The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG

[3rdnlng]

22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I did a double take when I read that.  

 

*************************

 

From your link:

 

A Pastiche of Gossip and Smears

Finally, the sleazy Schiffite proceedings at the House Intelligence Committee were so lopsided, arbitrary, and contemptuous of the rights of the Republican minority on the committee and those of the president as the investigated party, no American court could possibly accept a requested prosecution that emerged from such a vitiated and tainted proceeding.

Given all of the foregoing facts—which are indisputable—the country, despite the wall-to-wall disinformation effort of the non-Fox media, seems already to be asking why this unmitigated foolishness is distracting the attention of the country and the world at all. Any Democratic member of the House of Representatives who votes to send this pastiche of gossip and smears to an impeachment trial, and any senator who votes to convict on it, should be removed by their electors at the first opportunity, and many will be.

Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is an abominable and totalitarian sleaze-merchant and procedural assassin, and the country cannot have failed to notice that, too. (Maybe Kanye West should run against him for the alleged honor of representing Hollywood.) All that can be said is that Schiff is a less incompetent assassin than Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the porcine and mendacious bungler wallowing in the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, who struck out with hearings on Robert Mueller’s feebly attempted putsch.

This entire impeachment inquiry has been a disgrace, a shameful abuse of powers, and the authors of it should be punished as only the voters can do. If it goes one faltering step further, they will be.

[John Adams]

2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Ah, now I remember why I got away from discussing anything with you. You twist what other people say and misrepresent their arguments. Yes, our founding fathers were imperfect people but tearing them down is nothing but an attempt to belittle our constitution.

 

Maybe criticizing the founding fathers is important to the purpose of undeifying them. The Constitution is great, but also imperfect. Who would be afraid of exploring those ideas in school? 

 

 

[Hedge]

19 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The first Thompson Submachine gun wasn’t used in a crime until about 1927. I read that in a book on John Dillinger. 

 

This reply is just an excuse to drop in some good pre-Thanksgiving day tunes.

Fun (or mobid) fact: this is the last song that Warren Zevon performed in a public setting (David Letterman's show in 2002).

 

 

(it would actually be more appropriate in the Deep State thread )

[reddogblitz]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The country was quite civilized before the advent of the Federal Reserve and the income tax (1913 and 1914 respectively, and non-coincidentally).

 

More civilized, in fact, as the nation wasn’t plunging itself into extremely costly (in terms of both lives and real wealth) wars on other continents in order to funnel wealth into the pockets of banking and business elites.

 

This may be technically true in 1913 and 1914 but we had recently ended the War to End All Wars in Europe on 11/11/11.

 

As far as funneling wealth into banking and business, read this first hand report: https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

[3rdnlng]

12 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

This may be technically true in 1913 and 1914 but we had recently ended the War to End All Wars in Europe on 11/11/11.

 

As far as funneling wealth into banking and business, read this first hand report: https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

? It was 11/11/18, but also on the 11th hour.

Edited November 27, 2019 by 3rdnlng

[jrober38]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

Hard to argue with this level of ignorance.  You've never heard of Browning or Thompson?  

 

The Thompson was around in 1913?

Edited November 27, 2019 by jrober38

[Tiberius]

 

Quote

 

President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, negotiated this year to represent Ukraine’s top prosecutor for at least $200,000 during the same months that Giuliani was working with the prosecutor to dig up dirt on former vice president Joe Biden, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The people said that Giuliani began negotiations with Ukraine’s top prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, about a possible agreement in February. In the agreement, Giuliani’s company would receive payment to represent Lutsenko as the Ukrainian sought to recover assets he believed had been stolen from the government in Kyiv, those familiar with the discussions said.

The talks occurred as Giuliani met with Lutsenko in New York in January and then in Warsaw in February while he was also gathering information from Lutsenko on two topics Giuliani believed could prove useful to Trump: the involvement of Biden and his son Hunter in Ukraine, and allegations that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 election.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/giuliani-was-in-talks-to-be-paid-by-ukraines-top-prosecutor-as-they-together-sought-damaging-information-on-democrats/2019/11/27/636c3e86-112d-11ea-b0fc-62cc38411ebb_story.html

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Tiberius]

So they were also making money off this whole Ukraine scam. Rudy: Sent Lawyers, Propaganda and Money! 

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

I disagree.

 

There are almost 400 million firearms in the US. 100+ years ago firearms were still somewhat primitive. Rifles, some revolvers, no AR-15s, not semi automatic high capacity hand guns, etc. 

 

This is patently untrue.

 

The ban on automatic weapons has only been in place since 1986, though the weapons themselves were invented in 1885.  As Tom pointed out, semi-automatic firearms have been in common use in the United States for almost 150 years.  The AR-15 itself was invented in 1954, and was available for order in the Sears catalogue via Colt, who purchased the patent in 1963.

 

Firearm safety was a class commonly taught in schools, where students brought their own rifles.  Most schools across the country had shooting teams.

 

Quote

If you slashed policing in half, America would be a disaster. Criminals wouldn't be opposed, and to combat them I imagine there would be a rise in local militias, and as I said the country would operate similar to the wild west in the late 1800s and early 1900s when the frontier operated in this manor.

 

I'm not talking about slashing policing in half, I'm talking about a much larger overhaul than that.

 

And, no, it wouldn't.  It did not in the past, and it will not now.

 

Actual criminals, violent ones, and those who commit property crimes are rare.

 

More than half of our prison population is in jail for drug offenses, and as of 2010 non-violent offenders accounted for 63% of the population.

 

Most of the people locked in cages, or shot dead by police are solely because of state action and aggression. 

 

We don't need a police state bent on incarcerating it's own citizens, and inventing civil crimes and legal fictions in order to do so.  That is incredibly immoral.

 

Not to mention it's direct links to intergenerational poverty.  If 63% of those incarcerated are non-violent offenders, and 93% are men; how many fatherless homes, the single factor most highly correlated with intergenerational poverty, are created?  How about the disproportionate impacts on our minority communities? 

 

I don't think throwing hundreds of thousands of people in cages, and stealing their dignity, their employability, their futures, and the futures of their families is moral.

 

Quote

The US is much more connected than it was 100 years ago. The highways, airports, ports are all crucial parts of the country and would need maintenance. Key trade routes might be taken care of, but anywhere there isn't a factory or distribution network would likely see it's access points fall into disrepair.

 

They would not.  The people living in those areas would deal with maintenance, and key arteries, which now span the entire country, would be well maintained.  Otherwise how could Amazon, for instance, bring it's goods to market?  Who would buy them?  In chase of profits innovators fill the gaps.  This has always happened.  I challenge you to make a comprehensive study of the transcontinental railroads, paying close attention to The Great Northern.

 

Quote

The US had any hardly standing army before WW1. Having that military might not be necessary but getting rid of it would result in millions of unemployed, either directly through the military or indirectly through the communities that service its bases.

 

I don't believe a moral argument can be made that in order to employ people we must make war.  This is an unjustifiable position which necessitates an absence of peace, and elevates the horrors of war to an economic necessity.

 

I reject this wholesale.

 

Quote

Things may recover eventually and I'd love if your ideas were realistic, but I think the short term effect of laying off millions of people and gutting the military and police forces and removing the ability to enforce the rule of law would result in the downfall of American society. 

 

 

 

Too many people, too many guns, too much existing poverty, and way too many people who rely on the government either as a job or through assistance. 

 

Pulling the carpet out from under all that would be a complete disaster.

 

 

This is what the elites want you to believe.

 

Challenge yourself to further explore the ideas I am presenting, and challenge your long held assumptions about the way the world "works" while focusing on why poor outcomes are built into the structure of it's operation for so many.

 

Why are we always at war?  Why does America have 25% of the global prison population?  Why does such a large percentage of our population go to jail?  Why do we have a national debt of 23 trillion?  Why do we have a two tiered justice system?

 

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

29 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

The Thompson was around in 1913?

 

1917.  The Thompson was invented as a specialized weapon for trench warfare.

 

Ditto the BAR, and a few other weapons that becme commonly used in the "promiscuous shootings" of the '20s and '30s that led to bans on automatic weapons.

[row_33]

when impeachment does not kill Trump, it makes him stronger

 

[dubs]

3 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

Fine. I don't disagree. 

 

But the result in this lack of spending on social services, bridges, roads, etc, will be the loss of millions of jobs. There will be no enforcement of laws because police forces will be gutted, there will be no rule of law because the courts will be gutted, and ultimately there will be no one to incarcerate criminals who are convicted because the prison system will be gutted.

 

Society will resemble the wild west. The economy would likely also collapse. 

what are you taking about!???!

 

the two choices are not communism or anarchy. 
 

the only choice really is: the federal government takes care of the powers enumerated to it in the constitution. Strictly those. Everything else is left to states and localities. It’s really simple and it would work brilliantly. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

18 minutes ago, dubs said:

what are you taking about!???!

 

the two choices are not communism or anarchy. 
 

the only choice really is: the federal government takes care of the powers enumerated to it in the constitution. Strictly those. Everything else is left to states and localities. It’s really simple and it would work brilliantly. 

 

How and why did the Constitution come about?

 

What type of individuals ratified it?

 

Did those who ratified it safeguard it's provisions?

 

If the Constitution was designed to be a cage on the size and scope of government, can you say it has been effective towards those goals?

[transplantbillsfan]

Since the title of this thread mentions how the Dems are trying to (I guess...?) distract from what will be extremely incriminating evidence coming out in the OIG regarding the 2016 election, I guess this belongs here:

 

[dubs]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

How and why did the Constitution come about?

 

What type of individuals ratified it?

 

Did those who ratified it safeguard it's provisions?

 

If the Constitution was designed to be a cage on the size and scope of government, can you say it has been effective towards those goals?

2/3 house and senate, 3/4 the states to amend

 

obviously no, but it it doesn’t mean the document is defective, just the people who came after who are responsible for following it. 

[Chef Jim]

5 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Things are a heck of a lot better than a hundred years ago. Not sure why the modern Democratic Party scares you so much. Huge majorities of  the elderly today owe their easy lives to Democratic Party policies. A hundred years ago, the elderly lived shorter poorer lives. Now they are one of the wealthiest groups in society

Wait...the Democrats invented 401k’s/IRA’s/mutual funds/ETF’s etc?  Gee I had no idea. 
 

Please explain what Democrat policies make all these elderly people so rich. 

[3rdnlng]

14 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Since the title of this thread mentions how the Dems are trying to (I guess...?) distract from what will be extremely incriminating evidence coming out in the OIG regarding the 2016 election, I guess this belongs here:

 

This is now posted in 4 threads.

[Foxx]

16 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Since the title of this thread mentions how the Dems are trying to (I guess...?) distract from what will be extremely incriminating evidence coming out in the OIG regarding the 2016 election, I guess this belongs here:

 

trans, please do not be a sheep.

 

understand exactly what is being claimed that the FBI did, not what the spin wants to twist things into. also understand that you are attempting to be conditioned here so they can play you when it actually does come out.

[row_33]

7 minutes ago, dubs said:

2/3 house and senate, 3/4 the states to amend

 

obviously no, but it it doesn’t mean the document is defective, just the people who came after who are responsible for following it. 

 

i see the Equal Rights Amendment is possibly back again, all they needed was a few more states, the pro side is arguing the closeout date of 7 years (starting in 1972) should be disregarded...