More lying at the DNC

[spence]

Here's another great one.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/31/politi...cue/index.html

Trump gets stuck in an elevator trying to get to a campaign event, first responders rescue him then he gets on stage and throws the fire chief under the bus.

Amazing.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I see, you're going to defend shamless anti-American and anti-Military bigotry with a video clip from a hearing that resulted in no new findings.

So many articles and quotes and videos have been posted or linked about who said what lately, that I don't read most of them. If you're referring to some Trump supposedly anti-American or anti-military quotes, I am baffled by how and when you actually believe what Trump says. If he says something that sounds good, or pro-American or pro-Military, well, Trump lies, is not trustworthy, is a narcissist or megalomaniac, or whacked. If he says something that can, by some, especially those who hate him, be considered negative or anti-something, well then he is being truthful and revealing who he really is.

Rather than casting his words from your perspective and bias, you might actually comprehend them better by reading them from his perspective and motivation. Sarcasm, for instance (as well as you should know) is not from-the-heart-sincerity or belief. But if you wish to paint everything he says by the light of your own bias and motivation, that will be applauded by your choir, but you will all miss how the other choir hears his words. So your off the mark remarks will not influence that other choir. And someone in between will think you're both koo-koo.

I don't think most fair minded, or objective people think Trump is anti-American or anti-Military. If anything, many consider him to be too nationalist or militaristic. I think even you have expressed similar notions.

And no new findings are reiterated by all on this forum, including you. Being not new is not being irrelevant. Of course, from your perspective and bias old stuff that you don't like ain't no good. If you like it, it is.

If Trump is willing to attack military families to score points I think that pretty much proves nothing is off the table.


Again, I don't know what Trump quote, or "attack," your referring to. I suspect, from your pattern of misrepresenting his words, they can be "perceived" differently than how you portray them. But what is "off the table" for Hillary? Politics is dirty. I think Trump's observation of how the political game is played sways his methods. It seems that "nice" guys have a more difficult time winning.

What are you going to do when he comes after you? (this is semi-plagiarized but I can't remember who said it)

Niemoller. And you are misusing his words. I thought we are supposed to stop calling everyone we don't like Nazis. But if we must, Hillary is no less so. What are you gong to do when she comes after you?

It's not about personality in this election. They both have a problem there. If we don't get off that track, the important issues will be ignored.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I think Trump's observation of how the political game is played sways his methods. It seems that "nice" guys have a more difficult time winning.

Trump is a cuddly puppy dog when compared to the Pit Bull viciousness and ruthlessness that the Clintons and their surrogates have displayed and engaged in over the years...I suppose their supporters feel it has all been perfectly justified as they feign indignation over every Trump comment and ourburst....

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Niemoller. And you are misusing his words. I thought we are supposed to stop calling everyone we don't like Nazis. But if we must, Hillary is no less so. What are you gong to do when she comes after you?

It's not about personality in this election. They both have a problem there. If we don't get off that track, the important issues will be ignored.

A classic "non-post."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

A classic "non-post."

THis is a post?

[ecduzitgood]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-out-of-touch/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Is her secret service code name spence?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hillar...155339051.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Finally someone has said to him "sir have you no decency". Just like someone had to say to McCarthy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Finally someone has said to him "sir have you no decency". Just like someone had to say to McCarthy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clinton supporters should try to steer clear of the word "decency".......

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

Clinton supporters should try to steer clear of the word "decency".......

Correct. I think Trump absolutely deserves to be criticized for his lack of judgment here (just shut up and let the story go away). But what gets me is the obvious hypocrisy. Hilary called Patricia Smith a liar, and lots of liberals ridiculed Patricia Smith's speech at the Republican convention. I wish Spence or Paul would tell me why it's OK to attack Patricia Smith, but not OK to attack these people.

And since there is no defensible answer to that, it would be nice, for once, if they admitted I am right. But as liberals, they cannot bring themselves to do that, they just can't.

Bush used to say that he didn't blame the parents one bit for being angry at him.

Of course, Hilary also voted "with conviction" for the war, but according to Spence, that doesn't mean (somehow) that she actually supported it. Heavens, no.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Finally someone has said to him "sir have you no decency". Just like someone had to say to McCarthy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What McCarthy was up against was worse than indecent. The left's vilification of him has been, as wdmso would say, "debunked." One may not like, or be offended by, what he did, but he has mostly been vindicated. He was mostly right. But the leftist smear hangs on.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1105616]

Originally Posted by scottw

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


On Jan. 8, 1835, all the big political names in Washington gathered to celebrate what President Andrew Jackson had just accomplished. A senator rose to make the big announcement: "Gentlemen ... the national debt ... is PAID."

That was the one time in U.S. history when the country was debt free. It lasted exactly one year.

It may have only lasted one year, but it was constantly lowered till then. And even though it grew slightly, it briefly was lowered again, then went up, then the Civil War and the nearly eternal growth of debt.

its been said time and time again our military has been conducting war time operations Since Sept 11th and not paid for all put on the National debt .. Its what Americans wants .. ( but have no idea on what it is costing the country nor do the care ) yet the Right loves to uses the debt as another tool of fear for votes and try to convince the public the debt has increased because of immigrants getting benefits and welfare ..
not because of the cost of war keeping them safe .. again fact dont matter

The cost of war is a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government. The massive social programs and entitlements of today, as well as education, are not Constitutional responsibilities of the Federal Government. More is budgeted for extra-Constitutional funding than is budgeted for the military.

That's not an excuse for bad wars. But there is no justification for the Central government to steal the peoples rights and responsibilities and impose its own versions of how their money should be spent

The national debt was enormous at the time of the founding because of money required to finance the Revolutionary War. We owed huge sums to France and other countries as well as to private banks and wealthy citizens. Robert Morris, a private capitalist was tasked with finding ways to borrow or print money in order to carry out the War, and he struggled and scraped well enough to barely pay for the constantly cash strapped efforts, against all odds.

Then there was the infrastructure and other public needs of a new nation. So it took a long time to bring the debt down. But the trajectory of debt was fairly consistently lower and lower. The Federal Government had not yet grown into the massive regulatory State burdened with "programs" necessary to "run" the country as it does today. The country ran itself. The Federal Government limited itself to the duties ascribed to it in the Constitution. So it was able to pay the debt and not get into serious debt.

Then came the Civil War. And with it, not only new massive debt, but newly acquired federal power over the States, and the beginning of "Progressive" ideas borrowed from Germany and France. Progressive ideas that required extra-Constitutional power to realize. The Courts resisted when they were given cases and stanched the growing desire among American elites who admired the efficiency of European administration.

Naturally, new shiny things must be had. The Progressive academics wrote and preached a new form of government which was to make the Constitution obsolete. Or, at least, transformed. To Progressives, the notion that a country could run itself, that a free people could create new wonderful things on their own in any efficient and orderly way, and especially in a more egalitarian way, was an antiquated notion bereft of any historical logic. And, certainly, the Progressives would have thought, that paying for the growth of the Nation would be too expensive for private citizens. Only the super rich could even begin to handle that, and that would inequitably funnel wealth into the hands of the few. Like most everything else, it would require government and its expertise.

It didn't take too much longer (as the debt continuously began to rise while responsibility was gradually transferred to government) before there was a "need" for government to dominate the "running" of America.

Along with increasing debt.

Big moves toward an Administrative Central power began to catch on with Teddy Roosevelt, then Wilson, then and especially FDR, then LBJ, Carter, Bush, and Obama. The government grew bigger and bigger, and the debt grew with it.

Curiously, there was another time when the debt was lowered. A quiet frugal man from Vermont, when Vermont was still Republican, an actual "conservative" who stuck by the Constitution, and refused to pay for things that the States should pay for, became President. That was Calvin Coolidge. After that, Mr. Hoover, a very Progressive Republican, came on the scene, and he was followed by FDR who railed against Hoover's policies then not only followed them, but expanded them exponentially, and created new ones, and got the Supreme Court to finally start seeing the light that the Constitution was a living, breathing thing. And the Debt has continuously gone up since then. And there doesn't seem to be an end in sight to the growth. Unless we reign in the growth and power of the Federal Government and letting the States re-assume what was once their responsibility. And the central government can be relegated once again to its Constitutional duties, which includes wars.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

As you say, BECAUSE OF LAWS . . . laws are government . . . because of government these companies are "protected". Government allows, sanctions, promotes this supposed "force" of which you speak.

Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government granted the power or task of picking and choosing winners and losers in the private sector? It is the Progressive philosophy of governing that distorts or destroys the constitutional limitations which prevent government from doing so.

If you're so against government complicity in companies "forcing" you to pay what you think is too much, why are you all in for the Progressive "living and breathing" interpretation of the Constitution?

seek less regulation so they can charge you more,

It is not the quantity of regulation they seek, but the kind. The kind that squeezes out competitors or gives advantage over them. The more of those kind of regulations the merrier are the monopolies.

Don't you find it extraordinary that one of the major economic issues the early Progressives ran on was the busting up and prevention of monopolies, yet their way of regulating has created more and bigger ones?

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

If you understand the fascistic relationship between big government and big business in the way Progressives see it . . . that is, government, through "experts" decides what is best, and it has the unlimited power to make that happen as it sees fit--for business to succeed it must do as the government commands, and it will be greatly rewarded for doing so, and the bigger corporations are, the less need there is for more of them, and that makes it easier for government to efficiently control them . . . if you understand the symbiotic relationship between big business and big government, it should be easy for you to see how the supposed war between them is really just adjustments to their yin-yang. And should make it easier to understand that the politicians "fight" against the big corporations is mostly a smoke screen.

... 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

Technological advancement does change how we live. Even in the most primitive conditions, you are "forced" to do certain things to survive. Freedom does not change that. The Progressive promise to free humans from that "force" is pie in the sky. On the contrary, it imposes even more force in order for you to be what it considers free. And that consideration certainly doesn't include limited government, constitutionally or otherwise.

[ecduzitgood]

It begins at an early age

https://www.yahoo.com/style/boy-got-...130705990.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/michel...-equal?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device