They are taking actions to minimize civilian loss of life in an active warzone.

#44 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

In what world are they doing this?

And you're exposing yourself as someone who feels that Israel shouldn't military engage HAMAS if the result is dead civilians.
I can tell you with absolutely certainty that, had the west taken that approach with ISIS, The Islamic State would now be far larger and far more powerful that it was even at it's strongest.

#38 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

There is a fundamental difference between ignoring civilian casualties and attempting to minimize them. Hint: You are still required to minimize civilian loss of life.

No one is defending Hamas using human shields. But saying Israel can ignore civilian casualties because Hamas is using human shields is a clear violation of international law. This is Protocol I of the Geneva Convention.

JPW is legally and morally correct: Saying "meh, Hamas" put them there so it's not our problem is not a legally or morally defensible position.

And the argument that Israel has to ignore entirely civilian casualties to defeat Hamas is ridiculous.

I remember when the Dems subpeonaed Bannon and Bannon said ok but as long as it's televised. What did the Dems tell him? Something to the tune of go f yourself.

#17 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

For Reference: Bannon agreed to testify if it was televised only DAYS before his criminal trial for refusing to testify and provide documents.

I remember when the Dems subpeonaed Bannon and Bannon said ok but as long as it's televised. What did the Dems tell him? Something to the tune of go f yourself.

#17 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Didn't take long for that to be proven a lie, did it?

Two Republican Presidents led us into massive recessions and did little to protect workers while shoring up the rich and corporate America.

What did they expect to happen?

Every single time...Hypocrites and worse.

Makes you wonder what the transphobes on this site have in their past...or present...

Republicans are proud to have him. Remember, he is a criminal. The Texas leg decided to protect him after admitting he was guilty as hell.

GOP: Party of Everything including your life.

"Republicans aren't even sure what border changes they want.
This is all about helping Putin. Republicans are traitors and should be treated as such.
#13 | Posted by Sycophant"
u r delusional.
btw they want the border secured and have always clearly stated such.
I agree with them, so its not just republicans.
you will agree as well but only after its too effing late

#20 | POSTED BY PASTMYPRIME

And they have no idea HOW they want to secure the border.

6 months ago they were talking about reducing funding for Border Control.

"After it's too late". Ha. According to our jobs reporters, we need these immigrants.

But if you really want to stop illegal immigration, why do Republicans REFUSE to go after companies that hire them? You know why. They don't REALLY want to stop illegal immigration. It's a political talking point rubes like you fall for.

Good old Republicans actually want the mother to die.

It will never pass. Pro-Wall Street Democrats and ALL Republicans will block it.

Sorry guys, he asked God for forgiveness. No jail time for him!

Feral and Trumper are the same thing.

Better question: Does it even matter?

I don't remember Roger Stone ever being criminally charged for the same tax evasion crimes... Odd that...

Of course it isn't. Joe has been anything but progressive and let Republicans push him around.

Democrats need a new candidate.

Republicans aren't even sure what border changes they want.

This is all about helping Putin. Republicans are traitors and should be treated as such.

Almost every state (41) has a budget shortfall this year.

1 raise stink about minor rule
2 be black
3 profit
so when they gonna sue?

#2 | POSTED BY PASTMYPRIME

Texas literally passed a law banning this.

Thats absurd. That was chosen just months into his presidency.
#18 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER
#20. Correct. The winner is chosen months before the announcement.
#21 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER
Wrong as usual.
Nominations didn't end until Feb. 1, 2009, 11 days after Obama took office.
The decision was by vote was October 5, 2009 and announced October 9, 2009.

#22 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Jeff: "[Some ridiculous lie easily disproven with 5 seconds on Google]"
Anyone: "[Factual Correction]"
Jeff: *Runs away to lie again another day*

He's still there because the GOP wants to protect its groomers.

And with another GOP Rep leaving next quarter, they will be down to a 2 seat majority.

#10 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Correction: It will be a 1 seat majority.

At Walmart.
#23 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2023-12-06 09:19 PM | FLAG:
That's big city, college town ----. We're talking rural here. We have to build lots next to the Dollar General, so somebody on a farm can drive 20 miles to charge the EV instead of charging it at their house.

#25 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Never been to Rural America have you? Often a larger rural of town of 5,000-10,000 people with have the Walmart that serves all the surrounding communities.

Capitalism installs EV stations where they would be profitable.
Government installs them where they would be needed.
#7 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2023-12-06 10:09 AM | FLAG:
Capitalism installs them where they are needed, that's why it's profitable.
#9 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

That's a pretty stupid position to take. Need doesn't correlate to profitability.

A charger may not be used enough to be profitable but still be needed.

A charger may be profitable and needed but not profitable enough to convince anyone to install it without the funding.

If profitability were all that mattered, we would get rid of most utilities to rural communities.

"To shreds, you say."
-Professor Farnsworth

Not sure if you all are understanding how big of an -- this is to the GOP.

With Santos gone, their majority was cut down. This cuts it down one --rther.

And with another GOP Rep leaving next quarter, they will be down to a 2 seat majority.