If you want to know why people like me are fed up, watch this 60-second video. Just 60 seconds.

In the first 3 seconds, Hilary says she has been briefed "on the bombings" in NYC. So far, so good.

NOT 60 SECONDS LATER, a reporter asks Hilary if she wants to take the opportunity to bash Trump for referring to the violence in the SAME EXACT WAY, as bombings. Naturally, Hilary trashed Trump, saying he needs to get his facts first before referring to it as a bombing, which again, is exactly what she did, 50 seconds before.

Spence? WDMSO? Paul?

I could never write this script. No one in the media, or in the Hilary camp, sees anything hypocritical here. She is such a reprehensible witch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKA9L6IQvoQ

Then, the NYPD says that the bombing suspect is named Ahmad Kahn Rahami. But the mayor says it's not terrorism. Nah, he's probably a Benedictine monk, not an Islamic jihadist.

Atta boy, Columbo. DiBlasio is a real sharpie...

I'm so fed up with the media. What ever happened to real journalism ? I mean real non-biased fact based investigative journalism? It's gone. And because of that, these people are free to deceive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Timeline Jim, timeline.

Timeline Jim, timeline.

Saturday night while New York and New Jersey we're dealing with bombs and casualties, your dear leader was bashing Trump and making Islamic extremist jokes to the black caucus .
How's that for timing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Timeline Jim, timeline.

Please elaborate?

There is a timeline according to which, Trump jumped the gun by calling it a bomb, but Hilary was brilliant for calling it a bomb? Is that what it is?

Maybe Trump (like Hilary when she flip-flopped on whether Benghazi was a terror attack or a crowd expressing it's displeasure with an internet video) was simply responding to the latest intel he was given. Isn't that how you justified Hilary's flip-flopping? Why doesn't Trump get the same courtesy from you?

What I don't get, is that there is SO MUCH legitimate criticism you can heap on him. Why do libs need to make stuff up? The guy bragged about the size of his hands in a presidential debate, marking an historic low in political discourse. That's fair game, hit him with that.

There is a timeline according to which, Trump jumped the gun by calling it a bomb, but Hilary was brilliant for calling it a bomb? Is that what it is?
Who ever said she was brilliant for calling it a bombing? The entire story is about Trump jumping the gun to play on people's fears.

I'm just glad they (likely) got the guy before he could kill any one.

Who ever said she was brilliant for calling it a bombing? The entire story is about Trump jumping the gun to play on people's fears.

I'm just glad they (likely) got the guy before he could kill any one.

So when Trump called it a bombing, all we knew was that it was an explosion, that's what you are saying? When he called it a bombing, there was no credible evidence to support that?

Can you back that up? I see a lot of general criticism here by you, but no facts to support said criticism. How do you know what Trump had been told about the event, at the time he called it a bombing? Or are you just assuming he screwed it up.

Also, since I don't think you responded on the other thread...you criticized Trump for profiting from other people's loss. How is that worse, than say, a defense lawyer cashing a nice paycheck, for defending someone who raped a child?

I just can't wait, to hear your explanation...

Have you ever been critical of her? Can you point to a specific time where you think she screwed up?

Also, since I don't think you responded on the other thread...you criticized Trump for profiting from other people's loss. How is that worse, than say, a defense lawyer cashing a nice paycheck, for defending someone who raped a child?


This was media crap; should Trump have been more careful with saying bombing, maybe. Is this a big deal, no, it shouldn't be. At least this time he didn't immediately tweet before even offering condolences and the bodies were still warm (thankfully no one died in these attacks) about 'thanks for telling me I was right about Islamic terrorism'

I have no idea what case you are referring to, but the jist is...?
She was a defense attorney, and her client was accused of rape.

Did he run up and down the courtroom aisle laughing about raping a child admitting he was guilty while she just danced and said 'hey look at me, making money off raped kids?'? Did he not deserve a fair trial? Public defenders get paid all the time to defend people like that, do you despise them as well? Sometimes #^&#^&#^&#^&ty people have funds and a private attorney is hired to defend them as their job. Sometimes those #^&#^&#^&#^&ty people go free, and yes, that sucks.

This was media crap; should Trump have been more careful with saying bombing, maybe. Is this a big deal, no, it shouldn't be. At least this time he didn't immediately tweet before even offering condolences and the bodies were still warm (thankfully no one died in these attacks) about 'thanks for telling me I was right about Islamic terrorism'

I have no idea what case you are referring to, but the jist is...?
She was a defense attorney, and her client was accused of rape.

Did he run up and down the courtroom aisle laughing about raping a child admitting he was guilty while she just danced and said 'hey look at me, making money off raped kids?'? Did he not deserve a fair trial? Public defenders get paid all the time to defend people like that, do you despise them as well? Sometimes #^&#^&#^&#^&ty people have funds and a private attorney is hired to defend them as their job. Sometimes those #^&#^&#^&#^&ty people go free, and yes, that sucks.

She won one for the bad guy . She seems to be on the wrong side of right way too often . Some see this as a problem .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So when Trump called it a bombing, all we knew was that it was an explosion, that's what you are saying? When he called it a bombing, there was no credible evidence to support that?

Can you back that up? I see a lot of general criticism here by you, but no facts to support said criticism. How do you know what Trump had been told about the event, at the time he called it a bombing? Or are you just assuming he screwed it up.
Yes Jim, at the time Trump said that it was just a reported unknown explosion. He jumped the gun to promote fear then this morning congratulated himself for it.

He has a mental disorder.

Also, since I don't think you responded on the other thread...you criticized Trump for profiting from other people's loss. How is that worse, than say, a defense lawyer cashing a nice paycheck, for defending someone who raped a child?
Please do some homework on this subject.

She won one for the bad guy . She seems to be on the wrong side of right way too often . Some see this as a problem .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She was a lawyer, I don't hold her doing the best job she can for a client against her.

She was a lawyer, I don't hold her doing the best job she can for a client against her.

She knew he was guilty when she took the case. She didn't have to take it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This was media crap; should Trump have been more careful with saying bombing, maybe. Is this a big deal, no, it shouldn't be. At least this time he didn't immediately tweet before even offering condolences and the bodies were still warm (thankfully no one died in these attacks) about 'thanks for telling me I was right about Islamic terrorism'

I have no idea what case you are referring to, but the jist is...?
She was a defense attorney, and her client was accused of rape.

Did he run up and down the courtroom aisle laughing about raping a child admitting he was guilty while she just danced and said 'hey look at me, making money off raped kids?'? Did he not deserve a fair trial? Public defenders get paid all the time to defend people like that, do you despise them as well? Sometimes #^&#^&#^&#^&ty people have funds and a private attorney is hired to defend them as their job. Sometimes those #^&#^&#^&#^&ty people go free, and yes, that sucks.


"Is this a big deal, no, it shouldn't be. "

It's not a big deal that 95% of the media is in the bag for one political party?


"I have no idea what case you are referring to, but the jist is...?"

The jist is this (and I think you knew it already, because you are pretty sharp)...if Spence doesn't like it when Trump profits off of other people's losses, I would genuinely like to know how the heck he reconciles that, with the fact that Hilary profited off of the rape of a little girl. Unless she was this guy's court-appointed attorney, then there is nothing in the ethics of the bar (pretend lawyers have ethics for a minute) that obligates an attorney to agree to represent every client that walks in the door. She calls herself a feminist? i don' t think Gloria Allred would have defended the guy.

If Hilary can profit from the misery of others, why can't Trump? Is that an unfair question?

I despise Trump as a person. I am not defending him, so you don't need to list his ethical flaws. I am asking why there is such an obvious, glaring, double-standard between what she gets away with, and what he gets away with. Telling me he's a jerk, doesn't come close to answering the question I asked.


"Did he not deserve a fair trial? "

For the millionth time...boy, liberals have a really hard time responding to what others actually say. I never said we should execute the guy without due process. I said that as a result of this case, she profited from someone else's misery. So if Spence implies that such sleazy profiteering renders one unfit to be POTUS, why does Spence only apply that standard to the GOP?

"Sometimes those #^&#^&#^&#^&ty people go free, and yes, that sucks"

That's right. So there is nothing unfair, to hold the people who benefit from that, responsible for their actions. Or at least, to hold them to the same standard, regardless of their political party.

I don't have a huge issue with what Hilary did in that case. What I have an issue with, is saying that it's OK if she profits from someone else's pain, but it's wrong when Trump does it.

She knew he was guilty when she took the case. She didn't have to take it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and then I think she married him....

Yes Jim, at the time Trump said that it was just a reported unknown explosion. He jumped the gun to promote fear then this morning congratulated himself for it.

He has a mental disorder.


Please do some homework on this subject.

"Yes Jim, at the time Trump said that it was just a reported unknown explosion."

Boy, the information sources you must have! When Hilary kept flip-flopping on the cause of the Benghazi attack, you somehow knew that she wasn't flip-flopping for political convenience...rather, you knew that she was always simply responding to the latest intelligence. That must be a secret source of information, because despite the fact that I asked you many times, you chose not to share that data with me.

And here, you somehow know what Trump was aware of, and what he wasn't aware of, when he said it was a bomb. It couldn't be that someone told him by then it was a bomb, because if that were the case, you couldn't accuse him of fear-mongering. Nope, you have a source inside the Trump camp that's as knowledgeable as your source inside the Hilary camp, who told you that he had no valid reason to believe it was a bomb when he said such.

Amazing. And so fortunate for you, that these amazing sources that you won't reveal, always seem to praise Hilary, and always seem to paint Trump as an idiot. What a coincidence.

It's a coincidence. Right?

MAYBE Trump has access to better information than what's reported on TV.

She knew he was guilty when she took the case. She didn't have to take it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
She was asked by the Judge to take the case. That's not something you'd refuse lightly...Aren't even rapists presumed innocent until proven guilty?

Wait, we're talking about Hillary Clinton. I forgot...

She was asked by the Judge to take the case. That's not something you'd refuse lightly...Aren't even rapists presumed innocent until proven guilty?

Wait, we're talking about Hillary Clinton. I forgot...

Hilary certainly didn't break any laws in doing what she did. But as far as I know, neither did Trump in his business deals, bankruptcies, etc. So again, why the double standard? Why do you give Hilary a pass, but criticize Trump for profiting from the misery of others?

She was asked by the Judge to take the case. That's not something you'd refuse lightly...Aren't even rapists presumed innocent until proven guilty?

Wait, we're talking about Hillary Clinton. I forgot...

Yes she is guilty but it hasn't been proven yet (At least to you ) 😁
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She is also on tape as saying this, and then laughing about it...

"I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs."


Hah hah hah, you knew he was guilty of raping a 12 year old girl. Again, someone has to defend the guy. Not everyone would laugh about it.

She is also on tape as saying this, and then laughing about it...

"I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs."

Jim, she was laughing in the interview because the guy passed a polygraph and then ended up pleading guilty in the case!

I just read on reddit that the clown tech who managed hillarys server logged on to Reddit and asked how to wipe a server and to make sure the sender's name would be permenently deleted. He thought he was being anonymous but his user name was linked to his real name. This could be the smoking gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just read on reddit that the clown tech who managed hillarys server logged on to Reddit and asked how to wipe a server and to make sure the sender's name would be permenently deleted. He thought he was being anonymous but his user name was linked to his real name. This could be the smoking gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The same guy who forgot to change her email retention policy on server then panicked and tried to delete after he was told not to? That's not much of a smoking gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The same guy who forgot to change her email retention policy on server then panicked and tried to delete after he was told not to? That's not much of a smoking gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe she should put her IT people through a "Grueling Vetting Process" before she hires them...

Oh....wait.....different process
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The same guy who forgot to change her email retention policy on server then panicked and tried to delete after he was told not to? That's not much of a smoking gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Otherwise known as the scapegoat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since Jim Likes to hear things that are not there I will attempt to explain this for him since he ask me directly

yes she referred to the incident as a bombing clearly after she was briefed on the Matter she stated as much

she then stated "he needs to get his facts first before referring to it as a bombing Donald did not and she went on to explain the pitfalls of such un informed declarations .untill the whole incident has been clarified . I can clearly see the pitfalls panic, retribution the list is endless.. you can't?

Jim your Blind Hatred is on display once again

yet Trump shows hes not POTUS material hence his current statement.. Mr Trump says it is "sad" that Mr Rahami, a naturalised US citizen, will receive medical care and legal representation

Its SAD?? really That treatment and due process towards a scum bag like him. Is what makes America great and separates us from them...

Since Jim Likes to hear things that are not there I will attempt to explain this for him since he ask me directly

yes she referred to the incident as a bombing clearly after she was briefed on the Matter she stated as much

she then stated "he needs to get his facts first before referring to it as a bombing Donald did not and she went on to explain the pitfalls of such un informed declarations .untill the whole incident has been clarified . I can clearly see the pitfalls panic, retribution the list is endless.. you can't?

Jim your Blind Hatred is on display once again

yet Trump shows hes not POTUS material hence his current statement.. Mr Trump says it is "sad" that Mr Rahami, a naturalised US citizen, will receive medical care and legal representation

Its SAD?? really That treatment and due process towards a scum bag like him. Is what makes America great and separates us from them...

Mr Rahami, who is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt is now going to cost us millions and millions . Do you want to know who's paying for that, look in the mirror . If Hillary gets in he will be tried in American court system if Trump gets in he will have a military trial and when found guilty , executed .
Yet another reason to vote for Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That treatment and due process towards a scum bag like him. Is what makes America great and separates us from them...

oh boy :huh:

hey, didn't this administration off a us citizen(s) without any "due process"?

Mr Rahami, who is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt is now going to cost us millions and millions . Do you want to know who's paying for that, look in the mirror . If Hillary gets in he will be tried in American court system if Trump gets in he will have a military trial and when found guilty , executed .
Yet another reason to vote for Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


American citizen or is that to hard for you to understand

Hillary get in things get done as the laws requires

Trump extrajudicial punishment

I get it

Otherwise known as the scapegoat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wonder if he's on the 2 shots to the back of the head suicide watch ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh boy :huh:

hey, didn't this administration off a us citizen(s) without any "due process"?

let me know when this happens on US soil

not in some tent in another country and not a known terrorist

in June 2014, a previously classified memorandum issued by the United States Department of Justice was released, justifying al-Awlaki's death as a lawful act of war.

American citizen or is that to hard for you to understand

Hillary get in things get done as the laws requires

Trump extrajudicial punishment

I get it

I think there is precedent on killing American citizens that are enemies to the country. research

BTW...how many more of these "rare" attacks have to occur before you realize we are at war ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she then stated "he needs to get his facts first before referring to it as a bombing Donald did not

Why does he "need" to. It was clearly his opinion that it was a bomb. It was an opinion based on precedence. And it was correct. American citizens are free to have opinions.

and she went on to explain the pitfalls of such un informed declarations .untill the whole incident has been clarified . I can clearly see the pitfalls panic, retribution the list is endless.. you can't?

Pitfalls, panic, retribution, the list is endless . . . because he said bomb? You seriously think that there will be panic because he called it a bomb? Has there been, is there now, panic when it turned out to be a bomb? Where is all the retribution now that it has been proved to be a bomb? What is the endless list? It's more scary to me that we try to limit or suppress speech for political reasons.


Jim your Blind Hatred is on display once again

yet Trump shows hes not POTUS material hence his current statement..

Point out how he has shown that he is not POTUS material. Be careful now, you might cause panic or retribution.

Mr Trump says it is "sad" that Mr Rahami, a naturalised US citizen, will receive medical care and legal representation

Its SAD?? really That treatment and due process towards a scum bag like him. Is what makes America great and separates us from them...

He didn't say it was illegal. He didn't say it was wrong. He said it was sad. What makes America great is not only the sad necessity of affording due process to scumbags, but the ability to say that it is sad.

Some guys have a double standard. Who remembers Hillarys opinion on why Benghazi occurred. Presidential material.....to whom?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The short list. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-who-tells-dreadful-lies/2016/09/19/cd38412e-7e6a-11e6-9070-5c4905bf40dc_story.html?ref=yfp&utm_term=.c45e7107db1a
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since Jim Likes to hear things that are not there I will attempt to explain this for him since he ask me directly

yes she referred to the incident as a bombing clearly after she was briefed on the Matter she stated as much

she then stated "he needs to get his facts first before referring to it as a bombing Donald did not and she went on to explain the pitfalls of such un informed declarations .untill the whole incident has been clarified . I can clearly see the pitfalls panic, retribution the list is endless.. you can't?

Jim your Blind Hatred is on display once again

yet Trump shows hes not POTUS material hence his current statement.. Mr Trump says it is "sad" that Mr Rahami, a naturalised US citizen, will receive medical care and legal representation

Its SAD?? really That treatment and due process towards a scum bag like him. Is what makes America great and separates us from them...

"yes she referred to the incident as a bombing clearly after she was briefed on the Matter she stated as much "

That is fair. Here is my question to you (I asked Spence, he dodged). How can you possibly know what Trump was briefed on, at the time he said it was a bombing? Maybe someone in the FBI told him "it was a bomb".

"she went on to explain the pitfalls of such un informed declarations "

So when she repeatedly flip-flopped on the cause of the Benghazi attack, clearly she didn't have all the facts. Right? So are you equally critical of her, for making "uninformed declarations"? You see, I also believe that leaders have a responsibility not to leap to conclusions. But unlike liberals, I apply that consistently to both Republicans and Democrats.

"Jim your Blind Hatred is on display once again "

Guilty as charged. I hate these dishonest, hypocritical liberals, and their puppets in the media. They are undermining the concept of a free democracy, and abusing the freedoms that many have fought to secure. They don't question anything she says, and endlessly dump on him.

"yet Trump shows hes not POTUS material"

But someone who claims she came under sniper fire, when what she actually faced was a smiling child handing her a flower, is POTUS material? Again, the glaring, obvious, demonstrable hypocrisy.

Here is where you and I are very different. I can agree with you that he's an obnoxious ass. He made fun of John McCain's imprisonment, he made fun of Carly Fiorina's face, and he bragged that his hands are larger than Marco Rubio's (that was the most appalling thing I have seen at a debate). He's morally bankrupt.

But so is she. She claimed that Bill wasn't cheating on her, but that the GOP was framing him. She attacked the character of his victims, yet she claims to be a feminist. She makes tens of millions from Wall Street speeches, but claims she is opposed to crony capitalism and a rigged system that favors insiders. Her and her husband stole thousands of dollars worth of stuff form the White House on their way out, and claimed they were broke. She voted for the Iraq War, then claimed that the Surge could never provide benefits that Petreus claimed it would provide (and she called him a liar for making the predictions he made, which of course turned out to be true). She lied about coming under sniper fire, and refuses to admit she lied. The email situation speaks for itself, and when pressed, she blamed it on the nearest black guy, Colin Powell. When asked if her server had been 'scrubbed', she made a wiping gesture and said "you mean with a cloth", as if she didn't know what the reporter was asking. The day after the DOJ announced no charges, her team said they would consider keeping Loretta Lynch on as AG. She criticizes Trump and Pence for not denouncing David Duke, while at the same time she kisses the ring of Al Sharpton. She claims to have collapsed from pneumonia, minutes after shaking hands with folks, including children, at a rally. Then she calls me deplorable. That's POTUS material? To say that half of those who disagree with you, are deplorable? She says tens of millions of ordinary Americans are deplorable, but you say that I am the hatemonger, not her. That makes sense.

Trump is more crass and sophomoric in his language, no question, than she is. But they are both morally bankrupt scumbags. Liberals trash Trump for all of his transgressions, and turn a blind eye to all of hers. That's what I cannot stand.

Please tell me where I am wrong, exactly. I don't engage in idiotic conspiracy theories such as who she had murdered, but I do engage in facts. So if any one of those things, are things that "I am hearing that are not there", by all means, enlighten me.

Today, the fabricated liberal outrage is that Donald Trump Jr compared suffering human beings to pieces of candy. Did he say "I think refugees are the ethical equivalent of candy"? Of course not. What he said, regarding the risk of letting in refugees, is this...if I gave you a bowl of 100 Skittles and said that 1 was poisoned, how many would you let your kids eat?

I have used that analogy. Like Trump, I was accused of comparing candy to human beings. It matters not to liberals, that I never said anything remotely like that. But calling me a hatemonger, is a lot easier than trying to make me wrong.

Liberals aren't interested in winning the debate. They want to cancel the debate. Because they are smart enough to realize that they can never, ever win a fair debate. Not only can they never win, they can't even avoid looking like morons and like monsters, because their policy positions are that inane and amoral.

So instead of explaining why their positions are morally superior to mine, they just keep saying it. Over and over and over, until it is assumed to be true.

I grew up between New Haven and Bridgeport, CT. I have seen firsthand what 40 years of unchecked liberalism has done for those people. Because I take a principled position that they deserve better, I am called a hater. That's the best liberals can do.

Again, to my point with this post. How do we know what Trump was told, or not told, when he said it was a bomb?

Also, mayor DiBlasio said right from the start, that there was no evidence this was Islamic terrorism. How many liberals are saying he should have kept his idiotic mouth shut until the investigation was done? I haven't heard one. Because, again, only conservatives are held to that standard. Again, the glaring hypocrisy.

Some guys have a double standard. Who remembers Hillarys opinion on why Benghazi occurred. Presidential material.....to whom?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's OK when she flip-flops, when she offers explanations that are (1) clearly not based on all the facts, and (2) also happened to be very self-serving (don't blame me, it was a spontaneous response to a video, it wasn't anything we could have predicted)

She claims she was confused about sniper fire, because she was "tired". Well, if she gets elected POTUS, she won't always be able to get 10 hours of sleep. So if we believe that she was just tired (an no one believes that), why shouldn't we concerned that if she's tired in the future, she won't confuse a girl scout selling cookies with a sniper, and yell at her Secret Service agents "there's a sniper! Shoot her!".

You can't have it both ways. Unless you are a liberal, in which case you can have it as many ways as is convenient for you.

They both suck.

End of story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They both suck.

End of story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo.

trumps job is to make everyone relieved when she beats him in November. If she was running against someone else who is less of a fraudulent con artist, she'd probably loose. This speaks volumes about how corrupt our media sources are and how they have propped up trump the whole way. And Hillary for that matter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They are undermining the concept of a free democracy, and abusing the freedoms that many have fought to secure.

I feel the same things but theses feeling are not about the liberals .. they are from those who see the world thru the same lens as you do .. the wish to go back in time . and ignore the present and refuse to move the country into the future ..

They both suck.

End of story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.79098013.3027/poster,375x360,ffffff.u1.jpg

They are undermining the concept of a free democracy, and abusing the freedoms that many have fought to secure.

I feel the same things but theses feeling are not about the liberals .. they are from those who see the world thru the same lens as you do .. the wish to go back in time . and ignore the present and refuse to move the country into the future ..

"I feel the same things but theses feeling are not about the liberals .. "

Right. Because since you agree with them, it's OK when they are unfair or dishonest. Yu only expect those with whom you disagree, to play by the rules.

"the wish to go back in time . and ignore the present and refuse to move the country into the future "

You're god damn right I want to go back in time. As I said, I remember when it was fun and safe to visit cities like Hartford and New Haven. I remember when it was expected that families would stay in tact, and that people took a long term view of things, rather than acting only on what feels good right now. If that's progress, you can keep it.

So according to you, what has happened in cities like Chicago over the last 50 years is "progress".

When what's in front of you is a cliff, I don't see how driving forward at 100 mph is a good thing.

Anyway, I made a ton of valid points, using actual historical facts to support my positions, and naturally, the best you could do is come back with a vague insult that I am afraid of the future, and therefore regressive, and therefore I am inferior.

Not a single fact, not even a specific opinion, to refute one syllable I typed.

When we can point to things in the past that actually worked and bore fruit, is it really bad to endorse a return to those things? Especially when you can point to the horrible effects of liberalism?

WDMSO, exactly how bad do things have to get in the black community, before liberals conclude, that liberalism isn't working? How much worse do things have to get, before you can agree, that the policies embraced in our cities, in any black area for that matter, are simply bad policies?

That is fair. Here is my question to you (I asked Spence, he dodged). How can you possibly know what Trump was briefed on, at the time he said it was a bombing? Maybe someone in the FBI told him "it was a bomb".
The bomb went off just as he was getting off the plane, he walked up to the mic and said it...

The bomb went off just as he was getting off the plane, he walked up to the mic and said it...

God you just really have the need to get an irrelevant point across .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The bomb went off just as he was getting off the plane, he walked up to the mic and said it...

Now that's what I call being on top of things....

Just imagine how things might have been if Hilary got to the Office just as the Benghazi attacks happened and she picked up the phone and said "It was a terrorist attack"

The bomb went off just as he was getting off the plane, he walked up to the mic and said it...

You can't know what he had been told before he made his statement.

Maybe it was wild speculation on his part. If so, it appears that his ability to speculate on such things is superior to Hilary's ability to speculate on such things (Iraq had WMDs; the Surge won't work; Bill didn't cheat on me, the GOP is framing him; we can reduce security for State Dept personnel in Libya; we can pull out of Iraq, it won't de-stabilize).

trumps job is to make everyone relieved when she beats him in November. If she was running against someone else who is less of a fraudulent con artist, she'd probably loose. This speaks volumes about how corrupt our media sources are and how they have propped up trump the whole way. And Hillary for that matter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is sad, Hillary, in Trump, has the one person she could probably beat in an election. Trump, in Hillary, has someone so unfavorable that he has a chance making sh!t up as he goes along.

We, the people, get the government we deserve, not the government we need.

Now that's what I call being on top of things....

Just imagine how things might have been if Hilary got to the Office just as the Benghazi attacks happened and she picked up the phone and said "It was a terrorist attack"

At least once they confirm it was, not a movie. There was a few hour window at Foggy Bottom where the was actually plenty of, as Spence calls it, Fog of War. The rest was just politics

At least once they confirm it was, not a movie. There was a few hour window at Foggy Bottom where the was actually plenty of, as Spence calls it, Fog of War. The rest was just politics
Even General Petraeus has said they still don't know for sure the specific role the movie played in the attack.

Even General Petraeus has said they still don't know for sure the specific role the movie played in the attack.

Give it up ! We don't have amnesia like Hillary ...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just used that same analogy last week about a co-worker....must be common denominator in all her supporters..

I work with a guy who is a die hard Hilary Supporter....and I swear to god its like talking to a victim of some deranged form of Domestic Abuse....

They deny that the other person lied or did anything terrible in the past, even though deep down inside they know its true. But going forward they know everything is going to be OK because they've changed.

Then they do something terrible again, but they said they were sorry and didn't really mean it, but it's going to be OK because they promised that it will never happen again.....and they still love them and are certain they are going to change...Just wait and see :wall:

I knew I liked you DF. :cheers:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe we can get Spence some consuling. :hidin:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's an awful lot like battered wife syndrome...

Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That quote was the sniper shot that Spence had hoped to dodge.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe we can get Spence some consuling. :hidin:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We can only help him if he wants to help himself....

Might have to get an intervention going....

Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Funny, I know a lot of Berners who are having trouble these days.

Hell, it looks like even Bush 41 is with her...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/exclusive-george-hw-bush-to-vote-for-hillary-228395

As reported by a Kennedy. God knows none of them are subject to moral lapses.

If it's true, it's a sign of what we are all saying - Trump is a rotten human being. I haven't seen a single person here deny that. Not one.

You are the one in denial. What's your harshest criticism of her, anyway? That she's so beautiful, some people might not appreciate her true genius?

Funny, I know a lot of Berners who are having trouble these days.

Hell, it looks like even Bush 41 is with her...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/exclusive-george-hw-bush-to-vote-for-hillary-228395

More proof it's time for a change
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More proof it's time for a change
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yup
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More proof it's time for a change
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That people would pick Trump just for change is irrational.

That people would pick Trump just for change is irrational.

coming from someone who is completely irrational.....

That people would pick Trump just for change is irrational.
Who said that ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That people would pick Trump just for change is irrational.

Trump wouldn't be noticeably different than Obama?

People are giving a big Eff Eue to mainstream politics and politicians. Who is to say what the Super Delegates had been in Bernie's favor. I kinda wish it was him -v- Trump.

Sure wish the GOP had Super Delegates...

Even General Petraeus has said they still don't know for sure the specific role the movie played in the attack.

Benghazi Report:
Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]


Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or Stockholm Syndrome - anyone check on him? See if Anthony Wiener has him hostage or something?

Benghazi Report:
Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
Would you like me to nuke this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Would you like me to nuke this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I bet Hilary knows where you can tuck it away....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I feel the same things but theses feeling are not about the liberals .. "

Right. Because since you agree with them, it's OK when they are unfair or dishonest. Yu only expect those with whom you disagree, to play by the rules.

"the wish to go back in time . and ignore the present and refuse to move the country into the future "

You're god damn right I want to go back in time. As I said, I remember when it was fun and safe to visit cities like Hartford and New Haven. I remember when it was expected that families would stay in tact, and that people took a long term view of things, rather than acting only on what feels good right now. If that's progress, you can keep it.

So according to you, what has happened in cities like Chicago over the last 50 years is "progress".

When what's in front of you is a cliff, I don't see how driving forward at 100 mph is a good thing.

Anyway, I made a ton of valid points, using actual historical facts to support my positions, and naturally, the best you could do is come back with a vague insult that I am afraid of the future, and therefore regressive, and therefore I am inferior.

Not a single fact, not even a specific opinion, to refute one syllable I typed.

When we can point to things in the past that actually worked and bore fruit, is it really bad to endorse a return to those things? Especially when you can point to the horrible effects of liberalism?

WDMSO, exactly how bad do things have to get in the black community, before liberals conclude, that liberalism isn't working? How much worse do things have to get, before you can agree, that the policies embraced in our cities, in any black area for that matter, are simply bad policies?

Jim thats your issue you assume all those places were great a utopia for all to see . Fall river was once also a shinny example a great place to live as was new bedford springfield Lynn and other areas in RI your only answer to all theses areas demise is liberalism.. how can you say that with a straight face

here is 1 example Polaroid employs 6,700 employees worldwide, more than half of whom work in eastern Massachusetts.
Polaroid will be shutting down two of its three major manufacturing locations in Massachusetts, leaving one location in New Bedford still running. Polaroid also announced last week its plans to eliminate health benefits and insurance payments to some retirees, many of whom live in Cambridge and surrounding areas.the company moved ahead with plans to give top executives millions of dollars in retention bonuses.


you leave out basic economics and the loss of industry in all those areas the only ones left in theses area are those who cant afford to leave

many here speak of liberalism as the country's demise if in these past 50 years a republican hasn't sat in the white house or been in control of the both house's ?

13 US presidents since World War ll
7 Democrats and 6 Republicans

jim you do make some valid points the only issue is not all your points and facts represent the whole picture or stand up to closer scruinty. when presented as "the reasons" you claim them to be

yet again you fall back on the black community as evidence of the issues with liberalism lets bring back the 50's I bet those black communities were also a utopia

Jim thats your issue you assume all those places were great a utopia for all to see . Fall river was once also a shinny example a great place to live as was new bedford springfield Lynn and other areas in RI your only answer to all theses areas demise is liberalism.. how can you say that with a straight face

here is 1 example Polaroid employs 6,700 employees worldwide, more than half of whom work in eastern Massachusetts.
Polaroid will be shutting down two of its three major manufacturing locations in Massachusetts, leaving one location in New Bedford still running. Polaroid also announced last week its plans to eliminate health benefits and insurance payments to some retirees, many of whom live in Cambridge and surrounding areas.the company moved ahead with plans to give top executives millions of dollars in retention bonuses.


you leave out basic economics and the loss of industry in all those areas the only ones left in theses area are those who cant afford to leave

many here speak of liberalism as the country's demise if in these past 50 years a republican hasn't sat in the white house or been in control of the both house's ?

13 US presidents since World War ll
7 Democrats and 6 Republicans

jim you do make some valid points the only issue is not all your points and facts represent the whole picture or stand up to closer scruinty. when presented as "the reasons" you claim them to be

yet again you fall back on the black community as evidence of the issues with liberalism lets bring back the 50's I bet those black communities were also a utopia

"you assume all those places were great a utopia for all to see . "

Liberals, including the ones here, have a REALLY hard time responding to what is actually said. I never said those places were "utopias". I said they were all better when I was a kid, than they are now. I have never actually heard anyone dispute that.

"RI your only answer to all theses areas demise is liberalism.. how can you say that with a straight face"

I can say that with a straight face, because liberals are the ones who have been running these cities. If a city is run by liberals for 40 years, and that city becomes a sh*thole, who should we blame? Sarah Palin?

Leadership owns the results, right? Most of our large cities, at least with large black populations, are run by liberal Democrats. And most are sh*tholes that no one would choose to live in.

How can you deny that with a straight face?

How about, instead of insulting me, you tell me, specifically, where I am wrong?

"you leave out basic economics and the loss of industry "

No, I don't. I agree 100% that some cities are not doomed by bad public policy, but by economic issues that they have no control over.

But a lot of those cities were doomed because liberals made those cities very hard to live in for people who want to succeed, and very easy to live in for people who want welfare. Then, liberals compound the problem by telling those on welfare that nothing is their fault, that they are victims of the white guy in a Brooks Brothers suit. That compounds the problem. Well, when that happens, the people who produce will leave, and all you are left with are the ones who need help. That has also plagued many of our cities, and that's a direct effect of liberalism.


"the only ones left in theses area are those who cant afford to leave "

CORRECT! But what you don't see, is that in many cases, the people who left, did so because liberal policies are what made the city uninhabitable. I know white collar people who would love to live in New Haven or Hartford, but they say it's way too expensive, which it is.

People didn't flee Hartford and New Haven for the suburbs, because one company left. They did so, because liberalism made those cities very dangerous, and very expensive.

Calling me an idiot, doesn't make that wrong.

Jim again I'll make it easy
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change.

liberal policies are what made the city uninhabitable wow ...

1970 detroit %55.50 white %53.98 black

2010 %10.61 white %82.69 Black

the first and second Great Migrations of African Americans from the Southern United States between 1910 and 1980 increased Detroit's African American population by over 100 times.[1] From the 1940s to the 1970s a second wave of Blacks moved to Detroit to escape Jim Crow laws in the south and find jobs.[15]

The White population of the city peaked in 1950 and then steadily declined due to white flight, net outmigration through 2010.[1] The white population has fallen 95% between the 1950 and 2010 censuses.

Theres a name for it

White flight is a term that originated in the United States, starting in the mid-20th century, and applied to the large-scale migration of people of various European ancestries from racially mixed urban regions to more racially homogeneous suburban or exurban regions.

Liberalism did this? ok

Jim again I'll make it easy
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change.

liberal policies are what made the city uninhabitable wow ...

1970 detroit %55.50 white %53.98 black

2010 %10.61 white %82.69 Black

the first and second Great Migrations of African Americans from the Southern United States between 1910 and 1980 increased Detroit's African American population by over 100 times.[1] From the 1940s to the 1970s a second wave of Blacks moved to Detroit to escape Jim Crow laws in the south and find jobs.[15]

The White population of the city peaked in 1950 and then steadily declined due to white flight, net outmigration through 2010.[1] The white population has fallen 95% between the 1950 and 2010 censuses.

Theres a name for it

White flight is a term that originated in the United States, starting in the mid-20th century, and applied to the large-scale migration of people of various European ancestries from racially mixed urban regions to more racially homogeneous suburban or exurban regions.

Liberalism did this? ok

"Liberalism did this?"

Yes.

Skin color isn't what determined who left. Economic health determined who left. Poor whites remain in those cities, and self-sufficient blacks fled.

So, what caused people who could take care of themselves, to want to flee? The fact that city life became unattractive. What made city life unattractive? The preponderance of criminals and people on welfare, which drives up taxes. What made those cities attractive to criminals and welfare queens? Liberalism.

WDMSO, do you admit that most of our horrible cities, have been led by liberals for years? Or do you just deny any connection?

Lots of young people in their 20s (who don't have kids yet) would love to live in cities, if they were safer and cheaper. What makes them expensive and dangerous, is liberalism. Policies that reward sloth and punish hard work.

Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that... is critical of proposals for radical social change.



Except changing slavery, segregation, getting AIDS medicine to huge numbers of Africans, etc...

We don't oppose change. We oppose stupid and destructive change. We embrace beneficial change.

Too many black kids are born to single parent households. Conservatives support policies that will change that. Liberals deny that it's a problem, instead blaming the effects on white cops.

Too many public schools stink. Conservatives support a change to school choice. Liberals oppose that, because it means less money will go to public teachers unions, which means lower campaign contributions to Democrats.

How many changes do you want that conservatives endorse, before you will concede your statement is incorrect?

here is 1 example Polaroid employs 6,700 employees worldwide, more than half of whom work in eastern Massachusetts.
Polaroid will be shutting down two of its three major manufacturing locations in Massachusetts, leaving one location in New Bedford still running. Polaroid also announced last week its plans to eliminate health benefits and insurance payments to some retirees, many of whom live in Cambridge and surrounding areas.the company moved ahead with plans to give top executives millions of dollars in retention bonuses.
I think what WDMSO (i.e. whining divisive maligned stupid obstacle) is really trying to say is that liberal policies designed to inhibit small business and enslave poor people distracted Polaroid so much they were blindsided by the digital camera.

I think what WDMSO (i.e. whining divisive maligned stupid obstacle) is really trying to say is that liberal policies designed to inhibit small business and enslave poor people distracted Polaroid so much they were blindsided by the digital camera.

They make digital cameras
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They make digital cameras
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I really can't believe you just posted that. What's your addy? I'm going to have this post engraved and mounted on an heirloom quality plaque for your kids...

I really can't believe you just posted that. What's your addy? I'm going to have this post engraved and mounted on an heirloom quality plaque for your kids...

Add this in to the engraving....

http://www.polaroid.com/products/Z2300-instant-camera
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Add this in to the engraving....

http://www.polaroid.com/products/Z2300-instant-camera
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll make two copies. What's your addy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll make two copies. What's your addy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now I understand why you let Hillary slide all the time.....

Or is the part where it says "Digital Camera" taken out of context?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

QUOTE=wdmso;1108826]Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Classical liberalism is closer to that view than modern liberalism. Classical liberalism is expressed succinctly in the philosophy of John Stuart Mill. In the classical sense, liberty is the individual's right to live his/her own life in the way he/she sees fit, and is free to do or say whatever he wishes so long as it doesn't deprive others of the same freedom, or so long as it doesn't directly and actually harm someone else. And equality is solely before the law. Classical liberals have no pretentions of any other equality or of equal outcome for all. In classical liberalism liberty and equality (except equality before the law) are actually antithetical--equality of outcome, of view on life, of action or anything other than before the law must be forced and actually limits or destroys liberty.

Modern liberalism is closer to Marxian philosophy wherein equality is expressed in group or collective rights more than in individual rights. Its notion of liberty is that which is regulated by society or, more accurately, by government. It is weighted more toward equality rather than liberty. And its version of equality goes well beyond that of classical liberalism. It seeks to impose an equality of thought and outcome on the masses, breaking down the privilege of the few or of one defined group over another. Its tendency is to limit or eventually to eliminate private property. The modern liberal sees property as owned by the community (the village and ultimately the State). It views personal success as being made possible by the functions of government (the State) rather than by the efforts of individuals.

Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change.
[/QUOTE]

Just as current-day "liberals" are not really liberal, at least not in the classical sense, "conservatives" are not really conservative. Both "liberals" and "conservatives" are offshoots of the original classical liberalism, but they both got to where they are today through the founding era of progressivism. One is just more progressively to the "left" than the other. The difference has been described as a sociological one rather than a philosophical one which is based on first principles, or on principles at all.

If there is such a thing as an American classical political conservative, it would, in my opinion, be one who wishes to conserve the founding principles of this country, which primarily includes the Constitution and the constitutional order which was entirely based on classical liberalism.

Modern "conservatives" profess doing so while at the same time often acting like progressives and even like "liberals" but from different sociological or economic views.

If you're really in favor of true (classical) liberalism you should want to conserve our Constitution and fight against its subversion and destruction. The paradox is that such "conservatism" (more properly called neo-classical liberalism) would preserve, or re-institute, real liberalism by "favo[ring] . . . [nationally-defined rule of law]) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical change [in our system of government]" Such a conservatism would restore individual liberty and equality before the law.

Now I understand why you let Hillary slide all the time.....

Or is the part where it says "Digital Camera" taken out of context?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Really?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, what about the majority of large cities that have gone down the toilet, and it has nothing to do with one company or industry leaving? What's the common thread there?

What makes these cities so unattractive, to people who work and make a living? And what makes these cities so attractive, to people who want to commit crimes and live off welfare?

Would you like me to nuke this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure - I pulled my quote off the Benghazi report from Congress.gov - You gotta Hillary memo or something? Private email? Did you strategically message it for her?

I really can't believe you just posted that. What's your addy? I'm going to have this post engraved and mounted on an heirloom quality plaque for your kids...

Look I understand about Polaroids bankruptcies and how the company isnt really Polaroid anymore and that Polaroid digital cameras are for the most part made in China now .... Vote Trump 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device