One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: straightUp
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 327 next>>
Oct 21, 2017 15:22:37   #
eagleye13 wrote:
Hung by the tongue;
" So if there is a specific point that Lou Dobb's is making, then tell me what it is and I will read what he has to say about it. If it's just broad stroke accusations about how the left is dishonest (or whatever you're stereotypical gripe is) I really can't be bothered." - sUp

Go back to the beginning.

...make a point.
Oct 21, 2017 15:05:25   #
Steve700 wrote:
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

Steve700 wrote:

They know that she deliberately Erased 30,000 emails that had been SUBPOENAED, which that alone, anybody else would be in prison for.

First of all, the subpoena wasn't issued until March 4, 2015... AFTER Clinton's lawyers had already provided the e-mails they said were relevant to the Benghazi investigation on December 5, 2014. At that point, the Benghazi committee only asked for e-mails relevant to the investigation... They were actually specific about that. So that's what Clinton provided. The Platte River Network was then told to set a retention policy on the remaining e-mails, which is a standard procedure for most typical corporate and government e-mail systems for operational and security reasons, (something I have direct experience with). This particular policy was to automatically delete any e-mail older than 60-days unless the e-mail is flagged for archiving.

This was all done in December of 2014. The subpoena wasn't issued until three months later. So if Platte River Network did it's job those e-mail would have already been gone because they were all older than 60 days, but they messed up and forgot to set the retention policy. There's no way of really knowing if Clinton or her lawyers knew about the mistake until after the company used bleachbit to delete the old e-mails that should have already been deleted. This erasing happened during the last week of March 2015.

So, the accusation that Clinton intentionally deleted e-mails under subpoena is entirely without proof. Were e-mail's deleted AFTER the subpoena? Yes. Did Clinton know about it? We simply don't know... There is no clear proof that she did and you CAN'T prove someone guilty without proof.

The problem with people like you Steve, is that you so desperately WANT her to be guilty that you simply CAN'T be objective. You are exactly the kind of person that courts weed out of a jury because of bias opinions. And BTW, I'm not saying Clinton is innocent. I'm just saying there is no proof that she's guilty as Comey had concluded quite clearly.

Steve700 wrote:

The deep state and our shadow government is more powerful than the presidents

I know.

I gotta say though... Your vague references to "deep state" and "shadow government" cracks me up. It's called a plutocracy Steve and they hide in plain site. The only reason why they appear to be so shadowy to you is that you aren't really paying attention. You're far too distracted with the circus acts in the other rings.

Steve700 wrote:

and they protect their own (the liberals/globalists) or Hillary, Obama, Eric Holder

as well as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice... The plutocracy isn't biased Steve... they protect their liberal/globalist interests no matter which party they come from.

Steve700 wrote:

and others would have suffered the death sentence for treason.

'Hate to tell you this but deleting e-mails older than 60 days is NOT an act of treason.

Steve700 wrote:

BE SURE To SEE The VIDEO At The END Of This POST That You Ignored Before

Thing is Steve... I've seen sooo many of these conspiracy theories. After a while, the trash dumpsters all start to smell the same. Maybe I'll have a look, on the off-chance there's something worthwhile, but... maybe not. I'll tell you the same thing I tell eagle... If there's a point, make it... Links should only be for verification, not as a substitute for literacy.

Steve700 wrote:

You just can't help being an idiot, can you?

Insults don't make up for your inability to be objective Steve.

Steve700 wrote:

The only thing there wasn't concrete evidence about is what was in those emails.

Which is the one thing a court would need to pass any judgement on this case.

Steve700 wrote:

(Lots of evidence indicate, for one thing, that Ben Ghazi was probably an Obama administration implicated plot to take Amb. Stevens as a hostage in order to make a big hero out of Obama just before the election by getting him back by trading the blind Sheikh for him.

Conjecture doesn't qualify as evidence, Steve. It was also pointed out that House Republicans denied the requests that Clinton and Obama had made to increase funding for the security of State Department assets including embassies... on several occasions. Remember this was a time when House Republicans were shutting down the government to get their way on defunding healthcare. They were denying EVERYTHING Obama asked for. But to imply the connection is also conjecture... there is no hard evidence that increased funding would have saved those Americans.

I'm sure there are many things we would both like to say are evident... we are after all, passionate about politics. But let's try to keep our pants on OK? Let's understand the difference between hard evidence and conjecture and I'll look forward to smarter conversations with you.

Steve700 wrote:

What her not being indicted proves is how the left-wing deep state shadow government protects its own. That crazy corrupt bitch should be in jail and you damn well know it.

Ugh... really Steve? ..."left-wing deep state shadow government"? ..."crazy corrupt bitch"? I gotta say, you get really worked up... Do you think you're capable of objective reasoning when you're like this?

Steve700 wrote:

Those 30,000 emails that had been SUBPOENAED is only the very beginning.

I've already invalidated that claim, so I guess your beginning is a big zero.

Steve700 wrote:

But of course you don't give a damn because like every other liberal the ends justify the means when it comes to the acquisition of power by the left.

Yeah, Steve... all liberals are alike.

And Clinton wasn't running for president in 2014 when the Benghazi investigation started and I was forming my opinions (which haven't changed). Innocent until proven guilty is my unchanging rule of thumb. The day the courts find what they need to convict her will be the day I accept the conviction. I am not a neoliberal Steve... I'm not even a Democrat, and I've told you this before. I just don't go for witch hunts, that's all.

BTW, I feel the same way about the Russia investigation in case you think I'm being hypocritical. As much as I dislike the creep and as much I would NOT be surprised if he WERE guilty I refuse to jump to that conclusion until proof is found.

Steve700 wrote:

Your mind has been being molded and your opinions manipulated by the deceitful deliberately slanderous left wing fake news organizations that are no different than 'Provda' of old Soviet Russia.

More conjecture. You're sitting there telling me that my mind is being molded by deceitful media companies and you don't even know what I read or listen to. You seem to be grasping at unfounded theories because my opinion is different than yours.

Steve700 wrote:

Take a listen to this video and you will see and hear one of CNN's top executive state that the Russian collusion delusion thing is all bull shit, but it sure is good for ratings. Go ahead and watch this video and see Many other examples also that indicate the extent to which you are constantly being lied to in order to dumb you down and believe Marxist propaganda: (7 minutes)

If that's the point being made in the video, I don't need to watch it... I already know that media companies are in the business of making money Steve. I'm not the idiot you think I am. I know that media companies make money by selling advertising space and they sell for more if they can draw an audience, so ratings are paramount to their business. I also know that long-running stories like investigations are very popular and translate to sales in the business of broadcasting. So of course the Russia investigation is good for their business. That's what I call a no-brainer... I certainly don't need YouTube to explain it to me.

I also know that the most successful example of this media business model is Fox News, which made it's mark by shifting priority from the low returns on expensive journalism to the high returns on cheap, provocative commentary, then winning their court case to allow them to bill it as news.

So, save your "American Left = Marxist Conspiracy" bullshit for the morons.
Oct 21, 2017 12:23:13   #
kankune wrote:
I'm getting so freaking tired.of hearing about white supremacy. What about black supremacy, muslim supremacy, feminist supremacy, political supremacy, Hollywood goes on and on and on......kind of racist to single out one group don't you think?

You should talk to Loki who swears that being derogatory about Mexicans isn't racist, because "Mexican" is a nationality, not a race. So in your list, black supremacy is the only thing that could qualify as racist and I gotta say that even though some blacks are racist, it has never reached the level where supremacy is even considered.

Supremacy, in case you don't know, is about domination.

The Muslims that immigrate here are simply trying to co-exist with us, they are NOT trying to "take us over" and they certainly aren't advocating the prohibition of Christianity. If anything, they are are just trying to defend their right to practice their own religion the way our doctrine says they can. The feminists aren't pushing for supremacy either, they are volleying for equality, not domination. You NEVER hear political feminists saying men should have less than women.

The reason why you hear so much about white supremacy is because it's the ONLY clear example in America today of one ethnic group actually trying to exclude other ethnic groups from the civil rights that our Constitution provides. All those other groups are asking for equality. White supremacy is asking for domination. That, my friend, is the very clear and significant difference that singles out white supremacy.

And it's the recent rise in white supremacist activity AND the apparent acceptance of that activity by the sitting president, that explains why President Bush felt compelled to say something about it after nine years of silence.

I also find this pointing at others for excuses to be very childish... "but Ma, Tim does it!" Didn't your mother ever tell ask you "If your friends jumped off a cliff would you do it to?" And as a white Anglo-Saxon (can't get any whiter) I have to say, the constant mention of white supremacy doesn't bother me at all. I wonder if the nerve that you are feeling isn't guilt. You say you're not racist, but you take offense when people mention white supremacy. So... mixed signals.

Free yourself kk... You can disassociate yourself from white supremacy and still be white. :)
Oct 21, 2017 11:42:40   #
JW wrote:
Look it up! The House impeaches, the Senate tries. Slick was impeached.

Use your brain! Just because someone is tried doesn't mean he's is found guilty. That's what trials are FOR! ...To determine guilt OR innocence. Impeachment only happens if the defendant is found guilty. The Senate did NOT find Clinton guilty of anything impeachable. They tried him BECAUSE the House prosecuted him and they denied the impeachment. If he was actually impeached he would have been removed from office and Al Gore would have become president.

You can't be that stupid JW... Get some coffee.
Oct 21, 2017 11:29:01   #
byronglimish wrote:
What was the big change that slick Willie endured after impeachment??

"slick Willie" wasn't impeached. The House prosecuted... the Senate declined it. You have to have both sides of Congress on the same page to impeach a president.

The Senate declined it because they recognized the childishness of the House prosecution... trying to use a blow job as an excuse to impeach a president. I would think the people who try to marginalize the antics of Mr. Pussy Grabber would understand that. At least with Bill and Monica the affair was consensual, unlike Chester Molester Trump.
Oct 21, 2017 11:13:36   #
Cerby1 wrote:
which tribe, the left or right, demo or republican? Neither gets a vote or or assistance in bills, support, or any directional planning for our country. I think that nationalism is not tribalism. In trumps UN speech he spoke of each country doing what is best for their country and people, and that this is not incompatiable with world cooperation. I would define tribalism as KKK, the black clad far left, and the far extremes on both sides. They cannot meet at all without conflict. We must start separating emotion from data or what can be agreed are facts or what happened.
which tribe, the left or right, demo or republican... (show quote)

OK, lets separate the data from the emotion...

Merriam-Webster defines tribalism as... "1. tribal consciousness and loyalty; especially :exaltation of the tribe above other groups. 2. strong in-group loyalty."

So, according to the "data" in the dictionary, nationalism may not be as exclusive as a white supremacy groups but as long as nationalism is invigorated by strong feelings of loyalty and exaltation, it *DOES* qualify as a form of tribalism. In fact throughout history, nationalism has always been driven by tribal sentiment. To use the classic 20th century references, the Nazis rode a wave of German nationalism to power, but that nationalism was in turn fed by deeper ethnic exclusions. Tribalism effectively describes the entire phenomenon.

The slippery thing about nationalism is the ease with which it can be justified as a matter of sovereignty while obscuring the true intentions of it's driving force.

Cerby1 wrote:

I don't know if a third party would help the situation. The only thing I can hope for is that we honor our elections, even if the ELECTORAL college which give voice to the smallest of state and cities in fly over country and not only the few large homogenous areas of population. I would honor the election even if trump lost.

The notion that ANY significant group is NOT honoring the 2016 election is pure BS manufactured by right-wing media. The truth is NO one is actually questioning the 2016 election. The process is being challenged, yes but that concern is focused on future elections, not the Trump victory. (You can't change the rules in retrospect. We KNOW that.) So, I'm sorry but this is not the example of "discrediting the victor" that's going to counter-balance the right-wing refusal to accept Obama's victory in 2008.

LOL - I'm ON to this bullshit, so save it for someone else.

Cerby1 wrote:

Why is the left still fighting when trump will likely get a second term,

Don't confuse "possible" with "likely". I've read about the math that makes a second term possible with the same minority vote that he got in 2016. But for that to happen a LOT of Democrats would have to repeat the same mistake they made in 2016 by not voting and that too is possible, but it's also far from likely. Trump has been a wake up call for the majority of American voters, his approval rating has plunged like no other president before him because a lot of people who voted AGAINST Hilary are realizing what a mistake it was to give Trump the White House.

Trump-supporting Republicans are already saying that if the tax bill doesn't pass there's a real chance they could loose the House in the mid-terms and if that happens Trump is as good as impeached in the first half of his only term.

Cerby1 wrote:

help the man.

Help him do what? Help him take health care away from the sick and the old? Help him give the wealthy everything they need to exploit the American people? Help him encourage racism and police brutality? Help him trash our reputation as a world leader? Help him take us into a nuclear war? Or just help him with whatever he feels like surprising us with?

Get real.
Oct 21, 2017 03:28:45   #
straightUp wrote:
So, he's a divider then.

Oh, and about that mission... what?!

If anything has been made clear in the last eight months it's that trump NEVER had a mission. Leaders with missions don't pat themselves on the back saying "I like to keep them guessing". The closest thing to a mission fatass ever came close to is his own publicity. His entire career was based on finding suckers to rip off and his presidency is no exception. He found the stupidest people in America and pitched the stupidest promises to them and they gave him the votes.

As much as we make fun of fatass, he's nowhere near as stupid as the people who are still to this very day supporting him. That's just a fact.
So, he's a divider then. br br Oh, and about tha... (show quote)

Since I'm being so brash, I may as well be clear ...and of course, objective too. The exception to what I said is the person who feels his best bet is tribalism. You can't defend tribalism in a complex modern society hosting 350 million people without being a bigot. But I do understand, they think it may be their best, maybe even their ONLY bet. They have families just like I do, they have concerns about resources and competition, just like I do.

I do understand tribalism and it's a stopping point for me on the road to hell, if that's where we're going, but I'm hoping we're not there yet. I'm hoping we still have choices. I'd like the folks whom I am calling "stupid" to stop trying to sugarcoat or justify their biases...

Actually... I'd like to retract that statement... I don't KNOW if they are "stupid" people... What I mean to say is that I see them making stupid decisions... that is, again, if they aren't placing their bets on tribalism. If they are the decent conservatives like so many that I know that are not tribal.. they still believe in a unified republic. Those are the ones that I think are making stupid decisions because trump isn't helping the Republic. That fatass is dividing the Republic.

If we really want to drain the swamp, the conservatives and progressives should be joining forces against the third side of the trinity... the 1%... or more precisely, the .001%... or more definitively, the plutocracy that owns our Republic. They're in New York, not Washington DC. and if trump was really the anti-establishment president he says he is, he would be denying the Republic to the plutocracy, not denying the Republic to the people.
Oct 20, 2017 18:34:11   #
JW wrote:
Trump is a man with a mission. We can follow him or get out of his way. Anything else and we'll be roadkill.

That won't unite those who refuse to follow with those who choose to follow but it will unite each side within itself.

Personally, I support about 95% of what he is doing.

So, he's a divider then.

Oh, and about that mission... what?!

If anything has been made clear in the last eight months it's that trump NEVER had a mission. Leaders with missions don't pat themselves on the back saying "I like to keep them guessing". The closest thing to a mission fatass ever came close to is his own publicity. His entire career was based on finding suckers to rip off and his presidency is no exception. He found the stupidest people in America and pitched the stupidest promises to them and they gave him the votes.

As much as we make fun of fatass, he's nowhere near as stupid as the people who are still to this very day supporting him. That's just a fact.
Oct 20, 2017 18:30:03   #
Ronald Hatt wrote:

Seriously? How stupid do you think people are? Bush didn't mention trump's name because he didn't NEED to. He described the problems of bigotry and nativism well enough for anyone to know which president that applies to.

Ronald Hatt wrote:


The feud between trump and the Bush family is pretty well known and it's been going on since the 2016 election... so although this might have *something* to do with it, it doesn't explain why Bush waited until NOW to say anything. I can see you're working hard here to come up with theories to translate the meaning of what Bush said but he was actually pretty clear about it. He was talking about bigotry, especially white supremacy. He AND McCain are trying to save the GOP from the reckless bigotry rallying behind trump.

Ronald Hatt wrote:



Obviously, you have personal problems.

Ronald Hatt wrote:

br & HOW ABOUT THAT "IGNORANT" CONG... (show quote)

Why, because she's wearing a hat? Or is it because she's black and you're a racist?
Oct 20, 2017 18:10:05   #
proud republican wrote:
Hillary soon will be in jail!!!

You can always dream. ;)
Oct 20, 2017 18:09:37   #
payne1000 wrote:
Oh boy!
Then we get religious wacko Pence.
Was this the Repug plan from the beginning?

That's exactly what has decent people second guessing the impeachment. Would Pence be any better?
Oct 20, 2017 18:02:39   #
Carol Kelly wrote:
George Bush, for whom I voted, waited throughout Obamas term to say anything. Why now does he want to criticize Donald Trump? Obama almost destroyed the United States of America and the Bushes along with everyone else kept their mouths shut and just let the Kenyan go with his destruction. Now, everyone jumps on the "let's get Trump" band wagon. Even with all the latest scandal involving the Clintons, the Obamas, the FBI, etc.
How can Mueller who was deeply involved in the uranium sale now sit in judgment on Donald Trump or, for that matter, anyone else. I hope Grassley gets all of them in orange suits before it's over. Straighten out all the impurities in this country. And do it NOW!
George Bush, for whom I voted, waited throughout O... (show quote)

This might not make any sense to you Carol if you're really that much of a sucker for that BS about America being destroyed by a Kenyan, and maybe it's too much for any racist to put aside their obsessive hatred to notice what's actually happening here, but neither Bush nor Obama were advocates of bigotry.

Bush said what millions of Americans have been waiting to hear from the old Republican order since Charlottesville... that white supremacy and bigotry in general have no place in America. That wasn't something that had to be said during the Obama years. But it's something that needs to be said now.
Oct 20, 2017 16:33:16   #
eagleye13 wrote:
" So if there is a specific point that Lou Dobb's is making, then tell me what it is and I will read what he has to say about it. If it's just broad stroke accusations about how the left is dishonest (or whatever you're stereotypical gripe is) I really can't be bothered." - sUp

Don't be bothered, sUp.

OK... so just broad accusations - got it.

eagleye13 wrote:

Just quit spreading BS, without doing some research.

What BS?

eagleye13 wrote:

You can keep your ear muffs and blinders on, but others are not wearing them.

Just because a person doesn't fall for your BS, doesn't mean they're wearing ear muffs and blinders.
Oct 20, 2017 16:16:50   #
Big Bass wrote:
Yes, we all should. Drain the swamp! I think most are aware that both sides are involved in corruption. Too many politicians get into politics for all the wrong reasons.

I certainly sympathize with that feeling.
Oct 20, 2017 11:32:56   #
eagleye13 wrote:
straightUp; "Is there a point here?"

You bet there is; you can keep the blinders and ear muffs on, but the truth on the corruption and cover ups is coming out. The crooked Dems can't cover it up any more, even though the lefist media is still trying to sweep it under the rug.

Most people know that corruption exists on both sides... Your assertion that ALL the corruption is on the left makes your bias really obvious. I don't have a problem reading what Lou Dobbs has to say, but I don't have much time this morning... So if there is a specific point that Lou Dobb's is making, then tell me what it is and I will read what he has to say about it. If it's just broad stroke accusations about how the left is dishonest (or whatever you're stereotypical gripe is) I really can't be bothered.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 327 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use - Forum
Copyright 2012-2016 IDF International Technologies, Inc.