Fuck! We didn’t save the cheerleader, so now we can’t save the world!

But seriously, wow - what a surprising shame. I hope it wasn’t a needless death. Can’t wait to find out what happened.

Don’t bother - that yahoo you’re talking to is from .ml and is full of shit & likely trying to sow division with lies. I’ve had another run-in with them elsewhere & they were just as full of it there, too.

The fact you leave such vague responses smacks of desperation to “win,” rather than engage in good… *ahem* ,…faith. You know you’re wrong, and are just grasping at straws in an attempt to feel smug.

Pathetic.

Probably Hegseth himself - you know nobody in this administration can possibly get enough attention for themselves. Plus he does it to give himself an excuse to get rid of anyone not kissing his ass enough.

Uhhggg, didn’t know that. Been too long to get a lawyer to force the hospital to save video footage? In this day and age, I’d find it hard to believe they didn’t have cameras everywhere.

Money. Without even reading, I can guarantee that - be it directly, or indirectly - money (or the threat of withholding it) is the motivation.

You put it on.

Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit (against both the hospital, and whatever agency he worked for) if I were you. You were handcuffed & no danger, so that’s cruel & unusual punishment right there.

Who’s visiting whom? Because if that were my offering for someone I was going to visit, I’m not sure it’d make it there intact.

Not nearly. Atheists generally don’t go around preaching their beliefs uninvited, while religious nuts are constantly virtue signaling before they even open their mouths.

Atheists are usually just fine with people believing in whatever deity they prefer, just so long as they don’t force their beliefs upon others. Guess what actually happens.

If you deny any of this, then you’re not even being honest with yourself, let alone any of us.

illuminated

Eliminated? Or something like revealing they were a surgical recipient?

Seems to me like it’s typical political posturing as both candidates are tainted by having a relationship with AIPAC. However, the article makes it seem Flanagan’s relationship is kind of tenuous & Craig is just grasping at straws trying to turn focus away from her own significantly stronger support for Israel.

Of course, articles can be (and often are) written in biased fashion so double-check against other sources if you are one of the voters trying to make a choice.

Article follows due to paywall:

PICTURE CAPTION:
AIPAC has become a point of contention in the primary battle between Rep. Angie Craig (L) and Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan ® in Minnesota. Credit: Ellen Schmidt/AP

ARTICLE:
At first glance, there was nothing surprising about Rep. Angie Craig attacking her opponent over ties to AIPAC in Minnesota’s Democratic Senate primary, which comes to a vote Tuesday.

Support for Israel – and especially support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – have become a liability in Democratic primaries across the country, and Craig is looking for any advantage in what is expected to be an extremely close race against Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan.

“Peggy Flanagan is a hypocrite,” Craig said on Monday, seizing on revelations that Flanagan met with AIPAC early in her campaign last year and submitted a policy paper to the organization.

The surprise was who was making the accusation. Craig is widely considered the race’s pro-Israel candidate, with a congressional record that includes consistent support for military aid to Israel. Flanagan, meanwhile, has accused Israel of genocide, called AIPAC “a band of super villains” and backed ending some U.S. military aid to Israel.

Yet close observers say Craig’s surprise attack over Flanagan’s AIPAC connections underscored the extent to which both candidates have avoided serious engagement with Middle East policy despite ostensibly coming down on opposite sides of the issue.

“Neither candidate has been interested in claiming a very clear position for themselves on the issue,” said Douglas Rossinow, a professor of political history at Metro State University in St. Paul.

But the 11th hour spat over who is closer to AIPAC shows how association with the pro-Israel group has become a potent cudgel in Democratic primaries, even in races where the issue has played only a peripheral role.

Manilan Houle, a political strategist in Duluth who had reviewed the document Flanagan submitted to AIPAC, said that she had already expressed skepticism of unconditional aid to Israel and criticized its occupation of the West Bank.

Houle said that Flanagan initially believed it was productive to engage with the organization even if she never seriously sought its endorsement. “At one point you had to go kiss the ring,” Houle said. “You had to go and see if there’s a way to engage that could be beneficial.”

The cost-benefit analysis has since changed and Democrats courting progressive voters now treat AIPAC as radioactive.

Flanagan has slammed her opponent for receiving $800,000 from AIPAC-linked donors during her House campaigns but has not released a detailed Middle East policy agenda of her own beyond a promise to end offensive military aid to Israel. Craig, meanwhile, has a staunchly pro-Israel voting record in Congress but has not focused on Israel on the campaign trail. She has voiced support for a two-state solution, criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and downplayed her connection to AIPAC.

“AIPAC has not contributed at all to my Senate campaign,” Craig said during a June debate with Flanagan. “Not one penny.”

The same dynamic has surfaced in the Democratic primary for Craig’s House seat in suburban Minneapolis, where two candidates critical of Israel are facing off against an AIPAC-aligned moderate. Former State Sen. Matt Little has accused fellow progressive Kaela Berg of covertly accepting support from pro-Israel groups, despite scant evidence and the fact Berg, like Little, has accused Israel of genocide in Gaza and called for an end to arms sales.

“AIPAC must be perceived as so toxic that you just throw it at your opponent and hope it sticks,” said Ben Weisbuch, chair of the Jewish caucus within the Minnesota DFL, the state’s Democratic Party affiliate. “We’ve had a number of conversations with all the candidates about not using AIPAC as a bogeyman – unfortunately, I don’t think we’ve been very successful.”

Because Flanagan won the DFL endorsement, Weisbuch is obligated as a party official to support her in the primary. But he warned that many Jewish Democrats may vote for the Republican candidate in November if Flanagan wins the nomination. “She’s the ‘genocide’ candidate,” he said. “A lot of her supporters are river-to-the-sea type people.”

Senate race dividing the Jewish community

The late focus on Israel has also exposed divisions among Minnesota’s Jewish Democrats, including over how much the issue should matter in a race that for months has been dominated by events much closer to home.

Immigration and Minnesota’s confrontation with the federal government have loomed large in the race following Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis last winter, when hundreds of federal agents descended on the region to arrest undocumented immigrants and ultimately killed two American citizens. Craig’s vote in favor of the Laken Riley Act, a piece of hardline immigration legislation backed by the Trump administration, has been a rallying cry for progressives opposed to her candidacy.

“The opinion of Jewish people is really being flattened into, ‘Well, we’re only going to vote based on Israel’ and that’s incredibly problematic and wrong,” said Eli Sherman, vice-chair of Minneapolis DFL and a member of the Jewish caucus who is supporting Flanagan. “This race is about making sure we’re protected from a federal government that came to Minnesota and wrought havoc.”

Yet Sherman also described taking money from AIPAC as a “black mark.”

“I’m a Jewish person who would not vote for a candidate who takes money from AIPAC,” he said.

With Craig and Flanagan locked in a dead heat, Rossinow said Israel was “bursting to the surface” as a wedge issue in the campaign’s final days.

The shift, he said, also showed how rapidly AIPAC had become a liability. Flanagan’s reported meeting with the organization came near the start of her campaign last year, when doing so carried less political risk.

Jewish leaders disagreed whether the late focus on AIPAC shaded into antisemitism. “People hear ‘Jewish power,’ they hear ‘Jewish money,’ and fall into old antisemitic tropes,” Weisbuch said.

Beth Gendler, director of the progressive Jewish Community Action, argued that AIPAC’s own tactics – including heavy spending in congressional races as well as funneling money through groups that obscure its role – bore some responsibility for fueling division in the state.

“AIPAC and antisemitism get used as a smokescreen to divide Jews from our broader communities and manipulate our voters,” she said. “The flames have been stoked by a lot of the outside money being poured into these races.”

No, actually you are - that & logic.

I’ll wager a lack of critical thinking skills is a primary ingredient for such a mentality.

I think I’m having a heart attack just by reading this.

YUM

Nice sly reference to the company owning several well-known restaurant chains.

Yum! Brands, Inc. (sometimes called just Yum!) is an American multinational fast food corporation. Based in Louisville, Kentucky, the company operates KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Habit Burger & Grill, and several technology companies. Yum! is one of the world’s largest fast food restaurant companies in terms of system units. In 2016, Yum! had 43,617 restaurants, including 2,859 that were company-owned and 40,758 that were franchised, in 135 nations and territories worldwide.

Yes, but it’s not applied to your equipment, but rather your wallet.

I believe it is a beetle of some kind.

Yeah, looks kinda like Ringo to me.

My second stage has an additional expletive on the end of it.

Yes.