cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Still again you pretend to have amnesia.

If our military was not tasked to protect Israel……they wouldn't be killing Muslims or being killed in turn.

How many Brazilians have been killed in the Middle East ?

How many Swiss ?

How many Mexicans ?

Come on guy…..you know the story.

---

Actually there have been several citizens of those countries, and others, that have been killed in the ME.

Brazil had a few killed in the Oct 7 attack and at other times. It usually just doesn't make front page news in the US.

---

Which Middle Eastern country was Jeffrey Epstein working for?

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

As I've said many times...when you're making the "it's unconstitutional" argument, you're losing the argument.

---

Really? You are one of those shred the Constitution, start over types?

---

No. The way you defend the constitution is to defeat bad ideas on the merits, rather than making esoteric legal arguments that have never peen persuasive to the public. If all you do is say "…you can't do that!….respect the Constitution!!!!…" then the people making a substantive argument are likely going to get the policy enacted and then it goes into effect. THEN you have to litigate to overturn it in court, OR spend your own political capital trying to repeal it (capital that could be otherwise use to get your own agenda passed). How often do things get repealed, anyway (not bloody often).

If all you've got is "it's unconstitutional" you're probably going to lose on the issue at hand (whether it's constitutional or not).

The_barBEARian said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Still again you pretend to have amnesia.

If our military was not tasked to protect Israel……they wouldn't be killing Muslims or being killed in turn.

How many Brazilians have been killed in the Middle East ?

How many Swiss ?

How many Mexicans ?

Come on guy…..you know the story.

---

Actually there have been several citizens of those countries, and others, that have been killed in the ME.

Brazil had a few killed in the Oct 7 attack and at other times. It usually just doesn't make front page news in the US.

---

Which Middle Eastern country was Jeffrey Epstein working for?

---

Possibly Israel.
Possibly us.
Could be more.

It's not at all rare to find out "your" agent is not exclusive with you…….

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Lindsey Graham: "If we get in a fight, I want to win it quick. I'm in Miami. You see this hat? 'Free Cuba.' Stay tuned. The liberation of Cuba is upon us. We're marching through the world. We're clearing out the bad guys. Cuba is next." pic.twitter.com/gIommBVScp

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 8, 2026

---

This guy is dangerous.

---

In this instance, he's probably right.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Lindsey Graham: "If we get in a fight, I want to win it quick. I'm in Miami. You see this hat? 'Free Cuba.' Stay tuned. The liberation of Cuba is upon us. We're marching through the world. We're clearing out the bad guys. Cuba is next." pic.twitter.com/gIommBVScp

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 8, 2026

---

This guy is dangerous.

---

In this instance, he's probably right.

---

"In this instance." Love it...

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Lindsey Graham: "If we get in a fight, I want to win it quick. I'm in Miami. You see this hat? 'Free Cuba.' Stay tuned. The liberation of Cuba is upon us. We're marching through the world. We're clearing out the bad guys. Cuba is next." pic.twitter.com/gIommBVScp

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 8, 2026

---

This guy is dangerous.

---

In this instance, he's probably right.

---

"In this instance." Love it...

---

If news reports are accurate, the Cuban government is in talks with the USG about a new relationship. So, yeah, "in this instance" he's probably on to something.

SPRING BREAK UNDER SIEGE.

The Democrats’ DHS shutdown has led to HOURS long security lines at airports across the country, leading Americans to miss their spring break flights.

There is ZERO reason for spring break travel to be held hostage for political points — Democrats… pic.twitter.com/sp1vnzXJbb

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) March 8, 2026

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Lindsey Graham: "If we get in a fight, I want to win it quick. I'm in Miami. You see this hat? 'Free Cuba.' Stay tuned. The liberation of Cuba is upon us. We're marching through the world. We're clearing out the bad guys. Cuba is next." pic.twitter.com/gIommBVScp

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 8, 2026

---

This guy is dangerous.

---

In this instance, he's probably right.

---

"In this instance." Love it...

---

If news reports are accurate, the Cuban government is in talks with the USG about a new relationship. So, yeah, "in this instance" he's probably on to something.

---

I am sorry, thought you were pulling my chain... I meant it in good nature.

If a nation has a generous welfare state it will attract groups wanting welfare.

Incentives explain outcomes. pic.twitter.com/H6UGTW42Zv

— The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole) March 8, 2026

If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal.

If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you're a fundamentalist.

If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian.

If you believe…

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) September 11, 2025

Incentives explain outcomes https://t.co/Mma6ElCuSc

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 8, 2026

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

As I've said many times...when you're making the "it's unconstitutional" argument, you're losing the argument.

---

Really? You are one of those shred the Constitution, start over types?

---

No. The way you defend the constitution is to defeat bad ideas on the merits, rather than making esoteric legal arguments that have never peen persuasive to the public. If all you do is say "…you can't do that!….respect the Constitution!!!!…" then the people making a substantive argument are likely going to get the policy enacted and then it goes into effect. THEN you have to litigate to overturn it in court, OR spend your own political capital trying to repeal it (capital that could be otherwise use to get your own agenda passed). How often do things get repealed, anyway (not bloody often).

If all you've got is "it's unconstitutional" you're probably going to lose on the issue at hand (whether it's constitutional or not).

---

What a load. Nope.

In this country, we follow the Constitution, and if we dont, we eventually pay for it. You can have all the merited arguments you want, but when your merits come up against the Constitution, the Constitution wins.

It is called the rule of law, not the rule of merit. Look it up sometime.

Latest script just dropped: “Short-term pain for long-term gain” pic.twitter.com/PjLxGNzh9W

— Blue Georgia (@BlueATLGeorgia) March 8, 2026

All this chatter about the constitution makes me laugh.

As no one has done a detailed study of the document since high school.

And even then only got a ' C ' on the test .

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

As I've said many times...when you're making the "it's unconstitutional" argument, you're losing the argument.

---

Really? You are one of those shred the Constitution, start over types?

---

No. The way you defend the constitution is to defeat bad ideas on the merits, rather than making esoteric legal arguments that have never peen persuasive to the public. If all you do is say "…you can't do that!….respect the Constitution!!!!…" then the people making a substantive argument are likely going to get the policy enacted and then it goes into effect. THEN you have to litigate to overturn it in court, OR spend your own political capital trying to repeal it (capital that could be otherwise use to get your own agenda passed). How often do things get repealed, anyway (not bloody often).

If all you've got is "it's unconstitutional" you're probably going to lose on the issue at hand (whether it's constitutional or not).

---

What a load. Nope.

In this country, we follow the Constitution, and if we dont, we eventually pay for it. You can have all the merited arguments you want, but when your merits come up against the Constitution, the Constitution wins.

It is called the rule of law, not the rule of merit. Look it up sometime.

---

whoosh.

The way the country actually works is a law gets passed after a lot of debate. If the totality of your contribution to the debate is "this is unconstitutional," you are making yourself irrelevant to a debate which will focus on the merits/demerits of the proposed law.

So the law passes. Then the Executive has to form rules on how the law will be implemented. Then, both the law and the rules get litigated. That litigation can goes thru as many as three levels of courts. Only after that is done, YEARS AFTER THE LAW HAS BEEN IN EFFECT, will we finally know whether it was all constitutional or not. GOP was quite convinced Obamacare was unconstitutional. How'd that turn out? Look at Trump's tariffs. Have any been refunded yet? Have tariffs gone away?

If you don't win the argument on the merits of medicine or tariffs, you are probably going to get the medicine and the tariff policy you don't want. So engage in the democratic process and let the courts sort it all out.

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

As I've said many times...when you're making the "it's unconstitutional" argument, you're losing the argument.

---

Really? You are one of those shred the Constitution, start over types?

---

No. The way you defend the constitution is to defeat bad ideas on the merits, rather than making esoteric legal arguments that have never peen persuasive to the public. If all you do is say "…you can't do that!….respect the Constitution!!!!…" then the people making a substantive argument are likely going to get the policy enacted and then it goes into effect. THEN you have to litigate to overturn it in court, OR spend your own political capital trying to repeal it (capital that could be otherwise use to get your own agenda passed). How often do things get repealed, anyway (not bloody often).

If all you've got is "it's unconstitutional" you're probably going to lose on the issue at hand (whether it's constitutional or not).

---

What a load. Nope.

In this country, we follow the Constitution, and if we dont, we eventually pay for it. You can have all the merited arguments you want, but when your merits come up against the Constitution, the Constitution wins.

It is called the rule of law, not the rule of merit. Look it up sometime.

---

whoosh.

The way the country actually works is a law gets passed after a lot of debate. If the totality of your contribution to the debate is "this is unconstitutional," you are making yourself irrelevant to a debate which will focus on the merits/demerits of the proposed law.

So the law passes. Then the Executive has to form rules on how the law will be implemented. Then, both the law and the rules get litigated. That litigation can goes thru as many as three levels of courts. Only after that is done, YEARS AFTER THE LAW HAS BEEN IN EFFECT, will we finally know whether it was all constitutional or not. GOP was quite convinced Obamacare was unconstitutional. How'd that turn out? Look at Trump's tariffs. Have any been refunded yet? Have tariffs gone away?

If you don't win the argument on the merits of medicine or tariffs, you are probably going to get the medicine and the tariff policy you don't want. So engage in the democratic process and let the courts sort it all out.

---

There are plenty of substantive arguments against the war. Its constitutionality is likely a political question, so the courts aren't going to sort it out. It has to be litigated in the court of public opinion. It must also be said that repeated and flagrant violation of the Constitution is an issue in its own right (I know, but but Biden...please don't bother).

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

As I've said many times...when you're making the "it's unconstitutional" argument, you're losing the argument.

---

Really? You are one of those shred the Constitution, start over types?

---

No. The way you defend the constitution is to defeat bad ideas on the merits, rather than making esoteric legal arguments that have never peen persuasive to the public. If all you do is say "…you can't do that!….respect the Constitution!!!!…" then the people making a substantive argument are likely going to get the policy enacted and then it goes into effect. THEN you have to litigate to overturn it in court, OR spend your own political capital trying to repeal it (capital that could be otherwise use to get your own agenda passed). How often do things get repealed, anyway (not bloody often).

If all you've got is "it's unconstitutional" you're probably going to lose on the issue at hand (whether it's constitutional or not).

---

What a load. Nope.

In this country, we follow the Constitution, and if we dont, we eventually pay for it. You can have all the merited arguments you want, but when your merits come up against the Constitution, the Constitution wins.

It is called the rule of law, not the rule of merit. Look it up sometime.

---

whoosh.

The way the country actually works is a law gets passed after a lot of debate. If the totality of your contribution to the debate is "this is unconstitutional," you are making yourself irrelevant to a debate which will focus on the merits/demerits of the proposed law.

So the law passes. Then the Executive has to form rules on how the law will be implemented. Then, both the law and the rules get litigated. That litigation can goes thru as many as three levels of courts. Only after that is done, YEARS AFTER THE LAW HAS BEEN IN EFFECT, will we finally know whether it was all constitutional or not. GOP was quite convinced Obamacare was unconstitutional. How'd that turn out? Look at Trump's tariffs. Have any been refunded yet? Have tariffs gone away?

If you don't win the argument on the merits of medicine or tariffs, you are probably going to get the medicine and the tariff policy you don't want. So engage in the democratic process and let the courts sort it all out.

---

There are plenty of substantive arguments against the war. Its constitutionality is likely a political question, so the courts aren't going to sort it out. It has to be litigated in the court of public opinion. It must also be said that repeated and flagrant violation of the Constitution is an issue in its own right (I know, but but Biden...please don't bother).

---

Exactly. Make the substantive arguments and win the politics. Making constitutional arguments against it virtually guarantees the war will not only happen but conclude before SCOTUS even hears the case.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

As I've said many times...when you're making the "it's unconstitutional" argument, you're losing the argument.

---

Really? You are one of those shred the Constitution, start over types?

---

No. The way you defend the constitution is to defeat bad ideas on the merits, rather than making esoteric legal arguments that have never peen persuasive to the public. If all you do is say "…you can't do that!….respect the Constitution!!!!…" then the people making a substantive argument are likely going to get the policy enacted and then it goes into effect. THEN you have to litigate to overturn it in court, OR spend your own political capital trying to repeal it (capital that could be otherwise use to get your own agenda passed). How often do things get repealed, anyway (not bloody often).

If all you've got is "it's unconstitutional" you're probably going to lose on the issue at hand (whether it's constitutional or not).

---

What a load. Nope.

In this country, we follow the Constitution, and if we dont, we eventually pay for it. You can have all the merited arguments you want, but when your merits come up against the Constitution, the Constitution wins.

It is called the rule of law, not the rule of merit. Look it up sometime.

---

whoosh.

The way the country actually works is a law gets passed after a lot of debate. If the totality of your contribution to the debate is "this is unconstitutional," you are making yourself irrelevant to a debate which will focus on the merits/demerits of the proposed law.

So the law passes. Then the Executive has to form rules on how the law will be implemented. Then, both the law and the rules get litigated. That litigation can goes thru as many as three levels of courts. Only after that is done, YEARS AFTER THE LAW HAS BEEN IN EFFECT, will we finally know whether it was all constitutional or not. GOP was quite convinced Obamacare was unconstitutional. How'd that turn out? Look at Trump's tariffs. Have any been refunded yet? Have tariffs gone away?

If you don't win the argument on the merits of medicine or tariffs, you are probably going to get the medicine and the tariff policy you don't want. So engage in the democratic process and let the courts sort it all out.

---

There are plenty of substantive arguments against the war. Its constitutionality is likely a political question, so the courts aren't going to sort it out. It has to be litigated in the court of public opinion. It must also be said that repeated and flagrant violation of the Constitution is an issue in its own right (I know, but but Biden...please don't bother).

---

Exactly. Make the substantive arguments and win the politics. Making constitutional arguments against it virtually guarantees the war will not only happen but conclude before SCOTUS even hears the case.

---

Nothing wrong with arguing the law and the facts when both are on one's side.

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Over $900 billion wiped out from US stock market at open.

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) March 9, 2026

Muslims don't belong in American society.

Pluralism is a lie.

— Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) March 9, 2026

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

As I've said many times...when you're making the "it's unconstitutional" argument, you're losing the argument.

---

Really? You are one of those shred the Constitution, start over types?

---

No. The way you defend the constitution is to defeat bad ideas on the merits, rather than making esoteric legal arguments that have never peen persuasive to the public. If all you do is say "…you can't do that!….respect the Constitution!!!!…" then the people making a substantive argument are likely going to get the policy enacted and then it goes into effect. THEN you have to litigate to overturn it in court, OR spend your own political capital trying to repeal it (capital that could be otherwise use to get your own agenda passed). How often do things get repealed, anyway (not bloody often).

If all you've got is "it's unconstitutional" you're probably going to lose on the issue at hand (whether it's constitutional or not).

---

What a load. Nope.

In this country, we follow the Constitution, and if we dont, we eventually pay for it. You can have all the merited arguments you want, but when your merits come up against the Constitution, the Constitution wins.

It is called the rule of law, not the rule of merit. Look it up sometime.

---

whoosh.

The way the country actually works is a law gets passed after a lot of debate. If the totality of your contribution to the debate is "this is unconstitutional," you are making yourself irrelevant to a debate which will focus on the merits/demerits of the proposed law.

So the law passes. Then the Executive has to form rules on how the law will be implemented. Then, both the law and the rules get litigated. That litigation can goes thru as many as three levels of courts. Only after that is done, YEARS AFTER THE LAW HAS BEEN IN EFFECT, will we finally know whether it was all constitutional or not. GOP was quite convinced Obamacare was unconstitutional. How'd that turn out? Look at Trump's tariffs. Have any been refunded yet? Have tariffs gone away?

If you don't win the argument on the merits of medicine or tariffs, you are probably going to get the medicine and the tariff policy you don't want. So engage in the democratic process and let the courts sort it all out.

---

There are plenty of substantive arguments against the war. Its constitutionality is likely a political question, so the courts aren't going to sort it out. It has to be litigated in the court of public opinion. It must also be said that repeated and flagrant violation of the Constitution is an issue in its own right (I know, but but Biden...please don't bother).

---

Exactly. Make the substantive arguments and win the politics. Making constitutional arguments against it virtually guarantees the war will not only happen but conclude before SCOTUS even hears the case.

---

Nothing wrong with arguing the law and the facts when both are on one's side.

---

Nothing wrong with just asking questions or asking for clarification. It is not a negative to want to know the details or the long-term strategy. You don't you end up with Atlantic City.

Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., the president’s sons, are backing a new drone company that is vying to meet fresh demand from the Pentagon and fill a hole left by the administration’s ban on new Chinese drones in the U.S. 🔗 https://t.co/iQ9rGso0xy pic.twitter.com/a5fAoKpkZh

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) March 9, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

Muslims don't belong in American society.

Pluralism is a lie.

— Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) March 9, 2026

---

I don't like this sort of blanket statement. I don't think that's at all fair to plenty of Muslims who are great citizens.

nein51 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Muslims don't belong in American society.

Pluralism is a lie.

— Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) March 9, 2026

---

I don't like this sort of blanket statement. I don't think that's at all fair to plenty of Muslims who are great citizens.

---

"Most pit bulls are kind and gentle. It is all how they were raised!!! Blah....blah...blah!!!!"

My biggest knock against non-violent Muslims that they are silent and do not condemn Militant Islam. Evil flourishes when good men (and women) do nothing.

nein51 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Muslims don't belong in American society.

Pluralism is a lie.

— Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) March 9, 2026

---

I don't like this sort of blanket statement. I don't think that's at all fair to plenty of Muslims who are great citizens.

---

There should be a box on the immigration form.

Are you a Good Muslim or a Bad Muslim?

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Muslims don't belong in American society.

Pluralism is a lie.

— Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) March 9, 2026

---

I don't like this sort of blanket statement. I don't think that's at all fair to plenty of Muslims who are great citizens.

---

"Most pit bulls are kind and gentle. It is all how they were raised!!! Blah....blah...blah!!!!"

My biggest knock against non-violent Muslims that they are silent and do not condemn Militant Islam. Evil flourishes when good men (and women) do nothing.

---

Unfortunately western and eastern civilization are not compatible under the same roof… something's gotta give. Thats the honest truth

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Muslims don't belong in American society.

Pluralism is a lie.

— Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) March 9, 2026

---

I don't like this sort of blanket statement. I don't think that's at all fair to plenty of Muslims who are great citizens.

---

"Most pit bulls are kind and gentle. It is all how they were raised!!! Blah....blah...blah!!!!"

My biggest knock against non-violent Muslims that they are silent and do not condemn Militant Islam. Evil flourishes when good men (and women) do nothing.

---

So I agree with your last statement. It's my biggest issue with my Muslim friends as well.

Couldn't your first statement be applied to everything though?

Assassin said:

---

nein51 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Muslims don't belong in American society.

Pluralism is a lie.

— Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) March 9, 2026

---

I don't like this sort of blanket statement. I don't think that's at all fair to plenty of Muslims who are great citizens.

---

There should be a box on the immigration form.

Are you a Good Muslim or a Bad Muslim?

---

Should there be a box on the DL that asks if you're a good white person or bad white person? You know how ridiculous that sounds, right?

I have questions. pic.twitter.com/tzqpNYMZVr

— Maine (@TheMaineWonk) March 8, 2026

funny you should mention pit bulls.

They are high-energy dogs, but unless feral or abused by people who make them vicious they are genuinely gentle, and in the past have been dependable protection for children.

Remember Petey from 'Our Gang'?

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Muslims don't belong in American society.

Pluralism is a lie.

— Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) March 9, 2026

---

I don't like this sort of blanket statement. I don't think that's at all fair to plenty of Muslims who are great citizens.

---

"Most pit bulls are kind and gentle. It is all how they were raised!!! Blah....blah...blah!!!!"

My biggest knock against non-violent Muslims that they are silent and do not condemn Militant Islam. Evil flourishes when good men (and women) do nothing.

---

Incredible how many people throughout the West , still can not bring themselves to defend their own culture.

As Muslims certainly due in their various countries.

Oldbear83 said:

---

funny you should mention pit bulls.

They are high-energy dogs, but unless feral or abused by people who make them vicious they are genuinely gentle, and in the past have been dependable protection for children.

Remember Petey from 'Our Gang'?

---

My pit was an amazing dog. He was in no way dangerous. He was too dumb to be dangerous. That guy was so playful it wasn't funny. Strong, loved kids, huge head, the only way he would hurt you would be flicking you with his tail wag…dumb as a box of rocks.

My rottie was a professionally (by the people that train dogs for the DPD, FBI and other agencies) trained dog. She was the best dog, a ball of sweetness, 140lbs of straight up adorable…who would 100% kill you on command.

KaiBear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Muslims don't belong in American society.

Pluralism is a lie.

— Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) March 9, 2026

---

I don't like this sort of blanket statement. I don't think that's at all fair to plenty of Muslims who are great citizens.

---

"Most pit bulls are kind and gentle. It is all how they were raised!!! Blah....blah...blah!!!!"

My biggest knock against non-violent Muslims that they are silent and do not condemn Militant Islam. Evil flourishes when good men (and women) do nothing.

---

Incredible how many people throughout the West , still can not bring themselves to defend their own culture.

As Muslims certainly due in their various countries.

---

1) America is the best country on the planet, it's the greatest civilization that has ever existed. It's not perfect but it's exceptional in every way.

2) The overwhelmingly majority of Muslims are normal, every people.

3) The fringe of Islam is insanely dangerous, it's a cancer and a scourge.

4) That fringe is FAR larger than the fringe of any other religion.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Muslims don't belong in American society.

Pluralism is a lie.

— Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles) March 9, 2026

---

I don't like this sort of blanket statement. I don't think that's at all fair to plenty of Muslims who are great citizens.

---

"Most pit bulls are kind and gentle. It is all how they were raised!!! Blah....blah...blah!!!!"

My biggest knock against non-violent Muslims that they are silent and do not condemn Militant Islam. Evil flourishes when good men (and women) do nothing.

---

Sitting US congressmen making statements like this is going to push normal muslim Americans towards the radicals, not away.