Marco_Duo

quote:

---

wasting lives and our tax payer dollars…..that makes perfect sense

---

Has Russia frozen military spending during these “negotiations?”

If not, why should Ukraine?

quote:

---

Now the Netherlands are sending 500 million Euros to Big Z and undermining Trump's ongoing negotiations with Putin to end this war.

---

“Ukraine is not our affair. European countries need to step up and handle it.”

(Europe steps up)

“Why are those damned Europeans interfering with Our President’s (tm) game of interdimensional chess?”

quote:

---

Twenty Republicans are currently being wined and dined by a foreign government. I’m sure they are staying at the Budget Inn.

quote:

---

What does this have to do with the subject of this fricking thread? Are there no moderators for this shite?

---

---

Did you read the earlier posts in the thread? There’s been significant discussion regarding Dora’s own foreign travel and security therefor.

Please refrain from posting pics of her arse. In my mind canon, she is not a victim of the plus-size arse that normally comes standard with the big rack.

Thank you.

quote:

---

Where is your condemnation of Israel killing innocent women and children?

---

The Israeli military takes extraordinary steps to avoid it, but the sad fact is that noncombatants die in all wars.

quote:

---

what was crazy about the tweet? Be specific

---

OK

quote:

---

I am going to exert my powers and FEDERALIZE this city

---

DC government sucks, but POTUS just does not have such “powers” pursuant to the Home Rule Act of 1973. Basically, he can unilaterally deploy the Guard and not much more.

It would be up to Congress to take Home Rule back and thus “federalize” the District.

quote:

---

quote:

---

genocide of the Palestinians

---

No such people or state has ever existed in the history of the world.

---

anyone who uses the term “genocide“ in the context of the current conflict clearly has no understanding whatsoever as to the meaning of that term

In any case, this nonsense in the reply was once mildly amusing. I thought people were actually saying it tongue-in-cheek. Clearly, I was wrong about that.

Modern Palestinians share about 60 to 70% of their DNA with the ancient Canaanites and Phoenicians. They and their ancestors have lived on that same plot of land (along with the ancestors of the current Jews) for at least 3000 years and probably longer. Pretending otherwise is just stupid.

No, that does not remotely justify their barbaric behavior over the last 70 or 80 years. I say that because some midwit was almost certain to try to raise that “response.“

I will never understand those who shrink into themselves at the tiniest hint of bloodshed.

Sometimes, truly overwhelming force is the ONLY appropriate response to heinous actions by one's opponents. Israel has not "gone there" yet, but at this point I would not blame them if they were to do so.

quote:

---

Disney settled with Gina Carano. They were scared of discovery.

---

Your understanding of litigation is cute. Just chant "discovery" and lawsuits disappear. Kinda like a reverse Beetlejuice.

Discovery in this case has been ongoing for a year. In all likelihood, as in EVERY OTHER LAWSUIT, it is the RESULTS of that discovery which (in part) brought about a settlement. We don't know WHICH WAY that discovery influenced the settlement, because its terms are (and will certainly remain) confidential.

quote:

---

I believe it... but what is NYP?

---

One very small step better than Gateway Pundit.

quote:

---

Do you (VOR) post the most unpopular takes just for the fun of it?

---

Speaking truth to people who do not want to hear it can indeed be unpopular (at least amongst those people).

quote:

---

NATO is nothing more than a massive money laundering scheme that takes from us the U.S. taxpayer.

---

It is fascinating to see the number of people who do not understand the definition of "money laundering," and who nonetheless insist upon trying to use the term on a daily basis.

quote:

---

What is the argument for counting non-citizens? Legit curious how it can be justified

---

Policy or existing law? Counting alone or use for apportionment?

There are dozens of policy reasons to count everyone, starting with allocation of governmental resources. Harder to justify a policy of including illegals FOR PURPOSES OF APPORTIONMENT. I see no valid policy that would justify it.

The short answer, however, is that the 14th Amendment clearly and unequivocally requires that they be included for apportionment.

Until the Constitution is amended, we are stuck with it. All the whining in the world will not change that.

quote:

---

You’re my new favorite retard.

---

I am honored and humbled. There were already so many other, more-qualified retards present before my first post.

Truly, thank you.

I am curious. Which of the following points upset you?

(1) Including illegal immigrants in the count for purposes of Congressional apportionment is bad policy,

(2) birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal immigrants is bad policy, or

(3) direct election of Senators is bad policy.

quote:

---

It doesn’t say it can't happen more often. Just every ten as a minimum.

---

Well

quote:

---

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

---

”The actual Enumeration” looks singular to me.


The implementing legislation is even more clear that there is to be only one census per decade, but (of course) Congress could always change that — if doing so did not contradict the actual language of the Constitution.

quote:

---

Except for the fact that the same language appears verbatim in section 2 of the 14th amendment.

quote:

---

Which, very clearly, was intended to reflect that freed slaves were now considered "whole number of persons" for enumeration purposes instead of 3/5ths of a person.

---

---

Which in turn might be important to liberals and other non-Textualists.

“Sure, they WROTE “whole number of persons in each State,” but that is not what they MEANT. So, let’s ignore those actual words and try to decide (200 years later) what we think they meant to write.”