Post by: Steingar on May 08, 2019, 12:33:33 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)
Post by: Anthony on May 08, 2019, 12:46:12 PM
However, Trump managed to survive, and thrive to be the multi Billionaire he is today. Many developers went under, never to be seen again. A true leader toughs it out.
Post by: Lucifer on May 08, 2019, 12:47:24 PM
Post by: Lucifer on May 08, 2019, 12:53:28 PM
Yet they don't mention that was the worst real estate market in modern times, and just about everyone lost money, or lost everything. The Savings and Loan crisis, as well as other factors mostly with LENDERS. I was working for a large commercial real estate developer throughout that entire era, so know a little bit about it. I lived it. It was not pretty.
However, Trump managed to survive, and thrive to be the multi Billionaire he is today. Many developers went under, never to be seen again. A true leader toughs it out.
And that's the key, survival. Many lost their asses, and the survivors rebuilt and continued on.
Here's another point the perfesser is too fuckin' stupid to know about. All Trump did was use the tax laws, as written, to his advntage, just like anyone else can.
No crime there.
Post by: Lucifer on May 08, 2019, 12:54:56 PM
Trumplethinskin, the master businessman and consulate dealmaker who rose from nothing to one of the richest men in America (according to him) actually spent a decade loosing money more spectacularly than anyone in America to the tune of a billion dollars between 1985 and 1994, according to the NYT.
WTF is a "consulate dealmaker"???
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on May 08, 2019, 12:55:33 PM
Anyway, Trump wrote all about his businesses and losses in his books, so the lazy NYT has offered nothing new. An attempt to spin instead of looking at what he has accomplished.
Yawn.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on May 08, 2019, 12:56:42 PM
WTF is a "consulate dealmaker"???That is how college professors spell “consummate.”
Post by: Lucifer on May 08, 2019, 12:59:14 PM
That is how college professors spell “consummate.”
But I thought with that piece of paper on the wall that meant they could at least articulate the english language? The guy has writing skills of an elementary student (as well as reading comprehension).
Post by: Anthony on May 08, 2019, 01:17:39 PM
Post by: Little Joe on May 08, 2019, 01:21:25 PM
That is how college professors spell “consummate.”
If he doesn't know how to spell "losing" then how should we expect him to know how to spell "consummate".
Post by: Number7 on May 08, 2019, 01:21:43 PM
The only thing mikey has managed to prove is how deeply he hates those who earned their fortunes by doing things instead of living off the taxpayers.
Post by: Little Joe on May 08, 2019, 01:27:29 PM
Trumplethinskin, the master businessman and consulate dealmaker who rose from nothing to one of the richest men in America (according to him) actually spent a decade loosing money more spectacularly than anyone in America to the tune of a billion dollars between 1985 and 1994, according to the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)
Trump lost a whole lot more during that period than I did or anyone that I know personally did. Yet, somehow, he HAS more than anyone I know too. How could that be?
Perhaps, the old saying that "you never get ahead if you never take a risk" is true.
And our tax code is set up to reward people that take advantage of it. Trump understood the tax code and took advantage of it. If there is anything wrong with that, then it is the fault of the people that wrote the code.
Now, if we just had Republicans that were as sneaky as Democrats, maybe we would have seen Obama's transcripts. We should pass a law that says Presidential candidates need to disclose their college transcripts.
And I would REALLY like to see just about all politicians disclose their tax returns. That would be some fun reading.
Post by: Anthony on May 08, 2019, 01:32:38 PM
Post by: nddons on May 08, 2019, 01:32:38 PM
Trumplethinskin, the master businessman and consulate dealmaker who rose from nothing to one of the richest men in America (according to him) actually spent a decade loosing money more spectacularly than anyone in America to the tune of a billion dollars between 1985 and 1994, according to the NYT.Grow up.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)
Post by: Steingar on May 08, 2019, 01:36:00 PM
Trump lost a whole lot more during that period than I did or anyone that I know personally did. Yet, somehow, he HAS more than anyone I know too. How could that be?
How do you know that?
Post by: Lucifer on May 08, 2019, 03:42:11 PM
Trumplethinskin, the master businessman and consummate dealmaker who rose from nothing to one of the richest men in America (according to him) actually spent a decade loosing money more spectacularly than anyone in America to the tune of a billion dollars between 1985 and 1994, according to the NYT.
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/95a98439e7c89eea1843dd2321693f6432a5c31332dc986350b2b2d653f42680.gif)
Post by: Number7 on May 08, 2019, 04:42:44 PM
How do you know that?
Fuck off, troll... you’ve embarrassed yourself with your delusional ass-hattery again.
Your jealousy of successful people and hatred of success marks you as a pathetic, loser in a world of academic assholes, desperate to hate but too stupid to connect any dots.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 08, 2019, 06:02:36 PM
Post by: Number7 on May 08, 2019, 06:38:33 PM
Michael, apparently you are not aware that not only is this old news being brought up and he even detailed in the opening of the Apprentice when it debuted. Sad.
mikey is the typical progressive.
He only gets outraged about things when his owners tell him to. It’s not like he has permission to actually think. That would be apostasy.
Post by: NippleBoy on May 08, 2019, 07:10:47 PM
Funny, thread title is how I often thought about Obama.
Anyway, Trump wrote all about his businesses and losses in his books, so the lazy NYT has offered nothing new. An attempt to spin instead of looking at what he has accomplished.
Yawn.
I never bothered to read the associated articles, but that's exactly how I felt when I saw the headlines.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 08, 2019, 08:28:47 PM
Michael, apparently you are not aware that not only is this old news being brought up and he even detailed in the opening of the Apprentice when it debuted. Sad.
This was well known in NYC and environs. News prob didn't make it to the sticks where Egghead's lair is located.
Post by: Anthony on May 09, 2019, 05:04:35 AM
Michael, apparently you are not aware that not only is this old news being brought up and he even detailed in the opening of the Apprentice when it debuted. Sad.
Exactly. Trump talked about this in his book, and on "The Apprentice".
Quote
The New York Times reported new tax information about Trump’s real estate businesses, in a widely reported expose, showing a $1.17 billion loss in his various businesses between 1985 and 1994.
Trump also detailed his debt struggles in the ’90s in his 1997 book the “Art of the Comeback.”
“Trump’s story begins when many real estate moguls went belly-up in what he calls the Great Depression of 1990,” the book’s description reads. “Trump reveals how he renegotiated millions of dollars in bank loans and survived the recession, paving the way for a resurgence…”
President Trump’s career is full of important setbacks as well as successes, ultimately making his brash business brand a valuable asset.
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/05/08/new-york-times-bombshell-already-part-of-donald-trump-apprentice-tv-narrative/
Post by: Rush on May 09, 2019, 06:05:24 AM
Post by: Lucifer on May 09, 2019, 06:12:52 AM
Who cares anyway? We have more jobs now than people to fill them. We are energy independent. My tax bill plummeted. My investments are doing better than they have in a decade. My real estate finally moved in the upward direction. I care about Trump’s personal finances as much as I care that he bragged about grabbing women “down there”. Not. At. All.
Exactly.
The desperation of the left is laughable. Rep Al Green (D) proclaims "We have to impeach Trump or he will get reelected!". Or the final release of the Mueller Report, which finally proves there was no collusion nor were any crimes committed, and Nancy Pelosi proclaiming "The Russia Investigation is NOT OVER!".
Just imagine, for a moment, if these leftist could just let it go, finally come to terms that Trump was elected fairly and by the constitution, and actually attempt to work with him for some positive goals..............I know, it won't happen.
Post by: Anthony on May 09, 2019, 06:30:12 AM
Who cares anyway? We have more jobs now than people to fill them. We are energy independent. My tax bill plummeted. My investments are doing better than they have in a decade. My real estate finally moved in the upward direction. I care about Trump’s personal finances as much as I care that he bragged about grabbing women “down there”. Not. At. All.
The Left, and the Media (same thing) would GLADLY destroy all that to regain the White House. In fact, since Michael is insulated from the economy in his little ivory tower, I am sure he is hoping for economic collapse, high unemployment and widespread personal suffering of the American people under Trump. The Democrats are huge hypocrites. The Democrats are in denial that they are truly anti American, Globalists, and traitors.
Post by: Little Joe on May 09, 2019, 06:31:09 AM
Exactly.Now, that got me wondering,
The desperation of the left is laughable. Rep Al Green (D) proclaims "We have to impeach Trump or he will get reelected!". Or the final release of the Mueller Report, which finally proves there was no collusion nor were any crimes committed, and Nancy Pelosi proclaiming "The Russia Investigation is NOT OVER!".
Just imagine, for a moment, if these leftist could just let it go, finally come to terms that Trump was elected fairly and by the constitution, and actually attempt to work with him for some positive goals..............I know, it won't happen.
what if they did impeach him? Could he still run again and get elected? To TWO more terms?
Post by: Lucifer on May 09, 2019, 06:43:26 AM
Now, that got me wondering,
what if they did impeach him? Could he still run again and get elected? To TWO more terms?
Yes he could, but for only one term.
Post by: Lucifer on May 09, 2019, 01:24:20 PM
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on May 09, 2019, 01:33:57 PM
So we just witnessed another "drive by"............That is what Egghead (thanks, YouOnlyLiveTwice!) does when he sees something he just KNOWS will bring us all to our collective, uneducated knees and cry out, O Hail Steingar, m’Lord and superior being, you have opened my feeble eyes!”
When his deposit is shown to be full of air, and questioned, he either vanishes or declares the enquirer to be unworthy of a response.
Merely to call him a liberal is not quite on ... he rises to the level of Moonbat Extaordinaire.
Post by: nddons on May 09, 2019, 01:36:18 PM
So we just witnessed another "drive by"............Where is this drive by? I don’t see it in Tapatalk on this thread.
Post by: Lucifer on May 09, 2019, 01:38:11 PM
Where is this drive by? I don’t see it in Tapatalk on this thread.
The perfessor.........he drops in, slings a pile of shit and then runs back into hiding. No substance, no thought, just your below average trolling.
Post by: Username on May 09, 2019, 01:40:14 PM
When his deposit is shown to be full of air...LOL! That is so great and so accurate on so many levels. We can only hope that it's true.
Post by: nddons on May 09, 2019, 01:40:50 PM
The perfessor.........he drops in, slings a pile of shit and then runs back into hiding. No substance, no thought, just your below average trolling.I know what a drive by is. I asked where it is.
Post by: Lucifer on May 09, 2019, 01:41:26 PM
I know what a drive by is. I asked where it is.
This thread.
Post by: nddons on May 09, 2019, 01:43:15 PM
Post by: Lucifer on May 09, 2019, 01:47:36 PM
The last Aunt Steingar post is #15 on 5/8 as far as I can see.
Yes, correct.
And he was asked a few questions, to which, once again, he has disappeared, hence the "drive by" shit flinging.
I've just written the guy off as a troll. He reads and writes like a 5th grader (sorry 5th graders) and has the intellect of a cock roach.
Post by: Anthony on May 09, 2019, 01:53:12 PM
Now that man made climate change has been outed as the utter hoax and scam it is, watch for the "Oceans are getting too acidic due to CO2" claims.
What happened to the ACID RAIN that was supposed to kill everything Mikey? Another crap prediction from "scientists" in order to get them more funding, and create more destructive taxes and bigger government.
Post by: azure on May 09, 2019, 04:22:04 PM
He's one of our last remaining Communists. Azure left once she was called out on her B.S.
Do you think you can back up that accusation (that I'm a communist)? Hint: you won't be able to, because it isn't true.
And I didn't leave because someone "called me out", I haven't had much time to participate anywhere online for the last month because of work - semester ramping up to level of total insanity toward the end. Currently grading my last final exam. I've still made rare posts on non-controversial forums like PoA and even lurked here occasionally, such as now.
There's more to say but I'm under the gun to get final grades posted, so it will have to wait.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 09, 2019, 07:33:08 PM
The last Aunt Steingar post is #15 on 5/8 as far as I can see.
"Aunt" Steingar, he he he...
Post by: bflynn on May 10, 2019, 02:20:07 AM
The perfessor.........he drops in, slings a pile of shit and then runs back into hiding. No substance, no thought, just your below average trolling.
You should be thankful he did. Otherwise this place is boring as shit when you guys can only bitch to each other. Most activity here in a long time.
Post by: bflynn on May 10, 2019, 02:26:24 AM
I am sure he is hoping for economic collapse, high unemployment and widespread personal suffering of the American people under Trump. ... The Democrats are in denial that they are truly anti American, Globalists, and traitors.
Do you really think that? Knowing more that a few Democrats, I assure you that your bigotry about them is not universally true.
But you aren’t going listen. I just challenged you, so despite agreeing about strict constitutionalism, guns, and money, you will once again label me as a leftist.
Post by: Anthony on May 10, 2019, 07:29:22 AM
Do you really think that? Knowing more that a few Democrats, I assure you that your bigotry about them is not universally true.
But you aren’t going listen. I just challenged you, so despite agreeing about strict constitutionalism, guns, and money, you will once again label me as a leftist.
I don't care if you are a leftist. I don't care if you challenge my views. Its great to have other perspectives, but with reason, and logic behind it. Not Orange Man Bad!
None of the leftists, here, and they know who they are, can stick around because they are morally and intellectually dishonest, and hypocrites.
Post by: nddons on May 10, 2019, 07:48:59 AM
"Aunt" Steingar, he he he...Only a fellow PoA refugee would get that.
Post by: Anthony on May 10, 2019, 07:54:39 AM
Only a fellow PoA refugee would get that.
Yes, there are rumors that Aunt Peggy and Steingar are the SAME PERSON. I get it. However, I've met both of them at the same Fly In so saw them simultaneously. Unless Michael is really, really good at being a "rotund", miserable, old, Hippy, and having a body double, they are not the same people. In person Michael is a good guy, and fun to be around. I can't say the same about Aunt Peggy. She looked like she had just eaten a Bee the entire time.
Post by: nddons on May 10, 2019, 08:06:20 AM
Yes, there are rumors that Aunt Peggy and Steingar are the SAME PERSON. I get it. However, I've met both of them at the same Fly In so saw them simultaneously. Unless Michael is really, really good at being a "rotund", miserable, old, Hippy, and having a body double, they are not the same people. In person Michael is a good guy, and fun to be around. I can't say the same about Aunt Peggy. She looked like she had just eaten a Bee the entire time.Sorry you had to see her.
It’s like when my daughter sends us a video (often around dinner time) of her lancing a football-sized abscess on the belly of a cow or a bull. You don’t want to see it, but you can’t turn away.
Post by: Anthony on May 10, 2019, 08:18:40 AM
Sorry you had to see her.
It’s like when my daughter sends us a video (often around dinner time) of her lancing a football-sized abscess on the belly of a cow or a bull. You don’t want to see it, but you can’t turn away.
Yes, a lanced boil or abscess that had JUST EATEN A BEE!
Post by: azure on May 10, 2019, 05:26:58 PM
I don't care if you are a leftist. I don't care if you challenge my views. Its great to have other perspectives, but with reason, and logic behind it. Not Orange Man Bad!
None of the leftists, here, and they know who they are, can stick around because they are morally and intellectually dishonest, and hypocrites.
Is that a general statement about leftists or only the ones here? I know a number of leftists, including an elder colleague who has been a fixture in our department for over 30 years. Not morally nor intellectually dishonest at all, as far as I can tell. I can say the same of a couple of lesbian friends. They simply have a different point of view, and tend to arrive at political positions based on emotions rather than reason. And at least one of them admits that quite openly, so I would hardly call her dishonest.
Other than Steingar, I don't know of anyone who participates here that I would call a leftist, including those like bflynn and asechrest who identify as "Liberal". They seem more like classical liberals than "leftists", but I could be wrong and should let them place themselves on the spectrum.
I think "leftist" is just another pejorative to you, a way of characterizing people you may disagree with only on a few issues. Somewhat akin to the way "communist" was used in the '60s - and is still used even here, and with as much (or as little) accuracy.
Post by: Rush on May 10, 2019, 06:01:01 PM
Is that a general statement about leftists or only the ones here? I know a number of leftists, including an elder colleague who has been a fixture in our department for over 30 years. Not morally nor intellectually dishonest at all, as far as I can tell. I can say the same of a couple of lesbian friends. They simply have a different point of view, and tend to arrive at political positions based on emotions rather than reason. And at least one of them admits that quite openly, so I would hardly call her dishonest.
Other than Steingar, I don't know of anyone who participates here that I would call a leftist, including those like bflynn and asechrest who identify as "Liberal". They seem more like classical liberals than "leftists", but I could be wrong and should let them place themselves on the spectrum.
I think "leftist" is just another pejorative to you, a way of characterizing people you may disagree with only on a few issues. Somewhat akin to the way "communist" was used in the '60s - and is still used even here, and with as much (or as little) accuracy.
To me, a "leftist" is first and foremost, an economic collectivist. I suspect a lot of people don't understand economics enough to even know what that means. I agree with you completely that liberals tend to base their opinions on emotion rather than reason and I think there is data to back that up. I also agree many liberals are not intentionally evil, in fact, they're very compassionate. They simply don't intellectually grasp the inevitable outcome of economic collectivism.
If bflynn and asechrest are not economic collectivists then I wouldn't call them leftists. I might call them social liberals or libertarians. I use "leftist" as a pejorative when I'm talking about economic policy, and heavy government regulation that kills the economic engine. (The New Green Deal, possibly the most evil plan concocted since Hilter's final solution. It would result in even more mass death.)
Unfortunately you do not need evil people to implement evil plans. You only need ignorant people, and mass hysteria.
Post by: Little Joe on May 10, 2019, 06:20:57 PM
Is that a general statement about leftists or only the ones here? I know a number of leftists, including an elder colleague who has been a fixture in our department for over 30 years. Not morally nor intellectually dishonest at all, as far as I can tell. I can say the same of a couple of lesbian friends. They simply have a different point of view, and tend to arrive at political positions based on emotions rather than reason. And at least one of them admits that quite openly, so I would hardly call her dishonest.Azure, I just want to say that even if I often disagree with you, I respect your opinions, and I am glad that you are still participating here. I vehemently disagree with the (far) leftists, but I understand that there are degrees. Not every leftist is FAR LEFT. Just because someone is further left than I am doesn't make them bad. It just makes them wrong.
Other than Steingar, I don't know of anyone who participates here that I would call a leftist, including those like bflynn and asechrest who identify as "Liberal". They seem more like classical liberals than "leftists", but I could be wrong and should let them place themselves on the spectrum.
I think "leftist" is just another pejorative to you, a way of characterizing people you may disagree with only on a few issues. Somewhat akin to the way "communist" was used in the '60s - and is still used even here, and with as much (or as little) accuracy.
Post by: Lucifer on May 11, 2019, 06:25:21 AM
How do you know that?
(https://i.chzbgr.com/full/8069286144/hB00CAE0E/)
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 11, 2019, 06:56:13 AM
https://fee.org/articles/college-student-my-generation-is-blind-to-the-prosperity-around-us/
Post by: Number7 on May 11, 2019, 07:31:16 AM
Do you really think that? Knowing more that a few Democrats, I assure you that your bigotry about them is not universally true.
But you aren’t going listen. I just challenged you, so despite agreeing about strict constitutionalism, guns, and money, you will once again label me as a leftist.
Poor little snowflake.
The world just doesn't appreciate your unbelievable wisdom and intelligence...
I can't ever remember a single communist (they call themselves democrats) EVER saying the the left shoud llisten to the right and see if their are areas of agreement, or unity...
I guess you trhink that makes you all better then the rest of us.
Post by: Anthony on May 11, 2019, 07:40:26 AM
Instead of starting a new thread, I'll post this here. This young lady, Alyssa Ahlgren, is wise beyond her years and writes stuff I could only dream of writing.
https://fee.org/articles/college-student-my-generation-is-blind-to-the-prosperity-around-us/
Great article. I have been saying this for a while People do not have the adversity, nor do they have to worry about the basics of survival in today's society as in the past. This gives them the time and LUXURY to be offended at everything, find things and create things in which to be offended by, and be overly idealistic in an almost UTOPIAN way. This is today's Progressive. Very entitled, coddled, affluent, and overly CONTROLLING of others. They are fine with tyranny as long as they get their way.
Post by: Anthony on May 11, 2019, 07:44:17 AM
Is that a general statement about leftists or only the ones here? I know a number of leftists, including an elder colleague who has been a fixture in our department for over 30 years. Not morally nor intellectually dishonest at all, as far as I can tell. I can say the same of a couple of lesbian friends. They simply have a different point of view, and tend to arrive at political positions based on emotions rather than reason. And at least one of them admits that quite openly, so I would hardly call her dishonest.
Other than Steingar, I don't know of anyone who participates here that I would call a leftist, including those like bflynn and asechrest who identify as "Liberal". They seem more like classical liberals than "leftists", but I could be wrong and should let them place themselves on the spectrum.
I think "leftist" is just another pejorative to you, a way of characterizing people you may disagree with only on a few issues. Somewhat akin to the way "communist" was used in the '60s - and is still used even here, and with as much (or as little) accuracy.
I would say that anyone who supported Obama, and agreed with his views, or supported Hillary and agreed with her are Leftists. I would also say that if you vote for Democrats in this day an age that you are a Leftist. The Democrat Party has become Far Left in most if not all its policy positions. Has it not?
Post by: Rush on May 11, 2019, 09:16:31 AM
Poor little snowflake.
The world just doesn't appreciate your unbelievable wisdom and intelligence...
I can't ever remember a single communist (they call themselves democrats) EVER saying the the left shoud llisten to the right and see if their are areas of agreement, or unity...
I guess you trhink that makes you all better then the rest of us.
Unfortunately both sides are congealing too much in their own certitude and failing to find common ground. However there is a big difference. On economics, the right has already learned leftism, while the left is uneducated about rightism. What I mean is we are all exposed to academia and media and the propaganda that socialism is good and capitalism is bad. I have a degree in economics so I underwent years of them trying to teach me that government control of large pieces of the economy is desirable. But because I am capable of critical thought, I sensed a problem with these schemes. Because I had also on my own read the writings of victims of forced economic collectivism, I learned the truth.
So when a conservative seemingly fails to consider the other side, it’s because he already has, and has no need to go over the same ground again. But when a liberal fails to consider the other side, he actually has never considered the other side, if he has been raised on CNN and gone to typical public schools and universities. He has been taught that capitalism means robber barons oppressing the common man. The truth is capitalism U.S. style has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else in the planet’s history.
Your typical liberal has never done a thorough study of free market economics. That’s why when they finally get around to it you see them switch over, but you rarely see a conservative turn liberal. In addition to this, people tend to grow more conservative with age because with age you gain experience of how the real world works. AKA wisdom. This is why the Democrats must indoctrinate the young and continue to try to recruit ever younger voters.
On at least two issues however - not economics - conservatives commit the same sin: failing to study the other side and standing immobile in their position to the point of spreading harmful propaganda and believing ludicrous fantasies. One of them is drugs. I listened to Sean Hannity the other day proclaim that narcotic painkillers are so evil that even if he had cancer he would not take them. He would endure the pain til death. The levels of ignorance, denial and fantasizing it must take to make such a statement, and the incredible damage such viewpoints has on the ability of sick people to get treatment for their pain, make conservatives, on this one issue, as bad as liberals in their zeal to ruin the world for the rest of us. The FACTS are: only a small portion of patients turn into drug addicts, opioids in hospice before death are miracle drugs that give the patient quality time to say goodbye to their loved ones, not to mention being of great help to chronic pain patients.
The caveat about what I just said above however is that the war on drugs is actually a massive socialist program and hence the left is as responsible as the right in propagating this cruel witch-hunt against pain patients and innocent doctors. The amount of resources (AKA tax dollars) spent on trying to dry up the supply of drugs so the fraction of people who are addicts won’t get them is providing profit for government and private entities while having NO benefit whatsoever on the problem; in fact making it much worse, and the worst part of all is that it makes it extremely difficult for innocent pain patients to get treatment, and it stigmatizes them, shames them, and worst of all, makes them victims of those same fraction of criminal addicts. Drying up the legal supply of painkillers only makes grandma the target of crime.
Putting government in charge of what you consume is leftist territory. Government limiting the amount “allowed” to be manufactured legally, and monitoring who buys and sells it, is totalitarian control of an industry: that is LEFTIST. My criticism of the right on this issue does not absolve the left. There just might be a few more liberals than conservatives willing to admit the war on drugs is a horrible failure. There are more addicts than ever. As the population ages and requires compassionate pain relief, it gets harder and harder to give it to them as the fist tightens and we will have more and more needless human suffering. Meanwhile the addicts will continue to steal from grandma or get it on the street and end up dying from a Tylenol overdose or switching to heroin because society continues to FAIL to identify and treat the root cause of addiction.
It seems I’ve drifted into a rant. My apologies. My original point was that on a couple of issues the right are making matters worse by not considering the other side. But it seems I have actually proved that even on those issues (or at least one of them) the real problem is leftism once again.
A general litmus test would be: if it’s pro individual freedom along with individual responsibility it’s right. If it’s pro government controls and massive government spending even in the face of obvious worsening of conditions, it’s left.
Post by: azure on May 11, 2019, 11:37:05 AM
I would say that anyone who supported Obama, and agreed with his views, or supported Hillary and agreed with her are Leftists. I would also say that if you vote for Democrats in this day an age that you are a Leftist. The Democrat Party has become Far Left in most if not all its policy positions. Has it not?
I'm not sure whether you mean that someone is a Leftist if they vote for ANY Democrats, or if they vote consistently Democratic?
Assuming the former, I think that is a little too simplistic. In races where a Democrat runs against a Republican who happens to be corrupt, or has a history of being an abuser or making racist statements or some other "character" flaw, a moderate voter might opt for the D as the lesser of two evils. I wouldn't make general statements based on who someone votes for in individual races.
If you meant the latter, someone who votes straight D consistently, I would tend to agree with you, but I recently reconnected with a family friend from when I was a child, a man now living in Florida who has voted straight D all his life. But many of his positions are very moderate and he is scathingly critical of the Democratic candidates who have declared for 2020, to the point where I think he votes D mostly out of party loyalty. He talks very much like a #walkaway except that he hates Trump, mostly for character reasons, and is too set in his ways to change today (though I wonder who he will vote for if the D nominee turns out to be someone like Sanders or Warren). He is certainly not far left in his views, more of a Kennedy or Johnson era Democrat perhaps. So I think there is much more to it than who someone votes for: in some cases that is determined by social and personal factors that go beyond one's theory of government and economics.
Personally: I voted for Hillary as who I saw then as the foreign policy-literate, centrist (in contrast to Sanders) candidate facing a populist right-winger (Trump) in the general election. Today I see her differently, as bumbling and politically incompetent, though still centrist compared to the candidates who are emerging now, four years later. I think the D party *today* is far left, but much of that swing has happened in the last four years, picking up steam in the 2018 midterms. If the 2016 race was going on today, Sanders would probably be the Democratic nominee whereas back then, many of his ideas were far out on the fringes.
I think the D party base is full of voters who just can't walk with them down the path into "democratic" socialism. I think many of them will still vote for whoever the nominee is in 2020 just to vote Trump out of office, but that doesn't mean they are Leftists in their political views. I'm pretty confident that my old family friend in Florida is in that group, though I'm not sure even he would vote for a Sanders. If the Ds stupidly nominate a socialist then all bets are off, and a lot of D voters may end up voting third party in 2020.
Post by: Lucifer on May 11, 2019, 11:40:35 AM
Bullshit.
Post by: Anthony on May 11, 2019, 11:51:48 AM
I'm not sure whether you mean that someone is a Leftist if they vote for ANY Democrats, or if they vote consistently Democratic?
Someone that votes MOSTLY Democrat for today's Democrats, or most Democrats since Bill Clinton who was forced to the center by a Congress turned Republican during the first Midterms. At this point the Democrats have become radically, far left. More so than even Gore, and Kerry, but more in line with Obama, and Hillary.
Quote
If you meant the latter, someone who votes straight D consistently, I would tend to agree with you, but I recently reconnected with a family friend from when I was a child, a man now living in Florida who has voted straight D all his life. But many of his positions are very moderate and he is scathingly critical of the Democratic candidates who have declared for 2020, to the point where I think he votes D mostly out of party loyalty. He talks very much like a #walkaway except that he hates Trump, mostly for character reasons, and is too set in his ways to change today (though I wonder who he will vote for if the D nominee turns out to be someone like Sanders or Warren). He is certainly not far left in his views, more of a Kennedy or Johnson era Democrat perhaps. So I think there is much more to it than who someone votes for: in some cases that is determined by social and personal factors that go beyond one's theory of government and economics.
Personally: I voted for Hillary as who I saw then as the foreign policy-literate, centrist (in contrast to Sanders) candidate facing a populist right-winger (Trump) in the general election. Today I see her differently, as bumbling and politically incompetent, though still centrist compared to the candidates who are emerging now, four years later. I think the D party *today* is far left, but much of that swing has happened in the last four years, picking up steam in the 2018 midterms. If the 2016 race was going on today, Sanders would probably be the Democratic nominee whereas back then, many of his ideas were far out on the fringes.
Hillary wanted Australia and UK style gun bans and confiscations, called mandatory gun buybacks. She would have also gone down the Man Made Climate Change road, as well as amnesty for illegals if she could have. That is Far Left to me. She was also big on the Identity Politics, and all Republicans being Deplorables. Again, Far Left. Hillary admitted she would be Obama's third term, and ran on his Far Left legacy. She was to completed "Fundamental Transformation", which was soundly defeated when America elected Trump.
