-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 10:50:35 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Bellagio 10452
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 522959 times)
0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #875 on: April 23, 2016, 11:23:29 AM »

By the way, question for you all: do you think it would be helpful if we defined some terms for ourselves and others? We've discussed in passing several times how some words' meanings have changed (liberal, for example), how some are conflated (liberal with Democrat, conservative with Republican, etc.), and beyond that, there are likely some people here who just aren't familiar with various terminology.

Does it seem worthwhile to anyone to have that codified for our purposes here? If we all agree that when we say liberal, we mean classical liberal (or not), it might be helpful. And the other kinds of things just might help these discussions be less intimidating for anyone for whom it might be. Just an idea. It could be its own thread so as not to derail actual content-rich discussions, or it could be done offline via PMs, or whatever. Then maybe stickied, if anyone thinks that's warranted?

As you can see, I am very cool. I kind of get off on agreed-upon definitions. Back off, ladies, don't crowd me. I know, I know. Irresistible.

Discuss amongst yourselves while I go drink and read.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #876 on: April 23, 2016, 11:25:44 AM »


Trump: I know but you didn't see me, is my point. I was wearing my "let's make a deal" tie.
Watson: You have to get Missouri back. The Missourians are confused. Half of them think they have to move to Luxembourg.


LOL! You, sir, have done fine work. The whole thing was great, but those two quoted above are my favorites.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #877 on: April 23, 2016, 11:29:45 AM »

CSM is a highbrow comedian! LOL
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #878 on: April 23, 2016, 11:30:03 AM »

By the way, question for you all: do you think it would be helpful if we defined some terms for ourselves and others? We've discussed in passing several times how some words' meanings have changed (liberal, for example), how some are conflated (liberal with Democrat, conservative with Republican, etc.), and beyond that, there are likely some people here who just aren't familiar with various terminology.

Does it seem worthwhile to anyone to have that codified for our purposes here? If we all agree that when we say liberal, we mean classical liberal (or not), it might be helpful. And the other kinds of things just might help these discussions be less intimidating for anyone for whom it might be. Just an idea. It could be its own thread so as not to derail actual content-rich discussions, or it could be done offline via PMs, or whatever. Then maybe stickied, if anyone thinks that's warranted?

As you can see, I am very cool. I kind of get off on agreed-upon definitions. Back off, ladies, don't crowd me. I know, I know. Irresistible.

Discuss amongst yourselves while I go drink and read.
I would love the discussion. I'd think the end-goal would be next to impossible to achieve.
Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #879 on: April 23, 2016, 11:47:20 AM »

Watson: Can we please talk about your meeting with Luxembourg's Prime Minister.
Trump: Why do I have to keep meeting with this guy? The deal is done. He has Missouri now. Case closed.

This is my favorite.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #880 on: April 23, 2016, 12:02:07 PM »

Because I always get so worried about originality, I do want to give credit to others.

The idea of Trump re-modelling the White House was not mine. There are several examples of that out there but here's one I found: http://mashable.com/2016/01/30/donald-trump-white-house/#Ehuxz4eFiiqk

And also the sketch is somewhat inspired by a sketch from SNL from around 2000, which was an oddly (and unfortunately) prescient skit where Bush destroys the county in his first two weeks in office. Although the dialogue doesn't say it, he showed a map at some point which showed different parts of the country having disappeared:

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/00/00dglimpse1.phtml

Anyway, just wanted to get that out there or else I wouldn't have slept tonight.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #881 on: April 23, 2016, 04:35:16 PM »

By the way, question for you all: do you think it would be helpful if we defined some terms for ourselves and others? We've discussed in passing several times how some words' meanings have changed (liberal, for example), how some are conflated (liberal with Democrat, conservative with Republican, etc.), and beyond that, there are likely some people here who just aren't familiar with various terminology.

Does it seem worthwhile to anyone to have that codified for our purposes here? If we all agree that when we say liberal, we mean classical liberal (or not), it might be helpful. And the other kinds of things just might help these discussions be less intimidating for anyone for whom it might be. Just an idea. It could be its own thread so as not to derail actual content-rich discussions, or it could be done offline via PMs, or whatever. Then maybe stickied, if anyone thinks that's warranted?

As you can see, I am very cool. I kind of get off on agreed-upon definitions. Back off, ladies, don't crowd me. I know, I know. Irresistible.

Discuss amongst yourselves while I go drink and read.
I would love the discussion. I'd think the end-goal would be next to impossible to achieve.

You think so? You don't think the core group of participants couldn't agree meanings of terms? I think even those of us from different points of view could agree on definitions, for the most part.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #882 on: April 23, 2016, 04:47:29 PM »

By the way, question for you all: do you think it would be helpful if we defined some terms for ourselves and others? We've discussed in passing several times how some words' meanings have changed (liberal, for example), how some are conflated (liberal with Democrat, conservative with Republican, etc.), and beyond that, there are likely some people here who just aren't familiar with various terminology.

Does it seem worthwhile to anyone to have that codified for our purposes here? If we all agree that when we say liberal, we mean classical liberal (or not), it might be helpful. And the other kinds of things just might help these discussions be less intimidating for anyone for whom it might be. Just an idea. It could be its own thread so as not to derail actual content-rich discussions, or it could be done offline via PMs, or whatever. Then maybe stickied, if anyone thinks that's warranted?

As you can see, I am very cool. I kind of get off on agreed-upon definitions. Back off, ladies, don't crowd me. I know, I know. Irresistible.

Discuss amongst yourselves while I go drink and read.
I would love the discussion. I'd think the end-goal would be next to impossible to achieve.

You think so? You don't think the core group of participants couldn't agree meanings of terms? I think even those of us from different points of view could agree on definitions, for the most part.
Maybe... I don't think of it as a problem of who is doing the discussing, but a problem of trying to pin down definitions when the thing being described is so complex and varying. But I'd be happy to give it a go. Perhaps if we didn't define them ourselves, but borrowed definitions. For instance, for your example ('liberalism' = 'classical liberalism') we could agree then to use the Wikipedia definition of classical liberalism, rather than struggling to define it ourselves. That could work, maybe.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2016, 04:50:49 PM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #883 on: April 23, 2016, 04:52:59 PM »

Oh, sure. I don't mean we had to craft each sentence and word from scratch. Just a go-to in case Person A says X, Person B says X+1, but they use different Xs.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #884 on: April 23, 2016, 05:12:48 PM »

I'd be happy for the discussion.

Without using any serious definitions but, maybe, just to get the ball rolling I'll offer a few preliminary thoughts.

My sense of some of these definition has been, in some ways, informed by the good people over at political compass. When I think of the political spectrum from left to right, I tend to think of the right as being made of various different shades of thought that occur under the umbrella of private ownership while I consider the left to be made up of the various shades of thought that occur under the umbrella of public/common/collective ownership. Consequently, I see liberalism on the centre-right of the political spectrum, representing the interests of private markets as well as the concept of nationhood, with some emphasis on liberty, progress, etc. While a liberal is pro-private enterprise, he or she will also intervene in the market but not necessarily to only benefit the weak but also the powerful. If you are pro-private business but intervene almost exclusively to help the weak and to vigorously prevent a disparity between the rich and the poor, then that position puts you closer to the moderate centre of the political spectrum as a Social Democrat.

Like Chomsky, I don't think the term conservative can be properly applied to Republicans or exclusively to the right. I think the farther to the right you get from liberalism, you move towards being reactionary. The Republican party is now, in my opinion, further to the right of even that and are, by and large, reactionary extremists. But I think that you could be conservative on all sides of the political spectrum since, for me, conservatism typically means being free from power. On the right, for that, you have the US-style libertarian movement which means being free from government control. On the left, you have everywhere else's style of libertarianism which means being free from the more powerful agents in the world - multinational corporations and private enterprise. Back in the 19th century, this meant being free from religious power.

On the left you get the various shades of socialism, collective ownership, common ownership, etc. which are worth discussing too but rarely within a conversation about US politics where, in my view, the left has been completely disenfranchised and eliminated entirely from political power.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2016, 05:17:17 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #885 on: April 23, 2016, 06:27:34 PM »

How about this? I'll start a thread--Political Definitions or some such thing--and jot down a bunch of terms to define along with brief working definitions from some single resource. The idea won't be to intimidate or bog down anyone, but the opposite: to be as clear and concise as we can on certain, likely-to-be-regularly-used terms. Then we can fine-tune the definitions and add to or subtract from the word list as we see fit. We can get into conversations along the lines of what CSM just wrote, but then use those discussions to tweak our hopefully concise definitions.

And if that sounds stupid, we can let the thread sink like a rock.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #886 on: April 23, 2016, 06:29:44 PM »

Sounds good to me.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #887 on: April 24, 2016, 11:18:47 AM »

Emily - Starting with Hillary, yes, I believe that Hillary, who "held herself out" for future candidacy should have kept her own skirts clean. She did not. Then there is the email server and Benghazi. Anyone with a son or daughter in the military can look at her without confidence, and know she would have thrown my kids and theirs under the bus.

She did very little besides ceremonial duties for those families. Only a Congressional Bill got Glen Doherty's (a contractor who was killed in Benghazi) family benefits.  What did she do?  She blamed a terror attack on a video while telling Chelsea that the 9/11/2012 attack was that of a terrorist.  She is on record as such.

When a fundamental right is involved and that is voting, the federal courts can and will become involved. That is why when geographic lines are "gerrymandered" by legislators, to create districts that enhance their friends elections or create voting districts that are racially identifiable, at the state level, those legislators are prosecuted in federal court. While the states have traditionally had the role of setting up elections, should "irregularities" occur that prevent the fundamental right of voting to happen they have the ability to step into that as well. If there is a deprivation of voting rights as a result of these election irregularities, where "full voter participation" has been impeded, or politically marginalized citizens, the feds can jump right in.  

With all the attention raised to election irregularities, the feds can step in. The feds tell us how much money we can contribute, to political candidates, after Watergate. There may be legislation enacted to change that voting formula and standardize presidential primaries.  
  
http://nypost.com/2016/04/22/de-blasio-aides-accused-of-criminal-fundraising-activity/   It was this NYC department that was involved in the voting problems the other day, so I look at it as aggregate evidence as against that administration.  

We don't need grammar/spelling Nazis, nitpicking, in my view. If you are in a stream-of-consciousness mode, it is highly unlikely that anyone will care so long as the message is communicated.  There are many here, who do not speak English as their first language and their contributions enhance the perspective of the board. The BB/BW sphere is universal but the English language is not.

Those are my opinions, formulated with the information I have.  We all have our own perspectives. And, I'm not confused.      Wink
Hi FdP,
Regarding Benghazi, I haven't seen her do anything I considered wrong, so it's not really an issue to me, beyond the tragedy of what happened of course.
Regarding the Feds getting involved in voting, yes, if the states violate a civil right, fundamental or not, and don't address it, the Feds should get involved. I support the Civil Rights Act, for instance.
But again, we have three topics (four including Hillary) and I don't know to which you are applying that point:
1. Open v closed primaries. No right to vote involved, so not pertinent.
2. Irregularities in Brooklyn - no pattern established; appears to be a one off; the state is investigating. I'm sure the Feds will watch the case and if it appears that something nefarious happened related to civil rights and the state doesn't address it, they'll get involved.
3. Consistency in party nominations among the states; no rights involved.

Regarding grammar, trying to understand what your interlocutor is saying hardly seems fascist to me.
Trump does though.
Emily - DeBlasio has big problems.  

http://nypost.com/2016/04/23/more-de-blasio-cronies-eyed-as-feds-widen-corruption-probe/

What is the problem is the disparity among the states for the way primaries are conducted. It does sound a little "state's rights" on your part. Isn't that the Republican mantra? That is fine.  This process was not as focused on in the same manner years back when there were contentious elections as much as in this election cycle.

We have Roku, and all kinds of other ways to stay on top of an election cycle.  Twitter was out in 2008, but not as it is now, to let people keep tabs on the different state's election results. It has raised the bar for election participation. That is a great aspect of this election cycle.

Benghazi may seem excusable to you. It is not to me on any level. Vets I know have no use for her.  Those are real votes of invested Americans, mostly traditional Democrats who are lost to the party.  Fourth-generation Democrats and very politically active vets, who work polls, do stand-outs, phone banks and raise money for their candidates.  

Of course peoples' rights are in issue when their "access" is impeded whether the polls don't open on time, or don't have 120,000 voters going missing. It abridges the process.  

It seems that you giving Hillary a pass, and excusing her behavior with the double standard for the email server issue and at least Benghazi.  We needed a strong woman - not another "yes man" entrenched in quid-pro-quo politics.  She was a better candidate for women in 2008 in my opinion than she is now.  Elections are dirty. Hillary should have been the nominee in 2008.  

Emily - Do you really want to see Bill Clinton back in the White House with his track record?  And I don't mean his legislative or policy record.   Wink



  
« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 11:26:57 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #888 on: April 24, 2016, 12:23:55 PM »

Emily - Starting with Hillary, yes, I believe that Hillary, who "held herself out" for future candidacy should have kept her own skirts clean. She did not. Then there is the email server and Benghazi. Anyone with a son or daughter in the military can look at her without confidence, and know she would have thrown my kids and theirs under the bus.

She did very little besides ceremonial duties for those families. Only a Congressional Bill got Glen Doherty's (a contractor who was killed in Benghazi) family benefits.  What did she do?  She blamed a terror attack on a video while telling Chelsea that the 9/11/2012 attack was that of a terrorist.  She is on record as such.

When a fundamental right is involved and that is voting, the federal courts can and will become involved. That is why when geographic lines are "gerrymandered" by legislators, to create districts that enhance their friends elections or create voting districts that are racially identifiable, at the state level, those legislators are prosecuted in federal court. While the states have traditionally had the role of setting up elections, should "irregularities" occur that prevent the fundamental right of voting to happen they have the ability to step into that as well. If there is a deprivation of voting rights as a result of these election irregularities, where "full voter participation" has been impeded, or politically marginalized citizens, the feds can jump right in.  

With all the attention raised to election irregularities, the feds can step in. The feds tell us how much money we can contribute, to political candidates, after Watergate. There may be legislation enacted to change that voting formula and standardize presidential primaries.  
  
http://nypost.com/2016/04/22/de-blasio-aides-accused-of-criminal-fundraising-activity/   It was this NYC department that was involved in the voting problems the other day, so I look at it as aggregate evidence as against that administration.  

We don't need grammar/spelling Nazis, nitpicking, in my view. If you are in a stream-of-consciousness mode, it is highly unlikely that anyone will care so long as the message is communicated.  There are many here, who do not speak English as their first language and their contributions enhance the perspective of the board. The BB/BW sphere is universal but the English language is not.

Those are my opinions, formulated with the information I have.  We all have our own perspectives. And, I'm not confused.      Wink
Hi FdP,
Regarding Benghazi, I haven't seen her do anything I considered wrong, so it's not really an issue to me, beyond the tragedy of what happened of course.
Regarding the Feds getting involved in voting, yes, if the states violate a civil right, fundamental or not, and don't address it, the Feds should get involved. I support the Civil Rights Act, for instance.
But again, we have three topics (four including Hillary) and I don't know to which you are applying that point:
1. Open v closed primaries. No right to vote involved, so not pertinent.
2. Irregularities in Brooklyn - no pattern established; appears to be a one off; the state is investigating. I'm sure the Feds will watch the case and if it appears that something nefarious happened related to civil rights and the state doesn't address it, they'll get involved.
3. Consistency in party nominations among the states; no rights involved.

Regarding grammar, trying to understand what your interlocutor is saying hardly seems fascist to me.
Trump does though.
Emily - DeBlasio has big problems.  

http://nypost.com/2016/04/23/more-de-blasio-cronies-eyed-as-feds-widen-corruption-probe/

What is the problem is the disparity among the states for the way primaries are conducted. It does sound a little "state's rights" on your part. Isn't that the Republican mantra? That is fine.  This process was not as focused on in the same manner years back when there were contentious elections as much as in this election cycle.

We have Roku, and all kinds of other ways to stay on top of an election cycle.  Twitter was out in 2008, but not as it is now, to let people keep tabs on the different state's election results. It has raised the bar for election participation. That is a great aspect of this election cycle.

Benghazi may seem excusable to you. It is not to me on any level. Vets I know have no use for her.  Those are real votes of invested Americans, mostly traditional Democrats who are lost to the party.  Fourth-generation Democrats and very politically active vets, who work polls, do stand-outs, phone banks and raise money for their candidates.  

Of course peoples' rights are in issue when their "access" is impeded whether the polls don't open on time, or don't have 120,000 voters going missing. It abridges the process.  

It seems that you giving Hillary a pass, and excusing her behavior with the double standard for the email server issue and at least Benghazi.  We needed a strong woman - not another "yes man" entrenched in quid-pro-quo politics.  She was a better candidate for women in 2008 in my opinion than she is now.  Elections are dirty. Hillary should have been the nominee in 2008.  

Emily - Do you really want to see Bill Clinton back in the White House with his track record?  And I don't mean his legislative or policy record.   Wink



  
Consistency among states: The difference is that I don't advocate for states' rights. I wouldn't mind if the Feds managed it. But I recognize that it is a states' right as we stand. It's explicit in the constitution. But you're right that many Republicans would have a hissy if we tried to change it.

Voters dropped off rolls/other irregularities: I have not disagreed with you that these are concerns.

Hillary: quite the opposite. I believe it is you, as you have confessed in two consecutive posts; who holds Hillary to a different standard. I'm just not making a fuss over things that I wouldn't make a fuss about in other cases. I believe the people making fusses over those things are doing so because, since the '90s, it's been their habit to hysterically yell about Clinton corruption at the drop of a hat. Had you told me Colin Powell used his private email for work emails, I would've said 'meh'. Had you told me that he explained an attack on troops in Afghanistan a few different ways in the days after it happened, I would have said 'meh'.

Having been in the military at the beginning of Clinton's presidency, i'm extremely aware how shockingly politicized and extreme right  the hegemonic culture in the military is. From the beginning of his presidency, people in the military resisted replacing Bush's picture with his; resisted replacing Bush's name with his; argued that things that used to give reference to the Commander-in-Chief didn't need to. The military was indeed behaving treasonously. Reagan, following up what Nixon started, poisoned Americans' minds with a toxin that has rendered the right mad and increasingly frantic: the notion that only the extreme right is patriotic; that only they are 'real Americans;' that their philosophy is 'the' American philosophy; that everyone else is to be looked upon with suspicion and derision. And the military culture took this to heart and has been essentially treasonous under Democrats since then.


« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 12:28:53 PM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #889 on: April 24, 2016, 01:48:49 PM »

Emily - You don't have to "confess" anything.  I respect that you were in the military.  It is unreal how many women have developed the physical skill sets necessary to pass boot camp.  I remember being with one of my sons when he graduated Army boot camp, and meeting some young ladies who were going to repeat another round of boot camp, because they did not pass some of the physical stuff, but were determined not to quit. In terms of that, I take off my hat to you. Politically, we may disagree. 
 
But, I can't get beyond the "irregularities" and the flip-flopping on the crime bill, the over incarceration rates, and her personal vested financial interest in private prison. I cannot get beyond the Benghazi falsehoods, and the security breach of her government correspondence. And, I do want a woman in the White House.  Hillary was held to a higher standard, but she had the background to be able to rise above the crowd and didn't. When you are the first, (such as any woman breaking the glass ceiling) you need to be unimpeachable.     

It is grossly unfair to classify only one political party as "real Americans." That is just propaganda.  Especially coming from those, who were involved in WWII when "everyone went" to war.  That cut party lines.  The parties do not have patriotism as a cornered market.  When Jeb Bush in his desperation, dragged out all those generals for his media ads, people just saw thought that. Flag-waving does not translate to patriotism.  I agree with you.  And, I like Colin Powell.                 

After this election, there may be some uniformity legislated with these once-in-four-year primaries, and a lesser reliance on the two major parties. Both parties will have a hissy because it has become a quid-pro-quo.  It is all about the ingrained "access" that comes with the political class, regardless of party affiliation. 

There are a lot of RINO's this year who were prudent enough to change party affiliation before the primary. RINO, for those who don't understand the acronym - Republican In Name Only.  It is more voting "the person," or protesting voting along party-lines.   Wink
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #890 on: April 24, 2016, 01:53:45 PM »

Emily - You don't have to "confess" anything.  I respect that you were in the military.  It is unreal how many women have developed the physical skill sets necessary to pass boot camp.  I remember being with one of my sons when he graduated Army boot camp, and meeting some young ladies who were going to repeat another round of boot camp, because they did not pass some of the physical stuff, but were determined not to quit. In terms of that, I take off my hat to you. Politically, we may disagree. 
 
But, I can't get beyond the "irregularities" and the flip-flopping on the crime bill, the over incarceration rates, and her personal vested financial interest in private prison. I cannot get beyond the Benghazi falsehoods, and the security breach of her government correspondence. And, I do want a woman in the White House.  Hillary was held to a higher standard, but she had the background to be able to rise above the crowd and didn't. When you are the first, (such as any woman breaking the glass ceiling) you need to be unimpeachable.     

It is grossly unfair to classify only one political party as "real Americans." That is just propaganda.  Especially coming from those, who were involved in WWII when "everyone went" to war.  That cut party lines.  The parties do not have patriotism as a cornered market.  When Jeb Bush in his desperation, dragged out all those generals for his media ads, people just saw thought that. Flag-waving does not translate to patriotism.  I agree with you.  And, I like Colin Powell.                 

After this election, there may be some uniformity legislated with these once-in-four-year primaries, and a lesser reliance on the two major parties. Both parties will have a hissy because it has become a quid-pro-quo.  It is all about the ingrained "access" that comes with the political class, regardless of party affiliation. 

There are a lot of RINO's this year who were prudent enough to change party affiliation before the primary. RINO, for those who don't understand the acronym - Republican In Name Only.  It is more voting "the person," or protesting voting along party-lines.   Wink

I thank you for paragraph 1. I could do 90 pushups in 2 minutes. I was bad ass. So much for women don't have upper body strength.
I agree with paragraph 3.  Smiley
Logged
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #891 on: April 25, 2016, 08:51:33 AM »

And, I like Colin Powell.                 

So you like Colin Powell, who lied to the United Nations on behalf of the Bush administration to get us into a needless war in Iraq, yet Hillary is a C U Next Tuesday?

Also, it's amusing how people like you are so mad at the Obama administration and Secretary Clinton for Benghazi, yet I've never seen you fault Dubya and his adminstration's horrible preparation for and then response to 9/11.

You're so fuckin' partisan it is insane. Emily is a lovely, lovely person for even trying to engage with you because you've shown before on this board that you are just so full of sh*t.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #892 on: April 25, 2016, 09:43:49 AM »

Not coincidentally, the insane, hypocritical, and transparently manipulative build-up to the Iraq invasion is when I decided I needed to get out of this country. And I did for 5 years.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #893 on: April 25, 2016, 10:16:39 AM »

And, I like Colin Powell.                

So you like Colin Powell, who lied to the United Nations on behalf of the Bush administration to get us into a needless war in Iraq, yet Hillary is a C U Next Tuesday?

Also, it's amusing how people like you are so mad at the Obama administration and Secretary Clinton for Benghazi, yet I've never seen you fault Dubya and his adminstration's horrible preparation for and then response to 9/11.

You're so fuckin' partisan it is insane. Emily is a lovely, lovely person for even trying to engage with you because you've shown before on this board that you are just so full of sh*t.
sweetdudejim - First off - I can like anyone I choose. I like Colin Powell, as a person, outside of the Bush administration.  My prerogative.

If you read what I wrote above about Jeb (who is a Bush) trying to fool the public with his dragging out the generals for his media circus, you might have refrained from such a blanket statement.  Going back to the grandfather, they are a problematic dynasty.

We are missing 28 pages of a 9/11 report.  I am disgusted that Bush, who was in a classroom (as was I) on the day of the attack and did not find a way to excuse himself and get back to work.  And that Bush allowed the "family" of the attackers depart the US when other planes were grounded is a problem.  

Bush was not even part of the discussion. I merely said that I liked Colin Powell, and should not have to qualify that.  

Hillary was being discussed. And my opinion of her has declined over the last 8 years. That is my right as well.

And, I did not agree with our involvement in Iraq, except for getting involved for "humanitarian reasons" and less so that, Sadaam Hussein was not captured and brought to trial in the International Court of Justice rather than the process that took place under the Iraqi Interim Government.  Getting into Iraq was not being discussed. It was Election 2016 and the primary election issues.

Yes, Bush got us into this mess. But it was up to Obama to get us out responsibly and leave a military force sufficient to not permit the growth of what we now call ISIS.





  

« Last Edit: April 25, 2016, 10:38:13 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #894 on: April 25, 2016, 10:49:17 AM »

I am happy to have read that last post, FdP
Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #895 on: April 27, 2016, 05:25:07 PM »

You guys, Trump's doing a rally like five minutes from my house tomorrow.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #896 on: April 27, 2016, 08:03:02 PM »

You guys, Trump's doing a rally like five minutes from my house tomorrow.
I'd probably get arrested, at the very least tapped, if I'd put my initial response here.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #897 on: April 27, 2016, 08:06:41 PM »

You guys, Trump's doing a rally like five minutes from my house tomorrow.
I'd probably get arrested, at the very least tapped, if I'd put my initial response here.

Same here.
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
undercover-m
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 516



View Profile
« Reply #898 on: April 28, 2016, 12:39:08 PM »

You guys, Drumpf's doing a rally like five minutes from my house tomorrow.
Just join and see how long you can last.
Logged

"We are pushed to the wall as the heap fills the room to its limits. The window breaks. The house bursts. A heartbreakingly fine Scotch plaid passes before our eyes. Pinstripes carry us into Manhasset Bay."
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #899 on: April 28, 2016, 12:40:39 PM »

You guys, Drumpf's doing a rally like five minutes from my house tomorrow.
Just join and see how long you can last.

I told my friend we should bring a bunch of beers and tailgate it, but the security is already pretty heavy there, and it's still 7 hours away.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 1.203 seconds with 22 queries.