Random Political comments...

Well, that's easy for you to say; you're sane and rational.

 

Be honest, though: don't you miss those rambling, cut-and-pasted, fact free conspiracy screeds? 90% of what she writes is a prime example of Poe's Law at work.

 

The Clinton ties are too personal. Closer than random aquaintances.

 

The connection was the Paula Jones case was about to go to trial and to deflect from that. Far reaching perhaps, nonetheless, not impossible.

Afterall, many of you here are convinced that in order to deflect from the Russia heat, Trump re-started a 'war' with North Korea.
And that Bush did the same with Iraq.

Wasn't the conspiracy that it was a Revenge Invasion because Saddam had tried to (unsuccessfully) assassinate his father?
Or was it that we invaded Iraq for the oil reserves?...
Or was it so Chaney could make money off his company Halliburton?
Tell me, which conspiracy did you believe at the time, and were you mocked for it? See where l'm going with this?

TBH, many of the conspiracy theorists I've ever met in my lifetime came from within the Black community. And I'm always open and willing to entertain some of them because I understand that there are conspiracies that are conducted in this country and all over the world, and that by design, you are gaslighted, made to feel that what you're saying couldn't possibly be true because "it doesn't make sense" on the surface.

There's a lot of people on this planet that do not think like you or I in the sense that, there are some evil people roaming around, there are ruthless, power-hungry people and there are people that will kill others without a second thought to mercy. They're not normal like you and I in terms of not heing diabolical, homicidal, sociopathic, sexually deranged, etc.

For example, People said...
That Mark Furhman planted the bloody glove. To quote Bod here..no proof. Him using the n-word doesn't mean he planted it, right? Right?? What did you tell me, "correlation doesn't equal causation"

People also said..
The CIA swamped and dumped drugs into the ghettos. What - did they fly over with helicopters and drop bags in the streets? Just because drug-addicted communities said that it was a conspiracy to destroy the community, doesn't mean it was true, right? Right??
So now if I was to believe that conspiracy theory, I would be called a tin-foil idiot by you and a few others on here, correct?
(I could cite more...)

Per the Starbucks murders, the guns were not found at his home.
The case went cold, there was no '2 year intense investigation'.

It only re-opened when America's Most Wanted highlighted the case as a cold case, and an informant called the hotline and said that her boyfriend had said that Cooper had confessed to him.
*Keep in mind Cooper also named yet another (3rd) person whom he said had planned the crime, and he was scheduled to testify against Cooper, however Cooper pled instead, eliminating that need.

Now having researched the nuances of the Case since yesterday, I'm more inclined to agree with you today on this...but this one only. Smile.

 

Not at all. Life's way too short to engage with the mentally ill. Propagandized right-wing Fox News/Breitbart/Alex Jones racist bitter-clinging hypocrite morons are the reason America's in the shitter. Thank the gods Ailes and Breitbart both dropped dead but with Putin's help the damage is irreversible

 

Well, for me to believe in a conspiracy theory, I need to see more than one source of information. And I really try not to give credence in any conspiracy theory promoted by an extreme political fringe organization that has a pattern of promoting falsehoods.

The Iraq war was planned nearly the minute Dubya entered office in 2001. Project For a New American Century, a neocon think tank, had been advocating regime change with Iraq during the Clinton administration, and surprisingly 3 of the signatories of PNAC statement of principles, which were mainly to fight perpetual wars to advance U.S. interests, went on to work in the Bush administration.

Those three people were Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, the three most powerful people in the Bush WH outside of the president.
9/11 was the excuse the neocons needs to go back to war in the Middle East. I don't think Cheney advocated the U.S. going to war in Iraq solely to enrich himself, but what I do know is Cheney's former company Halliburtion made nearly $40 BILLION from the Iraq war.
I do know that Cheney cherry picked raw intelligence data from the CIA to build a case that Iraq had WMD, a conclusion the CIA itself never confirmed.
What I do know is Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz all advocated going to war against a country, Iraq, that didn't attack us. But for some reason we left Saudi Arabia alone, where nearly all the 9/11 hijackers were from.
I do know we allowed Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora despite his being the mastermind behind 9/11.

All conspiracies aren't created equal. Some conspiracies are just cover-ups.

No, the CIA didn't start the crack epidemic. They just poured gasoline on it. I thought it was common knowledge that during the 1980s, the CIA helped the Nicaraguan rebels smuggle cocaine to help fund the Contra war, and much of that cocaine ended up on the West coast, which helped fuel the crack epidemic in the 1980s.
I don't know if the CIA helped directly sell hundreds of thousands of kilos to LA drug gangs, but without the aid of the CIA, crack wouldn't have exploded like it did on the West coast before spreading East.

Is that really a conspiracy theory??

All I'm saying is check your sources and vet them before posting them like they're fact.

Very little if anything on WND is factual. It's mostly a right wing propaganda site that floats hundreds of bogus conspiracy theories mainly against the Left.
There have been entire cottage industries that have sprung up just to debunk WND conspiracy theories, Snopes being one of them.

But I have yet to see anything credible to suggest the Clintons are serial killers. Such a statement doesn't even pass my smell test.
I just don't know why you'd jump into such a far out, wacky conspiracy theory.

Believing the Clintons, or any powerful political family are CAPABLE of killing their political rivals, is far different from actually BELIEVING they did and that there's PROOF that no one has ever found, except for WND. Most of the people the Clintons are alleged to have murdered don't even make sense because the motives are so flimsy.

The problem with most conspiracy theories is that they require several people, sometimes dozens, to lie and cover up the truth. If the Clintons were Murder Inc, there's no way all those people connected to those alleged murders wold have remained silent.

THis is why it's crazy to me when Moon landing conspiracy theorists don't believe there was such a thing as the Apollo space program, or believe that NASA is a hoax. How many aeronautical engineers, physicists, mathematicians, etc., would have to be involved in such a cover up??lol

Rule of thumb, a good conspiracy theory shouldn't sound 'crazy'. Believing the Clintons murdered people who didn't even know them. but knew someone who knew them, makes no sense.

 

The Age of Trump is worse than the Bubonic Plague,

 

If the plague comes I'm outta here. Family members got about 48 hours to decide if they coming with me.

 

What's the deal with all of the tuff talk to North Korea if we are still paying them extortion money? One thing 45 could do is make sure they don't get another dime unless they actually allow UN nuclear inspectors to have full access to their facilities. Forget the "fire and fury" talk. I'd approach it like " you lying broke mother fuckers won't get another dime from us."

We have supposedly paid them sorry excuses for sapient beings over a damn billion dollars since 95. Enough is enough. If you can build rockets you can feed your own damn kids.

I don't prefer war but if he is going to attack us because we won't pay him it's pretty much inevitable.

 

Good points.

One thing that really gets me is that 45 loves to talk/act like he's a badass. The truth is that he's probably never had a fight in his life, but he's so enamored with everything about himself he seems to think others are supposed to jump when he says something. It annoys me because he insists in engaging in a war or words with a dictator and he has no idea of what this dude will do. No doubt N. Korea is fully aware that they can't win a war against the USA, but they know that they can certainly strike a painful blow. Sometimes that's all that matters. So we have the people of Guam understandably nervous as they're right in the line of fire while this dude is safely 7000 miles away (and has the benefit of the bunker) talking shit and trying to convince the world that he has the biggest dick.

 

Im curious, so when (44) Obama - whose never had a fight in his life - talked tough with Bashir and expected him to jump with his red line threat ( he didn't), was he also a baddass with a big dick?

Do you expect the President to talk sweet to Kim Jong?

 

Hey now, let's be fair to Trump. I'm sure that he also has some blistering Tweets planned over the next few days. That'll show 'em.

 

Being firm with real talk is one thing, and I get that at times it's necessary for a leader to be firm/confront others. Ranting like clueless child with an unpredictable, but potentionally dangerous person is another thing. I can't imagine any of Obama's talk (or any other POTUS in my lifetime) being remotely comparable with the crap that this dude spews.

 

Nonsense Bliss, President Obama actually followed the law by going to congress first before acting unilaterally against Syria, and when denied by congress, he kept diplomatic pressure on until tangible results were achieved per below... That was TRUE statesmanship exhibited by President Obama.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/obama-syria-foreign-policy-red-line-revisited-214059

"Obama’s Red Line, Revisited
The offhand remark spurred a massive success in Syria. Why does the foreign policy establishment consider it a failure?

So when the president stepped into the sunny Rose Garden that Saturday morning, he announced that he had made two decisions: first, that the U.S. should act against Syria, and second, that he would seek explicit authorization from Congress to do so. With that, the administration set out on a different campaign than the military one we had been preparing for: to convince the American people that intervening in Syria was in the country’s interest.

What transpired over the next month was one of the most controversial and revealing episodes in eight years of Obama’s foreign policy. Despite the administration’s strong advocacy and support from a small minority of hawkish politicians, Congress and the American people proved strongly opposed to the use of force. In the end, however, the threat of military action and a surprise offer by Russia ended up achieving something no one had imagined possible: the peaceful removal of 1,300 tons of Syria’s chemical weapons (there have been reports of stray weapons and widespread use of industrial chemicals like chlorine, but no evidence of systematic deception on the part of the Syrian government)"

"By October 2013, without a bomb being dropped, the Bashar Assad regime had admitted having a massive chemical weapons program it had never before acknowledged, agreed to give it up and submitted to a multinational coalition that removed and destroyed the deadly trove. This is an incontrovertible, example of what academics call “coercive diplomacy,” using the threat of force to achieve an outcome military power itself could not even accomplish."

 

I'm @ Bliss's comment about a bad ass with a big dick

Would not even want to imagine Trump in his tightie whities let alone what he's rockin with

 

Here's a good simple test for whether you are a pragmatic or purist Democrat:

Joe Manchin is a Democratic Senator from West Virginia. He is a Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Pro-Coal, NRA member Democrat. "Hey!" You might say. "That doesn't sound very liberal at all. We should primary him and try to get a true progressive in to office there!"

If this was your thought, please know one other thing: every other major politician in West Virginia is a Republican. The Governor, the other senator, the congressmen... all of them. And just today some polls were taken and these are the approval ratings of different politicians in WV:

Manchin (D Senator) 51/34
Capito (R Senator) 40/38
Trump (R President) 48/39
Justice (R Governor) 34/44

As you can see, this pro-life, pro-gun, pro-coal Democrat *is the most popular politician in the state.* And for Democrats like me, he has repeatedly and aggressively protected Obamacare, and has consistently voted to reduce our troop levels in foreign wars. And yet some Democrats want to primary him because he's not a true liberal (and they're right, he's not). If a primary sounds like a good idea to you, then you have a very different perspective than I do even if we both identify as "liberals."

Democrats can run a pro-choice, environmentally conscious, anti-gun, pro-gay marriage candidate in West Virginia, and feel great about running a candidate who reflects all our values, without compromises. And then we will get crushed in the general election, because West Virginians will have none of it.

 

You're deflecting Loki. Read NY's comment.
Thus "Going to Congress prior to him then making a unilateral decision" is not the point of discussion here - the point is that similar warnings were made to both leaders (and both were applauded in the real world, unlike here), yet only one here was called out for it being "chest-pounding",
as being "probably never been in a fight in his life".
Really?
If you don't like what our current President is saying, then you obviously didn't like what our previous one had said.

 

Gitl, l didn't make that dick comment, DudeNY did. (Hmmm) l was repeating it. That's all on him, lol.

 

Not deflecting at all Bliss, you said Bashir did not respond to the threat of violence, President Obama positioned warships close to Syria while not engaging, while keeping up diplomatic pressure, and Assad COMPLETELY fell in line.

There were many who criticized President Obama for talking tough to Assad at that time, and yes some who applauded. I think the difference here is that Assad is simply a Russian puppet, President Obama knew if Russia entered negotiations he could get Assad to compy. Kim Jong Un is a certified looney tunes thug, flat out crazy bastard that could literally start a very serious world war. Sabre rattling at Assad is VERY different than talking tough to a lunatic who literally thinks he is a divine deity and would have no problem setting the world ablaze.