• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 19

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess generations means after 2016. Because before that they weren't talking about their country right or wrong.



The hypocrisy is about what I'd expect.
Right or wrong is one thing. A sleeper islamist ****** quite another.
 
Slavery legally ended in Canada only about 30 years before the US, but not because there was a moral superiority. Slavery was not economically feasible there for the same reasons it wasn't in the northern or New England states of the US. Additionally, it wasn't Canada that outlawed slavery since there was no "Canada"; it was the British government that outlawed it throughout its colonies with the exception of India.

Yes, black men could vote after 1834 in Canada, but only if they owned taxable freehold property, unlike in the US where no such property restrictions existed. The required value of said property would often change, disenfranchising many who had previously been able to vote.

Catholics were not allowed to
vote or hold any office in Canada until 1829. They could neither buy nor inherit property before 1778 nor practice their religion openly until 1791. Jews were locked out from voting because they would not take the oath of state which had a "Christian faith" clause.

But I do agree that Canada is probably the closest country I can think of that would compare to the US when it comes to early individual rights, opportunity, and socio-economic mobility. But then again, there was no country of Canada until 1867, only a British colony.

All valid points, I agree. But nothing so remarkably different that it points to the US as being exceptional in any regard. They were merely at the forefront of social changes that were simultaneously occurring throughout the developed "western world".
 
LOL. With me it's my country right or wrong, and has been for my family for generations.
I guess generations means after 2016. Because before that they weren't talking about their country right or wrong.
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby
I'm not going to miss Obama, President of the Democrats Only. I can't wait until he is gone. We're going to have an annual celebration of American Exceptionalism on whatever day he leaves office.
The hypocrisy is about what I'd expect.
Now, lets be fair... I KNOW it looks like BrooklynBaby is being a lying hypocrite, but maybe there's a logical explanation.

Maybe BrooklynBaby is actually a fruit fly... they have pretty short life spans. His family could have had dozens of generations since 2016.
 
Tuesday, the White House indicated that it would veto the PFAS Action Act of 2019 legislation designed to keep harmful chemicals out of groundwater should it pass through the House and the Senate.


Drinking water at the Trump National Golf Course in Bedminster, New Jersey has tested positive for PFAS, with levels twice as high as what the EPA considers to be safe.

https://www.newsweek.com/white-hous...ting-forever-chemicals-drinking-water-1480947
 
I'm a patriot. I understand the left finds this troubling. I don't care.

I'm a patriot, too. Of a different country, but...

That doesn't mean I can't criticize my country or its government. Quite the opposite: I feel it's my duty to be critical.

Hans
 
I'm a patriot. I understand the left finds this troubling. I don't care.

I'm a patriot, too. Of a different country, but...

That doesn't mean I can't criticize my country or its government. Quite the opposite: I feel it's my duty to be critical.

Hans

Brooklyn has had no problem criticizing our government. He did it regularly when the black man was President.

But there are limits to his patriotism. Make a rich white man with an "R" after his name POTUS and he's ready to enlist send some teenager to war.
 
I can't say that I'm upset - mostly because I'm not even slightly surprised. The Pentagon's not up to speed because it was supposed to be hit with heavy snowfall, we're missing all kinds of secretaries in key positions and senior Pentagon officials have been leaving in part due to leaving the Kurds to be slaughtered. Meanwhile, Suleimani's trained successor (Imagine that, he was mentoring someone to step in if he died, something Dolt 45 can't seem to comprehend!) is even more hardline than he was, and the idiot gave them the initiative.

I can't stand with the religious fanatics that rule Iran, because they're attacking *my* country. But I can't stand with the idiot in the WH, because I expect him to make an incredibly bad choice at every turn. *shrug*

Told y'all to vote for Hillary.

I did.
If there is anybody I depise more then Trump[ voters, it's the "Progressives" who did not vote or threw away their vote on Jill Stein because their Great God Bernie did not get the Democratic nomination.
Pretty much where I stand. I think Trump's actions have been incredibly stupid, but I can't support the religious fanatics who control Iran. Sadly, they have managed to fool a number of people by portraying themselves as "Anti Imperialists" a stance which a number of people are suckers for.
 
Last edited:
Trump seems to be backing down for the present.
Tommorow, who knows?

Surprising considering his blustering tweets earlier.

"Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have.........targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD," he said. "The USA wants no more threats!"

"They attacked us, & we hit back. If they attack again, which I would strongly advise them not to do, we will hit them harder than they have ever been hit before!"

Perhaps Trump actually paid attention to his advisers for a change considering he knows so much more than they do.
 
Trump seems to be backing down for the present.
Tommorow, who knows?
that depends 100% on what Fox&Friends and Hannity have to say.
Strangely enough, at least one Fox opinionator has actually criticized Trump over his Iranian actions (and its rather surprising):

From: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/05/opin...oc-agreement-iran-trump-obeidallah/index.html
(Tucker) Carlson, who has in the past pressed Trump to avoid military engagement with Iran, condemned the killing of Soleimani because as he sees it, this is all part of an effort by "Washington" to finally get the war with Iran they have wanted for "decades." Carlson went on to slam the Trump administration, although not Trump by name, declaring, "No one in Washington is in the mood for big-picture questions right now..."

Then there is this:

From: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...geraldo-rivera-canceled-hannity-a9275041.html
Conservative talk show host Geraldo Rivera has claimed his Fox News appearance was cancelled after he said he would urge Donald Trump to show restraint in the ongoing political crisis with Iran.

Granted, Hannity (who probably has more influence than Carlson and Rivera) is still very pro-military action.
 
I did.
If there is anybody I depise more then Trump[ voters, it's the "Progressives" who did not vote or threw away their vote on Jill Stein because their Great God Bernie did not get the Democratic nomination.
Man do I agree with this. Nothing I can't stand more than the holier than thou morons who cut their noses off to spite their face. I like Warren more than I do Biden. But I'm with Joe all the way if he wins the nomination.
 
Pretty much where I stand. I think Trump's actions have been incredibly stupid, but I can't support the religious fanatics who control Iran. Sadly, they have managed to fool a number of people by portraying themselves as "Anti Imperialists" a stance which a number of people are suckers for.

So then you have to support Trump and his ignoring of the experts and walking from nuclear deal and illegal assassination. That does seem to be how this game works if you criticize the actions of one side you have to be supporting the other.
 
Were blacks and women in other countries offered the same rights as white men in other countries?
I'm comparing apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

ETA: I'm going offline for a bit. I'm not ignoring you if I don't answer right away.

Most countries did not legally have a separate racial definition of people. Slavery was never legal in England. Although there was initially some confusion it became established that a slave became free when stepping foot on English soil. This was of course one of the causes of the American colonies rebelling, the concern that English law would be enforced with the end of slavery as a consequence. One of the terms of the peace treaty following the war of 1814 required the US government to end slavery.

So for most of Europe your rights were the same regardless of your colour. Of course these rights might be fairly minimal, and women had fewer rights than men.
 
Brooklyn has had no problem criticizing our government. He did it regularly when the black man was President.

But there are limits to his patriotism. Make a rich white man with an "R" after his name POTUS and he's ready to enlist send some teenager to war.

I've got a feeling if this was 1776, you would be a loyalist. Long live the king!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom