quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
as a deterrent and warning to others

what part of the word 'Supreme' in Supreme Court does this guy not understand?

we won the election, they lost - they need to get on board

all these self-appointed nit-pickers are whats ruining this country

time for the war to start - this country is being torn apart and it needs to stop

quote:

Originally posted by TAllen01:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
as a deterrent and warning to others

what part of the word 'Supreme' in Supreme Court does this guy not understand?

we won the election, they lost - they need to get on board

all these self-appointed nit-pickers are whats ruining this country

time for the war to start - this country is being torn apart and it needs to stop

Really? Death to anyone who simply disagrees with you? Or has a different viewpoint than you? To serve as a deterrent and warning to others? You don't think that is extreme?

JALLEN and I live in a world where two sides differ in opinions. (That's why they call their lawyers).

I'm pretty sure in a civilized society (including this country), most of us on this board would agree that is neither legal nor moral to kill people who disagree with you simply for disagreeing with you.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Quite a few exhibit this here, advocating physically impossible acts, sticking parts into other parts they don't normally belong, dropping out of airplanes on fire, that sort of thing.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Nah. He has noticed, as I have, that Greg has a pronounced tendency lean towards wishes of death or serious violence to those he disagrees with.

It may be part of his charm. Maybe it's a Canadian thing, or live free or die, etc.

Quite a few exhibit this here, advocating physically impossible acts, sticking parts into other parts they don't normally belong, dropping out of airplanes on fire, that sort of thing. Greg leads the pack as I notice it.

quote:

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.

quote:

Originally posted by dsiets:


nhtagmember is the least of my worries.

quote:

How President Trump’s strategy against the Islamic State differs from Obama’s:
Under President Obama, U.S. Army Special Forces assigned to Syrian Democratic Forces needed special approval from Washington for virtually all tactical moves amid the politically complex theater of Americans, Arabs, Kurds, Turks and Syrians.

In Tabqa, where the city, its dam and its airfield were the objectives, the Green Berets decided they needed an airlift. Suddenly minus red tape, Arabs, Kurds and Americans were helicoptering into battle, and they quickly seized territory.

Under Mr. Obama, Islamic State terrorists could at times retreat from towns, immune from airstrikes if they used civilians as cover. The battle for Manbij in August became infamous when the SDF let 200 Islamic State fighters turn in their weapons and escape because they had threatened to kill town residents if they were not allowed to run away.

The new Trump strategy calls for surrounding towns, as opposed to pushing from one end or one side to another, in order to isolate Islamic State fighters and annihilate them.

Brett H. McGurk, special U.S. envoy to the coalition against the Islamic State who performed the same role for Mr. Obama, talked of “the delegations of authority which has made a difference in terms of the speed of execution. I think Tabqa was an example of that.”

“Our military people on the ground saw an opportunity to kind of surprise ISIS with a helicopter, moving them by helicopter, surprise them from behind and seize the airport, the dam and the town,” Mr. McGurk later told reporters at the Pentagon.

After Tabqa’s liberation, Mr. McGurk spoke to the city’s mayor, who gave a brief description of the war of annihilation.

“He also said he believes that most of these foreign fighters are now dead,” the diplomat said.

Mr. Mattis said: “No longer will we have slowed decision cycles because Washington, D.C., has to authorize tactical movements. I’ll leave that to the generals who know how to do those kind of things. We don’t direct that from here. They know our intent is the foreign fighters do not get out. I leave it to their skill, their cunning, to carry that out. ”

quote:

I'm pretty sure in a civilized society (including this country), most of us on this board would agree that is neither legal nor moral to kill people who disagree with you simply for disagreeing with you.

quote:

Originally posted by SR025:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

I'm pretty sure in a civilized society (including this country), most of us on this board would agree that is neither legal nor moral to kill people who disagree with you simply for disagreeing with you.

I have had this conversation with friends before as it pertains to the "It's just politics" angle. I'll ask you the same thing I ask them:

You're walking down the street minding our own business and some thug believes he is entitled to half of your money. He pulls a gun, and takes it.

Now imagine that you're sitting in your living room at home, and some Democrats believe they are entitled to half of your money. They send in a government agent with a gun and take it.

What's the difference?

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
I'm guessing this will be one of the next things for the media to spend endless hours discussing:

The August/September issue of the liberal political magazine "The New Republic" has a story about how Russian mobsters and corrupt oligarchs used Trump's properties to launder vast sums of money, and in the process, propped up Trump’s business and enabled him to reinvent his image.

Here's their lead-in to the story:

"In “Trump’s Russian Laundromat,” veteran journalist Craig Unger details how the Russian mafia has used the president’s properties—including Trump Tower and the Trump Taj Majal—as a way to launder money and hide assets. “Whether Trump knew it or not,” writes Unger, “Russian mobsters and corrupt oligarchs used his properties not only to launder vast sums of money from extortion, drugs, gambling, and racketeering, but even as a base of operations for their criminal activities. In the process, they propped up Trump’s business and enabled him to reinvent his image. Without the Russian mafia, it is fair to say, Donald Trump would not be president of the United States.”

Based entirely on the extensive public record, the piece offers the most comprehensive overview of the deep debt that the president owes the Russian mafia. “The extent of Trump’s ties to the Russian mafia—and the degree to which he relied on them for his entire business model—is striking,” says Eric Bates, editor of the New Republic. “After reading this story, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the president continues to exhibit a deep loyalty to the world of shady Russian operatives who have invested vast sums in his properties.”

Here's a link to the actual story. It's over 10 pages:

https://newrepublic.com/articl...onal-crime-syndicate

quote:

All I am going to say is being the Clinton's hit man must be a very well paid position and they do keep you busy.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
I'm guessing this will be one of the next things for the media to spend endless hours discussing:

The August/September issue of the liberal political magazine "The New Republic" has a story about how Russian mobsters and corrupt oligarchs used Trump's properties to launder vast sums of money, and in the process, propped up Trump’s business and enabled him to reinvent his image.

Here's their lead-in to the story:

"In “Trump’s Russian Laundromat,” veteran journalist Craig Unger details how the Russian mafia has used the president’s properties—including Trump Tower and the Trump Taj Majal—as a way to launder money and hide assets. “Whether Trump knew it or not,” writes Unger, “Russian mobsters and corrupt oligarchs used his properties not only to launder vast sums of money from extortion, drugs, gambling, and racketeering, but even as a base of operations for their criminal activities. In the process, they propped up Trump’s business and enabled him to reinvent his image. Without the Russian mafia, it is fair to say, Donald Trump would not be president of the United States.”

Based entirely on the extensive public record, the piece offers the most comprehensive overview of the deep debt that the president owes the Russian mafia. “The extent of Trump’s ties to the Russian mafia—and the degree to which he relied on them for his entire business model—is striking,” says Eric Bates, editor of the New Republic. “After reading this story, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the president continues to exhibit a deep loyalty to the world of shady Russian operatives who have invested vast sums in his properties.”

Here's a link to the actual story. It's over 10 pages:

https://newrepublic.com/articl...onal-crime-syndicate

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

Now imagine that you're sitting in your living room at home, and some Democrats believe they are entitled to half of your money. They send in a government agent with a gun and take it.

What's the difference?