CNN Republican debate

[pcgeek11]

Maybe you should go back a couple more posts so you can understand the context of the discussion.

I don't need to. I understand the context. I just wanted to know about this treaty that was signed that prevents us from going to war with people that are waring against us.

I know what IW was referring to, but it doesn't prohibit us from going to war with people that are waring against us.

 

[pcgeek11]

How about you read the original exchange lk and I were having? I know it's hard for you to follow along but maybe you shouldn't comment until you know how to do that.

No, you stated that we signed a treaty that prohibited us from going to war with people that were making war against us.

I know what treaty you are referring to and it does not say that at all.

 

[ivwshane]

No, you stated that we signed a treaty that prohibited us from going to war with people that were making war against us.

I know what treaty you are referring to and it does not say that at all.

No I didn't.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yes you did.

I quoted you in post # 176.

Your typical lie response.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes you did.

I quoted you in post # 176.

Your typical lie response.

As explained to you by another and by me, you didn't bother following the conversation which wasn't about not being able to go to war with people that attacked us. Had you been capable of following the conversation you would understand this.

 

[JSt0rm]

Yes you did.

I quoted you in post # 176.

Your typical lie response.

 

[pcgeek11]

As explained to you by another and by me, you didn't bother following the conversation which wasn't about not being able to go to war with people that attacked us. Had you been capable of following the conversation you would understand this.

BS, my Quote stands.

He said:

"Last I checked, the Constitution doesn't inhibit us from making war upon foreign individuals when they make war upon us."

Then you said in response to the above statement:

"No but the treaty we signed on to does. "

 

[ivwshane]

BS, my Quote stands.

He said:

"Last I checked, the Constitution doesn't inhibit us from making war upon foreign individuals when they make war upon us."

Then you said in response to the above statement:

"No but the treaty we signed on to does. "

Yes, thank you for pointing out lk's disingenuousness by trying to change what trump actually said, which again, had you been following the fucking conversation, you would have understood this.

 

[JSt0rm]

You are going to have to wait until he gets out of the coal mines to get a response

 

[Subyman]

Yes, thank you for pointing out lk's disingenuousness by trying to change what trump actually said, which again, had you been following the fucking conversation, you would have understood this.

I called him out on it in post 170. :thumbsup:

 

[JD50]

I don't need to. I understand the context. I just wanted to know about this treaty that was signed that prevents us from going to war with people that are waring against us.

I know what IW was referring to, but it doesn't prohibit us from going to war with people that are waring against us.

You either don't understand the context of what was said or you are being intellectually dishonest.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I see all the nit-picking about who said what.

My general perception: the discussion of "different strategies" for geo-politics and the war on the terrorists was the only constructive rhetoric in the debate.

And I have another observation. Everything discussed last night and more had already been under review by the agency-heads and the Joint Chiefs who went into the meeting with the President the day before.

The debates played primarily to the known base. The hoax of that morning played to the entire electorate -- wherever it came from, possibly thinking that everyone would tune in to the evening's campaign palaver.

Stump for Trump or get misty over Christie. Y'all just going to change the light-bulb again, and there will be more good-stuff and bad stuff. Can only wait and see what happens after the Primary going into the General.

 

[Subyman]

I see all the nit-picking about who said what.

I know you are a bit new to P&N, but posturing for who was right is all that matters here.

 

[LegendKiller]

Yes, thank you for pointing out lk's disingenuousness by trying to change what trump actually said, which again, had you been following the fucking conversation, you would have understood this.

How was I changing what he said?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

How was I changing what he said?

a Derp in sheep's clothing

 

[pcgeek11]

Yes, thank you for pointing out lk's disingenuousness by trying to change what trump actually said, which again, had you been following the fucking conversation, you would have understood this.

Actually I am pointing out your statement that you will not own up to.

Anyway it's been fun!

 

[Meghan54]

You either don't understand the context of what was said or you are being intellectually dishonest.

I'm going with the second choice.

 

[ivwshane]

Actually I am pointing out your statement that you will not own up to.

Anyway it's been fun!

You mean the statement that you took out of context? Yeah, it's been fun dipshit!

