- Thread starter Woodson Bible & Guns
- Start date
Sheik
All-Pro
- Messages
- 24,809
- Reaction score
- 5
i thought about the dumbest thing too while I was out there thinking they know I called the cops, I actually thought i could clear myself from their suspicion if I took them cookies tomorrow and told them i hope none of them got shot.
stupid shit like that.
stupid shit like that.
English Cowboy
In the Rotation
- Messages
- 1,468
- Reaction score
- 300
The Sheik Memoirs: Diary of a Pothead.
Bluenoser
In the Rotation
- Messages
- 1,203
- Reaction score
- 0
You complained saying Obama had no experience and just a community fundraiser. What has trump done?
You complain about Russia. Trump seems to be best buds with Putin.
I think it is stupid for people to back a party regardless of the candidate.
NoMoRedJ
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,477
- Reaction score
- 56
Trump has been in business in our country and around the world. He actually has experience in life and with business. Just because somebody has no experience at being a politician doesnt mean they have no experience at anything worthwhile.
obama has expereince at BSing and thats about it. What do community organizers do? Go gather up people and have hot dog roasts? Organize and cause trouble in the community? obama has been a student and then what else did he ever do that was productive or accomplished anything of significance?
And why would you think Trump is best buds with Putin? Because Hillary said so?
NoMoRedJ
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,477
- Reaction score
- 56
This is the kind of stupid stuff people use to justify keeping things the same. Excuses.
Why do you think that if being a career politician is not an option for people that a one and done, or two and done at most term limit would have the same kind of corrupt pay to play scenarios everywhere, or even be worse? It doesnt even make sense to think that way. Politicians wont be in office long enough to build the networking conglomerate that many now have. This isnt rocket science.
Will there always be corruption? Of course. As long as we have people there will always be, but why not limit the opportunity for it rather than have an environment that fosters it and encourages it? No term limits is like a breeding ground for it.
The stupidity in your argument is mind boggling. You actually think that the system we have now that has made it possible for the ted kennedy's and nancy pelosi's and harry reid's of the world cant be made better? That some how making it so these POS' cant make a career of scamming and corruption isnt a good option?
- Messages
- 3,665
- Reaction score
- 22
Depending on what you put in the cookies, it might lighten the mood some. (lame joke)
Obviously it sucks that you have that going on next door. But I don't know how you don't call the cops when you hear shooting next door. For all you knew, there was a home invasion or something equally as bad going on....
Of course a gun fight in the front yard is really bad too.
Any chance they were target shooting? Not that they should have been doing that either.
- Messages
- 7,074
- Reaction score
- 3,787
What do you think they say about Sheik living next door? He's probably got 10 people living in his trailer and he's married to his sister.......
Anything interesting happen today? Or is this re-opening of the investigation going to be swept under the rug?
Or is it just a slow time because of the weekend?
Seemed like when news first broke there was all this talk of her getting arrested or being forced out of the race, and then silence. Like nothing happened.
Or is it just a slow time because of the weekend?
Seemed like when news first broke there was all this talk of her getting arrested or being forced out of the race, and then silence. Like nothing happened.
NoMoRedJ
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,477
- Reaction score
- 56
Has any news other than Fox really talked about it?
I'm of the belief that polls are utterly pointless.
I mean, not for nothing, but everyone I talk to about the election already has their decision made on who their voting for. Even in this thread, has there been any undecided people? And despite all the various controversies surrounding these candidates, no one has switched sides. Everyone knows who they're voting for.
So I just can't believe that these polls are polling all these undecided voters who's opinions are swaying back and forth etc just days before the election. It's all noise and nonsense.
I mean, not for nothing, but everyone I talk to about the election already has their decision made on who their voting for. Even in this thread, has there been any undecided people? And despite all the various controversies surrounding these candidates, no one has switched sides. Everyone knows who they're voting for.
So I just can't believe that these polls are polling all these undecided voters who's opinions are swaying back and forth etc just days before the election. It's all noise and nonsense.
- Messages
- 21,399
- Reaction score
- 3,794
Yep CNN snd HLN are all over it. Robin Meade had it as the lead story for all four hours of the show this morning. It has main stream legs and traction.
ThoughtExperiment
Quality Starter
- Messages
- 9,906
- Reaction score
- 3
It does, which surprises me. All the other times with Wikileaks and even before Comey had his "no charges" PC, the media did everything it could to downplay these Hillary scandals. For whatever reason, this time they're really covering it and acknowledging it as a serious issue.
Time for Elites to Let the Clintons Go — for Good
by Laura Ingraham | Updated 31 Oct 2016 at 4:08 PM
elite (noun): A select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society
That is how the Oxford Dictionary defines the term.
With eight days left before the election, it is time for Americans to come to grips with three critical questions regarding Hillary Clinton and her political machine:
1.) Was Hillary Clinton careless about protecting and preserving secrets that were vital to the national interests of the United States?
2.) Did Bill and Hillary Clinton use their access to the U.S. government — including Hillary’s position as secretary of state and a likely future candidate for president of the United States — to make money for themselves? In other words, did people pay them money in the belief that by doing so, they would obtain better treatment from the United States government?
3.) Is Hillary Clinton a patriot — that is, can she be trusted to look out for the interests of the United States in all circumstances, even when doing so may force her to take actions that could hurt the financial interests of herself or her donors?
It goes without saying that if Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted with our national secrets, used her government positions for personal gain, or puts her personal interests ahead of the national interest, she should not be elected president. In a commercial republic like ours, the one unforgivable sin of a politician is putting money ahead of national honor. If the people no longer believe that their government is run honestly — if they conclude that their leaders are merely crooks with little flags on their lapels — then the whole system is at risk. We ask the people to put up with a lot from their leadership. They have to pay taxes they don’t want to pay, they have to obey laws that they don’t like, and they may have to fight in wars that they oppose. If the people come to believe that the whole system is a scam — that the folks at the top don’t really believe in the very system they’re supposed to uphold — then this country will quickly become ungovernable.
All voters have to decide for themselves how they feel about Hillary Clinton. But no group has to take these questions more seriously than the elites of our society — the wealthy and highly educated people who run our media, staff our government, and manage our largest financial and commercial institutions. There’s been a lot of complaints about the elites this year — and with good reason. For the most part, the policies they have supported in this century have been extraordinarily good for them — and not so good for most Americans. That fact explains why so many Americans this year ignored their wishes, and supported outsider candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
But the Hillary issue goes far beyond this election. It goes to the character of the type of people who govern the United States, who run its largest businesses and manage its biggest media outlets. Do they really care about the ideals of our country or not? If they do, then they must understand that they cannot turn the White House over to a collection of petty grifters who care more about lining their own pockets than watching out for the nation’s interests. And they must understand that they have a duty — a solemn and almost sacred duty — to answer the three questions posed above. And I don’t mean answering them in a lawyerly, he-said, she-said fashion. I mean that they have to study the facts as best they can, and look into their own hearts, and make an honest decision about whether the Clintons deserve to return to the White House. In America, the government belongs to all of us — and all of us, especially the richest and most powerful, have a responsibility to do the right thing.
Some will try to duck that responsibility by complaining about Donald Trump. They will claim that he’s a dangerous demagogue of the kind the Founders warned against. However, the Founders created a whole system to block demagogues from wielding too much power. They created a Senate, a Supreme Court, and lots of different state governments to push back against a demagogue. They created a free press so that the opponents of a demagogue could make their voices heard. If Donald Trump becomes president, he will be subject to all of those constraints. Yet what about a check on a corrupt leadership class? Our Founders didn’t create that — because they were smart enough to realize that no such check is possible. If the richest and most powerful members of our society no longer care about the ideals of this society, then the dream of the Founders has already been lost.
I have no doubt that some members of the elite class are certain that Hillary Clinton is an innocent patriot who has long been misunderstood by her enemies. If that’s what they believe, they should say so, and let history judge them accordingly. But if you don’t believe that Hillary is honest — if you don’t believe that she can be trusted to do the right thing — then you have a moral obligation to speak out now, before any more damage is done.
Forty-two years ago, another group of elites faced a similar dilemma. Consider the challenge that faced Establishment Republicans in 1974. For over 20 years, Richard Nixon had been one of the leaders — and often the leader — of the GOP Establishment. He had been on the ticket in five presidential elections, and the Republicans had won four of those. Almost every Republican in Washington owed him favors. Only two years before, he had won a stupendous personal victory — carrying 49 of the 50 states in the 1972 Presidential election. Breaking with Nixon meant that the Democrats would sweep the 1974 midterm elections, and that the GOP Establishment might wander in the wilderness for years to come. It meant the end of many promising political careers, and the risk that Reagan's outsiders would take over the Republican Party. And after all, why couldn't the Republicans fight all charges? Why couldn't they threaten Nixon's enemies, and stonewall any impeachment proceedings, and try to drag out everything until after the 1976 election? They could have done that — but they didn't. Instead, in early August 1974, key GOP leaders in Congress went to President Nixon and told him that his support on Capitol Hill had collapsed. Soon thereafter, Nixon resigned. The GOP Establishment was shattered. But it had done the right thing.
What about today's Establishment? They understand Hillary Clinton's character better than anyone — many of them have known her for decades. Many, no doubt, consider her to be a friend. All of them, by now, have an opinion on the three questions cited at the beginning of this piece. If they believe in her — if they trust her — then they should vouch for her. But if they don't, then they should do everything possible to prevent her from holding high public office. This responsibility falls on the press. It falls on the biggest donors in both parties. It falls on people like the Bushes and Colin Powell who have held high public office. It also falls on Democrats — especially high-ranking Democrats like Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Some will believe, no doubt, that it's easy for populists to make this type of demand — that it's easy to call upon the elites to make this type of sacrifice. But the whole point of being in the elite is that you have special power — and a special responsibility. There's no question that our elites have enjoyed their power. Now it's time for them to live up to their responsibility.
by Laura Ingraham | Updated 31 Oct 2016 at 4:08 PM
elite (noun): A select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society
That is how the Oxford Dictionary defines the term.
With eight days left before the election, it is time for Americans to come to grips with three critical questions regarding Hillary Clinton and her political machine:
1.) Was Hillary Clinton careless about protecting and preserving secrets that were vital to the national interests of the United States?
2.) Did Bill and Hillary Clinton use their access to the U.S. government — including Hillary’s position as secretary of state and a likely future candidate for president of the United States — to make money for themselves? In other words, did people pay them money in the belief that by doing so, they would obtain better treatment from the United States government?
3.) Is Hillary Clinton a patriot — that is, can she be trusted to look out for the interests of the United States in all circumstances, even when doing so may force her to take actions that could hurt the financial interests of herself or her donors?
It goes without saying that if Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted with our national secrets, used her government positions for personal gain, or puts her personal interests ahead of the national interest, she should not be elected president. In a commercial republic like ours, the one unforgivable sin of a politician is putting money ahead of national honor. If the people no longer believe that their government is run honestly — if they conclude that their leaders are merely crooks with little flags on their lapels — then the whole system is at risk. We ask the people to put up with a lot from their leadership. They have to pay taxes they don’t want to pay, they have to obey laws that they don’t like, and they may have to fight in wars that they oppose. If the people come to believe that the whole system is a scam — that the folks at the top don’t really believe in the very system they’re supposed to uphold — then this country will quickly become ungovernable.
All voters have to decide for themselves how they feel about Hillary Clinton. But no group has to take these questions more seriously than the elites of our society — the wealthy and highly educated people who run our media, staff our government, and manage our largest financial and commercial institutions. There’s been a lot of complaints about the elites this year — and with good reason. For the most part, the policies they have supported in this century have been extraordinarily good for them — and not so good for most Americans. That fact explains why so many Americans this year ignored their wishes, and supported outsider candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
But the Hillary issue goes far beyond this election. It goes to the character of the type of people who govern the United States, who run its largest businesses and manage its biggest media outlets. Do they really care about the ideals of our country or not? If they do, then they must understand that they cannot turn the White House over to a collection of petty grifters who care more about lining their own pockets than watching out for the nation’s interests. And they must understand that they have a duty — a solemn and almost sacred duty — to answer the three questions posed above. And I don’t mean answering them in a lawyerly, he-said, she-said fashion. I mean that they have to study the facts as best they can, and look into their own hearts, and make an honest decision about whether the Clintons deserve to return to the White House. In America, the government belongs to all of us — and all of us, especially the richest and most powerful, have a responsibility to do the right thing.
Some will try to duck that responsibility by complaining about Donald Trump. They will claim that he’s a dangerous demagogue of the kind the Founders warned against. However, the Founders created a whole system to block demagogues from wielding too much power. They created a Senate, a Supreme Court, and lots of different state governments to push back against a demagogue. They created a free press so that the opponents of a demagogue could make their voices heard. If Donald Trump becomes president, he will be subject to all of those constraints. Yet what about a check on a corrupt leadership class? Our Founders didn’t create that — because they were smart enough to realize that no such check is possible. If the richest and most powerful members of our society no longer care about the ideals of this society, then the dream of the Founders has already been lost.
I have no doubt that some members of the elite class are certain that Hillary Clinton is an innocent patriot who has long been misunderstood by her enemies. If that’s what they believe, they should say so, and let history judge them accordingly. But if you don’t believe that Hillary is honest — if you don’t believe that she can be trusted to do the right thing — then you have a moral obligation to speak out now, before any more damage is done.
Forty-two years ago, another group of elites faced a similar dilemma. Consider the challenge that faced Establishment Republicans in 1974. For over 20 years, Richard Nixon had been one of the leaders — and often the leader — of the GOP Establishment. He had been on the ticket in five presidential elections, and the Republicans had won four of those. Almost every Republican in Washington owed him favors. Only two years before, he had won a stupendous personal victory — carrying 49 of the 50 states in the 1972 Presidential election. Breaking with Nixon meant that the Democrats would sweep the 1974 midterm elections, and that the GOP Establishment might wander in the wilderness for years to come. It meant the end of many promising political careers, and the risk that Reagan's outsiders would take over the Republican Party. And after all, why couldn't the Republicans fight all charges? Why couldn't they threaten Nixon's enemies, and stonewall any impeachment proceedings, and try to drag out everything until after the 1976 election? They could have done that — but they didn't. Instead, in early August 1974, key GOP leaders in Congress went to President Nixon and told him that his support on Capitol Hill had collapsed. Soon thereafter, Nixon resigned. The GOP Establishment was shattered. But it had done the right thing.
What about today's Establishment? They understand Hillary Clinton's character better than anyone — many of them have known her for decades. Many, no doubt, consider her to be a friend. All of them, by now, have an opinion on the three questions cited at the beginning of this piece. If they believe in her — if they trust her — then they should vouch for her. But if they don't, then they should do everything possible to prevent her from holding high public office. This responsibility falls on the press. It falls on the biggest donors in both parties. It falls on people like the Bushes and Colin Powell who have held high public office. It also falls on Democrats — especially high-ranking Democrats like Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Some will believe, no doubt, that it's easy for populists to make this type of demand — that it's easy to call upon the elites to make this type of sacrifice. But the whole point of being in the elite is that you have special power — and a special responsibility. There's no question that our elites have enjoyed their power. Now it's time for them to live up to their responsibility.
CNN cuts ties with Donna Brazile after hacked emails show she gave Clinton campaign debate questions
CNN cuts ties with Donna Brazile after hacked emails show she gave Clinton campaign debate questions
CNN quietly cut ties with Donna Brazile, the acting Democratic National Committee chair and a longtime contributor on the cable news network, after hacked emails published by WikiLeaks revealed that she had provided questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign in advance of a town hall and debate hosted by CNN during the Democratic primary.
According to a spokeswoman for the network, CNN accepted Brazile’s resignation on Oct. 14.
The emails showed that Brazile — whose role as a CNN contributor was suspended in July after she took over for departing DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz — shared with the Clinton campaign a question that would be posed to Clinton before the CNN Democratic Debate in Flint, Mich., in March, and another before a CNN town hall in Columbus, Ohio, a week later.
The network vehemently denied giving Brazile access to debate questions in advance.
“CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate,” the spokeswoman, Lauren Pratapas, said in a statement. “We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor.”
Brazile has appeared as a guest on Yahoo News’ live coverage of campaign events, including the recent presidential debates, but was not paid for any of those appearances.
Brazile did not respond to a request for comment.
CNN cuts ties with Donna Brazile after hacked emails show she gave Clinton campaign debate questions
CNN quietly cut ties with Donna Brazile, the acting Democratic National Committee chair and a longtime contributor on the cable news network, after hacked emails published by WikiLeaks revealed that she had provided questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign in advance of a town hall and debate hosted by CNN during the Democratic primary.
According to a spokeswoman for the network, CNN accepted Brazile’s resignation on Oct. 14.
The emails showed that Brazile — whose role as a CNN contributor was suspended in July after she took over for departing DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz — shared with the Clinton campaign a question that would be posed to Clinton before the CNN Democratic Debate in Flint, Mich., in March, and another before a CNN town hall in Columbus, Ohio, a week later.
The network vehemently denied giving Brazile access to debate questions in advance.
“CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate,” the spokeswoman, Lauren Pratapas, said in a statement. “We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor.”
Brazile has appeared as a guest on Yahoo News’ live coverage of campaign events, including the recent presidential debates, but was not paid for any of those appearances.
Brazile did not respond to a request for comment.
Last edited: