What about the ‘Fienstien Rule’ where you unilaterially release stuff.
Go to jail for releasing information that there is basically an election fixing coup, That makes sense.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
What about the ‘Fienstien Rule’ where you unilaterially release stuff.
Go to jail for releasing information that there is basically an election fixing coup, That makes sense.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Senior Member
Seems to me it should fall under the NO FEAR Act. Not that that kept any concientious .gov employees who weren't DNC contributors from getting prosecuted and imprisoned under Obama.Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand
What if this whole crusade's a charade?
And behind it all there's a price to be paid
For the blood which we dine
Justified in the name of the holy and the divine…
Senior Member
See HOMELAND Season 1, Episode 2 'Grace'.
That's how you get unarranted (of course 'semi warranted' for the show) FISA warrants.
Senior Member
https://nypost.com/2018/01/18/did-pu...aring-dossier/
Duh. The content of the dossier was specifically tailored to harm Trump with the two main groups with the lightest allegience to him and exploit who is was in general. The piss bed and strippers was to reduce Trump's tepid support among evangelicals and the ties to Russia were make the security focused people not support him. The finanicial stuff was there because with Trump's complex business interests and holding onto his tax returns, the charges could never be called totally false. How do you prove you didn't have shady financial dealings?
The Russians were looking to make a mess of the election on both sides. The dems picked up the narrative and ran with it afterwards....
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Senior Member
Now it is the Russians through the NRA to Trump.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/o...ion-columnists
Right.....
Of course it is a Progressive fantasy that in the words of the article that would implicate the whole GOP party since the NRA supports many of them and if the money came from Russia...
Russian and the NRA.... sure that makes sense.
The Soviet and Russians supporting all kinds of leftists and environmental groups for decades seems to escaped everyones definition of treason.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Site Sponsor
A trick that predates even the Alinsky Rules in the Radical Left Playbook: "Whatever you're planning or doing, make sure you accuse the other guy of it before they can accuse you." This way, no matter how true our accusations they just look like mudslinging and "everybody does it"-ism.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>Ye best start believin' in Orwellian Dystopias, mateys... yer LIVIN' in one!--after Capt. Hector Barbossa
Psalms 109:8, 43:1
LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.
Senior Member
What cracks me up is that the Dems think the NRA is so powerful. It may have spent $24 million in 2016 lobbying, but it doesn't even scratch the surface of what dozens of companies and organizations spent.
Senior Member
The NRA is the bogeyman to the left. That a Russian-NRA link is the mirror of "Pizza-Gate" level of incredulity is probably lost on the left. The NRAs power isn't in its money, its in its membership.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Senior Member
Yep. While they only boast only 5,000,000 members. Everyone of those members knows 10 non-members that should be.. or at least agrees with the goals of the gun owner.
Senior Member
Listening to some of the "R's" yesterday and today being interviewed about the memo, I am starting to believe it is a bunch of hot air. They all talk about how everyone needs to see it and then hem & hawing about the release.
One of the typical interviews:
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks