Do you have any solutions, Einstein?

It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to know what to do.

Support Kamala Harris & Tim Walz for President and Vice President.

And support the democratic ticket so we can hold the Senate and take the House so we can get something done. For a change.

Yup.

It's a Republican thing.

Like Reagan and the Iranian arms for hostages scandal.

They made a deal with Reagan that the hostages should not be released until after Reagan became president.

On January 20, 1981 the hostages were released minutes after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated.

"He didn't finish until after midnight EST."

Yup. Because of all the cheers and all outpouring of love for Joe.

"A perfect ending to his political career."

Yup. Leave while they still love you. And it's always best to leave the stage when you are at the top of your game.

And still a winner.

Enjoy your well earned break in Southern California Joe!

All that enthusiastic cheering kept me and Biden up way past our bedtimes!!

So much winning!

So much joy and excitement!

So much cheering in fact that now they have decided to start the show earlier today so they can try and stay in prime time.

Walz is wrong. We do have a broad guarantee of free speech under the U.S. Constitution, and that includes misinformation and hate speech. Walz probably missed the irony, but his misinformation on free expression is protected speech.

Actually DingDong is wrong (again). And apparently does not understand that constitutional amendments like free speech can be limited and already are.

The following examples in bold have all been adjudicated at one time or another by the Supreme Court.

The First Amendment protects the right to speak, write, and share ideas without government punishment. However, the government can limit speech in certain circumstances, including:

Incitement
Speech that is intended to incite people to break the law, such as committing violence, is not protected by the First Amendment. For example, speech to a mob urging it to attack a nearby building would be considered incitement.

Other categories of speech
The government can also restrict speech that includes defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats.

Public concern
The government can apply Pickering's balancing test to regulate speech that relates to a matter of public concern. This test balances the government's interests in efficiency, workplace harmony, and employee performance against the employee's First Amendment rights.

National security
The Supreme Court has recognized the government's interest in keeping some information secret, such as wartime troop deployments. However, the court has never upheld an injunction against speech on national security grounds, and the amount of speech that can be curtailed is very limited.

In addition, laws that limit speech must be content neutral, meaning they don't target a particular viewpoint or means of expression. If a law lacks content neutrality, it may violate other constitutional principles, such as the equal protection clause.

So Russia invading was a legitimate defense against NATO encroachment?

First. There is no "encroachment". No borders of Russia have been "*encroached" upon. In fact the exact opposite has occurred.

Second. Invading another country that has not threatened to attack you is not a "legitimate defense ". Especially since the attacking country actually had previously promised to defend the country that they are attacking from getting attacked.

*Example: Is Mexico "encroaching" on our border? Do you think that gives us the right to attack Mexico and steal their land to create a "buffer" zone ?

How so? Please explain why. Just briefly.

How is offense defense?

Take it up with George Washington and or Sun Tzu.

While I sometimes I do enjoy schooling you on history I am not actually your history teacher. In other words read a history book. Focus on the principles and strategies of war.

"You are part of the problem, not part of any solution."

That's an awful lot of whine.

Your incessant whining certainly is not solving any problems.

Would you like some gubmint cheese with all that whine?

"The Democrat primary system works as it always has."

Unlike republicants who finally got tired of democracy not working for them anymore and tried to overthrow it on Jan 6th 2021.

"Saving democracy by an anti-democratic primary in 2020 and 2024 followed by an anti-democratic coup."

Don't cry baby!

It was well within the rules of democracy. But a pootin puppy like yerself would not and could not understand that. And because you don't understand democracy (and it doesn't work for you) then you want to undermine and destroy it.

You maga maroons actually think that hugging a flag shows how "patriotic" you are.

It actually showed me what miserable scoundrels you are.

Re 108.

Indeed.

Also Democrats: Don't let the door hit your slow-moving ass as we kick you to the curb as quickly and ruthlessly as we can!!!!

#92 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Such a vindictive little trumper!

You and your evil maga party obviously still can't grasp the historical significance of a president that voluntarily stepped back from power (arguably the most powerful office in the world) not for his own good but for the good of the country.

Nope. That is just beyond your ability to comprehend. Who in their "right" mind would do such a thing?

George Washington and LBJ come immediately to my "left" mind.

Is that why Jeffy and Onenut are so pissed off? Too much love, not enough hate?

#103 | POSTED BY YAV

Jeffy and Nutty are pissed off because Trumpy is pissed off.

And Trumpy is pissed off because he will never get that rematch with Joe Biden he has been dreaming and scheming about for 4 years.

And Joe Biden will retire a winner.

Unlike Trumpy who will never get to retire because he will be in and out of courts for years trying to stay out of prison for his crimes against America. Even if Trumpy never goes to prison it still looks like he will get a life sentence of misery and hate and spending all his ill gotten gains trying to avoid prison.

It's a kick to Joe's sagging sack.

#33 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

And you wonder why we think ya'll are weird?

Fantasizing about Joe's sack is just plain weird.

"There are a number of caveats in the preliminary figure,"

Caveats? We don't need no stinking caveats!

501,000 is as good as a million I tells ya!

The Lincoln Project....Originally lead by a pedophile and comprised by grifters who prey upon useful idiots on the left.

#72 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

What what? Is the Lincoln Project kicking Trumpy's evil arse? Is it getting under his orange leather lizard skin?

Boo hoo. Don't cry baby.

Thank you Joe!!

Hillary can't stop them from chanting "lock him up!"

Nor stop grinning from the irony of it.

"Many arms transfers were by executive action using already allocated funds for other purposes."

And i still need a link. It's my understanding that reallocating funds that Congress has authorized for a particular purpose to another purpose is unconstitutional.

Many arms transfers were by executive action using already allocated funds for other purposes.

Try again.

#45 | POSTED BY EFFETEPOSER

I will need a better source for that than your butt.

Although the US Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, today a number of laws and arrangements have empowered the executive branch to make independent spending choices.

But they can only make spending choices according to what has been appropriated by Congress. The president cannot authorize new military funding in his own.

And Legally, the U.S. can't cut Israel off completely.

As usual it's more complicated than your rants imply.

"The US led by Biden and the Democrats is funding and facilitating the massacres."

It's actually illegal for the President to redirect money that Congress has appropriated for a particular purpose.

It's called "impoundment" and you can get impeached for that. (Remember?)

Now. Do you know who controls Congress right now?

Post 39

See post 8.

"Is aggressive war defense?"

The best defense is a good offense.

Once again if you knew anything about war you would know this.

The idiom is often attributed to George Washington, who wrote in 1799 that "offensive operations, often times, is the surest, if not the only (in some cases) means of defense". However, the original source of the quote is unknown. The Chinese military general, writer, and philosopher Sun Tzu also wrote about a similar idea in The Art of War, saying that "Attack is the secret of defense; defense is the planning of an attack".

Thank you for another opportunity to teach you some history.

Monstrous Crimes warrant Violent Outrage.

Anything less is just going along and getting along.

The behavior of SUBJECTS, not CITIZENS.

#36 | POSTED BY EFFETEPOSER

Great. Have fun protesting violently in Israel and or Gaza. That's where those "monstrous crimes" are being committed.

You could get an abortion at the DNC LyinYav.

#21 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

No HE can't.