The Bonnie and Clyde of American Politics..... (Page 2): The facts are ALREADY out there and have been for some time. Mueller report..?? A falsehood from the start initiated by a...

trucksterbud

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

I ask for evidence and all I get is opinion derive... (show quote)

The facts are ALREADY out there and have been for some time. Mueller report..?? A falsehood from the start initiated by a biased group one of which PAID for (already proven) a fictitious story from a former washed up spy. The FusionGPS statement..?? Exposed by Dan Bongino as originally written for CNN in 2006 attempting to expose influence peddling in congress between the Russians and American congress. Only the names were changed to insert Donald Trump and the story was updated to 2015. Same story, only the names were changed.

Your post and comments show 3 things:

#1) You have no common sense, as these stories have been out there for a while from reputable sources.

#2) You have NO research sk**ls or you would already know these things.

#3) Your attack on me as a 'right wing psychopath' just put you in the same cesspool as rumiturd and the rest of the brainless left here on OPP..

Sorry buttnugget, you just incriminated, tried and sentenced yourself to what you really are.

Common_Sense_Matters

trucksterbud wrote:

The facts are ALREADY out there and have been for ... (show quote)

Still nothing intelligent from you? Are you entirely incapable of intelligent thought? It also did not escape my attention that you still hang onto those moronic conspiracy theories but refuse to provide any evidence. Yes, it is all over the internet on extreme alt-right nut job websites, these conspiracy theories of yours, but as I have said a thousand times before, I do not do nut job conspiracy theories, only morons buy into those. Also, if you don't wish to be considered a nut job, stop being one, seems fairly straight forward to me.

trucksterbud

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

Still nothing intelligent from you? Are you entire... (show quote)

Here is the article, which as I pointed out, since you have NO research sk**ls it must be spoon fed to you.

From The Washington Times, which is hardly a "RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY NUT JOB" site.

By Thomas L. Mason - - Thursday, December 15, 2016

Another of President Obama’s brazen acts as he leaves office is a “parting shot” at American gun owners by submitting the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification. For the uninitiated, the term refers to turning around in your saddle as you ride away from a losing battle and firing one last round at your enemy.

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was negotiated from 2006, during the Bush administration, through 2013 with the Obama administration. The original intent of the treaty was theoretically to prohibit arms t***sfers to regimes that abused human rights. From the very start though, gun control groups looked upon the treaty as an end run around America’s domestic reluctance to adopt their agenda — if Congress and the state legislatures wouldn’t pass gun control why not get the U.N. to make it a permanent part of its agenda or even better part of international law? Gun control groups have pursued their agenda at the organization since 1995 but were frustrated by the likes of Ambassador John R. Bolton who single-handedly stopped a U.N. treaty effort in 2001 that would have regulated U.S. civilian firearms.

The proposed ATT gave them the opportunity they had been waiting for, a legally binding treaty imposing regulation and conditions on the t***sfer and maybe possession of any weapon from a pistol to a battle ship. As incredible as it seems, the U.N. Human Rights Commission has already interpreted lack of gun control as a human rights abuse. The treaty is now in effect and the United States has signed it.

The Bush administration and its chief negotiator Ambassador Donald Mahley recognized the danger of a treaty whose scope included civilian firearms. During early negotiations Mr. Mahley convinced the U.N., and countries supporting the treaty, to exempt firearms held under “national Constitutional protection,” i.e. the American Second Amendment. This language was in the U.N. reports that were the basis for the final negotiations at the ATT Conferences in 2012.

The e******n of Barack Obama and the appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of State changed everything. Mrs. Clinton demoted Mr. Mahley and replaced him with Under Secretary of State Tom Countryman, a shaggy-haired disarmament specialist who had no interest in protecting American gun rights. Mr. Mahley himself fell ill with pancreatic cancer and died in 2013, an unsung hero for American rights. The NRA and other gun rights groups lobbied the new administration in good faith not to give away what Mr. Mahley had accomplished. In 2011 Executive-Vice President of the NRA Wayne La Pierre appeared before the U.N. and bluntly told them that the ATT would be opposed unless there were protections of American gun rights. He was ignored. Fifty-seven U.S. senators wrote the Obama administration and made essentially the same point. They were ignored. In negotiations with the State Department, and treaty supporters, we pointed out time after time that a treaty that included American civilian firearms would never be ratified by the United States. We were ignored.

The “national Constitutional protection” language for the treaty was slowly but surely removed by anti-gun forces without objection by Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Countryman. The U.S. could have objected and had its way and preserved the language as the conference drafting the treaty operated under the “consensus rule” whereby all the major powers had to agree on the final text.

What happened was not just part of the usual give and take of such negotiations, but a deliberate act of bad faith by Hillary Clinton. The firearms community was under the impression that the Department of State was negotiating in good faith. However, release of Mrs. Clinton’s B******i emails revealed the t***h. As it turned out one of the reasons she supported the treaty was because it was opposed by the NRA. She wrote this in an email in March, 2011: “You know we’ve tried to support the U.N. small arms treaty but we have run into, as usual, fierce NRA and congressional opposition. But, I believe we have to keep trying. All the best, H.” Other emails showed her actively working with and meeting with anti-gun groups supporting the treaty at the U.N. Hillary herself identified that the treaty was about “small arms,” the U.N. term for gun control.

Unfortunately, there is neither time nor space here to go into the onerous provisions of the treaty, which themselves would merit rejection of the instrument. In the final analysis, the fact that American rights were deliberately given away should be more than sufficient reason for it never to be adopted.

• Thomas L. Mason is co-author with David Keene of “Shall Not Be Infringed: The New Threats to Your Second Amendment” (Skyhorse Publications, 2016).

Just for the record bubba, how on earth did you turn my statement of Hillary signing on to the Small Arms Treaty to Hillary ACTUALLY coming into Americans homes and confiscating guns..?? My statement NEVER said that. Look back and see.

So butnugget, here is but one example. Do you wish the "SmackDown" to continue.?? And notice, its not a "right wing conspiracy nut site.."

Crayons Loc: St Jo, Texas

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

Awesome, so what evidence do you have for me then?

whats the point of tellin you l*****ts anything when you only believe scripted moveon.org/mediamatters propaganda

Common_Sense_Matters

trucksterbud wrote:

Here is the article, which as I pointed out, since you have NO research sk**ls it must be spoon fed to you.

From The Washington Times, which is hardly a "RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY NUT JOB" site.

Really, in that the hill you wish to die on, figuratively speaking of course?

Media Bias Fact Check wrote:

Although the Washington Times has a very strong right editorial bias, they report straight news with a much lower bias. Therefore, we rate them Right-Center biased overall, and factually mixed due to poor sourcing, holding editorial postition that are contrary to scientific consensus, and failed fact checks.

Of course they failed to call The Washington Times on their running of conspiracy theories, but nobody is perfect.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/

Is the Washington Times a reliable source? Yahoo Answers topic

I challenge you to find one CREDIBLE yes verdict.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

https://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Washington_Times

https://www.quora.com/Is-Washington-Times-a-f**e-news-site

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

Now, care to look into The Washington Times founder? Well I do, your v**e don't count.

http://www.unification.net/2002/20020521_1.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon#Criticisms (Wow, what a whack job he was)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_movement (Wow, people actually belief such crap?)

trucksterbud wrote:

By Thomas L. Mason - - Thursday, December 15, 2016

Another of President Obama’s brazen acts as he leaves office is a “parting shot” at American gun owners by submitting the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification. For the uninitiated, the term refers to turning around in your saddle as you ride away from a losing battle and firing one last round at your enemy.

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was negotiated from 2006, during the Bush administration, through 2013 with the Obama administration. The original intent of the treaty was theoretically to prohibit arms t***sfers to regimes that abused human rights. From the very start though, gun control groups looked upon the treaty as an end run around America’s domestic reluctance to adopt their agenda — if Congress and the state legislatures wouldn’t pass gun control why not get the U.N. to make it a permanent part of its agenda or even better part of international law? Gun control groups have pursued their agenda at the organization since 1995 but were frustrated by the likes of Ambassador John R. Bolton who single-handedly stopped a U.N. treaty effort in 2001 that would have regulated U.S. civilian firearms.

The proposed ATT gave them the opportunity they had been waiting for, a legally binding treaty imposing regulation and conditions on the t***sfer and maybe possession of any weapon from a pistol to a battle ship. As incredible as it seems, the U.N. Human Rights Commission has already interpreted lack of gun control as a human rights abuse. The treaty is now in effect and the United States has signed it.

The Bush administration and its chief negotiator Ambassador Donald Mahley recognized the danger of a treaty whose scope included civilian firearms. During early negotiations Mr. Mahley convinced the U.N., and countries supporting the treaty, to exempt firearms held under “national Constitutional protection,” i.e. the American Second Amendment. This language was in the U.N. reports that were the basis for the final negotiations at the ATT Conferences in 2012.

The e******n of Barack Obama and the appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of State changed everything. Mrs. Clinton demoted Mr. Mahley and replaced him with Under Secretary of State Tom Countryman, a shaggy-haired disarmament specialist who had no interest in protecting American gun rights. Mr. Mahley himself fell ill with pancreatic cancer and died in 2013, an unsung hero for American rights. The NRA and other gun rights groups lobbied the new administration in good faith not to give away what Mr. Mahley had accomplished. In 2011 Executive-Vice President of the NRA Wayne La Pierre appeared before the U.N. and bluntly told them that the ATT would be opposed unless there were protections of American gun rights. He was ignored. Fifty-seven U.S. senators wrote the Obama administration and made essentially the same point. They were ignored. In negotiations with the State Department, and treaty supporters, we pointed out time after time that a treaty that included American civilian firearms would never be ratified by the United States. We were ignored.

The “national Constitutional protection” language for the treaty was slowly but surely removed by anti-gun forces without objection by Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Countryman. The U.S. could have objected and had its way and preserved the language as the conference drafting the treaty operated under the “consensus rule” whereby all the major powers had to agree on the final text.

What happened was not just part of the usual give and take of such negotiations, but a deliberate act of bad faith by Hillary Clinton. The firearms community was under the impression that the Department of State was negotiating in good faith. However, release of Mrs. Clinton’s B******i emails revealed the t***h. As it turned out one of the reasons she supported the treaty was because it was opposed by the NRA. She wrote this in an email in March, 2011: “You know we’ve tried to support the U.N. small arms treaty but we have run into, as usual, fierce NRA and congressional opposition. But, I believe we have to keep trying. All the best, H.” Other emails showed her actively working with and meeting with anti-gun groups supporting the treaty at the U.N. Hillary herself identified that the treaty was about “small arms,” the U.N. term for gun control.

Unfortunately, there is neither time nor space here to go into the onerous provisions of the treaty, which themselves would merit rejection of the instrument. In the final analysis, the fact that American rights were deliberately given away should be more than sufficient reason for it never to be adopted.

• Thomas L. Mason is co-author with David Keene of “Shall Not Be Infringed: The New Threats to Your Second Amendment” (Skyhorse Publications, 2016).

Just for the record bubba, how on earth did you turn my statement of Hillary signing on to the Small Arms Treaty to Hillary ACTUALLY coming into Americans homes and confiscating guns..?? My statement NEVER said that. Look back and see.

So butnugget, here is but one example. Do you wish the "SmackDown" to continue.?? And notice, its not a "right wing conspiracy nut site.."

By Thomas L. Mason - - Thursday, December 15, 2016... (show quote)

Whao, I didn't realize how trustworthy a source you have there in The Washington Times, it's founder and the religion he created how could I be so wrong? Yes, sarcasm intended, thank you for further proving my point you simpleton.

Common_Sense_Matters

Crayons wrote:

whats the point of tellin you l*****ts anything when you only believe scripted moveon.org/mediamatters propaganda

I am sorry that my reliance on credible sources infuriates you, I will try to do better to start relying on lies, propaganda and conspiracy theories... Wait... Why would I want to do that? Do I look that stupid to you? Oops, I forgot who I was talking to, you are hardly one to judge how stupid someone else looks when you so readily buy into all that garbage.

Crayons Loc: St Jo, Texas

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

I am sorry that my reliance on credible sources infuriates you, I will try to do better to start relying on lies, propaganda and conspiracy theories... Wait... Why would I want to do that? Do I look that stupid to you? Oops, I forgot who I was talking to, you are hardly one to judge how stupid someone else looks when you so readily buy into all that garbage.

Marxist l*****ts think there’s nothing wrong with silencing, censoring, defaming, de-platforming or just flat-out murdering their political opponents. The U.S. Home Grown MSLSD C****es have become lawless, irrational and insane. L*****ts respect no laws, rules, logic or evidence.

Whats the point of talking anymore when you only want violence and civil war.

Common_Sense_Matters

Crayons wrote:

Marxist l*****ts think there’s nothing wrong with silencing, censoring, defaming, de-platforming or just flat-out murdering their political opponents. The U.S. Home Grown MSLSD C****es have become lawless, irrational and insane. L*****ts respect no laws, rules, logic or evidence.

Whats the point of talking anymore when you only want violence and civil war.

Interesting perspective you have there. I can only assume that they were gleaned from the voices in your head. Where have I spoken out in favor of violence and/or civil war?

Crayons Loc: St Jo, Texas

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

Where have I spoken out in favor of violence and/or civil war?

By defending the marxist propaganda machine you are defending and normalizing their calls for violence and civil war against the hard workin honest conservative christian taxpaying citizen

Common_Sense_Matters

Crayons wrote:

By defending the marxist propaganda machine you are defending and normalizing their calls for violence and civil war against the hard workin honest conservative christian taxpaying citizen

Yeah, the only "side" I have seen calling for the violence and civil war are the nut jobs on the right. Not EVERYONE on the right are nut jobs mind you, but they sure have been coming out of the woodwork lately. I believe that your perspective is grossly skewed.

trucksterbud

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

Whao, I didn't realize how trustworthy a source you have there in The Washington Times, it's founder and the religion he created how could I be so wrong? Yes, sarcasm intended, thank you for further proving my point you simpleton.

Wow, didn't know you were such a know it all. Good to hear. I shall consult you in the future if I wish to have clarification or clusterfukation on all things common sense.

Just so you know, you have identified yourself as one who CANNOT lose an argument, or CANNOT be proven wrong. In your own mind of course. Your arguments and posts prove your skewed tangent in life. I have read - but not responded to - your posts elsewhere. They all show the same bias. Can't stand losing or being proven wrong.

For every site there is there are several other sites that will refute any information posted. I thought you would be that INTELLIGENT but apparently I'm wrong. See, I can do it. I assumed you had a little intelligence, but you proved me wrong. I admit it. I was wrong.

BTW, I didn't go to one site you posted. Didn't go, don't care. Simple as that. There are another 50 sites with conflicting information to boot. Bet you didn't know that one did you..??

Soooo, you win buttnugget. End of conversation. Adios, MoFo…..