Ukraine

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As usual, the poor dictim is crying about how liberals are hurting him.

In real terms, Harvard is a conservative place. Everyone who attends worked hard to get into there. Students like money and they like success. They place a great deal of focus on hard work and business connections. They understand the importance of preexisting institutions and don't attempt to alter that. Students at Harvard work within the current system; that is what conservatism means.

Of course if the standard bearer of what you claim is conservative america is a con man..........

"Students at Harvard work within the current system; that is what conservatism means."

Except for the kids who deserve to get in but don't, because of their skin color.

"the poor victim is crying about how liberals are hurting him."

Let's be very clear...you are making me crack up, you are not, and can not, hurt me. You're a source of entertainment.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So I never claimed giving $ to churches was bad like the snarky troll claimed and which you agreed with or "that it's OK when liberals do it, only bad when conservatives do it" but to show you that a lot of the donations is somewhat self serving and your repeated claiming that conserv. give more than liberals is wrong and they prob. give the same $%.

You said it doesn't really count as charitable giving, because (God forbid!) churches will use some of that money for expenses.

Third time, please tell me which charities you donate to, which have zero expenses.

"your repeated claiming that conserv. give more than liberals is wrong"

Not according to the study I posted.

"they prob. give the same $%"

LET'S STICK TO THAT, because you may well be right...

If conservatives and liberals are about equally charitable, then on what basis could you say that conservatives stop caring about people after they are born?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The likelihood and motive has been clear as day for years. I did not come up with any of this but I follow people smarter than me that have been warning of the increasing danger of this since 2008.

It merely depended on a sliding scale of reduced capability of the members of NATO, particularity the US and Germany, and the increased of capability of RUS/PRC. It also required the same inversion of will.

Ding, ding, ding, bingo, yessir, spot on!! If the purpose of NATO is a defense against Russia, then do what is militarily and willfully necessary. Depending on the U.S. military to protect the world, for a host of reasons including the cost and the fluctuating leadership of US politics, is stupid if not suicidal.

Europe, with support from America, needed to be cohesive in a bold face to Russia, investing its superior wealth and potential power as an ugly and frightful face that glared at Russia's threats with a "don't tread on me" or I'll kick your ass demeanor. And BTW, if you want to sell us gas you can disarm and we can do the same and be peaceful trading partners. Otherwise, shove off and crawl back to your commie $hithole and expect self destruction if you eff with us.

No doubt it could have been stated more diplomatically . . . but the message should still have been basically the same stallwart and severe and constant message. And, yeah, Ukraine should have been allowed in as a NATO member long ago.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You said it doesn't really count as charitable giving, because (God forbid!) churches will use some of that money for expenses.I said it is self serving

Third time, please tell me which charities you donate to, which have zero expenses.Are you hearing things bc no one every claimed a charity had zero expenses (although there might be a few where expenses are subsidized).

"your repeated claiming that conserv. give more than liberals is wrong"

Not according to the study I posted. and I always show you a lot of it is self serving

"they prob. give the same $%"

LET'S STICK TO THAT, because you may well be right...
But your the one who constantly posts a study which doesn't take into account the self serving aspect - not me or anyone else here
If conservatives and liberals are about equally charitable, then on what basis could you say that conservatives stop caring about people after they are born?

Their repeated attempts to cut benefits to minors/people who have babies whenever cons. come into control. Charity is never going to replace govern. spending.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Charity is never going to replace govern. spending.

Right.

This is precisely why, in cities with the highest government spending, things are in such great shape.

Bill Clinton is an absolute hero on the left. He cut taxes (including capital gains taxes!), and paid for it with welfare cuts. But the left LOVES him. Because it's OK when democrats do it!!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Their repeated attempts to cut benefits to minors/people who have babies whenever cons. come into control. Charity is never going to replace govern. spending.

"your the one who constantly posts a study which doesn't take into account the self serving aspect"

But you're the one who would exclude some conservative charity on the grounds that it's self serving, but you never once mention liberals giving to Ivy League schools, or to the National Endowment of the Arts (investment bankers in Manhattan really need subsidized opera tickets), etc...

Because, as always, everything is OK when liberals do it!!

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Right.

This is precisely why, in cities with the highest government spending, things are in such great shape. I know you think every problem in cities is related to blacks but it is not. Poor people, people with mental/emotional, drug issues all live their. Plus a lot of the buildings are tax exempt.
Bill Clinton is an absolute hero on the left. He cut taxes (including capital gains taxes!), and paid for it with welfare cuts. But the left LOVES him. Because it's OK when democrats do it!!

