Conservative Politics & Daily Events Discussion

    Quote from WOLF

    As for the "building up our military" part of my plan. Under Obama we just did, or this week we are commisioning into service the SS Detroit. The fastest most lethal warship on the planet.

    That ship was due to the actions of the Bush Presidency not Obama's. He could not stop it or he would have. For all the blame he placed on Bush, let's not give him credit for this. As usual he just stepped back and let it happen.

    YLM. Your Life Matters

    I totally agree on this one as well! Also I think we should not let that many refugees enter this country as well. I do disagree with some policies that Hellary is for but many I agree with or partial to. As long as Trump never see's the light of day as our president in the white house I will be just fine.

    Quote from WOLF

    Sadly I think America needs to pull back on Syria. It seems to me, over the last few years all these dictator states, Russia, Iran, Syria, China, North Korea have been gearing up for war. They have also been doing their best to get us to start it. I say we flip them the bird and don't entertain their BS. Build up our own military and strategically place forces. We don't want it to look like we are preparing. We also need to secretly come up with an offensive plan with our allies.


    They want us to start shit in Syria. They want us to start shit in North Korea. They want our boots on the ground, so they can take out our best while we think everyone is working to get rid of ISIS. I am pretty good at reading people and their intentions, and this is what I seeI

    Quote from WOLF

    In the debate when Trump was saying how weak our military has become and how dilapidated our nuclear arsenal is. Look at Hillary, quietly letting him rant. She never rebutted. She just gave him that "if I could tell you the facts, your head would explode" look. We didn't know about the Stealth fighter until after it had been fighting for 10+ years.

    I will have to argue this point. Our ICBM defense capability is questionable (you should be able to Google the results of those tests, and our missile inventory are not adequate for our salvo procedures for incoming ICBMs). Our surface fleet is ridiculously small, and pushed to, and in some cases past the maintenence red lines on a regular basis. The Army, and Marine Corps are dealing with older and problematic equipment. The Air Force, well, that's the Air Force. Our ballistic missile defense ashore and afloat for self/shore protection in each of the services is subpar for the emerging threats. Our R&D development is great, but our ability to field that equipment in a short period of time is nonexistent. The future equipment is great, but not if we get into a war now.


    And chances are, any new classified documents concerning new programs was stolen off of Clinton's server anyways... or out of the DoD in a hack we aren't aware of yet.

    Quote from sideseatdriver

    I will have to argue this point. Our ICBM defense capability is questionable (you should be able to Google the results of those tests, and our missile inventory are not adequate for our salvo procedures for incoming ICBMs). Our surface fleet is ridiculously small, and pushed to, and in some cases past the maintenence red lines on a regular basis. The Army, and Marine Corps are dealing with older and problematic equipment. The Air Force, well, that's the Air Force. Our ballistic missile defense ashore and afloat for self/shore protection in each of the services is subpar for the emerging threats. Our R&D development is great, but our ability to field that equipment in a short period of time is nonexistent. The future equipment is great, but not if we get into a war now.
    And chances are, any new classified documents concerning new programs was stolen off of Clinton's server anyways... or out of the DoD in a hack we aren't aware of yet.

    You argue against, "We have stuff that we using now that the public won't know about for 10+ years" with, "If you Google it"? :00008356:


    If my assessment on the dictator states laying a trap is remotely accurate, it would then make sense that Putin would want an egotistical, act before I think President like Trump.

    @WOLF


    Yes, I do. Because I was in a place to know what is accurate and what is not accurate, and that is the best way to give you the basics without voiding my debriefing. Take it or leave it. I served as the aide to the Admiral responsible for liaison between the Navy and Congress. I saw the briefs, I know the information. I coordinated meetings between the Admiral, SECNAV, the CNO, and the various committees, and I know the discussions that took place. I am well aware of the technology that is or is not on the docket for the next 10 years. Further, I served as the ballistic missile defense desk type officer - the cell that coordinated and developed the European Missile Defense system, as well as our own missile defense systems, so yeah, I know what I'm talking about there too.


    Do not assume that just because I am a female with a different position than you that I do not have the background to assert that position.

    @Sling Beast


    I was initially going to ignore your post about Obama not comingfor your guns, but I can't stand public ignorance on so important a topic,especially one with so many myths that people like you keep propagating, so here is the counter-proof to your argument. Your discussion about the "moderate" Supreme Court nominee is at the bottom.


    Democrat led gun control legislation supported by the White House:


    H.R. 308 - Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (2012)
    Rep. McCarthy (D-NY-4)
    Did not pass the House


    Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (2011; 112th Congress H.R. 308) - GovTrack.us


    S.150 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2013
    Sen. Feinstien (D-CA)
    Did not pass the Senate (Republican Blocked)


    S.150 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress


    Obama Response:Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate - The Washington Post


    H.R. 437 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2013
    Rep. McCarthy (D-NY-4)
    Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, HomelandSecurity, and Investigations (2/28/2013)


    H.R.437 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress


    H.R. 4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015
    Rep. Cicilline (D-RI-1) Sponsored
    Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, HomelandSecurity and Investigations (1/15/2016)


    Text - H.R.4269 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress


    Congressional Research Sevice (Nov 14, 2012)


    "In the 109th Congress, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced abill that would have reinstated previous law [1994 Ban] for 10 years (S. 620).Representative McCarthy and Senator Lautenberg reintroduced their bills to makethe ban permanent (H.R. 1312/S. 645).Inthe 110th Congress, Representative McCarthy reintroduced a similar proposal(H.R. 1022) and another measure (H.R. 1859) that would prohibit the transfer ofa semiautomatic assault weapon with a large-capacity ammunition feeding device,among other things.


    In the wake of the Tucson shootings, Representative McCarthyintroduced a measure that would reinstate the large capacity ammunition feedingdevice ban (H.R. 308). Senator Lautenberg introduced a similar measure (S.32)."-RL32842.pdf


    This list doesn't even include his recent executive actions.


    So basically, you can buy more than ten round magazines - thank a Republican.
    Those "scary" guns you own?- Thank a Republican.
    Don't have to register as a gun owner?- Thank a Republican.
    Don't have to have "Gun Insurance" - Thank a Republican.
    Don't have an exorbitant ammo tax? - Thank a Republican.


    Now, when it comes to your "moderate" Supreme Court nominee, I would think you would be a little more educated. Garland served on the appellate court for the D.C.Circuit which should tell you something right there about his leanings on gunrights. The primary points ofinformation on his gun rights stances come in his response to Seegars v.Gonzales (2005), Parker v. D.C. (2007)- renamed D.C. v. Heller, and NRA v.Reno.


    In NRA v. Reno, Garland upheld the regulation that the governmentstore all personal information for gun owners (name, address, race, and date ofbirth) for every gun purchase. Congresswound up creating legislation to prevent what would be tantamount to a gunowner registration.


    In Seegars v. Gonzales (2005), Garland voted against a rehearingby the full court for two plaintiffs who "lacked standing under anextraordinarily-stringent standard" in obtaining handguns. Even the judge who wrote the panel discussionon the case argued in favor of the plaintiffs.(Essentially he voted against letting two people obtain handguns).


    In Parker v. D.C. (2007), Garland voted in favor of D.C.'spetition to have a rehearing by the full court in a case where D.C. was arguingthat the second amendment "only protected the 'collective right' of statesto maintain militias, and that even if the right is individual, handguns couldbe banned because long guns were available".(So here he sides with D.C. saying onlymilitia members can be armed.The casewas renamed D.C. v. Heller, and the Supreme Court overturned D.C.'s reading ofthe amendment.)


    So you might want to vet your "moderate" justices alittle better if you want to keep your access to those guns you say you have, because the following are just 3 examples of the cases that are awaiting Appellate or Supreme Court Review:


    Shew v. Malloy - A group of gun owners suing Connecticut over thelegality of Connecticut's 2013 assault weapons ban over the notion that youcannot ban a gun for "certain cosmetic features that have no relationship tothe lethal force of the weapon, such as whether the gun has a folding stock forthe shoulder, or a pistol grip for the owner’s hand".


    Peruta v.San Diego - challengesthe constitutionality of requiring concealed applicants to show “good cause” toa municipality or county agency before being issued a concealed carry permit.


    Watson v. City of Seattle -sued the city of Seattle in King County Superior Courtover its adoption of a so-called "gun violence tax," a tax onfirearms and ammunition designed to help offset the financial toll of gunviolence.


    So, I don't care who you vote for, but at least now I can say that you've been educated on the truth behind the comments you make.

    Quote from WOLF

    @sideseatdriver I honestly didn't know I was talking to a woman, so there was no notions on my part. I treat everyone equally.


    I like your second answer a lot better. I only took issue with "Google it". I would furthermore have to agree with your assessment as I did not and do not have special access to anything. I was only stating what I take away from what I observe from my last 21yrs as a civilian.


    I meant no offense and appologize if there was any.

    I have to laugh. The most secretive mission I was ever part of (Burnt Frost- where the ship shot down the satellite), we found out about thanks to MSM and Google. People would be surprised at what they could find if they only took a second to look.


    The biggest point is it doesn't matter what is coming down the pipes in 10 yrs if we need it now.


    And no offense taken - it takes a good bit more than that. ^^