« prev   random   next »

7
1

Done with Republicans and Democrats, yup. Done.

By Goran_K following x   2018 Mar 24, 9:51am 6,732 views   95 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    




After that terrible crumni-bus bill passed, it just goes to show, both parties are beholden to the military industrial complex. $65.2 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations, or "war budget" funding mostly for Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan., billions to update nuclear weapons systems, another aircraft carrier...

Everything else is peanuts, everything else went by the wayside. Politicians don't care about immigration reform, they don't care about healthcare, they care about bullets and bombs. That's why this incredibly bad budget was passed and signed. I don't blame Donald Trump, I blame the military industrial complex that has this country in a choke hold.

I mean, I'm at a loss here. We should have listened to this man.

« First    « Previous    Comments 41 - 80 of 95    Next »    Last »

41   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 24, 1:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Thank you for proving my point about why the 2nd amendment is so valuable.


Same reason the Japanese never dreamed of actually invading the continental USA. They hesitated in planning an occupation of Hawaii given the firearms ownership rate.

"A rifleman behind every blade of grass" - Admiral Yamamoto
42   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 24, 1:43pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Was Vietnam/Afghanistan solid proof that armed militia can withstand a national army through the use of small arms and IEDs? 16 years going and Afghanistan is still in turmoil?


Compare that with countries that achieved independence through peaceful methods, India, China, Taiwan. Compare that with economy of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Vietnam. Even before US went their Afghanistan was failed state as everyone had their own gangs and militia. Believe me , in the aftermath, these militias will have power struggle of their own

Point is guns have their value ( and no one is taking all the guns) but creating a gun state or a militia state, is sure short way of creating a failed state.
43   ThreeBays   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 24, 1:43pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
ThreeBays says
The quarter of Americans that own guns don't believe in the concentration of power. However the 3 percent that own most of the guns ARE a concentration of power. It's not a matter of belief.


So? The NRA has 5,000,000 members (nearly 6 million members now that David Hogg started opening his mouth). They are a concentration of power against a tyrannical government. You have a problem with that? Do you want the concentration of power to only be with the Federal government?

See? This is proving my point that leftist want power concentrated with the government.


I don't think that the power of gun owners is comparable to the power of the modern government with drones, nukes, etc.. but I acknowledge your point about messy gorilla warfare.

I don't think that anyone wants power concentrated with the government - and also I don't think anyone wants to have to defend themselves from rogue citizens.
44   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 24, 1:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
Given the efficiency of guerilla groups, it seems more like it's Putin that is engineering this campaign to ban firearms.


While at some places it may be that Putin is playing both sides, Russian support to NRA is well established.
45   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 24, 1:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
Compare that with countries that achieved independence through peaceful methods, India,


Not peaceful. That's the Ghandi Myth. There were attacks on the British every day, hundreds of casualties a month. The Brits had to quit India because the British Indian Army and Navy mutinied when the Brits convicted Indian National Army members. There was no way the British Public would have paid for the British Army to occupy India, nor any public desire to draft the hundreds of thousands of British Soldiers that would be required at a minimum. It was force that forced the British to quit India.

Official Downing Street Plans were to delay the transfer until 1980.
46   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 24, 1:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
That's the Ghandi Myth. There were attacks on the British every day, hundreds of casualties a month


Partially true. British left India as they could not make any money from Indians due to non-cooperation. It is the economy stupid ( not directed towards you)
47   HEYYOU   ignore (18)   2018 Mar 24, 1:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Mr. Forrest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does."

Get him a crying towel!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=ttSvzy_FeSw
48   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Mar 24, 2:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

ThreeBays says
I don't think that the power of gun owners is comparable to the power of the modern government with drones, nukes, etc.. but I acknowledge your point about messy gorilla warfare.


Go do some research about the cop, Chris Dorner, in LA and read how ONE experienced guy with a gun tied up HUNDREDS of cops during his manhunt.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/14/christopher-dorner-last-stand-manhunt

Now multiply that by hundreds of thousands at least across the country. Remember, it takes 3% and there are over 100 million gun owners in the country (do the math).
49   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 24, 2:49pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The lesson America should have learned from Vietnam, SoViet Afghanistan, and others is simply this: you can’t declare war on the people and expect to win.

You can declare war on a regime, face down an army or a navy, destroy a foreign government and the like... but if your conflict ever escalates to include the people of a nation, you’re going to lose.

This is what Leftists don’t understand. If they ever actually get power enough to make the nationalist conservative Americans concerned they will face a backlash that will drive them from that power and probably from America entirely. Trump’s election was just a hint of what can happen when conservatives get a little bit angry and think the establishment are trying to actually destroy the country.
50   ThreeBays   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 24, 3:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Feux Follets says
Wasn't the official U.S. line for Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. ?


Exactly. That's what happens when an armed militia engages in asymmetrical warfare against a usurpatious government. The government forces get their asses kicked even with OVERWHELMING military force to muster.

Thank you for proving my point about why the 2nd amendment is so valuable.


I missed the news when the Iraqui and Afghani were victorious. I did hear that the US has killed 15,000 Isis fighters for every American soldier Isis has killed though.
51   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 24, 3:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
This is what Leftists don’t understand. If they ever actually get power enough to make the nationalist conservative Americans concerned they will face a backlash that will drive them from that power and probably from America entirely.


Not every decision against you is WAR. It is a democracy and as the governments change, the control and policies will change. There are numerous governments in the world with far more gun control than USA and they are flourishing just fine.

Also, no one is against guns but want some "gun control" . It made sense 100 years ago when there was no police forces in the wild wild west but that is not the case now. At some point tanks, stinger missiles can do far more damage than to protect the citizen. Limits are already there , we are just looking readjust that.
52   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Mar 24, 4:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
Also, no one is against guns but want some "gun control" .


Tim Aurora says
Limits are already there , we are just looking readjust that.


OK, so what specifically do you want done? What NEW laws need to be written? It's already a felony to shoot and kill someone.

What NEW laws will change that and make criminals obey?
53   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Mar 24, 4:10pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

ThreeBays says
I missed the news when the Iraqui and Afghani were victorious


We've been fighting the rag-tag goat herders, with basic weapons in Afghanistan with our "mighty" military forces for how long? 15 years? Have we won yet?

But you think that same military will have no problems against 100 million experience shooters in the US?

Really?
54   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 24, 4:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
Partially true. British left India as they could not make any money from Indians due to non-cooperation. It is the economy stupid ( not directed towards you)


No offense taken.

Ghandi was a weirdo religious fanatic who thought India should be an primitive agrarian country under his peculiar brand of Hinduism which was far out of the mainstream. He thought Dalits and others should know their place, not be uppity, and trust upper caste individuals like him and never organize or get saucy. He was also a sex pervert who declared a vow of chasity but had an enema fetish, especially if administered by pretty young girls. Basically, a kind of pegging dude.

Ghandi was a non-entity after 1942. After that, it was all Congress and the Pakistani sepratists under Jimah, who employed political pressure, and various revolutionary groups with endless violence against the British. Ghandi wanted Peace Talks with Germany and wanted the Jews to apologize for their industrialization and modernization in Germany. Ghandi was a primitivist who believed all ills came from modern society and wanted to go back to the Stone Age.

It was Subhas Chandra Bose's legacy of violent resistance that eventually won India her independence.
55   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 24, 4:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sniper says
OK, so what specifically do you want done? What NEW laws need to be written? It's already a felony to shoot and kill someone.

What NEW laws will change that and make criminals obey?


WE all decide that includes you . It should be on the table and we should discuss that like civil people and not fan the flame of conspiracy theory like Russia wants us to. There are many countries to look at as model including Australia.

And for record, I am just for licensing to own a Assault weapons which should go to check your background. I am afraid that Islamic terrorist may find USA a very fertile place for terrorist attacks.

Criminal can always get guns, just like in other countries, and so can you if you are a law abiding citizen.
56   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 24, 4:24pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
WE all decide that includes you . It should be on the table and we should discuss that like civil people and not fan the flame of conspiracy theory like Russia wants us to. There are many countries to look at as model including Australia.


Australia has an effective ban on firearms for all intents and purposes. We're not doing Canadian or Australian style gun control, forget it.

If you want to save lives, restrict pistols to CCW holders or those over 35 and that might knock out a chunk of suicides and homicides. Rifles, including so-called "Assault Rifles" and Shotguns, have very little to do with the murder rate.

Also, ANY plan to further restrict firearms must come with Federal Laws that supercedes State Laws about forcibly hospitalizing the Mentally Ill. And not just for 72 hour evaluations, but permanent hospitalization. Cruz didn't fall through a crack, he fell through about 30+ cracks, over and over and over again because Liberals have made it almost impossible to hospitalize somebody. No deal with out it, in my mind.
57   HEYYOU   ignore (18)   2018 Mar 24, 4:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Those that say anything about banning any firearm should be tried as domestic enemies.

Republicans have the right to be maimed & killed by those that invoke the 2nd.
Wonder how many Rep/Cons & their ilk will die in the next mass shooting?
Hey Republicans! There is nothing you can do to stop it.
There is a silver lining to the 2nd Amendment cloud!
59   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 24, 4:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I think you are very misinformed

TwoScoopsPlissken says
Ghandi was a weirdo religious fanatic who thought India should be an primitive agrarian country under his peculiar brand of Hinduism which was far out of the mainstream.


He was the one who saved Muslims from slaughter in Bengal

TwoScoopsPlissken says
He thought Dalits and others should know their place, not be uppity, and trust upper caste individuals like him and never organize or get saucy.



Totally wrong. He brought Dalits in the mainstream

TwoScoopsPlissken says
He was also a sex pervert who declared a vow of chasity but had an enema fetish, especially if administered by pretty young girls. Basically, a kind of pegging dude.


His sexual innuendo do not interest me.

Can you give some reference or all you have is some conspiracy theories.
61   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 24, 4:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
He was the one who saved Muslims from slaughter in Bengal


You mean, he prevented Hindus from taking revenge against their Imperialist Muslim Oppressors who committed atrocities against them for centuries.

Islam did not spread to India by missionaries, but with the sword.

Tim Aurora says
Totally wrong. He brought Dalits in the mainstream


Pretty much no Dalit Activist agrees with you. Dalits overwhelmingly identify Ghandi as a "Problematic" figure.

https://medium.com/@dalitdiva/why-it-is-time-to-dump-gandhi-b59c7399fe66

Here at the top results on Google for "Ghandi Dalits"
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ghandi+dalits

It's entirely either "Ghandi sucked for us Dalits" and previously ignorant Leftie Nonviolent Westerns saying "Wow, I didn't know the Dalits hated Ghandi"

Tim Aurora says
Can you give some reference or all you have is some conspiracy theories.


You can read Mountbatten and all the rest. I've read them, and I don't have their quotes handy, but they viewed Ghandi as a useful idiot, because he excluded any violent revolutionaries from his platform, he always stopped his movements whenever the British asked - just when they were being truly effective, he was actually quite dovish on Indian Independence as was willing to settle on Dominion Status.
62   HEYYOU   ignore (18)   2018 Mar 24, 5:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tear up that piece of ass wipe but save the 2nd. It might be needed to invoke Trump's " 2nd Amendment solution"
when the Declaration of Independence is used to stop this failing Republican dictatorship..

There is nothing more fun than insurrection,rebellion & revolution when real Americans stop the Republican destruction of the U.S.A.
63   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 24, 5:16pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

For starters, how about:
"If somebody calls the police and says they want to be committed or they're going to do some fucked up shit, the police are obligated to mentally hospitalize him."

That would have stopped Cruz, since we know he called 911 at least once begging to be hospitalized. Instead, he got a police interview and they left him at home.
64   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 24, 5:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

(Posted in Wrong Thread)
65   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Mar 24, 6:34pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
And for record, I am just for licensing to own a Assault weapons which should go to check your background.


OK, first, what is a "Assault weapon"? Can you give me a link to a supplier or manufacturer's page where I can buy one? My firearm supplier has no idea what that is.

Second, do you know what a 4473 form is?
66   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Mar 24, 6:35pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
Criminal can always get guns, just like in other countries, and so can you if you are a law abiding citizen.


Exactly right about criminals. So, why are the Democrats against law abiding citizen buying them to protect themselves and their families?
67   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Mar 24, 7:10pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says


Is she going to cry that her 1st amendment rights are violated when she has to use a clear backpack, and everyone will see what she's carrying?

https://patrick.net/post/1314688/2018-03-24-the-special-snowflakes-get-what-they-wished-for-parkland-school-requiring-clear-backpacks
68   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2018 Mar 26, 10:47am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Done with Republicans and Democrats, yup. Done.


Another follower leaves the religion of the divisiveness paradigm, finally realizing that while the coin has two sides, it's still the same coin.
69   dr6B   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 26, 10:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sniper says
when she has to use a clear backpack,


You are assuming that "it" is a "she". A clear microaggression, or misdemeanor according to CA laws.
70   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Mar 26, 11:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

NuttBoxer says
Goran_K says
Done with Republicans and Democrats, yup. Done.


Another follower leaves the religion of the divisiveness paradigm, finally realizing that while the coin has two sides, it's still the same coin.


Actions speak louder than words
71   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 26, 11:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Feux Follets says
Hubris, Ignorance are the reason were are still there.


And all this time I thought it was for the poppies.
72   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 26, 11:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
I see you as a threat from Putin. Trying to sow discord among Americans or it is pure fluff


Great minds think alike.
73   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Mar 26, 11:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
Tim Aurora says
I see you as a threat from Putin. Trying to sow discord among Americans or it is pure fluff


Great minds think alike.


I knew there was a connection.

So sad...
74   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 26, 11:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sniper says
Second, do you know what a 4473 form is?


Is there something wrong with beefing up the 4473?
75   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 26, 11:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Hmmmm....

But the House Armed Services Committee version of the annual Pentagon policy bill included a common-sense provision to make sure the Pentagon isn't tasked with paying for the wall: "Section 1039. Rule of construction regarding use of Department of Defense funding of a border wall. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this act or otherwise made available for the fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Defense may be used to plan, develop or construct any barriers, including walls or fences, along the international border of the United States."
...
An amendment was offered by Republican Reps. Steven Palazzo and Trent Kelly from Mississippi (which has coastline but no land border) to strike Section 1039. That means Pentagon money could be spent to construct a border wall. In the normal process of things, this amendment would have been accepted by the Rules Committee and then debated and voted on by the full House of Representatives. But nothing about this amendment can be called normal.

The Rules Committee took this one amendment and labeled it, "proposed to be adopted." In the arcana of House rules, this means that voting for the rule governing consideration of the bill was also voting for this amendment. This is known as a "self-executing rule." The ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, offered an amendment to strike the self-executing portion of the rule and was defeated in committee on a party-line vote of 4-8.

On the House floor, the vote on the full rule passed. And at the end of a long and exhausting day (and story), that means Pentagon money can be used to construct a border wall. Talk about governing under the cover of darkness.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2017-07-19/congress-slyly-diverts-pentagon-money-to-fund-donald-trumps-border-wall

There was no Darkness, if the auto-execution rule passed the committee and the rule passed on the House Floor. The author is the leader of a fake Taxpayer Group that only fights Border Security and Enforcement spending, but loves handouts to refugees and the like.

The new rules went into effect in 2018...
76   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Mar 26, 11:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
Sniper says
Second, do you know what a 4473 form is?


Is there something wrong with beefing up the 4473?


How many more pages and questions does it need?
77   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 26, 11:42am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
that means Pentagon money can be used to construct a border wall.


Shouldn't it say "can't be used"
78   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 26, 11:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Last summer, two Republican Reps got that Section 1039 language that prohibited Defense Funds from being used to build the Wall, removed.

This is very interesting though - somebody was so worried about the possibility of building the wall and putting up a barrier to mass illegal immigration they tried to preclude the possibility of Defense money going towards it by writing Section 1039. For 2018, this section was struck.

If it didn't get snuck back into this spending bill, it means the Donald can use Pentagon money to build the Wall, on top of the $1.6B.

Consider this tweet after Trump signed the spending bill:


#10FeetHigher #BuildTheWall
79   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 26, 11:49am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
No - in the original 2017 bill, it said can't be used.


My bad
80   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 27, 2:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

If it ain't possible, why is Upchuck so scared?

Trump’s pursuit of defense dollars to finance the U.S.-Mexico border wall underscores his determination to fulfill a campaign promise and build the barrier despite resistance in the Republican-led Congress. The administration’s last-minute negotiations with lawmakers to secure billions more for the wall failed and Trump grudgingly signed the spending bill last Friday after a short-lived veto threat.

...

"This would be a blatant misuse of military funds and tied up in court for years. Secretary Mattis ought not bother and instead use the money to help our troops, rather than advance the president’s political fantasies,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement to The Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-privately-presses-for-military-to-pay-for-border-wall/2018/03/27/d79907a2-31c9-11e8-9759-56e51591e250_story.html?utm_term=.983d3d433947

I think Trump will try to get funding another way, but if he doesn't get it, he'll spend the Defense Money.

Interesting that Congress is SO DESPERATE not to have the Wall, they try to block every loophole and erect every "barrier" (such as restricting it to chain link fencing) they can think of.

If they truly believe the Wall won't work, why the desperate attempts to obstruct and anticipate loopholes? Because they know it will, and their lobbyist masters don't want their cheap labor restricted. And banks probably want their drug dealing money laundering accounts to stay nice and fat with US Dollars, HSBC Style.

« First    « Previous    Comments 41 - 80 of 95    Next »    Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions