One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: Snoopy
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 72 next>>
Jun 15, 2018 07:25:31   #
slatten49 wrote:
Snoopy, you misunderstand. The links/articles in the opening post spoke to the ages of your parent's generation.

As my Dad, Uncle and a couple of friends are Korean Vets, I am well aware of the range in their ages.


Thanks for the correction!

Jun 15, 2018 05:36:53   #
slatten49 wrote:
As I've stated on several occasions dating back to his campaign: He is a huckster and a self-aggrandizing charlatan. IMO, Trump's patriotism is as thin as onion skin. In his is always about him.

For example, aiding in obtaining the release of the remains of Korean War Vets is admirable. But, taking it to hyperbolic extremes by claiming to having responded to speaking with "thousands" of those Vet's parents seeking their release is embarrassingly sad. If you read the articles, you would realize the average age of any living Korean War Vet's parents would be between 105 to 120 years of age.

He is, quite simply, a naturally gifted politician.
As I've stated on several occasions dating back to... (show quote)


You are off on Korean vets ages. I served from 1952 (age 20) to 1956. I am 86 tomorrow.

May 25, 2018 07:28:15   #
lpnmajor wrote:
How's the petition to nominate Trump for a Nobel peace prize coming along? Maybe it's been put on hold.....................until there's actually some peace somewhere.

How's the idea of more tax cuts just ahead of the midterms coming along? The GOP still hasn't figured out how to reduce the record deficit they've already created, so what's a few billion more gonna hurt?

Trump will show his financial records right after Obummer shows his true birth certificate and his records.


How's the Presidents demand for absolute transparency coming along? Perhaps he's decided to show the way, and finally release those promised tax returns. Maybe he'll show the Administrations minutes of meetings with foreigners and Trump Industry business records, you know, just so we can be sure there's no "funny" business going on. Come to think of it, lets go whole hog on this transparency business and insist that the members of Congress make their financial statements public, you know, just so we can sure they're not "legislating" bigger returns for their own bank accounts. The Lord knows they're not doing anything to help MY bottom line.
How's the petition to nominate Trump for a Nobel p... (show quote)
May 19, 2018 08:48:46   #
rumitoid wrote:
I expected this kind of perverse logic. Do not do anything to protect our children because gun violence is worse elsewhere. Huh?


As a “permissive” society without true punishment for crime what can we expect.

The deal between Broward County Schools and the Broward Police to NOT arrest offenders to keep the crime rates down did not help the situation either.

Mar 31, 2018 09:58:38   #
slatten49 wrote:
In a properly functioning America like the Founders envisioned, a repeal of the Second Amendment would be virtually meaningless.’t-matter-if-we-repeal-the-second-amendment

The Federalist, By Benjamin R. Dierker, March 30, 2018

There is no legal right to own a firearm in the United States. The Constitution does not give citizens the right to own weapons, and no legal or historical arguments support the idea that it does. Instead, a much deeper and more important philosophy provides for gun ownership: natural rights. These rights are not given, but protected. Not to expand citizens’ rights, but to limit government’s power.

Gun ownership is so integral to the United States’ DNA because armed Americans overthrew the world’s most powerful military empire using guns. The freest, most prosperous nation in human history, and a good deal of prosperity around the globe, owes its origin to guns. But the issue is far deeper than guns; it is about rights.

In a properly functioning America like the Founders envisioned, a repeal of the Second Amendment would be virtually meaningless. The right existed already; the Constitution merely secures it. Unfortunately, our society has loosened its grasp on natural rights philosophy and devolved into dependency on government-sanctioned rules. Today, however, even unambiguous text is under scrutiny by Democrats as prominent as former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

The Constitution mentions both natural and legal rights, and the distinction is critical. Within the Bill of Rights, some activities, like speech, are innate human rights protected against government interference. Other rights, like a speedy trial, are legal rights, which are products of the structure the Constitution created.

This distinction is crucial, because natural rights are articulated as endowed by God, while legal rights are endowed by government. The Founding Fathers understood natural rights to exist independent of—or in spite of—government. They simply exist for free people walking the earth. Legal rights are granted by men, and can be altered or destroyed by changes to law or the structure of government. The natural and legal rights in the Constitution are so fundamental that the Bill of Rights was added as an explicit bar to encroachment from the federal government.

The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. It can be derived and is protected in multiple ways. Inherently, humans have natural grounds for self-preservation and defense. This right is beyond the reach of any person or government. Individuals can protect themselves using any necessary tools or actions.

Individuals also have a natural right to own property. Far be it for the federal government to regulate the personal items a free citizen enjoys in her home. To regulate personal property in private use on the grounds of its danger would be to inspect every knife, lighter, hammer, gardening tool, and gas-powered stove.

Owning a gun is well within the canon of natural rights that any free people should enjoy. Natural rights are so critical because they are innate in us. If the government dissolved or a new one took its place, it should have no effect on the basic entitlements of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness. The righteous task of the founding, therefore, was to craft a government impotent to crush these rights.

Many state constitutions included a list of natural rights, not to provide for these rights, but to promise the people that the government would not tread on them. The federal Bill of Rights comes as a series of amendments, not because they were afterthoughts, but because the U.S. Constitution was written to limit the power of the federal government such that it would be powerless to act where it was not authorized.

Debate persisted for years over whether the people’s natural rights should be enumerated at all. Some argued natural rights were so obvious that an enumeration was unnecessary, not to mention the government’s limited reach and small scope at the time. In a 1787 letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

Jefferson and others believed that leaving natural rights to “inference” put far too much trust in government and future generations in power. Still others believed that enumerating certain rights would create a presumption against other rights. If the government only mentioned a few natural rights, the government could encroach on every other right a free citizen ought to enjoy, citing no bar against its encroachment.
That’s Why We Have the Ninth Amendment

The solution was the Ninth Amendment, which preserves “other rights retained by the people.” Combined with the rest of the Bill of Rights, the federal government is clearly prohibited from trampling on free citizens’ natural or legal rights. According to the Ninth Amendment, a free citizen retains the right to self-protection and property, among a vast reservoir of other rights, and the government cannot interfere.

At its most basic level, a gun is a tool and item of personal property, which any person has a natural right to acquire independent of, and especially in spite of, government. A repeal of the Second Amendment should not truly harm gun ownership. Nevertheless, there is a reason it was explicitly included in the Bill of Rights, and listed so prominently. The reason is that human nature cannot be trusted, and both time and power destroy the protections created for free people.

Today, it is all too clear that if the Second Amendment were not so explicit, the tyranny of the majority would have suppressed the right long ago. The government did not create the right to own a gun, it secured that right, and thank God the Founding Fathers had the foresight to unambiguously prohibit the government from infringing on that right.

The calls to repeal the Second Amendment are voiced by radicals. Despite their high level of education, these radicals have not internalized the philosophy of natural rights or the significance of the Ninth Amendment. Yet the people retain their God-given rights, no matter how tyrannical protestors become.
Benjamin Dierker is a law student at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. He holds a master's degree in public administration and a bachelor's degree in economics, both from Texas A&M University. He is a Christian and a Texan and loves to talk about both.
In a properly functioning America like the Founder... (show quote)


A great article showing the REAL reason for the Second Amendment by Benjsmin Dierker.

Too many Americans, on both sides of the aisle, accept these facts.

Mar 30, 2018 09:31:44   #
Kevyn wrote:
He had enough to rock FOX back on their heals, that ought to tell you something.

Fantasy World thoughts.

In a month this fool will be forgotten and Fox will continue to break into your Fantasy Snowflake World with
the truth. Something you know NOTHING about.

Mar 30, 2018 08:19:31   #
eagleye13 wrote:
Great article!!

A description of politics in the US since the mid-sixties.

Evan Douglas Sayet is a comedian and conservative speaker. He is the nation's leading conservative speaker, an in-demand Master of Ceremony for Republican events. Sayet is the author of The Kinder Garden Of Eden: How The Modern Liberal Thinks And Why He's Convinced That Ignorance Is Bliss.


by Evan Sayet

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #Never Trumpers) constantly ask me if I'm not bothered by Donald Trump's lack of decorum.

They ask if I don't think his tweets are "beneath the dignity of the office." Here's my answer: We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency. We tried statesmanship.

Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized "collegiality" as John McCain? We tried propriety: has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney? And the results were always the same.

This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don't find anything "dignified," "collegial" or "proper" about Barack Obama's lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds simply because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party.

I don't see anything "dignified" in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks. I don't see anything "statesman-like" in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent. Yes, Obama was "articulate" and "polished" but in no way was he in the least bit "dignified," "collegial" or "proper."

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the '60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they've fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one of the violent take-over of the universities till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety. With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America 's first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like "dignity" and "collegiality" simply aren't the most essential qualities one looks for in warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming.

Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that, "I cannot spare this man. He fights..."

General George Patton was a vulgar-talking son-of-a-bitch. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting. And what's particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel's, he's shouting, "You magnificent bastard, I read your book!" That is just the icing on the cake, but it's wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he's defeating the Left using their own tactics.

That book is Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, a book so essential to the Liberals' war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton's senior thesis.
It is a book of such pure evil, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted.

Trump's tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after "the fake media" (and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri) Trump isolated CNN. He made it personal.

Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as "the most powerful weapon of all." ... Most importantly, Trump's tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. ... They need to respond. This leaves them with only two choices.

They can either "go high" (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery.

The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve.

It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive

Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama's close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists, (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright's church.

Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration's weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration's cover-up.

So, to my friends on the Left and the #Never Trumpers as well: do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be "collegial" and "dignified" and "proper"? Of course I do. These aren't those times. This is war. And it's a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years.

So, say anything you want about this president - I get it - he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times.

I don't care. I can't spare this warrior.

He fights for America!

Great article!! br br A description of politics i... (show quote)


The absolute best I have read in a long time!

Mar 30, 2018 08:14:50   #
Kevyn wrote:
Laura Ingram one of the FOX propagandists may have met her match in a sharp teenage kid. Ingram personally attacked Hogg for being rejected by a couple colleges to which he had applied. Hogg, not willing to take her crap lying down used his sizable social media following to suggest boycotting her advertisers. It worked with one so far and the boycott is just a few hours old. Ingram’s freedom of speech allows her to lie and defame people, but FOX may not like the results as advertisers pull their commercials from her hateful broadcasts. My congratulations to David Hogg, he is wise beyond his years and is already beating the republiscum at their own game.
Laura Ingram one of the FOX propagandists may have... (show quote)


If brains were dynamite Hogg wouldn't have enough to blow his nose.

Mar 29, 2018 17:44:12   #
Kevyn wrote:
He knows he is in the real world he watched 17 of his classmates murdered, it dosn’t get much realer than that. And he’s not crying the blues over anything but the needless loss of his friends. Instead he is taking the fight to Washington and to blowhards like Ingram who prostitute themselves for their masters at FOX. And he is hitting where it counts, their pocketbooks.


It hurts when Ingram spells out the truth!

He is also,attacking the wrong people. The NRA does more good in training for safe handling of firearms.

Attack the government that does not enforce the laws on the books.

Don't blame a part of society that has NOTHING to do with these events.

Mar 29, 2018 14:31:47   #
Kevyn wrote:
Ingram also chose the limelight and to run her mouth spouting nonsense, now this kid she decided to besmirch has turned his supporters on her advertisers by pushing a boycott. Two have already dropped sponsorship of her hate filled moronathon with more to come. You have got to love it when a professional bullying blow hard like Ingram gets outclassed and kicked in the teeth by a sharp kid. I hope it costs FOX a pile and Ingram her show.


The KID opened his mouth, looking for publicity, Ingram shoved his shortcomings to the forefront.

Now he is crying the blues. Tough Shxt!

Welcome to the real world Snowflake!

Mar 28, 2018 22:23:18   #
PeterS wrote:
I said: The second amendment was to provide for a well regulated militia instead of a freestanding army. That's because the colonies were just suppressed by the largest freestanding army in the world and they didn't want it to ever happen again--thus the second amendment

Federalist 46: In an effort to further dissuade fears over a national military force (freestanding army), Madison indicates that, at any point, the maximum force that can be brought to bear by the government to enforce its mandates is but a small fraction the might of a militia.

So how is what I said any different than Federalist 46?

The question begged is since we have the largest freestanding army in the world what good is the second amendment? Other than as a placebo for you conservatives that is...
I said: The second amendment was to provide for a ... (show quote)


You can twist it any way you want . . . but you can't change the facts stated in 46.

And the largest freestanding army in the world would fight for America's freedom against an evil government.

Mar 28, 2018 08:19:56   #
PeterS wrote:
The only way that can be done is through a constitutional amendment and if that were to happen are you saying you are going to blow up the country because you don't get your way?

The second amendment is an outdated amendment designed to provide for a citizens militia in lue o a permanent freestanding army; that the founders saw as one of the greatest threats to individual freedom. But you guys love a freestanding army and your only complaint is that it's never big enough. This of course begs the question of why you cons need semi autos since you don't posses them because you aim to protect the country. No, you posses them because you are terrified of anyone who is a democrat and you think that somehow your AR-15 is going to keep you safe.

Well I hate to break it too you PR but we are a democracy with a constitution and if we jump through all the hoops necessary to repeal the second amendment then we win an you lose. If you don't like the way our democracy works then why did you come to this country in the first place?
The only way that can be done is through a constit... (show quote)


Please read Federalist Paper 46 . . . states the REAL reason for the Second Amendment.

Mar 21, 2018 21:07:02   #
proud republican wrote:
I say NO!!!...If they here illegally and then commit crime, they are not protected under our Constitution!!!..What do you think?

Proud Republican:

Just being in the United States illegally gives you NO RIGHTS!

Mar 20, 2018 05:25:13   #
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:

I think the views this mother has about Donald Trump are much like many others. Her characterization of Trump as the "Salty Sailor" or as “The Fireman” paint an excellent picture!! She has written many great books about her son and family...

Comment from KAREN VAUGHN Mother of Aaron Vaughn, Navy Seal

“Sometimes God uses the no-nonsense, salty sailor to get the job done. Appreciating what the man is doing doesn't mean we worship the salty sailor or even desire to be like the salty sailor. It doesn't even mean God admires the salty sailor. Maybe He just knows he's necessary for such a time as this.

I believe with all my heart that God placed that salty sailor in the White House and gave this nation one more chance in November 2016. Donald Trump is what he is. He is still the man he was before the election. And without guilt, I very much admire what that salty sailor is accomplishing.

He's not like me. That's okay with me. I don't want to be like him. I will never behave like him. I know we've NEVER had a man like him lead our nation. It's crazy and a little mind-blowing at times. But I can't help admire the ability he has to act with his heart rather than a calculated, PC, think tank-screened, carefully edited script. I still believe that is WHY he became our President and WHY he's been able to handle a landslide of adversity and STILL pass unprecedented amounts of good legislation for our country AND do great works for MANY other nations, including Israel.

I'm THRILLED with what he's doing for my nation, for the cause of Christ (whether intentional or unintentional, doesn't matter to me), and for the concept of rebuilding America and putting her FIRST. I will not be ashamed of my position because others don't see him through the same lens.

Should it matter to me if a fireman drops an f-bomb while he's pulling me from a burning building? Would I really care about what came out of his mouth in those moments? Heck no! I'd CARE about what he was DOING. He wasn't sent there to save my soul and I'm not looking to him for spiritual guidance. All I'm thinking in those moments is, "Thank you, Jesus, for sending the fireman."

I'll post this article below again for those who still might not understand me.

This man is crass. Okay. He's not careful with what he says. Okay. You feel offended that he's not a typical statesman. Okay. But he is rebuilding the nation my son died for...the nation I feared was on a fast track to becoming a hopeless cause. Forgive me if I'm smiling.”

HE'S A 'LET'S GET-R-DONE' TYPE GUY, FOR SURE!! 'Ok... (show quote)

Karen Vaughn:

Thank you for your courage, insight and your sacrifice for Anerica!

Mar 17, 2018 08:00:53   #
Kevyn wrote:
In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Republican appointee, explained why the text of the Second Amendment affirms the importance of gun regulation. The first words of the amendment, Burger pointed out, are “a well regulated Militia.” This language presupposes the idea that the militias should be regulated. So, Burger reasoned, if the amendment rests on the assumption that well-trained state armies could be regulated, then it is sensible to think it also allows Congress to regulate guns among the general citizenry.

The constitutional argument for gun regulation also goes beyond the Second Amendment. The Constitution’s preamble speaks of the need to “insure domestic Tranquility”—a fundamental task of any government that can be aided by regulating deadly weapons. The recent tragedy in Florida—merely the newest in a line of one numbing bloodbath after another, a crisis that no other developed country on earth suffers from—has made it clear that our schools, hospitals, and military are anything but tranquil. In places where they once would have thought themselves safe, citizens fear another attack.

This is not only unacceptable, but it also demonstrates how far our country has strayed from a central constitutional principle. The preamble’s call for “domestic Tranquility” and the Second Amendment’s embrace of regulation do not merely allow Congress to act to regulate guns; they impel Congress to do so.

What about the worry that some forms of regulation still violate the second amendment? As Burger said in 1991, the idea that the second amendment prohibits gun regulation is “one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word fraud – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” And Burger’s view of the amendment squares with what the supreme court has said more recently
In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Rep... (show quote)


Correction: Federalist Paper 46. It is a good read for you.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 72 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use - Forum
Copyright 2012-2018 IDF International Technologies, Inc.