Howard Stern confirms that Trump backed Iraq War in 2002.

Prove what? That everyone backed the war? Of course not. Sanders was against it. And there has always been an anti-war element in America, from the Quakers to today.

That NY supported the war? Can't prove that either. But both senators, and 20 of the 31 reps (11R & 9D) voted for war. Originally Posted by papadee

I guess the big question (which seems to be beyond most of you) is how many of those reps got reelected following their vote for war. FYI; both senators (Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton) were reelected, and every single US representative from New York was reelected in 2004 save the two who retired one of which voted for the war and the other against. Two additional seats were added because of the census.
So to answer the question; New York supported the war vote and reelected every one of those who voted for and against the war. (19 for-10 nay)

It was the Howard Stern show. The bigger embarrassment is that he was on that POS show. Whatever he said on that show is irrelevant.

It was the Howard Stern show. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Another audition for the Pagent?

http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.ph...key=1155962718

400,000 protested in NYC, those were Clintons constituents. And that's a healthy % of NYC. She didn't represent the country. Just NY. The OP posted a link where Trump said " I guess" in a dismissive way with Howard Stern. Hardly a place where people go to for politics. Or a hawkish opinion for the war. In the Cavuto piece, he said he was interested more in the economy, not war. You really have no point. Or aurgument. Originally Posted by bambino

Bambino why are you trying to give Trump a pass? Just admit he wasn't always against the war. What was citizen Bambin's position? If you are a die-hard republican like you boast surely you were for the war just like Clinton?
Also, do you think it makes a helluva beans difference if he was a citizen or a politician - if he once showed support for the war it's a done conclusion.

Bambino why are you trying to give Trump a pass? Just admit he wasn't always against the war. What was citizen Bambin's position? If you are a die-hard republican like you boast surely you were for the war just like Clinton?
Also, do you think it makes a helluva beans difference if he was a citizen or a politician - if he once showed support for the war it's a done conclusion. Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

I've never said I was a diehard Republican you fucking moron. I'm a registered Democrat. Did I support the war? I supported our troops which most Americans do. The war turned out to be a big mistake. Now go fuck yourself.

I've never said I was a diehard Republican you fucking moron. I'm a registered Democrat. Did I support the war? I supported our troops which most Americans do. The war turned out to be a big mistake. Now go fuck yourself. Originally Posted by bambino

You are truly more fucked up than I thought - you still didn't answer the question- did you support the war or not? There's no way you could have known the war would have turned out to be a big cluster fuck- had it turned out to be a huge success would have been singing a different tune?

Please tell me what liberal values does the 2016 Trump have that makes you support him? Did you vote for Obama- if not why? Trump has said many things that goes against traditional liberal values- but you say he's a populist? Obama in 2008 was viewed as a populist by many on the right also.
If you are a registered Democrat there's nothing about Clinton that would make you kiss Trump's ass since Clinton is viewed as a progressive.

Isn't there a very small window for mobilization of troops and equipment in the region? I remember this being part of the situation. If they didn't do anything at the time, they wouldn't have another opportunity for several months to a year. So it was a go or no go situation.

You are truly more fucked up than I thought - you still didn't answer the question- did you support the war or not? There's no way you could have known the war would have turned out to be a big cluster fuck- had it turned out to be a huge success would have been singing a different tune?

Please tell me what liberal values does the 2016 Trump have that makes you support him? Did you vote for Obama- if not why? Trump has said many things that goes against traditional liberal values- but you say he's a populist? Obama in 2008 was viewed as a populist by many on the right also.
If you are a registered Democrat there's nothing about Clinton that would make you kiss Trump's ass since Clinton is viewed as a progressive. Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

I tend to believe what the CIA and military leaders say. They said there were WMD in Iraq. Hussein did gas 200,000 Kurds. As a civilian, once they voted to go to war, I supported our troops. No more, no less. Now, that's as much time that I'm going to waste with you.

I tend to believe what the CIA and military leaders say. They said there were WMD in Iraq. Hussein did gas 200,000 Kurds. As a civilian, once they voted to go to war, I supported our troops. No more, no less. Now, that's as much time that I'm going to waste with you. Originally Posted by bambino

You are just like Trump you want to be on both sides of the fence- had the war not turned out to be cluster Trump would be screaming :"I told Stern that we should invade Iraq...."
There's still the chance they could have moved WMD's to Syria, but who knows- but financially it was a 3 trillion dollar clusterfuck that help eventually create ISIS which Obama was not the founder of- that's fact.

However, can you please explain to us what appeals you about Trump- I didn't here you cheerleading for Sanders and Clinton is far more of a centralist democrat than Obama. So once again what about Clinton has made you to abandon the party and select Trump?

For me- as I said Trump was one of the worst out of the original 18- I think perhaps Carson was the weakest. Trump is a liberal and is on record supporting Clinton and even admitted that the economy appears to do better under Democrats- can you imagine Ted Cruz or any of the others making that claim?

Trump's foreign policy experience or rather lack of literally scares the shit out of me. From a military standpoint when you suggest that other nations should have nukes and why can't we use them since we have them- or Trump suggesting that other nations should pay us for protection shows that he doesn't understand NATO nor does he understand the danger or destruction of nukes.

If Trump thinks he can simply drop a nuke on ISIS and they will go away he's out of his mind. The Atomic Bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima was roughly 15 kilotons The U.S current arsenal has nukes ranging from 9000 kilotons to 15,000 kilotons which is nearly 1000 times more powerful than what's dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Trump believes he can drop one of those on ISIS in either Iraq or Syria and not have huge collateral damage he's freaking out of his mind. Which is one of the reason why Iran would never fire a nuke at Israel because they surely would kill far more than their target plus don't forget about radiation that would spread to Lebanon and Jordan.
Trump is a Trojan Horse that is really make an ass clown out of the party- everyone knows he's not a true conservative in any sense of the word.

You are just like Trump you want to be on both sides of the fence- had the war not turned out to be cluster Trump would be screaming :"I told Stern that we should invade Iraq...."
There's still the chance they could have moved WMD's to Syria, but who knows- but financially it was a 3 trillion dollar clusterfuck that help eventually create ISIS which Obama was not the founder of- that's fact.

However, can you please explain to us what appeals you about Trump- I didn't here you cheerleading for Sanders and Clinton is far more of a centralist democrat than Obama. So once again what about Clinton has made you to abandon the party and select Trump?

For me- as I said Trump was one of the worst out of the original 18- I think perhaps Carson was the weakest. Trump is a liberal and is on record supporting Clinton and even admitted that the economy appears to do better under Democrats- can you imagine Ted Cruz or any of the others making that claim?

Trump's foreign policy experience or rather lack of literally scares the shit out of me. From a military standpoint when you suggest that other nations should have nukes and why can't we use them since we have them- or Trump suggesting that other nations should pay us for protection shows that he doesn't understand NATO nor does he understand the danger or destruction of nukes.

If Trump thinks he can simply drop a nuke on ISIS and they will go away he's out of his mind. The Atomic Bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima was roughly 15 kilotons The U.S current arsenal has nukes ranging from 9000 kilotons to 15,000 kilotons which is nearly 1000 times more powerful than what's dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Trump believes he can drop one of those on ISIS in either Iraq or Syria and not have huge collateral damage he's freaking out of his mind. Which is one of the reason why Iran would never fire a nuke at Israel because they surely would kill far more than their target plus don't forget about radiation that would spread to Lebanon and Jordan.
Trump is a Trojan Horse that is really make an ass clown out of the party- everyone knows he's not a true conservative in any sense of the word. Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

I see by Puke_Likley's ignore list, I have been slacking. Sorry Guys I will step my game up...

0zombie King Lovers are a notch above this turd... Globalist Ass Suckers are the worst!

Puke_Likley needs to quit eating his own Shit Sandwiches...


Legislation Without Representation – A 2016 Perspective…
Posted on October 1, 2016 by sundance

There are various comments/questions being raised about the current state of our national political condition, and the potential for failure toward the goal of MAGA in 2016.

To those voices specifically; to the members of the Rebel Alliance who hold trepidation about the possibility of losing; to people holding these concerns, I would like to take a moment and present an alternate perspective.

If you were to ask a general question about the beginning of the American Revolution to a thousand average educated Americans, the customary reference point would be the Boston Tea Party. Ask what was the issue and you’ll hear the phrase: “taxation without representation“. England, and specifically King George, being the essential tax benefactor.

Fair enough, albeit modestly simplistic. Using that historic reference framework, and attempting to carry a crude analogy forward, I would argue we’ve already well passed the dumping of the proverbial tea phase.

After the famous Boston Tea Party, the British Parliament responded in 1774 with the Coercive Acts, or Intolerable Acts, which, among other provisions, ended local self-government in Massachusetts and closed Boston’s commerce. This only increased the resolve of the Sons of Liberty. King George sent 4,000 British troops under the command of General Thomas Gage to occupy Boston.

Sons of Liberty (Sam Adams, John Hancock etc) essentially became an insurgency within Boston and continued their organizational efforts after the occupying British forces disbanded local and provincial government.

Adams, Hancock and the Son’s of Liberty formed the Provincial Congress, and subversively organized teams of local militias and coordinated the accumulation of, and hiding of weapons, and other military supplies.

The key point to note is during the phase after the Boston tea destruction and prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord, the activity was insurgent. General Thomas Gage and his army ruled the commonwealth, the Sons of Liberty used stealth and secrecy to operate.

In 2016 we have already passed the destruction of the tea phase when we, like the Sons of Liberty, united to break the grip of the DC UniParty and successfully nominated Donald Trump. We did not fracture tea boxes, we fractured a rigged political system. We are not currently fighting taxation without representation per se’; we are fighting legislation without representation.

fireworks 2And, just the British Parliament, the response from the DC UniParty was fast, strong and severe. Instead of a British army, the DC UniParty dispatched every media tool, every Wall Street financier, almost all popular culture figures, and every available ounce of leverage they have to retain their grip on power, against us.

As a specific and direct consequence, we now hold a tenuous stake in a new Republican party. And just like the provincial congress, our efforts have shifted into the Deplorable insurgency phase. While the army of the MSM marches in the streets 24/7 via broadcast and print media against us, we moderate our visibility on alternate/new media.

The analogy is a critical frame of reference because the time for wondering about “what if” has passed. We have already destroyed the tea. There is no retreat from this moment, and more importantly, we have nothing left to lose.

There are many who use a frame of reference about ‘saving a constitutional republic‘; while I do not mean to be dismissive of this benevolent sensibility – in case you have not been paying attention we’ve long since passed the threshold of that possibility.

The architecture of our own U.S. government is now operating independent of the electorate (Obamacare, Omnibus etc.). Congress is consistently passing legislation without appropriate representation (PR Bailout, Ominbus, Corker/Cardin amendment, Fast-Track Trade Authorization etc.), and the various operational constructs, divisions, and agencies within the DC UniParty are now fully weaponized against us (IRS targeting, FBI Comey/email non-finding, etc.).

Whether we like to admit it or not, just like the futuristic Skynet, our government has become self-aware, risk adverse and is intent on sustaining its UniParty agenda against any threat, risk or voice that might rise in opposition.

During the presidential debate NBC moderator Lester Holt said: “stop and frisk has been determined to be unconstitutional“. What would Holt’s response have been if Donald Trump simply said: “lets have that conversation with the TSA at an airport“?

Think about it.

The concept of freedom is usefully pushed by the media -in the above example Lester Holt- to retain a false premise, an illusion. The reality is, we have long since passed all historic references to that concept. Listening to Old Yeller Levin shout about it philosophically on talk radio isn’t going to make it come back.

♦ Current legal and judicial interpretations of the: “2001 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act” also known as the “Patriot Act“, resoundingly agree that if you are within 100 miles of a U.S. border the typical interpretations of constitutional rights no longer apply because you are within a specific geographic zone where governmental limits on search, seizure and detention are suspended by the needs of the modern law.

This is where people take out a map and draw a 100 mile interior line on it to figure out if you live within the remaining zone of constitutional protection. Keep in mind, a state like Florida is less than 200 miles wide and the border is both the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean – do the math.

My larger point in this perspective is this: If you are concerned about this election because you are anxious about losing something, forget it – what you are worried about has already been lost, you just haven’t noticed it yet.

This election is not about winning and losing. While you were sleeping that war was already fought, and lost. The system is already rigged now, you cannot stop the rigging from taking place. Done is done. Debating whether to give national leadership power is moot when they already have it.

The accurate perspective for this election is we are trying to block those who are now in control of a weaponized government from doing even more damage TO US with the power of the UniParty they already possess.

This distinction is critical. This distinction defines the insurgent nature of this specific campaign.

Make America Great Again, is a vague concept more akin to grabbing the power cord feeding the UniParty, ripping it from the wall, and shutting down the out-of-control Skynet U.S. Federal Government. Only when the entire apparatus has been halted can we begin the evaluating, dismantling and cutting it down to brass tacks phase.

Don’t worry about tone folks. We don’t have time for tone conversation. Grab your section of Bangalore and wait for your call.

Read the Comments...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/10/01/legislation-without-representation-a-2016-perspective/

Fact: Many Democrats including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted in favor of the war in Iraq. Originally Posted by goodman0422

Hey, it's much worse than that. The fucking Democrats have gotten it wrong on every important war vote/decision over the past 30 years.

Let's recap the history, shall we?

First, Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the 1990/91 Persian Gulf War. Ooops! That one (Operation Desert Storm) turned out well, making them look stupid and unpatriotic.

To compensate for this mistake, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which called for Saddam's ouster and was signed into law by Slick Willy. And when Bush Jr. decided to follow through and actually oust Saddam 5 years later, many Dems (including a majority of Senators) voted in favor of the 2003 invasion. Ooops again!

Then when the war started to go sour, the Dems wanted to cut and run, so they came out against the 2007 surge in troop levels – just in time to see it succeed in pacifying Iraq. Ooops a third time!

Then soon after Odumbo got elected, they tried to take credit for ushering in a “stable” and “representative” Iraq... our far-sighted Veep Joe Biden called it “one of the great accomplishments of this administration”... but they stupidly failed to leave any troops behind to keep it that way. Ooops a fourth time!

So the Democrats have consistently gotten it wrong on Iraq. And they have been wrong in a flip-flopping way that makes it obvious they view our military servicemen and women as cynical pawns whose sacrifices in lives and limbs are secondary to their political ambitions. Democrats have amply demonstrated they cannot be trusted with the nation's foreign policy or security. They have no guiding principles beyond political expediency and doing what the polls say will help them get elected.


“....Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary.... The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”

- recounted by Bob Gates in “Duty”

I think Junior is gripping hard gain.

Go buy some "grip" and STFU, you faggoty cockstalking pig.