placeholder

Unfortunately, some people make assertions without offering any facts to back them up.

You got any evidence to support your contention? Or is it just more drivel?

Why is it so difficult for human caused climate change denialists to understand the issue of rate of increase. If someone were to choose between two investments of equal soundness, but one offered a 1% return and the other offered a 10% return would you have difficulty choosing between the two? It's the current rate of change that is of concern, not simply the fact that the average temperatures of the atmosphere and oceans are rising.

It certainly is feasible. Veterans eligible for VA care can be treated abroad.

I must say, his healthcare program was by all accounts brilliant. It would provide better coverage and cost less. Well, by his account, actually. He claimed he had it just about ready to go before his inauguration. I guess he's still tinkering with it. In the meantime Obamacare, the program that Trump tried to destroy, has greatly reduced the number of uninsured in the USA. And 40 out of 50 states have adopted the Medicaid portion of the plan. That includes lots of red states. Only 10 red states remain that haven't done so. Go Trump!

I wasn't aware that Lindsey Graham was speaking for America.

Can you please be a little vaguer?

You're like a fundamentalist Christian who believes that Jesus is coming any day now. Who need evidence when you have faith or paranoia?

Because it would show how foreign workers without the proper authorization are abused? I agree.

First of all, this is about Medicare, not Social Security. And he said he wants to tax the wealthiest. I'm not sure why the line was drawn at $400,000 but if you're goal is to tax the wealthiest then you've got do draw the line somewhere.

Not only is it clear, but also utterly irrelevant

Thanks. I think we have an explanation for his motive, or rather, motives, in burying the body.

Transparency? You know how much coverage Fox News has given to this issue? If you think the total amount of coverage is greater than 0, you've got it wrong. And that goes for most other right wing news sites, too. Including Carlson's Daily Caller.

I see you are determined to ignore the perfectly reasonable rationale of why the Russians would do this. I'm not claiming that they did, but that's the rationale. Which answers your question "Why destroy your own valuable asset that increases your power internationally and particularly with energy hungry Europe when you can simply turn it on/off" Nor did they or anyone else "destroy this valuable asset". The damage was vey limited.

The question wasn't addressed of whether or not he had the correct visa to be working there. Maybe the farmer didn't want to explain what this Thai person was doing there? Just an uninformed guess on my part.

Not being under the jurisdiction of the ICC has no bearing on whether or not Biden should offer evidence. Clearly, the concern is that this could blow back on the USA. And deservedly so.

First off, you're anonymous. Second, if you weren't anonymous, and you said it in private emails not meant to be seen by the public, I would believe it.

I think there is bipartisan support to take the same old ineffectual steps.

But why reply to me? Since apparently you meant your post neither to be in contradiction nor in support of mine.

And you think invading Mexico will put a stop to that? How does that work? Do you have any idea of how potent fentanyl and its various analogues are? How little it takes compared to heroin? If you want to stop fentanyl overdose, decriminalize opioids. Once that's done, it should be easy to have product tested and certified. Not only is that approach more effective, but it's a lot cheaper and a lot less destructive than waging war.

That's what you ought to have said about the previous administration's tax proposal.

What don't you understand about the fact that criminals aren't always being criminals? What relevance does footage of someone not committing a criminal act bear on the fact that they committed a criminal act? You think a criminal's life is just one long uninterrupted string of felonies with no time out for anything else? And that if you can show evidence that sometimes their behavior isn't criminal, then that's somehow exculpatory?

Actually, motivation has been adequately explained. If Gazprom turned it off, it would be in violation of contracts and subject to paying massive damages. But,, because of force majeure, it wouldn't have to. I'm not claiming that Russia was behind it. Just that it has a strong motivation. Remember, they had already cut off most shipments by claiming that the system was undergoing repairs.

You're the one doing the preaching or at least the sloganeering by making empty and patently ridiculous claims of Marxism. You've got nothing.

Occam's Razor? Essentially Occam's razor says the simplest explanation that fits the facts is best? But since many of Hersh's facts have been disproven, how does Occam's Razor even apply?