MSBoxer

It is comments like this, which pull in politics for no related reason without fear of retribution that lead some of our members to believe that there are different rules depending on which side of the aisle you sit.  

I am not a fan of any of the candidates we have, but I have to wonder if the results would be the same if the post referenced Biden's supposed dementia?

It is comments like this, which pull in politics for no related reason without fear of retribution that lead some of our members to believe that there are different rules depending on which side of the aisle you sit.  

I am not a fan of any of the candidates we have, but I have to wonder if the results would be the same if the post referenced Biden's supposed dementia?

It is comments like this, which pull in politics for no related reason without fear of retribution that lead some of our members to believe that there are different rules depending on which side of the aisle you sit.  

I am not a fan of any of the candidates we have, but I have to wonder if the results would be the same if the post referenced Biden's supposed dementia?

It is comments like this, which pull in politics for no related reason without fear of retribution that lead some of our members to believe that there are different rules depending on which side of the aisle you sit.  

I am not a fan of any of the candidates we have, but I have to wonder if the results would be the same if the post referenced Biden's supposed dementia?

It is comments like this, which pull in politics for no related reason without fear of retribution that lead some of our members to believe that there are different rules depending on which side of the aisle you sit.  

I am not a fan of any of the candidates we have, but I have to wonder if the results would be the same if the post referenced Biden's supposed dementia?

LOL, you’re absolutely correct! A couple of minutes after I posted it, I said to myself “who actually burned the Merrimack?” This highlights the danger of a cranky old man hurrying to post before forgetting to hit “Submit Reply!”

In a way I can't say I blame the "Internationalist" such as Merkel and Clinton, and even George (I have seen his soul through his eyes ) W. for the idea that bringing China and Russia fully into the world markets would convince them that there's more money to be made that way than in conquest. First of all it's true. The status quo coalition the Captain talked about a few pages back, was making most countries rich. Yes, some countries slower than others, as some were at the trickle-down end of it all. And again, corruption in many countries ensured only a small percentage of the population were benefiting in others. But overall the system worked about as well as could be found in history. Integrating China and Russia into the status que coalition seemed logical. 
The flaw I think is dictators are never content with cooperation. The world is always a zero sum game for them. Putin in particular had fantasies about righting wrongs and Russian natural rights to certain lands as part of its Empire that Western leaders missed picking up on.

Could someone please explain to me how recruiting in the UK and US relates to the current conflict in Ukraine?  
I think we have spent enough time on this.  Now if someone did a study on how hamster behavior was affecting recruiting in Russia and Ukraine, I would be all for it, but this discussion is simply a distraction bordering on ideological/political sniping.

Could someone please explain to me how recruiting in the UK and US relates to the current conflict in Ukraine?  
I think we have spent enough time on this.  Now if someone did a study on how hamster behavior was affecting recruiting in Russia and Ukraine, I would be all for it, but this discussion is simply a distraction bordering on ideological/political sniping.

Could someone please explain to me how recruiting in the UK and US relates to the current conflict in Ukraine?  
I think we have spent enough time on this.  Now if someone did a study on how hamster behavior was affecting recruiting in Russia and Ukraine, I would be all for it, but this discussion is simply a distraction bordering on ideological/political sniping.

Could someone please explain to me how recruiting in the UK and US relates to the current conflict in Ukraine?  
I think we have spent enough time on this.  Now if someone did a study on how hamster behavior was affecting recruiting in Russia and Ukraine, I would be all for it, but this discussion is simply a distraction bordering on ideological/political sniping.

Could someone please explain to me how recruiting in the UK and US relates to the current conflict in Ukraine?  
I think we have spent enough time on this.  Now if someone did a study on how hamster behavior was affecting recruiting in Russia and Ukraine, I would be all for it, but this discussion is simply a distraction bordering on ideological/political sniping.

Could someone please explain to me how recruiting in the UK and US relates to the current conflict in Ukraine?  
I think we have spent enough time on this.  Now if someone did a study on how hamster behavior was affecting recruiting in Russia and Ukraine, I would be all for it, but this discussion is simply a distraction bordering on ideological/political sniping.

Could someone please explain to me how recruiting in the UK and US relates to the current conflict in Ukraine?  
I think we have spent enough time on this.  Now if someone did a study on how hamster behavior was affecting recruiting in Russia and Ukraine, I would be all for it, but this discussion is simply a distraction bordering on ideological/political sniping.

Could someone please explain to me how recruiting in the UK and US relates to the current conflict in Ukraine?  
I think we have spent enough time on this.  Now if someone did a study on how hamster behavior was affecting recruiting in Russia and Ukraine, I would be all for it, but this discussion is simply a distraction bordering on ideological/political sniping.

Please tell me I am not the only one that thought Snuffleupagus joined the dark side!

Please tell me I am not the only one that thought Snuffleupagus joined the dark side!

Please tell me I am not the only one that thought Snuffleupagus joined the dark side!

Please tell me I am not the only one that thought Snuffleupagus joined the dark side!

Please tell me I am not the only one that thought Snuffleupagus joined the dark side!

Please tell me I am not the only one that thought Snuffleupagus joined the dark side!

Not to get technical, but amendments to the constitution were passed, according to a process laid down by the constitution to end slavery and give women the right to vote. 

So, the outcome various compromises may have been their "intent" as stated, they also intended the constitution to be modified via a process they laid down.

Not sure women as chattel was ever mentioned in the constitution.  It may have been common practice, but it was not a status proffered by the constitution.

Just a little constitutional nerdery.

How about we look at it on a contractual basis. Each member of NATO agreed to use a specific percentage of their budget (I don’t remember if it was GDP, Defense, or something else), and a number of NATO members reneged on that contractural agreement for decades. Now be it known that I wouldn’t vote for Trump if he was running for Dogcatcher against Putin or Xi, but I supported his effort against supposed allies which failed to carry their fair share of the load, whether they purchased their arms from the U.S. USSR/Russia, India, China, or South Africa, and whether they maintained their fighting forces from their own populations, or with Mercenaries from Sudan. The bottom line is that those NATO members who did not follow through with the obligations to which they had committed, violated the Accord and broke their contract. They deserved to be threatened by Trump.

I am not sure that is true, the speaker pro tempor takes over immediately upon the speaker vacating the position to ensure that normal operations of the house continue.

You may be thinking of what happens when there is a change in power and the new house cannot conduct business until a speaker is elected.  For the last few decades a vacancy during a term is handled through the speaker pro tempor.

I am not sure that is true, the speaker pro tempor takes over immediately upon the speaker vacating the position to ensure that normal operations of the house continue.

You may be thinking of what happens when there is a change in power and the new house cannot conduct business until a speaker is elected.  For the last few decades a vacancy during a term is handled through the speaker pro tempor.