’s White Privilege is showing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted it in a way JIM would understand, I'm pretty sure even you and JIm got my meaning, using most americans would have come across meaning the same thing. You guys and this is true of both sides, like to spin something into something that wasn't said, Jim wanted to know why I only talk about mass shootings and I explained, it's because I'm not and most living outside crime areas or inner cities, aren't at risk from the long handgun shooter.

originalists stuck to the actual original language wayne. show us where in the 2a, it says anything about muskets, and then you have a point. Until you can do that, you have no point and you’re embarrassing yourself.

Well armed militia Jim what weapons were around ?.. we’re the a muskets or B Ar 15s.

Like I said linguistic, gymnastics.. the constitution doesn’t say a lot things originalist claim it does. But they claim it any how

They interpret on the words in the Constitution as they were defined when the Constitution was written.

Are you saying that they should interpret on words that are not in the Constitution? That would be Progressive, not original.

Since Originalism was invented in the 1980s, a few hundred years after the Constitution, I’ll call it a conservative fad.

Here’s how it’s used:

What happens in “originalist” judicial decisions has nothing to do with history. Instead, “originalism” is used as a way to shut down opposing arguments. To sum it up, that method has six steps:

1. Find some old legal cases or other sources that can be quoted, even if sharply edited first, to favor a conservative policy outcome of a constitutional dispute.

2. Proclaim this policy outcome as the “original public meaning” of the constitutional provision at issue.

3. Exclude as much contrary evidence (including existing judicial precedent) as possible.

4. Announce that none of the remaining evidence disproves your side’s preferred policy outcome.

5. Enshrine your preferred policy outcome in constitutional doctrine.

6. (optional) If courtesy calls for it, apologize for the harshness of the result, but note that you bear no responsibility. Our Founders decided it long, long ago, and you are simply their humble scribe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so you’re not concerned about the carnage taking place in “high crime areas”?

bob, WAY more people are killed by handguns and fentanyl, than are killed by rifles. it’s not even close. we should address all those problems obviously, but basic common sense says you prioritize the ones that are doing the most damage. isn’t that common sense?

sounds like you’re saying those people living in high crime areas are more expendable than the far smaller number of middle class white kids who are endangered by mass shootings with assault rifles

you came very close to saying that explicitly. liberals don’t often say the quiet part out loud.

I wasn't addressing gun deaths, I was responding to DeBarr's post about the meaning of the right to arm citizens to form a militia, I'm not debating the quantity of gun deaths', but you do like to change subjects to get a greatest hits posted, even bringing drug deaths' into it also. Stay on point Jim.

Posted it in a way JIM would understand, I'm pretty sure even you and JIm got my meaning, using most americans would have come across meaning the same thing. You guys and this is true of both sides, like to spin something into something that wasn't said, Jim wanted to know why I only talk about mass shootings and I explained, it's because I'm not and most living outside crime areas or inner cities, aren't at risk from the long handgun shooter.

there’s no spin. your side is willing to ignore a huge number of mostly black deaths in cities from handguns, and focuses on the much less deadly ( though still important ) issue of mass shootings with assault rifles. you’re willing to sweep all those dead, poor, black americans under the rug, because talking about that issue doesn’t help democrats win elections

Well armed militia Jim what weapons were around ?.. we’re the a muskets or B Ar 15s.

Like I said linguistic, gymnastics.. the constitution doesn’t say a lot things originalist claim it does. But they claim it any how

what’s the language? originalists, by definition, stick to what they wrote

once you start making assumptions about “what they really meant”, which is exactly what you’re doing, then it’s no longer originalism.

I wasn't addressing gun deaths, I was responding to DeBarr's post about the meaning of the right to arm citizens to form a militia, I'm not debating the quantity of gun deaths', but you do like to change subjects to get a greatest hits posted, even bringing drug deaths' into it also. Stay on point Jim.

but when you do post about gun violence, it’s always about mass showings and assault rifles. which is nothing compared to the carnage caused by handguns in cities by people who, i guess, deserve what they get because they live in high crime areas.

when you do choose to post about guns, you always go to “mass shootings”. why?

there’s no spin. your side is willing to ignore a huge number of mostly black deaths in cities from handguns, and focuses on the much less deadly ( though still important ) issue of mass shootings with assault rifles. you’re willing to sweep all those dead, poor, black americans under the rug, because talking about that issue doesn’t help democrats win elections

Researchers found 75% of Blacks, 72% of Asians, and 65% of Hispanics say gun laws should be stricter compared to only 45% of white people. The public is also divided on whether an increase in the number of Americans who own guns would result in more or less crime. Black and Hispanic people are more likely than white adults to say if more Americans owned guns there would be more crime. A majority of Black adults (58%) and about half of Hispanic adults (48%) say the same, compared with only a quarter of white adults.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but when you do post about gun violence, it’s always about mass showings and assault rifles. which is nothing compared to the carnage caused by handguns in cities by people who, i guess, deserve what they get because they live in high crime areas.

when you do choose to post about guns, you always go to “mass shootings”. why?

Yeah that's exactly what we are saying, my goodness Jim you are amazing at reading in between the lines and creating your own narrative out of thin air. By the way I was talking about the validity of being able to arm civilians with weapons of war, in order to create a militia of equal fire power to what might come from foreign enemies, but you as usual wanted to take the discussion where you wanted it to go.

Yeah that's exactly what we are saying, my goodness Jim you are amazing at reading in between the lines and creating your own narrative out of thin air. By the way I was talking about the validity of being able to arm civilians with weapons of war, in order to create a militia of equal fire power to what might come from foreign enemies, but you as usual wanted to take the discussion where you wanted it to go.

"keep and bear" arms" Does this sound like the writers of the Constitution meant that the people should individually have cannons in their homes or battleships and tanks stored in their yards or even the latest fighter jets?

That would be a scary sight to see a hundred men coming at you as they each carried a howitzer and a tank on their shoulders to accompany their rifles. Even one such guy would be frightening.

It sounds more, as they explicitly said, as the right to own arms that you can carry such as an "assault rifle" or semi-automatic hand gun or some type of military looking knife.

"keep and bear" arms" Does this sound like the writers of the Constitution meant that the people should individually have cannons in their homes or battleships and tanks stored in their yards or even the latest fighter jets?

That would be a scary sight to see a hundred men coming at you as they each carried a howitzer and a tank on their shoulders to accompany their rifles. Even one such guy would be frightening.

It sounds more, as they explicitly said, as the right to own arms that you can carry such as an "assault rifle" or semi-automatic hand gun or some type of military looking knife.

So you’re doing exactly what I said I originalist do make it up to fit what you want it to fit

You’re a few more examples of why is a lazy position


1. Originalism reduces the likelihood the judiciary will create law, a duty of the legislative branch. [History shows that originalist judges can be as activist as non-originalist judges]

2. Non-originalism leads to judges using their own personal values as opposed to the law. [Yet, originalist judges apply their personal opinions about the intent of the framers.]

3. Originalism allows voters to amend their Constitution when necessary to change the law. [An extremely difficult, time consuming task, that forces the population to suffer bad law for an extended time]

4. Originalism strengthens the Constitution as a binding contract. [Circular thinking. It’s a binding contract only if the citizens agree on the original intent.]

5. Originalism forces lawmakers to avoid creating bad laws, rather than leaving them to the courts to amend. [Good hypothesis; bad reality. It has done no such thing.]

The correct name for originalism is ”The Historian’s Fallacy” – “a logical fallacy that occurs when one assumes decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.”


Such as an arm is is an arm is a arm .. the only people contesting the meaning of armed are the 2a fanatics .any weapon any time or place with out restrictions or limitations.. and this new interpretation is less than 35 years old ? Go figure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you’re doing exactly what I said I originalist do make it up to fit what you want it to fit

I quoted their exact words "keep and bear". Keep (own) and "bear" (carry)--own arms that can be carried. I didn't make those words up. Either those words mean something, or they're superfluous, meaning nothing. Unless a Progressive interprets them to mean something other than what they mean.

You’re a few more examples of why is a lazy position


1. Originalism reduces the likelihood the judiciary will create law, a duty of the legislative branch. [History shows that originalist judges can be as activist as non-originalist judges]

When a judge interprets the constitutional text to mean something other than what it means, he/she is not acting as an "originalist" no matter what label is applied to him/her. If they claim to be an "originalist," but they interpret law as a Progressive at times, or always, then they are hypocrites, not originalists--at least in those times when they interpret outside the bounds of originalism.

2. Non-originalism leads to judges using their own personal values as opposed to the law. [Yet, originalist judges apply their personal opinions about the intent of the framers.]

If a judge invokes "intent," it has to be backed up by the framers' written intent. If it is merely the judge's opinion, that is not original interpretation. No matter how convenient it may be, it is Progressive in nature, not originalist.

3. Originalism allows voters to amend their Constitution when necessary to change the law. [An extremely difficult, time consuming task, that forces the population to suffer bad law for an extended time]

It is meant to be a "difficult, time consuming task," otherwise it is subject to the same facile means of duping the people into a really good sounding quick fix, rather than the difficult, time consuming task of debate, presentation of evidence and facts, determining the intents, objectives, and possible outcomes. Hammering out a constitution was a difficult, time consuming task. Amending it should not be greatly less so. Otherwise, it is the more so subject to being as bad as the "bad law" that needs amending.

4. Originalism strengthens the Constitution as a binding contract. [Circular thinking. It’s a binding contract only if the citizens agree on the original intent.]

No, it is a binding contract whether the citizens agree or not. Just as any legal contract, it binds those under it whether they agree or not. If enough citizens wish to nullify the contract there is that difficult time consuming method described in number three.

5. Originalism forces lawmakers to avoid creating bad laws, rather than leaving them to the courts to amend. [Good hypothesis; bad reality. It has done no such thing.]

If they make bad laws, they most likely are not applying originalism. And leaving it up to the courts to amend is bad law. The citizens must amend, not the courts. When the courts amend, they are acting as Progressives, not originalists.

The correct name for originalism is ”The Historian’s Fallacy” – “a logical fallacy that occurs when one assumes decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.”

It is difficult trending to impossible to get two or more different people to view events from the same perspective, and having the same information. In structured societies, the people must simply come to some agreement, then abide by it.

Such as an arm is is an arm is a arm .. the only people contesting the meaning of armed are the 2a fanatics .any weapon any time or place with out restrictions or limitations.. and this new interpretation is less than 35 years old ? Go figure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well if the law, the Constitution, the Second Amendment, places a limitation, such as "bear," then the arms that cannot be abridged must be capable of being carried by a human being.

