Just pointing out the hypocrisy holmes.Automatik;1806437 wrote:So you thought he didn't spend his money from being a politician since the 70s? LOL.
This is you.QuakerOats;1806429 wrote:I am not a liberal; I don't care how people "feel". I do care how people think and reason, so assisting with facts or context (often necessary to counter the liberal media bias) is something I am happy to help with.
You're missing the point. The point of the satirical article is that you assume that, by golly, you're the one who sees the picture fully, and that those who disagree with any element of it are wrong in those elements, all the while ignoring that your perspective on how to fix the problem is largely the result of what the Germans call "sitz im leben" ... your life situation, including the elements of life that have brought you to this point, and many of which were outside your control.QuakerOats;1806447 wrote:^^ sure. Except it isn't about me, it is about the policies that are best for the country. Are you going to tell us that the policies and agreements that have led to 94 million Americans out of work, $20 trillion in debt, tens of millions of illegals, and unfunded future liabilities approaching $100 trillion are the proper way to go? And on top of that, elect the most corrupt politician in history to continue with more of the same? Do you ever focus on the issues instead of the messengers?
I'm not discussing the messenger. I'm discussing the messenger's view and the root of it. That exists regardless of who holds it. Therefore, it is not a discussion of the messenger itself.QuakerOats;1806449 wrote:Obviously you are missing the point. I just listed several pieces of terrible economic data, almost insurmountable numbers, and yet you too are focusing on the messenger. No wonder we cannot discuss policy and platforms that might affect the data in the future.
It is apparently not a given, because you seem to refuse to acknowledge it.QuakerOats;1806452 wrote:All that is a given ....wow. We are here, now. Let us talk about the numbers and the policies affecting the numbers.
lol infowarsSpock;1806467 wrote:http://www.infowars.com/media-photoshops-hillary-crowd-to-make-her-audience-look-bigger/
more media deceit
Spock;1806467 wrote:http://www.infowars.com/media-photoshops-hillary-crowd-to-make-her-audience-look-bigger/
more media deceit
I mean, that's mostly common knowledge at this point. It's been fairly well-circulated that people have been making Clinton out to be more supported than she is. Even at the DNC.Dr.Pizza;1806470 wrote:lol infowars
the media is blowing this outAutomatik;1806475 wrote:I saw the clip. Death threat is a stretch, but you'd have to be a real dumbass to not understand what he insinuated. Just another stupid comment from the Donald that will lead to him being clownstomped in November.
Lol right on cueSpock;1806480 wrote:the media is blowing this out
What did he mean then? He talked hypothetically that if she were in office she would be selecting members of the Supreme Court. As if she'd already won, so he wasn't calling on 2A people for votes. I interpreted it as him suggesting they take it in their hands and do as they see fit.Spock;1806528 wrote:He didnt mean anything to the point of someone taking her out. Just stupid.