The "recall" is being fixed by an OTA update. Not a big deal.

There are sufficient local budget surpluses to put this group of refugees in a high end boutique hotel, and feed them there, for a year. 4+ years at a modest hotel. Far more than enough time to establish a local community.

#14 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

But the budget isn't allocated for that purpose. Only in conservative states are the executives allowed to take whatever money they want (for example, money appropriated to ship unauthorized immigrants out of Florida) and use it however they want to (another hypothetical, using FL taxpayer money to lie to and ship authorized immigrants from TX to MA).

Now if they had TOLD MA they were doing this, then maybe MA could have properly allocated the money to take care of these people. But that would defeat the point (cruelty is the point... see the article about TX in it's contract banning bus contractors from talking to the governments of places they are shipping people to?).

I think the Ukrainians wish it more.

#5 | POSTED BY EFFETEPOSER

But we all know Putin doesn't care at all about the Ukrainians. He MIGHT actually care JUST A LITTLE BIT about Russians he is putting into harms way.

field-ape

#7 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

And the dehumanizing continues. Don't worry. These aren't PEOPLE. They are animals to be used and manipulated as conservatives please.

They don't have hopes, dreams, fears, aspirations like the rest of the people in this country. No, they are different than us. Just animals, and should be treated as such.

The SCOTUS is not about 'popular support. rather it is about determining whether or not a law or ruling is Constitutional - or not.

#10 | POSTED BY MSGT

You might want to look up the history of rulings on the second amendment then. Because the CONSTITUTION has those thirteen words at the beginning of that amendment, and historically the courts have said that those words actually there for a reason, until suddenly an activist conservative Supreme Court decided to change the meaning of that amendment by ignoring those words (saying that they actually DID NOT mean anything).

If you actually believed in what you said then you would support it consistently, regardless of whether it resulted in the outcome you want or not. But you don't. For you (and all other conservatives) "constitutional" is just a phrase of convenience to be used when it benefits you, and thrown out when it is not. Just like "small government", or "fiscal responsibility".

ETH is transitioning to proof of stake in less than 48 hours. It's a really big moment

#15 | POSTED BY GONOLES92

That is awesome.

I like the idea of Blockchain, but as an engineer a system that is based on being inefficient and costly to be effective (proof of work) just offends my sense of decency.

#3 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Apparently the video was too complex of a concept for you. He was not "blaming" conservatives for the country's failures. I will try to break it down so you can understand.

He was MOCKING conservatives for taking credit for HIS successes.

Why would conservatives be taking credit for these Democrat passed programs if they were not successes?

Fun tune...
#18 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Try this one from Ray Stevens...

They also support the killing of black babies (which is why abortion was created).
So there's that.

#7 | POSTED BY BOAZ

So white incels just oppose abortion because they care so much about black babies? And black women hate black babies, which is why they support abortion at a much higher rate than white men?

Also, can you please educate the rest of us about who "created" abortion, and their racist boba fides? Because I know that Benjamin Franklin had a whole section on abortion in his book, but that was just pulled from other sources. So abortion was "created" WAY before this country was.

Should we look at each point?

#13 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Please... do. Let's start at number one. Did Trump win the election?

If not, why do conservatives keep claiming he did, or keep supporting him when he claims he did?

Hillary on line one..

#11 | POSTED BY BOAZ

What Hillary did was not illegal. So conservatives PASSED A LAW to MAKE IT illegal (but laws are not retroactive). Now Trump has done significantly worse than what Hillary did. And you conservatives are sitting there claiming that he should not be prosecuted?

Why did you pass a law saying this was illegal if you did not intend to prosecute people for it?

Oh... I know. It is not that you don't intend to prosecute people for it. It is just that you ONLY intend to prosecute liberals.

Because apparently in this banana republic that we live in, laws only apply to minorites and liberals... it is understood that they do not apply to white conservatives (and, if it even LOOKS like they will be, those same white conservatives threaten riots and violence).

No problem letting the prosecution review and determine which documents they consider attorney client privileged. Tell us Joe's DOJ is Fascist without telling us Joe's DOJ Fascist.

#11 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Trump dithered until it was too late. All the documents have been reviewed. If he had not been a conservative (ie incompetent) he would have filed for an emergency injunction immediately.

So, given that (that due to the incompetence of the leader of the conservative party all documents have already been viewed), what is your problem? What is the point of the "special master"? The prosecution has a vested interest in making sure the prosecutors don't see any documents that could taint their case. They will be much more effective than any (demonstrably) incompetent conservative would be.

Anybody hear of a clever set of inventions known as birth control?

#21 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You mean the medical care that the Supreme Court ruled could not be required to be covered by health insurance?

Yeah, I have heard of it. And it is a bit hypocritical for a conservative to claim it as a solution when the same conservatives have been in favor of reducing access to it.

Twoothy thinks he knows but I suspect he doesn't actually have any.
#68 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Doesn't matter whether he has any. Especially if his statement is accurate. Like I pointed out... just an ad hominem.

Thought I would go ahead and knock down your ad hominem.

How many kids do you have?

#62 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I have three. A fourth on the way. Raising children is hard and expensive.

Ubber left/Progressive women are "angry". Everyone else is fine.
Fixed that for you.

#1 | POSTED BY BOAZ

"Republican state Rep. Neal Collins told South Carolina's House Judiciary Committee that he would not be voting on a ban that only has exceptions for saving the life of the mother. The bill provides no provisions for victims of rape or incest.

Collins revealed that he had sleepless nights after learning that doctors refused to extract the fetus from a 19-year-old woman whose water broke at 15 weeks of pregnancy."

Lol... I made myself laugh. Thinking a conservative might actually have integrity.

Of course it's undo cuts to spend money. Do nothing about outstandi g govt debt. I am sure it will just be forgiven anyways.

#11 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Oh yeah... There is a liberal in office now so conservatives suddenly think the debt and deficit matter again.

Btw... How much did the debt go down under the last "conservative" administration (that is sarcasm, I know it went up but am still hoping you have the integrity to actually answer)? I will even let you not count during covid.

Hypocrites.

That would be too bad. Dominion deserves its day in court and the public needs to see those three magots squirm.

#6 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

I think Dominion values clearing its name over the money. I think this won't end up under an NDA.

For our sake I hope that this representative had a true epiphany, and many others will experience the same.

#14 | POSTED BY MEMYSELFINI

"At that point, the committee chair cut off Collins and asked for a vote on the bill, which the committee approved."

So... Nope.

Change that to Hillary and you will see....

#6 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Hillary did not break any laws. Which is why Trump and Republicans passed a law making what Hillary did illegal.

Then Trump violated that law. If you think what Hillary did was wrong, and she should have been prosecuted (when it wasn't illegal), why do you now feel that Trump should not be prosecuted when it now is illegal and he did the same thing (though actually a lot worse)?

Apparently as a conservative you believe that laws should only apply to other people, not your "tribe".

Joe knows a guy that can provide the same service for only ten times that amount or assign it to be done internally for 20 times.

#7 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

I am sure he does. Stealing and lying are easy. That is why conservatives excel at it. Being honest and creating value are much harder.

I am sure Joe "knows a guy", but we are not using that guy, are we. And Joe has not proposed we use that guy. Instead we are being stolen from and lied to by conservatives.

I know it will be a hard concept for you to grasp, but liberals are not honest just because we don't have the opportunity to be dishonest. Conservatives cannot imagine passing over an opportunity to screw someone over for personal gain. But liberals are honest because we choose to be. Not because we are not smart enough to steal. It is the other way around. Stupid people steal, because they are not intelligent enough to come up with ways of making the money honestly. For liberals, we are smart enough to make money honestly, so there is no need to risk jail or embarrassment by stealing.

So, this is obviously illegal and he needs to be prosecuted, right?

Because that is what conservatives kept saying about Baldwin's situation.

How is this any different (other than the fact that this guy was lucky enough not to kill his kid)?

I know the difference... Baldwin is a liberal and this guy sounds like a conservative. And conservatives are above the law, while liberals are supposed to be prosecuted under laws that don't exist.

I would tend to agree it should be repealed. But it seems to me it should have been repealed (or updated) YEARS ago. Why does Rand only care about it now that Trump is threatened by it.

And, the reasons it should be repealed are unrelated to what is happening with Trump. From the reporting, he stole highly classified materials and refused to give them back. This seems to be where the espionage act is actually being used correctly.