Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where was the moral outrage then?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    You can't form a response denying that you resort to personal attacks without launching into a personal attack.
    but then admit that I am exactly right about your personal attacks.
    So dense. Probably because I never tried to deny it. All I'm trying to do is explain to a brick wall what led to my insults.

    In short, I'm not taking the high road. When the cavemen go low, I go low. It's fine if you disagree with it, but you are being hypocritical. Which is fine, whatever floats your boat.
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    - Benjamin Franklin

    The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by craven View Post

      well since you fail to hold Trump to a similar standard why should anyone be upset with what ever Clinton did.

      and oh btw how long did that investigation go on for LMAO
      Why are you bringing Cigar Billy into the conversation?
      He easnt President when the Russians allegedly hacked the DNC, that was Obama.
      who was in charge of the CIA in 2016?
      who was in charge of the FBI in 2016?
      who was director of intelligence in 2016?
      who was president in 2016?
      answer those questions and you will figure out who had the intelligence available, had the legal power to take action and who should be ultimately held responsible for our intelligence communities failure to prevent Russian meddling in our election.
      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

        Why are you bringing Cigar Billy into the conversation?
        He easnt President when the Russians allegedly hacked the DNC, that was Obama.
        who was in charge of the CIA in 2016?
        who was in charge of the FBI in 2016?
        who was director of intelligence in 2016?
        who was president in 2016?
        answer those questions and you will figure out who had the intelligence available, had the legal power to take action and who should be ultimately held responsible for our intelligence communities failure to prevent Russian meddling in our election.
        that the investigation I am talking about

        check out how long it lasted

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
          Obama, as weak as he was never bent over for Putin and Russia. There was never a reason to believe that Obama was being controlled by Russia. Never did Obama call the EU an enemy while trying to place our biggest rival as a friend. Obama didn't criticize Russia from the safety of the WH only to quiver and submit when in the presence of Putin. Stark differences.

          But, let's say you are correct then the same question can be posed to conservatives. Why the outrage over Obama but none over Trump?
          He would've bent over if it was the Russian culture

          . obama_1523079c.jpg

          And let's not forget him telling Medvedev to wait until after the election so he could make a deal with Putin.

          or Obama calling Putin to congratulate him on his election https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...012/452901002/

          And of course Obama gave the "stand down" order that allowed the Russians to meddle in the 2016 election. Apparently this information has recently "gained traction," as if no one in the deep state knew about it. https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-cyb...204935758.html

          "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

          "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by craven View Post

            that the investigation I am talking about

            check out how long it lasted
            The failure to take the threat seriously is reminiscent of the Intelligence failures that lead to 9/11.
            right under the nose of the CIA, in fact the same CIA leadership that the left now days is infallible.
            Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
            Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

              The failure to take the threat seriously is reminiscent of the Intelligence failures that lead to 9/11.
              right under the nose of the CIA, in fact the same CIA leadership that the left now days is infallible.
              some other post I was pointing to Clinton warning about AQ in 98 or 99 was a good speech also

              But got buried in the noise of the Star investigation.


              btw my earlier comment about how long an investigation goes was in regards to the one about Uranium one. Looked like it went on for four years

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by American87 View Post

                He would've bent over if it was the Russian culture

                . obama_1523079c.jpg

                And let's not forget him telling Medvedev to wait until after the election so he could make a deal with Putin.

                or Obama calling Putin to congratulate him on his election https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...012/452901002/

                And of course Obama gave the "stand down" order that allowed the Russians to meddle in the 2016 election. Apparently this information has recently "gained traction," as if no one in the deep state knew about it. https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-cyb...204935758.html
                so your point is Trump should learn from Obama and not be doing what he is in regards to Russia.


                And suppose Obama had come out with the fact that the Russia was trying to infiltrate the Trump campaign and interfere with the election.

