This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Married to the Mob

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

1 Married to the Mob on 5/14/2018, 9:50 am

View user profile

2 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/14/2018, 10:23 am

View user profile

3 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/14/2018, 11:47 am


What a steaming pile of horse manure. You really are that stupid, aren't you.

View user profile

4 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/14/2018, 12:02 pm

Right under your nose and you didn't give a fuck. It's your ilk that's ruining the country.

http://www.socialistutopia.com/socialist_czars/index.html

View user profile

5 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/14/2018, 1:37 pm

https://canadafreepress.com/article/california-democrats-push-communist-holiday-over-presidents-day

Democrat Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, D-Los Angeles, authored AB-3042 to combine the birthdays of U.S. Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln into one “President’s Day” while designating May 1 for International Workers’ Day celebrations, a Communist holiday. The bill has passed two Assembly committees, and actually made it to the Assembly floor for a vote last week, but came up short. However 22 Democrats voted in favor of the bill’s passage, while 29 Assembly members abstained with “No Vote Recorded,” and did not even have the guts to make a vote.

View user profile

6 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/14/2018, 2:24 pm

View user profile

7 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/14/2018, 3:57 pm

Floridatexan wrote:
What a steaming pile of horse manure.  You really are that stupid, aren't you.

Amazing, isn't it?

Every time I think he's gotten as stupid as he can get, he says "Hold my beer" and posts some shit even Alex Jones would say was too absurd to believe.

I've been on a lot of political forums, and I honestly don't think I've ever run into anyone quite as blinkered-stupid or more pathetically worthless to the company of other adults. Most people who absolutely nobody liked would find somewhere else to go, but this seems to be his best option for human interaction, and that's pretty sad. It's like being a rash on everybody's ass is better than being nothing at all. He's one moment of clarity away from chaining a cinderblock around his neck and wading into the Gulf.

View user profile

8 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/14/2018, 5:38 pm

Hey... if there's something actually found I'll be yelling for any politician to be strung up.

That's the difference between me and useful idiots like y'all. There should've been special investigators for fast n furious gun running, IRS targeting, holder wiretapping the media,  Benghazi... etc. This is what's supposed to happen. I want sunshine on everything except maybe deep security. It's still amazing that the Clinton campaign commissioned Russian counter intelligence and it was used to gain secret access to the opposing campaign... you dolts would be screaming bloody murder. Try to be objective and pull for the country... not your fucking corrupt party and politicians.

View user profile

9 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/14/2018, 6:05 pm

zsomething wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
What a steaming pile of horse manure.  You really are that stupid, aren't you.

Amazing, isn't it?

Every time I think he's gotten as stupid as he can get, he says "Hold my beer" and posts some shit even Alex Jones would say was too absurd to believe.

I've been on a lot of political forums, and I honestly don't think I've ever run into anyone quite as blinkered-stupid or more pathetically worthless to the company of other adults.  Most people who absolutely nobody liked would find somewhere else to go, but this seems to be his best option for human interaction, and that's pretty sad.  It's like being a rash on everybody's ass is better than being nothing at all.  He's one moment of clarity away from chaining a cinderblock around his neck and wading into the Gulf.

Sadly, I fear the moment of clarity will never come. I'm just glad you're here. I just encountered one of our previous members on FB. My fuse is short these days...really short. I called her both illiterate and stupid. Mea culpa.

View user profile

10 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/14/2018, 6:11 pm

zsomething wrote: ...but this seems to be his best option for human interaction,

Which is why just ignoring him may be the best option. Every time someone responds to him, even to rip him a new one, he gets a kind of sick gratification. Just ignore the guy.

View user profile

11 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/14/2018, 11:44 pm

There should've been special investigators for fast n furious gun running, IRS targeting, holder wiretapping the media, Benghazi... etc. This is what's supposed to happen.

Were you sleeping. There were close to 17 congressional hearings on all of your subjects and guess what.......the light was shone on the allegations and not a fricking thing.....nada. I think your just messing around because you cannot be serious.

View user profile

12 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/15/2018, 12:26 am

2seaoat wrote:  I think your just messing around because you cannot be serious.

NAILED IT!

View user profile

13 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/15/2018, 2:42 am

Deus X wrote:
2seaoat wrote:  I think your just messing around because you cannot be serious.

NAILED IT!

Would agree except this gives him way more credit than he's due. I'm with FT when it comes to Pkr.

View user profile

14 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/15/2018, 6:45 am

RealLindaL wrote:
Would agree except this gives him way more credit than he's due.  I'm with FT when it comes to Pkr.

Look, the guy is obviously emotionally disturbed and he's not intelligent enough to post rational arguments.

Responding to him in any way just encourages him. If nobody pays attention to him he'll eventually go away.

Besides, it's only words on a screen--what does it say about the reader that his words are so upsetting?

Just ignore the guy.

View user profile

15 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/15/2018, 9:35 am

Deus X wrote:
zsomething wrote: ...but this seems to be his best option for human interaction,

Which is why just ignoring him may be the best option. Every time someone responds to him, even to rip him a new one, he gets a kind of sick gratification. Just ignore the guy.

Yep, that's mostly what I'm doing. Once in a while I'll give him a shot in the teeth in hopes of helping other people deal with him, but mostly I just block him out. He has absolutely nothing worthwhile to contribute, and it's kind of depressing that he even stays here when he's obviously not wanted by anybody. Makes me wonder what kind of life he's got, that he clings to this place just to be an irritant. It's also creepy that he somehow actually seems to believe he's "objective" when damn near everything he believes is a crazy conspiracy theory... which he'll keep clinging to even after they've been debunked. He seems to think if he keeps saying he's rational, somehow we're going to start believing him despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Bizarre, really. For a while it was interesting just as a psychological glitch, but now it's just kind of a bummer to watch him, thinking this must be the best thing he's got going. I do ignore him, mostly, but I'm not sure even total shunning would stop him from doing this shit. It seems the only life he's got.

View user profile

16 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/15/2018, 10:36 am

It's the left that's changed. They advocate things against trump that they would never were the potus a dem.

You've turned into partisan hacks.

https://newrepublic.com/article/148080/happened-alan-dershowitz

“I’m not an advocate for President Trump, let’s be clear,” he told me. “I’m an advocate for civil liberties. I’d be making the exact same point for Hillary Clinton if she were elected president.”

Dershowitz isn’t alone among legal scholars in questioning aspects of the Russia investigation. There’s debate over whether it would be constitutional to indict a sitting president and whether Trump committed obstruction of justice. But few law professors can match Dershowitz’s name recognition, his long history of supporting Democrats, or his frequent appearances on cable television.

Dershowitz’s defense of the president has bewildered some of his friends and colleagues. In March, Jeffrey Toobin, a New Yorker staff writer and CNN senior legal analyst, confronted Dershowitz on TV about “carrying water” for Trump. “This is not who you used to be,” Toobin told him. “And you are doing this over and over again in situations that are just obviously ripe with conflict of interest. And it’s just, like, what’s happened with you?”

“I’m not carrying his water,” Dershowitz replied. “I’m saying exactly the same thing I’ve said for 50 years.” He echoed this response when I asked why he thought liberals were criticizing him so much. “There’s such a hyper-partisan passion to get President Trump that anything that’s seen as trying to help President Trump is seen as supporting Trump,” he said.

Dershowitz’s latest critique of the investigation came after FBI agents searched Michael Cohen’s office earlier this month. Legal experts widely viewed the raid as a bad sign for the president’s longtime personal lawyer. To seek a search warrant for any lawyer’s office, federal prosecutors have to get approval from high up in the Justice Department. Raiding the office of the president’s personal attorney apparently prompted even greater scrutiny: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein signed off on the search, according to The New York Times.

The American Civil Liberties Union had no complaint with the raid on Cohen’s office in principle. “That the warrant was issued is not a sign that the attorney-client privilege is dead,” a staff attorney wrote for the organization. “It is, on the contrary, a sign that the rule of law is alive.” Dershowitz, who once served on the organization’s board, viewed the remarks as hypocrisy. “The ACLU not only remains silent, but they came out in support of the search of a lawyer’s office for the first time in history,” he told me.

From Dershowitz’s perspective, the Russia investigation is symptomatic of a broader civic ailment that affects both sides of the aisle: wielding criminal investigations in a politicized manner to harm one’s opponents. This includes partisan-driven probes like the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server or the conspiracy theory surrounding the Uranium One deal, as well as the two-year federal inquiry into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to meddle in the 2016 election to hurt Clinton.

“I don’t believe collusion is a crime,” he told me, noting that collusion doesn’t exist as such in the federal criminal statutes. (Other legal experts have concluded it would violate campaign-finance laws.) He also rejected the idea that Trump’s pardoning of top officials would be an impeachable offense. “The best evidence is George H. W. Bush, who pardoned Caspar Weinberger to stop the investigation into Iran-Contra,” he said, for which President Bush faced no consequences.

Weinberger, who served as President Ronald Reagan’s secretary of defense during the Iran-Contra scandal, was one of six officials who received pardons from Bush in 1991 that short-circuited an independent-counsel probe. Many now fear that Trump could use the pardon power to aid Cohen, Michael Flynn, or Paul Manafort, and thereby prevent Mueller from using plea deals to obtain damaging evidence and testimony. Trump’s pardon of Scooter Libby last week only intensified those fears.

