Pelosi Picks on newly elected women of color

[ian hacktorp]

28 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I am a patriot and I admire our founders and those who have sacrificed for us.

You're starting to sound just like Donald Trump.

It remains to be seen whether you can 'walk the talk'.

Edited July 16, 2019 by hacktorp

[+Desertrat56]

1 minute ago, hacktorp said:

I don't know how old you are, Desertrat, but apparently old enough to own a 1960s set of Encyclopedia Britannica...which seems to be where you get your information.

Here is a 10 day-old (very young) article from Lefty-favorite NYT:

Afghan Peace Negotiations Show Signs of Progress

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/06/world/asia/afghanistan-war-withdraw-american-troops-peace.html

Maybe you can help Farmer and Roofy out with the big words.

  touche'   and touche' to me because obviously I touched a nerve.  You really can't judge what is going on now without knowing what has gone on before.  History ignored gets repeated,  and complaining about a 6 month old news item and insisting on making sure I know your news item is 10 days old is irrelevant. 

[+OverSword]

56 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

 The primaries should be open to all and not separate based on party.

No they shouldn’t. The primaries are to decide who the parties will run. If anyone could vote then you would have people voting for sure losers in the primaries and then voting for the opposing party in the actual election.

[ian hacktorp]

8 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

  touche'   and touche' to me because obviously I touched a nerve.  You really can't judge what is going on now without knowing what has gone on before.  History ignored gets repeated,  and complaining about a 6 month old news item and insisting on making sure I know your news item is 10 days old is irrelevant. 

Well, I like a lot of things that are "old"...it's just that "news" isn't one of them.

In fact, I bet that even Farmer would concede that 'young' news is more useful than 'old' news.

But I wouldn't bet TOO much...

[RoofGardener]

18 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

I don't know how old you are, Desertrat, but apparently old enough to own a 1960s set of Encyclopedia Britannica...which seems to be where you get your information.

Here is a 10 day-old (very young) article from Lefty-favorite NYT:

Afghan Peace Negotiations Show Signs of Progress

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/06/world/asia/afghanistan-war-withdraw-american-troops-peace.html

Maybe you can help Farmer and Roofy out with the big words.

Or to put it another way..... 

"America admits defeat.. hands power back to the Taliban. Last one out on the helicopter from the embassy roof is a chicken"

[+Desertrat56]

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

No they shouldn’t. The primaries are to decide who the parties will run. If anyone could vote then you would have people voting for sure losers in the primaries and then voting for the opposing party in the actual election.

So you think 47% of legal voters do not get a choice on who runs just because of the parties?  And then they have to "choose" from the two that the parties give them to vote for?  Totally undemocratic and definitely not  representative of the population.  And you think that is democracy?

[+OverSword]

I’ve read the last two pages of this thread and had to scroll back up to the top to see what the thread title was. A little surprised at first that I couldn’t remember I was in a thread I myself started but seeing as how off track it’s gotten it was an honest mistake.

Done here.

[+Desertrat56]

8 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Well, I like a lot of things that are "old"...it's just that "news" isn't one of them.

In fact, I bet that even Farmer would concede that 'young' news is more useful than 'old' news.

But I wouldn't bet TOO much...

Farmer probably knows history and can understand why the current news is the way it is, and can also tell when it is skewed/biased because of history.

[skliss]

4 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I know our elections are fixed

Then you should take your evidence directly to the proper authorities....

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

So you think 47% of legal voters do not get a choice on who runs just because of the parties?  And then they have to "choose" from the two that the parties give them to vote for?  Totally undemocratic and definitely not  representative of the population.  And you think that is democracy?

Okay drawn in for one more. The parties are not a democracy and actually neither is the nation.  Okay, now done here.  Have fun arguing about whatever it is you’re arguing about my friends 

[+Desertrat56]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Okay drawn in for one more. The parties are not a democracy and actually neither is the nation.  Okay, now done here.  Have fun arguing about whatever it is you’re arguing about my friends 

Right!  A representative republic that does not represent the public. 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Desertrat56

[Duke Wellington]

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Okay drawn in for one more. The parties are not a democracy and actually neither is the nation.  Okay, now done here.  Have fun arguing about whatever it is you’re arguing about my friends 

Well you are correct but Trump seems to actually be pro-Democracy.

He is resisting the PR brigade to give the majority of Americans what they really want.

[ian hacktorp]

13 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Or to put it another way..... 

