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

[row_33]

10 minutes 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.

 

he is usually sensible, but it just goes on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on

 

 

[jrober38]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

As they should be.

 

There are a very small amount of people who are unable to work and provide for themselves.

 

The overwhelming majority of individuals on public assistance are there because they choose not to be productive, and have made a series of very poor decisions because the system in place has enabled them to do so.

 

With the removal of the welfare state private charities are more than able to service the needs of those who would remain behind.

 

The system, as it exists, manufactures intergenerational poverty by creating a culture of normalized dependence.  This is an extreme cruelty, and it is purposeful, as this reality:  soft slavery under the guise of “help”, is a necessary part of the elite’s ploy to keep common man subjugated under their yoke.

 

 

I'm not just talking about the poor.

Consider the US Military. It spent almost $700 billion this year. That's over $2000 per person in the US.

 

Do you honestly think 330 million people will each spend $2000 per person? The average family of 4 living in a democrat controlled urban city is going to shell out $8500? Not a chance.

 

I imagine military spending would be cut in half if not more. As would be the case for pretty much every public service.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

16 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

Sounds like I hit the strawman where it hurt.

I wouldn’t know.

 

You’re the one who concocted him, and implied that broad federal power fosters community.

 

If you’d like to argue against my position, feel free, but you haven’t done so yet.

[Whatnot78]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

Im visiting Harpers Ferry Friday. John Brown, freedom fighter or terrorist? @DC Tom

 

I choose option 3: AFC WR leader in yards

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

I'm not just talking about the poor.

Consider the US Military. It spent almost $700 billion this year. That's over $2000 per person in the US.

 

Do you honestly think 330 million people will each spend $2000 per person? The average family of 4 living in a democrat controlled urban city is going to shell out $8500? Not a chance.

 

I imagine military spending would be cut in half if not more. As would be the case for pretty much every public service.  

It should be.

 

The primary purpose of our military in the year 2019 is to funnel resources towards the global elites.  There is absolutely no reason for our military budget to be as large as it is.

[row_33]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

It should be.

 

The primary purpose of our military in the year 2019 is to funnel resources towards the global elites.  There is absolutely no reason for our military budget to be as large as it is.

 

 

it provides a life and career, and education, for many who wouldn't have one otherwise

[Foxx]

51 minutes ago, John Adams said:

... I would like teachers to teach my child how to think, not what to think. ...

cognitive skills are not the main 'objective' in 'schooling' (of which, is, the main objective).

 

18 minutes 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.

he often has trouble focusing and/or moving goalposts to fit the narrative within his head.

[jrober38]

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

It should be.

 

The primary purpose of our military in the year 2019 is to funnel resources towards the global elites.  There is absolutely no reason for our military budget to be as large as it is.

 

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. 

Edited November 27, 2019 by jrober38

[DC Tom]

20 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

Im visiting Harpers Ferry Friday. John Brown, freedom fighter or terrorist? @DC Tom

 

Terrorist.

 

Remember: he wasn't trying to free blacks.  He was trying to incite genocide.  And he, more than any other single person, was responsible for the Civil War.

[Foxx]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

Fine. I don't disagree. The US Military is a colossal waste of money and should have it's budget slashed considerably. 

 

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. 

the bigger waste is bureaucracy. eliminate the graft and waste there, and we would have more than enough for social programs and infrastructure.

[row_33]

i would have and still support putting him down by military or noose

 

[jrober38]

6 minutes ago, Foxx said:

the bigger waste is bureaucracy. eliminate the graft and waste there, and we would have more than enough for social programs and infrastructure.

 

I totally agree, I just think the notion that the public will step in and cover the cost of all the social programs and services that would be gutted is ridiculous.

 

American society would fall apart without income taxes. 

 

EDIT: I understand all the arguments against income taxes, I'm strictly speaking about short term effects if they were eliminated. I also understand this is ultimately a reason social programs are so challenging to remove once they're in place. 

Edited November 27, 2019 by jrober38

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 minutes 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. 

There was a rule of law before the income tax.

 

What there was an absence of, however, is a war on drugs which accounts for more than half our prison population.  There were no militarized police forces.  
 

Would a return to community based policing in which only truly violent offenders and those engaging in actual property crimes were incarcerated be a bad thing?

 

Wouldn’t it be desirable to put an end to the “high school to prison pipeline” which assists so many in our inner cities into intergenerational poverty and turns kids into violent criminals?

 

As to roads and infrastructure, people value these things, and businesses require them in order to operate.

 

These repairs and improvements would be made at the local level, largely paid for by the businesses which need them in order to exist.  This is, in fact, how things used to operate.
 

These improvements would be made more rapidly, and much cheaper, because the graft would be removed.

 

Society would not break down, but rather would grow closer, because true communities would re-emerge as existed as recently as the early 1980’s.

 

The economy would grow stronger due to larger work force participation in the private sector, as the unproductive, bureaucratic government sector would shrink. 

[jrober38]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

There was a rule of law before the income tax.

 

What there was an absence of, however, is a war on drugs which accounts for more than half our prison population.  There were no militarized police forces.  
 

Would a return to community based policing in which only truly violent offenders and those engaging in actual property crimes were incarcerated be a bad thing?

 

Wouldn’t it be desirable to put an end to the “high school to prison pipeline” which assists so many in our inner cities into intergenerational poverty and turns kids into violent criminals?

 

As to roads and infrastructure, people value these things, and businesses require them in order to operate.

 

These repairs and improvements would be made at the local level, largely paid for by the businesses which need them in order to exist.  This is, in fact, how things used to operate.
 

These improvements would be made more rapidly, and much cheaper, because the graft would be removed.

 

Society would not break down, but rather would grow closer, because true communities would re-emerge as existed as recently as the early 1980’s.

 

The economy would grow stronger due to larger work force participation in the private sector, as the unproductive, bureaucratic government sector would shrink. 

 

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. 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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

[3rdnlng]

44 minutes ago, Foxx said:

cognitive skills are not the main 'objective' in 'schooling' (of which, is, the main objective).

 

he often has trouble focusing and/or moving goalposts to fit the narrative within his head.

He should be able to easily move goalposts around that empty skull.

[DC Tom]

19 minutes 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.

 

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

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

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

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

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

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

 

I did a double take when I read that.  

 

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

 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I did a double take when I read that.  

 

 

I like how he said "100+" years, which I interpreted as "100 years," even though I know it meant "as far back as I have to go before semi-automatic magazine-fed rifles didn't exist yet."  Which is...145 years.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

As expected.

[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...