RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


thompsonx -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/18/2015 4:10:52 AM)


ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Jeremy I'd tie on the first nuke to be fired.


Eschew the rope in favor of duct tape and super glue[:D]




Lucylastic -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/18/2015 10:08:34 AM)

Bernie speaks
What the Republicans heard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LATqcoGOsxE

No...Im NOT saying every "republican", its comedy enjoy it...laugh!!!




tweakabelle -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/18/2015 11:59:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Piers is the only compelling reason for the UK retaining a nuclear capability. Jeremy I'd tie on the first nuke to be fired.

Why go so soft on the odious Piers Morgan? He deserves much worse. Typical liberal bleeding heart pinko. [:D]




CreativeDominant -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/18/2015 12:07:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Piers is the only compelling reason for the UK retaining a nuclear capability. Jeremy I'd tie on the first nuke to be fired.

Why go so soft on the odious Piers Morgan? He deserves much worse. Typical liberal bleeding heart pinko. [:D]

I don't know that I've heard him described any more clearly in such a succinct fashion.




PeonForHer -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/18/2015 12:42:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Piers is the only compelling reason for the UK retaining a nuclear capability. Jeremy I'd tie on the first nuke to be fired.

Why go so soft on the odious Piers Morgan? He deserves much worse. Typical liberal bleeding heart pinko. [:D]

I don't know that I've heard him described any more clearly in such a succinct fashion.


It probably won't be greatly surprising to you to learn that in the UK he's known as centre-left rather than far left.




CreativeDominant -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/18/2015 1:47:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Piers is the only compelling reason for the UK retaining a nuclear capability. Jeremy I'd tie on the first nuke to be fired.

Why go so soft on the odious Piers Morgan? He deserves much worse. Typical liberal bleeding heart pinko. [:D]

I don't know that I've heard him described any more clearly in such a succinct fashion.


It probably won't be greatly surprising to you to learn that in the UK he's known as centre-left rather than far left.

You'd be right...it isn't.




Lucylastic -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/19/2015 5:54:32 AM)

On Thursday, a man named Wayne Simmons was arrested by the FBI for what the agency called “major fraud” — lying about having worked for the Central Intelligence Agency for nearly 30 years, and then using that lie to obtain government security clearances.
Before his arrest, though, Simmons was a frequent contributor on Fox News, which billed him as a “former CIA operative.” And as might be expected, he used his claimed experience to make provocative assertions about U.S. national security policy, particularly America’s vulnerability to terrorism.
In light of his indictment, ThinkProgress reviewed his appearances on Fox News. Simmons was regularly featured on the network since at least 2002, so there were a lot to choose from.
1
A little more than a year after the 2008 presidential election, Simmons told Fox News that president Obama — who he called the “boy king” — was directly responsible for a number of recent acts of terrorism.
“Since the coronation of the boy king 15 months ago, it is again not an accident that every third world despot — every third world despot — from Venezuela through Cuba to North Korea, virtually anyone in the Middle East that decides they want to take a shot at the United States and our Allies is doing just that,” Simmons said . “These guys now that are staring to come out of the woodwork are emboldened. They recognize, as do the third world nations [and] the dictators, that there will be no repercussions from the Obama administration.”

2
Speaking on The O’Reilly Factor in 2005, Simmons defended then-President George W. Bush’s decision to go into Iraq, and said Democratic-controlled government would cause “9-1-1s unabated.”
This, he said, was “not an opinion — this will absolutely be proven to be fact.”
“If the Democrats come into power in the United States and re-employ their vision of defense for this country, we will have 9-1-1s unabated,” Simmons said. “That’s not maybe. We know what took place in the past. And I still don’t understand exactly what it is that the Americans expect President Bush to do any different than he’s already done, Bill.”

3
In an interview on Brian Kilmeade’s radio show last year, Simmons breathlessly described his theory for why Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared over the South China Sea: A “state-sponsored” attack, carried out by “guys like me.”
“This had to have been, in my opinion, a state sponsored … very sophisticated attack on this airplane, and it had to be done by guys like me, from the intelligence agency, an intelligence agency, or with a really heavy intelligence background to pull this off,” he said. “This was very, very meticulously planned, and it was pulled off.”
4
Employing another “guys like me” reference, Simmons in 2009 said that CIA operatives might abandon their posts because of then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, whom he called a “pathological liar.”
“The Speaker of the House is a pathological liar and her attacks on the CIA, the release of the CIA memos has so sent a chill through the CIA to guys like me,” he said. ” I can assure you that we are not going to go the extra mile ever in this climate to secure information and intelligence that’s going to protect the United States, so understand that … this has directly affected the National Security of the United States.”
5
Simmons appeared on the O’Reilly Factor in 2003 to discuss the interrogation of Saddam Hussein. He argued that the United States should be relatively unrestrained in their interrogation, including the use of “chemicals” and “mind-altering drugs.”
His justification was that he had personally witnessed much more extreme tactics employed by narco-terrorists. “I have been involved in or been — not involved in, been in the rooms when narco terrorist interrogations were taking place. And they are brutal. You don’t want to watch someone get their eyes cut out, have their tongues cut out,” Simmons said.

6
Appearing on Fox News in March, he asserted that White House adviser Valerie Jarrett was actually running the country. But she didn’t know how to defeat ISIS. For Simmons, the solution was very simple.
“We could end this in a week. And that’s not an exaggeration. That’s not hyperbole. We could run a number of sorties, thousands of sorties, locate, identify and designate absolutely decimate ISIS, ISIL, I.S., whatever you want to call them. They would all be dead,” he said.
When he criticized the FBI for being bad at background checks
7
He may be regretting this one now, but in 2007, Simmons criticized the FBI for allowing a security breach that resembles the situation he is currently in, for not properly vetting their staff.
At the time of his criticism, the agency had hired a woman who faked a marriage to win U.S. citizenship, and then used that citizenship to get a job at the FBI. When employed by the agency, the woman then used an FBI computer to search for information about her relatives.
“Somewhere along the line of course Douglas, someone, whoever was responsible for the background check at the FBI really, really fell down,” Simmons said on Fox News, as he himself was being described as a “former CIA officer.”

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/10/16/3713099/fox-news-wayne-simmons/




mnottertail -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/19/2015 9:06:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


You've proven nothing asshole except what you seem to be conservative. Given the last prominent conservative you can name was relevant 50 years ago...and the one area the two of you agreed on being unconstitutional...would, if it was withdrawn, give Presidents much more power to start wars without Congressional interference. Given your railing against what you seem to be unnecessary U.S. involvement elsewhere, that seems a bit inconsistent. Or is it that, unlike Goldwater, you prefer the President being solely accountable...especially if he's Republican...rather than having the flexibility that Goldwater sought?


Since there have not been conservatives that are prominent other than some days ago (Buckley described himself actually as more of a libertarian) or in some cases Patrick Buchanan, there are none more current to describe.

Since you cant be anything other than *****Ah ah! That's not allowed. Be nice or be moderated!***** it doesnt matter that it is inconvenient, and it doesnt seem to be inconsistent regardless of ws treason. http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/hillary-clintons-emails-reveal-that-george-w-bush-committed-treason/22854/

The law is unconstitutional, if you want to have that be the way this country operates, it needs an amendment.




CreativeDominant -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/19/2015 4:25:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


You've proven nothing asshole except what you seem to be conservative. Given the last prominent conservative you can name was relevant 50 years ago...and the one area the two of you agreed on being unconstitutional...would, if it was withdrawn, give Presidents much more power to start wars without Congressional interference. Given your railing against what you seem to be unnecessary U.S. involvement elsewhere, that seems a bit inconsistent. Or is it that, unlike Goldwater, you prefer the President being solely accountable...especially if he's Republican...rather than having the flexibility that Goldwater sought?


Since there have not been conservatives that are prominent other than some days ago (Buckley described himself actually as more of a libertarian) or in some cases Patrick Buchanan, there are none more current to describe.

Since you cant be anything other than *****Ah ah! That's not allowed. Be nice or be moderated!*****, it doesnt matter that it is inconvenient, and it doesnt seem to be inconsistent regardless of ws treason. http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/hillary-clintons-emails-reveal-that-george-w-bush-committed-treason/22854/

The law is unconstitutional, if you want to have that be the way this country operates, it needs an amendment.
And once again, the only "twue conservative" on the forum uses a left-wing piece that accuses Bush of treason while admitting that there's a distinct possibility that nothing in the 'proof' could be considered enough to charge Bush, Powell or anyone else with a crime, let alone the crime of treason.




bounty44 -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/19/2015 7:40:40 PM)

heck cd, id be open to his claim if the vile and vulgar critter even laid out a handful of identifiable and fairly orthodox conservative principles with which he agrees.

and I should apologize for my use of the word "critters"---its a term I use for animals that I actually like and find appealing.

here's a start:

http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

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




M38284 -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/20/2015 5:57:35 AM)

@mnottertail

Attacking others ad hominem is not cool. Please stop. I've edited your post.




thompsonx -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/20/2015 6:48:47 AM)


ORIGINAL: M38284

Did you know that peg lipton was a scientologist?




mnottertail -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/20/2015 9:43:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


You've proven nothing asshole except what you seem to be conservative. Given the last prominent conservative you can name was relevant 50 years ago...and the one area the two of you agreed on being unconstitutional...would, if it was withdrawn, give Presidents much more power to start wars without Congressional interference. Given your railing against what you seem to be unnecessary U.S. involvement elsewhere, that seems a bit inconsistent. Or is it that, unlike Goldwater, you prefer the President being solely accountable...especially if he's Republican...rather than having the flexibility that Goldwater sought?


Since there have not been conservatives that are prominent other than some days ago (Buckley described himself actually as more of a libertarian) or in some cases Patrick Buchanan, there are none more current to describe.

Since you cant be anything other than *****Ah ah! That's not allowed. Be nice or be moderated!*****, it doesnt matter that it is inconvenient, and it doesnt seem to be inconsistent regardless of ws treason. http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/hillary-clintons-emails-reveal-that-george-w-bush-committed-treason/22854/

The law is unconstitutional, if you want to have that be the way this country operates, it needs an amendment.
And once again, the only "twue conservative" on the forum uses a left-wing piece that accuses Bush of treason while admitting that there's a distinct possibility that nothing in the 'proof' could be considered enough to charge Bush, Powell or anyone else with a crime, let alone the crime of treason.



Ah Ha!!!! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Planned Parenthood!
Email! Email! Email! Kenya! Kenya! Kenya! Planned Parenthood! Planned Parenthood!

I dont know what you think I admitted, but I didn't. The problem is in your pathetic lack of understanding of English Language, usage, grammar, context and so on.




CreativeDominant -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/20/2015 9:58:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


You've proven nothing asshole except what you seem to be conservative. Given the last prominent conservative you can name was relevant 50 years ago...and the one area the two of you agreed on being unconstitutional...would, if it was withdrawn, give Presidents much more power to start wars without Congressional interference. Given your railing against what you seem to be unnecessary U.S. involvement elsewhere, that seems a bit inconsistent. Or is it that, unlike Goldwater, you prefer the President being solely accountable...especially if he's Republican...rather than having the flexibility that Goldwater sought?


Since there have not been conservatives that are prominent other than some days ago (Buckley described himself actually as more of a libertarian) or in some cases Patrick Buchanan, there are none more current to describe.

Since you cant be anything other than *****Ah ah! That's not allowed. Be nice or be moderated!*****, it doesnt matter that it is inconvenient, and it doesnt seem to be inconsistent regardless of ws treason. http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/hillary-clintons-emails-reveal-that-george-w-bush-committed-treason/22854/

The law is unconstitutional, if you want to have that be the way this country operates, it needs an amendment.
And once again, the only "twue conservative" on the forum uses a left-wing piece that accuses Bush of treason while admitting that there's a distinct possibility that nothing in the 'proof' could be considered enough to charge Bush, Powell or anyone else with a crime, let alone the crime of treason.



Ah Ha!!!! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Planned Parenthood!
Email! Email! Email! Kenya! Kenya! Kenya! Planned Parenthood! Planned Parenthood!

I dont know what you think I admitted, but I didn't. The problem is in your pathetic lack of understanding of English Language, usage, grammar, context and so on.


Actually...the problem in any manner of context is you. The one who deems himself the only "twue conservative" while hardly...if ever...finding fault with those such as Obama, Clinton, et al. You know, people who you can bet Goldwater or Buckley...another of your often-mentioned conservative heroes...would have had more of a problem with.

Now then...before I say something to get myself moderated as you have been, I'm done.




mnottertail -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/20/2015 10:02:10 AM)

Buckley, as I pointed out was a self-proclaimed libertarian.

Uh, well, how about you tell me of your conservative heros, and why that is a conservative position.




CreativeDominant -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/20/2015 11:26:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Buckley, as I pointed out was a self-proclaimed libertarian.

Uh, well, how about you tell me of your conservative heros, and why that is a conservative position.
For what good reason? I've seen...as just about everyone how you excoriate anyone held up as any type of conservative, while at the same time holding up liberals and/or progressives...such as Hillary and Obama and others...and their policies and their modes of operation. So why would I fall into your trap?

I don't have conservative heroes...I don't have liberal heroes. My positions are not rabidly right wing...I support a woman's right to choose abortion, for example. I just don't agree with all that seems to entail...abortion on demand, abortion used as birth control and that's because many of the reasons given seem frivolous and I come down on the side of the longest-running President of Planned Parenthood who stated it was time to stop muddying the issue and recognize that when abortion was performed, it was the cessation of a human being.
Is that a conservative position? In my eyes, yes. In others, probably not.




mnottertail -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/20/2015 12:05:48 PM)

I have not held up anyone, what I am saying is I look at the truth, and the truth is, there are no conservatives, there are no republicans, there are people who claim those monikers, but a survey of our traditions and history put the lie to them. You wanna talk about Teddy Roosevelt? Abe Lincoln? Taft(s)? Washington? McKinley? (although I wasnt real happy with his imperialism) Cleveland? Goldwater? (disagreed with some of him, though) Nelson Rockefeller (ja, ja, I know)? Buchanan? Dirksen? Eisenhower (although we are looking more republican and less conservative, much like Lincoln)

Benghazi? No wrongdoing, I watched the intel committees investigations closely, Email ? No wrongdoing. Planned Parenthood? investigated, by 'republicans' several different ways. No wrongdoing. Now, there are several 'republicans' who are in the know, and know and have stated that these are witch hunts to discredit innocents.

Now you hold up nutsuckers constantly, and quote those sewers of felch like the Sun Myung Moon Washington Times, and other asswipe of the same magnitude. Seems to me you hold up nutsuckers and excoriate democrats. I am supposed to take your words to heart on this? You have an insight? I doubt the shit out of it.

While I didn't like his vision, I otherwise loved David Stockman, for the one reason that the motherfucker could count.

And he held to his beliefs (many of which in the general sense were absolute truths) even at a personal cost to him.




mnottertail -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/20/2015 12:24:21 PM)

How about Eckes?


http://www.amazon.com/Opening-Americas-Market-Foreign-Littlefield-ebook/dp/B0049MNWCI/ref=sr_1_12/185-1443798-7996824?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445369000&sr=1-12&refinements=p_27%3AAlfred+E.+Eckes+Jr.




PeonForHer -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/20/2015 3:03:25 PM)

quote:

And once again, the only "twue conservative" on the forum uses a left-wing piece that accuses Bush of treason while admitting that there's a distinct possibility that nothing in the 'proof' could be considered enough to charge Bush, Powell or anyone else with a crime, let alone the crime of treason.


Here, and before Thatcherism (the equivalent, this side of the pond, of Reaganism), Ron would probably have been called a 'moderate conservative'. Thatcherism trashed too many conservative tenets to be considered in the same way. Most fundamentally, it ditched pragmatism in favour of ideology - specifically, ultra-authoritarian ideology in the social sphere and ultra-free-market ideology in the economic sphere.

To be clear: This is considered the standard and largely uncontested view. I examine the national exam scripts (A levels, they're called here) of hundreds of 17-18 year olds every year. Basically, if they don't get this right, they fail any essay on the subject.




CreativeDominant -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/20/2015 5:08:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

And once again, the only "twue conservative" on the forum uses a left-wing piece that accuses Bush of treason while admitting that there's a distinct possibility that nothing in the 'proof' could be considered enough to charge Bush, Powell or anyone else with a crime, let alone the crime of treason.


Here, and before Thatcherism (the equivalent, this side of the pond, of Reaganism), Ron would probably have been called a 'moderate conservative'. Thatcherism trashed too many conservative tenets to be considered in the same way. Most fundamentally, it ditched pragmatism in favour of ideology - specifically, ultra-authoritarian ideology in the social sphere and ultra-free-market ideology in the economic sphere.

To be clear: This is considered the standard and largely uncontested view. I examine the national exam scripts (A levels, they're called here) of hundreds of 17-18 year olds every year. Basically, if they don't get this right, they fail any essay on the subject.
But, we're not speaking of England, are we?




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625