A thread for Democrats Only

POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 120 of 725

PREV PAGE 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 NEXT PAGE

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Thursday, May 24, 2018 4:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
This will STILL be the military. People will go for basic training. They will be called up for combat duty if they need to defend the country.

I believe The Military thinks being in the military is already a full time job. I doubt they would go for this.

And would enlisted types think they were being used?

"I have 2 f*cking jobs now but I'm only getting paid for one? That's bull."
"Damn straight. Now we have to clean up their shit overseas and at home."
"Fuckin' A. Why can't those civilians sitting on their couches whining about not getting paid enough go out and do this work until something else comes along? Screw defending them and doing their house work."

Sadly, you will never see military funding EVER reduced under Colonel Trump. Little hands is never going to go for not having the most missiles. He might go for a citizen militia though... put them to work cleaning up the parks and public lands, and patrolling neighborhoods after dark. Occasionally, if any large precincts have, say "voting day issues," they could lend a hand to sort out any trouble... yanno, make us safer again.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 24, 2018 6:54 PM

Quote:
I'd take you a little more seriously if you ...

And I'd take YOU a little more seriously if you ... well, you'd have to do A LOT to be thought of as something other than a troll! Let's look at the rest of your post's deficiencies, shall we?

Quote:
... realized that Obama is no longer president.

Dood, OF COURSE Obama is no longer President! But SECOND never complained about Obama DOING THE EXACT SAME THING EVEN WHEN OBAMA WAS PRESIDENT. So what does that say about SECOND's moral code? That it changes where there is a "D" or an "R" after someone's name? That's it's just a little (OK, a lot) "flexible"?

And what does that say about YOU, that you'd think your post is anything other than the blithering of an idiot?

Quote:
You and people of you ilk, constantly defend Trump (omg) by blaming someone who's out of work and has zero effect on your life. "If only you'd criticized John Tyler like this..." Big fucking transparent hole in your head.

I'm not defending Trump, you nitwit. I'm simply saying that SECOND's moral code is ... ah ... "situational"? Biased? Hypocritical?

SECOND is complaining about Trump being "not forthcoming". Well, if you apply THAT standard to every President back to ... Washington, maybe ... you'd have the same complaint. Presidents are NOT forthcoming. They usually do things that they don't telegraph ahead of time, and that includes Obama, Bill Clinton, and FDR, SECOND's Democratic saints.

So obviously, that can't be SECOND's REAL complaint.

He's either REALLY complaining about Trump's goals (as he perceives them) or what Trump says IN PLACE OF the truth. Because Obama, Bill Clinton, and FDR said what SECOND wanted to hear, in place of the truth. They said soothing things to the liberal audience, even as they betrayed the liberal cause.

Right?

I can't think of any other possibilities, can you?

Well, of course you can't. You don't believe in "compare and contrast" as a learning tool, because the concept that you MIGHT have something to learn has never entered your tiny, infantile, self-important mind! TO YOU, even a simple exercise in logic ("compare and contrast") is somehow to be rejected.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 24, 2018 7:13 PM

Quote:
Yes. At the absolute best, it's redundancy.- SIX

Redundancy to what? To the non-existent national training and jobs programs? To the non-existent public works projects?- KIKI

And that's only if it were done on a temporary basis as a program to transition existing military service members out of an active duty role. -SIX

Why? just because you say so doesn't make it so. - KIKI

I don't agree, but not because it necessarily represents an numeric expansion (i.e. numbers of military volunteers increasing) but because it expands the scope of "military code of justice" to non-military situations even further. If there's any reason at all for putting recruits under "martial law" it's because they will be forced into a wartime situation, where obedience is required. But there's no reason to put people under "martial law" because they're learning how to make their beds, brush their teeth, and run a bulldozer. - SIGNY

This will STILL be the military. People will go for basic training. They will be called up for combat duty if they need to defend the country. - KIKI

That's kind of my point. If the end goal here is not actually lowering the existing numbers in the military - SIX

It's not. And I never said it was. It's to get us more value at home for government money spent on the military that would otherwise be wasted.- KIKI

I fear that the numbers would rise because of how desperate people are going to become for any sort of meaningful jobs as more get shipped overseas or replaced with automation. ... I don't believe the Government would put any limits to how many people could join this program since the labor would be extremely cheap ... Who's to say that this wouldn't grow? - SIX

Are you saying the government would somehow be 'forced' to admit the flood of applicants? And. Wait. Weren't you arguing this was such a bad deal no one would go for it? Do you think you can keep your arguments straight? 0 KIKI

... and they'd be signing over their lives on contract to the Government until their time was up. These "employees" would have no real say about the direction their lives go while enlisted ... SIX

You mean, JUST EXACTLY LIKE HOW THINGS ARE NOW? - KIKI

Everybody here knows how corrupt our Government and businesses are. SIX

Do you have a point? - KIKI

... and by the time they could leave there might not be a whole lot of good paying jobs utilizing the skills they learned SIX

... And that's different from now ... how exactly? KIKI

... if there are now twice as many new recruits in there as well as a waiting list, so they're probably much more likely to re-enlist for a small bonus or bump in pay for the next 4 years of their lives. This circle only stands to get more vicious as the ranks become professional caliber after re-enlisting 1 or 2 times because it's better than the alternatives. - SIX

And how's THAT different from now?- KIKI

You just go round and round, and go nowhere.- SIX

Hmm... offhand, it's the "value added" argument ..., the one that should be the most acceptable ... that troubles me most. It creates a motivation that could expand the program endlessly, EVEN IF there are no current wars being fought and no need for a constant/ expanded military force. The program would eliminate any possible "peace dividend" and any possible rational for reducing the military force/ budget by expanding the scope of the military into peacetime. I think that's the thing that bothers me.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Thursday, May 24, 2018 7:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You don't believe in "compare and contrast" as a learning tool, because the concept that you MIGHT have something to learn has never entered your tiny, infantile, self-important mind!

Compare and contrast this:

"President Donald Trump has told nearly six times more lies in the first 10 months of his presidency than former President Barack Obama did in his entire 8-year term, according to data collected and published Thursday in the New York Times."

http://fortune.com/2017/12/14/trump-lies-new-york-times/

The concept that you MIGHT have something to learn has never entered your tiny, infantile, self-important mind!

And bullsh*t - you defend Trussia with almost every post you make.

SECOND

Thursday, May 24, 2018 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I'm not defending Trump, you nitwit. I'm simply saying that SECOND's moral code is ... ah ... "situational"? Biased? Hypocritical?

SECOND is complaining about Trump being "not forthcoming". Well, if you apply THAT standard to every President back to ... Washington, maybe ... you'd have the same complaint. Presidents are NOT forthcoming. They usually do things that they don't telegraph ahead of time, and that includes Obama, Bill Clinton, and FDR, SECOND's Democratic saints.

So obviously, that can't be SECOND's REAL complaint.

He's either REALLY complaining about Trump's goals (as he perceives them) or what Trump says IN PLACE OF the truth. Because Obama, Bill Clinton, and FDR said what SECOND wanted to hear, in place of the truth. They said soothing things to the liberal audience, even as they betrayed the liberal cause.

Right?

I can't think of any other possibilities, can you?

Well, of course you can't. You don't believe in "compare and contrast" as a learning tool, because the concept that you MIGHT have something to learn has never entered your tiny, infantile, self-important mind! TO YOU, even a simple exercise in logic ("compare and contrast") is somehow to be rejected.

The government of Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko paid at least $400,000 to Michael Cohen, the personal lawyer of US president Donald Trump, to arrange a meeting at the White House.

Note to Signym: Trump did not take the money directly; Trump's bagman took it. With Signym's code of ethics, that can't be a bribe of Trump unless the Ukrainians placed the money directly into Trump's suit coat pocket. Or maybe Cohen is stealing from Trump, which means Trump is perfectly innocent of any wrongdoing. Maybe Trump should sue his bagman for the $400,000?

But we do know for sure that after the meeting of Trump and Ukraine's president, Ukraine stopped cooperating with Mueller in the investigation of Manafort. Another note to Signyn: Mueller can't prove this was quid pro quo where Ukraine does Trump a favor and Trump does Ukraine a favor. It could all be just a big coincidence, except there was the $400,000 Trump/Ukraine meeting where the "coincidence" could have been planned.

https://qz.com/1286718

What did Trump do for Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine ending its cooperation with Mueller? U.S. agrees to send lethal weapons to Ukraine, angering Russia. Further note to Signym: As long as Trump can perjure himself, Mueller can't "prove" it was quid pro quo, but it was.
www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-trump-weapons-ukraine-20171
222-story.html
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/376351-us-approves-sale-of-210-anti-
tank-missiles-to-ukraine

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 24, 2018 8:03 PM

Oh yeah, the New York Times. The one that pushed the Saddam WMD lie. Do you think they would even KNOW a lie from the truth? So far, they haven't demonstrated that capability!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, May 24, 2018 8:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You whine, bitch, and moan endlessly about Trump. I'd take it a lot more seriously if you didn't have such a big fucking double standard/ hole in your head.

I'd take you a little more seriously if you realized that Obama is no longer president. You and people of you ilk, constantly defend Trump (omg) by blaming someone who's out of work and has zero effect on your life. "If only you'd criticized John Tyler like this..." Big fucking transparent hole in your head.

The problem here man is that somehow you think things would be any better had things gone the other way.

If you look at my post history since Trump has become president, particularly on financial and employment issues, I'm not really happy with how my vote has turned out at all.

Context is key here.

Sure. Trump isn't all that great a president. I think most of the people who voted for him din't expect him to be. They were just fed up with the way the game was being played and wanted to throw the table over.

Don't expect me to jump on this internet bandwagon of Hate Trump though, especially with people who had their heads up Obama's asshole for the previous 8 years.

It's not going to change anything, and it's not as if you don't have every douchebag talking head on TV roasting the guy every night on TV.

At the end of the day we have the Democrats to thank for Trump. If they were at all reasonable then we wouldn't be here right now. We can't just ignore that fact because Trump is president now. Almost 2 years have passed and the Democrats and the Media that support them have only gotten worse in every aspect that laid the red carpet out for Trump. Unless the Democrats do a 180 very quickly, we're going to have another 6 years of Trump.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 24, 2018 8:36 PM

Quote:
Note to Signym: Trump did not take the money directly; Trump's bagman took it.

So, engaging in another "compare and contrast" ... the Saudis plunked millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation ... money that mysteriously dried up when Hillary lost the election. They didn't pay Hillary directly ... the fake Foundation got it.

Imagine this (another compare and contrast) ...

Bill and Hillary are investigated with the same vigor as Trump. The FBI pays an informant to cozy up to them, and opposition parties pay for "dossiers" on their foreign contacts with the Saudis, who cater to their pedophile BDMS tastes in some fancy hotel in Dubai. Instead of taking the word of the third party about the "hack" of the DNC computers, the FBI takes the servers as evidence and examines them forensically. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's relationship with Imran Awan, her conniving IT manager who managed to (illegally) get his hands on the private emails of dozens of Congresspeople, is probed vigorously. Podesta is spied on. Bill is spied on. Debbie is spied on. Saudi ringers are sent in to offer "dirt" on Trump. The Clinton Foundation's communications are monitored electronically. All of this on a FISA warrant based on some allegations about Hillary and Bill's pedophilic adventures. And instead of giving Hillary a "pass" on those 33,000 emails, the server is examined forensically, all potential copies of/ communications about are pursued and examined, and her staffers (instead of being given immunity) are indicted on irrelevant charges to squeeze information out of them. All of this is leaked to the cooperative mainstream press in a continuous "drip" of allegations while the intelligence community sonorously proclaims that the Saudis interfered with our elections, that Hillary colluded with them, and that she would place the Saudi interests above ours in the Mideast. This goes on before, during, and after the election, for over two years, as the FBI, CIA, and NSA crawl so far up Hillary's ass that they can look out of her mouth.

I could go on, but I think you should get the picture by now.

If everything that happened to Trump had happened to Hillary, you'd be huffing and puffing with outrage, OUTRAGE! I tell you. But basically, you have the moral spine of a jellyfish because you can't possibly bear to apply the same standards across the board.

You (collectively, not individually) consistently misinterpret my criticism of you as defense of Trump. Not so! I have plenty of criticisms of Trump, but in your laser-like focus on complete irrelevancies you simply haven't hit on my concerns.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Thursday, May 24, 2018 9:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

The problem here man is that somehow you think things would be any better had things gone the other way.

That's bullshit - find one post of mine where I said,"If only Hillary had won." That's the trouble with so many people on both sides of this - assuming the opposite is true when it's never been expressed. I will gladly and honestly tell you what I think, so don't fucking ASSUME.

Bonus: And because I knew Signym would try that sh*t I copied some of my posts on Hillary:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60433&p=7

“But anyway... Hillary's worst attribute is she's a really bad politician. Even terrible imho. Listening to her speak and try and sound presidential is painful. I can't listen, it's too forced, too fake, and I think that also reveals itself in her actions and policies. She is definitely not a sophisticated thinker and has very little charm or charisma, which could have serious consequences internationally.”

“I totally agree, she's smiling slime.”

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60433&p=6

“Except I hate Hillary.”

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60433&p=2

“As I said previously to you (you should read some of these posts, they're quite good) I could give a rat's behind about her.”

“Hillary is many things but less of a wild card than Trump. He's been complaining about the Iran deal. "We should have them coming to us on their knees..." He's more dangerous than Putin. But whatever and whomever - it's like choosing how you want to take a beating.”

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60433&p=1
“I could give a sh*t about her and certainly have no interest in defending any professional politician.”

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Thursday, May 24, 2018 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh yeah, the New York Times. The one that pushed the Saddam WMD lie. Do you think they would even KNOW a lie from the truth? So far, they haven't demonstrated that capability!

That's bull and you know it. But, if you are so sure go through the list and dispute it.

PREV PAGE 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 NEXT PAGE