PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on January 19, 2016, 04:45:05 PM
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hillary-clinton-emails-contained-info-above-top-secret-ig-n499886
Emails from Hillary Clinton's home server contained information classified at levels higher than previously known, including a level meant to protect some of the most sensitive U.S. intelligence, according to a document obtained by NBC News.
In a letter to lawmakers, the intelligence community's internal watchdog says some of Clinton's emails contained information classified Top Secret/Special Access Program, a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters.
-
In a word, no.
Nothing can stop her candidacy shy of a disabled transgender who is black, identifies as white, happens to be an illegal alien, and promises more free shit and tax-the-rich madness than crazy Bernie.
The reset button with Putin, the Arab Spring, the first loss of a sitting Ambassador in over 30 years plus 3 other Americans in a coordinated attack on 2 embassy facilities, hostages in Iran and elsewhere, a growing Chinese hegemony in Asia, the wrongful imprisonment of a film maker, and a growing number of Classified and above document contained in THOUSANDS of suspect e-mails on a private server (as SecState no less) - she makes John Gotti look like a rank fucking amateur, Teflon Don my ass - seriously, what is less sticky than Teflon?
'Gimp
-
How about if she mocks a cripple?
-
How about if she mocks a cripple?
She could push a cripple off the deck of the Achille Lauro and the MSM would be in a tizzy telling us how he surely deserved it - see history of her treatment of the women who have accused her husband of misdeeds in the past.
'Gimp
PS. I do not use a wheelchair and am not a cruise fan. ;^)
-
Of course not.
The clinton buttkissers will trot out their old strategy of saying it's old news.
btw - I doubt anyone of the POA folks who were defending clinton's use of the email server will admit that she screwed up. I doubt they will have the integrity to admit they were dead wrong.
If I had done what clinton did, not only would I lose my clearance, I believe I would be jail.
-
If it does then we end up with the socialist Bernie as POTUS. There seems no hope of the GOP nominating anyone who can win in November. The best the GOP can hope for is to hold congress.
-
If it does then we end up with the socialist Bernie as POTUS. There seems no hope of the GOP nominating anyone who can win in November. The best the GOP can hope for is to hold congress.
Riiiiiiight. ???
-
If it does then we end up with the socialist Bernie as POTUS. There seems no hope of the GOP nominating anyone who can win in November. The best the GOP can hope for is to hold congress.
More delusional nonsense. The only difference between "Bernie" and the Mrs Clinton is Bernie admits to his far-left socialist ideology.
-
People don't care as long as they get their free shit, gays get to marry, and illegal aliens get to stay. People don't care about foreign policy, national security, the economy, or other hard subjects. As long as their social agendas are being tended to, they're quite happy.
-
All my friends and nearly everyone I know is either a Democrat, a straight up progressive, or apolitical. I can tell you that the buzz on the left is, they are not happy with Hillary. Most are pissed that she is "the presumptive" nominee. People are saying that if Hillary ends up on the ticket, they are going to write in Sanders. They are not happy on the left.
The Democratic party is a machine, just like the GOP. It serves itself more than the people. Hillary was chosen over a decade ago and they are going to stick with her come hell or high water. She will not be prosecuted for anything and she will not exit the race.
In the end, when it ends up Hillary vs. ???? the rank and file and many of the progressives will fall in line, bite their tongues, hold their noses and pull the lever for Hillary. However, if Sanders were press on and run as an independent, he could pull a Ross Perot and torpedo the Democrats. I doubt he will, but one can hope.
-
All my friends and nearly everyone I know is either a Democrat, a straight up progressive, or apolitical. I can tell you that the buzz on the left is, they are not happy with Hillary. Most are pissed that she is "the presumptive" nominee. People are saying that if Hillary ends up on the ticket, they are going to write in Sanders. They are not happy on the left.
The Democratic party is a machine, just like the GOP. It serves itself more than the people. Hillary was chosen over a decade ago and they are going to stick with her come hell or high water. She will not be prosecuted for anything and she will not exit the race.
In the end, when it ends up Hillary vs. ??? ? the rank and file and many of the progressives will fall in line, bite their tongues, hold their noses and pull the lever for Hillary. However, if Sanders were press on and run as an independent, he could pull a Ross Perot and torpedo the Democrats. I doubt he will, but one can hope.
You don't believe at this point that she should be charged and tried?
-
You don't believe at this point that she should be charged and tried?
I'll note for the record that the Constitution provides no bar to the Presidency just because someone is an indicted or convicted felon.
-
You don't believe at this point that she should be charged and tried?
I'll note for the record that the Constitution provides no bar to the Presidency just because someone is an indicted or convicted felon.
I'll bet the democrats celebrate that fact on Constitution Day.
-
If it does then we end up with the socialist Bernie as POTUS. There seems no hope of the GOP nominating anyone who can win in November. The best the GOP can hope for is to hold congress.
More delusional nonsense. The only difference between "Bernie" and the Mrs Clinton is Bernie admits to his far-left socialist ideology.
If you are responding to my post, your reading comprehension is suffering. I made no value comparison between Hillary and Bernie. I am merely predicting, albeit unhappily, that the GOP seem likely to saddle us with either Hillary or the socialist because the primary voters seem likely to pick either Cruz or Trump, neither of whom is electable.
-
As long as their social agendas are being tended to, they're quite happy.
You realize that this describes the entire social conservative wing of the Republican party as well.
-
You realize that this describes the entire social conservative wing of the Republican party as well.
I tend to (maybe wrongly) believe that Repubs are more interested in hard subject matter, but then I think of stuff like abortion, and well, yeah.
-
You don't believe at this point that she should be charged and tried?
I don't really know enough about really to make that call. I'm sure people will try, but at this point, they will fail and it will go nowhere. Only if the Democratic party should turn their back on her and her husband, would there be a chance. At this point, I don't see that happening.
It's the way the world works, here and everywhere else and it always has. The elites live by different rules than we do.
-
What the State Department considers classified is considerably different than what the Defense Department considers classified. Given the polarization of the whole thing I really sit on the fence. That said, the scandal is old news and doesn't seem to have slowed Clinton down one iota.
-
What the State Department considers classified is considerably different than what the Defense Department considers classified. Given the polarization of the whole thing I really sit on the fence. That said, the scandal is old news and doesn't seem to have slowed Clinton down one iota.
That has always been their prime defense. They Delay, Linger and Wait, then they obfuscate, blame others and then claim it's "Old News". How many times have we seen that play out with the Clintons?
-
What the State Department considers classified is considerably different than what the Defense Department considers classified. Given the polarization of the whole thing I really sit on the fence. That said, the scandal is old news and doesn't seem to have slowed Clinton down one iota.
That has always been their prime defense. They Delay, Linger and Wait, then they obfuscate, blame others and then claim it's "Old News". How many times have we seen that play out with the Clintons?
Why change what works?
-
If you are responding to my post, your reading comprehension is suffering. I made no value comparison between Hillary and Bernie. I am merely predicting, albeit unhappily, that the GOP seem likely to saddle us with either Hillary or the socialist because the primary voters seem likely to pick either Cruz or Trump, neither of whom is electable.
That is a ridiculous asserting given the fact we elected a far-left radical the last two elections. The idea that only a centrist can win elections is hogwash. The business as usual crowd are being proven wrong in spades so far in this election cycle. The population is tired of the ridiculous spending and governing against the will of the people. There will be a conservative in the White House following the election this fall.
-
If it does then we end up with the socialist Bernie as POTUS. There seems no hope of the GOP nominating anyone who can win in November. The best the GOP can hope for is to hold congress.
More delusional nonsense. The only difference between "Bernie" and the Mrs Clinton is Bernie admits to his far-left socialist ideology.
If you are responding to my post, your reading comprehension is suffering. I made no value comparison between Hillary and Bernie. I am merely predicting, albeit unhappily, that the GOP seem likely to saddle us with either Hillary or the socialist because the primary voters seem likely to pick either Cruz or Trump, neither of whom is electable.
Typical DNC talking point.
Just keep listening to the MSM.
-
What the State Department considers classified is considerably different than what the Defense Department considers classified. Given the polarization of the whole thing I really sit on the fence. That said, the scandal is old news and doesn't seem to have slowed Clinton down one iota.
and you say this based on your extensive experience with State Departement and DoD SCGs, right?
and why am I not surpised that you don't care about hillary's illegal activities.
-
What the State Department considers classified is considerably different than what the Defense Department considers classified. Given the polarization of the whole thing I really sit on the fence. That said, the scandal is old news and doesn't seem to have slowed Clinton down one iota.
-
Who hired that
idiot "Dude"?
"Ahhh.... I believe so.... "
"Maybe... I don't really know. "
"No.... What is the question?"
"Yea, but...."
You dumbcrats must be so proud.
-
Who hired that idiot "Dude"?
"Ahhh.... I believe so.... "
"Maybe... I don't really know. "
"No.... What is the question?"
"Yea, but...."
You dumbcrats must be so proud.
Meh, it's "Faux News." Part of the VRWC.
-
That is a ridiculous asserting given the fact we elected a far-left radical the last two elections. The idea that only a centrist can win elections is hogwash. The business as usual crowd are being proven wrong in spades so far in this election cycle. The population is tired of the ridiculous spending and governing against the will of the people. There will be a conservative in the White House following the election this fall.
I don't think it's ridiculous at all. The country hasn't changed that much in the last 8 years and there are still tons of people on the left. If you just live in an echo chamber, you're only going to hear one point of view. There is almost no one that voted for Obama last cycle that is now going to vote for Trump, or Cruz. Either one of those candidates will scare the hell out of the left and they will turn out in droves to vote fro whoever it takes to not be either one of those guys.
Conversely, Trump supporters don't really like Cruz and Cruz supporters don't really like Trump, so if Hillary gets the nod as we all know she will, it's tough to say that the conservatives will turn out in droves to defeat Hillary. Many will take their marbles and go home, or vote Libertarian if their guy doesn't end up on the ticket.
There is not a lot of unity in the right wing of American politics it seems. I personally think at this point Rubio has the best shot at defeating Hillary. Some of the Trump supporters and some of the Cruz supporters can hold their nose and get behind Rubio for the win and he is likely to be able to pull a number of "undecideds" and moderate either/or party folks. He will likely also steal some Democrats as well.
The ultimate head to head debates between Hillary and ??? and whatever happens in the news between now and then will really drive the mood of the people. Of course this is just my opinion and you have yours. Only in November will we know who is right.
-
If it does then we end up with the socialist Bernie as POTUS. There seems no hope of the GOP nominating anyone who can win in November. The best the GOP can hope for is to hold congress.
More delusional nonsense. The only difference between "Bernie" and the Mrs Clinton is Bernie admits to his far-left socialist ideology.
If you are responding to my post, your reading comprehension is suffering. I made no value comparison between Hillary and Bernie. I am merely predicting, albeit unhappily, that the GOP seem likely to saddle us with either Hillary or the socialist because the primary voters seem likely to pick either Cruz or Trump, neither of whom is electable.
Typical DNC talking point.
Just keep listening to the MSM.
Maybe the RNC is really the DNC in disguise. They don't think Trump or Cruz is electable either.
You have had your head in the echo machine for so long you can't hear or read what anyone else is saying unless is parrots one of the hysterical right-wing megaphones. If you can get from my posts that I am for the Dems, then you are suffering from some sort of dementia.
-
Reagan wasn't electable.
-
If you are responding to my post, your reading comprehension is suffering. I made no value comparison between Hillary and Bernie. I am merely predicting, albeit unhappily, that the GOP seem likely to saddle us with either Hillary or the socialist because the primary voters seem likely to pick either Cruz or Trump, neither of whom is electable.
That is a ridiculous asserting given the fact we elected a far-left radical the last two elections. The idea that only a centrist can win elections is hogwash. The business as usual crowd are being proven wrong in spades so far in this election cycle. The population is tired of the ridiculous spending and governing against the will of the people. There will be a conservative in the White House following the election this fall.
So you think that because the electorate went left in 2008 and 2012 that they are now going to come screaming back going hard conservative to the point that they will overlook the idiocy of Trump and Cruz. Talk about ridiculous. However, these are just competing opinions. Time will tell.
Your Royals have a better chance of winning the World Series in 2016 than Trump or Cruz do have being President, and no one seems to be betting on them to repeat.
-
You realize that this describes the entire social conservative wing of the Republican party as well.
I tend to (maybe wrongly) believe that Repubs are more interested in hard subject matter, but then I think of stuff like abortion, and well, yeah.
The Dems were at least, until recently anyway, smart enough to run from the gun control issue as they were getting beaten to death with it. The GOP should drop the abortion thing on the federal level and focus on the economy and defense, where there are the strongest. But I have been saying that for thirty years and nothing has changed so I don't expect it to. Reagan was the last GOP President smart enough to leave the social issues alone and focus on the big stuff.
-
The (legal) gun control issue will be a disaster for the Dems. It may lose them this election.
-
If you are responding to my post, your reading comprehension is suffering. I made no value comparison between Hillary and Bernie. I am merely predicting, albeit unhappily, that the GOP seem likely to saddle us with either Hillary or the socialist because the primary voters seem likely to pick either Cruz or Trump, neither of whom is electable.
That is a ridiculous asserting given the fact we elected a far-left radical the last two elections. The idea that only a centrist can win elections is hogwash. The business as usual crowd are being proven wrong in spades so far in this election cycle. The population is tired of the ridiculous spending and governing against the will of the people. There will be a conservative in the White House following the election this fall.
So you think that because the electorate went left in 2008 and 2012 that they are now going to come screaming back going hard conservative to the point that they will overlook the idiocy of Trump and Cruz. Talk about ridiculous. However, these are just competing opinions. Time will tell.
Your Royals have a better chance of winning the World Series in 2016 than Trump or Cruz do have being President, and no one seems to be betting on them to repeat.
We'll...you know what they say about opinions, and the incidence of specific sphincter-controlled cavities.
WTF is this stupidity about echo chambers? Just because someone disagrees with your worldview they must be some mind-numb idiot getting opinions pre-packaged from Fox News?
If you don't think the electorate has had enough of the socialist policies and governing against the will of the people over the past 7 years, then it is you who is not paying attention. The federal government is currently comprised of one ideology disguised as a two-party system, and clearly the electorate has had enough, as manifested by the overwhelming success of the candidates who are believed to be outsiders.
-
If you don't think the electorate has had enough of the socialist policies and governing against the will of the people over the past 7 years, then it is you who is not paying attention. The federal government is currently comprised of one ideology disguised as a two-party system, and clearly the electorate has had enough, as manifested by the overwhelming success of the candidates who are believed to be outsiders.
Wow, Joe. You nailed it. ^^^^^^^THIS!!!
-
Reagan wasn't electable.
No one with a middle name of Hussein would be electable either!
-
If it does then we end up with the socialist Bernie as POTUS. There seems no hope of the GOP nominating anyone who can win in November. The best the GOP can hope for is to hold congress.
More delusional nonsense. The only difference between "Bernie" and the Mrs Clinton is Bernie admits to his far-left socialist ideology.
If you are responding to my post, your reading comprehension is suffering. I made no value comparison between Hillary and Bernie. I am merely predicting, albeit unhappily, that the GOP seem likely to saddle us with either Hillary or the socialist because the primary voters seem likely to pick either Cruz or Trump, neither of whom is electable.
Typical DNC talking point.
Just keep listening to the MSM.
Maybe the RNC is really the DNC in disguise. They don't think Trump or Cruz is electable either.
You have had your head in the echo machine for so long you can't hear or read what anyone else is saying unless is parrots one of the hysterical right-wing megaphones. If you can get from my posts that I am for the Dems, then you are suffering from some sort of dementia.
DWS and the DNC are very proud of you for carrying on their talking points.
And I don't suffer from dementia, it's just easy to spot a closet liberal. Living in the Peoples Socialist Republic of California tends to cloud the mind when it comes to politics.
-
If you are responding to my post, your reading comprehension is suffering. I made no value comparison between Hillary and Bernie. I am merely predicting, albeit unhappily, that the GOP seem likely to saddle us with either Hillary or the socialist because the primary voters seem likely to pick either Cruz or Trump, neither of whom is electable.
That is a ridiculous asserting given the fact we elected a far-left radical the last two elections. The idea that only a centrist can win elections is hogwash. The business as usual crowd are being proven wrong in spades so far in this election cycle. The population is tired of the ridiculous spending and governing against the will of the people. There will be a conservative in the White House following the election this fall.
So you think that because the electorate went left in 2008 and 2012 that they are now going to come screaming back going hard conservative to the point that they will overlook the idiocy of Trump and Cruz. Talk about ridiculous. However, these are just competing opinions. Time will tell.
Your Royals have a better chance of winning the World Series in 2016 than Trump or Cruz do have being President, and no one seems to be betting on them to repeat.
We'll...you know what they say about opinions, and the incidence of specific sphincter-controlled cavities.
WTF is this stupidity about echo chambers? Just because someone disagrees with your worldview they must be some mind-numb idiot getting opinions pre-packaged from Fox News?
If you don't think the electorate has had enough of the socialist policies and governing against the will of the people over the past 7 years, then it is you who is not paying attention. The federal government is currently comprised of one ideology disguised as a two-party system, and clearly the electorate has had enough, as manifested by the overwhelming success of the candidates who are believed to be outsiders.
There you go with your ideological diarrhea which you seem determined to spew regardless of what I write. I expressed no worldview. I expressed an opinion about the mistakes of the GOP which have left the Dems in the catbird seat. Nowhere I have expressed my pleasure at that outcome or my support for either of those candidates.
I don't think that the electorate has had enough of the socialist policies. Again, I am not endorsing that, merely offering an opinion.
You are right about both parties having the same ideology. That is the ideology of getting more power for themselves and making the government larger. So far, between W and O'bummer, W is winning the race to bigger government, though not because O'bummer hasn't been trying.
-
If it does then we end up with the socialist Bernie as POTUS. There seems no hope of the GOP nominating anyone who can win in November. The best the GOP can hope for is to hold congress.
More delusional nonsense. The only difference between "Bernie" and the Mrs Clinton is Bernie admits to his far-left socialist ideology.
If you are responding to my post, your reading comprehension is suffering. I made no value comparison between Hillary and Bernie. I am merely predicting, albeit unhappily, that the GOP seem likely to saddle us with either Hillary or the socialist because the primary voters seem likely to pick either Cruz or Trump, neither of whom is electable.
Typical DNC talking point.
Just keep listening to the MSM.
Maybe the RNC is really the DNC in disguise. They don't think Trump or Cruz is electable either.
You have had your head in the echo machine for so long you can't hear or read what anyone else is saying unless is parrots one of the hysterical right-wing megaphones. If you can get from my posts that I am for the Dems, then you are suffering from some sort of dementia.
DWS and the DNC are very proud of you for carrying on their talking points.
And I don't suffer from dementia, it's just easy to spot a closet liberal. Living in the Peoples Socialist Republic of California tends to cloud the mind when it comes to politics.
I would say that it is easy to spot closet stupid too, but you aren't much in the closet about that. Keep spouting your narrow-minded BS, but don't pretend that everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is a liberal in the sense you are using the term.
I am a classic, Jeffersonian liberal. I believe in individual liberties and small federal government. 200 years ago, that was liberal. I think you believe that a liberal is the same as socialist, i.e. free stuff for the masses. If you can find anything I have posted to say I support socialism, feel free to point it out.
-
I am a classic, Jeffersonian liberal. I believe in individual liberties and small federal government. 200 years ago, that was liberal. I think you believe that a liberal is the same as socialist, i.e. free stuff for the masses. If you can find anything I have posted to say I support socialism, feel free to point it out.
Kristin,
I have read enough to know that you are telling the truth here. I have been called a liberal several times when I challenged one of the hard right ideals. Sometimes, people only remember the last thing you say. Part of the problem is that on the internet it is harder to keep track of who said what because there is no visual or audible reminders.
But I do believe you are owed an apology, even if this is the new "get tougher skin" zone.
-
I am a classic, Jeffersonian liberal. I believe in individual liberties and small federal government. 200 years ago, that was liberal. I think you believe that a liberal is the same as socialist, i.e. free stuff for the masses. If you can find anything I have posted to say I support socialism, feel free to point it out.
Kristin,
I have read enough to know that you are telling the truth here. I have been called a liberal several times when I challenged one of the hard right ideals. Sometimes, people only remember the last thing you say. Part of the problem is that on the internet it is harder to keep track of who said what because there is no visual or audible reminders.
But I do believe you are owed an apology, even if this is the new "get tougher skin" zone.
No apology here, she has her opinion, I have mine.
Spouting off DNC talking points doesn't impress me, neither does a bunch of historical babble talk.
-
If you don't think the electorate has had enough of the socialist policies and governing against the will of the people over the past 7 years, then it is you who is not paying attention. The federal government is currently comprised of one ideology disguised as a two-party system, and clearly the electorate has had enough, as manifested by the overwhelming success of the candidates who are believed to be outsiders.
Wow, Joe. You nailed it. ^^^^^^^THIS!!!
I love that sentence. I'd like to use it myself, but then Joe will probably charge me a royalty, that capitalistic pig!
-
There you go with your ideological diarrhea which you seem determined to spew regardless of what I write. I expressed no worldview. I expressed an opinion about the mistakes of the GOP which have left the Dems in the catbird seat. Nowhere I have expressed my pleasure at that outcome or my support for either of those candidates.
I don't think that the electorate has had enough of the socialist policies. Again, I am not endorsing that, merely offering an opinion.
You are right about both parties having the same ideology. That is the ideology of getting more power for themselves and making the government larger. So far, between W and O'bummer, W is winning the race to bigger government, though not because O'bummer hasn't been trying.
My response to the "echo chamber" comment was mistakenly included in message in which I replied to you. It was Dav8or that made the ridiculous echo chamber comment, not you. For that you have my apologies.
Your comments about W outspending O are mistaken. Deficit spending under O has far exceeded that of W. Just because O reduced the deficit from $400-$500B per quarter to something less certainly doesn't qualify him for any fiscal responsibility awards. Do away with the military "peace dividend" and the sequester, and our far-left president would have made W look like a spending piker. Bottom line is he had no desire to slow spending, he was forced to do so, and it's still at historic levels.
-
If you don't think the electorate has had enough of the socialist policies and governing against the will of the people over the past 7 years, then it is you who is not paying attention. The federal government is currently comprised of one ideology disguised as a two-party system, and clearly the electorate has had enough, as manifested by the overwhelming success of the candidates who are believed to be outsiders.
Wow, Joe. You nailed it. ^^^^^^^THIS!!!
I love that sentence. I'd like to use it myself, but then Joe will probably charge me a royalty, that capitalistic pig!
Stan....I have a deal for you.!!
-
If it does then we end up with the socialist Bernie as POTUS. There seems no hope of the GOP nominating anyone who can win in November. The best the GOP can hope for is to hold congress.
More delusional nonsense. The only difference between "Bernie" and the Mrs Clinton is Bernie admits to his far-left socialist ideology.
If you are responding to my post, your reading comprehension is suffering. I made no value comparison between Hillary and Bernie. I am merely predicting, albeit unhappily, that the GOP seem likely to saddle us with either Hillary or the socialist because the primary voters seem likely to pick either Cruz or Trump, neither of whom is electable.
Typical DNC talking point.
Just keep listening to the MSM.
Maybe the RNC is really the DNC in disguise. They don't think Trump or Cruz is electable either.
You have had your head in the echo machine for so long you can't hear or read what anyone else is saying unless is parrots one of the hysterical right-wing megaphones. If you can get from my posts that I am for the Dems, then you are suffering from some sort of dementia.
DWS and the DNC are very proud of you for carrying on their talking points.
And I don't suffer from dementia, it's just easy to spot a closet liberal. Living in the Peoples Socialist Republic of California tends to cloud the mind when it comes to politics.
I would say that it is easy to spot closet stupid too, but you aren't much in the closet about that. Keep spouting your narrow-minded BS, but don't pretend that everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is a liberal in the sense you are using the term.
I am a classic, Jeffersonian liberal. I believe in individual liberties and small federal government. 200 years ago, that was liberal. I think you believe that a liberal is the same as socialist, i.e. free stuff for the masses. If you can find anything I have posted to say I support socialism, feel free to point it out.
Counsellor, if that's the case, please explain your clear bias against Ted Cruz.
Let me put it differently. Of the 3 democrats and 10 or so republicans in the presidential race, which of them do you believe will, when they raise their right hand and put their left hand on the bible, faithfully:
"... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
There is only ONE Constitutionalist running for POTUS.
-
If you don't think the electorate has had enough of the socialist policies and governing against the will of the people over the past 7 years, then it is you who is not paying attention. The federal government is currently comprised of one ideology disguised as a two-party system, and clearly the electorate has had enough, as manifested by the overwhelming success of the candidates who are believed to be outsiders.
Wow, Joe. You nailed it. ^^^^^^^THIS!!!
I love that sentence. I'd like to use it myself, but then Joe will probably charge me a royalty, that capitalistic pig!
Stan....I have a deal for you.!!
If I know you, Joe, you have me pay you so much you'll be in Bernie's 90% tax bracket!
-
If I know you, Joe, you have me pay you so much you'll be in Bernie's 90% tax bracket!
so that would be, what, $100 per year?
-
If it does then we end up with the socialist Bernie as POTUS. There seems no hope of the GOP nominating anyone who can win in November. The best the GOP can hope for is to hold congress.
More delusional nonsense. The only difference between "Bernie" and the Mrs Clinton is Bernie admits to his far-left socialist ideology.
If you are responding to my post, your reading comprehension is suffering. I made no value comparison between Hillary and Bernie. I am merely predicting, albeit unhappily, that the GOP seem likely to saddle us with either Hillary or the socialist because the primary voters seem likely to pick either Cruz or Trump, neither of whom is electable.
Typical DNC talking point.
Just keep listening to the MSM.
Maybe the RNC is really the DNC in disguise. They don't think Trump or Cruz is electable either.
You have had your head in the echo machine for so long you can't hear or read what anyone else is saying unless is parrots one of the hysterical right-wing megaphones. If you can get from my posts that I am for the Dems, then you are suffering from some sort of dementia.
DWS and the DNC are very proud of you for carrying on their talking points.
And I don't suffer from dementia, it's just easy to spot a closet liberal. Living in the Peoples Socialist Republic of California tends to cloud the mind when it comes to politics.
I would say that it is easy to spot closet stupid too, but you aren't much in the closet about that. Keep spouting your narrow-minded BS, but don't pretend that everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is a liberal in the sense you are using the term.
I am a classic, Jeffersonian liberal. I believe in individual liberties and small federal government. 200 years ago, that was liberal. I think you believe that a liberal is the same as socialist, i.e. free stuff for the masses. If you can find anything I have posted to say I support socialism, feel free to point it out.
Counsellor, if that's the case, please explain your clear bias against Ted Cruz.
Let me put it differently. Of the 3 democrats and 10 or so republicans in the presidential race, which of them do you believe will, when they raise their right hand and put their left hand on the bible, faithfully:
"... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
There is only ONE Constitutionalist running for POTUS.
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
-
There you go with your ideological diarrhea which you seem determined to spew regardless of what I write. I expressed no worldview. I expressed an opinion about the mistakes of the GOP which have left the Dems in the catbird seat. Nowhere I have expressed my pleasure at that outcome or my support for either of those candidates.
I don't think that the electorate has had enough of the socialist policies. Again, I am not endorsing that, merely offering an opinion.
You are right about both parties having the same ideology. That is the ideology of getting more power for themselves and making the government larger. So far, between W and O'bummer, W is winning the race to bigger government, though not because O'bummer hasn't been trying.
My response to the "echo chamber" comment was mistakenly included in message in which I replied to you. It was Dav8or that made the ridiculous echo chamber comment, not you. For that you have my apologies.
Your comments about W outspending O are mistaken. Deficit spending under O has far exceeded that of W. Just because O reduced the deficit from $400-$500B per quarter to something less certainly doesn't qualify him for any fiscal responsibility awards. Do away with the military "peace dividend" and the sequester, and our far-left president would have made W look like a spending piker. Bottom line is he had no desire to slow spending, he was forced to do so, and it's still at historic levels.
Deficit spending has been a bipartisan past-time. O'bummer is more than a little guilty there. However, Bushie created a huge new bureaucracy(DHS); created an whole new entitlement (Medicare drug coverage); and spent a vast amount of blood and treasure on wars that were ill-advised or at least allowed to run much longer than necessary to accomplish the narrow objectives of protecting America. I am disgusted with the both of them.
-
I am a classic, Jeffersonian liberal. I believe in individual liberties and small federal government. 200 years ago, that was liberal. I think you believe that a liberal is the same as socialist, i.e. free stuff for the masses. If you can find anything I have posted to say I support socialism, feel free to point it out.
Kristin,
I have read enough to know that you are telling the truth here. I have been called a liberal several times when I challenged one of the hard right ideals. Sometimes, people only remember the last thing you say. Part of the problem is that on the internet it is harder to keep track of who said what because there is no visual or audible reminders.
But I do believe you are owed an apology, even if this is the new "get tougher skin" zone.
The term "liberal" has been deliberately demonized and the ditto-heads amongst us like to through it around with reckless abandon in the haste to spout slogan in a decidedly adolescent manner. I admit that it is easier to do that than actually think about the issues. Doing so does require a little knowledge of history. I have used to it. The guilt-ridden California "progressives" accuse me of worshiping Michael Savage and his ilk and the ditto-heads think I am a communist. It all comes from being an opinionated, pragmatic libertarian. I dislike the wing nuts on both ends of the spectrum.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."
-
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
Which bolsters his case considerably, seeing as the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."
Who ever said a lawyer has to understand the law? Hillary is a lawyer, so is Bill. BHO and his wife are also lawyers. Do you honestly think any of them really understand the law, much less the constitution?
Just sayin'............. ;)
-
Cruz is the only Constitutionalist running.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."
Who ever said a lawyer has to understand the law? Hillary is a lawyer, so is Bill. BHO and his wife are also lawyers. Do you honestly think any of them really understand the law, much less the constitution?
Just sayin'............. ;)
They understand it enough to skirt around it and use it to their advantage.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."
The Constitution merely states that there shall not be a "state" religion (like we see today in the Islamic Middle East, or in the C of E when it was written.)
It doesn't prohibit the government's elected officials being influenced by their personal religions (and secular humanism is a religion).
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."
Who ever said a lawyer has to understand the law? Hillary is a lawyer, so is Bill. BHO and his wife are also lawyers. Do you honestly think any of them really understand the law, much less the constitution?
Just sayin'............. ;)
They understand it enough to skirt around it and use it to their advantage.
True. Then again they "think" they know enough about it only to get into hot water.
-
Cruz is the only Constitutionalist running.
BINGO.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."
The Constitution merely states that there shall not be a "state" religion (like we see today in the Islamic Middle East, or in the C of E when it was written.)
It doesn't prohibit the government's elected officials being influenced by their personal religions (and secular humanism is a religion).
So is liberalism. ;)
-
Whenever anyone trouts out 'separation of church and state' when speaking about a candidate who is not a muslim that discussion is over for me - it represents such a monumental lack of critical thinking or comprehension of the founding as to be the debate equivalent of jumping the shark - there is simply no point in continuing with someone without a foundation in logic and history.
I literally lose all respect for anyone who does that on whatever subject they do it with.
'Gimp
-
Whenever anyone trouts out 'separation of church and state' when speaking about a candidate who is not a muslim that discussion is over for me - it represents such a monumental lack of critical thinking or comprehension of the founding as to be the debate equivalent of jumping the shark - there is simply no point in continuing with someone without a foundation in logic and history.
I literally lose all respect for anyone who does that on whatever subject they do it with.
'Gimp
Its been a canard for years by the left/Dems/Government/media/education cabal. They have used that lie to remove religious symbols all over the U.S. Its OK if the people that respected those symbols are offended.
-
Whenever anyone trouts out 'separation of church and state' when speaking about a candidate who is not a muslim that discussion is over for me - it represents such a monumental lack of critical thinking or comprehension of the founding as to be the debate equivalent of jumping the shark - there is simply no point in continuing with someone without a foundation in logic and history.
I literally lose all respect for anyone who does that on whatever subject they do it with.
'Gimp
Its been a canard for years by the left/Dems/Government/media/education cabal. They have used that lie to remove religious symbols all over the U.S. Its OK if the people that respected those symbols are offended.
It's clearly an effort by progressives to culturally amend the First Amendment to mean Freedom FROM Religion. Kristin obviously knows this.
-
Whenever anyone trouts out 'separation of church and state' when speaking about a candidate who is not a muslim that discussion is over for me - it represents such a monumental lack of critical thinking or comprehension of the founding as to be the debate equivalent of jumping the shark - there is simply no point in continuing with someone without a foundation in logic and history.
I literally lose all respect for anyone who does that on whatever subject they do it with.
'Gimp
Its been a canard for years by the left/Dems/Government/media/education cabal. They have used that lie to remove religious symbols all over the U.S. Its OK if the people that respected those symbols are offended.
It's clearly an effort by progressives to culturally amend the First Amendment to mean Freedom FROM Religion. Kristin obviously knows this.
Of course she does. ::)
-
Kristin wants a moderate. Apparently she is very happy with continuing to expand the debt load we bear. Perhaps she can name all the candidates vowing to get the balance into a surplus so we can start paying the debt down, let alone just get us to break even. I won't hold my breath.
The republicans put up a moderate in 2012 and he should have mopped the floor with Obama, but many Republicans stayed home.
-
How about if she mocks a cripple?
She could push a cripple off the deck of the Achille Lauro and the MSM would be in a tizzy telling us how he surely deserved it - see history of her treatment of the women who have accused her husband of misdeeds in the past.
'Gimp
PS. I do not use a wheelchair and am not a cruise fan. ;^)
Ha......
And Bill would name the new drink "two shots and a splash"... :'(
-
The latest says Hillary had emails referring to Human Intelligence assets on her server, very highly classified stuff. I hope the Russians or Chinese enjoyed reading that stuff. Why the hell has she not been indicted?
-
The latest says Hillary had emails referring to Human Intelligence assets on her server, very highly classified stuff. I hope the Russians or Chinese enjoyed reading that stuff. Why the hell has she not been indicted?
They're waiting for the optimum moment for Joe Biden to come in to save the day.
-
The latest says Hillary had emails referring to Human Intelligence assets on her server, very highly classified stuff. I hope the Russians or Chinese enjoyed reading that stuff. Why the hell has she not been indicted?
They're waiting for the optimum moment for Joe Biden to come in to save the day.
Actually, I'm not sure that far from the truth Jeff. Imagine getting the nomination without having to spend any money on primaries.
-
The latest says Hillary had emails referring to Human Intelligence assets on her server, very highly classified stuff. I hope the Russians or Chinese enjoyed reading that stuff. Why the hell has she not been indicted?
They're waiting for the optimum moment for Joe Biden to come in to save the day.
Biden's already too late to get on some ballots. Maybe Obama will run for a third term.
-
The latest says Hillary had emails referring to Human Intelligence assets on her server, very highly classified stuff. I hope the Russians or Chinese enjoyed reading that stuff. Why the hell has she not been indicted?
They're waiting for the optimum moment for Joe Biden to come in to save the day.
Biden's already too late to get on some ballots. Maybe Obama will run for a third term.
He doesn't need to participate in the primaries. Biden could be drafted at the convention.
-
The latest says Hillary had emails referring to Human Intelligence assets on her server, very highly classified stuff. I hope the Russians or Chinese enjoyed reading that stuff. Why the hell has she not been indicted?
They're waiting for the optimum moment for Joe Biden to come in to save the day.
Biden's already too late to get on some ballots. Maybe Obama will run for a third term.
He doesn't need to participate in the primaries. Biden could be drafted at the convention.
Good point.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
His statement recently in Iowa to the effect that someone is not qualified to be POTUS if they do not start the day with prayer.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."
You might start with Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) and Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Both quote Jefferson's letter to the Baptists promising a wall of separate between church and state. Then we have a whole raft to decisions from there making clear that any governmental promotion of a religion is unconstitutional.
If you have had the pleasure of taking Con Law you must have slept through it.
-
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
Which bolsters his case considerably, seeing as the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution.
See my previous response and read the case law. There are nine people in Washington that decide what the Constitution means and I am pretty sure you are not one of them.
-
Cruz is the only Constitutionalist running.
Too funny! Delusional, but funny!
-
Whenever anyone trouts out 'separation of church and state' when speaking about a candidate who is not a muslim that discussion is over for me - it represents such a monumental lack of critical thinking or comprehension of the founding as to be the debate equivalent of jumping the shark - there is simply no point in continuing with someone without a foundation in logic and history.
I literally lose all respect for anyone who does that on whatever subject they do it with.
'Gimp
Is "trout" a verb, like hitting someone with a cold fish or does it have some other philosophical meaning and rightwing-speak?
-
Kristin wants a moderate. Apparently she is very happy with continuing to expand the debt load we bear. Perhaps she can name all the candidates vowing to get the balance into a surplus so we can start paying the debt down, let alone just get us to break even. I won't hold my breath.
The republicans put up a moderate in 2012 and he should have mopped the floor with Obama, but many Republicans stayed home.
And you wonder why I am critical of the GOP and why I believe that the Dems will win the White House again. However, this time they will lose it by nominating someone who is completely unelectable.
-
His statement recently in Iowa to the effect that someone is not qualified to be POTUS if they do not start the day with prayer.
That bugged me. I want decisions made using logic and rational thought - not what a voice in someone's head says to do.
Rubio's recent ad implying he was the right choice because he had been saved by Christ was equally not what I expect when deciding who to choose.
I don't much care about their personal beliefs - it just feels odd having them thrown in our faces this way.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
His statement recently in Iowa to the effect that someone is not qualified to be POTUS if they do not start the day with prayer.
How would a statement like that (if he made such a statement) violate the words or even spirit of the first amendment?
-
His statement recently in Iowa to the effect that someone is not qualified to be POTUS if they do not start the day with prayer.
That bugged me. I want decisions made using logic and rational thought - not what a voice in someone's head says to do.
Rubio's recent ad implying he was the right choice because he had been saved by Christ was equally not what I expect when deciding who to choose.
I don't much care about their personal beliefs - it just feels odd having them thrown in our faces this way.
Why do you assume or equate prayer with voices in someone's head? That's bizarre. Isn't it possible he's asking for the strength and clarity of mind to make rational and logical decisions based on all available information?
The bigotry and hatred towards those that believe in a higher being is becoming more and more remarkable and prevalent every day. Would you accept the opposite view that nonbelievers are all heartless, morally bankrupt individuals, and therefore incapable of leadership?
-
That bugged me. I want decisions made using logic and rational thought - not what a voice in someone's head says to do.
Are you trying to say that Christians are necessarily irrational?
-
His statement recently in Iowa to the effect that someone is not qualified to be POTUS if they do not start the day with prayer.
That bugged me. I want decisions made using logic and rational thought - not what a voice in someone's head says to do.
Rubio's recent ad implying he was the right choice because he had been saved by Christ was equally not what I expect when deciding who to choose.
I don't much care about their personal beliefs - it just feels odd having them thrown in our faces this way.
Why do you assume or equate prayer with voices in someone's head? That's bizarre. Isn't it possible he's asking for the strength and clarity of mind to make rational and logical decisions based on all available information?
The bigotry and hatred towards those that believe in a higher being is becoming more and more remarkable and prevalent every day. Would you accept the opposite view that nonbelievers are all heartless, morally bankrupt individuals, and therefore incapable of leadership?
Interested to hear your reply to Joe's questions, Eddie. I think you inferred more than Rubio implied.
-
Kristin wants a moderate. Apparently she is very happy with continuing to expand the debt load we bear. Perhaps she can name all the candidates vowing to get the balance into a surplus so we can start paying the debt down, let alone just get us to break even. I won't hold my breath.
The republicans put up a moderate in 2012 and he should have mopped the floor with Obama, but many Republicans stayed home.
And you wonder why I am critical of the GOP and why I believe that the Dems will win the White House again. However, this time they will lose it by nominating someone who is completely unelectable.
I think Rubio is electable. You heard it here first :)
-
Kristin wants a moderate. Apparently she is very happy with continuing to expand the debt load we bear. Perhaps she can name all the candidates vowing to get the balance into a surplus so we can start paying the debt down, let alone just get us to break even. I won't hold my breath.
The republicans put up a moderate in 2012 and he should have mopped the floor with Obama, but many Republicans stayed home.
And you wonder why I am critical of the GOP and why I believe that the Dems will win the White House again. However, this time they will lose it by nominating someone who is completely unelectable.
I think Rubio is electable. You heard it here first :)
He is "electable" but he will not make it through the primaries.
-
I think Rubio is the only electable GOP candidate. He MUST make it onto the ticket.
-
I think Rubio is the only electable GOP candidate. He MUST make it onto the ticket.
He won't, his polling numbers confirm that.
-
Ah, another spoiler plans on entering:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html
-
Ah, another spoiler plans on entering:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html)
Man, if we could get Nanny Bloomberg and Comrade Bernie both running as independents, that would be FANTASTIC.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."
You might start with Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) and Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Both quote Jefferson's letter to the Baptists promising a wall of separate between church and state. Then we have a whole raft to decisions from there making clear that any governmental promotion of a religion is unconstitutional.
If you have had the pleasure of taking Con Law you must have slept through it.
Oooh. Landmark cases. Impressive. Now tell me one thing that Cruz has proposed that violates Jefferson's metaphor of the "wall of separation."
And your lame claim of what he said in Iowa isn't one of them.
Why is it so tough to just admit that you want the First Amendment to mean a Freedom FROM Religion?
-
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
Which bolsters his case considerably, seeing as the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution.
See my previous response and read the case law. There are nine people in Washington that decide what the Constitution means and I am pretty sure you are not one of them.
So unless the Supremes rule on a law, it's a free-for-all in the Legislative and Executive branches? That doesn't sound like Preserving, Protecting, and Defending the Constitution to me.
-
See my previous response and read the case law. There are nine people in Washington that decide what the Constitution means and I am pretty sure you are not one of them.
Can you cite the text of the Constitution that vests these nine people with that power?
-
His statement recently in Iowa to the effect that someone is not qualified to be POTUS if they do not start the day with prayer.
That bugged me. I want decisions made using logic and rational thought - not what a voice in someone's head says to do.
Rubio's recent ad implying he was the right choice because he had been saved by Christ was equally not what I expect when deciding who to choose.
I don't much care about their personal beliefs - it just feels odd having them thrown in our faces this way.
Why do you assume or equate prayer with voices in someone's head? That's bizarre. Isn't it possible he's asking for the strength and clarity of mind to make rational and logical decisions based on all available information?
The bigotry and hatred towards those that believe in a higher being is becoming more and more remarkable and prevalent every day. Would you accept the opposite view that nonbelievers are all heartless, morally bankrupt individuals, and therefore incapable of leadership?
People like Kristin and Eddie seem to wish to violate Article VI, Clause 3 by imposing a Religious test - except they are demanding a LACK of Religion as their test for federal office.
-
I think Rubio is the only electable GOP candidate. He MUST make it onto the ticket.
He won't, his polling numbers confirm that.
I think he can. He's my #2 choice at this point, and I think there is going to be a lot of fluidity in the coming 3 months, especially when Trump's non-conservative bona fides are exposed.
-
See my previous response and read the case law. There are nine people in Washington that decide what the Constitution means and I am pretty sure you are not one of them.
Can you cite the text of the Constitution that vests these nine people with that power?
They have that power unless they vote for the 2nd Amendment (Heller; McDonald) or the 1st Amendment (Citizens United). Then they're unqualified right wing activists.
Didn't you read the liberal talking points yet, Jeff?
-
I always like when people trot out the "separation of church and state". The reason being is that it exemplifies what I call the "sound bite Constitution".
The phrase doesn't exist. It doesn't even originate from someone involved with the drafting of either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Jefferson (where the phrase originated) was in France when the Constitution was written, and was not in Congress, but was Secretary of State when the Bill of Rights was drafted and ratified. He had zero involvement in the situation. Not only that, at the time he wrote it, it was flatly false. Several states had established religions, including Maryland (Catholic) and Virginia (Anglican). The 1st Amendment, by its very terms, does not apply to the "states". That application came not in the 18th Century, nor even the 19th Century (although the mechanism for application came into being during the 19th Century), but came in the 20th century, a rather recent development.
-
I always like when people trot out the "separation of church and state". The reason being is that it exemplifies what I call the "sound bite Constitution".
The phrase doesn't exist. It doesn't even originate from someone involved with the drafting of either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Jefferson (where the phrase originated) was in France when the Constitution was written, and was not in Congress, but was Secretary of State when the Bill of Rights was drafted and ratified. He had zero involvement in the situation. Not only that, at the time he wrote it, it was flatly false. Several states had established religions, including Maryland (Catholic) and Virginia (Anglican). The 1st Amendment, by its very terms, does not apply to the "states". That application came not in the 18th Century, nor even the 19th Century (although the mechanism for application came into being during the 19th Century), but came in the 20th century, a rather recent development.
Exactly. It has been bastardized by the Supremes and other activist courts who have read into it what isn't there. Kind of like Roberts' reading of a tax instead of a fine to try to make the ACA "Constitutional."
-
I think Rubio is electable. You heard it here first :)
I think he is too. I think he is the GOP's best shot at this point, but sadly, the conservative constituents seem to mostly favor Trump, or Cruz. I hate to say it, but it's all setting up to be another Clinton win. However, a lot can change between now and November.
-
I think Rubio is electable. You heard it here first :)
I think he is too. I think he is the GOP's best shot at this point, but sadly, the conservative constituents seem to mostly favor Trump, or Cruz. I hate to say it, but it's all setting up to be another Clinton win. However, a lot can change between now and November.
If Clinton makes it to the convention and has enough delegates for the nomination, Sanders will give the DNC a middle finger and run as an Independent. This will split the vote and put the Republican nominee in the WH. Now Bloomberg is making noise he may jump in as an Independent will further dilute the vote for the democrats.
The other scenario is Hillary doesn't make it, the convention happens and the DNC (in desperation) drafts Biden. Then Bernie does his thing and Bloomberg jumps in as well.
The DNC is facing a long uphill battle this time. They pinned their hopes on HRC and presumed it to be her coronation. Little did they realize (a) The public is sick and tired of "establishment" politicians, and (b) The appeal of "outsiders" to the voting public.
-
I think Rubio is the only electable GOP candidate. He MUST make it onto the ticket.
He won't, his polling numbers confirm that.
I think he can. He's my #2 choice at this point, and I think there is going to be a lot of fluidity in the coming 3 months, especially when Trump's non-conservative bona fides are exposed.
Short of drafting him at the convention (that would never happen) he just doesn't stand a chance of garnering enough delegates.
The fluidity will start evaporating with Iowa and New Hampshire. At that point Trump will begin an upswing and close the deal on the delegate count by Super Tuesday.
-
His statement recently in Iowa to the effect that someone is not qualified to be POTUS if they do not start the day with prayer.
I just took that to mean that he thought people should look into themselves to try to do what is "right".
I don't care if a person is religious, or atheist, or somewhere in between. But I do want someone with a conscience and that will always try to do what is right. If they believe that prayer will help them come to that decision, so be it.
-
His statement recently in Iowa to the effect that someone is not qualified to be POTUS if they do not start the day with prayer.
I just took that to mean that he thought people should look into themselves to try to do what is "right".
I don't care if a person is religious, or atheist, or somewhere in between. But I do want someone with a conscience and that will always try to do what is right. If they believe that prayer will help them come to that decision, so be it.
No, John. You're not looking at it correctly. Cruz is writing into law the the POTUS must pray every day, and it must be a Christian prayer. That's why he is unelectable, because he is so wildly violating the Constitution.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
His statement recently in Iowa to the effect that someone is not qualified to be POTUS if they do not start the day with prayer.
How would a statement like that (if he made such a statement) violate the words or even spirit of the first amendment?
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."
You might start with Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) and Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Both quote Jefferson's letter to the Baptists promising a wall of separate between church and state. Then we have a whole raft to decisions from there making clear that any governmental promotion of a religion is unconstitutional.
If you have had the pleasure of taking Con Law you must have slept through it.
Oooh. Landmark cases. Impressive. Now tell me one thing that Cruz has proposed that violates Jefferson's metaphor of the "wall of separation."
And your lame claim of what he said in Iowa isn't one of them.
Why is it so tough to just admit that you want the First Amendment to mean a Freedom FROM Religion?
It does mean freedom from state supported religion.
-
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
Which bolsters his case considerably, seeing as the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution.
See my previous response and read the case law. There are nine people in Washington that decide what the Constitution means and I am pretty sure you are not one of them.
So unless the Supremes rule on a law, it's a free-for-all in the Legislative and Executive branches? That doesn't sound like Preserving, Protecting, and Defending the Constitution to me.
I am not sure what point you are making here. The Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the Constitution means when there is a an ambiguity that needs to be resolved.
-
See my previous response and read the case law. There are nine people in Washington that decide what the Constitution means and I am pretty sure you are not one of them.
Can you cite the text of the Constitution that vests these nine people with that power?
It is not in the Constitution. It was a nice little power grab by Chief Justice Marshall in 1803 in the case of Marbury v. Madison. Arguably, he fixed an omission in the Constitution and the rest of the country has gone along with it for 212 years because it works. It is now thoroughly enshrined in our culture.
-
His statement recently in Iowa to the effect that someone is not qualified to be POTUS if they do not start the day with prayer.
That bugged me. I want decisions made using logic and rational thought - not what a voice in someone's head says to do.
Rubio's recent ad implying he was the right choice because he had been saved by Christ was equally not what I expect when deciding who to choose.
I don't much care about their personal beliefs - it just feels odd having them thrown in our faces this way.
Why do you assume or equate prayer with voices in someone's head? That's bizarre. Isn't it possible he's asking for the strength and clarity of mind to make rational and logical decisions based on all available information?
The bigotry and hatred towards those that believe in a higher being is becoming more and more remarkable and prevalent every day. Would you accept the opposite view that nonbelievers are all heartless, morally bankrupt individuals, and therefore incapable of leadership?
People like Kristin and Eddie seem to wish to violate Article VI, Clause 3 by imposing a Religious test - except they are demanding a LACK of Religion as their test for federal office.
Con Law lesson #1: The Constitution applies to government actions, not private ones. You are free to make your decisions and vote on any basis upon which your little heart desires. The Constitution is irrelevant to that.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."
You might start with Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) and Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Both quote Jefferson's letter to the Baptists promising a wall of separate between church and state. Then we have a whole raft to decisions from there making clear that any governmental promotion of a religion is unconstitutional.
If you have had the pleasure of taking Con Law you must have slept through it.
Oooh. Landmark cases. Impressive. Now tell me one thing that Cruz has proposed that violates Jefferson's metaphor of the "wall of separation."
And your lame claim of what he said in Iowa isn't one of them.
Why is it so tough to just admit that you want the First Amendment to mean a Freedom FROM Religion?
It does mean freedom from state supported religion.
Duh. Any 8th grader should know that. But that's not what concerns you in Cruz's case, is it?
-
See my previous response and read the case law. There are nine people in Washington that decide what the Constitution means and I am pretty sure you are not one of them.
Can you cite the text of the Constitution that vests these nine people with that power?
They have that power unless they vote for the 2nd Amendment (Heller; McDonald) or the 1st Amendment (Citizens United). Then they're unqualified right wing activists.
Didn't you read the liberal talking points yet, Jeff?
Just remember that the next time the Supremes uphold Roe v. Wade or rebuff all attempts to put prayer in the public schools and the conservatives go apoplectic.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."
You might start with Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) and Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Both quote Jefferson's letter to the Baptists promising a wall of separate between church and state. Then we have a whole raft to decisions from there making clear that any governmental promotion of a religion is unconstitutional.
If you have had the pleasure of taking Con Law you must have slept through it.
Oooh. Landmark cases. Impressive. Now tell me one thing that Cruz has proposed that violates Jefferson's metaphor of the "wall of separation."
And your lame claim of what he said in Iowa isn't one of them.
Why is it so tough to just admit that you want the First Amendment to mean a Freedom FROM Religion?
It does mean freedom from state supported religion.
Duh. Any 8th grader should know that. But that's not what concerns you in Cruz's case, is it?
My concern with Cruz is either that he is pandering or that he is a Christian bigot who thinks science is a waste of time because all answers to our existence is in Genesis.
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
OMG!!!! He might be a, gasp!, Christian.
Hide the children
Hide the silverware.
good grief.
Your anti-Christian bigotry is ugly.
-
Ah, another spoiler plans on entering:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html)
... Nanny Bloomberg...
Mark Steyn cracks me up.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."
You might start with Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) and Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Both quote Jefferson's letter to the Baptists promising a wall of separate between church and state. Then we have a whole raft to decisions from there making clear that any governmental promotion of a religion is unconstitutional.
If you have had the pleasure of taking Con Law you must have slept through it.
Oooh. Landmark cases. Impressive. Now tell me one thing that Cruz has proposed that violates Jefferson's metaphor of the "wall of separation."
And your lame claim of what he said in Iowa isn't one of them.
Why is it so tough to just admit that you want the First Amendment to mean a Freedom FROM Religion?
It does mean freedom from state supported religion.
Duh. Any 8th grader should know that. But that's not what concerns you in Cruz's case, is it?
My concern with Cruz is either that he is pandering or that he is a Christian bigot who thinks science is a waste of time because all answers to our existence is in Genesis.
So your concerns changed from post #47 when you said Cruz is not a Constitutionalist because he doesn't understand the separation of church and state? Because that was kind of the point of this whole discussion, wasn't it?
Can you fill me in on what Cruz has said that makes him a "Christian bigot?" I don't think you've articulated that yet.
While you're at it, can you cite any statement of Cruz where he said or implied that "science is a waste of time"? Or can we conclude that you're so bigoted against all Christians that you are simply projecting your hatred toward a candidate that you despise, who happens to be Christian?
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything. Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator?
Hmmmmm...
Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....
Very disappointing Kristin.
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything. Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator?
Hmmmmm...
Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....
Very disappointing Kristin.
Oh, come on. You forgot all about the 9 cases that Obama argued before the Supreme Court. Oh, wait....
Far right wing Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz called Cruz one of his most brilliant students.
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything. Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator?
Hmmmmm...
Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....
Very disappointing Kristin.
Oh, come on. You forgot all about the 9 cases that Obama argued before the Supreme Court. Oh, wait....
Far right wing Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz called Cruz one of his most brilliant students.
All true...but he's "scary" to some. ???
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything. Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator?
Hmmmmm...
Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....
Very disappointing Kristin.
Oh, come on. You forgot all about the 9 cases that Obama argued before the Supreme Court. Oh, wait....
Far right wing Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz called Cruz one of his most brilliant students.
All true...but he's "scary" to some. ???
And the uninformed panty wetters' vote counts the same as mine.
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
OMG!!!! He might be a, gasp!, Christian.
Hide the children
Hide the silverware.
good grief.
Your anti-Christian bigotry is ugly.
Nope! Just anti-fundamentalist when it comes to picking a President.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."
You might start with Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) and Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Both quote Jefferson's letter to the Baptists promising a wall of separate between church and state. Then we have a whole raft to decisions from there making clear that any governmental promotion of a religion is unconstitutional.
If you have had the pleasure of taking Con Law you must have slept through it.
Oooh. Landmark cases. Impressive. Now tell me one thing that Cruz has proposed that violates Jefferson's metaphor of the "wall of separation."
And your lame claim of what he said in Iowa isn't one of them.
Why is it so tough to just admit that you want the First Amendment to mean a Freedom FROM Religion?
It does mean freedom from state supported religion.
Duh. Any 8th grader should know that. But that's not what concerns you in Cruz's case, is it?
My concern with Cruz is either that he is pandering or that he is a Christian bigot who thinks science is a waste of time because all answers to our existence is in Genesis.
So your concerns changed from post #47 when you said Cruz is not a Constitutionalist because he doesn't understand the separation of church and state? Because that was kind of the point of this whole discussion, wasn't it?
Can you fill me in on what Cruz has said that makes him a "Christian bigot?" I don't think you've articulated that yet.
While you're at it, can you cite any statement of Cruz where he said or implied that "science is a waste of time"? Or can we conclude that you're so bigoted against all Christians that you are simply projecting your hatred toward a candidate that you despise, who happens to be Christian?
I consider a statement saying that if you don't start the day praying that you are not fit to be President a pretty good example of bigotry.
Cruz has spend lots of time getting cozy with the creationist crowd. I recall him being asked if he accepted any aspects of evolution and he ducked the question. It is a fair one considering his father is an outspoken support of creationist theory ala Genesis.
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything. Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator?
Hmmmmm...
Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....
Very disappointing Kristin.
A scholar he is not. A scholar studies. Cruz argues that the Constitution should mean what he wants it to mean. I good trait in an appellate litigator, but that does not make him a scholar.
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything. Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator?
Hmmmmm...
Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....
Very disappointing Kristin.
Oh, come on. You forgot all about the 9 cases that Obama argued before the Supreme Court. Oh, wait....
Far right wing Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz called Cruz one of his most brilliant students.
You better check your facts or do a better job of sarcasm. Dershowitz is so far from far right that he is a liberal. Dershowitz's political views have little to do with his opinion of Cruz's intelligence, one way or the other. But even very bright people do very stupid things as few are brilliant in all facets of intelligence.
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything. Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator?
Hmmmmm...
Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....
Very disappointing Kristin.
A scholar he is not. A scholar studies. Cruz argues that the Constitution should mean what he wants it to mean. I good trait in an appellate litigator, but that does not make him a scholar.
Interesting argument Kristin..... I suppose it's possible Mr Cruz gained his deep and thorough understanding of our founding documents and subsequent case law through osmosis, but I have to tell you, I think it highly unlikely. Do you suppose he just "winged it" when aurguing before the Supreme Court?
Seeing you bob and weave, while parsing words in your attempt to wiggle out of a failed position is a thing of beauty. I truly enjoy your posts, and am glad you've chosen to participate in this little corner of paradise. Be well on this glorious day of worship. ;D
-
Cruz has spend lots of time getting cozy with the creationist crowd. I recall him being asked if he accepted any aspects of evolution and he ducked the question. It is a fair one considering his father is an outspoken support of creationist theory ala Genesis.
Why hasn't the "homosexual gene" been bred out of the species?
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything. Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator?
Hmmmmm...
Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....
Very disappointing Kristin.
A scholar he is not. A scholar studies. Cruz argues that the Constitution should mean what he wants it to mean. I good trait in an appellate litigator, but that does not make him a scholar.
LMAO, it was OK when it was "Constitutional scholar" BH O'Bama.
-
LMAO, it was OK when it was "Constitutional scholar" BH O'Bama.
Another trait of the liberals is to degrade anyone who is conservative, mock them as being stupid, uneducated and devoid of anything intelligent.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."
You might start with Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) and Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Both quote Jefferson's letter to the Baptists promising a wall of separate between church and state. Then we have a whole raft to decisions from there making clear that any governmental promotion of a religion is unconstitutional.
If you have had the pleasure of taking Con Law you must have slept through it.
Oooh. Landmark cases. Impressive. Now tell me one thing that Cruz has proposed that violates Jefferson's metaphor of the "wall of separation."
And your lame claim of what he said in Iowa isn't one of them.
Why is it so tough to just admit that you want the First Amendment to mean a Freedom FROM Religion?
It does mean freedom from state supported religion.
Duh. Any 8th grader should know that. But that's not what concerns you in Cruz's case, is it?
My concern with Cruz is either that he is pandering or that he is a Christian bigot who thinks science is a waste of time because all answers to our existence is in Genesis.
So your concerns changed from post #47 when you said Cruz is not a Constitutionalist because he doesn't understand the separation of church and state? Because that was kind of the point of this whole discussion, wasn't it?
Can you fill me in on what Cruz has said that makes him a "Christian bigot?" I don't think you've articulated that yet.
While you're at it, can you cite any statement of Cruz where he said or implied that "science is a waste of time"? Or can we conclude that you're so bigoted against all Christians that you are simply projecting your hatred toward a candidate that you despise, who happens to be Christian?
I consider a statement saying that if you don't start the day praying that you are not fit to be President a pretty good example of bigotry.
Cruz has spend lots of time getting cozy with the creationist crowd. I recall him being asked if he accepted any aspects of evolution and he ducked the question. It is a fair one considering his father is an outspoken support of creationist theory ala Genesis.
Got it. So just to clarify, your hatred of Cruz has nothing to do with your belief that he is not a Constitutionalist and that he doesn't understand the First Amendment, as you stated, and everything to do with your own anti- Christian bigotry.
Thanks for the explanation.
-
Got it. So just to clarify, your hatred of Cruz has nothing to do with your belief that he is not a Constitutionalist and that he doesn't understand the First Amendment, as you stated, and everything to do with your own anti- Christian bigotry.
Thanks for the explanation.
Ding ding ding........We have a winner!
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything. Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator?
Hmmmmm...
Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....
Very disappointing Kristin.
A scholar he is not. A scholar studies. Cruz argues that the Constitution should mean what he wants it to mean. I good trait in an appellate litigator, but that does not make him a scholar.
Once again, evidence of his revisionist position on the Constitution would be nice.
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything. Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator?
Hmmmmm...
Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....
Very disappointing Kristin.
Oh, come on. You forgot all about the 9 cases that Obama argued before the Supreme Court. Oh, wait....
Far right wing Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz called Cruz one of his most brilliant students.
You better check your facts or do a better job of sarcasm. Dershowitz is so far from far right that he is a liberal. Dershowitz's political views have little to do with his opinion of Cruz's intelligence, one way or the other. But even very bright people do very stupid things as few are brilliant in all facets of intelligence.
It was sarcasm. I'm sorry you thought that I was serious when I said Dershowitz was far right wing. I thought everyone would have been able to see that, as that sarcasm was the point of the sentence. My mistake.
.
-
It was sarcasm. I'm sorry you thought that I was serious when I said Dershowitz was far right wing. I thought everyone would have been able to see that, as that sarcasm was the point of the sentence. My mistake.
You know that humour is always racist or sexist or some -ist.
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything. Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator?
Hmmmmm...
Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....
Very disappointing Kristin.
A scholar he is not. A scholar studies. Cruz argues that the Constitution should mean what he wants it to mean. I good trait in an appellate litigator, but that does not make him a scholar.
Once again, evidence of his revisionist position on the Constitution would be nice.
Lawyers need not provide evidence when they are making an argument, no matter how silly or irrelevant their argument becomes. Put the term "progressive" in there along with their "lawyer" title and their arguments become superior, period.
Then cloak it behind "I'm actually a moderate".
See how that works? ::)
-
LMAO, it was OK when it was "Constitutional scholar" BH O'Bama.
Another trait of the liberals is to degrade anyone who is conservative, mock them as being stupid, uneducated and devoid of anything intelligent.
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #5 and 13:
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
-
LMAO, it was OK when it was "Constitutional scholar" BH O'Bama.
Another trait of the liberals is to degrade anyone who is conservative, mock them as being stupid, uneducated and devoid of anything intelligent.
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #5 and 13:
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_denial
-
Cruz argues that the Constitution should mean what he wants it to mean. I good trait in an appellate litigator, but that does not make him a scholar.
I think everybody does that. The document is only about 4500 words. That's like a 22 page 8 1/2" x 11" booklet to run the USA with. People say, if it's not in the constitution, then it's not legal, but there really isn't that much in the constitution, so it's more like everything is legal until the SCOTUS says it isn't.
Of course, in every legal challenge, there is going to be a winner and a loser and the winners are going to herald the decision as truth and gospel and the losers are going to stamp their feet and say the justices were biased, corrupted and "activist". I'm certain this has always been the case, even 200 years ago. What matters is, the republic survives the decision and we all live by it.
My wife has a litmus test for presidential candidates. The type of Supreme Court Justice they are likely to nominate, because that is the most important, long lasting and real thing a president does. All the blah, blah, blah about the economy, national security, foreign relations, immigration, the national debt, it's all campaign lies and usually amounts to nothing, but the justices they appoint really do matter.
I suspect you would really not like the justices Cruz would pick. I'm not sure I would either. I'm still hoping for Rubio to somehow gain traction and rise up, but it looks like false hope at the moment.
-
Another trait of the liberals is to degrade anyone who is conservative, mock them as being stupid, uneducated and devoid of anything intelligent.
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #5 and 13:
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
[/quote]
Seriously, these are tactics I see conservatives using all the time in debate and on forums like these. I've never heard of Alinsky, or his rules.
-
Another trait of the liberals is to degrade anyone who is conservative, mock them as being stupid, uneducated and devoid of anything intelligent.
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #5 and 13:
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Seriously, these are tactics I see conservatives using all the time in debate and on forums like these. I've never heard of Alinsky, or his rules.
[/quote]
another tactic is projection.
-
Another trait of the liberals is to degrade anyone who is conservative, mock them as being stupid, uneducated and devoid of anything intelligent.
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #5 and 13:
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Seriously, these are tactics I see conservatives using all the time in debate and on forums like these. I've never heard of Alinsky, or his rules.
[/quote]
Seriously? You need to get out more.
Here is a primer for POTUS' playbook:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
-
Another trait of the liberals is to degrade anyone who is conservative, mock them as being stupid, uneducated and devoid of anything intelligent.
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #5 and 13:
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
I've never heard of Alinsky, or his rules.
[/quote]
Seriously? Have you been sleeping for the last 8 years?
-
Alinsky's Rules are Obama's playbook, supplemented by Wright and Louie, and input from Jarrett, who likes Mao.
-
Another trait of the liberals is to degrade anyone who is conservative, mock them as being stupid, uneducated and devoid of anything intelligent.
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #5 and 13:
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
I've never heard of Alinsky, or his rules.
Seriously? Have you been sleeping for the last 8 years?
[/quote]
Dave's from the People's Republic of Kalifornia. Instead of teaching the 3 "R"s, they just fold one more "R" into the curriculum: reading, riting, rithmatic, and radicalism.
Warning: For anyone lacking humor or who hasn't picked up on it, this was what we call "sarcasm."
-
I think everybody does that. The document is only about 4500 words. That's like a 22 page 8 1/2" x 11" booklet to run the USA with. People say, if it's not in the constitution, then it's not legal, but there really isn't that much in the constitution, so it's more like everything is legal until the SCOTUS says it isn't.
Actually, the "If it's not in the constitution, it's not legal" is a federal thing, and is explicitly stated:
Amendment XThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So, if it doesn't say the feds can do it, by the express terms of the Constitution, they cannot.
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything. Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator?
Hmmmmm...
Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....
Very disappointing Kristin.
A scholar he is not. A scholar studies. Cruz argues that the Constitution should mean what he wants it to mean. I good trait in an appellate litigator, but that does not make him a scholar.
Interesting argument Kristin..... I suppose it's possible Mr Cruz gained his deep and thorough understanding of our founding documents and subsequent case law through osmosis, but I have to tell you, I think it highly unlikely. Do you suppose he just "winged it" when aurguing before the Supreme Court?
Seeing you bob and weave, while parsing words in your attempt to wiggle out of a failed position is a thing of beauty. I truly enjoy your posts, and am glad you've chosen to participate in this little corner of paradise. Be well on this glorious day of worship. ;D
The Constitution is not a magic oracle that answers all questions precisely. It is a document of principles whose application and interpretation morphs with time. I know, that is waving more red meat, but it is a reality. The Constitution has been morphing for about 227 years. It could not have been otherwise. As such, everyone brings their viewpoints to the table and argues that the Constitution supports their view. Cruz of course has an excellent understanding of how previous courts have ruled on these issues. It is a predicate to arguing your position. I have yet to find someone who changed their personal political philosophy based on reading some SCOTUS decision or other.
I have no position to fail at other than my opinion of Ted Cruz and that has not failed as it has not changed. Some times an opinion is just an opinion. If you can get me to change it, then good on you, but you haven't got close to the mark yet.
-
Cruz has spend lots of time getting cozy with the creationist crowd. I recall him being asked if he accepted any aspects of evolution and he ducked the question. It is a fair one considering his father is an outspoken support of creationist theory ala Genesis.
Why hasn't the "homosexual gene" been bred out of the species?
What makes you think it is a gene? That would be the first part of that equation. It may be be a result of conditions in utero such as hormones, stress, etc. If it is a gene, it may be because homosexuals typically did breed as society strongly pressured them to get married and have kids. It would be ironic if by the act of granting gay rights that it does result in the gene dying out.
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything. Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator?
Hmmmmm...
Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....
Very disappointing Kristin.
A scholar he is not. A scholar studies. Cruz argues that the Constitution should mean what he wants it to mean. I good trait in an appellate litigator, but that does not make him a scholar.
LMAO, it was OK when it was "Constitutional scholar" BH O'Bama.
I invite you to scour the internet to find where I have attributed any such august achievement upon Obama. You won't find it. You also won't find much that I have said about him that is complementary in any fashion.
-
[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?
Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."
You might start with Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) and Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Both quote Jefferson's letter to the Baptists promising a wall of separate between church and state. Then we have a whole raft to decisions from there making clear that any governmental promotion of a religion is unconstitutional.
If you have had the pleasure of taking Con Law you must have slept through it.
Oooh. Landmark cases. Impressive. Now tell me one thing that Cruz has proposed that violates Jefferson's metaphor of the "wall of separation."
And your lame claim of what he said in Iowa isn't one of them.
Why is it so tough to just admit that you want the First Amendment to mean a Freedom FROM Religion?
It does mean freedom from state supported religion.
Duh. Any 8th grader should know that. But that's not what concerns you in Cruz's case, is it?
My concern with Cruz is either that he is pandering or that he is a Christian bigot who thinks science is a waste of time because all answers to our existence is in Genesis.
So your concerns changed from post #47 when you said Cruz is not a Constitutionalist because he doesn't understand the separation of church and state? Because that was kind of the point of this whole discussion, wasn't it?
Can you fill me in on what Cruz has said that makes him a "Christian bigot?" I don't think you've articulated that yet.
While you're at it, can you cite any statement of Cruz where he said or implied that "science is a waste of time"? Or can we conclude that you're so bigoted against all Christians that you are simply projecting your hatred toward a candidate that you despise, who happens to be Christian?
I consider a statement saying that if you don't start the day praying that you are not fit to be President a pretty good example of bigotry.
Cruz has spend lots of time getting cozy with the creationist crowd. I recall him being asked if he accepted any aspects of evolution and he ducked the question. It is a fair one considering his father is an outspoken support of creationist theory ala Genesis.
Got it. So just to clarify, your hatred of Cruz has nothing to do with your belief that he is not a Constitutionalist and that he doesn't understand the First Amendment, as you stated, and everything to do with your own anti- Christian bigotry.
Thanks for the explanation.
I don't hate Cruz. I don't know him. I have never met the man. You are creating a straw man to argue against. I dislike his Christian bigotry. His statements strongly suggest that his view of the Establishment Clause is in variance with my understanding of the Founding Fathers and the principles that guided them. I trust that Cruz would have a counter-argument to that. In the end, who SCOTUS interprets the Establishment clause will have something to do with how America as a whole feels about it.
If you want to be entirely correct, thought perhaps you will not gain the rhetorical pleasure you seem to be seeking, you should refer to me as an anti-fundamentalist bigot. I don't limit myself to Christianity in that. I don't like fundamentalist Jews, Muslims, etc.
-
Rubio Crushes Clinton in Minnesota!
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/rubio-crushes-clinton-in-minnesota.php (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/rubio-crushes-clinton-in-minnesota.php)
-
The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions. It does give an insight into his mind however. A very scary look at that.
I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything. Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator?
Hmmmmm...
Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....
Very disappointing Kristin.
A scholar he is not. A scholar studies. Cruz argues that the Constitution should mean what he wants it to mean. I good trait in an appellate litigator, but that does not make him a scholar.
Interesting argument Kristin..... I suppose it's possible Mr Cruz gained his deep and thorough understanding of our founding documents and subsequent case law through osmosis, but I have to tell you, I think it highly unlikely. Do you suppose he just "winged it" when aurguing before the Supreme Court?
Seeing you bob and weave, while parsing words in your attempt to wiggle out of a failed position is a thing of beauty. I truly enjoy your posts, and am glad you've chosen to participate in this little corner of paradise. Be well on this glorious day of worship. ;D
The Constitution has been morphing for about 227 years.
Really? Last amendment- 26th- was 45 years ago (27th in '92 doesn't affect most of us).
-
The Constitution is not a magic oracle that answers all questions precisely. It is a document of principles whose application and interpretation morphs with time. I know, that is waving more red meat, but it is a reality. The Constitution has been morphing for about 227 years. It could not have been otherwise. As such, everyone brings their viewpoints to the table and argues that the Constitution supports their view. Cruz of course has an excellent understanding of how previous courts have ruled on these issues. It is a predicate to arguing your position. I have yet to find someone who changed their personal political philosophy based on reading some SCOTUS decision or other.
I have no position to fail at other than my opinion of Ted Cruz and that has not failed as it has not changed. Some times an opinion is just an opinion. If you can get me to change it, then good on you, but you haven't got close to the mark yet.
No worries Kristin. I wouldn't dream of changing your mind on anything. Is your statement about "waiving red meat" a concession that you know your position on constitutional matters is well beyond the founding principles and original intent of the founders? The Constitution may not be a magic oracle, but it has severed us well for over 225 years and is very explicit in at least two areas often discussed here. "....shall not be infringed." and "Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....". I see absolutely no ambiguity, yet certain groups of ideologues have done a remarkable job of convincing the ill-informed or those that are too lazy to read the documents that the language is somehow different than written.
The fact that some are scared of religion or guns, doesn't give them the right to violate that which was given to us; which is a remarkable system of government. Confirming politicians to the Supreme Court (such as Roberts with Obamacare), or allowing the Executive branch to rule by fiat is an affront to the balance of powers the founders gave us. They gave us a means to make changes in the Constitution, yet some seem to accept these lawless activities as long as they appease their ideology. That is a slippery slope that will result in a complete failure of our government. It's sad (and borders on treason) that some are willing to make that trade.
-
Well said Joe, very well said. You get it.
-
I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything. Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator?
Hmmmmm...
Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....
Very disappointing Kristin.
A scholar he is not. A scholar studies. Cruz argues that the Constitution should mean what he wants it to mean. I good trait in an appellate litigator, but that does not make him a scholar.
Interesting argument Kristin..... I suppose it's possible Mr Cruz gained his deep and thorough understanding of our founding documents and subsequent case law through osmosis, but I have to tell you, I think it highly unlikely. Do you suppose he just "winged it" when aurguing before the Supreme Court?
Seeing you bob and weave, while parsing words in your attempt to wiggle out of a failed position is a thing of beauty. I truly enjoy your posts, and am glad you've chosen to participate in this little corner of paradise. Be well on this glorious day of worship. ;D
The Constitution has been morphing for about 227 years.
Really? Last amendment- 26th- was 45 years ago (27th in '92 doesn't affect most of us).
It morphs with interpretations. For example, before 1914, the government could raid your house, find evidence against you, and then convict you and your only recourse was to sue the police. Of course, you were broke and in prison so that wasn't going to do much for you. After the SCOTUS decision in Weeks v. U.S. we got the exclusionary rule to keep the police honest, so to speak. You won't find the exclusionary rule written into the Constitution. There are many others.
-
No worries Kristin. I wouldn't dream of changing your mind on anything. Is your statement about "waiving red meat" a concession that you know your position on constitutional matters is well beyond the founding principles and original intent of the founders? The Constitution may not be a magic oracle, but it has severed us well for over 225 years and is very explicit in at least two areas often discussed here. "....shall not be infringed." and "Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....". I see absolutely no ambiguity, yet certain groups of ideologues have done a remarkable job of convincing the ill-informed or those that are too lazy to read the documents that the language is somehow different than written.
The fact that some are scared of religion or guns, doesn't give them the right to violate that which was given to us. which is a remarkable system of government. Confirming politicians to the Supreme Court (such as Roberts with Obamacare), or allowing the Executive branch to rule by fiat is an affront to the balance of powers the founders gave us. They gave us a means to make changes in the Constitution, yet some seem to accept these lawless activity as long as they appease their ideology. That is a slippery slope that will result in a complete failure of our government. It's sad (and borders on treason) that some are willing to make that trade.
My comment about waving red meat was an acknowledgement of the prevailing opinions expressed in this thread.
We agree that the Constitution is an amazing document and that our form of government is the greatest on earth. I also agree that Obama is at least pushing the limits of what he is legally allowed to do and I am glad the SCOTUS is going to look at his executive actions on immigration. Obama is arrogant as well as incompetent.
However, each provision of the Bill of Rights has limitations. A Muslim cannot kill his atheist neighbor in Burbank, even though there is no question that in Islam the penalty for apostasy is death. So regardless of what some might think completely clear in the Constitution, at the end of the day, five votes our of nine will decide where the line is drawn.
-
With the latest revelation that the process was to take classified email, cut from them and then paste into another email and send it to Hillary leave her in the clear and someone on her staff going to prison?
-
The biggest mistake people are making is the same one that republicans made during the 1980 primary season. The establishment and RINO types (aka" Bob Dole and company) hated the idea of a Reagan candidacy, because they claimed he was unattractive to the electorate in general. The results spoke for themselves, as they will for Ted Cruz.
People are sick of the pathetic children of the GOP and DNC.
-
The biggest mistake people are making is the same one that republicans made during the 1980 primary season. The establishment and RINO types (aka" Bob Dole and company) hated the idea of a Reagan candidacy, because they claimed he was unattractive to the electorate in general. The results spoke for themselves, as they will for Ted Cruz.
People are sick of the pathetic children of the GOP and DNC.
I don't know who you are from the POA days, I have a suspicion, but I agree with you 100%.
-
I don't know who you are from the POA days, I have a suspicion, but I agree with you 100%.
He's Bruce Willis. Can't you tell by the picture?
-
He's Bruce Willis. Can't you tell by the picture?
I thought it WAS a very good likeness....
-
He's Bruce Willis. Can't you tell by the picture?
I thought he was John McClane. Who the hell is Bruce Willis??
-
Roy Rogers?
-
EXCLUSIVE: Highly classified Hillary Clinton emails that the intelligence community and State Department recently deemed too damaging to national security to release contain “operational intelligence” – and their presence on the unsecure, personal email system jeopardized “sources, methods and lives,” a U.S. government official who has reviewed the documents told Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/01/official-withheld-clinton-emails-contain-operational-intel-put-lives-at-risk.html
How the hell can she survive this?
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/01/official-withheld-clinton-emails-contain-operational-intel-put-lives-at-risk.html
How the hell can she survive this?
Let's see........Loretta Lynch is the AG.........
-
Let's see........Loretta Lynch is the AG.........
Yup....
Hillary will walk away laughing at the masses...
-
"It seems some apes are more equal than others"
-
http://www.eutimes.net/2016/01/beyond-top-secret-hillary-clinton-emails-used-in-russian-court-against-ukraine-pilot/
A very intriguing Federal Security Services (FSB (http://fsb.ru/)) report prepared for The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (SLEDKOM (http://sledcom.ru/)) relating to the trial of Ukrainian “spy/terrorist” Nadiya (Nadezhda) Savchenko (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadiya_Savchenko) states that “beyond top secret” emails obtained from a “private computer storage device” belonging to former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “should/must” be allowed into the sentencing phase of this case due not only to their “critical relevance”, but, also, because the “apprehension” of them falls outside the purview of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR (http://svr.gov.ru/)).
-
Let's see........Loretta Lynch is the AG.........
She may be recused from this forming case:
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/268456-pressure-on-lynch-to-step-aside-in-clinton-email-probe
-
She may be recused from this forming case:
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/268456-pressure-on-lynch-to-step-aside-in-clinton-email-probe
The Obama partisanized (new word) Justice Department has shown no signs of doing what is right over doing what is politically advantageous to Obama, and I don't see that happening here.
If she does recuse herself, it will ONLY be because it advantages her boss.