Hilary, the Democrats, and the media

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

oh boy

hey, didn't this administration off a us citizen(s) without any "due process"?

let me know when this happens on US soil

not in some tent in another country and not a known terrorist

in June 2014, a previously classified memorandum issued by the United States Department of Justice was released, justifying al-Awlaki's death as a lawful act of war.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

American citizen or is that to hard for you to understand

Hillary get in things get done as the laws requires

Trump extrajudicial punishment

I get it

I think there is precedent on killing American citizens that are enemies to the country. research

BTW...how many more of these "rare" attacks have to occur before you realize we are at war ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

she then stated "he needs to get his facts first before referring to it as a bombing Donald did not

Why does he "need" to. It was clearly his opinion that it was a bomb. It was an opinion based on precedence. And it was correct. American citizens are free to have opinions.

and she went on to explain the pitfalls of such un informed declarations .untill the whole incident has been clarified . I can clearly see the pitfalls panic, retribution the list is endless.. you can't?

Pitfalls, panic, retribution, the list is endless . . . because he said bomb? You seriously think that there will be panic because he called it a bomb? Has there been, is there now, panic when it turned out to be a bomb? Where is all the retribution now that it has been proved to be a bomb? What is the endless list? It's more scary to me that we try to limit or suppress speech for political reasons.


Jim your Blind Hatred is on display once again

yet Trump shows hes not POTUS material hence his current statement..

Point out how he has shown that he is not POTUS material. Be careful now, you might cause panic or retribution.

Mr Trump says it is "sad" that Mr Rahami, a naturalised US citizen, will receive medical care and legal representation

Its SAD?? really That treatment and due process towards a scum bag like him. Is what makes America great and separates us from them...

He didn't say it was illegal. He didn't say it was wrong. He said it was sad. What makes America great is not only the sad necessity of affording due process to scumbags, but the ability to say that it is sad.

[Sea Dangles]

Some guys have a double standard. Who remembers Hillarys opinion on why Benghazi occurred. Presidential material.....to whom?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

The short list. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.c45e7107db1a
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Since Jim Likes to hear things that are not there I will attempt to explain this for him since he ask me directly

yes she referred to the incident as a bombing clearly after she was briefed on the Matter she stated as much

she then stated "he needs to get his facts first before referring to it as a bombing Donald did not and she went on to explain the pitfalls of such un informed declarations .untill the whole incident has been clarified . I can clearly see the pitfalls panic, retribution the list is endless.. you can't?

Jim your Blind Hatred is on display once again

yet Trump shows hes not POTUS material hence his current statement.. Mr Trump says it is "sad" that Mr Rahami, a naturalised US citizen, will receive medical care and legal representation

Its SAD?? really That treatment and due process towards a scum bag like him. Is what makes America great and separates us from them...

"yes she referred to the incident as a bombing clearly after she was briefed on the Matter she stated as much "

That is fair. Here is my question to you (I asked Spence, he dodged). How can you possibly know what Trump was briefed on, at the time he said it was a bombing? Maybe someone in the FBI told him "it was a bomb".

"she went on to explain the pitfalls of such un informed declarations "

So when she repeatedly flip-flopped on the cause of the Benghazi attack, clearly she didn't have all the facts. Right? So are you equally critical of her, for making "uninformed declarations"? You see, I also believe that leaders have a responsibility not to leap to conclusions. But unlike liberals, I apply that consistently to both Republicans and Democrats.

"Jim your Blind Hatred is on display once again "

Guilty as charged. I hate these dishonest, hypocritical liberals, and their puppets in the media. They are undermining the concept of a free democracy, and abusing the freedoms that many have fought to secure. They don't question anything she says, and endlessly dump on him.

"yet Trump shows hes not POTUS material"

But someone who claims she came under sniper fire, when what she actually faced was a smiling child handing her a flower, is POTUS material? Again, the glaring, obvious, demonstrable hypocrisy.

Here is where you and I are very different. I can agree with you that he's an obnoxious ass. He made fun of John McCain's imprisonment, he made fun of Carly Fiorina's face, and he bragged that his hands are larger than Marco Rubio's (that was the most appalling thing I have seen at a debate). He's morally bankrupt.

But so is she. She claimed that Bill wasn't cheating on her, but that the GOP was framing him. She attacked the character of his victims, yet she claims to be a feminist. She makes tens of millions from Wall Street speeches, but claims she is opposed to crony capitalism and a rigged system that favors insiders. Her and her husband stole thousands of dollars worth of stuff form the White House on their way out, and claimed they were broke. She voted for the Iraq War, then claimed that the Surge could never provide benefits that Petreus claimed it would provide (and she called him a liar for making the predictions he made, which of course turned out to be true). She lied about coming under sniper fire, and refuses to admit she lied. The email situation speaks for itself, and when pressed, she blamed it on the nearest black guy, Colin Powell. When asked if her server had been 'scrubbed', she made a wiping gesture and said "you mean with a cloth", as if she didn't know what the reporter was asking. The day after the DOJ announced no charges, her team said they would consider keeping Loretta Lynch on as AG. She criticizes Trump and Pence for not denouncing David Duke, while at the same time she kisses the ring of Al Sharpton. She claims to have collapsed from pneumonia, minutes after shaking hands with folks, including children, at a rally. Then she calls me deplorable. That's POTUS material? To say that half of those who disagree with you, are deplorable? She says tens of millions of ordinary Americans are deplorable, but you say that I am the hatemonger, not her. That makes sense.

Trump is more crass and sophomoric in his language, no question, than she is. But they are both morally bankrupt scumbags. Liberals trash Trump for all of his transgressions, and turn a blind eye to all of hers. That's what I cannot stand.

Please tell me where I am wrong, exactly. I don't engage in idiotic conspiracy theories such as who she had murdered, but I do engage in facts. So if any one of those things, are things that "I am hearing that are not there", by all means, enlighten me.

Today, the fabricated liberal outrage is that Donald Trump Jr compared suffering human beings to pieces of candy. Did he say "I think refugees are the ethical equivalent of candy"? Of course not. What he said, regarding the risk of letting in refugees, is this...if I gave you a bowl of 100 Skittles and said that 1 was poisoned, how many would you let your kids eat?

I have used that analogy. Like Trump, I was accused of comparing candy to human beings. It matters not to liberals, that I never said anything remotely like that. But calling me a hatemonger, is a lot easier than trying to make me wrong.

Liberals aren't interested in winning the debate. They want to cancel the debate. Because they are smart enough to realize that they can never, ever win a fair debate. Not only can they never win, they can't even avoid looking like morons and like monsters, because their policy positions are that inane and amoral.

So instead of explaining why their positions are morally superior to mine, they just keep saying it. Over and over and over, until it is assumed to be true.

I grew up between New Haven and Bridgeport, CT. I have seen firsthand what 40 years of unchecked liberalism has done for those people. Because I take a principled position that they deserve better, I am called a hater. That's the best liberals can do.

Again, to my point with this post. How do we know what Trump was told, or not told, when he said it was a bomb?

Also, mayor DiBlasio said right from the start, that there was no evidence this was Islamic terrorism. How many liberals are saying he should have kept his idiotic mouth shut until the investigation was done? I haven't heard one. Because, again, only conservatives are held to that standard. Again, the glaring hypocrisy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Some guys have a double standard. Who remembers Hillarys opinion on why Benghazi occurred. Presidential material.....to whom?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's OK when she flip-flops, when she offers explanations that are (1) clearly not based on all the facts, and (2) also happened to be very self-serving (don't blame me, it was a spontaneous response to a video, it wasn't anything we could have predicted)

She claims she was confused about sniper fire, because she was "tired". Well, if she gets elected POTUS, she won't always be able to get 10 hours of sleep. So if we believe that she was just tired (an no one believes that), why shouldn't we concerned that if she's tired in the future, she won't confuse a girl scout selling cookies with a sniper, and yell at her Secret Service agents "there's a sniper! Shoot her!".

You can't have it both ways. Unless you are a liberal, in which case you can have it as many ways as is convenient for you.

[Nebe]

They both suck.

End of story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

They both suck.

End of story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo.

[Nebe]

trumps job is to make everyone relieved when she beats him in November. If she was running against someone else who is less of a fraudulent con artist, she'd probably loose. This speaks volumes about how corrupt our media sources are and how they have propped up trump the whole way. And Hillary for that matter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

They are undermining the concept of a free democracy, and abusing the freedoms that many have fought to secure.

I feel the same things but theses feeling are not about the liberals .. they are from those who see the world thru the same lens as you do .. the wish to go back in time . and ignore the present and refuse to move the country into the future ..

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

They both suck.

End of story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

They are undermining the concept of a free democracy, and abusing the freedoms that many have fought to secure.

I feel the same things but theses feeling are not about the liberals .. they are from those who see the world thru the same lens as you do .. the wish to go back in time . and ignore the present and refuse to move the country into the future ..

"I feel the same things but theses feeling are not about the liberals .. "

Right. Because since you agree with them, it's OK when they are unfair or dishonest. Yu only expect those with whom you disagree, to play by the rules.

"the wish to go back in time . and ignore the present and refuse to move the country into the future "

You're god damn right I want to go back in time. As I said, I remember when it was fun and safe to visit cities like Hartford and New Haven. I remember when it was expected that families would stay in tact, and that people took a long term view of things, rather than acting only on what feels good right now. If that's progress, you can keep it.

So according to you, what has happened in cities like Chicago over the last 50 years is "progress".

When what's in front of you is a cliff, I don't see how driving forward at 100 mph is a good thing.

Anyway, I made a ton of valid points, using actual historical facts to support my positions, and naturally, the best you could do is come back with a vague insult that I am afraid of the future, and therefore regressive, and therefore I am inferior.

Not a single fact, not even a specific opinion, to refute one syllable I typed.

When we can point to things in the past that actually worked and bore fruit, is it really bad to endorse a return to those things? Especially when you can point to the horrible effects of liberalism?

WDMSO, exactly how bad do things have to get in the black community, before liberals conclude, that liberalism isn't working? How much worse do things have to get, before you can agree, that the policies embraced in our cities, in any black area for that matter, are simply bad policies?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That is fair. Here is my question to you (I asked Spence, he dodged). How can you possibly know what Trump was briefed on, at the time he said it was a bombing? Maybe someone in the FBI told him "it was a bomb".

The bomb went off just as he was getting off the plane, he walked up to the mic and said it...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

The bomb went off just as he was getting off the plane, he walked up to the mic and said it...

God you just really have the need to get an irrelevant point across .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

The bomb went off just as he was getting off the plane, he walked up to the mic and said it...

Now that's what I call being on top of things....

Just imagine how things might have been if Hilary got to the Office just as the Benghazi attacks happened and she picked up the phone and said "It was a terrorist attack"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The bomb went off just as he was getting off the plane, he walked up to the mic and said it...

You can't know what he had been told before he made his statement.

Maybe it was wild speculation on his part. If so, it appears that his ability to speculate on such things is superior to Hilary's ability to speculate on such things (Iraq had WMDs; the Surge won't work; Bill didn't cheat on me, the GOP is framing him; we can reduce security for State Dept personnel in Libya; we can pull out of Iraq, it won't de-stabilize).

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

trumps job is to make everyone relieved when she beats him in November. If she was running against someone else who is less of a fraudulent con artist, she'd probably loose. This speaks volumes about how corrupt our media sources are and how they have propped up trump the whole way. And Hillary for that matter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is sad, Hillary, in Trump, has the one person she could probably beat in an election. Trump, in Hillary, has someone so unfavorable that he has a chance making sh!t up as he goes along.

We, the people, get the government we deserve, not the government we need.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Now that's what I call being on top of things....

Just imagine how things might have been if Hilary got to the Office just as the Benghazi attacks happened and she picked up the phone and said "It was a terrorist attack"

At least once they confirm it was, not a movie. There was a few hour window at Foggy Bottom where the was actually plenty of, as Spence calls it, Fog of War. The rest was just politics

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

At least once they confirm it was, not a movie. There was a few hour window at Foggy Bottom where the was actually plenty of, as Spence calls it, Fog of War. The rest was just politics

Even General Petraeus has said they still don't know for sure the specific role the movie played in the attack.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Even General Petraeus has said they still don't know for sure the specific role the movie played in the attack.

Give it up ! We don't have amnesia like Hillary ...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just used that same analogy last week about a co-worker....must be common denominator in all her supporters..

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I work with a guy who is a die hard Hilary Supporter....and I swear to god its like talking to a victim of some deranged form of Domestic Abuse....

They deny that the other person lied or did anything terrible in the past, even though deep down inside they know its true. But going forward they know everything is going to be OK because they've changed.

Then they do something terrible again, but they said they were sorry and didn't really mean it, but it's going to be OK because they promised that it will never happen again.....and they still love them and are certain they are going to change...Just wait and see

[Nebe]

I knew I liked you DF.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Maybe we can get Spence some consuling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's an awful lot like battered wife syndrome...

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That quote was the sniper shot that Spence had hoped to dodge.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Maybe we can get Spence some consuling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We can only help him if he wants to help himself....

Might have to get an intervention going....

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Spence's constant defensive position with Hillary reminds me of someone who is stuck in an abusive relationship. They refuse to leave and make up excuses to justify the continued abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny, I know a lot of Berners who are having trouble these days.

Hell, it looks like even Bush 41 is with her...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...hillary-228395

[Jim in CT]

As reported by a Kennedy. God knows none of them are subject to moral lapses.

If it's true, it's a sign of what we are all saying - Trump is a rotten human being. I haven't seen a single person here deny that. Not one.

You are the one in denial. What's your harshest criticism of her, anyway? That she's so beautiful, some people might not appreciate her true genius?