Monte1076

Gil "ran for President", too: "A President with the conviction to nod. The courage to point. And the experience to cram buzzwords into everything I jobs." "Ideas, policies, morals. These are things I don't need." "And blah, blah, blah, something to get votes from women and minorities..." Gil's 5-step plan to make America better: 1. Appeal to Big Donors 2 Raise Money 3. "Trust Me". It'll be different this time 4. Get Elected 5. Break Promises to "repay" big donors And repeat.

A mix of Grandpa and Krampus!

The question, again, is "How do you fix it?" If the answer is "Vote them out", that's well and good, but sometimes you'll see them running unopposed. And if they get through a primary against someone who isn't compromised, that's your choice. The Democrat, or the compromised Republican. Just ask Gil Fulbright, or Phil Gulbright, or Bill Fulbright, or Philip Mamouf-Wifarts

I'm sure you've seen the "Rudolph" special that they show every year. Santa's depicted as a real jerk in that, actually. He makes fun of Rudolph and Rudolph's parents at one point, and he's a jerk to the elves. When Rudolph runs away, I don't know that he really cares all that much. Then he basically asks Rudolph to pull his sleigh, and I don't even think he apologizes. Wanna teach your kids something else interesting, from a cultural standpoint? Tell them about Belsnickel. He's like a dirty, disheveled Santa. He either gives you candy or whacks you with a stick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belsnickel

https://www.foxnews.com/media/gen-z-parents-refusing-teach-their-kids-about-santa-claim-traumatizing

https://babylonbee.com/news/anakin-skywalker-turns-back-from-the-dark-side-after-finding-jordan-peterson-on-youtube

https://babylonbee.com/news/starbucks-begins-promotion-offering-free-espresso-shot-if-you-correctly-guess-your-baristas-gender

https://babylonbee.com/news/experts-warn-that-if-you-stop-listening-to-them-theyll-feel-sad

I can't post one on here that I know...it would get me a temporary ban hammer, or at a very minimum I'd be asked to remove it. It's rather vulgar.

Where I live, there's about a $1.50 per gallon difference in the two.

Something about this makes me think about "Man from Nantucket" limericks.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/11/ex-twitter-safety-chief-admits-it-was-a-mistake-to-censor-hunter-biden-laptop-story/

Ok, I know you don't think it's relevant, but how about your opinions on the other examples I listed? Both at the beginning and end?

Wow. Chris Licht is really cleaning house there. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/layoffs-begin-at-cnn-amid-warner-bros-discovery-cost-cutting-plan-1235268850/

All of it. Fill me in. What's your take? "Beginning to end", as you said?

You make a lot of assumptions about how others see things, don't you? So, how DID you see things, then?

Beto's 0 for his last 3 now. President? Nope. Senator? Nope. Governor? Nope.

IF (and I'm emphasizing that word on purpose) he did, then absolutely. Personally, I think you should have to LIVE IN the district (Congress) or State (Senate) for which you are running as a Representative or Senator, but that's just me. I personally also don't think people outside of Congressional Districts should be able to donate to people in Congressional Districts, and I don't think people outside of states should be able to donate to candidates running for Senate in a different state. But that's just me. That might be unconstitutional, and you could sell me on that, but I don't know.

That's what Schumer said, and that's my broader point. I mean, he did say "no matter who you love", right? What if two siblings want to marry? Would that be allowed under this bill? What about cousins (although a surprisingly high number of states allow for cousin marriage, after a certain "level". First cousins I don't think can marry in most states, but second cousins can)? How about a nephew and an aunt, or an uncle and a niece, as long as they're both legal consenting adults? What if someone could marry in such a way that they were their own step-grandfather?

If you can find ONE post that I actually made where I actually advocated for that (or asked "why not?"), I'll admit I was wrong, which is something you seem incapable of. But let me ask you, Barry: Why is 2 the "magic number" for marriage? Why not more? I mean, didn't David have eight, at the same time?

You avoid obvious FACTs all the time. You just won't admit it. Here's a definition of "insurrection": "an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government." So here's the thing, Barry, and you as an educator ought to know this: There's a difference in an act and being charged with an act. Do you consider the protests against the COVID mask mandates, etc. to be "insurrection"? Based on the definition above? Were the people throwing Molotov cocktails at police during the "summer of love" and all the riots that were going on committing insurrection? Look at the definition and tell me. So yes, you could argue that there were many people there who committed insurrection. There were also many people there who didn't. And many were charged. The difference between you and I, Barry, is that I tend to look at things a little more cynically and skeptically. Do I get things wrong? Sure. I'm sure you do, too. I'm in the "let's let the legal system work" camp. Do you not believe in "letting the legal system work"? Here's a classic example of what I mean: Nick Sandmann. Or Kyle Rittenhouse. Or Derek Chauvin. You formed immediate opinions of the two of them, without looking into the facts of either case, based on media portrayal. "I don't like them" or "they look smug" or "they have a punchable face" is not a reason to find someone guilty of something, or accuse them of something they didn't do. Jussie Smollett fabricated a story. You, Democratic politicians, and the MSM ate it up. Why? It fit your belief system. The story didn't add up from the beginning, and most of us knew it. My stance on it was IF it happened (note the word IF there) it's a terrible thing and the perpetrators should be charged and we let due process run its course. I watched the Rittenhouse trial. I heard the same testimony that the jurors did. Same with the Chauvin case, I watched it while I was working. Though I don't think I would have convicted Chauvin of murder. I might have gone with a lesser charge, based on what I heard and the evidence presented. Rittenhouse was clearly self-defense to me. A jury thought so as well, even though there were reports of possible jury intimidation. But you believed things based on how you felt about the person, and what you heard about/read in the media. There are still people who believe Kyle Rittenhouse shot black men. He didn't. NONE of the people who were shot in that incident were black.

In what way? I'm pointing out the flaw in Schumer's statement. And I never said anything about humans marrying non humans, did I?