Page 3 of 272 FirstFirst 123451353103 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 4068

Thread: Had enough yet

  1. #31
    Member Breezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by grump View Post
    Here's hoping that it drives her to suicide. Then America will be done with her fat ignorant ass once and for all.
    Real class, grump!

    I guess it's just more affirmation for me of who you truly are.

    Anyway, WNYresident, is this the "Lancaster" thread or is it the new national politics thread?


  2. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    484
    when i first opened a thread titled "had enough" i wondered how long it would take before lee mentioned hillary clinton. it was sentence #4. you have to come to terms, lee, that america elected a turd sandwich. his actions and behavior just since the election should cause all americans to have great concern over what is up ahead. and here you are still grumpy about hillary clinton and the democrats. you don't like the democrats. i get it. you should be THRILLED then to have the presidency and both houses of congress if you oppose the dems and what they stand for. why aren't you celebrating? because, i think you know, he's a huge turd sandwich. at this point, you gotta own it.

    just since the election:

    - openly denying intelligence conclusions and going so far as to actively discredit agencies on social media even as leaders of his own party accepting the findings
    - at the same time being unusually complimentary towards russia and putin
    - repeatedly making statements that are verifiably untrue or at a minimum purposely misleading
    - interject himself into matters of foreign policy (highly unusual for a president elect)
    - an insane list of cabinet appointees, some of whom actively oppose the very mission of the department they are leading
    - a continuation of petty grudges and teenage level social media attacks. when you call the opposition leader a clown and attack a civil rights icon right before MLK day, you don't exactly stand on strong ground in your stated attempts to be a uniter. surely you must see this, right?
    - attack of any media that is at all critical of him. holds first new conference in 6 months and literally places staff to cheer and boo. this is the man who is president this week.
    - a series of ethically dubious moves - refusal to separate himself from business interests, refusal to disclose foreign business connections and tax returns, appointing family as advisors, etc

    the list goes on. your position appears to be that all of this should be ignored, under the guise of giving him a chance and that we should all take solace in the fact that he often doesn't follow through on his previous commitments and positions. you have to realize that is an absurd point of view.

    the election is over. our government has been selected. your team won. your focus should be on holding them accountable and carrying through on what you elected them to do. why isn't it?

  3. #33
    Member buffalopundit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,710
    Quote Originally Posted by grump View Post
    Ask yourself, does any thinking person really give a **** what the likes of Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen or Alec Baldwin think about anything? Of course not. And as far as the main stream media, isn't it more and more apparent that the only ones listening are themselves?
    Quote Originally Posted by grump View Post
    Here's hoping that it drives her to suicide. Then America will be done with her fat ignorant ass once and for all.
    Life comes at you fast.
    This website makes money off of a depraved and idiotic conspiracy theory.

  4. #34
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by abc123 View Post
    when i first opened a thread titled "had enough" i wondered how long it would take before lee mentioned hillary clinton. it was sentence #4. you have to come to terms, lee, that america elected a turd sandwich. his actions and behavior just since the election should cause all americans to have great concern over what is up ahead. and here you are still grumpy about hillary clinton and the democrats. you don't like the democrats. i get it. you should be THRILLED then to have the presidency and both houses of congress if you oppose the dems and what they stand for. why aren't you celebrating? because, i think you know, he's a huge turd sandwich. at this point, you gotta own it.

    just since the election:

    - openly denying intelligence conclusions and going so far as to actively discredit agencies on social media even as leaders of his own party accepting the findings
    - at the same time being unusually complimentary towards russia and putin
    - repeatedly making statements that are verifiably untrue or at a minimum purposely misleading
    - interject himself into matters of foreign policy (highly unusual for a president elect)
    - an insane list of cabinet appointees, some of whom actively oppose the very mission of the department they are leading
    - a continuation of petty grudges and teenage level social media attacks. when you call the opposition leader a clown and attack a civil rights icon right before MLK day, you don't exactly stand on strong ground in your stated attempts to be a uniter. surely you must see this, right?
    - attack of any media that is at all critical of him. holds first new conference in 6 months and literally places staff to cheer and boo. this is the man who is president this week.
    - a series of ethically dubious moves - refusal to separate himself from business interests, refusal to disclose foreign business connections and tax returns, appointing family as advisors, etc

    the list goes on. your position appears to be that all of this should be ignored, under the guise of giving him a chance and that we should all take solace in the fact that he often doesn't follow through on his previous commitments and positions. you have to realize that is an absurd point of view.

    the election is over. our government has been selected. your team won. your focus should be on holding them accountable and carrying through on what you elected them to do. why isn't it?
    A very impressive list indeed. But, permit me to amplify with "the rest of the story."

    On point one, Trump has in fact stated the the Russians were complicit in "hacking" email servers. He also observed that the Chinese and the Iranians do the exact same thing. Bear in mind, the DNC ignored FBI warnings that the server was compromised, and the DNC refused to take corrective steps.

    As for discrediting the Intelligence community, the PUBLIC involvement of political appointee John Brennan seems to contradict the statutory limits placed on the CIA, and also runs contrary to the traditional role of the CIA Director. But, your right. Trump should address, in a comprehensive way, his concerns AFTER January 20. Then, blast away.

    On point two, your comments reflect a curious statement as they apparently emanate from the political side which labeled Ronald Reagan a reckless warmonger because of his strong USSR policies. Personally, consistent with my remarks to Buffalopundit, I think Putin is a dangerous murder, and Buffalopundit may be correct in that he is a close a thing to a Nazi leader the contempory world has. As such, while I really wish Trump would stop the BS comments reflective of Putin's "soft side," (which I hate) I do agree with Trump's general approach. I believe Trump considers the Chinese our major threat, and I think, and hope, that Trump is playing up to the Russians to put the Chinese in a corner, the same way Nixon played up to the Chinese to put the Russians into a similar corner.

    Regarding point three, both sides are misleading. Trump can not respond to actions by the left which serve to diminish him, without being called a "racist."

    Moreover, the left loves using the term "hacking the election." That is crap. DNC emails were hacked. Their true opinions and strategies were publicly revealed. That information may or may not have influenced voter attitudes. If any such attitudes were affected, the popular vote problem resides with with the publicized Clinton behavior, not with a "hacked election" which erroneously suggests stolen and/or fraudulent votes, or an interference with electoral technologies and/or procedures.

    On point four, outgoing Presidents traditionally do not undertake radical shifts in foreign policy during the interregnum. President Obama has defied that tradition. Since the election, the President has handed the Trump administration two hot potatoes.

    The UN abstention of the December, 2017 UN Security Council vote regarding the de facto reversal of Resolutions 242 (1967), and 338 (1973), has seemingly reversed a 70 year US policy toward Israel in general, and 50 year policy toward the occupied territories in particular. That directly contradicts Trump Policy.

    Moreover, his reversal of "Wet Foot, Dry Foot," is a repudiation of almost 56 years of bi partisan policy regarding Cuban refugees, is a blatant reward to the Castro regime, and is a politically bigoted exception to his apparent support for open borders. That too contradicts Trump policy. I find the President's actions unprincipled and opportunistic.

    Point five is in the eye of the beholder.

    Concerning point six, I agree. The tweets are sophomoric. Trump does have a problem with fair press coverage, but I can not help to think that there are applicable methods more fitting a President of the United States.

    As for Congressman Lewis, his actions would have more credibility if he had been truthful. He claimed that the Trump inaugural "was the first one I missed since I came to the Congress." WRONG. He boycotted the Bush 43 Inaugural in 2001.

    Moreover, Congressman Lewis had more than two months to express his intentions. HE CHOSE the MLK weekend to express those intentions. Trump's response was communicated in a timely matter. But, Trump was stupid for biting on the set-up.

    As such, Trump should have not addressed the issue on that day, BUT, Lewis USED MLK's revered memory to make a political point.


    As for point seven, I do recall that President Obama has a penchant for criticizing Fox News, Briebart, Limbaugh, Hanniety, ect. Moreover, in light of the Donna Brazil-CNN complicity, can you blame him?

    Point eight, you may want to compare Trump's ethics to that of the Republicans in Congress. I'll take Trump's.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; January 18th, 2017 at 01:11 PM.

