Growing up we feared being overrun by Russians, not our own government. Makes you wonder if the two are actually related these days.
US Capitol breached
- Thread starter bermudasteel
- Start date
Growing up we feared being overrun by Russians, not our own government. Makes you wonder if the two are actually related these days.
Growing up we feared being overrun by Russians, not our own government. Makes you wonder if the two are actually related these days.
Governments have killed over 170 Million of their own people over the past 100 years.
When our framers made the Constitution, they made it specifically so Americans would be free from tyranny, primarily. Not for threats from overseas or neighboring countries. To protect us from our Government becoming "that" Government.
Todays Liberals, Progressives (first cousins of Communists) bolster our Government to become the very Government we fled when settling here. They don't see it. They are re-creating that which we ran from and founded this great country upon.
History always repeats itself.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,623
- Reaction score
- 12,820
- Points
- 113
Is the mayor of Moscow coming to the inauguration?
Sent from my SM-N950W using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N950W using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 12,693
- Reaction score
- 17,008
- Points
- 113
Lots of republicans making the stupid calculation that denouncing Trump will somehow get them votes down the line. How? How do you figure that? Sure, it will help them short term by getting some good publicity from the media and getting invited to parties again, but seriously, how do they see this translating to votes later?
Trump had overwhelming support from Republican voters and got a large amount of Dems, including a very sizeable number of minority votes. Why? Because he was not running on the tired establishment republican platform. He was a true populist, actually trying to solve the problems of working people.
That's his great sin that offended Dems and establishment Reps. He actually did things. Meaningful things and not just empty promises. He started looking at government contracts with somebody's brother in law's company charging 10 times what they should. He started asking why departments needed so many people. He started trying to actually reduce the bureaucracy, AKA the swamp. A bunch of unskilled, unelected hacks whose only skill is sucking the gov teet.
This second impeachment is as meaningless as the first. In fact, it actually helps Trump. It further solidifies him as a sympathetic figure to those who voted for him. Only partisan hacks and simpletons see this as a so called "insurrection". Particularly in light of months of BLM riots where far worse was not just tolerated, but championed as patriotic.
Trump had overwhelming support from Republican voters and got a large amount of Dems, including a very sizeable number of minority votes. Why? Because he was not running on the tired establishment republican platform. He was a true populist, actually trying to solve the problems of working people.
That's his great sin that offended Dems and establishment Reps. He actually did things. Meaningful things and not just empty promises. He started looking at government contracts with somebody's brother in law's company charging 10 times what they should. He started asking why departments needed so many people. He started trying to actually reduce the bureaucracy, AKA the swamp. A bunch of unskilled, unelected hacks whose only skill is sucking the gov teet.
This second impeachment is as meaningless as the first. In fact, it actually helps Trump. It further solidifies him as a sympathetic figure to those who voted for him. Only partisan hacks and simpletons see this as a so called "insurrection". Particularly in light of months of BLM riots where far worse was not just tolerated, but championed as patriotic.
These yahoos are in it for themselves. They could give less than a crap about losing in the primary. I'm sure their family is set for life by that long list of corporations that Tibs listed earlier. Wait a minute.....I thought big companies were bad.....
Thanks for posting this Tibs. I'll be fueling up at Exxon tomorrow, shopping at Food Lion, and shipping via FedEx. (Smithfield is owned by China now so no big surprise there..) You have a good day.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,412
- Reaction score
- 1,354
- Points
- 113
Exposing your glaring hypocrisy is easy and free entertainment, no one is losing sleep Sparky.
Find those posts yet?
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,412
- Reaction score
- 1,354
- Points
- 113
There were 100 000 troops deployed around the country to protect innocent business and civilians from thuggish Biden supporters who were being egged on by several members of the Democrat party, you didn't seen to care there, in fact you excused their criminal behaviour, so your present indignation is laughable.
You'd think he'd appreciate there only being 5K troops in Iraqistan thanks to Trumps leadership and not wanting the US to be authoritarian, colonialists, and the World Police. Guess not.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,412
- Reaction score
- 1,354
- Points
- 113
LOL, he probably has a reserved seat beside Chinese President Xi Jinping and Hunter Biden.
You know...I think they're deploying the troops to protect the Capitol from the anarchists who have been raiding cities across America this past year under the media driven guise of protecting it from the evil Conservatives. The same ones who defend law enforcement, the rule of law and the military. Stew on that.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 21,442
- Reaction score
- 24,109
- Points
- 113
Imagine that massive communication companies protected by the federal government going after political dissenters in the country.
They'll be here before long at the given rate.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,032
- Reaction score
- 7,081
- Points
- 113
Yep.
And they think we are too stupid to see it. Yet another reason why I believe the current cold civil war is about to turn hot.
https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah...lghZvezZlp879H9HYnoeBFEomdHrjoiJKTOjUn6CD5Ze0
Former Prosecutor Reviews 'Incitement' Allegations Against Trump, Says Dems Have Big Problems
The buzzword of the last week or so for Democrats and the mainstream media has been “incitement.”
When Democrats talk about the breaching of the Capitol that took place last Wednesday, they couch their “incitement” allegations against President Trump in no uncertain terms. In their view, he did it, needs to be impeached, and kept from being able to hold public office again. Many supposedly “objective” reporters and news outlets have done the same, and without adding qualifiers to their reporting like “Democrats allege” or “legal experts say” and so forth.
But while The Usual Suspects are lining up lawyers to try and back up their claims that the speech Trump gave Wednesday amounted to inciting supporters to riot, and while it is assumed in media/Dem circles that the acting Attorney General may be considering whether or not to file charges against Trump, there are other legal eagles who are weighing in with much different takes. Their takes – at least in my view from the cheap seats – sound sane and far more Constitutionally grounded.
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, a former assistant attorney general for the District of Columbia from 2007-2009, penned a piece in the Wall Street Journal in which he states that Trump’s speech doesn’t come close to rising to the level of “incitement” and that what he said is protected speech under the Constitution.
He started off by detailing his creds on the issue at hand:
The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname “protester prosecutor” from the antiwar group CodePink. In one trial, I convicted 31 protesters who disrupted congressional traffic by obstructing the Capitol Crypt. In another, I convicted a CodePink activist who smeared her hands with fake blood, charged at then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a House hearing room, and incited the audience to seize the secretary of state physically. In other cases, I dropped charges when the facts fell short of the legal standard for incitement. One such defendant was the antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan.
After citing DC law on incitement and provocation, which was based on a 1969 Supreme Court case, Shapiro pointed out that Trump’s speech fell short of the requirements under DC law:
The president didn’t mention violence on Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it. He said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
District law defines a riot as “a public disturbance . . . which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons.” When Mr. Trump spoke, there was no “public disturbance,” only a rally. The “disturbance” came later at the Capitol by a small minority who entered the perimeter and broke the law. They should be prosecuted.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has made similar arguments, as my colleague Nick Arama previously reported.
Another elephant in the room that the Democrats and the media are reluctant to mention is the timeline issue. According to CBS News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge, the first pipe bomb was said to have been found at the RNC around 12:45 as Trump was still giving his speech:
#CapitolBuilding From Acting US Attorney Michael Sherwin – two pipe Bombs, one near RNC + second, DNC “not a hoax” + “were viable,” ongoing forensics to identify bombmaker + whether timers rigged for max casualties IMAGES first reported @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/d4Sdg4SWy2
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) January 7, 2021
#CapitolHill NEW: Law enforcement report from 1/7 obtained @CBSNews lays out – what appears to be – a significant timeline. First pipe bomb at RNC called in at approximately 1245 as POTUS spoke at rally with a second device at DNC called in approximately 1315. NOTE: Timing + pic.twitter.com/G6qGWLbTB7
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) January 10, 2021
From that alone, along with the rioter who came prepared with zip ties, we can perhaps glean that the storming of the Capitol was likely pre-planned. In other words, it doesn’t seem likely that random rallygoers were just standing around listening to Trump’s speech and then getting “incited” enough to leave and then make and plant pipe bombs.
There’s still a lot we don’t know and are still learning, but the “Trump incitement” argument is falling apart by the minute. That won’t stop revenge-minded Democrats in Congress, however, but as the Ben Shapiro saying goes, facts don’t care about your feelings.
Former Prosecutor Reviews 'Incitement' Allegations Against Trump, Says Dems Have Big Problems
The buzzword of the last week or so for Democrats and the mainstream media has been “incitement.”
When Democrats talk about the breaching of the Capitol that took place last Wednesday, they couch their “incitement” allegations against President Trump in no uncertain terms. In their view, he did it, needs to be impeached, and kept from being able to hold public office again. Many supposedly “objective” reporters and news outlets have done the same, and without adding qualifiers to their reporting like “Democrats allege” or “legal experts say” and so forth.
But while The Usual Suspects are lining up lawyers to try and back up their claims that the speech Trump gave Wednesday amounted to inciting supporters to riot, and while it is assumed in media/Dem circles that the acting Attorney General may be considering whether or not to file charges against Trump, there are other legal eagles who are weighing in with much different takes. Their takes – at least in my view from the cheap seats – sound sane and far more Constitutionally grounded.
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, a former assistant attorney general for the District of Columbia from 2007-2009, penned a piece in the Wall Street Journal in which he states that Trump’s speech doesn’t come close to rising to the level of “incitement” and that what he said is protected speech under the Constitution.
He started off by detailing his creds on the issue at hand:
The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname “protester prosecutor” from the antiwar group CodePink. In one trial, I convicted 31 protesters who disrupted congressional traffic by obstructing the Capitol Crypt. In another, I convicted a CodePink activist who smeared her hands with fake blood, charged at then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a House hearing room, and incited the audience to seize the secretary of state physically. In other cases, I dropped charges when the facts fell short of the legal standard for incitement. One such defendant was the antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan.
After citing DC law on incitement and provocation, which was based on a 1969 Supreme Court case, Shapiro pointed out that Trump’s speech fell short of the requirements under DC law:
The president didn’t mention violence on Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it. He said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
District law defines a riot as “a public disturbance . . . which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons.” When Mr. Trump spoke, there was no “public disturbance,” only a rally. The “disturbance” came later at the Capitol by a small minority who entered the perimeter and broke the law. They should be prosecuted.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has made similar arguments, as my colleague Nick Arama previously reported.
Another elephant in the room that the Democrats and the media are reluctant to mention is the timeline issue. According to CBS News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge, the first pipe bomb was said to have been found at the RNC around 12:45 as Trump was still giving his speech:
#CapitolBuilding From Acting US Attorney Michael Sherwin – two pipe Bombs, one near RNC + second, DNC “not a hoax” + “were viable,” ongoing forensics to identify bombmaker + whether timers rigged for max casualties IMAGES first reported @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/d4Sdg4SWy2
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) January 7, 2021
#CapitolHill NEW: Law enforcement report from 1/7 obtained @CBSNews lays out – what appears to be – a significant timeline. First pipe bomb at RNC called in at approximately 1245 as POTUS spoke at rally with a second device at DNC called in approximately 1315. NOTE: Timing + pic.twitter.com/G6qGWLbTB7
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) January 10, 2021
From that alone, along with the rioter who came prepared with zip ties, we can perhaps glean that the storming of the Capitol was likely pre-planned. In other words, it doesn’t seem likely that random rallygoers were just standing around listening to Trump’s speech and then getting “incited” enough to leave and then make and plant pipe bombs.
There’s still a lot we don’t know and are still learning, but the “Trump incitement” argument is falling apart by the minute. That won’t stop revenge-minded Democrats in Congress, however, but as the Ben Shapiro saying goes, facts don’t care about your feelings.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,571
- Reaction score
- 6,246
- Points
- 113
Just curious a day later, if you've managed to wipe the egg off your face? How much of an *** do you have to be to type up that amount of soppy bullshit? Because I didn't immediately respond to something on the board? Holy ****.
Your obsession and infatuation with me is beyond anything close to normal. Do you keep an Excel spreadsheet, logging my posts with my comings and goings? Really, who gives a rat's *** about this stuff?
I'll check in and check out of this board however I see fit. I'll leave and never come back, how's that? Or maybe I will come back, a month later. Hmm, maybe six months, a year? Nah, how 'bout a week later? Or, maybe I won't leave at all, but continue to haunt and torment your soul with my political takes.
Ha ha, it's pure comedy to live in someone's head like this. Though I have to admit, it's a bit creepy too. I wouldn't be shocked if a guy like Tim is on the neighborhood watch list.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,623
- Reaction score
- 12,820
- Points
- 113
Vile Comrade Tibs, Useful Idiot, are you making some sort of veiled threat to put Tim/others here on some internet list?
Sent from my SM-N950W using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 21,442
- Reaction score
- 24,109
- Points
- 113
hahahaha some great comedy&coffee this morning.
https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/1005320?section=newsfront&keywords=chuck-schumer-adolf-hitler-senate-capitol&year=2021&month=01&date=12&id=1005320&oref=m.facebook.com
https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/1005320?section=newsfront&keywords=chuck-schumer-adolf-hitler-senate-capitol&year=2021&month=01&date=12&id=1005320&oref=m.facebook.com
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 21,442
- Reaction score
- 24,109
- Points
- 113
He certainly is the type of guy to turn in his neighbors to the state. Better hide in the attic and start your diary.
I'm not a mathematician , but it took them only a week to draw up Impeachment papers, but it took them 8 months to give the American people $600 during a pandemic? Keep bowing down to the politicians in DC. They get off as we fight amongst eachother for their "honor" and good name. It's laughable and sad.
mathematicians and their sinister cousins - actuaries - are the dredges of society and should be pushed back upon and told they are not no longer welcome anywhere.
Tibs, I know there is a lot taking up your time. the "incitement of violence" by President Trump, the boogeyman, finding Bigfoot, aliens, etc. So I'm pasting this here so you can see it as you quite obviously missed it.
then, you've no idea what you're doing. you're supporting this on pure emotion. you do not understand the ramifications of the civil rights movement, nor the history of such. allow me to delve further and drop some knowledge on you. please, read on.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8869214-the-white-liberal-is-the-worst-enemy-to-america-and
oh, but Malcolm X also did not trust white conservatives. Yet he pinpointed precisely what it is about the white liberals to not like. I hate using any Malcolm X quote, since i consider the man to be rather racist in his own regard. Yet, that is where you have pushed this conversation, Tibs.
if you are truly someone with an open mind about American politics and the political football game, read L.I.E.S. by Henry T. Chriss.
then, you've no idea what you're doing. you're supporting this on pure emotion. you do not understand the ramifications of the civil rights movement, nor the history of such. allow me to delve further and drop some knowledge on you. please, read on.
Malcolm X said:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8869214-the-white-liberal-is-the-worst-enemy-to-america-and
oh, but Malcolm X also did not trust white conservatives. Yet he pinpointed precisely what it is about the white liberals to not like. I hate using any Malcolm X quote, since i consider the man to be rather racist in his own regard. Yet, that is where you have pushed this conversation, Tibs.
if you are truly someone with an open mind about American politics and the political football game, read L.I.E.S. by Henry T. Chriss.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,571
- Reaction score
- 6,246
- Points
- 113
ok, thanks for the tip Supe, I’ll check out the book.
right, champ, right.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,151
- Reaction score
- 6,042
- Points
- 113
They were preceded by the gaslighting from Tillerson, Mattis, Kelly, Bolton, TRUMPs Supreme Court and Bill Barr and TRUMPs Justice Department none of whom were seeking re-election.