Lord Liaden Posted October 4, 2017 Report Share Posted October 4, 2017 Death penalty is a whole other issue, which I fear could quickly take over this thread. But our contemporary society is so focused on headlines and sound bites, we often rush to judgement before understanding the context in which something occurs. Far be it for me to cut excuses for the conduct of this administration, but U.S. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert expressed reasonable objections to the UN motion as it was presented for voting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ternaugh Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 I kinda feel like we should get rid of the death penalty anyway. Too many problems with it. If they hang 'em all they get the guilty that's what you say we ought to do If they hang 'em all they get the guilty but remember they're gonna hang you too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcw43921 Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Pro-Life GOP Rep Sent Texts To Mistress Urging Her To Have Abortion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tech priest support Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Some people on the right have claimed that the Vegas shooter was targeting a country music concert to. Kill Christians and conservatives. Then an inconvenient truth came up... http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-source-vegas-shooter-rap-concert/ Looks like this guy was just looking for a lot of targets. Cygnia 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Someone I was talking to last night made an interesting observation. The Chinese are finally backing serious sanctions against North Korea. It's arguable that Donald Trump's rhetoric has contributed to that change in position, by helping ramp up international tensions to the point the Chinese feel it's in their interest to act. I believe overall Chinese fatigue with the Kim regime's antics also has a lot to do with it. The person making this case credited Trump with planning the Chinese turnaround all along; personally I don't believe he has the diplomatic savvy to have anticipated that result. And there's still a substantial chance the whole thing will blow up in his and everyone else's face. But IMO it's not an unreasonable viewpoint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DasBroot Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Annoying the rest of the world into deciding which rabid dog it's ultimately in their best interests to back is NOT a positive thing. Nor are die hard fanatics who believe it is. (And it is 'annoying'... not 'convincing', not 'leading', and certainly not 'forcing' - despite the most fervent wishes of said fanatics Russia and China are *not* intimidated or fearful of the US and will not act unless they wish to.) I'm not adverse to gunboat diplomacy (quite the opposite, in truth) but I prefer Roosevelt's 'speak softly, and carry a big stick" over .. whatever this is ("Shut up, shut up, shut up I'll <bleep> you up" - Korn?). I know it hasn't worked. I know. It only works on sensible people and many of America's current enemies *aren't*. I just feel that America needs to lead, not bully, and I wish trying to do so worked better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Sometimes inflammatory rhetoric is posturing for the benefit of the political base at home, and not so much for the international listeners. At this point, I have to leave it for others to assign who's doing that, who actually means what they are saying, and who's doing neither; I certainly don't understand the internal politics of North Korea or China, and I probably don't understand those in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Did I just I just wake up in an alternate reality? NRA says bump stocks, devices used by Las Vegas shooter, should be regulated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Walsh Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Nope. The NRA is the gun manufacturers' association. Bump stocks are third-party add-ons. The NRA might normally oppose banning them just on principal, but given recent events this is an easy way for them to seem reasonable without actually harming the only NRA constituents that matter: gun makers. assault and Sociotard 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Might as well ban all the other fire-faster gadgets out ther while they're at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
death tribble Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 And it appears that The President is not the only one who has no concept of how to act. Melania Trump was going around in high heels in Puerto Rico. It's not about fashion, it's about compassion towards the suffering. The Queen and the rest of the Royal Family do the visiting the suffering so much better. It's about the victims not who is visiting them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 While I find high heels to be a silly concept in general, I don't get the fuss. What's offensive about her choice in footwear? (I can understand her choice in husbands being offensive, though.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Might as well ban all the other fire-faster gadgets out ther while they're at it. Ban fingers! Joking aside, I'm for banning the stocks and other goofy devices like the gatling gun style finger cranks for 10/22s. Or putting them under NFA regulation, same as full auto. Note that bump firing can be done without the stocks, though. They just make it considerably easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 While I find high heels to be a silly concept in general, I don't get the fuss. What's offensive about her choice in footwear? (I can understand her choice in husbands being offensive, though.) Joe Walsh, pinecone, Pattern Ghost and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
