keepthefaith Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 really? we're down to physical attractiveness as a qualification? i'm guessing abe lincoln wouldn't have earned yall's vote. otoh, it does explain reagan's the popularity among cons. who ever said cons were superficial? Actually the picture is very relevant. She's got the same forced fake smile there that we see constantly. The woman is simply not genuine.
Keukasmallies Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 really? we're down to physical attractiveness as a qualification? i'm guessing abe lincoln wouldn't have earned yall's vote. otoh, it does explain reagan's the popularity among cons. who ever said cons were superficial? Using the phrase, "...this person...," then appending a picture, does not translate to denigrating physical characteristics. It does emphasize that this harridan has no business directing the nation's business.
B-Man Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Beyond Parody.......................... Tips on Deleting Emails From Email Book Hillary Clinton Wanted to Read by Jonathan Karl, ABC News The last batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department included one from Clinton asking to borrow a book called “Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better,” by David Shipley and Will Schwalbe. Clinton has not said why she requested the book, but it includes some advice that is particularly interesting in light of the controversy over her unconventional email arrangement at the State Department and her decision to delete tens of thousands of emails she deemed to be purely personal. The copy that ABC downloaded for $9.99 had some interesting revelations. Take, for example, Chapter Six: “The Email That Can Land You In Jail.” The chapter includes a section entitled “How to Delete Something So It Stays Deleted.” “Some people are hoarders, some are checkers,” the authors write. “The main thing to consider is that once you do decide to delete, it’s like taking the garbage from your kitchen and putting it in your hallway. It’s still there.” The chapter advised that to truly delete emails may require a special rewriting program “to make sure that it’s not just elsewhere on the drive but has in fact been written over sixteen or twenty times and rendered undefinable.” But Shipley and Schwalbe warn that deleting emails could lead to future legal troubles. On page 215, the authors list “Stupid (and Real) Email Phrases That Wound Up in Court.” Number one on the list? “DELETE THIS EMAIL!’ Later, on page 226, the writers warn, “If you’re issued a subpoena, your deletion binge will only make you look guilty.” The FBI is investigating the handling of classified information in Clinton’s emails, while she maintains she has done nothing illegal or improper. More at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tips-deleting-emails-email-book-hillary-clinton-wanted/story?id=33046042 Edited August 13, 2015 by B-Man
Deranged Rhino Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 When it comes to low-level government employees with no power, the Obama administration has purposely prosecuted them as harshly as possible to the point of vindictiveness: It has notoriously prosecuted more individuals under the Espionage Act of 1917 for improperly handling classified information than all previous administrations combined. (snip) In the light of these new Clinton revelations, the very same people who spent years justifying this obsessive assault are now scampering for reasons why a huge exception should be made for the Democratic Party front-runner. Fascinatingly, one of the most vocal defenders of this Obama DOJ record of persecution has been Hillary Clinton herself. In December 2011, Chelsea Manning’s court-martial was set to begin. None of the documents at issue in that prosecution was “top secret,” unlike the documents found on Hillary Clinton’s server. Nonetheless, the then-secretary of state convened a press conference to denounce Manning and defend the prosecution. (snip) For that reason, almost all of these prosecutions for mishandling classified information have been wildly overzealous, way out of proportion to any harm they caused or could have caused, certainly out of proportion to the actual wrongdoing. But that’s an argument that Hillary Clinton never uttered in order to object as people’s lives and careers were destroyed and they were hauled off to prison. To the contrary, she more often than not defended it, using rationale that, as it turns out, condemned herself and her own behavior at least as much as those whose persecution she was defending. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/
keepthefaith Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/ Obama is Nixon on steroids and probably some other narcotics too.
Doc Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Would Republicans who don't like Trump vote for Clinton in the general election? I doubt it. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I could see some Republicans who don't like Trump voting for Sanders if he won the ticket. Bernie is much less unlikable than Trump, and Clinton too. Those likability and familiarity numbers will be really interesting to watch. Repubs voting for an admitted socialist?
Who is Yuri? Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 Repubs voting for an admitted socialist? "Democratic" Socialist, mind you, not Communist. My hunch is that being an Independent senator from Vermont gives him some Libertarian credibility. I'm a big Eisenhower fan. I'm a big fan of Bernie, too, and don't get the impression that he'd sky government spending. The priorities would be vastly different in a Sanders administration. We waste a lot of money on drug offenders - that's a Libertarian/Bernie issue. We intervene too often in foreign affairs - that's a Libertarian/Bernie issue. CAFTA/NAFTA is a bad deal - sounds Libertarian/Bernie to me. Hunters shouldn't be impeded by gun regulations - that's a step in the Libertarian direction. I really don't know what Liberal means. As a derogatory term, I guess it means a person who'd vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. Therefore, a Liberal wants a woman president because it would be politically correct. She may be a woman, but she's just not inspiring, and has questionable integrity. If people can get over the labels, I think that Bernie has a lot to offer mainstream America. I think he can beat Hillary, and either Dem. would trounce Trump in the General Election. Far too many people would never vote for Trump. Angry white males love him. Far too many people hate angry white males. Poor babies - you are being discriminated against. Why doesn't everyone just submit to your clearly delusional superiority? So it really comes down to this, undecided Republicans: would you rather that Hillary serve as President, or that Bernie serve as President? It's not too late to change parties so that you can vote in the primaries. In the meantime, what I'm really hoping for is a Roger Ailes (FOX) vs. Donald Trump war. That would be the best entertainment. It really is inevitable.
reddogblitz Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 If people can get over the labels, I think that Bernie has a lot to offer mainstream America. I think he can beat Hillary, and either Dem. would trounce Trump in the General Election. Far too many people would never vote for Trump. Angry white males love him. Far too many people hate angry white males. Poor babies - you are being discriminated against. Why doesn't everyone just submit to your clearly delusional superiority? Did you read the part of your post where you think we should get over the labels? Or is "angry white males" not a label? There are also 2 black ladies that I've seen on PPP and youtube who love Donald. Angry? maybe. White male? Definitely not. PS I like Trump and I don't fit your label either.
Who is Yuri? Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) No, angry white males, as far as I know, isn't a label. PS. you seem angry. PPS. those ladies are awesome. Edited August 13, 2015 by Franz Kafka
IDBillzFan Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 My hunch is that being an Independent senator from Vermont gives him some Libertarian credibility. Someone tell gatorman the fat lady is on in five.
truth on hold Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) "Democratic" Socialist, mind you, not Communist. My hunch is that being an Independent senator from Vermont gives him some Libertarian credibility. I'm a big Eisenhower fan. I'm a big fan of Bernie, too, and don't get the impression that he'd sky government spending. The priorities would be vastly different in a Sanders administration. We waste a lot of money on drug offenders - that's a Libertarian/Bernie issue. We intervene too often in foreign affairs - that's a Libertarian/Bernie issue. CAFTA/NAFTA is a bad deal - sounds Libertarian/Bernie to me. Hunters shouldn't be impeded by gun regulations - that's a step in the Libertarian direction. I really don't know what Liberal means. As a derogatory term, I guess it means a person who'd vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. Therefore, a Liberal wants a woman president because it would be politically correct. She may be a woman, but she's just not inspiring, and has questionable integrity. If people can get over the labels, I think that Bernie has a lot to offer mainstream America. I think he can beat Hillary, and either Dem. would trounce Trump in the General Election. Far too many people would never vote for Trump. Angry white males love him. Far too many people hate angry white males. Poor babies - you are being discriminated against. Why doesn't everyone just submit to your clearly delusional superiority? So it really comes down to this, undecided Republicans: would you rather that Hillary serve as President, or that Bernie serve as President? It's not too late to change parties so that you can vote in the primaries. In the meantime, what I'm really hoping for is a Roger Ailes (FOX) vs. Donald Trump war. That would be the best entertainment. It really is inevitable. Repubes left their Libertarian roots in the dust long ago ... if not, Paul would be leading in a landslide as he's the only one with any hint of that. Edited August 14, 2015 by JTSP
birdog1960 Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 "Democratic" Socialist, mind you, not Communist. My hunch is that being an Independent senator from Vermont gives him some Libertarian credibility. I'm a big Eisenhower fan. I'm a big fan of Bernie, too, and don't get the impression that he'd sky government spending. The priorities would be vastly different in a Sanders administration. We waste a lot of money on drug offenders - that's a Libertarian/Bernie issue. We intervene too often in foreign affairs - that's a Libertarian/Bernie issue. CAFTA/NAFTA is a bad deal - sounds Libertarian/Bernie to me. Hunters shouldn't be impeded by gun regulations - that's a step in the Libertarian direction. I really don't know what Liberal means. As a derogatory term, I guess it means a person who'd vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. Therefore, a Liberal wants a woman president because it would be politically correct. She may be a woman, but she's just not inspiring, and has questionable integrity. If people can get over the labels, I think that Bernie has a lot to offer mainstream America. I think he can beat Hillary, and either Dem. would trounce Trump in the General Election. Far too many people would never vote for Trump. Angry white males love him. Far too many people hate angry white males. Poor babies - you are being discriminated against. Why doesn't everyone just submit to your clearly delusional superiority? So it really comes down to this, undecided Republicans: would you rather that Hillary serve as President, or that Bernie serve as President? It's not too late to change parties so that you can vote in the primaries. In the meantime, what I'm really hoping for is a Roger Ailes (FOX) vs. Donald Trump war. That would be the best entertainment. It really is inevitable. respect. except i'm not sure what libertarian means. we've got self described members of that group here who wax nostalgic for the slave holding, antebellum south. how is that consistent with liberty?
IDBillzFan Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 respect. except i'm not sure what libertarian means. we've got self described members of that group here who wax nostalgic for the slave holding, antebellum south. how is that consistent with liberty? A far left progressive eager to vote for an admitted socialist as president says he doesn't know what libertarian means. Stop the presses.
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 respect. except i'm not sure what libertarian means. we've got self described members of that group here who wax nostalgic for the slave holding, antebellum south. how is that consistent with liberty? Are you purposefully this dense, or are you truely this vested in lieing?
birdog1960 Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) Are you purposefully this dense, or are you truely this vested in lieing? no, i truly get it: liberty is good when it results in personal advantages for me, reqardless of the harm it might do to others liberty. the whole movement, as represented ad nauseam here, can be described in one word: selfish. Edited August 14, 2015 by birdog1960
Chef Jim Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 no, i truly get it: liberty is good when it results in personal advantages for me, reqardless of the harm it might do to others liberty. the whole movement, as represented ad nauseam here, can be described in one word: selfish. So libertarians only want liberty for themselves?
Magox Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) no, i truly get it: liberty is good when it results in personal advantages for me, reqardless of the harm it might do to others liberty. the whole movement, as represented ad nauseam here, can be described in one word: selfish. People such as yourself do more harm for the causes you support than good. Edited August 14, 2015 by Magox
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 no, i truly get it: liberty is good when it results in personal advantages for me, reqardless of the harm it might do to others liberty. the whole movement, as represented ad nauseam here, can be described in one word: selfish. The above shows a complete lack of understanding of what liberty is. Liberty is the free exercise of one's natural rights in a way which does not infringe in any way on the natural rights of another. There is nothing inherently selfish about this, as the philosophy treats the importance of the rights of others as equal with the rights of self.
IDBillzFan Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 People such as yourself do more harm for the causes you support than good. In all fairness, he's pretty true to the progressive playbook. Unable to think or act for themselves in any viable successful manner, progs like birddog and, to a larger extent gatorman, prefer to paint those who ARE able to think and act for themselves as part of the problem. Personal accountability and success is what is WRONG with America because if you are individually accountable and successful, you're cold and heartless and, in the end, keeping other, weaker people from being successful. It's essentially the whole point of their "You didn't build that" whine people like birddog and Fauxcahauntas like to screech.
Tiberius Posted August 14, 2015 Posted August 14, 2015 Are you purposefully this dense, or are you truely this vested in lieing? I think he's got you dead on, Mr. The South was fighting for freedom!
Recommended Posts