Folks here and elsewhere keep saying HRC is extremely corrupt

[telling tiger 156]

I only laugh at your neck bob bull**** moron..........Don't give a rat's ass what you think about a thing....

 

Damn kind of you to include your IQ score in your user name.............Saves everyone a lot of time....

 

[AUFAN78 4,130]

7 minutes ago, telling tiger said:

I only laugh at your neck bob bull**** moron..........Don't give a rat's ass what you think about a thing....

 

Damn kind of you to include your IQ score in your user name.............Saves everyone a lot of time....

 

You're too easy hillbilly. LOL. Sure you care. That's why you responded you pathetic peasant. Now go give your pig a hug. 

Ain't got time for you. My Michter's 20 is floating on an ice cube. 

[telling tiger 156]

Didn't read it, don't care. Irrelevant.  Whine on.

[AUDub 11,784]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Looks like lowercase is the new PT. "Likes" everything. Better watch that "like" count.  LOL.

LOL

No, he doesn't. There's no comparison and you know it.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

8 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

LOL

No, he doesn't. There's no comparison and you know it.

Fine. Ignore the 10 or so posts he "liked" on this very thread. Only like 8 more than his nearest competitor. Good job.

[AUDub 11,784]

13 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Fine. Ignore the 10 or so posts he "liked" on this very thread. Only like 8 more than his nearest competitor. Good job.

Let me reiterate:

On 8/17/2016 at 9:20 PM, Bigbens42 said:

I'm OK with people liking whatever they want as long as they take the time to read the post. You know, put at least a little thought in before mashing the button. But when you're scrolling down the page liking anything and everything, which one look at the aforementioned list will reveal was happening, then I have a problem.

telling tiger hasn't been liking posts indiscriminately. 

This is my last post on the subject, so if you want to carry on, take it to the rep discussion thread. 

[AUFAN78 4,130]

6 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Let me reiterate:

telling tiger hasn't been doing that. 

This is my last post on the subject, so if you want to carry on, take it to the rep discussion thread. 

whatever

[TitanTiger 21,064]

14 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

In case anyone needs a reminder why he snagged himself a vacation.

It was actually a subsequent post a few ones down from that that got him a vacation.  But nonetheless...

[TitanTiger 21,064]

14 hours ago, Grumps said:

I don't really think I need to. But thanks for your input about what I need. Eventually, this forum will consist only of people who think like you do and then you can be happy and treat people with respect.

That's an interesting statement to hear when you're someone like me that's been around since this particular forum started.  I remember the days when we had a pack of hardcore conservatives here and the only two voices on the other side were TexasTiger and TigerAl.  And for a while after Al left, Tex was the only voice on the other side.  None of the conservatives seemed to have a problem with a board consisting of 95-99% "thinking like they do" then, but now that it's about half and half, people get bent.

 

[Grumps 3,706]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

With all due respect, it sounds like you and the other Hillary haters are arguing over terms and stretching the traditional meaning of terms to make your case. All lies and deceptions are intended to benefit the liar in some way. Reagan lied about trading arms for hostages and negotiating with terrorists because he knew the truth would hurt politically. Guess that makes him one of the most corrupt Presidents ever-- right?

Obviously, how one defines terms goes a long way in making one's argument. If Reagan lied to help himself politically then, by my definition, he is politically corrupt. It sounds like, by your definition, he is just a liar. It seems reasonable to me that by your definition, Mrs. Clinton is not politically corrupt, she is just a liar. Not that it matters to you, but I am fine with that. 

[Grumps 3,706]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

That's an interesting statement to hear when you're someone like me that's been around since this particular forum started.  I remember the days when we had a pack of hardcore conservatives here and the only two voices on the other side were TexasTiger and TigerAl.  And for a while after Al left, Tex was the only voice on the other side.  None of the conservatives seemed to have a problem with a board consisting of 95-99% "thinking like they do" then, but now that it's about half and half, people get bent.

 

I agree with almost everything you are saying, but if you look at my post in context, it was made after (what I deemed to be) a particularly nasty comment by homer. It is my opinion that people are more likely to leave this forum over intentionally hurtful PERSONAL attacks than they are over disagreements over ideals.

Also, don't forget arnaldoabru!

[AURaptor 1,137]

I already had

[TexasTiger 14,070]

19 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Obviously, how one defines terms goes a long way in making one's argument. If Reagan lied to help himself politically then, by my definition, he is politically corrupt. It sounds like, by your definition, he is just a liar. It seems reasonable to me that by your definition, Mrs. Clinton is not politically corrupt, she is just a liar. Not that it matters to you, but I am fine with that. 

I think they both lied as most politicians do, but as of yet, I'm not aware of evidence of actual corruption. Interesting how Republicans continue to give Reagan a pass while demonizing Hillary.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

13 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I agree with almost everything you are saying, but if you look at my post in context, it was made after (what I deemed to be) a particularly nasty comment by homer. It is my opinion that people are more likely to leave this forum over intentionally hurtful PERSONAL attacks than they are over disagreements over ideals.

Also, don't forget arnaldoabru!

Perception of nasty comments is often colored by one's views. Particularly when I was one of the few non-right wingers here most others did not perceive attacks on me as I did.

[japantiger 4,104]

Good lord, can you guys just drop all this encounter group s*** and get back to discussing politics.  So touchy-feely.....no one should want anyone banned...if you can't handle ideas and debate, go to the Yale forum...I'm sure they have a safe space for you.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

37 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Good lord, can you guys just drop all this encounter group s*** and get back to discussing politics.  So touchy-feely.....no one should want anyone banned...if you can't handle ideas and debate, go to the Yale forum...I'm sure they have a safe space for you.

Internet tough guy JT stops by on cue to assert his superior masculinity...

[japantiger 4,104]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Internet tough guy JT stops by on cue to assert his superior masculinity...

Merely a request for the free exchange of ideas without regard for what those ideas are or who expresses them...I see I hit a nerve....

[TexasTiger 14,070]

4 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Merely a request for the free exchange of ideas without regard for what those ideas are or who expresses them...I see I hit a nerve....

Nah, just find your exaggerated swagger comical.

[Grumps 3,706]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

I think they both lied as most politicians do, but as of yet, I'm not aware of evidence of actual corruption. Interesting how Republicans continue to give Reagan a pass while demonizing Hillary.

I honestly don't remember much about Reagan's lies, but if you read my post you'll see that I was not giving him a pass.

[Grumps 3,706]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Perception of nasty comments is often colored by one's views. Particularly when I was one of the few non-right wingers here most others did not perceive attacks on me as I did.

I agree.

[japantiger 4,104]

28 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Nah, just find your exaggerated swagger comical.

Yeah, struck a nerve....

[TexasTiger 14,070]

15 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Yeah, struck a nerve....

Your ego needs that affirmation, I suppose.

[homersapien 12,172]

2 hours ago, Grumps said:

I agree with almost everything you are saying, but if you look at my post in context, it was made after (what I deemed to be) a particularly nasty comment by homer. It is my opinion that people are more likely to leave this forum over intentionally hurtful PERSONAL attacks than they are over disagreements over ideals.

Also, don't forget arnaldoabru!

If only...

And if you are going to make such an accusation you should provide the comment at issue.  

[Grumps 3,706]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If only...

And if you are going to make such an accusation you should provide the comment at issue.  

If you read above I think you will see that I did. If you cannot or won't find it then let me know.

[homersapien 12,172]

1 hour ago, japantiger said:

Good lord, can you guys just drop all this encounter group s*** and get back to discussing politics.  So touchy-feely.....no one should want anyone banned...if you can't handle ideas and debate, go to the Yale forum...I'm sure they have a safe space for you.

In other words, there's no limit to the depravity you would include in "ideas and debate".