Hillary and Benghazi, Final evidence (Page 31): You have made many good points. it is your language I object to. You have as much right to your opinion as I or anyone else has, and I...

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

straightUp wrote:

If you had an answer to my challenge my foul language would not be an issue - you would just provide the answer and that would be enough to shut me up. But you don't have an answer. So you make an issue out of the words I choose. They're just words and they weren't even used to insult you, they were used for emphasis. And I'm not sorry for injuring your delicate sensibilities, maybe you shouldn't be posting comments about topics that are far more offensive than... words.

You have made many good points. it is your language I object to. You have as much right to your opinion as I or anyone else has, and I agree with you frequently, but there is no excuse to default to disgusting language. None. To allow yourself to behave in that manner immediately turns me and I am willing to bet others...off, and at that point what you say becomes secondary to how you say it.

Behaving like a bad tempered child with a foul mouth when you don't get your way destroys your credibility.

There are too many intelligent people already on OPP who can't seem to use decent language.

If we expect our elected officials to be able to discuss, debate, and disagree with decorum, how can our behavior be any less?

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

straightUp wrote:

Really? Can you explain that to me? I mean I KNOW that he talks up a storm about how bad everything is and how all the politicians suck, but who can't do that? What I would like to know his plan. You're obviously more confident than I am... maybe you know something I don't. Please, inform me.

What was Obama's plan other than promise, hope, and change?

Would you rather Trump promised tons of freebies and feel goodies, or promise to do what he is good at and create jobs so people can move forward under their own power?

straightUp Loc: California

Big Bass wrote:

Political incorrectness should be mandatory for ALL future presidents. Let's only deal with bare facts, not candy-coated rhetoric.

Ah, I see... so you're confusing bullshit for PC. Candy coating is bullshit. Calling someone an immigrant rather than wetback is PC. See the difference?

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

straightUp wrote:

Ah, I see... so you're confusing bullshit for PC. Candy coating is bullshit. Calling someone an immigrant rather than wetback is PC. See the difference?

Calling them immigrant rather than illegal alien is PC. See the difference?

straightUp Loc: California

buffalo wrote:

First off, Trump is exposing the system that everybody already knows is rigged in favor of the Wall Street and corporate elite.

So he's telling us what we already know...

buffalo wrote:

But very few, if any, (Ron Paul, somewhat)will talk about.

Actually, most politicians DO talk about it. Even the Clintons have talked about standing up to Wall Street. I agree that Ron Paul has done more than anyone else on the right to put the issue in front and center... On the left there have been a few more, Sanders being an example but yes most politicians on both sides only talk the talk when they're trying to woo the middle-class and to be honest, that's all either Trump or Clinton are doing right now. We can give Ron and Bernie credit because they actually have congressional records that show they've been fighting for real, Trump doesn't.

buffalo wrote:

The right arm (republicans) of the corporate party is not more falling off that the left arm (democrats) is cutting it off. Surely you see the false left/right dichotomy that both arms of the corporate party establishment use to keep the vast majority of the sheople distracted and divided with. Why do YOU think that the right arm establishment is so opposed to Trump? He is exposing the rigged system and that is forbidden by entrenched DC politicians.

I can see how politicians apply the left/right dichotomy to their fear tactics to influence the people and I suspect the lobbyists, especially those of the oligarchy, place bets on the two-party system as a means to wrangle deals and influence the laws. But I don't think the left/right dichotomy is false, nor do I think there is an institutional conspiracy... at least not in Congress. I think the people are doing it to themselves by allowing themselves to be fooled by the fear tactics.

buffalo wrote:

Don't know. He will have to convince the majority of 535 member of Congress to accomplish anything unless he resorts to obammy's tactic of Presidential edicts.

You means the constitutionally sanctioned executive privilege? Do you know of any other tactic for getting around a Congress that refuses to cooperate? I don't see Trump as the kind of guy who will quietly sit down as Congress filibusters the session away do you? I can almost guarantee he will be writing executive orders as fluently as he tweets and they won't go without a good dose of "tough-shit" from the podium.

buffalo wrote:

br I don't know if he would even make it to the P... (show quote)

Well, at least you're being honest. Personally, I don't see how Trump is going to stand up to the oligarchy either. As a heavy-weight investor and member of the 1% club it's hard to see how he would even have the motive. As far as standing up to the oligarchy, I think Clinton and Trump both score 0, so it's a wash there as far as I am concerned. I know this can be said for Clinton with more certainty because of her track record, but from what I know (or *think* I know) about the oligarchy, it won't matter who we put in the Oval Office. The oligarchy will not allow a mere POTUS to screw with their arrangements.

We the People have to find other ways and I think the most important thing we can do work from the bottom up. People need to get more involved in local and state politics because that's where the people actually DO have more power and then we escalate from there. The problem is that we have become victims of national media. Networks need to sell stories so they focus primarily on national issues that are relevant to the greatest number of people. As a consequence we focus entirely on national politics where we have the least amount of influence. What sense does that make?

So this is why I focus on other issues when deciding who to vote for. To me Trump represents the greater danger in terms of foreign policy. That's the part of the government that We the People and our representatives in Congress have virtually no control over. Foreign policy is almost entirely controlled by the president and where I know Clinton has a LOT of experience, Trump has none. Where I know Clinton has the respect of world leaders, Trump is hated by all of them. The Irish Republic went so far as to legislate a ban on Trump from entering their country should he become president. That's unprecedented.

straightUp Loc: California

PoppaGringo wrote:

Calling them immigrant rather than illegal alien is PC. See the difference?

I don't think so. There is nothing derogatory about the term "illegal alien". So there is no effort to avoid that term that can be called politically correct.

straightUp Loc: California

eagleye13 wrote:

Who knows what Trump will be able to accomplish straightUp. I am convinced Trump will try as no one else has, that were able to get either an R or D nomination. All R&D admins have been fillrd with Bilderberger CFR front men The enemy of a free Republic will not go down without a fight. They are expressing and spending right now.

I dunno eagle... I mean he can *try* but like I mentioned in my last response to buffalo... The oligarchy isn't going to let some mere POTUS mess with their arrangements. The BB and CFR connections are a tribute to that and I seriously doubt that one man can buy his own way to the Oval Office without finding himself in a headlock as soon as he gets there.

Here's what I think might be going on with Trump right now... in order of liklihood.

He's actually freaking out that his publicity stunt is a run away train.
He's laughing it up with the BB boys and the funny joke is how easy it is to fool us by just telling us what we want to hear.
He's being mounted by "strap-on" Hillary while they both sing "Springtime in Germany".

eagleye13 wrote:

br I post this because it covers the CFR in total... (show quote)

Thank you for the links... I saved them (Evernote) I used to subscribe to the CFR quarterly, just out of interest... Those publications never give you the slightest suspicion of wrong doing, of course... but you do get really good insight into our foreign policy.

straightUp Loc: California

Docadhoc wrote:

Excellent commentary. I believe the comment regarding conservatives didn't know there was a problem until 8 years ago is somewhat incorrect as I believe it didn't come forward until Obama's polarization of America placed the WH under a microscope. At that point I believe people started to pay more attention and realize some things were occurring that they didn't like, and began asking questions.

Well, that was about 8 years ago right? I mean that's when Obama came along and the conservatives started to pay more attention... generally, people pay more attention to presidents they DON'T like. So for the liberals, "wake up time" was the Bush Administration. I think Bush was actually the initiating half of the polarization effect, off the springboard of 9/11 and I think Obama was the reactive half. Which is why so much of what I hear from conservatives is deja vu to me.
(Thanks for the compliment BTW.)

straightUp Loc: California

Docadhoc wrote:

You have made many good points. it is your language I object to. You have as much right to your opinion as I or anyone else has, and I agree with you frequently, but there is no excuse to default to disgusting language. None. To allow yourself to behave in that manner immediately turns me and I am willing to bet others...off, and at that point what you say becomes secondary to how you say it.

I appreciate what you are saying here. I was raised in a very strict and conservative family and got this lecture very early in life and I carried that culture with me for a long time and I still do but I've taken to allowing myself the use of these words in certain environments. So, it's controlled. I choose these words with intention, not because I'm crass and don't know any better, but because I can see the value in crass language when applied "appropriately". Ya like that? Seriously, think about how many times you hear the word "fuck" in a typical box-office hit. Movies are scripted, so words actually are carefully chosen and yet those four letters appear together constantly. That's because there actually is value in using that word. It connects people to the dirt, the grime, the pain, the seriousness, the shock, the disgust. There are other words, yes - but none so common, none so popular and therefore none so appropriate. But yes, I do understand for some it's just a turn off, which to be honest, isn't a big loss for me.

Docadhoc wrote:

Behaving like a bad tempered child with a foul mouth when you don't get your way destroys your credibility.

That's an exaggeration and you know it, foul mouth - ok, yeah... bad tempered child? 'cmon... And, what's up with... "when you don't get your way"? I see people posting that all the time and I never really understood it... What does "getting my way" even mean in the context of a political discussion on a web site?

As far as credibility goes... I think across the span of what I post here my credibility survives the language. I think my political stance is a far greater obstacle.

Docadhoc wrote:

There are too many intelligent people already on OPP who can't seem to use decent language.

fuck 'em. :)

Docadhoc wrote:

If we expect our elected officials to be able to discuss, debate, and disagree with decorum, how can our behavior be any less?

We don't expect our elected officials to deliver speeches in the nude either, so should we not strip before stepping in the shower in the morning? Like I said, it's a matter of environment and control. You act accordingly.

In any case... thank you for trying to explain in a civil manner.

straightUp Loc: California

Docadhoc wrote:

What was Obama's plan other than promise, hope, and change?

He published a book at the beginning of the campaign that provided very specific outlines of what he wanted to do and how he wanted to do them. I remember reading it and realizing how amazing it is that we don't make such books a prerequisite for candidacy.

Docadhoc wrote:

Would you rather Trump promised tons of freebies and feel goodies, or promise to do what he is good at and create jobs so people can move forward under their own power?

I don't recall any promised freebies or "feel goodies". Are you actually saying that Obama was offering free stuff?
And how exactly do you think Trump is going to create jobs as the president? Is he just going hire everyone? I created 15 jobs when I co-founded some businesses in the 90's does that mean I can make America great again too? Look, Trump created mostly low-wage, short-terms jobs though his own enterprises. He won't be able to do that as president. To have any influence on jobs from the Oval Office he will need to learn an entirely different skill set. Honestly, I don't think he's got what it takes and I think people sadly underestimate the differences between politics, commercial business and investing and it's leading them to delusion.

buffalo Loc: Texas

straightup wrote:

Well, at least you're being honest. Personally, I ... (show quote)

Trump is not the Wall Street oligarchy bought and paid for anointed one. He does not get millions in campiagn donations from them, noe has he received $100s of millions of bribes...er...donation to any tax dodging slush fund of a foundation he might have. He is not beholden to them just because he is big enough to play their game.
Screw with their arrangments? LOL What did slick willie do with NAFTA, repealing Glass-Steagal, the 1996 Telecommunications Act, deregulation of financial derivatives? All which lead to what? How about ending the corporate/government corrupt collusion? Bitch clinton certainly won't!

From Peter Street's article:

Hitchens provided a useful take on the militantly corporatist, Wall Street-friendly core of the Clintons' first two terms in the White House. The "co-presidents" served the "bankrollers and backers" with such Big Business-pleasing policies as the regressive and anti-worker North American "Free Trade" (investor rights) Agreement (NAFTA), repeal of the New Deal's separation of commercial and investment banking, sponsorship of oligopolistic hyper-conglomeration in the mass media (the 1996 Telecommunications Act), and the non- and de-regulation of Wall Street's growing financial derivatives sector.

Bill Clinton apologized to corporations for the high U.S. taxes they supposedly endured. He warmed CEO hearts by proclaiming that "the era of big government is over" and pursuing a "balanced budget" even while tens of millions of Americans were still mired in poverty and economic inequality climbed towards "Second Gilded Age" levels. Clinton kept the gigantic Pentagon system of corporate welfare fully intact despite the disappearance of the Soviet nemesis that had provided the critical Cold War pretext for massive "defense" (Empire) spending. The Clintons did all this and more to satisfy the elite "donor class" that put them in power while claiming to speak and act on behalf of everyday working people and wrapping themselves in the outwardly progressive clothes of politically correct multicultural tolerance and diversity. Never mind the Clinton administration's vicious liquidation of the disproportionately Black, Latino/a, and Native American poor's entitlement to basic family cash assistance and its promotion and signing of legislation that accelerated the nation's epic mass hyper-incarceration of Blacks.

straightup wrote:

So this is why I focus on other issues when decidi... (show quote)

Bitch clinton has a lot of experience alright, a lot of failures. But you said in an earlier post that bitch clinton's foreign policy (libya) was controlled by the oligarchy for their benfit.

Lets look at some of her foreign policy failures...er...achievements.

Honduras-Because of what clinton and obammy did in 2009, Hoduras is now ruled by an extremist far-right government, a fascist junta-imposed government. Where all but the uber wealthy class lives are pure hell.

Haiti is similar but not quite as bad.

Afghanistan and Iraq--Under clinton's State Dept failures and blunder have allowed ISIS and the Taliban to grow and murder 100s of thousands and hate the US even more.

Clinton was the obammy's leading proponent of regime-change, overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. We supported the very terrorists in Gaddafi's murder that now have the country in total chaos and are murdering 1000s. Yep, Gaddafi had tons of gold (enough to fuck with the petrodollar) and lots of oil.

In Syria Secretary of State clinton (I am sure with the advice of her handlers) allowed the drought to fester into a revolution against Assad. It wasn’t only the Arab Spring, in Syria, that led to the demonstrations against Assad there. Sunni jihadist fighters streamed into Syria, backed and armed by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. The U.S. was, in effect, assisting jihadists to oust the non-sectarian, secular Shiite leader of Syria and replace him with a fundamentalist Sunni dictator. Which has caused million to flee.

Clinton's State Department (with the consent and advice of those corporate oligarch stood to gain) and St Dept Victoria Nuland was the organizer of the 20 February 2014 coup in Ukraine, which replaced a neutralist leader of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, with a rabidly anti-Russian U.S. puppet, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and a bloody civil war. Nuland is obsessed with hatred of Russia.

On top of all that, bitch clinton is incredibly corrupt. And she treats subordinates like trash

The only people who can intelligently trust her verbal commitments are her big donors, who hear the truth in private, not in public, and who understand how to interpret them. Her voters are there merely to be conned, not to be served. She needs them to be the rug she walks upon in order to get back into the White House, where she intends to be serving real gold to her big donors, to make their bets, on her, profitable for them, just like slick willie.

Trump has not foreign policy record but his stated objective of not sticking our nose in other countries' affairs sounds good to me. Maybe not so much to the globalist corporations and the oligarchy behind them. That is why they so diligently support their whore and hate Trump. The oligarchy is the corporate party which owns the establishment of both dems and repubs. That is why I call the the left and right arms of the corporate party, which is the ONLY political party in the US.

As to the rest of your drivel above, maybe so maybe not....

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

straightUp wrote:

I don't think so. There is nothing derogatory about the term "illegal alien". So there is no effort to avoid that term that can be called politically correct.

At the very least, illegal applies!

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

nwtk2007 wrote:

At the very least, illegal applies!

The two words clarify the description of "Illegal aliens"
Wet Back is derogatory, but splains it also.

Big Bass

straightUp wrote:

Ah, I see... so you're confusing bullshit for PC. Candy coating is bullshit. Calling someone an immigrant rather than wetback is PC. See the difference?

WRONG! An illegal immigrant is a wet back, a legal immigrant is an immigrant. See the difference? (No, probably not - you like Hillary.)
No confusion - except regarding why so many idiots like Hillary, very, very confusing.

straightUp Loc: California

Big Bass wrote:

WRONG! An illegal immigrant is a wet back, a legal immigrant is an immigrant. See the difference? (No, probably not - you like Hillary.)
No confusion - except regarding why so many idiots like Hillary, very, very confusing.

Are you really this dense or are you just playing around?

An immigrant is ANYONE legal or not, who moves to this country with the intention of staying. If you want to distinguish between them you mention the legal status... legal immigrant, illegal immigrant. It really is that simple. The term "wetback" is a derogatory term for an illegal immigrant, just like nigger is a derogatory term for a black person.

Now, I can understand how someone who was raised in a family of ignorant bigots wouldn't know any better and personally, I don't care what the fuck you call them. All, I'm saying is that PC is a process of avoiding derogatory terms. Candy-coating bullshit is another thing entirely.