Senators reach deal ...

[Pete F.]

Feel free to support all the fish tank cleaner imbibers you want.
Some hope that politicians look for support among the people not so easily confused
Apparently that is not the case with Trumplicans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) worked to scupper the phase-three coronavirus relief package on Sunday after Majority Whip James Clyburn (D., S.C.) told caucus members last week that the bill was “a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.”

Clyburn’s comments came on a Thursday call featuring more than 200 House Democrats, during which caucus members laid out a list of provisions they wanted to be included in the Senate’s trillion-dollar package."

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is one of the reasons you remain ignorant. And by ignorant, I don't mean stupid. I mean the non-judgmental definition--uninformed or misinformed. You pick one supposedly or reputedly negative thing or name about something or someone and then judge the whole by it. What site, or news agency or TV network does not have at least one person or commentator or program that many think is bat$hit crazy? Are your relied on sources purely free of any such blights? So you dismiss what could be enlightening information by ignorantly casting a negative light on the entire source.

And your ignorance may not be entirely innocent. I suspect you disagree with the "world view," as you've put it in the past, or with the political view or slant, of Breitbart, or Fox New, or various bloggers, etc., so you intentionally pick something you think is negative about them, point that out, then think you've proved that they are to be scorned and dismissed.

Breitbart and Fox news are excellent sources for things that the left leaning media avoid covering or get wrong when they do. Breitbart and Fox got a whole lot more right on a lot of the nonsense ginned up about Trump. They've pointed out a host of fallacies, misconceptions, and lies told about Trump. They were far more accurate and ultimately right about the Russia hoax, the impeachment hoax, the obstruction hoax, and a whole lot more, than was the leftist media.

That's true of many "conservative" or libertarian bloggers such as those whose videos I've posted and you've dismissed via this method of pointing out a thing that you think is negative about them personally, and so dismiss, avoid, the content of their message which you were not able to dispute.

Your method is a recipe for remaining willfully ignorant. How useful was your source for the fish tank cleaner drinkers?

Another one who refuses to accept who planted the seed ,,, your kool aid drinkers on tube are just birds of the same conspiracy feather. Only you would expect others to dispute a guy you tube , opinion rather than presented facts

Maybe you should ride your high horse over there and read the comments, then come back and tells us what you think , because you clearly have no idea how extremist their views are , hiding behind words like patriotism and MANGA

The volume of hate and vitriol is amazing. Our forum is respectfully and moderate in comparison. Notice the ads here , I've attached 1 from their site

[Sea Dangles]

🔨
MANGA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Another one who refuses to accept who planted the seed ,,, your kool aid drinkers on tube are just birds of the same conspiracy feather. Only you would expect others to dispute a guy you tube , opinion rather than presented facts

Maybe you should ride your high horse over there and read the comments, then come back and tells us what you think , because you clearly have no idea how extremist their views are , hiding behind words like patriotism and MANGA

The volume of hate and vitriol is amazing. Our forum is respectfully and moderate in comparison. Notice the ads here , I've attached 1 from their site

There you go again. Demonstrating what I said you do.

And wanting Hillary to be brought to justice is not extreme. A great many Americans, not an extreme fringe, feel that way.

And much of what is in Breitbart is information and commentary from the "conservative" prospective that you won't find in leftist outlets.

And if you think that asking for a vote is hate, vitriol, and extreme, then I can understand why you side with Progressives.

Progressives seem to have this notion that anything they don't agree with is extreme . . . as well as hateful, racist, and all the rest of the mantra.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There you go again. Demonstrating what I said you do.

And wanting Hillary to be brought to justice is not extreme. A great many Americans, not an extreme fringe, feel that way.

And much of what is in Breitbart is information and commentary from the "conservative" prospective that you won't find in leftist outlets.

And if you think that asking for a vote is hate, vitriol, and extreme, then I can understand why you side with Progressives.

Progressives seem to have this notion that anything they don't agree with is extreme . . . as well as hateful, racist, and all the rest of the mantra.

you've exposed yourself as one of them ... where facts a reality are absent ....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

you've exposed yourself as one of them ... where facts a reality are absent ....

One of who? I didn't "expose" my view on Hillary being brought to justice. It's not unusual that you've exposed yourself, for the umpteenth time, to be lacking in reading comprehension. It's no wonder that you can't understand articles or videos that don't sync with your "world view." No doubt, to me, that it's a defensive mechanism when you dismiss or refuse to respond to information that would put a chink in your armor.

I doubt that anything will be done to Hillary re her political misdeeds, so I don't think about it. And I don't respond to polls. So I'm not one of those who would have voted to the ad in your link.

And I have no illusion that when I "expose" your problem with being able to think or discuss rationally that a light will go on in your head and "expose" your problem for you to more clearly see it. I just do it a little for fun and a little to shine that light for others who may wonder what's going on with some of your gibberish--such as you display by your above post.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

One of who? I didn't "expose" my view on Hillary being brought to justice. It's not unusual that you've exposed yourself, for the umpteenth time, to be lacking in reading comprehension. It's no wonder that you can't understand articles or videos that don't sync with your "world view." No doubt, to me, that it's a defensive mechanism when you dismiss or refuse to respond to information that would put a chink in your armor.

I doubt that anything will be done to Hillary re her political misdeeds, so I don't think about it. And I don't respond to polls. So I'm not one of those who would have voted to the ad in your link.

And I have no illusion that when I "expose" your problem with being able to think or discuss rationally that a light will go on in your head and "expose" your problem for you to more clearly see it. I just do it a little for fun and a little to shine that light for others who may wonder what's going on with some of your gibberish--such as you display by your above post.

Please Present all her Crimes ... and not just the imaginary one's... But those brought by law enforcement .... I can't wait

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Please Present all her Crimes ... and not just the imaginary one's... But those brought by law enforcement .... I can't wait

If a large portion of the population have the view that she committed some sort of crime, let's say, in the way she handled her emails, they are not holding an extreme view, that is, not holding a view that is the furthest from what would be considered "the center," or not holding a view that is held by so few that it is an "extreme" outlier.

There are enough people who think she committed a crime, that to consider their view to be an extreme one seems to be at least erroneous, or, more underhandedly, might be considered a biased tactic to marginalize and dismiss them. And further labeling them beyond that as vitriolic, or haters, is demeaning them as well. It is a pretty shady way to have a discussion.

And if you're trying frame the argument as one can only believe that a crime has been committed when it is brought by "law enforcement" (whatever that means), then your attempt at thought control is closer than you know to that "authoritarian" form of government that you accuse others of.

[Pete F.]

Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that Donald Trump committed crimes before he became president, according to a new Quinnipiac poll conducted after Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen testified to Congress.

Among those surveyed, 64 percent believe that the president committed crimes before he was elected, with 24 percent saying they don’t think he did.

Those polled were split on whether they believe Trump has committed crimes while in office: According to the poll, 45 percent believe the president has, while 43 percent say he hasn’t.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that Donald Trump committed crimes before he became president, according to a new Quinnipiac poll conducted after Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen testified to Congress.

Among those surveyed, 64 percent believe that the president committed crimes before he was elected, with 24 percent saying they don’t think he did.

Those polled were split on whether they believe Trump has committed crimes while in office: According to the poll, 45 percent believe the president has, while 43 percent say he hasn’t.

According to wdmso's way of seeing these things, Quinnipiac must be extremist, vitriolic, and a hater since no crimes were specified but just a belief about general "crimes" that weren't "brought by law enforcement."

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If a large portion of the population have the view that she committed some sort of crime, let's say, in the way she handled her emails, they are not holding an extreme view, that is, not holding a view that is the furthest from what would be considered "the center," or not holding a view that is held by so few that it is an "extreme" outlier.

There are enough people who think she committed a crime, that to consider their view to be an extreme one seems to be at least erroneous, or, more underhandedly, might be considered a biased tactic to marginalize and dismiss them. And further labeling them beyond that as vitriolic, or haters, is demeaning them as well. It is a pretty shady way to have a discussion.

And if you're trying frame the argument as one can only believe that a crime has been committed when it is brought by "law enforcement" (whatever that means), then your attempt at thought control is closer than you know to that "authoritarian" form of government that you accuse others of.

Since when in America do we arrest people for crimes that in your words
" a large portion of the population have the view that she committed some sort of crime"

But all of law enforcement is unable to find any evidence of these imaginary crime and still have yet to arrest her..

you're trying frame the argument as one can only believe that a crime has been committed when it is brought by "law enforcement" (whatever that means),

Wow thats an amazing statment

Ps Pete was using your logic against you.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Since when in America do we arrest people for crimes that in your words
" a large portion of the population have the view that she committed some sort of crime"

Since when did I say we did?

But all of law enforcement is unable to find any evidence of these imaginary crime and still have yet to arrest her..

Since when has it been considered extreme or hateful or vitriolic for people to believe that law enforcement didn't do its job as it should have? We've had powerful civil rights movements based on law enforcement not doing its job. And most Americans don't consider all of those movements to be extreme, or hateful, or vitriolic. Perhaps, by your logic, we should consider them so.

you're trying frame the argument as one can only believe that a crime has been committed when it is brought by "law enforcement" (whatever that means),

Wow thats an amazing statment

It's amazing at what you find amazing.

Ps Pete was using your logic against you.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And I used his logic against you. And I didn't disagree with what he posted, so I don't see how it was against me. It seemed to me that he used the back and forth between you and me to rag on Trump.