BornaSkinsFan83

12 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

And we gotta drop everything we're doing and start cleaning up.  Just a thought...

 

 

This can't be said enough. The "everyone stay calm", stay medium crowd is ****ing killing me. I can't figure out if they just aren't aware of what's going on, or if they think it's business as usual or if they figure it'll take care of itself? It's maddening to watch though. Especially when they start in with their high-horse lecturing. Oh God...the lecturing. Just kill me. 

59 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

100% agree. Unfortunately a large part of America thought it was okay. People need to feel the impact of their decisions financially and on their own wellbeing before we see real change. 

Why I'm borderline in support of (depending on my mood) the current health care bill passing. I will lose my health insurance. It will hurt me immensely. But I live in the DC metro area. I have options. I can probably figure something out.

On the flipside, that bill is going to demolish the GOP's rural base. And they deserve it. It's about time they get what they paid/voted for. I want them to suffer. I want them to finally realize that daddy doesn't love them. I see no other way for them to break free and grow the **** up. 

4 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I don't think we are there yet homie. Most americas ain't ready to fight for ****, least of all what they "believe" in. 

Where is "there" though? That's the question. When does it become acceptable? When does it become something worth fighting for? 

Ftr I'm not saying we need to be there. I don't know. The shooting in Alexandria last month and the various reactions to it just got me thinking. Wanted to start a whole thread with examples of seemingly-acceptable violence throughout history and compare it to our times and see if the acceptable standard for violence has changed. And everything that goes with that. 

I don't have any set answers on this. Just something I'm trying to work though. 

He finished it up with, "If you're here for me and my wife's help-wanted ad, I'll meet me with you behind the barn in 20 minutes."

(i have faith someone knows what I'm referencing.) 

2 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

My other comment was (mostly) joking. 

I've been meaning to start a thread for awhile now about when exactly is violence appropriate. What's the point where enough is enough? I mean our Founding Fathers started a revolution over arguably less. So when does it become appropriate? If ever? 

(I think that's a legitimate question but go ahead and cue the over-privileged retirement-community crowd with comfortable lives and their buzzwords.)

19 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

News flash.  They are the press.  

 

That pesky constitution applies to people you don't like.  

 

News flash: says who? 

That pesky Constitution didn't seem to have a problem with the Fairness Doctrine for the 40 years it was in effect. You know, before your boy Reagan scrapped it and paved the way for Fox News. 

I just love that everyone whines and moans for the days of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow, but the second you bring up the Fairness Doctrine, which was in effect from 1949 to 1987, uh oh. Buzzword!! Buzzword!! Buzzword!! Peace out nuance and rational thought...

Just now, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I believe BASF was the one lecturing me about fascism during the election, actually.  

Case in point. 

You should look up the time that raging fascist FDR made Father Coughlin kick rocks. 

1 minute ago, Larry said:

Admiring the irony of a person with Captain America as their avatar, advocating that the government censor the press.  

 

What's the definition of press? 

Just now, Llevron said:

 

Not the press. Fox. 

Beat me to it. 

We need the government to step in on FoxNews. We need to look at reviving the Fairness Doctrine. We need to explore other potential anti-propaganda laws. That's the only way. 

2 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Prolly their #1 export these days.

You sure it's not dashcam accident videos? 

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

 I mean, nothing like FOXNews but yeah… 

And then what if FoxNews is one of those allies? Knowingly or unknowingly. 

Are we all in agreement that Russia running a massive psych/propaganda-op, with coordination and cover provided by American allies, would absolutely influence a large number of people? 

11 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Born, I quoted your post because it bears repeating, often and loudly.

 

The Republicans often talk about the founding fathers and the Christian nation nonsense, twisted for their own purposes. Here's another, Hamilton, who lays out succinctly what the founders meant by high crimes and misdemeanors. 

 

Thank you. Do you mind if I copy the quote to my FB page for dissemination?

Of course LSF. And you don't need to ask me stuff like that. We're all in this together. I appreciate it though. 

3 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I don't give a damn if it's treason or not, it certainly qualifies for "high crimes and misdemeanors." But the fact that the GOPers on the Hill seem to be trying to weather the storm does not give me hope that articles of impeachment will get much attention any time soon without further revelations. The part that pisses me off the most is that I know that the leaders on the Hill know more than we do an they're still trying to work with this trash in the White House.

Ftr it doesn't even need to be an actual crime, in the legal sense, to qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors". From uber-conservative Andy McCarthy:

The standard for impeachment, the commission of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” is not concerned with criminal offenses found in the penal statute books and suitable for courtroom prosecution. It relates instead to the president’s high fiduciary duty to the American people and allegiance to our system of government. Alexander Hamilton put it best in Federalist No. 65. Impeachable offenses are those “Which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

The bickering over collusion ‘crimes’ misses the point. If an unfit person holds the presidency, the danger to our society is that he will abuse the power that he wields. The imperative is to remove him from office.

1 hour ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

The GOP isn't going anywhere.  The Dems always talk about the impending doom of the GOP.  

 

As for accountability, what's the point in accountability when you don't give a **** in the first place?  

The point is making them give a ****. 

And any other time I'd agree on the former.  This scandal is different though. This is the greatest political scandal in the history of this nation. And at this point there's no telling where this ends up.

My fellow liberals and other anti-Trump/GOP/bull****ers better be getting ready to get dirty. Getting all verklempt and cynical on social media ain't gonna cut it this time. 

21 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

. If suppporting Trump becomes incredibly untenable they will craft a lie that they never really did, just the principles he represented.

We can't let that happen. Not this time. We cannot let people escape accountability this time. No matter how ugly it gets. 

59 minutes ago, tshile said:

People are starting to figure out the right and wrong side of this one, and value their reputations.

 

 

Shep Smith has been THE good one at Fox for a looooooong time now. He was doing the same back in the heyday of W. He regularly had moments like this throughout the Iraq War. My new age Buddhist, quasi-socialist, midlife-crisis-chicken farming, FoxNews-hating, weirdo mother has been a devoted fan for forever now (literally the only cable news she's ever watched is generic CNN Headline News and Shepherd Smith. She was a nurse for 30+ years and I think that's what was always on in the lobby.) I've got to witness (or at least hear about) it all. 

I'm always amused when people are shocked that he called a spade a spade.  That's just what he does. He really doesn't strike me as artificial and measured in any type of way. He really deserves more recognition. I think it's sad that he's been buried in the midday slot on Fox. 

Chris Wallace on the other hand is one of the better ones but still has issues. He rocks at debates and can do quality interviews (like his father) but he also has consistently shoveled the GOP's **** over the years. They use him (and his respected name) to give a type of authority and respectability to the GOP's bull****. You're dead right about him. His reputation is everything to his professional career. He's not going to throw that away for Cap'n ****tard and his Merry Band of Dip****s. 

22 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I was someone who laughed at the russia stuff during the campaign. there was never any real evidence - forget hard evidence, just something of substance.

 

The whole 'secrete server in trump tower' thing turned out to be credit card stealing stuff (which is not far off my original guess of phishing attempts.)

 

But... things started getting bad after the issue with Flynn. And it just kept getting worse like a snowball slowly rolling down the hill. Now Jr's email....

 

And it's just lie, after lie, after lie. You cannot trust someone who just lies. People who lie like that do so because they have something to hide. We've seen it before.

 

I'm not willing to go full-fledge he must be impeached now, because I think we need more information, but damn if doesn't get harder every day to try to see any way this wasn't what everyone else was saying it was all along...

 

and now the gop leadership stuff?

 

holy ****... i'm not kidding when i say I wasn't expecting that, I would have argued against anyone suggesting such a thing and done so vigorously, and it has caused me to be very concerned....

 

i'm hoping we get something better than plausible deniability out of the GOP leadership. god i hope so...

Maybe you'll think twice before laughing folks off in the future? 

Personally the RNC sealed the deal for me. Them changing their policy RE Russia and the Ukraine.  There wasn't a single innocent explanation for that. Then the smoke around Manafort. Lots of other pieces. I thought it was obvious the something was seriously wrong.

I absolutely despise conspiratards. I've spent a lot of time with them over the years. And I despise them. They were my public enemy #1 before the rise of Trump and his merry band of alt right ****stains (curiously enough, you often find the same folks in both groups.) So I'm the last person to show my ass on something like this.

Just going through everything though, namely the characters involved and really the lack of feasible, logical and INNOCENT explanations for a lot of it, it just really made it obvious.

It's like the process of elimination. You see the evidence and then you just work through it. If you get stuck on something innocent and feasible then the theory is most likely bull****. And then character matters big time. So on all of this I wasn't getting stuck anywhere good. And Trump and Co were obviously horrible, horrible people who would have no qualms about doing literally anything for power and personal glory. Here we are. 

Just way too much smoke and nobody brought a smoke machine. I didn't know what happened exactly but I knew something happened. And for the sake of the Republic, we needed to find out. 

I thought it was ridiculous that people, such as myself, were being treated like chicken littles. We scoff at, flatly reject and denounce stupid conspiratards 99.999% of the time, you'd think the one time we said "whoa wait a second" that people would hear us out. It's kind of insulting in a way that anyone would think we'd sell out our principles and standards over simple politics.

I'm not taking it personal though. It's just the nature of the world we live in. That's where the whole false equivalency thing comes in though. You think everyone is equally a partisan hack then not only are the real hacks (or traitors in this case) going to be let off the hook (what they're doing is just normal right? Not worth raising a stink over it.) but the honest people with the honest concerns and honest allegations are going to be dismissed off the bat and the actual bad ones get away with it again. It's a legitimate tactic and it's something we desperately need to fix. 

Btw Oswald acted alone. 100%, not a doubt in my mind. 

44 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

If all this is in the news, imagine what Mueller has. I imagine he's waiting until they understand the full scope of what is going on before starting to file charges. 

 

And I've got to say, given the Kremlin's tendency to eliminate people who talk, reporters, etc, Smith's death demands further scrutiny. As does the McClatchy report's "fall down the stairs." The banister gave out? Wtf. That's two weeks after he published a report about Trump and the Mercers. Wonder what he had sitting in his inbox at the time...

 

(reminder that the Mercer's company Cambridge Analytica could be a missing link between the Russian govt intel and the Trump data operations)

 

If this seems like a conspiracy theory, well that's because it ****ing is. It's an investigation into a Russian intel operation, get used to seemingly unbelievable stuff coming to light. 

Please bro I beg you (and any of my other anti-Trump/GOP/bull**** brothers in arms) to please be careful. Don't become a conspiratard ****nut like the other side. I'm not saying don't ask questions. Just maybe pump the brakes a bit from and proceed cautiously. The conspiracy mindset is a dark hole that you can find yourself very rapidly free falling through before you even realize your running low on aluminum foil and it's your turn to bring snacks for your anti-Zionest men's group's bowling night. Don't let emotions cloud logic. Don't let anger dictate your thinking. And remain skeptical in every direction. Just please be careful. 

I would also just say that i find it hard to believe that this gang of chuckleheads in the WH could successfully orchestrate the assassination of anyway. Let alone here in America. Let alone make it look like a suicide. Would also say that Smith, iirc, was 81 years old and sick. And I've yet to see any reason to think he was important enough in for anyone to risk such a dangerous operation. (I don't see Putin giving enough of a **** about being exposed on this for him to put out a hit on an American citizen either.) 

So yeah, just please be careful. Life isn't a ****ty spy novel. Maybe wait for a bit more info before going all in on something like that. 

9 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

He will definitely do that at some point - I would put the over/under at the second week of October.

Under. No way he makes it through September. 

At one point didn't Trump or his campaign talk about a WikiLeaks post before WikiLeaks had even posted it? I seem to recall that. 

8 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

I am sure all the conspiracy hacks who believe in a Clinton kill list (Killary!!!) are also going to start Trump kill list conspiracies.  

 

Let's hear it from our resident InfoWars nutjobs. Where they at?

Finishing up their AM hentai session.

10 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I don't know about that but generally I would consider it unwise to hire alcoholics who continue to drink for positions such as lawyer to the POTUS or Redskins GM.

I mean the post you quoted was talking about morons and idiots and you kinda just substituted alcoholic for those so I was just wondering. 

You know it's the common wisdom is that once an alcoholic always an alcoholic. Even if they haven't touched it in, say, 50 years. I don't necessarily agree with that myself but that is the popular opinion, especially amongst the whole 12 steps/Anonymous community. So when do you think it's safe to hire an alcoholic? 

24 minutes ago, tshile said:

I would assume that blood results show a range of accidental and a range of intentional

 

I bet intentional way over do it because they don't know what they're doing

 

Think: whole bottle of pills vs one or two too many and no one around to notice and help.

 

 

Yeah I thought about that and think there's gonna be obvious cases where it's suicide. But with addicts? I don't know. Most of them are riding that overdose line every time they get high. They know where it is. They know what they're doing.

And then you have to factor in tolerance and as far as i know, there's no way to measure that in an individual. That's like with Kurt Cobain conspiracy theories, they say "oh there's no way he could have this much heroin in his system and still be conscious enough to pull the trigger." And I don't remember the exact figures, but anyone who has any experience with heroin is saying uh no, that's a strong but standard shot for an everyday user. (not making any of this up btw.)

I'd hate to see someone get cheated out of his parents life insurance policy because they developed an addiction from pain management treatment and it went too far (or whatever). And you know that's some grimey **** that an insurance company would do. 

Can a life insurance company nullify a policy after the fact because the person didn't disclose a medical issue? Then say said addiction was said issues and **** em like that?  Besides suicide, what can put the brakes on a life insurance claim? 

But for real, none of this matters so please nobody take time to go look up anything. Just shooting the **** with a coworker and got curious. 

But yeah, I'm so tempted to push a REMEMBER PETER SMITH conspiracy theory. Especially when Fredo has retweeted **** like this... 

And super especially after Seth Rich. (actually went by his murder scene over the weekend. Don't get me started. Ftr I was in the neighborhood. Not a complete weirdo.) But no, I'm not going to drool on myself and post Remember Peter Smith **** on my FB wall. Why? Because I don't give a **** about Peter Smith dying and I have respect for myself and don't want to pretend to be a ****ing idiot. Crazy concepts, I know. 

1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

I don't have the answer to that. I'm guessing the autopsy/toxicology tests would tell the tale. 

 

Yeah that's the thing, I'm not sure how they determining an accidental OD vs an intentional OD with an autopsy or lab tests. And this is an actual thing (accidental or intentional) that's going to just get bigger and bigger as our government continues to completely and totally **** the bed in the war against addiction so just curious how insurance companies are handling it. Plus work too. 

But anyway, this isn't something anyone here is concerned with, especially in this thread, so sorry to hijack. Getting back to more important matters...

**** Russia

Wait she knew it was a BB gun? Yeah I think I'm taking the BB over drinking hot sauce.