No. of Recommendations: 17
Regarding the report in general I previously stated
1. No one will like it.
2. It will be fair and reasonable.

https://boards.fool.com/i-wouldn39t-be-so-quick-to-judge-all...
#2 seems obviously true. As for #1, everyone who's happy raise your hand.

Additionally I have said we are getting our money's worth
https://boards.fool.com/look-mueller-cannot-make-a-case-for-...
Very much so.

Regarding collusion I have previously stated Trump is clearly a Russian stooge. And the implication? Anyone who still supports him is de facto supporting a Russian agenda.
https://boards.fool.com/whether-knowingly-or-not-it-is-becom...
This is congruent with the findings of the Mueller Report.

Regarding obstruction I have previously stated from a moral standpoint is that it is walking far closer to the line than is appropriate.
https://boards.fool.com/does-a-tweet-rise-to-the-level-of-ob...
Again, this is congruent with the findings of the Mueller Report.

Regarding Barr's summary, he obviously soft pedaled to the extent possible. History will not be kind.


-Cassandra
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"History will not be kind."

Nor should "the present" be.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Regarding Barr's summary, he obviously soft pedaled to the extent possible. History will not be kind."

There is no soft pedaling the fact Mueller did not recommend charges against Trump for collusion or Obstruction, it's either recommend charges (proof of guilt) or no charges (did not find proof of guilt).

You can't claim Trump is guilty if Mueller didn't recommend charges.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Regarding collusion I have previously stated Trump is clearly a Russian stooge. And the implication? Anyone who still supports him is de facto supporting a Russian agenda. This is congruent with the findings of the Mueller Report.

How so?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Trump has always been and will always be a self-congratulating fool, and I've hated him longer than most.

But yes. I am happy that he had zero collusion with Russia. Russia can still consider this a big win by tying up our government for so long.

The real criminals in this episodes, if there are any, are the Americans who might have been manipulated by this Russia social media effort.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Hmm. No response. Okay, let's dig further into this claim:

Regarding collusion I have previously stated Trump is clearly a Russian stooge. And the implication? Anyone who still supports him is de facto supporting a Russian agenda.
https://boards.fool.com/whether-knowingly-or-not-it-is-becom......
This is congruent with the findings of the Mueller Report.


I believe you meant to say, "This is not congruent with the findings of the Mueller Report". Right there on page 2 it says

The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election of interference activities.
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-m...

Therefore, since neither Trump, his campaign, nor anyone in it coordinated with the Russian government, the statement Regarding collusion I have previously stated Trump is clearly a Russian stooge is not supported by the report and the followon conclusion Anyone who still supports him is de facto supporting a Russian agenda is equally false.

Of course, one would need only look at Trump's actual policies and stances toward Russia to reach the obvious conclusion that the italicized quotes from you weren't correct.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
since neither Trump, his campaign, nor anyone in it coordinated with the Russian government, the statement Regarding collusion I have previously stated Trump is clearly a Russian stooge is not supported by the report
When you learn the difference between collusion and stooge we can have an intelligent conversation.

Until then, note that Volume I of the Mueller report which details Russian interference is roughly 200 pages long.
Has Trump responded forcefully, condemning Russia? Has he fully implemented the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act?

Or has he called the report crazy?

The implication then is that it doesn't really matter if there was collusion.
https://boards.fool.com/i-dont-care-i-believe-putin-the-impl...

Spasibo, Comrade Dope.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Until then, note that Volume I of the Mueller report which details Russian interference is roughly 200 pages long.
Has Trump responded forcefully, condemning Russia? Has he fully implemented the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act?>>



What did Obama do once he learned of Russian interference with the US election in 2014? I suppose he had political reasons to give Putin a pass. Since it didn't amount to a hill of beans anyway, it only became important once Trump was elected and it could be used as a political smear.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What did Obama do once he learned of Russian interference with the US election in 2014?
Ah, what-about-ism. Quelle surprise.

Fwiw, I'm hardly a fan of Obama. I could spend the entire day listing his failures. I'd probably start with the way his administration handled Chinese cybertheft.
"Hindsight is always 20/20," (Evan Medeiros, Obama's top China specialist and then a staffer at the National Security Council) says. "I wish that we had spent more time ... finding creative ways to punish them for creating a nonlevel playing field."
Without those punishments, the attacks continued.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/711779130/as-china-hacked-u-s...

But that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, does it?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<What did Obama do once he learned of Russian interference with the US election in 2014?
Ah, what-about-ism. Quelle surprise.>>



Putin has apparently made ten times the mischief as Osama Bin Laden and is unlikely to be shot dead by American special forces for his trouble.


He must have a good laugh about it every day.

WHAT is he doing for an encore?



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
When you learn the difference between collusion and stooge we can have an intelligent conversation.

Uh, huh. Let's assign you a grade right now: Fail.
You said, and let's quote you again:Regarding collusion I have previously stated Trump is clearly a Russian stooge. And the implication? Anyone who still supports him is de facto supporting a Russian agenda.

Your statement clearly links the word "stooge" with concept "collusion". You're big on lecturing others about nuance. Perhaps you should gaze into your mirror, and learn what conceptual linking infers while writing.

Then stop insulting others right off the bat. It'll be less painful.

Until then, note that Volume I of the Mueller report which details Russian interference is roughly 200 pages long.
Has Trump responded forcefully, condemning Russia? Has he fully implemented the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act?


You think this is the first time the Russkies have screwed with us?
Please tell me you're not that naïve.

Spasibo, Comrade Dope.

Naïve *and* intellectually lazy. You're done. I get that you hate Trump, but you shouldn't allow it to completely make you lose your mind.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Your statement clearly links the word "stooge" with concept "collusion".
No, it links "stooge" to Vol I of the report.
Seriously, when you can't parse English there really is no point in further discussion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No, it links "stooge" to Vol I of the report.
Seriously, when you can't parse English there really is no point in further discussion.


Sorry, you're not dealing with some random lib.

You mean the Vol. 1 of the report, where it says there was no collusion?

You've been wrong on this from day 0 of the entire fiasco. If you want to pretend otherwise, that's great and you can join your fellow NeverTrumpers *points to the wailing pile of libs on this board* who refuse to recognize reality.

But as has been pointed out to you many times, the "stooge" thing doesn't align to the actual policies pursued by the administration. Learn to look at what people, you know, actually do.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Learn to look at what people, you know, actually do.

You mean like his petulence following the passage of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act:
I can make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-...

Or...
Sanctions against 3 Russian companies linked to Oleg Deripaska lifted by US
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sanctions-against-3-russian...

Remind me how the US responded following the UK nerve agent attack.
On 8 August, five months after the poisoning, the US government agreed to place sanctions on Russian banks and exports. The sanctions, which are enforced under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act), were planned to come into effect on 27 August. However, these santions were not implemented by the Trump administration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_...


Yes, let's do look at what people actually do.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes, let's do look at what people actually do.

You’re claiming “petulance”? Yeah, that’s substantive. Not.

Let’s look at actual policy instead. What people *do*.

How about helping the Ukrainians blast Russian troops with advanced anti-tank weaponry?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/22/politics/us-ukraine-anti-tank...

And yes, this was a reversal from the Obama era.

Or how about putting our money where our mouth is?
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10946.pdf

This doc is a tripling of the European Deterrence Initiative, which funds deploying US troops and weapons into Poland, the Baltics and Norway.

Or maybe we can talk about actually engaging ISIS in Syria over Putin’s objections, to the point where The Russkies thought they could run over a US Base there?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/worl...

How’d that work out for Putin’s mercenaries? I’ll save you the trouble of not bothering to click and read: it didn’t go well for them. Please don’t bore with a lame counter about how those were mercs and not real Russkies. You’ll just highlight more educational gaps.

But I do thank you for playing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And oh, yeah. I forgot the biggest screwing of Putin there is:

Remind me if the US’ standing in terms of energy production and what that means to Putin’s economy?

Again. Thanks for playing. Bring your ‘A’ game next time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yeah, that’s substantive. Not.
So then, no counter to Trump's failure to impose sanctions over the UK nerve agent attack.
Sad.
But I do thank you for playing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So then, no counter to Trump's failure to impose sanctions over the UK nerve agent attack.

So, then, no counter to the entire list I gave you?

Not sad. Pathetic.

And, thanks for playing.

Oh. Just to finish you off:
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/688589/Salisbur...

The US President, under scrutiny for his camp's alleged links to Moscow, has backed Theresa May and the British government.
He said today: "It sounds to me like it would be Russia based on all of the evidence they have."
He was questioned after he sacked Secretary of State Rex Tillerson just hours after Mr Tillerson strongly supported the UK.

The President told reporters outside the White House: "It sounds to me like they believe it was Russia and I would certainly take that finding as fact."


And, as a result:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-08/trump-hits-putin-n...
As a result, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on a determination that Russia violated international law by poisoning Sergei Skripal and his daughter in March. Although the U.S. joined European countries in publicly blaming Moscow within days of the attack, the Trump's administration had never issued the formal determination that triggers automatic sanctions under a decades-old U.S. law on chemical weapons.
This was the second US response to the alleged Russian nerve-gas attack: in March, the US expelled 60 Russian diplomats as part of a joint response with allies to the novichok attack. Russia responded by ordering an equal number of US envoys to leave.


In fact the State Department statement said
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-to-impose-new-russia-san...

"Following the use of a 'Novichok' nerve agent in an attempt to assassinate UK citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal, the United States, on August 6, 2018, determined under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that the Government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals," the State Department said in a statement.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Remind me if the US’ standing in terms of energy production and what that means to Putin’s economy?

Pretty sure the US became a net exporter of energy under Obama, didn't it?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
TheDope1: And oh, yeah. I forgot the biggest screwing of Putin there is:

Remind me if the US’ standing in terms of energy production and what that means to Putin’s economy?



Well, let's see what Putin has to say, shall we?

PUTIN: “We’re not interested in an endless rise in the price of energy and oil. If you asked me what is a fair price, I would say we’re perfectly happy with $60 a barrel.”

And what's the current price for a barrel of oil?

$64.

Putin's Puppet delivers.

Putin is happy.

#You've_Been_Conned_By_Don_The_Con
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Worst.Russian.Stooge.Ever
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That’s your reply? That an oil oligarch is happy with a lower price for oil?

You’re awesome. Never stop being you. At least the other guy had the good sense to tuck his tail and exit the thread.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Pretty sure the US became a net exporter of energy under Obama, didn't it?

No, not until 2020.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/01/24/us-...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
By the way, this post of yours belongs in the PA Hall Of Fame. I love that you think that Putin would rather sell oil at $60/barrel rather than $100.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, then, no counter to the entire list I gave you?
No real point. It's a big world and occasionally we do stuff. Meh.

Oh. Just to finish you off...
So, why has it been over a year since the attack with no sanctions?
Waiting...
So sad.

But back to the original point.
Trump should have known at the time that the information he was repeating was Russian disinformation.
The Mueller Report states Posts from the IRA-controlled Twitter account @TEN_ GOP were cited or retweeted bymultiple Trump Campaign officials and surrogates, including Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Kellyanne Conway, Brad Parscale, and Michael T. Flynn. (Vol 1, page 33)
Identical? No. Congruent? Oh yeah.

I really feel sorry for you. Partisan cheerleading has painted you into a corner.
And the more you try to spin, the worse it gets.

Trump's best option here is for Congress to censure him. He could come before a joint session, mea culpa, and promise a new start. The American People would accept a sincere apology.
Won't happen.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No real point. It's a big world and occasionally we do stuff. Meh.


Uh, huh. Engaging on actual policy choices never goes well for you; all you can do is accuse others of 'partisan cheerleading'. It's an especially silly charge to make when you can even be bothered to offer up a token case for your side.

The energy stuff alone means that Trump isn't Putin's puppet. Never mind expanding the military, or running destroyers into the Black Sea, or putting troops in Poland, or missile defense (I didn't even need to go there). All those things obliterate your point.

Again, not sad.

Pathetic.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Engaging on actual policy choices never goes well for you
Like, say, imposing sanctions on a country for committing an act of chemical warfare on the soil of an ally.

The person you are thinking of is... you.
Sad.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Like, say, imposing sanctions on a country for committing an act of chemical warfare on the soil of an ally.

Fail. I covered your example. You ignored all of mine. Thanks for playing.

You're in the grip of TDS, and it's got you oh-so-tight. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, I'm happy to continue to educate you on what's actually happening in the real world.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I covered your example.
Uh, no.

Yes, you demonstrated that the administration has said the attack was Russian.
So, what have they done about it?

Flat nothing. A fact of policy that you purposefully try to ignore.


And going back to the top of this thread, page 33 of the Mueller report is congruent with Trump being a stooge.

Sad.
But true.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Uh, no.

Uhh, yes. I gave you the response. You're sticking your fingers in your ears.

Yes, you demonstrated that the administration has said the attack was Russian.
So, what have they done about it?


Sigh. It's in this very thread, which it's obvious you haven't read.

Face it. Your "Trump is a Putin stooge and so is anyone who supports him" is complete BS and you know it. You keep going back to policy and demand answers for it while simultaneously (a) ignoring the answers that were given to you and (b) completely ignoring all the other policy difference that wax your point.

Just for you:
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/04/17/why-anot...

So why do we have multiple Aegis destroyers running around the Black Sea? As a stooge for Putin he's doing a really poor job.

Or maybe you think that Putin wants his tanks facing US made anti-tank weapons. Or having the US Navy trail its coats right along "his" sea.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And going back to the top of this thread, page 33 of the Mueller report is congruent with Trump being a stooge.


And ^^^^this confirms my opinion of you as an analyst.

Seriously? Are you this 1 dimensional?

Let's spell this out for you.

1. *Everybody* thought Hillary! was going to win. Including Putin.
2. The Russians view it as their mission to weaken the US President.

Are you following me thus far?

Therefore:

3. They would have put out disinformation intending to weaken the candidate they thought was the going away winner.

By the way, do you understand that #3 means that it didn't matter who the candidate was?

Sheesh. I'm continually amazed at the lack of sophistication in thinking on this board.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And since you keep coming back for more punishment, I'm happy to continue pounding your point into the dirt where it belongs.

Here's another one for you to ignore.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/04/11/us-army-terminal...

The Aegis Ashore in Deveselu, Romania, has been operational since 2016. It is part of the European Phased Adaptive Approach, or EPAA, designed to defend U.S. troops and its allies in Europe against possible ballistic missile attacks.
The EPAA consists of an AN/TPY-2 radar in Turkey and two Aegis Ashore systems — one in Romania and one in Poland. The Polish system has been hit with delays due to construction issues at Redzikowo military base that are unrelated to the system’s performance. It won’t be operational until 2020.


Do I need to catch you up on the capabilities of the Aegis system, or are you capable of finding out on your own? I'll give you a hint: it rocks.

Oh, and then there's this.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/22/dona...

President Donald Trump moves to cut off Iran oil exports; decision could roil markets

Do you understand why this would affect Russia? Or how?

Again. Happy to educate you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Sheesh. I'm continually amazed at the lack of sophistication in thinking on this board. -dope

You are astoundingly amazing in that regard, yes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You are astoundingly amazing in that regard, yes.

Yet another nothingburger contribution. Does it please you to offer these kinds of comments? It must, or you wouldn't do it to the exclusion of everything else.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Yet another nothingburger contribution. . .

. . .says the poster who never answers a single substantive question or provides a single relevant point in his tirades and rants against liberals.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
. . .says the poster who never answers a single substantive question or provides a single relevant point in his tirades and rants against liberals.

LOL. When the "substantive" question is "Why are Republicans such evil, racist monsters?" then I give it the attention it deserves. Ergo, you earn what you get.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
...As for #1, everyone who's happy raise your hand.

Remember, we haven't seen the report and neither has anyone in Congress.

Ever since Barr tried to publish a 4 page cover-up letter instead of release the actual report, I have said no one should reach any conclusions consistent with what Trump and Barr want the report to say until after congress has a copy of the full report.

What I've read of the redacted version of the report is pretty damning to Trump. In a rational legal climate, the man is guilty as sin and should be impeached. If anyone expected the report to say that explicitly, they really haven't been following Mueller at all.

Impeachment, of course, is not a legal issue. It is a political issue. And as long as Republicans feel safer supporting Trump than they do opposing him, impeachment is DOA. I believe that would be true even if Mueller's team explicitly stated that Trump should be impeached or indicted then listed the specific charges.

So . . . to the extent I have seen the redacted report, I'm happy with Mueller's product. I would like to see more, but so far, so good. I think Mueller's team collected a lot of factual data that exposes Trump's crimes and clearly describes details of how Russia attacked our elections. That seems like a pretty good job.

The only thing to be unhappy about is the fact that about 40% of the country has their heads stuck so far up the right wing echo chamber that they have become Trump's cult. They are devoid of facts or reasoning. These are the people who are keeping honest, small government Republicans from taking a stand against the Criminal-In-Chief.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sheesh. I'm continually amazed at the lack of sophistication in thinking on this board. -dope

"You are astoundingly amazing in that regard, yes."

Yet another nothingburger contribution. Does it please you to offer these kinds of comments? It must, or you wouldn't do it to the exclusion of everything else.

Aaaand you are still posting amazing stuff... LOL.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
He triple-posted in reply.
I saw that and thought Well, this is going to be a rant fest. Any actual logic is likely to be extremely tortured, and I really don't feel like teasing it out.
So I skipped past without reading it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So I skipped past without reading it.

Thanks. I thought of some other things to say.

I knew you would never address anything I brought up. Actual debate isn't your style; you

1. Lead with a snarky personal comment
2. Level some random accusation about some issue
3. Push back on the poster who counters your issue
4. Ignore anything that's inconvenient to your "point"
5. Bail on the thread when it doesn't go your way.

Congrats. You've become Nigel, Jr. Enjoy your new status!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thanks. I thought of some other things to say.
That's as far as I read.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Of course. That's step #4.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you want a reply, it's quite easy.
Write something coherent, cogent, and concise.

You've done it in the past, though I think the last time was discussing Obama's openings to Iran and Cuba.
Hope springs eternal.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you want a reply, it's quite easy.
Write something coherent, cogent, and concise.

You've done it in the past, though I think the last time was discussing Obama's openings to Iran and Cuba.
Hope springs eternal.


You've already admitted you didn't read this thread. Since this isn't the first time you've walked through your list, the above is just a form of posturing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You've already admitted you didn't read this thread.
Actually, I've admitted I did not bother reading a three-post long rant.

the above is just a form of posturing.
Was your three-post long response concise? Obviously not.
Was your three-post long response coherent? Unlikely. Three posts indicates a meandering thought process.
Was your three-post long response cogent? Hard to be cogent without being coherent.

But, as you say, I do thank you for playing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Actually, I've admitted I did not bother reading a three-post long rant.

…which is the same thing.

Distinction, without difference. You never replied any substance and relied on the age-old left wing tactic of claiming that insults from you represent actual arguments. They don't, and never have.

Thanks for trying, though.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"So I skipped past without reading it."

Thanks. I thought of some other things to say. -dope

Dope thought of more things to say. "What a surprise!" said no one. Amazing stuff, dope. I skipped reading at this part... LOL.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I skipped reading at this part...

Of course. It's a common refrain for you and your Mini-Me's to claim that righties don't respond substantively...but then you people always let slip that you don't read anything.

Which is fine; literally nobody expects you to understand it anyway. (It's kind of priced into the stock, as they say).

Have a great day!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Regarding Barr's summary, he obviously soft pedaled to the extent possible. History will not be kind.
---
There is no soft pedaling...


Fwiw:
Mueller said Barr’s four-page summary of the Russia report, which Barr released March 24, “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-muellers-letter-t...

Which is to say "soft pedal".
Sorry, but I always speak Truth.

-Cassandra
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Which is to say "soft pedal".
Sorry, but I always speak Truth.


Nope.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/muell...

When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.

Of course, one needs to go to paragraph 13 to find this bit that completely invalidates the BARR LIED nonsense, but Fake News gotta Fake News.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Fake News gotta Fake News.
Indeed.

But, as with the difference between collusion and stooge, you fail to understand the difference between soft pedal and inaccurate.

Which is why you are able to cheer lead, but not have an intelligent conversation.
Sad.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But, as with the difference between collusion and stooge, you fail to understand the difference between soft pedal and inaccurate.*

No, not really. But I'm sure you can link a post of yours sometime in the past that explains things.

Which is why you are able to cheer lead, but not have an intelligent conversation.**

LOL @ you. I'll just continue to correct you when you get the facts and the context wrong, as seems to be happening to you more and more frequently as you lose your perspective.







* Personal shot #1
** Personal shot #2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
WULONG has trump delusion syndrome
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm sure you can link a post of yours sometime in the past that explains things.
Some advice for Barr and other cheerleaders.

Strengthen and increase our admiration for honest dealing and clean thinking, and suffer not our hatred of hypocrisy and pretence ever to diminish.
Encourage us in our endeavor to live above the common level of life.
Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half truth when the whole can be won.
Endow us with courage that is born of loyalty to all that is noble and worthy, that scorns to compromise with vice and injustice and knows no fear when truth and right are in jeopardy.
Guard us against flippancy and irreverence in the sacred things of life.
Grant us new ties of friendship and new opportunities of service.


-The Cadet Prayer
https://westpoint.edu/about/chaplain/cadet-prayer
Print the post Back To Top