ImageImageImageImageImage

Political Roundtable Part XIX

Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart

stilldropin20
RealGM
Posts: 11,370
And1: 1,233
Joined: Jul 31, 2002
 

Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1881 » by stilldropin20 » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:47 am

dckingsfan wrote:
stilldropin20 wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:Of course I am.


This is just factually incorrect.


This is much closer to correct. It was 6% in 2016.


This is factually incorrect. The Treasury would still be able to issue bonds. Unless you are saying the Treasury would issue 0% bonds and people would purchase them.

2. Solves the problems. You can just skip 1.


You have not been listening. I have been mentioning this for 12 months. The treasury would cease to issue bonds. No more bonds. And Issue notes instead. They would just print money, themselves. but in this electronic environment, they likely would not even have to incur the cost of printing. just issue the electronic funds or very large notes. AKA "legal tender."

It doesn't sound like you are aware, the the United States treasury department used to print money. And it worked. The treasury would issue and contract money from the money supply as well as determine interest rates. They used to do it all. And did so from the onset of the founding of this country 1776. for about 20 years. Then that POS, Alexander Hamilton and Biddle lobbied congress to set up the first version of a privately owned central bank. Whioch lasted 20 years. Andrew jackson Killed the banks. and killed them for nearly 100 years. The US treasury department was in control of our money supply and the issuance of our money for nearly 115 years of the first 135 years since the USA was "founded."

And we flourished!!! We did just fine. We balanced our budgets and even funded a civil war. We did not have income taxes!! Instead we had tariffs on both imports and exports. Which means "big business" paid for the costs to "run" the country.

The everyday working man and the working class slowly organized and fought for fair(er) labor laws (only 12 hours per day ,6 days per week lol) and he was rewarded with 10% income taxes(first ever) in 1913 federal reserve act. And the government eased up on tariffs in throughout the 1920's. So with the federal reserve act of 1913. Our government began to shift away from taxing corporations and instead taxing workers. You can thank woodrew wilson.

Not only did tariffs on exports and imports slowly fade until the trade wars of the 1930's but we the people also began to borrow money and pay interest.

European bankers successfully lobbied congress to allow them to institute a central bank. These same European bankers had already begun to fund both allied and axis powers in WW1. Were now already ramping up for another arms race for WW2. All at interest. For money they didn't even have.

by 1945 the industrial war complex of the world central banks had successfully funded the deaths of over 100 million people and nuclear bombs had been funded and created which created an even larger arms race than before 1938. All of it on borrowed money. All of it on money that did NOT even exist. It was created out of thin air via fractional reserve lending. All of it. Every single penny.

And what I'm trying to say is why do we need private owners of our federal bank? Why pay 5% interest???

We can still create the money out of thin air by printing "notes" instead of Bonds using the exact same techniques that the federal reserve uses. Except it would be interest free. If we own the banks that create the money, why charge ourselves interest? Or if you do pay interest, pay it to ourselves.

It would save us $310 billion per year on interest payments.

You know the problem with your rants - you start with something factual and the posit that something that isn't true comes out of the fact.

Flowers are beautiful. God is beautiful. Flowers are god.

You follow a line of reasoning until you posit that WWII was caused by central banks. Wow.

You could just say you want to go back to the Treasury printing money instead of the fed. Again, that doesn't really change anything if you are spending more than you are taking in - you will still depreciate your currency. 1) matters - 2) doesn't matter if you are doing 1.

The difference is - back in the "old days" they had a smaller budget and the legislature took their jobs seriously with respect to fiduciary responsibility.

BTW, why did the US implement the first income tax? To pay for the Civil War.

Don’t tell me? You think Hitler created tanks out of thin air?

It takes money to build up an army. Occupation of Germany after World War I was extremely relaxed. Why?? 20 years later Germany was fully funded for a Second World War. Amazing.

How? Why?

It’s called money. Who do you think they got it from?

Here’s a hint… From exact same place every warmongering country has ever gotten money for their wars for the last 200 years.

At some point we have to blame the banks that fund these war mongers , don’t we?

And that’s one of the dangers of private central banks. They don’t really care who and why and where they “loan” money. so long as they don’t get too bad of press and get their money back with 5% interest. Here’s a hint on the press angle. The Rothschilds have owned or funded or lend money to purchase the Washington Post Chicago Tribune economist they own out right San Francisco Chronicle London times New York post and frankly I could go on. The originally Rothschild funded start-up Rockefellers Bank of America owns NBC and everything under its umbrella. They own MOST of the effing press folks. That’s why they don’t get bad press.

And that’s why they have such a hard on for social media and Fox. Because the bankers dont own either. yet. Their investment banking arms are slowly getting control of both though acquisition of shares so its just a matter of time before the bankers via their investment banking divisions own and fully control your social media feeds. But they dont own and control social media yet so they have fully flipped out because they can’t control the narrative as well. Don’t get me wrong. CNN, Time warner, MSNBC are all trying really **** hard.

It’s a problem.

Yes, we need central banks. Yes, we need a central banking system. But it does NOT have to be privately owned. This is something we the people should still own and our governments should be in control.

I mean seriously why the phuck do we have public school system,public mail service, public police departments, public fire departments, public military, public everything really? Yet our banking system and our money is ownedd by private corporations. Our banking system and our money is the most important asset/resource that we have. And our Congress and President in 1913 gave it away to private corporations? That sounds right to you?

So they can lend us back, what is already our own effing money?? And charges us 5% interest? That interest now cost us $310 billion per year this past year? That’s right to you? This is not a "spending" problem? . $310 billion in annual costs is not large enough????? And we dont get anything for it. no product. its just interest payments on what was already...our own damn money!!!

And these central banks are not publicly traded. They are private corporations. so we never see an SEC filing for anything. you can Not follow their money. Its essentially dark money. they darkest of the dark because they are allowed to operate under secrecy in what our bought off and paid for government "agents" tell us is a matter of national security. :lol:

Why??????!!!!!!

This is the biggest problem we face as a nation. as a people. as a country. And really the entire world faces exact same problem in their own countries. Not only have we all become enslaved to the interest payments that our country "borrows" but we are borrowing money that they don’t even have. That they are creating out of thin air via fractional reserve lending. and we are paying them 5% interest for their creation of money. This is the biggest scam the devil ever pulled on mankind.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app
like i said, its a full rebuild.
User avatar
TGW
RealGM
Posts: 13,339
And1: 6,711
Joined: Oct 22, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1882 » by TGW » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:47 am

Pathetic...#fakeresistance

Read on Twitter
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
stilldropin20
RealGM
Posts: 11,370
And1: 1,233
Joined: Jul 31, 2002
 

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1883 » by stilldropin20 » Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:57 am

dont really want to take away from the barn busting federal banking act debate but...

here.we.go.
Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter
like i said, its a full rebuild.
Wizardspride
RealGM
Posts: 17,264
And1: 11,462
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Location: Olney, MD/Kailua/Kaneohe, HI
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1884 » by Wizardspride » Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:33 am

TGW wrote:Hey Wizardspride...you wanted to know why you should stop watching MSNBC? Because it's corporate trash and borderline fake news pushing a agenda. It's Fox News-lite for Democrats.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/ed-schultz-msnbc-fired-supporting-bernie-sanders-tank-hillary-clinton/

Actually, I didn't ask you why I should stop watching MSNBC.

I asked for what alternatives you recommend. :D

And as for the link, that's an interesting narrative.

Here's another version....

Read on Twitter
?s=20

President Donald Trump referred to African countries, Haiti and El Salvador as "shithole" nations during a meeting Thursday and asked why the U.S. can't have more immigrants from Norway.
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 34,680
And1: 20,311
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1885 » by dckingsfan » Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:20 pm

stilldropin20 wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
stilldropin20 wrote:
You have not been listening. I have been mentioning this for 12 months. The treasury would cease to issue bonds. No more bonds. And Issue notes instead. They would just print money, themselves. but in this electronic environment, they likely would not even have to incur the cost of printing. just issue the electronic funds or very large notes. AKA "legal tender."

It doesn't sound like you are aware, the the United States treasury department used to print money. And it worked. The treasury would issue and contract money from the money supply as well as determine interest rates. They used to do it all. And did so from the onset of the founding of this country 1776. for about 20 years. Then that POS, Alexander Hamilton and Biddle lobbied congress to set up the first version of a privately owned central bank. Whioch lasted 20 years. Andrew jackson Killed the banks. and killed them for nearly 100 years. The US treasury department was in control of our money supply and the issuance of our money for nearly 115 years of the first 135 years since the USA was "founded."

And we flourished!!! We did just fine. We balanced our budgets and even funded a civil war. We did not have income taxes!! Instead we had tariffs on both imports and exports. Which means "big business" paid for the costs to "run" the country.

The everyday working man and the working class slowly organized and fought for fair(er) labor laws (only 12 hours per day ,6 days per week lol) and he was rewarded with 10% income taxes(first ever) in 1913 federal reserve act. And the government eased up on tariffs in throughout the 1920's. So with the federal reserve act of 1913. Our government began to shift away from taxing corporations and instead taxing workers. You can thank woodrew wilson.

Not only did tariffs on exports and imports slowly fade until the trade wars of the 1930's but we the people also began to borrow money and pay interest.

European bankers successfully lobbied congress to allow them to institute a central bank. These same European bankers had already begun to fund both allied and axis powers in WW1. Were now already ramping up for another arms race for WW2. All at interest. For money they didn't even have.

by 1945 the industrial war complex of the world central banks had successfully funded the deaths of over 100 million people and nuclear bombs had been funded and created which created an even larger arms race than before 1938. All of it on borrowed money. All of it on money that did NOT even exist. It was created out of thin air via fractional reserve lending. All of it. Every single penny.

And what I'm trying to say is why do we need private owners of our federal bank? Why pay 5% interest???

We can still create the money out of thin air by printing "notes" instead of Bonds using the exact same techniques that the federal reserve uses. Except it would be interest free. If we own the banks that create the money, why charge ourselves interest? Or if you do pay interest, pay it to ourselves.

It would save us $310 billion per year on interest payments.

You know the problem with your rants - you start with something factual and the posit that something that isn't true comes out of the fact.

Flowers are beautiful. God is beautiful. Flowers are god.

You follow a line of reasoning until you posit that WWII was caused by central banks. Wow.

You could just say you want to go back to the Treasury printing money instead of the fed. Again, that doesn't really change anything if you are spending more than you are taking in - you will still depreciate your currency. 1) matters - 2) doesn't matter if you are doing 1.

The difference is - back in the "old days" they had a smaller budget and the legislature took their jobs seriously with respect to fiduciary responsibility.

BTW, why did the US implement the first income tax? To pay for the Civil War.

Don’t tell me? You think Hitler created tanks out of thin air?

It takes money to build up an army. Occupation of Germany after World War I was extremely relaxed. Why?? 20 years later Germany was fully funded for a Second World War. Amazing.

How? Why?

It’s called money. Who do you think they got it from?

Here’s a hint… From exact same place every warmongering country has ever gotten money for their wars for the last 200 years.

At some point we have to blame the banks that fund these war mongers , don’t we?

And that’s one of the dangers of private central banks. They don’t really care who and why and where they “loan” money. so long as they don’t get too bad of press and get their money back with 5% interest. Here’s a hint on the press angle. The Rothschilds have owned or funded or lend money to purchase the Washington Post Chicago Tribune economist they own out right San Francisco Chronicle London times New York post and frankly I could go on. The originally Rothschild funded start-up Rockefellers Bank of America owns NBC and everything under its umbrella. They own MOST of the effing press folks. That’s why they don’t get bad press.

And that’s why they have such a hard on for social media and Fox. Because the bankers dont own either. yet. Their investment banking arms are slowly getting control of both though acquisition of shares so its just a matter of time before the bankers via their investment banking divisions own and fully control your social media feeds. But they dont own and control social media yet so they have fully flipped out because they can’t control the narrative as well. Don’t get me wrong. CNN, Time warner, MSNBC are all trying really **** hard.

It’s a problem.

Yes, we need central banks. Yes, we need a central banking system. But it does NOT have to be privately owned. This is something we the people should still own and our governments should be in control.

I mean seriously why the phuck do we have public school system,public mail service, public police departments, public fire departments, public military, public everything really? Yet our banking system and our money is ownedd by private corporations. Our banking system and our money is the most important asset/resource that we have. And our Congress and President in 1913 gave it away to private corporations? That sounds right to you?

So they can lend us back, what is already our own effing money?? And charges us 5% interest? That interest now cost us $310 billion per year this past year? That’s right to you? This is not a "spending" problem? . $310 billion in annual costs is not large enough????? And we dont get anything for it. no product. its just interest payments on what was already...our own damn money!!!

And these central banks are not publicly traded. They are private corporations. so we never see an SEC filing for anything. you can Not follow their money. Its essentially dark money. they darkest of the dark because they are allowed to operate under secrecy in what our bought off and paid for government "agents" tell us is a matter of national security. :lol:

Why??????!!!!!!

This is the biggest problem we face as a nation. as a people. as a country. And really the entire world faces exact same problem in their own countries. Not only have we all become enslaved to the interest payments that our country "borrows" but we are borrowing money that they don’t even have. That they are creating out of thin air via fractional reserve lending. and we are paying them 5% interest for their creation of money. This is the biggest scam the devil ever pulled on mankind.

Sorry wrong. World War I reparations were the number #1 reason for WWII. After WWII we tried a different approach and that worked.

Since your argument falls from that fact. Try again.

Now, if you want to make an argument that the fed contributes towards banks that are too big to fail. Okay.

And to the bolded statement - the reason is we are spending more than we are taking in. And that is the root of the problem - the fed lending, QE and our printing money is but a symptom.
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 34,680
And1: 20,311
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1886 » by dckingsfan » Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:25 pm

My take is that it was bad legislation to start. The rules were so complex that it basically made it impossible for small banks to comply. And hence no new small banks and big banks that bigger (really to big to fail).

The (congress) would have been much better off if they had taken an anti-monopoly approach and broken up all the big banks. But then they would have reduced their oversight.

It was an interesting tradeoff - and they picked the, how did you phrase it, the pathetic route.
TGW wrote:Pathetic...#fakeresistance

Read on Twitter
User avatar
TGW
RealGM
Posts: 13,339
And1: 6,711
Joined: Oct 22, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1887 » by TGW » Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:54 pm

dckingsfan wrote:My take is that it was bad legislation to start. The rules were so complex that it basically made it impossible for small banks to comply. And hence no new small banks and big banks that bigger (really to big to fail).

The (congress) would have been much better off if they had taken an anti-monopoly approach and broken up all the big banks. But then they would have reduced their oversight.

It was an interesting tradeoff - and they picked the, how did you phrase it, the pathetic route.
TGW wrote:Pathetic...#fakeresistance

Read on Twitter


No it wasn't bad legislation. Sheesh man, you do understand that banks were using YOUR MONEY to do speculative investing? How do you not have a problem with that?

If congress was worried about small banks (which they aren't, it was just an excuse), then they would have simply made an exception for small businesses. But they didn't. So the alternative....the pathetic route.
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 34,680
And1: 20,311
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1888 » by dckingsfan » Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:06 pm

The goal was good, no question (and we both agree that it is necessary). The legislation itself was pathetic because it didn't achieve the end goal.

And small banks and not growing the current banks were not only discussed but were a preamble to the legislation.

So, good intent, epic fail legislatively.

Part of the problem is that these same legislators want to keep Freddie and Fannie alive. They have ulterior motives that they keep stumbling over.
TGW wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:My take is that it was bad legislation to start. The rules were so complex that it basically made it impossible for small banks to comply. And hence no new small banks and big banks that bigger (really to big to fail).

The (congress) would have been much better off if they had taken an anti-monopoly approach and broken up all the big banks. But then they would have reduced their oversight.

It was an interesting tradeoff - and they picked the, how did you phrase it, the pathetic route.
TGW wrote:Pathetic...#fakeresistance

Read on Twitter


No it wasn't bad legislation. Sheesh man, you do understand that banks were using YOUR MONEY to do speculative investing? How do you not have a problem with that?

If congress was worried about small banks (which they aren't, it was just an excuse), then they would have simply made an exception for small businesses. But they didn't. So the alternative....the pathetic route.
Wizardspride
RealGM
Posts: 17,264
And1: 11,462
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Location: Olney, MD/Kailua/Kaneohe, HI
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1889 » by Wizardspride » Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:37 pm

Devin Nunes isn't the brightest guy....

President Donald Trump referred to African countries, Haiti and El Salvador as "shithole" nations during a meeting Thursday and asked why the U.S. can't have more immigrants from Norway.
User avatar
TGW
RealGM
Posts: 13,339
And1: 6,711
Joined: Oct 22, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1890 » by TGW » Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:11 pm

Wizardspride wrote:
TGW wrote:Hey Wizardspride...you wanted to know why you should stop watching MSNBC? Because it's corporate trash and borderline fake news pushing a agenda. It's Fox News-lite for Democrats.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/ed-schultz-msnbc-fired-supporting-bernie-sanders-tank-hillary-clinton/

Actually, I didn't ask you why I should stop watching MSNBC.

I asked for what alternatives you recommend. :D

And as for the link, that's an interesting narrative.

Here's another version....

Read on Twitter
?s=20


Sure...news from STATE SPONSORED media is one. BBC, PBS, and NPR consistently rank higher in trust polls than the other corporate news outlets in the US.

And it's funny that you linked to a WaPo story smearing Schultz as "pro-Putie" (such a joke but I don't expect anything else from fake news WaPo) when he's allowed to be more critical of Putie on Russian state media than he was allowed to be critical of the TPP on MSNBC :lol:

By the way, RT America destroys every cable media outlet in this country. It's not even close. But hey, you like you're opiniutainment news...that's fine. Just don't try and sell Maddow or Joy Reid as news to me, because they're Sean Hannity for liberals.
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 9,028
And1: 4,729
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1891 » by Zonkerbl » Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:40 pm

Here's another resource for dealing with trolls and other online harassment:

https://onlineharassmentfieldmanual.pen.org/
I've been taught all my life to value service to the weak and powerless.
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 34,680
And1: 20,311
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1892 » by dckingsfan » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:01 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:Here's another resource for dealing with trolls and other online harassment:

https://onlineharassmentfieldmanual.pen.org/

This is a pretty good base to build on... not a bad piece of work.
User avatar
gtn130
Analyst
Posts: 3,512
And1: 2,740
Joined: Mar 18, 2009

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1893 » by gtn130 » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:03 pm

TGW wrote:Just don't try and sell Maddow or Joy Reid as news to me, because they're Sean Hannity for liberals.


This is laughably wrong.

Sean Hannity's show talks about Seth Rich, Uranium One and Hillary's Emails on a nightly basis. Fox News is being sued by the Seth Rich family for defamation. Hannity's show has absolutely no basis in reality and functions primarily as a mouthpiece for Trump/Wikileaks/Russian Propaganda. He literally collaborates with Julian Assange on his show's content.

Maddow isn't really my cup of tea, but she doesn't promote conspiracy theories or intentionally say things that are dishonest or detached from reality.

It's a really bad false equivalence on your part, but that's kind of your entire ethos at this point
Wizardspride
RealGM
Posts: 17,264
And1: 11,462
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Location: Olney, MD/Kailua/Kaneohe, HI
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1894 » by Wizardspride » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:10 pm

TGW wrote:
Wizardspride wrote:
TGW wrote:Hey Wizardspride...you wanted to know why you should stop watching MSNBC? Because it's corporate trash and borderline fake news pushing a agenda. It's Fox News-lite for Democrats.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/ed-schultz-msnbc-fired-supporting-bernie-sanders-tank-hillary-clinton/

Actually, I didn't ask you why I should stop watching MSNBC.

I asked for what alternatives you recommend. :D

And as for the link, that's an interesting narrative.

Here's another version....

Read on Twitter
?s=20


Sure...news from STATE SPONSORED media is one. BBC, PBS, and NPR consistently rank higher in trust polls than the other corporate news outlets in the US.

And it's funny that you linked to a WaPo story smearing Schultz as "pro-Putie" (such a joke but I don't expect anything else from fake news WaPo) when he's allowed to be more critical of Putie on Russian state media than he was allowed to be critical of the TPP on MSNBC :lol:

Big Ed constantly railed against the TPP and Russia as well while on MSNBC.

Interestingly enough, he seems to have changed his mind about Putin/Russia/Trump...and that's his right.

It's just noticeable WHEN he changed his mind

Maybe it's a coincidence....

Heck, if you ever listened to his radio show dude used to KILL the participants of CPAC....and now he's speaking to them.

Maybe I'm just "mainstream" and Ed is "woke".....or maybe his politics are "malleable"

President Donald Trump referred to African countries, Haiti and El Salvador as "shithole" nations during a meeting Thursday and asked why the U.S. can't have more immigrants from Norway.
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 9,028
And1: 4,729
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1895 » by Zonkerbl » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:24 pm

gtn130 wrote:
TGW wrote:Just don't try and sell Maddow or Joy Reid as news to me, because they're Sean Hannity for liberals.


This is laughably wrong.

Sean Hannity's show talks about Seth Rich, Uranium One and Hillary's Emails on a nightly basis. Fox News is being sued by the Seth Rich family for defamation. Hannity's show has absolutely no basis in reality and functions primarily as a mouthpiece for Trump/Wikileaks/Russian Propaganda. He literally collaborates with Julian Assange on his show's content.

Maddow isn't really my cup of tea, but she doesn't promote conspiracy theories or intentionally say things that are dishonest or detached from reality.

It's a really bad false equivalence on your part, but that's kind of your entire ethos at this point


I'm curious to know if TGW has ever actually watched Rachel Maddow, because to make a statement like that is laughably, amazingly ignorant. I'm also curious if TGW can name, off the top of his head without googling, a policy stance Nancy Pelosi has taken that he disagrees with.
I've been taught all my life to value service to the weak and powerless.
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 9,028
And1: 4,729
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1896 » by Zonkerbl » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:35 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:
gtn130 wrote:
TGW wrote:Just don't try and sell Maddow or Joy Reid as news to me, because they're Sean Hannity for liberals.


This is laughably wrong.

Sean Hannity's show talks about Seth Rich, Uranium One and Hillary's Emails on a nightly basis. Fox News is being sued by the Seth Rich family for defamation. Hannity's show has absolutely no basis in reality and functions primarily as a mouthpiece for Trump/Wikileaks/Russian Propaganda. He literally collaborates with Julian Assange on his show's content.

Maddow isn't really my cup of tea, but she doesn't promote conspiracy theories or intentionally say things that are dishonest or detached from reality.

It's a really bad false equivalence on your part, but that's kind of your entire ethos at this point


I'm curious to know if TGW has ever actually watched Rachel Maddow, because to make a statement like that is laughably, amazingly ignorant. I'm also curious if TGW can name, off the top of his head without googling, a policy stance Nancy Pelosi has taken that he disagrees with.


Actually I don't care what TGW's answer to the Nancy Pelosi question is but would like to know Duck's take on it. Misstatements don't count ("you have to pass the legislation to find out what's in it" - if you know the context she's trying to say "there are no f@ck!ng death panels you MORONS").
I've been taught all my life to value service to the weak and powerless.
User avatar
TGW
RealGM
Posts: 13,339
And1: 6,711
Joined: Oct 22, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1897 » by TGW » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:43 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:
gtn130 wrote:
TGW wrote:Just don't try and sell Maddow or Joy Reid as news to me, because they're Sean Hannity for liberals.


This is laughably wrong.

Sean Hannity's show talks about Seth Rich, Uranium One and Hillary's Emails on a nightly basis. Fox News is being sued by the Seth Rich family for defamation. Hannity's show has absolutely no basis in reality and functions primarily as a mouthpiece for Trump/Wikileaks/Russian Propaganda. He literally collaborates with Julian Assange on his show's content.

Maddow isn't really my cup of tea, but she doesn't promote conspiracy theories or intentionally say things that are dishonest or detached from reality.

It's a really bad false equivalence on your part, but that's kind of your entire ethos at this point


I'm curious to know if TGW has ever actually watched Rachel Maddow, because to make a statement like that is laughably, amazingly ignorant. I'm also curious if TGW can name, off the top of his head without googling, a policy stance Nancy Pelosi has taken that he disagrees with.


Your such a DNC kiss-ass, I don't know whether to take you seriously on anything you say or not. Yea, let's see what I disagree with Pelosi on without googling :roll: :roll: :roll:

How about her stance on medicare for all, her support of funding for the iraq war, her support of syrian bombings, her vote to continue to allow money in politics, etc. I could go on, but it sickens me to go through it. She is a DINO.

And FYI I don't support your brand of liberalism. It's milk-toast, fake, McLiberalism. If you want to support random, indiscriminate bombings of random countries, deregulation of wall-street and banks, incrementalism, and center-left policies, that's your prerogative, not mine. I call the Democrats as I see it. If you have a problem with it, the ignore button works fine. Trust me, I use it on several posters, including the idiot you just quoted.
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 9,028
And1: 4,729
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1898 » by Zonkerbl » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:52 pm

TGW wrote:
Zonkerbl wrote:
gtn130 wrote:
This is laughably wrong.

Sean Hannity's show talks about Seth Rich, Uranium One and Hillary's Emails on a nightly basis. Fox News is being sued by the Seth Rich family for defamation. Hannity's show has absolutely no basis in reality and functions primarily as a mouthpiece for Trump/Wikileaks/Russian Propaganda. He literally collaborates with Julian Assange on his show's content.

Maddow isn't really my cup of tea, but she doesn't promote conspiracy theories or intentionally say things that are dishonest or detached from reality.

It's a really bad false equivalence on your part, but that's kind of your entire ethos at this point


I'm curious to know if TGW has ever actually watched Rachel Maddow, because to make a statement like that is laughably, amazingly ignorant. I'm also curious if TGW can name, off the top of his head without googling, a policy stance Nancy Pelosi has taken that he disagrees with.


Your such a DNC kiss-ass, I don't know whether to take you seriously on anything you say or not. Yea, let's see what I disagree with Pelosi on without googling :roll: :roll: :roll:

How about her stance on medicare for all, her support of funding for the iraq war, her support of syrian bombings, her vote to continue to allow money in politics, etc. I could go on, but it sickens me to go through it. She is a DINO.

And FYI I don't support your brand of liberalism. It's milk-toast, fake, McLiberalism. If you want to support random, indiscriminate bombings of random countries, deregulation of wall-street and banks, incrementalism, and center-left policies, that's your prerogative, not mine. I call the Democrats as I see it. If you have a problem with it, the ignore button works fine. Trust me, I use it on several posters, including the idiot you just quoted.


Don't tempt me. Fortunately you don't post often enough on this thread to really matter.

I really only blocked sd20 when he started spouting antisemitic BS. That's my red line.
I've been taught all my life to value service to the weak and powerless.
User avatar
TGW
RealGM
Posts: 13,339
And1: 6,711
Joined: Oct 22, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1899 » by TGW » Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:13 pm

Wizardspride wrote:Big Ed constantly railed against the TPP and Russia as well while on MSNBC.

Interestingly enough, he seems to have changed his mind about Putin/Russia/Trump...and that's his right.

It's just noticeable WHEN he changed his mind

Maybe it's a coincidence....

Heck, if you ever listened to his radio show dude used to KILL the participants of CPAC....and now he's speaking to them.

Maybe I'm just "mainstream" and Ed is "woke".....or maybe his politics are "malleable"


Yea, I'm not defending Ed Schultz's politics, because I don't agree with a lot of what he has to say. That's not the point. The issue I have is with MSNBC firing people who don't kiss the Democrats' ass night in and night out. They fired Phil Donahue and Cenk Uygar for it, and now Schultz is saying it. So in my view, that's no different than Fox News. Hell, at least Shep Smith still has a spot on FN. MSNBC has pretty much gotten rid of anyone who's progressive. If you don't support **** wars or trade deals on MSNBC, you are gone. That's not news...that's fake news.
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
User avatar
TGW
RealGM
Posts: 13,339
And1: 6,711
Joined: Oct 22, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XIX 

Post#1900 » by TGW » Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:15 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:
TGW wrote:
Zonkerbl wrote:
I'm curious to know if TGW has ever actually watched Rachel Maddow, because to make a statement like that is laughably, amazingly ignorant. I'm also curious if TGW can name, off the top of his head without googling, a policy stance Nancy Pelosi has taken that he disagrees with.


Your such a DNC kiss-ass, I don't know whether to take you seriously on anything you say or not. Yea, let's see what I disagree with Pelosi on without googling :roll: :roll: :roll:

How about her stance on medicare for all, her support of funding for the iraq war, her support of syrian bombings, her vote to continue to allow money in politics, etc. I could go on, but it sickens me to go through it. She is a DINO.

And FYI I don't support your brand of liberalism. It's milk-toast, fake, McLiberalism. If you want to support random, indiscriminate bombings of random countries, deregulation of wall-street and banks, incrementalism, and center-left policies, that's your prerogative, not mine. I call the Democrats as I see it. If you have a problem with it, the ignore button works fine. Trust me, I use it on several posters, including the idiot you just quoted.


Don't tempt me. Fortunately you don't post often enough on this thread to really matter.

I really only blocked sd20 when he started spouting antisemitic BS. That's my red line.


LOL your inflated sense of self-worth is comical. "Don't tempt me" :lol: :lol: :lol: ...like I give a rats behind if you block me or not.
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.

Return to Washington Wizards