Deranged Democrat

[Likely Guy]

3 minutes ago, F3SS said:

It's pretty widely circulated and I've never seen it debunked. The only one I know of that's fake is the one grabbing that woman's chest and I think it's the woman who just came out and blew him up. However, in the original photo his hands are as close as you can get while her hands are clearly holding his from moving any closer and she couldn't look more awkward and unsettled. I'm sure you've seen it.

Because I'm video challenged (dial up) I don't get to see things in their entire context.

From that though I came to understand how 'one frame' out of thousands, can paint a picture.

[F3SS]

2 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

Because I'm video challenged (dial up) I don't get to see things in their entire context.

From that though I came to understand how 'one frame' out of thousands, can paint a picture.

These are 1 minute vids. I can't make it easier than that for you. Next time you're around someone with technology ask them to look it up. Anyhow, these aren't one frame issues. There's lots of video with lengthy actions. 

[Likely Guy]

What about...

Edit: Never mind.

Aside: When you bring up Hitler during a debate, that's 'Godwin's Law". What's it called if you bring up Trump?

Edited April 2, 2019 by Likely Guy

[F3SS]

10 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

What about...

Edit: Never mind.

Aside: When you bring up Hitler during a debate, that's 'Godwin's Law". What's it called if you bring up Trump?

You should check yourself. You state that you cannot see the videos yet you accuse me of crying wolf about the content it shows. Is that about right?

And at the moment that would be called deflecting. 

[Likely Guy]

2 minutes ago, F3SS said:

You should check yourself. You state that you cannot see the videos yet you accuse me of crying wolf about the content it shows. Is that about right?

No. I didn't accuse you of saying anything.

And no, I can't see the video now, but later I'll give it another try.

7 minutes ago, F3SS said:

And at the moment that would be called deflecting. 

Yes, you're completely right, it's only right if your creepy guy is in power.

[+susieice]

5 hours ago, skliss said:

While I think he's too hands on, I've not heard big complaints about it until now. IMO the Dems are behind it. Joe's too old school and not progressive enough for them. He just might be willing to compromise. He's actually ahead in Dem polls at the moment.  Just a thought.

He was just accused again. Saw where some more celebs are being investigated. I remember seeing David Blaine, a magician. This is the new norm. It is the Dems behind it.

[Big Jim]

Up to now I'd only seen a couple examples of Feely Joe.  He seems to have a special fondness for children, but not in a nice way.  His actions with the women would get him fired from any other job.  All of the men where I worked had to go to classes and watch movies every year to warn us not to do things like that.  His actions with the children should get him arrested.  If that's how he is in public I sure wouldn't leave him alone with any.  With most politicians mere allegations of such behavior are damaging.  With Biden it's all on video, yet he's the one they're pinning their hopes on.

[+DieChecker]

I was just reading about the two woman, and neither complained, officially, at the time. I greatly dislike calling an action unwanted long after the fact. It means anyone can call out anyone who has ever touched them.

If either had told him, "Knock it if Joe!", I'd be a lot more on board with condemning him.

On the Conservative side, imagine he gets the nomination and a half dozen other woman come forward.... auto Trump win.

[Big Jim]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

I was just reading about the two woman, and neither complained, officially, at the time. I greatly dislike calling an action unwanted long after the fact. It means anyone can call out anyone who has ever touched them.

If either had told him, "Knock it if Joe!", I'd be a lot more on board with condemning him.

On the Conservative side, imagine he gets the nomination and a half dozen other woman come forward.... auto Trump win.

The delay in reporting didn't seem to be a problem with Kavenaugh or Cosby.  Your standards of justice may prevent you from bringing something up so long after the fact but I've never known politicians or the media to be so restrained.

[Likely Guy]

3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I was just reading about the two woman, and neither complained, officially, at the time. I greatly dislike calling an action unwanted long after the fact. It means anyone can call out anyone who has ever touched them.

If either had told him, "Knock it if Joe!", I'd be a lot more on board with condemning him.

On the Conservative side, imagine he gets the nomination and a half dozen other woman come forward.... auto Trump win.

*hangs head* (figuratively)

[+DieChecker]

23 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

The delay in reporting didn't seem to be a problem with Kavenaugh or Cosby.  Your standards of justice may prevent you from bringing something up so long after the fact but I've never known politicians or the media to be so restrained.

I'm a Trump supporter, I had no issue with Kavanaugh. I'm just trying to say let's not set a standard that is ripe for abuse.

[+DieChecker]

24 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

*hangs head* (figuratively)

So, you support someone who said nothing years, or even decades, ago coming forward with allegations that can not be supported, and are aimed at ruining someone?

That's a crazy stupid standard if that is what you are hanging your head about.

[Likely Guy]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

So, you support someone who said nothing years, or even decades, ago coming forward with allegations that can not be supported, and are aimed at ruining someone?

That's a crazy stupid standard if that is what you are hanging your head about.

Where in the blue blazes did you get that from?

I hung my head by your last statement actually.

In other words, "the equally morally repugnant goes scott-free", is maybe what I should have said.

[+DieChecker]

1 minute ago, Likely Guy said:

Where in the blue blazes did you get that from?

I hung my head by your last statement actually.

In other words, "the equally morally repugnant goes scott-free", is maybe what I should have said.

The last part.... yeah, I didn't think of that till later. Sorry if I offended. 

[+susieice]

52 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I was just reading about the two woman, and neither complained, officially, at the time. I greatly dislike calling an action unwanted long after the fact. It means anyone can call out anyone who has ever touched them.

If either had told him, "Knock it if Joe!", I'd be a lot more on board with condemning him.

On the Conservative side, imagine he gets the nomination and a half dozen other woman come forward.... auto Trump win.

I didn't see a lot of these pictures before now, but yes. I agree the time to say something is at that moment. Move and tell him that he's in your space.

It seems as if in the world of politics no man is going to be safe from accusations. Entertainment either.

Edited April 2, 2019 by susieice

[Tatetopa]

7 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

I'm catching everybody in "whatabouts" recently and there's always a "reasoning" 

You're not alone  

Ok.  Maybe you have a point.    I'll just stick with skliss, I don't like handy individuals.  Like she said, Maybe the Dems are calling him out..  Kind of like vetting.  You can't put a weak candidate up against the current incumbent.  Anything in personal history can be made into a nickname. Instead of lyin' Ted, we could have handy Joe.

[Tatetopa]

56 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

On the Conservative side, imagine he gets the nomination and a half dozen other woman come forward.... auto Trump win.

Is that a whataboutism?

[+susieice]

Hugs from Obama is actually a book. 

[Likely Guy]

5 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The last part.... yeah, I didn't think of that till later. Sorry if I offended. 

Mea culpa, I should have been clearer.

[Likely Guy]

14 minutes ago, susieice said:

Hugs from Obama is actually a book. 

While the irony may appear delicious, I'll leave that alone.

*camel hug*

Edited April 2, 2019 by Likely Guy

[+susieice]

2 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

While the irony may appear delicious, I'll leave that alone.

*camel hug*

*hug*

[Tatetopa]

On 2/11/2019 at 4:22 AM, RoofGardener said:

That is indeed scary, Farmer77. It appears that there are over 16 government agencies - starting with the FBI and thence the DoJ - that have access to unfiltered NSA intelligence information. In effect, the NSA has become a domestic spy agency. 

What kind of authoritarian - perhaps even fascist -  president could have OK'd such a thing ? What sort of power-mad political party could have approved such a dangerous arrangement ? 

Oh gosh.. it was Obama and the Democratic Party, wasn't it ? Which nicely ties in with the title of this post... "deranged democrat". 

Indeed and that is the funny part. The DHS was created by President Bush as the overarching organization after 9/11.   People at the time, even with the World Trade Centers still smoking thought that was too much power to  be put into one place and could be abused.  If I remember correctly a lot of conservatives stood against it.  And lo, all of that power put in one place  became a perfect tool for additional surveillance under Obama.  Who would have predicted that? And again, I think conservatives thought it was a bad idea.  Everybody's personal data collected by the government seemed like over-reach and an attack on freedom. 

How many guns you have, where you buy your ammo, who you share your views with online or by phone, and even where you are. Did you notice when new cars started having gps built in?  Oh, but you don't worry about it because you use your phone for directions.  It is still in there. 

What is this?  A big-governmen- loving paranoid snowflake liberal?  Yup I confess.  It is a great argument against government getting too big and having too many black ops. . 

Nothing to hide?  Great.  How about that time when you got the weird phone call that turned out to be a wrong number?  Was it somebody on the terrorist watch list who had a 10 second conversation with you said wrong number and then hung up? Your name gets linked with Ali Akbar Rasheed as a possible cell member.  And now where does this accumulation of power and data hidden under the radar stop?  Or does it keep growing?

But, it puts things in perspective when you throw it up against the ravening invading hordes of murdering rapists and murders and welfare cheats.storming our border.  Now the whole monolithic DHS and not just pertinent agencies seem indispensable.  Besides it was  Democrats that spoke up this time.  They must be wrong.

[Likely Guy]

30 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Which nicely ties in with the title of this post... "deranged democrat".

That's the one thing that bugs me about the title... if I started a thread entitled "Psychotic Republicans" it would have been done in poor taste, of course.

Yet this issue flew off the shelf along with "I wonder about Democrats... and where does their loyalty lie?", literally calling them subversives.

*The above quote was Roof Gardener, not Tatetopa.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Likely Guy

[Katniss]

9 hours ago, skliss said:

While I think he's too hands on, I've not heard big complaints about it until now. IMO the Dems are behind it. Joe's too old school and not progressive enough for them. He just might be willing to compromise. He's actually ahead in Dem polls at the moment.  Just a thought.

I had the same thought too when all this started appearing in the news. He's not even announced his candidacy yet and I think it scares them that he's already at the top of the polls ahead of their progressive candidates. It makes sense because they became irate with Howard Schultz when he talked about running.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Likely Guy said:

That's the one thing that bugs me about the title... if I started a thread entitled "Psychotic Republicans" it would have been done in poor taste, of course.

Yet this issue flew off the shelf along with "I wonder about Democrats... and where does their loyalty lie?", literally calling them subversives.

*The above quote was Roof Gardener, not Tatetopa.

Yeah, I've been thinking about that in the history of conservatives.  That history is not about freedom, it is about opposition to change.

There were conservatives in 1776.  They were opposed to breaking away from England.  They supported the monarchy and nobility.   They wanted no change.

"Constitution, Who needs one of those?  We have gotten along in England for  a thousand years without one."

"Bill of Rights, why do we need free speech of the right to bear arms? If we didn't have the king and the nobles to guide the lower classes, it would be anarchy."

If conservatives had been stronger, the liberals of the day; Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin and others would have been executed or rotting on prison ships like the Jacobites in Scotland.

200 years later, conservatives kind of like the idea of freedom and practically worship the founding fathers as if they were their own.  Reminds me of Jesus, the liberal of his day, crucified by the conservatives and big government, yet worshiped now.  At least in name, to actually live life the way he said, well he couldn't have actually meant that could he?  That would disturb the established order.

No nobility?  How do we know who is superior in society, how does everyone know his place?    Money of course.  A reasonable substitute.  Being born rich is just as good a measure as being born a lord.

Now DHS has become 20 years old, getting close enough to be recognized as established order by conservatives. It continues to collect data and quietly grows. Doesn't seem to be a concern. 

From comments on this website, conservatives are not really sold on the liberal idea of separation of powers yet.   They seem to favor a strong unitary executive who doesn't need to ask anything, just order actions for the good of the people.  Here is that concept again relying on a powerful leader to tell the people what to do.  I think it wouldn't be too far a stretch for conservatives to support a military dictatorship or a totalitarian regime, just as long as they didn't give medical care or a basic income to the underclass.

I think conservatives yearn for an established rank  and place in society with the benefits appertaining to that rank.  I think they like to know their place and feel better if they are a rung or two above the  hoi polloi.

Well how about the Second Amendment and our right to own assault rifles that we so jealously guard?.  That must tell everyone that conservatives are willing to die for their freedom.  Nope.  You are willing to rise up and die against a government that wants to change the established order.  Deep down in your hearts, it is fear of and resistance to change not freedom that propels you. 

Incendiary enough fore you Likely?