Jump to content

Politics' Official Eighteenth Thread


Recommended Posts

Did you read the actual report? While perhaps a little overstated at times, I really don't think the unclassified report itself is anything crazy, and certainly does not say anything like "Veteran = Libertarian = Conservative = Gun Owner = Terrorist". The bits on veterans weren't terribly large, and mainly concerned themselves with previous attempts during the 90s to recruit veterans for terrorist activities. If anything, with time, it's (overall) proved a little more true than I would've expected it to have at the time of publishing...

 

(e): My post was directed at Guard Dog.

Edited by Bartimaeus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Aluim a weak government is not no government. I am not an anarchist. A government that does not have eminent domain powers, and whose regulatory, taxation, and police powers curtailed to just their constitutionally defined limits can still enforce the law without having the ability to help one group or another. 

 

But no matter what you do, the government will still have the power to appoint Supreme Court judges, and thus bend or reinterpret those constitutionally defined limits, so... how exactly is this supposed to ensure that they won't have the ability to help one group or another?

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's a novel idea, put tariffs/sanctions on Trumps businesses. Don't divest? Other countries get to use your companies as targets.

Pff. And those people have the audacity to call The Donald juvenile and petty?

We will attack you personally for your politics. What's next kidnapping his kid?

No wonder left loves muslims. The terrorist bone is strong in both.

 

 

Maybe you should attack Canada, as it's a Canadian who came up with the idea, not Vox.

 

And the Kurwa bone is strong in both Polish and Liberals.

Edited by smjjames
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's a novel idea, put tariffs/sanctions on Trumps businesses. Don't divest? Other countries get to use your companies as targets.

Pff. And those people have the audacity to call The Donald juvenile and petty?

We will attack you personally for your politics. What's next kidnapping his kid?

No wonder left loves muslims. The terrorist bone is strong in both.

we went from pettiness to kidnapping to terrorism within three sentences here.

 

No wonder the conservatives love fascists. The hyperexaggerated doctrine bone is strong in both.

Edited by Ben No.3

Everybody knows the deal is rotten

Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton

For your ribbons and bows

And everybody knows

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was because they were all subbie types :p

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Aluim a weak government is not no government. I am not an anarchist. A government that does not have eminent domain powers, and whose regulatory, taxation, and police powers curtailed to just their constitutionally defined limits can still enforce the law without having the ability to help one group or another. 

 

But no matter what you do, the government will still have the power to appoint Supreme Court judges, and thus bend or reinterpret those constitutionally defined limits, so... how exactly is this supposed to ensure that they won't have the ability to help one group or another?

 

There are justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a great example. who decide how they want a case to come out before ever hearing it. Rather than apply the law to the case they try to make the case fit into the law, bending it when needed. Fortunately those have proven to be less common. For the most part judges have been straight forward about applying the law (as they see it).

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Bart & Ben: Yes I have read it. I, and many other vets were furiously pissed about that ten years ago. And remember, it was ten years ago and must be taken in the context of everything else that was going on at that time. There is no difference between assuming that someone who served in the military, believes in the Federalist system this very country was set up on, doesn't like abortion, owns a gun, or didn't vote for Obama is a likely terrorist than there is assuming a black man in a nice car likely stole it.

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Bart & Ben: Yes I have read it. I, and many other vets were furiously pissed about that ten years ago. And remember, it was ten years ago and must be taken in the context of everything else that was going on at that time. There is no difference between assuming that someone who served in the military, believes in the Federalist system this very country was set up on, doesn't like abortion, owns a gun, or didn't vote for Obama is a likely terrorist than there is assuming a black man in a nice car likely stole it.

that’s not what they’re saying... if I understood correctly, all they say is that these beliefs are shared by right extremists. A necessary, but not sufficient indicator

Everybody knows the deal is rotten

Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton

For your ribbons and bows

And everybody knows

Link to post
Share on other sites

Veterans will be looked at for several reasons- they will have expertise and know about explosives, have less qualms about killing people and more tendency towards mental illness- but the main one is that a lot of the domestic terrorism in the US does come from veterans like Tim McVeigh and Terry Nicholls. If you're going to monitor people for terrorism it would be as foolish to exclude veterans just because they're veterans and it's politically inexpedient as it would be to exclude muslims because that's politically inexpedient.

 

Not that I support dragnet monitoring at all, a person's own country is always the biggest threat to a person's liberty because you live there not North Korea or China or wherever, and erosion of liberties at home and government's granting themselves ever enhanced powers are far more than just a trifling concern. But using veteran as a criterion is not a grand conspiracy or anything else, it's based on both history and other genuine risk factors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to come to any kind of agreement with many of you on this and i have little interest in discussing it in any case because even ten years later I find I am still furiously pissed off about it. The tone suited the Obama administration well in any case. After all they used government agencies such as the IRS as weapons against political opponents, sent armed BLM agents to settle a simple grazing rights dispute by tasing, beating the hell out of and threatening unarmed civilians. And damn near provoked an armed insurrection in the process. They seemed to think it was perfectly OK for the President to order the execution of american citizens with weaponized drones, until people freaked out and they walked that back. 

 

Whatever. Discuss it if you wish. I'm done with it. It was an extremely s----y thing to think and even s------r thing to double down on afterwards.

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The primaries for governor are really picking up in whatever our state nickname is. On the Dem side we have 3 people each claiming to be the most progressive. Each has a staked out a pet issue of either gun control, education, and healthcare. On the Pub side we have 2 guys trying to out-conservative the other. One guy is just anti everything on the left and the other is attacking him for not being supportive enough of Trump's tax cut. I dunno, maybe he has another thing about him but doesn't really get into it in his commercials and I don't care enough to go to his website or do any research, they're all too far to the right for me anyways.

Free games updated 3/6/19

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many of you I think CNN has zero credibility. Maybe even a little less. So when I first read this I was skeptical is was true. But then I realized we're talking about Trump here so absurdity is commonplace. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/war-of-1812-donald-trump-justin-trudeau-tariff/index.html

Edited by Guard Dog

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites

518U87bmJyL._SX323_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

 

There is nothing in the Constitution that says we have to go looking for him.

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites

But you have to admit, it is a better dramatic title than "So what if the President is Missing, We Have a Perfectly Good Vice-President Right Here".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump Called Asbestos Poisoning a Mob-Led Conspiracy, Now His EPA Won’t Evaluate Asbestos Already in Homes: http://www.newsweek.com/pruitt-trump-asbestos-chemicals-trump-962703

 

In his 1997 book, The Art of the Comeback, Trump argued that the association of the chemical with health risks was part of a mob-created conspiracy. “I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented,” he wrote.

 

wot

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many of you I think CNN has zero credibility. Maybe even a little less. So when I first read this I was skeptical is was true. But then I realized we're talking about Trump here so absurdity is commonplace. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/war-of-1812-donald-trump-justin-trudeau-tariff/index.html

 

I think you're wrong about CNN. Anyhoo, not surprised about Trump getting history wrong and citing something that happened over 200 years ago to justify natiional security just shows that he HAS no justification.

 

 

Donald Trump Called Asbestos Poisoning a Mob-Led Conspiracy, Now His EPA Won’t Evaluate Asbestos Already in Homes: http://www.newsweek.com/pruitt-trump-asbestos-chemicals-trump-962703

 

In his 1997 book, The Art of the Comeback, Trump argued that the association of the chemical with health risks was part of a mob-created conspiracy. “I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented,” he wrote.

 

wot

 

Seriously?!?!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what's funny about this War of 1812 fiasco.   My fellow Kanadians have always used it to brag about how Kanada is 'better' than the US because of how 'we 'kicked' the US' butt and burned down the WH back in 1812. I always pointed out how that was impossible since we didn't even exist as a country back then. They were outraged at me and pointed out how I was 'wrong'. Now, people are using it to make fun of Trump because he used the same argument that Kanadians have been using for years as it is taught (or was taught)_ in our history books. LMAO

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...