Chicago ends year with more murders than LA, NYC combined

Page 2 of 2 [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,784
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Jan 2017, 4:26 pm

ZenDen wrote:
What does that ^^^ mean Bill?

Quote:
But media investigations, even if partisan, can still be legitimate,


You seem to be saying you recognize newspapers will "bend" (if you will) the news toward their favorite candidate (or against those they oppose) and then print/broadcast this as the absolute God's own truth, and you can still think of this as "legitimate?"

I admit I can't understand your reasoning, except that you seem to have an extreme and obvious personal bias against Trump...which, obviously, has nothing to do with the truth, just your personal prejudices.


I'm not talking about warping the truth - I for one want unbiased truth in reporting - but how even a left leaning network like MSNBC can report the news without being swayed by ideology.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

07 Jan 2017, 5:09 pm

ZenDen wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
What does that ^^^ mean Bill?

Quote:
But media investigations, even if partisan, can still be legitimate,


You seem to be saying you recognize newspapers will "bend" (if you will) the news toward their favorite candidate (or against those they oppose) and then print/broadcast this as the absolute God's own truth, and you can still think of this as "legitimate?"

I admit I can't understand your reasoning, except that you seem to have an extreme and obvious personal bias against Trump...which, obviously, has nothing to do with the truth, just your personal prejudices.


You seem to forget, that the majority of the voting public has a similar bias as Bill.


Except we don't really know all the reasons people voted Hillary. It may have been many didn't like Trump or it may have been they were just taken because she was a woman (she sure pushed that angle hard enough). Plus any of many reasons. But in part you'd certainly be correct because the Democrats spent millions on publicity to make you think so.

But the telling blow to Hillary came when we discovered her cheating ways through wikilinks. OH, that's right, we weren't supposed to know that so it doesn't count because the Russians didn't find anything bad to publish about Trump. What a bunch of total idiotic hogwash. They found out about her lying ways because she LIED. But they've fooled part of the public into believing her cheating ways aren't important in this debate. Are you one of those people?

Hopefully she will be prosecuted along with her leacher husband. Maybe her loyal followers will break her out of jail?


Trump is not going to prosecute her. Do you feel like a yuge winner yet?

Who was lying?

Lock her up, drain the swamp, build a wall that Mexico will pay for...hmm.



ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

10 Jan 2017, 12:03 pm

feral botanist wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
What does that ^^^ mean Bill?

Quote:
But media investigations, even if partisan, can still be legitimate,


You seem to be saying you recognize newspapers will "bend" (if you will) the news toward their favorite candidate (or against those they oppose) and then print/broadcast this as the absolute God's own truth, and you can still think of this as "legitimate?"

I admit I can't understand your reasoning, except that you seem to have an extreme and obvious personal bias against Trump...which, obviously, has nothing to do with the truth, just your personal prejudices.


You seem to forget, that the majority of the voting public has a similar bias as Bill.


Except we don't really know all the reasons people voted Hillary. It may have been many didn't like Trump or it may have been they were just taken because she was a woman (she sure pushed that angle hard enough). Plus any of many reasons. But in part you'd certainly be correct because the Democrats spent millions on publicity to make you think so.

But the telling blow to Hillary came when we discovered her cheating ways through wikilinks. OH, that's right, we weren't supposed to know that so it doesn't count because the Russians didn't find anything bad to publish about Trump. What a bunch of total idiotic hogwash. They found out about her lying ways because she LIED. But they've fooled part of the public into believing her cheating ways aren't important in this debate. Are you one of those people?

Hopefully she will be prosecuted along with her leacher husband. Maybe her loyal followers will break her out of jail?


Trump is not going to prosecute her. Do you feel like a yuge winner yet?

Who was lying?

Lock her up, drain the swamp, build a wall that Mexico will pay for...hmm.


So funny. So like every rabid Democrat out there. I never said Trump was a great person, just preferable to the lying, cheating, killing, bch. No one has accused Trump (unlike hillary) of killing thousands in government overthrows or stranding our soldiers to their deaths as hillary does. So, obnoxious as he is, he's head and shoulders above Hillary...unless you're the type of person that thinks deaths of innocents is nothing to worry about, or not worthy enough to take into account?

He isn't even in office yet you join the herd, because he refuses to act like the thieving politicians you know and love?

What's wrong with you (in a political sense that is)? You've been lapping up any piece of trash that Hillary throws out there for you...wouldn't you agree?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,784
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Jan 2017, 12:18 pm

ZenDen wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
What does that ^^^ mean Bill?

Quote:
But media investigations, even if partisan, can still be legitimate,


You seem to be saying you recognize newspapers will "bend" (if you will) the news toward their favorite candidate (or against those they oppose) and then print/broadcast this as the absolute God's own truth, and you can still think of this as "legitimate?"

I admit I can't understand your reasoning, except that you seem to have an extreme and obvious personal bias against Trump...which, obviously, has nothing to do with the truth, just your personal prejudices.


You seem to forget, that the majority of the voting public has a similar bias as Bill.


Except we don't really know all the reasons people voted Hillary. It may have been many didn't like Trump or it may have been they were just taken because she was a woman (she sure pushed that angle hard enough). Plus any of many reasons. But in part you'd certainly be correct because the Democrats spent millions on publicity to make you think so.

But the telling blow to Hillary came when we discovered her cheating ways through wikilinks. OH, that's right, we weren't supposed to know that so it doesn't count because the Russians didn't find anything bad to publish about Trump. What a bunch of total idiotic hogwash. They found out about her lying ways because she LIED. But they've fooled part of the public into believing her cheating ways aren't important in this debate. Are you one of those people?

Hopefully she will be prosecuted along with her leacher husband. Maybe her loyal followers will break her out of jail?


Trump is not going to prosecute her. Do you feel like a yuge winner yet?

Who was lying?

Lock her up, drain the swamp, build a wall that Mexico will pay for...hmm.


So funny. So like every rabid Democrat out there. I never said Trump was a great person, just preferable to the lying, cheating, killing, bch. No one has accused Trump (unlike hillary) of killing thousands in government overthrows or stranding our soldiers to their deaths as hillary does. So, obnoxious as he is, he's head and shoulders above Hillary...unless you're the type of person that thinks deaths of innocents is nothing to worry about, or not worthy enough to take into account?

He isn't even in office yet you join the herd, because he refuses to act like the thieving politicians you know and love?

What's wrong with you (in a political sense that is)? You've been lapping up any piece of trash that Hillary throws out there for you...wouldn't you agree?


As for accusing Clinton of mass murder for sending in the troops; that's like saying you wouldn't have voted for Lincoln or FDR because they had done the same. Being President entails being Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, which means that President, and his or her Secretary of State acting as said President's agent, are going to almost certainly at some point make a decision to take lives. What will you do when Trump makes this decision? Are you going to criticize him, or give him a pass? After all, Trump swore he'd "bomb the sh*t" out of ISIS, and had criticized Obama for warning civilians to flee before bombing the enemy.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

11 Jan 2017, 12:19 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
What does that ^^^ mean Bill?

Quote:
But media investigations, even if partisan, can still be legitimate,


You seem to be saying you recognize newspapers will "bend" (if you will) the news toward their favorite candidate (or against those they oppose) and then print/broadcast this as the absolute God's own truth, and you can still think of this as "legitimate?"

I admit I can't understand your reasoning, except that you seem to have an extreme and obvious personal bias against Trump...which, obviously, has nothing to do with the truth, just your personal prejudices.


You seem to forget, that the majority of the voting public has a similar bias as Bill.


Except we don't really know all the reasons people voted Hillary. It may have been many didn't like Trump or it may have been they were just taken because she was a woman (she sure pushed that angle hard enough). Plus any of many reasons. But in part you'd certainly be correct because the Democrats spent millions on publicity to make you think so.

But the telling blow to Hillary came when we discovered her cheating ways through wikilinks. OH, that's right, we weren't supposed to know that so it doesn't count because the Russians didn't find anything bad to publish about Trump. What a bunch of total idiotic hogwash. They found out about her lying ways because she LIED. But they've fooled part of the public into believing her cheating ways aren't important in this debate. Are you one of those people?

Hopefully she will be prosecuted along with her leacher husband. Maybe her loyal followers will break her out of jail?


Trump is not going to prosecute her. Do you feel like a yuge winner yet?

Who was lying?

Lock her up, drain the swamp, build a wall that Mexico will pay for...hmm.


So funny. So like every rabid Democrat out there. I never said Trump was a great person, just preferable to the lying, cheating, killing, bch. No one has accused Trump (unlike hillary) of killing thousands in government overthrows or stranding our soldiers to their deaths as hillary does. So, obnoxious as he is, he's head and shoulders above Hillary...unless you're the type of person that thinks deaths of innocents is nothing to worry about, or not worthy enough to take into account?

He isn't even in office yet you join the herd, because he refuses to act like the thieving politicians you know and love?

What's wrong with you (in a political sense that is)? You've been lapping up any piece of trash that Hillary throws out there for you...wouldn't you agree?


As for accusing Clinton of mass murder for sending in the troops; that's like saying you wouldn't have voted for Lincoln or FDR because they had done the same. Being President entails being Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, which means that President, and his or her Secretary of State acting as said President's agent, are going to almost certainly at some point make a decision to take lives. What will you do when Trump makes this decision? Are you going to criticize him, or give him a pass? After all, Trump swore he'd "bomb the sh*t" out of ISIS, and had criticized Obama for warning civilians to flee before bombing the enemy.


You said:
As for accusing Clinton of mass murder for sending in the troops; that's like saying you wouldn't have voted for Lincoln or FDR because they had done the same.

Lincoln caused deaths were mostly during the civil war, when citizen killed citizen. Was this killing done in the name of abolishing slavery?? Some said it was but many convincingly explained the financial and political reasons for the conflict. So the answer is NO; I probably would not have voted for Lincoln.

FDR & WWII??? Being attacked by insane people and defending yourself (including Truman's decision on the A-bomb) is called "self defense" and is not a "killers trait." I believe I would have voted for FDR.

You said:
Being President entails being Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, which means that President, and his or her Secretary of State acting as said President's agent, are going to almost certainly at some point make a decision to take lives.
Yes Bill; thank you.
But I believe I've been careful in most of my posts to label killing of civilians by your Hillary as unnecessary. To her, you see, these deaths are just an unfortunate part of her power plays (and totally unnecessary); these peoples deaths could have been easily avoided....there are many in this forum that can give all of the details I'd imagine...or you could have even read them yourself by now. To Hillary these deaths are secondary to her private purpose.

You said:
What will you do when Trump makes this decision? Are you going to criticize him, or give him a pass? After all, Trump swore he'd "bomb the sh*t" out of ISIS, and had criticized Obama for warning civilians to flee before bombing the enemy.

It will be a case by case situation Bill. As you should do. Don't give blind faith to any politician.
As far as ISIS....maybe Trump can make a business deal with them...he's good at that. Let him try. Nothing the politicians have done, for hundreds of years, has kept us out of war (at least not for very long).

At this point I believe you're putting 2 and 2 together and can see a proper direction.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,784
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Jan 2017, 7:31 pm

ZenDen wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
What does that ^^^ mean Bill?

Quote:
But media investigations, even if partisan, can still be legitimate,


You seem to be saying you recognize newspapers will "bend" (if you will) the news toward their favorite candidate (or against those they oppose) and then print/broadcast this as the absolute God's own truth, and you can still think of this as "legitimate?"

I admit I can't understand your reasoning, except that you seem to have an extreme and obvious personal bias against Trump...which, obviously, has nothing to do with the truth, just your personal prejudices.


You seem to forget, that the majority of the voting public has a similar bias as Bill.


Except we don't really know all the reasons people voted Hillary. It may have been many didn't like Trump or it may have been they were just taken because she was a woman (she sure pushed that angle hard enough). Plus any of many reasons. But in part you'd certainly be correct because the Democrats spent millions on publicity to make you think so.

But the telling blow to Hillary came when we discovered her cheating ways through wikilinks. OH, that's right, we weren't supposed to know that so it doesn't count because the Russians didn't find anything bad to publish about Trump. What a bunch of total idiotic hogwash. They found out about her lying ways because she LIED. But they've fooled part of the public into believing her cheating ways aren't important in this debate. Are you one of those people?

Hopefully she will be prosecuted along with her leacher husband. Maybe her loyal followers will break her out of jail?


Trump is not going to prosecute her. Do you feel like a yuge winner yet?

Who was lying?

Lock her up, drain the swamp, build a wall that Mexico will pay for...hmm.


So funny. So like every rabid Democrat out there. I never said Trump was a great person, just preferable to the lying, cheating, killing, bch. No one has accused Trump (unlike hillary) of killing thousands in government overthrows or stranding our soldiers to their deaths as hillary does. So, obnoxious as he is, he's head and shoulders above Hillary...unless you're the type of person that thinks deaths of innocents is nothing to worry about, or not worthy enough to take into account?

He isn't even in office yet you join the herd, because he refuses to act like the thieving politicians you know and love?

What's wrong with you (in a political sense that is)? You've been lapping up any piece of trash that Hillary throws out there for you...wouldn't you agree?


As for accusing Clinton of mass murder for sending in the troops; that's like saying you wouldn't have voted for Lincoln or FDR because they had done the same. Being President entails being Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, which means that President, and his or her Secretary of State acting as said President's agent, are going to almost certainly at some point make a decision to take lives. What will you do when Trump makes this decision? Are you going to criticize him, or give him a pass? After all, Trump swore he'd "bomb the sh*t" out of ISIS, and had criticized Obama for warning civilians to flee before bombing the enemy.


You said:
As for accusing Clinton of mass murder for sending in the troops; that's like saying you wouldn't have voted for Lincoln or FDR because they had done the same.

Lincoln caused deaths were mostly during the civil war, when citizen killed citizen. Was this killing done in the name of abolishing slavery?? Some said it was but many convincingly explained the financial and political reasons for the conflict. So the answer is NO; I probably would not have voted for Lincoln.

FDR & WWII??? Being attacked by insane people and defending yourself (including Truman's decision on the A-bomb) is called "self defense" and is not a "killers trait." I believe I would have voted for FDR.

You said:
Being President entails being Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, which means that President, and his or her Secretary of State acting as said President's agent, are going to almost certainly at some point make a decision to take lives.
Yes Bill; thank you.
But I believe I've been careful in most of my posts to label killing of civilians by your Hillary as unnecessary. To her, you see, these deaths are just an unfortunate part of her power plays (and totally unnecessary); these peoples deaths could have been easily avoided....there are many in this forum that can give all of the details I'd imagine...or you could have even read them yourself by now. To Hillary these deaths are secondary to her private purpose.

You said:
What will you do when Trump makes this decision? Are you going to criticize him, or give him a pass? After all, Trump swore he'd "bomb the sh*t" out of ISIS, and had criticized Obama for warning civilians to flee before bombing the enemy.

It will be a case by case situation Bill. As you should do. Don't give blind faith to any politician.
As far as ISIS....maybe Trump can make a business deal with them...he's good at that. Let him try. Nothing the politicians have done, for hundreds of years, has kept us out of war (at least not for very long).

At this point I believe you're putting 2 and 2 together and can see a proper direction.


Lincoln fought the Civil War in order to keep the Union together first and foremost. But he was able to do the right thing and end slavery along with it. Even if by a long shot, Lincoln's intent wasn't as noble, at least he accomplished the right thing in freeing millions of people.
Well, I hope you remember what you said about Trump if he gets blood on his hands - and all over his tailored suits - because being President makes it something unlikely to avoid.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

12 Jan 2017, 9:50 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
What does that ^^^ mean Bill?

Quote:
But media investigations, even if partisan, can still be legitimate,


You seem to be saying you recognize newspapers will "bend" (if you will) the news toward their favorite candidate (or against those they oppose) and then print/broadcast this as the absolute God's own truth, and you can still think of this as "legitimate?"

I admit I can't understand your reasoning, except that you seem to have an extreme and obvious personal bias against Trump...which, obviously, has nothing to do with the truth, just your personal prejudices.


You seem to forget, that the majority of the voting public has a similar bias as Bill.


Except we don't really know all the reasons people voted Hillary. It may have been many didn't like Trump or it may have been they were just taken because she was a woman (she sure pushed that angle hard enough). Plus any of many reasons. But in part you'd certainly be correct because the Democrats spent millions on publicity to make you think so.

But the telling blow to Hillary came when we discovered her cheating ways through wikilinks. OH, that's right, we weren't supposed to know that so it doesn't count because the Russians didn't find anything bad to publish about Trump. What a bunch of total idiotic hogwash. They found out about her lying ways because she LIED. But they've fooled part of the public into believing her cheating ways aren't important in this debate. Are you one of those people?

Hopefully she will be prosecuted along with her leacher husband. Maybe her loyal followers will break her out of jail?


Trump is not going to prosecute her. Do you feel like a yuge winner yet?

Who was lying?

Lock her up, drain the swamp, build a wall that Mexico will pay for...hmm.


So funny. So like every rabid Democrat out there. I never said Trump was a great person, just preferable to the lying, cheating, killing, bch. No one has accused Trump (unlike hillary) of killing thousands in government overthrows or stranding our soldiers to their deaths as hillary does. So, obnoxious as he is, he's head and shoulders above Hillary...unless you're the type of person that thinks deaths of innocents is nothing to worry about, or not worthy enough to take into account?

He isn't even in office yet you join the herd, because he refuses to act like the thieving politicians you know and love?

What's wrong with you (in a political sense that is)? You've been lapping up any piece of trash that Hillary throws out there for you...wouldn't you agree?


As for accusing Clinton of mass murder for sending in the troops; that's like saying you wouldn't have voted for Lincoln or FDR because they had done the same. Being President entails being Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, which means that President, and his or her Secretary of State acting as said President's agent, are going to almost certainly at some point make a decision to take lives. What will you do when Trump makes this decision? Are you going to criticize him, or give him a pass? After all, Trump swore he'd "bomb the sh*t" out of ISIS, and had criticized Obama for warning civilians to flee before bombing the enemy.


You said:
As for accusing Clinton of mass murder for sending in the troops; that's like saying you wouldn't have voted for Lincoln or FDR because they had done the same.

Lincoln caused deaths were mostly during the civil war, when citizen killed citizen. Was this killing done in the name of abolishing slavery?? Some said it was but many convincingly explained the financial and political reasons for the conflict. So the answer is NO; I probably would not have voted for Lincoln.

FDR & WWII??? Being attacked by insane people and defending yourself (including Truman's decision on the A-bomb) is called "self defense" and is not a "killers trait." I believe I would have voted for FDR.

You said:
Being President entails being Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, which means that President, and his or her Secretary of State acting as said President's agent, are going to almost certainly at some point make a decision to take lives.
Yes Bill; thank you.
But I believe I've been careful in most of my posts to label killing of civilians by your Hillary as unnecessary. To her, you see, these deaths are just an unfortunate part of her power plays (and totally unnecessary); these peoples deaths could have been easily avoided....there are many in this forum that can give all of the details I'd imagine...or you could have even read them yourself by now. To Hillary these deaths are secondary to her private purpose.

You said:
What will you do when Trump makes this decision? Are you going to criticize him, or give him a pass? After all, Trump swore he'd "bomb the sh*t" out of ISIS, and had criticized Obama for warning civilians to flee before bombing the enemy.

It will be a case by case situation Bill. As you should do. Don't give blind faith to any politician.
As far as ISIS....maybe Trump can make a business deal with them...he's good at that. Let him try. Nothing the politicians have done, for hundreds of years, has kept us out of war (at least not for very long).

At this point I believe you're putting 2 and 2 together and can see a proper direction.


Lincoln fought the Civil War in order to keep the Union together first and foremost. But he was able to do the right thing and end slavery along with it. Even if by a long shot, Lincoln's intent wasn't as noble, at least he accomplished the right thing in freeing millions of people.
Well, I hope you remember what you said about Trump if he gets blood on his hands - and all over his tailored suits - because being President makes it something unlikely to avoid.


You said:
Lincoln fought the Civil War in order to keep the Union together first and foremost. But he was able to do the right thing and end slavery along with it. Even if by a long shot, Lincoln's intent wasn't as noble, at least he accomplished the right thing in freeing millions of people.

It was 620,000 American lives lost!! ! This was not a "right thing" by any stretch of the imagination. This was just the most brutal killings in our history (you may choose another if it makes you happy).

(I believe too many zombie movies (and the brutal news reporting) creates in people a "hard shell" (lack of emotion) in evaluating the reality of killing of others...it doesn't seem real...especially mass murders.).

You said:
Well, I hope you remember what you said about Trump if he gets blood on his hands - and all over his tailored suits - because being President makes it something unlikely to avoid

Being President makes it easier to avoid. Any other position ties your hands.
I expect the fears of Trump "taking advantage" of his position for personal gain are not unfounded (all politicians do it in one way or another...that's par for the course). But I don't agree with Michelle Obama and her snarky "no hope" comment. Instead I believe sticking with the same bunch of thieves makes them too strong and the result will be (as promised) 4/8 years of the same declining living standards...wars...inequity...crappy schools and worse health care. In other words "Obama's Grand Legacy."

But if Trump is caught with his hand in the cookie jar you and I can help expose him...ok? (However all of the unsubstantiated wild a** accusations are just "imagined lies" at this point).



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,784
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

12 Jan 2017, 3:05 pm

ZenDen wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
What does that ^^^ mean Bill?

Quote:
But media investigations, even if partisan, can still be legitimate,


You seem to be saying you recognize newspapers will "bend" (if you will) the news toward their favorite candidate (or against those they oppose) and then print/broadcast this as the absolute God's own truth, and you can still think of this as "legitimate?"

I admit I can't understand your reasoning, except that you seem to have an extreme and obvious personal bias against Trump...which, obviously, has nothing to do with the truth, just your personal prejudices.


You seem to forget, that the majority of the voting public has a similar bias as Bill.


Except we don't really know all the reasons people voted Hillary. It may have been many didn't like Trump or it may have been they were just taken because she was a woman (she sure pushed that angle hard enough). Plus any of many reasons. But in part you'd certainly be correct because the Democrats spent millions on publicity to make you think so.

But the telling blow to Hillary came when we discovered her cheating ways through wikilinks. OH, that's right, we weren't supposed to know that so it doesn't count because the Russians didn't find anything bad to publish about Trump. What a bunch of total idiotic hogwash. They found out about her lying ways because she LIED. But they've fooled part of the public into believing her cheating ways aren't important in this debate. Are you one of those people?

Hopefully she will be prosecuted along with her leacher husband. Maybe her loyal followers will break her out of jail?


Trump is not going to prosecute her. Do you feel like a yuge winner yet?

Who was lying?

Lock her up, drain the swamp, build a wall that Mexico will pay for...hmm.


So funny. So like every rabid Democrat out there. I never said Trump was a great person, just preferable to the lying, cheating, killing, bch. No one has accused Trump (unlike hillary) of killing thousands in government overthrows or stranding our soldiers to their deaths as hillary does. So, obnoxious as he is, he's head and shoulders above Hillary...unless you're the type of person that thinks deaths of innocents is nothing to worry about, or not worthy enough to take into account?

He isn't even in office yet you join the herd, because he refuses to act like the thieving politicians you know and love?

What's wrong with you (in a political sense that is)? You've been lapping up any piece of trash that Hillary throws out there for you...wouldn't you agree?


As for accusing Clinton of mass murder for sending in the troops; that's like saying you wouldn't have voted for Lincoln or FDR because they had done the same. Being President entails being Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, which means that President, and his or her Secretary of State acting as said President's agent, are going to almost certainly at some point make a decision to take lives. What will you do when Trump makes this decision? Are you going to criticize him, or give him a pass? After all, Trump swore he'd "bomb the sh*t" out of ISIS, and had criticized Obama for warning civilians to flee before bombing the enemy.


You said:
As for accusing Clinton of mass murder for sending in the troops; that's like saying you wouldn't have voted for Lincoln or FDR because they had done the same.

Lincoln caused deaths were mostly during the civil war, when citizen killed citizen. Was this killing done in the name of abolishing slavery?? Some said it was but many convincingly explained the financial and political reasons for the conflict. So the answer is NO; I probably would not have voted for Lincoln.

FDR & WWII??? Being attacked by insane people and defending yourself (including Truman's decision on the A-bomb) is called "self defense" and is not a "killers trait." I believe I would have voted for FDR.

You said:
Being President entails being Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, which means that President, and his or her Secretary of State acting as said President's agent, are going to almost certainly at some point make a decision to take lives.
Yes Bill; thank you.
But I believe I've been careful in most of my posts to label killing of civilians by your Hillary as unnecessary. To her, you see, these deaths are just an unfortunate part of her power plays (and totally unnecessary); these peoples deaths could have been easily avoided....there are many in this forum that can give all of the details I'd imagine...or you could have even read them yourself by now. To Hillary these deaths are secondary to her private purpose.

You said:
What will you do when Trump makes this decision? Are you going to criticize him, or give him a pass? After all, Trump swore he'd "bomb the sh*t" out of ISIS, and had criticized Obama for warning civilians to flee before bombing the enemy.

It will be a case by case situation Bill. As you should do. Don't give blind faith to any politician.
As far as ISIS....maybe Trump can make a business deal with them...he's good at that. Let him try. Nothing the politicians have done, for hundreds of years, has kept us out of war (at least not for very long).

At this point I believe you're putting 2 and 2 together and can see a proper direction.


Lincoln fought the Civil War in order to keep the Union together first and foremost. But he was able to do the right thing and end slavery along with it. Even if by a long shot, Lincoln's intent wasn't as noble, at least he accomplished the right thing in freeing millions of people.
Well, I hope you remember what you said about Trump if he gets blood on his hands - and all over his tailored suits - because being President makes it something unlikely to avoid.


You said:
Lincoln fought the Civil War in order to keep the Union together first and foremost. But he was able to do the right thing and end slavery along with it. Even if by a long shot, Lincoln's intent wasn't as noble, at least he accomplished the right thing in freeing millions of people.

It was 620,000 American lives lost!! ! This was not a "right thing" by any stretch of the imagination. This was just the most brutal killings in our history (you may choose another if it makes you happy).

(I believe too many zombie movies (and the brutal news reporting) creates in people a "hard shell" (lack of emotion) in evaluating the reality of killing of others...it doesn't seem real...especially mass murders.).

You said:
Well, I hope you remember what you said about Trump if he gets blood on his hands - and all over his tailored suits - because being President makes it something unlikely to avoid

Being President makes it easier to avoid. Any other position ties your hands.
I expect the fears of Trump "taking advantage" of his position for personal gain are not unfounded (all politicians do it in one way or another...that's par for the course). But I don't agree with Michelle Obama and her snarky "no hope" comment. Instead I believe sticking with the same bunch of thieves makes them too strong and the result will be (as promised) 4/8 years of the same declining living standards...wars...inequity...crappy schools and worse health care. In other words "Obama's Grand Legacy."

But if Trump is caught with his hand in the cookie jar you and I can help expose him...ok? (However all of the unsubstantiated wild a** accusations are just "imagined lies" at this point).


I will be more than happy to help you cut Trump's tiny hands off at the wrists if he's caught in the cookie jar.
As for Lincoln - You do know the war started because the Confederacy seceded, don't you? And as awful as the loss of life was, to say it wasn't worth freeing millions of people from involuntary servitude is to diminish the worth of those African Americans as human beings.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

13 Jan 2017, 11:44 am

^^^^ You mention: "As for Lincoln - You do know the war started because the Confederacy seceded, don't you?"

No Bill, I did not know that. As you know I'm recently arrived from Pluto (and we don't like the downgrade from planetary status) where we don't have Confederacies, etc. What I've had to do (without this history) is look at sources such as Wikipedia, etc. where they talk about such things.

It appears you've been wrong. In Wikipedia they say the secession occurred in January of 1861...but there were no attacks from the North, so this doesn't seem to have started any war. And then, in April of 1861 the Southern secessionists attacked Fort Sumter, which started all of the hostilities, including North counter-attacks....please tell me how this is wrong, it certainly appears to be correct.

And they describe how the South's engagement with Europe (and cotton) angered the North and how the North retaliated. Is this Wikipedia not printing the truth? It seems truthful to me.

And your last statement is really ludicrous: And as awful as the loss of life was, to say it wasn't worth freeing millions of people from involuntary servitude is to diminish the worth of those African Americans as human beings.

620,000 deaths???? You must not value human life very highly Bill. As they say in Wikipedia that is more than all of the deaths we suffered during both WWI and WWII combined. Would you have sacrificed yourself, all of your belongings, family, & life to free the black people?????? I don't think so Bill.....words are cheap.

I don't know what type of misshapen thought you have in your mind of African American "worth" (your term not mine) but the deaths of 620,000 human beings is NOT a fair trade in my estimation....but then again what do I know, being from Pluto and all?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,784
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Jan 2017, 7:18 pm

ZenDen wrote:
^^^^ You mention: "As for Lincoln - You do know the war started because the Confederacy seceded, don't you?"

No Bill, I did not know that. As you know I'm recently arrived from Pluto (and we don't like the downgrade from planetary status) where we don't have Confederacies, etc. What I've had to do (without this history) is look at sources such as Wikipedia, etc. where they talk about such things.

It appears you've been wrong. In Wikipedia they say the secession occurred in January of 1861...but there were no attacks from the North, so this doesn't seem to have started any war. And then, in April of 1861 the Southern secessionists attacked Fort Sumter, which started all of the hostilities, including North counter-attacks....please tell me how this is wrong, it certainly appears to be correct.

And they describe how the South's engagement with Europe (and cotton) angered the North and how the North retaliated. Is this Wikipedia not printing the truth? It seems truthful to me.

And your last statement is really ludicrous: And as awful as the loss of life was, to say it wasn't worth freeing millions of people from involuntary servitude is to diminish the worth of those African Americans as human beings.

620,000 deaths???? You must not value human life very highly Bill. As they say in Wikipedia that is more than all of the deaths we suffered during both WWI and WWII combined. Would you have sacrificed yourself, all of your belongings, family, & life to free the black people?????? I don't think so Bill.....words are cheap.

I don't know what type of misshapen thought you have in your mind of African American "worth" (your term not mine) but the deaths of 620,000 human beings is NOT a fair trade in my estimation....but then again what do I know, being from Pluto and all?


The only thing you have correct is, yes, the war started when the Confederacy seized Fort Sumter, a federal institution. Was the north supposed to just let the south take federal property, after breaking away and declaring independence?
And yes, the freedom of millions of African Americans was worth the bloodshed, as Lincoln who freed them hadn't intended bloodshed. It was the Confederacy that fired the first shot, but could have come back at anytime, but chose not to. That, and the Confederacy was inspired to rebel because they believed their racist institution of slavery was threatened by Lincoln's election - an institution supported by most southern whites, whether they owned slaves or not, nothing to do with cotton.

Pluto, huh? Many believe Lovecraft had based the planet Yuggoth in his story, The Whisperer In The Darkness, on Pluto, which was only recently discovered at that time. He said the inhabitants were part fungus, part crustacean. That description fit you? :lol:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer