ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

California Has Too Much Money

[ Posted Monday, March 28th, 2022 – 15:46 UTC ]

That headline isn't a judgment in any way, nor is it a metaphor or pun or even a boast. It's the literal truth -- California's state government has too big a budget surplus. They've got too much money, and the only question is what to do with it. This may sound strange, since governments normally don't fret about having too much in their coffers, but there is a 1970s-era state law that says that they're going to have to send some of it back to the taxpayers. So that's what the politicians in Sacramento are now arguing about -- how to rebate this money and to whom.

California government has to deal with what is called the Gann Limit, which enforces a spending cap when the state takes in too much money. Any money collected above the cap must be spent 50-50 on taxpayer rebates and school funding. No other government-funded programs are eligible. The current cap stands at $131 billion, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

[Editorial note: While this article appeared on the front page of yesterday's print edition of the paper, I could not find it on the Mercury News website today, so I am unable to provide a direct link. I did find it reproduced on a third-party site, but it is rather cumbersome to read the story this way. Scroll over the story titled: "Tax Cap Hanging Over Talk Of Rebate" to read at least some of it.]

Nobody knows how far above this limit California will be, as the final figure won't be available until the end of the tax season. But the expectation is that it's going to be a lot -- people are now predicting that between $7 billion and $9 billion is a good estimate for what will be rebated to the public. That's a lot of money, but California has a lot of people (call it 40 million). It should also be noted that this is a rare event -- California has previously only ever had to rebate money under this law one time (in 1987).

The problem is even more complicated, since if the government sends the money back ahead of time, the spending cap is avoided. The state did this last year, sending out its own COVID relief checks, thus avoiding the Gann Limit problem. Lawmakers are now considering doing this, because it's a lot easier to take political credit for proactively sending voters money than it is to say: "We were forced to do this." But these complexities can be put aside for the purposes of this column.

Because what it all sets up is a dandy thought experiment for political wonks at home: how would you hand out extra government money? The initial idea was to send rebates to the citizens to counteract the insanely-high gas prices Californians have to pay (which is a subject worthy of an entire column on its own, but just take it as a given: California drivers pay through the nose for gas, even when prices are fairly reasonable in the rest of the country). But there are a few different ways to do this, which is where the political discussion began.

Governor Gavin Newsom has put forth one plan, while other politicians in Sacramento have put forth other ideas. While it sounds pretty easy to just send taxpayers back some cash, it can actually be quite complicated when you attempt to tie it to such an individual issue as gas prices. So let's take a look at the possibilities:

  • Send the money back to all California tax-filers. Similar to the federal COVID stimulus checks, just decide on one amount and send it to everyone who files taxes in the state. This would be the simplest way to rebate the money, of course, because it would involve no complicated formulas -- if you file a tax return, you get $400 (or whatever amount). Married couples would get double.
  • Send it back to all California tax-filers, except the richest. This is actually what the COVID stimulus did, since if you made above a certain amount per year, you didn't get a check. Draw a line somewhere and everyone who makes anything above it gets nothing. Perhaps include a secondary line where the $400 starts shrinking -- so if you made less than $150,000 (or whatever amount) you got the full amount; if you made between $150,000-200,000 you got smaller and smaller amounts up to the $200,000 line; and then everyone who made over $200,000 got nothing.
  • Declare it a gas rebate and send it to every registered vehicle owner. This also has the benefit of being simple. If you registered any private vehicle in the state in the past year, you would get $400 per vehicle.
  • Gas rebates, but limited by vehicles (1). Same as the previous one, but limit it to two vehicles per person, so the maximum anyone could get would be $800 (sorry, Jay Leno...).
  • Gas rebates, but limited by vehicles (2). Limit the rebates by vehicle type. Electric and other zero-emissions vehicles would get nothing, since they buy no gas. Perhaps even only give smaller rebates to fuel-efficient vehicles like motorcycles, since they don't use anywhere near as much gas as a big pickup truck or car.
  • Gas rebates limited by both vehicles and income. This would be the most complex version, since it would combine complexities. It could be done in a number of different ways, even. You could offer $400 per vehicle, but only up to two, and only for those making less than a certain amount of income. Or you could limit it by gas-only vehicles but only up to a certain income. There are a number of different possibilities.

Those are the main ideas. So what would you do, if you were the legislature?

You can make an argument for any of the choices. You could still make the argument that it was a "gas price relief" payment even if you sent it to everyone (whether they owned a vehicle or not) because the high price of gas impacts everything people buy in a store (it had to get to that store somehow, and higher transportation costs mean higher retail prices for just about everything).

Limiting high-income earners is probably going to happen, seeing as how last year's checks were handled this way (as were the federal COVID checks). And it's pathetically easy to make that political argument: "Send it back to those who need it the most."

If it truly is a rebate for gasoline purchasers, then doling it out per vehicle certainly would make sense. Limiting the number of vehicles is just another way of limiting the rebate to the wealthy, for the most part, which would likely be combined with an upper income limit as well. In this case, a politician would argue: "Send it to those who are paying the price at the pump -- they are the ones who need it most."

One obvious problem is that this would be nothing more than a windfall benefit for those who own zero-emissions vehicles. These owners already get tax and other transportation goodies from the state, to encourage more and more people to buy such vehicles in the first place. One of the biggest benefits these drivers get is being able to drive on California's roads without contributing one thin dime to their construction and upkeep. That money is raised through the gas tax -- which such drivers do not pay. So it would make perfect sense to argue that these drivers shouldn't get a relief check for gas prices since they not only don't pay them, but also since by doing so they aren't paying anything for California's roads to begin with.

However, this would be a tough argument to sell in California. As mentioned, the state has already handed out lots of goodies to entice drivers to switch to zero-emissions cars, so leaving them out of the rebate would run counter to many years of the government encouraging their use. Politically, it would likely be a tough sell in a very blue state.

When I read the Mercury News article yesterday, I found myself not strongly inclined towards any one particular plan. Full disclosure: I do own a gasoline-powered vehicle and I do file California state taxes, so I do have some skin in this game. But since I can see the validity of each of these arguments, I decided to put it to my readers. If you were in charge of the state government out here in the Golden State, what would you do with all that extra money? How would you send it back? Remember that due to state law, some money is almost certainly going to have to be sent out in rebates, in one form or another. So "save it all for a rainy day" isn't even a choice.

California has too much money. So how would you send it back, and why?

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

106 Comments on “California Has Too Much Money”

  1. [1] 
    sd4david wrote:

    One per car owner. You can only drive 1 car at a time. Personally,I hate giving $ to those who drive gas guzzlers. Also ok with sliding scale on rebate based on income.

  2. [2] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    FPC

    Michale, you wrote,

    What do YOU call instance after instance where Biden goes off-script and has to be walked back by his handlers hours later??

    How would YOU explain ALL of the instances that this has happened... Which is VERY frequently and getting even MORE frequent..

    Oooo!

    After four years of "Maybe inject Clorox" Cheetogod, bringing up this subject matter is not what I'd do if I wanted to win hearts and minds.

    You do want to win hearts and minds here, right?

  3. [3] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I'd go with credit to every registered gas powered vehicle with a household maximum of two vehicles.

    I wouldn't add either simple or complicated income requirements. Let the fat cats get their credit, for they drive, too. And we're all in this together, right? Which makes it politically easier to raise taxes on the fat cats, because we're all in it together, right?

  4. [4] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    First of all, lower the tax rates, which are currently driving the exodus of highly productive Californians out of the state.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ, Russ, Russ,

    So nothing was PROVEN”, but merely ”authenticated”?

    Of course nothing's been PROVEN yet.. That's what the COURTS are for..

    Nothing has been PROVEN against President Trump either, but that doesn't stop you from the verbal diarrhea of you claiming President Trump is guilty of all sorts of crimes.. Why do you do that when nothing has been "PROVEN"??

    But the fact is, you keep on with this ridiculous claim that the laptop is not Hunter Biden's when the FACTS, even Hunter Biden's own statements prove that it is..

    And even the NY TIMES, THE Democrat Propaganda outlet, has stated that the Hunter Biden Laptop is authentic, meaning the ownership has been established beyond any doubt..

    You don't know MACs, so you can be forgiven. But the OS is linked to a person or a business.. Electronically and verifiably..

    So, there is absolutely NO DOUBT in anyone's mind, save those with an agenda, that the laptop in question does belong to Hunter Biden...

    So, try another schtick... This blind computer guy schtick, even if it were factual, is getting old and has no relevance..

    The NY TIMES has stated for the record that Hunter Biden's laptop is "authentic"... Ownership has been established..

    As for the evidence of crimes contained within the laptop??

    That's what we have the Delaware AG investigation and the soon to be House investigation for.. :D

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    After four years of "Maybe inject Clorox" Cheetogod, bringing up this subject matter is not what I'd do if I wanted to win hearts and minds.

    You do want to win hearts and minds here, right?

    Sorry, MC.. Nice try, but epic fail..

    First off, President Trump NEVER says the things ya'all claim he says... NEVER... It has ALWAYS been ya'all's INTERPRETATION of what President Trump actually says.. And that interpretation is based solely on ya'all's PTDS President Trump Derangement Syndrome..

    Secondly, President Trump's statements can only be described as musings and twitter-esque stuff..

    Joe Biden is always talking POLICY... Making speeches about POLICY...

    This latest one is he talks about regime change in nuclear armed former superpower..

    You can try to spin it all you want..

    But Joe Biden's off the wall musings have gotten downright DANGEROUS..

    And it's a FACT that his handlers have to walk back MANY of his claims after the fact and it's happening more and more often...

    Biden needs to be 25th... Before he blunders this country into a nuclear war..

    Ya'all made the same claims about President Trump.. But even ya'all were intelligent enough to know ya'all were just spewing Party propaganda... You didn't actually really believe that crap...

    THIS could really happen.. As I told dsws yesterday... I give it a 75%-80% chance that nukes will start flying..

    That's how bad Biden has frak'ed this situation up..

    "Never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up"
    -Barack Hussein Odumbo

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    First of all, lower the tax rates, which are currently driving the exodus of highly productive Californians out of the state.

    BEST.... SUGGESTION.... EVER.....

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:


    Nine words that shook the world: What was Joe Biden thinking?

    Frantic day-after cleanup effort can't erase Biden's disastrous call for regime change in a rival nuclear power


    Ever since Joe Biden ended his speech in Poland on Saturday night by making one of the most dangerous statements ever uttered by a U.S. president in the nuclear age, efforts to clean up after him have been profuse. Administration officials scurried to assert that Biden didn't mean what he said. Yet no amount of trying to "walk back" his unhinged comment at the end of his speech in front of Warsaw's Royal Castle can change the fact that Biden had called for regime change in Russia.

    They were nine words about Russian President Vladimir Putin that shook the world: "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power."

    With a reckless genie out of the bottle, no amount of damage control from the president's top underlings could stuff it back in. "We do not have a strategy of regime change in Russia, or anywhere else, for that matter," Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters on Sunday. Such words might plausibly have less than full weight; Blinken was chief of staff at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when, in mid-2002, then-Sen. Biden wielded the gavel at crucial hearings that stacked the deck in support of the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq, with the explicit goal of regime change.
    https://www.salon.com/2022/03/28/nine-words-that-shook-the-world-what-was-joe-biden-thinking/

    Whatever ya'all are thinking about Biden's off the wall regime change policy...

    It's MUCH worse than that...

    When your enemy has his finger on a nuclear trigger, the LAST thing you want to do is box him in...

    You want to give him an out.. As Sun Tzu said, build him a golden bridge with which to retreat..

    Biden has demolished ANY possible avenue for Putin to retreat.

    Biden just proved to Putin that Putin is fighting for his VERY SURVIVAL...

    You NEVER do that to a man who has a nuclear weapons fallback plan...

    NEVER...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mainstream journalists have avoided putting a fine point on the likelihood that World War III just got closer thanks to Biden's words, whether or not they were a "slip" or a "veiled threat." In fact, it might never be possible to know which it was. That ambiguity only underscores that the president's slip and/or threat was massively irresponsible, endangering the survival of humanity on this planet.

    Outrage is the appropriate response. And a special onus is on Democrats in Congress, who should be willing to put humanity above party and condemn Biden's extreme irresponsibility. Prospects for any such condemnation look bleak.

    Biden's impromptu nine words underscore that we must not take anything for granted about his rationality. Russia's murderous war in Ukraine does not give Biden any valid excuse to make a horrendous situation worse. On the contrary, the U.S. government should be determined to promote and pursue negotiations that could end the killing and find long-term compromise solutions. Biden has now made it even more difficult to pursue diplomacy with Putin.

    "Massively irresponsible"...

    Remember, this is Democrat Water Carrier Extraordinaire SALON here.... Not some Right Wing Rag...

    You people need to really sit up and take notice have bad Democrats are in the hole thanx to Joe Biden..

    Are Democrats going to step up and call a spade a spade??

    In this case, point out Biden's dangerous lapses in judgement???

    Are ya'all???

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I'm addressing the people in the United States. How many times have an attempt by the American government to effect regime change anywhere in the world worked out well? Ask the women of Afghanistan. Ask the people of Iraq. How did that liberal imperialism work out for them? Not very well. Do they really propose to try this out with a nuclear power?"
    -Former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis

    Democrats need to act..

    Or else, my only consolation prize will be I'll be able to post to WEIGANTIA, "Told ya'all so..." right before a nuke takes out MAYPORT NAS....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    And let's keep in mind Joe Biden's words from yesterday...

