Fox News- now under MARTIAL LAW- Democracy being suspended

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

If making the party purely Conservative would lead to to party's extinction then why do the RINOs campaign hard as Conservatives?? And the last Conservative nominated by the GOP to run for president carried 49 states in a landslide.

That was Reagan. Almost 30 years ago. Sorry, but no-one has since achieved that.

I already said that. I said the "last" Conservative that was nominated by the GOP won by carrying 49 states.

Yes, but you aren't getting my point. Conservatism isn't exactly popular at the moment.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Not to mention Reagan would be considered Left now, by most Conservatives.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Not to mention Reagan would be considered Left now, by most Conservatives.

No he would not. I'm a registered Conservative. Him and his economic model are consistently mentioned in TEA party groups and CPAC. The biggest Conservative voice in America, Mark Levin, worked on the Regean Justice Department as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. And RINO Republicans continually try and trash the legacy of Regean.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

If making the party purely Conservative would lead to to party's extinction then why do the RINOs campaign hard as Conservatives?? And the last Conservative nominated by the GOP to run for president carried 49 states in a landslide.

That was Reagan. Almost 30 years ago. Sorry, but no-one has since achieved that.

I already said that. I said the "last" Conservative that was nominated by the GOP won by carrying 49 states.

Yes, but you aren't getting my point. Conservatism isn't exactly popular at the moment.

If that were the case then the Progressive Republicans wouldn't Campaign as staunch Conservatives in their respective red states to get elected. I don't believe for a second that the idea of small government, less taxes, and liberty are unpopular topics.

Originally posted by Druscilla

I find your facility for intelligence and intelligent discussion quite telling where you've based a value perception on my worth as a (current) citizen of the USA based on a couple posts I volunteered to illustrate a complete lack of martial law.

I'm not the one being a mealy mouthed discontent.
I'm not the one stirring up trouble or criticizing this nation like some self entitled spoiled rotten little princess that hasn't got her cake when she demanded it, or throwing pouty lipped tantrum over being made to go sit in a corner.

No. I enjoy the USA, and I'm not talking bad about it.
If, however, it turns its back on me, well, it takes two. I'm not going to be a cry baby about it.
I'll go, as I've said, somewhere I can appreciate, that appreciates me back.

As to the sorts that are running amuck talking bad about their homeland, stirring up talk of revolution, and other sorts of nonsense, I'm left to wonder about a value perception regarding those sorts.

I'm fairly certain someone that supports their nation regardless their financial and intellectual worth and contributions is of far greater value than those sorts slinking about in the shadows of conspiracy theory sites talking shifty eyed insubordinate phraseology.
I like the USA and don't have any problems with it.
If I did, however have problems, I wouldn't be all talking behind my hand, slinking about and being a cry baby in my cups about it.
NO.
I see a problem, I do something about it.
As illustrated, I'd move IF I was taking issue.

There's making noise, and there's doing.
Sit in your soiled rags and cry annoyingly like a helpless little baby, or do something about and change the diaper.

This is the first you mention about "doing something", and I note that you gave no hint of what that "something" is beyond cutting and running.

The gist of your previous posts is that you will party while you can, and try to run when you no longer can party.

Isn't that special?

I wish you the best of luck with that, especially the running part. The world is full of tales of refugees running away from or attempting to run away form one tyranny or another.It doesn't always turn out all that well, especially if they wait too long to run.

If I were you, and had your attitude towards "fixing things", I'd run early and run far. No time like the present to get a jump on things, so go ahead and bolt.

The "crybabies" as you characterize them aren't the ones fiddling while Rome burns, with a vague plan to try to leap the flames and escape at some unspecified time. They are the ones organizing bucket brigades to fight the flames, staying put and getting to the unpleasant job of combating problems, rather than running from them.

I'm pretty sure they won't miss you, so run, run away!

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Who actually defines who is or is not a RINO? I'm just wondering, given the rightward path of the Republicans over recent years. It seems to me that the goalposts are constantly being shifted.

I've noticed NO "rightward" shift in the Republican Party. I've only seen "leftward" shifts into neocon-ism and a RINO mentality. Perhaps someone redefined the meaning of "right" when I was off to the wars or something, just as they reassigned the color codes (what was blue is now red, and what was red is now blue) around the 2000 elections.

As a matter of fact, that color re-assignment does tend to go well with the leftward lurch of the Republicans. The entire time I was growing up, "red" was the color of all things left, from the "Red Army" of the Soviet Union to "Red China".

Now the Republicans have adopted it as their own. That just makes me wonder why the Democrats haven't been whining about having their colors stolen. My best guess is they're just waiting on the proper time to welcome the Republicans into the fold. One big fat happy oppressive Republicrat party. It's what we have in fact now, they just seem to be reluctant to give up the illusion of a separation, as if there were actually two differing parties.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Not to mention Reagan would be considered Left now, by most Conservatives.

No he would not. I'm a registered Conservative. Him and his economic model are consistently mentioned in TEA party groups and CPAC. The biggest Conservative voice in America, Mark Levin, worked on the Regean Justice Department as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. And RINO Republicans continually try and trash the legacy of Regean.

Well I'm sure you consider Obama far Left, so let's look at a comparison between Reagan and Obama. Cenk Uygur back when he was working at MSNBC (I think you can see from this why he doesn't work there anymore).

Ronald Reagan:
• Gave Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants
• Negotiated with Terrorists (Traded Arms for Hostages with Iran)
• Raised Taxes on a Large Scale Four Times (After Initially Lowering Them)
• Negotiated with the "Evil Empire" without Pre-conditions
• Made a Decision to "Cut and Run" From Lebanon After Our Troops Were Attacked
In fact, as you look at the Reagan list, it seems he is the exact opposite of what conservatives now claim they want. It looks like the caricature of what they think liberals do. There is no way that even Dennis Kucinich would be able to do all of those things; he certainly wouldn’t negotiate with terrorists the way Reagan did.
Of course, Reagan also took the country further right in many ways but our political spectrum has moved so far to the right that he looks left behind by comparison. So, let’s go to Obama and see what that "socialist" is up to.
Barack Obama:
• Escalated the Afghanistan War (Added 30,000 More Troops)
• Escalated the Afghanistan War (Added 30,000 More Troops)
• Has Ordered Drone Strikes (Assassinations) on US Citizens Outside the Country
• Gave Drug Companies Near Monopoly Power by Barring Imports, Extending Patents and Not Allowing the Government to Negotiate Better Prices
• Funneled Billions into the Biggest Banks in the Country After They Crashed the Economy
• Stacked Deficit Commission with Fiscal Conservatives
• Lowered Taxes Significantly (Stimulus Bill)
• Ordered Increased Offshore Drilling Before BP Spill

Source

Obviously this was written before Obama's amnesty push. I think the point stands though.

reply to post by Kali74


There is a distinct effort at revisionism and cherry-picked details in that list. I don't have time to address them on a point-by-point basis. However, if you would like to know the fundamental difference between Regeanomics and Obamanomice this older piece from Forbes is a classic:

www.Forbes.com.

Fox News- now under MARTIAL LAW- Democracy being suspended

Fox News is under martial law? Democracy is suspended on this network?

So, what's new?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Kali74

 

There is a distinct effort at revisionism and cherry-picked details in that list. I don't have time to address them on a point-by-point basis. However, if you would like to know the fundamental difference between Regeanomics and Obamanomice this older piece from Forbes is a classic:

www.Forbes.com.

Then I look forward to you addressing them later and will hold my rebuttal on the Forbes piece until after.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I've noticed NO "rightward" shift in the Republican Party. I've only seen "leftward" shifts into neocon-ism and a RINO mentality. Perhaps someone redefined the meaning of "right" when I was off to the wars or something, just as they reassigned the color codes (what was blue is now red, and what was red is now blue) around the 2000 elections.

As a matter of fact, that color re-assignment does tend to go well with the leftward lurch of the Republicans. The entire time I was growing up, "red" was the color of all things left, from the "Red Army" of the Soviet Union to "Red China".

Now the Republicans have adopted it as their own. That just makes me wonder why the Democrats haven't been whining about having their colors stolen. My best guess is they're just waiting on the proper time to welcome the Republicans into the fold. One big fat happy oppressive Republicrat party. It's what we have in fact now, they just seem to be reluctant to give up the illusion of a separation, as if there were actually two differing parties.

I'm sorry, but you can't see the rightward shift of the Republican Party? They've been heading ever-rightward since Reagan. For one thing they seem to have declared war against women, as they don't trust them to take care of their own bodies without intrusive legislation. They also seem to be becoming increasingly religious.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

BTW, it seems you have also served in the U.S. military like I have, we both know that most weapons, and even equipment that are shipped overseas for our troops to use stays overseas even after our soldiers, sailors and Marines return home. It is way too expensive to ship the weapons, and equipment back. There are some special circumstances in which some equipment is indeed brought back, but this is the exception and not the rule.

Nope, I was never in the US military. I've been a "paramilitary", which are called by different names depending on who you're speaking to and whom you want to piss off. I think the current vogue is "security contractor" or "private military contractor", but that tends to change over time. I'm fine with being called a "whore of war". Works for me, and upsets those who can't upset me with it. I've not done it in a long time now, but I try to keep my edge sharp and keep up with the technological and operational developments, just in case.

You have an excellent point about the logistics. No real need for them to cross US soil unless they are trying to gather them up FROM US soil and send them overseas to be rid of them here. For example, the aforementioned Egyptian Maadis and Chinese type 56's were shipped into the Mujahideen via Saudi Arabia, Karachi and Peshawar in Pakistan, and then on donkey back across the fence. Never once crossed US territory, even though it was US nationals facilitating the transfers.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

I'm sorry, but you can't see the rightward shift of the Republican Party? They've been heading ever-rightward since Reagan. For one thing they seem to have declared war against women, as they don't trust them to take care of their own bodies without intrusive legislation. They also seem to be becoming increasingly religious.

Absolutely not, unless you re-define "right" from what it meant before and during Reagan.

GHWB was the very first leftward Republican I ever encountered, and they've been sliding steadily leftward since, including the unfathomable reassignment of the accepted political color scheme around the 2000 elections for emphasis, I suppose.

I left the Republicans around 2003, because I am not, have never been, nor ever will be a "Red", and I could see the writing on the wall by then - that the republican party would never again be conservative. it was taking on tones of Democrat Light, and has near fully merged in everything but name. I suspect that is so that they can keep paying lip-service to the illusion of division and separation, while carrying the same water.

Just as the "Moral Majority" of Falwell during the Reagan years was neither moral nor a majority, alleged "conservatives" who push for the sort of legislation are not conservative, either. Conservatives do not support such legislation, because it greatly and unnecessarily expands the scope and reach of government. Conservatives are small-government, fiscal responsibility types.

The phrase "religious right" is an oxymoron, and one of the best tools in the progressive/neocon/RINO arsenal for obscuring reality.

Maybe they DID redefine "right" to mean "left light" while I was away!

I voted for Reagan in 1980 simply to get rid of Carter, who was just about to kill us all as far as I could see. He cut so many back room deals with leftist buddies that we were well on our way, and lets not get into his economic shenanigans. I was never dissatisfied with anything Reagan did, but I cannot say the same of any of the presidents since his day, regardless of which side of the fence they claim to be on.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Well, let's start off with one or two things. Lincoln, who you would probably classify as a progressive, freed the slaves that the founding fathers left in their chains. Then you seem to think that education is some form of indoctrination, My wife is a teacher and she couldn't disagree more if she tried. She regards education as a vitally important function of any civilised society. You seem to throw the word 'progressive' around a lot, as if it's a dirty word. I respectfully disagree.

First, it wasn't I the one to claim Lincoln was a progressive, it was another member who claimed that... Lincoln wasn't a progressive, he understood alongside most other Republicans that the definition of "ALL MEN..." mentioned in the Declaration of independence includes ALL MEN, including black people. Something Democrats didn't seem to understand or want to understand at that time.

Second, I wasn't talking about "education" per say, but "education/indoctrination BY THE STATE"... In case you didn't know it they are two different things... That link I gave was also about "Common Core Standards", and that's what the teacher in the video, alongside others, is talking about...

Anyway, you can disagree all you want, but disagreement doesn't make you right.

Originally posted by nenothtu

I've noticed NO "rightward" shift in the Republican Party. I've only seen "leftward" shifts into neocon-ism and a RINO mentality. Perhaps someone redefined the meaning of "right" when I was off to the wars or something, just as they reassigned the color codes (what was blue is now red, and what was red is now blue) around the 2000 elections.

I mentioned that a few times because very few people seem to remember, but trust me those behind this "attempt to blur the lines" will make up new lies and excuses to why this has happened.

You see, the Democrat party tends to back not only socialist policies but even communist ones, and the color red is the main color of socialism and communism, but of course the elites can't have people make these connections, similar to the banners made by the main Occupy groups which ALL have socialist and even communist logos.


www.lewrockwell.com...


news.anon210.com...


Shame, in the above you can't see the pretty RED words...
occupywallst.org...

Everywhere I looked the Occupy movement has very similar logos to socialist/communist logos... I wonder why...

Perhaps they have something to do with logos like the following?...

Malaysian socialists clenched-fist logo approved

links.org.au...

Socialist Fist Logos










Soviet Fist

www.neofactionapparel.com...

Not to mention pictures such as...





There are other, and lots of evidence that I posted in the following thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Not everyone who participated in the events organized by the main Occupy groups fall in these two categories, but the leaders and groups behind this movement sure are socialists and even communists. But of course, even despite the fact that we can show the truth that these logos are socialist and even communist, the people who back the main Occupy groups movement will only label us as "McCarthyism"... Same thing for the corruption and subversion that the Democrat party and the international bankers have been doing to what once was regarded as the true "party of the people"...

The color change is imo to show those in the know that the majority of the Republican party have sided with the leftwinger banker elites once and for all, meanwhile the Democrat party has the blue color so that people can't say anymore "look, they even use the color red as socialist/communists"...

Perhaps many won't remember, or didn't hear about this, but there were Democrat campaign offices, backing Obama for office of course, which were photographed having Cuban flags with Che Guevara in them.





www.outsidethebeltway.com...

But that's not all, the "comandante" aka Obama himself has taken inspiration from Che Guevara himself. Che Guevara would be proud of Obama for his indefinite/prolonged detention program which at the same time voids all rights for Americans labeled as "extremists/terrorists", more so when Obama and his administration don't have to "prove" that such Americans had, or were going to commit any crimes... And that's not mentioning Obama's ability to use armed drones to kill Americans he deems "extremists/terrorists" and that he doesn't have to prove to be real "extremists/terrorists"...

It goes very well with Che Guevara's speech at the UN General Assembly on Dec. 9, 1964, and other of his quotes found in "The Black Book of Communism" about "revolutionaries have no need to prove someone is guilty"... in fact, below is a translation of Che's views on "the need to prove those he wants executed". which Obama seems to be emulating...

...
“Executions?” Che Guevara exclaimed while addressing the hallowed halls of the UN General Assembly on Dec. 9, 1964. “Certainly, we execute!” he declared to the claps and cheers of that august body. “And we will continue executing as long as it is necessary! This is a war to the DEATH against the Revolution’s enemies!”

According to “The Black Book of Communism,” those firing-squad executions had reached around 10,000 by that time. “I don’t need proof to execute a man,” snapped Che to a judicial underling in 1959. “I only need proof that it’s necessary to execute him!”
...

www.studentnewsdaily.com...

Doesn't the above sound familiar?... But naaa, the backers who are blind to the truth right in front of them will just dismiss any, and every evidence presented to them that shows that "progressivism" and most of those in power within both the Democrat and Republican parties are leading this country and Americans literally to the slaughterhouse...

Don't forget the EPA email for "Hispanic Heritage month" which included a photo from Cuba that had a drawing of Che Guevara and the phrase "Until Victory Always"


miamiherald.typepad.com...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

I mentioned that a few times because very few people seem to remember, but trust me those behind this "attempt to blur the lines" will make up new lies and excuses to why this has happened.

You see, the Democrat party tends to back not only socialist policies but even communist ones, and the color red is the main color of socialism and communism, but of course the elites can't have people make these connections, similar to the banners made by the main Occupy groups which ALL have socialist and even communist logos.

www.lewrockwell.com...

news.anon210.com...

Shame, in the above you can't see the pretty RED words...
occupywallst.org...

Everywhere I look your movement has very similar logos to socialist/communist logos... I wonder why...

Perhaps they have something to do with logos like the following?...

Malaysian socialists clenched-fist logo approved

links.org.au...

Socialist Fist Logos

Soviet Fist

www.neofactionapparel.com...

Not to mention pictures such as...

There are other, and lots of evidence that I posted in the following thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Not everyone who participated in the events organized by the main Occupy groups fall in these two categories, but the leaders and groups behind this movement sure are socialists and even communists. But of course, even despite the fact that we can show the truth that these logos are socialist and even communist, the people who back the main Occupy groups movement will only label us as "McCarthyism"...

Same thing for the corruption and subversion that the Democrat party and the international bankers have been doing to what once was regarded as the true "party of the people"...

The color change is imo to show those in the know that the majority of the Republican party have sided with the leftwinger banker elites once and for all, meanwhile the Democrat party has the blue color so that people can't say anymore "look, they even use the color red as socialist/communists"...

Perhaps many won't remember, or didn't hear about this, but there were Democrat campaign offices, backing Obama for office of course, which were photographed having Cuban flags with Che Guevara in them.

But that's not all, the "comandante" aka Obama himself has taken inspiration from Che Guevara himself. Che Guevara would be proud of Obama for his indefinite/prolonged detention program which at the same times voids all rights for Americans labeled as "extremists/terrorists", more so when Obama and his administration don't have to "prove" that such Americans had, or were going to commit any crimes... And that's not mentioning Obama's ability to use armed drones to kill Americans he deems "extremists/terrorists" and that he doesn't have to prove to be real "extremists/terrorists".

It goes very well with Che Guevara's speech at the UN General Assembly on Dec. 9, 1964, and other of his quotes found in "The Black Book of Communism" about "revolutionaries have no need to prove someone is guilty"... in fact, below is a translation of Che's views on "the need to prove those he wants executed". which Obama seems to be emulating...

...
“Executions?” Che Guevara exclaimed while addressing the hallowed halls of the UN General Assembly on Dec. 9, 1964. “Certainly, we execute!” he declared to the claps and cheers of that august body. “And we will continue executing as long as it is necessary! This is a war to the DEATH against the Revolution’s enemies!”

According to “The Black Book of Communism,” those firing-squad executions had reached around 10,000 by that time. “I don’t need proof to execute a man,” snapped Che to a judicial underling in 1959. “I only need proof that it’s necessary to execute him!”
...

www.studentnewsdaily.com...

I'm sorry, but can I ask which socialist or communist policies you're talking about? Because speaking as someone who once battled socialists and communists on a student council in Wales I'm not entirely sure that you know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg


I'm sorry, but can I ask which socialist or communist policies you're talking about? Because speaking as someone who once battled socialists and communists on a student council in Wales I'm not entirely sure that you know what you're talking about.

edit on 31-7-2013 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo

Well, as someone who was born and lived part of his life under a communist regime I can assure you I know what in the world I am talking about.

Already mentioned above Obama's indefinite/prolonged detention and "no need by the President or administration to prove that any American deemed an extremist/terrorist is indeed one" comes directly off Che Guevara, and castro' Marxist-Leninist regime.

Then there is the "compulsory Community Service program" and being disguised as "volunterism" which was first introduced in bill H.R. 1388, but was scrapped and added to bill H.R. 1444.

...
SEC. 4. DUTIES.
...
(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.
...

www.govtrack.us...

But who knows, maybe you are one of those people who claims that "MANDATORY" goes well with "Community Service" and is "volunterism"...

Here is a video interview of Rahm Emmanuel where he talks about compulsory community service for the youth of the U.S.

lockerz.com...

This gal got it right on this topic.



Similar "compulsory" community service exists in communist nations like Cuba, and it isn't pretty either. Marx himself talked about how important it was to FORCE labor on young people, even when he was talking about this measure in response to not really wanting to force labor on children...

There is a part of the bill that even expressly states that no member of this "Compulsory Volunterism program" shall be paid, except expenses of course...

(c) Compensation-

(1) RATES OF PAY; TRAVEL EXPENSES- Each member shall serve without pay, except that each member shall receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with applicable provisions under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.

(2) PROHIBITION OF COMPENSATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES- Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any member of the Commission who is a full-time officer or employee of the United States may not receive additional pay, allowances, or benefits because of service on the Commission.

www.govtrack.us...

So despite the claims from some, it will be in fact FORCED LABOR.

Then there is the matter of Obama forcing legislation by bypassing/circumventing Congress for many issues, of course for whatever he wants to pass.

Obama Unveils Plan to Circumvent Congress on Climate Change

By Carey L. Biron

WASHINGTON, Jun 25 2013 (IPS) - Stymied by the U.S. Congress, President Barack Obama on Tuesday unveiled his vision to reset the United States’ incoherent national plan to combat climate change, offering dozens of regulatory tweaks and targets that his administration could now implement without Congressional approval.

Without action from Congress, the president is unable to make a comprehensive effort to combat climate change. Nonetheless, the piecemeal new goals are the most far-reaching attempt yet by a U.S. president to coordinate national planning of mitigation and adaptation efforts on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
...

www.ipsnews.net...

Or how about FORCING all working Americans to pay for abortion, bypassing the law, by requiring of private companies to include a fee to pay for abortion.


Those are just some examples. So you see, when you are "claiming" I don't know what I am talking about, what you are actually writing is that you don't know what you are talking about.

We have allowed the terrorists to win. They set out to destroy america and it is working.

Originally posted by Dianec
We have allowed the terrorists to win. They set out to destroy america and it is working.

What is really disturbing is that despite all the evidence on how dictatorial the U.S. government has become, we still get people claiming "none of this is really happening"... Talk about being delusional...

The evidence is clear, but we will still get people wanting to "twist" the meaning of "MANDATORY volunteerism", "indefinite detention and suspension of all rights without the government having to prove such person/people are really extremists/terrorists", and other measures such as Obama seeking to use armed drones in U.S. soil to kill Americans he, and the government deem terrorists/extremists.

But hey, what have we to worry about? It is not like the Obama administration has labeled regular Americans as "extremists" for having certain beliefs, mainly conservative beliefs, or for even wanting the government to defend and uphold the U.S. Constitution, or for "not liking Communism and a One World government"... Naaa, that could never happen right?...

Originally posted by Dianec
We have allowed the terrorists to win. They set out to destroy america and it is working.

Do you have any proof for this extraordinary assertion?