Can anyone answer this important question?
- Thread starter NZ Poke
- Start date
Because they're American. It's OK to lie, cheat and manipulate other Americans, it's call politics, but if it's some foreigner we are going to go after Trump.
Kinda like when 19 Saudis flew planes into our buildings and we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
Politics suck.
Kinda like when 19 Saudis flew planes into our buildings and we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
Politics suck.
Why did it take 15 years for conservatives to come to their senses over this? It's amazing to me how few conservatives criticized that until Biff did in the primary.
Hillary Clinton supported the same invasion and is still an ardent interventionist vis a vis the Mideast. Did she learn?
Nope and I've called it every since. She was on the wrong side of Iraq and never owned up to it. Cost her the nomination in '08. And she voted for it because she lacked the political courage to take a stand about it. I saw it. I was screaming at the time that the D's were bullied by the GOP and media into going along and that's only marginally worse than actually ginning the whole thing up.
Chris Matthews was screaming for war. I saw the little curly headed guy on FOX one morning literally squeal that anyone against the invasion should leave the U.S. Wilson outed the yellow cake lie on the front page of the... never mind. Nobody wants to hear me lose it over this shit again. I still think it's the biggest, most unforgivable &#$%up and shit hearted move from the U.S. government in my lifetime. We're still paying for it. Dumbya invades Afghanistan... and doesn't kill Bin Laden. You can't make up that degree of incompetence. Lying to start a war and destabilize the middle east is up there with nazi war crimes, imo. Slam Dunk. Greeted as victors. Mission Accomplished!
I'll bet you were for it, weren't you, Frank? Probably still are.
I know -- they defended it to me for a long time. That narrative changed when Biff sounded off. And the same ones were screaming for the birth certificate. They disappear like the Viet Cong whenever it comes up.
Why not just put him on ignore? I came back to this thread thinking that you had added some interesting discussion. Now you have rick rolled me twice.
Brad would NEVER ignore me. He's been following me around, humping my leg on here for years.
@Been Jammin
I've been following him around punking him since he went off the deep end around the time of the election.
He used to be reasonable, kinda like you. Well, not like you....you're much more reasonable and open to dialogue.
Since we're talking humping, it's been heard from anonymous sources that if you'll do your kegels every day for a while....you may entice Harry back.
Damn right, Hillary hasn't owned up to it; she's a Mideast interventionist. Did you vote for her?
It goes back to the fact that Hillary and her followers believed the American presidency belonged to her and yet this happened last November:
Maybe syskatine can vote for the interventionist again when she runs in 2020?
Bushes. Clintons.Frank when Biff ripped Bush:
Clintons. Bushes.
Is there much of a difference when it comes to the topic of senseless wars? Most Republicans I know are glad the Bushes are out of the picture. Every single solitary Democrat I know voted for Clinton.
Rumor has it Hollywood (not our dip) will make a movie to ensure her winning the third
time around: Cankles Wadling/Stumbling/Falling on Huma's Sword/Whatever.
Sys,
You are right. I was young and was manipulated by the media to believe (at the time) that the Iraq and Afghan invasions were appropriate. Still not sure the Afghan war was wrong (just fought the wrong way), but its clear that the Iraq invasion made no sense, and that context influenced the resolve and outcomes of the Afghan war theater. However, as I've matured, I've learned that the media has its own agenda and doesn't just report the news so now take what it says with a huge grain of salt. That's why I'm so skeptical of this "Russia-gate" story. Yet, you seem to be the opposite. You recognized that the media tries to manipulate its audience, and have many times stated your opinion of their role in leading us to the ME wars, yet you seem to have fallen for their Russia story hook, line and sinker.
You are right. I was young and was manipulated by the media to believe (at the time) that the Iraq and Afghan invasions were appropriate. Still not sure the Afghan war was wrong (just fought the wrong way), but its clear that the Iraq invasion made no sense, and that context influenced the resolve and outcomes of the Afghan war theater. However, as I've matured, I've learned that the media has its own agenda and doesn't just report the news so now take what it says with a huge grain of salt. That's why I'm so skeptical of this "Russia-gate" story. Yet, you seem to be the opposite. You recognized that the media tries to manipulate its audience, and have many times stated your opinion of their role in leading us to the ME wars, yet you seem to have fallen for their Russia story hook, line and sinker.
I'm not sure the afghan war was "fought the wrong way" -- I just don't know what the mission was. If it was to kill Bin Laden, bully for the idea, and shame, shame shame for execution. If it was to establish some type of pro-american or anti-stone age government, that's futile.
I think the media largely has one agenda: Make money. That's for MSNBC, FOX, Breitbart and Huffpost -- they all have the same motivation$. I rely on the corporate media for facts and not opinion. There's not much alternative, imo.
If you are unaware of the Flynn and Manaforte evidence or Russian propaganda efforts in 2016, and Biff's attempts to frustrate scrutiny of the same, that's because you have deliberately ignored facts.
The WaPost doesn't just make shit up, I consider them pretty legitimate. That doesn't mean they wont' get something wrong, but they don't just make things up. Fox has showed its ass so many times I can't believe anyone watches them. Rachel Maddow did the same thing with the Trump returns. She still has very accurate facts, and cites to primary sources, though. If the Daily OK has a "fact" on the front page, and it's surrounded with editorial musing, it's still a fact and although I think they're slanted, I wouldn't say that they just made something up. I think that's where I disagree with conservatives today. They eschew legitimate media's message of fact because they disagree with the editorial slant.
I am unaware of a 100%, totally accurate, objective reporter that always gets it right. I don't know of any human being that can satisfy that standard. It seems like conservatives frequently just say, "All media stories are bullshit" in response, so their default becomes an occult writer in his Mom's basement that says what they want to hear. At least, that's what occurs on this board.
"If you are unaware of the Flynn and Manaforte evidence or Russian propaganda efforts in 2016, and Biff's attempts to frustrate scrutiny of the same, that's because you have deliberately ignored facts."
I disagree. I've chosen to understand that these are international business men that have Russian ties, but that doesn't make them boogeymen, any more than saying Saudi Arabia influenced our election because Hillary had ties to their leaders. As for the Russian hacking, I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe this isn't any different than the same hacking China does to us every single day, or that our our intelligence agency does to every other country every single day. You've chosen to accept the media's narrative that normal and known business associations have a nefarious meaning because they are Trump's people. I'm also of the belief that given the animosity between Trump and the media and the intelligence agencies, that if there were any legitimate evidence of collusion, it would have come to light by now (or it never will).
I disagree. I've chosen to understand that these are international business men that have Russian ties, but that doesn't make them boogeymen, any more than saying Saudi Arabia influenced our election because Hillary had ties to their leaders. As for the Russian hacking, I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe this isn't any different than the same hacking China does to us every single day, or that our our intelligence agency does to every other country every single day. You've chosen to accept the media's narrative that normal and known business associations have a nefarious meaning because they are Trump's people. I'm also of the belief that given the animosity between Trump and the media and the intelligence agencies, that if there were any legitimate evidence of collusion, it would have come to light by now (or it never will).
