majorspark

Latest Activity

On Jan 28, 2020:

  • majorspark replied to "Make your selections" at 12:01 pm

  • 2,3,A

    Also is there a Chinese version of this?  I'd like to ask the Chinese guy in the office across the atrium how well he likes his bat done.

On Jan 27, 2020:

On Jan 21, 2020:

  • majorspark replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 03:29 pm

  • Pretty rich after listening to Schiff run around talking about "overwhelming evidence" now today arguing before the Senate that the President is withholding key, vital evidence. 

On Jan 18, 2020:

On Jan 17, 2020:

  • majorspark replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 01:44 pm
  • posted by ptown_trojans_1

    I see it as more the House Ds being dumb and shortsighted and not calling this guy to testify. 

     

    I disagree.  This guy is lying his ass off.  He is not under oath talking to the press.  But would be testifying before congress.  If Adam Schiff thought this guy was legit and had the goods he would have called him to testify.  They are not dumb.

    What this is designed to do is create media pressure on wobbly R senators.  When the wobbly R senators find themselves and this shit show is finally thrown to the curb the D's will have their narrative to beat on a daily basis based of the word of a guy they never wanted to place on oath before them.

On Jan 14, 2020:

  • majorspark replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 09:50 pm
  • posted by O-Trap

    Well, in the event that it was discussed with others that personal reasons fueled such actions, then sure.  It wouldn't exactly require a ton of people to know the motivation for why the president would give the go-ahead for such action.

    I'm not saying I buy it.  Just that it doesn't really take a full blown conspiracy to think a president, with his ability to unilaterally approve a military attack, might do so with something other than self-serving motives.

    And if he would do so for self-serving motives, why would it be a stretch for it to be as a distraction?

     

    What you have described would require the ability to read minds.  Its an impossible to discern hypothetical. 

    I would argue offensive military action is far more unlikely and politically difficult during domestic turmoil.  The POTUS is weakened.  Its just too risky it doesn't distract it draws attention.   The POTUS unilaterally approves a military attack he does not unilaterally create it. 

    A situation warranting a possible military response would have to be planned and hold the support of many on the national security team and materialize during domestic turmoil.  Boogie used the term "magically" to describe opportunities for these types of missile strikes. That term leans my mind toward an orchestrated illusion for action.  Which would necessitate conspirators. 

    Your hypothetical leans to selfish human nature in weighing options presented.  Plausible but not conspiratorial as the latter would take more than one.  Like I said impossible to discern.  

On Jan 13, 2020:

  • majorspark replied to "What was the last movie you watched?" at 09:41 pm
  • posted by jmog

    These types of movies, I would put Saving Private Ryan a definite 10/10, and I can't say this one was quite that good so that's where the 8/10 comes from.

    Saw the movie this weekend. Very good.  If it would have opened like SPR with an intense battle scene like the opening waves of the battle of the Somme where the Brits had nearly 20k killed in one day and nearly 60k total causalities the takes would be different.

    The scenes of "no man's land" were the battlefield shock this movie portrayed.  The corpses left to rot to be picked at by rats, crows, and buzzing flies.

    One can't help but think that was someones son who at the sound of a whistle "went over the top" and met this end.

     

     

  • majorspark replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 08:08 pm
  • posted by O-Trap

    Seeing how Operation Ajax was handled, I'm not even sure it fits the definition of a "conspiracy theory" to question the government's dissemination of information to the public with regard to Iran.

     

    The conspiracy theory I was specifically referring to is his claim presidents fire missiles into foreign nations to distract from domestic troubles.  That would require a cabal of operatives fiercely loyal to the POTUS.

    My comment was in the context of what I read as ironic comments made in the Uranium one/Clinton Foundation thread.  You are smart enough to figure it out.

     

     

  • majorspark replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 03:53 pm
  • posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

    Who in the hell knows. Maybe he was. But our government hasnt actually earned a. Lot of trust in these types of matters over the years. It's always interesting to me how when whoever is president gets into tough political situations domestically, some prime opportunity to use missiles magically opens up. 

    Interesting to see Boogie worried about the Deep State and entertaining conspiricay theories.

On Jan 8, 2020:

On Jan 4, 2020:

  • majorspark replied to "Buckle up for war, fellas...what happens next?" at 10:06 pm
  • posted by iclfan2

    The President is free to defend the US/ retaliate against terrorists/ or prevent further attacks on our citizens or military without Congress. Trump wasn’t declaring war or making an act of war, therefore he has no reason to tell them. Please tell me how many times Obama got approval from Congress to drone people. Just bc some people on twitter think it was an act of war doesn’t make it so. 

    I agree with everything you said except the bold.  It definitely is an act of war to intentionally blow up vehicles with high ranking foreign military or diplomatic officials in them.  Its also an act of war to intentionally take down a foreign military asset in international airspace. Its also an act of war to order local militias to fire rockets at foreign military/civilian personnel training the hosting state's security personnel.  Its also an act of war to order an attack on a foreign embassy in an attempt to harm or seize their personnel.

    Those that are clutching their pearls over a "terrorist" designation that is all political.  Its no different than John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crises calling the blockade of Cuba a "quarantine".  It was an act of war.  The Soviets nor the Cubans cared what he called it.  The terminology is meant for those who easily wet themselves over hard words.

    The POTUS has the authority under the constitution as CIC to order acts of war without the consent of Congress.  What the POTUS does not have the authority to do alone is commit the nation to a war footing.  It is always best though when possible to work with Congress.  If after the fact the POTUS would need to present Congress with a solid case.

     

     

     

On Jan 3, 2020:

On Dec 18, 2019:

  • majorspark replied to "Uranium One / Clinton Foundation / obama DoJ corruption" at 11:51 pm
  • posted by gut

    I still think Comey might be sweating a bit.  He's gone from a full-court, Trump-like blitz of "I did nothing wrong...completely exonerated" to the Sgt. Schultz defense.  Running around apologizing and basically implying he was incompetent (which, I think a lot of people kind of already knew).

    Well I saw in his interview he invoked the term "sloppy".  That raised my antenna.  I remember former NSA Sandy Berger saying he was "sloppy" when he stuffed classified documents down his pants and smuggled them out of the national archives.  Hillary was just "sloppy" with her emails.

    Look the average American knows if they enter a local hardware store and stuff merchandise down their pants "sloppy" will not fly.  These elitists are treated differently.

    Comey was not incompetent.  He was calculated. He got caught now he is just an incompetent individual who led other incompetant individuals.  

On Dec 17, 2019:

On Dec 9, 2019:

  • majorspark replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 08:48 am
  • posted by gut

    Pelosi prays for Trump every day, huh?

    I am guessing she prays for Trump about as much as she prays for babies in the womb. 

On Nov 27, 2019:

On Nov 21, 2019:

  • majorspark replied to "Progressives, part 3..." at 04:32 pm

  • Yeah another eruption of applause at Schiff's closing statement today.  But the Democrats have told us this is a very solemn occasion that they reluctantly are undertaking all while the speaker is off in prayer.