Trump's Wag the Dog Moment; Syrian chemical attack was a false flag!

[potroastV2]

DTAMF!! *



* Dumber Than A Mud Fence


They are just too stupid to realize that they have been duped.

 

[Fogdog]

Russia is in ZERO Debt, the US has collected over 20 trillion in debt and rising.

You are worrying about the wrong Country bro.

LOL

Russia's economy is the size of South Korea's. It's significant but the size of a flea compared to the US. A few sanctions against Russia and their economy will topple. Putin is making it necessary to do this. I'm sorry for your parents who will suffer but they voted for Putin, so, they will just have to tighten their belts when the US takes the necessary steps to corral Putin.

Putin is propping up Assad, the man who bombs and gasses civilians. You side with that. Bad choice.

 

[Fogdog]

Literally multiple, multiple links.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/29/declassified-memo-hinted-of-1941-hawaii-attack-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8932197/Pearl-Harbour-memo-shows-US-warned-of-Japanese-attack.html

Stop posting

Ahhhhhaaahaaaaahaaaaa

Yeah, FDR caused WWII.

Or maybe it was Obama.

 

[trippnface]

LOL

Russia's economy is the size of South Korea's. It's significant but the size of a flea compared to the US. A few sanctions against Russia and their economy will topple. Putin is making it necessary to do this. I'm sorry for your parents who will suffer but they voted for Putin, so, they will just have to tighten their belts when the US takes the necessary steps to corral Putin.

Putin is propping up Assad, the man who bombs and gasses civilians. You side with that. Bad choice.

You are utter trash.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Literally multiple, multiple links.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/29/declassified-memo-hinted-of-1941-hawaii-attack-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8932197/Pearl-Harbour-memo-shows-US-warned-of-Japanese-attack.html

Stop posting

Hmm, the author claims that the US "missed signals". That is quite different from knowing about it. I wouldn't expect you to be able to know the difference.

From your own link:
But Mr Shirley said: "Based on all my research, I believe that neither Roosevelt nor anybody in his government, the Navy or the War Department knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour. There was no conspiracy.

Please keep posting. Tell me more about how (((FDR))) knew about it and let it happen.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

You are utter trash.

Aw, did that hurt you? Drink some Hawthorn. It will be ok.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

I've been listening to various voices who post here. The hard liners -- Anarchists, Anarchocapitalists, Hard right wingers, libertarians, so-called Progressives - all have one thing in common. That is: they subscribe to an ideology as if it were the answer. Yet, whenever a pure ideology is put in place, it's a disaster.

I'll take our messy democracy, thankyouverymuch.

But it isn't pure, like Bernie's victory would have been if he were not cheated.

 

[Fogdog]

You are utter trash.

My what a logical and convincing argument you just made Ruskie Troll.

You and your parents voted for Putin. Sorry, but your parents will be hurt by Putin's actions. Too bad for them. We made a mistake and put Trump into office but are taking corrective action. You and your country can learn by watching how a real democracy works.

 

[Fogdog]

But it isn't pure, like Bernie's victory would have been if he were not cheated.

Bernie was cheated because the corrupt media reported Bernie's own words.

Same thing happened in Jackson Mississippi on April 4.

Sanders praised Obama for being intelligent and charismatic then blamed Obama for Democrats losing 1000 seats.

Adherents to the Cult of Sanders are piling on to Obama. Just like Breitbart.

In a few more months, all the stuff said about Clinton last year will be repeated except Obama will be the devil.

We were already there. Another gift from Obama.

Tty is starting to do it already. He is very susceptible to suggestion from US right wing and Russian propaganda

 

[Padawanbater2]

Disagreeing with you isn't the same as being toxic.

"Looking" for logical fallacies. LOL.

I do look for logical fallacies. That's a red flag that a person is either bullshitting or has been fed bullshit.

As far as "modererate or conservative" opposition is concerned, we have you and tty to represent them. You take their logical fallacies and re-spin them here all that time.

Witness this post where tty is taking signals from Breitbart and their messenger who poses left, Sanders:



“The business model, if you like, of the Democratic Party for the last 15 years or so has been a failure,” Sanders started, responding to a question about the young voters who supported his campaign. “People sometimes don’t see that because there was a charismatic individual named Barack Obama, who won the presidency in 2008 and 2012.

“He was obviously an extraordinary candidate, brilliant guy. But behind that reality, over the last 10 years, Democrats have lost about 1,000 seats in state legislatures all across this country.”

This dog can hear the dog whistle very clearly in that comment. Oh and Obama IS "an extraordinary and brilliant guy."

Disagreement is fine, in fact, honest disagreement is welcomed and appreciated. What you do is toxic and although it may give you a quick ego boost, it actually breeds more of the very behavior and beliefs you claim to oppose. If the idea is to present political ideas/policies, then argue the merits of them, honest disagreement is essential for improvement. You are very obviously not interested in that. The majority of your posts are purposefully meant to incite anger. You post specifically to make people mad, not to try to understand their point of view or where they might be coming from or how they got there or why, no, it's to make people mad and get an angry reaction out of them. You do this because it makes you feel good to know you've upset someone you believe to be inferior - intellectually, physically, sexually, etc. That's not honest disagreement.

You're looking to argue logical fallacies, not rebut them. You strawman, mischaracterize, misquote, and take out of context all the arguments you can't logically or rationally argue against. If you could, you would.

You are the moderate. Your political beliefs align with centrist Democrats like Hillary Clinton. You've consistently shown support for moderates in congress like Manchin and McCaskill over their more progressive opponents and supported literal conservative designed healthcare plans.. I support universal healthcare, ending the war on drugs, universal college, a new New Deal in renewable energy, action on climate change, oppose capital punishment.. Probably the only thing I am further right on policy issues than you is gun control, and not by far. We've been over the issues dozens of times. I come out farther left than you every single time while you argue against primarying moderate Democrats in red states when (guess what!) I support it!

Sanders quote is 100% accurate, regardless of where it might have been cited. You can't argue the substance of his quote, so you argue against the outlet that posted it...

 

[Fogdog]

Disagreement is fine, in fact, honest disagreement is welcomed and appreciated. What you do is toxic and although it may give you a quick ego boost, it actually breeds more of the very behavior and beliefs you claim to oppose. If the idea is to present political ideas/policies, then argue the merits of them, honest disagreement is essential for improvement. You are very obviously not interested in that. The majority of your posts are purposefully meant to incite anger. You post specifically to make people mad, not to try to understand their point of view or where they might be coming from or how they got there or why, no, it's to make people mad and get an angry reaction out of them. You do this because it makes you feel good to know you've upset someone you believe to be inferior - intellectually, physically, sexually, etc. That's not honest disagreement.

You're looking to argue logical fallacies, not rebut them. You strawman, mischaracterize, misquote, and take out of context all the arguments you can't logically or rationally argue against. If you could, you would.

You are the moderate. Your political beliefs align with centrist Democrats like Hillary Clinton. You've consistently shown support for moderates in congress like Manchin and McCaskill over their more progressive opponents and supported literal conservative designed healthcare plans.. I support universal healthcare, ending the war on drugs, universal college, a new New Deal in renewable energy, action on climate change, oppose capital punishment.. Probably the only thing I am further right on policy issues than you is gun control, and not by far. We've been over the issues dozens of times. I come out farther left than you every single time while you argue against primarying moderate Democrats in red states when (guess what!) I support it!

Sanders quote is 100% accurate, regardless of where it might have been cited. You can't argue the substance of his quote, so you argue against the outlet that posted it...

You "accused" others including me of using a dirty trick of pointing out logical fallacies in an argument. I responded and you call me toxic? Logical fallacies are what people use when they have lost the argument.

It's completely false to lay blame for Democratic Party losses at Obama. First, the Republican party had a lot to do with it. Second, there was a backlash against the ACA. Not because wasn't liberal enough but because it had a mandate to carry insurance. Third, the party with a sitting president always loses seats

Disagreeing with you isn't the same as being toxic.

“The business model, if you like, of the Democratic Party for the last 15 years or so has been a failure,” Sanders started, responding to a question about the young voters who supported his campaign. “People sometimes don’t see that because there was a charismatic individual named Barack Obama, who won the presidency in 2008 and 2012.

“He was obviously an extraordinary candidate, brilliant guy. But behind that reality, over the last 10 years, Democrats have lost about 1,000 seats in state legislatures all across this country.”


This dog can hear the dog whistle very clearly in that comment. Oh and Obama IS "an extraordinary and brilliant guy."

Not "was".


If you don't know that the words highlighted in the above post are dog whistle politics then you don't know much if anything at all about politics in this country.

 

[Fogdog]

The fact that you think America is a democracy proves how misinformed and delusional you are.

It's clear that there is nothing to be gained in the attempt to discuss any of this with you.

Blue wave coming this fall.

Progress on healthcare coming after the fall. Progress on campaign finance reform too.

Democratic President in 2020 and it won't be Bernie.

Book it.

 

[ttystikk]

You "accused" others including me of using a dirty trick of pointing out logical fallacies in an argument. I responded and you call me toxic? Logical fallacies are what people use when they have lost the argument.

It's completely false to lay blame for Democratic Party losses at Obama. First, the Republican party had a lot to do with it. Second, there was a backlash against the ACA. Not because wasn't liberal enough but because it had a mandate to carry insurance. Third, the party with a sitting president always loses seats

Not "was".


If you don't know that the words highlighted in the above post are dog whistle politics then you don't know much if anything at all about politics in this country.

Yes you're toxic.

The backlash against the ACA had everything to do with the fact that it's a total giveaway to the health insurance industry.

 

[ttystikk]

Blue wave coming this fall.

Progress on healthcare coming after the fall. Progress on campaign finance reform too.

Democratic President in 2020 and it won't be Bernie.

Book it.

If Democrats are in charge there will be no meaningful healthcare reform.

There will be no defense rollback.

There will be no peace.

So what's the difference between that and another Republican? There will be more activism under a Republican president because too many Americans are still fooled into thinking the Democrats are a better alternative.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You "accused" others including me of using a dirty trick of pointing out logical fallacies in an argument. I responded and you call me toxic? Logical fallacies are what people use when they have lost the argument.

No I didn't

It's completely false to lay blame for Democratic Party losses at Obama. First, the Republican party had a lot to do with it. Second, there was a backlash against the ACA. Not because wasn't liberal enough but because it had a mandate to carry insurance. Third, the party with a sitting president always loses seats

No it's not completely false to lay blame for the losses the Democratic party suffered to Republicans under his leadership. Obama accomplished many things I support, but he also failed on many fronts. (sorry, dog whistle).. He increased NSA spying, he increased the drone program and supported the Patriot Act. He's responsible for putting away more whistle blowers in US history, supporting terrorist regimes like Saudi Arabia, and he didn't do anything about Flint's water crisis, that still continues to this day, when he had the chance. Supported TPP, didn't back the Dakota Access pipeline natives, deported more people than any other president.. people like you don't see the negatives.. only acknowledge the positives. Kinda like a cult does

Not "was".

Was Obama not an extraordinary candidate? Is he still a candidate? "Was" = "Is", in a different tense. Have you attended 3rd grade?

If you don't know that the words highlighted in the above post are dog whistle politics then you don't know much if anything at all about politics in this country.

Sanders' response was off the cuff responding to a question to an entire auditorium of audience members, who applauded it. Please explain why you believe it is a "dog whistle". Bet you can't. Bet you instead follow it up with another personal attack

 

[Padawanbater2]

Yes you're toxic.

The backlash against the ACA had everything to do with the fact that it's a you're giveaway to the health insurance industry.

I wonder why people would oppose a 20% markup to feed the greed of the middleman.. ?

No one could have seen that coming...!

 

[Padawanbater2]

Blue wave coming this fall.

More than likely, yeah

Progress on healthcare coming after the fall. Progress on campaign finance reform too.

"Progress" We're hearing it now, folks!!

To you, progress is peach fuzz. Be VERY specific. You tell me what you define as the kind of "progress" you're citing now. Better than a 13 year old's peach fuzz, I hope..

So, SPECIFICALLY, what kind of "progress"?

Democratic President in 2020 and it won't be Bernie.

Book it.

OK, what do I win if you lose?

 

[Fogdog]

More than likely, yeah

"Progress" We're hearing it now, folks!!

To you, progress is peach fuzz. Be VERY specific. You tell me what you define as the kind of "progress" you're citing now. Better than a 13 year old's peach fuzz, I hope..

So, SPECIFICALLY, what kind of "progress"?

OK, what do I win if you lose?

Bernie's health care plan is about as an obtuse and helpful to Republicans as a plan can get.

That health care bill is a great example of why Bernie has made no real progress in his entire time in the Senate. Also why I don't call either you or Bernie real progressives.

An example of progress in a Democratically controlled House with a slim GOP control of the Senate post 2018 would be shoring up the ACA. There are more than 20 million people who have health care coverage that wouldn't have it without the ACA. Republicans are endangering their coverage. Progress would be to strengthen the ACA and make extend coverage to as many as possible. This is at a minimum of my expectation for 2018. Merkely released a "Medicare buy-in" plan that is better but I don't think it can pass in 2018-2020. Republicans may even block shoring up the ACA.

Now then, let's come back to Bernie's plan and why you are so obtuse to think it's a good idea at this time. It would force 60 million people to relinquish health care plans that they like and sign up for Medicare. 60 million angry people. Dude, in order to win back the House, we will need to win in some very close races in conservative districts like Scott Lamb's, PA-13th district. If he had come out in favor of Bernie's plan instead of shoring up the ACA, his win by 700 votes would have turned into a loss.

You so-called Progressives are really liberal idealists. I'm not in disagreement with your overall objectives, I'm disagreeing with you about how we get there and timing.

So sorry I'm being so toxic. I guess to you facts are toxic. Again, my apologies.

 

[ttystikk]

Bernie's health care plan is about as an obtuse and helpful to Republicans as a plan can get.

That health care bill is a great example of why Bernie has made no real progress in his entire time in the Senate. Also why I don't call either you or Bernie real progressives.

An example of progress in a Democratically controlled House with a slim GOP control of the Senate post 2018 would be shoring up the ACA. There are more than 20 million people who have health care coverage that wouldn't have it without the ACA. Republicans are endangering their coverage. Progress would be to strengthen the ACA and make extend coverage to as many as possible. This is at a minimum of my expectation for 2018. Merkely released a "Medicare buy-in" plan that is better but I don't think it can pass in 2018-2020. Republicans may even block shoring up the ACA.

Now then, let's come back to Bernie's plan and why you are so obtuse to think it's a good idea at this time. It would force 60 million people to relinquish health care plans that they like and sign up for Medicare. 60 million angry people. Dude, in order to win back the House, we will need to win in some very close races in conservative districts like Scott Lamb's, PA-13th district. If he had come out in favor of Bernie's plan instead of shoring up the ACA, his win by 700 votes would have turned into a loss.

You so-called Progressives are really liberal idealists. I'm not in disagreement with your overall objectives, I'm disagreeing with you about how we get there and timing.

So sorry I'm being so toxic. I guess to you facts are toxic. Again, my apologies.

Yet more bullshit. Democrats had a fillibuster proof supermajority and still didn't manage to get it done.

That's because they didn't really want to.

 

[Fogdog]

Yet more bullshit. Democrats had a fillibuster proof supermajority and still didn't manage to get it done.

That's because they didn't really want to.

Actually they couldn't get it done because they did not have a filibuster proof majority for a universal health care plan. You keep forgetting that some Democrats come from districts that oppose it.

The ACA was progress and a bridge to universal healthcare. If leadership had pushed a plan like Bernie's it would have gone down in flames and no progress would have been made.