  5. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    484
    disagree with many of your assessments (many of which are just justifications for bad behavior), but the point is the time is for focusing on trump and his actions and that is what the media is doing. that isn't sour grapes, all of this shouldn't be ignored just because he hasn't taken office yet, and we sure as hell should not take any satisfaction in him changing his mind and not sticking to principles.

  6. #36
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by abc123 View Post
    disagree with many of your assessments (many of which are just justifications for bad behavior), but the point is the time is for focusing on trump and his actions and that is what the media is doing. that isn't sour grapes, all of this shouldn't be ignored just because he hasn't taken office yet, and we sure as hell should not take any satisfaction in him changing his mind and not sticking to principles.
    It is okay to disagree, that is why we are all here. However, the higher standard is to refute on facts, or at least prominently labeled biased opinion.

    On a note suggesting common ground: TRUMP MUST PRODUCE. His success will relegate this partisan crap to the scrap heap. If he does not produce, I'll be the first to call him out, PROMISE.

    On a note of refutation, I am not a Trump apologist. If you read my post with an open mind, you will note several areas concerning Trump's behavior that I do not like. As such, your assertion that I justified conduct which you termed and characterized as Trump's "bad behavior" is pejorative. I am suggesting his reactions reside in the world of cause and effect. (I am not suggesting his tone and/or method are right or wrong, I am saying he was put into a position(s) necessitating response. )

    You are correct, the media should not ignore Trump's statements, actions, or policies. However, your observation regarding the media lacks one very important Fourth Estate professional stipulation: "Objectivity." The media has been, and seemingly remains, blatantly biased against Trump, IMHO. To argue otherwise, is suggestive of partisan camaraderie.

    Thank you very much for the exchange.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; January 18th, 2017 at 04:16 PM.

  7. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    484
    here is an example of what i talk about by justifying bad behavior:

    me: repeatedly making statements that are verifiably untrue or at a minimum purposely misleading
    you: Regarding point three, both sides are misleading. Trump can not respond to actions by the left which serve to diminish him, without being called a "racist."

    i just don't understand the thought process on that response. if the president elect is being dishonest, he should be judged on the truthfulness of his statements, period. if there are people who seek to name call or diminish, they are irrelevant to the question at hand.

  8. #38
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by abc123 View Post
    here is an example of what i talk about by justifying bad behavior:

    me: repeatedly making statements that are verifiably untrue or at a minimum purposely misleading
    you: Regarding point three, both sides are misleading. Trump can not respond to actions by the left which serve to diminish him, without being called a "racist."

    i just don't understand the thought process on that response. if the president elect is being dishonest, he should be judged on the truthfulness of his statements, period. if there are people who seek to name call or diminish, they are irrelevant to the question at hand.
    What statements are you referring to? What I am saying that comments made, or efforts undertaken by Trump, such as his response to Congressman Louis, are chronically by twisted by the left.

    For example, if my memory serves, Trump said that Congressman Louis was incorrect on the inaugural boycott issue, and that he was "more talk than action" concerning his home district where his constituents seem to fall behind in realizing prosperity and advancement.

    The left styled those comments as incorrect:

    Lewis was a "doer" because of his commendable work in civil rights five decades ago, and then twisted the meaning of those comments into a "racist rant," suggesting Trump was inappropriate in using such language to the civil rights leader-turned politician. The ignored the essence of the Trump comments: the condition of his home district.

    I think those people are relevant to the conversation.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; January 18th, 2017 at 05:05 PM.

  9. #39
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Breezy View Post
    Real class, grump!

    I guess it's just more affirmation for me of who you truly are.

    Anyway, WNYresident, is this the "Lancaster" thread or is it the new national politics thread?
    Don't drag me into this one

    Stay on topic people. There you go.

  10. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    What statements are you referring to?
    one of the fascinating things with trump is that he says so many untruthful things and has a way of talking around topics that none of them ever get to any resolution. those who have interviewed him extensively even prior to his candidacy have pointed this out. as a consequence of his style, observers just get conditioned that he says outlandish things, be amused, and just try to keep up. so, there is no digging required to find a falsehood. it is *usually* the last thing he said. in this case it was the tweets this morning.

    - trump tweets a threat to gm early in the month (actually, one of the few things i like about donald trump is his shaming of companies that act against the country's interests in the name of increased profits)
    - yesterday, he takes credit for GM doing investment in the US (never mind that they done over $20 BILLION in similar business in the US during obama's terms
    - news organizations do their job and follow up, they report that the decision was made well before trump's win
    - trump attacks news agency and re-asserts that companies are bringing jobs back because of him:

    Totally biased @NBCNews went out of its way to say that the big announcement from Ford, G.M., Lockheed & others that jobs are coming back...to the U.S., but had nothing to do with TRUMP, is more FAKE NEWS. Ask top CEO's of those companies for real facts. Came back because of me!

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gener...ry?id=44831865

    do you think that NBC news story was fake?
    do you think that GM lied?
    why did GM invest billions here in the past decade?
    is trump's tweet honest or dishonest, in your assessment of the facts?

  11. #41
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by abc123 View Post
    one of the fascinating things with trump is that he says so many untruthful things and has a way of talking around topics that none of them ever get to any resolution. those who have interviewed him extensively even prior to his candidacy have pointed this out. as a consequence of his style, observers just get conditioned that he says outlandish things, be amused, and just try to keep up. so, there is no digging required to find a falsehood. it is *usually* the last thing he said. in this case it was the tweets this morning.

    - trump tweets a threat to gm early in the month (actually, one of the few things i like about donald trump is his shaming of companies that act against the country's interests in the name of increased profits)
    - yesterday, he takes credit for GM doing investment in the US (never mind that they done over $20 BILLION in similar business in the US during obama's terms
    - news organizations do their job and follow up, they report that the decision was made well before trump's win
    - trump attacks news agency and re-asserts that companies are bringing jobs back because of him:

    Totally biased @NBCNews went out of its way to say that the big announcement from Ford, G.M., Lockheed & others that jobs are coming back...to the U.S., but had nothing to do with TRUMP, is more FAKE NEWS. Ask top CEO's of those companies for real facts. Came back because of me!

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gener...ry?id=44831865

    do you think that NBC news story was fake?
    do you think that GM lied?
    why did GM invest billions here in the past decade?
    is trump's tweet honest or dishonest, in your assessment of the facts?
    I already, clearly and specifically, said I do not like the tweeting; you're preaching to the converted.

    GM said that the story was "complicated." Until it is sorted-out, I don't know if it was Trump hyperbole, Trump BS. or what. Apparently, according to GM, Trump did have some impact.

    The apparent difference between you and I:

    I can see, and admit to, Trump's "shortcomings."

    You seem to be unable to concede the rather obvious bias that blatantly exists in most of the so-called mainstream media. (Hello, remember the Donna Brazil - CNN complicity? In any event, pass the Kleenex to Martha Raddaz. BTW, eight anti-Trump editorials in the Washington Post in one day is a rather apparent redundancy.)

    Hopefully, the media will recognize that an overwhelming majority of the American people recognize the obvious media bias, and they will clean up their act, "like with a cloth or something."
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; January 18th, 2017 at 05:39 PM.

  12. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    484
    i find it interesting that you won't say if this is story is a fake story, as trump specifically asserts, yet you want to jump to the conclusion of media being biased overall. how do you reach that conclusion if you can't/won't assess individual stories?

    donna brazille acted unethically and was fired. if others at cnn were aware of her behavior they should also be held accountable as well. the buzzfeed story, absolutely, was unfair to trump and should not have been published. if you have other specific things that you would like my opinion on, ask about those specifics.

    in some ways, the media does not hold trump to task *enough*. it is their responsibility to do so. crazy events are happening so quickly that they cannot all get the coverage they would ordinarily deserve. a president claiming that a new story is fake and that he deserves credit for the specific actions of a company is amazing and would in any other era be a gigantic story. imagine any past president talking in that way. it will not get a ton of attention, however, because another insult or another boast or another controversy will be right behind it. when the president talks, it is news. it makes no difference if his statements are on twitter or not. it is him talking, and the same level of scrutiny applies. in this case, he is being dishonest.

  13. #43
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by abc123 View Post
    i find it interesting that you won't say if this is story is a fake story, as trump specifically asserts, yet you want to jump to the conclusion of media being biased overall. how do you reach that conclusion if you can't/won't assess individual stories?

    donna brazille acted unethically and was fired. if others at cnn were aware of her behavior they should also be held accountable as well. the buzzfeed story, absolutely, was unfair to trump and should not have been published. if you have other specific things that you would like my opinion on, ask about those specifics.

    in some ways, the media does not hold trump to task *enough*. it is their responsibility to do so. crazy events are happening so quickly that they cannot all get the coverage they would ordinarily deserve. a president claiming that a new story is fake and that he deserves credit for the specific actions of a company is amazing and would in any other era be a gigantic story. imagine any past president talking in that way. it will not get a ton of attention, however, because another insult or another boast or another controversy will be right behind it. when the president talks, it is news. it makes no difference if his statements are on twitter or not. it is him talking, and the same level of scrutiny applies. in this case, he is being dishonest.
    Excuse me, but in case you missed it, I said GM said the issue is "complicated," and "Until it is sorted out, I don't know if it is Trump hyperbole (that would be exaggeration), Trump BS (that would be fake news) or what (that is a humble reference to the fact that Trump is correct).

    If GM can not CLEARLY, EXACTLY, AND COMPLETELY refute Trump, without condition, how do you expect me to? Unlike many, I try not to jump to a conclusion without all the facts. I will form my opinion in due course.

    As far Donna Brazil, kudos to CNN for dismissing her. I sure they did so voluntarily, like Louis XVI chose elective surgery to have him self shortened by the length of his head. I note that the controversy did not effect her DNC status. Just musing.

  14. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    484
    That is quite the burden of proof you have for the president elect. Who else gets that level of deference from you? Are Obamas comments accepted by you as truthful and honest unless refuted COMPLETELY, CLEARLY, EXACTLY and without condition?

    Can you post the quote you are talking about in context where GM refers to the situation as complicated? I would imagine that billion dollar decisions are complicated.

    In this situation, we have zero facts in dispute. And we have two claims by trump. The claim that the NBC story is fake, and the claim that GM made that investment because of him. If we cannot assess those claims based on the facts, then we can no longer assess claims and facts no longer matter.

  15. #45
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by abc123 View Post
    That is quite the burden of proof you have for the president elect. Who else gets that level of deference from you? Are Obamas comments accepted by you as truthful and honest unless refuted COMPLETELY, CLEARLY, EXACTLY and without condition?

    Can you post the quote you are talking about in context where GM refers to the situation as complicated? I would imagine that billion dollar decisions are complicated.

    In this situation, we have zero facts in dispute. And we have two claims by trump. The claim that the NBC story is fake, and the claim that GM made that investment because of him. If we cannot assess those claims based on the facts, then we can no longer assess claims and facts no longer matter.
    You apparently see what you what to see in my comments. But your response, taken at face value is correct. In light of the "complicated" GM remarks, I have placed a heavy burden of proof ON TRUMP. I will not blindly support HIS GM tweets until I have all of the information, nor will I support the opposing viewpoint. Thank you for your objective response in this regard.

    As far as Obama, I gave him the benefit of the truthful doubt when he said "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." I also believed his commitment to a "Red Line" in Syria, and something about a Benghazi movie. The rest is commentary.

    As far as the quote you desire, I relied on several broadcast media for it, so check the archives. Laura Ingraham, Fox News, and some other shows. You would not expect to find it on NBC or MSNBC would you?

    You are focusing, obsessing really, on this GM story which I have stated, I think for the fourth time now, that I have not arrived at a conclusion whether it is fake news or not. What's next, a hot bright light and rubber hose? Really.

    BTW, beyond a generalized comment that you "disagree with many of my assessments," and this quick, let's divert attention and change the subject this apparent GM obsession, you have offered nothing to directly refute or specifically address items (1)-(8) in my initial reply.

    I hope that this satisfactorily answers your concerns. A fifth re-assertion apparently will be no more valued than the previous four, so thank you for your thoughts and the exchange.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; January 18th, 2017 at 09:31 PM.

Page 3 of 272 FirstFirst 123451353103 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 467 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 467 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •