snoughnut

Don't forget Biden's all out assault on fossil fuels and his greenie bullshit. There's more than one reason why gas pump nozzles are ribbed, hopefully all those stupid Biden voters are enjoying it.

...........yeah but

This is his only place he has to lash out or feel alive. You can bet your ass he's married and not only does his wife wear the pants in the family, she rules the roost and the rooster and has him on a short leash. When she says jump he says "yes dear, how high"?

Geez, never seen somebody so obsessed with the genitalia of somebody he hates so much, weird.

There is no party that is more radical with horrible ideas than modern day democrats. Start with the big lie called Global Warming, I'll bet you'd love to have Greta Thunberg's baby?

The answer to that question — “why would Democrats want them back?” — is clear: because, as this new group demonstrates, Democrats find large amounts of common cause with neocons when it comes to foreign policy. The neocons may be migrating back to the Democratic Party and into the open embrace of its establishment, but their homecoming will not be a seamless affair: Duss, for instance, is now the top foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders. After spending little energy on foreign affairs as a candidate, Sanders’s hiring of Duss is a sign that he sees a rejection of interventionism as ascendant with the populist element of the party. He will have allies there from whatever is left of the faction within the Obama administration which willingly took so much heat from the foreign policy establishment for its insufficient aggression toward Russia or other perceived enemies; Sen. Chris Murphy, for instance, has been vocal in his opposition to arming the Saudis as they savage Yemen. But now that hawkish rhetoric and belligerent policies have subsumed the Democrats, it remains to be seen how much of that anti-interventionism survives. FOR MANY YEARS — long before the 2016 election — one of the leading neocon planks was that Russia and Putin pose a major threat to the west, and Obama was far too weak and deferential to stand up to this threat. From the start of the Obama presidency, the Weekly Standard warned that Obama failed to understand, and refused to confront, the dangers posed by Moscow. From Ukraine to Syria, neocons constantly attacked Obama for letting Putin walk all over him. That Obama was weak on Russia, and failing to stand up to Putin, was a major attack theme for the most hawkish GOP senators such as Rubio and John McCain. Writing in National Review in 2015, Rubio warned that Putin was acting aggressively in multiple theaters, but “as the evidence of failure grows, President Obama still can’t seem to understand Vladimir Putin’s goals.” Rubio insisted that Obama (and Clinton’s) failure to confront Putin was endangering the West: In sum, we need to replace a policy of weakness with a policy of strength. We need to restore American leadership and make clear to our adversaries that they will pay a significant price for aggression. President Obama’s policies of retreat and retrenchment are making the world a more dangerous place. The Obama-Clinton Russia policy has already undermined European security. We can’t let Putin wreak even more havoc in the Middle East. In 2015, Obama met with Putin at the U.N. General Assembly, and leading Republicans excoriated him for doing so. Obama “has in fact strengthened Putin’s hand,” said Rubio. McCain issued a statement denouncing Obama for meeting with the Russian tyrant, accusing him of failing to stand up to Putin across the world: That Putin was a grave threat, and Obama was too weak in the face of it, was also a primary theme of Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign: And even back in 2012, Mitt Romney repeatedly accused Obama of being insufficiently tough on Putin, prompting the now-infamous mockery by Obama and Democrats generally of Romney’s Russiaphobia, which they ridiculed as an ancient relic of the Cold War. Indeed, before Trump’s emergence, the hard-core pro-GOP neocons planned to run against Hillary Clinton by tying her to the Kremlin and warning that her victory would empower Moscow: Even through the 2016 election, McCain and Rubio repeatedly attacked Obama for failing to take Russian hacking seriously enough and for failing to retaliate. And for years before that, Russia was a primary obsession for neocons, from the time it went to war with Georgia (at the time headed by a neocon-loved president) and even prior to that. Thus, when it came time for Democrats to elevate Putin and Russia into a major theme of the 2016 campaign, and now that their hawkishness toward Moscow is their go-to weapon for attacking Trump, neocons have become their natural ideological allies. The song Democrats are now singing about Russia and Putin is one the neocons wrote many years ago, and all of the accompanying rhetorical tactics — accusing those who seek better relations with Moscow of being Putin’s stooges, unpatriotic, of suspect loyalties, etc. — are the ones that have defined the neocons smear campaigns for decades. The union of Democrats and neocons is far more than a temporary marriage of convenience designed to bring down a common enemy. As this new policy group illustrates, the union is grounded in widespread ideological agreement on a broad array of foreign policy debates: from Israel to Syria to the Gulf States to Ukraine to Russia. And the narrow differences that exist between the two groups — on the wisdom of the Iran deal, the nobility of the Iraq War, the justifiability of torture — are more relics of past debates than current, live controversies. These two groups have found common cause because, with rare and limited exception, they share common policy beliefs and foreign policy mentalities. THE IMPLICATIONS OF this reunion are profound and long-term. Neocons have done far more damage to the U.S., and the world, than any other single group — by a good margin. They were the architects of the invasion of Iraq and the lies that accompanied it, the worldwide torture regime instituted after 9/11, and the general political climate that equated dissent with treason. With the full-scale discrediting and collapse of the Bush presidency, these war-loving neocons found themselves marginalized, without any constituency in either party. They were radioactive, confined to speaking at extremist conferences and working with fringe organizations. All of that has changed, thanks to the eagerness of Democrats to embrace them, form alliances with them, and thus rehabilitate their reputations and resurrect their power and influence. That leading Democratic Party foreign policy officials are willing to form new Beltway advocacy groups in collaboration with Bill Kristol, Mike Rogers, and Mike Chertoff, join arms with those who caused the invasion of Iraq and tried to launch a bombing campaign against Tehran, has repercussions that will easily survive the Trump presidency. Perhaps the most notable fact about the current posture of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party is that one of their favorite, most beloved, and most cited pundits is the same neocon who wrote George W. Bush’s oppressive, bullying and deceitful speeches in 2002 and 2003 about Iraq and the war on terror, and who has churned out some of the most hateful, inflammatory rhetoric over the last decade about Palestinians, immigrants, and Muslims. That Bush propagandist, David Frum, is regularly feted on MSNBC’s liberal programs, has been hired by The Atlantic (where he writes warnings about authoritarianism even though he’s only qualified to write manuals for its implementation), and is treated like a wise and honored statesman by leading Democratic Party organs. One sees this same dynamic repeated with many other of the world’s most militaristic, war-loving neocons. Particularly after his recent argument with Tucker Carlson over Russia, Democrats have practically canonized Max Boot, who has literally cheered for every possible war over the two past decades and, in 2013, wrote a column titled “No Need to Repent for Support of Iraq War.” It is now common to see Democratic pundits and office holders even favorably citing and praising Bill Kristol himself. There’s certainly nothing wrong with discrete agreement on a particular issue with someone of a different party or ideology; that’s to be encouraged. But what’s going on here goes far, far beyond that. What we see instead are leading Democratic foreign policy experts joining hands with the world’s worst neocons to form new, broad-based policy advocacy groups to re-shape U.S. foreign policy toward a more hostile, belligerent and hawkish posture. We see not isolated agreement with neocons in opposition to Trump or on single-issue debates, but a full-scale embrace of them that is rehabilitating their standing, empowering their worst elements, and reintegrating them back into the Democratic Party power structure. If Bill Kristol and Mike Chertoff can now sit on boards with top Clinton and Obama policy advisers, as they’re doing, that is reflective of much more than a marriage of convenience to stop an authoritarian, reckless president. It demonstrates widespread agreement on a broast range of issues and, more significantly, the return of neocons to full-scale D.C. respectability, riding all the way on the backs of eager, grateful establishment Democrats. Judas priest Jim, ain't got time to read all dat.

He was spot on with that post, this piece of shit administration is wreaking havoc on middle to low income citizens. You know, the ones that Democrats pretend to favor when really it's just the opposite.

The monument will be a statue of Snow Radical with his head up his ass.

Oh look, somebody else is bored on Saturday afternoon. You and your butt buddy SR are quite the dynamic duo.

Good lord you’re a moron, you just said the other day this place is boring yet here you are on Sat. afternoon making a feeble attempt at trying to amuse yourself.

Good lord, you can’t even get Trump off your mind even on the weekend? Why aren’t you out snowmobiling? I put on 163 miles on Friday with my son. Does your sled have a blown fuse? What’s your excuse?

More like………….

Like I said, I’m not defending the Memphis situation but you’d have to be a fool to believe that 1 cop can always subdue and cuff a criminal.

Son and I did 163 miles yesterday in northern WI ……Oconto, Forest counties, I’m riding the old school Poo.

It’s just the natural progression, it hurts but sometimes you have to sit back and watch them learn the hard way.

Looks like Wisconsin has been over taxed, looks like refunds are in order, I know, I’m dreaming.

Your second sentence is dead wrong. By no means am I defending this situation but there’s plenty of scenarios where 1 cop cannot subdue and cuff 1 person.

Yep, there’s still plenty of good people who appreciate the knowledge and service of a professional. It’s the cheap pricks and ungrateful idiots who sometimes leave you wondering why you’re still in business. Over 37 years in biz and I’m grateful for all of my wonderful customers but man do I have some stories to tell. Maybe I should write a book.

I’ve been a plumber for 37 years, it’s amazing how many people buy their fixtures online and want us to install them. A lot of plumbers will not do the work unless they provide the product, others will mark up their labor to compensate as they should. Another shitty thing that has been happening is some people will schedule a visit at a wholesale plumbing supplier who has a showroom, they’ll waste the salesperson’s time looking at various fixtures. After they leave with a spec sheet with all the model numbers they’ll search them and buy them online. $800 for a faucet? Not many people in my area would spend that on a faucet. I see a lot of empty store fronts and you can bet the internet killed them.

A younger Biden has no business being POTUS let alone the senile version.............judas priest.

It really is, very few people should have gotten PPP. Most of the slobs who took that money should have to pay it back.

I thought it would never happen but I actually agree with you here.

Wrong, you have 21,000+ posts which means you spend a considerable amount of time here because your life is boring.