death tribble Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 While I find high heels to be a silly concept in general, I don't get the fuss. What's offensive about her choice in footwear? (I can understand her choice in husbands being offensive, though.) You are walking around in an area affected by a natural disaster. So that's strike 1, practicality. Then there is flaunting wealth to people who have just lost perhaps everything and that is strike 2, lack of basic common sense. You could term strike 3 as actually going out in public like that. You should have sense not to. wcw43921 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st barbara Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 Annoying the rest of the world into deciding which rabid dog it's ultimately in their best interests to back is NOT a positive thing. Nor are die hard fanatics who believe it is. (And it is 'annoying'... not 'convincing', not 'leading', and certainly not 'forcing' - despite the most fervent wishes of said fanatics Russia and China are *not* intimidated or fearful of the US and will not act unless they wish to.) I'm not adverse to gunboat diplomacy (quite the opposite, in truth) but I prefer Roosevelt's 'speak softly, and carry a big stick" over .. whatever this is ("Shut up, shut up, shut up I'll <bleep> you up" - Korn?). I know it hasn't worked. I know. It only works on sensible people and many of America's current enemies *aren't*. I just feel that America needs to lead, not bully, and I wish trying to do so worked better. I think that the opposite of "speak softly and carry a big stick" is "Yell like hell and wave a twig ". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Onassiss Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 I think that the opposite of "speak softly and carry a big stick" is "Yell like hell and wave a twig ". More like "Tell the entire world 'I got nothing'." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 The "alt right" is now outraged by the marketing campaign for the newest Castle Wolfenstein game, which is being promoted on Twitter with a hashtag #NoMoreNazis. Apparently they think the makers of a 20-year long series about killing Nazis are embracing "Social Justice Warriors" by marketing their game on the basis of players being able to kill Nazis. These "people" are not only deplorable, apparently they have a sub-morgue-temperature IQ. Cumulatively and collectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 You are walking around in an area affected by a natural disaster. So that's strike 1, practicality. Then there is flaunting wealth to people who have just lost perhaps everything and that is strike 2, lack of basic common sense. You could term strike 3 as actually going out in public like that. You should have sense not to. So, point by point: 1. Impractical: Was she traipsing through rubble? If not, I don't see the problem. 2. Flaunting her wealth: She's following around a bright orange billionaire that everyone knows she's married to. I don't see the problem. 3. Anyone should have sense not to go out in public with Trump, but that's the price you pay. Sometimes, you get to quietly wait for them to kick off, sometimes they go and get elected President. I'm not seeing the outrage in the particular case. Sure, she's phoning it in as First Lady, and this is another example, but it's really low on the priority list for me to feel any kind of reaction at all from. My mother in law is a devout (yes, I chose the right adjective) Democrat, and stays on Facebook all day keeping herself constantly worked up about the latest scandal, faux pas, or act of disgrace to come out of the White House. I don't think it's very healthy. I think I just consider Melania as someone who clearly didn't sign up for this stuff when she married Donald for his charming personality and good looks, and pretty much ignore what she does or (mostly) doesn't do. I don't have a lot of hope for her as a sterling example of a First Lady. So, to me, what she wears is about as important as that cyber-bullying campaign she's not working on. (But I do hope she starts by getting her husband off Twitter. I'm pretty sure that would reduce cyber-bullying quite a bit.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tech priest support Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 Guys, when. Michele Obama was FLOTUS the cesspool right attacked her hatefully and constasntly. Now personally I don't think 'Melanoma' Trump is worth the effort required to spit at her. But the fact is that the right attacked a far better woman when she was her predecessor and it's time they had their noses rubbed in their own excrement. So I do attack her on other sites, I do say horrible things abih her just to enrsge the right and make them eat their own filth. Can you imagine what the right would be saying if she was a Democrat president's wife? She'd be called a slut, a whore, a lesbian pervert, a terrible example for American girls, etc. So yeah some of us on the left attack her despite her utter worthlessness basically just to give the right a good strong whiff of their own BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 Seems reasonable. Well, it did in grade school. Hermit and Lawnmower Boy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmjalund Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 I would go the route of why Mrs Trump is worse than Michell Obama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 I would go the route of why Mrs Trump is worse than Michell Obama That'd probably occupy an entire afternoon, at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 So, she was "going around Puerto Rico" in heels? Here's the only pic I could find of her PR outfit/footwear: The article sayhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4944500/Melana-Trump-wears-disaster-heels-Puerto-Rico.htmls they're Timberland boots that she changed into mid-flight. So, did she change shoes again while in Puerto Rico? Or what? I just see references to her wearing them to the airport, basically. Or was this a different trip to Puerto Rico than the one in the article? Sociotard 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.