(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Has anyone else noticed the absolute deafening silence from Barry as his eight-year Vice President gets slashed limb from limb on his behalf?
Not even a single, puddle deep word of support.
Either Barry and Slow Joe are really estranged (perhaps even enmity between them), or Barry is truly just a political machine without an iota of loyalty.

Kind of reminiscent of how he treated his lord and spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright.

Peter Zeihan is right. Barry doesn't like people. And in return, people don't like him. That's why he couldn't get much of his agenda passed. Thank God.

It is also interesting in the fact that there are reports that Barry is actually quite livid that his tenure is the ancillary target of the slasher attacks.

Politico touched on this today with this:

Quote:Several members of the Obama administration let his first attorney general, Eric Holder, speak for them, retweeting a now-viral message to the field he posted Wednesday night.

“To my fellow Democrats. Be wary of attacking the Obama record,” he wrote. “Build on it. Expand it. But there is little to be gained — for you or the party — by attacking a very successful and still popular Democratic President.”

The Politico story doesnt really hit the full gist of other items I read, but the importing of Holder to deliver that message I think very much tells you what Clan Barry thinks about that direction.

I'll try and post more detailed versions when I can refind them.

Interesting tightrope -- churlish and mad that your record is being chopped up; *and* a refusal to show any support to your VP when you put those into place.

Maybe he just doesn't want to defend his record, now that all the financial perks of being ex-President are in place.

(08-01-2019 08:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 09:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Interesting to see the only difference between the view of any Democrats on stage tonight on executive power and Trump's use of a limitless amount of executive power only seems to be in whom wields that power.

So true, as are so many other things in politics. "You can't do that; only we can can do that."

Obama's "Pen and phone" rule was anathema to the right, lagniappe to the left. Now Trump is doing the same thing, and the roles are reversed.

Shoot, I bet some Democrat could call Baltimore "infested" and nobody on the left would notice, much less think it was racist. Oh, wait, that's already happened, and the Democrat was...Elijah Cummings.

That video of Cummings is 20 years old. You know what that means?

Twenty years of Cummings' representation has not helped at all. Nothing has changed, at least not for the better.

(08-02-2019 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2019 08:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 09:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Interesting to see the only difference between the view of any Democrats on stage tonight on executive power and Trump's use of a limitless amount of executive power only seems to be in whom wields that power.

So true, as are so many other things in politics. "You can't do that; only we can can do that."

Obama's "Pen and phone" rule was anathema to the right, lagniappe to the left. Now Trump is doing the same thing, and the roles are reversed.

Shoot, I bet some Democrat could call Baltimore "infested" and nobody on the left would notice, much less think it was racist. Oh, wait, that's already happened, and the Democrat was...Elijah Cummings.

That video of Cummings is 20 years old. You know what that means?

Twenty years of Cummings' representation has not helped at all. Nothing has changed, at least not for the better.

It's not in his interests to change things. If the status quo has kept you in power for twenty years, and getting re-elected is what you care most about in life, why would you change the status quo?

(08-02-2019 11:38 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2019 08:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 09:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Interesting to see the only difference between the view of any Democrats on stage tonight on executive power and Trump's use of a limitless amount of executive power only seems to be in whom wields that power.

So true, as are so many other things in politics. "You can't do that; only we can can do that."
Obama's "Pen and phone" rule was anathema to the right, lagniappe to the left. Now Trump is doing the same thing, and the roles are reversed.
Shoot, I bet some Democrat could call Baltimore "infested" and nobody on the left would notice, much less think it was racist. Oh, wait, that's already happened, and the Democrat was...Elijah Cummings.

That video of Cummings is 20 years old. You know what that means?
Twenty years of Cummings' representation has not helped at all. Nothing has changed, at least not for the better.

It's not in his interests to change things. If the status quo has kept you in power for twenty years, and getting re-elected is what you care most about in life, why would you change the status quo?

If they get out of poverty and off handouts, they might start voting republican.

(08-02-2019 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 11:38 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2019 08:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 09:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Interesting to see the only difference between the view of any Democrats on stage tonight on executive power and Trump's use of a limitless amount of executive power only seems to be in whom wields that power.

So true, as are so many other things in politics. "You can't do that; only we can can do that."
Obama's "Pen and phone" rule was anathema to the right, lagniappe to the left. Now Trump is doing the same thing, and the roles are reversed.
Shoot, I bet some Democrat could call Baltimore "infested" and nobody on the left would notice, much less think it was racist. Oh, wait, that's already happened, and the Democrat was...Elijah Cummings.

That video of Cummings is 20 years old. You know what that means?
Twenty years of Cummings' representation has not helped at all. Nothing has changed, at least not for the better.

It's not in his interests to change things. If the status quo has kept you in power for twenty years, and getting re-elected is what you care most about in life, why would you change the status quo?

If they get out of poverty and off handouts, they might start voting republican.

Twenty years from now, AOC with still be the Representative of her district. But it will not be a better place to live.

Booker and harris

If Trump or any Republican met with a minister who said this, he would be labeled loudly as a homophobe. But the double standard applies.

(08-09-2019 09:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Booker and harris

If Trump or any Republican met with a minister who said this, he would be labeled loudly as a homophobe. But the double standard applies.

Posts article criticizing two candidates for attending a church with a homophobic past - complains that no one is criticizing the candidates for doing so.

Almost as good as the person who posted a WashPo article criticizing Obama administration actions to support the idea that the main stream media didn't criticize the Obama administration.

(08-09-2019 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 09:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Booker and harris

If Trump or any Republican met with a minister who said this, he would be labeled loudly as a homophobe. But the double standard applies.

Posts article criticizing two candidates for attending a church with a homophobic past - complains that no one is criticizing the candidates for doing so.

Almost as good as the person who posted a WashPo article criticizing Obama administration actions to support the idea that the main stream media didn't criticize the Obama administration.

According to the standards the left has set for Trump, you just lied. What i said is demonstrably NOT what you say I said.

You quote me as saying "no one'. I actually said "labeled loudly as a homophobe".

Is there a loud negative reaction to these Booker/Harris associations with a minister who rejects homosexuality? Such as multiple reports and comments on CNN and MSNBC?

I think not.

Would there be such if Trump went to First Baptist in Dallas to talk with Jeffries? Or Falwell?

I think so.

Hence, the double standard.

Just like the double standard on lying.

PS: you said a homophobic PAST. I saw no evidence the church had changed its teachings. Did I miss that? Or was that just a weak attempt to justify the visits?

(08-09-2019 11:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 09:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Booker and harris

If Trump or any Republican met with a minister who said this, he would be labeled loudly as a homophobe. But the double standard applies.

Posts article criticizing two candidates for attending a church with a homophobic past - complains that no one is criticizing the candidates for doing so.

Almost as good as the person who posted a WashPo article criticizing Obama administration actions to support the idea that the main stream media didn't criticize the Obama administration.

According to the standards the left has set for Trump, you just lied. What i said is demonstrably NOT what you say I said.

You quote me as saying "no one'. I actually said "labeled loudly as a homophobe".

Is there a loud negative reaction to these Booker/Harris associations with a minister who rejects homosexuality? Such as multiple reports and comments on CNN and MSNBC?

I think not.

Would there be such if Trump went to First Baptist in Dallas to talk with Jeffries? Or Falwell?

I think so.

Hence, the double standard.

Just like the double standard on lying.

PS: you said a homophobic PAST. I saw no evidence the church had changed its teachings. Did I miss that? Or was that just a weak attempt to justify the visits?

I said past because I have no idea what the church does today and how they act today. The article only references the church's past actions...

You're really trying to pick a fight over that?

(08-09-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 11:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 09:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Booker and harris

If Trump or any Republican met with a minister who said this, he would be labeled loudly as a homophobe. But the double standard applies.

Posts article criticizing two candidates for attending a church with a homophobic past - complains that no one is criticizing the candidates for doing so.

Almost as good as the person who posted a WashPo article criticizing Obama administration actions to support the idea that the main stream media didn't criticize the Obama administration.

According to the standards the left has set for Trump, you just lied. What i said is demonstrably NOT what you say I said.

You quote me as saying "no one'. I actually said "labeled loudly as a homophobe".

Is there a loud negative reaction to these Booker/Harris associations with a minister who rejects homosexuality? Such as multiple reports and comments on CNN and MSNBC?

I think not.

Would there be such if Trump went to First Baptist in Dallas to talk with Jeffries? Or Falwell?

