Is there anything left that we can come together on?

[P@triot]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

 

[TheOldSchool]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

I think we can agree that decades of rhetoric like yours has led to the current joke that is the republican party.

 

[SmokeALib]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

I think we can agree that decades of rhetoric like yours has led to the current joke that is the republican party.

What a fuckstick. It's turds like you that has made this country the laughing stock of the globe.

 

[SmokeALib]

This is civil war. Hard-working moral families vs armstretched, worthless, filthy, Godless, brainless, government-dependent leftists.

 

[Dr Grump]

What a fuckstick. It's turds like you that has made this country the laughing stock of the globe.

You want the US to become the true laughing stock of the world? Vote Trump....

 

[SmokeALib]

What a fuckstick. It's turds like you that has made this country the laughing stock of the globe.

You want the US to become the true laughing stock of the world? Vote Trump....

We're already there genius.

 

[MaryL]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

We agree about the value of PI being a constant. 3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679...Something like that.

 

[Dr Grump]

We're already there genius.

Not even close. The last time you were a laughing stock of the world was between 2001-2009.....

 

[P@triot]

What a fuckstick. It's turds like you that has made this country the laughing stock of the globe.

You want the US to become the true laughing stock of the world? Vote Trump....

That happened when liberals elected Barack Obama just because he was black.

 

[P@triot]

We're already there genius.

Not even close. The last time you were a laughing stock of the world was between 2001-2009.....

"Not even close" - clearly someone doesn't tune into the news (unless it's MSNBC). After kissing Cuban dictator Fidel Castro's ass, Castro himself humiliated Barack and laughed at him (as did the rest of the world). Same exact thing with Putin in Russia - who is now flying jets into our naval fleet.

But why do you insist on getting off track? Is there something we can come together on or not? Even one thing?

 

[P@triot]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

I think we can agree that decades of rhetoric like yours has led to the current joke that is the republican party.

You want to know how I know you're unhinged and dead wrong? Because I've never been a part of the Republican Party. Ever. I hate them. Oops....

 

[SmokeALib]

We're already there genius.

Not even close. The last time you were a laughing stock of the world was between 2001-2009.....

Did Rachel tell you that, moron?

 

[Pogo]

Is there anything left that we can come together on?

Posted by an asshat who's never created a thread that wasn't a flaming bait....

​

 

[Pogo]

We're already there genius.

Not even close. The last time you were a laughing stock of the world was between 2001-2009.....

"Not even close" - clearly someone doesn't tune into the news (unless it's MSNBC). After kissing Cuban dictator Fidel Castro's ass, Castro himself humiliated Barack and laughed at him (as did the rest of the world). Same exact thing with Putin in Russia - who is now flying jets into our naval fleet.

But why do you insist on getting off track? Is there something we can come together on or not? Even one thing?

Yeah. You're a knuckledragging bag of Extra Large Moron. I think we all agree on that.

 

[blackhawk]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

That Congress pay should be based on results of what they accomplish and it should be we the people who vote on if they get a pay raise not Congress it's self. I can think of no other line of work where the empoyees get to decide if they get a raise and how much they get.

 

[MisterBeale]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

Actually, lately, I have been devoting my time to researching something called the "Deep State."

It is a concept known as a State within a State.

It is something that liberals were afraid was taking control during the Bush admin, that has continued during the Obama admin. This is what Cindy Sheehan, (noted socialist) protested against. Did you know that she doesn't support Bernie Sanders or Hillary?

Here is an interview that Bill Moyers does of a Republican staffer, Mike Lofgren.

Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State
Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State | BillMoyers.com

There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. [1]

During the last five years, the news media has been flooded with pundits decrying the broken politics of Washington. The conventional wisdom has it that partisan gridlock and dysfunction have become the new normal. That is certainly the case, and I have been among the harshest critics of this development. But it is also imperative to acknowledge the limits of this critique as it applies to the American governmental system. On one level, the critique is self-evident: In the domain that the public can see, Congress is hopelessly deadlocked in the worst manner since the 1850s, the violently rancorous decade preceding the Civil War.

As I wrote in The Party is Over, the present objective of congressional Republicans is to render the executive branch powerless, at least until a Republican president is elected (a goal that voter suppression laws in GOP-controlled states are clearly intended to accomplish). President Obama cannot enact his domestic policies and budgets: Because of incessant GOP filibustering, not only could he not fill the large number of vacancies in the federal judiciary, he could not even get his most innocuous presidential appointees into office. Democrats controlling the Senate have responded by weakening the filibuster of nominations, but Republicans are sure to react with other parliamentary delaying tactics. This strategy amounts to congressional nullification of executive branch powers by a party that controls a majority in only one house of Congress.

Despite this apparent impotence, President Obama can liquidate American citizens without due processes, detain prisoners indefinitely without charge, conduct dragnet surveillance on the American people without judicial warrant and engage in unprecedented — at least since the McCarthy era — witch hunts against federal employees (the so-called “Insider Threat Program”). Within the United States, this power is characterized by massive displays of intimidating force by militarized federal, state and local law enforcement. Abroad, President Obama can start wars at will and engage in virtually any other activity whatsoever without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, such as arranging the forced landing of a plane carrying a sovereign head of state over foreign territory. Despite the habitual cant of congressional Republicans about executive overreach by Obama, the would-be dictator, we have until recently heard very little from them about these actions — with the minor exception of comments from gadfly Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Democrats, save a few mavericks such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, are not unduly troubled, either — even to the extent of permitting seemingly perjured congressional testimony under oath by executive branch officials on the subject of illegal surveillance.

These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi’s regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 millionto keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least £100m to the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access to that country’s intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period of time, the government spent $1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every single trace of your electronic life.

Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an “establishment.” All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State’s protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude. [2]


Oddly enough, life long researcher and experience of a left leaning, ivory tower academic, Peter Dale Scott comes to the same conclusion. He was a Canadian diplomat for four years and a professor at Berkley for over thirty years.


The Hidden Government Group
by Peter Dale Scott
The Hidden Government Group, by Peter Dale Scott

For some time now, I have been analyzing American history in the light of what I have called structural deep events: events, like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, Iran-Contra, or 9/11, which repeatedly involve law-breaking or violence, are mysterious to begin with, are embedded in ongoing covert processes, have political consequences that enlarge covert government, and are subsequently covered up by systematic falsifications in the mainstream media and internal government records. [1]


The more I study these deep events, the more I see suggestive similarities between them, increasing the possibility that they are not unrelated external intrusions on American history, but parts of an endemic process, sharing to some degree or other a common source. [2]


For example, one factor linking Dallas, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11, has been the involvement in all four deep events of personnel involved in America’s highest-level emergency planning, known since the 1950s as Continuity of Government (COG) planning, or more colloquially inside the Pentagon as “the Doomsday Project.” A few of these actors may have been located at the top, as overseers of the secret COG system. Others – including some I shall talk about today – were located further down in its secret communications network.


I see this planning group as one among many in what I have chosen to call the American deep state, along with agencies like the CIA and NSA, the private groups like Booz Allen Hamilton to which more than half of the US intelligence budget is outsourced, [3] and finally the powerful banks and corporations whose views are well represented in the CIA and NSA. But if only one group among many, the COG planning group is also special, because of its control of and access to a communications channel, not under government control, that can reach deeply into the US social structure. I discuss these matters at some length in my next book, The American Deep State, due out in November.


COG planning was originally authorized by Truman and Eisenhower as planning for a response to a crippling atomic attack that had decapitated government. In consequence its planning group contemplated extreme measures, including what Alfonso Chardy in 1987 called “suspension of the Constitution.” [4] And yet in Iran-Contra its asset of a secret communications network, developed for the catastrophe of decapitation, was used instead to evade an official embargo on arms sales to Iran that dated back to 1979. My question today is whether the network could have been similarly misused in November 1963.


The Iran-contra misuse has been well-documented. Oliver North supervised the sale of arms to Iran by using his resources as the National Security Council action officer for COG planning, under cover of a “National Program Office” that was overseen by then Vice-President George H. W. Bush. [5] North and his superiors could thus use the COG emergency network, known then as Flashboard, for the arms sales to Iran that had to be concealed from other parts of the Washington bureaucracy as well as the public. So when North had to send emergency instructions for arms delivery to the US Embassy in Lisbon, instructions that directly contravened the embargo prohibiting such sales, he used the Flashboard network to avoid alerting the Ambassador and other unwitting personnel.


The documented example of Iran-Contra allows me to explain what I am saying about the users of the COG network, and also what I am not saying. To begin with, I am not saying that a single “Secret Team” has for decades been using the COG network to manipulate the US Government from outside it. There is no evidence to suggest that North’s actions in Iran-Contra were known to any of his superiors other than CIA chief William Casey and probably George Bush. The point is that a very small group had access to a high-level secret network outside government review, in order to implement a program in opposition to government policy. They succumbed to the temptation to use this secure network that had been designed for other purposes. I have argued elsewhere that this secure network was used again on 9/11, to implement key orders for which the 9/11 Commission could find no records. [6] Whether it was also used for illicit purposes is not known.


It is certain that the COG emergency network program survived North’s demise, and continued to be secretly developed for decades, at a cost of billions, and overseen by a team including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. It is relevant that the two men’s presence on the committee spanned three administrations – those of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton — even though at one point under Clinton neither man held a position inside the U.S. government. Such continuity was essential for a group so secret that few records existed of its activities. And on 9/11 COG plans were officially implemented for the first time, by Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the two men who had planned them for so many years. [7]


Whether or not they knew about Iran-Contra, Cheney and Rumsfeld were on the COG planning committee at the time of Iran-Contra. There is no such obvious link between COG planning and Watergate, but the involvement of COG personnel in Watergate is nonetheless striking. James McCord, one of the Watergate burglars, was a member of a small Air Force Reserve unit in Washington attached to the Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP) that was assigned “to draw up lists of radicals and to develop contingency plans for censorship of the news media and U.S. mail in time of war.” [8] His unit was part of the Wartime Information Security Program (WISP), which had responsibility for activating “contingency plans for imposing censorship on the press, the mails and all telecommunications (including government communications) [and] preventive detention of civilian ‘security risks,’ who would be placed in military ‘camps.’” [9] In addition, John Dean, perhaps the central Watergate figure, had overseen secret COG activities when serving as the associate deputy attorney general. [10]


In the case of the JFK assassination, I wish to focus on two men who functioned as part of the communications network of the Office of Emergency Planning (OEP), the agency renamed in 1968 as the Office of Emergency Preparedness (to which McCord was attached), and renamed again in 1982 as the National Program Office (for which Oliver North was the action officer). [11]

And here is the concrete evidence that you need to verify that every year, the POTUS extends the state of emergency that authorizes the C.O.G. which suspends Constitutional law, which troubles, alternately, (depending on who is control of the oval office,) each and every year. Unless the Congress challenges this, every year, the state of emergency which was declared in 2001 continues.

Message -- Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
Message -- Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks


Ostensibly, this is what both Ike and JFK warned us about.

 

[eddiew]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

Yes you did such a great job while bush and you pukes were defiling this country for 8 years

 

[SmokeALib]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

Yes you did such a great job while bush and you pukes were defiling this country for 8 years

You Takers are funny.

 

[eddiew]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

Yes you did such a great job while bush and you pukes were defiling this country for 8 years

You Takers are funny.

Takers ?Paid 75000 in taxes so far and hope my cpa doesn't ask for more

 

[SmokeALib]

The left in this country has become so extreme and so radicalized that I've really come to the conclusion that the U.S. should be peacefully divide up so that conservatives can restore the United States of America (what ever half remained for us) and liberals would be free to destroy a new nation built on socialism and free from the Constitution that they hate so much.

I would really like to be wrong (for once). But watching liberals insist that a grown man has every right to walk into a women's restroom and slap women and little children in the face with their penis just affirms what I already thought.

So with that in mind - I'm wondering if anyone can post something that conservatives and liberals can come together on. There are some items which one would think we be basic and obvious (like the U.S. Constitution, defense, and the right of children to be free from the opposite sex in the restroom) but it would appear that would not be the case. If we can't even agree on these basic and obvious issues, what can we agree on?

Yes you did such a great job while bush and you pukes were defiling this country for 8 years

You Takers are funny.

Takers ?Paid 75000 in taxes so far and hope my cpa doesn't ask for more

Surely you don't work for one of them big, bad corporations, doya?