Protesting for what?

[AdealJustice]

24 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

 

You do have a very clever way of turning something round so your answer is something quite different to what was asked. I asked " you still believe that the same laws apply to all? " referring to Soros and your apparent belief that the same laws would apply to someone as wealthy and powerful as him as they would to the ordinary Joe in the street. Now you're saying " If you accuse someone of a crime in this country, you need to have proof.  Yes, that is how the law works for all." referring to me, which wasn't what I asked at all.  You really can be very devious.

 

Good Sir, I don't think its "you really can be very devious" I think it should be " You really are devious". This has been reflected time and bloody time again. Always cloaking the real intent, dodging, vagueness, etc.

[AdealJustice]

Just now, Yamato said:

More about "The Left" and "The West" again, you just can't put that brush down.

I'm talking about US policy here.  If you'd like to share your wisdom about how the differences between Bush's foreign policy and Obama's foreign policy are relevant to something you're trying to spew about me, you're welcome to try.

 

25 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

You do have a very clever way of turning something round so your answer is something quite different to what was asked. I asked " you still believe that the same laws apply to all? " referring to Soros and your apparent belief that the same laws would apply to someone as wealthy and powerful as him as they would to the ordinary Joe in the street. Now you're saying " If you accuse someone of a crime in this country, you need to have proof.  Yes, that is how the law works for all." referring to me, which wasn't what I asked at all.  You really can be very devious.

As you can see Manfred lol... the same crud.

[AdealJustice]

Yamato do you live in the west? just trying to understand your glee at the west facing possible internal problems in the near future.

Edited February 3, 2017 by AdealJustice

[Space Commander Travis]

7 minutes ago, Yamato said:

I don't know, what laws are you talking about?   If you're asking me a question about laws, cite the specific laws you think are applicable or relevant to your question. 

 

You're being obtuse.

Quote

If you can't stand or tolerate Soros and he makes you so mad, there's a legal process for that. 

(A) I don't think there are specific laws against someone on the grounds that "you can't stand or tolerate someone", though it might well be an idea;

and (B) you really don't think that, if anyone was to try to pin anything on Soros for, say, trying to malignantly influence the process of democracy, or inciting riot, or trying to use his wealth to subvert foreign governments (which the US, of course, gets very angry about), he'd be able to pay use his influence to get out from it? 

[Yamato]

Just now, AdealJustice said:

Good Sir, I don't think its "you really can be very devious" I think it should be " You really are devious". This has been reflected time and bloody time again. Always cloaking the real intent, dodging, vagueness, etc.

Excuse me.   I'm asking him a very pointed question for the specific laws he's referring to because the question is too vague to answer at this moment.  We'll wait for clarification and proceed from there.

Just now, AdealJustice said:

Yamato do you live in the west?

I live in the US.  I'm going to tell you one more time and you're either going to acknowledge it or you're going to keep carrying on, I'm not talking about "The West". 

[aztek]

[Yamato]

1 minute ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

You're being obtuse.

(A) I don't think there are specific laws against someone on the grounds that "you can't stand or tolerate someone", though it might well be an idea;

and (B) you really don't think that, if anyone was to try to pin anything on Soros for, say, trying to malignantly influence the process of democracy, or inciting riot, or trying to use his wealth to subvert foreign governments (which the US, of course, gets very angry about), he'd be able to pay use his influence to get out from it? 

You're dodging the question.   If he's violating laws you can name then what are they?   If such laws that you can't seem to name exist, then do I think that the government or the Koch Brothers can take him to court for violating them?  Yes I do, you don't?

[Space Commander Travis]

And you never give a straight answer. You don't think inciting riot (including overt threats of murder) might warrant as a crime? Urging the overthrow and/or assassination of leaders of other countries (specifically V. Putin)? That in itself is surely incitement to murder. Even if you don't consider anything reprehensible in trying to use his power and wealth to influence an election? You'll say, with your flair for legalistic fudging, "nothing he's said publicly could ever be pinned on him as doing or suggesting any of those things", I expect; well, of course not, that's how these people always work isn't it. (Except calling for the murder of foreign leaders, which is perfectly all right.) That's how they get in such powerful positions. If you don't understand that you can only be pretending to be that naive, since I don't believe you really could be.

 

 

[AdealJustice]

22 minutes ago, Yamato said:

Excuse me.   I'm asking him a very pointed question for the specific laws he's referring to because the question is too vague to answer at this moment.  We'll wait for clarification and proceed from there

actually its to the contrary.

22 minutes ago, Yamato said:

I live in the US.  I'm going to tell you one more time

This is the first time you've answered In the in entirety of the question being asked. Posts don't disappear, you dodge till cornered then come forward with a response.

You seem to hate the U.S, why not move to a nation you prefer with a foreign and domestic policy you prefer? Better than being gleeful that the nation you live in might face conflicts internally is to move to a nation you would enjoy living in. A nation that you won't be gleeful about if it faces internal strife.

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by AdealJustice

[Yamato]

10 minutes ago, AdealJustice said:

actually its to the contrary.

This is the first time you've answered In the in entirety of the question being asked. Posts don't disappear, you dodge till cornered then come forward with a response.

You seem to hate the U.S, why not move to a nation you prefer with a foreign and domestic policy you prefer? Better than being gleeful that the nation you live in might face conflicts internally is to move to a nation you would enjoy living in. A nation that you won't be gleeful about if it faces internal strife.

 

You constantly blow up what I'm saying into all manner of what I'm not even talking about and here you go again.   It's most of the world, then it's the whole world, five minutes ago it was The West, and now it's the whole country.

Not use my freedom of speech in the country I already live in where I have freedom of speech and move somewhere else?   Because I have family and friends and jobs and responsibilities and a real life as a real person.  I have no interest in moving away from my country and I've never said anything about hating my country.   I'm talking about policy here. 

If you want to continue your impotent little hit job on me here, then by all means point out where I dodged something and I'll clear it all up for you on this thread then.

What entirety of the question being asked?   What in the world is wrong with you dude?

[AdealJustice]

14 minutes ago, Yamato said:

You constantly blow up what I'm saying into all manner of what I'm not even talking about and here you go again.   It's most of the world, then it's the whole world, five minutes ago it was The West, and now it's the whole country.

Not use my freedom of speech in the country I already live in where I have freedom of speech and move somewhere else?   Because I have family and friends and jobs and responsibilities and a real life as a real person.  I have no interest in moving away from my country and I've never said anything about hating my country.   I'm talking about policy here. 

If you want to continue your impotent little hit job on me here, then by all means point out where I dodged something and I'll clear it all up for you on this thread then.

What entirety of the question being asked?   What in the world is wrong with you dude?

"You do have a very clever way of turning something round so your answer is something quite different to what was asked. I asked " you still believe that the same laws apply to all? " referring to Soros and your apparent belief that the same laws would apply to someone as wealthy and powerful as him as they would to the ordinary Joe in the street. Now you're saying " If you accuse someone of a crime in this country, you need to have proof.  Yes, that is how the law works for all." referring to me, which wasn't what I asked at all.  You really can be very devious. "

This response applies more than ever. Thanks Manfred.


I don't need to do a hitjob, you are literally your own worst enemy in these exchanges lol. These exchanges with you are draining. You dodge, dodge, dodge, get cornered then claim you don't dodge and to point out where you've dodged. Cmon dude. have some integrity.
 

Edited February 3, 2017 by AdealJustice

[Baz Dane]

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 4:17 PM, Yamato said:

It's so easy to pile on about Saudi Arabia in the OP, oh how popular we were on January 22.

What the hell are you going on about?

I put up the OP, so I'll respond. I've been on about Saudi Arabia long before January 22 actually.

Quote

Then Trump leaves Saudi Arabia out of his immigration ban, and we run back to cover our necks with whatever apologies and excuses for the omission we can think of.  

Show me ANYWHERE where I've "run back to cover our necks" with "apologies and excuses for the omission we can think of".

Quote

So with nobody left on the bridge, I'll take over from here. 

 

 

Aye aye Captain Okita (or Capt. Avatar, for the American version)

Quote

I actually oppose what Saudi Arabia does, it doesn't fall off the back of the truck the minute after a perfect partisan rant turns obsolete.

As do I. Not sure what is so "partisan" though.

BUT... Just because Trump didn't include Saudi Arabia on the ban list, I'm not about to go off the rails like some, and denounce Trump and compare him with such vile figures as others do.

BTW what do you think would happen if Saudi Arabia were included on the list?

What's it been? 13 days since Trump took over?

Last year Trump publicly stated "you may find it's the Saudis" when referring to who took out the wTC on 9/11.

I'm holding him to that, but I certainly do not expect him to declare war in just 13 days.  Saudi Arabia is a MAJOR problem and I'm pretty sure Trump knows that. IF, he's going to try and tackle that problem, patience is key. Setting things up so the economy has a back up plan in place and ready for when the petro-dollar is crushed is needed. I'm of course not suggesting that this is what he is doing though, but these are a few of things that need to be thought of before rushing in and killing off the U.S.-Saudi relationship.

Personally, I believe Iraq was the wrong target after 9/11. Saudi Arabia should have been the target. But that's for a whole other thread.

Quote

This was already obvious way before January 22nd though.   Trump goes to AIPAC promising to help our other friend in the world, Saudi Arabia.  Of course nobody could respond to that.  That'd be sacrilege.   And so we wind up with threads like this one.  Playing partisan politics with Saudi Arabia of all things?  

If you don't like threads like this one, you are certainly free to not read or bother with it.

Not sure WHO you are referring to as "playing partisan politics"... Trump with AIPAC(an organization that should not be IMO), or me ... But the games that have been played with Saudi Arabia over the decades have surely been a bi-partisan effort.

If I read what you're saying correctly, which honestly is hard to do sometimes, you're insinuating that I should be hopping-mad that Trump didn't include Saudi Arabia on the ban list.

First off, that they were left off the list is something I understand, whether I like it or not. The instant ramnifications of doing so would be extremely large in an instant negative way.

Second, I'll judge how things are going with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya etc after a considerable amount of time, not just 2 weeks, before I decide if Trump is just playing the same games as Obama, Bush, Clinton etc when it comes to Middle East foreign policy.

Quote

You've gotta be kidding me. 

Nope

 

10 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Yea that really surprised me to. Especially with him calling them out all through the campaign. And with SA giving Hillary millions to play. Makes me wonder how conversations behind the scene went.

Maybe he is being smart and setting us up to use a lot more of the oil we have, not being as dependent as we have on Saudi oil before he snubs them.

Could be. But who really knows at this early point in time.

To further that thought though... From Trump's view, let's say we're looking at doing something about ISIS, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Al Qaeda, Syria, Libya, and so on. In thinking about just Saudi Arabia, what would be smarter?... Setting up immediate confrontational challenges against them(ie: the ban list), or would it be better to play the game they do. Pretend you're friends, while at the same time, start planning and taking steps to lower the boom at some point down the line?

To make an enemy of Saudi Arabia instantly would be stupid. A better idea would be to wipe out their proxy army, ISIS, first. Then Al Qaeda and so on. Then set your sights on the Kingdom itself. That's what I would do anyways.

Like I say, it's only 2 weeks into his Presidency and for myself, there were 2 main things Trump said during his campaign that I will expect some results from... One being the whole Saudi-9/11-Exporting-of-Wahabbist-terrorism worldwide... and two, Hillary facing indictment for all the laws she broke with her server and emails.

I have patience and understand not to expect anything for a while, so I will wait.

And NO, I do NOT like some of the things I see going on from the Trump Administration, but overall, I'm still very impressed at how he's started out of the gates.

Some might be, but I'm not ready to say that he's just a continuation of Clinton-Bush-obama just yet. That will take some time, and a LOT more actions, to make that determination in my books.

[Baz Dane]

13 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

And Soros is just a tool?

In a blog post for Foreign Policy magazine, Rosa Brooks, a former Obama administration official, outlined four ways to “get rid” of President Trump, including declaring him mentally unfit for command or carrying out a military coup.

Brooks is a Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation, which is funded by billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. She served from 2009-2011 as Counselor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and served as a senior adviser at Obama’s State Department.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/02/ex-obama-official-suggests-military-coup-trump/

 

13 hours ago, bee said:

At the Berkley protests riots --- a huge banner was on display saying -- '''THIS IS WAR''' and another one
saying '''BECOME UNGOVERNABLE'''

It looks like the losers of the Presidential Election are fomenting revolution to try and regain power...?

 

13 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

See, even if defenders of these lovers of love may argue that, say, Madonny's rhetoric about blowing up the Wh*te H*use wasn't meant seriously, these people do seem to be. 

 

Perhaps it's time to start enforcing the LAW...

18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

- "Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or..."

- "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

 

Though they ignored 18 U.S.C. 1924(a)(c)... 18 U.S.C. 793 (f)... 18 U.S.C. 2701 (b)... and 18 U.S.C. 641... in Hillary's case.

But hopefully the new AG will bring some actaul Justice back to the quite corrupted DOJ?

Have to wait and see.

The Laws are there for a reason, and the more they get ignored, the more things will spiral into anarchy.

[Yamato]

1 hour ago, Lemieux said:

What the hell are you going on about?

I put up the OP, so I'll respond. I've been on about Saudi Arabia long before January 22 actually.

Okay let's see it.

Maybe it borrowed something rare to the point of extinction that was actually critical of Saudi Arabia from Fahrenheit 9/11 as you're going after Michael Moore of all people right after you're ranting about Saudi Arabia of all things.  

It's not January 22 anymore so let's rant about Saudi Arabia right now.  Why the hell aren't they on the immigration ban?    Excuses?

Quote

Not sure WHO you are referring to as "playing partisan politics".

When the first line of your OP is:   "All these anti-Trump and "I'm With Her" protesters are brainwashed IMO."  who do you think I'm talking about?

 

Edited February 4, 2017 by Yamato

[Baz Dane]

1 hour ago, Yamato said:

Okay let's see it.

Maybe it borrowed something rare to the point of extinction that was actually critical of Saudi Arabia from Fahrenheit 9/11 as you're going after Michael Moore of all people right after you're ranting about Saudi Arabia of all things.  

It's not January 22 anymore so let's rant about Saudi Arabia right now.  Why the hell aren't they on the immigration ban?    Excuses?

When the first line of your OP is:   "All these anti-Trump and "I'm With Her" protesters are brainwashed IMO."  who do you think I'm talking about?

 

OK... You tell me how I should be thinking and what I should be saying please

[Baz Dane]

1 hour ago, Yamato said:

When the first line of your OP is:   "All these anti-Trump and "I'm With Her" protesters are brainwashed IMO."  who do you think I'm talking about?

Here ya go... This looks like fun...

 

 

[Yamato]

1 hour ago, Lemieux said:

OK... You tell me how I should be thinking and what I should be saying please

No, but I can at least notice what you're ranting about and call it into question.   Michael Moore?  The one guy who had the balls to expose the dirty ties between Saudi Arabia and our corrupt government, and you're ranting about him?   

Saudi Arabia is being handled very, very gently.   Trump hasn't started hugging and kissing them yet like Bush does but he hasn't even gone over there yet.   Maybe he'll carry a sword around again like the kind they use to cut peoples' heads off, that'd be cute. 

Every time we saw Bush in Saudi Arabia with these Sharia sweethearts it was like some borderline gay **** was about to happen.  

But I know, "Radical Islamic Terrorism".

[Baz Dane]

2 hours ago, Yamato said:

No, but I can at least notice what you're ranting about and call it into question.   Michael Moore?  The one guy who had the balls to expose the dirty ties between Saudi Arabia and our corrupt government, and you're ranting about him?   

Saudi Arabia is being handled very, very gently.   Trump hasn't started hugging and kissing them yet like Bush does but he hasn't even gone over there yet.   Maybe he'll carry a sword around again like the kind they use to cut peoples' heads off, that'd be cute. 

Every time we saw Bush in Saudi Arabia with these Sharia sweethearts it was like some borderline gay **** was about to happen.  

But I know, "Radical Islamic Terrorism".

 

You're damn right I'll rant about that turncoat sellout Michael Moore... When he started telling people to vote for Clinton!? After what she and the DNC pulled in the Primaries?!? Moore deserves every insult he gets... and despite what that idiot writes on a sign, NO, I am NOT Muslim.

 

I think that video pretty much sums it up. like I said, he's a turn-coat sellout

As for the rest, like I say, I have patience, and will wait to see how it all plays out before I cast my judgment about Trump.

As far as my opinion on the Bush-Saudi relationship... Watching the romance between Dubya and the Saudis was sickening to say the least. But Gay romance aside, my opinion on their relationship can be summed up in one word... Treason.

I think I've voice my opinion of Saudi Arabia quite well in the reply to you in the other thread. So there can be NO mistaking that 

[Yamato]

2 hours ago, Lemieux said:

 

You're damn right I'll rant about that turncoat sellout Michael Moore... When he started telling people to vote for Clinton!? After what she and the DNC pulled in the Primaries?!? Moore deserves every insult he gets... and despite what that idiot writes on a sign, NO, I am NOT Muslim.

I think that video pretty much sums it up. like I said, he's a turn-coat sellout

As for the rest, like I say, I have patience, and will wait to see how it all plays out before I cast my judgment about Trump.

As far as my opinion on the Bush-Saudi relationship... Watching the romance between Dubya and the Saudis was sickening to say the least. But Gay romance aside, my opinion on their relationship can be summed up in one word... Treason.

I think I've voice my opinion of Saudi Arabia quite well in the reply to you in the other thread. So there can be NO mistaking that 

Turn coat from what?  He's been consistently Democrat leaning.  If I couldn't welcome people who register to political parties there'd be nobody to talk to.   I don't throw people into a hate box for voting for Hillary Clinton.   If the sign says "We're all Muslims" then it's another way of saying "We're all human beings". 

