I think things are getting a little confusing here. Halifax posted a picture of a dumb conservative holding something, and asked for a liberal equivalent, so I posted a picture of a dumb liberal holding something. That's the only reason this picture of Griffin is here.
Sure, it’s all my fault.
Haha. Nope, definitely not your fault! Ledbetterman10, I don't think anything is confused. I'm simply saying that your liberal equivalent is not equivalent, IMO.
Yeah, it's worse. The conservative is just a random woman with a sign, while the liberal is a celebrity showing off violent imagery. I guess if I went with Antifa protesters it would have been more equivalent. Or liberals pounding on the doors of the Supreme Court following the Kavanaugh confirmation.
Did the woman holding the dumb repub sign suffer a backlash, ostracism, shouted down by her brethren? Shunning used to be popular.
Whatever happened to that repub/con, “let the markets decide?”
Nice deflection. Why can't you ever address the topic. You said she was shunned and blah blah blah. She's fine. I don't care at all.
What I do care about is it seems the biggest snowflakes are the ones that are always screaming about snowflakes. The biggest triggered group are the ones always screaming about people being triggered. The ones that constantly use Whataboutism are the ones constantly complaining about others whataboutism.
I think things are getting a little confusing here. Halifax posted a picture of a dumb conservative holding something, and asked for a liberal equivalent, so I posted a picture of a dumb liberal holding something. That's the only reason this picture of Griffin is here.
Sure, it’s all my fault.
Haha. Nope, definitely not your fault! Ledbetterman10, I don't think anything is confused. I'm simply saying that your liberal equivalent is not equivalent, IMO.
Well of course they aren't equivalent. One is just an idiot with a sign. The other was a thought out plan that basically threatens a sitting president with a beheading and hides behind "art". Not equivalent at all! I'm certain that's what you mean, because if you see it any other way then you are simply in denial.
Well he did say it was an equivalent, so you can't blame me for thinking that's what he meant. But, um, what?? You think an art piece is a threat?? I could not disagree with you more strongly on that. No, I'm not in denial, I am drawing a distinction between political art and just some random participating in public douchebaggery.
Kathy was participating in some thought out public douchebaggery.
And yes, I find that not to be art at all. Just someone trying to hide behind art as the reason they can be a doucehbag.
I think it stretches the definition of 'art', to be kind. If there was a sculpture of a priest molesting a child, is that art? They are both depictions of heinous crimes. I know I'm stirring it up with this one.
Well yes, a sculpture is art. The palatability of art is not what defines it as art. Thank goodness. Do you know how many great works of art depict heinous crimes and other violent imagery? A LOT.
And FWIW, I would frankly love it if some artist decided to create said sculpture and then leave it on the Pope's doorstep. Talk about a potent message.
Okay, fair enough. And funny idea with teh Pope, although I am not as down on this pope as I was on the last two. I don't have a problem with either of them, but I do think it's an apt comparison, so I'll disagree with you there. The broader point that I've been making is that both sides have issues, mostly because both sides have people, and people are flawed, stupid, ignorant, etc. I'm just sick of the team sport attitude. It's not working.
I think things are getting a little confusing here. Halifax posted a picture of a dumb conservative holding something, and asked for a liberal equivalent, so I posted a picture of a dumb liberal holding something. That's the only reason this picture of Griffin is here.
Sure, it’s all my fault.
Haha. Nope, definitely not your fault! Ledbetterman10, I don't think anything is confused. I'm simply saying that your liberal equivalent is not equivalent, IMO.
Yeah, it's worse. The conservative is just a random woman with a sign, while the liberal is a celebrity showing off violent imagery. I guess if I went with Antifa protesters it would have been more equivalent. Or liberals pounding on the doors of the Supreme Court following the Kavanaugh confirmation.
Did the woman holding the dumb repub sign suffer a backlash, ostracism, shouted down by her brethren? Shunning used to be popular.
Whatever happened to that repub/con, “let the markets decide?”
Nice deflection. Why can't you ever address the topic. You said she was shunned and blah blah blah. She's fine. I don't care at all.
What I do care about is it seems the biggest snowflakes are the ones that are always screaming about snowflakes. The biggest triggered group are the ones always screaming about people being triggered. The ones that constantly use Whataboutism are the ones constantly complaining about others whataboutism.
Outside Mar-I-Lieo, courtesy of the NYT. Show me the dem/lib equivalent.
Ask for psycho dems and you shall receive.
I believe she was widely condemned by both sides, investigated by the Secret Service and has since been ostracized and blown away inot the dustbin of history. In fact, I don't even recall her name and haven't seen nor heard of her since. If that had been a Team Trump Treason supporter with Obama's head, she would have been made SOS or VP.
Okay so you were supportive of fellow liberals holding her accountable because what she did was wrong, even though the Republican's house isn't in order? Or were you against condemning her because some lady has a sign outside Mar A Lago?
Yes, but my point being, the repubs will never get their house in order. Its too effective for them. Meanwhile, us libs will continue to have it shoved up our ass, all the while being told to be "more civil." Again, I'm more than happy to meet half way but I need to see movement on the right. The left moves all the time and tries to build bridges and coalitions and solicits cooperation. And what do we get for our efforts? More ridicule, demonization and denigration. The problem isn't biggest on, or with, the left. Were leftiies standing outside Obama's motorcade with signs ridiculing repubs/conservatives? Obama was ridiculed for wearing a tan suit by repub members of Congress. Remeber that?
You're talking about the echo chambers on both sides. I'm talking about winning the middle. I don't think one swing or disengaged voter cared about a tan suit. No one in their echo chambers is changing their mind.
That's why it's time for Schultz-A-Mania!
Haha, says the guy that sees him stealing Democratic votes. His campaign is dead. I think a lot of people yearn for the normalcy of Biden. I know I do. Let's set things back to square and then can implement some progressive ideas, like universal healthcare, but not breaking up tech companies because we don't like rich guys. It's interesting that Warren didn't single out Apple when they are much more active in mixing platform with product than Amazon.
Biden will not get the support of his party. I had hopes for Hickenlooper but his answer on whether he is a capitalist was pathetic. It shows where the base is. I don't see how Biden pulls it out. It's Bernie's party now.
So far Biden leads in Iowa and Michigan, two statewide polls that have been released. And both are after Bernie announced. Bernie is the 2nd. So while you may be right, current evidence doesn't support it. The worst case scenario for the Democrats is for this to be a battle between capitalism and socialism ideas. That's a loser every time. It must be a referendum on Trump.
I think Biden and Bernie are 1 and 2 out of name recognition at this early stage. My feeling is that Bernie has far more committed backers while Biden's support is softer and out of nostalgia. This is not a bad place to be for Biden but in a field this large he cannot lose his soft support to any of the other candidates. Bernie's support is strong and enduring and in a crowded field he will likely have the enthusiasm needed to come out on top.
I think he's helped by the large field, between NH/IA and into the deep primaries. It will be interesting when the field thins out and those are the two that are standing, plus maybe one more that is well financed. I agree that Bernie has more passionate supporters but I don't know if that means more supporters. Remember at the end of the day, Hillary garnered far more votes than him in the primary.
Very true but no super delegates this time around. It will be very interesting. I think if Beto gets in it hurts Bernie which should clear the path for Biden.
She won the popular, so the absence of the supers would not have changed the outcome. Democrats will rue the day that they gave up the SD's. It may be in 2020.
I totally agree and am surprised you feel the same way. Should I assume the base of the party worries you?
The far wing of every party concerns me. It's not a new concern. If you go back two years, you will see that I was very critical of Sanders. I am a moderate that leans left. I believe in capitalism, but I think it creates winners and losers, and the gov't needs to balance that out, without eliminating the incentive to be a winner. It's a delicate balancing act that needs to be re-calibrated. I don't think capitalism is "irredeemable" like AOC. And I certainly am not in favor of economic nationalism and tariffs.
That's what I thought but I guess to be more specific...because at the end of the day it's all that really matter...should Sanders win the nomination would you vote for him? Would you stay home? Would you vote third party? Or would you plug your nose and actually vote Trump?
I think things are getting a little confusing here. Halifax posted a picture of a dumb conservative holding something, and asked for a liberal equivalent, so I posted a picture of a dumb liberal holding something. That's the only reason this picture of Griffin is here.
Sure, it’s all my fault.
Haha. Nope, definitely not your fault! Ledbetterman10, I don't think anything is confused. I'm simply saying that your liberal equivalent is not equivalent, IMO.
Yeah, it's worse. The conservative is just a random woman with a sign, while the liberal is a celebrity showing off violent imagery. I guess if I went with Antifa protesters it would have been more equivalent. Or liberals pounding on the doors of the Supreme Court following the Kavanaugh confirmation.
Did the woman holding the dumb repub sign suffer a backlash, ostracism, shouted down by her brethren? Shunning used to be popular.
Whatever happened to that repub/con, “let the markets decide?”
Nice deflection. Why can't you ever address the topic. You said she was shunned and blah blah blah. She's fine. I don't care at all.
What I do care about is it seems the biggest snowflakes are the ones that are always screaming about snowflakes. The biggest triggered group are the ones always screaming about people being triggered. The ones that constantly use Whataboutism are the ones constantly complaining about others whataboutism.
I think things are getting a little confusing here. Halifax posted a picture of a dumb conservative holding something, and asked for a liberal equivalent, so I posted a picture of a dumb liberal holding something. That's the only reason this picture of Griffin is here.
Sure, it’s all my fault.
Haha. Nope, definitely not your fault! Ledbetterman10, I don't think anything is confused. I'm simply saying that your liberal equivalent is not equivalent, IMO.
Yeah, it's worse. The conservative is just a random woman with a sign, while the liberal is a celebrity showing off violent imagery. I guess if I went with Antifa protesters it would have been more equivalent. Or liberals pounding on the doors of the Supreme Court following the Kavanaugh confirmation.
Did the woman holding the dumb repub sign suffer a backlash, ostracism, shouted down by her brethren? Shunning used to be popular.
Whatever happened to that repub/con, “let the markets decide?”
Nice deflection. Why can't you ever address the topic. You said she was shunned and blah blah blah. She's fine. I don't care at all.
What I do care about is it seems the biggest snowflakes are the ones that are always screaming about snowflakes. The biggest triggered group are the ones always screaming about people being triggered. The ones that constantly use Whataboutism are the ones constantly complaining about others whataboutism.
Bully. I’ve addressed my points time and time again. You know, Cincy, it’s okay to disagree. I’m just voicing my opinion like everyone else. So people are paying money to go see her. I’m not, are you?
Outside Mar-I-Lieo, courtesy of the NYT. Show me the dem/lib equivalent.
Ask for psycho dems and you shall receive.
I believe she was widely condemned by both sides, investigated by the Secret Service and has since been ostracized and blown away inot the dustbin of history. In fact, I don't even recall her name and haven't seen nor heard of her since. If that had been a Team Trump Treason supporter with Obama's head, she would have been made SOS or VP.
Okay so you were supportive of fellow liberals holding her accountable because what she did was wrong, even though the Republican's house isn't in order? Or were you against condemning her because some lady has a sign outside Mar A Lago?
Yes, but my point being, the repubs will never get their house in order. Its too effective for them. Meanwhile, us libs will continue to have it shoved up our ass, all the while being told to be "more civil." Again, I'm more than happy to meet half way but I need to see movement on the right. The left moves all the time and tries to build bridges and coalitions and solicits cooperation. And what do we get for our efforts? More ridicule, demonization and denigration. The problem isn't biggest on, or with, the left. Were leftiies standing outside Obama's motorcade with signs ridiculing repubs/conservatives? Obama was ridiculed for wearing a tan suit by repub members of Congress. Remeber that?
You're talking about the echo chambers on both sides. I'm talking about winning the middle. I don't think one swing or disengaged voter cared about a tan suit. No one in their echo chambers is changing their mind.
That's why it's time for Schultz-A-Mania!
Haha, says the guy that sees him stealing Democratic votes. His campaign is dead. I think a lot of people yearn for the normalcy of Biden. I know I do. Let's set things back to square and then can implement some progressive ideas, like universal healthcare, but not breaking up tech companies because we don't like rich guys. It's interesting that Warren didn't single out Apple when they are much more active in mixing platform with product than Amazon.
Biden will not get the support of his party. I had hopes for Hickenlooper but his answer on whether he is a capitalist was pathetic. It shows where the base is. I don't see how Biden pulls it out. It's Bernie's party now.
So far Biden leads in Iowa and Michigan, two statewide polls that have been released. And both are after Bernie announced. Bernie is the 2nd. So while you may be right, current evidence doesn't support it. The worst case scenario for the Democrats is for this to be a battle between capitalism and socialism ideas. That's a loser every time. It must be a referendum on Trump.
I think Biden and Bernie are 1 and 2 out of name recognition at this early stage. My feeling is that Bernie has far more committed backers while Biden's support is softer and out of nostalgia. This is not a bad place to be for Biden but in a field this large he cannot lose his soft support to any of the other candidates. Bernie's support is strong and enduring and in a crowded field he will likely have the enthusiasm needed to come out on top.
I think he's helped by the large field, between NH/IA and into the deep primaries. It will be interesting when the field thins out and those are the two that are standing, plus maybe one more that is well financed. I agree that Bernie has more passionate supporters but I don't know if that means more supporters. Remember at the end of the day, Hillary garnered far more votes than him in the primary.
Very true but no super delegates this time around. It will be very interesting. I think if Beto gets in it hurts Bernie which should clear the path for Biden.
She won the popular, so the absence of the supers would not have changed the outcome. Democrats will rue the day that they gave up the SD's. It may be in 2020.
I totally agree and am surprised you feel the same way. Should I assume the base of the party worries you?
The far wing of every party concerns me. It's not a new concern. If you go back two years, you will see that I was very critical of Sanders. I am a moderate that leans left. I believe in capitalism, but I think it creates winners and losers, and the gov't needs to balance that out, without eliminating the incentive to be a winner. It's a delicate balancing act that needs to be re-calibrated. I don't think capitalism is "irredeemable" like AOC. And I certainly am not in favor of economic nationalism and tariffs.
