Donald Trump's greatest achievement.

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

You want a link? You continue to challenge? You love to fail.

Retired Republican Supreme Court Justice calls for repeal of Second Amendment

John Paul Stevens: What Is the Justice’s Political Party? | Heavy.com

From your link, "“Since the mid-1990s, Justice Stevens has been the leader of the court’s liberal wing and its strongest voice for progressive causes."

Other than that, they claim he's a Republican but their only evidence is that he was a Republican 40 years ago when he was nominated. There isn't a single piece of data in either articles that shows he's been a Republican since 1976.

You just want him to be one because you think somehow that matters to anyone in your campaign to ban guns. He's not and it wouldn't anyway

I don't want him to.be one. He is one. And the only reason. I care is because you are making a fool of yourself again.

You really can't admit it when you are wrong like a man.

And, I have no campaign to ban guns. That's you lying again.

You're not convincing anyone to flip sides that I'm a fool because I don't believe JPS is a Republican. And all you have are articles that refer to him as a Republican with no explanation of how they know he's been a Republican since 1976. And even then he was nominated as a left Republican because the Senate was Democrat

Sad. You just can't do it. Sad fucking loser.

Where is that thread you say I started to flame you but got everything wrong?

So I agree with Trump on some issues, disagree with others, and argue with both sides and call myself a libertarian and you say I'm a Republican. JPS hasn't agreed with the Republicans on anything you can point to in 40 years and you say he's a Republican.

Your grasp of what it means to be a Republican is completely inane

Trump is a Nationalist...................

And goes against the grain on both sides of the isle..............

But Trump is doing everything he can to fulfill his campaign promises..............while under attack by both sides of the isle.........

This is why he's been in the trenches since being in office.............the establishment likes the things the way they have always been..........and Trump is a threat to that mindset...............

The War against the Deep State continues and rightfully so......

 

[LoneLaugher]

You want a link? You continue to challenge? You love to fail.

Retired Republican Supreme Court Justice calls for repeal of Second Amendment

John Paul Stevens: What Is the Justice’s Political Party? | Heavy.com

From your link, "“Since the mid-1990s, Justice Stevens has been the leader of the court’s liberal wing and its strongest voice for progressive causes."

Other than that, they claim he's a Republican but their only evidence is that he was a Republican 40 years ago when he was nominated. There isn't a single piece of data in either articles that shows he's been a Republican since 1976.

You just want him to be one because you think somehow that matters to anyone in your campaign to ban guns. He's not and it wouldn't anyway

I don't want him to.be one. He is one. And the only reason. I care is because you are making a fool of yourself again.

You really can't admit it when you are wrong like a man.

And, I have no campaign to ban guns. That's you lying again.

You're not convincing anyone to flip sides that I'm a fool because I don't believe JPS is a Republican. And all you have are articles that refer to him as a Republican with no explanation of how they know he's been a Republican since 1976. And even then he was nominated as a left Republican because the Senate was Democrat

Sad. You just can't do it. Sad fucking loser.

Where is that thread you say I started to flame you but got everything wrong?

So I agree with Trump on some issues, disagree with others, and argue with both sides and call myself a libertarian and you say I'm a Republican. JPS hasn't agreed with the Republicans on anything you can point to in 40 years and you say he's a Republican.

Your grasp of what it means to be a Republican is completely inane

I don't remember ever calling you a republican.

I don't give a shit what your party is. You defend and support the worst president we've ever had.

I wasn't a Democrat until about a year ago. Does it matter to you?

At issue here is your inability to admit when you are wrong. You flail around looking for a way to spin your ignorance. Sad.

 

[BluesLegend]

He is making pollution popular again. Thanks to his positions on deregulating coal, entire counties in Appalachia are able to be without clean drinking water and cancer rates are skyrocketing.

Trump has been president just over a year and cancer rates are skyrocketing? Liberals are such liars do your pants catch on fire daily?

Skyrocketing in coal country Appalachia doofus. 36% higher than the rest of the nation. His actions and positions only make it worse and offer absolutely no chance of reversing the trend.

Dumb ass there hasn't been enough time for this to be Trump's fault.

You need help with reading comprehension Maybe your local community college can help. Sometimes you can get help in local high school evening classes for adults.

Oh the irony, you said "cancer rates are skyrocketing" did you flunk middle school? ^^^

 

[eagle1462010]

From your link, "“Since the mid-1990s, Justice Stevens has been the leader of the court’s liberal wing and its strongest voice for progressive causes."

Other than that, they claim he's a Republican but their only evidence is that he was a Republican 40 years ago when he was nominated. There isn't a single piece of data in either articles that shows he's been a Republican since 1976.

You just want him to be one because you think somehow that matters to anyone in your campaign to ban guns. He's not and it wouldn't anyway

I don't want him to.be one. He is one. And the only reason. I care is because you are making a fool of yourself again.

You really can't admit it when you are wrong like a man.

And, I have no campaign to ban guns. That's you lying again.

You're not convincing anyone to flip sides that I'm a fool because I don't believe JPS is a Republican. And all you have are articles that refer to him as a Republican with no explanation of how they know he's been a Republican since 1976. And even then he was nominated as a left Republican because the Senate was Democrat

Sad. You just can't do it. Sad fucking loser.

Where is that thread you say I started to flame you but got everything wrong?

So I agree with Trump on some issues, disagree with others, and argue with both sides and call myself a libertarian and you say I'm a Republican. JPS hasn't agreed with the Republicans on anything you can point to in 40 years and you say he's a Republican.

Your grasp of what it means to be a Republican is completely inane

I don't remember ever calling you a republican.

I don't give a shit what your party is. You defend and support the worst president we've ever had.

I wasn't a Democrat until about a year ago. Does it matter to you?

At issue here is your inability to admit when you are wrong. You flail around looking for a way to spin your ignorance. Sad.

 

[eagle1462010]

Poor Smeagle aka Lone Laughter...........

Obama regulations are dying......

Energy including Fossil Fuels are rising.....

Tax Cuts...........

TPP is dead.......

Keystone pipeline under construction.

Obama ROE's on the battlefield are dead.......

Obama deals with Iran are dying......

Federal Agencies are all under IG investigations.......


Poor poor smeagle...............the worst president in history is KICKING YOUR ASSES...............

Next on the highway to hell........................illegal FISA warrants and Obstruction of Justice by the Obama administration DOJ............

poor poor smeagle........

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Billy_Kinetta, post: 19623629

I've done no such thing. "Shall not infringe" does not mean "sometimes it's okay".

Is the 1986 Machine Gun ban, to every one of you that is not a dealer, an infringement on your right to , own and play with one?

Why would a similar ban on semi automatics not be an infringement of the 'sometimes! variety?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagle1462010, post: 19623761

Obama ROE's on the battlefield are dead.......

NATO operation ROE's in Afghanistan are dead? When was that enacted?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Billy_Kinetta, post: 19623629

I've done no such thing. "Shall not infringe" does not mean "sometimes it's okay".

Is the 1986 Machine Gun ban, to every one of you that is not a dealer, an infringement on your right to , own and play with one?

Why would a similar ban on semi automatics not be an infringement of the 'sometimes! variety?

It is indeed a federal infringement. Simply because legislation exists, even if upheld by a particular Supreme Court, does not make it constitutional if it is in opposition to the language of the Constitution.

It may be a problem that needs fixing, but they fixed it illegally.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

eagle1462010, post: 19623761

Obama ROE's on the battlefield are dead.......

NATO operation ROE's in Afghanistan are dead? When was that enacted?

Nothing to enact.

 

[eagle1462010]

eagle1462010, post: 19623761

Obama ROE's on the battlefield are dead.......

NATO operation ROE's in Afghanistan are dead? When was that enacted?

They are less restrictive.......................

Riddle me this................MOAB use against caves with Taliban......yeah that would have happened under Obama.

 

[eagle1462010]

Mattis reveals new rules of engagement




WASHINGTON – U.S. forces are no longer bound by requirements to be in contact with enemy forces in Afghanistan before opening fire, thanks to a change in rules of engagement orchestrated by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.

Mattis, appearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joe Dunford, told a pair of congressional hearings that the White House gave him a free hand to reconsider the rules of engagement and alter them to speed the battle against the Taliban if need be.

Over the last several years, many top officials in Washington have advocated for a loosening of the rules of engagement that dictate how troops conduct combat operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

Changes could allow the U.S. military to move more quickly to defeat terrorist organizations. Rules of engagement are classified, and military officials generally do not discuss them.



However, there were signs that changes to those rules of engagement were coming. In his Aug. 21 speech announcing his Afghanistan strategy, President Donald Trump said he would ”lift restrictions and expand authorities” for war fighters.

”We will also expand authorities for American armed forces to target the terrorists and criminal networks that sow violence and chaos throughout Afghanistan,” Trump said at the time.

Mattis has taken that freedom and implemented at least two changes: the removal of proximity requirements for strikes against Taliban forces, and the spreading out of U.S. and allied advisers to lower-level Afghan units.

“You see some of the results of releasing our military from, for example, a proximity requirement — how close was the enemy to the Afghan or the U.S.-advised special forces?” Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee in the morning.




Rules that many in the military say caused U.S. deaths on the battlefield..........

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

Under Obama our forces would have had to have gone into the tunnels to take our enemies out................

A U.S. casualty ............KIA prompted the MOAB use......................

The MOAB removes all oxygen from the enemy tunnel complex................I guarantee you those Taliban in those tunnels didn't survive...........

 

[August West]

He can now brag about having the most corrupt administration since Reagan.

He had that one locked up the first week of his administration. He`s the first president that ever had to reimburse 4,000 people who were robbed at a fake university.

 

[eagle1462010]

China's stance against N. Korea during the Trump administration............

Showing China is also tired of Kim's crap..............

And you wonder why the tone of Kim is fading........and is at the table.............

China to enforce UN sanctions against North Korea

China has said it will ban exports of some petroleum products to North Korea, as well as imports of textiles from the isolated country, in line with a United Nationssecurity council resolution passed after Pyongyang’s latest nuclear test.

The announcement from Beijing came at the end of a week that saw tensions rise between the US and North Korea, with the leaders of both countries trading insults.

The Chinese ministry of commerce said in a statement that exports of refined petroleum products would be limited from 1 October and exports of condensates and liquefied natural gas would be stopped immediately to comply with the UN sanctions.

Imports of textiles from North Korea would also be banned immediately, but textile trade contracts signed before 11 September would be respected if import formalities were completed before 10 December, the statement said.

The moves follow the adoption of a unanimous UN security council agreement on sanctions after North Korea conducted its sixth and most powerful nuclear test on 3 September.

The resolution imposed a ban on condensates and natural gas liquids, a cap of 2m barrels a year on refined petroleum products and a cap on crude oil exports to North Korea at current levels.

Russia urged calm on Friday after the US president, Donald Trump, called his North Korean counterpart, Kim Jong-un, a “madman”. Kim had called Trump a “mentally deranged US dotard” a day earlier after Trump had said Washington would “totally destroy” North Korea if it threatened the US or its allies.

 

[eagle1462010]

Foreign policy Tiawan

The U.S.-Taiwan security relationship in a time of transition

The June 2017 release of a $1.4 billion arms package to Taiwan dispelled apprehensions that the foreign military sales (FMS) process had fallen prey to the closer ties between Beijing and Washington, as the latter convinced itself of China’s ability to resolve the North Korean nuclear missile issue.[3]Although the arms package did little to shift the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait and consisted primarily of items agreed to in principle by the Obama administration, but which failed to be notified to Congress, the release six months into the Trump administration sent a reassuring signal of continued political support for Taiwan. Just as important, remarks by U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore the same month, reaffirming U.S. support for Taiwan and using principled language not seen since the Clinton years, also clarified that the Department of Defense remains firmly committed to security exchanges and regards Taiwan as an important partner in an increasingly volatile part of the world.[4]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Mattis reveals new rules of engagement




WASHINGTON – U.S. forces are no longer bound by requirements to be in contact with enemy forces in Afghanistan before opening fire, thanks to a change in rules of engagement orchestrated by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.

Mattis, appearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joe Dunford, told a pair of congressional hearings that the White House gave him a free hand to reconsider the rules of engagement and alter them to speed the battle against the Taliban if need be.

Over the last several years, many top officials in Washington have advocated for a loosening of the rules of engagement that dictate how troops conduct combat operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

Changes could allow the U.S. military to move more quickly to defeat terrorist organizations. Rules of engagement are classified, and military officials generally do not discuss them.



However, there were signs that changes to those rules of engagement were coming. In his Aug. 21 speech announcing his Afghanistan strategy, President Donald Trump said he would ”lift restrictions and expand authorities” for war fighters.

”We will also expand authorities for American armed forces to target the terrorists and criminal networks that sow violence and chaos throughout Afghanistan,” Trump said at the time.

Mattis has taken that freedom and implemented at least two changes: the removal of proximity requirements for strikes against Taliban forces, and the spreading out of U.S. and allied advisers to lower-level Afghan units.

“You see some of the results of releasing our military from, for example, a proximity requirement — how close was the enemy to the Afghan or the U.S.-advised special forces?” Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee in the morning.




Rules that many in the military say caused U.S. deaths on the battlefield..........

A couple of changes dues not make the previous ROE dead. So you lied.

"However, similar changes in the tasks and rules of engagement within RSM should not be expected for advisors from other NATO countries. The changes on the American side are supplemented by the “ANDSF Road Map to 2020”, accepted by Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani. According to the plan, the ANDSF should finish the reorganisation of its units and training system by the end of 2017, and then in 2018 double the number of army and police special units, and by 2020 regain control over areas inhabited by a majority of the population.

Military Dimension of the New U.S. and NATO Afghanistan Strategy

NATO has not changed.

And you apparently are unaware that the development of the ANDSF from 2009 to the present to a 300,000 fighting force was achieved on the basis of General Stanley McChrystal's recommendation to activate ROE in 2009 necessary to give the advantage to the Afghan Government gaining trust among the Afghan population.

And they worked.

Do you understand that the number of US Troops now in a combat role is small fraction of the numbers at its peak in 2010 thanks to the Obama surge and McChrystal's ROE?

 

[kaz]

I don't remember ever calling you a republican.

I don't give a shit what your party is. You defend and support the worst president we've ever had

I'm not sure how you think that is a contradiction, but whatever. And Trump isn't the worst President we've had in the last two Presidents

I wasn't a Democrat until about a year ago. Does it matter to you?

What a load of crap. You've been lock step with the Democrats since I joined the board

IAt issue here is your inability to admit when you are wrong. You flail around looking for a way to spin your ignorance. Sad.

LoneLaughedAt: Here's a link that proves JPS was a Republican 41 years ago. Now admit you're wrong! Admit it, admit it, admit it, admit it ...

I never said he wasn't a Republican 41 years ago. I said he isn't a Republican and you've provided nothing contrary to that other than your own insistence and two articles that support he was a Republican 41 years ago

 

[eagle1462010]

Mattis reveals new rules of engagement




WASHINGTON – U.S. forces are no longer bound by requirements to be in contact with enemy forces in Afghanistan before opening fire, thanks to a change in rules of engagement orchestrated by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.

Mattis, appearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joe Dunford, told a pair of congressional hearings that the White House gave him a free hand to reconsider the rules of engagement and alter them to speed the battle against the Taliban if need be.

Over the last several years, many top officials in Washington have advocated for a loosening of the rules of engagement that dictate how troops conduct combat operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

Changes could allow the U.S. military to move more quickly to defeat terrorist organizations. Rules of engagement are classified, and military officials generally do not discuss them.



However, there were signs that changes to those rules of engagement were coming. In his Aug. 21 speech announcing his Afghanistan strategy, President Donald Trump said he would ”lift restrictions and expand authorities” for war fighters.

”We will also expand authorities for American armed forces to target the terrorists and criminal networks that sow violence and chaos throughout Afghanistan,” Trump said at the time.

Mattis has taken that freedom and implemented at least two changes: the removal of proximity requirements for strikes against Taliban forces, and the spreading out of U.S. and allied advisers to lower-level Afghan units.

“You see some of the results of releasing our military from, for example, a proximity requirement — how close was the enemy to the Afghan or the U.S.-advised special forces?” Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee in the morning.




Rules that many in the military say caused U.S. deaths on the battlefield..........

A couple of changes dues not make the previous ROE dead. So you lied.

"However, similar changes in the tasks and rules of engagement within RSM should not be expected for advisors from other NATO countries. The changes on the American side are supplemented by the “ANDSF Road Map to 2020”, accepted by Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani. According to the plan, the ANDSF should finish the reorganisation of its units and training system by the end of 2017, and then in 2018 double the number of army and police special units, and by 2020 regain control over areas inhabited by a majority of the population.

Military Dimension of the New U.S. and NATO Afghanistan Strategy

NATO has not changed.

And you apparently are unaware that the development of the ANDSF from 2009 to the present to a 300,000 fighting force was achieved on the basis of General Stanley McChrystal's recommendation to activate ROE in 2009 necessary to give the advantage to the Afghan Government gaining trust among the Afghan population.

And they worked.

Do you understand that the number of US Troops now in a combat role is small fraction of the numbers at its peak in 2010 thanks to the Obama surge and McChrystal's ROE?

Your splitting hairs..............................so what.....................Fact remains that our forces are fighting under less restrictive ROE's............

So I can split hairs and say a lot of Obama ROE'S are gone....................

poor thing.