OT: Another failure

[Alan Baker]

'President Donald Trump has scrapped the tax plan he campaigned on and
is going back to the drawing board in a search for Republican consensus
behind legislation to overhaul the U.S. tax system.'

<https://www.bnn.ca/trump-scraps-tax-plan-timetable-threatened-1.720282>

[John B.]

In other words, his own party won't accept his ideas. The Republicans
have a lock on the White House, SCOTUS and both houses of Congress and
our Republican president still can't get anything done.

[Alan Baker]

But he's trying...

...so all is great with Greg...


...even though trying wasn't good enough when Obama was president...

...and he was opposed by the Republicans on everything as a matter of
policy; no matter whether it was good governance or not.

:-)

[Dene]

- show quoted text -

In other words, his own party won't accept his ideas. The Republicans
have a lock on the White House, SCOTUS and both houses of Congress and
our Republican president still can't get anything done.

It shows the diversity within the Republican Party and the fact that Trump wants to get it done right.

[Alan Baker]

LOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

[John B.]

That is truly laughable. Sounds like something Sean Spicer would
say.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:58:27 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

LOL

[Carbon]

On 04/10/2017 04:22 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-04-10 1:16 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 3:12:48 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>> 'President Donald Trump has scrapped the tax plan he campaigned on and
>>> is going back to the drawing board in a search for Republican
>>> consensus behind legislation to overhaul the U.S. tax system.'
>>>
>>> <https://www.bnn.ca/trump-scraps-tax-plan-timetable-threatened-1.720282>
>>
>> In other words, his own party won't accept his ideas. The Republicans
>> have a lock on the White House, SCOTUS and both houses of Congress and
>> our Republican president still can't get anything done.
>
> But he's trying...

He's (cheating at) playing golf. This is what passes for trying now?

[Dene]

Your rebuttal sounds like something your hero plastic Pelosi would say.

[Dene]

So Trump is posting artificially low scores on GHIN. His handicap could be 5 years old for all you know.

[John B.]

If so, she'd be right. As for the diversity of the Republican Party,
I can count on one hand the GOP members of Congress who are black or
Latino or Asian or Muslim or gay.

[Dene]

Are you suggesting they are excluded?
Diversity in this respect. Moderate to conservative. Sexual orientation, religion, or race is irrelevant, unless you criticize Obama.

The Dems is a party of leftists and idealogues, who put party ahead of patriotism.

-Greg

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-04-11 12:23 PM, Dene wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 10:59:45 AM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 2:38:12 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 2:23:10 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 5:58:29 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>>>>> - show quoted text - In other words, his own party won't
>>>>> accept his ideas. The Republicans have a lock on the White
>>>>> House, SCOTUS and both houses of Congress and our Republican
>>>>> president still can't get anything done.
>>>>>
>>>>> It shows the diversity within the Republican Party and the
>>>>> fact that Trump wants to get it done right.
>>>>
>>>> That is truly laughable. Sounds like something Sean Spicer
>>>> would say.
>>>
>>> Your rebuttal sounds like something your hero plastic Pelosi
>>> would say.
>>
>> If so, she'd be right. As for the diversity of the Republican
>> Party, I can count on one hand the GOP members of Congress who are
>> black or Latino or Asian or Muslim or gay.
>
> Are you suggesting they are excluded?

Yup.

> Diversity in this respect. Moderate to conservative. Sexual
> orientation, religion, or race is irrelevant, unless you criticize
> Obama.
>
> The Dems is a party of leftists and idealogues, who put party ahead
> of patriotism.

You mean like utterly refusing to work with a president because he was
from another party?

[John B.]

I'm SAYING they're excluded -- by the voters. The moderate-conservative
spectrum in the GOP is broader than it's ever been. The effect is that
there are essentially two Republican parties. They disagree on everything,
which makes it difficult to impossible for Congress to achieve
anything important. The proof is in the failure of the health care bill.
If you think there are more idealogues in the Dem Party than the GOP,
you're crazy.

[Carbon]

Doesn't matter. He was a cheat then too.

https://goo.gl/AcoUee

[Carbon]

Just by the sex scandals Republicans have found themselves in, I would
guess that the homosexual is well represented even if closeted. Democrats
like Barney Frank are more likely to say, I'm a big ol' fag, deal with it.

So I was impressed that Robert Bentley, the former Republican governor of
Alabama, actually had an affair with a woman. What a refreshing change
after previous scandals about taking wide stances in airport bathrooms,
chasing after young male congressional pages, etc., etc.

https://goo.gl/WRtgx4

[Carbon]

On 04/11/2017 03:23 PM, Dene wrote:

> The Dems is a party of leftists and idealogues, who put party ahead of
> patriotism.

Anyway, about that treason thing. Dropping a few cruise missiles on some
airport but it is not going to stop the Russian noose from tightening. Do
you honestly think the intelligence community is as forgetful as Trump's
slack-jawed supporters? Hmmm?

[Dene]

Not following Carbs. You suggesting Trump's move to destroy 20 aircraft, assorted buildings, and supply assets at an airbase was a treasonous move?

[Carbon]

As you know, this ineffective attack was designed to distract the public.
Unfortunately the people likely to be distracted by such an event are not
the ones that matter. The intelligence community doesn't care. These
theatrics have no bearing on the Trump administration's communications
with their Russian handlers. I trust that clears things up for you.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:54:34 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:

>>
>> Just by the sex scandals Republicans have found themselves in, I would
>> guess that the homosexual is well represented even if closeted. Democrats
>> like Barney Frank are more likely to say, I'm a big ol' fag, deal with it.
>>
>> So I was impressed that Robert Bentley, the former Republican governor of
>> Alabama, actually had an affair with a woman. What a refreshing change
>> after previous scandals about taking wide stances in airport bathrooms,
>> chasing after young male congressional pages, etc., etc.
>>
>> https://goo.gl/WRtgx4
>>
>

>Homophobe.

On the contrary Carbs seems pretty liberal minded, there's no fear of
that in him. You,however, seem to bring that up a lot.

[Dene]

Good grief. You're wackier than I thought possible. Watch first hand Madoff's briefing today and then tell me that he is a liar.

-Greg

[Dene]

LOL....literally.

[-hh]

Carbon wrote:
> As you know, this ineffective attack was designed to distract the public.

It's a move that's straight out of the tinpan dictator's playbook.

> Unfortunately the people likely to be distracted by such an event are not
> the ones that matter. The intelligence community doesn't care. These
> theatrics have no bearing on the Trump administration's communications
> with their Russian handlers. I trust that clears things up for you.

"Stay on Target"...


-hh

[MNMikeW]

Was a bit more effective that Obama's crayon scribbled red line wasn't it?

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 22:05:17 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>Bob...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>He brought it up. He does not like it.

But you seem to be too interested.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

How was it effective? Nothing has changed for the better, and we're
edging toward another war...but a lot more dangerous.

[Dene]

The best way to deal with a bully is to bloody their nose. Diplomacy works only if all sides are will to be diplomatic. Obama never learned that principle.

-Greg

[MNMikeW]

Bob...@Onramp.net wrote:

>>>
>>
>> Was a bit more effective that Obama's crayon scribbled red line wasn't it?
>
> How was it effective? Nothing has changed for the better, and we're
> edging toward another war...but a lot more dangerous.

I think there are a lot of Syrians who disagree with you.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 09:24:46 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

The bully can always then kick your ass. You need to be careful
in trying that.

It doesn't address my question. How was it effective?

> Diplomacy works only if all sides are will to be diplomatic.
>Obama never learned that principle.

Was the last sentence necessary? Only to get in another dig.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

True, but it didn't solve the problem.

[John B.]

Obama followed the law and asked Congress for authorization to
attack Syria. Congress said no.

[John B.]

I'm sure Obama would love to have your wise counsel on how to
negotiate with foreigners.

[Alan Baker]

You mean your wise Republican congress knew that...

...but denied Obama approval to use force anyway, Greg?

[Alan Baker]

If force was the right thing to do...

...then why did the Republican controlled congress not give approval for
it to Obama?

Or were they putting party ahead of patriotism?

:-)

[MNMikeW]

John B. wrote:

>>
>> Was a bit more effective that Obama's crayon scribbled red line wasn't it?
>
> Obama followed the law and asked Congress for authorization to
> attack Syria. Congress said no.

Since when has president phone and pen followed the law?

[Alan Baker]

So when he uses executives orders (as he is permitted to do, and as
Trump has done without a peep from you), that's bad, but when he seeks
congressional approval (as mandated by law), that's bad too, Mikey?

Is that the blatant hypocrisy you want to stick with?

[John B.]

When did he not?

[Bob...@onramp.net]

You were just shown one time. There were many.

[Alan Baker]

What irks the wingnuts is that despite the best efforts of the
Republican party to completely stifle the business of governing the
nation, Obama DID get things done.

If any of the methods he used had actually been illegal, you know the
Republicans would have had him up in court before the next day.

:-)

[Carbon]

On 04/12/2017 11:19 AM, Welcome to Trumpton wrote:

> Obama's red line, which congress refused to support, led to the removal
> of huge amounts of chemical weapons and four years of freedom from their
> use.
>
> Has Trumps bombing removed a single chemical weapon?
>
> Come back in four years and tell us how effective bombing an empty
> airfield, deliberately leaving the runway intact was? Did Trump tell
> Assad when he was going to bomb or did he ask when would be convenient?

We don't actually know what went on behind the scenes. It's not impossible
that this whole thing was a charade to make it appear that Trump is
getting tough on the Russians.

But again, the NSA and the FBI don't care. The collusion investigations
will continue exactly as before.

[Dene]

It's effective in that a rational, evil person like Assad will think twice before endangering his air force with another chem strike.

What is your solution?

> > Diplomacy works only if all sides are will to be diplomatic.
> >Obama never learned that principle.
>
> Was the last sentence necessary? Only to get in another dig.

Perfectly necessary. Obama believed in diplomacy with Assad and the Russians and was obviously taken advantage of. Reason....they perceived him correctly as being weak.

[Dene]

Obviously he did a lot worse.

[Carbon]

"You break it, you own it."

[Alan Baker]

In which case, why did the Republicans deny authority for Obama to act?

> What is your solution?
>
>>> Diplomacy works only if all sides are will to be diplomatic.
>>> Obama never learned that principle.
>>
>> Was the last sentence necessary? Only to get in another dig.
>
> Perfectly necessary. Obama believed in diplomacy with Assad and the Russians and was obviously taken advantage of. Reason....they perceived him correctly as being weak.
>
>

He believed in diplomacy...

...after the Republicans put party before patriotism and denied him
authority to use military force.

[Dene]

Good grief. That is one of the silliest conspiracy theories I've ever heard.

> But again, the NSA and the FBI don't care. The collusion investigations
> will continue exactly as before.

And nothing leading back to Trump will come of it. But do enjoy your fantasies.

-Greg

[Carbon]

He is totally unaware that he's doing it.

[Alan Baker]

I love how you happily declare your omniscience...

[Carbon]

My word, I do enjoy certainty. I'm almost envious of you extremists.

>> But again, the NSA and the FBI don't care. The collusion investigations
>> will continue exactly as before.
>
> And nothing leading back to Trump will come of it.

Possibly, but I'm not sure being a chump is better.

https://goo.gl/CgsEq3

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:54:04 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

Your memory is very short. This was addressed several times this
week.

If Obama believed in diplomacy with Assad why did he ask Congress for
permission to attack Syria? That doesn't show weakness, it shows that
he used proper protocol. Trump didn't have to, he has a Republican
Congress.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:58:57 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

Collusion by his cabinet has already been proven and more to come.
That's what the investigation is about. Trump isn't clear yet either.
>
>-Greg

[Dene]

Your memory is very short. This was addressed several times this
week.

If Obama believed in diplomacy with Assad why did he ask Congress for
permission to attack Syria? That doesn't show weakness, it shows that
he used proper protocol. Trump didn't have to, he has a Republican
Congress.

So what is your solution? What should Trump had done?

[Alan Baker]

Why won't you address his points, Greg?

[Carbon]

What *we* should do is acknowledge that this bombing was designed to
deflect attention away from the ongoing Russian investigation. Nixon
invented a Russian scare during Watergate; Clinton bombed Iraq during the
Lewinsky affair. Par for the course.

[michae...@gmail.com]

WOW, Shit Stain!!! All your attention seeking pleas... ...ignored!!! And now you beg like a cunt "Why, why won't you pay me any attention".

BWAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Fucking cunt.

:-)

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

>

I had no problem with the attack,but it would've been better to follow
protocol although some other Presidents didn't. But your responses
don't yet agree that Obama did follow protocol and his Congress said
no. It would have been a problem if he hadn't, or certainly if he
went ahead after a no from Congress;

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

>

Solution? That's a response to my question?

I'm just waiting for you to recognize the fact that Obama wasn't weak
about bombing Syria. You've been apprised several times of the
situation in 2013. He followed protocol, requested support from
Congress and it wasn't forthcoming. No way he would do it then. The
uproar had it done without Congressional approval would have been
tremendous.

[Dene]

So no solution? Just a wild ass conspiracy theory.

[Dene]

He expected the no from Congress. He should have exercised his executive powers and bombed the hell out of them. Fortunately President Trump has more guts.

[Dene]

Really. So which cabinet member colluded with the Russians? Where is the proof? Have an indictment....or perhaps a leftist blog link?

[John B.]

I don't know what they solution is. Nobody does.
But I can tell you that any resolution to Syria's
treachery will be achieved through diplomacy, not
military action.

[John B.]

How the hell do you know what he expected? And what would have
been achieved by bombing the hell out of them? And who is "them?"

[John B.]

Michael Flynn colluded with the Russians before the election.
So did non-Cabinet members Paul Manafort and Carter Page.

Where is the proof? As I've said 100 times, there will be no
publicly available proof until the FBI has finished its
investigation.

[Alan Baker]

Coward.

[Alan Baker]

But if it was the right thing to do...

...why should he have expected a "no"?

Was congress putting party before patriotism?

:-)

[MNMikeW]

John B. wrote:

>
> I don't know what they solution is. Nobody does.
> But I can tell you that any resolution to Syria's
> treachery will be achieved through diplomacy, not
> military action.

LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!

[Dene]

- show quoted text -

I don't know what they solution is. Nobody does.
But I can tell you that any resolution to Syria's
treachery will be achieved through diplomacy, not
military action.

A combination of both. Diplomacy through strength. If you show weakness to a bully/dictator like Assad, then more people will die at the hands of chemical weapons. Again, diplomacy only works if there is sincere intent from all sides. That's what happened in Kosovo when we started bombing Serbia. That brought them to the table. Clinton handled that war masterfully, yet you criticize Trump for engaging in the same strategy?

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:23:20 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

He had the guts to stay with ACA, but using his executive powers have
been a GOP sticking point. You would be wise to remember what Trump
said about this at the time...four years ago. He stated that it
wasn't a good idea anyway.

Your thoughts about this is full of holes.

[Dene]

On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:25:24 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 7:14:10 PM UTC-8, Bob...@onramp.net wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:58:57 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

- show quoted text -

Michael Flynn colluded with the Russians before the election.
So did non-Cabinet members Paul Manafort and Carter Page.

Where is the proof? As I've said 100 times, there will be no
publicly available proof until the FBI has finished its
investigation.

So you are comfortable with accusation by speculation.
You should work for CNN.

[Dene]

He had the guts to stay with ACA, but using his executive powers have
been a GOP sticking point. You would be wise to remember what Trump
said about this at the time...four years ago. He stated that it
wasn't a good idea anyway.

Your thoughts about this is full of holes.

What the hell does ACA have to do with any of this? Obviously Trump changed his mind. Good! Let's deal with the present. Assad attacked his own people with chemical weapons and Trump had the guts and wisdom to make him pay for it. Give him credit instead of ankle biting.

[Dene]

Syria...obviously.
The Russians were not in Syria in 2013. Bombing the hell out of Assad's military would have weakened him, allowing for Assad's removal.

[Alan Baker]

Are you suggesting that's what the FBI is doing, Greg?

[Alan Baker]

You're missing the point.

You praise Trump for doing exactly the same things you condemned Obama
for doing: governing by executive order.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:25:22 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

You have to be kidding. I don't read "leftist" Blogs, so how would I
quote them?

Michael Flynn comes to mind immediately, as well as Jeff Sessions who
now is in a bind. Then there's his staff during the election process
like Paul Manafort. I suppose you never heard of any of this.

[Alan Baker]

So in addition to knowing everything there is to know about Trump's
involvement with Russia, you're also an expert in military strategy, are
you?

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:13:42 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:17:05 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

>

>He had the guts to stay with ACA, but using his executive powers have
>been a GOP sticking point. You would be wise to remember what Trump
>said about this at the time...four years ago. He stated that it
>wasn't a good idea anyway.
>
>Your thoughts about this is full of holes.
>
>What the hell does ACA have to do with any of this?

YOU brought up guts and I showed a fight where he had them.

>Obviously Trump changed his mind. Good! Let's deal with the present.
> Assad attacked his own people with chemical weapons and Trump
>had the guts and wisdom to make him pay for it. Give him credit instead of ankle biting.

You are now officially full of shit. I have stated my approval of the
Syrian attack, and am not "ankle biting", one of your idiot go to
words.

Guts and wisdom? Trump shows neither. You are all over the place with
this subject, and wrong about most of what you say.

[Alan Baker]

Really.

What "guts" does it take to order up cruise missiles.

[John B.]

Unlike you, I don't consider everything I read in the
press to be accusation by speculation. Note I used the
word "read." I don't watch CNN or any other cable news
channel.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:13:42 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

You really should drop this because you're being foolish now.
Who is comfortable with the investigation of U.S. citizens,whether or
not they're Trump people? We just have to wait to see how it turns
our and there's nothing more than speculation by HH, or you or anyone.

[MNMikeW]

ABC Baker wrote:

>>
>> Syria...obviously.
>> The Russians were not in Syria in 2013. Bombing the hell out of
>> Assad's military would have weakened him, allowing for Assad's removal.
>>
>
> So in addition to knowing everything there is to know about Trump's
> involvement with Russia, you're also an expert in military strategy, are
> you?

Lolololoo! Says the troll....who's an expert....at everything.

[-hh]

On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 1:28:47 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-04-13 10:20 AM, Dene wrote:
> >
> > Syria...obviously.
> > The Russians were not in Syria in 2013.

The Russians have been in Syria since 1971. Well, actually
back then it was the USSR, so pedantically, only since the
Soviet Union broke up and became Russia (which was in 1991).

> > Bombing the hell out of Assad's military would have weakened
> > him, allowing for Assad's removal.
> >
>
> So in addition to knowing everything there is to know
> about Trump's involvement with Russia, you're also an
> expert in military strategy, are you?

Apparently, Greg learned at Horvath's knee. You guys all
remember Horvath, right? He's the one who claimed to have
been be range safety officer at Camp Perry, but had never
somehow heard of the National Matches which are run there
for an entire month every summer for the past 110 years.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

I know what I know, Mikey, and I also know what I don't know.

:-)

[Dene]

Of course I'm familiar with these people and the speculative accusations against them.

The FBI investigated HRC. Did anything come of that? Same could easily be true for the collusion question.

Yet you claim collusion from his cabinet is "proven" but cite no proof. Care to explain?

[Dene]

He's a very good liar.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

It was a fair question.

[Alan Baker]

Mikey hasn't been interested in fair in a long time.

[Dene]

On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 9:45:56 AM UTC-8, Bob...@onramp.net wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:17:05 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >He had the guts to stay with ACA, but using his executive powers have
> >been a GOP sticking point. You would be wise to remember what Trump
> >said about this at the time...four years ago. He stated that it
> >wasn't a good idea anyway.
> >
> >Your thoughts about this is full of holes.
> >
> >What the hell does ACA have to do with any of this?
>
> YOU brought up guts and I showed a fight where he had them.
>
>
> >Obviously Trump changed his mind. Good! Let's deal with the present.
> > Assad attacked his own people with chemical weapons and Trump
> >had the guts and wisdom to make him pay for it. Give him credit instead of ankle biting.
>
>
> You are now officially full of shit. I have stated my approval of the
> Syrian attack, and am not "ankle biting", one of your idiot go to
> words.

You approved and yet you are criticizing.

> Guts and wisdom? Trump shows neither. You are all over the place with
> this subject, and wrong about most of what you say.

You approved of the strike yet you cannot bring yourself to commend the person who authorized it.

[MNMikeW]

Well it that's the case, I would expect both you and the troll to STFU
about this. Since neither of you are experts either.

[Alan Baker]

So Greg can pontificate about things you basically now admit he knows
little...

...and we're not even allowed to point out that he knows little?

That's what "fair" is in your world, zealot.

:-)

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-04-13 11:36 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> Bob...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:01:52 -0500, MNMikeW<mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ABC Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Syria...obviously.
>>>>>> The Russians were not in Syria in 2013. Bombing the hell out of
>>>>>> Assad's military would have weakened him, allowing for Assad's
>>>>>> removal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So in addition to knowing everything there is to know about Trump's
>>>>> involvement with Russia, you're also an expert in military strategy,
>>>>> are
>>>>> you?
>>>>
>>>> Lolololoo! Says the troll....who's an expert....at everything.
>>>
>>> It was a fair question.
>>
>> Well it that's the case, I would expect both you and the troll to STFU
>> about this. Since neither of you are experts either.
>
> So Greg can pontificate about things you basically now admit he knows
> little...

I never said such a think you lying little cunt.

>
> ...and we're not even allowed to point out that he knows little?

He knows as much as you two do.

[Alan Baker]

So you're saying he DOES know something of military strategy, Mikey?

>>
>> ...and we're not even allowed to point out that he knows little?
>
> He knows as much as you two do.

But where are "we two" trying to suggest we're experts in this?

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:20:27 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 9:45:56 AM UTC-8, Bob...@onramp.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:17:05 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >He had the guts to stay with ACA, but using his executive powers have
>> >been a GOP sticking point. You would be wise to remember what Trump
>> >said about this at the time...four years ago. He stated that it
>> >wasn't a good idea anyway.
>> >
>> >Your thoughts about this is full of holes.
>> >
>> >What the hell does ACA have to do with any of this?
>>
>> YOU brought up guts and I showed a fight where he had them.
>>
>>
>> >Obviously Trump changed his mind. Good! Let's deal with the present.
>> > Assad attacked his own people with chemical weapons and Trump
>> >had the guts and wisdom to make him pay for it. Give him credit instead of ankle biting.
>>
>>
>> You are now officially full of shit. I have stated my approval of the
>> Syrian attack, and am not "ankle biting", one of your idiot go to
>> words.
>
>You approved and yet you are criticizing.

Try to point out any criticism by me of the attack. There has been
none.

>
>> Guts and wisdom? Trump shows neither. You are all over the place with
>> this subject, and wrong about most of what you say.
>
>You approved of the strike yet you cannot bring yourself to commend the person who authorized it.

Are you just looking for an argument? I stated that I agreed with the
attack days ago.

[Alan Baker]

It's a knee-jerk thing with Greg, now.

It's hitched his wagon to Trump and anything that even hints at
criticism has him lashing out.

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-04-13 11:51 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2017-04-13 11:36 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>> Bob...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:01:52 -0500, MNMikeW<mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ABC Baker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Syria...obviously.
>>>>>>>> The Russians were not in Syria in 2013. Bombing the hell out of
>>>>>>>> Assad's military would have weakened him, allowing for Assad's
>>>>>>>> removal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So in addition to knowing everything there is to know about Trump's
>>>>>>> involvement with Russia, you're also an expert in military strategy,
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lolololoo! Says the troll....who's an expert....at everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a fair question.
>>>>
>>>> Well it that's the case, I would expect both you and the troll to STFU
>>>> about this. Since neither of you are experts either.
>>>
>>> So Greg can pontificate about things you basically now admit he knows
>>> little...
>>
>> I never said such a think you lying little cunt.
>
> So you're saying he DOES know something of military strategy, Mikey?

I don't know and either do you fraudboi. Does that mean he can't have an
opinion on it? Lying cunt!

>
>>>
>>> ...and we're not even allowed to point out that he knows little?
>>
>> He knows as much as you two do.
>
> But where are "we two" trying to suggest we're experts in this?
>

It was YOU cuntish one that tacitly admitted that unless you are an
expert in military strategy, you can not comment on military strategy.

Pontificating on things you know little of has never stopped you has it ABC?

[Bob...@onramp.net]

That's ridiculous.I've only discussed the facts that are obvious
because I don't consider myself an expert. Mostly my posts were to
Greg who has a screwed up view of what I have said about the Syrian
attack. If one has to be an expert to post on most of the threads on
RSG it would be very quiet. So you should take your own advice.

[Alan Baker]

Does it mean I can't point out that his opinion is most likely based on
nothing, Mikey?

>>
>>>>
>>>> ...and we're not even allowed to point out that he knows little?
>>>
>>> He knows as much as you two do.
>>
>> But where are "we two" trying to suggest we're experts in this?
>>
> It was YOU cuntish one that tacitly admitted that unless you are an
> expert in military strategy, you can not comment on military strategy.

And I haven't, Mikey.

Greg has.

>
> Pontificating on things you know little of has never stopped you has it
> ABC?

LOL!

[MNMikeW]

Bob...@Onramp.net wrote:

>>> It was a fair question.
>>
>> Well it that's the case, I would expect both you and the troll to STFU
>> about this. Since neither of you are experts either.
>
> That's ridiculous.I've only discussed the facts that are obvious
> because I don't consider myself an expert. Mostly my posts were to
> Greg who has a screwed up view of what I have said about the Syrian
> attack. If one has to be an expert to post on most of the threads on
> RSG it would be very quiet. So you should take your own advice.

Yes, everyones view is screwed up except yours. Yawn.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

I hope you're saying this because you haven't followed the thread
closely, because he has accused me of things that are not true, and
refuses to understand what was said by me. Or, you're not
understanding it too.
>
>
>

[Alan Baker]

That's not what he's saying at all, Mikey.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

You've become as fucked up as Greg. I'll try to use simple words to
explain this to you.

The only views that I've offered were in answer to Greg's mistaken
ideas about what I thought about the Syrian attack. When it happened I
agreed that Trump was right about doing it and that I was in favor of
it. He kept asking why I was against it and just wouldn't recognize
what I had said.

The only other thing that went on too long was the comparison of the
2013 situation in Afghanistan with the Syrian raid. No matter what I
posted caused another question that was a non sequitur. Then asking
for a solution when there was no problem that needed one.

There's only one view that I won't change and that's what I think of
Trump.