Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: To Starch Or Not To Starch

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,383
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 347 Times in 310 Posts
    Groans
    46
    Groaned 75 Times in 65 Posts

    Default To Starch Or Not To Starch

    Democrats have to say Qasem Soleimani was a really bad dude so they can object to the way President Trump starched him:

    White House notifies Congress of Soleimani strike under War Powers Act
    Updated on: January 4, 2020 / 11:54 PM / CBS NEWS

    https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates...ad-2020-01-04/

    A government taking out a foreign enemy is not a conspiracy. A single political assassinations is always a conspiracy as opposed to nut jobs who kill, or try to kill, a political figure they do not like. (If every unlikable politician was snuffed by a malcontent there would be no politicians left.)

    QUESTION: How many in the dictator’s inner circle like Qasem Soleimani should be assassinated with the boss? ANSWER: All of them. Example: Very few would recommend sparing Joseph Goebbels to name just one of Hitler’s cronies from the beer hall days. Conversely, Democrats went bonkers at the mention of assassinating Castro’s guy, Che Guevara. Hell, they even put a statue of him in NYC’s Central Park:




    A long-running philosophical debate asks “Should all dictators be starched early on if they can be identified with certainty? Or should a distinction be made between dictators who dream of conquest, and dictators who will never have influence beyond the borders of their own countries? Answer the questions this way. Separate friendly dictators like the Shah of Iran and Muammar al-Gaddafi, from dangerous petty dictators like Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Kim Jong-un. Naturally, first team dictators are inseparable.

    NOTE: Remember the “outrage” when Pat Robertson put the hit on a Communist dictator. The liberal press was beside itself with moral indignation.

    'We have the ability to take him (Chavez) out,

    The New York Times
    Robertson Suggests U.S. Kill Venezuela's Leader
    By LAURIE GOODSTEINAUG. 24, 2005

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/politics/robertson-suggests-us-kill-venezuelas-leader.html

    XXXXX

    In 2005, Greek George was all for political assassinations.

    August 25, 2005
    MSM bias on assassinations

    From NewsMax:

    https://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyo...as_on_ass.html

    This is the entire article:

    Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson prompted a firestorm of media outrage on Tuesday after he suggested that the Bush administration should assassinate a foreign leader who posed a threat to the U.S. - in this case, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

    But when senior Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same kind of assassination policy in 1997, the press voiced no objection at all. Fresh from his influential White House post, Stephanopoulos devoted an entire column in Newsweek to the topic of whether the U.S. should take out Saddam Hussein.

    His headlined? "Why We Should Kill Saddam."

    "Assassination may be Clinton's best option," the future "This Week" host urged. "If we can kill Saddam, we should."

    Though Iraq war critics now argue that by 1997, the Iraqi dictator was "in a box" and posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S., Stephanopoulos contended that Saddam deserved swift and lethal justice.

    "We've exhausted other efforts to stop him, and killing him certainly seems more proportionate to his crimes and discriminate in its effect than massive bombing raids that will inevitably kill innocent civilians," the diminutive former aide contended.

    Stephanopoulos even offered a way to get around the presidential ban on foreign assassinations:

    "If Clinton decides we can and should assassinate Saddam, he could call in national-security adviser Sandy Berger and sign a secret National Security Decision Directive authorizing it."

    The Stephanopoulos plan: "First, we could offer to provide money and materiel to Iraqi exiles willing to lead an effort to overthrow Saddam. . . . The second option is a targeted air strike against the homes or bunkers where Saddam is most likely to be hiding."

    The one-time top Clinton aide said that, far from violating international principles, assassinating Saddam would be the moral thing to do, arguing, "What's unlawful - and unpopular with the allies - is not necessarily immoral."

    Stephanopoulos also noted that killing Saddam could pay big political dividends at home, saying the mission would make Clinton "a huge winner if it succeeded."


    Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2005 12:23 p.m. EDT
    Stephanopoulos Urged Foreign Assassination

    http://newsmax.com/scripts/printer_f...4/122804.shtml

    Saddam Hussein aside, the Robertson-Stephanopoulos flap showed that Democrats are in favor of killing friendly dictators, but God forbid knocking off dictators they love.

    Lets go back to to 1939 when Hollywood made the movie Man Hunt containing a plotline about assassinating Hitler.





    Incidentally, Hitler never said “Today Europe tomorrow the world.” I believe the phrase was first said by a fictional Nazi agent, played by George Sanders in Man Hunt.

    America was not at war with Germany when Man Hunt was being made in 1939. In fact the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a long way off. America was still at peace with Germany when the movie was released in mid-1941.

    No movie plot ever explored the possibility of assassinating Stalin after WWII ended. As far as I know, Hollywood never made a movie about knocking off a Communist dictator. Indeed, the Left is still angry over CIA plots to rubout Fidel Castro.

    The late Fidel Castro was always a local dictator with no chance of global conquest, yet he espoused an ideology calling for worldwide Communist domination.

    There is no doubt that this hemisphere would be the better for it had assassinating Castro been successful. Events in Latin American today show that the failure to snuff Castro had consequences far worse than the consequences of a successful assassination. Unfortunately, technology like smart bombs were not available to those who failed to get Castro. Smart bombs are available today. The will to use them on dictators has been lacking.

    On the other hand, libs know that the dictators they appease might devour them for dessert:

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Winston Churchill

    The Democrat game plan is to doublespeak their overt support for Communist regimes and hope that President Trump solves the problem without actually killing a Communist.

    Frankly, I would order heavy starch for every Communist true believer.

    I never understood what the fuss over assassinating Communist dictators was all about? The American Left never minded assassinating non-Communist dictators like Hitler during peacetime. Nor was there much said by media liberals when the news told us that Stalin ordered the murder of a Hollywood icon known for his anti-Communism.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...83#post2903083

    Assassinations in peace and war are fairly commonplace. Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated during WWII. Archduke Ferdinand and Huey Long were assassinated in peacetime although the results were worlds apart. Assassination motives vary. Self-defense, profit, and revenge lead the pack.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,383
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 347 Times in 310 Posts
    Groans
    46
    Groaned 75 Times in 65 Posts

    Default

    “They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” he told reporters traveling with him on Air Force One. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way.”


    By international law, however, it does.


    Pentagon rejects Trump threat to hit Iranian cultural sites
    LOLITA C. BALDOR
    Jan 7th 2020 4:36AM

    https://www.aol.com/article/news/202...ites/23895738/


    Like hell it does:


    "International law is not law but politics, ... there is no such law, and the pretense that it exists is a harmful fantasy." Robert Bork

    President Trump can bomb cultural sites. I see no difference between bombing a cultural site and Muslims bringing down the World Trade Towers.

    And do not tell me Saudi Arabia engineered the attack on 9-11-2001. To hell with that noise. Blame Iran retroactively:


    Blame Iran for every terrorist attack anywhere in the world —— then bomb targets in Iran every time.


    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...41#post3424641

    Parenthetically, Democrats are demanding that President Trump notify them before the U.S. military does anything. A contact among U.N. bureaucrats would have been notified had Trump informed top Democrats that Qasem Soleimani was going to get hit. Soleimani would have been miles away from that airport before the drone got there.

    Make no mistake about Democrats and the United Nations. Top Democrats have no fear of being caught leaking military plans to the U.N. knowing they, and U.N. bureaucrats, are protected by diplomatic immunity. In short: Whatever a Democrat traitor does for the United Nations is above the law. Think about that whenever you hear Diarrhea Mouth Pelosi say “In the Unite States of America no one is above the law. Not even the President of the United States.”

    SEE VIDEO

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...aw-bts-vpx.cnn

    One final observation. Democrats are screaming that President Trump has to be stopped before he starts a war. On the other hand Democrats never object when the United Nations starts a touchy-feely war the U.S. military has to fight like in Afghanistan and countless peacekeeping missions.
    Last edited by Flanders; 01-07-2020 at 12:01 PM.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,383
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 347 Times in 310 Posts
    Groans
    46
    Groaned 75 Times in 65 Posts

    Default

    There is no such thing as a legitimate democracy. Every democracy is a sham:

    Politicians, their low information voters, and indoctrinated Millennials talk about our endangered democracy when their conservative opponents dare to contradict them. We know, however, that our country is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

    Sham Democracy of the Left
    By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
    January 7, 2020

    https://canadafreepress.com/article/...cy-of-the-left


    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post


    “Why is it that the president won’t defend our democracy . . .”


    ANSWER: It is not a democracy, nor is it our democracy. It is a parasite’s form of government they always call a democracy:

    Throughout history every generation produced a legion of fools and parasites who believed that a benign totalitarian government is possible. Throughout history democracy has been the parasite’s preferred form of government. Throughout history democracy failed.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...29#post2770729
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    23,128
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 10,856 Times in 6,960 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,986 Times in 1,838 Posts

    Default

    So, what's your point?

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,383
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 347 Times in 310 Posts
    Groans
    46
    Groaned 75 Times in 65 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    In 2005, Greek George was all for political assassinations.
    I understand ABC’s liberal bias, but why is Georgie the Greek taken seriously anywhere else?




    The Last Refuge
    George Stephanopoulos Caught on Camera Telling ABC Studio to Cut-Off Trump Defense Attorney…
    Posted on January 24, 2020
    by sundance

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ense-attorney/
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    6,608
    Thanks
    261
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 1,598 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 1,213 Times in 1,118 Posts

    Default

    Clinton was called to testify in front of Republicans. Republicans assumed she would act like the trump administration later acted, and cowardly refuse to face her accusers. Instead, she showed up without fear. She was grilled for 11 hours by Republicans in public testimony, and walked out unscathed. Does anyone think trump could do the same?

    Hunter Biden helped Burisma pass western due diligence investigations. He literally spent weeks being grilled by Western European banks and regulators. He did the near impossible, and got Burisma up to western standards. Does anyone think trump could do the same?

    If Republicans call either of them, they will get a real surprise at how well a competent lawyer can be. And the next obvious question becomes why trump is banning anyone from his side from even testifying. And then the question becomes why Republicans are refusing to have the real witnesses in the case testify.

  7. The Following User Groans At Walt For This Awful Post:

    Flanders (01-26-2020)

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    26,039
    Thanks
    13,779
    Thanked 9,145 Times in 7,287 Posts
    Groans
    110
    Groaned 838 Times in 788 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Clinton was called to testify in front of Republicans. Republicans assumed she would act like the trump administration later acted, and cowardly refuse to face her accusers. Instead, she showed up without fear. She was grilled for 11 hours by Republicans in public testimony, and walked out unscathed. Does anyone think trump could do the same?

    Hunter Biden helped Burisma pass western due diligence investigations. He literally spent weeks being grilled by Western European banks and regulators. He did the near impossible, and got Burisma up to western standards. Does anyone think trump could do the same?

    If Republicans call either of them, they will get a real surprise at how well a competent lawyer can be. And the next obvious question becomes why trump is banning anyone from his side from even testifying. And then the question becomes why Republicans are refusing to have the real witnesses in the case testify.
    Why do you need to hear witnesses?
    (Hillary...poor Hillary...but think about it. She's lucky she lost...she'd have to sit at The Desk

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to TOP For This Post:

    Flanders (01-26-2020)

  10. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    6,608
    Thanks
    261
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 1,598 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 1,213 Times in 1,118 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TOP View Post
    Why do you need to hear witnesses?
    The more information that gets out, the worse it looks for trump.

  11. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    26,039
    Thanks
    13,779
    Thanked 9,145 Times in 7,287 Posts
    Groans
    110
    Groaned 838 Times in 788 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    The more information that gets out, the worse it looks for trump.
    The question was why do you need to hear witnesses? Be specific please...
    I've not been able to watch the dazzling hearings...fill me in if you would...

  12. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    24,199
    Thanks
    2,628
    Thanked 7,218 Times in 5,933 Posts
    Groans
    440
    Groaned 1,286 Times in 1,253 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TOP View Post
    Why do you need to hear witnesses?
    (Hillary...poor Hillary...but think about it. She's lucky she lost...she'd have to sit at The Desk
    Because it's a trial moron!
    Apollyon

  13. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    24,199
    Thanks
    2,628
    Thanked 7,218 Times in 5,933 Posts
    Groans
    440
    Groaned 1,286 Times in 1,253 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TOP View Post
    The question was why do you need to hear witnesses? Be specific please...
    I've not been able to watch the dazzling hearings...fill me in if you would...
    Every time I think you can't get any fucking dumber!
    You get dumber!
    Apollyon

  14. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,383
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 347 Times in 310 Posts
    Groans
    46
    Groaned 75 Times in 65 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    One final observation. Democrats are screaming that President Trump has to be stopped before he starts a war. On the other hand Democrats never object when the United Nations starts a touchy-feely war the U.S. military has to fight like in Afghanistan and countless peacekeeping missions.
    Democrats and the United Nations opposed the Vietnam War. Since Afghanistan was a United Nations war fully supported by Democrats Secretary General António Guterres should sign the peace treaty if it ever gets that far:

    February 29, 2020 / 12:36 AM / Updated 2 hours ago
    U.S.-Taliban sign historic troop withdrawal deal in Doha
    Abdul Qadir Sediqi, Alexander Cornwell

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN20N06R
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  15. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,383
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 347 Times in 310 Posts
    Groans
    46
    Groaned 75 Times in 65 Posts

    Default


    FILE – In this Dec. 19, 2014 file photo, April Ryan, a veteran White House correspondent for American Urban Radio Networks, appears at a news conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington. Ryan has been hired as a political contributor for CNN. Her CNN hiring was announced on Monday, April 3, 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
    https://media.townhall.com/townhall/...0932061af4.jpg


    CNN’s April Ryan Has Epic Melt Down, Suggests Trying Trump In International Criminal Court
    Posted at 8:00 pm on September 1, 2020
    by Bonchie

    https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/202...racial-crimes/

    After three years as a political consultant for CNN you have to wonder why that moron still works there:

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    "International law is not law but politics, ... there is no such law, and the pretense that it exists is a harmful fantasy." Robert Bork
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •