Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 292
  1. #261
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    This is off topic. Perhaps you could start a thread..."The Federal Government Does Everything Wrong". It might get interesting when you research it or just sit back and think about it.
    Sorry, my intent was not to take this popular thread off topic, but I probably could have worded it better.

    A I see it, we are trillions in debt because both parties of our two party system are put us there (for instance). Name your issue, it generally comes back to that fact. It is in their best interest to keep the public spending time arguing who is worse, rather than focusing on the ineptness of the federal gov't and demanding better service. We had the best chance in my lifetime to tell both parties we are tired of the status quo, unfortunately most people still voted dem or repub. If say 15% of the public had voted for someone other than the two parties I guarantee there would have been some deep changes in WA DC. The DNC and RNC would be united against anything that looked like a third party.

    So why does it matter which party is the worst or most hypocritical? Both suck....

  2. #262
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    So why does it matter which party is the worst or most hypocritical? Both suck....
    Proving which one is better or worse isn't the point of the thread. Those who preach they have moral clarity are particularly hilarious when they fail or are blatant hypocrites and it is so evident in conservatives and their party. I haven't even been trying and this thread is full of them.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  3. #263
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Proving which one is better or worse isn't the point of the thread. Those who preach they have moral clarity are particularly hilarious when they fail or are blatant hypocrites and it is so evident in conservatives and their party. I haven't even been trying and this thread is full of them.
    Ah, I see. So you are saying it is part of the republican platform that the party and their members have a "moral clarity" the general public or liberals do not have?

    And when you say "conservatives and their party" surely you must not be referring to the Republican Party. That group of nuts that is leading that party is not what I consider conservative (but I'm guessing we define conservative differently). I would suggest welfare reform under Bill Clinton was a more conservative type of policy than anything GW Bush was supporting for instance.

    I do agree it's worth investing a comment when some morality preaching holier than thou type person gets caught doing something the opposite of what they preach. And even though I am not agreeing with Republicans current stance in gov't, I don't see the entire party being hypocritical with regards to morals. People are hypocrites, I have even caught myself before (and some liberals too I'll wager .

  4. #264
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    The right wing corporate media seems conspicuously quiet about this one:


    What we know and don't know about the deadly Niger attack


    I guess things in dangerous areas don't always go as planned.

    Why wasn't the whole area just bombed?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  5. #265
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Is there a reason it took so long for the administration to acknowledge these deaths?

    "Within days of the Chadian soldiers beginning to pull out from protecting those villages from ISIS, four soldiers were ambushed."


    Funnily, I hear nothing from the right on this. Sounds like something that should at least be investigated, no?

    ---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------

    And what's with Kelly's lieing?


    Seems there should be an investigation? a little one?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  6. #266
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The right wing corporate media seems conspicuously quiet about this one:
    By "quiet" do you mean that you simply didn't stumble across it? It was literally the first result in google for "Fox News Niger": http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10...t-to-know.html

    Or for non-corporate media, "Red State Niger": https://www.redstate.com/diary/Bonch...umps-benghazi/

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I guess things in dangerous areas don't always go as planned.
    That is the nature of combat, the enemy gets a vote. Perhaps you are critiquing President Obama's decision to involve Africom in Niger?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Is there a reason it took so long for the administration to acknowledge these deaths?
    Do you have evidence that the time taken for the Administration to achnowledge these deaths differs from the time taken in other special operations incidents? Do you have any evidence that this is on the Administration's doorstep as opposed to say, Africom?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #267
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    By "quiet" do you mean that you simply didn't stumble across it? It was literally the first result in google for "Fox News Niger": http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10...t-to-know.html

    Or for non-corporate media, "Red State Niger": https://www.redstate.com/diary/Bonch...umps-benghazi/
    "In the end, attempting to link the ambush of US forces north of Niamey to Chadian soldiers leaving Diffa is ludicrous. To then connect that with the travel ban so as to blame Trump is partisan insanity turned up to eleven." red state source.

    Well, I meant maybe a possible call for investigations into finding out the truth (which I see others may have done) not carrying water for the President.

    ---------- Post added at 10:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is the nature of combat, the enemy gets a vote. Perhaps you are critiquing President Obama's decision to involve Africom in Niger?
    No, the armchair quarterbacking on Benghazi was more the point which was refuted by the investigations. Nothing like in this in your sources? Maybe something from Alex Jones? No?

