LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:43 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:36 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:34 am Quite right, jhu72...more on the story here

"The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday upheld a subpoena that House Democrats sent to President Donald Trump’s accounting firm for his financial records and tax returns.

The court issued a 2-1 ruling that the House Oversight & Reform Committee has the constitutional authority to investigate wrongdoing by the president of the United States and can therefore subpoena his financial records in pursuit of that investigation."

tic...tic...tic...

..

My question is why was it only a 2-1 decision?? Some mouth breather on the court that never read the constitution?

My old friends on the left (by which I do not mean Democrats, but the hard left) do not seek honest dialogue, they seek submission (see above). It is a dangerous game of yours JHU72, the inability to engage in honest disagreement but rather demand 100% fealty, because that usually ends up badly for those seeking to dominate. A similar issue is brewing with Ellen DeGeneres sitting with George Bush at a football game...the online left has swarmed Ellen's social media (and now written full articles) denouncing her (a reliable left ally) in rather disturbingly personal terms, similar to how the Young Pioneers turned their parents in to the Soviets.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:24 pmWhat profanity MD?...If you don't like my profanity MD... I don't really care one little bit...I apologize if my rough language made your sensitive nature uncomfortable.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:50 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:43 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:36 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:34 am Quite right, jhu72...more on the story here

"The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday upheld a subpoena that House Democrats sent to President Donald Trump’s accounting firm for his financial records and tax returns.

The court issued a 2-1 ruling that the House Oversight & Reform Committee has the constitutional authority to investigate wrongdoing by the president of the United States and can therefore subpoena his financial records in pursuit of that investigation."

tic...tic...tic...

..

My question is why was it only a 2-1 decision?? Some mouth breather on the court that never read the constitution?

My old friends on the left (by which I do not mean Democrats, but the hard left) do not seek honest dialogue, they seek submission (see above). It is a dangerous game of yours JHU72, the inability to engage in honest disagreement but rather demand 100% fealty, because that usually ends up badly for those seeking to dominate. A similar issue is brewing with Ellen DeGeneres sitting with George Bush at a football game...the online left has swarmed Ellen's social media (and now written full articles) denouncing her (a reliable left ally) in rather disturbingly personal terms, similar to how the Young Pioneers turned their parents in to the Soviets.

Their issue with GWB is that they believe he committed war crimes (ginned up invasion of Iraq, approval of torture methods for interrogation...). Not simply an issue with the fact that Bush was on the right side of the aisle... So they view the association with a lot more suspicion than a relationship across the right left divide. The Notorious RBG had quite a friendship with Scalia, even though they were pretty much on opposite sides of any split SC decisions. She has never gotten a lot of pushback for that friendship...

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:49 am

Boo!

You mean like the Faux News entertainment crowd and the delusional right wing conspiracy theorists turned on George Will, Joe Scarborough, and George W. Bush for calling Trump out for what he is/was. You mean like that??

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:05 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:49 am

Boo!

You mean like the Faux News entertainment crowd and the delusional right wing conspiracy theorists turned on George Will, Joe Scarborough, and George W. Bush for calling Trump out for what he is/was. You mean like that??

Fox News employs over 2,000 employees and almost all of them are on LinkedIn; go 'friend' one, have a dinner with them, and tell us then if they are the scary right-wing lot you suppose they are. A Fox correspondent, Jennifer Griffin, has been the most persistent and substantive critic of Trump's decision to leave Syria. Shep Smith regularly criticizes Trump, as do Bret Baier and Chris Wallace.

I might disagree with Justice Stomayor on many issues (probably and especially the constitutionality of a wealth tax), but when she rules against what I would prefer, I do not think in a million lifetimes would I call her 'brain-dead' (such as you have called a judge on this decision in the original post) I respect the heck out of the Lady Justice, actually. I'd seek to know her reasoning, recognizing that she might have had a very different upbringing than I, leading to an informed set of personal beliefs slightly different from mine (not better or worse, just different). It's rare when I meet anyone where I can not find common ground; almost everyone has a valuable story to tell, everyone is interesting, you simply need to be curious enough to discover it. I am sure that were you to meet almost any Fox employee, you would see that they are just like you and me. Some may happen to have a different informed history and therefore set of beliefs than you; what they are not, generally, is dishonest in their approach to news.

Back to you. The hard left (not the entire Party) in this country is imo in dangerous territory these days. There seems to be a very odd, mad, vituperative impulse to punish debate which recognizes an opposing view (perhaps Trump has caused this, to some extent, or maybe he simply revealed it). It has been disheartening to speak with friends who are on that far left grid who simply will no longer entertain informed debate from any side other than the one they have chosen. imo, I find this behavior uniquely un-American.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:12 pm Try for consistency. You seem to want to fault me for calling out specifics and extrapolating to the general, when you have done exactly that in referring to the left.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:18 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:12 pm Try for consistency. You seem to want to fault me for calling out specifics and extrapolating to the general, when you have done exactly that in referring to the left.