I think so.

Hence, the double standard.

Just like the double standard on lying.

PS: you said a homophobic PAST. I saw no evidence the church had changed its teachings. Did I miss that? Or was that just a weak attempt to justify the visits?

I said past because I have no idea what the church does today and how they act today. The article only references the church's past actions...

You're really trying to pick a fight over that?

I am not trying to pick a fight. I am trying to point out another instance of the left having a double standard. If you want to fight to protect their right to treat democrats different than Republicans, I guess we might fight. I think the double standard is wrong and shameful. I hope you agree.

A careful reading of the article gives us this:

...he affirmed his stance on homosexuality in an interview with the Bay Area News Group on Sunday.

"Homosexuality, adultery, fornication, those are all sexual sins addressed in scripture," Fowler said.

so, maybe the church has changed since Sunday. I cannot say it hasn't.

Biden making gaffe after gaffe. Will be interesting when Dems finally wake up and realize that Biden is a walking Freudian slip, a la Trump

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/us/po...-kids.html

(08-09-2019 12:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 11:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 09:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Booker and harris

If Trump or any Republican met with a minister who said this, he would be labeled loudly as a homophobe. But the double standard applies.

Posts article criticizing two candidates for attending a church with a homophobic past - complains that no one is criticizing the candidates for doing so.

Almost as good as the person who posted a WashPo article criticizing Obama administration actions to support the idea that the main stream media didn't criticize the Obama administration.

According to the standards the left has set for Trump, you just lied. What i said is demonstrably NOT what you say I said.

You quote me as saying "no one'. I actually said "labeled loudly as a homophobe".

Is there a loud negative reaction to these Booker/Harris associations with a minister who rejects homosexuality? Such as multiple reports and comments on CNN and MSNBC?

I think not.

Would there be such if Trump went to First Baptist in Dallas to talk with Jeffries? Or Falwell?

I think so.

Hence, the double standard.

Just like the double standard on lying.

PS: you said a homophobic PAST. I saw no evidence the church had changed its teachings. Did I miss that? Or was that just a weak attempt to justify the visits?

I said past because I have no idea what the church does today and how they act today. The article only references the church's past actions...

You're really trying to pick a fight over that?

I am not trying to pick a fight. I am trying to point out another instance of the left having a double standard. If you want to fight to protect their right to treat democrats different than Republicans, I guess we might fight. I think the double standard is wrong and shameful. I hope you agree.

A careful reading of the article gives us this:

...he affirmed his stance on homosexuality in an interview with the Bay Area News Group on Sunday.

"Homosexuality, adultery, fornication, those are all sexual sins addressed in scripture," Fowler said.

so, maybe the church has changed since Sunday. I cannot say it hasn't.

Yeah, but lad *did* say *today*.....

(08-09-2019 12:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 12:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 11:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Posts article criticizing two candidates for attending a church with a homophobic past - complains that no one is criticizing the candidates for doing so.

Almost as good as the person who posted a WashPo article criticizing Obama administration actions to support the idea that the main stream media didn't criticize the Obama administration.

According to the standards the left has set for Trump, you just lied. What i said is demonstrably NOT what you say I said.

You quote me as saying "no one'. I actually said "labeled loudly as a homophobe".

Is there a loud negative reaction to these Booker/Harris associations with a minister who rejects homosexuality? Such as multiple reports and comments on CNN and MSNBC?

I think not.

Would there be such if Trump went to First Baptist in Dallas to talk with Jeffries? Or Falwell?

I think so.

Hence, the double standard.

Just like the double standard on lying.

PS: you said a homophobic PAST. I saw no evidence the church had changed its teachings. Did I miss that? Or was that just a weak attempt to justify the visits?

I said past because I have no idea what the church does today and how they act today. The article only references the church's past actions...

You're really trying to pick a fight over that?

I am not trying to pick a fight. I am trying to point out another instance of the left having a double standard. If you want to fight to protect their right to treat democrats different than Republicans, I guess we might fight. I think the double standard is wrong and shameful. I hope you agree.

A careful reading of the article gives us this:

...he affirmed his stance on homosexuality in an interview with the Bay Area News Group on Sunday.

"Homosexuality, adultery, fornication, those are all sexual sins addressed in scripture," Fowler said.

so, maybe the church has changed since Sunday. I cannot say it hasn't.

Yeah, but lad *did* say *today*.....

See, I was being VERY careful with my word choice.

I completely missed that line when skimming the article. I only saw the reference to the old interview in 2013. I would have written my comment differently had I seen that.

(08-09-2019 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 12:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 12:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2019 11:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  According to the standards the left has set for Trump, you just lied. What i said is demonstrably NOT what you say I said.

You quote me as saying "no one'. I actually said "labeled loudly as a homophobe".

Is there a loud negative reaction to these Booker/Harris associations with a minister who rejects homosexuality? Such as multiple reports and comments on CNN and MSNBC?

I think not.

Would there be such if Trump went to First Baptist in Dallas to talk with Jeffries? Or Falwell?

I think so.

Hence, the double standard.

Just like the double standard on lying.

PS: you said a homophobic PAST. I saw no evidence the church had changed its teachings. Did I miss that? Or was that just a weak attempt to justify the visits?

I said past because I have no idea what the church does today and how they act today. The article only references the church's past actions...

You're really trying to pick a fight over that?

I am not trying to pick a fight. I am trying to point out another instance of the left having a double standard. If you want to fight to protect their right to treat democrats different than Republicans, I guess we might fight. I think the double standard is wrong and shameful. I hope you agree.

A careful reading of the article gives us this:

...he affirmed his stance on homosexuality in an interview with the Bay Area News Group on Sunday.

"Homosexuality, adultery, fornication, those are all sexual sins addressed in scripture," Fowler said.

so, maybe the church has changed since Sunday. I cannot say it hasn't.

Yeah, but lad *did* say *today*.....

See, I was being VERY careful with my word choice.

I completely missed that line when skimming the article. I only saw the reference to the old interview in 2013. I would have written my comment differently had I seen that.

I too tend to skim.

more double standard

You left wingers must be so proud of the woman in this video.

"A woman, identified by the Courier-Journal as Black Lives Matter Louisville leader Chanelle Helm, is heard on the video mocking McConnell’s recent shoulder injury and saying he “should have broken his little, raggedy, wrinkled-ass neck.”
She then yells, “Just stab the m----- f----- in the heart, please.” Someone also yells, “Die!”

Good thing this didn't happen to AOC or Nadler. Imagine the furor on CNN if that had happened to a leading Democrat.

And then Twitter freezes McConnel's account for posting the video of the violence by the protesters.

I am sure they would have frozen Pelosi's account if the tables were turned, right?

I find Twitter's actions in suspending the TeamMitch account to be reprehensible.

And relatedly, nothing is done to the little Castro brother for his trump doxxing. Not by twitter, and the silence on the left on this is deafening.

Actually Castro's actions really tend to make a great case against campaign disclosure laws. The laws are meant to shine a light into undue influence. Leave it to the progs to use that information not as a 'keep the process clean', but instead to uses and weaponize it.

And neither Castro brother has any remorse over it. They have doubled down on the action. And no notable progressive politician has denoted or called them out for the obvious weaponization. Yay!

I said this before, and was rebuked for it, so I will say it again. The Castro brothers are no more than two fing bit shakedown artists.

(08-09-2019 05:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I find Twitter's actions in suspending the TeamMitch account to be reprehensible.

And relatedly, nothing is done to the little Castro brother for his trump doxxing. Not by twitter, and the silence on the left on this is deafening.

Actually Castro's actions really tend to make a great case against campaign disclosure laws. The laws are meant to shine a light into undue influence. Leave it to the progs to use that information not as a 'keep the process clean', but instead to uses and weaponize it.

And neither Castro brother has any remorse over it. They have doubled down on the action. And no notable progressive politician has denoted or called them out for the obvious weaponization. Yay!

I said this before, and was rebuked for it, so I will say it again. The Castro brothers are no more than two fing bit shakedown artists.

Doxxing? The info he provided is publicly available... Scalia made a great point about how this is anything but doxxing, and public disclosure is paramount. Regarding anonymous petitions:

“Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

How can pointing out whom donated to whom be weaponizing that information? If you can’t stand to publicly state that you financially supported candidate A, how about you don’t do that? Providing more information about who the owner of a store supports provides consumers with more information for them to use when deciding what services to use.