PD.com: The most patriotic board in America - jointly run by an Australian, an Irishman, a filthy Dutchman, a Canadian and some guy from the West Indies.
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.
Which is interesting, in that there's a parallel argument that if welfare is abolished, charity groups (widely assumed to be religiously based) will step in to cover.
"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favour; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had the actual experience of it."
But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.
Hence, he who attacks the Turk must bear in mind that he will find him united, and he will have to rely more on his own strength than on the revolt of others; but, if once the Turk has been conquered, and routed in the field in such a way that he cannot replace his armies, there is nothing to fear but the family of this prince, and, this being exterminated, there remains no one to fear, the others having no credit with the people; and as the conqueror did not rely on them before his victory, so he ought not to fear them after it.
The contrary happens in kingdoms governed like that of France, because one can easily enter there by gaining over some baron of the kingdom, for one always finds malcontents and such as desire a change. Such men, for the reasons given, can open the way into the state and render the victory easy
Does he have the power to pull out of NATO, or is it just a stunt?
BUT THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY LIBERTARIANISM, ALTY. AS A REAL SCOTSMAN, I OBJECT TO YOUR SLANDER.
TAXATION IS THEFT (Y\N?)
Donald Trump handed the German chancellor Angela Merkel a bill — thought to be for more than £300bn — for money her country “owed” Nato for defending it when they met last weekend, German government sources have revealed.
The bill — handed over during private talks in Washington — was described as “outrageous” by one German minister.
Meanwhile, Mike Flynn discussed with Turkey about how to kidnap Gulen while on Turkey's payroll
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ex-cia-director-mike-flynn-and-turkish-officials-discussed-removal-of-erdogan-foe-from-u-s-1490380426QuoteThe discussion late last summer involved ideas about how to get Fethullah Gulen, a cleric whom Turkey has accused of orchestrating last summer’s failed military coup, to Turkey without going through the U.S. extradition legal process, according to Mr. Woolsey and those who were briefed.
Mr. Woolsey told The Wall Street Journal he arrived at the meeting in New York on Sept. 19 in the middle of the discussion and found the topic startling and the actions being discussed possibly illegal.
The Turkish ministers were interested in open-ended thinking on the subject, and the ideas were raised hypothetically, said the people who were briefed. The ministers in attendance included the son-in-law of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the country’s foreign minister, foreign-lobbying disclosure documents show.
Mr. Woolsey said the idea was “a covert step in the dead of night to whisk this guy away.” The discussion, he said, didn’t include actual tactics for removing Mr. Gulen from his U.S. home. If specific plans had been discussed, Mr. Woolsey said, he would have spoken up and questioned their legality.
It isn’t known who raised the idea or what Mr. Flynn concluded about it.
I'll have to remember that one.
"It wasn't no "conspiracy to commit" we was just havin' one of them nice, open-ended thinking hypothetical conversations. Ain't no crime in that yer honor."
While I'm glad it didn't pass, it's still disturbing that the reason the Freedom Caucus rejected the bill was that it wasn't draconian enough. It makes me worried what they'll try to push next time.