How many Democrats have called out Spartacus for his lies during the Kavanaugh confirmation?
How many Democrats have called out Schiff for the lies in his report on the House hearings (and how many signed on to his minority report filled with lies?)?
No, the Democrats called out Nunes for telling the truth. And the media kept calling him a liar when everything he said turned out to be true.

Again, your comments prove you are a Democrat.

(01-26-2019 02:54 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  NPC talking points. Every media outlet calls him on everything. Most of the time when he's telling the truth.

We were talking about Republicans calling him out. You know, the guys that keep saying, "I'm not going to comment on every little tweet the president makes."

Do the words evasive dissembler mean anything to you? Provide links, state your argument and then defend it. If attacking the position of another state what it is you disagree with and most importantly why. Your post in another thread that cited the NYT was relatively effective and the kind of post I'm talking about that you need to make more often

The other drive by poster on this forum doesn't attack a poster, just the issue.

Pulling a nanny nanny boo boo on one of the board posters is not a valid post. Changing the argument to keep one going is not a valid post. Lampooning the right without pointing out their error isn't one either.

So when posting keep your comments focused on the OP, or the comments of another poster in the thread, but keep them on the ideas and concepts and back up your position.

For instance in this post cite which Republicans have said this about Trump's tweets and if possible which tweets they were referring to.

AOC is stupid if she can't distinguished the differences between a Communist dictator in Maduro and an elected Democratic Socialist elected leaders of Western Europe. The two are different.

(01-26-2019 04:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:54 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  NPC talking points. Every media outlet calls him on everything. Most of the time when he's telling the truth.

We were talking about Republicans calling him out. You know, the guys that keep saying, "I'm not going to comment on every little tweet the president makes."

Do the words evasive dissembler mean anything to you? Provide links, state your argument and then defend it. If attacking the position of another state what it is you disagree with and most importantly why. Your post in another thread that cited the NYT was relatively effective and the kind of post I'm talking about that you need to make more often

The other drive by poster on this forum doesn't attack a poster, just the issue.

Pulling a nanny nanny boo boo on one of the board posters is not a valid post. Changing the argument to keep one going is not a valid post. Lampooning the right without pointing out their error isn't one either.

So when posting keep your comments focused on the OP, or the comments of another poster in the thread, but keep them on the ideas and concepts and back up your position.

For instance in this post cite which Republicans have said this about Trump's tweets and if possible which tweets they were referring to.

Do you really want me to list all the uncited claims in this thread that you passed over to once again target me? You might have missed some other violations of the AUP too that I can point out.

Let me know if I can help. Otherwise, it might look like you continually pass over actual violations in order to harass one of the few remaining non-Republicans on the board.

Here are some of those links you requested:
WaPo
Weekly Standard
Huffington Post

(01-26-2019 05:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  AOC is stupid if she can't distinguished the differences between a Communist dictator in Maduro and an elected Democratic Socialist elected leaders of Western Europe. The two are different.

There isn't democratic socialism in W. Europe. Those countries are capitalistic like the USA. VZ is pretty much 100% socialism and Maduro, although "elected" operates like a dictator for sure.

(01-26-2019 05:42 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 05:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  AOC is stupid if she can't distinguished the differences between a Communist dictator in Maduro and an elected Democratic Socialist elected leaders of Western Europe. The two are different.

There isn't democratic socialism in W. Europe. Those countries are capitalistic like the USA. VZ is pretty much 100% socialism and Maduro, although "elected" operates like a dictator for sure.

Bernie Sanders model himself after the countries of western Europe where everybody have health care and all that. He is not Maduro or other dictators of Central America.

(01-26-2019 05:54 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 05:42 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 05:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  AOC is stupid if she can't distinguished the differences between a Communist dictator in Maduro and an elected Democratic Socialist elected leaders of Western Europe. The two are different.

There isn't democratic socialism in W. Europe. Those countries are capitalistic like the USA. VZ is pretty much 100% socialism and Maduro, although "elected" operates like a dictator for sure.

Bernie Sanders model himself after the countries of western Europe where everybody have health care and all that. He is not Maduro or other dictators of Central America.

Free or low cost health insurance is not "care". If the USA didn't have the largest illegal alien and foreign born population of any country on Earth, then ironically some of the stuff Bernie likes could be done here.

(01-26-2019 05:34 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 04:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:54 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  NPC talking points. Every media outlet calls him on everything. Most of the time when he's telling the truth.

We were talking about Republicans calling him out. You know, the guys that keep saying, "I'm not going to comment on every little tweet the president makes."

Do the words evasive dissembler mean anything to you? Provide links, state your argument and then defend it. If attacking the position of another state what it is you disagree with and most importantly why. Your post in another thread that cited the NYT was relatively effective and the kind of post I'm talking about that you need to make more often

The other drive by poster on this forum doesn't attack a poster, just the issue.

Pulling a nanny nanny boo boo on one of the board posters is not a valid post. Changing the argument to keep one going is not a valid post. Lampooning the right without pointing out their error isn't one either.

So when posting keep your comments focused on the OP, or the comments of another poster in the thread, but keep them on the ideas and concepts and back up your position.

For instance in this post cite which Republicans have said this about Trump's tweets and if possible which tweets they were referring to.

Do you really want me to list all the uncited claims in this thread that you passed over to once again target me? You might have missed some other violations of the AUP too that I can point out.

Let me know if I can help. Otherwise, it might look like you continually pass over actual violations in order to harass one of the few remaining non-Republicans on the board.

Here are some of those links you requested:
WaPo
Weekly Standard
Huffington Post

Put them in your posts. And don't be surprised when some of them are rebuffed like the Huffington Post.

And it's not going to do you any good to play victim. I didn't say anything the last two days but looked at your posts and posting style. I explained plainly enough what a valid post is. If you find a post that is not report it. BTW I didn't target you the first time and that was explained to you. I also told you to take it to the PM's.

My goodness.

Let me explain how little support Maduro's policies have in the Democratic Party.

Even the most liberal member cannot fully embrace Maduro. I think this is a strike against AOC, because she isn't moving more strongly against Maduro, but in "progressive" which is NOT necessarily Democratic circles, AOC's tepid response is pretty telling.

The overwhelming majority of Dems want to see the end of Maduro. He's not a leftist, he's a thief. He doesn't support democracy, but authoritarianism. He doesn't support or further human rights, but promotes and commits grave human rights abuses. He doesn't oppose imperialism and colonialism, but substitutes Russian/Chinese/Cuban mastery of Venezuela's assets for other countries'.

Trump is lucky in this regard. He is able to credibly act, not because he is credible on anti-human rights, anti-authoritarian, and anti-colonialism metrics, but because creditable countries he loathes are willing to stand up against Maduro, even with him. Countries like Canada and Chile. I'm surprised that Trump has managed to not be told to back off by Russia. I suppose Putin gave him a pass, bowing to electoral concerns in Florida.

BTW, the EU's withdrawal of recognition will be another blow to Maduro. That is probably coming next week.

-----

Why does Russia like Maduro? Because they can use the universal loathing people have for Maduro to gin up support for their right wing authoritarian regimes and candidates from Bolsonaro to Trump.

(01-26-2019 06:30 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 05:34 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  Do you really want me to list all the uncited claims in this thread that you passed over to once again target me? You might have missed some other violations of the AUP too that I can point out.

Put them in your posts. And don't be surprised when some of them are rebuffed like the Huffington Post.

So in another thread, you posted this:

(01-26-2019 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its humorous how the Democrats, who often hate law enforcement, just love gestapo style raids on someone who merely lied to the authorities.

The left always turns into Maduro or Erdogan style leaders.

Elian Gonzales anyone? Waco? Ruby Ridge? It's a Clinton legacy. But then weak insecure leaders always feel better about themselves with a massive show of force against a person or persons not capable of effectively retaliating. They always violate rights for effect. And there is never reciprocity in the legal system.

If I were to post that, how many of those should I provide a link for? I think everyone would like to know so we can avoid this problem in the future. So would I link to Elian Gonzales, Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Clinton legacy, weak insecure leaders using massive shows of force against persons not capable of effectively retaliating, violating rights for effect, AND there never being reciprocity in the legal system? Or was the violating rights part of the same statement as the massive show of force?

Thanks, as always, for your help.

I believe all three of those are as well imprinted on the public psyche as the Oklahoma City bombing or 9/11. Recent minor things where you are making an allegation needs support. Right now there are a plethora of allegations on both sides which are so minuscule and vague it's just plain hard to keep up with them.

(01-26-2019 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 06:30 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 05:34 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  Do you really want me to list all the uncited claims in this thread that you passed over to once again target me? You might have missed some other violations of the AUP too that I can point out.

Put them in your posts. And don't be surprised when some of them are rebuffed like the Huffington Post.

So in another thread, you posted this:

(01-26-2019 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its humorous how the Democrats, who often hate law enforcement, just love gestapo style raids on someone who merely lied to the authorities.

The left always turns into Maduro or Erdogan style leaders.

Elian Gonzales anyone? Waco? Ruby Ridge? It's a Clinton legacy. But then weak insecure leaders always feel better about themselves with a massive show of force against a person or persons not capable of effectively retaliating. They always violate rights for effect. And there is never reciprocity in the legal system.

If I were to post that, how many of those should I provide a link for? I think everyone would like to know so we can avoid this problem in the future. So would I link to Elian Gonzales, Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Clinton legacy, weak insecure leaders using massive shows of force against persons not capable of effectively retaliating, violating rights for effect, AND there never being reciprocity in the legal system? Or was the violating rights part of the same statement as the massive show of force?

Thanks, as always, for your help.

I believe all three of those are as well imprinted on the public psyche as the Oklahoma City bombing or 9/11. Recent minor things where you are making an allegation needs support. Right now there are a plethora of allegations on both sides which are so minuscule and vague it's just plain hard to keep up with them.

You were using it to prove that the either the Democrats, "often hate law enforcement", "just love gestapo style raids on someone who merely lied to the authorities", or "always turns into Maduro or Erdogan style leaders."

Those don't need support?

(01-26-2019 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Recent minor things where you are making an allegation needs support. Right now there are a plethora of allegations on both sides which are so minuscule and vague it's just plain hard to keep up with them.

So we don't have to support it if it's not recent? Or if it's minuscule and vague and hard to keep up with?

(01-26-2019 06:39 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Recent minor things where you are making an allegation needs support. Right now there are a plethora of allegations on both sides which are so minuscule and vague it's just plain hard to keep up with them.

So we don't have to support it if it's not recent? Or if it's minuscule and vague and hard to keep up with?

This is dissembling by the parsing of words. I think my post was clear. Things which are very well remembered events may be mentioned because the public remembers them. Those aren't many. Everything else does.

Let's see in my lifetime that would the JFK assassination, the RFK and MLK assassinations, Watergate, The two shuttle disasters, OKC, 9/11, and anything else that was long debated and well documented. And yes the over application of force was present when little Elian and those he was with were greeted by the muzzles of guns, when a whole compound is burned to the ground when Koresh jogged outside of the compound regularly and could have been extracted, and when two innocent family members of a man who was acquitted were gunned down by one of our agencies.

(01-26-2019 07:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This is dissembling by the parsing of words. I think my post was clear. Things which are very well remembered events may be mentioned because the public remembers them. Those aren't many. Everything else does.

Let's see in my lifetime that would the JFK assassination, the RFK and MLK assassinations, Watergate, The two shuttle disasters, OKC, 9/11, and anything else that was long debated and well documented. And yes the over application of force was present when little Elian and those he was with were greeted by the muzzles of guns, when a whole compound is burned to the ground when Koresh jogged outside of the compound regularly and could have been extracted, and when two innocent family members of a man who was acquitted were gunned down by one of our agencies.

This isn't dissembling by the parsing of words. This is me thinking that your post wasn't clear and that the clear lines of when you do and do not have to cite sources is not really clear at all. This is me actually trying to figure out where this line is and why I seem to frequently cross the line when others don't.

I'm not arguing that people don't know who Elian Gonzales is. I am wondering why the over application of force is so well known that it doesn't have to be cited. I am wondering why the connection to Clinton's insecurity is so well known that it doesn't have to be cited. Or that it made him feel better about himself. Or that this is a Clinton legacy.

Because these all seem like uncited, unsupported opinions to me.

(01-26-2019 07:15 PM)atsKnight Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 07:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This is dissembling by the parsing of words. I think my post was clear. Things which are very well remembered events may be mentioned because the public remembers them. Those aren't many. Everything else does.

Let's see in my lifetime that would the JFK assassination, the RFK and MLK assassinations, Watergate, The two shuttle disasters, OKC, 9/11, and anything else that was long debated and well documented. And yes the over application of force was present when little Elian and those he was with were greeted by the muzzles of guns, when a whole compound is burned to the ground when Koresh jogged outside of the compound regularly and could have been extracted, and when two innocent family members of a man who was acquitted were gunned down by one of our agencies.

This isn't dissembling by the parsing of words. This is me thinking that your post wasn't clear and that the clear lines of when you do and do not have to cite sources is not really clear at all. This is me actually trying to figure out where this line is and why I seem to frequently cross the line when others don't.

I'm not arguing that people don't know who Elian Gonzales is. I am wondering why the over application of force is so well known that it doesn't have to be cited. I am wondering why the connection to Clinton's insecurity is so well known that it doesn't have to be cited. Or that it made him feel better about himself. Or that this is a Clinton legacy.

Because these all seem like uncited, unsupported opinions to me.

Dissembling is exactly what it is and you just turn one into another. It is well known, it happened under his leadership and is therefore part of his legacy, and I might add Donna Shelala's as well. If it happens on your watch you own it.