Generally pay no consequences?
How about absolutely never in history?
Oh, the US taxpayer had to pay $120 million for the FBI framing those men in the Whitey Bulger case, but as for the agencies themselves taking a hit, or the criminals within, there was no consequence for that or anything else. In fact Mueller went on to fawning-media fame.
Or, that FBI attorney Clinesmith who completely falsified (reversed the meaning) of a CIA e-mail so as to frame Carter Page for the sake of illegal spying did get some kind of teensy wrist slap, but the agency paid no price.
Can you name an agency ever paying a price? Or the criminals in the agencies?
Nothing new about the agencies murdering people.
I would say it's generally a mistake to attribute to others what would be our own reasons for doing a thing.
Besides having appeal to those who truly wish to serve their country, the military can be appealing to authoritarian personality types, to lovers of government, the bigger the better, and to those who love having the government as their daddy, providing guaranteed paycheck, healthcare, and pension. These types do not necessarily have any objection at all to leftist government and can even prefer it.
Colonel Aquino was a Satanist, for example. He fit in just fine in the military. How is that? It is from top officers widely not being as clean as we would truly like to imagine.
Or, remember the recent Pentagon child porn scandal? All that CP on computers all over the place in the Pentagon? How many arrests were there? Is there any evidence anyone even lost their career?
Again, to me the thing to hope for is a specific part of the military being clean Patriots, rather than speaking of the entirety as such.
Consider that roughly half our top officers got into the service Academies by being hand-picked by the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff etc.
You do NOT get into West Point, the Naval Academy, or the Air Force Academy without being hand selected by a Representative or Senator, and at least half of them, for decades, have been leftist and/or Deep State controlled.
It's a dream imagining the great majority of our Generals, Colonels, Admirals, etc are conservative Patriots. The question is what evidence you have that anything like 90% of them are. How the hell would they have got there? Pelosi put them in? Schumer? Because about half of them were selected by such.
Civilian controlled military, with at least half the civilian politicians being corrupt. What we can reasonably hope for, IMO anyway, is for some part of the military to be clean of corruption and true Patriots, with these being able to get the job done. Imagining the Pentagon as a whole to be clean or corruption or anything like is unrealistic. Hence, for example, the endless corrupt wars.
And, for example, all the child porn on Pentagon computers. That was in the news a while back. No prosecutions apparenty, no evidence of anyone losing his career. How did they have all that CP there if the brass are all or mostly clean Patriots?
And in further news, Hillary will reveal as being a Patriot after all, everything part of the plan, and will hold hands with Pedo Joe as monkeys fly out of both their asses.
I agree it would work well, but so would a McLaren F1 if I had one. But there is zero evidence that I do. Same problem here.
Exactly. It is not at all clear that his claimed mother is his mother. Apparently there is a photograph of her clearly not pregnant shortly before the claimed birth date, and other inconsistencies.
There is also reasonable question whether the plainly African-American kid, no trace of Indonesian, pictured with the "grandparents" is Hussein.
There is a striking facial shape match, to be sure. But skin tone -- not exactly how dark one is, as the sun changes that, but the tone -- is genetic. I have never seen it fundamentally change in anyone, short of liver disease and the like. But Hussein's skin and lip tone are radically different than the kid's.
Less importantly but still weird, while the kid had Afro hair, I'm not at all persuaded that Hussein does.
If there was a swap, the time point of change seems to me to be the Pakistan trip, itself almost certainly a 3-letter agency matter. I haven't seen an all-dark-lipped, Indonesian skin-toned "Obama" prior to then, or an African-American skin and lips "Obama" after that.
Obama's likely (IMO) actual father, an Indonesian cult leader, with his claimed mother belonging to said cult:
Summary to save others from wasting their valuable time:
Biden press secretary said he hadn't ruled out anti-gun executive action. Dude says this signals weakness and lack of confidence Dems can get it done by legislation.
That's it. Should have been a 20 second video.
You have not cited a decision ordering a re-do election, especially not one where there is a provable actual winner on lawful votes, let alone by vast margin.
Your citation has to do with invalidating contracts, not ordering re-do elections.
Why on Earth do you think that the answer to one party hugely winning on legal votes, but cheated by fraud, is to still deny his win, deny the lawful votes, disenfranchise the lawful voters, and order a re-do?
Still awaiting your Constitutional, precedent-based, or relevant law-based reason. Contract law is not it, that is reaching. And awaiting your reason why 75 million plus lawful Trump voters on the Constitutionally-appointed date are in your view preferably disenfranchised or need to be disenfranchised. Because Biden, the Deep State, and Dems cheated? Really?
That drop says NOTHING about when you win in a landslide in terms of legitimate votes, and you prove that, you have to give the cheating loser a re-do.
Sorry bud, I voted for Trump, so did 75 million plus more, and demonrat/DS cheating is no basis for nullifying our votes. If you think it is, cite the law or precedent.
Why conflate things and make it the "election" was fraudulent when only one candidate is even alleged to have fraudulent votes?
No, Biden's vote counts in multiple states were fraudulent, Trump's are not and are not even alleged to be.
To me there is no rational reason.
When one party actually wins (more votes) an election, and the other cheats and is incorrectly certified, on what logic or law do you do anything but honor the election already held on the Constitutionally-mandated date?
Seriously, on what?
Now if a legitimate winner (clearly the most votes) could not be determined, that could be another matter. But that is not the case here.
If you completely beat me at something but I cheat and you prove that, what, you should give me a do-over?
A tree is revealed by its fruits.
Xi a white hat?
Look at what he has China do.
Thanks Xi for your biological and political warfare against the United States and the world. Some white hat.
His opposing the Jiang faction does not make him a good guy, it's just one evil communist faction vs another evil communist faction.
Show me his good works. Any. His evil works are easy to find.
Did you read the article past the headline? It does not support your point, at all. Only the headline appears to.
I've asked you for one piece of evidence for the adrenochrome claims and you have none.
You ask for one piece of evidence for cannibalism by elites? As if you really do have evidence on adrenochrome claims but are holding out till you get that?
Q drop #3917. I trust that on this board, Q counts as evidence. Of course other examples can be found as well, but one is all I asked of you and the OP.
Now will you provide one piece of evidence (as opposed to baseless assertions or a novel) for adrenochrome withdrawal and/or consumption of adrenochrome extracted from human blood or flesh, or that it is even possible to do with yield beyond micrograms? I won't waste time with you further until you do, but of course you won't as you can't, there is none. Frankly I see your response as trolling and hypocritical. Goodbye.
Nowhere in the file did they find evidence of the letter actually being from JFK Jr. They tried fingerprints, they tried handwriting analysis, and did not conclude it was JFK Jr.
So perhaps don't assume JFK Jr sent it. Anyone can write anything on an envelope and letter. If I knew your name, I could have "you" send such a letter but it wouldn't mean you did.
Which do you prefer, narrative with no facts whatsoever which appeals to you in some way, or facts?
Why push Trump not being at Mar-a-Lago when there's absolutely zero problem with him being there and absolute zero photo, video, or witness testimony of him being distant from there?
(Lack of a TFR proves nothing towards that. I would agree you could call it some evidence, but scant, as for example the fact that there's no TFR at Jimmy Carter's residence doesn't prove he's not there.)
Seriously, why love narrative but feel little need for facts?
In other words you have no evidence, and don't consider evidence at all necessary to promoting a claim.
And on your idea that a heroin/methadone analogy could prove any point, you appear unaware that they are different drugs with different chemical structure and which act differently for that reason, so the analogy is false.
Try naming a drug that addicts go into withdrawal if they can only get the pure.
You can't of course.
It is evidence-free to claim that anyone goes into adrenochrome withdrawal, and given that adrenochrome is readily available pure, is one of the weakest evidence-free distractions (disinfo) ever put out.
Did you read the OP's headline only, or the article?
The article's news is not awesome at all.
Two-thirds of our military have already been subjected to the "vaccine," with the rest soon to be mandated to be injected.
That's what the OP's articles says once you read the body of it.
I agree, I absolutely expect he was, rather than in any way personally being for any of the evil.
He was also IMO caught in the same hard spot so many of us have been -- when we have two evils in front of us and an evil system that demands picking one over the other, and if you pick anything else it effectively won't count -- what do you do?
It's kind of sad when people don't even know they have zero actual evidence.
But many are this way. When something supports their narrative, it sounds great, it feels great, and people they like also say it, then lack of evidence does not matter to them.
It's not that you decline to provide the first piece of evidence (a novel is not evidence) for your claim, it's that you simply cannot as it does not exist.
It's an appealing narrative for you and others, nothing more.
What I said is fact. It's available pure, inexpensively, therefore it makes zero sense that anyone dependent on it, if there are any (zero evidence) is in risk of withdrawal as you imagine.
Put your hands over your eyes and ears, it's okay. You do have the right to believe whatever you wish, evidence-free or not.
It's good to honor a man after death but not to deify him.
Limbaugh might humorously have suggested things along the lines that he'd merit such, but I doubt he would have believed he should be treated as a deity, or near-deity, receiving after death enormous nationwide funeral with rallies all across the country as is your first wish if allowed two.
Btw, as a listener for decades, he did plenty to prop up the Republican arm of the Deep State. Overall positive effect nonetheless, but not meriting worship or near-worship.
I can think of a better first wish. But your first wish is yours to have, no disputing that.
Thank you for your husband's service. The answer is no, I was recruited by the Naval Academy for their engineering program but was not accepted (not for reason of the politicians.) It should be noted you are speaking of the class of 31 years ago. At that time, just being a Democrat politician did not mean you were necessarily evil. These days and for some time, it does. 100% does.
Again, mentioned in another post, how does one explain all the child porn on Pentagon computers if they are clean? Answer, too many are not.