NipkowDisc

The Triumph of Donald Trump

8,026 posts in this topic

just like hollywood not wanting to see the hypocrisy of their own giving Harvey weinstein protective cover for years.

:D

Aren't you the one who posted on another thread the biblical passage about "Judge not...." The Christian evangelicals are the first to judge and throw stones, as is Trump. Somehow, the stones they've thrown at others they don't to Trump for the same behavior. Hypocrisy all around.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you make silly and inaccurate statements like 'rolling back ALL social gains,' you lose ALL creditability.

 

PS:   my fear is that Dem politicians will make similar comments and therefore the Dems will NOT be able to take back the House in 2018.      Being over-the-top isn't the way to win elections in most states.

Arturo may be very slightly mistaken about the Trump administration and Republican Congress and state legislatures rolling back "ALL" social gains, but so far they are well on track to do just that in the 9 months they have had to do it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Baird Televisor conceived by scotsman John Logie Baird.

 

that big round thing set in the back is where the scanning wheel turned, the screen is on the right.

:lol:

5919e6a11600002a00c5b4a4.jpg?ops=scalefi

of course the hatch on the left is the coal chute. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rep. Ted Lieu‏Verified account @RepTedLieu 3h3 hours ago

 
 

Congress’ most fundamental duties is to conduct oversight over war powers & operations. @ForeignAffairs must hold hearings on #NigerAttack.

DMiMVvlWAAACTto.jpg

 

it it couldn't be used to criticize trump these democrats would not give a rat's behind about four dead american soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is what the liberal side doan get. what they refuse to comprehend...

 

barack obama...

 

 

out of one side of his mouth he professed a christian faith...but then outta the other side of his mouth commends and celebrates a supreme court ruling that makes a mockery of what western civilization has understood marriage to be for more than 500 years....

 

a theologically-based matrimonial union of a man and woman. even the ancient romans understood this.

 

no rational person of any traditional religious faith is gonna buy into it. not christians, not jews and certainly not muslims. to them it is an insane depraved sexual jabberwocky.

 

and anyone who disagrees is a prejudiced bigot? doan wash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it it couldn't be used to criticize trump these democrats would not give a rat's behind about four dead american soldiers.

One word: BENGHAZI!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is what the liberal side doan get. what they refuse to comprehend...

 

barack obama...

 

 

out of one side of his mouth he professed a christian faith...but then outta the other side of his mouth commends and celebrates a supreme court ruling that makes a mockery of what western civilization has understood marriage to be for more than 500 years....

 

a theologically-based matrimonial union of a man and woman. even the ancient romans understood this.

 

no rational person of any traditional religious faith is gonna buy into it. not christians, not jews and certainly not muslims. to them it is an insane depraved sexual jabberwocky.

 

and anyone who disagrees is a prejudiced bigot? doan wash.

What was that biblical quote you used a couple of days ago? "Judge not......"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it it couldn't be used to criticize trump these democrats would not give a rat's behind about four dead american soldiers.

 

I don't see much evidence of Trump supporters on these boards demanding an investigation into the deaths. It couldn't be that you don't give a rat's behind about four dead American soldiers, does it?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was that biblical quote you used a couple of days ago? "Judge not......"?

a tree is known by it's fruit. God does not require human intellectual comprehension to be deaf and dumb either.

 

the bible speaks of judgment more in the context of spiritual condemnation not on reasonable assumptions made by others based on an individual's own words. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see much evidence of Trump supporters on these boards demanding an investigation into the deaths. It couldn't be that you don't give a rat's behind about four dead American soldiers, does it?

 

Isn't the real issue here more right wing hypocrisy?   E.g. Benghazi and the endless investigations to try to pin something on Hillary Clinton,  but now silent about what might have happened in N-I-g-e-r  (another auto censored word!).

 

I'm against these partisan investigations across the board.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the real issue here more right wing hypocrisy?   E.g. Benghazi and the endless investigations to try to pin something on Hillary Clinton,  but now silent about what might have happened in N-I-g-e-r  (another auto censored word!).

 

I'm against these partisan investigations across the board.    

 

The difference here is that Benghazi was a question of what went wrong, while the Ni-gher incident is a question of why did we even have troops in harm's way there. The military has not been forthcoming about it, although the deaths seem to have been quickly reported. If it's a question of secrecy, there are still committees that can look into it. The likelihood that it would descend into partisan finger-pointing is about 99.999%, though.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference here is that Benghazi was a question of what went wrong, while the Ni-gher incident is a question of why did we even have troops in harm's way there. The military has not been forthcoming about it, although the deaths seem to have been quickly reported. If it's a question of secrecy, there are still committees that can look into it. The likelihood that it would descend into partisan finger-pointing is about 99.999%, though.

 

Wasn't the policy question related to Benghazi 'why did the USA have an embassy in a country (area),  that was unstable (basically still having a civil war)?

 

I believe Clinton made a wrong decision by not closing the embassy,  but hey,  Secretaries of State make wrong decisions, since they are human beings  (that doesn't mean there was something nefarious going on, which is what a partisan typically implies in these situations).     

 

So,  I'm all for Congress finding out why US Troops were in Ni-gher as long as it doesn't become a media skeptical of ending partisan finger-pointing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is what the liberal side doan get. what they refuse to comprehend...

 

barack obama...

 

 

out of one side of his mouth he professed a christian faith...but then outta the other side of his mouth commends and celebrates a supreme court ruling that makes a mockery of what western civilization has understood marriage to be for more than 500 years....

 

a theologically-based matrimonial union of a man and woman. even the ancient romans understood this.

 

no rational person of any traditional religious faith is gonna buy into it. not christians, not jews and certainly not muslims. to them it is an insane depraved sexual jabberwocky.

 

and anyone who disagrees is a prejudiced bigot? doan wash.

 

You're confused yet again;   You should listen to what Rand Paul had to say on this;  just because a politician (or citizen),  believe something should NOT be illegal,  doesn't mean they condone it.      

 

Most laws are designed to prevent a person causing harm to OTHERS.     Government should generally avoid passing laws that outlaw or restrict behavior that does NOT harm others.    E.g. drinking alcohol is legal, but driving drunk is NOT.      

 

I have no problem with Christian and Muslims being against SSM.   But they have no basis, based on US Law,  to outlaw it.   Instead you want a nanny state where the government controls behavior that does NOT harm OTHERS.    Move to a country founded on Islamic law!   There you would be free to kill homosexuals,  which is your true desire.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're confused yet again;   You should listen to what Rand Paul had to say on this;  just because a politician (or citizen),  believe something should NOT be illegal,  doesn't mean they condone it.      

s NOT harm OTHERS.    Move to a country founded on Islamic law!   There you would be free to kill homosexuals,  which is your true desire.

isn't that kinda the trump administration's rationale for not outright condemning the white nationalist march in charlottesville?

 

what would be the position of the naacp if trump appeared to attack BLM's right to freedom of expression and assembly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't that kinda the trump administration's rationale for not outright condemning the white nationalist march in charlottesville?

 

what would be the position of the naacp if trump appeared to attack BLM's right to freedom of expression and assembly?

 

Your reply shows you still don't get it;     The Trump admin should have condemned the white nationalist march in Charlottesville.  But if they had done so,  white nationalist shouldn't assume that means the Trump admin believes such marches should be illegal (like some on the left curelessly believed).

 

So you have it backward;   ones' stance on if something should be legal or illegal doesn't have to equate to if one supports or condemns that something. 

 

Hey,  liberals do this also;  E.g.   regulating the size of soda cups.    To me anyone that drinks sugary 32 oz drinks is a moron but I don't wish to regulate the size of their soda cup.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

isn't that kinda the trump administration's rationale for not outright condemning the white nationalist march in charlottesville?

 

what would be the position of the naacp if trump appeared to attack BLM's right to freedom of expression and assembly?

 

I wasn't aware that Black Lives Matter caused the Holocaust or was responsible for lynching black men for more than a century.

 

Also I wasn't aware that Black Lives Matter had ever been involved in anything like the Holocaust or lynching.

 

Black Lives Matter is simply a non-violent legal protest against police brutality of black men. It's not anti-police--it's anti- Rogue police, who damage the reputation of all law enforcement.

 

With your mindset you would probably equate Martin Luther King's Non-Violent Civil Rights Movement with the Ku Klux Klan.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that Black Lives Matter caused the Holocaust or was responsible for lynching black men for more than a century.

 

Also I wasn't aware that Black Lives Matter had ever been involved in anything like the Holocaust or lynching.

 

Black Lives Matter is simply a non-violent legal protest against police brutality of black men. It's not anti-police--it's anti- Rogue police, who damage the reputation of all law enforcement.

 

With your mindset you would probably equate Martin Luther King's Non-Violent Civil Rights Movement with the Ku Klux Klan.

 

Are you saying that the Ku Klux Klan shouldn't have a legal right to  non-violent protest?   BECAUSE that was the point Nip was making;  that BOTH have a legal right to a non-violent protest.

 

Man I hope that isn't where you were going,  but I have to ask since many on the left,  especially black activist,  are saying that speech by itself is violent and therefore should be illegal as well as that it is OK to use violence to stop speech they find offensive.      (with some exceptions like trying to incite violence against others).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2017 at 10:52 AM, NipkowDisc said:

let the quitters take off like scared jackrabbits.

no one is gonna interfere with our donny!

:D

59f00f72140000610d8c9911.jpeg?cache=j2cbzpotlg&ops=936_526,prog,quality_75

May be no one NOT named Mueller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2017 at 6:47 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

 

Are you saying that the Ku Klux Klan shouldn't have a legal right to  non-violent protest?   BECAUSE that was the point Nip was making;  that BOTH have a legal right to a non-violent protest.

 

Man I hope that isn't where you were going,  but I have to ask since many on the left,  especially black activist,  are saying that speech by itself is violent and therefore should be illegal as well as that it is OK to use violence to stop speech they find offensive.      (with some exceptions like trying to incite violence against others).

Isn't the Klan legally considered a "terrorist group?" I'm all for free speech but I don't think that covers groups the US government qualifies as terrorists. They have about much right to protest as IS sympathizers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us