3 more cops assassinated, Obama says we eed to focus on words that unite

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Glad to see everyone stiff focused on Hillary And the Donald remains unmolested .. still he has not provided a blue print on how he will Make America Great again .. or his Tax returns or how he will Heal the racial divide most claim that Obama created .. or providing theses answers to the american voter ... or will he say this is just more Political correctness .. and thats why he wont follow thru?

Well we figured after 3 days of hearing how the country is doomed because Melania borrowed a couple of sentences (That Bitch!!!) for her speech....we figured we'd change focus for a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it, a bunch of out of context and/or single source quotes from anti-Hillary authors trying to make a buck.

Nice.

Context, shmontext.....if you can talk to us in abstracts and "nuh-uhs".....we can dance around that thin line called context.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Glad to see everyone stiff focused on Hillary And the Donald remains unmolested .. still he has not provided a blue print on how he will Make America Great again .. or his Tax returns or how he will Heal the racial divide most claim that Obama created .. or providing theses answers to the american voter ... or will he say this is just more Political correctness .. and thats why he wont follow thru?

He just got nominated .
One thing you can count on he won't throw a whole much of bull#^&#^&#^&#^& out there like Obama did . or completely pander to whoever group happens he to be speaking to like Hillary does .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

One thing you can count on he won't throw a whole much of bull#^&#^&#^&#^& out there like Obama did . or completely pander to whoever group happens he to be speaking to like Hillary does .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm baffled by this post. Like even more baffled than I am by every one of Jim's posts when he's not agreeing with me.

I can understand (not really) why some may support Trump because they hate Clinton or are just obsessed with Supreme Court pics.

But nearly everything Trump says is pandering BS. He can change positions and contradict himself on a whim. It's his style, throw sand in everyone's eyes and dominate the headlines.

Buck is trolling.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Well we figured after 3 days of hearing how the country is doomed because Melania borrowed a couple of sentences (That Bitch!!!) for her speech....we figured we'd change focus for a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Come on, it was a PR stunt the media covered because it made them money.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Well aware of that.....but then there are those who aren't
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

As opposed to 2008, when your guy's entire platform was "hope and change".

He needs to get more specific soon. It doesn't usually get specific before a convention for a challenger.

"or his Tax returns "

Are you as upset that Obama is blocking his academic records from being released?

The hypocrisy and double standard is amazing.

you mean this http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

jim you should try fact checking your inbox isn't serving you well PS hope and change some got more hope and some got more change so its all optics

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Well we figured after 3 days of hearing how the country is doomed because Melania borrowed a couple of sentences (That Bitch!!!) for her speech....we figured we'd change focus for a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Honestly I saw the story once .. but have seen countless things on FB and here about it.. all from Conservatives leaners keeping it alive

I have a bigger issues with his kids and the appearance of influence they may have with dad over policy ...

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by wdmso

you mean this http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

jim you should try fact checking your inbox isn't serving you well PS hope and change some got more hope and some got more change so its all optics

He said blocked not sealed, Obama won't let the public see them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Honestly I saw the story once .. but have seen countless things on FB and here about it.. all from Conservatives leaners keeping it alive

I have a bigger issues with his kids and the appearance of influence they may have with dad over policy ...

I have a bigger issue with the contributions the Clinton foundation got from foreign entities. I wonder if Hillary will have a problem with if she doesn't win....lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Honestly I saw the story once .. but have seen countless things on FB and here about it.. all from Conservatives leaners keeping it alive

I have a bigger issues with his kids and the appearance of influence they may have with dad over policy ...

It was the lead story the past two days on CNN.com, and it's still a story being kept alive there.

It was also kept alive on ABC and US news websites as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I have a bigger issues with his kids and the appearance of influence they may have with dad over policy ...

Now you're just being a drama queen .
Did you have a problem with Hilary calling Chelsea and telling her the truth about Benghazi before anyone else in the Administration evidently had a clue ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

It was the lead story the past two days on CNN.com, and it's still a story being kept alive there.

It was also kept alive on ABC and US news websites as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It sure overshadowed Steve King's comments the same night...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Do you know what the word means?

This is a hilarious question coming from you--the classic morpher of meaning--the shifty shifter of context--the master of squishy words--the euphemistic apologist for "wrong doing"--the relentless deconstructer of logic--the pooh-pooher of history--the ultimate Progressive tool of Orwellian double-speak.

Do you actually care about meaning, or care only if it can be twisted to further a Progressive ideology or support a Progressive politician?

Here, you switch from "narcissist" to "narcissistic personality disorder," which are not the same. Just as you replace principles with values when you want to destroy the distinction and create a simplistic field of discussion which gives your preferred notions or your selected candidates a narrower possibility of being damaged.

You happily glom on to idiotic Progressive definitions of "racism" as in the U.N. definition which makes a list of words, ethnicity, national origin, descent, race, and others, implying a cognate relationship, which would be true if they were grouped under a separate heading with, possibly, its own adjectival form or cognate noun form. Instead, it makes them false cognates by applying the adjectival form of race to all the others in the list. So the adjectival form for ethnicity (ethnic), national origin (nationality), race (racist), etc., would, for all of them be "racist," and by extension the cognate noun form "racism." An analogy of a correct way of tying together a group of words such as red, blue, yellow, green, brown, for example, as true cognates would be under the heading "color." Instead, the Orwellian, Progressive, Spencist method of eliminating the inconvenient divergence of colors (meanings) into a more useful rhetorical tool to control behavior, let's say, to attribute the inflammatory characteristic of "blueness" to all "colors," one merely defines the adjectival form of all the "colors" as "bluish." Then red, yellow, green, brown all will be "bluish," so instead of having their own characteristics, they will all have its undesirable, destructive, highly inflammatory connotations.

This all, of course, is part of Progressive rule by whim, by "interpretation," by rhetorical manipulation. Control not by lessons of historical precedent, not by rule of law, not with language whose words have steadfast, distinct, meanings.

For it all to "work," the regulators must be "experts." They must be as "smart" and shifty as Spence. And let us not call them liars. They most assuredly will have a euphemism which absolves them of that kind of "wrong doing."

And one of the most popular Presidents, Bill Clinton, was a narcissist. He may have even had a narcissistic personality disorder. And, yeah, Hilary has narcissistic traits, as do most politicians. Especially in this day and age when they have far more power over the rest of us than the Constitution, which they routinely ignore, allows them to have.

So y'all got to get over the narcissism thing. They all do it.

And Trump, like Bill Clinton, has an open flare for living, an overt lust for life (as we know it in the U.S.A) which makes him a more emotionally attractive being to regular folks than the ideologically driven, bloodless moral narcissism (except when she gets angry) of Hilary.

If you allow yourself to step away from anti-trump spin, which is mostly hearsay and concocted denigration, you might actually see that he is less likely to damage the country than Hilary especially in nominating Judges--if you care about that. But, we seem to care more about personality. And we have bought into the Progressive desire to centralize power in the hands of the President. We tend to idolize and adore our candidates. In truth, they are not smarter, or better, than most of us.

We just allow them to be all that. Maybe we are dumber.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by buckman

Now you're just being a drama queen .
Did you have a problem with Hilary calling Chelsea and telling her the truth about Benghazi before anyone else in the Administration evidently had a clue ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems you are confused on whats acceptable

a parent ( sec of state ) telling a child something like our embassy been attacked

and a child telling a parent ( possible potus)what they should and shouldn't do. about the embassy being attacked

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

It sure overshadowed Steve King's comments the same night...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this one


"I'd ask you to go back through history and figure out where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you are talking about. Where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?" King stated.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seems you are confused on whats acceptable

a parent ( sec of state ) telling a child something like our embassy been attacked

and a child telling a parent ( possible potus)what they should and shouldn't do. about the embassy being attacked

It seems you're confused , the first one happened, The second one is a made up hypothetical that you created in your head .
Do you have a problem with Bill Clinton being in charge of the economy , even though he's clearly lost his mind ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Here, you switch from "narcissist" to "narcissistic personality disorder," which are not the same. Just as you replace principles with values when you want to destroy the distinction and create a simplistic field of discussion which gives your preferred notions or your selected candidates a narrower possibility of being damaged.

They are not the same but share a common root. Because someone has some narcissistic traits (we all do) doesn't make them a narcissist. When it becomes a controlling factor it may be a disorder which Trump certainly appears to have.

Great read here:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...iter-tells-all

If you allow yourself to step away from anti-trump spin, which is mostly hearsay and concocted denigration,

I don't know if you're just lying here or being contrary, regardless it's an irrational statement.

you might actually see that he is less likely to damage the country than Hilary especially in nominating Judges--if you care about that. But, we seem to care more about personality. And we have bought into the Progressive desire to centralize power in the hands of the President. We tend to idolize and adore our candidates. In truth, they are not smarter, or better, than most of us.

There's more to leading the country than nominating justices. I'm very concerned his personality lacks the very skills necessary to be President. If he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth one may wonder if he'd had any success at all.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

There's more to leading the country than nominating justices. I'm very concerned his personality lacks the very skills necessary to be President. If he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth one may wonder if he'd had any success at all.

I'm more concerned that Hillary lacks the ethics , competence and judgment to be president. If she wasn't married to Bill Clinton we wouldn't even know who the hell she was
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

If she wasn't married to Bill Clinton we wouldn't even know who the hell she was
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Before she even met Bill she had distinguished records at Wellesley and Yale Law. To claim her success is only because of her husband is pretty sexist...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

They are not the same but share a common root. Because someone has some narcissistic traits (we all do) doesn't make them a narcissist. When it becomes a controlling factor it may be a disorder which Trump certainly appears to have.

It "certainly appears" that both Clinton's narcissism is a controlling factor. Yet, somehow, one was, and the other is "ghostwritten" to become great Presidents. Same can be said of other "great" Presidents of the past--both Roosevelt's, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ come to mind. They were all Progressives, BTW. Some fear that Trump may be more Progressive than Conservative.

Great read here:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...iter-tells-all

It's a very well-written article in the leftist New Yorker style. I marveled at how the basic criticisms of Trump can be laid to Hilary (in her own manner). Both Clinton's can be said to be "sociopaths" as he says about Trump. Books and articles as scathing as this have been written about Hilary.

Schwartz was " 'trying hard to find my way around' [Trump's] behavior that he considered 'if not reprehensible, at least morally questionable." Same could be said about Hilary, but with the emphasis on "reprehensible."

He says about Trump "The only thing left was running for President. If he could run for emperor of the world, he would." Same be said of Hilary.

He says "It was all [Trump's father's] political connections that created the [tax] abatement." That could be said of JFK's political (and personal) successes.

The article does seem to bear out that Trump is a master, at all costs including the truth, of making deals. And it has the validity of the liar exposing the liar. Except that if he was so successful in his lying, exaggerated portrayal of Trump then, how are we to trust that he is not lying and exaggerating now. The article does show that Schwartz is a lifelong social leftist who pretty much despises Trump. But that he also had a price. Does he have a price now? Is he creating "truthful hyperbole" now when he says that the end of civilization will occur if Trump gets the nuclear codes? So Trump will destroy the civilization that feeds his narcissism?

The article is pretty much, as you like to say, "old news." Of course, old news that you like is OK with you.

I don't know if you're just lying here or being contrary, regardless it's an irrational statement.

The current anti-Trump spin to which I refer is about what he said about his opponents, all of them whether in the race for the nomination or about various people who have said insulting things about him (like Rosie O'Donell). For the most part, he has reacted in kind

There's more to leading the country than nominating justices.

There shouldn't (constitutionally) be a whole lot more than that. But, as a Progressive, you view the President's role as a director of everything. A sort of elected emperor. The thing is, emperors can only be elected by a "free" people by tricking them. Hilary has her tricks, The Donald has his.

So, the important difference, at a time when Presidents have become too powerful, is the appointment of Justices who will reign in that power.

I'm very concerned his personality lacks the very skills necessary to be President.

To which "skills" are you referring? Skillful Presidents must know how to manipulate the "bully pulpit," and to trick their opponents into "deals" which will bring to fruition the President's desires.

If he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth one may wonder if he'd had any success at all.

Whatever spoon is in your mouth when you are born, the important thing is what you do with it. Many a silver spooner has accomplished little to nothing. Hillary was a silver spooner. Most Presidents have started with wealth. You're creating a fishy strawman.

The main difference between us is that you are content with continuing the expansion of government power, I am for devolving that power back to a freer people.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Before she even met Bill she had distinguished records at Wellesley and Yale Law. To claim her success is only because of her husband is pretty sexist...

"Distinguished records" as a student are nice, though very limited, successes. I think Buck was referring to success in the "real world," not the cloistered environment of a student's record in academe.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Before she even met Bill she had distinguished records at Wellesley and Yale Law. To claim her success is only because of her husband is pretty sexist...

Success? Perhaps
Infamy? Bill
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

[QUOTE=spence;1104762]To claim her success is only because of her husband is pretty sexist...[/QUOTE

Also pretty true which is exactly why she is the poor representation of someone breaking the glass ceiling .
Do you think they would be worth 200 million without "public service "?
I have to say, how they pull that one off and havent been put in jail yet is one incredible achievement .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Success? Perhaps
Infamy? Bill
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He certainly didn't help by staining a blue dress.

[spence]

[QUOTE=buckman;1104774]

Originally Posted by spence

To claim her success is only because of her husband is pretty sexist...[/QUOTE

Also pretty true which is exactly why she is the poor representation of someone breaking the glass ceiling .
Do you think they would be worth 200 million without "public service "?
I have to say, how they pull that one off and havent been put in jail yet is one incredible achievement .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's because She's a Bond Villain...you said it yourself.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Distinguished records" as a student are nice, though very limited, successes. I think Buck was referring to success in the "real world," not the cloistered environment of a student's record in academe.

Most ambitious people I know who did exceptionally well in school ended up doing well as adults...and Clinton set a very aggressive trajectory.

[buckman]

[QUOTE=spence;1104778]Most ambitious people I know who did exceptionally well in school ended up doing well as adults...and Clinton set a very aggressive trajectory.[/QUOTE

Too bad she took the Bernie Madoff route
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

[QUOTE=buckman;1104774]

Originally Posted by spence

Do you think they would be worth 200 million without "public service "?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

funny how "dedicating your life to public service" and starting a "charity" can make you 200 million.....huh?

[spence]

[QUOTE=buckman;1104787]

Originally Posted by spence

Most ambitious people I know who did exceptionally well in school ended up doing well as adults...and Clinton set a very aggressive trajectory.[/QUOTE

Too bad she took the Bernie Madoff route
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Evidence your accusations or they are just puffery.