[QUOTE=retina;529100]Wow, you can't make this stuff up.[/QUOTE]
Speak for yourself.

:missingteeth:

Deja vu. We [URL="https://apnews.com/c25c610ef5e9ab19a25cd27efc5c69f8"]had one[/URL] "why are you shouting/booing, you animal?" guy, I am still waiting to read a RIP post about him, to open that champagne bottle which I am afraid it will get spoiled... This animal dragged back that country with at least 30 years...

[QUOTE=LaurV;529172]Deja vu. We [URL="https://apnews.com/c25c610ef5e9ab19a25cd27efc5c69f8"]had one[/URL] "why are you shouting/booing, you animal?" guy, I am still waiting to read a RIP post about him, to open that champagne bottle which I am afraid it will get spoiled... This animal dragged back that country with at least 30 years...[/QUOTE]
Glad you liked my little bit of parody.

Back in the real world, we US-ers can cherish [url=https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/trump-pushes-prime-minister-nato-summit/index.html]this[/url] little lapse of etiquette by [i]Il Duce[/i] toward Montenegro's Prime Minister Dusko Markovic. Not long after, [i]Il Duce[/i] said, "Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people. They're very agressive people. They may get aggressive, and congratulations you're in World War III."

Talk about "projecting!"

I swear to God I am not making this up...
 

Truth is stranger than fiction.

On Laura Ingraham's Monday program, in a discussion about [strike]Dear Leader[/strike] [i]Il Duce[/i] having been booed during his appearance at the World Series, Frank Luntz said,[quote]The fact is, they should hold those fans accountable. You don't boo the president.[/quote]

I'm not sure who "they" are. Or what "accountable" is supposed to mean.

I wonder if Mr. Luntz is familiar with [url=http://www.ushistory.org/us/7c.asp][i]Crown v. John Peter Zenger[/i][/url]. I'm thinking not.

Being booed at the World Series must have really stung the orange blob, a lot I hope.

I wonder if Frank Luntz is familiar with the concept of Constitutionally Guaranteed Freedom of Speech.

[QUOTE=kladner;529246]I wonder if Frank Luntz is familiar with the concept of Constitutionally Guaranteed Freedom of Speech.[/QUOTE]Constitutions can be amended. FoS? Haha! What's that? Things like that should not be for the little people. [/TrumpWetDream]

[QUOTE=retina;529249]Constitutions can be amended. FoS? Haha! What's that? Things like that should not be for the little people. [/TrumpWetDream][/QUOTE]
No need to amend. Constitutional provisions can simply be ignored. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were ignored for a century in a good part of the good ol' USA, and the R's are intent on bringing back this fine old tradition.

During the 2016 campaign, poll results indicating that women were likely to vote against [i]Il Duce[/i] were greeted by his [strike]cult followers[/strike] supporters with the Twitter hashtag #RepealTheNineteenth -- the Nineteenth Amendment being the one that forbids the US or any State from denying or abridging womens' right to vote.

The Cult of Personality...
 

On the Monday, October 28, 2019 edition of [i]The Ingraham Angle[/i], viewers were treated to the following:
[indent]LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): Fox News has confirmed that a White House national security official, his name is Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, he's going to tell impeachment investigators tomorrow in a statement that's been distributed to some media outlets, that he twice reported objections over Trump's call with Ukraine.

But get this, this is buried in the New York Times piece tonight, but I found it very interesting.

He's a decorated colonel, by the way, in the Iraq War -- but because Col. Vindman emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him, about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English.

Now, wait a second, John. Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine, while working inside the White House, apparently against the president's interest, and usually, they spoke in English. Isn't that kind of an interesting angle on this story?

JOHN YOO: I find that astounding, and in -- you know, some people might call that espionage, but it doesn't actually seem to add any new facts to what we know.[/indent]
I will point out a whopping [i]non sequitur[/i] here: The host set up the vilification of Colonel Vindman by saying, "... because Col. Vindman emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him, about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English."

Of course, that's [i]not[/i] why the Ukrainians asked him. They asked him for advice on how to handle Giuliani because, as a higher-up among the president's national security advisors, and an expert on Ukraine, he was in a position to give it. I'm sure it is absolutely routine for foreign governments to seek advice from governments about their envoys if the portfolios, authority, and missions of those envoys are not clear.

How giving such advice could possibly constitute "espionage" is beyond me.

Note also that "apparently against the president's interest." The president's interest is irrelevant. Colonel Vindman swore the following oath:
[indent]I [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[/indent]
He did [i]not[/i] swear allegiance [i][strike]dem Führer[/strike][/i] to [i]Il Duce[/i] personally or to whomever occupies the office of president.

Next day, John Yoo told the Washington [i]Examiner[/i],[quote]I want to clear up a misconception of my remarks on the Laura Ingraham show last night. I did not accuse Lt. Col. Vindman of committing the crime of espionage. I have tremendous respect for a decorated officer of the U.S. Army and a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What I was addressing was a report that Ukrainian officials had sought to contact Vindaman for advice on how to handle Rudy Giuliani acting as a presidential envoy.[/quote]

In other words, "I didn't say what I said."

IMO there is only one reason [i]Il Duce[/i]'s cult followers would resort to such phantasmagorical [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks: They know that he is telling the truth, and they don't want to acknowledge that truth.

Trump Wants Deal With Exxon or Other Company to Take Syrian Oil
 

[URL]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52456.htm[/URL]
This is not really news. The Cheeto in Chief is just stating baldly what has been US policy at least since the Iran coup.
[QUOTE]Having sent growing numbers of troops into eastern Syria explicitly to control the oil, President Trump now says he is seeking a deal with Exxon Mobil or “one of our great companies” to go into occupied Syria and take the oil.

Trump has long suggested that in his view, the US should be able to just take oil from countries it is involved in militarily, as a way to recover some of the costs of his various wars. Trump said on Sunday that the oil is valuable and “we should be able to take some also.”

That Trump is sold on this idea is one thing, but convincing a US Oil and Gas Major to go along with the operation is another thing. The legal basis, particularly internationally, of taking Syrian oil without Syrian permission, and keeping US military forces there to keep Syria from stopping them, is going to be complicated, to say the least.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;529269][URL]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52456.htm[/URL]
This is not really news. The Cheeto in Chief is just stating baldly what has been US policy at least since the Iran coup.[/QUOTE]Ahh, but things were so much more refined back in the old days -- no need to send in troops. Simply have the spooks replace the recalcitrant government with one that was more, uh, [i]cooperative[/i].
[quote]<snip>
The legal basis, particularly internationally, of taking Syrian oil without Syrian permission, and keeping US military forces there to keep Syria from stopping them, is going to be complicated, to say the least.[/quote]You can say that again -- in Russian!

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;529292]Ahh, but things were so much more refined back in the old days -- no need to send in troops. Simply have the spooks replace the recalcitrant government with one that was more, uh, [I]cooperative[/I].
You can say that again -- in Russian![/QUOTE]
Strong agreement on both points.