It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Left-wing voter: "Make them pay big time for their excesses"

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: JBurns

It's all they have... here, grab a stick and join me in a hearty laugh.


Why are you mocking me if you're a moderator?




posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoChamber

He isn't mocking you. Did he mention you by name? And Mods participate in threads all the time, as long as they don't moderate that thread they are Aces

I saw no mocking, only a response to someone eager to duck and dodge tough questions you don't have answers to. Instead of admitting you either 1) don't know or 2) were wrong you continue to pivot, shift and counter-accuse.

Dem talking points won't save you

edit: I'm not mocking you either. Just trying to point out that not everything you believe is objective fact. Your unwillingness to address that simple failing of human nature (which we all share) is disturbing and frustrating. Did you learn nothing from the Russiahoax crap?
edit on 4/9/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: EchoChamber

And the whole civil war (which you gloss over - went straight from build up to reconstruction)


In 1854, opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would permit slavery in new U.S. territories by popular referendum, drove an antislavery coalition of Whigs, Free-Soilers, Americans and disgruntled Democrats to found the new Republican Party, which held its first meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin that May. Two months later, a larger group met in Jackson, Michigan, to choose the party’s first candidates for statewide office.

The Republican goal was not to abolish slavery in the South right away, but rather to prevent its westward expansion, which they feared would lead to the domination of slaveholding interests in national politics.

In the 1860 election, a split between Southern and Northern Democrats over slavery propelled the Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln to victory, though he won only around 40 percent of the popular vote.


And you're ignoring the whole 40 acres and a mule debacle and who did that.

You don't get the moral high ground.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: EchoChamber

He isn't mocking you. Did he mention you by name? And Mods participate in threads all the time, as long as they don't moderate that thread they are Aces

I saw no mocking, only a response to someone eager to duck and dodge tough questions you don't have answers to. Instead of admitting you either 1) don't know or 2) were wrong you continue to pivot, shift and counter-accuse.

Dem talking points won't save you

edit: I'm not mocking you either. Just trying to point out that not everything you believe is objective fact. Your unwillingness to address that simple failing of human nature (which we all share) is disturbing and frustrating. Did you learn nothing from the Russiahoax crap?


Let's talk about your edit. How do you accept Barr's summary as truth when the full report has not been released to Congress or the public. And before you bitch and moan about national security, the committee requesting it (and who will either subpoena it or call Mueller to testify) have the requisite security clearances.

But you're okay with Barr just taking the report and redacting the heck out of it so that your narrative sounds good?



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoChamber

So you think Barr and Rod Rosenstein are liars.

Why?



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoChamber

How do I trust it? Because Mueller and/or Mueller's team would've shouted to high heavens about it. You really think Wiesman or any of the others on his team would keep quiet if that were true? I know many want to believe it, but Barr isn't just pulling this stuff out of his rear end

And about releasing it? Release it! I support releasing the document. Although the courts have made clear grand jury material is protected, if there is *any* way to release it go for it. I support transparency. Don't forget Rosenstein's involvement in the summary, however

If there would have been any conspiracy between Trump and Russia then my reply would be very different today. In the end, Mueller didn't find any such evidence. And since obstruction requires a bad actor with intent to obstruct, it'd be virtually impossible to say he obstructed justice when the underlying charge was not proven to the point of recommending an indictment. And no, it wasn't just because he's POTUS and the DOJ belief a POTUS can't be indicted. They spelled out that was *not* the reason for the declination of prosecution


But you're okay with Barr just taking the report and redacting the heck out of it so that your narrative sounds good?


Not at all. I would love to see the full report. But grand jury information is unlikely to be in there, because of the longstanding law criminalizing release of it without a judge's order. Find a judge to order its release, I'm all for it at this point. Only because opacity will lead to more rumors, innuendo and conspiracy theories

Everybody makes mistakes EchoChamber. Everybody. It is OK to be wrong about something. It is OK to be wrong about a lot of stuff. But why dig in deeper? To err is human, is it not? Trust me I learn this the hard way frequently. Especially on a community of truth seekers like ATS
edit on 4/9/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoChamber

Never said I did

But do you think that same high ground is you guys'?



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Barr contributed to the Iran-Contra cover up. It's his resume is why I think he is a liar.

This is a decent article discussing his involvement. I don't think that it involves the fact that he sent an almost 30 page letter to the White Detailing why he thought Presidents were above the law...before he was appointed. That's the second link.

www.newyorker.com...

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: EchoChamber

Never said I did

But do you think that same high ground is you guys'?


No.

My side is weak. They don't call out obvious fallacies and allowed your side to play the slow game.

But my side still wants to help people instead of corporations.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I still think that you're full of vinegar, JBurns.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: EchoChamber
I still think that you're full of vinegar, JBurns.


Now.

If the quoted post gets removed and the burdman post stays...that's true bs.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoChamber

Thanks for the links...

Not a fan of Barr's involvement in Ruby Ridge either. I am not saying he is of utmost integrity and above reproach. Nobody is, of course. But is there any realistic scenario you can see Mueller and his team remaining silent if Barr/Rosenstein decided to subvert and bastardize his 19 month investigation? Not a chance. As a former LEO I can tell you at least one member of that team would've been shouting bloody murder. And rightfully so. But that didn't happen. Instead, we get more tabloid-esque claims from suspicious MSM (they are all terrible, Fox included) claiming an "associate of a member of Mueller's team told XXX outlet" that such and such was misrepresented.

This is the same BS that caused Fitzmas and the same BS that caused the embarrassing end to this Russia-business

They were "trolling" all right... the fact we launched into an investigation, destabilized our country (or at least politics) and are at each other's throats over this is the biggest troll in history probably. If the Russians did indeed do anything then they already won, because look at us

Look I freely admit Republicans are far from perfect. I really do. But you aren't doing mainstream Dems any favors by pretending the past isn't really the past or that the blame falls squarely on us.

You guys don't like Trump, we understand that. Many of us didn't like Obama (although, he did *earn* my 2008 vote) and even more didn't like Bush (myself included). Perpetuating rumors is not a good solution, however. It destroys credibility and crying wolf just makes people question things when you really do have something Earth shattering to unload with



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoChamber

Piss and vinegar, my good sir or madaam

But at least I don't try to bottle it and sell it as gold....



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoChamber

No need to remove anything

You have free speech, and nothing out of line there. I have thick skin and am dead set against PC nonsense.

If you want to say more, feel free to U2U/PM me. Go ahead I don't bite, speak your mind. Not a word will be spoken about it by me



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
But is there any realistic scenario you can see Mueller and his team remaining silent if Barr/Rosenstein decided to subvert and bastardize his 19 month investigation? Not a chance. As a former LEO I can tell you at least one member of that team would've been shouting bloody murder. And rightfully so. But that didn't happen.


That's not accurate.

There is a rolling presumption in the left community that a leak would demean the report and thusly create a narrative that the report is invalid because it wasn't through official sources. I kind of agree with that.

But persons who were apart of the Mueller investigation have stated anonymously that the report was misrepresented by Barr. So we are in a grey area.

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoChamber


But my side still wants to help people instead of corporations.


Does it have to be mutually exclusive?

You have to help corporations to help people, where will the jobs/GDP come from otherwise?

Regardless, that is an admirable goal. We are trying to help Americans also, maybe through a different approach sure.. but you can't deny this POTUS is not a typical Republican. he's the first GOP candidate to ever hold a LGBT flag on a stage in front of a crowd, one of many firsts with this guy



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: EchoChamber

Piss and vinegar, my good sir or madaam

But at least I don't try to bottle it and sell it as gold....


Madaam, thank you.

And what you're selling is worse than gold. But that's okay. I have platinum.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoChamber

Says who? The NYT? MSM in this country has zero credibility. From Fox to CNN to MSNBC, all have proven themselves partisan hacks.

And NYT alleges that a source of a source told someone anonymously... that is three times removed from anything remotely acceptable in a court of law.

Regardless, if seeing the report is what it will take to convince you and others then I am all for it. I am generally against secrecy especially needless secrecy. This matter tore our country to pieces and Americans deserve to know the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

You seems to be falling into the same hole the Leonard does (very smooth of you to not point out your source for the quotes)... that being that the pretense negates all that follows (minimum wage for example). When others attempt to say that the USA was built on land stealing, genocide and slavery, we both know that this pretense is not the end-all be all of what the USA is and all that has followed.

Funny you should bring Leonard up though. In times that have followed the book you are quoting, his concern seems to be about Trump...



The West is now facing a crisis of rising illiberalism, represented in the United States by the Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump. Trump seems never to have met an individual right he would not be pleased to trample upon. He has rashly proposed to bar Muslims, to intensify torture, to order extrajudicial killings, to punish women, to round up and deport millions of undocumented people, and to muzzle the press. These proposals are only part of what is a spectacularly illiberal agenda.


Ouch.

And you are smoothly applying the word 'progressive' in a multitude of different ways, as it has meant different things over the course of the USA (just as republican and democrat has), and you seem to manipulate the convenience of that. You know well that in this sense I am stating it as as philosophy and not as political movement.

You also know that the Republican Party has not always been running along the same path. Do you actually believe that Lincoln, Goldwater, Teddy Roosevelt, and Trump even look like they are from the same party? They are all over the map.

Ps - your History page link even talks about the massive shift in parties after WW2 and the fact that many sided with the conservative/Repubs due to Democratic support of civil rights.

Lies of omission.
edit on 9-4-2019 by okrian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: EchoChamber

Says who? The NYT? MSM in this country has zero credibility. From Fox to CNN to MSNBC, all have proven themselves partisan hacks.

And NYT alleges that a source of a source told someone anonymously... that is three times removed from anything remotely acceptable in a court of law.

Regardless, if seeing the report is what it will take to convince you and others then I am all for it. I am generally against secrecy especially needless secrecy. This matter tore our country to pieces and Americans deserve to know the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth




Attacking the source?

Really?

It happened.







 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join