Quote
I think the D party base is full of voters who just can't walk with them down the path into "democratic" socialism. I think many of them will still vote for whoever the nominee is in 2020 just to vote Trump out of office, but that doesn't mean they are Leftists in their political views. I'm pretty confident that my old family friend in Florida is in that group, though I'm not sure even he would vote for a Sanders. If the Ds stupidly nominate a socialist then all bets are off, and a lot of D voters may end up voting third party in 2020.
I think most of today's Democrats will vote for any Democrat nominee including the admitted Socialists like Bernie, and Warren. Democrat Socialism is an oxymoron, as Socialism by its nature becomes Totalitarian and Oppressive. I doubt people would willingly want to be oppressed.
Post by: Lucifer on May 11, 2019, 12:09:16 PM
This is why the leftist radicals are trying everything possible to insure the “deplorables “ can never put a conservative back in the WH. Just look at the states that are ballot harvesting, and now are coming up with ways to keep candidates off of the ballot.
Post by: azure on May 11, 2019, 12:18:09 PM
To vote for a far leftist candidate with radical ideology, just to vote a republican out of office, and then try to claim they are a “centrist”?
Bullshit.
And that's a misinterpretation (more likely a deliberate distortion) of what I wrote.
I did NOT say that people who would vote for a far leftist against Trump are centrists. I said that MANY in the D voting base are probably in that group. Most of them are definitely left of center. But not necessarily far left.
Post by: Lucifer on May 11, 2019, 12:25:05 PM
And that's a misinterpretation (more likely a deliberate distortion) of what I wrote.
I did NOT say that people who would vote for a far leftist against Trump are centrists. I said that MANY in the D voting base are probably in that group. Most of them are definitely left of center. But not necessarily far left.
That’s the way I read it, like it or not.
Post by: azure on May 11, 2019, 12:37:17 PM
Hillary wanted Australia and UK style gun bans and confiscations, called mandatory gun buybacks.
That is news to me. I just checked her webpage and there is nothing there to indicate that position. The one point where her views on gun control seem radical to me is in trying to hold gun manufacturers and dealers liable for crimes committed with their products. But the rest is standard pre-2016 D stuff. It's left of center, yes, but not Far Left.
Quote
She would have also gone down the Man Made Climate Change road, as well as amnesty for illegals if she could have. That is Far Left to me.
Then I guess it depends on one's perspective. Compared to where they are going today, that is pretty traditional D fare.
Quote
She was also big on the Identity Politics, and all Republicans being Deplorables. Again, Far Left.
My university president is big on the identity politics. That thinking has been making inroads since 2000 or so. It's definitely Progressive, and a step in the wrong direction IMO, but Far Left to me is socialism as espoused by Sanders and several other D candidates.
As I recall, she called Trump's base Deplorables - not all Republicans.
Quote
I think most of today's Democrats will vote for any Democrat nominee including the admitted Socialists like Bernie, and Warren. Democrat Socialism is an oxymoron, as Socialism by its nature becomes Totalitarian and Oppressive. I doubt people would willingly want to be oppressed.
I don't think that is true of most Democrats over the age of 40 or so. Most of them are wise enough to not support a socialist. I'm less confident of the Millennials though, and they're going to be a huge factor in 2020. So we'll just have to wait and see.
Post by: Anthony on May 11, 2019, 12:51:35 PM
Quote
It’s “worth considering” whether the United States should emulate Australia by instituting a national gun buyback program, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Friday at a town hall in New Hampshire.
A man in the audience asked Clinton whether she thought it would be possible for the U.S. to enact such a program, and if not, why. Gun buybacks have happened at the metropolitan level in the U.S., but any effort at the national level would be sure to run into intense political opposition.
Clinton, for her part, seemed open to the idea.
“Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Because each of them have had mass killings” she said. “Australia had a huge mass killing about 20, 25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. And, in reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws.”
From Huffington Post, not known to be a right wing publication.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_n_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67
Post by: Lucifer on May 11, 2019, 12:58:32 PM
The "Gun Buybacks" in Australia and the UK were mandatory, hence bans and confiscation. If you didn't turn them in, and were caught you went to jail, and became their version of a Felon overnight. Hillary wanted that here.
From Huffington Post, not known to be a right wing publication.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_n_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67
A simple google search reveals this.
I find it laughable when Azure uses the “well, I just looked at her website and didn’t see it there” as if that should be taken as fact, end of discussion.
Post by: azure on May 11, 2019, 01:01:29 PM
The "Gun Buybacks" in Australia and the UK were mandatory, hence bans and confiscation. If you didn't turn them in, and were caught you went to jail, and became their version of a Felon overnight. Hillary wanted that here.
From Huffington Post, not known to be a right wing publication.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_n_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67
Interesting. It's still not clear to me whether that became a part of her platform or just something she was considering at one time. Still, the fact that she was open to the idea was definitely a bad sign, I agree.
Anyway, thanks for the link.
Post by: azure on May 11, 2019, 01:05:05 PM
A simple google search reveals this.
I find it laughable when Azure uses the “well, I just looked at her website and didn’t see it there” as if that should be taken as fact, end of discussion.
No, not end of discussion, but candidates say a lot of things on the campaign trail, that they do not follow up on, and may eventually disavow. Generally I would put more stock in declared positions on a webpage than casual statements made at campaign stops.
You can find whatever you like laughable, but it's pretty clear you're here mostly to smear anyone who disagrees with you, rather than to have intelligent discussion of issues.
Post by: Lucifer on May 11, 2019, 01:13:29 PM
No, not end of discussion, but candidates say a lot of things on the campaign trail, that they do not follow up on, and may eventually disavow. Generally I would put more stock in declared positions on a webpage than casual statements made at campaign stops.
You can find whatever you like laughable, but it's pretty clear you're here mostly to smear anyone who disagrees with you, rather than to have intelligent discussion of issues.
No, I’m just on to your bullshit and calling you out on it. My father summed up people like you with the saying “ You’re pissing on our legs and telling us it’s raining”.
You made a fool of yourself a ways back when you started the pumping the lie of Charlottesville. Now you’re trying to tell us “aw, pay no attention to what Hillary said campaigning”. Uh, hell yes I’m going to pay attention to what she is saying.
Post by: Anthony on May 11, 2019, 01:25:34 PM
This along with some of her other policy positions scared the heck out of a lot of people to vote for Trump. It also spurred gun sales which were already at record numbers from the threat of Obama.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 11, 2019, 04:41:51 PM
We might remember when Hillary was putting together Hillary care, if you were caught going to a private doctor you were going to be in big trouble.
The lasting legacy of Obama is the deep state and the weaponization of so many agencies. I'm not sure Trump can get all that cleaned up.
Post by: azure on May 11, 2019, 07:29:58 PM
No, I’m just on to your bullshit and calling you out on it. My father summed up people like you with the saying “ You’re pissing on our legs and telling us it’s raining”.
You made a fool of yourself a ways back when you started the pumping the lie of Charlottesville. Now you’re trying to tell us “aw, pay no attention to what Hillary said campaigning”. Uh, hell yes I’m going to pay attention to what she is saying.
The lie of Charlottesville? That Trump handled it so awkwardly as to shoot himself in the foot (at best) or perhaps let slip some white nationalist sympathies (at worst)? Where did I "pump" anything, other than to say that Trump's handling of the event counts as a black mark against him in the leadership department, even if you put the best possible spin on it? Didn't commit to either view btw, only that he seriously screwed that one up.
And again, there you go with the distortions. I never said "pay no attention". I said I consider her official positions more reliable than one-off comments. I never thought she was anything less than an ardent gun control advocate, but it would take more than an offhand campaign stop comment to convince me she would seriously back mandatory buybacks.
Post by: Username on May 12, 2019, 06:16:01 AM
The lie of Charlottesville? That Trump handled it so awkwardly as to shoot himself in the foot (at best) or perhaps let slip some white nationalist sympathies (at worst)?
Can you please post a quote from Trump (not what the media says he said) where he let slip some white nationalist sympathies? I can't seem to find any.
Post by: azure on May 12, 2019, 06:56:58 AM
Can you please post a quote from Trump (not what the media says he said) where he let slip some white nationalist sympathies? I can't seem to find any.
No, because I didn't say that he did. I said he said things that MIGHT indicate sympathies with white nationalism, referring to his statement that "there were very fine people on both sides there." Certainly, he COULD have been referring to people who objected to taking down the statue for historical reasons, and elsewhere in that interview he clearly is, but I read the entire transcript and on the "very fine people" remark I'm just not convinced either way. In the immediate context the remark seems ambiguous to me.
My personal feeling is that he was bending over backwards to appear nuanced and thoughtful but that he didn't have a very strong or well thought-out perspective on what happened, and it just came out as a mish-mash. Trump just doesn't do "thoughtful" very well. He's no Great Communicator and the harder he tries, the worse it comes out. Whether he has white nationalist sympathies, I just don't know. Like I said, I don't commit to either view. Either way he sucks as a moral leader, and last I checked, that's something Americans do look for in a president.
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2019, 07:11:17 AM
No, because I didn't say that he did. I said he said things that MIGHT indicate sympathies with white nationalism, referring to his statement that "there were very fine people on both sides there." Certainly, he COULD have been referring to people who objected to taking down the statue for historical reasons, and elsewhere in that interview he clearly is, but I read the entire transcript and on the "very fine people" remark I'm just not convinced either way. In the immediate context the remark seems ambiguous to me.
My personal feeling is that he was bending over backwards to appear nuanced and thoughtful but that he didn't have a very strong or well thought-out perspective on what happened, and it just came out as a mish-mash. Trump just doesn't do "thoughtful" very well. He's no Great Communicator and the harder he tries, the worse it comes out. Whether he has white nationalist sympathies, I just don't know. Like I said, I don't commit to either view. Either way he sucks as a moral leader, and last I checked, that's something Americans do look for in a president.
Pumping the white nationalist angle again. Where I'm from that's called "planting the seed of doubt".
As far as a "moral leader" and what Americans look for in a president? Trump was elected to get a job done. We elected a CEO, not a Pope. As CEO he has brought our economy back from a failed 8 years of the previous WH occupant, he has restored our country to be a world leader, he has put our country first, rather than go to other countries and apologize for our supposed atrocities, he has put more people back to work than any other President in the past 50 years, he has significantly reduced black and hispanic unemployment.
I could go on and on, it's all factual. We're living in one of the greatest parts of our lifetimes right now economically and we have pride in our country, yet we have a faction of this country desperately wanting to return to the era (or error) of 2009-2016.
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2019, 07:12:15 AM
The lie of Charlottesville? That Trump handled it so awkwardly as to shoot himself in the foot (at best) or perhaps let slip some white nationalist sympathies (at worst)? Where did I "pump" anything, other than to say that Trump's handling of the event counts as a black mark against him in the leadership department, even if you put the best possible spin on it? Didn't commit to either view btw, only that he seriously screwed that one up.
And again, there you go with the distortions. I never said "pay no attention". I said I consider her official positions more reliable than one-off comments. I never thought she was anything less than an ardent gun control advocate, but it would take more than an offhand campaign stop comment to convince me she would seriously back mandatory buybacks.
The "Trump handled it so awkwardly" is yet another MSM distortion, one that you seem to keep clinging too. And shows that you never bothered to view the entire video (without the media editing). Your mind is made up, he said it. Funny how we have a direct quote of Hillary talking gun confiscation, and somehow to you that's not credible. But a MSM narrative driven carefully edited video of Trump is all you need as "proof" he's somehow connected to white nationalist.
What "very fine people" do you think he could have been referring to on the White Nationalist side?
Yes, after considerable pushback he did condemn white nationalism unequivocally. What took him so long?
(For clarity: I don't know whether Trump is a white nationalist or not. It is very possible that he simply thinks that a significant fraction of his base are white nationalists, and his instinct is to avoid alienating any part of his base. But even that would be pretty damning IMO.)
There was most certainly a white nationalist side. Sure there were people that were just peacefully protesting the statues being taken down, and it's possible those were the "fine people" Trump was referring to - that's not totally clear. But regardless, he totally failed to acknowledge that the Unite the Right group was the main instigator of the violence. So he was strongly criticized for those remarks (a couple of days after the incident) as strongly as he was for his first rather vague statement. And not just by the "leftist media", but by people across the political spectrum... including Graham and Rubio.
Not counting the white nationalists themselves of course, and David Duke even tweeted a reminder that it was white nationalists that put him in the White House. If he didn't believe that was true, why was he so reluctant to unequivocally condemn white nationalism? What took him so long?
You were corrected here:
Wow. Here’s Duke’s tweet:
White Americans, not white nationalists. It’s technically true, given that 90% of the black vote did not go to Trump. So unless you think all white Americans are White Nationalists Duke said no such thing. But misquoting him like that sure helps paint all whites as racist bigots. Thanks.
You were then called out, once again, for your distortion in this post:
Azure, I’ve always had a high opinion of your contributions, by this one is a huge disappointment, and doesn’t reflect your track record of thinking freely.
There were not just two sides in Charlottesville. There were people - southerners - who truly were against the destruction or removal of an historic statue for the appeasement of the mob.
A mob has no right to select an object of their ire and then destroy something that is not theirs, and that has meaning to many people. The Taliban did shit like this, not Americans. There were good Americans fighting for that every reason in Charlottesville. Those are good people. Were there white nationalists there? Certainly. Were everyone who didn’t want to see the statue destroyed white nationalists? Absolutely fucking not.
Your timeline of considerable pushback is a crock of shit. I heard exactly what he said on the day it happened, and he said what a President should say. The fact that some people like you twisted his words or imparted meaning that wasn’t factually accurate is why he was forced to try and correct the record that was purposefully being re-written to appease the mob.
“...he simply thinks that a significant fraction of his base are white nationalists...”
I’m sorry, but you are part of the problem. And by the way, fuck off. I’m so tired of being demonized for supporting this president, and being lumped in with the worst groups people like you can think of.
When the left gets triggered because a MAGA hat is equated to a dog whistle of white nationalist, they can all fuck off.
And then you conveniently left the conversation. Nddons used facts, you used a MSM narrative. And it appears you are going right back to the narrative, once again.
Post by: Anthony on May 12, 2019, 07:21:14 AM
According to the Media, Trump supporters are all White Nationalists, so if you believe in the concept that America is exceptional, intentionally different, and you are patriotic you are all of the above racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic. Essentially, we are all Hillary's Deplorables.
Post by: azure on May 12, 2019, 07:27:43 AM
And then you conveniently left the conversation. Nddons used facts, you used a MSM narrative. And it appears you are going right back to the narrative, once again.
If I didn't respond to nddons, it's more likely because I never saw his post. Late March is when work started getting too crazy for me to participate in any heated online discussions. I stopped even reading here for a few weeks, and when I started lurking again, I never bothered to look up old conversations.
If you have a link to the unedited video, please post it. It is hard to tell what is edited or not. I am going by the transcript I read on Politifact, and yes there are redactions, but it's the best I was able to find.
As far as Americans electing a CEO not a moral leader, that's your view and not one that everyone shares. POTUS is also the face this country presents to the rest of the world, and personally, it does matter to me how the rest of the world sees America. It isn't the only thing of course, and I do acknowledge that this country is enjoying a period of nearly unparalleled prosperity and that Trump's policies are at least partly responsible, as I think I've said before. But it does matter.
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2019, 07:33:13 AM
I think many Liberal/Progressives believe what they WANT to believe, and often it is the CNN, and media narrative. I will say this. Trump sometimes makes himself an easy target, especially with some of his tweets. However, the media spins his words to make him look racist, homophobic, anti women, anti immigrant, etc. That is how they and the Democrats (same thing) want to bring Trump down. They can't attack most of his actions, and policies as they are working will for our country.
According to the Media, Trump supporters are all White Nationalists, so if you believe in the concept that America is exceptional, intentionally different, and you are patriotic you are all of the above racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic. Essentially, we are all Hillary's Deplorables.
The problem the far left has right now, and their number one priority, is to separate Trump from his base. The President has a strong base, with many in his base being the quiet every day citizen who rarely talks politics. These people are pleased with the strong economy and how the President has restored American greatness. It's this group, the quiet supporters that the left truly despise and see as "deplorable".
Not only is Trump under daily attack, but his supporters as well if not more.
Even last night SNL ran a bit on how to separate Trump from the republicans, that's how possessed they are in accomplishing this.
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2019, 07:42:02 AM
If I didn't respond to nddons, it's more likely because I never saw his post. Late March is when work started getting too crazy for me to participate in any heated online discussions. I stopped even reading here for a few weeks, and when I started lurking again, I never bothered to look up old conversations.
Right. ::)
If you have a link to the unedited video, please post it. It is hard to tell what is edited or not. I am going by the transcript I read on Politifact, and yes there are redactions, but it's the best I was able to find.
How about I let you do your own research?
As far as Americans electing a CEO not a moral leader, that's your view and not one that everyone shares. POTUS is also the face this country presents to the rest of the world, and personally, it does matter to me how the rest of the world sees America. It isn't the only thing of course, and I do acknowledge that this country is enjoying a period of nearly unparalleled prosperity and that Trump's policies are at least partly responsible, as I think I've said before. But it does matter.
It's not just "my view" as you try to minimize this, it's the view of the people who elected him to office and, as you keep sneeringly referring too, his base. You are harping about Trump not being a "moral leader" yet you voted for a woman and hoped she was going to be elected, and this woman is the farthest thing from "moral". Hillary and her husband are grifters in every sense of the word, yet somehow you view that as "moral"?
Speaking for myself, it's refreshing to have a President that puts our country first and stands up for our rights. And for a first in my lifetime, a President that is keeping campaign promises.
Post by: azure on May 12, 2019, 08:54:03 AM
Right. ::)
You know what, "Lucifer"? Fuck you. I don't know what you do for a living, but I put in long hours during the semester. If you can't accept that sometimes people need to just focus on more important things, then fuck you. Seriously.
And I have better things to do with my summer break than waste it mud wrestling with pigs.
As far as the people who elected Trump, whether you believe me or not, I don't care, but you're way off the mark if you think I "sneer" at them. Addressing their valid concerns should be the Dems' number one priority. As usual though, the Dems can't see past their desire to bring down Trump, and it is likely to be their undoing next year.
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2019, 09:23:48 AM
You know what, "Lucifer"? Fuck you. I don't know what you do for a living, but I put in long hours during the semester. If you can't accept that sometimes people need to just focus on more important things, then fuck you. Seriously.
And I have better things to do with my summer break than waste it mud wrestling with pigs.
As far as the people who elected Trump, whether you believe me or not, I don't care, but you're way off the mark if you think I "sneer" at them. Addressing their valid concerns should be the Dems' number one priority. As usual though, the Dems can't see past their desire to bring down Trump, and it is likely to be their undoing next year.
Thanks for proving my point.
Have a nice day :D
Post by: Rush on May 12, 2019, 05:21:50 PM
The lie of Charlottesville? That Trump handled it so awkwardly as to shoot himself in the foot (at best) or perhaps let slip some white nationalist sympathies (at worst)? Where did I "pump" anything, other than to say that Trump's handling of the event counts as a black mark against him in the leadership department, even if you put the best possible spin on it? Didn't commit to either view btw, only that he seriously screwed that one up.
And again, there you go with the distortions. I never said "pay no attention". I said I consider her official positions more reliable than one-off comments. I never thought she was anything less than an ardent gun control advocate, but it would take more than an offhand campaign stop comment to convince me she would seriously back mandatory buybacks.
I wouldn’t trust Hillary as far as I could throw her spreading ass.
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2019, 05:52:48 PM
I wouldn’t trust Hillary as far as I could throw her spreading ass.
Exactly.
What's funny (sad?) is that someone harps that the President is immoral, then in the same post tells us they supported Hillary. Hillary is anything but moral.
As for Hillary, she's been in the public eye for 45 years. It's not very difficult at all to know who she is, what she is and what she stands for.
Post by: Rush on May 12, 2019, 06:02:20 PM
Exactly.
What's funny (sad?) is that someone harps that the President is immoral, then in the same post tells us they supported Hillary. Hillary is anything but moral.
As for Hillary, she's been in the public eye for 45 years. It's not very difficult at all to know who she is, what she is and what she stands for.
Hillary is up to her neck in corruption. But in azure’s defense, if she watches mainstream media she isn’t getting a hint of it. The past two years MSM has been focused on the fake made up fantasy that Trump is a Russian operative while being completely silent on the Clintons’ and the Obama administration’s illegal machinations. What Hillary & Co. has done makes Watergate look like a Sunday school picnic. But hopefully this is all going to come out soon.
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2019, 06:08:17 PM
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e500ecd26fe4ef04b691c71c953da25dcaccfe340dd56687262024aa0e78c599.jpg?w=800&h=750)
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/929ef86f6bf79aab6b7ab1edb7f41d041fc26dec645f5795d0560d4d8550097a.jpg?w=800&h=443)
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c0767945f21c7c9a51f62102c76aa35b91d0c27333e483b6acba5fb5d9b4b71b.jpg?w=800&h=500)
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9f57c7df9fcbd6515a5731faf0fbf92ba1049edc1d64cf8e4a6fa32da2662362.jpg?w=800&h=403)
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b837fd2bf0ed58bd7a69ad7cbaf34f0009f0ffbee818375ccf5ae52ff2f88bc9.jpg?w=800&h=561)
Post by: Anthony on May 12, 2019, 06:19:07 PM
Hillary is up to her neck in corruption. But in azure’s defense, if she watches mainstream media she isn’t getting a hint of it. The past two years MSM has been focused on the fake made up fantasy that Trump is a Russian operative while being completely silent on the Clintons’ and the Obama administration’s illegal machinations. What Hillary & Co. has done makes Watergate look like a Sunday school picnic. But hopefully this is all going to come out soon.
I hope more liberal/progressives (Democrats) would participate here, and offer cogent, logical arguments for their positions, and not media driven sound bites. I am not pointing a finger at Azure and I hope she continues to participate. I don't even mind the Mango Mussolini statements as I think that adds some levity.
For me, I think I need to lighten up a bit. We're all friends. Yeah, I got your Kumbaya right here! :)
What did Machiavelli say? :) :) :)
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 12, 2019, 06:53:58 PM
https://nypost.com/2017/11/02/ex-dnc-chair-reveals-how-clinton-rigged-dem-primary/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site+buttons&utm_campaign=site+buttons&fbclid=IwAR0399WDQH7rVP4p4Fxzmqw-4kloZXm5_rYNg0CQ-M_yf5bVYg33z4SBV9c
Post by: Number7 on May 12, 2019, 07:13:44 PM
You’ll not get a cogent response. The Charlottesville bullshit post summed that up.
Post by: azure on May 12, 2019, 07:52:44 PM
Azure, read this and tells us what you think.
https://nypost.com/2017/11/02/ex-dnc-chair-reveals-how-clinton-rigged-dem-primary/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site+buttons&utm_campaign=site+buttons&fbclid=IwAR0399WDQH7rVP4p4Fxzmqw-4kloZXm5_rYNg0CQ-M_yf5bVYg33z4SBV9c
Sounds like Hillary was a real bee-yatch, and the Dem party allowed itself to be taken over by the weaker candidate.
I'm not sure why people think I still have a high opinion of Hillary or that I trust her. I don't trust ANY politician, especially one who hasn't been thoroughly vetted. I realized she had no class when she insulted Trump's supporters. So she's a cheat and a liar too? I'm not surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised.
Post by: Little Joe on May 13, 2019, 04:59:48 AM
I think I remember you saying you are a gay man. But perhaps I got that wrong and you are a gay woman. Or perhaps I am thinking of someone else entirely. As I said, it makes absolutely no difference, but just to correct the record, again, would you care to straighten (pun intended) us out?
Post by: Rush on May 13, 2019, 05:07:50 AM
Sounds like Hillary was a real bee-yatch, and the Dem party allowed itself to be taken over by the weaker candidate.
I'm not sure why people think I still have a high opinion of Hillary or that I trust her. I don't trust ANY politician, especially one who hasn't been thoroughly vetted. I realized she had no class when she insulted Trump's supporters. So she's a cheat and a liar too? I'm not surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised.
If this is the first you’ve heard Donna Brazile’s story then you’re proving my point. (That you’re to be forgiven if you mainly get your news from MSM). MSM is giving this little if any coverage while screaming 24/7 about Trump/Russia collusion (which never happened).
Back when those emails were first released on Wikileaks I went directly and read them. This is all confirmed fact. Yet the biased FBI gave Hillary a pass and instead (with Hillary’s help) made up a fake case against Trump. The Steele dossier was nothing but lies as we now know and charges are getting ready to be leveled against them all for lying to the FISA court in order to get unconstitutional warrants against innocent U. S. citizens all because they could not abide Trump winning the election.
Not only did they create the dossier to use against Trump, they then leaked it to the press. Then they took the press report and included it in the FISA application as “additional” evidence of its verity. (!!) Steele has now admitted the whole peeing on the hotel bed is unverified. If you listen carefully to mainstream media reports about all this you will hear them say stuff like “it COULD have happened!” Well you can’t prove it didn’t just like you cannot prove that I wasn’t kidnapped by Martians when I was five years old. But that’s not proof it did, and the whole “case” against Trump and his campaign is just like this. And what you hear from the left wing media is the biased spin and distortion I just illustrated.
The biased FBI and DOJ actors in this were so in the bag for Hillary. The diluted and cursory “investigation” into the leaked emails that Comey did prior to the election was designed to get that problem resolved and out of the way so that when Hillary was elected it would not be an issue threatening her presidency. It backfired badly in my opinion, as it confirmed in the minds of Democrat Bernie supporters that Hillary was not to be trusted and I believe it caused them, and other mainstream Democrats, to sit out the election or vote third party. Comey and the rest did not foresee that and were deeply shocked at Trump’s victory.
That wasn’t supposed to happen in their universe and so they have been trying ever since to overturn it, by attacking Trump and everyone associated with him, causing tremendous collateral damage and costing the taxpayers millions of dollars. And now with the final Mueller report we see it is all a bunch of made up nothing. Try as they might they could not uncover a single solitary crime by Trump. With their dying gasp they are attempting ludicrous shit like trying to portray Trump comments about he ought to fire so and so as “obstruction”. They’re desperate, because the whole thing is now coming to light and they are in deep doo doo.
Hence you see the panicked Democrats try such nonsense as contempt of Congress charges against Barr. Barr is getting ready to bring charges against all these people who have essentially attempted a soft coup to reverse a legitimately elected President because their candidate failed to win, despite having planted all this “deep state” support throughout DC, over decades - that’s how long Hillary has been plotting to be President. She is corrupt to the core.
I don’t believe some of the accusations against her, because I haven’t personally seen the evidence. Such as suicides actually being murders. I stop short of thinking Hillary would order a murder. But perhaps I’m being naive. However in my opinion it’s best to believe only what can be confirmed. It may take a year but this stuff is all coming out. There’s going to be a point the media can no longer deny how corrupt the DC Democrat party and much of the Republican have become. I have been preaching all along that Trump’s victory was more about the common people against a corrupt DC than about conservative vs liberal and that the average Democrat should wake up and see we (Trump voters) aren’t the enemy, a powerful corrupt political engine is the enemy.
If they don’t we are in very big trouble because as you can see, in the wake of Hillary’s failure, we have an onslaught of horrific radical new young ideologues looking to fill the vacuum, the same monstrous Bolsheviks that brought us Stalin and Pol Pot and Castro and Mao and NK.
Post by: Rush on May 13, 2019, 05:54:09 AM
Azure, I will ask one more time, because I keep forgetting. (I forget because it really isn't important, but I just like people to use correct pronouns),
I think I remember you saying you are a gay man. But perhaps I got that wrong and you are a gay woman. Or perhaps I am thinking of someone else entirely. As I said, it makes absolutely no difference, but just to correct the record, again, would you care to straighten (pun intended) us out?
I’ll take this one, and test my failing middle aged memory. Gay woman. Aka lesbian. I think. Things don’t seem to stick easily in my mind anymore. I hate getting old. :(
Post by: Lucifer on May 13, 2019, 06:06:15 AM
I’ll take this one, and test my failing middle aged memory. Gay woman. Aka lesbian. I think. Things don’t seem to stick easily in my mind anymore. I hate getting old. :(
Beats the alternative... ;)
Post by: Little Joe on May 13, 2019, 07:13:07 AM
I hope more liberal/progressives (Democrats) would participate here, and offer cogent, logical arguments for their positions, and not media driven sound bites. I am not pointing a finger at Azure and I hope she continues to participate. I don't even mind the Mango Mussolini statements as I think that adds some levity.Thank you. I agree.
For me, I think I need to lighten up a bit. We're all friends. Yeah, I got your Kumbaya right here! :)
I know we will not change anyone's behavior by asking, but I do wish we could all be a little kinder to each other.
For instance: "I disagree". "you are wrong" (or maybe "dead wrong"). Name calling is childish. But the nastiness, even when it isn't directed at me, causes me to limit my time here. Not that anyone cares, but this place can be dead enough at times).
Quote
What did Machiavelli say? :) :) :)I assume you are referring to "keep your friends close; your enemies closer)?
Post by: azure on May 13, 2019, 07:18:31 AM
Rush, yes, especially during the academic year I don't really have the time to read multiple sources for news, so most of my information comes from the least biased (not unbiased, but least biased) MSM sources I have access to, PBS and NPR. Sometimes National Review, occasionally individual articles from the NYT and WSJ, but I don't subscribe to either so I have limited access. I agree with you that it is best to accept only reports that have been proven - that's why I have not committed to any particular view of the Steele dossier affair, I just don't know where the truth lies. One reporter from, I think, the NYT explained that the reason he hadn't done an expose of DOJ wrongdoing in obtaining the FISA warrants is because all he could find were conflicting reports, or something along those lines. Not solid evidence that FBI knowingly relied on discredited intel. If in fact they did lie, then those involved should be charged, I totally agree. What is your evidence that charges are about to be brought?
It's not clear to me though, how much involvement Hillary has in this. From what I read, Steele was unaware that the Clinton campaign was financing his work (and only in the beginning, iirc), so it's hard to see how that fact could have biased his report. FBI claimed they had independent evidence of connections between the Trump campaign and Russia, but again all I've seen are fuzzy statements, no specifics.
By all means, let's have a full investigation and bring charges against those who broke the law, if there are grounds. If not, then let's see all the facts. Therein lies the problem these days, there is so much polarization that we can't even agree on the facts. News sources on both sides are accused not only of bias, but of outright falsification. We can't have a discussion if we can't even agree on the facts. And we can't have a country governed by the people if critical information available to the public is so subject to partisan distortion that the people cannot determine what is true.
Post by: Anthony on May 13, 2019, 07:20:14 AM
Thank you. I agree.
I know we will not change anyone's behavior by asking, but I do wish we could all be a little kinder to each other.
We're all adults, but some people have thinner skin than others. I have no problem with tough talk, but maybe some others do. That doesn't mean I would advocate for dishonesty, or coddling outright lies.
Quote
For instance: "I disagree". "you are wrong" (or maybe "dead wrong"). Name calling is childish. But the nastiness, even when it isn't directed at me, causes me to limit my time here. Not that anyone cares, but this place can be dead enough at times).I assume you are referring to "keep your friends close; your enemies closer)?
Yes, that's the quote. I often go to CNN, NBC/MSNBC, NYT, and other traditionally Far Left Progressive (Democrat) outlets to see what "the other side" is saying, and thinking. It is the only way to counter their B.S. I appreciate other views here, but I don't have to agree with them, but at least it makes you think, and I need to be more respectful of them.
Post by: Steingar on May 13, 2019, 08:19:26 AM
Post by: Little Joe on May 13, 2019, 08:28:47 AM
If Hillary Clinton did and got away with even half the shit you lot accuse her of she wouldn't be private citizen Clinton, she'd be the Empress Hillary I.You are probably right. She probably did only about half of all the stuff she has been accused of. But even if the number is less than 25% she should be locked up n. You or I would be.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on May 13, 2019, 08:30:53 AM
I have observed that there is a strata of this phenomenon present in NPR and PBS. They try to be unbiased, but they do not succeed. They plant the same seeds of relativity and deception that the major deceiving networks do, only in a more refined way. For example, they will include representatives from “the other side” but in just a few minutes I’ll be bashing my steering wheel going “Let them finish! Okay, let them develop that point!” But no. The narrative will be wrenched back to the left.
If you diligently research the “truth” or accuracy of some of the scenarios PBS and NPR create, you will be very surprised. Even nature documentaries are tear-jerkingly constructed to support the leftist narrative. They’re being exposed all over the internet but PEOPLE HAVE TO LOOK FOR IT. We discovered it when a drawn-out sequence involving walruses and polar bears was used to agonizingly torture the viewer into a climate change doomsday mood. It was completely false; nature was used to market an agenda.
We must remember that truth exists and look diligently for it. Never stop at Snopes or Politifact or their ilk. These are cunningly written to take a part of a statement to declare at the top of the article “FALSE!” or “TRUE!” They count on very few people reading the entire article that follows. Often it reaches an entirely different conclusion.
Human nature has remained unchanged for centuries. St. Irenaeus said:
“A deep and genuine concern for other people will remind us
that the discovery of truth is not to be a victory for some and a defeat for others.
Unless all can claim a share in that victory, truth itself will continue to be rejected by the losers, because it will be regarded as inseparable from the yoke of defeat.
And so, confrontation, controversy and the like must yield to a genuine united search for God’s truth and how it can best be served.”
I have no solution except to keep trying. I find this site interesting.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com
The worst outcome, and one that it looks like we are sliding, nay, careening toward, is the complete distortion and abrogation of truth itself, which gives control to the most powerful governmental, or “governmental” (in reality self-serving elites and globalists manipulating politicians through favors and payoffs) entities. That is a formula for catastrophe.
Post by: Lucifer on May 13, 2019, 08:31:32 AM
If Hillary Clinton did and got away with even half the shit you lot accuse her of she wouldn't be private citizen Clinton, she'd be the Empress Hillary I.
Whitewater
Cattlegate
Rose Law Firm
Travelgate
Vince Foster files
Filegate
HillaryCare
Clinton Legal Defense Fund
IRS Abuses
Lincoln Bedroom
Charlie Trie
ChinaGate
FALN terrorists’ pardons
Peter Paul
Norman Hsu
PardonGate
Robert Congel
Campaign Finance Violations
Near-Death Experience
Clinton Foundation
Boko Haram
Secretary of State
Secret Server
Afghan Consulate
Benghazi
Covered Up Scandals
$6 Billion Missing
Women’s Rights
‘No Classified Material’
Failure to Produce
Altering Evidence
Money Laundering
Post by: Anthony on May 13, 2019, 08:41:29 AM
Post by: Rush on May 13, 2019, 08:45:15 AM
Rush, yes, especially during the academic year I don't really have the time to read multiple sources for news, so most of my information comes from the least biased (not unbiased, but least biased) MSM sources I have access to, PBS and NPR. Sometimes National Review, occasionally individual articles from the NYT and WSJ, but I don't subscribe to either so I have limited access. I agree with you that it is best to accept only reports that have been proven - that's why I have not committed to any particular view of the Steele dossier affair, I just don't know where the truth lies. One reporter from, I think, the NYT explained that the reason he hadn't done an expose of DOJ wrongdoing in obtaining the FISA warrants is because all he could find were conflicting reports, or something along those lines. Not solid evidence that FBI knowingly relied on discredited intel. If in fact they did lie, then those involved should be charged, I totally agree. What is your evidence that charges are about to be brought?
I didn't say charges were about to be brought, it will take a while to pull that together and I think eventually they will be, unless the radical left manages to take over Congress and the White House in 2020 and squash all this and at this point it's going to be necessary to literally kill people to squash it. I said this is about to come to light. Here's a good summary of what's going on:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/doj-inspector-general-homing-in-on-fbis-use-of-unverified-steele-dossier
All this stuff has been known for a long time to people like journalist Sara Carter, but now we have Horowitz who will soon release his report, Trump himself has said he is going to declassify and release the FISA warrants, and then there's Barr of course.
To get the full story, it's necessary to go to Fox, and the various conservative newsfeeds, or Limbaugh or Hannity. I applaud you trying to go only to "unbiased" sources like PBS and NPR but it's my contention that these are not completely unbiased. I believe there ARE NO unbiased sources anymore. Therefore, unfortunately, you must go to both biased sides and try to figure out the truth for yourself. Well I was previewing this and I see Becky's post. Says it better than I can.
Post by: Rush on May 13, 2019, 08:58:04 AM
The worst outcome, and one that it looks like we are sliding, nay, careening toward, is the complete distortion and abrogation of truth itself, which gives control to the most powerful governmental, or “governmental” (in reality self-serving elites and globalists manipulating politicians through favors and payoffs) entities. That is a formula for catastrophe.
This is what I am trying to get the liberals on this site to see. Well the conservatives too. Our enemy isn't each other; it's the giant unholy alliance between government and big business that rules our lives.
All human organizational systems have power structures. That is necessary to get anything done. Capitalism is a power hierarchy, and can result in disenfranchisement. But the alternative, economic collectivism, must have an even worse tyrant administering it because it depends on forcible theft, where capitalism is voluntary trade as its core mechanism. Socialism and communism result in far worse disenfranchisement than capitalism, as long as you keep capitalism free and unencumbered by government favoritism.
Maybe it's not possible. Maybe the normal state of man is a constant flux back and forth with the rise and fall of systems through time. There is no utopian stasis possible.
Post by: azure on May 13, 2019, 09:13:45 AM
100% agree that NPR and PBS have a left-leaning bias. I said "least biased, not unbiased". Becky mentioned some of PBS's "softer", human interest stories that are designed to sway the viewer toward supporting a leftist cause - that's been obvious to me for some time and I often fast forward past those stories when I'm short on time. During the academic year I'm always short on time though, which is why I've avoided delving into the conflicting reporting from the more blatantly biased sources. I should have more time this summer - though I have a research project to get back to too, and summer break is all too short here.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 13, 2019, 09:16:26 AM
Post by: Rush on May 13, 2019, 09:38:36 AM
Thanks for the link to the Examiner piece, Rush. Most of what is alleged there I have read before, but also claims that contradict it or cast doubt on it. I guess all we can do is wait for Horowitz to finish his investigation.
100% agree that NPR and PBS have a left-leaning bias. I said "least biased, not unbiased". Becky mentioned some of PBS's "softer", human interest stories that are designed to sway the viewer toward supporting a leftist cause - that's been obvious to me for some time and I often fast forward past those stories when I'm short on time. During the academic year I'm always short on time though, which is why I've avoided delving into the conflicting reporting from the more blatantly biased sources. I should have more time this summer - though I have a research project to get back to too, and summer break is all too short here.
I think some here are too hard on you and on Michael too. You being gay, probably came from a youth exploring the gay subculture, which is very liberal, if you are my generation or younger, and if you are in an urban environment, and a university environment, which is the case with Michael, and if he is Jewish, coming from a tradition of Democrat and urban culture - both of you have very strong histories on the liberal side. That being the case, to be as open minded as you are and willing to consider the other side, you are far better than many who stay completely stuck on their side of the aisle. Michael too continues to come here even though he is outnumbered and while I think he's more gelled on the left than you are, he repeatedly asks for reasoned discussion, and when given, he reads it. That is a lot more than many who would not even listen to the other side.
Post by: Anthony on May 13, 2019, 09:47:55 AM
I think some here are too hard on you and on Michael too. You being gay, probably came from a youth exploring the gay subculture, which is very liberal, if you are my generation or younger, and if you are in an urban environment, and a university environment, which is the case with Michael, and if he is Jewish, coming from a tradition of Democrat and urban culture - both of you have very strong histories on the liberal side. That being the case, to be as open minded as you are and willing to consider the other side, you are far better than many who stay completely stuck on their side of the aisle. Michael too continues to come here even though he is outnumbered and while I think he's more gelled on the left than you are, he repeatedly asks for reasoned discussion, and when given, he reads it. That is a lot more than many who would not even listen to the other side.
Well said Rush. I think some of the frustration from people that cause them to get emotional is with perceived dishonesty. It may be real, and it may not, who knows. I am NOT speaking of anyone specifically, but I find sometimes with the Left, when they can't defend their positions or go to sources which we know are biased, and therefore dishonest. No the response should NOT be a personal attack, IMHO.
I hesitate to post articles from Breitbart because immediately someone on the Left will kill the messenger. Yes, Breitbart comes from a "Right" perspective, but rarely, if at all, do they outright lie. The MSM outright lies or bends the truth enough it becomes a lie. That being said, I personally will try to be less harsh in my responses to people in which I disagree even if I think there is an element of dishonesty in what they say, or the SOURCE of what they say.
Post by: Steingar on May 13, 2019, 10:00:20 AM
Post by: Anthony on May 13, 2019, 10:02:43 AM
Nice to see you guys all indulging in stereotype. My Old Man voted Republican the whole time I knew him. He was conservative as all get out.
What percentage of the Jewish Community vote Democrat?
What percentage of the Black Community vote Democrat?
What percentage of the Hispanic Community vote Democrat?
What percentage of Urbanites vote Democrat?
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on May 13, 2019, 10:06:13 AM
I think some here are too hard on you and on Michael too. You being gay, probably came from a youth exploring the gay subculture, which is very liberal, if you are my generation or younger, and if you are in an urban environment, and a university environment, which is the case with Michael, and if he is Jewish, coming from a tradition of Democrat and urban culture - both of you have very strong histories on the liberal side. That being the case, to be as open minded as you are and willing to consider the other side, you are far better than many who stay completely stuck on their side of the aisle. Michael too continues to come here even though he is outnumbered and while I think he's more gelled on the left than you are, he repeatedly asks for reasoned discussion, and when given, he reads it. That is a lot more than many who would not even listen to the other side.Steingar is very selective in what he responds to with reasoned discussion. It’s a clear indicator that his position is emotion- or ideology-based when he declines to respond because we are in his words not worthy of a response, or goes silent, or sinks into namecalling.
Post by: Steingar on May 13, 2019, 10:16:27 AM
Steingar is very selective in what he responds to with reasoned discussion. It’s a clear indicator that his position is emotion- or ideology-based when he declines to respond because we are in his words not worthy of a response, or goes silent, or sinks into namecalling.
Your right, I don't listen to you at all. Sorry, I can't work up a lot of enthusiasm for someone who prefers plain tomato paste to my incredible pizza sauce. I never heard of anything so stupid.
Post by: Anthony on May 13, 2019, 10:21:23 AM
Your right, I don't listen to you at all. Sorry, I can't work up a lot of enthusiasm for someone who prefers plain tomato paste to my incredible pizza sauce. I never heard of anything so stupid.
LOL! So someone's culinary preference, or sense of taste is stupid? You just don't like to be revealed, do you?
Post by: Little Joe on May 13, 2019, 10:25:28 AM
I think some here are too hard on you and on Michael too.I agree with half of that. I think people are too hard on Azure, but Michael brings it on himself and seem to relish it.
Post by: Rush on May 13, 2019, 11:08:25 AM
Nice to see you guys all indulging in stereotype. My Old Man voted Republican the whole time I knew him. He was conservative as all get out.
I apologize if I assumed your whole family was Democrat and/or from an urban environment. I also made the assumption azure spent her youth among the radical gay community. I admit these were assumptions. But stereotypes are based in fact; the statistical likelihood is still there.
Well you made me look it up. 52% of American Jews are Democrat, and 16% Republican and 31% independent. So only a slightly better than 50/50 chance you'd be a Democrat, so you're right, I made an assumption that only had about an even shot of being true, about any one member of your family.
https://www.jta.org/quick-reads
Post by: azure on May 13, 2019, 11:30:14 AM
Azure, if you read, read Greg Jarret's book "The Russia Hoax"
Thanks. I looked into it a few weeks ago. Debated ordering it, then realized that I would never have time to read it all the way through. That's a failing on my part, I took the Evelyn Wood course as a teenager, but today, I'm not a fast reader.
Post by: azure on May 13, 2019, 12:10:26 PM
I apologize if I assumed your whole family was Democrat and/or from an urban environment. I also made the assumption azure spent her youth among the radical gay community. I admit these were assumptions. But stereotypes are based in fact; the statistical likelihood is still there.
FWIW you were almost right about me. I came out later in life, but spent most of my 40s and 50s in the lesbian community. Some of my liberal background comes from there, true, but both of my parents were Kennedy liberals. My mother was actually more of a far leftist, calling for universal health care and bans on gun ownership even back in the '80s and '90s. My big eye-opening experience was moving here, officially one of the Bluest states in the nation, and finding that it's more of a two culture state. It was actually on the 2nd Amendment that I first split with the Left, mostly because there's no pressing reason here for gun control, yet the Progressives keep pushing for it on principle. And then there was 2016, and Trump's candidacy (and victory), and me left wanting to understand his popularity. Participating here has also helped push me further toward the Right, though my leaning is I think more libertarian than conservative. And that goes much further back, to the '70s and beyond. I'll leave it there though.
Post by: Lucifer on May 13, 2019, 12:15:50 PM
Thanks. I looked into it a few weeks ago. Debated ordering it, then realized that I would never have time to read it all the way through. That's a failing on my part, I took the Evelyn Wood course as a teenager, but today, I'm not a fast reader.
Interesting. Two months ago this is what you said in reference to Greg Jarrett's book:
As far as the reporters you mention, I'm aware of Jarrett's book but have not read it because from what I've gleaned, it alleges facts that aren't generally agreed upon. In particular, Politifact has rated what it calls his main points as "false", except for the statement (widely reported) that Comey called the dossier contents "salacious and unverified", which it calls "half true" - and that part, that Comey was referring to the "personally sensitive" aspects of the dossier - presumably the "golden showers" story - has been stated elsewhere.
Post by: Steingar on May 13, 2019, 12:27:59 PM
LOL! So someone's culinary preference, or sense of taste is stupid? You just don't like to be revealed, do you?
So after posting my method for creating a pizza sauce which involves aromatics, spices, cheap bourbon, and lots of cooking and love, she posted the following:
Totally agree. Steingar’s sounds awful ... insipid and uninspiring.
...and then proceeded to allude the virtues of unadulterated tomato paste.
Every time I want to stop posting here all I have to do is think of that. Works, too.
Post by: Anthony on May 13, 2019, 12:39:16 PM
So after posting my method for creating a pizza sauce which involves aromatics, spices, cheap bourbon, and lots of cooking and love, she posted the following:
...and then proceeded to allude the virtues of unadulterated tomato paste.
Every time I want to stop posting here all I have to do is think of that. Works, too.
You pick odd swords in which to fall on.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 13, 2019, 12:47:41 PM
It is becoming harder if not impossible for Americans to agree on what the truth is. We have even fallen into a kind of one-eye-closed-and-the-other-one-squinting version of truth that we firmly believe is truth.
I have observed that there is a strata of this phenomenon present in NPR and PBS. They try to be unbiased, but they do not succeed. They plant the same seeds of relativity and deception that the major deceiving networks do, only in a more refined way. For example, they will include representatives from “the other side” but in just a few minutes I’ll be bashing my steering wheel going “Let them finish! Okay, let them develop that point!” But no. The narrative will be wrenched back to the left.
If you diligently research the “truth” or accuracy of some of the scenarios PBS and NPR create, you will be very surprised. Even nature documentaries are tear-jerkingly constructed to support the leftist narrative. They’re being exposed all over the internet but PEOPLE HAVE TO LOOK FOR IT. We discovered it when a drawn-out sequence involving walruses and polar bears was used to agonizingly torture the viewer into a climate change doomsday mood. It was completely false; nature was used to market an agenda.
We must remember that truth exists and look diligently for it. Never stop at Snopes or Politifact or their ilk. These are cunningly written to take a part of a statement to declare at the top of the article “FALSE!” or “TRUE!” They count on very few people reading the entire article that follows. Often it reaches an entirely different conclusion.
Human nature has remained unchanged for centuries. St. Irenaeus said:
“A deep and genuine concern for other people will remind us
that the discovery of truth is not to be a victory for some and a defeat for others.
Unless all can claim a share in that victory, truth itself will continue to be rejected by the losers, because it will be regarded as inseparable from the yoke of defeat.
And so, confrontation, controversy and the like must yield to a genuine united search for God’s truth and how it can best be served.”
I have no solution except to keep trying. I find this site interesting.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com
The worst outcome, and one that it looks like we are sliding, nay, careening toward, is the complete distortion and abrogation of truth itself, which gives control to the most powerful governmental, or “governmental” (in reality self-serving elites and globalists manipulating politicians through favors and payoffs) entities. That is a formula for catastrophe.
"Is Trump a Russian Agent??" is the same as "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Post by: Little Joe on May 13, 2019, 12:49:16 PM
So after posting my method for creating a pizza sauce which involves aromatics, spices, cheap bourbon, and lots of cooking and love, she posted the following:For what it's worth, I think your pizza sauce sounds good enough to endure a political conversation at your house. It couldn't be any worse than what I go through at my in-laws.
...and then proceeded to allude the virtues of unadulterated tomato paste.
But I think my wife would stand with Becky and choose the tomato paste. But at least she would like your conversation better. She is a combination of super smart, super opinionated and UNinformed liberal. She believes the MSM sound bites as if they were issued by Odin himself.
Post by: Anthony on May 13, 2019, 12:54:10 PM
She is a combination of super smart, super opinionated and UNinformed liberal. She believes the MSM sound bites as if they were issued by Odin himself.
That resides in a shallow hole dug in your basement?
:)
Post by: Steingar on May 13, 2019, 01:08:35 PM
But I think my wife would stand with Becky and choose the tomato paste. But at least she would like your conversation better. She is a combination of super smart, super opinionated and UNinformed liberal. She believes the MSM sound bites as if they were issued by Odin himself.
First, get your own imaginary Sky God!
I mostly kid. Here's the rub. If someone said my sauce sounded bad, and they prefer unadulterated tomato paste, I wouldn't call them stupid. I might question their taste, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion when it comes to food since everyone has a different mouth with different combinations of taste receptors. I get it, I really do.
But my sauce was called uninspiring and insipid. That's a completely different issue, and involves more than a little stupidity. That person has been completely ignored by me ever since.
And I don't watch or listen to MSM. They're a little too canted for my taste. To be honest, the only News service I ever saw that wasn't biased one way or the other was Al Jazeera, and I miss them. I know, I know, look at the source. But they hadn't a dog in our hunt and it came out that way. I admit most of the stuff I look at is left-leaning, but just that. Problem is you really can't find anything utterly neutral.
Post by: nddons on May 13, 2019, 01:18:06 PM
As I recall, she called Trump's base Deplorables - not all Republicans.Oh please.
She made that “basket of deplorables” comment on 9/9/16, less than 60 days from the general. If you were a conservative or a Republican, even if you felt you had to hold your nose to vote for him, you were Trump’s voting block. She was talking to those people too, and based on my Never Trumper friends, most of them became pro-Trump after that divisive and hateful comment.
Post by: Anthony on May 13, 2019, 01:22:18 PM
Oh please.
She made that “basket of deplorables” comment on 9/9/16, less than 60 days from the general. If you were a conservative or a Republican, even if you felt you had to hold your nose to vote for him, you were Trump’s voting block. She was talking to those people too, and based on my Never Trumper friends, most of them became pro-Trump after that divisive and hateful comment.
Agreed. If we used a two sphere version of a Venn Diagram of Trump supporters, and Republican (GOP) voters there'd be about 95% or more overlap. Hillary was talking about all of them. Recently Biden made a similar, although not as widespread accusation calling a portion of that same group "DREGS".
Post by: Steingar on May 13, 2019, 01:28:14 PM
Oh please.
She made that “basket of deplorables” comment on 9/9/16, less than 60 days from the general. If you were a conservative or a Republican, even if you felt you had to hold your nose to vote for him, you were Trump’s voting block. She was talking to those people too, and based on my Never Trumper friends, most of them became pro-Trump after that divisive and hateful comment.
I honestly thought she was referring to the White Nationalists, and I think she did too. But obviously you guys took it a different way, and I'll bet you're far from alone. That in and of itself shows that it was a really dumb thing to say. And she lost the election to the most unlikely candidate I've ever seen.
I don't get it with Trump. He seems to go out of his way to support the White Nationalists. I can't believe he does, I cannot believe he thinks that way. He has a Jewish daughter, for Odin's sake! I assume he's trying to sound neutral and presidential, but he just seems to stick his foot in his mouth every time he does.
Post by: Lucifer on May 13, 2019, 01:31:26 PM
I honestly thought she was referring to the White Nationalists, and I think she did too. But obviously you guys took it a different way, and I'll bet you're far from alone. That in and of itself shows that it was a really dumb thing to say. And she lost the election to the most unlikely candidate I've ever seen.
I don't get it with Trump. He seems to go out of his way to support the White Nationalists. I can't believe he does, I cannot believe he thinks that way. He has a Jewish daughter, for Odin's sake! I assume he's trying to sound neutral and presidential, but he just seems to stick his foot in his mouth every time he does.
So who are these "white nationalist" groups?
Post by: azure on May 13, 2019, 01:35:30 PM
Interesting. Two months ago this is what you said in reference to Greg Jarrett's book:
So what? I see no contradiction. After posting that I did consider ordering it anyway, just to see what his evidence was. Considered it again recently. I haven't forgotten that the statements he makes are controversial.
What's your point? :dunno:
Post by: Steingar on May 13, 2019, 01:41:44 PM
So who are these "white nationalist" groups?
Boy oh boy I hope you're kidding.
Post by: azure on May 13, 2019, 01:46:03 PM
Oh please.
She made that “basket of deplorables” comment on 9/9/16, less than 60 days from the general. If you were a conservative or a Republican, even if you felt you had to hold your nose to vote for him, you were Trump’s voting block. She was talking to those people too, and based on my Never Trumper friends, most of them became pro-Trump after that divisive and hateful comment.
I have to agree with Michael on this. At the time, virtually everyone I knew thought Trump's base consisted mostly of far right, Unite the Right types and gullible working-class folk who were duped into believing he was the Second Coming. I'm pretty sure she meant to only insult the extremists, but it was a stupid thing to say and I really cringed when I heard it too. It's one thing to insult your opponent, but it's a cardinal sin to insult his supporters. It was the single dumbest statement she made in the entire campaign, and I agree that it moved a lot of the undecideds into the Trump camp.
In other words, I was by no means excusing her comment, just picking a nit.
Post by: Anthony on May 13, 2019, 01:48:30 PM
So who are these "white nationalist" groups?
I guess they mean the KKK, and neo Nazi types whom are very, very small in numbers, and typically stay in Mommy's basement dressing up in their little brown shirts. Insignificant, not a large problem, yet promoted by the Media and Democrats as the large, Trump supporting army of whackos. It is another form of bias (dishonesty) we see from the Left.
Black Lives Matters (BLM), and ANTIFA are actually groups that cause rioting, violence, and destruction yet were invited to the White House by Obama.
Post by: Little Joe on May 13, 2019, 01:50:26 PM
So who are these "white nationalist" groups?I'm white.
I love America, therefore I am a Nationalist.
I guess I'm a white nationalist, and I sort of take it personally when people use that phrase as a pejorative.
And while I'm at it,
I'm old
I'm white
I'm male,
So I guess I am also an "Old White Man" which is also used a a pejorative these days.
I feel sort of disrespected and I don't know where my safe space is, except in a bottle of Johnny Walker, or when I am feeling spendy, a bottle of McCallen.
Post by: Lucifer on May 13, 2019, 01:51:47 PM
Boy oh boy I hope you're kidding.
I'm serious. Who are they?
Post by: azure on May 13, 2019, 01:54:14 PM
I don't get it with Trump. He seems to go out of his way to support the White Nationalists. I can't believe he does, I cannot believe he thinks that way. He has a Jewish daughter, for Odin's sake! I assume he's trying to sound neutral and presidential, but he just seems to stick his foot in his mouth every time he does.
I don't think he actually does. He did eventually distance himself from them, but only after the shitstorm after Charlottesville had erupted as I recall. For some reason, he seems reluctant to alienate them. I don't understand it either, though I think you're right that he is trying to sound neutral, objective, maybe nuanced. It never seems to come out the way he wants, though some claim that's because the media spins it that way. I'm really not sure.
Post by: Lucifer on May 13, 2019, 02:00:42 PM
I guess they mean the KKK, and neo Nazi types whom are very, very small in numbers, and typically stay in Mommy's basement dressing up in their little brown shirts. Insignificant, not a large problem, yet promoted by the Media and Democrats as the large, Trump supporting army of whackos. It is another form of bias (dishonesty) we see from the Left.
Black Lives Matters (BLM), and ANTIFA are actually groups that cause rioting, violence, and destruction yet were invited to the White House by Obama.
Well, first of all, the KKK is a democrat started and operated group that goes back to the Civil War. The democrats were very active financing and supporting them through the 60's. Even several prominent democrats in congress were members and supporters. After LBJ decided they needed the black vote, only then did the democrats begin to disassociate themselves (publicly) from the KKK.
Neo Nazi groups? NAZI stands for National Socialist. Odd, I don't find any conservative groups advocating socialism. And I know where President Trump stands on socialism. So that's out.
Then we have BLM and ANTIFA. Both progressive alt left hate groups. Sure don't see them aligning with the President.
So I want the prefesser to please enlighten us what "white nationalist" groups that the President is supposedly warm and comfy with.
Perfesser?
Also, before Trump got into politics, he was fast friends with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and several prominent members of the Black community. He also was a donor to the NAACP among other minority operations. His company had a high number of management people from minorities. And never, ever any disparaging remarks from the black community about DJT.
Kinda odd for a guy that supposedly likes "white nationalist", wouldn't you say?
What changed?
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on May 13, 2019, 02:04:40 PM
So after posting my method for creating a pizza sauce which involves aromatics, spices, cheap bourbon, and lots of cooking and love, she posted the following:Standard bias of omission. His actual recipe included cornstarch, a substance that sucks the life force out of anything it’s mixed with. If you don’t make Italian tomato-based sauces by reducing the sauce in cooking, not by adding thickeners like cornstarch, you are not cooking. You are blaspheming.
...and then proceeded to allude the virtues of unadulterated tomato paste.
Every time I want to stop posting here all I have to do is think of that. Works, too.
I stand by “insipid and uninspiring,” for the reason stated above, and also because bourbon is not simpatico with Italian flavors found in great pizza sauces.
As well, I did not say I used “unadulterated” tomato paste. I said I mixed it with a little red wine. I defy you to find a better, simpler, purely Italian flavor for a pizza sauce base.
You will find that I post nothing here I can’t defend. And I don’t remake others’ posts in my mind to be what I wish them to be so my own biases can survive.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on May 13, 2019, 02:08:50 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 13, 2019, 02:11:43 PM
So what? I see no contradiction. After posting that I did consider ordering it anyway, just to see what his evidence was. Considered it again recently. I haven't forgotten that the statements he makes are controversial.
What's your point? :dunno:
Greg Jarret does a good job of backing up what he wrote.
Post by: Lucifer on May 13, 2019, 02:13:06 PM
Greg Jarret does a good job of backing up what he wrote.
He does an excellent job. He's a lawyer by trade and he cites his references.
Post by: Lucifer on May 13, 2019, 02:14:38 PM
The site must not retain threads past a certain date cutoff. I’d post my actual comments, and Steingar’s, but the thread in question appears to be gone.
This thread? http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=3153.msg55897#msg55897
Post by: nddons on May 13, 2019, 02:21:30 PM
So after posting my method for creating a pizza sauce which involves aromatics, spices, cheap bourbon, and lots of cooking and love, she posted the following:Get a kitchen you three.
...and then proceeded to allude the virtues of unadulterated tomato paste.
Every time I want to stop posting here all I have to do is think of that. Works, too.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on May 13, 2019, 02:24:51 PM
This thread? http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=3153.msg55897#msg55897Yep. Wherein I prove Steingar selectively edited his fake news post today. Here.
http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=3153.msg55778#msg55778
Post by: Rush on May 13, 2019, 02:25:13 PM
I don't think he actually does. He did eventually distance himself from them, but only after the shitstorm after Charlottesville had erupted as I recall. For some reason, he seems reluctant to alienate them. I don't understand it either, though I think you're right that he is trying to sound neutral, objective, maybe nuanced. It never seems to come out the way he wants, though some claim that's because the media spins it that way. I'm really not sure.
I think he is in the habit of establishing relationships with anyone and everyone. It's one way he has manipulated the world to become so rich and powerful. It's a narcissist trait, and he may be a narcissist. He cozies up to anyone if he thinks he can use them to his purpose and so his default approach is to seem "friendly" to anyone, at least initially, until they prove to be his enemy. That doesn't mean he joined up with a white nationalist group or is sympathetic to them. I just think it may be part of why he seemed to not take any side in the Charlottesville thing, at first anyway.
Also he does talk first think later.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on May 13, 2019, 02:26:53 PM
Get a kitchen you three.But it’s so fun to catch a liberal lying in print!
Post by: Rush on May 13, 2019, 02:33:12 PM
Well said Rush. I think some of the frustration from people that cause them to get emotional is with perceived dishonesty. It may be real, and it may not, who knows. I am NOT speaking of anyone specifically, but I find sometimes with the Left, when they can't defend their positions or go to sources which we know are biased, and therefore dishonest. No the response should NOT be a personal attack, IMHO.
I hesitate to post articles from Breitbart because immediately someone on the Left will kill the messenger. Yes, Breitbart comes from a "Right" perspective, but rarely, if at all, do they outright lie. The MSM outright lies or bends the truth enough it becomes a lie. That being said, I personally will try to be less harsh in my responses to people in which I disagree even if I think there is an element of dishonesty in what they say, or the SOURCE of what they say.
I try VERY hard not to post stuff from Breitbart or any conservative site, because I know liberals will immediately dismiss it as biased. I try very hard to find neutral or left leaning sources for a fact I want to post. But it is extremely difficult because there really are zero neutral sources. And so I often just not make my post at all. In fact that's probably most of the time.
Post by: Rush on May 13, 2019, 02:38:18 PM
For what it's worth, I think your pizza sauce sounds good enough to endure a political conversation at your house. It couldn't be any worse than what I go through at my in-laws.
But I think my wife would stand with Becky and choose the tomato paste. But at least she would like your conversation better. She is a combination of super smart, super opinionated and UNinformed liberal. She believes the MSM sound bites as if they were issued by Odin himself.
You guys are making me hungry. I'd eat either of your sauces, my god who makes homemade pizza anymore? Yum. And I'm in the middle of my no-carb keto diet. :( But I've lost 15 pounds so far.
I did go out this weekend and order chicken and waffles. A more sinful dish I can't think of. But it was amazing... jalapeno honey to dip the fried chicken in, maple syrup for the huge fluffy Belgian waffle, and a side of sweet potato french fries. Better than sex....
Post by: Lucifer on May 13, 2019, 02:40:17 PM
I try VERY hard not to post stuff from Breitbart or any conservative site, because I know liberals will immediately dismiss it as biased. I try very hard to find neutral or left leaning sources for a fact I want to post. But it is extremely difficult because there really are zero neutral sources. And so I often just not make my post at all. In fact that's probably most of the time.
Which brings up an interesting point, NPR and PBS.
Both of these entities are funded with our tax dollars. Why in today's world are we (government) subsidizing media?
Post by: Lucifer on May 13, 2019, 02:42:19 PM
You guys are making me hungry. I'd eat either of your sauces, my god who makes homemade pizza anymore? Yum. And I'm in the middle of my no-carb keto diet. :( But I've lost 15 pounds so far.
I did go out this weekend and order chicken and waffles. A more sinful dish I can't think of. But it was amazing... jalapeno honey to dip the fried chicken in, maple syrup for the huge fluffy Belgian waffle, and a side of sweet potato french fries. Better than sex....
Pizza is like sex, when it's good, it's really good.....
And when it's bad.......it's still pretty good. ;D
Post by: Rush on May 13, 2019, 02:50:47 PM
Thanks. I looked into it a few weeks ago. Debated ordering it, then realized that I would never have time to read it all the way through. That's a failing on my part, I took the Evelyn Wood course as a teenager, but today, I'm not a fast reader.
I have a really hard time reading books these days. It's because of the iPad. I can just watch TV shows and movies, or go down the YouTube rabbit hole. It's really sad. I am trying hard to get through The Watchmen, and it's a graphic novel, a bunch of cartoons!
Post by: Little Joe on May 13, 2019, 02:51:06 PM
Standard bias of omission. His actual recipe included cornstarch, a substance that sucks the life force out of anything it’s mixed with. If you don’t make Italian tomato-based sauces by reducing the sauce in cooking, not by adding thickeners like cornstarch, you are not cooking. You are blaspheming.I sort of remembered that thread, but I didn't remember that he puts corn starch in his sauce! Yecch. Talk about "adulterated".
I stand by “insipid and uninspiring,” for the reason stated above, and also because bourbon is not simpatico with Italian flavors found in great pizza sauces.
As well, I did not say I used “unadulterated” tomato paste. I said I mixed it with a little red wine. I defy you to find a better, simpler, purely Italian flavor for a pizza sauce base.
You will find that I post nothing here I can’t defend. And I don’t remake others’ posts in my mind to be what I wish them to be so my own biases can survive.
Post by: Little Joe on May 13, 2019, 02:53:42 PM
You guys are making me hungry. I'd eat either of your sauces, my god who makes homemade pizza anymore? Yum. And I'm in the middle of my no-carb keto diet. :( But I've lost 15 pounds so far.I almost ordered the Chicken and Waffles at the local Metro Diner. But then I saw they listed it as 2,350 calories! And I don't think that included the jalapeno honey or maple syrup.
I did go out this weekend and order chicken and waffles. A more sinful dish I can't think of. But it was amazing... jalapeno honey to dip the fried chicken in, maple syrup for the huge fluffy Belgian waffle, and a side of sweet potato french fries. Better than sex....
Post by: Lucifer on May 13, 2019, 03:15:20 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 13, 2019, 03:37:45 PM
Pizza is like sex, when it's good, it's really good.....
And when it's bad.......it's still pretty good. ;D
Wife and I are in week two of a Keto diet. Saturday we had pizza, the crust is made of eight eggs, twelve ounces of mozzarella cheese poured into a round pizza pan and baked for fifteen minutes at 400*. After that you top it with some tomato sauce and whatever meats and cheese you want and pop it in the oven at 450 for a few minutes. It was pretty good. I could use the same recipe and turn it into a breakfast pizza.
Post by: Lucifer on May 13, 2019, 03:51:22 PM
So who are these "white nationalist" groups?
Boy oh boy I hope you're kidding.
I'm serious. Who are they?
So perfesser, I'm still awaiting your reply.
Post by: jb1842 on May 13, 2019, 03:52:23 PM
Wife and I are in week two of a Keto diet. Saturday we had pizza, the crust is made of eight eggs, twelve ounces of mozzarella cheese poured into a round pizza pan and baked for fifteen minutes at 400*. After that you top it with some tomato sauce and whatever meats and cheese you want and pop it in the oven at 450 for a few minutes. It was pretty good. I could use the same recipe and turn it into a breakfast pizza.
Wife started keto. Tried pizza made with cauliflower crust. Yeah, gross.
Post by: Anthony on May 13, 2019, 03:56:40 PM
Wife started keto. Tried pizza made with cauliflower crust. Yeah, gross.
That is just plain un-American. Not to mention what the Italians would think.
Post by: Rush on May 13, 2019, 04:19:52 PM
Wife started keto. Tried pizza made with cauliflower crust. Yeah, gross.
I’ve just gone mostly carnivore. I eat meat, dairy, and protein shakes and not much else except the occasional cheat meal. My blood pressure is down to 112/62 (it was getting up around 130/80) and my blood sugar is way lower, about 95 at 2 hours post meals as opposed to 120. Down 15 pounds in about 3 months. I feel better than I have in years.
Post by: Mase on May 13, 2019, 07:27:08 PM
You guys are making me hungry. I'd eat either of your sauces, my god who makes homemade pizza anymore? Yum. And I'm in the middle of my no-carb keto diet. :( But I've lost 15 pounds so far.
I found frozen pizza.at Sam's Club with a cauliflower crust. Only 15 grams of carbs per serving. Yeah, I know. But it wasn't half bad once I added.my toppings.
Post by: Anthony on May 13, 2019, 08:05:28 PM
I’ve just gone mostly carnivore. I eat meat, dairy, and protein shakes and not much else except the occasional cheat meal. My blood pressure is down to 112/62 (it was getting up around 130/80) and my blood sugar is way lower, about 95 at 2 hours post meals as opposed to 120. Down 15 pounds in about 3 months. I feel better than I have in years.
That's great Rush! Congrats!
Post by: Rush on May 16, 2019, 09:45:25 AM
Rush, yes, especially during the academic year I don't really have the time to read multiple sources for news, so most of my information comes from the least biased (not unbiased, but least biased) MSM sources I have access to, PBS and NPR. Sometimes National Review, occasionally individual articles from the NYT and WSJ, but I don't subscribe to either so I have limited access. I agree with you that it is best to accept only reports that have been proven - that's why I have not committed to any particular view of the Steele dossier affair, I just don't know where the truth lies. One reporter from, I think, the NYT explained that the reason he hadn't done an expose of DOJ wrongdoing in obtaining the FISA warrants is because all he could find were conflicting reports, or something along those lines. Not solid evidence that FBI knowingly relied on discredited intel. If in fact they did lie, then those involved should be charged, I totally agree. What is your evidence that charges are about to be brought?
It's not clear to me though, how much involvement Hillary has in this. From what I read, Steele was unaware that the Clinton campaign was financing his work (and only in the beginning, iirc), so it's hard to see how that fact could have biased his report. FBI claimed they had independent evidence of connections between the Trump campaign and Russia, but again all I've seen are fuzzy statements, no specifics.
If you want to try to get up to speed on this stuff relatively painlessly, try watching Hannity on Fox news or on the radio. Either Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. Listen to them every day for a week and you'll be up to speed and it will all start to make sense.
For example, this morning, Limbaugh just talked about how the urination in the beds story was manipulated to get it in front of the media. When James Comey went to brief President Trump on the dossier, first of all, he focused on the urination story. He left out other stuff. When he left that meeting he called (or texted or maybe email I forget what he said) Clapper and said "Mission accomplished." Clapper then immediately called CNN and released the story about the urination in the bed in Moscow.
Clapper asked Comey, "why didn't you tell him (Trump) about the rest of the story, how Hillary paid for the dossier, etc?" and Comey said, "That wasn't my mission."
What "mission"? Give to him by whom???? Limbaugh's theory is the mission was to get the pee story out in the media.
Of course this presumes Limbaugh's source is accurate, and I don't have time to track that down right now. Stuff is coming out daily on this.
Maybe it was their own testimonies:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dispute-erupts-over-whether-brennan-comey-pushed-steele-dossier-as-doj-probe-into-misconduct-begins
Quote
Clapper previously testified that the dossier was not ultimately used in the ICA. News that Comey had briefed Trump personally on the dossier before the inauguration -- purportedly to warn him of potential blackmail threats -- leaked within days and opened the door for media outlets to publicize the dossier's lurid claims.
Post by: Little Joe on May 16, 2019, 10:48:21 AM
Post by: nddons on May 16, 2019, 10:54:05 AM
Somehow I missed the urination in bed theory. That sounded like classic "fake news", so I uncharacteristicallly checked with Snopes, and guess what. I couldn't find anything about it there. That must mean it's true, huh? A quick google search didn't turn up anything to contradict it. Someone want to fill me in?
Welcome to 2019.
That story was the premise in the fake dossier used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. The premise was that Trump visited Moscow after Obama was there, and hired Moscow hookers to give a golden shower on the bed that Obama slept in.
You can’t make this shit up, yet it was packaged and sold to a FISA judge as evidence to obtain a secret warrant.
Post by: Steingar on May 16, 2019, 01:16:25 PM
Yep. Wherein I prove Steingar selectively edited his fake news post today. Here.
http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=3153.msg55778#msg55778
Just quoted you. Don't know why, you're too stupid to look up an old thread.
Post by: Steingar on May 16, 2019, 01:22:45 PM
I sort of remembered that thread, but I didn't remember that he puts corn starch in his sauce! Yecch. Talk about "adulterated".
First, Bourbon isn't Italian, that is true. But it provides deep flavors via the tannins introduced in the ageing process, and works really harmoniously with tomato and garlic. Vodka isn't Italian either, and Becky is so stupid she probably has never heard of vodka/tomato sauce. i don't actually use it much because of all the cream. Fattening.
Don't know what you guys have against a little cornstarch, its utterly neutral and just thickens things up a bit. That said, I probably won't need it next edition. I'll have the equipment to smoothen out my sauce markedly.
Probably a good thing we had that little discussion. Thinking about it keeps me away and restores this to a little echo chamber. You guys seem to like that better.
Post by: Anthony on May 16, 2019, 01:44:10 PM
First, Bourbon isn't Italian, that is true. But it provides deep flavors via the tannins introduced in the ageing process, and works really harmoniously with tomato and garlic. Vodka isn't Italian either, and Becky is so stupid she probably has never heard of vodka/tomato sauce. i don't actually use it much because of all the cream. Fattening.
Don't know what you guys have against a little cornstarch, its utterly neutral and just thickens things up a bit. That said, I probably won't need it next edition. I'll have the equipment to smoothen out my sauce markedly.
Probably a good thing we had that little discussion. Thinking about it keeps me away and restores this to a little echo chamber. You guys seem to like that better.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I prefer to have people that don't call others "stupid" constantly over a disagreement about a pizza sauce recipe. If that keeps you away, then goodness knows anything would. I just don't think you have the BALLS to debate.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on May 16, 2019, 02:22:09 PM
Just quoted you. Don't know why, you're too stupid to look up an old thread.This is getting ridiculous. You lie once more and name call to boot. Weird.
What needs to happen here, since all the posts are there to see, is that you say something like “Oops, you’re right,” but that would mean I might be right about other things, too, and you can’t allow that.
You left out that I added red wine to the tomato (you said “unadulterated”) and you left the cornstarch out of your defense of your own sauce. Probably because even you know that tomato-based sauces are thickened by reduction, not by adding starch.
Steingar, I still believe there’s a conservative inside you trying to get out. You are the most locked-down, intransigent automaton of a liberal that I’ve ever interacted with. Come on. Let it go ... just let go .... it’ll be a big relief and we’ll all have a good laugh with you as we welcome you with open arms.
Breathe, man. C’mon!
Post by: nddons on May 16, 2019, 02:41:56 PM
Just quoted you. Don't know why, you're too stupid to look up an old thread.What the fuck is wrong with you? Did you get beat up by the girls on the block?
Post by: Little Joe on May 16, 2019, 02:44:38 PM
I can't speak for anyone else, but I prefer to have people that don't call others "stupid" constantly over a disagreement about a pizza sauce recipe. If that keeps you away, then goodness knows anything would. I just don't think you have the BALLS to debate.I whole heartedly agree with you. The only reason I didn't call him is that I am sure he has been called worse on this thread. I wish both sides would stop with the name calling and argue points.
Post by: Little Joe on May 16, 2019, 02:53:08 PM
First, Bourbon isn't Italian, that is true. But it provides deep flavors via the tannins introduced in the ageing process, and works really harmoniously with tomato and garlic. Vodka isn't Italian either, and Becky is so stupid she probably has never heard of vodka/tomato sauce. i don't actually use it much because of all the cream. Fattening.Actually, the only reason I would hesitate to add bourbon is that I don't particularly like bourbon. But then again, there are some weird people that don't like Scotch (which I would NEVER put in pizza sauce). So I guess there is no accounting for taste.
Don't know what you guys have against a little cornstarch, its utterly neutral and just thickens things up a bit. That said, I probably won't need it next edition. I'll have the equipment to smoothen out my sauce markedly.
Probably a good thing we had that little discussion. Thinking about it keeps me away and restores this to a little echo chamber. You guys seem to like that better.
As for corn starch, you are right, it is kind of neutral and not a big problem. But it is so unnecessary. Slowly simmered sauce will thicken it up and one of the basic tenets of Italian cooking is simplicity. Use minimal ingredients. That is what appeals to me about Becky's sauce. Simple.
Steingar, I know name-calling goes on on both sides, but one way to limit it is to not do it. I think we could be friends IRL, but I can't abide by the name calling. That is why I have refused to meet various conservatives at fly-ins.
Oh by the way, Hillary is a big fat whore and anybody that respects her is a morally corrupt hypocrite. (Just thought I would throw in a little gratuitous name calling to show how shallow it sounds).
Post by: Rush on May 16, 2019, 05:46:34 PM
Oh by the way, Hillary is a big fat whore and anybody that respects her is a morally corrupt hypocrite.
Wrong. To be a whore somebody has to want to do you.
Post by: Anthony on May 16, 2019, 06:03:46 PM
Wrong. To be a whore somebody has to want to do you.
lol! I was thinking the same thing. However, she sold her and Bill's influence for money to foreign enemies. So whore yes. Sexually NO. Hell no. Gross, disgustingly NO!
Post by: Rush on May 16, 2019, 06:27:57 PM
lol! I was thinking the same thing. However, she sold her and Bill's influence for money to foreign enemies. So whore yes. Sexually NO. Hell no. Gross, disgustingly NO!
Yes, I certainly agree with the spirit of Little Joe's comment.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 17, 2019, 05:33:13 AM
https://www.theepochtimes.com/spygate-the-inside-story-behind-the-alleged-plot-to-take-down-trump_2833074.html
Post by: Anthony on May 17, 2019, 05:47:14 AM
Post by: Lucifer on May 17, 2019, 05:48:01 AM
Anyone read this?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/spygate-the-inside-story-behind-the-alleged-plot-to-take-down-trump_2833074.html
Yep. As this continues to unfold, the American public is going to find out this was all directed, and ultimately run from the Obama WH.
Hopefully BHO will get to sit down with a Grand Jury.
Post by: Lucifer on May 17, 2019, 06:10:26 AM
Post by: Lucifer on May 17, 2019, 06:13:01 AM
I’m still waiting for him to respond to my question a few post back. I won’t hold my breath though.
Post by: Anthony on May 17, 2019, 06:19:22 AM
Perfesser is nothing more than comic relief here. He can’t defend his bizarre comments and performs his typical drive by shit flinging.
I’m still waiting for him to respond to my question a few post back. I won’t hold my breath though.
I'll say it again. Very few liberal/progressives can defend their positions in any real way. That's why the do drive by's, or no longer participate.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on May 17, 2019, 07:57:37 AM
I'll say it again. Very few liberal/progressives can defend their positions in any real way. That's why the do drive by's, or no longer participate.I saw this last night with a liberal who is very dear to me. The rest of us at dinner were conservatives. You could see she was trying ... but it all came back to how she FELT and how other people FELT. We’d lay out the case for reason and showed her how things could better be arranged for human flourishing. She would nod her head. And then shake her head. “But everyone needs to feel (insert liberal trigger word ... included, accepted, etc.).
And so on. I’m sure some of you are quite familiar with this.
Post by: Rush on May 17, 2019, 08:32:10 AM
I saw this last night with a liberal who is very dear to me. The rest of us at dinner were conservatives. You could see she was trying ... but it all came back to how she FELT and how other people FELT. We’d lay out the case for reason and showed her how things could better be arranged for human flourishing. She would nod her head. And then shake her head. “But everyone needs to feel (insert liberal trigger word ... included, accepted, etc.).
And so on. I’m sure some of you are quite familiar with this.
Very familiar. And not just in politics, and not just liberals. Although liberals in general form opinions based on feelings not logic and conservatives in general the reverse, there are exceptions.
Your story reminds me of one day many years ago when I was the single holdout at a table. It was on the subject of diet. At the time I was a vegetarian, and eating extremely low fat. I completely bought into the now debunked paradigm that fat, dietary cholesterol and meat were the evils that caused disease. I was blathering on about it, when one person said I was flat out wrong. He mentioned Atkins, who I'd never heard of at the time. He laid down some logic about simple carbs being the real culprit, not fat and meat. The other people at the table seemed to agree with him. I was left attempting to defend my position alone.
Here's the thing: At the time, I was following a "low fat" book that had been recommended to me by someone I regarded as a genius. My feeling was that this person could never be wrong about anything, and THAT was the actual basis of my position. Because of that feeling I was not the least swayed. But I found myself without wind in my sails, because I could not refute him with facts and logic.
I was not convinced that day, but it had planted a seed. I ended up buying the Atkins book, and Protein Power, and others and starting a quest for the truth. As part of the process, as I began seeing the evidence, I had to take that person off the pedestal and admit he was human and could be mistaken. In the end, he too came around, and now we are both exploring keto and even carnivore diets.
Post by: nddons on May 17, 2019, 09:07:21 AM
Anyone read this?Great article. Awesome but long synopsis.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/spygate-the-inside-story-behind-the-alleged-plot-to-take-down-trump_2833074.html
Post by: Lucifer on May 17, 2019, 12:11:42 PM
Post by: Lucifer on May 17, 2019, 12:13:41 PM
Post by: Lucifer on May 17, 2019, 12:16:47 PM
Post by: Rush on May 17, 2019, 01:10:07 PM
Great article. Awesome but long synopsis.
It's an awesome summary of the whole thing, I have been looking for something like this. It is long though, taking me all day to read it on work breaks.
Azure, it'll get you up to speed without having to listen to days and days of Limbaugh and Hannity.
Post by: nddons on May 17, 2019, 01:39:43 PM
It's an awesome summary of the whole thing, I have been looking for something like this. It is long though, taking me all day to read it on work breaks.I like both Rushes - you and him - but Hannity lost me a log time ago. I was a Fox regular and I couldn’t take him any more. He cannot let a guest speak without stepping on every single sentence.
Azure, it'll get you up to speed without having to listen to days and days of Limbaugh and Hannity.
Tucker Carlson is the real deal and skillfully allows liberals to hang themselves by their own petards.
Post by: Anthony on May 17, 2019, 03:16:46 PM
I like both Rushes - you and him - but Hannity lost me a log time ago. I was a Fox regular and I couldn’t take him any more. He cannot let a guest speak without stepping on every single sentence.
Tucker Carlson is the real deal and skillfully allows liberals to hang themselves by their own petards.
I cut the cable a while back, so don't get Fox anymore, unless I go on their website to view segments. I like Tucker, but my favorite Fox host is Greg Gutfeld, a former Berkley liberal turned conservatarian. I also like Jesse Waters when he does on the street interviews, "Waters World". And of course ALL the Fox News women. :)
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 17, 2019, 04:50:56 PM
I cut the cable a while back, so don't get Fox anymore, unless I go on their website to view segments. I like Tucker, but my favorite Fox host is Greg Gutfeld, a former Berkley liberal turned conservatarian. I also like Jesse Waters when he does on the street interviews, "Waters World". And of course ALL the Fox News women. :)DirecTV NOW
Post by: Rush on May 17, 2019, 05:23:39 PM
I like both Rushes - you and him - but Hannity lost me a log time ago. I was a Fox regular and I couldn’t take him any more. He cannot let a guest speak without stepping on every single sentence.
Tucker Carlson is the real deal and skillfully allows liberals to hang themselves by their own petards.
I can’t watch Hannity on TV because of that and I never watch any TV anyway so I don’t see Tucker Carlson although I like him a lot the couple times I have seen him. I listen to the radio while I work. Hannity is not quite as bad on the radio. I think he is less constrained with commercial breaks. But he still does it.
Post by: azure on May 17, 2019, 07:31:46 PM
It's an awesome summary of the whole thing, I have been looking for something like this. It is long though, taking me all day to read it on work breaks.
Azure, it'll get you up to speed without having to listen to days and days of Limbaugh and Hannity.
I've been busy the last couple of days on a paper, but I just saw this and will read it. Odd though, according to Wikipedia, Epoch Times was founded by a group of Chinese ex-pats and was originally primarily focused on Chinese-related issues. Apparently they've expanded well beyond their original mission, which is fine, but I still wonder, what is their angle on all this?
Post by: Lucifer on May 17, 2019, 07:58:00 PM
I've been busy the last couple of days on a paper, but I just saw this and will read it. Odd though, according to Wikipedia, Epoch Times was founded by a group of Chinese ex-pats and was originally primarily focused on Chinese-related issues. Apparently they've expanded well beyond their original mission, which is fine, but I still wonder, what is their angle on all this?
Capitalism. The site has expanded and is obviously become financially successful. The site has also been recognized as offering a balanced look at the news which has helped it grow. And growth means increased revenue. Capitalism, what a wonderful concept.
And the writer of the article is Jeff Carlson, who is most definitely not Chinese.
Post by: bflynn on May 18, 2019, 08:46:39 AM
Anyone read this?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/spygate-the-inside-story-behind-the-alleged-plot-to-take-down-trump_2833074.html
I find it a scary read - it is the blue print for how to bring down the Republic and almost everyone, even those opposed to the Left, are blind to why.
The big take away I have is that it's not OK to for anyone to set aside their oversight. Essentially, the Obama administration made a rule that said that they would have no oversight in certain areas. They didn't jump to using FISA to spy on the Trump campaign, they grew into it. If Hillary had won, they would have had 4 or 8 more years of doing that and who knows how much more they would have gone to?
Worse, because this isn't widely recognized, they get to try it again. The next time they are in control of the government, expect them to continue to weaponize the government, using redefinition of law in order to protect themselves. At this point, if they can string together 16 years of government, we may go past the tipping point.
IMO, the biggest threat to the United States today is the Democrat party.
Post by: Anthony on May 18, 2019, 08:53:32 AM
IMO, the biggest threat to the United States today is the Democrat party.
Agreed, and as I often do, I would add the Media, Education, most of Government and now most of corporate America, who at least in leadership has become Far Left Progressive.
Post by: Rush on May 18, 2019, 09:36:43 AM
I find it a scary read - it is the blue print for how to bring down the Republic and almost everyone, even those opposed to the Left, are blind to why.
The big take away I have is that it's not OK to for anyone to set aside their oversight. Essentially, the Obama administration made a rule that said that they would have no oversight in certain areas. They didn't jump to using FISA to spy on the Trump campaign, they grew into it. If Hillary had won, they would have had 4 or 8 more years of doing that and who knows how much more they would have gone to?
Worse, because this isn't widely recognized, they get to try it again. The next time they are in control of the government, expect them to continue to weaponize the government, using redefinition of law in order to protect themselves. At this point, if they can string together 16 years of government, we may go past the tipping point.
IMO, the biggest threat to the United States today is the Democrat party.
You are right. That’s why it’s so important all of this is brought to light and prosecuted. These people must be brought to account and punished. This abuse cannot be allowed to happen again. And you are right, if this isn’t fixed now, I fear the nation is lost.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 18, 2019, 07:39:34 PM
Post by: Rush on May 19, 2019, 04:56:09 AM
Here in Atlanta we have Monica Perez, who does a three hour radio show on Saturdays. She is Libertarian and looks at both sides very closely, actually govt in general. Today’s show she talked about what is happening after the Christ Church massacre. You should look her up and listen to some of podcasts.
That sounds like Neal Boortz. I miss his show. I’ll check her out.
Post by: NippleBoy on May 20, 2019, 08:50:52 PM
Post by: Rush on May 21, 2019, 04:55:53 AM
I loved his coverage of the Great Georgia Cat Chasing Championship!
I remember that! I remember exactly where I was as I listened to it, it was that epic. Like the Kennedy assassination or 9/11 only in a good way.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 21, 2019, 04:59:41 AM
Post by: NippleBoy on May 21, 2019, 08:32:16 AM
I remember that! I remember exactly where I was as I listened to it, it was that epic. Like the Kennedy assassination or 9/11 only in a good way.
I was thinking more like War of the Worlds.
I have it in MP3, as well as a cassette tape.
Post by: Anthony on May 21, 2019, 09:31:44 AM
I was thinking more like War of the Worlds.
I have it in MP3, as well as a cassette tape.
My Dad heard that live in 1939 when he was 17. He told me people actually thought the Martians were attacking.