Another day another shooting - 11 dead in Pittsburgh

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Maybe try engaging in what people are actually saying instead of whatever the **** this is.

Ridiculous. The strategy is to claim that Trump is using all sorts of dog whistles (but they are apparently really bad dog whistles because the people who hear them the loudest are the people who hate him). The net result is that, no matter what Trump says, those who hate him can claim that it includes a dog whistle that is really saying something else (sometimes exactly the opposite). Seriously, I think Trump is a buffoon, but it's beyond ridiculous the way that the left is reacting to him. It's as if the leftists are constantly having a contest to see who can come up with the worst possible interpretation of everything he does or says.

 

[Zombie]

Of course Snopes can always be trusted. They wouldn't gloss over the fact that the timing was incredibly suspicious, or that the apparent interest rate was over 9%, and that the supposed rate they are claiming the courts have awarded was over 20%. And they wouldn't tack this little beauty onto the end without explaination:

So the money was sent in cash in order to circumvent an issue that was lifted in the month that the money was sent?

Just because the sanctions were lifted in January that doesn't mean there were banks able or willing to do the transaction right away, (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-35317159) nor have I seen any indication anywhere that the sanctions that were lifted included the ability to do business in US dollars.

As for the timing the payment was apparently made on the same day as the prisoner swap as an assurance that it would take place, they used it as additional leverage. It's worth noting as well that the payment was not make in secret, the Obama administration made an announcement in January of 2016 that it would be taking place. Btw if you believe this was a ransom payment you are believing the Iranian government over your own. It's amazing what partisanship is capable of lol.

 

[Zombie]

Ridiculous. The strategy is to claim that Trump is using all sorts of dog whistles (but they are apparently really bad dog whistles because the people who hear them the loudest are the people who hate him). The net result is that, no matter what Trump says, those who hate him can claim that it includes a dog whistle that is really saying something else (sometimes exactly the opposite). Seriously, I think Trump is a buffoon, but it's beyond ridiculous the way that the left is reacting to him. It's as if the leftists are constantly having a contest to see who can come up with the worst possible interpretation of everything he does or says.

You should read or listen to this. It might held relieve you of your naivete about dog whistles and the clever use of language by white supremacists.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Maybe try engaging in what people are actually saying instead of whatever the **** this is.

Just because the sanctions were lifted in January that doesn't mean there were banks able or willing to do the transaction right away, (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-35317159) nor have I seen any indication anywhere that the sanctions that were lifted included the ability to do business in US dollars.

As for the timing the payment was apparently made on the same day as the prisoner swap as an assurance that it would take place, they used it as additional leverage. It's worth noting as well that the payment was not make in secret, the Obama administration made an announcement in January of 2016 that it would be taking place. Btw if you believe this was a ransom payment you are believing the Iranian government over your own. It's amazing what partisanship is capable of lol.

One thing we can agree on is your partisanship comment. Would you be willing to explain away all of the inconvenient facts in this article as well?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...-president-obama-broke-law-sending-cash-iran/

 

[Zombie]

One thing we can agree on is your partisanship comment. Would you be willing to explain away all of the inconvenient facts in this article as well?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...-president-obama-broke-law-sending-cash-iran/

No offense man, but if you are trying to change people's minds linking to an article by Andy Mccarthy isn't the way to go.

 

[One Brow]

I'm certain the Obama administration is grateful for people who will swallow their retroactive explanations hook, line and sinker just like you are apparently willing to.

Are you saying the explanation is false? Do you have a different explanation?

 

[One Brow]

Really? He said that the term Globalist is anti-semetic. So let me hear how you would discuss that issue if you are against Globalism, without being offensive?

glob·al·ism
/ˈɡlōbəlizəm/
noun

1. the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis.

Another source
: a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence

Are you suggesting the USA should have no global economic or foreign policies, that we should not try to spread our values to the rest of the world?

If not, what are you against?

 

[One Brow]

What happened is that the hostage for cash trade was made and then the photos of the cash leaked.

The hostages were traded for other hostages (Iranian prisoners for US prisoners). The cash was a negotiated part of the Iran nuclear deal.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

You should read or listen to this. It might held relieve you of your naivete about dog whistles and the clever use of language by white supremacists.

I listened to the entire thing. Supremacists are seriously misguided people, but I already knew that.

I'm very interested to hear what percentage of Americans you think identify with this sort of thinking? The idea that they are some sort of powerful force, and the idea that Trump is both supportive of and beholden to them, sure does make a good boogeyman for those with a progressive agenda.

One last comment: Kudos to Derek for leaving this group behind. It wouldn't have been easy to do when he was so deeply entrenched.

 

[gandalfe]

Is DutchJazzer for real?

Unfortunately.

 

[Zombie]

I listened to the entire thing. Supremacists are seriously misguided people, but I already knew that.

I'm very interested to hear what percentage of Americans you think identify with this sort of thinking? The idea that they are some sort of powerful force, and the idea that Trump is both supportive of and beholden to them, sure does make a good boogeyman for those with a progressive agenda.

One last comment: Kudos to Derek for leaving this group behind. It wouldn't have been easy to do when he was so deeply entrenched.

I listened to the entire thing. Supremacists are seriously misguided people, but I already knew that.

I'm very interested to hear what percentage of Americans you think identify with this sort of thinking? The idea that they are some sort of powerful force, and the idea that Trump is both supportive of and beholden to them, sure does make a good boogeyman for those with a progressive agenda.

One last comment: Kudos to Derek for leaving this group behind. It wouldn't have been easy to do when he was so deeply entrenched.

I think people like Derek make up a tiny percentage of this country-that is people who would identify as white supremacists/nationalists. That said, as he illustrates here-

So I did things like run little Republican county elections [to] demonstrate that I could win with the majority of the vote [using] white nationalist talking points in a very normal South Florida neighborhood.

A lot of other people can be motivated to vote based on white nationalist talking points.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

glob·al·ism
/ˈɡlōbəlizəm/
noun

1. the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis.

Another source
: a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence

Are you suggesting the USA should have no global economic or foreign policies, that we should not try to spread our values to the rest of the world?

If not, what are you against?

Nice job avoiding the question. Instead of explaining how someone can question globalism without being anti-Semite, you are apparently suggesting that questioning anything about globalism is somehow wrong. There are many reasons that thoughtful people might question certain globalist policies. You don't even have to be against globalism overall to think that certain aspects ought to be rethought. But if you can't even say the word without being anti-Semite, what are you supposed to do?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

The hostages were traded for other hostages (Iranian prisoners for US prisoners). The cash was a negotiated part of the Iran nuclear deal.

And it all happened on the same day, and the Iranian's claimed that the money was for the hostages, and the hostages claimed their release was delayed until the planeload of cash arrived, but the Obama administration told you that these things were separate and so you believe them.

And I'm sure you are also entirely comfortable with the fact that Obama said he used foreign currencies to get around the sanctions, even though the sanctions were put in place because Iran was sponsoring terrorism, and the use of foreign currency was every bit as illegal a way of circumventing the sanctions as any other method they could have used would have been.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I think people like Derek make up a tiny percentage of this country-that is people who would identify as white supremacists/nationalists. That said, as he illustrates here-

So I did things like run little Republican county elections [to] demonstrate that I could win with the majority of the vote [using] white nationalist talking points in a very normal South Florida neighborhood.

A lot of other people can be motivated to vote based on white nationalist talking points.

I agree with you that the percentage of people who hold supremacist views is tiny. Interesting that the mainstream media invests so much time and energy talking about these supposed dog whistles to a tiny group.

 

[Zombie]

I agree with you that the percentage of people who hold supremacist views is tiny. Interesting that the mainstream media invests so much time and energy talking about these supposed dog whistles to a tiny group.

I believe the second part of my post answers that. Also, to be clear I didn't say that the percentage of people who hold white supremacist views is tiny, I said the percentage of people who identify themselves as white supremacists is tiny.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I believe the second part of my post answers that.

You think that conservatives shouldn't be allowed to talk about their policies because ultra-conservatives might be comfortable with those same policies?

Does it bother you that communists would be in favor of the same things progressives are, as a first step? (Actually, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't because you mentioned how far left your views are.)

 

[Zombie]

You think that conservatives shouldn't be allowed to talk about their policies because ultra-conservatives might be comfortable with those same policies?

Does it bother you that communists would be in favor of the same things progressives are, as a first step? (Actually, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't because you mentioned how far left your views are.)

Yeah, again, you are arguing against something I didn't say. I think I'm done engaging with you have a good night.

 

[Red]

You are claiming that we can't talk about a major world issue because somehow the title of that issue is off limits as anti-Semetic. That's flat out ridiculous, but unfortunately par for the course when it comes to dealing with modern-day progressives.

No, you have to listen to Trump rallies, to see the entire context in which "globalist" is but one word he uses for the purpose of working up the anger of his listeners. It's not a title. Take the time to listen to Trump. Just a suggestion, it ain't easy, lol. But nobody has to filter this guy through their echo chamber of choice. One only has to listen to the man himself.

I am talking from the perspective of listening to the guy, and reading his tweets. I have seen you speak repeatedly of over the top hatred of Trump, or Trump derangement. Well, obviously you like him more then some. You can deny it, but if you can just go by his words, no echo chamber, and find this not unacceptable entirely, then I don't understand you, either.

It's not hatred. It's resistance to the intolerable. You don't get it. That's how I see it. You don't get it where Trump is concerned. And I don't care how you voted, or how many times you say that you too don't like Trump .

I listen to him to judge him. I think he's misguided. Yes, he angers me. But you think of people like me when you speak of Trump derangement at times. And it's not hatred, it's resistance to the intolerable. And I feel safe in making that judgement. And maybe history will judge far worse. With climate change, yeah, history likely will.

I think you missed the point entirely. I watch those rallies and the crowds that attend them. I see a dangerous movement. I am reminded of similar movements in other times and places. I believe in learning from the lessons of history. What the hell is the point otherwise?

 

[One Brow]

And it all happened on the same day, and the Iranian's claimed that the money was for the hostages, and the hostages claimed their release was delayed until the planeload of cash arrived, but the Obama administration told you that these things were separate and so you believe them.

Was there a delay between the release of the Iranian hostages and the US hostages?

And I'm sure you are also entirely comfortable with the fact that Obama said he used foreign currencies to get around the sanctions, even though the sanctions were put in place because Iran was sponsoring terrorism, and the use of foreign currency was every bit as illegal a way of circumventing the sanctions as any other method they could have used would have been.

I'm comfortable with us paying our bills, even to countries we don't like. Perhaps we should not have sold stuff to Iran in the first place. However, I would not want you to criticize St. Reagan for that, so just criticize Obama for paying back what we owed.

 

[One Brow]

Nice job avoiding the question. Instead of explaining how someone can question globalism without being anti-Semite, you are apparently suggesting that questioning anything about globalism is somehow wrong. There are many reasons that thoughtful people might question certain globalist policies.

I agree there can be criticizing of certain globalist policies. However, you did not disagree that we need to have globalism of some sort. So, why would anyone criticize what globalism actually is?

What people would do is use criticize globalism as code for criticizing other things.

You don't even have to be against globalism overall to think that certain aspects ought to be rethought. But if you can't even say the word without being anti-Semite, what are you supposed to do?

Criticize the actual policies you oppose? Is that too rational?