I said that it's structure is unconstitutional - it is not accountable to Congress or the Executive. If it were accountable to one or the other I wouldn't argue that it's unconstitutional.

Sometimes we all need to work through the process to try and better understand each other. Your last post clarified everything for me and I now understand what you were originally trying to convey.

When I reread the headline I read it correctly.

I had temporary dyslexia with the headline. 8 thought it said, "delta wing plane" and I was thinking the only civilian aircraft with a delta wing, the Concorde, was removed from service many years ago, so was this a military aircraft?

She's great ... ... for the Republican Party.

Yav,

I can't say this on the applicable thread because comments are closed on that thread.

Just want to thank you for your last post on that thread (we were discussing the border). It was well articulated and polite.

Zed was stating that removing regulations is an illegal act. It's no more illegal than when these agencies create new regulations.

And quit being so pedantic. You know what I meant - regulations are written all of the time without consulting Congress. Does that verbiage satisfy you?

" Faux-Jeffy STILL talking about Biden?

That's Entertainment!
#23 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2025-03-18 05:00 PM | FLAG: "

Well, the thread is about Biden.

" | POSTED BY ZED AT 2025-03-18 04:57 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

I didn't say the use of auto pen makes Biden incompetent. His age couple with the deterioration of his brain did that.

"Not when Congress does it."

Are you aware that new regulations are written all of the time without any input from Congress?

Zed,

Are you saying ending some regulations is an illegal activity?

" ----- nation filled with policies of hate"

My turn to clarify - this is specifically what I responded to. I took it to mean that you feel securing our border is a policy of hate.

I would seriously like to know who was in charge of the Executive branch over the last 4 years. It clearly wasn't Biden.

" Guess I can't really blame the Dems too much for it since the GOP tanked the border bill on Trump's orders in order to hurt the Dems. And American voters fell for it.

#10 | POSTED BY CENSORED AT 2025-03-17 11:49 AM | FLAG: "

We went from all-time record high numbers of illegal crossings under Biden.

With the absence of that border bill we are near or at all-time record low for illegal border crossings. Again, this is being achieved without that horrible bill (which would have been DOA in the House)

Is this going to be another Epstein fake?

I love the assumption that each and every regulation on the books is great.

Do you know why all of the boulevards in Paris are lined with trees?

So the Germans can march in the shade.

" Except what we're doing isn't brokering a truce. We're divvying up spoils from an invaded country.

#25 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2025-03-18 12:28 AM | FLAG: "

Don't be naive. Historically, that is what a truce amounts to. The reason Ukraine might agree is that if material support is withdrawn the outcome for their country will likely be much worse.

" Tens of billions for utterly destroying the second biggest military threat (compared to the ~$900 billion we spend for our military every single year)? Without risking a single American life? I think your math is not the same as mine"

That's not what's happening. Tens of billions annually while Ukraine continues to tread water, at best. All the while China expands their military without expending their assets.

" And "peace in our time" appeasement is short-sighted. But I'm not bending over backwards trying to make excuses for my draft-dodging, russophile, putin-sucking, money-grubbing president.

#18 | POSTED BY CENSORED AT 2025-03-17 11:54 PM | FLAG: "

Was that really necessary? I thought we were having an honest, good-faith discussion.

" That's for the people of Ukraine to decide. Since they were the ones that had their people murdered and their land stolen from them."

Okay

"We shouldn't be giving up their land for them and handing out their natural resources to their invader."

If it's for Ukraine to decide then let them decide.

I broke up your two sentences for a reason. On the one hand you say they should be the ones to determine their fate.

In the other hand you say the US shouldn't have any say in outcome.

The only way to square that logic is for the US to completely pull out of this conflict. If we are going to spend tens of billions annually funding Ukraine's defense then we absolutely will play a role in hopefully brokering a truce.

" I've got the time. Let Russia suffer out in the cold for fifty years and see if it was worth it"

This isn't the Cold War. We are not fighting Communism as it pertains to Russia. The geopolitical situation is considerably different than it was during the 80's. Today, China is our biggest geopolitical threat. Circling back, what is the end-game? Do we continue to deplete our military assets and increase our deficits to the tune of 10's of billions per year to fight a proxy war with Russia with all of the blood and treasure sacrifice that goes with it? We have 3 choices: De-escalate (seek a truce), status quo forever (not working). Escalate.

As I see it. Status quo is insane. So, de-escalation should be pursued as aggressively as possible before the only other option of escalation, which could trigger a 3rd World War in a little over a century.

" What I said stands on its own and needs no clarification"

When I responded to what I understood you to say you accused me of falsely assigning a position to you. That's why I asked for clarification. I wasn't being passive aggressive. I wasn't going for a gotcha. I am simply trying to understand your argument. So I politely asked you to clarify. Throughout all of that you've been a dick. Fine. That's your prerogative. I'll file this away and will react and respond accordingly to you going forward.

" A whole lot of people need to be thrown in jail for contempt over this.
No fines. No warnings. No stark words.
Arrested and thrown in prison.
Now.

#19 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2025-03-17 10:41 PM | FLAG: "

When Biden bragged about defying SCOTUS (in this case we are talking about a single federal judge with an ideological axe to grind, not SCOTUS) over student loan forgiveness, you all cheered it on.

In this case the flight reversal directive occurred when the planes were over international waters. Now, at least temporarily, any future flights need to be stayed that are applicable until this can work its way through the courts. I thought it was a mistake to invoke the 200 year old law (which requires a congressional declaration of war to be enacted) when the statutory authority to do this is already there. Unforced error by this administration.

" You'd be surprised what could change with a revolution or two (See USSR)"

That took about 5 decades, a far more existential threat and for more land than an island.

I don't know if a truce is possible but I do believe it should be first priority given the status quo is the classic definition of insanity.

" Formal recognition"

Okay. I get what you are saying. However from a practical standpoint, with or without formal recognition Russia still occupies Crimea and no military on the planet is going to take action to reverse that.

How can Russia be "given" a piece of land that it has possessed since 2014?