You are not logged in. Please register or login.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 112 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
PaSnow wrote:

Yeah, I figured if Barr can give his own subjective opinion, so can Pasnow.

Plus figured Id paraphrase for those at work, without much time etc.

Yup...you sure can. Especially when not once have certain people on this board ever question Barr’s credibility despite him being appointed to that position barely one month prior.

They sure have been questioning yours though. Hmmm

That awkward moment when a poster on a Guns N Roses message board faces higher credibility & procedural standards than the country's AG


Really?  You face higher credibility and standards?  You just admitted yesterday you’re a conspiracy theorist.

My earlier comment was your reading of Mueller’s letter. How you inject things that aren’t there, and your complete ignoring of the WaPo article that preceded all this.

Mueller’s letter stated he thought more context was needed. In a phone call, he expressed his concern was due to the way the media was representing his obstruction findings.

1.) can we assume your POV on obstruction is indicative of the media at large or the Democrats comments in the hearing today?

If we can’t, how would you define the media’s portrayal of obstruction in the days following Barr’s original summary? Again, we’re talking about the media at large.

2.) Mueller said nothing in Barr’s letter was inaccurate, and refused the opportunity to proof read it/approve it/opine.

3.) Mueller didn’t make a determination on obstruction. Something that apparently surprised the DoJ.

4.) Mueller’s lack of a recommendation and the AG’s decision not to indict don’t preclude Congress from exercising their constitutional authority to impeach.

So I’m going to do some basic logic here. Tell me what I got wrong.

PaSnow’s opinion on obstruction = media narrative, or A=B

Mueller stated he didn’t like the confusion created by the media (which based in part their coverage on Barr’s letter), or B?C.

So A?C, or PaSnow’s interpretation isn’t equal to Mueller’s concerns.

3 months ago, Mueller was the defender of our institutions. He said no collusion happened, negating 2 years of Democratic fantasies. So now the left is calling Rosenstein a stooge and compromised.

I have a hunch when Mueller testifies in a few weeks and supports his argument the DoJ lacks the evidence to prosecute (the same decision none of you expressed outrage with when Comey exonerated Clinton), he’ll be called a stooge  too.

No one is attacking your credibility. I’m just saying you’re incapable of objectively looking at any piece of evidence. Again, if Mitch is cheering you on, you’re probably not on the side of informed discussion.


Edit:  fuck, the forum converts an equal sign with a slash through it to a question mark

mitchejw
 Rep: 109 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
PaSnow wrote:
mitchejw wrote:

Yup...you sure can. Especially when not once have certain people on this board ever question Barr’s credibility despite him being appointed to that position barely one month prior.

They sure have been questioning yours though. Hmmm

That awkward moment when a poster on a Guns N Roses message board faces higher credibility & procedural standards than the country's AG


Really?  You face higher credibility and standards?  You just admitted yesterday you’re a conspiracy theorist.

My earlier comment was your reading of Mueller’s letter. How you inject things that aren’t there, and your complete ignoring of the WaPo article that preceded all this.

Mueller’s letter stated he thought more context was needed. In a phone call, he expressed his concern was due to the way the media was representing his obstruction findings.

1.) can we assume your POV on obstruction is indicative of the media at large or the Democrats comments in the hearing today?

If we can’t, how would you define the media’s portrayal of obstruction in the days following Barr’s original summary? Again, we’re talking about the media at large.

2.) Mueller said nothing in Barr’s letter was inaccurate, and refused the opportunity to proof read it/approve it/opine.

3.) Mueller didn’t make a determination on obstruction. Something that apparently surprised the DoJ.

4.) Mueller’s lack of a recommendation and the AG’s decision not to indict don’t preclude Congress from exercising their constitutional authority to impeach.

So I’m going to do some basic logic here. Tell me what I got wrong.

PaSnow’s opinion on obstruction = media narrative, or A=B

Mueller stated he didn’t like the confusion created by the media (which based in part their coverage on Barr’s letter), or B?C.

So A?C, or PaSnow’s interpretation isn’t equal to Mueller’s concerns.

3 months ago, Mueller was the defender of our institutions. He said no collusion happened, negating 2 years of Democratic fantasies. So now the left is calling Rosenstein a stooge and compromised.

I have a hunch when Mueller testifies in a few weeks and supports his argument the DoJ lacks the evidence to prosecute (the same decision none of you expressed outrage with when Comey exonerated Clinton), he’ll be called a stooge  too.

No one is attacking your credibility. I’m just saying you’re incapable of objectively looking at any piece of evidence. Again, if Mitch is cheering you on, you’re probably not on the side of informed discussion.


Edit:  fuck, the forum converts an equal sign with a slash through it to a question mark

We weren’t talking about any of this.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 112 

Re: US Politics Thread

So does anyone think it’s a good idea for the US to use military force in Venezuela?  I sure as hell don’t think so. I have no interest in creating a situation to encourage/force millions of migrants to head to the US.

