Doug Wead: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Should Receive Medal of Freedom

[Ender]

Yup. $#@! Arpaio and the 'law and order' crowd that thinks his $#@! doesn't stink.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to pcosmar again.

COVERED.

 

[jmdrake]

Somebody explain to me again this "Vote for Trump to stick it to the establishment" strategy again?

 

[CaptUSA]

Dammit, Wead... Just another opportunist.

I'm beginning to wonder exactly how small the faction of Ron Paul's support was of people who actually understood the principles of liberty. It's seeming more and more minuscule. I guess this is what the Trump Presidency is all about. Rubbing it in our noses.

 

[goldenequity]

Specifically,
President Trump did not seek a review of the pardon from the Justice Department
and thereby bypassed the Office of the Pardon Attorney
which falls under the DOJ umbrella and normally handles such cases.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions
is believed to have approved and recommended President Trump sidestepping the pardons office
to maintain confidentiality, the source said.

The White House source said Trump wanted to avoid leaks of the pardon
and therefore chose to take a new route for Arpaio,
dealing instead with the White House Counsel’s office.
Other sources said President Trump does not trust many of the Obama holdovers in the Justice Department
which was another motivating factor behind the schematics of the Arpaio pardon.

It appears Sessions doesn’t trust these Obama appointees and hires either.

http://truepundit.com/exclusive-to-...y-to-keep-sheriff-joe-arpaios-pardon-stealth/

 

[pcosmar]

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-fri...jail-should-receive-medal-of-freedom-instead/




Interesting to see Doug Wead defending an extreme anti-civil liberties, drug warrior in between hawking pyramid schemes.

Wasn't Doug Weed giving Ron Paul lots of bad advice?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Dammit, Wead... Just another opportunist.

I'm beginning to wonder exactly how small the faction of Ron Paul's support was of people who actually understood the principles of liberty. It's seeming more and more minuscule. I guess this is what the Trump Presidency is all about. Rubbing it in our noses.

Aye

 

[TheCount]

Somebody explain to me again this "Vote for Trump to stick it to the establishment" strategy again?

It only applies to a very particular definition of 'the establishment.'

They're statists who think that the state is being misused, and therefore their goal is redirection of state power, not reduction of it.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It only applies to a very particular definition of 'the establishment.'

They're statists who think that the state is being misused, and therefore their goal is redirection of state power, not reduction of it.

That is exactly your belief and approach (e.g., link to my sig line).

 

[nobody's_hero]

I hope he doesn't think it will gain him any leftist support...

https://www.twitter.com/warren__terra/status/901260226086686720

There's no pleasing them.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

...republican drug-war idiot, arpaio, has been a major player in ruining thousands of people's lives in the conduct of the truly unconstitutional/unjust 'war on drugs,' etc.. in a decent society, anyone labelled a 'felon' for any 'victimless crime' would be pardoned waaaaay before arpaio, who is truly guilty of THOUSANDS OF REAL CRIMES in the conduct of this goddamned fool drug war...

...i think it's absolutely true that no truly decent, intelligent person could work as a 'cop', etc.,...tasked, as they are from day one, to enforce the many many many stinking rotten stooooooooooooooopid 'laws' that are so ruinous to so many of their fellows....ugh, republicrats!....

 

[nikcers]

That is exactly your belief and approach (e.g., link to my sig line).

his approach is to cut government power so they can't use it, not redirect it. He says that if the government has the power to do something they will.

Which programs would you cut out of the budget, TheCount?
Are we talking realistically or with a magic wand?

My primarily interests in this regard are foreign policy and the military. As I said above, I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will. In that area, spending on nuclear weapons would be my number one target - cut modernization and maintenance programs and reduce the arsenal to perhaps 300 weapons at the most. Likewise axe the vast majority of our military bases located overseas and associated spending. After that, the Marine Corps, quantity of aircraft carriers, and the like. I'd need a map and a compass to puzzle my way through all of the intelligence agencies and un$#@! them into something reasonable.

Other departments I'd have to go through one by one. Many of them I think should continue to exist but in a dramatically reduced capacity. As an example, a Department of Education which is restricted to facilitating coordination among the departments of education of the various states in addition to providing reports and such to the executive and legislative branches. Would such a thing still be named a department? I suppose. Regardless, it would be a hundredth of its current size. The nuke changes I mentioned above would sure cut a lot of the DoE. So on through the rest of them.

Realistically, entitlement programs and in particular social security would need a phased rather than immediate end end.

I don't think that means what you think it means. In fact that whole thread was about you defending NOT reducing spending. When the congress authorizes war by authorizing military spending. You know why they don't vote on a AUMF, because they consider voting on the military spending an authorization. If you continue to parrot talking points like spending doesn't matter, then I guess you think that never ending wars don't matter.

 

[jmdrake]

That is exactly your belief and approach (e.g., link to my sig line).

his approach is to cut government power so they can't use it, not redirect it. He says that if the government has the power to do something they will.


I don't think that means what you think it means. In fact that whole thread was about you defending NOT reducing spending. When the congress authorizes war by authorizing military spending. You know why they don't vote on a AUMF, because they consider voting on the military spending an authorization. If you continue to parrot talking points like spending doesn't matter, then I guess you think that never ending wars don't matter.

So in other words NorthCarolinaLiberty's sig is a dishonest out of context quote of TheCount.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I don't think that means what you think it means.

I always ask the TheCount what he means, but he never, ever clarifies. You might be able to get an answer from him because I certainly can't.

Here's what I think he meant (from that thread).

Read between the lines. TheCount thinks that government is going to somehow gut itself. He thinks that states and locales should spend their time writing reports "and such" to the federal government. The US Dept of Education telling your grade school what to do is what TheCount calls "coordination." He thinks your local high school principal doing federal paperwork is a way to "nuke" the Dept of Education. That "magic wand" he cited says that report writing is going to reduce an agency to 1% of what it is now. His "primarily [sic] interests" is military cutting, even though welfare spending far outpaces it and has grown the most dramatically.

This guy presents today's mundane liberal view. He adds some vague and eggheaded nonsense to sell it on this forum, and some here think he is in lockstep with Ron Paul.

So in other words NorthCarolinaLiberty's sig is a dishonest out of context quote of TheCount.

In other words?! What words? Yours? Why don't you just use the exact words I used in that thread? You were too lazy to click on a simple link, so you dishonestly call it out of context?

You're the guy who supports ZippyJuan and takes cues from him. Now it's TheCount. Gee, I wonder which anti-Ron Paul progressive you'll support next.

Yes, we certainly know who is getting pawned on the forum.

 

[nikcers]

I always ask the TheCount what he means, but he never, ever clarifies. You might be able to get an answer from him because I certainly can't.

well yeah you sort of cut off his comment where he says what he means. Don't believe what you think he means and ignore what he says? Just because Trump is president doesn't mean we are all moderates now, libertarianism is the opposite of moderatism.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

well yeah you sort of cut off his comment where he says what he means.

You can't click on the link?

 

[nikcers]

You can't click on the link?

Yeah do you want me to read it to you? He is not saying that he thinks government should do anything they have the power to do just that they will, because power corrupts, he implies that he wants a limited government. The thread in question was about so called lower taxes, which i haven't seen yet, without spending cuts, which if you aren't a moderate, if you are a libertarian then government spending and taxation are both theft, and favoring a government that steals more in one way over the other is just favoring evil.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yeah do you want me to read it to you?... The thread in question was about so called lower taxes, which i haven't seen yet,

LOL.

he [TheCount] implies that he wants a limited government.

Right, because nothing says limited government like his desire to see "...a Department of Education which is restricted to facilitating coordination among the departments of education of the various states in addition to providing reports and such to the executive and legislative branches."

Yes, that sure sounds like "restricted" and "limited" government.

 

[nikcers]

LOL.




Right, because nothing says limited government like his desire to see "...a Department of Education which is restricted to facilitating coordination among the departments of education of the various states in addition to providing reports and such to the executive and legislative branches."

Yes, that sure sounds like "restricted" and "limited" government.

well if he posted that you should link it and put it in your signature, and make sure to leave the it would be a hundredth of its current size

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

well if he posted that you should link it and put it in your signature.

Why?

 

[nikcers]

Why?

it would be a hundredth of its current size