NM

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"your the one who constantly posts a study which doesn't take into account the self serving aspect"

But you're the one who would exclude some conservative charity on the grounds that it's self serving, but you never once mention liberals giving to Ivy League schools, or to the National Endowment of the Arts (investment bankers in Manhattan really need subsidized opera tickets), etc...how is giving money to a opera house the same as giving money to a church?

Because, as always, everything is OK when liberals do it!!

NM

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I know you think every problem in cities is related to blacks but it is not. Poor people, people with mental/emotional, drug issues all live their. Plus a lot of the buildings are tax exempt.

Jim has never said that, when specifically discussing issues with black communities, he has said the problems blacks are experiencing have a correlation to democratic policies.

He never said that all problems in the cities are related to blacks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Jim has never said that, when specially discussing issues with black communities, he has said the problems blacks are experiencing have a correlation to democratic policies.

He never said that all problems in the cities are related to blacks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank you, and of course I didn't ever come close to saying that. In my opinion, skin color says absolutely nothing about a person, zilch. It's liberals who feel otherwise.

And it's liberals, not me, who seem intent on aborting blacks almost out of existence. In New York City, more black babies are aborted than are born. That's repulsive to me, but totally fine to liberals.

Everyone, regardless of color, tends to struggle when you make poor life decisions (or if you have bad luck obviously). Like not working hard in school, not working hard at work, having babies without a strong dad in the picture.

Those things drive poverty. And thanks directly to liberalism, blacks are disproportionately likely to embrace a culture that leads to that bad decision making.

Paul, there is no clearer way for a liberal to say "you win Jim, you beat me", than by calling me a racist. Just waive a white flag, that would be way more dignified than what you did.

PS. hers's a gift...looks like you could truly use it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Students at Harvard work within the current system; that is what conservatism means."

Except for the kids who deserve to get in but don't, because of their skin color.

"the poor dictim is crying about how liberals are hurting him."

Let's be very clear...you are making me crack up, you are not, and can not, hurt me. You're a source of entertainment.

Sad little man, my aim is not to hurt you, I’ll leave the causticity for you.

You think Harvard is more or less diverse than Jesuit Schools?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Sad little man, my aim is not to hurt you, I’ll leave the causticity for you.

You think Harvard is more or less diverse than Jesuit Schools?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know if Harvard or more or less diverse than Jesuit schools. I know for a fact that Harvard drastically adjusts admissions criteria based on skin color.

Too many Asians at Harvard, so they made it a lot harder for the Asians to get in. Conrad and Muffy can't be expected to share the sushi bar with too many Asians...

Pete, I could care less how diverse a student body is or isn't. I don't reduce people to their skin color. You just don't get it.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Thank you, and of course I didn't ever come close to saying that. In my opinion, skin color says absolutely nothing about a person, zilch. It's liberals who feel otherwise.

And it's liberals, not me, who seem intent on aborting blacks almost out of existence. In New York City, more black babies are aborted than are born. That's repulsive to me, but totally fine to liberals.I thought liberals give them more aid to keep them hooked on it and want more blacks people bc Blacks vote for Dems?

Everyone, regardless of color, tends to struggle when you make poor life decisions (or if you have bad luck obviously). Like not working hard in school, not working hard at work, having babies without a strong dad in the picture.

Those things drive poverty. And thanks directly to liberalism, blacks are disproportionately likely to embrace a culture that leads to that bad decision making.And that is the convers. thought process. Give aid to Blacks somehow hooks them on aid - like it is a drug. It must suck to have that view of Blacks. That they are too stupid to realize that Liberals only want to give poor people aid to make them depend. on aid so they will continue to vote for Dems.

Paul, there is no clearer way for a liberal to say "you win Jim, you beat me", than by calling me a racist. Just waive a white flag, that would be way more dignified than what you did.

PS. hers's a gift...looks like you could truly use it.Shows what a classless P O S you are.

NM

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

NM

"I thought liberals give them more aid to keep them hooked on it and want more blacks people bc Blacks vote for Dems?"

The ones who survive the abortion gauntlet, are rewarded by liberalism to all the benefits of multi-generational poverty. Hooray!

"Shows what a classless P O S you are."

Read how you spoke to me all day, grow a pair, and get over yourself.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't know if Harvard or more or less diverse than Jesuit schools. I know for a fact that Harvard drastically adjusts admissions criteria based on skin color.

Too many Asians at Harvard, so they made it a lot harder for the Asians to get in. Conrad and Muffy can't be expected to share the sushi bar with too many Asians...

Pete, I could care less how diverse a student body is or isn't. I don't reduce people to their skin color. You just don't get it.

If you don’t care then why are you worried?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

NM

"Give aid to Blacks somehow hooks them on aid - like it is a drug"

You rob people of the inherent desire to strive and be self sufficient, you get what you see in the liberal sh*thole cities.

Welfare is absolutely like a drug. That's exactly why more isn't always better.

Why do liberals mercilessly attack any black who dares to venture off the liberal plantation and embrace conservatism? Have you ever seen an influential black conservative who was embraced by liberals across the board? Or are they all called tokens and Uncle Toms and sellouts?

Why is that?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I thought liberals give them more aid to keep them hooked on it and want more blacks people bc Blacks vote for Dems?"

The ones who survive the abortion gauntlet, are rewarded by liberalism to all the benefits of multi-generational poverty. Hooray!

"Shows what a classless P O S you are."

Read how you spoke to me all day, grow a pair, and get over yourself.Look at your very first post you made in response to my first post. Your a classless P O S.

No one here has to take your classless comments.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Give aid to Blacks somehow hooks them on aid - like it is a drug"

You rob people of the inherent desire to strive and be self sufficient, you get what you see in the liberal sh*thole cities.

Welfare is absolutely like a drug. That's exactly why more isn't always better. and that is exactly the cons. mind set.
Welfare is a drug and is not an attempt to help people. Shows the lack of compassion cons. have for anyone less fortunate than themselves (unless of course it impacts them or their families then it is different)

Why do liberals mercilessly attack any black who dares to venture off the liberal plantation and embrace conservatism? Have you ever seen an influential black conservative who was embraced by liberals across the board? Or are they all called tokens and Uncle Toms and sellouts?

Why is that?

NM

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

NM

read what i wrote. i didn’t say all
welfare is bad. i said more, isn’t always better.

the conservative mindset is help people while they need help, with the goal of allowing them to become self sufficient if possible.

tell me whats sinister about that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

read what i wrote. i didn’t say all
welfare is bad. i said more, isn’t always better.Can't recall you ever making that comment.

the conservative mindset is help people while they need help, with the goal of allowing them to become self sufficient if possible.

tell me whats sinister about that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So why do you assume anyone would rather be on welfare rather than work which would provide far more money

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So why do you assume anyone would rather be on welfare rather than work which would provide far more money

Because they're lazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Because they're lazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what goes on in his head?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Because they're lazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s not that complicated to figure out, is it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So why do you assume anyone would rather be on welfare rather than work which would provide far more money

follow if you can…

in some cases, especially with federal supplements, working didn’t provide “far more money.”

Paul, have you not heard about all the open jobs right now? why can’t they fill those jobs?

because many people would rather not work, even if it means taking a pay cut.

this is not rocket science.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

"Biden’s worst line today was, ‘they are profound sanctions. Let’s have a conversation in another month or so to see if they’re working...now I need to go take my nap’....."

[Pete F.]

Biden has completely outsmarted Putin. He undercut every pretext Putin cultivated to justify an invasion, leaving the world - and especially the Russian people - without any plausible explanation for the invasion. And Biden unified democratic allies to support Ukraine’s defense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Biden has completely outsmarted Putin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This will be a great comfort to the Ukrainians who got blown to bits.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This will be a great comfort to the Ukrainians who got blown to bits.

Russian TV is now showing Trump’s praise of Putin to justify their invasion.

Because if only the Stable Genius had won no Ukrainians would have died, Trump would have told them they’d be much better off with a strong leader like Putin

Today doesn't feel like it's gone as Putin wanted:

* Ukrainian defence stronger than expected.
* Massive US/EU/UK sanctions for all major banks
* Stockmarket down 40%
* Protests across Russia (despite thousands of arrests)
* Finnish MPs pushing to join NATO
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Russian TV is now showing Trump’s praise of Putin to justify their invasion.

Because if only the Stable Genius had won no Ukrainians would have died, Trump would have told them they’d be much better off with a strong leader like Putin

Today doesn't feel like it's gone as Putin wanted:

* Ukrainian defence stronger than expected.
* Massive US/EU/UK sanctions for all major banks
* Stockmarket down 40%
* Protests across Russia (despite thousands of arrests)
* Finnish MPs pushing to join NATO
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden’s approval will
skyrocket. Even more when fuel costs plummet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Biden’s approval will
skyrocket. Even more when fuel costs plummet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s always about money with you.

You should join your hero at Mar a Lago, you could both praise Putin over the great deal he got.

I’m confident you will disapprove of the protests across 53 russian cities, more than 1700 people detained tonight. the regime did not bother with counter-protests. I wonder if Putin underestimated just how unpopular this would be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device