OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
I'm not buying that story even a little bit. You realized that Wikileaks exposed Moreno and his family for laundering money, right? This is nothing more than the higher-ups paying Moreno to rescind his asylum. The whole thing stinks.
He stole and published classified documents. Now i’m very bothered by what the documents revealed but still its no excuse and he def should go to prison.
I have the weirdest suspicion that if he had stolen and published classified info from the us govt that embarrassed trump instead of clinton you would be ready to execute him. Why would i think that?
You would be wrong. I hold loyalty to no party. Remember that Wikileaks went after the GW administration as well.
Well, Donald flip-flopped on his approval of Wikileaks after Assange was arrested.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.703e5ae7079f
Where is CNN in all of this? They cry about media persecution because Acosta gets told off by some 80-year-old woman, but where is that concern now? All the Obama fluffers are upset because the douche bag got busted for spying on US citizens, they couldn't even care a little bit about the persecution of the media.
Spying on and releasing classified information about the one person/country keeping you from getting shipped off to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison doesn't seem like the brightest idea. Maybe that's just me.
The article said he was ranting about Trump as he was getting dragged out, so I'm guessing DT won't be coming to his rescue with a pardon.
Russia Says ‘New World Order’ Being Formed
https://tsarizm.com/news/eastern-europe/2019/04/12/russia-says-new-world-order-being-formed/
Uncle Al already covered this back in the early 90's.
https://tsarizm.com/news/eastern-europe/2019/04/12/russia-says-new-world-order-being-formed/
Uncle Al already covered this back in the early 90's.
Only a heckler can improve an evening with the money-grabbing Clintons
https://nypost.com/2019/04/12/only-...-an-evening-with-the-money-grabbing-clintons/
LOL!
https://nypost.com/2019/04/12/only-...-an-evening-with-the-money-grabbing-clintons/
LOL!
This whole AOC movement is getting to be really interesting. It reminds me of the divide created in the republican party when the tea party movement first started.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/politics/nancy-pelosi-aoc/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/politics/nancy-pelosi-aoc/index.html
The one difference is that, at the beginning of the Tea Party, you had people like Ron Paul who made solid economic arguments backed up by data. Now this changed later on when the Republicans essentially annexed the movement and you started to see people like Sarah Palin show up, but at least at the beginning they at least made coherent arguments.
The AOC branch can't muster a coherent argument. They speak in generalizations and platitudes. When pressed on the matter they can't give any specifics. Then when they're called out on this they play some kind of race/sex card. That's why nobody takes AOC seriously.
Last edited:
I don't really want to rehash the Ron Paul economic debate, but I'll just say his economic arguments were solid to the people who liked him. Beyond that it's extremely subjective as to if it was a solid argument.
The tea party people spoke in generalizations and platitudes as well. They didn't play the ist card, so you're right about that.
I'm not talking about whether or not you liked his arguments. He at least backed them up. When asked specific questions he could give specific answers. There is a difference between agreeing with someone and laughing at them because they can't give specific answers to specific questions.
For the second part of your rebuttal, I would agree with you that this happened after the Republican Party took over. Nobody is going to look to Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin as some kind of economic intellectual. Again, I was talking about the beginning of the Tea Party, not what it morphed into at a later date.
You’re the one comparing rebellion against british rule to aiding a us soldier in stealing classified docs from our own govt. make a ridiculous comparison and you get a ridiculous response i guess.
I'm talking about people fighting back against their government. I don't even know how you can't see that. I'm literally shaking my head right now. LOL!
I know. That's why I said they were doing the same thing for the most part. The basic rallying cry from the beginning of the tea party movement was Obamacare sucks, we need to be more conservative and we need new voices that represent the party instead of rhinos. Nothing really concreate. The tea party and the AOC party are two sides of the same coin.
I'm pretty sure the Tea Party started during GW's administration. If I remember correctly, it was in response to TARP.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
Fox News Channel commentator Juan Williams has said that the Tea Party movement emerged from the "ashes" of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential primary campaign.[85] Indeed, Ron Paul has stated that its origin was on December 16, 2007, when supporters held a 24-hour record breaking, "moneybomb" fundraising event on the Boston Tea Party's 234th anniversary,[86] but that others, including Republicans, took over and changed some of the movement's core beliefs.[87][88] Writing for Slate.com, Dave Weigel has argued in concurrence that, in his view, the "first modern Tea Party events occurred in December 2007, long before Barack Obama took office, and they were organized by supporters of Rep. Ron Paul," with the movement expanding and gaining prominence in 2009.[65] Barack Obama, the first African American President of the United States, took office in January 2009. Journalist Joshua Green has stated in The Atlantic that while Ron Paul is not the Tea Party's founder, or its culturally resonant figure, he has become the "intellectual godfather" of the movement since many now agree with his long-held beliefs.[89]
So, yeah...it started in the ashes of Ron Paul's Presidential campaign and initially had nothing to do with the ACA.
It was officially launched in early 2009.
ETA: Less government spending is part of it too, so it makes sense that they were against those things. Being against something doesn't mean they have a specific plan though.
Read my edit. Even if you were correct, the ACA didn't happen until 2010, so it couldn't be a result of that legislation.
You're correct about it being something that wasn't said from day one. That being said, I still say that they had no solid alternatives laid out at the beginning. Being against something doesn't mean they have a specific plan in place to do something. That was my point. It was all generalizations. That's common with any new movement though.
Similar threads
