(01-14-2020 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Trump living rent free in Pelosi's head.

Seriously, this is something that one would expect from Alex Jones....

(01-14-2020 07:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 06:07 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 05:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What I find funny is that you extend, in the case of Kamala bunny bumping her way, *every* question of doubt in your defense of her bedride up.

As for 'all marchers' bad, you extend zero questions of doubt.

Interesting stances.

I don't really find them that interesting.

When someone is at a protest marching between a guy carrying a nazi flag, a guy chanting "Jews will not replace us" and a guy chanting "blood and soil", then the vast, vast majority of people will make assumptions about the nameless marcher who isn't carrying the sign or chanting those slogans. I find it kind of shocking that none of the conservatives here are making any assumptions about that person. If I found myself in that situation, I'd immediately get the heck out of dodge (and not just because I'm 1/4 alaska native and would fear physical harm). If you march with those people, then I assume they march with those people because they generally agree with the tone of the march. Otherwise, why be there?

When someone has consensual sex with someone else, I assume they did so because they wanted to have sex. Otherwise, again, why be there? Why do you assume Harris was having sex with Brown just to improve her professional career? If she had not gotten appointed to those commissions and Brown had never helped any of Harris's campaigns, would that have exonerated her in your mind?

When I was in college, I joked to friends (including my future wife) that I wanted to marry someone with money some day. My wife earns more than twice as much as me. When I decided to propose to my wife, she was in med school and I knew she was highly, highly likely to make more money than me for most of our careers. Am I a prostitute, skank, slut, or whore? Would it change your mind if my wife had said that I was the bigger money earner? I feel like I made a good point, maybe Fountains can give me a mic drop gif? I don't know where to find all the cool gifs ... I'm too old for that.

As I noted before, you extend *every* benefit of the doubt to Kamala.

You extend zero benefit of the doubt to marchers.

By the way, you do know the term 'Blood and Soil' is *not* specifically a racist statement? It actually refers to those who served in the Confederate forces.

Or does anything that even *hints* at the Confederacy mean racism to you? I can tell you undoubtedly the term you so proudly highlight actually means something very different to those who can actually trace roots to the south, and can trace roots to the Confederate forces.

But if you want to knee-jerk the statement into a purely racist slogan because of any tie to the Confederacy whatsoever (which you seemingly do), then, to be bluntly honest, I now understand your 'all marchers == bad' stance. Since *anything* that hints or has ties to any vestige of the Confederacy is racist, then I would assume that a statute of any person who fought in that conflict is by definition racist in that mindset. And, how *dare* anyone even contemplate being a marcher to preserve that.

If that is the mindset (I hope to hell it isnt), then you are correct; we dont have much common ground on the subject. If it isnt your mindset, then I hope you now understand why your 'shout out' on 'Blood and Soil' isn't all its cracked up to be --- and perhaps why your view might be tilted to a decent degree. Honestly, the term is not racist to the core --- when your gd understand the term 'Blood and Soil' refers to the blood spilt on the soil ---- by the soldiers themselves.

As noted, I hope that you arent a kneejerk 'if it refers to the Confederacy it means racist' types -- that type is just as ignorant as the viewpoint as the real racists, to be honest.

(01-14-2020 08:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 07:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way, you do know the term 'Blood and Soil' is *not* specifically a racist statement? It actually refers to those who served in the Confederate forces.

Can you provide a reference that says “blood and soil” actually connects to the confederacy or the civil war? Googled it and only found references to nazism.

(01-14-2020 11:18 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Rationalization of these should be interesting.

(01-15-2020 01:43 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 11:18 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Rationalization of these should be interesting.

I disagree. I think it will be disheartening, disappointing, and a little frightening.

(01-15-2020 10:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's what I don't understand. An ambassador's job is to represent the country and its leadership in a foreign land. My understanding is that Yovanovitch had on many occasions made negative comments about Trump and the direction the country was taking, at least privately and perhaps publicly. That would seem to me to demand her removal.

(01-15-2020 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If she was being shadowed, I would be interest in hearing why, and not just from the conspiracy theorists here.

(01-15-2020 10:40 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 10:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's what I don't understand. An ambassador's job is to represent the country and its leadership in a foreign land. My understanding is that Yovanovitch had on many occasions made negative comments about Trump and the direction the country was taking, at least privately and perhaps publicly. That would seem to me to demand her removal.

Here's what I don't understand. If the President believes this to be true, then why doesn't he just remove her or move her to a different post? Why is his personal "attorney" mucking around with any of it?

(01-15-2020 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If she was being shadowed, I would be interest in hearing why, and not just from the conspiracy theorists here.

(01-15-2020 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Perhaps because he wanted to be certain before acting, and did not trust the deep state bureaucracy to provide truthful information. And IIRC he did remove her.

(01-15-2020 11:10 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If she was being shadowed, I would be interest in hearing why, and not just from the conspiracy theorists here.

(01-15-2020 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Perhaps because he wanted to be certain before acting, and did not trust the deep state bureaucracy to provide truthful information. And IIRC he did remove her.

(01-15-2020 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 11:10 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If she was being shadowed, I would be interest in hearing why, and not just from the conspiracy theorists here.

(01-15-2020 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Perhaps because he wanted to be certain before acting, and did not trust the deep state bureaucracy to provide truthful information. And IIRC he did remove her.

I think it is pretty clear that the "deep state" bureaucracy has been less that honest and objective in dealing with Trump.

(01-15-2020 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  China deal

Just phase one, but which one will help Americans more, the China deal or the impeachment?

Which one will CNN cover more?

(01-16-2020 01:43 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  China deal

Just phase one, but which one will help Americans more, the China deal or the impeachment?

Which one will CNN cover more?

Well according to the trusted BBC, Trump and Xi Jingping are winners. The losers? American companies, American consumers, American manufacturers, and American farmers.

I think we should hold off judging the effects of impeachment until the process is at least completed. Hard to speculate with so many unknowns.

(01-16-2020 06:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 01:43 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 10:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  China deal

Just phase one, but which one will help Americans more, the China deal or the impeachment?

Which one will CNN cover more?

Well according to the trusted BBC, Trump and Xi Jingping are winners. The losers? American companies, American consumers, American manufacturers, and American farmers.

I think we should hold off judging the effects of impeachment until the process is at least completed. Hard to speculate with so many unknowns.

What unknowns? If you want to bet on removal, I will take that bet. Or are you referring to the future impeachments for things to be named later?