In an effort to thwart the Biden agenda Slick Mitch threatened the dems with retaliation if they got rid of the filibuster rule in the senate.
(https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/history-of-the-filibuster)
Mitch McConnell darkly threatens 'scorched earth Senate' if Democrats eliminate the filibuster (yahoo.com) (https://news.yahoo.com/mitch-mcconnell-darkly-threatens-scorched-164300439.html)

Of course we know the dems can never pass anything without at least 10 repubs to meet the 60 vote threshold and we when we all know it's aimed at all know Mitch won't allow that to happen. Obama found that out the hard way. At stake here is the (Yet another) John Lewis Civil Rights Bill, and HR 1. (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/filibuster-ugly-history-why-must-183742695.html) Both of which are DOA in a divided senate amid red states voter suppression laws, thus the invocation of Jim Crow.

Truly fascinating repubs still holler voter fraud and make new laws to supposedly stop what they cannot prove when we all know it's all about the ever growing minority vote turnout.

PolitiFact | The history of the filibuster as 'Jim Crow relic' (https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/04/history-filibuster-jim-crow-relic/)


• The filibuster’s emergence had nothing to do with racial legislation, and it has been used against a wide variety of bills. However, historians agree that the filibuster was closely intertwined with anti-civil-rights efforts in the Senate for more than a century, thanks to repeated efforts by southern senators to filibuster civil rights bills.

In an effort to thwart the Biden agenda Slick Mitch threatened the dems with retaliation if they got rid of the filibuster rule in the senate.
(https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/history-of-the-filibuster)
Mitch McConnell darkly threatens 'scorched earth Senate' if Democrats eliminate the filibuster (yahoo.com) (https://news.yahoo.com/mitch-mcconnell-darkly-threatens-scorched-164300439.html)

Of course we know the dems can never pass anything without at least 10 repubs to meet the 60 vote threshold and we when we all know it's aimed at all know Mitch won't allow that to happen. Obama found that out the hard way. At stake here is the (Yet another) John Lewis Civil Rights Bill, and HR 1. (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/filibuster-ugly-history-why-must-183742695.html) Both of which are DOA in a divided senate amid red states voter suppression laws, thus the invocation of Jim Crow.

Truly fascinating repubs still holler voter fraud and make new laws to supposedly stop what they cannot prove when we all know it's all about the ever growing minority vote turnout.

PolitiFact | The history of the filibuster as 'Jim Crow relic' (https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/04/history-filibuster-jim-crow-relic/)

Thanks for showing the history - I didn't know that from the old days. Biden suggests going back to the "Jimmy Stewart" rule from the movie. That might be the best way to go because I don't think the Repubs would act like that in 2021 forward. It's too difficult.

Either way, the minority party loses without some sort of filibuster. Some day that will be the Dems again. I'm less and less inclined to believe that the Repubs will ever do the right thing when in power, so the F. is necessary. I'm open to other ideas. The two-party system leaves a lot to be desired.

The filibuster predates Jim Crow . I agree it was abused by the Dems during the Civil Rights era .


“What (the American people) don't expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet.”

“If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask [the Senate minority] to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything.”Senator Obama 2005

This is an instance where I agree with Athos . What will the Dems do ? ....reinstate it before they are the again the minority party ? I remind you that because Harry Reid ended the filibuster for judges ;Trump was able to get 202 Federal judges confirmed without the Dems having any say .

I also am opposed to reconciliation . AND I agree with Quid bring back the' Mr Smith goes to Washington 'version of the filibuster . That would be fun ;and the more they waste time reading phone books ,the less damage they do to the country .

what a useless idea is a filibuster, the idea that the process of government could be thwarted by speaking absurdities ad infinitum. it is not freedom of speech it is actually an act of rebellion

no it isn't . The Reubs were complaining about it when the Dems used it to block Bush judicial nominees and were threatening the 'nuclear option' . They did not use it . But the Dems did . Then Trump became President and made the Dems pay by Trump getting anyone he wanted confirmed .

What the filibuster is being blamed for now is actually the polarization of politics . But elimination of the filibuster will only exasperate that problem .

What it does is allow for a debate of issues ,something you rarely see in the House of Reps where majority rules . The minority party is gutted . They may as well have no members for all the good it does them .The framers designed the Senate to operate by consensus If a majority party knows they need 60 votes to end debate on a bill, the necessity of working across the aisle, and negotiating is paramount .

2004 The Repubs controlled Congress and Bush was President . The House passed the Pride Act which would've placed welfare restrictions and amended the
temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. It fell short in the Senate because of the 60 vote threshold . So you see that it works both ways and opposition to it depends on which party is in the majority .

We see what happens when major legislation gets passed like Obamacare and stimulus where Parliamentary trickery like reconciliation is used to bypass filibuster . Half the country has to live with legislation they bitterly oppose that got passed often by a single vote . That is the progressive way . They go balls to the wall for massive fundamental change . Then years later we are left to deal with the consequences of the fact that for a moment in time they had a slight majority .

April 6, 1789, the Senate had it's 1st quorum . 5 weeks later that expected . George Washington sat down for breakfast with his VP Jefferson ,who was frustrated by the process,(and thankfully was in France at the time when the Constitution was debated and ratified ) Jefferson did not see a need for a 2nd house of the legislature .Washington explained that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea..

Getting rid of the filibuster would just make the Senate a weak version of the House . Why not get rid of the Senate too ? Why do we even need a President ? Just make Madam Mim the Prime Minister ?

So you see that it works both ways and opposition to it depends on which party is in the majority .Exactly correct. To associate the issue with Jim Crow is ridiculous. To suggest that minority voters can't figure out how to have a form of pic ID is itself a soft form of racism.

The filibuster predates Jim Crow . I agree it was abused by the Dems during the Civil Rights era

The Dems then were essentially the Repubs of the day. They blocked Civil Rights legislation.


We see what happens when major legislation gets passed like Obamacare and stimulus where Parliamentary trickery like reconciliation is used to bypass filibuster . Half the country has to live with legislation they bitterly oppose that got passed often by a single vote .

The country, both Repubs and Dems, overwhelmingly support Biden's Covid Relief/stimulus legislation.

The country, both Repubs and Dems, overwhelmingly support Biden's stimulus legislation.Sad to say, the way to win Americans now is to borrow money to send out checks to people who, for the most part, don't need it. We have become, in effect, enslaved to the federal gov.

no it isn't . The Reubs were complaining about it when the Dems used it to block Bush judicial nominees and were threatening the 'nuclear option' . They did not use it . But the Dems did . Then Trump became President and made the Dems pay by Trump getting anyone he wanted confirmed .

Senate Dems to Block All Nominations | Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/story/senate-dems-to-block-all-nominations)


What the filibuster is being blamed for now is actually the polarization of politics . But elimination of the filibuster will only exasperate that problem .

I think it's to prevent a tough vote by repubs. Imagine what the sound bites for 2022 will look like with dems hammering repubs for a no vote for a very popular covid relief bill, and add some state negating civil rights/voting bills to the mix.


What it does is allow for a debate of issues ,something you rarely see in the House of Reps where majority rules . The minority party is gutted . They may as well have no members for all the good it does them .The framers designed the Senate to operate by consensus If a majority party knows they need 60 votes to end debate on a bill, the necessity of working across the aisle, and negotiating is paramount .

That never happened when repubs had control through the Obama years or when the dufus was in the WH. Maybe you like the gridlock, because it gives states a free rein, but partisan gridlock keeps many things from being done even with a debate. Yeah I've watched those debates but the outcome is NOTHING.


2004 The Repubs controlled Congress and Bush was President . The House passed the Pride Act which would've placed welfare restrictions and amended the
temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. It fell short in the Senate because of the 60 vote threshold . So you see that it works both ways and opposition to it depends on which party is in the majority .

Again Tom I think contexts is important Senate, Torn by Minimum Wage, Shelves Major Welfare Bill - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/us/senate-torn-by-minimum-wage-shelves-major-welfare-bill.html)


We see what happens when major legislation gets passed like Obamacare and stimulus where Parliamentary trickery like reconciliation is used to bypass filibuster . Half the country has to live with legislation they bitterly oppose that got passed often by a single vote . That is the progressive way . They go balls to the wall for massive fundamental change . Then years later we are left to deal with the consequences of the fact that for a moment in time they had a slight majority .

If my half of the country can live with rich guys getting mo money and conservative judges, then your half can live with expanded medicaid and mo money for po' folks especially during a covid induced economic crisis.


April 6, 1789, the Senate had it's 1st quorum . 5 weeks later that expected . George Washington sat down for breakfast with his VP Jefferson ,who was frustrated by the process,(and thankfully was in France at the time when the Constitution was debated and ratified ) Jefferson did not see a need for a 2nd house of the legislature .Washington explained that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea..

That's all well and good but when the people choose a government then they should get what they voted for even if they change the government and it gets repealed by later elections.


Getting rid of the filibuster would just make the Senate a weak version of the House . Why not get rid of the Senate too ? Why do we even need a President ? Just make Madam Mim the Prime Minister ?

In these times Tom, dems should shove some change down repubs throats because that's what the country voted for. You may not think civil right and voting is a big deal but trust me minorities certainly do. It is that simple.

You may not think civil right and voting is a big deal but trust me minorities certainly do. It is that simple.

All decent right-thinking Americans consider civil rights and voting a big deal - a very big deal. Not supporting S-1 is unthinkable, but I wouldn't put it past the present crop of Repubs.

All decent right-thinking Americans consider civil rights and voting a big deal - a very big deal.Agree completely. Take the thirty minutes to get your FREE picture ID and vote away. If it's not worth thirty minutes of your time, then forget it. We spend a lot more time than that to get a drivers license.

The Repub state legislatures are trying to pass bills aimed directly at minorities. Eliminating Sunday voting - a tradition among black churches when they go together to vote after Church.

The best one is making it illegal to give water and snacks to people waiting in line to vote. This beauty is from the Georgia Legislature.

Eliminating Sunday voting - a tradition among black churches when they go together to vote after Church.Why would anyone need to vote on Sunday? Why should any group be given special privileges?


The best one is making it illegal to give water and snacks to people waiting in line to vote. This beauty is from the Georgia Legislature.The Georgia law is actually designed to prevent partisan groups from trying to influence voters by passing out any kind of gift including food or water. They can pass out whatever they want as the people arrive or depart since the law is specific that it cannot be done only within 150 feet of the building where the voting takes place. It's the same idea that prevents the passing out of political literature to voters at polling places.

Why would anyone need to vote on Sunday? Why should any group be given special privileges?
Georgia polls have been open on Sundays (weekends) since 2014. It's not just for Black voters. "Friends and neighbors go to church together, then travel in a caravan of cars or buses to vote, an event known as Souls to the Polls.”
https://www.ajc.com/politics/plan-to-limit-georgia-sunday-voting-disrupts-black-church-efforts/ARKWRBU7FRAR5LKSA5IY4JGAGA/

It's not just for Black votersOK. So then it does not have racist intent. At least that's settled.

Now maybe someone will present any kind of evidence that Georgia has a bunch of black churches that all go off to vote at who knows where on Sunday.

Now maybe someone will present any kind of evidence that Georgia has a bunch of black churches that all go off to vote at who knows where on Sunday.
From my link above:

"Over 71,000 people in 26 counties voted on Sundays during early voting in October, according to state voting records.

Most Sunday ballots were cast in metro areas that lean Democratic, such as DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett and Muscogee counties. Several counties that went for Republican President Donald Trump also provided Sunday voting, including Camden, Floyd, Lowndes and Monroe counties."

Republican (white?) voters are more than capable of forming caravans of cars and buses and driving to polling places after church.

How many of the 70K were in caravans from black churches? Why would they not vote on Tuesday? How many would not have voted if they had been forced to vote on Tuesday?

Can’t dem voters simply vote when everyone else does?

How many of the 70K were in caravans from black churches? Why would they not vote on Tuesday? How many would not have voted if they had been forced to vote on Tuesday?

Can’t dem voters simply vote when everyone else does?
It doesn't matter. They -- dems and repubs -- voted. End of story.

So it's not partisan since dem and repubs voted, and it's not racial since you said it was not just for black voters. That's sounds fine with me. The bill certainly was not "aimed at minorities".

election day for Federal officials is set by Congress as "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November" . No where does that say Sunday or multiple days or days before the day set by Congress . Anytime Congress wants to change that they could . I suggest that if the Dems want anything else than what is already the law ,they are free to do so , State legislatures ,governors ,courts have no business changing that .It is unconstitutional to do so .

election day for Federal officials is set by Congress as "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November" . No where does that say Sunday or multiple days or days before the day set by Congress . Anytime Congress wants to change that they could . I suggest that if the Dems want anything else than what is already the law ,they are free to do so , State legislatures ,governors ,courts have no business changing that .It is unconstitutional to do so .
So early voting by mail or in person is illegal?

No .......where the Federal Government decides it ,like The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), it is legal .Where 50 states are making the law it is not . Article VI clause 2 of the Constitution gives supremacy to Federal law.

No .......where the Federal Government decides it ,like The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), it is legal .Where 50 states are making the law it is not . Article VI clause 2 of the Constitution gives supremacy to Federal law.

first sensible thing that has been said on this subject

No .......where the Federal Government decides it ,like The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), it is legal .Where 50 states are making the law it is not . Article VI clause 2 of the Constitution gives supremacy to Federal law.

Ergo, should the senate then go around the filibuster (reconciliation) and make the Voting Rights act a federal law? It's pretty clear several of the 200+ proposed state laws re voting are wacky, designed to suppress voters who the Repubs believe would vote Democratic. They've even said that publicly - that the laws (some) are designed strictly for the purpose of increasing the Repub percentage of votes.

It's pretty clear several of the 200+ proposed state laws re voting are wacky, designed to suppress voters who the Repubs believe would vote Democratic. They've even said that publicly - that the laws (some) are designed strictly for the purpose of increasing the Repub percentage of votes.You just got through saying that Sunday voting is there to allow black, dem churches to vote. Does that count too? Mail in voting to enhance dem turnout would count as well, wouldn't it? Why is it OK to enact measures specifically designed to enhance dem turnout? Why wouldn't we simply say that voting is to be conducted on Tuesday? If there are long lines, then that needs to be addressed, and that's a valid point. It wouldn't bother me, on a fed level, to extend voting to two days if it's needed.

Pretty common sense to expand the voting process to be easier and more inclusive as opposed to more challenging given the population growth and technical advances and the logistical challenges. An upgrade/update is indicated but for the notion of keeping power and influence in the hands of a few. The same few that thought counting the number of jellybeans in a jar to qualify ones right to vote.

I get having an ID, but not closing DMV's and moving them from population centers and cutting hours. Or closing polling centers, or other shenanigans and tricks to discourage and prevent one from exercising a basic right. That needs to stop. Suspending the filibuster to resolve those issues is what's needed. If it brings outrage and retaliation from opponents then so be it. For sure NOT moving forward to improve the basic conditions before us out of fear of retaliation makes things worse not better.

Pretty common sense to expand the voting process to be easier and more inclusive as opposed to more challenging given the population growth and technical advances and the logistical challenges. An upgrade/update is indicated but for the notion of keeping power and influence in the hands of a few. The same few that thought counting the number of jellybeans in a jar to qualify ones right to vote.

I get having an ID, but not closing DMV's and moving them from population centers and cutting hours. Or closing polling centers, or other shenanigans and tricks to discourage and prevent one from exercising a basic right. That needs to stop. Suspending the filibuster to resolve those issues is what's needed.

Simple and sensible.


If it brings outrage and retaliation from opponents then so be it. For sure NOT moving forward to improve the basic conditions before us out of fear of retaliation makes things worse not better.

It seems to me that the most worthwhile things often encounter roadblocks and sometimes a price. Things easily gained are easily lost. Fear of retaliation is one of those roadblocks. Better to confront it than run from it.

I get having an ID, but not closing DMV's and moving them from population centers and cutting hours. Or closing polling centers, or other shenanigans and tricks to discourage and prevent one from exercising a basic right. That needs to stop.I agree with that. We do need to include, however, sloppily operated mail-out schemes with not much more security that mail outs for car warranties.

I understand the trepidation at some of the states mail out policies, but every state had a secure and efficient verification system for RECIEVED ballots as certified by those states. It's not how many go out or to who but the ones that come back, checked and verified. We seem to have done a GREAT job of that as a nation during covid, and an excellent turnout comparatively. Definitely something to build on and improve.

There is always room for improvement.


It seems to me that the most worthwhile things often encounter roadblocks and sometimes a price. Things easily gained are easily lost. Fear of retaliation is one of those roadblocks. Better to confront it than run from it.

Exactly!

We seem to have done a GREAT job of that as a nation during covid,

There is always room for improvement.



Tal your nation has not done a great job, 500,000 deaths, by no stretch of the imagination can that be called a great job

Read carefully. He wasn’t talking about doing a great job WITH COVID but DURING COVID.

My answer is still the same, Haven't seen any great jobs in a long time. I notice gun violence is on the rise again, another "great" job you have done

My answer is still the same,I'm no fan of Tal, but his point was that he believed we did a good job with vote security despite the fact we were in a major pandemic. You missed it.

we as a population move on average 10% of our population in any given year(and even that is at historic lows ) . We are a very mobile people . To say that there is ballot security under that reality when there is at the same time a reluctance to purge voter roles; and the decision to send out vote mailers as if they were store coupons beggars belief .

Those who defend what you described seem to be driven purely by political bias. Expanding the voter process and making it easier is frequently at odds with an honest, secure voting process. Having a non picture ID, for instance, is nearly useless.

I really don't see any other reason than political expediency to make the process of voting easy to the point of insecure. We all know that if we want to drive a car, there are certain hoops to jump through. No one suggests we make getting a DL easy and more inclusive. Surely voting is at least as important as getting a DL.

The most secure election in history by any standard and still you righties ain't happy and scared of your own shadows? Even when the dufus won it was a secure election despite all the extra shenanigans. Still you guys cry foul and want to tinker with success.

we as a population move on average 10% of our population in any given year(and even that is at historic lows ) . We are a very mobile people . To say that there is ballot security under that reality when there is at the same time a reluctance to purge voter roles; and the decision to send out vote mailers as if they were store coupons beggars belief .

What beggars belief is the refusal of the right-wing to acknowledge what Trump's own Department of Homeland Security said about the 2020 election.

“There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised,” .

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) — part of the Department of Homeland Security — strongly rebuked Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that Biden won the election. "The 2020 presidential election was the most secure in history, there was no evidence that votes were compromised or widespread voter fraud."

The wacky attempt to make voting damaging to Democrats (and democracy) by over 250 laws pending in state legislatures is driven purely by political bias.

Those who defend what you described seem to be driven purely by political bias. Expanding the voter process and making it easier is frequently at odds with an honest, secure voting process. Having a non picture ID, for instance, is nearly useless.

I really don't see any other reason than political expediency to make the process of voting easy to the point of insecure. We all know that if we want to drive a car, there are certain hoops to jump through. No one suggests we make getting a DL easy and more inclusive. Surely voting is at least as important as getting a DL.

Voting should be as easy as buying a gun and shooting up innocent people shouldn't it? Ain't no voter fraud, but murder is okay?

Voting should be as easy as buying a gun and shooting up innocent people shouldn't it? Ain't no voter fraud, but murder is okay?

The Republicans have it arse-backwards. By their inaction, a majority effectively supports shooting up people. By their action, a majority supports vote suppression.

as easy as buying a gunHaven't bought a gun recently, have you? If we could get voter security that high (background check), all repubs would be happy.

I have no need of a gun

You don't need a gun until...you need a gun.

as easy as buying a gun


Haven't bought a gun recently, have you? If we could get voter security that high (background check), all repubs would be happy.

To get a covid vaccine you need to prove your eligibility/residency . They say it is to prevent line jumping and vaccination tourism . Actually a photo id is required for most things in life

Who said the right to own a gun is dependent on the need to own one ? There are many reasons for owning guns. I know someone who collects them . I know people who own them so they can go to the range and do target practice. I know people who have them for protection and the guns never leave their secured gun safe . (when seconds count the police are minutes away) I know hunters who use their guns all season . I know people who own them solely because it is their right to do so .


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

Gladly listen to your take and solutions to these tragic shootings instead of the usual defense of 2nd amendment rights which amounts to a excuse to do NOTHING.

Show us what you got.

Ban all automatic weapons for a start afterall the founding fathers didn't need them for their militia

Automatic weapons are already banned.

really, what about automatic hand guns, automatic shot guns, self loading rifles

There is a difference between automatic and SEMI-automatic. Learn your terms.

Ban all automatic weapons for a start afterall the founding fathers didn't need them for their militia Automatic weapons have been banned since the days of Al Capone. Funny . that did not prevent the Valentine's Day Massacre .

To be clear, auto weapons cannot be imported or sold new, but you can purchase already owned auto weapons. The paperwork is staggering. I know a collector who owns both an AK and an M-16. Very hard to do. Or at least that's how it was explained to me.

when I was a boy someone (a cop I think) fired a Thompson sub for us. It was amazing.

It's okay if you righties got no helpful ideas. I didn't expect any, but spare me the technical sermons. I asked for thoughts and ideas to stop gun violence or mass shootings by NUTS!

Got me . When I was a kid there was gun clubs in almost every high school in the country . In 1975, New York state had over 80 school districts with rifle teams. What changed ? The moral compass of the nation ?

Got me . When I was a kid there was gun clubs in almost every high school in the country . In 1975, New York state had over 80 school districts with rifle teams. What changed ? The moral compass of the nation ?
What changed? "Deinstitutionalization of mental hospitals [that began in the 1960s as a way to improve the treatment of the mentally ill while also cutting government budgets] came into play in 1970 in the United States....During these days, state mental hospitals were regarded as institutions that deprived the mentally ill patients their freedom to associate with family and community members within the society. For instance, the United States Congress approved the Community Mental Health Centers Act that facilitated deinstitutionalization, thus getting out the mentally ill persons from confinements of the custodial institutions into deliberate medication at the community mental health institutions."
https://www.lawyersnjurists.com/article/deinstitutionalization-of-mental-hospitals-in-1970/

"Deinstitutionalization is the name given to the policy of moving severely mentally ill people out of large state institutions and then closing part or all of those institutions; it has been a major contributing factor to the mental illness crisis."
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html

Deinstitutionalization has created the situation where families and the community did not, and do not, support their mentally ill who didn't take their meds on time and at the correct dosage. The problems that resulted were, and still are, legion.

well if that was the cause then Tal has his answer . I almost worked at one of those institutions. It was disgusting and morally reprehensible to treat patients that way .Handcuffs, leg irons, and whips were found in the hospital I almost was employed at . I was grossed out during my interview and declined the job opportunity .

