So it does or doesnt mean something? If its used to secure funding it sure as **** sounds like something to me.

What i mean to say is that given that we are currently under a number of national emergencies, that the addition of another one shouldn't be seen as having some great significance. It is a tool that has been used repeatedly by government.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/polit...ncy/index.html
31 emergencies apparently

So you're admitting that this is a blatant disregard of authority granted to Congress?

WTF does that have to do with whether this particular one is a good idea or not?

Yeah
The question you asked was: "who is ready for a national emergency?"
And given that there are 31 it isn't a great question. Perhaps you should have instead asked whether it was a good idea.

It was more of a rhetorical question to get the discussion going. But as long as you're in agreement that this is an unconstitutional power grab, I guess we're on the same page here.

I doubt you would see the courts overruling it though.

*given that having an unsecured border has obvious national security implications, i would think the courts would be pretty deferential to executive action assuming its within existing law

What could possibly be the rationale for a national security problem now rather than, say, 12 months ago?

Political considerations apparently.

Not sure I understand.

Democrats need to yank all funding asap and resolve that there is no border crisis.

This clown is openly and tauntingly violating the construction.

It's one thing to take fast action in response to an event before Congress has time to respond.

It's another to go on record that you're willing to hold the entire government hostage for a single, particular solution to a "problem" and then after extensive legislative negotiation decide you're going to do what you want anyway.


The courts are familiar with the concept of "pretext".

If you're asking: "why is Trump doing it now?". Then the answer is politics. The justification will be national security.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...-6-month-syria

Producer for BBC says hospital attack in Syria was staged. Nobody died. All fake. Not the first time.

Ohhhg zero hedge huh? Lets see what other stallwarts of journalism are covering this story.

Hmmm, sputniknews. Interesting interesting.

Oh, veteranstoday. Im sure they are swimming in pulitzers.

And yep, out of 689,000 google hits on "bbc syria hospital attack" these three bastions of journalism are the only ones covering it. Going by my understanding of Occams razor, that means they are the only 3 in the entire world with the truth and every single other major publication on earth is involved in a cover up.

That how occams razor works, right?

Probably you should stick to pure emotion as logic isn't your strength.

Also, how odd that the producer in question now has his twitter account set to private

Oh please. Explain the logic here. I can use a laugh

Is your claim that the tweets and quotes cited in the article are fake or that the guy isn't a BBC producer?

Im sure he is. Those tweets do not relay any first hand knowledge.

Mostly I'm curious why you're so apparently invested in this.

Because you hate zero hedge? Because you want to bomb Assad still? Or because you don't want to admit to believing lies? Or what?

It seems like you're admitting the tweets are real and that he is a BBC producer. So what do you think is going on there? That he was paid off by Russia/Assad and/or hates the west? Why the automatic rush to try to discredit?

Why the automatic rush to believe it with zero evidence?

All I did was look into who else might be covering this. Its such a bombshell story, right? Why hasnt it been picked up by a single respectable outlet?

Also, youve included the word "still" in your previous post about something I supposedly believe or agree with. How about you post some ****ing evidence that I am in favor of the bombings or **** right off?

Is it because you only have the ability to believe things that have no evidence tied to them?

I tried to find evidence of you supporting military action in Syria but I was unable.

The best I could find was evidence of you being a neoliberal sycophant who would support whatever action the war party wanted, but not any of you wanting to attack Syria directly.

So I apologize.

There were plenty of reasons to disbelieve it at the time. Namely that from a logical perspective it made zero sense for Assad to provoke the West. Since that time more and more has come out challenging the West's narrative and this from the BBC producer just continues adding to that.

There aren't really any "reputable sources" btw. You have the warmongering msm and you have the alternative media.

In fact you wont find me supporting any wars, because I dont. I dont support war, preemptive bombings, or our ****ing glut of a military. A nation's military should be used for one thing and one thing only, and thats defense.

As for being supportive of any particular party, in as much that im realistic about our situation, youre damn right I support one party ovet the other in general. That doesnt mean that I support every single thing they do. Thr sooner you get that through your head and stop painting me with a broad brush about the democrats and the republicans, the sooner im guessing youll stop being an ******* about it.

And yet you never stop to think why the "alternative media" never disagrees with you. Whereas in my reality, I disagree with the media all the time, and yet still recognize their ability to do actual journalism.