When was the FBI taken over by far-left Democrats?

President Tyler switched allegiance to the Confederacy and was elected into the Confederate House of Representatives, but he died before he could assume office.

From Wikipedia:

Tyler's death was the only one in presidential history not to be officially recognized in Washington, because of his allegiance to the Confederate States of America. He had requested a simple burial, but Confederate President Jefferson Davis devised a grand, politically pointed funeral, painting Tyler as a hero to the new nation. Accordingly, at his funeral, the coffin of the tenth president of the United States was draped with a Confederate flag; he remains the only U.S. president ever laid to rest under a flag not of the United States.
Click to expand...

One has to wonder: If the Kremlin's claims are true that Trump delivered classified documents to the Russians, will Trump suffer the same fate as Tyler?
 
ive-got-you-4d109f04a7.jpg
 
Ultra MAGA said:
You asked for evidence and I gave it to you. Now you want it from a website that agrees with your point of view, like CNN?
Click to expand...

Wasn’t evidence, political donations don’t prove causation, even your article stated so, and if the CNN proof is Mulvaney’s opinion, no
 
America said:
President Tyler switched allegiance to the Confederacy and was elected into the Confederate House of Representatives, but he died before he could assume office.

From Wikipedia:



One has to wonder: If the Kremlin's claims are true that Trump delivered classified documents to the Russians, will Trump suffer the same fate as Tyler?
Click to expand...

Questionable, many on the right wanted to make him Speaker of the House even after January 6th
 
Trumpet said:
"end justifies the means" I didn't make this statement, you did.
Click to expand...

https://socialistworker.org/2012/04/06/do-the-ends-justify-the-means

Socialist Worker Home
PUBLICATION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST ORGANIZATION
MAIN NAVIGATION
TOPICS

SECTIONS

ALL ARTICLES

ABOUT US
PAUL D’AMATO
DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?
April 6, 2012
The real question, as Leon Trotsky wrote, is, "What justifies the ends?"

Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Email this story
Click for more options
IN ONE of many fruitless arguments, I remember my father attacking Marxism for believing that "the ends justify the means." By this, he meant that Marxists have no moral scruples and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.

Ironically, this was the same person who once told me, with a straight face, that the U.S. had to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki "to save lives."

In fact, every ruling class in the world operates on the assumption that the "ends justifies the means." In every war, these rulers risk the lives of millions of ordinary soldiers on both sides in order to control some market, some bit of land or some slice of power.

The U.S. government imposed a decade of debilitating economic sanctions on Iraq, resulting in the deaths of more than 1 million people--half of them children. The stated aim was to eliminate Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction."

But lraq's military capabilities have been smashed. The real reason for sanctions is to assert U.S. dominance in the Middle East--to show that if any country steps out of line, it will be devastated.

COLUMNIST: PAUL D’AMATO
Paul D'Amato is managing editor of the International Socialist Review and author of The Meaning of Marxism, a lively and accessible introduction to the ideas of Karl Marx and the tradition he founded. Paul can be contacted at pdamato@isreview.org.

Asked by a reporter in 1995 if killing half a million Iraqi children was "worth it," Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded that "the price, we think, is worth it." She certainly thinks that the end justifies the means.

"The ruling class," wrote Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky in his book, Their Morals and Ours, "forces its ends upon society and habituates it to considering all those means which contradict its ends as immoral. That is the chief function of official morality."

It is therefore "immoral" to kill in peacetime but a sacred duty to kill in war. It is impermissible for strikers to use force to stop a scab crossing a picket line but obligatory for a police officer to use force to break up that same picket line.

holy fuck.

i didnt want to agree with all this.
 
Ultra MAGA said:
Based on the standard of "preponderance of evidence", it proves political affiliation.
Click to expand...

“Political affiliations,” yes, those political afflictions expressed in their jobs, no, it would be like saying every Republican working in the Gov’t during the Biden Administration is were conspiracizing to sabotage Biden
 
AssHatZombie said:
https://socialistworker.org/2012/04/06/do-the-ends-justify-the-means

Socialist Worker Home
PUBLICATION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST ORGANIZATION
MAIN NAVIGATION
TOPICS

SECTIONS

ALL ARTICLES

ABOUT US
PAUL D’AMATO
DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?
April 6, 2012
The real question, as Leon Trotsky wrote, is, "What justifies the ends?"

Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Email this story
Click for more options
IN ONE of many fruitless arguments, I remember my father attacking Marxism for believing that "the ends justify the means." By this, he meant that Marxists have no moral scruples and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.

Ironically, this was the same person who once told me, with a straight face, that the U.S. had to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki "to save lives."

In fact, every ruling class in the world operates on the assumption that the "ends justifies the means." In every war, these rulers risk the lives of millions of ordinary soldiers on both sides in order to control some market, some bit of land or some slice of power.

The U.S. government imposed a decade of debilitating economic sanctions on Iraq, resulting in the deaths of more than 1 million people--half of them children. The stated aim was to eliminate Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction."

But lraq's military capabilities have been smashed. The real reason for sanctions is to assert U.S. dominance in the Middle East--to show that if any country steps out of line, it will be devastated.

COLUMNIST: PAUL D’AMATO
Paul D'Amato is managing editor of the International Socialist Review and author of The Meaning of Marxism, a lively and accessible introduction to the ideas of Karl Marx and the tradition he founded. Paul can be contacted at pdamato@isreview.org.

Asked by a reporter in 1995 if killing half a million Iraqi children was "worth it," Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded that "the price, we think, is worth it." She certainly thinks that the end justifies the means.

"The ruling class," wrote Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky in his book, Their Morals and Ours, "forces its ends upon society and habituates it to considering all those means which contradict its ends as immoral. That is the chief function of official morality."

It is therefore "immoral" to kill in peacetime but a sacred duty to kill in war. It is impermissible for strikers to use force to stop a scab crossing a picket line but obligatory for a police officer to use force to break up that same picket line.

holy fuck.

i didnt want to agree with all this.
Click to expand...

Mr. Psycho, maybe you would do better doing what you do best, which is dismembering bodies.
 
AssHatZombie said:
https://socialistworker.org/2012/04/06/do-the-ends-justify-the-means

Socialist Worker Home
PUBLICATION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST ORGANIZATION
MAIN NAVIGATION
TOPICS

SECTIONS

ALL ARTICLES

ABOUT US
PAUL D’AMATO
DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?
April 6, 2012
The real question, as Leon Trotsky wrote, is, "What justifies the ends?"

Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Email this story
Click for more options
IN ONE of many fruitless arguments, I remember my father attacking Marxism for believing that "the ends justify the means." By this, he meant that Marxists have no moral scruples and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.

Ironically, this was the same person who once told me, with a straight face, that the U.S. had to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki "to save lives."

In fact, every ruling class in the world operates on the assumption that the "ends justifies the means." In every war, these rulers risk the lives of millions of ordinary soldiers on both sides in order to control some market, some bit of land or some slice of power.

The U.S. government imposed a decade of debilitating economic sanctions on Iraq, resulting in the deaths of more than 1 million people--half of them children. The stated aim was to eliminate Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction."

But lraq's military capabilities have been smashed. The real reason for sanctions is to assert U.S. dominance in the Middle East--to show that if any country steps out of line, it will be devastated.

COLUMNIST: PAUL D’AMATO
Paul D'Amato is managing editor of the International Socialist Review and author of The Meaning of Marxism, a lively and accessible introduction to the ideas of Karl Marx and the tradition he founded. Paul can be contacted at pdamato@isreview.org.

Asked by a reporter in 1995 if killing half a million Iraqi children was "worth it," Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded that "the price, we think, is worth it." She certainly thinks that the end justifies the means.

"The ruling class," wrote Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky in his book, Their Morals and Ours, "forces its ends upon society and habituates it to considering all those means which contradict its ends as immoral. That is the chief function of official morality."

It is therefore "immoral" to kill in peacetime but a sacred duty to kill in war. It is impermissible for strikers to use force to stop a scab crossing a picket line but obligatory for a police officer to use force to break up that same picket line.

holy fuck.

i didnt want to agree with all this.
Click to expand...

Pretty funny, like the “Socialist Worker” is a popular vehicle, I’d bet even those who call themselves socialists don’t even know what it is
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
Was it under Robert Mueller, director 2001-2013? Mueller is a lifelong Republican, Vietnam volunteer, war hero etc. But he could be a “sleeper”.

Was it under James Comey 2013-2017 or Andrew McCabe 2017? Both Republicans, but see above.

Was it under Christopher Wray, nominated by Trump and director since 2017? Also a Republican. BUT when asked if he believed that the FBI’s investigation into Russian election interference and possible links to Trump's 2016 campaign was a "witch hunt", he said he did not!

Wray could be the one!
Click to expand...

The GOP twumptards will say day is night if they think they need to. They'll say literally anything to deflect from the truth. The docs were classified, then they weren't then the FBI planted them, them, etc. It has to be exhausting for our twumptard buddies to keep track of all their lies.

I'll tell you one way to get rid of them. When the make a claim, ask them for the evidence and keep hammering them no matter what they say.

Yesterday, ExcessPain trotted out the "Joe did criminal stuff for Hunter chestnut". I asked him for evidence, and he posted a Fox News opinion piece YouTube video with a couple of wing nuts talking about Joe and Hunter. I said "no, evidence is like a cancelled check to Hunter from China or whatever bullshit the twumptards are making up. I told him, like the check that trump ordered and Cohen wrote to silence Stormy. I asked him if he had anything like that - haven't heard from him since.

We can't let them just spew racist and treasonous horshit anymore.
 
archives said:
“Political affiliations,” yes, those political afflictions expressed in their jobs, no, it would be like saying every Republican working in the Gov’t during the Biden Administration is were conspiracizing to sabotage Biden
Click to expand...

That's an illogical analogy. A logical one would be, if 94% of federal employees were Republicans, would you still have confidence in their ability to honestly investigate a Democrat?
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
Was it under Robert Mueller, director 2001-2013? Mueller is a lifelong Republican, Vietnam volunteer, war hero etc. But he could be a “sleeper”.

Was it under James Comey 2013-2017 or Andrew McCabe 2017? Both Republicans, but see above.

Was it under Christopher Wray, nominated by Trump and director since 2017? Also a Republican. BUT when asked if he believed that the FBI’s investigation into Russian election interference and possible links to Trump's 2016 campaign was a "witch hunt", he said he did not!

Wray could be the one!
Click to expand...

I would think under Clinton. He understood the value of an armed security team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top