That's what I thought but I guess to be more specific...because at the end of the day it's all that really matter...should Sanders win the nomination would you vote for him? Would you stay home? Would you vote third party? Or would you plug your nose and actually vote Trump?
I'd vote for Sanders. I don't think he would get the most aggressive parts of his agenda through and I also think he has a stronger inherent respect for the Constitution, for knowledge, for reasoned argument and the human rights and dignity of others. So from a moral perspective, I would be obliged to vote for him. I think Trump is a despicable human being, so I could never support him, in any circumstance.
Fair and probably correct on how much of an agenda he could pass because of what will likely be a Republican senate but should the Dems take the Senate then he might be able to pass anything. You know the base will say "the republicans got rid of the filibuster on supreme court nominees so let's get rid of it everywhere else"...that's just how the "obstruction game" goes. You would also have to accept a Bernie foreign policy that doesn't really take issue with the Maduro's of the world. I'm not saying Trump is any better but at least he keeps a few neocons like Bolton around to at least give him some alternative view points.
Outside Mar-I-Lieo, courtesy of the NYT. Show me the dem/lib equivalent.
Ask for psycho dems and you shall receive.
I believe she was widely condemned by both sides, investigated by the Secret Service and has since been ostracized and blown away inot the dustbin of history. In fact, I don't even recall her name and haven't seen nor heard of her since. If that had been a Team Trump Treason supporter with Obama's head, she would have been made SOS or VP.
Okay so you were supportive of fellow liberals holding her accountable because what she did was wrong, even though the Republican's house isn't in order? Or were you against condemning her because some lady has a sign outside Mar A Lago?
Yes, but my point being, the repubs will never get their house in order. Its too effective for them. Meanwhile, us libs will continue to have it shoved up our ass, all the while being told to be "more civil." Again, I'm more than happy to meet half way but I need to see movement on the right. The left moves all the time and tries to build bridges and coalitions and solicits cooperation. And what do we get for our efforts? More ridicule, demonization and denigration. The problem isn't biggest on, or with, the left. Were leftiies standing outside Obama's motorcade with signs ridiculing repubs/conservatives? Obama was ridiculed for wearing a tan suit by repub members of Congress. Remeber that?
You're talking about the echo chambers on both sides. I'm talking about winning the middle. I don't think one swing or disengaged voter cared about a tan suit. No one in their echo chambers is changing their mind.
That's why it's time for Schultz-A-Mania!
Haha, says the guy that sees him stealing Democratic votes. His campaign is dead. I think a lot of people yearn for the normalcy of Biden. I know I do. Let's set things back to square and then can implement some progressive ideas, like universal healthcare, but not breaking up tech companies because we don't like rich guys. It's interesting that Warren didn't single out Apple when they are much more active in mixing platform with product than Amazon.
Biden will not get the support of his party. I had hopes for Hickenlooper but his answer on whether he is a capitalist was pathetic. It shows where the base is. I don't see how Biden pulls it out. It's Bernie's party now.
So far Biden leads in Iowa and Michigan, two statewide polls that have been released. And both are after Bernie announced. Bernie is the 2nd. So while you may be right, current evidence doesn't support it. The worst case scenario for the Democrats is for this to be a battle between capitalism and socialism ideas. That's a loser every time. It must be a referendum on Trump.
I think Biden and Bernie are 1 and 2 out of name recognition at this early stage. My feeling is that Bernie has far more committed backers while Biden's support is softer and out of nostalgia. This is not a bad place to be for Biden but in a field this large he cannot lose his soft support to any of the other candidates. Bernie's support is strong and enduring and in a crowded field he will likely have the enthusiasm needed to come out on top.
I think he's helped by the large field, between NH/IA and into the deep primaries. It will be interesting when the field thins out and those are the two that are standing, plus maybe one more that is well financed. I agree that Bernie has more passionate supporters but I don't know if that means more supporters. Remember at the end of the day, Hillary garnered far more votes than him in the primary.
Very true but no super delegates this time around. It will be very interesting. I think if Beto gets in it hurts Bernie which should clear the path for Biden.
She won the popular, so the absence of the supers would not have changed the outcome. Democrats will rue the day that they gave up the SD's. It may be in 2020.
I totally agree and am surprised you feel the same way. Should I assume the base of the party worries you?
The far wing of every party concerns me. It's not a new concern. If you go back two years, you will see that I was very critical of Sanders. I am a moderate that leans left. I believe in capitalism, but I think it creates winners and losers, and the gov't needs to balance that out, without eliminating the incentive to be a winner. It's a delicate balancing act that needs to be re-calibrated. I don't think capitalism is "irredeemable" like AOC. And I certainly am not in favor of economic nationalism and tariffs.
That's what I thought but I guess to be more specific...because at the end of the day it's all that really matter...should Sanders win the nomination would you vote for him? Would you stay home? Would you vote third party? Or would you plug your nose and actually vote Trump?
Can I answer???? I don’t see myself being able to vote for Bernie. I’d stay home or, more likely, vote 3rd party.
Outside Mar-I-Lieo, courtesy of the NYT. Show me the dem/lib equivalent.
Ask for psycho dems and you shall receive.
I believe she was widely condemned by both sides, investigated by the Secret Service and has since been ostracized and blown away inot the dustbin of history. In fact, I don't even recall her name and haven't seen nor heard of her since. If that had been a Team Trump Treason supporter with Obama's head, she would have been made SOS or VP.
Okay so you were supportive of fellow liberals holding her accountable because what she did was wrong, even though the Republican's house isn't in order? Or were you against condemning her because some lady has a sign outside Mar A Lago?
Yes, but my point being, the repubs will never get their house in order. Its too effective for them. Meanwhile, us libs will continue to have it shoved up our ass, all the while being told to be "more civil." Again, I'm more than happy to meet half way but I need to see movement on the right. The left moves all the time and tries to build bridges and coalitions and solicits cooperation. And what do we get for our efforts? More ridicule, demonization and denigration. The problem isn't biggest on, or with, the left. Were leftiies standing outside Obama's motorcade with signs ridiculing repubs/conservatives? Obama was ridiculed for wearing a tan suit by repub members of Congress. Remeber that?
You're talking about the echo chambers on both sides. I'm talking about winning the middle. I don't think one swing or disengaged voter cared about a tan suit. No one in their echo chambers is changing their mind.
That's why it's time for Schultz-A-Mania!
Haha, says the guy that sees him stealing Democratic votes. His campaign is dead. I think a lot of people yearn for the normalcy of Biden. I know I do. Let's set things back to square and then can implement some progressive ideas, like universal healthcare, but not breaking up tech companies because we don't like rich guys. It's interesting that Warren didn't single out Apple when they are much more active in mixing platform with product than Amazon.
Biden will not get the support of his party. I had hopes for Hickenlooper but his answer on whether he is a capitalist was pathetic. It shows where the base is. I don't see how Biden pulls it out. It's Bernie's party now.
So far Biden leads in Iowa and Michigan, two statewide polls that have been released. And both are after Bernie announced. Bernie is the 2nd. So while you may be right, current evidence doesn't support it. The worst case scenario for the Democrats is for this to be a battle between capitalism and socialism ideas. That's a loser every time. It must be a referendum on Trump.
I think Biden and Bernie are 1 and 2 out of name recognition at this early stage. My feeling is that Bernie has far more committed backers while Biden's support is softer and out of nostalgia. This is not a bad place to be for Biden but in a field this large he cannot lose his soft support to any of the other candidates. Bernie's support is strong and enduring and in a crowded field he will likely have the enthusiasm needed to come out on top.
I think he's helped by the large field, between NH/IA and into the deep primaries. It will be interesting when the field thins out and those are the two that are standing, plus maybe one more that is well financed. I agree that Bernie has more passionate supporters but I don't know if that means more supporters. Remember at the end of the day, Hillary garnered far more votes than him in the primary.
Very true but no super delegates this time around. It will be very interesting. I think if Beto gets in it hurts Bernie which should clear the path for Biden.
She won the popular, so the absence of the supers would not have changed the outcome. Democrats will rue the day that they gave up the SD's. It may be in 2020.
I totally agree and am surprised you feel the same way. Should I assume the base of the party worries you?
The far wing of every party concerns me. It's not a new concern. If you go back two years, you will see that I was very critical of Sanders. I am a moderate that leans left. I believe in capitalism, but I think it creates winners and losers, and the gov't needs to balance that out, without eliminating the incentive to be a winner. It's a delicate balancing act that needs to be re-calibrated. I don't think capitalism is "irredeemable" like AOC. And I certainly am not in favor of economic nationalism and tariffs.
That's what I thought but I guess to be more specific...because at the end of the day it's all that really matter...should Sanders win the nomination would you vote for him? Would you stay home? Would you vote third party? Or would you plug your nose and actually vote Trump?
Can I answer???? I don’t see myself being able to vote for Bernie. I’d stay home or, more likely, vote 3rd party.
Schultz-A-Mania! Seriously though...if Biden is nominee Schultz is likely out. If Bernie is nominee Schultz is likely in. That is the scenario where he can steal votes from both parties.
One picture is a person with a sign. The other is a person with a fucking severed head. Is this conversation for real? Am I missing something?
.... It's not a real severed head, lol. Yes, I think you're missing something. You seem to think that the conversation is about the shock-level of the subject. It's not.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
It's my fault that stupid picture is even being talked about. Shoulda went with Antifa Protesters in retrospect.
Nah, it's a good conversation and was appropriate. We've had better arguments around here the last few days. Much less name calling. I'm sure Kat's heart is warmed by it.
It's my fault that stupid picture is even being talked about. Shoulda went with Antifa Protesters in retrospect.
Nah, it's a good conversation and was appropriate. We've had better arguments around here the last few days. Much less name calling. I'm sure Kat's heart is warmed by it.
You're right, we have. I wonder what changed?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
There is an argument to be made that playing by the rules makes you a loser. Republicans gave up on the rules years ago and continue to win where it matters. Democrats can hang their hat on their high morals and will probably still lose. Historically the whole political spectrum in the US has been shifted right. The right is winning the war by playing dirty.
The argument is that you can't win against a moraly corrupt GOP if you continue to play by the rules and expect them to meet you halfway. All while the left continues to eat its own over petty stuff. I totally understand what Halifax is saying.
The Lisa Page testimony just released yesterday says that the Obama DOJ overruled the FBI on charging Hillary. So who exactly is playing by the rules?
Given who I'm hearing this from I need a source.
Don't you read the news?
lol your back and when is HRC getting convicted since the Baffoon is off the hook as far as your concerned..
There is an argument to be made that playing by the rules makes you a loser. Republicans gave up on the rules years ago and continue to win where it matters. Democrats can hang their hat on their high morals and will probably still lose. Historically the whole political spectrum in the US has been shifted right. The right is winning the war by playing dirty.
The argument is that you can't win against a moraly corrupt GOP if you continue to play by the rules and expect them to meet you halfway. All while the left continues to eat its own over petty stuff. I totally understand what Halifax is saying.
The Lisa Page testimony just released yesterday says that the Obama DOJ overruled the FBI on charging Hillary. So who exactly is playing by the rules?
Given who I'm hearing this from I need a source.
Don't you read the news?
lol your back and when is HRC getting convicted since the Baffoon is off the hook as far as your concerned..
There is an argument to be made that playing by the rules makes you a loser. Republicans gave up on the rules years ago and continue to win where it matters. Democrats can hang their hat on their high morals and will probably still lose. Historically the whole political spectrum in the US has been shifted right. The right is winning the war by playing dirty.
The argument is that you can't win against a moraly corrupt GOP if you continue to play by the rules and expect them to meet you halfway. All while the left continues to eat its own over petty stuff. I totally understand what Halifax is saying.
The Lisa Page testimony just released yesterday says that the Obama DOJ overruled the FBI on charging Hillary. So who exactly is playing by the rules?
Given who I'm hearing this from I need a source.
Don't you read the news?
lol your back and when is HRC getting convicted since the Baffoon is off the hook as far as your concerned..
There is an argument to be made that playing by the rules makes you a loser. Republicans gave up on the rules years ago and continue to win where it matters. Democrats can hang their hat on their high morals and will probably still lose. Historically the whole political spectrum in the US has been shifted right. The right is winning the war by playing dirty.
The argument is that you can't win against a moraly corrupt GOP if you continue to play by the rules and expect them to meet you halfway. All while the left continues to eat its own over petty stuff. I totally understand what Halifax is saying.
The Lisa Page testimony just released yesterday says that the Obama DOJ overruled the FBI on charging Hillary. So who exactly is playing by the rules?
Given who I'm hearing this from I need a source.
Don't you read the news?
lol your back and when is HRC getting convicted since the Baffoon is off the hook as far as your concerned..
There is an argument to be made that playing by the rules makes you a loser. Republicans gave up on the rules years ago and continue to win where it matters. Democrats can hang their hat on their high morals and will probably still lose. Historically the whole political spectrum in the US has been shifted right. The right is winning the war by playing dirty.
The argument is that you can't win against a moraly corrupt GOP if you continue to play by the rules and expect them to meet you halfway. All while the left continues to eat its own over petty stuff. I totally understand what Halifax is saying.
The Lisa Page testimony just released yesterday says that the Obama DOJ overruled the FBI on charging Hillary. So who exactly is playing by the rules?
Given who I'm hearing this from I need a source.
Don't you read the news?
lol your back and when is HRC getting convicted since the Baffoon is off the hook as far as your concerned..
The court ordered depositions were just announced.
Who ?
As most of you ignore any media sources on the right I'm not surprised that this is news to you all. Here's some backstory on the federal judge's ruling and the upcoming depositions if you are interested in bringing yourselves up to speed...
