Gosh, telling people it's hard might result in "inequity!" Break that down: he means that when you tell EVERYONE that programming is hard, some checkbox people are inherently - by way of what, skin pigment? chromosomes? - more likely to retreat nervously into their safe, incurious, intellectually underpowered spaces. This sort of Coddling In The Name Of Equity is pure poison.

Hey, all sorts of things about Trump to complain about. So why would you just make shit up?

No, he never said that. He said that the response from the Dems to his initial actions and the things they (Pelosi et al) were a hoax. And of course he was exactly right. So why lie about that? What you do you gain?

No, he never said that. Again, you know you're lying, but the question is why? He passed along - in exhaustingly long and boring press conferences on a daily basis - exactly what the CDC and WHO were saying. Including, of course, the total BS that the WHO, under essentially Chinese control, was saying. Asked several weeks in if Trump had been saying anything or making decisions that in any way departed from the recommendations he was giving the president, Dr. Fauci said no, he asks a lot of questions, and then as done and said everything they told him to. Which you know. So what's with your BS characterization?

Again, you're simply making shit up. He'd been briefed on light-based therapies that included the use of UV delivered by fiber optics into pulmonary tissues as a way to kill pathogens, and mentioned a loose abstract of that in passing. Which you know, but you're deliberately lying about it. Again, who knows why. Classic TDS, I guess.

Yes, the media's treatment of that WAS a fiasco. Because it appears to play an important prophylactic role against the virus in places where people regularly take it against contracting malaria and some other tropical nasties. It's a well understood, inexpensive drug that may have shown some promise, and he talked about it in exactly those terms. We're seeing the same sort of careful media misrepresentation of how ivermectin may be hugely able to help. If that had been known at the time, he'd have been talking about that, too. So?

And blah blah blah. Maybe seek a little help for how badly he's living in your head every day when you wake up. What a relief that we have that master communicator, Joe Biden, talking now, right? Right!

If they were indeed only decimated (one out of ten killed), then they wouldn't have "nearly gone extinct." Why are words so hard for professional writers to use?

Just today I was talking to a guy who digs ditches for a living with his bare hands in the hot sun. He used to be working on advanced recycling technologies, but then NASA started launching Mars rovers, and all of the industrial R&D money that used to go to recycling research suddenly went into government rover money. Really tragic.

If the person who owns a retail location in London has their business officially based in Luxemburg, why wouldn't they?

In the US, it's perfectly routine to base your business in a state that has attractive tax laws, even if that means having to operate the business in multiple locations for retailing, shipping, etc. A storefront in Maryland owned by a company incorporated in Delaware isn't - in real terms that matter - any different than a warehouse/delivery operation owned by a business based in Luxembourg that has a warehouse and trucks in France or Germany or Italy or all three.

Sounds like those cranky EU people need to bring their fight to Luxembourg, not to the businesses that have offices there.

What a strange way to express that. Wouldn't it make more sense to say, "With an atmosphere only 1% as dense as Earth's..." - since for almost everyone discussing this in the context that matters, our atmospheric density - as experienced by most people - would be the baseline normal?

What about them? Obama nominated Garland, and the senate - a co-equal power in the placing of a SCOTUS justice - looked at him and a simple head count showed he wouldn't get the votes. There was zero point in going through a bunch of hearing theater and debate - wasting Garland's time and everyone else's - when a "no" vote by the senate majority was a given. And of course now we have Garland on record as he's vetted for his new gig as AG, and we see that the senate was exactly right in making sure he didn't have his hands on the constitution from a seat on the highest court.

Meanwhile, Barret was nominated specifically because she's a sober defender of the constitution as written/amended, and was - as such - well received by the majority in the senate, and got seated. What "double standard" are you talking about? The senate has the power to decide if a nominee gets that job. Period. They have that power just as the founders intended, and the majority uses it to do exactly what they're supposed to: grant or deny their consent. How the senate conducts the process is up to the majority in that chamber. It they want to call around to the majority senate offices and get a quick head count so they know if the process is worth it or not, that's fine. The Dems do it all the time, too. Which you know, but are pretending you don't so you can pretend you're outraged. But you're not, you're just trolling like a good little D social media poster.

Just literally hundreds of millions of them, including almost every contemporary gun purchased and owned for self defense. Other than that, sure. Except for the people on the left who still pretend they can't read, and think only the military should be allowed to own them, and actually say that out loud from their congressional seats, governors' mansions, and executive positions in federal agencies.

The overwhelming majority of murders in this country where a gun was involved are committed using an illegally procured/possessed handgun and are done by people with a criminal history who are prohibited from owning them ... but who are still wandering around on the street despite convictions for violent crimes. Something you know, but are really hoping nobody mentions because that would require a conversation about why the nanny staters think that the solution is to further punish and restrict the rights of people who are NOT criminals as a response. And it might require discussing why those repeat offenders are out still repeating instead of being prevented from killing people by being locked up. Which is a nice segue to discussing the fact that violent criminals beat people to death with their bare hands and clubs wildly more often - orders of magnitude more often - than they use any sort of long gun whatsoever, let alone ones that have scary black plastic parts on them.

But sure, clumsily misuse the word "gaslighting" because that makes you feel good about your anonymous trolling.

Yeah, we're pretty emotional about liberty. The liberty to speak, the liberty to defend ourselves ... that sorta thing. And we're facing an unprecedented attack on liberty across the board, with much of the signaling coming in the form of people "what's with those Americans and their emotional obsession with liberty, anyway?"

Well, having someone try to injure or kill you or a loved one IS pretty extreme, you're right! Having a chance to perhaps stop that from happening does feel extremely important, now that you mention it. Having someone else glibly brush off a dedication to retaining the right to speak, or the right to defend oneself exactly in the spirit (and practice) that the country was founded, yeah, that tends to evoke a passionate response.

Divisive? Who is being divided from what? Pointing out the reason we have a Bill of Rights that's written the way it is, and illustrating it with specific real world contemporary examples only divides people who want to brush that stuff off as anachronistic from the basis for their argument. I'm all for that kind of division. It's essential if we want to preserve liberty.

I can't tell you how to approach "that" when you are hand-wavingly vague about what "gun control" means. Here's an idea: actually lock up criminals, since they are overwhelmingly responsible for the vast majority of murder in the country (including that which is committed with firearms). Here's an idea: consider a mechanism by which people who are mentally unstable can be recognized as such, so that tools we already have in place to prevent them from buying firearms can be put to use as intended.

I live just down the road from Baltimore, one of the murder-iest places in the country. Last year, hundreds of guns were collected in connection with crimes of one sort or another. Guess how many of them were legally procured and possessed? Zero. None of them. Literally not a single one of them. Guess what percentage of the people in possession of those illegally owned guns was a person already prohibited from possessing them, and with a criminal history that would make that a forever condition, and yet were still out on the street committing more crimes? Over 90% of them. Not a single "gun control" law as cheered for by the usual characters would change a bit of that. Because those only work on law abiding people.

How about the people who don't yet have a formal criminal record or a craziness record? Check out the real story of the Parkland killer ... it's a huge long saga of criminal acts, violence, threats, and mental instability. He should have - using laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS - have been prohibited from his purchase. But because he was loosely of Latino extraction, local policies were to avoid arrest and conviction and friction at his school at all costs. Literally an Obama administration policy to disrupt the "school to prison pipeline" that a guy like him absolutely SHOULD have been in, but no longer was. Dozens of calls to his house for violence and related things that anyone else would have been arrested for, and would have been permanently prohibited for. We didn't need a new law to prevent that murder spree, we needed someone with enough balls to actually enforce the ones that would have mattered. Those calling for law abiding people to face even more restrictions will get NO civil discourse from me when they refuse to even acknowledge how that story, for example, played out.

Does it matter? We already have an incredibly long waiting period for that. Nobody can purchase one made after the 1980's, they have to complete an extensive background check that usually takes at least half a year or more, pay a large federal tax, and then make themselves subject to inspection. They are not allowed to move it around the country without getting approval from the ATF, and their local law enforcement agencies are notified that the purchase happened. It requires finger prints, cash, long waits, and intense federal scrutiny. Are you proposing an even longer wait? Not sure what you're asking, here. If you're asking that question out of ignorance of how this all actually works, maybe you're also mistaken about a lot of other aspects of this topic, as most people are.

Because nobody in your country has sharp sticks, fists, pipes, kitchen knifes or anything else that could be used to hurt or kill someone? In the US, far more people are killed every year by being beaten to death with blunt objects or bare hands than are killed with any form of shotgun or rifle. Maybe your criminals are just so physically weak and incapable of wielding a cricket bat or a brick that you're safe allowing them to rob you without any chance of physical conflict. Whew! Lucky you. In the rest of world, people who can overcome someone else with physical force run the show unless they can be successfully opposed. Glad you live in such privileged setting that you are immune from such considerations. Glad you don't have to waste any of your brain time fretting about any young or older women in your family or circle of friends who haven't spent their time working on their martial arts skills. What a relief for you!

Are you really, really going to pretend that the British government was just joking about the whole weapon confiscation thing that they actually did? That was one of the central features of the revolution against King George: colonists had to give up long knives, swords, and muskets. Not allowed to own them. A shop owner or a farmer were, indeed, not allowed to defend themselves or their property using such tools. Which you know, because you're obviously a razor-sharp student of colonial history, and you're just hoping nobody else is, so they'll buy your lazy ad hominem diversion from addressing reality. Being deprived of the tools of self defense was high on the list of reasons the King lost the colonies. Stop pretending you don't know this.

Seriously? Is "no reading comprehension" a "thing" where you live? I cited that example directly in the example of the situation that the colonists found themselves once the British military was ruled having a monopoly on the use of force in the colonies. See above. That farmer on the road had no legal means to fend off someone willing to cut his throat for his horse or his proceeds. Unless he wanted to break the law, or politely ask his assailant to wait on the whole throat-cutting thing while someone went and fetched the Red Coats to deal with their little problem.

If you'd be so kind, please compose a list of helpful instructions for someone like my wife. Explain how she should best deal with a repeat of the middle of the night event where a 6'-3" 300-pound guy crazy-stoked on drugs was busy threatening our lives and ramming metal lawn furniture against our sliding glass door, and was seconds from being in the house in his unhinged frenzied condition. Swearing to kill us. Sure, we called the cops the moment he started beating on the door. It took them over twenty minutes to arrive. During that time, only one thing got him to do a reality check, and stop right before sending a metal table through the glass. And no, I didn't have to become a member of a special hunting club in order to defend my life and my wife's, as appropriate as you seem to think that would be. But let's say I wasn't home. Which special cage fighting moves would you have recommended to my hundred pound wife, to keep that crazy giant guy from doing what he was screaming he was about to do? Please be specific.

Then, when you've got that covered, explain how that exact same guy confronting her in some dark parking lot at night should be fended off. Because something tells me you're about to say that it's OK to defend yourself in your HOUSE, but not anywhere else, right?

And yes, firearms are successfully used in the US at least tens of thousands of times every year to prevent or to end violent attack and injury or death. Almost always without anyone getting shot. We just went through a spring and summer of massively destructive leftist riots that destroyed hundreds of businesses and homes, killed dozens, and caused billions of dollars in damage. Millions of people who've never owned a firearm before, and used to describe the world just like you (that never happens! nobody is ever dragged from their car and beaten! nobody smashed in your door, beats you, leaves you for dead, and steals your stuff! that's all fantasy!) have just gone on a massive firearm buying spree. So many that inventories of those firearms are completely cleaned out, and your basic practice ammunition is essentially unavailable because of the huge spike in demand.

Why? Because it because very evident to rational people over the last year that the police are NOT standing around ready to stop any and every person from hurting you. That's not their job, even if that were even plausible, which is absurd. You are responsible for your own safety in the moment. And the rates of violent crime in this country are at their lowest where there are the lowest barriers between citizens and the tools of their own self defense. That concept, the natural right to defend yourself, was so important to our founders - especially in the wake of having that right denied by their colonial government - that they enshrined it in the opening Bill of Rights in our very charter as a nation.

Snark away! Glad you can exist where nobody can threaten your life or come at you with a knife or worse. Here, it happens. Mostly because crime goes barely punished for absurd reasons anchored in politics and political correctness. As a result, we just had a record year of people taking care of things themselves.

Hypothetical? A judge in Canada just said it's OK for the families of murder victims to SUE THE COMPANY THAT MANUFACTURED THE GUN because that company didn't manufacture the gun with Smart Gun technology that might have somehow prevented the criminal use of the gun. So now that company has to spend years and millions of dollars defending against a preposterous legal assault that you think is just a thought experiment.

As for Americans: yeah, they value the right to defend themselves. The recognition of that right is baked right into the founding charter of the country, because the people who founded it had just escaped out from under a government that told them they did NOT have the right to defend themselves, and that if they owned the means to do so, they had to give them up to the government: those nice men in red uniforms representing the benign Crown. Being attacked by bandits on the road to your farm late at night? Not to worry! Just trot down the road to the Crown's garrison, and they'll dispatch some hardy fellows to defend you. Other than the whole "you're already dead" part.

More importantly, mass shootings are (tiny) statistical noise compared to the number of times every year that firearms are used to end or prevent a violent criminal act (almost always without a shot being fired). Multiple studies have shown that these incidents can approach 200,000 times a year. And we're not talking about shoot-outs between good guys and bad guys. We're talking about someone like my 5'-2" wife being able to fend off a midnight parking lot assailant twice her size, or (as actually happened in our lives) deal with a drug-addled giant of a guy trying to smash his way into our house in the middle of the night while screaming threats ... with the police only took 20 minutes or so to arrive. He would have been inside the house doing who knows what in only another minute if it weren't for the deterrent he finally realized he was looking at. If I hadn't been home, it would have been my diminutive wife on her own facing that guy, with no other help (not for another twenty minutes ... want to leave your wife, mom, or daughter in the hands of someone like that for even thirty seconds?). Self defense with a firearm is NOT always (and in fact usually is not) about dealing with someone else that has a firearm. It's about dealing with someone who can beat you to death, cut your throat, or badly main or injure you by all of the means that those things routinely happen every day.

People who think that any of this is about hunting are only pretending to be that ignorant. It's about self defense, and always has been. The people who wrote the Bill of Rights explained all about it in numerous formats surrounding the ratification of the Constitution. They had just got out from under a monarchial government that said they did NOT have the right to defend themselves, and they wanted to be sure that they and theirs never lived like that again.

Oversaw the deaths of ... What a preposterous characterization of ... never mind. You're obviously not interested in being taken the least bit seriously on this. Just don't simultaneously cheer on speech suppression while you're trolling, since some people might assume you're being serous.

While China itself (meaning the government) is innocent despite being proven guilty. :')

The criminal investigation of that is now hip deep. There's already been one indictment and guilty plea by one of Comey's people who deliberately lied on FISA paperwork in order to enable the spying that the FISA court now says was never legitimate. Originally, and in its renewals. We now have plain text records showing that Brennan lied under oath on the matter. Comey's conveniently spotty memory is nicely going blank whenever his previous assertions have come up against hard evidence that directly contradicts it. Susan Rice's spectacular CYA efforts are falling apart, and we now know that Obama was directly briefed on the Clinton machine's fabrication of the entire dossier fantasy as a mechanism to distract from her criminal destruction of subpoenaed records.

But sure, you keep telling yourself Trump's really a Russian spy. What's got Trump mad isn't the lack of evidence of all of this, it's that the man who's been tasked with dealing with it as a criminal matter (Durham) has had to greatly expand the number of people and time working on it as he keeps finding more pieces. But I'm sure you're right. He's really investigating Trump's work as a spy.

Hilarious. Not a single thing you just listed actually points to, let alone demonstrates what you say it does. Indicting Russians (who aren't even in the country) for election ad fakery and the like? How does that involve Trump's cooperation? Be specific.

Manafort? Nothing they convicted him on has anything, whatsoever, to do with Trump being involved with Russia. It was for stuff Manafort did before having anything to do with his (very brief) involvement in Trump campaign management. So how does that prove Trump is a Russian asset? Be specific.

Flynn? Have you been paying ANY attention? We now have buckets of information showing that the entire frame-up and prosecution of Flynn was done in order to try to get some leverage in political pursuit of Trump. The FBI people who actually wrote about the Flynn interview on which they convicted him said they knew he wasn't lying, and there was nothing there to really pursue. You know this, but you're dropping it in your list because you hope nobody else does. So, how does Flynn's bogus prosecution connect Trump - in ANY way - to Russia? Be specific.

Cohen? Stone? Again: cite, specifically, how anything either was charged with in any way establishes a single thing involving Trump and Russia. Be specific.

And since you had to bring up the 100% partisan laughable impeachment charade, specifically explain how that in any way points out a Trump/Russian connection. Specifics.