Tab Content
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 06:55 AM
    It's not a myth. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. Nobody can be put in prison or fined as a result of impeachment. The only thing that can happen to them is that they are removed from office. Impeachment is a political process and that cuts both ways. Because impeachment is a political process, Bill Clinton could not be removed even though everybody knows he committed the crime of perjury. Similarly Trump cannot be removed unless 2/3rds of the Senate votes to have him removed and that ain't happening. Also, to be honest the "fruit from a poisonous tree" doctrine doesn't apply to obstruction. That's a crime committed after the start of an investigation. In a regular criminal proceeding if police found evidence against you from a bogus investigation (such as actual evidence of collusion with the Russians in witness tampering) that evidence would be squashed. But evidence that you tampered with witnesses during the investigation would not be squashed. So...technically in a real criminal proceeding, Trump could be held liable for obstruction even based on a phony FISA warrant. But, like I said, this isn't really a criminal proceeding.
    135 replies | 1196 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 06:48 AM
    Originalist wasn't complaining that you don't post more. He (she?) was saying you have time to post incessantly defending Trump even to the point of coming into a thread about something good Justin Amash did just to bash Amash for the sake of Trump.
    135 replies | 1196 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:20 PM
    Your sarcasm meter be broken.
    135 replies | 1196 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:19 PM
    What I said stands on its on. Someone posted something positive about Amash and you criticized him for something you did not criticize Trump for in this thread. And if Amash thinks the illegal investigation turned up something impeachable then the illegal investigation can be dealt with separately. Again, if an illegal investigation found credible evidence of Trump having child porn it wouldn't matter to me that the investigation was illegal. I'd still want him impeached. This isn't a criminal matter where "fruit from a poisonous tree" isn't allowed in court. Impeachment is political. But again, I don't think Trump did anything that I would impeach him for doing.
    135 replies | 1196 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:15 PM
    :rolleyes: The reason I said "moderate success" is that even though he won the senate seat (Yay Rand!) he got crushed when he ran for president. So the glass was only half full. You have just as much of an attitude as you accuse purists of having. Great success in politics is Donald Trump coming out of nowhere and winning the presidency. Even though I am no Trump fan, not even in the slightest, I know that he's been far more successful in politics than Rand Paul. So no. My assessment has nothing to do with Rand being 80% (if that's even the correct percentage) or whatever. Rand was far more successful than Ron for example.
    154 replies | 1810 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:10 PM
    ^That statement doesn't address a single thing I said because I never said anything about allowing 1 foreigner in let alone millions. All I have addressed is proposed methods for curbing immigration. Who did not immigrate from an anti-liberty culture? That's not what the data shows. George H. W. Bush started tightening up on H1B visas in 1990. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa#Immigration_Act_of_1990) And that's when you start seeing the precipitous drop of support for Republicans among Asians. I know that doesn't fit your worldview but it's the truth.
    20 replies | 626 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:48 PM
    LOL.
    135 replies | 1196 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:48 PM
    That really doesn't address a single thing I said. But okay. The reality is that there is a very real risk to the "teocon" strategy. Some of us saw this back when Rand first ran and even before. At some point we risk becoming the very neocons we were fighting to defeat in the first place. Ignoring that risk is also a delusion.
    154 replies | 1810 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:08 PM
    That is an over-generalization. Let's say Ron is 99% pure. Rand isn't close to 99%. Many people who were wary of Rand nonetheless were willing to get behind him. Let's say Rand was 88%. Where is Trump? 75%? 70%? At some point the product has become so diluted that you are just down to "Well...this person is arguably better than Hillary Clinton." Okay. That was true for John McCain and Mitt Romney as well. And the "defending the impure politician" ultimately morphs into "defending the impurity itself." The mental gymnastics I have seen gone through to defend bumpfire stocks alone make my head spin. I get the "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" idea. I also get "Beware of wolves in sheep clothing." Both concerns are valid.
    154 replies | 1810 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:59 AM
    I beg to differ. Most debates on this forum these days are either directly about immigration or indirectly tied to immigration. Take the debates over the bumpfire stock ban. Nobody here things that's a good idea. But some are willing to tolerate it based on the idea that Trump needed to do it for political reasons or, even if he's just bad on the second amendment, because he's so "good" on immigration, we need to protect him. It's like the left on healthcare. Point out Obama's shortcomings? "Oh but he got us the Affordable Care Act which is the best thing since sliced cheese and don't point out the problems with it because republicans haven't come up with anything better." But hey, if you've got another example of what you're talking about with regards to this forum, please share it. I consider this thread a reaction to the cheer-leading of the possible purge of Justin Amash. Many of us have been irritating with Rand from time to time but there wasn't the "He may lose his primary *snicker snicker*" reaction that I've seen with regards to Justin. Justin's cardinal sin? Saying obstruction of justice may be an impeachable offense. I disagree with his analysis, but I also disagree with the idea that just because the investigation came about from NSA spying that means that there can be no impeachable offense ipso facto. If illegal NSA spying turned up actual admitted child porn would that be an impeachable offense? Again, I disagree with Justin's final analysis. But I don't see it as equal to NSA spying.
    154 replies | 1810 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:39 AM
    I just now saw this. My response. I hope Mini-Me and Swordsmyth will read it. This is the first (and IMO most important) point to make. Just because someone disagrees with your solution doesn't mean they don't think there is a problem worth addressing. That is the position that those pushing for government takeover of healthcare take. You don't support their ideas on healthcare? You must just want people to die! They falsely claim that you don't have any proposals of your own to put forward, or if you do they are "bad" somehow. The CEO of Whole Foods put forward a free market proposal on healthcare prior to the passage of the so called "Affordable Care Act" and for his troubles he was attacked and a boycott against Whole Foods was organized. (One of those attacking the Whole Foods CEO was Max Keiser who is often on the Alex Jones show. He called for the boycott on AJ's show and AJ didn't bust him for it. Needless to say I was sorely disappointed with Alex Jones that day.) Mini-Me makes several points that I'd like to address. My thoughts in italics. 1) American culture is in decline.
    20 replies | 626 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:21 AM
    Hello. I didn't see that post by MiniMe the first time or when antifederlist reposted it as a separate thread. I will direct my response to AF's thread. Cliff notes version, MiniMe attempts to defend something (the wall) that he readily admits won't actually fix the problem that he feels needs to be fixed (uncontrolled immigration) and that's being advanced using methods he feels are unconstitutional (abusing executive power by declaring a national emergency). Really, this whole discussion reminds me of talking to Obama voters. "Yes the Affordable Care Act caused some problems and didn't really fix anything and was possibly unconstitutional....but don't you care about sick people?" If you say yes, they say "Well...what's your alternative?" You give them alternatives they shout you down and boycott you (ask the CEO of Whole Foods) and pretend you never offered any alternatives, or worse accuse your alternatives of exacerbating the problem when the opposite is true. I put forward a proposal, half in jest, that the more I think about it is really the least worst alternative. That is helping Mexico build a wall on its southern border. There's no need to declare a "national emergency" to do that. We already send Mexico money to fight a phony drug war. We send foreign aid to all of those countries. Redirect that foreign aid to Mexico building a wall to keep Central American migrants from getting into Mexico in the first place. There is no constitutional problem with that suggestion! None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. It wouldn't cost us one red cent. (Again, re-purpose drug war foreign aid money, and since Trump has tried drug smuggling to immigration, the money has already been allocated.) No U.S. ranchers have to lose additional land. There is no need for installing "face scanning cameras" at airports and along the border wall to accomplish this. It doesn't enhance the 100 mile "constitution free zone" that already exists. And Mexico's southern border is much shorter than the U.S. southern border which means the whole shebang would be much much cheaper to construct. It seems Trump almost took me up on my suggestion when he announced, then backed away from, tariffs on Mexico to get them to do more on immigration. He was addressing the same problem my proposal address but in a different manner. He ended up without any concrete results from what I can tell. So we're back to "muh wall."
    154 replies | 1810 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:43 AM
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2018.1477640?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=uteh20& And no that's not from some "right wing" website or some "conspiracy theory" website.
    8 replies | 149 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:37 AM
    You're welcome. But actually I think it proves your point in spades. A naturally born woman who hasn't taken male hormones should be able to compete exclusively against naturally born women who haven't taken male hormones. Male hormones are a "performance enhancing drug" when it comes women's athletics regardless of where they come from.
    43 replies | 239 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:33 AM
    College prices are artificially inflated by government regulation. For example, there are two law schools in the Nashville area, Vanderbilt and Nashville School of Law. Vanderbilt is ABA accredited. Nashville School Of Law is not. You can sit for the Tennessee bar if you went to either school, but many states won't let you sit for the bar unless you graduated from an ABA accredited school. Guess which one is more expensive?
    62 replies | 1899 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:09 AM
    Interesting. What a clusterflop. Simple solution. Naturally born girls should be able to compete in boys sports if they feel they're up to it. The other way around should not be permitted. Simple solution.
    43 replies | 239 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:18 AM
    We aren't. That's why I said professional or even college level athletes. Yes, I would expect a WNBA team to be a junior HS male basketball team. That's not what I'm talking about. And these elite women you mentioned didn't want to compete against women who were once men. That doesn't mean they can't beat any man anywhere ever. Really, I'm not understanding your argument. Sometimes the athlete who uses performance enhancing drugs still loses the race / fight / tennis match, whatever. So why are PEDs banned and there's a whole regime for every legitimate sport to test for them? Because everyone knows they give a competitive advantage to the user. The picture in the OP is of an athlete who was born a woman who is taking hormones to become a man but is still competing with women and dominating his/her sport (wrestling). Question. Do you think that is fair? Ummm...you know WWE is fake right? Or do you really think a one legged kid could be an actual professional wrestler?
    43 replies | 239 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:26 AM
    Wow. A thread about libertarians vs the GOP turning into a religious war. Talk about thread creep! Anyway, this is the "sword" that Jesus brought. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And yes, the Word of God can tear families apart. Consider the case of a Muslim who converts to Christianity and gets disowned (or worse) by his family. That is the "sword" of the word tearing a family apart.
    154 replies | 1810 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:03 AM
    Sorry. Not my intent this time.
    135 replies | 1196 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:02 AM
    You're talking about Fallon Fox. Here's Joe Rogan's take.
    43 replies | 239 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:59 AM
    The men who can't beat all women in any physical contest don't become professional or even college level athletes.
    43 replies | 239 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:58 AM
    You know the picture you posted is Mack Beggs, a naturally born woman, who is taking hormones to become a man, but is still competing with the women. Here is the funny thing. Man transitions to a woman? He competes with the women. Woman takes hormones to transition to a man? She competes with.....the women? Yep. Natural born woman not transitioning to a man but takes some hormones for a competitive advantage? Why she's a cheater! Ban her for life!
    43 replies | 239 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:51 AM
    Okay. Let's go with the two bank robber analogy. Let's say one bank robber Billybob, got arrested, convicted, served his sentence and was released. The other bank robber, Lukeduke, got away. A third associate, Jimbob, wasn't involved at all. Normally Billybob couldn't be tried again for the same bank robbery. That would be double jeopardy. But say if the government said "Hey, we think Jimbob was involved and we want you to testify against him." If Billybob say "No way. He wasn't even in the country. I'm not going to lie." and the government said "If you don't we'll put you in jail for contempt of court." Because Billybob has already served his time for the bank robbery, the only legal jeopardy he has is for his refusal to testify. Now, consider the case of Dr. Jerome Corsi and Donald Trump. Dr. Corsi was never charged with any crime, but he was in legal jeopardy for refusing to testilie about Trump. It's a double edged sword. If he refused to testify, they would get him for contempt of court. If he didn't say what they wanted, they would have accused him of lying to federal investigators, which is what they got Michael Flynn on. Manning is in exactly the same position as Corsi.
    135 replies | 1196 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:31 AM
    Except in this case you brought up NSA spying on Trump as a reason to be against Amash when Trump supports NSA spying. That's a bit hypocritical.
    135 replies | 1196 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:29 AM
    Yes. But they wanted Manning to testify to what? They wanted to her to testify that Assange was complicit in her crime. The trumped up lie (no pun intended) is that Assange was complicit by giving Manning assistance in cracking a password. So Manning already served time for a "crime", Assange was being charged with complicity in Manning's crime, they wanted Manning to testilie about that, Manning refused to lie, Manning got sent back to prison.
    135 replies | 1196 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:23 AM
    GREAT article!
    6 replies | 331 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    6 replies | 331 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    06-17-2019, 07:48 PM
    As are the knights of old.
    202 replies | 4076 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    06-17-2019, 07:14 PM
    You said Manning was being accused of being complicit in Assange's crimes when it's Assange being accused of being complicit in Manning's crimes. Huge difference.
    135 replies | 1196 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    06-17-2019, 07:11 PM
    They who? I certainly haven't. There are white people who have declared war on me and mine. I don't let that affect me. And some of those white people are not "progressives."
    23 replies | 287 view(s)
More Activity

49 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Please stop trying to "out" Erowe1. Let it go.
  2. I know. Like I said I was going to yank your chain but realized that in the current circumstances it would be bad taste even for me.
  3. View Conversation
    At least until every county or so willingly decided to submit to Christ, which I think will happen eventually because I'm a postmillennialist.
  4. View Conversation
    I wish things were a lot more local too. I'm really not looking for a country of 300 million at all. I think that's too big. Those who didn't want to live by Christian law could live somewhere else and choose God's judgment over his blessings.
  5. View Conversation
    And while I do believe the BIble requires civil authorities to punish homosexuality, and with death as the maximum penalty, I don't think it would be legitimate even for the government to just round up people in a gay bar.

    My reasons on the bearing arms bit are much closer to yours (resistance against tyranny.)
  6. View Conversation
    To be perfectly clear, I absolutely oppose vigilantism. I know you were joking around but I just want you to be clear on where I stand.
  7. View Conversation
    Will you kindly give a tongue lashing to the racist of the board, AmericanSpartan? Thank you. I'd like to see it.
  8. Sorry, but you have failed. That verse does not contain the words "Grace is irresistible." You can interpret it that way, but that's not what the verse says. You had to admit there was "relational language" in the Bible. Yet you have stuck to your guns that there isn't a verse that says "Have a relationship with Jesus." Likewise there is no verse that says "Grace is irresistible." If you were honest you would simply admit that. But you aren't honest.
  9. View Conversation
    Acts 13:48
    And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 49
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
About jmdrake

Basic Information

Signature


9/11 Thermate experiments

Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
41,402
Posts Per Day
9.42
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
49
Most Recent Message
11-05-2016 03:40 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 06:56 AM
Join Date
06-06-2007
Referrals
5

35 Friends

  1. affa affa is offline

    Member

    affa
  2. bobbyw24 bobbyw24 is offline

    Banned

    bobbyw24
  3. Cap Cap is offline

    Member

    Cap
  4. Captain Shays Captain Shays is offline

    Member

    Captain Shays
  5. Christian Liberty
  6. cjm cjm is offline

    Member

    cjm
  7. Crowish Crowish is offline

    Member

    Crowish
  8. DGambler DGambler is offline

    Member

    DGambler
  9. Dr.3D Dr.3D is offline

    Member

    Dr.3D
  10. GigiBowman GigiBowman is offline

    Member

    GigiBowman
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 35
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
View jmdrake's Blog

Recent Entries

How Ron Paul could smack down Iran critics

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:34 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
Ron needs to quit playing defense and go on offense. It's not enough to say "the Soviet Union was worse than Iran." If he could point out the following documented facts it would shut the naysayer up for good or at least make them back-peddle.

1) In 2003 Iran was the only Muslim country to help us fight and remove the Taliban from power.

See: Jane's Defense Weekly India joins anti-Taliban coalition. "India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

The new bill of rights.

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:33 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
This parody is an attempt to "rewrite" the bill of rights in keeping with the current application by our criminal government. Original text will be in italics followed by a list of possible options.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

Federal Reserve advised gold standard for Russia

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:32 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
I ran across this information by accident (providence?) while looking for something else. The first link is an essay from Jude Wanniski who went with fed governor Wayne Angell to Moscow right after the collapse of the soviet union. Note that Angell advocated the new Russia to go to a gold backed currency! The second link is an online Google book from the Mises institute that talks about the same essay. I've excerpted the essay bellow. (It's too long to post directly). It's interesting to note

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

Washington Post 2002 : The U.S. pushed jihad on Afghan schoolchildren.

by jmdrake on 09-13-2011 at 01:15 PM
Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad
Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts


By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 23, 2002; Page A01

In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

05-11-2019


03-21-2019


03-18-2019


02-16-2019

  • 12:47 PM - Hidden

10-25-2018

  • 03:48 PM - Hidden

10-24-2018

  • 02:19 PM - Hidden
  • 09:12 AM - Hidden

09-14-2018


09-13-2018


04-26-2018


04-25-2018


10-02-2017


09-07-2017


08-29-2017


05-04-2017

  • 04:05 PM - Hidden

04-19-2017


04-16-2017


04-03-2017


03-26-2017


01-31-2017



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

11-17-2017


Page 1 of 167 1231151101 ... LastLast

06-19-2019


06-18-2019



Page 1 of 167 1231151101 ... LastLast