Sure hope they're prepared for The Off Season. Sam Parkhill wasn't.

You mean we were violently agreeing all along?   

Could be.

Then modify it.  The intent was not to use them against American civilians; it was never intended to hinder national defense in the event of an invasion.

US military are already being used at the border in a number of ways, but can't exercise police powers. The proposed bill would simply have paid for more border police. I can't think of anything more dangerous than granting the military police powers within our borders.

Not legislation. Diplomatic pressure. Good Lord.

It's been tried with only limited success. Trump openly used the threat of tariffs to get central American countries to help slow the tide. Biden eventually used some undisclosed "negotiation" to get similar help from the same countries.

Are you seriously trying to blame Trump for this?!

I only know what has been claimed:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/04/19/sen_lankford_on_immigration_bill_president_trump_said_dont_fix_anything_during_the_presidential_election.html

Partly.  I didn’t even read 25 pages but tried to make it through the first one.  Correct me if I’m wrong but I didn’t see where the actual military is deployed along the borders (Canada must be hardened now too).

National guards from several states are already being used. Using US Army troops would likely require modifying the Posse Comitatus Act. Using the military to enforce civilian laws ended in abuses that made that Act necessary, so I don't think many people  want to go there.

And I didn’t see where they address the organized cooperation between Central American countries and their gangs to support the flow north and through Mexico. They must stop accepting undocumented transits through their countries.

I'm not sure how any US legislation can address the internal policies of other countries. Not without getting really really complicated.

But most of all a proposed bill is useless until it is deployed.  I have no faith anything like that will happen.  It seems only Trump cares about fixing this.

The bill was negotiated and written by Sen. James Lankford at the request of Sen. McConnell. You can check the record yourself, but Lankford is as red as they come. According to Lankford:
"I had a popular commentator, four weeks ago that I talked to, that told me flat out... if you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year, I will do whatever I can to destroy you," Lankford said on the Senate floor Wednesday. "By the way, they have been faithful to their promise."
You may consider solving the border crisis as higher priority than sending aid to other countries, but Trump needs a chaotic border he can pin on Biden. To that end Trump has posted:
"Also, I have no doubt that our wonderful Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, will only make a deal that is PERFECT ON THE BORDER."
Requiring "perfect" is enough to keep the problem alive till after the election. Much as I prefer Trump over Biden that political grandstanding means you were never going to see any resolution till after the election.

So where will the troops come from to defend Ukraine?

That's for Ukraine to solve. Though with sufficient munitions they were holding their own, particularly with air defense weapons and artillery. (French President Macron has proposed putting French troops in Ukraine, in some alleged non-combat or support roles. Now that would be something if that happened.)

Why does the Biden Regime refuse accountability for money sent to Ukraine?  What is there to hide?

When did this refusal take place? The DoD claims processes are in place: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3313904/defense-officials-us-ensures-accountability-of-systems-supplied-to-ukraine/

Please justify the US borrowing billions to "give" to Ukraine while asking the taxpayer to repay principal and interest on the borrowed money.

I don't justify it. It is, however, an action already underway. Like the payments I was forced to make to Social Security. If I start taking SS am I then justifying the previous taking?

Please justify giving this money to Ukraine while the US border is open and Americans go homeless and hungry, not to mention a crumbling US infrastructure.

China and Russia appear to be the only powers on the planet that pose any credible military threat to the US. The southern border presents a lower priority threat. Infrastructure and fiscal problems are best solved at the state and local level, not Federal. Unlike national defense, they aren't listed in the Constitution.

Please justify the US depleting arms stockpiles to Ukraine. while admitting thousands upon thousands of single military aged invaders into the US.

See above. "Military aged" is a meaningless scare phrase. That cadre has been entering the US for work since the Mexican Revolution.

Why is it so important that the Biden Regime wants Israel to ceasefire with Hamas, yet this same regime has hindered any ceasefire talks between Russia and Ukraine.

Ok, now you're asking me to defend the idiotic policies of the Biden Regime. I think Israel would be foolish to seek a ceasefire with Hamas just as I think it foolish for Ukraine to cede to Russia.

You say Ukraine is not a dictatorship, yet Zelenskyy has cancelled elections,

Sorry, no. When Russia invaded he invoked Martial Law per the Ukraine constitution. It would last only 90 days unless renewed by Ukraine's parliament. And the parliament has been renewing it, not Zelensky. Their constitution is what dictates (not Zelensky) that elections be suspended during martial law. So legally Zelensky is not responsible for cancelling elections.

shut down media critical of him, closed churches, outlawed opposition political parties, has jailed political opposition and conscripts men into his military by dragging them out of their houses and businesses against their will.    Yep, seems he sure loves democracy 

I believe all of these are allowed by their constitution while under martial law. Not excusable, but their parliament can undo that authority at any time. Compare to our democracy during the American civil war: Lincoln declared martial law in all states and ordered the suspension of the constitutionally protected right to writs of habeas corpus in the state of Maryland and parts of the Midwestern states. As a result 13,000 civilians were arrested by the military and held indefinitely during the course of the war. Free speech was suppressed.

So because the actions you cite occur during war wherein the leaders are granted broad powers that they don't have in peacetime doesn't per se make them undemocratic or unworthy of support.

Reagan didn’t write that in defense of a dictatorial country.  That’s another part of this you don’t get.

That's your incorrect assumption. Zelensky was just an actor who got elected to his position years after the Russians had occupied parts of Ukraine. He proposed constitutional changes to limit corruption. To date he appears to have followed the Ukraine constitution better than Biden has the US constitution. Ukrainians wanted to join the EU (NATO entry already denied,) and not be tied to the Russian economic sphere, and were pursuing that goal. You can claim Ukraine is or was a dictatorship to your heart's content, that don't make it so.

Now suppose Ukraine is as you claim - there were the security guarantees to which the US was a party. US makes agreements with dictatorships all the time. If you can't trust a man, or a country, to keep their word would you trust them in the future?

The neocons have pushed this regime change garbage around the world, and not once has it worked out.  And now we have a government using a third world country being ruled by a petty dictator as a huge money laundering operation, and the US borrowing billions to give to them with zero accountability, and handing the tax payers the bill for the principal and interest.

I agree that neocons dish out stupid shit, but I've seen contrary evidence for Ukraine accountability and no mention of regime change in the case of Ukraine. (As to Zelensky-involved money laundering - if the Kremlin intelligence agencies had dirt on Zelensky don't you think they'd publicize it via their proxies? None of the articles you've linked to in the past indicated any enrichment of Zelensky. Other corruption, yes, but becoming less as best I can tell.)

You recently posted a thread showing how the debt service on borrowed money is out of control, yet here you are wearing your Ukraine lapel pin cheering more billions to be given to them. 
Yes, I’m a conservative and damn proud of it. But the typical liberal will hide behind such things as “moderate” or even call themselves a “libertarian”.  But the liberal always comes out.

I'm a pragmatic anarchist. My use of "anarchy" just means I'd as soon live without organized thuggery (government) while "pragmatic" means I have to settle for adapting to conditions of reality and act as freely as I can. I vote libertarian as a small sop to that end, though it seems a futile effort. Pragmatically I try to keep up on world events because they may affect me. What I see in this case is the die is cast, and that if Putin wins Ukraine because the US stops giving aid, his belief that he need only outlast the West will have been confirmed. The Chinese will learn the same lesson even if Putin doesn't take Ukraine - it knows that it has a chance to dominate the Pacific. Lots of ways such results are bad for me and I think to you too. I cannot see any long term good outcome of suddenly stopping US aid to Ukraine.

Picky technical semantics.

It's an issue of basic English word order and meaning as I understand it, not picky semantics, got it?

I hope that was sincere and not snarky; like "bless your heart".

It was fucking plain English with plain meaning. When I do snark, like I'm doing now, I make it as plain as fucking possible.

The biggest mistake you made was to take one part of a comment without considering the context of the other part.  Just like people do with the 2nd.

I did take the context and the author into consideration and what she wrote was still at BEST ambiguous to me.

Muslim immigrants are openly calling for "Death to America" IN OUR OWN CITIES.  The regime is openly allowing this, and openly encouraging more illegals to enter the country and join with these anti-American enemies.  It's like they are deliberately destroying our way of life, our constitutional republic, our culture, everything.

Does this mean you want authorities to take legal action or use force against people shouting "Death to America"?