Liberal Forum

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 1:22 pm » wrote: Nice talking points, but the idea that the election was going to rigged was a regular theme promoted by the Russians/Putin, and Trump picked it up and ran with it.

Oh, I see, oooh! Trump "picked up" Putin's themes!

As I have many times noted, you're severely mentally ill.

It is indisputable that many felonies have been committed, but what does little Miss Marxist babble about? Nutty conspiracy theories.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 1:11 pm » wrote: So freaking what?

Yeah.
So freaking what if Icahn is advising Trump to cut regulations that would benefit him financially.
Long as the 'R's' are doing it, it's no big deal.
What good is it being president if you can't help out your billionaire buddies?

On December 21, 2016, it was announced that Icahn would serve as Special Advisor to the President on Regulatory Reform under President Donald Trump.

CNBC reported that Icahn would aid Trump in an "individual capacity" rather than as a federal employee, and that he would not have "specific duties" and therefore would not have to relinquish his business interests while serving as an advisor to Trump.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Icahn

Nice work if your can get it.
You don't have to give up your business interests, and you get to advise the president on policies that would enrich you.

What's so arrogant is that 45 actually gave the guy a title, instead of just doing it under the table like most people would do.

It's like they're thumbing their noses at us.

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 1:22 pm » wrote:I understand that you can't defend the fact that 45 was promoting Russian propaganda during the campaign. It's pretty indefensible.

Hey, be my guest, make wacky claims like that that you want.

Rotsa ruck selling them to voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 1:42 pm » wrote:Oh, I see, oooh! Trump "picked up" Putin's themes!
As I have many times noted, you're severely mentally ill.
It is indisputable that many felonies have been committed, but what does little Miss Marxist babble about? Nutty conspiracy theories.

Once again you are smearing Clint Watts, not me.
He testified about how Trump and Manafort used Russian propaganda and FAKE News stories straight from Sputnik and RT in the campaign.
He even cited very specific examples.

Calling me mentally ill will not change that fact.
And it is a fact, not a nutty conspiracy theory.

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 1:49 pm » wrote: Once again you are smearing Clint Watts, not me.
He testified about how Trump and Manafort used Russian propaganda and FAKE News stories straight from Sputnik and RT in the campaign.
He even cited very specific examples.

And they were so sound that you dodged every one of Cannon's questions that exposed what a political hack the guy is.

He's one of countless Beltway liars Democrats bring to hearings to spout endless bulls***.

Calling me mentally ill will not change that fact.

True, calling you that will not change the fact that you are mentally ill, but it might induce you to get professional help.

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 1:49 pm » wrote:Once again you are smearing Clint Watts, not me.
He testified about how Trump and Manafort used Russian propaganda and FAKE News stories straight from Sputnik and RT in the campaign.
He even cited very specific examples.

Calling me mentally ill will not change that fact.
And it is a fact, not a nutty conspiracy theory.

As usual, what does little Miss Marxist babble about?

Wacky, wacky conspiracy theories that just happen to be Democrat Talking Point Lies.

But not about the many felonies that have indisputably been committed.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 1:47 pm » wrote: the many millions the Clinton's got for selling access and favors.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 12:49 pm » wrote:
What does little Miss Marxist worry about?

Not the felonies.

Misty » 31 Mar 2017 12:57 pm » wrote: He's not just being 'consulted' jackass.
He has been named Trump's special adviser on regulatory reform.


Why don't you actually try reading what I post before you just spit out some knee jerk response?

And just admit that you don't give a **** that Trump is turning this country into a banana republic.

SERIAL RAPIST BILL CLINTON! DIM!

Cannonpointer » 30 Mar 2017 2:14 pm » wrote: I suppose before cars, you could have accused me of trusting my life to a HORSE, and used THAT to ridicule me for thinking for myself.

Which typically completely dodges my point,which you always do when stuck on a point of logic.

Nor am I ridiculing you for thinking for yourself. That's a lie.

I'm ridiculing your brainless rejection of the use of logic and facts contained in opinion pieces.

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 1:57 pm » wrote: Look, a squirrel!

Are you this utterly stupid?

You're the one trying to divert attention from the real scandal.

The leaking of classified information is a felony, Dim, and many have been committed, almost certainly by Obama officials.

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 1:59 pm » wrote:SERIAL RAPIST BILL CLINTON! DIM!

Look who's off his meds again.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:01 pm » wrote: Which typically completely dodges my point,which you always do when stuck on a point of logic.

Nor am I ridiculing you for thinking for yourself. That's a lie.

I'm ridiculing your brainless rejection of the use of logic and facts contained in opinion pieces.

I leave the consumption of opinion pieces for fools like you - I write my own.

Cannonpointer » 30 Mar 2017 2:14 pm » wrote: I'm going to keep on thinking for myself son - and when I present you with a fact (for example, more jobs were created per annum under Carter than under Reagan), I am going to source it using Labor Bureau numbers, not using Mother Jones.

No, that's my point. You can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag on Economics or related topics.

You're a clueless Dim and a babbling psycho.

We can argue the meaning of the facts - that's called "analysis," - but we should be able to agree on the facts themselves, because unlike you, *** clown, I did not use a suspicious authority to establish them.

Translated into honest English; you reject opinions I cite because 1) you're a paranoid wackjob and 2) the logic and facts contained in my sources would reveal you as a babbling imbecile.

You keep insinuating that demanding a proper source is tantamount to demanding you hand build your horseless carriage. It isn't, you sniveling fraud. It's asking you to show reasonable respect for the person you are arguing with, ya ignorant dick sucker.

There's the white flag; obscene babbling.

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 2:07 pm » wrote:I leave the consumption of opinion pieces for fools like you - I write my own.

And they're worth less than what others pay for them.

So you don't read history books? Because all contain lots of explicit and implicit opinion.


So what do you do, time travel?

This is just too easy.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:10 pm » wrote: And they're worth less than what others pay for them.

That was uncalled for, Senator.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:10 pm » wrote: So you don't read history books? Because all contain lots of explicit and implicit opinion.

So what do you do, time travel?

This is just too easy.

You're an idiot who cannot distinguish between peer reviewed scholarship and partisan editorials.

This is just too easy.

Misty » 30 Mar 2017 10:12 pm » wrote:Draining the swamp.

Yes, I agree. Keeping the Clinton's out of the White House was a big first step toward draining the swamp.

Let me ask you this. If I go back to last year's campaign, did you cite lots of sources showing how much money into the many millions of dollars the Clinton's and their associates got from the Russians?

Did you raise questions about their corruption?

if not, why not?

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:08 pm » wrote:
No, that's my point. You can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag on Economics or related topics.

You're a clueless Dim and a babbling psycho.


Translated into honest English; you reject opinions I cite because 1) you're a paranoid wackjob and 2) the logic and facts contained in my sources would reveal you as a babbling imbecile.


There's the white flag; obscene babbling.

Translated into honest English, any attempt to get you to source your current **** will be resisted with all available future ****.

Termin8tor » 31 Mar 2017 2:16 pm » wrote:
Yes, I agree. Keeping the Clinton's out of the White House was a big first step toward draining the swamp.

Let me ask you this. If I go back to last year's campaign, did you cite lots of sources showing how much money into the many millions of dollars the Clinton's and their associates got from the Russians?

Did you raise questions about their corruption?

if not, why not?

Not to mention, one tRump associate - that he fired - gets immunity, and that is significant. FIVE hitlery associates - that she kept on - get immunity, and she remains innocent of any wrong doing.

If they'll overlook the theft of their own party's nomination, why WOULDN'T they revolt against, and smear, a legitimate election?

Cannonpointer » 31 Mar 2017 2:15 pm » wrote: You're an idiot who cannot distinguish between peer reviewed scholarship and partisan editorials.

This is just too easy.

You're an idiot who thinks a group of liberals agreeing with each other is "peer review scholarship."

So tell me, Dim, then why do most historians make the ridiculous claim, for example, that FDR brought the country out of the Great Depression?

Because most economists believe the opposite, as shows very basic Economics and common sense.

Ooops, there goes the peer review.

And why a Nobel Prize winner in Economics needs peer review? Because quite a number have been carried in the WSJ and other sources I cite.

You rejected them as unworthy of consideration.