There is an argument to be made that playing by the rules makes you a loser. Republicans gave up on the rules years ago and continue to win where it matters. Democrats can hang their hat on their high morals and will probably still lose. Historically the whole political spectrum in the US has been shifted right. The right is winning the war by playing dirty.
The argument is that you can't win against a moraly corrupt GOP if you continue to play by the rules and expect them to meet you halfway. All while the left continues to eat its own over petty stuff. I totally understand what Halifax is saying.
The Lisa Page testimony just released yesterday says that the Obama DOJ overruled the FBI on charging Hillary. So who exactly is playing by the rules?
Given who I'm hearing this from I need a source.
Don't you read the news?
lol your back and when is HRC getting convicted since the Baffoon is off the hook as far as your concerned..
The court ordered depositions were just announced.
Who ?
As most of you ignore any media sources on the right I'm not surprised that this is news to you all. Here's some backstory on the federal judge's ruling and the upcoming depositions if you are interested in bringing yourselves up to speed...
There is an argument to be made that playing by the rules makes you a loser. Republicans gave up on the rules years ago and continue to win where it matters. Democrats can hang their hat on their high morals and will probably still lose. Historically the whole political spectrum in the US has been shifted right. The right is winning the war by playing dirty.
The argument is that you can't win against a moraly corrupt GOP if you continue to play by the rules and expect them to meet you halfway. All while the left continues to eat its own over petty stuff. I totally understand what Halifax is saying.
The Lisa Page testimony just released yesterday says that the Obama DOJ overruled the FBI on charging Hillary. So who exactly is playing by the rules?
Given who I'm hearing this from I need a source.
Don't you read the news?
lol your back and when is HRC getting convicted since the Baffoon is off the hook as far as your concerned..
The court ordered depositions were just announced.
Who ?
As most of you ignore any media sources on the right I'm not surprised that this is news to you all. Here's some backstory on the federal judge's ruling and the upcoming depositions if you are interested in bringing yourselves up to speed...
FFS, at least have the sense to not post a Fox News link. Nobody's going to trust that, for good reason. Yes, that's right. The "left wing" news is reporting it too. Of course. And without a Foxy spin.
There is an argument to be made that playing by the rules makes you a loser. Republicans gave up on the rules years ago and continue to win where it matters. Democrats can hang their hat on their high morals and will probably still lose. Historically the whole political spectrum in the US has been shifted right. The right is winning the war by playing dirty.
The argument is that you can't win against a moraly corrupt GOP if you continue to play by the rules and expect them to meet you halfway. All while the left continues to eat its own over petty stuff. I totally understand what Halifax is saying.
The Lisa Page testimony just released yesterday says that the Obama DOJ overruled the FBI on charging Hillary. So who exactly is playing by the rules?
Given who I'm hearing this from I need a source.
Don't you read the news?
lol your back and when is HRC getting convicted since the Baffoon is off the hook as far as your concerned..
The court ordered depositions were just announced.
Who ?
As most of you ignore any media sources on the right I'm not surprised that this is news to you all. Here's some backstory on the federal judge's ruling and the upcoming depositions if you are interested in bringing yourselves up to speed...
Founded in 1994, JW has primarily targeted Democrats, in particular the Clinton administration, the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton, although it has sued Republicans as well including the administration of George W. Bush. It has also filed lawsuits against government climate scientists; Judicial Watch has described climate science as "fraud science". The group has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, which have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. The vast majority of its lawsuits have been dismissed.[1]
One picture is a person with a sign. The other is a person with a fucking severed head. Is this conversation for real? Am I missing something?
.... It's not a real severed head, lol. Yes, I think you're missing something. You seem to think that the conversation is about the shock-level of the subject. It's not.
Thanks for clarifying - here I was under the impression the person in the oval office was an imposter because I thought Griffin truly beheaded Trump.
That woman's sign is not worthy of condemnation, it's worthy of a laugh. And no - I don't think the conversation is about the shock level of the subject, I think it's about proportional responses to words/actions. I feel that 'no comment' is exactly the proportional response appropriate for an idiot with a meaningless sign and will now practice what I preach and stop wasting my time on this. You guys have fun.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
There is an argument to be made that playing by the rules makes you a loser. Republicans gave up on the rules years ago and continue to win where it matters. Democrats can hang their hat on their high morals and will probably still lose. Historically the whole political spectrum in the US has been shifted right. The right is winning the war by playing dirty.
The argument is that you can't win against a moraly corrupt GOP if you continue to play by the rules and expect them to meet you halfway. All while the left continues to eat its own over petty stuff. I totally understand what Halifax is saying.
The Lisa Page testimony just released yesterday says that the Obama DOJ overruled the FBI on charging Hillary. So who exactly is playing by the rules?
Given who I'm hearing this from I need a source.
Don't you read the news?
lol your back and when is HRC getting convicted since the Baffoon is off the hook as far as your concerned..
The court ordered depositions were just announced.
Who ?
As most of you ignore any media sources on the right I'm not surprised that this is news to you all. Here's some backstory on the federal judge's ruling and the upcoming depositions if you are interested in bringing yourselves up to speed...
"Media sources on the right?" I read the WSJ when I can. Your links? Not so much.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Some Fake News Country: USA World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
History
Founded in 1994 by Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate alleged misconduct by government officials. They primarily target Democrats such as the Clinton’s, Obama and climate scientists as they label climate science, “fraud science.” Judicial Watch has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, with a “vast majority” of their lawsuits dismissed. They describe themselves as “a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.” The current President of JW is Tom Fitton.
Funded by / Ownership
Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with contributions received from individuals, foundations, and corporations. According to Sourcewatch,JW receives funding from prominent right wing organizations such as the Carthage Foundation and Scafie Foundation.
Analysis / Bias
Judicial Watch reports news on their website with the use of strong emotional language that is usually pro-right or anti-left. Common topics covered are anti-immigration, in which they highlight crimes committed by illegal immigrants such as this: Busy Month for Illegal Immigrants Committing Heinous Crimes or dedicating an entire website to exposing former President Obama’s alleged IRS scandal. They have also promoted debunked conspiracy theories such as this. Further, the founder of JW, Larry Klayman recently promoted the conspiracy that the Clinton’s were killing people. In general the majority of content and story selection is anti-left.
A factual search reveals a horrible track record with fact checking. Below is a small sample of their failed fact checks by IFCN fact checkers
Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record. (7/19/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 7/23/2018)
It's my fault that stupid picture is even being talked about. Shoulda went with Antifa Protesters in retrospect.
Nah, it's a good conversation and was appropriate. We've had better arguments around here the last few days. Much less name calling. I'm sure Kat's heart is warmed by it.
Comments
What I do care about is it seems the biggest snowflakes are the ones that are always screaming about snowflakes. The biggest triggered group are the ones always screaming about people being triggered. The ones that constantly use Whataboutism are the ones constantly complaining about others whataboutism.
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Fair and probably correct on how much of an agenda he could pass because of what will likely be a Republican senate but should the Dems take the Senate then he might be able to pass anything. You know the base will say "the republicans got rid of the filibuster on supreme court nominees so let's get rid of it everywhere else"...that's just how the "obstruction game" goes. You would also have to accept a Bernie foreign policy that doesn't really take issue with the Maduro's of the world. I'm not saying Trump is any better but at least he keeps a few neocons like Bolton around to at least give him some alternative view points.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-depositions-of-senior-obama-era-officials-and-former-hillary-clinton-aides/
The court ordered depositions were just announced.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-department-provided-clearly-false-statements-to-derail-hillary-clinton-doc-requests-federal-judge-says
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group[1] and self-styled watchdog group[2][3] that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials.
Founded in 1994, JW has primarily targeted Democrats, in particular the Clinton administration, the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton, although it has sued Republicans as well including the administration of George W. Bush. It has also filed lawsuits against government climate scientists; Judicial Watch has described climate science as "fraud science". The group has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, which have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. The vast majority of its lawsuits have been dismissed.[1]
That woman's sign is not worthy of condemnation, it's worthy of a laugh. And no - I don't think the conversation is about the shock level of the subject, I think it's about proportional responses to words/actions. I feel that 'no comment' is exactly the proportional response appropriate for an idiot with a meaningless sign and will now practice what I preach and stop wasting my time on this. You guys have fun.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Some Fake News
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
History
Founded in 1994 by Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate alleged misconduct by government officials. They primarily target Democrats such as the Clinton’s, Obama and climate scientists as they label climate science, “fraud science.” Judicial Watch has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, with a “vast majority” of their lawsuits dismissed. They describe themselves as “a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.” The current President of JW is Tom Fitton.
Funded by / Ownership
Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with contributions received from individuals, foundations, and corporations. According to Sourcewatch, JW receives funding from prominent right wing organizations such as the Carthage Foundation and Scafie Foundation.
Analysis / Bias
Judicial Watch reports news on their website with the use of strong emotional language that is usually pro-right or anti-left. Common topics covered are anti-immigration, in which they highlight crimes committed by illegal immigrants such as this: Busy Month for Illegal Immigrants Committing Heinous Crimes or dedicating an entire website to exposing former President Obama’s alleged IRS scandal. They have also promoted debunked conspiracy theories such as this. Further, the founder of JW, Larry Klayman recently promoted the conspiracy that the Clinton’s were killing people. In general the majority of content and story selection is anti-left.
A factual search reveals a horrible track record with fact checking. Below is a small sample of their failed fact checks by IFCN fact checkers
Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record. (7/19/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 7/23/2018)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©