More lying at the DNC
 

OK, so they had Muslim parents who lost a son in combat. For that, this family absolutely deserves all of our prayers, respect, and gratitude.

They were bashing Trump. As Spence is appalled at the GOP's exploitation of the families of those killed in Benghazi, I am sure he is equally appalled at what the Democrats did with this family.

The Dad asked if Trump has ever read the Constitution. And most of his comments were lies. No one, not even bereaved parents, has the right to lie to the country.


1. The Constitution grants the government the power to allow/ disallow immigration from anywhere in the world, or from everywhere. Perhaps this man never read it.

2. The Constitution only applies to legal citizens of this country. When Donald Trump says we need to suspend immigration from radicalized areas of the Muslim world (a proposal with which no sane person disagrees) that impinges on the "Constitutional rights" of exactly no one. NO ONE.

3. When the speaker asks if Donald Trump has ever been to Arlington National Cemetery, a fitting reply would be, "Yes, I have therein visited the many thousands of graves of brave American soldiers who were killed by radicalized Muslims in the name of Allah."

4. Note too the man's assertion that "Donald Trump smears the character of Muslims." Right. Trump has suggested that there is a serious global crisis with radicalization within that community. Whatever gave him THAT crazy idea?!

5. Sir, if you truly care about the character of the Muslim community, might I suggest that Islamic jihadists spraying bullets into crowds of innocent children shouting "Allahu Akbar" do far more damage to the character of the Muslim community than Donald Trump could ever hope to do.

6. Finally, and this is a personal observation not based in fact...note the crowd whooping and cheering for this speaker as he champions the cause of the first woman president, while his own poor wife stands there in enforced silence, her body covered up from head to toe by misogynistic decree. But MY SIDE is waging war on women.

Get help.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did I say anything not true?

I recall back in 2012, Harry Reid made the claim that Mitt Romney hadn't paid any taxes for something like 10 years. It was demonstrably false, but Reid kept saying it, because he could find places to say it where he knew no one would challenge him - like Spence's house.

After the election, a reporter asked Harry Reid if he was sorry for saying things that weren't true. Reid said something like "no, why would I be sorry? We won."

That was the Senate Majority Leader.

Most liberals are incapable of admitting they are wrong, or that conservatives might be right about anything. When you don't have facts or common sense on your side, and all you care about is winning, you tell malicious lies to stir up your base.

It's almost all they do. And when I say "they", I don't mean folks here, I mean politicians and their rabid supporters.

No shame. None.

Spence, let me ask you a question...after you set me straight on my false belief that the Republicans passed the 15th amendment (since, you know, zero democrats voted for it)...can you straighten me out on something else? Here it is...where in the constitution does it say that we have to take in everyone, from anywhere? Because if it doesn't say that, then Trump's plan clearly doesn't violate the Constitution.

http://m.imgur.com/OzTlMyk
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most everything. I don't even know where to respond. You need help.

"Most everything"

Show me a couple.

"I don't even know where to respond"

I'm sure you don't. You can always fall back on your pattern of insulting and fleeing.

"You need help"

See my previous sentence.

Fact checking hillary's convention speech...:)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...A1&ocid=EIE9HP

She accuses Trump of fear-mongering, and she says "we will not ban a religion."

Sounds fair. Because that's as we all know, that's exactly what all Republicans are proposing. Right?

She isn't a fear monger because she really doesn't care what anyone thinks about her unless she is running for office. She wants 65,000 Syrian refugees to come here, so she apparently has no fear or concern for the citizens of this country.

By the way if she gets in, how close to $2 million dollars a year pension for life will the Clinton's receive?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not very close.

Do you think Hillary took advantage of Bill being exempt from having to pay postage to further her campaign. I suppose he could send them out on her behalf and then the taxpayers pay the postage for her campaign mailings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

obama will get 400 thou a year plus exspences for staff etc:.....congress is thinking of reducing to 200 plus for next presidents plus monies for staff....:)

Bill got $950,000 for 2014 if I recall correctly GW got even more.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/bill-...money-in-2014/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Retirement bennies for presidents run about $195,000 a year. So times two when Hillary is done if/when she is elected
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your absolutely right. I should have said how much in total benifits not just their pension.
In the link it also said he got $450,000 for office space.
I don't recall where but I also read that GW got 1.3 million in total.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Chairman and CEO of Verizon Communications
Salary US$18.2 million (2014)

or clayton Kershaw, 28, will earn $32 million in salary for the 2016 MLB season and an additional $800,000 through off-field endorsement deals with companies like Under Armour (UA) and


And Some guys have an issue with what the POTUS gets paid during and out of office or their speaking fees

with all the responsibilities that come with the Job what a lack of perspective

seems to me there is a tremendous difference between what Kershaw earns through his physical talents and performance or what a CEO earns by running a profitable company and what a politicians pillage while operating within a federal government that is around 20 TRILLION dollars in debt or state and local likewise, peddling influence and throwing around other people's money in order to remain entrenched seemingly for life....:uhuh:

anyone that has ever listened to a Hillary speech knows it's not worth a dime......her husband fell asleep during the most important speech of her life :rotf2:


PRAYING Trump constantly refers to her as "HACKERY" through the debates...pretty sweet double entendre there :hihi:

You are applying relativism to unlike things. This gives you an avenue to "interpret" incorrectly. Same as what happens on the Supreme Court when Justices create an incongruous or false perspective and go off on their versions of making it right.

The private sector and the public sector differ in purpose and in method of compensation, just to mention one of the problems in comparing them.

The private sector, in matters of economy, strives to get a maximum monetary return for its efforts and production. This is dependent on market forces. And is most efficiently and justifiably achieved in a free market. Economically, the private sector's purpose is, largely, self-aggrandizement. And that is dependent on its ability to satisfactorily produce goods and services to the public. The interchange between the private sector and the public is, when done best, free.

The public sector, in matters of economy, and in a free society, strives to produce the maximum service for the least expenditure.

In private sector economy, income disparity is harmful only if it diminishes the ability of getting the maximum return. The high achievers, those who the public are satisfied to pay what it costs to buy their stuff, get the most, but will make it more difficult for themselves if they demand more than the market will bear.

In public sector economy, income disparity between public servants and public payers creates animosity and the appearance of corruption and despotism. This is especially so when the government becomes more dictatorial and there is less attention to what the "market," in terms of tax payers ability to pay, will bear.

The freer the market, the greater the possibility there is to increase the number of private sector entrepreneurs and employees. And the greater the possibility for satisfaction between buyer and seller.

The more regulated and closed the market, the more contracted is the possibility for number of businesses, ergo number of employees. But the greater the possibility for fewer and larger corporations whose potential competition is eliminated by government regulation. The more the market is regulated, the more fascistic becomes the relation between the public and private sectors.

And the more fascistic government becomes, the more it coerces, the more it shrinks the private sector, the more it takes, without consent, from the private sector to grow its own size and scope, and the more apparent becomes the lack of justification for income inequality in private and public sector economy in relation to the lesser quality and diversity that is produced.

The private sector must satisfy its customers or perish. It competes and, in a sense, goes begging for the public's money.

The public sector, especially the more despotic or fascistic it becomes, simply confiscates the publics money. The quid pro quo between buyer and seller in a free private sector does not exist between government and citizen. So the public tends to have issues with government salaries, as well as they do for corporate CEO's who get humongous compensation. And the public is especially angered when such politicians and corporate heads get there big money even if they fail.

But the dirty little secret is that the reason politicians can line their pockets with money (and big CEO's can excessively do so) is that, beyond taxation, the politicos get it from the gigantic corporations they help to create with competition busting regulations. And the Corporations are allowed the uncompetitive advantage given them by the politicos. They work hand in hand. Fascism. And the public is hoodwinked into believing that big government is fighting big business. They are buddies. One HYUGE public/private corporation.

I have no issue with POTUS salary, but you can't compare. A private company employee gets nothing, unless a customer freely decides to give that business his money. In the pubic sector, they take my money with force of law, I go to jail if I refuse to give them my money. Big, big difference.

By this I assume you mean Taxes .. you think your money you use for your cable bill or phone bill isn't taken by Force, because of laws that protect these Monopolies which seek less regulation so they can charge you more, yet seek tax breaks or go offshore to avoid the Laws that you and I can go to jail for if we don't pay.. or force their employees to strike claiming there poor to fund healthcare pay raises or retirements then go buy yahoo $4.83 billion, cash ending the internet pioneer's two-decade run as independent company. these companies effect my monthly budget then any one or thing from public sector ... and please don't say we have choices living on or off the grid isn't a choice an American should be asked to do because of the greed of others

But the dirty little secret is that the reason politicians can line their pockets with money (and big CEO's can excessively do so) is that it, beyond taxation, the politicos get it from the gigantic corporations they help to create with competition busting regulations. And the Corporations are allowed the uncompetitive advantage given them by the politicos. They work hand in hand. Fascism. And the public is hoodwinked into believing that big government is fighting big business. They are buddies. One HYUGE public/private corporation.[/QUOTE]

I cant disagree with you on this part :btu:

this is the democrat(progressive) mantra....which is why it seems odd that democrats who understand and claim not to like the relationship would think that making government even bigger, more expensive and wider in scope...which is what the democrat nominee and every other before her is proposing(except when Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over:jester: he was probably being sarcastic )... would somehow think doing so could change the cozy relationship unless they believe if government gets big enough it could eventually run or at least regulate through stringent governmental control(fascism) all of these corrupt, bothersome businesses itself, making everything nice and fair for everyone....

thats not my quote thats detbuch take it up with him

you said you don't disagree with him...I think Detbuch and I agree conceptually ...how do you square support for someone promising to expand government's role, expense and power if you believe this is a problem....and how will bigger government alleviate the problems and cozy relationships that exist, particularly as we know they exist and have been exploited by the democratic nominee promising even bigger government ?

Because I don't think Trump will shrink government and the GOP has never done it in the the past 50 years ... Its about having a stable Government and trump wont bring that to the table

After trumps rant about the muslim parents that lost thier son, he does not stand a chance to B president.....maybe he should have said he was sorry for the loss, that he was aganist the country getting involved, that hillary voted for it.

As far as dems saying he has done nothing for the country his rebuttal should have been that neither hillary nor obama did anything for our country....well, they R helping to destroy it....:)

I guess "might and could" can get you a long way....:hee:

He pointed out how Muslims treat women in situations like the DNC where they should remain silent. To say she didn't speak because she was still traumatized and in morning over her sons death 13 years earlier is just an attempt to hide the way Muslims treat women.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how can you have a "stable" government that is 20 Trillion dollars in debt and growing??

I'm not sure where this idea comes from that conservatives and specifically Christian conservatives have any love or loyalty to Trump....those that might support so do so grudgingly from what I see.....his coalition is made up of loosely connected voters and his challenge will be to convince the conservative base that they need to show up and vote for him to thwart Hackery....that support is tepid at best

great article from a high profile #nevertrump guy that offers a ton of insight and is fairly entertaining

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/438525/print