Fee Dee

I'm still learning this site, I didn't want the above picture on this thread, but I don't know how to remove it. Okay, Englebert first, I think he is dangerous because he comes across as unstable with 3:00 am ridiculous tweets and can not seem to stay focused. I'm afraid what he might try to do during one of his childish temper tantrums.   Now REBgp, I agree they all lie, but a recent poll showed Trump is by far the worse. Word do count when you are the President and he needs to watch his tweets and off the cuff comments. Yes reinstate the draft 12 t0 18 months, let's teach our kids discipline.  Can I get a 10-4?

16 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Your meme says Trump is dangerous. Please explain why you feel he is dangerous. Dangerous how? And dangerous to who? It's fun to watch Liberals spew hate and nonsense through childish antics, but none will ever explain their thought processes that leads them to these ridiculous conclusions. Maybe you will.

28 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Just a couple of points about Trump "lying".  First, I'd be shocked if anyone could name a president who hasn't "lied".  Much of what the Left loves to list as "lying" by Trump, is things he thought he could do as president, but found out he couldn't (our president is not the all powerful person in governing America that most of us thinks he is).  Second, that often his brain is not wired to his mouth, or his tweeting fingers, adds to his many "lies".  If he is doing a rehearsed speech to the American people now, and tells a fabrication, that's when he has lied to us (imo).  Off the cuff, when he starts ranting, I put no value in his words.  Again, he's not a politician.  Doubt if he rarely acts like one.  He's from NYC.  They're brash - run their mouths - and generally irritate anyone that isn't from NYC (me especially).

Is he nuts?  Doubt he'd be declared nuts by a Psychiatrist, but he certainly doesn't act like a president, and I can see why those on the left might call him that.  I'm not sure, but I wonder if some of that is an act to keep the media and leaders of the left off balance.

I hate draft dodgers too.  I've posted before, I think we need to reinstitute the Draft.  Only exemptions for health.  Make it one year, or six months.  My reason, we'll have more soldiers available if we get in a Major conflict (China/Russia), and if you've served, you have some skin in the game.  

6

ut 

I'm willing to discuss facts, but I see mostly opinions here.

8 hours ago, Englebert said:

We've seen the end results of Liberal debauchery in the last decade, culminating in Obama's election with a super majority in Congress. America overwhelming rejected this looney, pathetic, and sanctimonious agenda and is now somewhat righting itself. The evidence is the Liberal agenda losing over 1100 seats since the midterms of Bush II.Nobody was laughing during the lunatic Liberal reign perpetuated by Obama...too much suffering. Now it's just good ol' American values re-asserting itself, stymied by self-righteous elitists pulling the puppet strings of the naïve and ignorant. Thank God the adults are now in charge...although I hold no optimism that the current regime is much better...just enough to right the ship to get us back on the right track. I fear that this track will be short lived, and is not even close to the optimal path. I therefore reiterate my desire for secession, in the strongest possible sense.

Don’t forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans’ unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic — they’ve used it 

But here’s the deal — the real deal — there actually wasn’t a two year supermajority.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken’s election in Minnesota and he didn’t get seated for seven months.

The President’s cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania’s Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes — still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President’s number on paper was 59 Senators — he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 — but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

You Guys are full of misinformation!

Only time will tell, if people don't have cars, of course, they use buses or any other means of transportation available.Typical conservative replay (Buses!)

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

We've seen the end results of Liberal debauchery in the last decade, culminating in Obama's election with a super majority in Congress. America overwhelming rejected this looney, pathetic, and sanctimonious agenda and is now somewhat righting itself. The evidence is the Liberal agenda losing over 1100 seats since the midterms of Bush II.Nobody was laughing during the lunatic Liberal reign perpetuated by Obama...too much suffering. Now it's just good ol' American values re-asserting itself, stymied by self-righteous elitists pulling the puppet strings of the naïve and ignorant. Thank God the adults are now in charge...although I hold no optimism that the current regime is much better...just enough to right the ship to get us back on the right track. I fear that this track will be short lived, and is not even close to the optimal path. I therefore reiterate my desire for secession, in the strongest possible sense.

Secession!?  

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

Is this supposed to mean something? Please tell me you have a point with this post other than to show you can't express your biased thoughts through words, but can only rely on unrelated context to bolster an incomprehensible thought process predicated on Liberal hate. I would love to debate you on why you think Trump is "dangerous".

I answered you but I deleted it by mistake, Maybe I answer again, my answer was kind of long don't feel like doing it again.       Oh I like memes so you may think they don't fit the subject, just ignore them, and I don't hate Trump, I think he is nuts and a lair but I don't hate him. And I don't like draft dodgers. Other than that ?     

On 6/20/2017 at 10:08 PM, REBgp said:

I'm not sure what you meant with this post.  You ask why Trump is banning cameras, and Eng replied he didn't know.  I don't know either.  Not privy to his thoughts, but I could take a guess.  I'd guess to irritate the liberal media.  Not the normal presidential move, but Trump is not your normal president.  He's not a politician, and it drives the media nuts.

He is not a normal person period.

On 6/18/2017 at 10:41 PM, REBgp said:

I'm with you on that.  It takes a special temperament.  If I walked in a home and found some child with cigarette burns, I'd be going postal on someone.  

Yes, police work is hard and sometimes dangerous, all the more reason why you should hire people suited for that kind of stressful job when they make a stupid mistake they should be held accountable just like you and I were on our jobs.

On 6/17/2017 at 8:15 AM, nappyroots said:

I agree 100%. My only move would be to transfer some of my lawyer money to my checking account . 

Don't move, doesn't give you the right to shoot him seven times with a child and a woman in the car. He stopped him because he thought he fit the description of a suspect, broad nose and black. What if it had been blond with long hair?  would he have gotten stopped, I think not!

Evidently, the conservatives are getting their people to the polls. Let's see the end results, then we will see who is laughing.

10 hours ago, REBgp said:

Hey, I can laugh at me.  I don't think hardly anyone on here minds liberals being on, it's just the continuous absurd posting.  It'd be dull if there weren't any.  And we love a good joke.  If you do, go to Locker Room thread - This Board Needs.  Some really good ones.  Happy Juneteenth old timer.

I sent you an email this morning. 

So Y'all can take a joke huh?

6 minutes ago, Fee Dee said:

50%    

50% not in this lifetime.  

50%    

Technology is constantly improving, the possibilities are unknown at this point, I agree maybe ease off a bit but keep trying to improve, you and I will not live long enough to see all the wonderful advances that are coming, I sure some concepts are secret and it will be years before we know. Of course, as you and I know opinions are like A--H----, everybody got one, I think in general the EPA has done a good job and arbitrarily restricting their authority does not serve us well.  Okay good buddy.

17 hours ago, REBgp said:

It's been my observation that virtually anything the Govt gets involved with, however warranty, or needed initially, eventually gets to the point of abuse.  For example, the EPA.  I'll readily admit that in 1970, when the EPA was founded, it was needed.  Industry was polluting the water and air with total disregard for the resulting problems.  In the last few years, that same EPA was trying to obtain control of millions of acres of private land by getting ditches or any low areas water may drain off brought under their power.  The EPA has unbridled power to make demands.  Essentially, they've become an abusive Agency of the Govt. A perfect example of "power corrupts".  Personally, I'm glad that Trump has reined in the EPA.  We still need it, but we don't need abuse.

Another example recently was the IRS' Lois Lerner, in charge of the Exempt Organization Unit.  She allowed her personal political bias to use her power to discriminate against conservative organizations seeking exempt status.

Based on Prof Epstein's rebuttal in the article, there's evidence that the DOJ, via "consent decrees", abused their power.  And the article states "consent decrees can be a powerful tool".   Anytime any Govt. agency has a lot of power over others, that agency should be under constant scrutiny for abuse.  The (shortened) term, "power corrupts", is not some by gone reference to the Roman Empire.  It is now, and will forever be, a weakness in mankind, and we shouldn't allow it in our Govt.

 

 

2

It's okay to set limits, but not to roll back the progress that was made, I think under these new changes dumping and air pollution will increase and to take off the emission standard off the automobile industry is a big mistake in my opinion. 

15 hours ago, Reagan said:

Remember when he said about his Grandmother that she was a "typical white person?"

So what does that mean, in what context did he say it That is neither bad nor good, most people are good despite the color. However, since I join this group, I see more division than other groups I participate in. 

15 hours ago, Reagan said:

Remember when he said about his Grandmother that she was a "typical white person?"

How so, Obama is a Halfrican he is just as white as he is black, so racist toward who? People who personally know Trump says he is not a racist, and I have never called him one, however, if it is true he is rolling back civil right laws and practices, he is not the president of all the people! I hear that often that Obama is a racist but no one has come forward with specific information., 

..

Good point, but as long as we have racist people in authority I'm afraid we will need civil right laws, it's unfortunate however.

11 hours ago, Fee Dee said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

11 hours ago, Fee Dee said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

How so, Obama is a Halfrican he is just as white as he is black, so racist toward who? People who personally know Trump says he is not a racist, and I have never called him one, however, if it is true he is rolling back civil right laws and practices, he is not the president of all the people! I hear that often that Obama is a racist but no one has come forward with specific information., 

..

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

So you think guns should be less available. My question is who should be denied the right to defend themselves, family and property based on an arbitrary set of rules that have no measurable set of statistical results. That is, how the hell do you think you, or anyone else, can determine who should be denied the right of self protection. Please enlightened us on this set of criteria that you would implement that would determine who is competent versus who is incompetent to own a means of self protection. Keep in mind, when you list these qualifications, use the simple test of "would Stephen King be disqualified" with your qualification test.

I've asked this question on this site at multiple times, and not one single person can come up with a comprehensive, or even partial set of qualifications that indicate the slightest evidence of future violence. To be fair, no one on this Earth has done any better.

Forgive me, but I've just heard a few incompetent Liberal nut-cases spouting off about more gun control, and I apologize for attacking your post. Yours was the first I saw on this topic, and I would have started my own topic if I couldn't find a thread to attack. Having said that, let me restate my question. What laws would you enact to disqualify someone from self-protection? (This is not directed specifically at Fee Dee, but an open question for everyone on this board.)

I said less available, people who jump to their own conclusions are part of the divide in our country, You know as  well as I do that anyone can get a gun and there are too many loop-holes in the law, as for who will protect us, isn't that what we pay the police to do?  I am not a liberal nut-case against gun ownership, I am the owner of guns, had them since I served in the military and holder of an (LTC), I want every gun owner to do what I did, get background check etc before owning a gun. I realize that will not solve the problems but it would probably help. 

2 hours ago, stevenash said:

Since you have such a strong aversion to Fox and Rush, just where do you get your unbiased, only the facts, news?

I watch Fox along with other TV news also newspapers and online news, also news online from other countries, I think even with that it's hard to get accurate news and the plain truth, You are right I don't like Rush Limpprick nor Rachel Madcow because they give their opinions not NEWS. You know what they say about opinions, everybody has one just like A--H---- .