One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Sew_What
Page: <<prev 1 ... 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ... 139 next>>
Dec 10, 2019 09:03:38   #
eagleye13 wrote:
After Democrats Dare To Impeach Trump – Barr’s Bulldog Sends Them Scrambling With Fresh Ukrainian Investigation

https://washingtondailynews.today/after-democrats-dare-to-impeach-trump-barrs-bulldog-sends-them-scrambling-with-fresh-ukrainian-investigation/

Barr’s hot on their tail – Nancy’s going to regret opening this can of worms!

Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, dug themselves a deep hole with impeachment. But Barr’s about to make it a lot deeper.

So far it’s been all smoke and no fire. It looks like Trump did nothing to suggest he was forcing or manipulating Ukraine

Some have wondered why Democrats were pushing this empty story—well it turns out it may have been a distraction.

A distraction from the real Ukraine story. AG Barr is looking into some concerning matters. And he just sicced his bulldog onto a potential bombshell.

From Washington Examiner:

The Justice Department revealed that U.S. Attorney John Durham, picked by Attorney General William Barr to look into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, is investigating whether Ukraine was involved in any 2016 e******n efforts.

Uh-oh! U.S. Attorney John Durham has been picked by Barr to look any Ukrainian attempts to tamper with the 2016 e******ns.

Russia did try to influence the e******n, from all the evidence—but not with Trump’s help.

There is growing evidence that Democrats were working with foreign agents to take candidate Trump down.

There is a trail that leads to Ukraine. A Ukrainian company seemed to be connected with Russia and some of their hacking efforts.

This comes on the heels of news that Democrats have been trying to push the Ukrainian government around for a while.

Joe Biden bragged about how he threatened the country into firing their top prosecutor by withholding aid....
After Democrats Dare To Impeach Trump – Barr’s Bul... (show quote)


...so, "doody" Rudy is in the Ukraine to coach the only witness who talked to the president? Hopefully, the continual obfuscating Dotard Donald-keeps building the case further by not allowing any of his toadies to testify. Obstruction of justice is a reason to impeach someone, and certainly as a citizen each of them could plead the fifth, which is their right as outlined by the constitution that they all want to continually ignore or marginalize.

The crucible of justice, is not a shopping spree.
Go to
Dec 9, 2019 18:16:56   #
nwtk2007 wrote:
Look at these stats for drugs effecting people over twelve and then consider how the little guys and girls are effected by it indirectly. The stories are quite shocking! This is the USA and for some reason we don't want to wage war on drugs; where they come from and their entry into the country????????

http://americanaddictioncenters.org/rehab-guide/addiction-statistics


Please provide one year that the US didn't want to wage war on drugs.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_sheet_Drug_War_Budget_Feb2015.pdf

"....Arresting people who use drugs non-problematically
and forcing them into treatment takes up resources
that could be invested in helping people struggling with
serious drug problems. People who use marijuana are
much less likely to become dependent but are
increasingly forced into treatment by the criminal
justice system – the source of over half of all treatment
referrals for marijuana each year.
11 Forcing people into
treatment instead of prison for low-level drug offenses
is definitely not a health approach. Getting arrested
should not be a requirement for receiving treatment."


Go to
Dec 8, 2019 07:40:25   #
proud republican wrote:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/12/boring-house-judiciary-chairman-jerrold-nadler-nods-off-during-his-own-impeachment-hearing-video/


Why stay awake, they have all the information they need to proceed with impeachment. He probably works a lot harder than you do.
Go to
Dec 8, 2019 07:39:09   #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
10 Common Misconceptions About Atheism
JONATHAN H. KANTOR
Listverse. com

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Because atheism can be construed as as antithetical to religion, numerous misconceptions have risen about atheists that simply aren’t factual. Here are ten examples of the most common misconceptions people have about atheists and atheism as a whole.

10 Atheism Is A Religion
The term “religion” is difficult to define. In the United States, a religion is defined as an institution that has a recognized creed, form and place of worship, congregation, and ordained ministers. This definition has nothing to do with a god, but most religions that do worship a god fit this definition. Because atheism is a lack of belief in something, there are no places to worship (or anything to worship), no creed, no congregation, and no ministers.Many people point to atheists on the Internet speaking of the persecution of atheists and other aspects of society they consider to conflict with wh**ever constitution might govern them as a religion, but that doesn’t work either. Because there is no set of rules or creed tying atheists together, they don’t congregate beyond a simple agreement on something not existing.

9. Atheists Worship The Devil
The belief that atheists worship the Devil stems from the Christian belief that anyone against God is a follower of the Devil. This interpretation is not held by the majority of Christians, but it is prevalent in some communities. Because the Devil falls under the auspices of a god, atheists do not believe it exists. Simply put: One cannot worship a Devil they don’t believe in. The Church of Satan has helped to perpetuate this misconception. The name itself implies that members of the organization worship Satan, but that is not the case. Satanists are atheists and agnostics who don’t worship anything but have instead created an association that follows the belief that, “Man—using his brain—invented all the Gods. [ . . . ] We Satanists are thus our own ‘Gods.’ ” The decision to model the iconography after a devilish form was chosen to mock Christianity and its adherents.

8. Atheists Are Unhappy, Angry People
It is difficult to quantify whether an entire group of nonbelievers is happy or not, but this misconception comes from the Christian belief that a person cannot be happy without God in their lives. There are atheists all over the planet who are unhappy for a plethora of reasons, but the same is true of theists as well.Atheists who voice their opinions can do so with vitriol and seem unhappy. Authors and scientists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins appear to be angry during interviews, but in a lot of ways, they were simply frustrated with the nature of the discussion. Atheists who understand the basics of evolution and cosmology do not want to discuss theology as an opposing viewpoint because it is not applicable to the discussion. When someone tries to bring up the idea of a Crocoduck in a discussion about evolution, an atheist often reacts with frustration and even anger, but that doesn’t mean that they’re generally unhappy people.

7. Atheists Worship At The Altar Of Science
Online discussions with atheists tend to involve topics related to evolution and cosmology. The names of scientists and authors such as Darwin, Hawking, Hitchens, and Dawkins are tossed around as “prophets” of the “religion of atheism,” but not every atheist is scientifically literate. Many are apathetic to the conversation and are not included in the discussion, but the ones who are vocal online tend to be literate of various scientific theories brought up by Creationists and other theists who attempt to use science to justify their theistic world view. Ironically, this has led more people to become scientifically literate so that they can engage in these online discussions. While no atheist would claim to “worship at the altar of science,” many do learn what they can so that they are better informed about the world around them.

6. Atheists Have No Morals
How could anyone have morality without God? That is a question asked by theists who believe that morality is derived from religion. This may be true for them, but there are many people who don’t share religious beliefs but do share the same moral beliefs. Many theists believe that atheists lack a moral compass due to their disbelief in any god and conclude that “there is no such thing as a good atheist,” but this is a broad generalization with no merit whatsoever. Morality is difficult to define because there are countless theories explaining it as a sociobiological evolution or even a logical conclusion. A person’s morality tends to express itself in how they treat other people, and many atheists appear to live according to the policy of treating others as they would like to be treated, also known as the Golden Rule.

5. There Are No Atheists In Foxholes
As an Active Duty Soldier who is also an atheist, I take this misconception personally. Having deployed to combat zones multiple times without suddenly realizing a need for God even while under fire, I can honestly say that I am an atheist in a foxhole.This misconception comes from the belief that a person who is facing imminent danger or death will turn to God. A similar theory is Pascal’s Wager, which is an argument in Christian apologetics which stipulates that a rational person should either seek to believe in God or live as if God exists because if they are wrong, they could suffer eternal damnation, while accepting the wager allows for acceptance into Heaven.It may be true that some have found religion on their deathbeds or even in combat, but there are many who say otherwise, including the author of this list.

4. Atheists Are Intolerant Of Theists
Many believe that there is a general intolerance of theists among all atheists, but this is simply untrue. Online conversations may indicate a specific person whom someone may be intolerant of, but a general dislike of believers is not held throughout the “atheist community.” Conversely, atheists are the least tolerated and trusted group of people in the United States. Many politicians have called for religious tests and the firing of nonbelievers, which is illegal (but still tolerated) “h**e speech.” Polls and scientific studies show that religious communities distrust atheists due to their lack of belief and would prefer that they stay out of politics and other public areas.

3. Atheists Are Ignorant When It Comes To Religion(s)
This misconception stems from the belief that someone who doesn’t believe in God is ignorant to His teachings. Because of this, people often proselytize atheists, hoping to educate and convert them. The t***h is that most atheists are well-informed when it comes to religions and are usually familiar with several, while most theists are only familiar with their own and may often know less than the atheist they are hoping to convert.A recent study on religious knowledge in the United States found that atheists and agnostics know more about religions than any other group. Many people who now call themselves atheist or agnostic were once active members in a church of some type. Further study of their own religion may have pushed them to look elsewhere and find that they either desired another faith or didn’t believe at all. This thirst for knowledge tends to lead people out of the church and into an atheistic world view.

2. Atheists Are Angry Rebels Who H**e/Oppose God.
Many see atheists as rebels who either h**e or oppose God, but this misconception fails the logic test. For someone to turn away from their god and religion, they usually come to the conclusion that they simply do not believe. Without belief, there can be no hatred or opposition. This is similar to the misconception that atheists worship Satan. In the same way that a person cannot worship something they don’t believe in, they cannot h**e or oppose it, either. This misconception stems from the belief that atheists truly do believe in God and want to rebel against Him. Even if an atheist says otherwise, many believe that because God is in everyone, it is not possible to disbelieve in Him, so an atheist must be rebelling, like Satan, against God.

1. Atheism Is Responsible For The Worst Genocides In History
This misconception attempts to place the blame of inhuman acts like the Holocaust on atheism because many dictators of the age were atheists. This is known as the Atheist Atrocities Fallacy and is most often used by theists to prove the evil of atheism with statements like, “Well, what about Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler? They were atheists, and they k**led millions!”Those dictators were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, but that’s not because they were atheists. In fact, Hitler wasn’t an atheist; he was a devout Christian by his own testament. Stalin was an atheist, but he never k**led anyone “in the name of atheism” but rather solely to achieve political or nationalistic goals.
10 Common Misconceptions About Atheism br JONATHA... (show quote)


This information isn't for you, it's for Atheists. Hope it helps YOUR campaign of personal doubt.
Go to
Dec 8, 2019 07:37:58   #
American Vet wrote:
I think it is interesting (and intentional) that liberals ignore history.

Michael Gerhardt, distinguished professor of constitutional law at University of North Carolina, argued that President Trump’s behavior was “worse than the misconduct of any prior president”.

In 1942, the president of the United States (FDR - a Democrat) signed an executive order to unilaterally intern some 120,000 Japanese-Americans. Not only was the policy r****t, it amounted to a full-bore attack on about half the Constitution he had sworn to uphold.

Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) — who regularly said things like, “a negro’s place is in the corn field” — re-segregated the civil service, personally firing more than a dozen supervisors for the sin of being black. He also threw dissenters and political adversaries into prison, instructed the postmaster to refuse delivery of literature he deemed unpatriotic and created an unconstitutional civilian police force that targeted Americans for political dissent.

Andrew Jackson (considered by some to be the founder of the modern Democrat party) ignored courts and laws and used his power to ethnically cleanse lands that he also sometimes happened to have a financial interest in.

Teddy Roosevelt (elected as a Republican but later left the Republican Party to form the Progressive Party) threatened US citizens with military intervention and abused his power in one way or another every day of his presidency.

A reckless JFK (a Democrat) probably shared a mistress with leading Chicago mobster Sam Giancana, setting himself up for blackmail or worse

Lyndon Johnson (a Democrat) skipped any pretense and just asked the FBI and CIA to spy for him. CIA officials, illegally operating inside the United States, spied on the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964 and brought LBJ information he used to undermine his opponents at every turn.
I think it is interesting (and intentional) that l... (show quote)


"Two wrongs make a right..." Let's just keep doing unethical behavior....and laugh it, like it's okay.
Go to
Nov 29, 2019 09:31:37   #
AuntiE wrote:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/millennials_want_to_get_rid_of_thanksgiving.html

Millennials Want to Get Rid of Thanksgiving

Just days before our national Thanksgiving holiday, a report explained that Millennial students in their wisdom say, "It's not okay to celebrate Thanksgiving."

What would we do without these young people correcting the rest of us, the fossil generations?!

According to The College Fix, college students think Thanksgiving represents "oppression" because it is "based off of the genocide of indigenous people." They see Thanksgiving in terms of the "themes of oppression and colonization." More to the point, with the focus on eating a "bunch of food," Thanksgiving is "just a bunch of capitalist b-------." Some of the students "believe most American holidays are rooted in oppression." Others see Americans celebrating "unethical holidays." A few proclaim that "no holidays with religious connotations should be observed."

No wonder today's students have such warped views of life; most have no grounding in history. They do not know, for instance, that half of the Pilgrims who braved the storms of the North Atlantic for two months in early winter died before the feeling the warmth of summer. A few died at sea before they were able to leave the Mayflower. They have little to no appreciation of the fact that throughout most of history, life for all but a few has been the struggle for bare survival. Thus, they cannot understand the fact that some Pilgrims were willing to endure being indentured servants for the desperate hope of an opportunity for a better life after they worked off the cost of their passage. The thankfulness of the Pilgrims was rooted in these harsh realities, something today's students should be thankful to have never experienced.

It's not enough that Thanksgiving is already being swallowed up by Halloween and Christmas. Before the Halloween candy is all gone and the jack-o-lantern candles are blown out, Christmas paraphernalia is displayed in stores, and Christmas lights go on around neighborhoods. Now we have a whole generation who cannot be bothered to express thanks for what they already have before making out a list of expensive items they want at the Black Friday sales that, this year, begin Thanksgiving afternoon.

I grew up among people for whom getting a college education was a rare privilege. When my father returned from serving in the Marine Corps during WWII, the G.I. Bill enable him to go to college, the first in his family to do so. I felt incredibly blessed that my parents considered it important enough to sacrifice to send me to college. That was a gift, and it was not to be wasted; I was expected to do my best and to take advantage of every opportunity to learn, enrich my mind, refine my taste, and work part-time.

How arrogant are today's students to think that they are above thanking God for the blessings that they enjoy in such abundance without having really earned any of it through their own efforts? How dare they disparage those early settlers who cut their way through forests and blazed trails across mountains, facing deprivation, dangers, and hunger such as today's young people have never experienced? Generally, Americans from the past who established and celebrated Thanksgiving were the "salt of the earth," the "backbone of our community," and the "elders of the church." How dare these privileged college students look down their noses at those who made it possible for them to go to college with a car, smartphone, computer, and spending money as well?

How privileged they are! How ungrateful they are!

Those Millennials interviewed and quoted in the report by The College Fix and the thousands who share their skewed beliefs need to be reminded that their ideas are not the last word. They need to read Proverbs 4:7, which reminds that "Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom and with all thy getting, get understanding" (King James Version of the Bible).

I would also suggest that those Millennials need to go back to some basic "understanding" of Thanksgiving. The history of Thanksgiving in the U.S. is inextricably linked to religion. The earliest celebrations started in the church with the Puritans in the 1600s. George Washington, as president on November 26, 1789, set aside Thanksgiving as "a day for public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours [sic] of Almighty God." Then in 1941, Thanksgiving, to be celebrated on the fourth Thursday in November, became an official federal holiday. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy reiterated the importance of the forefathers establishing Thanksgiving as a time set apart to express thanks for numerous blessings; he ended with the forefathers' stressing the need to be thankful for "the faith which united them with their God."

It has become fashionable to declare that America is not a Christian nation. In fact, even in 2019, as the percentage has decreased, the Pew Forum reports that fully 70.6% of American adults still identify as Christian. Some people like to claim that the U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation. The Puritans most certainly "envisioned a government that would promote and encourage Christianity." Even our education system was grounded on that same bedrock foundation, with "all but two of the first 108 universities founded in America" being Christian and established to educate the clergy and build the church. Those early privileged students who were able to get a much valued college education were taught that their purpose was "to know God and Jesus Christ" and to live their lives following "the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."

The nation's universities have wandered into a barren wilderness, far from that purpose and those goals. Many of today's students are poorer for it; many earn credentials but are not on a path to a life with meaning and purpose. Many lack an understanding of history; certainly, in all their so-called "learning," they have not gained wisdom or understanding.

Thanksgiving in America is a holiday that is both religious and secular. In recent years, we have let the secular overshadow — even obliterate — the religious significance of the day. Only a few celebrations involve time for sincere prayers of gratitude for all the blessings that we enjoy in this great country. Sadly, one of the biggest points of division in the country is whether America truly is a great nation. We should not be surprised in such a climate to find our young people are cynical and see the American past through a distorted lens that sees only oppression and colonialization.

Our Thanksgiving, though, provides an opportunity for family and friend groups to come together to share laughter and fellowship. The traditions associated with the holiday — nationally televised parades in major cities in the morning, everyone gathered around the dinner table for a feast of turkey and all the trimmings around noon, and then, in the afternoon and evening, folks gathered around the television watching football games or movies — are commonly shared experiences across the culture, no matter what state, which religion, or what generation.

But we must not let the primary reason for Thanksgiving get lost in the overeating and the family/friend fun and togetherness. In its origins, Thanksgiving was, first and foremost, a day set aside to thank God for allowing us another year of life. It is a day for us to humbly acknowledge that God is the source of our blessings and of comfort in our sorrows. He is the Guide and Companion who walks with us through our difficulties as well as the one whose wisdom ultimately lights and directs us on right paths.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/m... (show quote)


They don't want to come to your conspiracy filled life....they would rather spend the day with friends that they enjoy. You ought to try sometime.
Go to
Nov 29, 2019 09:30:33   #
crazylibertarian wrote:
Opinions should be based on facts or principles. Its like mathematics or physics. A very small error at the beginning can result in huge errors later. A laser with a 0.00001 divergence will be light years across at the other end of the galaxy.


Yea, lols coming from you:

To refute you about "the t***h" lets consider the whistleblower, here are a few points to consider.

The whistleblower—or “whistleblower” if you prefer—filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), claiming to have it on good authority that President Trump had attempted to coerce Ukrainian President Zelenskyy into providing dirt on his (Trump’s) highest-polling political opponent for the 2020 p**********l e******n, that he predicated continuation of foreign aid to Ukraine on that act from Zelesky, and that the White House had then attempted to conceal that evidence by placing the notes from the conversation on a server reserved for sensitive information:

-Donald Trump, the president, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House Chief of Staff, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Fiona Hill, the former top White House Russia advisor, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Michael McKinley, former top aide to the Secretary of State, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Gordon D. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-William Taylor, the senior U.S. diplomatic official in Ukraine, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Laura Cooper, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s head of European Affairs, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. What did he lie about?

All of the above are facts.

Now with those in mind, let me answer your question by posing some other questions to consider.

1. What does “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump” even mean? Clearly, someone filed the complaint with the IGIC, who deemed it credible. Someone also wrote a letter outlining the complaint to Sen. Burr and Rep. Schiff. (We’ve all seen the letter.) Whoever wrote that letter is the whistleblower. If it was actually Schiff who wrote it, or actually the IGIC who wrote it, then that person is a whistleblower.
2. If “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump,” then so what? Who wrote the letter, and who filed the complaint, and indeed whether anyone did, is at this point irrelevant. The credibility of the “whistleblower’s” claims is not in question: His claims have not only been confirmed, they have been confirmed by the president himself. There is no longer any hearsay: Lt. Col. Vindman was listening in on the president’s call with Zelenskyy and agrees with what the whistleblower says about it. (For that matter, the summary of the call that the president himself released also agrees with what the whistleblower says about it.)

So to summarize: it’s awfully hard to make a case that a whistleblower doesn’t exist, and if they don’t, it doesn’t matter, because everything that non-person said has been proven true several times over.
Go to
Nov 29, 2019 09:29:45   #
2bltap wrote:
Is a Qatari plant within our government just like Talieb! Remember that CAIR/Muslim Brotherhood Valarie Jarrett stated that they will take this country down from within. This video shows the veracity of the Imam of peace Talweed (spelling) being very animated about his intelligence pertaining to Omar. Please take the time to watch this short video.
Semper Fi
Mike

https://youtu.be/JL00yfnKCOU


I think you have alien implants or are defective lizard person.
Go to
Nov 29, 2019 09:28:13   #
"The t***h" lets consider the whistleblower, here are a few points to consider.

The whistleblower—or “whistleblower” if you prefer—filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), claiming to have it on good authority that President Trump had attempted to coerce Ukrainian President Zelenskyy into providing dirt on his (Trump’s) highest-polling political opponent for the 2020 p**********l e******n, that he predicated continuation of foreign aid to Ukraine on that act from Zelesky, and that the White House had then attempted to conceal that evidence by placing the notes from the conversation on a server reserved for sensitive information:

-Donald Trump, the president, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House Chief of Staff, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Fiona Hill, the former top White House Russia advisor, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Michael McKinley, former top aide to the Secretary of State, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Gordon D. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-William Taylor, the senior U.S. diplomatic official in Ukraine, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Laura Cooper, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s head of European Affairs, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. What did he lie about?

All of the above are facts.

Now with those in mind, let me answer your question by posing some other questions to consider.

1. What does “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump” even mean? Clearly, someone filed the complaint with the IGIC, who deemed it credible. Someone also wrote a letter outlining the complaint to Sen. Burr and Rep. Schiff. (We’ve all seen the letter.) Whoever wrote that letter is the whistleblower. If it was actually Schiff who wrote it, or actually the IGIC who wrote it, then that person is a whistleblower.
2. If “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump,” then so what? Who wrote the letter, and who filed the complaint, and indeed whether anyone did, is at this point irrelevant. The credibility of the “whistleblower’s” claims is not in question: His claims have not only been confirmed, they have been confirmed by the president himself. There is no longer any hearsay: Lt. Col. Vindman was listening in on the president’s call with Zelenskyy and agrees with what the whistleblower says about it. (For that matter, the summary of the call that the president himself released also agrees with what the whistleblower says about it.)

So to summarize: it’s awfully hard to make a case that a whistleblower doesn’t exist, and if they don’t, it doesn’t matter, because everything that non-person said has been proven true several times over.
Go to
Nov 29, 2019 09:27:25   #
ACP45 wrote:
Remember when Syria was a hot topic, and many here on OPP were savaging Assad for brutalizing his population with gas attacks. The US and NATO countries immediately concluded Assad was the guilty party, and began missile attacks on the Syria regime. Even though it was pretty obvious that Assad was winning the war, and gas attacks were counterproductive, many continued to believe the MSM narrative.

So now, as the t***h begins leaking out, slowly, and gradually, where is the indignation and outrage that we had been fooled and manipulated into supporting a war against the Syrian population, that was a calculated fabrication that continues on to this day.

Read the article, and listen to the video. https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/mainstream-policy-expert-reveals-how-he-was-silenced-syria-t***h-did-not-matter

https://youtu.be/SMSyLg1E49M

The next time there is a Democratic party debate, ask yourself why no one other than Tulsi Gabbard is talking about "Foreign Wars", injured US troops, and the never ending war machine that is US Foreign policy.

How many of you realize that you are being distracted by stupid side issues like the f**e "Russiagate", and the "Quid pro Quo" impeachment narrative, the SJW and L**T controversies, and all the other side issues being used to divide us and keep us from demanding change on the really important issues?
Remember when Syria was a hot topic, and many here... (show quote)


To refute you about "the t***h" lets consider the whistleblower, here are a few points to consider.

The whistleblower—or “whistleblower” if you prefer—filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), claiming to have it on good authority that President Trump had attempted to coerce Ukrainian President Zelenskyy into providing dirt on his (Trump’s) highest-polling political opponent for the 2020 p**********l e******n, that he predicated continuation of foreign aid to Ukraine on that act from Zelesky, and that the White House had then attempted to conceal that evidence by placing the notes from the conversation on a server reserved for sensitive information:

-Donald Trump, the president, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House Chief of Staff, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Fiona Hill, the former top White House Russia advisor, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Michael McKinley, former top aide to the Secretary of State, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Gordon D. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-William Taylor, the senior U.S. diplomatic official in Ukraine, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Laura Cooper, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s head of European Affairs, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. What did he lie about?

All of the above are facts.

Now with those in mind, let me answer your question by posing some other questions to consider.

1. What does “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump” even mean? Clearly, someone filed the complaint with the IGIC, who deemed it credible. Someone also wrote a letter outlining the complaint to Sen. Burr and Rep. Schiff. (We’ve all seen the letter.) Whoever wrote that letter is the whistleblower. If it was actually Schiff who wrote it, or actually the IGIC who wrote it, then that person is a whistleblower.
2. If “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump,” then so what? Who wrote the letter, and who filed the complaint, and indeed whether anyone did, is at this point irrelevant. The credibility of the “whistleblower’s” claims is not in question: His claims have not only been confirmed, they have been confirmed by the president himself. There is no longer any hearsay: Lt. Col. Vindman was listening in on the president’s call with Zelenskyy and agrees with what the whistleblower says about it. (For that matter, the summary of the call that the president himself released also agrees with what the whistleblower says about it.)

So to summarize: it’s awfully hard to make a case that a whistleblower doesn’t exist, and if they don’t, it doesn’t matter, because everything that non-person said has been proven true several times over.
Go to
Nov 29, 2019 09:27:04   #
Gatsby wrote:
Two waivers, one for age, another for drug use. Commissioned May 2013, Discharged Feb 2014.

As a PR specialist no less; just what kind image was the Naval Reserve promoting?

https://www.rt.com/usa/196732-biden-navy-cocaine-test/


Same way Bush did: His daddy.
Go to
Nov 29, 2019 09:25:50   #
nwtk2007 wrote:
Vindman flat out lied about what he heard on the phone call, claiming that Trump "demanded" the president to investigate the Biden's. It is a total lie and for that he should be thrown out of the army. Additionally, he convinced some one else to be the "whistle blower" because he is too much the coward to come forward himself.

As for Gallaghar, these things are never all that they seem. Maybe k*****g the enemy can send a message to them, they who lop off the heads of the innocent.

??????I seriously doubt you know the t***h of the Gallaghar case, so you should just STFU about it.??????[/b]
Vindman flat out lied about what he heard on the p... (show quote)


To refute you about "the t***h" lets consider the whistleblower, here are a few points to consider.

The whistleblower—or “whistleblower” if you prefer—filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), claiming to have it on good authority that President Trump had attempted to coerce Ukrainian President Zelenskyy into providing dirt on his (Trump’s) highest-polling political opponent for the 2020 p**********l e******n, that he predicated continuation of foreign aid to Ukraine on that act from Zelesky, and that the White House had then attempted to conceal that evidence by placing the notes from the conversation on a server reserved for sensitive information:

-Donald Trump, the president, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House Chief of Staff, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Fiona Hill, the former top White House Russia advisor, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Michael McKinley, former top aide to the Secretary of State, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Gordon D. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-William Taylor, the senior U.S. diplomatic official in Ukraine, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Laura Cooper, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s head of European Affairs, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. What did he lie about?

All of the above are facts.

Now with those in mind, let me answer your question by posing some other questions to consider.

1. What does “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump” even mean? Clearly, someone filed the complaint with the IGIC, who deemed it credible. Someone also wrote a letter outlining the complaint to Sen. Burr and Rep. Schiff. (We’ve all seen the letter.) Whoever wrote that letter is the whistleblower. If it was actually Schiff who wrote it, or actually the IGIC who wrote it, then that person is a whistleblower.
2. If “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump,” then so what? Who wrote the letter, and who filed the complaint, and indeed whether anyone did, is at this point irrelevant. The credibility of the “whistleblower’s” claims is not in question: His claims have not only been confirmed, they have been confirmed by the president himself. There is no longer any hearsay: Lt. Col. Vindman was listening in on the president’s call with Zelenskyy and agrees with what the whistleblower says about it. (For that matter, the summary of the call that the president himself released also agrees with what the whistleblower says about it.)

So to summarize: it’s awfully hard to make a case that a whistleblower doesn’t exist, and if they don’t, it doesn’t matter, because everything that non-person said has been proven true several times over.
Go to
Nov 28, 2019 07:56:14   #
2bltap wrote:
Its f**e news Rumi. Watch wil actually come out in the very near future. Just sayin.


...you who provides plenty of f**e news, wouldn't know the t***h from lies...
Go to
Nov 27, 2019 10:14:12   #
fullspinzoo wrote:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/b****s_and_hispanics_flee_from_democrats_on_impeachment.html


...just like all of the Jews that decided not to leave Europe when they had the chance...
Go to
Nov 26, 2019 08:23:16   #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
To a certain extent that is true..

Yet for the next thirty years Hong Kong will continue to govern itself...

The results on Sunday certainly reflect on the attitudes of the people...


It was a referendum, a meaningless gesture, when your leadership does wh**ever it wants.

Actual Re-education camps exist.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ... 139 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.