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden said Monday that he would make “no apologies” and wasn’t “walking anything back” after his weekend comment that Russian President Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power,” attempting to turn the page on a controversy that clouded his recent trip to Europe.
    https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-biden-europe-moscow-df6c9f17b04e26611ae5c58a16aa0e78

    So, Biden stands by his regime change policy...

    According to Joe Biden, the leader of the ONLY remaining Superpower and the most powerful man on the planet???

    Putin cannot survive... This war won't end with Putin in power..

    And ol' Vlad is over there thinking "Well, OK then.. I guess I have NOTHING to lose... Where are the nuclear launch codes.."

    And to think it ALL could have been avoided... :^/

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, you are SUCH a drama queen. :)

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay, I LIVED thru the Cold War.. I was a soldier during it..

    And I can honestly tell you with COMPLETE conviction that we have never been so close to a nuclear war since those days of October, 1962.. Less than 1 month after I was born..

    There is no one here who can factually deny that fact that we are closer to nuclear war than we have been in 60 years..

    Even dsws agrees that things look bleak.. I would be very interested in his thoughts on my percentages..

    As for me being a Drama Queen??

    Says the person who supports the idea that the planet's changing climate is going to destroy humanity.. And that humans could actually do something about it, even if it were factually accurate.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, eh?

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting article here..


    The Democrats’ Common Sense Problem

    Voters Think They’ve Abandoned It

    The Democrats are bleeding voters, particularly working class voters of all races. There are lots of reasons for this and I’ve written about some of them. One important throughline here is what we might call the common sense problem. As in, Democrats seem to have abandoned it in many areas. This helps explain why there hasn’t been a ”Trump disenchantment dividend” for the Democrats as the former President’s popularity has fallen and for that matter a “nutty GOP politicians” dividend as various Republican pols do and say fairly crazy things. Voters just aren’t sure the Democrats are that well-grounded either.
    https://theliberalpatriot.substack.com/p/the-democrats-common-sense-problem?s=r

    In this past FTP, ya'all cherry picked a few GOP'ers who have issues... And tried, but failed to paint the entire GOP with those little brushes..

    But let's take a look at the problems that the entirety of the Democrat Party have..

    1. Equality of opportunity is a fundamental American principle; equality of outcome is not.

    Americans love equal opportunity! But lately more and more Democrats have embraced, implicitly or explicitly, the idea that we must equalize outcomes as well by emphasizing policies that promote “equity” as opposed to simple equality.

    But Americans’ common sense is that opportunities should be made equal if they are not and then let people achieve as they will. There is no guarantee, nor should there be, that everyone will wind up in the same place.

    The statement above was tested in the very liberal state of Massachusetts by pollster Louis DiNatale who was interested in my ten statements and added them to some of his polls. (I should note that my statements were simply tested as is, rather than reworded for survey purposes, but the results are still quite interesting I think). On this statement, DiNatale found that Massachusetts voters overall agreed with the statement by 61 percent to 16 percent. Republican voters agreed with the statement by 72-12, but so did independent voters by 65-13 and even Democrats by 56-17. White voters endorsed the statement by 63-12 but so did black voters by 56-17.

    There just isn’t much of a constituency for equality of outcomes.

    You simply can't FORCE equality of outcome??

    I am reminded of the Urban Legend about a sociology professor who ran a test.. Ya'all know the one..

    Whether it actually happened or not is not relevant.. The lessons it teaches are factually accurate...

    You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

    What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

    The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

    You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

    When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

    It's common sense that you can't enforce equality of outcome..

    Whether it be in society or in the criminal justice system...

    It's NOT possible because doing so ignores human nature..

    This is ONE of the problems that the entirety of the Democrat Party has...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, eh?

    Not exactly... But I have been off the last few days.. Insides all tore up, my biologics are way off..

    But none of that negates the factual nature of my assessment of the here and now..

    Maybe it's BECAUSE were in a VERY precarious and dangerous time that I am all scroo'ed up.. :D

    But, enough about me.. :D

    How do YOU see all of this ending??

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I was talking about the obsession over the Biden laptop, silly. ;)

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How do YOU see all of this ending??

    Negotiated settlement ... with Ukraine settling for less than what it could have had if war had been avoided.

    I thought I made that much clear. ?

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was talking about the obsession over the Biden laptop, silly. ;)

    Oh.. Well, time will on that score..

    But it's the NY TIMES who is feeding that story, so.... :D

    Negotiated settlement ... with Ukraine settling for less than what it could have had if war had been avoided.

    What's Putin's incentive for settling? Or even negotiating for that matter???

    The endgame for the US is Putin's removal..

    Why should Putin even negotiate??

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think even Putin understands Biden better than you do, Michale. Heh.

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, Putin gets an all important Ukrainian land bridge from Russia through the east and to the south of Ukraine and Crimea.

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The final settlement, by the way, will tell us just how incomptent the Russians have been ...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, Putin gets an all important Ukrainian land bridge from Russia through the east and to the south of Ukraine and Crimea.

    Not if Biden has his way and Putin is removed from power..

    Putin gets a bullet in the back of the head..

    Putin has NO incentive to negotiate..

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Right. Too many spy movies, Michale!

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Because the US is soooooooooooo good at regime change. Heh.

  26. [26] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I would say the US has a mixed record on regime change. Seemed to turn out OK for Germany, Italy and Japan. Maybe Grenada and Panama...

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Because the US is soooooooooooo good at regime change. Heh.

    Exactly my point..

    Which makes Biden regime change policy that he refuses to walk back all the more ridiculous..

    Right. Too many spy movies, Michale!

    Maybe so.. Although these days, there is hardly any quality movies of that genre.. Or ANY genre, for that matter...

    But it still doesn't change the fact you have yet to identify what exactly is Putin's incentive to negotiate...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would say the US has a mixed record on regime change. Seemed to turn out OK for Germany, Italy and Japan. Maybe Grenada and Panama...

    That's because up until Grenada & Panama, politicians let the military prosecute the process...

    Disaster comes when politicians think they know more regarding military tactics than the generals...

    A perfect case in point is Biden's disastrous actions in Afghanistan...

  29. [29] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    That's because up until Grenada & Panama, politicians let the military prosecute the process...

    Does that include WWI?

  30. [30] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [8]

    First off, President Trump NEVER says the things ya'all claim he says... NEVER... It has ALWAYS been ya'all's INTERPRETATION of what President Trump actually says.. And that interpretation is based solely on ya'all's PTDS President Trump Derangement Syndrome..

    Secondly, President Trump's statements can only be described as musings and twitter-esque stuff..


    Wow. You cannot be reached, can you?

    You're the only Weigantian with Trump Derangement Syndrome, the unwavering belief that a know nothing New York douchebag who turned out to be #PutinsBitch is somehow not our worst President in 170 years.

    Dude, I watched it happen! Or am I supposed to trust right-wing media instead of my lying eyes?

  31. [31] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    MtnCaddy [33]

    Actually, that's probably true. What Michale and the rest of the trumpateers fail to mention is any time Trump speaks it's such a contradictory word salad that they are also trying to interpret what he says as well. Not surprising that their heavy biased interpretation conflicts with the lefts heavily biased interpretation. Kind of like the bible, it supports just about anything thing you want as long as you ignore the fact it contradicts a few lines down. Trump's big difference is you don't need to turn page or even leave the same sentience to find the contradiction. He has the ability to contradict himself, lie and toss in some incomprehensible verbiage in the same sentience. Impressive when you think about it...

  32. [32] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [8]

    THIS could really happen.. As I told dsws yesterday... I give it a 75%-80% chance that nukes will start flying...

    ...said the guy who bet that Trump would do well with black voters and then welched on his bets.

  33. [33] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [35]

    The point being your predictions track record since I arrived.


    Speaking of welched bets you refused to pay because Weigantia changed for the worse? Then why are you still here, snowflake?

    No, you welched because you're butthurt over Cheetogod's epic loss. I always planned on covering your losses because I knew you'd disappear. I'm still willing to do so if you make like a tree and leave.

  34. [34] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [34]

    Not surprising that their heavy biased interpretation conflicts with the lefts heavily biased interpretation. Kind of like the bible, it supports just about anything thing you want as long as you ignore the fact it contradicts a few lines down.

    That's an excellent point, Bashi! Two ideologically opposed sides, each putting their "spin" on Trump's incoherence. I learned something this morning!

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Putin reportedly rejected olive branch from Zelenskyy with menacing message

    Putin outraged by Zelenskyy note delivered by Russian oligarch Ambramovich

    Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly rejected a note from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy seeking peace in the more than a month-long conflict. When the note was hand-delivered to him by Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, Putin reportedly replied instead: "Tell him I will thrash them."
    https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/ukraine-russia-live-updates-03-29-2022

    Once again.. I have to ask..

    What incentive does Putin have to negotiate???

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Does that include WWI?

    If you have to reach back over 100 years to make a point, your point is not worth making..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    Link me to the actual quotes from President Trump that say what you claim they say...

    I double-dog dare you.. :D

    THIS could really happen.. As I told dsws yesterday... I give it a 75%-80% chance that nukes will start flying...

    ...said the guy who bet that Trump would do well with black voters and then welched on his bets.

    Says the guy who said Putin would never invade..

    Do you REALLY want to play the PREDICTIONS GAME, MC?? :D

    Speaking of welched bets you refused to pay because Weigantia changed for the worse? Then why are you still here, snowflake?

    Do you really want to revisit this??

    My conscience is clear.. I paid the wager in the best manner I could while still adhering to my principles...

    Principles, I might add, that are COMPLETELY consistent...

    As opposed to others who vary their principles according to whatever political agenda is Left Wing popular at any given moment.. :^/

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    43 Russian diplomats across four European countries are expelled
    Four European countries have expelled a combined 43 Russian diplomats on Tuesday, according to the Associated Press.

    The Netherlands said it was expelling 17 Russians who it described as intelligence officers masquerading as diplomats. Belgium said it was ejecting 21 Russians.

    The Czech Republic gave one Russian diplomat 72 hours to leave the country, while Ireland told four senior Russian officials to leave the country because of activities deemed not “in accordance with international standards of diplomatic behavior.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/ukraine-russia-live-updates-03-29-2022

    Allies continue to back Putin into a corner..

    The chances of nukes flying may actually be increasing...

  39. [39] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    If you have to reach back over 100 years to make a point, your point is not worth making..

    Can't back it up, eh? Heh...

    As opposed to others who vary their principles according to whatever political agenda is Left Wing popular at any given moment.. :^/

    As oppose to you parroting the Trump agenda?

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can't back it up, eh? Heh...

    I just did by pointing out how ridiculous your claim is...

    As oppose to you parroting the Trump agenda?

    When it's factually accurate and the best thing for this country..

    As opposed to your support for Biden leading us into WWIII with nukes..

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:


    What History Teaches Us About Stolen Elections
    The scenario is familiar. A presidential election ends with uncertain results. Millions are convinced the election has been stolen. Congress steps in to reassure the nation, picks a president, and opens a wound that just divides the country further.

    Welcome to 1876. That was the year Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote and was just one vote short of an Electoral College victory, but somehow lost to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes when the electoral votes of four states were “reconsidered.”

    If you think the presidential election of 2020 was controversial, suffice it to say that if half the irregularities of 1876 had been repeated in 2020, America would have been torn apart.

    Not only was an Electoral College majority certified for neither candidate, Congress opted in 1876 to invent a wholly novel “solution.” Instead of following the constitutional mandate putting an unsettled election in the House of Representatives to resolve, Congress improvised, passing a law on Jan. 29, 1877 that formed a 15-member Electoral Commission which was authorized to decide for the entire country who had won the election. Not surprisingly, every decision favored the Republicans on an 8-7 party-line vote, and the commission ended up awarding all 20 disputed electoral votes to Hayes. Democrats reportedly allowed Hayes to become president in exchange for his promise that he would end Reconstruction and withdraw federal troops stationed in the South after the end of the Civil War.

    Trust me, if there had been an Internet or 24/7 cable news back then, the “Compromise of 1877” probably would have ignited a second civil war instead of putting an unofficial end to the first one. But even without the nonstop blare of social influencers and the Twitter mob, plenty of people knew they were being had.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/03/28/what_history_teaches_us_about_stolen_elections_147388.html

    "Cheaters Never Prosper"

    We see that playing out with today's Democrat Party...

  42. [42] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I just did by pointing out how ridiculous your claim is...

    But not how ridiculous your original claim was? Or are we only allowed to go back as far as it doesn't contradict?

    When it's factually accurate and the best thing for this country..

    So...never?

    As opposed to your support for Biden leading us into WWIII with nukes..

    Are you going to make up your mind on this one? Earlier Biden was not strong enough now we fear nukes? Which is it? Or is it your normal dammed if he does, dammed if he doesn't so we should just ignore your opinion type issue?

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Savannah Morning News spoke for many when it opined in its Feb. 24, 1877 edition: “[T]he Democratic leaders in Congress have been bullied, cajoled, betrayed and cheated into a surrender not only of the fairly won victory of the party at the polls, but of the constitutional right of the people to self-government.”

    Consider for a moment what that statement means in the context of 2020, when mainstream Republicans were bullied by the mainstream media into abandoning President Trump and his claims of a stolen election. The lesson is clear: If you think the election was not free and fair, if you think victory was stolen from you, then fight for it with all your might. Don’t let anyone talk you out of it. Don’t surrender because someone told you it was a bad look.

    As the Savannah editor wrote in the same edition: “A people who can calmly submit to and acquiesce in such a betrayal of their rights and liberties need give to history no better proof of their unfitness for self-government.”

    If Twitter had been around in 1877, however, the Savannah Morning News would have been censored. If there had been an equivalent of the Jan. 6 House select committee, the editor would have been subpoenaed, shamed, and possibly prosecuted. As the mainstream media has essentially told us, when it comes to elections: “If you see something, say nothing.”

    But just as in 1876, millions of Americans don’t believe what they are being told, and they don’t want to just shut up and go away, which has made them enemies of the establishment. Donald Trump, Mark Meadows, Ginni Thomas and others who dispute the 2020 election results aren’t committing treason; they are committing free thought. And they are being treated as criminals for doing so.

    History may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes..

    What we are seeing now is that, with the Democrat Party, legally contesting an election that the Democrat Party won thru the courts is criminal...

    THAT is the lesson that the Democrat Party is putting forth...

  44. [44] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale [44]

    What? Republicans have a long history of stealing elections and should not be trusted?

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    The rest of us are being told to stand down, to acquiesce to the idea that the votes of the American people should never be “overturned” once they are officially recorded. This is ridiculous, both as a matter of logic and as a matter of history.

    Now, I actually disagree with this..

    The idea that the courts should actively OVERTURN a Presidential Election and award the Presidency to the actual winner is frightening...

    Which is not to say that election fraud should NOT be transparently investigated. It's important to identify and prosecute the cheaters to insure that such a thing can never happen again..

    But it's a pipe dream to think that the courts will overrule an election...

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    What? Republicans have a long history of stealing elections and should not be trusted?

    Ahh yes.. The old I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I rebuttal...

    It's a Democrat staple... :D

  47. [47] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    But the article you posted was about Republicans stealing the election...

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for the purported mission of the Jan. 6 committee – to investigate the causes of the violence at the Capitol, and prevent a recurrence – maybe Nancy Pelosi and her minions can learn something from the precautions taken for the electoral vote count in 1877.

    As reported by the Baltimore Sun on Feb. 2 of that year, “The one hundred special policemen employed for service during the period to be occupied with the electoral count reported at an early hour this morning at the capitol, and under the direction of the sergeants-at-arms of the two houses were posted at various points through the building. Each policeman wore on the lapel of his coat a blue badge with the words ‘special police’ printed across it. … Hundreds of strangers who were in the city, and were very desirous of witnessing the proceedings attending the count of the electoral vote, were bitterly disappointed to learn that they could not be admitted without tickets, and were not at all backward in venting their dissatisfaction and in asserting that as citizens of the United States they had the right to free passage in the capitol building. The only comfort they had was in expressing their opinion.”

    Can you imagine if Speaker Pelosi had followed President Trump’s advice and brought in more security to control what was anticipated to be an angry crowd of disgruntled voters? The fact that Pelosi and the lax security are not being investigated at all is one more proof that the Jan. 6 committee is nothing but a political hit job.

    The 6 Jan Committee is a joke.. And it will fade away into nothingness once the GOP is in control of Congress after the mid-terms...

    Ya'all know it.. *I* know it..

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the article you posted was about Republicans stealing the election...

    Of course that's how you see it.. How you spin it.. :D

    Which simply proves the point in #40... :D

    Thanx Bash... yer a peach... Yer always proving my points for me.. :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    In Depth: Ketanji Brown Jackson's Soft Spot for Drug Dealers, Pedophiles and Terrorists

    "Justice demands this result." That’s what Ketanji Brown Jackson said in 2011 after the U.S. Sentencing Commission knocked as much as three years off the prison terms of crack-cocaine convicts. As vice chair of the commission, Jackson believed the nation’s drug laws were overly harsh and especially "unfair" to blacks.

    A month earlier, Jackson had shrugged off Justice Department warnings that the decision -- which made more than 12,000 federal crack inmates eligible for early release -- could flood the streets with dangerous criminals who would likely reoffend.

    "[B]y keeping them in longer, it doesn't seem to make a difference with regard to whether or not they recidivate," Jackson reasoned in a June 2011 commission hearing in Washington, according to transcripts reviewed by RealClearInvestigations.
    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/03/29/in_depth_ketanji_brown_jacksons_soft_spot_for_drug_dealers_pedophiles_and_terrorists_823900.html

    This goes to that EQUAL OUTCOMES/COMMON SENSE point that Democrats just cannot comprehend I made earlier...

    You simply cannot push an EQUAL OUTCOME agenda in an area that is so black/white (no pun intended) as criminal justice..

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then-U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose objected: "It does protect the safety of the public, though, when they're not present to recidivate."

    Unpersuaded, Jackson countered: "But the amount of time in jail doesn't affect that because there's no difference. If we keep them in jail for the extra 36 months, or whatever, they're going to recidivate at the same rate as if we released them early. So I don't see how public protection is being affected one way or the other in that scenario."

    "Because during the three years they are in prison, they are not out committing new crimes — that's the difference," Rose replied, adding that the department had "public safety concerns" over cutting prison terms for so many felons at once.

    Now vying for a spot on the U.S. Supreme Court, Jackson has struggled to fend off accusations that she is soft on crime. The Senate confirmation hearings have exposed a pattern: whether as a lawyer, sentencing commissioner or judge, she has disregarded the warnings or recommendations of prosecutors and investigators while advocating or easing the punishment not just for drug dealers but also child porn offenders and even accused terrorists.

    Jackson Brown want's to give leniency to black criminals, terrorists and pedophiles SOLELY because they are black...

    The very definition of racism...

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jackson argues courts should have empathy for all people, no matter how egregious their behavior, and look to rehabilitate them and not just "lock them up and throw away the key."

    Her supporters say she would bring a fresh new perspective to the high bench, which has been dominated by former prosecutors trained to keep criminals in prison, not out of it. If confirmed, Jackson would be the modern court's first public defender. No sitting justice has such experience.

    The problem with Jackson Brown's approach is that it is completely and utterly racist...

    60-100 years ago, black Americans were handed harsher penalties SOLELY because they are black..

    That's racism...

    In the here and now, Democrats in general and Jackson Brown in particular want to handed down MORE LENIENT penalties, AGAIN, SOLELY because they are black..

    That is ALSO racism...

    Racism to "fix" racism or racism to "make up" for racism is STILL racism..

    That is a fact that Democrats simply refuse to acknowledge..

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    While guiding the sentencing commission, Jackson didn’t just resist federal prosecutors' warnings that granting crack dealers early release would merely put them back in action faster. She also ignored their advice to exclude from eligibility those with firearms in their records. In the end, she sided with NAACP official Hilary O. Shelton, who called crack sentences "racially discriminatory" and demanded the commission "correct this injustice."

    "People of color are being put in prison at much higher rates than their Caucasian counterparts," Shelton asserted, testifying before the commission alongside Rose.

    And WHY is that??

    Is it because they are black?? There are no facts that prove such a claim..

    Or is it because they are more likely to commit the crime??

    Facts overwhelmingly support that contention...

    It's like the FBI's violent crime statistic... Black Americans are 14% of the population but commit upwards of almost 60% of the violent crimes..

    Given this FACT, it's logical and rational that black Americans would be more prevalent and more represented in the criminal justice...

    It's not racism.. It's CHARACTER...

    And, as Dr Martin Luther King espoused...

    Judge people by their CHARACTER... NOT by the color of their skin...

    But do Democrats judge the Trayvon Martins by their character??? The Michael Browns?? The George Floyds?? The Duante Wrights???

    No.. They judge them by the color of their skin..

    Which proves beyond ANY doubt that the Democrat Party is STILL the Racist Party...

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    The article linked above has a PLETHORA of good information...

    I won't quote it all, but it lays out quite perfectly why Jackson Brown is NOT suited to be a Supreme Court Justice..

    Beyond the obvious aspects of being nothing but an Affirmative Action hire.... A token for Biden's crass promise of trading a quality SCOTUS candidate for votes and support..

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    PINNED
    US official says Russian troops are redeploying, not withdrawing from Kyiv
    A U.S. official tells Fox News' Mark Meredith Tuesday that "any movement of Russian forces from around Kyiv is a redeployment, not a withdrawal, and the world should be prepared for a major offensive against other areas of Ukraine."

    “No one should be fooled by Russia’s announcements," the official said. "It also does not mean the threat to Kyiv is over. Russia has failed in its objective of capturing Kyiv, and failed in its objective of subjugating all of Ukraine, but it can still inflict massive brutality on the country, including Kyiv.”

    Russia announced earlier today that it was withdrawing forces from the Kyiv and Chernihiv regions in hopes of laying the groundwork for a peace deal with Ukraine.
    https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/ukraine-russia-live-updates-03-29-2022

    This is what happens when the US states a policy of leadership/regime change...

    It gives the enemy leader absolutely NO INCENTIVE to negotiate in good faith...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oscars made ‘right decision’ on not ‘taking the Black man out’ after Smith assault: Whoopi Goldberg

    'The reason they didn’t go and take him out is because that would have been another 15, 20-minute explanation of why we’re taking the Black man out'
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/oscars-black-man-will-smith-whoopi-goldberg-chris-rock

    Once again.. Whoppi (a Democrat and part of a HUGE blooper in Star Trek PICARD) is basing her assessment SOLELY on the basis of race..

    THE textbook definition of racism...

  57. [57] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Department of I Just Can't Resist:

    News item:


    There's a seven hour gap in Trump's phone records from January 6th.

    From the WaPo comments section:

    The orange haired slop had a seven hour phone call with Stormy Daniels that was not included in the log.

    ***


    Stormy says it was 3 minutes max.

  58. [58] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    It gives the enemy leader absolutely NO INCENTIVE to negotiate in good faith...

    Is Putin ever negotiating in good faith? I think Biden gets a no harm, no foul on this one.

    Now lets all watch Threads so we can really get our existential dread on before the world moves on to something else...

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is Putin ever negotiating in good faith? I think Biden gets a no harm, no foul on this one.

    Of course you think that... What else could you POSSIBLY think?? :^/

    Now lets all watch Threads so we can really get our existential dread on before the world moves on to something else...

    OK, Bashi.. I'll be yer huckleberry...

    What's yer take on where the Ukraine/Russo war is heading??

    Care to make a prediction..

    I am betting ya don't.. :D

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Department of I Just Can't Resist:

    News item:

    There's a seven hour gap in Trump's phone records from January 6th.

    From the WaPo comments section:

    The orange haired slop had a seven hour phone call with Stormy Daniels that was not included in the log.

    ***

    Stormy says it was 3 minutes max.

    Well... We know where MC's mind is at.. :D

    Do you think often about President Trump's sex life, MC???

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone STILL thinking that Dims will be able to hold onto Congress?? :D

    With 7 months until midterms, GOP has upper hand in battle for House: polls

    Republicans need a net gain of just five seats to win back the House majority
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/midterm-polls-republicans-upper-hand-house-of-representatives

    Cuz, if so.. I have some swampland down here in FL I wanna sell ya... :D

  62. [62] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Of course you think that... What else could you POSSIBLY think?? :^/

    Well, is he?

    It's interesting that you dodge the question while accusing me of dodging a question...

  63. [63] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Of course nothing's been PROVEN yet.. That's what the COURTS are for..

    But the fact is, you keep on with this ridiculous claim that the laptop is not Hunter Biden's when the FACTS, even Hunter Biden's own statements prove that it is..

    I’m sorry, but which side of your mouth should I be listening to?

    You don't know MACs, so you can be forgiven. But the OS is linked to a person or a business.. Electronically and verifiably..

    I am very familiar with how Apple verifies new hardware to your account and allows you to use your account on multiple pieces of hardware.

    So, try another schtick... This blind computer guy schtick, even if it were factual, is getting old and has no relevance..

    The NY TIMES has stated for the record that Hunter Biden's laptop is "authentic"... Ownership has been established..

    As for the evidence of crimes contained within the laptop??

    Can you prove that it was Hunter Biden that took the laptop to the repair shop in Delaware? The shop owner cannot because he is legally blind! And since no one can verify that it was actually Hunter Biden who authorized the work done on what you claim has been proven to be Hunter’s laptop, what gives the government the right to look through a person’s private computer files without their permission?

    You have provided no evidence that the Times has said that the laptop the repairman was given definitely belongs to Hunter Biden. But if it belonged to Hunter Biden, as you claim, and he did not know his laptop was taken to a Delaware repair shop to be “fixed”, it’s stolen property.

    The repairman gave the laptop to the FBI. But for some reason, he cloned the laptop’s hard-drive and all of its files prior to turning it over to the FBI. Why? It appears that when the FBI didn’t rush to tell the world that they were investigating Hunter Biden, the repairman took the hard drive and data — that did not belong to him — and turned copies over to the NYPost and to Rudy Giuliani…neither of which had any legal claim to the laptop!

    This is all nuthingburger… try not to choke on it.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's interesting that you dodge the question while accusing me of dodging a question...

    Yea.. I have NEVER stated my opinion on what's going down in the here and now.. EVER... :^/

    Did you HONESTLY just try that BS here??? :^/

    As far as Putin negotiating in good faith... Of course he is.. As his "faith" leads him..

    Originally he figured that the US/NATO could NEVER come together and be united..

    Now, for the most part and at least temporarily, Putin's "faith" tells him things are not as he hoped they would be..

    Then Biden comes along and says the goal is for Putin to end up with a bullet in his brain...

    So, NOW Putin's faith tells him that he has nothing to lose by going ALL IN...

    So... yea... Putin is negotiating in the "faith" that Biden has shown him...

    You just CAN'T speak ill of Biden, can you?? You simply CAN'T express how badly Biden has scroo'ed da pooch.. Yer incapable...

    Yer like Fonzie who can't say he was wrong.. It comes out... "I was wroooooo...... I was wr......."

    You simply CANNOT condemn Democrats.... It's yer nature...

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can you prove that it was Hunter Biden that took the laptop to the repair shop in Delaware?

    It's not relevant.. It's Hunter Biden's laptop.. The data is his.. The pictures and the porn are his.. The emails that confirms his illegal activities are his..

    It doesn't matter how it got there...

    Even if the laptop was stolen from Hunter Biden and dropped off at the computer repair shop so it could be exposed....

    ALL of that is irrelevant...

    It's Hunter Biden's laptop... And all the data on that laptop has been "authenticated" by the Democrat Propaganda Flagship, the New York Times..

    THIS IS FACT..

    Everything you spew is simply NOT relevant to the central facts..

    Even Hunter Biden himself acknowledged that the laptop and the data is his..

    Joe Biden has NOT CONTESTED the FACT that the laptop and the emails and the pics and the porn is, in fact, Hunter Biden's...

    Yer grasping at strawmen arguments because you KNOW that the Democrats are totally frak'ed once the GOP takes the House and opens up a PLETHORA of investigations.. :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Yer grasping at strawmen arguments because you KNOW that the Democrats are totally frak'ed once the GOP takes the House and opens up a PLETHORA of investigations.. :D

    Unless you think that the Democrats will be able to retain control of the House???

    Is that it, Russ??? You think that Democrats are going to be able to cheat again and keep control of the House??

    REALLY??? :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does ANYONE here, besides MC, HONESTLY think that Democrats will prevail in November??

    Anyone??? :D

  68. [68] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Yea.. I have NEVER stated my opinion on what's going down in the here and now.. EVER... :^/

    Did you HONESTLY just try that BS here??? :^/

    "As his faith leads him". That's some serious half assed dancing around the issue. Hilarious...

    Is Putin negotiating in good faith in the peace talks with the Ukraine, yes or no?

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    "That’s just another extraordinary mistruth from President Biden there. He did that throughout the campaign. He pretended that he knew nothing about his son Hunter's overseas business dealings. There’s plenty of evidence on the laptop and Tony Bobulinski's material and the material that Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson collected for their Senate investigation and are currently presenting to Congress — and I think they’re going to be doing that on a regular basis, to show links between Hunter Biden and Communist China.

    There’s also evidence that Joe Biden financially benefited from Hunter Biden’s grift and his brother, Jim Biden’s grift, with these countries which are crucial to America’s national security interest. The lack of curiosity from most of the media is repellent and really corrupt. But I think the dam is about to burst. We have Hunter Biden looking at indictments coming out of that a grand jury in Delaware. You see The New York Times and The Washington Post are now sniffing around. They’ve admitted the laptop is real, and they have realized this is a bombshell story."
    -Miranda Devine

    Hunter Biden is going to BURY Joe Biden....

    There is no stopping it..

    "Your boys are going down, Danny. I can't stop it anymore."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is Putin negotiating in good faith in the peace talks with the Ukraine, yes or no?

    What part of "Of course he is.. " is not clear to you???

    Putin's faith is that Biden means it when Biden says, "{Putin} cannot remain in power for god's sake!"

    So YES... Putin is negotiating in good faith.. The good faith belief that Biden wants to remove Putin from power..

    Still can't speak ill of Biden, can ya Bashi...

    Party slave to the end.. :^/

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    yes or no?

    Are you HONESTLY implying that I have a problem with straight answers, son??

    That's YER bailiwick, not mine.. :D

    You can't even call it when Democrats screw up...

    Not answering straight questions is yer problem, Bash...

    It's never been mine...

  72. [72] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    And you can't seem to answer a simple question. Got a lot of qualifiers there...

    Let's put it a different way: should Zelenskyy trust Putin in the peace negotiations? Yes or no.

    Personally, I think Zelenskyy would be a fool to trust Putin and even if there is a peace agreement signed, Zelenskyy had better keep on guard lest some novichok or polonium find it's way in to his food or person...

  73. [73] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Not answering straight questions is yer problem, Bash...

    It's never been mine...

    And yet I've seen less dancing in a tango competition...

  74. [74] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    As for party slavery, I also backed Lindsey Graham a few threads back when he had the same opinion as Biden.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    And you can't seem to answer a simple question. Got a lot of qualifiers there...

    So... "Of course he is.. " IS in fact confusing to you...

    Well, can't help you there, son... I can't help you if you can't comprehend plain english...

    Let's put it a different way: should Zelenskyy trust Putin in the peace negotiations? Yes or no.

    Of course not... Is THAT confusing to you??? :^/

    And yet I've seen less dancing in a tango competition..

    It's not my fault that you have a problem with comprehending plain english..

    "Of course he is.. " is as plain english as it gets...

    But, you did admit you were still in school, so maybe such plain concepts are ahead of you in your path to learning...

    Still refusing to condemn Biden's actions eh???

    You wear the mantle of Party Slave proudly, eh?? :^/

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for party slavery, I also backed Lindsey Graham a few threads back when he had the same opinion as Biden.

    Cite???

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    also backed Lindsey Graham a few threads back when he had the same opinion as Biden.

    So, yer saying you back Biden, even if a Republican agrees with him..

    So, Party slave... Gotcha {wink wink}

  78. [78] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    So... "Of course he is.. " IS in fact confusing to you...

    No, but all the "Biden" qualifiers afterword does put some doubt on the whole thing... Some reason a simple yes or no is beyond you?

    Of course not... Is THAT confusing to you??? :^/

    Exactly. That's some serious dancing there... How is Putin negotiating in good faith sometimes but not in others in the same peace talks? Your dancing is moving quickly from a slow tango to jitterbug...

    It's not my fault that you have a problem with comprehending plain english..

    That's some Don Harris level of projection right there...

    Still refusing to condemn Biden's actions eh???

    Nothing to condemn. Biden and Graham are right...

  79. [79] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    So, yer saying you back Biden, even if a Republican agrees with him..

    Graham said it first...

  80. [80] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    So, Party slave... Gotcha {wink wink}

    I'm not a registered democrat. But you are a slave to Truumpism, so I guess it's theoretically possible...

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, but all the "Biden" qualifiers afterword does put some doubt on the whole thing... Some reason a simple yes or no is beyond you?

    Only to someone who is a Party Slave...

    Anyone else could read the plain english.. :D

    Still refusing to condemn Biden's actions eh???

    Nothing to condemn. Biden and Graham are right...

    And there's the admission of Party Slave..

    Biden is ALWAYS right.. You can't disagree with Biden at all... :D

    So, yer saying you back Biden, even if a Republican agrees with him..

    So, Biden is right.. Biden is ALWAYS right in your mind..

    I accept your concession.. :D

    You see, Bashi.. That's exactly your problem.. You think I am a Party slave as you are... But I am not..

    That is why you always lose these discussions... Unlike you, my loyalty is to my country solely...

    Well, family first.. Country second... Since I have no Party, loyalty to Party never enters the picture..

    Unlike you...

    Your loyalty is to Party above all else..

    PARTY UBER ALLES

    Sad....

  82. [82] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Yer grasping at strawmen arguments because you KNOW that the Democrats are totally frak'ed once the GOP takes the House and opens up a PLETHORA of investigations.. :D

    Oh, I have no doubt that if the GOP takes the House, they will open a PLETHORA of investigations! Will those investigations be anything more than an orchestrated pony show for their base? Nope. It’s like in the George Zimmerman trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin. When the shooting took place, the evidence was extremely clear that GZ acted in self-defense when he shot TM and no charges were filed against GZ. It was weeks later when the state AG stepped in and chose to indict GZ despite the fact that no new evidence had been collected that supported charges being filed! The public had been fed a completely fictional account of what occurred that night by Big Media. That was why so many people were shocked when the jury came back saying it was clear that GZ should have never been indicted and that it seemed like the entire trial was nothing more than a “production”.

    Trump’s FBI and DOJ were given the laptop in mid-2019. They couldn’t find anything useable to attack Biden with when they were desperately seeking any scrap of info that could be twisted in Trump’s favor. Trump would have to be a complete moron if he did not realize there were documents showing crimes being committed by Hunter! I mean,seriously, he’d have to be the dumbest sack of shit to not to have said something at the time. The evidence hasn’t changed.

    And for someone who swears he was a member of law enforcement, you seem to know nothing on “probable cause”.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    But you are a slave to Truumpism, so I guess it's theoretically possible.

    Yea, that's yer claim..

    But, as usual, you have NO FACTS to support..

    And yet, yer slavery to Biden and the Democrats is unequivocal...

    You have never condemned Biden or the Democrat Party...

    Ergo, your slavery is well established..

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Oh, I have no doubt that if the GOP takes the House, they will open a PLETHORA of investigations!

    "If"???

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    And, once again.. You try to make it ALL about President Trump when he has NOTHING to do with this..

    It's ALL the NY TIMES and the Delaware AG... Yet, you cannot break free from your PTDS...

    President Trump Derangement Syndrome... :D

  85. [85] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale,

    Repeating "party slave" over and over while trying to push a concession when one was not given. It's like you can't give a straight answer and are trying to weasel out of it...

    Are you trying to one up Don?

  86. [86] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear-

    And you know Trump ain't got squat if he has to Ask Putin to help him dig up dirt.

  87. [87] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Do you think often about President Trump's sex life, MC???

    No, because I'm not obsessed with #PutinsBitch. But that WaPo comment and reply was too good not to share.

    You're welcome.

    Speaking of welched bets you refused to pay because Weigantia changed for the worse? Then why are you still here, snowflake?

    No, you welched because you're butthurt over Cheetogod's epic loss. I always planned on covering your losses because I knew you'd disappear. I'm still willing to do so if you make like a tree and leave.

    Your family name ain't worth $150 as the FACT of your dishonorable behavior PROVES it.

  88. [88] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    As for the prediction game, I didn't believe Putin would make the colossal mistake of invading Ukraine.

    So I predicted wrongly, but now that Putin and Russia are so vastly fucked

    Putin and Russia are now fucked. I sure did predict wrongly

  89. [89] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    ... but considering how vastly fucked Putin (bullet in the brain) and Mother Russia are, sue me for being wrong.

  90. [90] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Predictions:

    THE MIDTERMS:

    Most media began predicting disaster for the Dems the moment the dust settled in 2020. But I think the political environment in a couple-three months will be vastly different than right now:

    We're going to have a long, hot summer of J6 Committee public hearings. Must-see TV!

    DOJ will indict their way up the ladder, flip sufficient underlings (loyalty? Haha!) and thence indict Cheetogod. Alas, you cannot slip out of the country when you've got a Secret Service detail.

    Inflation may well cool down.

    The Dems may figure out how to effectively campaign against Repug facism and craziness.

    UKRAINE

    Zelensky and the whole world (outside of Russia) know that Putin has lost. The Ukrainians know that they are negotiating from a position of strength and the only concession I can imagine them making would be letting the Rooskies keep Crimea. Donbass will be liberated from occupation. Putin cannot launch without two other high ranking officials and if he tries that's when he'll get the bullet.

    Ideally, the new regime would hand Vladimir over to the World Court for his wardrobes, but because of the cult of personality he's built up chances are far better that he gets a bullet in the head, even without trying to launch.

    Elizabeth Miller! I copied your #LizSplainingUkraine
    and will respond to it shortly.

  91. [91] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    ...for his WARCRIMES. I don't actually have a problem with Putin's wardrobe.

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    I can hardly wait. ;)

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    It would probably be best to post your answer under the appropriate headlining piece, not here ...

  94. [94] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    (reading through all these... up to about 30)

    you know, it's too irreverent to be in an article, but I did think when this war began (Michale might appreciate this one) that Hollywood could soon pivot back to making movies where the Rooskies are the evil enemies once again.

    Like I said, way too silly for the subject at hand (which is serious), but comments about the movies made me admit it, that's all...

    -CW

  95. [95] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [31] -

    Um, wait... is that you badmouthing Saint Ronnie of Reagan?

    (heh, couldn't resist)

    -CW

  96. [96] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [39] -

    "If you have to reach back over 100 years to make a point, your point is not worth making.."

    Aren't you the same guy who keeps bringing up how the KKK was all Democrats?

    Just sayin'...

    -CW

  97. [97] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    and, um, hey, just on general karmic principles...

    can we please not wager bets on whether the nukes are going to start flying on these pages?

    I mean, seriously... there's some bets you just don't want to win, right?

    Right?

    (sigh)

    -CW

  98. [98] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    First you discount examples from 100 years ago, and now you're back to 1876?

    Why stop? Let's talk about the Corrupt Bargain of 1824!

    -CW

  99. [99] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    and, just, in general... Michale, you should really cool it a bit with the lengthy excerpts... post the link and maybe a paragraph, we'll read the rest of we're interested...

    -CW

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Looking forward to the next Bond film ... and to see who the next Bond will be! :)

  101. [101] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    (later)

    Seriously, Michale... don't make me start using "[removed for copyright protection violations]" edits on your posts again...

    I mean, I've been getting complaints...

    -CW

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Speaking of 1824, how is the book coming along - it's still as relevant as ever!

  103. [103] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MtnCaddy [60] -

    OK, that was funny!

    Thanks for the laugh...

    :-)

    -CW

  104. [104] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Yeah, Bond was precisely what I was thinking!

    :-)

    -CW

  105. [105] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    As for the book, well... I'm looking into creating an ebook and publishing what I've already got (which is fairly ready to go) for some absurdly cheap price per download. Last time I investigated it, though, it seemed overly complicated...

    but thanks for asking!

    :-)

    -CW

  106. [106] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    ok, onward to today's comments...

    -CW

Comments for this article are closed.