Ilhan Omar calls to dismantle entire US economic system. She makes $175k/year btw.

#152
#152
AM64 said:
I still say the FF had an express intent in including "natural born citizen" as a presidential requirement. In their day it had express meaning rather than a nebulous "it means what we want it to mean" today. Too bad they couldn't see into the future on stuff like this, and put more stipulations on who can hold office. I can't see them approving newbies who haven't been in the country long enough to understand what the whole concept is about; or worse, those who would just import their native country's conflicting values with them; it's a shame we haven't had the collective wisdom to nip it in the bud. It's criminal we haven't had the collective wisdom to vet candidates rather than accept political party's "he/she/it is good to go". Nobody has any business running for US federal office if they weren't born here of US citizens.
Click to expand...
She’s the product of our own government’s BS refugee relocation programs. I bet the residents of MN love all the Somalis up there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#155
#155
AM64 said:
I still say the FF had an express intent in including "natural born citizen" as a presidential requirement. In their day it had express meaning rather than a nebulous "it means what we want it to mean" today. Too bad they couldn't see into the future on stuff like this, and put more stipulations on who can hold office. I can't see them approving newbies who haven't been in the country long enough to understand what the whole concept is about; or worse, those who would just import their native country's conflicting values with them; it's a shame we haven't had the collective wisdom to nip it in the bud. It's criminal we haven't had the collective wisdom to vet candidates rather than accept political party's "he/she/it is good to go". Nobody has any business running for US federal office if they weren't born here of US citizens.
Click to expand...
Uhm what?

They created a NEW nation.
They put no limits on NEW citizens or citizenship.
They valued difference of opinions, that's what the constitution is supposed to protect, ideas that arent quiet accepted by all.
They didnt even kick out the citizens that sided with the Brits, or expressly punish them.

The idea that the FF were some type of purists is some heavy revisionist bs.
 
#156
#156
LouderVol said:
Uhm what?

They created a NEW nation.
They put no limits on NEW citizens or citizenship.
They valued difference of opinions, that's what the constitution is supposed to protect, ideas that arent quiet accepted by all.
They didnt even kick out the citizens that sided with the Brits, or expressly punish them.

The idea that the FF were some type of purists is some heavy revisionist bs.
Click to expand...

They couldn’t be purists, the nation was brand new so to suggest that they weren’t suggesting that isn’t accurate. If by “citizenship you mean entrance into the country, you are mostly correct. Citizenship and its privileges were relegated to white, adult males. The send us your “tired, huddled masses” wasn’t written for another hundred years
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO and AM64
#157
#157
volfanhill said:
We are trying people for treason bc of opinions now? She's more American then you are with that thought process.
Click to expand...

Well my though process is that she can say what she wants no matter how loony, particularly if it makes the Democratic party look bad to the majority of voters every time she opens her backward, 7th century, muzzie mouth.

Another part of me also wouldn't give two shites if her, and the rest of the squad members that hate this country so much just kill themselves due to their extreme misery and hatred of the greatest nation the world has ever seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and VolStrom
#160
#160
LouderVol said:
Uhm what?

They created a NEW nation.
They put no limits on NEW citizens or citizenship.
They valued difference of opinions, that's what the constitution is supposed to protect, ideas that arent quiet accepted by all.
They didnt even kick out the citizens that sided with the Brits, or expressly punish them.

The idea that the FF were some type of purists is some heavy revisionist bs.
Click to expand...

Of course, the FF weren't exactly purists of a single mold, but they did all stand for one thing - a new nation built with the intent to rid people of European shackles - whether monarchy, religion, or other institution that robbed individuals of freedoms. They welcomed titled individuals that helped fight for freedom, but I don't think they would have opened a newly founded government to people who would destroy what they had fought for and a return to European shackles. Maybe the difference between rules that weren't established then (and perhaps needed now) reflect the difference in us - the citizens. People then recognized what they had rid themselves of and the freedoms they gained; too many of us have apparently grown fat, lazy, and accepting of what we have to be bothered when others threaten it. Worse, at least half the population are simply bent on further pillaging an empty treasury with no thought of sustenance of any kind - "Ask not what your country can do for you ..."

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
#161
#161
AM64 said:
Of course, the FF weren't exactly purists of a single mold, but they did all stand for one thing - a new nation built with the intent to rid people of European shackles - whether monarchy, religion, or other institution that robbed individuals of freedoms. They welcomed titled individuals that helped fight for freedom, but I don't think they would have opened a newly founded government to people who would destroy what they had fought for and a return to European shackles. Maybe the difference between rules that weren't established then (and perhaps needed now) reflect the difference in us - the citizens. People then recognized what they had rid themselves of and the freedoms they gained; too many of us have apparently grown fat, lazy, and accepting of what we have to be bothered when others threaten it. Worse, at least half the population are simply bent on further pillaging an empty treasury with no thought of sustenance of any kind - "Ask not what your country can do for you ..."
Click to expand...

There are moments that have defined civilizations over the many centuries. History tells us how those times are remembered. Some believe they can control what that story is. Are we in the middle of such a moment? If so, what will happen and how will it be remembered? Almost no country that has fallen throughout times, predicted demise from those making the wrong decisions.

Are the uprisings and political science, propaganda or righteous indignation? If it's righteous indignation how is that possible when less then 50% are members in the house of worship since the first time it was measured by Gallop measured in 1937? When people believe it can perfect life, government becomes their religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#162
#162
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#163
#163
BreatheUT said:
There are moments that have defined civilizations over the many centuries. History tells us how those times are remembered. Some believe they can control what that story is. Are we in the middle of such a moment? If so, what will happen and how will it be remembered? Almost no country that has fallen throughout times, predicted demise from those making the wrong decisions.

Are the uprisings and political science, propaganda or righteous indignation? If it's righteous indignation how is that possible when less then 50% are members in the house of worship since the first time it was measured by Gallop measured in 1937? When people believe it can perfect life, government becomes their religion.
Click to expand...

I made it a point to stay far far away from courses like political science, so I'm definitely poorly prepared to argue a lot of issues using the correct terminology, but I do understand when something doesn't make much sense, and there's a lot of that in both US and world governance right now. One real flashpoint for me is that of a conservative stance (conservative as in a steady course) vs change because change is exciting for some people. Not all change is good; in fact, as you grow older, it's obvious that a lot of change was expensive, disruptive, and should never have been implemented. Anyway, I tend to go my merry way and look at politics likely from a different perspective than most people, and I like to apply engineering and physics to non physical systems, but you'd be surprised how many times it tends to work.

My current thought is that perhaps some more moderate people are missing the boat on how to go head to head with progressive forces. For example, why not fight the LBGTXYZ crowd with sexual harassment suits using the same thought process as has been used in the workplace over unwanted talk, display, etc? "Don't ask; don't tell" isn't a bad philosophy for everybody much of the time about most personal matters anyway. That gets back to evolution and momentum/inertia - things don't happen overnight without a fight - evolutionary rather than revolutionary change buys social acceptance to change; and very little social change is worth a fight because social change comes from within and can't be mandated or institutionalized by law. You'd think humans would have evolved enough by now to understand that point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT and Orangeburst
#164
#164
Franklin Pierce said:
Pelosi says House Leadership 'did not rebuke' Omar over comments about US, Israel, Hamas and Taliban

(CNN)House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday said House leadership "did not rebuke" Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar last week, after criticism from the left that the caucus was unfairly targeting Omar and mischaracterizing her comments about the US, Israel, Hamas and the Taliban.

Pelosi says House leadership 'did not rebuke' Ilhan Omar over comments about US, Israel, Hamas and Taliban - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...

Progressives will never police their kind because outrageous behavior is their stock and trade. Their whole purpose in life is to cancel the status quo even if it destroys civilization. If you gave them all they want today, tomorrow they'll be arguing that it's all wrong and denying they implemented it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joevol33 and Franklin Pierce
#165
#165
AM64 said:
I made it a point to stay far far away from courses like political science, so I'm definitely poorly prepared to argue a lot of issues using the correct terminology, but I do understand when something doesn't make much sense, and there's a lot of that in both US and world governance right now. One real flashpoint for me is that of a conservative stance (conservative as in a steady course) vs change because change is exciting for some people. Not all change is good; in fact, as you grow older, it's obvious that a lot of change was expensive, disruptive, and should never have been implemented. Anyway, I tend to go my merry way and look at politics likely from a different perspective than most people, and I like to apply engineering and physics to non physical systems, but you'd be surprised how many times it tends to work.

My current thought is that perhaps some more moderate people are missing the boat on how to go head to head with progressive forces. For example, why not fight the LBGTXYZ crowd with sexual harassment suits using the same thought process as has been used in the workplace over unwanted talk, display, etc? "Don't ask; don't tell" isn't a bad philosophy for everybody much of the time about most personal matters anyway. That gets back to evolution and momentum/inertia - things don't happen overnight without a fight - evolutionary rather than revolutionary change buys social acceptance to change; and very little social change is worth a fight because social change comes from within and can't be mandated or institutionalized by law. You'd think humans would have evolved enough by now to understand that point.
Click to expand...

To be clear when I was referring to political science I was referring to climate change. It's possible much of it is the science of politics hence political science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#166
#166
landscapingvol said:
They couldn’t be purists, the nation was brand new so to suggest that they weren’t suggesting that isn’t accurate. If by “citizenship you mean entrance into the country, you are mostly correct. Citizenship and its privileges were relegated to white, adult males. The send us your “tired, huddled masses” wasn’t written for another hundred years
Click to expand...
I dont remember too many "keep out" signage going up.

And white males came from many different countries with many different thoughts, cultures, religions, etc. That was the diversity of the time. It's why places like Sweden claim to be more diverse than us, they define diversity by more than skin color.

Pretty much everytime a new European culture showed up in any type of volume there was violence.
 
#168
#168
Starting to read like the Squad was going to take their ball and go home and Nans was going to lose her slim majority so she caved.

No the Squad won’t defect to the opposite side of the aisle but if they just don’t play ball with the Dems then POOF goes the majority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT and AM64
#169
#169
NorthDallas40 said:
Starting to read like the Squad was going to take their ball and go home and Nans was going to lose her slim majority so she caved.

No the Squad won’t defect to the opposite side of the aisle but if they just don’t play ball with the Dems then POOF goes the majority.
Click to expand...
Hopefully
 
#171
#171
NorthDallas40 said:
Starting to read like the Squad was going to take their ball and go home and Nans was going to lose her slim majority so she caved.

No the Squad won’t defect to the opposite side of the aisle but if they just don’t play ball with the Dems then POOF goes the majority.
Click to expand...

Nans might have the Clintons get rid of the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#172
#172
MC_OmarPelosi_web20210617120000.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, BreatheUT and SpaceCoastVol
#173
#173
Ilhan Omar Appears to have Filed Incomplete Financial Disclosure

Omar’s most recent personal disclosure lists only five assets, four of them belonging to her husband

"Squad" firebrand Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., appears to have filed an incomplete financial disclosure form, leaving out her own bank account.

Omar’s most recent personal financial filings discloses only five assets, with four of those listed belonging to her husband, Tim Mynett.

Notably, the disclosure not only fails to include the congresswoman’s husband’s earned income from his job as a partner at political consulting firm eStreet Group, but her own personal bank account itself.

Both Omar’s bank account and her spouse’s earned income from his job are assets required to be disclosed, according to federal law.

Omar also appears to have failed to disclose her bank account in both her 2018 and 2019 financial disclosures, suggesting a potential unethical pattern in what she is disclosing to the public.

Ilhan Omar appears to have filed incomplete financial disclosure
 
#175
#175
Franklin Pierce said:
Ilhan Omar Appears to have Filed Incomplete Financial Disclosure

Omar’s most recent personal disclosure lists only five assets, four of them belonging to her husband

"Squad" firebrand Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., appears to have filed an incomplete financial disclosure form, leaving out her own bank account.

Omar’s most recent personal financial filings discloses only five assets, with four of those listed belonging to her husband, Tim Mynett.

Notably, the disclosure not only fails to include the congresswoman’s husband’s earned income from his job as a partner at political consulting firm eStreet Group, but her own personal bank account itself.

Both Omar’s bank account and her spouse’s earned income from his job are assets required to be disclosed, according to federal law.

Omar also appears to have failed to disclose her bank account in both her 2018 and 2019 financial disclosures, suggesting a potential unethical pattern in what she is disclosing to the public.

Ilhan Omar appears to have filed incomplete financial disclosure
Click to expand...

She makes a mockery of the US. She is a Samali nationalist that has contempt for the country that rescued her.

She's a DEMOCRAT educated in the US. Our vetting system has failed or our education system has. Another radical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franklin Pierce
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top