- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:46 am to Lsupimp
quote:
Think about the arc of the Democratic Party in your lifetime. Pretty astonishing, huh ?
Yes - I think you know my history - I remember FDR - and I was old enough to evaluate HST - who I really liked.
I'll admit that my initial infatuation with DDE was based solely on his WWII efforts. AES was a nobody to me - as a kid, I was not exactly involved with politics and you had to read the newspapers to find anything at all. I was more interested in the sports and comic pages of the Shreveport Times - my only portal to the wide world.
I began to notice 'politics' when a lot of my dad's friends would badger him with questions - "did you vote for IKE?? (2nd time)" as he was a life-long ardent DEMOCRAT == actually he HATED Republicans (based on having grown up after the excesses of the Reconstruction era)
Anyway, my first acquaintance with real politics was when TV came to our house - sometime in about '54. I began seeing both DEMs and GOPs on TV - and the GOP always seemed to have better arguments based on facts and logic as I understood the world at the time = I have never departed from that original conclusion of GOP = facts and logic ...... DEMs = emotion and innuendo.
I liked JFK but i liked RMN more and cast my fist vote in my life in '60.
Since then, the only honest DEM POTUS I have known is Carter - I do not believe he was nefarious - he was just incompetent and followed the party line he had grown up with.
EVERY OTHER DEM POTUS has been anti-constitutional, but only since OBAMA have we had a POTUS that actually hated America.
DEMs can only survive in a milieu of emotional distress - hence RACISM - 67 GENDERs - HOMOPHOBIA - MISOGYNOMY - IMMIGRATION - CAGING BABIES - MUSLIM BAN - WEALTH GAP -
:yack: I have come to see this go full cycle - political differences based on different ideas about how to make America greater - to NAZI/COMMIE tactics of POWER AT ANY COST!!!
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:52 am to bmy
quote:
Complaint alleges that Ukrainian officials were "led to believe that a [future] meeting or phone call between" Trump and Zelensky would depend on Zelensky's willingness to "play ball"
And what is that 'allegation' based on?? - How is this even a conceivable interpretation of that phone call???
Are you saying that the w/b was just a democrat with an unfounded fear who used the "urgent" allegation in order to give the compliant media and the traitorous DEMs a reason to completely swamp the narrative with bullshite for the rest of the time until this "impeachment' fiasco gets kicked back into the sewer???
Is THAT your understanding/?? and if so how can you purport to be a 'thinking man' a carry such an illogical rational???
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:55 am to bmy
quote:
he was soliciting information he felt would be very very helpful to him personally.
He was soliciting information that would lead to a better understanding of the "RUSSIAN COLLUSION" hoax that you and your party blared to the world for three years.
Are you no longer interesting in finding out the true facts about RUSSIAN MEDDLING??????
There was not ONE WORD about any 'future' election contained in that conversation - not a syllable - not a pregnant pause - NOTHING!!
prove me wrong
Posted on 9/30/19 at 10:56 am to bmy
Meh.
I don't think your everyday American really cares much.
I don't think your everyday American really cares much.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 11:36 am to Lsupimp
quote:
Oh gee. A Sky Screamer rushing in to parse words and derail the relevant conversation. That’s new and different
Taking my cues from the blue bois who seize on one insignificant part of a whole, then present it as important, then hammer it home over and over until people believe it.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:27 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Meh.
I don't think your everyday American really cares much.
They care about as much as the media tells them to
Posted on 9/30/19 at 1:35 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
And what is that 'allegation' based on?? - How is this even a conceivable interpretation of that phone call???
Whistleblower is basically alleging that the phone call we saw transcripts of happened as a result of a quid pro quo.
Not that the quid pro quo was actually in the phone call.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 2:15 pm to bmy
quote:
Not that the quid pro quo was actually in the phone call.
So it is not possible to prove it one way or the other. This should go over swimmingly with anyone over the age of 12.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 2:31 pm to ShoeBang
quote:
So it is not possible to prove it one way or the other. This should go over swimmingly with anyone over the age of 12.
Why wouldn't it be possible?
Posted on 9/30/19 at 2:32 pm to bmy
quote:
Why wouldn't it be possible?
Person A: Person "B" did "xyz"
Person B: I did not do "xyz"
Prove who is right please.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 2:35 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Setting aside EVERYTHING else, I agree that the “Urgent” characterization may well have been inaccurate
"Urgent" is yet another brick in the wall of non-credibility.
Posted on 9/30/19 at 2:57 pm to bmy
quote:
Whistleblower is basically alleging that the phone call we saw transcripts of happened as a result of a quid pro quo.
Not that the quid pro quo was actually in the phone call.
Well thank you for that.
Whether it is factually based or not it meets the standard of a rational reply.
I’ve actually not heard that conclusion before. Does the w/b have any direct evidence of this as a truthful statement. Or is it just a desired conclusion based on hopeful suspicions. - you know like the Russian Collusion or Kavanaugh Rape hoaxes???
Posted on 9/30/19 at 3:48 pm to ShoeBang
quote:
Person A: Person "B" did "xyz"
Person B: I did not do "xyz"
Prove who is right please.
What are subpoeanas
Posted on 9/30/19 at 6:44 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
I’ve actually not heard that conclusion before. Does the w/b have any direct evidence of this as a truthful statement.
I have no idea. We will know pretty soon though.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News