DFT
-
Posts
786 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by DFT
-
-
Outstanding and well deserved. We’re finally starting to drift back to the reality of one “earning “ the award instead of it just being handed to them because of reasons other than peaceful accomplishments.
If I’m on the left, I attack this with all I’ve got because it destroys my narrative that Trump is a racist anti-military dictator who created a virus in his home. Watch them flock to it...
-
11
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:
Hmmm . . . so, now that you seem to think "the generals" are profiteers, could you please identify at least two Army generals who are providing from war mongering? I think we're getting to a Rule #2 situation here and we need some specificity.
Hoax. In this context "the" means "all." And Trump does not respect "all" men and women in uniform. Case in point:
You want me to show the end results of a potential investigation? Like... You want me to tell you who’s guilty before the investigation is even concluded? Hmm... That sounds dangerously un-American, even for a socialist such as yourself. Oh C-section... That’s where your slow thread pull lead??? I’m very disappointed that you couldn’t be a little more creative.
Let’s let your attorney general take the lead on your request to specifically name at least “2” generals that are presently guilty of treasonous acts. You see, we have a judicial system designed to investigate matters like these. Once they discover, I’m sure they’ll disclose. I understand your nervousness though. Up until the last few years, I wouldn’t have trusted them much myself. May your day be filled with Jesus!
1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:Hmmm . . . last I checked side means a position to the left or to the right of the starting point. I knew you alt wrongers liked alternative facts, but I didn't realize you had delved into "fake lefts" and "fake rights." Interesting.
Apparently you haven't heard of it. It was the scandal in which anonymous sourcing supported reporting that took down a crooked, deceitful President.
It's almost as if history is trying to repeat itself!
Last I checked side means a position to the left or right? So if we’re speaking about bi-partisan political aisles, are we to ignore the independent vote? Because that would mean 3. Those darned alternative facts.
Again, I’ve enjoyed your slow road to nowhere, C. Back to the “herpe filter” with you.
-
8 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:
Nut up on a message board. That’s funny.
this is entertainment, pure and simple. Don’t like a point? Don’t read it. Or read it and comment. But never take it too seriously.
Hoaxes and boats!
-
6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:
Ahhh. The student is trying to become the teacher. An interesting application of “hoax.” Flattery, if you will. And also a hint if copying the libs to try to own the libs.
Also. How many sides does an aisle have? I thought it was just two. Maybe I have misconceived aisles.
Fake news!
If I wanted to copy a lib, I’d strap on my pink helmet, scream at the sky and accuse you of being a racist, you lyin dog-faced pony soldier.
6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:Ahhh. The student is trying to become the teacher. An interesting application of “hoax.” Flattery, if you will. And also a hint if copying the libs to try to own the libs.
Also. How many sides does an aisle have? I thought it was just two. Maybe I have misconceived aisles.
And there are 4 sides of an aisle when you count the entry and exit.. you’d make a terrible Jedi. Thank god for antifa’s low standards.
-
9 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:
Took zinc with it. That adds the silver to that bullet.
Hmmm ... so, who is it engaging in profiteering? The generals or their civilian superiors? You seem to think it’s the civilians, but the chef thinks it’s the generals. I think we need to pick one.
(And I wouldn’t argue with characterizing the Halliburton VP as a profiteer, but that’s a different issue for a different day.)
Did you ever hear of Watergate?
Hoax!
I think both said pretty plainly that there are many guilty parties on every side of the aisle.
-
2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:
Hmmm . . . So, under your theory, the generals are the ones chasing the money and therefore instigate the war? Or the civilian leader of the military chases the money and then, without Congressional approval, instigates the war? I’m confused. I don’t think we’re in a Rule #2 situation because you’ve expressed an opinion. I’m simply trying to nail down what exactly that opinion is.
By your intentional absence of logic there’s no such thing as war profiteering then. Just a made up term, right? Lockheed Martin isn’t a 40+ Billion dollar supplier of all things war for America. There’s no way they’d be incentivized to facilitate war mongering among politicians and high-ranking military officials who despite earning a streamlined salary, now represent the wealthiest and most powerful in America somehow.
Let’s lob in a softball, shall we? One that shows this isn’t a partisan issue but a bi-partisan act of corruption in the swamp...Dick Cheney.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Just now, BullBuchanan said:
Actions speak louder than words, mate.
Funny...
Her actions are actually worse than her words, according to her record and how quickly she dropped out as a presidential candidate.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:
If I hate police I vote for the cop and the guy that supports strong police? The math doesn't check out.
In her 2009 book, “Smart on Crime,” she wrote that “if we take a show of hands of those who would like to see more police officers on the street, mine would shoot up,” adding that “virtually all law-abiding citizens feel safer when they see officers walking a beat.”Earlier this summer, in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, she told The New York Times that “it is status-quo thinking to believe that putting more police on the streets creates more safety. That’s wrong. It’s just wrong.”
guess you forgot to carry the “1”...
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
No I'm not. He was saying I have the spine of a jellyfish. He would never say anything condescending to a Trumper like you, Rob.
“I'll be back when Biden wins. Until then, sayonara all.”
- Make Honestly Great Again
-
2
-
-
Just now, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
A lot of assumptions here... you know what they say
“I'll be back when Biden wins. Until then, sayonara all.”
- Mostly truthful fibber
-
2
-
3
-
1
-
-
Just now, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
Topics don't get moved to PPP when they become political, topics get moved to PPP when they become offensive.
That's a distinction that should be made.
“I'll be back when Biden wins. Until then, sayonara all.”
- code of lies
-
3
-
-
Just now, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
You should be willing and prepared to show your work, back up your opinions and analysis by engaging in an actual discussion of the topic. That means sticking around to have an adult conversation, not just throwing bombs or insults then fleeing the scene.
“I'll be back when Biden wins. Until then, sayonara all.“
- Liar
-
2
-
-
Just now, dubs said:
What a stupid thread topic. Pure secondhand embarrassment for the OP.
Hey!!!! But the boaters distract from the voters!!!!
-
2
-
-
“ And I would’ve got away with it too, if it wasn’t for you darn polls!!!!”
If Joe would have just come out with an honest intent on his running platform of, “I’m not sure what I’m for or against yet, until the polls tell me what to be for or against”, we could all have so much more harmony amongst us!
Boaters gonna boat, though!
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
Can you please abide by Rule #2 and show your work where Biden promised to defund the police?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/08/09/joe-bidens-doubletalk-on-defund-the-police/amp/
The truth shall always set you free!
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
I haven’t seen a walk back like that since Biden’s...
Mask mandate
Defund the police promise
No fracking policy
Not condemning riots
Gonna be a good day!!!
-
1
-
-
One of the best extensions Buffalo has ever done. Proud of this organization and especially Tre!
-
2
-
-
It could absolutely happen. Goedert is waiting in the wings. I think what’s understated though is the Bills affinity for Knox. But it could happen, definitely.
-
9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
I think it may be.
The longer this has dragged on, the worse its gotten for the DNC's optics. Last night my significant other had a virtual DNC fundraiser meeting (which was sparsely attended), after which her and some of our friends had a virtual happy hour thing and watched Mulan (woof). The mood after their fundraiser was grim, and one of our left leaning friends whom I can talk the most with had an epiphany during the evening. She was saying how three/four months ago, at the peak of the "right wing" protests against the lock downs in CA she couldn't understand how people could be so selfish. She couldn't understand how people could just say "screw the rest of the world" and focus only on themselves and their immediate families' safety and livelihoods. But after her mom's block in NYC was smashed to bits in a recent "peaceful" protest, she told me last night "now I get it. I get why people can only care about themselves because no one else will help them when things are going down".
... It was a SMALL step, but a big one for her.
I can relate very much to these sentiments. When you see it Up close for what it is, you cannot unsee it. My epiphany was from seeing something first hand, then hearing how it was broadcasted Completely untruthfully. I was shocked. I knew who was there and trusted that media source. I remember being excited to hear their report and instead being mortified by their complicit deceit. That’s why I truly feel bad for those that haven’t seen it personally, because I completely understand how easy it is to WANT to believe what you’re seeing on tv is truthful. But it isn’t, unfortunately. And once you know and begin to look deeper beyond your own apparent understanding, what you find is shocking.
-
1
-
3
-
-
9 minutes ago, BillStime said:
You know Trump won’t provide his DNA for the rape case against him by the woman mentioned above.If Trump is innocent - why not provide the court ordered DNA?
I know that MANY people wouldn’t give a court a DNA sample without an order, but that doesn’t prove guilt. Our society becomes both very different and dangerous when we allow our perceptions to become indictable realities beyond our courts.
And to my point that I offered, What are your thoughts (and if you don’t feel like sharing, no harm or foul).
“so Billstime, my question is (after reviewing your own history posting here), would you believe a Buffalo Bills draft/FA rumor without credibility or proof? Would this board tolerate it, or would it be labeled a “rumor” or be closed due to disinformation? I think we can all follow the conclusion that threads claiming factual information without any incline of proof, evidence or a source are severely unacceptable on a football-driven website. So why is football conversation held to a higher standard than a conversation held around a president, or even more plainly, a human being? Why would we expect standards be met when discussing rumors of little actual importance, but we remove those standards for what’s truly important?”
-
6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Wow, you think he’s a good man? That’s funny.
First, thank you sincerely for your service. I’m sorry I never gave you that respect before.
lastly, I also think there’s good with Trump, but for different reasons (knowing him before his becoming president and what he did for the Kelly’s as one example). But I can’t stand willingly and call him a “good man”. For me, it’s stepping back and believing that his flaws are transparent, something none of us are used to in a sitting president. But I don’t condone his language and other things that know URL’s his opposition. My personal beliefs dictate those feelings.
all that said, in my career, with what I’ve witnessed personally, I can say for sure that the media is projecting in many cases a falsity. How stark it contrasts is even more concerning. So for me at least, knowing there’s tremendous dishonesty that’s beyond doubt (having seen it personally), I believe his being the person we see through Twitter is not a mistake. It’s intentional for the purpose of showing the massive opposition he faces, that he won’t shy from it. But I’ll never condone what we all know to be his human weaknesses. That said (and just being human), I find myself wondering how I would react if I were him. My history on this forum has shown that when I am faced with an opposing view and I lose my own composure, I tend to stray from the person I want to be.
just my thoughts on the matter though.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Kemp said:
Her article: “Griffin cited two anonymous former “senior” U.S. officials in her reporting, saying they confirmed “key parts” of The Atlantic‘s story. However, she added that the sources could not confirm “the most salacious” part.“
the President’s concern: “Jennifer Griffin of Fox News Did Not Confirm ‘Most Salacious‘ Part of Atlantic Story https://breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/04/jennifer-griffin-of-fox-news-did-not-confirm-most-salacious-part-of-atlantic-story/… via @BreitbartNews All refuted by many witnesses. Jennifer Griffin should be fired for this kind of reporting. Never even called us for comment. @FoxNews is gone!”
so my question is, why if your sources are unimpeachable, would you not ask the group the story is about? Why would you not present the facts to the person to hear their side? Why would anyone have an issue with a sitting president speaking about the dangers of unsubstantiated claims? You have posts on this very forum where posters have accused you of such that you refer to them as baseless, yet you yourself are firing off at the president for doing what you’ve demonstrably done yourself; Accuse liars who can’t produce evidence, of lying.
help me understand, Kemp.
-
8 hours ago, BillStime said:
I appreciate your supplying constant opinion-based rebuffs to all things Trump. But clicking on your link, (I thought you were drawing the group to new facts.) it’s clear that even the sources you’re quoting can’t show a shred of evidence beyond their opinion. For instance, reviewing the source you quoted, her feed reads hateful of Men, Republicans, Caucasians and other things that are really unfortunate. Also, if you review her affiliations, she’s a member of several groups that aligned against Trump before these things came to a head. In fact, her timeline of events shows she is moving from place to place to spread her hatred. All of that aside, she still doesn’t produce anything remotely evidentiary. Just “sources”.
so Billstime, my question is (after reviewing your own history posting here), would you believe a Buffalo Bills draft/FA rumor without credibility or proof? Would this board tolerate it, or would it be labeled a “rumor” or be closed due to disinformation? I think we can all follow the conclusion that threads claiming factual information without any incline of proof, evidence or a source are severely unacceptable on a football-driven website. So why is football conversation held to a higher standard than a conversation held around a president, or even more plainly, a human being? Why would we expect standards be met when discussing rumors of little actual importance, but we remove those standards for what’s truly important?
my hope is only to understand what I’m told can’t be understood. I want to see your perspective and try myself to better respect them. So this is your moment, to show the board you are better than how you present yourself. I’m trying to do the same. Let’s discuss if you wouldn’t mind. My thanks in advance.
-
28 minutes ago, Foxx said:
dunno if it's true or not but on the off hand chance it is...
https://twitter.com/AmericaTalks/status/1302068542553100288
“Michelle Obama has entered the chat”
-
2
-
How much have you donated to Trump 2020?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Hmmm... Trump is a racist or a pervert. Can you produce at least 2 cases where he has been found guilty of such? To make such a claim, one would undoubtedly be able to show the court proceedings where he has been charged (and found guilty) in a court of law for a hate crime or molestation...