Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,501
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 16, 2017 21:52:33 GMT -5
Hillary Clinton's birth name isn't 'Crooked' either. Please point out where I ever said it was.... thanks! (for anyone that doesn't want to waste their time hunting: Crooked is a descriptive adjective, and Hillary actually IS her name) I tried to look up "President Trump" in the dictionary... no results. Apparently there's no such descriptive adjective. Did I say you did? Point it out where I said Richard. I was pointing out the fact that if it is wrong to call trump by his ancestral name, why should it be okay to call hillary 'Crooked'? If in fact hillary is crooked as some believe because it is in the dictionary and threfore okay to call her that, then it should be okay to call trump orange because he is in fact, orange and orange is in the dictionary too.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 23:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 22:14:27 GMT -5
Please point out where I ever said it was.... thanks! (for anyone that doesn't want to waste their time hunting: Crooked is a descriptive adjective, and Hillary actually IS her name) I tried to look up "President Trump" in the dictionary... no results. Apparently there's no such descriptive adjective. Did I say you did? Point it out where I said Richard. I was pointing out the fact that if it is wrong to call trump by his ancestral name, why should it be okay to call hillary 'Crooked'? If in fact hillary is crooked as some believe because it is in the dictionary and threfore okay to call her that, then it should be okay to call trump orange because he is in fact, orange and orange is in the dictionary too. It was definitely implied since my issue is "it's not his name". As to the rest, as I've already said, "Crooked" is a descriptive adjective, and "Hillary" actually IS her name. I don't know how many more times it'll need to be repeated before you understand why one is reasonable and the other isn't.c I won't take exception if someone wants to call him "Crooked Donald", "Fraudulent Donald", "Childish Donald", et cetera, et cetera, et cetera... Insult him descriptively all that anyone likes... but do so using his real name. ETA: I have no issue with "{citrus color} Donald" either... It's the Mods that disallowed that one.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 16, 2017 22:23:39 GMT -5
Are you sure of all that?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,501
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 16, 2017 22:39:57 GMT -5
Did I say you did? Point it out where I said Richard. I was pointing out the fact that if it is wrong to call trump by his ancestral name, why should it be okay to call hillary 'Crooked'? If in fact hillary is crooked as some believe because it is in the dictionary and threfore okay to call her that, then it should be okay to call trump orange because he is in fact, orange and orange is in the dictionary too. It was definitely implied since my issue is "it's not his name". As to the rest, as I've already said, "Crooked" is a descriptive adjective, and "Hillary" actually IS her name. I don't know how many more times it'll need to be repeated before you understand why one is reasonable and the other isn't.c I won't take exception if someone wants to call him "Crooked Donald", "Fraudulent Donald", "Childish Donald", et cetera, et cetera, et cetera... Insult him descriptively all that anyone likes... but do so using his real name. ETA: I have no issue with "{citrus color} Donald" either... It's the Mods that disallowed that one. Nothing was implied but if you feel the need to carry that cross go ahead. Thing is we cannot call donald crooked donald because crooked donald is not in the public domain or used by the mainstream media. Nor is fraudulent or childish donald. That was the rule. And we posters were told we could call Trump President Trump because name was is the public domain and the mainstream media was using that name. So take up President Trump with the mods. MUST READ!: Rules for the Politics Board .
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 16, 2017 23:08:57 GMT -5
Lack of time. If you want to go back that far, be my guest. You mean the contemporary definition used by conservatives? The one I've steadfastly avoid using for years, ever since you informed me it bothered you? it didn't only bother me, but EVERY liberal on the board, Virgil. i would explore why, but i INVITE you to accept the fact that this unfavorable opinion of your definition is precisely what i am describing as a pejorative. so, the answer to your question is ALWAYS. It not "my" definition. I didn't make it up, and I don't use it--for your sake specifically. If you're upset that I still acknowledge its existence, beam me up. Look: I couldn't care less if you refer to Pres. Trump as "President Trump". Passive-aggressive name calling is commonplace on P/CE. I can tell you with certainty, however, that it will affect posters' opinion of you more than of Pres. Trump. Maybe that's the intent; I don't know.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,780
|
Post by steff on Jan 16, 2017 23:17:28 GMT -5
Again with someone thinking that we're all here for some "approval" from total strangers on a message board. I don't give a crap what 95% of the posters here think of me. The ones I do care what they think accept my smart ass for what it is & who I am.
I really don't know anyone who is just all about what joe blow from podunk kansas thinks about what they say on a random message board. Hell most of the joe blows here aren't even named joe.
and I don't think they give out an award for "smartest mostest right poster on a message board" so who gives a crap.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 23:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 23:34:51 GMT -5
It was definitely implied since my issue is "it's not his name". As to the rest, as I've already said, "Crooked" is a descriptive adjective, and "Hillary" actually IS her name. I don't know how many more times it'll need to be repeated before you understand why one is reasonable and the other isn't.c I won't take exception if someone wants to call him "Crooked Donald", "Fraudulent Donald", "Childish Donald", et cetera, et cetera, et cetera... Insult him descriptively all that anyone likes... but do so using his real name. ETA: I have no issue with "{citrus color} Donald" either... It's the Mods that disallowed that one. Nothing was implied but if you feel the need to carry that cross go ahead. Thing is we cannot call donald crooked donald because crooked donald is not in the public domain or used by the mainstream media. Nor is fraudulent or childish donald. That was the rule. And we posters were told we could call Trump President Trump because name was is the public domain and the mainstream media was using that name. So take up President Trump with the mods. MUST READ!: Rules for the Politics Board . My response would likely end up getting moved to the "Gripes with Mods" (or whatever it's called) thread... so I'll just not answer why that would be a waste of time and leave you with the following: Google searches of the following (as posted here, INCLUDING quotes, to make it one complete search term) EACH turned up THOUSANDS of results: "Crooked Donald" "Fraudulent Donald" "Childish Donald" Trump (had to include "Trump" to distinguish from other results about childish appearing Donald Glover who is slated to play a young Lando Calrissian in an upcoming stand-alone Han Solo movie) So I would argue that yes, those ARE "in the public domain". #crookeddonald, #fraudulentdonald, and #childishdonald are actually trending hashtags.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 23:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 23:36:32 GMT -5
Are you sure of all that? I wouldn't have said so otherwise.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,501
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 16, 2017 23:37:14 GMT -5
Nothing was implied but if you feel the need to carry that cross go ahead. Thing is we cannot call donald crooked donald because crooked donald is not in the public domain or used by the mainstream media. Nor is fraudulent or childish donald. That was the rule. And we posters were told we could call Trump President Trump because name was is the public domain and the mainstream media was using that name. So take up President Trump with the mods. MUST READ!: Rules for the Politics Board . My response would likely end up getting moved to the "Gripes with Mods" (or whatever it's called) thread... so I'll just not answer why that would be a waste of time and leave you with the following: Google searches of the following (as posted here, INCLUDING quotes, to make it one complete search term) EACH turned up THOUSANDS of results: "Crooked Donald" "Fraudulent Donald" "Childish Donald" Trump (had to include "Trump" to distinguish from other results about childish appearing Donald Glover who is slated to play a young Lando Calrissian in an upcoming stand-alone Han Solo movie) So I would argue that yes, those ARE "in the public domain". #crookeddonald, #fraudulentdonald, and #childishdonald are actually trending hashtags. Maybe a mod will read this post and amend the rules. There are plenty of existing names one can call donald and many more new ones to come.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 16, 2017 23:44:49 GMT -5
it didn't only bother me, but EVERY liberal on the board, Virgil. i would explore why, but i INVITE you to accept the fact that this unfavorable opinion of your definition is precisely what i am describing as a pejorative. so, the answer to your question is ALWAYS. It not "my" definition. I didn't make it up, and I don't use it--for your sake specifically. If you're upset that I still acknowledge its existence, beam me up. Look: I couldn't care less if you refer to Pres. Trump as "President Trump". Passive-aggressive name calling is commonplace on P/CE. I can tell you with certainty, however, that it will affect posters' opinion of you more than of Pres. Trump. Maybe that's the intent; I don't know. you may as well have, since it is not THE definition. you can prove that you couldn't care less by never bringing this up again, as you don't bring up so many other things you care nothing about.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 16, 2017 23:46:01 GMT -5
Nothing was implied but if you feel the need to carry that cross go ahead. Thing is we cannot call donald crooked donald because crooked donald is not in the public domain or used by the mainstream media. Nor is fraudulent or childish donald. That was the rule. And we posters were told we could call Trump President Trump because name was is the public domain and the mainstream media was using that name. So take up President Trump with the mods. MUST READ!: Rules for the Politics Board . My response would likely end up getting moved to the "Gripes with Mods" (or whatever it's called) thread... so I'll just not answer why that would be a waste of time and leave you with the following: Google searches of the following (as posted here, INCLUDING quotes, to make it one complete search term) EACH turned up THOUSANDS of results: "Crooked Donald" "Fraudulent Donald" "Childish Donald" Trump (had to include "Trump" to distinguish from other results about childish appearing Donald Glover who is slated to play a young Lando Calrissian in an upcoming stand-alone Han Solo movie) So I would argue that yes, those ARE "in the public domain". #crookeddonald, #fraudulentdonald, and #childishdonald are actually trending hashtags. Admin permitted "President Trump" and "Crooked Hillary" because they featured prominently enough and long enough in the US news cycle that they became campaign issues in their own right. No other names meet these criteria, hence everything else is off limits.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 16, 2017 23:47:29 GMT -5
My response would likely end up getting moved to the "Gripes with Mods" (or whatever it's called) thread... so I'll just not answer why that would be a waste of time and leave you with the following: Google searches of the following (as posted here, INCLUDING quotes, to make it one complete search term) EACH turned up THOUSANDS of results: "Crooked Donald" "Fraudulent Donald" "Childish Donald" Trump (had to include "Trump" to distinguish from other results about childish appearing Donald Glover who is slated to play a young Lando Calrissian in an upcoming stand-alone Han Solo movie) So I would argue that yes, those ARE "in the public domain". #crookeddonald, #fraudulentdonald, and #childishdonald are actually trending hashtags. Admin permitted "President Trump" and "Crooked Hillary" because they featured prominently enough and long enough in the US news cycle that they became campaign issues in their own right. No other names meet these criteria, hence everything else is off limits. and i BEGRUDGINGLY accept that. i would encourage President Trump voters to also do so, lest i resort to names that i would actually PREFER to call him.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 16, 2017 23:47:41 GMT -5
It not "my" definition. I didn't make it up, and I don't use it--for your sake specifically. If you're upset that I still acknowledge its existence, beam me up. Look: I couldn't care less if you refer to Pres. Trump as "President Trump". Passive-aggressive name calling is commonplace on P/CE. I can tell you with certainty, however, that it will affect posters' opinion of you more than of Pres. Trump. Maybe that's the intent; I don't know. you may as well have, since it is not THE definition. you can prove that you couldn't care less by never bringing this up again, as you don't bring up so many other things you care nothing about. What did I bring up?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 16, 2017 23:49:48 GMT -5
you may as well have, since it is not THE definition. you can prove that you couldn't care less by never bringing this up again, as you don't bring up so many other things you care nothing about. What did I bring up? growing up, to start with.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 23:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 0:04:05 GMT -5
My response would likely end up getting moved to the "Gripes with Mods" (or whatever it's called) thread... so I'll just not answer why that would be a waste of time and leave you with the following: Google searches of the following (as posted here, INCLUDING quotes, to make it one complete search term) EACH turned up THOUSANDS of results: "Crooked Donald" "Fraudulent Donald" "Childish Donald" Trump (had to include "Trump" to distinguish from other results about childish appearing Donald Glover who is slated to play a young Lando Calrissian in an upcoming stand-alone Han Solo movie) So I would argue that yes, those ARE "in the public domain". #crookeddonald, #fraudulentdonald, and #childishdonald are actually trending hashtags. Admin permitted "President Trump" and "Crooked Hillary" because they featured prominently enough and long enough in the US news cycle that they became campaign issues in their own right. No other names meet these criteria, hence everything else is off limits.Irrelevant as "President Trump" is not his name. That's like permitting softballs and howitzers (one choice, in unlimited number, to a side)... and saying both sides are equally armed. ETA: In regards to the underlined, the examples I googled meet the required criteria, because, as "trending hashtags" they are definitely prominent enough and exist long enough... and they are mainstream media sources, not tabloids... even though they aren't "news agencies". Twitter feeds are pretty well undiluted.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 17, 2017 0:10:31 GMT -5
growing up, to start with. Try Zib's Reply #114 three pages ago. Far be it from me to divest you of your coping mechanism. So long as you're aware it's automatically going to provoke a hostile, defensive attitude in his supporters any time you use it. I care about this in the sense that it will wall you in, and I don't believe that's what you really want. But that would be me telling you what you think, so... Carry on, citizens.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 17, 2017 0:11:44 GMT -5
growing up, to start with. Try Zib's Reply #114 three pages ago. Far be it from me to divest you of your coping mechanism. So long as you're aware it's automatically going to provoke a hostile, defensive attitude in his supporters any time you use it. I care about this in the sense that it will wall you in, and I don't believe that's what you really want. But that would be me telling you what you think, so... Carry on, citizens. thanks, dude. you are a gusher of empathy. edit: seriously, tho- i think it is really funny. and i am just so glad that the moderators tolerate humor in the face of this apocalypse. kudos.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 17, 2017 0:18:11 GMT -5
Well, it's a good thing that I don't call President-elect Trump names. I just stick to descriptive terms like, "Biggest, most blatant liar on the American political scene in our lifetimes" and, "Probably the most fundamentally dishonest person in the country."
Even with that, I hope he succeeds as President. It's the only way for the country to succeed. One would have to be a morally-bankrupt, un-American POS to ever hope that the President of the United States fails, right?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 17, 2017 0:25:10 GMT -5
Well, it's a good thing that I don't call President-elect Trump names. I just stick to descriptive terms like, "Biggest, most blatant liar on the American political scene in our lifetimes" and, "Probably the most fundamentally dishonest person in the country." Even with that, I hope he succeeds as President. It's the only way for the country to succeed. One would have to be a morally-bankrupt, un-American POS to ever hope that the President of the United States fails, right? dude. i have a FIREHOUSE of insults just waiting for someone to say "ok, you can open that valve" but management has made it clear that i have to funnel that anger and resentment through a coke straw called President Trump. and, like a dumbass, i have agreed. the alternative is getting my posts deleted, which is a waste of my time. so, FINE. i will abide by the fucking rules. sheesh. but you are not going to back me down to nothing. period.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 17, 2017 0:38:08 GMT -5
what about the President Obama crap? time to stop cloaking your half of the argument in the preachers clothes, always. Haven't looked at the stuff much, but it sounds fake. not sure how that impacts people being criticized and shamed for calling the president by his proper name, but the angels and our betters in the media can call the president elect by a name he's never used, and that's just "funny" it IS fake. it has no basis in fact, let alone reality. so, by that measure, it is infinitely worse than President Trump. i am sure that some found it funny, and i guess that you could say i am finding solidarity with them.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,870
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jan 17, 2017 1:03:40 GMT -5
With all this bickering sbout names (rather than issues) I will bring up one more, equally unimportant, issue. No matter how much some here ckaim to like weinerschnitzels -> they don't exist. It is Wienerschnitzel -named after the capital city of Austria -> Wien. I would love to call dt Donald the Vile, along the lines of Vlad the Impaler but I will refrain from that for now. Even if I do think that name would be well deserved.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,243
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 17, 2017 2:12:14 GMT -5
At least the ACA (Obamacare) helped people who had trouble getting insurance otherwise. Name me anything positive that comes from depriving citizens from getting health insurance? (Oh, you have a preexisting condition? No insurance for you!) A path to national solvency? More insurance choices for citizens? Potential deregulation that could actually cut the cost of care instead of rearranging the exhorbitant costs?
Just a few things to consider More choices does not always equal cheaper. I'd be shocked if deregulation across state lines did anything to cut the cost of care. The big expense healthcare plans have is not meeting state regulations, but dealing with doctors, hospitals, and drug companies. All of them seem to demand more money each year - and get it.
Here's a good article on why Trump's vision of deregulation is unlikely to improve anything except maybe for the healthy pool. Maybe.
www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2016/10/10/sorry-trump-selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines-wouldnt-lower-costs/#202aa32a5f01
Furthermore, consumers need to have an adequate network of doctors and hospitals in order to get the care they need and that means insurers have to spend more money to pay these providers. Since it’s a costly proposition for the insurers to build these networks of doctors and hospitals in new regions, health plans aren't generally willing to enter new markets, analysts say.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 17, 2017 5:34:57 GMT -5
You don't get a picture in your head when you hear President Trump? I get a picture in my head but not about Trump.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Jan 17, 2017 5:36:23 GMT -5
tell you what, i will stop using President Trump when you stop using "liberal" as a pejorative. (actually, i won't. but you won't either, so it doesn't matter) A list of every single time I've used the word "liberal" in the past two years: here. I dare you to find an instance where I use it as a pejorative. Seems like a lot to me..as far as seeing how and in what context...sorry friend really have better things to do...and I would suggest one persons use of a word as a pejorative is anothers not the use of the word as a pejorative...[ does that make any sense,,it'd 5:35...can't sleep..not that sharp right now]
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 23:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 7:53:48 GMT -5
You don't get a picture in your head when you hear President Trump? I get a picture in my head but not about Trump. It is a descriptive word though I'm hearing dj though. It's not a word I'd use, but when you at allowed one insult, I guess that's the word you'd have to choose...
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 17, 2017 9:33:14 GMT -5
Try Zib's Reply #114 three pages ago. Far be it from me to divest you of your coping mechanism. So long as you're aware it's automatically going to provoke a hostile, defensive attitude in his supporters any time you use it. I care about this in the sense that it will wall you in, and I don't believe that's what you really want. But that would be me telling you what you think, so... Carry on, citizens. thanks, dude. you are a gusher of empathy. edit: seriously, tho- i think it is really funny. and i am just so glad that the moderators tolerate humor in the face of this apocalypse. kudos. I am really taken aback by your opinion of Trump. You over the years have always hated this country's foreign entanglements and the military industrial complex. You have a new President that actually fits your perameters, that says enough is enough, and America first. You should be estatic!
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 17, 2017 9:41:45 GMT -5
I do not understand. DJ and I are both basically Independents who have both said our country has too many foreign entanglements and programs destabilizing countries politically and trying to to control world politicians. We have been forced into stupid wars we have no business in, costing us trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, as well as hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. Time to rethink this strategy with our new President. Nato is an example. It was supposed to protect five countries from the any physical threat. How many countries are now covered over this problem? Do we really want to protect little fiefdoms from a communist take over now?
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Jan 17, 2017 10:07:06 GMT -5
I do not understand. DJ and I are both basically Independents who have both said our country has too many foreign entanglements and programs destabilizing countries politically and trying to to control world politicians. We have been forced into stupid wars we have no business in, costing us trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, as well as hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. Time to rethink this strategy with our new President. Nato is an example. It was supposed to protect five countries from the any physical threat. How many countries are now covered over this problem? Do we really want to protect little fiefdoms from a communist take over now? "communist take over now?"...where, who?? From what I understand , that experiment collapsed almost thirty years ago..is no longer except in a few places on earth and Europe is not one of those places...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 17, 2017 12:59:25 GMT -5
thanks, dude. you are a gusher of empathy. edit: seriously, tho- i think it is really funny. and i am just so glad that the moderators tolerate humor in the face of this apocalypse. kudos. I am really taken aback by your opinion of Trump. You over the years have always hated this country's foreign entanglements and the military industrial complex. You have a new President that actually fits your perameters, that says enough is enough, and America first. You should be estatic! you believe what President Trump says? how quaint.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 17, 2017 13:02:42 GMT -5
I do not understand. DJ and I are both basically Independents who have both said our country has too many foreign entanglements and programs destabilizing countries politically and trying to to control world politicians. We have been forced into stupid wars we have no business in, costing us trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, as well as hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. Time to rethink this strategy with our new President. Nato is an example. It was supposed to protect five countries from the any physical threat. How many countries are now covered over this problem? Do we really want to protect little fiefdoms from a communist take over now? on the one hand, you hear him say stuff that is mildly isolationist (which is encouraging), and on the other hand, he says he wants to bomb ISIS into the dark ages (which is pretty much the opposite). i guess i just fundamentally don't believe anything he says. i think he is a pathological liar.
|
|