2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: omnigun on July 20, 2021, 09:55:19 PM
-
Looks like another potentially disgraced trump "insider". :geekdanc: We will see what the courts say.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-07-20/tom-barrack-trump-inaugural-committee-arrested-uae
-
Looks like another potentially disgraced trump "insider". :geekdanc: We will see what the courts say.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-07-20/tom-barrack-trump-inaugural-committee-arrested-uae
charged for the same thing the Podesta brothers did and nothing happened. Also the Biden admin is handing out Ethics Exemptions for exactly this to people he is trying to appoint in his administration.
wow you are dumb.
-
brass instrument?
-
charged for the same thing the Podesta brothers did and nothing happened. Also the Biden admin is handing out Ethics Exemptions for exactly this to people he is trying to appoint in his administration.
wow you are dumb.
Assuming the biden info is true, does that make it ok?
-
Given that almost nobody ever heard of this man before, as well as doesn't care, why is this even a story, much less something that gives you such glee?
His "crimes" have nothing to do with anything now, and at the time did not rise to the level of corruption that Joe Biden was involved in in Ukraine with his son.
(https://i.imgur.com/KyaXx8G.png)
-
Not registering as a foreign agent due to lobbying activities was intended to prevent FOREIGN AGENTS from lobbying in the US without first notifying the DOJ. It's now being used as a way to go after political rivals who had any communication with foreign nations and advocated for policies that might benefit said nations.
Being a US citizen should preclude the need to register as a foreign agent. The concept on its face makes little sense.
Funny how FBI Director Comey admitted to Congress under oath that Hildabeast broke many laws and lied about them, yet she was confirmed as Secretary of State so she could raise million for her foundation from foreign donors. I'd be more worried about someone like that, but the DOJ appears to have blinders on when certain families are involved.
-
but the DOJ appears to have blinders on when certain families are involved.
And the fake news.
-
It is fun watching them still try to go after Trump as their support crumbles. I used to be angry about it, but the writing on the wall is clear. As the Irish would say, the Deep State is fooked.
-
It is fun watching them still try to go after Trump as their support crumbles. I used to be angry about it, but the writing on the wall is clear. As the Irish would say, the Deep State is fooked.
Unlimited resources and they still have nothing to get a conviction. Most vetted politician in history.
-
Didn't he campaign on getting rid of the swamp not swimming in it?
-
Didn't he campaign on getting rid of the swamp not swimming in it?
Why do you even care what he said?
You hate Trump. It's no secret. Why are you even talking about him?
How many people here are obsessed wit Obama the way you are with Trump?
Get over it! Maybe enough booze will kill the braincells infected with TDS, but don't go overboard. You don't have that many you can afford to lose!
-
Why do you even care what he said?
You hate Trump. It's no secret. Why are you even talking about him?
How many people here are obsessed wit Obama the way you are with Trump?
Get over it! Maybe enough booze will kill the braincells infected with TDS, but don't go overboard. You don't have that many you can afford to lose!
Many people. How many people here are obsessed about Biden?
-
In this new age, this is called "social media influencer".
-
Many people. How many people here are obsessed about Biden?
Swoooooosshhhhh
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP._ZSFnN9O4hBRlazWXVn6OgHaEU%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
-
Many people. How many people here are obsessed about Biden?
I'll bite :wacko:
I have a broader brush, I despise Democrat party members and dislike all RINO's.
I don't trust republicans and anybody employed by any government.
I'm not an anarchist.
I'm an American. :shaka:
-
I'll bite :wacko:
I have a broader brush, I despise Democrat party members and dislike all RINO's.
I don't trust republicans and anybody employed by any government.
I'm not an anarchist.
I'm an American. :shaka:
Americans have patriotism, love of country. If you hate the government isn't that opposite?
-
Americans have patriotism, love of country. If you hate the government isn't that opposite?
swoooossshhhh
-
Americans have patriotism, love of country. If you hate the government isn't that opposite?
[/quote
I generally try to stay out of the OG bashing as you seem to thrive on it.
But you aren't too bright are you?
:closed:
-
Trumpet looks fine to me
(https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-VR806_DIZZYj_M_20171019162832.jpg)
-
Americans have patriotism, love of country. If you hate the government isn't that opposite?
[/quote
I generally try to stay out of the OG bashing as you seem to thrive on it.
But you aren't too bright are you?
:closed:
Hence the swooossshhhhh and oxymorons he post.
He voted for Jorg/libertarian because they represent less government control, yet openly states he trust the government.
-
Americans have patriotism, love of country. If you hate the government isn't that opposite?
This is the underlying problem in the majority of your posts and beliefs.
There is a VAST difference between a nation and its government.
In most nations, the people don't like their government. But, they love their country.
You're one of the few people I've ever seen who loves the government, but seems to hate almost half the country's people -- those who voted for Trump.
Stop confusing the people in charge with "The United States". The country existed long before they were born, and it'll remain long after they are gone.
-
Americans have patriotism, love of country. If you hate the government isn't that opposite?
as always, making assumptions without basis
goalposts still moving...
-
Hence the swooossshhhhh and oxymorons he post.
He voted for Jorg/libertarian because they represent less government control, yet openly states he trust the government.
#youcantrustthegovernment
Thats not the only reason why I voted for Jorg, nor the main reason. You can trust the government that isnt bloated....
-
This is the underlying problem in the majority of your posts and beliefs.
There is a VAST difference between a nation and its government.
In most nations, the people don't like their government. But, they love their country.
You're one of the few people I've ever seen who loves the government, but seems to hate almost half the country's people -- those who voted for Trump.
Stop confusing the people in charge with "The United States". The country existed long before they were born, and it'll remain long after they are gone.
Governments are made up by the people and they work for the people. They are the nation. A nation without government is anarchy.
-
Governments are made up by the people and they work for the people. They are the nation. A nation without government is anarchy.
(https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Featured-Image-Ralph-Wiggum.jpg)
-
Governments are made up by the people and they work for the people. They are the nation. A nation without government is anarchy.
You've been indoctrinated to believe the government is the answer to every problem.
