There was once a time when Congress declared war, then the President, as Commander In Chief, acted. This was the constitutional approach. We started to pretend that our military could perform "police actions" that, as "not-war", could occur without Congressional action. This was always bullshit, but dummies got used to it.
Now, a democrat can argue both sides of an issue -- which ever serves their immediate need -- and get away with it, but Matt is a Republican. His words and actions will always get held against him. If he ever wants to restore the proper role of Congress -- i.e., if a rogue Democrat President mires us in another undeclared war -- he needs to take a consistent stand now. Not sure why this isn't obvious to everybody, but now you know.
This thread is good and largely true... but doesn't go far enough. Yes, the left (and right) have spent every year after Viet Nam pretending that the US needs to be afraid of every tin-pot dictator... but they've also pretended economic weakness and energy dependence. What changed that made tariffs such an effective weapon in the trade wars? Nothing. We could have had fair trade for decades before Trump became president. What change made the US energy independent? Nothing, except the end of decades of sabotage by our own "representatives". Party hacks across the board are worse than useless and incompetent. They, like our media, are enemies of the people, and if we weren't all well-fed and comfortable, we'd have long ago hanged them all.
What an expensive way to generate content.
I think he's got a little James Brown stage collapse going on too, there at the end. Quite the showman. I wonder if POTUS might consider getting himself some hype men for his SOTU address...
In one way, I almost appreciate the service that aggressive transvestites are performing right now. They are highlighting so many of the contradictions promoted by "feminism" over the last 40+ years. Of couse, I want them to lose... but I want them to take feminism down with them. Of course women (the XX kind) should have places to go and services performed free of men... but men (the XY kind) should have similar places free of women too. To me, this is obvious. You can't have true freedom of association without true freedom to disassociate whomever you want. As for civil rights rules -- the "bake me a cake, bigot" and "let me join your club, bigot" -- they should only apply to government and publicly held corporations (which have less rights than any person, obviously) not privately-held business, clubs, and organizations, and especially not churches.
This doesn't seem hard to explain. Christianity had roles for men and women. Men's roles got "softened" and downplayed, and women abandoned their roles for men's roles.
For example, the congregational (ie, independent) church I was raised in stressed:
1) Only men can be elders, deacons, and preachers
2) Only men "can have authority" over men, to the point where women could not teach Sunday school classes to prepubescent males
3) Men could not be elders unless "must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?" -- 1 Timothy 3:4-5, for example. See https://www.openbible.info/topics/qualifications_of_elders for more details on qualifications.
That congregation is almost dead now. None of this would fly in most churches around the world these days. Biblical teachings went out the window long before actively homosexual and/or women priests.
Note that this is not to say that everybody has to fulfill such roles or follow such rules. Just Christians. But Christians must, or the church fails.
There only choice was music... or eating more fiber.
"Reliable Sauces"... I've nothing to add, this was just too good not to share.
I wonder how many minutes of Superbowl ads Nick Sandmann could buy today.
Maybe Muslims belong in a desert. Or did the Middle East become a desert because Muslims burned everything off?