One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: zombinis3
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 next>>
Jul 21, 2020 09:13:58   #
Navigator wrote:
My question would be "why are agents picking up dirt-bags in unmarked vehicles (better to not be attacked) 'accused' of doing so." I know of no law requiring people arrested to be taken away in marked vehicles.


Correct if you are committing a crime in group or by yourself , but just walking down the street? When detaining someone there are procedures to follow.Rights are for everyone if you are a crook or an innocent .
Go to
Jul 19, 2020 11:43:57   #
Smedley_buzk**l wrote:
I understand the few innocents who have been detained by mistake were only held for an hour or two and released with apologies. These left coast cretins who have allowed this crap to go on for so long are beginning to reap what they have sown. Hey, Oregon and Washington! You v**ed for these peckerheads, deal with it, you own it.


And upon requesting a lawyer as reported the detained people didn't have the required procedures to ensure their rights were followed. Crook or innocent the rights are for everyone unless there has been martial law declared. Also reported that the governors requested that they leave.
Go to
Jul 19, 2020 03:18:00   #
2bltap wrote:
Actually this is the first I have heard of this. Its really no surprise though as the MSM will not report anything that may provide REAL news that truly impacts REAL Americans and their families or those want to be a family. Specifically those that cannot have children but want to adopt.
Semper Fi
Mike

https://youtu.be/99enVjNSbx4


It was reported in June 2020 by several outlets your link if it is the same as listed picked it 18 hours ago
Go to
Jul 17, 2020 08:27:36   #
MStem wrote:
Excuse me. I don’t see where anyone started a sentence with white people. Was there something written in invisible ink somewhere?


After the first green square the upper letters appear to be when white men goes. The screen shot was cut off.
Go to
Jul 16, 2020 21:14:15   #
Lt. Rob Polans ret. wrote:
Roe v wade was based on a lie. It really has no place in this thought.


So you don't agree that the Supreme Court accurately defined what the 14 admendment and due process meant in accordance to a******n?
Anyway Roe vs Wade only came up because of the question of when life was determined by law earlier in the thread.
Go to
Jul 16, 2020 00:55:33   #
Blade_Runner wrote:
Animation? WTF are you talking about?

Science tells us that human life begins at the time of conception. From the moment fertilization takes place, the child’s genetic makeup is already complete. Its g****r has already been determined, along with its height and hair, eye and skin color. The only thing the embryo needs to become a fully-functioning being is the time to grow and develop.

Society continually seeks to devalue the lives of the unborn, creating its own definitions of humanity based on distorted views of morality. But the undeniable fact is that life begins at creation, and a human is created as soon as he or she is conceived. God is present at our creation; He is, in fact, our Creator. Our value as human beings created in His image is conceived even before we are.


Just keep in mind, zombie, that at the moment of conception when the human sperm successfully penetrates the cell wall of an egg and enters the egg itself, the result will not be a frog.
Animation? WTF are you talking about? br br i Sc... (show quote)


The law used what the Bible defined when the understanding of what life is. The passage I wrote is from Christian theology and the canon law which fixed the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. The statement made was from what the study determined on the understanding of when. Actually the only time someone gave me a reference article that gave the understanding of conception from the science point of view at about middle of the article there was a paragraph that stated that the writers didn't even know for sure.
As for animation it refers to when the soul gets placed in the infant.
https://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_a******n.htm

For the article have to check and see if I can find the link.
One thing for sure the meaning of life is personal that is the only thing that is for certain.
Go to
Jul 15, 2020 20:49:23   #
PeterS wrote:
I thought the legal argument is that viability began in the first trimester?


Roe vs Wade used Christian theology and the canon law which fixed the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide.
In the thirteenth century, Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote that a soul enters the body at 40 days after conception for males and 80 days for females. That became church doctrine for many centuries, and a******n before that time of ensoulment was not considered a mortal sin. The belief that life begins at conception apparently has its origins in an 1869 decree by Pope Pius IX that a******n at any point in pregnancy was cause for excommunication.
Go to
Jul 15, 2020 08:17:35   #
Simple Sam wrote:
According to law, a******n is also a medical decision made with the mother.


Agreed , right now people are trying to take that possibility away from the mother and doctor by stopping the ability for the decsion to made.
Go to
Jul 15, 2020 08:00:09   #
Yeah ignore history and it will repeat , there will always be a fork in the road you can also use history to ensure the right turn is taken at the fork.
Go to
Jul 10, 2020 00:10:19   #
Nutter wrote:
Mt Rushmore... *think about it-"
In 1996, when Bill Clinton visited during his re-e******n campaign, ABC news called it a place where American ingenuity and American creativity came together and formed an amazing American accomplishment..

In 2008, when Barrack Obama campaigned there, CNN called Mt Rushmore a majestic site and every president should visit..

In 2016, Bernie Sanders campaigned there and said he was humbled to be in to be in the presence of 4 of the greatest American presidents.. CNN described the scene as awe-inspiring...

2020...Trump visits...CNN called it a celebration of w***e s*******y and Trump will stand before two former s***e owners on land wrestled away from Native Americans...

If you think the media isn't agenda-driven, you have your head up your ass.
Mt Rushmore... *think about it-" br In 1996, ... (show quote)


Its called going for the profit subject of the time and at the moment that is what the agenda is people don't like trump
Go to
Jul 9, 2020 08:10:42   #
newbear wrote:
Do Taliban have to be paid for what they do anyway? How gullible can we get?


If you looking for a pay check why not. How many persons do you know that love their job and get paid for it? Can you also call the people that they are working for gullible?
Go to
Jul 8, 2020 01:40:52   #
drlarrygino wrote:
You must be referring to Governor Abbott. The only thing he is doing wrong is not mandating that everyone but those diagnosed with the W***n v***s, take those c****e inspired masks off that just extend the life cycle of the v***s and which don't stop the v***s from permeating through the masks anyway and slow down the "herd" immunity effect!!!


Two ways for herd immunity one is a v*****e the other is natural infection.
some paragraphs from the mayo clinic report,

Herd immunity can also be reached when a sufficient number of people in the population have recovered from a disease and have developed antibodies against future infection. For example, those who survived the 1918 flu (influenza) p******c were later immune to infection with the H1N1 flu, a subtype of influenza A. During the 2009-10 flu season, H1N1 caused the respiratory infection in humans that was commonly referred to as swine flu.

However, there are some major problems with relying on community infection to create herd immunity to the v***s that causes C****-**. First, it isn't yet clear if infection with the C****-** v***s makes a person immune to future infection.

Research suggests that after infection with some c****av***ses, reinfection with the same v***s — though usually mild and only happening in a fraction of people — is possible after a period of months or years. Further research is needed to determine the protective effect of antibodies to the v***s in those who have been infected.

This what the Spanish flu did it returned until it burned itself out.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/herd-immunity-and-c****av***s/art-20486808
Go to
Jul 3, 2020 02:27:26   #
Parky60 wrote:
Susan Rice Accidentally Proves Barack Obama (Not Trump) Is Guilty of Dereliction of Duty
Matt Margolis ~ July 02, 2020
Despite the fact that the allegation that Trump ignored intelligence on alleged Russian bounties on U.S. troops has been debunked, the left is still clinging to the story, hoping it will be their next Trump/Russia collusion h**x. Barack Obama’s former national security adviser Susan Rice recently penned an op-ed in the New York Times, essentially disputing the claims that Trump wasn’t aware of the intelligence. “As a former national security adviser, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that no one told Mr. Trump about this intelligence,” she claimed.

Here’s what should have happened. Had I, as national security adviser, received even “raw” reporting that Russia was paying to k**l U.S. service members, I would have walked straight into the Oval Office to brief the president.

Contrary to the spin-masters in the White House today, I would not have waited until we had absolute certainty. I would have said, “Mr. President, I want to make sure you are aware that we have troubling reporting that Russia is paying the Taliban to k**l our forces in Afghanistan. I will work with the intelligence community to ensure the information is solid. In the meantime, I will convene the national security team to get you some options for how to respond to this apparent major escalation in Russia’s hostile actions.”

If later the president decided, as Mr. Trump did, that he wanted to talk with President Vladimir Putin of Russia at least six times over the next several weeks and invite him to join the Group of 7 summit over the objections of our allies, I would have thrown a red f**g: “Mr. President, I want to remind you that we believe the Russians are k*****g American soldiers. This is not the time to hand Putin an olive branch. It’s the time to punish him.”

This is what would have happened in any prior administration of either political party.


According to Rice, “That it apparently did not is deeply troubling and raises myriad questions.”

If Mr. Trump was told about Russian actions, why did he not respond? If he was not told, why not? Are his top advisers utterly incompetent? Are they too scared to deliver bad news to Mr. Trump, particularly about Russia? Is Mr. Trump running a rogue foreign policy utterly divorced from U.S. national interests? If so, why?

Rice’s argument is belied by the facts. The intelligence wasn’t simply “raw” or “unverified.” An “intelligence official with direct knowledge” told Catherine Herridge of CBS News that intel on alleged Russian bounties only reached “low levels” of the NSC but “did not go further” because it was deemed “uncorroborated” and because of “dissent” within the intelligence community regarding its accuracy. The Department of Defense also said there was no corroborating evidence for the Russian bounties claim. An NSC official also told Herridge that a review of Trump’s P**********l Daily Briefings showed that the intelligence assessment about the Russian bounties was not included in them. If the intelligence was disputed and uncorroborated, it seems very unlikely that anyone would have made a point to inform Trump about this intelligence. If presidents were made aware of every bit of disputed and uncorroborated intelligence there was, one can only imagine how little time there would be for anything else.

Nevertheless, Rice concludes that Trump is guilty of dereliction of duty.

What must we conclude from all this? At best, our commander in chief is utterly derelict in his duties, presiding over a dangerously dysfunctional national security process that is putting our country and those who wear its uniform at great risk. At worst, the White House is being run by liars and wimps catering to a tyrannical president who is actively advancing our arch adversary’s nefarious interests.

What Susan Rice didn’t realize when she wrote this op-ed, is that she just made the most compelling case that Barack Obama, her former boss, is the one who is guilty of dereliction of duty.

Applying the Susan Rice standard to Barack Obama
While the evidence is clear that President Trump didn’t ignore the uncorroborated and disputed intelligence about alleged Russian bounties on U.S. troops, we do know that President Obama was repeatedly briefed about the rise of ISIS, but failed to respond to this intelligence.

Is it possible Obama didn’t see the intel? It’s theoretically possible he missed multiple warnings. According to a former aide in the Obama administration, Obama got all his intelligence briefings in writing. “And it’s well-understood why,” explained the aide. “No one sits and watches him read them, and no one can come back later and tell Congress in a closed session that ‘I told the president this specific thing was likely to happen.'”

There are two possible explanations: (1) Obama saw the intelligence and did nothing, or (2) he never saw the intelligence.

Let’s consider the second option for a moment. While the Russian bounties intel only reached low levels at the NSC because it was disputed and uncorroborated, a former Pentagon official confirmed that detailed and specific intelligence about the rise of ISIS was included in Obama’s P**********l Daily Briefings. The intelligence on the rise of ISIS was also described as “highly accurate” and “actionable.”

According to Rice, any national security advisor in a previous administration would have gone to the president with unverified intel of such a serious nature, and would “not have waited until we had absolute certainty.” It stands to reason that any national security advisor in a previous administration would have gone to the president about “highly accurate” and “actionable” intelligence to make sure the president had been briefed on it. Yet, Obama once claimed that the White House was caught off guard about the rise of ISIS.

To channel Susan Rice: This raises myriad questions. If Obama was informed about intelligence about the rise of ISIS, why did he not respond? If he was not told, why not? Were his top advisors utterly incompetent? Were they too scared to deliver bad news to Obama, particularly about the Middle East? Was Obama running a rogue foreign policy utterly divorced from U.S. national interests? If so, why?

Obama’s national security advisor at the time of the rise of ISIS was Susan Rice’s predecessor, Tom Donilon, who served in that position from October 8, 2010 to July 1, 2013. By Susan Rice’s own explanation, Donilon would have “walked straight into the Oval Office to brief the president” on the intelligence. So, even if Obama failed on numerous occasions to read his PDBs on the rise of ISIS, he had to know about it, because he would have been told directly by his national security advisor.

So, according to Susan Rice, Obama knew about the rise of ISIS and did nothing about it. How many Americans and U.S. troops were k**led by ISIS or ISIS-inspired individuals because Obama failed to act? Too many.

By Susan Rice’s own words, Barack Obama is guilty of dereliction of duty.
b Susan Rice Accidentally Proves Barack Obama (No... (show quote)


Obama may have been guilty of dereliction but you missed the reading on Rice she said "I would have" it didn't mean that it was a normal procedure that any one in that position who have just walked in and made the statement.
Go to
Jul 2, 2020 08:30:22   #
ACP45 wrote:
Something to think about


As for maintaining your i****e s****m agreed , As for herd immunity it may not work because the antibodies are short lasting. The referenced article reads with alot of scientific jargon. If you stick with it you might get a picture of what was supposedly found out. A similarity was drawn with the Spanish flu. The first who caught it died, those who were effected but didn't catch it had lung damage and when it returned on the second wave it took them out. The waves continued until the v***s burned itself out. Just to make it clear my understanding came from a different post.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0965-6
Go to
Jun 29, 2020 20:45:59   #
Lt. Rob Polans ret. wrote:
Look it up I've heard it beginning during Bill Clinton's presidency. Different adversaries of course.


Was deployed during most of his presidency so , at the moment the only thing coming up is what happening now , still looking.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.