|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
02-20-2017, 09:34 PM
|
#31
|
Idiot
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 2,287
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Well, if you don't accept someone's explanation of exactly what he meant, how do you have confidence that he meant anything else . . . or anything at all? Oh . . . that's right . . . Trump is a liar . . . so his explanation must be a lie. But, then, in that case, how can you have confidence that he even meant exactly what he said in the first place when he said what he said?
|
Just out of curiosity, are you defending Trump's statements here or just picking apart Paul's?
Because I'll let you guys duke it out if we can all agree that he is an idiot and shouldn't have lumped in a Fox News story while talking about refugee related violence.
Otherwise, I think we need to stop giving this clown a break for being ambiguous on such serious topics.
On one hand, politicians are famous for being general in their responses and full of crap, but typically they skillfully dodge questions or just give remarks that neither incriminate or say anything (see Devos's confirmation hearings.)
What Trump is doing is combining a lingering distrust of the media with lies and inciting false fear.
Let's be clear: his statement which included the reference to Sweden was covering violence and attacks by immigrants, he wasn't mincing words. To say that he innocently injected an op-ed from a Fox News story mentioning the fact that Sweden has a bunch of refugees is preposterous...
He either:
a) Knew what he was doing and was following the pattern of false references to attacks by his cabinet. (Which by the way is only working because the public has gotten so used to attacks now that when someone say "Sweden, can you believe it) half of us just assume someone attacked Sweden. A point the Trump administration is simultaneously using to their advantage and berating the media for...)
Or b) He didn't know that the Fox News story wasn't about an attack, and was only half paying attention... and as a citizen of this country I hope to effing god it was the former, because if this one is true, it means that not only does he not prepare for anything, but he also draws his own quick assumptions on topics he is ill informed about in a very power hungry way. And that's not a guy I want orchestrating American foreign policy.
He's already the laughing stock of the world... "From this point forward, it will be only America first"
"We stand behind Japan 100%"
"NATO, you have our 100% commitment"
World leaders know he doesn't know what he's doing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
The artist formerly known as Scratch59.
|
|
|
02-20-2017, 10:09 PM
|
#32
|
Idiot
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 2,287
|
To be clear, the "he's an idiot" and "this clown" are references to president Trump, not Paul... it might read that way without proper clarification
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
02-20-2017, 10:24 PM
|
#33
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian
Just out of curiosity, are you defending Trump's statements here or just picking apart Paul's?
Explaining his statement. I don't see that as defending it. Don't think it needs to be defended. If it does, then I'm defending it. (see my post just before yours here).
Because I'll let you guys duke it out if we can all agree that he is an idiot and shouldn't have lumped in a Fox News story while talking about refugee related violence.
I don't think he is an idiot. And I think the Fox news story is relevant to refugee related violence, and pointedly so in Sweden. (see my post just before yours here).
Otherwise, I think we need to stop giving this clown a break for being ambiguous on such serious topics.
I don't think he is a clown. I agree that he could do much better in how he speaks. But, his unpolished, sometimes unclear (not so much ambiguous) speechifying may be part of his charm to his base, most of whom are probably disillusioned with truly evasive politicians and prefer a get it done manager to a mesmerizing smooth talker. (I don't think Trump is that evasive, that's why he gets into so much trouble about what he says.)
On one hand, politicians are famous for being general in their responses and full of crap, but typically they skillfully dodge questions or just give remarks that neither incriminate or say anything (see Devos's confirmation hearings.)
What Trump is doing is combining a lingering distrust of the media with lies and inciting false fear.
I don't think he tries to incite fear, false or real, so much as bluntly pointing out what he sees as dangerous, wrong, or incompetent. And I think there is a lot of incitement of false fear about Trump.
Let's be clear: his statement which included the reference to Sweden was covering violence and attacks by immigrants, he wasn't mincing words. To say that he innocently injected an op-ed from a Fox News story mentioning the fact that Sweden has a bunch of refugees is preposterous...
Actually, it was not preposterous. It was on point. (See my post just before yours here, and the ones before that.)
He either:
a) Knew what he was doing and was following the pattern of false references to attacks by his cabinet. (Which by the way is only working because the public has gotten so used to attacks now that when someone say "Sweden, can you believe it) half of us just assume someone attacked Sweden. A point the Trump administration is simultaneously using to their advantage and berating the media for...)
I don't know that the Fox interview was a false reference. There has been a lot of falseness in trying to deny what has been happening in Sweden and Europe re the immigrants. (See my post just before yours here.)
Or b) He didn't know that the Fox News story wasn't about an attack, and was only half paying attention... and as a citizen of this country I hope to effing god it was the former, because if this one is true, it means that not only does he not prepare for anything, but he also draws his own quick assumptions on topics he is ill informed about in a very power hungry way. And that's not a guy I want orchestrating American foreign policy.
He didn't say it was about an attack. Paul said he meant that it was about an attack. (See my post just before yours here)
He's already the laughing stock of the world...
That was also said about Obama. And about Bush. And about several other Presidents. Seems to be standard fare for opponents to say.
"From this point forward, it will be only America first"
"We stand behind Japan 100%"
"NATO, you have our 100% commitment"
World leaders know he doesn't know what he's doing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
What on earth makes you think that "world leaders" know what they're doing? Is the world, politically in that great a shape? Some of us are tired of caring so much about the world that we short shrift ourselves. Heck, most of OUR politicians think more of themselves than us.
And do please see my post just before yours here.
|
|
|
|
02-20-2017, 11:51 PM
|
#34
|
Idiot
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 2,287
|
What he's doing isn't managing though... the fact that we're defending statements he's making a rallies 5 weeks into his presidency is crazy
He needs to stop the talk and start doing, and doing means more than a bunch of executive orders repealing stuff other people have done.
Just shut the f up and start doing some stuff.
Edit: And before anyone tries to say this stupid immigration executive order was him "doing something" it wasn't... it was just another "I'm gonna get rid of something" tactic.
We haven't seen one new Trump idea come out of this White House yet... and I think that's the way they like it... they get to defend being attacked by the media while they neglect actually doing anything.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 01:46 AM
|
#35
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian
What he's doing isn't managing though... the fact that we're defending statements he's making a rallies 5 weeks into his presidency is crazy
His statements wouldn't have to be explained or defended if they weren't criticized almost every day of that 5 weeks. It might not seem so to you, but it is apparent to others that there is an intensive and continuous assault either on him, his family, his ideas, the way he speaks--there is nothing good said about him, so he and his staff have to constantly remind us that he got elected in an electoral landslide, etc., etc. just so he isn't successfully defined as an irrelevant "idiot" or a "clown."
He needs to stop the talk and start doing, and doing means more than a bunch of executive orders repealing stuff other people have done.
Just shut the f up and start doing some stuff.
That's the problem with how Progressives have transformed our understanding of what a President is legally, constitutionally, supposed to do. Mostly the President is not supposed to "do" much on his own volition other than foreign relations and treaties (with consent of the Senate), and oversee military matters, even start some wars that officially are not called war but foreign police actions. (Congress has the power to declare "war," not the President.)
The main duty of the President other than those few items, is to execute what Congress "does." We have made the President into some imperial autocrat who is constantly supposed to be "doing" stuff. Appointing and overseeing his cabinet and agency heads is one of the few things he is supposed to "do." And that has been stalled to a painful snails pace by the opposition. He is supposed to nominate judges to the SC, which he has done. But he better get busy and nominate about 100 inferior court judges. OMG. How long will the opposition stall all of his judges?
But we have this notion of the President taking care of the environment, the economy, our health and welfare, and all manner of things that we should be doing ourselves.
We the People should be doing most of those essential things. What is left to do, after that, should be done by our elected local and state representatives, then by our federal elected representatives--in that order. The more that government does those things, the more power it has over us. And the more that the President "does," the more he becomes the king.
Another thing the President can do is use the so-called bully pulpit. Seems that he has been doing a fair amount of that. He certainly has done some bullying of corporations with seeming good effect.
What is it that you think he should be "doing."
Edit: And before anyone tries to say this stupid immigration executive order was him "doing something" it wasn't... it was just another "I'm gonna get rid of something" tactic.
It is important for a "good" President to "get rid" of detrimental stuff that he is in charge of. It is in good faith to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution that he eliminates excessive executive power.
In that vein, executive orders are also some of his limited powers. Unfortunately, the President-as-king monster we have created treats executive orders as expansive imperial powers which can stretch well beyond the limited directives he is authorized to give within the small scope of power enumerated in the Constitution. Trump would do well to limit his use of EO's, keep them within the scope of his actual constitutional powers, not those imagined imperial ones. Certainly, getting rid of past executive orders which overreach is a Presidential duty to the people and to our Constitution. It seems that he is busy doing that.
We haven't seen one new Trump idea come out of this White House yet... and I think that's the way they like it... they get to defend being attacked by the media while they neglect actually doing anything.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
What is it about government continuously "doing new things" that you like. Your not a fan of "government which governs best governs least"? I don't mind if Trump, or Congress for that matter, doesn't keep coming up with new ideas. I mind when they don't properly take care of tried and true old ideas, especially the idea that they are limited in the scope of ideas that they are constitutionally allowed to implement.
I like that Trump seems to want to return a lot of the "idea" thing back to the people instead of leaving it in the unlimited hands of government bureaucrats and regulators. But we probably have an irreconcilable "idea" of what the government is supposed to do, and what the People are supposed to do.
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 05:21 AM
|
#36
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,197
|
His statements wouldn't have to be explained or defended if they weren't criticized almost every day of that 5 weeks. It might not seem so to you, but it is apparent to others that there is an intensive and continuous assault either on him, his family, his ideas, the way he speaks--there is nothing good said about him, so he and his staff have to constantly remind us that he got elected in an electoral landslide, etc., etc. just so he isn't successfully defined as an irrelevant "idiot" or a "clown."
No one on your sided minded when this was happening to Obama for 8 years Just because it was Obama
Also if you don't say things that are not factual there is no need for them to be explained ... this happened all through the Campaign
he would make a statement and his staff and supports like yourself would then go on to tell us what he really ment to say....
I guess its to much for the America people to expect their POTUS to convey things clearly and concisely when asked a question or presents a policy
Last edited by wdmso; 02-21-2017 at 05:27 AM..
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 06:07 AM
|
#37
|
........
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 22,805
|
my doctor told me when i am experiencing p.e.s.d.
to roll a hefty chunky fatty and chill
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 07:00 AM
|
#38
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
can't wait to see which word the left freaks out about today
maybe they should put him on a teleprompter 24/7 like Obama, someone else could write everything out for him, a team could vet it and he could read it like a robot...then we'd have a real authentic president
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 07:35 AM
|
#39
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
I guess its to much for the America people to expect their POTUS to convey things clearly and concisely when asked a question or presents a policy
|
yeah, because there was never any lack of clarity when Obama, Bush and Clinton answered questions or presented policies....good grief...
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 08:41 AM
|
#40
|
Ledge Runner Baits
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 8,456
|
Is there an assault on him by the news as was suggested above, sure there is and there should be if any president elect is so careless about the words he uses or the complete lack of fact checking before he uses them. Some of the very disturbing (to me and I'm sure much of the media too) things I've heard recently is a suggestion he should or could blow the soviet spy ship out of the water, that we should have taken the oil before pulling out of Iraq and that we may have another chance. Regardless of how he follows up those statements and no matter how he tries to make light of them, he just doesn't think first of how our allies or our enemies will take this comments. What do you think the VP is doing overseas, he is there to assure our allies that some of the statements made by our newly elected leader aren't to be taken verbatim. He is there to get the alliance to pay equal share which I like, but the flip side of the coin, is he is there to do damage control; he might have to stop in Sweden before coming home.
As my mother used to say, it takes two to tango and if the media has it in for Trump; he is in full vendetta mode when it comes to the media. What is ironic is his constant fake news comments, yet he and his blond adviser are constantly spouting news that has no basis in fact, no proof and nothing to substantiate their assertions.
I feel sorry for the world wide scientific community, who as a whole are probably at this point 100% certain global warming is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed, yet we have now elected someone who believes this is fake news. Clean oil my arse, just look around at the extremes in weather and warmer temperatures year after year, so glad we have a team in place that doesn't believe its even happening.
Clown, I guess time will tell?
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 11:24 AM
|
#41
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
No one on your sided minded when this was happening to Obama for 8 years Just because it was Obama
Did you mind when it was happening to Obama? Did your side defend Obama when it was happening?
And you don't really know what side I'm on. Let me clarify, if I haven't conveyed things clearly and concisely. I am on the side of the U.S. as constitutionally founded. I am on the side of that Constitution as the basis of government, and am opposed to the side which considers that Constitution irrelevant, outdated, and an impediment to government.
That is the side I'm on whether, on the political forum, I discuss Islam, or Obama, or Obamacare, or the EPA, or anything concerning political policies.
And I do have concerns about Trump in that regard. Not so much about his personal foibles or the way he speaks.
Also if you don't say things that are not factual there is no need for them to be explained ... this happened all through the Campaign
What the hullabaloo is about in this thread is his statement re Sweden. The statement was not unfactual. It had to be explained because, as he is prone to, he wasn't "clear." It needed to be explained because of the supposed shock it created and because it was unfactually misrepresented and overplayed. It was, in essence, lied about. He didn't mention an attack. (I take it that it is OK to add words, make things up, be unclear, when ridiculing Trump.) Even the government in Sweden knew that what was later explained by Trump was essentially true. The Swedish government and the Swedish people knew exactly the immigrant problem to which Trump referred existed. Watch the video in post #20 and read post #30 in this thread--for "clarification" regarding Sweden and its government.
As for what happened throughout the campaign, a lot of that was the same kind of stuff. When and if he outright lied rather than just misspeaking or not knowing the facts, he deserved to be criticized
he would make a statement and his staff and supports like yourself would then go on to tell us what he really ment to say....
And that was never good enough for his detractors, like yourself. Y'all still carried on about how he "lied."
I guess its to much for the America people to expect their POTUS to convey things clearly and concisely when asked a question or presents a policy
|
At this point, after experiencing the lies, plagiarism, evasions, and muddled parsing by the nine presidents during my voting lifetime, I don't know what to expect from our POTUS. In respect to how and what they did in terms of their constitutional duty and sticking more closely to the executive limitations in that Constitution, of them all I only had a modicum of respect for one. And as for how they spoke, only one or maybe two, nah, in retrospect, only one, the same one to whom I referred in my previous sentence, only one, in my opinion, spoke honestly, with precision, and with eloquence.
I think, in general, we expect too much from a President. Again, the side I'm on, constrains a President to far less doing than what we seem to want the President to do. And we want that because Progressive era Presidents have created that model. That's the side that I'm against. And from the way you clearly and concisely speak, it's the side you're on.
Well, if Trump succeeds, he may well turn out to be on your "side" of presidential power. But you probably won't like the results. That, however, is the result of the way your side governs.
Last edited by detbuch; 02-21-2017 at 11:49 AM..
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 11:37 AM
|
#42
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Well, if Trump succeeds, he may well turn out to be on your "side" of presidential power. But you probably won't like the results. That, however, is the result of the way your side governs.
|
Trump has an odd affinity for succeeding against great odds and.... winning bigley...
there is a pattern to the narrative
Regan= idiot and clown
Clinton= brilliant
Bush= idiot and clown
Obama= brilliant
Trump= idiot and clown
the left tends to want their presidents to be gods...remember the greek columns and Obama looking down on the masses watching them adore him?
I'm still trying to figure out of Trump is brilliant and playing the press and masses masterfully as he destroys the universe while they are distracted or if he's and idiot who's buffoonery renders him incapable of completing simple tasks like destroying the universe
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 11:59 AM
|
#43
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
Trump has an odd affinity for succeeding against great odds and.... winning bigley...
there is a pattern to the narrative
Regan= idiot and clown
Clinton= brilliant
Bush= idiot and clown
Obama= brilliant
Trump= idiot and clown
the left tends to want their presidents to be gods...remember the greek columns and Obama looking down on the masses watching them adore him?
I'm still trying to figure out of Trump is brilliant and playing the press and masses masterfully as he destroys the universe while they are distracted or if he's and idiot who's buffoonery renders him incapable of completing simple tasks like destroying the universe
|
That "idiot and clown/brilliant" pattern gives insight on how clearly, precisely, and truthfully the left speaks. I think Trump being a bit of the Progressive authoritarian has learned from them that messaging technique. It's just that he's not as eloquent about it.
But I think that Trump is more honest about his intentions than the left is.
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 12:40 PM
|
#44
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
That "idiot and clown/brilliant" pattern gives insight on how clearly, precisely, and truthfully the left speaks. I think Trump being a bit of the Progressive authoritarian has learned from them that messaging technique. It's just that he's not as eloquent about it.
But I think that Trump is more honest about his intentions than the left is.
|
pretty good assessment below...the critics are far nuttier that the nut they are critiquing and seem determined to prove it on a daily basis
Compared with Obama in 2009, at the same point in his young administration, Trump has issued about the same number of executive orders. For all his war on the press, Trump has so far not ordered wiretaps on any reporter on the grounds that he is a “criminal co-conspirator,” nor has he gone after the phone records of the Associated Press — Barack Obama’s Justice Department did both, to little notice in the media.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-assassination
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 01:35 PM
|
#45
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
pretty good assessment below...the critics are far nuttier that the nut they are critiquing and seem determined to prove it on a daily basis
Compared with Obama in 2009, at the same point in his young administration, Trump has issued about the same number of executive orders. For all his war on the press, Trump has so far not ordered wiretaps on any reporter on the grounds that he is a “criminal co-conspirator,” nor has he gone after the phone records of the Associated Press — Barack Obama’s Justice Department did both, to little notice in the media.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-assassination
|
As usual, a great essay by a brilliant conservative which establishes the context in which all the ad hominem remarks against Trump on this forum should be compared.
No doubt that those anti-Trumpers here who actually do read the article wont find anything convincing in it, and will continue their idiotic and clownish remarks against Trump.
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 03:47 PM
|
#46
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,242
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
No doubt that those anti-Trumpers here who actually do read the article wont find anything convincing in it, and will continue their idiotic and clownish remarks against Trump.
|
Wow, I missed so much.
And you say you don't have an anger problem.
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 04:14 PM
|
#48
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,242
|
Was that Friday night?
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 04:25 PM
|
#49
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
|
Paul, no offense but you really sound dopey here and I am sure you are bluffing. Look at the big picture and get a command on what it is that you are trying to accomplish. It's not exactly a lie when he referred to trouble in Sweden. This is not Hillary claiming sniper fire that Hillary had to brave. Does Trump have trouble articulating his thoughts on occasion? Guilty
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 04:31 PM
|
#50
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Was that Friday night?
|
Your stuck on your narrative that Trump lied. There is no pretense here that this was Friday night. The narrator said when it happened. It happened soon AFTER Trump referred to what was going on in Sweden. As the narrator said. Trump was right. This has been going on in Sweden. If you want to hang on to your thin thread that Trump actually meant that there was an "attack" in Sweden the night before his address, I have no wish to dissuade you from that opinion.
But you needn't infuse that opinion in this post. It is obviously about the ongoing situation in Sweden as a result of their immigration policy. Go ahead and continue to disregard that. Like the Swedish politicians you can convince yourself that everything is just fine in Sweden. Or lie about it, as the narrator said, to protect their image of Sweden as an untroubled multi-cultural society, open to everyone, with no need to be concerned about their supposedly humanitarian policies.
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 04:36 PM
|
#51
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,242
|
Trump is the most inarticulate President we have ever had. He lies more than any other politician ever. It is hilarious watching the apologists trying to explain his thought process or cover for his lies.
His statement was either extremely inarticulate or an out and out lie. Either way it just shows what type of person he is.
Chris - how many times was it brought up that Obama said he visited 57 states or the constant crying like little girls about Obama's executive orders? Now when it is pointed out he lied, the response is who cares or what different does it make. The hypocrisy here is amazing.
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 05:29 PM
|
#52
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,718
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Trump is the most inarticulate President we have ever had. He lies more than any other politician ever. It is hilarious watching the apologists trying to explain his thought process or cover for his lies.
His statement was either extremely inarticulate or an out and out lie. Either way it just shows what type of person he is.
Chris - how many times was it brought up that Obama said he visited 57 states or the constant crying like little girls about Obama's executive orders? Now when it is pointed out he lied, the response is who cares or what different does it make. The hypocrisy here is amazing.
|
If you find a single reference I made to prove your point I will be shocked. Sorry,but I only speak for myself. Search is your friend here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
PRO CHOICE REPUBLICAN
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 05:37 PM
|
#53
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Chris - how many times was it brought up that Obama said he visited 57 states The hypocrisy here is amazing.
|
it's usually brought up in response to a republican being called an idiot for something they may have said...he did improve immensely once he was on full time teleprompter
my all time favorite by the way...was when he wanted to give a kid with asthma.. a breathalyzer...that was great...
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 05:49 PM
|
#54
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Trump is the most inarticulate President we have ever had.
If they are going to be rated, one of them has to be the most whatever. But the "ever had" is not verified. And it is very small and angry of you to make such a statement.
He lies more than any other politician ever.
Again, another small minded, angry thing to say. And certainly not verified. Is there an official, verifiable, objective count of the number of lies ever told by every President. Oh, wait, that would be impossible to do. Not nice of you to tell such a lie when you know that it can't be verified. And, very, very, angry. And resorting to unverified extremes such as "we have ever had" and "more than any other" is a sign of some sort of unbalance.
It is hilarious watching the apologists trying to explain his thought process or cover for his lies.
Causing people to laugh is better than making them angry, right? Well, maybe not when an anger-ridden person laughs, it's usually an evil, angry laugh. It's not nice of you to laugh at anyone with such anger. You should get that taken care of.
His statement was either extremely inarticulate or an out and out lie. Either way it just shows what type of person he is.
OOOOhhh . . . out and out lie! Such anger. Settle down, you might burst some organ or other. Not healthy. And casting aspersions on the type of person someone is. . . my, my . . . very rude and angry. Not healthy. Really . . . get it checked.
Chris - how many times was it brought up that Obama said he visited 57 states or the constant crying like little girls about Obama's executive orders? Now when it is pointed out he lied, the response is who cares or what different does it make. The hypocrisy here is amazing.
|
I don't remember him being accused of actually lying about that. It seemed everyone understood that he misspoke, but folks just threw a counterpunch toward those who made fun of GW's verbal faux pas. That you take that fun return jab as some serious accusation of lying probably exposes the deep anger that you harbor. And topping it off by accusing folks of being hypocrites, and worse, with a sexist, nasty remark like "crying like little girls" just shows how your anger seethes so virulently within you that you can't contain it. I fear your anger has built up to a critical level. Not only do you constantly have to strike out with personal attacks, but you have lost the ability to see how foolish it is to cling to the absurd notion that someone would claim something to the ears of the world that was immediately and demonstrably false, and not see that it was obviously a slip, similar to Obama's 57 states. Especially when he who makes the claim is constantly accused of lying--one would think he wouldn't so obviously tell a whopper. That you must see that as a lie rather than a slip, and to insist, angrily over and over again, even after the slip is explained, makes it evident that your anger leads to apparent delusions. Something that should have been put to bed still haunts you. Get over it. Your anger will consume you.
Last edited by detbuch; 02-21-2017 at 06:06 PM..
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 06:09 PM
|
#55
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,242
|
Seriously why do you think I have anger? Are you using that totry getting back at me? You're the one who says people's comments are idiotic and clownish. the anger to do that must be eating you up inside. Would you do that to their face? Or are you one of those internet tough guys? Are you going to send me another apology?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 06:12 PM
|
#56
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,242
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Dangles
If you find a single reference I made to prove your point I will be shocked. Sorry,but I only speak for myself. Search is your friend here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Did not say you nor was I referencing you. You and I have had very few interactions. Who is my friend? You can p.m. me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 06:35 PM
|
#57
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Seriously why do you think I have anger? Are you using that totry getting back at me? You're the one who says people's comments are idiotic and clownish. the anger to do that must be eating you up inside. Would you do that to their face? Or are you one of those internet tough guys? Are you going to send me another apology?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Oh, oh . . . it's starting to boil over. Get a grip.
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 06:36 PM
|
#58
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,242
|
So are you going to p.m. me your apology?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 06:39 PM
|
#59
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
So are you going to p.m. me your apology?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Is there an or else? Sounds threatening. And confused. I try to help you deal with your condition and you ask me for an apology?
|
|
|
|
02-21-2017, 06:41 PM
|
#60
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,242
|
Yes, threatening. LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35 PM.
|
| |