If I put on my conspiracy cap, I’d say Russia and China have a keen interest in encouraging conflicts in Central America to force migration to the US. The same for encouraging African/Arab migrants to head towards Europe. You’ll notice Russia and China don’t allow millions to illegally force their way into their countries.

mitchejw
 Rep: 109 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

So does anyone think it’s a good idea for the US to use military force in Venezuela?  I sure as hell don’t think so. I have no interest in creating a situation to encourage/force millions of migrants to head to the US.

If I put on my conspiracy cap, I’d say Russia and China have a keen interest in encouraging conflicts in Central America to force migration to the US. The same for encouraging African/Arab migrants to head towards Europe. You’ll notice Russia and China don’t allow millions to illegally force their way into their countries.

Why not?

We love war...let's have a few more!!! 'Merica!

mitchejw
 Rep: 109 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:

Oh god guys...i was driving through Indiana recently and i saw some windmills and now i know windmills cause cancer...trump finally enlightened me...

Well today....i diagnosed myself with stage 4 windmill cancer and I’m giving myself maybe 40 more years.

I’ll keep you all updated...

buzzsaw
 Rep: 426 

Re: US Politics Thread

buzzsaw wrote:

And people wonder why we can't have intelligent discussions...

mitchejw
 Rep: 109 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:

Hey guys...never forget...it’s not illegal for trump to order people to lie for him and therefore you should stop caring about it.

Abuse of power is cool now unless you’re Hillary...then it’s bad mmm k?

PaSnow
 Rep: 200 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

So does anyone think it’s a good idea for the US to use military force in Venezuela?  I sure as hell don’t think so. I have no interest in creating a situation to encourage/force millions of migrants to head to the US.

If I put on my conspiracy cap, I’d say Russia and China have a keen interest in encouraging conflicts in Central America to force migration to the US. The same for encouraging African/Arab migrants to head towards Europe. You’ll notice Russia and China don’t allow millions to illegally force their way into their countries.

Now you talkiin my language. Actually is a pretty solid theory. It is said that Russia definitely wants a communist' presence to remain in Cuba & Venezuela, so you're conspiracy isn't too much of a stretch (not bad for a novice 16 ), althought it makes it a bit of a big picture goal (7/10). I think they do want Venezuela to be an elite country, kinda usurping Brazil/Rio as the SA capital city. I read an article Columbia has made a huge rebound over the past years.


Military force?  Depends. I mean, at some point if they don't have a President or Maduro refuses to leave & takes to violence to stay in office, then yeah we need to step in.  Just a quick whoop-ass though, Desert Storm/1991/3 days style.

buzzsaw
 Rep: 426 

Re: US Politics Thread

buzzsaw wrote:
PaSnow wrote:

Military force?  Depends. I mean, at some point if they don't have a President or Maduro refuses to leave & takes to violence to stay in office, then yeah we need to step in.  Just a quick whoop-ass though, Desert Storm/1991/3 days style.

I understand not having the stomach for a drawn out conflict, but I dont get why we dont have the stomach for this and do things half-assed instead. We have the ability to just go in, do what needs to be done and get out before it becomes a big mess, but we don't want to do it. We twiddle our thumbs until it becomes a big mess, then we get involved.   Its totally backwards.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 112 

Re: US Politics Thread

buzzsaw wrote:
PaSnow wrote:

Military force?  Depends. I mean, at some point if they don't have a President or Maduro refuses to leave & takes to violence to stay in office, then yeah we need to step in.  Just a quick whoop-ass though, Desert Storm/1991/3 days style.

I understand not having the stomach for a drawn out conflict, but I dont get why we dont have the stomach for this and do things half-assed instead. We have the ability to just go in, do what needs to be done and get out before it becomes a big mess, but we don't want to do it. We twiddle our thumbs until it becomes a big mess, then we get involved.   Its totally backwards.


I don’t think a quick in and out is possible. In Desert Storm, we didn’t invade Iraq and we didn’t remove Saddam. We just removed his military from Kuwait and pushed them back. We weren’t occupiers and didn’t destabilize the nation.

Venezuela is a total shit hole. Starvation and lack of medicine is it’s current state, with a leader with total control. Sure we could destroy their military and the small Russian contingent present in 72 hours with total war.  But I don’t think total war is an option.

And when we remove Maduro or he flees, then what?  If we leave, we just created another Iraq. Sure, there will be a lot less jihadists in Venezuela, but we’ll just get a different ideology connected to communism that all extremist groups in Central America derive from.  Communists guerillas in the likeness of Che isn’t any better or different than jihadis. They use the same tactics and kill the same minorities.

We topple Maduro, 2 million migrants head towards greener pastures. We already have over 100k illegals entering our country a month and our immigration system is effectively broken. I don’t want to encourage any activity that will result in millions more of hungry mouths unable to work or communicate, entering our nation.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB