Why the Constitution created Checks and Balances.
Jun 13, 2019 19:36:48 #
son of witless wrote:
My scenario was the simplest. Bad guys sensing weakness means dead Americans. Weakness came from incompetence from Obama to Hillary.
Perhaps, it didn't require you to research any facts, just to check in with your nearest Conspiracy Mart, all the latest theories, lowest prices, Conspiracy Mart! Catchy jingle.
Jun 13, 2019 19:39:13 #
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Perhaps, it didn't require you to research any facts, just to check in with your nearest Conspiracy Mart, all the latest theories, lowest prices, Conspiracy Mart! Catchy jingle.
You ain't got much common sense, do ya?
Jun 13, 2019 19:42:02 #
archie bunker wrote:
You ain't got much common sense, do ya?
More than you obviously, I can accept the simplest explanation and don't feel the need to venture into nut job territory where it isn't necessary.
Jun 13, 2019 20:11:04 #
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
More than you obviously, I can accept the simplest explanation and don't feel the need to venture into nut job territory where it isn't necessary.
How are your tomatoes doing? I've got a few going. Looking forward to some fried green tomatoes!
Jun 13, 2019 20:15:15 #
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
More than you obviously, I can accept the simplest explanation and don't feel the need to venture into nut job territory where it isn't necessary.
My explanation is the simplest and makes more sense than anything you wrote. The facts are that Obama and Hillary's State Department had many warnings.It was not like this attack came out of the blue. The people on the ground requested more help and did not receive it. The people they put in charge were obviously grossly incompetent. I would have thought that Obama and Hillary would have offered up some sacrificial scapegoat to take the fall, instead everybody was at fault, so nobody was. The committee bureaucracy did it. The d********g video that nobody saw, did it.
The British left B******i months before the attack on the American Consulate because their Ambassador's motorcade was attacked by RPGs. If Obama and Hillary wanted Stevens and the other Americans to continue in B******i they should have granted the requests for better security.
Jun 13, 2019 20:41:11 #
archie bunker wrote:
How are your tomatoes doing? I've got a few going. Looking forward to some fried green tomatoes!
Have considered getting into gardening but I haven't been able to find pork, chicken or beef seeds. Some tell me to just plant soy but that is far from the same thing. Perhaps I should give up on those seeds and look to find taco, pizza and snack food seeds.
Jun 13, 2019 21:00:48 #
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Have considered getting into gardening but I haven't been able to find pork, chicken or beef seeds. Some tell me to just plant soy but that is far from the same thing. Perhaps I should give up on those seeds and look to find taco, pizza and snack food seeds.
Seed is available for what you desire. You can even find them for potato chips!
https://images.app.goo.gl/UGJUpudFTHnigewf6
Jun 13, 2019 21:02:36 #
dtucker300
Loc: Vista, CA
Speaking of separation of powers...
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-rand-paul-stop-arming-radical-jihadism
Stop arming radical jihadism
By Sen. Rand Paul | Fox News
President Trump uses emergency authority to approve arms sale to Saudi Arabia
John Roberts reports.
The Middle East is a hot cauldron continually threatening to boil over.
It is a mistake to funnel arms into centuries-old conflicts.
There is no great certainty that the arms we send into the Middle East will not one day be used against our soldiers. In fact, there is a real threat that someday our young soldiers will be sent to fight against the very weapons Congress sends today.
TOMMY BEHNKE: TRUMP’S TROOP SURGE WON’T CONTAIN IRAN; TRUMP’S DEAL-MAKING WILL
It has happened. In Iran, to this day, the military still has some U.S. weapons left over from weapons the U.S. supplied to the shah. In Iraq, some of the weapons we gave the country to fight Iran were still there when we returned to fight Saddam Hussein. In Afghanistan, some of the weapons we gave the mujahedeen to fight the Russians were still there when we returned to fight the Taliban.
Proliferating arms in the midst of chaos is a recipe for disaster. It’s hard to argue that sending arms into Libya or Syria advanced liberty in any way.
Dreamers often longingly speak of a peace plan for the Middle East. Maybe we should consider a peace plan that doesn’t include dumping more arms into a region aflame in civil unrest, civil war and anarchy.
The argument goes that we must arm anyone who is not Iran. We are told that because of Iran’s threat, the U.S. must accept selling arms to anyone who opposes Iran, even bone-saw-wielding countries brazen enough to k**l a dissident in a foreign consulate.
What would happen if we just said no? What would happen if we simply conditioned arms sales on behavior?
One cannot overstate the calamity that awaits the Middle East, and perhaps the world, if Saudi Arabia should misuse “peaceful” nuclear technology in pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Are the Saudis so weak that Iran will overrun them without additional U.S. weapons?
Of course not. The Saudis now spend more on their military than Russia. The Saudis now have the third-largest military budget in the world.
The Saudis and their Gulf allies spend eight times more than Iran on weapons.
What are the Saudis doing with all these weapons?
Bombing civilians in Yemen, for one. The Saudis, with our bombs and our refueling planes, bombed a funeral procession, wounding over 400 and k*****g 150. Last year, Saudi bombs k**led 40 children on a school bus.
The Saudis with our support have blockaded Hodeidah, a port necessary to import food to a starving population. As a consequence of the Yemeni civil war, 17 million people face starvation.
In addition, the Saudis indiscriminately fed arms into the Syrian civil war. Even Hillary Clinton admitted in an email to John Podesta: “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region.”
Let’s repeat that so no one misses the point. Hillary Clinton admitted that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were funding and arming ISIS!
Hillary Clinton further sent another State Department cable in December 2009 that read “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda [and] the Taliban . . .”
As Patrick Cockburn concludes, the emails reveal “the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis.”
To add insult to injury, there are now reports of the Saudi-led coalition giving American weapons to Al Qaeda-linked fighters in Yemen, hardline Salafist m*****as – anyone willing to fight the Houthis.
So, on the one hand, Al Qaeda is the enemy that attacked us on 9/11, and on the other hand, we are told to turn a blind eye to U.S. arms going to Qatar and Saudi Arabia and winding up in the hands of ISIS!
What sane person would sell arms to a regime that k**ls, tortures and imprisons dissidents?
The Saudis routinely behead and crucify their opponents. Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr was executed, and his nephew sits on death row accused of sending texts to encourage people to attend a protest rally.
Since the 1980s, the Saudis are estimated to have spent $100 billion exporting a radical jihadism that preaches hatred of Jews, Christians, and Hindus.
The Saudis fund tens of thousands of madrassas teaching hatred and violence against the West. At one of these madrassas, it is said that 80 percent of the students join the Taliban to fight the Americans.
What sane person would give such people nuclear technology?
News reports reveal that the administration authorized giving U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia weeks after Jamal Khashoggi’s murder.
More nuclear technology was approved even after the CIA concluded that Saudi Arabia’s crown prince ordered the assassination.
One cannot overstate the calamity that awaits the Middle East, and perhaps the world, if Saudi Arabia should misuse “peaceful” nuclear technology in pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Without question, Iran would follow. A Middle East with three different countries possessing nuclear weapons is not something any sane person would want to contemplate.
Thursday’s v**e is not directly about selling arms to Saudi Arabia, but indirectly the v**e is about the wisdom of proliferating arms in the Middle East.
Thursday’s v**e is specifically about disapproving U.S. arms sales to Qatar and Bahrain.
First, Qatar.
Is Qatar a good actor in the Middle East?
There are dozens of reports that U.S. weapons sold to Qatar wound up in the hands of al-Nusra and even ISIS. Additionally, Qatar has been linked to support for Hamas.
Former Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, David Cohen, has said: “Qatar, a longtime U.S. ally, has for many years openly financed Hamas. ...” Cohen also noted that Qatar allows fundraisers to solicit donations for Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Many sources claim that Qatar has provided safe haven for Al Qaeda leadership.
Qatar is so distrusted that even the bone-saw-wielding Saudis think that it’s unwise to sell arms to Qatar.
The Saudis, no strangers to supporting terrorism, cut diplomatic relations with Qatar over allegations that Qatar was supporting terrorism.
In the chaotic aftermath of the United States o*******wing Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, Qatar arms the Islamist-leaning factions, while Egypt and the UAE arm the other side.
No one disputes that Qatar has armed Al Qaeda and other radical groups throughout the Middle East.
How much of a risk is it to sell arms to Qatar? Only time will tell.
Thursday’s v**e will also address selling arms to Bahrain.
Some will maintain that we have to sell them arms because they let us use their country as a naval base.
That’s one way of looking at it.
Another view, though, might consider that Bahrain has 4,000 political prisoners.
Bahrain bans political opposition parties. Opposition leader Sheikh Ali Salman is imprisoned for life. A student leader was sentenced to death for protesting government policy. Nabeel Rajab was given five years in prison for exposing and tweeting about torture in Bahraini prisons. Famous Bahraini football player Hakeem Al-Araibi was arrested on his honeymoon in Thailand and held for 76 days until international pressure secured his release.
In January, prominent Shiite cleric Sayed Majeed Al-Meshaal was arrested for criticizing extrajudicial k*****gs by the Bahraini government.
Should we send offensive weapons to a regime that uses violence to quell political dissent?
Should we send offensive weapons to a regime that is waging a war against civilians in Yemen?
Should we send offensive weapons to a regime that tortures and unjustly imprisons and outlaws its political opponents?
The facts are not contested. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain have allowed U.S. arms to be funneled to radical Islamist groups throughout the Middle East.
Dumping more weapons into the Middle East won’t get us any closer to peace.
This week the Senate will v**e on a pair of resolutions that would put a halt on future weapons sales to Bahrain and Qatar. I hope that every senator will v**e to support S.J. Res. 20 and 26 which would stop the arms race. I strongly urge all my colleagues to v**e “Yes.” Dumping more weapons into the Middle East won’t get us any closer to peace.
A “yes” v**e is a v**e for sanity.
A “yes” v**e is a v**e to quit sending arms to human rights abusers.
A “yes” v**e is a v**e against aiding and abetting the Saudi-led war in Yemen.
A “yes” v**e is a v**e for finally restoring Congress’ proper role as a check on executive power.
Our Founding Fathers were wary of granting presidents too much power.
James Madison wrote that the executive is the branch of government “most prone” to war. Therefore, the Constitution, “with studied care,” granted the power to declare war to Congress.
I urge a “yes” v**e to help restore a semblance of the Separation of Powers necessary to preserve our great republic.
Republican Rand Paul represents Kentucky in the United States Senate.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-rand-paul-stop-arming-radical-jihadism
Stop arming radical jihadism
By Sen. Rand Paul | Fox News
President Trump uses emergency authority to approve arms sale to Saudi Arabia
John Roberts reports.
The Middle East is a hot cauldron continually threatening to boil over.
It is a mistake to funnel arms into centuries-old conflicts.
There is no great certainty that the arms we send into the Middle East will not one day be used against our soldiers. In fact, there is a real threat that someday our young soldiers will be sent to fight against the very weapons Congress sends today.
TOMMY BEHNKE: TRUMP’S TROOP SURGE WON’T CONTAIN IRAN; TRUMP’S DEAL-MAKING WILL
It has happened. In Iran, to this day, the military still has some U.S. weapons left over from weapons the U.S. supplied to the shah. In Iraq, some of the weapons we gave the country to fight Iran were still there when we returned to fight Saddam Hussein. In Afghanistan, some of the weapons we gave the mujahedeen to fight the Russians were still there when we returned to fight the Taliban.
Proliferating arms in the midst of chaos is a recipe for disaster. It’s hard to argue that sending arms into Libya or Syria advanced liberty in any way.
Dreamers often longingly speak of a peace plan for the Middle East. Maybe we should consider a peace plan that doesn’t include dumping more arms into a region aflame in civil unrest, civil war and anarchy.
The argument goes that we must arm anyone who is not Iran. We are told that because of Iran’s threat, the U.S. must accept selling arms to anyone who opposes Iran, even bone-saw-wielding countries brazen enough to k**l a dissident in a foreign consulate.
What would happen if we just said no? What would happen if we simply conditioned arms sales on behavior?
One cannot overstate the calamity that awaits the Middle East, and perhaps the world, if Saudi Arabia should misuse “peaceful” nuclear technology in pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Are the Saudis so weak that Iran will overrun them without additional U.S. weapons?
Of course not. The Saudis now spend more on their military than Russia. The Saudis now have the third-largest military budget in the world.
The Saudis and their Gulf allies spend eight times more than Iran on weapons.
What are the Saudis doing with all these weapons?
Bombing civilians in Yemen, for one. The Saudis, with our bombs and our refueling planes, bombed a funeral procession, wounding over 400 and k*****g 150. Last year, Saudi bombs k**led 40 children on a school bus.
The Saudis with our support have blockaded Hodeidah, a port necessary to import food to a starving population. As a consequence of the Yemeni civil war, 17 million people face starvation.
In addition, the Saudis indiscriminately fed arms into the Syrian civil war. Even Hillary Clinton admitted in an email to John Podesta: “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region.”
Let’s repeat that so no one misses the point. Hillary Clinton admitted that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were funding and arming ISIS!
Hillary Clinton further sent another State Department cable in December 2009 that read “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda [and] the Taliban . . .”
As Patrick Cockburn concludes, the emails reveal “the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis.”
To add insult to injury, there are now reports of the Saudi-led coalition giving American weapons to Al Qaeda-linked fighters in Yemen, hardline Salafist m*****as – anyone willing to fight the Houthis.
So, on the one hand, Al Qaeda is the enemy that attacked us on 9/11, and on the other hand, we are told to turn a blind eye to U.S. arms going to Qatar and Saudi Arabia and winding up in the hands of ISIS!
What sane person would sell arms to a regime that k**ls, tortures and imprisons dissidents?
The Saudis routinely behead and crucify their opponents. Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr was executed, and his nephew sits on death row accused of sending texts to encourage people to attend a protest rally.
Since the 1980s, the Saudis are estimated to have spent $100 billion exporting a radical jihadism that preaches hatred of Jews, Christians, and Hindus.
The Saudis fund tens of thousands of madrassas teaching hatred and violence against the West. At one of these madrassas, it is said that 80 percent of the students join the Taliban to fight the Americans.
What sane person would give such people nuclear technology?
News reports reveal that the administration authorized giving U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia weeks after Jamal Khashoggi’s murder.
More nuclear technology was approved even after the CIA concluded that Saudi Arabia’s crown prince ordered the assassination.
One cannot overstate the calamity that awaits the Middle East, and perhaps the world, if Saudi Arabia should misuse “peaceful” nuclear technology in pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Without question, Iran would follow. A Middle East with three different countries possessing nuclear weapons is not something any sane person would want to contemplate.
Thursday’s v**e is not directly about selling arms to Saudi Arabia, but indirectly the v**e is about the wisdom of proliferating arms in the Middle East.
Thursday’s v**e is specifically about disapproving U.S. arms sales to Qatar and Bahrain.
First, Qatar.
Is Qatar a good actor in the Middle East?
There are dozens of reports that U.S. weapons sold to Qatar wound up in the hands of al-Nusra and even ISIS. Additionally, Qatar has been linked to support for Hamas.
Former Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, David Cohen, has said: “Qatar, a longtime U.S. ally, has for many years openly financed Hamas. ...” Cohen also noted that Qatar allows fundraisers to solicit donations for Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Many sources claim that Qatar has provided safe haven for Al Qaeda leadership.
Qatar is so distrusted that even the bone-saw-wielding Saudis think that it’s unwise to sell arms to Qatar.
The Saudis, no strangers to supporting terrorism, cut diplomatic relations with Qatar over allegations that Qatar was supporting terrorism.
In the chaotic aftermath of the United States o*******wing Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, Qatar arms the Islamist-leaning factions, while Egypt and the UAE arm the other side.
No one disputes that Qatar has armed Al Qaeda and other radical groups throughout the Middle East.
How much of a risk is it to sell arms to Qatar? Only time will tell.
Thursday’s v**e will also address selling arms to Bahrain.
Some will maintain that we have to sell them arms because they let us use their country as a naval base.
That’s one way of looking at it.
Another view, though, might consider that Bahrain has 4,000 political prisoners.
Bahrain bans political opposition parties. Opposition leader Sheikh Ali Salman is imprisoned for life. A student leader was sentenced to death for protesting government policy. Nabeel Rajab was given five years in prison for exposing and tweeting about torture in Bahraini prisons. Famous Bahraini football player Hakeem Al-Araibi was arrested on his honeymoon in Thailand and held for 76 days until international pressure secured his release.
In January, prominent Shiite cleric Sayed Majeed Al-Meshaal was arrested for criticizing extrajudicial k*****gs by the Bahraini government.
Should we send offensive weapons to a regime that uses violence to quell political dissent?
Should we send offensive weapons to a regime that is waging a war against civilians in Yemen?
Should we send offensive weapons to a regime that tortures and unjustly imprisons and outlaws its political opponents?
The facts are not contested. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain have allowed U.S. arms to be funneled to radical Islamist groups throughout the Middle East.
Dumping more weapons into the Middle East won’t get us any closer to peace.
This week the Senate will v**e on a pair of resolutions that would put a halt on future weapons sales to Bahrain and Qatar. I hope that every senator will v**e to support S.J. Res. 20 and 26 which would stop the arms race. I strongly urge all my colleagues to v**e “Yes.” Dumping more weapons into the Middle East won’t get us any closer to peace.
A “yes” v**e is a v**e for sanity.
A “yes” v**e is a v**e to quit sending arms to human rights abusers.
A “yes” v**e is a v**e against aiding and abetting the Saudi-led war in Yemen.
A “yes” v**e is a v**e for finally restoring Congress’ proper role as a check on executive power.
Our Founding Fathers were wary of granting presidents too much power.
James Madison wrote that the executive is the branch of government “most prone” to war. Therefore, the Constitution, “with studied care,” granted the power to declare war to Congress.
I urge a “yes” v**e to help restore a semblance of the Separation of Powers necessary to preserve our great republic.
Republican Rand Paul represents Kentucky in the United States Senate.
Jun 13, 2019 21:12:43 #
son of witless wrote:
My explanation is the simplest and makes more sens... (show quote)
You must be right the video "Innocence of Muslims" video couldn't possibly cause any problems, could it?
https://dailynewsegypt.com/2012/09/15/reactions-to-innocence-of-the-muslims/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Innocence_of_Muslims_protests
http://everything.explained.today/Chronology_of_the_reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims/Archive_1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims/Archive_2
What was I thinking, Muslims obviously wouldn't be upset at all over a simple video, thanks for setting me straight. *sarcasm intended*
Perhaps you can do some research before making such uninformed comments. Oops, my bad, I forgot to whom I was speaking, carry on and any "chocolates" you find up there, they are all yours.
Jun 13, 2019 21:17:55 #
archie bunker wrote:
Seed is available for what you desire. You can even find them for potato chips!
https://images.app.goo.gl/UGJUpudFTHnigewf6
https://images.app.goo.gl/UGJUpudFTHnigewf6
Yeah, the last two that wandered onto my property, they wouldn't have worked out so well, they were both neutered males. I found the owner but they never bothered coming to get them, they ended up wandering off a week later. I don't have a pen for livestock.
Jun 13, 2019 21:27:55 #
Liberty Tree wrote:
They are co-equal branches of government. Congress is not the supervisor of the POTUS. Congress has oversight over programs it funds. It does not have the right to try and abuse power to try and "get" the POTUS. Yielding to every desire of the Democrats in its abuse of power will lead to a REIGN OF TERROR and the President should fight against it. This is not about oversight, but about trying to destroy a political enemy anyway possible.
Exactly.
Jun 14, 2019 08:46:02 #
badbob85037 wrote:
Because they are real stupid. I though everybody knew that.
Damm you spent 5 years investigating Clinton and 7 years investigating Obama want to talk about stupid. That is the height of ignorance
Jun 14, 2019 08:50:34 #
badbob85037 wrote:
if common sense matters how come you are totally void of it?
See here it comes, you get hit with a post that very simply put out, so even a child could understand and you just insult.
That’s the right wing MO just attack don’t respond because you will sound even more foolish
Jun 14, 2019 08:58:15 #
dongreen76 wrote:
That is a Republican semantical Republican trick.
Just as they use it concerning Trump,and Collusion.The word collusion is not in the Constitution,but conspiracy is.
Just as they use it concerning Trump,and Collusion.The word collusion is not in the Constitution,but conspiracy is.
They ignore the constitution, they play with words. There comments that oversight is no where in the constitution and they are right the word is not but the term of Checks and balances and separation of powers clearly spelled out the intent to hold every branch of government accountable. So the oversight committee should be changed to Checks and balances committee then to these people will think it’s legal.
Jun 14, 2019 09:04:02 #
son of witless wrote:
So FALSELY blaming a Video for 4 Americans dying was not WRONG ?????????
Operating an ILLEGAL E-Mail Server with Classified Material was not wrong ???????????????????
Operating an ILLEGAL E-Mail Server with Classified Material was not wrong ???????????????????
The email server at the time was not illegal.
Stop the foolishness of B******i yes it’s tragic 4 men died but it was investigated and the procedures that fallowed during and after the attack were correct. Were mistake made yes but we learn from them. Why is it all the attacks on our embassies under democrats or republicans were never investigated the way this was. God dammit a whole barracks was blown up under Reagan and nothing was said an investigation issued and corrections were made.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.