Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Close-Mindedness

[Arising_uk]

Why should any candidate submit to such a meaningless thing?

Because they're in charge of collecting your taxes and will send you to jail for dodging them?

[Walker]

I am biased against Jones.
For his politics.

You are perfectly entitled to your political views, but to dismiss everything that is said by someone, simply because they have a different view to you is exactly the conservative close-mindedness of the title. It is such a schoolboy blunder that it even has its own name; it's ad hominem.

Security clearances are also biased against his politics.
And, I’m starting to develop a big bias against morons.

Well, even morons are unlikely to be wrong all the time.

Like I said in the beginning, why the hell should I listen to Van Jones define and advise?
No reason.

True, there is no reason to accept definitions or advice, but it might be useful to at least know what they are.

I’m not a f****** moron like you.

No indeed; you are your own special type of f****** moron.

Figure the video out for yourself, see if does you some good.

Like I already said, I learnt something from it.

Moron.

I have no reason to listen to Jones.

And, you give me none.

You're not much of a persuader, you know.
You quickly revert to type.

Like Hillary, trying to persuade in order to get votes, by calling people Deplorables.

But hey, it's your thread. Be as stupid as you want.

[Walker]

...
He was elected on personality, and undefined hopey-change.

He captured the gullible vote.

Pretty much Trump to a tee then?

Lol that Americans think what they see on TV is the real character.

Your methods are old, tired, and ineffective.

You're ready for the next step in your forum evolution.

Troll Master Class
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANohtXQhkQw

[Arising_uk]

“We’ve accomplished a lot with respect to NATO… everyone has agreed to substantially up their commitment, they are going to up it to levels they never thought of before.”
- POTUS Trump



How can you not like the guy.

Wow! You really belive his bullshit. Obama already did this. Now you won't hear me arguing against the idea that some European countries were shirking their commitments to NATO and it'll be a good thing if they pay more as we can then have more of a say rather than NATO just being an extension of the US hegemony not sure the US military will like that tho.
If the EU survives and integrates more then it's obvious that given Obama's refocusing on the Pacific and Trump's current direction with Russia then they'll need to seriously consider an EU army ad not sure we can trust the US anymore but at least no more ME debacles. Shame we won't be in it as it could be a pretty interesting professional military, eastern European squaddies, BrIrish military training and structure; French and German engineering, Dutch and Swiss small arms, etc.
Still more interesting is that we might vote in our own brand of loon who if he gets in might try to leave NATO and remove all your airbases.will also be more friendly to Iran than Saudi and definitely never be going on anymore adventures in the ME.

The rest of your stuff is just waffle.

[Arising_uk]

Your methods are old, tired, and ineffective. ...

What methods? Just stating the obvious. Shouldn't you trolls be on a Yank politics forum somewhere as there is scant philosophy going on but a lot of boring Yank waffle.

You're ready for the next step in your forum evolution.

Troll Master Class.

I don't bother with boobtube links but I'll take your word that you know all about trolling.

[uwot]

Moron.
I have no reason to listen to Jones.
And, you give me none.
You're not much of a persuader, you know.

What makes you think I am trying to persuade you?

You quickly revert to type.

Like Hillary, trying to persuade in order to get votes, by calling people Deplorables.

Which is exactly what Van Jones says not to do.

But hey, it's your thread. Be as stupid as you want.

Ah well, at least my stupidity is voluntary.

[Walker]

Q: What makes you think I am trying to persuade you?

A: Bingo. That's why you're a moron.

[Walker]

“We’ve accomplished a lot with respect to NATO… everyone has agreed to substantially up their commitment, they are going to up it to levels they never thought of before.”
- POTUS Trump



How can you not like the guy.

Wow! You really belive his bullshit. Obama already did this. Now you won't hear me arguing against the idea that some European countries were shirking their commitments to NATO and it'll be a good thing if they pay more as we can then have more of a say rather than NATO just being an extension of the US hegemony not sure the US military will like that tho.
If the EU survives and integrates more then it's obvious that given Obama's refocusing on the Pacific and Trump's current direction with Russia then they'll need to seriously consider an EU army ad not sure we can trust the US anymore but at least no more ME debacles. Shame we won't be in it as it could be a pretty interesting professional military, eastern European squaddies, BrIrish military training and structure; French and German engineering, Dutch and Swiss small arms, etc.
Still more interesting is that we might vote in our own brand of loon who if he gets in might try to leave NATO and remove all your airbases.will also be more friendly to Iran than Saudi and definitely never be going on anymore adventures in the ME.

The rest of your stuff is just waffle.

Those trolls are Democrats, by the way.
The trolling finds its stride around the 3:00 minute mark.

Then Gowdy has his say.
Here’s a taste.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVU9axeNE4g

I saw a picture of Boris Johnson the other day and I said, hey, that looks like Trump, maybe he could get some hair tips.

Regarding your content, we’ll see how Trump’s methods work out. He has good advisors and a good track record. For the public face, he likes to keep everyone off balance and unsure. That’s his method of control, he determines this is the method necessary to achieve his objectives, given the circumstances. He’s the president. He was elected for this discretionary authority and judgement, his history is known, his vision is known. The people who elected him know he is this way. That’s why he was elected. This is all obvious, but apparently it needs to be transcribed from reality into the voice realm.

You confuse words with action. Getting NATO members to pay their share after they have not been paying their share, even though for some countries it’s a small amount, is important. If it’s important enough for them to not pay, it’s important enough for Trump to make an issue out of it. Those who do pay, respect that. Know who pays the most? The American taxpayer, because that’s where the American contribution comes from, which is far more than any other country because it’s a percentage payment.

Yes, it’s symbolic. Do you think any president tells the public what the hell is actually going on in private discussions? I doubt it. This is why the US is a democratic republic. If not, then with technology these days, the lawyers would insist that every detail of every process be subject to a majority vote after debate, and with their lobbying voice they would have their way.

[Walker]

Your methods are old, tired, and ineffective. ...

What methods? Just stating the obvious. Shouldn't you trolls be on a Yank politics forum somewhere as there is scant philosophy going on but a lot of boring Yank waffle.

You're ready for the next step in your forum evolution.

Troll Master Class.

I don't bother with boobtube links but I'll take your word that you know all about trolling.

Of course, you're above the rabble.

There's actually a guy trolling his own thread, right now.

I know that much.

[Walker]

Here, I'll prejudge your intent, with a bias formed, based on your displays here.

The thread author already stated his intent, early on, and he stated my intent for me.

Your intent is to dismiss, and invalidate.

Simple.

I've followed my intent by making good points, and honest contributions.
That was not the intent stated for me, by the thread author.

And, you've followed your intent, which although it wasn't stated, is obvious by the postings, as are mine.

It's all on the record, go back and check.

That's the name of that tune.

[uwot]

Q: What makes you think I am trying to persuade you?

A: Bingo. That's why you're a moron.

Lemme get this straight. You think that someone who calls you a f****** idiot is trying to persuade you?

[Walker]

The pertinent question is, what are you going to do about it?

The answer is: I already know.

[Walker]

Q: What makes you think I am trying to persuade you?

A: Bingo. That's why you're a moron.

Lemme get this straight. You think that someone who calls you a f****** idiot is trying to persuade you?

Your intent makes you a moron, moron.

I got to write it twice!

Am I living up to your intent, for me, in your thread?

Are you living up to the intent of Van Jones, that you perceive?

[-1-]

-1-, your own arguments are almost as poor as Henry's - showing a complete disregard for conflicts of interest and accountability and rank naivete as regards the operations of and management of organisations.

I can understand why people would give up hope that there might be some probity in public life, but not to act as apologists for blatant removal of safeguards. It appears to be a failure of education systems.

I am sorry, Greta, but your first mistake is to think I presented arguments.

I presented no arguments. I presented how the law stands.

To superimpose morals over law is a brave and noble effort, but it can't be enforced.

That's all I am saying.

=======================================

You want to IMPOSE or ERECT safeguards. Those safeguards currently don't exist, and yet you claim they ought to exist.

PLEASE NOTE: I HAVE SAID NOTHING AGAINST THE NEED OF SAFEGUARDS NOR FOR THE NEED OF SAFEGUARDS.

I merely said they don't exist at the present time, so you can't demand that they be brought forth; bringing them forth would be an arbitrary decision and it can't be done unless done in the proper channels.

I don't mind if you change the law of the land of the United States, or you change their constitution based on moral grounds; but you must do it in a prescribed way. That prescribed way does exist, you only need to follow it, instread of belly-aching why they don't exist.

Aside from that, none of the points you brought up has any bearing on the running of the country, aside from conflict of interest. In this last point, believe me Trump is a much milder threat to the union than Hillary Clinton would have been.

Yet I believe, that you , Greta, would have brought up NONE of the points of safeguards on Hillary Clinton.

This is what they call, and rightfully so, hypocrisy.

[Walker]

The constitution clearly states the requirements to be a POTUS.