o'barmy says...bombing isis into oblivion would be 'inhumane'

[abelard]

perhaps we should love them more



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-says-singling-out-muslims-makes-no-sense-n544301
" President Obama joined the growing chorus Wednesday condemning Sen.
Ted Cruz for calling on cops to "patrol and secure Muslim
neighborhoods" in the wake of the Belgian terror attacks.

Speaking in Argentina, Obama said that strategy "makes no sense."
...

"Obama also ripped Cruz's oft-stated call for "carpet-bombing" Islamic
State militants in Iraq and Syria."

"What we don't do, and what we should not do, is take approaches that
are gonna be counterproductive," Obama said. "So when I hear somebody
saying we should carpet bomb Iraq or Syria, not only is that inhumane,
not only is that contrary to our values, but that would likely be an
extraordinary mechanism for (ISIS) to recruit more people willing to
die and explode bombs in an airport or in a metro station. That's not
a smart strategy."



note the dishonest elision from
'islamic state militants in iraq and syria' to 'iraq or syria'




--
www.abelard.org

[Vidcapper]

On 23/03/2016 22:28, abelard wrote:

>
>
> perhaps we should love them more

Obama seems to have forgotten the hard lessons we learned from appeasing
Germany in the 1930's...


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:28:40 +0100) it happened abelard
<abel...@abelard.org> wrote in <5956fbtmh623urrmo...@4ax.com>:

I watched this, and somehow it touched me:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4812813115001/giuliani-its-outrageous-obama-isnt-in-situation-room/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips

Looks like 0bama is just living it up doing the tango in Argentina,
and enjoying the unrest he and his demonrat policies create in Europe.
Not that I would expect that Shiite black African Muslim to do otherwise.

It is time for a big strong European army with Russia in it,
to counter the insanity of a decadent rotting away US empire.

And Trump should run without that republican party that tries to backs tab him.
He will win.


And Carthago must be destroyed <-replace

[Nick]

On 23/03/2016 22:28, abelard wrote:
>
>

> perhaps we should love them more
>
>
>
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-says-singling-out-muslims-makes-no-sense-n544301
> " President Obama joined the growing chorus Wednesday condemning Sen.
> Ted Cruz for calling on cops to "patrol and secure Muslim
> neighborhoods" in the wake of the Belgian terror attacks.
>
> Speaking in Argentina, Obama said that strategy "makes no sense."
> ...

But it doesn't make any sense. Spies in the Islamic communities make
sense. Stopping Islamic immigration makes sense. Walking around Islamic
ghettoes make very little sense. It is easy for terrorists to evade. Its
not a case of agreeing or disagreeing with a policy, some policies are
just plain stupid.

Cruz scares me a lot more than Trump.

>
> "Obama also ripped Cruz's oft-stated call for "carpet-bombing" Islamic
> State militants in Iraq and Syria."
>
> "What we don't do, and what we should not do, is take approaches that
> are gonna be counterproductive," Obama said. "So when I hear somebody
> saying we should carpet bomb Iraq or Syria, not only is that inhumane,
> not only is that contrary to our values, but that would likely be an
> extraordinary mechanism for (ISIS) to recruit more people willing to
> die and explode bombs in an airport or in a metro station. That's not
> a smart strategy."
>
>
>
> note the dishonest elision from
> 'islamic state militants in iraq and syria' to 'iraq or syria'
>

Its not an elision. It is a common ambiguity of the English language
that and and or can be used for the same meaning. Logically I prefer
Obama's usage.

[ronald...@yahoo.com]

o'barmy says...bombing isis into oblivion would be 'inhumane'

No he didn't. From your own citation:

"So when I hear somebody saying we should carpet bomb Iraq or Syria, not only is that inhumane, not only is that contrary to our values, but that would likely be an extraordinary mechanism for (ISIS) to recruit more people willing to die and explode bombs in an airport or in a metro station. That's not a smart strategy."

Put in words you understand: carpet bombing would wipe out civilians, and maybe some ISIS members. Not smart.

[Byker]

"abelard" wrote in message
news:5956fbtmh623urrmo...@4ax.com...

>
> perhaps we should love them more

Or offer them jobs: http://tinyurl.com/j655maa

[Ophelia]

"Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote in message
news:-PmdnXBdmP6smmnL...@earthlink.com...

He is off his trolley!



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Just Wondering]

On 3/24/2016 3:19 AM, Nick wrote:
>
> Cruz scares me a lot more than Trump.
>

Why?

[Nick]

I suspect Trump is a load mouth but essentially a pragmatist. Who knows
what the sky pixie will tell Cruz to do.

[First Post]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:00:08 +0000, Vidcapper <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 23/03/2016 22:28, abelard wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> perhaps we should love them more
>
>Obama seems to have forgotten the hard lessons we learned from appeasing
>Germany in the 1930's...

Obama never learned those lessons in the first place.
Remember, Liberalism: "We know how to do socialism right".

[Just Wondering]

On 3/24/2016 3:03 PM, Nick wrote:
> On 24/03/2016 20:03, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 3/24/2016 3:19 AM, Nick wrote:
>>>
>>> Cruz scares me a lot more than Trump.
>>>
>> Why?
>>
> I suspect Trump is a load mouth but essentially a pragmatist.
>

http://pragmatist.askdefine.com/
"one who acts in response to particular situations rather
than upon abstract ideals; one who is willing to ignore
their ideals to accomplish goals." I do not see that as
a good quality in a president.

Trump is a bellicose, selfish, self-aggrandizing, childish bully
who plays to the crowd, but doesn't actually give a shit about the
little guy. Trump makes campaign promises he knows he can never keep.
When pushed about HOW he will do things, he avoids the question, because
he has no satisfactory answer. The notion that he might sit
in the Oval Office should scare you a great deal.

>
> Who knows what the sky pixie will tell Cruz to do.
>

What sky pixie? Cruz has a proven record of supporting the Constitution
and conservative principles. If you're a liberal,
he's not your man. What are you afraid of, that he actually
might persuade Congress to cut taxes?

[Nick]

On 25/03/2016 19:16, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 3/24/2016 3:03 PM, Nick wrote:
>> On 24/03/2016 20:03, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 3/24/2016 3:19 AM, Nick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Cruz scares me a lot more than Trump.
>>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>> I suspect Trump is a load mouth but essentially a pragmatist.
> >
> http://pragmatist.askdefine.com/
> "one who acts in response to particular situations rather
> than upon abstract ideals; one who is willing to ignore
> their ideals to accomplish goals." I do not see that as
> a good quality in a president.
>
> Trump is a bellicose, selfish, self-aggrandizing, childish bully
> who plays to the crowd, but doesn't actually give a shit about the
> little guy. Trump makes campaign promises he knows he can never keep.
> When pushed about HOW he will do things, he avoids the question, because
> he has no satisfactory answer. The notion that he might sit
> in the Oval Office should scare you a great deal.

Ok, but I'm trying to understand how that description differs from any
of the other candidates.

> >
>> Who knows what the sky pixie will tell Cruz to do.
> >
> What sky pixie?

God I think it is called in the US.

> Cruz has a proven record of supporting the Constitution
> and conservative principles. If you're a liberal,
> he's not your man. What are you afraid of, that he actually
> might persuade Congress to cut taxes?

Cut taxes for who? Distribution of wealth is an interesting issue. The
ability of taxation to affect distribution of wealth within the US in
the context of a global free trade economy is limited. I think the
sensible opinion is moving towards import and immigration controls.

[Just Wondering]

On 3/25/2016 4:13 PM, Nick wrote:
> On 25/03/2016 19:16, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 3/24/2016 3:03 PM, Nick wrote:
>>> On 24/03/2016 20:03, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 3/24/2016 3:19 AM, Nick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Cruz scares me a lot more than Trump.
>>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>> I suspect Trump is a load mouth but essentially a pragmatist.
>> >
>> http://pragmatist.askdefine.com/
>> "one who acts in response to particular situations rather
>> than upon abstract ideals; one who is willing to ignore
>> their ideals to accomplish goals." I do not see that as
>> a good quality in a president.
>>
>> Trump is a bellicose, selfish, self-aggrandizing, childish bully
>> who plays to the crowd, but doesn't actually give a shit about the
>> little guy. Trump makes campaign promises he knows he can never keep.
>> When pushed about HOW he will do things, he avoids the question, because
>> he has no satisfactory answer. The notion that he might sit
>> in the Oval Office should scare you a great deal.
>
> Ok, but I'm trying to understand how that description differs from any
> of the other candidates.
>

bellicose: inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile;
belligerent; pugnacious. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bellicose
Trump is an order of magnitude more bellicose than any other candidate.

Synonyms for self-aggrandizing: arrogant; bombastic; cocky; pompous;
pretentious; conceited; egotistical; loudmouth; smart-alecky; strutting;
swaggering; vainglorious; windbag
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/self-aggrandizing
Trump is an order of magnitude more self-aggrandizing than any other
candidate.

Trump is the ONLY presidential candidate this election cycle who has
behaved like a childish bully. He has single-handedly drug the campaign
into the dirt.

He promised to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Despite being
repeatedly asked, he refuses to say HOW he would make Mexico pay for it.
I think what he has in mind is to impose tariffs on imports. That'
not making Mexico pay for it, that's making the little people who buy
his Donald J. Trump Signature Collection menswear pay for it. That's
only one example of many.

>>>
>>> Who knows what the sky pixie will tell Cruz to do.
>> >
>> What sky pixie?
>
> God I think it is called in the US.
>
>> Cruz has a proven record of supporting the Constitution
>> and conservative principles. If you're a liberal,
>> he's not your man. What are you afraid of, that he actually
>> might persuade Congress to cut taxes?
>
> Cut taxes for who?
>

Nearly everyone. https://www.tedcruz.org/tax_plan_summary/

[abelard]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:43:52 -0700 (PDT), Ding Bat
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 3:58:41 AM UTC+5:30, abelard wrote:
>> perhaps we should love them more
>>

>Suppose Cruz's approach is humane. Then, it would be humane for Putin to nuke Brussels to remove ISIS' presence in that area. He would have achieved the result "no more ISIS presence" with a method similar to Cruz's.
>>
>OTOH, if Obama is right and you are wrong, it would be counterproductive for Putin to do that. He'd get all of Europe on the warpath against him put Russia at risk of being nuked herself by the rest of Europe or their allies.

isis is not claiming to have a state in brussels...

you are being dishonest

>> "Obama also ripped Cruz's oft-stated call for "carpet-bombing" Islamic
>> State militants in Iraq and Syria."
>>
>> "What we don't do, and what we should not do, is take approaches that
>> are gonna be counterproductive," Obama said. "So when I hear somebody
>> saying we should carpet bomb Iraq or Syria, not only is that inhumane,
>> not only is that contrary to our values, but that would likely be an
>> extraordinary mechanism for (ISIS) to recruit more people willing to
>> die and explode bombs in an airport or in a metro station. That's not
>> a smart strategy."

>> note the dishonest elision from
>> 'islamic state militants in iraq and syria' to 'iraq or syria'
>>

>"Carpet-bomb Islamic state militants" makes no sense, so it is not a dishonest elision. The militants are not congregating in one place like that to be bombed without affecting civilians; they're mixed in with the civilians of Iraq and Syria.

that does not make 'isis' into 'syria and iraq'...therefore it is
dishonest

you also cut the headers...which is also dishonest...

i must assume you are a socialist, but at least your nym appears
to be honest...so maybe you are not a socialist


--
www.abelard.org

[abelard]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 22:13:59 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Cut taxes for who? Distribution of wealth is an interesting issue. The
>ability of taxation to affect distribution of wealth within the US in
>the context of a global free trade economy is limited.

just so

> I think the
>sensible opinion is moving towards import and immigration controls.

that's part of what brings every socialist regime to ruin



--
www.abelard.org

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Oppressive government brings them all to ruin.

--
That's Karma

[Nick]

China?

[First Post]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 12:58:30 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/asia/china-economy-lu-stout/

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

China is having it's own problems.



It has to resort to Capitalism to survive, they couldn't feed their
people under totalitarian socialism.



--
That's Karma

[Jonathan]

When it comes to the fight against ISIS it appears
you aren't paying attention to the facts.

Russia just spent six months supposedly dumb bombing
ISIS.

Here's a map of ISIS territory lost and gained
since Russia started indiscriminate bombing.
Note the ISIS losses are almost all due to the
US backed Kurds in Syria and US supported
Iraqi forces.

While in the Russian area of operation ISIS has
made big gains towards Damascus.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdnV60BXEAAlIWO.jpg


It's a mistake to think the US isn't aggressively
fighting ISIS as we type.

For instance, just yesterday we killed the #2 leader
of ISIS.


(CNN)The Pentagon said Friday that it had killed ISIS'
finance minister, Abd al-Rahman Mustafa al-Qaduli,
whom many analysts consider the group's No. 2 leader.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politics/isis-no-2-in-command-killed-u-s-believes/


And from just yesterday this video of A-10's attacking ISIS
was posted, filmed by ISIS.

(video 0:27)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMc16nVHLFU

From last month
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA9ZJqwlPX4



And the US and Iraq are steadily preparing for
the massive battle to take Mosul maybe sometime
this year. Mosul would be difficult to take even
for a large US force, ISIS has set up defense
in depth of that city to such an extent it's
now the most well defended city in the world.


Below are pictures of victims of Russian carpet bombing
Syria, is this what you want the US to be known for???

Don't look away...


Images and videos from Syria mostly from *one week*...
Not the entire six month bombing campaign.


short videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHCtYegXJ0A&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0LWkv5EHXE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBeYvoXoBcE



Images


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbD4Xt7WAAAB5hO.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZMbu66XEAAKJwK.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CafmcXpWIAESkEi.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CafEmriXEAEYSl4.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cafmb4iWEAAR-IS.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CafmcMGWAAAUOU9.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CafG3YtUAAAyhux.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaexDzwWAAACluR.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CafmuE9XIAEcgjH.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cafc8DgW8AAaurO.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CafXc9tXEAAqnQx.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CacLlgEUYAAD8ZL.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaivTdTWAAAREXA.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CanHT2uWwAAIyJ2.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CanDX0zUsAIInbM.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cam5bMzWwAA-bKh.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CamrU6yVIAAw2Uo.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaaZZcDUEAE2oDP.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaNpmIWUsAAvrfS.png
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaNpjbuUUAEGUTO.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaaSoP_VIAAV_s1.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZUkYkqWYAA999H.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZRZffDWkAM54xP.png
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZRJzjGXEAAFZV3.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CY_e-0yW8AAt_Aa.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaWB-FzUMAAxmeg.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaWAB4FUMAAXELL.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaV9CjDUYAAww-8.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaTPu-bWwAEiK73.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaTPmQYWEAQe42b.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZrsJO_XEAAuFMJ.jpg
>>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZpZq5XWAAAZk4s.jpg
>>>


Russian parachute bomb on city of Homs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T35RIvzkqgU


And this is what carpet bombing creates....

10% of the Syrian population can be seen in
this single picture...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cafb_RyW0AEQFe1.jpg


Basma al-Homsi, from #Daraa, #Syria, killed by
Russian airstrikes today

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ca9m7iFXIAAEIxe.jpg






>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan

[abelard]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 06:12:08 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <nd6mmu$326$1...@dont-email.me>, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> On 26/03/2016 17:58, Just Wondering wrote:
>>
>> > One thing that Trump says, often and loud, is that Mexico will pay for
>> > his wall. I have no problem with the wall. But there is no way Trump
>> > can make Mexico pay for it. When asked HOW he would make Mexico pay for
>> > it, Trump waffles and evades. I think he has it in mind to ask Congress
>> > raise tariffs on Mexican-made goods. That's not making Mexico pay for
>> > the wall, the cost would come out of the pockets of the people who buy
>> > those goods. That makes Trump a bald-faced liar.

>> Getting Mexico to pay for the wall would be easy.
>>
>> The US could up the international aid they already give to Mexico on
>> condition that the Mexicans used some of the money to build a wall.

>In other words, we'd be paying for the wall while Trump would be lying
>to the American people that he got Mexico to pay for it.
>
>Yep, sounds exactly like something Trump would love to do.

of course he can get them go pay for it...he only needs to
stop nafta and post a tariff on all mexican imports...

meanwhile trump is talking the same sort of rubbish that
socialist politicians/countries turn into law and ruins their
economies...


--
www.abelard.org

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 11:10:13 -0600, koo...@maricaibo.com wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 15:25:04 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:

>
>>>In other words, we'd be paying for the wall while Trump would be lying
>>>to the American people that he got Mexico to pay for it.
>>>
>>>Yep, sounds exactly like something Trump would love to do.
>>
>>of course he can get them go pay for it...he only needs to
>> stop nafta and post a tariff on all mexican imports...
>

>Forgetting, of course, that the BIGGEST donors to the Republican party
>are those the laws would hurt the most. (give us odds that THEY will
>make it happen)

Really? Let's look at Hillary's donations...

Emily's List $939,881 $930,961 $8,920
Citigroup Inc $883,547 $875,547 $8,000
DLA Piper $847,930 $820,930 $27,000
Goldman Sachs $821,031 $811,031 $10,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $771,111 $768,111 $3,000
Morgan Stanley $754,538 $749,538 $5,000
University of California $608,858 $608,858 $0
Time Warner $591,524 $566,524 $25,000
Skadden, Arps et al $522,688 $518,188 $4,500
Corning Inc $492,750 $474,750 $18,000
Kirkland & Ellis $443,420 $426,420 $17,000
Paul, Weiss et al $427,062 $427,062 $0
Greenberg Traurig LLP $411,640 $403,540 $8,100
Sullivan & Cromwell $396,625 $396,625 $0
Akin, Gump et al $393,531 $390,031 $3,500
National Amusements Inc $366,640 $363,640 $3,000
21st Century Fox $363,899 $363,899 $0
Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000
Ernst & Young $360,127 $340,127 $20,000
Harvard University $359,451 $359,451 $0

>
>>meanwhile trump is talking the same sort of rubbish that
>> socialist politicians/countries turn into law and ruins their
>> economies...
>

>Actually, Frump is a capitalist, a free trader, etc, etc----and only
>the dimwitted he "Talks to" don't understand the difference between
>"socialist" and "social policy"

Are you trying to make us believe that you don't know the difference
between "socialist" and "democratic socialist," moonbat?

>Frumps following (FF'ers) are disgruntled stew of racists, homophobes,
>disfranchies, gunloons, undereducated twits, etc that coalesce around
>a voice that makes them believe their crap is legitimate.

Sounds like the Democratic Party.

[abelard]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 10:37:32 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@null.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 11:10:13 -0600, koo...@maricaibo.com wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 15:25:04 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>In other words, we'd be paying for the wall while Trump would be lying
>>>>to the American people that he got Mexico to pay for it.
>>>>
>>>>Yep, sounds exactly like something Trump would love to do.
>>>
>>>of course he can get them go pay for it...he only needs to
>>> stop nafta and post a tariff on all mexican imports...
>>
>>Forgetting, of course, that the BIGGEST donors to the Republican party
>>are those the laws would hurt the most. (give us odds that THEY will
>>make it happen)

i've kf'd you/him as a terminal bore with nothing interesting to say

it won't harm the alleged donors nearly as much as it will harm the
common masses who will have to pay more for their toys...

meanwhile trump claims to be funding his own candidature

>Really? Let's look at Hillary's donations...
>
>Emily's List $939,881 $930,961 $8,920
>Citigroup Inc $883,547 $875,547 $8,000
>DLA Piper $847,930 $820,930 $27,000
>Goldman Sachs $821,031 $811,031 $10,000
>JPMorgan Chase & Co $771,111 $768,111 $3,000
>Morgan Stanley $754,538 $749,538 $5,000
>University of California $608,858 $608,858 $0
>Time Warner $591,524 $566,524 $25,000
>Skadden, Arps et al $522,688 $518,188 $4,500
>Corning Inc $492,750 $474,750 $18,000
>Kirkland & Ellis $443,420 $426,420 $17,000
>Paul, Weiss et al $427,062 $427,062 $0
>Greenberg Traurig LLP $411,640 $403,540 $8,100
>Sullivan & Cromwell $396,625 $396,625 $0
>Akin, Gump et al $393,531 $390,031 $3,500
>National Amusements Inc $366,640 $363,640 $3,000
>21st Century Fox $363,899 $363,899 $0
>Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000
>Ernst & Young $360,127 $340,127 $20,000
>Harvard University $359,451 $359,451 $0

o'barmy and doubtless lying hillary got more from wall street than
their republican rivals

>>>meanwhile trump is talking the same sort of rubbish that
>>> socialist politicians/countries turn into law and ruins their
>>> economies...
>>
>>Actually, Frump is a capitalist, a free trader, etc, etc

not according to his public expostulations...

on economics he's mostly talking as much garbage as sanders...

i doubt lying hillary will do anything she says...and others like
bill will 'guide' her...she's too dumb to work anything much
out for herself

with luck, if trump wins, he will prove to be nearly as big a liar as
hillary

>----and only
>>the dimwitted he "Talks to" don't understand the difference between
>>"socialist" and "social policy"
>
>Are you trying to make us believe that you don't know the difference
>between "socialist" and "democratic socialist," moonbat?
>
>>Frumps following (FF'ers) are disgruntled stew of racists, homophobes,
>>disfranchies, gunloons, undereducated twits, etc that coalesce around
>>a voice that makes them believe their crap is legitimate.
>
>Sounds like the Democratic Party.

--
www.abelard.org

[Wayne]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
news:de6gfb1seaa168f8q...@4ax.com...

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 11:10:13 -0600, koo...@maricaibo.com wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 15:25:04 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>In other words, we'd be paying for the wall while Trump would be lying
>>>to the American people that he got Mexico to pay for it.
>>>
>>>Yep, sounds exactly like something Trump would love to do.
>>
>>of course he can get them go pay for it...he only needs to
>> stop nafta and post a tariff on all mexican imports...
>
>Forgetting, of course, that the BIGGEST donors to the Republican party
>are those the laws would hurt the most. (give us odds that THEY will
>make it happen)

# Really? Let's look at Hillary's donations...

# Emily's List $939,881 $930,961 $8,920
# Citigroup Inc $883,547 $875,547 $8,000
# DLA Piper $847,930 $820,930 $27,000
# Goldman Sachs $821,031 $811,031 $10,000
# JPMorgan Chase & Co $771,111 $768,111 $3,000
# Morgan Stanley $754,538 $749,538 $5,000
# University of California $608,858 $608,858 $0
# Time Warner $591,524 $566,524 $25,000
# Skadden, Arps et al $522,688 $518,188 $4,500
# Corning Inc $492,750 $474,750 $18,000
# Kirkland & Ellis $443,420 $426,420 $17,000
# Paul, Weiss et al $427,062 $427,062 $0
# Greenberg Traurig LLP $411,640 $403,540 $8,100
# Sullivan & Cromwell $396,625 $396,625 $0
# Akin, Gump et al $393,531 $390,031 $3,500
# National Amusements Inc $366,640 $363,640 $3,000
# 21st Century Fox $363,899 $363,899 $0
# Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000
# Ernst & Young $360,127 $340,127 $20,000
# Harvard University $359,451 $359,451 $0

My internet provider is/was Verizon. They are switching email over to AOL.
When I log on to AOL to get my email, I get a full page pro-Hillary ad.
Lots of questions there......

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 14:28:29 -0600, koo...@maricaibo.com wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:52:51 -0700, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>wrote:

>What did they "get" for those donations---other than the lingering
>smell of the fart you insinuate you can smell?

Those are Hillary's donations, you illiterate fool.

[Wayne]

wrote in message news:08ggfbtgbordn9u74...@4ax.com...

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:52:51 -0700, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
>

# What did they "get" for those donations---other than the lingering
# smell of the fart you insinuate you can smell?

Not hard to see there's quid pro quo now and in the future.

[Just Wondering]

On 3/27/2016 7:25 AM, abelard wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 06:12:08 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article <nd6mmu$326$1...@dont-email.me>, Nick wrote:
>>> On 26/03/2016 17:58, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>
>>>> One thing that Trump says, often and loud, is that Mexico will pay for
>>>> his wall. I have no problem with the wall. But there is no way Trump
>>>> can make Mexico pay for it. When asked HOW he would make Mexico pay for
>>>> it, Trump waffles and evades. I think he has it in mind to ask Congress
>>>> raise tariffs on Mexican-made goods. That's not making Mexico pay for
>>>> the wall, the cost would come out of the pockets of the people who buy
>>>> those goods. That makes Trump a bald-faced liar.
>
>>> Getting Mexico to pay for the wall would be easy.
>>> The US could up the international aid they already give to Mexico on
>>> condition that the Mexicans used some of the money to build a wall.
>
>> In other words, we'd be paying for the wall while Trump would be lying
>> to the American people that he got Mexico to pay for it.
>> Yep, sounds exactly like something Trump would love to do.
>
> of course he can get them go pay for it...he only needs to
> stop nafta and post a tariff on all mexican imports...
>

You really don't read what's gone before, do you? As I already pointed
out, a tariff on Mexican imports isn't paid by the Mexicans, it's passed
on as a price increase and paid by the end users.

[abelard]

you're dodging


--
www.abelard.org