Steve Scalise Shot during GOP Baseball Practice

Page 5 of 7 [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

15 Jun 2017, 8:49 pm

EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:

So their plan is to break that record? Maybe they already have. In less than a year even.


SH90 wrote:
Threats are made on presidents and other government officials all the time, and they all should be taken seriously... Very rarely does someone take action.


Does anyone remember what happened to Ronnie Reagan when he went from B grade actor to right wing maniac?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted ... ald_Reagan



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

15 Jun 2017, 9:04 pm

cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:

So their plan is to break that record? Maybe they already have. In less than a year even.


SH90 wrote:
Threats are made on presidents and other government officials all the time, and they all should be taken seriously... Very rarely does someone take action.


Does anyone remember what happened to Ronnie Reagan when he went from B grade actor to right wing maniac?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted ... ald_Reagan


The Reagan assignation attempt by Hinckley was not politically motivated. Although it was motivated by a mentally unhealthy bizarre unrealistic obsession over someone, so maybe it is applicable in that sense.

One of the hoped for democratic candidates for president in the next election is former SNL comedian Al Franken.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

15 Jun 2017, 9:17 pm

Hinckley wanted to impress his crush, actress Jodie Foster.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

15 Jun 2017, 10:13 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Seems like people are rationalizing this use of political violence, if you think its that things are bad then its not going to get better with violence because it's going to have the opposite effect. You're not going to 'scare' Republicans into doing what you want, you're going to harden their resolve and escalate the violence.


You are rationalising this act as if it was part of an organised left wing conspiracy. Hodgekinson was a lone wolf with personal gripes against republicans.

Yeah, but lone wolves killed two Kennedys, MLK, and nearly killed George Wallace tried to kill Gerald Ford...

One motivated nut can do a lot. Also, there were a lot of small domestic terrorist groups operating in the 60s and 70s... robbing banks, planting bombs, etc. I could see that kind of thing happening again...

These days liberals are buying guns too.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345

Quote:
There's a storm coming, Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,468
Location: Long Island, New York

16 Jun 2017, 1:03 am

GoonSquad wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Seems like people are rationalizing this use of political violence, if you think its that things are bad then its not going to get better with violence because it's going to have the opposite effect. You're not going to 'scare' Republicans into doing what you want, you're going to harden their resolve and escalate the violence.


You are rationalising this act as if it was part of an organised left wing conspiracy. Hodgekinson was a lone wolf with personal gripes against republicans.

Yeah, but lone wolves killed two Kennedys, MLK, and nearly killed George Wallace tried to kill Gerald Ford...

One motivated nut can do a lot. Also, there were a lot of small domestic terrorist groups operating in the 60s and 70s... robbing banks, planting bombs, etc. I could see that kind of thing happening again...

These days liberals are buying guns too.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345

Quote:
There's a storm coming, Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us.



A variation on the old saying "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged"


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

It is Autism Acceptance Month

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

16 Jun 2017, 6:44 am

These liberals haven't been 'mugged by reality' however but rather by fantasy and innuendo from rampant yellow journalism.



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

16 Jun 2017, 7:27 am

(Because they don't what is their skin color, or how to use a toilet.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSMtP8bJO4A

Here is a demonstration. Of objectivity --
Can any one person come up with just a T-shirt, from scratch, a poster board, or one piece of bread. A glass of potable water.

Where is it all coming from.



JoeNavy
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 45

16 Jun 2017, 7:40 am

androbot01 wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
I don't think we will ever see another civil war in the US. Any rebellion would be ruthlessly crushed by the military first.

The military is made up of people. Their views are probably as opposed to the other as the rest of the population's. If the States start shifting, who knows what will happen.


A civil war would be unlikely but not impossible. All members of the military are sworn to support and defend the Constitution, not politicians. I have heard incredibly detailed and sophisticated political debates on the mess decks when I was stationed on ship. We are not mindless drones or enforcers. As a matter of fact, it is actually illegal for any active duty military to do anything in a domestic law enforcement capacity because we do not have police authority. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 restricts use of Army and later Air Force for domestic policy enforcement(Navy and USMC have own regulations for it). So while required to obey lawful orders, if the primary purpose of those orders is not lawful (Constitutional) we morally and by oath are required to disobey and oppose such orders as given. However, if a service member were to do so, they better damn well be correct and able to prove it!


_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 153 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 60 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

16 Jun 2017, 7:58 am

What you are saying would generally be true, but during peace time, afaic.

When under siege or natural disaster, refuseniks are regarded as unfriendlies or beligerents, not necessarily under a national banner.

Also, under the international framework, coalition forces, from foreign countries, are allowed to patrol their allies.

Private contractors have been acknowledged.

Posse comitatus can probably be subverted by countless more legal technicalities, generally beginning with destabilization.

It is cheap and easy to watch tactics, for days. Watch the systematic treatment, of civilians in foreign theaters. Compare it to declared states of emergency. And, tell me no pattern emerges. Same basic procedures as in Vietnam, Iraq, etc, etc, ad nauseam. It's not impossible to discern.



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

16 Jun 2017, 8:02 am

I'm being a little more far out, with this line of conjecture, but Rome was said to have used foreign mercenaries.

You give social promotions to change agents -- sexual, racial, and religious -- and gave them questionnaires, asking about their loyalty.

In our experience, they administer reverse prejudice as social justice.

They are not traditional, in general. Yet, you are invoking a tradition, against meddling with us.



JoeNavy
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 45

16 Jun 2017, 9:09 am

friedmacguffins wrote:
What you are saying would generally be true, but during peace time, afaic.

When under siege or natural disaster, refuseniks are regarded as unfriendlies or beligerents, not necessarily under a national banner.

Also, under the international framework, coalition forces, from foreign countries, are allowed to patrol their allies.

Private contractors have been acknowledged.

Posse comitatus can probably be subverted by countless more legal technicalities, generally beginning with destabilization.

It is cheap and easy to watch tactics, for days. Watch the systematic treatment, of civilians in foreign theaters. Compare it to declared states of emergency. And, tell me no pattern emerges. Same basic procedures as in Vietnam, Iraq, etc, etc, ad nauseam. It's not impossible to discern.

And thus the original purpose of the Second Amendment would become crystal clear.


_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 153 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 60 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

16 Jun 2017, 11:30 am

friedmacguffins wrote:
When under siege or natural disaster, refuseniks are regarded as unfriendlies or beligerents, not necessarily under a national banner.


Legally making them terrorists, not afforded the same dignity as actual soldiers.

They went door-to-door, disarming the people or relocating them, outrightly.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

16 Jun 2017, 6:00 pm

JoeNavy wrote:
So while required to obey lawful orders, if the primary purpose of those orders is not lawful (Constitutional) we morally and by oath are required to disobey and oppose such orders as given. However, if a service member were to do so, they better damn well be correct and able to prove it!

That's interesting?

So if (hypothetically) a megalomaniac narcissist US president issued orders that were unconstitutional then who in the chain of command decides the order is "unconstitutional"?

Currently the GOP is bending over backwards to protect an unamed megalomaniac narcissist who is trying to "bend the rules to stay in power" I don't see the military or secret agencies or the congress doing anything particularly constructive to protect the aforementioned constitution



JoeNavy
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 45

16 Jun 2017, 6:54 pm

cyberdad wrote:
JoeNavy wrote:
So while required to obey lawful orders, if the primary purpose of those orders is not lawful (Constitutional) we morally and by oath are required to disobey and oppose such orders as given. However, if a service member were to do so, they better damn well be correct and able to prove it!

That's interesting?

So if (hypothetically) a megalomaniac narcissist US president issued orders that were unconstitutional then who in the chain of command decides the order is "unconstitutional"?

Currently the GOP is bending over backwards to protect an unamed megalomaniac narcissist who is trying to "bend the rules to stay in power" I don't see the military or secret agencies or the congress doing anything particularly constructive to protect the aforementioned constitution


That is true. The Constitution is the law of the land and the military is an apolitical body. A service member cannot interject and attempt to overthrow the lawful government unless they are forced to make that decision by being given an order that they would deem contrary to the Constitution, by that government. Just as a person cannot challenge the constitutionality of a law that has been passed by the legislative body, unless they are aggrieved and file suit in federal court, subjecting the law to judicial review.
Once again, a service member that does something contrary to orders, if they fail to prove that the order was unlawful can be punished "as a court martial may direct". UCMJ Article 92


_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 153 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 60 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

16 Jun 2017, 7:09 pm

JoeNavy wrote:
a service member that does something contrary to orders, if they fail to prove that the order was unlawful can be punished "as a court martial may direct". UCMJ Article 92


Interesting, so basically they have to stick their necks out and go out on a limb? no wonder the president is flaunting the law with relative impunity. He very well knows that his executive powers are unlikely to be resisted by his suboordinates



JoeNavy
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 45

16 Jun 2017, 7:14 pm

cyberdad wrote:
JoeNavy wrote:
a service member that does something contrary to orders, if they fail to prove that the order was unlawful can be punished "as a court martial may direct". UCMJ Article 92


Interesting, so basically they have to stick their necks out and go out on a limb? no wonder the president is flaunting the law with relative impunity. He very well knows that his executive powers are unlikely to be resisted by his suboordinates


Yeah. We really would only be able to do anything if the S.H.T.F.


_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 153 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 60 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)