https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/lNeEQPyuku34LiHQWLfs6IQOy5Q=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/5AGQJJYTSVFFHCZ5776OFG5QSI

https://usbacklash.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/corrupt-bugeyed-psycho-democrat-liar-adam-schiff-looks-like-gollum.jpg

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAAQROY.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

Athos: Trump may be a lot of things....and a very large EGO is amongst those traits.....but I don't think you can point to EVIL as being one of his character traits.....he has a high opinion of himself....he is getting a lot of things done....and if he has some peace and tranquility to operate, I think we will see more.....Trump is definitely not and ideologue.

I don't think you can point to EVIL as being one of his character traits.


For you fundies out there, check out Trump's similarity to your AntiChrist. He's almost perfectly described in Revelation.

For those not afraid to click, here's a link sent by a friend that is scary in its accuracy.

https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/could-american-evangelicals-spot-the-antichrist-heres-the-biblical-predictions/

Athos: What did you do to me? Leave it up to you to turn my head inside-out! I took good, hard look and read of the link you put up but I think you knew that once somebody started reading it, there could be no stopping...pretty sneaky of you!: What I was so sure of before I started is now thrown into question.....This bit is very troubling to me and makes me question a lot things that I previously had taken for granted....I started to read it and thought it was a joke but it is no joke.....NOW, I am really perplexed. Not to put you out, but do you have any other similar links?

For you fundies out there, check out Trump's similarity to your AntiChrist. He's almost perfectly described in Revelation.

For those not afraid to click, here's a link sent by a friend that is scary in its accuracy.

https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/could-american-evangelicals-spot-the-antichrist-heres-the-biblical-predictions/

interesting however the Bible says there will be many manifestations of the anti-christ, Trump could be one of them just as Bush and Clinton could have been one of them, the US is certainly a manifestation of the anti-christ in this age, but then so is Russia. It's the system Athos

Paraclete: For a man to keep winning when it seems he is always on the precipice of losing is notable: It can be because the man is divinely secured or because the man is supported from a force 180 degrees out of phase with divinity.

Not to put you out, but do you have any other similar links?

It was sent to me without comment. Many of us had the same reaction as you.


the Bible says there will be many manifestations of the anti-christ, Trump could be one of them just as Bush and Clinton could have been one of them, the US is certainly a manifestation of the anti-christ in this age, but then so is Russia.

There have been several "manifestations" of the anti-christ, but they have all been obviously forced. None of them have ever been so close to what is described in the Bible as Trump.

Vacuum7 had the courage to read it, do you?

There have been several "manifestations" of the anti-christ, but they have all been obviously forced. None of them have ever been so close to what is described in the Bible as Trump.

Vacuum7 had the courage to read it, do you?

Yes I did and as I said it is interesting

I never needed the gospel to think this dufus was an agent of evil despicable moral intent, but I found it more than interesting that it could be found in scripture. That was truly profound in my opinion.

Talaniman: Quite a surprise to me, as well....still haven't come to terms with what I read.

It will all be mote if he doesn't get reelected

I plan for the worst! Not a lot of hope for the best in that he gets defeated.

In my 66 years I have heard it said that any one of a number of people were the Antichrist. Many people were convinced it was Obama. I imagine the early Christians were surprised to find out that Nero was not the Antichrist. Ultimately, I'm with Clete on this one in that the references to an Antichrist might refer more to a spiritual force or world system.

In my 66 years I have heard it said that any one of a number of people were the Antichrist. Many people were convinced it was Obama. I imagine the early Christians were surprised to find out that Nero was not the Antichrist. Ultimately, I'm with Clete on this one in that the references to an Antichrist might refer more to a spiritual force or world system.

Yes afterall Jesus told us the anti-Christ was already in the world and that was two thousand years ago so the spirit of the anti-Christ will have many manifestations and Trump may well be one of them. remember the end times are upon us and the manifestations will become more obvious

Paraclete: You think the end times are upon us?

If he does, and he turns out to be wrong, then he can join the immensely large crowd of people who also thought the end was near and turned out to wrong. It is a club with a long, and in some cases distinguished, membership role.

Guess we wait and see if the dufus proves to be the anti Christ, or if he is just a rich evil dude. Doesn't matter to me as long as he is held to account for his words and actions and booted out of the WH. Don't know about end times but troubled times can also apply to whatever we are going through, and the dufus adds to the troubles in my opinion. Him and his enablers, sycophants, and protectors. Without the gospel he is still the face of evil as it gets.

jlisenbe: Must agree with you: My belief is that man is not deterministic in when that time will be, it is not a decision OF MAN.

I do find it funny when I think about how ALL OF US would live our lives so differently IF we knew precisely when our last day on earth was to be: If we knew when our time was up, the entirety of our lives would be built around that specific day, hour, and minute...our lives would become a countdown for our rendezvous with destiny.

jlisenbe: Must agree with you: My belief is that man is not deterministic in when that time will be, it is not a decision OF MAN.

I do find it funny when I think about how ALL OF US would live our lives so differently IF we knew precisely when our last day on earth was to be: If we knew when our time was up, the entirety of our lives would be built around that specific day, hour, and minute...our lives would become a countdown for our rendezvous with destiny.

Betcha a great number would try to cheat even then!

Talaniman: NO DOUBT ABOUT IT: I am sure many would still try to cheat!

Talaniman: NO DOUBT ABOUT IT: I am sure many would still try to cheat!


The one thing you cannot cheat is death, you may think you have bought extra time, but it is an illusion

seems cheating in Iowa is out too, no result, at least not yet, just an IT nightmare, the demonrats have been undone by thier own technology, which foreign nation will they blame this time?

Bet it was those pesky Lithuanians! Either that, or they were trying to use Hillary's old email server.

Nanny Bloomy takes a swig of a Big Gulp Coke, a drag from a cigarette, and smiles while caressing his 12 gauge shotgun. His diabolical plan is working to perfection

Mayor Pete is going to NH victorious and that would be big if it pans out. We'll know at 4PM alledgedly.

He declared victory yesterday . That would be a hoot if he won Iowa because Bolshevik Bernie is going to win NH and then Biden will show up on Super Tues . I want a contested convention the likes we haven't seen since 1980 when the swimmer undermined Carter .

Funny thing about dems and computers. They just don't seem to mix well.

Funny thing about dems and computers. They just don't seem to mix well.
Much like the Russian bots that invaded Facebook during the last presidential campaign.

wow the Dems act like the Ruskies invented using the other nation's media to influence politics in another nation . Our CIA has employed that since it's birth in 1947 . And that is the least of the means we have used . Solmetimes we use covert means .But often we are upfront in out efforts ;like we did in Russia when we openly supported Boris Yeltzin (a move that ultimately led to the rise of Putin) .

he United States is the world leader in interfering in other countries’ elections. Professor Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University has assembled a database documenting as many as 81 occasions between 1946 and 2000 when Washington interfered in elections in other countries. This number does not include military coups or regime-change efforts following the election of candidates the US opposed, as in Iran, Congo, Guatemala, Chile and many other nations.In fact, the number of countries whose elections have been affected by US meddling is much higher. There is scarcely a country, large or small, where the CIA, the State Department, the Pentagon or their various nongovernmental agencies, including the AFL-CIO, have not intervened in an attempt to obtain the election result desired by Washington. This includes nominal “allies” such as Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Britain, Australia and Japan.One fairly recent election stands out for the brazen and open manner in which the United States government, directed from the White House, intervened to put its candidate in office in a foreign land. The targeted country was none other than Russia.In 1996, the White House and President Bill Clinton personally mounted a massive campaign to secure the reelection of Boris Yeltsin, whose comprador regime had been installed in the first place to oversee the dissolution of the Soviet Union and restoration of capitalism. One of the ironies of the current contrived scandal over alleged Russian intervention in the 2016 election is the fact that the supposed victim, Hillary Clinton, is the wife of the president who oversaw the very real interference by Washington in the Russian election 20 years earlier.By the time Yeltsin announced in early 1996 that he would be running for a second term in the presidential election scheduled for that summer, he had become one of the most despised figures in Russia, having presided over the catastrophic consequences of the privatization of the Russian economy. The impact included a GDP decline of 50 percent, hyperinflation, rampant corruption, skyrocketing violent crime, the collapse of medical services, food and fuel shortages, nonpayment of wages and pensions, and a plunge in life expectancy. Added to this toxic mix was Yeltsin’s highly unpopular war with Chechnya.By late 1993, these policies had provoked such massive opposition that Yeltsin, by means of a dictatorial decree, dissolved the parliament. In response, opponents in Moscow took over government buildings. To put down the rebellion, Yeltsin, using critical intelligence provided by Washington, called out the military, shelled the parliament building and in the ensuing bombing and shooting killed an estimated 2,000 people. This was the supposed hero of democracy whom the United States backed in the 1996 election.The oligarchs and generals who supported Yeltsin urged him to cancel or postpone the election, fearing that Gennady Zyuganov, the right-wing nationalist leader of the Stalinist Communist Party, would win. Instead, US political operatives were sent to Russia to rescue Yeltsin from likely political defeat.Far from concealing this intervention, the American ruling elite boasted of its success after Yeltsin’s victory. Timemagazine made it the cover story of its July 15, 1996 edition.


https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/14/yelt-j14.html

wow the Dems act like the Ruskies invented using the other nation's media to influence politics in another nation . Our CIA has employed that since it's birth in 1947 . And that is the least of the means we have used . Solmetimes we use covert means .But often we are upfront in out efforts ;like we did in Russia when we openly supported Boris Yeltzin (a move that ultimately led to the rise of Putin) .

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/14/yelt-j14.html

So Russian influence is just returning the favour, an interesting quid pro quo

Much like the Russian bots that invaded Facebook during the last presidential campaign.Yes indeed. That was all part of the Russian conspiracy that was aiding the Trump campaign. No, wait. That has been debunked. Never mind.

Yes indeed. That was all part of the Russian conspiracy that was aiding the Trump campaign. No, wait. That has been debunked. Never mind.

The interference that never was, that dog don't hunt, nor does Ukraine interference, now what about republican interference, now that dog does hunt

Soaring rhetoric aside but the Russians and the US were at war, and still are and alls fair. Sure we have used the tactic all over the world to keep our foes at bay but now everybody knows the tricks and traps so you better get the edge back or lean a new language. It's still a war.

Tal, I think you are quite right.

Soaring rhetoric aside but the Russians and the US were at war, and still are and alls fair. Sure we have used the tactic all over the world to keep our foes at bay but now everybody knows the tricks and traps so you better get the edge back or lean a new language. It's still a war.

The Russians are not "at war" with the US, they are rivals, just as China is a rival. All this talk of war is outdated. There are four camps in the world at the moment all vieing for economic supremacy

The Russians are not "at war" with the US, they are rivals, just as China is a rival. All this talk of war is outdated. There are four camps in the world at the moment all vieing for economic supremacy

That's true and none of us plays nice. Like I said a war. Be glad we have other ways to fight that doesn't cause mass destruction of lives and property. We are just more civilized about it than we have ever been before.

That's true and none of us plays nice. Like I said a war. Be glad we have other ways to fight that doesn't cause mass destruction of lives and property. We are just more civilized about it than we have ever been before.

Civilised, is that what you can it? millions displaced, areas devastated, whole countries barely livable. War in the past 150 years has suppassed what was done before

Yes those proxy wars are still quite devestating.

Yes those proxy wars are still quite devestating.

Well proxy wars are small scale skermishes, a testing of weapons. Islam remains an issue, but large scale war is bad for business, so back to posturing with the latest invention. US playing catch up again and you have to wonder, where were those intelligence services?

Islam itself is never the issue but which Islamic leader you choose to align with. They have a bunch of those.

Islam itself is never the issue but which Islamic leader you choose to align with. They have a bunch of those.

Islam is an issue Tal, it has brainwashed a billion people, is responsible for millions of deaths over 1,400 years

So has Christianity over the years Clete, where you been. Protestants and Catholics been killing each other for centuries too, and they are both Christians aren't they? They just called a truce in Ireland in MY lifetime. Now what?

War is bad for business for some nations but good for others, depends upon your reference point. The NEW WORLD ORDER GLOBALIST use war and threats of was as control mechanisms to steer financial currents and funding and to obtain compliance and control from other countries. Hell, I would not be bit surprised if Islam is being "steered" to attain a desired financial outcome.

What is absolutely certain is this: There are no "FURNACES" anywhere in this world where MONEY IS BURNED: The idea that MONEY IS LOST is a complete and despicable lie: When money is "lost" by one party of people, another party makes money: All of the Wall Street "BLACK" days have be planned and the aims of those plans was to SEPARATE PEOPLE FROM THEIR MONEY....to, effectively, raid shareholders and those in investment plans.

So has Christianity over the years Clete, where you been. Protestants and Catholics been killing each other for centuries too, and they are both Christians aren't they? They just called a truce in Ireland in MY lifetime. Now what?

I have been here in a land where sectarian violence has no place. My ancestors were Irish so I know only too well the reasons for unrest in Ireland which go back over a thousand years. What people do in the name of Christianity just shows they have no idea what the message is about

Paraclete: No truer words have ever been said.

All of the Wall Street "BLACK" days have be planned and the aims of those plans was to SEPARATE PEOPLE FROM THEIR MONEY....to, effectively, raid shareholders and those in investment plans.When the price of a share of stock goes down, then wouldn't all of the shareholders lose?

I have been here in a land where sectarian violence has no place. My ancestors were Irish so I know only too well the reasons for unrest in Ireland which go back over a thousand years. What people do in the name of Christianity just shows they have no idea what the message is about

That's because religion is BIG business for some folks. Always has been. Go ahead and build some of those big cathedrals and churches and mosques and temples by passing the hat bowl or whatever they have.


When the price of a share of stock goes down, then wouldn't all of the shareholders lose?

Ever wonder where they lose it to?

Should the value of your house go down, it is not "lost" to anyone. It is simply worth less today than it was yesterday. Same is true of stocks. They have a value that goes up and down. If it goes down, then everyone who owns that share loses. The lost value does not "go" to anyone. It is simply worth less.

it is of no consequence until the shares are sold. The last couple weeks during the adjustment over the coronavirus scare ,I moved some money from guaranteed funds to stable forune 500 funds. Glad I did .

The "make money, you have to spend money": When the shares go down, your capacity buy other shares based off of profits from the share you own also goes down.....such is the explanation of losses: the engine of Wall Street is to buy shares at a lower price, allow those share to increase in value and built revenue off those shares, and reinvest the profits from those original shares into more shares.....when your shares lose value, your capacity "reinvest" comes to a halt: The Financial Carnot Cycle comes to an end. When the BLACK Wall Street Days hit, there are big panic sell offs and those with BIG MONEY reap the rewards of these bargain basement selloffs.....Money is not LOST, as in "burned" up, it transfers to the magnets of the BIGGEST MONEY HOLDERS, who makes money, while the little guys (John Publics) lose their arses!

Money is not LOST, as in "burned" up, it transfers to the magnets of the BIGGEST MONEY HOLDERS, who makes money, while the little guys (John Publics) lose their arses!So if I'm a BIG MONEY HOLDER, and I own some stocks which go down in value, how does that transfer money to me?

jlisenbe: It doesn't transfer to you.....you, as a BIG MONEY HOLDER, holds onto those stocks and don't move anything when the value is down, they have millions of shares....they sell when the values increase....the same methodology is employed by Day Traders: they only need pennies on the dollar movements to generate large financial gains....The waiting game is for the small players to dump at reduced values: The biggest players can hold their breath the longest: Big Money is permits discipline.

The waiting game is for the small players to dump at reduced values: The biggest players can hold their breath the longest: Big Money is permits discipline.I don't think that's true, but even if it is, that's just strategy and anyone can employ it if they want to. What you described earlier was a sinister plot to manipulate the stock market to the advantage of the super rich. " All of the Wall Street "BLACK" days have be planned and the aims of those plans was to SEPARATE PEOPLE FROM THEIR MONEY....to, effectively, raid shareholders and those in investment plans." It's the old familiar song of how the wealthy become even more wealthy by using cut-throat, illicit tactics against everyone else. I just don't think that is normally the case. The rich usually become rich by exercising self discipline, hard work, and smart work.

jlisenbe: I am not talking about or referring to "rich" as you or I know them...I have known billionaires on a first name basis, the owners of a few companies I have worked for, and they are what you describe: hardworking and smart....they earned it. What I am speaking of is something larger than these kinds of people or people at these levels....there is a MUCH HIGHER LEVEL game afoot here: The rich people know how to avoid the pitfalls.....and we aren't talking about MICRO stuff here, we are really talking about MACRO movements and market control: They can make "Sea Change" movements occur. Too many "changes" occur in the stock market that don't follow logical movements and no basis for the direction of the movements....I am suggesting that some "cabal" pulls strings to gain these reactions.

Vac, if that's your opinion then fine, but I know of no real evidence to support that. A lot of very, very wealthy people took a severe tumble in the Great Depression. Same thing was true of our most recent recession a few years back. Who are these mysterious members of this "cabal" that can make "sea change" movements occur?

jlisenbe: I know, its my opinion, only....but there are mysteries involved with World Markets where intuitive thoughts DO NOT prevail....where the entire market pulls against the grain: You don't see this in just about any other discipline and it often defies financial conventional wisdom....I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT! But I think its real.

jlisenbe: I know, its my opinion, only....but there are mysteries involved with World Markets where intuitive thoughts DO NOT prevail....where the entire market pulls against the grain: You don't see this in just about any other discipline and it often defies financial conventional wisdom....I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT! But I think its real.

These days you just don't know, bots make the trends and respond to them before you even know what is happening

Paraclete: You are exactly correct: A lot of what happens on Wall Street and World Markets is driven by VOLATILITY that comes about from the new INSTANTANEOUS TRADING that is accomplished by computer programs, often selling stocks based upon several cents of movement only. Today, any arsehole can become a Day Trader and add to market volatility.

The last global financial meltdown in 2008 was about greedy basturds over valuing a bunch of junk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–08) and screwing everybody, but we've put safeguards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protect ion_Act) in since then. I can agree with you Vac to a great extent but a cabal isn't as accurate as just plain greedy. You think a few high rollers at the top can't get around the rules and manipulate things for MO' MONEY? They do it all the time, LEGALLY, by buying elected officials to write the rules. For sure we know as facts that poor people can't screw up the markets so that only leaves rich people with banks and insurance companies they control.

It's just logical sense backed by a history of data. I rate you a mostly RIGHT on your opinion dude.


These days you just don't know, bots make the trends and respond to them before you even know what is happening

Ordinary people are always the last to know and the ones hit the hardest, and pay for rich guy screw ups.

They do it all the time, LEGALLY, by buying elected officials to write the rulesSo their elected officials that they bought came up with a tax plan in which the top 20% of income earners pay nearly all of the income taxes? Interesting.

Who has all the wealth and most of the money? Who has tax shelters and loopholes to hide the wealth? How do you pay for that huge defense budget? For that matter how is your highways paid for? For that matter who fixes the potholes and who tore them up?

Let's also make the difference between individual tax, corporate tax, and tax exempt groups.

Who has all the wealth and most of the money? Who has tax shelters and loopholes to hide the wealth? How do you pay for that huge defense budget? For that matter how is your highways paid for? For that matter who fixes the potholes and who tore them up?Still doesn't explain how all those rich folk bought and paid for elected officials who then proceeded to come up with an income tax plan that has them paying for over 85% of it and the bottom 50% paying next to nothing. If that's what their bought and paid for elected officials did for them, then they need to buy some different ones.

As to how all those items get paid for, they get paid for largely by wealthy people, so what are you complaining about?


Let's also make the difference between individual tax, corporate tax, and tax exempt groups.Why? What's your point? You mean tax exempt groups like the NAACP, the SCLC, or BLM?

Still doesn't explain how all those rich folk bought and paid for elected officials who then proceeded to come up with an income tax plan that has them paying for over 85% of it and the bottom 50% paying next to nothing. If that's what their bought and paid for elected officials did for them, then they need to buy some different ones.

Neat trick ain't it? Devil is in the details as they only get taxed on half their income, and that's 85% of tax revenues while poor people have an average of 20% deducted before they get a check and get it back the next year. So rich guys keep all their money until they have to pay, and poor people pay get theirs back after the rich guys pay.


As to how all those items get paid for, they get paid for largely by wealthy people, so what are you complaining about?

You complain about how much YOU pay to poor people so I can't complain too?


Why? What's your point? You mean tax exempt groups like the NAACP, the SCLC, or BLM?

Don't forget your church too and all the ones you visit. That's my point, you're always beetching about what everybody else does while you're doing it too!

Neat trick ain't it? Devil is in the details as they only get taxed on half their income, and that's 85% of tax revenues while poor people have an average of 20% deducted before they get a check and get it back the next year. So rich guys keep all their money until they have to pay, and poor people pay get theirs back after the rich guys pay.OK. How else can it be said? 85% is 85% no matter how much you try to muddy the water. The rich keep their money until, of course, it is taken from them. The other 80% of us can choose to withhold nearly nothing if we want and that is what I suggest to people. To do otherwise is to give the government an interest free loan. The solution is simply to not do it. Save up what you will need to pay the feds. You can keep the interest yourself.


You complain about how much YOU pay to poor people so I can't complain too?
You weren't complaining at all. I was not complaining. You asked a question and I answered it.

Don't forget your church too and all the ones you visit. That's my point, you're always beetching about what everybody else does while you're doing it too!I didn't bring up tax exempt organizations, you did, so if anyone was "belching" it was you. If it was up to me, there would be no charitable deductions. We would all pay a percentage of our income and it would be keyed to federal spending. There would be no federal debt. Once people had to begin to pony up and actually pay for what the feds were spending, there would be a public outcry and spending would be slashed. It would severely curtail the deceptive abilities of our corrupt politicians.

I didn't bring up tax exempt organizations, you did, so if anyone was "belching" it was you. If it was up to me, there would be no charitable deductions. We would all pay a percentage of our income and it would be keyed to federal spending. There would be no federal debt. Once people had to begin to pony up and actually pay for what the feds were spending, there would be a public outcry and spending would be slashed. It would severely curtail the deceptive abilities of our corrupt politicians.

What is needed is to curb waste and greed. There are nations of the world who have tax systems very different and yet they can balance budgets and have welfare systems, universal health care and much more. When you remove the capitalist greed from the system you get a better result

What is needed is to curb waste and greed. There are nations of the world who have tax systems very different and yet they can balance budgets and have welfare systems, universal health care and much more. When you remove the capitalist greed from the system you get a better resultYou will never get rid of waste and greed. Most of the advanced nations of the world, including yours, have incurred huge amounts of debt. Japan and England are among the worst. I don't agree that capitalist greed (whatever that is) is the problem. The problem is the idea, widespread, that we can have our cake and eat it too. We can spend, spend, spend and borrow money year after year to makeup the shortfall. It's a disaster in the making. As long as we tolerate these corrupt and dishonest pols, we will have this.

You will never get rid of waste and greed. Most of the advanced nations of the world, including yours, have incurred huge amounts of debt. Japan and England are among the worst. I don't agree that capitalist greed (whatever that is) is the problem. The problem is the idea, widespread, that we can have our cake and eat it too. We can spend, spend, spend and borrow money year after year to makeup the shortfall. It's a disaster in the making. As long as we tolerate these corrupt and dishonest pols, we will have this.

M<y national has learned, balanced budgets, and a gradual reduction of debt. You seem to have cornered the market of greedy politicians

Paraclete: Yes, we have plenty of greedy politicians, very true......but these other nations you speak of, they have INCREDIBLY high tax rates on ALL citizens: Therein lies the tradeoff, of sorts: You can have the balanced budget anytime you want but be prepared to pay 60% of your earnings in taxes. In the U.S., we would have a revolution over 60% taxes: Hell, the U.S. fought a revolution over none other than TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

I get what you're trying to say Vac. Easy to be suspicious of big money and the places they play and the things they do to make that big money. As far as the country goes though the government doesn't have to balance the books or even show a profit, just be responsible and responsive enough to address the needs of it's citizens, and make an environment for commerce so we can all share in EARNING prosperity, to enjoy our freedom and liberty paid for with blood, sweat, and treasure. Definitely pay as you go until you die kind of proposition. Keep working till you do.

The dufus got it right! Give the wingers a chance to blow off some steam, and think they got it like that, and can finally enjoy the show. They will always cherish the memories of a good time to wipe out the decades of hollering and screaming and being pushed aside, called names and being ignored, while the world around them has changed greatly. For them these are their good old days!

Let 'em have it while it lasts.

M<y national has learned, balanced budgets, and a gradual reduction of debt. You seem to have cornered the market of greedy politiciansYour national debt, as a percentage of GDP, has risen from 10% to well over 30% just in the last ten years, so you'll have to pardon me if I don't want to use Australia as an example of national discipline. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/australia/government-debt--of-nominal-gdp

Your national debt, as a percentage of GDP, has risen from 10% to well over 30% just in the last ten years, so you'll have to pardon me if I don't want to use Australia as an example of national discipline. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/australia/government-debt--of-nominal-gdp

We have you and your unregulated banking system to thank for that, it was called the GFC, but in ten years we have clawed the budget back into surplus and now will work on reducing the debt, so yes you can use our national discipline as an example, whereas you have no national discipline, you just spend like there is no tomorrow

We have you and your unregulated banking system to thank for that, it was called the GFC, but in ten years we have clawed the budget back into surplus and now will work on reducing the debt, so yes you can use our national discipline as an example, whereas you have no national discipline, you just spend like there is no tomorrowNo thanks. I want us to do much better than tripling our national debt and then wanting to blame someone else for it. We'll look elsewhere for a good model.

Our banking system is not unregulated. In fact, it was federal regulations that prompted the mortgage crisis you refer to.

No thanks. I want us to do much better than tripling our national debt and then wanting to blame someone else for it. We'll look elsewhere for a good model.

I would hope we figure it out ourselves, and we probably will eventually. I find countries are very unique to themselves and what works over there may not apply over here for whatever reason.


Our banking system is not unregulated. In fact, it was federal regulations that prompted the mortgage crisis you refer to.

A blanket statement that I would hope you can explain, because the mortgage crisis had noting to do with what banks did, even though those places with tighter regulations didn't suffer as much.

A blanket statement that I would hope you can explain, because the mortgage crisis had noting to do with what banks did, even though those places with tighter regulations didn't suffer as much.The feds had mandated the banks open up mortgages to more high risk families. When the economy went south and the values of houses plummeted, a lot of families were upside down in their mortgages and couldn't make the payments. The banks ended up with a lot of houses and no way to pay for them. That was not all of the crisis, but it was the major contributing factor.

Anyone has trouble with a mortgage payment if they lose a revenue source, got nothing to do with whatever value the mortgage is at any particular time. At risk buyers typically young with enough income and no down payments got caught in the can't pay the balloon note in leu of a down payment, that came due at a variable interest rate often after 2-5 years. The plan was let the banks handle the details instead of mandate a policy and procedure those young high risk people could handle. It didn't help that the homes were over valued from the start either (Just my opinion though), and sold to foreign banks and investors as a derivative (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/derivative.asp) cloaked in very attractive bundles. (https://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-mortgage-derivatives.htm#didyouknowout) Under regulation is what busted the housing boom bubble, and took the whole world with it.

https://ukessaynow.com/blog/causes-of-the-stock-market-crash-of-2008



To summarize, the housing bubble is to blame for the 2008 economic crisis. The massive recession was triggered by the collapse in house prices, which in turn were caused by ill-considered mortgage policies and the lack of governmental regulation. Banks offered opportunities for people to get affordable houses, so it is difficult to blame regular citizens for being too improvident. Financial institutions and experts should have foreseen the adverse consequences of the housing market policies, but it is still debated whether anything could be done to prevent the crisis when its first signs emerged.



Good idea, very bad disastrous execution.

All this time I thought it was Barney "The Male Page Chaser" Frank that screwed up Fannie Mae so bad and caused the housing mess!

Anyone has trouble with a mortgage payment if they lose a revenue source, got nothing to do with whatever value the mortgage is at any particular time.Of course it does. If your house has gone up in value, then you can sell the house, pay off the mortgage, and hopefully have some equity left over with no damage to your credit score. If you're upside down, then you're stuck and the mortgage company is stuck. And if you multiply that by millions, then you have a financial crisis caused, in large measure , by the idiots in the federal government. But there is hope!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-budget-foreign-aid-defense-border-wall-veterans-homeland-security

, then you have a financial crisis caused, in large measure , by the idiots in the federal government. But there is hope!



which idiots were they I wonder? the idiots who would do it again if they get the chance?

which idiots were they I wonder? the idiots who would do it again if they get the chance?Could be.

As market conditions improve so does your home value so selling when it's under valued makes little sense, and what many have been doing is refinancing at a lower interest rate, lowering the mortgage but that Obama era programs is ending and I doubt the dufus keeps it going to help more homeowners, nor mandate banks to maintain balances sufficient enough to weather a down turn without a bailout, or any of the things Obama put in place to shield consumers from the bad behavior that leads to recessions and downturns, or at least force THEM to pay for their mistakes. For sure you can't let any industry run amok and police itself.

At least we should learn from mistakes and do better.

As market conditions improve so does your home value so selling when it's under valued makes little sense,How on earth does that help the family that is six months behind on the mortgage and facing repossession? Their equity is gone and their credit rating is going to be tanked. And what of the bank that hold thousands of these upside down mortgages thanks to the stupidity of fed regs? They face failure one way or the other. Wow.

You conflate and project as you add stuff in huh? Having an undervallue mortgage doesn't change your mortgage rate and as long as you have a job you pay what you signed for. Of course this applies to just fixed rate traditional 30 year morgages. Even offering a variable rate market driven mortgage should be illegal, because that's plain foolish. That's on the bank and regulators that allowed it. Perfect example of under regulation. All lot of inexperienced buyers fell for that simply because the banks don't tell them of such a pitfall.

Most banks I know foreclose in 90 days so being behind 6 months is uncomprehensible and nobody does that, but in your described scenario, yes consumer get screwed. That happens all the time despite the value of your home which you typically don't have any equity for years any way. I have plenty of friends who have gone through an underwater mortgage and survived just fine as long as the paid every month. None had that variable rate or balloon payment in leu down payment crap though. That's definitely a new added twist because of lax regulations.

You conflate and project as you add stuff in huh? Having an undervallue mortgage doesn't change your mortgage rate and as long as you have a job you pay what you signed for.Kind of an important point. "As long as you have a job."


Most banks I know foreclose in 90 days so being behind 6 months is uncomprehensible and nobody does that, but in your described scenario, yes consumer get screwedNo bank wants to foreclose on a house that they must then sell at a significant loss, and that was the situation back then in many cases. They will grant additional grace to a homeowner rather than do that in the hope that the homeowner might turn things around and catch up. 2007 was such a period of time. It was not a time where they had many options.

