(02-06-2021, 08:22 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]If only Republicans had misused Congress and the Justice Department to conduct a phony investigation about claims of an illegitimate election like the democrats. The irony being there is no connection between Trump and Russia while the improprieties of the Bidens with China is considerable.
As much as I despise and disagree with these tactics, perhaps it is time the Republicans fight fire with fire. If this will be the norm for the left, that is.
(02-06-2021, 08:50 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2021, 08:22 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]If only Republicans had misused Congress and the Justice Department to conduct a phony investigation about claims of an illegitimate election like the democrats. The irony being there is no connection between Trump and Russia while the improprieties of the Bidens with China is considerable.
As much as I despise and disagree with these tactics, perhaps it is time the Republicans fight fire with fire. If this will be the norm for the left, that is.
Republicans can’t do it because they lack the support of the DNCMSM to keep the leftist lackeys whipped into a manufactured frenzy.
(02-06-2021, 07:23 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2021, 05:43 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]In what other cases are folks charged with a felony allowed to travel out of country? Regardless of whether or not we think her actions were right or wrong, she was charged with a felony.
At the time that she submitted her request to the court she was charged with 2 misdemeanors. Again, just because a person is charged with a crime they are still innocent until proven guilty.
Why is this such a big deal?
I was just playing devil's advocate. My question still stands. If a person is charged with a felony should they be allowed to travel out of the country while waiting for trial?
As for this girl, its hard to say she's innocent when she admits to what she did
and that she would do it again if given the chance. I don't care one way or another about her or her cause, I'm trying to see it from a legal standpoint.
(02-06-2021, 09:11 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2021, 08:50 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ]As much as I despise and disagree with these tactics, perhaps it is time the Republicans fight fire with fire. If this will be the norm for the left, that is.
Republicans can’t do it because they lack the support of the DNCMSM to keep the leftist lackeys whipped into a manufactured frenzy.
It’s true. Hopefully the nation gets enough of the Harris/Biden administration and comes to their senses in 2024. Yes, I know, I’m putting too much faith in others. A boy can dream can’t he?
(02-06-2021, 08:50 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2021, 08:22 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]If only Republicans had misused Congress and the Justice Department to conduct a phony investigation about claims of an illegitimate election like the democrats. The irony being there is no connection between Trump and Russia while the improprieties of the Bidens with China is considerable.
As much as I despise and disagree with these tactics, perhaps it is time the Republicans fight fire with fire. If this will be the norm for the left, that is.
Look up BlazeTV on youtube and find the video, "Time Mag Reveals Secret 'Cabal' to prevent Trump 2020 Win." Go to the 14:26 mark and listen to what that guy says. He hits the nail with a sledgehammer regarding how conservatives and libertarians
should view their opponent. He says exactly what all conservatives and libertarians need to hear and believe but will they? Probably not. Fighting fire with fire is ugly but war is hell.
I don't typically watch these kinds of videos but I was curious about the magazine piece which I will be reading momentarily.
(02-06-2021, 11:23 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting note on one of the rioters legal case:
https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrectio...-in-mexico
A judge is letting one of the rioters who entered the capitol take a vacation to Mexico while awaiting trial.
More interesting to note that she went into the Grand Jury accused of two misdemeanors and came out with 4 and a felony. And the prosecutor ok'd her travel request? Why did her charges get jacked up if not at the prosecutor's request? Something's amiss here.
When Republicans choose to fight fire with fire, it will become fascism. Only the power of the state can stop the spread of this nonsense, but then the country loses it's values in the process. This nation is at a crossroads.
(02-07-2021, 09:38 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2021, 11:23 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting note on one of the rioters legal case:
https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrectio...-in-mexico
A judge is letting one of the rioters who entered the capitol take a vacation to Mexico while awaiting trial.
More interesting to note that she went into the Grand Jury accused of two misdemeanors and came out with 4 and a felony. And the prosecutor ok'd her travel request? Why did her charges get jacked up if not at the prosecutor's request? Something's amiss here.
Nothing has to be amiss for new charges to be added at an indictment hearing.
There's an ongoing investigation from multiple agencies and the defendant repeatedly incriminated herself on social media.
(02-07-2021, 01:59 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (02-07-2021, 09:38 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]More interesting to note that she went into the Grand Jury accused of two misdemeanors and came out with 4 and a felony. And the prosecutor ok'd her travel request? Why did her charges get jacked up if not at the prosecutor's request? Something's amiss here.
Nothing has to be amiss for new charges to be added at an indictment hearing.
There's an ongoing investigation from multiple agencies and the defendant repeatedly incriminated herself on social media.
There is when the prosecutor who must request them signs off on her travel request a few days after doing so.
(02-06-2021, 09:13 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2021, 07:23 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]At the time that she submitted her request to the court she was charged with 2 misdemeanors. Again, just because a person is charged with a crime they are still innocent until proven guilty.
Why is this such a big deal?
I was just playing devil's advocate. My question still stands. If a person is charged with a felony should they be allowed to travel out of the country while waiting for trial?
As for this girl, its hard to say she's innocent when she admits to what she did and that she would do it again if given the chance. I don't care one way or another about her or her cause, I'm trying to see it from a legal standpoint.
To answer your question, yes.
She has followed all stipulations placed on her when she was
charged. The prosecution in this case had/have no problem with her request to leave her home state and/or the country. The additional charges came after a judges ruling and don't affect that ruling. She is still innocent of all charges until proven guilty.
(02-07-2021, 12:50 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]When Republicans choose to fight fire with fire, it will become fascism. Only the power of the state can stop the spread of this nonsense, but then the country loses it's values in the process. This nation is at a crossroads.
Explain this further please? Thanks. I assume you mean states need to take a stand against the federal government.
The problem is conservatives don't even see their opponents for what they are. They need to understand the progressives have no standards, will cross any line and sell their souls to the lowest bidder to get what they want. That's what they're dealing with, not the democratic party of my father-in-law's day (he's 72.)
(02-07-2021, 05:14 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-07-2021, 12:50 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]When Republicans choose to fight fire with fire, it will become fascism. Only the power of the state can stop the spread of this nonsense, but then the country loses it's values in the process. This nation is at a crossroads.
Explain this further please? Thanks. I assume you mean states need to take a stand against the federal government.
The problem is conservatives don't even see their opponents for what they are. They need to understand the progressives have no standards, will cross any line and sell their souls to the lowest bidder to get what they want. That's what they're dealing with, not the democratic party of my father-in-law's day (he's 72.)
No. I am saying that it took fascism to directly fight communism in the 20th century. In Germany and Italy, communists were doing exactly what you see here, albeit less polished. Normal citizens grew tired of communists attacking their patriotism, heroes, and traditions, so they began to rise up against it. This frustration ultimately led to the creation of fascism, othering, and empowered the state to ruthlessly go after anyone advocating for communism. Mussolini and Hitler took the disaffected and turned them into an army that would combat the communists. Without that physical presence that overwhelmed and drove communist undergound, they would have continued to push their ideology onto the masses by force and intimidation.
A democracy with principles that limit the power of government can not use the power of the state to subvert Marxist ideas, which is why citizens can be slow-cooked. Once progressives control the institutions that control the narrative, they can silence their ideological opponents. It just takes time and money. You can't do that against a state willing to use it's power to destroy them.
So, in our country, you have seen Marxists first go after the universities, then entertainment, then journalism. Studies are clear that leftists show extreme preference in new hires based on ideology. This is such common knowledge we take it for granted, and even the most ardent democrats don't deny this. Once they control the narrative, they get to shape the mythology that shapes policy (philosophy introduced by Gramci and Sorrel). You're either on board with that policy, or your the villain in the myth they created... white supremacist, climate denier, nazi, homophobe. One becomes powerless to defend themselves against those accusations because they have no ability to influence the narrative. It's simple. So, leftists fear the STATE. They can work around the ideology.
Okay, so the "state" does nothing (and preserves their values in the process) the marxists win and the country goes to [BLEEP].
Or
The "state" says they're not going to take this beating so they fight back, become fascists and the country goes to [BLEEP]. I
Outstanding.
(02-07-2021, 10:44 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, so the "state" does nothing (and preserves their values in the process) the marxists win and the country goes to [BLEEP].
Or
The "state" says they're not going to take this beating so they fight back, become fascists and the country goes to [BLEEP]. I
Outstanding.
Fortunately neither will happen.
Most people aren't marxists.
Most people aren't fascists.
Those tendencies will always be at the fringe, and unfortunately the people who believe them will get bones thrown their way from time to time, but ultimately our republic is stable enough that one or the other philosophy would need much, much more support than it has now to prevail. This isn't Weimar Germany where you can become chancellor with less than 1/3 of the vote and the chancellor gets to do whatever he wants.
You're so naive sometimes. Nothing you said is even remotely true in the larger context of history. It's always a minority group that topples the establishment.
(02-08-2021, 09:12 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You're so naive sometimes. Nothing you said is even remotely true in the larger context of history. It's always a minority group that topples the establishment.
January 6 was the closest thing we've had to an overthrow of our system of government, at the federal level, since 1861.
(02-08-2021, 10:00 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2021, 09:12 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You're so naive sometimes. Nothing you said is even remotely true in the larger context of history. It's always a minority group that topples the establishment.
January 6 was the closest thing we've had to an overthrow of our system of government, at the federal level, since 1861.
Overthrow or brief interruption?
The point Mikey, is that fringe groups can overthrow a system. It doesn't always need to be violent. Stay on point.
You refuse to acknowledge that a fringe group of people want to fundamentally alter the fabric of American society and government. You refuse to acknowledge they have the power, even though it's demonstrably true (just look at the role Hollywood has played in shaping our culture). A small group can do amazing things when they control the narrative, and that was and is the long time goal of that fringe group. If the right fights fire with fire, we will lose American values. If the right maintains it's principles, the left will eventually overwhelm it. I believe we are close to that tipping point. 4 years? 12 years? Doesn't matter. Change is coming. The fringe will bring it. The majority in the middle will just wonder how it came to be like this. Well, I'm telling you.
(02-08-2021, 10:00 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2021, 09:12 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You're so naive sometimes. Nothing you said is even remotely true in the larger context of history. It's always a minority group that topples the establishment.
January 6 was the closest thing we've had to an overthrow of our system of government, at the federal level, since 1861.
What a joke of a post. Holds as much water as you telling everyone you were gone. Buuuwwwaaaa!!