Liberal Forum

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2017 2:44 pm » wrote:
The lie was obvious, psycho.

I'd point it out, but you'd just lie and dissemble and babble, so what's the point?

1. You never answer MY questions.
2. You'll just lie.

Those are your hiding places, dick sucker. You think I'm the only one who sees it?

EVERYONE sees it - that's why you are respected by virtually no one.

Cannonpointer » 26 Jan 2017 7:24 pm » wrote: 1. You never answer MY questions.
2. You'll just lie.

Those are your hiding places, dick sucker. You think I'm the only one who sees it?

EVERYONE sees it - that's why you are respected by virtually no one.

You really should stop listening to those voices in your head.

Cannonpointer » 26 Jan 2017 7:24 pm » wrote:1. You never answer MY questions.
2. You'll just lie.
Those are your hiding places, dick sucker. You think I'm the only one who sees it?
EVERYONE sees it - that's why you are respected by virtually no one.

It's the same old **** with this jackass.
He brings nothing to this forum.

He's like one of those crazy guys you see standing on a street corner screaming about the end of the world.

This jackass has just put a target on the backs of the 5,000 troops we have embedded with the Iraqi army.

The Dangerous Delusion of 'We Should've Kept the Oil'

The president has said he wants to support the troops, but his careless comments put U.S. lives at risk in Iraq.

It’s not likely the American public realizes just how dangerous a remark President Trump made at the CIA on Saturday really was, or how it will make things very difficult for the U.S. military as it fights terror going forward.

Speaking in front of the CIA’s Memorial Wall, Trump said the following:

The old expression, ‘to the victor belong the spoils’—you remember.

I always used to say, keep the oil. I wasn’t a fan of Iraq. I didn’t want to go into Iraq.

But I will tell you, when we were in, we got out wrong.

And I always said, in addition to that, keep the oil.

Now, I said it for economic reasons.

But if you think about it, Mike, if we kept the oil you probably wouldn’t have ISIS because that’s where they made their money in the first place.

So we should have kept the oil.

But okay. Maybe you’ll have another chance.

But the fact is, should have kept the oil.

Sober-minded members of the president’s own party were as flummoxed as I was when they heard the president say them, and the president doubled down Wednesday night in an interview with ABC News, insulting the government of Iraq—with whom we are partnering to defeat the Islamic State—in the process:

Well, we should've kept the oil when we got out.

And, you know, it's very interesting, had we taken the oil, you wouldn't have ISIS because they fuel themselves with the oil.

That's where they got the money.

They got the money from leaving—when we left, we left Iraq, which wasn't a government.

It's not a government now.

I just spent two years as the Pentagon’s senior civilian responsible for the Middle East.

We didn’t get everything right during my time at the Department of Defense, and we left a lot of work to do for the next administration, but one thing we undeniably did is put the Islamic State on the pathway to defeat in Iraq and Syria.

During the time I served in the Pentagon, the territory controlled by the Islamic State shrunk by about half—thanks to a very patient campaign plan that worked by, with, and through partners on the ground and which gave them an ample supply of U.S. and coalition air power.

When Trump raised his right hand to become the president, Iraqi forces—under the command of the same Iraqi government Trump claimed on Wednesday night didn’t exist—were in the process of consolidating their hold on the eastern half of Mosul, the Islamic State’s last major stronghold in Iraq.

The United States, however, is now thinking about its role in Iraq after the Islamic State is defeated.

First, many of the units that have been so instrumental in defeating the Islamic State—most notably the Counterterrorism Service, or CTS—have been chewed up in the fights for Ramadi, Fallujah, and Mosul.

Those units will need to be reconstituted and will struggle to do so without U.S. assistance.

Second, the Iraqis will need to prepare to fight the Islamic State in its next incarnation—that of a traditional terror group, conducting hit-and-run or suicide attacks against the Iraqi people.

The United States and its coalition partners will likely need to leave some troops behind to teach, train, and mentor the Iraqi special operations and police forces as they make the switch from winning back territory to protecting the population in territory under Iraqi control.

All of that means that the United States will want to leave a stay-behind force in Iraq, and not just for Iraqi interests but for U.S. interests: No one wants to return to a situation similar to the one in which U.S. forces deployed in 2014, where the Iraqi military the United States had left behind in 2011 had atrophied due to both neglect and the politicization of its officer corps by the former prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

Trump’s careless words bind his own military’s hands.

BuzzFeed’s Borzou Daragahi—who was part of a Pulitzer-finalist Baghdad bureau for the Los Angeles Times in 2007 and knows Iraq well—has been keeping track of the way in which Trump’s rhetoric is being received in Iraq. (The tl;dr {too long;didn't read} version: not well!)

The fear many have is that once the Islamic State is defeated in Iraq, the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq will be tempted to turn their attention toward the U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq.

One area in which the Iranians, in particular, have consistently bettered the United States in Iraq has been in messaging.

The Iranians have been very savvy in using investments in Iraqi media to sow doubt about the true intentions of the United States.

That’s why a year ago, at a time in which the United States had just helped Iraqi forces recapture Ramadi, 40 percent of Iraqis nonetheless believed the United States was “working to destabilize Iraq and control its natural resources.”

“Pshaw!” we would tell the Iraqis at the time. “That’s typical Middle East conspiracy-mongering!”

Well, the joke was on us, because our elected head of state apparently believes what the Iraqis feared we believed. (Also, we are no longer in any position to arrogantly poke fun at our brothers and sisters in the Middle East for their fondness for conspiracies.

We now have our own problems in this regard, and as the Iraqi-Lebanese satirist Karl Sharro has pointed out with glee, the United States is beginning to look more and more like an Arab country these days.)

So if what the president said was such a disaster for U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East, why and how did he say it?

The why is easiest to answer: Trump is basically the guy you find yourself sitting next to in a bar on a Thursday afternoon who offers commentary on the cable news playing in the corner.

He doesn’t really think about the second- and third-order effects of what he’s saying, because that’s not his job.

He’s just trying to enjoy his Michelob and strike up small talk.

That’s what Trump was trying to do at the CIA: Establish a rapport with strangers in a bar, not really choosing his words very carefully.

Ah, I hear you say, but Trump was speaking on live television and is now the president of the United States.

Yes, this is indeed the problem. The words of the guy at the bar don’t normally become national policy the moment he says them.

And this is why presidents are typically surrounded by people and processes that prevent them from saying and doing things that have not been fully thought through.

Mike Flynn, Steve Bannon, and Jared Kushner, need to do their jobs and staff their principal.

The president has said he wants to support the military better than his predecessor.

He is also saying things that put U.S. lives at risk in Iraq.

He can’t do both.

Misty » 26 Jan 2017 10:43 pm » wrote: It's the same old **** with this jackass.
He brings nothing to this forum.

He's like one of those crazy guys you see standing on a street corner screaming about the end of the world.

"I bring nothing to the forum."" I'm respected by virtually no one."

You two lying Dims can't even tell believable lies.

Other than the sound sources of important information, I bring logic and common sense, and I'm respected by those who bring the same.

How's your party doing, Dim? How popular is your political philosophy?

Mine are doing just great.

Kellyanne Conway: Removing sanctions on Russia 'is under consideration'

President Donald Trump's senior adviser, Kellyanne Conway, said Friday that removing US sanctions on Russia "is under consideration" by the administration.

When asked whether lifting the Obama administration's sanctions on Russia would be "on the table" during Trump's planned phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday, Conway replied that "all of that is under consideration."

"If another nation with considerable resources wishes to join together with the United States of America to try to defeat and eradicate radical Islamic terrorism, then we're listening," Conway said on "Fox and Friends."

"It's very important to at least have these conversations."

So what exactly has Russia done to warrant the removal of sanctions?
This thing about them helping us fight ISIS is ****.
They're not fighting ISIS in Syria.
They are propping up al-Assad and committing war crimes.

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2017 11:31 pm » wrote:"I bring nothing to the forum."" I'm respected by virtually no one."
You two lying Dims can't even tell believable lies.

Other than the sound sources of important information, I bring logic and common sense, and I'm respected by those who bring the same.

Since when are lies and **** called logic and common sense?

Get over it Puss.

You bring nothing to this forum.
You were protected at the old forum, not because David R. had any respect for you, but because you generated a lot of posts.

That's all he cared about was post count.
You could have posted nursery rhymes all day long and he wouldn't care as long as you kept posting.
You were his favorite posting monkey.

He told me this himself, when he messaged me on Facebook.

Misty » 27 Jan 2017 12:37 pm » wrote: So what exactly has Russia done to warrant the removal of sanctions?
This thing about them helping us fight ISIS is ****.
They're not fighting ISIS in Syria.
They are propping up al-Assad and committing war crimes.

Here's a hint, Dim.

Diplomacy is secret.

So you have no idea what Trump might get.

Liz Cheney Wants to Make Torture Great Again

She's back in Washington, and she's eager to pick up where her dad left off.

In her first week on Capitol Hill, she has emerged as one of the most vocal defenders of President Trump's plan to bring back torture.
She may just be a bridge by which the neocon establishment returns from exile.

Termin8tor » 27 Jan 2017 12:59 pm » wrote:Here's a hint, Dim.
Diplomacy is secret.
So you have no idea what Trump might get.

You're a total jackass.
Is he gonna get Putin to un-annex Crimea or stop making incursions into Ukrainian territory?
That's why the sanctions were put on in the first place.

Or maybe Putin will get into a time machine, go back in time, and un-hack our election.


What could Trump possibly get in secret that would warrant the lifting of those sanctions?
A golden shower from a beautiful Russian prostitute maybe?

Let me ask you a question Puss.
When you bend over, grab your ankles and take it up the *** for the GOP, is it with lube or without?

This is something to watch.

Second FSB Agent Arrested; Possible Links To U.S. Election Hacking

Russian media have reported that another Federal Security Service (FSB) officer has been arrested on treason charges in a case that may be linked to cyberattacks targeting the U.S. presidential election campaign.

The reports by Rambler News Service on January 26 come a day after the Kommersant newspaper reported that a senior officer of the cyberintelligence department of the FSB -- Russia’s lead security agency -- had been arrested.

Kommersant said Sergei Mikhailov, deputy chief of the FSB's Center for Information Security, had been arrested in December on treason charges.

Another Russian newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, on January 26 corroborated the Kommersant report.

Novaya Gazeta quoted unidentified sources as saying Mikhailov was arrested during a meeting with other FSB officers in Moscow, and was taken from the room with a sack over his head.

A sack over his head?
That doesn't sound good. LOL

Wall Street Journal: Trump’s treatment of Mexico is ‘amateur hour’

The Wall Street Journal on Thursday slammed President Trump’s treatment of Mexico, calling White House efforts to quell the turmoil between the two nations “amateur hour.”

“On Thursday morning Mr. Trump tweeted ‘if Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting,’ ” the newspaper’s editorial board wrote.

“[President Enrique] Peña Nieto cancelled.

Later Thursday Mr. Spicer added confusion with some comments about a border fee as part of tax reform.

Chief of Staff Reince Priebus tried to walk that back, but this is amateur hour.”

The Journal also warned Trump that his hard-line rhetoric on Mexico could force the U.S.’s southern neighbor to turn back to the anti-American sentiments that dominated the country’s political landscape prior to the 1980s.

Stressing the importance of the U.S. trade relationship with Mexico, the editorial board said the president could hamper “Mexicans’ progress toward joining their North American neighbors as prosperous free-market democracies.”

“With a population of 128 million, Mexico is America’s second-largest export market for goods,” it said.

“Some six million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Mexico.”

What's more, the Journal wrote, leftist factions in Mexico are waiting to take advantage of souring relations with the U.S., and anti-American politicians are preparing to take advantage of the turmoil.

This whole administration is amateur hour.

Misty » 27 Jan 2017 1:48 pm » wrote: You're a total jackass.
Is he gonna get Putin to un-annex Crimea or stop making incursions into Ukrainian territory?
That's why the sanctions were put on in the first place.

Apparently because Obama's State Dept. encouraged Ukraine to divorce itself further from Russia. That was appallingly stupid.

Russia's only warm water port other than Syria was in Crimea.

If I wanted to cause a Russian invasion of Crimea I'd do what Obama did; all the more incompetent because there was no way he was going to send US troops to defend them.

Or maybe Putin will get into a time machine, go back in time, and un-hack our election.

Russia didn't hack our election, Dim. A few documents were leaked that accurately revealed Dems' contempt for Americans, their undermining of Sanders and other details.

What could Trump possibly get in secret that would warrant the lifting of those sanctions?
A golden shower from a beautiful Russian prostitute maybe?

Let me ask you a question Puss.
When you bend over, grab your ankles and take it up the *** for the GOP, is it with lube or without?

Wow, if that's not a strong indication of mental illness, what is?

Misty » 27 Jan 2017 2:28 pm » wrote:Wall Street Journal: Trump’s treatment of Mexico is ‘amateur hour’

This whole administration is amateur hour.

A deceitful partisan hack would cite only the infrequent time Trump has been temporarily wrong while ignoring the many, many things he's done and is doing well.


With much, much, much more to come.

Termin8tor » 27 Jan 2017 3:04 pm » wrote:A deceitful partisan hack would cite only the infrequent time Trump has been temporarily wrong while ignoring the many, many things he's done and is doing well.

That's right Puss.
You just said 'only the infrequent time Trump has been temporarily wrong' and I'm the partisan hack?

Infrequent and temporarily?
You couldn't squeeze a few more qualifiers in there?


Wait.
If he's only temporarily wrong infrequently, then wouldn't that mean that he's permanently wrong all the time?

Termin8tor » 27 Jan 2017 3:04 pm » wrote:With much, much, much more to come.

I see a straight jacket and a padded room in his future.

Misty » 27 Jan 2017 3:23 pm » wrote: I see a straight jacket and a padded room in his future.

The usual BS from a shameless liar.

It's your side that's going bonkers.

Democrats are out of power and won't come back for many, many years.


By that time Trump's and Repubs' broad agenda will already be in place. It conceivably could be decades before Dems come back, because we're pulling the plug on your federal money and your base.

Trump Strategist Stephen Bannon Says Media Should ‘Keep Its Mouth Shut’

How many days has it been since Bannon took an oath to uphold the Constitution?
Did he bother to read it?

Did he 'keep his mouth shut' about Obama when he ran Breitbart News?

Hmmmm....it seems that six journalists were arrested in D.C. while covering the Trump protests.

At least six members of the media have been charged with felony rioting after being arrested while covering President Trump’s inauguration Friday in Washington, D.C.

All six individuals were arraigned Saturday in D.C. Superior Court on charges of violating the city’s law against rioting, The Guardian reported Tuesday.

They face up to 10 years behind bars if convicted and a $25,000 fine, according to the newspaper.

Each of the reporters had been covering Inauguration Day protests at the time of their arrest, according to the newspaper, and have denounced the charges either through their employer or on their own behalf.

Charging documents pertaining to the journalists lack specifics about their alleged crimes, however, and five of their six arrest reports identically state that “numerous crimes were occurring in police presence,” according to The Guardian.

“The crowd was observed enticing a riot by organizing, promoting, encouraging and participating in acts of violence in furtherance of the riot,” those reports said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ng-donald/

So were they part of the 'crowd' or were they journalists covering the riots?

‘Bury this!’: Used menstrual products pelted at Texas governor after he signs ‘fetal burial’ order.

Vice President Mike Pence proclaimed his intentions to fight for the lives of the unborn but Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has taken extreme steps to shut down choice by women.

After Abbott made an order that all women who have abortions and miscarriages must pay to have the remains buried, women launched a protest.

The Dallas Morning News reports that one woman, Ele Chupik, took to Facebook to urge women to send their used feminine hygiene products to Abbott.

The same thing happened to then-Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) when women launched Periods for Pence.

Chupik had no idea that women would actually do it, but they did.

Through December at least 17 women mailed their bloodstained products to the Texas governor’s office according to records the paper obtained.

Okay, I hate that order, but come on ladies.
That's just disgusting.

I don't understand how he issues an 'order' after a federal judge put the kibosh on enforcing the law.

Termin8tor » 27 Jan 2017 3:29 pm » wrote:The usual BS from a shameless liar.

Talking to yourself again Puss?