"America admits defeat.. hands power back to the Taliban. Last one out on the helicopter from the embassy roof is a chicken"

Lol...what a cynical, bitter person you are.

It's a British thing, right?

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Well you are correct but Trump seems to actually be pro-Democracy.

Pro Democratic Republic of North Korea is about as close as he gets to " pro democracy"

 

[ian hacktorp]

10 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Farmer probably knows history and can understand why the current news is the way it is, and can also tell when it is skewed/biased because of history.

Or...Farmer doesn't know his **** from an ant-hill and is utterly flummoxed as to why the current news is the way it is...because history.

[RoofGardener]

7 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Lol...what a cynical, bitter person you are.

It's a British thing, right?

Well, I can't help it @hacktorp. 

Consider Vietnam: the USA's mission was to prevent North Vietnam taking over South Vietnam. What HAPPENED was that..... North Vietnam took over South Vietnam. The USA was completely defeated in its aims. 

Now.. Afghanistan.. although they went in to get Obama (which they never did, not in Afghanistan), they had the subtext of kicking out the Taliban government and imposing a Democracy on the country. 

What happened ? The Taliban are now about to get the country handed back to them. The exact opposite of the US strategic goal. Once more, the USA has been defeated in its aims. 

Still, the USA Womans football team did well !

Edited July 16, 2019 by RoofGardener

[acidhead]

 

[+Desertrat56]

6 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Or...Farmer doesn't know his **** from an ant-hill and is utterly flummoxed as to why the current news is the way it is...because history.

Are you lashing out?  Like you don't have a real answer so you lash out? 

[ian hacktorp]

16 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, I can't help it @hacktorp. 

Consider Vietnam: the USA's mission was to prevent North Vietnam taking over South Vietnam. What HAPPENED was that..... North Vietnam took over South Vietnam. The USA was completely defeated in its aims. 

Now.. Afghanistan.. although they went in to get Obama (which they never did, not in Afghanistan), they had the subtext of kicking out the Taliban government and imposing a Democracy on the country. 

What happened ? The Taliban are now about to get the country handed back to them. The exact opposite of the US strategic goal. Once more, the USA has been defeated in its aims. 

Still, the USA Womans football team did well !

Seems kind of a reach to try to pin Vietnam on Trump, but such inanity does appear to be in style these days.

As for Afghanistan, you clearly have no idea why the US was there in the first place, what happened after the US got there (both in Afghanistan and in the US), and what changes are occurring now as we speak.

Also, the official explanation was not to "get Obama".  Perhaps you meant "Osama"?

[RoofGardener]

1 minute ago, hacktorp said:

.......

Also, the official explanation was not to "get Obama".  Perhaps you meant "Osama"?

ROFL.. an interesting Freudian slip, perhaps ? 

I think I have a pretty good idea of America's motivations and goals in invading Afghanistan, @hacktorp. 

[ian hacktorp]

18 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Are you lashing out?  Like you don't have a real answer so you lash out? 

Lol...I like you, Desertrat.  And I don't age-discriminate, so I see no problem with us being friends.

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Pro Democratic Republic of North Korea is about as close as he gets to " pro democracy"

How so? The majority of the US has had enough of the PC brigade and illegal immigration.

Hence the reason he is President and way out ahead in the polls.

Edited July 16, 2019 by RabidMongoose

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, I can't help it @hacktorp. 

Consider Vietnam: the USA's mission was to prevent North Vietnam taking over South Vietnam. What HAPPENED was that..... North Vietnam took over South Vietnam. The USA was completely defeated in its aims. 

Now.. Afghanistan.. although they went in to get Obama (which they never did, not in Afghanistan), they had the subtext of kicking out the Taliban government and imposing a Democracy on the country. 

What happened ? The Taliban are now about to get the country handed back to them. The exact opposite of the US strategic goal. Once more, the USA has been defeated in its aims. 

Still, the USA Womans football team did well !

Ha! Who are you to throw stones? You've already surrendered London to them. RLOF

[Golden Duck]

9 hours ago, South Alabam said:

Well examples of fake news Trump is always talking about is, some news sites have reported he told Omar to "Go back to Africa" (a direct lie) and others have not added the part where he told them "to come back and show us how it is done..."

So if that was the only news source these people rely upon, they are directly being lied to and manipulated.

So where did he tell Omar to go?

[Vorg]

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

So where did he tell Omar to go?

Not to "Africa" as the paper quoted it. So take your baited question elsewhere.