Folks here and elsewhere keep saying HRC is extremely corrupt

[homersapien 12,215]

2 hours ago, tiger88 said:

Your response indicates you acknowledge that something could happen. Interesting. 

Interesting?  

It would take a total fool to reject the possibility that "something could happen".   

Ben is certainly no fool.

[homersapien 12,215]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

How ironic...

Seriously.  

They are backing a candidate the mocked a handicapped reporter's physical symptoms.  And that's just for starters....

[homersapien 12,215]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The fact that you think a forum where it's evenly split, perhaps even a slight tilt toward conservative regulars, has a "prevailing liberal tilt" tells me all I need to know about your sense of perception.

Oh I say the liberals are way outnumbered.  

We make up for it with quality of argument which makes it seem like 50/50.  

[homersapien 12,215]

32 minutes ago, japantiger said:

First off, false slander would mean "no slander"...so I think you negated the faux-clever point you attempted to make.  Really struggling with slander (in the words of Inigo Montoya; I don't think that means what you think it means) as an appropriate term here as you seem to take any response to Khan as inappropriate; which is just foolish.....Trump's responses are below per CNN...none were slanderous by any use of the word....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/30/politics/donald-trump-khizr-kahn-response/

 

Good weaseling (avoiding my point.) 

For the sake of LC (literary correctness) I will gladly withdraw it.  Now, try to imagine my statement without the modifier "false".  

Can you do that?  

[japantiger 4,116]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

What bull****!

You think you can say anything and be respected for it?    You seem to "have trouble" with taking responsibility for your statements.  That must be your raw nerve.

Homes, please help me out here; where have I not taken responsibility for a post...hell, I stand by them all...quite proudly in fact....and mean every xxxxxx word of them.  Now, if you mean I am supposed to be obliged to confine myself to your effete interpretation of my posts; then forget it...

There's a reason I chose my signature on here...it pretty much sums up the modern progressive movement and the democrat party. 

“It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.”

― Joseph Heller, Catch 22

 

[japantiger 4,116]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Good weaseling (avoiding my point.) 

For the sake of LC (literary correctness) I will gladly withdraw it.  Now, try to imagine my statement without the modifier "false".  

Can you do that?  

I did that already...I included Trump's responses per CNN...none were slanderous by any definition of the word.  

[japantiger 4,116]

Just another example of poor, poor Hillary being victimized by the vast right wing conspiracy....more deleted emails ....I'm sure this is in no way an indication of her corruption though....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fbi-uncovered-at-least-14900-more-documents-in-clinton-email-investiIgation/2016/08/22/36745578-6643-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html

[TexasTiger 14,226]

30 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Homes, please help me out here; where have I not taken responsibility for a post...hell, I stand by them all...quite proudly in fact....and mean every xxxxxx word of them.  Now, if you mean I am supposed to be obliged to confine myself to your effete interpretation of my posts; then forget it...

There's a reason I chose my signature on here...it pretty much sums up the modern progressive movement and the democrat party. 

“It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.”

― Joseph Heller, Catch 22

 

Watch the language.

[Grumps 3,706]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Grumps, you're generally pleasant enough, but seem to be willfully ignorant about things broadly known that don't suit your point of view. It makes any meaningful discussion pretty limited. There is ample evidence in the public domain indicating TU was a scam and a con. When Trump repeatedly "guarantees" he would be reelected with 95% of the African-American vote, that's clearly con man tactics. Believe what you want. Believe Trump is a straight shooter who will keep all his promises. Believe all the lies that are obvious on their face. Don't waste your critical thinking skills on this election- it's just the presidency.

I don't even like Trump. My point is that you imply that there is no concrete evidence against Mrs. Clinton because she hasn't been found guilty of anything. But then you turn around and say that there is concrete evidence that Trump is a con-man. I think we have two pathetic candidates. I think that Mrs. Clinton is worse and you think that Trump is worse. I don't fault you for your opinion. I just think that the same rules should apply for each candidate. If that makes me willfully ignorant in your opinion then I'll just have to live with it.

[Grumps 3,706]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Concerned?  Heck no.  I'd welcome it.  The sooner the better.  

I would much prefer Tim Kaine (for one example) over Hillary.  

There's something we agree on! We may be best buds yet!

[TexasTiger 14,226]

51 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I don't even like Trump. My point is that you imply that there is no concrete evidence against Mrs. Clinton because she hasn't been found guilty of anything. But then you turn around and say that there is concrete evidence that Trump is a con-man. I think we have two pathetic candidates. I think that Mrs. Clinton is worse and you think that Trump is worse. I don't fault you for your opinion. I just think that the same rules should apply for each candidate. If that makes me willfully ignorant in your opinion then I'll just have to live with it.

You're willfully ignorant to the evidence on Trump U. Don't twist my words.

[Grumps 3,706]

15 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You're willfully ignorant to the evidence on Trump U. Don't twist my words.

Are you also willfully ignorant to the evidence on Mrs. Clinton lying to the public about her e-mails?

[AURaptor 1,137]

 Which is more important to the American public? Hillary's corruption and lying about top secret emails? Or Trump's sham of a university which people likely got out whatever they put in? I'm sorry, but there are plenty of people who have wasted tens of thousands of dollars on  "education" and come away unemployed , underemployed .

[TexasTiger 14,226]

7 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Are you also willfully ignorant to the evidence on Mrs. Clinton lying to the public about her e-mails?

Wrong.

[homersapien 12,215]

19 hours ago, japantiger said:

I did that already...I included Trump's responses per CNN...none were slanderous by any definition of the word.  

Actually, I was referring to Blue and his Khan sex scandal post.

Trump merely implied Mrs. Kahn was  being prevented from talking by her husband, which was more of an inappropriate dig against her religion.

[homersapien 12,215]

On 8/22/2016 at 7:30 PM, Grumps said:

I don't even like Trump. My point is that you imply that there is no concrete evidence against Mrs. Clinton because she hasn't been found guilty of anything. But then you turn around and say that there is concrete evidence that Trump is a con-man. I think we have two pathetic candidates. I think that Mrs. Clinton is worse and you think that Trump is worse. I don't fault you for your opinion. I just think that the same rules should apply for each candidate. If that makes me willfully ignorant in your opinion then I'll just have to live with it.

No that's not exactly right.  Many on here are flat out saying she is a criminal.  That may be true, but so far there has been not enough evidence to even indict her, much less convict her.  So you got it backwards, Clinton has not been indicted - or convicted - because there is not enough evidence to do so.  

That's just stating simple fact.  If you think she's a criminal it's fine to say that. But if you use the charge as if it were fact in order to bolster your arguments, it's simply not true.

[japantiger 4,116]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Actually, I was referring to Blue and his Khan sex scandal post.

Trump merely implied Mrs. Kahn was  being prevented from talking by her husband, which was more of an inappropriate dig against her religion.

Yeah, the Khan sex scandal thing may or may not be true....I would have been pickier on the source....

How is Trump's comment  an "inappropriate " dig against her religion...from what I have read on Khan's background, writings and religious beliefs, having a silent compliant wife would be a key tenent of his/her religion.   He's a Sharia fundamentalist....and he believes there is no law absent Sharia (his direct quote  "All other juridical works… must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah.”  ) .  I find it funny that he was selected to lecture anyone on the Constitution as his writings seem to be antithetical to US Constitutional Law.   

[homersapien 12,215]

On 8/23/2016 at 2:10 PM, japantiger said:

Yeah, the Khan sex scandal thing may or may not be true....I would have been pickier on the source....

How is Trump's comment  an "inappropriate " dig against her religion...from what I have read on Khan's background, writings and religious beliefs, having a silent compliant wife would be a key tenent of his/her religion.   He's a Sharia fundamentalist....and he believes there is no law absent Sharia (his direct quote  "All other juridical works… must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah.”  ) .  I find it funny that he was selected to lecture anyone on the Constitution as his writings seem to be antithetical to US Constitutional Law.   

Why would he even mention  Mrs. Kahn's silence at all?   How is that relevant to the message Mr. Kahn delivered?

Did you see the clip?  He was obviously throwing shade on Muslims, or more specifically, the Khans. 

It's just like your pathetic attempt above to defend it by trying to rationalize it. You're trying to make the victim into the perpetrator. 

[japantiger 4,116]

I think a spokesman (Khan and his wife, fundamentalist Sharia adhering Muslims) that doesn't believe in the constitution trying to damn someone else  for perceived violations of the constitution pretty much opens Khan up to any attack along those lines.  He doesn't get a pass from scrutiny because his son died....if he wanted to avoid scrutiny he should have stayed home.  

I don't agree with Trump's approach....but Khan is a useful idiot who's sole reason for being chosen is his son being  killed by the policies of the candidate he spoke for.  That is the real tragedy of all this.

[TexasTiger 14,226]

34 minutes ago, japantiger said:

I think a spokesman (Khan and his wife, fundamentalist Sharia adhering Muslims) that doesn't believe in the constitution trying to damn someone else  for perceived violations of the constitution pretty much opens Khan up to any attack along those lines.  He doesn't get a pass from scrutiny because his son died....if he wanted to avoid scrutiny he should have stayed home.  

I don't agree with Trump's approach....but Khan is a useful idiot who's sole reason for being chosen is his son being  killed by the policies of the candidate he spoke for.  That is the real tragedy of all this.

Link to Kahn not believing in the Constitution?

[homersapien 12,215]

42 minutes ago, japantiger said:

I think a spokesman (Khan and his wife, fundamentalist Sharia adhering Muslims) that doesn't believe in the constitution trying to damn someone else  for perceived violations of the constitution pretty much opens Khan up to any attack along those lines.  He doesn't get a pass from scrutiny because his son died....if he wanted to avoid scrutiny he should have stayed home.  

I don't agree with Trump's approach....but Khan is a useful idiot who's sole reason for being chosen is his son being  killed by the policies of the candidate he spoke for.  That is the real tragedy of all this.

First, that is just a another slanderous lie about him not believing in the constitution.  

You just cannot imagine how a Muslim who loves this country and who's son died for it might take offense at Trump's Muslim baiting. Or at least you refuse to accept the simplest truth.  You are as bad as Blue.  It would be laughable if it weren't so evil.  

If I were in Khan's position, I'd take any chance I could to confront Trump. 

 

[AUFAN78 4,148]

On 8/22/2016 at 4:02 PM, homersapien said:

Interesting?  

It would take a total fool to reject the possibility that "something could happen".   

Ben is certainly no fool.

Depending on your interpretation, a fool could be defined as one voting for Trump or the Hildabeast. Not saying Ben would stoop this low, but throwing it out for consideration.

[AUDub 11,814]

19 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Depending on your interpretation, a fool could be defined as one voting for Trump or the Hildabeast. Not saying Ben would stoop this low, but throwing it out for consideration.

Joke's on you. Voting for Johnson 

[AUFAN78 4,148]

6 hours ago, Grumps said:

Are you also willfully ignorant to the evidence on Mrs. Clinton lying to the public about her e-mails?

LOL that you even asked that. Of course he's freaking ignorant of the facts. It is called BLINDERS. BTW, he is not alone. 

[AUFAN78 4,148]

4 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Joke's on you. Voting for Johnson 

No joke. You've stated as much already, need I remind you.