    ---------- Post added at 10:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Do you have evidence that the time taken for the Administration to achnowledge these deaths differs from the time taken in other special operations incidents?
    No, I was hoping you did. And we are talking about acknowledging it by the administration...it was already known and reported.

    ---------- Post added at 10:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Do you have any evidence that this is on the Administration's doorstep as opposed to say, Africom?
    Not sure, they aren't under the secretary of defense?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #268
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    "In the end, attempting to link the ambush of US forces north of Niamey to Chadian soldiers leaving Diffa is ludicrous. To then connect that with the travel ban so as to blame Trump is partisan insanity turned up to eleven." red state source.

    Well, I meant maybe a possible call for investigations into finding out the truth (which I see others may have done) not carrying water for the President.
    So...if they don't follow your specific conclusion they are invalid? The CNN article doesn't call for investigations either. [Also, if you think Red State is carrying water for President Trump, you aren't familiar with Red State]

    But regardless, you agree that your initial claim that "right wing corporate media [is] conspiciously quiet" about this subject was incorrect, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    No, the armchair quarterbacking on Benghazi was more the point which was refuted by the investigations. Nothing like in this in your sources? Maybe something from Alex Jones? No?
    Wait, you do know that it was President Obama, not President Trump that sent them to Niger right? The claim (which is incorrect) that there isn't any arm chair quarterbacking undermines your Benghazi critique. If these sources were politically motivated, wouldn't they be hammering it for being President Obama's fault?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    No, I was hoping you did. And we are talking about acknowledging it by the administration...it was already known and reported.
    Alright, but then the claim that they "delayed" this seems a bit premature right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Not sure, they aren't under the secretary of defense?
    So if there was a delay (a claim you haven't proven) how do you know it was caused by the White House rather than, say the Secretary of Defense, Geographic Commander, Combantant Commander, JSOC commander, or Group Commander? Can you elaborate on what caused the delay, assuming you can show there was one?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #269
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    But regardless, you agree that your initial claim that "right wing corporate media [is] conspiciously quiet" about this subject was incorrect, right?
    Compared with if it had been a democratic administration, no.

    ---------- Post added at 01:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Wait, you do know that it was President Obama, not President Trump that sent them to Niger right? The claim (which is incorrect) that there isn't any arm chair quarterbacking undermines your Benghazi critique. If these sources were politically motivated, wouldn't they be hammering it for being President Obama's fault?
    Trump is the president now and is claiming he is defeating ISIS. Why wouldn't he come out and say that he didn't even know they were there?

    I still don't see any armchair quarterbacking from the conservative media...nothing like Benghazi to be sure.

    ---------- Post added at 01:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Alright, but then the claim that they "delayed" this seems a bit premature right?
    Not sure, would there be a reason to?

    ---------- Post added at 01:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post


    So if there was a delay (a claim you haven't proven) how do you know it was caused by the White House rather than, say the Secretary of Defense, Geographic Commander, Combantant Commander, JSOC commander, or Group Commander? Can you elaborate on what caused the delay, assuming you can show there was one?
    Looks like it was 12 days before the president publicly acknowledged the deaths.

    The cause? Not sure, politics?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #270
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Compared with if it had been a democratic administration, no.
    That's a pretty strong counterfactual. Can you provide direct evidence that this is the case or are you simply stating an opinion?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Trump is the president now and is claiming he is defeating ISIS. Why wouldn't he come out and say that he didn't even know they were there?

    I still don't see any armchair quarterbacking from the conservative media...nothing like Benghazi to be sure.
    Mr. Trump is, in fact the President now, but the deployment and infrastructure were a product of Mr. Obama's White House.

    There are, in fact, criticisms being leveled where about why American SOF were in Niger and why they didn't have robust support infrastructure (SOF had to rely on French and Nigerian medivac and QRF for example). I would suggest that you aren't seeing a lot of criticism for two primary reasons.

    1) You, Cowboy, don't really frequent a lot of Conservative or Libertarian sites, so it becomes pretty obvious that you wouldn't see that criticism. This is a form of the Availability Cascade cognitive bias. If you had you would have seen:

    a) The WSJ details the probe going on about how AFRICOM gathered and reported information.

    b) TownHall demanding answers to their percieved failures of operational intelligence.

    c) Red State criticising the President for a lack of coherent communication and transparency.

    d) Red State asking why more information isn't available.

    e) National Review criticizing the President (and Rep. Wilson) for obscuring the discussion with their own political egos.


