Obama says we need to focus on words that unite. The same guy who...

sat in Rev Wrights "church" for 20 years
said that people in the Midwest are bitter clingers
said that the Cambridge police acted stupidly
said that Republicans gotta stop just hating all the time
said that cops killing black men are not isolated incidents'
has invited Al Sharpton to the Oval Office dozens of times to talk about race.

Nothing hypocritical about Obama saying we need to unite. Nope.

Where leaders lead, followers will follow. Obama has done everything humanly possible to demonize those who disagree with him.

Boy does he have chutzpah.

8 years on non-stop divisive rhetoric, all to garner political capital, and all of a sudden, he cares about unity. If he is leading by example, tell him to stop, I can't take any more racial healing.

The divisive rhetoric literally started on day 1, at his inaugural, let today be remembered as the day the ocean stopped rising and the planet began to heal. That's not a narcissist.

divisive rhetoric literally started on day 1 or just being black because thats what it has always been about ...

The POTUS does not support the killing of police by citizens nor does he support the killing of citizens by the police
but what can I say white people will suggest that he does and even place Blame like Jim Has .. jim you have done everything humanly possible to demonize him. because you disagree .. truth or facts need not apply but then again they never have in the past 8 years

Exhibit A.

divisive rhetoric literally started on day 1 or just being black because thats what it has always been about ...

The POTUS does not support the killing of police by citizens nor does he support the killing of citizens by the police
but what can I say white people will suggest that he does and even place Blame like Jim Has .. jim you have done everything humanly possible to demonize him. because you disagree .. truth or facts need not apply but then again they never have in the past 8 years

There's liberalism, in one post.

I point out irrefutable, factual examples of repugnant, divisive rhetoric Obama has used. Irrefutable facts. You can't begin to claim that I am wrong. So you do all that liberalism has trained you to do, and you call me a racist.

Pathetic and entirely predictable.

"The POTUS does not support the killing of police by citizens"

Another example of liberalism. You respond to something which no one has said. I never, ever said that Obama supports assassinations of cops. But he pours fuel on the fire, when he says that the cops' killing of black men are not isolated incidents. He legitimizes genuine racial hatred, by having a nut like Al Sharpton as a go-to guy on race relations.

Again, there's no way any liberal could ever honestly refute anything I said. So you respond to something crazy that I never came close to saying.

That's what liberals do. When backed into a corner from which there is no escape, play the race card, and put gibberish words in the other person's mouth. You couldn't have done more to perpetuate the stereotype.

The POTUS does not support the killing of police by citizens nor does he support the killing of citizens by the police

Nobody is saying that he condones any of this....

The problem is that every time a tragedy like this occurs and he is presented an opportunity to lead.....he doesn't. He tries to placate everyone and often says/does something which fuels the divisiveness.

He needs to understand that he is EVERY citizens president.....not just the ones who voted for him. He needs to address the US with inclusiveness, not by singling out specific groups. He needs to think a little more before he says something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nobody is saying that he condones any of this....

The problem is that every time a tragedy like this occurs and he is presented an opportunity to lead.....he doesn't. He tries to placate everyone and often says/does something which fuels the divisiveness.

He needs to understand that he is EVERY citizens president.....not just the ones who voted for him. He needs to address the US with inclusiveness, not by singling out specific groups. He needs to think a little more before he says something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This.

You may not have liked his positions (I often didn't) but GWB did not try to continually divide the country blaming everyone else for the ills of the country. THe press pilloried him (funny how that is not the same with this administration).

I had real hope that Obama would have improved race relations in this country. I have lived in times and places that everyone was on the same page regardless of race and I was naive to think Obama could bring us closer to that time.

Is there a reason he won't light the Whitehouse blue ? I know it's purely symbolic and just shows your support but isn't that why it was done in the rainbow colors also .
Once again he had an opportunity and he chose not to do it . Can one of his defenders explain that ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is there a reason he won't light the Whitehouse blue ? I know it's purely symbolic and just shows your support but isn't that why it was done in the rainbow colors also .
Once again he had an opportunity and he chose not to do it . Can one of his defenders explain that ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So ordering flags to be flown at half mast isn't the more appropriate response?

Nobody is saying that he condones any of this....

The problem is that every time a tragedy like this occurs and he is presented an opportunity to lead.....he doesn't. He tries to placate everyone and often says/does something which fuels the divisiveness.

He needs to understand that he is EVERY citizens president.....not just the ones who voted for him. He needs to address the US with inclusiveness, not by singling out specific groups. He needs to think a little more before he says something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Nobody is saying that he condones any of this...."

Obviously.

"tries to placate everyone "

I have to disagree with that. I don't see him trying to do much to placate the tens of millions of people who didn't vote for him. I see him trying to demonize them. That "bitter clingers" comment, which he made when he didn't know anyone was recording and thus is likely how he really feels, tells you everything that you need to know, about how he views conservatives.

"He needs to understand that he is EVERY citizens president"

BINGO. He has never made any attempt to be my president. He doesn't even try to hide his contempt for conservatives. Say what you want about Bush's policies, he never (from what I recall, I could be wrong) went so far out of his way to continuously alienate all the liberals. He did things they disagreed with obviously, but he didn't engage in endless personal attacks.

So ordering flags to be flown at half mast isn't the more appropriate response?


That goes without even saying, kind of like black lives matter, of course they matter, it goes without saying.

the question was about lighting the white house with blue lights as a sign of support, it would go a long way if it was.

if we don't strongly speak out against the killing of police, then we are no longer civilized. It's about doing the right thing.
7-1/2 years in, and I'm not sure he is going to take the correct advice from anyone. Perception is reality

There is an old adage in America that if something happens on your watch you can take credit for it, but also must take the blame for it. POTUS has been quick to take credit for economic recovery and should also take a good share of the blame for what has happened with race relations in his two terms. This will be part of his legacy.

Then I was reading an article in the Huffington post this weekend that mentioned that the term "All Lives Matter" is racist and incites violence. All I could do is shake my head.

So ordering flags to be flown at half mast isn't the more appropriate response?

You didn't answer the question of course .
Ordering the flags flown at half mast was the correct thing to do . Hope he wasn't doing it just to form some kind of "appropriate response"
At the rate things are going , half mast seems to be the norm . Very sad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=buckman;1104475]Is there a reason he won't light the Whitehouse blue ? I know it's purely symbolic and just shows your support but isn't that why it was done in the rainbow colors also .
Once again he had an opportunity and he chose not to do it . Can one of his defenders explain that ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE


And putting the Blue lights doesn't show show support Personal this Jon Adler, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association has no sway.. and i see it as him giving his ASSOCIATION AKA lobbyist some attention

And if you cant understand the sea change that came with the gay marriage and how many lives of American it changed cant help you with that

Do we expect the white House to light up the marine corps colors when we lost 6 marines 2015 http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/05/17/marines-identified-nepal-helo-crash/27483577/

of course not ... but some how ordering Flag half staff Nation wide isn't enough of a show off support .. but blue lights are ? all this from the we'll never be happy about Obama no matter what he does crowd

I disagree. Nothing he says or does other than lighting the White House blue will show he really is supporting the victims.

And I don't know why he won't say "radical islamic terrorism". If he does all our terrorism problems go away.

And I don't know why he won't say "radical islamic terrorism". If he does all our terrorism problems go away.

Again, liberalism 101 says that when the facts and common sense are against you (as they often will be when you are a liberal), instead of responding to what people are saying, make believe they are saying something crazy, and respond to that.

No one thinks that the problem goes away if he says out loud what the reality is. But it makes him appear more honest, more serious, less radical, more grounded, and slightly less foolish.

Where leaders lead, followers will follow. When he says something idiotic, like comparing Islamic atrocities with those of other religions (God knows I am just as concerned with the Mormons as I am with Muslims), some people (Spence comes to mind), who don't question anything Obama says, might believe it's true.

The man has the biggest pulpit in the world. Words matter. The truth matters. Maybe not to liberals (based on your kooky accusation that anyone thinks terrorism will go away if he says it out loud), but many people (most of whom Obama would dismiss as bitter clingers) believe that speaking the truth, has value.

I think he won't do it bc he knows it will make the teabaggers angrier and angrier.

Words matter, the truth matters - that is a good one.

The other interesting piece of this to me, is politics. Police unions almost always back Democrats. The national association of police officers backed Obama in 2008, I don't think they backed either man in 2012. They do this, because Democrats are more willing to give labor unions a blank check. The unions now need to decide what's more important to them - getting promises for insane pensions, or having a POTUS who won't say that cops are part of some institutional conspiracy to assassinate black men (which is what Obama claimed, when he said that police killings of black men are not isolated incidents). As usual, I suspect unions will go for the money, rather than looking out for the actual welfare of the members.

"HANDS UP!!!"

2 years later we have 10 cops ASSASSINATED.One lie started all this.

[QUOTE=wdmso;1104505][QUOTE=buckman;1104475]Is there a reason he won't light the Whitehouse blue ? I know it's purely symbolic and just shows your support but isn't that why it was done in the rainbow colors also .
Once again he had an opportunity and he chose not to do it . Can one of his defenders explain that ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE


And putting the Blue lights doesn't show show support Personal this Jon Adler, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association has no sway.. and i see it as him giving his ASSOCIATION AKA lobbyist some attention

And if you cant understand the sea change that came with the gay marriage and how many lives of American it changed cant help you with that

Do we expect the white House to light up the marine corps colors when we lost 6 marines 2015 http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/05/17/marines-identified-nepal-helo-crash/27483577/

of course not ... but some how ordering Flag half staff Nation wide isn't enough of a show off support .. but blue lights are ? all this from the we'll never be happy about Obama no matter what he does crowd[/QUOTE

All that and you can't answer my question . You know everything but the answers .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did you just dont like my answer

Obama's Chickens are Coming Home To Roost

I think he won't do it bc he knows it will make the teabaggers angrier and angrier.

.

In other words, you think he's a spiteful, vindictive little brat. Glad I got you to inadvertently admit that...

I did you just dont like my answer

Can you answer my question? If I call Obama divisive, and I list a multitude of quotes that are irrefutably attributed to Obama to support that...then how am I a racist? Just because I criticized him?

Have fun!

Obama's Chickens are Coming Home To Roost

You need to say that, screaming and drooling like a lunatic, to complete the impression. Then, because racism is so widespread, Rev Wright buys a multimillion dollar house in a zip code that is 99.99% white.

Can you answer my question? If I call Obama divisive, and I list a multitude of quotes that are irrefutably attributed to Obama to support that...then how am I a racist? Just because I criticized him?

Have fun!
You are the poster child for a big part of what's wrong here.

You are the poster child for a big part of what's wrong here.

Here's the difference...First, I am aware that I am guilty of being divisive, therefore I am honest enough to admit that I'm in no position to lecture anyone on the need to be inclusive.

Second, I am correct in 99% of my criticisms of liberals in general, and Obama in particular. But when Obama says that (for example) cops killing blacks are not isolated incidents, he's being a moron and an obvious instigator. There is exactly zero factual evidence to back that up. When he says that Midwesterners cling to guns and religion because they are bitter and racist, every sane person knows that's an asinine thing to say.

Look at my first post. Are those comments indicative of someone who gives a crap about bringing us together? And am I correct when I attribute those things to Obama? Or am I making them up?

Have fun...

Second, I am correct in 99% of my criticisms of liberals in general, and Obama in particular.
This just made my day...

This just made my day...

We see that you didn't attempt to make me wrong. If you coulda, you woulda.

It is not possible for an intellectually honest person to say that cops are, as a group, engaged in some kind of racial assassination conspiracy. Nor is it defensible to say that all Republicans do, is hate all the time.

John McCain once asked Mother Theresa what he could do as an individual, to really make a difference. She suggested he look into international adoption. The McCains then adopted an orphaned girl from Bangladesh. That's an act of hate? After all, Obama said that's all we do. How many white kids has Weird Harold adopted, exactly?

We see that you didn't attempt to make me wrong. If you coulda, you woulda.

It is not possible for an intellectually honest person to say that cops are, as a group, engaged in some kind of racial assassination conspiracy. Nor is it defensible to say that all Republicans do, is hate all the time.

John McCain once asked Mother Theresa what he could do as an individual, to really make a difference. She suggested he look into international adoption. The McCains then adopted an orphaned girl from Bangladesh. That's an act of hate? After all, Obama said that's all we do. How many white kids has Weird Harold adopted, exactly?
May be time for a new therapist Jim.

Yes, time out has been called for self evaluation. Stomping feet and clenched fists go to the front of the line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

May be time for a new therapist Jim.

When you cannot refute what I am saying, you can always log on, hurl a baseless insult, and scurry off. Waving a white flag wouldn't be a more obvious sign of defeat.

Meanwhile, a Harvard professor just looked at 15 years of data, and concluded that there is zero racial bias in the incidents of police shootings (but there was a difference in the use of non lethal force). So let's shut up about anyone claiming that black lives don't matter, and figure out what's causing the discrepancy in the use of non lethal force.

I am sure Obama will soon be quoting the statistics from his alma mater. Since he cares about unity, and all. Right Spence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0

I think he won't do it bc he knows it will make the teabaggers angrier and angrier.



yeah...remember all of those angry tea party terrorists shooting, looting and disrupting traffic and people's lives...that was great :spin:

Everyone in the media and in politics knows about the Harvard study which shows zero racial bias in the numbers of police shootings. But Black Lives Matter is still making the claims that this study debunks, and no one on the left is admitting that the study shows that there is no validity to the BLM movement. This is why I say that you cannot be intellectually honest and be a liberal. They only care about that which supports The Narrative, they are incapable of accepting facts which indicate otherwise.

Spence, there have been times here when you have proven me wrong (like when I claimed that when Obama was in Hiroshima, that he said evil fell from the sky, you showed me the facts, and I admitted I was wrong). With that in mind, what do you think this study does to the validity of the entire Black Lives Matter premise?

In a related story, The Narrative just checked itself into rehab.

yeah...remember all of those angry tea party terrorists shooting, looting and disrupting traffic and people's lives...that was great :spin:

Those are criminals.

In other words, you think he's a spiteful, vindictive little brat. Glad I got you to inadvertently admit that...

I think he is just throwing it in their face. Call it what you will.

Prob. better than your usual "he is a POS".

Words matter. The truth matters.


That is so funny I had to quote it 2x.

From a person who is a member of a group where like 50% believed he the Pres. was a Muslim and think he was born in Kenya. Also, where EVERY Presidential candidate was judged to have been more dishonest then EVERY Presidential candidate of the Dem. party.

Jus saw on the news Melania seems to be having issues of her own. Stole some of her speach. She should just admit she used part of other people's speach - no big deal. But it is the Trump way.

Just saw the Melania plagiarism story - sounds like she needs to apologize and probably fire one of the speech writers.

That said the rest of the convention's first night was outstanding.

Meanwhile, a Harvard professor just looked at 15 years of data, and concluded that there is zero racial bias in the incidents of police shootings (but there was a difference in the use of non lethal force). So let's shut up about anyone claiming that black lives don't matter, and figure out what's causing the discrepancy in the use of non lethal force.

I am sure Obama will soon be quoting the statistics from his alma mater. Since he cares about unity, and all. Right Spence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0

And we have been hearing here all along how Blacks are not treated differently than whites.

As I've said all along, part of the issue is perception. I believe Rep. Scott of NC said he has been stopped 7 times in the last year. If you are constantly being stopped for small or made up things, your going to view things differntly.

The following contains follow up questions asked of Fryer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/upshot/roland-fryer-answers-reader-questions-about-his-police-force-study.html

Can you answer my question? If I call Obama divisive, and I list a multitude of quotes that are irrefutably attributed to Obama to support that...then how am I a racist? Just because I criticized him?

Have fun!

never called you a racist as for Divisive seems only some white people interpret his statements as such and the all seem to be conservatives which could just be chance .

is this one of your quotes We know that the overwhelming majority of police officers do an incredibly hard and dangerous job fairly and professionally. They are deserving of our respect and not our scorn. (Applause.) And when anyone, no matter how good their intentions may be, paints all police as biased or bigoted, we undermine those officers we depend on for our safety. And as for those who use rhetoric suggesting harm to police, even if they don’t act on it themselves -- well, they not only make the jobs of police officers even more dangerous, but they do a disservice to the very cause of justice that they claim to promote.

or this one

We tell them to keep those neighborhoods in check at all costs, and do so without causing any political blowback or inconvenience. Don’t make a mistake that might disturb our own peace of mind. And then we feign surprise when, periodically, the tensions boil over.

We know these things to be true. They’ve been true for a long time. We know it. Police, you know it. Protestors, you know it. You know how dangerous some of the communities where these police officers serve are, and you pretend as if there’s no context. These things we know to be true.


no you post only this from the same speech.. thats called being divisive.... We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book - going off on gun control

Classic

Jus saw on the news Melania seems to be having issues of her own. Stole some of her speach. She should just admit she used part of other people's speach - no big deal. But it is the Trump way.

Any thoughts on Patricia Smith's speech ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did not watch any of the convention. Prob. will watch only a few min. Maybe Trump's speach. Prob. the same w/the Dem. convention -maybe only Hillary.

Watched the TDF.

That is so funny I had to quote it 2x.

From a person who is a member of a group where like 50% believed he the Pres. was a Muslim and think he was born in Kenya. Also, where EVERY Presidential candidate was judged to have been more dishonest then EVERY Presidential candidate of the Dem. party.

Jus saw on the news Melania seems to be having issues of her own. Stole some of her speach. She should just admit she used part of other people's speach - no big deal. But it is the Trump way.

"like 50% believed he the Pres. was a Muslim"

That was embarrassing. Speaking for myself, I wish he were a Muslim, because that's a lot easier for me to fathom, than whatever you call a lunatic who worships at the altar of Rev Wright.

"where EVERY Presidential candidate was judged to have been more dishonest then EVERY Presidential candidate of the Dem. party. "

And I'm sure that study was very scientific and un-biased. That's something that cannot be quantified. You are either a compulsive liar or you're not.

"Melania seems to be having issues of her own. Stole some of her speech"

Yep. If you're going to plagiarize someone, how about stealing form someone who has something worthwhile to say, like Churchill, rather than a horse's ass like Michelle Obama? But again, since Joe Biden is your vice president, I find it curious that you are offended by plagiarism. He got caught red-handed plagiarizing, and I don't recall you ever bashing him for it - maybe I missed that. What do you expect from a bubbleheaded, gold-digging beauty queen like Mrs Trump?

Good lord, how did it come to this?

Watched the TDF.

I missed that :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

never called you a racist as for Divisive seems only some white people interpret his statements as such and the all seem to be conservatives which could just be chance .

is this one of your quotes We know that the overwhelming majority of police officers do an incredibly hard and dangerous job fairly and professionally. They are deserving of our respect and not our scorn. (Applause.) And when anyone, no matter how good their intentions may be, paints all police as biased or bigoted, we undermine those officers we depend on for our safety. And as for those who use rhetoric suggesting harm to police, even if they don’t act on it themselves -- well, they not only make the jobs of police officers even more dangerous, but they do a disservice to the very cause of justice that they claim to promote.

or this one

We tell them to keep those neighborhoods in check at all costs, and do so without causing any political blowback or inconvenience. Don’t make a mistake that might disturb our own peace of mind. And then we feign surprise when, periodically, the tensions boil over.

We know these things to be true. They’ve been true for a long time. We know it. Police, you know it. Protestors, you know it. You know how dangerous some of the communities where these police officers serve are, and you pretend as if there’s no context. These things we know to be true.


no you post only this from the same speech.. thats called being divisive.... We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book - going off on gun control

Classic

WDMSO, the first part of Obama's eulogy was magnificent. And then, of course, he blew it. Did Obama say that cops killing black men are not isolated incidents? Did he say that, or did he not say it?

I never said that every single word that comes out of Obama's mouth is divisive. But a lot of what he says, sure is. I don't remember Bush, or Bill Clinton, leading that way, not at all.

If 95% of what Obama says is harmless, but 5% of what he says is racist and divisive bullsh*t, then that's a problem.

You cannot make that wrong. But your liberalism doesn't allow you to admit that I have a point. Because you can't be intellectually honest and be a liberal. Yes, you can point to many inspiring things that Obama has said. That doesn't come close to refuting my point. Again, you are acting like I said that everything Obama says is divisive. That's not what I said. Once again, you respond to something I never came close to saying.

It's not possible to be intellectually honest and be liberal. In my first post, I listed a half dozen things he said, which any rational person would say is divisive. You can't admit that I have a point, and the best you can do is say "well, he does say some things that aren't divisive". But that's not the point. The point is that he occasionally says terrible things, which are demonstrably false, for political gain.

never called you a racist as for Divisive seems only some white people interpret his statements as such and the all seem to be conservatives which could just be chance .



Classic

Not remotely true. Watch Foxnews, and you'll se many, many blacks who call out Obama as I have. Your handicap is that you get yoru news from places that don't ever present both sides.

"they all seem to be conservatives "

Maybe that's because most liberals can't ever admit that Obama (or any prominent Democrat) is flawed. Spence won't concede that Hilary lied about coming under sniper fire. How do you explain that?

Let me ask you 2 very, very simple questions based on my first post.

(1) Did Obama say the things I claimed he said, or am I making it up?

(2) Are you unable to see how someone like me would justifiably be offended by those statements?

2 questions. Any chance you can answer them directly?

Any thoughts on Patricia Smith's speech ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think the way FOX and the GOP have exploited her grief is nothing short of astonishingly shameful.

I think the way FOX and the GOP have exploited her grief is nothing short of astonishingly shameful.

I hear Hilary is using Michael Brown's mom as a political prop. Her son was a thug that forced a cop to use lethal force to defend himself. I see your outrage at exploitation is, as usual, quite selective.

Spence, what if she is telling the truth, and Hilary lied to her? Isn't that relevant?

Gotta protect that narrative...

I think the way FOX and the GOP have exploited her grief is nothing short of astonishingly shameful.

More on this...that woman's son died while working for Hilary, and a lot of people feel it was handled very, very poorly. That actually happened.

Hilary is exploiting people in the name of a problem (cops killing black kids) that Harvard University just showed is non-existent (common sense has always suggested it was not true, but Harvard has the data to show it). Which is more shameful? Talking about a tragedy that actually happened, or using a false narrative to make people afraid of cops for no reason?

If Hilary claimed to have Bigfoot's endorsement at her convention, it would be no less valid than claiming that we need her to keep black kids safe from white cops.

I think the way FOX and the GOP have exploited her grief is nothing short of astonishingly shameful.

I think you have a very angry Mom , rightfully angry, who is on a personal vendetta to punish Hillary for allowing her son to be killed and then lying to her face about the motive .
I'm sure you have not watched the movie , and I'm sure you did not show the common decency to watch Mrs Smith's speach before commenting .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just saw the Melania plagiarism story - sounds like she needs to apologize and probably fire one of the speech writers.

That said the rest of the convention's first night was outstanding.
I doubt she had any idea, it was a PR stunt to grab headlines.

It was pretty terrifying to be honest. My favorite was the interview with Antonio Sabato after his speech where he claimed Obama was a Muslim and sided with the Middle East.

Also good were the 13 hours guys who pushed the stand down order even though 8 investigations haven't found any evidence.

It's just a reality TV show convention for a reality TV show campaign.

As much as some people dislike Clinton I simply can't fathom how Trump can get a moment's consideration. Vote for Johnson or write someone in. Please.

I simply can't fathom how Trump can get a moment's consideration. Vote for Johnson or write someone in. Please.

Given that you are the only person I have ever heard say that she didn't lie about coming under sniper fire, you might consider the possibility that you are the one who is off kilter, not everyone else.

Here's why he gets my vote, and why a lot of people will plug their nose and vote for him (though probably not enough will do it for him to be competitive). If I was an unborn baby, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. If I owned my own business, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. If I was a jihadist, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. If I was Al Sharpton, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

For the foreseeable future, those are my litmus tests. Looking at it through that lens, which a lot of people share, it's a no brainer.

By your own admission, you can't fathom why anyone cares deeply about protecting innocent life, who believes that business isn't necessarily evil, who realizes that we are at war, and who isn't interested in engaging in false race-baiting. If you can't fathom how anyone cares about such things, maybe that (like your unwillingness to say Hilary lied) says more about you, than it does about everyone else.

[QUOTE=spence;1104574

Also good were the 13 hours guys who pushed the stand down order even though 8 investigations haven't found any evidence.

It's just a reality TV show convention for a reality TV show campaign.

As much as some people dislike Clinton I simply can't fathom how Trump can get a moment's consideration. Vote for Johnson or write someone in. Please.[/QUOTE]


Just because there was no evidence found doesn't mean it didn't happen. If there's one thing we have learned about the Obama administration and the Clinton administration is they are extremely adept at hiding evidence or deleting it. It's helpful when the media is also on your side .
You are all too dismissive of Mrs. Smith or of the two heroes in Benghazi and you have zero respect for anybody that won't follow your narrative .
You and I come from different places Spence . While you and your better half might of been rolling your eyes at the tears on the convention floor during Mrs. Smith speech , I also had tears.
See my better half has three wonderful boys, two Marines and one going in the Air Force in the fall, they are following the foot steps of their grandfather and I want them to have a leader that they know has there back . Hilary has proven she does not and to a man the people in the military do not want her as thier commander-in-chief .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you have a very angry Mom , rightfully angry, who is on a personal vendetta to punish Hillary for allowing her son to be killed and then lying to her face about the motive .Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Contrast that with reality and you have your shameless exploitation.

Contrast that with reality and you have your shameless exploitation.

What's the reality, that Hillary was only completely incompetent ?
Great
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought she was interviewing Jim for a moment.

https://www.facebook.com/TamronHall/videos/10153578693326916/

What's the reality, that Hillary was only completely incompetent ?
Great
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
She held a 65% approval rating for most of her tenure at State.

Funny how when Clinton is a Senator she gets praise (by Republicans) for being a great Senator. When She's leading the State Department she gets praise for being a great secretary. You have an entire industry trying to tear her down for 25 years and yet she's leading in the race for POTUS.

How can this be?

I thought she was interviewing Jim for a moment.

https://www.facebook.com/TamronHall/videos/10153578693326916/

Liberal playbook: when a thoughtful person has you backed into a corner from which there is no escape, do one of the following:

call them a racist
respond to something other than what was said
lob a baseless insult, then run away and hide under your desk

You're not big on responding to direct challenges, or ever admitting that anyone else has a point, are you? Have fun with that.

She held a 65% approval rating for most of her tenure at State.

Funny how when Clinton is a Senator she gets praise (by Republicans) for being a great Senator. When She's leading the State Department she gets praise for being a great secretary. You have an entire industry trying to tear her down for 25 years and yet she's leading in the race for POTUS.

How can this be?


She raised $200 million in her pay to play position . there wasn't anything that wasn't for sale. Look at the way her and her husband ran the rebuilding of Haiti . Shameful !
I don't recall to many people praising her , but then again you and most people have different recollections of the past.
She is a liar and a crook and I firmly believe that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She held a 65% approval rating for most of her tenure at State.

Funny how when Clinton is a Senator she gets praise (by Republicans) for being a great Senator. When She's leading the State Department she gets praise for being a great secretary. You have an entire industry trying to tear her down for 25 years and yet she's leading in the race for POTUS.

How can this be?

As always, you fail to address any concerns that people have of her.

She lucked out, unfortunately, that my side managed to nominate one of the very few people, who she could actually cream in an election.

Does she have high unfavorables Spence? Does she score very low on trustworthiness? Did she claim to come under sniper fire? Did she say that Bill didn't cheat on her, but that the vast right wing conspiracy was making it look that way? Did Obama's FBI say that she acted extremely carelessly with sensitive information? Did she claim to have turned over all of her work emails, and the FBI found thousands more?

Spence, Paul S, WDMSO -

Can we get back to my original post?

Harvard University (which liberals like to say is a respectful institution) just released a study of 15 years of data, and concluded that there was zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings.

Given that, why aren't Obama and Hilary Clinton touting that? I mean, isn't that a GOOD thing? If Obama and Hilary gave a crap about the truth, wouldn't they say to Black Lives Matter, "turns out we were wrong, there's no reason to think that your skin color puts your life in jeopardy at the hands of the police, so now we can focus on what will really save lives, which is gang violence in our cities"?

Instead, Hilary has Michael Brown's mother as a political prop? How about the mother of Son Of Sam, can the liberals claim she is a victim too?

Again, shouldn't we all be relieved that Harvard concluded that there was no racial bias in police shootings?

The answer is no, because all that matters is protecting The Narrative.

I wonder if that researcher got fired from Harvard yet...

She raised $200 million in her pay to play position . there wasn't anything that wasn't for sale. Look at the way her and her husband ran the rebuilding of Haiti . Shameful !

Funny, 200M and no evidence of any wrongdoing. But she's a Bond villain so clearly there wasn't anything that wasn't for sale.

Funny, 200M and no evidence of any wrongdoing. But she's a Bond villain so clearly there wasn't anything that wasn't for sale.

Just an incredible list of "coincidences" .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just an incredible list of "coincidences" .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It's astonishing to think that a global humanitarian organization would cross paths with the US government department responsible for international relations.

How can this be?

It's astonishing to think that a global humanitarian organization would cross paths with the US government department responsible for international relations.

How can this be?

You have the same condescending arrogance that she has .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, Paul S, WDMSO -

Can we get back to my original post?

Harvard University (which liberals like to say is a respectful institution) just released a study of 15 years of data, and concluded that there was zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings.




http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

And this study said "2. Armed and Shot by Police: Across Race/Ethnicity

The median probability across counties of being {black, armed, and shot by police} is 2.94 (PCI95: 2.23, 3.86) times the probability of being {white, armed, and shot by police}. The median probability across counties of being {hispanic, armed, and shot by police} is 1.57 (PCI95: 1.14, 2.09) times the probability of being {white, armed, and shot by police}." I believe that it is a larger sample then the 1 you focused on (which happened to be published by the New York Times. It is hilarious when I have posted other items from the NYT you have called it a liberal rag and have always claimed it is biased:rollem:)

Both studies use a sample size that are prob. too small and I didn't read the whole thing.

I earlier posted a link to follow up questions asked of the author of your posted survey.

What the author failed to take into account (and account for) was the fact that Blacks get stopped at a much higher rate than whites. Rep. Scott said he got stopped 7 times in 1 year.

If a Black is stopped 2x more than a white on average but a White has a 20% less likely change to be shot than a Black, the Black person has a higher chance of being shot.

Regardless of any study, as I said earlier, a lot of it is perception. Blacks get treated much harsher than Whites (which the study you posted clearly demonstrated.

Spence - I always have tried to give your views the benefit of the doubt and to see how the other side looks at issues. But I don't think I've ever seen you admit/acknowledge you might be on the wrong side of any issue. I can't say that about any other members here.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

And this study said "2. Armed and Shot by Police: Across Race/Ethnicity

The median probability across counties of being {black, armed, and shot by police} is 2.94 (PCI95: 2.23, 3.86) times the probability of being {white, armed, and shot by police}. The median probability across counties of being {hispanic, armed, and shot by police} is 1.57 (PCI95: 1.14, 2.09) times the probability of being {white, armed, and shot by police}." I believe that it is a larger sample then the 1 you focused on (which happened to be published by the New York Times. It is hilarious when I have posted other items from the NYT you have called it a liberal rag and have always claimed it is biased:rollem:)

Both studies use a sample size that are prob. too small and I didn't read the whole thing.

I earlier posted a link to follow up questions asked of the author of your posted survey.

What the author failed to take into account was the fact that Blacks get stopped at a much higher rate than whites. Rep. Scott said he got stopped 7 times in 1 year.

If a Black is stopped 2x more than a white on average but a White has a 20% less likely change to be shot than a Black, the Black person has a higher chance of being shot.

Regardless of any study, as I said earlier, a lot of it is perception. Blacks get treated much harsher than Whites (which the study you posted clearly demonstrated.

"It is hilarious when I have posted other items from the NYT you have called it a liberal rag "

It is a liberal rag. But this wasn't an editorial, it was a data study done by Harvard. Two very different things.

"Both studies use a sample size that are prob. too small "

Could be. But what facts does Obama have then, when he says the cops shooting black kids are not isolated incidents?

"Blacks get stopped at a much higher rate than whites"

What I was talking about, what Obama was talking about (when he said they weren't isolated incidents)and what Black Lives Matter is stalking about, are shootings.

"Rep. Scott said he got stopped 7 times in 1 year. "

That indicates exactly nothing. Maybe he drives like a lunatic. You say the Harvard sample was too small, but a sample size of one is enough to draw conclusions from?

"the Black person has a higher chance of being shot."

Not what the Harvard professor concluded, but what does he know.

"a lot of it is perception"

Very true. And the perception has been distorted, intentionally, for political gain.

"Blacks get treated much harsher than Whites (which the study you posted clearly demonstrated"

And that needs to be addressed. But the study showed that blacks are not getting shot in disproportionate numbers. Meaning, Black Lives Matter has no purpose, which all rational people already knew.

Funny, 200M and no evidence of any wrongdoing. But she's a Bond villain so clearly there wasn't anything that wasn't for sale.

Like blaming her for Melania's plagerism.

Like blaming her for Melania's plagerism.

I noticed Melanie didn't plagiarize the line " , “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like blaming her for Melania's plagerism.
That was brilliant...now he should resign as campaign manager.

Spence - I always have tried to give your views the benefit of the doubt and to see how the other side looks at issues. But I don't think I've ever seen you admit/acknowledge you might be on the wrong side of any issue. I can't say that about any other members here.
My job is to offer perspective, not cave to non-believers.

My job is to offer perspective, not cave to non-believers.

Lol ... Is that what you are, a believer ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lol ... Is that what you are, a believer ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Faith in the truth.

Faith in the truth.

Blind faith over truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Blind faith over truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That's the problem, some of you simply can't process information.

That's the problem, some of you simply can't process information.

Well ..you know ...a lot of it got deleted
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well ..you know ...a lot of it got deleted
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Anything of consequence? Didn't think so.

8 Investigations and an FBI director who says she didn't commit a crime and you're going to hang on to what you want to believe.

Worse, you're going to try and elect someone who clearly has narcissistic personality disorder into the most powerful position on the planet.

How can this be?

My job is to offer perspective, not cave to non-believers.

So admitting that Hilary lied about coming under sniper fire, would be....caving??

Oh man...

I thought about this. You don't think she lied about this. Which necessarily means that you think she actually believes she came under sniper fire...which necessarily means she is a lunatic.

She's either a liar, or a lunatic, what does your perspective tell you is the case? Please inform us non-believers.

Worse, you're going to try and elect someone who clearly has narcissistic personality disorder into the most powerful position on the planet.

How can this be?

Think of it as Obamas third term, that'll make you feel better when it happens
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the problem, some of you simply
won't buy into my bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.

fixed it

Faith in the truth.

So Hilary told the truth when:

she said that the GOP was framing Bill to make it look like he was cheating

she said she came under sniper fire

she said she turned over all her work emails (except the thousands that the FBI had to find)

Trump is a narcissist, no doubt. I can admit that. Can you admit that Hilary has told these lies?

You are a radical ideologue who denies all fact that don't serve your agenda.

Anything of consequence? Didn't think so.

How do you know this? Is your "faith in the truth" being applied here, or are you just doing your job of providing spin?

8 Investigations and an FBI director who says she didn't commit a crime and you're going to hang on to what you want to believe.

Did he actually say that she didn't commit a crime, or that despite some evidence of criminal activity, given all the other factors involved, the FBI would not recommend prosecution for mishandling classified information.

Worse, you're going to try and elect someone who clearly has narcissistic personality disorder into the most powerful position on the planet.

"Clearly"? Has the FBI investigated Trump's "personality disorder"? Has anybody, any "experts," actually tested and analyzed Mr. Trump under clinical conditions to determine that he has some dangerous disorder which should eliminate him from leadership positions?

Is it redundant to say narcissistic personality disorder if narcissism is already a disorder? Or is narcissism only a disorder if it prevents one from positively functioning in society?

How can this be?

How can Trump's dangerous "disorder" be, if he has so successfully functioned in society, in business, and now has managed to become the Republican Presidential nominee?

Is Mr. Trump's reputed narcissism worse than Hilary's . . . or any other politician? Or any worse than yours? You seem to be in love with your version of "faith in truth," and your job of providing spin, and your penchant for making smug observations and casting unsubstantiated opinions. Oh, that's right . . . you're not running for President. You're allowed to be a narcissist. And your disorder isn't hurting anyone . . . just annoying . . .

Jeff can really be a tool, but he thinks he is clever enough to get away with it without looking like a tool. He is more than a little self absorbed but did sell me some Heddy when I really wanted some so I offer my benefit of doubt as restitution. Keep chugging along Spence!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So Hilary told the truth when:

she said that the GOP was framing Bill to make it look like he was cheating

she said she came under sniper fire

she said she turned over all her work emails (except the thousands that the FBI had to find)

Trump is a narcissist, no doubt. I can admit that. Can you admit that Hilary has told these lies?

You are a radical ideologue who denies all fact that don't serve your agenda.
We've covered all this previously.

We've covered all this previously.

Pardon me, no sir. I have never asked you (because the FBI hadn't confirmed it) about the fact that she said she turned over all her work emails (when the FBI said there were thousands she didn't turn over).

On the sniper thing, the most you ever admitted to me, is that you don't think she lied. We never went further than that. Let's do that now, if you have the honesty?

If you don't think she lied, that necessarily means that you think she believes it really happened. Which necessarily means she is a lunatic.

If lying like that means that Brian Williams isn't fir to read the news off a teleprompter (which any monkey can do), how can it not mean she's unfit to be POTUS?

I think the way FOX and the GOP have exploited her grief is nothing short of astonishingly shameful.

And when your side was parading Cindy Sheehan around, I presume you found that just as appalling?

Pardon me, no sir. I have never asked you (because the FBI hadn't confirmed it) about the fact that she said she turned over all her work emails (when the FBI said there were thousands she didn't turn over).
Yes, we covered this...as Comey said...

"I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed."

So clearly her attorneys didn't turn over the additional emails because they didn't know they were there.

On the sniper thing, the most you ever admitted to me, is that you don't think she lied. We never went further than that. Let's do that now, if you have the honesty?

If you don't think she lied, that necessarily means that you think she believes it really happened. Which necessarily means she is a lunatic.
As I've said before, there were reports of sniper fire previously, the plane did use evasive maneuvers and I believe they even wore protective vests. The point was that being Sec State did put her into dangerous situations. Perhaps as she just said it was a bad recollection or some dramatization for effect...but in the realm of political stump speeches is pretty insignificant.

As has been noted before, the fact checkers give Clinton exceptional marks.

Yes, we covered this...as Comey said...

"I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed."

So clearly her attorneys didn't turn over the additional emails because they didn't know they were there.


As I've said before, there were reports of sniper fire previously, the plane did use evasive maneuvers and I believe they even wore protective vests. The point was that being Sec State did put her into dangerous situations. Perhaps as she just said it was a bad recollection or some dramatization for effect...but in the realm of political stump speeches is pretty insignificant.

As has been noted before, the fact checkers give Clinton exceptional marks.

"some dramatization for effect"

And that differs from a lie, how, exactly?

The point was that being Sec State did put her into dangerous situations.

Which makes you wonder why she wouldn't try harder to keep her calendar and e-mails secure.....

The point was that being Sec State did put her into dangerous situations. .

Then why didn't she say, "as secstate, I went to some dangerous places"? No one would deny that. That's not even close to what she said.

She said that on a very specific trip, she was shot at by a sniper and had to dive into a waiting hummer.

How is her lie supposed to make the troops feel, who were crawling around in the woods, risking their lives, making sure there was no sniper? Because that's how the lie came out. An army officer went on Foxnews the night after her lie, and said "I was there, I met her at the runway, there was no sniper", and someone found the video.

"Perhaps as she just said it was a bad recollection "

Bullsh*t, and you know it. No one has that bad of a recollection. No one confuses working a rope line, shaking hands, posing for pictures...with getting shot at by a sniper.

Why did Brian Williams get suspended, Spence? Didn't he do the same exact thing?

I've said it before, it's really a shame that you weren't there to apologize for Hitler in 1940. I've had golden retrievers that weren't as blindly devoted to me, as you are to any Democrat. You literally are incapable of criticizing her.

As has been noted before, the fact checkers give Clinton exceptional marks.



:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

Originally Posted by spence
The point was that being Sec State did put her into dangerous situation


Not as dangerous as being say an Ambassador to say Lybia. What a hell hole that was
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence
The point was that being Sec State did put her into dangerous situation


Not as dangerous as being say an Ambassador in Bengazi . What a hell hole that was
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence
The point was that being Sec State did put her into dangerous situation


Not as dangerous as being say an Ambassador to say Lybia. What a hell hole that was
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Correction I meant first lady.

And Amb Stevens used to jog around Benghazi with no security.

And Amb Stevens used to jog around Benghazi with no security.

Yeah . . . that turned out well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
And Amb Stevens used to jog around Benghazi with no security.


Yeah . . . that turned out well.


he was probably told and believed "Isis is on the run" or something...

interesting, colorfully written article....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-waggaman/hillary-clinton-turned-nation-into-isis-safe-haven_b_9571956.html

Correction I meant first lady.

And Amb Stevens used to jog around Benghazi with no security.

And dozens of letters from him begging for more security before he was killed, just doesn't quite fit your narrative does it ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps as she just said it was a bad recollection .

Do you genuinely believe that is a possibility? Do you genuinely believe that one can misremember whether an arrival at an airport was met by smiling children giving you flowers (which is what happened), or whether you were met by sniper fire?

It's like me misremembering that I was mauled by a tiger, or misremembering the weekend I spent in Bora Bora with Kate Upton and we forgot to bring any clothes.

Is Mr. Trump's reputed narcissism worse than Hilary's . . . or any other politician?
I don't think Hillary would really classify as a narcissist. Trump is the poster child...Even Jim agrees here.

Which makes you wonder why she wouldn't try harder to keep her calendar and e-mails secure.....
I think she'd agree with you.

I don't think Hillary would really classify as a narcissist. Trump is the poster child...Even Jim agrees here.

you are drowning in the deep end of the pool....:uhuh:

you are drowning in the deep end of the pool....:uhuh:
Do you know what the word means?

Do you know what the word means?

I'd be happy to throw you an anchor :biglaugh:

Do you know what the word means?

One who makes everything about them selfs . That is the definition of what Hillary does . Exactly what Obama does ( the "I" President " and the opposite of why Trump is running for President.
Hillary needs to win to save her ass .
Trump wants to win to try to correct the damage from Hillary and Obama.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pretty spot on

Hotchkiss identified what she called the seven deadly sins of narcissism:

Hillary= Shamelessness: Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways.

Hillary= Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect, using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others.

Hillary=Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.

Hillary=Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person's ability by using contempt to minimize the other person.

Hillary=Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.

Hillary= Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other person is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed.

Hillary=Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist, there is no boundary between self and other.


classic case

I don't think Hillary would really classify as a narcissist. Trump is the poster child...Even Jim agrees here.

Trump is a world-class narcissist. Just so you know, that's what it looks like when a fair-minded person admits fault in a politician in their party.

Obama is also a narcissist...remember his inauguration? Something like, let today be remembered as the day the planet began to heal and the waters stopped rising!!! Trump has nothing on him when it comes to narcissism...

I wouldn't call Hilary a narcissist...I would call her a morally bankrupt, compulsive liar, who is married to, defended, and enabled, a predator. She also attacked his victims. That was after she claimed the GOP was framing Bill to make it look that way, of course...

pretty spot on

Hotchkiss identified what she called the seven deadly sins of narcissism:

Clinton doesn't really fit most of these. How can you claim someone who dedicates their life's work to helping women and children lacks empathy? How can someone who's known for operational execution be guilty of magical thinking? Who does she envy?

Doesn't add up.

Jim, did you note in the spirit of your original thread the shooter is a US Marine with PTSD?

Clinton doesn't really fit most of these. How can you claim someone who dedicates their life's work to helping women and children lacks empathy? How can someone who's known for operational execution be guilty of magical thinking? Who does she envy?anyone who has more money or power than she does :p

Doesn't add up.

baaaahaaaahaaaaa :rotf3:...drowning in it you are

Arrogance no question

Shamelessness no question

Narcissists see themselves as perfect no question

a sense of superiority in the face of another person's ability by using contempt noone displays contempt for others better than her highness

Entitlement no question

Exploitation no question

Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries no question

Clinton doesn't really fit most of these. How can you claim someone who dedicates their life's work to helping women and children lacks empathy? How can someone who's known for operational execution be guilty of magical thinking? Who does she envy?

Doesn't add up.

Nothing you say adds up . It's like you live in a bizarro world where your every position and every statement is opposite of reality . I'm not sure what medication you are on but man are you in for a rude awakening when your prescription runs out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"known for operational execution"

that was freaking hilarious

Jim, did you note in the spirit of your original thread the shooter is a US Marine with PTSD?

I did. And I'd bet he was inspired by all the baseless rhetoric that comes from your side.

I also noted that NO ONE, anywhere, ever...confused a pleasant and peaceful reception, with getting shot at by a sniper and having to dive into a military vehicle. One doesn't mis-remember such things, unless one is insane.

Clinton doesn't really fit most of these. How can you claim someone who dedicates their life's work to helping women and children lacks empathy? How can someone who's known for operational execution be guilty of magical thinking? Who does she envy?

Doesn't add up.

"How can you claim someone who dedicates their life's work to helping women and children lacks empathy?"

What planet do you live on, exactly? Her LIFE'S WORK? Isn't she running for President? She's a plutocrat, a zillionaire. If she does charitable work, she is to be commended for that. But that is a side venture for her. Her life's work, is to get very rich, and to quench her thirst for personal achievement.

Let's not confuse her with Mother Theresa, OK?

Jesus Christ, you are out there in the Twilight Zone.

How can you claim someone who dedicates their life's work to helping women...

.

Helping women? What women was she dedicating her life's work to, when she attacked the victims of her husband's abuse, saying they were just out for money and publicity?

She is married to a predator, and you say with s straight face, that she dedicates her life to helping women.

Is that a joke?

Arrogance no question

"No. We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices ... Government has to make those choices for people." – Hillary Clinton


Shamelessness no question

"We came out of the White House not only dead-broke, but in debt. We had no money when we got there and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea's education. It was not easy." – Hillary Clinton


Narcissists see themselves as perfect no question

“We are the president.” -- Hillary Clinton


a sense of superiority in the face of another person's ability by using contempt noone displays contempt for others better than her highness

“I can’t worry about every undercapitalized business” — Hillary Clinton


Entitlement no question

"Put this (helicopter) on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!" -- Hillary Clinton


Exploitation no question

“Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” – Hillary Clinton


Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries no question

See Above

I love it, a bunch of out of context and/or single source quotes from anti-Hillary authors trying to make a buck.

Nice.

Glad to see everyone stiff focused on Hillary And the Donald remains unmolested .. still he has not provided a blue print on how he will Make America Great again .. or his Tax returns or how he will Heal the racial divide most claim that Obama created .. or providing theses answers to the american voter ... or will he say this is just more Political correctness .. and thats why he wont follow thru?:smokin:

Glad to see everyone stiff focused on Hillary And the Donald remains unmolested .. still he has not provided a blue print on how he will Make America Great again .. or his Tax returns or how he will Heal the racial divide most claim that Obama created .. or providing theses answers to the american voter ... or will he say this is just more Political correctness .. and thats why he wont follow thru?:smokin:

As opposed to 2008, when your guy's entire platform was "hope and change".

He needs to get more specific soon. It doesn't usually get specific before a convention for a challenger.

"or his Tax returns "

Are you as upset that Obama is blocking his academic records from being released?

The hypocrisy and double standard is amazing.

Glad to see everyone stiff focused on Hillary And the Donald remains unmolested .. still he has not provided a blue print on how he will Make America Great again .. or his Tax returns or how he will Heal the racial divide most claim that Obama created .. or providing theses answers to the american voter ... or will he say this is just more Political correctness .. and thats why he wont follow thru?:smokin:

Well we figured after 3 days of hearing how the country is doomed because Melania borrowed a couple of sentences (That Bitch!!!) for her speech....we figured we'd change focus for a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love it, a bunch of out of context and/or single source quotes from anti-Hillary authors trying to make a buck.

Nice.

Context, shmontext.....if you can talk to us in abstracts and "nuh-uhs".....we can dance around that thin line called context.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Glad to see everyone stiff focused on Hillary And the Donald remains unmolested .. still he has not provided a blue print on how he will Make America Great again .. or his Tax returns or how he will Heal the racial divide most claim that Obama created .. or providing theses answers to the american voter ... or will he say this is just more Political correctness .. and thats why he wont follow thru?:smokin:

He just got nominated .
One thing you can count on he won't throw a whole much of bull#^&#^&#^&#^& out there like Obama did . or completely pander to whoever group happens he to be speaking to like Hillary does .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One thing you can count on he won't throw a whole much of bull#^&#^&#^&#^& out there like Obama did . or completely pander to whoever group happens he to be speaking to like Hillary does .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm baffled by this post. Like even more baffled than I am by every one of Jim's posts when he's not agreeing with me.

I can understand (not really) why some may support Trump because they hate Clinton or are just obsessed with Supreme Court pics.

But nearly everything Trump says is pandering BS. He can change positions and contradict himself on a whim. It's his style, throw sand in everyone's eyes and dominate the headlines.

Buck is trolling.

Well we figured after 3 days of hearing how the country is doomed because Melania borrowed a couple of sentences (That Bitch!!!) for her speech....we figured we'd change focus for a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Come on, it was a PR stunt the media covered because it made them money.

Well aware of that.....but then there are those who aren't
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As opposed to 2008, when your guy's entire platform was "hope and change".

He needs to get more specific soon. It doesn't usually get specific before a convention for a challenger.

"or his Tax returns "

Are you as upset that Obama is blocking his academic records from being released?

The hypocrisy and double standard is amazing.

you mean this http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

jim you should try fact checking your inbox isn't serving you well PS hope and change some got more hope and some got more change so its all optics

Well we figured after 3 days of hearing how the country is doomed because Melania borrowed a couple of sentences (That Bitch!!!) for her speech....we figured we'd change focus for a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Honestly I saw the story once .. but have seen countless things on FB and here about it.. all from Conservatives leaners keeping it alive

I have a bigger issues with his kids and the appearance of influence they may have with dad over policy ...

you mean this http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

jim you should try fact checking your inbox isn't serving you well PS hope and change some got more hope and some got more change so its all optics
He said blocked not sealed, Obama won't let the public see them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Honestly I saw the story once .. but have seen countless things on FB and here about it.. all from Conservatives leaners keeping it alive

I have a bigger issues with his kids and the appearance of influence they may have with dad over policy ...
I have a bigger issue with the contributions the Clinton foundation got from foreign entities. I wonder if Hillary will have a problem with if she doesn't win....lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Honestly I saw the story once .. but have seen countless things on FB and here about it.. all from Conservatives leaners keeping it alive

I have a bigger issues with his kids and the appearance of influence they may have with dad over policy ...

It was the lead story the past two days on CNN.com, and it's still a story being kept alive there.

It was also kept alive on ABC and US news websites as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have a bigger issues with his kids and the appearance of influence they may have with dad over policy ...

Now you're just being a drama queen .
Did you have a problem with Hilary calling Chelsea and telling her the truth about Benghazi before anyone else in the Administration evidently had a clue ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was the lead story the past two days on CNN.com, and it's still a story being kept alive there.

It was also kept alive on ABC and US news websites as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It sure overshadowed Steve King's comments the same night...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you know what the word means?

This is a hilarious question coming from you--the classic morpher of meaning--the shifty shifter of context--the master of squishy words--the euphemistic apologist for "wrong doing"--the relentless deconstructer of logic--the pooh-pooher of history--the ultimate Progressive tool of Orwellian double-speak.

Do you actually care about meaning, or care only if it can be twisted to further a Progressive ideology or support a Progressive politician?

Here, you switch from "narcissist" to "narcissistic personality disorder," which are not the same. Just as you replace principles with values when you want to destroy the distinction and create a simplistic field of discussion which gives your preferred notions or your selected candidates a narrower possibility of being damaged.

You happily glom on to idiotic Progressive definitions of "racism" as in the U.N. definition which makes a list of words, ethnicity, national origin, descent, race, and others, implying a cognate relationship, which would be true if they were grouped under a separate heading with, possibly, its own adjectival form or cognate noun form. Instead, it makes them false cognates by applying the adjectival form of race to all the others in the list. So the adjectival form for ethnicity (ethnic), national origin (nationality), race (racist), etc., would, for all of them be "racist," and by extension the cognate noun form "racism." An analogy of a correct way of tying together a group of words such as red, blue, yellow, green, brown, for example, as true cognates would be under the heading "color." Instead, the Orwellian, Progressive, Spencist method of eliminating the inconvenient divergence of colors (meanings) into a more useful rhetorical tool to control behavior, let's say, to attribute the inflammatory characteristic of "blueness" to all "colors," one merely defines the adjectival form of all the "colors" as "bluish." Then red, yellow, green, brown all will be "bluish," so instead of having their own characteristics, they will all have its undesirable, destructive, highly inflammatory connotations.

This all, of course, is part of Progressive rule by whim, by "interpretation," by rhetorical manipulation. Control not by lessons of historical precedent, not by rule of law, not with language whose words have steadfast, distinct, meanings.

For it all to "work," the regulators must be "experts." They must be as "smart" and shifty as Spence. And let us not call them liars. They most assuredly will have a euphemism which absolves them of that kind of "wrong doing."

And one of the most popular Presidents, Bill Clinton, was a narcissist. He may have even had a narcissistic personality disorder. And, yeah, Hilary has narcissistic traits, as do most politicians. Especially in this day and age when they have far more power over the rest of us than the Constitution, which they routinely ignore, allows them to have.

So y'all got to get over the narcissism thing. They all do it.

And Trump, like Bill Clinton, has an open flare for living, an overt lust for life (as we know it in the U.S.A) which makes him a more emotionally attractive being to regular folks than the ideologically driven, bloodless moral narcissism (except when she gets angry) of Hilary.

If you allow yourself to step away from anti-trump spin, which is mostly hearsay and concocted denigration, you might actually see that he is less likely to damage the country than Hilary especially in nominating Judges--if you care about that. But, we seem to care more about personality. And we have bought into the Progressive desire to centralize power in the hands of the President. We tend to idolize and adore our candidates. In truth, they are not smarter, or better, than most of us.

We just allow them to be all that. Maybe we are dumber.

Now you're just being a drama queen .
Did you have a problem with Hilary calling Chelsea and telling her the truth about Benghazi before anyone else in the Administration evidently had a clue ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems you are confused on whats acceptable

a parent ( sec of state ) telling a child something like our embassy been attacked

and a child telling a parent ( possible potus)what they should and shouldn't do. about the embassy being attacked :huh:

It sure overshadowed Steve King's comments the same night...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


this one


"I'd ask you to go back through history and figure out where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you are talking about. Where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?" King stated.

Seems you are confused on whats acceptable

a parent ( sec of state ) telling a child something like our embassy been attacked

and a child telling a parent ( possible potus)what they should and shouldn't do. about the embassy being attacked :huh:

It seems you're confused , the first one happened, The second one is a made up hypothetical that you created in your head .
Do you have a problem with Bill Clinton being in charge of the economy , even though he's clearly lost his mind ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here, you switch from "narcissist" to "narcissistic personality disorder," which are not the same. Just as you replace principles with values when you want to destroy the distinction and create a simplistic field of discussion which gives your preferred notions or your selected candidates a narrower possibility of being damaged.
They are not the same but share a common root. Because someone has some narcissistic traits (we all do) doesn't make them a narcissist. When it becomes a controlling factor it may be a disorder which Trump certainly appears to have.

Great read here:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

If you allow yourself to step away from anti-trump spin, which is mostly hearsay and concocted denigration,
I don't know if you're just lying here or being contrary, regardless it's an irrational statement.

you might actually see that he is less likely to damage the country than Hilary especially in nominating Judges--if you care about that. But, we seem to care more about personality. And we have bought into the Progressive desire to centralize power in the hands of the President. We tend to idolize and adore our candidates. In truth, they are not smarter, or better, than most of us.
There's more to leading the country than nominating justices. I'm very concerned his personality lacks the very skills necessary to be President. If he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth one may wonder if he'd had any success at all.

There's more to leading the country than nominating justices. I'm very concerned his personality lacks the very skills necessary to be President. If he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth one may wonder if he'd had any success at all.

I'm more concerned that Hillary lacks the ethics , competence and judgment to be president. If she wasn't married to Bill Clinton we wouldn't even know who the hell she was
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If she wasn't married to Bill Clinton we wouldn't even know who the hell she was
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Before she even met Bill she had distinguished records at Wellesley and Yale Law. To claim her success is only because of her husband is pretty sexist...

They are not the same but share a common root. Because someone has some narcissistic traits (we all do) doesn't make them a narcissist. When it becomes a controlling factor it may be a disorder which Trump certainly appears to have.

It "certainly appears" that both Clinton's narcissism is a controlling factor. Yet, somehow, one was, and the other is "ghostwritten" to become great Presidents. Same can be said of other "great" Presidents of the past--both Roosevelt's, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ come to mind. They were all Progressives, BTW. Some fear that Trump may be more Progressive than Conservative.

Great read here:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

It's a very well-written article in the leftist New Yorker style. I marveled at how the basic criticisms of Trump can be laid to Hilary (in her own manner). Both Clinton's can be said to be "sociopaths" as he says about Trump. Books and articles as scathing as this have been written about Hilary.

Schwartz was " 'trying hard to find my way around' [Trump's] behavior that he considered 'if not reprehensible, at least morally questionable." Same could be said about Hilary, but with the emphasis on "reprehensible."

He says about Trump "The only thing left was running for President. If he could run for emperor of the world, he would." Same be said of Hilary.

He says "It was all [Trump's father's] political connections that created the [tax] abatement." That could be said of JFK's political (and personal) successes.

The article does seem to bear out that Trump is a master, at all costs including the truth, of making deals. And it has the validity of the liar exposing the liar. Except that if he was so successful in his lying, exaggerated portrayal of Trump then, how are we to trust that he is not lying and exaggerating now. The article does show that Schwartz is a lifelong social leftist who pretty much despises Trump. But that he also had a price. Does he have a price now? Is he creating "truthful hyperbole" now when he says that the end of civilization will occur if Trump gets the nuclear codes? So Trump will destroy the civilization that feeds his narcissism?

The article is pretty much, as you like to say, "old news." Of course, old news that you like is OK with you.

I don't know if you're just lying here or being contrary, regardless it's an irrational statement.

The current anti-Trump spin to which I refer is about what he said about his opponents, all of them whether in the race for the nomination or about various people who have said insulting things about him (like Rosie O'Donell). For the most part, he has reacted in kind

There's more to leading the country than nominating justices.

There shouldn't (constitutionally) be a whole lot more than that. But, as a Progressive, you view the President's role as a director of everything. A sort of elected emperor. The thing is, emperors can only be elected by a "free" people by tricking them. Hilary has her tricks, The Donald has his.

So, the important difference, at a time when Presidents have become too powerful, is the appointment of Justices who will reign in that power.

I'm very concerned his personality lacks the very skills necessary to be President.

To which "skills" are you referring? Skillful Presidents must know how to manipulate the "bully pulpit," and to trick their opponents into "deals" which will bring to fruition the President's desires.

If he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth one may wonder if he'd had any success at all.

Whatever spoon is in your mouth when you are born, the important thing is what you do with it. Many a silver spooner has accomplished little to nothing. Hillary was a silver spooner. Most Presidents have started with wealth. You're creating a fishy strawman.

The main difference between us is that you are content with continuing the expansion of government power, I am for devolving that power back to a freer people.

Before she even met Bill she had distinguished records at Wellesley and Yale Law. To claim her success is only because of her husband is pretty sexist...

"Distinguished records" as a student are nice, though very limited, successes. I think Buck was referring to success in the "real world," not the cloistered environment of a student's record in academe.

Before she even met Bill she had distinguished records at Wellesley and Yale Law. To claim her success is only because of her husband is pretty sexist...

Success? Perhaps
Infamy? Bill
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1104762]To claim her success is only because of her husband is pretty sexist...[/QUOTE

Also pretty true which is exactly why she is the poor representation of someone breaking the glass ceiling .
Do you think they would be worth 200 million without "public service "?
I have to say, how they pull that one off and havent been put in jail yet is one incredible achievement .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Success? Perhaps
Infamy? Bill
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
He certainly didn't help by staining a blue dress.

[QUOTE=spence;1104762]To claim her success is only because of her husband is pretty sexist...[/QUOTE

Also pretty true which is exactly why she is the poor representation of someone breaking the glass ceiling .
Do you think they would be worth 200 million without "public service "?
I have to say, how they pull that one off and havent been put in jail yet is one incredible achievement .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It's because She's a Bond Villain...you said it yourself.

"Distinguished records" as a student are nice, though very limited, successes. I think Buck was referring to success in the "real world," not the cloistered environment of a student's record in academe.
Most ambitious people I know who did exceptionally well in school ended up doing well as adults...and Clinton set a very aggressive trajectory.

[QUOTE=spence;1104778]Most ambitious people I know who did exceptionally well in school ended up doing well as adults...and Clinton set a very aggressive trajectory.[/QUOTE

Too bad she took the Bernie Madoff route
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1104762]

Do you think they would be worth 200 million without "public service "?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

funny how "dedicating your life to public service" and starting a "charity" can make you 200 million.....huh?

[QUOTE=spence;1104778]Most ambitious people I know who did exceptionally well in school ended up doing well as adults...and Clinton set a very aggressive trajectory.[/QUOTE

Too bad she took the Bernie Madoff route
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Evidence your accusations or they are just puffery.

[QUOTE=buckman;1104787]
Evidence your accusations or they are just puffery.

200 million dollars and no tangible product or service produced .
Puffery lmao
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1104795]

200 million dollars and no tangible product or service produced .
Puffery lmao
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Baseless. You have nothing...

[QUOTE=buckman;1104796]
Baseless. You have nothing...

Well what did they produce that they will admit or that there is evidence to, as you like to say ? 200 million is a lot of cake for nothing , don't you agree ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1104797]

Well what did they produce that they will admit or that there is evidence to, as you like to say ? 200 million is a lot of cake for nothing , don't you agree ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
They produced...speeches. Check the going rate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=buckman;1104798]
They produced...speeches. Check the going rate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Any chance you could provide me with a transcript or some other tangible proof 😁
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=buckman;1104798]
They produced...speeches. Check the going rate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really???? That's your humanitarian??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just said hi to Tim Kaine and wished him the best of luck. Newport is great
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I told him I was from Sb.com. He said you guys are crazy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1104801]

Really???? That's your humanitarian??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Point?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just said hi to Tim Kaine and wished him the best of luck. Newport is great
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I call the ticket...Kaine and Fable.

Ba-dum-bum-pssh...

I like Kaine, from what I can tell.

[QUOTE=The Dad Fisherman;1104803]
Point?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd make speeches for half that......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1104808]

I'd make speeches for half that......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and you'd be far more interesting and palatable than Shillery...like nails on a chalkboard that one :confused:

[QUOTE=The Dad Fisherman;1104811]

and you'd be far more interesting and palatable than Shillery...like nails on a chalkboard that one :confused:

Free market.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Free market.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she's only in favor of the free market when it's cramming money into her pantsuit pockets

[QUOTE=scottw;1104812]

Free market.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or diabolical racket . There is no known value for a speech, unless it is actually the cost for a service to be rendered . Probably all right there in the emails...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=scottw;1104812]

Free market.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


So when she benefits from the free market, that's harmless, even commendable you'd say. Yet her and her pals Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders shriek endlessly about how unfair and rigged that free market is. But as soon as she strikes it rich, that same market is OK.

she's only in favor of the free market when it's cramming money into her pantsuit pockets

God damn right. It's only sinister, I guess, when Republicans utilize the free market to break into the one percent. When she does it, she is to be commended. When a white guy on Wall Street does it, he must have stolen every cent from some poor person on his rise to the top.

It's ALWAYS "do as I say, not as I do".

Al Gore tells us to reduce our environmental footprint, yet he has some of the highest energy bills in his state.

Liz Warren says it's wrong to profit from student loans, yet it's OK for her to make 400k teaching at a university, funded by kids taking loans.

Bernie Sanders says the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes, yet while he earns 3x the average income, he pays a tax rate that is below average, because he utilizes those evil deductions that he claims to oppose.

The hypocrisy of these people has no bounds, and they have no shame.

funny I thought Conservatives where champions of the successful

The Bushes , Mitt Romney and now the Donald they support But the Clintons with little or no daddy money to start have made money Conservatives just say they stole it or sold influence .. WOW with out anything to support the claim its typical Conservative play book facts dont matter :bs: carries more weight .

you just cant make this stuff up like they do they just regurgitate the same line over and over and over

God damn right. It's only sinister, I guess, when Republicans utilize the free market to break into the one percent. When she does it, she is to be commended. When a white guy on Wall Street does it, he must have stolen every cent from some poor person on his rise to the top.

It's ALWAYS "do as I say, not as I do".

Al Gore tells us to reduce our environmental footprint, yet he has some of the highest energy bills in his state. so he should live in a tent

Liz Warren says it's wrong to profit from student loans, yet it's OK for her to make 400k teaching at a university, funded by kids taking loans.
so she should live in a teepee

Bernie Sanders says the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes, yet while he earns 3x the average income, he pays a tax rate that is below average, because he utilizes those evil deductions that he claims to oppose.so he shouldn't pay whats required by law

The hypocrisy of these people has no bounds, and they have no shame.


your hypocrisy has no bounds or shame fixed it for you.. your the most Mypotic prolific poster please stop the faux outrage

You want hypocrisy bring up Pres. Obama's use of a teleprompter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You want hypocrisy bring up Pres. Obama's use of a teleprompter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would put that just above terrorism and below climate change as the most important issues facing America .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where does Melania's plagiarism rankand Paul manafort lying and trying to blame Hillary rank on your sliding scale?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where does Melania's plagiarism rankand Paul manafort lying and trying to blame Hillary rank on your sliding scale?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not on it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was sort of surprised that the right was so dismissive of the plagiarism and outright lies. I guess back to what Obama's preacher said 10 years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was sort of surprised that the right was so dismissive of the plagiarism and outright lies. I guess back to what Obama's preacher said 10 years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You didn't even listen to her speech who are you kidding , not that I will listen to Hillarys First Ladies speech either .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was sort of surprised that the right was so dismissive of the plagiarism and outright lies. I guess back to what Obama's preacher said 10 years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What outright lies?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What outright lies?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Melania saying that she wrote the speech herself. Paul manafort saying there was no plagiarism. Paul manafort blaming Hillary. The other thing that I find hilarious is that it was done by the wife of the candidate who has long tried to deligitmitize Michelle's husband. If they just came out with the story that ultimately came out you would still laugh at it but the story would be over. Instead they come up with a bunch of lies and attack attack
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She said she wrote it WITH as little help as possible so that is not a lie.

Seeing as you didn't post any source I consider the rest of your post to just be your opinion or just propaganda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Melania saying that she wrote the speech herself. Paul manafort saying there was no plagiarism. Paul manafort blaming Hillary. The other thing that I find hilarious is that it was done by the wife of the candidate who has long tried to deligitmitize Michelle's husband. If they just came out with the story that ultimately came out you would still laugh at it but the story would be over. Instead they come up with a bunch of lies and attack attack
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was a #^&#^&#^&#^&show.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was a #^&#^&#^&#^&show.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Compared to the well choreographed decision on Hillary being the Democratic nominee before the people even got to cast a vote.
https://gma.yahoo.com/video/leaked-dnc-emails-threaten-party-232011026.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was a #^&#^&#^&#^&show.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Will the DNC use subtitles, a translator, or just leave a large amount of Americans in the dark?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Compared to the well choreographed decision on Hillary being the Democratic nominee before the people even got to cast a vote.
https://gma.yahoo.com/video/leaked-dnc-emails-threaten-party-232011026.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So the RNC has always been for Trump they never sided with a certain candidate and gave him a fair shake

popular vote clinton sander
RCP Total - 15,805,136 12,029,699 Clinton +3,775,437

trump cruz kasich
Popular Vote Total - 13,300,472 7,637,262 4,165,281

rubio
3,481,610 Trump +5,663,210

the person with the most votes won in both partys ... thats how it works

So 27,834.835 voted in the Dem primaries

28,584.544 voted in GOP primaries looks like a dead heat

So the RNC has always been for Trump they never sided with a certain candidate and gave him a fair shake

popular vote clinton sander
RCP Total - 15,805,136 12,029,699 Clinton +3,775,437

trump cruz kasich
Popular Vote Total - 13,300,472 7,637,262 4,165,281

rubio
3,481,610 Trump +5,663,210

the person with the most votes won in both partys ... thats how it works

So 27,834.835 voted in the Dem primaries

28,584.544 voted in GOP primaries looks like a dead heat

this is not complicated...

Hillary was the establishment pick....the dem establishment did everything in their power to ensure Hillary would become the nominee and were successful...the dem party is a totalitarian state run by entrenched thugs and criminals

BREAKING(CNN)The head of the Democratic National Committee will not speak at the party's convention next week, a decision reached by party officials Saturday after emails surfaced that raised questions about the committee's impartiality during the Democratic primary.

Trump was not the establishment pick...far from it.....the rep establishment did everything in their power to ensure Trump would not become the nominee and were unsuccessful


you can choose the Washington establishment candidate indebted to Wall Street, Unions, Special Interests, Foreign Interests, the establishment and continue business, corruption, debt and unsustainable paths as usual...and apparently more free stuff!!!

or you can choose someone from outside the Washington establishment who succeeded in securing the nomination using his own money for the most part and ignoring the beltway and media blowhards who insist on managing and directing American politics to their liking....it hard to tell how this might go but we know the alternative is not working and it's good to see that the rep establishment is losing absolute control over the direction of the party..Paul Ryan is in trouble...party leaders know that they are not untouchable


or you can simply not vote....

Where does Melania's plagiarism rankand Paul manafort lying and trying to blame Hillary rank on your sliding scale?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I suspect the bad behavior at the dem convention will quickly make everyone forget any blips at the rep conv......the disparate dem protest groups are preparing bags of urine and feces to hurl at each other throughout the week...we can only hope for 95 degree weather...."Welcome to the City of Brotherly Love" :jester:

She said she wrote it WITH as little help as possible so that is not a lie. Well if that was not a lie they later lied and claimed a speechwriter wrote it. And since everyone and their brother agrees it was plagerism, then it sounds like you agree Melania is guilty.

Seeing as you didn't post any source I consider the rest of your post to just be your opinion or just propaganda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Propaganda - :fishslap:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/19/melania-trump-republican-convention-plagiarism-michelle-obama

"In an interview with Matt Lauer of NBC, Melania Trump said of her speech: “I wrote it with a little help as possible.”

“There’s no cribbing of Michelle Obama’s speech,” Manafort told CNN, adding “there’s no feeling on her part that she did it.” Manafort suggested that she was simply using “words that are common words”.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/melania-trump-speech-michelle-obama-225794

"There's no cribbing of Michelle Obama's speech. These are common words and values that she cares about her family, things like that,” Manafort said Tuesday morning when asked by CNN anchor Chris Cuomo about the plagiarism allegations. “I mean, she was speaking in front of 35 million people last night. She knew that. To think that she would be cribbing Michelle Obama's words is crazy. This is once again an example of when a woman threatens Hillary Clinton, how she seeks out to demean her and take her down. It's not going to work"

It is hilarious that the part about integrity, hard work and honesty where plagiarized.

Propaganda - :fishslap:


It is hilarious that the part about integrity, hard work and honesty where plagiarized.

nobody cares..."move along" :hihi:

I agree, minor issue.

Let's talk about something really important like what Obama's priest said 10 years ago.

Propaganda - :fishslap:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/19/melania-trump-republican-convention-plagiarism-michelle-obama

"In an interview with Matt Lauer of NBC, Melania Trump said of her speech: “I wrote it with a little help as possible.”

“There’s no cribbing of Michelle Obama’s speech,” Manafort told CNN, adding “there’s no feeling on her part that she did it.” Manafort suggested that she was simply using “words that are common words”.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/melania-trump-speech-michelle-obama-225794

"There's no cribbing of Michelle Obama's speech. These are common words and values that she cares about her family, things like that,” Manafort said Tuesday morning when asked by CNN anchor Chris Cuomo about the plagiarism allegations. “I mean, she was speaking in front of 35 million people last night. She knew that. To think that she would be cribbing Michelle Obama's words is crazy. This is once again an example of when a woman threatens Hillary Clinton, how she seeks out to demean her and take her down. It's not going to work"

It is hilarious that the part about integrity, hard work and honesty where plagiarized.

Paul, you are saying that you are concerned with the moral compass of the presidential candidate's spouse? OK, shall we talk about Bill Clinton? Or will you admit the double standard?

Mrs Trump is likely a bubble brained, shallow, gold-digger.

Can you concede that Hilary's spouse isn't exactly anyone's idea of a pillar of morality?

Propaganda - :fishslap:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/19/melania-trump-republican-convention-plagiarism-michelle-obama

"In an interview with Matt Lauer of NBC, Melania Trump said of her speech: “I wrote it with a little help as possible.”

“There’s no cribbing of Michelle Obama’s speech,” Manafort told CNN, adding “there’s no feeling on her part that she did it.” Manafort suggested that she was simply using “words that are common words”.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/melania-trump-speech-michelle-obama-225794

"There's no cribbing of Michelle Obama's speech. These are common words and values that she cares about her family, things like that,” Manafort said Tuesday morning when asked by CNN anchor Chris Cuomo about the plagiarism allegations. “I mean, she was speaking in front of 35 million people last night. She knew that. To think that she would be cribbing Michelle Obama's words is crazy. This is once again an example of when a woman threatens Hillary Clinton, how she seeks out to demean her and take her down. It's not going to work"

It is hilarious that the part about integrity, hard work and honesty where plagiarized.

If it was the Democrats the speech writer would get a promotion just like Wasserman who was shown to be rigging the system against their own Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders.

Where are ALL THE outright lies since it seems you admit you were wrong about who wrote the speech?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul, you are saying that you are concerned with the moral compass of the presidential candidate's spouse? OK, shall we talk about Bill Clinton? Or will you admit the double standard?

Mrs Trump is likely a bubble brained, shallow, gold-digger.

Can you concede that Hilary's spouse isn't exactly anyone's idea of a pillar of morality?

No, I've said a couple times that I wasn't concerned with Melania. Frankly, I don't know why anyone cares about the spouse of candidate for the most part. I was more concerned with the lies that came out afterward and the attempt to blame someone (Hillary) who had absolutely nothing to do with the Plagarism.

I do think there are more important things to discuss - like what Rev. Wright said 10 years ago.

Where are ALL THE outright lies since it seems you admit you were wrong about who wrote the speech?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Have you not followed anything? Why would I admit something that is incorrect. You seem to not have the least bit of knowledge of the story.

No, I've said a couple times that I wasn't concerned with Melania. Frankly, I don't know why anyone cares about the spouse of candidate for the most part. I was more concerned with the lies that came out afterward and the attempt to blame someone (Hillary) who had absolutely nothing to do with the Plagarism.

I do think there are more important things to discuss - like what Rev. Wright said 10 years ago.

I'm not as concerned with what Rev Wright said, as I am with the fact that Obama embraced that hateful bile. If Trump said that a white supremacist was his spiritual mentor, that wouldn't concern you? It would concern me.

I'm not as concerned with what Rev Wright said, as I am with the fact that Obama embraced that hateful bile. If Trump said that a white supremacist was his spiritual mentor, that wouldn't concern you? It would concern me.

You have no proof he "embraced that hateful bile". It is your pettiness and hate. In the past I've provided you with quotes from people who went to the church who said he went off on his tirades, people would roll their eyes and laugh amongst themselves.

You have no proof he "embraced that hateful bile". It is your pettiness and hate. In the past I've provided you with quotes from people who went to the church who said he went off on his tirades, people would roll their eyes and laugh amongst themselves.

"You have no proof he "embraced that hateful bile".

I don't? Hmmm.

Obama called Wright his spiritual mentor, and said he wouldn't abandon Wright any sooner than he abandoned his grandmother. Meaning, Obama considered Wright as important to him, as his grandmother. And Obama, showing the courage of his convictions, stood by Wright. Until polling suggested that he'd be better off throwing him under the bus, so he did, but I digress.

Obama chose to have Wright baptize his daughters.

Obama chose to have Wright marry him and Michelle.

So either Obama embraced what Wright believed, or he wanted people to think he did, for political support.

Is there another option, Paul?

I'm voting for Trump. If we was some kind of minister, I wouldn't let him anywhere near my wedding or my kids' baptism.


"people would roll their eyes and laugh amongst themselves"

And then go back to that "church" the next week. Which means they agree with the message.

Nothing that you wrote proved Pres. Obama "embraced that hateful bile".

So you support Trump's racist views?

Nothing that you wrote proved Pres. Obama "embraced that hateful bile".

So you support Trump's racist views?

Right, Paul. Sure. Barack was offended by all that stuff. That's what he went to the church every Sunday for 20 years, and formed an obviously deep, close relationship with the man. You have to believe that Obama (despite how stingy his VP is) gave at least some money to that collection basket.

I don't like any of the idiotic things Trump says. Here's the difference between me and you, and between me and Spence. I can admit the true flaws with my party's nominee. You can't.

If Trump said that the folks at the Westboro Baptist Church were his spiritual advisors, you bet I'd come out against that. No one expects that kind of intellectual honesty from the left.

Have you not followed anything? Why would I admit something that is incorrect. You seem to not have the least bit of knowledge of the story.

Yes, I have followed it and don't see your supposed proof, sell that to the Democratic base.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, I have followed it and don't see your supposed proof, sell that to the Democratic base.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Melania said she wrote it with minimal help. Later the campaign said a staffer wrote it. Did you not see that anywhere?

What part did hillary have in this?

Right, Paul. Sure. Barack was offended by all that stuff. That's what he went to the church every Sunday for 20 years, and formed an obviously deep, close relationship with the man. You have to believe that Obama (despite how stingy his VP is) gave at least some money to that collection basket.

I don't like any of the idiotic things Trump says. Here's the difference between me and you, and between me and Spence. I can admit the true flaws with my party's nominee. You can't.

If Trump said that the folks at the Westboro Baptist Church were his spiritual advisors, you bet I'd come out against that. No one expects that kind of intellectual honesty from the left.

So do you support Trump's racist view or not? Seems like you ignored that question.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/20/politics/donald-trump-campaign-organization/
The Clinton camp who Hillary leads was the first to get the story out. I suppose Hillary played no part in the smear campaign against the other Democratic candidate in your opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/20/politics/donald-trump-campaign-organization/
The Clinton camp who Hillary leads was the first to get the story out. I suppose Hillary played no part in the smear campaign against the other Democratic candidate in your opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You need to read things a little slower so you can understand them a little better. The first person to get it out was a guy who tweeted it. I'll even post a link to help you understand.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/19/on-melania-trumps-plagiarism-a-laid-off-journalist-watching-in-an-l-a-starbucks-scooped-everyone/

Paul Manafort blamed Hillary - she had nothing to do with it.

At least you now seem to understand about the lies.

Edit- Even your own link showed that the first to figure out Melania plagarized was someone not associated w/the campaign. Didn't you even read your own link?

So do you support Trump's racist view or not? Seems like you ignored that question.

Where is your evidence that he has racist views ? I don't think he's a racist at all , I think you might be though
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So do you support Trump's racist view or not? Seems like you ignored that question.

I said I don't like any of the idiotic things he says. That would include anything racist.

Now, why would one go to a church for 20 years, if they didn't buy into the pastor's message? If Wright claims white people are bad, and the congregation chuckles (as you said), and then comes back the following week, that's OK with you? The proper response to that kind of racist hate, is laughter? Is that what you think? Because that's what you said.

A person of integrity would walk out and not go back.

You need to read things a little slower so you can understand them a little better. The first person to get it out was a guy who tweeted it. I'll even post a link to help you understand.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/19/on-melania-trumps-plagiarism-a-laid-off-journalist-watching-in-an-l-a-starbucks-scooped-everyone/

Paul Manafort blamed Hillary - she had nothing to do with it.

At least you now seem to understand about the lies.

Edit- Even your own link showed that the first to figure out Melania plagarized was someone not associated w/the campaign. Didn't you even read your own link?
Which link? If I wasn't so busy looking up your facts I may have caught that, where is it again?

Did the person get identified before or after Manafort made the comment about the Hilary CAMP pushing the issue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where is your evidence that he has racist views ? I don't think he's a racist at all , I think you might be though
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Classy

I said I don't like any of the idiotic things he says. That would include anything racist.

Now, why would one go to a church for 20 years, if they didn't buy into the pastor's message? If Wright claims white people are bad, and the congregation chuckles (as you said), and then comes back the following week, that's OK with you? The proper response to that kind of racist hate, is laughter? Is that what you think? Because that's what you said.

A person of integrity would walk out and not go back.

So you can support someone bc of some of his beliefs/actions and dislike others but won't understand someone doing the same.

I got it now. Thanks

So you can support someone bc of some of his beliefs/actions and dislike others but won't understand someone doing the same.

I got it now. Thanks

You say you think he is a racist yet he hires hundreds if not thousands of non-Caucasian people including women.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You say you think he is a racist yet he hires hundreds if not thousands of non-Caucasian people including women.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly. People that yell racist all the time are usually the ones dividing by race .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did the person get identified before or after Manafort made the comment about the Hilary CAMP pushing the issue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

IF the person who broke the story hadn't yet broken the story, how would Paul Manafort have know to make the comment?

And Hillary's camp did not push the issue.

Classy

There was a question there .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you can support someone bc of some of his beliefs/actions and dislike others but won't understand someone doing the same.

I got it now. Thanks

No you don't get it. Because liberals don't do what I do.

Paul, here is the difference. I can say out loud "Donald Trump is crass and can be a jerk. But I am voting for him because I think Hilary is evil."

I don't see anyone here saying "Hilary is a compulsive liar who married, and enabled, a predator of women. But I am voting for her anyway because Trump is worse"

That's not what most liberals say. The vast majority, deny that Hilary has issues with telling the truth. And they call her a champion of women's rights, and they do it with a straight face.

So I will ask you. Is Hilary a compulsive liar, or not? Spence says no.

She said Bill wasn't cheating on her, but that the GOP (via a vast right wing conspiracy) was framing him.

She said she was under sniper attack on an overseas visit, and refuses to concede that was a lie.

She said she turned over all her work emails to the FBI (except for the 3,000 they found on their own)

She said she sent no emails flagged as classified (except for the 3 she sent that were flagged as classified).

Have fun with that Paul.

Exactly. People that yell racist all the time are usually the ones dividing by race .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

His family has a long history of discrimination. The justice dept. sued Trunp over discrimination at his apt. buildings multiple times. He repeatedly retweets messages from White/Nazi supremacists.

Jim, face it you're a hypocrite. You can justify your actions but someone you hate won't get the same benefit.

IF the person who broke the story hadn't yet broken the story, how would Paul Manafort have know to make the comment?

And Hillary's camp did not push the issue.

You didn't answer the question.
If he didn't know the twitter connection who else do you think he would have suspected of making this a big issue? The most I will give you at this point is, he may have assumed incorrectly and voiced his opinion which isn't really a lie in my opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

His family has a long history of discrimination. The justice dept. sued Trunp over discrimination at his apt. buildings multiple times. He repeatedly retweets messages from White/Nazi supremacists.

Propaganda without a link to back up your opinion.
Never mind, as usual I did the work and found that was 43 years ago and a much different time in regaurds to the race relationships. Now how about posting those retweets so we can see what this is all about.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

His family has a long history of discrimination. The justice dept. sued Trunp over discrimination at his apt. buildings multiple times. He repeatedly retweets messages from White/Nazi supremacists.

The case was dismissed .
Hillary was a big supporter of Senator Byrd . An actual member of the Ku Klux Klan.
Does it bother you the DNC called an operation to recruit Hispanics , Operation Taco Bowl ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

His family has a long history of discrimination. The justice dept. sued Trunp over discrimination at his apt. buildings multiple times. He repeatedly retweets messages from White/Nazi supremacists.

His family has a long history of racism...the whole family is racist?
I have got to see you back that up.

Hillary has history of racism herself, need I remind you of her super preditor label she gave blacks?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/09/hillary-clinton-racist-top-5/

https://youtu.be/8k4nmRZx9nc
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, face it you're a hypocrite. You can justify your actions but someone you hate won't get the same benefit.

I think you are coming un-glued

I asked you if you were capable of criticizing Hilary as I did Trump - and you dodged completely, instead calling me a hypocrite.

I'll try one. Last. Time.

I will immediately admit that Trump is a boorish, crass, loud-mouthed jerk.

OK?

Now, can you concede that Hilary is a serial liar who denigrated the female victims of her husband's predation? Yes or no?

I called out Dems for being unable to criticize Hilary. You refuse to criticize her. In other words, you prove my point exactly. And you say I am thy hypocrite.

You hold Trump accountable for his flaws. You refuse to do the same with Hilary. And I am the hypocrite? So pointing out glaring hypocrisy, makes me a hypocrite, I see!

You didn't answer the question.
If he didn't know the twitter connection who else do you think he would have suspected of making this a big issue? The most I will give you at this point is, he may have assumed incorrectly and voiced his opinion which isn't really a lie in my opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Twitter Connection :hihi:

It is a lie. You're deceiving yourself. I've pointed out responses to your misunderstanding repeatedly. It blew up on Twiter. Hillary had nothing to do with it.

So the best you have is that Manafort's initial reaction was to blame Hillary for something he wasn't sure of? What a joke.

The case was dismissed .
Hillary was a big supporter of Senator Byrd . An actual member of the Ku Klux Klan.
Does it bother you the DNC called an operation to recruit Hispanics , Operation Taco Bowl ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-governments-racial-bias-case-against-donald-trumps-company-and-how-he-fought-it/2016/01/23/fb90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

According to this it was not dismissed. Do you have a link to a story stating it was dismissed?

You seem to have ignored all his tweets and comments (even Paul Ryan views his comments about the judge as racist).

Sen. Byrd was a racist who renounced his views and regretted his earlier votes/actions.

[QUOTE=ecduzitgood;1104993]His family has a long history of racism...the whole family is racist?
I have got to see you back that up.

/QUOTE]

See the other link -

The best you have is "the whole family" bc I never said the whole family? His father certainly had issues with renting to minorities.

I think you are coming un-glued

I asked you if you were capable of criticizing Hilary as I did Trump - and you dodged completely, instead calling me a hypocrite.Yes, I think you're a hypocrite on his bc your justifing your voting for him (supporting?) even though you don't agree with everything he says/does yet you can't apply that same standard to Pre. Obama.

I'll try one. Last. Time.

I will immediately admit that Trump is a boorish, crass, loud-mouthed jerk.

OK?

Now, can you concede that Hilary is a serial liar who denigrated the female victims of her husband's predation? Yes or no? I don't think she is a serial liar. Has she been wrong (who knows if they are lies or what. If you want to call them lies, you can.

I called out Dems for being unable to criticize Hilary. You refuse to criticize her. I criticize her plenty. Not my #1 Dem. candidateIn other words, you prove my point exactly. And you say I am thy hypocrite.

You hold Trump accountable for his flaws. You refuse to do the same with Hilary. And I am the hypocrite? So pointing out glaring hypocrisy, makes me a hypocrite, I see!

Every indep. fact checking org. says Trump has been more dishonest than Hillary (and more than every other Rep. and Dem. candidate and when I've pointed that out in the past you say something along the lines of "Who says they are independent?".

His family has a long history of discrimination. .

As opposed to the Clintons!

In 2008, Bill said that not long before, Obama would have been serving him coffee.

Hilary is a huge fan of Margaret Sanger. She won the Margaret Sanger award!

Both Clintons loved Robert Byrd.

Former Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright (segregationist) was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Clinton in 1993. In the ceremony, he referred to Fulbright as “my mentor.”

Another Arkansas segregationist, Orval Faubus, was another one of Clinton’s political mentors. Faubus was the governor who tried to stop the integration of Little Rock High School in 1957 by using the Arkansas National Guard. Integration occurred after President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, superseded Faubus and nationalized the Arkansas National Guard

Every indep. fact checking org. says Trump has been more dishonest than Hillary (and more than every other Rep. and Dem. candidate .

this needs to be fact checked :hee:


most polls show Americans believe Trump is far more honest and trustworthy than Shill...and that is actually what matters

Every indep. fact checking org. says Trump has been more dishonest than Hillary (and more than every other Rep. and Dem. candidate and when I've pointed that out in the past you say something along the lines of "Who says they are independent?".

So you 'don't know' if she was lying when she said she came under sniper fire at that airport? Have you seen the video?

Paul, correct me if I'm wrong. The only way she wasn't lying, is if she truly believes a sniper tried to shoot her. In which case she isn't a liar, she is a lunatic.

You say I am a hypocrite because I am voting for trump, even though I recognize his ethical lapses. Again, does that mean you don't admit that Hilary has ethical lapses? You agree with every single thing she has ever said or done?

I have yet to meet a perfect politician. I have to vote for somebody, I have to vote for the best available fit. Not sure how that makes me a hypocrite.

Neither you nor Spence can bring yourself to admit that she lied about the sniper thing. That is absolutely incredible to me. Is she blackmailing you guys? What do you think would happen, if you said out loud, "yes she is a liar, but I am voting for her, because I like her policies more than those of Trump". I promise, the world will keep spinning if you say that.

Every indep. fact checking org. says Trump has been more dishonest than Hillary (and more than every other Rep. and Dem. candidate and when I've pointed that out in the past you say something along the lines of "Who says they are independent?".

What I say about those studies, is that honesty is a tough thing to quantify. For example, Hilary says all the time that I am anti woman because I am pro life. She says that in just about every speech. Does that get counted among the lies? If not, then who cares what the study concludes? I mean, you can't take a random sample of 50 quotes and determine the % that are lies. You'd have to look at everything they ever said.

Take it from a professional number cruncher...it's not remotely reliable.

this needs to be fact checked :hee:


most polls show Americans believe Trump is far more honest and trustworthy than Shill...and that is actually what matters

Correct. He does better than her (more accurately, doesn't do as bad as her) in trustworthiness.

He's a jerk. She is a George Costanza-class liar. Two beauties.

So you 'don't know' if she was lying when she said she came under sniper fire at that airport? Have you seen the video? I said I didn't think she was a "serial liar". She acknowledged her lie, apologized and that is good enough for me. Same as I would have done with Trump on a few statements. However, his go on and on and on. I don't view every wrong thing that comes out of someone's mouth as a lie. 24 hour news cycle, their being tired, constantly being asked questions, everyone disecting every word, etc.

Paul, correct me if I'm wrong. The only way she wasn't lying, is if she truly believes a sniper tried to shoot her. In which case she isn't a liar, she is a lunatic.

You say I am a hypocrite because I am voting for trump, even though I recognize his ethical lapses. No, I'm saying you're a hypocrite for not recognizing someone can support someone even though they don't agree with 100% of what they do/say. Yes, you view that he has lapses but you can overlook some aspect bc you think the other aspects of him are better than the alternative. Again, does that mean you don't admit that Hilary has ethical lapses? You agree with every single thing she has ever said or done?Abs. not. I don't and have never agreed to everything any politition has ever done. I try to vote for whom I think will most likely support my positions.

I have yet to meet a perfect politician. I have to vote for somebody, I have to vote for the best available fit. Not sure how that makes me a hypocrite.

Neither you nor Spence can bring yourself to admit that she lied about the sniper thing. That is absolutely incredible to me. Is she blackmailing you guys? What do you think would happen, if you said out loud, "yes she is a liar, but I am voting for her, because I like her policies more than those of Trump". I promise, the world will keep spinning if you say that.

NM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-governments-racial-bias-case-against-donald-trumps-company-and-how-he-fought-it/2016/01/23/fb90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

According to this it was not dismissed. Do you have a link to a story stating it was dismissed?

You seem to have ignored all his tweets and comments (even Paul Ryan views his comments about the judge as racist).

Sen. Byrd was a racist who renounced his views and regretted his earlier votes/actions..


You really shouldn't use The Washington Post to back up your stories. Some of the emails have shown that they ran some of their stories by the DNC to be edited before being published. 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

NM

"I said I didn't think she was a "serial liar".

No, you said you don't know if she lied at all. "who knows if they are lies or what. If you want to call them lies, you can"

What do you call them, out of curiosity?

"She acknowledged her lie"

Where and when did she do that?

"However, his go on and on and on"

And so do her lies. Republicans hate women, blacks, gays, etc, etc, etc. All lies. Have you aver called her on that? You sure don't like it when I paint a large group with a broad brush. Have you ever criticized her for doing it?

I'm not saying I expect liberals not to vote for her. I am saying it would be nice if they'd hold her accountable for her actions, they way they do with Trump. And they don't. In this thread, you are bending over backwards to avoid saying she lied. If being tired leads her to think that a smiling child handing her a flower is actually an enemy sniper, what the hell is going to happen when she gets woken up in the middle of the night to deal with a crisis?

It was a #^&#^&#^&#^&show.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Any chance you are watching the DNC (Democratic national convention)...pretty good so far..lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

.


You really shouldn't use The Washington Post to back up your stories. Some of the emails have shown that they ran some of their stories by the DNC to be edited before being published. ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have a link to the case you said was dismissed? I'd be interested to know if the source I used was wrong.

"I said I didn't think she was a "serial liar".

No, you said you don't know if she lied at all. "who knows if they are lies or what. If you want to call them lies, you can"



Actually, I did say that in post 222 and 228.

Hillary Clinton has conceded that she "did misspeak" about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, blaming tiredness for a dramatic description that was shown to have been significantly exaggerated.

After initially dismissing the controversy over her comments as a "minor blip", she told a Pittsburgh radio station: "You know I have written about this and described it in many different settings and I did misspeak the other day. This has been a very long campaign. Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else."

I thought this happened 2 years ago. It was 1996.:)

blaming tiredness for a dramatic description that was shown to have been significantly exaggerated.



I could care less about her story but this is hilarious, when I'm really tired I tend to tell animated made up stories that never happened too, about supposed guns and sniper attacks and exaggerating fearing for my life in far away lands.........I mean...that's what most people "humans" do when they are tired ....right????

Tired...seems more in line with dementia.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary Clinton has conceded that she "did misspeak" about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, blaming tiredness for a dramatic description that was shown to have been significantly exaggerated.

After initially dismissing the controversy over her comments as a "minor blip", she told a Pittsburgh radio station: "You know I have written about this and described it in many different settings and I did misspeak the other day. This has been a very long campaign. Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else."

I thought this happened 2 years ago. It was 1996.:)

"Hillary Clinton has conceded that she "did misspeak" about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, blaming tiredness "

Yes that's what she said. And no rational person believes that. First, saying "I misspoke" is nowhere near the same as saying "I lied". What she did, is claim that she made an honest mistake. The problem, no normally functioning human being, ever, has honestly mistaken a smiling child handing you a flower, with a sniper shooting at your head. Second, as I asked before (and which you dodged, naturally), if being tired renders her unable to differentiate between a smiling child and an enemy sniper, how can you say she's fit to be POTUS?

Paul, give it up. You won't admit she lied, and no one believes that she made an honest mistake. No one confuses such things.

"significantly exaggerated."

As opposed to lied. Got it.

How do you guys say these things with a straight face, exactly?

I could care less about her story but this is hilarious, when I'm really tired I tend to tell animated made up stories that never happened too, about supposed guns and sniper attacks and exaggerating fearing for my life in far away lands.........I mean...that's what most people "humans" do when they are tired ....right????

Exactly. Anyone who has ever taken care of a newborn, knows what it feels like to be exhausted to the limits of human tolerance. I don't know any parent, whore tiredness led them to believe that the girl scout selling cookies at the door, was in fact an enemy sniper shooting at them.

It is beyond absurd.

But this is a perfect example of what I mean when I say this...it's almost impossible to be intellectually honest if you are a liberal. Look at Paul's posts...she misspoke and exaggerated, only because she was tired. He can't bring himself to just say what everyone knows to be true...that she lied. He can't just say, "she lied". But he has no problem telling us when Trump lies, and he won't accept "being tired" as a justifiable excuse when Trump does it.

The intellectual dishonesty, and hypocrisy, is staggering.

Exactly. Anyone who has ever taken care of a newborn, knows what it feels like to be exhausted to the limits of human tolerance. I don't know any parent, whore tiredness led them to believe that the girl scout selling cookies at the door, was in fact an enemy sniper shooting at them.

It is beyond absurd.

But this is a perfect example of what I mean when I say this...it's almost impossible to be intellectually honest if you are a liberal. Look at Paul's posts...she misspoke and exaggerated, only because she was tired. He can't bring himself to just say what everyone knows to be true...that she lied. He can't just say, "she lied". But he has no problem telling us when Trump lies, and he won't accept "being tired" as a justifiable excuse when Trump does it.

The intellectual dishonesty, and hypocrisy, is staggering.

You just can't fix stupid, especially when the person feels they are so superior to others.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You just can't fix stupid, especially when the person feels they are so superior to others.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But it works. As long as one has no reservations with being devoid of morals, then embracing the liberal ideology is quite effective as a political strategy. Here in my home state of CT, we have a very wealthy and educated citizenry. Yet everything is a mess, we are on the brink of insolvency, and we rank near the bottom of almost everything that can be measured, and people who work cannot flee the state fast enough. Yet the liberals get 99.98% of the vote every November. It's un-explainable.

There at the Democrat convention, you have the very people who were actively working against Bernie Sanders, telling the crowd to show them respect, and saying that the story isn't what was in the emails, but rather, who brought them to light.

Paul, give it up. You won't admit she lied, and no one believes that she made an honest mistake.Is it a wonder people ignore you and let you ask the same stupid question time after time after time. Go back and look at post 228. I said "she acknowledged her lie".
How do you guys say these things with a straight face, exactly?

And also just like I posted at 730 this morning about the "serial liar" statement. Your reading comprehension stinks - your constantly mis-stating what people say. Take your time and read things slowly.

Got any lies she said from 1995? - Petty

But it works. As long as one has no reservations with being devoid of morals, then embracing the liberal ideology is quite effective as a political strategy. Here in my home state of CT, we have a very wealthy and educated citizenry. Yet everything is a mess, we are on the brink of insolvency, and we rank near the bottom of almost everything that can be measured, and people who work cannot flee the state fast enough. Yet the liberals get 99.98% of the vote every November. It's un-explainable.

There at the Democrat convention, you have the very people who were actively working against Bernie Sanders, telling the crowd to show them respect, and saying that the story isn't what was in the emails, but rather, who brought them to light.
The Democratic party of inclusion apparently didn't want to include the other Democrat in the race.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And also just like I posted at 730 this morning about the "serial liar" statement. Your reading comprehension stinks - your constantly mis-stating what people say. Take your time and read things slowly.

Got any lies she said from 1995? - Petty

"who knows if they are lies or what. If you want to call them lies, you can".

That's an exact quote of yours. Am I mis-stating it? Am I comprehending it incorrectly? I don't think so.

The Democratic party of inclusion apparently didn't want to include the other Democrat in the race.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which, of course, is the only reason they have the superdelegates. So that the people who run the DNC, and not the citizenry they claim to serve, can decide who gets the nomination. How democratic.

I will admit, since my party shot ourselves in the foot with our nominee, it would be tempting to wish that the party heads would step in and override the folks and pick someone with a better chance of winning. But the man won fair and square. Somehow.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1105091

I will admit, since my party shot ourselves in the foot with our nominee, it would be tempting to wish that the party heads would step in and override the folks and pick someone with a better chance of winning. But the man won fair and square. Somehow.[/QUOTE]

The trouble is the party would've never put in somebody that would bring change to the system. A totally corrupt system that is run by both the GOP and the Democrats .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The trouble is the party would've never put in somebody that would bring change to the system. A totally corrupt system that is run by both the GOP and the Democrats .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agreed, but you have to win, before you can change anything. And it's harder to win, when your candidate is such a jerk, that he makes fun of John McCain's incarceration or Carly Fiorina's appearance, and he doesn't apologize until one of his handlers tells him to.

We are broken, and we need some fixin'.

Agreed, but you have to win, before you can change anything. And it's harder to win, when your candidate is such a jerk, that he makes fun of John McCain's incarceration or Carly Fiorina's appearance, and he doesn't apologize until one of his handlers tells him to.


Apparently, making fun of McCain made it easier for Trump to win. Maybe that's why he did it. To win. And then be able to change anything.

Nicey-nice McCain (except when he disparaged or "eviscerated", as you like to put it, anyone who disagreed with him) apparently didn't know how to win the Presidency. His machine makes it possible to get re-elected over and over in Arizona, but he maxes out at that point.

Maybe Trump understands the gutters that must be waded through in order to cross over into "winning" the Presidency.

Apparently, making fun of McCain made it easier for Trump to win. Maybe that's why he did it. To win. And then be able to change anything.

Nicey-nice McCain (except when he disparaged or "eviscerated", as you like to put it, anyone who disagreed with him) apparently didn't know how to win the Presidency. His machine makes it possible to get re-elected over and over in Arizona, but he maxes out at that point.

Maybe Trump understands the gutters that must be waded through in order to cross over into "winning" the Presidency.

Trump's antics allowed him to distinguish himself from the other 85 Republicans running, that's for sure. And in this brain-dead culture, that kind of bombastic behavior will win you some fans who will ignore a more mild mannered candidate. We'll see what effect it has in the general. Unchartered waters here. I don't remember a race where I found both candidates to be morally gross.

Who did McCain ever eviscerate?

"who knows if they are lies or what. If you want to call them lies, you can".

That's an exact quote of yours. Am I mis-stating it? Am I comprehending it incorrectly? I don't think so.

Yes, you are absolutely misstating it bc your are only quoting 1/2 of a statement (isn't that the type of sleazy stuff Breitbart does?) in an attempt to change the meaning and by doing that your implying I never said she hasn't lied. I started the statement by saying that "I don't think she is a serial liar". Anyone with any intellecticual honesty (or with any basic reading comprehension) would understand that didn't imply that I didn't think she never lied.

How petty is it of you to continue to discuss things that she said in 1995?

The trouble is the party would've never put in somebody that would bring change to the system. A totally corrupt system that is run by both the GOP and the Democrats .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you pls. post that link I asked about earlier.

Thanks