One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: Larry the Legend
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 193 next>>
Apr 25, 2017 07:32:17   #
“I like what he’s doing, and I wish I had voted for him,” he says. Not having supported Trump sooner, he says, makes him “feel like a coward.”

But what of those who might be called “Donny-Come-Latelys”? People who did not support the candidate on Nov. 8, but now, 100 days in, find that they do?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/contrarians-didnt-vote-trump-now-090051867.html
 
Apr 25, 2017 06:57:34   #
atomikmom wrote:
Can Trump Really Trust China to Help With Kim Jong Un?
By
admin -
April 24, 2017
8
892

President Trump, in recent weeks, has expressed a great deal of optimism about the U.S.’s relationship with China. Following the Mar-a-Lago summit between himself and Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump has said repeatedly that he believes the Communist government will work with his administration to reduce the growing nuclear threat in North Korea. In the meantime, he says, he will not attack China on trade and currency manipulation in the same way he did during the campaign. After all, as he said on Twitter, how would that serve America’s national security interests?

Still, it would be a mistake to assume that China will take sides with the U.S. against North Korea, no matter what kind of carrot Trump waves in their face. China wants only one thing, and that is to dominate the Pacific and slowly but surely steal America’s role as the one true global superpower. If they can use this North Korean situation to further that goal, they will. That may solve our impending crisis in the short-term, but at what cost to our long-term national security?

This is not to say that President Trump is making a mistake by working with China on this issue; at the moment, he hardly has any other reasonable option short of a preemptive strike against Pyongyang. The ramifications of an invasion are too unpredictable to even guess at. One false move could send Kim into a panic, at which time he could easily launch a counter-attack on the U.S., South Korea, or any other target of his choosing. It would mean the self-destruction of his crumbling regime, but untold innocent lives could go down with the madman.

On the other hand, we have to accept and acknowledge the truth, which is that Kim’s wild threats are not at odds with China’s interests. Quite the contrary; the Chi-Coms, as Rush calls them, are perfectly happy to watch the United States beg them for help while they, in the meantime, hand North Korea most of what they need to survive. If China cut off the spigot tomorrow, Kim Jong Un would be on his hands and knees, begging for a reprieve. But China doesn’t want to do that because China isn’t particularly concerned about Kim’s nuclear arsenal. They would rather have him conducting nuclear tests than to have the U.S. allied with a unified Korean peninsula. To them, THAT is the threat. Everything up to that is just a negotiation lever.

Thankfully, recent military exercises in South Korea and Japan and recent comments from Trump and Vice President Mike Pence demonstrate that this administration is not fooled by President Xi’s gladhanding. Diplomatic pressure must be accompanied by a clear willingness to act in the face of North Korean aggression, and that’s exactly what we’ve seen over the past couple of weeks. If Trump can balance the two, he could broker the deal of a century and earn a lasting place in the history books.
http://www.conservativefreepress.com


I am not going to hold my breath!!!! waiting to see what happens between China and seeing if they will help. Our lives and Country are valuable, and we must protect. What do Y'all think will happen?
Can Trump Really Trust China to Help With Kim Jong... (show quote)


They'll be happy to help, because President Trump has made it in their interests to help. He's dangling carrots and they're reaching for them.
Apr 25, 2017 06:54:00   #
desparado wrote:
most of this was hurtful to america so you like coal in your water drink it and you want more of this destructive legislation


Are you on the right thread? Did you post that thinking you were answering another topic? You're clearly not in the right thread with that comment. Where does anyone recommend drinking water with coal in it? Is that one of those 'weird tricks' we see advertised to peddle another 'snake oil' remedy?
Apr 25, 2017 06:27:31   #
Loki wrote:
Bering Sea Crab.


That's not a 'job'. That's an affliction.
Apr 25, 2017 05:16:42   #
Mr Bombastic wrote:
Let's hear 'em. I'm pretty sure you can think of more than ten. I'll start out by adding law enforcement and firefighting to the list. Might as well add bomb disposal to the list too. Any others?


Bering Sea Crab Fisherman.
Apr 24, 2017 09:49:32   #
lpnmajor wrote:
Whet better season finale could there be, than a Government shut down?


Season finale? Ha! This is just episode 1! I hope he shuts it down permanently, then we can all just go on with our lives uninterrupted. Now wouldn't that be nice? I can just hear him now... "OK, we're all done here. You people can all pack up and head back to where you came from. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out". Priceless!
 
Apr 24, 2017 09:39:08   #
Dummy Boy wrote:
They're all traitors, moron. The north won, anyone that participated as confederate soldier is a traitor: period.


Would that be because the Union overran and subjugated the Confederacy? After all, the victor writes the history, right? That's why the War of Union Aggression was all about 'slavery', right? Because talking about any of the grievances cited by the seceding States would detract from that egregious lie, wouldn't it? Let's take a little trip down (real) Memory Lane:

From Georgia:
"They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation."

From The Great State of Texas:
"By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration."

There's more, but I think that about covers it.
Apr 24, 2017 09:22:49   #
theotts wrote:
Yes, but you're stupid and abnormal.

Ad-hominen attack. Go and face the corner, you been a naughty little boy.
theotts wrote:
Trump lost the popular vote and is now the least popular president since polling began.

Taking out those who voted early and often, those who have no business voting and removing the rigged vote counting and President Trump won by a landslide. In all States. You know it's true.
theotts wrote:
Whose skirts are you going to hide behind when it blows up?

No skirts required. Also, bras optional.
theotts wrote:
Impeachment day should be declared a national holiday.

Dream on. Ain't happening.
theotts wrote:
Trumpie want a pacifier?

That's President Trump to you, Snowflake.
Apr 24, 2017 08:44:14   #
Thanks, Buddy! I cherry-picked a few quotes that I think sum it all up quite nicely:
Loki wrote:
http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/2056/was-the-secession-of-the-confederate-states-illegal

How's this for some tortured logic?
"The Constitution defines the procedure for admitting new states. It defines no such procedure for secession, which if it were legal would require various actions by the Federal government, such as removing Senators and Representatives. Since the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to accept secessions, one could argue that it has no such authority, and therefore states cannot legally secede." In other words, States are not legally empowered to secede because Congress is not constitutionally empowered to allow it. Now that's what the term 'legislating from the bench' is all about.

Loki wrote:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/02023ee6-5191-5fd7-85a8-b533bfab9c2e.html

"Which is a more peaceful solution: one group of Americans seeking to impose their vision on others or simply parting company?" That really reaches into the heart of the whole matter, doesn't it? The Southern States preferred to simply walk away and live in peace. The Union States preferred to impose their vision on the Confederacy by force of arms. "The South lost, so no it wasn't legal." Just that simple.

Loki wrote:
http://www.bonniebluepublishing.com/The%20Right%20of%20Secession.htm

"By insisting that the former Confederate States surrender their right to secede, the United States government had implicitly admitted that those states originally had the right. How could they surrender a right, unless they had it in the first place?" The coercion applied was that Union troops would remain in occupation of the Southern States until such time as the Southern States relinquished their right to secession that they never had in the first place. Right.
Apr 24, 2017 08:04:19   #
atomikmom wrote:
What would happen if these Big-Wigs did follow through and close the Doors on our Nation's Government


Nothing. Maybe a little peace and quiet for a change. Newsflash: Mankind carried on for millions of years without some bloated leviathan sucking the lifeblood out of them, I'm pretty sure we'll be OK if those preening peacocks in Washington DC can't come to some agreement over how to spend yet more money. Their biggest fear is that the government shutdown will happen and nobody will notice. I know I won't.
Apr 24, 2017 07:21:04   #
PaulPisces wrote:
I don't really have the energy or resources to research this, but knowing the character and commitment to their country of the folks mentioned, my inclination is to accept it as true.


Joining the ATS as an honorary Second Subaltern, Elizabeth achieved the rank of honorary Junior Commander within five months. Princess Elizabeth worked as a truck mechanic in the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service from 1942 to 1945. Here's a quick history and description:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/world-war-two-in-western-europe/britains-home-front-in-world-war-two/auxiliary-territorial-service/

Unlike the other members of the ATS, Elizabeth returned each night to sleep in the royal residence of Windsor Castle. According to a 1947 Collier's Magazine article: "One of her major joys was to get dirt under her nails and grease stains in her hands, and display these signs of labor to her friends".
 
Apr 23, 2017 19:02:55   #
Loki wrote:
There was no law against secession until 1869.


What 1869 law? This is very new to me.
Apr 23, 2017 19:00:07   #
permafrost wrote:
Are you still fighting the war??

It is history, join the 21st century...


Fine. Then quit believing the lies. Every word of what I wrote is true. It makes me sick every time I hear about how righteous and moral the Union was in that bloody war. They were not, and their President was just as sick.
Apr 23, 2017 16:52:57   #
lindajoy wrote:
I think I understand what you are saying but does it really matter what label is put on a person, people or a group??? Isn't racism, racism, regardless of such??
Meaning, regardless of the labeling group if they are racist it starts and stops with the individual who perpetuates it???? Noting, often enough it is not real but percieved or accused, right???


Good Afternoon, Linda. Happy Sunday!

Aw, Jeeze, not the 'racism' thing again. Why me? OK, because it's you I'll bite; let's start with a definition, shall we?

Racism:
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Note the 'superiority' aspect. The 'I'm better than you because I'm (insert race here)' attitude. Without the superiority aspect, it's not strictly racism. This is what really grinds my grits when these fools go spraying the word RACISM!!!! around without even knowing what they're saying. What they're basically doing is accusing me (or you, or anybody) of having a 'superiority complex'. And the real kicker is it always comes right after you prove to them that their (insert statement here) is completely senseless. Your argument is superior, therefore you must think that you are superior. Hence. you're a racist. When you look at it from that standpoint, it dies kinda make some twisted sense.

Of course, calling somebody a racist is just assigning them a label. Labels are not a good thing in my experience. They are way too generalized and can be redefined way too easily. Remember when it was 'fun' to be 'gay'? Using that word now refers to a sexual preference. How did that happen? How did it become sexually perverse to be 'gay'? Don't even start me on a pair of 'boobs'...

So, yeah, to answer the question, it does matter how people are labeled. Labeling an individual is to 'dehumanize' that person. You are placing them in a neat little box marked (insert label here). I consider that wrong. To label a group may or may not be appropriate. For instance, take the Nazis... Whoa!! OK! OK! Just kidding! Please put the knife down, Linda!! (Changing the subject real quick...) Take the Democrats (no, please, just take them). They label themselves as being 'progressive'. According to them, they believe that government should perform a prominent role in helping American citizens "progress" further in their economic security. Hence they're 'progressives'. Don't laugh, this is their label, assigned by them, for themselves. To anyone with some knowledge of political systems, their methodologies in 'helping Americans secure their economic security' look a lot like socialism. But they know that Americans are leery about socialists, so they change their label to 'progressive', and offer to help us all with our economic futures. The more politically naive among us look at this and give it credence because it's not called 'socialism' and anyway, 'free stuff'.

Let's look at another label: 'Liberal'. This has got to be one of the most abused words in the entire lexicon of the world from the first word spoken to today. Originally, to be a liberal was to be in favor of constitutionally limited government and against political interference in the marketplace. The nearest approximation in today's parlance to an 18th century liberal would be a libertarian. The word 'liberal' has been crunched, chewed, twisted, spat out and run over so many times that it bears no resemblance to it's original meaning. Today's liberal is a card carrying, no holds barred, dyed in the wool socialist with communist tendencies. Today's liberal has absolutely no resemblance to the liberal of the 18th and early 19th centuries.

So yeah, labels. I won't hand them out and most certainly won't wear one. Now you know why.
Apr 23, 2017 10:18:32   #
Floyd Brown wrote:
It brings to mind that some one said that people deserve the government they have.

I go along with saying the Trump supporters do deserve him.

The sad thing is the rest of us have him too.

What most of Trumps supporters seem to forget. What ever may take place in helping the bulk of Trumps supports will help the General Public.
Now who really sees that coming? To have winners you need losers, lots of them.

Do his support really see any one close to Him have any empathy for the Poor Soul on the street?

Are those gathering at Trumps side there for the feast to fatten their pockets?

It has been said that new suckers are born every day. It is a con-mans delight.

If it wasn't so serious we could have a few chuckles over it.

It use to be said people vote for the lessor of 2 Evils. This time it was the worst of 2 Evils.
A point has been made. The public will support who ever the Big Money picks.
It's a win - win for Big Money

Come back later in the day for the next episode on the Death of Democracy in America.
It brings to mind that some one said that people d... (show quote)


Gee. That's a lot of talking points. Did you get up extra early today or something? By the way, America is not a democracy. Never was and never will be. So democracy is welcome to come here if it wants to die. Just so you know.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 193 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2016 IDF International Technologies, Inc.