This scenario sounded very familiar to me. A Google search brings up an almost identical scenario in 1996. No clear conclusion. Depends on who you choose to believe in the body of articles that followed. A lot of the fires originally blamed on hate groups did turn out after investigation to show otherwise. Some are still unsolved.
Wait a second. I know the South is all backwards and shit, Â
this is another hands up don't shoot orgy that we have seen previously here or maybe there is some basis in fact to there being hate groups behind some of these. As aleays, I take the position that we wait until we get some facts from investigations before we reach any conclusions.
Would that those attacking HRC on the other thread would take such a viewpoint. Currently, she's been deemed guilty by both association and innuendo, but without, as yet, hard facts.
She may be guilty as hell, innocent as a newborn lamb, or, likely, somewhere in between. But she doesn't get the same level of judicious "let's wait for the facts" consideration.
Pre-suppose all you like, but how do you all reconcile the jarring disconnect? Is it that suspected political misbehavior scores higher on the outrage scale with some of you than the possibility of racially-motivated crime?
this is another hands up don't shoot orgy that we have seen previously here or maybe there is some basis in fact to there being hate groups behind some of these. As aleays, I take the position that we wait until we get some facts from investigations before we reach any conclusions.
Would that those attacking HRC on the other thread would take such a viewpoint. Currently, she's been deemed guilty by both association and innuendo, but without, as yet, hard facts.
She may be guilty as hell, innocent as a newborn lamb, or, likely, somewhere in between. But she doesn't get the same level of judicious "let's wait for the facts" consideration.
Pre-suppose all you like, but how do you all reconcile the jarring disconnect? Is it that suspected political misbehavior scores higher on the outrage scale with some of you than the possibility of racially-motivated crime?
Her record of lies is She turned over her work related emails as required by rule. Any allegation that she did not turn over all work related emails is without basis in fact.. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
this is another hands up don't shoot orgy that we have seen previously here or maybe there is some basis in fact to there being hate groups behind some of these. As aleays, I take the position that we wait until we get some facts from investigations before we reach any conclusions.
Would that those attacking HRC on the other thread would take such a viewpoint. Currently, she's been deemed guilty by both association and innuendo, but without, as yet, hard facts.
She may be guilty as hell, innocent as a newborn lamb, or, likely, somewhere in between. But she doesn't get the same level of judicious "let's wait for the facts" consideration.
Pre-suppose all you like, but how do you all reconcile the jarring disconnect? Is it that suspected political misbehavior scores higher on the outrage scale with some of you than the possibility of racially-motivated crime?
SO how are we on Tom Brady?
As is your wont, you present non-sequiturs to try to make a point. You really have no talent at discourse. Stick with your ideological rants and your defense of perhaps the only person on here who is even worse than you at firing synapses.
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
all over the nation. In my experience I've found the racists of the north, including the aforementioned update NYers to be more of the closeted racist variety. They'll keep to themselves and act polite in public, but behind closed doors the N words and racist jokes fly freely. These are not kind the of racists who'll burn your churches down but they'll stereotype and hate you!
Down south the racism seems to be more upfront or in the open. They'll tell you that 'they don't like your kind' to your face and some will do some crazy shit like burn buildings to the ground. Do you prefer your racism veiled or flaming out in the open?
What unites racists from all over is a firm ability to blame their problems on or project their fears onto groups of other people.
RE: RE: That last reply got messed up. It should say. Â
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
That was a side comment to my actual reply to what you said but it is tiresome to again and again go over what I have said here over and over beginning over 10 years ago. All politicians lie. Not all politicians are pathological liars like Hillary. I remember once i mentioned here some lie she made about some inconsequential matter. Possibly her being a Yankee fan. I was told it was no big deal that she lied about something inconsequential. However that was my point. There is no need to lie about inconsequential things. That is the sign of the pathological liar. I am sure others here have known people like that from experience. We know you cannot believe anything they say. It is a sign of a lack of any integrity. An example. Why did she need to say that she was under fire when getting off that helicopter? Most politicians lie because they must. It is part of the game.There was no reason or need for her to lie but she did. That is not part of the game People like Hillary lie because that is what she is.
RE: There are racists of all shapes, sizes, and characters Â
all over the nation. In my experience I've found the racists of the north, including the aforementioned update NYers to be more of the closeted racist variety. They'll keep to themselves and act polite in public, but behind closed doors the N words and racist jokes fly freely. These are not kind the of racists who'll burn your churches down but they'll stereotype and hate you!
Down south the racism seems to be more upfront or in the open. They'll tell you that 'they don't like your kind' to your face and some will do some crazy shit like burn buildings to the ground. Do you prefer your racism veiled or flaming out in the open?
What unites racists from all over is a firm ability to blame their problems on or project their fears onto groups of other people.
I agree. I would also add that for many it stems from an insecurity of who they are, and that by accepting someone else’s differences they have the false belief they are somehow demeaning who they are.
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
That was a side comment to my actual reply to what you said but it is tiresome to again and again go over what I have said here over and over beginning over 10 years ago. All politicians lie. Not all politicians are pathological liars like Hillary. I remember once i mentioned here some lie she made about some inconsequential matter. Possibly her being a Yankee fan. I was told it was no big deal that she lied about something inconsequential. However that was my point. There is no need to lie about inconsequential things. That is the sign of the pathological liar. I am sure others here have known people like that from experience. We know you cannot believe anything they say. It is a sign of a lack of any integrity. An example. Why did she need to say that she was under fire when getting off that helicopter? Most politicians lie because they must. It is part of the game.There was no reason or need for her to lie but she did. That is not part of the game People like Hillary lie because that is what she is.
Sorry, Al, but you're running on emotion, not reason. If it's HRC, you see it only one way, and that's blinkered thinking. And if you think that she's the only political pathological liar, or even in the minority, I just don't know what to say.
I cite all the fools over the years who would have suffered in the very short term by admitting to a fault, rather than denying it, trying to cover it up, and then being politically cooked because of it.
Further, you simply either missed or ignored the whole point of my statements. Proof ids required, no matter the history, innuendo, suppositions, or ideology. If you disagree with this, we're even further apart than I could have imagined.
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
That was a side comment to my actual reply to what you said but it is tiresome to again and again go over what I have said here over and over beginning over 10 years ago. All politicians lie. Not all politicians are pathological liars like Hillary. I remember once i mentioned here some lie she made about some inconsequential matter. Possibly her being a Yankee fan. I was told it was no big deal that she lied about something inconsequential. However that was my point. There is no need to lie about inconsequential things. That is the sign of the pathological liar. I am sure others here have known people like that from experience. We know you cannot believe anything they say. It is a sign of a lack of any integrity. An example. Why did she need to say that she was under fire when getting off that helicopter? Most politicians lie because they must. It is part of the game.There was no reason or need for her to lie but she did. That is not part of the game People like Hillary lie because that is what she is.
Sorry, Al, but you're running on emotion, not reason. If it's HRC, you see it only one way, and that's blinkered thinking. And if you think that she's the only political pathological liar, or even in the minority, I just don't know what to say.
I cite all the fools over the years who would have suffered in the very short term by admitting to a fault, rather than denying it, trying to cover it up, and then being politically cooked because of it.
Further, you simply either missed or ignored the whole point of my statements. Proof ids required, no matter the history, innuendo, suppositions, or ideology. If you disagree with this, we're even further apart than I could have imagined.
I keep replying very directly to the questions you asked and then you veer off on tangents. Your original point when you brought Hillary onto this thread was about inconsistency between my position on Hillary and the churches. I directly showed my consistency. You then veered away. I go back to what I said originally on this thread. Let's wait and see what the investigations say about the churches.
Lets all jump to conclusions like "Hands Up Dont Shoot" Â
Federal investigators suspect lightning may have caused the fire at Mount Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church in Greeleyville, South Carolina, senior officials in the FBI said Wednesday morning.
June 26: Greater Miracle Apostolic in Tallahassee, Florida. The fire was likely caused by a tree limb falling on power lines.
* June 26: Glover Grovery Baptist in Warrenville, South Carolina. The cause has not been determined, but investigators observed no element of criminal intent.
* June 24: Briar Creek Road Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, which houses both black and Nepalese congregations. Fire investigators ruled that fire an arson, and though they have not seen evidence that hate was a motivation for the crime, they are not ruling it out.
* June 21: College Hill Seventh-day Adventist in Knoxville, Tennessee. Investigators ruled it an arson but they say nothing so far has indicated a hate crime. ATF and other agencies said that it looked like vandalism.
* June 21: God's Power Church of Christ in Macon, Georgia. Investigators believe the blaze might be arson. ATF is investigating but no ruling has been made. The church had recently been broken into and air conditioners and sound systems stolen.
Non-sequitur torpedoing a relatively decent and important discussion.
If you'd bother to actually read it, you'd see as direct disconnect between the "wait for the facts" sentiment here from the very same people who don't need facts when ideologies are in play. If that offends you, well, there's really nothing I care to do about it.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: That last reply got messed up. It should say. Â
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
That was a side comment to my actual reply to what you said but it is tiresome to again and again go over what I have said here over and over beginning over 10 years ago. All politicians lie. Not all politicians are pathological liars like Hillary. I remember once i mentioned here some lie she made about some inconsequential matter. Possibly her being a Yankee fan. I was told it was no big deal that she lied about something inconsequential. However that was my point. There is no need to lie about inconsequential things. That is the sign of the pathological liar. I am sure others here have known people like that from experience. We know you cannot believe anything they say. It is a sign of a lack of any integrity. An example. Why did she need to say that she was under fire when getting off that helicopter? Most politicians lie because they must. It is part of the game.There was no reason or need for her to lie but she did. That is not part of the game People like Hillary lie because that is what she is.
Sorry, Al, but you're running on emotion, not reason. If it's HRC, you see it only one way, and that's blinkered thinking. And if you think that she's the only political pathological liar, or even in the minority, I just don't know what to say.
I cite all the fools over the years who would have suffered in the very short term by admitting to a fault, rather than denying it, trying to cover it up, and then being politically cooked because of it.
Further, you simply either missed or ignored the whole point of my statements. Proof ids required, no matter the history, innuendo, suppositions, or ideology. If you disagree with this, we're even further apart than I could have imagined.
I keep replying very directly to the questions you asked and then you veer off on tangents. Your original point when you brought Hillary onto this thread was about inconsistency between my position on Hillary and the churches. I directly showed my consistency. You then veered away. I go back to what I said originally on this thread. Let's wait and see what the investigations say about the churches.
No, Al, you just continuede using the "I know she's a liar" screed; not much about waiting for the facts.
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
That was a side comment to my actual reply to what you said but it is tiresome to again and again go over what I have said here over and over beginning over 10 years ago. All politicians lie. Not all politicians are pathological liars like Hillary. I remember once i mentioned here some lie she made about some inconsequential matter. Possibly her being a Yankee fan. I was told it was no big deal that she lied about something inconsequential. However that was my point. There is no need to lie about inconsequential things. That is the sign of the pathological liar. I am sure others here have known people like that from experience. We know you cannot believe anything they say. It is a sign of a lack of any integrity. An example. Why did she need to say that she was under fire when getting off that helicopter? Most politicians lie because they must. It is part of the game.There was no reason or need for her to lie but she did. That is not part of the game People like Hillary lie because that is what she is.
Sorry, Al, but you're running on emotion, not reason. If it's HRC, you see it only one way, and that's blinkered thinking. And if you think that she's the only political pathological liar, or even in the minority, I just don't know what to say.
I cite all the fools over the years who would have suffered in the very short term by admitting to a fault, rather than denying it, trying to cover it up, and then being politically cooked because of it.
Further, you simply either missed or ignored the whole point of my statements. Proof ids required, no matter the history, innuendo, suppositions, or ideology. If you disagree with this, we're even further apart than I could have imagined.
I keep replying very directly to the questions you asked and then you veer off on tangents. Your original point when you brought Hillary onto this thread was about inconsistency between my position on Hillary and the churches. I directly showed my consistency. You then veered away. I go back to what I said originally on this thread. Let's wait and see what the investigations say about the churches.
No, Al, you just continuede using the "I know she's a liar" screed; not much about waiting for the facts.
Two different issues but let's move on from Hillary on this thread.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: That last reply got messed up. It should say. Â
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
That was a side comment to my actual reply to what you said but it is tiresome to again and again go over what I have said here over and over beginning over 10 years ago. All politicians lie. Not all politicians are pathological liars like Hillary. I remember once i mentioned here some lie she made about some inconsequential matter. Possibly her being a Yankee fan. I was told it was no big deal that she lied about something inconsequential. However that was my point. There is no need to lie about inconsequential things. That is the sign of the pathological liar. I am sure others here have known people like that from experience. We know you cannot believe anything they say. It is a sign of a lack of any integrity. An example. Why did she need to say that she was under fire when getting off that helicopter? Most politicians lie because they must. It is part of the game.There was no reason or need for her to lie but she did. That is not part of the game People like Hillary lie because that is what she is.
Sorry, Al, but you're running on emotion, not reason. If it's HRC, you see it only one way, and that's blinkered thinking. And if you think that she's the only political pathological liar, or even in the minority, I just don't know what to say.
I cite all the fools over the years who would have suffered in the very short term by admitting to a fault, rather than denying it, trying to cover it up, and then being politically cooked because of it.
Further, you simply either missed or ignored the whole point of my statements. Proof ids required, no matter the history, innuendo, suppositions, or ideology. If you disagree with this, we're even further apart than I could have imagined.
I keep replying very directly to the questions you asked and then you veer off on tangents. Your original point when you brought Hillary onto this thread was about inconsistency between my position on Hillary and the churches. I directly showed my consistency. You then veered away. I go back to what I said originally on this thread. Let's wait and see what the investigations say about the churches.
No, Al, you just continuede using the "I know she's a liar" screed; not much about waiting for the facts.
Two different issues but let's move on from Hillary on this thread.
Non-sequitur torpedoing a relatively decent and important discussion.
If you'd bother to actually read it, you'd see as direct disconnect between the "wait for the facts" sentiment here from the very same people who don't need facts when ideologies are in play. If that offends you, well, there's really nothing I care to do about it.
Hillary is about whether someone has stepped into ethical gray areas so many times that people think that maybe, just maybe she ought not be President. This is about whether crimes have been committed, whether they're linked, and whether they're racially motivated. In the former instance you would not expect to find a smoking gun, because you're not talking about criminal conduct. You're talking about behavior that is unethical and beneath what you'd expect of someone who knows she wants to run for President. In the latter one you would expect that in time we will have an answer, perhaps a suspect, and enough to send him or them to prison for a long, long time.
RE: RE: RE: WTF does Hillary have to do with this? Â
Non-sequitur torpedoing a relatively decent and important discussion.
If you'd bother to actually read it, you'd see as direct disconnect between the "wait for the facts" sentiment here from the very same people who don't need facts when ideologies are in play. If that offends you, well, there's really nothing I care to do about it.
Hillary is about whether someone has stepped into ethical gray areas so many times that people think that maybe, just maybe she ought not be President. This is about whether crimes have been committed, whether they're linked, and whether they're racially motivated. In the former instance you would not expect to find a smoking gun, because you're not talking about criminal conduct. You're talking about behavior that is unethical and beneath what you'd expect of someone who knows she wants to run for President. In the latter one you would expect that in time we will have an answer, perhaps a suspect, and enough to send him or them to prison for a long, long time.
People from a particular ideological viewpoint, and therein lies the difference. I expect proof before conviction, regardless of parsing the level of conjectured wrongdoing. That isn't happening in the discussion above. The difference is stark.
Welcome to the playground, Junior. First learn what words mean, then try to use them correctly. Then pull the ramrod out and try to grow a sense of humor. Maybe when you get some life experience you'll understand.
Welcome to the playground, Junior. First learn what words mean, then try to use them correctly. Then pull the ramrod out and try to grow a sense of humor. Maybe when you get some life experience you'll understand.
I don't need to speak for him, but omg, he's experienced a lot. I think that the even you would respect that.
Welcome to the playground, Junior. First learn what words mean, then try to use them correctly. Then pull the ramrod out and try to grow a sense of humor. Maybe when you get some life experience you'll understand.
Generally speaking a sycophant is a flatterer. I don't have a horse in the raise, not yet, so merely being anti-someone would make the opposite of a flatterer, no? And let's not start talking about life experience, I have plenty.
and a blind follower, but I realized at the age of 6 I hate people so there went that
Yeah my faith teaches me to not judge people, or at least to not judge them harshly, but I struggle with that. All kidding aside though there are few things more pathetic than a toady.
Toady is bad but the front runner is the worst. You know the guy that latches on to someone in the lead and swears allegiance to them then jumps ship when someone else takes the lead
Toady is bad but the front runner is the worst. You know the guy that latches on to someone in the lead and swears allegiance to them then jumps ship when someone else takes the lead
Yeah, I fucking hate that guy [frantically scraping off my Trump '16 sticker].
Quote:
this is another hands up don't shoot orgy that we have seen previously here or maybe there is some basis in fact to there being hate groups behind some of these. As aleays, I take the position that we wait until we get some facts from investigations before we reach any conclusions.
Would that those attacking HRC on the other thread would take such a viewpoint. Currently, she's been deemed guilty by both association and innuendo, but without, as yet, hard facts.
She may be guilty as hell, innocent as a newborn lamb, or, likely, somewhere in between. But she doesn't get the same level of judicious "let's wait for the facts" consideration.
Pre-suppose all you like, but how do you all reconcile the jarring disconnect? Is it that suspected political misbehavior scores higher on the outrage scale with some of you than the possibility of racially-motivated crime?
SO how are we on Tom Brady?
Quote:
this is another hands up don't shoot orgy that we have seen previously here or maybe there is some basis in fact to there being hate groups behind some of these. As aleays, I take the position that we wait until we get some facts from investigations before we reach any conclusions.
Would that those attacking HRC on the other thread would take such a viewpoint. Currently, she's been deemed guilty by both association and innuendo, but without, as yet, hard facts.
She may be guilty as hell, innocent as a newborn lamb, or, likely, somewhere in between. But she doesn't get the same level of judicious "let's wait for the facts" consideration.
Pre-suppose all you like, but how do you all reconcile the jarring disconnect? Is it that suspected political misbehavior scores higher on the outrage scale with some of you than the possibility of racially-motivated crime?
Quote:
In comment 12350512 Big Al said:
Quote:
this is another hands up don't shoot orgy that we have seen previously here or maybe there is some basis in fact to there being hate groups behind some of these. As aleays, I take the position that we wait until we get some facts from investigations before we reach any conclusions.
Would that those attacking HRC on the other thread would take such a viewpoint. Currently, she's been deemed guilty by both association and innuendo, but without, as yet, hard facts.
She may be guilty as hell, innocent as a newborn lamb, or, likely, somewhere in between. But she doesn't get the same level of judicious "let's wait for the facts" consideration.
Pre-suppose all you like, but how do you all reconcile the jarring disconnect? Is it that suspected political misbehavior scores higher on the outrage scale with some of you than the possibility of racially-motivated crime?
SO how are we on Tom Brady?
As is your wont, you present non-sequiturs to try to make a point. You really have no talent at discourse. Stick with your ideological rants and your defense of perhaps the only person on here who is even worse than you at firing synapses.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
You should.
Down south the racism seems to be more upfront or in the open. They'll tell you that 'they don't like your kind' to your face and some will do some crazy shit like burn buildings to the ground. Do you prefer your racism veiled or flaming out in the open?
What unites racists from all over is a firm ability to blame their problems on or project their fears onto groups of other people.
Quote:
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
Down south the racism seems to be more upfront or in the open. They'll tell you that 'they don't like your kind' to your face and some will do some crazy shit like burn buildings to the ground. Do you prefer your racism veiled or flaming out in the open?
What unites racists from all over is a firm ability to blame their problems on or project their fears onto groups of other people.
Quote:
In comment 12350631 Big Al said:
Quote:
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
That was a side comment to my actual reply to what you said but it is tiresome to again and again go over what I have said here over and over beginning over 10 years ago. All politicians lie. Not all politicians are pathological liars like Hillary. I remember once i mentioned here some lie she made about some inconsequential matter. Possibly her being a Yankee fan. I was told it was no big deal that she lied about something inconsequential. However that was my point. There is no need to lie about inconsequential things. That is the sign of the pathological liar. I am sure others here have known people like that from experience. We know you cannot believe anything they say. It is a sign of a lack of any integrity. An example. Why did she need to say that she was under fire when getting off that helicopter? Most politicians lie because they must. It is part of the game.There was no reason or need for her to lie but she did. That is not part of the game People like Hillary lie because that is what she is.
Sorry, Al, but you're running on emotion, not reason. If it's HRC, you see it only one way, and that's blinkered thinking. And if you think that she's the only political pathological liar, or even in the minority, I just don't know what to say.
I cite all the fools over the years who would have suffered in the very short term by admitting to a fault, rather than denying it, trying to cover it up, and then being politically cooked because of it.
Further, you simply either missed or ignored the whole point of my statements. Proof ids required, no matter the history, innuendo, suppositions, or ideology. If you disagree with this, we're even further apart than I could have imagined.
Of course he does; you're birds of a feather.
Quote:
In comment 12350667 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12350631 Big Al said:
Quote:
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
That was a side comment to my actual reply to what you said but it is tiresome to again and again go over what I have said here over and over beginning over 10 years ago. All politicians lie. Not all politicians are pathological liars like Hillary. I remember once i mentioned here some lie she made about some inconsequential matter. Possibly her being a Yankee fan. I was told it was no big deal that she lied about something inconsequential. However that was my point. There is no need to lie about inconsequential things. That is the sign of the pathological liar. I am sure others here have known people like that from experience. We know you cannot believe anything they say. It is a sign of a lack of any integrity. An example. Why did she need to say that she was under fire when getting off that helicopter? Most politicians lie because they must. It is part of the game.There was no reason or need for her to lie but she did. That is not part of the game People like Hillary lie because that is what she is.
Sorry, Al, but you're running on emotion, not reason. If it's HRC, you see it only one way, and that's blinkered thinking. And if you think that she's the only political pathological liar, or even in the minority, I just don't know what to say.
I cite all the fools over the years who would have suffered in the very short term by admitting to a fault, rather than denying it, trying to cover it up, and then being politically cooked because of it.
Further, you simply either missed or ignored the whole point of my statements. Proof ids required, no matter the history, innuendo, suppositions, or ideology. If you disagree with this, we're even further apart than I could have imagined.
Federal investigators suspect lightning may have caused the fire at Mount Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church in Greeleyville, South Carolina, senior officials in the FBI said Wednesday morning.
June 26: Greater Miracle Apostolic in Tallahassee, Florida. The fire was likely caused by a tree limb falling on power lines.
* June 26: Glover Grovery Baptist in Warrenville, South Carolina. The cause has not been determined, but investigators observed no element of criminal intent.
* June 24: Briar Creek Road Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, which houses both black and Nepalese congregations. Fire investigators ruled that fire an arson, and though they have not seen evidence that hate was a motivation for the crime, they are not ruling it out.
* June 21: College Hill Seventh-day Adventist in Knoxville, Tennessee. Investigators ruled it an arson but they say nothing so far has indicated a hate crime. ATF and other agencies said that it looked like vandalism.
* June 21: God's Power Church of Christ in Macon, Georgia. Investigators believe the blaze might be arson. ATF is investigating but no ruling has been made. The church had recently been broken into and air conditioners and sound systems stolen.
Caution on Liveleak - ( New Window )
If you'd bother to actually read it, you'd see as direct disconnect between the "wait for the facts" sentiment here from the very same people who don't need facts when ideologies are in play. If that offends you, well, there's really nothing I care to do about it.
Quote:
In comment 12350730 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12350667 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12350631 Big Al said:
Quote:
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
That was a side comment to my actual reply to what you said but it is tiresome to again and again go over what I have said here over and over beginning over 10 years ago. All politicians lie. Not all politicians are pathological liars like Hillary. I remember once i mentioned here some lie she made about some inconsequential matter. Possibly her being a Yankee fan. I was told it was no big deal that she lied about something inconsequential. However that was my point. There is no need to lie about inconsequential things. That is the sign of the pathological liar. I am sure others here have known people like that from experience. We know you cannot believe anything they say. It is a sign of a lack of any integrity. An example. Why did she need to say that she was under fire when getting off that helicopter? Most politicians lie because they must. It is part of the game.There was no reason or need for her to lie but she did. That is not part of the game People like Hillary lie because that is what she is.
Sorry, Al, but you're running on emotion, not reason. If it's HRC, you see it only one way, and that's blinkered thinking. And if you think that she's the only political pathological liar, or even in the minority, I just don't know what to say.
I cite all the fools over the years who would have suffered in the very short term by admitting to a fault, rather than denying it, trying to cover it up, and then being politically cooked because of it.
Further, you simply either missed or ignored the whole point of my statements. Proof ids required, no matter the history, innuendo, suppositions, or ideology. If you disagree with this, we're even further apart than I could have imagined.
I keep replying very directly to the questions you asked and then you veer off on tangents. Your original point when you brought Hillary onto this thread was about inconsistency between my position on Hillary and the churches. I directly showed my consistency. You then veered away. I go back to what I said originally on this thread. Let's wait and see what the investigations say about the churches.
No, Al, you just continuede using the "I know she's a liar" screed; not much about waiting for the facts.
Also, a church about an hour outside of Charleston burned after a clear lightning strike and a tree falling on it.
I hope the media does their homework before inciting things here.
Why start now? Perfect time wind up the race baiters.
Quote:
In comment 12350855 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12350730 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12350667 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12350631 Big Al said:
Quote:
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
That was a side comment to my actual reply to what you said but it is tiresome to again and again go over what I have said here over and over beginning over 10 years ago. All politicians lie. Not all politicians are pathological liars like Hillary. I remember once i mentioned here some lie she made about some inconsequential matter. Possibly her being a Yankee fan. I was told it was no big deal that she lied about something inconsequential. However that was my point. There is no need to lie about inconsequential things. That is the sign of the pathological liar. I am sure others here have known people like that from experience. We know you cannot believe anything they say. It is a sign of a lack of any integrity. An example. Why did she need to say that she was under fire when getting off that helicopter? Most politicians lie because they must. It is part of the game.There was no reason or need for her to lie but she did. That is not part of the game People like Hillary lie because that is what she is.
Sorry, Al, but you're running on emotion, not reason. If it's HRC, you see it only one way, and that's blinkered thinking. And if you think that she's the only political pathological liar, or even in the minority, I just don't know what to say.
I cite all the fools over the years who would have suffered in the very short term by admitting to a fault, rather than denying it, trying to cover it up, and then being politically cooked because of it.
Further, you simply either missed or ignored the whole point of my statements. Proof ids required, no matter the history, innuendo, suppositions, or ideology. If you disagree with this, we're even further apart than I could have imagined.
I keep replying very directly to the questions you asked and then you veer off on tangents. Your original point when you brought Hillary onto this thread was about inconsistency between my position on Hillary and the churches. I directly showed my consistency. You then veered away. I go back to what I said originally on this thread. Let's wait and see what the investigations say about the churches.
No, Al, you just continuede using the "I know she's a liar" screed; not much about waiting for the facts.
Quote:
In comment 12350908 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12350855 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12350730 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12350667 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12350631 Big Al said:
Quote:
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
That was a side comment to my actual reply to what you said but it is tiresome to again and again go over what I have said here over and over beginning over 10 years ago. All politicians lie. Not all politicians are pathological liars like Hillary. I remember once i mentioned here some lie she made about some inconsequential matter. Possibly her being a Yankee fan. I was told it was no big deal that she lied about something inconsequential. However that was my point. There is no need to lie about inconsequential things. That is the sign of the pathological liar. I am sure others here have known people like that from experience. We know you cannot believe anything they say. It is a sign of a lack of any integrity. An example. Why did she need to say that she was under fire when getting off that helicopter? Most politicians lie because they must. It is part of the game.There was no reason or need for her to lie but she did. That is not part of the game People like Hillary lie because that is what she is.
Sorry, Al, but you're running on emotion, not reason. If it's HRC, you see it only one way, and that's blinkered thinking. And if you think that she's the only political pathological liar, or even in the minority, I just don't know what to say.
I cite all the fools over the years who would have suffered in the very short term by admitting to a fault, rather than denying it, trying to cover it up, and then being politically cooked because of it.
Further, you simply either missed or ignored the whole point of my statements. Proof ids required, no matter the history, innuendo, suppositions, or ideology. If you disagree with this, we're even further apart than I could have imagined.
I keep replying very directly to the questions you asked and then you veer off on tangents. Your original point when you brought Hillary onto this thread was about inconsistency between my position on Hillary and the churches. I directly showed my consistency. You then veered away. I go back to what I said originally on this thread. Let's wait and see what the investigations say about the churches.
No, Al, you just continuede using the "I know she's a liar" screed; not much about waiting for the facts.
Two different issues but let's move on from Hillary on this thread.
Agreed.
Quote:
Non-sequitur torpedoing a relatively decent and important discussion.
If you'd bother to actually read it, you'd see as direct disconnect between the "wait for the facts" sentiment here from the very same people who don't need facts when ideologies are in play. If that offends you, well, there's really nothing I care to do about it.
Hillary is about whether someone has stepped into ethical gray areas so many times that people think that maybe, just maybe she ought not be President. This is about whether crimes have been committed, whether they're linked, and whether they're racially motivated. In the former instance you would not expect to find a smoking gun, because you're not talking about criminal conduct. You're talking about behavior that is unethical and beneath what you'd expect of someone who knows she wants to run for President. In the latter one you would expect that in time we will have an answer, perhaps a suspect, and enough to send him or them to prison for a long, long time.
Quote:
In comment 12350875 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Non-sequitur torpedoing a relatively decent and important discussion.
If you'd bother to actually read it, you'd see as direct disconnect between the "wait for the facts" sentiment here from the very same people who don't need facts when ideologies are in play. If that offends you, well, there's really nothing I care to do about it.
Hillary is about whether someone has stepped into ethical gray areas so many times that people think that maybe, just maybe she ought not be President. This is about whether crimes have been committed, whether they're linked, and whether they're racially motivated. In the former instance you would not expect to find a smoking gun, because you're not talking about criminal conduct. You're talking about behavior that is unethical and beneath what you'd expect of someone who knows she wants to run for President. In the latter one you would expect that in time we will have an answer, perhaps a suspect, and enough to send him or them to prison for a long, long time.
People from a particular ideological viewpoint, and therein lies the difference. I expect proof before conviction, regardless of parsing the level of conjectured wrongdoing. That isn't happening in the discussion above. The difference is stark.
You should know that better than anyone.
Quote:
...
You should know that better than anyone.
I know you are but what am I?
Quote:
In comment 12351594 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
...
You should know that better than anyone.
I know you are but what am I?
Welcome to the playground, Junior. First learn what words mean, then try to use them correctly. Then pull the ramrod out and try to grow a sense of humor. Maybe when you get some life experience you'll understand.
To be fair, it was introduced here by a lefty
Quote:
In comment 12351881 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12351594 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
...
You should know that better than anyone.
I know you are but what am I?
Welcome to the playground, Junior. First learn what words mean, then try to use them correctly. Then pull the ramrod out and try to grow a sense of humor. Maybe when you get some life experience you'll understand.
I don't need to speak for him, but omg, he's experienced a lot. I think that the even you would respect that.
Quote:
In comment 12351881 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12351594 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
...
You should know that better than anyone.
I know you are but what am I?
Welcome to the playground, Junior. First learn what words mean, then try to use them correctly. Then pull the ramrod out and try to grow a sense of humor. Maybe when you get some life experience you'll understand.
Generally speaking a sycophant is a flatterer. I don't have a horse in the raise, not yet, so merely being anti-someone would make the opposite of a flatterer, no? And let's not start talking about life experience, I have plenty.
Yeah my faith teaches me to not judge people, or at least to not judge them harshly, but I struggle with that. All kidding aside though there are few things more pathetic than a toady.
Yeah, I fucking hate that guy [frantically scraping off my Trump '16 sticker].