@jeanpflei.bsky.social
No, the US has not switched sides. Nor has Donald Trump. They have never been on the same side. All that happened was that Trump made unmistakably clear. He is disgusting.
February 28, 2025 at 11:32 PM
No, the US has not switched sides. Nor has Donald Trump. They have never been on the same side. All that happened was that Trump made unmistakably clear. He is disgusting.
Yes, I guess you can call it an embarrassment, too. It was a two-on-one assault on Zelensky, shouting lies over his attempts to speak realistically about the stupidity of trusting Putin.
February 28, 2025 at 6:53 PM
Yes, I guess you can call it an embarrassment, too. It was a two-on-one assault on Zelensky, shouting lies over his attempts to speak realistically about the stupidity of trusting Putin.
Hi Diane! Good to see you here!
February 14, 2025 at 4:27 PM
Hi Diane! Good to see you here!
Very appealing. May have to give that a try.
February 9, 2025 at 9:00 PM
Very appealing. May have to give that a try.
But they are allowed to say what that legitimate power is and certainly they must control his illegitimate power grabs.
February 9, 2025 at 8:57 PM
But they are allowed to say what that legitimate power is and certainly they must control his illegitimate power grabs.
Yes that’s about the size of it.
February 3, 2025 at 2:09 PM
Yes that’s about the size of it.
Yes, there it is. Do something outrageously wrongheaded and dangerous, wait for the public outcry, “back off” to a somewhat less outrageous level that remains senseless but is at least some improvement. Next time, you won’t have to back off as far. Time after that, you won’t have to back off at all.
February 1, 2025 at 12:18 PM
Yes, there it is. Do something outrageously wrongheaded and dangerous, wait for the public outcry, “back off” to a somewhat less outrageous level that remains senseless but is at least some improvement. Next time, you won’t have to back off as far. Time after that, you won’t have to back off at all.
An “argument” is an exchange of reasons for divergent views, so yes, in exchanging “knowledge, thoughts, and ideas” that were not congruent, we were “arguing.”
January 31, 2025 at 12:50 PM
An “argument” is an exchange of reasons for divergent views, so yes, in exchanging “knowledge, thoughts, and ideas” that were not congruent, we were “arguing.”
“doesn’t know”? Not good enough. Just wiggle room for giving him “the benefit of the doubt.”
January 30, 2025 at 8:19 PM
“doesn’t know”? Not good enough. Just wiggle room for giving him “the benefit of the doubt.”
No one is fooled. The people who voted for him love the insanity.
January 28, 2025 at 7:27 PM
No one is fooled. The people who voted for him love the insanity.
Perhaps our argument is a semantic one. “Whenever they see fit” may be what happens in practice, but the courts will want some probable cause and an offence within the agent’s mandate. ICE CAN arrest a citizen, as they demonstrated, but they SHOULD not.
January 25, 2025 at 9:11 PM
Perhaps our argument is a semantic one. “Whenever they see fit” may be what happens in practice, but the courts will want some probable cause and an offence within the agent’s mandate. ICE CAN arrest a citizen, as they demonstrated, but they SHOULD not.
I meant that she directed her remarks to people in power IN THE ROOM. When power shows up in the pews, surely a preacher can use the pulpit to ask that power to show mercy? She did not call anyone a sinner.
January 25, 2025 at 8:49 PM
I meant that she directed her remarks to people in power IN THE ROOM. When power shows up in the pews, surely a preacher can use the pulpit to ask that power to show mercy? She did not call anyone a sinner.
Sorry, I am not familiar with FPS. What is that?
I doubt that ICE or any other federal agency has authority to “arrest anyone they see fit at any time.”
I doubt that ICE or any other federal agency has authority to “arrest anyone they see fit at any time.”
January 25, 2025 at 8:23 PM
Sorry, I am not familiar with FPS. What is that?
I doubt that ICE or any other federal agency has authority to “arrest anyone they see fit at any time.”
I doubt that ICE or any other federal agency has authority to “arrest anyone they see fit at any time.”
No one was singled out as a sinner. People in power were acknowledged as having the power to be merciful and asked, politely, to exercise that power.
January 24, 2025 at 8:47 PM
No one was singled out as a sinner. People in power were acknowledged as having the power to be merciful and asked, politely, to exercise that power.
This was a raid, so if he was a citizen, ICE should not have arrested him. There has been no suggestion that he broke any laws, but even if he did, we have police to deal with that. ICE is not
mandated to enforce other laws.
See, you need to REALLY tell the whole story.
mandated to enforce other laws.
See, you need to REALLY tell the whole story.
January 24, 2025 at 8:40 PM
This was a raid, so if he was a citizen, ICE should not have arrested him. There has been no suggestion that he broke any laws, but even if he did, we have police to deal with that. ICE is not
mandated to enforce other laws.
See, you need to REALLY tell the whole story.
mandated to enforce other laws.
See, you need to REALLY tell the whole story.
Yeah, she has some nerve, disrupting the shock and awe. And then refusing to apologize for asking for mercy for vulnerable people! Imagine thinking that being a Christian is about loving each other. What a radical ideology!
January 24, 2025 at 2:58 PM
Yeah, she has some nerve, disrupting the shock and awe. And then refusing to apologize for asking for mercy for vulnerable people! Imagine thinking that being a Christian is about loving each other. What a radical ideology!
Happy to see you trying this.
January 22, 2025 at 12:05 PM
Happy to see you trying this.