That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
So you strenuously oppose lifting sanctions and re-admitting Russia to the G-7, and you are strongly against any activity Russia takes to interfere in democratic processes in the West.Rip wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:51 pm If you are looking for a Hitler, Putin is your man and he is much more politically savvy.
Absolutely. Even if it turned out the Russians hadn't interfered in the election at all I support not only that but call for more aggressive actions like more real sanctions that actually hurt them and alliances with people that don't want us allied with not to mention going after his proxies more aggressively (Iran/Syria). You don't have to sell me on Putin hating and never will.Holman wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:12 pmSo you strenuously oppose lifting sanctions and re-admitting Russia to the G-7, and you are strongly against any activity Russia takes to interfere in democratic processes in the West.Rip wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:51 pm If you are looking for a Hitler, Putin is your man and he is much more politically savvy.
I'm glad we're clear on this.
I would be happy not to if given the option of someone who would do the things I have proposed.
I'm sure this guy does.hepcat wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:45 pm Hillary, baby!
You know you’re regretting not voting for her now.
Just to be reeeeally clear, though: even though the current regime of sanctions and expulsion from the G-8 aren't as perfect as you would like, they're still something, right? They must be, since Putin is working very hard to manipulate and influence governments and parties and candidates inclined to eliminate them.Rip wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:26 pmAbsolutely. Even if it turned out the Russians hadn't interfered in the election at all I support not only that but call for more aggressive actions like more real sanctions that actually hurt them and alliances with people that don't want us allied with not to mention going after his proxies more aggressively (Iran/Syria). You don't have to sell me on Putin hating and never will.Holman wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:12 pmSo you strenuously oppose lifting sanctions and re-admitting Russia to the G-7, and you are strongly against any activity Russia takes to interfere in democratic processes in the West.Rip wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:51 pm If you are looking for a Hitler, Putin is your man and he is much more politically savvy.
I'm glad we're clear on this.
Yes, I will be opposed to any reduction of actions against Russia/Putin and strongly supportive of any initiative to bring greater pressure to bear on them until a substantial change in conduct has occurred. I am not even interested in promises of change only actual results.Holman wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:37 pmJust to be reeeeally clear, though: even though the current regime of sanctions and expulsion from the G-8 aren't as perfect as you would like, they're still something, right? They must be, since Putin is working very hard to manipulate and influence governments and parties and candidates inclined to eliminate them.Rip wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:26 pmAbsolutely. Even if it turned out the Russians hadn't interfered in the election at all I support not only that but call for more aggressive actions like more real sanctions that actually hurt them and alliances with people that don't want us allied with not to mention going after his proxies more aggressively (Iran/Syria). You don't have to sell me on Putin hating and never will.Holman wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:12 pmSo you strenuously oppose lifting sanctions and re-admitting Russia to the G-7, and you are strongly against any activity Russia takes to interfere in democratic processes in the West.Rip wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:51 pm If you are looking for a Hitler, Putin is your man and he is much more politically savvy.
I'm glad we're clear on this.
Do you *promise* you're not going to forgive Trump dumping the sanctions and giving other help to Putin on the grounds that "they weren't real sanctions anyway"?
The Republican Party gave you plenty of options in the primary. And yet Trump is the one who won. Think about that a little. And wonder why and how.Rip wrote:I would be happy not to if given the option of someone who would do the things I have proposed.
hepcat wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:23 pm Or...you know...continue having Trump do things like asking for Russia’s return to G7/8, downplaying Crimea, and telling Putin he wants him to come to the WH for dinner.
Oh, and refusing to impose sanctions.
Goalpost powers activate!
Zarathud wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:37 pm You know who might motivate Congress? A Real President! Or at least one who isn't a puppet of Putin. Or one who doesn't ignore what laws Congress has passed on Russia.
You railed against Obama for not using your preferred word to refer to your enemy. But Trump gets nothing but meh because he's on your team.
You have your head stuck so far up your ass, Rip, you'll never get it unstuck.
Were you not done?Rip wrote: Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:03 pm In fact if you want to turn me against Trump, if he is under Putin's thumb it should be easy. Just pass some strong legslation against Russia that Trump would veto and I will turn on him that second, for good.
But we could go back to when Rip cared about Obama not using term "Islamic terrorism" or referring to a deli bombing as "random":Rip wrote: Sun May 12, 2013 12:35 pm
Wow, you guys are awfully accepting of being manipulated and then lied to about it.
So does everyone accept now that they did keep response forces from deploying?
How about that the talking points were scrubbed of references to it being a planned terrorist attack rather than a demonstration gone awry?
Rip wrote: Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:43 pmNo I am looking for him to come out against all cases of Islamic extremism, not just when they are beheading people. Not speaking out a responding strongly to cases around the world of people being killed or tortured for apostasy sends a message. This is just an example. He has missed numerous such opportunities while never failing to pile on Israel if the chance comes by.
We could go on, but do we need to? Not really.Rip wrote: Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:13 pm To be a little clearer on why I think the distinction of Islamic extremists over just extremists is important. You see it isn't just ISIS and the terrorists who engage in the extremism and it is time that the enablers and cheerleaders of this agenda be called out for their own contributions.
Zarathud wrote: Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:22 am We could start with BENGHAZI! when Rip supported investigations over talking points and press releases, in addition to wild rumors (about delaying response forces) that were quickly proven to be lies.
But we could go back to when Rip cared about Obama not using term "Islamic terrorism" or referring to a deli bombing as "random":Rip wrote: Sun May 12, 2013 12:35 pm
Wow, you guys are awfully accepting of being manipulated and then lied to about it.
So does everyone accept now that they did keep response forces from deploying?
How about that the talking points were scrubbed of references to it being a planned terrorist attack rather than a demonstration gone awry?
Rip wrote: Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:43 pmNo I am looking for him to come out against all cases of Islamic extremism, not just when they are beheading people. Not speaking out a responding strongly to cases around the world of people being killed or tortured for apostasy sends a message. This is just an example. He has missed numerous such opportunities while never failing to pile on Israel if the chance comes by.We could go on, but do we need to? Not really.Rip wrote: Fri Feb 27, 2015 1:13 pm To be a little clearer on why I think the distinction of Islamic extremists over just extremists is important. You see it isn't just ISIS and the terrorists who engage in the extremism and it is time that the enablers and cheerleaders of this agenda be called out for their own contributions.
Have a gander back at what was said about Bush. This isn't just about Trump. Bush was treated just as bad as would have been Cruz.GreenGoo wrote: Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:35 am Why is there conversation about other presidents like this is just another political cycle? Like this is somehow completely normal and it's only the left that are taking things out of context while the right are talking about Obama (or, for fuck's sake, Hillary, like she's in any way relevant) like it's just your typical swing from one side of the aisle to the other.
The despicables stated that their goal was to burn the system down and that's what they got. Drumpf has systematically placed rot in any and every department he could think of and a few he can't pronounce, but the Hillary/Obama reset has more relevance and should be discussed? Why on EARTH are people engaging on the topic of name calling? There were enough concrete examples just in the LAST week that prove this is not just another normal partisan pissing contest. This guy is a genuine threat to the socio-economic wellbeing of the entire US (assuming you're net worth isn't measured in billions), but somehow it's a despicable who brings up the strawman of name calling and godwinizing and now THAT'S what needs to be discussed?
The entire G7 summit just put baby in a corner. But sure. Let's talk about how name calling is lowering the quality of political discourse. Not that the drumpf in chief has called the free press the enemy of the people and worked hard to undermine them at every chance he gets. Or that he's hampering trade with the US's closest trade partners (or how they're in big trouble if they retaliate. For fuck sake, he uses the word "retaliate" like it's unfair for allies to defend themselves when attacked economically).
Seriously, can we just get back to valid, serious and important topics and not engage a self-proclaimed troll who in this case genuinely doesn't have any issue with 99% of what's happening to his country? He's incapable of seeing past left/right and that is EXACTLY the problem that is keeping drumpf in business in a business he has no business being in.
Your entire country is filled with people who voted for Drumpf. Spending all day every day with even one of themis like 2 people drowning in quicksand and one them refuses to acknowledge there is any quicksand, but if there is, Obama's quicksand was more of a pussy than drumpf's.
I bring them up because they were treated just as bad as Trump is. You say he is uniquely bad but the rhetoric is pretty much the same. Had Ted Cruz won he would be getting treated every bit as bad here as Trump is so no there is nothing unique about it on that point.GreenGoo wrote: Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:43 am Drumpf is UNIQUELY terrible, and it's not because he's a republican. And for all that is holy, can we at least stop pretending he deeply holds ANY political positions? He's not a Republican. He's not a Democrat. He's not left or right wing. He's a grifter and a terrible one at that. He needs to go, not because of his political positions or what side of the aisle he's on, but because his very presence undermines hundreds of years of strong democratic theory and practice.
You've elected a mob boss from a basic cable sitcom. And that's the problem. Work together to get the country back on track or get out of the way. Anything else is detrimental to the country you profess to love. That people are enjoying this traffic accident of an administration for the lulz or stigginit makes it extra despicable, not less.
Even bringing up the names of Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan or whoever the fuck is not drumpf is a distraction from what's burning your country down. STOP bringing up other administrations or that other guy who did that thing you didn't like 20 years ago. Your house is on fire. Pay attention.
Cruz is a horrible example because he's uniquely reprehensible, and even so he'd be getting knocked for policy, not incompetence and general all-around dickishness AND policy. If we had, say, president Low Energy Jeb or President Little Marco, no, it wouldn't be exactly the same at all.Rip wrote: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:36 amI bring them up because they were treated just as bad as Trump is. You say he is uniquely bad but the rhetoric is pretty much the same. Had Ted Cruz won he would be getting treated every bit as bad here as Trump is so no there is nothing unique about it on that point.GreenGoo wrote: Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:43 am Drumpf is UNIQUELY terrible, and it's not because he's a republican. And for all that is holy, can we at least stop pretending he deeply holds ANY political positions? He's not a Republican. He's not a Democrat. He's not left or right wing. He's a grifter and a terrible one at that. He needs to go, not because of his political positions or what side of the aisle he's on, but because his very presence undermines hundreds of years of strong democratic theory and practice.
You've elected a mob boss from a basic cable sitcom. And that's the problem. Work together to get the country back on track or get out of the way. Anything else is detrimental to the country you profess to love. That people are enjoying this traffic accident of an administration for the lulz or stigginit makes it extra despicable, not less.
Even bringing up the names of Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan or whoever the fuck is not drumpf is a distraction from what's burning your country down. STOP bringing up other administrations or that other guy who did that thing you didn't like 20 years ago. Your house is on fire. Pay attention.
Rip wrote:Wow, I criticized something he did. I have criticized things Trump has done as well and I actually voted for him.[/quite]
Not criticize, OUTRAGE! And Trump has been objectively worse.
Repost those things where you criticize Trump. They're weak.
Nazi is as Nazi does. Again, OUTRAGE! To be fair, you reserved the most outlandish crap for Hillary.Rip wrote:Note I didn't need to call him a Nazi, Hitler, or make comments about his color or the size of his appendages. I didn't even call him evil.
Respect is earned. Trump is pissing on the POTUS daily. What other President fled from the G-7? After arguing for Russian interests, not American interests.Rip wrote:I respected him a hundred times more than any Republican POTUS has gotten from most of you guys.
Wait, what? Bush got a different kind of vitriol, I don't know that it was demonstrably less. The difference during the Bush years is that there were folks here that could (or would) present an honest defense of Bush. The only people willing to defend/accept Trump here are shitty trolls that people can't stop feeding. That's a combination of a change in board demographics (people leaving, and a selection of people that have been forced out of the GOP since 2008 after they clearly went insane). Well, that and the fact that Trump is the most comically unfit human being to ever be elected to high office. Bush wasn't unfit, not by a long shot.
I don't control those people, and you are totally wrong about Bush vitriol around here. Bush got far more vitriol here than Obama did and not a great deal less than Trump is getting here, although I will grant that he got less than Trump.....barely.hepcat wrote: Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:12 am You back someone with an easily verified history of calling people names and then you try to call others out for doing the same?
Bush never got this level of vitriol from folks around here. Simply because he didn’t do the things Trump does regularly. As for your intimations that republican leaders are persecuted unfairly by the left while dem leaders are given a pass... Breitbart, Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, kooks who thought Obama was a secret Muslim trying to destroy us (you gave me that one, thanks)..should I go on?
Stop playing the victim card.
and you pick two guys that would probably get more Democrat votes than Republican ones. Cruz and Trump got nearly 75% of the Republican vote. Even with Bush and Rubio spending a mountain of cash.geezer wrote: Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:08 amCruz is a horrible example because he's uniquely reprehensible, and even so he'd be getting knocked for policy, not incompetence and general all-around dickishness AND policy. If we had, say, president Low Energy Jeb or President Little Marco, no, it wouldn't be exactly the same at all.Rip wrote: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:36 amI bring them up because they were treated just as bad as Trump is. You say he is uniquely bad but the rhetoric is pretty much the same. Had Ted Cruz won he would be getting treated every bit as bad here as Trump is so no there is nothing unique about it on that point.GreenGoo wrote: Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:43 am Drumpf is UNIQUELY terrible, and it's not because he's a republican. And for all that is holy, can we at least stop pretending he deeply holds ANY political positions? He's not a Republican. He's not a Democrat. He's not left or right wing. He's a grifter and a terrible one at that. He needs to go, not because of his political positions or what side of the aisle he's on, but because his very presence undermines hundreds of years of strong democratic theory and practice.
You've elected a mob boss from a basic cable sitcom. And that's the problem. Work together to get the country back on track or get out of the way. Anything else is detrimental to the country you profess to love. That people are enjoying this traffic accident of an administration for the lulz or stigginit makes it extra despicable, not less.
Even bringing up the names of Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan or whoever the fuck is not drumpf is a distraction from what's burning your country down. STOP bringing up other administrations or that other guy who did that thing you didn't like 20 years ago. Your house is on fire. Pay attention.
I can't stand the guy. I am defending the Republican agenda, despite him. I have long said my perfect POTUS would be Condi Rice and having read half his book now I would tack Robert Gates on as VP. He would be the perfect expediter to her well strategized policy. Fuck Trump! If I could magically cause him to keel over so Pence could take over without damaging the party I would do it without a moment's thought.Unagi wrote: Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:22 am Honestly, (and it's what you are saying)
The only question here is why does RIP defend Trump (and then offer after months of it that he actually doesn't care much about Trump)… because as we all (and the world) is saying: Trump is a whole new thing and not just the pendulum swing... not even a heavy swing - he's a con.... why doesn't RIP admit it. Why can't he. What's he got so invested. Stiggin it? that's my guess.
Because Rip is a shitty troll. I thought that was self-evident.Unagi wrote: Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:22 am The only question here is why does RIP defend Trump (and then offer after months of it that he actually doesn't care much about Trump)