Right wingers that have spent two decades boot licking anyone who has even so much as thought about enlisting pretending to be anti war is the biggest pile of BS. The right wing worships the military, military spending, and actively tries to cancel anyone who dares oppose that point of view.
A video of a Hero
- Thread starter Stretch 74
- Start date
That’s not me, friend. Railing against the military industrial complex is a long held belief. Our tax dollars are better spent (or not spent) on other things than the big war machine.
We need to get our own house in order before going in search of the next big war. Even though, unfortunately, we’re probably already in it.
Economically AND militarily. They are playing the long game and are building their military up and are very focused on how the US and Allies are dealing with Russia in Ukraine - that will help shape how China approaches Taiwan and beyond. They are already posing a threat to US and Japan/Australia//NZ and the west pacific militarily and that threat will most likely continue to grow. It will likely have an impact on the US economically.
Biden has made missteps but is doing about as well as you could expect with Ukraine and Russia. He sure as hell isn’t the pushover his predecessor was.
Lol. The Ukraine isn’t any more corrupt than the good ole USA. Now you are just regurgitating Tucker talk.
Ukraine warring with Russia for centuries? What in gods name are you taking about?
Who said anything about good vs evil? That’s even more ridiculous then your “for centuries” comment. And that sort of talk makes it sound like you have drunk the Tucker rightwing extremist Kool-Aid on Russia and Putin.
You looking forward to Putin reestablishing the Soviet Empire as much as Tucker?
Never said the US wasn't corrupt. Given the number of newly minted millionaires in Congress (many of whom never worked an honest day in their life), the US could be worse. Where do you think the uniparty launders its funds now that Panama is outed? Biden and Romney's kids don't carry suitcases of cash around.
Do a little historical research on Russian/Ukraine history. This foolishness didn't start during the Soviet era.
Have honestly never watched an episode of Tucker Carlson.
Russia's military isn't strong enough to build back the old Soviet bloc. They also aren't already occupying Eastern Europe as they were post WW-II. Russian mentality is border protection/safe zone. That's how they are wired. Between Genghis Khan, Napoleon and Hitler, they've been invaded many times over the years. Putin's game isn't make a new Soviet Union - it's push back NATO a little bit so they don't feel threatened. This new found US interest has been going on since 2014, by the way.
Unfortunately, because the US MIC feels the need to boost profits, we're in that mess now too -and, as you state, China might saunter in too. Though they are killing it in Africa and S. and Central America right now without firing a shot.
Would rather see our border secured and go to war against the cartels if you really want efficient spending. Why should the MIC care whether it's Russians or Sinoloan cartel members who meet their maker? The ammo costs the same.
Last edited:
Well, and now that the Supreme Court has abandoned any pretense of being nonpartisan, you can forget about any of those things.
Because they're propped up by their corporate sponsors. And probably threatened that if they retire without permission, they won't last long.
Funniest thing about the trickle-down idiocy is that people forgot that it didn't work under Reagan, and let Trump do it again. Even worse, most of them were happy about it, because they don't understand how taxes work.
Speaking of Tucker - rotten POS that he is - I listened to a clip of his Trump interview form I think yesterday, where Trump waxed on about his great relationships with XI, Yung and Putin. Geezus.
As far as China goes, we as Americans just need to stop importing anything from them. So much of the shit we buy is made in China it makes me sick. And stop exporting our raw materials to them. F-ing corporate America only gives a shit about making a buck.
Yeah no shit on that. Our longest serving justice is finally being exposed for the cheating liar he is. Un f-ing believable. And appointed for life? Anita Hill had it right.
Actually Republicans and conservatives, and conservative constitutionalist libertarians are EQUALLY SPLIT, on that issue.
There are MANY, LOTS of them who that think that not enough has been done, and that more needs to be done, and that Biden has NOT done enough and has been VERY INCOMPETANT on, in the little he has done.
And they are FED UP with China, Russia, Iran, etc.
They may seem as if they might not want to help Ukraine, etc. But part of that is the SPINNING Liberal NARRATIVE, and the other part is that they just want to be CAREFUL, as there is or could be the LEGIT RISK of Russia using Tactile Nukes, or things escalating into WW3, or Nuclear War.
And some of them want to do the right thing and are COWARDS.
The one point there that I'll disagree with.... it's completely believable. In fact, I'm not even surprised.
Revision: I'm surprised that a Black man his age can identify with a far right conservative viewpoint. That just doesn't make sense.
Amen to the Biden comment. Always remember the two following quotes, which may not be exactly quoted but the meaning is the same and they are true today still.
Bob Gates- "Joe Biden has been WRONG on every major foreign policy issue in his lifetime."
Barack Obama- "Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to **** things up!".
Well, since you and 95 are so upset over the SC not being non-partisan, don't forget which side makes it that way. The liberal side votes in a block more often than the "conservative side". And, the three newest justices, appointed by Trump, have each crossed over at least once in their tenure to give the libs a win. This isn't a new phenomenon, either, as justices going all the way back to Reagan and Nixon were not hard core conservative in their rulings.
Liberal Supreme Court justices vote in lockstep, not the conservative justices
Over the past several sessions, Supreme Court Justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted in unison more than their Republican counterparts.
www.usatoday.com
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...rt-justices-never-wear-the-swing-vote-mantle/
The left just completely loses it when they come across a black person that is conservative, don't they. They just are incapable of thinking that a black person would actually have conservative values.
I wonder which "law" Thomas has broken. I hear lots of claims that he has, but nobody has pointed out which law it is.
Well, since you and 95 are so upset over the SC not being non-partisan, don't forget which side makes it that way. The liberal side votes in a block more often than the "conservative side". And, the three newest justices, appointed by Trump, have each crossed over at least once in their tenure to give the libs a win. This isn't a new phenomenon, either, as justices going all the way back to Reagan and Nixon were not hard core conservative in their rulings.
Liberal Supreme Court justices vote in lockstep, not the conservative justices
Over the past several sessions, Supreme Court Justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted in unison more than their Republican counterparts.www.usatoday.com
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...rt-justices-never-wear-the-swing-vote-mantle/
The left just completely loses it when they come across a black person that is conservative, don't they. They just are incapable of thinking that a black person would actually have conservative values.
I wonder which "law" Thomas has broken. I hear lots of claims that he has, but nobody has pointed out which law it is.
The Supreme Court and it's justices are supposed to, should be what the constitution actually says, black and white original text interpretation and NOT either Partisan, Nonpartisan, etc.
That's why if I had my way, Supreme court Appointees would be appointed by a mix of a committee comprised of the President, VP, equally split bipartisan congressional committee, and HIRED lawyers, judges.
And the composition of that committee would be decided by a bipartisan committee.
And Supreme Court Candidates for appointment would have to be competent non political lawyers, judges.
Elections should have no, ZERO consequences on the make up of the Supreme Court, and Politics has NO place in, on the Supreme Court.
And the only thing that should be considered in Supreme court decisions is LONG TERM PRECEDENCE, and the CONSTITUTIONAL original text black and white meaning.
If the Constitution says the sky is blue, then it's blue, and may not, should not be falsely interpreted as sky is red.
If people don't like that, then there is a legal process for changing the what the constitution says.
As to Roe V Wade, (and this is a person who thinks that Early 1st Term abortions could be theoretically legally ok, because when does unborn baby become a SENTIENT, that is self aware, can think, feel, experience pain, etc. Doctors, medical science says that happens sometime, somewhere in the late first term trimester of the pregnancy. That's why even tho abortion immoral, it can be, maybe should be legal first trimester, and why partial birth abortion should be illegal and considered murder.)
Roe V Wade, abortion is NOT mentioned, etc, in the constitution. The closest thing to mentioning anything remotely close to abortion like issues is outside the constitution in FOUNDING DOCUMENTS, that says LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, which means that even a SENTIENT unborn human being is entitled to LIFE according to that founding document.
If something is not mentioned in constitution then it is up to either the STATES, OR the USA CONGRESS to decide the issue.
As such Roe V Wade was PARTIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The only thing that Roe V Wade did right, was the provision that Kicked abortion back to the states, but that provision got ignored , passed up, over.
The other thing wrong with Roe V Wade is that the Supreme Court ERRONEOUSLY PASSED, WROTE a law named Roe V Wade.
The Supreme Courts job is to INTERPRET, ENFORCE, THE CONSTITUTION, determine if a law is constitutional or not.
The Supreme Courts job is NOT TO ENACT LAWS LIKE ROE V WADE, NOT ENACT ANY LAWS. THAT JOB BELONGS TO CONGRESS.
The other problem with Roe V Wade is it OVERTURNED ALMOST 200 YEARS OF ABORTION BEING ILLEGAL BY SETTING ASIDE AND OVERTURNING ALMOST 200 YEARS OF SUPREME COURT LEGAL PRECENDENTS, INTERPRETATIONS ON ABOUT THE ABORTION ISSUE.
Because of all that the current Supreme Court was FACTUALLY RIGHT to overturn Roe V Wade as unconstitutional and FACTUALLY RIGHT KICK THE ABORTION ISSUE TO THE STATES , USA CONGRESS.
The Supreme Court didn't BAN Abortion, didn't make abortion illegal, etc, they just kicked it back to states, USA CONGRESS.
States, USA Congress can legalize Abortion all they want. Nothing is stopping them from doing that, except maybe the VOTES OF THE PEOPLE.
That was NOT a PARTISAN, POLITICAL decision by the conservatives of the Supreme Court.
They the conservatives of the supreme court FACTUALLY rightly interpreted constitutional law in a non partisan, non political way, etc.
Rather it was the Libtard block on the supreme court and the liberal half of the country that wrongly politicized the factually right supreme court decision by the conservatives.
The libtards both on and off the Supreme Court Wrongly think that can politicize the constitution, and do whatever the hell they want, be a activist, legislate, etc.
So I'm glad that the conservatives are there to put that BS crap in check.
That said I'm in favor of both conservatives, libtards being stripped from the supreme Court by use of the committee system that would appoint non political lawyers, judges.
But that's wishful thinking as that will never happen, and the Supreme Court will probably forever be politicized, and wrongly appointed by political presidents.
You’ve got to admit that it makes zero sense for a Black judge to believe in Constitutional originalism.Well, since you and 95 are so upset over the SC not being non-partisan, don't forget which side makes it that way. The liberal side votes in a block more often than the "conservative side". And, the three newest justices, appointed by Trump, have each crossed over at least once in their tenure to give the libs a win. This isn't a new phenomenon, either, as justices going all the way back to Reagan and Nixon were not hard core conservative in their rulings.
Liberal Supreme Court justices vote in lockstep, not the conservative justices
Over the past several sessions, Supreme Court Justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted in unison more than their Republican counterparts.www.usatoday.com
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...rt-justices-never-wear-the-swing-vote-mantle/
The left just completely loses it when they come across a black person that is conservative, don't they. They just are incapable of thinking that a black person would actually have conservative values.
I wonder which "law" Thomas has broken. I hear lots of claims that he has, but nobody has pointed out which law it is.
For starters, the framers knew that circumstances would evolve, so they made a mechanism to change the Constitution. So insisting that it be interpreted in accordance with the framers and their original intent is hopelessly circular.
And second, if we follow an originalist interpretation, Thomas doesn’t get to sit on the bench, doesn’t get to vote, and he’s only 3/5 of a person.
Loyal... I had 3 jabs. My decision was made to make things the most available for my kids. I had covid before the shots. Mine wasn't that bad. I got covid again after the 3rd shot. Lasted about a day.
But there is ZERO amount of respect from me for anyone - anywhere - anything to REQUIRE those shots. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO FORCE PEOPLE TO GET THE SHOTS IS A KILLER IN MY MIND.
The 2nd covid shot caused a reaction to someone very close to me... I said it before... they had 1/2 of their heart die. They are now told its probably 5-years left. Age = early 40's. This person has confirmation from 3 doctors of the highest most respected level that it was 100% from the 2nd covid shot. For this person's employment to continue... they were required to get the shots.
