Politics

[DillonG]

 

[Tanks]

This is called the law of unintended consequences, and it's the primary reason I despise leftist politicians and Democrat voters.

Civil forfeiture law in its current form was passed by Republicans and signed into law by Reagan.

 

[Altitude sickness]

unfortunately the left doesn’t have a monopoly on greasy politicians that get corrupted by power and money. That end up believing that they know what’s best for the commoners. Most start out as Jimmy Stewart goes to Washington.

Then slowly learn if they don’t play ball, they don’t get on committees, they don’t get Pork sent back home, and they certainly do not get help fundraising for the next campaign. Which starts the day after you’re elected.

Then after a while get a God complex. That they are actually more intelligent and wise than the simpletons that put them there. Why not they past the Bar exam, and instantly know more than most

 

[skydiver386]

Civil forfeiture law in its current form was passed by Republicans and signed into law by Reagan.

Patently false, and a common Democrat tactic. Democrat majorities in Congress, as well as Democrat Presidents have passed plenty of laws that violate the Constitutional Rights of Americans before and after Reagan. These include, but are not limited to asset forfeiture laws. THIS is what I refer to as "Democrat Political Amnesia".

 

[Doubleplay]

Civil forfeiture law in its current form was passed by Republicans and signed into law by Reagan.

You beat me to it.
This thread truly became an echo chamber without fact checking.

 

[Red Leg]

Patently false, and a common Democrat tactic. Democrat majorities in Congress, as well as Democrat Presidents have passed plenty of laws that violate the Constitutional Rights of Americans before and after Reagan. These include, but are not limited to asset forfeiture laws. THIS is what I refer to as "Democrat Political Amnesia".

Well not exactly. Civil forfeiture has been a principle of English common law since the 1600's and was practiced in one form or another in this country since the founding and particularly during prohibition. However, the concept gained national application and widespread usage during the "war on drugs" with the passage of The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. Not to be too picky, but Ronald Reagan was indeed president from 1981 to 1989 and the act was a centerpiece of the republican led anti-drug effort. There have been reform initiatives by both parties and numerous states, but it is still a widely used legal tool.

 

[Saul]

You beat me to it.
This thread truly became an echo chamber without fact checking.

I find it dispiriting the number of Americans who do not read anything that clashes even marginally with their views. That is not to mention the even greater number who do not read at all.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

I find it dispiriting the number of Americans who do not read anything that clashes even marginally with their views. That is not to mention the even greater number who do not read at all.

I still meet people who tell me they never read, or say something like they haven't read since high school. Frankly, I find it utterly mystifying and a bit sad. I really don't know how to respond to that.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

There are all kinds of reading, and this certainly doesn't account for everything. But...

I taught elementary school for almost two decades, before the USFWS sucked me in. This was always one of my favorite poems, and accurately describes much of the joy I have gotten from reading throughout my life. One of the greatest pleasures I have had in this life is watching reading take hold in kids. Shooting a buffalo? Absolutely incredible. But watching an 8 year old's face light up when a book makes them smile? Priceless.

 

[Brent in Az]

House passes modified FISA bill. It still has to be passed by the Senate.

Hopefully, it is can be overhauled completely in the future to eliminate, any and all, abuses by the FBI.

 

[Brent in Az]

Recent scuttlebutt states that an Iranian attack on Israel is "imminent".

Iran was subdued under Trump

Thank traitor Joe for propping them back up.

 

[Red Leg]

I find it dispiriting the number of Americans who do not read anything that clashes even marginally with their views. That is not to mention the even greater number who do not read at all.

Confirmation bias is a plague regardless of political opinion. By pure happenstance, I found myself sitting next to Eric Holder on an evening flight from Denver to Austin during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. We exchanged a couple of pleasantries, and when we reached altitude, we both sought the latest news. He put his screen on Rachel Maddow. I actually can not abide Sean Hannity, but put mine on his show for the trip down. Something of a peripheral act of revenge perhaps. In any case, his departure was far more abrupt than his arrival.

 

[sestoppelman]

Recent scuttlebutt states that an Iranian attack on Israel is "imminent".

Iran was subdued under Trump

Thank traitor Joe for propping them back up.

Iran will use a proxy for any attacks. Business as usual.

Sadly Biden had to come back to Washington to make it look like he gives a sh**, too bad, the country is better off if he stays in DE!

 

[rookhawk]

Recent scuttlebutt states that an Iranian attack on Israel is "imminent".

Iran was subdued under Trump

Thank traitor Joe for propping them back up.

Israel crossed a serious line and I believe they did so to get the US into a full fledged war.

I don't care how evil the opponent supposedly is, or how bloodthirsty the battle, or how valuable the target, you never-never-ever-ever strike an embassy.

Pretty sancrosanct reason: Diplomats end conflicts. You strike an embassy, you're literally killing the mechanism for any future negotiation. Another reason: While the embassy is the sovereign soil of that building's ambassador nation, you're striking another power's soil in the radius all directions surrounding the compound.

The fact the world is not outraged by this is quite telling.

 

[freefall]

And now for something completely different!
I see a lot of noise in this section from members I never hear from in any other section.
Just an idea, but like requiring so many posts to put something for sale, how about making people post about something OTHER than politics at least 30% of the time?

 

[sestoppelman]

Israel crossed a serious line and I believe they did so to get the US into a full fledged war.

I don't care how evil the opponent supposedly is, or how bloodthirsty the battle, or how valuable the target, you never-never-ever-ever strike an embassy.

Pretty sancrosanct reason: Diplomats end conflicts. You strike an embassy, you're literally killing the mechanism for any future negotiation. Another reason: While the embassy is the sovereign soil of that building's ambassador nation, you're striking another power's soil in the radius all directions surrounding the compound.

The fact the world is not outraged by this is quite telling.

I have seen very little outrage over that attack which Israel has not claimed it did, other than from Iran and its proxy buds in the region.
Most of the angst seems to center around whether or not to go into Rafah and finish the job of decimating Hamas, which is necessary.

Israel is at war with Iranian terrorism and sometimes it gets ugly.

Cant lose sight of the fact that Hamas under orders from Iran started this war. Thus Iranian targets wherever they are hiding are fair game.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Israel struck the Syrian Consulate because the cowered general that has been funneling weapons into Lebanon for Hamas. Was hiding in there.

This quote from Clint Eastwood comes to mind.

“He should have armed himself if he’s gonna decorate his saloon with my freind”

And that’s how I feel about Israel hitting the hiding place of terrorist generals. If they didn’t want the consulate hit. They shouldn’t harbor terrorists. Ya mess with the Bull……

If you want to get an idea how far Israel will go to wipe out enemies. Watch the movie Munich.

 

[Brent in Az]

Israel crossed a serious line and I believe they did so to get the US into a full fledged war.

I don't care how evil the opponent supposedly is, or how bloodthirsty the battle, or how valuable the target, you never-never-ever-ever strike an embassy.

Pretty sancrosanct reason: Diplomats end conflicts. You strike an embassy, you're literally killing the mechanism for any future negotiation. Another reason: While the embassy is the sovereign soil of that building's ambassador nation, you're striking another power's soil in the radius all directions surrounding the compound.

The fact the world is not outraged by this is quite telling.

I don't think Ansar al Sharia in Benghazi got the memo about never- ever attacking an embassy.

 

[Scott CWO]

And now for something completely different!
I see a lot of noise in this section from members I never hear from in any other section.
Just an idea, but like requiring so many posts to put something for sale, how about making people post about something OTHER than politics at least 30% of the time?

Uhh how about no because of the 1st Amendment??

 

[VertigoBE]

Looks like things are heating up with Israel and Iran closing airspace’s, an a drone attack under way on Israel