Current or modern politics in the United States

[hound dog]

The military holding exercises in our country is neither unheard of or unusual. Thy can name it anything they like, operation Goldilocks, operation ham and beans, whatever. The reason no news organizations have reported on it is because there is nothing to report other than a military exercise is going on in Texas. If you're that paranoid about it, get a rifle, a stockpile of canned goods and head for the hills to hide out and wait for the government to strike. For the rest of us, we'll just go on living our lives as best as we can without any unnecessary hysteria.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by peach64

Not one "news" outlet has provided details of JADE HELM 15, this is illegal and against our constitution. Joint Military occupation of Texas. This is an exercise for us to keep our eyes on, a lot of former veterans are not happy about this. Some really good information on youtube...

I hate to disappoint you peachy but I saw a lot of coverage on (gasp) Fox and CNN. I think the Texas response is either over the top or just a political posturing.

[9876543210]

Tarkus666,

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

The practice might be legal but it borders on unethical.

Borders on unethical? I think it passed that boundary many, many years ago.

[jumbo prawns]

Originally Posted by peach64

Not one "news" outlet has provided details of JADE HELM 15, this is illegal and against our constitution. Joint Military occupation of Texas. This is an exercise for us to keep our eyes on, a lot of former veterans are not happy about this. Some really good information on youtube...

You know that military exercises occurred in Texas When Rick Perry was the Governor and W was the President and not a peep. In the past these exercises were not only welcomed they were desirable things as they brought in a considerable economic bump.

These exercises help train and protect our men and women in uniform, and not only make us all stronger, but have been happening for decades (centuries) and are not only very legal but they enable us to defend the constitution.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

But do they also report the shit-bucket stupid things which are uttered by supposedly liberal politicians and spokesmen? Back in the day, Edward Kennedy was a very reliable source of ignorant and malignant rubbish, what we in the UK would call a true gobshite. Dear old Hillary has been picked up a few times in the British media (mainly the BBC) for grossly embellishing facts anecdotally, for example claiming that her aircraft was fired on when she landed somewhere in Bosnia during the Former Yougoslavia civil wars of the 1990s; turns out it wasn't. Senator Claire McCaskill has been a fairly reliable source of verbal diarrhoea in the recent past. To be fair, none of these people is/was as prolific in the emmision of relentless stupidity as Mrs Palin or for that matter Mr Limbaugh (though where has Glenn Beck gone lately?); a fair and unbiased media doesn't report two opposed sides equally unless both are generating equal quantities of undigested bullshit, but will reflect source production volumes in the proportions of idiocy reported at their end.

Actually all the mainstream networks and CNN did report on what you outline above regarding Clinton, McCaskill and even Wasserman who in my opinion is the current alpha bitch of Democratic partisan nonsense. What becomes the issue is that when the mainstream media reports on these people for some reason this is deemed 'a pass' but when Sarah Palin is asked a follow on question to 'do you read' and she can't even name one item somehow that is "guerrilla and/or gotcha journalism" and proof that the mainstream media is targeting the right.

As I said if you say something stupid like "it is scientifically proven that you cannot get pregnant due to rape since a woman's body has natural defenses" which is of course beyond stupid; "this constant demand for a provision to allow abortions in case of rape is a non-issue since the number of pregnancies due to rape in the US has never exceeded more than a few cases" whereas the US numbers average between 30,000-40,000 per year; "that no health insurance company will ever deny an application because that is how they make their money by providing insurance; Rush Limbaugh in one of his better moments of economics. In all of these situations, plus literally hundreds more, when the conservative was outed by the media all we heard from Fox and the Reps was that the 'liberal media' was attacking the right for no reason. No they are reporting stupidity and for some reason the really outrageous stupidity is more often than not coming from the right. As I said I expect because they are forced to pander to their base which is probably no more intellectually deficient than their left counter parts but the Dems can seemingly avoid having to pander to them as much.

It is part of a larger iconic that is being portrayed by the conservative movement in the US where they are certain that everything they hold dear is under attack. Apparently the US is seconds away from criminalizing Christianity and installing Sharia Law, white men are losing all power both in the political forum and the work force, marriage is so under attack that in three years there will be more people marrying goats than members of the opposite sex etc. etc. etc. When you start with such an outright set of misrepresentations, lies and absurdities as the fundamentals of your mission statement what else can you do except insist that the press is biased against you when all you are selling is crazy?

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by peach64

Not one "news" outlet has provided details of JADE HELM 15, this is illegal and against our constitution. Joint Military occupation of Texas. This is an exercise for us to keep our eyes on, a lot of former veterans are not happy about this. Some really good information on youtube...

How is this exercise illegal or against the Constitution? Why was the very same set of exercises that were conducted under the George Bush administration acceptable and now they are somehow different?

It seems more like the critics need to actually learn what an occupation is before using terms they clearly do not understand.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Tarkus666,
Borders on unethical? I think it passed that boundary many, many years ago.

Ever since television news started bringing in their own paid experts the ethical integrity has been diminished since the news became more about entertainment than news dissemination. There was an amusing segment on CNN on Monday where the two lawyers basically agreed with each other and the host sat there in a panic wondering how he was going to stretch out this 3 minutes segment when the two pundits didn't go into an automatic rant against each other.

It is not quite the same as Fox having its opinion shows feed stories to the later news shows; "this just in, the Fox Show before this show has stated that Hillary Clinton is in fact an alien." It is not illegal because the Fox News is just citing Fox Opinion but it is awfully close on the border whereas the two pundits are expected to fight and thus entertain which I do think also diminishes the ethics but not to the same extent as a protocol to move forward a dogmatic approach to the news on a daily basis.

[9876543210]

Tarkus666,

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

How is this exercise illegal or against the Constitution? Why was the very same set of exercises that were conducted under the George Bush administration acceptable and now they are somehow different?

Actually, the answer is pretty simple. Just look at the skin color of the guy in the White House. Thats all you need to know.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

How is this exercise illegal or against the Constitution?

This line of thought was aptly summarized by The Onion

Originally Posted by Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination.

http://www.theonion.com/article/area...magines-c-2849

[hound dog]

Originally Posted by rodak

Myself and other like me don't dislike Barack Hussein O because of the color of his skin.
We dislike him because his policies are destroying the country.

I'd like to suggest a new avatar for your rodak.





Because we all know how conservatives pledged to support the newly elected President before his first inauguration.

You can't even bring yourself to call him by his title, President, or ever reference him without using his middle name of Hussein, to point out his father's heritage, African and that it's a Muslim name