Comments on: Friday Talking Points [430] -- A Fool's Paradise

By: michale

michale — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 11:16:44 +0000

The base wants a filibuster of Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court, even though there is literally no possible tangible end that can be achieved thereby -- and even though it may indeed make it harder to block Trump nominees in the future. For instance some future truly awful Supreme Court nominee, one for whom Republicans wouldn’t be willing to rewrite Senate rules in order to overcome a filibuster threat.

Sounds familiar... :D

At the moment, of course, the empty gesture of blocking Gorsuch is delighting many on the left, who finally feel like their party has grown a spine. If this follows the pattern that evolved on the right, however, that feeling will turn out to be increasingly costly. With the Tea Party, Republican moderates initially imagined that they had found something like the crazy partner in a cop buddy film -- the one who could be used to threaten suspects into acting against their own self-interest by saying: “Look, he’s crazy. He could do anything, and I just don’t know how long I can hold him back!”

But then the mainstream lawmakers discovered that their partner's craziness wasn’t an act. The Tea Party helped them secure some victories, yes. But then Crazy Mac cost them control of the Senate, engaged in grandstanding ploys with no obvious payoff, and took the focus off of Obamacare at its moment of greatest vulnerability. They had no control over their crazy “partner,” and that partner cost them more potential victories than it delivered.

Democrats may end up experiencing the same thing. Democrats desperately need to become competitive again outside of a handful of urban agglomerations, not just because their rural failures cost them the presidency, but also because of all the other offices they’ve lost at every level of government below the White House. But making themselves more competitive is probably going to require backing away from an immigration position that was skirting dangerously close to “open borders,” and placing less focus on identity politics. If they try to do this, their base will (correctly) perceive themselves losing power and status in the party, and they will be incandescent. Their first priority will be extracting signals of loyalty to themselves, not winning elections … and if the Republican experience is any guide, they may well get what they want.

Yep, Yep, Yep

Democrats *AND* their base are going to rue the day they threw away such a potent Minority Party weapon on a whim, just to appease a few fanatics who can't see past their own hysterical ideological agenda...

You heard it here first..

By: michale

michale — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 11:12:54 +0000

But NOW, ya'all (NEN) are perfectly OK with obstructionism because it's the DEMOCRATS who are obstructing.. I have to admit I toyed with the idea to leave off the NEN as I can't recall ANYONE here blasting the Democrats for their GOP-Level obstructionism.. However, it's been aptly proven that my memory isn't what it used to be :D and there ARE a few people (ya'all know who ya'all are) who deserve the benefit of the doubt... Hence, the NEN...

By: michale

michale — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 11:10:18 +0000

The New Party of 'No'

Ah, the joys of doing nothing. Republicans must remember them fondly, as they struggle with the difficulties of actually designing real-world bills that have to get past the Senate, and y’know, not hideously offend large numbers of voters.

Democrats, meanwhile, are discovering the sweet, toddler-like joys of just saying “no” to everything. Help Republicans repeal Obamacare? Heck no. Quietly stand by while Republicans approve an eminently qualified nominee to the Supreme Court? No, no, no!

After years of failing at the grown-up business of passing legislation, small wonder the Democrats would like to let the Republicans have a try at being the adults in the room. In politics, saying "no" is a great deal of fun.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-04/the-new-party-of-no

Yep...

Democrats are now EVERYTHING ya'all hated in Republicans..

But NOW, ya'all (NEN) are perfectly OK with obstructionism because it's the DEMOCRATS who are obstructing..

Blatant hypocrisy and Party slavery, all rolled into one..

The facts are as clear as they are unequivocal...

By: Paula

Paula — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:46:27 +0000

Balthasar: Yep!

By: michale

michale — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 13:05:45 +0000

Col. (Ret.) James Waurishuk, an NSC veteran and former deputy director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command, told TheDCNF that many hands had to be involved throughout the Obama administration to launch such a political spying program.

“The surveillance initially is the responsibility of the National Security Agency,” Waurishuk said. “They have to abide by this guidance when one of the other agencies says, ‘we’re looking at this particular person which we would like to unmask.’”

“The lawyers and counsel at the NSA surely would be talking to the lawyers and members of counsel at CIA, or at the National Security Council or at the Director of National Intelligence or at the FBI,” he said. “It’s unbelievable of the level and degree of the administration to look for information on Donald Trump and his associates, his campaign team and his transition team. This is really, really serious stuff.”

Michael Doran, former NSC senior director, told TheDCNF Monday that “somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics.” This “was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall.”

Doran charged that potential serious crimes were undertaken because “this is a leaking of signal intelligence.”

“That’s a felony,” he told TheDCNF. “And you can get 10 years for that. It is a tremendous abuse of the system. We’re not supposed to be monitoring American citizens. Bigger than the crime, is the breach of public trust.”

Waurishuk said he was most dismayed that “this is now using national intelligence assets and capabilities to spy on the elected, yet-to-be-seated president.”
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/susan-rice-ordered-spy-agencies-to-produce-detailed-spreadsheets-involving-trump/#ixzz4dHlYpdi3

Lying here in the darkness
I hear the sirens wail
Somebody going to emergency
Somebody's going to jail
-NEW YORK MINUTE, The Eagles

By: michale

michale — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 12:49:31 +0000

Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/susan-rice-ordered-spy-agencies-to-produce-detailed-spreadsheets-involving-trump/#ixzz4dHheZwZe

PERP WALK FOR RICE!!!!! :D

By: michale

michale — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:00:52 +0000

I didn't "intimate" that GT witnessed the event. Under those circumstances, I can understand why you may not have noticed GT's comment explaining what happened prior to the beginning of the video of the police beating a man who got on his knees -Altohone Yes, you did intimate that GT had witnessed the event.. "GT provided an eyewitness account summary of the events prior to the video." -Altohone Actually, came right out and STATED that GT had witnessed the incident... But I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt because, either way, my assessment that GT *DID NOT* witness the event was dead on ballz accurate...

By: michale

michale — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 09:44:26 +0000

GT's value comes in his personal knowledge of the area and the department, which is useful knowledge that allowed GT to concede that the incident depicted in the video WAS possibly justified..

For the record, I am sure GT has value in other areas as well. :D

But for the purposes of THIS discussion, GT's value comes from his personal knowledge of the area and the department in question..

What it ALL boils down to is this...

The video is but a mere snapshot of an entire incident. In and of itself, it is not enough information to form an accurate conclusion of the entire incident..

That's all I am saying.. That's all Russ is saying. That's all GT is saying...

YOU, the person with absolutely NO experience, training or expertise, YOU are the ONLY one who claims that the actions of the police were not justified and your claim is SOLELY based on that one snapshot...

You may be right. The actions MAY NOT be justified.

But you also could be wrong. The actions might have been PERFECTLY justified.

And you can't admit that...

That's where your problem lies..

You can't admit that you could be wrong..

And, because of that, you ARE wrong..

By: michale

michale — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 09:39:36 +0000

You still haven't mentioned ONE WORD (in any of your crapflooding comments) of the background info of the events from eyewitnesses prior to the video which GT provided, so you are also lying about having remembered it correctly. Of course I remembered it correctly.. GT doesn't HAVE any eyewitness accounts of the incident. He merely was repeating what he read about the eyewitness accounts.. In other words, with regards to the incident, GT has access to the EXACT same information that I have access to... GT's value comes in his personal knowledge of the area and the department, which is useful knowledge that allowed GT to concede that the incident depicted in the video WAS possibly justified.. I guess that means there are THREE people (myself, Russ and GT) who have personal knowledge, experience and expertise.. THREE PEOPLE with personal knowledge, experience and expertise who say that the incident COULD have been justified and ONE person with NO knowledge, experience or expertise who says it definitely WASN'T justified.. Step back and try to see things rationally... You're in the wrong on this one, Altohone... It won't kill you to admit it..

By: michale

michale — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 09:28:29 +0000

Sessions orders Justice Department to review all police reform agreements

Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered Justice Department officials to review reform agreements with troubled police forces nationwide, saying it was necessary to ensure that these pacts do not work against the Trump administration’s goals of promoting officer safety and morale while fighting violent crime.

In a two-page memo released Monday, Sessions said agreements reached previously between the department’s civil rights division and local police departments — a key legacy of the Obama administration — will be subject to review by his two top deputies, throwing into question whether all of the agreements will stay in place.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-orders-justice-department-to-review-all-police-reform-agreements/2017/04/03/ba934058-18bd-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html

Nice... Good first step...

By: michale

michale — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 08:59:11 +0000

There is a high probability that a successful arrest of a man on his knees in surrender could have been accomplished without the excessive brutality. But the valid point is, you are basing that assessment SOLELY on a mere snapshot of an entire incident AND your ignorance of police activities and procedures.. Therefore your assessment must be viewed in that context.. You wanting my argument to be different doesn't impact what my argument actually is. Your argument is based SOLELY on a snapshot of the event.. As such, it is not a valid argument. Your argument First of all, it's not just MY argument. It's Russ' argument as well.. And, of the three of us (you, me and Russ) only 2 have actual practical experience in the LEO field. OUR argument is based on experience, expertise, facts and reality. Your argument is based on anti-cop bigotry.. As such, our argument carries the day.. that we must assume that events prior to the video necessitate or justify the brutality evident in the video is a different argument... It's part and parcel to the exact same argument.. Was the cop's actions on the video justified.. You say NO, but have absolutely NOTHING but your anti-cop bigotry to back it up.. Russ and I say that the actions COULD be justified and that more information is required to reach a proper conclusion.. I didn't "intimate" that GT witnessed the event. You continuing to claim I did despite the attempts by myself and nypoet to set you straight is pathetic lying. No.. It's an opinion based on the ENTIRE conversation. JL hasn't read the entire conversation so his opinion is, like your opinion of the cop's actions, based on ignorance.. Your opinion is obviously biased and can also be disregarded..

By: Balthasar

Balthasar — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 07:02:10 +0000

There's actually nothing very specific that anyone can say that Clinton should have done differently, under the circumstances. Most politicians in her position would have charted very much the same course. Biden would have been funnier, for sure. But he opted out.

As Paula wrote, "People can have legitimate objections to aspects of her political career and professional decisions." We should leave it at that.

And Move On! Even Biden would agree with that.

We should be memorizing the names of all of the people who have political power over us, from local councilman to Senator, right now. We have to be ready and informed, the next time.

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 06:12:58 +0000

It's not so much being "anti-Clinton" as it is being honest about recognizing why she lost and why she should never run again.

This is an adult blog and, as such, knee-jerk hatred of Hillary has no place here and neither do knee-jerk dismissals of those who would describe hers as the disastrous candidacy and campaign that they were.

By: Kick

Kick — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 05:25:30 +0000

michale [102] No... We've established that you had a good point. "A good point"? Kennedy is a conservative; that is not a "good point," that is a damn fact. If you don't know that, then you qualify for a fool. You said you considered Kennedy a liberal and that was the reason your numbers were off... but they still didn't add up. The Supreme Court justices are the basics; if you don't know them and can't count them properly and you insist you're correct on a political chat board when you're called out your incorrect numbers (which is exactly what you did), then you indeed qualify as a fool (and probably worse). You decided to go for the childish and immature name-calling all on your own.. See above. No, actually the subject is still the same.. http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/31/ftp430/#comment-97697 ^^^ CLICK, CLICK -- Here's the subject; let it sink in. ^^^ No, the subject was you asking me where the "sucky math" was and your inability to count Supreme Court justices, and now you want to change the subject to something we've already discussed ad nauseam on this board and I already answered. I can't help it if you're mentally challenged and can't retain conversations. Are Democrats being boneheads for wasting the filibuster when it will assuredly do absolutely NO GOOD instead of holding onto it and using it where it MAY do some good. Staying on topic, you're a "bonehead" who can't count and has memory issues. I already answered this. Go look it up. Find something else to moan about; your repetition on this subject is ridiculous. Much like your inability at math and your memory failure, this horse is dead already; stop beating the shit out of it and move on. :)

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 05:07:14 +0000

I believe Biden would have been an exceptional president.

I know for certain he would have run a far superior campaign.

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 05:04:41 +0000

It's really too bad that we'll never know what kind of president Hillary would have been because she was a mediocre candidate within a less than mediocre campaign.

That much should go without saying because, ah, she gave us Trump.

Personally, I'll never forgive her for that.

By: Balthasar

Balthasar — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 03:58:49 +0000

Paula [160] - You are not alone; I, too believe that Clinton would have been an exceptional president. I also know that the near-universal dislike of HRC here is not common out in the 'real world', where nearly every Democrat I know has at least a positive view of her. Folks I know 'like' Bernie, but blame him for contributing to Clinton's loss. So, in some midwestern democratic circles at least, politics is for some reason the inverse of our little group here. Take [161] above for instance: what did McAuliffe say in that article that Al disagrees with, exactly? That the midterms are important? That Trump's policies are endangering the economies of states like the one that McAuliffe is currently running? That Trump should be talking to governors about "jobs and infrastructure and health care"? When did the left become a clearinghouse for all things anti-Clinton? A lot of progressive organizations wouldn't exist without the Clinton's help, past and present. I sincerely doubt that Al's extreme disdain for Everything Clinton (including their old friends) has much traction outside the fevered forums of the internet. McAuliffe's right: we should be focusing on what we can do to elect democrats to state jobs ranging from Animal Control up to Governorships in preparation for 2018 and 2020. If that's not progressive enough for guys like Al, he's too far outside the conversation to matter.

By: altohone

altohone — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 23:42:35 +0000

Hey CW

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/terry-mcauliffe-democratic-party-future_us_58e2bc38e4b0f4a923b11edd?

"A Clintonian approach to win"

Summary-

Trump hasn't done this, Trump hasn't done that.

In other words, ZERO about what Dems WILL do on economic policy to help the Americans who are struggling... one of the core reasons the Dems have been decimated at all levels.

This clown is being talked about as a presidential candidate. A Clinton insider who is repeating the same mistakes is not the path to victory.

By: Paula

Paula — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 23:38:48 +0000

[76] GoodeTrickle:
Here's a terrific article that addresses a whole lot of my feelings re: HRC, Sanders, the election, etc.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2017/apr/03/the-destruction-of-hillary-clinton-sexism-sanders-and-the-millennial-feminists

I offer it as explanatory, not for persuasive purposes. The article places her in the context of women's struggles for equality and respect in this country. I grew up on HRC saw many of her struggles as my and other women's struggles writ large. The author's perspective resonates with me completely. Been there.

That said, I have no intention of getting into a "I'll defend Hillary against everyone here who hates her," match. No one here has to like her.

I have never said she was perfect. People can have legitimate objections to aspects of her political career and professional decisions. But she has NEVER deserved the sort of scorn and hate that has been leveled at her and I have zero interest in the views of those who indulge in it.

By: Balthasar

Balthasar — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 21:58:01 +0000

Michale [157] -

So intel picks up Trump folks whispering sweet nothings into the ears of Russian intelligence, and you don't think that the National Security Advisor is authorized to find out who that is? Whose job would that be, then, otherwise?

By: altohone

altohone — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 21:53:11 +0000

147

No, we don't agree.

My argument is simple.
There is a high probability that a successful arrest of a man on his knees in surrender could have been accomplished without the excessive brutality.

You wanting my argument to be different doesn't impact what my argument actually is.

In other words, you are attempting to reframe my argument in order to serve your different argument.

Your argument that we must assume that events prior to the video necessitate or justify the brutality evident in the video is a different argument... an argument being made using the "benefit of the doubt" rationalization... in other words, unsubstantiated by any facts whatsoever.

-
-

148

I didn't "intimate" that GT witnessed the event.
You continuing to claim I did despite the attempts by myself and nypoet to set you straight is pathetic lying.

Spin away.

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 21:42:08 +0000

Top Obama Adviser Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

Out and out illegal...

Susan Rice is going to jail...

I want to thank Paula for bringing this to my attention... :D

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 21:22:35 +0000

So, one has to take into account the ENTIRE discussion to accurately assess what that sentence means..

And the entire discussion is stated in #149

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 21:20:17 +0000

'eyewitness account' is idiomatic, could apply to anyone,

Yes, it CAN...

Depending on how it is used in the sentence..

GT provided an eyewitness account summary of the events prior to the video.

In THAT sentence, the subject (eyewitness account) clearly applies to GT..

I know, I know.. You want to read it differently..

But you HAVE to admit that MY read on it is just as factually accurate as yours is..

So, one has to take into account the ENTIRE discussion to accurately assess what that sentence means..

I get why you are saying what you are saying.. But my read is ALSO accurate...

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 21:08:11 +0000

Even if that is what Altohone meant, it's clear that he has NOTHING to substantiate what occurred prior to the video..

Ergo, he is full of shit when he claims what occurred prior to the video is conclusive...

Again, if you read the entire thread, you will agree...

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 21:06:26 +0000

for the third time, no. that is incorrect. 'eyewitness account' is idiomatic, could apply to anyone, and does not require an apostrophe to do so. michale, you definitely have grammar issues. That's your opinion and I respect that.. But, when one takes into account Altohone's entire tirade, it's clear he was intimating that there WAS an eyewitness account to the incident prior to the video.. If you read the entire thread, you will come to the same conclusion..

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 20:48:42 +0000

Which basically states that there WAS an incorrect usage (or in this case LACK of usage) of the apostrophe..

for the third time, no. that is incorrect. 'eyewitness account' is idiomatic, could apply to anyone, and does not require an apostrophe to do so. michale, you definitely have grammar issues.

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 20:39:29 +0000

and [Michale is] in no position to lecture anyone on the correct use of an apostrophe.

Which basically states that there WAS an incorrect usage (or in this case LACK of usage) of the apostrophe..

JL simply feels that I am not the one to point it out.. :D

But, if *I* don't, no one will, soo......

It's up to me.. :D

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 20:32:34 +0000

and [Michale is] in no position to lecture anyone on the correct use of an apostrophe.

That is a fact and the truth of the matter. Heh.

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 20:23:25 +0000

The long and short of it is this..

Altohone came to a conclusion SOLELY and COMPLETELY based on a video which was nothing more than a snapshot of an entire police incident...

Experts in the field of police procedures and activities tried to explain to Altohone that the video WAS nothing more than a snapshot of the entire incident and, as such was useless in regards to establishing any sort of fact-based conclusion...

In an effort to bolster his foundering and flondering case, Altohone intimated that we had an eyewitness here amongst us and that what occurred PRIOR to the video was well established and supported his fact-less conclusion...

We come to learn that there was no eyewitness among us and Altohone was basing his entire erroneous and fact-less conclusion solely and completely on the video alone..

Which, if you remember, numerous experts have told him repeatedly that he is full of shit, that the video doesn't tell the WHOLE story, doesn't have ALL the facts..

That is a factual and undeniable record of his entire conversation...

Altohone has been PWNED...

That is all...

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 20:17:17 +0000

Making false accusations based on reading comprehension issues and being too lazy to look up what GT wrote is not just "grammar issues".

I didn't have to look up what GT wrote because I remembered it EXACTLY as it was..

GT **DIDN'T** witness the specific incident as you intimated he did..

GT's comment was EXACTLY as I said it was..

So, why should I have to look it up??

Like I said to GT, I won't be an enabler for the trumpling's bad behavior, so I will continue to refuse to quote GT's comment.

TRANSLATION:

Brave Sir Robin ran away
(No!)
Bravely ran away away
(I didn't!)
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
(No!)
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
(I didn't!)
And gallantly he chickened out

Like I said...

PWNED

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 20:14:06 +0000

The facts from the video are sufficient for my argument.

Exactly..

You only accept the facts that support your argument and ignore the facts (such as you don't have ALL the facts) that doesn't support your conclusion..

EXACTLY...

I am glad we agree on that...

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 20:12:58 +0000

JL,

i wouldn't say no facts, but certainly not all the facts.

Fine, you want to quibble..

Altohone did not have ALL the facts to justify his conclusion..

Happy??

as russ

And me... Is it so hard to give me credit??

has pointed out about the ferguson incident, perspectives can differ greatly depending on what part of the incident the observer saw first.

Ergo, Altohone doesn't have ALL the facts to justify his conclusion...

Kaffee: doctor, was there any sign of violence?
Sam: you mean other than the dead body?
Kaffee: f*ck, i walk into that one every time!

Bravo... THAT was as apropos of a movie quote as can be!!!

Good one.. :D

By: altohone

altohone — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:53:53 +0000

Hey CW

The midterm elections are underway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/katie-porter-congress-2018_us_58e278e4e4b0ba359596df54?8xp&

Note that in addition to the "better than Trump's minion" argument, taking on the big banks is central to Katie Porter's campaign...

... in other words, already superior to Hillary's pathetic excuse for a campaign (from a progressive's perspective).

Time to start holding your party's feet to the fire if you want them to win enough seats to be an effective opposition.

By: altohone

altohone — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:43:13 +0000

138-141

The facts from the video are sufficient for my argument.

I couldn't care less that you disagree.

By: altohone

altohone — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:40:30 +0000

nypoet
137

No.
Making false accusations based on reading comprehension issues and being too lazy to look up what GT wrote is not just "grammar issues".

I would say it is evidence that my depiction of him is simply factual.

And you should note in his "summary" of the debate, he STILL can't be bothered to go back and read the original comment at the heart of this debate.

Like I said to GT, I won't be an enabler for the trumpling's bad behavior, so I will continue to refuse to quote GT's comment.
You know, give a man a fish...

It is readily available for all to see if you really want to know though. Sorry if that makes things confusing.

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:37:01 +0000

Both myself and Russ explained to Alto that the video doesn't tell the whole story because we don't know what happened PRIOR to the video...

As such, there are NO FACTS to support the claim that the aggressiveness on the part of the officer was not justified..

i wouldn't say no facts, but certainly not all the facts. as russ has pointed out about the ferguson incident, perspectives can differ greatly depending on what part of the incident the observer saw first.

Kaffee: doctor, was there any sign of violence?
Sam: you mean other than the dead body?
Kaffee: f*ck, i walk into that one every time!

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:28:02 +0000

You've been pwned, Altohone..

Yer dismissed.. :D

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:16:38 +0000

A COP BEATING A MAN WHO WAS ON HIS KNEES IN SURRENDER
when that action was excessive and unnecessary in order to fulfill the duties of his job.

And you have NO CLUE that the action was unnecessary because you are completely ignorant of A> Police procedures and 2> What occurred PRIOR to the video..

So, how can you make the claim that it was unnecessary when you are completely and 1000% ignorant of just about EVERYTHING about the incident and police practices in general??

Answer: You can't...

In other words, your claims are 1000% bullshit...

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:12:38 +0000

it does not serve anyone's purposes here to name-call. michale just has grammar issues.

No.. Michale just has bullshit issues when people try to claim their bullshit is fact..

If you read the entire discussion (spanning 3 commentaries) you would have all the facts and your position would be different..

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 19:11:15 +0000

as to the substance of the argument, i confess i'm completely confused. what exactly is being argued?

I am glad you asked, even though I have explained it twice..

Altohone is arguing about a video of a police officer who was aggressive in making an arrest..

Both myself and Russ explained to Alto that the video doesn't tell the whole story because we don't know what happened PRIOR to the video...

As such, there are NO FACTS to support the claim that the aggressiveness on the part of the officer was not justified..

Alto claimed, in this commentary thread that we DO know what happened prior to the video because :

"GT provided an eyewitness account summary of the events prior to the video."

We come to learn that GT was only repeating witness statements and has no inside knowledge on the incident itself and certainly not any knowledge prior to the video, as it has been established that GT himself did not witness the event..

Even if one assumes that I got everything wrong about Alto's claims, the simple fact is that his claim that the incident prior to the video is well established is 1000% bullshit...

Now, if Alto wants to pick up THAT discussion on the incident itself, now that we KNOW there was no eyewitness that is present here and now, I am MORE than willing to pick up THAT discussion..

My guess is that Alto is wanting to drop the whole thing and go lick his wounds.. :D

But that's the gist of the debate in a nutshell...

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:46:50 +0000

@alto,

it does not serve anyone's purposes here to name-call. michale just has grammar issues.

as to the substance of the argument, i confess i'm completely confused. what exactly is being argued?

By: altohone

altohone — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:37:21 +0000

nypoet 123, 130 I appreciate the effort, and you are correct, but the perceived ambiguity in my comment is actually irrelevant as I was referencing the comment by GT which our resident trumpling couldn't remember and was too lazy to look up... and GT's comment wasn't the slightest bit ambiguous. If the trumpling didn't have memory and laziness issues, while insisting he was remembering it correctly (when he wasn't), and thus didn't need to "waste an hour"??? looking up the comment, the accuracy of the point I was making would have been revealed, and the debate could have remained focused on A COP BEATING A MAN WHO WAS ON HIS KNEES IN SURRENDER when that action was excessive and unnecessary in order to fulfill the duties of his job. In case nobody noticed, the trumpling dismissing the eyewitness accounts as "hearsay" is the funniest part because those accounts are what supposedly justify the beating and will (unfortunately) likely keep the cop from losing his job. Like I said, I disagree with those justifications, but our trumpling is shooting himself in the foot dismissing the only evidence presented here for his "side" and falling back on a "we don't know what happened, so the benefit of the doubt goes to the cop" defense. His idiocy is thus exposed yet again. A

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:36:37 +0000

But you agree that, for altohone to make his argument properly, he would HAVE to include the apostrophe..

Correct??

no.

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:35:38 +0000

when it comes to grammar and syntax, you're mistaken and would do best to take a step back.

How can I be mistaken when we both agree that Alto forgot the apostrophe???

I am simply agreeing with you...

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:34:48 +0000

Probably a good idea for you to drop this anti-cop tirade...

You have absolutely NO way to establish what went on prior to the video, so you have absolutely NO leg to stand on by claiming the incident was unjustified..

Push goes to the LEO...

It's that simple...

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:30:15 +0000

Altohone..

Would you like to revisit the incident, since it's clear you have NOT established what occurred prior to the video??

No???

Didn't think so... :D

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:29:35 +0000

no, it's reading comprehension. alto never claimed that GT himself was the eyewitness, .

Yes he did..

Or else, his entire argument that the incident prior to the video was established is absurd..

Because, as I said (which you apparently ignored) if the incident prior to the video was NOT established, Altohone had no argument..

and you're in no position to lecture anyone on the correct use of an apostrophe

Apparently, I am..

But, since you agree that Alto failed to use proper english grammar to make his point, Alto failed english comprehension..

OK.. I can live with that..

when it comes to grammar and syntax, you're mistaken and would do best to take a step back.

But you agree that, for altohone to make his argument properly, he would HAVE to include the apostrophe..

Correct??

Ergo, Alto fails english comprehension..

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:05:04 +0000

Oh pullleeese...
That's equivocation to the point of absurdity..

no, it's reading comprehension. alto never claimed that GT himself was the eyewitness, and you're in no position to lecture anyone on the correct use of an apostrophe.

when it comes to the police procedure part of your argument, i defer to your expertise. when it comes to grammar and syntax, you're mistaken and would do best to take a step back.

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 17:33:15 +0000

You are an idiot who needs to take remedial English.

And you are an insecure person who, when caught in a lie or being wrong, lash out with immature name-calling and childish personal attacks.

Either way, you were wrong Altohone..

I was right when I said that the sequence of events PRIOR to the video had NOT been established in any way, shape or form...

Now, do you want to revisit that incident??

Or just concede you are ignorant of police procedures and are WAY out of your league when discussing them...

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 17:30:32 +0000

Alto said "GT provided an eyewitness account summary of the events prior to the video." If Alto meant what you wanted him to mean, he would have said "GT provided an eyewitness's account summary of the events prior to the video." ...which would have given the possession of the eyewitness account to someone else.. Alto clearly said that it was GT's eyewitness account.. Think of Alto's intent.. He wanted to convey that what occurred in the incident prior to the video was already established.. To do that, Alto needed an "eyewitness"... So he either misread GT's comment (made a mistake) or figured he could fudge it and no one would question him (he lied)... If one takes into account ALL the facts, it's clear that Alto was either wrong or lied.. Either way, I was right when I said that the sequence of events PRIOR to the video had NOT been established in any way, shape or form...

By: altohone

altohone — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 17:27:38 +0000

119, 120

You are an idiot who needs to take remedial English.

By: altohone

altohone — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 17:23:51 +0000

Kick
77

Ah, good.
Not that it couldn't have been serious, but of all the problems that require hospitalization, that's not so bad.
Stay well.

And, yes, I agree we should all get Single Payer coverage.

I've only seen Joan Jett once, and while it was a great show, it doesn't compare to Bad Brains in my eyes.
I was really just lamenting the shoddy quality of what is available in the historical record.

The link you provided for Marginal Man has above average sound for the instruments, but you can barely hear the vocals, for example. Too funny having five guys and instruments crammed on a 6x12 stage.

The main thing is just the difference between a show with 2000-5000 people and shows with just 200-500... tiny venues, clothes soaked in sweat, the walls dripping from the humidity, and the band members who played the previous set or about to play the next set in the crowd next to you.

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 17:23:11 +0000

i'm not privy to the specific argument, but the quote you provided does not disprove alto's statement. it is perfectly possible to provide an eyewitness account from somebody other than oneself, and that's what it sounds like GT has done. Oh pullleeese... That's equivocation to the point of absurdity.. Alto didn't say that GT provided an eyewitness account from someone else, which is nothing but heresay... Alto said "GT provided an eyewitness account summary of the events prior to the video." If Alto meant what you wanted him to mean, he would have said "GT provided an eyewitness's account summary of the events prior to the video." ...which would have given the possession of the eyewitness account to someone else.. Alto clearly said that it was GT's eyewitness account.. regarding justice kennedy, his judicial philosophy is libertarian, which is generally closer to conservative on economic issues and closer to liberal on social ones. kennedy wrote the majority opinion in citizens united and voted to overturn the obamacare mandate, but also wrote the opinion legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states. his vote may swing the court, but it's predictably libertarian. Then it's NOT Conservative.. Which is what I said at the beginning..

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 17:18:49 +0000

Today's new shiny object for righties: Susan Rice.

Ooooo Good call, Paula...

Obama's bimbo has been caught breaking the law..

PERP WALK!!!!! :D

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 17:18:38 +0000

@michale,

regarding justice kennedy, his judicial philosophy is libertarian, which is generally closer to conservative on economic issues and closer to liberal on social ones. kennedy wrote the majority opinion in citizens united and voted to overturn the obamacare mandate, but also wrote the opinion legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states. his vote may swing the court, but it's predictably libertarian.

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 17:17:41 +0000

I have to give you credit, though.. Your evasiveness and equivocations has done NOT-45 proud...

Seems you have been channeling NOT-45 this entire time...

Lie like a rug and then stick with the lie regardless of ALL the facts that prove the lie is a lie...

We should start calling you NOT-45 Jr :D

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 17:12:40 +0000

Altohone..???

You have been so loquacious so far on this..

All of the sudden, you got real quiet... ;D

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 16:50:46 +0000

I did not say GT was an eyewitness.

Really Altohone???

GT provided an eyewitness account summary of the events prior to the video.
-Altohone http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/31/ftp430/#comment-97657

You SURE you want to stick with your claim that you never said GT was an eyewitness??

Because it's clear that it is EXACTLY what you said...

Feel free to concede you were wrong.. AGAIN...

That's twice in one commentary you were wrong..

Do you want to claim you never said you never said GT was an eyewitness to the incident??

Go for the Trifecta lie!!! :D

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 16:41:51 +0000

GT confirmed what I said he said... a comment you claimed did not exist.
I did not say GT was an eyewitness.

Under those circumstances, I can understand why you may not have noticed GT's comment explaining what happened prior to the beginning of the video of the police beating a man who got on his knees and

GT did NOT "explain what happened prior to the incident"...

GT reported on what other witnesses said happened..

You were wrong.. But, as per your usual, you can't admit you were wrong, so you go off on some WHAT THE DEFINITION OF IS IS tangent..

You were wrong.. GT did not witness the incident. He merely reported what other witnesses had said..

In other words, with the exception of his personal knowledge of the area and the police, GT simply reported what was already common knowledge.

He had absolutely NO FACTS as to the beginning unfilmed part of the incident.

You were wrong..

I was right...

Don't worry.. You'll live.. :D

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 16:38:27 +0000

NO, it WON'T. Once again you are WRONG Michale. Assuming Gorsuch IS confirmed, it will be 4 conservative, 4 liberal, and ONE swing vote in Kennedy

Well, at least we both agree that Kennedy isn't a Conservative..

So, yes... Me and Victoria were wrong..

Yer right JM.. :D

hat assumes all Republican Senators will go along with doing away with the filibuster, which is not a foregone conclusion,

Yes, it is a forgone conclusion in the here and now...

It's NOT a forgone conclusion if the Democrats keep their powder dry...

Wow, some actual good logical thinking finally on your part that I can actually agree with you on. I congratulate you on that Michale.

Thank you.. I ALWAYS think like that.. :D

By: Paula

Paula — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 16:38:06 +0000

Today's new shiny object for righties: Susan Rice. Countdown begins for when Comrade Michale starts anti-Susan Rice screeds.

By: altohone

altohone — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:38:02 +0000

82, 81

I'm probably asking too much, but a simple review of THIS THREAD will confirm you are once again lying like the dung beetle feast that you are.

GT confirmed what I said he said... a comment you claimed did not exist.
I did not say GT was an eyewitness.

I was not wrong.
You are wrong.

Are you reading what you want to read instead of what is written, are you incapable of comprehending, do you need new glasses, or is your memory hole just too shallow?

Not counting the non-apology admission of being wrong about my comment about the Trumpon to CW, you owe me several apologies for blatant lies.

Shall I put them on your tab, or do you want to settle the bill now?

By: John M

John M — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:37:38 +0000

Michale wrote:

"If President Trump's numbers continue to plummet, there is a good chance that McConnell would whither in the face of a unified Democrat filibuster..

And while the GOP would be salivating at changing the dynamic of the court, they might not want to get rid of the filibuster to support a president who's numbers are in the teens.."

Wow, some actual good logical thinking finally on your part that I can actually agree with you on. I congratulate you on that Michale.

By: John M

John M — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:34:06 +0000

"It won't make an iota of difference in the here and now.. But it MIGHT be tactically useful when President Trump nominates his 2nd or 3rd SCOTUS nominee.."

That assumes all Republican Senators will go along with doing away with the filibuster, which is not a foregone conclusion, that Trump will even last out one four year term, let alone be elected to another, and that Republicans will not lose Senate control to the Democrats in the next mid term election, all assumptions that cannot be made at this point in time with any confidence.

By: John M

John M — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:28:06 +0000

Michale wrote:

"When Gorsuch is joined, SCOTUS will be at 5-4 Conservative.."

NO, it WON'T. Once again you are WRONG Michale. Assuming Gorsuch IS confirmed, it will be 4 conservative, 4 liberal, and ONE swing vote in Kennedy, just the way it was before for at least the past 3 years, since Gorsuch is only replacing Scalia's PREVIOUSLY conservative seat. Trump would have to get at least one more conservative appointment to replace either a liberal or Kennedy for the court to switch to solid conservative. The only liberal who is old enough for that to happen is Ginsburg.

By: neilm

neilm — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:27:32 +0000

He is a stranger to the concept of verification, the insistence on evidence and the standards of proof that apply in a courtroom or a medical lab

But enough about Michale, tell us more about 45!

;)

By: neilm

neilm — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:26:05 +0000

Nunes get's a 'friendly' reception in Fresno - normally a safely red part of California for right wing nut jobs.

The grannies' song tells it all:

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/political-notebook/article142063514.html

By: Paula

Paula — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:19:03 +0000

Part 2 of LA Times story: WHY TRUMP LIES: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-why-trump-lies/

But he is not merely amusing. He is dangerous. His choice of falsehoods and his method of spewing them — often in tweets, as if he spent his days and nights glued to his bedside radio and was periodically set off by some drivel uttered by a talk show host who repeated something he’d read on some fringe blog — are a clue to Trump’s thought processes and perhaps his lack of agency. He gives every indication that he is as much the gullible tool of liars as he is the liar in chief.

He has made himself the stooge, the mark, for every crazy blogger, political quack, racial theorist, foreign leader or nutcase peddling a story that he might repackage to his benefit as a tweet, an appointment, an executive order or a policy. He is a stranger to the concept of verification, the insistence on evidence and the standards of proof that apply in a courtroom or a medical lab — and that ought to prevail in the White House.

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 14:49:44 +0000

No sign of the "can't admit I was conned" crowd here, eh folks ;) With one or two exceptions(Ya'all know who ya'all are..) NONE of ya'all have admitted you were conned by Obama.. So, if there is ANYONE who are part of the can't admit they were conned crowd, it's ya'all (NEN)...... :D

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 14:27:37 +0000

No sign of the "can't admit I was conned" crowd here, eh folks ;) I have no problem admitting that I was conned.... I did so with Odumbo.. But I won't admit it until it's actually factual.. I am funny that way.. :D

By: neilm

neilm — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 14:24:56 +0000

No sign of the "can't admit I was conned" crowd here, eh folks ;)

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 14:08:20 +0000

My weekly check of 45's disapproval ratings makes sad reading for the country. Those same polls said that NOT-45 was going to win in a 50-state landslide.. It's sweet that you STILL put your faith in them.. :D Everybody except the "can't admit I was conned" crowd are dumping this loser. TRUMP IS TOAST prediction #2798 :D

By: neilm

neilm — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 13:56:22 +0000

My weekly check of 45's disapproval ratings makes sad reading for the country. Everybody except the "can't admit I was conned" crowd are dumping this loser. Now we have an internal crisis in Russia so Putin is going to start a crack down - if that is unpopular he will need a foreign adventure to distract the dimwitted Russian masses and we've got a clown in the Oval Office who also wants some "rally behind the President" adventure. This is the sort of thing that has a lot of my friends moving out of very profitable equities at the moment.

By: neilm

neilm — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 13:48:44 +0000

goode trickle [75] Agreed... I am firmly a member of the " who is going to look out for the middle class" party... What is your definition of the middle class? This is an ongoing area of confusion for people who didn't grow up in America - just about everybody thinks of themselves as "middle class". I have friends who I know earn over $300K/year and the wife insists she is middle class (they have a $1.7M house, five cars, are telling us about their upcoming European vacations, and paid for all their kids to go to college).

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 13:43:17 +0000

We've established that you had a good point. You decided to go for the childish and immature name-calling all on your own.. "Well, at least we agree that Loki is a criminal." "No. We agree that Loki stole a shuttlecraft." -STAR TREK, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 13:14:33 +0000

So we've established you're an idiot and Kennedy is a conservative. No need to discuss this further. No... We've established that you had a good point. You decided to go for the childish and immature name-calling all on your own.. You're changing the subject very much like Trump tweets out bullshit in order to take the focus off him. No, actually the subject is still the same.. Are Democrats being boneheads for wasting the filibuster when it will assuredly do absolutely NO GOOD instead of holding onto it and using it where it MAY do some good. That's the subject.. But, as usual, you just want to concentrate on irrelevant miniteau and what the definition of "IS" is because you have nothing to counter the facts..

By: Kick

Kick — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:53:57 +0000

michale [95] Ahhhh OK.. So your not arguing that it would not be possible for a Rush Limbaugh or a Kid Rock to be appointed to the court.. They're your hypotheticals so who gives a shit what their names are? Your arguing that Kennedy is a conservative.... As I said, good point.. So we've established you're an idiot and Kennedy is a conservative. No need to discuss this further. So, let me adjust.. Justice Kennedy doesn't retire, but Justice Beyer is killed by a mysterious ailment.. Irregardless of all that, the central point ya'all continue to ignore while concentrating on periphery semantics, is valid. You're changing the subject very much like Trump tweets out bullshit in order to take the focus off him. Congratulations, you're both a fool and a tool. :)

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:50:39 +0000

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/04/03/the-russiagate-scam-will-blow-up-in-the-democrats-smug-faces-n2307707

Yep...

Once again..

*NO FACTS* to support the idea of Team Trump/Russian collusion.. Even Adam Schiff admits this..

*NO FACTS* to support the idea that Russians hacked the election..

NO FACTS... NO FACTS... NO FACTS...

As I said from Day One...

This is nothing more than a pitiful attempt to explain why NOT-45 lost to Donald Trump..

A miserable and pathetic way to avoid facing the cold hard facts..

NOT-45 was a miserable, incompetent and hopelessly corrupt candidate..

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:44:41 +0000

Balthasar,

Besides, YOU were one of Weigantians that AGREED with me, that it was stoopid for Democrats to oppose Gorsuch..

Changed yer mind, eh??

Yea.. YOU'RE not ruled by ideology, eh?? :D

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:43:30 +0000

It doesn't matter - McConnell would just use the 'nuclear option' then, as surely as he'd use it now. Assumes facts not in evidence.. If President Trump's numbers continue to plummet, there is a good chance that McConnell would whither in the face of a unified Democrat filibuster.. And while the GOP would be salivating at changing the dynamic of the court, they might not want to get rid of the filibuster to support a president who's numbers are in the teens.. The Dems might as well register their disapproval of everything McConnell's done since Scalia died Yea.. Might as well. To hell with the future and any changing circumstances.. Like I said... Short term thinking.. Appease the masses for the moment.. To hell with the future... How do you think those masses are going to react when President Trump puts a Ted Nugent on the SCOTUS and the Democrats, due to their short term thinking, are COMPLETELY impotent to stop it.. Do you think the masses will accept responsibility?? :D If you do, I have some lovely swampland down here I want to sell you..

By: Kick

Kick — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:42:41 +0000

michale [92] Let's face reality.. My logic is sound and you have no rebuttal.. But I appreciate your concession about your mistake.. It's nice to see.. I mean that sincerely.. No problem. I thought you couldn't add because your numbers were off, but your numbers were off because you're ignorant. My rebuttal was that you're mentally challenged regarding the issue, and it's a fact. Good point. But Kennedy sides with liberals more than with conservatives, so I consider him a liberal... Kennedy does NOT side with liberals more than with conservatives. Besides, if you really counted Kennedy as a liberal like you're now claiming, then your numbers at the outset do not add up: When Gorsuch is joined, SCOTUS will be at 5-4 Conservative.. If you were actually counting Kennedy as a liberal, then your opening statement above should have been 4-5 with RBG, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan being the liberals. You can't have it both ways: You're either mathematically challenged here or you're stupid... one or the other. And when you said: When RBG dies and a Rush Limbaugh is added to the court, SCOTUS will be at 6-3 Conservative... If you were counting Kennedy as a liberal, you'd be at 5-4 here with Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan your liberals. When Kennedy retires and a Kid Rock is added to the court, SCOTUS will be at 7-2 Conservative.. And you'd still have Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer so still doesn't add up, and your mentally challenged status survives intact. But you do make a valid point.. Facts are facts no matter how much you believe otherwise. If you insist you counted Kennedy as a liberal, then I was correct in my original assessment that you're mathematically challenged. Class dismissed. :)

By: Balthasar

Balthasar — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:33:12 +0000

It won't make an iota of difference in the here and now.. But it MIGHT be tactically useful when President Trump nominates his 2nd or 3rd SCOTUS nominee. It doesn't matter - McConnell would just use the 'nuclear option' then, as surely as he'd use it now. The Dems might as well register their disapproval of everything McConnell's done since Scalia died, because there's no point like a fresh point. Almost fresh - it's been, like, a year, seems like a lifetime ago.

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:08:21 +0000

I will point you in the right direction: You killed off RBG and retired Kennedy, leaving 3 liberals on the court while insisting it's 2.

Ahhhh OK.. So your not arguing that it would not be possible for a Rush Limbaugh or a Kid Rock to be appointed to the court..

Your arguing that Kennedy is a conservative....

As I said, good point..

So, let me adjust..

Justice Kennedy doesn't retire, but Justice Beyer is killed by a mysterious ailment..

Irregardless of all that, the central point ya'all continue to ignore while concentrating on periphery semantics, is valid.

It's ridiculous for the Democrats to give up the filibuster for Soon-To-Be Justice Gorsuch..

It won't make an iota of difference in the here and now.. But it MIGHT be tactically useful when President Trump nominates his 2nd or 3rd SCOTUS nominee..

Would you care to address that??

Or do you just want to continue to fiddle fart around what the definition of "IS" is?? :D

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 11:49:47 +0000

It must be a bitch for you to read the Bible... all those HEs and HIMs and tabulating. *LOL*

hehehehehe Shirley, you jest..

Why would I want to read an old-fashioned fantasy novel???

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 11:48:53 +0000

Balthasar,

And maybe you've just sucked up all of the air on the Right. Like Trump, but without the strange little arm waving motions.

That is a possibility..

But employing Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that ya'all are so enslaved by ideology, you can't even recognize it.

Like a religious fanatic who insists they are NOT a fanatic..

When ya'all castigate and denigrate Democrats even HALF as much as I do Republicans (NEN) then ya'all will have a rational argument..

Not until then..

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 11:46:06 +0000

Oh, okay. My mistake. You're not mathematically challenged on this issue, you're just mentally challenged. I could point out easily how stupid you are here, but I find that people learn so much more when they figure things out on their own. Sure you could... :D Let's face reality.. My logic is sound and you have no rebuttal.. But I appreciate your concession about your mistake.. It's nice to see.. I mean that sincerely.. I will point you in the right direction: You killed off RBG and retired Kennedy, leaving 3 liberals on the court while insisting it's 2. Good point. But Kennedy sides with liberals more than with conservatives, so I consider him a liberal... But you do make a valid point..

By: Kick

Kick — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 11:23:08 +0000

michale [84]

When Gorsuch is joined, SCOTUS will be at 5-4 Conservative..

When RBG dies and a Rush Limbaugh is added to the court, SCOTUS will be at 6-3 Conservative...

When Kennedy retires and a Kid Rock is added to the court, SCOTUS will be at 7-2 Conservative..

So, tell me Victoria..

Where is the sucky math you CLAIM is there??

I will point you in the right direction: You killed off RBG and retired Kennedy, leaving 3 liberals on the court while insisting it's 2.

Now run along skippy and educate yourself. :)

By: Kick

Kick — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 11:07:02 +0000

Michael [83] 3 YOURs and 2 YOUs.. Sure glad it's not about me.. :D My comment to CW was about Mike Flynn. Me commenting about you hijacking my comment to CW and making it about HRC and pounding it into one of your "pure and simple" boxes was about you and your peevish neediness to make nearly every issue about your same lame tired monotonous utter nonsensical bullshit. I can substitute "intellectually lazy" or "needy" for all the pronouns if you'd like. Again, you're proving my point. :)

By: Balthasar

Balthasar — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 11:00:26 +0000

No, what surprises me is the DENIAL that there is Left Wing bigotry/bias...

And maybe you've just sucked up all of the air on the Right. Like Trump, but without the strange little arm waving motions.

By: Kick

Kick — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 10:43:19 +0000

michale [80] 2 HEs, 3 HIMs and a HIS... In one short paragraph.. Yea.. yer right. It's NOT about me.. :D It must be a bitch for you to read the Bible... all those HEs and HIMs and tabulating. *LOL* The comment to which you're replying wasn't to you; it was to A01 who was discussing "the Trumpon," which you incorrectly insisted was you, which you'd never have done if you had even the slightest ability to comprehend words in context or to retain knowledge contained in this website, which you've proven herein that you can't and you don't. You hijacking my comment to A01 wherein I discuss your stupidity and neediness to make everything about you still doesn't make his talk of "the Trumpon" about you, and while my comment to A01 about you is obviously about you, your peevish neediness to prolong a conversation highlighting your neediness and stupidity doesn't prove your point, but it does indeed prove mine and his. :)

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 09:10:52 +0000

Just another example of ideological big.... bias that permeates Weigantia.. :D Just to be clear... I am not surprised that ideological bias permeates Weigantia. As Victoria so audaciously points out, this IS a Left Wing blog... She's sooooo smart.. :D "You're sooo smart.." -Adam Sandler, BILLY MADISON :D No, what surprises me is the DENIAL that there is Left Wing bigotry/bias...

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 08:59:43 +0000

Victoria,

Flynn's time will come.

Yea.. And NOT-45 is going to win the election in a 50-state landslide.. :D

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 08:57:49 +0000

GT,

WTF???? Just don't get it... Why are dems to blame?

In the same manner that Paula blames ALL GOP'ers or ALL Trumpers for the acts of individuals..

Funny how you never asked her:

WTF???? Just don't get it... Why are Trumpers to blame?

eh? :D

Just another example of ideological big.... bias that permeates Weigantia.. :D

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 08:54:05 +0000

If RBG dies and Kennedy retires, Democrats would make a 7-2 SCOTUS a reality....

Sucks at simple math. *LOL*

Yea???

When Gorsuch is joined, SCOTUS will be at 5-4 Conservative..

When RBG dies and a Rush Limbaugh is added to the court, SCOTUS will be at 6-3 Conservative...

When Kennedy retires and a Kid Rock is added to the court, SCOTUS will be at 7-2 Conservative..

So, tell me Victoria..

Where is the sucky math you CLAIM is there??

Are you lieing?? Or are you just wrong??

No one here cared...

Lie.

Prove it... Show me where ANYONE (Sans the Grand Poobah hisself) here condemned NOT-45 for her lies...

If you can provide FACTS to back up your BS accusation, then I will concede that I was wrong...

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 08:49:17 +0000

Victoria,

This wasn't about HRC or one of your lame theories; it was a simple comment about the laws Flynn has broken, among others. Your peevish neediness to mangle everything and pound it into one of your "pure and simple" boxes is duly noted. You do so resemble that which you claim to abhor.

3 YOURs and 2 YOUs..

Sure glad it's not about me.. :D

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 08:48:01 +0000

Altohone, He's never going to learn if you coddle him. And I thought we agreed to follow the lesson plan in chapter 1 of "How to Raise a Well Adjusted Senior Citizen"? TRANSLATION: Shit, dood!! Couldn't you just lie and back up my totally bullshit claim that you actually witnessed the incident... :D Anything you want to concede, Altohone?? I man'ed up and admitted my mistake about your "TRUMPON" thingy... You want to reciprocate?? :D I can see why you didn't want to provide the "proof" of your "facts"... :D

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 08:45:43 +0000

God M... Why are you so utterly incapable of typing into the search bar? as you your self have demanded DYFOR... Try some informed debate for a change.

CW.COM cite is not really conducive to a search and GOOGLE isn't much help unless you can recall exact terminology..

Further, I didn't see the need as I am fairly sure I recalled correctly what you posted..

Now, to clear things up, I provided information from reported eyewitness accounts of the events that happened in front of the video footage being shown.

As it turns out, I was right and Altohone was wrong.. So, the hour or so trying to find the original comment would have been wasted time..

Thank you for being honest and setting the record straight..

I mean that sincerely..

Unless something happened that I am not aware of Schiff had to view the documents in a WH SCIF meaning they are CLASSIFIED...

Yes, the documents are classified. But that was only part of Schiff's claim..

Schiff's claim was that he couldn't discuss any aspect of the documents..

That is obviously a lie..

Sure, your point that they can be discussed is valid,

Once again, thank you..

Please remind me of this the next time I accuse you of never giving me any credit.. :D

Surely it can be agreed that both Nunes and Schiff have agreed that it was incidental collection...

I don't agree, but that's not the point. If it WERE an incidental collection, then the Americans who were part of that collection should have been scrubbed. That's the law...

Not only were the Americans not scrubbed but their names were un-masked.

That's also a violation of the law..

For the moment we will leave Magic out of this....Cite your evidence that Obama ORDERED the INTENTIONAL surveillance of the opposing parties campaign...Not saying it didn't happen, Just saying that you are full of shit until it is proven otherwise.

Once again, this is where expertise of the issue comes into play..

Obama was likely insulated from actually giving the order..

But it is simply IMPOSSIBLE that surveillance was down on an opposing Party's candidate and/or his team without high-level approval.. It simply could not happen..

Further, Obama's silence on the issue speaks volumes...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/31/why-the-curious-silence-from-barack-obama-over-tap/

So, while you are correct (see.. I do it too! :D ) that there is no smoking gun, there is a plethora of evidence that supports the claim that Obama used his investigative agencies to spy on Team Trump..

I mean, Obama has a history of using his agencies to go after political opponents.

And Obama is smart enough to insure his fingerprints are no where near the incidents..

I will stand by my original assertion... Indepentant investigator is required, if there is something there then let the heads roll. If there is not then there is not... In either case the American Public (you know, the people... VS. fanboies...) deserves to know.

And my original assertion also stands.

You only demand an independent investigator because it's a GOP'er on the hot seat.

NOT-45's antics CRIED OUT FOR an independent investigation...

By: michale

michale — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 08:32:52 +0000

Victoria,

He really does think almost everything is about him. If it's not about him, he cannot control his peevish neediness to twist everything into an argument about either him or his same lame commentary.

2 HEs, 3 HIMs and a HIS...

In one short paragraph..

Yea.. yer right. It's NOT about me.. :D

By: Kick

Kick — Mon, 03 Apr 2017 08:06:27 +0000

GT [67]

Ok...let me try to clear a backlog and make some obsevations...Long day in a jungle watching bad people do bad things...

So how are those boots holding up? :)

I am surprised you didn't mention his violation of 22 U.S.C. § 611, the FARA, which is something I mentioned when his name surfaced as being the keeper of our nations secrets. Ideology aside he was unfit from the beginning due to his paid positions which are well documented, Our local NPAINO may be fine with that, but, I am most assuredly not.

Did I forget to say, "among other things"? :)

Despite their protestations to the contrary, the facts show that both Trump and Pence knew or should have known the truth about Flynn with a simple Internet search. What kind of self-respecting great businessman/leader or transition team leader would do no vetting of the man who would be named National Security Adviser? A simple Internet search even a child can perform.

https://democrats-oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2016-11-18.EEC%20to%20Pence.pdf

Flynn's time will come.