It seems as if the younger generation, as well as cutting edge communities are all getting back into physical media. Itâ(TM)s definitely a trend.
There are video stores opening up in some places again, so one can hope this place catches that wave
So can I jump to assuming mocking murder is ok with you? Or is it just mocking the victim of a murder?
While we're at it, what can people say that justifies murdering them? And what did Charlie Kirk say that you think justifies his murder?
My comment wasn't directed at you. You and I agree on this. Others still think law will fix human nature.
Voting against the Big Beautiful Bill:
Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Warren Davidson of Ohio.
A procedural measure Republicans on the Rules Committee advanced Monday night would extend until March 31 a block on efforts by Democrats and several Republicans to end the national emergencies underlying Trump’s sweeping tariffs — including on Mexico, Canada, Brazil and his “liberation day” levies from April:
Reps. Kevin Kiley of California, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Victoria Spartz of Indiana.
Against the debt limit/spending bill in December 2024, when Trump was merely President-Elect:
Aaron Bean (Fla.), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Josh Brecheen (Okla.), Tim Burchett (Tenn.), Eric Burlison (Mo.), Kat Cammack (Fla.), Michael Cloud (Texas), Andrew Clyde (Ga.), Eli Crane (Ariz.), John Curtis (Utah), Jeff Duncan (S.C.), Russ Fulcher (Idaho), Bob Good (Va.), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Andy Harris (Md.), Wesley Hunt (Texas), Doug Lamborn (Colo.), Debbie Lesko (Ariz.), Greg Lopez (Colo.), Morgan Luttrell (Texas), Nancy Mace (S.C.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Richard McCormick (Ga.), Cory Mills (Fla.), Alexander Mooney (W.Va.), Blake Moore (Utah), Nathaniel Moran (Texas), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Andy Ogles (Tenn.), Scott Perry (Pa.), Bill Posey (Fla.), Matt Rosendale (Mont.), Chip Roy (Texas), David Schweikert (Ariz.), Keith Self (Texas), Victoria Spartz (Ind.), Thomas Tiffany (Wis.), Beth Van Duyne (Texas).
That is enough for now. So continue and explain how these aren't important, or misleading, or whatever you need to to continue your meme. You aren't actually claiming the Republican Party is lockstep with Trump, are you? Or are you that ignorant of GOP history?
'less than complimentary comments about Charlie Kirk'
Such as celebrating his murder? That's ok with you?
...and in most countries, your child will be able to buy a knife as soon as they have money.
In the US you only need to be of a minimum age, without a criminal record, nor recently found profoundly mentally disturbed, nor an obvious threat to another person to purchase a firearm. Law does not prevent someone from giving you one, though law does punish that person if discovered.
And there we have the problem. Law does not prevent, it at best discourages, and nominally punishes. With firearms, punishment for murder is too late. But no law prevents.
'many conservatives'
Yeah, that is defined as 'small minority'. You're wrong in your assessment, and it does not matter why.
If they want it preconditioned? Yes, welcome to 2025, they can install the app on their phone. Or they use the 'remote climate start' option on the keyfob. Or they shoot you a quick text asking you to hit the button in your app.
You keep trying to paint these advancements in convenience and comfort as terrible burdens, and it's weird.
You're not watching the same movie I am. Much of the leadership and a measurable portion of the Republican Party does NOT support Trump.
"Former GOP officials fear US strikes on alleged drug smugglers aren't legal"
Alas, as many do, you seem to gravitate to reporting that conflates membership in the GOP with some alignment with Trump. Mostly it is, but the GOP , especially the leadership, is not united behind Trump, and should not be expected to.
Media reports are, for me, suspect.
From Congress.gov, interesting notes:
"In the United States primary responsibility for establishing policy and providing funding for elementary and secondary education rests with the states and instrumentalities therein. Federal financial support typically supplements state and local funding."
Other notes:
"ED is also charged with enforcing various civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in all programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance (unless otherwise noted). These include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352, as amended; prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-318, as amended; prohibits discrimination based on sex), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112, as amended; prohibits discrimination based on disability), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-135, as amended; prohibits discrimination based on age), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-336, as amended; prohibits discrimination based on disability by public entities).
ED also enforces two laws that protect student privacy rights: (1) the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which guarantees parental access to student education records while limiting the disclosure of those records to third parties; and (2) the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), which gives parents certain rights regarding the collection of student data."
Some of the acts requiring the ED to perform certain duties include:
Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA)
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA)
Perkins Career and Technical Education Act
Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA)
And I believe the Department of Education, while it may be performing these duties, can be abolished, these duties executed elsewhere, and no loss of opportunity or effectiveness will occur. I support the abolition of the Department of Education. Especially the duties related to the civil rights of students could be discharged by other government agencies, and ought to.
With all that, I do not accept the complaints of those federal employees dismissed, that the agencies they worked in are being dismantled. Let's see the effects.
And a final point, if our President is in fact directing the 'orchestrating a politically motivated purge of the bureau’s leadership', a brief look at the history of lawfare against our President would show that, in fact, several; agencies conducted energetic and expensive operations to undermine his candidacies, prevent his election, and subvert his administration, even now. If they have time and staff to do that, I submit we can reduce both and restore those agencies to the intended purposes of serving the people of the United States.
An unpopular opinion. But I'm being honest.
From that site:
Case Closed in Favor of Plaintiff: 0
Blocked: 28
Temporarily Blocked: 82
Blocked Pending Appeal: 19
Temporarily Blocked in Part; Temporary Block Denied in Part: 10
Temporary Block Denied: 38
Not Blocked Pending Appeal: 33
Awaiting Court Ruling: 162
Case Closed: 23
Misc: Transferred: 2
Case Closed/Dismissed in Favor of Government: 7
And:
Note-1: We do not track cases in which the Trump administration is the plaintiff/files a civil lawsuit. Some other organizations include those cases in their litigation trackers – ours tracks only challenges to Trump administration executive actions.
Note-2: We do not count appeals as separate cases. (The appeal of a district court decision to a Court of Appeals and/or Supreme Court is part of the same case.)
Note-3: We treat as one case all the lawsuits involving the removal of F-1 foreign student visa registration. According to Politico, there were “more than 100 lawsuits and 50 restraining orders from dozens of federal judges,” before the government reversed its decision and restored the F-1 registrations on or about Apr. 25, 2025.
Do, please, elaborate. How many of these cases were decided against the administration?
Ma Bell is a mean mother!
