I wonder what Xi thought of piggy showing him the picture of the auto pen he put up for Biden

America has a case of explosive diarrhea during the middle of sunday mass for a president

How does taking additional measures to prev it fraudulent voting automatically translate to disenfranchisement?

#28 | Posted by BellRinger

Because there are eligible voters who will not be able to meet the new requirements.

Take something as simple as a birth certificate.

I had to get a passport a few years back

I didn't have a birth certificate

I had to take time off work, travel several states over, present myself to the local clerk to get one

There are MANY people unable to do that simple task, age, distance, money, overseas..that simply won't be able to do that

I knew where I was born, which hospital, had some documents from my birth to prove my identity

There are many people who can't clear that simple hurdle

They might not know their birth parents, or the hospital they were born in or weren't even born in a hospital

Literally millions of people don't have birth certificates

To require one is to disengranchise a LOT of people

what measures could you take that wouldn't disenfranchise voters?

It is a simple irrefutable fact that you add conditions you add hurdles. those hurdles cause voters not to vote

Danforth,
What is your threshold whereby the number of non citizens voting becomes unacceptable to you ?
Also, why do you assume that all illegal votes end up being discovered especially on states where those in power don't want illegal votes to be discovered?
#10 | Posted by BellRinger

What solution do you propose that wouldn't disenfranchise far more voters?

Which is a bigger problem for democracy the limited (very limited) voter fraud or massive voter suppression?

Remember when the Fox News idiots lost their collective minds over Obama slightly bowing his head in reso?

I do

Someone needs to put up a big ass billboard where ever Piggy goes that says

"Yo, Piggy, no matter what you do your legacy will be humiliation. Every tacky gold decoration, every monument, every renamed American historical monument, every ballroom or arch will be torn down and sowed with salt the minute your ---- filled diaper covered ass leaves office

Your legacy will be the 2 (or more) impeachments, the insurrection, the felony convictions, the rape affirmed by jury, a nation that despises you.

Now ---- off and die"

What is piggy going to do about the 28 US bases destroyed in the middle east?

So if it really could have been done from the start, why wasn't it?
I think it took a real leader willing to push for it and get it done.

#4 | Posted by BillJohnson

Is it really needed though?

Anything the Iran war has taught us, or should have taught us, is that the nature of war has radically changed.

What good are bases in Greenland against this new warfare?

But keep building those billion dollar patriot and thaad missiles that are useless.

If piggy wants to protect our northern border, how come he isn't doing anything about Russia?

Only Piggy would brag about getting something he could have had without resorting to threats.

An agreement at the barrel of a gun is no agreement

When the president and the justices of the Supreme Court are corrupt and taking bribes and the SC finds the president is above the law, what is the ------- point

An organization with rampant pedophile sex scandals hidden by it's leaders preaching about responsiblity
Too

FARKING
FUNNY

All the more reason to not develop fiscal policy based on the interpretation of a bronze era philosopher.

I mean it is undeniable that he would not have understood stuff like mental health, generational poverty, food insecurity, lack of educational opportunities, addiction, and a whole host of other things that go into "would not"

But I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Piggy is the logical and inevitable endpoint for conservative philosophy.

that isn't even doubtful or controversial.

If your philosophy is the lifting up of the individual in a capitalist society and believes greed is good, the inevitable end point is a greedy, corrupt fascist.

Truth,
I see I shouldn't expect much introspection from you.
I'm simply interested in seeing whether anyone here is willing to examine what their own side may have contributed to the problems we're discussing.

#79 | Posted by BillJohnson a

Again, not my job and again, I do not believe that left wing policies or liberal philosophy holds a candle to the utter devastation wrought by regressives and conservatives

If you can provide a coherent argument, feel free, that ain't my job

I will allow the Dems have failed utterly at combating fox news propaganda for the past 35 years which has caused much of the destruction in faith in institutions.

I blame Obama for not seating a justice in the face of McConnell's theft

I blame dems for not being dovish enough for the past 30 years

I blame the dems for not having a backbone and confronting Piggy for the past 10 years, esp. Garland utterly failing his duty

I blame dems for not finding a story that protects trans people and throws them under the bus

I blame dems for too often siding with regressive conservative policies

But if you haven't noticed the problem dems have is that they are not strong enough, have become too complacent, have failed to keep up with the conservative movement. I don't blame that failure on the essential beliefs of the left, I blame it on cowardice and lack of imagination

I've said it before I'll say it again, the best parts of America are the result of liberal values, from the Declaration of Independence, to freeing the slaves, to universal suffrage to defeating fascism, to civil rights to the social safety net.

Every time they have been confronted by and overcome the conservatives

Same with Obama's

CSAMRUNT's child-raping hero is responsible for 30% of the national debt.

#78 | Posted by Reinheitsgebot

in 6 years and a lot of Biden's debt was from fixing the mess Piggy left him

The problem is that this is a heavily left-leaning site, and getting people to examine their own side's faults with the same honesty they demand from the other side seems to be in short supply.
Ideally, I'd like to see an honest critique from someone on the left examining what their own side has contributed, rather than just another conservative criticizing liberals.

#73 | Posted by BillJohnson

Its not my job to make your argument for you.

If you think the left is as much at fault as the right, provide examples, dissect liberal philosophy for the inherent problems it has.

And no "permissiveness" is not an answer.

"Permissiveness" is a nearly useless point.

Women's liberation can be considered part of "permissiveness" but I view that as one of the greatest things that have happened in the past 100 years

Drugs are not a result of "permissiveness". Drugs are a response to the human condition and have been around since the dawn of time.

Your argument holds no water

Dart likely blew an ACL and out for the season.
Being a Giants fan sucks.

#66 | Posted by truthhurts

Nabers now out with shoulder injury

But if we're ever going to understand why, don't we have to be willing to look at all the forces that got us here instead of assigning virtually all the blame to the side we already oppose?

Because EVERYTHING Piggy
Because McConnell stealing a SC pick
Because McConnell refusing to govern with a Dem president
Because Dubya and his war on Iraq, his tax cuts
Because of Newt Gingrich and his contract on America refusing to govern
Because Republican global climate change doctrine for the past 40 years
Because Republicans decade long attempt to keep healthcare from people with the ACA
Because Reagen ruining everything.
Because Rush Limbaugh and Fox poisoning our discourse
Because conservative SC saying corporations are people and money is speech and the president is above the law

NOTHING liberal policies compare to the destruction wrought on this country by conservatives and their nihilism.

There is nothing wrong or harmful in seeking goals of acceptance of all people, rational and reasonable regulation of capitalism, of seeking to help the citizens of this country afford healthcare.

I have asked countless times what policies republicans have advocated or passed that help the poor and middle classes of our country

I can name a bunch of democratic policies-universal healthcare, CHIPS act, minimum wage, infrastructure, medicaid, medicare, clean energy investments, medicare being able to negotiate drug prices,

What have the republicans done?
Cut taxes for the rich, gave 10s of billions of dollars to ICE, started wars, gave Piggy unlimited power, refused to check Piggy, ummm cut taxes for the rich.

Yeah thats about it

No Bill left and right are not the same

Dart likely blew an ACL and out for the season.

Being a Giants fan sucks.

Freaking Giants season is over

And some people openly challenged traditional social values precisely because they associated those values with Christianity and traditional religion. In rejecting the religious foundation, they were also willing to discard social standards that had helped hold communities together for generations.

#61 | Posted by BillJohnson a

If that were true, which I do not grant.
Why?
Why did people challenge the values associated with Christianity?

Could it be because a more educated populace see the inherent inconsistencies, the inherent injustice, the inherent evil of christianity?

Couldn't be that Christianity's' values weren't worthy of accepting?

I was referring to the rose colored views of the "social values, social expectations or "social contracts," as they say, and standards of conduct were healthier or more moral in the past"

There is very little to compare between this glorious past and today.

Was the social contract better when blacks were being lynched? Or women regularly beaten by their husbands? or Jews excluded from society? Or uptight repressive -------- controlling what entertainment we could view? Or when politicians were lying us into wars?

The world is a vastly different place today. The number of people on the planet, the interconnectivity of societies and cultures, the higher education of people, far longer life expectancies, these are just a few of the changes that disrupt any comparison.

Take drugs, you think there wasn't a permissive use of drugs before the 60s? Well you'd be wrong, its just the drugs were alcohol, cigarettes and reds for the little woman at home.

You think there wasn't concentrated poverty? LOL

These alleged traditional social values were only permissible because the country had a massive economic advantage and far fewer human beings to accommodate

You actually have things ass backward. the "traditional" values were not the underpinning of society. The traditional values were permissible because we had the wealth to allow for some people to have a nuclear family.

Do you think things are going to get better if fewer people are willing to get jobs, work and support themselves?

Who are these welfare queens unwilling to work?

You're a bigoted idiot

"Permissiveness is destroying us."

LOL
Literally LOL

You're an idiot