This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Wildman78
1
« on: Yesterday at 10:16:47 PM »
Wells Fargo and TD Bank have turned over President Trump’s financial records to the House Financial Services Committee, Fox News confirmed on Thursday, amid a contentious legal battle between the Trump administration and congressional Democrats seeking access to sensitive files. The committee, led by Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., is one of several panels that have issued subpoenas and requests for Trump’s financial files. NBC News first reported that Wells Fargo turned over a few thousand documents to the committee, and TD Bank provided a handful. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wells-fargo-td-bank-turn-over-trump-financial-records-to-house-dems/ar-AABO7IW?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=AVRES000
2
« on: Yesterday at 11:56:37 AM »
Thank God for Ben Carson. (Hey, so you K----s want illegals to get tax payer subsidized housing over homeless American citizens?) YOU GD IDIOTS.
' Notwithstanding, the fact the Ben Carsons policy would displace American Citizens who happen to be living with illegals, that policy has nothing to do with him not knowing what a "REO" was with respect to Public Housing. This is just pitiful.  I saw nothing in the Representative's questioning that was unfair or tricky that would cause him to give such an uninformed response.
3
« on: Yesterday at 11:38:23 AM »
Conservatives thought by stacking the courts that they could get away with all kind of wrongdoing. 
Trump's attorneys will stop this....!
How you figure?  After the U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos issued his ruling denying the preliminary injunction, Trump’s lawyers asked for a stay pending appeal. “That application is denied,” Ramos immediately said. The Trump attorney arguing the case – Patrick Strawbridge – told Ramos that it was a “safe bet” that they would appeal the case, after the judge asked. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/judge-rejects-trump-deutsche-bank-capitol-one
4
« on: Yesterday at 06:39:21 AM »
A federal judge dealt a blow to President Donald Trump on Wednesday, ruling that two banks can hand over his financial documents in response to congressional subpoenas. The Trump family and company sued Deutsche Bank and Capital One last month in an effort to block them from turning over financial documents sought by Congress. The House Intelligence and Financial Services committees had issued subpoenas to several banks as part of their investigations of alleged foreign influence on U.S. elections. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos said he disagrees with the arguments from the Trump family attorneys that the subpoenas don't have a legitimate legislative purpose. Ramos described the subpoenas as "undeniably broad" but "clearly pertinent." Ramos issued his ruling after hearing arguments from lawyers representing the Trump and the Democratic-controlled congressional committees. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-rules-deutsche-bank-can-hand-over-trump-financial-records-n1008991Edgardo Ramos was nominated by President Obama to serve as a federal judge in the Southern District of New York in May of 2011. After being approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ramos’ nomination was put before the full Senate. He was unanimously confirmed in a vote of 89-0 on December 5, 2011. Ramos began the job on December 15, 2011. https://usbreakingnews.net/2019/05/22/judge-edgardo-ramos-5-fast-facts-you-need-to-know/
5
« on: May 22, 2019, 04:35:24 PM »
I wouldn't call him an Uncle Tom either but I would call him Sambo. Just out of curiosity, what other evidence do you need to prove that he is a coon? Carson has continued to stump and co-sign an obviously racist president.
As a general rule, I avoid using terms like "Uncle Tom" and "coon." I've heard Trump say things that I consider racist. I've heard reports of Trump doing and saying things I would consider racist However, Dr. Carson may not view Trump as a racist. I don't know what Carson's vision is for HUD. However, that congressional hearing made him look like he really isn't up for this job and that it was a token appointment. Is Uncle Tom at some high level that Carson has not stooped?
Again, I avoid using terms like Uncle Tom. All Black people don't think alike about everything having to do with race. ^^^ I didn't call him an Uncle Tom. I said that he was a dumb bunny. Despite his educational successes, he appears to me as a dumb bunny. Especially as someone who cast their lot with a Satan's minion.
M&G^^^in the post in which Wildman specifically addressed several posters, including your humble poster, he indicated that he would not necessarily call Carson an “Uncle Tom”.
I believe that particular comment was directed at me. But neither too did I call Carson that. I referred to him as “Uncle Ben”. And that is a pejorative that Carson has earned quite well.  I think he really believes he's up for the job, and he really believes that poor Black people can and should do more to help themselves. Unfortunately, he is wrong about being up for the job of HUD Secretary. He's has proven himself woefully inadequate.
6
« on: May 22, 2019, 02:00:33 PM »
YOU K----s ARE NOT OUT AMONG THE PEOPLE WHO COUNT. Please explain what you mean when you say this?
7
« on: May 22, 2019, 01:57:52 PM »
Rep. Ilhan Omar apologizes for 'anti-Semitic' tweets
The apology came a day after Omar posted a pair of tweets suggesting political support for Israel is driven by money from American Jews.
Omar is one of two Muslim-American women who were elected to Congress in last year’s midterms, along with Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. Both have been vocal advocates for Palestinians and support the “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions” (or BDS) movement to punish Israel economically.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said last week he would “take action” to discipline the two, although it’s unclear what he could do to them.
In response, Omar tweeted: “It’s all about the Benjamins baby” — slang for large sums of money.
Then, in response to another Twitter posting questioning who Omar “thinks is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel,” the congresswoman answered “AIPAC!” — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobby that organizes conferences and congressional trips. (As the New York Times notes, AIPAC does not contribute to political campaigns.)
https://news.yahoo.com/house-leaders-condemn-ilhan-omars-anti-semitic-tweets-194337057.html
That's right defend this anti-America...@#%$
Explain to me what excactly are you calling anti-American.
8
« on: May 22, 2019, 01:54:30 PM »
9
« on: May 22, 2019, 08:49:54 AM »
Rep. Ilhan Omar apologizes for 'anti-Semitic' tweets The apology came a day after Omar posted a pair of tweets suggesting political support for Israel is driven by money from American Jews. Omar is one of two Muslim-American women who were elected to Congress in last year’s midterms, along with Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. Both have been vocal advocates for Palestinians and support the “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions” (or BDS) movement to punish Israel economically. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said last week he would “take action” to discipline the two, although it’s unclear what he could do to them. In response, Omar tweeted: “It’s all about the Benjamins baby” — slang for large sums of money. Then, in response to another Twitter posting questioning who Omar “thinks is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel,” the congresswoman answered “AIPAC!” — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobby that organizes conferences and congressional trips. (As the New York Times notes, AIPAC does not contribute to political campaigns.) https://news.yahoo.com/house-leaders-condemn-ilhan-omars-anti-semitic-tweets-194337057.html
10
« on: May 22, 2019, 07:46:53 AM »
Strike 79, soflorattler, CU1994, I agree that Dr. Ben Carson is in over his head. However, I am not ready to call him an Uncle Tom, a useful idiot and a jerk, yes. All he had to do was say, yes I agree with you and the agency is going to take steps to insure that all Public is free from health hazards. Instead, he chose to act like a jackass. Very sad, very sad. 
11
« on: May 22, 2019, 06:24:12 AM »
Confidential draft IRS tax memo says tax returns must be handed to Congress unless president uses executive privilege. Just days after Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he would not comply with a House Democratic subpoena for President Trump’s tax returns, a confidential draft IRS memo obtained by The Washington Post called the disclosure “mandatory,” unless the president asserts his executive privilege. The paper published the 10-page memo that does not mention Trump by name, but appears to add new pressure on the administration. Mnuchin has been resisting House Democrats’ request for Trump’s tax returns on the grounds that such request “lacks a legitimate legislative purpose” and said his department will not “disclose the requested returns and return information.” Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, a lawmaker from Massachusetts, insisted that the committee is looking into the effectiveness of IRS mandatory audits of tax returns of all sitting presidents, a way to justify his claim that the panel has a potential legislative purpose. But the IRS document says the law “does not allow the Secretary to exercise discretion in disclosing the information provided the statutory conditions are met” and directly rejects the reason Mnuchin has cited for withholding the information. “[T]he Secretary’s obligation to disclose return and return information would not be affected by the failure of a tax writing committee … to state a reason for the request,” it reportedly reads, adding that the “only basis the agency’s refusal to comply with a committee’s subpoena would be the invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege.” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-democrats-irs-draft-memo-tax-returns-congressRead Memo: https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/f830cfbd-a251-4f4e-a542-1a6fe6fc0e70/note/9a12c34b-87f3-4dcf-88f6-e481057b5deb.pdf#page=1The memo was a draft, so I doubt that it will have any affect on Mnuchin.
12
« on: May 21, 2019, 05:09:21 PM »
So, anyone that doesn't support Trump doesn't count. What exactly do you mean by that?
That's not what I am saying IDIOT. I am saying the polls were incorrect leading to the 2016 election and there's a good possibility they're wrong this time too. I used the stream as illustrations. YOU GD FOOL.
Excuse me, but you posted this: LISTEN TO TRUMP'S SON - YOU GD FOOL.... YOU K----s ARE NOT OUT AMONG THE PEOPLE WHO COUNT.
LISTEN TO THIS PUSSY GEORGE STEPANANPOULOS....A HILLARY AND CLINTON SUCK UP... Now Stop calling me out my name and tell us exactly what you mean when you say "you negroes are not [out] among the people who count." Arent' you implying that there are people who count and people who don't count, and if we aren't out among the Trump supporters, we don't count. Be a man. Seriously, how can you hold yourself out as a Christian and engage is all this name calling, using phrases like "YOU GD FOOL."
13
« on: May 21, 2019, 05:06:12 PM »
In the debate over abortion, one issue that seems to have been swept under the rug is the propriety of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision itself. The mantra of “Judicial Activism” has been repeated so often that many people on both the Left and the Right seem to have accepted the notion that, for good or bad, Roe v. Wade was an instance of extreme judicial activism, a case of judicial legislation. Indeed, many point to the Roe decision as the most egregious example of such. I think this is a mistake. Whether one believes that the act of abortion is morally wrong or not is obviously irrelevant to the calculus of whether Roe v. Wade was properly decided. What was and remains at issue is whether a state has the right under the U.S. Constitution to criminalize abortions and their facilitation. If one accepts that there is at least a minimum right to privacy against state action contained in the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, then it seems fairly clear that a state must justify any intrusion into a citizen’s privacy with some sort of state interest, whether “significant,” “substantial” or “compelling.” And until fetuses are considered legal “persons,” it seems extraordinarily difficult to make a coherent argument that there is a compelling state interest in a State prohibition on abortions. Now the first thing that Roe critics attack is the “judicially created” implied right to privacy. Admittedly, this is the weakest link in the reasoning of the Roe Court. The Constitution does not explicitly mention such a right. However, what I would point out is that, as Brennan describes, there is a long line of decisions, dating back at least to the late 1800s, wherein the Court has seemingly enforced some sort of privacy right against state action, whether in the context of viewing pornography in one’s home, protection against wiretaps and other surveillance, the use of contraception, or protection against forced stomach-pumping. As such, one can minimally claim that a large number of justices since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment have interpreted the Constitution to include such a right against intrusive State interference. Therefore, one can boldly state that there is at least a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution that includes some right to privacy against the states. And unless one is a Confederacy advocate who believes that the Fourteenth Amendment should have no or little effect upon the autonomy of the states, one might take pause to consider the ramifications of an alternative interpretation. In the absence of a right to privacy against state ac-tion, what would prevent the leaders of Massachu-setts from implementing, say, a mandatory diet of wheatgrass juice and clam chowder on its residents? http://hlrecord.org/2003/03/in-defense-of-roe-v-wade/
14
« on: May 21, 2019, 04:50:55 PM »
So, anyone that doesn't support Trump doesn't count. What exactly do you mean by that?
15
« on: May 21, 2019, 04:48:48 PM »
The argument in the OP asserts that there is no right to privacay in the Constitution. I disagree. If Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, then Griswald v. Connecticut was decided wrongly. The issue in Griswald: Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives? In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Douglas, the Court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. While the Court explained that the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicted with the exercise of this right and was therefore held null and void. Justice Goldberg, joined by Justices Warren and Brennan, concurred. Rather than finding that the right to privacy was contained in imaginary penumbras, Goldberg located it in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Harlan concurred, arguing that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to privacy. Justice White concurred, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment was the proper basis for the decision. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496
|
Show Posts
