I was not very interested in learning much about this guy because "reports" made him sound like a pseudo right wing kook. But my wife had me watch this interview with him, and I was impressed. The video is about an hour and a half, a bit long, but interesting and entertaining. He is anything but a kook. He's extremely articulate, very perceptive, and . . . different. He has some insights, especially on the Trump phenomenon, that explain it rather uniquely. It's a fun and informative watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiA0P9iELAA

brilliant....I'd be fascinated, curious etc...to watch/hear the reactions of some to this.....

Stopped watching after their confused interpretation of Free speech

in relationship to FB , twitter , and social media it seems they failed to understand you can still say what you want to say in America .. but you may be limited on what you can say on site's which are privately owned

Just like this site John can control what gets posted and what is unacceptable.. that doesn't suggest he is against free speech or is into censorship

He just a internet troll trying to hide behind free speech and all for self promotion .. just the qualitys and character you guys tend to Admire

"Trolling is very important," Yiannopoulos said to Moran. "I like to think of myself as a virtuous troll, you know? I'm doing God's work."

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

Yiannopoulos has been called a spokesperson for the alt-right shocking

The alt-right is a segment of right-wing ideologies presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in the United States.[1][2] It has been described as a movement unified by support for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump,[3][4] as well as by opposition to multiculturalism and immigration.[2][5]

The alt-right has no official ideology, although various sources have said that it is associated with white nationalism,[1][2][6] white supremacism,[3][7][8] antisemitism,[1][2][9] right-wing populism,[6] nativism,[10] and the neoreactionary movement.[7][11]

The alt-right has been said to be a largely online movement with Internet memes widely used to advance or express its beliefs, often on websites such as 4chan.[7][9][12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

Stopped watching after their confused interpretation of Free speech

in relationship to FB , twitter , and social media it seems they failed to understand you can still say what you want to say in America .. but you may be limited on what you can say on site's which are privately owned

Just like this site John can control what gets posted and what is unacceptable.. that doesn't suggest he is against free speech or is into censorship

If you would have kept watching, you would have seen that he absolutely agrees and says that privately owned sites can limit what you say. But he thinks that they should be honest about their bias rather than pretending they are vehicles of free speech.

On this site, John is far more open to allowing differing opinions. His main trigger for censoring is lack of civility, not difference of opinion.

In a way, you curtailed free speech by not listening to the whole of what he has to say. Instead, you judge him to be confused before he is allowed to state his full opinion. This was a time constricted interview, conducted by someone from the left who is far more open minded than you and who allowed Milo the time and opportunity to fully say what he has to say. By not allowing Milo the same opportunity, you cut off his speech, not only disallowing him the opportunity to give you his opinion, his belief, but you missed out on the opportunity to possibly learn something.

Before the interview began, the host, a Democrat with Libertarian leanings, stated that we can only come to beneficial agreement if we listen to those we disagree with.

If we close our minds to even listening, we can never agree.


He just a internet troll trying to hide behind free speech and all for self promotion .. just the qualitys and character you guys tend to Admire

That's an interesting comment. I would like to hear you explain that more fully. I might learn something about myself that you seem to know more about than I do. That is, if you care to actually have an important discussion rather than throwing bombs then scurrying away.

"Trolling is very important," Yiannopoulos said to Moran. "I like to think of myself as a virtuous troll, you know? I'm doing God's work."

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

Again, watch and listen to the whole video. There is a reason, beyond having fun riling up folks, especially those on the left, for what he called trolling.

Yiannopoulos has been called a spokesperson for the alt-right shocking

The alt-right is a segment of right-wing ideologies presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in the United States.[1][2] It has been described as a movement unified by support for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump,[3][4] as well as by opposition to multiculturalism and immigration.[2][5]

The alt-right has no official ideology, although various sources have said that it is associated with white nationalism,[1][2][6] white supremacism,[3][7][8] antisemitism,[1][2][9] right-wing populism,[6] nativism,[10] and the neoreactionary movement.[7][11]

The alt-right has been said to be a largely online movement with Internet memes widely used to advance or express its beliefs, often on websites such as 4chan.[7][9][12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

How about listening to what he has to say rather than what others have called him or what Wikipedia and others have said.

Form you own opinion, in your own mind, not what some sites or blogs or "opinion" pieces have said. Or, if you must depend on what others say, then search for opinions that are positive about him.

I may be wrong, but from how you have presented yourself on this forum, your mind would not change if you watched the whole video, but it would be instructive if you specifically pointed out what you, personally, find disagreeable about him and his point of view, and then had an actual back and forth discussion about it. Isn't that the value of free speech?

Couple things - First yes I do prefer an environment where different views can be exchanged and rarely pull out the monitoring stick rather than the censorship stick.

Two - Milo is repeatedly censored, twitter blocked, and run out of college campuses as a racist and hate monger that invades SJW's safe spaces.

THree - will continue later - :cputin:

How about listening to what he has to say rather than what others have called him or what Wikipedia and others have said.

Form you own opinion, in your own mind, not what some sites or blogs or "opinion" pieces have said. Or, if you must depend on what others say, then search for opinions that are positive about him.

I may be wrong, but from how you have presented yourself on this forum, your mind would not change if you watched the whole video, but it would be instructive if you specifically pointed out what you, personally, find disagreeable about him and his point of view, and then had an actual back and forth discussion about it. Isn't that the value of free speech?

I have listen.. he is right and every one else is wrong .. he isn't there for dialogue.. he considers himself an engine of chaos ...


Again if you support this conduct as Free speech we'll just have to agree to disagree

I like the fact he makes SJW's heads explode :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have listen.. he is right and every one else is wrong .. he isn't there for dialogue.. he considers himself an engine of chaos ...


Again if you support this conduct as Free speech we'll just have to agree to disagree

i spent 10 minutes looking and I did not see that Milo sent the image you are referring too. WHERE is that shown?

He did have a fairly scathing review of the GB movie - and he was not alone. And there was a twitter fight (ooohhhh if there was twitter in the early 1800s how bad would kit have been ;) ) where Milo got suspended - again.

I am a big LJ fan on SNL - she is one of the better comedians on that show. But the GB remake supposedly really sucks - waiting for it to be on HBO before my own review.

Stopped watching after their confused interpretation of Free speech

.

you made his points in several ways with that reaction :smash:....nice job

How about listening to what he has to say rather than what others have called him or what Wikipedia and others have said.

Form you own opinion, in your own mind, not what some sites or blogs or "opinion" pieces have said. Or, if you must depend on what others say, then search for opinions that are positive about him.

I may be wrong, but from how you have presented yourself on this forum, your mind would not change if you watched the whole video, but it would be instructive if you specifically pointed out what you, personally, find disagreeable about him and his point of view, and then had an actual back and forth discussion about it. Isn't that the value of free speech?

Sheeple don't do that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i spent 10 minutes looking and I did not see that Milo sent the image you are referring too. WHERE is that shown?

He did have a fairly scathing review of the GB movie - and he was not alone. And there was a twitter fight (ooohhhh if there was twitter in the early 1800s how bad would kit have been ;) ) where Milo got suspended - again.

I am a big LJ fan on SNL - she is one of the better comedians on that show. But the GB remake supposedly really sucks - waiting for it to be on HBO before my own review.

the photo was not from him it it was posted by his followers who carry his water he didn't review the film he attacked the person

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07/21/what-it-takes-to-get-banned-from-twitter/

I am not on twitter.. I just find those on the right who hold theses people up as champions against political correctness and the system .. enjoy calling their insults.. Free speech free of political correctness some much for civility

the photo was not from him it it was posted by his followers who carry his water he didn't review the film he attacked the person

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07/21/what-it-takes-to-get-banned-from-twitter/

So you tried to post the photo as if Milo posted it, got corrected by john and then switched to . . . well, Milo was still responsible for the photo because it was by others "who carry his water". I suppose that accusation would apply to all the other outrageous posts by those who carry his water, even though Milo did not actually post them. Somehow, his review of the film "sparked", as one Milo critic said, the flow of outrageous comments against Leslie Jones. Right. Like how Trump sparks violence when he says things.

Would that be similar to how Obama sparks violence by Black Lives Matter folks when he talks about race and the police. Well . . . of course not . . . because . . . well . . . because. Oh, wait, that's right--because racist, bigoted, white "Conservatives" said so--that's why it's not the same. It's only when racist whites say outrageous things that sparks fly. And anyway, don't you know, what Obama says is true. How can a review of a film be true. It's just an outrageous opinion. That's why it can't be considered free speech. Like shouting fire in a crowded theater. Even if there is a fire. Oh . . . don't take that as saying that even if what Obama said is true, he shouldn't say it because it might spark violence. Naw, naw . . . we can't be worried about violence when speaking of really true things like the terrible problem we have with white cops killing blacks.

See, this is the reason that Milo says the things in the way he says them. At least, he says that's why. And I think he knows why more than anyone else would know why. There is this visible unfairness, inequality, of how we are told we must understand things like race, or sex, or gender, or religion, or a multitude of other really important things such as who goes to which bathroom. There is this unreasonable outrage against white, male, Conservative opinion and culture. Milo professes to fight against that and other socio-political unreasonable outrage. And he has said that the way to combat outrage culture is to be outrageous. He said somewhere, can't remember where, that, to paraphrase, if his outrageousness attracts enough attention, and enough people are exposed to what he is really saying beyond his provocative speech, then--mission accomplished.

I am not on twitter.. I just find those on the right who hold theses people up as champions against political correctness and the system .. enjoy calling their insults.. Free speech free of political correctness some much for civility

Again, you fail to see through the cover of his method and miss what he is saying beneath it. There is a method to his madness. The video that I posted in the start of this thread, if you actually listen to what he has to say, is more relevant than his provocative manner. Here is another article by him and one of his colleagues at Breitbart which is his explanation of alt-conservatism.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

There is much more here than how he is portrayed by others. If you don't want to believe him, but rather want to believe what others say about him, you might at least discuss what he says. As for me, what he has to say is an important message, regardless of how you feel about his sincerity. And it certainly gives more insight into the Trump phenomenon as well as the problem that the GOP is going to have if it just dismisses it all.

As for poor Leslie Jones, who was "forced" off of Twitter by the onslaught of negative comments--as The Donald would say--give me a break. No one forced her. Poor baby couldn't take it. Strange how Milo takes the continuous and far more damaging onslaughts against him. He doesn't quit. He doesn't go away. It's just more fuel to his fire. And the idea that his review "sparked" the onslaught (if that's what it really was)--Conservative commentators have had, not just incitements sparked by reviews, but actual calls to attack not only their cause, but them personally. There have been calls that they should be fired, barred from the public forum, and that their sponsors be boycotted until they stopped advertising various conservative programs, especially in talk radio. Rush Limbaugh was attacked several times in these ways. But the Conservative commentators don't give up or run away.

And Leslie Jones is back on Twitter now. Happy as a Lark. Free to say whatever she wants about Milo.

So the idea is to use provocative dis-informative meme's which may have a side effect of attracting racists who lack intelligence but that's ok because the world isn't perfect.

What a glorious movement.

So the idea is to use provocative dis-informative meme's which may have a side effect of attracting racists who lack intelligence but that's ok because the world isn't perfect.

What a glorious movement.

It's been a proven strategy for #BlackLivesMatters
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's been a proven strategy for #BlackLivesMatters
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But, we are to understand as folks like Spence would have us believe, that BlackLivesMatters doesn't use dis-informative memes which attract racists who lack intelligence, and that it is, indeed, a glorious movement.

Actually, as you point out, it does use dis-informative memes which not only attract "racists" (whatever that is . . . oh right . . . blacks cannot be whatever "racists" is supposed to mean . . . only white "Conservatives" can be racists)--not only attract "racists," a rather disinformative meme, but nice folks who don't have the intelligence to see through the meme.

the photo was not from him it it was posted by his followers who carry his water he didn't review the film he attacked the person

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07/21/what-it-takes-to-get-banned-from-twitter/

I am not on twitter.. I just find those on the right who hold theses people up as champions against political correctness and the system .. enjoy calling their insults.. Free speech free of political correctness some much for civility


So - you posted a statement on how Milo was in a twitter war with Leslie Jones and next to that you posted a photo that in this context could be construed as racist (and in other contexts not btw), in such a ways as to lead people thinking - myself included - that Milo posted the image with the ape. Did you knowingly do this or was that an accident? I spent 20+ minutes looking (I looked some more) for that image and could not find one instance where Milo used it (I don't follow Milo on twitter so I never would have seen it in realtime).

What I see is him being harsh on Leslie for the GB remake and I see her responding against Milo as whitey (drops my opinion of her a little) and him getting tossed.

So in short, if I did not spend 20+ minutes figuring this out I might have made the assumption that Milo posted that photo of the Ape - but that is not the case?

So the idea is to use provocative dis-informative meme's which may have a side effect of attracting racists who lack intelligence but that's ok because the world isn't perfect.

What a glorious movement.

No, Spence, your "interpretation," as are Progressive Supreme Court Justice's, is totally off the mark. Read my text. Listen to and read what Milo says about his "memes." They are not dis-informative. They are simply the age-old fighting fire with fire. The method of demonstrating absurdity with absurdity. Milo is attacking the disinformative memes of the left by throwing the same kind of stuff from the other side back at them. That tends to, as TDF said, make their heads explode. And causes them to attack him, thus calling attention to his supposed absurdities. But, not all human beings being mindlessly in some tank, some are provoked into seeing the parallel absurdities, and then question the validity of both. And some attracted from that stage of thinking into reading or listening to what he is actually saying beyond the initial provocation. And, if they're honest, it can be persuasive.

And, beyond your mindless sarcasm, the persuasion can be a glorious moment.

Listen to and read what Milo says about his "memes." They are not dis-informative. They are simply the age-old fighting fire with fire. The method of demonstrating absurdity with absurdity. Milo is attacking the disinformative memes of the left by throwing the same kind of stuff from the other side back at them.
You can probably thank Rush Limbaugh for helping to establish this as the new Republican norm. To justify a dishonest, manipulative and conspiracy theory led process as sound governance should terrify everyone. Sounds more like Putin/RT.com every day.

Its the new Political Norm.....the Republicans don't own the rights exclusively...

Its the new Political Norm.....the Republicans don't own the rights exclusively...

no kidding...did an ardent Clinton defender just accuse someone else of dishonesty and manipulation?......too bleeping funny!!!!

Don't forget using the IRS to stonewall conservatives before the 2012 election to help Obama and the Democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Its the new Political Norm.....the Republicans don't own the rights exclusively...
But the Right, excuse me the Ctrl-Alt-Right has written the playbook and practiced relentlessly. Not that the Left is immune from it but they look like rookies side by side.

But the Right, excuse me the Ctrl-Alt-Right has written the playbook and practiced relentlessly. Not that the Left is immune from it but they look like rookies side by side.

I don't know about that, Al Gore invented the Internet, Obama financed his campaign by harnessing the power of said Internet, and Hilary works email like nobody's business...

And you think they are rookies when it comes to absurd memes....cmon now
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know about that, Al Gore invented the Internet, Obama financed his campaign by harnessing the power of said Internet, and Hilary works email like nobody's business...

And you think they are rookies when it comes to absurd memes....cmon now
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You just made my point, Al Gore never said he invented the Internet, Obama didn't fund raise through memes and Hillary's use of email -- while we all agree wasn't a good idea -- has been a manipulated story from day one, most importantly how the conspiratorial alt-right has influenced the mainstream media.

You're a product.

It was sarcasm dude, learn to recognize it.....:rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But the Right, excuse me the Ctrl-Alt-Right has written the playbook and practiced relentlessly. Not that the Left is immune from it but they look like rookies side by side.


Haha - the right is so far behind the left in social / meme stirring. They invented it. Fact is both sides do it but one side is particularly adept at having the media perpetuate it

Hillary's use of email -- while we all agree wasn't a good idea -- has been a manipulated story from day one

You're a product.

you're a tool :kewl:

Hillary's use of email -- while we all agree wasn't a good idea -- has been a manipulated story from day one, most importantly how the conspiratorial alt-right has influenced the mainstream media.



Why wasn't it a good idea ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You can probably thank Rush Limbaugh for helping to establish this as the new Republican norm. To justify a dishonest, manipulative and conspiracy theory led process as sound governance should terrify everyone. Sounds more like Putin/RT.com every day.

What do you mean by "this"? And, you probably haven't noticed, whatever Republican "norm" you're referring to, Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans are not tight lately. He has been criticizing their norm for quite a while. It has been a fairly ineffective norm.

And "conspiracy led process"? Are you trying out for a tin hat? And the Republicans are the conspirators? So there was no conspiracy to mislead us with the Benghazi video narrative? Hillary did not conspire to use a private server to keep us from knowing exactly what she was doing? And don't spout that she didn't do anything illegal crap. What difference, at this time, does it make whether it was illegal, immoral, stupid, negligent, or downright silly. She kept what should be public knowledge secret. She knew what she was doing. She was warned against it. There is no valid reason for her to do it. Reductio ad absurdum. Yeah, the conspiracy led process under which the Clintons have governed and memed their entire career should terrify everyone.

Obama didn't fund raise through memes

Sure he did. Memes is a fairly new linguistic notion. But "memes" have been around since the beginning of human consciousness. And most people have been doing things through memes ever since then. It's just lately that someone has coined a word for it.

and Hillary's use of email -- while we all agree wasn't a good idea -- has been a manipulated story from day one, most importantly how the conspiratorial alt-right has influenced the mainstream media.

You're a product.

Yeah, she manipulated the story from day one. And the mainstream media is mostly at war with the alt-right, which is no more conspiratorial than Progressives, Democrats, Republicans (including your favorite--Neo-cons), BlackLlivesMatter, or any other political group or movement.

How about if you actually comment on the video that I posted on, and is the subject of, this thread rather than being a product of conspiratorial Progressive evasiveness and resorting to memes such as "conspiratorial" or "manipulated story".

So - you posted a statement on how Milo was in a twitter war with Leslie Jones and next to that you posted a photo that in this context could be construed as racist (and in other contexts not btw), in such a ways as to lead people thinking - myself included - that Milo posted the image with the ape. Did you knowingly do this or was that an accident? I spent 20+ minutes looking (I looked some more) for that image and could not find one instance where Milo used it (I don't follow Milo on twitter so I never would have seen it in realtime).

What I see is him being harsh on Leslie for the GB remake and I see her responding against Milo as whitey (drops my opinion of her a little) and him getting tossed.

So in short, if I did not spend 20+ minutes figuring this out I might have made the assumption that Milo posted that photo of the Ape - but that is not the case?

I am glad you did some research unlike others and I was happy to inform you it wasn't him but one of his followers ( as i said who carry his water) the moment you asked your question ... I also posted a link to the news story and the photo.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-from-twitter/ no attempt to mislead .. it was taken for the story I should have provided the link in the 1st post

the photo was also framed in a question .. do all who support this Milo support this style of speech ( personal attack) hiding behind we need less political correctness ..

So you tried to post the photo as if Milo posted it, got corrected by john and then switched to

sorry you are not correct I posted a Photo from a news story.. and then I asked if you support that type of Free speech ... and no answer was given

John asked a question and was answered see how that works

So you tried to post the photo as if Milo posted it, got corrected by john and then switched to

sorry you are not correct I posted a Photo from a news story..

I apologize for misinterpreting your juxtaposition of the photo with the rest of your post. Perhaps, you should have noted, in the first place, that it was not Milo's post? Your text would have been more coherent that way. Perhaps, you can see how a reader could have "interpreted" it the way John and I did?

That's the problem with "interpretation" outside of the text. Similar to the problem of imposing personal opinion on the text of the Constitution.

and then I asked if you support that type of Free speech ... and no answer was given

John asked a question and was answered see how that works

I'm going to stick to your text. In the first instance, you asked if I"enjoy calling their insults.. Free speech . . ." In this instance, you say you asked if I support "that type of Free speech. . ." So, unless I'm missing something, or misinterpreting you again, it seems that you have evolved from recognizing their insults merely as free speech, to recognizing it as a "type" of free speech. In the first instance, it was not clear whether you even considered their insults as free speech or merely if I enjoyed calling it free speech.

My answer is that I support free speech. That is supposed to include insults. It's irrelevant if I enjoy it or not. That's the way I see how it works.

I am glad you did some research unlike others and I was happy to inform you it wasn't him but one of his followers ( as i said who carry his water) the moment you asked your question ... I also posted a link to the news story and the photo.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-from-twitter/ no attempt to mislead .. it was taken for the story I should have provided the link in the 1st post

the photo was also framed in a question .. do all who support this Milo support this style of speech ( personal attack) hiding behind we need less political correctness ..

The problem is when people post stuff like this, many won't research it (I research a lot of topics) and people believe too much of what they read without verifying.

But this is a deeper problem, too much superficial discourse and not enough substantial discourse.


So you tried to post the photo as if Milo posted it, got corrected by john and then switched to

sorry you are not correct I posted a Photo from a news story.. and then I asked if you support that type of Free speech ... and no answer was given

John asked a question and was answered see how that works

I support just about any free speech. I might not support the message but I support the ability to have that message. (You backed it up with your service :btu: )

I don't support the KKK (I loathe them) but I support their right to free speech - and quick go to jail when they screw up. I don't support BLM but I support their right to protest (until they go illegal).

When free speech is curtailed (common from the left BTW - seen a college campus lately?) we all pay for it.

I'm going to stick to your text. In the first instance, you asked if I"enjoy calling their insults.. Free speech . . ." In this instance, you say you asked if I support "that type of Free speech. . ." So, unless I'm missing something, or misinterpreting you again, it seems that you have evolved from recognizing their insults merely as free speech, to recognizing it as a "type" of free speech. In the first instance, it was not clear whether you even considered their insults as free speech or merely if I enjoyed calling it free speech.

My answer is that I support free speech. That is supposed to include insults. It's irrelevant if I enjoy it or not. That's the way I see how it works.

:btu:

It was sarcasm dude, learn to recognize it.....:rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Then your sarcasm is a product.

Then your sarcasm is a product.

No, I'm Irish.....it's my heritage
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So there was no conspiracy to mislead us with the Benghazi video narrative?
Not according to 7 investigations.

Hillary did not conspire to use a private server to keep us from knowing exactly what she was doing?
If that were really the case why would she have ever used email to communicate with other government employees? As I've said before, if her primary goal was really secrecy she would have never mixed personal and private email.

Not according to 7 investigations.


If that were really the case why would she have ever used email to communicate with other government employees? As I've said before, if her primary goal was really secrecy she would have never mixed personal and private email.

Her obviously stupid and careless use of her private email server came out of those investigations .

My understanding of the timeline is that she destroyed phones and deleted emails after being subpoenaed by the Congress . I'm sure your understanding is quite different . Are you surprised that the Clintons own a hammer?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Her obviously stupid and careless use of her private email server came out of those investigations .
You're changing the question.

My understanding of the timeline is that she destroyed phones and deleted emails after being subpoenaed by the Congress . I'm sure your understanding is quite different . Are you surprised that the Clintons own a hammer?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yes, I'm sure Clinton was out behind the shed like old John Henry just smashing away.

From what I've read an admin was asked to clean up her email archives a year earlier, forgot, had his oh bleep moment then did it after the fact. Clinton knew nothing about it.

Don't you render your electronics useless when you recycle them so nobody can get your personal data? Do you have a hammerless method to do this to a phone?

How many were simply lost?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many were simply lost?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service :eek:

"Please extend to the Secretary my congratulations for her testimony today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I watched with great admiration as she dealt with a tough and personally painful issue in a fair, candid, and determined manner,"

“I was especially impressed by her ability to turn aside the obvious efforts to politicize the events in Benghazi, reminding Americans of the tremendous sacrifice made by Chris Stevens and his colleagues but also insisting that our ability to play a positive role in the world and protect U.S. interests requires a willingness to take risks.”

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/benghazi-emails-hillary-clinton/index.html

We need another investigation.

You're changing the question.


Yes, I'm sure Clinton was out behind the shed like old John Henry just smashing away.

From what I've read an admin was asked to clean up her email archives a year earlier, forgot, had his oh bleep moment then did it after the fact. Clinton knew nothing about it.

Don't you render your electronics useless when you recycle them so nobody can get your personal data? Do you have a hammerless method to do this to a phone?

I use my phone for both my work and my private email. Now who's the genius?… Me obviously . because the woman you want to be president couldn't figure it out . Ik
On phone number three since the bag phone , yes I'm that old , and I have my old ones still .
Pretty good considering I'm more tech than Hillary and she had 13 phones and a few iPads.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service :eek:



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/benghazi-emails-hillary-clinton/index.html

We need another investigation.

Everything stated above is total bull#^&#^&#^&#^& 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service :eek:



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/benghazi-emails-hillary-clinton/index.html

We need another investigation.

CNN said last nit hat according to the FBI report, the original request to delete the emails came before the subpoena. But after the subpoena was delivered to team Clinton, the IT company told them "we haven't deleted these emails yet, what do you want us to do", and Team Hilary said "go ahead and delete them."

And if Hilary can't grasp that a "C" means classified, then can you seriously claim she is up for this job?

The problem is when people post stuff like this, many won't research it (I research a lot of topics) and people believe too much of what they read without verifying.

But this is a deeper problem, too much superficial discourse and not enough substantial discourse.




I support just about any free speech. I might not support the message but I support the ability to have that message. (You backed it up with your service :btu: )

I don't support the KKK (I loathe them) but I support their right to free speech - and quick go to jail when they screw up. I don't support BLM but I support their right to protest (until they go illegal).

When free speech is curtailed (common from the left BTW - seen a college campus lately?) we all pay for it.



:btu:


I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to

I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to
If for example I was to say...Don't burn our #&*$ down we need our #&*$ take that #&*$ to the suburbs, burn their #&*$ down we need our weaves.

https://youtu.be/2ukE60gaRIk

Or how about...."Burn this mother#&$*er down" referring to the city.

https://youtu.be/MLlDzWt7TPc

What do you suggest for a penalty?

What about Hollywood, would scripts and actors be exempt? Would existing movies that have what you consider objectionable language have to be destroyed so they can't been seen again?

Would Broadway be exempt or would plays like West side Story need to be prohibited?

Won't this disproportionately effect the non Caucasians who write and produce the majority of rap songs, I suppose it will mean no more royalties for offensive lyrics that are currently producing income for that sector.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

CNN said last nit hat according to the FBI report, the original request to delete the emails came before the subpoena. But after the subpoena was delivered to team Clinton, the IT company told them "we haven't deleted these emails yet, what do you want us to do", and Team Hilary said "go ahead and delete them."

And if Hilary can't grasp that a "C" means classified, then can you seriously claim she is up for this job?
Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified. Even Comey said it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to understand the sensitivity of the information based on that marking alone. And even with that, State said it was marked incorrectly.

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified. Even Comey said it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to understand the sensitivity of the information based on that marking alone. And even with that, State said it was marked incorrectly.

Really....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3307197/Hillary-signed-State-Department-contract-saying-job-know-documents-classified-secret-laid-criminal-penalties-negligent-handling.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Everything stated above is total bull#^&#^&#^&#^& 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Because it doesn't fit your narrative of Hillary as a Bond villain?

How come they keep releasing, releasing, releasing and nothing sticks? Is your lack of faith in our best investigators that bad?

Really....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3307197/Hillary-signed-State-Department-contract-saying-job-know-documents-classified-secret-laid-criminal-penalties-negligent-handling.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Do you read any of this stuff before you post it?

Because it doesn't fit your narrative of Hillary as a Bond villain?

How come they keep releasing, releasing, releasing and nothing sticks? Is your lack of faith in our best investigators that bad?

Yes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified.

No, it means "Confidential" which is a classification.

The FBI described what it found:

"The FBI identified three email chains, encompassing eight individual email exchanges to or from Clinton's personal email accounts, which contained at least one paragraph marked '(C),' a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of information classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level."

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you read any of this stuff before you post it?

What is your point.
She didn't know what she was signing or......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, it means "Confidential" which is a classification.

The FBI described what it found:

"The FBI identified three email chains, encompassing eight individual email exchanges to or from Clinton's personal email accounts, which contained at least one paragraph marked '(C),' a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of information classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level."

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
They asked Comey directly if someone would know this was classified by those markings alone and he said no. Clinton says she doesn't even remember seeing it.

Hell, I don't get 1/2 the emails she did at work and I probably don't read fully more than a fraction and couldn't recall 90%. And I'm for the most part not relying on surrogates to execute my work. Clinton's being held to an impossibly high and unprecedented standard.

And she's still leading by a wide margin :hee:

More from those wacky left winger Clinton lovers at the FBI.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/07/comey2.pdf

Stop making excuses.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They asked Comey directly if someone would know this was classified by those markings alone and he said no. Clinton says she doesn't even remember seeing it

And she's still leading by a wide margin :hee:



Actually she doesn't even recall having any instructions or training on classified information. Does that sound normal to you ?

Also she's not leading at all anymore.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Also she's not leading at all anymore.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Electoral college. Come on Buck...

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

If you're trying to hide things you delete them. The FBI shouldn't have had to recover her work emails. They should not have been deleted.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service :eek:



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/benghazi-emails-hillary-clinton/index.html

We need another investigation.

No, Spence, another investigation would reveal that you sent that email. :hee:

Hell, I don't get 1/2 the emails she did at work and I probably don't read fully more than a fraction and couldn't recall 90%. And I'm for the most part not relying on surrogates to execute my work. Clinton's being held to an impossibly high and unprecedented standard.

No, it was not an impossibly high standard to use State Dept. servers instead of her own private one.

I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to

We do differ then - I think all speech should be allowed. Why allow someone to think they are a fool when you can remove all doubt.

The next issue is when people can wrangle themselves into a position where they can define what speech is free and what speech is not, there is no more Free Speech.

I don't always agree with Milo but I love how he gets all these institutions of higher learning into a two minutes of hate frenzy. Then emperor has no clothes.

I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Again, you demonstrate the problem in resorting to personal interpretation rather than accurately citing and understanding text. What speech by Milo intended to stoke hatred or promote violence? You might think his words could or would intentionally stoke hatred or violence, even though they don't specifically say to hate or be violent. But if there is no clear and concrete evidence that the speech intended hate or violence, you are fallaciously imposing your interpretation on the text.

And your printing the word "attack" in red and capitalizing it is vastly over-emphasizing some negative, violent connotation of the word. It comes across as a personal reaction which may not accurately describe the nature of what you call an attack. Milo has explained that the particular category of person whom he paints with provocative language is not the object/subject. The provocation is. From what little I've read or heard by him, he has no animosities against your listed categories, nor would he make a point of verbally abusing or "attacking" a categorical attribute. His provocations are against various attitudes and "memes" of what he calls the regressive left.

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to

I don't know the full scope, content, and context of his post, but singular persons do insult each other. Milo gets more than his share of "attacks" against him. That does seem to be a form of entertainment for most who read verbal battles. I would guess that forums like Twitter attract that sort of thing along with the colosseum like responses. Don't they have thumbs up and thumbs down icons?

If you want a fuller understanding of what he is about, read and listen to his explanations rather than what is said about him or rather than just personally interpreting and reacting.

I previously posted this link :http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/
It will give you an insight from his perspective on his use of provocation.

And the video I posted as the subject of this thread paints a different portrait of him than what one might interpret from his provocative memes if they weren't familiar with his more serious commentary.

Neither you nor Spence have commented on that video. Instead, you've talked about perceptions and opinions that paint him as some vicious danger to society.

In the video, among a whole lot more, he says things like "the point of a civilized society is to live together in harmony despite differences." There is a lot of serious cultural, political, and societal meat to digest in the video. But it seems the provocative stuff from other sources is all that interest y'all. And the motivation and purpose of that stuff is not understood or is misinterpreted.

If for example I was to say...Don't burn our #&*$ down we need our #&*$ take that #&*$ to the suburbs, burn their #&*$ down we need our weaves.

https://youtu.be/2ukE60gaRIk

Or how about...."Burn this mother#&$*er down" referring to the city.

https://youtu.be/MLlDzWt7TPc

What do you suggest for a penalty?

What about Hollywood, would scripts and actors be exempt? Would existing movies that have what you consider objectionable language have to be destroyed so they can't been seen again?

Wood Broadway be exempt or would plays like West side Story need to be prohibited?

Won't this disproportionately effect the non Caucasians who write and produce the majority of rap songs, I suppose it will mean no more royalties for offensive lyrics that are currently producing income for that sector.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


you got issues :btu:

I don't know the full scope, content, and context of his post, but singular persons do insult each other. Milo gets more than his share of "attacks" against him. That does seem to be a form of entertainment for most who read verbal battles. I would guess that forums like Twitter attract that sort of thing along with the colosseum like responses. Don't they have thumbs up and thumbs down icons?

If you want a fuller understanding of what he is about, read and listen to his explanations rather than what is said about him or rather than just personally interpreting and reacting.

I previously posted this link :http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/
It will give you an insight from his perspective on his use of provocation.

And the video I posted as the subject of this thread paints a different portrait of him than what one might interpret from his provocative memes if they weren't familiar with his more serious commentary.

Neither you nor Spence have commented on that video. Instead, you've talked about perceptions and opinions that paint him as some vicious danger to society.

In the video, among a whole lot more, he says things like "the point of a civilized society is to live together in harmony despite differences." There is a lot of serious cultural, political, and societal meat to digest in the video. But it seems the provocative stuff from other sources is all that interest y'all. And the motivation and purpose of that stuff is not understood or is misinterpreted.


sadly I made commitments and watched your link you just dont like my response.. ^^^ he sprinkled his whole interview with those caveats then rants on about Importing Muslims how he is an agent of chaos the only one being provocative is him ... but pleases make him the victim he is not understood or is misinterpreted.. he is very clear how he sees the world

We do differ then - I think all speech should be allowed. Why allow someone to think they are a fool when you can remove all doubt.

The next issue is when people can wrangle themselves into a position where they can define what speech is free and what speech is not, there is no more Free Speech.

I don't always agree with Milo but I love how he gets all these institutions of higher learning into a two minutes of hate frenzy. Then emperor has no clothes.

I am not suggesting banning anything prior to speaking it to prevent hurt feeling. I am saying Once a thing is said you need to face the possible repercussions for that speech ... if it that speech results in Violence against others under someones encouragement..

... if it that speech results in Violence against others under someones encouragement..

ummmmm...the large majority of the violence we've seen recently as a result of politics and speech has been courtesy of the left....who may we hold accountable for encouraging it?

wait...I've got this....

if a republican says something and republicans act violently the republican(s) is responsible

if a republican says something and democrats act violently the republican(s) is responsible

if a democrat says something and democrats act violently the republican(s) is responsible

if a democrat says something and republicans act violently the republican(s) is responsible

I'm starting to figure out this progressive accountability thing :laugha:


question...if a republican says something a democrat doesn't like and a democrat yells "get him" and violence ensues....who should be held accountable for the violence ?

you got issues :btu:

Can't answer the question can you. Your the one who has issues with the first amendment and want it changed, not me.
You are the one who wants to silence people not me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified. Even Comey said it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to understand the sensitivity of the information based on that marking alone. And even with that, State said it was marked incorrectly.

Spence, did the head of the FBI state that she was "extremely careless", yes or no?

Maybe she didn't break the law. Maybe. But the FBI affirmed that she was extremely careless with sensitive information.

We get to decide how much we care. Most Democrats won't hold it against her. You are one of the very few who refuse to concede that there was any kind of a lapse in judgment.

And the fact that (1) 2 days before the announcement, Bill was on the Attorney General's plane for a private chat , and (2) the day after the announcement, the Hilary campaign said they'd consider keeping Loretta Lunch as AG...those things speak for themselves.

I am saying Once a thing is said you need to face the possible repercussions for that speech ... if it that speech results in Violence against others under someones encouragement..

Oh right, tell that to Al Sharpton and Black Lives Matter, both of whom have blood on their hands.

WDMSO, when, exactly, do you see conservatives engaging in feral riots?? When? It doesn't happen. Riots are just about always, a tool of the left. Why is that?

I am not suggesting banning anything prior to speaking it to prevent hurt feeling. I am saying Once a thing is said you need to face the possible repercussions for that speech ... if it that speech results in Violence against others under someones encouragement..


Speech should not lead to violence in a free society . Yet it does. Just because I don't agree with (or intend to vote for) Trump do I think he should not speak. I also don't think people should violently protest outside his rally - yet they do. Protest - absolutely - violence no.

BLM protest? Sure thing. Violence no. Block a highway? Endanger others or prohibit commerce? No.

In some cultures free speech can get you killed. That should not be here.

sadly I made commitments and watched your link you just dont like my response..

Actually, I do like your responses. They make Milo's point. They say more about you than about him.

^^^ he sprinkled his whole interview with those caveats

They were not caveats. They were the substance of his position. That you characterize them as caveats shows either your lack of comprehension or your bigotry.

then rants on about Importing Muslims

Again, another characterization by you--not reasons for his opinion, but just rants. He gives very specific reasons why he thinks Islam is incompatible with Western culture and why it is dangerous to import it to Western society.

Most Americans would think it is dangerous to import Nazis and their culture to our country. Most would once have thought the same about Communists. Why? Aren't those systems antithetical to and destructive of our way of life?

If you think Islam is a compatible system of government (and Islam is not merely a religion, it is a political system), you can passionately give your reasons why you believe that. I don't think you would appreciate your reasons called a rant.

how he is an agent of chaos the only one being provocative is him ... but pleases make him the victim he is not understood or is misinterpreted.. he is very clear how he sees the world

The Left, Progressives included, have been willing and effective agents of chaos. The Left has always required the destruction of free society. The Left is authoritarian not libertarian. It has to impose its authority over any pocket of libertarian culture. Free people are a threat to its notion of an orderly society--to its notions of justice, fairness, equality. Freedom, actually, to authoritarians, IS chaos.

The Left doesn't consider its smashing of cultural liberalism as chaos, even though it creates an ensuing chaos. Because that is merely a necessary step along the way to its version of order and justice.

So, yes, Milo sees himself as an agent of chaos. But it is a libertarian chaos, the chaos of freedom. You have to open-mindedly listen to his serious discussions to understand that. If you just dismiss the idea that he is serious about actual freedom for all, including the categories you've brought up (being "gay,"he is one of those categories) because of his provocative method of stirring up the pot, you will miss that ultimately important point.

We get to decide how much we care. Most Democrats won't hold it against her. You are one of the very few who refuse to concede that there was any kind of a lapse in judgment.
I've said many times she should have known better. I don't think she had any mal intent, but the risk of it causing a future issue was clear.

Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership. The way things are going a lot of Republicans are taking a similar position. The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding.

I've said many times she should have known better. I don't think she had any mal intent, but the risk of it causing a future issue was clear.

Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership. The way things are going a lot of Republicans are taking a similar position. The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding.

"Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership"

That's fair. I can't stand Trump, but in total, I think he is better (God help us). But you make it seem like everyone who is saying she did anything inappropriate, is on a witch hunt, of has the facts wrong. And you believe everything she says, without question, always.

You downplay everything. You are the only person who will not concede that she lied about coming under sniper fire. I have never, ever heard anyone else deny that she lied. It causes you to lose all credibility, because it's not reasonable to say she didn't lie (unless you think she actually believes that she got shot at, in which case you are saying she is delusional).

"The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding"

True. It was a horrible, horrible nomination. See, I can admit that. I can admit flaws, even serious flaws, in my own candidate, when the evidence is clear. And that makes one of us.

I've said many times she should have known better. I don't think she had any mal intent, but the risk of it causing a future issue was clear.

Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership. The way things are going a lot of Republicans are taking a similar position. The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding.

"the net value of her leadership"

She voted for the Iraq war, in her own words, "with conviction".

Then, when General Petreus pitched the idea of the Surge, she said that to believe the Surge would do what he claimed, "requires the willful suspension of disbelief". Those were her exact words. In other words, she accused the man of lying. And of course, the Surge did exactly what they hoped it would do.

As Secstate, she inherited a stable Iraq. When she resigned, it was in chaos.

Net value? It's debatable...and a serial liar, to boot. But if the election were today, I think it would be an electoral landslide for her.

"The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding"

And do you know why that is? Because people on my side are way more capable than people on your side, of being critical of fellow Republicans. On your side, all that matters is protecting anyone with a D after their last name. Her disapproval ratings are astronomical also, but you don't see liberals breaking ranks.

That's fair. I can't stand Trump, but in total, I think he is better (God help us). But you make it seem like everyone who is saying she did anything inappropriate, is on a witch hunt, of has the facts wrong. And you believe everything she says, without question, always.
No, I've said many times she has flaws but that so much of how people perceive her is a product of a decades long effort to destroy her character. Even with her flaws I think she's a very capable person.

As a veteran I'm surprised you could vote for someone who so openly disparages our military and has more admiration for Russia over our own leadership.

No, I've said many times she has flaws but that so much of how people perceive her is a product of a decades long effort to destroy her character. Even with her flaws I think she's a very capable person.

As a veteran I'm surprised you could vote for someone who so openly disparages our military and has more admiration for Russia over our own leadership.

I have never seen you agree with anyone's criticism of her, not once.

"I've said many times she has flaws "

And your list of said flaws, does not include "lied about coming under sniper fire".

Nor does it include "lied when she said Bill wasn't cheating on her, and compounded that lie by saying that the GOP was framing him to make it look that way".

No, I've said many times she has flaws but that so much of how people perceive her is a product of a decades long effort to destroy her character. Even with her flaws I think she's a very capable person.

As a veteran I'm surprised you could vote for someone who so openly disparages our military and has more admiration for Russia over our own leadership.

Would one of those flaws be being trusted with or even knowing the meaning of classified information ? Seems the most qualified person in America should know what the "C " stands for .
I know you realize this, but you twist what Donald Trump says and does , while accusing others of twisting what Hillary Clinton is .
I keep it wondering what's in it for you ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've said many times she should have known better.

Actually you've said she didn't know nor should she have....that's a tad different....

From what I've read an admin was asked to clean up her email archives a year earlier, forgot, had his oh bleep moment then did it after the fact. Clinton knew nothing about it.


They asked Comey directly if someone would know this was classified by those markings alone and he said no. Clinton says she doesn't even remember seeing it.

Hell, I don't get 1/2 the emails she did at work and I probably don't read fully more than a fraction and couldn't recall 90%. And I'm for the most part not relying on surrogates to execute my work. Clinton's being held to an impossibly high and unprecedented standard.

Would one of those flaws be being trusted with or even knowing the meaning of classified information ? Seems the most qualified person in America should know what the "C " stands for .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn't that what the Trump reality organization used to indicat that the person applying for the apartment was Black and to not rent to them?

Seems the most qualified person in America should know what the "C " stands for .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In her case, I know exactly what it stands for...

In one of her many excuses, she claimed that she thought the "C" was some kind of alphabetical thing. Of course, since there were no previous paragraphs designated with "A" and "B", to believe her, means you need to believe that the alphabet now starts with "C".

Think of the contempt she has for the American public, that she thinks we will buy these lame excuses. It never ends...

In her case, I know exactly what it stands for...

In one of her many excuses, she claimed that she thought the "C" was some kind of alphabetical thing. Of course, since there were no previous paragraphs designated with "A" and "B", to believe her, means you need to believe that the alphabet now starts with "C".

Think of the contempt she has for the American public, that she thinks we will buy these lame excuses. It never ends...

You can say the same for the lies Trump spews every day. His "secret" plan to defeat ISIS was to talk to the generals (who he said know less then he does). He just lied about his support of the Iraq invasion. It just goes on and on and on. His praise of Putin is despicable.

You can say the same for the lies Trump spews every day. His "secret" plan to defeat ISIS was to talk to the generals (who he said know less then he does). He just lied about his support of the Iraq invasion. It just goes on and on and on.

Paul, here is the thing...I have said here, many times, that Trump is a morally bankrupt narcissist. I make zero claims that he is morally superior to her. But I'm not making those claims. I don't know that anyone on this forum is making that claim. But some here, are acting as if she's as innocent as a newborn kitten.

He's an absolute clown, a buffoon, a caricature of a man. OK? I can say that out loud. Lots of conservatives are saying that. But for every single moral flaw that you can accurately attribute to him, I can do the same for her. And the hypocrisy, is that while all liberals are calling him out for being morally bankrupt (and he is), almost none of them are capable of the same honesty in evaluating her.

I don't think it's possible to be intellectually honest, and be a liberal. I really think it's impossible. Especially in terms of economics, when the math, and the observable results, tell us with zero ambiguity, that it's a disaster. But almost none of you will concede that you might be wrong, on anything. Ever. It's mind-boggling. And I'm not talking about you, I am talking more about the pundits and politicians.

When the war in Iraq was falling apart, Bush admitted that, and changed course. He implemented The Surge, and it worked.

Here in CT, our capital city of Hartford is a bankrupt, uninhabitable, sh*thole. Yet I have never, not once, heard a liberal say "well, we tried liberalism for 40 years, and clearly it's not working, let's try something else".

Liberals can never admit they are wrong. Ever. About anything.

And the path to prosperity is a blue state. Look at that "grand experiment" in Kansas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/opinion/campaign-stops/the-path-to-prosperity-is-blue.html


You fail to understand that the poor live in big cities for a variety of reasons. conservatives have no sympathy or empathy for poor people and the poor know that. Consequently, the poor vote for the liberal candidate.

And the path to prosperity is a blue state. Look at that "grand experiment" in Kansas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/opinion/campaign-stops/the-path-to-prosperity-is-blue.html


You fail to understand that the poor live in big cities for a variety of reasons. conservatives have no sympathy or empathy for poor people and the poor know that. Consequently, the poor vote for the liberal candidate.

"Look at that "grand experiment" in Kansas"

As I said, not every red state is a utopia. I don't know anyone moving to Kansas. I know a LOT of people moving from CT to the Carolinas, GA, TN, FL, and TX.

"the path to prosperity is a blue state"

That statement is a demonstrably false joke. Say it as many times as you like, post that absurd article as many times as you like. The facts spit in the face of that premise. Look at CT, RI, Mass, IL, Michigan, etc. CT has had unchecked liberalism for 40 years. And we are on the edge of bankruptcy, despite having high incomes (and our high incomes have zip to do with liberalism, and everything to do with proximity to Manhattan).

"You fail to understand that the poor live in big cities for a variety of reasons. "

A better statement would be "the non-poor flee the cities for a variety of reasons". And many of those reasons, are a direct result of liberalism. Liberalism makes it impossibly expensive to live in a city, so people who aren't poor, leave.

You are proving my point, not rejecting it. There is a reason why anyone who isn't poor, flees the city.

And the state of CT isn't one city. It is a state. A state with tons of money. But unable to pay its bails, and a state with insanely high taxes. A state that workers are fleeing. Again, liberalism.

You can't make that wrong, and you can't admit that I have a point. That puts you in a real pickle.

"conservatives have no sympathy or empathy for poor "

You and I have discussed this, it it also a pathetic, demonstrably false, joke of a statement. We discussed the study "who Really Cares", published in the same New York Times that you cited, which shows that conservatives are actually a bit more charitable, than liberals.

You have seen this study. we have discussed it. Yet you still say "conservatives have no sympathy or empathy for poor ". Again, you spout the same crap, despite evidence to the contrary. Again, you cannot admit that you are wrong.

Why does the Catholic Church give so much help to the poor? Mother Theresa was just made a saint last week, for her lifelong dedication to the poor. Would you say she has no empathy for the poor? Or are you going to suggest that she (a devout Catholic, rabidly anti-abortion) is a liberal?

You couldn't have done more to perpetuate the liberal stereotype. Rely on inane statements (like 'conservatives have no empathy for the poor') and ignore all facts to the contrary.

Liberals have just done swell in CT, and in Hartford especially. Those policies show all kinds of empathy for the poor. Instead of asking if there's ANYTHING to be gained by adopting conservative principles, you bash conservatives, and keep dumping already-failed liberalism on the poor, knowing that it will only make things worse. If that's a sign of empathy, sorry, I don't see it.

You just got clobbered.

And the path to prosperity is a blue state. Look at that "grand experiment" in Kansas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/opinion/campaign-stops/the-path-to-prosperity-is-blue.html


.

From the article...

"the key drivers of growth are science, education and innovation, not low taxes, lax regulations or greater exploitation of natural resources."

Yes Paul, science/education/innovation drive growth. No one disputes that. Perfect example, here in CT, we have a lot of science and education, which is another reason why we have high incomes. But when you measure the quality of life in a state, you can't just look at incomes (that would be like estimating the health of a company by only looking at the left side- assets- of the balance sheet). You need to look at debt and taxes, too. Because what good is a better-paying job, if the raise is more than offset by taxes and housing costs?

What CT is turning into, is a place with 2 kinds of residents...those wealthy enough to absorb any tax increase the liberals in Hartford can think of, and urban poor who clean the pools of the first group. is that a good end result?

CT is one of the very few states in the nation that is losing population. And we aren't losing welfare recipients who figured out they can get a better deal in NC. We are losing white collar, middle class workers. As that tax base shrinks, the debt burden for each citizen becomes greater, which exacerbates tax increases, which incentivizes more people to leave, etc...It's a self-perpetuating spiral. And it can all be avoided, with fiscal responsibility. And contrary to what liberals think, being "fiscally responsible" doesn't mean that you watch people starve to death in the street. It means you don't do asinine things that benefit no one. For example, you don't let any public employees retire at age 45, you don't give them fatter pensions that what you can afford, etc...

try all you want to make that sinister or callous. But it's not.

Oh right, tell that to Al Sharpton and Black Lives Matter, both of whom have blood on their hands.

WDMSO, when, exactly, do you see conservatives engaging in feral riots?? When? It doesn't happen. Riots are just about always, a tool of the left. Why is that?

Can you ever stay on topic? my stance is universal unlike most of yours which seems always to be about black and white

Can you ever stay on topic? my stance is universal unlike most of yours which seems always to be about black and white

You were the one who said people should be held responsible when their words lead to violence. So I think it's very on topic, to point out that liberals love Al Sharpton and BLM, despite the fact that both have blood on their hands.

If you decry Al Sharpton and BLM, I truly respect that. Most liberals don't. Obama has had Sharpton to the Oval Office dozens of times, so Obama clearly thinks Sharpton is a worthy ally, worthy of respect...rather than the disgusting, vile pig that he is.

Actually you've said she didn't know nor should she have....that's a tad different....
There are things that happened I'm sure she had little visibility to. You're quoting me out of context by the way.

In her case, I know exactly what it stands for...

In one of her many excuses, she claimed that she thought the "C" was some kind of alphabetical thing. Of course, since there were no previous paragraphs designated with "A" and "B", to believe her, means you need to believe that the alphabet now starts with "C".

Think of the contempt she has for the American public, that she thinks we will buy these lame excuses. It never ends...

Not to mention the email she sent requesting the "classified "heading be removed from documents before they are sent to her.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are things that happened I'm sure she had little visibility to. You're quoting me out of context by the way.

Just stop......please.....you're giving me a popsickle headache.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"the net value of her leadership"

She voted for the Iraq war, in her own words, "with conviction".

Then, when General Petreus pitched the idea of the Surge, she said that to believe the Surge would do what he claimed, "requires the willful suspension of disbelief". Those were her exact words. In other words, she accused the man of lying. And of course, the Surge did exactly what they hoped it would do.


In the Bob Gates book: Duty. He states Hillary admitted she voted against the surge because of politics. She did not vote because it was sound or not, or whether it would make things better or worse in Iraq - she voted because of Politics.

You were the one who said people should be held responsible when their words lead to violence. So I think it's very on topic, to point out that liberals love Al Sharpton and BLM, despite the fact that both have blood on their hands.

If you decry Al Sharpton and BLM, I truly respect that. Most liberals don't. Obama has had Sharpton to the Oval Office dozens of times, so Obama clearly thinks Sharpton is a worthy ally, worthy of respect...rather than the disgusting, vile pig that he is.

it this your blood on his hands video from 1992 http://www.snopes.com/al-sharptons-1992-speech-urged-blacks-to-kill-police/ it doesn't show him screaming "kill cops" or calling on blacks to go out and commit acts of violence.

can you post where an official of BLM not a random person at a rally calls on blacks calling on blacks to go out and commit acts of violence.
doubtful
as you comments concerning riots when have you seen Conservatives riot .. is that how you thinks riots work can you have a more simplistic view ??

but you have armed Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge or his ranch in 2014 many being charged with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, no riot so it acceptable form of protest i would say they are more Alt right

yeah...that's a good comparison :doh:

it this your blood on his hands video from 1992 http://www.snopes.com/al-sharptons-1992-speech-urged-blacks-to-kill-police/ it doesn't show him screaming "kill cops" or calling on blacks to go out and commit acts of violence.

can you post where an official of BLM not a random person at a rally calls on blacks calling on blacks to go out and commit acts of violence.
doubtful

Maybe one of those random persons who carry Sharpton's water.

it this your blood on his hands video from 1992 http://www.snopes.com/al-sharptons-1992-speech-urged-blacks-to-kill-police/ it doesn't show him screaming "kill cops" or calling on blacks to go out and commit acts of violence.

can you post where an official of BLM not a random person at a rally calls on blacks calling on blacks to go out and commit acts of violence.
doubtful
as you comments concerning riots when have you seen Conservatives riot .. is that how you thinks riots work can you have a more simplistic view ??

but you have armed Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge or his ranch in 2014 many being charged with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, no riot so it acceptable form of protest i would say they are more Alt right

Not once, but twice, at Al Sharpton rallies, people were murdered. On one of those occasions, a store was burned down, killing more than one person. Look it up. Then there was that whole Tawana Brawley thing, where he made up a rape, and accused white cops who he knew were innocent. What a swell guy, the pig Al Sharpton.

"can you post where an official of BLM not a random person at a rally calls on blacks calling on blacks to go out and commit acts of violence."

There are no "officials" of BLM, only its supporters. and I can post all the videos you want, of its members saying they want dead cops. And we also have recent cop assassins who have confessed that they were inspired by the BLM rhetoric.

Again, I respond to the facts at hand. You ignore all facts which reject your narrative. I'm holding all the cards here, WDMSO.

"as you comments concerning riots when have you seen Conservatives riot .. is that how you thinks riots work can you have a more simplistic view ??"

Every recent American riot, going back for decades, is liberals going berserk because they didn't get what they wanted. If you can cite examples to the contrary, please to so. If you can't, perhaps you can admit that I have a point.

yeah...that's a good comparison :doh:

Yeesh! THAT'S the best he can do? Scott, do you notice, that they can never, and I mean NEVER, admit that the other side has a point? On anything. Ever.

I'm not saying that conservatives don't do horrible things, of course they do. But we don't riot when things don't go our way. That's a card played exclusively by liberals. But they won't admit it. They cannot admit facts which don't paint them in a favorable light. The ideology is one big denial-fest.

In the Bob Gates book: Duty. He states Hillary admitted she voted against the surge because of politics. She did not vote because it was sound or not, or whether it would make things better or worse in Iraq - she voted because of Politics.

Correct.

But there's always a chance Gates is lying, right? Even if we set that aside...we know that she voted for the war "with conviction", then when the war became unpopular, we know what she said to Petreus about what the Surge would do.

She was dead wrong when she said Iraq had WMDs, and she was dead wrong when she said the Surge couldn't do what Petreus said it could do (and she called him a liar, to boot). If her instincts are that bad, on what basis is she a great candidate. What is the "net value", as Spence put it, of her leadership? Iraq went completely south during her watch as Secstate, and her state department refused to increase the security of the ambassador to Libya, which turned out to be the wrong call. She claims that she didn't know what the "C" marking means on intelligence reports for Christ's sake. And whether you believe her endless, changing list of excuses or not, we know the FBI said she was "extremely careless" with sensitive information.

Trump is no all-star, either. But as I have said, most people are honest about Trumps faults and his virtues. Democrats, as a group, won't concede her baggage. because they can't ever be wrong about anything.

I'm not saying that conservatives don't do horrible things, of course they do. But we don't riot when things don't go our way.



I don't know...those Tea Partybagger Terrorists were pretty violent, rioting, looting...killed a bunch of people and did a lot of property damage along the way....:kewl:

I don't know...those Tea Partybagger Terrorists were pretty violent, rioting, looting...killed a bunch of people and did a lot of property damage along the way....:kewl:

Meanwhile, the Occupy Wall Street crowd was just picking up garbage and cleaning up graffiti.

In the Bob Gates book: Duty. He states Hillary admitted she voted against the surge because of politics. She did not vote because it was sound or not, or whether it would make things better or worse in Iraq - she voted because of Politics.

You mean the same Bob Gates who described Hillary as "smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world."

The same Bob Gates who had to clarify his characterization of Obama making nearly the exact same political statement because it was taken out of context?

The same Hillary who publicly opposed the surge because she thought the troops would be of more use in Afghanistan?

I for one have never seen a ghost writer sensationalize a story to give it some edge and make some headlines. Frankly I'm not sure it's even ever happened.

You mean the same Bob Gates who described Hillary as "smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world."

The same Bob Gates who had to clarify his characterization of Obama making nearly the exact same political statement because it was taken out of context?

The same Hillary who publicly opposed the surge because she thought the troops would be of more use in Afghanistan?

I for one have never seen a ghost writer sensationalize a story to give it some edge and make some headlines. Frankly I'm not sure it's even ever happened.


So you are questioning the integrity of likely the one person that was in both admins with some integrity?

So should I also discount his opinion of Obama - which was generally favorable ?

So you are questioning the integrity of likely the one person that was in both admins with some integrity?

So should I also discount his opinion of Obama - which was generally favorable ?
I don't question Gate's integrity at all, but even good people make misleading points. He had to walk back his statement about Obama on the exact same topic in the exact same book.

I'm sure Clinton did consider the political optics of that vote in her decision but also think she was against it. This is normal.

I don't question Gate's integrity at all, but even good people make misleading points.

I know what you mean.....I know this guy, on a fishing website.......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't question Gate's integrity at all, but even good people make misleading points. He had to walk back his statement about Obama on the exact same topic in the exact same book.

I'm sure Clinton did consider the political optics of that vote in her decision but also think she was against it. This is normal.

Spence, she was against the Surge, as the video shows, because she didn't think it could possibly produce the benefits that Petreus claimed it would provide. She actually insulted Petreus, saying that to believe him, "requires the willful suspension of disbelief". That's basically saying that no sane person would believe him.

Yet he was 100% right. So what des it say about her "net leadership value", that she was dead wrong on the Surge?