Leaderboard

No one I know was afraid for themselves. We were afraid we would get it and pass it on to vulnerable family members. We were concerned about the hospitals that were overflowing with the ones among us who were the unlucky. We wanted everyone to do everything possible to bring the event to a quicker end. To me and those I know it was about doing the right thing for others. My wife was drafted as a nurse into working ICU and watched as many patients died. Fortunately most lived due to the extreme measure that artificial ventilation is. Not once did she complain about having to switch from her regular job in outpatient cataract surgery to 12 hour overnight weekend shifts in an environment she never trained for but was needed. The healthcare system is still not fully recovered from this event. People did not get hysterical, they got on and did what was needed to be done. Except for a subset of self entitled complainers who got hysterical when they were asked to make the sacrifice of wearing a mask and helping to protect the vulnerable. I have not forgotten and will likely never forget who refused to help and only complained about the inconvenience.

So....you accept that the USA can not afford to pay down what it owes except by nibbling at the federal civil service? Most nations have both higher income taxes and some form of VAT. Like you most western democracies are also running deficits. Unlike you they are not led by ineffective showmen bent on performance art. It is interesting that you list war as an income opportunity. Your last set of middle east adventures is a large reason for the debt you have accumulated so I'm not sure where your head is at on that. Your nation is so controlled by people who don't want to pay their share that they squeeze the taxation collection agency so hard that it can not do audits.

Since they are not DNC takes, I find no useful information in your post. I am not a democrat and have not been for decades, nor do I agree with many of their policies. Now, of course, they are the best alternative to a rapist and a felon trying to destroy the US government - but that's a lesser-of-two-evils thing.

What you are scared of is your own issue to deal with, not everyone else's. If you are scared to drive when you aren't drunk (cause let's face it there are some idiots on the road) then you should lose your license - even if you are a truck driver and that's your livelihood. It is not that everyone dislikes you, or the libtards are discriminating against you, or that they hate you because you are a brave independent thinker. It is that you pose a danger to other people due to your fears.

The something that needs to be done is simple.Raise taxes to pay for the things you want and voted for. DOGE is theatre and nothing else. Both the left and the right want the same thing. Someone else to pay for the cake they are eating.

And how are you going to spin it when we inevitably get the Vault drop where all the witnesses say it's not him? You'll be Dan Gryder at that point.

Not trying to be deliberately obtuse, I assure you. I'm just not seeing any similarities aside from the hairline.

Recently chatting with a few Veteran buddies and their thoughts on the oath we took when we entered the service and some feel they are committed to honoring their oath of defending the country. Some Vets very well may be struggling with the deep commitment they feel to that oath and how it might be needed in the future. Times I never expected to consider living in America.

I would hope that sexual slavery, rape and murder would offend most people, not just those with Christian sensibilities.

Hi folks, It will be interesting to see how the non-MAGA Republicans react to this: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law” Donald Trump Admits He Thinks He Can Break Any Law He Wants Now, where have I heard that before: "...but when the President does it, that means it is not illegal..." Nixon says, "...but when the President does it, that means it is not illegal..." Jerry Baumchen

Hi Keith, Re: Only because you have not been in the muck to see the atrocities that man can do - to women. I've never a black person lynched. That does not mean that I cannot stand against it. There is lot more to the world than what you or I have seen. Jerry Baumchen

First off I agree with you that the US has a responsibility to promote basic human rights in other countries. How you define "promote" will always be a point of contention of course but I agree with the basic concept. That's about 10% of what it does. It does, of course, do far more than that. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the right to hire mercenaries (in their language, "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal") and that has become just another right that the president has usurped over the years.

There always has been. Wanting to free the slaves in the US was a "left leaning/progressive view." So was desegregation. So was interracial marriage. So was giving women the right to own property and to vote. So was legalizing gay marriage. So are LGBT rights. There has ALWAYS been pressure for those things, and there has ALWAYS been pushback from conservatives. That has been true for as long as there has been a United States. What changes, with time, is that old Overton Window. When the US was first founded, there was already some pushback on slavery in the US. The liberal Northern states didn't want it; the more conservative Southern states not only wanted it, they wanted guarantees in the Constitution that it would not be interfered with. At that point, freeing the blacks in the US was not unthinkable; the North was already thinking about it. But it was radical. Radical enough that it could not be done when the Constitution was written (unfortunately.) Over time the idea started to cross the line to acceptable, and at that point an entire Civil War was fought over it. But at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the idea that blacks could be the equals of whites was unthinkable, even to Northern libtards. It took a Civil War, and decades of black activists being lynched, shot and beaten to death, that the idea went from unthinkable to radical to most Americans. Then, with the advent of shitlib Martin Luther King, it became acceptable. Still lots of pushback; including in the form of a sniper's bullet. Affirmative action got a lot more white people to meet/go to school with/work with black people, and that's one of the factors that pushed true black equality towards sensible. Finally, with the civil rights laws between 1960 and 1990 it became policy. We have seen, and will continue to see, the same sort of progression in all the topics discussed above.

But, but, but . . . You didn't ask about the process. You asked me where in the constitution it states that we can go protect other rights ". . . going to other countries and fighting for their right to have the same" Article II Section 2, Clause 1 - So according to the Constituion s/he has the ability to issue those orders. The Process: The State Department monitors about 130 countries at any given time. If country X is violating human rights, they bring it to a House Intelligence committtee; we decide if it's in the best interest to take action (what type), to fund it and to take action. Including taking out that government and replacing it with a democratic-ish form. The specifics of that process is spelled out in 22 USC Human rights and security assistance - ya know, the laws by congress, ya know the people we elected - which states: (a) Observance of human rights as principal goal of foreign policy; implementation requirements (1) The United States shall, in accordance with its international obligations as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and in keeping with the constitutional heritage and traditions of the United States, promote and encourage increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Accordingly, a principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries. (2) Except under circumstances specified in this section, no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. Security assistance may not be provided to the police, domestic intelligence, or similar law enforcement forces of a country, and licenses may not be issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979 for the export of crime control and detection instruments and equipment to a country, the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights unless the President certifies in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate (when licenses are to be issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979).1 that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting provision of such assistance and issuance of such licenses. Assistance may not be provided under part V of this subchapter to a country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights unless the President certifies in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting provision of such assistance. (3) In furtherance of paragraphs (1) and (2), the President is directed to formulate and conduct international security assistance programs of the United States in a manner which will promote and advance human rights and avoid identification of the United States, through such programs, with governments which deny to their people internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, in violation of international law or in contravention of the policy of the United States as expressed in this section or otherwise. (4) In determining whether the government of a country engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, the President shall give particular consideration to whether the government- (A) has engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 6402 of this title; or (B) has failed to undertake serious and sustained efforts to combat particularly severe violations of religious freedom when such efforts could have been reasonably undertaken. SOURCE: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:22 section:2304 edition:prelim) SUGGESTED READING: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title22&saved=|KHRpdGxlOjIyIHNlY3Rpb246MjMwNCBlZGl0aW9uOnByZWxpbSk%3D|||0|false|prelim&edition=prelim And, two more things before I peace you out too. 1. Please don't tell me you think the Peace Corps is just about building schools in its endeavor for world peace. 2. Where in the Constitution does it give the President the authority to hire mercenaries? Peace Out.

Your use of the word narrative vs information, and your willingness to derive a world view from personal accounts (an even more limited source than media by its very nature) speak volumes. You, along with others your age, do not, in fact, know everything. Im not saying I do, just that looking at stuff that doesn’t pander, and that doesn’t rely on individual narratives vs data collection, seems to respect the concept that I acknowledge that some of what I don’t know is important. Wendy P.

Jerry, As you know for 15 years we have proudly flown a spread of huge feather flags in a Rainbow above our spectator area that is visible from all roads and neighboring houses and businesses. The only thing we would change is if larger flags were available. I am super proud that all of my staff and jumpers are in full support. Joe

Hi Keith, I have known Joe for many, many yrs; that is simply not true. Jerry Baumchen

So for being a world traveler; you really don't know how the world works beyond your purse strings. Well, unless you would rather we be communist than a democratic republic. Maybe you got something against Africans, or Asians, or other dark-skinned people that are either fighting to keep communism out or dying to come to our country to be free from oppression. Class #1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/04/02/100-green-berets-us-navy-destroyer-will-go-to-liberia-for-demonstration/e1699232-05bb-45d3-9ce6-85fe8dd0cf46/ Class #2: meh. just go make some more money. It's all you really care about.

There is an interesting split among people I know. Generally the less religious people are horrified at what’s happening, while the religious crowd are cheering it on and celebrating.

Here's the entire sentence: "However, it is just words written down that don't mean a damn thing more important than those in any Dr. Zeuss book if it's adherents, and in particular our elected officials, don't willingly and selflessly conform to the ideas in it." If anything, instead of cherry picking to make an aggrandizing point, you might just think about my point: the people you have been voting for don't give a rats ass about your allegiance to a document and they are proving that out loud every absurd day now with their words and actions. So what were you actually serving to protect, the documents or what they stand for? You know, equality, unalienable rights, all religions not just Christianity and on and on.