The Frankish Reich

Religious zealotry and provocation is not limited to one side: https://www.cbsnews.com/video/the-unlikely-role-red-cows-play-in-war-between-israel-and-hamas/ Or this, from a source that seems to think this is a wonderful thing:

Whatever your politics, you have to admit that Trump was exceptionally lucky to get 3 Supreme Court appointments in 4 years. Part of that is Ginsburg hanging on too long, which is probably a consequence of overconfidence that Hillary would win. And part is McConnell running out the clock on Garland's nomination. Biden is looking like he'll get just 1 appointment in his 4 years.

Of course the CIA was in Ukraine. They are everywhere, both officially and under (usually diplomatic) cover. All you supposed tough guys are suddenly like the frickin' Church Committee back in the 70s, shocked (shocked!) to see such things ... which just proves my point that the Trumpies are the new pacifists, the Dems are the new Cold Warriors. Wuss.

Yes. But again: that doesn't mean that ostensibly civilized nations need to play their game.

No, just kidding. I was a grad student teaching night courses many moons ago. Most of the class were "nontraditional students" (meaning older students), and they were always better prepared and more interested than the usual 18-22 year olds. So good on you.

Sample size of one, but Kyrie Irving suggests a correlation between being a flat earther and being an unreliable teammate.

But I nailed it. A “non traditional student.” Which is fine.

Given your screen name tribute to an old, old TV show, you must be finishing up your 20th year in college.

Gutfeld's show is awful. It's awful by design, because it's the kind of obvious "humor" Fox viewers like. His earlier show was Red Eye, not surprisingly buried in the wee hours. It wasn't a laugh riot, but he showed some cleverness in how he designed the back-and-forth with the other contributors, mostly Andy Levy. But as soon as he started popping up on prime time he realized what side his bread was buttered on, and we got this sorry excuse for humor. Also not funny.

On the other hand, bragging about being Eleanor Mondale's college boyfriend? That would be well worth it.

True. They both flub simple talking points on a daily basis. Look, objectively I don't think either of these elderly fools should be running the United States. But it looks like that's the choice we'll have. Exhibit A to the argument, "America is in decline." This is what the parties have given us.

I didn't watch Morning Joe (their double act is insufferable), but I did see Trump's comments. And yes, they show someone who is unable to clearly express a talking point he was given. The talking point obviously was that many of the new immigrants speak obscure languages for which we have no available interpreters, making it difficult if not impossible to interview them or give them a court date. See how easy it is to say that? Here's what Trump actually said:

Somewhere William of Ockham is crying.

I read earlier in the thread that there is proof that Joe wasn't at his Delaware home on July 30, 2017. So unless that's wrong, it does seem that Hunter was lying to his Chinese contacts when he texted (from the Delaware home) that he has Joe right here with him.

Pay attention. Did I ever say they shouldn't be charged? Because yes, they should've been charged for breaking windows, looting, blocking access to public buildings in Portland, etc. So who was the pipe bomber? Why don't you spend your time tracking down all the footage, etc., just like the "sedition hunters" did with those who stormed the Capitol.

Simple explanation, not juiced up with all kind of conspiracy theories: they identified the "journalist." Or he identified himself.

This is also true. Part of being a serious person is the ability to hold that both sides here speak important truths. An old Jesuit teacher put it this way: think about whether you should be saying "and" instead of "but." The instinct is to say something like, "Israel is exacting extreme death and destruction on Gaza, but that is only because Hamas has not unilaterally surrendered." To the Jesuit, the proper formulation was more like this: "Hamas needs to surrender for the good of the people it supposedly represents, and Israel's campaign of total war on Gaza is morally repugnant."

A good question. I have no idea, because no report has told us what kind of journalism he was doing (if any) BEFORE he entered the Capitol. All I know is the current Trump-o-sphere reports misleadingly call him "a Blaze journalist," without stating that he became such after the fact. Got it. A blogger is allowed to follow a home invader into your house without consequences.

What if a Black Lives Matter protester stormed into your place of business, was charged with a crime, and then started blogging about and claimed that he should be exempt from prosecution because he is, after all, a "journalist" who stormed in in his journalistic capacity?

On the narrow issue before the Supreme Court: I do believe the criminal defendants will win before this Supreme Court. That doesn't mean the prosecutions were improper, since the statute has been used in this way many times before without any appeals court ruling to the contrary. That says more about the composition of the current Supreme Court than it does about anything else. And for that, all the January 6 invaders should be thanking Mitch McConnell.

I do agree with your last point. Quite some time ago this clearly shifted from "elimination of Hamas weapons/tunnels" to full-on vengeance.

You folks in the America Sucks echo chamber would never dare to read anything other than the tweets from your favorite closet insurrectionists. And it took me some digging to find this out, but ... did you know that this guy only became a "Blaze journalist" AFTER he invaded the Capitol? That his apparent defense is that on January 6 he claimed that he was an "independent journalist?" That at least 8 other January 6 defendants have claimed that they were they as journalists? That one of them was a lefty "journalist" who has also been convicted?

Another one of Trump's "low class" invaders bites the dust. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/defiant-jan-6-rioter-spars-with-judge-at-sentencing-hearing/ar-BB1j8a9s?cvid=b446563ac18b492db677874c88f1c8df&ei=39 A tree cutter who smoked marijuana in a senator’s office during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol was sentenced to 3½ years in prison Thursday after his strategy of interrupting and challenging the sentencing judge seemed to blow up in his face. Fellows, from Upstate New York, chose to represent himself through most of his legal proceedings and was found in contempt at his trial after calling U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden a “modern-day Nazi” running a “kangaroo court.” “In all my years as a judge, and before that as a litigator, I have never seen such contemptuous conduct,” McFadden said at Thursday’s sentencing, recalling that Fellows also made “lewd comments” to his probation officer, “outlandish accusations” against prosecutors and heckling remarks to the jury as the verdicts were being read.

And they're all worked up about who was looped in on the August 2017 call. What was Joe Biden's official role in August 2017? Well, pretty much what Trump's role was on May 8, 2022, when Jared Kushner signed that $2 billion deal with the Saudi royal family: private citizen, not yet an announced candidate for President. The key here is, and always has been, whether Joe used his official position (VP) for profit or to further Hunter's "business." What evidence do they have for that?

I just told you. I was FOR the Congressional investigation before I was against it. When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?