The "HARD" left, which I call it, is not the Left, and imo is the minority of the left, and a real minority of Democrats. Your posts indicate you might be hard left.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:30 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:18 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:12 pm Try for consistency. You seem to want to fault me for calling out specifics and extrapolating to the general, when you have done exactly that in referring to the left.

The "HARD" left, which I call it, is not the Left, and imo is the minority of the left, and a real minority of Democrats. Your posts indicate you might be hard left.

I guess you don't pay much attention. There are a number of moderate republicans on this forum that I have very pleasant relationships with, which should be obvious to anyone who reads. So if I am "hard left" a totally undefined term, your observation of the "hard left" is proven to be bogus. You might be mistaking "hard left" in my case for not suffering fools.

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:50 pm So it turns out that State and WH tried to keep Amb. Yovanovitch (still a State Dept employee) from testifying today.

Amb. Yovanovitch tells State and WH to pound sand.

Well done Ambassador Y.

What happens, though, if a president uses the powers of office to disrupt the next election? What if that president does so by brazenly enlisting the aid of a hostile foreign power? Or if he does so by trying in secret to extort cooperation from a foreign ally threatened by that same hostile power? What if the president has denied the existence of an ongoing systematic cyberattack from the hostile power, which every U.S. intelligence service calls a clear and present threat to our democracy? What if the actions of that president raise urgent questions about the legitimacy of the next election and cast a darker cloud over how he gained the office in the first place?

There have been earlier impeachments and interferences with democratic institutions in our history, but nothing like this one. In this, as he likes to say, Trump truly stands alone. He has assaulted American democracy, claimed he has the authority to do so, and dared anybody to do anything about it, dismissing with contempt Congress’ clear constitutional authority to oversee and check the executive branch. He thinks he can use the office of the presidency as a personal instrument, along with private emissaries, to desecrate the rule of law and then protect himself from the consequences. He even declares in public that he is the law, claiming that, according to Article II of the Constitution, “I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” Not even the most corrupt and criminal of our previous presidents has tried to pervert our most sacred institutions as openly as Trump has.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:30 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:18 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:12 pm Try for consistency. You seem to want to fault me for calling out specifics and extrapolating to the general, when you have done exactly that in referring to the left.

The "HARD" left, which I call it, is not the Left, and imo is the minority of the left, and a real minority of Democrats. Your posts indicate you might be hard left.

I guess you don't pay much attention. There are a number of moderate republicans on this forum that I have very pleasant relationships with, which should be obvious to anyone who reads. So if I am "hard left" a totally undefined term, your observation of the "hard left" is proven to be bogus. You might be mistaking "hard left" in my case for not suffering fools.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:45 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:30 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:18 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:12 pm Try for consistency. You seem to want to fault me for calling out specifics and extrapolating to the general, when you have done exactly that in referring to the left.

The "HARD" left, which I call it, is not the Left, and imo is the minority of the left, and a real minority of Democrats. Your posts indicate you might be hard left.

I guess you don't pay much attention. There are a number of moderate republicans on this forum that I have very pleasant relationships with, which should be obvious to anyone who reads. So if I am "hard left" a totally undefined term, your observation of the "hard left" is proven to be bogus. You might be mistaking "hard left" in my case for not suffering fools.

72 I have always considered you a FLP type. That is never said by me as an insult. I think it fairly describes your political and philosophical view of the world. You are who you are and that is why we live in a free country. I may disagree with you 99.985% of the time but I respect what you believe and realize like myself we are too set in our ways to be easily persuaded otherwise. I am perfectly fine with you being wrong 99.985% of the time.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:59 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:45 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:30 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:18 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:12 pm Try for consistency. You seem to want to fault me for calling out specifics and extrapolating to the general, when you have done exactly that in referring to the left.

The "HARD" left, which I call it, is not the Left, and imo is the minority of the left, and a real minority of Democrats. Your posts indicate you might be hard left.

I guess you don't pay much attention. There are a number of moderate republicans on this forum that I have very pleasant relationships with, which should be obvious to anyone who reads. So if I am "hard left" a totally undefined term, your observation of the "hard left" is proven to be bogus. You might be mistaking "hard left" in my case for not suffering fools.

72 I have always considered you a FLP type. That is never said by me as an insult. I think it fairly describes your political and philosophical view of the world. You are who you are and that is why we live in a free country. I may disagree with you 99.985% of the time but I respect what you believe and realize like myself we are too set in our ways to be easily persuaded otherwise. I am perfectly fine with you being wrong 99.985% of the time.

You are of course wrong on a number of fronts.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:21 pm Why can't the nation just get it over with and drag trump out into the street and give him the Joan of Arc treatment. beat him to a bloody pulp and then burn him at the stake and then give him the Mussolini treatment and hang his carcass from a lamppost on a bridge. If I know some of the posters on this forum that would still not be good enough to assuage the hatred and anger in your souls. Maybe throwing in Mike Pence might make all of you feel better... After all... LOVE TRUMPS HATE. i hope i have not offended the sensitivities of a certain poster here. i feel so very bad if i did.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:56 pm Shep Smith just announced he is leaving Faux News. Wonder why?