More American politics for Europeans
-
jesarg wrote:
causing the rise of ISIS
Utter crap. ISIS was caused by the Bush administration gutting the new Iraqi govt army and civil service of sunnis. They then set up their own state in Syria. Why do you think the ISIS' generals are from Sadams old army?
The Bush administration and Obama administration had roughly the same foreign policy. Hillary was a big part of that policy during her tenure as Secretary of State. Yes, there are other people to blame, too, but they aren't running for president right now.
-
The real sad fact here in America is that the media is just as complicit. They keep pushing that the citizens only have a choice between the two, but there is a third party called the Libertarian party with a candidate on all 50 state ballots. Neither Trump nor Clinton will be a good choice for POTUS and the Libertarian Gary Johnson is a much better choice.
When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others. Same thing when you are stupid.
Go ahead - throw your vote away![^] :-D
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
and I sure as hell don't envy you. and if you had half a brain, you would know that if Hillary is elected president, then our relationship with Israel will become even less. And once you guys have no allies, then your ass is grass...or sand. At least Trump (with all his faults) will be more of an ally to Israel then the libtards are.
Were I an American, I would worry about the results of the election in either case. Clinton, as you said, will continue Obama's policy of eroding American freedoms, rule of Law, and ethos. Trump will behave like a bull in a china shop. Clinton is at least predictable, in that we know that her policies (both domestic and foreign) will be disastrous. As for Israel, I agree that America's active enmity would be disastrous for us. However, if the next administration is like Obama's, I expect that we'll muddle through. Israel has established strong diplomatic and trade relations with Russia, China, India, and other powers, and is no longer surrounded by enemies capable of destroying it. The only existential danger faced by Israel at the moment is the Iranian bomb, and on that issue, ironically, we have common cause with many of the Arab states...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Being an outlaw does not preclude one from obtaining a proper education.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Forsooth!:thumbsup:
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
Because our media companies just forward what they want to?
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Our media is very intrusive in US politics, if it werent for Muslim attacks its all we would have on the TV! :)
-
The Bush administration and Obama administration had roughly the same foreign policy. Hillary was a big part of that policy during her tenure as Secretary of State. Yes, there are other people to blame, too, but they aren't running for president right now.
You were wrong, admit it. Disenfranchising Sunnis was done by the Bush administration, not Clinton.
-
Being an outlaw does not preclude one from obtaining a proper education.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Reminds me of the quote "A good 'ol boy can become an intellectual, but an intellectual can NOT become a good 'ol boy.", I believe it was in reference to Bush junior.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
Our media is very intrusive in US politics, if it werent for Muslim attacks its all we would have on the TV! :)
That's why I don't watch TV. It sucks :sigh: :sigh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Reminds me of the quote "A good 'ol boy can become an intellectual, but an intellectual can NOT become a good 'ol boy.", I believe it was in reference to Bush junior.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
A "good 'ol boy" - a person who belongs to a network of friends and associates with close ties of loyalty and mutual support. More often than not, the term is (incorrectly, as is the case here) applied to white southern males. In actuality, it refers to a something more along the lines of a clique, where membership is not easily breached by "outsiders".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
A "good 'ol boy" - a person who belongs to a network of friends and associates with close ties of loyalty and mutual support. More often than not, the term is (incorrectly, as is the case here) applied to white southern males. In actuality, it refers to a something more along the lines of a clique, where membership is not easily breached by "outsiders".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013You're no fun, I like the Merriam-Webster definition better. good old boy noun \ˈgu̇d-ōl(d)-ˌbȯi\ Full Definition of good old boy : a usually white Southerner who conforms to the values, culture, or behavior of his peers
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
You're no fun, I like the Merriam-Webster definition better. good old boy noun \ˈgu̇d-ōl(d)-ˌbȯi\ Full Definition of good old boy : a usually white Southerner who conforms to the values, culture, or behavior of his peers
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
What does Merriam-Webster know. They're not good'ol boys. From a Tennessee hillbilly, yours truly.
When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others. Same thing when you are stupid.
Ugh, alright you guys just killed that quote for me...But in my defense I am a yankee (and damn proud of it) and the quote was from a Texan, one James Mcmurtry of Austin, yes he's the son of Larry. :)
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
All the points I made can be verified by a variety of activists and bloggers from both liberal and conservative sources; I don't think any are disputed. The recent DNC protests and Wikileaks stuff is not being reported much by the major media sources, though (with the exception of CNN inventing conspiracy theories of Julian Assange of working with Russia despite zero evidence). If you're interested, a 30-minute interview with a conservative activist who was at the DNC can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7SvB9qEpNQ I think it bizarre that the Europeans flooded the soapbox with opinions when Trump ran a campaign on politically-incorrect statements, but when Clinton drags the country through the type of scandals usually done in third world dictatorships (and not in the USA) they don't seem to be paying much attention to American politics anymore, despite it being orders of magnitude more disturbing.
Sounds like it could be interesting, at the very least (mudslinging not-withstanding.) I'll have a watch, thanks.
-
You were wrong, admit it. Disenfranchising Sunnis was done by the Bush administration, not Clinton.
Actually, politicians are just puppets, blame them all you want. They are put there by the highest bidder/contributor. Remember to follow the money. Who owns the media; who benefits more from war? As I said in an earlier post, this is all political theater. Regardless as to who wins, they both have the same agenda, "What's in it for me?" The game they play is to keep us blaming the other person for what is going on and fighting one another, so we remain distracted and not see what is happening now, right in front of us. The media switches stories back and forth to keep us moving in circles to boost their ratings. We tend to focus on what's in front of us at the moment and once the "excitement" of the news story is gone, it's on to something new. If you want to blame anyone, blame the ignorant, lazy, and arrogant in America. There are those of us who do see through the game and try to make decisions accordingly, but so many in the US have been brought up with the dependence on the government, they don't want the current handouts to go away. All these people want to do is hangout on Facebook, post selfies on Instagram, and watch YouTube videos. I could go on and on about this, but I'll stop here. I, also, have to take responsibility, just like those I have mentioned above. I've done nothing to change the way things are and I'm too fearful of losing what I have. I will say this again; blame who you will, those who are directly responsible will remain in the shadows; those who allowed it to happen are too ignorant of the fact.
When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others. Same thing when you are stupid.
-
The real sad fact here in America is that the media is just as complicit. They keep pushing that the citizens only have a choice between the two, but there is a third party called the Libertarian party with a candidate on all 50 state ballots. Neither Trump nor Clinton will be a good choice for POTUS and the Libertarian Gary Johnson is a much better choice.
When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others. Same thing when you are stupid.
Donathan.Hutchings wrote:
but there is a third party called the Libertarian party with a candidate on all 50 state ballots.
Actually there is also a fourth, Green which is nearly on all states. Will be by end of August most likely. IMO, only a brainwashed fool would vote for either of the so called "two parties". They are both dead to me. If you are a conservative you should consider voting for Libertarians. If you are a liberal you should consider voting for the Green party. Bring back respectful politics. Boot the good 'ol boys club, both DNC and GOP.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
The real sad fact here in America is that the media is just as complicit. They keep pushing that the citizens only have a choice between the two, but there is a third party called the Libertarian party with a candidate on all 50 state ballots. Neither Trump nor Clinton will be a good choice for POTUS and the Libertarian Gary Johnson is a much better choice.
When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others. Same thing when you are stupid.
That would be a fine choice. Unfortunately the libertarian won't won. It just won't happen.
