OK, so they had Muslim parents who lost a son in combat. For that, this family absolutely deserves all of our prayers, respect, and gratitude.

They were bashing Trump. As Spence is appalled at the GOP's exploitation of the families of those killed in Benghazi, I am sure he is equally appalled at what the Democrats did with this family.

The Dad asked if Trump has ever read the Constitution. And most of his comments were lies. No one, not even bereaved parents, has the right to lie to the country.


1. The Constitution grants the government the power to allow/ disallow immigration from anywhere in the world, or from everywhere. Perhaps this man never read it.

2. The Constitution only applies to legal citizens of this country. When Donald Trump says we need to suspend immigration from radicalized areas of the Muslim world (a proposal with which no sane person disagrees) that impinges on the "Constitutional rights" of exactly no one. NO ONE.

3. When the speaker asks if Donald Trump has ever been to Arlington National Cemetery, a fitting reply would be, "Yes, I have therein visited the many thousands of graves of brave American soldiers who were killed by radicalized Muslims in the name of Allah."

4. Note too the man's assertion that "Donald Trump smears the character of Muslims." Right. Trump has suggested that there is a serious global crisis with radicalization within that community. Whatever gave him THAT crazy idea?!

5. Sir, if you truly care about the character of the Muslim community, might I suggest that Islamic jihadists spraying bullets into crowds of innocent children shouting "Allahu Akbar" do far more damage to the character of the Muslim community than Donald Trump could ever hope to do.

6. Finally, and this is a personal observation not based in fact...note the crowd whooping and cheering for this speaker as he champions the cause of the first woman president, while his own poor wife stands there in enforced silence, her body covered up from head to toe by misogynistic decree. But MY SIDE is waging war on women.

Get help.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Get help.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did I say anything not true?

I recall back in 2012, Harry Reid made the claim that Mitt Romney hadn't paid any taxes for something like 10 years. It was demonstrably false, but Reid kept saying it, because he could find places to say it where he knew no one would challenge him - like Spence's house.

After the election, a reporter asked Harry Reid if he was sorry for saying things that weren't true. Reid said something like "no, why would I be sorry? We won."

That was the Senate Majority Leader.

Most liberals are incapable of admitting they are wrong, or that conservatives might be right about anything. When you don't have facts or common sense on your side, and all you care about is winning, you tell malicious lies to stir up your base.

It's almost all they do. And when I say "they", I don't mean folks here, I mean politicians and their rabid supporters.

No shame. None.

Spence, let me ask you a question...after you set me straight on my false belief that the Republicans passed the 15th amendment (since, you know, zero democrats voted for it)...can you straighten me out on something else? Here it is...where in the constitution does it say that we have to take in everyone, from anywhere? Because if it doesn't say that, then Trump's plan clearly doesn't violate the Constitution.

http://m.imgur.com/OzTlMyk
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did I say anything not true?

Most everything. I don't even know where to respond. You need help.

Most everything. I don't even know where to respond. You need help.

"Most everything"

Show me a couple.

"I don't even know where to respond"

I'm sure you don't. You can always fall back on your pattern of insulting and fleeing.

"You need help"

See my previous sentence.

Fact checking hillary's convention speech...:)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-democratic-convention-speech/ar-BBv1bLl?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=EIE9HP

She accuses Trump of fear-mongering, and she says "we will not ban a religion."

Sounds fair. Because that's as we all know, that's exactly what all Republicans are proposing. Right?

She isn't a fear monger because she really doesn't care what anyone thinks about her unless she is running for office. She wants 65,000 Syrian refugees to come here, so she apparently has no fear or concern for the citizens of this country.

By the way if she gets in, how close to $2 million dollars a year pension for life will the Clinton's receive?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By the way if she gets in, how close to $2 million dollars a year pension for life will the Clinton's receive?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Not very close.

Do you think Hillary took advantage of Bill being exempt from having to pay postage to further her campaign. I suppose he could send them out on her behalf and then the taxpayers pay the postage for her campaign mailings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

obama will get 400 thou a year plus exspences for staff etc:.....congress is thinking of reducing to 200 plus for next presidents plus monies for staff....:)

Not very close.

Bill got $950,000 for 2014 if I recall correctly GW got even more.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/bill-clinton-budgeted-to-receive-nearly-1-million-in-taxpayer-money-in-2014/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Retirement bennies for presidents run about $195,000 a year. So times two when Hillary is done if/when she is elected
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Retirement bennies for presidents run about $195,000 a year. So times two when Hillary is done if/when she is elected
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your absolutely right. I should have said how much in total benifits not just their pension.
In the link it also said he got $450,000 for office space.
I don't recall where but I also read that GW got 1.3 million in total.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Chairman and CEO of Verizon Communications
Salary US$18.2 million (2014)

or clayton Kershaw, 28, will earn $32 million in salary for the 2016 MLB season and an additional $800,000 through off-field endorsement deals with companies like Under Armour (UA) and


And Some guys have an issue with what the POTUS gets paid during and out of office or their speaking fees

with all the responsibilities that come with the Job what a lack of perspective

seems to me there is a tremendous difference between what Kershaw earns through his physical talents and performance or what a CEO earns by running a profitable company and what a politicians pillage while operating within a federal government that is around 20 TRILLION dollars in debt or state and local likewise, peddling influence and throwing around other people's money in order to remain entrenched seemingly for life....:uhuh:

anyone that has ever listened to a Hillary speech knows it's not worth a dime......her husband fell asleep during the most important speech of her life :rotf2:


PRAYING Trump constantly refers to her as "HACKERY" through the debates...pretty sweet double entendre there :hihi:

Chairman and CEO of Verizon Communications
Salary US$18.2 million (2014)

or clayton Kershaw, 28, will earn $32 million in salary for the 2016 MLB season and an additional $800,000 through off-field endorsement deals with companies like Under Armour (UA) and


And Some guys have an issue with what the POTUS gets paid during and out of office or their speaking fees

with all the responsibilities that come with the Job what a lack of perspective

You are applying relativism to unlike things. This gives you an avenue to "interpret" incorrectly. Same as what happens on the Supreme Court when Justices create an incongruous or false perspective and go off on their versions of making it right.

The private sector and the public sector differ in purpose and in method of compensation, just to mention one of the problems in comparing them.

The private sector, in matters of economy, strives to get a maximum monetary return for its efforts and production. This is dependent on market forces. And is most efficiently and justifiably achieved in a free market. Economically, the private sector's purpose is, largely, self-aggrandizement. And that is dependent on its ability to satisfactorily produce goods and services to the public. The interchange between the private sector and the public is, when done best, free.

The public sector, in matters of economy, and in a free society, strives to produce the maximum service for the least expenditure.

In private sector economy, income disparity is harmful only if it diminishes the ability of getting the maximum return. The high achievers, those who the public are satisfied to pay what it costs to buy their stuff, get the most, but will make it more difficult for themselves if they demand more than the market will bear.

In public sector economy, income disparity between public servants and public payers creates animosity and the appearance of corruption and despotism. This is especially so when the government becomes more dictatorial and there is less attention to what the "market," in terms of tax payers ability to pay, will bear.

The freer the market, the greater the possibility there is to increase the number of private sector entrepreneurs and employees. And the greater the possibility for satisfaction between buyer and seller.

The more regulated and closed the market, the more contracted is the possibility for number of businesses, ergo number of employees. But the greater the possibility for fewer and larger corporations whose potential competition is eliminated by government regulation. The more the market is regulated, the more fascistic becomes the relation between the public and private sectors.

And the more fascistic government becomes, the more it coerces, the more it shrinks the private sector, the more it takes, without consent, from the private sector to grow its own size and scope, and the more apparent becomes the lack of justification for income inequality in private and public sector economy in relation to the lesser quality and diversity that is produced.

The private sector must satisfy its customers or perish. It competes and, in a sense, goes begging for the public's money.

The public sector, especially the more despotic or fascistic it becomes, simply confiscates the publics money. The quid pro quo between buyer and seller in a free private sector does not exist between government and citizen. So the public tends to have issues with government salaries, as well as they do for corporate CEO's who get humongous compensation. And the public is especially angered when such politicians and corporate heads get there big money even if they fail.

But the dirty little secret is that the reason politicians can line their pockets with money (and big CEO's can excessively do so) is that, beyond taxation, the politicos get it from the gigantic corporations they help to create with competition busting regulations. And the Corporations are allowed the uncompetitive advantage given them by the politicos. They work hand in hand. Fascism. And the public is hoodwinked into believing that big government is fighting big business. They are buddies. One HYUGE public/private corporation.

Chairman and CEO of Verizon Communications
Salary US$18.2 million (2014)

or clayton Kershaw, 28, will earn $32 million in salary for the 2016 MLB season and an additional $800,000 through off-field endorsement deals with companies like Under Armour (UA) and


And Some guys have an issue with what the POTUS gets paid during and out of office or their speaking fees

with all the responsibilities that come with the Job what a lack of perspective

I have no issue with POTUS salary, but you can't compare. A private company employee gets nothing, unless a customer freely decides to give that business his money. In the pubic sector, they take my money with force of law, I go to jail if I refuse to give them my money. Big, big difference.

I have no issue with POTUS salary, but you can't compare. A private company employee gets nothing, unless a customer freely decides to give that business his money. In the pubic sector, they take my money with force of law, I go to jail if I refuse to give them my money. Big, big difference.


By this I assume you mean Taxes .. you think your money you use for your cable bill or phone bill isn't taken by Force, because of laws that protect these Monopolies which seek less regulation so they can charge you more, yet seek tax breaks or go offshore to avoid the Laws that you and I can go to jail for if we don't pay.. or force their employees to strike claiming there poor to fund healthcare pay raises or retirements then go buy yahoo $4.83 billion, cash ending the internet pioneer's two-decade run as independent company. these companies effect my monthly budget then any one or thing from public sector ... and please don't say we have choices living on or off the grid isn't a choice an American should be asked to do because of the greed of others

But the dirty little secret is that the reason politicians can line their pockets with money (and big CEO's can excessively do so) is that it, beyond taxation, the politicos get it from the gigantic corporations they help to create with competition busting regulations. And the Corporations are allowed the uncompetitive advantage given them by the politicos. They work hand in hand. Fascism. And the public is hoodwinked into believing that big government is fighting big business. They are buddies. One HYUGE public/private corporation.[/QUOTE]

I cant disagree with you on this part :btu:

And the public is hoodwinked into believing that big government is fighting big business.

this is the democrat(progressive) mantra....which is why it seems odd that democrats who understand and claim not to like the relationship would think that making government even bigger, more expensive and wider in scope...which is what the democrat nominee and every other before her is proposing(except when Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over:jester: he was probably being sarcastic )... would somehow think doing so could change the cozy relationship unless they believe if government gets big enough it could eventually run or at least regulate through stringent governmental control(fascism) all of these corrupt, bothersome businesses itself, making everything nice and fair for everyone....

this is the democrat(progressive) mantra....which is why it seems odd that democrats who understand and claim not to like the relationship would think that making government even bigger, more expensive and wider in scope...which is what the democrat nominee and every other before her is proposing(except when Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over:jester: he was probably being sarcastic )... would somehow think doing so could change the cozy relationship unless they believe if government gets big enough it could eventually run or at least regulate through stringent governmental control(fascism) all of these corrupt, bothersome businesses itself, making everything nice and fair for everyone....


thats not my quote thats detbuch take it up with him

thats not my quote thats detbuch take it up with him

you said you don't disagree with him...I think Detbuch and I agree conceptually ...how do you square support for someone promising to expand government's role, expense and power if you believe this is a problem....and how will bigger government alleviate the problems and cozy relationships that exist, particularly as we know they exist and have been exploited by the democratic nominee promising even bigger government ?

you said you don't disagree with him...I think Detbuch and I agree conceptually ...how do you square support for someone promising to expand government's role, expense and power if you believe this is a problem....and how will bigger government alleviate the problems and cozy relationships that exist, particularly as we know they exist and have been exploited by the democratic nominee promising even bigger government ?

Because I don't think Trump will shrink government and the GOP has never done it in the the past 50 years ... Its about having a stable Government and trump wont bring that to the table

...how do you square support for someone promising to expand government's role, expense and power if you believe this is a problem....and how will bigger government alleviate the problems and cozy relationships that exist, particularly as we know they exist and have been exploited by the democratic nominee promising even bigger government ?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/07/29/moodys-where-trumps-economic-policies-might-spark-recession-clintons-could-boost-gdp-and-lower-unemployment/#405934162348

After trumps rant about the muslim parents that lost thier son, he does not stand a chance to B president.....maybe he should have said he was sorry for the loss, that he was aganist the country getting involved, that hillary voted for it.

As far as dems saying he has done nothing for the country his rebuttal should have been that neither hillary nor obama did anything for our country....well, they R helping to destroy it....:)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/07/29/moodys-where-trumps-economic-policies-might-spark-recession-clintons-could-boost-gdp-and-lower-unemployment/#405934162348

I guess "might and could" can get you a long way....:hee:

After trumps rant about the muslim parents that lost thier son, he does not stand a chance to B president.....maybe he should have said he was sorry for the loss, that he was aganist the country getting involved, that hillary voted for it.

As far as dems saying he has done nothing for the country his rebuttal should have been that neither hillary nor obama did anything for our country....well, they R helping to destroy it....:)
He pointed out how Muslims treat women in situations like the DNC where they should remain silent. To say she didn't speak because she was still traumatized and in morning over her sons death 13 years earlier is just an attempt to hide the way Muslims treat women.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because I don't think Trump will shrink government and the GOP has never done it in the the past 50 years ... Its about having a stable Government and trump wont bring that to the table

how can you have a "stable" government that is 20 Trillion dollars in debt and growing??

I'm not sure where this idea comes from that conservatives and specifically Christian conservatives have any love or loyalty to Trump....those that might support so do so grudgingly from what I see.....his coalition is made up of loosely connected voters and his challenge will be to convince the conservative base that they need to show up and vote for him to thwart Hackery....that support is tepid at best

great article from a high profile #nevertrump guy that offers a ton of insight and is fairly entertaining

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/438525/print

After trumps rant about the muslim parents that lost thier son, he does not stand a chance to B president.....maybe he should have said he was sorry for the loss, that he was aganist the country getting involved, that hillary voted for it.
I thought making fun of the disabled reporter was his most shameful moment (with so many to choose from) but his calling out the mother was just reprehensible. I'd note Jim pre-empted it with his remarks in the initial post to start this thread.

Using bigotry to disparage the grieving mother of a US war hero. Nice job Jim.

So much contempt.

https://youtu.be/DUObFqU5cgE
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So much contempt.

https://youtu.be/DUObFqU5cgE
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I see, you're going to defend shamless anti-American and anti-Military bigotry with a video clip from a hearing that resulted in no new findings.

Perhaps you meant to respond with "yea, that's awful" but like Trump you got distracted by something shiny.

If Trump is willing to attack military families to score points I think that pretty much proves nothing is off the table.

What are you going to do when he comes after you? (this is semi-plagiarized but I can't remember who said it)

It is difficult to top the Clintons stealing whatever they could from the White house
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is difficult to top the Clintons stealing whatever they could from the White house
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I heard even the outlet covers and the janitor's share of the evening porridge. Is there no limit to their shame?

Here's another great one.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/31/politics/trump-elevator-rescue/index.html

Trump gets stuck in an elevator trying to get to a campaign event, first responders rescue him then he gets on stage and throws the fire chief under the bus.

Amazing.

I see, you're going to defend shamless anti-American and anti-Military bigotry with a video clip from a hearing that resulted in no new findings.

So many articles and quotes and videos have been posted or linked about who said what lately, that I don't read most of them. If you're referring to some Trump supposedly anti-American or anti-military quotes, I am baffled by how and when you actually believe what Trump says. If he says something that sounds good, or pro-American or pro-Military, well, Trump lies, is not trustworthy, is a narcissist or megalomaniac, or whacked. If he says something that can, by some, especially those who hate him, be considered negative or anti-something, well then he is being truthful and revealing who he really is.

Rather than casting his words from your perspective and bias, you might actually comprehend them better by reading them from his perspective and motivation. Sarcasm, for instance (as well as you should know) is not from-the-heart-sincerity or belief. But if you wish to paint everything he says by the light of your own bias and motivation, that will be applauded by your choir, but you will all miss how the other choir hears his words. So your off the mark remarks will not influence that other choir. And someone in between will think you're both koo-koo.

I don't think most fair minded, or objective people think Trump is anti-American or anti-Military. If anything, many consider him to be too nationalist or militaristic. I think even you have expressed similar notions.

And no new findings are reiterated by all on this forum, including you. Being not new is not being irrelevant. Of course, from your perspective and bias old stuff that you don't like ain't no good. If you like it, it is.

If Trump is willing to attack military families to score points I think that pretty much proves nothing is off the table.


Again, I don't know what Trump quote, or "attack," your referring to. I suspect, from your pattern of misrepresenting his words, they can be "perceived" differently than how you portray them. But what is "off the table" for Hillary? Politics is dirty. I think Trump's observation of how the political game is played sways his methods. It seems that "nice" guys have a more difficult time winning.

What are you going to do when he comes after you? (this is semi-plagiarized but I can't remember who said it)

Niemoller. And you are misusing his words. I thought we are supposed to stop calling everyone we don't like Nazis. But if we must, Hillary is no less so. What are you gong to do when she comes after you?

It's not about personality in this election. They both have a problem there. If we don't get off that track, the important issues will be ignored.

I see, you're going to defend shamless anti-American and anti-Military bigotry with a video clip from a hearing that resulted in no new findings.

Perhaps you meant to respond with "yea, that's awful" but like Trump you got distracted by something shiny.

If Trump is willing to attack military families to score points I think that pretty much proves nothing is off the table.

What are you going to do when he comes after you? (this is semi-plagiarized but I can't remember who said it)
I already addressed that but maybe you missed so to reiterate.
The mother of the soldier killed 13 years ago is a Muslim and she is doing what is expected from Muslim women in a situation like the DNC. They are to remain silent and let the men do the talking. It was the father talking about his son at the DNC and Trump didn't say anything disparaging about the soldier son.

Has far as trump coming for me, being born here to a family who has been here since before America was a country I doubt he is coming for me.
Hillary on the other hand wants me and my family to be defenseless.
Gun buy back or go to prison and have your guns confiscated anyway.

https://youtu.be/JctBYrIaKvY

The Australian model Hillary feels we should consider. The gun owners were offered upto $100 which doesn't seem like a fair compensation for guns that cost many hundreds or more since it included gun collections which people spent decades collecting or were handed down through the family over the generations. They didn't care if the gun was guilty or not had been fired or not it didn't matter they were destroyed never to be seen again.

https://youtu.be/s4r_iEtlPZc

Are the guns gone?

http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/22/australias-gun-buyback-created-a-violent


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I already addressed that but maybe you missed so to reiterate.
The mother of the soldier killed 13 years ago is a Muslim and she is doing what is expected from Muslim women in a situation like the DNC. They are to remain silent and let the men do the talking. It was the father talking about his son at the DNC and Trump didn't say anything disparaging about the soldier son.

Nice, good to know you can be wrong twice.

Go read her op-ed in the Washington Post.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/01/27/hillary-top-seven-out-of-touch/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nice, good to know you can be wrong twice.

Go read her op-ed in the Washington Post.

Why does your side always expect others to do the work for them?
You say it's there so why not post the link? Do you really think I want to do any research to prove you right?
Post the link it really isn't difficult.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why does your side always expect others to do the work for them?

Really lazy.

I think Trump's observation of how the political game is played sways his methods. It seems that "nice" guys have a more difficult time winning.



Trump is a cuddly puppy dog when compared to the Pit Bull viciousness and ruthlessness that the Clintons and their surrogates have displayed and engaged in over the years...I suppose their supporters feel it has all been perfectly justified as they feign indignation over every Trump comment and ourburst....

Niemoller. And you are misusing his words. I thought we are supposed to stop calling everyone we don't like Nazis. But if we must, Hillary is no less so. What are you gong to do when she comes after you?

It's not about personality in this election. They both have a problem there. If we don't get off that track, the important issues will be ignored.
A classic "non-post."

A classic "non-post."

THis is a post?

Is her secret service code name spence?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-claims-fbi-director-155339051.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=scottw;1105546]how can you have a "stable" government that is 20 Trillion dollars in debt and growing??


On Jan. 8, 1835, all the big political names in Washington gathered to celebrate what President Andrew Jackson had just accomplished. A senator rose to make the big announcement: "Gentlemen ... the national debt ... is PAID."

That was the one time in U.S. history when the country was debt free. It lasted exactly one year.

its been said time and time again our military has been conducting war time operations Since Sept 11th and not paid for all put on the National debt .. Its what Americans wants .. ( but have no idea on what it is costing the country nor do the care ) yet the Right loves to uses the debt as another tool of fear for votes and try to convince the public the debt has increased because of immigrants getting benefits and welfare ..
not because of the cost of war keeping them safe .. again fact dont matter

[QUOTE=scottw;1105546]how can you have a "stable" government that is 20 Trillion dollars in debt and growing??


On Jan. 8, 1835, all the big political names in Washington gathered to celebrate what President Andrew Jackson had just accomplished. A senator rose to make the big announcement: "Gentlemen ... the national debt ... is PAID."

That was the one time in U.S. history when the country was debt free. It lasted exactly one year.

its been said time and time again our military has been conducting war time operations Since Sept 11th and not paid for all put on the National debt .. Its what Americans wants .. ( but have no idea on what it is costing the country nor do the care ) yet the Right loves to uses the debt as another tool of fear for votes and try to convince the public the debt has increased because of immigrants getting benefits and welfare ..
not because of the cost of war keeping them safe .. again fact dont matter

I think many Americans view debt incurred to ensure national security as one thing...debt incurred on programs that do nothing for anybody (except help politicians buy votes) is something else. There's so much useless pork and waste...does the debt not increase because of illegals getting benefits?

I think you are correct that there is some hypocrisy among conservatives who didn't object when Bush added to the debt, but now act like it's the end of the world. But Obama has increased the debt by far more than anyone else. And the stimulus, which was very expensive, didn't come close to meeting Obama's claim that it would prevent unemployment from going over 8%. But many economists say it did eventually help the economy. I can see both sides. I don't think anyone can argue, that there is a ton of waste there. While Obama didn't invent that, it did get worse under his watch.

Finally someone has said to him "sir have you no decency". Just like someone had to say to McCarthy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Finally someone has said to him "sir have you no decency". Just like someone had to say to McCarthy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clinton supporters should try to steer clear of the word "decency".......

[QUOTE=scottw;1105546]how can you have a "stable" government that is 20 Trillion dollars in debt and growing??


On Jan. 8, 1835, all the big political names in Washington gathered to celebrate what President Andrew Jackson had just accomplished. A senator rose to make the big announcement: "Gentlemen ... the national debt ... is PAID."

That was the one time in U.S. history when the country was debt free. It lasted exactly one year.

It may have only lasted one year, but it was constantly lowered till then. And even though it grew slightly, it briefly was lowered again, then went up, then the Civil War and the nearly eternal growth of debt.

its been said time and time again our military has been conducting war time operations Since Sept 11th and not paid for all put on the National debt .. Its what Americans wants .. ( but have no idea on what it is costing the country nor do the care ) yet the Right loves to uses the debt as another tool of fear for votes and try to convince the public the debt has increased because of immigrants getting benefits and welfare ..
not because of the cost of war keeping them safe .. again fact dont matter

The cost of war is a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government. The massive social programs and entitlements of today, as well as education, are not Constitutional responsibilities of the Federal Government. More is budgeted for extra-Constitutional funding than is budgeted for the military.

That's not an excuse for bad wars. But there is no justification for the Central government to steal the peoples rights and responsibilities and impose its own versions of how their money should be spent

The national debt was enormous at the time of the founding because of money required to finance the Revolutionary War. We owed huge sums to France and other countries as well as to private banks and wealthy citizens. Robert Morris, a private capitalist was tasked with finding ways to borrow or print money in order to carry out the War, and he struggled and scraped well enough to barely pay for the constantly cash strapped efforts, against all odds.

Then there was the infrastructure and other public needs of a new nation. So it took a long time to bring the debt down. But the trajectory of debt was fairly consistently lower and lower. The Federal Government had not yet grown into the massive regulatory State burdened with "programs" necessary to "run" the country as it does today. The country ran itself. The Federal Government limited itself to the duties ascribed to it in the Constitution. So it was able to pay the debt and not get into serious debt.

Then came the Civil War. And with it, not only new massive debt, but newly acquired federal power over the States, and the beginning of "Progressive" ideas borrowed from Germany and France. Progressive ideas that required extra-Constitutional power to realize. The Courts resisted when they were given cases and stanched the growing desire among American elites who admired the efficiency of European administration.

Naturally, new shiny things must be had. The Progressive academics wrote and preached a new form of government which was to make the Constitution obsolete. Or, at least, transformed. To Progressives, the notion that a country could run itself, that a free people could create new wonderful things on their own in any efficient and orderly way, and especially in a more egalitarian way, was an antiquated notion bereft of any historical logic. And, certainly, the Progressives would have thought, that paying for the growth of the Nation would be too expensive for private citizens. Only the super rich could even begin to handle that, and that would inequitably funnel wealth into the hands of the few. Like most everything else, it would require government and its expertise.

It didn't take too much longer (as the debt continuously began to rise while responsibility was gradually transferred to government) before there was a "need" for government to dominate the "running" of America.

Along with increasing debt.

Big moves toward an Administrative Central power began to catch on with Teddy Roosevelt, then Wilson, then and especially FDR, then LBJ, Carter, Bush, and Obama. The government grew bigger and bigger, and the debt grew with it.

Curiously, there was another time when the debt was lowered. A quiet frugal man from Vermont, when Vermont was still Republican, an actual "conservative" who stuck by the Constitution, and refused to pay for things that the States should pay for, became President. That was Calvin Coolidge. After that, Mr. Hoover, a very Progressive Republican, came on the scene, and he was followed by FDR who railed against Hoover's policies then not only followed them, but expanded them exponentially, and created new ones, and got the Supreme Court to finally start seeing the light that the Constitution was a living, breathing thing. And the Debt has continuously gone up since then. And there doesn't seem to be an end in sight to the growth. Unless we reign in the growth and power of the Federal Government and letting the States re-assume what was once their responsibility. And the central government can be relegated once again to its Constitutional duties, which includes wars.

Finally someone has said to him "sir have you no decency". Just like someone had to say to McCarthy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What McCarthy was up against was worse than indecent. The left's vilification of him has been, as wdmso would say, "debunked." One may not like, or be offended by, what he did, but he has mostly been vindicated. He was mostly right. But the leftist smear hangs on.

By this I assume you mean Taxes .. you think your money you use for your cable bill or phone bill isn't taken by Force, because of laws that protect these Monopolies which

As you say, BECAUSE OF LAWS . . . laws are government . . . because of government these companies are "protected". Government allows, sanctions, promotes this supposed "force" of which you speak.

Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government granted the power or task of picking and choosing winners and losers in the private sector? It is the Progressive philosophy of governing that distorts or destroys the constitutional limitations which prevent government from doing so.

If you're so against government complicity in companies "forcing" you to pay what you think is too much, why are you all in for the Progressive "living and breathing" interpretation of the Constitution?

seek less regulation so they can charge you more,

It is not the quantity of regulation they seek, but the kind. The kind that squeezes out competitors or gives advantage over them. The more of those kind of regulations the merrier are the monopolies.

Don't you find it extraordinary that one of the major economic issues the early Progressives ran on was the busting up and prevention of monopolies, yet their way of regulating has created more and bigger ones?

yet seek tax breaks or go offshore to avoid the Laws that you and I can go to jail for if we don't pay.. or force their employees to strike claiming there poor to fund healthcare pay raises or retirements then go buy yahoo $4.83 billion, cash ending the internet pioneer's two-decade run as independent company. these companies effect my monthly budget then any one or thing from public sector

If you understand the fascistic relationship between big government and big business in the way Progressives see it . . . that is, government, through "experts" decides what is best, and it has the unlimited power to make that happen as it sees fit--for business to succeed it must do as the government commands, and it will be greatly rewarded for doing so, and the bigger corporations are, the less need there is for more of them, and that makes it easier for government to efficiently control them . . . if you understand the symbiotic relationship between big business and big government, it should be easy for you to see how the supposed war between them is really just adjustments to their yin-yang. And should make it easier to understand that the politicians "fight" against the big corporations is mostly a smoke screen.

... and please don't say we have choices living on or off the grid isn't a choice an American should be asked to do because of the greed of others

Technological advancement does change how we live. Even in the most primitive conditions, you are "forced" to do certain things to survive. Freedom does not change that. The Progressive promise to free humans from that "force" is pie in the sky. On the contrary, it imposes even more force in order for you to be what it considers free. And that consideration certainly doesn't include limited government, constitutionally or otherwise.

I thought making fun of the disabled reporter was his most shameful moment (with so many to choose from) but his calling out the mother was just reprehensible. I'd note Jim pre-empted it with his remarks in the initial post to start this thread.

Using bigotry to disparage the grieving mother of a US war hero. Nice job Jim.

"I thought making fun of the disabled reporter was his most shameful moment "

That was up there.

"with so many to choose from"

That was up there.

"his calling out the mother was just reprehensible"

OK. Yet you didn't have jack sh*t to say, when Hilary called Patricia Smith (lost her son in Benghazi) a liar. In fact, you said it was shameless of the GOP to exploit her grief. But you have no quarrel, I'm sure, with the DNC doing the same exact thing to attack Trump?

Still waiting for my history lesson Spence. I am waiting for you to tell me I'm wrong when I say that Republicans did the heavy lifting to end segregation and secure the right of blacks to vote. Since it is historical fact that 100% of the Democrats voted against the 15th amendment, I cannot wait for you to tell us how it was the Democrats that get credit for its passage.

Hmmm?

And with all due respect to the father, he went out of his way to wave the Constitution around, and speculate that Trump hasn't read it. I asked before, and I'll ask again...where in the Constitution does it say we have to take everyone, from everywhere? Because unless it says that, then regardless of what you think of Trump's proposed plan, it's not unconstitutional, and no one should say that it is.

Clinton supporters should try to steer clear of the word "decency".......

Correct. I think Trump absolutely deserves to be criticized for his lack of judgment here (just shut up and let the story go away). But what gets me is the obvious hypocrisy. Hilary called Patricia Smith a liar, and lots of liberals ridiculed Patricia Smith's speech at the Republican convention. I wish Spence or Paul would tell me why it's OK to attack Patricia Smith, but not OK to attack these people.

And since there is no defensible answer to that, it would be nice, for once, if they admitted I am right. But as liberals, they cannot bring themselves to do that, they just can't.

Bush used to say that he didn't blame the parents one bit for being angry at him.

Of course, Hilary also voted "with conviction" for the war, but according to Spence, that doesn't mean (somehow) that she actually supported it. Heavens, no.

OK. Yet you didn't have jack sh*t to say, when Hilary called Patricia Smith (lost her son in Benghazi) a liar. In fact, you said it was shameless of the GOP to exploit her grief. But you have no quarrel, I'm sure, with the DNC doing the same exact thing to attack Trump?
Hillary didn't call her a liar, she said she's not remembering it correctly. An emotional moment I could certainly see things getting mixed up.

Still waiting for my history lesson Spence. I am waiting for you to tell me I'm wrong when I say that Republicans did the heavy lifting to end segregation and secure the right of blacks to vote. Since it is historical fact that 100% of the Democrats voted against the 15th amendment, I cannot wait for you to tell us how it was the Democrats that get credit for its passage.
I never said democrats should get credit, my point was that the republican party back then bares little resemblance to the party today.

And with all due respect to the father, he went out of his way to wave the Constitution around, and speculate that Trump hasn't read it. I asked before, and I'll ask again...where in the Constitution does it say we have to take everyone, from everywhere? Because unless it says that, then regardless of what you think of Trump's proposed plan, it's not unconstitutional, and no one should say that it is.
That's not what he said, you're running his statements together. The remark about the constitution was in context of Trump's bigotry and religious discrimination for citizens.

Hillary didn't call her a liar, she said she's not remembering it correctly. An emotional moment I could certainly see things getting mixed up.


I never said democrats should get credit, my point was that the republican party back then bares little resemblance to the party today.


That's not what he said, you're running his statements together. The remark about the constitution was in context of Trump's bigotry and religious discrimination for citizens.


OK. How about the fact that you criticized the GOP for exploiting Smith's grief? How is what the Dems did, any different?

"An emotional moment I could certainly see things getting mixed up"

Maybe. or maybe, the serial liar, lied once again. I wasn't there, neither were you. I don't know how many times Mrs Smith has been caught lying, but with Hilary, it's a big number.

"I never said democrats should get credit, my point was that the republican party back then bares little resemblance to the party today. "

Not remotely what you said. I said the GOP passed the law (and I even made reference to the fact that things have changed), and you said something like "gee guys, have any of you ever taken a history course?" Haw, haw! What did I say that's historically incorrect?

"The remark about the constitution was in context of Trump's bigotry and religious discrimination for citizens"

Oh, I see. What religious discrimination has Trump proposed, exactly, that would violate the rights of US citizens? Be specific, please...

It begins at an early age

https://www.yahoo.com/style/boy-got-called-donald-trump-130705990.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/michelle-malkin/not-all-us-muslim-soldiers-are-equal?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device