Who Turned America Into A Banana Republic?

[PoliticalChic]

our citizens are finally bananas!! knew the day was soon.

"Banana republics are known for lawless dictatorial rulers who punish their political enemies, while rewarding their sycophantic useful idiot followers with paybacks of other people’s money, much in the way the Obama Regime has ruled from day one.

It began with the 2009 Obama stimulus plan, nearly a trillion dollars of spending money that didn’t exist, sold as an “infrastructure bill,” which turned out to be a 97% lie, as only around 3% of the massive “Porkulus” bill was dedicated for actual infrastructure spending, with most of the rest going to Obama donors and cronies."
Proof That Obama Has 'Fundamentally Transformed' America Into a Banana Republic | The PolitiStick



Is this really what you wish for your progeny (better look that up)?

 

[G.T.]

our citizens are finally bananas!! knew the day was soon.

"Banana republics are known for lawless dictatorial rulers who punish their political enemies, while rewarding their sycophantic useful idiot followers with paybacks of other people’s money, much in the way the Obama Regime has ruled from day one.

It began with the 2009 Obama stimulus plan, nearly a trillion dollars of spending money that didn’t exist, sold as an “infrastructure bill,” which turned out to be a 97% lie, as only around 3% of the massive “Porkulus” bill was dedicated for actual infrastructure spending, with most of the rest going to Obama donors and cronies."
Proof That Obama Has 'Fundamentally Transformed' America Into a Banana Republic | The PolitiStick



Is this really what you wish for your progeny (better look that up)?

Ive been neutered. It was for the best.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Based on what? The Constitution was written so it could be modified with enough support. Difficult but doable. Technology changed the role of women in the world.

The founder's vision was what it was; for titled property holding white males only.

As usual, your posts rife with lacunae (better look that up).


Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

Hon, Breitbart versus indoctrination? Please.

"....Breitbart...."

Let's see if I can explain the difference between you and scholarship.

1. Short of outright banning free speech.....certainly on the Left's agenda.....there are several attempts their Janissaries (better look that up, you dunce) use with metronomic regularity, to disqualify and delegitimize....as in your attempt of Breitbart.



2. First step in their playbook of 'delegitimization' is to refuse to accept any statements of fact, or even strongly supported opinion, unless they come from a Leftist source....the NYTimes, HuffPost, the DNC, MSNBC or the like.

Get that?
Only accept an admission from your side.
Is that insane????



3. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to Breitbart, World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive (look it up, dope) for the thread or question under discussion, often the Leftist,totalitarians, with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side (e.g., your post)

b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’

c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.

d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.

In short....anything but an actual response.



4. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst.


5. As an example, FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).



6. To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity....intellectual and moral.


I'm not optimistic of you learning from this.....but you'll be unable to deny it.

Everyone knows what Breitbart is love, even you.

The more pertinent point is that everyone knows what you are....a fool.

 

[Fenton Lum]

The founder's vision was what it was; for titled property holding white males only.

As usual, your posts rife with lacunae (better look that up).


Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

Hon, Breitbart versus indoctrination? Please.

"....Breitbart...."

Let's see if I can explain the difference between you and scholarship.

1. Short of outright banning free speech.....certainly on the Left's agenda.....there are several attempts their Janissaries (better look that up, you dunce) use with metronomic regularity, to disqualify and delegitimize....as in your attempt of Breitbart.



2. First step in their playbook of 'delegitimization' is to refuse to accept any statements of fact, or even strongly supported opinion, unless they come from a Leftist source....the NYTimes, HuffPost, the DNC, MSNBC or the like.

Get that?
Only accept an admission from your side.
Is that insane????



3. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to Breitbart, World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive (look it up, dope) for the thread or question under discussion, often the Leftist,totalitarians, with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side (e.g., your post)

b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’

c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.

d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.

In short....anything but an actual response.



4. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst.


5. As an example, FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).



6. To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity....intellectual and moral.


I'm not optimistic of you learning from this.....but you'll be unable to deny it.

Everyone knows what Breitbart is love, even you.

The more pertinent point is that everyone knows what you are....a fool.

I can't concern myself with partisanshitheads.

 

[PoliticalChic]

At the nexus of the FBI handling of the email scandals, and America now a Banana Republic, rife with corruption, is this:


"FBI DIRECTOR COMEY TOOK MILLIONS FROM CLINTON FOUNDATION DEFENSE CONTRACTOR
When FBI Director James Comey said that the organization would not be seeking to bring charges against Hillary Clinton over her illegal email server, anyone paying attention knew there was a deep level of corruption. Now, it’s been made clear. James Comey received millions of dollars from the corrupt Clinton Foundation, and his brother’s law firm also does the Clinton’s taxes.

...Comey is noted as receiving $6 million in one year along from Lockheed Martin, who is a Clinton Foundation donor, and became a donor in the same year Comey received those funds.

Additionally, Mr. Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings in 2013. HSBC has also partnered with The Clinton Foundation, where records indicate that the bank projected $1 billion in financing through the Clinton Foundation for “retrofitting” 1,500 to 2,000 housing units to conserve energy.

Additionally, Peter Comey, James’ brother, serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper, according to the report."
FBI Director Comey Took Millions from Clinton Foundation Defense Contractor - The Washington Standard

 

[PoliticalChic]

As usual, your posts rife with lacunae (better look that up).


Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

Hon, Breitbart versus indoctrination? Please.

"....Breitbart...."

Let's see if I can explain the difference between you and scholarship.

1. Short of outright banning free speech.....certainly on the Left's agenda.....there are several attempts their Janissaries (better look that up, you dunce) use with metronomic regularity, to disqualify and delegitimize....as in your attempt of Breitbart.



2. First step in their playbook of 'delegitimization' is to refuse to accept any statements of fact, or even strongly supported opinion, unless they come from a Leftist source....the NYTimes, HuffPost, the DNC, MSNBC or the like.

Get that?
Only accept an admission from your side.
Is that insane????



3. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to Breitbart, World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive (look it up, dope) for the thread or question under discussion, often the Leftist,totalitarians, with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side (e.g., your post)

b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’

c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.

d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.

In short....anything but an actual response.



4. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst.


5. As an example, FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).



6. To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity....intellectual and moral.


I'm not optimistic of you learning from this.....but you'll be unable to deny it.

Everyone knows what Breitbart is love, even you.

The more pertinent point is that everyone knows what you are....a fool.

I can't concern myself with partisanshitheads.

Let's remind all that your vulgarity and your lack of intellectual ability both result from upbringing.

Seems that your genetic pool requires a lot more chlorine.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Hon, Breitbart versus indoctrination? Please.

"....Breitbart...."

Let's see if I can explain the difference between you and scholarship.

1. Short of outright banning free speech.....certainly on the Left's agenda.....there are several attempts their Janissaries (better look that up, you dunce) use with metronomic regularity, to disqualify and delegitimize....as in your attempt of Breitbart.



2. First step in their playbook of 'delegitimization' is to refuse to accept any statements of fact, or even strongly supported opinion, unless they come from a Leftist source....the NYTimes, HuffPost, the DNC, MSNBC or the like.

Get that?
Only accept an admission from your side.
Is that insane????



3. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to Breitbart, World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive (look it up, dope) for the thread or question under discussion, often the Leftist,totalitarians, with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side (e.g., your post)

b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’

c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.

d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.

In short....anything but an actual response.



4. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst.


5. As an example, FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).



6. To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity....intellectual and moral.


I'm not optimistic of you learning from this.....but you'll be unable to deny it.

Everyone knows what Breitbart is love, even you.

The more pertinent point is that everyone knows what you are....a fool.

I can't concern myself with partisanshitheads.

Let's remind all that your vulgarity and your lack of intellectual ability both result from upbringing.

Seems that your genetic pool requires a lot more chlorine.

Have a nice day hon.

 

[peach174]

As usual, your posts rife with lacunae (better look that up).


Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


Work hard to undo your indoctrination.

Hon, Breitbart versus indoctrination? Please.

"....Breitbart...."

Let's see if I can explain the difference between you and scholarship.

1. Short of outright banning free speech.....certainly on the Left's agenda.....there are several attempts their Janissaries (better look that up, you dunce) use with metronomic regularity, to disqualify and delegitimize....as in your attempt of Breitbart.



2. First step in their playbook of 'delegitimization' is to refuse to accept any statements of fact, or even strongly supported opinion, unless they come from a Leftist source....the NYTimes, HuffPost, the DNC, MSNBC or the like.

Get that?
Only accept an admission from your side.
Is that insane????



3. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to Breitbart, World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive (look it up, dope) for the thread or question under discussion, often the Leftist,totalitarians, with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side (e.g., your post)

b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’

c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.

d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.

In short....anything but an actual response.



4. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst.


5. As an example, FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).



6. To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity....intellectual and moral.


I'm not optimistic of you learning from this.....but you'll be unable to deny it.

Everyone knows what Breitbart is love, even you.

The more pertinent point is that everyone knows what you are....a fool.

I can't concern myself with partisanshitheads.

That's not partisan, it's cold hard facts, that you don't seem to be able to recognise.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Hon, Breitbart versus indoctrination? Please.

"....Breitbart...."

Let's see if I can explain the difference between you and scholarship.

1. Short of outright banning free speech.....certainly on the Left's agenda.....there are several attempts their Janissaries (better look that up, you dunce) use with metronomic regularity, to disqualify and delegitimize....as in your attempt of Breitbart.



2. First step in their playbook of 'delegitimization' is to refuse to accept any statements of fact, or even strongly supported opinion, unless they come from a Leftist source....the NYTimes, HuffPost, the DNC, MSNBC or the like.

Get that?
Only accept an admission from your side.
Is that insane????



3. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to Breitbart, World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive (look it up, dope) for the thread or question under discussion, often the Leftist,totalitarians, with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side (e.g., your post)

b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’

c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.

d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.

In short....anything but an actual response.



4. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst.


5. As an example, FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).



6. To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity....intellectual and moral.


I'm not optimistic of you learning from this.....but you'll be unable to deny it.

Everyone knows what Breitbart is love, even you.

The more pertinent point is that everyone knows what you are....a fool.

I can't concern myself with partisanshitheads.

That's not partisan, it's cold hard facts, that you don't seem to be able to recognise.

The woman is what she is.

 

[easyt65]

'Who Turned America Into A Banana Republic?'

Barry....NEXT!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....Breitbart...."

Let's see if I can explain the difference between you and scholarship.

1. Short of outright banning free speech.....certainly on the Left's agenda.....there are several attempts their Janissaries (better look that up, you dunce) use with metronomic regularity, to disqualify and delegitimize....as in your attempt of Breitbart.



2. First step in their playbook of 'delegitimization' is to refuse to accept any statements of fact, or even strongly supported opinion, unless they come from a Leftist source....the NYTimes, HuffPost, the DNC, MSNBC or the like.

Get that?
Only accept an admission from your side.
Is that insane????



3. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to Breitbart, World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive (look it up, dope) for the thread or question under discussion, often the Leftist,totalitarians, with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side (e.g., your post)

b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’

c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.

d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.

In short....anything but an actual response.



4. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst.


5. As an example, FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).



6. To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity....intellectual and moral.


I'm not optimistic of you learning from this.....but you'll be unable to deny it.

Everyone knows what Breitbart is love, even you.

The more pertinent point is that everyone knows what you are....a fool.

I can't concern myself with partisanshitheads.

That's not partisan, it's cold hard facts, that you don't seem to be able to recognise.

The woman is what she is.

"The woman is what she is."

Let's be more precise:

Don't you want to comment on my amazing grasp of the subject? My understated wit?
My cygnian grace?
Please don't mention my spectacular good looks (just kidding- go ahead and mention them.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

'Who Turned America Into A Banana Republic?'

Barry....NEXT!

Please....give SOME credit to his support from both the Democrat/Communist Party...

...and the utterly perception-challenged government school grads.

 

[PoliticalChic]

our citizens are finally bananas!! knew the day was soon.

"Banana republics are known for lawless dictatorial rulers who punish their political enemies, while rewarding their sycophantic useful idiot followers with paybacks of other people’s money, much in the way the Obama Regime has ruled from day one.

It began with the 2009 Obama stimulus plan, nearly a trillion dollars of spending money that didn’t exist, sold as an “infrastructure bill,” which turned out to be a 97% lie, as only around 3% of the massive “Porkulus” bill was dedicated for actual infrastructure spending, with most of the rest going to Obama donors and cronies."
Proof That Obama Has 'Fundamentally Transformed' America Into a Banana Republic | The PolitiStick



Is this really what you wish for your progeny (better look that up)?

Ive been neutered. It was for the best.

A grateful nation thanks you.

 

[G.T.]

our citizens are finally bananas!! knew the day was soon.

"Banana republics are known for lawless dictatorial rulers who punish their political enemies, while rewarding their sycophantic useful idiot followers with paybacks of other people’s money, much in the way the Obama Regime has ruled from day one.

It began with the 2009 Obama stimulus plan, nearly a trillion dollars of spending money that didn’t exist, sold as an “infrastructure bill,” which turned out to be a 97% lie, as only around 3% of the massive “Porkulus” bill was dedicated for actual infrastructure spending, with most of the rest going to Obama donors and cronies."
Proof That Obama Has 'Fundamentally Transformed' America Into a Banana Republic | The PolitiStick



Is this really what you wish for your progeny (better look that up)?

Ive been neutered. It was for the best.

A grateful nation thanks you.

Which tribe, I'd like to direct them to my Mom's meatballs...

 

[BlindBoo]

Nixon resigned like an exec resigns before getting fired. You need to back up your claims against Reagan, he took responsibility being the president, unlike some folks we know ...

Powells email situation was not the same thing or nearly as dangerous. He had no private server and there was no mass purging of evidence once under suspicion. You didn't get anything right.

Saying Nixon was forced out was incorrect, I corrected you. And trying to say that Reagan didn't get away with Iran-Contra is just as dumb. Go play, partisan.

You were being stupid so I corrected you. Nixon resigned so he would get tossed out. You also failed to support you allegations against Reagan, which I knew from many years experience would happen. New to the game huh?

You are a moron and we're done. Nixon wasn't forced out, he resigned (under pressure to but it was his call still). And Iran-Contra is well known to those of us who lived through it. Reagan was Teflon then.

As long as the impeachment resolution stayed bottled up in committee Nixon would not resign. Once it passed and was on the way to the Full House, he resigned. He also got a full pardon from Ford. RayGun is still Teflon. He just didn't know(remember?) what his men were doing.

I understand the necessity for you Liberals to attempt the slander of the finest and most competent President in the last 100 years...so as to mitigate you votes for rapists, and anti-Americans.....

....but what is the 'guilt' you imagine of Ronaldus Maximus?

While not the most corrupt, certainly his administration is near the top in corruption. But he did have a certain truthiness about him didn't he?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Saying Nixon was forced out was incorrect, I corrected you. And trying to say that Reagan didn't get away with Iran-Contra is just as dumb. Go play, partisan.

You were being stupid so I corrected you. Nixon resigned so he would get tossed out. You also failed to support you allegations against Reagan, which I knew from many years experience would happen. New to the game huh?

You are a moron and we're done. Nixon wasn't forced out, he resigned (under pressure to but it was his call still). And Iran-Contra is well known to those of us who lived through it. Reagan was Teflon then.

As long as the impeachment resolution stayed bottled up in committee Nixon would not resign. Once it passed and was on the way to the Full House, he resigned. He also got a full pardon from Ford. RayGun is still Teflon. He just didn't know(remember?) what his men were doing.

I understand the necessity for you Liberals to attempt the slander of the finest and most competent President in the last 100 years...so as to mitigate you votes for rapists, and anti-Americans.....

....but what is the 'guilt' you imagine of Ronaldus Maximus?

While not the most corrupt, certainly his administration is near the top in corruption. But he did have a certain truthiness about him didn't he?

This was the exact query....
"...but what is the 'guilt' you imagine of Ronaldus Maximus?"

As you have been unable to answer, one must conclude that there is no such.

 

[TooTall]

Thomas Paine was a liberal, which meant he was a Marxist/socialist/communist/liberal/totalitarian...

By 'Liberal,' I recognize you applying the contemporary terminology.

Which means, you couldn't be more wrong: you could try to be...but you would not be successful.


The Folks who founded this country were classical liberals...what are known as conservatives today: they believed in individualism, free markets and limited constitutional government.


Modern Liberals stole the name, and applied it to their party, the Socialist Party.


Don't make that mistake again.

There are free markets and free trade agreements....Must be alive and well today....

There are no FAIR trade agreements, and that is what we need.

 

[BlindBoo]

You were being stupid so I corrected you. Nixon resigned so he would get tossed out. You also failed to support you allegations against Reagan, which I knew from many years experience would happen. New to the game huh?

You are a moron and we're done. Nixon wasn't forced out, he resigned (under pressure to but it was his call still). And Iran-Contra is well known to those of us who lived through it. Reagan was Teflon then.

As long as the impeachment resolution stayed bottled up in committee Nixon would not resign. Once it passed and was on the way to the Full House, he resigned. He also got a full pardon from Ford. RayGun is still Teflon. He just didn't know(remember?) what his men were doing.

I understand the necessity for you Liberals to attempt the slander of the finest and most competent President in the last 100 years...so as to mitigate you votes for rapists, and anti-Americans.....

....but what is the 'guilt' you imagine of Ronaldus Maximus?

While not the most corrupt, certainly his administration is near the top in corruption. But he did have a certain truthiness about him didn't he?

This was the exact query....
"...but what is the 'guilt' you imagine of Ronaldus Maximus?"

As you have been unable to answer, one must conclude that there is no such.

With Teflon scrubbers such as yourself it would be an exercise in futility.

But let me ask you this. When he was informed that his trading partner Saddam had launched a Chemical Attack on Kurdish rebels, what action did he take against the regime?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are a moron and we're done. Nixon wasn't forced out, he resigned (under pressure to but it was his call still). And Iran-Contra is well known to those of us who lived through it. Reagan was Teflon then.

As long as the impeachment resolution stayed bottled up in committee Nixon would not resign. Once it passed and was on the way to the Full House, he resigned. He also got a full pardon from Ford. RayGun is still Teflon. He just didn't know(remember?) what his men were doing.

I understand the necessity for you Liberals to attempt the slander of the finest and most competent President in the last 100 years...so as to mitigate you votes for rapists, and anti-Americans.....

....but what is the 'guilt' you imagine of Ronaldus Maximus?

While not the most corrupt, certainly his administration is near the top in corruption. But he did have a certain truthiness about him didn't he?

This was the exact query....
"...but what is the 'guilt' you imagine of Ronaldus Maximus?"

As you have been unable to answer, one must conclude that there is no such.

With Teflon scrubbers such as yourself it would be an exercise in futility.

But let me ask you this. When he was informed that his trading partner Saddam had launched a Chemical Attack on Kurdish rebels, what action did he take against the regime?

So....when you posted this about the finest and most successful President in a hundred years...

"RayGun is still Teflon. He just didn't know(remember?) what his men were doing."

...we are in agreement that it was simply the usual low-life attempt at a smear by an inveterate Leftist?

Excellent.

 

[BlindBoo]

As long as the impeachment resolution stayed bottled up in committee Nixon would not resign. Once it passed and was on the way to the Full House, he resigned. He also got a full pardon from Ford. RayGun is still Teflon. He just didn't know(remember?) what his men were doing.

I understand the necessity for you Liberals to attempt the slander of the finest and most competent President in the last 100 years...so as to mitigate you votes for rapists, and anti-Americans.....

....but what is the 'guilt' you imagine of Ronaldus Maximus?

While not the most corrupt, certainly his administration is near the top in corruption. But he did have a certain truthiness about him didn't he?

This was the exact query....
"...but what is the 'guilt' you imagine of Ronaldus Maximus?"

As you have been unable to answer, one must conclude that there is no such.

With Teflon scrubbers such as yourself it would be an exercise in futility.

But let me ask you this. When he was informed that his trading partner Saddam had launched a Chemical Attack on Kurdish rebels, what action did he take against the regime?

So....when you posted this about the finest and most successful President in a hundred years...

"RayGun is still Teflon. He just didn't know(remember?) what his men were doing."

...we are in agreement that it was simply the usual low-life attempt at a smear by an inveterate Leftist?

Excellent.

He didn't know or didn't remember them telling him.



Care to answer what the Teflon Don did after learning his partner Saddam had just Gassed a Kurdish Village?