Posts made by pppucci

@Frederick:

Trump relented on allowing undocumented immigrants who came to the USA as small children.. and has decided to let them stay.   So, did the LEFT praise Trump for this decision?  OF COURSE NOT!  They are attacking him for breaking his campaign promise to deport them!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-will-allow-%E2%80%98dreamers%E2%80%99-to-stay-in-us-reversing-campaign-promise/ar-BBCLECc?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

The article you cite has has one paragraph about half-way down that states

" A decision to maintain the DACA program would be a reversal from Mr. Trump’s anti-immigrant language during the campaign and would disappoint some of the president’s most ardent supporters, who view the program started by Mr. Obama as an illegal grant of amnesty. During the campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly agreed with that sentiment. "

How is that an attack?

The gist of the article is the ambiguity between DHS and White House statements, implying Trump has yet to decide on the issue.

@Frederick:

@pppucci:

I saw a thread in another forum about duplicate accounts, so I re-read the general site rules.  I know that the interpretation of rules can be subjective, but banned content anywhere on the site includes, and  I quote:

**_Inappropriate communications that are perceived as inflammatory, hateful, harassing and/or threatening

Inflammatory comments or disruptive behavior anywhere on this site will result in a System Warning  that temporarily prevents downloading for a specified period of time. Repeat infringers will be banned.

The posting of expletives anywhere is prohibited._**

Let's all try to follow these rules.

I see you picked a few rules from the GENERAL SITE section that you like. 
Obviously those are GENERAL guidelines, that have common sense applications.. which is why there are moderators.. to moderate. 
There are rules specific to the FORUMS, and even other rules for the POLITICS and DEBATE section.

Obviously one of the most prominent expletives "FUCK" is used extensively on this site.  However, in the future I will replace "FUCK" with "PITCHING WOO", "A bit of the old in-out, in-out", "chopping celery", "Bam-bam in the ham", "Shaboinking", "Bonking", "Driving Miss Daisy", "Making Whoopee", "Planting the Parsnip", or "Heaving Hillary".

It's painfully obvious that the libt**** in this forum and in life demand the freedom to say and do whatever THEY like, but are also the first to complain about anybody they oppose saying anything at all.  I have zero tolerance for people that take facts and twist them into lies.

So, in the future.. if someone really ticks me off.. rather than say "FUCK YOU!"  I will say "Why don't you go plant your parsnip in a mine field?"  or "Go have a 4 way with Hillary, Huma, and Weiner".

Site rules do not trump (pun intended) forum rules.
As far as this site goes, FUCK is not only an expletive and is most often used to describe a sexual act, like Jack fucks John,  But if you say, "FUCK OFF Drwas!" then that clearly is an expletive. If you search for that word in the forums, you will see the difference in use between this forum and all the others.

In terms of twisting facts into lies–-people in glass houses....

And now, I am off to plant my parsnip in a mine field and then off to the four-way.  :crazy2: :cheers:

@Frederick:

@pppucci:

@Frederick:

@Matie:

What what? He uses Jared's back channel? This thread is getting racier all the time

About that channel allegation.. it seems to me that there SHOULD be back channels to communicate with other governments without having the communications made public.  Of course that can sort of be done through ambassadors, but that has big problems too.
Here is one example that I can think of at the moment:  In Iran, they have elected leaders.. HOWEVER, the elected leader is actually a puppet.  The non-elected religious leader is the true power, and the elected leader governs with the permission of the religious nut leader.  It's very much like a King who has governors.  The governor is the one operating the government, but must answer to the King.  Likewise, it is virtually impossible to have a rational, meaningful communication with another leader when it is done in public or the leader is not able to speak freely.
In the case of Jared Kushner, it was the Russian ambassador who was suggesting a back channel.  Yes, a back channel was discussed, but it wasn't Jared that initiated it.

As for leaders initiating sneaky back channel deals with Russia… watch this: 
Youtube Video

And don't forget Slippery Hillary's deal with Russia.. which benefit herself.. in which she sold Russian 20% of the USA uranium reserves!  In exchange, the Clinton foundation got $31 million and a pledge for another $100 million!!!   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHiuGbwvDww
LOCK HER UP!

No one is arguing that back channels are an essential and appropriate part of international diplomacy.  Most even grant that it was appropriate for Jared to lay the groundwork for one with the Russians.  However, considering using Russian facilities to hide the communications from the American national security apparatus borders on treason.

The Hilary allegation is old news.  She is not president and her political career is over.  Move on.

Hillary is not old news until this nonsense about the 2016 election is put to rest.  It sure isn't put to rest now is it?  Oh wait, I forgot.. according to moonbat rules, the left can attack all they like about anything going back to the "big bang", but nobody else can refer to anything to counter their attacks.

Apparently it was the Russian ambassador that came up with the idea for the back channel.. so whatever the plan was.. is not Jared's fault and certainly not Trump's fault.  Also, since this back-channel was never implemented, nor were even any plans made - it is completely baseless and irrelevant.  The world has not yet gotten to the point of prosecuting ideas.

Lastly, I fail to see why the act of communicating with another country is treason.  Again.. an examples of treason are Hillary selling Russia 20% of the uranium in the USA to Russia in exchange for $131 million paid to the Clinton Foundation… Or Obama giving hundreds of billion$ to Iran - in exchange for.. well.. we got NOTHING in return for that apparently.

First the legitimacy of the 2016 election has been put to rest.  No one has ever suggested that the Russians were able to change vote tallies.  They just tried to screw with us and our thinking.
Second, how are you so sure the use of Russian facilities was the ambassador's idea? Jared should have known better. And how are you so sure it was never implemented?  Are you a Russian spy?
Third, the Clinton foundation is not the Clinton Personal Wallet.  I admit some family members get salaries and they fly around the world on private jets, but the vast majority of the money goes to pay for HIV drugs for poor children.
Fourth, the billions for Iran was always their money, we just released it from sequester.

@Frederick:

@pppucci:

@Frederick:

@Matie:

What what? He uses Jared's back channel? This thread is getting racier all the time

About that channel allegation.. it seems to me that there SHOULD be back channels to communicate with other governments without having the communications made public.  Of course that can sort of be done through ambassadors, but that has big problems too.
Here is one example that I can think of at the moment:  In Iran, they have elected leaders.. HOWEVER, the elected leader is actually a puppet.  The non-elected religious leader is the true power, and the elected leader governs with the permission of the religious nut leader.  It's very much like a King who has governors.  The governor is the one operating the government, but must answer to the King.  Likewise, it is virtually impossible to have a rational, meaningful communication with another leader when it is done in public or the leader is not able to speak freely.
In the case of Jared Kushner, it was the Russian ambassador who was suggesting a back channel.  Yes, a back channel was discussed, but it wasn't Jared that initiated it.

As for leaders initiating sneaky back channel deals with Russia… watch this: 
Youtube Video

And don't forget Slippery Hillary's deal with Russia.. which benefit herself.. in which she sold Russian 20% of the USA uranium reserves!  In exchange, the Clinton foundation got $31 million and a pledge for another $100 million!!!   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHiuGbwvDww
LOCK HER UP!

No one is arguing that back channels are an essential and appropriate part of international diplomacy.  Most even grant that it was appropriate for Jared to lay the groundwork for one with the Russians.  However, considering using Russian facilities to hide the communications from the American national security apparatus borders on treason.

The Hilary allegation is old news.  She is not president and her political career is over.  Move on.

Hillary is not old news until this nonsense about the 2016 election is put to rest.  It sure isn't put to rest now is it?  Oh wait, I forgot.. according to moonbat rules, the left can attack all they like about anything going back to the "big bang", but nobody else can refer to anything to counter their attacks.

Apparently it was the Russian ambassador that came up with the idea for the back channel.. so whatever the plan was.. is not Jared's fault and certainly not Trump's fault.  Also, since this back-channel was never implemented, nor were even any plans made - it is completely baseless and irrelevant.  The world has not yet gotten to the point of prosecuting ideas.

Lastly, I fail to see why the act of communicating with another country is treason.  Again.. an examples of treason are Hillary selling Russia 20% of the uranium in the USA to Russia in exchange for $131 million paid to the Clinton Foundation… Or Obama giving hundreds of billion$ to Iran - in exchange for.. well.. we got NOTHING in return for that apparently.

First the legitimacy of the 2016 election has been put to rest.  No one has ever suggested that the Russians were able to change vote tallies.  They just tried to screw with us and our thinking.
Second, how are you so sure the use of Russian facilities was the ambassador's idea? Jared should have known better. And how are you so sure it was never implemented?

Thanks for your complete response.  I did enjoy it. :hug:

I saw a thread in another forum about duplicate accounts, so I re-read the general site rules.  I know that the interpretation of rules can be subjective, but banned content anywhere on the site includes, and  I quote:

**_Inappropriate communications that are perceived as inflammatory, hateful, harassing and/or threatening

Inflammatory comments or disruptive behavior anywhere on this site will result in a System Warning  that temporarily prevents downloading for a specified period of time. Repeat infringers will be banned.

The posting of expletives anywhere is prohibited._**

Let's all try to follow these rules.

@Pawpcorn:

The account he deleted by accident was revived, his running ratio was transferred to the revived account, and then this most recent account (from which he made this request, both here and on the helpdesk) was banned.

SOP: Multiple accounts are merged to ONE account, and all the other accounts are banned (not "deleted")

Take care,
Pawpcorn
GTRU Staff

Thank you for the clarification.  When I read the site rules "Only one account is allowed per Internet Protocol address and user. Attempts to create multiple accounts will trigger our monitoring system that immediately terminates both accounts.", I assumed the offender was banned for life.

@Devken:

The adding of brown and black to the flag is stupid. The rainbow flag represents everyone, because none of the colours of the rainbow represents race.

Hot pink Sex
Red         Life
Orange Healing
Yellow Sunlight
Green Nature
Turquoise Magic/Art
Indigo Serenity
Violet Spirit

On top of that, by adding race, it excludes and no longer includes. There is no brown and there is no black in the rainbow (and no white either)

Thanks for your interpretation of the colors.  But it could be argued that black is what you get when you combine all of the colors as pigments and white is what you get when you combine all of the colors as transmitted light.
I agree tat they should leave the flag as it is, however.

@Frederick:

@Matie:

What what? He uses Jared's back channel? This thread is getting racier all the time

About that channel allegation.. it seems to me that there SHOULD be back channels to communicate with other governments without having the communications made public.  Of course that can sort of be done through ambassadors, but that has big problems too.
Here is one example that I can think of at the moment:  In Iran, they have elected leaders.. HOWEVER, the elected leader is actually a puppet.  The non-elected religious leader is the true power, and the elected leader governs with the permission of the religious nut leader.  It's very much like a King who has governors.  The governor is the one operating the government, but must answer to the King.  Likewise, it is virtually impossible to have a rational, meaningful communication with another leader when it is done in public or the leader is not able to speak freely.
In the case of Jared Kushner, it was the Russian ambassador who was suggesting a back channel.  Yes, a back channel was discussed, but it wasn't Jared that initiated it.

As for leaders initiating sneaky back channel deals with Russia… watch this: 
Youtube Video

And don't forget Slippery Hillary's deal with Russia.. which benefit herself.. in which she sold Russian 20% of the USA uranium reserves!  In exchange, the Clinton foundation got $31 million and a pledge for another $100 million!!!   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHiuGbwvDww
LOCK HER UP!

No one is arguing that back channels are an essential and appropriate part of international diplomacy.  Most even grant that it was appropriate for Jared to lay the groundwork for one with the Russians.  However, considering using Russian facilities to hide the communications from the American national security apparatus borders on treason.

The Hilary allegation is old news.  She is not president and her political career is over.  Move on.

@raphjd:

Click on your thumbs up/down in your information on the left.    It'll show you who's giving you ups/downs.

I get only cumulative data, not specific to each post.  I also cant see who has rated another user's post.  Am I missing something?

@raphjd:

Yes, but discussing left vs right should not include words like moonbat, libt***, Nazi, fascist, etc. etc. We have all been guilty of that.

I was ONLY responding to the idea that certain topics should be moved to "rants & raves".

The vitriol is not left vs right. Those who simply want to hurl insults should move to another forum.

That should not happen unless you have another tracker added to those torrents. Utorrent will often lag behind the website since it only updates tracker info every 30 minutes, but it never should show more seeders or  peers than the website.

I have another question regarding duplicates as this has happened to me a couple of times, including yesterday.  When a new video at a major site is released, such as Sean Cody, I will download the video and make sure it has not yet been uploaded.  Then I  make screencaps, copy the description, create the torrent and then upload the torrent to the site.  By the time my client goes through its hashcheck and begins to seed, I will reload the search page to see if my torrent is indeed visible ( I know I can also check that in my profile) and lo and behold, another user has beaten by a few minutes with the same upload.
My question is: do I need to search for the video torrent with the "including dead" option to see if someone created the torrent and is not yet seeding it?

I have to admit that when this has happened to me, I will report my own torrent as a dupe just to get the SB, which I think I deserve for the effort.

Now my curiosity is getting the best of me.  What are sock accounts?….never mind, I googled it...
But if his account was deleted because he created too many duplicate accounts, why were his rights restored?

@strangeloop:

@pppucci:

@raphjd:

Not everything that is pro-black/brown is anti-white.

It is when in the name of "diversity" they exclude whites, like we have here.   Just like everything else, BLM and it's offshoots are hijacking the pride flag for themselves.

Obviously, if they exclude whites, that is not true diversity and I too denounce this.

Did someone hijack your acct dude?  You're sounding way too reasonable today  :cheers:

No, it's me.  The lack of hysterical name-calling may have prompted me to try to see the other side of things. BTW, that is what this forum should be about.  And I can now be sure that Frederick and Strangeloop are not the same person.

@strangeloop:

@sutieday:

Normal users can't see who downvoted who, so mods abusing by exposing.

Yeah somewhat agreed.  I don't need to see his downvotes to know how butthurt Drwas is.  He exposed his own self as "petulant child throwing tantrum" who also apparently can't form an original thought and can only copy and paste.  I'd give the poor guy a break.

I suspect that our moderator may have suffered much at the hands of Drwas or other so called "liberals," but he really should not retaliate in a public forum. Exposing up and down votes is an abuse, although I have to admit that I wondered who could be so silly as to down-vote strangeloop's bipartisan sentiment.

@aadam101:

It was code to the Russians.  This isn't even the first time.  Spicer did this twice already.

Doubt it.  When Trump wants to communicate 'with the Russians, he just uses Jared's back-channel at the Russian Embassy.

@Frederick:

@pppucci:

@royalcrown89:

This thread is severely misleading because that act wasn't introduced into Congress until after the "covfefe" mess. #45 posted the tweet on May 31, 2017 and the act was introduced on June 12, 2017. So, you're arguing that the president tweeted about something that did not exist at the time?

Apparently so.  But facts never stopped them before.

It's the democraps confusing things.   It was explained that the meaning of COVFEFE was in inside joke amongst Trump's closest staff.

Frederick's biggest problem is that he believes everything Sean Spicer says is true.  Even Spicey was making a joke. :laugh:

@raphjd:

Discuss politics and debate world issues

That's the by-line of this section.

Discussing left vs right falls into that.

Yes, but discussing left vs right should not include words like moonbat, libt***, Nazi, fascist, etc. etc. We have all been guilty of that.

@raphjd:

Not everything that is pro-black/brown is anti-white.

It is when in the name of "diversity" they exclude whites, like we have here.   Just like everything else, BLM and it's offshoots are hijacking the pride flag for themselves.

Obviously, if they exclude whites, that is not true diversity and I too denounce this. I think the minorities take the white majority for granted.  There are certainly some that harbor hostility to whites, but that is certainly not universal.  Any assumption that it is just promotes racism on both sides.