Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[josh]

Your problem is that everything goes back to, "but, Obama..."

Coming from Mr. "Obama cages" that is a hilarious claim.

[josh]

Well. no.

You can have boom after boom.

If (you and) I accept the premise that Obama had the economy chugging along, that doesn't have anything to do with what has happened since DT took charge. 

Some might also remind you that

a)  it's been just a little over 1/2 of one term for Trump

and

b)  some of his wants have been denied

When the growth lines have either continued on the same slope that they were on during Obama's term or they have a reduced upward slope, then yes, it has everything to do with what has happened since DT (such an appropriate term for him!) has been in charge.

"some of his wants have been denied" coming from a pro-DT fellow is yet again hilarious, Kiiid. Go back and look at the GOP record while in the majority during Obama's presidency. Read their stated intentions. Look at the refusal to pass a jobs bill.

And tell me about how Trumps' wants have been denied.

[josh]

Your problem is that everything goes back to, "but, Obama..."

If someone wants to tell the story that the economy has experienced a boom under Trump's policies then you compare his economy to the one that came before.  And when you do that based on the jobs and wages criteria that same person wanted to base his argument on, the facts don't support that story.

This is not a "problem," it is how you make an argument.  As I said, that you can't see that tells me that you fundamentally don't know how to build one.

and once again...

YOU may come here to argue.  It's a NEED for you.

Some of us... not so much.

Why are you here? To lie?

[josh]

http://theconversation.com/climate-change-weve-created-a-civilisation-hell-bent-on-destroying-itself-im-terrified-writes-earth-scientist-113055?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The thing is... we're in deep shit and a bunch of you are spending your time going "la, la, la! I'm not listening to the scientists!"

And the GOP leadership knows it's real, but cannot bring itself to admit it screwed up that badly, so it is working to screw us over even worse.

And you are either buying their bullshit or you are following their lead.

[arafura]

Tony:  "We need to stop the flow of illegal drugs into our nation"



HOW?

Lock up the users!   in non-criminal-record rehab camps.
Lock up the dealers!  in prisons.

Street hookering was a problem in bambuland.
Problem was soon solved by arresting the customers, and some of the female and male hookers.

[arafura]

:)President Trump walked out on Pelosi and Schumer’s meeting on “ infrastructure” with Trump mad that Pelosi asserted he was guilty of a coverup.

After Mr. Trump walked out, Ms. Pelosi turned to other Democrats there and recounted a story about how Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt had each brought people together to solve infrastructure problems.
“I knew he was looking for a way out,” Ms. Pelosi concluded. “We were expecting this.”
Kellyanne Conway, the counselor to the president, was in the room. “Respectfully, Madam Speaker,” she asked, “do you have a direct response to the president?”
Ms. Pelosi said she was responding to the president, not members of his staff.


Which is certainly understandable given that she and trump head co-equal branches of our Government.
But.
What to make of the House committee subpoenaing AG William Barr on the condition he be questioned by Committee staff?
Kudos to Barr for giving the Committee the Pelosi-style backhand.

Meanwhile Barr indicts asshole Assange in a bullshit attack on Journalism and the First Amendment.

Achtung, motherfuckers!

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/23/18637668/julian-assange-indictment-wikileaks-espionage-act

Which would see him off to the US death chamber for extermination.
Britain will stand condemned if it extradites him.

[arafura]

The People wanted Rudolf Abel walked into the death chamber and wheeled out dead...for espionage crime against the US.
They'll be wanting Assange put in the chamber of death too...if they get their hands on him.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee

US embassy cables culprit should be executed, says Mike Huckabee

  Republican presidential hopeful wants the person responsible for the WikiLeaks cables to face capital punishment for treason

_______________________________________________________________________

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/04/politics/kfile-trump-wikileaks/index.html

Trump in 2010: WikiLeaks 'disgraceful,' there 'should be like death penalty or something'

[facilitatorn]

Tony:  "We need to stop the flow of illegal drugs into our nation"



HOW?

Lock up the users!   in non-criminal-record rehab camps.
Lock up the dealers!  in prisons.

Street hookering was a problem in bambuland.
Problem was soon solved by arresting the customers, and some of the female and male hookers.

Now our resident Australian can only prostitute himself on behalf of bad ideas.

[kiidcarter8]

https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/1132056933769236480

[NeedsAdjustments]

https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2019/05/republicans-keep-lying-about-buttigieg-and-thomas-jefferson.html

[REDSTATEWARD]

Jonathan Chait wrote :

Naming something after somebody confers a certain amount of honor,” the mayor opined. “One of the main reasons to be in politics today is to try to change or reverse the harms” of racism, so “we’d better look for ways to live out and honor that principle, even in a symbolic thing.” If that’s what he thinks, then why stop at renaming dinners? It seems Mr. Buttigieg would also want the U.S. to rename cities, counties, streets and colleges named for slaveholders — including Washington and Madison as well as Jefferson.
Note that Rove does not have anything even close to a quote from Buttigieg saying what Rove claims it said.

What Buttigieg actually said:

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg says Americans should not be honoring Thomas Jefferson by naming events and places after the founding father.

The mayor of South Bend, Indiana, was on “The Hugh Hewitt Show” Friday and said he believes removing — not celebrating — Jefferson is “the right thing to do.”

The subject came up when Buttigieg was asked about the name of the annual Indiana Democratic dinner that used to commemorate the statues of Jefferson and Andrew Jackson within the party, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

“Well, let’s go to policy now—a very blunt question because you talk about going to every Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Indiana when you were running statewide. Should Jefferson-Jackson dinners be renamed everywhere because both were holders of slaves?” Hewitt asked.

“Yeah, we’re doing that in Indiana. I think it’s the right thing to do,” Buttigieg said. “Over time, you develop and evolve on the things you choose to honor … Jefferson is more problematic. There’s a lot of course to admire in his thinking and his philosophy, but then again if you plunge into his writings, especially the notes on the state of Virginia, you know that he knew slavery was wrong.”

[barton]

The complete quote:

  You know, over time, you develop and evolve on the things you choose to honor. And I think we know enough, especially Jackson, you know, you just look at what basically amounts to genocide that happened here. Jefferson’s more problematic. You know, there’s a lot to, of course, admire in his thinking and his philosophy. Then again, as you plunge into his writings, especially the notes on the state of Virginia, you know that he knew that slavery was wrong....

 And yet, he did it. Now we’re all morally conflicted human beings. And it’s not like we’re blotting him out of the history books, or deleting him from being the founder fathers. But you know, naming something after somebody confers a certain amount of honor. And at a time, I mean, the real reason I think there’s a lot of pressure on this is the relationship between the past and the present, that we’re finding in a million different ways that racism isn’t some curiosity out of the past that we’re embarrassed about but moved on from. It’s alive, it’s well, it’s hurting people. And it’s one of the main reasons to be in politics today is to try to change or reverse the harms that went along with that. Then, we’d better look for ways to live out and honor that principle, even in a symbolic thing.   

As in not calling it a Jefferson-Jackson Dinner.   He seems to be referring to those dinners, and not the more extreme position of changing cities, streets, colleges, etc.

When political discourse becomes an ideological war, the first casualty is truth.   

Once you start lying by means of misrepresentation of an opposing position, I think that kind of sophistry becomes almost an addiction, an adrenaline rush from attacking is more stimulating than the calmer frame of mind that's needed to understand what someone really means.   

[kiidcarter8]

To be continued...

I am sure the subject of renaming other things will be brought up again to M.P. - and he will have ample time to explain fully what he meant by that weirdly worded quote.

Or Pete will just go away before it is an issue.

[REDSTATEWARD]

The complete quote:

  You know, over time, you develop and evolve on the things you choose to honor. And I think we know enough, especially Jackson, you know, you just look at what basically amounts to genocide that happened here. Jefferson’s more problematic. You know, there’s a lot to, of course, admire in his thinking and his philosophy. Then again, as you plunge into his writings, especially the notes on the state of Virginia, you know that he knew that slavery was wrong....

 And yet, he did it. Now we’re all morally conflicted human beings. And it’s not like we’re blotting him out of the history books, or deleting him from being the founder fathers. But you know, naming something after somebody confers a certain amount of honor. And at a time, I mean, the real reason I think there’s a lot of pressure on this is the relationship between the past and the present, that we’re finding in a million different ways that racism isn’t some curiosity out of the past that we’re embarrassed about but moved on from. It’s alive, it’s well, it’s hurting people. And it’s one of the main reasons to be in politics today is to try to change or reverse the harms that went along with that. Then, we’d better look for ways to live out and honor that principle, even in a symbolic thing.   

As in not calling it a Jefferson-Jackson Dinner.   He seems to be referring to those dinners, and not the more extreme position of changing cities, streets, colleges, etc.

An attempt to change the debate and a fail.

When political discourse becomes an ideological war, the first casualty is truth.

Look in the mirror.

 

Once you start lying by means of misrepresentation of an opposing position, I think that kind of sophistry becomes almost an addiction, an adrenaline rush from attacking is more stimulating than the calmer frame of mind that's needed to understand what someone really means.

Direct your holier-than-thou venom to Jonathan Chait.

[josh]

Tony:  "We need to stop the flow of illegal drugs into our nation"



HOW?

Lock up the users!   in non-criminal-record rehab camps.

What are you? Stupid?

Oh, wait. We already established that.

You want us to lock up more than 10% of our population and cost us more than our annual budget to do it.

Yeah, you are both stupid and unwilling or unable to even grasp facts when they are presented to you.