Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
YOUR speculation is not fact based.

You’re not even correct when you correct my grammar. “Your” was the correct usage. Your reading skills need polish.

I was missing an “a” before Trumptard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok...

* a

And what speculation? You’re all over the map with speculation. More projection.

Ugh!

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Ok...

* a

And what speculation? You’re all over the map with speculation. More projection.

Ugh!

Oh

You aren’t speculating that we are destabilizing Venezuela?

Just stop man. You’re being intentionally opaque so you can claim you never really said or defended the things you actually said or defended.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Oh

You aren’t speculating that we are destabilizing Venezuela?

Just stop man. You’re being intentionally opaque so you can claim you never really said or defended the things you actually said or defended.

Boots on the ground destabilizing? No. At least not yet. That’s why Russia and Cuba are there. Would we like to? Of course. Have we threatened to? Yes. Does our rhetoric destabilize? Given our long track record, of course.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Ok...

* a

And what speculation? You’re all over the map with speculation. More projection.

Ugh!

Oh

You aren’t speculating that we are destabilizing Venezuela?

Just stop man. You’re being intentionally opaque so you can claim you never really said or defended the things you actually said or defended.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Boots on the ground destabilizing? No. At least not yet. That’s why Russia and Cuba are there. Would we like to? Of course. Have we threatened to? Yes. Does our rhetoric destabilize? Given our long track record, of course.

Russia and Cuba are there to prevent us from destabilizing Venezuela because backwards Communist dictatorships can’t possibly do that to themselves. We get it, klam

That ol far right Guaidó... we really should have handpicked a more moderate righty for sure...



We aren’t in Venezuela, klam. We HAVE offered Maduro a flight out of the country though

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Russia and Cuba are there to prevent us from destabilizing Venezuela because backwards Communist dictatorships can’t possibly do that to themselves. We get it, klam

That ol far right Guaidó... we really should have handpicked a more moderate righty for sure...



We aren’t in Venezuela, klam. We HAVE offered Maduro a flight out of the country though

Oh for **** sake at least make an effort to keep up with the conversation. I made fun of you earlier for backing the socialist democrat Guaido before you even mentioned his politics.

He’s a lefty too. But he’s made overtures to allowing privatization involving foreign companies. I’m not even sure that’s a bad thing.

Like I also mentioned earlier, they’re probably both assholes. You need to take a break my friend.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Oh for **** sake at least make an effort to keep up with the conversation. I made fun of you earlier for backing the socialist democrat Guaido before you even mentioned his politics.

He’s a lefty too. But he’s made overtures to allowing privatization involving foreign companies. I’m not even sure that’s a bad thing.

Like I also mentioned earlier, they’re probably both assholes. You need to take a break my friend.

Keep up with the conversation?

You are fact challenged and your attempt to change the subject from your defense of a retrogressive Muslim congresswoman is duly noted.

Like I said, Communists and Muslims - the klam catnip


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Keep up with the conversation?

You are fact challenged and your attempt to change the subject from your defense of a retrogressive Muslim congresswoman is duly noted.

Like I said, Communists and Muslims - the klam catnip


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

The subject is the dumb article you posted. The writer (with your support) diminishes real threats of authoritarianism by conflating Omar and Sanders with Stalin. It's like lefties guilty of Godwins's law violations when it comes to Trump. 'But he would if he could.'

But by all means, show me where I "defended" her in this thread and the facts I'm wrong about.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
No.

The subject is the dumb article you posted. The writer (with your support) diminishes real threats of authoritarianism by conflating Omar and Sanders with Stalin. It's like lefties guilty of Godwins's law violations when it comes to Trump. 'But he would if he could.'

But by all means, show me where I "defended" her in this thread and the facts I'm wrong about.

You’re the one who predictably popped up in criticism of an article pointing out that a Muslim US Congresswoman has garbage views on Venezuela, among garbage views on other things

Here’s a map for you:



The red ones are the ones that think like you and Omar- that the Maduro regime should continue to suppress liberty in the interest of maintaining the Bolivarian Revolution... and of course in the interest of owning Los Yanquis. Your fellow travelers, klam

The blue ones are the ones that support Guaidó as the legitimate President of Venezuela, per Venezuela’s very own parliamentary rules. Rule of law and all

The “facts” you are wrong about are immaterial because your entire argument, per a couple posts ago, is based on pure speculation. That because we have an interventionist history makes it likely we are intervening now. Alex Jones logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pwns wrote:Some seem to think that if we call Maduro what he is, Bolton and the neocons win.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Keep up with the conversation?

You are fact challenged and your attempt to change the subject from your defense of a retrogressive Muslim congresswoman is duly noted.

Like I said, Communists and Muslims - the klam catnip


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

The subject is the dumb article you posted. The writer (with your support) diminishes real threats of authoritarianism by conflating Omar and Sanders with Stalin. It's like lefties guilty of Godwins's law violations when it comes to Trump. 'But he would if he could.'

But by all means, show me where I "defended" her in this thread and the facts I'm wrong about.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
You’re the one who predictably popped up in criticism of an article pointing out that a Muslim US Congresswoman has garbage views on Venezuela, among garbage views on other things

Here’s a map for you:



The red ones are the ones that think like you and Omar- that the Maduro regime should continue to suppress liberty in the interest of maintaining the Bolivarian Revolution... and of course in the interest of owning Los Yanquis. Your fellow travelers, klam

The blue ones are the ones that support Guaidó as the legitimate President of Venezuela, per Venezuela’s very own parliamentary rules. Rule of law and all

The “facts” you are wrong about are immaterial because your entire argument, per a couple posts ago, is based on pure speculation. That because we have an interventionist history makes it likely we are intervening now. Alex Jones logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go ahead and show me where I agreed with the Bolivarian revolution and suppression of liberty or even stated that Maduro should remain in power. I pointed out the flaws of the article’s conclusion, Mr. Strawman Fallacies are bad M’kay.

Criticism of our foreign policy and the establishment are bad...I get it!

Go back and read Greenwald’s piece on it. It might help you out at least a little.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Go ahead and show me where I agreed with the Bolivarian revolution and suppression of liberty or even stated that Maduro should remain in power. I pointed out the flaws of the article’s conclusion, Mr. Strawman Fallacies are bad M’kay.

Criticism of our foreign policy and the establishment are bad...I get it!

Go back and read Greenwald’s piece on it. It might help you out at least a little.

Article critical of Omar’s garbage comments on Venezuela = dumb article

We get it klam, that’s your opinion.. that you share with a notable group of softheaded people




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Article critical of Omar’s garbage comments on Venezuela = dumb article

We get it klam, that’s your opinion.. that you share with a notable group of softheaded people




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trust the neo-con’s propaganda and to do the right thing and/or for the establishment media to provide accurate or adequate coverage. We get it CID.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Trust the neo-con’s propaganda and to do the right thing and/or for the establishment media to provide accurate or adequate coverage. We get it CID.

Greenwald, Greenwald, nothing but the Greenwald, so help me Greenwald.

“All options are on the table,” says Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford. Presumably that includes the 82nd Airborne.

“While a peaceful solution is desirable, military action is possible,” said Pompeo. “If that’s what required, that’s what the United States will do.”

“All options are open,” says Bolton. “We want a peaceful transfer of power. But we are not going to see Guaido mistreated by this regime.”

Clearly, Juan Guaido is our man in Caracas.

Bolton also had strong words for Vladimir Putin: “(T)his is our hemisphere. It’s not where the Russians should be interfering. This was a mistake on their part.”

“The brutal repression of the Venezuelan people must end, and it must end soon,” said Trump. “People are starving. They have no food; they have no water. And this was once one of the wealthiest countries in the world.”

Yet Trump is reportedly reluctant to intervene. Let us hope that his anti-interventionist impulses guide his decisions. Venezuela’s future is not ours to decide.

This civil conflict is not our war. We have not been attacked. Not only is there no justification for U.S. military intervention, but also any arrival of U.S. troops on Venezuelan soil could turn into yet another 21st-century strategic debacle.

There could be again Americans killing and dying in a country where no vital interest was imperiled, no matter how obnoxious the regime.

There is no Tiananmen Square slaughter, no massive human rights violations going on in Venezuela to justify military intervention. Indeed, there appears to be a conscious effort on the part of Maduro to minimize casualties and bloodshed, and the consequences they could bring.

Troops are not firing indiscriminately on protestors, though rock-throwers in the streets are provoking the soldiers. Planeloads of Russian or Cuban troops are not pouring into the country.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Greenwald, Greenwald, nothing but the Greenwald, so help me Greenwald.

Well I guess Venezuela has created some strange bedfellows. There was once a time when CID, The Isolationist, used to post this guy's stuff...

“All options are on the table,” says Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford. Presumably that includes the 82nd Airborne.

“While a peaceful solution is desirable, military action is possible,” said Pompeo. “If that’s what required, that’s what the United States will do.”

“All options are open,” says Bolton. “We want a peaceful transfer of power. But we are not going to see Guaido mistreated by this regime.”

Clearly, Juan Guaido is our man in Caracas.

Bolton also had strong words for Vladimir Putin: “(T)his is our hemisphere. It’s not where the Russians should be interfering. This was a mistake on their part.”

“The brutal repression of the Venezuelan people must end, and it must end soon,” said Trump. “People are starving. They have no food; they have no water. And this was once one of the wealthiest countries in the world.”

Yet Trump is reportedly reluctant to intervene. Let us hope that his anti-interventionist impulses guide his decisions. Venezuela’s future is not ours to decide.

This civil conflict is not our war. We have not been attacked. Not only is there no justification for U.S. military intervention, but also any arrival of U.S. troops on Venezuelan soil could turn into yet another 21st-century strategic debacle.

There could be again Americans killing and dying in a country where no vital interest was imperiled, no matter how obnoxious the regime.

There is no Tiananmen Square slaughter, no massive human rights violations going on in Venezuela to justify military intervention. Indeed, there appears to be a conscious effort on the part of Maduro to minimize casualties and bloodshed, and the consequences they could bring.

Troops are not firing indiscriminately on protestors, though rock-throwers in the streets are provoking the soldiers. Planeloads of Russian or Cuban troops are not pouring into the country.

https://buchanan.org/blog/let-venezuela ... iny-136939

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Well I guess Venezuela has created some strange bedfellows. There was once a time when CID, The Isolationist, used to post this guy's stuff...



https://buchanan.org/blog/let-venezuela ... iny-136939

Could have been written by Rand Paul. Buchanan has been drifting in that direction for years.

John “Molten” Bolton may be the most dangerous man in America right now.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Could have been written by Rand Paul. Buchanan has been drifting in that direction for years.

John “Molten” Bolton may be the most dangerous man in America right now.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Greenwald, Greenwald, nothing but the Greenwald, so help me Greenwald.

Well I guess Venezuela has created some strange bedfellows. There was once a time when CID, The Isolationist, used to post this guy's stuff...

“All options are on the table,” says Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford. Presumably that includes the 82nd Airborne.

“While a peaceful solution is desirable, military action is possible,” said Pompeo. “If that’s what required, that’s what the United States will do.”

“All options are open,” says Bolton. “We want a peaceful transfer of power. But we are not going to see Guaido mistreated by this regime.”

Clearly, Juan Guaido is our man in Caracas.

Bolton also had strong words for Vladimir Putin: “(T)his is our hemisphere. It’s not where the Russians should be interfering. This was a mistake on their part.”

“The brutal repression of the Venezuelan people must end, and it must end soon,” said Trump. “People are starving. They have no food; they have no water. And this was once one of the wealthiest countries in the world.”

Yet Trump is reportedly reluctant to intervene. Let us hope that his anti-interventionist impulses guide his decisions. Venezuela’s future is not ours to decide.

This civil conflict is not our war. We have not been attacked. Not only is there no justification for U.S. military intervention, but also any arrival of U.S. troops on Venezuelan soil could turn into yet another 21st-century strategic debacle.

There could be again Americans killing and dying in a country where no vital interest was imperiled, no matter how obnoxious the regime.

There is no Tiananmen Square slaughter, no massive human rights violations going on in Venezuela to justify military intervention. Indeed, there appears to be a conscious effort on the part of Maduro to minimize casualties and bloodshed, and the consequences they could bring.

Troops are not firing indiscriminately on protestors, though rock-throwers in the streets are provoking the soldiers. Planeloads of Russian or Cuban troops are not pouring into the country.

https://buchanan.org/blog/let-venezuela ... iny-136939

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Well I guess Venezuela has created some strange bedfellows. There was once a time when CID, The Isolationist, used to post this guy's stuff...



https://buchanan.org/blog/let-venezuela ... iny-136939

It looks like you have the same short circuit in your head as Jelly, so I’m going to help you out here

I agree completely with everything in that article. If Maduro starves the entire country to death it won’t affect me one bit (and I don’t care)

I have a problem with your ideological twin Omar’s defense of Communist dictators. And her accusations that the US is intervening there. It’s like defending Trump on his immoralities, only with more psychosis


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
It looks like you have the same short circuit in your head as Jelly, so I’m going to help you out here

I agree completely with everything in that article. If Maduro starves the entire country to death it won’t affect me one bit (and I don’t care)

I have a problem with your ideological twin Omar’s defense of Communist dictators. And her accusations that the US is intervening there. It’s like defending Trump on his immoralities, only with more psychosis


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Keep the insults coming...they're a lovely tell.