Workinstif

A critical thinker with a non-judgemental attitude looking at expanding knowledge and understanding of current events for myself and others.

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

While the military industrial complex is definitely strong, the actors referenced in JFK's speech has little to do with the military - although they tend to cause military action. It is simple, and truly not hard to follow. But only if you are paying attention. Read, research, be objective through non-biased eyes. Maybe start with the term "covert" and work forward.

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

Do you have an objective view of history? If you do, then you understand the ideals of those that have been targeted/assassinated. Can we, maybe, put this into the rhetoric/talking points?

You're not gonna see this, but my idea is that those that have been targeted in the past have worked towards the betterment of society.

I challenge you to announce how the assassination of any past leaders was for the betterment of the United States.

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

@GenericJes @MattLovesVinyl @TKratman From the media outlets, themselves. As for the Obama administration imprisoning a journalist regards to information about Benazi.... you'll find it, I have faith.

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

How so? With words? None of them are jailed, or worse executed. "Oh no, I was threatened with loss of viewership!"

What is your idea of "freedom of press?" It doesn't mean, nor has it ever meant, being allowed in every single venue without permission.

There are always legalities. You want to know why Trump won lawsuits against media outlets? Because, even though there is "freedom of the press," the press doesn't have Carte Blanche on what is allowed to be printed. Leading to "freedom of speech," you're allowed to say anything you want, but there are exceptions. And you must suffer the consequences of your words are damaging or threatening in nature.

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

You may need to expand on your example. Are you implying that there isn't "freedom of press" in the U.S.? You will need to provide examples. The fact that most - if not all - of our so called "journalists" are allowed to report anything, whether factual or not, should show that your statement is false. Being told "that's a stupid question" or "I'm not going to answer that" is not denying freedom of press. Calling an agency "fake news" is not denying a news agency their ability to report how they like.

"Life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness" is where freedom lies, without stepping on someone elses.

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

@Erick_CG23 @KlinkaSaBrda @umyaznemo 1. Who said "they were complying with it?" 2. What is their background? What do they have to gain? I'll bet that anyone who was "for" an agreement established by the Obama admin stood to increase their personal coffers. Regardless of the intent of the country in question.

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

@damienslash Just stop! Quit with your fake ass whining. Quit trying to enrage the ignorant. Just stop!

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

So, if I've got this, I should do my best to refrain from trying to correct a wrong, but find posts that I agree with and reply "something"?

The algorithms should be able to better than that. I remember posting to one of the "idiot twins" something like "why do you keep coming across my feed? You're spewing crap." In so many words. After that, it disappeared fort a little bit.

Thank you for the info on this. 👍

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

1. The federal level shouldn't drive anything when it comes to individual achievements (or the lack there of).

2. If you believe the Department of Education provided the "required" funding, you're delusional (I can show you documents of requests that are fraudulent).

3. If a teacher needs to provide resources out of there own pocket, that should be full evidence that the Dept of Ed. should not exist.

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

@BigAZPatriot @RepHoulahan Unfortunately, what will we see happen? "OH my lord, I didn't realize, I'm so sorry..." right? Yeah, they knew exactly what they were doing. Yet, what's to come of it? I'm not one for examples to be made, but....

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

@RepHoulahan FAFO. Do you not understand what you were inciting? Of course not, tort side never does.

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

Did you our did you not tell service members to defy an order given to them? You're a Ranger, or you were (not sure what happened), and you commanded troops. What would you do if your troops, legally or not, defied your orders? (Rhetorical question).

You're now not affiliated with there military and telling them it's okay to defy orders. What???

Did you, or did you not, perform an act of sedition? If you feel threatened by what the CinC said, I guess we know the answer.

You truly are a disappointment to the Ranger regiment.

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

@johnrich I deployed to Iraq twice under his administration. I know what Cheney did (found out after the fact). I can honestly tell you I've never really thought about it. I laughed at Dana Carvey's rendition of him (only because I could relate to the accent).

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

@greengoddess892 @1Aor2AYouPick @MarkHertling These are not illegal operations. And the reason you don't hear any litigation about these should truly ease your mind. That is, unless your mind requires the materials on those boats in order to be eased.

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

And that's where it should have stayed, right? At the command level.

The major issue with the video is that it makes those that have never served (95+%) believe that an E-1 to E-4 has a choice in which order to follow.

Now, this video may have been pointed at National Guard personnel, but they made it national (not just guard).

I agree with you. But, JAG is usually involved on the legalities of orders, and this, more often than not, does not become a junior enlisted issue.

A mistake was made. What are there consequences?

Thank you for your service from a proud retiree/veteran.

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

Are you saying that members of congress are committing "acts of sedition"?

Maybe you would like to clarify your statement?

Worse has come from your party. Maybe you thought they were innocent statements of "don't let them be comfortable," or "they will have hell to pay." Those are just a couple of numerous times your party has wished harm (or even death) upon your political rivals.

Maybe you should step back, think about your own actions, and actually listen to your constituents. Stop listening to those that excel from the hardship that your party is creating.

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

@Antiman_456 @SenSchumer I get it, but to spin this as a "threat" to all members of congress, after truly threatening members of SCOTUS and representatives with their lives, I believe it's best he sit back and lose his next election. (Not that we'll get anyone better).

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

You do understand that it WOULD be a lawful order if servicemen were told to detain persons involved in telling military members to not follow orders (even if they used "illegal" in the phrase). And if the servicemen didn't follow this order, it would be a court martial (not NJP, as some have suggested).

Notice I used "detain." This is because, in order to get to the "death" part, a trial must happen.

I've over simplified this. If you don't understand, don't hesitate to reach out.

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

@emkenobi What, pray tell, is being destroyed? Try to explain without using MSM hate speech.

[Workinstif @Workinstif1]

Yeah, people walking around with flags. Oh my lord, "kill 'em all" because they don't believe the same way you do.

Even calling it an "insurrection" didn't hold water.

Please stop trying to incite angst. There's already enough of that to go around.

Someone not in the military chain of commands trying to tell our troops that they can "pick and choose" which orders to follow is actually an illegal act written in the constitution and is essentially the REASON for the constitution.