Banks have only themselves to blame for things going south, job losses, and the lack of people having viable options, who suffered way more than the banks did. Or maybe you have never had your life interrupted by things beyond your control.

Or maybe you have never had your life interrupted by things beyond your control.You mean like federal regs requiring mortgages for low income, high risk families? Things like that?

Show me the federal regulations that require that? You can't because they don't exist and you know it, or else you would have posted them and bolstered your position.

Why are you shilling for banks selling homes that low income, high risk folks couldn't possibly sustain under the banks terms? The banks certainly knew they could not but did it anyway.

Show me the federal regulations that require that? You can't because they don't exist and you know it, or else you would have posted them and bolstered your position.You may consider my position bolstered.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/453913-has-socialism-already-failed-in-the-united-states

"Under Andrew Cuomo in 2000 (https://archives.hud.gov/news/2000/pr00-317.html), the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced the historic federal regulations that raised the required percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income families that finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to buy “from the current 42 percent of their total purchases to a new high of 50 percent — a 19 percent increase.”

I don't know about bolstered, but it was a GREAT link as that it contained many facts despite the anti socialist bent of the author. Such as this report:

https://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/fcic/20110310173545/http:/c0182732.cdn1.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/fcic_final_report_full.pdf


In this report, we detail the events of the crisis. But a simple summary, as we see it, is useful at the outset. While the vulnerabilities that created the potential for crisis were years in the making, it was the collapse of the housing bubble—fueled by low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages— that was the spark that ignited a string of events, which led to a full-blown crisis in the fall of . Trillions of dollars in risky mortgages had become embedded throughout the financial system, as mortgage-related securities were packaged, repackaged, and sold to investors around the world. When the bubble burst, hundreds of billions of dollars in losses in mortgages and mortgage-related securities shook markets as well as financial institutions that had significant exposures to those mortgages and had borrowed heavily against them. This happened not just in the United States but around the world. The losses were magnified by derivatives such as synthetic securities...We conclude widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision proved devastating to the stability of the nation’s financial markets. The sentries were not at their posts, in no small part due to the widely accepted faith in the self correcting nature of the markets and the ability of financial institutions to effectively police themselves. More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses, and actively pushed by the powerful financial industry at every turn, had stripped away key safeguards, which could have helped avoid catastrophe. This approach had opened up gaps in oversight of critical areas with trillions of dollars at risk, such as the shadow banking system and over-the-counter derivatives markets. In addition, the government permitted financial firms to pick their preferred regulators in what became a race to the weakest supervisor.

I think it bolsters my position so far, but still reading! Thanks dude.

So what part of this supported your position? You had denied that it took place. Very plainly it did. Isn't this exactly what I had been saying?

"Under Andrew Cuomo in 2000 (https://archives.hud.gov/news/2000/pr00-317.html), the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced the historic federal regulations that raised the required percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income families that finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to buy “from the current 42 percent of their total purchases to a new high of 50 percent — a 19 percent increase.”

Ought to look at this as well. https://archives.hud.gov/news/2000/pr00-317.html

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development today announced new federal regulations that require the nation's two largest housing finance companies to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages during the next 10 years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families.

This from the pdf linked in your article


More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses, and actively pushed by the powerful financial industry at every turn, had stripped away key safeguards, which could have helped avoid catastrophe. This approach had opened up gaps in oversight of critical areas with trillions of dollars at risk, such as the shadow banking system and over-the-counter derivatives markets. In addition, the government permitted financial firms to pick their preferred regulators in what became a race to the weakest supervisor.

Even though it was pushed for moderate and low income families it's becoming increasingly clear our government and regulators drop the ball to ensure banking practice and policy did not work to protect consumers and banks from the consequences of their own largress.

Obviously financial institutions used regulations from decades ago to not just get around them, but use them for their own purpose. Do you contend there is no safer way for a poor person to have a house? I believe it is, even after the disaster the banks created.

I don't think there is a safe way, generally speaking, for a poor person to own a house. The only "solution" would be to take money from one American and give it to a poor American. I cannot find a justification for doing that. The best solution is to have a vibrant, healthy ecnonomy where anyone who wants a job can get one or even two. We have that now and we need to hold on to it. It is also wildly helpful for people to get married before having children, a position which you consistently shy away from but one which has a great deal of potential for good for poor people.

It is also wildly helpful for people to get married before having children, a position which you consistently shy away from but one which has a great deal of potential for good for poor people.
But when a man has no money for entertainment, the easiest way to have fun is to find a lonely woman and unzip his pants.

But when a man has no money for entertainment, the easiest way to have fun is to find a lonely woman and unzip his pants.I'm pretty sure it takes two unzipped pants to tango. You seem to believe that women are just so weak and silly that they cannot control their own bodies. It's like I've said before. I wish everyone would lock their doors, but I have a vested interest in making sure that my doors are locked, so I better make sure I get my own business taken care of first.

Are you really suggesting that men try to find lonely women because they don't have enough money to go to the movies??? That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

I'm pretty sure it takes two unzipped pants to tango. You seem to believe that women are just so weak and silly that they cannot control their own bodies. It's like I've said before. I wish everyone would lock their doors, but I have a vested interest in making sure that my doors are locked, so I better make sure I get my own business taken care of first.
But he starts it and makes sure she realizes he's bigger and stronger, so resistance is futile.

Are you really suggesting that men try to find lonely women because they don't have enough money to go to the movies??? That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.
Movies, video arcades, casinos, restaurants, even McDonald's. Women are free entertainment, fat-free on top of it! And it doesn't take long!

Did I post this already? --

One woman has sex during 100 days with 100 men but will get pregnant only once. One man has sex with 100 women during 100 days and will get how many women pregnant?

I think your point WG is that a male has to be responsible for HIS actions, and I agree as a guy, but females also play a big role in this also. Neither can claim blame on the other without admitting their own culpability in doing the deed. The need to breed is the most powerful human emotion there is bar none, and that's counting MANY other factors as well.

Doing the right thing for ones self also transcends upbringing, and whatever moral teachings in many cases, even fear of consequences, and no doubt you know this having read the many stories on this forum, as well as your own real experiences with real people.

Oh the answer to the riddle is it's possible all things being equal 100 females can get impregnated.

I think your point WG is that a male has to be responsible for HIS actions, and I agree as a guy, but females also play a big role in this also. Neither can claim blame on the other without admitting their own culpability in doing the deed. The need to breed is the most powerful human emotion there is bar none, and that's counting MANY other factors as well.

Doing the right thing for ones self also transcends upbringing, and whatever moral teachings in many cases, even fear of consequences, and no doubt you know this having read the many stories on this forum, as well as your own real experiences with real people.

Oh the answer to the riddle is it's possible all things being equal 100 females can get impregnated.
I totally agree with you, tal. We women can be such desirable teases :D and may not be smiling nine months later. I just didn't want JL to echo Adam, "And the man said, 'The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, SHE gave me of the tree, and I did eat.' " Gen. 3:12 (KJV)

I just didn't want JL to echo Adam, "And the man said, 'The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, SHE gave me of the tree, and I did eat.' " Gen. 3:12 (KJV)I didn't. But I'm glad you finally had the courage to see the obvious. Well done!


But he starts it and makes sure she realizes he's bigger and stronger, so resistance is futile.Yeah. That's how it happens. Right.

I didn't. But I'm glad you finally had the courage to see the obvious. Well done!
Yep! Blame the woman....


Yeah. That's how it happens. Right.
Yep again! Or he makes promises he doesn't intend to keep.

Yep! Blame the woman....In this case, absolutely.


Yep again! Or he makes promises he doesn't intend to keep.
So now you change your tune. At first it was, "Resistance is futile", but now it is about making promises that he doesn't intend to keep, and evidently in your view, women are too stupid to be able to figure out that they are being played.

It's a very simple equation. Keep your pants on until after the ceremony. Take some initiative and protect your future and the future of your child. Don't follow Wondergirl's line of reasoning. Be strong, use good sense, and don't become a whiner and blame everyone else if you get into poor decision making. Take firm responsibility for your own life and act like your future is important.

And why does Adam have no blame for going along with Eve's disobedience? Makes no sense unless he is a bit of a dufus.



It's a very simple equation. Keep your pants on until after the ceremony. Take some initiative and protect your future and the future of your child. Don't follow Wondergirl's line of reasoning. Be strong, use good sense, and don't become a whiner and blame everyone else if you get into poor decision making. Take firm responsibility for your own life and act like your future is important.

Sounds good(?), but we may have to help when mistakes are made and humans are known for mistakes.

And why does Adam have no blame for going along with Eve's disobedience? Makes no sense unless he is a bit of a dufus.Pretty much correct.


Sounds good(?), but we may have to help when mistakes are made and humans are known for mistakes.So when you say "we may have to help", are you saying you are prepared to have your taxes raised to do so? Even better, perhaps you are saying that you will give of your own personal finances to help a single mom. That would be a truly admirable gesture.

So when you say "we may have to help", are you saying you are prepared to have your taxes raised to do so? Even better, perhaps you are saying that you will give of your own personal finances to help a single mom. That would be a truly admirable gesture.
Yes. We already help with our taxes, although tRump is slowly stripping away their food, shelter, and schooling. And yes, I'm helping a single mom, a divorced dad who was burned out of his apartment bldg., and a homeless woman.

And yes, I'm helping a single mom, a divorced dad who was burned out of his apartment bldg., and a homeless womanSo you are to be commended.

As to our taxes, we are, and have been for years, coming up several hundred billion dollars short every year, so it would be more accurate to say that we are financing much of this with borrowed money. It is only a matter of time before the chickens come home to roost.

So you are to be commended.

As to our taxes, we are, and have been for years, coming up several hundred billion dollars short every year, so it would be more accurate to say that we are financing much of this with borrowed money. It is only a matter of time before the chickens come home to roost.

OPM obviously, all welfare programs work on the OPM principle

So you are to be commended.
I posted that tidbit in self defense because you rag on "us liberals" who supposedly expect tax dollars and the government to lend a hand to those in need. There are far more generous LIBERAL people than I who, with their own funds, are also helping others.

I wish I could brag and claim admirable, but try as you may to help, sometimes it just doesn't work out.

