13
   

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

 
 
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2024 06:43 pm
@izzythepush,

Aaaand here we are again. You're absolutely determined to short circuit this discussion of biden's moral fitness by trying once again to make it about me, which is really you making it about you. And now you're making excuses for the biden supporters here who can't come up with their rationale for supporting a president who supports a war criminal. If they have no answer, that's fine.

But they tend to post anyway, don't they? They state that I just don't get it; the implication being that they know something about biden that justifies their support of him despite their knowledge that he is supporting genocide. But when asked what they believe it is about biden that offsets his support for genocide enough to cause them to vote for him anyway, nothing but crickets. And not even really crickets. Just one cricket saying nothing.

You'd like to chalk that silence up to the fact that they don't want to talk to me. But I say it's because they know that there's nothing about biden that offsets his support for a war criminal. And that explains their failure to articulate an answer.

Now be a sport and let them deal with the question.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2024 02:59 am
@Glennn,
I've told you why people won't talk to you, but you're too thick or too stubborn to understand.

Everything's like an aeroplane for you, it just shoots over your head.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  4  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2024 04:36 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:


Aaaand here we are again. You're absolutely determined to short circuit this discussion of biden's moral fitness by trying once again to make it about me, which is really you making it about you. And now you're making excuses for the biden supporters here who can't come up with their rationale for supporting a president who supports a war criminal. If they have no answer, that's fine.

But they tend to post anyway, don't they? They state that I just don't get it; the implication being that they know something about biden that justifies their support of him despite their knowledge that he is supporting genocide. But when asked what they believe it is about biden that offsets his support for genocide enough to cause them to vote for him anyway, nothing but crickets. And not even really crickets. Just one cricket saying nothing.

You'd like to chalk that silence up to the fact that they don't want to talk to me. But I say it's because they know that there's nothing about biden that offsets his support for a war criminal. And that explains their failure to articulate an answer.

Now be a sport and let them deal with the question.


There IS something about Joe Biden that offsets WHAT YOU SUPPOSE TO BE his support for a war criminal...and it has been articulated to you over and over again. You have decided not to accept that articulated reason...and have also decided to portray it as having not been offered.

That is bullshit...which I called it in the other thread...and now call it here.

The decision to support Joe Biden is not being made in a vacuum. It is being made with the alternative being another four years of Trump...and that is a price many of us feel is too destructive to be paid.

Why don't you stop with the bullshit...and just acknowledge that the reasons have been articulated; you disagree with the reasons; AND THEN MOVE THE HELL ON.

You may disagree...and you have that right. You also have the right to lie and pretend your challenge has not been met, but you should accept that the people who realize that is a bunch of bullshit are, figuratively, laughing at you.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2024 05:01 am
@Frank Apisa,
He doesn't strike me as someone who learns from experience.

He's going to carry on asking leading questions with juvenile wording and then initially get upset when nobody responds before claiming victory.

That's what he does, he can't countenance the real reason why nobody wants to talk to him, so he retreats into fantasy, making up his own reasons.

I can't see that changing.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2024 05:28 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

He doesn't strike me as someone who learns from experience.

He's going to carry on asking leading questions with juvenile wording and then initially get upset when nobody responds before claiming victory.

That's what he does, he can't countenance the real reason why nobody wants to talk to him, so he retreats into fantasy, making up his own reasons.

I can't see that changing.


Yeah, seems so.

I understand he has been here in A2K posting under various names for quite a while...always using screen names that have multiple letter "n" in them.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2024 05:46 am
Quote:
Cheering broke out in the gallery and among Democrats on the floor of the House of Representatives this afternoon when the House passed the $60.8 billion aid bill for Ukraine. The vote was 311–112, with all Democrats and 101 Republicans voting in favor and 112 Republicans voting against. One Republican voted present.

The House also voted on the three other bills that will be packaged with the Ukraine bill as a single measure to go in front of the Senate. The House voted in favor of providing $8.1 billion in support for Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific by a vote of 385–34. It approved more than $26 billion for Israel, including $9.2 billion in humanitarian aid not specifically for Gaza but for populations in crisis, by a vote of 366–58. And it voted 360–58 to place additional sanctions on Iran, seize Russian assets, and require the Chinese owners of TikTok to sell the company within nine months if they want it to continue to be available on U.S. app stores.

The total price tag of the measures is about $95.3 billion. About $50 billion of it will be used here in the U.S. to replenish the supplies that will go abroad.

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says the Senate will take up the measure on Tuesday. Senators had gone home for recess but will come back to vote. The Department of Defense says it is ready to rush crucial supplies as soon as it gets the go-ahead. "We have a very robust logistics network that enables us to move material very quickly; as we've done in the past, we can move within days," Pentagon press secretary Air Force Major General Pat Ryder said Thursday.

Aid to Ukraine has been stalled since Biden first asked for it in October 2023. First, MAGA Republicans said they would never pass such a national security supplemental bill until the U.S. addressed the need for better security at the country’s southern border. Senators, including Republican James Lankford (R-OK) took them at their word and hammered out a strong border security measure, only to have Republicans reject it when Trump demanded they preserve border security as a campaign issue. The Senate then passed the national security supplemental bill without a border measure, but that was back in February. Although it was clear the measure would pass the House, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has steadfastly refused to take it up.

Meanwhile, countries around the globe have been stepping into the breach, providing funds and weapons for Ukraine as Ukraine’s war effort has faltered without U.S. war matériel.

Suddenly, the dam has broken.

The MAGA extremists who oppose aid to Ukraine expressed anger over the measure’s passage, but outside of that group, there was bipartisan relief and mutual congratulations. The chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Michael McCaul (R-TX), who has been vocal in his belief that Republicans have fallen prey to Russian propaganda, compared today’s vote to the period before World War II, when British prime minister Neville Chamberlain tried to appease dictator Adolf Hitler in 1938 by agreeing to Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland. To Chamberlain’s successor, Winston Churchill, fell the task of fighting World War II.

“Our adversaries are watching us here today, and history will judge us on our actions here today,” McCaul said. “So as we deliberate on this vote, you have to ask yourself: Am I Chamberlain or am I Churchill?”

House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said: “For months, the national security priorities of the American people have been obstructed by pro-Putin extremists determined to let Russia win. A bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans has risen up to work together and ensure that we are getting the national security legislation important to the American people over the finish line.”

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin also released a statement welcoming the passage of the measure. “This bipartisan legislation will allow the Department to surge lifesaving security assistance to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia’s aggression, support Israel’s defense from Iran and its proxies, and increase the flow of urgently needed humanitarian aid to suffering Palestinians in Gaza.” It is also, he wrote, “an important investment in America's future.”

President Joe Biden said that “members of both parties in the House voted to advance our national security interests and send a clear message about the power of American leadership on the world stage. At this critical inflection point, they came together to answer history’s call, passing urgently-needed national security legislation that I have fought for months to secure.”

The reiteration of the bipartisan nature of the vote suggests support for the idea that the breaking dam refers not just to the national security supplemental bill but also to the power of MAGA Republicans more generally. Representative Tom Cole (R-OK) suggested this interpretation in an interview today with Ryan Lizza of Politico.

MAGAs are Trump loyalists, counting on his return to power, and Trump is visibly diminished. For the last week, he has been sitting in a courtroom with no choice but to do as he is told by the judge while potential jurors have expressed their dislike of him to his face. This is novel for him, and it is clearly taking a toll.

Trump’s financial troubles have not gone away, either. Yesterday, New York attorney general Letitia James asked a judge to void the $175 million appeals bond Trump posted to secure the $454 million judgment against him in the business fraud case. She says that the defendants have failed to show that there is enough collateral behind the bond to secure it. She has asked for a replacement bond within a week. Without a bond, James can begin to seize Trump’s property.

Since Republicans took control of the House, Republican leaders have had to turn to Democrats to find the votes to pass crucial legislation like the national security supplemental bill, preventing a U.S. default, and funding the government. Republicans interested in governing and eager to protect the institutions of democracy appear to be getting fed up with the attention-seeking and bomb-throwing MAGA faction that refuses to do the work of governing.

That frustration might have been on display when the House also voted on a fifth measure: a border bill the extremist Republicans demanded. Because it was considered under a suspension of the rules, it needed a two-thirds majority to pass. The measure failed with a vote of 215–211. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a lawyer with the American Immigration Council advocacy group, noted that the last time the House voted on a similar measure, it got 219 votes. This time it got fewer votes, even with an added $9.5 billion for Texas, Florida, and other states that are restricting immigrants’ rights.

In The Atlantic today, David Frum noted the changing U.S. political dynamic and, referring to the Ukraine vote, wrote: “On something that mattered intensely to [Trump]—that had become a badge of pro-Trump identity—Trump’s own party worked with Democrats in the House and Senate to hand him a stinging defeat. This example could become contagious.” In other words, he said: “Ukraine won. Trump lost.”

For his part, leading Russian politician Dmitry Medvedev had his own reaction to the House’s passage of the national security supplemental bill with aid for Ukraine. He vowed that Russia would win the war anyway and added: “[C]onsidering the russophobic decision that took place I can't help but wish the USA with all sincerity to dive into a new civil war themselves as quickly as possible. Which, I hope, will be very different from the war between North and South in the 19th century and will be waged using aircraft, tanks, artillery, MLRS, all types of missiles and other weapons. And which will finally lead to the inglorious collapse of the vile evil empire of the 21st century—the United States of America.”

hcr
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2024 05:48 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
There IS something about Joe Biden that offsets WHAT YOU SUPPOSE TO BE his support for a war criminal

I see. If that were true, frank, then you should have no problem articulating it or pointing to the post where you or anyone else has shown that supporting genocide is so forgivable. You're having no more luck justifying biden's support of genocide than that other guy. The reason you can think of nothing that offsets a sitting presidents willing participation in war crimes against innocent people is because NOTHING offsets THAT!

I don't know your value system, but mine informs me that there is pretty much nothing that a human being--and especially a sitting president--could do to show his moral character and humanity toward innocent people than to aid and abet a religious nutter war criminal committing genocide.
Quote:

I understand he has been here in A2K posting under various names for quite a while.

Wrong again, frank. You're not handling your failure to justify a candidtate's support of genocide, so you've opted to do what izzy does, like talk about the guy whose question you can't answer. You're looking for a reasonable rationale for accepting a president's support for war crimes, and can't find one. Don't feel bad; no one can!

Is there anyone who can articulate the quality in biden that offsets his participation in war crimes?
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2024 06:10 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
He doesn't strike me as someone who learns from experience.

That's kind of funny. When I see a sitting president aiding and abetting a war criminal, I learn that that's what he is. You guys seem to not learn from experience. Doesn't experience or decency teach you that war crimes against EVERYBODY in Gaza is something only a morally corrupt president would do?

What in hell could possibly offset that kind of atrocious activity? That's actually a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious; nothing offsets genocide.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2024 11:05 am
Story in the Guardian today about posdible US sanctions against the Netzah Yehuda batallion which has been accused of some of the worst atrocities.

Credit where credit's due, it's a lot further than other presidents have gone, but it still needs to be viewed against the backdrop of the UN veto to recognise Palestine and this weekend's military aid.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2024 02:46 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
There IS something about Joe Biden that offsets WHAT YOU SUPPOSE TO BE his support for a war criminal

I see. If that were true, frank, then you should have no problem articulating it or pointing to the post where you or anyone else has shown that supporting genocide is so forgivable.


It is true...and I have articulated it...several times.

You simply do not like what I have to say; pretend that I have not said it; and then give me a bunch of crap on that mistaken account.


Quote:
You're having no more luck justifying biden's support of genocide than that other guy.


There is no way I am attempting to justify anyone's support of genocide. And it is my opinion that Joe Biden does not support genocide.


Quote:
The reason you can think of nothing that offsets a sitting presidents willing participation in war crimes against innocent people is because NOTHING offsets THAT!


In a contest between Trump and Joe Biden...Joe Biden wins by light years.

Quote:
I don't know your value system, but mine informs me that there is pretty much nothing that a human being--and especially a sitting president--could do to show his moral character and humanity toward innocent people than to aid and abet a religious nutter war criminal committing genocide.


You are distorting what Joe Biden is doing in order to justify your allegations that he is abetting genocide. You ought really to stop doing that.


Quote:
Quote:

I understand he has been here in A2K posting under various names for quite a while.


Wrong again, frank. You're not handling your failure to justify a candidtate's support of genocide, so you've opted to do what izzy does, like talk about the guy whose question you can't answer. You're looking for a reasonable rationale for accepting a president's support for war crimes, and can't find one. Don't feel bad; no one can!


I am not wrong. I have been lead to understand what I said. Perhaps the person (s) who have lead me in that direction are wrong, but I have been lead in that direction. You seem, more and more, to be a troll to me.

Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2024 03:03 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
And it is my opinion that Joe Biden does not support genocide.

Well frank, I'm afraid that international organizations whose job is to assess the conditions of Gazans have stated that it's a genocide. But since they were there and you weren't, we'll believe you . . .

People are starving to death, frank.
Quote:
You are distorting what Joe Biden is doing in order to justify your allegations that he is abetting genocide.

Distorting? The Israelis are conducting war crimes against innocent people, and biden is sending them material support in the form of bombs and munitions to carry it out. That's called aiding and abetting a war criminal. I don't know how you manage to call it anything else.
Glennn
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2024 03:09 pm
@izzythepush,
And in response to the U.S. threat of sanctions against an IDF unit, Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu replied:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"At a time when our soldiers are fighting terrorist monsters, the intention to sanction a unit in the IDF is the height of absurdity and a moral low."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The absolute height of hypocrisy.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2024 05:41 pm
@Glennn,
Quote:
height of hypocrisy


The place you were born and bred, nonono. You're a Trumper.
Glennn
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 21 Apr, 2024 07:06 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
What I hear you saying is: "Since there is no real way for me to twist or otherwise change what biden's continued material support for a war criminal means about him, I thought I'd make my post about you and hope nobody notices the attempted distraction."

Better luck next time.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2024 02:42 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
And it is my opinion that Joe Biden does not support genocide.

Well frank, I'm afraid that international organizations whose job is to assess the conditions of Gazans have stated that it's a genocide. But since they were there and you weren't, we'll believe you . . .

People are starving to death, frank.
Quote:
You are distorting what Joe Biden is doing in order to justify your allegations that he is abetting genocide.

Distorting? The Israelis are conducting war crimes against innocent people, and biden is sending them material support in the form of bombs and munitions to carry it out. That's called aiding and abetting a war criminal. I don't know how you manage to call it anything else.


I understand and agree that you do not understand.

Work on it. You may finally get it...if you work on it.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2024 04:48 am
Quote:
During her confirmation hearings in 2021, Interior Department secretary Deb Haaland promised “to responsibly manage our natural resources to protect them for future generations—so that we can continue to work, live, hunt, fish, and pray among them.” Noting her Indigenous heritage, Haaland tweeted, “A voice like mine has never been a Cabinet secretary or at the head of the Department of Interior…. I’ll be fierce for all of us, our planet, and all of our protected land.”

Her approach was a shift from the practice the Interior Department had established at the beginning of the twentieth century when it began to prioritize mineral, oil, and gas development, as well as livestock grazing, on U.S. public lands. But the devastating effects of climate change have brought those old priorities into question.

Republicans, especially those from states like Wyoming, which collects more than a billion dollars a year in royalties and taxes from the oil, gas, and coal produced on federal lands in the state, opposed Haaland’s focus on responsible management of natural resources for the future and warned that the Biden administration is “taking a sledgehammer to Western states’ economies.”

On Thursday, April 18, the Interior Department finalized a new rule for a balanced management of America’s public lands. Put together after a public hearing period that saw more than 200,000 comments from states, individuals, Tribal and local governments, industry groups, and advocacy organizations, the new rule prioritizes the health of the lands and waters the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management oversees. Those consist of about 245 million acres, primarily in 12 western states.

The new rule calls for protection of the land, restoration of the places that have been harmed in the past, and a promise to make informed decisions about future use based on “science, data, and Indigenous knowledge.” It “recognizes conservation as an essential component of public lands management, on equal footing with other multiple uses of these lands.” The Bureau of Land Management will now auction off leases not only for drilling, but also for conservation and restoration.

Western state leaders oppose the Biden administration’s efforts to change the Interior Department’s past practices, calling them “colonial forces of national environmental groups who are pushing an agenda” onto states like Wyoming.

The timing of the Interior Department’s new rule can’t help but call attention to Earth Day, celebrated tomorrow, on April 22. Earth Day is no novel proposition. Americans celebrated it for the first time in 1970. Nor was it a partisan idea in that year: Republican president Richard M. Nixon established it as Americans recognized a crisis that transcended partisanship and came together to fix it.

The spark for the first Earth Day was the 1962 publication of marine biologist Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, which showed the devastating effects of people on nature by documenting the effect of modern pesticides on the natural world. Her exposé of how the popular pesticide DDT was poisoning the food chain in American waters illuminated the dangerous overuse of chemicals and their effect on living organisms, and it caught readers’ attention. Carson’s book sold more than half a million copies in 24 countries.

Democratic president John F. Kennedy asked the President’s Science Advisory Committee to look into Carson’s argument, and the committee vindicated her. Before she died of breast cancer in 1964, Carson noted: "Man's attitude toward nature is today critically important simply because we have now acquired a fateful power to alter and destroy nature. But man is a part of nature, and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself? [We are] challenged as mankind has never been challenged before to prove our maturity and our mastery, not of nature, but of ourselves."

As scientists organized the Environmental Defense Fund, Americans began to pay closer attention to human effects on the environment, especially after three crucial events. First, on December 24, 1968, astronaut William Anders took a color photograph of the Earth rising over the horizon of the moon from outer space during the Apollo 8 mission, powerfully illustrating the beauty and isolation of the globe on which we all live.

Then, over 10 days in January and February 1969, a massive oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, poured between 80,000 and 100,000 barrels of oil into the Pacific, fouling 35 miles of California beaches and killing seabirds, dolphins, sea lions, and elephant seals. Public outrage ran so high that President Nixon went to Santa Barbara in March to see the cleanup efforts, telling the American public that “the Santa Barbara incident has frankly touched the conscience of the American people.”

And then, in June 1969, the chemical contaminants that had been dumped into Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River caught fire. A dumping ground for local heavy industry, the river had actually burned more than ten times in the previous century, but with increased focus on environmental damage, this time the burning river garnered national attention.

In February 1970, President Nixon sent to Congress a special message “on environmental quality.” “[W]e…have too casually and too long abused our natural environment,” he wrote. “The time has come when we can wait no longer to repair the damage already done, and to establish new criteria to guide us in the future.”

“The tasks that need doing require money, resolve and ingenuity,” Nixon said, “and they are too big to be done by government alone. They call for fundamentally new philosophies of land, air and water use, for stricter regulation, for expanded government action, for greater citizen involvement, and for new programs to ensure that government, industry and individuals all are called on to do their share of the job and to pay their share of the cost.”

Meanwhile, Gaylord Nelson, a Democratic senator from Wisconsin, visited the Santa Barbara oil spill and hoped to turn the same sort of enthusiasm people were bringing to protests against the Vietnam War toward efforts to protect the environment. He announced a teach-in on college campuses, which soon grew into a wider movement across the country. Their “Earth Day,” held on April 22, 1970, brought more than 20 million Americans—10% of the total population of the country at the time—to call for the nation to address the damage caused by 150 years of unregulated industrial development. The movement included members of all political parties, rich Americans and their poorer neighbors, people who lived in the city and those in the country, labor leaders and their employers. It is still one of the largest protests in American history.

In July 1970, at the advice of a council convened to figure out how to consolidate government programs to combat pollution, Nixon proposed to Congress a new agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, which Congress created that December.

In honor of Earth Day 2024, Democratic president Joe Biden has called for carrying on the legacy of our predecessors “by building a greener, more sustainable planet and, with it, a healthier, more prosperous nation.”

In a statement, Biden noted that no one can any longer deny the impacts and staggering costs of climate change as the nation confronts historic floods, droughts, and hurricanes.

“Deforestation, nature loss, toxic chemicals, and plastic pollution also continue to threaten our air, lands, and waters, endangering our health, other species, and ecosystems,” he said. He noted the administration’s efforts to build a clean energy economy, providing well-paid union jobs as workers install solar panels, service wind turbines, cap old oil wells, manufacture electric vehicles, and so on, while also curbing air pollution from power plants and lead poisoning from old pipes, the burden of which historically has fallen on marginalized communities.

Biden noted that he brought the U.S. back into the Paris Climate Accord Trump pulled out of, is on track to conserve more lands and waters than any president before him, and has worked with the international community to slash methane emissions and restore lost forests.

And yet there is much more to be done, he said. He encouraged “all Americans to reflect on the need to protect our precious planet; to heed the call to combat our climate and biodiversity crises while growing the economy; and to keep working for a healthier, safer, more equitable future for all.”

Happy Earth Day 2024.

hcr
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2024 06:49 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
. . . you do not understand.

That a religious nutter is committing war crimes against innocent Gazans with biden's help? There's nothing easier in the world to understand, frank, unless you out and out refuse to understand it or read about it.

I'd really like to hear your idea of what biden would have to participate in before you would admit that he is aiding and abetting a war criminal. Where do you draw the line, frank?
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2024 07:02 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:


Quote:
. . . you do not understand.

That a religious nutter is committing war crimes against innocent Gazans with biden's help? There's nothing easier in the world to understand, frank, unless you out and out refuse to understand it or read about it.


Hey, Glennn...I was agreeing with you. You wrote, "I don't know how you manage to call it anything else."

I was agreeing with that. You are saying you do not understand it...and I agree that you do not understand it.

I even suggested that you work on it...work on understanding it.

Quote:

I'd really like to hear your idea of what biden would have to participate in before you would admit that he is aiding and abetting a war criminal. Where do you draw the line, frank?


I see. Okay. I have no problem with you doing that, Glennnn. Continue to wait for it. But you are just going to get the same explanation I've given you several times already.

Glennn
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2024 07:28 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Hey, Glennn...I was agreeing with you.

Oh, well, then I'll stop asking you why you support a candidate who supports a war criminal who's presently committing genocide in Gaza. I honestly thought you were attempting to overlook Joe Biden's willing participation in Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu's war crimes against innocent Gazans. Welcome aboard, frank.

Hard to imagine what's going through Joe Biden's head when even innocent starving children doesn't move him to withhold weapons from the ones managing the starvation.
Quote:
But you are just going to get the same explanation I've given you several times already.

So far, your only explanation for your support of Joe Biden's willing participation in war crimes is that trump is worse. But trump hasn't been aiding and abetting a war criminal yet.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Apr, 2024 07:46 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

What I hear you saying is: "Since there is no real way for me to twist or otherwise change what biden's continued material support for a war criminal means about him, I thought I'd make my post about you and hope nobody notices the attempted distraction."

Better luck next time.


So you have a severe reading comprehension problem, too. Talk to your physician about adjusting your medication.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 01:18:37