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.

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/op...y-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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

it this your blood on his hands video from 1992 http://www.snopes.com/al-sharptons-1...o-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:

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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 ?

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

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?