ADVERTISEMENT

War And Peace Should Be The Number One Campaign Issue

check out caroline Orr's twitter feed for an article on Tulsi. I've folowed her for a while and while I don't agree with her on everything, I consider her factually credible. @Pokeabear called Tulsi out early and he may be spot on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pokeabear
check out caroline Orr's twitter feed for an article on Tulsi. I've folowed her for a while and while I don't agree with her on everything, I consider her factually credible. @Pokeabear called Tulsi out early and he may be spot on.
I had never heard of Caroline Orr, and I’m not a twitter person, but. I looked her up. What I saw were a couple of tweets attacking her for defending J. Assange. Is that what you are referring to? Because, I’ve got to tell you, I’m with Tulsi on that front.

Pokeabear was pointing out NBC’s reporting that Russia was working for a Tulsi victory, a report that was completely - COMPLETELY! - debunked by The NY Times and Glenn Greenwald in theintercept.com.
 
I had never heard of Caroline Orr, and I’m not a twitter person, but. I looked her up. What I saw were a couple of tweets attacking her for defending J. Assange. Is that what you are referring to? Because, I’ve got to tell you, I’m with Tulsi on that front.

Pokeabear was pointing out NBC’s reporting that Russia was working for a Tulsi victory, a report that was completely - COMPLETELY! - debunked by The NY Times and Glenn Greenwald in theintercept.com.
But, please, this post is not about Tulsi Gabbard. I feel secure in believing theamericanconservative.com would be aghast at the thought of her as president. The link provided is a book review discussing the failed American “war first, ask questions later” policy that has been embraced across the political spectrum, a policy that is weakening our social and political fabric by the day. If it is not stopped our country will fall from the weight. It’s time for there to be candidates that are willing to talk about it.
 
I had never heard of Caroline Orr, and I’m not a twitter person, but. I looked her up. What I saw were a couple of tweets attacking her for defending J. Assange. Is that what you are referring to? Because, I’ve got to tell you, I’m with Tulsi on that front.

Pokeabear was pointing out NBC’s reporting that Russia was working for a Tulsi victory, a report that was completely - COMPLETELY! - debunked by The NY Times and Glenn Greenwald in theintercept.com.

No,https://arcdigital.media/tulsi-gabbard-is-not-anti-war-660e7d1e4ce1

She makes a case that Tulsi's not anti-war, she's pro-Assad/Putin. The anti-war stuff is at odds with her historic voting record and being a self-proclaimed hawk.
 
Pro Putin....

I mean... do you ever try saying this shit out loud before you post it?

Wtf is wrong with you? I'm her fan, dipshit, the article is factual. I'm supposed to deny facts now. You dont think you just fvcking feel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pokeabear
No,https://arcdigital.media/tulsi-gabbard-is-not-anti-war-660e7d1e4ce1

She makes a case that Tulsi's not anti-war, she's pro-Assad/Putin. The anti-war stuff is at odds with her historic voting record and being a self-proclaimed hawk.


OK, as I said I have never heard of Caroline Orr, but I’ll try to find time to check this out.

I will say right up front, however, if Ms. Orr is continuing to push the totally discredited meme that Gabbard is a Russian tool, she will have lost all credibility with me.

I don’t remember who is credited with saying “if you repeat the lie often enough eventually people will start to believe it.” Can’t remember whether it was a Russian communist or a German Nazi. But that seems to be the playbook the war-establishment powers in the Democratic Party have adhered to. The constant Russia, Russia, Russia drumbeat they have used against DJT seems to be what they’re trying to use to discredit Ms. Gabbard.

Ms. Gabbard ignited their fury when she very publicly exposed how the DNC was rigging the primary for Hillary. It was an unforgivable action as far as they are concerned. For many Democrats Hillary is viewed as a godlike creature, in the same way DJT is looked upon by people like HS Harry. As a result they will not allow anything to stand in the way as they destroy her reputation.

So, no, I do not accept Ms. Orr’s word if that is the tact she is using as it pertains to Putin and Russia.

As for Assad, Ms. Gabbard has made it very clear she does not see him or his country as any kind of threat to the interests of our country. And that is the standard by which she measures the need for the US to intervene. She dismantled the panel on Morning Joe the other day as they tried to make the case agsinst her. If you are truly interested I would advise you find it on YouTube and watch.

But as I said in the beginning I’ll try to find out what Ms. Orr is saying. Surely you understand that I disagree with Ms. Gabbard on virtually every issue. But for me the issue of war and peace takes precedence over every other issue combined. If a free market/anti-war candidate appears on the horizon, I will drop Ms. Gabbard like a rock.
 
Last edited:
OK, as I said I have never heard of Caroline Orr, but I’ll try to find time to check this out.

I will say right up front, however, if Ms. Orr is continuing to push the totally discredited meme that Gabbard is a Russian tool, she will have lost all credibility with me.

I don’t remember who is credited with saying “if you repeat the lie often enough eventually people will start to believe it.” Can’t remember whether it was a Russian communist or a German Nazi. But that seems to be the playbook the war-establishment powers in the Democratic Party have adhered to. The constant Russia, Russia, Russia drumbeat they have used against DJT seems to be what they’re trying to use to discredit Ms. Gabbard.

Ms. Gabbard ignited their fury when she very publicly exposed how the DNC was rigging the primary for Hillary. It was an unforgivable action as far as they are concerned. For many Democrats Hillary is viewed as a godlike creature, in the same way DJT is looked upon by people like HS Harry. As a result they will not allow anything to stand in the way as they destroy her reputation.

So, no, I do not accept Ms. Orr’s word if that is the tact she is using as it pertains to Putin and Russia.

As for Assad, Ms. Gabbard has made it very clear she does not see him or his country as any kind of threat to the interests of our country. And that is the standard by which she measures the need for the US to intervene. She dismantled the panel on Morning Joe the other day as they tried to make the case agsinst her. If you are truly interested I would advise you find it on YouTube and watch.

But as I said in the beginning I’ll try to find out what Ms. Orr is saying. Surely you understand that I disagree with Ma. Gabbard on virtually every issue. But for me the issue of war and peace takes precedence over every other issue combined. If a free market/anti-war candidate appears on the horizon, I will drop Ms. Gabbard like a rock.
Here,sys. I found this on YouTube. Like Ms. Orr I have never heard of this guy before. But it says he is a Young Turk, which I believe sits on your side of the aisle. Watch this:


 
Last edited:
Again, this is fake news at its finest. Ms. Gabbard does not have “full Kremlin support,” a discredited outright lie. As for her “praise of Assad,” please show the praise. Meeting with the man to see if there is some way to arrange peace is not praise.
I don’t care what you think or believe. You are lost like so many others. Zombies. After 3 years, there is no cure. Enjoy your brain food.
 
Go Tulsi. She will see through Putin.
Hijacking this thread a bit but did business in Russia after the breakup. Putin is a bad man.
Linking Wiki to a person who we did business with (his daughter somehow attended ou for a semester). Boris was in OKC several times... and brought along a hot sidekick in our meetings in DC.
Clffs: Putin turned on and destroyed him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)
 
OK, as I said I have never heard of Caroline Orr, but I’ll try to find time to check this out.

I will say right up front, however, if Ms. Orr is continuing to push the totally discredited meme that Gabbard is a Russian tool, she will have lost all credibility with me.

I don’t remember who is credited with saying “if you repeat the lie often enough eventually people will start to believe it.” Can’t remember whether it was a Russian communist or a German Nazi. But that seems to be the playbook the war-establishment powers in the Democratic Party have adhered to. The constant Russia, Russia, Russia drumbeat they have used against DJT seems to be what they’re trying to use to discredit Ms. Gabbard.

Ms. Gabbard ignited their fury when she very publicly exposed how the DNC was rigging the primary for Hillary. It was an unforgivable action as far as they are concerned. For many Democrats Hillary is viewed as a godlike creature, in the same way DJT is looked upon by people like HS Harry. As a result they will not allow anything to stand in the way as they destroy her reputation.

So, no, I do not accept Ms. Orr’s word if that is the tact she is using as it pertains to Putin and Russia.

As for Assad, Ms. Gabbard has made it very clear she does not see him or his country as any kind of threat to the interests of our country. And that is the standard by which she measures the need for the US to intervene. She dismantled the panel on Morning Joe the other day as they tried to make the case agsinst her. If you are truly interested I would advise you find it on YouTube and watch.

But as I said in the beginning I’ll try to find out what Ms. Orr is saying. Surely you understand that I disagree with Ms. Gabbard on virtually every issue. But for me the issue of war and peace takes precedence over every other issue combined. If a free market/anti-war candidate appears on the horizon, I will drop Ms. Gabbard like a rock.

Forget Orr. I dont care what her opinion is, either. She's factually credible. She doesn't just make shit up, regardless of where she comes down. I don't agree with her on everything but the article lays out sourced facts behind the criticisms of Tulsi.

I'm not going to say she's an instrument of putin, either, but that is not the inquiry. To me the inquiry is whether she is suitable to be a president.

It's disappointing, it's not a good look for her. It kind of explains the wingnut fascination with her though. That and she's hot. Never underestimate what men will put up with from a woman they like.
 
Forget Orr. I dont care what her opinion is, either. She's factually credible. She doesn't just make shit up, regardless of where she comes down. I don't agree with her on everything but the article lays out sourced facts behind the criticisms of Tulsi.

I'm not going to say she's an instrument of putin, either, but that is not the inquiry. To me the inquiry is whether she is suitable to be a president.

It's disappointing, it's not a good look for her. It kind of explains the wingnut fascination with her though. That and she's hot. Never underestimate what men will put up with from a woman they like.


I personally would judge her suitability to be president on a par with Obama or Trump. Or Bush. Or Bill Clinton. Certainly superior to LBJ or Nixon. Or Jerry Ford. Or Bush the 1st. Again, I’ll read your link (I’ve perused it, but not followed the links within the piece).

One thing I do agree with the opinion piece: it is incorrect to call her anti-war. She is quite willing to involve America in a war with someone whose interests violently clash with ours. She is calling for disinvolvement in military adventurism in the name of nation building, not peace at all costs.

It is unfair and insulting for you to describe her supporters as “wingnuts.” Not everyone who disagrees with your opinion is a wingnut. There are many intellectuals and academics who provide support for her proclamations. The original link in the OP is just such support (although Gabbard is not mentioned). Advocating for a noninterventionist American foreign policy goes back at least as far as George Washington. Do you consider him to have been a wingnut?
 
I don’t care what you think or believe. You are lost like so many others. Zombies. After 3 years, there is no cure. Enjoy your brain food.
I regret you feel that way. I have enjoyed our times of back and forth. This comment sounds more like it comes from Clinton than you. I know you get enjoyment out of trolling others with your imoges (is that what they’re called?), which is rather juvenile, but when you are serious in your remarks I take you seriously.
 
I had never heard of Caroline Orr, and I’m not a twitter person, but. I looked her up. What I saw were a couple of tweets attacking her for defending J. Assange. Is that what you are referring to? Because, I’ve got to tell you, I’m with Tulsi on that front.

Pokeabear was pointing out NBC’s reporting that Russia was working for a Tulsi victory, a report that was completely - COMPLETELY! - debunked by The NY Times and Glenn Greenwald in theintercept.com.

You personally posted a link from Russian front site promoting Tulsi just yesterday
 
  • Like
Reactions: AC_Exotic
https://www.whois.com/whois/strategic-culture.org

strategic-culture.org

Updated 2 days ago
refresh.png

Domain Information
Domain:
strategic-culture.org

Registrar:
Regional Network Information Center, JSC dba RU-CENTER

Registered On:
2010-06-08

Expires On:
2019-06-08

Updated On:
2018-10-23

Status:
clientTransferProhibited

Name Servers:
meera.ns.cloudflare.com
west.ns.cloudflare.com

Registrant Contact
Organization:
Privacy protection service - whoisproxy.ru

State:
Moscow

Country:
RU
 
Interesting. I googled them and there were some reports the website is connected to Russia. I didn’t see definitive proof, but there was a lot of smoke. What’s interesting is the author of the piece, Philip Giraldi, is a retired former counter-intelligence and military officer with the CIA. That’s an example of strange bedfellows!

I found the article on the website antiwar.com, headed by Justin Raimondo, whose mentor was renowned anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard, and Rothbard studied at the feet of Ludwig von Mises. I don’t think any of those three can be considered as pawns of Russia!

That being said I, for one, found nothing objectionable about the article that was linked. It was a reasonable exposition of the various presidential candidates as to their desire to use diplomacy rather than warfare.
 
Interesting. I googled them and there were some reports the website is connected to Russia. I didn’t see definitive proof, but there was a lot of smoke. What’s interesting is the author of the piece, Philip Giraldi, is a retired former counter-intelligence and military officer with the CIA. That’s an example of strange bedfellows!

I found the article on the website antiwar.com, headed by Justin Raimondo, whose mentor was renowned anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard, and Rothbard studied at the feet of Ludwig von Mises. I don’t think any of those three can be considered as pawns of Russia!

That being said I, for one, found nothing objectionable about the article that was linked. It was a reasonable exposition of the various presidential candidates as to their desire to use diplomacy rather than warfare.

Not the point. The Russians are backing Tulsi Gabbard. You are calling it a conspiracy and using them doing it as your sources at the same time
 
Not the point. The Russians are backing Tulsi Gabbard. You are calling it a conspiracy and using them doing it as your sources at the same time


No, you are the one calling it a conspiracy, not me.

I argued with pokeabear earlier when he started this Russia business, that because Gabbard’s policy for nonintervention is coincidentally shared by Russia does not make her a shill for Russia. I’m not a shill for Russia and I strongly support the US pulling out of the wars in the Midfle East. The Libertarian Party is for nonintervention, but that does not make it a shill for Russia.

That a website rumored to be connected to Russia posts an article by a retired counter-intelligence CIA operative which compares the known candidates’ advocacy for nonintervention does not make Ms. Gabbard a Russian pawn.

It may be hard for some people to believe, but it is entirely possible Ms. Gabbard has a mind of her own, that she utilizes her mind and wartime experience to draw her own conclusions, and has concluded that the US will collapse from the weight of never-ending intrusion of other countrys’ sovereignty. That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion for anyone to draw, and that Russia desires the same thing does not make a person that draws that conclusion a Russian colluder, which is the inference being made by pokeabear, not to mention the entire warmonger Democratic Party apparatus.
 
The site isn't rumored anything. I gave you the info. It's Russian owned, Russian registered, and Russian hosted.
 
The site isn't rumored anything. I gave you the info. It's Russian owned, Russian registered, and Russian hosted.
And that makes Ms. Gabbard a shill for Russia? Who’s that bozo KKKer that endorsed her, David Duke? Does that make her a shill for the KKK? The inference that pokeabear on this site, and the establishment Democrat Party, and it’s shills in the MSM, is trying to get people to draw is the same inference they have made against DJT. I’m sure they think all’s fair in politics, but I find it disgusting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: squeak
Sorry Dan, PDT is right. I dont support communism or intrusive government. We may agree or disagree on what intrusive government is, but I consider Putin's regime to be too much. Linda is behind her that gives me pause. She does not make it any better by appearing to B such an ally of Assad. It is pretty easy to criticize that guy.
And that makes Ms. Gabbard a shill for Russia? Who’s that bozo KKKer that endorsed her, David Duke? Does that make her a shill for the KKK? The inference that pokeabear on this site, and the establishment Democrat Party, and it’s shills in the MSM, is trying to get people to draw is the same inference they have made against DJT. I’m sure they think all’s fair in politics, but I find it disgusting.

Because she totally changed her foreign policy ethos.... after visiting Assad.
 
And that makes Ms. Gabbard a shill for Russia? Who’s that bozo KKKer that endorsed her, David Duke? Does that make her a shill for the KKK? The inference that pokeabear on this site, and the establishment Democrat Party, and it’s shills in the MSM, is trying to get people to draw is the same inference they have made against DJT. I’m sure they think all’s fair in politics, but I find it disgusting.

I'm not claiming Gabbard is anything. I just don't need a Russian publisher telling me who to vote for on the sly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Syskatine
Sorry Dan, PDT is right. I dont support communism or intrusive government. We may agree or disagree on what intrusive government is, but I consider Putin's regime to be too much. Linda is behind her that gives me pause. She does not make it any better by appearing to B such an ally of Assad. It is pretty easy to criticize that guy.


Because she totally changed her foreign policy ethos.... after visiting Assad.
.

What has she done or said that makes you think she might be an ally of Putin? She was asked specifically on Morning Joe if she had had any meetings with “Russia,” and she flatly said no. She was asked specifically on Morning Joe if Putin is a “bad man” and she unhesitatingly said yes.

She has been slandered by NBC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, charges leveled which were refuted by none other than The NY Times, which is hardly in the pocket of peaceniks. And once refuted NBC has doubled down on the lie, giving succor to her establishment Democratic opponents.

What has she done to appear to be an ally of Assad? What was her foreign policy ethos before she visited Assad? And how did she change it? Don’t give me a link to read. You are claiming you don’t trust her. Give specifics!
 
I'm not claiming Gabbard is anything. I just don't need a Russian publisher telling me who to vote for on the sly.
Nor should you need anyone telling you for whom to vote! Does it give you the slightest pause to consider the article appeared on a libertarian website, written by a retired CIA operative? Have you even the slightest thought you might read the article and learn something? Are you able for one moment to table your distrust because of the “publisher” long enough to consider the content to see if any of it makes sense to you?
 
Nor should you need anyone telling you for whom to vote! Does it give you the slightest pause to consider the article appeared on a libertarian website, written by a retired CIA operative? Have you even the slightest thought you might read the article and learn something? Are you able for one moment to table your distrust because of the “publisher” long enough to consider the content to see if any of it makes sense to you?

Does it bother you that the author is an anti-semite nut job? Or that he's the Executive Director of a think tank where some of the board members are in prison for aiding terrorists?
 
I don't want to win. I want you to really read the trash this guy puts out

The article to which you originally commented was not trash. It is a thoughtful and thought provoking opinion.

I quickly glanced at the organization’s homepage, and it is litered with headlines with condemnation of some Israeli policies. Condemnation of policies enacted by the government of Israel does not equate to anti-Semitism.

I wish I had paid more attention now, but a few days ago there was something about how the Israeli government managed to get support in the USA. They did it by persuading America that any criticism of Israel’s government is anti-Semitic. And therefore such anti-Semitism was tantamount to being Nazi propaganda. Once accomplished, that gave their government carte blanche to carry out any policy it wanted without fear of reprisal from America. (Please tell me that wasn’t something from NZ!).

If that’s what you are basing your argument on it would be wise for you to reevaluate your thinking.
 
First in war, first in peace, and last in the American League.
 
Does it bother you that the author is an anti-semite nut job? Or that he's the Executive Director of a think tank where some of the board members are in prison for aiding terrorists?

If I avoided articles from any source I don't personally trust, I wouldn't read a damn thing.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT