Ted Kennedy Secretly Asked The Soviets To Intervene In The 1984 Elections


By the time I retired, I was making about that per day, too. I didn’t retired fully until I was 71. That isn’t my point at all. Yes, I did investigate “highly placed” people–including some VERY wealthy individuals who, in fact, DID have international connections…one guy who was doing business in the USSR at the time. The point is, Mueller’s “hit men” haven’t produced a single thing to connect the Trump campaign to any Russians trying to “influence” our election. If they HAD, it would be all over every newsfeed in the country by now, in part because this band of Democrat operatives can’t keep their mouths shut about what they’re doing.


That you know of. Now let me ask when you were a detective, would you release information before your investigations were complete if you though the release of that information might compromise the investigation moving forward?

This President has a policy of not playing his hand in world affairs, I suspect this Special Council also plays by the same rule. Time will tell.


No, I didn’t, but then the only people I was responsible to were as closed-mouth as I was so they wouldn’t “leak” either. Mueller and his band of hit men aren’t so constrained given the stuff they’ve already leaked to the press.


Did anyone “leak” the charging of 13 Russians or the charging of a Dutch lawyer (son and law of a Russian Oligarch)? Did anyone know that Papadopolis was working with Muller for months before it was made public?

I suspect that Muller and his team can keep a secret if they want too.


Actually, yes. Members of the Democrat Party who were on the House Intel Committee were told in advance–probably so Schiff could formulate a rebuttal to the President’s inevitable claim of exoneration.

While we’re at it, do you REALLY believe that Mueller will EVER actually TRY these Russians–or that Dutch lawyer, for that matter? BTW, NONE of those charges have the REMOTEST connection to any “collusion” between Russia and the Trump campaign.


We agree on something!

However, this implies that all of the leaks that do occur are to feed the media to help them keep the fantasy dream alive. It is evidence that Mueller and his team are on a purely political vendetta.


Democrats favor:

Disarmament of American citizens - Some do, not all (I don’t)

Abortion on demand ( and for some, even AFTER birth) - Again, some do (I don’t)

Socialism - As in the government controls the means of production? Yeah, not so much.

High taxes - Most do (I don’t support either high or low taxes, as a rule, it depends)

Bigger government - Government naturally get’s larger as the population increases

More regulations to control behavior - This is really vague and hard to address, but everyone supports regulations, the question is, regulating what.

Open borders - Does not supporting a $25 billion dollar wall mean I support open borders?

Censorship of any competing ideas to theirs - The far left and young Dems definitely have this problem, but most people I know support open debate and conversation, even with those they disagree with (hence the reason I come here)

“Green” schemes–even if they don’t work - Ther is probably some truth to this.

Subsuming the Constitution to “international norms.” - Yeah, I don’t know anyone personally that believes that.

Rewriting the Constitution so it more closely resembles the Communist Manifesto - That’s hyperbolic bluster.


Or, Muller’s team sending signals to people who he is investigating. Maybe he’s trying to force people into mistakes based on the information he already knows in order to solidify cases against them. To be clear, I’m just speculating here, I can’t really claim to know the process, but then, neither do you.

Impuning the integrity of Muller, a person with impeccable creds because you fear he might uncover something about a candidate you support is pretty weak, though before you point in the other direction, yes Dems do it too.


Mueller’s “credentials” are HARDLY “impeccable”…quite the opposite. It was HE who was in charge of the FBI during the Benghazi fiasco and it was HE who was in charge – and tacitly approved of – the sale of 20% of our domestic uranium supply to the Russians…maybe the stupidest thing our government has done in the past 75 years or so.


Better not let the DNC know that you disagree with any of what I posted, they’re likely to pull your Democrat membership card and credentials for good. Democrats, mostly, believe PRECISELY what I posted above and are actually PROUD of those beliefs. They won’t ADMIT to any of it when running for office, of course. It’s amazing how many Democrats CLAIM to be conservative in order to get elected but don’t have a single, conservative instinct in their bodies.


I don’t know any of them “personally” either, but every liberal on the SCOTUS most assuredly believes exactly that…a few have actually SAID so in their decisions.

Not necessarily. There’s no REASON for the size and scope of government bureaucracies to grow just because the population does.

Actually it’s NOT “hyperbolic bluster.” LISTEN to Democrats sometime. Pelosi thinks you can stop illegal immigration by cutting the grass along the border. Democrats are trying to bring in as many ignorant, government-dependent future voters as possible so they can reclaim political power and hopefully keep it for good.


It’s a representation of wealth. When you try to create it out of nothing, you make it all worth less. Not instantly, and that’s how people make money off of devaluing other people’s money. But it’s the inevitable result.


1 This one has long been a darling of the left; less so now, because people are more aware of the surrounding issues, and are less content with what would inevitably be a police state.
2 Less of a darling of the left these days because in spite of the efforts of PP and NARAL and others, ultrasound and other things are making people aware that the unborn are people.
3 Too many want labor to have a crony relationship with the government to twist corporate arms and prohibit competition from foreign and other sources where labor has to compete just like the corporations.
4 Too many want government to be the solution (?!) to all of society’s problems.
5 Too many on the left want government size all out of proportion to realistic need (see above).
6 Actually, there’s a quantity element, too. Too many on the left don’t want personal responsibility, and do want license to do what they want. The resulting chaos almost demands more regulation.
7 I don’t know about the majority, but to hear Hollyweird tell it, anything to make it harder for people to illegally come across the border is anti-immigration (without any distinction between legal or illegal).
8 My distinct impression is that it’s a large problem on the left; and a larger fraction of the left are young (because they’ve got leftist indoctrinators in schools; especially colleges and universities).
9 Yeah, probably.
10 I submit that there’s plenty of support from the left to do things the way Europe does in spite of the Constitution.
11 Hyperbolic, yes. Bluster, not so much. There’s more than a grain of truth to it. The only substantive difference between communism and socialism is the means by which it is obtained (revolution vs. legislation).


Pretty hard to take you seriously when you post stuff like this. Rosatom the Russian energy company that bought a 51% stake in Uranium One. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ (Rosatom’s mining subsidiary) is licensed to export uranium from the U.S. to other countries, so no, Russia didn’t get Uranium from US supplies.

You need to turn Sean Hannity off, he’s rotting your brain.

  1. Most liberals I know support firearm rights (as most them including myself I own the dreaded AR-15…OMG!!!). reasonable liberals (i know make fun) usually support reasonable regulations. Of course, some believe that any regulation in unreasonable, but I don’t know a single liberal that supports a gun ban, though I freely admit that few really understand that an AR-15 isn’t a “weapon of war” and it’s not an “assault rifle”. I do my best to educate the left, but I’m just one man. I’m working on it

  2. I think most reasonable people on the left support 1st term abortions. I don’t know anyone, not a single person that supports abortion of a viable human fetus can live outside the womb, but I’m aware there are some on the left that support this.

  3. Either way, that’s not socialism

  4. Too vague and too broad. I don’t know of anyone that expects the government to be a solution to ALL problems, though I am aware that certain government programs disincentivize people from doing more to improve their position as they and up working harder for the same or less. That definitely needs to change.

  5. Again, too vague. If we’re looking strictly at the number of people, the government is about the same size it was in the late 1960’s. If we’re talking about the kinds of things government does, I don’t entirely disagree with you. There are lots of instances where people, with their hearts in the right place, come up with some batshit crazy ideas. I’m all for periodically assessing the kinds of roles the government places in peoples lives looking to see if the goals set forth by particular programs are being accomplished.

  6. Again, too vague. Sounds more like a right-leaning political meme.

  7. I think part of the problem of immigration is that there is a political element too it. That is, the left welcomes immigrants (since they tend to vote Dem, and the right tries to keep them out because they generally don’t vote for them). In both cases on the right and the left, they try to find other reasons for supporting or not supporting immigration as their excuse for support or non-support. That leads to far right Pubs and far left Dems lying their asses off.

  8. You got me here. Censorship makes me sick and I blast anyone I can when they support it.

  9. I will concede that many in the younger generation don’t understand the importance of the Constitutional process. I promise you, I educate my kids that the ends do not justify the means if the path to get there is to throw out the pre-established process (including the Constitutional process). But again, I am 1 man.

  10. Do me a favor, here is a page that attempts to better define the “political compass”. I have no idea who the author is and I don’t believe there is a political lean to the way it’s written. I’d be interested in getting your thoughts.



Fascinating question.

The Constitution states that Congress shall have the power “To coin money…” that eliminates the printing press. They dance around this by making the Federal Reserve a private corporation. The U.S. Treasury will even deny that Federal Reserve Notes are Dollars; they are officially “instruments of debt satisfaction”. The current one ounce gold coins are by act of Congress legal tender for $50. However, if I hire you for $300 a month and pay you with six of these 50 dollar legal tender coins the IRS will still want to tax you at the rates which would apply to the FRN paper current market value of the coins.

What should money be? I like the definition “a medium of exchange and a store of value”.
Gold is problematic since the supply doesn’t always keep pace with economic growth and population increases. I have often wondered if kilowatt-hours could be used used as a unit of currency. But any radical technological advances would cause chaos i.e. cold fusion or He3 from the Moon or Mars.


Yeah, I don’t carry a “card”, real or virtual, they want to throw me out, good, I don’t agree with a group that would throw me out on those terms. I keep trying to tell you guys, while I’m left of you, I’m not a “Democrat”. Like so many on the left (and right) I prefer not to politically identify because the political extremes are flying off the rails. I suspect that if it keeps getting worse, the majority will be in the middle and they will form their own parties.


You’d last about 3 minutes on Democrat Underground.


I would say money (which includes currency) is a claim on something of real value.

As far as making more causes it’s value to decline, if that’s true, explain why the value of gold rises even as the supply is increased?

It’s because the value or gold is based on demand relative to supply, not just on supply.

Since money is a claim on things of real value, as long as the supply of real things increases with the supply of money, significant inflation is avoided.

The small amount of inflation that does exist can easialy be avoided.


I’ve been there. That’s who I was arguing with before I came here a few years ago.

The SJW mentality is more than I can stand. We may not agree on much, but I got your back on SJW issues.