-
All the points I made can be verified by a variety of activists and bloggers from both liberal and conservative sources; I don't think any are disputed. The recent DNC protests and Wikileaks stuff is not being reported much by the major media sources, though (with the exception of CNN inventing conspiracy theories of Julian Assange of working with Russia despite zero evidence). If you're interested, a 30-minute interview with a conservative activist who was at the DNC can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7SvB9qEpNQ I think it bizarre that the Europeans flooded the soapbox with opinions when Trump ran a campaign on politically-incorrect statements, but when Clinton drags the country through the type of scandals usually done in third world dictatorships (and not in the USA) they don't seem to be paying much attention to American politics anymore, despite it being orders of magnitude more disturbing.
jesarg wrote:
All the points I made can be verified by a variety of activists and bloggers
Activists and bloggers? Wow...now that is some impressive credentials right there, I mean if a blogger has said these things then damn, they must be true.
-
jesarg wrote:
All the points I made can be verified by a variety of activists and bloggers
Activists and bloggers? Wow...now that is some impressive credentials right there, I mean if a blogger has said these things then damn, they must be true.
Major media outlets are also covering current political events, but if I post "CNN reported" or "NBC reported" or "The Washington Post reported", then people's response would be "Who cares what they reported? What did the reliable sources report?" In the case of the recent Democratic National Convention (DNC), the most reliable sources are the political activists and bloggers who were present at the event and reported on their first-hand experiences (sometimes with video). If first-hand people from a variety of different political viewpoints and organizations independently agree on key points, then it's safe to call it an accurate representation of the events. I stuck to writing only the easily verifiable information in the original post, so if you'd like to verify, you can.
-
Major media outlets are also covering current political events, but if I post "CNN reported" or "NBC reported" or "The Washington Post reported", then people's response would be "Who cares what they reported? What did the reliable sources report?" In the case of the recent Democratic National Convention (DNC), the most reliable sources are the political activists and bloggers who were present at the event and reported on their first-hand experiences (sometimes with video). If first-hand people from a variety of different political viewpoints and organizations independently agree on key points, then it's safe to call it an accurate representation of the events. I stuck to writing only the easily verifiable information in the original post, so if you'd like to verify, you can.
jesarg wrote:
Major media outlets are also covering current political events, but if I post "CNN reported" or "NBC reported" or "The Washington Post reported", then people's response would be "Who cares what they reported? What did the reliable sources report?"
True, people do have a rather annoying habit of adopting that ad hominem fallacy.
jesarg wrote:
the most reliable sources are the political activists and bloggers who were present at the event and reported on their first-hand experiences
A common mistake in today's digital age where people have forgotten about quality of information and journalism, people today think that the only things you can trust are the things that are free and made by amateurs, not for any credible reason, simply because that is the only thing people are willing to consume so in the process convince themselves that it must be better. We see it with "open source" as much as "mainstream media" news. Ask yourself this, how reliable were those bloggers and twitter users in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing? In case you can't remember...they were not accurate at all. The term "eye witness" is just an excuse to claim misinformation as fact.
-
jesarg wrote:
Major media outlets are also covering current political events, but if I post "CNN reported" or "NBC reported" or "The Washington Post reported", then people's response would be "Who cares what they reported? What did the reliable sources report?"
True, people do have a rather annoying habit of adopting that ad hominem fallacy.
jesarg wrote:
the most reliable sources are the political activists and bloggers who were present at the event and reported on their first-hand experiences
A common mistake in today's digital age where people have forgotten about quality of information and journalism, people today think that the only things you can trust are the things that are free and made by amateurs, not for any credible reason, simply because that is the only thing people are willing to consume so in the process convince themselves that it must be better. We see it with "open source" as much as "mainstream media" news. Ask yourself this, how reliable were those bloggers and twitter users in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing? In case you can't remember...they were not accurate at all. The term "eye witness" is just an excuse to claim misinformation as fact.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
people have forgotten about quality of information and journalism, people today think that the only things you can trust are the things that are free and made by amateurs, not for any credible reason
Sometimes providing high-quality journalism is difficult. Unexpected protests might ruin a convention where news articles were pre-written in a cheerful tone based off the convention's script. Making useful news corrections to cover the protests might be easier for people without a media executive boss implicated in the same election-rigging scandal as the politicians on stage. The high-quality journalists surely appreciate the benevolent assistance the social media members provide. And, regardless of any faults social media may have, we might appreciate them as well.
