It's the communism, stupid! Biden's White House finally identifies Cuba's true problem

Of course the point I make, and you know it, is opposition in Cuba-citizens to the government and in America citizens to a corrupt media and censorship in Social media coerced by the government and those controlling it. Also the drive to limit our second ammendment.

 

What liberty was taken from you?

Do you know what Franklin was referring to?

Its a balancing act, because sometimes the threat is real (terrorism was real). The Constitution mandates the government keep the citizens safe (and typically that is their only motivation), and yet at the same time that can't go too far or they violate other parts of the Constitution. In the end of the day, people will complain either way, because either the government is doing too much, or not enough.

Going back to the topic, which the use of propaganda (commie under every bed) to create a non-existing threat, in order to get people to support silly things.

 

Sho-nuff. Thing is that McCarthy took his propaganda from Hitler while American propagandists took theirs from McCarthy.

 

That's a fact. My true and only shock is that it was Sweden that took the lead! Mind you I knew about Sweden's cooperation with the CIA and the clandestine (ILLEGAL by Swedish law) flights from Stockholm to Guantanamo ... but putting out an Interpol alert for Assange on a clearly phoney "rape" charge is beyond anything I ever would have expected Sweden to do.

 

Moronic gibberish is not "stalemate"

 

I'm surprised you even responded.

 

Many essential liberty has been taken over the years - Clearly you have no clue what essential liberty is -and no ability to retain information or learn anything .. as we have discussed Pot at length.

You have no clue what you are talking about w/r to the constitution - there is no "Mandate to keep people safe" ... OTHER THAN - to keep people safe from the Gov't .. .not "Safe from all threats in general"

Your claim is an anathema to the constitution - a utilitarian justification for law that allows for an end run around the safeguards which protect essential liberty - hence why such arguments are an anathema.

Sorry mate - but you do not know the meaning of a Constitutional Republic - don't know the principles by which the constitution is to be interpreted.

 

Who all learned the trade from Edward Bernays - something now referred to as "Public Relations"

 

Nothing to do really with the phony rape charge other than an excuse. You want to try him for rape - then do so. The problem here is the serious Rule of Law violation - right to speedy trial.

ahh but who cares about that right -- such rules only apply when we want them as per our "Do as we say - not as we do" position.

 

Jesus Christ! No offense, Lord.

 

That we know but the Swedish courts publicly feigned innocence. Yeah, like when has anyone put out an international APB on a rape case that the so-called victims denied took place?

 

Exactly - or held without trial for 10 years.

 

Ah, your standard "you have no clue" response to every single discussion. Rarely do I run into people so full of themselves.

Yes, its a mandate and not just a mere suggestion. The preamble explains why the Constitution was created: to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare. And the Section 8 in the Constitution authorizes the government collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to fulfill such duties.

I guess you are not going to answer what Benny was referring to. I'll help, - he was helping the Assembly raise funds (taxes) to pay for the defense against marauding Indians. It was a part of a letter he wrote to the governor who had vetoed the spending bill. He felt it was the duty of the Assembly to help the "freemen" fight the Indians, but the Freemen did not want the government (US was still under the king of England's rule) to go further than providing funds, hence the famous quote.

Your response: You have no clue....you have no clue....you have no clue....you have no clue....you have no clue....you have no clue....LOL

Have a nice (bitter and angry) day......mate

 

Give or take 5 more.

 

As if Sanders' adding those 3 additional syllables would stop Republicans' demonizing "Social DEMOCRACY." Are you serious?
Didn't I just read in another thread, that you're contemplating giving up voting, because that Party doesn't have the integrity to admit defeat?... And what misused word was it, that gave Republicans their opening, to charge that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring out of a pizza restaurant?

To think that Bernie S. only needed to change his wording, and the Republican line of attack would, in any meaningful way, differ-- besides their, then, claiming that Sanders was also trying to hide his true intentions-- is awfully naive, and doesn't track with past behavior (especially not the recent past).

I wonder, had Sanders been saying, "Social Democracy," all along (which is his officially registered affiliation, regardless), if even Biden would not have called Bernie a Socialist, during the Primaries.

Speaking with scrupulous accuracy, is not going to change POLITICS.

 

The best way would be to have strict border control and keeping tabs on who is coming in and who is going out. Another way is forgetting political correctness and concentrating on those who should be monitored, even if it's detrimental to one's political aspirations.

 

No, they would not stop, but they'd have to lie about it.

 

Most terrorists in US have been US citizens, and the ones who did 9/11 flew into US airports like any other tourist.

 

I know, but why allow other ones the chance to enter the country? Look, I'm not denying the right for people to come into the country, only that they should be monitored. Why create more problems?

 

Actually I disagree with title of the thread and that it's not communism since we're heading down that path with our 'Reset' and one world order/government.. Biden is lying, the problem is Russia. It has always been Russia.

The fear is that Moscow will establish a base in Cuba in response to the threats we impose on Russia's borders.

 

I am including the time he spent in assylum but, either way .. the time for him to be tried expired a long time ago - and as such - he should be set free.

 

I agree with all of this and it is the reason why my normally leftist vote has been going elsewhere the last few years.

 

I've intentionally lost count. If I dwell on the suffering Julian Assange has endured by more than one rogue entity I am afraid that I'll gather rocks and a huge stick and start smashing government offices.

No argument from me.

 

Its far easier for terrorists to fly into the US legally and have a proper tourist visa to move around freely than to sneak across the border and then try to avoid capture while in US. Monitored? Yes, ports of entry are monitored.

 

I'm not sure that I do, or that you understand what I'm saying. Calling one ETHNIC GROUP, "more honest," than another, is no different from calling that other group, "more DISHONEST." So let's try that: Jews are dishonest; oh, wait, what I really meant to say was that non-Jews are more honest than Jews. Or how about: Whites are more trustworthy, than darker-skinned peoples/ non-whites aren't as trustworthy as white races. Does it strike you that either of the foregoing statements would call for documented proof?
It's not so much that I, personally, require the substantiation. I was calling your attention to the fact that your statement, based only on your impression-- whether or not, if subjected to testing, it would prove to be correct-- in lieu of any statistical data to back up your feeling, is an ethnically-biased (i.e., prejudiced) statement. But hey, don't worry about what I think; it doesn't bother me. I just thought you would wish to realize this, because of the reactions you are bound to get from others, if you continue speaking of things like, "honesty," in that manner.

If the things you believe about, "national honesty," have a basis in fact, it stands to reason that there would be corroborating data, available. The socially more acceptable, expected, way of proceeding, would be for you to do your research before making such a statement. You seem to be doubling-down, as if even more sure of your idea, now. I was just alerting you to the fact that most people, whether or not they voice their feelings to you, will find such judgements improper, on your part. Some may also take personal offense at what they could understandably see as an insult. But it's, of course, totally your call, how you talk about people, on a national or regional scale.

BTW, I believe there is evidence, that people who are more financially well-off, cheat on their taxes with a greater frequency, than poorer people (though, granted, I don't have those stats, at my finger tips). Nonetheless, it might be beneficial for you to consider the possibility, with what limited info you must be using to come to your conclusions, that you could be mistaken. When speaking about elements of character, on a national or even larger level, I believe that the consensus opinion is that it is inappropriate to make such remarks, unfounded on citable evidence (for whatever that's worth, to you).