I wish I could brag and claim admirable, but try as you may to help, sometimes it just doesn't work out.
Exactly! And the help needed isn't money as much as guidance and empathy and a hug. Especially the hug.

I posted that tidbit in self defense because you rag on "us liberals" who supposedly expect tax dollars and the government to lend a hand to those in need. There are far more generous LIBERAL people than I who, with their own funds, are also helping others.I have nothing but admiration for those who use their own financial resources to help others. I have no admiration for those who want to claim moral superiority because they have so much concern for poor people that they are willing to force someone else to help them.


Exactly! And the help needed isn't money as much as guidance and empathy and a hug. Especially the hug.You just dropped a couple of pegs. The guys at the drug rehab center we work with need a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in, and food to eat, so we help out with $$, counseling, and yes, hugs. I struggle with those who are not willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Tal, if you really want to help there are, no doubt, many organizations near you that help the poor. Go attach yourself to one of them.

I have nothing but admiration for those who use their own financial resources to help others. I have scorn for those who want to claim moral superiority because they have so much concern for poor people that they are willing to force someone else to help them.

You have been hollering for a long time about being FORCED by someone else, but we all know you're NOT in any way forced. That's just your ideology making excuses for what your state policy on welfare is, so assigning that moral superiority label to your repubs who run the state is a perfect distraction so you can have someone to preach own morality while say how wrong THEY are for taking your money. I think it hilarious the guy who knocks down everybody else's FACTS and EVIDENCE presents none of his own to name the ones forcing you, and why they are wrong. In fact I can almost say the same thing about most things you have posted on many subjects. The good news is you can always start explaining YOUR facts and evidence on things YOU claim.

Start with exactly who these morally superior people are that FORCE you to help others.


You just dropped a couple of pegs. The guys at the drug rehab center we work with need a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in, and food to eat, so we help out with $$, counseling, and yes, hugs.

I think that's great to be so involved at that level and I for one know the difficulty of even trying to help people overcome a devastating disease that not only effects them, but their whole family, who are often forgotten, and in need of as much help as the sufferer. Using that as a cudgel for the kindest soul I know though ain't my idea of fair or even warranted and that's pretty offensive of you. Now before we compare what you did to what I do to the dufus constantly let me remind you that it's not badmouthing if it's true, and that's in no way true of my friend.

Go ahead blast away, but explain yourself please as it's hard to believe anyone could force you to do anything my stubborn friend.

Good morning, Tal. It's rainy here and I am sick with a doctor's appointment later today. But it's still good.


You have been hollering for a long time about being FORCED by someone else, but we all know you're NOT in any way forced.Well of course I am. If I don't pay my taxes, they send me to jail. In what way is that not being forced?


Using that as a cudgel for the kindest soul I know though ain't my idea of fair or even warranted and that's pretty offensive of you.I have said that I admire those who take their finances, or for that matter even their time or their own food, and help the less fortunate. I have NO admiration for those who don't, no matter how loudly they might brag about voting for liberals who want to force, through the payment of taxes, everyone else to do what they do not do on a personal level. That's how you and I differ. Perhaps I am wrong, but you seem to do nothing on a personal level to help the poor, and yet you claim to care for them. I don't get that. If you care for the poor, then get up and go help them. I was taught that my entire life, that we have a responsibility PERSONALLY to help the poor. Your input is greatly needed, and I would imagine you would be quite effective.

You pay your taxes like all of us don't you, through payroll deductions, so how is that being forced? Plus you get some of it back through a tax return so how is that being forced? After your huge tax break the dufus gave you are you saying they still force you? Or it wasn't big enough? I just don't get it, as your charity work is tax exempt too. And I fail to see where that superior morality plays a role in the collection of taxes in the first place.

Explain to me why you are not just wrong like I believe you are, about being forced to pay for helping someone else. Heck guy if charities and churches were enough help, we wouldn't need more help would we? I mean what about all those people that churches and charities just don't get to sufficiently? While I think you and people like you would do a better job at helping folks in those towns that lost an industry and their lively hoods during this so called great economy, I don't see all those people who supposedly pay so much in taxes going to those places where help is much needed either, so I ask again what of those people who need help, but can't get it?

You pay your taxes like all of us don't you, through payroll deductions, so how is that being forced? Plus you get some of it back through a tax return so how is that being forced? After your huge tax break the dufus gave you are you saying they still force you? Or it wasn't big enough?Try not paying your income tax and see what happens to you. Then we can have a truly meaningful discussion on how the gov forces people to pay taxes. I have a friend who, twenty or so years ago, decided not to pay his taxes. He barely avoided jail. They began to take so much money from him that he and his family ended up in a ramshackle mobile home just barely getting by. They are still giving him heck over that. Go tell him how we are not forced to pay taxes. Your argument is ridiculous.

As to the feds refunding part of what they take by force from us, it is basically them taking your money as an interest free loan and then giving it back to you. And people have become so dense that they really think the feds are doing them a favor by giving back part of what was taken by force of law. Wow. How generous our federal masters are!


so I ask again what of those people who need help, but can't get it?
I think if your question is genuinely sincere, then your butt would be out there helping. Why aren't you if you are so concerned? That's why all your pleas fall on deaf ears. You care so much for the poor that you are willing to force others to help them. Sorry my friend, but that is not compelling.

At least you're honest in your looney right wing fundamentalist extreme way so I think you have adequately answered my question. THANKS.

your looney right wing fundamentalist extreme wayThat made me laugh. To you, for a person to not help the poor is normal, but for a person to believe that we each have a personal calling to help the poor is looney, right wing, and extreme fundamentalism. I guess we were just raised differently. You are free to believe as you wish, but I'm going to call out your artificial compassion every time you bring it up. I never tire of it.

I don't intend for that to sound mean. I do intend for it to be truthful.

No problems with that JL, I always figured between coffee and donut breaks we would be butting heads as two diametrically opposed people tend to do. Nothing personal just differences. I believe that governments must grow and change with its people and make their needs as much a priority as humanly possible so not just the rich enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The country is big enough for both of us as longs as it works for both of us. I have no problem letting people know what works and what doesn't work for me. Been known to make it work, so no problem there I got no beetch except what the dufus is doing. Doesn't work for me. I can vote for whatever dem goes against him without holding my nose, or FORCE you to pay your fair share of the rent, so we all can have a chance to thrive in this great country.

People over profits is a very simple concept. All things being negotiable!

That made me laugh. To you, for a person to not help the poor is normal, but for a person to believe that we each have a personal calling to help the poor is looney, right wing, and extreme fundamentalism. I guess we were just raised differently. You are free to believe as you wish, but I'm going to call out your artificial compassion every time you bring it up. I never tire of it.
Didn't Jesus say something about our personal calling is to help the poor?

I should have worded my earlier reply a bit better, so I am reposting it here:

"Exactly! And the help needed IS NOT ONLY money BUT ALSO guidance and empathy and a hug. Especially the hug."

Didn't Jesus say something about our personal calling is to help the poor?
Yes, He did. We are starting to agree here!



"Exactly! And the help needed IS NOT ONLY money BUT ALSO guidance and empathy and a hug. Especially the hug."Much better. My congratulations to you.

What puzzles me JL, is your constant diatribe of your personal commitment to help the least, yet you blast everyone else who doesn't, and the government that does. Seems to me you would be for any one helping the least, even the government, since they seem to do what volunteers and ordinary people cannot. Supplemented and collective efforts for the same goal should be a good thing that crosses political and religious lines, I would think.

I mean you have no problem with the dufus deficit funded tax cuts to the rich, no problem with the dufus charging the government for his golf vacations at his own property, which he does quite often, but balk at giving poor kids milk or a free lunch at school, or shelter? Don't understand that logic.

What puzzles me JL, is your constant diatribe of your personal commitment to help the least, yet you blast everyone else who doesn't, and the government that does. Seems to me you would be for any one helping the least, even the government, since they seem to do what volunteers and ordinary people cannot. Supplemented and collective efforts for the same goal should be a good thing that crosses political and religious lines, I would think.I've never blasted anyone for not giving. My complaint is liberals who want to brag about their charitable impulses because they want to force someone else to help the poor but do so little themselves. The government helps no one. Taxpayers do that. The government buys votes by handing out money.


I mean you have no problem with the dufus deficit funded tax cuts to the rich, no problem with the dufus charging the government for his golf vacations at his own property, which he does quite often, but balk at giving poor kids milk or a free lunch at school, or shelter? Don't understand that logic.I think it is scandalous for Trump to take taxpayer funded vacations in the same way that it was scandalous for Obama to do it. You are critical of Trump but gave Obama a free pass because your objections are based upon your hatred of Trump and not any real ethical convictions. As for taxcuts, and to say this yet again, the top 20% pay more than 85% of the taxes. I would agree that figure is unfair to the wealthy, especially considering that the bottom half pay practically nothing.

I've never blasted anyone for not giving. My complaint is liberals who want to brag about their charitable impulses because they want to force someone else to help the poor but do so little themselves. The government helps no one. Taxpayers do that. The government buys votes by handing out money.

You may be on to something except for the fact the congress has been run by conservative in both houses since 2012, and add the WH since 2016, so you aren't talking about liberals but conservatives.


I think it is scandalous for Trump to take taxpayer funded vacations in the same way that it was scandalous for Obama to do it. You are critical of Trump but gave Obama a free pass because your objections are based upon your hatred of Trump and not any real ethical convictions. As for taxcuts, and to say this yet again, the top 20% pay more than 85% of the taxes. I would agree that figure is unfair to the wealthy, especially considering that the bottom half pay practically nothing.

No, my objection over the ways the dufus puts taxpayer money in his own pocket that Obama NEVER did. Seems the conservative hate for liberals blinds them to their own scandals and atrocities. Or else explain why conservatives can never clean up liberal MESSES, while liberals always clean up conservative messes. It's okay to hate liberals but not okay to hate conservatives? For the record I don't and never will because hate is a waste of time that breeds fear, and stops the flow of creative constructive solutions to the challenges of life.

Now that's not to say throwing rocks at conservatives for the things they say and do isn't fun, and some of my conservative friends say the same thing. Nothing personal mind you.

You may be on to something except for the fact the congress has been run by conservative in both houses since 2012, and add the WH since 2016, so you aren't talking about liberals but conservatives.Wake up. The dems took over the House in 2018, and Obama was pres from 12 to 16. There was only a two year window in which repubs controlled everything. They should have used that opportunity to do a lot more than they did.


No, my objection over the ways the dufus puts taxpayer money in his own pocket that Obama NEVER did. Seems the conservative hate for liberals blinds them to their own scandals and atrocities. Or else explain why conservatives can never clean up liberal MESSES, while liberals always clean up conservative messes. It's okay to hate liberals but not okay to hate conservatives? For the record I don't and never will because hate is a waste of time that breeds fear, and stops the flow of creative constructive solutions to the challenges of life.I would be all in favor of legislation controlling the number of weeks a pres can go on vacation and stating that he/she cannot go to a facility he/she owns. Completely agree there. Notice that the current dem House is too busy with an impeachment witch hunt to take care of anything really serious. Liberals clean up messes? When?

As to hatred, your utterly unreasonable refusal to give credit to Trump for ANYTHING and your incessant name calling directed at him indicate a level of hatred that is pretty high.

Moscow Mitch has plenty of stuff on his desk that the dem house has sent him since they took the House, and Obama had 6 years of a repub controlled congress. He done good. Maybe the dufus will get the same thing who knows but at least we agree on a few things even though you mistake my having fun chunking rocks at you guys as hatred.

Didn't you read the last paragraph JL? Nothing personal but no way do I credit a lying cheating stealing dufus for a dammed thing. That's not hate, that's PRINCIPLE, mine, just like you have yours, which I could say indicates a high level of hate, which could also be true in my opinion.

but no way do I credit a lying cheating stealing dufus for a dammed thing.Yeah. No hatred there!

The dufus has you to shill for the stuff he does wrong, he doesn't need me. You call me hateful for telling it like it is? The guy gets prayed for and he makes a mockery of it.


Yeah. No hatred there!

NOPE!

If what you express is a well-reasoned analysis, then I'd hate to see how you'd act if you really had hatred.

I still think it's hatred. I don't shill for Trump. I give him credit where he deserves it and criticism where it's warranted. I don't have the love and near-worship for him that you had for Obama where you could not bring yourself to say even the slightest negative comment.

Just because you weren't hear and didn't read it doesn't mean I didn't express it. Not in the habit of repeating myself, so just do your own homework why don't you. Let's not forget half the stuff you ask of me and others is subject to your denial, and criticism, while ducking dodging and weaving your way around the real issue, but you're right you wouldn't want me to express my hate as you do. It would probably be as ugly and unfounded as yours is for liberals, or anyone else that disagrees with you.

You can call me out on it anytime I express hate. Just do it at the time and not at some time in the dim, distant future when it has no specific target like you are doing now and just for the reason of making yourself feel better. Honestly, the one who is absolutely addicted to name calling seems to be the more guilty one to me.

One thing you know about me is I'm not at all shy about expressing myself 8D. You ain't either so there, share the donuts.

I prefer mine chocolate covered.

I prefer double chocolate, but I can see us rolling around over the chocolate covered, so we better plan on a DOZEN or so! You know just to keep down the conflict.

YOUR chocolate covered INDEED! 8O

Maybe two dozen. Stay on the safe side. Last thing we need is two old guys in jail for creating a public disturbance.

Hey Tal. Honest request. Listen to this 90 second clip from the leader of BLM and tell me what you think.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-lives-matter-president-riot

Hey Tal. Honest request. Listen to this 90 second clip from the leader of BLM and tell me what you think.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-lives-matter-president-riot

jl, lawlessness is not ok, it elicits a violent response, and it will not result in victory. I know the history of your nation is bathed in blood, and these guys have signed on to that agenda, but it can only result in chaos, death, and destruction. The answers of 250 years ago, 150 years ago are not the answers today, surely Syria is a prime example of what happens when civilisation is abandoned

jl, lawlessness is not ok, it elicits a violent response
Lawlessness has been done. BLM suggests this response to make those who were/are lawless sit up and take notice.

BLM suggests this response to make those who were/are lawless sit up and take notice.So you're saying that an incitement to violence is a good thing? I'm surprised.

So you're saying that an incitement to violence is a good thing? I'm surprised.
They were the ones violated. Who incited those strong feelings in the first place?

Who incited those strong feelings in the first place?Who was it in Ferguson, Missouri? And I'm still beyond astonished that you would approve of this incitement to violence. It's always amazing where your absolute commitment to liberal dogma takes you.

Who was it in Ferguson, Missouri? And I'm still beyond astonished that you would approve of this incitement to violence. It's always amazing where your absolute commitment to liberal dogma takes you.
I never said I approved. I'm trying to explain their rationale to you.

Try shopping while black. Try eating out while black. Try clothes shopping while black. Try driving while black.

I never said I approved. I'm trying to explain their rationale to you.And neither did you have the courage to oppose it. I just don't get you. You seem unwilling to ever say a word that might violate your liberal commitments. Honestly, it's really frustrating. If Trump had said something that outrageous, you'd be all over it, but let a liberal make an incitement to violence and you want to become Miss Understanding. I just don't get it.


Try shopping while black. Try eating out while black. Try clothes shopping while black. Try driving while black.Oh stop it. That's just worn out and beyond old. I haven't and neither have you. In our state, if you have the money to pay for what you want, you will be treated well. I have been in restaurants and stores where most of the customers were black. No one pays much attention to it. Maybe Chicago is the racism capital of the world. Down here, skin color is a minor issue.

And you didn't answer the question. Who did the provoking in Ferguson?

And neither did you have the courage to oppose it.
I oppose any bullying (*cough*) and abhor violence. But then, O great peacemaker that you are, how should blacks respond to all the lawlessness and violence and hatred they've been subjected to?


Oh stop it. That worn out nonsense is beyond old. I haven't and neither have you. In our state, if you have the money to pay for what you want, you will be treated well. I have been in restaurants and stores where most of the customers were black. No one pays much attention to it. Maybe Chicago is the racism capital of the world. Down here, skin color is a minor issue.
I'm from the South and remember how "darkies" were treated. Even in the Chicago suburbs where I have lived for many years there is incident after incident, most minor but some resulting in serious repercussions.


And you didn't answer the question. Who did the provoking in Ferguson?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Why were black people brought (unwillingly) to this country in the first place and by whom?

I oppose any bullying (*cough*) and abhor violence. But then, O great peacemaker that you are, how should blacks respond to all the lawlessness and violence and hatred they've been subjected to?The vast, vast majority of acts of violence committed against black people are committed by...other black people. It's just statistically true. How should they respond to that? Riots? And you cannot abhor violence but then try to be "understanding" about an incitement to rioting. That just won't work.



Even in the Chicago suburbs where I lived for many years there is incident after incident, most minor but some resulting in serious repercussions.Then I'm glad I live in Mississippi. We have learned how to get along. There are occasional problems. I've been poorly treated by black employees and I'm sure black people have been mistreated by white employees, but they are rare and not worth getting excited about. It's like I tell Tal. The greatest enemy of black Americans is the behavior of some black Americans. Reduce the out of wedlock birth rate, for example, from 70% to 10% and black people would soar to the top of the heap.


"darkies"Never used that term or heard it used. I've known some people who used the "n" word, but honestly can't think of a single person now.

I never said I approved. I'm trying to explain their rationale to you.

Try shopping while black. Try eating out while black. Try clothes shopping while black. Try driving while black.

So WG do you have first hand experience?

So WG do you have first hand experience?
Nope, but have been told about it by friends. Oh, and I see it happening.

Nope, but have been told about it by friends. Oh, and I see it happening.

so culturally there is a case for segregation?

Hey Tal. Honest request. Listen to this 90 second clip from the leader of BLM and tell me what you think.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-lives-matter-president-riot

Seems the whole point of the interview revolved around one incidence in NY where there was violence, that Mr Newsome didn't explicitly condemn.


Newsome claimed that destructive protests are rare, but he did not condemn them.

I could easily make the case that you guys never condemn the dufus words and actions either. often you hold others to a much different standard than you hold yourselves.

What you fail to concieve in your targeted outrage is often these violent outcomes is the product of pent up rage felt by those that have been violated where there was NO outrage, so the question really becomes why are you surprised at the violence by some and IGNORE the root causes of the violence. NO, you rather be stuck on them not condemning the current acts of violence, while you didn't condemn the past violence against them.

If not for the violence in Ferguson, would we know the nefarious and oppressive tactics the city had been perpertrated aginst the black part of town for years? So the violence didn't start with the shooting of Micheal Brown, but at the exploitation of the black side of town.


so culturally there is a case for segregation?

No culturally there is the case to nip the root cause of bad acts in the bud, before other bad acts follow.

Anybody find it odd that only 90 seconds of a longer interview was aired?

Anybody find it odd that only 90 seconds of a longer interview was aired?

No people have the attention span of a gnat these days, he probably lost his audience in the first 30 seconds

Hard core Fox Fans never stray to far from their favorite and only news source, and don't need but a few seconds to take up the right wing chant against the latest boogie man. That's just the nature of the American conservative beast Clete. Take a word, make a book out of it and sell it as the bible.

Only takes a minute, no FACTS necessary, especially to hock something to the fan based like the app/site they pushed to see the whole interview. What you missed the grabber headlines?


"Black Lives Matter leader justifies rioting in interview with Tomi Lahren: 'Riot is the language of the unheard"

How else can the attract a winger without a sensational headline and trailer?

Disappointing. A liberal makes a call for rioting, so it must be the fault of Fox News, trailers, and headlines? Left unanswered is the fact that the vast, vast majority of acts of violence carried out against black people are carried out, not by the police or white racists, but by other black people. Strangely, there are no calls for rioting about that. There are no replies by any of you about that. There is only the predictably disappointing mantra about how rioting and violence are regrettable, but it's all highly understandable considering the fact that slavery, after all, only ended 150 years ago, and the Jim Crow Laws (long gone), and a 70% out of wedlock birth rate (oops...that shouldn't have been slipped in there), and the comparatively rare acts of injustice committed by the police.

"JL, you just can't expect those of us who are committed to liberal politics to come out and condemn the statement of a BLM leader. We are too busy condemning Trump for saying things much less inflammatory. We just don't have the inclination."

Disappointing. A liberal makes a call for rioting, so it must be the fault of Fox News, trailers, and headlines? Left unanswered is the fact that the vast, vast majority of acts of violence carried out against black people are carried out, not by the police or white racists, but by other black people. Strangely, there are no calls for rioting about that. There are no replies by any of you about that. There is only the predictably disappointing mantra about how rioting and violence are regrettable, but it's all highly understandable considering the fact that slavery, after all, only ended 150 years ago, and the Jim Crow Laws (long gone), and a 70% out of wedlock birth rate (oops...that shouldn't have been slipped in there), and the comparatively rare acts of injustice committed by the police.

"JL, you just can't expect those of us who are committed to liberal politics to come out and condemn the statement of a BLM leader. We are too busy condemning Trump for saying things much less inflammatory. We just don't have the inclination."

You are a card as a liberal makes a call for rioting, HE DIDN"T DO, and follow with, it must be the fault of Fox News, since I made no such claim just explained the sensationalistic ratings game that you decided to make your own ideological pet peeve and grievance rant. I commend you for getting so many into the paragraph even if they are not as accurate as you would want us to believe.

That last two line paragraph was a masterpiece, your best to date inane utterings of ridiculousness. I swear guy you have a great future at fox news and the make up artist can cover your shortcomings.

You are a card as a liberal makes a call for rioting, HE DIDN"T DO, and follow with, it must be the fault of Fox News, since I made no such claim just explained the sensationalistic ratings game that you decided to make your own ideological pet peeve and grievance rant. I commend you for getting so many into the paragraph even if they are not as accurate as you would want us to believe.I don't think you listened to the interview. He clearly endorsed violence.

What was not accurate about my post?

ANY call to violence by "organization" should be met with swift arrests, this is the only way that this kind of crap will be quelled and stopped. If you allow BLM to foment violence against another race or any other group, then they will continue to do that from now on and it will not stop. Facts are, if BLM calls for violence you can bet that, one day, they will be met with violence and it will be extreme: But, maybe that is their intention because they are "VICTOMHOOD" group and if they become victims of counter violence, then they can continue claiming VICTIMHOOD.

I don't think you listened to the interview. He clearly endorsed violence.
You haven't been reading very carefully. Tal said it so well:

"What you fail to concieve in your targeted outrage is often these violent outcomes is the product of pent up rage felt by those that have been violated where there was NO outrage, so the question really becomes why are you surprised at the violence by some and IGNORE the root causes of the violence. NO, you rather be stuck on them not condemning the current acts of violence, while you didn't condemn the past violence against them."

"What you fail to concieve in your targeted outrage is often these violent outcomes is the product of pent up rage felt by those that have been violated where there was NO outrage, so the question really becomes why are you surprised at the violence by some and IGNORE the root causes of the violence. NO, you rather be stuck on them not condemning the current acts of violence, while you didn't condemn the past violence against them."I read it. I just don't accept it. It is never acceptable for me to burn down my neighbor's store just because I'm mad. In Ferguson, the city is a large majority black, so whatever government they have is what they voted in. If they're mad, they can only be mad at themselves, and yet rioters still went out and burned down businesses on the basis of a completely false narrative.

So what you and Tal should say, but won't say, is that rioting, looting, and destruction are never acceptable just because someone is mad. Your liberal doctrinal positions won't allow you to be that honest, however.

For Tal to suggest that I don't condemn the acts of violence committed against black in decades past is ridiculous. I condemn them most aggressively. I also condemn the relatively rare acts of racial violence committed against blacks or, for that matter, anyone. Do I, like the two of you, excuse violence against innocent people because someone is mad about it? No. And also unlike the two of you, I have great concern over the primary threat, by far, against black people today, and that is violence by other black people. It mystifies me why the two of you are so quick to just ignore that.

Why are they mad?

Why are they mad?In Ferguson, everyone was mad because they had been fed a false narrative about supposed police violence.

I still want to know why you are so quick to ignore black on black violence. Why does it not concern you?

I still want to know why you are so quick to ignore black on black violence. Why does it not concern you?
I am speechless at your accusation.

I am speechless at your accusation.Indeed you are. That's what I'm talking about, your quality of "speechlessness" on the subject.

Indeed you are. That's what I'm talking about, your quality of "speechlessness" on the subject.
Why you are attacking me?

How am I attacking you? That is not my intention at all. I don't understand where you're coming from, and I do ask questions to gain clarity and, at times, to point out what seems to me to be inconsistencies in your position, but if it comes across as an attack, then we can just drop it. It's not that important.

i don't think you listened to the interview. He clearly endorsed violence.

What was not accurate about my post?

show me!

ANY call to violence by "organization" should be met with swift arrests, this is the only way that this kind of crap will be quelled and stopped. If you allow BLM to foment violence against another race or any other group, then they will continue to do that from now on and it will not stop. Facts are, if BLM calls for violence you can bet that, one day, they will be met with violence and it will be extreme: But, maybe that is their intention because they are "VICTOMHOOD" group and if they become victims of counter violence, then they can continue claiming VICTIMHOOD.

You and JL been sneaking off drinking the same Kool Aid or something? Just trying to figure out where this BLM or any activist of color races such a response based on falsehoods. Why can't you Caucasian guys be just as judgmental against all those supremist and nationalists that the dufus nods and winks too? I mean give me a break, peaceful non violent group staging rallies and meetings turns into some kind of threat or something?

Where do you guys get all this false information from any way?

You and JL been sneaking off drinking the same Kool Aid or something? Just trying to figure out where this BLM or any activist of color races such a response based on falsehoods. Why can't you Caucasian guys be just as judgmental against all those supremist and nationalists that the dufus nods and winks too? I mean give me a break, peaceful non violent group staging rallies and meetings turns into some kind of threat or something?

Where do you guys get all this false information from any way?

This gets tiresome. It's a 90 second video. You could have listened to it twice in less than five minutes. Instead, I have to waste my time to go back and basically make a transcript so as to straighten out this "false information" hysteria that Tal loves to get into. But in the interest of truthfulness, let's take a go at it.

Tomi L had asked the man if he thought the tactics of BLM were productive. He replied that, "a riot is the language of the unheard," which is plainly a well-rehearsed line and plainly a justification for rioting. He goes on to say that for a country that employs slavery (nonsense) "to criticize us for vandalism is preposterous." He then says that "it is a tool of white supremacists to say that if you want freedom, then protest peacefully." Does that sound to you like a ringing endorsement by him of peaceful means of protest? He concludes by pointing out (in his view) that Americans in the past made progress "through bullets and blood," plainly showing where his sympathies lie.

It's unfortunate that you, a hyper sensitive critic of anything Trump says that sounds the least bit off-center to you, will just blow all of this off and say it amounts to nothing. I guess it's a lot easier to just make a fake appeal to "false information".

There is alot of hearing what you want to hear. BLM is an excuse to stick it to the man

Talaniman: I never endorsed a White Supremist...and don't think jlisenbe has, either, from what I read: If you wouldn't want to have them as your neighbor, how could you support them: I wouldn't want to be anywhere around a White Supremist....but BLM is a pyramid scheme group: The people at the top get paid through coercion by "threatening" to hold protests in order to get paid to go away: Its a money scheme.

The NEXT THING you are going to tell us is that ANTIFA is great, nonviolent organization of freedom loving communists: Like I said before, put Antifa and the White Supremist is a fenced-in arena and come back in the morning....with any luck, nobody is still standing: Problem Solved.

Vac, it's what I've been seeing here for years. If a lib does something, then it's fine. If a conservative does the same thing, it's an outrage. And you're right, Vac. I despise the whole philosophy of white supremacy or any other racial supremacy. It should all be about the individual.

This gets tiresome. It's a 90 second video. You could have listened to it twice in less than five minutes. Instead, I have to waste my time to go back and basically make a transcript so as to straighten out this "false information" hysteria that Tal loves to get into. But in the interest of truthfulness, let's take a go at it.

Tomi L had asked the man if he thought the tactics of BLM were productive. He replied that, "a riot is the language of the unheard," which is plainly a well-rehearsed line and plainly a justification for rioting. He goes on to say that for a country that employs slavery (nonsense) "to criticize us for vandalism is preposterous." He then says that "it is a tool of white supremacists to say that if you want freedom, then protest peacefully." Does that sound to you like a ringing endorsement by him of peaceful means of protest? He concludes by pointing out (in his view) that Americans in the past made progress "through bullets and blood," plainly showing where his sympathies lie.

It's unfortunate that you, a hyper sensitive critic of anything Trump says that sounds the least bit off-center to you, will just blow all of this off and say it amounts to nothing. I guess it's a lot easier to just make a fake appeal to "false information".

The statement before was that riots were rare less than 1%, and his statement of riots which is important to understand, was very practical to understand the WHY, of such events. His reference to the tools of white supremacy is a well understood and documented condition of whites terrorizing blacks especially in the south not just with the mobs but policies and practices even AFTER slavery. As a black American I have often wondered how my white brothers cannot even acknowledge that even though the hoods have come off their are some that still hold to these practices and have evolved enough to sanitize them with acceptability, and justification using better tools like the way criminals evolve to circumvent everything the law prohibits.

It is a simple statement of fact how America was built through bullets and blood and JL you live close enough to a native reservation to know that history rather well. It's hardly hyper sensitivity to KNOW for fact the contemporary tools of disinformation like putting riots and lootings at the feet of peaceful rally groups like BLM and the NAACP, painting their cause to be heard and exercising that right as nefarious as an excuse to justify not listening to the conversation and just dismissing what they are saying, and obviously though I disagree with your spin I hope the brothers keep speaking out and someday you LISTEN.

Doesn't change the dufus is a corrupt lying crook though which is an entirely different conversation altogether and has nothing to do with the conversation at hand as I have done what you sincerely asked and told you what I thought about it.


There is alot of hearing what you want to hear. BLM is an excuse to stick it to the man

The MAN has to be stuck and regularly since he is notorious for ignoring some issues to get what HE wants.

As a black American I have often wondered how my white brothers cannot even acknowledge that even though the hoods have come off their are some that still hold to these practices and have evolved enough to sanitize them with acceptability, and justification using better tools like the way criminals evolve to circumvent everything the law prohibits.I actually think that's a fair enough statement, but it's also important to acknowledge that those people comprise a very small portion of the white population and pose but little threat to black people in general, especially compared to the fact that the vast majority of violent crimes committed against black people are done by other black people, a fact that you have yet to acknowledge and that rarely gets mentioned.


peaceful rally groups like BLM Not according to the leader on the video. Did you note that at no time did he condemn violence and make a call for peaceful protests? In fact he did pretty much the opposite.


Doesn't change the dufus is a corrupt lying crook though which is an entirely different conversation altogether and has nothing to do with the conversation at hand as I have done what you sincerely asked and told you what I thought about it.The issue is now you treat the two groups completely differently. If Trump had said the things the BLM leader said, you would have had a fit about it.

Talaniman: I never endorsed a White Supremist...and don't think jlisenbe has, either, from what I read: If you wouldn't want to have them as your neighbor, how could you support them: I wouldn't want to be anywhere around a White Supremist....but BLM is a pyramid scheme group: The people at the top get paid through coercion by "threatening" to hold protests in order to get paid to go away: Its a money scheme.

The NEXT THING you are going to tell us is that ANTIFA is great, nonviolent organization of freedom loving communists: Like I said before, put Antifa and the White Supremist is a fenced-in arena and come back in the morning....with any luck, nobody is still standing: Problem Solved.

LOL, stop that defensive stuff. NEVER have I or would I put either of you in the camp of nationalists and supremist, just trying to get you to see things from another perspective by discounting the fake news like your BLM pyramid scheme which you say but not document.

I can assure you I won't be defending Antifa either or trying to fool you into something they are not, but love it when as you say they clash with my enemies the supremists. We totally agree there.

Still no comment about the fact that the great majority of violence against black people is committed by other black people. Acts of violence by out of control cops or white supremacists are, relatively speaking, very rare, and yet they grab all the headlines. In the meantime, people continue to suffer.

I actually think that's a fair enough statement, but it's also important to acknowledge that those people comprise a very small portion of the white population and pose but little threat to black people in general, especially compared to the fact that the vast majority of violent crimes committed against black people are done by other black people, a fact that you have yet to acknowledge and that rarely gets mentioned.

It's a moot point because within the black neighborhood is where black people are stuck so who else can they prey upon? Pretty much the same as white on white crime which is just as insidious but not as well known. I'm against both as well as any violence and criminal behavior and I have said before that racist of any ilk are for sure a small population that makes big noise and get headlines making them loom larger than they are but they are a threat to everybody as the potential to spread that hate message is historically alive and well and has grown with technology.


Not according to the leader on the video. Did you note that at no time did he condemn violence and make a call for peaceful protests? In fact he did pretty much the opposite.

That admission was what the interviewer wanted highlighted and to that extent they succeeded, because what he actually said was lost not just to you, but the audience they were talking to. Maybe you could do your own research on BLM to get what I'm saying.


The issue is now you treat the two groups completely differently. If Trump had said the things the BLM leader said, you would have had a fit about it.

I don't think it's helpful or fair to judge anyone by what the dufus says and does. But Black activism and unity is crucial to get the equality, equal protection under the law promised by the laws of the land. I don't expect you to understand the what the struggle is but I do expect you to be educated on the tricks and traps, because indeed they are used against white Americans too.

Talaniman: O.K., good point, didn't mean to come across as defensive but don't want you or anyone else thinking I'm "one of those" type low lifes, either.

I also have no documentation of a "Pyramid Scheme" in BLM but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence for this: Look at all the corruption that has taken place in other civil rights groups and the fact that all of these groups have a common thread: Those at the top were compensated handsomely....Jesse Jackson and Al "Charlatan" Sharpton come to mind.

It's a moot point because within the black neighborhood is where black people are stuck so who else can they prey upon? Pretty much the same as white on white crime which is just as insidious but not as well known. I'm against bothWow. Thousands of black deaths a year, but it's just a "moot point". It's not to me, but it is to liberal dems because there's no political advantage in talking about it. It's much more appealing to talk about the one black person killed by an out of control cop than to talk about the corresponding deaths of hundreds of black people because, after all, they were only killed by another black person, so most people really don't give a rat's arse about it. Sickening.


That admission was what the interviewer wanted highlighted and to that extent they succeeded, because what he actually said was lost not just to you, but the audience they were talking to. Whatever. It's BLM, so you will never say a critical word about them. They're part of the liberal wing of the dem party.


I don't think it's helpful or fair to judge anyone by what the dufus says and does. But Black activism and unity is crucial to get the equality, equal protection under the law promised by the laws of the land. I don't expect you to understand the what the struggle is but I do expect you to be educated on the tricks and traps, because indeed they are used against white Americans too.At least you're honest. Most people wouldn't admit that they will accept anything from black organizations just keep the good ole unity. It's on the level of me saying I accept the KKK because, after all, we white folk have to stick together.

Talaniman: O.K., good point, didn't mean to come across as defensive but don't want you or anyone else thinking I'm "one of those" type low lifes, either.

I also have no documentation of a "Pyramid Scheme" in BLM but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence for this: Look at all the corruption that has taken place in other civil rights groups and the fact that all of these groups have a common thread: Those at the top were compensated handsomely....Jesse Jackson and Al "Charlatan" Sharpton come to mind.

You're good Vac with me, and point taken on the imperfections of said organization as in any organization that has to be shaken up and reorganized from time to time to stay relevant and up to date. I'll just counter Mr. Jackson, with Falwell, and raise your Sharpton with young Graham and Orwell.

Wow. Thousands of black deaths a year, but it's just a "moot point". It's not to me, but it is to liberal dems because there's no political advantage in talking about it. It's much more appealing to talk about the one black person killed by an out of control cop than to talk about the corresponding deaths of hundreds of black people because, after all, they were only killed by another black person, so most people really don't give a rat's arse about it. Sickening.

Whatever. It's BLM, so you will never say a critical word about them. They're part of the liberal wing of the dem party.

At least you're honest. Most people wouldn't admit that they will accept anything from black organizations just keep the good ole unity. It's on the level of me saying I accept the KKK because, after all, we white folk have to stick together.

You do realize that I have acknowledge black on black violence, something I know of well, and just add white on white violence is just as insidious. Crazy cops are an entirely different matter that can be addressed with prosecuting the b@stards when it happens and all to often for starters, something we see to little of and should demand a higher standard with cops everywhere. To be clear they do it to white people to, but let's not wash over those unarmed black people shot to death or killed without posing any threat. Be nice if you stop running two different issues together, like it's the same thing. Maybe to you, but to me sounds like another excuse to ignore something by distracting and changing the subject. Very unempathetic of you, and solves NOTHING!

I'll reserve commenting on your BLM position until you've done your own homework so we can at least be on equal footing about this part of the democratic liberal wing.

A Valentine's Day special report:

A bill introduced Thursday in Alabama’s House of Representatives would require men in the state to undergo vasectomies once they turn 50 years old or father three children, “whichever comes first.”

The bill, authored by Rep. Rolanda Hollis, D-Birmingham, would also require men to pay for the procedure themselves.

"Under existing law, there are no restrictions on the reproductive rights of men," according to the text of the bill.

Hollis told AL.com (https://www.al.com/politics/2020/02/state-reps-bill-would-force-men-to-get-vasectomies-at-50.html) the legislation was in response to the bill passed last year by Alabama legislators which would have nearly banned abortion in the state. A federal judge in October blocked the law, which would have made performing an abortion a felony in almost all cases.

“It always takes two to tango," she told AL.com (https://www.al.com/politics/2020/02/state-reps-bill-would-force-men-to-get-vasectomies-at-50.html). “We can’t put all the responsibility on women. Men need to be responsible also.”

In response to questions on Twitter, Hollis said the bill would "help prevent pregnancy as well as abortion of unwanted children."

"This bill is to help men become more accountable as well as women," she wrote.

https://mail.yahoo.com/mb/folders/1

You do realize that I have acknowledge black on black violence, something I know of well, and just add white on white violence is just as insidious. Crazy cops are an entirely different matter that can be addressed with prosecuting the b@stards when it happens and all to often for starters, something we see to little of and should demand a higher standard with cops everywhere. To be clear they do it to white people to, but let's not wash over those unarmed black people shot to death or killed without posing any threat. Be nice if you stop running two different issues together, like it's the same thing. Maybe to you, but to me sounds like another excuse to ignore something by distracting and changing the subject. Very unempathetic of you, and solves NOTHING!You said it was a moot point earlier. Now you have changed your tune somewhat. As to police violence, I realize it happens, but it is extremely rare compared to black on black violence, and yet that is all that gets talked about. Why is that? Ignore something? Aren't you the one doing that by calling it a "moot point"?


I'll reserve commenting on your BLM position until you've done your own homework so we can at least be on equal footing about this part of the democratic liberal wing.So it makes sense to be silent when a BLM leader is endorsing violent behavior? Hmm.

I disagree and we have both expressed ourselves so what is the point of beating the drums when we cannot hear it? That's pointless.

what is the point of beating the drums when we cannot hear it? That's pointless.

that comment speaks to much of the discussion here

I disagree and we have both expressed ourselves so what is the point of beating the drums when we cannot hear it? That's pointless.Agreed.

Sure enough with the ink still dry on his stay out of jail card, the dufus has his DOJ puppet trying to rescue his campaign criminal sycophants and continuing his purges while he tries to jail his enemies. He makes America great again by turning us into a banana republic.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/barr-calls-for-outside-prosecutor-to-review-the-flynn-case/ar-BB101fCg?ocid=spartanntp

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB100tom.img?h=416&w=799&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

Talaniman: You have to admit: Roger Stone is one smooth, cool customer! DOJ thought they could rattle him by coercion and he told them to go f$%& themselves....STONE is pretty much UNBREAKABLE......I know you kind of admire that quality!

He is a convicted felon now so why waste admiration on a loser?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/lNeEQPyuku34LiHQWLfs6IQOy5Q=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/5AGQJJYTSVFFHCZ5776OFG5QSI


“The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones".

In Trump's case, there is no good to be interred, but plenty of evil that will live after him. Trump leaves a trail of dead Americans in his wake as he holds massive rallies encouraging people to not wear masks and to avoid social distancing by packing in thousands shoulder-to-shoulder.

The clear evidence from those rallies now shows their destructive nature as the COVID cases multiply after the rallies. Trump KNOWINGLY accepts those infections and deaths as the price to pay for gaining re-election. This fact is not politics or exaggeration. It is the raw truth.

Trump has been spreading his viral poison daily killing people on top of the thousands he has already killed because of his delay in calling for safeguards in the early stages of COVID. He loudly proclaimed it would go away "by Easter", then it would be gone by the summer "like a miracle". It is now the Fall with no sign of the virus "going away".

In fact, the virus is surging. It reached the single highest number of cases this very day as Trump continues to say it's nearly over and will be gone "just around the bend".

Click on the link at the top to see the Face of Evil.