Attachment 50953************************************************** *********************************
Printable View
Attachment 50953************************************************** *********************************
More fake news from Commiechew
For one thing, Stormy Daniels is actually a Republican. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/..._n_527293.html
NEWS?!
Do you really think I'm putting this up as news? It might be news, but I put it up just to make fun of you people. Get one thing straight... she's a porn star who happens to call herself republican. You refusal to recognize/admit she's a porno actress and, would rather designate her solely a republican instead? By all means do so... Live your life, it's a silly one.
Just to make fun of us people??? People who live in glass houses should not throw stones!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by commiechew
A typical, nonsensical reply from Commiechew.
First, both the Parkland protesters and Stormy Daniels are current news items.
Second, I didn't say that Stormy Daniels is not a porn actress. Why wouldn't I say that she is a porn actress? She is a Republican porn actress, and it figures. They are the ones who are obsessed with $$$.
Regarding the meme itself. Hillary Clinton is not the leader of the Democratic Party. She is basically out of politics and I believe she will not run for public office again. Moreover, a lot of liberals don't think particularly well of her. There seems to be a consensus among conservatives that we do, but we don't. The Clintons have had a huge influence on conventional Democratic politics since Bill was elected, and that is what got Hillary nominated over Bernie Sanders, unfortunately. She had the Democratic politicians all lined up for her.
Regarding the Parkland students, they may have varying political views. I think that district has a Republican representative, so many of their parents are Republicans. But if they leaned Republican before, I don't think they will now, knowing that the NRA has Republicans in their pockets, or rather, that Republican politicians have NRA money in their pockets. These are just young citizens trying to do something admirable by helping to get reasonable legislation passed and help save lives. Yet, many Republicans cannot seem to keep themselves from being critical of them. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them run for office when they are old enough, but leaders of the Democratic Party? Don't be ridiculous.
All your other excrement is just that... but you fools were going to ride the Hillary boat for a full 8 years! The only reason you didn't is because sound minds took control and are still in control. Don't try to tell me now that you 5 donks wouldn't have defended her and touted what a great President she shouldaa wouldaa couldaa been...Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural Lefty
had the brains of this country not set you idiots straight.
High pitched whining; just as I said. Didn't anyone else hear it? No one wants to hear that "shrieking noise" (coming from a man or woman... you Democrats get that?). Speaking of pitches, she looks like she's setting up the box for another swing, or at least she's hoping to get called up from the farm... lol.Quote:
Clinton calls 2016 election 'traumatic,' admits she'd like to 'take back' some things she said
By Paulina Dedaj
Almost a year and a half since losing her bid for president, former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton still is talking about election woes, calling it a “traumatic” experience.
Speaking at Rutgers University Thursday, Clinton spoke primarily about being a woman in politics — and being targeted as a result, the problem Republicans face as a disjointed unit, the upcoming elections and her hopes that the recent events under the Trump administration would motivate people enough to vote for change.
When asked about being told to get off the public stage and “shut up,” Clinton said she was “struck” by the fact that “they never said that to any man,” citing unsourced research from “one of the young people” on her staff.
Clinton also mentioned being called “shrill” by the media, which she said never commented on her opponent’s habit of “finger waving.”
“It’s about time that women were allowed to be themselves the way men are allowed to be themselves,” she said.
The former secretary of state also said she’s regretted some things she said.
“I can do better. There are things I’ve said I’d like to take back.”
She might have been referring to remarks she made earlier this month in India where she said women face “ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband” thinks they should. Critics slammed the comments as sexist.
She made similar remarks in September, seemingly blaming women in part for her loss.
Clinton agreed to do Thursday's speech for $25,000 from a university endowment, NJ.com reported.
Clinton also took the opportunity to bash the Republican Party saying it slowly was coming undone by “a very small group of powerful forces,” who could fund another candidate if one does not appeal to the “far right.” She said she was referring to groups including the National Rifle Association.
Clinton talked about the upcoming elections and the number of Republicans who have announced their retirement or that have said that they will not seek reelection.
“They’re leaving,” she said, “because they know they will be shown no understanding by the hard right and the money that funds it.”
Clinton also took jabs at the Trump administration ahead of the important 2018 midterm elections, although she mentioned Donald Trump by name only once, but alluded to him several other times.
“I really hope this is a turning point,” she said, speaking of the upcoming midterm elections.
“I’m hoping in this election, this midterm election, enough people will, maybe for the first time or maybe for the first time in a long time say, ‘Look, I was really moved by what happened at Parkland, or I’m sick we’re the only country in the world not in the Paris agreement on climate change, or I don’t like what they tried to do to healthcare’ or whatever the motivator is” to ensure enough people will go out to vote.
Clinton spoke to a crowd of just over 5,000 people.
commiesucker
I have not seen one single comment on any of these messed up threads where anyone supports Hillary Clinton any longer. The only ones supporting her and dragging her along are idiots like you on the right. The GOP did a great job of demonizing her and ruining her career and it will never recover. To say anyone on here supports her for president any longer just proves what an imbecile you are.
Pay attention moron, your precious GOP is sinking and stinking to high heaven. The hypocrisy is being called out and people are sick of it on both sides of the isle. Do I believe that the DNC is better?
Well at this point in time I would have to say it is significantly better and not a threat to our country and the world like the current administration. That being said, they are still corrupt politicians as well, just not as immediately dangerous and hell bent on 'privatizing' our great country for profit as the GOP.
He's just pointing out the stupidity of your comment. To say that she's part of democratic 'leadership' when she's a republican would be typical of a 'fake news' sky is falling moronic Trump supporter trying to make a meme out of anything regardless of it not making any sense. And for an idiot like you to call someones life silly? I'm pretty sure you don't know him at all and just result to name calling from the keyboard in mom's basement out of fear. LMAOQuote:
Originally Posted by commiechew
Brent is correct. Hillary Clinton is still the favorite whipping girl of the right, when in fact those on the left have moved on, and many of us were never very fond of her. I thought she only got as far as she did because of Bill, and there are many better Democrats to lead us. Yes, we probably would have thought she was a decent president, but also at least speaking for myself, that we could have done a lot better. Your "high pitched" and "shrieking noise" comments speak for themselves. Would you have ever have said the same of a man, Commiechew?
I know enough to get a rise out of him... and it worked too, didn't it? lol And now look, it got you too! LOL You people can't stop yourselves from defending any position that differs from yours. You need to let things go... Russia's going to be pushing buttons soon and everyone is going to worry about that. There are bigger things to watch out for besides a lame meme and the defense of a politically dead issue. He's your President, "He" not "She"... "He". His hand is thinking "Am I going to push the Red Button soon? AM I? BOOM!
High pitched screeching from a man? it comes out of you too. It's just that your vocal chords won't let you hit the high notes but, it's still shrieking... if you'd just stick to talking about fishing, no one would ever accuse you two of shrieking - I know I wouldn't.
If you think by getting a rise from someone, "you" actually accomplished something for yourself or for your political affiliation. You couldn't have missed the mark more then if you were shooting backwards. I shouldn't be telling you this, because you're playing into the hands of the people you totally disagree with. But you can't help yourself, so you won't stop posting, so it won't matter what I'm about to tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by commiechew
The people on the Left, Center or Independents need someone to bounce back their ideas. (otherwise it would not be very entertaining) If everyone would keep agreeing with each other, "what would be the fun in that??"
The best comedy teams had a straight man and a true comic. It was the job of the straight man to feed the lines to the comic or be the butt of the jokes for the comic. If that analogy is too abstract for you to comprehend. I've got another one for sure, you can understand!!!
It's the Harlem Globe trotters. For them to do their basketball magic, they do need to have a pretend team to be playing against. (the Washington Generals) They never lose to them, but are a necessary prop!!! Sorta like what's left on here arguing the Conservative side. The real strength on here arguing for the Conservative position, ran for the hills when Trump got elected. (they truly were paper tigers all along!!)
Finally someone with a clear vision of the world. If the rest of the goonies on this forum only had it as well. I applaud the honesty and your willingness to help, Thank you!Quote:
Originally Posted by etucker1959
3 people just fell off of their chairs and it's not the Conservatives!!!! lolQuote:
Originally Posted by commiechew
If you post stuff to get a rise out of people, Commiechew, that makes you a troll (look up the definition of troll), and I am not talking about fishing here.
But I am not a shrieker, just a calm and well-informed responder, which drives conservatives batty.
Then there's this guy... he might run.
Attachment 50955
Look at the previous post video...
That's the funny part about uncle Joe. He stacks up "Best" against Trump in theoretical match ups in 2020. The logic is, "Alpha Male vs Alpha Male." (some people want an Alpha Male as President) Except Biden has a long career in politics and no major scandals. Then there is Trump, "do I need to say more!!" lolQuote:
Originally Posted by commiechew
Then there was old man Bush, "Which I personal like." Was known to pull an David Cop a feel on women.
Good Speech!!! Too bad he didn't live up to the rhetoric he gave!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by commiechew
POLITICS
50 PERCENT: Trump Outpaces Obama In Approval Ratings
President Donald Trump’s approval rating hit 50 percent in Rasmussen’s daily presidential tracking poll Monday, which puts him ahead of his predecessor at the same point in the presidency.
The last time Trump hit 50 percent in the Rasmussen tracking poll was February 27. At the time, he was generally within the 47-50 percent range. The President’s approval rating outpaces that of former President Barack Obama, who sat at 46 percent in Rasmussen’s tracking poll on April 2, 2010.
Trump’s approval ratings have steadily climbed in other, less-favorable polls with aggregator FiveThirtyEight putting his overall approval at 40 percent, with a 53.2 percent disapproval rating.
A recent CNN poll found that Trump’s approval rating is at an 11 month high of 42 percent. The Associate Press found similar results.
*Rasmussen Reports’ final White House Watch survey showed Democrat Hillary Clinton with a 2.0% Popular Vote lead over Republican Donald Trump.[55] After all 136+ million U.S. votes were counted, Hillary Clinton lead the Popular Vote by 2.1%.[56] In a post-election commentary entitled "Issues Mattered After All," Rasmussen Reports’ Managing Editor wrote "The media created a false narrative about the 2016 presidential campaign, and most polling reinforced it. Controversy was the name of the media game, most of it focused on Republican Donald Trump, and many media outlets, most prominently the New York Times, and many pollsters were saying a little over a month ago that Democrat Hillary Clinton had already won. But the three daily tracking polls – the Los Angeles Times, IBD/TIPP, and Rasmussen Reports – consistently showed a much tighter race."[57] As in 2012 (see above), a Fordham University study by Dr. Costas Panagopoulos,[58] who once served in the office of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, compared pre-election polling with the results from Election Day. The study ranked 14 organizations but, unlike 2012, chose to omit the results of Rasmussen Reports.[59] An American Research Group study[60] based on the method of Martin, Traugott, and Kennedy,[61] found that Rasmussen Reports had the highest accuracy among 25 pollsters in the 2016 election.
We (voters) gave Obama the opportunity he never deserved.Quote:
Originally Posted by etucker1959
Blah blah blah HILLARY HILLARY HILLARY OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA. Really? Obama is not president any longer and had this same PoS congress and house willfully admitting that they would sabotage ANYTHING he tried to do, so to compare is ridiculous. Trump can't even get stuff done with these bozos and he's a republican. Not to worry, those clowns days are numbered and they know it. Now I do admit that some things Trump has done have kind of worked, but at what cost is my BIGGEST problem. Our country is being sold to the highest bidder and will be taken over by corporations if not stopped and if you're OK with that then you really are not lover of the USA. This administration is a 'yuuuuuuuge' threat to our democracy and it's only going to get worse. We will be in a war before long, it's one of the most tried and true republican methods of maintaining power and making their military contractors and themselves rich. I'd be willing to bet that you'd prefer being communist over Democrats running things. Between the Sinclair Broadcast Group and Trump trying to sabotage our media and make it a state run propaganda machine and all protections for our planet and education being destroyed by idiots (DeVoss & Pruitt) we are heading down a very dangerous slope and if you can't see it, then get out of the swamp because you're drowning in it and don't even realize it.Quote:
Originally Posted by commiechew
What you don't realize is that I'm not a Democrat, I'm an American and will always vote for whats best for the country and not party lines. Right now, the republicans are as destructive as anything I've ever seen in all my years and all of the history books I've ever read. They are a danger to our country and THATS why I can't support them.
Never deserved? Please explain. This should be interestingQuote:
Originally Posted by commiechew
1. Obama's caver-in-chief leadership style
When Obama ran for president in 2008, some thought a refreshing aspect of his candidacy was his potential management style. Unlike the Bush administration, which ruled by dictates—like its war of choice in Iraq—Obama was a mediator who would bridge the gap between liberals and conservatives. Obama offered a mediator's promise. It was not, "We won, we rule." Instead it was a pledge to find common ground.
Sadly, this management style has mostly failed in Washington. During Obama's first five years, many of his biggest domestic disappointments have come from negotiating with Republicans and with private interests who never had any intention of compromising or working in good faith. Perhaps the only memorable thing that former Sen. John Edwards said in his 2008 campaign was his critique of Obama’s style: "You cannot negotiate with political thugs."
But Obama's inclination to try to satisfy all factions has lead to the key disasters of his presidency. The budget battles with the House GOP—and the tactical error he made about GOP thinking—lead to the cruel federal sequester and subsequent government shutdown. His decision not to push for a public option in Obamacare and his failure to insist on cost controls for private health plans are two others.
It’s sad that being a reasonable person in today’s Washington often doesn’t work. A less charitable interpretation is that Obama just wimped out. The hard truth is that a president has to be feared and respected by his opponents, not seen as a person who is more willing to compromise than draw lines.
2. Obama's deportation of nearly 2 million undocumented immigrants
During his 2013 inaugural speech, Obama addressed immigration reform specifically, saying: “Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity — until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.”
However, Obama has deported nearly two million undocumented immigrants — more than any president in history. And a 2013 report found that Immigrations Custom Enforcement detained nearly 90 percent of undocumented immigrants in 2012 and the beginning of 2013 for non-serious offenses. Deportations have become so rampant that 61 percent of immigrant Hispanics said that deportation relief is more important than a pathway to citizenship. In an attempt to resist the craze, undocumented activists have chained themselves to the White House demanding “Not One More." They've blocked deportation buses, interrupted Obama’s speeches and 30 even crossed the border, which resulted in five of them getting deported. At one point, 29 House Democrats sent a letter to Obama, urging him to halt deportations. And five of these lawmakers will bring immigration activists as their guests to the SOTU address.
3. Obama's coziness with, and failure to regulate or punish, the big banks
The devastating financial crisis of 2007-08 was an opportunity for a transformative leader to take on the out-of-control banking industry, which has become a dangerous oligopoly that threatens the economy and preys upon American citizens. FDR did this during the Great Depression, ensuring a thorough investigation of wrongdoing and setting up rules and regulations that kept banks in line for many decades until the deregulatory fever of the 1980s once again unleashed them.
Unfortunately, rather than bringing change, Obama has consistently surrounded himself with bank-friendly policy advisors who tend to believe that what is good for the banks is good for everyone. He has not made bringing criminal bankers to justice a priority, and his administration is clearly a revolving door for Wall Street. The biggest and most dangerous banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo—are even bigger than they were before the crisis. Scarcely a week passes without news of some new abuse committed by these institutions. Obama has failed to support obvious measures to rein in Wall Street, such as the financial transaction tax, and Dodd-Frank has been mostly defanged. Banks have enjoyed special treatment and record-breaking profits during Obama’s tenure, while ordinary Americans have struggled.
4. Obama's education "reformers" are corporate privatizers
Looking for further proof of Obama’s neoliberal, anti-progressive bona fides? Then look no further than how his administration has approached public education over the years.
From the moment the president chose Arne Duncan—who famously closed dozens of public schools and pushed privatization of the rest during his tenure as Chicago schools CEO—to head the Department of Education, it was clear that corporate interests would play a central role in the shaping of education policy. The administration’s signature education initiative, unveiled in late 2009, was nothing less than a chip off the old, failed policy block that defined George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” agenda.
The Obama/Duncan “Race to the Top” initiative uses both carrots and sticks to lure schools to compete for $4.35 billion in federal funding; required is a willingness to commit to increasingly controversial testing and assessment—linking teacher evaluation to student performance—and an enthusiasm for shuttering low-performing schools and turning them over to charter operators to spur private investments wherever possible.
These are not small concerns. As education historian Diane Ravitch noted in 2010, with Race to the Top,
“[President Obama and Secretary Duncan] are heading in the wrong direction. On their present course, they will end up demoralizing teachers, closing schools that are struggling to improve, dismantling the teaching profession, destabilizing communities, and harming public education.”
Who pays the price for these policies, none of which have actually been proven to work? The children and families of America. The neediest among us, of course, most of all.
5. Obama's call to ramp-up and embrace of our now pervasive surveillance state
In his first run for president, Obama repeatedly criticized George Bush for using post-9/11 programs to spy on American citizens. But after entering office, Obama has done nothing but ramp up all forms of surveillance, from metadata capture to wiretapping to recording phone log information of American citizens. Edward Snowden's revelations about the NSA's surveillance programs and capabilities shoot deep into the territory of science fiction and George Orwell's 1984. Obama's speech on the NSA and surveillance this January provided little in the way of peace of mind for any citizen concerned with maintaining a shred of privacy. Robert Scheer got to the heart of the matter:
"Barack Obama’s speech on surveillance was his worst performance... in its stark betrayal of his oft-proclaimed respect for constitutional safeguards and civil liberty. His unbridled defense of the surveillance state opened the door to the new McCarthyism of Mike Rogers and Dianne Feinstein, the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees, who on Sunday talk shows were branding Edward Snowden as a possible Russian spy.6. Obama's dedication to secrecy and his hypocrisy about drones
"Somewhere in law school, Obama must have learned that the whole point of our Bill of Rights, inspired by American revolutionaries like Sam Adams, a Sons of Liberty co-conspirator, was to curtail government power as the main threat to freedom. Thus was Adams’ insistence on the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, banning the warrantless searches that Obama now seeks to justify."
Barack Obama owes a chunk of his election success to anti-war voters who turned out during the Democratic primaries in 2008, disgusted by Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize force on Iraq. But the man who became president has sorely disappointed many of the same anti-war voters with his expansion of the deadly drone war.
Since he was elected, President Obama has launched more 390 drone strikes—eight times the number George W. Bush oversaw. Obama has escalated the drone war in Pakistan—where the majority of attacks take place—and in Somalia and Yemen. The drone strikes, meant to target Al Qaeda and the Taliban, have killed scores of civilians, disrupted tribal life, brought about huge suffering and trauma and inflamed anger at the U.S. Four Americans have been killed in drone attacks, and the whole program remains shrouded in secrecy.
In response to a growing wave of criticism, Obama gave a landmark speech last year where he vowed that transparency would increase and that drone strikes would only occur when there was a “near-certainty” civilians would not be killed. Those promises have gone unfulfilled. The U.S. has yet to release a count of the civilians and militants it has killed or offer up the full legal rationale to Congress justifying these missile strikes. Meanwhile, civilians continue to die in Pakistan and Yemen, “collateral damage” from these drone attacks. The latest example came on December 12, 2013, when a drone attack in Yemen, said to be aimed at an Al Qaeda leader, killed 12 civilians driving as part of a wedding convoy.
7. Obama's attempt to ram through the corporation-loving, people-harming Trans-Pacific Partnership in secret
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a super-secret multinational corporate scheme sometimes described as "NAFTA on steroids," is one of Obama's worst initiatives. As secretive as it is, information about the TPP has been leaking out, and the more people hear about it, the worse it sounds. Fortunately, the light of day may also help to scuttle the deal.
Wikileaks leaked the TPP Environmental Chapter [in mid-January]. The bottom line—there is no enforcement to protect the environment. The TPP is worse than President George W. Bush’s trade deals. Mainstream environmental groups are saying the TPP is unacceptable. Similarly, the leak of the Intellectual Property Chapter revealed that it created a path to patent everything imaginable, including plants and animals, to turn everything into a commodity for profit. The Obama administration was pushing it way beyond normal intellectual property law in order to increase profits for everything from pharmaceuticals to textbooks.
As Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese recently wrote for AlterNet: "After four years of secret negotiations with more than 600 corporate advisers, the once seemingly invincible largest trade bill in history, covering 40% of the world’s economy, looks very much like it can be defeated."
Why is the TPP looking like it can be stopped? According to Flowers and Zeese:
"One reason is its secrecy. Leaks are sinking the TPP like the Titanic. ... The refrain is always the same: profits come first. The necessities of the people and protection of the planet come last."
Ron Kirk, the former U.S. trade rep, said they were keeping it secret because the more people knew, the less they would like the TPP and it would become so unpopular it could never become law. Each leak has proven him right.
8. Obama's failure to do much about the racist drug war and discriminatory sentencing
President Obama, a former heavy pot smoker in his youth, has very slowly and finally admitted a few painful realities about the drug war, which were just as true 5 years ago when he took office as now.
Obama recently told the New Yorker he thinks marijuana isn't any more harmful than alcohol (actually, it’s proven that cannabis is far less harmful the booze...but this is what we call progress). He also said it is important for the new cannabis laws in Colorado and Washington to go forward "because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”
But here, hypocrisy reigns supreme. Obama does not walk the walk of his talk. In 2011, drug offenders accounted for 48 percent of the federal prisoner population and 16 percent of the state prisoner population—and half of all of those people are incarcerated for marijuana-related crimes, according to the Sentencing Project.
Last year the U.S. Department of Justice revised the law so that mandatory minimum sentences no longer applied to the majority of nonviolent drug offenders. However, Obama has only granted clemency to 8 of the more than 100,000 prisoners still serving time for drug related crimes in the country. And he still holds the record for granting the fewest pardons of any U.S. president.
And in a truly shocking move, according to Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times, Obama's Justice Department fought a Court recommendation to release thousands of federal inmates still serving time under the racist crack standards of pre-2010. So the full court overruled its panel, and those thousands continue to rot in jail with a law that in essence, due to its discriminatory effect, was illegal. Obama's words are empty and were well within his power, to end the corrupt and racist war on drugs, and curb its devastating effects.
9. Obama's counter productive energy policy
Calling someone “anti-science” is usually an epithet reserved for those clinging to creationism and climate denialism, and yet Obama’s embrace of an energy strategy using “all of the above” flies in the face of everything the world’s top scientists have been saying about the threats we face as a result of climate change. The scale of the accelerating climate catastrophe requires an energy policy grounded in the best science, prioritizing clean energy, and severely limiting the use and extraction of fossil fuels—not a namby-pamby “all of the above.” Not even close.
Inexcusable are the Obama administration’s embrace of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas, and the continual propping up of a dying coal industry that’s killing us along with itself. A great example, as Jeff Biggers outlines on AlterNet recently, was Obama’s Department of Energy gifting Big Coal $1 billion for a ‘clean coal’ boondoggle.
Also baffling and unacceptable is Obama’s green-lighting of the southern leg of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, while hypocritically calling for more review of climate change impacts of the northern section. In light of the best science from the international community, the Obama administration should be figuring out how to move us away from dependence on tar sands, coal, oil and fracked gas as quickly as possible – not making them the centerpiece of his energy policy.
“An ‘all of the above’ strategy is a compromise that future generations can’t afford,” read a letter to Obamasigned by a coalition of the country’s major environmental organizations. “It fails to prioritize clean energy … it locks in the extraction of fossil fuels that will inevitably lead to a catastrophic climate future. It threatens our health, our homes, our most sensitive public lands, our oceans and our most precious wild places.”
10. Obama's huge expansion of the number of countries where we are fighting secret wars with Special Ops
Bush was a real war monger, with his “Shock and Awe,” “Mission Accomplished,” and wars of choice. But Obama, once seen as the anti-war candidate, has him soundly beat in the number of secret wars with unconventional forces spread across the globe. After a thorough investigation, Nick Turse of Tom Dispatch recently reported the staggering fact that there are currently U.S. Special Ops in 70% of the world’s nations. “All over the planet, the Obama administration is waging a secret war whose full extent has never been fully revealed,” Turse wrote.
Turse then offers an accounting of the exponential growth in Special Ops, which include Green Berets and Rangers, Navy SEALs and Delta Force commandos, specialized helicopter crews, boat teams, and civil affairs personnel, and much more.
“In the waning days of the Bush presidency, Special Operations forces were reportedly deployed in about 60 countries around the world . . . In 2013, elite U.S. forces were deployed in 134 countries around the globe . . . This 123% increase during the Obama years demonstrates how, in addition to conventional wars and a CIA drone campaign, public diplomacy and extensive electronic spying, the U.S. has engaged in still another significant and growing form of overseas power projection. Conducted largely in the shadows by America’s most elite troops, the vast majority of these missions take place far from prying eyes, media scrutiny, or any type of outside oversight, increasing the chances of unforeseen blowback and catastrophic consequences.” Like 9/11. That’s an example of blowback.
Not that I don't agree with some of that, but I don't agree with most.Quote:
Originally Posted by commiechew
Would you mind stating your sources for this article because it looks slightly biased, not too bad, but biased none the less.
And besides that, it still doesn't change the current threat to our entire planet by the current administration and definitely doesn't make me anything but more determined to clean house. At least one thing I never felt from Obama was the threat to our country from within.
Yeah, sources? State where you don't agree. Don't try to defame/discredit my sources, unless you can actually refute the claims... then go for it! (besides, it's not that hard to find sources, really? you need help with that? What, are you over 50 or something like that?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent
Apparently, Commiechew has gone liberal. Every one of those 10 points about Obama (which I don't necessarily agree with) are ones I have heard from the more disaffected, cynical leaning liberals among us. Take the first one for example (which I do agree with) which states that Republicans never had any intention of negotiating in good faith with Obama. And it just goes on from there.
By the way, Trump's approval rating is about 40%, not 50% according to weighted averages of polls. Rasmussen polls are particularly biased in favor of Republicans.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ex_cid=rrpromo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural Lefty
Biased? maybe but fairly accurate.
Don't care to acknowledge this little tidbit?
*Rasmussen Reports’ final White House Watch survey showed Democrat Hillary Clinton with a 2.0% Popular Vote lead over Republican Donald Trump.[55] After all 136+ million U.S. votes were counted, Hillary Clinton lead the Popular Vote by 2.1%.
so, your weighted average just might be using biased polling information.
I already acknowledged, but anyone can find a biased report that makes every single president we've ever had look bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by commiechew
But doesn't that poll play against your Trump claim?
We all know how accurate that poll was for the election don't we.
And besides that, Hillary needs to be a nobody to the Democrats now. She had her chance and partly blew it and partly had it stolen, but I don't care for her either and only voted for her as the less of two bad choices. With what's been going on, I was correct. For all her BS, I really don't think she would be trying to destroy our country, national parks, VA healthcare, planet, etc. by giving it to the lobbyists and biggest donors. I really have a feeling these tariffs are going to bite a lot of working people in the butt and have the opposite affect as a 'job creator' that he claims also. Why are we spending money and taking our reserves from their families to 'guard' the border when immigration is the lowest since 1971? It's purely to try to justify that stupid wall and now our military is supposed to pay for it? WTH? I thought we needed all those billions for new war toys and what about Mexico paying for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent
Now this is what I call some real SHRIEKING!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent
Just think, if you replaced the Donalds name with the Hillary name in every news items of the day for the past year, and vice versa, you think you'd be CHEERING instead of SHRIEKING?
What do you think?
lmk... better, let us know...
Californians would benefit from Cox’s conservative leadership (That's John Cox who is now within striking distance of being elected governor of the infamously liberal state in November).
The state is ranked worst for individual income taxes and 48th overall by the Tax Foundation’s 2018 State Business Tax Climate Index.
Cox would work to cut state taxes so that Californians would see more take-home pay and small businesses would be more able to grow, succeed, expand and create more jobs.
This includes the hugely unpopular gasoline tax that the Democratic California Legislature and Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown imposed on drivers last year.
The expensive welfare and government dependency programs that California’s liberal leadership has embraced and enacted over the years have also made it the “poverty capital of America,” as Kerry Jackson wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.
Yea, Just like Arnie did right?Quote:
Originally Posted by commiechew
.
WTH are you talking about as usual dolt? I hate Hillary and if she did this stupid crap I would have the same opinion. Unlike you, I don't blindly support an idiot just because I don't like the other party. As for you, stupid is as stupid does moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by commiechew
I'm for the USA not a damn party and what's being done with the support of morons like you is a danger to our country. Answer this. Would you rather be communist or have a completely Democrat run government? Don't laugh, this may be a real question if the country keeps getting ripped apart from the inside. A Dictatorship would be more likely than communism, so you OK with Don and his revolving crew of yesmen running everything from here on out?
Ease up there cowgirl... Take a breath.
Has the California backlash against liberal craziness finally begun?
By Peggy Grande
California's red-leaning areas may be rising up against the state's longstanding liberalism.
In a state consumed by conservation and environmental issues, one highly endangered species has long gone unnoticed and unprotected – the California Conservative. Is it still possible to rescue them from the brink of extinction? Can their numbers be revived? And can they thrive here once again?
While the nation continues to view California as a homogeneous voting block of individuals in lock step with an increasingly progressive liberal agenda, for Common Sense Californians up and down the left coast state, there’s a sense that a different tide is rising.
The ripple began in Los Alamitos where the city council voted to opt out of California’s sanctuary law. And it was followed by Orange County who voted to join the U.S. Department of Justice in challenging the state’s sanctuary city laws. This decision was echoed by the city of Escondido and later this month San Diego County will also vote to join their ranks in this federal lawsuit. Other municipalities are lining up to consider doing the same.
California has always been the tip of the spear. Often the genesis of art, influence, ideas, style and entertainment, we also take the lead in ways that are less admirable with high state tax, high gas tax, high costs of living and housing, an out of control homeless problem in our urban areas, declining test scores in schools, increasingly inaccessible and cost-prohibitive health care, and many of our major cities often appear on lists of the least-livable cities in the U.S.
A supermajority of Democrats at the state level has presided over a tragic decline in virtually every statistic and has championed expensive and detrimental ideas such as the multi-state tax, a failing high speed rail project and of course the most recent sanctuary state status. These consequential endeavors are concocted in the cocoon of Sacramento, isolated and unconnected to the effect those decisions have on everyone else who lives in the state. They spend money as if it’s theirs. It’s not. It’s mine and every other taxpayer’s in California. Yet we have no voice and many of our representatives no longer represent us, if they ever did.
Those who predict a blue wave across the nation and count on California forever being blue from San Diego to Crescent City might want to take notice of the red ripple which has begun in the Golden State.
For those of us who don’t make the policies, but must live under them, we feel Sacramento’s presence in our daily lives in ways - and in places - we shouldn’t. In our grocery stores if you want to take your purchases home in a bag, there’s a per bag fee. (As my own personal protest, I don’t pay for bags and just throw all the items back in my cart and loose into the back of my car.) And in the most ridiculous and egregious example of overreach, the state legislature says it will arrest any waiter who gives a customer a plastic straw if they don’t ask for one. With all the problems in our state, I don’t think that jailing unsolicited straw distributors in restaurants should be a top priority.
But common sense has not prevailed here for a long time. Nor has democracy. With a jungle primary system in our elections, the top two candidates in the primary go on to the general election – regardless of party. So what this meant in the 2016 election is that nearly 800,000 Californians only had one Republican on their entire ballot to vote for – Donald Trump. Is the left so afraid of democracy that they must tip the scales in their own favor to prevent a different view point or ideology? And how surprised would people across the nation be to see what the 2016 electoral map of California looked like when broken down by county, not just painted with one big coat of blue from top to bottom?
Surprising, but true, there actually are conservatives in California, but we have been silenced and powerless far too long and now are finding an unlikely alliance with common sense Democrats who feel abandoned by their party and realize it no longer represents them.
It appears those in power here who have championed policies that continue to steer California further and further left may now have overplayed their hand. And the backlash has begun, with no end in sight. In fact, common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle are coming together in solidarity to challenge policies and governing that has left them to endure the consequences of the decisions of their lawmakers, which has made life more expensive, more challenging, more dangerous, and in some instances even putting them into potential legal jeopardy.
For example, business owners now face the quandary of being in compliance with the feds or being in compliance with the state with their employees and their immigration status. This is not a partisan issue. This is the very type of issue that continues to make California a difficult place to do business and disincentivizes businesses to come here – and continues to drive successful businesses and taxpayers out of the state.
When over 1 million Californians who are here illegally now have California driver’s licenses, and when Californians have paid into the state’s higher education system and have a difficult time accessing it, and then when they do, they pay fees that illegals don’t pay, it’s no wonder why Common Sense Californians are outraged.
Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for many years before switching to the Republican Party. When asked why he changed parties, he said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party - the Democratic Party left me.” That seems to be a sentiment being echoed by Common Sense Californians up and down the state as many blue blood Democrats and Reagan Democrats feel like their party no longer reflects their values or priorities. Though it’s unlikely that a singular candidate or issue will fully unite the state, California would be smart to put forth common sense candidates who are talking to – and listening to – common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle. Those who predict a blue wave across the nation and count on California forever being blue from San Diego to Crescent City might want to take notice of the red ripple which has begun in the Golden State – not in Sacramento – but in cities and counties where common sense Californians still reside.
Just putting a few things up and asking a couple of questions... Why would that anger some to the point of blowing their head gasket? Too much compression? You might need a valve adjustment? I would say, "Open yourself up to some possibilities, try something different. Nothing changes unless a change is made..."
That reminds me of that Winston Churchill joke, about Democracy being the 2nd worst kind of government. Instead of Democracy let's insert Liberalism. I'll do the joke now, being a Liberal is having the 2nd worst political beliefs. What is the number one worst political beliefs?? Being a Conservative!!! My point is, "I don't agree with all the tree huger stuff the enviro's are doing to the state." (which the Liberals support) But what would happen if the Conservatives took over??? I fear something like the drinking water wouldn't be safe to drink. Or they would really get us in an economic mess, or in another state budget disaster!!! Just like Trump is doing on an National Level!!Quote:
Originally Posted by commiechew
If you don't believe that, what happened to the Big Conservatives on this board, "After" Trump got elected President??? They ran for the Hills, when it was going to be proven that Conservationism was even worse then what Obama was doing!!!
When the Supreme Court Stopped Economic Fascism in America We Can Resist the Headlong March into Economic Tyranny
Richard M. Ebeling
by Richard M. Ebeling
Seventy years ago, on May 27, 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court said no to economic fascism in America. The trend toward bigger and ever-more intrusive government, unfortunately, was not stopped, but the case nonetheless was a significant event that at that time prevented the institutionalizing of a Mussolini-type corporativist system in America.
In a unanimous decision the nine members of the Supreme Court said there were constitutional limits beyond which the federal government could not go in claiming the right to regulate the economic affairs of the citizenry. It was a glorious day in American judicial history, and is worth remembering.
When Franklin Roosevelt ran for president in the autumn of 1932 he did so on a Democratic Party platform that many a classical liberal might have gladly supported and even voted for. The platform said that the federal government was far too big, taxed and spent far too much, and intruded in the affairs of the states to too great an extent. It said government spending had to be cut, taxes reduced, and the federal budget balanced. It called for free trade and a solid gold-backed currency.
But as soon as Roosevelt took office in March 1933 he instituted a series of programs and policies that turned all those promises upside down. In the first four years of FDR’s New Deal, taxes were increased, government spending reached heights never seen before in U.S. history, and the federal budget bled red with deficits.The bureaucracy ballooned; public-works projects increasingly dotted the land; and the heavy hand of government was all over industry and agriculture. The United States was taken off the gold standard, with the American people compelled to turn in their gold com and built lion to the government for paper money under the threat of confiscation and imprisonment.
In June 1933 Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), after which FDR created the National Recovery Administration (NRA). Modeled on Mussolini’s fascist economic system, it forced virtually all American industry, manufacturing, and retail business into cartels possessing the power to set prices and wages, and to dictate the levels of production. Within a few months over 200 separate pricing and production codes were imposed on the various branches of American business. The symbol of the NRA was a Blue Eagle that had lightning bolts in one claw and an industrial gear in the other. Every business in the country was asked to have a Blue Eagle sign in its window that declared, “We Do Our Part,” meaning it followed the pricing and production codes. Citizen committees were formed to spy on local merchants and report if they dared to sell at lower prices.
Propaganda rallies in support of the NRA were held across the country. During halftime at football games cheerleaders would form the shape of the Blue Eagle. Government-sponsored parades featured Hollywood stars supporting the NRA. At one of these parades the famous singer Al Jolson was filmed being asked what he thought of the NRA; he replied, “NRA? NRA? Why it’s better than my wedding night!” Film shorts produced by Hollywood in support of the NRA were shown in theaters around the country; in one of them child star Shirley Temple danced and sang the praises of big-government regulation of the American economy.
The NRA codes were soon joined by similar controls over farming with the passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). Farmers were given subsidies and government-guaranteed price supports, with Washington determining what crops could be grown and what livestock could be raised. Government ordered some crops to be plowed under and some livestock slaughtered, all in the name of centrally planned farm production and pricing.
Much of the urban youth of America were rounded up and sent off to national forests for regimentation and mock military-style drilling as part of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The Works Progress Administration (WPA) created make-work projects for thousands of able-bodied men, all at taxpayers’ expense. Since unemployed artists were “workers” too, they were set to work in government buildings across the land. Even today, in some o f the post offices dating from the 1930s, one can see murals depicting happy factory workers and farm hands in a style similar to those produced in Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany.
This headlong march into economic fascism was brought to a halt by the Supreme Court. The catalyst was a legal case known as the Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. Schechter, a slaughterhouse that sold chickens to kosher markets in New York City, was accused of violating the “fair competition” codes under the NRA. The case made its way up to the Supreme Court, with the nine justices laying down their unanimous decision on May 27, 1935.
Three hundred people packed the court that day to hear the decision, with prominent members of Congress and the executive branch in the audience. The justices declared that the federal government had exceeded its authority under the interstate-commerce clause of the Constitution, since the defendant purchased and sold all the chickens it marketed within the boundaries of the State of New York. Therefore, the federal government lacked the power to regulate the company’s production and prices. In addition, the justices stated that the NRA’s power to impose codes constituted arbitrary and discretionary control inconsistent with the limited and enumerated powers delegated by the Constitution.
AAA Rejected
This was soon followed by the Supreme Court’s rejection of the AAA in January 1936, when the justices insisted that the federal government lacked the authority to tax food processors to pay for the farmers’ subsidies and price supports. Furthermore, since farming was generally a local and state activity, the federal government did not have the power to regulate it under the interstate-commerce clause.
Franklin Roosevelt was furious that what he called those “nine old men” should attempt to keep America in the “horse and buggy era” when this great nation needed a more powerful central government to manage economic affairs in the “modern age.” FDR’s response was his famous “court packing” scheme, in which he asked Congress to give him the power to add more justices to the Supreme Court in order to tilt the balance in favor of the “enlightened” and “progressive” policies o f the New Deal. But this blatant power grab by the executive branch ended up being too much even for many of the Democrats in Congress, and Roosevelt failed in this attempt to assert naked presidential authority over another branch o f the federal government.
Shortly after the Supreme Court declared both the NRA and AAA unconstitutional, David Lawrence, founder and long-time editor of U.S. News and World Report, published a book titled Nine Honest Men (1936). He praised the justices for their devotion to the bedrock principles of the Constitution, and their defense of the traditional American ideals of individual liberty, private property, and the rule of law — even in the face of the emotional appeal of government to “do something” during an economic crisis.
Since that landmark decision 70 years ago against the imposition of economic fascism in America, the U.S. government has continued to grow in power over the American citizenry. But it should be remembered that men of courage, integrity, and principle can stand up to Big Brother and resist the headlong march into economic tyranny.
Very nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by commiechew
Now continue what happened after that into and after WW2 and beyond please.
You can't take a small slice of history/time and apply it to everything. The world is much much different now.
Besides. Wouldn't selling out our government and country to the highest bidder/corporation for profit be economic and social tyranny?