Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[FlyingVProd]

I have a friend from New York, and her neighborhood sent people from the neighborhood to Medical School to become Doctors for their neighborhood. We can send our people to school to train to become whatever we need, including Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Scientists, etc.

And the dollar is strong with our immigrants.

We need to make our immigrants legal like Reagan did, so they can join labor unions, and so they can call the police in the case of an emergency and we can also train the immigrants as a wish  list for whatever we need including doctors, nurses, teachers, scientists, etc.

And we can have Bare Elegance clubs next to the Rock and Brew clubs, including at Beach and La Palma in Buena Park in Orange County. With big beautiful gardens, etc.

Of note, all of the new housing needs swimming pools, and tennis courts, and libraries, etc.

And we need to put a new coat of paint on our ghettos and we need to have book stores, libraries, and coffee shops, etc. With fountains, and cobble stones, etc. And nice landscaping, etc.

Salute,

Tony V.

[bambu.]

I am fighting for the poor and the vets
by fighting mass immigration. Bringing in people to take your jobs and homes is not beneficial to you.

No you are not.

You are just expressing your fear of an America that is browning. These migrants are not taking anything from anyone.

As with the mass immigration of the 19th and 20th Centuries helped spur the advancement of the USA so to will this influx of migrants who come seeking the opportunity to be productive members of society.

America is getting old, would it not be cool to have an influx of young, eager and optimistic people working hard and contributing to Social Security and Medicare thus keeping those systems flush for the present and near future recipients?

That was then, 2024 is now, the country is full...isn't it?   because it sure looks full...roads are carparks, subways are full to overflowing...with National Guard and cops patrolling...etc.

Depends on just who the "influx of young, eager and optimistic people working hard etc" immigrants, would be...and whether or not they'd be working in jobs they'd taken from Americans who were happily working in them...thereby tossing the Americans onto the unemployment heap and homelessness.
No job, no income, it's no money in the wallet or bank account for 'you', and off to live on the street 'you' go.

"Can America [still] be America, but with different people?"    ...question in an "Ireland just wants to be Irish" video, or one of them.

[bambu.]

"(There'll be) civil war in Europe". -  German nationalist party leader.

[FlyingVProd]

I am fighting for the poor and the vets
by fighting mass immigration. Bringing in people to take your jobs and homes is not beneficial to you.

No you are not.

You are just expressing your fear of an America that is browning. These migrants are not taking anything from anyone.

As with the mass immigration of the 19th and 20th Centuries helped spur the advancement of the USA so to will this influx of migrants who come seeking the opportunity to be productive members of society.

America is getting old, would it not be cool to have an influx of young, eager and optimistic people working hard and contributing to Social Security and Medicare thus keeping those systems flush for the present and near future recipients?

That was then, 2024 is now, the country is full...isn't it?   because it sure looks full...roads are carparks, subways are full to overflowing...with National Guard and cops patrolling...etc.

Depends on just who the "influx of young, eager and optimistic people working hard etc" immigrants, would be...and whether or not they'd be working in jobs they'd taken from Americans who were happily working in them...thereby tossing the Americans onto the unemployment heap and homelessness.
No job, no income, it's no money in the wallet or bank account for 'you', and off to live on the street 'you' go.

"Can America [still] be America, but with different people?"    ...question in an "Ireland just wants to be Irish" video, or one of them.

Bono, the most famous Irish-man, supports helping the Blacks in Africa, his main goal for the last 30 years has been to help the Blacks in Africa. And Bono wants peace in Ireland with England. Bono wants to help the Blacks in Africa, and he wants peace in Ireland.

And Battle Mountain, Nevada, only has 5,000 people, there is a lot of room for new people in Battle Mountain, Nevada. And we have La Junta, Colorado, etc, with few people and with lots of room for growth.

We also need Teachers for Arkansas, and Kentucky, and Tennessee, etc.

And Spain and France and the Philippines are important allies, and Italy, etc. And Latin America is on our team, they are all Christians. We need to help the poor, and educate the masses, and support new farms, etc. And we need to train new Preachers, and Priests, etc. And I support having the 10 Commandments on the walls of the classrooms in Louisiana, etc.

Also, we need to welcome the new immigrants from Hong Kong, and China, and Taiwan, etc, and they are welcome to have free citizenship in El Salvador, and they can come be teachers in Arkansas and in Kentucky and Tennessee, etc.

And I support Biden and Harris on the plan of giving a free education to all Americans.

Kiwanis International is global, and is a great organization, along with the Catholic Church, and UNICEF, and others, when it comes to helping refugees, and there is also the Knights of Columbus, etc.

Right now we need to stop Putin, and send Putin to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and put in a new government in Russia who we can support. Zelenskyy needs to come to the Russian Tea Room in New York City to get help, and we need to install a government in Russia who we can support, we need for our allies to run Russia.

And Mississippi has cheap land.

So far as Israel, we need for them to remove the bad guys without harming the innocent people and without creating millions of homeless refugees, we need to send the children and the refugees to Victoria, British Columbia, to the Kiwanis Village, and we need to have peace. And we need to support the Christians in Lebanon, and in Egypt, etc, they need successful farms, and they can make cheese, and they can fish and can the fish, etc, and they can grow cotton, etc.

Meanwhile we have 1 Million refugees from Iran who are now in Los Angeles, and France has millions of Persians from Iran, and Queen Farah Pahlavi lives in France, and Mahlagha Jaberi lives in California. We need for wise and peaceful people to rise to the top to control Iran, and we need peace, and we can remove the sanctions and we can allow Iran to prosper from the oil money, etc. We need for Christians to rise in Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, Turkey, etc, China, etc, and we can have Christian preachers on their televisions and on their radios, etc.

And we need for the Philippines, and for Latin America, and others, to support the French Foreign Legion, and we can send them American weapons.

Blessed are the Peacemakers.

And the Colombians are welcome in New Orleans, Louisiana, and we can expand trade with Colombia.

Salute,

Tony V.

[FlyingVProd]

Kentucky has a lot of new immigrants...

https://iljnetwork.org/a-new-kentucky-home/

The Latin Americans, the Asians from Hong Kong and from China and from Taiwan, and from the Philippines, and now people from Ukraine and Russia, are all coming to Kentucky.

We need to build schools, and libraries, etc, in Kentucky, and we need to educate the population for the jobs of the future.

And new film and television studios are being built in Kentucky, etc.

We can fund the charity work with Gambling, etc, and the Knights of Columbus can have Bingo for charity, etc, and there can be farms for the homeless, etc, where they can grow food and make cheese, etc.

And we need to hook the refugees up with the Labor Unions such as the United Farm Workers, and the Teamsters, etc, along with job training, etc, and we need to have English classes for the immigrants, etc.

Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, etc, all need Teachers, and schools, and libraries, etc.

Salute,

Tony V.

[Hairy Lime]

I am fighting for the poor and the vets
by fighting mass immigration. Bringing in people to take your jobs and homes is not beneficial to you.

No you are not.

You are just expressing your fear of an America that is browning. These migrants are not taking anything from anyone.

As with the mass immigration of the 19th and 20th Centuries helped spur the advancement of the USA so to will this influx of migrants who come seeking the opportunity to be productive members of society.

America is getting old, would it not be cool to have an influx of young, eager and optimistic people working hard and contributing to Social Security and Medicare thus keeping those systems flush for the present and near future recipients?

That was then, 2024 is now, the country is full...isn't it?   because it sure looks full...roads are carparks, subways are full to overflowing...with National Guard and cops patrolling...etc.

Depends on just who the "influx of young, eager and optimistic people working hard etc" immigrants, would be...and whether or not they'd be working in jobs they'd taken from Americans who were happily working in them...thereby tossing the Americans onto the unemployment heap and homelessness.
No job, no income, it's no money in the wallet or bank account for 'you', and off to live on the street 'you' go.

"Can America [still] be America, but with different people?"    ...question in an "Ireland just wants to be Irish" video, or one of them.

Idiot. Get the fuck off YouTube.

Your last question has been asked about every wave of immigrants for about 250 years and the answer has always been yes.

[Yankguy1]

And for the record, this country isn't even close to "full".

[Oilcandide]

Meanwhile, the candidate who actually cares about the working class takes action to ensure the safety of workers in extreme heat...

https://apnews.com/article/biden-heatwave-climate-change-deaths-workplace-osha-b70273c6b266a8e3785da1f52c4d1a79

[Oilcandide]

A look at Roberts opinion yesterday...

https://www.vox.com/scotus/358292/supreme-court-trump-immunity-dictatorship

[jmmengel]

A look at Roberts opinion yesterday...

https://www.vox.com/scotus/358292/supreme-court-trump-immunity-dictatorship

A laughable look.

From National Review



 One of the presidents core powers (the commander in chief power) unquestionably authorizes him to have people killed. (The removal power does not.) And yes, in some circumstances, that power may apply to American citizens (Justices Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett discuss the case of President Barack Obama having Anwar al killed by drone strike) and on American soil (in 1863, Abraham Lincoln ordered in at least arguable accord with the laws of war of the day  that Confederate soldiers would be executed in one-to one reprisal for Confederate executions of black Union soldiers killed in violation of the laws of war).

It is nonetheless a power constrained by law before it is even carried out. Let us say that Joe Biden wishes to have Trump killed. First of all, it is unlikely that Biden has individual special ops teams on speed dial. Even when the commander in chief must act with great alacrity, there is a chain of command. Even a president bent on going around the defense secretary would at some point need to engage a general officer, then go through him or her to get the SEALs involved. We ar now talking about a much larger conspiracy. All of these people have sworn independent oaths to the Constitution and are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey only lawful orders. All of them know that they could and would be prosecuted for an unlawful killing, even if the president would not be. Special operators work at the outer limits of what the law allows in terms of killing, capturing, and invading  but precisely because of that, they are deeply sensitive to ensuring that they know what the mission and the legal rules of engagement are. They have their own legal advisers (recall that Ron DeSantis, when he was in Iraq with the Navy, was detailed fulltime as a legal adviser to a SEAL team). A flagrantly unlawful assassination of a prominent American politician would face formidable practical hurdles in getting carried out by these people.

But what if it did? What if the president had a hard core of devoted followers in the military who believed that he needed to kill someone to prevent an election from being stolen, democracy being ended, and Jim Crow 2.0 reinstated? Or what if the president and a few well placed White House aides succeeded in picking a target and then deceiving a drone operator or a SEAL team as to the identity of the target? And what if this was accomplished with sufficient speed and/or secrecy that none of the other available constitutional checks could be brought to bear?

There would be no shortage of potential consequences. The president could be impeached and removed from office, unless you really think senators of his party would face no public consequence for acquitting him in such an extreme case. Everybody else involved could face life in prison and/or capital punishment. The president s party would face ruination at the polls. A vindictive Congress could abolish whole military units and end scores of careers of officers even tenuously related to the plot. If he tried to wall himself off with pardons, the president could be stripped of Secret Service protection and left to the mercies of the mob. And if the president actively misled the military not as to some details but as to whom they were killing, because the president was operating domestically without the slightest fig leaf of military justification, the Court s framing of the immunity inquiry would likely leave a lot of running room for a prosecution.

True, we judge a legal rule by what it permits to be done. But every legal rule that allocates power has some reductio ad absurdum at which it ends badly if all the checks and balances and safeguards and incentives and even the people themselves break down. The fact that it requires such an improbable chain of horribles to come up with a way in which this could be accomplished is a pretty clear sign that we are. dealing with the rarest of the rare cases, far beyond anything even Trump has conjured into existence.

The Framers, cautious as they were, would have told us that if we reached that place and it was let go by the entire political system and the people, our republic was already lost.

[Hairy Lime]

Yeah, the National Review article is laughable.

[Hairy Lime]

Just why did Nixon resign, anyway? And better yet, why did Ford pardon him?

[LarryB!]

A look at Roberts opinion yesterday...

https://www.vox.com/scotus/358292/supreme-court-trump-immunity-dictatorship

A laughable look.

From National Review



 One of the presidents core powers (the commander in chief power) unquestionably authorizes him to have people killed. (The removal power does not.) And yes, in some circumstances, that power may apply to American citizens (Justices Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett discuss the case of President Barack Obama having Anwar al killed by drone strike) and on American soil (in 1863, Abraham Lincoln ordered in at least arguable accord with the laws of war of the day  that Confederate soldiers would be executed in one-to one reprisal for Confederate executions of black Union soldiers killed in violation of the laws of war).

It is nonetheless a power constrained by law before it is even carried out. Let us say that Joe Biden wishes to have Trump killed. First of all, it is unlikely that Biden has individual special ops teams on speed dial. Even when the commander in chief must act with great alacrity, there is a chain of command. Even a president bent on going around the defense secretary would at some point need to engage a general officer, then go through him or her to get the SEALs involved. We ar now talking about a much larger conspiracy. All of these people have sworn independent oaths to the Constitution and are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey only lawful orders. All of them know that they could and would be prosecuted for an unlawful killing, even if the president would not be. Special operators work at the outer limits of what the law allows in terms of killing, capturing, and invading  but precisely because of that, they are deeply sensitive to ensuring that they know what the mission and the legal rules of engagement are. They have their own legal advisers (recall that Ron DeSantis, when he was in Iraq with the Navy, was detailed fulltime as a legal adviser to a SEAL team). A flagrantly unlawful assassination of a prominent American politician would face formidable practical hurdles in getting carried out by these people.

But what if it did? What if the president had a hard core of devoted followers in the military who believed that he needed to kill someone to prevent an election from being stolen, democracy being ended, and Jim Crow 2.0 reinstated? Or what if the president and a few well placed White House aides succeeded in picking a target and then deceiving a drone operator or a SEAL team as to the identity of the target? And what if this was accomplished with sufficient speed and/or secrecy that none of the other available constitutional checks could be brought to bear?

There would be no shortage of potential consequences. The president could be impeached and removed from office, unless you really think senators of his party would face no public consequence for acquitting him in such an extreme case. Everybody else involved could face life in prison and/or capital punishment. The president s party would face ruination at the polls. A vindictive Congress could abolish whole military units and end scores of careers of officers even tenuously related to the plot. If he tried to wall himself off with pardons, the president could be stripped of Secret Service protection and left to the mercies of the mob. And if the president actively misled the military not as to some details but as to whom they were killing, because the president was operating domestically without the slightest fig leaf of military justification, the Court s framing of the immunity inquiry would likely leave a lot of running room for a prosecution.

True, we judge a legal rule by what it permits to be done. But every legal rule that allocates power has some reductio ad absurdum at which it ends badly if all the checks and balances and safeguards and incentives and even the people themselves break down. The fact that it requires such an improbable chain of horribles to come up with a way in which this could be accomplished is a pretty clear sign that we are. dealing with the rarest of the rare cases, far beyond anything even Trump has conjured into existence.

The Framers, cautious as they were, would have told us that if we reached that place and it was let go by the entire political system and the people, our republic was already lost.

The president could be impeached and removed from office, unless you really think senators of his party would face no public consequence for acquitting him in such an extreme case.


HAHAHAHAHAHA!   Oh ah HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Get the fuck outta here with that BULLSHIT from the National Review.

There is no doubt, President Trump was practically and morally responsible. Said Mitch McConnell after leading the Republican Party in the effort to ACQUIT! Donald J. Trump for inciting the insurrection on January 6, 2021 that sought to OVERTHROW the government of the United States of America by force! What the fuck is more egregious than that?

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4946114/minority-leader-mcconnell-president-trump-practically-morally-responsible-january-6-attack-capitol

[LarryB!]

Yeah, the National Review article is laughable.

Quite!

[Hairy Lime]

Yeah, the National Review article is laughable.

Quite!

As you noted, one huge issue with the NR anal ysis is the idea that the President's party will have the political will to take action. The Repos as presently constituted do not, and I have my doubts about Democrats. And it also stupidly assumes that the assassination order would be the ONLY order of its kind, and a President like Trump would not include arrests of legislators, pardons and military tribunals in his arsenal. All of which Trump has indicated he will use in a second term.