BIGUN

My friends on the left are going to love this one. What a Bonehead. https://time.com/5843088/west-virginia-mail-carrier-fraud-absentee-ballots/

NOOOOOOOOoooooo!!! I weep. https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-52663603

Let me tell you a bedtime story that begins on September 25, 1789 . . Because in the beginning it started with Congress; therefore, in the end . . .

Yes. Really. Trump is limited on what he can do by EO in this matter. In the end, 230 would have to go back before congress. No one thinks limiting free speech is a good thing. If you lived in the U.S. I would encourage you to write the Democratic house and encourage them to repeal 230.

Sure. They both want the same thing. The text of the order, which was reviewed by CNN, targets a law known as the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 of the legislation provides broad immunity to websites that curate and moderate their own platforms, and has been described by legal experts as "the 26 words that created the internet." It argues that the protections hinge mainly on tech platforms operating in "good faith," and that social media companies have not. "In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand-pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet," the order says. "This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power." https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html The bottom line is, the government cannot restrict free speech, but private companies can. Both Biden and Trump want the social medias held responsible for limiting free speech.

Not at all. Both Trump and Biden agree that 230 should be repealed. Trump's EO only has certain powers. To repeal it requires a vote from Congress. Should have happened a long time ago.

That's not true at all, Brother. It is the exact same stance.

The former vice president’s stance, presented in an interview with The New York Times editorial board, is more extreme than that of other lawmakers who have confronted tech executives about the legal protection from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. “Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” Biden said in the interview published Friday. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/biden-wants-to-get-rid-of-techs-legal-shield-section-230.html

Completely different silo, Brother. Not even the subject of conversation regarding the Treaty. PS> Gonna be offline until Monday. Have a great weekend.

Afternoon, Jerry. What was he and how many times before 2007? (Note: I have to admit that he waves with the flag in his party loyalty).

OK I'll bite. What do think I'm missing?

I get where you were going with this, however the author is of some esteem and also of the same party. AUTHOR Luke Coffey Luke Coffey is the Director of the Foreign Policy Center at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington DC based think-tank.

Syracuse University? Educational Institution = Democratic leanings? NY? Must be a Democrat to live there NY?

Foul. The poll surveyed 1,630 active-duty Military Times subscribers in partnership with the Institute for Veterans and Military Families (IVMF) at Syracuse University. Regional Bias

In 2008 Russia invaded, and has since continued to occupy, the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Under the terms of the Open Skies Treaty, observation flights cannot be carried out within 10 km of an international border of a country that is not part of the Open Skies agreement. Since Russia is one of only five countries that recognises Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states (the others being Syria, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Nauru.), Moscow has refused to allow observation flights within 10 km of its border with these two occupied regions of Georgia since 2010. Georgia is a signatory that has ratified the treaty. Although there have been many diplomatic complaints filed over this issue, Russia has been unwilling to change its position. There is also a problem with Russian occupied Crimea. In 2014, Russia invaded and illegally annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine. Since then, Moscow has designated an airbase as a refueling stop for Open Skies Treaty observation flights. This is a clear affront to Ukraine’s sovereignty by Russia and an attempt to justify its annexation of Crimea. There are other Russian violations of the treaty too. For example, Moscow has placed limitations and restrictions on observation flights over its Kaliningrad exclave. In 2018, Russia refused a US observation flight during a major Russian military exercise. >Snip It is not that Russia has just recently fell out of compliance of the Open Skies Treaty. In the case of Georgia this has been the case for a decade. And it is not as if Russia’s non-compliance of the Open Skies Treaty is a one-off. Russia was in violation of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty and the Trump Administration was right to leave that agreement too last year. https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/is-the-us-right-in-wanting-to-leave-the-open-skies-treaty-36642 TY We could all clean it up a bit.

So, we're not going to discuss the Open Skies Treaty you brought up?

Good. Well, then let's do that. My understanding of the Open Skies Treaty is that we pulled out because Russia was in violation by not allowing us and Canada to do a flyover in our effort to protect those who surrendered their nukes. And, that it was not Russia's first offense. Is that not the case or your understanding?

High treason or petty treason? The kind of treason our forefathers committed or the kind of treason the US POWs committed in Vietnam? Treason as defined by Brazilian or Canadian laws? I don't know; it all just gets so confusing. One can only hope the government doesn't react over a difference of opinion or an accusation without some form of due process. Wait. I'll take sticks & stones for $200.00, Alex.

You're not going to speak on behalf of the deceased veteran and then do. While quoting the sound bite the media wants you to hear without completing the whole sentence and taken completely out of context designed to fit the emotional response they wish to create. It's not hard to find the whole discussion.

Imagine the shift if the Dems had put McRaven on the ticket.

We both did mail-in voting while in the service and more importantly; while overseas. We got the ballot, we filled it out and signed it. If someone else filled out the ballot for you - their name and signature had to be placed on the ballot also. We then put the numbered ballot in the numbered envelope and sent it in to be counted. The discussion about printing is silly. All ballots are printed, so the distribution of the ballots is the only logistics for discussion. Whether you go to the ballot or it comes to you - that's it. Before mom passed, she became blind, but she still voted. As her caregiver, we would have a cup of coffee and I would read the ballot to her and indicate her wishes. The session was videotaped (mom's signature had gone from a beautiful catholic penmanship cursive upbringing to a scribble). We didn't have to video tape it, but if there was ever a question - it was on tape. The bottom line is: The 26th Amendment ratified in 1971 says, "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." There was no need to put race, creed, color, etc. because that had already been established. And so, the questions become, "1) How to ensure that happens and, 2) How to do it while preserving the integrity of the vote." There is premise for both parts of the question. How to ensure it happens is laid out in the second section of the amendment. "The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." End of story. It doesn't matter if one agrees, disagrees or doesn't understand. If the House votes to have mail-in ballots. That's the way it is. Deal with it. And the fact is - it's what the voters on both sides are asking for. With the current pandemic and what's happened in Wisconsin to both voters and poll workers creating a CoVID hotspot, it becomes more important to address this now than wait until we get closer to the election and the logistics to be more an issue. Write to your US representatives and tell them your thoughts on the matter - AND, ask them to get busy. With regard to the second part of the question; preserving the integrity of the vote should be a matter addressed whether it is write-in or electronic. As we both know, digital can be manipulated as easy as a write-in ballot. As mentioned in an earlier post; use a model. We have that. Colorado. Colorado forwarded only 0.0027% out of 2.5 million ballots for fraud investigation. Find out how they do it and ask congress to emulate that. As to the argument about which party will benefit more - no one knows. Colorado’s increase in turnout didn't benefit one party over another. The increased turnout in Colorado in 2014 for both parties was almost identical. However, Independent voter participation increased. If Congress enacts mail-in voting and preserves the integrity of the vote - end of story.

It's like watching a horrible game of cat & mouse.

There's plenty of blame to go around. [Page 30] The evidence reads - Good morning. My name is Norma McCorvey. I'm sorry to admit that I'm the Jane Roe of Roe v Wade. The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court didn't happen the way I said it did, pure and simple. I lied! Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey needed an extreme case to make their client look pitiable. Rape seemed to be the ticket. What made rape even worse? A gang rape! It all started out as a little lie, but my little lie grew and became more horrible with each telling. Not only did I lie, but I was lied to. I did not come to the Supreme Court on behalf of a class of women. I wasn't pursuing any legal remedy for my unwanted pregnancy. I did not go to the Federal Courts for relief. I met Sarah Weddington to find out how I could obtain an abortion. She and Linda Coffey said they didn't know where to get one. Sarah already had an abortion but she lied to me just like I lied to her! She knew where to get one, obviously, but I was of no use to her unless I was pregnant. Sarah and Linda were looking for somebody, anybody, to use to further their own agenda. I was their most willing dupe. Since all these lies succeeded in dismantling every state's protection of the unborn child, I think it's fair to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: It is certainly a denial of the truth. C0520006.PDF

One hump or two?

Look, Brother. Her life was filled with lies to her, about her, around her, for a cause, for another cause, etc.Those lies all became so compounded that I'm not sure anyone knew the "truth" including her.