lawmakers' failure to appreciate Me
1 Attachment(s)
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-...nd-un-american
His followers see him as he sees himself. as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in a physical form,, move over Uncle Sam (your Fired ) |
WDMSO, a compelling case can be made that the Democrats (in the Obama administration, at the Justice Dept, and in the Clinton campaign) conspired to use the FBI in an attempt to help ensure a Hilary victory.
Trey Gowdy said exactly that, and you were the one who brought him up and suggested that his opinions on the dossier were valid. So if there's evidence of that kind of collusion, how do you expect Trump to react, exactly? If it's true, it's a big deal. We know that Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton privately on a jet while his wife was under investigation. We know that shortly after that meeting, Hilary was exonerated. We know that immediately after that exoneration, Hilary said that if she won, she might keep Lynch on as AG. if that's not quid pro quo, nothing is. We know that the FBI deemed the Steele dossier to be salacious and unverified, yet they used it as support for the FISA warrant. We know that Trey Gowdy says that the warrant would not have been issued without the dossier. And since Gowdy also conceded that the Mueller investigation would have proceeded without the dossier, it's not like Gowdy will say anything to get Trump off the hook. We know that the deputy attorney general has a wife that works at Fusion, the company hired by team Clinton to prepare the dossier. He never disclosed this and did not recuse himself. We know that the deputy director of the FBI (McCabe) had a wife who ran for the senate and took a ton of money from Clinton pals. He did not disclose this and he did not recuse himself. We know there were 2 FBI agents involved in the Clinton email investigation who were desperate for Clinton to win. They did not disclose this and they did not recuse themselves. We also have the DNC conspiring to rig the primary for Clinton, and CNN giving her debate questions ahead of time. Is any of that not true? Is there one syllable I typed that's not true? During the campaign, Trump alleged that his team was being wiretapped, and everyone said he was insane and everyone mocked him. Turns out he was right. I'm not sure I'd say they are treasonous. But they certainly aren't huge fans of democracy, which is precisely why your side engages in mob violence every single time they don't get their way, and conservatives never do that. Your side may re-take the house in November. Or they may pay dearly for their shenanigans. I'm not sure how much lower they can sink than where they are at this moment (losers who lost despite the fact that they didn't play by the rules). We'll see. In any event, Trump, for all his many faults, certainly has a legitimate gripe here. I cannot believe anyone is so unwilling to criticize their own side, that they would refuse to concede that there were some shady dealings. You and Spence and Paul S, you have no problem with any of this? Seriously? As I said, the democrats actually have put Trump in a place where he can accurately portray himself as a sympathetic victim. Well done, kudos to them. |
Jim, if the FBI was conspiring to help Clinton she would have won.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
That's the best you got? She didn't win, therefore you conclude that there could not possibly have been cheating? Do you hear yourself? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If the public is convinced that there was collusion, that, combined with larger paychecks and larger IRA balances, isn't going to help your side in November. How much more marginalized does the DNC want to be? How many more seats are they trying to lose? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
but you went old school you went Clinton .. and completely off topic This fits what I have said for some time its all about him !!!! and when not properly stroked he Goes off .... you want us to Admit shady dealings !!! 1st for things that are not under Investigation that are conjecture at best and it the democrats fault that actually have put Trump in a place where he can accurately portray himself as a sympathetic victim.. If Trump would only say and do the things he has done while wearing an Obama Mask... I could only imagine how your Tune would change |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Clinton paid for the dossier. So it's current and on topic. "its all about him" He was the one that was colluded against. So if the victim speaks out, you accuse them of being self-centered. "you want us to Admit shady dealings " If appropriate, yes . "1st for things that are not under Investigation" Not yet. "conjecture at best" Funny, you were the one who brought up Trey Gowdy, who agrees with me. "If Trump would only say and do the things he has done while wearing an Obama Mask... I could only imagine how your Tune would change" I have said many, many times I don't like Trump. That doesn't mean he's not correct when he cries foul here. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
How about this Spence. When you can explain why it makes any sense at all, to believe that failure to win necessarily means one played by the rules, I will listen to what you have to say. You are humiliating yourself. The Japanese lost WWII, correct? Using your logic, does that mean they committed no war crimes? After all, they lost! If they were cheating, according to you, they would have been victorious! |
US President Donald Trump has asked the Pentagon to organise a large military parade in the nation's capital.
Nationalism being masked in patriotism |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...County.svg.png |
Quote:
The map is pretty though. |
Quote:
You people have come completely, and I mean completely, unglued. We have people in harm's way. Honoring them with a parade, is an ominous sign of nationalism? I have a better idea, let's have another liberal march on The Mall where bitter losers scream the f word into megaphones and then leave the place littered with trash and cigarette butts. That's what we really need, not a parade. |
Quote:
Conspiracy theories? I listed the facts. I asked you if any of them was wrong, and you didn't claim a single one was wrong. Hmm, I wonder why? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Thank God for those highly educated folks in Calif. who help fund all those red areas.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's a fantastic waste of money. |
Quote:
A rare point of agreement. "It's a fantastic waste of money" A parade? You're a deficit hawk now? Or only when a Republican is spending money? |
Quote:
That and it's just a stunt anyway. |
It's all about ratings, you know
|
A military parade showing off weapons is a dumb idea.
|
Trump feels the need to prove, not only is his button bigger, his parade is bigger too. Perfect ego trip for the Donald and boy you can just imagine the tweets after now, it was the biggest parade viewed by the largest crowd in history.
|
Neither his motivation for the parade (I don't know, exactly, what that is--he may actually want to do it for pride of country or something like that), nor his ego disturb me.
I don't like it strictly on traditional constitutional values. A powerful standing federal army, exerting or displaying its military might on American soil has always been considered a threat to American citizens. |
The USA has never shown off it's military might on its own soil and for good reason. Perhaps a little background.........
The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.... ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12 For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty. In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England. In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire. In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator. In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation. Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces. The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive. Many of the men who met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, however, had the experience of serving with the Continental Line, the army that ultimately bested the British for our independence. Founders like George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were also acutely aware of the dangers external enemies posed to the new republic. The British and Spanish were not only on the frontiers of the new nation. In many cases they were within the frontiers, allying with the Indians and attempting to induce frontier settlements to split off from the country. The recent Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts had also impelled the Framers to consider the possibility of local rebellion. The "raise and support Armies" clause was the Framers' solution to the dilemma. The Constitutional Convention accepted the need for a standing army but sought to maintain control by the appropriations power of Congress, which the Founders viewed as the branch of government closest to the people. The compromise, however, did not satisfy the Anti-Federalists. They largely shared the perspective of James Burgh, who, in his Political Disquisitions (1774), called a "standing army in times of peace, one of the most hurtful, and most dangerous of abuses." The Anti-Federalist paper A Democratic Federalist called a standing army "that great support of tyrants." And Brutus, the most influential series of essays opposing ratification, argued that standing armies "are dangerous to the liberties of a people...not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpation of powers, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is a great hazard, that any army will subvert the forms of government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader." During the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason exclaimed, "What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!" The Anti-Federalists would have preferred that the defense of the nation remain entirely with the state militias. The Federalists disagreed. For them, the power of a government to raise an army was a dictate of prudence. Thus, during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, James Wilson argued that "the power of raising and keeping up an army, in time of peace, is essential to every government. No government can secure its citizens against dangers, internal and external, without possessing it, and sometimes carrying it into execution." In The Federalist No. 23, Hamilton argued, "These powers [of the federal government to provide for the common defense] ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent or variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent & variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them." Nonetheless, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike expressed concerns about a standing army, as opposed to a navy or the militia. Accordingly, this is the only clause related to military affairs that includes a time limit on appropriations. The appropriations power of Congress is a very powerful tool, and one that the Framers saw as particularly necessary in the case of a standing army. Indeed, some individuals argued that army appropriations should be made on a yearly basis. During the Constitutional Convention, Elbridge Gerry raised precisely this point. Roger Sherman replied that the appropriations were permitted, not required, for two years. The problem, he said, was that in a time of emergency, Congress might not be in session when an annual army appropriation was needed. Since the time of the Constitution, legal developments based on the clause have been legislatively driven, and barely the subject of judicial interpretation. With the establishment of a Department of Defense in 1947, Army appropriations have been subsumed by a single department-wide appropriation that includes the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force (established in 1947), as well as other agencies of the department. Despite periodic congressional efforts to move to a two-year appropriations cycle, the annual appropriations for the military are the rule, although not for the reasons that animated Elbridge Gerry during the Constitutional Convention. In addition, the Armed Services Committees of Congress have taken on the responsibility of authorizing almost all aspects of the defense budget as well as appropriating the funds for the services. The character of the United States Army has changed significantly since the constitutional period in two fundamental ways. The first was its way of mobilizing. The second was its orientation and purpose. With respect to wartime mobilization, Hamilton and later John C. Calhoun envisioned the United States Army as an "expansible" force. A small peacetime establishment would serve as the foundation for a greatly expanded force in times of emergency. The emergency ended, the citizen-soldiers would demobilize and return to their civilian occupations. With modifications, this was essentially the model for mobilization from the Mexican War through World War II. During the Cold War, the United States for the first time in its history maintained a large military establishment during peacetime. Even so, the fact that soldiers were drafted meant that citizen-soldiers continued to be the foundation of the Army. But with the end of the draft in 1973, the citizen-soldier was superseded by the long-term professional. The draft, of course, has been a controversial issue. Although compulsory military service can be traced to the colonial and revolutionary period in America, it usually involved the states obligating service in the militia. The United States did not have a national draft until the Civil War, and did not resort to a peacetime draft until 1940. Opponents of a draft have used a number of constitutional arguments in support of their position. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that a draft is constitutional. This includes a draft during peacetime and the power to dispatch draftees overseas. Nor does a draft intrude on the state's right to maintain a militia. Selective Draft Law Cases (1918). An example of the Court's reasoning is found in Holmes v. United States (1968): "the power of Congress to raise armies and to take effective measures to preserve their efficiencies, is not limited by the Thirteenth Amendment or the absence of a military emergency." Nonetheless, the Court has, for some time now, been broadening exemptions to the draft, such as those with conscientious objections to war. The purpose of the United States Army has not always been primarily to win the nation's wars, but to act as a constabulary. Soldiers were often used during the antebellum period to enforce the fugitive slave laws and suppress domestic violence. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 permitted federal marshals to call on the posse comitatus to aid in returning a slave to his owner, and Attorney General Caleb Cushing issued an opinion that included the Army in the posse comitatus. In response, Congress enacted the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), which prohibited the use of the military to aid civil authorities in enforcing the law or suppressing civil disturbances unless expressly ordered to do so by the President. The Army welcomed the legislation. The use of soldiers as a posse removed them from their own chain of command and placed them in the uncomfortable position of taking orders from local authorities who had an interest in the disputes that provoked the unrest in the first place. As a result, many officers came to believe that the involvement of the Army in domestic policing was corrupting the institution. In 1904, Secretary of War Elihu Root reoriented the Army away from constabulary duties to a mission focused on defeating the conventional forces of other states. This view has shaped United States military culture since at least World War II and continues to this day. Whether the exigencies of a modern war against terrorism once again changes the military's mission towards domestic order is yet to be seen. Mackubin Owens |
Quote:
Your out of touch with reality ... this has noting to do Honoring those in harms way .. 22years I served and a combat tour in Iraq I need no Honoring ,, if you don't know or can't see the difference between patriotism and Nationalism and how it works .. let me show you 1st you attack a group 2nd you attack the media 3rd you attack the CIA 4th you attack the DOJ 5th you attack the FBI 6 you attack the other party Un American and treasonous 7 now you use the military as a poltical prop 8 sell it to the faithful as Patriotism .... 9.. to isolate him from any criticism 10 he has 3 more years to do who knows what next |
Quote:
Hmmm...lik Obama saying that Republicans "gotta stop just hatin' all the time? Or Hilary calling Republicans deplorable and irredeemable? "2nd you attack the media" Hmmm..did Obama ever stop whining about Foxnews? "3rd you attack the CIA, 4th you attack the DOJ, 5th you attack the FBI" Are we attacking everyone in those institutions? Or a small number of people? I itemized a fairly long list of known, irrefutable facts about what some of those people did. I asked what items on my list were not true. Didn't hear a peep from you. In fact, you sure implied that Trey Gowdy knows what he's talking about with regards to the FISA memo. "9.. to isolate him from any criticism" Right, Trump doesn't get any direct criticism. "10 he has 3 more years to do who knows what next" More like 7 unless there's a democrat running that I'm not aware of. Neither Bernie nor Lie-awatha is likely going to beat him. |
Take this how you will, I think it applies to both sides
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” — George Washington in his farewell address, Sept. 17, 1796 |
Quote:
https://www.investors.com/politics/c...om-california/ |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com