Because thoughts aren't crimes in the US.... at least not yet. Originally Posted by papadeeHmmm... Trump thought about firing Mueller last June, and now according to the MSM that's supposed to be evidence of the crime of obstruction of justice.
So why do you keep repeating it and not accepting his denial? Originally Posted by LexusLoverIf mentioning the term that someone else used to advance his argument , in opposition to that argument, is "repeating", so be it. But I never called Porter a "wife beater". I based my response on the OP's assertion. Then you & others blame me for the WB assertion. I'm not going to accept blame for something I didn't say.
Hmmm... Trump thought about firing Mueller last June, and now according to the MSM that's supposed to be evidence of the crime of obstruction of justice.I'd have to check to be sure, but I would think so. Joining ("belong") is a material act, not a thought. Sympathizing or agreeing with ISIS while reprehensible, isn't a crime itself, but it will lead to surveillance & investigation to look for evidence of a crime.
Is it a crime for a U.S. citizen to belong to al-Queda or ISIS? Originally Posted by lustylad
Yes, I heard that on the Lame Stream Media!Hopefully Brennan will get tapped for perjury and go to prison like the Watergate witnesses who lied to Congress, since Clapper has stated that the Russian investigation "pales" in comparison to Watergate.
What I didn't hear was an explanation with an example of the fake extortion attempt scenario. But I wouldn't want to embarrass a "national media pundit" by challenging their creative abilities.
Just a purely academic question, of course!
Is there a "chance of extortion" when a young female is snuck into the White House inner sanctum to suck the President's dick?
Is there also a "chance of extortion" when Secret Service agents tasked with protecting the President drink and fuck prostitutes in their hotel room outside of the United States?
The list is almost endless of "chances of extortion"!
And some don't even need the "extortion" attempt!
And were these the same "national media pundits" who marginalized and ridiculed the Vice-President of the United States of America for failing to STAND UP from behind the bullet proof shield in front of him in "enemy territory" to "honor" the North Koreans? They are fretting over a "chance of extortion," but want the VP to expose himself to death?
The next several years are going to be "fun"! Originally Posted by LexusLover
Show me where in the communist manifesto that it specifically states that.Granted, not all commies are the same. After WWII ended in Europe, the communist parties in France and Italy routinely garnered large shares of the vote in their respective countries and won significant legislative seats. They campaigned as being moderate and home-grown and independent from Moscow in order to appeal to the local electorate. If they had gained power, everyone knew (or suspected) they would change the democratic rules in order to stay in power, much like Hitler did after winning election in 1933. Fortunately, this expectation was never tested since they never gained real power. The leaders of the communist parties of Italy and France traveled frequently to Moscow, where they consulted with and took advice from their Kremlin comrades, even as they pretended not to be pawns.
You're repeating the same tripe over & over. Communists are just as happy to be elected to govt. It's not a principle that they have to subvert & overthrow govts. to gain power. Originally Posted by papadee
Edit: Just read the article. Didn't add anything. Brennan was asked if he ever worked with or for a group that was dedicated to overthrowing the US. He responded he voted communist.You're doing everything you can to avoid putting this into proper perspective.
Two issues. 1. Voting isn't the same as working for/with. 2. Prove that the US Communist Party in 1976 was dedicated to overthrowing the Govt. Just because Brennan thought voting might disqualify him from the CIA, doesn't make his belief/fear true. Originally Posted by papadee
Communist theology dictates that all governments -- including that of the U.S. -- be subverted and overthrown to advance the communist agenda of world domination by the proletariat. How is that not a violation of the Constitutional mandate to serve and protect the institutions and laws of the United States and protect the rights of American citizens who live in the United States? Originally Posted by I B HankeringAnd how is it also NOT a violation of one's oath when one becomes a Citizen??
Skip the extortion/blackmail scenario. The wife beater committed a crime, a FELONY, that's why he's worse. Originally Posted by papadeeSo IYO, cause he got accused of a crime, he's worse than someone who actually DID break the law, but cause of the FBI covering for her, never got charged or convicted?? Got it. Let's all start making accusations against papadee, and see how he reacts..
Show me where in the communist manifesto that it specifically states that.Your lot in life is to be forever ignorant.
You're repeating the same tripe over & over. Communists are just as happy to be elected to govt. It's not a principle that they have to subvert & overthrow govts. to gain power. Originally Posted by papadee
"The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air. Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat. (...) The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; (...) The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution."
— Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1848
The victory of the Russian Communist Party in the Bolshevik Revolution of November 1917 was felt throughout the world. An alternative path to power to parliamentary politics was demonstrated. With much of Europe on the verge of economic and political collapse in the aftermath of the carnage of the Great War, revolutionary sentiments were widespread. The Russian Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, believed that unless socialist revolution swept Europe, they would be crushed by the military might of world capitalism ... The Bolsheviks believed that this required a new international to foment revolution in Europe and around the world.
(Wiki)
When did Russia/USSR become the "Vatican" of communism. Communism is an idea that can and has existed outside of Russia, without fealty to Russia. Originally Posted by papadeeTrue, but let's keep it in historical context - back in 1976, Russia was very much the Vatican of communism, notwithstanding the Sino-Soviet split.
You're doing everything you can to avoid putting this into proper perspective.And what perspective is that?
And don't you appreciate the supreme irony here? A guy who admits voting for a US political party whose leader (Gus Hall) pledged fealty to the Kremlin winds up running an investigation into a US political candidate accused of colluding with the Kremlin? Originally Posted by lustylad
True, but let's keep it in historical context - back in 1976, Russia was very much the Vatican of communism, notwithstanding the Sino-Soviet split. Originally Posted by lustyladHilarious. The largest communist nation in the world, China, doesn't pledge fealty to Russia, and you say "notwithstanding". Also Albania wasn't under Russia's influence.
today what exactly is the difference between voting for the communist party ticket or the dimocrat party ticket? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
And since President Trump has supported Dimocrats in the past (Schumer, H. Clinton), does that make him a commie sympathizer? Originally Posted by papadeeHahaha... good one, papadoodoo. But I think ngiat's comment was partly tongue-in-cheek. You overlook that he said "today". Back in the days when Trumpy supported them, the dims were still tepidly pro-capitalist.
Your lot in life is to be forever ignorant. Originally Posted by I B HankeringMarx talked about overthrowing social conditions, not govts., and that the civil war between the proles & bourgeoisie already existed, and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie needed to take place. That can be done after peaceful elections (see South Africa). And to a lesser extent, Zimbabwe. After the war Mugabe was peacefully elected, then later started confiscating the property of the bourgeoisie.
