even though by your own admission, trump
never said it, nor is there any evidence he ever made fun of such a person. there is irrefutable evidence obama has made fun of them, but you don’t care.

so you use a hateful term, to blame trump for doing something he’s never done, but which obama has done.

brilliant. simply brilliant. where’d they find you, Scotland Yard?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He most certainly made fun of the reporter if you want to deny it feel free to. It just shows what a deranged person you are. Any reasonable person knows that's exactly what he was doing. Why don't you just go back and read the post and that other thread and instead of regurgitating all the garbage you said previously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

my phone now
let’s me see the ad. detbuch is right. it doesn’t say what it was alleged to say.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and that reporter didn’t have Downs. so why the word “retard”?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know what he had so I care less. I know he had a disability. If that makes you feel better that he didn't have Downs knock yourself out. But the bottom line is he was mocking someone with a disability he knew the person had a disability yet did it. And that is the classy guy that you are on here defending day in and day out repeatedly. I guess that's a reflection of you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then when asked about it why doesn't he say I never said that the five kids should be executed?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He wasn't mocking the reporter's disability. He was mocking the reporter for, what he considered, backtracking on what he had earlier said.

if you don’t know what he had, why use the word “retard”? do you feel everyone who isn’t perfect, is a “retard”?

this gets better and better. man oh man.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you couldn't read it, how could you tell what was in it?

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
"To be fair it doesn't say 'execute the central park five' but he conveniently it ran during or before the trial (I can't recall which)...."


PaulS: "No, he is a sloppy talker and writer. While it doesn't say bring back the death penalty, he mentions the park (and given the timing) any reasonable person would assume that is what he meant."

Originally Posted by Pete F.
"He still does [claim that Trump called for the Five to be executed] and his comment about them pleading guilty is very interesting when you look at it along with current events in the Flynn case."

PaulS: "Agreed I was just going to come back and say that."

No, you didn't "exactly" say that Trump called for the Five to be executed. And I'm not going to weasel word claim that "any reasonable person would assume that is what [you] meant." Nor, BTW, did Trump "exactly" say that. As a matter of fact, he specifically said that murderers should be executed--not that the Five should. The Five did not murder the biker, nor did he did claim that they did. The ad was mostly not about the Five, nor did he "exactly" even refer to them.

So my quibble is not really with you. It is with what Pete F claimed. And you did seem to back him up. If you do not "exactly" agree with Pete F, that's fine with me. If I am mistaken that you think Trump called for the Central Park Five to be executed, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. But if you think Pete F is right, that Trump did call for that, then I retract my apology and request that you back it up by pointing out where he "exactly" said (or even implied that he said) that the Five should be executed.

man oh man this gets better and better. Did you not read post 60? Somehow you didn't read it but you quoted it. Edit so post 60 was the fourth time I've told you the same thing and still for some reason it doesn't register.

And I have no problem with anyone who's not perfect. But let's remember that the Republicans are constantly talking about makers and takers so you have to assume that if someone is not perfect they probably don't contribute as much as the makers in this world and the Republicans consider them "takers" and therefore look down on them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

a trouncing. an absolute trouncing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and yet, conservatives donate
more time to charity than liberals.

republicans look down on them...

how many times have you called
me out for making generalizations?

and we don’t look down on people
who need help. we look down on people who could be self sufficient but choose to be takers.

you’re having a rough couple of days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I said earlier this is exactly why I think you're a #^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you claimed that detbuch was unfairly claiming you said trump
wanted the kids executed. then he very clearly pointed out that you said exactly that more than once.

if that’s not a trouncing, nothing is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

keep this up and you won't have any friends left

You change your argument from more money to time. But it's the same answer they donate the time to churches. So when my church wanted to make a small Chapel out of what was the garage and I helped demo it that would go towards donating time to a charity which in effect nobody else is going to use other than the parishioners.

I've heard it numerous times about makers and takers here and elsewhere but you're right it was a generalization I shouldn't have made. It doesn't change the fact that they look down on people who don't contribute as much as others.

I'm not having a rough time bc I think it's hilarious how you're so deranged that you spend day after day, night after night, week day, weekends defending Donald Trump. No matter how incompetent he is, no matter what he does, how stupid his statements. you will defend him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have any here? Because I noticed that snarky people are originally looked at as funny and then after a while people just start to ignore them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not changing anything, you know the study showed that conservatives donate more money, more time, and more blood, than liberals.

you dismiss the money due to religion. why do they donate more time?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Go back and re-read what you just quoted
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

paul, your hatred of Trump has you using the word “retard” to describe everyone who has anything wrong with them. i say that’s indicative of having a very rough time. you disagree, you don’t think it’s a sign of anything.

and i’m the #^&#^&#^&#^& for suggesting you not throw that term around. but you know better.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the fifth time go back and re-read post 60. And you're a #^&#^&#^&#^& for the constant insults you throw around here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i read it . but by your own admissions, you have zero evidence he ever made fun of such a person. i less you view all disabled people as “retards”, which is, well, have fun with that professor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He most certainly mocked the reporter whom he knew had a disability. And to prove, it just before he mocked him he said something like you should see this guy and then he went into his classless act. Not sure what you meant there but no I do not View disabled people as retards. go reread post 60 why I used those specific words.

I think it is pathetic that you try to defend Trump over this but your derangement has no end.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump claimed that he was mocking what he considered a frustrated journalist trying to explain away what he had previously written. His movements certainly were not an imitation of the reporter's disability, since that disability wouldn't have enabled the reporter to make those movements--movements that were similar to movements when he mocked others who were not disabled, and very similar to when he mocked Ted Cruz.

but then you admitted you had no idea what this guys disability was.

you do t even know what you’re saying, you’re all over the place trying to attack trump.

you say trump was making fun of this reporter, but detbuch asked you 5 times to show some proof that the reporter moved the way trump did when mocking him. you never responded. gee i wonder why? i can’t think of any reason , can you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No I don't know what his disability was, just that he had a disability. I did read one article that said the way he was mocking the reporter was different than the way he later mocked Cruz. But I'm not going to waste my time trying to do a side-by-side analysis of trump mocking people because it's obvious he mocked the reporter even though later he claimed he didn't know him. He knew who he was, he met with him previously, he knew he had a disability and just before mocking him he said you should see this guy. And you're so deranged that you continue to try to defend Trump. Pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just assume that Jim and Dapussy would be ecstatic if their children, assuming they are capable of producing any, would turn out like the Citrus Caligula, his followers and their spawn.
We really need a country full of Trumps, Nunes and Jordan’s.
What a future
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not about defending Trump, it's about sifting the germ of truth from the chaff of political spin. It would be valid enough to say that Trump was mocking the reporter. It can be argued whether that was proper or not. Maybe he deserved it maybe not. Trump even admitted he did. But to try to make it something worse than it might have been by seizing the opportunity to assume it was an insensitive, even sociopathic mocking of someone's disability simply because the reporter was disabled is worse than pathetic. It's a sociopathic disregard both of the disability as well as of the truth in order to gain some kind of power, to destroy someone for political gain.

It is obvious that would have no effect other than extending the ridiculous conversation. It is obvious that he didn't say it. It is obvious that a spin was concocted to damage Trump. It is obvious, as is being demonstrated here, that denying what is obviously untrue would not change the contrived narrative that he said they should be executed, because the narrative was not meant to be the truth. It was meant to damage Trump--so it will not be abandoned.

Denying it would just be called another Trump "lie." Better to just shrug it off and move on.

And you still cannot show that trump said the Five should be executed because he didn't say it. Pete F made the accusation. The burden of proof rests on Pete, and on you if you want to keep extending the narrative.

He humiliates himself.
How the heck do you respond to somebody that you claim to be ignoring?
Not a smart person and he constantly flaunts it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device