Yeah that's exactly what we are saying, my goodness Jim you are amazing at reading in between the lines and creating your own narrative out of thin air. By the way I was talking about the validity of being able to arm civilians with weapons of war, in order to create a militia of equal fire power to what might come from foreign enemies, but you as usual wanted to take the discussion where you wanted it to go.

well, that’s pretty much what you said

if that’s not what you’re saying, then for the third time now, why do you always post about mass shootings wand never show any concern for handgun violence in cities? how many reasons are there, for why you’d ignore a huge problem and obsess over a much smaller
problem? the reason you gave, is that handgun violence really only effects people who live in high crime areas, not average americans.

So you’re doing exactly what I said I originalist do make it up to fit what you want it to fit

You’re a few more examples of why is a lazy position


1. Originalism reduces the likelihood the judiciary will create law, a duty of the legislative branch. [History shows that originalist judges can be as activist as non-originalist judges]

2. Non-originalism leads to judges using their own personal values as opposed to the law. [Yet, originalist judges apply their personal opinions about the intent of the framers.]

3. Originalism allows voters to amend their Constitution when necessary to change the law. [An extremely difficult, time consuming task, that forces the population to suffer bad law for an extended time]

4. Originalism strengthens the Constitution as a binding contract. [Circular thinking. It’s a binding contract only if the citizens agree on the original intent.]

5. Originalism forces lawmakers to avoid creating bad laws, rather than leaving them to the courts to amend. [Good hypothesis; bad reality. It has done no such thing.]

The correct name for originalism is ”The Historian’s Fallacy” – “a logical fallacy that occurs when one assumes decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.”


Such as an arm is is an arm is a arm .. the only people contesting the meaning of armed are the 2a fanatics .any weapon any time or place with out restrictions or limitations.. and this new interpretation is less than 35 years old ? Go figure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you want judges making laws? that’s not why they exist. that’s why legislatures exist.

you want judges making laws? that’s not why they exist. that’s why legislatures exist.

Jim clearly you don’t understand that laws are not written to address every eventuality

So you love when the right uses obscure the 1873 Comstock Act — to try to prohibit most mailing of abortion medications or supplies,

So you want a judge to rule on what’s written ? It makes no sense

All judges. Originalist or not always include their interpretations of the law into their decisions.

To think otherwise is just absurd.

The problem arises when Judges only use their personal beliefs and perceptions as the main ingredient in their decisions.

And Partisan elections make that happen ,

partisan elections are held to select most or all judges in 13 States and for some judges in an additional 8 States. Nonpartisan elections are held to select most or all judges in 17 States and for some judges in an additional 3 States. One-half of the States hold elections for State supreme court judges. Seventeen States out of the 32 which have intermediate appellate courts elect judges to these courts.

Partisan elections for judges you should be more concerned with that most Americans don’t think that’s how it work

The race between Gustafson and Brown was the most expensive judicial election in the state’s history, with more than $1.5 million spent independently by interest groups. Conservative groups invested heavily to support Brown, who identified as a “constitutional conservative” and said that Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte asked him to run for the seat. Ads by both Brown and supportive groups attacked Gustafson as unethical and anti-business and sought to tie her to President Biden.

Buying judges or pleasing constituents is all that partisan election are good for …. The Law suffers

and look what states love doing it that way

Alabama
Illinois
Louisiana
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas (two courts)

At least 9 GOP-led state legislatures want to restrict or criminalize drag shows


Yep that’s the real threat to America Youth !
Firearms recently became the number one cause of death for children in the United States, surpassing motor vehicle deaths and those caused by other injuries.

But those Drag queens are down right Dangerous :btu:

Funny my examples of Red state idiocy is Government Driven and current events

Blue State examples are unelected people’s views. And old news ?


And don’t forget get marjorie taylor greene on display at state of the union last night.

she made Jerry springer proud

Jim clearly you don’t understand that laws are not written to address every eventuality

So you love when the right uses obscure the 1873 Comstock Act — to try to prohibit most mailing of abortion medications or supplies,

So you want a judge to rule on what’s written ? It makes no sense

All judges. Originalist or not always include their interpretations of the law into their decisions.

To think otherwise is just absurd.

The problem arises when Judges only use their personal beliefs and perceptions as the main ingredient in their decisions.

And Partisan elections make that happen ,

partisan elections are held to select most or all judges in 13 States and for some judges in an additional 8 States. Nonpartisan elections are held to select most or all judges in 17 States and for some judges in an additional 3 States. One-half of the States hold elections for State supreme court judges. Seventeen States out of the 32 which have intermediate appellate courts elect judges to these courts.

Partisan elections for judges you should be more concerned with that most Americans don’t think that’s how it work

The race between Gustafson and Brown was the most expensive judicial election in the state’s history, with more than $1.5 million spent independently by interest groups. Conservative groups invested heavily to support Brown, who identified as a “constitutional conservative” and said that Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte asked him to run for the seat. Ads by both Brown and supportive groups attacked Gustafson as unethical and anti-business and sought to tie her to President Biden.

Buying judges or pleasing constituents is all that partisan election are good for …. The Law suffers

and look what states love doing it that way

Alabama
Illinois
Louisiana
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas (two courts)

wayne clearly you never gut above an F in middle school
civics.

Legislatures exist to write laws.

what’s absurd to me, is that any supreme court judge could say with a straight face, that the right to protection against illegal search and seizure, applies to a woman’s right to abortion.

that’s judicial activism. Which you were always in favor of, i til conservatives took a majority.

Well wayne, what’s good for the goose…

At least 9 GOP-led state legislatures want to restrict or criminalize drag shows


Yep that’s the real threat to America Youth !
Firearms recently became the number one cause of death for children in the United States, surpassing motor vehicle deaths and those caused by other injuries.

But those Drag queens are down right Dangerous :btu:

Funny my examples of Red state idiocy is Government Driven and current events

Blue State examples are unelected people’s views. And old news ?


And don’t forget get marjorie taylor greene on display at state of the union last night.

she made Jerry springer proud

do any of those states want to ban all drag shows? or only for kids?

i’m against total bans. i’m fine with banning kids from them.

“that’s the real threat to american youth.”

no, the real threat to american youth is lousy parents, and the internet, and fentanyl, and gang violence for youth in cities. the liberal plan for those risks, is to ignore them.

At least 9 GOP-led state legislatures want to restrict or criminalize drag shows


Yep that’s the real threat to America Youth !
Firearms recently became the number one cause of death for children in the United States, surpassing motor vehicle deaths and those caused by other injuries.

But those Drag queens are down right Dangerous :btu:

Funny my examples of Red state idiocy is Government Driven and current events

Blue State examples are unelected people’s views. And old news ?


And don’t forget get marjorie taylor greene on display at state of the union last night.

she made Jerry springer proud

"But those Drag queens are down right Dangerous"

Right. The real danger we should focus on, is bathrooms that allow girls but not boys.

"Blue State examples are unelected people’s views. And old news ?"

You want current blue state lunacy? California giving us Kamala Harris. Democrats saying its disqualifying that Santos lied, but no big deal that Warren, Biden, Schiff, Blumenthal lie. Telling Americans that cops are the problem in the city. Voting against giving medical care to babies bornin alive. All lunacy. All current.

"But those Drag queens are down right Dangerous"

Right. The real danger we should focus on, is bathrooms that allow girls but not boys.

"Blue State examples are unelected people’s views. And old news ?"

You want current blue state lunacy? California giving us Kamala Harris. Democrats saying its disqualifying that Santos lied, but no big deal that Warren, Biden, Schiff, Blumenthal lie. Telling Americans that cops are the problem in the city. Voting against giving medical care to babies bornin alive. All lunacy. All current.

Poor #^&#^&#^&#^&tim
You suck up every single right wing trope.

Luckily the rest of Americans aren’t as psychotic as you, contrary to Sarah Sanders faceplant last night.

That’s why while Joe Biden was wiping the floor with Republican tears in his State of the Union Address, Pennsylvania Democrats took back state House control with three special election wins.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Poor #^&#^&#^&#^&tim
You suck up every single right wing trope.

Luckily the rest of Americans aren’t as psychotic as you, contrary to Sarah Sanders faceplant last night.

That’s why while Joe Biden was wiping the floor with Republican tears in his State of the Union Address, Pennsylvania Democrats took back state House control with three special election wins.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yeah Biden really tore it up last night i’m sure. that explains why he’s polling so well.

Look at the state and federal elected positions currentlybhelp by each party Pete. guess who holds a light edge?

what did i say that was a trope, and not true?

oh and he handled the balloon brilliantly. He really got the better of china on that. keeping it a secret from the governors of the states it was flying over…just brilliant leadership.

:hihi:

:hihi:

You should have been called on for your knowledge of how to successfully take down a high altitude spy ballon and insure it drops into the shallows, that’s so funny. Navy is recovery debris, as opposed to the three ballon’s Trump let fly freely over US during his watch. Biden unlike Trump let the experts dictate when and where to take it down, to insure its in our waters and not burning up on land or killing civilians. We all thank you for your expertise :jump:

:hihi:

Dad another arm chair general. Meanwhile I bet you agree with Republicans now say we’re doing “too much” for Ukraine.

an NBC News poll last week showed 63 percent of Republicans opposed “providing more funding and weapons to Ukraine,

And perhaps most notably, it features an emerging willingness to give Russia some of the Ukrainian territory it seeks.

Typical conservatives more upset over a Chinese balloon that wasn’t shot down quickly enough for them more upset at their President. Then the Chinese who sent it .. and their love for Putin , and who can forget their willingness to re elect Trump who actually tried to overthrow the Government…. Cowards

FYI the the waters not that deep and you people can’t even produce a factual meme LOL

Look at these two bozos get triggered over a meme….priceless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at these two bozos get triggered over a meme….priceless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you ever post about anything other than ukraine, did you know that means you’re rooting for putin?

i

yeah Biden really tore it up last night i’m sure. that explains why he’s polling so well.

Look at the state and federal elected positions currentlybhelp by each party Pete. guess who holds a light edge?

what did i say that was a trope, and not true?

oh and he handled the balloon brilliantly. He really got the better of china on that. keeping it a secret from the governors of the states it was flying over…just brilliant leadership.

I watched Sarah Huckabee Sanders response to the SOTU.

That is some seriously deranged unhinged stuff going on there.

It’s getting smaller with each election because Republican states are predominantly poorer, have less access to healthcare, lower high school graduation rates & less economic growth.

Every single one of the tropes you post are arguably false at best and typically misinformation.

As far as your fear of balloons, he blocked its comms, took it down for the military to study, and ensured it didn't threaten American lives. Trump let three balloons float over the US without intervention. Of course, he had tens of millions of reasons to ignore them 💵💰💵💰
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at these two bozos get triggered over a meme….priceless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who triggered just calling you out for what for what you represent .

The king of the drive by unwilling to take a position . No one’s surprised
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He really got the better of china on that. keeping it a secret from the governors of the states it was flying over

Jim you’re the most uninformed gullible person here.

Did you star in the movie don’t look up?

Because that’s all it took to see the balloon.

Another conservative who never heard of a satellite

Ps Jim your party loves Putin. He don’t like drag queens either.. Don’t be fooled
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He really got the better of china on that. keeping it a secret from the governors of the states it was flying over

Jim you’re the most uninformed gullible person here.

Did you star in the movie don’t look up?

Because that’s all it took to see the balloon.

Another conservative who never heard of a satellite

Ps Jim your party loves Putin. He don’t like drag queens either.. Don’t be fooled
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but the federal government knew where it was, before it got there. it wasn’t a stealth bomber. but they didn’t tell
the governors of the states it was about to pass through, that it was coming. .

that’s effective leadership. dripping with strength.
i’m sure he strikes fear i to the heart of the chinese.

but the federal government knew where it was, before it got there. it wasn’t a stealth bomber. but they didn’t tell
the governors of the states it was about to pass through, that it was coming. .

that’s effective leadership. dripping with strength.
i’m sure he strikes fear i to the heart of the chinese.
Jim, do you ever read anything? It was reported by civilians once it crossed over the border. Another fake scandal to get outraged about. How’s your BP?

The king of the drive by unwilling to take a position . No one’s surprised
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why bother, you misinterpret anything I say and TELL me what my position is anyways, along with a sprinkling of assumption and innuendo……..and of course your usual dose of deranged lunacy added. Just look at your response above.

Biden+Balloon=Russian Sympathizer :huh:

Nothing Unhinged about that response :rolleyes:

Shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, do you ever read anything? It was reported by civilians once it crossed over the border. Another fake scandal to get outraged about. How’s your BP?

spence, did you read my post? Why didn’t the dm feds tell the governors it was coming? you proves my point, you didn’t challenge it. the governor of montana was ticked that he learned about it from his citizens, rather then hearing a out it from the administration.

maybe bidens plan to defeat china is to get them
all to die laughing.

you supported what i said. you didn’t counter it. i appreciate the assist, even though your own post went a mile over your own head.

He did do fine at the SOTU and Marjorie Taylor Greene shows the country again what an unserious jerk she is

here’s a question…did biden “create” all those jobs? or were most of them simply restored once covid began to dissipate, which began before he took office? is he being a little dishonest there?

spence, did you read my post? Why didn’t the dm feds tell the governors it was coming? you proves my point, you didn’t challenge it. the governor of montana was ticked that he learned about it from his citizens, rather then hearing a out it from the administration.

maybe bidens plan to defeat china is to get them
all to die laughing.

you supported what i said. you didn’t counter it. i appreciate the assist, even though your own post went a mile over your own head.

He did do fine at the SOTU and Marjorie Taylor Greene shows the country again what an unserious jerk she is

here’s a question…did biden “create” all those jobs? or were most of them simply restored once covid began to dissipate, which began before he took office? is he being a little dishonest there?

You really are the Fox echo chamber, do some research and go back before Clinton and look at jobs each created during their entire four years, Biden blows them away in just two years. So if your contention is correct one or all of those guys would have created all those jobs and guess what they didn’t.

Are these governors so detached they or their staff don’t watch the news, the ballon track was in the news daily.

Why bother, you misinterpret anything I say and TELL me what my position is anyways, along with a. Just look at your response above.

Biden+Balloon=Russian Sympathizer :huh:

Nothing Unhinged about that response :rolleyes:

Shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sprinkling of assumption and innuendo……..and of course your usual dose of deranged lunacy

That fits your post to a T .

You should change your name to the Vagueness Dad

Biden+Balloon=Russian Sympathizer :huh:

Just like Jim you think this song is about you…. Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why bother, you misinterpret anything I say and TELL me what my position is anyways, along with a sprinkling of assumption and innuendo……..and of course your usual dose of deranged lunacy added. Just look at your response above.

Biden+Balloon=Russian Sympathizer :huh:

Nothing Unhinged about that response :rolleyes:

Shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well I’d agree with you on that point, because when you don’t say anything, it’s hard to interpret what you meant. But since that meme spoke to you and triggered you to want to post it, Wayne figured it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, well you know the meming.

I’ve said plenty, but, like I said, see my above post. Trump broke a lot of brains here, and unless you’re shrieking to the skies above about him, anything else is treated as white noise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’ve said plenty, but, like I said, see my above post. Trump broke a lot of brains here, and unless you’re shrieking to the skies above about him, anything else is treated as white noise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

go enjoy your borscht. Das Vadanya.

sprinkling of assumption and innuendo……..and of course your usual dose of deranged lunacy

That fits your post to a T .

You should change your name to the Vagueness Dad

Biden+Balloon=Russian Sympathizer :huh:

Just like Jim you think this song is about you…. Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who were we supposed to think it was about? you responded to his post about the balloon, you actually quoted his post, and somehow changed course to russia and ukraine and gop bashing.

go enjoy your borscht. Das Vadanya.

Na Zdorovie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Na Zdorovie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

my middle son and his boy scout troop did a camping -
/ ski trip to northern VT last weekend in the frigid cold. they had a really nice cabin with a wood stove so they were fine. great stuff. Zero screen time.

In a scene that looks straight out of the Soviet Union, Ron DeSantis sat yesterday at a desk flanked by several guests, where for an hour, he proposed new ways to crack down on media outlets freedom by weakening their legal protections. Behind him, a giant “TRUTH”, (Pravda) sign.
'DeSantis repeatedly decried First Amendment protections granted to US media outlets and brainstormed ways to weaken them.

He described the press as the country’s “leading purveyors of disinformation...'

The GOP has gone full authoritarian.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you ever post about anything other than ukraine, did you know that means you’re rooting for putin?

i

Ukraine is sooooo thankful Trump didn’t win or he would have done everything in his power to slow, stop or vastly reduce any aid in his distain for Ukraine and nato.

In a scene that looks straight out of the Soviet Union, Ron DeSantis sat yesterday at a desk flanked by several guests, where for an hour, he proposed new ways to crack down on media outlets freedom by weakening their legal protections. Behind him, a giant “TRUTH”, (Pravda) sign.
'DeSantis repeatedly decried First Amendment protections granted to US media outlets and brainstormed ways to weaken them.

He described the press as the country’s “leading purveyors of disinformation...'

The GOP has gone full authoritarian.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's been 27 months since President Biden won the 2020 election.

But that election continues to haunt officials in the Philadelphia suburb of Delaware County, Pa., who are still dealing with lawsuits alleging election fraud, despite no substantial evidence, and ongoing criticism from some local residents during public meetings.


the GOPQ is a festering infected wound on our nation .. who won't seek or accept treatment ... amputation is starting to be the only solution But the Rons and the Trumps of the world these festering and infected are their base and they want their votes ... so they will continue to pour whatever lies they believe back to them while taking their money :rotflmao:

Ukraine is sooooo thankful Trump didn’t win or he would have done everything in his power to slow, stop or vastly reduce any aid in his distain for Ukraine and nato.

everything is about Trump.

I be can’t help but notice that Putin move while Trump was in power. Maybe that’s just a coincidence, and maybe it’s not.

I kept hearing how much more stable things would be with Biden in there. Are China and Russia being better neighbors now? If so, I’m sorry I don’t see it. One night argue that they’re taking advantage of the overwhelming weakness projected by our frail Alzheimer’s patient we have now. You have to give Biden sincere kudos for low unemployment. But on the global front, i’m not sure he’s striking fear in the heart of our adversaries.

who were we supposed to think it was about? you responded to his post about the balloon, you actually quoted his post, and somehow changed course to russia and ukraine and gop bashing.

your party is a disease and have been since Trump ..

and when you support that party it's hard to wash the sink off ..

and of course you missed the entire Point that conservatives are upset over a balloon and Biden then they are about the chinese who sent it .

And the Party willing to kowtow to Russian aka Putin's aggression in Ukraine

GOP base warms to giving Russia some of Ukraine’s territory

A Washington Post-ABC News poll, for instance, shows half of Republicans now say we’re doing “too much” for Ukraine. That’s up from 18 percent in April 2022.

More strikingly, an NBC News poll last week showed 63 percent of Republicans opposed “providing more funding and weapons to Ukraine,

A Fox News poll released last week showed Democrats thought Ukraine was winning the war by a 2-to-1 margin, 61 percent to 26 percent. But Republicans were split, with 43 percent saying Russia was winning and 42 percent saying Ukraine was winning. It’s the second poll since the 2022 election that suggests Republicans are more likely than Democrats to view Russia as winning the war.


why Jim? it's not about the Money thats a red herring, or is it once again they refuse to Back a democratic POTUS before the 2024 election afraid giving him a win if Ukraine succeeds ... like i said cowards


But but OMG a chinese Balloon !

Good by Taiwan the Republicans won't help you But they'll Blame Biden for not doing anything

my middle son and his boy scout troop did a camping -
/ ski trip to northern VT last weekend in the frigid cold. they had a really nice cabin with a wood stove so they were fine. great stuff. Zero screen time.

Gotta do it in a tent or snow shelter, separates the men from the boys. :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gotta do it in a tent or snow shelter, separates the men from the boys. :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they’ve done that in winter. for that particular weekend, real walls and a wood stove weren’t a bad thing.

your party is a disease and have been since Trump ..

But your brain isn't broke.

Your party's house of representatives had 1 person out of 200+, think that babies born alive are human beings.

Your party sees no downside to men being in a bathroom with little girls, or with male prisoners saying "I am female" and being moved to a women's prison.

Your party says the border is secure.

Your party says the police are what's wrong with American cities.

Your party's senate majority leader called for violence against 2 specific SCOTUS justices because he didn't like the way they decided a case.

These are core tenants of your party. I'm not pointing to one crazy extremist jerk, though yoru side has plenty of those (Ihan Omar, Adam Schiff, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren...)

I can't stand Trump. But he's the only republican in the country who could have beaten Hilary, he re-shaped the Supreme Court for a generation. And he made you, and many others, crazy.

Unfortunately, at this point Trump is doing more harm than good for the GOP (wasn't always the case, but it is now). After 2024, he'll be in the rear view mirror and you'll need another lightning rod to distract attention away from your side's unpopular policies.

My side is led by a very unpopular person. Your side embraces policies that Americans don't like. Polls show that both of those things are true. One of those things will fix itself in 2 years. One won't.

everything is about Trump.

I be can’t help but notice that Putin move while Trump was in power. Maybe that’s just a coincidence, and maybe it’s not.

I kept hearing how much more stable things would be with Biden in there. Are China and Russia being better neighbors now? If so, I’m sorry I don’t see it. One night argue that they’re taking advantage of the overwhelming weakness projected by our frail Alzheimer’s patient we have now. You have to give Biden sincere kudos for low unemployment. But on the global front, i’m not sure he’s striking fear in the heart of our adversaries.

You are a funny man, is it your expert opinion that suddenly under Biden relationships with Russia and China have changed for the worse? Short term memory loss Jim is a sign, you better go get checked out. You forgetting Russia and China have been bad actors forever?

