Politics

deewayne2003 said:

For the “release the Epstein files” crowd, pretty damning email regarding Bill Gates.

Apparently Bill got some STDs’ from Russian hookers and wanted antibiotics that he could clandestinely give his wife without her knowing.

Click to expand...

What a fool. He could have just told her that STD’s are a side effect of man-made global warming.

Here is the current leader of the opposition Conservatives at his leadership review. He took 87.4% of the vote. I don’t get the common belief that he isn’t leadership material. His father is gay, his wife is an immigrant, his daughter is autistic, and he has pledged not to change the abortion laws here. The only attack the left has on him is that he is not personable. It’s a lie. This guy is obviously very connected to people.

skydiver386 said:

Ancient History? That's rich coming from a man who claims to have a PHD in History! Vietnam? It wasn't the U.S. that started that was it? It was France. See my response below.

By your own admission, you have made an assumption.

Here again we have an assumption.

Where did I make any statement concerning losses? My statement was " Europe loves to start wars, and then act as if it's the United States that should jump in and do the fighting."

European powers, including Russia, France, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, etc. have not only fought wars with each other, but a good portion of the Earth as they established their Colonial Empires. Yeah, I'm gonna go there.

France started an entire series of wars in 1853 by attacking Vietnam, and eventually with a little help from Spain, conquered most of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Siam (Thailand) was forced to give up territory on it's eastern border, but still narrowly avoided conflict with France. As a matter of fact, Thailand was the only country in Asia that was never ruled by a European power.

French conquest of Vietnam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The next war was started by France in 1945 to regain their former Colony. No sooner had the Japanese, who occupied Vietnam During WWll left, the French moved Military Forces into Vietnam in an attempt to retake the country.

Gen. William Donovan and several OSS Officers advised against the French return to Vietnam, as I'm sure you are both aware. President Eisenhower provided aid to the French in the north, to Diem in the south, and to Laos during Operation White Star.

The French were finally defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, leaving Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in a desperate situation. Both Russia and China were extending their influence in the region, and the U.S. made the mistake of sticking it's finger into the Tar baby that France had created.

Fifty Eight Thousand lost their lives in an attempt to clean up the mess France created. The border wars between China, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand and Cambodia currently in the news, and the Khmer Rouge genocide would likely not have happened if Europe had kept it's greedy fingers out of Asia.

This is just ONE undeniable mess that Europe created, and then acted as if the U.S. should fix it.

I could go on about Algeria, Italian Somalia, the Belgian Congo, etc., but I think you get the picture.

I have no problem with this. My problem is the denial of the problems, and often wars that it creates. Sure, France had an interest in the Tin, Rubber and Lumber in Vietnam, and keeping markets open was certainly to their benefit. However, the mess they created in the pursuit of their "National Interest" led to the deaths of tens of thousands, and it's a mess they should have cleaned up, not the U.S.

You don't have to conquer people to trade with them.

Click to expand...

Yes, I made a couple of assumptions about the assertions you wrote. After all, if you claim Europe starts wars that it expects the US to fight, a logical supporting fact would be relative casualties. I provided them to illustrate how false that claim was with respect to WWI and II. You will have to forgive me if I did not jump to the immediate assumption you were referring to colonial conflicts. In my defense, I doubt anyone else did as well.

" Europe loves to start wars, and then act as if it's the United States that should jump in and do the fighting."

But, since we now can apparently set aside Europe itself as any center of conflict to which you referred, let's turn to what I assume is your new premise, that European nations "love to start" colonial conflicts which they expect the US "to jump in and do the fighting."

You made the broad statement, a true one, that colonial powers carried out military actions establishing colonial empires. Much, I suppose, as we Americans did by seizing the Philippines from Spain in 1898 and then fighting a brutal colonial war in from 1899-1902 to subjugate the Philippine nationalist movement under Emilio Aguinaldo.

What I can not follow is your leap to the claim that the US was expected to then involve itself in those not directly affecting its national interests. I can not think of one, and I think your lone example of Vietnam is not accurate. I will certainly agree that the French made a hash of attempting to restore colonial rule in Southeast Asia following the war. Yes, we had, and still have, a national interest in encouraging stable, and then particularly, non-communist political solutions in the region.