I asked Dershowitz if he was worried that his legal interpretations amounted to impunity for public officials. “The Constitution provides that no senator or congressman can be prosecuted for what they say on the floor,” he told me. Judges also can’t be sued for what they do in their official capacity, he added. “So it shouldn’t be surprising that the Constitution has provided some breathing space for the three branches of government” when using their official powers.

Dershowitz once denounced the impeachment proceedings for Bill Clinton in 1998 as “sexual McCarthyism.” So are there circumstances in which he thinks it would be proper to impeach a president? “Only if the constitutional criteria are met: bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” he replied. That’s a high bar to pass. The president’s exercise of his lawful constitutional powers—such as firing an FBI director for dubious reasons—wouldn’t qualify, he said. A more appropriate remedy, he told me, are for Americans to exercise their power through the electoral process.

That Dershowitz, a prominent Jewish American public intellectual, would speak up in Trump’s defense is jarring, as he appears to recognize. “When I defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, my mother told me, ‘You have to take sides, you’re either with the Jews or the Nazis,’” he told me. “And I said, ‘Mom, I’m on the side of civil liberties.’” In his mother’s defense, he added, she didn’t go to law school, and many of his current sparring partners don’t have the same excuse.

One of them is Nancy Gertner, who spent seventeen years as a federal judge in Massachusetts and is currently a law professor at Harvard. Earlier this month, Dershowitz told a radio-show host that Mueller had “kept four innocent people in prison for many years” to protect Boston mobster Whitey Bulger’s identity as an FBI informant. Bulger’s decades-long relationship with the FBI is controversial and embarrassing for the bureau. Gertner, who knows the case better than just about anyone, spoke up in Mueller’s defense.

“I was the federal judge who presided over a successful lawsuit brought against the government by two of those men and the families of the other two, who had died in prison,” she wrote in the Times. “Based on the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having written a 105-page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say without equivocation that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 to 1988, including a brief stint as the acting head of the office, had no involvement in that case. He was never even mentioned.”

Dershowitz, unswayed, told the Boston Globe that Gertner’s “legitimate partisan concerns” about Trump had led her astray. “The idea that Mueller bears no responsibility for this tragedy?” he told the newspaper. “I think that’s the kind of statement someone would make only if they were a strong anti-Trump partisan.” (Gertner declined a request for an interview.)

Toobin, a former student of Dershowitz, is another sparring partner. In an interview last Friday, he struck a more diplomatic tone than his cable-news clash with him in March. “I think Alan is a serious civil libertarian,” he told me, “and his natural inclination is to question the exercise of prosecutorial power, and in that respect, his behavior is consistent with his lifelong commitments.”

Trump’s case isn’t the only one raising red flags for Dershowitz. “I’m saying the same thing about the Benjamin Netanyahu case,” he told me. “I’ve been saying the same thing in the Israeli press.” The comparison is apt: Netanyahu faces multiple investigations for corruption and official misconduct, weakening his domestic political standing. Channeling Trump, the Israeli prime minister has even described the inquiries as a “media witch hunt.”

That investigation combines the Dershowitz’s two major subjects of interest. He’s one of the highest-profile American commentators on Israeli politics, typically in Israel’s defense. (He authored a book in 2003 titled The Case for Israel, to refute frequent criticisms of the country and its policies.) In December, Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and set in motion the U.S. embassy’s move from Tel Aviv to the holy city. Dershowitz praised the controversial policy shift in a Fox News op-ed, which he said reversed a “cowardly decision” made by President Barack Obama in 2016.

“President Trump deserves praise for restoring balance in negotiations with Israel and the Palestinians,” he wrote. “It was President Obama who made peace more difficult. It was President Trump who made it more feasible again.”

Dershowitz told me he diverges with the Trump administration on many other issues. “I’m very much opposed to the president’s travel ban,” he said. “I’ve very much opposed to the free availability of guns in school. I’m opposed to the death penalty.” Indeed, capital punishment is where the contrast is clearest. Trump is not only a supporter of the death penalty, but an enthusiast of it. As a Supreme Court clerk in the early 1960s, Dershowitz helped launch the legal war in the 1960s that led to its brief abolition a decade later.

That work eventually saved hundreds of men from constitutionally and legally flawed executions. It also kicked off a legal career that saw him speak out for defendants as varied as the Deep Throat film producer on free-speech grounds in the 1970s, Austrian aristocrat Claus von Bulow in an attempted-murder case in the 1980s, the O.J. Simpson murder trial in the early 1990s, and now, in an unofficial (and apparently pro bono) capacity, President Donald Trump. Through all this time, Dershowitz told me, his principles have stayed the same.

“I go back half a century in what I’m doing,” he said. “I’ve done nothing different.”

View user profile

17 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/15/2018, 11:29 am

zsomething wrote:
Deus X wrote:
zsomething wrote: ...but this seems to be his best option for human interaction,

Which is why just ignoring him may be the best option. Every time someone responds to him, even to rip him a new one, he gets a kind of sick gratification. Just ignore the guy.

Yep, that's mostly what I'm doing.  Once in a while I'll give him a shot in the teeth in hopes of helping other people deal with him, but mostly I just block him out.   He has absolutely nothing worthwhile to contribute, and it's kind of depressing that he even stays here when he's obviously not wanted by anybody.  Makes me wonder what kind of life he's got, that he clings to this place just to be an irritant.  It's also creepy that he somehow actually seems to believe he's "objective" when damn near everything he believes is a crazy conspiracy theory... which he'll keep clinging to even after they've been debunked.  He seems to think if he keeps saying he's rational, somehow we're going to start believing him despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Bizarre, really.  For a while it was interesting just as a psychological glitch, but now it's just kind of a bummer to watch him, thinking this must be the best thing he's got going.  I do ignore him, mostly, but I'm not sure even total shunning would stop him from doing this shit.  It seems the only life he's got.

This forum used to be balanced... and much more civil. Nearly all from center to conservative have either died or been run off. I don't quit. Never have... never will. I'll dish out what I'm served via the leftist venom here. I know y'all can't even stand a different opinion anymore... but that's been a change in y'all. I won't be squashed... I won't be intimidated... I'm not going anywhere. The tactic that the two (tel and deuce) are trying now is simply because I blocked them. They didn't engage in discourse or debate... it was simply personal attacks... not worth reading. I see what they say when someone quotes them. Deuce seems to be a little more thoughtful... but tel is a drooling adolescent idiot. Funny tho... y'all seem to tolerate him just fine. Rolling Eyes

View user profile

18 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/15/2018, 11:34 am

View user profile

19 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/15/2018, 11:41 am

View user profile

20 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/15/2018, 12:59 pm

Since we're already talking, I'll reply to this. Can't compound damage much, and there's always the slim possibility that you'll listen to reason... although I doubt it. If nothing else it may be therapeutic for people who are fed up with you to watch. Then, whatever the outcome, you're back on ignore.

PkrBum wrote:

This forum used to be balanced... and much more civil.

Your join date is 2-6-17... two months before my join date of 4-21-17. So the good ol' days were... two months? Two months of blissful Utopia? Because this place has had pretty much the same amount of balance and civility since I got here.

I started out being more civil. Wanna know why I ditched that?

YOU.

Yep, chuckles, you set the tone, so I figured, "Okay, that's the way you wanna play? I can do that." So I did.

Look at yourself. You keep an icon depicting liberals as crybabies. You call us all "comrade." You started that shit on me while I was still being civil, still trying to find common ground with you by talking about our cats or whatever, so, I decided, okay. You want that, I can do that... and better than you can, because you're an uncreative, unintelligent, conspiracy-theory-gobbling little drip who probably has to sound out words while reading Reader's Digest.

You call the tune, and then you cry if people dance to it. Give me a fucking break. I'm not going to waste my time being nice to somebody who calls me "comrade" just for expressing my side. Fuck that, and fuck you, and I wish I could say it to your face, so you could try to get violent like you threatened to do once, and you could see what would happen.

And as far as balance goes, HA! Again, look at your icon; you made up your mind that Russia was a scam and have never changed it despite indictments and evidence. You reject every criticism of Trump just on reflex. You are NOT unbiased or balanced, motherfucker. I fucking promise you that you really, really fucking aren't. Your mind's about as open as Fort Knox.


Nearly all from center to conservative have either died or been run off.


And you're probably a contributing factor. I am center, more than not. I back Democrats, but I have guns, I'm fine with the death penalty, I don't smoke weed and don't give a damn about it, I think Michael Moore's a whiny drip and am not any kind of fan of Bernie.

I know you think you're "centrist" but you defend some of the most indefensible shit from the right, and consistently find fault with anything Democrats do. Maybe we drive you there just because you hate us so much you'd rather make a fool of yourself than agree with any view we hold, or you just want to be a troll, or what. I don't know. I don't care, either -- I don't give a damn about you. But your behavior here is scumbaggish. You bring out the worst in everybody, and that seems to be what you want to do.

If it isn't, then self-assess, because you suck at absolutely everything else.



I don't quit. Never have... never will.

I guess everybody has to pick the hill they're gonna die on, but this is a really stupid choice, I think. From what I can tell, nobody wants you here. You're just inflicting yourself on people. If that was the reaction I got, hell, dude, I'd say "sorry I bothered ya'll" and find something better to do with my time. If I didn't like anybody and nobody liked me I'd cut the loss and git gone. There's, what, ten people here? If walking away from that's a "defeat" you can't handle, then Jesus Christ, what kind of a life do you have?

Stubborness isn't a virtue if what you're being stubborn about does no one - including yourself -- any good.


I'll dish out what I'm served via the leftist venom here.


Everything's "leftist, leftist." Because we don't like a headcase clownjob who should never have even been considered as a presidential candidate by any party who wants to be taken seriously, suddenly we're all Noam Chomsky.


I know y'all can't even stand a different opinion anymore...


I'd be fine with a different opinion. What I don't like is a stupid, misinformed opinion, that doesn't change when it's disproven. How many times has Fast & Furious been explained to you here? And STILL you misrepresent it, because you've been trained to and you can't buck your programming. You don't get the reaction you get because you have a "different opinion" -- you get the reaction you get because you're an idiot and an asshole and can't read the room.

Seaoat has some opinions I don't agree with, but he conducts himself far better than you, he makes arguments rather than just posting conspiracy-crap from Alex-Jones-level websites. I disagree with Gatorfan on most things, we'll snap at each other now and then, but we've also had discussions. It's not "different opinions" -- it's you, and your approach.

Take this to heart: you are not on the level of most of the people here. That may hurt your feelings, but, as probably-yer-hero Ben Shapiro will be quick to tell you, "facts don't care about your feelings." People try to converse about actual things that are happening and all we get from you is, "What about that time that Obama sold babies to the Venusians!?" or whatever... shit you don't even bother to verify the accuracy of, because if you did, you'd be embarrassed. You just believe things like a flat-earther.

There's a reason people set up a "kid's table" on Thanksgiving -- so they can talk in peace about real things without five-year-olds hollering about their fantasies. That's your table.

I like most of the people here. In the beginning, I liked you, too. But then you convinced me I was wrong to do that, so, I accommodated ya.

but that's been a change in y'all. I won't be squashed... I won't be intimidated... I'm not going anywhere.

Fine, be a boil on everyone's butt if that's what you insist on being, you have that right, but it's not doing you any favors, nor any of the rest of us. And it's frankly making you look like you don't have much of a life.


The tactic that the two (tel and deuce) are trying now is simply because I blocked them.


And I blocked you. I only see you when people repeat you, or if I let my stupider picking-at-a-band-aid instincts come in and click the message out of sick curiosity. But, yeah, you're blocked, and you're the only person I have blocked.


They didn't engage in discourse or debate... it was simply personal attacks... not worth reading.


And you don't want to accept that you're just getting what you deserve because of all your "comradey/crybaby/what-about" bullshit. Why should they debate you when you don't say anything logical, repeat whackaloon conspiracies (even when they've been disproven multiple times) and are basically just trolling the board because you'd rather wreck the party than get left out of it? You don't deserve discourse and debate when you act the way you act.



I see what they say when someone quotes them. Deuce seems to be a little more thoughtful...

Eh, I've butted heads with him before, and I've also had civil discussions with him before, too. I adjust to the tone. And he has more than one tone. You haven't. You wrecked all of that and there's no going back at this point, because your purpose here now is just to stay 'cuz nobody wants you to and you won't give them the satisfaction of leaving. Again, it's up to you to pick a hill to die on, but, seems a stupid hill, both for you and for us. I'm not having any fun telling you I don't like you, but I really, really don't, and I'm just being honest. I don't want to be unkind, but if I'm not I seem to just get more junk to put up with. If I've got to be brutal out of self-preservation, I will. You are a huge waste of time. If you want to hang around here and get reminded of that once in a while, then you can, but War and Peace ain't gonna read itself and that'd be a better use of your time.

Tell you what: go find a good book and read it. I dunno... Shirley Jackson's We Have Always Lived In The Castle always works for me, it's really good. Go read that, or some Louis L'amour, he's good, or Mickey Spillane, John D. MacDonald, I dunno, whatever you do like, then think, "Okay, I could have spent the time it took me to read this being a pest to those half-dozen people I don't even like on that board nobody's ever heard of instead." See if you have any regrets for taking the time to read the book. See if you don't feel smarter for having done something else.

Win-win for all involved, I'd wager.

but tel is a drooling adolescent idiot. Funny tho... y'all seem to tolerate him just fine. Rolling Eyes

Sometimes I'll disagree with him, but a lot of the time he posts funny or informative stuff. You don't like him 'cuz you're married to the wrong side of things... seemingly just out of an arbitrary need to irritate. He irritates you, but you irritate us. You wanna be to people what you consider him to you? 'Cuz that's pretty much where we're at.

Now, back to ignore.

View user profile

21 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/15/2018, 7:37 pm


I'd just like to add I have no idea why y'all tolerate me. lol!

View user profile

22 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/16/2018, 2:43 am

zsomething wrote:Since we're already talking, I'll reply to this.  Can't compound damage much, and there's always the slim possibility that you'll listen to reason... although I doubt it.  If nothing else it may be therapeutic for people who are fed up with you to watch.  Then, whatever the outcome, you're back on ignore.

PkrBum wrote:

This forum used to be balanced... and much more civil.

Your join date is 2-6-17... two months before my join date of 4-21-17.  So the good ol' days were... two months?   Two months of blissful Utopia?  Because this place has had pretty much the same amount of balance and civility since I got here.

I started out being more civil.  Wanna know why I ditched that?  

YOU.

Yep, chuckles, you set the tone, so I figured, "Okay, that's the way you wanna play?  I can do that."  So I did.  

Look at yourself.   You keep an icon depicting liberals as crybabies.  You call us all "comrade."  You started that shit on me while I was still being civil, still trying to find common ground with you by talking about our cats or whatever, so, I decided, okay.  You want that, I can do that... and better than you can, because you're an uncreative, unintelligent, conspiracy-theory-gobbling little drip who probably has to sound out words while reading Reader's Digest.

You call the tune, and then you cry if people dance to it.  Give me a fucking break.  I'm not going to waste my time being nice to somebody who calls me "comrade" just for expressing my side.  Fuck that, and fuck you, and I wish I could say it to your face, so you could try to get violent like you threatened to do once, and you could see what would happen.

 And as far as balance goes,  HA!   Again, look at your icon; you made up your mind that Russia was a scam and have never changed it despite indictments and evidence.  You reject every criticism of Trump just on reflex.  You are NOT unbiased or balanced, motherfucker.  I fucking promise you that you really, really fucking aren't.   Your mind's about as open as Fort Knox.


Nearly all from center to conservative have either died or been run off.


And you're probably a contributing factor.  I am center, more than not.  I back Democrats, but I have guns, I'm fine with the death penalty, I don't smoke weed and don't give a damn about it, I think Michael Moore's a whiny drip and am not any kind of fan of Bernie.

I know you think you're "centrist" but you defend some of the most indefensible shit from the right, and consistently find fault with anything Democrats do.   Maybe we drive you there just because you hate us so much you'd rather make a fool of yourself than agree with any view we hold, or you just want to be a troll, or what.  I don't know.  I don't care, either -- I don't give a damn about you.  But your behavior here is scumbaggish.  You bring out the worst in everybody, and that seems to be what you want to do.  

If it isn't, then self-assess, because you suck at absolutely everything else.



I don't quit. Never have... never will.

I guess everybody has to pick the hill they're gonna die on, but this is a really stupid choice, I think.  From what I can tell, nobody wants you here.   You're just inflicting yourself on people.   If that was the reaction I got, hell, dude, I'd say "sorry I bothered ya'll" and find something better to do with my time.  If I didn't like anybody and nobody liked me I'd cut the loss and git gone.  There's, what, ten people here?  If walking away from that's a "defeat" you can't handle, then Jesus Christ, what kind of a life do you have?  

Stubborness isn't a virtue if what you're being stubborn about does no one - including yourself -- any good.


I'll dish out what I'm served via the leftist venom here.


Everything's "leftist, leftist."   Because we don't like a headcase clownjob who should never have even been considered as a presidential candidate by any party who wants to be taken seriously, suddenly we're all Noam Chomsky.


I know y'all can't even stand a different opinion anymore...


I'd be fine with a different opinion.  What I don't like is a stupid, misinformed opinion, that doesn't change when it's disproven.  How many times has Fast & Furious been explained to you here?  And STILL you misrepresent it, because you've been trained to and you can't buck your programming.   You don't get the reaction you get because you have a "different opinion" -- you get the reaction you get because you're an idiot and an asshole and can't read the room.

Seaoat has some opinions I don't agree with, but he conducts himself far better than you, he makes arguments rather than just posting conspiracy-crap from Alex-Jones-level websites.  I disagree with Gatorfan on most things, we'll snap at each other now and then, but we've also had discussions.   It's not "different opinions" -- it's you, and your approach.

Take this to heart:  you are not on the level of most of the people here.   That may hurt your feelings, but, as probably-yer-hero Ben Shapiro will be quick to tell you, "facts don't care about your feelings."   People try to converse about actual things that are happening and all we get from you is, "What about that time that Obama sold babies to the Venusians!?" or whatever... shit you don't even bother to verify the accuracy of, because if you did, you'd be embarrassed.  You just believe things like a flat-earther.

There's a reason people set up a "kid's table" on Thanksgiving -- so they can talk in peace about real things without five-year-olds hollering about their fantasies.   That's your table.

I like most of the people here.  In the beginning, I liked you, too.  But then you convinced me I was wrong to do that, so, I accommodated ya.

but that's been a change in y'all. I won't be squashed... I won't be intimidated... I'm not going anywhere.

Fine, be a boil on everyone's butt if that's what you insist on being, you have that right, but it's not doing you any favors, nor any of the rest of us.  And it's frankly making you look like you don't have much of a life.  


The tactic that the two (tel and deuce) are trying now is simply because I blocked them.


And I blocked you.  I only see you when people repeat you, or if I let my stupider picking-at-a-band-aid instincts come in and click the message out of sick curiosity.  But, yeah, you're blocked, and you're the only person I have blocked.


They didn't engage in discourse or debate... it was simply personal attacks... not worth reading.


And you don't want to accept that you're just getting what you deserve because of all your "comradey/crybaby/what-about" bullshit.  Why should they debate you when you don't say anything logical, repeat whackaloon conspiracies (even when they've been disproven multiple times) and are basically just trolling the board because you'd rather wreck the party than get left out of it?  You don't deserve discourse and debate when you act the way you act.



I see what they say when someone quotes them. Deuce seems to be a little more thoughtful...

Eh, I've butted heads with him before, and I've also had civil discussions with him before, too. I adjust to the tone.  And he has more than one tone.  You haven't.  You wrecked all of that and there's no going back at this point, because your purpose here now is just to stay 'cuz nobody wants you to and you won't give them the satisfaction of leaving.  Again, it's up to you to pick a hill to die on, but, seems a stupid hill, both for you and for us.  I'm not having any fun telling you I don't like you, but I really, really don't, and I'm just being honest.   I don't want to be unkind, but if I'm not I seem to just get more junk to put up with.  If I've got to be brutal out of self-preservation, I will. You are a huge waste of time.  If you want to hang around here and get reminded of that once in a while, then you can, but War and Peace ain't gonna read itself and that'd be a better use of your time.  

Tell you what:  go find a good book and read it.   I dunno... Shirley Jackson's We Have Always Lived In The Castle always works for me, it's really good.  Go read that, or some Louis L'amour, he's good, or Mickey Spillane,  John D. MacDonald, I dunno, whatever you do like, then think, "Okay, I could have spent the time it took me to read this being a pest to those half-dozen people I don't even like on that board nobody's ever heard of instead."   See if you have any regrets for taking the time to read the book.  See if you don't feel smarter for having done something else.

Win-win for all involved, I'd wager.

but tel is a drooling adolescent idiot. Funny tho... y'all seem to tolerate him just fine. Rolling Eyes

Sometimes I'll disagree with him, but a lot of the time he posts funny or informative stuff.   You don't like him 'cuz you're married to the wrong side of things... seemingly just out of an arbitrary need to irritate.  He irritates you, but you irritate us.   You wanna be to people what you consider him to you?  'Cuz that's pretty much where we're at.

Now, back to ignore.

Hey Z, your spleen called and wants to say thanks. It was feeling kinda, uh...
  tumescent but is much better now. It wants me to remind you to clean off your keyboard.

View user profile

23 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/16/2018, 12:53 pm

zsomething wrote:Since we're already talking, I'll reply to this.  Can't compound damage much, and there's always the slim possibility that you'll listen to reason... although I doubt it.  If nothing else it may be therapeutic for people who are fed up with you to watch.  Then, whatever the outcome, you're back on ignore.

PkrBum wrote:

This forum used to be balanced... and much more civil.

Your join date is 2-6-17... two months before my join date of 4-21-17.  So the good ol' days were... two months?  


Stopped there. It's ok to be ignorant... but bragging about it is bone stupid. Fuck off.

View user profile

24 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/16/2018, 12:55 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/05/15/gave-us-trucks-and-ammunition-to-al-qaeda-chaotic-us-effort-to-arm-syrian-rebels.html

REYHANLI, Turkey –  U.S. military equipment and ammunition, sent to Syria as part of a failed Obama administration plan to find and arm moderate forces to defeat ISIS, were instead simply handed over to an Al Qaeda group, according to the man who said he himself brokered the deal.

“I communicated with Al Qaeda’s branch, Al Nusra, to protect and safely escort me and my soldiers for two hours from North Aleppo to West Aleppo,” Maj. Anas Ibrahim Obaid, better known on the battlefield as Abu Zayd, told Fox News from his home in the western Aleppo area. “In exchange, I gave them five pickup trucks and ammunition.”

Those trucks and ammo were issued to him by the United States in 2015, part of a $500 million Department of Defense effort to "train and equip" a new "ideologically moderate" force to battle ISIS. The program, one of at least two designed to funnel arms to so-called moderate Syrian rebels, proved to be a spectacular failure for the Obama administration.

Zayd, who said he defected from the Syrian Army to the opposition in 2012, described a program that was rife with inconsistencies and incompetencies.

He claimed the main prerequisite for inclusion in the program was proof of association with a group that had fought ISIS, the Islamic State. That was followed by a few basic questions, like, "With which faction did you fight?" and "What do you think about ISIS?"

After undergoing training in Turkey, the first batch of 54 trained fighters crossed back to Syria in July 2015 – only to be almost instantly ambushed by Al Nusra militants. Several of the men were kidnapped, and their U.S.-issued weapons were stolen.

Zayd said he was part of a second group to be sent into Syria -- this time without proper firepower.

The U.S. trainers "wanted us to go into Syria without weapons because of the ambush, and said we could get the weapons inside instead. This was crazy,” Zayd recalled. “We refused.”

The weapons issue was worked out, and the rebels eventually started their journey back to Syria on Sept. 19. But Turkish border guards found something else in their bags: Syrian regime flags, rather than the flags of the opposition group the fighters were being sent to support.

Zayd said fighters charged back to their base in Turkey, demanding answers. U.S trainers took responsibility for the “flag mistake,” Zayd said, and the following day the rebels continued back to Syria.

But morale was already a problem, Zayd said, and fighters who were being paid a $250 monthly salary by the Defense Department began defecting. His group of 72 shrank to just 25, he said.

Zayd said he, too, became quickly fed up with the program and planned to return to his hometown in western Aleppo to fight the Syrian regime.

But getting home entailed moving through Al Nusra territory. That's when he called the Al Qaeda-affiliated leaders and made the arrangement to hand over the five U.S-issued trucks and scores of ammunition, in exchange for free passage and an armed escort home.

“The Americans were so angry when they found out, they cut my salary,” Zayd said nonchalantly. “But this was our only option through their territory to get home without getting killed.”

Zayd said the Pentagon halted the troubled program about a month after his deal with Al Nusra. “I got many messages the Americans do not want to deal with me anymore. But they can’t get their weapons back,” he boasted.

Over Skype from his living room, Zayd showed off an assortment of M-16 and M-24 sniper rifles, as well as ammo, mortar rounds and machine guns. He claimed most in his arsenal were U.S.-issued, with more in a nearby warehouse.

Sources close to Zayd told Fox News his American-funded goods routinely surface on the black market, and constitute something of a lucrative business. Zayd today remains a commander for the Free Syrian Army.

A second Obama administration program, "Timber Sycamore," was started by the CIA in late 2012 with the similar aim of arming rebels. This particular operation was active along the Turkish border to Syria's north, and a Jordanian crossing in the south, referred to as the “Southern Front.”

But Syrian opposition figures say this program was also compromised, with arms falling into the hands of ISIS or Al Nusra.  

The program initially supplied light weapons. But as the Syrian civil war intensified, the U.S. strengthened its commitment by providing selected rebels with American “tune-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided” antitank missiles, better known as BGM-71 TOWs.

One opposition group backed by Washington in 2014 to use the TOWs was the FSA group Hazem Movement.

“We became optimistic we could overthrow the regime,” Asem Zidan, 27, formerly a media activist for the FSA’s Hazem, told Fox News. “And the TOW missiles helped us to prevent the regime pushing forward for some time ... but it wasn’t enough.”

Zidan said only 10 TOWs at a time were issued, which he said fell well short of what was required to defeat regime forces. And matters only worsened when Al Nusra started to attack and “steal their weapons.”

Another rebel fighter, Suheil Alhamoud, 30, who defected from the Syrian Army in March 2012 -- where he was a specialist in missiles – also expressed frustration over what he called insufficient efforts to help.

After a string of several successful attacks against ISIS forces, Alhamoud said that in late November 2014 he received a supply of malfunctioning TOWs, believed to have come from surplus Saudi stockpiles. But despite having a stated range of more than two miles, some missiles would travel no more than 150 feet.

“I suffered a lot because of that,” Alhamoud contended. “And so the regime and the terrorists advanced. We were told more TOWs would come, but it took weeks for them to arrive.”

Alhamoud also conceded that Al Nusra managed to steal a number of TOWs, many of which have since landed on the black market, fetching up to $30,000 apiece.

Ibrahim al-Jabawi, who defected from his position as vice president of Police in the Syrian province of Homs in 2012 to take on a role as the Amman-based spokesperson for the Southern Front, concurred that “some of the TOW rockets ended up with Al Nusra.”

In July 2017, citing its ineffectiveness and on recommendation from then-CIA director Mike Pompeo, President Trump ended the faltering Syrian rebel supply program. While the cost of the program and the amount of arms and aid provided remains mostly classified, it is estimated that more that $1 billion was spent on the effort.

The CIA declined to comment on this story. A spokesperson for the Defense Department acknowledged that they “clearly faced challenges” with the now-discontinued train-and-equip effort.

View user profile

25 Re: Married to the Mob on 5/16/2018, 2:46 pm

PkrBum wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/05/15/gave-us-trucks-and-ammunition-to-al-qaeda-chaotic-us-effort-to-arm-syrian-rebels.html

REYHANLI, Turkey –  U.S. military equipment and ammunition, sent to Syria as part of a failed Obama administration plan .....

Well, ya know 'Pkr' I didn't vote for Obama (either time) and had lots of issues with his administration, but the fact is he's not President anymore .... personally I prefer to focus on what's current.


View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum