Replies

Poster jessup doesn't like it when Code Pinko is exposed on Free Republic.

Code Pink praises Donald Trump after debate

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/269472-code-pink-praises-donald-trump

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is being praised by Code Pink, a group that has protested the Iraq War.

Trump garnered support from Code Pink dduring the GOP debate Saturday night when he called the Iraq War a mistake and accused the George W. Bush administration of lying before the invasion.

Code Pink also wants Israel wiped out.

Code Pink played a part in setting up the Obama/muslim brotherhood attempt to take over Egypt.

Code Pink is a big HAMAS supporter and was part of the 'flotilla' that tried to undermine Israel.

Code Pink was a big pusher of Obama's enabling Iran to get the bomb and $150 million from the US.

First of all n00b, put away that broad brush.

While it is true that Code Pink praised Trump's position on the Iraq War, that does not equate to Trump endorsing, supporting or in any way aligning himself with any of their OTHER positions.

You're only half clever. You think that by waving that Code Pink banner around, that you will somehow be able to 'smear by association'. Doesn't work that way pal.

Trump has no control over who does, or does not agree with him, nor does any other candidate for office. You have erected a straw man, and whatever argument you are trying to make, it does not hold water.

The fact is, the majority of the American people agree that the Iraq War was a mistake. The chaos that now exists in the vacuum created by the overthrow of Saddam is proof enough that it was a mistake, NOT because it wasn't a good idea to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but because the post-liberation follow up in Iraq was totally screwed up by the Bush Administration. It's as simple as that.

What you apparently have difficulty with, is comprehending that many different groups from one end of the political spectrum to the other, may agree when it is clear that those who support a position (in this instance the Iraq War) are defending something that is indefensible.

Code Pink's positions on Israel, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood or Iran are totally irrelevant when it comes to THIS topic which YOU have raised, which is the topic of the Iraq War.

For the record, I think getting rid of Saddam wasn't a bad idea IF Bush had more effectively planned for an extended U.S. occupation in the post-Saddam period. He did not. He screwed the pooch. And because he did not nail down an iron clad agreement with the Iraqi government for a long term presence of U.S. troops (as we did in Japan after World War II), that opened the door for Obama to finish screwing up what GWB completely mismanaged.

Because Bush failed to plan for and take action to assure that a stable Iraq would not only emerge but ENDURE, the thousands of U.S. troops who gave their lives and the thousands more who were wounded, did so for absolutely NOTHING, nothing except the incompetence of the Bush Administration who certainly knew how to go in and win a war and overthrow a dictator, but they didn't know how to secure the peace and instead pissed away the lives and well being of our troops and their families as well.

Your 'Code Pink' jihad is intellectually dishonest, it is an absurd attempt to try and associate their positions which have NOTHING to do with Iraq, with Donald Trump.

Your persistent attempts to validate your claims fail on every count.

HERE is another area where I was not thrilled with Trump’s comments

Antonin Scalia vs. Donald Trump: Why Scalia rejected Trump-style eminent domain abuse.

Reason ^ | 02/15/2016 | Damon Root

Posted on 2/15/2016, 8:20:59 PM by SeekAndFind
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3397529/posts

Antonin Scalia, the conservative legal giant who died on Saturday at age 79, will be remembered for his outspoken views on legal issues ranging from abortion to gun control.
Scalia’s fierce opposition to eminent domain abuse is also worth remembering.

In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kelo v. City of New London. At issue was that Connecticut municipality’s desire to bulldoze a working-class neighborhood and hand the razed land over to a private developer working in cahoots with the Pfizer corporation. The idea underlying the city’s scheme was that if people were forced out of their homes, their vacant properties could be put to more profitable purposes, thereby swelling the city’s tax coffers.

The problem with this approach is that it violates the original meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says that the government may only take private property for a public use (and it must pay just compensation when it does). Taking property from one private party and handing it over to another private party, by contrast, is plainly inconsistent with all traditional notions of public use, a reality the Supreme Court itself acknowledged back in 1954, when it upheld an eminent domain “urban renewal” taking on the grounds that it served a “public purpose,” a far more permissive, and therefore government friendly, concept than public use.

During the February 2005 oral argument in the Kelo case, the lawyer for New London urged the justices to give government officials the broadest leeway possible in eminent domain disputes.

But Justice Scalia was not feeling so generous. Under your theory, Scalia asked the lawyer, “you could take [private property] from A and give it to B if B is richer, and would pay higher municipal taxes, couldn’t you?”

“Yes, Your Honor,” the lawyer conceded.

“For example,” interjected Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, “Motel 6 and the city thinks, well, if we had a Ritz-Carlton, we would have higher taxes. Now, is that okay?”

“Yes, Your Honor, that would be okay,” the lawyer conceded again. In other words, because private property can almost always be put to a more profitable purpose, the government can effectively take any private property it wants for any “development” scheme it happens to cook up. So much for the text of the Fifth Amendment.

In the end, of course, Scalia and O’Connor were outvoted. Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, gave the government all the leeway it needed to kick people out of their homes and wipe their neighborhoods off the map. “The disposition of this case,” Stevens announced, “turns on the question of whether the City’s development plan serves a ‘public purpose.’ Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.”

The Kelo case has been in the news again recently thanks to the presidential campaign of Republican Donald Trump. In Trump’s oft-stated view, Kelo is a “wonderful” decision that should be respected and emulated. Trump is also known for trying to personally profit from Kelo-style land grab.

Trump’s position is of course totally anathema to the position of Justice Scalia, who once went so far as to compare Kelo to Dred Scott. Perhaps when the next Republican presidential debate rolls around, one of the moderators will consider asking Trump why it is that he prefers the legal views of John Paul Stevens over those of Antonin Scalia on this matter.