Alan Zweibel

Not quite true. The Druze are also conscripted. Also the Circassians who are Sunni Muslims

Anybody who believes every single word that anyone says is a fool Anyone who tries to make the issue belief rather than evidence is doing so because they have nothing substantive to offer.

The difference is you're making up something that she never said and disbelieving it. Frankly, I wouldn't believe you either.

Where did Bill Clinton claim that he never knew about either of Jeffrey Epstein's convictions?

If you did have sexual relations with that Island that would mean he possessed a remarkable anatomical feature since the evidence is overwhelming that he he never set foot on it factcheck.org/2025/08/trump-offers-no-evidence-for-claim-about-bill-clinton-and-epstein-island

That's the point.

So, when reality doesn't work for you, your resort to fiction.

It was a day that MAGA supporters had long looked forward to. The day when Republican members of the House Oversight Committee headed by Republican James Comer would finally cross examine Bill Clinton about his allegedly corrupt association with Jeffrey Epstein. Their expectation was that either Clinton would have to own up to his crimes or render himself liable to prosecution for perjury. By the close of the hearing it was evident that the case against Bill Clinton was shockingly clear... as in clearly nothing. Bill Clinton gets bipartisan praise for cooperating in historic deposition on Epstein Both Republicans and Democrats said former President Clinton was “very cooperative” in a historic deposition with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Friday that set a new precedent for how congressional investigators treat former presidents. “He did attempt to respond to every single question asked, even when his attorney told him to shut up,” House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said after the deposition. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5759750-bill-clinton-epstein-deposition/ I don't think it's unreasonable to posit that die-hard MAGA supporters will claim Comer's statement was a ruse and that the committee will soon be forwarding incriminating evidence to the DOJ.

Scotch tape has been a household mainstay for nearly a century, but it still holds some scientific surprises. Researchers have discovered that the screeching sound emitted when one rapidly peels Scotch tape—akin to the screech of fingernails on a chalkboard—is the result of shock waves produced by micro-cracks propagating along the tape at supersonic speeds, according to a new paper published in the journal Physical Review E. https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/02/heres-why-scotch-tape-screeches-when-its-peeled/

Are the current tax rates sustainable?

Good thing that Donald Trump, unlike Congress, is willing to make the tough decision. Like proposing an over 50% increase to the defense department budget

For what it's worth, here's what chatgpt says: 🐆 Typical eating order for big cats (lions, tigers, leopards, etc.)1️⃣ Soft, nutrient-rich organs (first priority)They almost always start with the abdomen and internal organs, especially: Liver Heart Lungs Kidneys Sometimes the stomach and intestines These organs are: Easy to access once the belly is opened Packed with fat, vitamins, and minerals Easier to chew and digest than muscle 2️⃣ Muscle meatAfter the organs, they move to: Thighs and hindquarters (big muscle mass) Shoulder and back muscles This provides most of the calories. 3️⃣ Head and neckOften eaten later or by subordinate animals: Facial muscles Tongue (very nutritious) Brain (if they crack the skull) 4️⃣ Bones, skin, and cartilage (last or never)Large cats usually don’t eat thick bones or hides unless starving They may gnaw softer bones for marrow 🧠 Why this order?Energy efficiency: Soft tissues give the most nutrients for the least effort. Competition: In group hunters like lions, dominant individuals take the best organs first.

If most Americans shared your predilections you'd be making an excellent point. As it stands, all you're doing is projecting. https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin

Actually, as economists noted, companies have been holding back on passing along all the costs imposed by tariffs. ANd where did I write that "companies can't pass their income taxes on to the consumers." This is a typical distortion from you. As for your crocodile tears about consumers, what effects will tariffs have on the prices they pay? After all, about 50% of imported goods by value are intermediate inputs that are used by domestic manufacturers. Of course the effect isn't as severe on domestic manufacturers as it is on businesses that ship whole goods to the United States. But of course, that differential, allows domestic companies to charge consumers more than they otherwise would.

As any economist will tell you, a concept called demand elasticity alone means that corporations generally can't pass along all the cost of tax increases to consumers. If they raise the price to include all the tax increase, it generally means a decline in demand. Of course, if a government imposes tariffs on their foreign competitors, it does give them more leeway to charge more. But it's obviously ridiculous to say that if a government seeks to raise lets say 20 billiion in taxes, imposing them directly on consumers instead of on producers,is going to save consumers money.

Ask yourself what society would be like if no one paid any taxes.

All you had to do was admit you were wrong but instead you accompanied it with a falsehood.

Carnivores like tigers go for the innards first. That where most of the fat and other nutrients in prey animals is to be found. They particularly like to eat the partially digested grass that can be found in their prey's digestive system.

You claimed you asked it as a question and tried to use that falsehood as a way to mitigate what you wrote. As my quote of what you wrote showed, you didn't ask it as a question. You made an assertion. As for "all you can do is cut and paste"... how else do you suggest that I produce evidence to counter your assertion?

We are allowed to clip post as long as we don't change the meaning of what someone writes. If you can show how my cutting changed your assertion about taxes during Biden's first 2 years, take it to the mods. But the fact is, you've got nothing.

"Your statement just shows how little you know about US government and law. Democrats held the House and Senate for Biden's first two years. Did you forget that or did you never know it? Democrats had the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives and did not raise taxes." Do you recognize that quote? Maybe somebody hacked your account? And even if you had asked that question, it would have been what's called a loaded question. A question which includes a questionable assumption. The oft-cited example being When did you stop beating your wife? or Have you stopped beating your wife? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

And by the way, Obama did impose a big tax increase on capital gains. Edit: I didn't check my dictation and my phone heard didn't instead of did. To be clear Obama raise capital gains taxes.

Funny. Ordinarily I would say somebody is mistaken. But since you claimed that these people didn't raise taxes and now you're counting with that they did. It doesn't exactly speak well of your fidelity to truth does it? This is so ridiculous. As any serious Economist will tell you, and as I point it out to you at some length before, it's not at all the case that corporations can pass on the full cost of taxes. Sometimes I have to settle for lower profits. And what makes your comment extremely ridiculous is that what you're saying is instead of taxing corporations consumers should be taxed. How exactly does that benefit them?

Stop making things up. As I pointed out to you earlier, taxes did rise under Biden. They were also raised under Obama and Clinton. Biden's problem was he had very narrow majorities to work with so the defection of two democratic senators stopped him from raising taxes more than he wanted to. So hedge fund managers among others got to keep their ill gotten tax breaks. On the other hand, tThe republicans, in a remarkable display of solidarity given their small edge in the house and senate, and despite their howls about the rising deficit and national debt, did manage to lower taxes.. And it's worthwhile to point out that in Clinton's last year in office the budget actually managed to produce a slight surplus. George Bush soon took care of that with his massive tax cuts. You're going to blame the democrats for that too?

It is still providing aid and military supplies but it's now Europe that is mostly paying for them.