zapatos

As I'm not a US Senator I don't really feel I should take the hit for this one.

The ability to fight battles without requiring men with guns facing other men with guns in close quarters.

So you had an idea and presented it here with diagrams and your thought process, received some feedback, and now are refining your thoughts on your idea. Please don't be embarrassed. That is the format most threads take. Around here, that is what we classify as a successful, quality thread!

Why? They won't accept the facts from the real 9/11.

I think you need to first answer Strange's questions about your background. As is, your question is akin to asking "does anyone have any ideas on how I can perform brain surgery without causing any problems?" There is no place to begin. Perhaps if you asked something more specific, like how to determine the temperature at which the steel used in the WTC begins to deform, someone could assist. As people have pointed out, the problem is incredibly complex. You cannot ask such a broad question and expect any meaningful help.

Sorry if I missed it, but do you have any evidence that the horseshoe shape was their symbol for the moon?

This was a huge revelation for me. I had no idea my fellow Americans were so shallow. (Or is it dumb? Self centered? Base?) Whatever, it really is kind of depressing. Just reinforces my belief that the percentage of quality people in the world is much less than half.

Actually it suggests a preoccupation with the sun, which is why they had the fires to represent the heat of the sun.

A lot of people view this as a "one or the other" situation. Personally I do not. The impeachment process was developed for exactly the kind of behavior Trump has exhibited. IMO it would have been of dereliction of responsibility to simply 'pass the buck' to the voters. The reason I say it is not a "one or the other" situation is because we can have an impeachment AND let the voters voice their opinion in November, either for/against Trump or for/against the Republican party. I was never under any illusion that Trump would be removed from office, and I understand there was risk to the Democratic party in voting for impeachment. I'm still very happy they did their duty, and let the chips fall where they may.

And of course different states have different requirements. I've also not seen the labeling but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist elsewhere in the US.

I never trust anyone who DEMANDS I trust them by refusing to provide a citation. Regardless of whether or not he knows what he is talking about, when someone speaks to me that way my first thought is "pompous ass". There is nothing wrong with not understanding what he is saying. It is either because it is beyond your current understanding (EVERYONE has things beyond their current understanding), or because what he is saying makes no sense. Scolding you for trying to get to the heart of the matter makes him untrustworthy and a pompous ass. I also can't comprehend what he is saying. I suspect he is throwing together lots of concepts in an attempt to appear superior. All my opinion of course.

Thanks for the tips. Perhaps in your free time you can review my other posts on this site and give me further pointers. Sorry I haven't met your expectations thus far.

Is that coming from a moderator or a participant? If it's from a moderator I'll stop right now. If it's is from a participant I don't feel that this is off topic. The reason this thread came up is because someone questioned if Warren's plan was adequate as is and that it possibly should be modified to be fair. To disallow a discussion surrounding what tweaks to her plan might make it more fair seems a ridiculous restriction on the scope of this discussion.

Does that include my debt? I paid it off about 30 years ago.

Your framework doesn't seem to be self consistent.

The definition of 'design' implies a designer. Your question makes no sense. It is like asking "What would happen if we found a bottle of beer that didn't have a bottle?"

Yeah, it is kind of weird that two of the people who most often take (what I would have considered) conservative positions, are two of the people who think the US is too conservative. You are two wild and crazy guys! 😀

It's actually a very effective style of debate, pretty much perfected by Trump. You can tell whatever falsehood you like (from 'little white lie' to 'liar, liar, pants on fire') and then move on with the damage of the falsehood effectively done. Works great with with those who don't really require evidence, like many Trump supporters. If someone calls you out you just ignore, refuse to engage, don't answer questions, obfuscate, hoping the person will go away. If they don't, just say you didn't mean it "literally" (or whatever), and that the fault really belongs to the person who brings it up due to their own weakness, such as "nitpicking". Trump's preferred phrasing seems to be that he eventually says "it was only a joke" and then faults the person bringing it up as someone who has no sense of humor. Personally I prefer the style where if someone calls you out for something you said, you either explain why you were right all along, possibly that they actually misunderstood what you were saying, or if appropriate, respond with a "yes, perhaps that was a bit overstated". So THIS time you were being literal. Got it. Kind of hard to tell when to take it literally and when not to take it literally. My bad. Guess I misunderstood him, which seems to be the entire issue here. When he said... ...I for some reason thought that he was implying that Nadler and Schiff were the only ones insulting the jury prior to final verdict.

This particular group has been together about 1 1/2 years old. But if you don't count insults that are older than two weeks that's fine. We'll pretend they never happened. Didn't mean to nitpick. I apologize for assuming you meant what you said. My intent was to call out your Fox News style of debate. I wouldn't mind it so much if you didn't paint yourself as anti-Trump at the same time as you mischaracterize those who are not pro-Trump. Next time I'll speak more plainly.

Will quotes from Trump or Giuliani do? "The reason you don’t know about it is because of the cover up by the corrupt Democrats and their establishment media!" Trump has been insulting Senate Democrats for years. Giuliani the same. Doesn't this mean that currently the ARE the only ones?

You said: Okay, so the Republican Senators may not be "beyond reproach" but according to you they are not "prejudging and insulting", which pretty much makes them boy scouts. We must be watching different news sources as I've seen the insults and prejudgements flying from all directions.

So tell me what you mean by this as you seem to be implying that Nadler and Schiff are behaving poorly in the matter while the behavior of the Republican Senators has been above reproach. Do you believe that Nadler and Schiff are basing their comments on nothing whatsoever? Have the Senators left any doubt about their intentions regarding the impeachment? Are you under the impression that no one on 'Team Trump' has had anything negative to say regarding the jury prior to the final verdict?

From what I've been reading the general consensus among Republicans is that no matter what happens during the trial, Trump will not be removed from office. Therefore additional evidence, testimony, or time will only serve as a negative influence on the Republican Party. Better to end it as soon as possible. The only Republicans who will vote for witnesses are those who believe it will help their future prospects. Very few of them exist. No one will change their mind due to fairness, patriotism, the greater good, sense of duty, etc. I don't foresee witnesses being called.

I concur with your statement.