Got me . When I was a kid there was gun clubs in almost every high school in the country . In 1975, New York state had over 80 school districts with rifle teams. What changed ? The moral compass of the nation ?

Lock the nuts up, if you can identify them before they commit mass murder, to do that you need the thought police. A moral compass only works with sane people, it doesn't work with drug dealers, addicts, and the just plain nuts of various hues. To start with no one under 25 years of age should be allowed to possess a gun, or for that matter, a weapon of any kind. Teaching kids to use weapons is like teaching kids to drink, they get a taste for it, and they are more into fantasy today than they ever were

The murder rate now is about the same that it was in 1960.

and that justifies what, 400 million guns? you need to take a good long look at yourselves and ask a few important questions, like what is a human life worth, certainly not more than the price of a gun in the US

The number of guns is not the problem.

No the number of people with access to guns is the problem

Does that explain why 99.9 percent of legal gun owners never murder another person?

It's the 0.1% who are the problem, hidden in plain sight, and you don't get it, if they are deprived of weapons the other 99.9% are safer and don't get murdered

It's the 0.1% who are the problem, hidden in plain sight, and you don't get it, if they are deprived of weapons the other 99.9% are safer and don't get murdered"You don't get it." Is that the reason I was the one who brought it up and not you? Well at any rate, how do you go about identifying the 0.1% prior to them becoming part of the 0.1%, because afterwards it's kind of a no-brainer? Or do you really think we allow convicted murderers to keep their guns in prison?

"You don't get it." Is that the reason I was the one who brought it up and not you? Well at any rate, how do you go about identifying the 0.1% prior to them becoming part of the 0.1%, because afterwards it's kind of a no-brainer? Or do you really think we allow convicted murderers to keep their guns in prison?

don't be rediculous, you know we are not speaking of the prison population they are part of the 99.9%. As I said earlier you need the thought police or failing that, then reduction of opportunity, we know it works, it is a proven solution. What is a solution is a no tolerance policy, you take a life, yours is forfeit, summary execution, you know the Judge Dredd solution

As I said earlier you need the thought police or failing that, then reduction of opportunity, we know it works, it is a proven solution. You are speaking of taking guns from everyone in order to get guns out of the hands of the 0.1%. As to "thought police", that would need a lot of explaining.

You're awakened at 3 a.m. by noises and low voices in another part of the house. Burglars! It's pitch dark. Your locked gun safe is in the basement. (Or maybe it's in your bedroom....) You sleep naked. Now what?

None of those senseless conditions apply to me other than the possibility of being awakened at 3 a.m. by burglars. Wifey and I have put a lot of thought into that and have a plan ready for action. My only hesitation is the thought of do I want to kill someone who is evidently not a Christian and completely unprepared for coming judgment. And that observation is entirely serious. They would have to push hard for me to pull the trigger.

But let's do one better than that. You are awakened at 3 a.m. by a burglar and you have no means of protecting yourself. Before you can call the cops, they break in your bedroom and you are at their mercy. Now what? They rape your daughter and your are helpless to stop them. They put a round between your husband's eyes, beat the garbage out of everyone, and take what they want. And you are left thinking, "Why didn't we have some way of protecting ourselves?"

None of those senseless conditions apply to me
I don't care if they don't apply to you. I set the scene.

Simple answer. Don't allow such a scene to take place. Putting a gun intended for self defense in the basement would just be stupid, and especially putting it in a gun safe in the basement. So for your scene you are basically asking, "If you did something dumb like this, what would you do?"

Simple answer. Don't allow such a scene to take place. Putting a gun intended for self defense in the basement would just be stupid, and especially putting it in a gun safe in the basement. So for your scene you are basically asking, "If you did something dumb like this, what would you do?"
I added that the gun safe could be in your bedroom.

Do you unlock the gun safe and then get dressed, or just forget the clothes 'cause they take too long to put on? And what about the total darkness? Maybe the burglars are using flashlights, so it will be easy to locate and shoot them. Or maybe those noises and low voices are coming from your wife and son who are trying not to awaken you. Or you can use your cell phone to call 911 and sort it all out when help arrives. (Meanwhile, get dressed.)

Fo you unlock the gun safe and then get dressed, or just forget the vlothes 'cause they take too long to put on? And what about the total darkness? Maybe the burglars are using flashlights, so it will be easy to locate and shoot them. Or maybe those noises and low voices are coming from your wife and son who are trying not to awaken you. Or you can use your cell phone to call 911 and sort it all out when help arrives. (Meanwhile, get dressed.)Well, you have a lot of "ifs". The best thing to do, as I have said, is have a plan in place beforehand to eliminate as many ifs as possible. In our case, for instance, we are upstairs at night. The stairs are the logical place to take a stand, so I yell out, "If you come up the stairs, I will shoot." That takes care of a family member sneaking in. We will all be aware of our plan. And having been told how to handle weapons, I would not fire until I was certain of my target and had issued multiple warnings.

Now how about the scenario I presented to you, which is the one which liberal dems have inflicted, for instance, upon Chicago. What would you do? (Hint. I already know you will not answer lest your beliefs face examination.)

Now how about the scenario I presented to you, which is the one which liberal dems have inflicted, for instance, upon Chicago. What would you do? (Hint. I already know you will not answer lest your beliefs face examination.)
What scenario? I'm a registered Republican, btw. And I'm from NC and western NY, have never lived in Chicago.

(Hint. I already know you will not answer lest your beliefs face examination.)And I was right again! You are altogether too predictable.

I'll repeat it, but I will not act like I believe your plea of, "What scenario?"

But let's do one better than that. You are awakened at 3 a.m. by a burglar and you have no means of protecting yourself. Before you can call the cops, they break in your bedroom and you are at their mercy. Now what? They rape your daughter and your are helpless to stop them. They put a round between your husband's eyes, beat the garbage out of everyone, and take what they want. And you are left thinking, "Why didn't we have some way of protecting ourselves?"

I find it both fascinating and amazing the second amendment all or nothing crowd thinks it okay to let anyone have a gun as easily as possible, but spend so much time making it harder for some to vote, which is to say the least inconsistent to me. Even more amazing how well you prepare for your worst fears with a gun under your pillow and have little empathy for those whose worsts fears are realized and suffer the desperation of very traumatic events all to common to many. Be it dragged from your home by xenophobic racists and lynched or murdered by cops making a tragic callous mistake, or some pissed off loony having a really bad day and shoots up a public place.

I guess we all react to our own fears differently be they perceived or real, and desperation and terror drives us to some pretty ugly selfish and dangerous places, but no excuse for bad irrational behavior.

Wish yall can feel me on that because over time it can be frustrating, unbearable and overwhelming, as well as terrifying.

And I was right again! You are altogether too predictable.
I'll repeat it, but I will not act like I believe your plea of, "What scenario?"
You've tossed so many "scenarios" at me over the months, I've lost track of your challenges. Plus, I'm old and forgetful.

But let's do one better than that. You are awakened at 3 a.m. by a burglar and you have no means of protecting yourself. Before you can call the cops, they break in your bedroom and you are at their mercy. Now what? They rape your daughter and your are helpless to stop them. They put a round between your husband's eyes, beat the garbage out of everyone, and take what they want. And you are left thinking, "Why didn't we have some way of protecting ourselves?"
Oh, yes, I DO have a means of protecting myself. I'd tell them I'll make them a snack, maybe coffee and cookies, and write them a generous check to save them the trouble of searching for treasures (of which we have none in the house).

Once I get to heaven, I will ask God to allow me to melt down all the metal in guns and other weapons of war and mayhem.

Oh, yes, I DO have a means of protecting myself. I'd tell them I'll make them a snack, maybe coffee and cookies, and write them a generous check to save them the trouble of searching for treasures (of which we have none in the house).I had hoped for a serious response, but I suppose any kind of response is a step forward. You plainly don't understand the kind of people you'd be dealing with who would break into a house at 3 in the morning, but good luck with your idea.

I had hoped for a serious response, but I suppose any kind of response is a step forward. You plainly don't understand the kind of people you'd be dealing with who would break into a house at 3 in the morning, but good luck with your idea.
It is serious, and it works!

It is serious, and it works!In your dreams. Go to the inner city of Chicago and ask those poor people how that would work for them. It's funny to you, but it's not to them.

In your dreams.
Try it!

Nah. I'll let you be the one who gets the snot beaten out her. Should it happen, it won't be funny on that day. I sincerely hope it doesn't since you are altogether unprepared.

you are altogether unprepared.
You truly have NO clue!

I'm going on what you've said. Remember...coffee and cookies??? Remember???

I'm going on what you've said. Remember...coffee and cookies??? Remember???
That's not all I said. You do the same thing with Bible quotes. *sigh*

Yeah. There was that extremely important part about writing them a check. Do you really believe that a couple of early morning house burglars are going to go out the front door singing, "Happy Days are Here Again" and wait til the bank opens to deposit your check???

What has been said is kind of important.

I'm going on what you've said. Remember...coffee and cookies??? Remember???
And... (What else did I say? Stop cherry-picking what I said.)


Yeah. There was that extremely important part about writing them a check. Do you really believe that a couple of early morning house burglars are going to go out the front door singing, "Happy Days are Here Again" and wait til the bank opens to deposit your check???
I promise I won't stop payment.

My treasure is in the bank. In my house are boxes of bandages, bottles of hand sanitizer, a good supply of masks, ancient kitchenware and furniture, a closet full of linens, and a black cat.

"At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it's about compromise and moderation. The nuclear option extinguishes the power of independents and moderates in the Senate. That's it, they're done. Moderates are important if you need to get to 60 votes to satisfy cloture; they are much less so if you only need 50 votes. Let's set the historical record straight. Never has the Senate provided for a certainty that 51 votes could put someone on the bench or pass legislation."( Quid in a speech on the Senate floor 2005)
He regularly joined Dem filibusters in his Senate years .

Can Biden still remember anything he said in 05?

can Biden remember anything he said yesterday

Joe knows full well he doesn't have the votes to beat a filibuster as long as Sinema and Mancin sit with repubs.

I still like the idea of changing it to return to the days of 'Mr Smith Goes to Washington'.

I see Dem heads exploding when Ted Cruz opens up the Dallas Fort Worth phone book and starts reading it .

Why wouldn't he make it more interesting and start with the collected works of Shakespeare followed by Tolstoy

Cruz would ;or he may start out reading all the 'Federalist Papers' . 85 essays written in 1780s American vernacular . Throw in some OT fire and brimstone for effect .

I can go with the old school filibuster, but it should be restricted to relevant facts and events, but ideally screw that whole thing, since debate and compromise is the job of congress and eventually an up or down vote. Ol' Joe made a good point the other day in regards to his ideas were popular among the people in a bi partisan way so, whatever the politics of it is I think congress is the problem.

I must admit when it comes time for repubs to get stuff shoved down their throats they always balk and obstruct and have shown no will to move the country forward in a productive way. I understand that's the nature of the conservative beast though to resist any change, at least that's what conservatism has become, but things ARE changing whether one likes it or NOT.

Obviously conservatives don't believe resistance is futile, but it's just a matter of time.

they always balk and obstruct and have shown no will to move the country forward in a productive way.

Moving the country forward of course is code to moving the country to a radical progressive agenda .Like the Fabians of old ,incremental socialism . I support obstructing that every time .

The growing minority classes don't know or care about Fabian, Marx, or Mao. Are you paranoid or don't want to evolve or something? What's good enough for YOU may not be as good for me, nor fit as well. That's why I think a more aggressive dem approach to governance is warranted and needed. Pass or fail let's debate and VOTE.

PS.

Ain't falling for that socialism label this time.

Moving the country forward of course is code to moving the country to a radical progressive agenda .Like the Fabians of old ,incremental socialism . I support obstructing that every time .

I ask again - what exactly are the socialism programs offered by the Democrats that you object to? Last time I asked, you couldn't, or wouldn't, answer.

the whole Dem agenda is socialist .

the whole Dem agenda is socialist .

Lol - not very specific, is it?

You really don't know, do you? For the great majority of the right, "socialism" is simply a useful trigger word that resonates with other rightists. They never have details when challenged - just slogans.

the whole Dem agenda is socialist .

You confuse compassionate liberalism with socialism? Maybe read up on both so you can tell the difference. Or is it more a racial ideological bias?

not all that hard at all . It is the Dems who cloud it because they think if they get free enterprise capitalism to pay for socialism that it isn't really socialism . $2 trillion+ infusion of government money to make a green agenda work is not capitalism right ?(and that is just Quid's plan ....forget what the Green New Deal would cost) Nor is price fixing for agriculture . Nor is the Goracle pushing for the use of ethanol when he knew it was a lie . Compelling banks to take government money against their will during the financial crisis was socialism .

All the government control comes at a cost of liberty . The more the welfare state is adopted the more intrusive and oppressive government becomes. Planning by means of command is not freedom. Our system was designed to protect individual rights ;not group ,not the collective . For that alone I the socialist agenda . You see it now with all the blacklist postings I make . A democracy that socialists create is NOT liberal in the classical sense. It is illiberal where the woke or the Jacobins or Maoist or Stalinists do essentially the same thing to varying degrees ....social engineering to make sure human free thought is purged .


You confuse compassionate liberalism with socialism? Maybe read up on both so you can tell the difference. Or is it more a racial ideological bias? exactly the thought control I just spoke of . Smear anyone who opposes your agenda as a racist .You are better than that

Where is the compassion in capitalism?

Compelling banks to take government money against their will during the financial crisis was socialism .

It was to avoid a worldwide depression - a drastic step, yes, but necessary. I assume you would have let the banks fail regardless of the result.


Our system was designed to protect individual rights ;not group ,not the collective

The Preamble to the US Constitution says to "promote the general welfare", not "promote individual rights".

In allowing anyone who is willing to work hard to be able to make a good living.

In allowing anyone who is willing to work hard to be able to make a good living.
What's your definition of "work hard"?

What's your definition of a "good living"?

If you don’t know what those two mean then I can’t help you.

Where is the compassion in capitalism? Share your compassion out of your own pocket . Where is the virtue in forcing someone else to pay for your compassion ?

Share your compassion out of your own pocket . Where is the virtue in forcing someone else to pay for your compassion ?
Thus, there is no compassion in capitalism.

The Preamble to the US Constitution says to "promote the general welfare", not "promote individual rights". Preambles do not confer either rights or powers . There is also a general welfare clause in Article 1 Sec 8 . Then the framers made it very clear after that what powers the Federal Government had to spend on the General welfare . They were specific as a matter of fact ...or as us conservatives like to say ;the powers of the government are enumerated . They did that for a reason . They did not want the states to lose their powers to decide spending priorities . The powers of the Federal Government being few and enumerated ;Everything else was left for the states to decide . They further strengthened that with the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights .'

With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. (James Madison Federalist 45)

An economic system that leaves people free to pursue economic fulfillment is quite compassionate.

not all that hard at all . It is the Dems who cloud it because they think if they get free enterprise capitalism to pay for socialism that it isn't really socialism . $2 trillion+ infusion of government money to make a green agenda work is not capitalism right ?(and that is just Quid's plan ....forget what the Green New Deal would cost) Nor is price fixing for agriculture . Nor is the Goracle pushing for the use of ethanol when he knew it was a lie . Compelling banks to take government money against their will during the financial crisis was socialism .

Developing new technology takes money and last I checked government has been PARTNERING with the private sector to do just that. I darn near fell off my chair at the notion of banks being compelled to take money against their will. LOL!


All the government control comes at a cost of liberty . The more the welfare state is adopted the more intrusive and oppressive government becomes. Planning by means of command is not freedom. Our system was designed to protect individual rights ;not group ,not the collective . For that alone I the socialist agenda . You see it now with all the blacklist postings I make . A democracy that socialists create is NOT liberal in the classical sense. It is illiberal where the woke or the Jacobins or Maoist or Stalinists do essentially the same thing to varying degrees ....social engineering to make sure human free thought is purged .


What was I thinking? Of course you're right. Screw voting and just let the rich guys run the show. I'm sure their social engineering is better than the governments. Sure you ain't a Chinese sympathizer trying reverse psychology? Define socialism for gosh sakes.



exactly the thought control I just spoke of . Smear anyone who opposes your agenda as a racist .You are better than that

It was a rhetorical question as anybody that knows you understands your racial bias is GREEN! I don't mean Martians either. Throwing out those meme labels without defining them doesn't help the case you're making and implies BIAS.

An economic system that leaves people free to pursue economic fulfillment is quite compassionate.
I.e., An economic system that leaves ONLY A FEW people free to pursue economic fulfillment ISN'T VERY compassionate.

Give an example.

Give an example.
You are the first example that comes to mind.

I assume you would have let the banks fail regardless of the result. your assumption is correct . I don't believe in too big to fail. If banks know there are no consequences for risky reckless behavior they act accordingly. Bank failures were not catastrophic before 2008 . Why was the prospect of CitiCorp going down a game changer ? Would you care if Amazon or Microsoft went belly up ? Would you want the Government to bail them out ? Both are much bigger than any of the big banks ever were . We have FDIC . So the only people who would've taken a hit was the investors . The government bailed out the investors at the expense of main street . Why would you favor that ? Because you believe the lie that the whole house of cards was going to tumble ? You were sold a bill of goods . The economy would've taken a temporary hit ..... not a decade long recession .

and who is to blame for this state of affairs, politicians and lobbyists

Thus, there is no compassion in capitalism.

Very good!


You are the first example that comes to mind.

The perfect squelch. LOL


The powers of the Federal Government being few and enumerated ;Everything else was left for the states to decide

Then you would have no objection to the states redistributing income and, as you put it, coercing taxpayers to pay others?

So the only people who would've taken a hit was the investors .

And millions of employees, tangential businesses and their employees, the whole structure of finance - domestic and international. GM was also saved plus all the subsidiary companies down to the local delis and McDonald's.


You were sold a bill of goods .

The bill of goods sold was the deregulation leading up to the Great Recession, and the criminal actions of Wall Street and the ratings agencies in the pocket of the banks selling toxic collaterilized bonds.

You are the first example that comes to mind.Rather unsurprisingly, you left out yourself. You also left out everyone on this board. You also left out the tens of millions of Americans who have worked hard and done well for themselves. Remember all of them?

The bill of goods sold was the deregulation leading up to the Great Recession, Or the government pushing sub prime mortgages like il duce did when he ran HUD

Or the government pushing sub prime mortgages like il duce did when he ran HUD

If you're referring to the CRA, that was passed in the 1970s and it's hard to see that as a major contributing factor. Most of the analyses of the Great Recession did not point a finger at the CRA (at least not that I could find). The chief culprits were the rating agencies and the investment banks especially Goldman who Taibbi called "a great vampire squid".

The pushing of subprime mortgages was the work of the banks packaging these and reselling them as AAA securities even tho they were garbage and soon defaulted, leading to the recession.

Thanks for bringing up Taibbi in your recent post - I had forgotten about him and it's good to be back reading him.

WG, Now it is the capitalist dream to have the opportunity to do this, but it is an illusion, a capitalist illusion, a few achieve it but the majority don't. The world is full of people following the dream, a dream sold by dream merchants,

a few achieve it but the majority don't. A completely, wildly, foolishly inaccurate statement.


My husband and I have worked hard all our lives and have a 1920s paid-off 20'x40' one-story two-bedroom house to show for it. Now, tell me about your riches.Which puts you in the top 10% of the world's population. Congratulations. And of course when it suits you, you drop back into your "modest income WG" description rather than mentioning having just inherited a large sum of money a couple of years ago.

il duce creates crisis and then takes credit solving them . In the case of the 2008 ,he brushes off his contribution to the crisis when as HUD director under Bubba .he laid out the framework for the housing crisis by instructing Fannie and Freddie to increase sales of sub prime loan packages to low income communities by 50 percent .

He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded “kickbacks” to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.
Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie | The Village Voice (https://www.villagevoice.com/2008/08/05/andrew-cuomo-and-fannie-and-freddie/)

Then he reduced HUD's oversight over how those increases were met . Banks almost has no choice but to play the game . Yes the rating agencies played their part . But so did many politicians on both sides of the aisle. Bush touted the number of new minority owners of homes as did Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd (then both got their names on the subsequent reform legislation ) . il duce after his disastrous stint at HUD became NY AG where he got on his white horse and doggedly investigated the banking and mortgage industries involved in the crisis that he helped create . Being NY AG is a stepping stone to becoming Guv . That was especially true in il duce's case where NY power makers Harold Ickes and Tom Downy both had their beak in the troth . Ickes was chairman of the Freddie board. Downy worked as a lobbyist for Fannie.

NY's Cuomo Is 'Father of Subprime Crisis:' Bove (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/id/35694762)

Why Did the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Let Andrew Cuomo Off the Hook? | Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/why-did-the-financial-crisis-inquiry-commission-let-andrew-cuomo-off-the-hook)

il duce's career to date was to instigating crisis and then take credit for cleaning it up. Until the nursing home gaffe and now his sexual predatory behavior ,he had gotten away with it . He campaigned as a reformer and set up the Moreland Commission to weed out corruption in NY . When the investigators got to close to him and his gumbas , he disbanded the commission . Before covid he was shutting down hospitals and letting NY PPE and ventilator supply dwindle (20,000 hospital beds less under his tenure ). Then he went crying to Trump to bail out the state .

Sorry for the tangent . Just saying il duce is a disaster wherever he has held office . And his tenure at HUD was no different .

a few achieve it but the majority don't.


A completely, wildly, foolishly inaccurate statement.

No so, maybe as it is said 10% of the world population achieve this but they are in the US, Australia, maybe Europe and so the few is accurate when you take the whole of humanity into account, not just the privileged few

CRA, yeah that too . I had forgotten the emperor's role as an ACORN community activist pressuring banks to give bad mortgage loans to minorities . He sued banks to rubberstamp mortgages .In the aftermath ,many of the homeowners lost their homes. Bubba'a AG Janet Reno and her aide Eric Holder filed a mortgage discrimination case against a Washington bank that forced it to target minority neighborhoods for subprime loans.Reno and Holder also encouraged civil-rights lawyers like the emperor to file local lending bias cases against banks.

He sued Citi on behalf of several Chicago minorities who claimed they were rejected for home loans because of the color of their skin. But the record shows a different story . One of his clients had "inadequate collateral" and "an incomplete application," while another had "delinquent credit obligations and other adverse credit history." (,The Great American Bank Robbery' Paul Sperry) .

The emperor argued that 'neutral' criteria adversely impacted his clients as a class of people. Citibank settled despite the emperor's weak argument . They paid $1.4 million and launched a program to boost home lending to poor blacks in Chi-town. Citibank underwrote thousands of shaky subprime mortgages to satisfy the court Defaults were common. When home prices collapsed, most of the loans went bust. Blacks were hit hardest by the financial collapse . The emperor made $23,000 for his effort ;and it propelled his political career .

