Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1194625)

It is what happened

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1194632)

What you said is not what happened:

"A head of state using a standing army"

There was no standing army being used against the will of a state governor. Washington D.C. is not a state. The President as commander-in-chief of the District of Columbia's national guard has the legal, constitutional power to use it in that city. The original notion of the Founders, that the central government did not have the authority to impose the power of a standing federal army on the states and the free citizens therein, never applied to D.C.

to occupy an American city, compel citizens off the street,

The National Guard were not "occupying" D.C. A military occupation is generally a military controlling a foreign territory by force. The American city in this case was being occupied by protesters, many of which were not residents of D.C., not by a standing army which was lawfully protecting the jurisdiction at the behest of the city's commander in chief.

stifle free expression and assembly, using paramilitary forces to smoke clergy out of their churches at the head of state’s whim, is pretty much the founders’ nightmare.

Free expression and assembly were not "stifled." It was moved a small distance. Non-peaceful, unlawful expression may have been stifled. I haven't heard about people being smoked out of their churches. I did hear about people not being allowed to attend their churches during the pandemic shutdown.

The Founders would have definitely approved of the President ordering his federal troops to quell destructive civil disorder in D.C. The Thugs and ANTIFA in the crowd had been turning the peaceful "occupation" into a violent, dangerous, life threatening, destructive one. The Founder's nightmare would have been a President who allowed the Capitol to be desecrated by thugs and criminals.

As for clearing a path for the President, the people had the right to hear him. The right to protest does not give the right to stifle the free speech of others, nor the right to deny others the right to hear their President.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1194633)

Weasel words, but Tweety doesn't care about the rule of law anyways.

Yes he does. (that was easy)

Citizens have the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger.

Sure, but they don't have the right to do or go wherever they want.

Citizens of the United States have a constitutional right to assemble and the right to speak.

They were not stopped from doing so. Citizens do not have the right to occupy whatever space they want.

You have not listened or looked to see what happened, willful ignorance once again. As is typical of authoritarians, you ignore the greater good and focus on the lesser evil.

I assume that you and I have a different view of what the greater good is. Being an authoritarian, you believe your view is the rule. I have stated many times in many ways what I think what the greater good is in government. It would be a useless expenditure of energy to tell you again. You have not listened. You ignore. And I don't recall you ever saying precisely what that greater good is.

They physically drove the rector from the church courtyard.
There was no violence until it was escalated by government forces.
They drove all the people out and he said no words.

As wdmso might say, that was simplistic.

It was a photo op, pure and simple

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1194639)

Among other things, it was a photo op. It's what politicians do. But there was a definite message or two in the op. A message partially in response to the lie that he was "hiding like a coward in the bunker." The President doesn't make those decisions. The secret services does. And I'm guessing that, for security reasons, the secret service was not approving of the op.

And "the world" was divided about the message. Unlike the fake anti-Trump media, there was a large world that approved of his message. And you probably scoff at that. I'm guessing, it makes you feel good about yourself to do that.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1194641)

In the German part of the "world" Tweety is viewed as the greatest threat to world peace with a percentage greater than Kim Jong Un, Ali Kahmenei, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jingpin combined, so apparently they disagree with you and the other 30% of Americans that support Tweety.

Far be it from me to tell the Germans how to think. "The World" thinks Germans are authoritarian. But I also have read that there is a lot of dissent in Germany about their Progressive globalist authoritarians, especially their immigration policies. It's not a solid block of opinion in Germany. The Bavarians and others have pushed back against Merkel's policies. There seems to be a lot of sentiment in various parts of Germany for maintaining their cultural heritage which they feel is being eradicated by EU centric globalism.


His self image is so bad and he is such a wimp, that in order to assuage his ego he had to have troops drive Americans out of Lafayette Square.

He appears to have a very elevated self image.

What a poor excuse for a leader.

Good Lord!! He led the Repubs from a certain, crushing defeat, and permanent irrelevance to becoming the dominat power in the federal government as well as many states. You say a lot of stupid, self-serving, bitter, whiny stuff.

First, the president started the fire. He kept adding fuel.

Disagree.

Now, he wants credit for attempting to put it out.

Hope he and the rest of Congress and the states get together and put it out.

Meanwhile the house is burning.

It burns a lot. Rises from the ashes. USA, USA, USA!!

And don't forget that in this day of the iphone, the amount of police brutality at the anti-police brutality protests is not helping the image. That is not all the officers, but as a percentage it is higher than the number of criminals among the protesters.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1194619)

A head of state using a standing army to occupy an American city, compel citizens off the street, stifle free expression and assembly, using paramilitary forces to smoke clergy out of their churches at the head of state’s whim, is pretty much the founders’ nightmare.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1194641)

the amount of police brutality at the anti-police brutality protests is not helping the image. That is not all the officers, but as a percentage it is higher than the number of criminals among the protesters.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1194927)

oh...please try to quantify this gem

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1195391)

Is Tweety planning to have protesters teargassed again?


Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Any protesters, anarchists, agitators, looters or lowlifes who are going to Oklahoma please understand, you will not be treated like you have been in New York, Seattle, or Minneapolis. It will be a much different scene!
9:34 AM · Jun 19, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1195398)

Hey, I'm going to the canal tonight. Why don't you meet up?

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1195401)

At the canal?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1195402)

If I'm going to the canal why would I want to meet up anywhere else
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1195409)

I am censoring the word Lib tard - it is a dumb phrase that has worn out its initial unique sliver of comedy.

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1195409)

I am censoring the word Lib tard - it is a dumb phrase that has worn out its initial unique sliver of comedy.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1195410)

And it's offensive.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1195410)

And it's offensive.