BlueGin
Diamond Member
- Jul 10, 2004
- 24,923
- 17,447
- 2,405
Meaning you have been scum for years. It’s nothing new and you don’t deserve any consideration now. Period.
IF Biden wins, will the US come together, or continue the partisan warfare? (poll)
- Thread starter kyzr
- Start date
colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,844
- 1,465
I was told that I was a terrorist lover, America hater for opposing the Iraq war.
Good times.
BlueGin
Diamond Member
- Jul 10, 2004
- 24,923
- 17,447
- 2,405
Well they just threw the middle class under the bus for a hoax...so yeah.
BlueGin
Diamond Member
- Jul 10, 2004
- 24,923
- 17,447
- 2,405
You must love war...the Obama/Biden admin got us into even more.
- Banned
- #345
The European welfare queens are partying like it is 1999. America is going back to being their Sugar Daddy. Their failed Socialism will be subsidized by the US.
China is absolutely giddy with joy. Helping Biden steal the election paid off well. Just think of all the technology and American jobs they will be getting because their man is now in Washington.
Obama's Mullah buddies in Iran are positively ecstatic with joy knowing they don't have to make that phone call to Trump now.
The goddamn poverty queens will start to amass in millions along the southern border knowing that it will soon be open for them to flood across to sign up for American welfare.
Hunter Biden's cocaine dealer is living well now but will live even better in the future.
Life is good among the assholes of the world.
China is absolutely giddy with joy. Helping Biden steal the election paid off well. Just think of all the technology and American jobs they will be getting because their man is now in Washington.
Obama's Mullah buddies in Iran are positively ecstatic with joy knowing they don't have to make that phone call to Trump now.
The goddamn poverty queens will start to amass in millions along the southern border knowing that it will soon be open for them to flood across to sign up for American welfare.
Hunter Biden's cocaine dealer is living well now but will live even better in the future.
Life is good among the assholes of the world.
colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,844
- 1,465
Wars are sometimes necessary. Sometimes not. Sometimes the lesser of two evils. Sometimes the first resort.
I don’t live in a world of black and white.
So tell me about how I was scum under Bush. Id love to hear what earned me that title. I’ve probably heard it before.
You are supposed to watch over "liberty". You definitely failed and many of the rest of us have some complicity.
colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,844
- 1,465
Sounds like meaningless jingoism.
Tell me, when Obama launched air campaign against the forces or a dictator Gaddafi who was putting down an armed rebellion against his brutal forty year long regime, was that watching over liberty?
It seems to me Trump has been asleep on his watch.
kyzr
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #350
1. You asked for proof that Mueller was to investigate Russian interference, the first line says:1. The link provided disproves your. Read the memo signed by Rosenstein. Paragraph b, line 1. Read it and tell me what you see. I’d explain it to you but I really think you need to read it yourself.1. There are many links that prove my point, just google the Mueller Investigation1. Post a credible link to your assertion that Mueller was to investigate Russian interference.1. You're off track on this issue. My point is that the Mueller Hoax was to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election, and that morphed into Russian collusion by Trump. No Trump collusion was found, but the investigation didn't even look into the obvious collusion by the Hillary campaign, and that the bogus dossier was illegally used by the FBI. Mueller was just another partisan hoax by radical democrat lawyers, nothing more.1. Clinton isn’t the FBI. What exactly is the investigation for if she never used it but someone whom she has no control of did?1. The FBI used the dossier to justify the illegal FBI spying on Trump
She didn't use the dossier at all, silly. It was published on Jan 10, 2017.
These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia
A dossier, compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.www.buzzfeednews.com
And if you wanted this investigated for any reason, the Trump lead DoJ should have either mandated it as part of the Mueller investigation (they didn't) or done their own investigation because there was no need for a special prosecutor to be appointed for this matter. Although I do remember Trump promising to appoint a special prosecutor to look into Clinton. At the end of the day, the only fault that this didn't happen rests solely with Trump and his appointees.
"Google it" is nonsense. A perjury trap is different than what you think. Start here:
1756. Perjury Cases -- Special Problems And Defenses -- Perjury Trap
This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.www.justice.gov
A perjury trap is when information is illegally obtained. There was nothing illegal about the FBI agents asking Flynn a question they already knew the answer to. In fact, this happens in investigations all the time with law enforcement as a means to determine a person's willingness to lie, something that increases suspicion of the person.
Nope. The founders knew that laws did not apply in the traditional sense to presidents. The language used in the constitution is extremely deliberate and if you consider yourself an originalist, you know that impeachment stating "high crimes" indicates a crime that can be only committed by a high official. Use of the office of president to further personal political gain falls under that category.
The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’
The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.www.theatlantic.com
Fair enough.
2. Comey bragged that he setup Flynn while the WH was disorganized. There was no other reason to send agents there, and the agents' notes prove it was a setup.
3. The fact that no Republican House members supported the impeachment proves that the legal phone call did not reach the threshold for impeachment, anymore than Biden's extortion video to protect Hunter's $83,000 a month scam. The Trump impeachment was a partisan smear, nothing more.
2. All Flynn had to do was tell the truth. How could that be a setup?
3. The legal threshold for an impeachment is a majority vote in the House. There is no legal threshold that it be supported by Republicans. You’re making things up.
2. I disagree with the FBI setting up perjury traps as their notes prove they did.
3. OK, if impeachment only needs a majority vote in the House, impeachment has no value, since the senate ignores it. It should be a crime serious enough to garner bi-partisan support or its just a waste of valuable legislative time. I'd rather have congress solving serious problems.
2. One, as my credible link showed, it wasn’t a perjury trap. Two, whether you like it or not, it is not legal to lie to the FBI.
3. Impeachment has a value. It is one of the only ways to oversee the executive.
Mueller special counsel investigation - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
2. The FBI interview of Flynn was a perjury trap, plain and simple
Michael Flynn's lawyers seize on note showing how FBI official approached key interview in White House
Michael Flynn's attorneys made public on Wednesday a handwritten note from Bill Priestap, the then-counterintelligence director at the FBI, that mused how agents should approach a critical interview with President Donald Trump's first national security adviser in the White House in January 2017...www.cnn.com
3. Partisan impeachments are a waste of time. They need bi-partisan support to be effective, especially in the senate where 67 votes are needed.
2. I’ve given you a credible link about what a perjury trap is. It shows that Flynn’s interview is not a perjury trap. Why ask for links if you’re going to ignore them?
3. Oversight is not a waste of time.
The Special Counsel investigation was an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections...
Can't find any Rosenstein memo. What should I see?
2. When the FBI says "in writing" that they are after a perjury trap, you need to believe them. Your "evidence" is not as credible as the FBI's own notes.
3. Finally agree, oversight means the punishment fits the crime, censure was more appropriate than impeachment.
colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,844
- 1,465
1. The Rosenstein memo was in your link you provided. It’s generally speaking a good idea to read the links you provide because it’s awfully embarrassing when they prove you wrong. What are you looking for? The Rosenstein memo specifically says to look for any links between Trump and Russian interference in the election.1. You asked for proof that Mueller was to investigate Russian interference, the first line says:1. The link provided disproves your. Read the memo signed by Rosenstein. Paragraph b, line 1. Read it and tell me what you see. I’d explain it to you but I really think you need to read it yourself.1. There are many links that prove my point, just google the Mueller Investigation1. Post a credible link to your assertion that Mueller was to investigate Russian interference.1. You're off track on this issue. My point is that the Mueller Hoax was to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election, and that morphed into Russian collusion by Trump. No Trump collusion was found, but the investigation didn't even look into the obvious collusion by the Hillary campaign, and that the bogus dossier was illegally used by the FBI. Mueller was just another partisan hoax by radical democrat lawyers, nothing more.1. Clinton isn’t the FBI. What exactly is the investigation for if she never used it but someone whom she has no control of did?1. The FBI used the dossier to justify the illegal FBI spying on Trump
She didn't use the dossier at all, silly. It was published on Jan 10, 2017.
These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia
A dossier, compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.
And if you wanted this investigated for any reason, the Trump lead DoJ should have either mandated it as part of the Mueller investigation (they didn't) or done their own investigation because there was no need for a special prosecutor to be appointed for this matter. Although I do remember Trump promising to appoint a special prosecutor to look into Clinton. At the end of the day, the only fault that this didn't happen rests solely with Trump and his appointees.
"Google it" is nonsense. A perjury trap is different than what you think. Start here:
1756. Perjury Cases -- Special Problems And Defenses -- Perjury Trap
This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.
A perjury trap is when information is illegally obtained. There was nothing illegal about the FBI agents asking Flynn a question they already knew the answer to. In fact, this happens in investigations all the time with law enforcement as a means to determine a person's willingness to lie, something that increases suspicion of the person.
Nope. The founders knew that laws did not apply in the traditional sense to presidents. The language used in the constitution is extremely deliberate and if you consider yourself an originalist, you know that impeachment stating "high crimes" indicates a crime that can be only committed by a high official. Use of the office of president to further personal political gain falls under that category.
The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’
The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.
Fair enough.
2. Comey bragged that he setup Flynn while the WH was disorganized. There was no other reason to send agents there, and the agents' notes prove it was a setup.
3. The fact that no Republican House members supported the impeachment proves that the legal phone call did not reach the threshold for impeachment, anymore than Biden's extortion video to protect Hunter's $83,000 a month scam. The Trump impeachment was a partisan smear, nothing more.
2. All Flynn had to do was tell the truth. How could that be a setup?
3. The legal threshold for an impeachment is a majority vote in the House. There is no legal threshold that it be supported by Republicans. You’re making things up.
2. I disagree with the FBI setting up perjury traps as their notes prove they did.
3. OK, if impeachment only needs a majority vote in the House, impeachment has no value, since the senate ignores it. It should be a crime serious enough to garner bi-partisan support or its just a waste of valuable legislative time. I'd rather have congress solving serious problems.
2. One, as my credible link showed, it wasn’t a perjury trap. Two, whether you like it or not, it is not legal to lie to the FBI.
3. Impeachment has a value. It is one of the only ways to oversee the executive.
Mueller special counsel investigation - Wikipedia
2. The FBI interview of Flynn was a perjury trap, plain and simple
Michael Flynn's lawyers seize on note showing how FBI official approached key interview in White House
Michael Flynn's attorneys made public on Wednesday a handwritten note from Bill Priestap, the then-counterintelligence director at the FBI, that mused how agents should approach a critical interview with President Donald Trump's first national security adviser in the White House in January 2017...
3. Partisan impeachments are a waste of time. They need bi-partisan support to be effective, especially in the senate where 67 votes are needed.
2. I’ve given you a credible link about what a perjury trap is. It shows that Flynn’s interview is not a perjury trap. Why ask for links if you’re going to ignore them?
3. Oversight is not a waste of time.
The Special Counsel investigation was an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections...
Can't find any Rosenstein memo. What should I see?
2. When the FBI says "in writing" that they are after a perjury trap, you need to believe them. Your "evidence" is not as credible as the FBI's own notes.
3. Finally agree, oversight means the punishment fits the crime, censure was more appropriate than impeachment.
2. They never said “in writing” they were going for a perjury trap. You still don’t know what a perjury trap is.
3. Agree to disagree
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 95,013
- 71,054
- 3,645
It is time, past time really, to start compiling a list of communists active in the US. Bring back McCarthy hearings.
Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 105,608
- 156,435
- 3,615
RWNJ entertainment sites like breightbart, redstate, daily caller, gateway pundit, that kinda useless nonsense.
BrokeLoser
Diamond Member
kyzr
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #355
1. Rosenstein's original memo proves I'm right1. The Rosenstein memo was in your link you provided. It’s generally speaking a good idea to read the links you provide because it’s awfully embarrassing when they prove you wrong. What are you looking for? The Rosenstein memo specifically says to look for any links between Trump and Russian interference in the election.1. You asked for proof that Mueller was to investigate Russian interference, the first line says:1. The link provided disproves your. Read the memo signed by Rosenstein. Paragraph b, line 1. Read it and tell me what you see. I’d explain it to you but I really think you need to read it yourself.1. There are many links that prove my point, just google the Mueller Investigation1. Post a credible link to your assertion that Mueller was to investigate Russian interference.1. You're off track on this issue. My point is that the Mueller Hoax was to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election, and that morphed into Russian collusion by Trump. No Trump collusion was found, but the investigation didn't even look into the obvious collusion by the Hillary campaign, and that the bogus dossier was illegally used by the FBI. Mueller was just another partisan hoax by radical democrat lawyers, nothing more.1. Clinton isn’t the FBI. What exactly is the investigation for if she never used it but someone whom she has no control of did?1. The FBI used the dossier to justify the illegal FBI spying on Trump
She didn't use the dossier at all, silly. It was published on Jan 10, 2017.
These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia
A dossier, compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.
And if you wanted this investigated for any reason, the Trump lead DoJ should have either mandated it as part of the Mueller investigation (they didn't) or done their own investigation because there was no need for a special prosecutor to be appointed for this matter. Although I do remember Trump promising to appoint a special prosecutor to look into Clinton. At the end of the day, the only fault that this didn't happen rests solely with Trump and his appointees.
"Google it" is nonsense. A perjury trap is different than what you think. Start here:
1756. Perjury Cases -- Special Problems And Defenses -- Perjury Trap
This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.
A perjury trap is when information is illegally obtained. There was nothing illegal about the FBI agents asking Flynn a question they already knew the answer to. In fact, this happens in investigations all the time with law enforcement as a means to determine a person's willingness to lie, something that increases suspicion of the person.
Nope. The founders knew that laws did not apply in the traditional sense to presidents. The language used in the constitution is extremely deliberate and if you consider yourself an originalist, you know that impeachment stating "high crimes" indicates a crime that can be only committed by a high official. Use of the office of president to further personal political gain falls under that category.
The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’
The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.
Fair enough.
2. Comey bragged that he setup Flynn while the WH was disorganized. There was no other reason to send agents there, and the agents' notes prove it was a setup.
3. The fact that no Republican House members supported the impeachment proves that the legal phone call did not reach the threshold for impeachment, anymore than Biden's extortion video to protect Hunter's $83,000 a month scam. The Trump impeachment was a partisan smear, nothing more.
2. All Flynn had to do was tell the truth. How could that be a setup?
3. The legal threshold for an impeachment is a majority vote in the House. There is no legal threshold that it be supported by Republicans. You’re making things up.
2. I disagree with the FBI setting up perjury traps as their notes prove they did.
3. OK, if impeachment only needs a majority vote in the House, impeachment has no value, since the senate ignores it. It should be a crime serious enough to garner bi-partisan support or its just a waste of valuable legislative time. I'd rather have congress solving serious problems.
2. One, as my credible link showed, it wasn’t a perjury trap. Two, whether you like it or not, it is not legal to lie to the FBI.
3. Impeachment has a value. It is one of the only ways to oversee the executive.
Mueller special counsel investigation - Wikipedia
2. The FBI interview of Flynn was a perjury trap, plain and simple
Michael Flynn's lawyers seize on note showing how FBI official approached key interview in White House
Michael Flynn's attorneys made public on Wednesday a handwritten note from Bill Priestap, the then-counterintelligence director at the FBI, that mused how agents should approach a critical interview with President Donald Trump's first national security adviser in the White House in January 2017...
3. Partisan impeachments are a waste of time. They need bi-partisan support to be effective, especially in the senate where 67 votes are needed.
2. I’ve given you a credible link about what a perjury trap is. It shows that Flynn’s interview is not a perjury trap. Why ask for links if you’re going to ignore them?
3. Oversight is not a waste of time.
The Special Counsel investigation was an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections...
Can't find any Rosenstein memo. What should I see?
2. When the FBI says "in writing" that they are after a perjury trap, you need to believe them. Your "evidence" is not as credible as the FBI's own notes.
3. Finally agree, oversight means the punishment fits the crime, censure was more appropriate than impeachment.
2. They never said “in writing” they were going for a perjury trap. You still don’t know what a perjury trap is.
3. Agree to disagree
"By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows: "
You are referring to Rosenstein's 2nd memo that names Carter Page based on falsified evidence, and other bullshit.
2. FBI notes prove a perjury trap was the objective of the Flynn interview.
Michael Flynn's lawyers seize on note showing how FBI official approached key interview in White House
Michael Flynn's attorneys made public on Wednesday a handwritten note from Bill Priestap, the then-counterintelligence director at the FBI, that mused how agents should approach a critical interview with President Donald Trump's first national security adviser in the White House in January 2017...
www.cnn.com
colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,844
- 1,465
1. You should keep reading. The part that proves you wrong is below. The part you quoted does not.1. Rosenstein's original memo proves I'm right1. The Rosenstein memo was in your link you provided. It’s generally speaking a good idea to read the links you provide because it’s awfully embarrassing when they prove you wrong. What are you looking for? The Rosenstein memo specifically says to look for any links between Trump and Russian interference in the election.1. You asked for proof that Mueller was to investigate Russian interference, the first line says:1. The link provided disproves your. Read the memo signed by Rosenstein. Paragraph b, line 1. Read it and tell me what you see. I’d explain it to you but I really think you need to read it yourself.1. There are many links that prove my point, just google the Mueller Investigation1. Post a credible link to your assertion that Mueller was to investigate Russian interference.1. You're off track on this issue. My point is that the Mueller Hoax was to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election, and that morphed into Russian collusion by Trump. No Trump collusion was found, but the investigation didn't even look into the obvious collusion by the Hillary campaign, and that the bogus dossier was illegally used by the FBI. Mueller was just another partisan hoax by radical democrat lawyers, nothing more.1. Clinton isn’t the FBI. What exactly is the investigation for if she never used it but someone whom she has no control of did?1. The FBI used the dossier to justify the illegal FBI spying on Trump
She didn't use the dossier at all, silly. It was published on Jan 10, 2017.
These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia
A dossier, compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.
And if you wanted this investigated for any reason, the Trump lead DoJ should have either mandated it as part of the Mueller investigation (they didn't) or done their own investigation because there was no need for a special prosecutor to be appointed for this matter. Although I do remember Trump promising to appoint a special prosecutor to look into Clinton. At the end of the day, the only fault that this didn't happen rests solely with Trump and his appointees.
"Google it" is nonsense. A perjury trap is different than what you think. Start here:
1756. Perjury Cases -- Special Problems And Defenses -- Perjury Trap
This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.
A perjury trap is when information is illegally obtained. There was nothing illegal about the FBI agents asking Flynn a question they already knew the answer to. In fact, this happens in investigations all the time with law enforcement as a means to determine a person's willingness to lie, something that increases suspicion of the person.
Nope. The founders knew that laws did not apply in the traditional sense to presidents. The language used in the constitution is extremely deliberate and if you consider yourself an originalist, you know that impeachment stating "high crimes" indicates a crime that can be only committed by a high official. Use of the office of president to further personal political gain falls under that category.
The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’
The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.
Fair enough.
2. Comey bragged that he setup Flynn while the WH was disorganized. There was no other reason to send agents there, and the agents' notes prove it was a setup.
3. The fact that no Republican House members supported the impeachment proves that the legal phone call did not reach the threshold for impeachment, anymore than Biden's extortion video to protect Hunter's $83,000 a month scam. The Trump impeachment was a partisan smear, nothing more.
2. All Flynn had to do was tell the truth. How could that be a setup?
3. The legal threshold for an impeachment is a majority vote in the House. There is no legal threshold that it be supported by Republicans. You’re making things up.
2. I disagree with the FBI setting up perjury traps as their notes prove they did.
3. OK, if impeachment only needs a majority vote in the House, impeachment has no value, since the senate ignores it. It should be a crime serious enough to garner bi-partisan support or its just a waste of valuable legislative time. I'd rather have congress solving serious problems.
2. One, as my credible link showed, it wasn’t a perjury trap. Two, whether you like it or not, it is not legal to lie to the FBI.
3. Impeachment has a value. It is one of the only ways to oversee the executive.
Mueller special counsel investigation - Wikipedia
2. The FBI interview of Flynn was a perjury trap, plain and simple
Michael Flynn's lawyers seize on note showing how FBI official approached key interview in White House
Michael Flynn's attorneys made public on Wednesday a handwritten note from Bill Priestap, the then-counterintelligence director at the FBI, that mused how agents should approach a critical interview with President Donald Trump's first national security adviser in the White House in January 2017...
3. Partisan impeachments are a waste of time. They need bi-partisan support to be effective, especially in the senate where 67 votes are needed.
2. I’ve given you a credible link about what a perjury trap is. It shows that Flynn’s interview is not a perjury trap. Why ask for links if you’re going to ignore them?
3. Oversight is not a waste of time.
The Special Counsel investigation was an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections...
Can't find any Rosenstein memo. What should I see?
2. When the FBI says "in writing" that they are after a perjury trap, you need to believe them. Your "evidence" is not as credible as the FBI's own notes.
3. Finally agree, oversight means the punishment fits the crime, censure was more appropriate than impeachment.
2. They never said “in writing” they were going for a perjury trap. You still don’t know what a perjury trap is.
3. Agree to disagree
"By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision andmanagement of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the R ussian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows: "
2. FBI notes prove a perjury trap was the objective of the Flynn interview.
"What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" Priestap wrote. "If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it."Michael Flynn's lawyers seize on note showing how FBI official approached key interview in White House
Michael Flynn's attorneys made public on Wednesday a handwritten note from Bill Priestap, the then-counterintelligence director at the FBI, that mused how agents should approach a critical interview with President Donald Trump's first national security adviser in the White House in January 2017...
2. And that’s not what a perjury trap is. Thanks for trying.
FA_Q2
Gold Member
Wow.
That was a pathetic time in our history when we abandoned any semblance of the idea of freedom whatsoever. You want to go back to that? The McCarthy hearings were something that would fit right in with Soviet Russia, not the USA and certainly counter to freedom in every possible meaning of the term.
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 95,013
- 71,054
- 3,645
The McCarthy hearings were certainly as American as they come. If we had them today we would be eliminating the communists active in government. Odd that you concern yourself with worrying about the Soviet Union when the Communists are already asking who supported Trump.
FA_Q2
Gold Member
Odd that you think it is 'American' to persecute people for thought crime - just like the communists you despise.
I know, we should open gulags for those pesky political dissidents next.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
By leftists engaging in blank name-calling that assumes words have no meaning beyond, "Someone I don't like"? Yeah, I already knew that.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Canada and Denmark are now enemies of the United States- Started by Anarchy666
- Replies: 18
-
Pete Hegseth's Pastor "I pray that God kills him (James Talarico)"- Started by citygator
- Replies: 14
-
California Sheriff Seizes Half Million Ballots in Voter Fraud Investigation- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 5
-
Husband and wife experience Delores park in San Francisco... wow- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 0
