The Right Side of the News

quote:

---

What you say about me is true of the Left of course, that's always the case

---

And there goes the usual lie. I don’t know why you keep doing it, it’s just so obvious.

quote:

---

Conservatism is fundamentally for American freedoms, the Left is for forcing things on the people, stealing their money, making them use only the words they deem proper, and so on.

---

Modern conservatism - at least the Trump brand is all for a corrupt dictatorship. Hence the attempts to increase the power of the Executive (as long as a Republican is in charge), and to neutralise the threat of impeachment as well as all the attempts to rig the electoral system in their favour.To be honest - with all the lying and hate and religion - I’d say that the aim of too many conservatives is the rule of the Antichrist.

Trump has been acting within the powers given to the Executive, and trying to hold on to them while the Left has been encroaching on them. He's not expanding them, they are shrinking them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Trump has been acting within the powers given to the Executive, and trying to hold on to them while the Left has been encroaching on them. He's not expanding them, they are shrinking them

---

Right now he’s proposing a massive expansion of the President’s immunity to prosecution. I don’t know how you missed that.Or how you missed him putting his personal interests ahead of the nation’s in the Ukraine.

But they are proposing fair taxation of the wealthy. Everyone benefits from our society and owes society fair recompense for those benefits.Most of the wealthy (including Trump) "earned" that wealth by being born wealthy.

How is the impeachment a sham?Anyway, glad to hear you agree that the primary motivation for the assassination was to distract public attention from the impeachment.By the way, Trump is claiming that Iraq's military response (https://www.washingtonpost.com/...13-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html) caused no American casualties. A dozen ballistic missiles fired at American military bases and no American casualties - it's a miracle! It's not impossible, but given the source of the information, the same person who claimed the largest inauguration crowd in American history that images prove false and who denied knowledge of hush money he was later proved to know all about and who claimed a perfect phone call with Zelensky, I'll await reliable evidence. It won't surprise me if reports of American casualties leak out in the days ahead. Assassinating foreign political and military leaders is illegal under international law unless a threat is imminent. That requirement is why the Trump administration is claiming the threat was imminent. The absence of any information or evidence of this imminent threat makes it likely the administration is lying again, something it does far more often than telling the truth.Another problem is that if we're right that it's okay for us to do it them, then of course it must be okay for them to do it to us. Given the large and varied assortment of American military assets in the region Iran could always claim an imminent threat. This is why international law makes such assassinations illegal. Perhaps you missed the "etc." (Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace also focused on Iran instead of impeachment). Pompeo appeared on ABC's This Week, NBC's Meet the Press, and Fox New's Sunday, pushing impeachment focused figures off the airwaves, such as Schumer, McConnell, Pelosi, Nunes, etc. I think you are playing dumb and missing the point on purpose. These moves to protect people and assets became necessary only after Trump had Soleimani assassinated. The figure the administration keeps citing is hundreds, and this administration has long had only a distant relationship with truth and accuracy. No one doubts that Soleimani was a bad player, but how many American deaths he is responsible for remains an unknown. This terrorist was also the highest ranking military official of Iran. If it's okay for us to assassinate him, then it's okay for Iran to assassinate General Mark A. Milley (chairmen, Joint Chiefs of Staff), General Martin Dempsey (highest ranking military officer), Mark Esper (Secretary of Defense), or even Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, since aggressiveness against Iran is his baby. Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi were stateless terrorists. Soleimani, again, was Iran's highest ranking military official. Iran is and has been engaged in state sponsored terrorism, and Soleimani was a key figure in its implementation, but he was still an official of a recognized state. That means our problem is with Iran, not with the Iranian individuals carrying out Iranian policy. Legitimization of lethal action against military personnel requires a declaration of war. Apparently we didn't have to wait long. If those dozen ballistic missiles really caused no American casualties it wasn't because Iran didn't try.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Change title.

airbases are mostly empty space, I don't doubt the no US casualties claim. Iran seems to have deliberately tried to limit the possibility of casualties. They used ballistic missiles, which are easily tracked in flight giving time for people to seek shelter. They could have used cruise missiles/drones like in the saudi oil refinery attack and made it much harder to spot incoming weapons.Their message was more of a "fuck you" than a "bring it on".

And also used ones with lower precision and at near their maximum range. In all it was a VERY restrained and mature response to the Playground Bully.

Personally I think it is a feint, one that accomplished its purpose, to take Trump off guard because he'll think it's over and he "won" ...So I would not be surprised if there was more to come, but fully planned and targeted.Enjoy

The words from that paragraph.

quote:

---

...it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American There can be no divided allegiance here.

---

It was not predicated on people coming here only for free stuff, or to escape problems of other nations. Wasn't predicated on anything like the immigration problems we have today. I don't know just what prompted him to make those statements, but it's for sure that it wasn't because there was free stuff here for them - there wasn't at that time. The actions he would have taken against ILLEGAL immigration would make Trump's pale in comparison. Don't mind a bit. I knew you'd be delighted about those fires.Police Arrest 24 People for Arson in Australian Bushfires Intentional setting - why? Some of the 180 figure seem to be from just carelessness, but 24 seem to have malicious intent. Do you think they all had separate reasons, or were they coordinated? Are all of the 24 native Australians, or were some of them transported there? Many questions remain to be answered, and they may never be reported on, but I only have one guess as to what special interest organized them and funded them. Can you guess what my guess is? Do you have other guesses? (hint; climate-change corruption has more money and power potential than any other political movement since the beginning of time.) Climate change fear has increased faster in the last 3 years than Nazism in early and mid 1930's Germany. There's more money and corruption involved than George Soros can even fantasize about.Here's some more facts that are in, few people have any intention of making any sacrifices or paying anything for it.Climate change polls: Americans are more worried about climate change - VoxIt seems that about 97% of scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans, and it's looking more and more like that same 97% agree that it's not their own fault, or the fault of their own political beliefs. Most of that 97% are non U.S. scientists of course (who point fingers at the U.S. and a few other successful countries) The ones from the U.S. are mostly liberal atheists, so they point fingers at Trump and Republicans.It's been almost a year since the genius of the climate change movement, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, invented the Green New Deal, telling us that our lives are over if we don't completely stop with fossil fuels in 12 years. Just about down to 11 now, times a wastin. Any ideas on just what is to be done to persuade most people to make sacrifices? Set more fires? Sensationalize more and more about snow in January? About hot weather in the summer? Hurricanes? Implying to young people that these things have never happened before?In my area, the Cincinnati area, we had 2 brutal winters on both sides of 1977, 32 years ago. Much more snow than average - the Ohio river froze solid in early 77, people were walking across it. Thankfully that was before climate change was invented, there would be a complete panic, probably involving martial law, if that happened today under a Democrat president / senate.But, as I've said before, I don't think we're going to see another Democrat president in our lifetimes.

"Authoritarian ultranationalism" goes along with the big government beliefs of today's Democrats far more than it does with the individualistic beliefs of Republicans.

quote:

---

...they (liberals) also have far more in common with fascism than conservatives do, given their penchant for centralized governmental power and too much state control over business and industry, as we've seen most strikingly under President Barack Obama.

---

Fascism Is Not Conservatism If you believe every word they say, that they only want some power, and will stop when they get only a prescribed amount, that could be true. But it doesn't square with the history of human nature."Rich people richer", the standard line. Why would so many average Americans vote for Republicans if that's all the Republican party stood for?The Republican standard line is, of course, that the Democrats want to make "big government bigger", to further only their own power and money. And you would ask me, why would so many average Americans vote for Democrats if that's all they wanted? After all, the carbon credit trading that goes along with climate change would benefit only a few rich Democrats, it wouldn't benefit the average Democrat voter at all. Don't the average Democrats voters see the selfish desires of advocates of bigger government?The answer is, of course they do. They don't actually trust government much more than Republicans do. They have another motive - JEALOUSY. They really love the idea of cutting hard working, personally responsible Republican voters down their own idle size. It's the reason they don't fear climate change mandates, they have nothing to sacrifice. So many of them don't care about liberty, they take no advantage of the liberty that is available to them. They don't care about sacrifice, they have little to sacrifice. Many of them live in rented homes, the climate change that their home's heating system generates is of no concern to them, it's their landlords problem. If they're not on a government handout and actually work a job, any climate change they do in the carrying out of their job is their bosses problem, not theirs.It's always the same, they love government's attacks on the "rich", believing the rich will dutifully knuckle under to government mandates, make sacrifices, and keep on producing and supplying employment for them. What happens more often than not, is "the rich", being much smarter than government agents, find a way to satisfy government mandates by raising their costs not only enough to cover the mandates, but to include a nice little raise for themselves, at the increasing expense of the public.My health care multiplied by 4 times during the second Obama administration.I'll take the side of less government meddling, and more free markets.

The text of the constitution and intent of the framers also shows a contempt for liberal democracy.

It seems that more and more Trumpists are following his example. Instead of dealing with the substance they instead accuse people of doing what they just did.--Percy

Reagan said, "If Fascism Ever Comes to America, It Will Come in the Name of Liberalism." It made no sense then and makes no sense now. If you can provide a rational explanation you'll be the first. Saying you're using the term as Reagan used it only means you're speaking the same nonsense he did.I liked Reagan, voted for him twice, but he did say some crazy things. For example he claimed trees cause more pollution than cars. His USDA classified ketchup as a vegetable, with the result that a school cafeteria could claim it had served a vegetable if it provided ketchup with the hot dogs and hamburgers.--Percy

Investigations against Democrats seldom get very far because of news media bias. But this time I was mainly thinking about the LACK of investigation into the Hunter Biden involvement with Ukraine. I know it's claimed by liberal columnists that it's all been debunked, but not everyone agrees.WEISS: No, Hunter Biden’s Corruption Hasn’t Been ‘Debunked’ | The Daily Caller The most notable ones are, of course, the 'Russian involvement in the 2016 election', and the 'Trump seeking foreign help in defeating Biden in the 2020 election', to name just two. You're assuming all conspiracy theories are perfectly comparable one on one, that they all have the same costs and consequences. The two that I mentioned above alone would need about 100 conservative ones against liberals to offset them, concerning their enormous costs to the U.S. in terms of taxpayer money, and lawmakers wasted time.And you probably know I have to go to work in the morning, and don't have time for rabbit trails.

People are paying a great deal of attention to you. Probably thousands of words have been written in response to your claims of liberal fascism, which are rejected because they're nonsense. That you had to create your own special definition of fascism is proof all by itself.The real reason you're so determined to hold fast to your liberal fascism claim is not because it makes any sense but because false denigration is the only weapon in your arsenal. Name calling all by itself is a strong indicator of an empty quiver of facts, but when name calling is all you have then I guess that's what you do.--Percy