                I seem to recall someone saying even before this was out there that the election was rigged.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                  Coming from the party that elected Bush and Trump? A party that boasts about being anti-intellectual and favors presidents who can barely form coherent sentences. The party with lower education rates...
                  The GOP only presented and supported those candidates, it was the people of the USA, vast majority whom identify as independents or "middle of the road" whom cast the election votes to determine the electoral college votes. (You might re-read your USA Constitution).

                  So-called "education rates" aside from questionable bias of the statistics, mostly reflect college level acquisition of one or more degrees, often with up to about $100,000 in student loan debt and after graduation having employable skills suitable only to flipping burgers and waiting tables. Back in the 1980s when I had a furniture delivery business, the guy I hired(at minimum wage) to help hold the other end of sofas, etc. had a degree in English and another in Drama. He was more "educated" than I, but I'd hesitate to say he was smarter. The degrees one gets in the education from "school of hard knocks" and experience usually reflects business ownership.

                  There's an old adage;
                  "A" students teach the "B" students how to work for the "C" students whom own businesses.
                  Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                  Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                    Unfortunately our resident cavemen have veered off topic and gone into insults because that's all they can ever offer in arguments. So my post was in response to them calling democrats stupid. Why don't you ask them why they're referring to democrats as dumb, is it because everyone who doesn't think like them must be stupid? You ignore the people who started questioning other's intellect to single me out. You're about as disingenuous and bias as they come. My conclusion is based off of statistics, what is theirs based on?
                    You must be one of those thin-skinned Democrats. As to why we on the Conservative side don't see them as the sharpest blades in the drawer ...

                    Start about 1860 when the Democrats still supported slavery and opposed GOP candidate and eventual POTUS, Abraham Lincoln (American Civil War ring any "educated" bells???).

                    Then notice how during the next century it was Democrats of the South whom instituted and sustained segregation and "Jim Crow Laws".

                    Come POTUS Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and the Democrat solution to all problems and challenges in this nation was more and bigger guv'mint and increase the National Debt. Consider that the Constitution was intended to limit and restrict the size and power of central/national government and via FDR we see some major traction and efforts that could be considered anti-Constitutional.

                    Consider also that FDR thought of Stalin as "uncle Joe", was willing to let him and USSR have most of Eastern Europe in post-WWII world and this helped to create conditions for the "Cold War". Democrat FDR was much more in the pocket and toady to Russia than Trump has been.

                    Since FDR's time the Democrat solution to any issue, problem, or challenge has been more and bigger government, with increased borrowing(debt) to "pay for it".

                    Democrats (USA party of the Left and Liberals) has for decades now seen economic solutions requiring "wealth redistribution" rather than wealth creation. The Democrats see the economy as a pie of finite size that needs constant re-slicing of portions to go around to everyone. Conservatives(GOP nominally) see the economy as something that can be grown and expanded. Rather than re-cut the pie, the GOP-Conservatives would have us make more pie.

                    Democrats require "victims" to have a political power base, and will "create" such if sufficient don't already exist. The Dems need division to have a platform and agenda and the ultimate result is a veiled enslavement rather the empowerment of free enterprise, personal rewards and accountability.

                    Since the Democrats display lack of common sense, very little realistic understanding of economics, and need divisive social classification to provide a power base, calling them "dumb" is a lot kinder than some other epitaphs that would fit better.
                    Last edited by G David Bock; 21 Jul 18, 01:04.
                    Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                    Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                      You must be one of those thin-skinned Democrats. As to why we on the Conservative side don't see them as the sharpest blades in the drawer ...

                      Start about 1860 when the Democrats still supported slavery and opposed GOP candidate and eventual POTUS, Abraham Lincoln (American Civil War ring any "educated" bells???).

                      Then notice how during the next century it was Democrats of the South whom instituted and sustained segregation and "Jim Crow Laws".

                      Come POTUS Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and the Democrat solution to all problems and challenges in this nation was more and bigger guv'mint and increase the National Debt. Consider that the Constitution was intended to limit and restrict the size and power of central/national government and via FDR we see some major traction and efforts that could be considered anti-Constitutional.

                      Consider also that FDR thought of Stalin as "uncle Joe", was willing to let him and USSR have most of Eastern Europe in post-WWII world and this helped to create conditions for the "Cold War". Democrat FDR was much more in the pocket and toady to Russia than Trump has been.

                      Since FDR's time the Democrat solution to any issue, problem, or challenge has been more and bigger government, with increased borrowing(debt) to "pay for it".

                      Democrats (USA party of the Left and Liberals) has for decades now seen economic solutions requiring "wealth redistribution" rather than wealth creation. The Democrats see the economy as a pie of finite size that needs constant re-slicing of portions to go around to everyone. Conservatives(GOP nominally) see the economy as something that can be grown and expanded. Rather than re-cut the pie, the GOP-Conservatives would have us make more pie.

                      Democrats require "victims" to have a political power base, and will "create" such if sufficient don't already exist. The Dems need division to have a platform and agenda and the ultimate result is a veiled enslavement rather the empowerment of free enterprise, personal rewards and accountability.

                      Since the Democrats display lack of common sense, very little realistic understanding of economics, and need divisive social classification to provide a power base, calling them "dumb" is a lot kinder than some other epitaphs that would fit better.
                      Of course I'm talking about present day democrats. But, all of this can be flipped around so there's really no point in even arguing. Democrats require victims, republicans require their constituents to live in fear and both sides consistently expand government. So what would I really be arguing over? American politics is nothing more than an exercise in complete futility and utter hypocrisy.

                      One year republicans are calling for a tough stance on Russia, the next year they want to be Russia's friend. One year democrats want a diplomatic approach to Russia, the next year they're trying to escalate tensions.

                      One year republicans are destroying Obama for not treating our allies with respect, now they don't raise an eyebrow to our allies being referred to as enemies. Imagine if Obama, the African Muslim, called the EU an enemy. All of the right-wingers who constantly cling to identity politics would claim that he's trying to destroy white culture so his Muslim buddies could take over. That was already the claim anyway. So making such statements and getting away with it is not a privilege afforded to him.

                      One year they want a balanced budget and reduced deficit, Trump runs up the debt and all is ok. Meanwhile, democrats never care about budget deficits until it's a republican doing the spending. Though democrats aren't the ones who campaign on smart spending.

                      On and on.

                      The hypocrisy that's on constant display by both sides makes it impossible to ensure that our core principles are being upheld when both sides are willing to cave and flip flop in order to support their party first and country second. All that's ever expressed is a blind loyalty to a party that means absolutely nothing without a set of unwavering standards and principles to hold it to.

                      None of this is coming from a thin skin democrat either, you assume so because you disagree with my positions. Everything has to be black and white (figuratively), D vs R which is also part of the problem. When I was young and naive I registered as a republican. I thought the republican party was about small government and the promotion and defense of business and entrepreneurship. Along with the defense of the first and second amendment above all else. It took me several years to realize that the true core really boils down to race and a disdain for various ways of life that conservatives don't agree with. Once I realized that is when I began speaking against the party. Due largely to the help of conservatives on this forum, the nastiness displayed here and elsewhere is what began to open my eyes to what republicans really are. Of course I obviously no longer identify as republican, but what's the point in me officially switching... I don't know what either party really stands for anymore outside of their macro views on race and religion. Frankly, again I don't believe either party stands for anything when they're willing to sacrifice their values in favor of blind loyalty. Plus, the push towards globalization and the breakdown of American society is happening regardless of who is in office, due in large part to the desire to blame the opposing party 100% of the time and deflecting accountability 100% of the time. For example, the economy wasn't Obama's fault it was Bush's. Trump pandering to Russia isn't his fault, it was Obama's, as we see in this very thread. When this is the mentality that both sides have all we're left with is complete mediocrity, at best.

                      With democrats at least they are decent people with a good heart based on what I've seen personally and validated through countless polls. Referring to the people, not the politicians. Every poll out there shows that democrats are generally more accepting, less judgmental and again better educated (the latter fwiw). So I will defend them as a person, not their policy, when the cavemen start making wild accusations against them. And at the end of the day acceptance and bigger government is better than white nationalism and bigger government. Given that's all I have to choose from anymore.
                      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                      - Benjamin Franklin

                      The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        With democrats at least they are decent people with a good heart based on what I've seen personally and validated through countless polls.
                        This has to be the most off-the-wall statement ever made about the Democratic party. the party currently trying to destroy America.
                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          One of many reasons why intelligence and education rates matter:

                          The study also employed a measure of subtle racism, included because greater psychometric intelligence is associated with lesser prejudice. The researchers explored whether psychometric and self-assessed intelligence had the same or different links to racism.

                          Remarkably the two ways of assessing intelligence had opposite associations with subtle racism. As expected, higher psychometric intelligence was associated with lower racism, largely because more intelligent people thought about social groups in less crudely categorical ways. However, higher self-assessed intelligence was associated with higher levels of racism.
                          https://theconversation.com/the-stra...rejudice-81155

                          There is a correlation between intelligence and racism, which helps explain why racism is much more prominent among conservatives. These are simple minded folk, typically, who can't help but to see the world in such primitive fashion. Also note the higher rate of racism among the self-proclaimed geniuses who score poorly when their intelligence is actually tested. Ie, the C students who think they're smarter than everyone are more likely to hold prejudices.

                          "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                          - Benjamin Franklin

                          The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                            ...
                            With democrats at least they are decent people with a good heart based on what I've seen personally and validated through countless polls. Referring to the people, not the politicians. Every poll out there shows that democrats are generally more accepting, less judgmental and again better educated (the latter fwiw).
                            ...
                            Problem is the "good heart" and intentions of Lefty-loonie "good heart " Democrats/Liberals always require Other People's sweat, labor, tears, blood, and money/treasure. "Good intention" Liberals and Democrats rarely have significant "skin in game" or Investment" in what they want to force as so-called "charity" upon others.


                            Sorry, but my Real World experience of this Conservative, though anecdotal, has been that the "Democrats"/Liberals tend to be more racist and condescending than Conservatives. In one recent occupational experience making aircraft parts at Boeing supplier, my team had several workers from SE Asia (escapees and refugees, etc*.) whom my fellow Liberals~Democrats would refer to as"rice-eaters", especially when such were out of earshot. Further association with Left-leaning, socialist-progressive "liberal" Democrat types has repeatedly displayed they are more racist and exclusionist than my conservative acquaintances.

                            * - BTW, interesting to see the cultural/ethnic exclusions even among the "rice eaters" as Laotian would sit at one table, Cambodians at another, and assorted Viet "ethnics" at a few other tables. They might work side by side, but in off time and when "socialize", they segregated into familiar and comfortable "ethnic" groupings. Of course my racist liberal(Democrat) "white" co-workers were clueless on these subtle distinctions.
                            Last edited by G David Bock; 21 Jul 18, 21:15.
                            Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                            Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                              This has to be the most off-the-wall statement ever made about the Democratic party. the party currently trying to destroy America.
                              An example of a cousin of these decent people : Mark Elyas, chief of the Canadian Liberal party association of Vancouver : ''subhuman Trump supporters should be sent to çamps and their children taken away .'
                              Thus , Deplorables, you know what to expect if these decent people will reconquer power :Brennan, Clapper, Wilkinson, Kristol and Elyas will come after you .

                              Source : Conservative Firing Line .

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by craven View Post

                                some other post I was pointing to Clinton warning about AQ in 98 or 99 was a good speech also

                                But got buried in the noise of the Star investigation.


                                btw my earlier comment about how long an investigation goes was in regards to the one about Uranium one. Looked like it went on for four years
                                You make an important point, we all have a habit of blaming presidents for the failures of intelligence agencies, OTOH when special forces carry out a dangerous mission the president tries to take credit for the success and will distance themselves if it is a failure.
                                1993 attack on the WTC should have been the wake up call that 9/11 became. Maybe it wouldn’t have happened.
                                Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                                Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X