Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Ax

Members
  • Content Count

    2,923
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ax

  1. 7 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

    You want me to list the stories that Trump has claimed were "fake news" that ended up being completely true?

     

    Would you like to go tit for tat on blatant, intentional lying coming from the media and blatant, intentional lying coming from Trump?

     

    The "Fake news" is the ONLY thing keeping this corrupt administration in check.

    Keep dreaming. Just remember the crushing feeling of all the Hillary followers on election night. I expect it's coming again when no charges of any significance come near Trump over the collusion illusion. Midterms gain seats for the R's. And President Trump is re-elected in 2020 by the landslide all the left's media sources claimed Hillary was going to win by in 2016.

     

    If I'm wrong, I promise to come back for some humble pie. 

    4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

    Do you know his party affiliation?

    Yes. He is a member of The Comey Party.

     

    Coming to a penitentiary near you. :) 

  2. 3 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

    Uh, no she didn't and neither did the Republicans who had previously hired Fusion. I'd say nice try but it really wasn't. It was a ****ty try. Look dude, if you're going to engage me, spend 2 minutes fact checking your nonsense before you post it. Take another 15 seconds and Google Russian hacking RNC. It's not hard to educate yourself if you're actually interested in facts.

    Just googled it.

     

    BWHAHAHAHA Right. Comey, The Daily Beast, and CNN report "high confidence" RNC was hacked. Well that's credible.

    5 minutes ago, Larry said:

     

     

    (Yes, I removed your (untrue, just like most of your posts) attempts to whitewash your answer.  I'll deal with them later.)  

     

    True or false:  

     

    This (meeting with representatives of the Russian government, for the purpose of discussing how the Russian government can help your campaign) is collusion.  

     

    If it were, Mueller would be tripping over his own feet to file charges. I'll believe if when and if there's a conviction of Trump.

  3. 2 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

    Do you know what this website is? It's a site for people who don't care about facts or truth. And those people, the people who are only interested in having their pre-conceived biases reinforced and demonstrate it by quoting garbage propaganda as if it were an actual source of information... well they're telling everyone that their opinion is completely irrelevant.

    Hey, just like all the other media. Kewl.

  4. 6 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

     

    3) Oh rational and reasonable one... It is clear that you have spent much time in deep thought on this subject. This is totally not a reflexive defense of the GOP with the first, non-sensical thing that popped into your head. I'm sure you wouldn't be through the ****ing roof if Obama or Hillary or any democrat broke federal campaign laws in an attempt secure damaging information on Trump that was illegally obtained through attacks by a foreign government and then changed their platform to reward that hostile foreign nation for said attacks.

    I'm glad you agree that Hillary broke the law by paying Fusion GPS to acquire dirt on Trump from the Russians.

     

    I have never heard that the Russians succeeded in hacking the R's. Please guide me to the info, oh magnificent one.

  5. http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/26/media-gaslighting-cant-hide-fact-trump-campaign-was-spied-on/

     

    President Trump tweeted triumphantly and hyperbolically about what the documents showed regarding the FBI’s behavior toward his campaign. Whatever you think about Trump’s reaction to the release of the FISA application, the media reaction to the story was disingenuous and even more hyperbolic than the president’s tweets. After a year of continuous and alarming revelations, the media are still more interested in proving the Trump campaign treasonously colluded with Russia than wrestling with the fact that the FBI spied on a presidential campaign, and used dubious partisan political research to justify their surveillance.

  6. 1 hour ago, Busch1724 said:

    Ax,

     

    Serious question that often is not asked. When, in your opinion, the Russia story was written soon after the election; why did Trump lie about meeting with Russians prior to the election? This doesn't ignore the fact, the Russia influence on the election was brought forward prior to election day. President Obama tried to release a joint statement with McConnell and that was shot down. Those are facts and have since been proven true. So, once again, why lie about it? 

    I think they were, and still are, overly sensitive to the nonsense that the Russians got him elected. They've not handled it well. No doubt. They would have been better of using Obama's line when he got elected. Which was something like, "We won, you lost. Get over it."

  7. 3 hours ago, Mad Mike said:


    You mean the same Comey who sabotaged Clinton at the last minute of the election? Are you actually arguing that our intelligence agencies are lying and Putin is telling the truth? If so You are a traitor.

    Get the **** out of this county

    I have to say, at this point I'm done. Ax's post is treason. Plain and simple.Trump put himself and his personal interests ahead of the nation and Ax approves. That's all you need to know. He has no integrity. He has no shame. He is beyond hope. That's not an insult. That's an observation based on the facts presented here. Quite frankly I'm disgusted and If I say any more I will end up crossing the line.

     

    Nobody sabotaged Hillary, but Hillary. But it's nice to hear the Democrat talking points again. So, thanks for that.

     

    The press played the press conference very well. It was a nice setup. Trying to themselves sabotage any and all future diplomatic success with Russia. I guess we should just nuke'm and get it over with. Maybe if Obama's Russian Reset was any good, things would already be better between the countries.

     

    Treason. Give it a rest Mike. 

    And, as long as that line is as firm as Obama's red line in the sand, I think it'll be ok.

    1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

     

    The big part he neglects here is that intellegence said there weren’t WMDs in Iraq. The Bush admin fabricated, embellished or just outright lied that there were in order to justify their war. So yeah, even different people under different admins etc the IC is still pretty top notch at what they do. 

     

    The IC wasn’t attacked, the Bush admin was attacked mostly for going to war 

    Since Mike already shredded this with a weedeater. No need for me to pile on.

  8. 2 hours ago, Larry said:

     

    True or false:  

     

    1)  One week before the RNC, the top three members of the Trump campaign cleared space on their calendars, to meet with a Russian attorney, representing the Russian government, to discuss ways the Russian government could help the Trump campaign.  

     

    2)  Hours after that meeting, Donald Trump publicly announces that he will soon be acquiring lots of dirt about Hillary Clinton.  

     

    (Bonus points:)  

     

    3)  One week later, at the RNC, the Trump campaign successfully amends the GOP party platform to be more favorable of Russia's invasion of another country.  

     

    4)  Two weeks after that, the Russian government began releasing the data which their military intelligence units had acquired from their hacking of the DNC.  

    1) The meeting where Jr. was supposed to receive some dirt on Clinton? True.

    Distasteful, but no more so than Hillary hiring Fusion to get dirt on Trump from the Russians.

    2) True. And what's the problem? Not illegal

    3) Don't know. Was it the 1st time a platform, in either party, was changed? Is there more to it than coincidence? Would be glad to check out any link to it you might have.

    4) Don't know that either. But had the Russians tried and failed to hack the R's. Kinda says the R's are better at securing information the D's.

     

    If you have more than circumstantial info, please point me in that direction.

    • Haha 5
  9. 13 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

    The problem is that the response has continued 18 months into his presidency, because this guy has to easily be the most insecure individual ever to hold the office. I don't think Nixon's paranoia has anything on Trump.

    Very true. But when you've been under siege 24/7 since the election, it's understandable. Knowing that the collusion illusion is intentionally being dragged out so as to try and affect the midterm elections, it's understandable. Every other R in the world would have collapsed and wilted by now. But he's a big fish, with a big target on his back. 

     

    BTW, to date, even Rosenstein has said that there is no evidence, none, that any attempts by the Russians had any effect on any election outcome. Even with all the useless indictments against Russians who will never be tried.

     

     

  10. 2 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

    This is exactly what the Trump/Pence team said immediately after the election for the IC merely suggesting that Russia tried to interfere in the election.  Not "yes, we are looking into it." But this crap...….

     

    So Ax, what do you want?  Should we disband the IC?

    Hell no we shouldn't disband the IC. Just need to have more people without a predetermined agenda. The overwhelming majority are great, honest, hard working people, doing an impossibly difficult job. 

     

    Since the narrative that the Russians stole the election started 2 seconds after Trump was declared the winner, it's not surprising that they took a defensive stand against the notion. Maybe if they had been more included in the goings on during the campaign, instead of being spied on, at Obama's direction, things would have been different. But yeah, it wasn't a very good initial response. 

    9 minutes ago, Larry said:

     

    OK, as long as we're administering "reality tests", this is probably a good one.  

     

    Are the following statements True or False:  

     

    1)  Under Trump, there has been a year in which Real GDP grew at 4.1%

     

    2)  Real GDP never grew more than 2% for any year under Obama.  

     

    Without looking at the source, let me fancy a guess.

    1) False

    2) False

  11. Just now, Mad Mike said:


    Saying that you trust US intelligence agencies is NOT challenging him to a duel. Not even close. Do you think you could possibly stick to the facts?

     

    Yes, standing on foreign soil, he should have lied, and said he trusted US Intelligence Agencies. Even though those same agencies, under Brennan and Comey did their damnedest to destroy him by any means necessary. And where Obama leftovers are still leaking anything they think will hurt him. The same intelligence agencies that so many attacked for info concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Those agencies?

     

    But yes, he should have lied and said he did, standing on foreign soil.

    • Confused 2
  12. 4 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

    See that's the problem, they want to tell the everyone that the world is flat and then when we laugh and mock them they complain that we aren't being tolerant. 

    That's fine, I'm an intolerant son of a ****, I don't tolerate lies, alt-facts, gaslighting, racism, sexism, or any other Rightwing prejudices that pretend that Conservative white Evangelical Americans are somehow a persecuted people. I am all in favor of a robust debate, but I will not pretend to entertain anti-intellectualism and willful ignorance.

    Yet, if we call it out then we're the bad guy.

    Which is why I'm in favor of a questionaire to see if the Rightwingers will at least concede certain facts. If they cannot or will not then there's no use talking with them.

    BTW, there is nearly an infinite number of potential choices Trump could have made during that press conference between a duel and a blowjob.

    You say, it is highly unlikely that Trump meant "wouldn't", all that you're doing is providing more cover for Trump instead of acknowledging that Trump lied.

    Jesus, you can say that liberals are a cancer, but can't bring yourself to admit that Trump lied, when you know he did.

    And you want us to take you seriously.

    It would be easy to say he lied, definitively, if there was concrete evidence. But there isn't. If there is, please show me. Short of that, saying I believed it highly likely that he lied, is the most certain anyone can be. Did Obama lie when he said he'd been to 57 states? No, he clearly misspoke. I don't think Trump misspoke, but I, or you, can't prove it. So, it's not a fact that he lied. But it is highly likely. 

     

    Next question.

  13. 2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

     

    Do you think Trump actually meant wouldn't instead of would? 

     

    That's all I'm asking im not gonna attack you like these crazy libs in here. 

    Highly unlikely, in answer to the question. But I also don't think he should have challenged him to a duel, at a press conference.

    That's not where diplomacy takes place. 

  14. 3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

    I didn't label you any of those things, in fact I made abundantly clear that I was NOT calling you any of those things.

    However, reading through your posts, I am allowed now to not instantly assume that you're an ignorant, uneducated dick (your words not mine), but evaluate you as such based on your responses.

    *disclaimer* 

    I have not called you an ignorant, uneducated dick, I was just pointing out that I would be free to make that estimation after reading your posts to date.

     

    As for the questions I have in mind, they will be yes or no questions about certain facts and whether you accept them as such. A no answer with a subsequent Rightwing talking points rationalization will be ignored after the "No".

    Well, I know how the game is played on a message board. Technically, you did not outright call me those names. But as they were written in CYA code, you, me and everybody else knows the true intent. No biggie.

     

    Your "yes or no", and nothing else is quite the trap. If you give indisputable facts, they can't be argued against. But you alone don't get to determine what is fact, and what is not. Only facts, are facts. And sometimes, a yes or no response can require caveats to better understand what and why something is being said.

     

    Fire away.

  15. 1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

    Come to think of it, I'm going to start building a questionnaire that will have to be answered by any Trump supporter before I am willing to engage with them on any level other than just laughing and mocking them. After all I want to leave open the possibility of fruitful exchange no matter how small that possibility may be, BUT they will need to demonstrate a full acceptance of various facts on the ground before any engagement will be worth pursuing, because I'm simply not interested in trying to convince people that the Russians interfered with our election and that they worked to get Donald Trump elected.

     

    What questions would you all add to the list?

    It's a very good idea. Instead of instantly labeling everyone who isn't anti-Trump enough for you as a racist, ignorant, uneducated dick, you might actually learn something about them, instead of constantly making it up. Of course, to be fair, you'll need to answer questions in return.

     

    As I told LD, I'll try and answer any question you might have.

  16. 2 hours ago, LD0506 said:

    <sigh>

     

    Ok, I sat here and tried, really TRIED, not to join in because I didn't think it would do much good and I tend to take a shortcut right to ****ty lately, but..........

     

    Ax? Don't know ya, don't believe I've ever engaged with you here so I will try to color between the lines.

     

    You've gone on quite a bit echoing the exact same phrases we've heard from rightwing media organs word for word. You claim not to follow them but you seem to have absorbed their rhetoric precisely, maybe by osmosis? Hell, I don't know, so I won't address that.

     

    Here's my question to you, if you are so defiantly vehement about the untrustworthiness of any and all news/media outlets and give them zero credit in forming your own spectacularly prescient opinions on things, can you explain to me exactly how you process the very words spoken by your guys themselves, disregarding any analysis or slant by anyone else, just what they themselves say? Because doing that and that alone will still lead you to see that they are lying and not in any way working for the country. There is a clear and consistent agenda at work, based strictly on their own words and actions that is wildly at odds with the things you state here. There is documented fact and historical record that is clearly different from what you claim.

     

    How exactly do you reconcile that disconnect? I'm curious, honestly, I do not understand how that happens (and that is specifically a comment on me and my understanding, nothing more).

     

    (PS: Please dismiss me as some squishy soft lefty liberal, that **** always makes my day. I am about two and a half feet left of the Waffen SS and ROFLMAO whenever someone tries to paint me as some skinny jean Antifa mumbler).

    Nope, don't know you either. I do appreciate the honest questions. So, thanks.

     

    When you say, "You've gone on quite a bit echoing the exact same phrases we've heard from rightwing media organs word for word."

    I simply counter that most here have done the exact same thing echoing the left wing media. Which is bigger than the right's.

     

    The next is too general to answer specifically. There's an old saying that goes, believe half of what you see, and nothing that you hear. That's where things usually start with me. But generally speaking, I try to ascertain as many actual facts as possible. Wherever they might exist. Listen to both sides of an argument, and then apply some common sense, to arrive at the most likely truth. When indisputable facts are available, it makes it easy. When certain facts contain grey areas of interpretation, that's when common sense will rule the day.

     

    I will try and answer any specific question you have.

  17. 2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

    Are you really using Urban Dictionary as your source?  That may have been the dumbest thing you have ever posted (and you have set that bar pretty damn high).

     

    Here is a source for you to get some quality military news.

    https://www.duffelblog.com

     

    Oh and there is this gem.  Here is how Urban Dictionary (your source) defines Ax:

     

    Call the source whatever you wish. The definition is still 100% accurate.

  18. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Projection

    From The Urban Dictionary: Projection

    Projection (Psychological)

    1) An unconscious self-defence mechanism characterised by a person unconsciously attributing their own issues onto someone or something else as a form of delusion and denial.

    2) A way to blame others for your own negative thoughts by repressing them and then attributing them to someone else. Due to the sorrowful nature of delusion and denial it is very difficult for the target to be able to clarify the reality of the situation.

    3) A way to transfer guilt for your own thoughts, emotions and actions onto another as a way of not admitting your guilt to yourself.

     

     

    Projection is what the left does. As evidenced by some here. That it is done "unconsciously", is a big reason they can't see it. It has been engraved in the liberal psyche, to the point that it's reflexive. It's why Liberalism, in general, is the scourge of the world.

    Because of President Trump, they expose themselves more everyday. Trump was not my first choice. But everyday I'm happier that I voted for him. Once it was down to him, or Hillary, he was the only choice. Maybe one day something will happen that will change my mind. Who knows. It sure hasn't happened yet.

    So thank you, Presidents Trump, and Obama. You both saved the country from Hillary Clinton.

     

    For me, if he doesn't add anything else to his already long list of accomplishments, getting Gorsuch, and next, Cavanaugh on the Supreme Court was worth electing him for. Along with 100's more judges on the lower courts. Chances are good he'll get at least 1 more Supreme court pick in before 2024, and even more on the lower courts. That will help slow down the left for years to come. Which only makes the country better. And that's good for all of us. Even those that don't think it's so.

     

    • Haha 2
  19. 22 minutes ago, Bang said:

     

    Of course you don't think he bowed to Putin.

    Putin is an enemy of this country, has used Trump to destabilize this country. Our nation has not only bowed to this tyrant, but are assisting him in his ultimate goals. 

    If you remember me from back in those days, then I am sorry to see what has happened.

     

    You exhibit the exact depth of denial and textbook recital of the far right talking points and insults that i no longer treat with respect. i consider the things you have said to indicate a person too far gone to be rational. The fact you find it all funny i find completely repugnant. 

    Derangement Syndrome.. this is how you have been trained to see opposing views and said as much in your first post in this little propaganda drive-by, so pardon me if i don't give a **** if you don't like the tone.

     

     

    ~Bang

     

    Not really sure how you think he bowed to Putin. He's trying to engage him. He's not the first President to try. I agree he's an enemy. Don't know how President Trump has been used to destabilize this country. Unless you actually believe the whole "collusion", "Russians Got Trump Elected" foolishness.

     

    And, again, I feel that you, and almost all on the left, are exhibiting irrational disdain concerning Trump. I realize he's far from being a choirboy. And I sure as hell wouldn't want my sister to be married to him. But the reaction of the left, IMHO, has been hysterically irrational from the moment he shocked the world by winning in 2016. And yes, I do find people running around screaming "the sky is falling", when it isn't, as being funny. Often pathetic. But mostly, funny.

     

    The Trump Derangement Syndrome comment, which I didn't invent, seems as accurate as anything else. I do see where it wasn't the best way to jump in to the thread, but I also see it as an accurate description of a majority on the left. One of things I am concerned about moving forward, after reading, and re-reading rule #12 during my 2 day time out, is how close to impossible it will be for me avoid violating the rule. The very first line is...

    "Do not post comments that are fundamentally inflammatory, or of little substantive content, or of some broadly insulting nature that serve primarily to incite your fellow members."

    The problem is, in my view, there is nothing anyone can say, that even remotely seems to be positive about President Trump, that won't be considered inflammatory, broadly insulting, and inciting to the left. They seem to be angry at everything. They preach tolerance, but seem to possess none. Anyone that doesn't hate Trump enough is ganged up on, and insulted as if they smacked somebody's momma. That's fine. I'm a big boy. Sticks and stones, and all. 

    I've seen a lot of otherwise rational people, everywhere, who appear to have lost their mind over Trump winning. 

  20. 29 minutes ago, Mad Mike said:


    BWAHAHAHAHA!

     

    Have you ever studied journalism? Ever actually met and talked to journalists? gone to conferences and seminars? Have you ever studied journalistic ethics and been held to those standards in your writing? I have. Ever been interviewed by a major publication over *your* reporting? I have by Wired and Time Magazine. And as someone who actually DOES know what he is watching and why let me just say that your arrogance is only outshined by your ignorance.
     

    No sir, I have not. 

    But BS, is BS. You know it when you smell it. No need for classes on that.

     

    Thanks for the insult though. Quality journalism there.

    32 minutes ago, tshile said:

     

    I honestly wasn’t sure if that was you... 

     

    ive been great man. I don’t even know how long it’s been. Had a kid, he’s 3, got a girl coming in October. Sold the house we spent a decade remodeling for a lot of money and building a new one with 3 acres :)

     

    you? Hope you’ve been well :) 

    All good t. Glad to hear you're doing well. Congrats on your son, and the girly biscuit in the oven.

    But man, 3 acres is too much for this old man to maintain. Looking forward to retirement and downsizing in the next 5 yrs.

    Good to talk with you. 

    • Like 1
  21. 4 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

    Ax comes from BGO. Knew I recognized that handle from somewhere. 

    The site got hacked, iirc...so clicking on any of his links could be dangerous. 

    Actually, Ax comes from Extremeskins. From the time before it was purchased by the team. I walked away, voluntarily. I come back, occasionally, just to see how things are.

    And because Asbury misses me so much. :kiss-smileys:

    • Haha 1
  22. 1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

     

     

    well, yeah, high ratings equivalent are to truth.  Poor ratings are equivalent to lies. We agree with us. What is the presidents approval rating? OH SNAP....

     

     

     

    which sides? 

     

    I must be speaking German or something. Let me try again.

    CNN has been losing a lot of viewership. Something has to be the cause. I assert that, like me, many people have determined that CNN is an unreliable news source. I take that as people don't think they can trust them to be truthful, or unbiased, at all.

     

    Which sides? Whatever side a hate group falls on. They all need to be destroyed.

  23. 9 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

    Just leave him alone. He just admitted that he thinks 90% of tv news and print news is BS. So where does he possibly go to conduct all of this research on his quests for the truth? How can poor Ax ever trust what he sees and reads to confirm or deny facts? How does he know what to believe or what is even actual news? 

     

    We all know the answers here as he stammers around talking in circles 

    Not sure how being skeptical that serial liars might be lying is so hard to understand. What you fail to grasp is the 10% that I consider useful/true. Meaning, if you watch tv news for 30 minutes, 10 of those minutes were filled with actual newsworthy information. And the other 20 was commercials and the propaganda of choice for the given network. Most people don't know how to watch the news. But I do.

    So don't worry about poor Ax. He's got the world by the balls on a downhill pull.

×
×
  • Create New...