After The Acquittal

[Alan Klein]

If there had been any analysis, I might be inclined to agree; but there wasn't. There was simply the usual "its just like the Nazis" allegation, which serves only to grant to one party the high moral ground (at least in his own eyes) and irredeemably to taint with fascism anyone arguing to the contrary. It aims to shut down debate. The brain-dead Left has been doing it in the UK for years. It's tiresome.

Thank you.

Jeremy

Thanks for you're reason for saying it.  Your explanation was right on the mark.  Tainting the other side with all kinds of demeaning hyperbole is regularly done here as sport.  Frankly, I don;t think it's going to work.  Independents get tired of it I believe and understand it for what it is - a lack of intelligence analysis of the facts and/or difficulty in coming up with honest opposition.  It's easier to knock someone then to provide your own candidate who can get things done.  It's hard to argue against success. 

[kers]

As for Mary, blame it on auto-correct... as soon as I start typing Mayor Butt...whatever, it pops up as Mary Buttplug

That explains a lot!

[Alan Klein]

Since when is the Senate the defense? The majority may have acted like they were, but that's not their role.

For the umpteenth time, the democrat controlled House impeached the President for political reasons and the Republican controlled Senate declared him not guilty for political reasons.  It's got nothing to do with crimes or the constitution.  I'm sure you must be "shocked, simply shocked" that these things happen in Washington DC.  But I'm sure they go on on your government as well.  It's just that most people just don't care about it. 

[faberryman]

Thanks for you're reason for saying it.  Your explanation was right on the mark.  Tainting the other side with all kinds of demeaning hyperbole is regularly done here as sport.  Frankly, I don;t think it's going to work.  Independents get tired of it I believe and understand it for what it is - a lack of intelligence analysis of the facts and/or difficulty in coming up with honest opposition.  It's easier to knock someone then to provide your own candidate who can get things done.  It's hard to argue against success.

Kind of depends on how you define success. From my viewpoint, accomplishing morally reprehensible goals is not success.

[RSL]

From my viewpoint, accomplishing morally reprehensible goals is not success.

Absolutely, Fab. So be very careful you don't get involved in accomplishing morally reprehensible goals.

[Alan Klein]

Kind of depends on how you define success. From my viewpoint, accomplishing morally reprehensible goals is not success.

You said exactly what I said happens here.  Just a smear to shut down debate.  You didn't analyze some of the things he did like get rid of ISIS, pass a tax bill, re-do NAFTA to make it better, get discussions started with North Korea, and attempt to stop CHina from stealing trade secrets.  How are these morally reprehensible?  Even if you disagree with policy, that doesn;t by itself make the policy or the president immoral.  Calling people names is just a lazy way of objecting to success.  It shows little thought and lots of anger, but little deliberation and thought as well as no argument for anything else. Certainly you can do better.  It would add to the discussion and give Jeremy more time to enjoy his tea.   

[faberryman]

Even if you disagree with policy, that doesn;t by itself make the policy or the president immoral.  Calling people names is just a lazy way of objecting to success.  It shows little thought and lots of anger, but little deliberation and thought as well as no argument for anything else. Certainly you can do better.  It would add to the discussion and give Jeremy more time to enjoy his tea.

You are being paranoid. I was speaking generally, no about Trump.

[Alan Klein]

[quote author=Alan Klein link=topic=133878.msg1hhEven if you disagree with policy, that doesn;t by itself make the policy or the president immoral.  Calling people names is just a lazy way of objecting to success.  It shows little thought and lots of anger, but little deliberation and thought as well as no argument for anything else. Certainly you can do better.  It would add to the discussion and give Jeremy more time to enjoy his tea.

You are being paranoid. I was speaking generally, no about Trump.

I doubt that.

[faberryman]

I doubt that.

That's just your paranoia talking.

[LesPalenik]

You said exactly what I said happens here.  Just a smear to shut down debate.  You didn't analyze some of the things he did like get rid of ISIS, pass a tax bill, re-do NAFTA to make it better, get discussions started with North Korea, and attempt to stop CHina from stealing trade secrets.  How are these morally reprehensible?  Even if you disagree with policy, that doesn;t by itself make the policy or the president immoral.  Calling people names is just a lazy way of objecting to success.  It shows little thought and lots of anger, but little deliberation and thought as well as no argument for anything else. Certainly you can do better.  It would add to the discussion and give Jeremy more time to enjoy his tea.

Without using any names, there is a big difference in comparing one historical person and another living person, and the methods they both used to accomplish their goals. Mixing up these two things shows indeed very little thought and lots of anger.

[Alan Klein]

That's just your paranoia talking.

There you go again with ad hominem attacks.  Can't you do better than resorting to name calling?

[LesPalenik]

Trump has previously threatened military action against Iran if it were to target US personnel and bases, but he did not announce any military action, saying Iran's attack had caused no casualties. On January 9, he said "No Americans were harmed in last night's attack by the Iranian regime."

Now, one month later, Pentagon has admitted that 109 US soldiers in Iraq were diagnosed with brain injuries. That is a considerable damage. How will this change US response to the Iranian attack?

[Alan Klein]

Trump has previously threatened military action against Iran if it were to target US personnel and bases, but he did not announce any military action, saying Iran's attack had caused no casualties. On January 9, he said "No Americans were harmed in last night's attack by the Iranian regime."

Now, one month later, Pentagon has admitted that 109 US soldiers in Iraq were diagnosed with brain injuries. That is a considerable damage. How will this change US response to the Iranian attack?

We're not going to war over it.   Should we?

[Craig Lamson]

We're not going to war over it.   Should we?

Maybe we should just follow this song and be done with it.  I think Bolton would agree [/sarcasm]


Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran

[LesPalenik]

Going to war would be extreme, but originally Trump announced his plan for selective strikes.

Trump tweeted Saturday (Jan 4 2020) that the Pentagon had put together a list of 52 targets — one for each of the Americans held during the 1979-1980 hostage crisis — including ones “important to Iran & the Iranian culture” that the U.S. would strike if Iran responded aggressively to the drone strike assassination of Soleimani last Friday. On Sunday, the president doubled down on those threats in comments to reporters aboard Air Force One.

https://www.rollcall.com/2020/01/07/trumps-threat-to-bomb-iran-cultural-sites-is-personal-for-iraq-war-vets-in-congress/

[Jeremy Roussak]

That's just your paranoia talking.

Frank, that's unhelpful and just plain rude.

I'm tired of the bandwidth, and screen real estate, which is wasted in these forums by unnecessary and offensive one-liners, and my patience is at an end. I shall start banning people who can't behave.

Jeremy

[Frans Waterlander]

Frank, that's unhelpful and just plain rude.

I'm tired of the bandwidth, and screen real estate, which is wasted in these forums by unnecessary and offensive one-liners, and my patience is at an end. I shall start banning people who can't behave.

Jeremy

Didn't somebody some time ago predicted that you would regret allowing political issues to be discussed here? I thought so. Time to reverse the reversal, eh?

[LesPalenik]

Didn't somebody some time ago predicted that you would regret allowing political issues to be discussed here? I thought so. Time to reverse the reversal, eh?

That comment is not helpful, either.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Didn't somebody some time ago predicted that you would regret allowing political issues to be discussed here? I thought so. Time to reverse the reversal, eh?

No. What gives you the impression that I regret it?

That comment is not helpful, either.

True.

Jeremy

[BernardLanguillier]

Maybe we should just follow this song and be done with it.  I think Bolton would agree [/sarcasm]


Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran

It looks like at least 8 Republican Senators shared the feeling that Trump may not just be rhetorical in his intentions against Iran.

If only that had had he bravery of opposing the big bully a few weeks ago... maybe some remorse?

Cheers,
Bernard