Conquer Club

jusplay4fun wrote:and yes, that is partisan. Are you surprised? REALLY?

Actually, yes! I guess I should have known better, but I was really surprised that the Chairman of a Congressional committee would use an official communique to put out a pure one-sided propaganda piece. I've never given it much thought, but I had assumed that the Chairman is supposed to be impartial, and his communiques should attempt to represent the consensus of the committee, and if there is no consensus, then he should do his utmost to present a neutral and balanced view of the different opinions of people on the committee.

Stupid me. Sometimes I think I'm very cynical, but other times I find out just how naively innocent I am.

Dukasaur wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:
AND all these words spoken by a Canadian living under the US Umbrella of a defense shield. As I said before, Duk, you speak on your high horse of moral outrage from a perspective of the shadow of a strong US Defense (or Military, if you wish).

As far as your umbrella is concerned, keep it. Canada enjoys the same gifted geography as the U.S. There are massive oceans between us and anyone who might want to attack us, and if someone did overcome the logistical nightmare of a trans-oceanic invasion, gobbling up this much land while fighting the local militia would wear them down sooner or later. The only country that could realistically attack us would, in fact, be the U.S., so I guess we should be grateful that until now most of your leaders have been relatively sane.

You analysis here mistakenly ignores the possibility of the US invading Canada, which for our entire lifetimes has seemed like a completely insane idea... but no more! Oddsmakers probably moved from .00000001% to like 2% on a question phrased like 'Will the US invade Canada by 2075" over the last year or so. Is it likely? No. Would a US invasion be likely to succeed? 100x more likely than any other country trying.

Dukasaur wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:and yes, that is partisan. Are you surprised? REALLY?

Actually, yes! I guess I should have known better, but I was really surprised that the Chairman of a Congressional committee would use an official communique to put out a pure one-sided propaganda piece. I've never given it much thought, but I had assumed that the Chairman is supposed to be impartial, and his communiques should attempt to represent the consensus of the committee, and if there is no consensus, then he should do his utmost to present a neutral and balanced view of the different opinions of people on the committee.

Stupid me. Sometimes I think I'm very cynical, but other times I find out just how naively innocent I am.

a senate or house committee would never be non-partisan/unbiased. The chariman is put in place by whoever is in power, and that party will almost always hold a majority of the membership within the committee. They are generally charged to looking into something, forming an opinion and then selling that opinion to either the congressional body they are in, or the American population in general. Think committee on Jan 6th or the Biden impeachment inquiry, there would just be no way something like that could be viably non-partisan when it's a gathering of partisans. Totally understandable mistake on your part though, to thing a .gov link could be actually meaningful impartial information. That good old naive innocent canadian perspective

It's tough though, even things here that were created specifically to try and be non-partisan (like the CBO) easily become seen as partisan by whoever doesn't like their numbers, and may actually become partisan in a sense over long enough periods of time just by staying the same while times actually change. Like the Fed for instance which most Americans didn't know existed prior to the internet is meant to be non-partisan and I believe it still makes decisions on a non-partisan basis... but when politicians come in and attack them as partisan and maybe even try and fire them because what they are doing might be right for the economy but bad for a presidents image. Slowly they lose their image of being non-partisan and eventually actual partisans start getting appointed to lead these orgs and it's not entirely clear if that genie can ever go back in the bottle.

Okay, Duk, I will use the analogy of you walking and sailing safely in the world because the US, the World's Policeman, keeps the streets and waterways relatively safe for Canadians (and most other nations), specifically, on the high seas from pirates and missiles and gangs.

And replace moral outrage with your virtue signalling.

And you want to tell me that you and all other Canadians do not enjoy the benefits of being next door to the US, across the largest undefended border in the ENTIRE world? And let's not muck up that general discussion with talk of tariffs in the past 6 months.

AI Overview
The longest undefended border in the world is shared by Canada and the United States. It stretches for approximately 5,525 miles (8,891 km). This border is characterized by a lack of significant military presence or fortifications along much of its length.
Here's a more detailed look:
Length:
The border is the longest international land and water boundary in the world.

And Mookie, why would the US invade Canada or Mexico? NO reason, other than insanity; simple silliness.

jusplay4fun wrote:
And Mookie, why would the US invade Canada or Mexico? NO reason, other than insanity; simple silliness.

Yeah it's weird right? Why would a US president try and turn their physically closest ally into an adversary? Why would they make claims about making it the 51st state? Complete silliness, that you voted for and continue to defend in spite of it being insane. Get your head out of your ass?

mookiemcgee wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:
And Mookie, why would the US invade Canada or Mexico? NO reason, other than insanity; simple silliness.

Yeah it's weird right? Why would a US president try and turn their physically closest ally into an adversary? Why would they make claims about making it the 51st state? Complete silliness, that you voted for and continue to defend in spite of it being insane. Get your head out of your ass?

"adversary"?? Mookie does not know a joke when he hears one.

Mookie, now your TDS is showing; NOT a good look, tbf. Neither is this one:



I suggest that you don't go to that level, Mookie; you are losing the respect that you earned.

Is this about Big Black Booties?

jusplay4fun wrote:you are losing the respect that you earned.

Having respect from a bunch of strangers on the internet is akin to slapping a gold star on your forehead. Just be honest with your opinions, no matter how shit they are, and just roll with it.

I think Mookie is upset that he lost RESPECT:



AND
1) His Senator, Kamala, lost in 2024;

2) the CA Senator, Alex Padilla, is made to look like a fool, once the actual facts came out;

3) Mayor Karen Bass of LA continues to look foolish;

4) the CA Governor Gavin Newsom looks as bad as Bass;

5) his CA Team lost (name any: Warriors, Dodgers, Rams, Trojans, 49ers);

6) the Pac-12 is now down to the PAC-2;

7) other Dems lost the election bids;

8 ) his pet died;

9) and he lost games on CC.

10-12) Oh, and Trump won and that includes the bbb and several cases before SCOTUS, some 8-1.

Did I miss anything, Mookie?

Whatever respect you had, has been thrown out with the garbage.

Plus, the fact you actually pointed out his pet died is bizarre.

Pack Rat wrote:the fact you actually pointed out his pet died is bizarre.

Just a theory. btw: my pet goldfish died yesterday; I am in mourning in the morning.

Worst part of the BBB - The Golden Dome. All it does is serve as a stateside reserve of interceptor missiles for Israel that won't have to technically count toward more U.S. aid to Israel.

Here is one of the few balanced pieces I have seen on the bbb, giving both good and bad points and avoiding much of the partisan squawking cited by some here in this Forum:

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
July 9, 2025, By: Daniel Bunn, Alex Muresianu, William McBride
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) is now law. Any comprehensive tax legislation is going to have its wrinkles, and the One Big Beautiful Bill is no different. We have previously published estimates of the budgetary, economic, and distributional effects of the House legislation and the Senate legislation, but the final version has plenty of good, bad, and ugly to cover as well.

The Good
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s key benefits surround the principles of neutrality and stability. (...)

The Bad
The new law spends far too much money on political gimmicks and carveouts. (...)

The Ugly
The law further complicates the tax code in several ways, sending taxpayers through a maze of new rules and compliance costs that in many cases likely outweigh potential tax benefits. (...) and MORE

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/one-big- ... pros-cons/

There is LOTS here in this piece and enough for partisans to cherry-pick, too.

NPR is moving out of the basement. Congratulations! You now stand shoulder to shoulder with CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX and CNN.

I do not agree with all these cuts, but nearly every dollar of the US Federal budget has its backers and has consequences to some people. NOTE that these targets, especially CPB, has long been a target of conservatives.

Not every cow in the pasture is a "Sacred Cow." However:

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said at the Hill Nation Summit on Wednesday that the cuts could put rural radio stations in her home state out of business, calling them “the lifeblood of these communities when it comes to emergency alerts.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), one of two Republicans in the upper chamber to vote against the bill, pointed to a recent earthquake in her home state.

Seven-point-three [magnitude] earthquake off of Alaska and tsunami warnings. You know how I got this information? From public broadcasting,” she said on the Senate floor.

https://thehill.com/business/budget/540 ... -aid-cuts/

and how much does $9 BILLION budget cut MEAN? NOT much:

When the chamber finally voted on the funding cut, it was the second close House vote on Trump's request to claw back the funds previously approved by Democrats and his fellow Republicans in Congress.
In June, four Republicans joined Democrats to vote against an earlier version of the rescissions package, which passed 214-212.

House Republicans felt extra pressure to pass the Senate version as Trump's administration would have been forced to spend the money if Congress did not approve the cuts by Friday.

The $9 billion cut amounts to roughly one-tenth of 1% of the $6.8 trillion federal budget.

Republicans say the foreign aid funds previously went to programs they deem wasteful, and they say the $1 billion in public media funding supports radio stations and PBS television that are biased against conservative viewpoints.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 025-07-17/

I recall reading YEARS ago that when discussing the Federal Budget, $1 Billion is referred to as a mere "1".

1 of 6,800 Billion. and remember a Billion = 1,000 x Million.

BIG numbers and we need to REDUCE spending and be much more fiscally responsible, something we seemed to have abandoned years ago when conservative Republicans gave up that fight after getting pummeled by Liberal Democrats over proposed budget cuts and as conservatives advocated for (in particular) large spending for the Military.