hanelyp wrote:Democrats embrace States' Rights when it served as a fig leaf to support their agenda. They have no problem trampling the states when the federal government is pushing their agenda. Similarly, they support Democracy only so long as the people are on board with their agenda.
*Cough*
Republicans embrace States' Rights when it served as a fig leaf to support their agenda. They have no problem trampling the states when the federal government is pushing their agenda. Similarly, they support Democracy only so long as the people are on board with their agenda.
Sound familiar yet?
Both parties have little use for something as annoying as states rights or the Constitution. Their each charged with pushing the agenda's of their respective financial backers. They've completely hoodwinked most citizens into devolving back to basic human tribal nature. Join a tribe and fight for that tribe, take all attacks on the tribe as acts of war and ostracize any tribal member not adhering to the chieftain (Obama is NOT the chieftain of liberal tribe not even close, he's just an upstart greenhorn who somehow got enough Democrats to vote for him to win Clinton's carefully planned primary).
Politics makes sense when you view it as an extension of the human tribal instinct.
hanelyp wrote:Democrats embrace States' Rights when it served as a fig leaf to support their agenda. They have no problem trampling the states when the federal government is pushing their agenda. Similarly, they support Democracy only so long as the people are on board with their agenda.
*Cough*
Republicans embrace States' Rights when it served as a fig leaf to support their agenda. They have no problem trampling the states when the federal government is pushing their agenda. Similarly, they support Democracy only so long as the people are on board with their agenda.
Sound familiar yet?
Both parties have little use for something as annoying as states rights or the Constitution. Their each charged with pushing the agenda's of their respective financial backers. They've completely hoodwinked most citizens into devolving back to basic human tribal nature. Join a tribe and fight for that tribe, take all attacks on the tribe as acts of war and ostracize any tribal member not adhering to the chieftain (Obama is NOT the chieftain of liberal tribe not even close, he's just an upstart greenhorn who somehow got enough Democrats to vote for him to win Clinton's carefully planned primary).
Politics makes sense when you view it as an extension of the human tribal instinct.
Yes. And it is mostly reflexive. "They are for it? I'm against it." Principle/law/Constitution plays no part.
Now suppose the Federales decide to go after guns? They WILL get help from SOME locals. Which may be all they need. There are always a few who will just follow orders for a paycheck. Maybe more than a few.
They are just setting precedent with the evil weed where they can get easy compliance from the police. Guns WILL be next. It is just as I have foreseen. And our “conservative” friends said I was nuts.
These phony “wars” not only never end, they set us up for new ones: The War on Some Drugs leads to the War on Some Terror, which leads to the War on Some Guns. The Framers would have considered none of these wars as being legitimated exercises of enumerated powers and, hence, unconstitutional.
Modern “conservatives” are statists to the bone, though, and so consider any exercise of government power legitimate, as long as they agree with the goals those exercises seek to achieve.
I agree with Rand about a lot of things. But the last time America took that attitude we got a world war out of it. The Foreign Policy of the last 60+ years was designed to prevent a repeat. Churchill was of the opinion that if the World War bought us 50 years of relative peace it would have done its job. Looks like time is up.
If America gives up its role in the world there will be a fight for succession. Who would you prefer to be the winner of that fight? China? Russia? India? I have yet to get an answer to that question. I have been asking it for years.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The (Washington) Post reported in its story it could not independently confirm the information from the Dominican authorities.
“The first two graphs are entirely untrue and kind of crazy,” Carlson said of the Post’s story. “We never paid anyone a dime to do or say anything in the Dominican Republic and never would. We don’t employ a mysterious operative named ‘Carlos.’ We did not enter into a conspiracy with Univision to discredit Sen. Menendez. This is crackpot stuff. I assume the Post is asking some hard questions of the reporter who wrote it. It’s embarrassing.”
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
The Caller broke the story which turned out to be a fabrication. Great fact checking on par with FAUX News.
From what I can read of the Story, it is the Washington Post which is committing the errors in fact checking. But I normally don't consider them a credible source anyway, unless they happening to be covering something derogatory about themselves or democrats. When someone is saying bad stuff about themselves or their allies, it is probably worse than they are letting on.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
The Caller broke the story which turned out to be a fabrication. Great fact checking on par with FAUX News.
From what I can read of the Story, it is the Washington Post which is committing the errors in fact checking. But I normally don't consider them a credible source anyway, unless they happening to be covering something derogatory about themselves or democrats. When someone is saying bad stuff about themselves or their allies, it is probably worse than they are letting on.
You need to brush up on your reading skills.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
The (Washington) Post reported in its story it could not independently confirm the information from the Dominican authorities.
“The first two graphs are entirely untrue and kind of crazy,” Carlson said of the Post’s story. “We never paid anyone a dime to do or say anything in the Dominican Republic and never would. We don’t employ a mysterious operative named ‘Carlos.’ We did not enter into a conspiracy with Univision to discredit Sen. Menendez. This is crackpot stuff. I assume the Post is asking some hard questions of the reporter who wrote it. It’s embarrassing.”
I don't trust any of it. Either side. Carlson could be telling the truth and the story could still be a fabrication.
How about verifiable facts. How did Sen. Menendez vote? Did he represent the people who voted him in? Was he on the take?
There were scurrilous stories floating around about Abe Lincoln's sex life in his day. It is traditional politics.
