POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Epic.
A British soldier is credited with using a spade to decapitate an Islamic State terrorist during an ambush in eastern Afghanistan, according to published reports.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/0...stan-gun-battle/amp?__twitter_impression=true
A British soldier is credited with using a spade to decapitate an Islamic State terrorist during an ambush in eastern Afghanistan, according to published reports.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/0...stan-gun-battle/amp?__twitter_impression=true
Can just imagine how I'd feel to hear Clinton in her shrill nails-on-a-chalkboard voice trolling me like that.
That enough makes me happy Trump won. Couple that with lower taxes, a thriving economy, the elimination of ISIS, a Supreme Court Justice, a more conservative federal judiciary, less regulations on businesses, less American assets being sold off to the highest Clinton Foundation donors, etc. and I may just vote for him in 2020.
Scandal Erupts over the Promotion of ‘Bourgeois’ Behavior
Two law professors face racism, sexism, and homophobia charges for urging Americans to act responsibly.
Were you planning to instruct your child about the value of hard work and civility? Not so fast! According to a current uproar at the University of Pennsylvania, advocacy of such bourgeois virtues is “hate speech.” The controversy, sparked by an op-ed written by two law professors, illustrates the rapidly shrinking boundaries of acceptable thought on college campuses and the use of racial victimology to police those boundaries.
On August 9, University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax and University of San Diego law professor Larry Alexander published an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer calling for a revival of the bourgeois values that characterized mid-century American life, including child-rearing within marriage, hard work, self-discipline on and off the job, and respect for authority.
Throwing caution to the winds, they challenge the core tenet of multiculturalism: “All cultures are not equal,” they write. “Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy.” Unless America’s elites again promote personal responsibility and other bourgeois virtues, the country’s economic and social problems will only worsen, they conclude.
Two law professors face racism, sexism, and homophobia charges for urging Americans to act responsibly.
Were you planning to instruct your child about the value of hard work and civility? Not so fast! According to a current uproar at the University of Pennsylvania, advocacy of such bourgeois virtues is “hate speech.” The controversy, sparked by an op-ed written by two law professors, illustrates the rapidly shrinking boundaries of acceptable thought on college campuses and the use of racial victimology to police those boundaries.
On August 9, University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax and University of San Diego law professor Larry Alexander published an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer calling for a revival of the bourgeois values that characterized mid-century American life, including child-rearing within marriage, hard work, self-discipline on and off the job, and respect for authority.
Throwing caution to the winds, they challenge the core tenet of multiculturalism: “All cultures are not equal,” they write. “Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy.” Unless America’s elites again promote personal responsibility and other bourgeois virtues, the country’s economic and social problems will only worsen, they conclude.
Yeah but but dementia drumpf is done!!!
You'll vote for him in 2020. In fact, I bet almost everyone in this thread who didn't vote for him in 2016 (besides the insane libs obviously) will vote for him.
Can't stand him for that character alone. Every time I see him I see the back stabbing Stringer Bell.
Agree. Definitely the best available. Great actor.
Although Craig will always be the goat imo
Anyone ever watch Luther? Me and my wife got really into it. Shame there hasn’t been a 4th season.
I think Craig is aging well - much better than Brosnan has for sure (I mean as Bond, as time goes by, not their literal aging process.) I really did enjoy Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace more than I did the last 2 movies though.
Unless something better comes along. Maybe Melania will run.
Connery, Dalton, Moore, Brosnan, Craig, Lasenby, in that order for me
The Media forgets to mention that it was temporary originally in the fall of 2016 and that they have 18 more months to make other plans.
It's a great show.
You have Craig in 5th?
Connery I get and can agree with since he's the original. Moore? At least debatable I guess. I can't imagine a world where Dalton and Brosnan are rated ahead of Craig.
Tom Hiddleston is your next Bond.
Craig is too angry and lets his emotions get the best of him as Bond. You could possibly switch Moore and Brosnan around but, that would be about it for me.
How many people in the military would quit with Oprah in the White House?
I’ll go on the record and say if I had a vote, it would go to Trump.
Warrior is an old codger though, he probably thinks the silent era is the greatest in film history
Warrior is an old codger though, he probably thinks the silent era is the greatest in film history
Just out. Text messages that possibly prove Strzok/FBI was leaking to the press during the Russia investigation.
FBI agents' text messages spur congressional probe into possible news leaks
Republican-led House and Senate committees are investigating whether leaders of the Russia counterintelligence investigation had contacts with the news media that resulted in improper leaks, prompted in part by text messages amongst senior FBI officials mentioning specific reporters, news organizations and articles.
In one exchange, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and bureau lawyer Lisa Page engaged in a series of texts shortly before Election Day 2016 suggesting they knew in advance about an article in The Wall Street Journal and would need to feign stumbling onto the story so it could be shared with colleagues.
“Article is out, but hidden behind paywall so can’t read it,” Page texted Strzok on Oct. 24, 2016.
“Wsj? Boy that was fast,” Strzok texted back, using the initials of the famed financial newspaper. “Should I ‘find’ it and tell the team?”
The text messages, which were reviewed by The Hill, show the two FBI agents discussed how they might make it appear they innocently discovered the article, such as through Google News alerts.
“I can get it like I do every other article that hits any Google News alerts, seriously,” Strzok wrote, adding he didn’t want his team hearing about the article “from someone else.”
The Hill reviewed nearly three dozen texts in which the two agents discussed articles, tried to track down information about a specific New York Times reporter or opined about leaked information in stories that they fretted were “super specific.”
The Justice Department says it currently has 27 ongoing criminal leak investigations, triple the amount of the prior three years combined.
FBI and Justice Department officials declined to comment about the Strzok-Page texts, noting the Justice Department inspector general is currently investigating the messages and any political bias or other wrongdoing that may have occurred in the Russia case.
Page mentions a conversation she had just had with FBI chief of staff James Rybicki and openly expressed concern the information about the FBI’s timeline was too specific for comfort in the article.
“Sorry, Rybicki called. Time line article in the post (sic) is super specific and not good. Doesn’t make sense because I didn’t have specific information to give.”
A few days earlier Strzok texted Page about another new article, suggesting it was anti-FBI. “Yep, the whole tone is anti-Bu. Just a tiny bit from us,” he wrote.
Republicans want to interview Page to determine if she assisted with any “forthcoming” articles or helped another FBI employee “give” information to the news media, particularly because she helped advise then-deputy director McCabe.
Likewise, congressional investigators want to question Strzok about what he meant about the “tiny bit from us” reference.
The two agents also spent extensive time shortly before the 2016 election trying to track down information — including an address and a spouse’s job — about The New York Times reporter Matt Apuzzo, who has reported on numerous developments in the Russia case.
“We got a list of kids with their parents’ names. How many Matt Apuzzo’s (sic) could there be in DC,” Page texted. “Showed J a picture, he said he thinks he has seen a guy who kinda looks like that, but always really schlubby. I said that sounds like every reporter I have ever seen.”
A minute later, Page added another text: “Found what I think might be their address, too.”
Strzok writes back, “He’s TOTALLY schlubby. Don’t you remember?”
Page responded later by saying she found information on the reporter’s wife too. “Found address looking for her. Lawyer.”
Strzok cautions Page against using the work phone to track down information on the reporter. “I wouldn’t search on your work phone, ,,, no idea what that might trigger,” he texted.
“Oops. Too late,” she responded back.
FBI agents' text messages spur congressional probe into possible news leaks
Republican-led House and Senate committees are investigating whether leaders of the Russia counterintelligence investigation had contacts with the news media that resulted in improper leaks, prompted in part by text messages amongst senior FBI officials mentioning specific reporters, news organizations and articles.
In one exchange, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and bureau lawyer Lisa Page engaged in a series of texts shortly before Election Day 2016 suggesting they knew in advance about an article in The Wall Street Journal and would need to feign stumbling onto the story so it could be shared with colleagues.
“Article is out, but hidden behind paywall so can’t read it,” Page texted Strzok on Oct. 24, 2016.
“Wsj? Boy that was fast,” Strzok texted back, using the initials of the famed financial newspaper. “Should I ‘find’ it and tell the team?”
The text messages, which were reviewed by The Hill, show the two FBI agents discussed how they might make it appear they innocently discovered the article, such as through Google News alerts.
“I can get it like I do every other article that hits any Google News alerts, seriously,” Strzok wrote, adding he didn’t want his team hearing about the article “from someone else.”
The Hill reviewed nearly three dozen texts in which the two agents discussed articles, tried to track down information about a specific New York Times reporter or opined about leaked information in stories that they fretted were “super specific.”
The Justice Department says it currently has 27 ongoing criminal leak investigations, triple the amount of the prior three years combined.
FBI and Justice Department officials declined to comment about the Strzok-Page texts, noting the Justice Department inspector general is currently investigating the messages and any political bias or other wrongdoing that may have occurred in the Russia case.
Page mentions a conversation she had just had with FBI chief of staff James Rybicki and openly expressed concern the information about the FBI’s timeline was too specific for comfort in the article.
“Sorry, Rybicki called. Time line article in the post (sic) is super specific and not good. Doesn’t make sense because I didn’t have specific information to give.”
A few days earlier Strzok texted Page about another new article, suggesting it was anti-FBI. “Yep, the whole tone is anti-Bu. Just a tiny bit from us,” he wrote.
Republicans want to interview Page to determine if she assisted with any “forthcoming” articles or helped another FBI employee “give” information to the news media, particularly because she helped advise then-deputy director McCabe.
Likewise, congressional investigators want to question Strzok about what he meant about the “tiny bit from us” reference.
The two agents also spent extensive time shortly before the 2016 election trying to track down information — including an address and a spouse’s job — about The New York Times reporter Matt Apuzzo, who has reported on numerous developments in the Russia case.
“We got a list of kids with their parents’ names. How many Matt Apuzzo’s (sic) could there be in DC,” Page texted. “Showed J a picture, he said he thinks he has seen a guy who kinda looks like that, but always really schlubby. I said that sounds like every reporter I have ever seen.”
A minute later, Page added another text: “Found what I think might be their address, too.”
Strzok writes back, “He’s TOTALLY schlubby. Don’t you remember?”
Page responded later by saying she found information on the reporter’s wife too. “Found address looking for her. Lawyer.”
Strzok cautions Page against using the work phone to track down information on the reporter. “I wouldn’t search on your work phone, ,,, no idea what that might trigger,” he texted.
“Oops. Too late,” she responded back.
Last edited:
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Honestly, how does that get approved? You would think at least one person in the meeting would be like "this isn't going to end well"
If she promised them all a car and free beer for a year, the young ones would stay.
Similar threads
