Gunman Opens Fire, Hits Congressman Scalise

[JoshB]

Your last point about respect for the office of the president is spot on. I admit, I never called Obama, "President Obama", made a point not to because the guy stood for about everything I'm against. BUT, I never wished or voiced any harm for him or his family, I never wanted the country or him to fail so I could say I was right. I was hoping he'd prove us all wrong. With Trump, you just get hate on another level to where physical harm is being applauded and encouraged. People refuse to let him do his job. It's a disgrace. People are no longer willing to accept a loss and move on to the next opportunity. Vengence and jealousy are the words I would use to express most of what's going on.

See this is the type of thing that really gets under my skin... before I rant, I agree with most of the sentiment for people lacking respect for offices AND for the people holding offices not having much respect. We literally just saw a "leader" ASSAULT a journalist because he didnt like being asked a tough question. I myself recently was told to "shut up" by a politician because I asked a question she didn't like and was "escorted" out of the room. Only difference is no one will mostly every hear about it for reasons...

But as far as your Obama thing, you're are talking with some extremely rose colored glasses there. Have you ever heard of Obama Derangement Syndrome? Yeah that wasn't coined for the hell of it. There were people that literally said he was the Antichrist and said that he would cause the rapture. Protesters holding up effigies of Obama being burned or hung, freaking SIGNS in towns that read "THAT N****R IS NOT MY PRESIDENT." Lets not forget the claims that he was a "secret gay muslim" or that he wasn't even American. May I point out that Donald Trump was the ultimate birther and hung out to that lie for literally years (and by the way his son-in-law admitted at one point to Trump never believing that but doing it because he knew Republicans were so dumb that they would eat it up. Kushner's words not mine). And you claim you get hate to a psychical harm level with Trump, who has attempted to harm Trump? A man literally SHOT into the white house at Obama. And your whole "not willing to accept a loss" thing is even more funny. How many thousands of people signed petitions for their states to secede from the govt because Obama won? For months saying that he "stole" the election (sound familiar?). And as far as "wont let him do his job." The republicans for 8 years spent their time doing nothing except being obstructionists, they would be for something and then when Obama backed it completely be against it. You want to pretend like somehow all this obstruction and hate was invented the minute the guy that looks like a Cheeto took office..

And you dont have to like the president, agree with him or even respect him. Wishing death on someone (which trust me I've seen plenty of from people I used to respect from both sides over the last 10 years) and def. acting on it means you've done more to the side you're trying to be for than hurt.

Now, I'm done with this thing. This guy is a piece of shit (the shooter) and yall can shred me to pieces like usual because I'm the local "snowflake liberal" and nobody on here wants to hear that side... I'll just sit here and wait for Impeachment

 

[TerryP]

I recall reading a book by Charlotte Iserbite (sp)

The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America

Iserbyt. In today's age, you'd think "byt" would have come to mind quickly (IE: byte.)

 

[TUSKtimes]

Nobody @TerryP wants to hear a lecture on values but I believe it's that simple to say and that complicated to do. I believe what we are missing from the top down has proven time and again it has little to do with a secular education or intellectual ability.

The "dumbing down" is real enough, but the cause and effect are out of the family structure. It was molded and shaped through a 2 parent family head and sounded down by others of the immediate family as well as support programs in school who reflected those values and propped up in the community who were also insisting on that standard.

The everyday curriculum was demonstrated through their own conduct and behavior on how to give honor, respect for people, demonstrating manners, learning the art of compromise, being self-sacrificing, and many other qualities that have stood the test of time and made us sociable, agreeable people.

 

[TerryP]

Have you ever heard of Obama Derangement Syndrome? Yeah that wasn't coined for the hell of it. There were people that literally said he was the Antichrist and said that he would cause the rapture. Protesters holding up effigies of Obama being burned or hung, freaking SIGNS in towns that read "THAT N****R IS NOT MY PRESIDENT." Lets not forget the claims that he was a "secret gay muslim" or that he wasn't even American. May I point out that Donald Trump was the ultimate birther and hung out to that lie for literally years (and by the way his son-in-law admitted at one point to Trump never believing that but doing it because he knew Republicans were so dumb that they would eat it up. Kushner's words not mine).

I've heard that. That's not a very large section of the populus. It is a sect that gets a brighter spotlight on it than others and often those are used to characterize a larger group when, in fact, that's far from the case.

And your whole "not willing to accept a loss" thing is even more funny.

I'd call that spot on when it comes to Hillary. She's still pointing fingers and there's no one that she hasn't pointed to.

I do find it a bit ironic with some of the things she's said ... she, and Bill, pretty much put "right wing conspiracy" in the language, did they not?

The republicans for 8 years spent their time doing nothing except being obstructionists, they would be for something and then when Obama backed it completely be against it. You want to pretend like somehow all this obstruction and hate was invented the minute the guy that looks like a Cheeto took office..

That's true for healthcare. Reforms for surveillance laws were bipartisan in support. Some of the economic reforms were as well. Dont' ask, don't tell was another.

The climate certainly changed the longer he was in office but that's something he brought on himself, in my opinion. I'm not in favor of any President using executive orders to bypass Congress and the due process built into the constitution.

Cheeto? It's comments like those that diminish, if not erase, the value of some fairly salient points.

 

[JoshB]

I've heard that. That's not a very large section of the populus. It is a sect that gets a brighter spotlight on it than others and often those are used to characterize a larger group when, in fact, that's far from the case.



I'd call that spot on when it comes to Hillary. She's still pointing fingers and there's no one that she hasn't pointed to.

I do find it a bit ironic with some of the things she's said ... she, and Bill, pretty much put "right wing conspiracy" in the language, did they not?



That's true for healthcare. Reforms for surveillance laws were bipartisan in support. Some of the economic reforms were as well. Dont' ask, don't tell was another.

The climate certainly changed the longer he was in office but that's something he brought on himself, in my opinion. I'm not in favor of any President using executive orders to bypass Congress and the due process built into the constitution.

Cheeto? It's comments like those that diminish, if not erase, the value of some fairly salient points.

Go read the comments section of any news article to see that is def. not the case... and Im not even talking about a Breitbart article.

It 100% describes her... shes not the president though and about as relevant as Gary Johnson right about now. Even hardcore democrats are rolling their eyes at her. The best thing for the democrats would be for her (and those like her) would stfu and just ride off into the sunset.

How about the infrastructure bill, perfect example. Republicans said we needed it, Obama backed it and immediately they said we dont have the money for it... now they support it because Trump is there.

And I dont think Obama "brought it" on himself other than having policy ideas that Republicans didnt agree with. It wasnt him screaming "YOU LIE!" at congress during a speech. It wasnt him that was going on TV and accusing Republicans of not being an American or even being a "terrorist sympathizer."

And as far as the Cheeto thing goes... how do you not see you're holding me to a higher standard than the freaking president of the United States... how is it cool for him to call people names like a child ("Lying Ted," "Little Marco", "Lying Hillary", "Pocohantas", "Crooked Hillary", the many times he called someone a loser or fat or anything else) but the minute I make a joke about his unnaturally orange tent it takes away anything else I've said? Not to mention the times hes wrongly accused people of crimes.

Im a random poster on a random internet message board that noone gives a shit about. The president should be held to a higher standard than me...

 

[Sgt. Lincoln Osiris]

Obama used the funeral of 5 dead police officers, shot down in cold blood because of false hate-rhetoric and outright lies spewed by the left-stream media, to give validity and credence to a domestic terror organization disguised as an activist group that was FOUNDED upon the very same lies the media perpetuated. Now before that, I just didn't like Obama because of his socialist/globalist agenda and outright lies about policies such as healthcare (which turned out to be a massively socialist redistribution of wealth scheme). My disagreement with him was purely ideological, relative to policy. But the Dallas funeral stunt illuminated the fact that he was just a disgusting piece of shit. Forget the BLM propaganda speech for a bit. He used a fucking funeral as a campaign stump. How Fucking DEPLORABLE is that?

You'd think the first black president would've been a great unifier. But he didn't. He plunged American race-relations back to pre-1950s status.

Obama-The Great Inciter will go down as the worst president in history.

 

[JoshB]

Obama used the funeral of 5 dead police officers, shot down in cold blood because of false hate-rhetoric and outright lies spewed by the left-stream media, to give validity and credence to a domestic terror organization disguised as an activist group that was FOUNDED upon the very same lies the media perpetuated. Now before that, I just didn't like Obama because of his socialist/globalist agenda and outright lies about policies such as healthcare (which turned out to be a massively socialist redistribution of wealth scheme). My disagreement with him was purely ideological, relative to policy. But the Dallas funeral stunt illuminated the fact that he was just a disgusting piece of ****. Forget the BLM propaganda speech for a bit. He used a ******* funeral as a campaign stump. How ******* DEPLORABLE is that?

You'd think the first black president would've been a great unifier. But he didn't. He plunged American race-relations back to pre-1950s status.

Obama-The Great Inciter will go down as the worst president in history.

See this is how different people can see/hear the same thing and come away with it completely different... I mean Obama's ENTIRE speech at that funeral was about unifying the country. That was the ENTIRETY of the speech. Yet, to you it was hate.

And I can't even have a discussion with someone who could say "Obama will go down as the worst president in history" with a straight face. This is that Obama Derangement Syndrome I was talking about.

 

[planomateo]

Obama might have said one thing, but his actions told a different story. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Sgt. Lincoln Osiris]

See this is how different people can see/hear the same thing and come away with it completely different... I mean Obama's ENTIRE speech at that funeral was about unifying the country. That was the ENTIRETY of the speech. Yet, to you it was hate.

And I can't even have a discussion with someone who could say "Obama will go down as the worst president in history" with a straight face. This is that Obama Derangement Syndrome I was talking about.

Seriously?

It was about considering where BLM is coming from, relating to them. An organization whose very inception was based off the "hands up, don't shoot" lie. You NEVER see them parading, rioting, looting, and setting shit on fire in somewhere like...oh, say... CHICAGO for instance. The murderer of those 5 cops killed in the name of BLM. They're a racist, terrorist organization, plain amd simple.

And he wanted to VALIDATE them. At the very funeral of people who were KILLED by the trumped-up false rage that their organization fuels. Whatever buzz-words about unity he may have dropped up until that point in the speech were voided when he started that hateful diatribe. Forget the idea of BLM commentary. Using a funeral to speak about ANY politics is utterly shameful. Identity politics commentary is even worse. But trying to get people to "understand" a terrorist organization whose violent rhetoric of "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" chanted at literally EVERY ONE of their rallies was the DIRECT CAUSE of those cops' murders, is downright disgusting.

I cant believe you are apologizing for it by completely glossing over that fact.

I'm not the one that's deranged, buddy.

 

[Sgt. Lincoln Osiris]

Obama might have said one thing, but his actions told a different story. Actions speak louder than words.

This!

 

[ComeOnSon]

There it is...dumbest thing I've read all day.

See this is how different people can see/hear the same thing and come away with it completely different... I mean Obama's ENTIRE speech at that funeral was about unifying the country. That was the ENTIRETY of the speech. Yet, to you it was hate.

And I can't even have a discussion with someone who could say "Obama will go down as the worst president in history" with a straight face. This is that Obama Derangement Syndrome I was talking about.

 

[TerryP]

Go read the comments section of any news article to see that is def. not the case... and Im not even talking about a Breitbart article.

Sorry, Josh. I'm not going to the comments section of a news article to make a judgement, on anything. I view that as akin to reading reviews for online purchases. You never know what the motivation is behind the person's views.

On the same line, I'm not going to make any judgments based on a Breitbart article, or a Politco article. One of the great unanswered Philosophical questions of all time is "Can you experience anything objectively?" How many people read, and then comment on these articles objectively?

It 100% describes her... shes not the president though and about as relevant as Gary Johnson right about now. Even hardcore democrats are rolling their eyes at her. The best thing for the democrats would be for her (and those like her) would stfu and just ride off into the sunset.

We're on the same page here with the exception of all the news stories about her accusations and complaints. I've seen no less than a half of a dozen excuses as to why she lost the election—none of which include things like "people don't like her." Or, "people don't trust her."

How about the infrastructure bill, perfect example. Republicans said we needed it, Obama backed it and immediately they said we dont have the money for it... now they support it because Trump is there.

And I dont think Obama "brought it" on himself other than having policy ideas that Republicans didnt agree with. It wasnt him screaming "YOU LIE!" at congress during a speech. It wasnt him that was going on TV and accusing Republicans of not being an American or even being a "terrorist sympathizer."

Are you talking about the the Infrastructure bill Bernie Sanders proposed? If so, that goes against the philosophy held by many Republicans. His plan was to eliminate tax breaks on corporations which, no matter how it's described, means businesses would pay more taxes.

We've seen case after case where Socialism doesn't work. Yet, we see guys like Sanders propose America go to that kind of system. We've also seen when businesses are taxed to a greater extent, it doesn't lead to job creation or a better economy. It does lead to things like businesses moving overseas to avoid taxes.

I can't blame businesses for doing that. I also can't blame Republicans for opposing a bill that Sanders introduced which would have had that type of result.

And as far as the Cheeto thing goes... how do you not see you're holding me to a higher standard than the freaking president of the United States... how is it cool for him to call people names like a child ("Lying Ted," "Little Marco", "Lying Hillary", "Pocohantas", "Crooked Hillary", the many times he called someone a loser or fat or anything else) but the minute I make a joke about his unnaturally orange tent it takes away anything else I've said? Not to mention the times hes wrongly accused people of crimes.

You're assuming that I approved of "Lying Ted," type of rhetoric. I didn't. I didn't care for the "Lying Hillary" or "Crooked Hillary" rhetoric either (despite the truth in some cases.) As I've stated in this thread, I don't like seeing so many people who don't respect the office of President. Even though we've never personally met and our only interactions have been on sites like this, I respect you enough to not fall into calling you childish names. I've found some of your opinions short sighted—but that's my opinion. There is no cause or logical reason to wallow around in the mud, assume a child like attitude, and call you stupid or anything akin to that.

Im a random poster on a random internet message board that noone gives a **** about. The president should be held to a higher standard than me...

The only reason I wouldn't give a shit about you would be based on something you had done to me, my family, or my friends that caused fiscal or physical harm.

I've seen cases of that with the last Administration. It's caused me fiscal harm due to the massive increase in what I'm paying for health care. I've seen it happen to my family due to having to literally search for doctors. I've seen it with my friends on things like Disability benefits being taxed—and we're talking about benefits for being disabled that are needed, not some way a guy is simply getting out of a 9 to 5'er.

However, this didn't leave me not giving a shit about Obama or the other members of the Administration.

 

[Sgt. Lincoln Osiris]

Sorry, Josh. I'm not going to the comments section of a news article to make a judgement, on anything. I view that as akin to reading reviews for online purchases. You never know what the motivation is behind the person's views.

On the same line, I'm not going to make any judgments based on a Breitbart article, or a Politco article. One of the great unanswered Philosophical questions of all time is "Can you experience anything objectively?" How many people read, and then comment on these articles objectively?



We're on the same page here with the exception of all the news stories about her accusations and complaints. I've seen no less than a half of a dozen excuses as to why she lost the election—none of which include things like "people don't like her." Or, "people don't trust her."

Are you talking about the the Infrastructure bill Bernie Sanders proposed? If so, that goes against the philosophy held by many Republicans. His plan was to eliminate tax breaks on corporations which, no matter how it's described, means businesses would pay more taxes.

We've seen case after case where Socialism doesn't work. Yet, we see guys like Sanders propose America go to that kind of system. We've also seen when businesses are taxed to a greater extent, it doesn't lead to job creation or a better economy. It does lead to things like businesses moving overseas to avoid taxes.

I can't blame businesses for doing that. I also can't blame Republicans for opposing a bill that Sanders introduced which would have had that type of result.



You're assuming that I approved of "Lying Ted," type of rhetoric. I didn't. I didn't care for the "Lying Hillary" or "Crooked Hillary" rhetoric either (despite the truth in some cases.) As I've stated in this thread, I don't like seeing so many people who don't respect the office of President. Even though we've never personally met and our only interactions have been on sites like this, I respect you enough to not fall into calling you childish names. I've found some of your opinions short sighted—but that's my opinion. There is no cause or logical reason to wallow around in the mud, assume a child like attitude, and call you stupid or anything akin to that.



The only reason I wouldn't give a **** about you would be based on something you had done to me, my family, or my friends that caused fiscal or physical harm.

I've seen cases of that with the last Administration. It's caused me fiscal harm due to the massive increase in what I'm paying for health care. I've seen it happen to my family due to having to literally search for doctors. I've seen it with my friends on things like Disability benefits being taxed—and we're talking about benefits for being disabled that are needed, not some way a guy is simply getting out of a 9 to 5'er.

However, this didn't leave me not giving a **** about Obama or the other members of the Administration.

Cogent.

 

[JoshB]

Seriously?

It was about considering where BLM is coming from, relating to them. An organization whose very inception was based off the "hands up, don't shoot" lie. You NEVER see them parading, rioting, looting, and setting **** on fire in somewhere like...oh, say... CHICAGO for instance. The murderer of those 5 cops killed in the name of BLM. They're a racist, terrorist organization, plain amd simple.

And he wanted to VALIDATE them. At the very funeral of people who were KILLED by the trumped-up false rage that their organization fuels. Whatever buzz-words about unity he may have dropped up until that point in the speech were voided when he started that hateful diatribe. Forget the idea of BLM commentary. Using a funeral to speak about ANY politics is utterly shameful. Identity politics commentary is even worse. But trying to get people to "understand" a terrorist organization whose violent rhetoric of "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" chanted at literally EVERY ONE of their rallies was the DIRECT CAUSE of those cops' murders, is downright disgusting.

I cant believe you are apologizing for it by completely glossing over that fact.

I'm not the one that's deranged, buddy.

Outside of what you've read on Breitbart or what you've heard from Sean Hannity I will bet fucking money you have never had an interaction with a single person from black lives matter. So Ill just leave that alone... As far as your Chicago buffoonery, there has been several protests and rallys in Chicago, adn there is even a BLM Chicago...

And calling BLM a "terrorist organization" is about as ignorant as it comes... but then again Tomy Lahren was the first person I heard say that...so not surprising...

I didn't apologize for anything. I dont need to. I dont care to.

You're a lot of things.

This!

Funny considering that description has been not just Trump's presidency but his entire freaking life.

There it is...dumbest thing I've read all day.

Yet all you can do is call me dumb rather than refute it. There's a reason that certain people will like my posts but not say anything themselves. Because they know all they're gonna do is get attacked because they dont think the same as you.

Sorry, Josh. I'm not going to the comments section of a news article to make a judgement, on anything. I view that as akin to reading reviews for online purchases. You never know what the motivation is behind the person's views.

On the same line, I'm not going to make any judgments based on a Breitbart article, or a Politco article. One of the great unanswered Philosophical questions of all time is "Can you experience anything objectively?" How many people read, and then comment on these articles objectively?



We're on the same page here with the exception of all the news stories about her accusations and complaints. I've seen no less than a half of a dozen excuses as to why she lost the election—none of which include things like "people don't like her." Or, "people don't trust her."

Are you talking about the the Infrastructure bill Bernie Sanders proposed? If so, that goes against the philosophy held by many Republicans. His plan was to eliminate tax breaks on corporations which, no matter how it's described, means businesses would pay more taxes.

We've seen case after case where Socialism doesn't work. Yet, we see guys like Sanders propose America go to that kind of system. We've also seen when businesses are taxed to a greater extent, it doesn't lead to job creation or a better economy. It does lead to things like businesses moving overseas to avoid taxes.

I can't blame businesses for doing that. I also can't blame Republicans for opposing a bill that Sanders introduced which would have had that type of result.


You're assuming that I approved of "Lying Ted," type of rhetoric. I didn't. I didn't care for the "Lying Hillary" or "Crooked Hillary" rhetoric either (despite the truth in some cases.) As I've stated in this thread, I don't like seeing so many people who don't respect the office of President. Even though we've never personally met and our only interactions have been on sites like this, I respect you enough to not fall into calling you childish names. I've found some of your opinions short sighted—but that's my opinion. There is no cause or logical reason to wallow around in the mud, assume a child like attitude, and call you stupid or anything akin to that.



The only reason I wouldn't give a **** about you would be based on something you had done to me, my family, or my friends that caused fiscal or physical harm.

I've seen cases of that with the last Administration. It's caused me fiscal harm due to the massive increase in what I'm paying for health care. I've seen it happen to my family due to having to literally search for doctors. I've seen it with my friends on things like Disability benefits being taxed—and we're talking about benefits for being disabled that are needed, not some way a guy is simply getting out of a 9 to 5'er.

However, this didn't leave me not giving a **** about Obama or the other members of the Administration.

Fine, dont go to a comments section. Go back and watch video, look at pictures from all the Tea Party rally's during the Obama years, especially the earl years. Every Trump rally.

And how many people read and comment on those articles? Thousands daily...

Well she did get 3 millions more votes than the other guy... but regardless she or MSNBC or anyone else can throw out as many excuses as they want. Who cares? Why does that matter?

This is what I was talking about with the infrastructure stuff: Trump pushes infrastructure plans, but Congress blocked Obama on issue

I didn't say you approved it but you surely haven't expressed any issue with it that I've seen until now.

You pissed my "giving a shit" point. I meant what I say.

 

[TerryP]

You pissed my "giving a ****" point. I meant what I say.

I pissed your ...

What now?

I didn't say you approved it but you surely haven't expressed any issue with it that I've seen until now.

Yet, you've been pretty quick to label me a few times here. I'd call that a rash judgment.

Just so we're clear here. When it comes to fiscal matters, you're more than welcome to call me conservative. I prefer—and this is the party with which I'm officially registered—Libertarian. When it comes to a lot of social issues, I have no issue with being labeled liberal.

It's really, really easy to understand where I'm coming from in today's political climate.

• Stay out of my personal life.
• Stay out of my family's life.
• Stay out of my business.

All of of those have been encroached on by the last Administration. As I see it, based on facts we see in history, staying with the Democratic party would have continued such a course.

As to your point about my having no comments on those remarks. I actually have, in this very thread. "There is no cause or logical reason to wallow around in the mud, assume a child like attitude, and call you stupid or anything akin to that." Why on earth would I choose to even get into a discussion like that?

This may be considered elitist: if so, so be it. I consider myself to be above such nonsense and make a conscious choice not to get involved with such petty meanderings.

Fine, dont go to a comments section. Go back and watch video, look at pictures from all the Tea Party rally's during the Obama years, especially the earl years. Every Trump rally.

On the same line, I'm not going to make any judgments based on a Breitbart article, or a Politco article. One of the great unanswered Philosophical questions of all time is "Can you experience anything objectively?" How many people read, and then comment on these articles objectively?

So, after reading and quoting where I said I don't read the comments of two publications—one labeled right wing, the other left wing—you choose to try to direct me to the Chicago Tribune? Independent thought and convictions, my friend. I don't see the need to use someone else's opinions to substantiate my own.

Now, I'll certainly give credit where it's due. The Tribune did endorse Gary Johnson in the last presidential cycle and a lot of his belief's mirror mine.

What I find ironic here is the article you've cited mentions tax credits as a way to pay for the Infrastructure improvements. The assertion you made earlier about Republicans opposing Sander's plan? That opposition was based on the plan using tax increases.

I'll admit, I'm a bit curious if you read the article you linked. It touches on a few things like how tax credits to those in the transportation industry lead to returns. It cites how Obama encouraged such from Congress. But, all they (Democratic side) came up with was tax increases. It cites how Hillary supported the same ideals. I'm sure there were a great number of people in America, as well as Capital Hill, who doubted her.

In the end, the article is diseningenous when it says Obama was blocked when in fact it was Sander's proposal that was blocked. The platform I stand on is one that's based on effects I've felt: personally, family wise, and business wise.

Three out of three. That's a pretty solid foundation.

 

[TerryP]

1) I've got a tee time so I'll get back to this.
2)Moving this to the Quad so we can keep this forum sports centric.

 

[ComeOnSon]

@Birdman37, didn't call you dumb. Said what you wrote was dumb. Everybody says something dumb every now and then. I'm not going to debate with you on his speech because it's like the story of the three blind men put in the room with an elephant. They all got to touch the animal and every one of them came up with a different idea of what it was. You're mind is made up about Obama and mine, as one who has some skin in the game on that particular issue, is as well. I, like @TerryP, identify as a Libertarian (although maybe a little L at times) on everything except abortion so I'm not in lock step with either party but Obama was a disaster here and abroad.

 

[18Champs]

It's one thing to have politicians calling each other names.

It's another to have politicians calling the American people names like the Dems calling the Repubs "deplorables."

 

[TerryP]

It's another to have politicians calling the American people names like the Dems calling the Repubs "deplorables."

To be fair, we can't label the entire Democratic party here. That was HRC.

 

[Sgt. Lincoln Osiris]

I pissed your ...

What now?



Yet, you've been pretty quick to label me a few times here. I'd call that a rash judgment.

Just so we're clear here. When it comes to fiscal matters, you're more than welcome to call me conservative. I prefer—and this is the party with which I'm officially registered—Libertarian. When it comes to a lot of social issues, I have no issue with being labeled liberal.

It's really, really easy to understand where I'm coming from in today's political climate.

• Stay out of my personal life.
• Stay out of my family's life.
• Stay out of my business.

All of of those have been encroached on by the last Administration. As I see it, based on facts we see in history, staying with the Democratic party would have continued such a course.

As to your point about my having no comments on those remarks. I actually have, in this very thread. "There is no cause or logical reason to wallow around in the mud, assume a child like attitude, and call you stupid or anything akin to that." Why on earth would I choose to even get into a discussion like that?

This may be considered elitist: if so, so be it. I consider myself to be above such nonsense and make a conscious choice not to get involved with such petty meanderings.





So, after reading and quoting where I said I don't read the comments of two publications—one labeled right wing, the other left wing—you choose to try to direct me to the Chicago Tribune? Independent thought and convictions, my friend. I don't see the need to use someone else's opinions to substantiate my own.

Now, I'll certainly give credit where it's due. The Tribune did endorse Gary Johnson in the last presidential cycle and a lot of his belief's mirror mine.

What I find ironic here is the article you've cited mentions tax credits as a way to pay for the Infrastructure improvements. The assertion you made earlier about Republicans opposing Sander's plan? That opposition was based on the plan using tax increases.

I'll admit, I'm a bit curious if you read the article you linked. It touches on a few things like how tax credits to those in the transportation industry lead to returns. It cites how Obama encouraged such from Congress. But, all they (Democratic side) came up with was tax increases. It cites how Hillary supported the same ideals. I'm sure there were a great number of people in America, as well as Capital Hill, who doubted her.

In the end, the article is diseningenous when it says Obama was blocked when in fact it was Sander's proposal that was blocked. The platform I stand on is one that's based on effects I've felt: personally, family wise, and business wise.

Three out of three. That's a pretty solid foundation.

Hang on... You supported the guy that didn't even know "what" Aleppo was?:rolf: