Syria is now under attack

[Ibanez]

Ted Koppel was spot on with his assessment of opinion makers like Hannity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

I see

Then maybe the government doesnt need any checks at all on what rights it thinks you should and shouldnt have


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh?

Did you forget you already replied?

Or did it become too nuanced for you in the second reading?

You can't think parts of the document are sacrosanct and other parts are not. The Constitution and the rule of law are similar in that weakening of just one aspect can bring down the whole framework. And you can argue all you want, but this isn't a recent phenomenon- it has been going on for a very long time (as Skelly pointed out... reinforcing my point that we are at the bottom of the slope, not the top)- and the lackadaisical attitude a good portion of Americans (both left and right) display towards the document is what gets us to places like where we are now: A Trump/Clinton with zero checks on warmaking powers. Or no checks on an Obama sending a drone after a USC overseas. Or take your pick of any number of ways the federal government has assumed powers not enumerated in the document (which are clearly stated to be in the purview of the states)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Warmaking powers are the most unequivocal parts of the Constitution

The ability of the executive to unilaterally commit acts of war will one day be abused


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We should be OK as long as we keep Putin in the loop and Congress in the dark. Didn't Wesley Clark say that we had seven nations to destabilize and a pipeline that needs to go through Syria? I think it was Wesley Clark.


The panic is setting in now that wind and solar are competitive with oil, despite billions in subsidies for the oil companies. Might want to move your money to one of those green funds before Exxon's inventory loses its value. I love the thought that pretty soon oil people won't be getting their calls returned by the politicians they bought and paid for.

Wesley Clark also did his level best to start a shooting war with Russia in the Balkans (another strategically unimportant place) because Wesley Clark has ALWAYS wanted a fight with the Russians. Probably should pick a better subject for your attempts at irony


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

You have zero clue how close this country is from tipping into a 3 position civil war.

One of those positions will dominate because MEN own guns.

I've thought for some time that law enforcement method and technology is too advanced to allow for something like a civil war and/or rebellion in the United States. I just don't see any way any kind of network could really get organized and get momentum going without being detected. Not enough for something like a serious rebellion. Too much sophisticated communications monitoring going on. And I'm not talking about direct eavesdropping necessarily. I'm talking about looking at patterns. Mega data assessment. At least that's my impression. And targeted eavesdropping when that is indicated.

Then there's DNA technology. I think I started thinking that there is just no way any serious rebellion could get going in the United States when some guy sniped an abortion doctor and they were able to locate his firing position then find some of his DNA and identify him.

I am a person who actually believes that one premise behind the existence of our nation is that the People have a right to take up arms against their government if that becomes appropriate. But I just don't see anything like that as being possible in the United States.

[kalm]

Huh?

Did you forget you already replied?

Or did it become too nuanced for you in the second reading?

You can't think parts of the document are sacrosanct and other parts are not. The Constitution and the rule of law are similar in that weakening of just one aspect can bring down the whole framework. And you can argue all you want, but this isn't a recent phenomenon- it has been going on for a very long time (as Skelly pointed out... reinforcing my point that we are at the bottom of the slope, not the top)- and the lackadaisical attitude a good portion of Americans (both left and right) display towards the document is what gets us to places like where we are now: A Trump/Clinton with zero checks on warmaking powers. Or no checks on an Obama sending a drone after a USC overseas. Or take your pick of any number of ways the federal government has assumed powers not enumerated in the document (which are clearly stated to be in the purview of the states)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's a hint: you leapt from a few points on "living document" vs. original intent all the way to "government doesn't need any checks..."

Careful...you might pull a hamie...

Now...if you want to argue that there are provisions for changing the constitution that get ignored by both sides for the expediency of judicial activism, you won't get much disagreement here.

[Ivytalk]

You have zero clue how close this country is from tipping into a 3 position civil war.

One of those positions will dominate because MEN own guns.

I've thought for some time that law enforcement method and technology is too advanced to allow for something like a civil war and/or rebellion in the United States. I just don't see any way any kind of network could really get organized and get momentum going without being detected. Not enough for something like a serious rebellion. Too much sophisticated communications monitoring going on. And I'm not talking about direct eavesdropping necessarily. I'm talking about looking at patterns. Mega data assessment. At least that's my impression. And targeted eavesdropping when that is indicated.

Then there's DNA technology. I think I started thinking that there is just no way any serious rebellion could get going in the United States when some guy sniped an abortion doctor and they were able to locate his firing position then find some of his DNA and identify him.

I am a person who actually believes that one premise behind the existence of our nation is that the People have a right to take up arms against their government if that becomes appropriate. But I just don't see anything like that as being possible in the United States.

JSO: Rebel without a clue!

Trump shock leads you to man the battlements....for Hillary?

[BDKJMU]

Warmaking powers are the most unequivocal parts of the Constitution

The ability of the executive to unilaterally commit acts of war will one day be abused


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We should be OK as long as we keep Putin in the loop and Congress in the dark. Didn't Wesley Clark say that we had seven nations to destabilize and a pipeline that needs to go through Syria? I think it was Wesley Clark.


The panic is setting in now that wind and solar are competitive with oil, despite billions in subsidies for the oil companies. Might want to move your money to one of those green funds before Exxon's inventory loses its value. I love the thought that pretty soon oil people won't be getting their calls returned by the politicians they bought and paid for.

[BDKJMU]

Ted Koppel was spot on with his assessment of opinion makers like Hannity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who cares what a mainstream media liberal elitist like Koppel has to say..

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Ted Koppel was spot on with his assessment of opinion makers like Hannity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Koppel is Hannity........so he would know

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

You have zero clue how close this country is from tipping into a 3 position civil war.

One of those positions will dominate because MEN own guns.

I've thought for some time that law enforcement method and technology is too advanced to allow for something like a civil war and/or rebellion in the United States. I just don't see any way any kind of network could really get organized and get momentum going without being detected. Not enough for something like a serious rebellion. Too much sophisticated communications monitoring going on. And I'm not talking about direct eavesdropping necessarily. I'm talking about looking at patterns. Mega data assessment. At least that's my impression. And targeted eavesdropping when that is indicated.

Then there's DNA technology. I think I started thinking that there is just no way any serious rebellion could get going in the United States when some guy sniped an abortion doctor and they were able to locate his firing position then find some of his DNA and identify him.

I am a person who actually believes that one premise behind the existence of our nation is that the People have a right to take up arms against their government if that becomes appropriate. But I just don't see anything like that as being possible in the United States.

You are out of your mind and really bad at math.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Did you forget you already replied?

Or did it become too nuanced for you in the second reading?

You can't think parts of the document are sacrosanct and other parts are not. The Constitution and the rule of law are similar in that weakening of just one aspect can bring down the whole framework. And you can argue all you want, but this isn't a recent phenomenon- it has been going on for a very long time (as Skelly pointed out... reinforcing my point that we are at the bottom of the slope, not the top)- and the lackadaisical attitude a good portion of Americans (both left and right) display towards the document is what gets us to places like where we are now: A Trump/Clinton with zero checks on warmaking powers. Or no checks on an Obama sending a drone after a USC overseas. Or take your pick of any number of ways the federal government has assumed powers not enumerated in the document (which are clearly stated to be in the purview of the states)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's a hint: you leapt from a few points on "living document" vs. original intent all the way to "government doesn't need any checks..."

Careful...you might pull a hamie...

Now...if you want to argue that there are provisions for changing the constitution that get ignored by both sides for the expediency of judicial activism, you won't get much disagreement here.

It's ALL part and parcel of the same theme, klam

I'm sorry you don't follow, but I don't expect you to anyway


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pwns]

Donk-on-Donk violence on Syria issue.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/no-dif ... ing-assad/

[kalm]

Here's a hint: you leapt from a few points on "living document" vs. original intent all the way to "government doesn't need any checks..."

Careful...you might pull a hamie...

Now...if you want to argue that there are provisions for changing the constitution that get ignored by both sides for the expediency of judicial activism, you won't get much disagreement here.

It's ALL part and parcel of the same theme, klam

I'm sorry you don't follow, but I don't expect you to anyway


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're right...I don't follow your leap. Too nuanced...

[Ibanez]

Ted Koppel was spot on with his assessment of opinion makers like Hannity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who cares what a mainstream media liberal elitist like Koppel has to say..

So you think people that give their opinions are giving the news?

[kalm]

Who cares what a mainstream media liberal elitist like Koppel has to say..

So you think people that give their opinions are giving the news?

Yeah...Koppel was pretty damn non-biased. What a dumb comment...

[BDKJMU]

Who cares what a mainstream media liberal elitist like Koppel has to say..

So you think people that give their opinions are giving the news?

No. People like Hannity, O'Reilly, Maddow that are obviously politically slanted and are constantly giving their opinions arent giving the news. And that is easy to see for the avg viewer. The people who are the worst are those masquerading as non biased news anchors, yet are still biased in their coverage/the way they cover things..Granted Koppel wasn't as biased as others of his time like Dan Blather, Jennings & Brokaw, etc, but he was still biased.

[BDKJMU]

So you think people that give their opinions are giving the news?

Yeah...Koppel was pretty damn non-biased. What a dumb comment...

Yeah, Ted 'conservative media is bad for America' Koppel is pretty damn non biased. Talk about a dumb comment..

[BDKJMU]

One thing is for sure, I trust Generals Mattis & HR McMaster and Tillerson a lot more than Carter, Rice, & Clinton/Kerry..

[kalm]

Yeah...Koppel was pretty damn non-biased. What a dumb comment...

Yeah, Ted 'conservative media is bad for America' Koppel is pretty damn non biased. Talk about a dumb comment..

You and Hannity are so damned butt hurt...

Btw, Koppel was calling out both sides and he's right. Opinion masquerading as news has hurt the country. And it comes from both sides.

Sorry you're still caught up in it...

[BDKJMU]

Yeah, Ted 'conservative media is bad for America' Koppel is pretty damn non biased. Talk about a dumb comment..

You and Hannity are so damned butt hurt...

Btw, Koppel was calling out both sides and he's right. Opinion masquerading as news has hurt the country. And it comes from both sides.

Sorry you're still caught up in it...

I'm not butt hurt..Its actually yourself who's acting butthurt..I could care less what some lib Brit windbag like Koppel thinks.. And what Koppel was referring too, the 'conservative media' mostly isn't opinion masquerading as news. Its mostly biased opinion masquerading as biased opinion- And MOST people can see that. What he wasn't referring to was his fellow mainstream news media liberal news brethren operating under under the thinly veiled disguise of non biased/non opinionated 'news'.

Koppel talked about conservative media being bad for America, yet what was bad for America was the pre wide spread cable news/pre internet Big 3 Networks & liberal print media having a near stranglehold for decades on news delivery. I'm sure he's probaly rankled at that...

[JohnStOnge]

I've thought for some time that law enforcement method and technology is too advanced to allow for something like a civil war and/or rebellion in the United States. I just don't see any way any kind of network could really get organized and get momentum going without being detected. Not enough for something like a serious rebellion. Too much sophisticated communications monitoring going on. And I'm not talking about direct eavesdropping necessarily. I'm talking about looking at patterns. Mega data assessment. At least that's my impression. And targeted eavesdropping when that is indicated.

Then there's DNA technology. I think I started thinking that there is just no way any serious rebellion could get going in the United States when some guy sniped an abortion doctor and they were able to locate his firing position then find some of his DNA and identify him.

I am a person who actually believes that one premise behind the existence of our nation is that the People have a right to take up arms against their government if that becomes appropriate. But I just don't see anything like that as being possible in the United States.

JSO: Rebel without a clue!

Trump shock leads you to man the battlements....for Hillary?

Not Trump shock. Not manning battlements. My thought process in this regard predates the recent Presidential election by quite a few years. Just noting that it would be very difficult for any kind of real violent revolution to get going in the United States. The intelligence and law enforcement technologies are just too far evolved to allow for things to get sufficiently organized.

Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a different question. It just is what it is.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW I also think a time is coming when there will be a DNA profile on everybody. I mean, why not? Did all of you not have your finger and footprints taken when you were born? If not all of you I think it's probably most.

I'm not saying it's the end of the world. It has plusses and minuses. But once we get to the point where everybody's DNA is in a database...well...you can see what I mean.

[kalm]

You and Hannity are so damned butt hurt...

Btw, Koppel was calling out both sides and he's right. Opinion masquerading as news has hurt the country. And it comes from both sides.

Sorry you're still caught up in it...

I'm not butt hurt..Its actually yourself who's acting butthurt..I could care less what some lib Brit windbag like Koppel thinks.. And what Koppel was referring too, the 'conservative media' mostly isn't opinion masquerading as news. Its mostly biased opinion masquerading as biased opinion- And MOST people can see that. What he wasn't referring to was his fellow mainstream news media liberal news brethren operating under under the thinly veiled disguise of non biased/non opinionated 'news'.

Koppel talked about conservative media being bad for America, yet what was bad for America was the pre wide spread cable news/pre internet Big 3 Networks & liberal print media having a near stranglehold for decades on news delivery. I'm sure he's probaly rankled at that...

Ted Koppel is now a "Brit"?

Well that settles it then...,..

[Ibanez]

So you think people that give their opinions are giving the news?

No. People like Hannity, O'Reilly, Maddow that are obviously politically slanted and are constantly giving their opinions arent giving the news. And that is easy to see for the avg viewer. The people who are the worst are those masquerading as non biased news anchors, yet are still biased in their coverage/the way they cover things..Granted Koppel wasn't as biased as others of his time like Dan Blather, Jennings & Brokaw, etc, but he was still biased.

Ok...I'm pretty much in sync with that. There will be bias. It's human nature.

[Ibanez]

Yeah...Koppel was pretty damn non-biased. What a dumb comment...

Yeah, Ted 'conservative media is bad for America' Koppel is pretty damn non biased. Talk about a dumb comment..

Wasn't he talking about all media? CNN made it sound like he was zeroing in on Hannity when he wasn't.