"The people" who get elected are shills for big money corporations and billionaire aristocracy. Why else do you see someone like Hillary running unopposed (Bernie didn't count)? She was not liked by the people, but the Democrat machine made her the defacto nominee before she even announced. Then she lost to Trump.
The people elected Trump, and yet you hate Trump. I guess you should have your TDS treated lest you be tagged as someone who hated his country for four years.
It's a fact: the government does what it wants, often to the detriment of the nation and its people. The elitist, ruling class of politicians are narcissists and egocentric individuals who often spend decades in government yet do nothing to make life better for "the people" who keep them there.
So blind.
-
You've been indoctrinated to believe the government is the answer to every problem.
"The people" who get elected are shills for big money corporations and billionaire aristocracy. Why else do you see someone like Hillary running unopposed (Bernie didn't count)? She was not liked by the people, but the Democrat machine made her the defacto nominee before she even announced. Then she lost to Trump.
The people elected Trump, and yet you hate Trump. I guess you should have your TDS treated lest you be tagged as someone who hated his country for four years.
It's a fact: the government does what it wants, often to the detriment of the nation and its people. The elitist, ruling class of politicians are narcissists and egocentric individuals who often spend decades in government yet do nothing to make life better for "the people" who keep them there.
So blind.
One person doesn't make a country bro. Hatred Trump but still liked America. Don't like Biden now but I'm still a patriot.
-
Still not English.
-
Another reason for a refund.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
One person doesn't make a country bro. Hatred Trump but still liked America. Don't like Biden now but I'm still a patriot.
You're starting to post the right words, just not the way that you should be.
THE GOVERNMENT doesn't make a country. You can HATE the government and still love/like America.
Read that over and over, and try to comprehend it.
Maybe the concept exists in your brain but needs to be better articulated. Trump was the head of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not the country. We exist as a collection of states, a district and territories.
I assume you believe you also love the government of Hawaii as opposed to Hawaii as a state/place to live?
-
Americans have patriotism, love of country. If you hate the government isn't that opposite?
Americans! Highly paid football players! USA! Patriots! Living the dream!
(https://usaherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/NFL-Kneeling.jpg)
They are oppressed!
https://www.realtor.com/news/celebrity-real-estate/san-francisco-49ers-real-estate/ (https://www.realtor.com/news/celebrity-real-estate/san-francisco-49ers-real-estate/)
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fthedailywant.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F03%2F16-kaep.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
-
Is it possible to criticize the government and be patriotic?
YES: 92%
NO: 8%
https://www.debate.org/opinions/is-it-possible-to-criticize-the-government-and-be-patriotic?_escaped_fragment_=&_escaped_fragment_=
#Consensus
-
Is it possible to criticize the government and be patriotic?
YES: 92%
NO: 8%
https://www.debate.org/opinions/is-it-possible-to-criticize-the-government-and-be-patriotic?_escaped_fragment_=&_escaped_fragment_=
#Consensus
There is some pretty weird comments in that survey.
but my system is easy;
#1 God.
#2 Family.
#3 Country.
Everything else is variable depending on the nature of the terrain.
:shaka:
-
There is some pretty weird comments in that survey.
but my system is easy;
#1 God.
#2 Family.
#3 Country.
Everything else is variable depending on the nature of the terrain.
:shaka:
Yeah, the "No" comments made little sense. I think most people understand that the GOVERNMENT is separate from AMERICA.
-
Yeah, the "No" comments made little sense. I think most people understand that the GOVERNMENT is separate from AMERICA.
Without the government there would be no AMERICA.
-
Is it possible to criticize the government and be patriotic?
YES: 92%
NO: 8%
https://www.debate.org/opinions/is-it-possible-to-criticize-the-government-and-be-patriotic?_escaped_fragment_=&_escaped_fragment_=
#Consensus
Criticize is much different than hate and want to fight.
-
Without the government there would be no AMERICA.
Doesnt understand history101
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Criticize is much different than hate and want to fight.
Show me where anyone here said they "hate and want to fight" the government.
FYI -- the Second Amendment exists so the people CAN fight the government. There must be a reason that right exists and is protected.
Based on your comment, I guess you believe the Americans fighting the British for independence were traitors, not patriots.
-
C'mon guys. Governments never did anything wrong.
-
C'mon guys. Governments never did anything wrong.
#Sarcasm
-
Unlimited resources and they still have nothing to get a conviction. Most vetted politician in history.
Still not proven in court…
-
as always, making assumptions without basis
goalposts still moving...
Feelings = basis
-
Still not English.
He speaking bubbles like his buddy Biden
-
Doesnt understand history101
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Wasn’t even worth a swoosh on that one. Need more like a Cat 5 hurricane. Wtf?
-
Without the government there would be no AMERICA.
Declaration of independence -- Signed July 4, 1776. Beginning of a new nation no longer under British rule as a colony.
US Constitution -- Effective March 4, 1789. This founding document, originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of government.
I guess between 1776 and 1789, "America" didn't exist?
-
Declaration of independence -- Signed July 4, 1776. Beginning of a new nation no longer under British rule as a colony.
US Constitution -- Effective March 4, 1789. This founding document, originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of government.
I guess between 1776 and 1789, "America" didn't exist?
Yup. :shaka:
-
Yup. :shaka:
Wrong.
America existed long before the United States government. Germans colonized Pennsylvania in the early 1700s. French colonized Louisiana and Florida. English landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620.
American colonies, also called thirteen colonies or colonial America, the 13 British colonies that were
established during the 17th and early 18th centuries in what is now a part of the eastern United States.
The colonies grew both geographically along the Atlantic coast and westward and numerically to 13
from the time of their founding to the American Revolution (1775–81). Their settlements had spread far
beyond the Appalachians and extended from Maine in the north to the Altamaha River in Georgia when
the Revolution began, and there were at that time about 2.5 million American colonists.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/American-colonies
Waiting for you to move the goal posts from "America" to "United States of America."
America existed long before the United States government was officially created.
-
Wrong.
America existed long before the United States government. Germans colonized Pennsylvania in the early 1700s. French colonized Louisiana and Florida. English landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/American-colonies
Waiting for you to move the goal posts from "America" to "United States of America."
America existed long before the United States government was officially created.
Nope "America" as a country can never exist without the government and constitution. Maybe a government like entity existed before that but it was not the country of "America".
-
Someone doesn't know who Amerigo Vespucci is.
~*~~ * hurriedly Googles * ~~~*~
You really trying to change the definition of the word country? Why do you keep using the wrong words and instead of learning the right ones?
-
Nope "America" as a country can never exist without the government and constitution. Maybe a government like entity existed before that but it was not the country of "America".
Nope. America existed long before the United States. The GOVERNMENT you keep trying to pretend only began in 1787 wasn't the beginning of the country. The American territories were under the rule of other countries, as I already mentioned.
So, the colonies DID have a government, just not the US government. But "America" existed then. Period.
-
Someone doesn't know who Amerigo Vespucci is.
~*~~ * hurriedly Googles * ~~~*~
You really trying to change the definition of the word country? Why do you keep using the wrong words and instead of learning the right ones?
He thinks/believes that a nation is defined by its government.
When I went to school, nation was defined as a people having common language, customs and sometimes borders. The Jewish nation is a great example. So is the Cheokee Nation. Groups of people having the same beginnings and sharing common language and customs. No "government" existed for nations.
The geo-political location of a nation was called a nation-state. In the US, we broke with that model and essentially created a nation of nation-states, each with the independence to do pretty much anything their citizens wanted. The role of the federal government was limited to things like a standing Army and Navy, and negotiations and treaties with foreign countries.
A rose by any other name ....
-
Nope. America existed long before the United States. The GOVERNMENT you keep trying to pretend only began in 1787 wasn't the beginning of the country. The American territories were under the rule of other countries, as I already mentioned.
So, the colonies DID have a government, just not the US government. But "America" existed then. Period.
US government is "america". We already know when I say America I mean the United States of America. The USA didn't exist till the constitution.
Don't really care what governments came before it. But it wasn't the USA.
-
US government is "america". We already know when I say America I mean the United States of America. The USA didn't exist till the constitution.
Don't really care what governments came before it. But it wasn't the USA.
Wrong.
America existed long before the United States government. Germans colonized Pennsylvania in the early 1700s. French colonized Louisiana and Florida. English landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/American-colonies
Waiting for you to move the goal posts from "America" to "United States of America."
America existed long before the United States government was officially created.
#GoalPostMovementPredicted
-
#GoalPostMovementPredicted
We only been talking about the USA. Goalpost never moved you just never figured it out. Whole convo started about a Constitution. Only one America ever had that....
-
He thinks/believes that a nation is defined by its government.
He thinks / believes that similar words all share the same definition, he does this all the time. Conflating, confusing or misusing words over and over again, this isn't Eskimos with 200 words for snow, the reason for a vocabulary is because terms have a designated nuance(s) attached to them. He doesn't seem to understand that which is why I brought the possibility he might have a mild form of autism.
It's OK if you have the 'Tism bro, just say so and we can work with you.
-
We only been talking about the USA. Goalpost never moved you just never figured it out. Whole convo started about a Constitution. Only one America ever had that....
"WE?" You got a gecko in your pocket?
I've been trying to educate you that "America" and "The United States of America" existed at different times, and therefore can't be one in the same.
Your statements prove you don't get it.
-
"WE?" You got a gecko in your pocket?
I've been trying to educate you that "America" and "The United States of America" existed at different times, and therefore can't be one in the same.
Your statements prove you don't get it.
America IS the USA. There was never a country called "America". America is short for UNITED STATE OF AMERICA. :crazy:
Countries need rules, a government, and many other requirements.
-
I called it, he doesn't know who Amerigo Vespucci is...
-
I called it, he doesn't know who Amerigo Vespucci is...
According to OG, American Indians (Native Americans) didn't exist until the Constitution was ratified.
Without government, nothing exists (including individual rights).
-
According to OG, American Indians (Native Americans) didn't exist until the Constitution was ratified.
Without government, nothing exists (including individual rights).
They were not Americans. We defeated them in wars and they eventually became Americans. Rights are defined by government.
-
They were not Americans. We defeated them in wars and they eventually became Americans. Rights are defined by government.
I just have to jump in this one.
"Rights are defined by government."
Wrong!
Rights are defined by God
and are inalienable.
:worship:
-
I just have to jump in this one.
"Rights are defined by government."
Wrong!
Rights are defined by God
and are inalienable.
:worship:
nope, omni deems it so, so he is NOT wrong...
-
I just have to jump in this one.
"Rights are defined by government."
Wrong!
Rights are defined by God
and are inalienable.
:worship:
I wasn't going to respond, because he's gone down this stupid road before.
Obviously he learns nothing if it opposes his own beliefs.
Can't teach a pig how to sing. Can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
He spends too much time on Liberal/Leftist/Progressive/Socialist forums and websites getting this BS drilled into him and validated. Then he comes here to "set us all straight".
You can't build a solid house on a weak foundation. He doesn't get the basics of where freedom comes from, so everything else he argues about stems from that skewed line of thinking.
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
-
Isnt the bill of rights designed to tell the gov what they cannot do? And not what they allow u which rights to have?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I just have to jump in this one.
"Rights are defined by government."
Wrong!
Rights are defined by God
and are inalienable.
:worship:
Lol. Can't prove it. Which God? What if there is no God, do we have no rights?
-
Now its clear that you are here to troll. Just stop. Whether you believe in God or not that is your own personal belief. Don't attack other people's faith. Grow up and just stop this behavior. Enough already. You are beyond being the point of just being disliked.
-
Now its clear that you are here to troll. Just stop. Whether you believe in God or not that is your own personal belief. Don't attack other people's faith.
He's trying to say rights come from a God. And impose those beliefs on others and me. I will challenge him.
-
He's trying to say rights come from a God. And impose those beliefs on others and me. I will challenge him.
i don't think you understand the word "impose"...
-
Lol. Can't prove it. Which God? What if there is no God, do we have no rights?
Most people can read plain English.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
Whether you believe in God as your creator, nature, or whatever else, it doesn't matter. "Unalienable" is what matters.
Definition of unalienable
: impossible to take away or give up : INALIENABLE
Your rights exist even in the absence of government. If you were marooned on an island in the middle of the Pacific under no country's jurisdiction, your right to self defense (i.e. life) still exists. Your right to not be enslaved or oppressed (i.e. Liberty) still exists.
We've taught you this in the past, but here you are still arguing basics fundamental principles upon which the US was created.
-
Lol. Can't prove it. Which God? What if there is no God, do we have no rights?
If I told you I have a new EV for you -- a top of the line Tesla -- because God came to me in a dream and told me you need one -- would you turn it down on principle, since a god that doesn't exist can't tell me to give you a car?
I think your refusal to acknowledge the possible existence of God in any form is what keeps you from having a rational idea in your head concerning rights. You don't have to believe in God to believe in individual rights and liberty any more than you have to believe that a tree falling the woods makes a sound if no one hears it. Or that gravity exists even though no one can see, touch, taste or hear it.
Regardless of how anyone describes these ideals, they are all saying the same thing. These rights exist for everyone no matter what government says. If gov't controls the press and only gives out government-approved propaganda, they are VIOLATING your right to free speech. They are not taking that right away, but rather infringing on it.
It might be a distinction without a difference in your mind, but when people have had enough and fight for their rights, they aren'y fighting for something that doesn't exist. They are fighting against suppression of their god-given rights.
-
Whether you believe in God as your creator, nature, or whatever else, it doesn't matter. "Unalienable" is what matters.
Definition of unalienable
: impossible to take away or give up : INALIENABLE
Your rights exist even in the absence of government. If you were marooned on an island in the middle of the Pacific under no country's jurisdiction, your right to self defense (i.e. life) still exists. Your right to not be enslaved or oppressed (i.e. Liberty) still exists.
So if someone can take away your right not to be a slave (Liberty) or defend yourself (life) it’s not an inalienable right ?
Impossible to take away or give up….by your definition.
Try thinking and not googling for once.
At that point what good is your “inalienable” right (which was taken away, so not inalienable)?
That’s why we have the Constitution which was created by Government.
And it gave us the Right to make sure the Governement doesn’t take away those Rights. (Theoretically)
‘MERICA !
-
So if someone can take away your right not to be a slave (Liberty) or defend yourself (life) it’s not an inalienable right ?
Impossible to take away or give up….by your definition.
Try thinking and not googling for once.
At that point what good is your “inalienable” right (which was taken away, so not inalienable)?
That’s why we have the Constitution which was created by Government.
And it gave us the Right to make sure the Governement doesn’t take away those Rights. (Theoretically)
‘MERICA !
The RIGHT is not taken away. It's INFRINGED UPON.
If I put a blindfold on you, did I take away your sight? Or did I just stop you from using your sight?
Ever hear of the Second Amendment? It protects the people's right to defend themselves from government oppression.
The Constitution's Bill of Rights says more about what gov't can not do than how we can exercise our rights.
You need to stop having sex with OG. The effects may not be reversible.
-
He's trying to say rights come from a God. And impose those beliefs on others and me. I will challenge him.
This has already been explained to you. Whether you are uncomfortable or not with the word god is irrelevant. The point is that these rights come from something beyond man. We are born with it. Now I am not religious yet I can understand the wisdom of our ancestors to say our rights come from “god”. If they come from something beyond man like “god” it is not within the domain of man to take those rights away.
Stop playing stupid and stop being dishonest by using religion as your way to strawman your way through discussion. I rarely see religion being brought up as a way to justify any type of policy yet you like to bring it up as though religious fanatics are littered throughout this site.
-
Since dummy is dumb, and vehemently anti-religious and doesn't know diddly or squat about the founding of the country or the people who did it. It might be worth pointing out the Founding Father were NOT religious conservatives, they were thinkers who studied the philosophies of the age of Enlightenment.
When referencing God they qualified it as Nature's God. Washington attended church but didn't participate in communion. He didn't think much of ritual or allegiance to faith.
Jefferson actually spent the time to rewrite the Bible and take out the things he felt were superstitious and nonsense. He didn't believe in Jesus being divine, didn't believe in the Ressurection, but did believe the guy had important life advice.
They understood that religion was most importantly about teaching morality and less about miracles and faith.
You don't have to believe Gautama Siddhartha was an immaculate conception from a White Elephant to believe the things the Buddha said about life are pretty valid observations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-god-of-the-founding-fathers-natures-god.html
-
This has already been explained to you. Whether you are uncomfortable or not with the word god is irrelevant. The point is that these rights come from something beyond man. We are born with it. Now I am not religious yet I can understand the wisdom of our ancestors to say our rights come from “god”. If they come from something beyond man like “god” it is not within the domain of man to take those rights away.
Stop playing stupid and stop being dishonest by using religion as your way to strawman your way through discussion. I rarely see religion being brought up as a way to justify any type of policy yet you like to bring it up as though religious fanatics are littered throughout this site.
The problem with that is every human has different ideas of rights and who should get what. That's why the government defines them. The people uphold them. And those rights are protected. Without it there is only chaos. The issue with associating a higher being in deciding rights is that there are many religions. All different, all deciding different rights. For example muslims have less rights for women.
-
This has already been explained to you. Whether you are uncomfortable or not with the word god is irrelevant. The point is that these rights come from something beyond man. We are born with it. Now I am not religious yet I can understand the wisdom of our ancestors to say our rights come from “god”. If they come from something beyond man like “god” it is not within the domain of man to take those rights away.
Stop playing stupid and stop being dishonest by using religion as your way to strawman your way through discussion. I rarely see religion being brought up as a way to justify any type of policy yet you like to bring it up as though religious fanatics are littered throughout this site.
AMEN!
(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-bible-1200x630.jpg)
-
The problem with that is every human has different ideas of rights and who should get what. That's why the government defines them. The people uphold them. And those rights are protected. Without it there is only chaos. The issue with associating a higher being in deciding rights is that there are many religions. All different, all deciding different rights. For example muslims have less rights for women.
You're lecturing on religion again?! You don't have the credentials, experience or smarts to lecture anyone about religion. That would be like Biden lecturing on respecting personal space.
There's a difference between government defining the parameters of rights versus deciding if the right exists.
Rights are not a "Religion" or "God" debate. It's an individual freedom versus government control debate. What's your opinion when gov't oppresses the people by taking away right to privacy, right to speak freely, right to due process, and right to keep and bear arms? Are you going to sit back, open another root beer, and say, "I'm good with that. I trust the government."??
-
You're lecturing on religion again?! You don't have the credentials, experience or smarts to lecture anyone about religion. That would be like Biden lecturing on respecting personal space.
There's a difference between government defining the parameters of rights versus deciding if the right exists.
Rights are not a "Religion" or "God" debate. It's an individual freedom versus government control debate. What's your opinion when gov't oppresses the people by taking away right to privacy, right to speak freely, right to due process, and right to keep and bear arms? Are you going to sit back, open another root beer, and say, "I'm good with that. I trust the government."??
Nope that's when you change the government. Either via political change, via voting etc. If that's not possible then through civil war similar to our forefathers. Or leaving for another country.
-
Nope that's when you change the government. Either via political change, via voting etc. If that's not possible then through civil war similar to our forefathers. Or leaving for another country.
What? I thought you trusted government, and that you had no rights other than what the government tells you? Are you saying you have rights even if the government tries to take them away?
Not all governments are "for the people, by the people." Even those that are supposed to be often make decisions that are not inline with that premise.
If the government takes over the election process, uses coercion to quash political speech, confiscates guns and takes over the press, it'll be too late to fight a civil war.
One of the first things Castro did after becoming the Cuban president was have everyone register their firearms. Shortly after, he confiscated all the guns. At that point, use of force was not a viable option to remove the dictator. All political means were also removed, as he took the country down the Socialist/Communist road. Elections did not include President on the ballot.
People opting to leave the country were shot or their boats sunk. Not everyone who tried to leave and brave the open ocean for the US made it. The US is pretty open when it comes to political refugees. Name another country that would let hundreds of thousands of political refugees from the US invade their country without a proper passport or visa.
It always sounds simple when you don't think about what you're saying/writing.
-
What? I thought you trusted government, and that you had no rights other than what the government tells you? Are you saying you have rights even if the government tries to take them away?
Not all governments are "for the people, by the people." Even those that are supposed to be often make decisions that are not inline with that premise.
If the government takes over the election process, uses coercion to quash political speech, confiscates guns and takes over the press, it'll be too late to fight a civil war.
One of the first things Castro did after becoming the Cuban president was have everyone register their firearms. Shortly after, he confiscated all the guns. At that point, use of force was not a viable option to remove the dictator. All political means were also removed, as he took the country down the Socialist/Communist road. Elections did not include President on the ballot.
People opting to leave the country were shot or their boats sunk. Not everyone who tried to leave and brave the open ocean for the US made it. The US is pretty open when it comes to political refugees. Name another country that would let hundreds of thousands of political refugees from the US invade their country without a proper passport or visa.
It always sounds simple when you don't think about what you're saying/writing.
He doesnt understand history101
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
He doesnt understand history101
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
he doesnt understand that Governments arent supposed to ignore their own FUNDAMENTAL rules (founding charters / constitutions), but somehow he is ok with Bush doing it for 4 years, Obama for 8, the deepstate doing it for another 4 of Trump and now Biden figures he can run hog wild at this point because no one is going to step up and stop him.
You arent supposed to have to wait 2-4 years to 'Vote them Out!' when they are blatantly breaking every rule of the land. They are supposed to be going to prison.
-
he doesnt understand that Governments arent supposed to ignore their own FUNDAMENTAL rules (founding charters / constitutions), but somehow he is ok with Bush doing it for 4 years, Obama for 8, the deepstate doing it for another 4 of Trump and now Biden figures he can run hog wild at this point because no one is going to step up and stop him.
You arent supposed to have to wait 2-4 years to 'Vote them Out!' when they are blatantly breaking every rule of the land. They are supposed to be going to prison.
"Balance of Power" between the 3 branches doesn't work when they are all part of the same political party & swamp.
-
A person’s “Rights” change from country to country.
I’m not thinking it’s due to the grace and will of God.
Governments maybe ?
Different Rights before and after Revolution ?
‘MERICA baby.
We put that sh!+ in writing and made it Law.
What? I thought you trusted government, and that you had no rights other than what the government tells you? Are you saying you have rights even if the government tries to take them away?
Not all governments are "for the people, by the people." Even those that are supposed to be often make decisions that are not inline with that premise.
If the government takes over the election process, uses coercion to quash political speech, confiscates guns and takes over the press, it'll be too late to fight a civil war.
One of the first things Castro did after becoming the Cuban president was have everyone register their firearms. Shortly after, he confiscated all the guns. At that point, use of force was not a viable option to remove the dictator. All political means were also removed, as he took the country down the Socialist/Communist road. Elections did not include President on the ballot.
People opting to leave the country were shot or their boats sunk. Not everyone who tried to leave and brave the open ocean for the US made it. The US is pretty open when it comes to political refugees. Name another country that would let hundreds of thousands of political refugees from the US invade their country without a proper passport or visa.
It always sounds simple when you don't think about what you're saying/writing.
So what inalienable Rights did the Cubans have ?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/decades-ago-fidel-castro-promised-193132078.html
What inalienable Rights did the Native Americans have ?
The United States Government grants us Rights many other Countries don’t have.
#Why4UserNames
-
What? I thought you trusted government, and that you had no rights other than what the government tells you? Are you saying you have rights even if the government tries to take them away?
Not all governments are "for the people, by the people." Even those that are supposed to be often make decisions that are not inline with that premise.
If the government takes over the election process, uses coercion to quash political speech, confiscates guns and takes over the press, it'll be too late to fight a civil war.
One of the first things Castro did after becoming the Cuban president was have everyone register their firearms. Shortly after, he confiscated all the guns. At that point, use of force was not a viable option to remove the dictator. All political means were also removed, as he took the country down the Socialist/Communist road. Elections did not include President on the ballot.
People opting to leave the country were shot or their boats sunk. Not everyone who tried to leave and brave the open ocean for the US made it. The US is pretty open when it comes to political refugees. Name another country that would let hundreds of thousands of political refugees from the US invade their country without a proper passport or visa.
It always sounds simple when you don't think about what you're saying/writing.
Everyone views rights differently. Government, attempts to form a concensus. And yes you wait 2-4 years to try and change that. The problem is some people here are a bit too self centered, myself included. We have to realize that a country is everyone's ideas and the concensus. You or I will never like everything, but you have to accept it. If enough people don't and the county is corrupt then you use arms to stop it. But just cause you don't like the current administration doesn't give you any rights to stop it other than the legal ones given to you.
There are no "default" rights only the ones you believe in and can get others to believe in. That's the magic of democracy. That's the magic of government.
-
We know omni believes in segregation. And all so the continuation of our nation can happen. Imagine in the 60's when whites/blacks were segregated and it was for similar reasoning. Now we look back at it as a bad thing. Then when the Jews were segregated in the name of the good of the nation (Germany). Again, we looked back at it as not a good thing. The Japs in the USA/territories as well. It wasn't right.
1 day people like Omni will look back at this entire situation and realize they were the problem. And could an educated society./country allow this to happen. But then again, maybe omni won't understand and still try to argue and move goalpost.
-
We know omni believes in segregation. And all so the continuation of our nation can happen. Imagine in the 60's when whites/blacks were segregated and it was for similar reasoning. Now we look back at it as a bad thing. Then when the Jews were segregated in the name of the good of the nation (Germany). Again, we looked back at it as not a good thing. The Japs in the USA/territories as well. It wasn't right.
1 day people like Omni will look back at this entire situation and realize they were the problem. And could an educated society./country allow this to happen. But then again, maybe omni won't understand and still try to argue and move goalpost.
What? When have I ever said that. #fakenews
I am pretty outspoken that people should only be judged upon their actions and beliefs. Not upon anything like race, sex, orientation, or non changeable/controllable things.
-
What? When have I ever said that. #fakenews
I am pretty outspoken that people should only be judged upon their actions and beliefs. Not upon anything like race, sex, orientation, or non changeable/controllable things.
Of course a swooosshhh.
Here's a hint, vaxxed vs. unvaxxed.
-
Of course a swooosshhh.
Here's a hint, vaxxed vs. unvaxxed.
You can judge people based on their choices...
-
You can judge people based on their choices...
Goal post moved to "judge people".
-
Goal post moved to "judge people".
You can "segregate" people based on their choices. People CHOOSE to be a criminal and society CHOOSES to segregate them from the general public.
-
You can "segregate" people based on their choices. People CHOOSE to be a criminal and society CHOOSES to segregate them from the general public.
Criminals are judged to be criminals based on the LAW and THEIR ACTIONS.
Show me where there is a LAW that mandates vaccinations.
Show me where people are CHOOSING to become infected intentionally.
Merely failing to take precautions is not an indication of intentional infection. Otherwise, lock up those TX Dems who flew without a mask (Super Spreader Airlines).
-
Show me where there is a LAW that mandates vaccinations.
Remember, he says he follows state law when it comes to covid interactions., when we were talking about him visiting a LGS. I asked for him to post the law more than once and didn't get a reply.
-
Remember, he says he follows state law when it comes to covid interactions., when we were talking about him visiting a LGS. I asked for him to post the law more than once and didn't get a reply.
I follow laws or rules. I did an entire post about that LGS....
-
Criminals are judged to be criminals based on the LAW and THEIR ACTIONS.
Show me where there is a LAW that mandates vaccinations.
Show me where people are CHOOSING to become infected intentionally.
Merely failing to take precautions is not an indication of intentional infection. Otherwise, lock up those TX Dems who flew without a mask (Super Spreader Airlines).
That was just one example. You "segregate" people based on rank/access in military and workplaces. You segregate people based on sex (bathrooms etc). Its not some evil word/action. There is no law yet....soon maybe. But you can have RULES for workplaces/private businesses etc.
-
I follow laws or rules. I did an entire post about that LGS....
Breaking "rules" do not equate to criminal conduct.
You said:
"People CHOOSE to be a criminal..."
Pesky goal posts. Can't seem to stay still.
-
That was just one example. You "segregate" people based on rank/access in military and workplaces. You segregate people based on sex (bathrooms etc). Its not some evil word/action. There is no law yet....soon maybe. But you can have RULES for workplaces/private businesses etc.
You know this because of your years of experience in/working with military organizations ... or just what you've seen in movies?
The military doesn't segregate. They discriminate ... usually based on physical fitness and mental aptitude. You do not have a civil right to join the military. There is separation of the ranks, just like civilian organizations: management (officers) vs. labor (hourly workers). Different perks for different levels of responsibilities.
There are unisex bathrooms. Vaccinations are invasive. Apples and oranges.
Your analogies suck out loud.
-
If Miley and Vindman don't have to follow the UCMJ why should boot soldiers?
-
I follow laws or rules. I did an entire post about that LGS....
And in your post you said law. So I'm waiting for the HRS that applies to covid that you follow.
-
If Miley and Vindman don't have to follow the UCMJ why should boot soldiers?
*Milley
When you get above the rank of O-4, it's all politics.
-
You know this because of your years of experience in/working with military organizations ... or just what you've seen in movies?
The military doesn't segregate. They discriminate ... usually based on physical fitness and mental aptitude. You do not have a civil right to join the military. There is separation of the ranks, just like civilian organizations: management (officers) vs. labor (hourly workers). Different perks for different levels of responsibilities.
There are unisex bathrooms. Vaccinations are invasive. Apples and oranges.
Your analogies suck out loud.
Military also removes rights. Such as the 1A. You're not allowed to criticize the CIC (POTUS) when in uniform (IDK about out of uniform). They all sign a contract giving up their rights prior to entering service.
-
Military also removes rights. Such as the 1A. You're not allowed to criticize the CIC (POTUS) when in uniform (IDK about out of uniform). They all sign a contract giving up their rights prior to entering service.
Not really. You still have those rights. You just have consequences if you choose to exercise them without permission or in a way that's against regs or paints the service in a negative way.
I never signed anything that said I no longer have any specific Constitutional rights. But, you are signing a contract, and you take an oath that you will obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over you. If they order you to not talk to the press, you agreed to follow that order over and above any rights or privileges you had as a civilian. Same thing happens in businesses. If you violate a Non-Disclosure agreement you signed or bad-mouth the company's leadership in public, you can be terminated. Depending on what you divulge in that statement, you might also face civil and criminal legal problems, too.
The only real rights you waive are the ability to choose where to live, what specific job you will perform, and negotiating how much your skills and work performed are worth. But, even so, you can request where to be stationed, position yourself for a specific job by volunteering for ones that prepare you, and do what you can to be promoted on time or early as well as apply for jobs that include salary supplements or hazardous duty pay, which equates to higher income.
-
And in your post you said law. So I'm waiting for the HRS that applies to covid that you follow.
The emergency governor orders, I consider that law.
-
*Milley
When you get above the rank of O-4, it's all politics.
Point is if they can violate their oaths and ignore chain of command why should the military think boot soldiers won't want to do the same.
-
Not really. You still have those rights. You just have consequences if you choose to exercise them without permission or in a way that's against regs or paints the service in a negative way.
I never signed anything that said I no longer have any specific Constitutional rights. But, you are signing a contract, and you take an oath that you will obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over you. If they order you to not talk to the press, you agreed to follow that order over and above any rights or privileges you had as a civilian. Same thing happens in businesses. If you violate a Non-Disclosure agreement you signed or bad-mouth the company's leadership in public, you can be terminated. Depending on what you divulge in that statement, you might also face civil and criminal legal problems, too.
The only real rights you waive are the ability to choose where to live, what specific job you will perform, and negotiating how much your skills and work performed are worth. But, even so, you can request where to be stationed, position yourself for a specific job by volunteering for ones that prepare you, and do what you can to be promoted on time or early as well as apply for jobs that include salary supplements or hazardous duty pay, which equates to higher income.
Protesting in uniform?
-
Breaking "rules" do not equate to criminal conduct.
You said:
"People CHOOSE to be a criminal..."
Pesky goal posts. Can't seem to stay still.
Breaking laws makes you a criminal. People choose to break laws which makes them a criminal...
-
The emergency governor orders, I consider that law.
I consider a 1970 Ford Pinto a 2021 BMW, but that doesn't make it true.
Fortunately for you a judge doesn't consider the proclamation law. That is why back when it was first implemented, 96% of thousands of citations were dismissed. Tickets for gathering, lack of social distancing, leaving the home for non-essential business, things like that.
So in your way of thinking, since it was proven in court that it's not law, you can now not consider the proc's law.
Are you going to now argue how the proc is law? BRB, stretching my legs and back. Need to prepare to move goal post.
-
Breaking laws makes you a criminal. People choose to break laws which makes them a criminal...
You said "laws".
You could not post WHICH LAWS you refer to.
Then you said "breaking laws and rules makes you a criminal."
Now you're back to just laws.
Still haven't posted which laws.
But, we all know why ...
-
You said "laws".
You could not post WHICH LAWS you refer to.
Then you said "breaking laws and rules makes you a criminal."
Now you're back to just laws.
Still haven't posted which laws.
But, we all know why ...
Shhhhhhh. I'm trying to afford a 3rd F15 from my goal post moving business.
-
The emergency governor orders, I consider that law.
BY LAW, the governor had 60 days of time in which to enact emergency orders. After that, the Legislature was required to pass laws if the orders were to continue.
More than one state has had their governor's emergency orders struck down as unconstitutional after exceeding the legal time limit.
I CONSIDER any emergency orders that exceed the legal time limits to be UNLAWFUL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNENFORCEABLE.
I think I have more of a legal basis for my opinion than you do.
Prove me wrong.
-
BY LAW, the governor had 60 days of time in which to enact emergency orders. After that, the Legislature was required to pass laws if the orders were to continue.
More than one state has had their governor's emergency orders struck down as unconstitutional after exceeding the legal time limit.
I CONSIDER any emergency orders that exceed the legal time limits to be UNLAWFUL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNENFORCEABLE.
I think I have more of a legal basis for my opinion than you do.
Prove me wrong.
Prove it in court. Neither of us has any standing to decide. I will follow until it's proven otherwise.
-
You said "laws".
You could not post WHICH LAWS you refer to.
Then you said "breaking laws and rules makes you a criminal."
Now you're back to just laws.
Still haven't posted which laws.
But, we all know why ...
Breaking any laws.... will make you a criminal. At this point we are wayyy off on a tangent.
-
Prove it in court. Neither of us has any standing to decide. I will follow until it's proven otherwise.
OR was decided in court. Feel free to google that.
I didn't read the opinion for the HI ruling, so IDK the reason why the citations were dismissed. Feel free to read it on your own time. Maybe thousands of citations were missing the officers signature?
So HI's ruling against the proc was decided in court.
-
Breaking any laws.... will make you a criminal. At this point we are wayyy off on a tangent.
You lead us here..... and now you want to head back to the railing because you can't skate with the big boys?
LOL!!!
Nearly 60,000 citations issued for violating
emergency orders thrown out
HONOLULU, Hawaii (HawaiiNewsNow) - Less than one in 50 citations issued on Oahu
since March for violating COVID-19 emergency orders resulted in a conviction, newly-
released statistics show.
Of the more than 60,000 criminal charges issued by Honolulu police since March that have
already gone through the court system, the city Prosecutor’s Office declined to prosecute
more than 43,000.
Another 15,700 charges were dismissed by a judge or prosecutor, leaving just 962 convictions.
The Prosecutor’s Office said it declines or dismisses case when there is insufficient evidence.
Investigative reporter and blogger Ian Lind said the numbers are astounding.
Lind said a recent HPD audit shows that there’s a financial incentive for some officers to write as
many citations as possible.
“The results of their overtime audit really tell you that a small group of officers were being rewarded
for passing out as many useless citations as they could,” he said.
One of the officers cited in the report issued criminal citations to US Surgeon General Jerome Adams,
his assistant and a tour guide at Kualoa Beach Park in August.
Adams was in town then to help the city and state’s response to the COVID crisis.
Tour guide Kelly Beck said prosecutors dismissed his criminal misdemeanor charge and that he pleaded
no contest a minor trespassing violation.
Adams was offered a similar deal but turned it down.
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2020/11/23/more-than-citations-issued-violating-emergency-orders-have-been-thrown-out/
THIS is the government we are supposed to blindly "TRUST".
-
BY LAW, the governor had 60 days of time in which to enact emergency orders. After that, the Legislature was required to pass laws if the orders were to continue.
So you ADMIT that for at least 60 days the emergency orders were LAW. With the powers defined by LAW.
Hence the citations.
(Yeah after 60 days that shit don’t fly. Can’t legally re-up them without legislative action for a year or more IMO.
But hard to believe you folks ask him to provide the law then FlappJack backs him up that it WAS enforceable by LAW for at least 60 days.
OG didn’t recognize it but I thought was funny.)
I think the citations were dismissed because they issued so many it would clog the courts and no officers would show up to testify or there would be no cops on the street because half are in court or there would have been 8 million more in overtime. (Figurative number. I just made up the 8 million. Don’t ask me to cite it.)
They already spent the COVID money on ATVs and trailers and a robot dog.
-
So you ADMIT that for at least 60 days the emergency orders were LAW. With the powers defined by LAW.
Hence the citations.
(Yeah after 60 days that shit don’t fly. Can’t legally re-up them without legislative action for a year or more IMO.
But hard to believe you folks ask him to provide the law then FlappJack backs him up that it WAS enforceable by LAW for at least 60 days.)
I think the citations were dismissed because they issued so many it would clog the courts and no officers would show up to testify or there would be no cops on the street or there would have been 8 million in overtime.
They already spent the COVID money on ATVs and trailers and a robot dog.
Idk if even during the 60 days the proc is actual law or backed by the law. If im making sense. Could be splitting hairs.
But none the less, we were discussing going to a LGS and not knowing the vaxx status of people inside there. Which implies currently, thus the 60 days has expired long ago. So when omni said he obeys the laws with regards to covid, there is no HRS. But instead he mentioned the proc, which is not law.
We can dive into this and it will be a very long portion, but pretty much the point was shown when asked what law he is obeying, and unable to post the link to said law. Like post HI's law on suppressors or HI law on daggers.
Iirc the proc was discussed when the 60 days have expired. But that would be over 1 year ago.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Yeah after the 60 days that discussion was moot. IMO.
But funny FlappJacks acknowledged it was backed by law.
D. Force and Effect of Law
Pursuant to section 127A-25, HRS, all provisions set forth in Section III of this Proclamation are hereby adopted as rules that shall have the force and effect of law. In the event of any inconsistency, conflict or ambiguity between this Proclamation and any county emergency order, rule, directive or proclamation, the relevant documents shall be read to allow a county maximum flexibility to exercise its respective emergency management authority.
Pursuant to section 127A-29, HRS, any person who intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engages in conduct that violates any provision set forth in Section III of this Proclamation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, the person shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, unless noncompliance is designated as an emergency period infraction with penalties adopted as provided by section 127A- 29, HRS.
https://governor.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2106080-ATG_21st-Emergency-Proclamation-for-COVID-19-distribution-signed.pdf
That’s from Kermit’s 21’st “supplementary” proclamation of emergency.
21’st :wtf:
Do they still carry the force and effect of law ? That’s the arguable part.
Apparently HRS 127 is the reference. I didn’t read it.
I don’t really care.
#Troll’sInControl
#WhyFourUserNames
-
Idk if even during the 60 days the proc is actual law or backed by the law. If im making sense. Could be splitting hairs.
But none the less, we were discussing going to a LGS and not knowing the vaxx status of people inside there. Which implies currently, thus the 60 days has expired long ago. So when omni said he obeys the laws with regards to covid, there is no HRS. But instead he mentioned the proc, which is not law.
We can dive into this and it will be a very long portion, but pretty much the point was shown when asked what law he is obeying, and unable to post the link to said law. Like post HI's law on suppressors or HI law on daggers.
Iirc the proc was discussed when the 60 days have expired. But that would be over 1 year ago.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
There's an entire post explaining everything. If its not a law then its a rule. Laws > Rules > government recommendations > not following any. Until contested successfully in court, I will follow the governments "laws" even if apparently not applicable. I don't have the time or effort, nor am I a lawyer to make double sure I am within my legal rights. I'll just comply, unless I am willing to personally fight it in court.
-
There's an entire post explaining everything. If its not a law then its a rule. Laws > Rules > government recommendations > not following any. Until contested successfully in court, I will follow the governments "laws" even if apparently not applicable. I don't have the time or effort, nor am I a lawyer to make double sure I am within my legal rights. I'll just comply, unless I am willing to personally fight it in court.
Goalpost moved to "laws".
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Goalpost moved to "laws".
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
goalposts moved from "IT'S THE LAW" to "I'll just comply"
but still not wrong...
-
goalposts moved from "IT'S THE LAW" to "I'll just comply"
but still not wrong...
Its the law until proven otherwise via courts. Feel free to bring up a case.
-
(https://conservativepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/yes.e487f0b7ec394e428e7a334e4c32d296.jpg)
-
Its the law until proven otherwise via courts. Feel free to bring up a case.
Read above again.
Omnitactic used....denial and repeat oneself.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Read above again.
Omnitactic used....denial and repeat oneself.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
The Chicom governor recently had her emergency orders shut down by the courts as well
-
Unlimited resources and they still have nothing to get a conviction. Most vetted politician in history.
Because it was a political game not a real criminal prosecution.