Prickly Pete Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 45 minutes ago, Thurmal34 said: Did anyone run the quick comparisons of all the criticisms of our last President but praise of our current President for doing the same thing? If no one has yet, should I? Yes, please waste your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 9 hours ago, OJ Tom said: Yes, please waste your time. Nice new name and avatar. Clearly, your head is my new vacation home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: Nice new name and avatar. Clearly, your head is my new vacation home. Nah, just an experiment. And I think it's funny, and appropriate for the other Balcony Guy to be here too. I wish I had changed my name to "AC Tom", but it's too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 1 minute ago, OJ Tom said: Nah, just an experiment. And I think it's funny, and appropriate for the other Balcony Guy to be here too. I wish I had changed my name to "AC Tom", but it's too late. Alaska Darin beat you to it like 17 years ago, dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: Alaska Darin beat you to it like 17 years ago, dude. I don't know what aspect Alaska Darin "beat me" to, but it's not a competition. I think that the pic and similar name have a greater subconscious effect on fellow poster's perception of another poster than maybe people are aware of. I don't actually have a big problem with DC Tom (I like most of his posts, and judging by his posts, I think he can take it), it was just something I realized with "3rdnlng" and "row_33" names and pics confusing me over time. As one of them noted, "just judge by the content of the posts", what's so hard about that? Edited June 17, 2018 by OJ Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 (edited) On 06/16/2018 at 10:41 PM, BringBackOrton said: I'd like to jump in here if I would. Tasker, what opinions do you have on the government's "free-reign" during times of emergency or war? Martial law etc. I ask, because I think it is quite germane to this subject. If you believe this government has been waging a shadow war with the so-called "Deep State" for the past 18 months (I do), and you believe the goal of this "Deep State" is to destroy the very foundation of this country through espionage, lies, and outright treasonous behavior (I do), then are we not in a state of emergency? Have we seen a collection of named bad actors in the government attempt a coup of this magnitude in the history of the USA? Have we ever had a group within our own ranks in the media conglomerates and institutions of our own government be so intertwined to work towards the goal of ending our democracy as we know it? I see your points in your discussion with Joe. But if CNN is in bed with the Deep State (they are), aren't they the enemy? And then this isn't a war on the free press, but a proven enemy of the state? I know, I know, Clinton may have been able to claim the same about Fox News or anyone who criticized her. But claiming it and it being true are two different stories. The President does not have "emergency war powers". What happens, during a time of civil war, is that the President violates the Constitution, and assumes dictatorial powers he was never intended to have. In war, law breaks down, and this is extremely problematic for the people, who exercise exactly zero power over their government in these situations, and can only hope that they are not plunged into a permanent state of despotism; as once an Executive has taken these steps he has normalized and legitimized them within his system, and as world history has amply demonstrated, he almost never gives them back. Something to consider, partially borrowed from a very compelling argument a close friend of mine, a career military man, made to me in the past: It is physically possible for the Department of Defense to assume control of the government at any time. No other part of the government has the resources to stop them. The civilian population has no means to stop them. There could/would certainly, to some degree or another, be a guerilla insurgency resembling Iraq in our own streets; so I do not mean to imply that there would be no open resistance, but the government would be under direct control of junta. Make no mistake. There are, however, very good reasons why this simply does not happen. To do something like that, to borrow a phrase, would be the final extremity. A leap there is no returning from. It is the domestic equivalency of total war, and once done, could not be undone, and more importantly could be done again. This is an incredibly important concept to understand: Until what you are describing, and I have expanded on, is done, it simply cannot be done. BUT once it is done, it is easy to do again because it would be normalized as a proper response. Further, it would bring, in no uncertain terms, and absolute end to the Great American Experiment of Constitutional Government. It would mean it's abject failure as a system, and would bring us from the lofty perch of (capitalized for effect) Things That Simply Do Not Happen Here into the harsh realities of South America which we read about in the news. Edited June 18, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 (edited) 51 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: The President does not have "emergency war powers". What happens, during a time of civil war, is that the President violates the Constitution, and assumes dictatorial powers he was never intended to have. In war, law breaks down, and this is extremely problematic for the people, who exercise exactly zero power over their government in these situations, and can only hope that they are not plunged into a permanent state of despotism; as once an Executive has taken these steps he has normalized and legitimized them within his system, and has world history has amply demonstrated, he almost never gives them back. Something to consider, partially borrowed from a very compelling argument a close friend of mine, a career military man, made to me in the past: It is physically possible for the Department of Defense to assume control of the government at any time. No other part of the government has the resources to stop them. The civilian population has no means to stop them. There could/would certainly, to some degree or another, be a guerilla insurgency resembling Iraq in our own streets; so I do not mean to imply that there would be no open resistance, but the government would be under direct control of junta. Make no mistake. There are, however, very good reasons why this simply does not happen. To do something like that, to borrow a phrase, would be the final extremity. A leap there is no returning from. It is the domestic equivalency of total war, and once done, could not be undone, and more importantly could be done again. This is an incredibly important concept to understand: Until what you are describing, and I have expanded on, is done, it simply cannot be done. BUT once it is done, it is easy to do again because it would be normalized as a proper response. Further, it would bring, in no uncertain terms, and absolute end to the Great American Experiment of Constitutional Government. It would mean is abject failure as a system, and would bring us from the lofty perch of (capitalized for effect) Things That Simply Do Not Happen Here into the harsh realities of South America which we read about in the news. Okay, fair enough and compelling. I agree with most if not all of it. I would ask then, what is to be done if there was proven collusion with intent to violate our Constitution by a media conglomerate and bad actors in our own government? How does the President, for lack of a better term, fight against citizens and government officials committing treason? 1 hour ago, OJ Tom said: I don't know what aspect Alaska Darin "beat me" to, but it's not a competition. I think that the pic and similar name have a greater subconscious effect on fellow poster's perception of another poster than maybe people are aware of. I don't actually have a big problem with DC Tom (I like most of his posts, and judging by his posts, I think he can take it), it was just something I realized with "3rdnlng" and "row_33" names and pics confusing me over time. As one of them noted, "just judge by the content of the posts", what's so hard about that? Darin is the other Muppet, you muppet. Edited June 17, 2018 by BringBackOrton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 30 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: Darin is the other Muppet, you muppet. Cool, even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 41 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: Darin is the other Muppet, you muppet. Okay Statler & Waldorf, explain the "Muppet Position" https://screengrabber.deadspin.com/fox-u-s-open-broadcast-features-two-dudes-talkin-about-1826869637 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 23 hours ago, BringBackOrton said: Again, this is not curbing incorrect news outlets. This is curbing enemies of state who knowingly and willingly put out disinformation to support the largest known coup attempt in US history. Try them all. Find out who the ringleaders were. Hang them. Do you have any evidence of this? Should we reinstate the Sedition Act of 1798? Should only sycophant news outlets like Fox, Breitbart, Infowars, etc... be given press credentials? When Obama tried to revoke Fox's access to an interview with Kennith Feinburg in 2009, the rest of the MSM you guys despise led a revolt to make sure Fox was included. That's because these news outlets recognize the importance of their role of being the safeguard against government authoritarianism and tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 16 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: That's because these news outlets recognize the importance of their role of being the safeguard against government authoritarianism and tyranny. Well, that's they delude themselves into thinking anyhow. Hell, journalists act like they're heroes. Once in awhile I listen to a show called the Press Pool, hosted by Julie Mason (a former White House reporter.) It's absolutely hilarious how delusional and full of themselves they are. The reality is that no news organization who was interested in being a safeguard for anything would endorse any candidate or political party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 32 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Do you have any evidence of this? Should we reinstate the Sedition Act of 1798? Should only sycophant news outlets like Fox, Breitbart, Infowars, etc... be given press credentials? When Obama tried to revoke Fox's access to an interview with Kennith Feinburg in 2009, the rest of the MSM you guys despise led a revolt to make sure Fox was included. That's because these news outlets recognize the importance of their role of being the safeguard against government authoritarianism and tyranny. I personally do not. The DOJ and Trump administration might have that evidence. We're a long way from 2009, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 53 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Do you have any evidence of this? Should we reinstate the Sedition Act of 1798? Should only sycophant news outlets like Fox, Breitbart, Infowars, etc... be given press credentials? When Obama tried to revoke Fox's access to an interview with Kennith Feinburg in 2009, the rest of the MSM you guys despise led a revolt to make sure Fox was included. That's because these news outlets recognize the importance of their role of being the safeguard against government authoritarianism and tyranny. The MSM is mostly in collusion with the left while viciously lying about the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 127 pages later and you guys still need a safe space to vent about how the media treats the orange one unfairly. Give me a break! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 21 minutes ago, peace out said: 127 pages later and you guys still need a safe space to vent about how the media treats the orange one unfairly. Give me a break! What does this mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: The MSM is mostly in collusion with the left while viciously lying about the right. Which news outlets would you remove press credentials from if you were Trump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 1 minute ago, Doc Brown said: Which news outlets would you remove press credentials from if you were Trump? None, he lives for pointing at them and cutting them off and calling them fools. it be our choice to refuse to watch CNN or ABC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Which news outlets would you remove press credentials from if you were Trump? None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 9 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: What does this mean? Apparently we need safe spaces, because those on the left are devoid of any original thoughts and must regurgitate/project the mockery that is hurled at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 20 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Apparently we need safe spaces, because those on the left are devoid of any original thoughts and must regurgitate/project the mockery that is hurled at them. I was actually drawing attention to the fact that this ilk got so abused by the "safe space" remark, that they twisted it and diluted it to mean, well, nothing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts