Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Ax

Members
  • Content Count

    2,923
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ax

  1. 20 minutes ago, Mad Mike said:



    That must be why the KKK endorsed Trump and right wingers killed a woman protesting for the left in Charlottesville. It also must be why more people have been killed by right wing extremists than muslims since 9/11.

    https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2018/02/national-security-pros-its-time-talk-about-right-wing-extremism/146319/

     


    The ABSOLUTE INSANITY of you claiming the left is more dishonest than the right is simply mind numbing. Trump alone has lied more times since his presidency began than the entire left wing has in 20 years. And before you say a damn thing... know that I defended Bush against reft wing conspiracy theorists right here on these pages. I am well aware of who is lying and when. 

    You think you are some kind of deep right wing intellectual but in reality you are just another one of the brainwashed masses programmed to reject the truth.

     

    Come on Mike, the Muslim Brotherhood, Louis Farrakan, Bill Ayers and other left wing extremists endorsed Obama. And "Black Lives Matter" inspired police killings happened under his watch too. All of it sucks, but Obama chose his endorsers. Trump just didn't do a good enough job downing the kkk. Who, in my opinion, should be run through a wood chipper. Along with the other hate groups. On either side.

     

    I'll need more time to study the assertions in your link. But the article itself reeks of bias. Get back to you on that.

     

    I have to say, your stance is no less mind numbing to me.

    And yes, I clearly remember your history here from years gone by. It's why your apparent 180 is quite shocking to see.

    I'd like to think I have a good built-in lie detector, too.

    And no, I do not think I'm some deep right wing intellectual. And, I would assert that the brainwashed masses reside on the left.

    We'll never change each others minds on that.

     

  2. 14 minutes ago, Mad Mike said:


    Your comment would suggest you believe whatever Trump tells you.

    What, pray tell, does rating have to do with quality reporting? Are you saying that shows with higher ratings are truthful? what does that say about sit coms. Or NFL?Or could it be that they are less entertaining because they stick to the facts and don't juice it up with rhetoric. 

     


     

     

    No sir. I don't. He's got as much BS with him as anybody. But I don't buy into any assertion that he is the worst.

     

    Ratings have nothing to do with quality reporting. It is precisely to pursuit of ratings that has ruined every single news organization in the country. Their own ratings are what matters to them. And they all lie, mislead, and manipulate things in order to gain/keep them. If the crap they're peddling happens to be true on occasion, then it nirvana. That's what I meant. Sorry for not explaining better.

  3. 2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

    Yea I caught that part.  But you also mentioned print sources.  I also asked your opinion on which is most honest.  I also asked why you felt the way you do about each (most and least honest/unbiased).

    Not sure there's a definitive answer here, TGB. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that I consider ALL tv media to be 90% BS. And that print media can be more accurate. But I don't think any are, consistently. Sorry I can't be more specific.

     

    As a general rule, I assume most all of it, print, tv, web... is BS. When I see something that peaks my interest, I will try and track down more on the subject. Until I'm either satisfied, or determine it doesn't warrant further time and effort.

  4. On ‎7‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 12:39 PM, Bang said:

    And yet here you are slurping on a guy who publicly bows to Vladimir Putin, gets **** on in person by Kim Jong Un, and has destabilized every single alliance we have. 

    Of ALL things, Trump's entire foreign policy has been a circus of failure and embarrassment. 
    he threatens war on TWITTER like a ****ing backwards hat wearing internet Bro. Ridiculous. childish, unbelievably lacking in every angle of his job. A very stupid bull in a very small china shop.

     

    You're down the rabbit hole and gone. Practically everything you have said is exactly the opposite of reality.

     

    ~Bang

    It's funny how not being endlessly critical of someone, is somehow "slurping on a guy". I remembered you being more sophisticated than that. But, I have been away for quite a while.

    I didn't think he bowed to Putin. Time will tell how things play out. But President Trump doesn't have to accomplish much to outdo President Obama's "Russian Reset". Wouldn't you agree? For the most part, I think he's doing quite well with foreign policy.

    Same with NoKo. If everything goes back to what it's been for the last 20+ years, the hostages he got released, and the remains that just came home, are more positive developments than anything Clinton, Bush, and Obama, combined, got done.

    I don't like the twitter stuff either. But it's all worth it knowing Hillary still isn't President.

     

    As to your last statement about rabbit holes and reality, half the country agrees with you. The other half agrees with me, that the opposite is true.

     

  5. 13 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

     

    1.  You specifically said you read “Online WaPo”

    2.  Skimming the headlines?  :806:  You are full of **** and just got caught. 

    I do read online wapo. I just logged back in and read Amber Phillips article.

     

    If you want, I can come by and teach you how to do it. Since you don't appear able to.

    Here's the next to last paragraph.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/27/why-washington-insiders-think-democrats-will-take-back-the-house/?utm_term=.80a089b1798e

    But but but: There are two caveats to all this. Democratic voters traditionally aren’t as likely to vote in midterms as Republicans. Also, the economy is doing well (though it could slow), which is normally a major indicator of success for the party already in power.

  6. 4 hours ago, Mad Mike said:


    And that's what I mean when I talk about brainwashing. These right wingers, whatever they call themselves these days, have been stoking each others ego's and fears for so long that they are no longer in touch with reality. For them, black is white and white is black and they know damn well its true. 

    I have been listening to hateful rhetoric from the right since Newt Gingritch opened his bat **** crazy mouth. It's gotten worse and worse over the years with republicans calling anyone to the left of them "libtards". That little insult has been around as long as I can remember. But now they want civility for trump. I heard eight years of insanity, hatefulness, and just plain bigotry from the right while Obama was in office. They now have a name for anyone who does not like Trump. They call it "Trump derangement syndrome". As if there were no rational reason to hate him. As if they were reasonable, rational partners in the political process when Obama was in office. 

    It's simply INSANE

    As one of the other long time members here, you deserve a little more respect than the general respect necessary for ordinary members.

     

    I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll ask. Looking at this post alone, it appears that you're of the mind that only the right is guilty of all your assertions.

    Is that correct? Do you not see, that at a minimum, both sides are equally guilty.

     

    For the record, IMHO, the left is much, much more guilty of hate, racism, and dishonesty.

  7. 1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said:

     

    We’ve had about a 100 or so of these talking-point distributors roll through here the past few years and not a single one has ever had enough guts to step up and say “Yeah, I watch Fox and occasionally hit up Breitbart and Daily Caller.”

     

    Whats the problem?

     

     

    Well, the main problem is you won't accept any answer that isn't yours.

     

    Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

    So, with the WaPo requiring a paid subscription and all, you pay for a site that you believe is lying to you?  My choice here is to either think you are lying or stupid.

    Two things.

    1. The WaPo is delivered to work everyday. And every day I have the time, I read what interests me.

    2. I just logged in to the online WaPo, again. No paid subscription needed to skim the headlines.

     

    But, thanks for playing.

  8. 5 hours ago, youngestson said:

    Seriously? Obama "fanned the flames of racial divide?" 

    You ever watch a Tea-Party rally? Listen to Alex Jones? Watch FOX during the Obama years?

     

    I hardly see Obama as flawless or even as particularly effective, but he went out of his way to be above the uber sensitive "everything is racist" lefty-left PC wave I keep hearing conservatives moan about. 

     

    He basically was black and elements of the right went absolutely bat*^% insane over it.

    Never watched any Tea Party Rallies. Though I did find this encouraging.

    From The Root

    https://www.theroot.com/black-tea-partiers-speak-1790879398

     

    Didn't know who he was until your post. Looks like just another blowhard.

    Yes, I have watched Fox during the Obama years. It's a more realistic view than CNN during President Trump's current tenure.

     

    It is my opinion that Obama helped flame the racial divide by siding against police officers, in almost every instance, before knowing what the facts were. Just as many are now blaming Trump for a rise in white supremist asshole sightings, racists organizations like the new black panther party, and black lives matter, were emboldened to riot, destroy property, etc...

     

    Candace Owens, and Sheriff David Clark would likely agree. 

  9. On ‎7‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 9:09 PM, Mad Mike said:

     

    Wow. The arrogance of this statement is simply astounding. So much fail.

     

     

    Obviously, I don't agree. Accurate, would be my assertion. Most of today's racism, and promotion of violence, comes from the left. They constantly scream for tolerance, while possessing little, to none.

    3 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

    Dude must have like 8 TVs.

     

    Also, anybody in here actually buying the assertion that the Ax-Man is grinding through the New York Times 3-4 days a week?!?

     

    Color me skeptical.

    Well then, let me explain. The Ax-Man never said he did. But thanks?

  10. On ‎7‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 1:33 PM, NoCalMike said:

    Axl, since you call people out for listening to the "MSM."  I am curious, what media outlets do you consider honest & unbiased? Where do you turn to for news, investigative journalism, & information?

    I'd like to re-address this, since I completely missed the first of your 2 questions. My original answer, to the 2nd question, was more than sufficient. But since you, and someone else, didn't think it was detailed enough, I'll try again. Though I have my doubts it will make a difference. But, a guy can hope.

     

    I can, will, and do watch all the MS tv news/so-called news channels. This would include, but is not limited to, ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN(Very limited) FOX, MSNBC, and NBC. I read print media, newspaper versions, that include, but are not limited to, Washington Post and New York Times. Online WAPO, NYT, and too many others to remember. Links given in stories, from everywhere, take you to sources, other stories, etc... 

     

    I hope that is more definitive for you. If not, you might ask for further clarification. I'd be glad to try and answer any question you might have.

     

    Now, to the 1st question, which I missed completely... "...what media outlets do you consider honest & unbiased?"

    Answer: None. Because they do not exist. Obviously, some are a little better/worse than others. With CNN being the biggest joke of all. But every "news" institution on the planet has a bias. And honesty is always trumped by ratings.

    Always

  11. 1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

     

    :rofl89:

     

    4 guilty pleas, and over 100 criminal charges against nearly 40 individuals and organizations.  And counting. 

     

    I'm sure Fox News doesn't really keep you up to speed on the "witch hunt. "  LOL.

     

    Oh wait, they do.  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/13/whos-been-charged-by-mueller-in-russia-probe-so-far.html

     

    Edit:  But let's not change the subject from your feelings.

    And none of it. Not one little piece, touches on Trump. But thanks for playing.

  12. 5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

    Axl, since you call people out for listening to the "MSM."  I am curious, what media outlets do you consider honest & unbiased? Where do you turn to for news, investigative journalism, & information?

    I watch as much of all the channels as I can stomach. But on important issues I research as much as I can to verify/dispute what's being reported.

    I'd say the tv MSM are 90% BS. Print can be more accurate. You just need to find the source of the info to determine motive.

    6 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

    And there it is...absolute and verifiable proof that you don't have a damned clue what you're talking about, and are only on here to troll and recite Rightwingnut talking points.

    I'm guessing the rest of the members here are entertaining your absurdity much like a curious puppy toys with a dead mouse before moving on to something more engaging.

    That's what you want it to mean. But as with most things, you are wrong.

     

    Again.

    8 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

    I’m a Socialist and a business owner.

    Can't be both, for long.

  13. 15 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

     

    Was Obama weak when he likely violated international law to get Osama?

     

    Russia had nuclear weapons by the time Eisenhower was President. 

     

    Is trading arms for hostages weak?  Is not violating a treaty when your intelligence agencies tell you the other side has likely violated the treaty?

    (Do I need to keep going?)

     

    Are you claiming the media was NOT pushing Bush to go into Afghanistan to get the Taliban leaders (Because I guarantee you, I can find lots of reports of that decision being criticized)?

     

    Do you take global survey polls of whether people fear the President?

     

    I'm going to be honest here.  I think "weak" in this context is bull****.  I think it is complete and utter nonsense that people use when they don't like what somebody has done, but can't put together an actual coherent and logical argument about why they don't like it.

     

    Reagan, I like him.  He was strong.  I don't like Obama.  He was weak.

     

    When there is no measure or rational behind why the person was actually weak.

     

    I think saying somebody is a bad President or leader because they are "weak" is weak, and I think people that use "weak" without any real rational behind it as a way to decide if somebody was a good or bad President are weak.

    No. That's one instance when he did the right thing. Of course, he had little choice. Slick Willy took grief for wussing out. Obama didn't want that to happen. and my guess is, he had a ready scapegoat if things when bad.

     

    Yeah, but not too many.

     

    Failed policy doesn't have to be weak, or strong. It just failed. not as bad as sending millions in cash to the world's #1 sponsor of terror.

     

    No, I'm saying after Baghdad fell, Tehran should have been next.

     

    No, but I'm Super Smart.

     

    Well then, let's flip the script. What makes you believe he was not a weak leader.

     

    Being a weak leader wasn't his only problem. He knows nothing about economics. He is a socialist.

    4 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

    Totally right on the preachers, I call them out all the time too.

     

    Oh and calling out your logical fallacies doesn't give me the ability to dismiss anything you said, it is THE reason to doubt what you said that is covered by the special knowledge. And "because I said so" is hardly convincing when you're attempting to demonstrate that someone else is wrong.

    quote-to-argue-with-a-person-who-has-ren

    I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong. That'll never happen.

    Knowing that you are is enough.

  14. 1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

    Not a preacher any more, but if you don't think preachers call people liars then I guess it's been quite some time since you've sat in a pew.

    Quite literally identifying liars is one of the things that preachers are supposed to do.

     

    Oh, and citing the logical fallacy of "special knowledge" is NOT calling you a liar, it is simply stating a fact that an appeal to special knowledge IS a logical fallacy.

    In the future, if I'm going to call you a liar, just remember I know how to spell the word, as evidenced multiple times in this post.

    Preachers calling out liars is what they do. Unfortunately, too many should be doing so in a mirror.

    And I realize that not citing verifiable evidence opens the door to criticism. It gives one the ability to totally dismiss anything said. Not knowing how wrong you are only hurts you. I'm doing just fine.

  15. 10 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

    I was a member of the most deployed unit in the Army since 1985.  If you think the morale was high before Obama, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you...

    Is it actually beachfront, or is there a dune blocking the view?

    13 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

    Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Special Knowledge

     

    That for the record is not the first logical fallacy you've employed so far today.

    I love being called a liar by a preacher.

    You are still a preacher, aren't you. Or something to do with organized religion.

    12 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

     

    He's got a lot of anecdotes and feelings on the topic.  Not a lot of actual evidence. 

    No evidence. You mean like, Mueller?

  16. 10 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

     

    And some people think allowing transgender people in the military is the right thing to do.

     

    I don't know what mean by weak CIC.  How do we measure weakness of the CIC?

     

    Eisenhower refused to go into China was he weak?

     

    Reagan pulled out of Lebanon was he weak?

     

    Bush kept US troops out of Pakistan when we knew the Taliban had retreated out of Afghanistan into Pakistan allowing a lot of the Taliban leadership to escape?

     

    What is our measure for weak?

    Well, all 3 of them are wrong. But, the MSM has damn near everyone afraid to voice a differing opinion. Unlike myself, they can't handle the swarm.

     

    Obama was weak. The only reason many allies liked get their picture taken with him, is because standing next to Obama, they didn't look so weak.

     

    Eisenhower knew the country was war weary. So he, like Bush, took his foot off the gas. Had China and Russia been handled then, we might be in better shape. No way to know for sure.

     

    Reagan was wrong to pull out, in the way we did. That was only 1 instance. Obama was weak, everyday.

     

    Bush also succumbed to media/political pressure. But there were more instances of not being weak, than of being weak.

     

    When no one fears you. At all.

    • Haha 2
  17. 10 minutes ago, AJ* said:

     

     

    The military morale was already gutted long before Obama came into office. I would know from constantly being around Marines and reservists on Camp Lejeune for years during the Iraq war. I heard those gutted sentiments expressed from many Marines and reservists who came back from a tour only to find out a few weeks/months later they had to go back again....and then again. Try imagining a reservist being told he/she has to stay past the commitment they signed on for to go on multiple tours. I saw the anger and frustration they had, especially the ones with families and newborns. I saw it all up close. It sure as hell didn't have anything to do with Obama.

    Well, as I told someone else, we know different people, that's all.

  18. 6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

     

    Okay, but then you get into a situation where you can't do anything the military doesn't like and be a good President.  Does that actually make much sense?

     

    Much of the military didn't want to integrate under Eisenhower and supported Mcarthur for invading China?  Does that make Eisenhower a bad President?

     

    Or the members of the military that didn't support Eisenhower wrong and Eisenhower was a good President?

    Each issue is it's own. Integration was the right thing to do. It was also inevitable. If they'd have listened to Mac, things might have been better. Of course, they might have been worse too. The militaries purpose is to be the most devastating killing machine on the planet. Having a weakling CIC is not the preferable choice. 

  19. 6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

     

    Yep, and I'm sure that is why you posted it.  I stand by my choice, I'm pretty confident in it.  :)

    So was General Custer. ;)

    12 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

     

    Yea, I live next to the Pentagon and about half of my neighbors are officers.  This is 1) not true for Obama and 2) very true for Trump.  Turns out they don't like him jerking them around with tweets, not trusting the intelligence community (which is largely military) and cowering in front of Putin.  

     

    But don't take my word for it.  https://www.newsweek.com/majority-us-military-officers-have-unfavorable-view-trump-new-poll-shows-691807

     

     

    We know different people, that's all. Lots of top officers took an earlier retirement than they planned. Once Obama started replacing them with "quota" officers, sympathetic to his socialist leaning worldview.

  20. 12 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

    Let's not be too quick to label Ax a troll or a racist.  Let's hear him justify his positions.

     

    The "privileged" comment was especially interesting to me.  It reveals much about his mindset.

    I should clarify what I meant by privileged.

    Obama was raised in a white household. Doubt he ever spent a hungry day in his life. Was able to go to college. If he was all white, instead of half, wouldn't he have been, according to some, a beneficiary of white privilege?

    He may not have had a silver spoon, but compared to a lot of people in this country, of every color/race, he's had an easy life. As in, privileged.

    15 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

     

    *cough* bull**** *cough*

    Obviously, you can't know what I pay now, compared to before. So, calling me a liar, is your choice. Being wrong, is the reality.

    11 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

    *their

    Hey! You win the cookie!

  21. 11 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

     

    Ok, but that's very different than he gutted the military.  Are there any numbers that suggest he actually gutted the military?

     

    That he made decisions with respect to the military that, especially the rank and file didn't like is very different than he gutted the military.  The military didn't like that he withdrew from Iraq, but why do people in the military's opinion matter than the rest of us?  I don't think that the military didn't like it is actually very good evidence that it was a bad idea, and it certainly doesn't mean he gutted the military.

    Gutting the military doesn't have to be limited to just dollars. Especially when those dollars aren't itemized. Though I realize that is the usual meaning. I should have been more clear. I'd say he gutted morale. That's worse than just dollars. But there were/are many shortages of supplies/weapons, not to mention few pay raises. Forcing soldiers to accept men, who want to play female, didn't help much either.

  22. 5 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

     

    - Damn him for trying to get health care for more Americans.  And for using a GOP model to do so.   It's funny how many people polled about of the Affordable Care Act - when it was labeled as such - liked it.  But those same people, on the other hand, just hated Obamacare.  But I'm waiting for Trump-care... you know, the new plan that will cover everybody and be the best health care in the world.  I know that because my President told me so.

     

    - I guess that happens when you have a Congress whose mission is to stifle your agenda at every turn.  And now Trump - with a GOP Congress -  cranks out Executive Orders as fast as his stubby little hands can sign them with his big black magic marker.

     

    - "There's not a liberal America and a conservative America, there's the United States of America."

    or

     "To be an American is about more than what we look like, or what our last names are, or how we worship."

    Guess who said those things? Hint: It's not Donald Trump.

     

    -  "Planting the seeds of snowflakeism."  That's just stupid.  That's Rush Limbaugh stupid.  That's enough from me. You fail.

     

     

    Yes, damn him for quadrupling my premiums. For tripling my deductible. And for lying about it during the process. Nothing is better. And you'll get no argument from me, the R's haven't, and likely won't, do anything about it.

     

    It simply isn't true the R's stifled anyone's agenda. (Well, except currently) I know that's the myth that the left believes. As they swallow every bit of spoon fed drivel that the Democrat cheerleading MSM feeds them. 

     

    Oh, he could read a teleprompter well. Gotta give him that.

     

    Snowflakes are real. Rush is a blowhard. But he's smarter than anyone on the left. Anyone.

×
×
  • Create New...