PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on November 13, 2019, 06:12:55 AM
-
Biden asked them NOT to investigate a possible crime.
Trump asked them to investigate a possible crime.
Public flogging interrogation starts today. It will be interesting. I hope a bunch of conservatives protest like the libs did at the Kavenaugh hearings, but I don't expect it. Conservatives are not that emotionally unstable.
-
Biden asked them NOT to investigate a possible crime.
Trump asked them to investigate a possible crime.
Public flogging interrogation starts today. It will be interesting. I hope a bunch of conservatives protest like the libs did at the Kavenaugh hearings, but I don't expect it. Conservatives are not that emotionally unstable.
It won't be an interrogation. It will be a scripted kangaroo court with only one side getting to put out the narrative they have carefully crafted.
-
Biden asked them NOT to investigate a possible crime.
Trump asked them to investigate a possible crime.
Public flogging interrogation starts today. It will be interesting. I hope a bunch of conservatives protest like the libs did at the Kavenaugh hearings, but I don't expect it. Conservatives are not that emotionally unstable.
Nunes did a good job calling out Schitt, but I haven’t heard anything since then. Work and all.
-
It won't be an interrogation. It will be a scripted kangaroo court with only one side getting to put out the narrative they have carefully crafted.
-
Rush is nailing it right now.
(the other Rush)
-
Biden carried out the wishes of the President, the Leader of the EU, and a whole bunch European leaders. He influenced a foreign government, something we do all the time. We do lots and lots of quid pro quos with foreign governments, and if that doesn't work we invade. Usually the quid pro quo work way better, we have a bad habit of breaking things with our military.
Trump sought to use a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rivals, a pretty big no no.
-
Biden carried out the wishes of the President, the Leader of the EU, and a whole bunch European leaders.
The Obama was just as guilty as Trump and it doesn't mean shit what the EU and whole bunch of other leaders want.
He influenced a foreign government, something we do all the time. We do lots and lots of quid pro quos with foreign governments, and if that doesn't work we invade. Usually the quid pro quo work way better, we have a bad habit of breaking things with our military.
Trump sought to use a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rivals, a pretty big no no.
He sought to investigate corruption.
So you think it is perfectly ok to let the Biden's (and Obama's) corruption to go un-investigated? I thought you liberals LOVED investigations, even if based on flimsy/non-existent charges!
So answer my question, which is merely a question you have asked dozens of times but in reverse: Don't you want to know the truth about Biden's corruption? Or is his mere denial enough for you?
-
Biden carried out the wishes of the President, the Leader of the EU, and a whole bunch European leaders. He influenced a foreign government, something we do all the time. We do lots and lots of quid pro quos with foreign governments, and if that doesn't work we invade. Usually the quid pro quo work way better, we have a bad habit of breaking things with our military.
So Obama told Biden to withhold funds from Ukraine because one of their prosecutors was investigating Burisma?
Trump sought to use a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rivals, a pretty big no no.
So when Hillary funneled money through Perkins Coie to Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on her political rival, that was a big no no?
-
Biden carried out the wishes of the President, the Leader of the EU, and a whole bunch European leaders. He influenced a foreign government, something we do all the time. We do lots and lots of quid pro quos with foreign governments, and if that doesn't work we invade. Usually the quid pro quo work way better, we have a bad habit of breaking things with our military.
Trump sought to use a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rivals, a pretty big no no.
You are fucked out of your mind. If any of your students presented such willful ignorance and lack of skeptical thinking you would flunk them.
I can’t debate children.
-
Biden carried out the wishes of the President, the Leader of the EU, and a whole bunch European leaders. He influenced a foreign government, something we do all the time. We do lots and lots of quid pro quos with foreign governments, and if that doesn't work we invade. Usually the quid pro quo work way better, we have a bad habit of breaking things with our military.
Trump sought to use a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rivals, a pretty big no no.
Did your friends (commie brothers and sisters) in the faculty lounge give you those opinions?
Stupid doesn't do you justice, little fella.
-
Pretty clear that Biden sold influence to Ukraine through his Son when he was VP then continued it through his candidacy for President. That's a big No, No. Totally illegal and thanks to Trump for uncovering it, and the Democrats for making a big stink over it.
-
Pretty clear that Biden sold influence to Ukraine through his Son when he was VP then continued it through his candidacy for President. That's a big No, No. Totally illegal and thanks to Trump for uncovering it, and the Democrats for making a big stink over it.
What Biden did was as corrupt at the day is long, I agree emphatically. What he didn't do was break any laws. High ranking politicians tend to do very good things for their kids. Heck, Trump got them into high ranking positions in the US government with no qualifications to speak of.
-
What Biden did was as corrupt at the day is long, I agree emphatically. What he didn't do was break any laws.
What specific law did President Trump break?
-
What specific law did President Trump break?
Bribery of a foreign official to tamper in a US election. And high crimes and misdemeanors. That's what it says in the Constitution. That is a little more of what it looks like sort of thing. The fact that none of you care that he tried to pressure a foreign leader into interfering in a US election does speak volumes though.
-
Bribery of a foreign official to tamper in a US election. And high crimes and misdemeanors. That's what it says in the Constitution. That is a little more of what it looks like sort of thing. The fact that none of you care that he tried to pressure a foreign leader into interfering in a US election does speak volumes though.
Please quote the part of the transcript that has Trump bribing the Ukrainian President for help in an election.
-
i wont waste my time with Michael's trolling.
-
Bribery of a foreign official to tamper in a US election. And high crimes and misdemeanors. That's what it says in the Constitution. That is a little more of what it looks like sort of thing. The fact that none of you care that he tried to pressure a foreign leader into interfering in a US election does speak volumes though.
I'd care.... if he had actually done so.
-
Michael has trouble with separating present day candidate Biden with past days VP Biden. Trump was asking for VP Biden to be investigated not candidate Biden. It is just coincidental , at this point, that they are one in the same. I know that will be tough for him to understand, it is a tough concept.
-
Michael has trouble with separating present day candidate Biden with past days VP Biden. Trump was asking for VP Biden to be investigated not candidate Biden. It is just coincidental , at this point, that they are one in the same. I know that will be tough for him to understand, it is a tough concept.
Biden is not a candidate for the presidency. He is a candidate for the nomination by the democratic party. Huge difference.
-
Biden is not a candidate for the presidency. He is a candidate for the nomination by the democratic party. Huge difference.
I beg to differ. Biden and all the others are Presidential candidates, but also candidates for the nomination. The entire clown car of Democrats are "running for President". They should be running for the Freak Show tent at Barnum & Bailey's if it still existed.
Warren could be "Chief Squats with Unions"
Harris - "The Bearded Lady"
Buttigieg - The "SWORD" swallower
Biden - The guy that guesses the women's weight
Beto - The Disappearing Man (he's dropped out ya know)
-
I beg to differ. Biden and all the others are Presidential candidates, but also candidates for the nomination. The entire clown car of Democrats are "running for President". They should be running for the Freak Show tent at Barnum & Bailey's if it still existed.
Dems shut down the circus. They didn't want the competition.
-
Dead people are smarter than mikey.
He simply can't function in the real world, which is why he pretends to be an educator and fails spectacularly.
Just ask his former students.
-
What Biden did was as corrupt at the day is long, I agree emphatically. What he didn't do was break any laws. High ranking politicians tend to do very good things for their kids. Heck, Trump got them into high ranking positions in the US government with no qualifications to speak of.
You still haven't answered my question. Do you think the Biden's should be investigated?
If Trump did something "as corrupt as the day is long", don't you think the Dems would be all over him with an investigation?
Don't you think that the VP doing something "as corrupt" as the day is long is illegal? Don't you think corruption qualifies as "high crimes or misdemeanors"?
