Larry

Remembering when Hillary was a "corporate shill", because she wasn't as far left as Bernie. And remembering how that turned out. It ought to be possible for Democrats to disagree on one policy or another, without pulling out verbal flamethrowers. That's one of the things I've liked about Pete, in the few times I've seen him. He seems willing to disagree with the others, without insulting them. (Although I get the impression that in the debates, he was different.)

I get the impression y'all are saying Palpatine is coming back. And I could see that. They left hints about a Sith who learned to conquer death or whatever mumbo jumbo it was. And they've put hints out. But I'll point out: The title of the episode is The Rise of Skywalker. Not Rebirth of an Empire. And they have to give it a Good Guy ending. So, there's a Good Guy coming, too. Might be Rey, but then there's still that pesky word "Skywalker". Maybe they find out she's a Skywalker. That pesky Skywalker family did love hiding their children. (Almost as much as they love killing their fathers.) Or, there's a Skywalker coming back. I could see it being Luke. But I could see it being Anakin, too. Cue "There is good in him". Cue "balance to the Force". I could see Darth Vader killing Palpatine twice. (Heck, haven't we blown up the Death Star four times, or something?)

Just did. It's irrelevant. But congratulations.

1) Announced "withdrawal"? I thought the first cover story was that we were moving our forces to alternate locations (so they wouldn't be in the invading army's way). 2) But in any case. If you want to say they gave us three days notice instead of one, feel free.

Sure seems like that was about the time span from Trump's tweet announcing our surrender, to Turkey's invasion. And it sure seems like our troop commanders learned about our surrender from Trump's tweet. Now, if you want to argue that Turkey gave us longer notice, and Trump just didn't tell anybody (including our commanders) until 24 hours prior, I'd have trouble believing Trump could keep a secret that well, but I'll let you try to argue it.

We had enough manpower to take it. (Which I believe usually takes more men than holding it.) But when ordered to do so, we stood aside and said "here, kill this guy next to me. Oh, and can you hold off a day or two, so I can grab some of my stuff before I leave him for you to kill? I'll agree to whatever you tell me, if I can just make my surrender a little more photogenic." (And I seem to remember that Obama was a traitor to his country, because he didn't occupy the country we invaded.) Oh, that makes the ethnic cleansing OK, then. The fact that Turkey had wanted it for a long time.

I don't think the definition of "ally" is "they gave us 24 hours notice to get out of their way, before they invaded the territory we were occupying."

During the W administration, Doonsberry ran a theme for a while, asserting that the Vice President is Commander in Chief of the fourth branch of government - The Black Branch. (It's in the classified part of the Constitution.)

In some ways it does make sense to me. There's some things about our immigration system that don't make sense to me. Like, how does an illegal immigrant who gets caught qualify for bail? (I'm thinking of the stereotypical "sneak across the border" type, not the just as common "entered legally and then didn't leave" type.) I mean, I would think that someone who has already demonstrated the willingness and ability to cross a national border, walk into a town he's never set foot in in his life, contact an underground, and obtain a fake identity and a job, would sure sound like the picture of "flight risk", to me. And in that vein, I would assume that the only way we can ID such people, when captured, is via DNA. Granted, I'm making assumptions, but what kind of ID would you regard as valid, from such a person? Somehow I doubt he's carrying a passport or a birth certificate. But I'll also admit, whenever I see anything involving immigration from this administration, I have no choice but to assume that the motive is satanic-=level evil, or at least simply abusive pettiness.

Which came first?

Just like it was three years ago.

So target him for being a flip-flopper. Sounds like he's guilty. And it's something that he should rightfully be forced to defend. (Especially for a candidate who doesn't have a record to run on.) But as for the assertion that "failure to support a complete government takeover of all health insurance makes somebody a corporate shill", see my previous post.

Yep. This quote box. Again - You're responding to somebody who's entire post is to state that Pete isn't a corporate shill, he's a moderate, by pointing out that he doesn't want the government to completely take over all health care, he just wants to give people the option of government health care. A position which seems a lot closer to "moderate" (in fact, I'd argue "moderate left") than "corporate shill", to me.

"We can talk about it, as long as we use big words. And don't admit that it's happening." "You better stop laughing at us. We might stop running away and attack you with the ammunition that we didn't blow up when we ran."

"Open minded" as in "I've for this six-inch hole that passes through my brain, and lots of breeze passes through it"? Or as in "I might decide to end my nonstop felatio of his magnificence, if the voters will abandon him first"?