See, you had me. I thought you were an informed, reasonable poster. But after that post?!? No chance.
It should be an Internet mandate that if you are posting something negative about the intelligence of others, what you're posting better not have any sort of spelling or grammatical error anywhere. GF would have like 7 posts on this forum after all his years here.
Ok Maby that was a stretch to far. Sorry. I got fed up from being called low informed & racist from a different poster not you. Would you agree that there is a difference between a Democrat & a radical socialist Democrat? I wasn't around back then but from what I've read and heard I liked Kennedy. I like what I know about Harry Truman. Aside from Bill Clinton's personal life, I thought he was a decent Present. Bill Clinton had the economy rolling good and would actually listen to his constituents. I obviously didn't vote for Barack Obama, but when he got in, I was thrilled at least we had a black present. I thought that aspect of it was cool. Because I have none of those phobias that Hillary described. (I embrace all the races) I'm not totally anti Democrat. I thought Barack Obama (I'm checking my spelling more closely) had a great opportunity to be more like a MLK, present. If he would've tried to be more like that, I would've been much more supportive of him. That didn't work out in my opinion. Well hopefully you don't write me off now. I also think that Trump is NOT the end all be all either. By the way, Carly Fiorina was my first choice during the primaries, but that didn't work out either. Yes I voted for Trump, but if he starts acting like a dictator, I will hold his feet to the fire and become highly critical. We shall see.
That's an interesting point about Obama and MLK. Truth is, I think he could have been but the guy was forced to walk a fine line about acting "too black" to white people and acting "not black enough" to the black community. Being the first African American president was a blessing and a curse I'm sure.
His biggest problem is that he was an empty suit. Gave a great speech but that was about it. It had nothing to do with any fine line that you think he was "forced to walk".
Well give me a lifetime of Presidents that you consider empty suits. He did great things for this country and history will be very kind to him.
History will remember him as the first African American president who sacrificed the entire democratic party on the alter of Obamacare which was eventually repealed and replaced during the Age of Trump that he ushered in. Oh yeah...he'll also be remembered for sitting on his hands during the Syrian genocide. You need more president's like that.
Republicans don't have a replacement for Obamacare after 8 years of screaming about it. Meanwhile, Massachusetts is doing just fine with Romneycare. Repealed? Maybe. Replaced? The republicans have no intention. I'll give you credit for your fantasy though.
See, you had me. I thought you were an informed, reasonable poster. But after that post?!? No chance.
It should be an Internet mandate that if you are posting something negative about the intelligence of others, what you're posting better not have any sort of spelling or grammatical error anywhere. GF would have like 7 posts on this forum after all his years here.
Ok Maby that was a stretch to far. Sorry. I got fed up from being called low informed & racist from a different poster not you. Would you agree that there is a difference between a Democrat & a radical socialist Democrat? I wasn't around back then but from what I've read and heard I liked Kennedy. I like what I know about Harry Truman. Aside from Bill Clinton's personal life, I thought he was a decent Present. Bill Clinton had the economy rolling good and would actually listen to his constituents. I obviously didn't vote for Barack Obama, but when he got in, I was thrilled at least we had a black present. I thought that aspect of it was cool. Because I have none of those phobias that Hillary described. (I embrace all the races) I'm not totally anti Democrat. I thought Barack Obama (I'm checking my spelling more closely) had a great opportunity to be more like a MLK, present. If he would've tried to be more like that, I would've been much more supportive of him. That didn't work out in my opinion. Well hopefully you don't write me off now. I also think that Trump is NOT the end all be all either. By the way, Carly Fiorina was my first choice during the primaries, but that didn't work out either. Yes I voted for Trump, but if he starts acting like a dictator, I will hold his feet to the fire and become highly critical. We shall see.
That's an interesting point about Obama and MLK. Truth is, I think he could have been but the guy was forced to walk a fine line about acting "too black" to white people and acting "not black enough" to the black community. Being the first African American president was a blessing and a curse I'm sure.
His biggest problem is that he was an empty suit. Gave a great speech but that was about it. It had nothing to do with any fine line that you think he was "forced to walk".
Coming from a Trump supporter, this is hilarious. Our secretary of energy went from a nuclear physicist to Rick Perry. The emperor has no suit. And you defend Milo? Finally showed your true colors like Unsung.
I defend the right to speech. Happy for those to be my true colours.
Except if that speech involves the BDS movement. Or any criticism of Israel. Care to expound on why it's okay for government to not do business with a business that supports BDS, thus stifling the right to speech, of which you seem so proud are your true colors?
A government is entitled to free speech as well. Not doing business with an entity is not "stifling the right to speech". BDS can still protest. Nobody is stopping that at all. What you seem to be asking for is speech without the right to counter-speech.
He attempted to humanize a person (Milo) whose objective it is to de-humanize others. That's really not an admirable stance by any means. Maybe his gay friends were appalled that he would try to put this 'natural' face on someone that is trying to roll back rights that these men had fought for. Can you really blame the friends for not wanting to associate with him?
Yes. His friends turned out to be assholes. They weren't his "friends" after all. He wrote an article about a subject. That is what journalists do. The people who have a problem with that prove that they are the intolerant.
So as a friend you are obligated to stick with someone even if you think they are now complicit with a right wing hate monger? It's actually okay to be intolerant of intolerance.
Ahhh...there it is..."complicity". I'm not sure you realize who the actual bigots are in this man's story. But this is larger picture of where we all are today...all of us who present the alternative view point are "complicit". This is why those who don't generally like Trump support him. We are tired of the progressive facism of thought. Even the more sane individuals such as yourself find ways to justify it. The left hates us and we are acting accordingly.
It's not bigotry to dislike someone because of their beliefs. It is when it's race, creed, color, sex that is driving the feelings.
Oh. So I guess you are one of the few on here who thinks religious bigotry doesn't exist. Who knew all those people worried about Islamophobia have no basis for concern.
Was it treason when Pelosi and Kerry met with Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration? Was Tulsi Gabbard's meeting with Assad treason? Personally I'm not sure where this Flynn situation will end up but we might want to clarify what is and isn't treason before charges are made.
False equivalency. Can't defend the Russian involvement so attack the other side. There is a whole lot of there, there and it'll come out. Follow the money. But keep making excuses for your blind loyalty.
I have no blind loyalty. I'm very curious to see how this Flynn situation plays out and it's quite possible he will be turfed if he did indeed lie to the Vice President. That being said the "there there" is all over the place and while the knives are out for Flynn no one can be certain what the real story is. He may indeed have violated the law but people who are fans of Gabbard need to be very careful what they wish for.
He attempted to humanize a person (Milo) whose objective it is to de-humanize others. That's really not an admirable stance by any means. Maybe his gay friends were appalled that he would try to put this 'natural' face on someone that is trying to roll back rights that these men had fought for. Can you really blame the friends for not wanting to associate with him?
Yes. His friends turned out to be assholes. They weren't his "friends" after all. He wrote an article about a subject. That is what journalists do. The people who have a problem with that prove that they are the intolerant.
So as a friend you are obligated to stick with someone even if you think they are now complicit with a right wing hate monger? It's actually okay to be intolerant of intolerance.
Ahhh...there it is..."complicity". I'm not sure you realize who the actual bigots are in this man's story. But this is larger picture of where we all are today...all of us who present the alternative view point are "complicit". This is why those who don't generally like Trump support him. We are tired of the progressive facism of thought. Even the more sane individuals such as yourself find ways to justify it. The left hates us and we are acting accordingly.
It's not bigotry to dislike someone because of their beliefs. It is when it's race, creed, color, sex that is driving the feelings.
Oh. So I guess you are one of the few on here who thinks religious bigotry doesn't exist. Who knew all those people worried about Islamophobia have no basis for concern.
I believe I typed the word creed. I wasn't referring to the band. So I have no idea what you're trying to say
See, you had me. I thought you were an informed, reasonable poster. But after that post?!? No chance.
It should be an Internet mandate that if you are posting something negative about the intelligence of others, what you're posting better not have any sort of spelling or grammatical error anywhere. GF would have like 7 posts on this forum after all his years here.
Ok Maby that was a stretch to far. Sorry. I got fed up from being called low informed & racist from a different poster not you. Would you agree that there is a difference between a Democrat & a radical socialist Democrat? I wasn't around back then but from what I've read and heard I liked Kennedy. I like what I know about Harry Truman. Aside from Bill Clinton's personal life, I thought he was a decent Present. Bill Clinton had the economy rolling good and would actually listen to his constituents. I obviously didn't vote for Barack Obama, but when he got in, I was thrilled at least we had a black present. I thought that aspect of it was cool. Because I have none of those phobias that Hillary described. (I embrace all the races) I'm not totally anti Democrat. I thought Barack Obama (I'm checking my spelling more closely) had a great opportunity to be more like a MLK, president. If he would've tried to be more like that, I would've been much more supportive of him. That didn't work out in my opinion. Well hopefully you don't write me off now. I also think that Trump is NOT the end all be all either. By the way, Carly Fiorina was my first choice during the primaries, but that didn't work out either. Yes I voted for Trump, but if he starts acting like a dictator, I will hold his feet to the fire and become highly critical. We shall see. I apologize for the earlier post. I was wrong on that.
As for your bolded question, you would have to define what you mean by those terms, and maybe give examples of who you think fits those terms. But bear in mind that no major players in US politics now are "radical socialist democrats". Your run of the mill democrats are pretty far to the right of most countries' liberal/democratic parties, and somewhat to the right of many countries' conservative parties.
And I for one appreciate you coming back to apologize and clarify.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The truth? He claimed that Trig Palin was not in fact Sarah Palin's baby. Talk about birtherism! Clearly you are new to this game if you are just coming across Andrew Sullivan now. He is one of the father's of the blogosphere but he hasn't been a conservative for years.
He also has a history of believing in baby conspiracies. I have been reading Andrew Sullivan for years and I know full well his evolution on conservatism. As far as his support for LGBT rights it is about the same as Trump's which predated both Obama and Hillary Clinton. Trump was for gay marriage before it was cool.
you can keep attacking the messenger. the truth will hurt that much more when you finally decide to accept it.
Was it treason when Pelosi and Kerry met with Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration? Was Tulsi Gabbard's meeting with Assad treason? Personally I'm not sure where this Flynn situation will end up but we might want to clarify what is and isn't treason before charges are made.
False equivalency. Can't defend the Russian involvement so attack the other side. There is a whole lot of there, there and it'll come out. Follow the money. But keep making excuses for your blind loyalty.
I have no blind loyalty. I'm very curious to see how this Flynn situation plays out and it's quite possible he will be turfed if he did indeed lie to the Vice President. That being said the "there there" is all over the place and while the knives are out for Flynn no one can be certain what the real story is. He may indeed have violated the law but people who are fans of Gabbard need to be very careful what they wish for.
Its not just about Flynn. Although he'll likely fall on his sword. Its much bigger than Flynn. My money is on Manafort singing like a canary. That you're willing to "wait and see" is telling. But I'm okay with the judicial process playing out. Its going to be untenable for the republicans. Please enlighten me on how Gabbard and Flynn are comparable?
Was it treason when Pelosi and Kerry met with Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration? Was Tulsi Gabbard's meeting with Assad treason? Personally I'm not sure where this Flynn situation will end up but we might want to clarify what is and isn't treason before charges are made.
Pelosi and Kerry isn't treason because they were members of the US government at the time. That's what my only problem with Flynn is- at the end of December of 2016, he was not a member of the government. He was in no position to make policy statements in regard to the incoming administration. That's just not how our government works. And the fact that his phones calls to the Russian government go back well before the election, the very election Russia interfered with in hopes of benefitting Trump, is quite disturbing. This guy is literally editing the PDBs before they get to the President. That's insane! The President's own intelligence community is already collapsing around him and he needs to cut Flynn to save face with guys like Mattis, Pence and Pompeo. I don't agree with those guys much but they know how the beltway operates and the roles they're there to play.
The truth? He claimed that Trig Palin was not in fact Sarah Palin's baby. Talk about birtherism! Clearly you are new to this game if you are just coming across Andrew Sullivan now. He is one of the father's of the blogosphere but he hasn't been a conservative for years.
He also has a history of believing in baby conspiracies. I have been reading Andrew Sullivan for years and I know full well his evolution on conservatism. As far as his support for LGBT rights it is about the same as Trump's which predated both Obama and Hillary Clinton. Trump was for gay marriage before it was cool.
you can keep attacking the messenger. the truth will hurt that much more when you finally decide to accept it.
Its not an issue because its a "conservative" administration. The cleanest administration since Jimmy Carter was referred to as an empty suit. And the candidate who promised to "drain the swamp," instead filled it and then some. Black is white, white is black, up is down, down is up. Its the alt-right way.
Was it treason when Pelosi and Kerry met with Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration? Was Tulsi Gabbard's meeting with Assad treason? Personally I'm not sure where this Flynn situation will end up but we might want to clarify what is and isn't treason before charges are made.
False equivalency. Can't defend the Russian involvement so attack the other side. There is a whole lot of there, there and it'll come out. Follow the money. But keep making excuses for your blind loyalty.
I have no blind loyalty. I'm very curious to see how this Flynn situation plays out and it's quite possible he will be turfed if he did indeed lie to the Vice President. That being said the "there there" is all over the place and while the knives are out for Flynn no one can be certain what the real story is. He may indeed have violated the law but people who are fans of Gabbard need to be very careful what they wish for.
Its not just about Flynn. Although he'll likely fall on his sword. Its much bigger than Flynn. My money is on Manafort singing like a canary. That you're willing to "wait and see" is telling. But I'm okay with the judicial process playing out. Its going to be untenable for the republicans. Please enlighten me on how Gabbard and Flynn are comparable?
What is telling about being willing to wait and see? Everybody should be willing to wait and see. There could certainly be something going on with Flynn or there could in fact be nothing. At the moment the question is whether Flynn discussed the lifting of sanctions with the Russian government. If he did so it could be considered a violation of the law as it was not done with permission of the Obama administration. The same could be said with any discussions Tulsi Gabbard had with the Assad regime. All reports so far, including Gabbard's own words, seem to claim that she went on her own without the permission of the government. There are questions as to who funded her trip and what was discussed. She did not have authority to make that trip as a representative of the US government. You might think the Flynn meeting is more nefarious and you could be right but the actual violation of the law if there even is one would be the same.
Was it treason when Pelosi and Kerry met with Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration? Was Tulsi Gabbard's meeting with Assad treason? Personally I'm not sure where this Flynn situation will end up but we might want to clarify what is and isn't treason before charges are made.
Pelosi and Kerry isn't treason because they were members of the US government at the time. That's what my only problem with Flynn is- at the end of December of 2016, he was not a member of the government. He was in no position to make policy statements in regard to the incoming administration. That's just not how our government works. And the fact that his phones calls to the Russian government go back well before the election, the very election Russia interfered with in hopes of benefitting Trump, is quite disturbing. This guy is literally editing the PDBs before they get to the President. That's insane! The President's own intelligence community is already collapsing around him and he needs to cut Flynn to save face with guys like Mattis, Pence and Pompeo. I don't agree with those guys much but they know how the beltway operates and the roles they're there to play.
Again I am not absolving Flynn of anything at this point but you are incorrect on the issue as to whether being in government makes these meetings ok. From my understanding if you are in government you still need to have the blessing of the state department and the executive branch when meeting with foreign leaders as it is the executive branch that conducts foreign policy.
The truth? He claimed that Trig Palin was not in fact Sarah Palin's baby. Talk about birtherism! Clearly you are new to this game if you are just coming across Andrew Sullivan now. He is one of the father's of the blogosphere but he hasn't been a conservative for years.
He also has a history of believing in baby conspiracies. I have been reading Andrew Sullivan for years and I know full well his evolution on conservatism. As far as his support for LGBT rights it is about the same as Trump's which predated both Obama and Hillary Clinton. Trump was for gay marriage before it was cool.
you can keep attacking the messenger. the truth will hurt that much more when you finally decide to accept it.
What truth? That Trump has a mental disorder?
a very specific mental disorder called NPD. It puts him in the same club as Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Pol Pot among others.
The truth? He claimed that Trig Palin was not in fact Sarah Palin's baby. Talk about birtherism! Clearly you are new to this game if you are just coming across Andrew Sullivan now. He is one of the father's of the blogosphere but he hasn't been a conservative for years.
He also has a history of believing in baby conspiracies. I have been reading Andrew Sullivan for years and I know full well his evolution on conservatism. As far as his support for LGBT rights it is about the same as Trump's which predated both Obama and Hillary Clinton. Trump was for gay marriage before it was cool.
you can keep attacking the messenger. the truth will hurt that much more when you finally decide to accept it.
What truth? That Trump has a mental disorder?
a very specific mental disorder called NPD. It puts him in the same club as Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Pol Pot among others.
The truth? He claimed that Trig Palin was not in fact Sarah Palin's baby. Talk about birtherism! Clearly you are new to this game if you are just coming across Andrew Sullivan now. He is one of the father's of the blogosphere but he hasn't been a conservative for years.
He also has a history of believing in baby conspiracies. I have been reading Andrew Sullivan for years and I know full well his evolution on conservatism. As far as his support for LGBT rights it is about the same as Trump's which predated both Obama and Hillary Clinton. Trump was for gay marriage before it was cool.
you can keep attacking the messenger. the truth will hurt that much more when you finally decide to accept it.
What truth? That Trump has a mental disorder?
a very specific mental disorder called NPD. It puts him in the same club as Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Pol Pot among others.
Ok doctor.
The diagnosis applies to trump. I don't have any doubts.
The truth? He claimed that Trig Palin was not in fact Sarah Palin's baby. Talk about birtherism! Clearly you are new to this game if you are just coming across Andrew Sullivan now. He is one of the father's of the blogosphere but he hasn't been a conservative for years.
He also has a history of believing in baby conspiracies. I have been reading Andrew Sullivan for years and I know full well his evolution on conservatism. As far as his support for LGBT rights it is about the same as Trump's which predated both Obama and Hillary Clinton. Trump was for gay marriage before it was cool.
you can keep attacking the messenger. the truth will hurt that much more when you finally decide to accept it.
What truth? That Trump has a mental disorder?
a very specific mental disorder called NPD. It puts him in the same club as Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Pol Pot among others.
Ok doctor.
The diagnosis applies to trump. I don't have any doubts.
The truth? He claimed that Trig Palin was not in fact Sarah Palin's baby. Talk about birtherism! Clearly you are new to this game if you are just coming across Andrew Sullivan now. He is one of the father's of the blogosphere but he hasn't been a conservative for years.
He also has a history of believing in baby conspiracies. I have been reading Andrew Sullivan for years and I know full well his evolution on conservatism. As far as his support for LGBT rights it is about the same as Trump's which predated both Obama and Hillary Clinton. Trump was for gay marriage before it was cool.
you can keep attacking the messenger. the truth will hurt that much more when you finally decide to accept it.
What truth? That Trump has a mental disorder?
a very specific mental disorder called NPD. It puts him in the same club as Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Pol Pot among others.
Ok doctor.
The diagnosis applies to trump. I don't have any doubts.
Was it treason when Pelosi and Kerry met with Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration? Was Tulsi Gabbard's meeting with Assad treason? Personally I'm not sure where this Flynn situation will end up but we might want to clarify what is and isn't treason before charges are made.
False equivalency. Can't defend the Russian involvement so attack the other side. There is a whole lot of there, there and it'll come out. Follow the money. But keep making excuses for your blind loyalty.
I have no blind loyalty. I'm very curious to see how this Flynn situation plays out and it's quite possible he will be turfed if he did indeed lie to the Vice President. That being said the "there there" is all over the place and while the knives are out for Flynn no one can be certain what the real story is. He may indeed have violated the law but people who are fans of Gabbard need to be very careful what they wish for.
Its not just about Flynn. Although he'll likely fall on his sword. Its much bigger than Flynn. My money is on Manafort singing like a canary. That you're willing to "wait and see" is telling. But I'm okay with the judicial process playing out. Its going to be untenable for the republicans. Please enlighten me on how Gabbard and Flynn are comparable?
What is telling about being willing to wait and see? Everybody should be willing to wait and see. There could certainly be something going on with Flynn or there could in fact be nothing. At the moment the question is whether Flynn discussed the lifting of sanctions with the Russian government. If he did so it could be considered a violation of the law as it was not done with permission of the Obama administration. The same could be said with any discussions Tulsi Gabbard had with the Assad regime. All reports so far, including Gabbard's own words, seem to claim that she went on her own without the permission of the government. There are questions as to who funded her trip and what was discussed. She did not have authority to make that trip as a representative of the US government. You might think the Flynn meeting is more nefarious and you could be right but the actual violation of the law if there even is one would be the same.
You mean like wait and see with Benghazi? Or Clinton's emails? Or pizzagate? 4 Benghazi investigations and nary a congressional peep regarding Russian influence and penetration of the highest levels of government. Intel agencies don't normally withhold intelligence. Plus, there's golden showers.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
And I for one appreciate you coming back to apologize and clarify.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
This used to be called Treason
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
This is more than Mike Flynn...
Everyone should read this, it lays it all out
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/johnwright/ivanka_trump_on_her_father_in_2006_he_wears_a_pink_bathrobe
source?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
What a moron.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com