Guantanamo, Illegal Settlements, And Voting.

What does that has to do with the U.S. protecting Israel's illegal activity with its veto? The fact is that, by using its veto in the UN Security Council, the U.S. is an accomplice to Israel's blatant disregard for International law regarding the building of illegal settlements on Palestinian territory. Brave new world? No, same old world.

 

Nonsense, you say? It's not that someone needs to acknowledge the difference between owed money and owned money. It's that someone needs to change that system of usury. What is your argument for a monetary system in which debt is increased exponentially rather than have Congress create the money debt-free?

 

Changing that system would be a monumental undertaking, and one which is practically unattainable without a political revolution. If our present system does indeed collapse. the survivors might see the need to build a better one in the future. We probably won't be alive to see it. So far, you've provided only a sketchy idea of how the new system would work, and no idea at all about how to get there. Not likely to go over in an election campaign.Until you do that, I doubt that many people will take it seriously. Harping on problems with no solutions comes across like so much agitprop.

It has to do with political reality. For the Israeli side, see http://jcpa.org/arti...i-settlements/ I think they're wrong, and that basically our system will remain same old, same old, with its quaint electoral college and its debt-based money and banking system. C'est la vie. But at least we don't have to wreck the environment and dismantle our social programs--unless we want to.
i
i

 

You are correct. Israel will continue violating International law, and the U.S. will continue to stand in the way of sanctions being imposed, thereby acting as accomplices.

However, You need to explain the upheaval that will occur when we have Congress coin money (as per the constitution), and no longer have the FED print up money and then charging us interest on that money.

 

That won't occur. Congress is cool with the banks doing what they always do.

 

Explain the upheaval that will occur when we have Congress coin money (as per the constitution), and no longer have the FED print up money and then charging us interest on that printed money.

 

This is in response to Okiefreak's mistaken belief that he addressed, and somehow refuted, the proven fact that Clinton was a security risk, and his mistaken belief that referring to these facts as a broken record somehow detracts from these facts. It doesn't!

I then pointed out how his denial of the facts below stands as a classic example of cognitive dissonance.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Government investigators said Friday that they had discovered classified information on the private email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while secretary of state, stating unequivocally that those secrets never should have been stored outside of secure government computer systems. Mrs. Clinton has said for months that she kept no classified information on the private server that she set up in her house so she would not have to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said Friday that any government secrets found on the server had been classified after the fact.

But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation's intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, if you still believe that you've addressed that, then go ahead and show us how you did it. Otherwise, my claim concerning your cognitive dissonance stands.

 

What does this have to do with Guantanamo, the Settlements, or Voting? My positions on those topics are stated above. And on another thread I think I made clear that re the Clinton emails, there's been no showing that those secrets compromised U.S. security in any material way, or that she had the necessary intent to be prosecuted--unlike General Petraeus who Trump seemed to be considering for Secretary of State. FBI director Comey explained at length why he wasn't prosecuting Clinton. Has Hillary profited from the emails? I don't think so. I agree that it was improper to stored the emails outside a secure government computer system. There is no evidence her system was hacked, unlike the "secure government computer systems." I've wasted enough time with you. From now on, you're off my list. Maybe somebody else will listen.

 

It has to do with the silliness of believing that voting for a choice between one scumbag and another scumbag is a meaningful endeavor. It's for children who don't understand.

As far as your assessment of the legality of Clinton's mishandling of classified information, it seems that you reserve your right to bow to authority despite having the facts placed before your eyes. So, I will address your denial again.

To sum up, Clinton received training in proper procedure concerning classified material; Clinton signed a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement stating that she did indeed receive this training; Clinton also signed this Agreement acknowledging that she understood that she was legally bound to the details of its content; Clinton ignored her legal obligations as stated in the Agreement she signed, and was grossly negligent; Clinton was as aware as you or I that the U.S. Code clearly condemns gross negligence, and describes gross negligence as exactly what she did. Therefore Clinton violated the U.S. Code and the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed.

Also, Comey's decision to overlook Clinton's absolute mishandling of classified information was not shared by the actual investigators assigned to the case. They were unanimous in their assessment that she should have had her security clearance pulled, and a vast majority thought that she should be charged.

And your "no harm, no foul" philosophy concerning Clinton's breach of U.S. Code is rather ridiculous when one considers Comey's own words:

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."
"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."
​___________________________________________________________________________________________

​​Philosophize all you like, but the above spells gross negligence in no uncertain terms. And now you're here to try to color what I've bolded above in a way to make it not say what it clearly says. This is the cognitive dissonance I was speaking of.

And I guess your statement that secure government computer systems have been hacked is your way of excusing anyone in the future who mishandles classified material in violation of U.S. Code. I see.

Almost forgot:
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Government investigators said Friday that they had discovered classified information on the private email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while secretary of state, stating unequivocally that those secrets never should have been stored outside of secure government computer systems. Mrs. Clinton has said for months that she kept no classified information on the private server that she set up in her house so she would not have to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said Friday that any government secrets found on the server had been classified after the fact.

But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation's intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, if you still believe that you've addressed that, then go ahead and show us how you did so. Otherwise, my claim concerning your cognitive dissonance stands.

 

Donald Trumps pick for U.S. Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is an outspoken supporter of the settlements. Also an opponent of the "two states" solution to the Palestinian problem. Score another for American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Too bad we won't have Obama to kick around anymore.

 

Which shows that voting for one scumbag over another scumbag to replace the last scumbag is pointless.

 

Some scumbags are scummier than others. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/world/middleeast/obama-israel-west-bank-settlements.html

 

They're all bought and paid for, ass-kissing suck-ups.

 

ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS ISSUE UPDATE: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BREAKS WITH LONGSTANDING U.S. POLICY AND ABSTAINS ON A SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CONDEMNING THE SETTLEMENTS, THEREBY ALLOWING THE RESOLUTION TO PASS. The reaction from conservatives, Republicans, Israel, and Trump was quick and predictably vehement. Conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt blasted Obama for his perfidy. LIndsey Graham and other congressional Republicans called for an end to U.S. contributions to the U.N. Trump promised that the change in U.S. position would be short-lived. Poor Obama--damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. But it looks like there is a difference between parties and presidents on the issue.