But your brain isn't broke.

Your party's house of representatives had 1 person out of 200+, think that babies born alive are human beings.

Your party sees no downside to men being in a bathroom with little girls, or with male prisoners saying "I am female" and being moved to a women's prison.

Your party says the border is secure.

Your party says the police are what's wrong with American cities.

Your party's senate majority leader called for violence against 2 specific SCOTUS justices because he didn't like the way they decided a case.

These are core tenants of your party. I'm not pointing to one crazy extremist jerk, though yoru side has plenty of those (Ihan Omar, Adam Schiff, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren...)

I can't stand Trump. But he's the only republican in the country who could have beaten Hilary, he re-shaped the Supreme Court for a generation. And he made you, and many others, crazy.

Unfortunately, at this point Trump is doing more harm than good for the GOP (wasn't always the case, but it is now). After 2024, he'll be in the rear view mirror and you'll need another lightning rod to distract attention away from your side's unpopular policies.

My side is led by a very unpopular person. Your side embraces policies that Americans don't like. Polls show that both of those things are true. One of those things will fix itself in 2 years. One won't.

No Jim that’s what Fox tells to to believe that’s the belief and stance of ALL democrats, you are so predictable, do you have a big word document saved where you can quickly copy and paste your greatest hits from? If not it would certainly save you some typing.

everything is about Trump.

I be can’t help but notice that Putin move while Trump was in power. Maybe that’s just a coincidence, and maybe it’s not.

I kept hearing how much more stable things would be with Biden in there. Are China and Russia being better neighbors now? If so, I’m sorry I don’t see it. One night argue that they’re taking advantage of the overwhelming weakness projected by our frail Alzheimer’s patient we have now. You have to give Biden sincere kudos for low unemployment. But on the global front, i’m not sure he’s striking fear in the heart of our adversaries.

If Trump were in office, the West likely would have splintered instead of unifying to isolate Russia, making Putin’s aggression far less costly.

Our ability to control things in this world is and should be dependent on our allies.

A twittering lying blowhard for a leader didn’t work, most Americans saw that.

As it is for a relatively small investment, matched by our allies, Russia has decimated much of their military muscle and their economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Jim that’s what Fox tells to to believe that’s the belief and stance of ALL democrats, you are so predictable, do you have a big word document saved where you can quickly copy and paste your greatest hits from? If not it would certainly save you some typing.

so 200+ house democrats didn’t vote against a bill that would require care for babies who survive abortion? that was a fake headline?

The biden administration is t saying the border is secure? all the videos of them doing so, are doctored videos that foxnews fabricated?

democrats haven’t thrown cops under the bus since ferguson MO? hands up don’t shoot, defund the police, those aren’t really being repeated by democrats?

democrats aren’t advocating for unisex locker rooms and bathrooms? foxnews is making that up?

Bob, 1% of the country watches fox news in a good day. It’s not accurate that foxnews isnt the only reason why democrats don’t win unanimously.

your brain is simply broke.

Yeah i’m the predictable party parrot, who isn’t voting for trump in 2024 under any circumstances

None of you can admit your side doesn’t walk on water.

No Jim that’s what Fox tells to to believe that’s the belief and stance of ALL democrats, you are so predictable, do you have a big word document saved where you can quickly copy and paste your greatest hits from? If not it would certainly save you some typing.

If Trump were in office, the West likely would have splintered instead of unifying to isolate Russia, making Putin’s aggression far less costly.

Our ability to control things in this world is and should be dependent on our allies.

A twittering lying blowhard for a leader didn’t work, most Americans saw that.

As it is for a relatively small investment, matched by our allies, Russia has decimated much of their military muscle and their economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

trump got more countries to fork over $$ to nato, didn’t he?

no way of knowing if russia would have even invaded if trump had won. Trump didn’t help russia in Syria. you’re wildly speculating, and to the surprise of no one, your speculation is to the left of Karl Marx

if Trumps leadership didnt work, why were things so peaceful and prosperous than? why did a record number of americans respond to Gallup that they were better off.

Trump didn’t lose because his policies failed. He lost because he has taken the concept of personal like ability to cosmic new lows.

People liked his policies. The test of that will be in the next election where he’s not the nominee. might not be until 2028.

If the lefty agenda is what americans want, why isn’t Biden lolling better? People like him personally way more than trump,,but he’s way underwater. Why? Why have republicans long controlled a majority of state legislatures and governorships

Funny how none of you ever, ever respond to that. Because you know you can’t.

How is this for red state idiocy:

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the new governor of Arkansas, has pledged to get the “bureaucratic tyrants” of Washington “out of your wallets”; in 2019 the federal government spent almost twice as much in Arkansas as it collected in taxes, de facto providing the average Arkansas resident with $5,500 in aid.

Talk about ungrateful. Basic decency is to thank the people helping you out but instead the red states insult the blue donor states.

they’ve done that in winter. for that particular weekend, real walls and a wood stove weren’t a bad thing.

I know, I was just joking. I certainly wouldn’t sleep outside in -15
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But your brain isn't broke.

Your party's house of representatives had 1 person out of 200+, think that babies born alive are human beings.

More of your projections

Your party sees no downside to men being in a bathroom with little girls, or with male prisoners saying "I am female" and being moved to a women's prison.

their called Transgender your bathroom crimes are a myth more men rape women in Bathroom than transgender's

Your party says the border is secure. its the same as under trump more GOP lies that it isn't. funny Fox hasn't run a border story since the midterms why is that?

Your party says the police are what's wrong with American cities.
More Liying jim I am shocked policing has and have the same issues did under all previous administration but fan boys like yourself don't want to admit their a problem

Your party's senate majority leader called for violence against 2 specific SCOTUS justices because he didn't like the way they decided a case. Back to your favorites hits again . PS you have a twisted definition of violence

These are core tenants of your party. I'm not pointing to one crazy extremist jerk, though yoru side has plenty of those (Ihan Omar, Adam Schiff, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren...)

I can't stand Trump. But he's the only republican in the country who could have beaten Hilary, he re-shaped the Supreme Court for a generation. And he made you, and many others, crazy.

Unfortunately, at this point Trump is doing more harm than good for the GOP (wasn't always the case, but it is now). After 2024, he'll be in the rear view mirror and you'll need another lightning rod to distract attention away from your side's unpopular policies.

My side is led by a very unpopular person. Your side embraces policies that Americans don't like. Polls show that both of those things are true. One of those things will fix itself in 2 years. One won't.


Jim keep thinking your Party is for All Americans their only for those whom will support all their hate a bigotry

its not Hard Just look at the GOP members leading their so Called hearings and their Titles

"We have a government that now I believe is targeting the very people it is supposed to serve," subcommittee chair Rep. Jim Jordan said Tuesday. "We plan on, as a Republican majority, holding them accountable."

funny GYM using Accountable in a sentence

Jim Jordan Refuses to Cooperate With Jan. 6 Panel

: 56 percent of Americans said the panel is "just an attempt to score political points"

the other 44% are MAGATARDS who don't believe in anything unless its not True and still think Trump won LOL

Like I said jim you can spew all your right wing talking points . what's comical there all cultural grievances ...

Democratic policies benefit all Americans

so 200+ house democrats didn’t vote against a bill that would require care for babies who survive abortion? that was a fake headline?

babies dont survive abortion and doctors dont just let them die if 1 a million survives it's just not a thing except in your echo chamber

The biden administration is t saying the border is secure? all the videos of them doing so, are doctored videos that foxnews fabricated?

Catching migrants and migrants turning themselves in doesn't equal the border is not secure ..
1,951 mile U.S.-Mexico border is the busiest in the world. Each year the our southern border allows in more than 300 million people, approximately 90 million cars, and 4.3 million truck crossings. Since the implementation of NAFTA, the number of commercial vehicles crossing the border has increased by 41 percent.democrats haven’t thrown cops under the bus since ferguson MO? hands up don’t shoot, defund the police, those aren’t really being repeated by democrats?

but fentanyl is coming in via migrants LOL more echo chamber

democrats aren’t advocating for unisex locker rooms and bathrooms? foxnews is making that up? only republicans are afraid of unisex bathrooms it rather Victorian FYI No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety but again dont let the facts get in yourway

Bob, 1% of the country watches fox news in a good day. It’s not accurate that foxnews isnt the only reason why democrats don’t win unanimously.

but that 99% are all Conservatives foxnews isn't the only reason why democrats don’t win unanimously. no GOP gerrymandering and the electoral college are the reasons
your brain is simply broke.

Yeah i’m the predictable party parrot, who isn’t voting for trump in 2024 under any circumstances

None of you can admit your side doesn’t walk on water.

None of you can admit your side doesn’t walk on water

of course not Biden was not ordained By God Like Trump just ask republicans

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) on Dec. 18 said Jesus was afforded more due process rights under Pontius Pilate than President Trump has been afforded.

in an interview with Fox News, former energy secretary Rick Perry
praised Trump as “God’s chosen one”

Trump has embraced the belief himself, tweeting quotes from conservatives comparing him to the “second coming of God” and even proclaiming “I am the chosen one” and looking toward the heavens


Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s (now former) press secretary, telling television preacher Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network: “I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times, and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president.

How is this for red state idiocy:

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the new governor of Arkansas, has pledged to get the “bureaucratic tyrants” of Washington “out of your wallets”; in 2019 the federal government spent almost twice as much in Arkansas as it collected in taxes, de facto providing the average Arkansas resident with $5,500 in aid.

Talk about ungrateful. Basic decency is to thank the people helping you out but instead the red states insult the blue donor states.

She knows those who support her are not interested in Facts or the Truth they just want her to own the libs while here state reaming at the bottom of most indexes

Median Income 49th in health care 48 in crime and 41 in education
$26,315

and found this Odd in Fiscal Stability they rank 14th?

but their priority Arkansas House Passes Bill Restricting 'Adult' Performances

you cant make this stuff up:thanks:

do only the wealthy can complain about government waste. very inclusive.

no one is asking the feds to stop helping people
paul. It’s waste. And if a republican were to get elected potus, maybe the republican politicians would stop caring about wasteful
spending. That doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate issue.

Jim clearly you don’t understand that laws are not written to address every eventuality

No, just the eventualities to which the laws apply.

So you want a judge to rule on what’s written ? It makes no sense

It makes perfect sense to rule on the written law.

All judges. Originalist or not always include their interpretations of the law into their decisions.

To think otherwise is just absurd.

The judges are not constantly "interpreting" the law as if it were some foreign language that needs to be translated into English. They "interpret" how the law applies to the case in hand.
An originalist interprets how the original text applies to the case.
A non-originalist, applies considerations other than the text to the case, and may have to resort to redefining the original meanings of the text in order to justify a decision or "interpretation."

The problem arises when Judges only use their personal beliefs and perceptions as the main ingredient in their decisions.


That's sort of like being a little bit, or sort of, pregnant. The main ingredient in a pregnancy itself is the fetus, or zygote, or baby. Any other ingredient, such as a man can become a woman and so can become pregnant, is a fiction used to create a new being, to transform humanity

The main ingredient in SCOTUS judicial interpretation is the text of the law. Anything else is a fiction which, if accepted, transforms the Constitution into a new being, a new law.

Progressives use "personal beliefs and perceptions" as a fictional means to avoid or subvert the "main ingredient"--the original text--to create new law. To legislate from the bench.

Here's the perfect illustration of Progressive adjudication that changes constitutional law, that transforms the Constitution from a written law into a jumble of fluid words that can merely be a "legal" excuse to do as you wish--Wickard v. Filburn (1942). To briefly summarize, the Roosevelt administration thought that keeping prices up during the Depression would help to shorten it (which turned out to be wrong and actually stupid). So they allotted a quota system for production. Only so much wheat, e.g., was allowed per producer, to be grown. A small farmer, Rosco Filburn, grew more than his allowed share, the vast majority of which was used to feed his own livestock. He was thus fined by the Federal Government for excess growth, so he fought it and lost the case.

He was prosecuted under the Agricultural Adjustment Act which was supposedly made valid by the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. To make it brief, essentially, the ICC was previously established by Chief Justice Marshall as being limited, AS WRITTEN IN THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION, to commerce with foreign nations, among (between) the states, and with the Indian tribes. In spite of the fact that commerce as defined at the time meant actual business between buyers and sellers, and in spite of the fact that Filburn did not even sell his "excess" wheat but used it himself, and that it did not cross state borders, the Progressively packed court decided that, "Even if activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce."

In other words, even though Filburn did not sell his wheat in interstate commerce, he did consume it on his own farm. Had he not grown the wheat himself, he would have had to buy it. And even though the monetary value of the small amount of wheat in question would not affect the price of wheat, it would, in the aggregate, have a substantial effect if there were many others who grew wheat on their own property, for their own consumption.

So, by this "interpretation" of the original textual words "commerce" and "interstate" in the Constitution, and this "interpretation" of to whom the clause was specifically directed (with foreign nations, among [between] the states, and with the Indian tribes), by these interpretations the Federal Congress was given an expansion of regulatory power that affects nearly every aspect of our lives. That is, nearly everything we do can have a claim to having an affect on commerce. And "commerce" can be anything a judge or Congress says it is. And "interstate" can also mean "intrastate" or just be meaningless so the Clause need no longer be referred to or named the Interstate Commerce Clause, but just referred to as the Commerce Clause.

The once Constitutionaly limited Interstate Commerce Clause has become the primary source of federal power.

And by the host of Progressively interpreted SCOTUS decisions that followed, the power of the states, and of the people, has diminished.

do only the wealthy can complain about government waste. very inclusive. No idea what tangent you're trying to go off to.

no one is asking the feds to stop helping people
paul. It’s waste. And if a republican were to get elected potus, maybe the republican politicians would stop caring about wasteful
spending. That doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate issue.

She didn't say anything about waste.

If she had any type of upbringing she would do the decent thing and tell the "bureaucratic tyrants" she is showing such distain for to keep their money and not send it to Ark.

Complaining about the same people you accept money is pretty classless.

trump got more countries to fork over $$ to nato, didn’t he?

no way of knowing if russia would have even invaded if trump had won. Trump didn’t help russia in Syria. you’re wildly speculating, and to the surprise of no one, your speculation is to the left of Karl Marx

if Trumps leadership didnt work, why were things so peaceful and prosperous than? why did a record number of americans respond to Gallup that they were better off.

Trump didn’t lose because his policies failed. He lost because he has taken the concept of personal like ability to cosmic new lows.

People liked his policies. The test of that will be in the next election where he’s not the nominee. might not be until 2028.

If the lefty agenda is what americans want, why isn’t Biden lolling better? People like him personally way more than trump,,but he’s way underwater. Why? Why have republicans long controlled a majority of state legislatures and governorships

Funny how none of you ever, ever respond to that. Because you know you can’t.

No wild speculation, Trump sided with Putin every time it counted.
What would you expect of a man who was supported by the Russian mafia in NY and Floriduh for years, two of his three wives came from the Soviet Union and his kids are on tape saying they got all the money they need from Russia.

Throw trillions at the economy at the end of one of the longest economic expansions and things will look great but the bills come due.

Now you trust polls????
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love his “people liked his policies” mantra it’s a classic hit and I guess if by that you mean the upper crust and big business, then yeah they like them why not it was a big money grab. If the policies were that good, everyone’s doing so much better, then I doubt his caustic personality would be such a deal breaker. Trump continues to be a weight dragging the GOP down. Jim can’t seem to understand why it comes around to Trump all the time, which to me seems like an easy thing to grasp. When you bash Biden and his performance, is it any wonder we bring up the previous administration? Trump cost you the White House, Trump led a coup, he cost you the big red wave and even now he is the only one with a hat in the ring for 24.

I love his “people liked his policies” mantra it’s a classic hit and I guess if by that you mean the upper crust and big business, then yeah they like them why not it was a big money grab. If the policies were that good, everyone’s doing so much better, then I doubt his caustic personality would be such a deal breaker. Trump continues to be a weight dragging the GOP down. Jim can’t seem to understand why it comes around to Trump all the time, which to me seems like an easy thing to grasp. When you bash Biden and his performance, is it any wonder we bring up the previous administration? Trump cost you the White House, Trump led a coup, he cost you the big red wave and even now he is the only one with a hat in the ring for 24.

thing is, i backed it up. Trump had the all
time record in the Gallup poll, asking if americans are better off after four years of a president.

if you put his outrageous behavior aside, he delivered. unemployment 0.1% higher than it is now, lowest black unemployment ever, tax cuts, eliminating a lot of ( what was apparently) useless regulations, criminal
justice reform ( which your side has wanted for 30 years and obama chose not to do it), low inflation, stock market records, getting public and private sector together to quickly build covid testing and vaccine, increasing funding for black colleges. He did things i hated. but overall, america liked his policies.

insulting me, doesn’t make that wrong. it just makes you look stupid. you hated him to the point your brain cracked. we get it.

this kid why you’re all terrified of desantis. smart policies without the personal baggage ( so far).

She didn't say anything about waste.

If she had any type of upbringing she would do the decent thing and tell the "bureaucratic tyrants" she is showing such distain for to keep their money and not send it to Ark.

Complaining about the same people you accept money is pretty classless.

she doesn’t have to specify waste. only a rabid political moron would presume she’s talking about cutting things that actually help people.

Poor Dictim
We know Republicans would never cut anything people need and never give to the people who don’t…

“We are under attack in a left-wing culture war we didn’t start and never wanted to fight. Every day, we are told that we must partake in their rituals, salute their flags, and worship their false idols.”

Do you really think this is a path to power on the national level? Because wow.

Of course it’s all the Trumplican Party has. If they ran on their policy positions of tax cuts for the wealthy and restricting women's reproductive rights, they wouldn't have much else to talk about.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Poor Dictim
We know Republicans would never cut anything people need and never give to the people who don’t…

“We are under attack in a left-wing culture war we didn’t start and never wanted to fight. Every day, we are told that we must partake in their rituals, salute their flags, and worship their false idols.”

Do you really think this is a path to power on the national level? Because wow.

Of course it’s all the Trumplican Party has. If they ran on their policy positions of tax cuts for the wealthy and restricting women's reproductive rights, they wouldn't have much else to talk about.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh, republicans give TONS to people who don’t need it. Why would you claim i think otherwise? because you’re a deranged, schizophrenic liar?

how can the side that holds more state and federal offices, be the victim, exactly, pete?

“tax cuts for the wealthy”

total lie. trump doubled the standard deduction, helps people at the bottom. he lowered tax rates in every single tax bracket. there wasn’t a tax bracket that didn’t get a cut.

make that wrong, psycho liar. if actual facts proves your case, guy wouldn’t have to make stuff up.

crime is up. fentanyl deaths are up. illegal border crossings are up. effective wages are down thousands of dollars a year because of insane inflation

when trump was potus, you said here he was responsible for every covid death. biden oversaw more deaths. and you stopped beating that drum. How come? voices in your head stopped telling you to lead with that?

she doesn’t have to specify waste. only a rabid political moron would presume she’s talking about cutting things that actually help people.

And only a rapid political moron would bring up things that weren't said
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh, republicans give TONS to people who don’t need it. Why would you claim i think otherwise? because you’re a deranged, schizophrenic liar?


make that wrong, psycho liar. if actual facts proves your case, guy wouldn’t have to make stuff up. ?
Jim you're becoming more and more unstable and angry
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh, republicans give TONS to people who don’t need it. Why would you claim i think otherwise? because you’re a deranged, schizophrenic liar?

how can the side that holds more state and federal offices, be the victim, exactly, pete?

“tax cuts for the wealthy”

total lie. trump doubled the standard deduction, helps people at the bottom. he lowered tax rates in every single tax bracket. there wasn’t a tax bracket that didn’t get a cut.

make that wrong, psycho liar. if actual facts proves your case, guy wouldn’t have to make stuff up.

crime is up. fentanyl deaths are up. illegal border crossings are up. effective wages are down thousands of dollars a year because of insane inflation

when trump was potus, you said here he was responsible for every covid death. biden oversaw more deaths. and you stopped beating that drum. How come? voices in your head stopped telling you to lead with that?

Poor Dictim, are you off your meds?

If the Trumplican party actually controls the country as you claim, one would think the Republican run states would be leading, instead they’re failing.

2020 set records for murders, who was President then?
Are you proposing Congress actually do something about immigration and drug abuse, it looks like they’re more interested in playing victim. How’s that clown show going?

The Trump tax cuts were far more beneficial to the highest income Americans.

FACT; Trump imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on 1000s of products, which is equivalent to one of the largest tax increases in decades. The tariffs amounted to a $52.6 billion tax increase in 2021.

Corporate profits have set all time records and are major inflation drivers, are you now advocating for price controls?
Or is it the minimum wage that’s driving inflation?

And actually, the crime capitol of the US is Kevin McCarthy's Republican-run Bakersfield, CA.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And only a rapid political moron would bring up things that weren't said
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yet you assumed she’d cut things that we need, which she never said. It’s ok when you do it.

you think there’s any waste in the federal budget Paul? None?

yet you assumed she’d cut things that we need, which she never said. It’s ok when you do it.

you think there’s any waste in the federal budget Paul? None?

Pull up where I said that moron

Pull up where I said that moron

you criticized her for proposing cuts. does that not mean, that you believe she was proposing to cut things, that you don’t think should be cut?

this isn’t complicated.

You really are the Fox echo chamber, do some research and go back before Clinton and look at jobs each created during their entire four years, Biden blows them away in just two years. So if your contention is correct one or all of those guys would have created all those jobs and guess what they didn’t.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-seven-biggest-lies-biden-told-this-week/ar-AA17hS4b

From the above article, this is #2 of "The seven biggest lies Biden told this week":

2. “We have created a record 12 million new jobs.”

Biden tries to count the jobs backfilled post-pandemic as “new” jobs, but these positions were already created and merely temporarily abandoned due to COVID-19. In reality, Biden has created 2.7 million net new jobs above what Donald Trump created. This job creation is only 60 percent of the 4.5 million net new jobs that Trump created in his first two years in office.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-seven-biggest-lies-biden-told-this-week/ar-AA17hS4b

From the above article, this is #2 of "The seven biggest lies Biden told this week":

2. “We have created a record 12 million new jobs.”

Biden tries to count the jobs backfilled post-pandemic as “new” jobs, but these positions were already created and merely temporarily abandoned due to COVID-19. In reality, Biden has created 2.7 million net new jobs above what Donald Trump created. This job creation is only 60 percent of the 4.5 million net new jobs that Trump created in his first two years in office.

How long did it take to find something you liked? This recap of Trumps term says otherwise.

Summary
The statistics for the entirety of Donald Trump’s time in office are nearly all compiled. As we did for his predecessor four years ago, we present a final look at the numbers.

The economy lost 2.9 million jobs. The unemployment rate increased by 1.6 percentage points to 6.3%.
Paychecks grew faster than inflation. Average weekly earnings for all workers were up 8.7% after inflation.
After-tax corporate profits went up, and the stock market set new records. The S&P 500 index rose 67.8%.
The international trade deficit Trump promised to reduce went up. The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services in 2020 was the highest since 2008 and increased 40.5% from 2016.
The number of people lacking health insurance rose by 3 million.
The federal debt held by the public went up, from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion.
Home prices rose 27.5%, and the homeownership rate increased 2.1 percentage points to 65.8%.
Illegal immigration increased. Apprehensions at the Southwest border rose 14.7% last year compared with 2016.
Coal production declined 26.5%, and coal-mining jobs dropped by 16.7%. Carbon emissions from energy consumption dropped 11.5%.
Handgun production rose 12.5% last year compared with 2016, setting a new record.
The murder rate last year rose to the highest level since 1997.
Trump filled one-third of the Supreme Court, nearly 30% of the appellate court seats and a quarter of District Court seats.

How long did it take to find something you liked? This recap of Trumps term says otherwise.

Summary
The statistics for the entirety of Donald Trump’s time in office are nearly all compiled. As we did for his predecessor four years ago, we present a final look at the numbers.

The economy lost 2.9 million jobs. The unemployment rate increased by 1.6 percentage points to 6.3%.
Paychecks grew faster than inflation. Average weekly earnings for all workers were up 8.7% after inflation.
After-tax corporate profits went up, and the stock market set new records. The S&P 500 index rose 67.8%.
The international trade deficit Trump promised to reduce went up. The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services in 2020 was the highest since 2008 and increased 40.5% from 2016.
The number of people lacking health insurance rose by 3 million.
The federal debt held by the public went up, from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion.
Home prices rose 27.5%, and the homeownership rate increased 2.1 percentage points to 65.8%.
Illegal immigration increased. Apprehensions at the Southwest border rose 14.7% last year compared with 2016.
Coal production declined 26.5%, and coal-mining jobs dropped by 16.7%. Carbon emissions from energy consumption dropped 11.5%.
Handgun production rose 12.5% last year compared with 2016, setting a new record.
The murder rate last year rose to the highest level since 1997.
Trump filled one-third of the Supreme Court, nearly 30% of the appellate court seats and a quarter of District Court seats.

so Det ich points out the laughable
lie that biden told about creating all the jobs lost during covid that i bet sky came back no thanks to him.

you respond by pivoting immediately to trump bashing.

Bob, what are you afraid would happen, if you just admitted Biden was being dishonest? What do you think would happen? What are you afraid of?

Biden has unemployment at 3.4. i think trumps lowest was 3.5. Biden can, and should, brag about that. A meaningful number of jobs have been created on his watch, and he absolutely deserves credit for that.

But most of the 12 million jobs weren’t created, they came back after covid let up. That started before biden took office. Trump and biden share credit for that recovery. Is that not accurate and fair?

so Det ich points out the laughable
lie that biden told about creating all the jobs lost during covid that i bet sky came back no thanks to him.

you respond by pivoting immediately to trump bashing.

Bob, what are you afraid would happen, if you just admitted Biden was being dishonest? What do you think would happen? What are you afraid of?

Biden has unemployment at 3.4. i think trumps lowest was 3.5. Biden can, and should, brag about that. A meaningful number of jobs have been created on his watch, and he absolutely deserves credit for that.

But most of the 12 million jobs weren’t created, they came back after covid let up. That started before biden took office. Trump and biden share credit for that recovery. Is that not accurate and fair?

It’s simple math Jim, his numbers don’t work and since at this moment Trump is the number one candidate for the 24 run, with Ron nipping at his heels, should I be bashing Nikki, Pompeo or some other GOP candidate? With Ron suggesting like Scott, social security should be on the blocks every five years, unless Trump is charged, he could be your nominee. What about our disdain and focus on Trump don’t you get, are you not capable of grasping the obvious?

It’s obvious that despite his claims to the opposite, the dictim really wants Trump, because he reflects his real values.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you criticized her for proposing cuts. does that not mean, that you believe she was proposing to cut things, that you don’t think should be cut?

this isn’t complicated.

This isn't complicated. For the second time, show me where I said that?

This isn't complicated. For the second time, show me where I said that?

let’s start at the beginning. You attacked her for proposing cuts. Why did you do that? Am i wrong, for assuming that you’re saying her cuts would hurt people? after all, if her cuts would t hurt anyone, why would you opposer those cuts?

Paul, do you feel there’s any stupid waste in the entire federal budget? Any at all?

My bet is you won’t answer that, because if you say yes, that supports my position, and if you say no, you’re an idiot.

let’s start at the beginning. You attacked her for proposing cuts. Why did you do that? Am i wrong, for assuming that you’re saying her cuts would hurt people? after all, if her cuts would t hurt anyone, why would you opposer those cuts?

Paul, do you feel there’s any stupid waste in the entire federal budget? Any at all?

My bet is you won’t answer that, because if you say yes, that supports my position, and if you say no, you’re an idiot.

Ok, for the 3rd time pls. show me where I criticized her for proposed cuts? That is a pretty simple ask.

Ok, for the 3rd time pls. show me where I criticized her for proposed cuts? That is a pretty simple ask.

post 138.

Paul, people who receive welfare but also pay income taxes, have a vested interest in eliminating waste, right? you’re saying she has no right to a say. Unless you nosy zero tax, you’re better off of waste is eliminated


I answered your question exactly as you asked

Here’s mine for the third time. Is there meaningful waste in the federal budget.

i answered your question. grow a pair and answer mine.

and funny, when you bash the takers, it’s always bashing those in red states. I’ve never seen you attack the takers in blue states. The people in new haven and hartford and bridgeport are also taking more than they contribute. You’d never, ever attack them though.

Like everything else, it’s ok when democrats who are net takers, criticize the feds. you only start menstruating when republicans do it. I’d bet you can’t show us a single time where you held liberal takers to the same standard you want to hold conservative takers to.

So your concern with people who take more than they give, is quite selective, depending on politics. Which means your concern is completely fake.

How is this for red state idiocy:

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the new governor of Arkansas, has pledged to get the “bureaucratic tyrants” of Washington “out of your wallets”; in 2019 the federal government spent almost twice as much in Arkansas as it collected in taxes, de facto providing the average Arkansas resident with $5,500 in aid.

Talk about ungrateful. Basic decency is to thank the people helping you out but instead the red states insult the blue donor states.

Never once mentioned "waste" like you claimed. You are an angry POS of person. You are quick to insult and call people schizophrenic when you are the one imagining things people never said. You mock liberals and post 2-3 times when you think they rushed to judgement when you did exactly the same thing here. So any distain you feel for them you should look in the mirror and you will see the samething expect you are far worse.

You've called me a moron a few time here. Is it any wonder you have no friends here (maybe you consider the "moderate" a friend?).

You are a scummy douchebag.

Never once mentioned "waste" like you claimed. You are an angry POS of person. You are quick to insult and call people schizophrenic when you are the one imagining things people never said. You mock liberals and post 2-3 times when you think they rushed to judgement when you did exactly the same thing here. So any distain you feel for them you should look in the mirror and you will see the samething expect you are far worse.

You've called me a moron a few time here. Is it any wonder you have no friends here (maybe you consider the "moderate" a friend?).

You are a scummy douchebag.

You never, ever used the word "waste". But you did criticize her fpor wanting to keep DC's hands out of her citizens wallets, by which she was obviously referring to taxing and spending.

"You've called me a moron a few time here."

Do you need a list of what you've called me?

Paul, you said here, that citizens of states that take more from the feds than they give, shouldn't complain. Ok, fine. But do you feel the same way about people who live in poor cities in blue states? Obviously the city of Bridgeport receives more than it contributes. Do you feel those people also have no right to an opinion about taxes? Or, because those people happen to live in a state where, as a state, they contribute more than they receive, their right to have a say is restored?

You never, ever used the word "waste". But you did criticize her fpor wanting to keep DC's hands out of her citizens wallets, by which she was obviously referring to taxing and spending.

"You've called me a moron a few time here."

Do you need a list of what you've called me?Sure and post the thread that I responded to when you insult me or claim I said something I never did. It is a pattern.

Paul, you said here, that citizens of states that take more from the feds than they give, shouldn't complain. Ok, fine. But do you feel the same way about people who live in poor cities in blue states? I don't hear them insulting the people who provide benefits to them like those poor red states seem to constantly do.Obviously the city of Bridgeport receives more than it contributes. Do you feel those people also have no right to an opinion about taxes? Or, because those people happen to live in a state where, as a state, they contribute more than they receive, their right to have a say is restored?

Seems like most of the time when Sanders' "bureaucratic tyrants”
are in her citizen's "wallets” are when they are leaving money. How ungrateful can someone be!

Seems like most of the time when Sanders' "bureaucratic tyrants”
are in her citizen's "wallets” are when they are leaving money. How ungrateful can someone be!

"I don't hear them insulting the people who provide benefits to them like those poor red states seem to constantly do"

I see. So according to you, democrats in poor liberal cities, never insulted the people running the federal government, when Trump was in charge. That's what you're saying. The people in Baltimore, Chicago, etc.., never insulted Trump or his administration, when they were receiving federal benefits. Whenever they spoke of Trump, it was only to show gratitude for the benefits they were receiving?

That's good, Paul. Stick with that.

"I don't hear them insulting the people who provide benefits to them like those poor red states seem to constantly do"

I see. So according to you, democrats in poor liberal cities, never insulted the people running the federal government, when Trump was in charge. That's what you're saying. The people in Baltimore, Chicago, etc.., never insulted Trump or his administration, when they were receiving federal benefits. Whenever they spoke of Trump, it was only to show gratitude for the benefits they were receiving?

That's good, Paul. Stick with that.

Face it you got caught lying again. You have done that in the past. You are a scummy liar.

I wonder why, Jim’s hero always does impressive things and who loves him baby….

Inside Trump’s Plot to Send Rapists and Killers To ‘Destabilize’ Liberal Cities

Donald Trump is privately fuming over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis flying migrants from the Texas border to Martha’s Vineyard, telling confidants the potential 2024 rival stole “my idea” for weaponizing immigrants. Turns out, Trump was right — but his plans were more extreme than anything DeSantis has come up with to date.

In early 2019, three people familiar with the matter tell Rolling Stone, the then-president workshopped a plan to bus migrants suspected of violent crime from the border to liberal metropolitan areas. The plan, two of the sources say Trump explicitly told staff, was to “punish” his political rivals in Democratic controlled areas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How long did it take to find something you liked? This recap of Trumps term says otherwise.


It didn't take long at all. I wasn't even looking for it. Stumbled on the click bait about the seven lies told by Biden in his state of the union. I haven't watched a State of the Union speech in several years. It didn't take long for me to understand that those speeches were puff pieces for the speaker. Sprinkled heavily with stretches of truth, lies, and BS.

Out of curiosity, I clicked on the link. And there were the seven lies, to which I thought, OK, so what. What did we expect . And moved on with no thought of posting it on the forum.

Then you made your remark. And my first reaction was, OK, big deal, typical BS back and forth banter full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. But, then, driven by some stupid itch, I posted it as a reply to what you said. I should have let it go. You replied in a manner that I expected. Deflect and move on. The usual $hit, and I let myself get sucked into it. I've been resisting making responses to the usual mumbo jumbo, but had a stupid relapse.

I wonder why, Jim’s hero always does impressive things and who loves him baby….

Inside Trump’s Plot to Send Rapists and Killers To ‘Destabilize’ Liberal Cities

Donald Trump is privately fuming over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis flying migrants from the Texas border to Martha’s Vineyard, telling confidants the potential 2024 rival stole “my idea” for weaponizing immigrants. Turns out, Trump was right — but his plans were more extreme than anything DeSantis has come up with to date.

In early 2019, three people familiar with the matter tell Rolling Stone, the then-president workshopped a plan to bus migrants suspected of violent crime from the border to liberal metropolitan areas. The plan, two of the sources say Trump explicitly told staff, was to “punish” his political rivals in Democratic controlled areas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no names, no specifics, from a rag that made up the University of VA rape case...that's good enough for Pete though!

I'm surprised Pete, that you'd admit there are any violent criminals coming across the border illegally. But at least we cleared that up. You admit there are violent rapists among those who come across, yet you don't want a secure border. Brilliant.

Face it you got caught lying again. You have done that in the past. You are a scummy liar.

To recap:

Paul: I have never heard a democrat in a poor state attack the federal government.

Jim: Not even during the Trump years?

Paul: You're a scummy liar. And a scummy douchebag. And you call people names! I'm clutching my pearls with both hands! And suck my d--K when you can, please?

Paul, I asked 3 times if there's waste in the federal government budget, you cannot come close to answering. It's not even a partisan issue Paul, there's just as much waste when the GOP is in charge. But you're so ideologically enslaved to liberalism, you cannot say anything which anyone could interpret as agreeing with the right.

You're embarassing yourself. Have a good weekend. You deserve it after the bad day you're having.

To recap:to recap - Jim got caught lying again!

Paul: I have never heard a democrat in a poor state attack the federal government.

Jim: Not even during the Trump years?

Paul: You're a scummy liar.Yet I've repeatedly pointed out how you lie constantly And a scummy douchebag. Am I supposed to care what you think? The man who has zero friends here :D And you call people names! I'm clutching my pearls with both hands! And suck my d--K when you can, please?

Paul, I asked 3 times if there's waste in the federal government budget, you cannot come close to answering. It's not even a partisan issue Paul, there's just as much waste when the GOP is in charge. But you're so ideologically enslaved to liberalism, you cannot say anything which anyone could interpret as agreeing with the right.

You're embarassing yourself. your the douche who got called out for lying again. Have a good weekend. You deserve it after the bad day you're having.
Funny - you got caught lying again. scumbag.

Keep calling people moron - it is hilarious coming from you. Think about it before you call people that.

Funny - you got caught lying again. scumbag.

Keep calling people moron - it is hilarious coming from you. Think about it before you call people that.

why post in a political forum, if you can’t face a question as ridiculously simple as “is there waste in the federal budget”? That is too radical a question for you Paul? Too difficult or controversial?

or can you only comment on topics ( and there are many) which paint liberals in a favorable light?

why post in a political forum, if you can’t face a question as ridiculously simple as “is there waste in the federal budget”? That is too radical a question for you Paul? Too difficult or controversial?

or can you only comment on topics ( and there are many) which paint liberals in a favorable light?

If everyone responded to every question you asked John would need a new server. I have never felt the need to respond to everything I see or asked.

Republicans can’t make up their Minds Biden shoots down another balloon at 40 thousand feet in commercial airspace .


Now their. Claiming he shot this one down so quick was politically :huh:

I know conservatives want to forget Jan 6th as if it never happened

I saw this

CNN's SE Cupp says that Republicans criticizing President Joe Biden over his handling of the China spy balloon episode "seems so absurd" when compared to former President Donald Trump's role in the lead up to the January 6th insurrection.

YA THINK


https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/02/04/gop-criticism-biden-china-spy-balloon-se-cupp-acostanr-vpx.cnn

“is there waste in the federal budget”?

Yes!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If everyone responded to every question you asked John would need a new server. I have never felt the need to respond to everything I see or asked.

Here's the thing, Paul. It took you twenty times longer to type that nonsense, than it would have for you to just answer yes/no to my question. Twenty times the time. You typed 28 words to explain your cowardly dodge. If you really cared about John's server, wouldn't you have just answered my question with a yes or no? After all, it was a yes/no question.

So it has noting to do with how long it would take you to answer, or John's server space. You're just too cowardly or dishonest (I can't think of a third option, sorry) to answer.

What exactly is in that Kool Aid? Some potent, powerful stuff. Wow.

“is there waste in the federal budget”?

Yes!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes sir. And the republicans are no better at all, in this regard, than democrats. They may be worse, because at least the democrats don't lie when not in power about promising fiscal responsibility if elected.

All of us, both sides, need to re-think the kinds of people we elect to represent us.

Have a good weekend.

During a Tuesday hearing on border security, Frost used his backbench seat on the Oversight Committee to get two border police officials to overturn the entire premise of the GOP argument on immigration, that Democrats want “open borders”:

Frost: When President Biden took office, did your agents stop enforcing the border and just allow everyone to come in thus creating what we hear is an open border.
Chavez: The answer is no


Imagine that The GOP hearings own witness debunked their open border claims …. What Fools

You can’t make this up but to the faithful it won’t matter


As Gov. Ron DeSantis prepared for an election night party in downtown Tampa last year, city officials received a surprising — and politically sensitive — request.
The Republican governor’s campaign wanted weapons banned from his victory celebration at the city-run Tampa Convention Center, a city official said in emails obtained by The Washington Post. And the campaign suggested that the city take responsibility for the firearms ban, the official said — not the governor, who has been a vocal supporter of gun rights.

Yes sir. And the republicans are no better at all, in this regard, than democrats. They may be worse, because at least the democrats don't lie when not in power about promising fiscal responsibility if elected.

All of us, both sides, need to re-think the kinds of people we elect to represent us.

Have a good weekend.

The larger the size, scope, and power of a government, the more money it takes to maintain itself. Our Federal Government has constantly and continuously enlarged itself, and has accordingly gotten deeper in debt. What budget conscious people consider "waste" is a necessary expense for those in power to maintain and grow that power.

Who we vote for is no longer the answer for getting rid of "waste" in the Federal Government unless We the Voters want to take back the power that has been snatched from us, and become far more responsible for our lives and destinies. That would take a different kind of people. It would take a people more like those Americans of 1776.

We are not those people.

The larger the size, scope, and power of a government, the more money it takes to maintain itself. Our Federal Government has constantly and continuously enlarged itself, and has accordingly gotten deeper in debt. What budget conscious people consider "waste" is a necessary expense for those in power to maintain and grow that power.

Who we vote for is no longer the answer for getting rid of "waste" in the Federal Government unless We the Voters want to take back the power that has been snatched from us, and become far more responsible for our lives and destinies. That would take a different kind of people. It would take a people more like those Americans of 1776.

We are not those people.

Unless your living under a rock, or are in climate change denial, you would notice all these states that are being hammered by the resulting extreme weather catastrophes are being bailed out by your government, with the help of your tax dollars. The scientific community predicts it will only get worse, so if you drastically downsize government and let’s face it, it’s not likely happening in our lifetime, who picks up the tab? So it’s back on the states and how do you think they will pay for it without government assistance, oh yeah your taxes just went up significantly and can you just imagine how fu*ked up some of those efforts would be with the current infrastructure in place. So you can pay the feds or your state, either way someone needs to pay that tab.



I guess you were just born in the wrong time.

The larger the size, scope, and power of a government, the more money it takes to maintain itself. Our Federal Government has constantly and continuously enlarged itself, and has accordingly gotten deeper in debt. What budget conscious people consider "waste" is a necessary expense for those in power to maintain and grow that power.

Who we vote for is no longer the answer for getting rid of "waste" in the Federal Government unless We the Voters want to take back the power that has been snatched from us, and become far more responsible for our lives and destinies. That would take a different kind of people. It would take a people more like those Americans of 1776.

We are not those people.


Yep spoken like a Time Machine conservative . Calling for a revolution

I knew you were disappointed that Jan 6th Failed you actually thought your dreams had come true ..

Yep spoken like a Time Machine conservative . Calling for a revolution

I knew you were disappointed that Jan 6th Failed you actually thought your dreams had come true ..

The 1776 Revolution already happened. And it has greatly been abandoned.

After that revolution was won, and a workable Constitution was created as the law to sustain it, the great bulk of American citizens were the body politic who were the "kind of people" who understood that it must be sustained. It took a good bit of time for the American citizen to be transformed into something else.

We now have enough Americans that mock that revolution, consider it an unjust impediment to some unformed path to universal equity. And one of the greatest obstacles to achieving the goals of that inchoate struggle is the notion of individual sovereignty. That is now a simplistic notion. This has also been a revolution. One that has transformed the American citizen into one who understands that the individual must submit to the superior wisdom and expertise of the benevolent state.

So, no, I was not disappointed that the Jan6 riot "failed." It was not a thing that could, in any way, succeed. It was, mostly, regressive, and I was disappointed that it happened.

Even though it was an ignorant attempt without a coherent goal, it did exhibit a sort of reckless spirit which, if it coalesced into an actual spirit of liberty which would not need an armed Revolution to succeed, but to grow into a movement to restore the actual liberties that we still, latently, possess.

That is still possible. A "revolution" would not be needed. Originalism, in a broad sense, if actually practiced, would be a starting point back to a future that has been interrupted by a Progressive wokeness that has infected American politics and culture.

The 1776 Revolution already happened. And it has greatly been abandoned.

After that revolution was won, and a workable Constitution was created as the law to sustain it, the great bulk of American citizens were the body politic who were the "kind of people" who understood that it must be sustained. It took a good bit of time for the American citizen to be transformed into something else.

We now have enough Americans that mock that revolution, consider it an unjust impediment to some unformed path to universal equity. And one of the greatest obstacles to achieving the goals of that inchoate struggle is the notion of individual sovereignty. That is now a simplistic notion. This has also been a revolution. One that has transformed the American citizen into one who understands that the individual must submit to the superior wisdom and expertise of the benevolent state.

So, no, I was not disappointed that the Jan6 riot "failed." It was not a thing that could, in any way, succeed. It was, mostly, regressive, and I was disappointed that it happened.

Even though it was an ignorant attempt without a coherent goal, it did exhibit a sort of reckless spirit which, if it coalesced into an actual spirit of liberty which would not need an armed Revolution to succeed, but to grow into a movement to restore the actual liberties that we still, latently, possess.

That is still possible. A "revolution" would not be needed. Originalism, in a broad sense, if actually practiced, would be a starting point back to a future that has been interrupted by a Progressive wokeness that has infected American politics and culture.

Right back to 1860

At one point, the operatives laugh over needing “more Black voices for Trump.” Iverson also references their efforts to engage with Black voters.
“We ever talk to Black people before? I don’t think so,” he said, eliciting laughter from others in the room.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DeBarr needs to find him a DeLorian and retrofit it with a flux capacitor and go back to a time he would fit in.

The 1776 Revolution already happened. And it has greatly been abandoned.

After that revolution was won, and a workable Constitution was created as the law to sustain it, the great bulk of American citizens were the body politic who were the "kind of people" who understood that it must be sustained. It took a good bit of time for the American citizen to be transformed into something else.

We now have enough Americans that mock that revolution, consider it an unjust impediment to some unformed path to universal equity. And one of the greatest obstacles to achieving the goals of that inchoate struggle is the notion of individual sovereignty. That is now a simplistic notion. This has also been a revolution. One that has transformed the American citizen into one who understands that the individual must submit to the superior wisdom and expertise of the benevolent state.

So, no, I was not disappointed that the Jan6 riot "failed." It was not a thing that could, in any way, succeed. It was, mostly, regressive, and I was disappointed that it happened.

Even though it was an ignorant attempt without a coherent goal, it did exhibit a sort of reckless spirit which, if it coalesced into an actual spirit of liberty which would not need an armed Revolution to succeed, but to grow into a movement to restore the actual liberties that we still, latently, possess.

That is still possible. A "revolution" would not be needed. Originalism, in a broad sense, if actually practiced, would be a starting point back to a future that has been interrupted by a Progressive wokeness that has infected American politics and culture.

that has been interrupted by a Progressive wokeness that has infected American politics and culture.


Silly rabbit the founders were progressives and I am sure if woke was a thing back then.

the English king and colonial loyalists would be referring to them as woke Rebels

You really need to up your game in the history of the world and it’s nations and governments .

And Get back to us when you find one that hasn’t changed since it’s creation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DeBarr suffers from desiderium, sadly I feel there is no cure for him, maybe when the ice breaks and he can get out his snoopy rod and catch some crappie.

that has been interrupted by a Progressive wokeness that has infected American politics and culture.


Silly rabbit the founders were progressives and I am sure if woke was a thing back then.

the English king and colonial loyalists would be referring to them as woke Rebels

You really need to up your game in the history of the world and it’s nations and governments .

And Get back to us when you find one that hasn’t changed since it’s creation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

people who wanted to fight to the death for individual liberty and less taxes, you describe as woke, progressive liberals? people who fought so that the government would leave them alone, those are progressive liberals?

You’ve really got a keen intellect there. I mean that’s impressive logic.

people who wanted to fight to the death for individual liberty and less taxes, you describe as woke, progressive liberals?

You’ve really got a keen intellect there. I mean that’s impressive logic.

More of your usual baloney and it’s comical since you support every authoritarian you can find and the one who imposed one of the the greatest tax increases.

The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products, which is equivalent to one of the largest tax increases in decades. Based on 2021 import levels and country exemptions, the tariffs amounted to a $52.6 billion tax increase in 2021.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More of your usual baloney and it’s comical since you support every authoritarian you can find and the one who imposed one of the the greatest tax increases.

The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products, which is equivalent to one of the largest tax increases in decades. Based on 2021 import levels and country exemptions, the tariffs amounted to a $52.6 billion tax increase in 2021.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

now, we have the pleasure of hearing from the guy who said democrats ended slavery!

You’re right pete, that must be why prices of goods were so much higher when Trump was president than they are today.

is there some kind of low-IQ newsletter you subscribe to, or something?

More of your usual baloney and it’s comical since you support every authoritarian you can find and the one who imposed one of the the greatest tax increases.

The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products, which is equivalent to one of the largest tax increases in decades. Based on 2021 import levels and country exemptions, the tariffs amounted to a $52.6 billion tax increase in 2021.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

IF we believe your “data”, a 52b tax hike is about, what, $150 bucks a year for each one of us.

current inflation is coating americans to spend between 5k and 10k more a year, to maintain their standard of living.

good thing it’s transitory.

now, we have the pleasure of hearing from the guy who said democrats ended slavery!

You’re right pete, that must be why prices of goods were so much higher when Trump was president than they are today.

is there some kind of low-IQ newsletter you subscribe to, or something?

Oh poor Dictim
You’ve confused yourself again.
Thinking that today’s Trumplican party is the party of Lincoln.

(At one point, the operatives laugh over needing “more Black voices for Trump.” Iverson also references their efforts to engage with Black voters.
“We ever talk to Black people before? I don’t think so,” he said, eliciting laughter from others in the room.)

Now tell me about corporate profits and stock buybacks.

Or change your alpha male, conservative ways and find peace as a liberal. Choose light, not darkness. Like the sun, the warmth is contagious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh poor Dictim
You’ve confused yourself again.
Thinking that today’s Trumplican party is the party of Lincoln.

(At one point, the operatives laugh over needing “more Black voices for Trump.” Iverson also references their efforts to engage with Black voters.
“We ever talk to Black people before? I don’t think so,” he said, eliciting laughter from others in the room.)

Now tell me about corporate profits and stock buybacks.

Or change your alpha male, conservative ways and find peace as a liberal. Choose light, not darkness. Like the sun, the warmth is contagious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

corporate profits and stick buybacks? wall street is a democrat entity now pete. If you don’t like wall street, look in the mirror.

corporate profits and stick buybacks? wall street is a democrat entity now pete. If you don’t like wall street, look in the mirror.

Poor dictim, the Trumplicans need better candidates to attract big money.
TOM STEYER: And let me say this. I, of course, will be supporting - I've said from the beginning, every Democrat is a million times better than Trump. Trump is a disaster.

You think corporate America is going to take Ronda Santis’ attacks on Disney, but of course racial justice and the environment don’t matter, just look at what Ronda’s done in Floriduh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Poor dictim, the Trumplicans need better candidates to attract big money.
TOM STEYER: And let me say this. I, of course, will be supporting - I've said from the beginning, every Democrat is a million times better than Trump. Trump is a disaster.

You think corporate America is going to take Ronda Santis’ attacks on Disney, but of course racial justice and the environment don’t matter, just look at what Ronda’s done in Floriduh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so are you opposed to wall street, or not? you’re kind of all over the place, depending on the moment. is it a good thing, or a bad thing, to be the party that is embraced by wall street and silicon valley tycoons?

if our candidates are bad, why do we have more elected offices at the state and federal levels?

Ronda! Good one! making fun of names instead of talking about issues is. great sign.

disney made blatantly false attacks against Ronda. Play stupid games…

people who wanted to fight to the death for individual liberty and less taxes, you describe as woke, progressive liberals? people who fought so that the government would leave them alone, those are progressive liberals?

You’ve really got a keen intellect there. I mean that’s impressive logic.

Well Jim what would you call them ? you seem to have left that part out?

Your another one with not historical prospective at all. Absent of any intellectual credibility . And clearly can’t think on your own

If we view the Founding Fathers and the 55 framers of the constitution through the lens of the present, it is apparent that they would be considered progressive thinkers. The purpose of the formation of our democratic republic was to create a system of institutional alternatives to what was available at the time. A new way of living that had never existed before. It was a time in American history where human imagination and cooperation created new alternatives to the historical organization of economic, political, and social structures.


That’s America breaking away from England

Your another one with not historical prospective at all.


Absent of any intellectual credibility .


And clearly can’t think on your own






just priceless.......

Silly rabbit the founders were progressives

Certainly not capital "P" Progressives. Political Progressivism is anti US Constitution as written by the Founders.

and I am sure if woke was a thing back then. the English king and colonial loyalists would be referring to them as woke Rebels

If "woke" as it is culturally characterized today was a thing back then, the Founders would join the English King and Colonial Loyalists in branding them as insane and a threat to humanity.

You really need to up your game in the history of the world and it’s nations and governments .

And Get back to us when you find one that hasn’t changed since it’s creation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What hasn't changed is human nature. Certainly not since 1776. And discernably not since recorded history.

And human nature is complex. It is often its own enemy. We have internal conflicts between a desire to be free, and a desire to be taken care of. We have a desire to rule as well as a desire to be ruled. We have a desire to be independent and a desire to be part of a protective group.

The Founders crafted a constitutional system of government that would provide the maximum opportunity for individual human beings to fulfill their inherent natural tendencies and desires without suppressing those of others.

That requires a balanced cooperation between the complex blends and combinations of natural humanity in the country's diverse population of individuals. When that balance tips in favor of those who wish to rule, for whatever reason, then the opportunity for individuals to fulfill their personal tendencies and desires will shrink.

And when the tendency to be ruled or to be taken care of becomes greater in a majority of the people than their desires to be free and independent, then they will be easier, even eager, to be ruled. And so those who still have balanced or strong desires to be self-reliant will become odd, out of touch, a danger to society. And the Constitution will be an obstacle to overcome.

just priceless.......

The king of drive by’s returns Once again offering nothing to the conversation Not surprised