The ESTABLISHMENT EXPERIENCE!

Honestly! Can we afford any more Clinton's in the oval office?


  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .
To quote a famous line from liberal Hollywood.

The line from Michael Corleone "Carl you need to answer for Fredo"
Hillary, you're going to have to answer for Bengazy! Do you honestly think you could fool us Americans.!


Evidently you have been. If not, answer why Stevens, who was warned of the unstable conditions in Benghazi, refused on two separate occasions to take additional armed escorts with him?
 
Werbung:
In case you are not familiar with human history, Socialism has NOT worked anywhere!! Bernie Sanders is a card carrying, self-proclaimed Socialist. The American people are fed up with these far Left ideologies which don't work. The United States has a Constitution which above all, proclaims liberty and justice for all. Socialism goes against that very principle, which is why the American people should reject it out of hand!! Hillary Clinton can not be trusted, and is an evil power-hungry hypocrite. The only alternative is from the Republican side, and while I do agree that we as a nation are fed-up with the status quo, I think only strong leadership will bring us out from this mess. I am voting for Donald Trump for that reason. He is not a politician, and he's built a billion Dollar empire, therefore he can not be bought. That's what we need now!! I'd like to see either Nikki Haley or Ted Cruz as his running mate.


Socialism has worked in several countries. The Netherlands, Denmark, etc., as examples. It only fails when you eliminate capitalism as an economic force. Or when you establish a Plutocracy that favors the rich as we are allowing in this country. In case you had not noticed, capitalism is failing in this country not because of socialism, but because the working class are not being allowed to keep the profits from what they produce. 60% of the wealth created in this country goes to the 1%, 80% goes to the top 10%. This then creates a need for more social services, and more poverty. And the middle class is the one paying for it while the 1% profit from it.

Consider reading this, and then think about what it means:


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/04/founding-fathers-warned-inequality.html

The Founding Fathers Fought Against Inequality
Posted on April 21, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and James Madison Slammed Runaway Inequality

The primary author of the Constitution – and later president – James Madison wrote:

The great object [of political parties] should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all. 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.

He also said:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Nine months before his inauguration as America’s first president, George Washington wrote:

[America] “will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property.”
 
Last thongs first; they did, multiple times, nothing.
There is an abundance of truth as has been reported more that has not. Only question left is how much the administration does to obstruct justice.


Sorry, they never did investigate going to Iraq in the same manner as is being done now. Waxman tried, and was shut down. The Republicans did little to nothing, and white washed the whole event. Hell, Bush wasn't even called to testify.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8376977.stm

BTW, you do know that Bush/Cheney hid large amounts of evidence regarding the justification of going to war, right? I know, that is th epast, and this is now.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline
 
Sorry, they never did investigate going to Iraq in the same manner as is being done now. Waxman tried, and was shut down. The Republicans did little to nothing, and white washed the whole event. Hell, Bush wasn't even called to testify.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8376977.stm

BTW, you do know that Bush/Cheney hid large amounts of evidence regarding the justification of going to war, right? I know, that is th epast, and this is now.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline
I have an OLD saying from my grandparents. "Paper will HOLD anything you write on it" Moral! being Dont' believe everything you read!
 
I have an OLD saying from my grandparents. "Paper will HOLD anything you write on it" Moral! being Dont' believe everything you read!

Well, I have an old saying I grew up with, and that was "don't ask some0one else to do what you are not willing to do yourself". Moral: Don't vote for liars, and cowards. And Lord knows Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rove, Wolfowitz, Cruz, Trump, Rubio, Hillary, etc., are all liars and cowards. Well, Hillary may have bigger balls then Bill.

Then too, you have to actually read what was written before deciding whether or not to believe it.
 
I am nearly a pacifist, and always have been. Nevertheless, I did my time in the armed services, back in the days of the draft. Because being nearly a pacifist is not the same as being a pacifist, and I believe some wars cannot be avoided and must be fought, like World War II, when we were attacked and had, IMO, no choice but to defend ourselves. Since then, we have been at war, or supporting someone at war, almost constantly. IMO, our involvement in few of those is justifiable.
 
I am nearly a pacifist, and always have been. Nevertheless, I did my time in the armed services, back in the days of the draft. Because being nearly a pacifist is not the same as being a pacifist, and I believe some wars cannot be avoided and must be fought, like World War II, when we were attacked and had, IMO, no choice but to defend ourselves. Since then, we have been at war, or supporting someone at war, almost constantly. IMO, our involvement in few of those is justifiable.

IMO no war since WW2 has been justified under the standards St. Francis of Assisi established, and even WW2 is questionable since evidence indicates that FDR prodded the Japanese into action. Eventually we may have had to fight Germany, and Italy, however, it may be that the fight would have been strictly in Europe, or in Russia.

http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=13082

Having said that, our economy is now too dependent on the "military industrial complex" that the Founders wished to avoid, and which controls a large number of our politicians most of whom have never served in the military, nor have their children.
 
IMO no war since WW2 has been justified under the standards St. Francis of Assisi established, and even WW2 is questionable since evidence indicates that FDR prodded the Japanese into action. Eventually we may have had to fight Germany, and Italy, however, it may be that the fight would have been strictly in Europe, or in Russia.

http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=13082

Having said that, our economy is now too dependent on the "military industrial complex" that the Founders wished to avoid, and which controls a large number of our politicians most of whom have never served in the military, nor have their children.

FOLKS! Please listen up, I have the outmost respect for all branches of the military and each and every one of our courage VETERANS.
But this thread was never meant to be about WARS, nor the MILITARY establishment!
Please READ, before you post.
This thread is about Politics and the so called "Establishment Experienced Candidates" running in this election cycle.
Please don't make it something else
 
FOLKS! Please listen up, I have the outmost respect for all branches of the military and each and every one of our courage VETERANS.
But this thread was never meant to be about WARS, nor the MILITARY establishment!
Please READ, before you post.
This thread is about Politics and the so called "Establishment Experienced Candidates" running in this election cycle.
Please don't make it something else


Sorry, but under the current system you cannot speak of the "establishment" candidate without bringing up the control the military establishment has over that candidate. The next topic when speaking of the "establishment" candidate would be the control corporations have over the system. That would not only include the military, it would include trade agreements that have set up China as the greatest external threat to our security since it was the "establishment" that gave them the ability to hack into our electric grid, banks, steal our secrets, etc.

When speaking of the "establishment candidate" one must make aware of just what constitutes this form of candidate. It is not just the permanency of the person, that is "bureaucracy".

BTW, no thread will ever stay on "topic". "Rambling" is the way of discussion.
 
Sorry, but under the current system you cannot speak of the "establishment" candidate without bringing up the control the military establishment has over that candidate. The next topic when speaking of the "establishment" candidate would be the control corporations have over the system. That would not only include the military, it would include trade agreements that have set up China as the greatest external threat to our security since it was the "establishment" that gave them the ability to hack into our electric grid, banks, steal our secrets, etc.

When speaking of the "establishment candidate" one must make aware of just what constitutes this form of candidate. It is not just the permanency of the person, that is "bureaucracy".

BTW, no thread will ever stay on "topic". "Rambling" is the way of discussion.


I'm tired of the rambling on this same topic. Obviously you’ve got some issues with the military hierarchy. Which may or may not have something to do with my topic of the “Establishment”.
Frankly, I totally agree with what you have to say on the military side of this topic. But I don’t know that much about it to continue to ramble with you back and forth on the matter.
But I think I'm starting a NEW Thread.
I think the only way we're going to STOP this country from going to HELL is to start a movement.
Frankly other than writing to the same culprits which I want out of office. I really don’t know How to start this movement. So I’m going to place a new thread. A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL Amendment that shall limit TERM LIMITS for both houses of Congress.
Wont you Please join me on my NEW THREAD "We the People"
 
I'm tired of the rambling on this same topic. Obviously you’ve got some issues with the military hierarchy. Which may or may not have something to do with my topic of the “Establishment”.
Frankly, I totally agree with what you have to say on the military side of this topic. But I don’t know that much about it to continue to ramble with you back and forth on the matter.
But I think I'm starting a NEW Thread.
I think the only way we're going to STOP this country from going to HELL is to start a movement.
Frankly other than writing to the same culprits which I want out of office. I really don’t know How to start this movement. So I’m going to place a new thread. A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL Amendment that shall limit TERM LIMITS for both houses of Congress.
Wont you Please join me on my NEW THREAD "We the People"

Couldn't find your new thread, so let me say this. There are two ways to get an amendment passed. One way is by the Congress which then goes to the States and the people, for a 2/3's vote, then back to Congress. That method takes a minimum of ten years.

The second is by a Constitutional Convention which once again begins with Congress. Since the 1940's there have been calls for a Second Constitutional Convention, or an Article 5 Convention, to no avail. It would take 38 States to agree to such a proposition, and so far only three, or four, have agreed to such. A couple of States have even passed laws to prevent such a Conventions.

One of the dangers of such a Convention would be that anyone could introduce any number of Amendments on any topic.

You might try this:

http://www.conventionofstates.com/
 
Couldn't find your new thread, so let me say this. There are two ways to get an amendment passed. One way is by the Congress which then goes to the States and the people, for a 2/3's vote, then back to Congress. That method takes a minimum of ten years.

The second is by a Constitutional Convention which once again begins with Congress. Since the 1940's there have been calls for a Second Constitutional Convention, or an Article 5 Convention, to no avail. It would take 38 States to agree to such a proposition, and so far only three, or four, have agreed to such. A couple of States have even passed laws to prevent such a Conventions.

One of the dangers of such a Convention would be that anyone could introduce any number of Amendments on any topic.

You might try this:

http://www.conventionofstates.com/


No I have not had the time to start it yet. But I really think it's time to move forward here's yet another reasons why!

12644842_1075730619145365_8233653026021126177_n.webp
 
No I have not had the time to start it yet. But I really think it's time to move forward here's yet another reasons why!


While I agree that congressional critters are highly overpaid considering they "work" less that half of the year (110 days this year), and many would say the country is better off the less they work (Benjamin Franklin would agree with a lower wage), they are not paid as well as your email source might suggest. In any event, as I pointed out before, it would take a minimum of ten years to get anything done by Constitutional Convention, and certainly Congress is not going to do anything about it. The simple solution would be term limits by the States themselves, or by getting the people to just not vote for an incumbent.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

BTW, the reason I mentioned the military is simply because each, and virtually every, congress critter has some form of military establishment, or an employee (contractor) of the military in his/her district. That gives the military a huge amount of influence over that particular critter.
 
Werbung:
While I agree that congressional critters are highly overpaid considering they "work" less that half of the year (110 days this year), and many would say the country is better off the less they work (Benjamin Franklin would agree with a lower wage), they are not paid as well as your email source might suggest. In any event, as I pointed out before, it would take a minimum of ten years to get anything done by Constitutional Convention, and certainly Congress is not going to do anything about it. The simple solution would be term limits by the States themselves, or by getting the people to just not vote for an incumbent.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

BTW, the reason I mentioned the military is simply because each, and virtually every, congress critter has some form of military establishment, or an employee (contractor) of the military in his/her district. That gives the military a huge amount of influence over that particular critter.

it would take a minimum of ten years to get anything done by Constitutional Convention, and certainly Congress is not going to do anything about it. The simple solution would be term limits by the States themselves

Well shit in that case I like your suggestion even better. Perhaps if we get enough states to pass there own constitutional amendment limiting the terms in Congress. Then it may take off ona National level either as a Constitutional Convention. Or if we're lucky the culprits themselves would step in and make some significant changes, before he whole thing comes and bites them all in the Ass!
 
Back
Top