Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:Guys, this page of the thread is exactly what Putin wants.

This was referring to the previous page, BTW.

tragabigzanda wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Guys, this page of the thread is exactly what Putin wants.

This was referring to the previous page, BTW.

How do you know what Putin wants!? Spy!!!

PHATJ wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Guys, this page of the thread is exactly what Putin wants.

This was referring to the previous page, BTW.

How do you know what Putin wants!? Spy!!!

I'm not a Strat apologist, I have issues with him and want to see him replaced by Putin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... 56852af070

“I have been told that the House Obamacare bill is under lock & key, in a secure location, & not available for me or the public to view.”

you can see what's in it after we pass it.

PHATJ wrote:

Strat wrote:

PHATJ wrote:I'm not a Sessions apologist, I have issues with him and wouldn't mind seeing him replaced, but it seems that meeting with foreign diplomats is a very regular part of his former job. I have little issue with the simple fact that he met with Russian diplomats. I do have a problem with lying under oath. If the evidence proves he intentionally lied under oath, he should go.

You also have to look at the larger picture. Everyone else on his team involved with Russia in some shady gatherings, tilelrson, trumps tax returns, hacked election, trumps refusal to speak poorly about Putin.

At what point do you call a spade a spade

I think there are some legit concerns there that certainly should be investigated. I think some of those things are less important and fall more into the "conspiracy theory" category than anything else. There are several examples of shady interactions on both sides of the isle as well, both amongst members of congress, former presidential candidates, and even the last president. My guess strat, is that you were far less inclined to worry about any of the people you align with politically. And you are entitled to you opinions and approach. I just find it to be extremely hypocritical when partisan bullshit is more important to Americans than the truth. That's really all I care about. I don't want to be lied to. I don't want elected officials blatantly misleading their constituents. Give me honesty or gtfo. And if it is discovered that these people (right or left) have compromised American intelligence, sold information, etc., they should lose their job. It's pretty simple: have integrity, put American interests first, be transparent. If you can't do these things while also doing your job, gtfo.

PHatj, I took issue with everything you said here. Not what you said previously, which we had a nice exchange about You turned this into something else and accused me of being hypocritical and saying that I would not really care much if it were people i supported. That is an incorrect assumption. This specific situation with Russia is beyond partisan bullshit. People are lying under oath about their connections with Russia, including Trumps top security advisors. The election was hacked and here we are with the Trump administration reaping the benefits. Dont accuse me of being partisan and accusing the left of being partisan and conspiracy theory when these issues are blatantly obvious. It makes it SEEM like you are the one not really giving enough care about it because you are - more than a lot of people here - somewhat supportive of the administration.

These people are blatanatly lying to you and the american public. You should be calling for their resignation since " It's pretty simple: have integrity, put American interests first, be transparent. If you can't do these things while also doing your job, gtfo" and also "Also, I'm not entirely a Trump supporter. I lean very libertarian, but I'm willing to give the man a chance. After all, he won the election. I do think the wailing and gnashing of teeth, and the protesting/rioting from the left is ridiculous."

Burt sharing common ground with PHATJ is like Bill Murray playing second fiddle to Dan Akroyd.

Strat wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Strat wrote:

PHATJ wrote:I'm not a Sessions apologist, I have issues with him and wouldn't mind seeing him replaced, but it seems that meeting with foreign diplomats is a very regular part of his former job. I have little issue with the simple fact that he met with Russian diplomats. I do have a problem with lying under oath. If the evidence proves he intentionally lied under oath, he should go.

You also have to look at the larger picture. Everyone else on his team involved with Russia in some shady gatherings, tilelrson, trumps tax returns, hacked election, trumps refusal to speak poorly about Putin.

At what point do you call a spade a spade

I think there are some legit concerns there that certainly should be investigated. I think some of those things are less important and fall more into the "conspiracy theory" category than anything else. There are several examples of shady interactions on both sides of the isle as well, both amongst members of congress, former presidential candidates, and even the last president. My guess strat, is that you were far less inclined to worry about any of the people you align with politically. And you are entitled to you opinions and approach. I just find it to be extremely hypocritical when partisan bullshit is more important to Americans than the truth. That's really all I care about. I don't want to be lied to. I don't want elected officials blatantly misleading their constituents. Give me honesty or gtfo. And if it is discovered that these people (right or left) have compromised American intelligence, sold information, etc., they should lose their job. It's pretty simple: have integrity, put American interests first, be transparent. If you can't do these things while also doing your job, gtfo.

PHatj, I took issue with everything you said here. Not what you said previously, which we had a nice exchange about You turned this into something else and accused me of being hypocritical and saying that I would not really care much if it were people i supported. That is an incorrect assumption. This specific situation with Russia is beyond partisan bullshit. People are lying under oath about their connections with Russia, including Trumps top security advisors. The election was hacked and here we are with the Trump administration reaping the benefits. Dont accuse me of being partisan and accusing the left of being partisan and conspiracy theory when these issues are blatantly obvious. It makes it SEEM like you are the one not really giving enough care about it because you are - more than a lot of people here - somewhat supportive of the administration.

These people are blatanatly lying to you and the american public. You should be calling for their resignation since " It's pretty simple: have integrity, put American interests first, be transparent. If you can't do these things while also doing your job, gtfo" and also "Also, I'm not entirely a Trump supporter. I lean very libertarian, but I'm willing to give the man a chance. After all, he won the election. I do think the wailing and gnashing of teeth, and the protesting/rioting from the left is ridiculous."

I'd like to respond to this is pieces.

Strat wrote:You turned this into something else and accused me of being hypocritical and saying that I would not really care much if it were people i supported. That is an incorrect assumption.

If I was off base here, then I apologize. In my experience, an overwhelming majority of people with freak the fuck out over any transgressions they see the "opposition" commit while turning a blind eye to the faults of their own. If you are open and willing to criticize the politicians you typically side with, then I commend you and admit to miss assumptions.

Strat wrote: People are lying under oath about their connections with Russia, including Trumps top security advisors.

As I've said a shit ton of times already: perjury=gtfo

Strat wrote:The election was hacked and here we are with the Trump administration reaping the benefits.

You don't know the election was hacked, and I don't know that it wasn't either. But I do know that Obama was convinced it wasn't hacked and said so in an interview with Trevor Noah on the Daily Show in December. Take that for what it's worth. I'd contend the reason Trump won was because his opponent was the most crooked and dishonest politician in recent history, and the average person outside of NYC and LA cares about that.

Strat wrote:Dont accuse me of being partisan and accusing the left of being partisan and conspiracy theory when these issues are blatantly obvious.

Political parties are inherently partisan. Each side claims the issues are blatantly obvious. From a detached, civilian perspective I've seen both parties unsuccessfully chase conspiracy theories that they would have bet the house on, only to have it blow up in their face. I'm not as eager as you to claim that what I think I know is pure fact.

Strat wrote:It makes it SEEM like you are the one not really giving enough care about it because you are - more than a lot of people here - somewhat supportive of the administration.

It may SEEM that way to you because you let your bias color my opinions before you actually know them. Kinda like how I assumed you'd be more forgiving of unbecoming behavior by left than the right. Maybe we were both wrong here, maybe not. And I am more supportive of the administration. It seems that anyone that isn't calling for impeachment is more supportive than I am guessing you are. Again, maybe I shouldn't assume...

Strat wrote:These people are blatanatly lying to you and the american public. You should be calling for their resignation since " It's pretty simple: have integrity, put American interests first, be transparent. If you can't do these things while also doing your job, gtfo"

Maybe they are. And I already told you how I feel about that. I'd only ask that you would be willing to say the same when the lies of HRC, or Obama, or Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren, etc. are pointed out to you. And if you are more than willing to do that, then we agree again. See, this isn't so hard.

Strat wrote:"Also, I'm not entirely a Trump supporter. I lean very libertarian, but I'm willing to give the man a chance. After all, he won the election. I do think the wailing and gnashing of teeth, and the protesting/rioting from the left is ridiculous."

I stand by this. A) I have had many issues with Trump. B) I am libertarian/volunteerist. C) I am willing to see how Trump's policy comes together. I think there are many things to like and dislike, and I am interested to see what can actually get passed over the next four years. D) Trump DID WIN. Anyone that thinks that the leftist panic/protesting/rioting etc. hasn't been incredibly over the top is boarding on aligning themselves with actual fascism. You know, the kind that seeks to silence any dissent by force, places minimal value individual rights, and supports severe economic and social regimentation.

Carter Page is the greatest henchman ever.

"I can't say if I was there, because I signed a nondisclosure agreement while I was there."

Q: "Do you have connections in the White House?"
A: "Uhhh."
Q: "Do you?"
A: "I mean I know people."

"I can say I never met the ambassador....outside of Cleveland..."

"Isn't this Lebowski guy supposed to be a millionaire?"

McParadigm wrote:Carter Page is the greatest henchman ever.

"I can't say if I was there, because I signed a nondisclosure agreement while I was there."

Q: "Do you have connections in the White House?"
A: "Uhhh."
Q: "Do you?"
A: "I mean I know people."

"I can say I never met the ambassador....outside of Cleveland..."

"Isn't this Lebowski guy supposed to be a millionaire?"

...at least I'm housebroken.

Hey strat, what is your general opinion of former AG Eric Holder?

PHATJ wrote:Hey strat, what is your general opinion of former AG Eric Holder?

I'm watching the documentary "tickled" with my
Gal right now. I'll respond tomorrow some tome

Reuters:

President Donald Trump's Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin used his first senior staff meeting last month to tell his new aides he would not tolerate leaks to the news media, sources familiar with the matter said.

Current and former officials said that in a departure from past practice, access to a classified computer system at the White House has been tightened by political appointees to prevent professional staffers from seeing memos being prepared for the new president.

And at the Department of Homeland Security, some officials told Reuters they fear a witch hunt is under way for the leaker of a draft intelligence report which found little evidence that citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries covered by Trump's now-suspended travel ban pose a threat to the United States.

The clampdown has fueled paranoia among Washington career civil servants who say it appears designed to try to limit the flow of information inside and outside government and deter officials from talking to the media about topics that could result in negative stories.

PHATJ wrote:

B wrote:Listening to Trump is like listening to my kids. Someone sees something on TV, tells him about it while screwing up the detaisl, then he screws up the details a little more and spews back this statement that has a nugget of truth filtered through 2 levels of lies.

Classic B. And you couldn't be more wrong.

Nearly every word of President Donald Trump’s first address to Congress was true, according to The New York Times fact check.

"Reporters from the NYT sourced through each statement the president made in Tuesday night’s speech, which touched on: violent crime, immigration, border control, health care reform, labor, and energy... The NYT labeled Trump’s comments as true."

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/01/the-n ... -all-true/

I wasn't specifically talking about his speech this week. The statement that was in my head was that "the US murder rate is the highest it's been in 47 years."

But to address your point, did you look at the NYT article linked to in that article you posted? I don't think you can claim that "nearly every word is true" if I have to go down 6 fact checks to find an unqualified "true."

- True, but somewhat misleading.
- True, but cherry-picked.
- False.
- This is an exaggeration.
- This needs context.
- The number is correct.

B wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

B wrote:Listening to Trump is like listening to my kids. Someone sees something on TV, tells him about it while screwing up the detaisl, then he screws up the details a little more and spews back this statement that has a nugget of truth filtered through 2 levels of lies.

Classic B. And you couldn't be more wrong.

Nearly every word of President Donald Trump’s first address to Congress was true, according to The New York Times fact check.

"Reporters from the NYT sourced through each statement the president made in Tuesday night’s speech, which touched on: violent crime, immigration, border control, health care reform, labor, and energy... The NYT labeled Trump’s comments as true."

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/01/the-n ... -all-true/

I wasn't specifically talking about his speech this week. The statement that was in my head was that "the US murder rate is the highest it's been in 47 years."

But to address your point, did you look at the NYT article linked to in that article you posted? I don't think you can claim that "nearly every word is true" if I have to go down 6 fact checks to find an unqualified "true."

- True, but somewhat misleading.
- True, but cherry-picked.
- False.
- This is an exaggeration.
- This needs context.
- The number is correct.

Yes, I've already addressed this.

Unemployment benefits are the lowest they've been since 1973. I thought Trump said unemployment is the highest it's ever been.

PHATJ wrote: I just want to call anyone that disagrees with me racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, blah, blah, blah (even if those claims are baseless). Then I want to silence them or threaten them. Then I'll call them fascists (even though it's my behavior that is textbook fascism). Then I'll call myself a progressive and feel superior in every way to everyone else. Then I'll break wind in inhale it as though my excrement smells like a prairie of wildflowers. Then I'll tell you to check your privilege when you call me a snowflake. Then I'll need a safe space.

"Libertarian" is retard speak for "I'm too much of a pussy to admit that I am a right wing Republican asshole".

BurtReynolds wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Got a new bumper sticker today...

Exactly the type of bumper sticker an entry-level, low-energy normie-tier poster would have.

Awwww, butthurt much?

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:

PHATJ wrote: I just want to call anyone that disagrees with me racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, blah, blah, blah (even if those claims are baseless). Then I want to silence them or threaten them. Then I'll call them fascists (even though it's my behavior that is textbook fascism). Then I'll call myself a progressive and feel superior in every way to everyone else. Then I'll break wind in inhale it as though my excrement smells like a prairie of wildflowers. Then I'll tell you to check your privilege when you call me a snowflake. Then I'll need a safe space.

"Libertarian" is retard speak for "I'm too much of a pussy to admit that I am a right wing Republican asshole".

This is so wrong. I'm surrounded by libertarians in MT. While they are pro-guns and anti-regulation on business, they are also pro-pot and pro-gay marriage.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:

PHATJ wrote: I just want to call anyone that disagrees with me racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, blah, blah, blah (even if those claims are baseless). Then I want to silence them or threaten them. Then I'll call them fascists (even though it's my behavior that is textbook fascism). Then I'll call myself a progressive and feel superior in every way to everyone else. Then I'll break wind in inhale it as though my excrement smells like a prairie of wildflowers. Then I'll tell you to check your privilege when you call me a snowflake. Then I'll need a safe space.

"Libertarian" is retard speak for "I'm too much of a pussy to admit that I am a right wing Republican asshole".

This is so wrong. I'm surrounded by libertarians in MT. While they are pro-guns and anti-regulation on business, they are also pro-pot and pro-gay marriage.

Yep. I'm pro freedom and individual rights, anti big government interference in people's lives.

"Wendy Carlos's Twin" is alternate speak for "I'm an uninformed, moronic, ideologue, that would force my shitty beliefs on others, all while being an unintelligent, arrogant, fuck head, socialist, disguised as an inclusive progressive".

Seriously though man, you sound like a fucking idiot when you comment without knowledge.

PHATJ wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:

PHATJ wrote: I just want to call anyone that disagrees with me racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, blah, blah, blah (even if those claims are baseless). Then I want to silence them or threaten them. Then I'll call them fascists (even though it's my behavior that is textbook fascism). Then I'll call myself a progressive and feel superior in every way to everyone else. Then I'll break wind in inhale it as though my excrement smells like a prairie of wildflowers. Then I'll tell you to check your privilege when you call me a snowflake. Then I'll need a safe space.

"Libertarian" is retard speak for "I'm too much of a pussy to admit that I am a right wing Republican asshole".

This is so wrong. I'm surrounded by libertarians in MT. While they are pro-guns and anti-regulation on business, they are also pro-pot and pro-gay marriage.

Yep. I'm pro freedom and individual rights, anti big government interference in people's lives.

"Wendy Carlos's Twin" is alternate speak for "I'm an uninformed, moronic, ideologue, that would force my shitty beliefs on others, all while being an unintelligent, arrogant, fuck head, socialist, disguised as an inclusive progressive".

Seriously though man, you sound like a fucking idiot when you comment without knowledge.

I was happy with Gary Johnson's stance on environmental regulation during the election (basically that they were pro-business, but accepted that climate science was sound and that there did need to be some strong environmental protections in place). If only the libertarians would embrace tougher gun control laws, I'd be on board.