    2) Probably more importantly, you are inferring that the failures that led to these deaths are equivilant to the ones in Benghazi. The fact chain just isn't the same, regardless of whether you think Benghazi was a cover up or not, this incident doesn't share the same framework. There was no initial incorrect statement about the cause of the attack, there was no stand down order (correct or not), there was no initial confusion over whether that order was given, there was no Congressional argument of security funding (this was done in an open letter to Congress, not through War Powers).

    The same level of confusion and Administration involvement just isn't there, so it seems unlikely that there would be the same kind of outrage. Perhaps there is more of a case to be made, but the political left isn't really making it either. The biggest "scandal" is AFRICOM's incompetence, but that is more a factor of its being a bipartisan military backwater than intentional cover up, so we shouldn't expect the same level of scrutiny.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Not sure, would there be a reason to?
    Cowboy, do you have evidence to support your claim that it took an inordinate amount of time to acknowledge the deaths or will you retract that claim?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Looks like it was 12 days before the president publicly acknowledged the deaths.
    That isn't really what your article states. It didn't say it took the Administration 12 days to acknowledge the deaths, it said it was 12 days before the President discussed the controversy (IE the lack of calling the widows and families). Here is the actual timeline from your article:

    8PM, 4 October, President Trump is briefed on the incident.

    7:36AM, 5 October, AFRICOM releases official acknowledgement of the deaths.

    11:49AM, 6 October, the Department of Defense releases the names of the fatalities. CNN notes that the body of a missing member of the SOF team was recovered, likely affecting the timeline of the release of names.


    So we can see a couple of facts here, it was 11 hours between incident briefing and formal acknowledgement and CNN believes that release of names was likely due to operational issues (in my personal experience name release within 48 hours is an outstanding metric given the requirement of contacting family and getting that reported to DoD JAG).

    This leaves us with two questions for you;

    1) Do you have any evidence that there was a delay at all?

    2) If so, can you support that that delay was caused by the White House?

    3) If not, will you retract these claims?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #271
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That isn't really what your article states. It didn't say it took the Administration 12 days to acknowledge the deaths, it said it was 12 days before the President discussed the controversy (IE the lack of calling the widows and families).
    That's exactly what I said.

    ---------- Post added at 01:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There are, in fact, criticisms being leveled where about why American SOF were in Niger and why they didn't have robust support infrastructure (SOF had to rely on French and Nigerian medivac and QRF for example). I would suggest that you aren't seeing a lot of criticism for two primary reasons.

    1) You, Cowboy, don't really frequent a lot of Conservative or Libertarian sites, so it becomes pretty obvious that you wouldn't see that criticism. This is a form of the Availability Cascade cognitive bias. If you had you would have seen:

    a) The WSJ details the probe going on about how AFRICOM gathered and reported information.

    b) TownHall demanding answers to their percieved failures of operational intelligence.

    c) Red State criticising the President for a lack of coherent communication and transparency.

    d) Red State asking why more information isn't available.

    e) National Review criticizing the President (and Rep. Wilson) for obscuring the discussion with their own political egos.
    Possibly true. I do, however, listen to much talk radio and I subscribe to Alex Jones on YouTube. Much more than that I cannot stomach. I must say that the outlets I do listen to don't refer to those sources - not that I readily recall. I wouldn't expect your sources to come out with the kind of wild conspiracies I heard during Benghazi, nor would I expect them to rush to the president's defense - "niger-attack-not-trumps-benghazi" ?

    ---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Cowboy, do you have evidence to support your claim that it took an inordinate amount of time to acknowledge the deaths or will you retract that claim?
    I think I've asked about that several times...no...either way...I...don't...know. Do you?

    ---------- Post added at 01:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    2) Probably more importantly, you are inferring that the failures that led to these deaths are equivilant to the ones in Benghazi.
    I would expect the equivalent moral outrage from those who claim it for dead Americans in one situation and not another. If not, that's called being a political hack. It's simply too early - with information about Chad and the drone and whatnot still not looked into - and already you're like "nothing to see here"

    Like I said, if this were a democrat administration the situation would be completely different. You're insistence upon blaming Obama supports that.

    ---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That's a pretty strong counterfactual. Can you provide direct evidence that this is the case or are you simply stating an opinion?
    Here's Jones' Youtube channel:

    https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel/about

    I quickly ran through it and saw nothing for the last 6 days, searched for Niger and nothing came up except for yellowcake and Hillary crap. Which I suspect is being drawn up to shield the President from questions as to why we're there - It's the Clinton's or Obama's fault.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  12. #272
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That's exactly what I said.
    No, you said: "it was 12 days before the president publicly acknowledged the deaths."

    The deaths were acknowledged 11 hours after the initial briefing. Unless you are claiming that DoD isn't part of the Executive Branch anymore, your claim that it wasn't acknowledged for 12 days is incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Possibly true. I do, however, listen to much talk radio and I subscribe to Alex Jones on YouTube. Much more than that I cannot stomach. I must say that the outlets I do listen to don't refer to those sources - not that I readily recall. I wouldn't expect your sources to come out with the kind of wild conspiracies I heard during Benghazi, nor would I expect them to rush to the president's defense - "niger-attack-not-trumps-benghazi" ?
    Exactly, two sources, one of which isn't Right Wing (his support for the current President not-withstanding) by any coherent definition of that term (his crazy often swings from traditionally conservative policies to traditionally liberals ones), isn't exactly a good representation for what is out there. Drop Jones specifically and simply peruse AllahPundit, Red State, Drudge if you must, The New Americana would be better, National Review, or The Resurgent to get a better sense of what right wing media is talking about.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I think I've asked about that several times...no...either way...I...don't...know. Do you?
    Fair enough, just don't make that claim again here since it is retracted now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I would expect the equivalent moral outrage from those who claim it for dead Americans in one situation and not another.
    Why? Why would there be the same moral outrage for the deaths at a blunder like Bladensburg as there would be at something like D-Day? Why would only the fact that soldiers died be the cause for outrage? Wouldn't it be reasonable that a more nuanced position based on why they died and how be appropriate?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    and already you're like "nothing to see here"
    I think I've been relatively cool about this so far, but my patience will end really quickly if you accuse me of being a political hack again over the deaths of my brothers in arms. I have already noted concern for the lack of operational intelligence and logistical tails that had us relying on Nigerian and French assets.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Like I said, if this were a democrat administration the situation would be completely different.
    And like I insisted before, support or retract. Challenge to support a claim.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #273
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, you said: "it was 12 days before the president publicly acknowledged the deaths."

    The deaths were acknowledged 11 hours after the initial briefing. Unless you are claiming that DoD isn't part of the Executive Branch anymore, your claim that it wasn't acknowledged for 12 days is incorrect.
    By the President.

    ---------- Post added at 07:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Why? Why would there be the same moral outrage for the deaths at a blunder like Bladensburg as there would be at something like D-Day? Why would only the fact that soldiers died be the cause for outrage? Wouldn't it be reasonable that a more nuanced position based on why they died and how be appropriate?
    Thank you. This early, with investigations by the military not concluded, and "there's nothing to see here". Again, do you seriously expect me to believe that it would be the same if Hillary were president.

    puh-lease. Sorry (not sorry) but your comparison warrants it. I'm also just as responsible for them as a civilian as you are so I wouldn't try that again.

    ---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Fair enough, just don't make that claim again here since it is retracted now.
    I can still question it and bring up that others are questioning it as I have.

    ---------- Post added at 07:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    And like I insisted before, support or retract. Challenge to support a claim.
    "While Trump’s silence immediately after the attack troubles some, I find it infinitely preferable to the Obama administration’s lies immediately after Benghazi."

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rumps-benghazi

    I haven't made that determination yet. A hack has.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. #274
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Democratic Hypocrites!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQGOJOZwf_E

    See 10/26/17 if it does not take you to the specific video.

    Peter

  15. #275
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Democratic Hypocrites!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQGOJOZwf_E

    See 10/26/17 if it does not take you to the specific video.

    Peter
    Your video has been removed, and I think this is link wars.

    Other than that you're welcome to start a thread on democrats.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  16. #276
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Your video has been removed, and I think this is link wars.

    Other than that you're welcome to start a thread on democrats.
    Did you remove it or did it not open?

