![](https://ratsun.net/uploads/set_resources_13/84c1e40ea0e759e3f1505eb1788ddf3c_pattern.png)
dhp123166
Senior Member-
Posts
1,679 -
Joined
-
Last visited
About dhp123166
- Birthday 12/31/1966
Profile Information
-
Gender
Not Telling
-
Location
Ventura, CA. 93004
-
Cars
80 720 Custom Diesel Conversion
Recent Profile Visitors
The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.
dhp123166's Achievements
-
-
-
I would like to offer a shoutout to Mattndew as he was the one who originally impressed upon me the importance of reliable unbiased sources when formulating opinions. I take that ball and run with it as ALL news sources are biased and compromised by $ so incapable of being " reliable" sources. As close to the source one can get to any given event is going to give one the closest version of truth as one can get without being an original witness. Happy Fathers Day!
-
Derailing, another diversionary tactic. I didn't ask your opinions, they are plainly obvious. "I'm certainly not going to post links for media sources to prove a point?" Why, you know better than everyone else and obviously don't need to? "Pot meet kettle"; So you admit to having no original thoughts? I rest my case.
-
That is hard to construe as an insult, but it can totally be used to illustrate a person with a Manichean world view, that is a good vs. evil, black and white, us vs. them limited comprehension. I trust the government way more than I trust any unelected media type of any political persuasion whose only raison d'être in inciting a viewing audience is for a paycheck. These people think they know " The Way Things Ought to Be" but have no idea or desire how to implement their ideas. Which they are told to have by their billionaire masters anyway. How quaint. The chief problem is that some people view their opinions as fact and elevate these people to levels of outsized power and they do become the tail that wags the dog. And I definitely don't trust elected government officials who didn't graduate high school, offer no constructive legislation and exist only to be trolls. How about you, do you have any original thoughts in any matter? Everything I have seen you post seems to be exclusively a reaction to what someone else has posted, never a position taken with an opinion that is accompanied by source material to base that opinion on.
-
To use your analogy, it is a good thing that the EPA keeps big business constipated so they don't take shits all over our environment! Of which we have inarguably only one of. The rollout of A.I. seems to be ungoverned by any bureaucracy and as I have seen a ton of movies detailing a fictional logical conclusion of A.I. run amok, a little more bureaucracy might be in order. Some things deserve to not get done.
-
Your words, not mine.
-
As usual, you offer nothing but opinion and finish off with an attempted insult. Boring.
-
The concept of an evil deep state bureaucracy is a creation of right wing media and is a hysterical interpretation of what a bureaucracy actually does. In my opinion a bureaucracy is neither benevolent nor malicious. It exists as a tool to facilitate the legal dictates of a governmental or business organization. The concept of the " boogeyman bureacracy" may have really gained traction with the famous Ronald Reagan utterance, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ' I am from the government and I am here to help.'" This phrase seems to indicate prima facie that the Federal government is a malevolent organization and is not to be trusted. When speaking of bureacracy negatively, it seems, generally speaking, that some are taking issue with a facet of bureacracy that is keeping them from making as much money as possible. In the case of some big businesses, they are enemies of the EPA bureacracy that wants to keep them from damaging the environment etc. just so they can generate as much consequence free filthy lucre as possible. Never mind that conservation is an American tradition, I personally, like having clean water and clean air. Having grown up on the east coast in the 70's, I was privy to more than a few local gross polluters and the utter ineptitude and corruption of them, and whom the EPA successfully shut down and punished. Can bureaucracy be useless and actually detrimental to the population at large? Absolutely. I am sure that any number of people on here can come with a story about how a bureaucracy harmed them for no apparent reason. But is my firm belief that the majority of the Federal Bureaucracy is in place to keep America safe. I like a competent Energy Department which correctly manages all nuclear materials in the US. I like a Defense Department which is not owned by one person. It would be suicidal for this nation to have all that kill power in the hands of one person. In short the Federal Government is one of the only things that keeps the rich and powerful from running roughshod over all us little people. The former president seems to have lived a life where he has pretty much done whatever he wants and suffered little consequences. A bureaucracy exists to keep a person like this ( who debatedly knows how to commit action) from gaining too much traction. In the final analysis, a bureacracy exists to further only itself and can actually keep things from getting done. But in my opinion, a powerful ship of state that moves slowly is much preferable to an anarchic and unstable behemoth of a government.
-
MSNBC is a news organization and is biased in one direction or the other. News organizations do not create news they have sources from which they base their opinions on. What is the source material from which they based their opinion on?
-
Where did you get that fact?
-
Thanks for the facts. The fact that the former president has two current indictments against him and another two more possible might illustrate that the former President has engaged in far more alleged criminal conduct than any politician in recent memory.
-
And really the fact that "none of Trump's opposition or competition have ever resorted to name calling and the same rhetoric" illustrates the coarse ( but still funny) "level that Trump stoop[ed] to for the win."
-
All I am saying is that the bloodlust was turned up against HRC to level 11 by the previous President, his supporters and right wing media...and then nothing. If I was to believe everything the right was spewing, the case against HRC was a sure thing and she was definitely going to be in the can in a very short time. It all quietly disappeared. P.S. Your retorted questions amount to "whataboutism" which is a diversionary tactic and are not applicable to my original query.
-
This statement strikes me as hopelessly naive and in no way do I believe that the previous president, having proven that he is an extremely impulsive person willing to stoop to any level to win would "take the high road instead of stooping to dirty politics." Especially with allegedly incontrovertible evidence against HRC and a domination of 2/3 branches of government. Remember these truly funny gems from the 2016 and 2020 elections? "Lyin" Ted Cruz ? " Little" Marco Rubio? Elizabeth " Pocahontas" Warren ? "Sleepy" Joe Biden ? I wonder if comedic gold will strike again and we will see some more funny sobriquets; We already have Ron " Desanctimonious" which is an average insult as sanctimonious is a word that may not be used in everyday conversation and is unfamilar to alot of people. Some easier low hanging fruit could be; "Turncoat" Mike Pence, Nikki " Dothead" Haley, Tim " Not in This Lifetime" Scott, Vivek " Who the hell are you? " Ramaswamy Chris Christie is such a massive target, it is hard to come up with the most correct nickname!