jwar, it is obvious to everyone that this guy is incredibly arrogant and is also a snob. It isn't my opinion anymore. All anyone has to do is read his condescending posts. Any reasonable person would come to that conclusion. You can't reason with a person who is too far gone and this guy is.
Active Shooter at OSU
- Thread starter GMAN81
- Start date
It depends on who writes the history books Bones. The truth about the Obama Presidency will also come out if the authors of the history books are truthful. It's a truth you won't want to read. But, unfortunately that may not happen for years.
I will celebrate the real "hope" and real "change" this country will experience if Trump's agenda gets passed and implemented. When people start going back to work who haven't worked for months or even years...when economic growth gets to 3% and above...when an unemployment rate is truthful and shows the whole picture...when the jobs created report comes out each month and shows that the majority of jobs created are full time career jobs instead of part time jobs like we see now...when the income of the average working person starts to rise instead of being stuck in the mud like it is now and has been for years...when the people needing food stamps starts to decrease instead of rising like it is now...when an attempt is actually made to reduce crime int large cities...when someone walks into the White House and understands the actual threat ISIS poses to the entire world...I will continue to celebrate.
These are the actual issues voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida and Iowa were out there voting about. People care first about their own economic situation. We are not going anywhere economically in this country and that's the truth. If the economy was booming, like the president insisted, Hillary would have been elected and the states I mentioned would all have voted for her. Hillary's biggest mistake, among all the mistakes was that she couldn't connect with those people who have been left behind. And it isn't just white people like the media would have you believe.
If all the things I mentioned come to pass in a Trump administration and it benefits everyone, the media and people like you and MC63 won't give him any credit. The personal insults will continue. The personal insults of Trump are all you guys, the media and liberals at large have. Personally, I don't care if the left refuses to give him credit. I have always said, to the left it doesn't matter what is said, what does matter, is "who" is saying it. It also doesn't matter to them if the country is benefiting from anything Trump may do. It's Trump doing it, so to them it isn't credible. Example, to the left, an unemployment rate of 4.9% is different if it is under a Trump administration than it would be under an Obama administration. That is the truth. Same thing, different guy so their reaction is always different.
If you want to continue with MC63 to play identity politics have at it.Show me exactly when and where Donald Trump said he supports the Klan. It's best to stick to issues instead of identity politics. People are tired of that. Trump got elected and that's that. You guys need to learn how to lose. Of course I wasn't happy when Obama was elected twice. But after a couple of days I got over it and then began to try to adjust to it. I know with 100% certainty if Hillary had won you wouldn't see us rioting in the streets. We took Obama's two wins much better than you guys are taking Hillary's loss.
In the end, if Hillary really wants to know why she lost, she only needs to find the nearest mirror, take a good look into it and there is where she will find her answer. The Russians didn't do it, racism didn't do it, fake news didn't do it, Fox News didn't do it, James Comey didn't do it, voter suppression didn't do it, and no other excuses the liberals are trying to make did it.
Last edited:
You didn't get the memo: calling everyone you disagree with a racist doesn't work anymore.
The truth about Obamas presidency will read he inherited a failing economy thanks to W, and stabalized it despite an obstructionist congress. Personally I would have let capitalism die as the failed system that it is, but thats just me.
You speak of the "Trump" agenda. We've seen that already. He's implimented it in his own dealings. Ship jobs to China, Mexico, and pretty much everywhere else except America. Take every opportunity to oppose workers. Thats his agenda thats his track record. But hey he said hed build a wall and keep Muslims out soooo... News flash, those factory jobs arent coming back. The only hope was to invest in new technologies and resources to get the new industries working here. But thats not in his plan.
Its a fact that Americans are more likely to be killed by a white nationalist terrorist organization than an Isis attack. We need to start treating the terrorists here like terrorists and drone them to death. I know you wouldnt like that but facts are facts.
If the Trump presidency does all the magic you claim it will i will certainly give him credit. Hed still be a clown though. Its not MC63 and me playing identity politics. You had guys giving Trump Nazi salutes...
Dont see why you guys even argue against it. It would be more respectable to just acknowledge that these guys make up a decent part of your base and just keep it moving. The facts are Trump, a democrat, ran on a campaign of bigotry as a republican and won in a landslide. It tells you all you need to know. If youre looking for a statement from Trump saying he supports the klan you probably wont find it, but you will find him surrounding himself with those tyoes... Sessions. Of course hes gone back on just about everything he promised the gullable and we're not even at 1/20/17 yet.
Personally, I would have cast a vote for Rand Paul had he been around when the Illinois primary took place. But we're past that. I'll just sit back and watch as we become Russia Jr for the next 4 years.
Actually, I got the traitor idea from your favorite ex-Congressman, Joe Walsh. I don't have time to listen to Keith Olbermann, although I admire him.
I never, never said I didn't call anyone a racist. I said that I might have done so, and probably did so, but I don't recall for sure. I have said this numerous times.
If someone actually is a racist, what's the big deal about identifying them as such.
A
anon_4vszfu35bv677
Guest
Sorry when I read "real or artificial tree" (the first and second time). I didn't think that left a third option....
I hate that white nationalists feel empowered, that is bad. But to say it makes up a decent amount of the base is not accurate at all. It's a small vocal minority and I wish there would be more done to separate himself from it. I suspect his PR team has told him not to comment and let the news cycle run its course when something like what you posted comes up. I am not saying that is the right thing to do, mind you. Just what I think is happening inside Trump Tower.
And for the record I did not vote for Trump or Hillary.
It may be inaccurate to say that self identified white nationalists make up a decent portion of the base (whatever decent portion means). However, I find it to be a worthless exercise to distinguish between self identified and people who hold similar views who dont identify. I find it to be a worthless exercise to distinguish between self identified and people who stand with them on every policy and never bother to refute them.
Plus, why do they feel empowered? Perhaps that is the question we should investigate? To most people it was clear, but it was also nothing new. Just louder this time. There is a reason every minority group slants towards one party over the other. Do people ever wonder why?
Here we go again. No quality ideas so let's go back to the old playbook of blaming George Bush and anyone else besides the White House occupant. George Bush. You need to come up with some new ideas because this tired old crap won't work anymore.
You have no idea how capitalism actually works because you are not old enough to have lived it when it was unleashed in the 80s. Ronald Reagan handed that economy over to G.H. Bush and he won the election of 1988 keeping Republicans in the White House...the last time a party won a 3rd term. All you really know about capitalism is what you have been taught in schools by corrupt teachers and college professors, who are nothing but socialists themselves. You have no experience in this area. Were you around in 1981 when Jimmy Carter left office and home mortgage rates were around
20% and inflation was into double digits. That was a REAL recovery Reagan made.
As far as jobs goes, let's just see which administration creates more jobs...real ones, not the part time jobs scam that is currently being run. This so-called recovery is the weakest recovery since WWII. Economic growth has gotten to 2% only once in the past 8 years. Everything else is below. Keep an eye on that number in the future because that is what is going to drive the economy out of the mud.
You are going in circles here and rambling. First you say you would let capitalism die, then a few sentences later you are worried we will become Russia Jr. over the next four years. If that was to happen a guy like you should be very OK with it. After all Russia is a socialist country. If you are going to make a point at least try and stay consistent.
Now, if you want to play association games when it comes to Trump and the KKK, let's play. Bill and Hillary Clinton both called Democratic Senator Robert Byrd a personal friend and mentor after he passed away. A fact check shows that Senator Byrd was an actual member of the KKK. He achieved the title of Exalted Cyclops in the KKK and was the local leader. Why did he join? He was worried that he might have to fight in WWII alongside "race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimens from the wild." This is a guy Hillary Clinton went on the record saying she held in high regard. She also called him a man of eloquence and nobility. Oops. Forgot about that one didn't you? My guess is you are learning this for the first time. Otherwise I don't think you would have written such an ignorant line. Better check your own back yard before you worry about how long the grass is in your neighbor's.
Same old tired liberal garbage from you here. Try something new and put blame where it belongs. Your post is filled with gobbledygook and nonsense. Try again.
That's right Bones, when you want to avoid the truth, cry racism. It works for the low information loser voters, but not here. People got tired of this crap years ago.
People like you have been denying it since the 1600's. You are the definition of low information.
Youre nearing Brin level stupidity here. But I'll address this incoherent non-sense later when Im not on my phone.
Typical Bones. Someone disagrees with you and they are stupid. Someone presents an intelligent challenge to your post and they are the stupid one. A classic example of someone losing the argument. You do it every single time on every single subject. I have seen it over and over. You act like yours are the only intelligent posts and if someone disagrees, no matter how calm they are or what facts they provied...well they are stupid. Your ideas are old and tired. The libs have been trying them for decades. They don't work. No, you won't answer later when you are off your phone. What you really mean is you will answer later when you have had a chance to educate yourself because it is over your head. Tell the truth. You already made a long post here, probably from your phone. Now go on Wikipedia and educate yourself.
hahaha!!! Keep trying, this is funny. Keep watching MSNBC because you are one in a crowd of 15 who watches.
Last edited:
Will you be providing a lecture on the wonders of trickle down economics?
Don't you dare claim that someone else is ducking a question. You're number one in that department.
Hahaha!!! Funny guy. Have you ever lied here? I shouldn't have to lecture you about the 80s. You lived it and if you are honest you know that things were far better than now. Maybe you can lecture me on Prohibition. You lived that too didn't you?
Dr. I know I don't have to tell you this, but you're better off not even dealing with MC63, CB and the likes. I will never respond to CB's posts again because it's not worth it. Michael Savage said it best, liberalism is a mental disorder. You're not going to get through to these people.
In another post, CB reveled he needs an assault rifle because Trump won the election and that he was once pulled over for speeding and the traffic stop resulted in at least one gun being drawn on him and had to take a mug shot. These are the people you're are dealing with.
Applaud your efforts and if you choose to, keep fighting the good fight!
Again, get off your high horse.
There is NOTHING wrong with calling him Barry. It is not a demeaning word or name. It is not derogatory in any sense. It is a former nickname. It was also his FATHER's nickname after he immigrated. The fact that you think it is disrespectful or racist is ludicrous.
Why do you assume that I embrace Trump? I loathe him almost as much as I loathe Hillary. Neither of them got my vote. Given the choice between Barry or Trumpy, I'd vote Barry.
And why must you spin this conversation of ours into this area? We were talking about SYRIA. YOU were saying that Trump was in cahoots with the Russians who are supporting the brutal government assault of Aleppo. I made the point that the current President failed to do anything in Syria when the Syrian government crossed the line in the sand that the current President drew himself. I made the further point that if the current President had backed up his idle threat with real consequences, the world wouldn't be witnessing the slaughter that we are witnessing today in Syria. Crickets from you on that. Instead, you got your knickers in a twist over a nickname.
Last edited:
Brin: I realized years ago that people like the two you mentioned cannot be changed and that has never been my goal. My goal is more here geared to exposing their hypocrisy, ignorance and snobbery. One guy thinks he's smarter than everyone on the board and the other forgets who the hell he is from time to time. But even that doesn't change who they are and what they are.
I know it's a waste of time to try and talk sense with either of them. I have observed both of them on other subjects and their behavior is the same when anyone disagrees with them. In their world they are right and everyone else is wrong.
In the end and after everything has been written here, the bottom line is, they lost and we won and they can't handle it. They want to call names and blame everything and everyone else except the actual people and reasons for the loss.
As far as I am concerned, I really hope everyone like them keeps doing this and fails to see the real problems that caused their losses over the past 8 years. Because if they keep blindly and stubbornly going down the same road they have been going down the past 8 years, and doubling down on their ideas that don't work, it will be quite a while before they find themselves in power again. Their ideas have been totally rejected in this country and they can't handle it, which is why we are seeing their absolute hysteria and implosion.
Again, get off your high horse.
There is NOTHING wrong with calling him Barry. It is not a demeaning word or name. It is not derogatory in any sense. It is a former nickname. It was also his FATHER's nickname after he immigrated. The fact that you think it is disrespectful or racist is ludicrous.
Why do you assume that I embrace Trump? I loathe him almost as much as I loathe Hillary. Neither of them got my vote. Given the choice between Barry or Trumpy, I'd vote Barry.
And why must you spin this conversation of ours into this area? We were talking about SYRIA. YOU were saying that Trump was in cahoots with the Russians who are supporting the brutal government assault of Aleppo. I made the point that the current President failed to do anything in Syria when the Syrian government crossed the line in the sand that the current President drew himself. I made the further point that if the current President had backed up his idle threat with real consequences, the world wouldn't be witnessing the slaughter that we are witnessing today in Syria. Crickets from you on that. Instead, you got your knickers in a twist over a nickname.
"Barry" is an Obama putdown used by conservative elitists to belittle Obam'frican heritage. If you didn't know that, fine, I understand. However, you did use "boy" twice" and you know better.
Re Syria, I have very mixed emotions. I don't want any more American youngsters to die in the Mid East, but I'd like to help those people, too. I don't have a remedy.
Of course, you have to wonder, what would be ongoing today if Bush, Cheney, et al, hadn't lied us into that foolish mistake over a decade ago. I know that miracle doesn't want anyone blaming W for anything, but I'll withstand the resulting blether.
I used boy because YOU used boy to refer to Trump! I referred to Obama as Barry because YOU referred to Trump as Trumpy. What's good for the goose... Unless, of course, you feel there is a double standard that should be employed.
Sure, I've seen others call Obama Barry. But I never felt they were doing that to belittle his African heritage. Again, it WAS his nickname, and his own father, Barack, also went by the nickname of Barry. Barry White, Barry Bonds, Barry Manilow, Barry Goldwater, Barry Sanders, etc. Barry is a perfectly reasonable name.
Must EVERYTHING be turned into a conspiracy? Can't anything be taken at face value without trying to find something sinister behind it?
And another thing: Obama is just as white as he is black. He might very well SELF IDENTIFY as black, and that is his right, but his mother was as white as white can be.
Go ahead and blame W, I don't care. Obama was the one without the backbone to back up his threat in Syria. That's on him and him alone.
No, there's plenty people that disagree with me that aren't like yourself and Brin. Plenty. You just don't make any of the intelligent arguments, rather rattle off continuous nonsense that you get from places like Faux News and Breitbart. Studies have shown that... nevermind, if it is an actual study your type disregard it in favor of your own dumbass opinions. Somewhere along the line you idiots got confused and thought that being privy to your own opinion meant you were also privy to your own facts. Not the case porters, not the case at all. You'll probably have to change your name again after you embarrass yourself with this one too.
Evidence of your ignorance and stupidity. It's just a fact that your boy Bush tanked the economy and we were in a free fall when he left. He and Reagan economics is to blame for that no matter how much you wish it wasn't true. You aren't privy to your own facts. Fact, Obama stabilized the economy after the Bush Depression and gave us steady growth after thwarting the economic collapse.
I absolutely do know how capitalism works, and it failed. If it were not being kept alive artificially by the collective of society we'd be on some new system or no system at all. That doesn't change the fact of it's failure. To keep it simple so you can understand, when the goal of the company is to maximize profits it automatically makes the goal to minimize the worker pay there is going to eventually be a serious problem if the system lasts long enough. If you cannot see the problem there then I am giving you entirely too much credit (and I don't give you much credit at all, and deservedly so). When you look at capitalism through that prism you then realize why big business is on the same side as people who think we should destroy the public education system since they need their cheap labor. I'll let that sink in for a while for you.
Meanwhile you think living through something means you understand it. If that's the case, clown, build a rocket that takes you to the moon. I'll wait. Then again you probably think the moon landing was faked, while you talk on your cell phone using satellites. That is very Brin of you.
I know you're opposed to things like--reading, but this article from Forbes explains how Reagan's plan was great for the wealthy and crushed those who were not. When he got rid of his tax cuts the recovery started. It's a failed policy for working Americans, but with Trump in office and the millionaires and billionaires surrounding him you can bet your bottom dollar we'll be heading back to whatever makes THEM more money, and the rest of us can kick rocks.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...nomy-its-literally-no-contest/2/#6ef9b23ddf0a
Yes, I would have let capitalism die. It failed and the bailout artificially kept it alive not unlike Terry Schiavo on a respirator. Becoming Russia Jr has to do with Trump being Putin's lap dog. He has this clown elect on a leash and walking him around the room like a show cocker spaniel. It's embarrassing. You should be embarrassed of this guy. Second, I did not say we should go to socialism, that is your own invention. Am I for some socialization? Yes, I am for socialized schools, roads, healthcare, police, fire departments, military etc. Most of that we already have.
Taking healthcare off of employers would be so much better for business you would think you would be all over it. They could raise wages without paying so much for health insurance. Also the very idea of for profit health insurance is about as immoral as it gets. If I have to explain why to you then I am giving you too much credit again.
Who's playing association? You saw the video of the ecstatic neo nazis giving their Fuhrer the proper solute. Klan seems to be elated about Trump too.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...rump-north-carolina-1478822255-htmlstory.html
What is it that they see that you don't Mr. Magoo? I see it, they see it, it seems the only person that doesn't see it is some clown named Mirakle. I know you don't like thinking and reading, but here...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...our-excuse-david-duke/?utm_term=.33a56fc9ad7f
You have to really be a novice to think anything about Robert Byrd is news to me. Far be it from me to ever defend a klansman, even ones that change like Byrd apparently did since there's no telling what type of destruction this guy was responsible for before realizing his folly and actually supporting a civil rights agenda. But again, the facts are the facts. You're not privy to your own.
Same old anti intellectual dumb clown **** youve been known for for 2 decades now. Now change your name again and come back smarter.
Last edited:
MC, no to all of your questions.
I was just wondering who was on your list of suitable people to quote.
I actually thought it would be the content of the quote that would be important and not who was being quoted, apparently I was wrong.
By the way, there is a fabulous Family Guy bit involving Rosie O'Donnell and God. I'm just going to assume you don't watch Family Guy and have no idea what I'm talking about, correct me if I'm wrong on this one too.
If I was looking to address issues in "the black community" (as if it was monolithic) what makes Ray Lewis or Kanye West the 1st people to talk to? They are certainly free to voice their opinions, but this was clearly the same method Bill used to find Monica... they just happened to be there. Why not seek out people who actually have a background in addressing those issues like the three people I mentioned for starters (Cornell West [Trump probably doesnt know the difference between he and Kanye], Tavis Smiley, and Michael Eric Dyson)?
And those three haven't been easy on Obama either.
Watched Cornel West several months ago on Bill Maher's show on HBO. West was ripping on Hillary big time and Maher was stunned and hurt that West wasn't supporting her. Worth a watch.
Yeah, I saw that. I don't always agree with Cornel, but he supports his position.
CB, agree with everything you are saying here.
What I was saying was it appeared to be a situation where if you don't like the message then you attack the messenger.
While normally I wouldnt subscribe to that manner of debate--it's Kanye. This guy is a flat out disgrace. And Ray Lewis, normally wouldn't be quoted by anyone considering he was public enemy #1 before Mike Vick killed some dogs. Now he's the leading authority on anything?
Yes, a statement is true or false on it's own merit, but credibility is also a thing.
I am not a fan of W Bones, not by a long shot, but to blame the financial crisis on him and Reaganomics, is economically so far off base as to be laughable.
I find many of your positions well thought out and well supported. Not this.
We built a real estate asset bubble. We built that bubble with the well meaning but completely unrealistic premise that EVERY American should own their own home. Congress strong armed Fannie and Freddie into securitizing sub prime debt, which I personally spoke against at conferences in 2000-2004. The Wall Street wizards took one look at the sub prime market and salivated, and VOILA! the asset bubble was created. Now let's go back to Econ 101, what happens when an asset bubble bursts? And this was probably the largest asset bubble in history, ergo an incredibly deep and long lasting recession.
There is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis and the recession that followed. W, and Reaganomics don't make the top 20. By the way, there is NO such thing as "Reaganomics". It has become a catchall term to refer to tax cuts that benefit the wealthy. The same thing that JFK did to stimulate economic activity. The Democratic Party has learned that class warfare and envy plays well, so it has become fashionable in liberal circles to scream, "they need to pay their fair share." Please define. When the top 10% of earners are paying over 70% of the Federal Income Tax collected, and over 40% of the country pays NO Federal Income tax, what is the tipping point on fairness? I didn't leave the Democratic party, it left me when it chose to ignore the principles the United States was founded on, mainly limited federal powers. I actually abhor the fact that the term "liberal" is used to define this bunch. They are leftist statists, pushing closer to collective fascism then any other ideology. The more money they collect, the closer the get to their utopian ideal of an all powerful federal government. I wise man once said," A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have".
But back to W, the POTUS always gets both too much credit and too much blame for the business cycle. And so it goes.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/12/bush200712
Yes, the tax cuts on the wealthy and deregulation under W certainly had an impact on the economic collapse. To try to absolve those policies would be incorrect. Sure there is also more blame to go around as well. I like the article below, though not necessarily the most interesting read there are plenty charts to help paint the picture.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...esidency-in-24-charts/?utm_term=.308f1e91797a
As for "class warfare" this is nothing new. The conditions we are talking about helped bring about the French Revolution. History has shown us that you can only stand on the masses for so long. So while I can certainly discuss tax cuts with you and I do think paying near 50% is extremely excessive, the areas from where we cut spending due to those cuts are misguided. Instead of cutting education and programs which help working class, lower class, and impoverished Americans we should cut spending on our War Machine since that's where the lion's share of our spending goes. And since our intervention around the world usually has ties to our business interests and NOT defending ourselves nor "spreading democracy" (as if it is our job to dictate who has what government).
What is a "fair share"? I don't know, I think that's up for debate. Some argue that "To whom much is given much is expected..." thus since the country fostered the circumstances and conditions to become as successful and wealthy that there is a civic duty to put much back in. There is a bit of self preservation in that idea as well, because as discussed earlier, when the masses are desperate you may end up with a Marie Antoinette situation.
I don't know that envy is part of that equation, like you state.
Also not sure of your use of the "liberal" label. I too dislike labels and find that most people when discussing are either lazy in using them or like Brin simply using them wrong and don't even know it. "Liberal" and "Conservative" are adjectives that people are using as nouns incorrectly. A liberal pushes for equal right/better treatment of groups who have not experienced all of America's promises. A "conservative" resists changes in attempts to conserve the old way. So while you may feel the Democratic party left you, this may be true as ideologies change, the ideology wouldn't leave you, you would leave the ideology. For example, Republicans run around touting "The Party of Lincoln" well, what Lincoln did was liberal, the ideology has left the party and we can pinpoint exactly when it happened.
As for the "principles the country was founded on" you'll have to understand that to some the further we get away from what this country was founded on the better since the country was founded on genocide, stolen land, and stolen labor, apartheid (which Reagan supported in S Africa in the 80's). And this is where a major divide comes. Some people seem to want to go back to the 1700's to make "America Great Again." Well, I'll pass on that for obvious reasons. 1800's? Pass. 1900's? Pass. 1950's? Pass. 1960's? Pass. 1970's? Pass. 1980's? God no, pass. 1990's? Perhaps.
To provide background on this, Maher was taking the position that voting third party was a vote for Trump. That's why he was acting like that.
This makes too much sense for a small mind like Bones' to understand. You need to draw it out with crayons.