Shut your lying mouth you mook. Antisemtic racists swarm the Democrat Party, and any honest broker knows it. You've run so far left that your brain has fallen out.
If I was on a bus, and the guy next to me farted, I'd CALL that harassment..
Then you clearly need to get your crap together for god's sake.
And, if it's not, why not
Common sense. Do you seriously need someone to explain this stuff to you?
Can't I decide for myself what's harassment or not??
Clearly you cannot.
Clearly, deciding what IS harassment and what isn't is arbitrary...
No it isn't. You go to someone's house, or see them at a restaurant and begin yelling at them in mobs, that's harrassment. Would you be inclined to go over the language commonly referred to as English? Would you like to go through a dictionary with me?
Tax returns, tax returns, tax returns..
The last time libs grabbed his tax returns, through an illegal leak, it turned out he paid $38 million in taxes that year and was in the highest tax bracket possible.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/
America and the west went to war with Communism
Obama, Theresa May, Angela Merkel, Bernie Sanders, Sweden and Denmark are not at war with Communism. The days you describe are not today.
so your belief that happened adjacent to "Marxist Theory" being "constantly offered" is absurd. The state was offering people the same thing it was fighting against?
It's been offered to Cuba and Venezuela, even to Brazil. Brazil tried it, wound up in a military dictatorship, then retreated once its brain kicked in. The other two countries are hellholes.
Again, you either misunderstand reality or you are purposefully being fallacious. Some people profit under hierarchical systems otherwise they would be completely useless. This is true of monarchism, feudalism, fascism and capitalism.
It's true of real life. If you could rid the world of all of those systems, they would result in the same hierarchy only under another name or another form.
The point is that, because they are hierarchical pyramid systems, the number of people who genuinely profit when divided against the total sum of resources available is very, very small.
I got a job and saved my money. Anyone can do it, including you.
Communism is an attempt to see everyone profit rather than just a select few social elites.
Everyone I know has things the generation before us would have killed for.
You are preaching idealism. Tell me why a murdering thief deserves as much as a peaceful, hard working saint?
The masses are already trapped.
I'm sitting in a houseboat on a big, beautiful lake. Am I trapped in the boat? If I jump off the boat, am I trapped in the lake? If I guzzle a cold one, am I trapped in the bottle? Explain how I'm trapped.
Do the masses have the choice to not have 7 children?
That's why Communism was theorised in the first place: as a means to emancipate them.
But is that what the promise of it is used for?
You appear to be under some rather classic false perceptions.
I'm a realist. You are an idealist.
Capitalism is an economic hierarchy where the poor work for the rich.
Buy some land. Build a farm. Work for John Doe by choice or for yourself by threat of starvation. You are a slave to your body's needs. That isn't capitalism's fault. It's being born and biology's fault. Are you going to get pissed at the universe? Who are you directing this disappointment at? Should you have stayed in the womb where it's warm, eternally? What exactly is the point you are making?
That is an absurd way of looking at things. Let's apply your belief that social progress is a "carrot on a stick" to technological progress. Should we not leave the cave because progress is a myth? I mean, what are you actually saying here? We shouldn't try to better ourselves?
Slow down. You tell me Communism has never been correctly applied, but the offers of Marxist Theory are constantly offered and have been offered like candy to children at a parade. Why does it never work out? Why doesn't anyone ever get the actual candy? Why does the dream never come to fruition!?
Have you ever considered that it's just that; a dream? A dream used by tyrants to round up the peasants like cattle?
Even if we accept your false premise that true Communist states have ever existed
I've never offered up that opinion. You have presented a position as though it's mine.
then the Soviet Union was one of the world's top two superpowers for over half a century, during which time it invented satellites and put the first man into space.
The Nazis invented the World's First Mass-Produced Helicopter. Are you going to bow before the golden calf? Stop it already.
The Soviet Union did not collapse because of the Soviet Union. It collapsed because of a forty year arms race with the United States. Your version where the United States and its allies had nothing to do with it is absolute revisionist poppycock.
I haven't offered a version. Why are you debating for me. Debate your own position. Stay on your own side of the road.
I think you are radically misunderstanding the situation. People like Stalin and Mao were not Communists. They seized power for themselves, which makes them the precise opposite of Communists. The basis of the theory of Communism is that the working class are given back the means of production from the rich elite. Therefore, if Mao owns the means of production then that is not a Communist state.
I think the darts are missing the target here. The dream is the carrot on the stick. The dream never happens. The dream is an excuse to trap the masses into dictatorships. This should be a caution to you to ever believe anyone offering you the same dream as Stalin.
If you knew a man offering people candy was killing people by luring them with the candy, would you not be cautious if you saw a man offering people candy on the street? For god's sake, don't try to get the candy. He plans to shove you in his trunk. Do you understand?
Nonsense.
Not nonsense
If you want to talk about persecuted groups then forget the Jews. Communists are right up there with them.
It hardly serves your point to tell me Communist are the most persecuted group because they have persecuted each other.
In October, he was indicted in the District of Columbia on a dozen charges that include conspiracy, money laundering, failing to register as a foreign agent, and making false statements
Tell me what that has to do with Russian collusion.
He was indicted for non Russia related crimes that happened years prior to knowing Trump. Is it sinking in yet, or is the sponge between your ears not doing its job?
Look at the good news though. Now they are in the West and can kill each other here.
What are you talking about? You quote Goebbels, then ask if Goebbels said it?
As you are fully aware, I am a Marxist. The Marxists were the single greatest enemy of the Nazis.
The Communists are the greatest enemy of the Communists. They are always killing each other. Mao vs Mao equals death, plain and simple. If Communists weren't busy killing each other, they'd have already conquered the world.
It's a rather handy tool isn't it? We ignore Trump for 8 years, then shut the libs up for the next 8 with one word that starts with "w" anytime they bring him up.
Look, the fallacy of I'm right, you're wrong, so I have no interest in what you have to say. Hopefully you don't use this logic with your wife.
What the hell are you talking about, "whataboutism"? Is this one of those new, made up liberal buzz words? Regardless of what it is, of course I want a supporter as Attorney General. Who the hell do you think I would want? The Shah of Iran? For God's sake, listen to yourself.
You claim there has been no change in two years, but this is obviously untrue, since four of Trump's campaign staff have been indicted, along with a litany of Russians operating in America
None of which have anything to do with Russia collusion.
Mannafort was literally charged with tax fraud that happened before he knew Trump. You see Putin in that equation? Neither did Mueller.
Our slow friend here seems to be hard of hearing. Let me repeat. Read it slower this time.
Jim Comey-
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/
Claiming you have "inside knowledge" of the Trump/Russia collusion investigation is not "dealing in facts".
Evidence is facts. There is none. Or do you have inside knowledge?
It is especially not dealing in facts when you claim you have inside knowledge
I have inside knowledge that is public knowledge. Those investigating say with their mouths, "we've found no collusion".
and then attempt to substantiate it by cherry-picking the public information which fits your narrative, while ignoring the rest
List out what I missed.
The next Attorney General will have to be confirmed by the Senate.. I don't think even the Republicans will go along with Trumps version of the Saturday Night Massacre.
Have you ever noticed how on a scale of 1 to 10, something that is a 1 is always described as though it's a 10 by the libs?
ISSUE: Kids who were illegally brought here by their law breaking parents are temporarily seperated from their parents at the border for their own safety.
LIBS: Oh my god! It's like Nazi gas chambers and death camps! The Jews are rolling over in their graves!
ISSUE: Trump fires an Attorney General.
LIBS: Oh my god! It's like the Saturday Night Massacre!
Do you god forsaken libs ever just tell it like it is? Must you always add 50 inches to the fish in your story? It was a minnow. Call it a minnow. For Christ's sake have some self respect.
Nixon fires 3 Attorney Generals in one night is the same as Sessions resigning. What planet do you libs live on? Does reality ever even matter?
I like what you did there. Show us 7 Putin lies, then create a false dichotomy of correlation by throwing Trump in there.
Your logic was as follows:
Putin lies, so Trump is lying. The liberal brain surgeons pull off the mind numbing fallacies once again. Do I even need to continue? Probably not. I just got a lecture from the bum about proof on the other side of the debate, then see the mook not needing proof on this side of the debate. I wish I were making it up, but I'm not.
What makes YOU think there is no evidence against Trump?? YOU have inside knowledge on the case??
Yes. In 2 years, there's been no charge. Notta. Nothing. You think they are sitting there with 2 years of evidence, giving pressers that say no proof, because they have proof? Christ are you dense.
NO! You have your mind made up WITH NO PROOF, and have never demonstrated a desire to HAVE any proof that Trump is innocent.
You cannot prove someone is innocent you dolt. You molest goats. Prove your innocence. The burden is on the accuser. See how that works?
You want facts? Probably not, but let's look anyway.
Lisa Page bombshell: FBI couldn’t prove Trump-Russia collusion before Mueller appointment
Woodward: No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion, I Searched For Two Years
There's your evidence. There is none. But we'll keep digging away for sure.
If you are going to spew, spew facts rather than fiction. I deal in facts. You peddle fiction.
Jim Comey-
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
