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

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

So much contempt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I heard even the outlet covers and the janitor's share of the evening porridge. Is there no limit to their shame?

Here's another great one.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/31/politi...cue/index.html

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

Amazing.

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

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

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

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

https://youtu.be/JctBYrIaKvY

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

https://youtu.be/s4r_iEtlPZc

Are the guns gone?

http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/2...ated-a-violent


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nice, good to know you can be wrong twice.

Go read her op-ed in the Washington Post.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-out-of-touch/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

Really lazy.

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

A classic "non-post."

THis is a post?

Is her secret service code name spence?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hillar...155339051.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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


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

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

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

[QUOTE=wdmso;1105616]I think many Americans view debt incurred to ensure national security as one thing...debt incurred on programs that do nothing for anybody (except help politicians buy votes) is something else. There's so much useless pork and waste...does the debt not increase because of illegals getting benefits?

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

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

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

[QUOTE=wdmso;1105616]The cost of war is a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government. The massive social programs and entitlements of today, as well as education, are not Constitutional responsibilities of the Federal Government. More is budgeted for extra-Constitutional funding than is budgeted for the military.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Along with increasing debt.

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

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

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

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

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

That was up there.

"with so many to choose from"

That was up there.

"his calling out the mother was just reprehensible"

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

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

Hmmm?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It begins at an early age

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

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/michel...-equal?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device