Jump to content

bsuhead

Members
  • Posts

    318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Team
    Boise State
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Obama used the DOJ to spy on journalists and you think he's above doing the same to a presidential candidate in an election? You "lol" at the source, which, btw, was not Levin but an article incorporating what he talked about among others, and that is as well sourced as any evidence of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. The allegation by Trump is serious and if true it's not Trump that is going down. I've never been a huge Trump fan but the machinations behind unverified/unsourced leaks designed to take him down are only going to make him stronger.
  2. Just to add...nothing verified(as usual during this whole shit show) or really sourced but adds angles to this mess. There's just as much "evidence" that Obama and friends are jacking with our election than Trump and the Russians. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/03/mark_levin_the_real_scandal_is_that_obama_spied_on_trump_during_2016_campaign.html
  3. You do know that Obamas State Dept. are the ones that invited and coordinated the Russian ambassador to be at the RNC event do you not? Lets see how deep this rabbit hole goes with all the Dems involved in meetings with the Russians...it has to be nefarious for my connect-the-dots coloring book tells me so. Sessions needs to un-recuse himself and get those bastards.
  4. yeah, overused word. It's pretty hard to meet the criteria of treason as it is specifically spelled out in our Constitution what it is.
  5. It depends on what you mean by "Hillary/emails thing". I found the emails themselves extremely entertaining.....the emails and what they contained was never denied and getting a better inside look into US politics was a goldmine of info. The initial secure/non-secure thing got overdone but of course it evolved to beyond theory on what could happen.
  6. btw...this is a bit more of a dubious thing and if Sessions put it this way he'd be toast.
  7. Because it wasn't the context of the question. He's got a job function. He was being grilled about communication outside of that. Why would the questioner preface the question with something that is already obvious to everyone in the room? This is only a "gotcha" to those that want it to be. btw, the whole Russian and GOP angle is getting pretty tiring. I agree with some here to just investigate the damned thing fully and go from there. To me, this is still a post-election cry session by the Dems who can't believe they screwed the election up so badly. It makes a lot more sense if any of the email/communication leaks were Russian it was intended to marginalize Clintons presidency(and the Dem ties to Russia are much stronger than any of the GOPs) who 95% of the pundits even after the leaks figured she'd be elected. How would the Russians know any better?
  8. really? Just cause I don't disperse my wisdom on here much(only wise by default here) you assume I'm someone else? or, is that your best argument?
  9. a free press is...I don't think Trump ever said it wasn't. Wake me up when he starts spying on em. just a woman? black transgendered muslim woman and that person will walk on water
  10. All this awesome power and this is the best they can come up with?....color me disappointed.
  11. oh, the details....I didn't read the whole thread but didn't Obama use the DOJ to go after two different journalists? oh, why, yes he did. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html?_r=0 Trump is just carrying on the tradition though in a bit more entertaining way.
  12. yeah..I get the same impression. He's trolling...insta-reactions via the miracle of the internet is a wondrous thing to behold
  13. Some sort of leap I think is inherent in just about all philosophical discussions and Jwherb I think recognizes the idea that his position that there are no natural rights is included. The idea of natural rights has been around for a long time but doesn't always come from the same argument/reasoning and the idea that they exist without humans is not exclusive...they may not exist without us but that does not make them any less "natural". I tend to view natural rights as existing but not in our presence. As a species our very ability to reason alters the universe just as a physical star in a part of a universe can dictate whether or not there is life on a planet our very existence can dictate whether or not a natural right exists. I do like your idea on a social contract....if natural rights are accepted as existing it would follow that only those strong among us would benefit and we'd simply be in a pure Darwinian situation. Forming a government/social pact may not necessarily restrict all natural rights but protect as many as the social contract can and by extension has to limit some individuals rights. Many, many, previous thinkers on natural rights explore this and some of our founders were obsessed with it. Anyway, I'm with Stunner......lets get this thing rolling, California. It's very limited in scope as it is right now but is a huge step in utilizing it's young population as pawns so it can virtue signal superiority of thought. For me to believe California is actually serious it needs to continually extend whatever ban it can come up with against whoever/whatever it does not socially agree with. Though nowadays states rights are continually limited they are still able to encroach more and more on the natural rights of their citizenry
×
×
  • Create New...