Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberals and dems....what's with all the non-sequitur rage, hissy fits, violence, suppressing the view on the other side at colleges in berkley, NYC, etc? Such an angry bunch. Not good for your physical/mental health.
What is "the other side"? We liberals have learned that some debates have one side - some have 100 sides. The very idea that bomb throwers and trolls are "a side" is false on its face.
Come up with a subject and we can debate the "sides" - however many they may be. Like that horrible ACA which Trump was going to replace the first day. I just heard him say it may happen next year (2018).
It appears there are more than two sides to health care.
What about the Iranian deal? Trump called it the worse deal in history that he would rid us of. Now he says he accepts this "bad deal" and will let it stand. Which side of that.......??
This is really the folly of the dumbed down American Conversation. As one journalist noted - it's not a question of "two sides" or "fair and balanced". It's a matter of whether something is true or not. We've all been sucked into this alternate reality where if
I say evolution and Darwin had it mostly right...
and You Say you are a Scientologist and we come from alien seeds
and Someone else says the earth is 8,000 years old.
We then have a "fair and balanced" panel with the 3 of us discussing these 3 "truths". Wrong. Fact mattered in the world before about 2000.
Regarding his replacement plan, Trump Said (lied) on Jan-15-2017...
"It's very much formulated down to the final strokes. We haven't put it in quite yet but we're going to be doing it soon," Trump told the Post, adding he was waiting for his nominee for health and human services secretary, Tom Price, to be confirmed.
Whatever happened to that law where Bannon would need the advise and consent of the Senate to be on the NSC?
You're remembering a law that never actually existed. Senate approval is not needed for an appointment to the post of National Security Advisor.
Obama appointed Susan Rice to the NSC solely for the purpose of shielding her from questions arising out of the Benghazi fiasco, and for no other reason. Ms. Rice was merely a partisan White House hack who may have had some knowledge of the events on the night of Sept 11, 2012. GOP senators expressed an interest in hearing testimony from Ms. Rice regarding those events, but that would have been deleterious to the re-election effort of B. Hussein Obama, which was the only consideration that mattered to the President at the time, apparently.
She was not, obviously, some indispensable intelligence operative whose skill set was badly needed by the NSA. But she needed a job at a time where an nomination to Secretary of State would place her in front of a Senate confirmation committee, which was the last thing B. Hussein Obama wanted. So he appointed her National Security Advisor to replace the outgoing Tom Donilon, thereby keeping her on the payroll, and away from any hostile questions that might be posed by a Senate confirmation committee.
You're remembering a law that never actually existed. Senate approval is not needed for an appointment to the post of National Security Advisor.
Obama appointed Susan Rice to the NSC solely for the purpose of shielding her from questions arising out of the Benghazi fiasco, and for no other reason. Ms. Rice was merely a partisan White House hack who may have had some knowledge of the events on the night of Sept 11, 2012. GOP senators expressed an interest in hearing testimony from Ms. Rice regarding those events, but that would have been deleterious to the re-election effort of B. Hussein Obama, which was the only consideration that mattered to the President at the time, apparently.
She was not, obviously, some indispensable intelligence operative whose skill set was badly needed by the NSA. But she needed a job at a time where an nomination to Secretary of State would place her in front of a Senate confirmation committee, which was the last thing B. Hussein Obama wanted. So he appointed her National Security Advisor to replace the outgoing Tom Donilon, thereby keeping her on the payroll, and away from any hostile questions that might be posed by a Senate confirmation committee.
I love the emphasis of the middle name. As if that is a disqualifier for being President. Subtle!!
What is "the other side"? We liberals have learned that some debates have one side - some have 100 sides. The very idea that bomb throwers and trolls are "a side" is false on its face.
Come up with a subject and we can debate the "sides" - however many they may be. Like that horrible ACA which Trump was going to replace the first day. I just heard him say it may happen next year (2018).
It appears there are more than two sides to health care.
What about the Iranian deal? Trump called it the worse deal in history that he would rid us of. Now he says he accepts this "bad deal" and will let it stand. Which side of that.......??
This is really the folly of the dumbed down American Conversation. As one journalist noted - it's not a question of "two sides" or "fair and balanced". It's a matter of whether something is true or not. We've all been sucked into this alternate reality where if
I say evolution and Darwin had it mostly right...
and You Say you are a Scientologist and we come from alien seeds
and Someone else says the earth is 8,000 years old.
We then have a "fair and balanced" panel with the 3 of us discussing these 3 "truths". Wrong. Fact mattered in the world before about 2000.
You're missing the point. What this is all about is simply allowing another view that you or I may big time disagree with to express their views on college campuses like in berkely, nyu, etc without chasing opposing views out by throwing hissy fits that include all sorts of violence like throwing bricks through windows, starting fires, threats, etc. If the libs/dems at a college campus can't have an open/adult like debate on a college campus which supposedly is the height of free speech/expression/openness, hearing another side regardless if we agree/disagree with them, we have nothing to talk about until more than a few on the left gets civilized/act like adults.
What's most telling to me? Why haven't these colleges/a bunch of professors at these colleges made public statements that this is wrong/unacceptable/fascist behavior on a college campus of all places as they are places for open debate, not suppressing/acting in a fascist manner and most importantly, apologized to these speakers and scheduled these speakers back ASAP so a civil debate can occur but I didn't hear that, have you?
So in summary, it all starts off with people growing up and having a civil debate and not suppressing another side that seems to enjoy yelling, screaming, causing violence, etc. Look at the videos of what went on at berkely and nyu and you'll see the embarrassment the left are making of themselves and the point of my last post.
You're remembering a law that never actually existed. Senate approval is not needed for an appointment to the post of National Security Advisor.
Obama appointed Susan Rice to the NSC solely for the purpose of shielding her from questions arising out of the Benghazi fiasco, and for no other reason. Ms. Rice was merely a partisan White House hack who may have had some knowledge of the events on the night of Sept 11, 2012. GOP senators expressed an interest in hearing testimony from Ms. Rice regarding those events, but that would have been deleterious to the re-election effort of B. Hussein Obama, which was the only consideration that mattered to the President at the time, apparently.
She was not, obviously, some indispensable intelligence operative whose skill set was badly needed by the NSA. But she needed a job at a time where an nomination to Secretary of State would place her in front of a Senate confirmation committee, which was the last thing B. Hussein Obama wanted. So he appointed her National Security Advisor to replace the outgoing Tom Donilon, thereby keeping her on the payroll, and away from any hostile questions that might be posed by a Senate confirmation committee.
We're not talking about setting up Bannon as National Security Advisor but Trump appointing him to a permanent seat on the NSC.
"U.S. Code 50, section 3021, defines the members of the council as the president, vice president, secretaries of state, defense, energy and "the Secretaries and Under Secretaries of other executive departments and of the military departments, when appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to serve at his pleasure."
I'm not sure what Obama and Ms. Rice or Benghazi have to do with Trump following the law.
But thanks for bringing up Benghazi.
33 hearings held in the congressional investigations and four public hearings, at an estimated cost of $7+ million determined that Republicans in Congress cut funding for embassy security which resulted in the Benghazi embassy not having adequate security.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not good for your physical/mental health.
