Has President Biden

[HONDO74]

But I did sign up for and became a big brother for another child. That lasted for about a year. Unfortunately the mother became very demanding for my time. I told the agency that the mother wants a husband for her child and not a big brother. I can't be a father for her child. I"M starting to neglect my own family. And NO there was nothing going on between me and this women. She was way over weight probably why she couldn't attract a man

Hondo, Bad choice of words.....I think she wanted a FATHER for her child, and maybe a husband for herself!

That said, your intentions were admirable!

Yes I worded that one wrong. She wanted a father figure I"M not sure she really wanted a husband.

But the intent of the program was to be a big brother not a father. We were supposed to mentor the child like a brother.
They said I was not the only one that had this problem with the mothers

[HONDO74]

How do you feel about same sex adoption? 2 dads or two moms. I think adoption is great. I have several customers that are same sex partners. Mostly 2 dads. As far as I can tell their kids appear real happy.

I really don't give a RATS A$$ one way or the other..... Not my problem

The same as I don't care about these transgender girls/boys whatever they are competing against biological girls/women in girls/women sports. If it destroys girls/women's sports....... ASI ES LA VIDA..

[v8vega]

Biden coulden't care less about a assanation attempt on a United Stated Supreme court justice Kavanough

[HONDO74]

'Kiddo... I guarantee you we're going to end fossil fuel,' Biden told a voter in 2019.

One of President Biden's top economic advisers was pressed Friday on his campaign pledge to go to war with the American oil industry as he now calls on them to produce more

The adviser was later pressed on Biden's past pledges to confront the oil industry, including an exchange with a woman in New Castle, N.H., where he said, "Kiddo, I want you to just take a look at my eyes – I guarantee you we're going to end fossil fuels and I'm not going to cooperate…"

In a debate, Biden pledged to end subsidies for the industry, drilling on federal lands or offshore areas, adding "…no ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period."

On the first day of his administration, he also ended the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have transported oil from Alberta, Canada to Port Arthur, Texas.

We have not built a new refinery in this country since 1970. It goes back a long way on the war against this industry – So now the president is saying do more, refine more, get more product to the market,"

Citing a response to the administration from Chevron, MacCallum reported the oil industry wants sensible retraction of recently-imposed regulations on their work so that they can produce more in the United States and bring down costs that way.

Chevron said in a statement the Biden administration had been messaging its intent to place "obstacles" in the way of its mission to provide for global energy needs.

[Neil]

Where did that so-called "news story" come from? I'm guessing some right wing mouthpiece of election denying, climate change denying, fascist news like FOX at best and Pravda at worst .

[Neil]

One real question that comes up from the Jan 6th investigation is when John Eastman will be indicted for treason (an effort to undermine the government of the USA)? Clearly Trump is also guilty of treason, but I doubt he will be indicted. If it wasn't so tragic, their clown college attempts to rewrite the laws of the nation would be hilarious. Sort of like Hogan's Heroes, but about Republicans .

[HONDO74]

Jan 6th was just a protest. But they weren't rioting looting and burning down buildings like the progressive liberals did and got way with it. When are the democrats going to have a Congressional investigation on that. Never

[Neil]

"an 6th was just a protest. But they weren't rioting looting and burning down buildings like the progressive liberals did and got way with it. "

That is total BS. Capitol police were assaulted, Congressional offices were damaged and materials stolen. The Vice President and Speaker of the House and others were threatened with assassination. A protest in the democratic tradition doesn't involve assassination threats. The rioting and looting in Portland wasn't progressives but criminals and frustrated ordinary citizens. There were no conspiracies, as there were for Jan. 6th. You are a gullible and deluded person if you believe otherwise. The very process of peaceful transfer of power was threatened for the first time in American history. Clownishness and incompetence do not make these traitors more palatable or innocent. The next time they might be more competent, so the leaders of the Jan. 6th attempt to subvert the government of the United Stattes need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including the former President. And certainly the self-appointed militia and John Eastman/Michael Flynn, etc. Imagine asking for a pardon at the same time you attempt to subvert 200+ years of democratic governance.

As for rioting and looting by protestors, those were local problems and not subject to federal prosecution. The local communities and legal authorities made the decision that prosecuting many of the protestors would cause more harm than good. That is prosecutorial discretion and may be right or wrong, but it is hardly the first time rioting and looting occurred in response to near criminal activity by the police, the government itself or deranged citizens. The 1960s were the last major civil disruptions of this sort. There is always the balance between seeing these civil disruptions as criminal activity, treason and legitimate frustrations of the populace against a violent and uncontrolled police force (see the crimes committed against the Black Panthers in the 1960s, for example) and a government gone off the rails with war mongering (see the anti-Vietnam protests of the 1960s). Not to mention the police tolerating violence against protestors by conservative citizens who also took the law into their own hands. We do have a problem with police violence in this country, at least as much as a problem with violent crime, so the solutions have to be nuanced and not one-sided. The prosecution of the murder of George Floyd is unique in American history, for example, and an indication of progress.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

"an 6th was just a protest. But they weren't rioting looting and burning down buildings like the progressive liberals did and got way with it. "

As for rioting and looting by protestors, those were local problems and not subject to federal prosecution.

And in Baltimore they did prosecute protestors and looters based on camera information. What's not understood here is that local jurisdictions do follow up albeit not in the national spotlight. Additionally, rioting, looting, and burning down buildings is very clearly not unique to liberals...

[HONDO74]

When are they going to have congressional hearings on Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer

“The minority leader of the United States Senate threatened two associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court
saying President Trump’s two nominees to the Supreme Court would “pay the price” for a vote against abortion rights

Schumer says he sees no issue with protests at houses of Supreme Court justices. That is against federal law to protest out side of their homes. So if it is Okay with Schumer to break federal law then it should be okay for protestor and the federal buildings.

What Schumer said prompted an individual from Calif to come and kill one of the Supreme court justices. Schumer should be investigated for instigating that ......

[Neil]

Not even remotely comparable circumstances and issues

[HONDO74]

Not even remotely comparable circumstances and issues

So as a progressive liberal you approve and support these idiots breaking federal law Protesting in front of the supreme court justices homes because you support abortion and a liberal senator instigating it.

Tell us what your position is on this.

I thought all those on Jan 6th were a bunch of idiots thinking they could change anything by doing what they did. You change things in this country by voting

[Neil]

Frankly I’m not clear that peaceful protest that doesn’t prevent Supreme Court justices from carrying out their duties is illegal. That’s likely another Republican fantasy alongside religious liberty for fascism, misogny and homophobia but not for women. If it is found illegal those protestors should be thrown in jail as were abolitionists and later civil rights leaders like Dr King.

But there will be a reckoning with history for the likes of Clarence Thomas and his racist, fascist and politically partisan points of view. Someday this nation will be completely free from the Trumpian misogyny, authoritarianism, xenophobia and pandering to white supremacy. At that time having been a member of the republican party will be seen as being similar to being a southern Democrat before the Civil War. Today’s Republican Party has more in common with John Calhoun and his defense of slavery that it does with Abraham Lincoln.

[HONDO74]

Frankly I’m not clear that peaceful protest that doesn’t prevent Supreme Court justices from carrying out their duties is illegal. That’s likely another Republican fantasy alongside religious liberty for fascism, misogny and homophobia but not for women. If it is found illegal those protestors should be thrown in jail as were abolitionists and later civil rights leaders like Dr King.

But there will be a reckoning with history for the likes of Clarence Thomas and his racist, fascist and politically partisan points of view. Someday this nation will be completely free from the Trumpian misogyny, authoritarianism, xenophobia and pandering to white supremacy. At that time having been a member of the republican party will be seen as being similar to being a southern Democrat before the Civil War. Today’s Republican Party has more in common with John Calhoun and his defense of slavery that it does with Abraham Lincoln.

Thank you Neil for doing one of your hokey pokey dances around the question. I new you wouldn't answer it.

[Neil]

My answer is crystal clear. If protesting Supreme Court justices decisions at their homes is illegal, throw the protestors in jail. Put up a cordon of police to keep them safe. Give them prayers and thoughts . But it may well be that protesting Supreme Court decisions anywhere that doesn't interfere with their work is totally legal and protected First Amendment speech. There is no established case law to my knowledge despite the hysterical ranting of Republicans.

Martin Luther King never fought off the police and acquiesced in their fascist, racist arrests in Southern towns. By doing so, he and the civil rights leaders of their time brought shame on the local police and political leaders, and eventually federal laws protected civil rights demonstrations from the racist white supremacists who are now one of the core constituencies of the Republican party. You get to choose which party you support and which candidates. I choose not to support those who are hostile to immigrants, want to control women in a misogynist, biologically absurd fashion, support violent and criminal police activities, are fascist supporters who undermine election integrity. That means I'm not a big fan of fascists like Donald Trump and his MAGA followers, and their ilk amongst the Republican party. So that leaves me usually voting for Democratic candidates in most cases.

What's hard to understand? That I don't like Clarence Thomas's BS interpretation of the Constitution? That I don't like Ginni Thomas's desire to undermine American democracy and keep a kleptomaniac sociopath in power? That I wouldn't support Donald Trump for dog catcher? That some of the public positions of the Republican party are barbaric and dehumanizing, and that a significant proportion of their base is, well, as base as can be?