HeloDude

Perhaps I’m not ok with it because I know that it won’t just be the rich that will pay this new tax…in the early 1900s the implementation of the income tax was originally sold as “soak the rich” when it was enacted. Yeah, how did that work out for us? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/the-income-tax-in-1913-a-way-to-soak-the-rich

Unfortunately any parent that is ok with their kid going to drag queen story hour is probably ok with them chanting this nonsense.

I don’t…if someone is so dangerous that we can risk them illegally obtaining a firearm then they should remain in prison (ie fufill their sentence). Once they do the time and are deemed able to rejoin society, they’re free, and should have the their rights restored. If not, we run the risk of a tyrannical government (even worse than we currently have at the federal and state levels) charging people for BS crimes, and giving them a “plea deal” to avoid prison (or a very light sentence), and there goes your gun rights. If you’re a free person, you’re free. As for background checks, same type of thing above…it is essentially asking for permission to exercise freedom. I think it’s hilarious that people still trust the feds after what we’ve been seeing that last several decades.

Kind of like a “well regulated clock”…clearly the government needs to regulate our clocks.

Serial numbers eventually leads to registration, and registration eventually leads to confiscation…this has happened many times in the world. Can’t force registration to what the Feds don’t even know ever existed.

So how long before Ukraine asks for more money/resources once this $60B or whatever is used up? A year, give or take?

I’m a supporter of the 2A…but…

SCOTUS to hear “ghost gun” ban challenges. My guess is they’ll overturn this one as well, which is a good thing. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-hear-challenge-bidens-ghost-guns-curbs-2024-04-22/#:~:text=The ATF rule targeted the,lawfully purchasing firearms%2C including minors.

Sounds familiar…2021? I’m a big of fan of the “Hearts and Minds” strategy—it’s been working so well the several decades.

There’s a massive difference between Chamberlain telling Hitler that the UK is fine Germany taking additional territory in 1930s and the west condemning Russia for invading Ukraine but not wanting to give them an endless supply of resources. Appeasement is not the same as spending hundreds of billions of dollars we don’t have to support a country halfway around the world.

Easy—Israel is a much stronger ally than Ukraine, especially considering both regions. Also, we’re much more concerned about pissing Russia off (even more) than we are with Iran. Not to mention the politics here in the US involved with supporting Israel over the years. Oh and the regions are different as well in terms of US priorities, but I think I kind of mentioned that already. But to be fair, I don’t think we should actively get involved with either.

“Starved of the weaponry”? Is Ukraine trying to produce their own weapons that the rest of the world is keeping them from producing? Or is Ukraine trying to purchase weapons from the rest of the world, with the rest of the world saying they will not sell? This is the same argument I’ve heard that goes something like this: “If you stop giving welfare to X people then you’re starving them”.

Folks like me? You mean people who actually want to put our own country and our own citizens first? If that’s the case, then I’ll take that as a compliment. Oh, and here should be your biggest concern for our country… https://www.usdebtclock.org

If it doesn’t directly benefit our citizens, then it’s not a priority before other things that do benefit our citizens. If a treaty alliance is beneficial, then sure…but we are under no obligation to spend tens of billions of dollars we don’t have to fight for countries half way around the world.