All_Pro_Bills
-
Posts
6,969 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by All_Pro_Bills
-
-
23 minutes ago, B-Man said:
I can't believe that none of the "usual suspects" here haven't remarked on the HuffPo's (latest) lie today about the Texas senate saying the KKK was't morally wrong.
It is bullsh*t of course, but enough lemmings bought it to start it trending on twitter.
I won't link to it, it is trash.
But I am sure that you can find it.
😎
Watching the network news is now consistent with watching the Simpsons new segments. The networks must be partaking in the comedic art of satire because their interpretation of events and their opinions are so ridiculous and absurd that anyone viewing the broadcast with a connection to reality has to come to a conclusion they are either making up crap or making fun of everything.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Sundancer said:
I am against any shutdowns. That doesn't mean that this current run we're going to have with the Delta variant needs to be as bad as it will be.
Get vaccinated.
The usual suspects across the country are starting to wind up the panic machine. But as viruses mutate they generally become more infectious but less lethal. So I would expect the hospitalization, ICU, and death counts to be proportionally lower than the previous waves. The vaccines are expected to provide at least some level of protection which could make any infections of vaccinated people even less severe.
People at general risk are the same as before. Elderly and people with health issues like overweight, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, respiratory diseases. Personally, I'm against vaccinating children under 12 as they have close to zero risk of serious illness and even less risk of death. Vaccinating them violates the concept of "medical necessity".
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, LeviF said:
The arrest of an FBI agent credited with helping thwart a plot to kidnap and kill Gov. Gretchen Whitmer complicates one of the most closely watched cases of violent extremism that is becoming increasingly focused on allegations of wrongdoing by investigators.
It needs to be clear how the FBI operates when they "break up plots of violent extremism". Simply, through their involvement they manufacture the plots they break up. The absence of the FBI in these situations would result in no plot and nothing to break up. No big headlines about the effectiveness and professionalism of the FBI and no big extremist threats for the government to use to support their agenda. Its like the window replacement guy that goes around town at 2 AM throwing bricks through storefront windows. And the next day he comes in to fix it all.
In this case the FBI informants and operatives planted the idea of kidnapping the Governor within the group, helped develop that plan, and then arrested them all for the plot the FBI created. More BS but at this point BS is all our dysfunctional government produces.
-
1
-
-
I saw news the the first person was sentenced in the 1/6 fiasco. A man named Paul Hodgkins, who was not charged with property destruction or assault - yet according to prosecutors "contributed to the collective threat to democracy". He was sentenced to 8 months in jail. Prosecutors had sought 18 months.
We get a constant chorus of advocates shouting the narrative they love to throw around, the buzz-term "threat to democracy". Insurrection they say! However, no charge of this here.
I find irony here. For when the time comes, and it will, for an actual threat to our democracy and the Republic to present itself from some foreign entity such as Russia or China, or someone else the "insurrectionist" will be the first in line to serve and defend our nation. The political ideologist demanding blood here most likely will not. They most likely will be cowering in fear in their basements totally dependent for their safety and the preservation of their precious democracy on the very same people along with their brothers and sisters in arms that they despise. Admit it, that's irony!
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
Because they are black kids in a predominantly white town. You can call it profiling if you want; that’s another way of saying racism. Nice you took out the reference to slavery since you realize that was off base.
Right or wrong Cops are taught to observe for specific types of "suspicious" behavior and activity. From the cops mind set you look like "you don't belong here" and that creates suspicion".
My buddy Stan, who is black, was leaving the office late a few years ago and got pulled over about 1/2 mile down the road after exiting the office parking lot. Our office is located in an area with multi-million dollar homes owned by very well compensated members of the corporate executive class. If you go out at lunchtime into the shopping areas, especially in the Summer, you can observe the corporate wives going in and out of the stores and workout places coming and going in their Escalades, Range Rovers, and other hi-end SUV's. Though I must say in my encounters with them I found them to be quite pleasant people and not what I expected based on expected stereotypes. But back to the main theme.
So a black man driving around late on a week night in an exclusive mostly-white community where the cops haven't fired a weapon in active service since the War of 1812? Cops think "you don't belong here". There you have it. They asked a bunch of questions, where satisfied with the answers, and let him go.
I got pulled over in Buffalo many years ago for "no reason". Visiting friends for a couple days. Driving a car with out-of-state plates at 2 AM in the morning on a week night. Cops think "you don't belong here". They asked a bunch of questions, where satisfied, and let me go.
In my youth I made a trip to Toronto to connect with a friend that moved up to Canada, to Oakville I recall, got us all tickets to a concert. The next day after partying most of the night we went out into the downtown area, Yonge Street, and did some walking around before we left to cross back to the U.S. Everyone else I'm with goes into some store and I wait outside wanting some cool air. Looking all hung over and a little messy two Toronto cops approach me and start asking questions. What's you're name, you have ID, what are you doing here. Because the cops think "you don't belong here". I answer their questions, they are satisfied with the answer, and the continue their patrol, and I leave.
Somebody I worked with on a job years ago used to work for US Customs at the border. There are three of us talking with him. He says if he was working Customs and didn't know us he would question us because of our appearance. "Your black, you have a scraggly beard, and you have long hair" and "all three of you are young men" we are told.
-
17 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
Interesting points. From a private employer perspective, you educate your employees on DEI (and not CRT, let's not artificially conflate the two), because it helps you in the marketplace. A more inclusive workforce attracts the most talent and as such should improve your bottom line. From an educational perspective, the school system in my town just added a DEI officer; they did so primarily in response to reports of bullying and racist actions by students. From a broader educational perspective, educators should not be afraid in introducing difficult concepts in class and having students discuss them. I think CRT does not belong in secondary schools as the content is more complex than should be taken on there, but certainly in college and grad school.
Should we legislate against how an individual feels about another individual? No, and even if I thought we should it would be impossible logistically. But individuals that act out on their anger or feelings can do harm to others, and then the legal system takes over. I'd prefer it if things did not have to get to that extreme.
One more thing. Training on things like DEI is educational, it is not indoctrination and such.
Yes, I've been through diversity and cultural workshops in a few different jobs and I found them to be non-confrontation and generally constructive. And a nice departure from the duties of the job for a couple days!
The audience is typically a group of 20 to 25 business and technical employees representing a diverse demographic across age, race, gender, etc, from many organizations. In the most recent cultural workshop an activity was a structured 5 minute "getting to know you" session where everyone was asked to describe their background, life experiences, and positive influences on their lives to date. An insight I found most interesting was that although the group was "diverse" by the standards of demographics and grouping the stories everyone told had more in common than not. Which I think is a significant point. People might look different but fundamentally they all really quite similar. Which reinforces my view that most social issues and problems are driven by class, education, and income disparities than other factors.
-
1
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
If you want an open and honest discussion then you need to acknowledge that conservatives have a politically driven agenda as well.
I think we have made progress since the 60s in terms of race relations. But we have a long way to go. And when you have blacks still being treated unequally when say applying for mortgages, when I know young black men in my community who will tell you they still get pulled over for no reason and still hear derogatory comments directed at them by their white counterparts, when you have the George Floyd type events such as the young black man in Georgia who was shot and killed because he was jogging in a more white neighborhood, then sorry those are real world events and not fantasies.
The reason why you have protests frustrations and such now from the black community is they see this and wonder when our society will truly be color blind. And because they know there are folks like Biden’s Basement who want it to be that way.
I think we can agree on many things. And if people are violating the laws and principals of fair and equal treatment they need to be dealt with and suffer the consequences. And the system should not protect them. And not a single one of us should tolerate them or support that behavior. I'm all for elimination of institutional and legal forms of discrimination. And any biases those systems might generate.
But where do you draw the line between legal protections of fair and equal treatment, proper and uniform (or color blind) enforcement of those protections, and the imposition of a mechanism for forcing private citizens into a belief system against their will? Such as a black man who dislikes white people or a white man that dislikes black people. Is it any business of "The State" that they "feel" that way if their beliefs do not result in any harm to either party? Harm as defined by conforming or not conforming to the above mentioned legal protections.
Is it the role of government, through either schools or other institutions, or private corporations to indoctrinate its citizens and employees into some subjective social belief system like CRT and impose consequences for non-compliance? Don't these actions violate the very principles and freedoms our system provides. Is it moral and ethical to force people that do no real harm to each other to like each other? Or at the very least pretend to like each other?
-
28 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
As if conservatives want to compromise. Give me a break. Racism is a real thing in this country, we all know that. Blacks that don't like whites, whites that don't like blacks, both who don't like Asians. Racism is a subset of the overall intolerance of others who don't look and think like the biased person. The crap that gays and transgender people have had to put up with and still put up with. The fringes on both sides preach hatred against those whose opinions differ from theirs. The only way we get rid of it is to bring it all out in the open and demand treating all equally, with everyone having the same rights as granted under the Constitution. Not more rights to make up for past injustices like the far left wants, not less rights for some people like the far right wants. The same rights.
Oh, and the comparison to animals? One of the things that make humans a higher species is the ability of humans to reason. Unfortunately that is in short supply these days.
Perhaps you've missed my point. While racism exists to some degree I'm convinced the left (and perhaps the right) has no desire to resolve those circumstances. This movement carries the banner of a self-serving agenda. Driven by intellectuals and aristocrats. Not by people in communities living the experience. Successful crusades result in no need for crusaders. In this case resolving and addressing issues of racism would result in the elimination of these social movements.
Also, we've had close to 60 years of programs and policies yet the consensus on the left is that things in 2021 are worse then ever. It might as well be 1860 based on their view. How is that possible? Are you suggesting this is true? That no progress in race relations or tolerance and fair treatment of others has been made since the Civil War? Confronted by facts that assessment is delusional. Yet it drives all our social discussions.
All I want is an open and honest discussion of the current realities not discussions and false remedies based on the political delusions of the left. Nothing more nothing less. Not some pursuit of remedies based on a fantasy world that doesn't exist. Its simply not possible to define proper solutions without aligning with reality and reality is something the radical left which is allowed to drive the social agenda refuses to engage with when it comes to the current status of race relations.
-
1 hour ago, Bidens_basement said:
Ending racism is like draining the ocean with a bucket. Racism is just another name for the boogeyman by the left, it is used to instill fear in anyone who disagrees with their beliefs.
What “racism” really is, that the left won’t tell you is something imbedded in our DNA from the very beginning of man used to protect ourselves from anyone that is different from the tribe they belong with. It is neither good nor bad, except when taken a step further.You can’t teach people to not show fear or distrust in other groups for the simple fact it’s part of our DNA. The left knows this, they have no problem exploiting this for there own personal and political gain.
If you don’t believe this, just look to other species on our planet. Lions kill other species of cats, primates also kill other primates that are different. Are they “racist” as well? We’re no different than those other species, how do you expect to teach crt to children something that is in there genes? The simple answer is you can’t.
The thing the left fails to understand is that racism is not predestined by the pigmentation of the skin, rather it’s something that is in all of us since the beginning of mankind.
But they already know this.
Or the left does understand all of this and their agenda is just a big con to use race issues to gain power, influence, and control of society and all social and political narratives. You suggest they are unaware or stupid. I suggest they might just be sneaky and devious. Once we realize they are all full of crap and know they are full of crap but push their crap for their own purposes we can understand the "rules of engagement" here. Its hard to beat a cheater in a "fair" fight if you insist on playing fair. That means stop trying to understand and compromise with them and start playing the game by the same rules.
The key problems conservatives face when battling the left and things like CRT is they don't have a clearly articulated vision or agenda defining what they stand for and support along with most of them lacking guts to get down in the dirt and fight. The left doesn't want to compromise and reach consensus. So stop engaging the left like you're going to do that. The left want obedience to and compliance of their agenda.
Otherwise, I like your animal comparisons. I have a lot of wild life around my home and I see squirrels tussle with other squirrels, deer tangle with other deer, even rabbits fight each other which is sometimes comical to see. And other wild life. But they do it without intent to kill. I think one of the only species that kill one another are primates. A branch of which humans are descended from. That might tell us something important too.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, SCBills said:
Hi, this is Jen Psaki. This post contains misinformation. You will now be banned from all social media accounts operated from this ISP.
And all Constitutional rights protecting freedom of speech are suspended. So comply and please surrender all your guns next. Do not attempt any original thinking or critical thinking. These are dangerous and subversive concepts for the people. Any attempt at forming your own views, views that have not been approved by the high council are deemed illegal. And punishable. Please report any friends, co-workers, or family you think are attempting individual thought to the proper authorities. We will ensure they are re-trained and indoctrinated properly in the new ways.
This is all done in order to protect our democracy. Please pay no attention to any other concepts like individual freedom and liberty. Pay no attention to our real motives. We are also censoring all history and stories about how dictatorships arise and gain control for the obvious reason that we are following the dictatorship 101 playbook. Thank you for your obedience. But unfortunately it will not be rewarded in any way. We will mobilize all the resources of society and use them for our own purpose and leave you with nothing.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
Biden’s Basement doesn’t like this. Well, here the reality friend. There is no way you and the far right wing Trumpists ever control this country. If the Democrats had run anyone other than Hillary in 2016 Trumpism never would have occurred. And the same for the far left wing kooks. This country is still composed primarily of centrist type people. Conservative on some issues, more liberal on others.
So go ahead and continue bowing down to Trump. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. He’ll lose elections for you again, you can continue to howl at the moon, and the country will move on. Enjoy your fantasy.
I don't think Trump will run again or even be relevant in 2024 but the Democrats can't allow a group of small ultra-left fringe elements inside the party control the entire national agenda. Because if that continues I suggest this union of 50 States will not hold together for much longer.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Elizabeth Warren, Amy Kloboucher and other prominent dens express serious & significant concern about election security, it’s news. No hand wringing about the death of democracy, the chilling effect of a political leaders words on the ability to trust election officials.
11 months later, the same sentiment is echoed by the other party and its reported as the most egregious affront to humanity since New Coke.
The only difference is the concern that Donald Trump might continue to upset the apple cart of painfully entrenched ruling class.
I think a lot of posters such as yourself understand the point I was attempting to make. But some do not and they go to the usual place with the argument. Which disappoints me. But my insight applies to almost everything we hear coming out of the government or the media today.
My point is not to express concerns about who won or who lost the election. Nor to it to express my viewpoints on whether or not the election was fair. Or is it about being a supporter or detractor of Trump. Or to judge the claims on threats to democracy.
My point is to call out BS when I see BS. And my alarm at how easy people accept statements of political and media actors that are unprovable and unsupported by any solid evidence. Transforming subjective opinion to truth and fact without the necessary facts or truth to back it up.
And there are a lot of ridiculous statements and assertions made by a lot of politicians and people in the media that is plain BS. Statements like this was "the most secure election in history". There is simply no way anyone can prove this to be true or false given 200+ years of history, the number of Presidential elections, and the information available to verify this claim. As I said earlier in order to lie you first need to know the truth. Nobody can possibly know the truth about such a statement or create a forensic evidence trail to back it up. Its a belief, pure and simple. And perhaps an uninformed belief too. Ultimately the problem is we are in short supply of critical thinking across the entire social and political spectrum and that shortage allows these idiots to express these outlandish views and statements. And go their merry way unchallenged.
Personally, over time, I have developed a quite cynical attitude toward the government and the media. My base assumption is they lie about whatever they have to and make crap up to support everything else when the need arises. Good or bad it a view defined by observation of their behavior. And like somebody from Missouri I will ask "show me".
-
3
-
3
-
-
33 minutes ago, BillStime said:
The theme of my argument has nothing to do with who won or who lost. So you tell me what backs up the big talk about "the most secure election"? Lack the courage this morning to actually comment to my post? What I'm looking forward to is watching you and a few other characters squirm and contort reality when faced with the facts what you believe is a lie. What will you do then? Deny, right?
-
2 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:
I love the fact that the Dems have to look at this audit which shows several problems and then repeat "most secure election in history" when it clearly was not even close. Nothing overturns the election now but we can take what was found and fix it. Then next election we try to make that as secure as possible and keep improving.
When they say "most secure election in history" I can't tell if they are practicing the comedy art of satire or just feeding us more BS. How do they know for a fact that 2020 was the most secure ever? Is that even possible to prove or know?
Did they conduct extensive and detailed research into each and every Presidential election since George Washington? Analyze statistics and things like voting patterns and registered voter records, ran a bunch of audits and statistical models? And then out jumped all the insights and analytics that put the result of the 2020 Presidential election at the top of the list of all the Presidential elections in the history of our nation?
Yeah I'm sure they've gathered all kinds of documentation to back up that statement with facts. As they have no self-awareness they don't realize how utterly stupid they sound making these statements of absolute fact. What it really comes down to is making up bull crap and then keep repeating it. The only people dumber than the people making such outlandish and unprovable statements are the idiots that believe them.
-
Social media companies that do not editorialize or censor or regulate the content on their platforms are protected from legal liability governing content. But Google, Facebook, and Twitter operate consciously and methodically in a manner inconsistent with the business model those laws are intended to protect. They do censor and apply editorial license. Which is inconsistent with the types of companies the law is intended to protect. So the law doesn't apply to Google, Facebook, or Twitter as a key component of their current business model is censorship which is applied in a discriminatory way. More or less censor what they don't like, don't censor what they do like. Which is editorial license. Which voids these legal protections. I think that's a lot of the argument with the lawsuit. And it seems logical and provable. If so, Trumps case is sound.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Sundancer said:
Audit a fourth time then a fifth. I don’t care.
But that doesn’t hide the fact, fact, fact that a sitting president refused to accept the election results and lost all his lawsuits in an embarrassing manner and encouraged civil unrest over our democratic process
Given your view it would be wonderful to have you running things because the people at the DNC, the DOJ, and other attempting to stop or obstruct the inflight Arizona and Georgia audits and investigations into election misconduct and irregularities completely disagree with you. As they are throwing the entire weight of their organizations at the audits in attempts to stop the effort.
Which raises another question. Why waste your time, energy, and cash attempting to stop somebody else from wasting their time, energy, and cash from looking for nothing? Are the counter suits some act of kindness? The answer to that question is so simple it appears many overlook it and can't utter the words or think the thought.
I read a very insightful summary from a blogger that you can't really lie about something unless you know the truth. And I expect parties like the DNC and the DOJ do know the truth. And the truth is they don't care to share the truth about election night in these Sates with the rest of us. End of story.
-
2 hours ago, Sundancer said:
There were something like 70 lawsuits filed and none found anything to merit any changes. I don’t care what some guy “flippantly” says on Twitter. They couldn’t prove anything in court and got embarrassed trying to do so.
What about the two current audits in Arizona and Georgia? Based on preliminary release of their findings the audit teams cited irregularities. Invalid counts of batches that don't match the actual ballots. Mail in ballots that never were sent to or arrived from the USPS. And so on. Still admittedly a work in progress. Would it have altered the result? Too soon to say.
So what's the response of the government to a situation where probable cause exists to warrant more inspection and investigation? Well to dispatch the DOJ to sniff around for "civil rights" violations. Are we really expected to believe that's their motive in getting involved? Or are they just trying to crush the audits before they get too close?
-
1 minute ago, Sundancer said:
Do you believe that a sitting president who lost an election repeatedly calling that election a fraud and crime is no threat to our country or democracy?Or are the people who flippantly dismiss those allegations, yet find it necessary to block and obstruct through any means available all verification and auditing of those election results and votes the threat to democracy? Which comes off as hiding something. Which lowers the already low opinion and credibility of government and their supporting cast in the media. The only thing Americans hate more than Congress is the Media.
At this point for 1/2 the country it doesn't matter if there was election fraud. They believe the people in charge would lie about it if there was fraud. They would never tell the truth. And that seems like a reasonable assumption. And the government and media mouthpieces solution to this is to tell everyone to shut up and believe what we say and obey what we tell you to do. Otherwise you're disobedience to our omnipotent authority is a threat to democracy.
-
8 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:
“Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
And I should add got away with all of it without being subjected to any adverse consequences whatsoever, no arrests, no jail time, no bad press, no nothing. All while raking in big money donated by all kinds of fools and cowards. And getting smothered with hugs and kisses from all the usual players while the rest of the country watched these terrorists operating with impunity. All in all a nauseating and sicking display of terrorism. Leaving me wondering why any of us should be held to any standard of following or obeying the law given the tolerance for these dirt bags. Maybe all the guys arrested and held without bail for 1/6 need to do is put on a BLM tie shirt over prison garb and use that get out of jail free card? The guards seeing this will immediately release them!
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Tiberius said:
BLM did not attack the national legislature attempting to take away the voice of the people in chosen their leader
All BLM did was loot a bunch of businesses, burned down others, extort money and tribute, and beat and terrorize a lot of people in numerous cities while "peacefully protesting". All while disguising their Marxist objective with the race hustle.
-
2
-
-
On 7/9/2021 at 11:15 AM, Tiberius said:
Nope! I can do slightly more than 20 push ups, the sit ups I could possibly do, five mile run is out as my foot is injured. So I guess I’ll stick to being an internet warrior, lol.
I hear you. The 5 mile run I might be able to do depending on what is chasing me!
-
1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:
I do every day. Well except for the cavalcade of Twits shared here all day every day.
And what dangerous orders are we actually talking about here?
Dangerous order was telling the generals to go out and actually win a war this century.
-
4 hours ago, B-Man said:
CUBAN FREEDOM REBELLION SHAKES CUBAN, CHINESE AND AMERICAN SOCIALIST ELITES:
A relevant quote-
The communist regime believes the protests and the demands are coordinated. By whom? Cuba’s foreign minister claimed — without evidence — the U.S. had financed the protests. Typical communist narrative warfare — blame the U.S. The CCP blamed the U.S. for inciting Tiananmen’s and Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protests.
Fidel Castro had charisma. International “progressive” leftists — sad cases like Senator Bernie Sanders, I-VT, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY — still venerate Fidel and excuse the regime’s vicious tyranny.
Diaz-Canel has minus personality, so 2021’s regime suffers from a severe charisma deficit it cannot blame on America. He just isn’t capable of jiving mass audiences with “hope” and utopian rhetoric. However, he is as long winded as Fidel. The BBC reported he gave a four-hour-long televised rant calling protestors “counter-revolutionaries.” He stated, “The order of combat is given, the revolutionaries take to the streets.”
More narrative warfare: “Revolutionaries” translated from Commie propaganda means “armed thugs the regime provides with food and toilet paper.” Diaz-Canel was ordering his security forces to attack the demonstrators. He hopes repression works.
Read the entire essay.
https://strategypage.com/on_point/2021071420125.aspx
Bomb the Presidential Palace in Havana. But first invite BLM leadership to attend the event.
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Doc said:
Now why on earth would I do that, when the recent study to which I referred you numerous times (and from which you flee like a Texas Dem) proved otherwise? You see, I told you all along that it needed to be studied with zinc, not alone like those idiots were purposefully and deceptively doing. And guess what? Yep, that's right.
But that wasn't the topic. It was you believing/perpetuating the hyperbole (lie) about it being dangerous so that people would be harmed and Trump would look bad. I hope it was worth it for you.
My advice... Stop debating specific idiots here that never have a constructive comment or can't answer an elementary question on any topic.
-
1
-
It's Time to Mandate Vaccines
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
There's a couple concepts here: