Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh > The Sandbox - Pittsburgh
test
The Sandbox - Pittsburgh The Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here. If it's NOT an adult-themed topic, then it belongs here

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 646
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 396
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
Starscream66 281
You&Me 281
George Spelvin 265
sharkman29 255
Top Posters
DallasRain70796
biomed163313
Yssup Rider61030
gman4453296
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48678
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42764
CryptKicker37222
The_Waco_Kid37115
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-09-2021, 01:29 PM   #1
berryberry
Valued Poster
 
berryberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 11, 2012
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 16,225
Encounters: 98
Default The real COUP attempt - arrest Pelosi

She is busted by the military trying to effect a coup

January 9, 2021

PELOSI’S EFFORTS TO INSERT HERSELF INTO THE MILITARY CHAIN OF COMMAND ARE THEMSELVES SEDITIOUS, and the military is unhappy:

Ms. Pelosi also said she had spoken with Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about “preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes.” . . .

But some Defense Department officials have privately expressed anger that political leaders seemed to be trying to get the Pentagon to do the work of Congress and Cabinet secretaries, who have legal options to remove a president.

Mr. Trump, they noted, is still the commander in chief, and unless he is removed, the military is bound to follow his lawful orders. While military officials can refuse to carry out orders they view as illegal, they cannot proactively remove the president from the chain of command. That would be a military coup, these officials said.

Trying to incite a military coup is sedition.

ARREST PELOSI
berryberry is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 02:00 PM   #2
paintedbynumbers
Premium Access
 
Join Date: Oct 3, 2013
Location: pittsburgh
Posts: 2,514
Encounters: 52
Default

AMEN!! She thinks the rules don't apply to her. Tell her go get another haircut while you're at it. I'm not Pro Trump or Pro Biden. But I am anti Pelosi. Can't stand her.
paintedbynumbers is online now   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 04:15 PM   #3
lustylad
Premium Access
 
lustylad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 8, 2010
Location: Steeler Nation
Posts: 18,670
Encounters: 10
Default

A Coup of Pelosi’s Own

The House Speaker publicizes her nuclear option to protect the world from Trump.


By The Editorial Board
Jan. 8, 2021 6:32 pm ET


We scoured the U.S. Constitution Friday afternoon and it’s definitely not there: the provision allowing the Speaker of the House of Representatives to intervene in the military chain of command to protect the world from President Trump.

Mrs. Pelosi told her Democratic colleagues that she spoke Friday morning to Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike.” She posted the “Dear colleague” letter on her website to make sure the world got the message. A spokesman for Gen. Milley told reporters the chairman “answered her questions.”

The press and left-wing Twitter (we repeat ourselves) love the idea of the Speaker inserting herself into the chain of command as a rebuke to an erratic President. But it’s an abuse of her own power, which is limited to leading the legislative branch unless both the President and Vice President are incapacitated or removed from office. In that case she is third in line for the Presidency.

But in the meantime she has no business telling the Joint Chiefs not to follow the President’s orders. Gen. Milley hardly needs the lecture, as he has been dealing with Mr. Trump for 15 months and isn’t about to indulge an unlawful order, much less an effort to launch nuclear weapons.

Mrs. Pelosi’s call to Gen. Milley is itself a violation of the separation of powers by seeking to inject herself into an executive-branch military decision. She can offer advice all she wants, but this call at this time has the sound of an order. It might even be construed by some as its own little coup—conniving with the military to relieve of command the person who remains the elected President.

What if an adversary leaps on the news and decides this is the moment to stage some military action when the U.S. is consumed with internal conflict? Does Gen. Milley now have to consult with the Speaker before he acts in America’s defense? How anyone thinks her intervention would restore good constitutional order to government or some modicum of sanity to politics is a mystery.

Mr. Trump failed his constitutional test on Wednesday. But Mrs. Pelosi showed awful judgment with her grandstanding over the nuclear launch codes. Late Friday she announced that she’s also revving up the impeachment machinery. So much for calming political tempers.
lustylad is offline   Quote
Old 01-09-2021, 05:06 PM   #4
paintedbynumbers
Premium Access
 
Join Date: Oct 3, 2013
Location: pittsburgh
Posts: 2,514
Encounters: 52
Default

you have to wonder at this point what will happen when they swear in Biden. It should be done in privately because you know both sides are going to stir up so much shit it will be a mockery. Pelosi is throwing her newspaper onto the fire also and the saddest part is innocent people will be caught in the crossfire.
paintedbynumbers is online now   Quote
Old 01-12-2021, 12:27 PM   #5
berryberry
Valued Poster
 
berryberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 11, 2012
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 16,225
Encounters: 98
Default

ARREST PELOSI !!!

New: Gen Milley furious at Pelosi after her nuclear codes action. Called the act "disastrous"
berryberry is offline   Quote
Old 01-12-2021, 12:36 PM   #6
El-mo
Premium Access
 
Join Date: Jul 8, 2014
Location: Pgh
Posts: 478
Encounters: 31
Default

Last time I checked, we had a little thing called the War Powers Resolution. Congress is well within its rights to try to stop a president from engaging in unauthorized acts of war. At this point, you guys are just flailing around, making yourselves look silly.
El-mo is offline   Quote
Old 01-12-2021, 12:40 PM   #7
berryberry
Valued Poster
 
berryberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 11, 2012
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 16,225
Encounters: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by El-mo View Post
Last time I checked, we had a little thing called the War Powers Resolution. Congress is well within its rights to try to stop a president from engaging in unauthorized acts of war. At this point, you guys are just flailing around, making yourselves look silly.
There is only ONE Commander in Chief - the President
Pelosi trying to incite a military coup is sedition.
berryberry is offline   Quote
Old 01-12-2021, 02:33 PM   #8
Jacuzzme
Premium Access
 
Jacuzzme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 16, 2016
Location: Steel City
Posts: 7,961
Encounters: 43
Default

What are these fantasy “acts of war” the President is(n’t) engaged in?
Jacuzzme is online now   Quote
Old 01-14-2021, 04:30 AM   #9
Chaz55
Gaining Momentum
 
Join Date: Mar 13, 2017
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 41
Encounters: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by berryberry View Post
There is only ONE Commander in Chief - the President
Pelosi trying to incite a military coup is sedition.
He is 100% right. In the constitution it states only Congress has the ability to declare war. G.W. Bush found a work around to that but it certainly doesn't give Trump unilateral control of the military
Chaz55 is offline   Quote
Old 01-14-2021, 04:54 AM   #10
bypass
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 13, 2013
Location: done
Posts: 719
Encounters: 20
Default

"Dear Penthouse" LMAO!!
bypass is offline   Quote
Old 01-14-2021, 09:09 AM   #11
El-mo
Premium Access
 
Join Date: Jul 8, 2014
Location: Pgh
Posts: 478
Encounters: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by El-mo View Post
Last time I checked, we had a little thing called the War Powers Resolution. Congress is well within its rights to try to stop a president from engaging in unauthorized acts of war. At this point, you guys are just flailing around, making yourselves look silly.
Apparently, this post was worthy of an in fraction. So much for the tolerant right.
El-mo is offline   Quote
Old 01-14-2021, 10:24 AM   #12
jmichael
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Nov 20, 2015
Location: pittsburgh
Posts: 535
Encounters: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by El-mo View Post
Apparently, this post was worthy of an in fraction. So much for the tolerant right.
It seems apparent that DR mod is a Trump supporter
I'll let you know how many points I get for that statement. if I don't get banned
jmichael is offline   Quote
Old 01-14-2021, 11:21 AM   #13
berryberry
Valued Poster
 
berryberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 11, 2012
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 16,225
Encounters: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz55 View Post
He is 100% right. In the constitution it states only Congress has the ability to declare war. G.W. Bush found a work around to that but it certainly doesn't give Trump unilateral control of the military
Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Commander in Chief clause, states that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

The questions of whether and to what extent the President has the authority to use the military absent a Congressional declaration of war have proven to be sources of conflict and debate throughout American history. Some scholars believe the Commander in Chief Clause confers expansive powers on the President, but others argue that even if that is the case, the Constitution does not define precisely the extent of those powers. These scholars tend to construe the Clause narrowly, asserting that the Founders gave the President the title to preserve civilian supremacy over the military, not to provide additional powers outside of a Congressional authorization or declaration of war.

War Powers Resolution
After the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon Administrations spent nearly a decade committing U.S. troops to Southeast Asia without Congressional approval, in 1973 Congress responded by passing the War Powers Resolution. The Resolution sought to halt the erosion of Congress's ability to participate in war-making decisions, an aim furthered by the Resolution's requirement that the President communicate to Congress the commitment of troops within 48 hours. Further, the statute requires the President to remove all troops after 60 days if Congress has not granted an extension.

Presidents have typically considered the War Powers Resolution to be unconstitutional, and so they have tended not to follow it. This unwillingness has never been challenged by another actor (congress, civilians, etc), so the Supreme Court has never up the issue. In one way, the resolution takes an unprecedented action by allowing the President to unilaterally put American troops into conflict. Although the act imposes a check on the President (by imposing a limit for the amount of time the troops can be deployed without Congressional consent), the act has not appeared to pose any practical checks on Presidential actions.

And even though the War Powers Act exists, Congress is still largely deferential toward the President with regard to military authorization. For example in 1995, regarding the sending of US troops into Bosnia, Bob Dole (the Republican Senate Majority Leader) said that President Clinton (a Democrat) had “the authority and the power under the Constitution to do what he feels should be done regardless of what Congress does.”
berryberry is offline   Quote
Old 01-14-2021, 05:13 PM   #14
1pittsburgh
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 9, 2019
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,754
Encounters: 9
Default

The mods are definitely right leaning. You can't say that a Trumpster looks silly when they do, but it's acceptable to call those members who oppose Trump "deranged (TDS)."
1pittsburgh is offline   Quote
Old 01-14-2021, 05:57 PM   #15
Chaz55
Gaining Momentum
 
Join Date: Mar 13, 2017
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 41
Encounters: 15
Default

The gulf of tonkin resolution is what gave Johnson then Nixon the power in vietnam. Which was passed by? You guessed it congress. Other than trump's 2017 Syrian missile strike and Clinton's 1999 bombing of yugoslavia you have to go all the way back to the US-Phillipino war of 1898-03 where at least a resolution wasn't passed by congress. Maybe not a formal declaration of war but congress has always had a say. Maybe freshen up on article one section 8 of the constitution
Chaz55 is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved