placeholder

Get back to us when there is actually evidence that Biden has hidden funds. Do you understand that the FD1023 is about unconfirmed hearsay? And that it was looked into already and dismissed? What shell companies are financially tied to Joe Biden? As far as I know, he's never been tied to any. You got different info you'd like to share? As for Hunter Biden complaining about expenses. He said that's been going on for the past 30 years. Which would have made him 19 or maybe 20k when this started. You don't think the far more likely explanation is that it's just a kid complaining about his dad. Or was Biden hiding his son's contributions for those 30 years? Why is it so difficult for right wingers to understand that Biden was carrying out US policy in getting Shokin fired? What makes your suspicions even more ridiculous is that in his testimony to the House Committe, Devon Archer said he was told by people in his company that Shokin was under the control of Burisma's CEO and his firing was actually bad for the company.

Well, the French government sees no problem with Sikh boys wearing plain turbans. And neither do I.

Have you looked at the record of these people. They've had it in for Biden since Afghanistan. So why should I trust them. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bidens-treatment-gold-star-families-under-renewed-scrutiny-total-disregard

Wow. King Charles is the head of all faiths? Do the leaders or members of those various faiths subscribe to that formulation?

Please. You really don't want to get into a comparison of how different Presidents have treated fallen soldiers. Or captures ones for that matter.

More mind reading from you. No chance that they might believe their religion requires clothing and/or accessories?

So, apparently, your idea of a good teacher is someone who waits find out if a student understands rather than address the problem right on the spot. Bizarre.

Thanks for establishing where you really stand. That a furtive glance at a watch is horrible to you should tell everyone about the reliability of your judgement.

If there's a legitimate educational reason, like being able to see a student's face to see if they understand, that's different.

You think it's safe to say that? You got some evidence to back that one up? Solmething comparing the order of complexity of one to the other?

But not so easy to find market models that do this: "Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters." https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

"bad eyes"? Really. Your comment is absolutely not deranged in any way whatsoever. An absolutely rational and unbiased appraisal of the judge. Truly a model of thoughtfulness.

You just can't give up on the baiting, can you? Using right wing cant to call those who are liberals, as the word is commonly understood, "left wing authoritarians" certainly doesn't further your claim to be a "neutral" observer. And you only make it worse by claiming that these supposed left wing authoritarians are engaged "in an attempt try to ban and regulate everything while still appearing kind/virtuous), then you may have a more noteworthy point" only serves to make your claim to be neutral eve more ridiculous. Keep digging that hole.

It gets worse. The economy is at or near record low unimployment. The improved version of Obamacare has made medical care accessible to millions of Americans. Even though the US economy is growing at a healthy pace and GDP is greater than ever, total fossil fuel use has actually declined. Which poses a big threat to OPEC https://www.statista.com/statistics/244429/us-fossil-fuel-energy-consumption-by-sector/

I just looked up Miranda Devine Hunter Biden. This came up: "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. " https://www.foxnews.com/media/miranda-devine-hunter-biden-scandal-laptop And, as I've pointed out before, when the laptop came to light, Giuliani and others refused to disclose the metadata that could have established its provenance. A news organization with integrity would assign a investigative reporters to thoroughly vet this laptop before it was released. And, in fact, the NY Post did assign an experienced reporter to write up a article about the laptop. He refused on the very grounds I've cited. It should also be pointed out that the laptop was in the physical custody of the FBI and under the care of John Ratcliffe, an extreme right winger in the Trump administration.

There's sensible criticism and then there's yours. The glancing at the watch bit isn't the first time you've gone overboard.

The article I linked to and which you cited made absolutely no reference to Hunter Biden. Zero, nada, zilch. You might actually try bothering to follow a link to see what it's about before you engage in another rant.

I keep on reading this protestation from folks here who are markedly right wing. It's belied by the actual feebleness of the criticisms of one of these gents vs. the over-the-top vitriol directed against the other (see glancing-at-the-watch).

Did you notice that the author of the article you cited claims that his source was the Forbes article. And yet the Forbes article says nothing of the kind. Gullible much?

What makes impulse's comment particularly ridiculous is that it's widely known that Biden has publicly released decades of his tax returns.

When someone repeatedly makes empty and baiting generalizations about liberals, I think the suspicion is clearly justified.

It says a lot about you and nothing about me that you asked me a question and then answered it yourself. A truly low and discreditable tactic. I've actually answered this question many times with links as above. Anyway, here is a link again, https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/10/22/how-the-bidens-earned-167-million-after-leaving-the-white-house/?sh=1c14eda81e42 I suspect you're going to evaporate now but who knows, you may stick around and actually apologize.

For those of us who prefer to use credible sources, here is a link to an explanation of where Joe Biden's wealth comes from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/10/22/how-the-bidens-earned-167-million-after-leaving-the-white-house/?sh=1c14eda81e42

It's an entirely expected phenomenon that you would actually posit this as a fact. It's of a piece with your other empty and baiting generalizations.

One might and one would be wrong.