Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

This latest Trump-Russia Leak, Coup?


Uncle Sam

Recommended Posts


Oh here is something about the witch hunt they have been doing... basically a video about the investigation with Comey and his memo.... basically it is a nothing burger.

Edited by Uncle Sam
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
4 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Oh, I'd say the conservatives did their part too.  It's like both sides took turns eroding away at aspects of the constitution.  Twisting it to their own means.  People always seem to be fine with it as long as it was twisted to their ends.  The great lie isn't that liberals did it.  The great lie is that we did it to ourselves. 

"Both sides" take turns doing that repeatedly, which is why both sides need to be kicked, strangled and wiped off the map.

The syntax error is when people actually decide to support either one of these b****** parties.  

Whoever supports either side is the problem.   The partisans here...line em up and shoot em down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Uncle Sam said:


Oh here is something about the witch hunt they have been doing... basically a video about the investigation with Comey and his memo.... basically it is a nothing burger.

.

that was an excellent over view of the whole ridiculous situation - thanks - (video in previous post)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Gromdor said:

That's the crux of the argument, however.  On the flip side, creating legal documents that have to be tested for constitutionality on their own without taking it's intentions into account is an easy way to piecemeal around the constitution.  For example:  Executive order #1 Laptops are banned- ISIS can make them into bombs.  Executive order #2 Newspapers are banned- Fire Hazards. Executive order #3 In light of terrorist attacks people can't gather in groups of more than three. Etc. etc.  Each individually can be worded to pass a constitutional muster on their own, but in their entirety you have successfully gotten rid of freedom of speech.  (This is just an extreme example made on the fly to pass the general idea on, I'm not going to defend any given example)

Again, not really Gromdor. Though curiously, you have - at the same time - put your finger on it. 

An EO banning newspapers would immediately fall foul of the 1st Amendment to the constitution, as would an attempt to ban gatherings. It would not matter about the intention of the framer of the EO; it would be inherently outright unconstitutional based purely on its text. 

What the 4th Circuit court is effectively saying (as is, apparently, the 9th circuit... it's getting rather confusing), is that they are going beyond the TEXT of the document to the perceived intentions   of the framer of the EO, and then attempting to interpret those perceived intentions in terms of the constitution.

To adapt your comment about the Laptop; Imagine a law that bans typewriters, but only for Republicans .. on the grounds that in the hands of a Republican a typewriter might be used to write something critical of left-wing politics ? 

That would be a catastrophic breach of democracy, but that is bordering on what the 4th/9th Circuit Courts are saying.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Oh, I'd say the conservatives did their part too.  It's like both sides took turns eroding away at aspects of the constitution.  Twisting it to their own means.  People always seem to be fine with it as long as it was twisted to their ends.  The great lie isn't that liberals did it.  The great lie is that we did it to ourselves. 

You have that wrong.  If you had said Rino then you’d be on track.  Socialism infiltrated the Democrat Party fairly quickly in the early parts of the previous century hiding behind compassion.  Slowly winning converts from the Republicans.  A Socialist Republican is a Rino.  The ranks of Conservatives who are the knight-protectors of what is left of our Constitution are dwindling.  Socialism is not compatible with a Constitutional Republic.  We are not a Democracy.  Democracy is also a form of Socialism.  Therefore, we can only have one or the other.  The Cornerstone of a Constitutional Republic is not to entrap the people into dependence on the government.  It affords the individual their natural rights.  Socialism must control and restrict individual rights for the sake of the state. 

 

It wasn’t necessarily the different parties that eroded away the Constitution, but it was a competing system.  The Liberals have become Progressives, the champion of Socialism in this country.  They led the way.  So yes, we have done it to ourselves but because we have become hooked on a drug and cannot just say NO!  People may not like Trump because he is too much a Populist or perhaps too Nationalist, but he is the soft cure to Socialism.  If we don’t take the soft cure, then there is no telling what will happen.  Either Socialism will continue to grow and we will end up with more leaders like Obama and Hilary until we get a purely authoritarian crop of leaders or the pendulum will swing to the extreme Right and we get the same thing from over reaction and Socialism wins again.  Socialism is neither Left nor Right.  It is greedy. 

 

This is what Anarchy does and is what Obama had tried to encourage.  Obama has successfully married the teachings of Mohammed and Alinski into a secular weapon.  Obama studied the Constitution to become a Constitutional lawyer.  There are two reasons to do that.  One is to protect the Constitution and the other is to destroy it.  In 8 years of Obama, one can’t say that his primary concern was to protect it but to instill Fundamental Change.  People!  He has told us exactly what he intended to do and now his minions are fulfilling the Dreams of his Father.  Is that what you want?  You want to only be a cog in a machine, kneel and pray toward Washington, DC five times a day?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

 

 

You have that wrong.  If you had said Rino then you’d be on track.  Socialism infiltrated the Democrat Party fairly quickly in the early parts of the previous century hiding behind compassion.  Slowly winning converts from the Republicans.  A Socialist Republican is a Rino.  The ranks of Conservatives who are the knight-protectors of what is left of our Constitution are dwindling.  Socialism is not compatible with a Constitutional Republic.  We are not a Democracy.  Democracy is also a form of Socialism.  Therefore, we can only have one or the other.  The Cornerstone of a Constitutional Republic is not to entrap the people into dependence on the government.  It affords the individual their natural rights.  Socialism must control and restrict individual rights for the sake of the state. 

 

 

 

It wasn’t necessarily the different parties that eroded away the Constitution, but it was a competing system.  The Liberals have become Progressives, the champion of Socialism in this country.  They led the way.  So yes, we have done it to ourselves but because we have become hooked on a drug and cannot just say NO!  People may not like Trump because he is too much a Populist or perhaps too Nationalist, but he is the soft cure to Socialism.  If we don’t take the soft cure, then there is no telling what will happen.  Either Socialism will continue to grow and we will end up with more leaders like Obama and Hilary until we get a purely authoritarian crop of leaders or the pendulum will swing to the extreme Right and we get the same thing from over reaction and Socialism wins again.  Socialism is neither Left nor Right.  It is greedy. 

 

 

 

This is what Anarchy does and is what Obama had tried to encourage.  Obama has successfully married the teachings of Mohammed and Alinski into a secular weapon.  Obama studied the Constitution to become a Constitutional lawyer.  There are two reasons to do that.  One is to protect the Constitution and the other is to destroy it.  In 8 years of Obama, one can’t say that his primary concern was to protect it but to instill Fundamental Change.  People!  He has told us exactly what he intended to do and now his minions are fulfilling the Dreams of his Father.  Is that what you want?  You want to only be a cog in a machine, kneel and pray toward Washington, DC five times a day?

 

I guess part of the problem is neither side sees their own attacks on the constitution.  Only what the other side does.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2017 at 9:27 PM, The Silver Thong said:

Weed

If this is in reply to my post asking Yamato to name one thing a law made legal that wasn't made illegal by a previous law it is wrong. Weed was legal, then made illegal, and now is legal again in some states. The only reason they needed a law to make it legal is because of the previous law making it illegal.

If this is in response to something else, never mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2017 at 0:51 PM, RoofGardener said:

Not really Gromdor. The EO is a legal document. When put to the test of constitutionality, it should stand or fall on its own. To introduce - from nowhere, and without precedent - the idea of the document being based on "perceived intentions" (perceived by the court), is a MASSIVE abuse of power by the courts. 

The comparison with firing somebody doesn't hold up, I'm afraid. 

Correct.  And it will certainly be overturned by the USSC, eventually.  What the Progs are doing isn't subtle in the slightest and the damage it's doing to our polity is enormous.  It is unprecedented and I'm wondering who is calling this tune.  For the first time in my memory, we have one political party, supported by a totally compliant media, refusing to accept the outcome of a national election.  The Soros group, Moveon.org is calling for and organizing a "Resistance Summer".  It's a structured online teaching event for recruiting community organizers.  There will also be an action component where these volunteers get together for a meet and greet in June, meet with local voters in July and then basically protest at town hall meetings in August.  This is surely Obama's work.  Organizing people against the sitting president and his policies.  This is going to end badly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2017 at 1:01 PM, RavenHawk said:

Wasn’t Obama behind seeing to it that Comey originally buried the Hilary investigation?  Why did that quietly go away and yet the investigation on Flynn, which there is no evidence is being plastered all over the public eye?
 

Because eat your own cooking.   It went away because it was an utter waste of time and money.   This will too, or it won't, and who cares either way.   It's another non story just like those damned emails.

 

Quote

What has Trump done that even equals anything that Obama did? 

War crimes.  

I thought Obama's record arms sales to Saudi Arabia were worth impeaching him, Trump just shattered those records with brand new records I'm of course going to think are worth impeaching him.    I wouldn't give you or Saudi Arabia the gum on the bottom of my shoe unless I thought it'd hurt them somehow.   Because that is all they deserve from any of us.   Retribution and a boatload of pain and redress for what they've done to this country, our freedom, our liberty, our security, our finances, our futures.

Not that I think you're even a real taxpayer with a dime to give, but real taxpayers I'm talking about.  People like me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bama13 said:

If this is in reply to my post asking Yamato to name one thing a law made legal that wasn't made illegal by a previous law it is wrong. Weed was legal, then made illegal, and now is legal again in some states. The only reason they needed a law to make it legal is because of the previous law making it illegal.

If this is in response to something else, never mind.

Who cares?   Why do you insist on continuing this line of reasoning?   You don't want laws now?   

I'd burn your house down to the ground with your whole family in it if that's what it took to defend the Constitution.   If defending the Constitution bothers you, then go live somewhere people take oaths swearing to defend something but don't really mean it.

Figuratively of course.   But if by some wild stretch of the imagination, your house got caught up in defending the rule of law?   It'd go up in embers fast, and mine too.

Any nonsense that if the Constitution didn't exist, or if government didn't exist, there would be no laws and therefore nothing would be illegal?    You can't sell anarchy to the anarchist Bama13.  

You can't name a time or a place on earth that was void of any government, or void of laws.  Destroy the US Constitution then, destroy the entire US government, and another government will rise from the ashes.   Destroy the Alabama state govt and another Alabama state govt will rise from the ashes just as well.   There is no such thing as anarchy, the best case scenario is govt-good-enough.    And that's what we've got if we'd wake up and smell the coffee and learn how to defend it for once.

If you invaded my property with force and announced that "everything's legal because there are no laws"?  I would create a brand new government right before your very eyes, spoken into existence by the click of my shotgun.

Edited by Yamato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Yamato said:

Who cares?   Why do you insist on continuing this line of reasoning?   You don't want laws now?   

I'd burn your house down to the ground with your whole family in it if that's what it took to defend the Constitution.   If defending the Constitution bothers you, then go live somewhere people take oaths swearing to defend something but don't really mean it.

Figuratively of course.   But if by some wild stretch of the imagination, your house got caught up in defending the rule of law?   It'd go up in embers fast, and mine too.

Any nonsense that if the Constitution didn't exist, or if government didn't exist, there would be no laws and therefore nothing would be illegal?    You can't sell anarchy to the anarchist Bama13.  

You can't name a time or a place on earth that was void of any government, or void of laws.  Destroy the US Constitution then, destroy the entire US government, and another government will rise from the ashes.   Destroy the Alabama state govt and another Alabama state govt will rise from the ashes just as well.   There is no such thing as anarchy, the best case scenario is govt-good-enough.    And that's what we've got if we'd wake up and smell the coffee and learn how to defend it for once.

If you invaded my property with force and announced that "everything's legal because there are no laws"?  I would create a brand new government right before your very eyes, spoken into existence by the click of my shotgun.

Jeez Yam. For the final time we do not get our rights from the government. Laws are passed to make things illegal. If their is no law against something then it is legal. Not a hard concept to grasp.

The bolded part is absolutely true and self evident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.