You're surely not going to enjoy Donald Trump's Saudi Arabia visit, and neither will I.   The moment he schmoozes it's no different.   I don't think it's treason but if you think it's treason, that'll be treason too.  What's the difference?  Bush didn't create them, Trump didn't either.  We'll know where we all land on Trump and Saudi Arabia soon.   I don't see any reason to believe it won't end very, very badly.

[Yamato]

Paul Watson is spinning up a good one there.  The two Michael Moores don't contradict each other.  Hillary Clinton was a lame candidate and he was upset with the choice, it doesn't mean he also wants to vote for Donald Trump in October.

[Space Commander Travis]

4 hours ago, Yamato said:

Michael Moore?  The one guy who had the balls to expose the dirty ties between Saudi Arabia and our corrupt government, and you're ranting about him?   

The pillock who tore up the Washington Post, perhaps the most loyal pro-Clitnon element of the Press, because it said that "Tr*mp is the President"? Show me somewhere he breathed as single syllable of criticism of Obama or the Blessed Hillary ever and your outrage that anyone dare criticize him might not appear as fake and sanctimonious as it does.

[Space Commander Travis]

Paul Joseph Watson is hilarious. 

[Yamato]

Just now, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

The pillock who tore up the Washington Post, perhaps the most loyal pro-Clitnon element of the Press, because it said that "Tr*mp is the President"? Show me somewhere he breathed as single syllable of criticism of Obama or the Blessed Hillary ever and your outrage that anyone dare criticize him might not appear as fake and sanctimonious as it does.

He's a Democrat, and there's no denying it.   It's like being a Republican, except you make millions of dollars making movies and become famous.  

It's out of place in a rant about Saudi Arabia.   It's not necessarily fake, and it turned out not to be, but it's drenched in partisan politics.  A very similar thinker got disgraced for being from the other party.   Well I'd like to look at people I disagree with across partisan lines and find out where we agree on something.  

It's my bet Trump and Bush and Obama care about Saudi Arabia.  It's clear that Lem doesn't.   Michael Moore and I don't either.   Is there anything else to agree with Saint Michael on?  Probably not. 

[bee]

.

IMO - Michael Moore is a payed plant working for ''''someone'''' - probably the Global Elite Shadow Government lot -

That he is someone who got himself deep into the game by playing a character but when he was needed to help
swing the vote for Clinton he had to, in effect, break cover and switch - now he has become one of the 'shepherds'
leading the 'sheep' in the direction his paymasters want them to go .. 

I think he could be categorized as a gatekeeper   --- someone who gets into a group to help control
the group from within --- and now he is called upon to use his influence, rallying the civilian 'troops' / protesters
against Trump -

that's what I think about him anyway  

.  

Edited February 4, 2017 by bee
slight alteration for clarity

[Yamato]

27 minutes ago, bee said:

.

IMO - Michael Moore is a payed plant working for ''''someone'''' - probably the Global Elite Shadow Government lot -

That he is someone who got himself deep into the game by playing a character but when he was needed to help
swing the vote for Clinton he had to, in effect, break cover and switch - now he has become one of the 'shepherds'
leading the 'sheep' in the direction his paymasters want them to go .. 

I think he could be categorized as a gatekeeper   --- someone who gets into a group to help control
the group from within --- and now he is called upon to use his influence, rallying the civilian 'troops' / protesters
against Trump -

that's what I think about him anyway  

.  

Maybe he's just doing that, without all the Global Elite stuff.   Maybe he was forward-looking enough to know that Donald Trump would wake up the comas and melt the snowflakes.   It was big of him to rip on Hillary Clinton too, especially given the Democrat that he is.  She was a ridiculous choice.   Yeah he walked back, but I can't hate on people who thought that Clinton was better than Trump.  I can disagree without disowning people from another subdivision.  That happens every Presidential election, it's the lesser of two evils.   All the turd sandwich vs. giant d***** focus is overdone and yep, Michael Moore gets way caught up in it.   He's a Democrat, if that makes him irredeemable... I guess maybe it does.  Democrats do terrible things, they're like Republicans.

He's ridiculed and reviled not because he's from the Globalist Axis of Evil but because he really is anti-war.  Maybe there's still a place for that in this country.   It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or Republican or a 3rd party voter.  The day "We're all human beings" becomes code for globalism, the conspiracy theory stuff doesn't look promising.   Don't get me wrong I'd love to run Michael Moore through the ringer.  He needs to explain to me why Obama's 70 bombs a day are acceptable.   My question to Moore is:   Why do the bombs only matter to Democrats when a Republican is dropping them?