Thousands of gallons of ink have been written about how we entered that war as the French had the good sense to abandon the effort after Dien Bien Phu. Never once have I read that it was to somehow restore French colonial rule. If it was not that, then the only reason we were there was to pursue our own national interests - not French ones.

I will not defend the decisions of that period. We had an opportunity to embrace Ho Chi Minh as a nationalist rather than a communist as the French withdrew. Hindsight is infuriatingly very clear, but in a period where communism was seen to be on the point of metastasizing across Asia, I suppose I can understand the decisions that were made in Washington that set us off down that slippery slope - but I think it is a huge stretch to blame our errors and miscalculations, politically and militarily, in pursuit of our national interests on Paris.

What? Say it ain’t so! Oh my… Saudis, our fair weather friends, denying airspace for US in case needed for run at Iran, Oh my. All that cooperative bribery via moochy moochy military aid… wasted!

fourfive8 said:

What? Say it ain’t so! Oh my… Saudis, our fair weather friends, denying airspace for US in case needed for run at Iran, Oh my. All that cooperative bribery via moochy moochy military aid… wasted!

Click to expand...

No worries. Trump will slap them with tariffs to teach them a lesson.

rookhawk said:

There were multiple factors in the Silver (and gold) plummet on Friday.

1.) Insiders were trying to crush the market because COMEX and London had physical shortages for future contract deliveries due yesterday...something had to give or it would create total distrust in the paper market.

Click to expand...

Or sell triggers on either movement volatility or when it reaches a certain level.

This is just one politician, who was promptly charged with discrediting the Russian armed forces, and it was in a regional Duma (parliament) in Samara, but one can't help but wonder if Putin's political foundation might be starting to show the first signs of stress cracks.

Ontario Hunter said:

Perhaps you need to read your source more carefully.

"... the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship."

The key to conviction would seem to be "the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction." Simply walking through the open doors of a church and speaking their mind would not constitute "physical force" or threat of it. It is unclear what actually happened during Mr Lemon's "protest" but I haven't read anywhere that the group used or threatened to use physical force. I mean, I could let fly with a loud stinky fart during a church service which might indeed disrupt it, but is that a federal offense? If the "protest" was orderly and physically unthreatening ("if" being the key word), it would not appear the FACE Act applies. Seems the courts have been inclined to agree. Keep in mind that the context of the Act was to keep anti and pro abortion fanatics from going after each other in their places of business. This is a different context. Again, the best route for conviction would have been trespassing. But again, that would have required Lemon's group refusing to leave when requested. It's unclear if they did refuse to leave but I suspect that was the case.

Click to expand...

I have written then deleted before posting several replies on this thread over the past couple days, because I felt like all were directed at you and your nonsense, but I did not want to exclusively call out your stupidity (many others do a good job of that anyway).

But this one got me. You, sir, are truly either a complete moron or just emphatically grasping for any reason to show your hate for Trump while simultaneously proving a lack of comprehension of information. In your own words, "perhaps you need to read more carefully." Since you clearly lack the ability to fully read and understand the text in front of you, I will break it down into what should be idiot-proof terms (although you will probably still fail to get it.)

Get ready, its time to pay attention now. If thats too tough, skip ahead to the bolded section (even if the rest still applies):

"... the use of physical force, threat of physical force,..." --- you read this part, good job. The problem is you stopped here in the middle of a sentence and pretended like that was all you needed to "prove" your biased opinion. However, You need to continue to finish the text. Please now read the following. I will remove the unnecessary words that do not apply to Don's situation, which I hope will make it easier for you. Since pictures are probably more your level of reading, I will insert smiley faces where I remove words.

"...or physical obstruction to intentionally intimidate, interfere with..." - we could likely apply this section of the text, but let's go ahead and continue because the next part certainly applies if your PhD, law level knowledge won't accept this as enough.

"... or attempt to intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship." -- and here we have the undoubtedly met the prosecutions burden of proof. It is on that idiots own camera footage where he and many others CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY, interfered and attempted to interfere with the congregation in their place of religious worship.
To me it's equally obvious they also intimidated, but that might be too big of a word/concept for you to grasp, so we will stick with interfere.

You failed to reply to my last post directed to you, so I will venture that you couldn't or wouldn't honestly answer my question. And you probably won't reply to this one either, but I do hope you will at the very least use this post to understand why a number of others on this thread constantly call out your nonsense.

Red Leg said:

This is just one politician, who was promptly charged with discrediting the Russian armed forces, and it was in a regional Duma (parliament) in Samara, but one can't help but wonder if Putin's political foundation might be starting to show the first signs of stress cracks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1qrzeu8/grigory_yeremeev_of_the_russian_democratic_party

Click to expand...

I hope that speaker stays on the ground floor of any building. There have been too many Russian people slipping off or out of high rise building balconies and windows... Maybe its the vodka?

Mark A Ouellette said:

I hope that speaker stays on the ground floor of any building. There have been too many Russian people slipping off or out of high rise building balconies and windows... Maybe its the vodka?

Click to expand...

Red Leg said:

View attachment 742784

Click to expand...

That one was definately the vodka!

Prison punk is a better job for him.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz says he will 'never run for elected office again' | Fox News https://share.google/46gDfp3Y36usI6AaD

Pheroze said:

I don’t understand why the public doesn’t like PP. He is blunt, he says exactly what he believes. Over the last ten years his predictions have been spot on, to the point that the Liberals have adopted a bunch of his platform to salvage our economy. His personal history is humble and the left has nothing on him when it comes to immigration, gay marriage or abortion. He will be a completely transparent leader who is completely intolerant of people who don’t work for Canada. That is why he hated Trudeau so much and he was overt in that disdain.

I think people reject him because they have been influenced by the liberal media and their hatred of him. Finally, I have not seen any dissenting voices in the ranks of conservatives except for Ford. But Rob Ford described his brother as a communist (or something to that effect) so he sits well with the new brand of Liberals anyways.

The biggest threat from PP is that he does not buy into the brand of federalism that P.E. Trudeau created, and that Mulroney preferred too. I agree with that agenda as well.

Click to expand...

He has just always struck me as someone who’s best served fighting an enemy (Trudeau), and not someone who can bring a nation together. I agree with what he says but to me he is polarizing so I can see why people don’t like him.

And him taking a rookie MP’s seat to stay in the house rubbed me the wrong way. Should Carney have done the same thing, PP wouldn’t stop bringing it up.

Tbitty said:

I have written then deleted before posting several replies on this thread over the past couple days, because I felt like all were directed at you and your nonsense, but I did not want to exclusively call out your stupidity (many others do a good job of that anyway).

But this one got me. You, sir, are truly either a complete moron or just emphatically grasping for any reason to show your hate for Trump while simultaneously proving a lack of comprehension of information. In your own words, "perhaps you need to read more carefully." Since you clearly lack the ability to fully read and understand the text in front of you, I will break it down into what should be idiot-proof terms (although you will probably still fail to get it.)

Get ready, its time to pay attention now. If thats too tough, skip ahead to the bolded section (even if the rest still applies):

"... the use of physical force, threat of physical force,..." --- you read this part, good job. The problem is you stopped here in the middle of a sentence and pretended like that was all you needed to "prove" your biased opinion. However, You need to continue to finish the text. Please now read the following. I will remove the unnecessary words that do not apply to Don's situation, which I hope will make it easier for you. Since pictures are probably more your level of reading, I will insert smiley faces where I remove words.

"...or physical obstruction to intentionally intimidate, interfere with..." - we could likely apply this section of the text, but let's go ahead and continue because the next part certainly applies if your PhD, law level knowledge won't accept this as enough.

"... or attempt to intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship." -- and here we have the undoubtedly met the prosecutions burden of proof. It is on that idiots own camera footage where he and many others CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY, interfered and attempted to interfere with the congregation in their place of religious worship.
To me it's equally obvious they also intimidated, but that might be too big of a word/concept for you to grasp, so we will stick with interfere.

You failed to reply to my last post directed to you, so I will venture that you couldn't or wouldn't honestly answer my question. And you probably won't reply to this one either, but I do hope you will at the very least use this post to understand why a number of others on this thread constantly call out your nonsense.

Click to expand...

I try to not to put the childish but humorous memes on this thread. (we have lighter politics for that) But I think you're debating against someone that just wants to be a curmudgeon+contrarian.

Like this:

Aaron N said:

He has just always struck me as someone who’s best served fighting an enemy (Trudeau), and not someone who can bring a nation together. I agree with what he says but to me he is polarizing so I can see why people don’t like him.

And him taking a rookie MP’s seat to stay in the house rubbed me the wrong way. Should Carney have done the same thing, PP wouldn’t stop bringing it up.

Click to expand...

I have heard others say that, but where does that come from? I think it is interesting how the story of his likability is accepted because I don’t see it in this speech, or any other speech where he has the chance to talk. I see him being very confrontational about set piece questions where he challenges the underlying assumption. And, I also think he was angry about the debacle Trudeau that both parties now overtly acknowledge. So he was correct. I think that it is a good thing to keep the press working at their best, so his intolerance is healthy.

Having said that, I don’t buy the “main stream” media is in cahoots angle. I think the press picks up ideas they think are important to their audience and amplify them as the basis of a story. PP intolerance of sloppy journalism and terrible policies is abrupt and people react to it. The Liberals poll it and amplify it as a talking point, and then the press asks question about that “issue”. It gets clocked in truth, as things do when you hear them enough (as triumphantly exclaimed by a former Liberal minister) and we public accept that truth. It’s honestly a larger version of how things work in a courtroom, or market square.

Pheroze said:

I have heard others say that, but where does that come from? I think it is interesting how the story of his likability is accepted because I don’t see it in this speech, or any other speech where he has the chance to talk. I see him being very confrontational about set piece questions where he challenges the underlying assumption. And, I also think he was angry about the debacle Trudeau that both parties now overtly acknowledge. So he was correct. I think that it is a good thing to keep the press working at their best, so his intolerance is healthy.

Having said that, I don’t buy the “main stream” media is in cahoots angle. I think the press picks up ideas they think are important to their audience and amplify them as the basis of a story. PP intolerance of sloppy journalism and terrible policies is abrupt and people react to it. The Liberals poll it and amplify it as a talking point, and then the press asks question about that “issue”. It gets clocked in truth, as things do when you hear them enough (as triumphantly exclaimed by a former Liberal minister) and we public accept that truth. It’s honestly a larger version of how things work in a courtroom, or market square.

Click to expand...

Well we all view people differently. Despite how I feel about him, I am glad that he got his vote of confidence to stay at the helm. Now is not the time to upend the party with a leadership race.

I wonder if the AH member who thinks Don Lemmons arrest is wrong was concerned about journalism when a journalist was arrested for going into the Capitol on January 6 and recording the events of the day.

steve white said:

Mark my word--that influx won't be the last wave coming. Better get a plan in place now.

Of course Geert Wilders was crying like a lone wolf about all this DECADES ago.....we never learn, at least not in time.

Click to expand...

Pim Fortuyn, and before that Janmaat was the OG. The latter survived a bomb attack were his wife was gravely injured and the first one was assassinated by a green lefty. So peaceful the left. Geert Wilders is a socialist with an ant immigration standpoint and his party is die hard anti hunting.

Europe hasn't learned anything Denmark being the exception and some eastern European countries. Our new cabinet, being green and left, in spite of the country voting to the right, is hellbend on continuing importing tens of thousands of third world refugees.

We are being rules by leftist judges and international and European treaties. The right is obstructed every inch of the way by bureaucrats than can't be fired and judges who can decide whatever they want. We have a constitution but no constitutional court.

A couple of weeks ago they arrested a Pastor who prayed for gays and lesbians to leave their sinfully ways. Europe is going the totalitarian way. How further the populace goes to the right how harder they will and are suppressing us.

In Spain you can legalize up to a million illegals and not a sound from the EU. Hungary on the other hand who doesn't let any illegals and immigrants into their country is fined a million euros a day.

It is the lefty way or the highway...

Tbitty said:

I have written then deleted before posting several replies on this thread over the past couple days, because I felt like all were directed at you and your nonsense, but I did not want to exclusively call out your stupidity (many others do a good job of that anyway).

But this one got me. You, sir, are truly either a complete moron or just emphatically grasping for any reason to show your hate for Trump while simultaneously proving a lack of comprehension of information. In your own words, "perhaps you need to read more carefully." Since you clearly lack the ability to fully read and understand the text in front of you, I will break it down into what should be idiot-proof terms (although you will probably still fail to get it.)

Get ready, its time to pay attention now. If thats too tough, skip ahead to the bolded section (even if the rest still applies):

"... the use of physical force, threat of physical force,..." --- you read this part, good job. The problem is you stopped here in the middle of a sentence and pretended like that was all you needed to "prove" your biased opinion. However, You need to continue to finish the text. Please now read the following. I will remove the unnecessary words that do not apply to Don's situation, which I hope will make it easier for you. Since pictures are probably more your level of reading, I will insert smiley faces where I remove words.

"...or physical obstruction to intentionally intimidate, interfere with..." - we could likely apply this section of the text, but let's go ahead and continue because the next part certainly applies if your PhD, law level knowledge won't accept this as enough.

"... or attempt to intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship." -- and here we have the undoubtedly met the prosecutions burden of proof. It is on that idiots own camera footage where he and many others CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY, interfered and attempted to interfere with the congregation in their place of religious worship.
To me it's equally obvious they also intimidated, but that might be too big of a word/concept for you to grasp, so we will stick with interfere.

You failed to reply to my last post directed to you, so I will venture that you couldn't or wouldn't honestly answer my question. And you probably won't reply to this one either, but I do hope you will at the very least use this post to understand why a number of others on this thread constantly call out your nonsense.

Click to expand...

As I pointed out in my previous post the Act needs to be read in its entirety not pieces pulled out of context and cited separately. The Act does indeed specify that it is unlawful to intentionally obstruct, interfere with, etc. But before that it is SPECIFIC as to WHAT constitutes obstruction, interference, etc. It must involve PHYSICAL FORCE, PHYSICAL THREAT, OR PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTION. Everything before "obstruction" defines what is PHYSICALLY required to satisfy a violation. Everything after "obstruction" describes the who/where/how that's needed for a violation. Yes, it is all run together in one sentence which does make it more difficult for less astute individuals like yourself to comprehend. But surely you can understand the reasoning. First the Act must specify what is needed to satisfy interference, threat, and obstruction. I gave you the example of me farting loudly during the church service. The noise and smell might disrupt the church service but is it a federal offense? No. Similarly congregants have been known to disagree with a sermon or reading or some other congregant and express their verbal dissatisfaction during the service. I have personally seen this more than once. That may be interference but is it a federal offense? Of course not. In both examples no PHYSICAL element was involved. THEN the Act specifies the who, where, and why that's needed to satisfy a violation. People inside a church and worshipping. You cannot split one half the Act from the other to make a point (or fabricate a violation). Then you're taking parts of it out of context. Doesn't work. Clearly in the video no one is being shoved around or stopped from entering the service. The protestors did disrupt the service verbally, and while that was in poor taste, it does not appear to satisfy the critical physical element needed to satisfy a violation of the Act. Mr Lemon was asked to leave and he left. All of his interactions were polite and respectful. At all times he identified himself as a journalist. He knows the rules and it appears he was careful to follow them. Bondi's conjecture that he organized the affair to sensationalize something for the news was just that - conjecture. You don't have someone arrested because of an idea that pops into your head. It requires evidence ... and a real live statute to have been violated. This was classic Trump & Co shooting from the hip without thinking. And shooting themselves in the foot again.

The people who wrote this act were grappling with two sacred freedoms: expression and religion. I thought they did a good job drawing the line. Use physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction and you've crossed over it. Other than that, you're free to express yourself ... anywhere ... even in a church.