It comes down to party and that's it.

No matter the heights of hypocrisy you have to climb to get there

#116 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

I'm sorry, was this a thread on Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett?

#14 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That's a lot of what I experienced moving back 'home' a decade ago from southern AZ. It's nice to be out of the desert, have some water to play on, and be near family. The stifling religious supremacy, the overwhelming Tea Party/Trump Republicans, the intolerance for pretty much anyone not white and Christian, almost makes me miss mesquite, cactus, and rattlesnakes.

#3 | POSTED BY SKEPTICAL

In your post about empty-headed bartenders, it appears you misspelled "Lauren Boebert."

#116 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

I'm not a Democrat. I'm not liberal. I am relieved to know we had some adults in the room reaffirming the nuclear safeguards already in place, and keeping other countries reassured those safeguards remained in place. From what I read of Milley did, nothing was outside of the authority he already had.

"According to a 2005 Washington Post article, the president is always accompanied by a military aide carrying a "football" with launch codes for nuclear weapons.

If the president (who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces) decides to order the use of nuclear weapons, they would be taken aside by the "carrier" and the briefcase would be opened. A command signal, or "watch" alert, would then be issued to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The president would then review the attack options with the secretary of defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and decide on a plan, which could range from a single cruise missile to multiple ICBM launches.

It is argued that the president has almost sole authority to initiate a nuclear attack because the Secretary of Defense is required to verify the order, but cannot veto it.[9][10][11] However, the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief is not unlimited and US law dictates that the attack must be lawful and that military officers are required to refuse to execute unlawful orders, such as those that violate the Laws of Armed Conflict."

#27 | POSTED BY MODER8

I'll chime in an irreligious AMEN

#32 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

If we can get to 75% or more vaccinated with a 93% effective vaccine, I think we'd be in a pretty good place. We've got about 55% fully vaccinated, 64% with at least one dose.
60% are in favor of a vaccine mandate. How do we get it done?

Like most bullies they're cowards at heart. They'll only attack if they have 20-1 numerical advantage, perceived anonymity, the element of surprise (or unpreparedness), and believe there'll be no accountability for their actions. 8 months later it's probably a different story. We'll find out in a few days.

The only tragic part is they're also killing people who didn't sign up for their stupid death cult.

#28 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That is the crux of the matter. Their willful ignorance, stubbornness, intransigence, and selfishness hurts others. An anti-vaxxer catching COVID and taking up an ER bed takes space away from, say, a kid with a burst appendix. Just mind-numbingly stupidly unnecessary.

#19 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

Thanks for more evidence that the GOP is doing things right and trying to make sure the government stays out of removing freedoms and allowing a free society to determine the right actions to take.

Which freedoms are you talking about?

America is a nation founded on certain principles

Which principles are you talking about?

"According to a 2005 Washington Post article, the president is always accompanied by a military aide carrying a "football" with launch codes for nuclear weapons.

If the president (who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces) decides to order the use of nuclear weapons, they would be taken aside by the "carrier" and the briefcase would be opened. A command signal, or "watch" alert, would then be issued to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The president would then review the attack options with the secretary of defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and decide on a plan, which could range from a single cruise missile to multiple ICBM launches.

It is argued that the president has almost sole authority to initiate a nuclear attack because the Secretary of Defense is required to verify the order, but cannot veto it.[9][10][11] However, the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief is not unlimited and US law dictates that the attack must be lawful and that military officers are required to refuse to execute unlawful orders, such as those that violate the Laws of Armed Conflict."

I'm betting this will be a small turnout. Despite the rwing media howling and Team Trump political theatre, I don't think a lot of people truly support the Jan 6 coup attempt.

But it's smart to be prepared.

In my LE career it was a running joke that FBI stood for Famous But Incompetent. Most of the time when we had to get the FBI involved, they just deferred to local jurisdictions anyway. Sometimes the local jurisdiction would not take the case, and it stayed with the FBI. Only one FBI agent ever impressed me that he have a damn about the actual case or people involved.

This case stymies me, as to why the FBI wouldn't have immediately reached out to a local jurisdiction. Not only is it more appropriate for a potential sexual assault charge, local jurisdictions will have investigators trained in child sexual assault cases, as well as other resources to help and support the victims.

This failure by the FBI agent does seem to constitute nonfeasance, possibly at a criminal level.

#19 | POSTED BY MORRIS

Sure wish he were still with us. When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops is next on my reading list.

AND they should lose their Tax Exempt Status...

#13 | POSTED BY EARTHMUSE

Yes. As soon as they step out of their churches and start meddling with the legal and political systems to force their beliefs onto others, they are no longer charitable organizations.

#101 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I've been trying to decide if it's worth my time to craft a response. I'm leaning toward this newest one being too willfully stupid for it to matter. Or it's just trolling.

38,680 died from car accidents in all of the US in 2020.
600,000 cancer deaths.

38,000 traffic fatalities is certainly a significant number. As are the additional 2.2 million injured in traffic crashes yearly. Most, if not all, crashes are avoidable. Communities, states, and the federal government have had a hard push on traffic safety for over 30 years. Deaths per million miles travelled are decreasing, indicating mitigation efforts are successful.

600,000 cancer deaths is an even bigger number. Decades of government funded and privately funded cancer research and we're still trying to figure that monster out. Through better prevention, treatment, and care, cancer mortality rate is decreasing, 31% since 1991.

COVID deaths as of today are at 665,000. Climbing at 2,600+ per day. Rapidly approaching last winter's peak of daily deaths. One little thing has been proven very effective at preventing its transmission and reducing its severity if transmitted. Actually 2 little things 30 days apart. Of these 3 forms of death, one could reasonably be drastically reduced by the end of the year. If folk would quit bitching about their rights and get the shots.

Those that are already dying of something else.

We're all dying of something. From the moment we take our first breath we're headed toward the grave. What's your point? ---- the elderly? Will you feel the same way in 20 years?

Is this a good time to celebrate the passing of Rush again?
#12 | POSTED BY CHUFFY

Yes! Drink!

#4 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Or get a law firm to litigate it and not pay them. Not that I feel sorry for anyone who still does business with him.

#25 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

OK, my apologies for missing your tone and intent. Part of the difficulty of communicating via written word alone. The 2 paragraphs weren't aimed at you, those were addressing the comments upthread spouting the anti-vax myths and excuses.

#22 | POSTED BY VISITER

You have a really good point about obesity. It kills about 300,000 per year. Link below. Difference between obesity and COVID, your obesity won't kill anyone else unless you sit on them, but your refusal to vaccinate could very well spread a disease which could kill another person. Also, as you recall, President Obama and first Lady Michelle both tried to institute programs to combat obesity, to be met with shrill ridicule. Thanks for posting.

AKA Freddie's last laugh

Vaccine mandate. Say it out loud.

#19 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

OK, "Vaccine Mandate". I said it out loud. I'm OK with it.

To the argument about the vaccine not completely immunizing you, none do. Smallpox vaccine is 95%, Polio 90-99 depending how many doses are given, MMR is 93%, Hep B 98%. But when everyone is vaccinated, the risk of transmission drops to a number smaller than 1 in 1 billion.

And so far as side effects of the vaccine, other than some serious issues with the initial rollout of the J&J vaccine, there are none. OK, you might be achy and feel ------ for a day or two. We're up to 662K dead and counting. Please stop perpetuating the myths and excuses for anti-vaxxers.

C'mon! Am I the only one to think about delicious a wooly mammoth ribeye would be?

#8 | POSTED BY JPW

No, you're not. My first thought was wondering what it would be like to hunt one.

And I agree with SPEAKSOFTLY. Before we grow woolly mammoths, how about growing some of our hair back first?