    Peter

  17. #277
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Did you remove it or did it not open?

    Peter
    It didn't open.

    Funny, you didn't get a warning from the mods?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #278
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    It didn't open.
    Ah! You can find the link by going to Youtube, typing in Hannity and the date - October 26. His opening monologue is about 18 minutes in length.
    It was too long to list all the relevant points without taking a lot of time to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Funny, you didn't get a warning from the mods?
    I understand that if we use a link we are meant to summarize the salient points we are making from it, but I was lazy. The point is that Uranium One could be a much larger story than anything we have seen to date. I believe there is a hidden conspiracy by the Democrats to hush this story, which would include the Media, which has barely covered the story to date because it conflicts with their agenda. I believe that main agenda is to undermine and possibly impeach Trump.

    Furthermore, I believe that Trump is a very effective leader that could be one of the greatest presidents your country has had. Obama did nothing. He actually contributed to the global mess your country finds itself tackling - massive debt and finacial instability, hostile foreign nations and groups bent on America's destruction, a moral slide in values, and dirty, corrupt politicians who care nothing for the average Joe, just how it affects their pocketbooks.

    Peter

  19. #279
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Democratic Hypocrites!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQGOJOZwf_E

    See 10/26/17 if it does not take you to the specific video.

    Peter
    PGA2, this is an insufficient argument and constitutes LinkWarz here at ODN. To whit:

    Quoting External Sources
    You are encouraged to provide support for any claims you make through the use of external sources. However, it is inappropriate to simply provide one or more links or sources (including embedded videos) and proclaim that all one needs to do is review them. Readers should not have to access your sources before they understand your argument. Where possible, you should provide a short summary of the link/video you have posted. Members who fail to observe this rule will be guilty of what is colloquially known as "linkwarz."

    Additionally you video was removed by the original user who uploaded it on YouTube, if you wish to use that as support for an argument, you'll need to link a different video, and provide an explanation of what your argument is, and how this video supports it.

    Please PM me, or any of the staff if you have any questions.


    ---------- Post added at 05:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    By the President.
    So in your mind it doesn't count that the Department of Defense made the announcement?

    So...by that logic we are running at over three years without President Obama publicly acknowledging the deaths of Seal Team 6 members in a fatal helicopter crash?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    This early, with investigations by the military not concluded, and "there's nothing to see here".
    That's a large strawman you are tilting at there. You'll notice that I didn't say there was "nothign to see here," I said that the deaths of US personnel absent other factors is not necessarily a cause of moral outrage.

    As for there being "nothing to see" that is an intellectually dishonest representation of the position I put forward which highlighted several conservative news sources asking questions about logisitical, operational, and intelligence support.

    To the extent that there is "nothing to see" it is in your initial claim that no sources are covering it, which has been decisively disproven at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I can still question it and bring up that others are questioning it as I have.
    No, you can't. This is a debate thread. In a debate thread simply posting others' positions is spam.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I haven't made that determination yet. A hack has.
    Fun quote, but it has nothing to do with your claim. That quote represents that the two administrations acted differently (one being silent the other making up claims it knew not to be true when stated). What you said was that if Trump were a democrat, the media discussion would be different. Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that claim.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. Thanks PGA2 thanked for this post
  21. #280
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    So in your mind it doesn't count that the Department of Defense made the announcement?

    So...by that logic we are running at over three years without President Obama publicly acknowledging the deaths of Seal Team 6 members in a fatal helicopter crash?
    I suppose so, if that's what your source shows. But democrats hate the military, right? Why would they ever speak about it?

    ---------- Post added at 12:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Fun quote, but it has nothing to do with your claim. That quote represents that the two administrations acted differently (one being silent the other making up claims it knew not to be true when stated). What you said was that if Trump were a democrat, the media discussion would be different. Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that claim.
    "So he wasn’t “left behind.”" https://www.redstate.com/streiff/201...riefing-niger/Who would he be responding to here? Do I have to do all of your sources? Because that's two.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Republican Fratracide?
    By manise in forum Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2008, 10:54 AM
  2. What is a democrat? A Republican?
    By Jamie678 in forum Politics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: January 8th, 2008, 03:12 PM
  3. What it means to be a Republican
    By Booger in forum Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2006, 03:27 AM
  4. Republican Floundering
    By Fyshhed in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 5th, 2004, 07:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •