Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Jew Hater Obama and His UN Failure

Recent anti-Israel sentiments by the current administration does not surprise.  Not at all.  The relationship between Obama and Netanyahu has always been contentious, to say the least.  But now, as he winds down his failed presidency, Obama can't help but engage in more hateful attacks against the only nation in the Middle East worth a damn. 

There is no legitimate excuse for the behavior of our ambassador, which no doubt was the result of administration direction.  To have abstained from voting on this newest anti-Israel resolution is not only a departure from long-standing US policy, but a direct slap in the face of one of our greatest allies.  To pretend that building homes on what is actually Israeli land is the true issue preventing peace in the region is just one more indication of the stupidity and ignorance and deceit of Obama, his administration, the UN and the left in general.  The true obstruction to peace is the hate of the muslim world against Israel, and the Palestinian agenda that aims to destroy them.  This wish is shared by many in the muslim world and Obama has done much to appease it and by doing so, is complicit in all attempts to make that aim a reality.  His Iran deal is further proof.

But one remarkably idiotic statement by his current buffoonish Secretary of State, John Kerry (oh, how happy I am that this crap-for-brains didn't win the presidency in '04) is this one...that Israel can be Jewish or it can be a democracy, but it can't be both. 

Let's set aside the fact that it has been both throughout its brief history.  It is a mostly Jewish state that has democratically elected muslims in its Knesset.   How many Jews are in the governments of any muslim nation?  Might "zero" be to large a guess?  Israel's identity is inextricably tied to its Jewish history, even more so than is American to its Christian roots. 

But what of those muslim nations, particularly those who pretend they are "Palestinians", as if that is a thing?  Are they not entirely muslim while not being anywhere close to democratic (except to the left who aren't bright enough to know what that even means)?  Where is Kerry's, and of course Obama's, admonition that the Pallies and the muslim world in general cease their "death to Israel" attitudes and behaviors in order to move toward a lasting peace?

I'm already on record as ignoring the Palestinian's claims with regard to Israel, pre-1967 borders, right of return and their false claim to be a people that deserve a state of their own.  They deserve rebuke and opposition until such time as they prove that they can accept Israel and regard them as equals...and even then, they are entitled to nothing with regard to land that is rightfully and historically Israel. 

But Israel is worthy of our support and alliance.  This administration has crapped on that relationship for too long and it is just one more reason why the end of the Obama years is a reason for great celebration, both domestically and worldwide. 

UPDATE: 

As I continued to read up on the details surrounding this issue, I came upon various videos and podcasts that explain how the entire claim of a "Palestinian people", as the term is now used in order to create a separate state, is total nonsense and one of the greatest lies perpetrated in human history.   There is no need for a "two-state solution", as there has already been a two-state solution in place for decades.  The following link is to a podcast wherein the history of the region is explained in great detail.  There is nothing within it that can't be researched and verified as it is, as I have mentioned, but one of many from which I could have chosen to make the point.  I may add more later, but it shouldn't be necessary.  Before I post the link, check out this admission:

"The Palestinian people does not exist.  The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity.  In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese.  Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people."

-PLO official Zahir Muhsein, interview with Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977

Here's the link:  https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/conservative-conscience-the-full-history-of-the-palestinian-state-hoax
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people."
— PLO official Zahir Muhsein, interview with Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977 - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/conservative-conscience-the-full-history-of-the-palestinian-state-hoax#sthash.vI5vqoZT.dpuf
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people."
— PLO official Zahir Muhsein, interview with Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977 - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/conservative-conscience-the-full-history-of-the-palestinian-state-hoax#sthash.vI5vqoZT.dpuf
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people."
— PLO official Zahir Muhsein, interview with Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977 - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/conservative-conscience-the-full-history-of-the-palestinian-state-hoax#sthash.vI5vqoZT.dpuf

117 comments:

Craig said...

Anyone who has even a cursory familiarity with the events surrounding the founding of the modern state of Israel would understand that the nationhood claims of the Palestintans are spurious at best. One also has to overlook the complicity of the surrounding Muslim nations in causing a significant amount of the refugee problem that led to this current situation.

Marshall Art said...

"Spurious" is sugar-coating. The claim is an outright lie, and admitted lie. The question now is, has the lie been told so often that it is now regarded as true by the "Palestinian people", or do they speak amongst themselves fully cognizant of the lie the leftists of the world have swallowed?

Craig said...

And the left complains about fake news. I just heard that the story about the Russians hacking the electrical grid was 95% made up as well.

It's especially galling when the accurate history is so readily available for those who care about something beyond an agenda.

Feodor said...

You helped elect a Russian spy whose cabinet pics have plagiarism, and worse ethical problems and who can't find any performers willing to pollute their reputations by performing at his inauguration.

Take the log out your own eye.

Feodor said...

"A declassified version of the report said U.S. intelligence concluded the Russian government wanted to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process and denigrate Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and that the Kremlin “developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump,” adding the intelligence agencies have high confidence in their judgments."

https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/donald-trump-continues-attacks-on-intelligence-agencies-ahead-of-classified-briefing-on-russia-1483728966?client=safari

Feodor said...

"Russian media counted Mr. Trump’s election upset in November as a win for the Kremlin, the intelligence agencies concluded. “Russian media hailed President-elect Trump’s victory as a vindication of Putin’s advocacy of global populist movements. and the latest example of Western liberalism’s collapse.”

Marshall Art said...

Here's the real question, feodope: Could the Russians denigrate Hillary Clinton more than she denigrated herself?

Did the Russians force her to use a private server for gov't business? Did the Russians tell her to pretend Benghazi was due to some unknown person's unseen video? Did the Russians force her to delete emails she was supposed to save?

Did the Russians get dead people to vote in Chicago and elsewhere? Did the Russians make things easier for non-citizens to vote in US elections? Did the Russians gerrymander districts in order to make it easier for Democrats to win?

And what do they mean by "Western liberalism"? If that's liberalism in the classical sense, how does helping the candidate more closely resembling that ideology end it? If they mean liberalism as it is commonly used now, to refer to leftist chuckleheads like you, the failures of the head chucklehead-in-chief was already doing that, as evidenced by the increase in GOP held seats in state legislatures and governorships nationwide.

Few people doubt foreign bad actors have designs on so much of our society, including our voting process. When they find evidence that any of them have actually impacted the election, then you can crawl back out from under your rock.

Craig said...

Government policy divorced from reality and driven by false narrative and fake news is usually going to result in bad things.

Craig said...

So the actual contents of the revealed e mails get obscured by this "The Russians are coming" narrative. The fact is that there is no evidence that there was hacking of any governmental e mail, not that the content of the hacked e mails were false.

I guess interfering in elections is only bad when your candidate loses.

Craig said...

I guess the same intelligence organizations that the left denigrated when they weighed in on WMD in Iraq must now be trusted without question.

Feodor said...

You mean the recipe for jumps that was passed around? Your definition of concerning content stops somewhere around conflict of interest disclosures and tax honesty with the American people.

Feodor said...

I know it gets confusing for you both because you don’t have a core set of principles that you’re willing to stand on. So you may not notice how you make up your valuesby listening to people who make up their values.

"Sean Hannity once said that Julian Assange was waging “war” on the United States and should be arrested. Sarah Palin once said he had “blood on his hands.”

That was then. Today, both Hannity and Palin think Assange's document-leaking website, WikiLeaks, is doing the Lord's work. Apparently, something has changed.

And they're not alone. Increasingly, members of a Republican Party that once denounced Assange for exposing U.S. military secrets are praising him for leaking the Democratic Party's secrets. Even President-elect Donald Trump is now citing Assange as an authority.

After Assange leaked U.S. diplomatic cables — some of them containing sensitive information — Hannity in 2010 wondered aloud how the Obama administration hadn't brought him to justice, and accused Assange of putting the lives of American allies “at risk.”

Flash forward to today, and Hannity has been promoting and interviewing Assange for months — including Tuesday night — ever since WikiLeaks released emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. In September, Hannity commended Assange for showing “how corrupt, dishonest and phony our government is.” He added, “I do hope you get free one day.” (Assange is facing rape allegations in Sweden and has been staying at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London under diplomatic protection.) Hannity told Assange last month that he had “done us a favor,” and he said Tuesday that he believes “every word” Assange says.

Palin is also a convert — and a rather remarkable one, given that WikiLeaks leaked her own hacked emails in 2008. “To Julian Assange: I apologize..."

"CNN reports that back in 2010, Trump called WikiLeaks "disgraceful." "I think it's disgraceful, I think there should be like death penalty or something..."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/04/how-some-republicans-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-julian-assange/?client=safari


Craig said...

If you want to ignore the content in favor of the smoke screen go right ahead.

Craig said...

I know it's difficult, but perhaps it's not safe to make assumptions about people's values based on cherry picking some stuff from Hannity and Palin.

Feodor said...

Coming right up: 2017 to 2021.

When you count yo all the lies Trump has already reversed himself on he's entering his inauguration as one of the most corrupt administrations on day one: prosecuting Ms Clinton, kicking Wall Street out, making Mexico pay for a wall (you are, surprise!) hanging Assange, punishing China (his son in law rushed to get Chinese funding for his business right after the election because (surprise!) nepotism is in with Mr Kushner (advised by a Clinton surrogate) is going to be a senior advisor, and then, of course the infantile "Russia is our friend, Russia wouldn't spy, ok so they did but that's because the Dems made it easy (surprise! Russia also swiped RNC info), and in and in it will go starting with avoiding having his nominees ethically vetted before rushed confirmation hearings - including his AG appointee whom the Senate wouldn't make a judge due to his racism.

And you defend this.

And no doubt deny like a traitor this: "A code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama administration has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility, according to U.S. officials.

While the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a security matter, the discovery underscores the vulnerabilities of the nation’s electrical grid. And it raises fears in the U.S. government that Russian government hackers are actively trying to penetrate the grid to carry out potential attacks."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?client=safari



Craig said...

I know it's inconvenient to bring up again, but if your going to make judgements about me and what I've defended perhaps using Hannity and Palin as the basis for your assumptions is not a wise move.

Craig said...

FYI, the code in the VT utility wasn't actually in the system, but in a laptop that wasn't connected to the system.

The problem is that it somehow shocks you that countries that don't like us are engaged in things that could damage us, as if we aren't doing the same types of things. The bigger question is why hasn't the P-BO administration stopped this kind of thing?

Feodor said...

"FYI, the code in the VT utility wasn't actually in the system, but in a laptop that wasn't connected to the system."

A idiot's reasoning to deny the threat of Russia. And why? For the sake of an idiot President?

BTW, the laptop wasn't connected to the grid "at the time." It very well could have been before detection.
__________

"The fact is that there is no evidence that there was hacking of any governmental e mail"... VS " countries that don't like us are engaged in things that could damage us..." Make up your mind.

And, oh, BTW: "The 17 US intelligence agencies already issued a statement in October expressing their unanimous assessment that Moscow had probed state election voting centers and penetrated the email accounts of Democratic groups and individuals." "FBI director James Comey told a Senate panel that there was "penetration on the Republican side of the aisle and old Republican National Committee domains" no longer in use."
_________

"I guess the same intelligence organizations that the left denigrated when they weighed in on WMD in Iraq must now be trusted without question."

What intelligent people of all stripes denigrated wasn't the intelligence communities; we, and subsequently even people of integrity that were part of the administration, denigrated how the Buh administration manipulated the intelligence community work in order to lie to the American people. So... what Bush's White House did we denigrated for the right reasons. Same now for Trump.

Marshall Art said...

Craig,

What you must understand about feodope is that, like most every other tragically leftist buffoon in the country, he needs to grab at any and every straw by which he believes he can rationalize how a failed president and the woman who sought to continue and double down on his failures was THE most driving influence in the elevation of Donal Trump to the presidency. In their sorry, addled and suspect minds, there simply MUST be some nefarious reason why their girl lost. It simply COULDN'T be due to a nation fed up with being deceived, ignored, insulted, deprived of jobs and income and their own doctors and insurance, security and a host of other things damaged, destroyed and removed by the current administration. Attempts by enemies, foreign and domestic, to corrupt the election process is not new. But now that Trump has won, it is only now that the left will pretend it's a significant factor, because they need it to be. Otherwise, they're faced with their own failures and shortcomings.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

Fartshall can't count. Three million more Americans supported the President's legacy and doubled down by voting for Secretary Clinton than did not.

Fartshall also thinks through only half way down the line - as per his usual, when he isn't thinking in reverse - in that the corruption of our electoral process wasnt do much that Russia conducted cyber hacking (though one of the many exponentially expanding scandals of Trump even before day one and the support of him by amoral people like yourselves)...

... the corruption was the political motivations of the FBI Director to use that fact to influence the election. No surprise that neither of you can point out the rot. Living in intellectual sewers as you do, one cannot point in all directions at once and so you forget how.

"The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump, two officials with knowledge of the briefing said...

The two-page summary, first reported by CNN, was presented as an appendix to the intelligence agencies’ report on Russian hacking efforts during the election, the officials said. The material was not corroborated, and The New York Times has not been able to confirm the claims. But intelligence agencies considered it so potentially explosive that they decided Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and congressional leaders needed to be told about it and informed that the agencies were actively investigating it."
________

"In the weeks after Roger Ailes was ousted as the chairman of Fox News in July, amid a sexual harassment scandal, company executives secretly struck an agreement with a longtime on-air personality who had come forward with similar accusations about the network’s top host, Bill O’Reilly.

The employee, Juliet Huddy, had said that Mr. O’Reilly pursued a sexual relationship with her in 2011, at a time he exerted significant influence over her career. When she rebuffed his advances, he tried to derail her career, according to a draft of a letter from her lawyers to Fox News that was obtained by The New York Times."

Feodor said...

The immoral child you voted for.

"Detailed Reports Allege President-Elect Donald Trump Hired Prostitutes To Pee on a Hotel Bed
He allegedly wanted the women to defile a bed he knew the Obamas once slept in."

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a8584701/reports-allege-trump-hired-prostitutes-golden-showers/

Craig said...

I figured all of that out when his response was " you were right that the infected laptop was not connected to the system, but it could have been. ". Quite frankly I'm a little mystified why these people are shocked that people like the Russians, the Chinese, and other countries that don't like us very much are engaged in activities designed to damage loss. As I pointed out elsewhere I guess mitt Romney might have been more right Then Obama or are those of his ilk wanted to admit.

Feodor said...

If you prefer Romney to Obama for strong opposition to Russia then you must really hate Trump (unless, of course, you are making up your values as you go along):

Question: On that intelligence report, the second part of their conclusion was that Vladimir Putin ordered it because he aspired to help you in the election.

Do you accept that part of the finding? And will you undo what President Obama did to punish the Russians for this or will you keep it in place?

TRUMP: Well, if — if Putin likes Donald Trump, I consider that an asset..

Craig said...

1. It's not an issue of preference of Romney over P-BO, it's simply that fact that P-BO ridiculed Romney for his statement regarding the threat Russia posed to the US. I'm glad that P-BO finally came around to agree with the man he ridiculed.

2. Your continued assumptions about who or what I supported along with the bitchy comments about my values are based on your prejudices and continue to make you look foolish.

3. Despite the foolish prejudiced assumption inherent in the question I'll answer. I assume that countries that don't like us will engage in all sorts of underhanded tactics to achieve their goals, so I have no reason to doubt that Purim ordered the attempt. I do have doubts about the effectiveness. Especially since all they did was expose the DNC dirty laundry to the sunshine. I'd be surprised if the PRC and Iran weren't trying to do this kind of thing also. It's interesting that when the Clinton/Obama administration and the DNC interfered with elections there wasn't this much concern.

As I've not seen the data the conclusion is based on, I'd at least tentatively accept it, just as I accept our interference in other countries elections. Since I have no power regarding the implementation of any sanctions against anyone I'm not sure that I can actually do anything. In general it's always a balance between punishing and escalating and none of us has enough information to take a definitive position.

I'd just say that as a general rule I'd prefer friendly positive relationships with other countries to adversarial relations. So to the extent any president can move in that direction I'd say that's more positive than negative.


Craig said...

Hey, Feo believes fake news enough to repeat it.

Marshall Art said...

I can't count?

"Three million more Americans supported the President's legacy and doubled down by voting for Secretary Clinton than did not."

The issue here isn't how high one can count (aren't you the bright boy!), but whether all the votes should have been counted in the first place. Cases of voter fraud, far more often than not, indict the left, not the right. Investigative reporter Pam Zeckman found evidence of voter fraud in Democratic Chicago, where the dead still vote. The Green Party chucklehead's calls for recounts gave Trump more support. And California's licensing (to drive) of illegal immigrants makes it far easier for them to vote. Yet another state had found more votes cast than there were registered voters to cast them. Thus, there was no overwhelming popular support for Clinton, even if she had greater support at all. And don't forget all those other lefties that voted Green Party and other worse choices, versus those who voted for Libertarians and other conservative parties (as few as there were). Talk about ignoring facts and details, no one does it better than feodope.

Then, there's this:

""The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump, two officials with knowledge of the briefing said..."

There's no issue with the charge that bad actors seek to hack our stuff or influence our elections. Not surprised you find that to be a news flash. But also not surprising is that unsubstantiated reports are given so much weight by low intellect people like you.

I would certainly hope that such things are investigated and monitored by our people. I hope also that fools like you would await actual confirmation before pretending you're more knowledgeable about such things.

Feodor said...

"1. It's not an issue of preference of Romney over P-BO, it's simply that fact that P-BO ridiculed Romney for his statement regarding the threat Russia posed to the US. I'm glad that P-BO finally came around to agree with the man he ridiculed."

That's a myopic and seriously flawed way to put it. In 2008 had Putin invaded the Ukraine? No. Had Putin executed a fake news and cyber attack effort to influence our election? No.



"2. Your continued assumptions about who or what I supported along with the bitchy comments about my values are based on your prejudices and continue to make you look foolish."

Twice in this thread you've claimed that the news about Russian cyber attacks are fake. Even while being contradicted by the CIA, the FBI, by the Director of National Intelligence - and then by Mr Trump himself yesterday ("I think probably Russia did it...") and by the Vice President today.

You said, "I just heard that the story about the Russians hacking the electrical grid was 95% made up as well." One wonders from what source you hear that and why in the hell do you believed them? I feel safe in assuming whom you support these days.... particularly given how foolish you obviously have been. Who is it that " believes fake news enough to repeat it"? You did.



"3. Despite the foolish prejudiced assumption inherent in the question I'll answer. I assume that countries that don't like us will engage in all sorts of underhanded tactics to achieve their goals, so I have no reason to doubt that Purim ordered the attempt.

Yet, you're off the central point, doubtless because your weak mind doesn't get how you yourself have been diverted by your "trusty" sources. It is not news that other countries spy. It is news when a nominee encourages spying, perhaps caught colluding with it and now, as the President-elect, wants to wipe it away with denials and theatrics pointing to a table of meaningless file folders.

July 26, 2016: Donald Trump: “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”

Craig said...

So in your world pointing out that Romney was prescient, is somehow myopic. The fact is Romney was right into thousand and eight and Obama was wrong in this missing his concerns. The fact that it took overt armed action by Russia against its neighbors For Obama to realize the threat just makes my point.

Craig said...

#2. The fact that you and your hubris and foolishness cannot understand the assumptions that you are making about me and what I support is clearly demonstrated by your response. My reaction to your regurgitation of the Vermont electrical grid story was exactly right, the Russians did not hack the electrical grid the Russians got a virus into one laptop computer that was not ever routinely connected to the system. Given that the story that the Russians hacked the electrical grid is realistically at least 95% false. But none of that really matters in comparison to your willful blindness towards your own assumptions. Until you can except that you are making incorrect assumptions based in your prejudice regarding people who disagree with you then it will be difficult to move much further with you.

Craig said...

#3. It's bad enough that you make false assumptions about me and what I support, it's worse when you misrepresent what I've said. If you can't put aside your prejudice and your false assumptions and accurately respond to what I've actually said then I see no point in continuing to dialogue with someone so foolishly blind.

Craig said...

If you actually had evidence that Trump was actually colluding with the Russians, you would have presented it. The fact that all you have is a quote that is is aimed at poking fun of Hillary's inability to produce or intentional destruction of emails that were subpoenaed as part of a government investigation speaks volumes to your interest in finding out the truth. If you have proof, by all means present it. If you were happy with misrepresentation, assumption, and innuendo then I guess we'll just have to deal with that

Craig said...

Hey Marshall, do you think it's strange that we've never seen Feo and Dan in the same room at the same time? Given that they both argue the same way, basing much of their On assumptions about those who are there are arguing with and their prejudices about people who disagree with them I can't help but wonder if they are not secretly the same person.

Feodor said...

"There's no issue with the charge that bad actors seek to hack our stuff or influence our elections..."

Really? You don't have a problem that Mr Trump appealed to a foreign power to have one of our Presidential nominees and political parties hacked? God, you have no patriotism.

"But also not surprising is that unsubstantiated reports are given so much weight by low intellect people like you."

Leave it to you to be ignorant that unsubstantiated doesn't mean unproven. It means still under investigation. And the fact that the intelligence community had to brief the President and President-elect means that there is danger here.

But you support people who lie to the American people and deny danger. You do it for the Bush administration and you do it now even before Mr Trump has taken office.

On Tuesday evening, Seth Myers' asked Ms Conway about the reporting that Mr Tump had been briefed on Russian information dangerous to Mr Trump. Ms Conway claimed that the information was from a Russian investigator - Mr Myers had to correct her that it was a British intelligence officer delivering the information. Ms Conway tried to say that Clinton supporters were implicated and nothing really was known. But, Mr Myers asked, "the report was about them going to the president-elect.” When she pushed back, he added, “I believe it said they did brief him on it.” Ms Conway reiterated that the president-elect “has said that he is not aware of that.”

So... the senior advisor to the President-elect lied.

Then, Mr Tump tweeted this morning that Mr Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence "called me yesterday to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated. Made up, phony facts. Too bad!”

But Mr Clapper wrote, "This evening, I had the opportunity to speak with President-elect Donald Trump to discuss recent media reports about our briefing last Friday... The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions."

So... the President-elect himself lied.

You make up your values as you go along. You support a racist, misogynist, brutalizing and lying President-elect.

Feodor said...

"So in your world pointing out that Romney was prescient..." In the real world you are trying to say Mr Romney is clairvoyant. Didn't know Mormons had that ability.

Craig, we can set a baseline of agreement and remove all of my foolish doubt of the ethics of your political support if you were to concur that Mr Trump has encouraged spying by a foreign power on a Presidential nominee and one of our major ruling parties. And furthermore, if you were to concur that Mr Trump has also lied about who had done the hacking after receiving verification that Russia had done so. And lastly, if you were to agree that Mr Trump lied up through today's tweet about what he's been told.

Finally, you again out your blinding proclivities to swallow lies by twisting what I wrote - "perhaps caught colluding with it" - into "If you actually had evidence that Trump was actually colluding with the Russians..." This is your bad faith. The evidence is still being investigated. As Mr Clapper made clear, the intelligence community has not yet passed judgement.

Mr Trump lied in this morning's tweet about what Mr Clapper wrote. And he clearly called Russia to hack the US election process.

And you're defending him with denials and diversions and a blind eye on a Russian code found within a utility system of a state in our nation. That's called support, Craig. Blind, unpatriotic support.

Simple.

Feodor said...

Craig: "The fact is that there is no evidence that there was hacking of any governmental e mail."

NYT: "At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C. had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named “the Dukes,” a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.

The F.B.I. knew it well: The bureau had spent the last few years trying to kick the Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House, the State Department and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the government’s best-protected networks."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html

Craig said...

Look, I could go back and respond to much of your foolishness individually, but as you continue to base your commitments on assumptions driven by your preconceived notions I see no reason to indulge your folly any further. If you would like to address your prejudice driven assumptions and correct/apologize then I might consider specific responses. But as you have continued to ignore my multiple comments pointing out your prejudice driven assumptions I see no read this treat with you any further.

Feodor said...

If you can't admit to the clear facts of Trump's behavior what good are you? None. You make up your values as you go along, Hiding what you need to hide, avoiding what you need to avoid, running away as your last resort.

Craig said...

Wow, I've never encountered anyone so afraid of admitting wrong in my life. It's not about running away, I've got both the comment pointing out your numerous assumptions as well as the one reacting to the ridiculous things you've said virtually written. But given your commitment to clinging to your prejudices and assumptions I see nothing to be gained in posting either. Hubris and being intentionally obtuse aren't character traits designed for rational civil discourse. So, by all means, cling desperately to your assumptions and keep reality as far at bay as possible while trying to foist responsibility of on others.

Your call.

Feodor said...

I asked the question. You've avoided it. I can easily join you in agreement about Trump... just as soon as you commit yourself to reason and stipulate that Trump openly encouraged spying, is appropriately now under senate and intelligence investigation for any possible collusion with spying, and has more than once lied to the American people about when and what he's been briefed on.

It's in your hands to disprove the assumptions.

Craig said...

Your assumptions started long before you asked your questions, your assumptions are based in your ill informed, prejudiced view of those who have the temerity to disagree with you. Your assumptions are many thing, but most of all they're yours not mine.

Marshall Art said...

"Really? You don't have a problem that Mr Trump appealed to a foreign power to have one of our Presidential nominees and political parties hacked?"

If he actually did, sure. I'd have a problem with it. But even going by the actual quote:

"“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”"

...it's easy enough for honest people to see that he wasn't making an appeal at all. The sarcastic crack assumes hacking is going on, as it was said in response to questions regarding such behavior. That is to say, if those asking about it are seeking his position, a full review of his response finds that he does indeed have a problem with it. This quote points to what he feels should be a more important reason for interest by the press...the fact that Hillary deleted emails she should have been preserving. Only a low intellect and dishonest hack like you would pretend there's more to the quote than that. But I've long come to expect such dishonesty and idiocy from you, feo. It's what you do best. So I have a problem with boobs trying to make something out of nothing.

"Leave it to you to be ignorant that unsubstantiated doesn't mean unproven."

Leave it to desperate buffoons like you to presume that I'm making such a suggestion. I also leave it to buffoons like you to try to make hay out of unsubstantiated reports, so desperate are you to disparage those who have defeated the scum you prefer. The reports are unsubstantiated and thus not worthy of comment other than to remark on the weirdness of the story itself, true or not. I've no doubt you want it to be true, feo. I'm certain of your desperation that you need it to be true. Seek help. But until it's proven true...it ain't. It's just an unsubstantiated rumor.

"But you support people who lie to the American people and deny danger."

Wow. This is pathetic for a few reasons:

1. It is itself a lie, much like your lies about me being racist, that you cannot support. Idiots like you believe that my vote for Trump means I support everything about him. Apparently you did not read all that I've written that stated MY vote for
Trump was to prevent a greater liar, a lesser human being, from becoming the next President of the United States.

2. It suggests falsely, and blatantly so, that you haven't been supporting people who lie to the American people and deny danger for some time now, most significantly, one Barack Hussein Obama II, as well as Hillary Clinton.

3. Indeed, the left in general, led by the Democratic Party, lies and denies as a matter of party policy.

4. I don't recall that Trump has denied the danger of anything or from anyone who actually presents danger to the American people.

5. You're an idiot.

continuing....

Marshall Art said...

I haven't been closely following the chronology of every spoken word that emanates from Donald Trump. But I would not wager against the likelihood that when Trump first said he wasn't briefed, he wasn't, and then once he said he was, he at that point had been. Regardless, only a pathetic, desperate and childish buffoon like you would posture himself as having "caught" Trump in something scandalous over something so incredibly insignificant. You're just that pathetic and desperate, and clearly not ashamed to expose yourself as such. Hence...idiot.

"You support a racist, misogynist, brutalizing and lying President-elect."

No, I never voted for or supported Barack Hussein Obama II.

1. Racist. This is a guy who has widened the racial divide in this country to a gap not seen since before the Civil Rights movement. Beginning with his Chicago pastor, through calling a cop doing his duty "stupid" because the homeowner being questioned trying to break into his own home was black, to lamenting the death of thugs more readily than the death of cops by thugs...I could go on and on. Here's just one of so many pieces from which I could have chosen that speaks to Obama's racism (and his old lady ain't much better!):

http://rightwingnews.com/civil-rights/barack-obama-is-an-anti-white-racist/

2. Misogynist. He wasn't exactly the perfect gentleman in his primary battles with Hillary back in 2008. But more telling is his and the wife's praise for and glorification of rappers, who are well known for their "songs" depicting ill treatment of women:

http://www.chicksontheright.com/how-do-liberals-explain-the-obamas-glorification-of-misogyny-and-date-rape-all-up-in-the-white-house/

In the meantime, Trump's just a horn dog. Lying leftists like you call him "misogynistic" for digging hot babes. Misogyny is hatred of women. Rap lyrics reflect that far more than anything Trump has ever said.

The defense and promotion of "abortion rights" shows a high disregard for aborted females and the "mothers" who killed them, many of whom suffer consequences, mental/emotional as well as physical, afterwards.

3. Brutality. This is just stupid, mostly because you chose to say it at all with regard to Trump as if you have some legitimate justification for doing so...which you don't. But again, one can point to Obama's support for "abortion rights", his insistence that Christian women's organizations (Little Sisters of the Poor) provide abortion services and the ill treatment of women depicted in the lyrics of rappers he idolizes. His protection of islam that leads to the brutalization of both muslims AND Jews and Christians, not to mention homosexuals. His support for the Palestinians over Israel (I know. How dare I mention the topic of this blog post!). I don't think Barry has the sack to strong arm anyone. But he enables brutality like no one's business.

4. Lying. Really? You want to go there? Especially after his laughable "Farewell Address" to his senseless hometown supporters? Like you, the guy wouldn't know a truth if it pointed out his goofy ears.

5. You're an idiot.

Feodor said...

"I haven't been closely following the chronology of every spoken word that emanates from Donald Trump."

Probably why everything else you've written is made up fantasy and why it collapses at the least question of reason.

You just don't have a mind to speak of, Fartshshall. Nor a mind that can speak sensibly on its own.

Marshall Art said...

"Probably why everything else you've written is made up fantasy and why it collapses at the least question of reason."

I've made up nothing here, nor have you provided anything that "collapses" anything other than your own hope to project yourself as knowing you ass from a hole in the ground. But while I provide evidence that your hopeless presidential failure is guilty of that which you accuse Trump, you've provided nothing to support your contentions whatsoever...nothing but unsubstantiated reports to which you desperately attach all your hopes.

And, idiot, my quote that lead off your last drooling was in reference to whether or not Trump was briefed and when. To pretend, even if it forces my backing off from the specifics of that event, that it allows you to dismiss the facts I've presented just demonstrates once more your pathetic desperation to attack those you oppose, while never addressing the failure and incompetence of those you support, to say nothing of your own self.

You're such a sorry example of a man. May God grant you the epiphany you so desperately need.

Craig said...

MA

You hit the nail on the head when you referred to "honest people", Feo has quite amply demonstrated that he has no intention of letting little things like truth or accuracy get in the way of his assumptions and prejudices. Given his callous disregard for the reality of any given situation it's hardly surprising that his fevered imagination spins a laugh line in a political speech into high treason.

I didn't vote for P-BO, but I never spewed this level of vitriol against him. This is the reality of the tolerant and inclusive American political left.

Feodor said...

My assumptions have been proven correct. Craig supports a lying, brutalizing, treason flirting President-elect, thereby refusing facts and rejecting reason.

Feodor said...

"A centuries-old law, the Logan Act, forbids any US citizen acting without official US authority from influencing "disputes or controversies" involving the US and a foreign government.
The December 29 phone call was on the same day that President Barack Obama ordered sanctions on Russia, as well as ordered 35 Russian diplomats and their families to leave the country -- but a transition official told CNN that Flynn and Kislyak did not discuss the Russian sanctions."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/13/politics/donald-trump-michael-flynn-russia-ambassador/index.html

Feodor said...

"Michael Flynn, President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for national security adviser, held five phone calls with Russia’s ambassador to Washington on the day the United States retaliated for Moscow’s interference in the U.S. presidential election, three sources familiar with the matter said.

The calls occurred between the time the Russian embassy was told about U.S. sanctions and the announcement by Russian President Vladimir Putin that he had decided against reprisals."
______

"In excerpts from an hourlong interview published by the Wall Street Journal on Friday, Trump said: “If you get along and if Russia is really helping us, why would anybody have sanctions if somebody’s doing some really great things?”

Craig said...

You simply making self serving unsupported claims does not in any way make those claims any less false. I know it's difficult for one of your superior intellect and excess of hubris to occasionally follow the example of Christ and humble yourself occasionally, but in this case you have allowed your prejudices to cloud your judgement. Your problem is that you can't prove your assumptions right, so you desperately try to shift the burden of proof while simply repeating your false assumptions. I can't correct someone who refused to admit the slightest possibility of error, so why would I try, I'd have better luck trying to teach a pig calculus.

Your example of tolerance and acceptance stands as a shining beacon to all the rest of us.

Craig said...

Again, unless you have a transcript of the call any conclusion you draw is premature and based on your assumptions, prejudices, and hatred of Trump. I know this probably wouldn't occur to you, but isn't it possible that your emotions and feelings might be preventing you from a more rational and unbiased take on the events in question?

Craig said...

I know that even considering this possibility might be a traumatic experience, but isn't it also possible that the bias of your news sources just might affect your ability to render a balanced judgment?

Feodor said...

Carrying out an investigation isn't bias. It's the right thing to do.

"Only yesterday the committee chairman Richard Burr, a Republican, had told reporters that connections between the president-elect and Moscow would be outside the remit of his committee’s ongoing investigation into Russia’s alleged attempts to influence the election through hacking and other cyberattacks. But Burr – in a statement issued jointly with the panel’s top Democrat, Mark Warner – said the committee would use “subpoenas if necessary” to force Trump’s team, as well as officials from the Obama administration, to testify."
____________

"emotions and feelings might be preventing you from a more rational and unbiased take on the events in question?"

I think you have me confused with Trump.

"A Senate Republican is blasting President-elect Donald Trump's criticism of Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), praising the lawmaker for his leadership in the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) on Saturday seized on Trump's characterization of Lewis as "All talk, talk, talk - no action," pointing out that his "talk" made a significant contribution in the civil rights movement.
"John Lewis and his 'talk' have changed the world," Sasse tweeted."

Marshall Art said...

"Carrying out an investigation isn't bias"

Craig can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's referring to your bias, not any bias on the part of investigators. You idiot.

In the meantime, even an administration spokesman would not confirm that Flynn's communications were necessarily problematic, but that it would depend on what was actually said between them. There's no evidence as yet that there was anything that wasn't out of bounds or prohibited. Thus, those “subpoenas if necessary” would only come about if there was legitimate reason to believe that Flynn's explanation was suspect. This means you should expect to be disappointed yet again, and ready to move on to your next desperate attempt to smear those you hate.

"I think you have me confused with Trump."

Again taking liberties to speak for Craig, I don't see how he'd ever confuse an idiot like you with Trump.

Sasse's opinion of Trump's tweet doesn't make Trump's tweet truly worthy of blasting. All of you Obama worshipers got your panties in a severe twist when opponents like Trump questioned the legitimacy of Obama's installment as president. Trump was pretty specific in his response to Lewis' inane comment. It was indeed directed at the comment itself, not the entirety of his life's work. And what of Lewis' district? Is it all rainbows and unicorns there? Personally I don't know. But whatever he may have contributed to the civil rights movement means nothing with regard to his opinion on Trump's legitimacy as president. Nothing at all.

Marshall Art said...

By the way, feo...you idiot...if you haven't anything to say in line with the topic of the post, keep it to yourself.

A most troubling aspect to your off-topic commentaries is how truth-deficient they are. Your comment that led off as follows:

""A centuries-old law, the Logan Act, forbids any US citizen acting without official US authority from influencing "disputes or controversies" involving the US and a foreign government."

...ends with a statement that clearly suggests no violation took place. It would be much easier for you to simply post no comment more involved that "I, feo, am a clinical iciot" rather than expending so many keystrokes proving it.

Feodor said...

Both of your brutalizing boys are going down.

"New excerpts from recordings of the secret discussions between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon Mozes, reported by Channel 2 on Friday, illustrate how the two men got down to the nuts and bolts of how they would implement a deal for better coverage for Netanyahu and reduced commercial competition for Mozes. In details published later, Mozes told Netanyahu: We'll make sure you remain Prime Minister."

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.764931

Craig said...

MA

Of course you are correct. What kind of world do we have where not joining in with the hatred automatically equals support? Where is desiring to wait for actual finished investigations and not letting prejudice and emotion drive us to jump to conclusions a sign of anything negative? It's truly saddening when we see people so blinded by hatred or prejudice or assumptions that they have no interest in the truth. I've never seen this kind of vitriol come from those who espouse tolerance so intolerantly. I honestly don't know how to interact with someone so committed to their assumptions and premature conclusions that they have no room for anything short of joining the lynching party.

Craig said...

Note the outrage at the notion of Netanyahu colluding with the media, yet the fact that Clinton appeared to be colluding with the media, the networks televising the debates, and the DNC to rig the primaries . Yet that's not worthy of investigation or outrage.

Craig said...

While your prating on about reason, you've hidden your outrage well regarding the elections P-BO and Clinton have interfered with.

Craig said...

I've mentioned facts repeatedly regarding your ridiculous prejudice based assumptions, yet you pretend otherwise.

You act is is the Superdelegates being virtually committed to Clinton before votes being cast is somhow a good thing. But, if y'all like that sort of thing along with the DNC actively working against one of the candidates that's fine with me.

Gotta love the selective outrage, and the ignoring of the facts that don't fit into this little fantasy world you've created for yourself.

Craig said...

I think I'll conclude with the note that from your very first comment on this thread you've managed to virtually totally avoid actually commenting on the topic of the post, impressive that you've managed to completely hijack things.

Marshall Art said...

Sorry Craig, but your comments now stand without those of the putz to whom you responded. He must respond in the manner I requested or I will continue to delete his comments. By rights, since he is abusive to my guests, he deserves deletion as a matter of course. He says nothing, really, but that which is condescending to better people and self-satisfying for one who has no reason to be so self-satisfied.

Now, I left the comment of his with the Haaretz link, because it at least had references to Israel. But he is now obliged to explain how it is actually on topic. Just mentioning Israel or Israelis doesn't do it. I have no expectation that he will or can make the connection. He's pro-Palestinian, and an Israel hater.

Oh...and he's an idiot.

Craig said...

And again with the hatred fueled, prejudice driven, assumptions. Too bad Feo is such a poor example of what MLK preached.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Craig said...

Wow now Feo's hallucinating that anyone in this conversation said or agrees with his cherry picked comments.

I'm sure he'll be slamming Shiela Jackson Lee (I believe) who said she wouldn't even meet with or speak to Trump. That's inclusive for you.

Craig said...

Sorry, it's Maxine Waters who won't even meet with Trump to attempt to find any common ground.

Marshall Art said...

Again, folks, I'll be deleting feo's idiocy until he acts maturely and posts on-topic comments without the insults and condescension he has no standing in making. So, respond to him at your own risk.

feo, you liar. You never quoted MLK. If you had, there would be no reference to Trump in them. You're a liar. I looked at all the deleted comments in my deleted emails and found no "prophetic" words from him posted by you.

Next, this post isn't about hate, unless you're referring to the hatred Obama, the Palestinians and a great portion of the the UN membership has for Israel and those who support them. The post is about the UN's actions and the anti-Israel behavior of Obama's minion ambassador who acted on his behalf. If you have anything to say related to what the post is about, I'll consider leaving it "un-deleted".

As an example of feo's lying nature, I point to the statement he quoted in the last comment:

""The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”"

Lefties like feo love bringing this up, and even more so, taking it out of the context in which it was made. To that end, I present this lefty "fact-checker" site, wherein it shows that it is technically true that it was said, but gives the full background that shows it's not what feo needs it to be to validate his false low opinion of his betters:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/oct/30/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-claims-mitch-mcconnell-says/

Then there's this:

""“The NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Operation PUSH and the National Council of Churches were all un-American organizations teaching anti-American values.” "

It is not hateful to tell the truth. It's just that the truth is so unbearable to feo. These organizations do indeed teach anti-American values. But since feo is anti-America himself, he can't admit it.

The rest is just Trump talking, but questioning the legitimacy of Obama's presidency is not allowed, while questioning the legitimacy of Trump's is. That's how lefties roll. They're dishonest by nature. feo certainly is.

Craig said...

'I'll be deleting feo's idiocy until he acts maturely and posts on-topic comments without the insults and condescension...'

Given that the chance of him actually acknowledging the remotest possibility that he might be responsible for the deletions, rather than peddling this fantasy that everyone is running in fear from his towering intellect is virtually zero, I guess this means that you'll be deleting every bit of his drivel.

Feodor said...

When you enter the rational world of facts, and when you have the balls to take a position, we'll get further down the road of a dialogue, Craig.

Craig said...

You've been avoiding the rational world of facts since your comment of January 7, 2017 at 5:02 PM, so I guess I'd have to wait for you to recognize the rational world of facts.

However, with MA's permission I'll give you one opportunity to align yourself with reality. My next comment will be a number of fact claims that you have made. If you can provide objective proof that all of your claims are factually accurate, I will gladly acknowledge that and see what happens. If not them I guess we'll have proof that your just blowing smoke and have no actual connection to reality.

To be clear, the next comment will be claims that YOU have made and insist are "reality".

Craig said...

1. “Craig, we can set a baseline of agreement and remove all of my foolish doubt of the ethics of your political support…”
2. “This is your bad faith.”
3. “And you're defending him with denials and diversions and a blind eye on a Russian code found within a utility system of a state in our nation. That's called support, Craig. Blind, unpatriotic support.”
4. “But you support people who lie to the American people and deny danger. You do it for the Bush administration and you do it now even before Mr Trump has taken office.”
5. “You make up your values as you go along. You support a racist, misogynist, brutalizing and lying President-elect.”
6. “I feel safe in assuming whom you support these days.... particularly given how foolish you obviously have been. “
7. “If you prefer Romney to Obama for strong opposition to Russia then you must really hate Trump (unless, of course, you are making up your values as you go along”
8. “The immoral child you voted for.”
9. “A idiot's reasoning to deny the threat of Russia. And why? For the sake of an idiot President?”
10. “And you defend this.”
11. “I know it gets confusing for you both because you don’t have a core set of principles that you’re willing to stand on. So you may not notice how you make up your valuesby listening to people who make up their values.”
12. “Your definition of concerning content stops somewhere around conflict of interest disclosures and tax honesty with the American people.”
13. “You helped elect a Russian spy”

There you go, 13 claims. If you expect to be taken seriously we'll be seeing 13 quotes with links that provide objective proof of your claims.


Craig said...

Art, if you choose not to allow Feo to provide evidence that his deals in reality, that's fine.

Feodor said...

#2 going down: "Schumer, who made the comments in a statement and on Twitter, was responding to a CNN report published earlier in the day alleging that Tom Price had purchased shares in a medical device manufacturer last March “days before introducing legislation that would have directly benefited the company.” CNN also reported that the company’s political action committee donated to the congressman’s re-election campaign after the legislation was introduced. "

Feodor said...

And maybe #3: "Two election fundraising groups linked to Scott Pruitt spent most of their donations on travel and consultants."

Craig said...

Strike 1 and 2. So far it's not going well, but the fact that you even made the attempt is surprising.

Feodor said...

Defending "not supporting, no, that's an assumption" Trump's picks, huh?

"Washington (CNN)Donald Trump will become president Friday with an approval rating of just 40%, according to a new CNN/ORC Poll, the lowest of any recent president and 44 points below that of President Barack Obama, the 44th president.

Following a tumultuous transition period, approval ratings for Trump's handling of the transition are more than 20 points below those for any of his three most recent predecessors. Obama took the oath in 2009 with an 84% approval rating, 67% approved of Clinton's transition as of late December 1992 and 61% approved of George W. Bush's transition just before he took office in January 2001."

Craig said...

Strike 3. If you can't prove your claims , don't make them.

Craig said...

I guess I should point out that approval rating of Trump and his picks before they've even done anything doesn't demonstrate anything factual about the quality of either.

That's not support, that's just reality.

Marshall Art said...

Craig,

I'll allow your interaction with the buffoon for now, so long as he doesn't get cheeky. He isn't allowed. I may copy and paste whatever might seem substantive, while deleting the rest, but we'll see. He likes to think that I delete because he's said something profound and beyond my ability to counter. I had a good laugh when I read that pile. It's amazing how well he thinks of himself considering how little he brings to bear. Just wait until he really tries to sound like an intellectual. It reminds me of those kids in school who tried to BS their way through an theme paper, using ten dollar words and all manner of convoluted word play. The teachers were never impressed. feo used to believe we'd be. Once that went no where, he's resorted to out and out petulance.

I'll be watching while I get through the next two long workdays. But I'll always have time to delete his arrogant and insulting comments. I encourage him to pretend he's a good and kind man who only wishes to engage in peaceful discourse. He won't, but I encourage him nonetheless.

Craig said...

That's fine with me. I will gladly play by whatever rules you want to set up. If you decided to completely shut him down, please just let me know.

Feodor said...

Craig bizarrely denies that lying Monica Crowley hasn't been struck from Trump's senior security appointee list (Craig: "strike 1"). This even after I attached the news.

Craig doesn't believe in the news. He makes up as he goes along, like his values.

Anonymous said...

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, the numbered items are quotes of claims you've made but not proven. I will be patient as you grapple with providing proof, but random comments about news people don't really prove your claims.

Craig

Feodor said...

Craig, I'l be happy and it will be so easy to address all 13... items I guess is the most respectful word I can come up with... in my very next post.

Once Fartshall restores my factual claims that crime went down in NY under de Blasio and after the cessation of stop and frisk and the two of you admit that it did.

If he and you can't do that then I wont be answering a fool's vacuous powerpoint substitute for thinking.

Craig said...

More excuses and blaming others for your inability to demonstrate that your claims are factual. So far, you haven't succeeded and now just more excuses to hide the fact that you've made claims you can't prove.

Hell, in the other thread, you claimed things about what I've said that are clearly proven wrong by the comment immediately above your idiocy.

I think it speaks volumes about someone's character when they spend a bunch of time talking about what they will do, instead of just doing it, especially while blaming others.

Either prove your claims or don't, just stop the bitching, whining, and excuses. The bottom line is you can't provide a quote and link that objectively proves I've said or believe anything you've claimed I have, and now you'd rather make excuses that admit that your precious assumptions are wrong.

Feodor said...

Waiting on Marshall.

Craig said...

Using Marshall as an excuse, more likely.

Feodor said...

He's been deleting facts. That's a fact. Let him reenter reason, if possible, and I'll reply. Sometimes you have to pay for an education.

Marshall Art said...

As I explained in the other post, I've deleted no facts. I delete due to both the obvious lack of facts, together with feo's childish and arrogant behavior...a characteristic that appeared from his very first visit to this blog and has not ceased since.

more later...

Feodor said...

Your sycophantic crush says, no, Craig. He's too scared. So I cannot gift you with reason as it's been locked out.

Craig said...

If anyone is scared it must be you. Your refusal to defend your claims started well before Art started deleting your comments. The fact that you choose excuses instead of simply defending your claims speaks volumes about your ability to actually defend your claims. The further fact that you feel the need to lie about why your comments are being deleted, and to simply behave in a respectful and civil manner which would eliminate the deleting, again says much about your ability to defend your claims.

You have the ability to simply defend your claims, do so in a respectful and civil manner and by doing so demonstrate that you're not simply a pompous troll who's intent is to provoke and stir things up. I guess it's all in your hands.

FYI, I'll be dealing with some family illness issues that may affect my ability to respond. So in the absence of anything substantial in you defending your claims don't expect much if any response. Oh and don't bother trying to even suggest that this is a tactic that escape from anything, it's just a choice to prioritize my family over your continued excuses for avoiding proving the accuracy of your claims.

Feodor said...

Right, Craig, if anything signals being scared it must be my engaging in a 93 comment thread rather than Fartshsll's anxiously deleting them.

This is your stagnant mind at work.

Craig said...

You're the one using excuses to justify demonstrating the accuracy of your claims. I guess if you think that's engaging then maybe you're right.

Feodor said...

Here's a taste.

13. “You helped elect a Russian spy” That's the subject of investigations:

"Donald Trump and Russian government authorities lashed out Wednesday after reports that U.S. intelligence agencies informed the president-elect of unsubstantiated allegations that Kremlin operatives have compromising material on the president-elect and engaged in an extensive conspiracy with members of his team in order to help get him elected.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-says-it-has-no-compromising-material-on-trump-calling-report-an-absolute-fabrication-1484125723

Craig said...

That's special. Of course it's doesn't demonstrate that either half of your claim is objectively true.

What is that, strike 5 or 6?

Feodor said...

There is an investigation into Trump's cooperation with spying. He's already aided and abetted by calling for Russian spying. His words are not in dispute; it's recorded. You can look it up. You're blind to pitches sitting in your basement Lay-Z-Boy.

Craig said...

1. The existence of an investigation does not objectively prove Trump is a spy.

2. You've offered absolutely zero proof that I helped elect him.

Maybe you have some strange and esoteric definition of proof that doesn't include actual objective proof, but on this one you've offered nothing that comes close to objectivity proving your claim.

I applaud you for at least stopping the excuses and making an attempt, it's more that I thought you'd do. So you get a solid B for the effort and a nice participation trophy.

Feodor said...

His grandmother in Germany said, 'Oh, no, he was born in Moscow and I was there and I witnessed the birth. He's been working for Russia ever since.' She's on tape. I think that tape's going to be produced fairly soon. Somebody is coming out with a book in two weeks, it will be very interesting.

Feodor said...

"The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts."

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

Marshall Art said...

Wow! feo actually thinks I'm scared, and that fear is my motivation for deleting his drivel and insults??? Incredible! I guess "idiot" isn't exactly accurate. He's far worse than merely an idiot!

But it's another example of that which likely compels Craig to wonder if he and Dan are the same person. They both misrepresent their comments that have been deleted...which is lying. Here, as stated already, feo claims I've deleted facts. This is wholly untrue, unless his notion of what constitutes a fact is fluid and situational. It is indeed a fact, for example, that it is claimed that crime went down in NYC after the suspension of "stop and frisk". But it is not a fact that it went down because of the suspension, or even that the rate of decrease was positively (or even negatively) affected by the suspension of that policy. Simply linking to an article that makes the same assertion as feo is not an example of "fact" and certainly nothing that compels me to put up with the routinely attendant bad attitude.

Here, failing to have any intelligent thing to say about the topic of the post, feo tries to provide "facts" about Russian hacking and collusion with Trump. He provides a link to an article about Russia's rejection of the charge that it has compromising info about Trump, and then in his last, links to another than makes clear they have no proof of wrong doing by Trump or his people. He had no problem with Hillary running while under investigation for national security violations, of which that investigation actually found proofs, but has his panties in a twist about Trump being sworn in while investigations are afoot that have produced no evidence against him.

The stupidity of feo is unrelenting and beyond psychotic. He's a real example of what Dan Trabue would call "delusional".

So I will continue to delete his comments as I see fit. His are such that each and everyone are without true merit, and not worth reading anyway. I am so incredibly open to actual sound arguments from ideological opponents, but feo refuses to offer any. This allegedly well educated and well read intellectual (and seminarian, if you can believe that) continues to show that neither books nor sheepskin are a guarantee that wisdom and reason will be instilled. He has neither.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

Your Washington Post opinion piece has no relevance here. You can't even support your own opinions, much less the opinions of others.

I responded to your other deleted comment on the other post.

Craig said...

If I were you I'd also be worried about the inability you have to distinguish between the existence of an investigation and the end result of the investigation. You've been quick to jump on anything that feeds your preconceptions and to draw premature conclusions from incomplete information.

Marshall Art said...

"You helped elect a Russian spy..."

feo's first words of his first comment on this thread, accusing us of helping to elect a Russian spy...and somehow he dares suggest that we started the nastiness. This he follows up with a "report" that is unsubstantiated as proof of his nasty charge. What a buffoon!

Secondly, I have never insisted that Obama was not born in the States. I have merely referenced charges that he was not, commented on the knee-jerk dismissal of those charges by media who chose not to investigate the charges and allowed for the possibility that the charges might be true. That was far down on my list of reasons to insist that he was unworthy of the presidency...reasons justified by his incompetence in office. So again, if you want a response to what you claim is a quote of my words, provide a link to whatever source contained those words of mine and we'll go from there. You're dishonesty and stupidity does not compel me to comment anything based on your word alone. I will continue to delete your comments until you provide the basics that apparently threaten you so much.

Craig said...

I have to note that at least you've brought back from the big demonstration the spirit of love, respect, and unity that was so prevalent among the various public speakers. It's quite refreshing to see this new spirit of love, inclusiveness, respect, And unity. Especially for those who won hundred percent agree with the positions of the people writing the checks to pay for the rally.

Feodor said...

You're mistaken, Craig. It wasn't a love assholes parade. Get your facts straight.

Craig said...

Ah, that refreshing leftist love, tolerance, and inclusion that we all respect so much shining through.

Feodor said...

Again, get your facts right. Here is your love and tolerance in action:

"Art, you just have to wonder if Feo wore a vagina costume or thinks often about blowing up the White House."

Intolerance of brutalist is righteousness, not intolerance. Your shallow ethical thinking is showing.

Craig said...

Wow, how difficult it is to get your sense of humor removed? But, didn't some random guy say something like "Love your enemies and bless those who persecute you."? I think al also remember something about don't judge or something like that. I guess all that goes out the window when politics gets involved.

Marshall Art said...

Once again, I'm fully aware of what "unsubstantiated" means. What it does NOT mean is that idiots like feo can presume that what has not been proven is nonetheless good enough to hang on someone's neck because there isn't enough legitimate negatives to really demonize the guy who beat out his political opponent. What kind of "Christian" does that to a person with whom he has no personal knowledge? Trick question. That would be the false priest feo, of course. THAT'S what passes for Christian love for feo. Funny, though. I've never heard Dan encourage feo to "embrace grace".

So, right about now feo is required to provide evidence of what makes Trump "brutalist". This from a guy who claims to have marched with thousands of shrews demanding Trump not interfere when they choose to murder their own children...because that's righteousness in feo's mind.

Craig said...

Ohhhh Art, he (just like his small minded marching heros), just called you a name. I guess we must excoriate Trump for being vulgar, but Feo gives himself a pass.

I guess that whole love your enemies just never took for those on the left.

Craig said...

Vulgar is vulgar, why should you get a pass to be vulgar and offensive?

Seems, like this while it's OK to respond in kind is more of the problem than the solution.

Craig said...

Since you're clearly not humble, don't have the appearance of being spiritual and I don't recall harassing anyone at great length (I guess I've harassed you to provide support for your false claims), I have no idea of what you're talking about.

Unless you've misunderstood me clearly and repeatedly telling Dan (since he's not humble and doesn't appear particularly spiritual either) that I envy him for having such generous children and that I have no problem with him traveling, I have no idea what your rambling on about.

Whatever it is, it's an ingenious diversionary tactic to try to draw attention away from your inability to prove the accuracy of your claims.

Speaking of lacking in honor or shame mister pot.

Craig said...

Yes that was my first comment and they both sounded like children and my advice to Art was to delete the comments. I was clearly referencing comments from both of them. I fail to see how that is problematic in the least.

Yes, There is something about Dan on certain topics where he comes off as holier than thou (especially when he uses King James ish words), it's incredibly off putting and borders on irrational.

So I disagree with Dan on his dogmatic insistence on (undefined) "simple" living.

Craig said...

I came in on the side of pointing out that both of them were acting childish. Later I did point out the seeming inconsistency between his claims of following the "clear teaching" of Christ (which was never actually articulated), and his actions. I was consistent from the beginning that I had no issues with the choice he made, only with the apparent contradiction inherent in his actions.

But hey now the unsupportable claims are usually to

Craig said...

Sorry, should say.

The number of unsupported claims is continuing to rise instead of being supported with some objective facts.

Maybe a bigger shovel would help.

Marshall Art said...

"The response you missed, Craig, is that you're not my enemy. You're my white brother who's fucked up and need to learn your place until you respect our neighbors and fellow citizens."

A small taste of the rhetoric of the false priest, feo. This is a "man" who tries to posture himself as more learned in Scripture, endowed with towering intellect and someone who can teach us a thing or two. So sad. So pathetic. But we already know how to be stupid, cruel and unChristian. We just prefer to strive for better, even though we might fail to achieve perfection. But YOU, feo, seem to relish being a miserable excuse for a human being, a supporter of the murder of innocents, a celebrant of sexual immorality and clearly a racist who suffers from white guilt. All that education....all those books...not a shred of wisdom. So sad. So very sad.

Craig said...

Not at all, I came in on the side of both of them being childish. I moved to the side of pointing out the inconsistency between rhetoric and action. I stayed on the side of agreeing that his kids did a nice thing and that he's taking his undefined mania for "simple" living to a ridiculous extreme. In essence turning it into a prerequisite for salvation.

But, please continue to rack up the unsupported claims, it's just that many more you can't prove.

Of course taking this further off topic to obscure your inabilities to support your claims is pretty tricky.

Marshall Art said...

feo doesn't get to make demands until he shows he can meet the demands his bad behavior has placed upon him.