The first question should be obvious. I agree that the second question is arguable. But it wouldn't be arguable for the Dems if the corrupt one were Trump.
-
I beg to differ. Biden and all the others are Presidential candidates, but also candidates for the nomination. The entire clown car of Democrats are "running for President". They should be running for the Freak Show tent at Barnum & Bailey's if it still existed.
Warren could be "Chief Squats with Unions"
Harris - "The Bearded Lady"
Buttigieg - The "SWORD" swallower
Biden - The guy that guesses the women's weight
Beto - The Disappearing Man (he's dropped out ya know)
LOL! Too funny!
-
You still haven't answered my question. Do you think the Biden's should be investigated?
If the Ukrainians really thought his actions in their country required investigations then yes. I don't think they should be pressured to do so by the US POTUS.
If Trump did something "as corrupt as the day is long", don't you think the Dems would be all over him with an investigation?
He did and they are.
Don't you think that the VP doing something "as corrupt" as the day is long is illegal? Don't you think corruption qualifies as "high crimes or misdemeanors"?
I have yet to see anything suggesting either Biden broke any law, and I strongly doubt they did. Keep in mind that they were operating in Ukraine, and the question is did they break any Ukranian laws? If you think they did perhaps you can enlighten us into which Ukranian laws they broke?
-
If the Ukrainians really thought his actions in their country required investigations then yes. I don't think they should be pressured to do so by the US POTUS.
He did and they are.
I have yet to see anything suggesting either Biden broke any law, and I strongly doubt they did. Keep in mind that they were operating in Ukraine, and the question is did they break any Ukranian laws? If you think they did perhaps you can enlighten us into which Ukranian laws they broke?
Michael... get help for your dementia.
-
Is going against a treaty breaking the law?
-
Michael... get help for your dementia.
There is nothing funny or clever about that remark.
-
There is nothing funny or clever about that remark.
It wasn't intended to be funny, or clever.
Michael is either a world class troll, or he is in serious need of help.
While the class clown beclowns hinself proclaiming utter bullshit, the truth is leaking out.
I bet mikey and azure don't have permission to read such hate speech as... the facts.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/huge-exclusive-bombshell-documents-released-by-ukrainian-general-prosecutors-office-reveal-millions-funneled-to-hunter-biden-and-the-john-kerry-family/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/huge-exclusive-bombshell-documents-released-by-ukrainian-general-prosecutors-office-reveal-millions-funneled-to-hunter-biden-and-the-john-kerry-family/
-
It wasn't intended to be funny, or clever.
Michael is either a world class troll, or he is in serious need of help.
While the class clown beclowns hinself proclaiming utter bullshit, the truth is leaking out.
I bet mikey and azure don't have permission to read such hate speech as... the facts.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/huge-exclusive-bombshell-documents-released-by-ukrainian-general-prosecutors-office-reveal-millions-funneled-to-hunter-biden-and-the-john-kerry-family/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/huge-exclusive-bombshell-documents-released-by-ukrainian-general-prosecutors-office-reveal-millions-funneled-to-hunter-biden-and-the-john-kerry-family/
We’ve been instructed that the gateway pundit can’t be trusted. However those that claim it can’t be trusted can’t cite where they’ve supposedly been wrong.
NPR is suppose to be the trusted source.
-
Democrats are abandoning claims of quid pro quo in favor of extortion and bribery charges
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-shift-rhetoric-from-quid-pro-quo-to-bribery-after-impeachment-focus-groups
Democrats are shifting the language they use to describe the allegations against President Trump in the House impeachment inquiry. And that change has come after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently conducted focus groups to determine which description sounds more damning to voters
Of course, the whole purpose of all this is the try to slander the President in the hopes that it turn enough people off that a Democrat...ANY Democrat...will win in 2020. They are so transparent in this, but there will be people who get fooled.
But if you want the rest of the story, read here:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris/ukraine-agency-says-allegations-against-burisma-cover-period-before-biden-joined-idUSKBN1WC1LV
It turns out the Ukraine investigation doesn't cover the time frame that Hunter Biden was on the board of the company, meaning that the investigation could never be an investigation into Hunter Biden and therefore could never benefit Trump.
So they must change terms because they can't find either a quid or a quo. Once you realize that Ukraine investigation doesn't even cover Hunter Biden, the idea that it could be of any personal gain the president evaporates.
-
https://twitter.com/i/status/1195410065580318722
-
https://twitter.com/i/status/1195410065580318722
But not mikey and azure...
MSNBC hasn’t covered it and never will.
-
https://twitter.com/i/status/1195422830042779648
-
https://twitter.com/i/status/1195460095938834434
-
We need to impeach the House.
-
We need to impeach the House.
It is unfathomable that the Republicans have so little power or say in these proceedings. Look at what the Dems did in the senate to Kavanaugh, while Republicans controlled the Senate. What’s the difference?
Something really stinks here.
-
Apparently there was some conflict between the ambassador and the Ukrainian Prosecutor General, who has enormous powers to investigate and bring charges against anyone he suspects of corruption. Of course, that kind of power has proven to be corrupting in itself.
Several months ago, the ambassador was told by her superior at the state dept that for her own safety, she needed to get out of Ukraine on the next plane. The source of that threat was apparently the Prosecutor General, but we don't know whether there's anything legitimate to it or if he was just removing a critic. In any case, he decided that she had to go, he got the information through Giuliani to President Trump and she was removed. Could have been no fault of her own, but her ability to be an effective ambassador was destroyed, so regardless of anything else, she had to come home.
BTW, this is the same Prosecutor General who investigated Burisma in 2014 and found that they underpaid taxes, but before Hunter Biden joined the company. When Trump asked for investigations to be double checked, these would have been the investigations. Hunter Biden is not and never has been the target of any investigation in Ukraine.
-
I'm just going to throw this out here. I am sure that everyone here can think of someone else that this applies to.
https://www.gocomics.com/baldo/2019/11/16
(I guess it applies to me too, at least a little bit).
-
Apparently there was some conflict between the ambassador and the Ukrainian Prosecutor General, who has enormous powers to investigate and bring charges against anyone he suspects of corruption. Of course, that kind of power has proven to be corrupting in itself.
Several months ago, the ambassador was told by her superior at the state dept that for her own safety, she needed to get out of Ukraine on the next plane. The source of that threat was apparently the Prosecutor General, but we don't know whether there's anything legitimate to it or if he was just removing a critic. In any case, he decided that she had to go, he got the information through Giuliani to President Trump and she was removed. Could have been no fault of her own, but her ability to be an effective ambassador was destroyed, so regardless of anything else, she had to come home.
BTW, this is the same Prosecutor General who investigated Burisma in 2014 and found that they underpaid taxes, but before Hunter Biden joined the company. When Trump asked for investigations to be double checked, these would have been the investigations. Hunter Biden is not and never has been the target of any investigation in Ukraine.
If Hunter was never the target of an investigation, why is Trump being accused of targeting Biden?
-
If Hunter was never the target of an investigation, why is Trump being accused of targeting Biden?
This entire "impeachment" is one Democrat and MEDIA lie after another. My computer has a default MSN home page. I keep it there to see what lies the Media comes up with day to day. If one would listen to them the first day of the "hearings" were a DISASTER for Trump, and it is all but over. Yet the STOCK MARKET had a near record day. Do you think that would have happened if the Impeachment of the President seemed IMMINENT? No it would have TANKED. See how they lie Mikey? You have to be an imbecile to believe 98% of the Media.
-
Apparently there was some conflict between the ambassador and the Ukrainian Prosecutor General, who has enormous powers to investigate and bring charges against anyone he suspects of corruption. Of course, that kind of power has proven to be corrupting in itself.
Several months ago, the ambassador was told by her superior at the state dept that for her own safety, she needed to get out of Ukraine on the next plane. The source of that threat was apparently the Prosecutor General, but we don't know whether there's anything legitimate to it or if he was just removing a critic. In any case, he decided that she had to go, he got the information through Giuliani to President Trump and she was removed. Could have been no fault of her own, but her ability to be an effective ambassador was destroyed, so regardless of anything else, she had to come home.
BTW, this is the same Prosecutor General who investigated Burisma in 2014 and found that they underpaid taxes, but before Hunter Biden joined the company. When Trump asked for investigations to be double checked, these would have been the investigations. Hunter Biden is not and never has been the target of any investigation in Ukraine.
Two things, where is your source on this and and why was the Ambassador called as a witness if she was removed for her own safety?
-
We keep hearing from the Democrats how important it is for the House to provide oversight on the activities of the President. But who provides oversight on the House? It would be nice if the Executive branch did to the House what the Legislative branch does to the President.
-
We keep hearing from the Democrats how important it is for the House to provide oversight on the activities of the President. But who provides oversight on the House? It would be nice if the Executive branch did to the House what the Legislative branch does to the President.
Short of angry mobs, carrying torches, pitchforks and pikes, our politicians have little to no accountability. 98% of the Media is controlled and supported by one side, or vica versa, they control they Dems. I don't see anything changing unless there is a total meltdown in society, and that's not something I or anyone should want until they start herding us into cattle cars and taking us to the FEMA camps.
-
Short of angry mobs, carrying torches, pitchforks and pikes, our politicians have little to no accountability. 98% of the Media is controlled and supported by one side, or vica versa, they control they Dems. I don't see anything changing unless there is a total meltdown in society, and that's not something I or anyone should want until they start herding us into cattle cars and taking us to the FEMA camps.
Are you kidding me? Violence will get us jailed and politicians continue on their merry way. Same with “meltdown.” Any violence, go straight to jail.
Any other ideas about what we can do? Besides Convention of States? Because I don’t think that’s going to happen, and even if it did, and term limits were imposed, the pols would simply have a shorter time frame in which to serve themselves and not us.
We are seeing the great, fatal weakness of democracy unfold before us.
-
We keep hearing from the Democrats how important it is for the House to provide oversight on the activities of the President. But who provides oversight on the House? It would be nice if the Executive branch did to the House what the Legislative branch does to the President.
Theroetically, SCOTUS keeps an eye on the President. Congress.
The thing about SCOTUS that I hate is that it has become so partisan. You can generally tell how they will rule based on partisan politics, not the Constitution. At least the right isn't as bad about that as the left, but that is a problem too.
edit: Changed "president" to "Congress", which is what I meant to type.
-
Theroetically, SCOTUS keeps an eye on the President.
The thing about SCOTUS that I hate is that it has become so partisan. You can generally tell how they will rule based on partisan politics, not the Constitution. At least the right isn't as bad about that as the left, but that is a problem too.
Except the Republican appointed ones often go off the Reservation (Roberts, Suder, Kennedy) but the Democrat appointees vote LOCK STEP Liberal/Progressive/Democrat. Funny how that works. :(
-
Two things, where is your source on this and and why was the Ambassador called as a witness if she was removed for her own safety?
The major source was her 317 page deposition to the House intelligence committee, then I filled in with multiple various articles around the web and a slight bit of analysis which I think I've indicated. She appears very out of touch with what's going on around her and frequently her testimony ran something like "Well, I didn't know then, but I've since learned through the media..."
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6538652-Marie-Yovanovitch-testimony-transcript.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris/ukraine-agency-says-allegations-against-burisma-cover-period-before-biden-joined-idUSKBN1WC1LV
I really recommend the deposition for insomnia.
Bottom line take away for me - she knows of no crime. Hunter Biden is not and never was under investigation. Burisma was probably investigated as a shakedown because their "crime" was not paying enough taxes and their penalty was to pay more. Democrats don't care if there is no crime, this is a smear campaign.
-
Theroetically, SCOTUS keeps an eye on the President.
The thing about SCOTUS that I hate is that it has become so partisan. You can generally tell how they will rule based on partisan politics, not the Constitution. At least the right isn't as bad about that as the left, but that is a problem too.
Where did you come up with this?
-
Where did you come up with this?
I mistyped. I meant to say SCOTUS is supposed to keep an eye on Congress.
The Pres too, it I meant Congress.
-
This entire "impeachment" is one Democrat and MEDIA lie after another. My computer has a default MSN home page. I keep it there to see what lies the Media comes up with day to day. If one would listen to them the first day of the "hearings" were a DISASTER for Trump, and it is all but over. Yet the STOCK MARKET had a near record day. Do you think that would have happened if the Impeachment of the President seemed IMMINENT? No it would have TANKED. See how they lie Mikey? You have to be an imbecile to believe 98% of the Media.
You don't understand, stocks are soaring because the media is telling us bad man is going to be impeached.
right?
-
You don't understand, stocks are soaring because the media is telling us bad man is going to be impeached.
right?
Oh absolutely. Markets just love instability and the unknown. It certainly wouldn't create any volatility, would it? LOL! :)
Plus, the front running Democrat candidate, Warren, wants a transaction tax on all stock trades, as well as super high income and wealth taxes on what she considers the "RICH", meaning you and me. Carbon taxes won't hurt the economy either, will they? The entire Democrat platform would put us into a DEPRESSION, not just recession.
-
The major source was her 317 page deposition to the House intelligence committee, then I filled in with multiple various articles around the web and a slight bit of analysis which I think I've indicated. She appears very out of touch with what's going on around her and frequently her testimony ran something like "Well, I didn't know then, but I've since learned through the media..."
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6538652-Marie-Yovanovitch-testimony-transcript.html (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6538652-Marie-Yovanovitch-testimony-transcript.html)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris/ukraine-agency-says-allegations-against-burisma-cover-period-before-biden-joined-idUSKBN1WC1LV (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris/ukraine-agency-says-allegations-against-burisma-cover-period-before-biden-joined-idUSKBN1WC1LV)
I really recommend the deposition for insomnia.
Bottom line take away for me - she knows of no crime. Hunter Biden is not and never was under investigation. Burisma was probably investigated as a shakedown because their "crime" was not paying enough taxes and their penalty was to pay more. Democrats don't care if there is no crime, this is a smear campaign.
Thanks for the follow-up. I would probably agree that Hunter Biden was not investigated, I would like to know how he got the job on the board though, short of being some kind of favor for his Dad, the V.P. How do we stop that kind of stuff from happening short of a law that says, if you parent is involved in any way with a country, company, etc and is in government service you cannot go to work in a capacity that even sniffs of being a "favor hiring".
-
Oh absolutely. Markets just love instability and the unknown. It certainly wouldn't create any volatility, would it? LOL! :)
Plus, the front running Democrat candidate, Warren, wants a transaction tax on all stock trades, as well as super high income and wealth taxes on what she considers the "RICH", meaning you and me. Carbon taxes won't hurt the economy either, will they? The entire Democrat platform would put us into a DEPRESSION, not just recession.
Even the likes of Jeff Bezos and I believe, Bill Gates, are balking a little at Warren. The left is going way too far, and hopefully will be the cause of their own downfall, if they lose the support of multi-billionaires.
-
Thanks for the follow-up. I would probably agree that Hunter Biden was not investigated, I would like to know how he got the job on the board though, short of being some kind of favor for his Dad, the V.P. How do we stop that kind of stuff from happening short of a law that says, if you parent is involved in any way with a country, company, etc and is in government service you cannot go to work in a capacity that even sniffs of being a "favor hiring".
I suspect it was name recognition, the same reason Al Gore is on the board of Apple and Chelsea Clinton is on the board of Expedia. Also on the board of Burisma was Aleksander Kwaśniewsk, the former president of Poland. They just like high profile names to be on their board
My take on this is that it is a means of paying people off.
-
We keep hearing from the Democrats how important it is for the House to provide oversight on the activities of the President. But who provides oversight on the House? It would be nice if the Executive branch did to the House what the Legislative branch does to the President.
I had this argument today about someone who hated Trump for ignoring congressional subpoenas. He has no concept of separation of powers and jurisdiction.
I had to refer him to Article I, Section 8 to tell me where the legislative branch has any jurisdiction over the executive branch.
So far, no answer other than “Orange Man Bad.”
-
Theroetically, SCOTUS keeps an eye on the President. Congress.
The thing about SCOTUS that I hate is that it has become so partisan. You can generally tell how they will rule based on partisan politics, not the Constitution. At least the right isn't as bad about that as the left, but that is a problem too.
edit: Changed "president" to "Congress", which is what I meant to type.
The fact that four SCOTUS justices thought the RKBA was NOT an individual right tells you everything you need to know about how close we are to tyranny.
-
I mistyped. I meant to say SCOTUS is supposed to keep an eye on Congress.
The Pres too, it I meant Congress.
Actually no there is no oversight of the respective branches in the Constitution, other than Congress can establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court.
Otherwise, oversight is NOT an enumerated power of the executive or legislative branches. That’s why Trump and his executive branch has zero responsibility to respond to congressional subpoenas.
-
The fact that four SCOTUS justices thought the RKBA was NOT an individual right tells you everything you need to know about how close we are to tyranny.
Scary is right. That could have been a tipping point, but it's not over. The "reasonable restriction" statement is very scary. They can call anything "reasonable".
-
Scary is right. That could have been a tipping point, but it's not over. The "reasonable restriction" statement is very scary. They can call anything "reasonable".
yup. it's "reasonable" to grossly restrict rights for perceived benefits or for intended benefits.
-
Scary is right. That could have been a tipping point, but it's not over. The "reasonable restriction" statement is very scary. They can call anything "reasonable".
I guess it could be reasonable to only allow those with a demonstrated need to own a firearm.
And if I were a liberal, it might seem reasonable to prevent Angry Old White Men from owning firearms because they are, well; ANGRY!
-
I guess it could be reasonable to only allow those with a demonstrated need to own a firearm.
Do you consider self-defense to be a need?
What about competitive target shooters (ya know, like Olympic events)?
What about hunting?
What about collectors?
But the fundamental fallacy is that people must demonstrate a need to exercise their rights.
-
Do you consider self-defense to be a need?
Are you asking me what I think?
Or are you asking me what I think a liberal would think? (which is what my post was doing). Did you pick up on my sarcasm in that post?
-
Are you asking me what I think?
sure.
Or are you asking me what I think a liberal would think? (which is what my post was doing). Did you pick up on my sarcasm in that post?
Well, I'm pretty sure I know what a liberal thinks.
btw - it sure wasn't clear that your entire post was speculation wrt what a liberal would think or was sarcasm. Sarcasm is easiest to detect with green font.
-
sure.
Well, I'm pretty sure I know what a liberal thinks.
btw - it sure wasn't clear that your entire post was speculation wrt what a liberal would think or was sarcasm. Sarcasm is easiest to detect with green font.
I thought about using a green font, but I thought my reference to "Angry Old White Men" and them being, "well, ANGRY" was obviously sarcastic.
As to what I think, If they want to restrict gun rights, even to what someone might consider "reasonable", then they need to change the Constitution.
Good luck with that! Because while they are at it, we might get them to implement term limits and enforce the rest of the Constitution (ie, States Rights) too.
-
As to what I think, If they want to restrict gun rights, even to what someone might consider "reasonable", then they need to change the Constitution.
Good luck with that! Because while they are at it, we might get them to implement term limits and enforce the rest of the Constitution (ie, States Rights) too.
It's too difficult for them to change the Constitution. Instead it is death by a thousand cuts, where the Feds, but also States and Local governments have passed ILLEGAL GUN LAWS which are ALL infringements. These laws are upheld by corrupt courts, and the SCOTUS fails to do their job to hear cases to overturn them.
The Second Amendment guarantees a Natural Right of THE PEOPLE, not government. It says "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It is clear and obvious yet FOUR LEGAL SCHOLARS said it was NOT the right of the People.
-
Scary is right. That could have been a tipping point, but it's not over. The "reasonable restriction" statement is very scary. They can call anything "reasonable".
This is one decision where I think Scalia screwed the pooch.
-
This is one decision where I think Scalia screwed the pooch.
Totally agree. You can claim anything is a reasonable restriction and we know governments and some courts just love to interpret things broadly. Look what the EPA did with the Clean Air and Water Act. There are many in law enforcement, the Judicial system and government that HATE that private citizens can legally own guns. They believe they are "special" and should be the only ones allowed to do so. They see themselves as a form of Royalty.
-
Too many people forget the overwhelming number of times a firearm is used legally, safely, responsibly. Not just a majority of times, not a super-majority, but almost every single time a firearm is used, it is legal, safe, and responsible.
There are tens of billions (if not hundreds of billions) of times a gun is fired every year. ~17,000 homicides is what percentage of tens of billions (if not hundreds of billions)?
-
Too many people forget the overwhelming number of times a firearm is used legally, safely, responsibly. Not just a majority of times, not a super-majority, but almost every single time a firearm is used, it is legal, safe, and responsible.
There are tens of billions (if not hundreds of billions) of times a gun is fired every year. ~17,000 homicides is what percentage of tens of billions (if not hundreds of billions)?
The problem is, more and more voting persons are unfamiliar with guns. No longer are children exposed to firearms from a young age, and taught about them. When you aren't raised being comfortable with guns, you fall for the anti-gun propaganda and all these safe uses of guns are completely invisible to you.
-
The problem is, more and more voting persons are unfamiliar with guns. No longer are children exposed to firearms from a young age, and taught about them. When you aren't raised being comfortable with guns, you fall for the anti-gun propaganda and all these safe uses of guns are completely invisible to you.
The Media demonizes all guns, and shuns stories about legal defensive use, recreational and target shooting, competition, etc. Our Educational system demonizes guns Kindergarten through University. They've made guns a pariah. Urbanites, for the most part only think criminals and the Police have guns. Go a bit outside the city and that changes.
-
The Media demonizes all guns, and shuns stories about legal defensive use, recreational and target shooting, competition, etc. Our Educational system demonizes guns Kindergarten through University. They've made guns a pariah. Urbanites, for the most part only think criminals and the Police have guns. Go a bit outside the city and that changes.
TV and movies confirm this for them. Only bad guys and law enforcement or professional detectives or spies have guns. And they NEVER practice safe gun handling. Always finger on the trigger.
-
Communists (Democrat’s) despise self reliance because they are mostly helpless, pathetic, pussies.
-
Communists (Democrat’s) despise self feliance because they are mostly helpless, pathetic, pussies.
huh?
-
https://johnsolomonreports.com/impeachment-surprise-how-adam-schiff-validated-my-reporting-on-ukraine/
-
huh?
I always assume that Number 7 is somewhat keyboard challenged, and attempt to read through his typos. It isn't usually very hard because he doesn't really use too many different words. Pathetic, communist, pussies, whores and a few others. Sometimes he slips in something new like "feliance" and you have to try to take it in context. I assumed he meant "reliance".
-
https://johnsolomonreports.com/impeachment-surprise-how-adam-schiff-validated-my-reporting-on-ukraine/
I’m sick of hearing the media refer to facts like that as “conspiracy theories promoted by the far right”, when they’re forced to refer to them at all. We don’t have objective journalism anymore, period.