 

[pcgeek11]

You mean the statement that you took out of context? Yeah, it's been fun dipshit!

LOL!

 

[VRAMdemon]

That GOP debate was a fear mongering jamboree. I watched. I listened as they talked about fear, fear and more fear and how much danger we are in, and how weak and bad our country and government is. To protect us, the candidates proposed vague propositions such as incarceration of US citizens without due process, eavesdropping on people, shutting down the border, shutting down the internet, killing entire families, carpet bombing countries, mass deportations and becoming a walled society where we shut out the rest of the world. For over two hundred years America has fought against countries who adopted the very same policies that these leaders are proposing. This sounds like a case where the cure is much worse than the disease.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

That GOP debate was a fear mongering jamboree. I watched. I listened as they talked about fear, fear and more fear and how much danger we are in, and how weak and bad our country and government is. To protect us, the candidates proposed vague propositions such as incarceration of US citizens without due process, eavesdropping on people, shutting down the border, shutting down the internet, killing entire families, carpet bombing countries, mass deportations and becoming a walled society where we shut out the rest of the world. For over two hundred years America has fought against countries who adopted the very same policies that these leaders are proposing. This sounds like a case where the cure is much worse than the disease.

After hearing focus groups, and as I see Trump's poll numbers surge, I have misgivings about public opinion going into the "real" election campaign.

As to the school-district hoax, I've actually seen a response from a friend -- who had been a Wilson Fellow -- suggesting little or no possibility that the hoax was anything other than a prank by teenagers, and that the teenagers had no awareness that the debate was scheduled that night.

Recent revised editions of this manual seem to have a wider readership than simply "yours truly:"

http://www.amazon.com/Psychological...0469561&sr=1-1&keywords=Psychological+Warfare

You can't dismiss the possibilities. We just don't know the probabilities. Or all the facts. I want the FBI to get to the bottom of it.

Just for emphasis, I discount the likelihood that the school-district hoax was perpetrated by someone in a campaign. That would REALLY tell you to what extent the candidates are either losers, or dangerous. But that isn't the point.

The point is that anyone could've anticipated the primary topics discussed in the debate. And it is simply a guess as to how the morning's events hyped the candidates' focus.

Meanwhile, the Dems seem to be intent on attenuating their audience, as the current flap over voter databases and a choice for scheduling the Saturday debate are much discussed.

Finally, with my experience as a local Dem activist, I've been stunned at the naïve attitude Dems take of possible, likely or known propaganda campaigns.

 

[BxgJ]

After hearing focus groups, and as I see Trump's poll numbers surge, I have misgivings about public opinion going into the "real" election campaign.

snip.

Well remember for now it's the most vocal and opinionated that are most active, and look at what they are seeing. Glance at the headlines on Drudge, or if you dare the talk show guys. It's been a red meat buffet. I even saw a headline to the effect of 'Limbaugh - disband the republican party'. The gap between the far right and the more moderate is growing daily.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Well remember for now it's the most vocal and opinionated that are most active, and look at what they are seeing. Glance at the headlines on Drudge, or if you dare the talk show guys. It's been a red meat buffet. I even saw a headline to the effect of 'Limbaugh - disband the republican party'. The gap between the far right and the more moderate is growing daily.

The current crop of neo-cons never miss an opportunity to disparage one of the Republican Greats: Theodore Roosevelt.

The GOP candidates, if they don't have a "big" megaphone, have a loud one. The Trump supporters are still less than just a marginal minority of voters. They've been beating the "Obama is weak" drum continuously for at least a few years. Which brings me back to TR.

"Speak softly, but carry a big stick."

If I question my "beliefs," it is the assumption that the "silent majority" of rational voters -- fence-sitters, Dems, mainstream GOP -- will prevail next year.

But it all depends on how naïve they are about their own anxieties.

Scare 650,000 kids? Scare their parents -- who vote. And how would NYC react, even if the hoax was handled differently? Two of the biggest school districts in the country. Two of the regions with the most solidly Blue voters. And two places where the most potent destructive terror attacks had taken place -- either in 2001, or over in San Berdoo.

No doubt I have to say the hoaxers were still "real terrorists." But -- who WERE they?