-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
You are aware we spent trillions repairing their **** up infrastructure and building schools and hospitals. We are leaving it better than we found it.Bidennextpresident » Yesterday, 10:12 am » wrote: ↑ What does "broken' mean? Are you aware we invaded their country?
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
It was broken before we got there. If anything we should send them a bill.Bidennextpresident » Yesterday, 9:56 am » wrote: ↑ Is the US going to pay the bills for all these displaced Afghans?
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
How about no? We need to end mail in voting and voting months as well. We are capturing the political will of the lazy and ignorant. Voting, in person, on election DAY, with proper identification. Absentee ballots for those that have a legitimate need and who are properly screened. 2020 won't happen again unless you buy a new virus from China.Benson13 » 30 Jul 2021, 8:05 am » wrote: ↑ Get rid of the Elec College and we'll end this republiKlan need to put their Biggest **** & INCOMETENCE in the WH
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
Only after society pays them trillions for centuries of public service. Think a few stretched buttholes is a small price to pay.Vegasgiants » 29 Jul 2021, 3:14 pm » wrote: ↑ Brick by brick. Sold off and every penny give to the victims
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnew ... cna1247225
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
Because America counts car accidents and suicides as covid19 deaths. The count will go down as there is no political reason to inflate it.razoo » 29 Jul 2021, 7:48 am » wrote: ↑ Latest USA death count 628,098 the most in the world. Brazil and India are the next highest
Conservative politicians are irresponsible beyond belief and so are their big money supporters........ they cannot be pro life!!!
I say get back into carry out, curb side pick up, do online shopping locally, ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMM is in. Don't make a
lock down happen. We now know what we need to do...... let's be smart about it to keep economies afloat.
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
Why Pelosi Won't Tolerate Dissent on Her 'Insurrection' Committee | Opinion
JONATHAN TOBIN , EDITOR IN CHIEF, JNS.ORG
ON 7/29/21 AT 7:00 AM
Perhaps some naive souls believed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to convene a special committee to investigate the January 6 Capitol riot would afford the country some closure on the traumatic events of that day.
It appears that Pelosi has other motives. She and her party have latched onto the disgraceful events of January 6 not merely as a talking point to deploy against former president Donald Trump but as a club with which to beat all Republicans who express concern about election security. Six months after Trump's second impeachment, and following the Senate's failure to approve a 9-11 type commission, Pelosi's dogged insistence on re-litigating the riot was sure to invite debate about a host of issues—including some that don't fit neatly into the Democrats' preferrednarrative about an "insurrection."
As the riot recedes further into the past, it is becoming clear that if Pelosi's committee was going to amount to anything more than fuel for a CNN or MSNBC retrospective, the House speaker was going to have to allow Trump supporters the right to take part in its proceedings and make any points they felt necessary.
That would have meant allowing House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to name the Republicans who would be on the committee. But Pelosi did not grant him that right. Her response to McCarthy could not have been better calculated to inflame GOP opinion and widen the partisan divide about the riot. It is certain to convince conservatives—whether ardent Trump loyalists or those who are wary of his continued involvement in politics—that the committee's goal is nothing more than political messaging.
By rejecting two of McCarthy's choices—Representatives Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Jim Banks (R-Ind.)—and naming two dissident GOP members who have aligned themselves with the Democrats on the "insurrection"—Representatives Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.)—Pelosi has removed any doubt about what will follow.
It is conventional practice for the majority to give deference to the minority to name its own members, as they will have no influence over the committee's ultimate decisions apart from the right to contradict the majority's claims and raise inconvenient questions. By trashing this convention, Pelosi left McCarthy and the GOP no choice but to refuse to take any part in the committee.
With two tame GOP mascots—aptly dubbed "Pelosi Republicans" by McCarthy—along for the ride, the Democratic majority has effectively convinced conservatives that its only goal is one more show trial of Trump and the political right.
Jordan and Banks would have done their best to derail the committee's focus on the former president. They would have resisted efforts to treat the riot as a seditious conspiracy rather than the disorganized yet violent aftermath of a "Stop the Steal" rally in which a few hundred rally attendees subsequently stormed the Capitol.
The disruption of Congress' joint session accepting the Electoral College results was a shameful challenge to the rule of law. That's true even if the alleged insurrection amounted to nothing more than trespassing and the sort of disorderly conduct and fisticuffs with police that were a staple of the hundreds of "mostly peaceful" riots that took place the previous summer. Trump's initial refusal to rein in his supporters or immediately condemn them once they ran amok was wrong, and indicated a lack of respect for democratic norms.
But Pelosi and the Democrats were intent on transforming Jan. 6 into something more—something that would continue to be politically useful even after Trump exited the White House. Though talk of insurrection was hyperbolic, it allowed Democrats to construct a political universe in which opinions about the former administration matter more than those about the current one, or about the narrow Democratic congressional majorities.
Had Pelosi accepted the presence of Republicans like Jordan and Banks on her committee, it would have allowed GOP members a chance to raise questions about elements of Jan. 6 that don't fit the insurrection narrative.
Jordan and Banks may have inquired about what Pelosi knew of the refusal to reinforce Capitol security, about what caused some of the police to let protesters enter while others fought to keep them out and whether the possible presence of government informants among the crowd meant anything. The decision of a still-unnamed law enforcement official to fatally shoot one trespasser—a military veteran named Ashli Babbitt—despite her appearing to pose no clear threats in video of the incident, might have been investigated rather than swept under the rug in a manner that would have been unimaginable had Babbitt been a Black Lives Matter demonstrator killed by police.
Republican committee members could also have asked why those rioters who have since been arrested were subjected to harsh treatment and overcharging not inflicted on BLM rioters.
Allowing McCarthy's appointed Republicans onto the committee would have also offered Democrats the opportunity to debunk conspiracy theories and to place unimportant details in proper context. It would have legitimized the committee and lent at least some weight to its conclusions, even if GOP members dissented from them.
But if Pelosi's goal was to depict all Republicans as part of a conspiracy against democracy, treating the presence of anyone other than opponents of the former president on the committee as unacceptable serves the speaker's political purpose. What Pelosi wants is a television show that will remind liberal viewers and voters of the awfulness of their opponents.
This Congress has, by comparison, no interest in probing the origins of the far more extensive and deadly riots that followed the death of George Floyd last year. At least one poll shows that more people want such an investigation more than another rehashing of Jan. 6.
Nor has Pelosi expressed interest in a commission to investigate the origins of the coronavirus pandemic—an issue both parties ought to consider a priority. Democrats don't seem to want to find out whether what happened in Wuhan, China, was the result of a lab leak, and they oppose any discussion about COVID-19 other than one blaming it all on Trump's handling of the pandemic.
A Jan. 6 kangaroo court may help reinforce the Democrats' efforts to paint their opponents as fascists, rather than merely people with whom they disagree. Yet for democracy to succeed, both sides must respect each other and be willing to abide by elections—something that Pelosi's party, which spent years promoting the Trump-Russian collusion hoax, seems no more capable of doing than Trump. By opting to demonize opponents over making even the appearance of bipartisanship, Pelosi is doing as much damage to democracy as the rioters her party seeks to tie to the GOP.
JONATHAN TOBIN , EDITOR IN CHIEF, JNS.ORG
ON 7/29/21 AT 7:00 AM
Perhaps some naive souls believed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to convene a special committee to investigate the January 6 Capitol riot would afford the country some closure on the traumatic events of that day.
It appears that Pelosi has other motives. She and her party have latched onto the disgraceful events of January 6 not merely as a talking point to deploy against former president Donald Trump but as a club with which to beat all Republicans who express concern about election security. Six months after Trump's second impeachment, and following the Senate's failure to approve a 9-11 type commission, Pelosi's dogged insistence on re-litigating the riot was sure to invite debate about a host of issues—including some that don't fit neatly into the Democrats' preferrednarrative about an "insurrection."
As the riot recedes further into the past, it is becoming clear that if Pelosi's committee was going to amount to anything more than fuel for a CNN or MSNBC retrospective, the House speaker was going to have to allow Trump supporters the right to take part in its proceedings and make any points they felt necessary.
That would have meant allowing House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to name the Republicans who would be on the committee. But Pelosi did not grant him that right. Her response to McCarthy could not have been better calculated to inflame GOP opinion and widen the partisan divide about the riot. It is certain to convince conservatives—whether ardent Trump loyalists or those who are wary of his continued involvement in politics—that the committee's goal is nothing more than political messaging.
By rejecting two of McCarthy's choices—Representatives Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Jim Banks (R-Ind.)—and naming two dissident GOP members who have aligned themselves with the Democrats on the "insurrection"—Representatives Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.)—Pelosi has removed any doubt about what will follow.
It is conventional practice for the majority to give deference to the minority to name its own members, as they will have no influence over the committee's ultimate decisions apart from the right to contradict the majority's claims and raise inconvenient questions. By trashing this convention, Pelosi left McCarthy and the GOP no choice but to refuse to take any part in the committee.
With two tame GOP mascots—aptly dubbed "Pelosi Republicans" by McCarthy—along for the ride, the Democratic majority has effectively convinced conservatives that its only goal is one more show trial of Trump and the political right.
Jordan and Banks would have done their best to derail the committee's focus on the former president. They would have resisted efforts to treat the riot as a seditious conspiracy rather than the disorganized yet violent aftermath of a "Stop the Steal" rally in which a few hundred rally attendees subsequently stormed the Capitol.
The disruption of Congress' joint session accepting the Electoral College results was a shameful challenge to the rule of law. That's true even if the alleged insurrection amounted to nothing more than trespassing and the sort of disorderly conduct and fisticuffs with police that were a staple of the hundreds of "mostly peaceful" riots that took place the previous summer. Trump's initial refusal to rein in his supporters or immediately condemn them once they ran amok was wrong, and indicated a lack of respect for democratic norms.
But Pelosi and the Democrats were intent on transforming Jan. 6 into something more—something that would continue to be politically useful even after Trump exited the White House. Though talk of insurrection was hyperbolic, it allowed Democrats to construct a political universe in which opinions about the former administration matter more than those about the current one, or about the narrow Democratic congressional majorities.
Had Pelosi accepted the presence of Republicans like Jordan and Banks on her committee, it would have allowed GOP members a chance to raise questions about elements of Jan. 6 that don't fit the insurrection narrative.
Jordan and Banks may have inquired about what Pelosi knew of the refusal to reinforce Capitol security, about what caused some of the police to let protesters enter while others fought to keep them out and whether the possible presence of government informants among the crowd meant anything. The decision of a still-unnamed law enforcement official to fatally shoot one trespasser—a military veteran named Ashli Babbitt—despite her appearing to pose no clear threats in video of the incident, might have been investigated rather than swept under the rug in a manner that would have been unimaginable had Babbitt been a Black Lives Matter demonstrator killed by police.
Republican committee members could also have asked why those rioters who have since been arrested were subjected to harsh treatment and overcharging not inflicted on BLM rioters.
Allowing McCarthy's appointed Republicans onto the committee would have also offered Democrats the opportunity to debunk conspiracy theories and to place unimportant details in proper context. It would have legitimized the committee and lent at least some weight to its conclusions, even if GOP members dissented from them.
But if Pelosi's goal was to depict all Republicans as part of a conspiracy against democracy, treating the presence of anyone other than opponents of the former president on the committee as unacceptable serves the speaker's political purpose. What Pelosi wants is a television show that will remind liberal viewers and voters of the awfulness of their opponents.
This Congress has, by comparison, no interest in probing the origins of the far more extensive and deadly riots that followed the death of George Floyd last year. At least one poll shows that more people want such an investigation more than another rehashing of Jan. 6.
Nor has Pelosi expressed interest in a commission to investigate the origins of the coronavirus pandemic—an issue both parties ought to consider a priority. Democrats don't seem to want to find out whether what happened in Wuhan, China, was the result of a lab leak, and they oppose any discussion about COVID-19 other than one blaming it all on Trump's handling of the pandemic.
A Jan. 6 kangaroo court may help reinforce the Democrats' efforts to paint their opponents as fascists, rather than merely people with whom they disagree. Yet for democracy to succeed, both sides must respect each other and be willing to abide by elections—something that Pelosi's party, which spent years promoting the Trump-Russian collusion hoax, seems no more capable of doing than Trump. By opting to demonize opponents over making even the appearance of bipartisanship, Pelosi is doing as much damage to democracy as the rioters her party seeks to tie to the GOP.
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
Dance puppet. I would be less hesitant if they weren't lying so much. If they were honest about the 11k deaths from acute reactions to the vaccine, the unexpected percentage of breakthrough infections, the recency of mrna vaccine technology. A little honesty would go a long way.JeanMoulin » 28 Jul 2021, 9:53 pm » wrote: ↑ When I was just a little kid in the 50's I got the polio vaccine, and the TB vaccine, got the round scar on my arm to prove it. When I went into the Army in 1970 I got so many shots I can not count them, more when I got sent over seas. I'm an old man now, but now I've got a a daughter and three perfectly heathy grand children. All I can say is that you people are **** up. Yes, you're **** up. You all claim that you'll take a bullet for your country, but you won't take a shot to protect your country. You people are **** up.
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
No. Vaccines do however fuel mutation of vaccine resistant strains. Fauci is saying the unvaccinated are going to spawn the next strain of covid, which certainly could be true. It will be breakout infections among the vaccinated that create a vaccine resistant strain.Independent » 27 Jul 2021, 1:35 pm » wrote: ↑ So you don’t feel vaccinations are somehow fueling the delta variant?
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
The science has been settled on that for a century. Antibiotics spawn antibiotic resistant bacteria. Vaccines spawn vaccine resistant viruses. Basic evolutionary biology.Crazytrain » 27 Jul 2021, 2:34 pm » wrote: ↑ The science is still out on that. Is there a chance of this happening yes. Just like the flu virus creates new flu virus every year.
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
Agree, that is disgusting.RollingRock » 28 Jul 2021, 10:08 am » wrote: ↑ Some GOP house reps are calling them "political prisoners." That's damn offensive to those who risked death defending the Capitol building.
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
Didn't bother, read most of their accounts in earlier testimony they have given. I am sure they had a bad afternoon. I am sure they were injured. Just as sure the 2000 law enforcement personnel injured in the blm riots suffered. Selective outrage.IkeBana » 27 Jul 2021, 7:48 pm » wrote: ↑ Did you listen to any of the testimony, Mr. LAW N' ORDER?
I was thinking if any of those brave patriots swinging a fire extinguisher were to go one on one with Fanone or Dunne, it would take the cop about 30 seconds to beat him into a coma.
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
Black community is indeed on fire, has been for decades, but it's not crackers fanning the flames. Certainly not police who put their lives on the line daily to attempt to reduce the misery and violence brewing in American ghettos. Racist white cops is a distracting scapegoat.Vegasgiants » 27 Jul 2021, 4:40 pm » wrote: ↑ All houses matter.....but when yours is on fire you don't want to hear that when you call the fire department
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
Blue lives only matter to progressives if they advance their narrative or agenda.IkeBana » 27 Jul 2021, 4:24 pm » wrote: ↑ Blue lives matter, eh buffy?You can play your Pelosi misdirection for the rest of your life. But what we heard from Gonell, Fanone, Hodges and Dunne expose you for the traitorous, racist, **** you are.
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
Sure but that should be said of the blm love fests too.simplejack » 27 Jul 2021, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑ I think of it like a home invasion. They should have been killed on the spot.
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
Violence to further political objectives is wrong and un-American.
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
The dnc paid Marxist intelligence agencies for fake dirt on Trump. There is no evidence Russia got anything in exchange for their little Facebook campaigns. The dnc got their money's worth.Vegasgiants » 27 Jul 2021, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑ Side with a marxist government against your own government
Trump did that
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
I compare apples to apples. Violent rioters are violent rioters, I don't distinguish them based on skin tone.simplejack » 27 Jul 2021, 9:51 am » wrote: ↑ Glad you equate the trumpretards with the looting nigs. They are the same.
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
-
-
- Posts: 35015
-
If it was an unarmed blm rioter climbing into a court house or police station window progressives here would be demanding murder charges.Buffalo » 27 Jul 2021, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑ ****!!! Your are just a scared little snowflake!!!
You obviously agree with the government crushing certain forms of dissent that you and the rest of the communist dim-0-craps disagree with and are terrified of them. Sounds like what happens in a banana republic.
**** YOU!!!
"I WOULD RATHER HAVE QUESTIONS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED...
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"
THAN TO HAVE ANSWERS THAT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED"