NEWS FLASH Clinton tells the truth (political)

[..]

But then...there is this, from a pro republican web site.


http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/17/poll-trump-supporters-likely-self-identify-racist/

Nothing like a reference to a "Never Trump" site, to back up anti Trump claims!     


http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg

You are assuming that those polled answered truthfully about their political affiliation.

I can only imagine how many when receiving a phone call decide to "stitch up" the one whose political ideals they don't agree with.

A poll is worth as much as you paid for it.

[Willow]

But then...there is this, from a pro republican web site.

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/17/poll-trump-supporters-likely-self-identify-racist/

From the highly biased article:

"I like whites more than blacks and a lot more than Hispanics" is 100% the dictionary definition of racist. If that's not racist, then there is no such thing as racist.

In another spot within the write up they stated that they are talking about 75% among Trump supporters as opposed to 70% among those polled at large.  Really?  They're talking about a difference of 5% and using that to justify "most" or a general statement of all Trump supporters.

Truthfully polls can use questions that are intended to draw the conclusion they have predetermined.  Isn't a pollster that asks how you feel about this race versus that race accepting that there is a difference that is inherent to each racial component?  Isn't that by definition racist?  Isn't a person who says he likes one race as much as he likes another admitting that he notices and considers racial difference?  Isn't that by definition racist?

Labeling people most usually serves its own purpose and regularly means absolutely nothing about those who are being labeled other than the labeler chooses to look down upon the labeled.

I am racist, by the way, and I feel sorrowful for those of you not carrying Choctaw blood.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

But then...there is this, from a pro republican web site.

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/17/poll-trump-supporters-likely-self-identify-racist/

From the highly biased article:

"I like whites more than blacks and a lot more than Hispanics" is 100% the dictionary definition of racist. If that's not racist, then there is no such thing as racist.

In another spot within the write up they stated that they are talking about 75% among Trump supporters as opposed to 70% among those polled at large.  Really?  They're talking about a difference of 5% and using that to justify "most" or a general statement of all Trump supporters.

Truthfully polls can use questions that are intended to draw the conclusion they have predetermined.  Isn't a pollster that asks how you feel about this race versus that race accepting that there is a difference that is inherent to each racial component?  Isn't that by definition racist?  Isn't a person who says he likes one race as much as he likes another admitting that he notices and considers racial difference?  Isn't that by definition racist?

Labeling people most usually serves its own purpose and regularly means absolutely nothing about those who are being labeled other than the labeler chooses to look down upon the labeled.

I am racist, by the way, and I feel sorrowful for those of you not carrying Choctaw blood.  

Doesn't the term racist mean a person feels certain races are either superior or inferior to one another ? If so does this mean you think your Chocktaw race is superior to another race ? And if you do, how do you feel superior to someone of German descent ?

[Willow]

...
Truthfully polls can use questions that are intended to draw the conclusion they have predetermined.  Isn't a pollster that asks how you feel about this race versus that race accepting that there is a difference that is inherent to each racial component?  Isn't that by definition racist?  Isn't a person who says he likes one race as much as he likes another admitting that he notices and considers racial difference?  Isn't that by definition racist?

Labeling people most usually serves its own purpose and regularly means absolutely nothing about those who are being labeled other than the labeler chooses to look down upon the labeled.

I am racist, by the way, and I feel sorrowful for those of you not carrying Choctaw blood.  

Doesn't the term racist mean a person feels certain races are either superior or inferior to one another ? If so does this mean you think your Chocktaw race is superior to another race ? And if you do, how do you feel superior to someone of German descent ?

It does.  Let me walk down this road with you.

There is considerable agreement that some things such as athletic ability, mathematical intellect,height, body build and a number of other physical features are genetically passed from one's parents. To make a long explanation shorter, the people of a particular race or ethnicity have over the generations received their traits from a group of related parents.  Everyone seem to be able to agree that skin color, type of hair, facial hair, and a number of other traits are passed to and seem to be similar if not unique within people of particular ethnicity.  If you, however were to claim that you believe that natural intellect was superior within one ethnic group or another you would be vehemently denounced as a racist.  Doesn't make sense, does it?

Actually I'm more German than Choctaw (no k).  I'm 1/4 German and 1/8 Choctaw.  Yes, I do.  It's an extrapolation on my part.  I clearly believe that I am genetically superior to most others.  A quick look around confirms that although there is a high concentration of the genetically superior among Valkyrie riders.  A quick assessment tells me I did nothing to develop that superiority so therefore it must have come specifically from my genetic makeup.  If it's there in me it must be there in others of similar ethnic makeup.

In truth I emphasize the Choctaw contribution because it is the rarest and it's something of a joke.  The Choctaw failed to invent gunpowder and were subsequently driven out of the southeast United States by the Europeans despite that they were farming, living on plantations, and forming communities just like their lighter skinned neighbors.  Also it allows me to deny being white.  We all know that as soon as one identifies himself as white and a man he is only one notch away from being deplorable.       

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Evidently the Pepe the frog has become a symbol to the white supremacists movement.

*Sigh*

Pepe is Pepe... There are thousands of variations of Pepe. He is often used by the Alt-Right movement, but he's a meme, and often times people make Pepes as outrageous as they can, thus the Nazi Pepes are out there, but they're literally a handful out of thousands of Pepes...

I'm so out of touch I had never heard of the frog until today. 

Few things could make me wake up with a smile on my face like being disliked by hillary does. But, I'm with Meathead, never heard of the frog. I like listening to the frogs in my pond. I like a big plate of frog legs but pepe the frog is a new one.

All I can say is "Green Lives Matter". 

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Sorry about the Hijack but Willow got me thinking about this so here goes.

I have American Indian blood from both parents although only my blood fathers side was known to me until a few years ago. I haven't researched it and don't think much about it but it shows in my summer time skin tone somewhat. When I was a kid I was politely asked about my race a time or two and always gave whatever answer I thought the questioner would least like to hear.  That's just who I am.

A few years ago my son Andy and I were riding home on US 2 through the Blackfoot Indian Reservation. We stopped at a local mart for a cold drink and a break. We were the only non-Indians there and we seemed to draw a certain amount of polite curiosity although no one actually spoke to us as we took a break in the parking lot.

I seldom sunburn (except for my bald head) and I was about the color of a dark acorn by this point in our ride. On top of that the Indian blood from my blood father's side was supposed to be Blackfoot and I found that I was built much like many of the men there. Right down to having almost no neck.

My son Andy however is tall, light skinned and sunburns often, much like my wife. When he pulled the sun block out of his T bag and started slathering himself with it there was no denying the amusement on many of the locals faces or on mine. 

[solo1]

I enjoy reading the responses when I post. Go far afield, i don't care.

Another hi jack.  My Mom was a Bredemeyer, (German), Doenges is also German. My relations were Koehlingers, Sallfrank.  My great, great grandfather came from a German colony in France to escape religious persecution.  I'm a Lutheran. When i was a kid, my church had two services, one in English, one in German.  I never saw discrimination during WWII as Ft. Wayne had a large German population.

No, i can't speak German but my sister and my parents did.  As far as genetics, seems like i only inherited the Dutchman's stubborness (RJ, bless his memory, always commented on that). No physical or mental superiority and my hair was black, not blond,  (b4 white)

[The emperor has no clothes]

...
Truthfully polls can use questions that are intended to draw the conclusion they have predetermined.  Isn't a pollster that asks how you feel about this race versus that race accepting that there is a difference that is inherent to each racial component?  Isn't that by definition racist?  Isn't a person who says he likes one race as much as he likes another admitting that he notices and considers racial difference?  Isn't that by definition racist?

Labeling people most usually serves its own purpose and regularly means absolutely nothing about those who are being labeled other than the labeler chooses to look down upon the labeled.

I am racist, by the way, and I feel sorrowful for those of you not carrying Choctaw blood.  

Doesn't the term racist mean a person feels certain races are either superior or inferior to one another ? If so does this mean you think your Chocktaw race is superior to another race ? And if you do, how do you feel superior to someone of German descent ?

It does.  Let me walk down this road with you.

There is considerable agreement that some things such as athletic ability, mathematical intellect,height, body build and a number of other physical features are genetically passed from one's parents. To make a long explanation shorter, the people of a particular race or ethnicity have over the generations received their traits from a group of related parents.  Everyone seem to be able to agree that skin color, type of hair, facial hair, and a number of other traits are passed to and seem to be similar if not unique within people of particular ethnicity.  If you, however were to claim that you believe that natural intellect was superior within one ethnic group or another you would be vehemently denounced as a racist.  Doesn't make sense, does it?

Actually I'm more German than Choctaw (no k).  I'm 1/4 German and 1/8 Choctaw.  Yes, I do.  It's an extrapolation on my part.  I clearly believe that I am genetically superior to most others.  A quick look around confirms that although there is a high concentration of the genetically superior among Valkyrie riders.  A quick assessment tells me I did nothing to develop that superiority so therefore it must have come specifically from my genetic makeup.  If it's there in me it must be there in others of similar ethnic makeup.

In truth I emphasize the Choctaw contribution because it is the rarest and it's something of a joke.  The Choctaw failed to invent gunpowder and were subsequently driven out of the southeast United States by the Europeans despite that they were farming, living on plantations, and forming communities just like their lighter skinned neighbors.  Also it allows me to deny being white.  We all know that as soon as one identifies himself as white and a man he is only one notch away from being deplorable.       

Maybe this is just semantics. But my take on it is the races have differences, but to say some are superior over others is wrong. Maybe the most important part of this kind of discussion is what does one do with his bias or racism. And how does one act towards their fellow man with it. Of you I'm sure there is not a discrimination. With many others who feel they are superior, maybe not so much.

[G-Man]

“To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” she said. “Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.”


If you are not in the half that she mentions, why so defensive?

Because if you believe our borders should mean something, and that the US should enforce our EXISTING immigration laws, you fall into the RACIST basket.

If you believe that Middle East refugees should not be allowed, until it is possible to vet them completely, so as not to let terrorists in, you are in the Islamophobic basket.

If you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that men should not be allowed into girls restrooms and showers, you are in the homophobe basket.

Hillary and the Progressives label ANYONE who believes ANYTHING different than they do, as in some type of either 'ist or 'phobe basket.

I guess if you label that "defensive", so be it.

Aaaaaaand, she only said the word HALF, but she and her followers believe ALL of Trump supporters are deplorable.

[The emperor has no clothes]

“To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” she said. “Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.”


If you are not in the half that she mentions, why so defensive?

Because if you believe our borders should mean something, and that the US should enforce our EXISTING immigration laws, you fall into the RACIST basket.

If you believe that Middle East refugees should not be allowed, until it is possible to vet them completely, so as not to let terrorists in, you are in the Islamophobic basket.

If you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that men should not be allowed into girls restrooms and showers, you are in the homophobe basket.

Hillary and the Progressives label ANYONE who believes ANYTHING different than they do, as in some type of either 'ist or 'phobe basket.

I guess if you label that "defensive", so be it.

Aaaaaaand, she only said the word HALF, but she and her followers believe ALL of Trump supporters are deplorable.

You can know this how ?

[solo1]

He can know this just about as much as Hilary can know only half.

[Pete]

...
Truthfully polls can use questions that are intended to draw the conclusion they have predetermined.  Isn't a pollster that asks how you feel about this race versus that race accepting that there is a difference that is inherent to each racial component?  Isn't that by definition racist?  Isn't a person who says he likes one race as much as he likes another admitting that he notices and considers racial difference?  Isn't that by definition racist?

Labeling people most usually serves its own purpose and regularly means absolutely nothing about those who are being labeled other than the labeler chooses to look down upon the labeled.

I am racist, by the way, and I feel sorrowful for those of you not carrying Choctaw blood.  

Doesn't the term racist mean a person feels certain races are either superior or inferior to one another ? If so does this mean you think your Chocktaw race is superior to another race ? And if you do, how do you feel superior to someone of German descent ?

It does.  Let me walk down this road with you.

There is considerable agreement that some things such as athletic ability, mathematical intellect,height, body build and a number of other physical features are genetically passed from one's parents. To make a long explanation shorter, the people of a particular race or ethnicity have over the generations received their traits from a group of related parents.  Everyone seem to be able to agree that skin color, type of hair, facial hair, and a number of other traits are passed to and seem to be similar if not unique within people of particular ethnicity.  If you, however were to claim that you believe that natural intellect was superior within one ethnic group or another you would be vehemently denounced as a racist.  Doesn't make sense, does it?

Actually I'm more German than Choctaw (no k).  I'm 1/4 German and 1/8 Choctaw.  Yes, I do.  It's an extrapolation on my part.  I clearly believe that I am genetically superior to most others.  A quick look around confirms that although there is a high concentration of the genetically superior among Valkyrie riders.  A quick assessment tells me I did nothing to develop that superiority so therefore it must have come specifically from my genetic makeup.  If it's there in me it must be there in others of similar ethnic makeup.

In truth I emphasize the Choctaw contribution because it is the rarest and it's something of a joke.  The Choctaw failed to invent gunpowder and were subsequently driven out of the southeast United States by the Europeans despite that they were farming, living on plantations, and forming communities just like their lighter skinned neighbors.  Also it allows me to deny being white.  We all know that as soon as one identifies himself as white and a man he is only one notch away from being deplorable.       

Maybe this is just semantics. But my take on it is the races have differences, but to say some are superior over others is wrong. Maybe the most important part of this kind of discussion is what does one do with his bias or racism. And how does one act towards their fellow man with it. Of you I'm sure there is not a discrimination. With many others who feel they are superior, maybe not so much.

Thoughtful explanations, interesting comments 
Interesting sentence! Wrong word!
"But my take on it is the races have differences, but to say some are superior over others is" factual.
And now to repeat myself all humans by nature are bias and racist, some acknowledge it others do not. The worst are those who will not acknowledge it and/or insist it does not exist within them.

Nothing in the prior paragraph excuses the ill treatment of anyone for any reason.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Pete, I explained myself on it. If you know one race of people to be superior to another that is up to you to say. That's not my feelings.

[Willow]

Maybe this is just semantics. But my take on it is the races have differences, but to say some are superior over others is wrong. Maybe the most important part of this kind of discussion is what does one do with his bias or racism. And how does one act towards their fellow man with it. Of you I'm sure there is not a discrimination. With many others who feel they are superior, maybe not so much.

Thoughtful explanations, interesting comments 
Interesting sentence! Wrong word!
"But my take on it is the races have differences, but to say some are superior over others is" factual.
And now to repeat myself all humans by nature are bias and racist, some acknowledge it others do not. The worst are those who will not acknowledge it and/or insist it does not exist within them.

Nothing in the prior paragraph excuses the ill treatment of anyone for any reason.

I agree.  Most especially with the final sentence.

I'm amused by people who can say of anything that "there are differences but neither is superior".  If there are differences one will be superior to the other simply because of the differences.  To insist otherwise does not hold good logic.  They may each be superior in different comparisons.  It's the nature of our current day culture to insist that things are correct that simply cannot be make sense.  It also amuses me to hear people who are acutely aware of the apparent ethnicity of everyone around them to claim they have no racism within them. 

Back to Pete's closing sentence.  If one treats others poorly or with contempt that one certainly is not superior in character.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Yes there may be individual traits of each superior to each other. But that is not what you guys are saying. (Unless I am misunderstanding you) You guys are saying one group of people as a whole is superior to another group. Are you also saying Jefferson was mistaken when he said "All me are created equal" ?

[Willow]

Yes there may be individual traits of each superior to each other. But that is not what you guys are saying. (Unless I am misunderstanding you) You guys are saying one group of people as a whole is superior to another group. Are you also saying Jefferson was mistaken when he said "All me are created equal" ?

I think that is precisely what I'm saying (I don't speak for others).  If one is on the 100 meter race track and one race (or ethnicity) is innately fast will you not see more of that group on the starting line?  Does it mean every member of that group is naturally superior to every member of any other group?  No, but you can see the tendency to superiority.  If we are standing among Watusi and pygmies at a time when height is important, should we tell one another that we are all equal we are simply blowing smoke up our own skirts.

I have a high respect for Thomas Jefferson, but  I have always held that anyone who insists that all men are created equal has simply not met very many men.  That men should all be equal in inalienable rights is correct.  Perhaps we are simply misinterpreting what Mr. Jefferson intended to express.   

[Pete]

Pete, I explained myself on it. If you know one race of people to be superior to another that is up to you to say. That's not my feelings.

Consider this? Has any race contributed more good or bad to the human race than another?

I do not feel qualified to answer the question without exhaustive research into history. And I no longer have the years left to complete the research. There is an answer I just do not know for sure what it is. I really do wished I knew for certain and could supply the answer and research to prove it, just to settle the question.

Do I have an opinion? Sure (as does everyone else). Will I share it? No, because my confidence level in the opinion has not reached the sharing level. And it really does not matter and would not change anything.  

[Pete]

Yes there may be individual traits of each superior to each other. But that is not what you guys are saying. (Unless I am misunderstanding you) You guys are saying one group of people as a whole is superior to another group. Are you also saying Jefferson was mistaken when he said "All me are created equal" ?

I think that is precisely what I'm saying (I don't speak for others).  If one is on the 100 meter race track and one race (or ethnicity) is innately fast will you not see more of that group on the starting line?  Does it mean every member of that group is naturally superior to every member of any other group?  No, but you can see the tendency to superiority.  If we are standing among Watusi and pygmies at a time when height is important, should we tell one another that we are all equal we are simply blowing smoke up our own skirts.

I have a high respect for Thomas Jefferson, but  I have always held that anyone who insists that all men are created equal has simply not met very many men.  That men should all be equal in inalienable rights is correct.  Perhaps we are simply misinterpreting what Mr. Jefferson intended to express.   

Yes, I agree. And I have always thought of Jefferson's comments to mean rights not genetics.

[The emperor has no clothes]

He said all men are CREATED equal. Not all men have equal rights.


As far as the sprinting analogy. I agree there are races that are superior in some aspects. That is a long way from saying an entire race is superior over another as a whole. If the Pygmies are superior at scurrying thru the brush and the Watusi are superior at long distance running. Has does that make a race superior over another ?

[Pete]

He said all men are CREATED equal. Not all men have equal rights.


As far as the sprinting analogy. I agree there are races that are superior in some aspects. That is a long way from saying an entire race is superior over another as a whole. If the Pygmies are superior at scurrying thru the brush and the Watusi are superior at long distance running. Has does that make a race superior over another ?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;[7]

Here is the quote, and we disagree on the meaning. He qualified the equal with the words in red.
I think that Jefferson was smart enough to realize that no two humans are biological equals.

[Willow]

He said all men are CREATED equal. Not all men have equal rights.


As far as the sprinting analogy. I agree there are races that are superior in some aspects. That is a long way from saying an entire race is superior over another as a whole. If the Pygmies are superior at scurrying thru the brush and the Watusi are superior at long distance running. Has does that make a race superior over another ?

You must read it within context.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  

Clearly the document was indicating the equal treatment by their creator not the equality of their abilities.  The second half of the sentence restates to clarify the meaning.

As to the sprinting example (example, not analogy) holds that one group is superior to other in that activity.  If sprinting were to be the most important human activity to me I would consider that group top be generally superior.  If technological advancement or application of intellect is considered most important to me then I will consider the group that most excels in that arena to be superior.  If executing victoriously at warfare using swords and spears were the deciding factor I would lean heavily toward the Vikings.

If I were smart enough I might be able to determine how many different important characteristics were exceeded in this group or that I might be able to decide which group is superior across the board to another.  That could cause a problem, though, as the dominance of one over the other may be as insignificant as one group failing to invent gunpowder.

I'm enjoying this exchange but I guess I should withdraw at this point.  We have seriously hijacked the oh so important subject matter of a presidential candidate's deploring a large segment of the American populace.        

[The emperor has no clothes]

He said all men are CREATED equal. Not all men have equal rights.


As far as the sprinting analogy. I agree there are races that are superior in some aspects. That is a long way from saying an entire race is superior over another as a whole. If the Pygmies are superior at scurrying thru the brush and the Watusi are superior at long distance running. Has does that make a race superior over another ?

You must read it within context.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among  these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  

Clearly the document was indicating the equal treatment by their creator not the equality of their abilities.  The second half of the sentence restates to clarify the meaning.

I can see how a person could see it that way. I can also see how it could be taken as 3 distinct thoughts. 1) all men are equal.
               2) all men are given rights by God.
               3) some of these rights are life, liberty, happiness
Like I said at the beginning we may be talking in semantics. I can acknowledge that some races are superior at some tasks than other races. That is completely different than the idea that some races are superior people. I know little of God and religion. But I doubt God puts more value on a 3 year old child from Caucasian descent than a 3 year old child from Apache descent.
Sorry about the hijacking Solo 1. 

[Pete]

Apologies to Solo1.

[3fan4life]

I know little of God and religion. But I doubt God puts more value on a 3 year old child from Caucasian descent than a 3 year old child from Apache descent.

Your observation here would be 100% correct:

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. (Acts 10:34-35 NKJV)

[solo1]

No apologies needed.  I AM impressed by the knowledge of members who climbed out of "The Basket of Deplorables" long enough to discredit the author of the quoted description.

I'm even impressed by some who were not stuffed in that basket at all.

I'm considering which entrepreneur online to buy the t shirt from.  Decisions, decisions   

[The emperor has no clothes]

No apologies needed.  I AM impressed by the knowledge of members who climbed out of "The Basket of Deplorables" long enough to discredit the author of the quoted description.

I'm even impressed by some who were not stuffed in that basket at all.

I'm considering which entrepreneur online to buy the t shirt from.  Decisions, decisions   

Maybe F6rider can make some up with a deplorable on a Valkyrie ?

[Pete]

Since I am not a Republican she was not talking about me.
Oops since I cannot lie to myself enough to support her maybe I am.

If I am, I am "insulated".

I would never call her deplorable (as I do not usually use that word).
Many of my descriptions of her are more colorful.
As for being non redeemable (my mom may have thought I was also), I stand convicted and proud of it, if being redeemable means being like or accepting Hillary.

Let us redeem Hillary in prison for 2017.

[..]

http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/

[Alpha Dog]

http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/

Wow just Wow.  I heard Dick Morris in an interview ( off all places ) on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory a few weeks ago as I was going to bed.  Now Dick Morris as many know was a 20 year  ( 78 to 98 ) key political chief advisor and knows the Clintons better than they know themselves.  He said they always seemed to invision themselves and run themselves much like a gangster or mafia operation ( Al Capone type ) would.   I guess that explains a lot of their traits  ( maybe the dead bodies also ).  Now they are clearly shown to run schemes to bilk poorer ( and maybe some not so poor just small donors ) of their hard earned money.                  WHO IS REALLY THE DEPLORABLE?

[baldo]

http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/

Wow just Wow.  I heard Dick Morris in an interview ( off all places ) on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory a few weeks ago as I was going to bed.  Now Dick Morris as many know was a 20 year  ( 78 to 98 ) key political chief advisor and knows the Clintons better than they know themselves.  He said they always seemed to invision themselves and run themselves much like a gangster or mafia operation ( Al Capone type ) would.   I guess that explains a lot of their traits  ( maybe the dead bodies also ).  Now they are clearly shown to run schemes to bilk poorer ( and maybe some not so poor just small donors ) of their hard earned money.                  WHO IS REALLY THE DEPLORABLE?

You mean THIS Dick Morris? How bad do you have to be to get fired by Fox?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/06/so-wrong-so-long-dick-morris-unethical-career-a/192548

[Pete]

http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/

Wow just Wow.  I heard Dick Morris in an interview ( off all places ) on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory a few weeks ago as I was going to bed.  Now Dick Morris as many know was a 20 year  ( 78 to 98 ) key political chief advisor and knows the Clintons better than they know themselves.  He said they always seemed to invision themselves and run themselves much like a gangster or mafia operation ( Al Capone type ) would.   I guess that explains a lot of their traits  ( maybe the dead bodies also ).  Now they are clearly shown to run schemes to bilk poorer ( and maybe some not so poor just small donors ) of their hard earned money.                  WHO IS REALLY THE DEPLORABLE?

You mean THIS Dick Morris? How bad do you have to be to get fired by Fox?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/06/so-wrong-so-long-dick-morris-unethical-career-a/192548

Hummmm. shoot the messenger not the message - ie. "i have no defense of what he said so let me deflect".

[..]

http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/

Wow just Wow.  I heard Dick Morris in an interview ( off all places ) on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory a few weeks ago as I was going to bed.  Now Dick Morris as many know was a 20 year  ( 78 to 98 ) key political chief advisor and knows the Clintons better than they know themselves.  He said they always seemed to invision themselves and run themselves much like a gangster or mafia operation ( Al Capone type ) would.   I guess that explains a lot of their traits  ( maybe the dead bodies also ).  Now they are clearly shown to run schemes to bilk poorer ( and maybe some not so poor just small donors ) of their hard earned money.                  WHO IS REALLY THE DEPLORABLE?

You mean THIS Dick Morris? How bad do you have to be to get fired by Fox?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/06/so-wrong-so-long-dick-morris-unethical-career-a/192548

Hummmm. shoot the messenger not the message - ie. "i have no defense of what he said so let me deflect".

 

[baldo]

http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/

Wow just Wow.  I heard Dick Morris in an interview ( off all places ) on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory a few weeks ago as I was going to bed.  Now Dick Morris as many know was a 20 year  ( 78 to 98 ) key political chief advisor and knows the Clintons better than they know themselves.  He said they always seemed to invision themselves and run themselves much like a gangster or mafia operation ( Al Capone type ) would.   I guess that explains a lot of their traits  ( maybe the dead bodies also ).  Now they are clearly shown to run schemes to bilk poorer ( and maybe some not so poor just small donors ) of their hard earned money.                  WHO IS REALLY THE DEPLORABLE?

You mean THIS Dick Morris? How bad do you have to be to get fired by Fox?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/06/so-wrong-so-long-dick-morris-unethical-career-a/192548

Hummmm. shoot the messenger not the message - ie. "i have no defense of what he said so let me deflect".

No, it's more like why listen to someone who's proven to be, shall we say, less than reliable. This really isn't that difficult, guys. But I guess it's easier to respond as you did.

[Alpha Dog]

Media matter is a very far left wing commie organization funded by George Saros.  Not worth wiping your butt with.  I myself was saying back in the early 90's when I became very aware of others that had been around the Clinton's of what they were like.  The eyes, smell and duck test told me at the time that they ran themselves much like a mafia organization and it was plain as day to me darn near 25 years ago.  Nothing has changed.

[The emperor has no clothes]

When Colin Powell was in Daddy Bush' admin and W's admin he was the hero of the right. When he endorsed Obama he became scum to them. When Dick Morris was advising Bill Clinton he was a sleazy douche bag to the right. When he went to Fox News he was beyond reproach . Hmm..... There seems to be a pattern here. 

[Willow]

When Colin Powell was in Daddy Bush' admin and W's admin he was the hero of the right. When he endorsed Obama he became scum to them. When Dick Morris was advising Bill Clinton he was a sleazy douche bag to the right. When he went to Fox News he was beyond reproach . Hmm..... There seems to be a pattern here. 

That's heavily stated and not worthy of your normal mode of communication.

If anyone described General Powell as scum it was certainly a small minority.  There were several more in line with conservative thinkers that said they lost faith in him when he twice endorsed Barrack Obama.  It appears to me that the general demonstrated that his racial allegiance was stronger than his previously held political values.  He's still a hero but I would view with a jaundiced eye his political advice.

I didn't hear anyone hold that Dick Morris was beyond reproach but only that his working as apolitical adviser to the Clintons for twenty years would give some credence to his observation.

Whatever pattern you're seeing in these examples was created out of whole cloth in your own mind.   

I took the time to read through the article from the extreme left leaning organization that our friend posted.  They referenced, without example, repeated false statements and ethical violations but then the entire article focused on how he was fired because his political predictions failed repeatedly.

You'll notice even of political persons that I despise I do not use demeaning pet names.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I have noticed. And it is very decent of you. Yes I probably did state it in the extreme. It is not entirely from here that I base my opinion of the matter. It seems it is prevalent all thru our society. I didn't read the article posted in its entirety. As for Colin Powell, can you see the possibility that race played no part in his endorsement but that he thought Obama was the better choice ? I have seen nothing in his life to point to race favoritism.

[..]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/which_democrat_should_replace_hillary

[Willow]

.... It seems it is prevalent all thru our society. I didn't read the article posted in its entirety. As for Colin Powell, can you see the possibility that race played no part in his endorsement but that he thought Obama was the better choice ? I have seen nothing in his life to point to race favoritism.

It does and all too often we attribute the most vocal in our midst to representing the majority.

The thing that makes me suspect that racial allegiance played a part was that much of what Barrack Obama stands for is in opposition to the standards that General Powell had previously endorsed and then his criticism of the birth concern being purely racist.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

.... It seems it is prevalent all thru our society. I didn't read the article posted in its entirety. As for Colin Powell, can you see the possibility that race played no part in his endorsement but that he thought Obama was the better choice ? I have seen nothing in his life to point to race favoritism.

It does and all too often we attribute the most vocal in our midst to representing the majority.

The thing that makes me suspect that racial allegiance played a part was that much of what Barrack Obama stands for is in opposition to the standards that General Powell had previously endorsed and then his criticism of the birth concern being purely racist.  

Is there another way to explain the "Birther" issue ? Which by the way seems to be back front and center with Trump.