Do you ever ask yourself why a communist country would ever attack us?


Well, thank you for that information big gamer... I didn't know about the seaport, cool. And yes, Cuba's right there, pretty much always has been. Canada? Aw, c'mon those guys are funny. Try drinking with them, you might change your mind.


dude.. our defense budget is more than the defense budgets of China, Russia and the EU put together. And that didn't just happen, it's been like that for a while. So you're telling me we're just getting up to snuff?
Wow, that just sounds like an endless BJ.

I'm going to bed.

It's nice to be able to agree with you debeda. Absolutely, I understand the disgust and I recognize the excessive latitude. I'm not if you read my entire post but I did present a solution to all of this... More recently, I posted that solution again - in more detail.

But the bottom line is... you have to invest not cut!

You want a tighter ship? Invest in one. If you cut, the latitude will only increase.

Tell you buddy, Trump. 'Seems like he could use a little help. ;)

Wow, really? OK, well I tell ya what. When you're ready to climb out of your time capsule, be prepared because this isn't 1975 anymore. After 40 years of deregulation and stagnant wages, 30 years of outsourcing and 10 years of automation things are very different. All those jobs Trump keeps gloating about? They're sh*t jobs. And I don't mean they're jobs people don't want to do, I mean they're jobs that don't offer a living wage. So today "getting a job" might not be enough. Which is why today, unlike 1975, most of the people asking for food stamps ARE working.

In fact, McDonalds and Walmart have both been caught telling their underpaid employees to apply for food stamps, which is why they've been charged with turning SNAP into their own subsidy program.

Maybe if the retarded Republicans can for once adjust their tack and actually take the side of the American worker instead of ALWAYS siding with the "business" the workers might actually find jobs that can actually pay for their food. BTW, another change since 1975 is that company founders on average don't even control their business anymore, investors do and those investors may or may not even be American.


That really doesn't tell me anything. What, you look at a black woman at the cashier counter digging stamps out of her purse and you say... "this must be her lifestyle" ???

And so what if it is? What does it matter to you? Are you the judge of all your customers? Maybe her son has leukemia and after the medical bills there isn't any left out of her paycheck to cover food. Maybe she's already making as much as her skills and time will allow and maybe her son's leukemia isn't going away tomorrow, so yeah... that would make food stamps a lifestyle.

Look, I know I'm climbing all over your grill, just keep in mind it's more that I'm reacting to a common mind set... "just get a job"... 'Not the first the first time I've heard that reaction. And the personal experience dealing with recipients of government aid? Yeah, a million times.

So, please don't take it personally.

Anyway the point I'm making is that it's too easy to misjudge. It takes effort to be accurate and when you talk about taking food away from people... I just think it deserves that effort.

So... if you want to weed out the recipients of government aid, who are not critically dependent on that aid ( ie., the deadbeats and players) you need to spend more. You need to hire auditors, good auditors to make that effort. Human Services gets a better picture. They can target the cutoffs and minimize the genocide. Next year the president submits his budget, SNAP is cut by 23%... after paying for those auditors.

Just slashing the budget and justifying it with impulsive judgements?
I mean, it's the cheap way to do it...


yeah, so?

when you rely on a corporation for your livelihood, the same thing happens.
hell, when you rely on your own obsession for your livelihood, the same thing happens.

Wow… that's pretty low. A lot of Americans depend on food stamps to live. I mean if you don't eat, you die, right? So, how different is this from what Stalin did to his own people when he starved them? Not quite as many people, I guess? And why? To save $1.1 billion per year? That's about 1% of the revenue we lost to the idiotic tax cuts on the wealthy in 2017. But that's gone now, right? What's done is done?

But then that POS some people call a president just signed off on $686 billion for "defense" spending… that's just for 2020. That's about $300 billion on overpriced equipment we don't even need for wars that we've been fighting for 17 years and STILL can't win. And for that we're going to starve hundreds of thousands of Americans?

Surely, this is a step too far. Not even his own supporters will agree with him on this - I mean, a lot of them are Christians, right? Christians don't let people starve like this.

Let's have a peek...







OK… I guess not. I keep forgetting how cold and heartless these people are.

BTW, "Illegals" don't get food stamp because a) they don't qualify and b) they couldn't trust the government not to arrest/detain/deport them if they ever showed up to try.

And to anyone stupid enough to think, they're going to get their precious tax money back, think again. Trump spends more than any president in U.S. history… Make no mistake he will spend that money. It will NOT find its way back to your "deserving" wallet.

Oh, and if anyone takes it upon themselves to judge whether or not people "deserve" food stamps… I have this suggestion… Put down your Twinkie, get off your fat ugly ass and MEET them… interview them and find out for sure. Because anything less means you are condoning the starvation of Americans you never took the time to know.

OK... I mean, it's well known theory - I'll give you that. I like my theory better because it's based on archeological evidence which in my opinion is more reliable than a book of stories that have been translated across multiple languages and cultures, edited by political interests (cannons) and survived across centuries of time.

I know, I know... it's the Word of God. Well, you're welcome to believe that but I don't. As much as I believe in God, I just find the idea that His Truth is all neatly packaged up in a story book is absurd. But again, that's just my opinion.

Well, there are some fuzzy lines, I will admit. But there is one thing that is crystal clear to me. What rules apply to the red team also applies to the blue team.

With that in mind, I should remind you that Trump isn't in trouble because of his businesses. Yes, people complained that he didn't divest his businesses as previous presidents have done but no one was calling that a violation of the Constitution, just a departure from standard practice.

There were also complaints that he was using his position to enrich his businesses, which is one of those fuzzy lines created by the emoluments clause in the Constitution, but with Trump, the actions were pretty clear. He was using his office to arrange for events on his properties that he profits from. But he didn't actually get in trouble for that either and some people thought he should have, which put more pressure on the Democrats to take action... but they didn't.

Now as far as I know, there is no rule that says a politician's grown adult son can't sit on the board of a foreign company. In fact such a rule would be kind of stupid, wouldn't it? I mean what do we tell the grown adult with his own career? Sorry, but your mommy is a U.S. Representative so you have to quit?

The key question is, did Nancy Pelosi, or Joe Biden personally profit from the arrangement by leveraging their positions as lawmakers? THAT would be a violation of the Emoluments Clause, which again, the Democrats let Trump get away with. (So if the same rules apply, you can't take them down for that either)

But just having a son on the board of directors for some company doesn't prove any of that. Arranging for political events to be hosted by your business does. So the difference is Biden and Pelosi are suspected (so far without any evidence) of violating the emoluments clause and Trump is guilty beyond a doubt but just hasn't been prosecuted for it.

Now, what Trump DID get in trouble for is bribing the President of the Ukraine, which has got to be the dumbest thing any president has ever done.

So far, the red team hounds haven't found the slightest indication that ANY Democrat, much less the top ranking Democrats, have bribed or attempted to bribe (which is legally the same thing) or even acted like they were bribing anyone.

So if we ARE applying the same rules to both teams, the red team is losing BIG time.

Are they eagle? How do you know they're scrubbing videos? LOL

Are we just assuming here because, heck doing business in the Ukraine is illegal? LOL

Ah... funny sh*t.

I've heard of Emerson but I've never read him and no I don't know how he defines the truth. Is there a particular book or essay you can point me too because it sounds interesting. Emerson was a transcendentalist, right?

As for the signs of high stress in my writing... hmm, interesting. I don't feel particularly stressed. Are you sure it's not just you getting stressed when you read my writing? I can tell by the insults I often get in response to my writing that I stress people out.

Anyway, let me know about Emerson. I don't want to read everything he wrote, but I'm curious about what he said about the truth and how you think that might change me.

Uh... WHERE are Pelosi's gulags? I didn't see any in the video, nor did I see ANYTHING in that video that points to any wrong doing.

This is just hilarious. So now you guys think that doing business in the Ukraine is illegal? Did you not learn anything from the impeachment hearings? Trump wasn't doing business in the Ukraine he was bribing the President of the Ukraine. It blows my mind that some people can't figure out the difference.

Anyway thank you so much for the comedy. Watching the Trump protectors fall over themselves in such a desperate struggle to find ANYTHING that they think might pass as evidence against the prosecution of their retarded president is just funny as hell.

Yeah, it is. It's funny 'cause half the people on this site are so caught up in 30-year bipartisan culture-lock that they can't see it, but I can remember when conservatives in politics were decent people. My how times have changed.


You're in NC? Wow you're seeing this right up close then. I did some work for BofA in Charlotte for a few years during which time Obama was elected (the first time) and well, let's just say I learned a lot about racism in the post-Jim Crow era.

Anyway, I heard what they did to Asheville (my favorite NC town) which can be described as a blue oasis with its own district in the middle of a red desert. They redrew the line right down the center of the town to divide the blue oasis, putting each side into separate red desert districts as minorities.

Yes, the Democrats have done this a few times in the past but not as often as the Republicans are doing it now and I don't remember the Democrats ever being as blatant about it as the Republicans are, especially with Asheville.

I agree with you... they have upshifted to a new level of open corruption and blatant arrogance that makes it harder and harder for people that strive to bridge the partisan gap and find common ground. Then you have the people that continue to defend them and make excuses for them and as their party grows bolder the excuses get more ridiculous to the point where you just can't believe people can be that stupid...

And that's when you start to think...

[End of Facts]
[Start of Theory]

...maybe they aren't stupid at all. Maybe they're just really shitty people who think the GOP will Make Aryans Great Again. (I would LOVE to be wrong on this).

But if I'm right, I think the joke will be on the MAGAts in the end because the party's actual legislation doesn't match the populist rhetoric of their front-man, Trump.

Their legislation says "take all the money and screw the little people" but they can't really be open about that now can they? I think this is why Trump is such a good fit for them and it's probably why they are going out on a limb to keep him in office. Trump is the dog and pony show they need to create a constant supply of outrage and controversy that people obsess about while the party quietly drops in their "take all the money and screw the little people" laws.

I think it's because Trump has been so effective at exploiting the divisions between us to create such obsessive controversies that the party feels it can get away with being so openly corrupt.

Just a theory, but I think a probable one.

Oh, that's right... for some reason I keep forgetting that in your reality (which is the REAL reality of course) the Left/Democrats are Stalinists.

Yeah, when you find Pelosi's gulags, let me know. If you get lost along the way, I'm sure Alex Jones or the fine folks at Breitbart can point you in the right direction. LOL

Ya know, it gets to a point where it becomes superficial. The very concept of race is arbitrary. Which is why in my school days were taught there are Caucasians, Negros and Mongols and now on the EEO forms I have to list myself as Non-Hispanic White.

I think linguistic groups tend to be the most factual of catalogs because archeologists can trace the origins of culture on the basis of language but that doesn't seem to carry over to common conversations. For instance the original Jews (not the white Jews) are Semites, a linguistic group that spans Africa and Arabia and actually includes Arabs. So when someone offends a white Jew and then gets called anti-Semitic, that's actually an erroneous call, because white Jews are not Semitic. And people are way off base when they refer to sympathy for the Palestinians as anti-Semitic because unlike the Jews, ALL Arabs ARE Semitic, including those in the Levant.

Even here on this site I see liberals being called "racist" for opposing Republicans.

So, I dunno bro... Much ado about nothing.


Yeah, I'm not really all that hung up about it because I judge people on what they do not what they are, so when someone calls me a racist (which rarely ever happens) I know it's BS. So why fret over "correct use" of a BS accusation?

BTW, I hope you didn't get the impression that I'm calling you a racist. When I mentioned the term it was in response to archie bunkers joke about not letting Mexicans drive. It had nothing to do with him personally or you at all.


No, language is shifty by nature. Words change meaning over time, many of them such as anti-semitic are used erroneously more often than not and lots of words like "racism" are ambiguous. English in particular is a living language, which means the dictionary is always open to new terms and meanings.

At some point, I think it makes more sense for people to try and understand what people mean rather than getting all persnickety about the correct use of ambiguous terms.


Webster's definition seems to put you in that second "senseless babble" category bro...

race noun

1 : a breeding stock of animals

2a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

3a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species also : a taxonomic category (such as a subspecies) representing such
b : BREED
c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

...just saying.

I think when people refer to suppression as a feature of fascism, they are referring to voter suppression as exemplified in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. This being the case, the gerrymandering the unapologetic preservation of the EC and the voter fraud fraud (not a typo) counts... I would give the GOP about 80% of the credit for all that.

Ah, I'm pretty sure turtlehead McConnell get's the award for holding up legislation. Pelosi is just prioritizing the focus on the impeachment process which only opened up a few weeks ago. McConnell has been holding up legislation for years, including the delay on confirming Obama's pick for Supreme Court Justice until Trump was able to reselect.


None of that is substantiated. The only witnesses not allowed to testify are witness that didn't have anything to do with the case. The GOP keeps trying to fold a case against Biden into the impeachment process to confuse matters. Look, if the GOP can actually find evidence that Biden did anything wrong they can open up a separate case and a separate trial for that. No one is standing in their way.

The "shifty start up hearing" is simply a deposition, which is standard practice. A deposition is basically the taking of an oral statement of a witness under oath, before trial. It has two purposes: To find out what the witness knows, and to preserve that witness' testimony. The GOP knows this but they are trying everything they can to give the public the impression that this is a kangaroo court. Not working.

I'm not sure how you can call the conversation "made up" when Trump himself provided the transcript. The problem is Trump apparently didn't think it was wrong to attempt a bribe. Maybe he should have figured that out before running for office.

Sanctuary cities, states and churches aren't putting anyone above the law. They are trying to protect immigrants from ICE raids and no, there is no law against that either. Nor is there a law that says ICE can launch raids to round up immigrants, they do so on Trump's orders, but Trump's orders is not law.

So, REALLY bad examples of "forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism"... in fact I don't even know how you relate these things...

A better example is Trump telling the NFL (which he has no authority over) to fire athletes that take a knee during the National Anthem, which happens to be a form peaceful protest, as in "opposition and criticism". Is there a law that says people can't take a knee during the anthem? No. Is there a law that says Trump can't interfere with opposition and criticism? Yes, there is. It's called the 1st Amendment. Indeed, Trump's antics over this issue was the first of his many constitutional violations. No president in my lifetime has ever stepped so far over this line.


Unsubstantiated.


Unsubstantiated.


The Democrats are trying to help kickstart the green industry through subsidies because the people are demanding we cut emissions. This is nothing new... Farmers have been subsidized by the government for decades, so has the coal industry. I'm not sure how you can equate investing in an industry (which is what subsidizing is) to the "fascist regimenting" of an industry.

Something else that isn't new is changes in the energy mix. When Winston Churchill proposed the Royal Navy switch from coal to oil he had in mind the obvious fact that naval ships could stay at sea longer without having to refuel. Was it a good decision? Of course it was. Did the coal industry at the time whine and bitch about it? Yes, they did. Did they think Churchill was trying to destroy their livelihoods? I'm sure some of them acted like it. Was he? No.

Our energy mix has changed from wood to coal to oil, so changing it again to renewables doesn't present anything out of the ordinary. Things change Cody. It doesn't mean a government that helps new industries is being fascist.


death march rates?


Unsubstantiated.


Unsubstantiated.


I suppose it would seem that way to anyone who believes your elastic BS.


After all your baseless accusations you're going to call Democrats crisis creators? LOL

Sorry bro... I just can't stop laughing. Do you have ANY clue how obvious your BS is? See this is the problem when people rant. They have no support for ANYTHING they say which leave a lot of blank space that they simple fill with more accusations. In the end you fill up a post with numerous accusations and no substance. Why don't you just pick one and support it with an actual argument? Unless of course, the whole point is to rant. Which is fine, as long as you don't mind me laughing.


Ah, there we go - the grand finale of wide sweeping, baseless BS. LOL

"Does this mean we should also make it illegal for Mexicans to drive a motor vehicle?" - archie bunker

BTW, "Mexican" isn't a race either.

So, while I agree that negative references to nationality or religion isn't technically "racist" I don't really see how the treatment is any different. I suppose I could have called it "bigoted" which covers it all, but "racist" just happens to be a more common word for covering that kind of demographic isolation, including many books about how "racist" the Nazis were against the Jews, yet another religious reference.

Now, I know you and archie were just joking around so I don't want to belabor this but I'd still like to make a point about the use of the term "racist" since we're here.

I think in many cases the technical error is more on the side of the person using terms like "Mexican" or "Muslims" because we know they really mean Latino people or Arab people. But like the term "bigoted" these more accurate terms are often not the first to come to mind.

Language is shifty bro.