One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Introduce Yourself
New Never Trumper Here
Page <<first <prev 12 of 12
Apr 25, 2020 17:56:07   #
son of witless
 
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
By the way, "away" does not imply "scared".



The oldtimers here are like Joe Biden. We know what they will post and after awhile because they just are not that sharp anymore, things are stale. An Ocassio-Cortez type would be a breath of fresh air.

Reply
Apr 25, 2020 18:05:20   #
bilordinary Loc: SW Washington
 
son of witless wrote:
The oldtimers here are like Joe Biden. We know what they will post and after awhile because they just are not that sharp anymore, things are stale. An Ocassio-Cortez type would be a breath of fresh air.


Some don't make it to Hollywood! They go into politics.

Reply
Apr 25, 2020 18:14:09   #
working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina
 
son of witless wrote:
The oldtimers here are like Joe Biden. We know what they will post and after awhile because they just are not that sharp anymore, things are stale. An Ocassio-Cortez type would be a breath of fresh air.


In fairness, some of us old timers can also predict what some of you old timers post. Some Randian conservatives would also be a breath of fresh air, what with their pro-choice and atheistic views to freshen conservative arguments.

Reply
 
 
Apr 25, 2020 18:46:29   #
bilordinary Loc: SW Washington
 
son of witless wrote:
I like 2 lb line. If the line is too heavy you don't get the same enjoyment. I just wish you guys would stop scaring them away. You have to tease them. Make them think they are doing well. Like they have a chance to win. Then you set that hook.

I used to love catching mackerels. Eating them is another story. If they are fresh, they are not horrible, but after a few weeks in the freezer, they are animal food.


Aren't you supposed to smoke them?

Reply
Apr 25, 2020 18:52:11   #
JohnCorrespondent
 
son of witless wrote:
The oldtimers here are like Joe Biden. We know what they will post and after awhile because they just are not that sharp anymore, things are stale. An Ocassio-Cortez type would be a breath of fresh air.


From what little I've seen & heard:

Ocasio-Cortez does have a wit on her. Nobody should try insulting her; she'd likely have a comeback. But the main thing I see about her is she's daring.

Recently my personal favorite has been Ilhan Omar. She's a really good speaker. Usually I don't have much patience with listening. She's one of the few people, such that, when she speaks, I might want to listen to her entire speech (and I've done so at least once). Listening to her is better than reading.

I don't know much about Joe Biden yet. I imagine that he's more like a typical politician; some of them are interesting when they're a candidate, but when they get elected then they seem to get absorbed into the whole big machine of the status quo. After a candidate gets elected they typically become less interesting. A Joe Biden presidency would be stable. My understanding is that Joe Biden "listens to experts". That's good, and it's a big part of what a president should do. And he's definitely got some relevant experience. When I heard that Sanders, Obama, and Warren were endorsing Biden then I had no doubt left that I'd v**e for Biden. I would have preferred Sanders or Warren as president though (or Obama if he were an option again).

Obama (another good speaker) gave a good speech endorsing Biden.

Regarding Obama, he's got an interesting wit too. In his endorsement speech (which I think was more than 10 minutes long) he never says anything negative about Trump; but some of the positive things he said seemed contrasting to the Trump presidency. I can't prove it, but I feel that he was partly speaking against the Trump presidency.

If it was about the Trump presidency, it was indirect, and yet, still, it was appropriate to speak in just that way, and to say those things for our time!

When Trump tries to do something indirect like that, he's much less subtle, and it seems much more crass and not very intelligent.

Reply
Apr 25, 2020 19:07:11   #
bilordinary Loc: SW Washington
 
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
From what little I've seen & heard:

Ocasio-Cortez does have a wit on her. Nobody should try insulting her; she'd likely have a comeback. But the main thing I see about her is she's daring.

Recently my personal favorite has been Ilhan Omar. She's a really good speaker. Usually I don't have much patience with listening. She's one of the few people, such that, when she speaks, I might want to listen to her entire speech (and I've done so at least once). Listening to her is better than reading.

I don't know much about Joe Biden yet. I imagine that he's more like a typical politician; some of them are interesting when they're a candidate, but when they get elected then they seem to get absorbed into the whole big machine of the status quo. After a candidate gets elected they typically become less interesting. A Joe Biden presidency would be stable. My understanding is that Joe Biden "listens to experts". That's good, and it's a big part of what a president should do. And he's definitely got some relevant experience. When I heard that Sanders, Obama, and Warren were endorsing Biden then I had no doubt left that I'd v**e for Biden. I would have preferred Sanders or Warren as president though (or Obama if he were an option again).

Obama (another good speaker) gave a good speech endorsing Biden.

Regarding Obama, he's got an interesting wit too. In his endorsement speech (which I think was more than 10 minutes long) he never says anything negative about Trump; but some of the positive things he said seemed contrasting to the Trump presidency. I can't prove it, but I feel that he was partly speaking against the Trump presidency.

If it was about the Trump presidency, it was indirect, and yet, still, it was appropriate to speak in just that way, and to say those things for our time!

When Trump tries to do something indirect like that, he's much less subtle, and it seems much more crass and not very intelligent.
From what little I've seen & heard: br br Oca... (show quote)


Some just are drawn to the devious types.

Reply
Apr 25, 2020 21:23:20   #
son of witless
 
working class stiff wrote:
In fairness, some of us old timers can also predict what some of you old timers post. Some Randian conservatives would also be a breath of fresh air, what with their pro-choice and atheistic views to freshen conservative arguments.


Predicting what I will say is easy. I will read what a l*****t posts and I will question him or her. Then I will complain because I will not get an answer. It is the pattern I rarely break. Once in awhile I will post a new topic and I will be questioned in turn and asked to prove what my big mouth said. My pattern is to comply with that request.

Reply
 
 
Apr 25, 2020 21:43:43   #
JohnCorrespondent
 
bilordinary wrote:
Some just are drawn to the devious types.


No; devious is the wrong word for it. As I described, the things Obama said (in his speech endorsing Biden) _are_ the appropriate things to say for our time, and the things he said were positive. He was describing positive things we need in leadership. He's smart enough not to say them in a negative way, which is somewhat rare; most people tend to say something negative when they speak. Knowing how to say it all positively is where the wit comes in (primarily wit as in intelligence, more than wit as in humor).

It is true though that the good qualities he said about leadership bring to mind Trump's lack of them. Whose fault is that? We do have a need for good qualities in leadership whether Trump is instantiating them or not.

Trump is continually putting himself in the spotlight and making errors or doing wrong things while in the spotlight. Then Obama steps up into this moment and describes positive things with a smile on his face (which happens to be exactly the right way to make an endorsement speech -- it's just unusual that someone would do it so well). It's partly the _moment_, the circumstance, that is humorous; and it's partly the fact that Trump keeps unwittingly putting his worst foot forward.

Reply
Apr 25, 2020 22:00:56   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
working class stiff wrote:
In fairness, some of us old timers can also predict what some of you old timers post. Some Randian conservatives would also be a breath of fresh air, what with their pro-choice and atheistic views to freshen conservative arguments.


I try to remain unpredictable, WCS!!
Stay safe, and........



Reply
Apr 26, 2020 04:50:56   #
working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina
 
archie bunker wrote:
I try to remain unpredictable, WCS!!
Stay safe, and........


That certainly was. LOL. Hope you are well.

Reply
Apr 27, 2020 00:15:32   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
No; devious is the wrong word for it. As I described, the things Obama said (in his speech endorsing Biden) _are_ the appropriate things to say for our time, and the things he said were positive. He was describing positive things we need in leadership. He's smart enough not to say them in a negative way, which is somewhat rare; most people tend to say something negative when they speak. Knowing how to say it all positively is where the wit comes in (primarily wit as in intelligence, more than wit as in humor).

It is true though that the good qualities he said about leadership bring to mind Trump's lack of them. Whose fault is that? We do have a need for good qualities in leadership whether Trump is instantiating them or not.

Trump is continually putting himself in the spotlight and making errors or doing wrong things while in the spotlight. Then Obama steps up into this moment and describes positive things with a smile on his face (which happens to be exactly the right way to make an endorsement speech -- it's just unusual that someone would do it so well). It's partly the _moment_, the circumstance, that is humorous; and it's partly the fact that Trump keeps unwittingly putting his worst foot forward.
No; devious is the wrong word for it. As I descri... (show quote)


Endless War Explained In 2 Minutes

https://youtu.be/z2hRRGHBeSw

The Council on Foreign Relations - James Perloff Exposes the CFR Agenda - Corbett Report
https://youtu.be/VT3BzYUZpo4


This is how the take over of BOTH parties was achieved:


Both party “leaderships” have been partners in the International Banker’s NWO/NeoCON Agenda
Both parties have promoted - NWO F*****m/Warfare & NWO Socialism (international bank funding and bailouts by taxpayers)
Both parties have been partners in working for the PRIVATE Federal Reserve Bankers. “OUR” Government bailed the Banksters out, and left the citizens/taxpayers holding the bag for Trillions.
Both parties have promoted perpetual “war”. Just pay attention to Obama’s Foreign policy; Same as the NeoCON’s foreign policy of perpetual wars; based on the phony “War on Terrorism”.
The e******n fixers have been trying to put it in place again, to eliminate all other non-owned candidates.
The banker controlled media (FOX,CNN,CBS.NBC, and ABC do all they can to install another CFR puppet. Just go to You Tube to see the prejudice and party corruption used against Ron Paul. The owned media, with their Talking Bobble Heads, are full partners in our nation’s sell out to a world socialist/f*****t dictatorship run by wannabe s***e masters.
Who will open their eyes and wake up others?
Some CFR commentary
http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/parapolitics/CFR_NWO.htm

The 3,000 seats of the CFR quickly filled with members of America's elite. Today,CFR members occupy key positions in government, the mass media, financial institutions, multinational corporations, the military, and the national security apparatus.
Since its inception, the CFR has served as an intermediary between high finance, big oil, corporate elitists and the U.S. government. The executive branch changes hands between Republican and Democratic administrations, but cabinet seats are always held by CFR members. It has been said by political commentators on the left and on the right that if you want to know what U.S. foreign policy will be next year, you should read Foreign Affairs this year.
The CFR's claim that "The Council has no affiliation with the U.S. government" is laughable. The justification for that statement is that funding comes from member dues, subscriptions to its Corporate Program, foundation grants, and so forth. All this really means is that the U.S. government does not exert any control over the CFR via the purse strings.
In reality, CFR members are very tightly affiliated with the U.S. government. Since 1940, every U.S. secretary of state (except for Gov. James Byrnes of South Carolina, the sole exception) has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or its younger brother, the Trilateral Commission. Also since 1940, every secretary of war and every secretary of defense has been a CFR member. During most of its existence, the Central Intelligence Agency has been headed by CFR members, beginning with CFR founding member Allen Dulles. Virtually every key U.S. national security and foreign policy adviser has been a CFR member for the past seventy years.
Almost all White House cabinet positions are occupied by CFR members. President Clinton, himself a member of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, employs almost one hundred CFR members in his administration. Presidents come and go, but the CFR's power--and agenda--always remains.
________________________________________
The CFR's Shroud of Secrecy - On its web page, the CFR boasts that its magazine, Foreign Affairs, "is acclaimed for its analysis of recent international developments and for its forecasts of emerging trends." It's not much of a challenge to do so, though, when you play a part in determining what those emerging trends will be.
This point is underscored a paragraph later on their web page: "Perhaps best known for the history-making "X" article by George Kennan, that defined Cold War containment policy, a recent Foreign Affairs article by Harvard's Samuel Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?" has already helped define the post-Cold War debate."
So are they predicting trends or creating them? The answer is fairly obvious to anyone who has earnestly reflected on the matter.
The CFR fancies itself to represent a diverse range cultural and political interests, but its members are predominantly wealthy males, and their policies reflect their elitist biases. The CFR attempts to maintain the charade of diversity via its Non-Attribution Rule, which allows members to engage in "a free, frank, and open exchange of ideas" without fear of having any of their statements attributed in public. The flip side of this, obviously, is a dark cloud of secrecy which envelopes the CFR's activities.
CFR meetings are usually held in secret and are restricted to members and very select guests. All members are free to express themselves at meetings unrestrained, because the Non-Attribution Rule guarantees that "others will not attribute or characterize their statements in public media forums or knowingly t***smit them to persons who will," according to the Council on Foreign Relations' 1992 Annual Report.
The report goes on to forbid any meeting participant "to publish a speaker's statement in attributed form in any newspaper; to repeat it on television or radio, or on a speaker's platform, or in a classroom; or to go beyond a memo of limited circulation."
The end result is that the only information the public has on the CFR is the information they release for public consumption, which should send up red f**gs for anyone who understands the immense effect that CFR directives have on America's foreign policy. The public knows what the CFR wants the public to know about the CFR, and nothing more. There is one hole in the fog of secrecy, however: a book entitled Tragedy and Hope, written by an "insider" named Dr. Carroll Quigley, mentor of Bill Clinton.
Google: “Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral, Commission, Bilderberg Group”________________________________________
CFR Roster Source: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/cfrall1.htm#d

A few more notables in Both Parties Serving Bilderberger’s CFR/TC/BB AGENDA:

Both Bushes - CFR,B (R)
Dick Cheney - CFR,TC (R)
Both Clintons - CFR,TC,B (D)
Albert Gore, Jr. CFR (D)
Obama & Biden - CFR (D
Jimmy Carter - CFR,TC (D)
Newt Gingrich - CFR (R)
Mitch McConnell - CFR (R)
Heidi Cruz - CFR (R)
Rick Perry - BB (D&R)
John Kerry CFR (D)
John McCain - CFR (R)
Condoleezza Rice CFR/84 (R)
Zbig Brzezinski - TC, BB (D)
H. Kissinger - CFR,TC,BB ( R) Paul Volker- CFR,TC,BB (D) Alan Greenspan CFR,TC, BB
Ben Bernanke - BB
Tim Geithner - CFR,TC BB
George Soros - CFR,BB
Donald Rumsfeld CFR ,BB(R)
Jacob “Jack” Lew CFR (D)
David Rockefeller CFR,TC,BB

BTW: Trump and most of his cabinet are not CFR members.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 12 of 12
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Introduce Yourself
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.