Loyal... I'm not calling you out for anything you posted. I don't think you or anyone else here is trying to make things worse for people. If I have misread you... I apologize.
Any person on this board who thinks it wasn't dumb to require the shots is just lost. If anyone can't remember which side of the politics was trying to force feed it on people... they are lost. Making kids wearing masks? Seating people 10 feet apart?
It wasn't uncalled for when people panicked during the 1st year. I get it.
I would have a lot more respect if the people on the left who were just wrong for a long time will admit they were wrong.
That and for them to say they were wrong and they were/are sorry for what happened to the person that is so close to me.
Sorry about the person close to you. Sounds like an anomaly - I am a heart patient and came though all jabs just fine. You know, at this point we (America) did what we did because we thought it was right. Now it is basically over. Rehashing it over and over again isn't solving anything. Thank Gawd it wasn't Ebola.
Well, since you and 95 are so upset over the SC not being non-partisan, don't forget which side makes it that way. The liberal side votes in a block more often than the "conservative side". And, the three newest justices, appointed by Trump, have each crossed over at least once in their tenure to give the libs a win. This isn't a new phenomenon, either, as justices going all the way back to Reagan and Nixon were not hard core conservative in their rulings.
Liberal Supreme Court justices vote in lockstep, not the conservative justices
Over the past several sessions, Supreme Court Justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted in unison more than their Republican counterparts.www.usatoday.com
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...rt-justices-never-wear-the-swing-vote-mantle/
The left just completely loses it when they come across a black person that is conservative, don't they. They just are incapable of thinking that a black person would actually have conservative values.
I wonder which "law" Thomas has broken. I hear lots of claims that he has, but nobody has pointed out which law it is.
The law that he broke was the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. His defense is that he didn't have to disclose the gifts since they were merely accommodations provided to him by a personal friend, which is allowed under the law.
However, I'm pretty sure that the original statute wasn't written with the idea that you could start taking lavish gifts from a megadonor including trips to exotic locations five years after that donor gave you his first donation and call that person a "personal friend" use your "personal accommodations" that everyone else would have to pay to use.
Clarence Thomas claims that he is an Originalist, but we all know that politics has encouraged moral flexibility as to which items are worthy of an Originalist look rather than the politically expedient view of the moment. There was a major scandal in the city that I live in where an engineering firm was selected to do the design of a half billion dollar project after taking the mayor out to dinner the night before the selection occurred. How much more egregious is a $136,000 vacation when compared to a $100 meal? Clarence Thomas has proven himself to be an unethical bastard who flouts the rules and has no regard for the law except for the ways that he can twist it for personal gain.
I felt that he got the short end of the stick when the whole Anita Hill thing happened, but it turns out that he's been a piece of trash from the beginning and they just refused to believe the words of a black woman because back then, they knew that all women were whores and that went double for black women.
If Thomas gets targeted, fair enough.
As long as Biden and Pelosi and anybody else who took junkets or got sickeningly rich with their 'acquaintances' are held to the same standard.
Including GOPs like McConnell and Ryan and Romney and any other of their ilk who cashed in for their 'public service'.
One big difference ...a supreme ct justice is a lifetime appointment. You don't like Inlsee for example getting rich, you can vote for someone else.
Also, they have a different set of rules
Third, you now have the donor buying his mother a house.
Fourth, his wife is nuts.
According to Slate not only did Crow buy the mothers house, he paid way over market value, and made improvements on it, AND… Clarence’s mom is still living there. This may just be the tip of the iceberg.
Clarence’s wife is not only batshit crazy she was a supporter of attempting to overthrow the government. She is a Benedict Arnold. But of course Clarence compartmentalized that out of his personal life.
Why single out Biden, Pelosi McConnell, Ryan and Romney? You could name every last person in Congress including that Trump fellator from Washington’s 5th District.
They all abide by codes of ethics and laws regardless of terms.
Wife being nuts isn't an impeachable offense.
The moral high ground will be respected when a corrupt uniparty member goes down.
Supreme Court Justices are held to a higher standard. All of them. If RBG took essentially payoffs I would boot her the next day.
And no wife being nuts is not an impeachable offense.
What is the federal code citation that only applies to justices?
If they break laws and violate ethics, book ‘em. Criminality isn’t graded on the curve.
Anyone who takes those kinds of trips without disclosing them should get close scrutiny and punished if it's determined that they broke the law. There are proper ways to interact with public officials that don't involve the kind of stuff that we've been hearing about. My company routinely takes public officials out to dinner...but we don't do it the night before they make a decision that's worth millions of dollars. We donate small sums to them to support their elections, but it's never with the understanding that they "owe us". We also don't pick our candidates to support based on an R or D next to their name. We support anyone that supports us and we keep the support within clearly ethical boundaries.
If Biden or Pelosi is found to have received the same kind of benefits that Thomas has, I'd gladly see them go to jail...as long as it's evenly applied.
Almost all to ALL Supreme Court Justices don't do violations of laws per se, at least no one has been caught, or if their is reasonable suspicion of it, that, there either hasn't been enough proof, evidence, or it they havent been impeached, prosecuted, removed, and so are technically innocent til proven guilty even if they were to be guilty, but not caught, etc.
The bigger problem is Supreme Court Justices going by their own beliefs, political agenda, etc, which run contrary to the constitution, and cause them to KNOWINGLY make political agenda unconstitutional decisions, judgements, WRONG, unconstitutional interpretations of the constitutions
Supreme Court Justice Jackson showed, demonstrated a lot of that kind of BS as a judge before she became a Supreme Court Justice.
Unfortunately while making political agenda decisions is wrong for a Supreme Court Justice to do, it is not a illegal, impeachable offense.
Interesting that there has not been any actual evidence that Thomas actually broke the Supreme Court ethics guidelines. Shouldn't we actually have evidence that he did BEFORE deciding what to do about it?
And now we once again have CougEd getting actual facts wrong, at least according to published reports. What has been reported is that Thomas sold 3 properties for $120,000 (I think is the correct amount) to his friend, one of which was the house his mother was living in. That's not much for 3 properties. Haven't seen any reports about any rent, but they say that his mother continued to live in the house.
That is a lot different than having CT's friend actually buy a house for his mother.
Stretch … if I have an athletic son, and in pre NIL days a booster comes to me and says I want to buy your house , removing your mortgage but letting you live there plus I want to remodel your house, is that much different than someone “buying my house”.
Again I see you splitting hairs . It may not be illegal but supreme ct justices are held to a different standard .
And no I don’t believe anything will happen to CT
Out of curiosity, do you extend your pleas for "evidence" if the person being accused of crimes is a liberal? You are very quick to dismiss the accusations against Thomas. I'm curious as to whether you were as quick to dismiss the accusations and demand patience when the Right was going after Clinton because of her email server FUBAR? Or is patience and understanding only relevant if someone has an R next to their name?
FWIW, I think we should run them all out of office and get a fresh start.
Is it much different? Yes, it LIKELY is. Clearly that type of arrangement was a violation of NCAA rules governing student athletes. At this point, I haven't seen any definition of what the ethics rules are for the Supreme Court, so I don't know if Thomas has actually violated them. We do know they are different from what Congress is supposed to abide by. Also, Thomas has stated that early on he went to other justices for guidance. So what exactly did they tell him? is there a record somewhere, are any of them still alive to share what their advice was?
Being rules set up by a lot of smart legal minds, it is likely that they are so vague and/or ambiguous that even when we see them there would not be any consensus about whether he violated either the letter OR the spirit of the guidelines.
Yes, I do want actual evidence before I crucify someone from either party. I think Pelosi has enriched her family greatly by insider trading, but I haven't seen any proof of it, so cannot advocate for bringing the hammer down on her. I believe we starting to see actual evidence of shit going on with Biden, but it hasn't reached the point of taking any action against him or other family members. I have my opinion about how they have operated, but my opinion is not enough to bring the hammer down on them.
Donald Trump has basically been attacked for 7 friggen years over Russia, Russia, Russia without any evidence. I kept waiting for evidence to be presented, but none ever came. The whole thing was bullshit.
As far as Hillary Rotten Clinton was concerned, there was PLENTY of wrongdoing. Apparently you were asleep for much of 2016, so here you go......
- She set up her own server to do her Sec of State business, which was against security rules
- She testified she only had one phone, but it was found she had 2 or 3
- She was found to have over 100 classified documents on her emails
- She destroyed emails that were under Congressional subpoena
- She did not have government administrators controlling her server, and government officials stated that it was almost a certainty that her server had been hacked by our enemies (Russia, Iran, N Korea)
- Jim Comey came out and did his infamous speech listing out all the rules/laws she broke and then overstepped his authority by saying that (falsely) no prosecutor in the country would charge her. That was not in his lane to do, it was the authority of the DOJ, and there sure were a lot of prosecutors that came out saying she should have been charged. Of course, with BHO's thumb on the scale, no was would they have charged her even if she wasn't running for president.
I'm no fan of Clinton, but if there was really a chargeable crime, why didn't the DOJ charge her with crimes when Trump was President?
As far as Trump goes, there was an investigation into his Russian collusion and it was concluded in 2019 with the finding that there was no proof of collusion. However, the takeaway from the report, if you read it, was that Trump associates did reach out to Russia to see if they had any dirt on Clinton but they didn't have anything that wasn't already public knowledge....so they didn't collude because there was nothing to collude with.
It's interesting that people are quick to defend Trump on Russia when he was caught on the phone trying to blackmail the Ukrainian President into colluding with him to find dirt on Biden. I always thought the Russian collusion story was overblown, but I will go to the grave convinced that the orange weasel was absolutely willing to collude.
If our standard is it is ok to seek dirt on our opponent from a nuclear adversary then there was no reason to investigate . But we know by Don jr that he did. During Ronald Reagan’s time that would have been considered a form of treason. So if Gavin Newsome buddies up with Iran to get info that is the new standard .
You know John Gotti was targeted . Many good people went to the streets to protest New York targeting him . And they cried fake news and targeting him . But innocent of course .
Under previous Presidencies we would have never engaged our nuclear adversaries . New day. Especially when a former president goes on TV and says Putin , N Korean leader and China leader are really smart and our guy is not . Who ever thought those words would be uttered by a leader of our country ?
You know Capone was never convicted of racketeering, it was tax evasion , a financial crime.
I am absolutely convinced Trump could shoot someone and people would claim… that person walked in front of the bullet .
Just interesting times . Access Hollywood .. grabbed women by the p word … just guy talk .
Paying off a porn star … no one is perfect .
Bribe Ukraine …. Perfect phone call.
Manafort , Stone Flynn, Gates , Cohen, Weiselberg all went to jail . But he only hires the best .
Like I said interesting stuff .
Absolutely! One of the very last of the greatest generation, who fought in WWII, Hell yes he is a hero. Notice the medals on his uniform? I don't think they gave out those medals for making a new app, or getting a new high score on Ms PacMan, or being the top top drug seller in the Bronx last week.
I'm pretty sure one of them is a medal for WWll age champion in Dungeons and Dragons.
First, I like hero's who don't cry and blubber about opportunities lost.
A hero..sure...anyone who stormed the beach of Normandy is a hero. Maybe misguided, but a hero none the less.
My goodness, whats with the caveats? "If you stormed the beaches of Normandy you are Hero buuuuuuut, stop crying already"
Maybe misguided? WTF does that mean Ed? Misguided for fighting to free a continent from Nazi Germany annd Hitler? Your posts are getting weirder and weirder.
Have no idea why my take is weird. He didn't say that is why he fought the Nazi's. HE fought the Nazi's to maintain "the good old days".
It is like when my dad who entered the Navy just after the Hitler finally killed himself. And my dad said when Colin Kapernak knelt during the national anthem he called it anti American and not what he fought for when he was in the Navy.
I said I thought that is exactly what you fought for, freedom of speech. So I think my dad is misguided in that he picks and chooses what is the "proper" freedom of speech.