These days the emperor talks of greedy ;predatory practices tricking minorities . But back then he was all in favor of the practices and encouraged them . And as President he was again pushing banks to make risky loans
Risky Federal Home Loans: What Could Go Wrong? | Citizens Against Government Waste (cagw.org) (https://www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/risky-federal-home-loans-what-could-go-wrong)

maybe as it is said 10% of the world population achieve this but they are in the US, Australia, maybe Europe.That's kind of the whole point. Show me the person in the U.S. who worked hard, made good decisions, and yet did not become financially successful. They are difficult to find. It is the glory of the capitalist system, and it's the greatest benefit to poor people you can imagine. It's why we need a wall at our southern border. They illegals understand all too well the truth of what WG wants to deny.

That's kind of the whole point. Show me the person in the U.S. who worked hard, made good decisions, and yet did not become financially successful. They are difficult to find. It is the glory of the capitalist system, and it's the greatest benefit to poor people you can imagine. It's why we need a wall at our southern border. They illegals understand all too well the truth of what WG wants to deny.

It is not the glory, the CCP can point to bringing more people out of poverty than the american capitalist system ever did. I know the chinese have given up something to achieve this. You need a wall on your southern border to support the bankrupt capitalist system in your country, you are just taking a leaf out of the CCP playbook and investing in massive infrastructure

It is not the glory, the CCP can point to bringing more people out of poverty than the american capitalist system ever did.Data?


You need a wall on your southern border to support the bankrupt capitalist system in your country,We need a wall on our southern border to keep out the flood of people who are wanting to leave socialist Central America to come to capitalist America. The CCP is bringing people out of poverty by employing elements of (cymbal crash) CAPITALISM! Why didn't you point to the great economic successes of the socialist countries of the former Soviet bloc group, or of the many socialist countries of Africa and South America? Is it because there aren't any such examples?

Why Did the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Let Andrew Cuomo Off the Hook? | Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/why-did-the-financial-crisis-inquiry-commission-let-andrew-cuomo-off-the-hook)

I saw the FOX-NEWS link and I lost interest. They have a well-deserved reputation of delivering totally false information - especially Hannity and Carlson (Ingraham, too).

They have become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the great liar Trump. Fox latest Trump coverage was Trump claiming the Jan 6 insurrection posed "zero threat" and the rioters were "hugging and kissing" the capitol police.

Anybody still supporting Trump has a screw loose.

you drop back into your "modest income WG" description rather than mentioning having just inherited a large sum of money a couple of years ago.
Two people I loved with all my heart had to die. Screw the inheritance; give me back my mother and son.

I saw the FOX-NEWS link and I lost interest. They have a well-deserved reputation of delivering totally false information - especially Hannity and Carlson (Ingraham, too).

Your commentary on Fox is boring . YAWN !!!

You did not bother reading Village Voice or cNBC links (hardly conservative leaning ) . Interesting . Maybe you will learn something .

Two people I loved with all my heart had to die. Screw the inheritance; give me back my mother and son. I know the feeling. I'd rather have my parents back than have the inheritance, but that doesn't change the fact that you and I both benefitted. We are not poor.

Your commentary on Fox is boring . YAWN !!!

You did not bother reading Village Voice or cNBC links (hardly conservative leaning ) . Interesting . Maybe you will learn something .
Here's a take on that:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-biden-border-china-press-conference-huppke-20210326-sqxzh2ofuzbathxiuxavjuao7u-story.html

who cares ? I maybe watch Fox for an hour during it's news segment . I don't care about their commentators .Nor do I think about them . I don't listen to their radio shows either . I use a variety of sources . So to attack the premise because there was a Fox link is super weak especially when 2/3 of the collaborative links I gave came from left sources . The reason I linked to the Village Voice was because of the author who is an excellent non-partisan muckraker . Just like Matt Taiibi is . The reason I linked to cNBC was because they are a good source for financial news . Occasionally I link to Fox because the rest of the press suppresses news they don't like .

Here's a take on that:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-biden-border-china-press-conference-huppke-20210326-sqxzh2ofuzbathxiuxavjuao7u-story.html

Hilarious column - the rightists will read a sentence or two - get it - and go someplace else.

who cares ? I maybe watch Fox for an hour during it's news segment

Irrelevant. You gave a Fox News source.


2/3 of the collaborative links I gave came from left sources . The reason I linked to the Village Voice was because of the author who is an excellent non-partisan muckraker . Just like Matt Taiibi is . The reason I linked to cNBC was because they are a good source for financial news .

I don't dispute the value of those sources and I agree they are good sources. However, that does not mean I agree with everything they write, and in this case, I disagree. HUD had, at best, a minor role in the Great Recession. There were not the only one to write sub-prime loans AT THE DIRECTION OF THE INVESTMENT BANKS.

The real culprits were the collusive tactics between those Wall Street banks and the ratings agencies. No economist denies that role in the crisis. The Obama administration fined Goldman less than a single day's profits. What a joke! The ratings agencies used the First Amendment as a defense claiming their rating AAA for toxic securities was an OPINION - protected speech. Holder bought that. A bigger joke!

That's another example why Citizens United is such a disaster. The great vampire squid reaches its tentacles into all of politics dangling its filthy lucre.

Irrelevant. You gave a Fox News source.Right, but not in the way you think. Fox being the source is completely irrelevant.

There were not the only one to write sub-prime loans AT THE DIRECTION OF THE INVESTMENT BANKS. Like Citi and the other investment banks that were coerced by community organizers like the emperor and the Bubba and Bush administrations .... and Barney's Frank ?
Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/)
There is no doubt that the PRIMARY cause was the unintended consequences of good intentions .....a problem the Dems frequently cause .

At first Fannie and Freddie resisted . But then Bubba instructed them to increase their issuing risky mortgages . 'Bubba 1994 "I am committed to a new and unprecedented partnership between industry leaders and community leaders and government to recommit our nation to the idea of homeownership and to create more homeowners than ever before." When the Repubs took control of Congress .Bubba with Frank , Dodd and Maxine Waters did an end around recruiting il duce to have the GSEs invest in bad loans . il duce said "GSE presence in the subprime market could be of significant benefit to lower-income families, minorities and families living in underserved areas."

In Sept 2003 Bush Treasury Sec John Snow testified to Congress that Congress should enact "legislation to create a new federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government-sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements. Barney's Frank poopooed his suggestion saying he did not believe there was any crisis.
So who got the most $$$ in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie ?
Sen Chris Dodd ... $165 ,000
Barney's Frank ... $42,350
Senator Obama ... $126,349

Like Citi and the other investment banks that were coerced by community organizers like the emperor and the Bubba and Bush administrations .... and Barney's Frank ?
Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/)
There is no doubt that the PRIMARY cause was the unintended consequences of good intentions ..

Absolutely incorrect. The above had nothing to do with the securities being peddled by the investment banks. The investment banks are only marginally involved with HUD, and Bush/Clinton administrations have hardly coerced those banks - it's the other way around re coercing.

The PRIMARY cause was what I have said it was - selling toxic securities. No legitimate economist has ever doubted that.


Bubba instructed ("instructed"?) them to increase their issuing risky mortgages . 'Bubba 1994 "I am committed to a new and unprecedented partnership between industry leaders and community leaders and government to recommit our nation to the idea of homeownership and to create more homeowners than ever before."

This had been the program since the 1970s (CRA). Promorting it in 1994 hardly explains the Great Recession which occurred 14 years later!! Not being the actual cause of the crisis, these mortgages would have been simply mortgages - some good, some bad. No crisis.


"GSE presence in the subprime market could be of significant benefit to lower-income families, minorities and families living in underserved areas."

I agree with that. You may not.


In Sept 2003 Bush Treasury Sec John Snow testified to Congress that Congress should enact "legislation to create a new federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government-sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

No argument with that suggestion.


Barney's Frank poopooed his suggestion saying he did not believe there was any crisis.

He was right. There was no crisis in 2003.


So who got the most $$$ in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie ?
Sen Chris Dodd ... $165 ,000
Barney's Frank ... $42,350
Senator Obama ... $126,349

Then lobby to eliminate Citizens United.

A GSE giving campaign contributions . No conflict of interest there . Same thing with teacher's unions giving campaign contributions .

No legitimate economist has ever doubted that.Athos' definition of a legitimate economist. An economist who agrees with Athos.

Perhaps he thinks Trump was a legitimate economist

Our economic growth pre COVID would indicate that.

Our economic growth pre COVID would indicate that.
Yes! Obama did a great job of pulling us out of the hole W. shoved us into!

Obama's GDP growth was never better than lukewarm. He had eight years to get it done and only achieved limited success by doubling the national debt. The economy really heated up only under Trump.

It took Obama eight years to pull us out of W.'s hole!


The economy really heated up only under Trump.
And then covid blew out the flame and Trump was clueless.

And then covid blew out the flameYou mean kind of like it did with the entire rest of the world?


Trump was clueless.Our economy out performed every European country and it's the vaccine developed under the Trump admin that is helping us dig out now. Not too bad for a "clueless" guy, eh?

...it's the vaccine developed under the Trump admin that is helping us dig out now. Not too bad for a "clueless" guy, eh?
Um, do a bit of honest googling. This lie has been addressed and squashed once before on this board.


You mean kind of like it did with the entire rest of the world?
And the trumpster had no clue what to do.

Um, do a bit of honest googling. This lie has been addressed and squashed once before on this board.And this lie also has been. That the vaccine was developed under the Trump admin is the plainest truth in the world. A little logic. Let's see. The vaccine was developed in 2020. Trump was pres in 2020. Hmm.


And the trumpster had no clue what to do.And that wild tale was just debunked. You really need to try something believable. Your TDS is greatly affecting your judgment.

Your TDS is greatly affecting your judgment.
Your hero worship is gaggy.


The vaccine was developed in 2020.
Nope. Do some research about coronavirus vaccines.

Don’t be ridiculous. It was developed and USED in 2020.

Don’t be ridiculous. It was developed and USED in 2020.
It. Was. Not. Developed. In. 2020.

When on earth do you think it was developed???

Alarm! Alarm! WG has been asked a question. Extreme danger alert!!

When on earth do you think it was developed???

Alarm! Alarm! WG has been asked a question. Extreme danger alert!!
Developing a vaccine and bringing it to market often takes many years. But because of work that NIH was already doing when the COVID-19 pandemic began, researchers were able to come up with vaccines for this new virus much faster.

Years before the COVID-19 pandemic began, experts at the NIH Vaccine Research Center (VRC) were studying coronaviruses to find out how to protect against them. The scientists chose to focus on one “prototype” coronavirus and create a vaccine for it. That vaccine could then be customized to fight different coronaviruses.
https://covid19.nih.gov/research-highlights/vaccine-development

You must have attended that Athos/Aquinas school of honesty. You left out these paragraphs FROM YOUR OWN ARTICLE which CLEARLY show that the Covid vaccine was developed in 2020.

"By the second week of January 2020, researchers in China published the DNA sequence of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.The VRC worked with a company called Moderna to use this information to quickly customize their prototype approach to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. By early February, a COVID-19 vaccine candidate had been designed and manufactured. This vaccine is called mRNA-1273. By March 16, 2020, this vaccine had entered the first phase of clinical trials. Other vaccines, including a similar one from Pfizer and BioNTech SE, entered clinical trials not long after.
On December 18, 2020, after demonstrating 94 percent efficacy, the NIH-Moderna vaccine was authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency use. Just days earlier, the similar Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine had become the first COVID-19 vaccine to be authorized for use in the United States."

Yes, the whole concept of MRNA vaccines had been under development for years, but this is a specific vaccine for a specific virus which wasn't even clearly sequenced until 2020. So as I said, it was both developed and used in 2020 during the Trump admin. Case officially closed for all but those suffering from TDS.

You must have attended that Athos/Aquinas school of honesty. You left out these paragraphs FROM YOUR OWN ARTICLE which CLEARLY show that the Covid vaccine was developed in 2020.
And you were an educator? Ah, yes, I remember now -- you're a literalist who doesn't read anything that doesn't support his pov and who therefore reads only the parts that support his pov.

The article talks about the prototype that was already in existence after YEARS of research. Scientists tweaked that prototype to come up with the appropriate vaccine.

To repeat:
Years before the COVID-19 pandemic began, experts at the NIH Vaccine Research Center (VRC) were studying coronaviruses to find out how to protect against them.

because of work that NIH was already doing when the COVID-19 pandemic began, researchers were able to come up with vaccines for this new virus much faster.

You're being completely absurd. You are referring to general work being done by the NIH on viral vaccines using MRNA. I clearly was specific that I was referring to the COVID vaccine being used now which your own article said was developed and tested in 2020 during the Trump admin. This is completely ridiculous. I'm done with the whole stupid conversation. I should have known better.

You're being completely absurd. You are referring to general work being done by the NIH on viral vaccines using MRNA.
On CORONAVIRUSES!!! Of which covid-19 happens to be one....

My original statement that started this entire exchange. "and it's the vaccine developed under the Trump admin that is helping us dig out now. Not too bad for a "clueless" guy, eh?" That is specifically speaking of the COVID 19 vaccine. That specific vaccine was developed during 2020 under that Trump admin. Operation Warpspeed. Remember now??? Did they benefit from previous research done in prior years, three of which were still in the Trump admin? Of course, but the work on the vaccine being used now was entirely done in 2020.

https://www.defense.gov/Explore/Spotlight/Coronavirus/Operation-Warp-Speed/

Done.

I hear the WHO is once again considering the possibility the virus escaped from a lab, even though their own study said this was unlikely, so have they stopped listening to the CCP? or are they genuinely concerned we have all been had?

I understand that Biden is going to put a lot of thought into that very subject. He should be finished in ten or fifteen years.

back when Trump announced it critics scoffed at the idea that any vaccine would be approved before the end of 2020 . VP Harris said it was being developed in a dangerous manner and suggested on the campaign trail that she would not take the vaccine . Also the reason Quid can brag about how many Americans have already been vaccinated is because Trump went ahead and contracted with the pharmaceutical companies to secure US supply of the vaccine well before they were approved . Over in Europe they did not take those steps . Now European nations fight amongst themselves for supply .They call it 'jab wars ' . They are looking at severe lockdowns this week . Paris hospitals are at capacity . The Germans basically rebelled when Merkel planned tough lockdowns for Easter . She has resigned after her party got pummeled in the elections Sunday .

Here in the US restrictions are being lifted . Quid takes credit for what Trump achieved

Quid takes credit for what Trump achievedExactly correct, and a truth that is obvious to all but the TDS afflicted.

Exactly correct, and a truth that is obvious to all but the TDS afflicted.

The Dufus Supporters. 8D

It occurred to me today how to get all of these liberal dems to agree that the vaccine was developed during the Trump admin. If any negative side effects begin to show up in major numbers, they'll be all over it then as an opportunity to be critical.

There are already reasons to be critical of various vaccines

The ones here seem to be relatively uneventful so far.

I heard some criticism of the J&J product recently

not the vaccine The problem @ J&J was a human screw up. About 15 million doses in a Baltimore plant were mixed up . Doses from Netherland are being used. But the Baltimore doses were destroyed and that will delay April delivery . Emergent BioSolutions is the company that screwed the doses and this is not the 1st time their quality control has been an issue. They have been cited in the past by the FDA for poorly trained employees, cracked vials and mold around one of its facilities . J&J linked up with them last year to subcontract the manufacture of the vaccine. This is a big set back for the schedule of the vaccine that J&J projected . But they will still make their delivery goals ....a month later than scheduled .


Clearly Quid knew about the problem a month ago . Yet the problem did not n make the news until recently . Quid cancelled a visit to the Emergent plant the beginning of March . Now we know why. When asked why Quid cancelled Jen Psaki told the press “We just felt [the White House] was a more appropriate place to have the meeting” .So much for transparency .

Emergent was also the focus of controversy when it was revealed that for about a decade ,the priority of the national strategic reserve was purchasing anti-terrorism anthrax vaccine that was produced by Emergent. That left other covid related stockpiles low at the critical beginning of the pandemic. The government paid Emergent $626 million for the vaccines. That was close to half the budget for getting emergency stock piles . This was apparently due to Emergent telling the emperor's regime in 2016 that it needed more government $$$ to stay in business. So the government purchases $100 million more vaccine even though the reserve already had enough to vaccinate more than 10 million people. The anthrax vaccine has a shelf life of a couple of years . So most of the purchase over the last decade was trashed.
Keep in mind that the threat of anthrax attack so far has cost 5 American lives 20 years ago .

President Harris/Biden just doing a hunky-dory job with immigration. Setting records!!


CBP projects 184,000 migrant children will cross border in fiscal year 2021. It would be the highest number of unaccompanied children on record.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cbp-projects-184000-migrant-children-cross-border-fy-2021

Have you seen that they took over the San Diego Convention Center and are putting up hundreds of these children ? 82 of them already arrived at the Convention Center with covid . And they are being taught in person by teachers at the cost of $6,500 per child per day . San Diego teachers were given a choice .They could continue to teach their San Diego students virtually OR they could do in person teaching of the illegals at the Convention Center .

From https://news.yahoo.com/san-diego-teachers-person-instruction-133759170.html

The educational program will include English language development and social-emotional learning opportunities,” the statement adds. “The teachers who are participating in the program are doing so voluntarily, and the program is following a COVID-19 screening protocol based on guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

Yes . I already said they were given a choice .That doesn't explain the tax payer footing the bill ;and why should the illegals be given in person instruction when the children or San Diego are to be taught in Zoom school for at least another 2 weeks ;and even then the system will only be a modified in person teaching ?

Love the social distancing. There with 82 confirmed covid cases and more illegals arriving .

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/03/30/12/41108272-9416981-Some_350_migrant_girls_between_the_ages_of_13_and_ 17_were_flown_-a-2_1617102291583.jpg

Yes . I already said they were given a choice .That doesn't explain the tax payer footing the bill ;and why should the illegals be given in person instruction
Have you ever taught English to children from a foreign country, especially if you don't speak their language? I have. With Zoom, it would be nearly impossible.

Those children are here now. What would YOU do with them if you were in charge of the situation?

send them back . That is the only way to discourage this migration

send them back . That is the only way to discourage this migration

Why not kill them? That would be an ever better way to discourage migration.

And they are being taught in person by teachers at the cost of $6,500 per child per day .That is about as stupid as anything I've heard of. 6500 a day is like spending 2K for an oil change. Just ridiculous.


Why not kill them?For liberal dem supporters of abortion, that should sound perfectly reasonable.

and this surge isn't an untenable humanitarian crisis ? Children are being killed crossing the Darien Gap .
Unaccompanied children crossing the Darién Gap | Forced Migration Review (fmreview.org) (https://www.fmreview.org/latinamerica-caribbean/hunter)

Children are being thrown into the Rio Grande as a diversion by the cartels .
Baby rescued at US-Mexico border in Texas, officials say | The Sacramento Bee (sacbee.com) (https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article250333101.html)

Children are being abused ,raped ,forced to be drug mules .
Mexico drug gangs using more children as "mules" - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexico-drug-gangs-using-more-children-as-mules/)


Families try crossing over and when they are denied ;they separate and send their children over the border with the promise to them they they will reunite later. because of the emperor's and SCOTUS positions on DACA
Some migrants now sending their kids across the border alone so the kids won't be expelled, say lawyers (nbcnews.com) (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/some-migrants-now-sending-their-kids-across-border-alone-so-n1261249)


The tragedy is to continue to allow this to happen.
They are being lied to being told that the promised land awaits them at the end of their journey . The inhumane encouragement should immediately end.

Why not kill them? That would be an ever better way to discourage migration.

For liberal dem supporters of abortion, that should sound perfectly reasonable.
That's what you're doing by sending them south. If they survive the walk back, they'll most likely die in their home countries.

If they survive the walk back,
I don't know how quid would do it But the US flies the deported back .ICE Air: How US deportation flights work - CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/26/us/ice-air-deportation-flights-explainer/index.html)

The only people who are eligible for refugee status is Venezuelans. All the others claim or are attempting to be escaping poverty and that is not a criteria for refugee status.

The only people who are eligible for refugee status is Venezuelans. All the others claim or are attempting to be escaping poverty and that is not a criteria for refugee status.
I thought Central America especially is rife with gang violence.

Build...a...wall.

Build...a...wall.
Mr. Master Builder and Businessman couldn't get it done in four years ....

I thought Central America especially is rife with gang violence.Economic migrants are not eligible for refugee status by our laws ;and that is what the vast majority of the asylum seekers are really applying for . They in fact expose themselves to gang and cartel violence the closer they come to our border.

They have to prove they are the victim of past persecution or have a well founded fear of future persecution. In the case of past persecution, They must prove that they were persecuted in their home country. The persecution must have been based on grounds of race, religion ,nationality ,political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

Complete...the...wall.

Complete...the...wall.

Forget the wall, they are poor, pay them to go home, quicker and cheaper. it doesn't take an economic genius to figure that out, or maybe it does

pay them to go home, quicker and cheaper. and counter intuitive . You need disincentives from coming here .Rewarding them for the effort does not accomplish that .
Quid created this crisis when he opened the border and invited them . When asked why they came now in interviews ,the illegals make it clear that they are here because Quid gave the green light to them .
Biden immigration policies cause a predictable border crisis. Why didn't he plan for it? (nbcnews.com) (https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/biden-immigration-policies-cause-predictable-border-crisis-why-didn-t-ncna1260992)

This was a black swan event for Quid . This surge should've been an obvious consequence of his rhetoric to him and his policy advisors . (and no AOC ;surge does not mean we are accusing them of being inSURGEnts )

When Quid realized his error ,he modified his rhetoric slightly and said basically ..... come ..... but just not now ..
Incoming Biden administration to migrant caravan: Don't come, you won't get in immediately (nbcnews.com) (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/incoming-biden-administration-migrant-caravan-don-t-come-you-won-n1254550)

The administration is not serious about the problem. Quid appointed VP Harris to be the point person . She gives a stupid sounding laugh and chuckle when asked when and if she plans on even visiting the border . A week later we are still wondering what the plan is besides appropriating convention centers in the heart of down town San Diego ;where covid infested teen illegals(around 10% infected ) are given free in person education ;after the teacher's unions who represent those " volunteer" teachers (who by contract are still getting paid by the taxpayers of the city ) balked for months at opening up the city schools for in person instruction .They argued that teaching California students ,that have about a 0.002% rate of infection ,was too risky.

Go ask Mexican American parents of students in San Diego if they are happy with this as they stayed home from work because their children were at home getting fake Zoom education .

There is a large gathering of illegals at the San Ysido crossing in Tijuana into San Diego . The tent city is growing daily . Expect another surge any day now

I thought there was a wall at San Diego

There is . The San Ysido crossing is the busiest crossing point in the country . More than 10 million people cross back and forth over 'la linea' annually, American tourists go into Tijuana . Legal workers routinely cross it . Tons of commerce go through it . We do have a major trade treaty with Mexico , When sufficient numbers of illegals bum rush the check point will the government have the will to stop them ? Again ;the issue is that Quid sent out the signal that all are welcome.

The camp was established after the Biden administration announced on Feb. 12 (https://apnews.com/article/biden-25000-asylum-seekers-782c8495f29d9d73f2ffc80d5b2a2aef) that asylum-seekers waiting in Mexico for court dates could be released in the United States while their cases wind through the system.

Amid border surge, confusion reigns over Biden policies (apnews.com) (https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-mexico-immigration-coronavirus-pandemic-8d5d26f57e1fbf55e2f5222ec6462622)

they are poor, pay them to go homeThat makes no sense. They will take the money and then come back to get another payment. Build the wall.

On Friday Texas Department of Health and Human Services told ABC News that from March 1 to March 30, there has been a total of 647 COVID-19 cases in 40 out of 50 Texas HHSC Office of Refugee Resettlement operations. These are self-reported positive COVID-19 cases in migrant children in care.

Bus carrying unaccompanied migrant girls arrives at Houston shelter (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bus-carrying-unaccompanied-migrant-girls-arrives-at-houston-shelter/ar-BB1fgM1K?ocid=msedgntp)

So what Tom? We have treatments and vaccines for the sick.

Why should we take in illegal covid infected people ? When someone tried to enter the US LEGALLY there were screening and processing placed like Ellis Island . Those who had infectious diseases were deported .

You can't be serious . The city of San Diego is still in partial lock down over an infection rate that is miniscule compared to the 9-10% infection rate they are allowing in to the convention center . AND the taxpayer has to foot the bill and pay for the in person education for these illegals that is being denied to their own children ?

Why should we take in illegal covid infected people ?
Many refugees are children and teens. What will you do with them? Make them face south, give them a little push, and say, "Go home"?

sounds like a plan

Many refugees are children and teens. What will you do with them? Make them face south, give them a little push, and say, "Go home"?

something like that .

What will you do with them?Why do liberals always want to act noble because they can ask what someone else is going to do about a problem?

That makes no sense. They will take the money and then come back to get another payment. Build the wall. of course there have to be rules, like no seconds, and but it was found a successful way of getting refugees to go home here, If poverty is the problem, solve it. The other factors you may not be able to do much about but it is a start. You want a wall but there isn't much support for it now and it is expensive and divisive. Look the War on Drugs is part of this problem, legalise drugs and solve the problem, destroy the market, control the market, for capitalists you don't understand business much

Why do liberals always want to act noble because they can ask what someone else is going to do about a problem?
In other words, you have no clue what YOU would do if it were up to you. And you don't even want to think about it. After all, there's nothing in the Bible about us helping foreigners and refugees!

In other words, you have no clue what YOU would do if it were up to you. And you don't even want to think about it. After all, there's nothing in the Bible about us helping foreigners and refugees!I would build a wall. If not for obstruction from the Democratic party, it would already be at least substantially in place. If Trump was still pres, there would have been no active encouragement for these people to come.

And again, "Why do liberals always want to act noble because they can ask what someone else is going to do about a problem?"

If Trump was still pres,

You mean the guy who swore Mexico would pay for it? Then Mexico said Up Yours, pal. So Trump switched to demanding the American taxpayer foot the bill. Then the American taxpayer said Up Yours, dufus. Is that the guy you mean?

I don't mean the guy who basically issued personalized invitations for these people to come across our borders and who is on path to set records for illegal immigration.

I don't mean the guy who basically issued personalized invitations for these people to come across our borders and who is on path to set records for illegal immigration.

Ah, so you did mean dufus Trump - that's what I thought.

Wish we had him back to regain control of our southern border.

Wish we had him back to regain control of our southern border.

You can visit your idol in prison.

Hunter Biden is not my idol.

Hunter Biden is not my idol.

Trump is your idol.

Wish we had him back to regain control of our southern border.
He never HAD control!

And Biden does???

And Biden does???
Trump had four years. How long has Biden been president?

Well, he’s already made things much worse, so the sky’s the limit!

Well, he’s already made things much worse, so the sky’s the limit!

He's already made giant inroads into straightening out the COVID disaster left by Trump. So give him time to straighten out the immigration problem. Unlike your hero Trump, Biden will approach it from a humanitarian viewpoint.

Give him time the lament of the beaten

The little town of Gila Bend Arizona is being inundated as the failed Quid border polices are overwhelming it's resources . They mayor has declared a state of emergency ,

Gila Bend declares 'state of emergency' as CBP continues to drop loads of migrants in town | Arizona News | azfamily.com (https://www.azfamily.com/news/gila-bend-declares-state-of-emergency-as-cbp-continues-to-drop-loads-of-migrants-in/article_2069e048-8c4c-11eb-8078-e37acd653393.html)

Give him time the lament of the beatenExactly. If we give him enough time, he can make things even worse than they are now.

No worse than the bully con man elected because the dems stayed home in 2016 allowing the loonies to run the asylum. Now the loonies fringers heads are exploding because they got booted and can only run around in circles hollering and beeching oh woe is them.

All they have is the BIG LIE to change the rules they made that didn't help them the last 4 years. While the elected class of repubs runs from Joe and the dems even repub voters like what he has done so far, and what he is trying to do for everybody.

and what he is trying to do for everybody.

what evidence do you have to back that statement?

Quid's DHS Sec Mayorkas told Dept employees that they may resume construction of the border wall as well as increase arrests and criminal prosecutions of illegals AND take on sanctuary cities that do not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (ICE) . He rejected splitting up ICE which was a big talking point by some of the radical Dems .

Construction of Trump’s border wall may continue under Biden, administration admits | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/dhs-alejandro-mayorkas-border-wall-b1827535.html)

Quid made it clear that the wall would be stopped by his rhetoric during the campaign and in EOs . Is this an admission that he was wrong ?

what evidence do you have to back that statement?

Biden’s Agenda Is Very Popular (politicalwire.com) (https://politicalwire.com/2021/02/02/bidens-agenda-is-very-popular/)

Why the popularity of Joe Biden's policy agenda matters (msnbc.com) (https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/why-popularity-joe-biden-s-policy-agenda-matters-n1256713)


Quid's DHS Sec Mayorkas told Dept employees that they may resume construction of the border wall as well as increase arrests and criminal prosecutions of illegals AND take on sanctuary cities that do not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (ICE) . He rejected splitting up ICE which was a big talking point by some of the radical Dems .

Construction of Trump’s border wall may continue under Biden, administration admits | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/dhs-alejandro-mayorkas-border-wall-b1827535.html)

Quid made it clear that the wall would be stopped by his rhetoric during the campaign and in EOs . Is this an admission that he was wrong ?

Naw, he'll nibble around the edges as he deals with actual people but he does have an agenda to ram down Mitch's throat and that's the priority.

Naw, he'll nibble around the edges as he deals with actual people but he does have an agenda to ram down Mitch's throat and that's the priority.
Quid or Mayorkas ? Mayorkas is a radical open border advocate . But even he sees how badly Quid's border policies have screwed the pooch . What is happening at the border is the crisis that every new administration faces . Quid is asleep at the wheel . His chosen point person is a no show . In over 2 weeks since Harris was named the immigration tzar ,she has not held a press conference or has even traveled to the border .
Border crossings have skyrocketed and now we learn that the children at the detention centers are being abused.

Unaccompanied migrant children being sexually assaulted, Greg Abbott says | The Texas Tribune (https://www.texastribune.org/2021/04/07/greg-abbott-migrant-children-texas/)

Now the Dems in the Senate ;armed with the decision by the Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough , are planning on pushing all their radical socialist agenda through the Senate through reconciliation maneuvers ,using budget trickery, bypassing the filibuster . Why even have a budget ? Congress never sticks to one anyway .

Good thing all this didn't happen with Trump at the wheel. The liberal dems on this board would have their hair on fire by now. Since it's merely Harris/Biden, they're OK with it. Harris' refusal to go to the border or even hold a news conference concerning her plans, assuming she has any, is really incredible.

Quid or Mayorkas ? Mayorkas is a radical open border advocate . But even he sees how badly Quid's border policies have screwed the pooch . What is happening at the border is the crisis that every new administration faces . Quid is asleep at the wheel . His chosen point person is a no show . In over 2 weeks since Harris was named the immigration tzar ,she has not held a press conference or has even traveled to the border .
Border crossings have skyrocketed and now we learn that the children at the detention centers are being abused.

Unaccompanied migrant children being sexually assaulted, Greg Abbott says | The Texas Tribune (https://www.texastribune.org/2021/04/07/greg-abbott-migrant-children-texas/)

Now the Dems in the Senate ;armed with the decision by the Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough , are planning on pushing all their radical socialist agenda through the Senate through reconciliation maneuvers ,using budget trickery, bypassing the filibuster . Why even have a budget ? Congress never sticks to one anyway .

Should be an interesting summer for sure. We'll see what the scenario is in June or so as Joe puts things in order.

add to the list is Quid's "bipartisan Committee " to pack SCOTUS and his gun EOs .The man thinks that he was elected with a Roosevelt mandate .

The man thinks? Not so sure about that.

Justice Breyer is against court packing . So was Ruth Ginsberg .

Justice Stephen Breyer on packing Supreme Court: 'think long and hard' about the risks - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/justice-breyer-says-expanding-the-supreme-court-will-erode-trust/2021/04/06/cabc95c4-9730-11eb-a6d0-13d207aadb78_story.html)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Chastises 2020 Dems On Court Packing: “Bad Idea,” “Partisan” - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pkwfITbEuM)

With 50 democrat senators, we'll find out if there is at least one who has some sense of justice and honor.

add to the list is Quid's "bipartisan Committee " to pack SCOTUS and his gun EOs .The man thinks that he was elected with a Roosevelt mandate .

Everything on the table since gun control/mental health is a non starter despite the need. I know, thoughts and prayers is enough right. Can't come to a mall, work place, school, or church near you...or YOURS.

Can't come to a mall, work place, school, or church near you...or YOURS.
Shootings and killings are now happening in the suburbs I used to work in and live in!

Shootings and killings are now happening in the suburbs I used to work in and live in!

must be dreadful to live in a place like that, those awful people just wont stay in their place

must be dreadful to live in a place like that, those awful people just wont stay in their place
Yeah, those white people can be a problem....

Yeah, those white people can be a problem.... only whities eh?

gun control/mental health is a non starter despite the need. oh that pesky bill of rights . A constitution is such an inconvenience when there is a radical agenda to impose.

from Tal (sarcasm font)


gun control/mental health is a non starter despite the need.



oh that pesky bill of rights . A constitution is such an inconvenience when there is a radical agenda to impose.

A Constitution is a living, breathing document. It's been amended 23 times since its inception and the first ten amendments were ratified. No one wants to change it carelessly, but gun control surely needs to be examined in light of the killing taking place, often by children and against children - notably the horror in Newtown.

A Constitution is a living, breathing document. It's been amended 23 times since its inception and the first ten amendments were ratified.It is living and breathing in the sense that it can be amended, but not in the sense of being malleable.

Short of banning all guns, I don't know how you use gun control to stop crazy people from going onto school campuses and shooting the place up. Armed school personnel might be an answer. That's how they do it in Israel and they don't have this problem despite being surrounded by enemies who would love to do just that. Might add that they have secure borders.

Having an honest discussion would be a good first step. Biden told at least two whoppers during his recent speech on the matter.

1. Biden falsely stated that though someone who buys a gun at a gun store has to go through a federal background check, there is an exemption for sales made at gun shows. That is flatly untrue.
2. Another lie Biden told was when he declared that the gun industry has special protection from all liability. No such exemption exists.

https://libertyonenews.com/here-are-the-biggest-lies-joe-biden-told-during-his-gun-control-speech/

It is living and breathing in the sense that it can be amended, but not in the sense of being malleable.

Short of banning all guns, I don't know how you use gun control to stop crazy people from going onto school campuses and shooting the place up. Armed school personnel might be an answer. That's how they do it in Israel and they don't have this problem despite being surrounded by enemies who would love to do just that. Might add that they have secure borders.

Having an honest discussion would be a good first step. Biden told at least two whoppers during his recent speech on the matter.

1. Biden falsely stated that though someone who buys a gun at a gun store has to go through a federal background check, there is an exemption for sales made at gun shows. That is flatly untrue.
2. Another lie Biden told was when he declared that the gun industry has special protection from all liability. No such exemption exists.

https://libertyonenews.com/here-are-the-biggest-lies-joe-biden-told-during-his-gun-control-speech/

Jl, there are other examples of how to do this without banning all guns or having armed guards all over the place, but your gun lobby doesn't want to hear them, they would rather put business before public safety. The point is; you have a serious problem not contemplated in your constitution, so constitutional arguments are mote, what is needed is common sense and removing the get arounds is a first step. Back when the constitution was framed there were a small number of states, a smaller population and real threats from the indigenous and the British. You cannot compare the right to a single shot weapon to today's killing machines. Everyone who uses a gun should have full liability and the manufacturer and seller should be joined in the action. There is no constitutional right to traffic weapons

Constitution is a living, breathing document.
That is one interpretation . Sorta like Humpty Dumpty's version of the meaning of words . I am a textualist .

It's been amended 23 times since its inception and the first ten amendments were ratified. Indeed it has . That is the constitutional way. By all means amend it if you think the people no longer have the right to own guns . I am a strong advocate of the amendment process. I don't think it is used enough ;and only one means of amendment has been used . The framers certainly would not have added the method of amendment by convention of the states if they did not think it would be a useful tool.

No one wants to change it carelessly, but gun control surely needs to be examined in light of the killing taking place, often by children and against children - notably the horror in Newtown. Gun control is a talking point that gets used when politically expedient to do so .

Quid's speech had a couple of critical errors that need to be corrected .
He said the gun industry was the only industry that has law suit exemptions . Not true . They are not exempt ;and other industries have similar limited exemptions . What they can't be held liable for is someone using their product in a crime. It is silly to suggest they should . I own a number of knives that I use for various purposes . Any one of them could kill someone . Should the makers of the knives be sued if I used them for illegal purposes ?
Quid said claimed that "If you walk into a store and you buy a gun, you have a background check. But you go to a gun show, you can buy whatever you want and no background check." Not true . According to Federal law ,the only time you can buy a gun without a back round check is from a private owner ;not looking to turn a profit, and who "only make occasional sales of firearms from (a) personal collection" . Those owners do not maintain booths at gun shows . There are also other state laws with further restrictions . In all cases it is illegal to sell to someone who is not legally permitted to own one .

Either way ;he thinks that he can dictate the issue through EO . This will be challenged in court . SCOTUS in recent gun control cases has sided with the premise that individuals have a right to own guns .

Quid talked about the number of shooting incidents . He has a point .There are too many . But will his EO change that ? Nope . Almost all of the cases ;mostly going unreported ,are the ones where guns were illegally obtained . There is nothing sensational I guess when every weekend in Chitown there are over 2 dozen shooting incidents . It is the sensational ones in white landia that grab the national headlines . Already the incarceration rate for illegal gun use disproportionately falls on Blacks . Do you think more gun control will change that ? Maybe it would reduce the number of shootings in white landia .Then the pols can put the issue back into their pocket to introduce it again when they need an issue to demagogue .

Jl, there are other examples of how to do this without banning all guns or having armed guards all over the place, but your gun lobby doesn't want to hear them, they would rather put business before public safety. The point is; you have a serious problem not contemplated in your constitution, so constitutional arguments are mote, what is needed is common sense and removing the get arounds is a first step. Back when the constitution was framed there were a small number of states, a smaller population and real threats from the indigenous and the British. You cannot compare the right to a single shot weapon to today's killing machines. Everyone who uses a gun should have full liability and the manufacturer and seller should be joined in the action. There is no constitutional right to traffic weapons

All good points.


And there's this :

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, was passed in 2005. The law gave the gun industry immunity. It provided blanket protection from lawsuits alleging harm caused by the very weapons the industry produces.

And this:

Private gun sales are exempt from Federal background checks. Admittedly, Biden did not say this to indicate specifically private sales.

Neither statement is a flat-out lie.

Jl, there are other examples of how to do this without banning all guns or having armed guards all over the place, What are they?


your gun lobby doesn't want to hear them, they would rather put business before public For most of us, it's not a matter of $$.


The point is; you have a serious problem not contemplated in your constitution, so constitutional arguments are mote, what is needed is common sense and removing the get arounds is a first step.You are suggesting we just forget the law. That strikes me as dangerous beyond belief.

That is one interpretation . Sorta like Humpty Dumpty's version of the meaning of words . I am a textualist

How you can say "a living, breathing document" is a Humpty Dumpty version of the meaning of words is a mind-boggling statement on language. As a textualist, how can you possibly read the Second Amendment as other than requiring a militia.


By all means amend it if you think the people no longer have the right to own guns

Please, Tom, don't put words in my mouth that I never said like others here have done. What I think is that the issue needs to be examined so that children, barely out of toddler-dom, can be protected from maniacs with guns.


Gun control is a talking point that gets used when politically expedient to do so

It gets brought up when the horror of another massacre takes place. Every time it gets brought up, the Republicans immediately shoot it down.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, was passed in 2005. The law gave the gun industry immunity. It provided blanket protection from lawsuits alleging harm caused by the very weapons the industry produces.Not true. "It gives immunity to the gun manufacturing industry from lawsuits that arise from criminal misuse of guns by third parties." It protects the gun industry from frivolous suits in the same way that a knife manufacturer should not be sued if a person used a knife to kill someone.

Most people want sensible adjustment to our institutions and structures especially when needed like gun control, criminal justice, police reform, voting rights, healthcare and the list goes on. Burns my butt when the right wants NO change, has NO suggestion for improvement, and blasts the suggestions of others for trying while denying everyone else rights they are so proud of claiming for themselves, and ignoring the nasty stuff people endure through no fault of their own.

I find it fascinating if not disgusting they also claim sole dominion of how those rights are defined without nuance and specificity that embraces any equity. Makes me think the whole point is right wing (Both conservatives and far right loonies) domination at the expense of ALL others.

Case in point...GUN reform!

NRA Tells Joe Biden It Is 'Ready to Fight' New Gun Control Measures (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/nra-tells-joe-biden-it-is-ready-to-fight-new-gun-control-measures/ar-BB1frhKp)

As a textualist, how can you possibly read the Second Amendment as other than requiring a militia.
Because I know what the word 'militia' meant in 1787 . It meant able bodied men able to bear arms . Regulated did not mean state or national laws . Regulated back then meant well armed and disciplined . The 2nd amendment was designed by the authors of the Bill of Rights as a safeguard for the people against an oppressive government ;and in many cases against external and internal threats .Hostile European nations colonies were on the countries borders ;and there were threats internally from natives . That is what they meant when they said 'being necessary to the security of a free state ' . If you need collaborative words then all you need to do is look at Madison's Federalist #46 . He wrote of the potential need for the citizens to protect themselves from an overzealous, power-grabbing federal government. “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition [the larger federal government], more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” ....“Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

The fact that 'the people ' are completely outgunned by the national military is besides the point and ignores the intent of the authors.

' The right of the people ' goes back at least to the Declaration where the founders made it clear that rights are inherited and not granted by the government . 'The people ' were individuals . Not one right is granted to collective people ,the whole people ,groups of people like militias . Every Right in the Bill of Rights are statements about what the government cannot do to individuals . The militia part is secondary to the basic right to own guns.

re "living breathing "
Living breathing is nothing more than Orwellian word speak . Madison, when speaking to Congress on the Constitution, made it clear that the document was one of limited powers for the government, ;and that the document was explicit (not implicit in it's wording .

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Because I know what the word 'militia' meant in 1787 . It meant able bodied men able to bear arms . Regulated did not mean state or national laws . Exactly correct as anyone who has done evenly some remotely honest research would know.

This ain't 1787 and much has changed with language, laws, and meanings. Doesn't excuse storming the capitals or plotting overthrow of the government or kidnaping governors because you don't like policies or outcomes. It certainly doesn't mean a loony can shoot up a school, church, or mall, or movie and for gosh sakes spouting you're rights and not proposing real solutions to real dilemmas is preposterous, but if that's ALL you got.....?

Congress has a job to regulate both militias and guns as NO right is absolute.

Because I know what the word 'militia' meant in 1787

That's not "textualism". It's "originalism". The two are not the same.


It meant able bodied men able to bear arms

True.


Regulated did not mean state or national laws

False.


Regulated back then meant well armed and disciplined

False. That's not the meaning of regulated.


If you need collaborative words then all you need to do is look at Madison's Federalist #46

Then why didn't he put that into the Constitution?


The fact that 'the people ' are completely outgunned by the national military is besides the point

Sez you.


and ignores the intent of the authors.

Originalism - not textualism!


the founders made it clear that rights are inherited and not granted by the government

Then why do you insist on the Second Amendment granting the right to bear arms?


'The people ' were individuals . Not one right is granted to collective people ,the whole people ,groups of people like militias .

"We the people"....? You're playing semantics here.


The militia part is secondary to the basic right to own guns.

As stated in the amendment, the militia part precedes the right to bear arms. That can't be more obvious.


re "living breathing " Living breathing is nothing more than Orwellian word speak

For cryin' out loud, that's not "Orwellian word speak". It's a simple figure of speech, recognized by anyone.


Madison ..... made it clear that the document .... was explicit (not implicit in it's wording

Your argument has always been an implicit one. The explicit argument sees the militia (a collective noun, btw) as an organized group - not separate individuals.


“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

The question for you is the one asked by Alice.

Originalism - not textualism! distinction without a difference. If the meaning of the words is clear, the judge need go no further. If they are ambiguous, the judge discerns their meaning using the meaning of the words as they were defined at the time of the authorship .


Regulated back then meant well armed and disciplined


False. That's not the meaning of regulated.
That was indeed the meaning as the authors saw it . It didn't mean the state was controlling the militia .Militias were mobilized for local security and to be a check on the government military power . Regulated militia meant that it was was prepared to do its duty. It would not be prepared if the people did not have a right to arm themselves .


If you need collaborative words then all you need to do is look at Madison's Federalist #46
Then why didn't he put that into the Constitution?
Because to Madison and the framers ,rights were self evident .They did not think there was a need to spell out rights granted by God (and not given by the government ) . It was only during the ratification debates (when the Federalist Papers were written) that it became clear that to pass the Constitution ,a spelled out bill or rights would be necessary.

Regulated militia meant that it was was prepared to do its duty. It would not be prepared if the people did not have a right to arm themselves .Obviously true.

The issue is not second amendment rights, but protecting the public from the homicidal loonies and criminals!

Tal, you are right but they will never see it