End Times and Current Events
April 20, 2018, 03:22:43 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome To End Times and Current Events.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

The Bizarro World of Liberalism

Shoutbox
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
September 11, 2017, 03:40:40 am Christian40 says: those in america should better repent or things will only get worse
View Shout History
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Bizarro World of Liberalism  (Read 4915 times)
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #30 on: February 20, 2014, 01:34:44 am »

Quote
We can’t allow anything Christian in our public schools not only because of the fictitious separation of church of state but also because it might offend someone.

There is nothing fictitious about it. There is a "separation" in the US Constitution.

Churchianity.  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: February 20, 2014, 03:52:44 am »

There is nothing fictitious about it. There is a "separation" in the US Constitution.

Churchianity.  Roll Eyes

Not the way Liberals apply it there isnt.

Quote
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

CONGRESS not your local school board, or the military, or the President of the United States, shall not make a law for or a specific religion, and they cant make one to stop any one worshiping a religion. Thats it, that doesnt mean if the Oklahoma State Senate wants to put a monument of the 10 commandments that they are barred from it by a separation of church and state. There is no such thing as the separation of church and state. 

Its not in the constitution, its not a law anywhere except in the minds of Liberals. Period.
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2014, 05:43:30 am »

University of Alabama Apologizes for Removing Pro-Life Display Over Student Offense

The University of Alabama has apologized for removing a pro-life display earlier this month after some students complained that they found it to be “offensive.”

Bama Students for Life had erected the small display behind a glass case that it has reserved last month, and noted earlier this month that the poster was now missing. The display included facts about abortion, photographs of women who had died from abortions, and two photographs of aborted babies. The slogan, “Abortion: Not safe, not rare, just legal,” was also written in the middle of the poster.

According to Bama Students for Life, university officials removed the display without notice after they received complaints from other students. Organization President Claire Chretien then recorded her discussion with campus officials in inquiring why the display had disappeared.

“It’s like I told you from the beginning,” one unidentified woman states. “If we receive complaints about it, we have to take it down.”

When asked what students had complained about, the woman replied that it was the photos of the dead babies and a woman that had died. She said that university policy prohibits offensive or graphic content.

“Just like if somebody put up something that upset you that you felt deeply about,” the official stated. ”We have to keep it happy for everybody.”

Bama Students for Life then contacted the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and sent a letter to the university to express their concerns.

“We believe that the removal of our pro-life display violates our First Amendment right to free speech,” the letter read. “The United States Supreme Court has said that educators cannot ban offensive speech.”

The group outlined that other groups have been allowed to post offensive material without issue.

“The Ferguson Center permits all kinds of speech by other students and student groups that many people would find ‘offensive’ or ‘graphic,’” it noted. “
  • n one bulletin board is an ad for the UA Theatre & Dance program’s presentation of ‘Blood Wedding.’ The poster states that the event is ‘for mature audiences’ and features blood stained glass superimposed on a picture of a bride and groom. A few months ago the Ferguson Center Art Gallery displayed student artwork, and one painting showed male full frontal nudity.”

“Other student groups are also permitted to display information about women’s health, safety issues, and the consequences of sex,” the letter continued. “All of these problems were addressed in our pro-life display that provided facts and information on the harm caused by abortion–both to the infant who is killed and to the mother.”

ADF also noted that the university policy mentions nothing about offensive or graphic material as the official had asserted.

On Monday, Ferguson Center Student Union Director Carl Bacon sent an email to Chretien apologizing for the removal and offering dates for the display to be returned to the glass case.

“Please accept my apology that your display was removed without your knowledge two days before your reserved time expired,” he wrote.

The pro-life display will now return to its place on Thursday.

“Censorship is inconsistent with ‘the marketplace of ideas’ that a public university is supposed to be,” said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Sharp. “We commend the university for its quick response to Bama Students for Life’s free speech concerns.”

http://christiannews.net/2014/02/19/university-of-alabama-apologizes-for-removing-pro-life-display-over-student-offense/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: February 20, 2014, 11:57:25 am »

Affleck to Testify Before Senate as Congo Expert...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/02/19/ben_affleck_to_testify_before_congress_as_an_africa_expert

NUFF SAID ON THAT ONE...
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2014, 03:41:53 am »

DUDE! What is with that link? Did you not even check it out?

You get BLASTED with a pop up that demands registration to read the article! There is no decline button, nothing to close the window. You HAVE to close the whole stupid page. Not cool at all.

I guess that's what I get for even trying to read any article about Ben Affleck!  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: February 21, 2014, 04:53:44 am »

DUDE! What is with that link? Did you not even check it out?

You get BLASTED with a pop up that demands registration to read the article! There is no decline button, nothing to close the window. You HAVE to close the whole stupid page. Not cool at all.

I guess that's what I get for even trying to read any article about Ben Affleck!  Roll Eyes

 Huh  a subscription ad popped up but it has a close button on the upper right side. worked fine for me.
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2014, 05:04:00 am »

Sorry, I hate that stuff. Simply cannot stand it. I just think companies that force me to physically deal with their ads, like a popup that you MUST clear, is a cheap disrespectful way of doing business. It's like hunting a baited field! It's exactly the same as if your walking down the sidewalk and a shop keeper were to grab you by the arm and not let go till you look in his store front window! SAME thing, and I hate it, so I get a bit offended over it. Sorry.

But honestly, there were TWO windows that opened up at my end. The top window was the registration window and had NO close button. I assure you I looked. Not even a means down in the tool bar at the bottom of the screen. It showed as a single browser window open.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: February 24, 2014, 10:56:44 am »

Pennsylvania’s Allegheny College Calls Pro-Life Students “Dangerous”

Allegheny College, a small liberal arts school in Pennsylvania, had an odd reaction to pro-life students who distributed flyers in academic buildings: they issued a campus alert, called the students “dangerous,” and treated it like a major security breach.

From the Daily Caller:

The incident occurred on Feb. 7. Apparently, someone slipped pro-life flyers under the doors of professors’ offices in the Arter, Quigley, Steffee and Arnold buildings. Joseph DiChristina, the dean of students at Allegheny, decided to treat this like a security breach, and wrote in an email to campus that security personnel were investigating it.

    “Promoting a particular point of view through this type of anonymous method is seen as an act that is antithetical to the kind of environment where open dialogue and conversation can take place,” he wrote in the email. “We ask that individuals engage in respectful behavior that promotes a free exchange of ideas. It is important that we value all people and that we not promote behaviors that cause harm and that can be seen as intimidating.”

Allegheny officials had not released what was actually on the flyer, just that it contained pro-life content.

When I was in college, I had flyers advertising everything from community events to cheerleading tryouts slipped anonymously under my door. If the content of the flyer isn’t “threatening,” then the action cannot possibly be construed as such. Something is majorly fishy about this story and Allegheny College’s reaction.

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/24/pennsylvanias-allegheny-college-calls-pro-life-students-dangerous/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #38 on: February 24, 2014, 03:42:01 pm »

Quote
“We ask that individuals engage in respectful behavior that promotes a free exchange of ideas.

 Cheesy They so funny!

Let a person walk around with a bible and some tracts and see what happens. Oh wait, it's already been done by students, and they were summarily banned by these schools for distributing hate speech.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2014, 09:01:17 am »

Harvard writer: Abolish free speech
Woman claims First Amendment threatens liberalism



A student writer at Harvard University is raising eyebrows after publishing her belief that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.

“Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice,” states the subtitle of her Feb. 18 column, in which she insists Harvard stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to hold controversial views and conduct research putting liberalism in a negative light.

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” Korn asks.

“It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.”

Korn’s view grabbed the attention of the nation’s top conservative voice, Rush Limbaugh.

“This is not unique. This is not satire. This is not parody,” Limbaugh said on his nationally broadcast radio program Tuesday. “This woman, Sandra Korn, is real, and she’s serious that free speech needs to be abridged because it is threatening liberalism. It means that liberalism cannot hold up to scrutiny. It cannot withstand a challenge.  If liberalism were infallible, if liberalism were so powerful and automatic, they would welcome challenges to it – and they would welcome the attempt to persuade and to convert. But instead they’re threatened by it.”

When asked of he thought her belief was going to become a movement, Limbaugh indicated it already was one.

“This is what the left is,” he explained. “Why do you think they want to get rid of this program? Why do you think they want to get rid of Fox News? Why do they want to silence criticism? What is Obama’s modus operandi? Eliminate the opposition. This is already a movement!”

“This woman has just written a column about it at Harvard with what appears to be an extreme view of eliminating the First Amendment as a way of silencing opposition. But she’s very honest. The First Amendment, free speech, ‘threatens liberalism,’ meaning liberalism cannot thrive in an open society. Liberalism is totalitarianism. Liberalism is statism. It is authoritarianism. It is all of the horrible Isms, and it cannot thrive when there is open debate. It cannot survive challenges.”

http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/harvard-writer-free-speech-threatens-liberalism/?cat_orig=us
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: February 26, 2014, 10:51:02 am »

Hate to say it, but even these Babel church buildings have craftily been pushing to abolish free speech as well - no, they don't say it outwardly, and it's not completely b/c of 501c3 - but it's the whole hierarchy set up that's completely unbiblical, with the whole 1 man pastor show, who with his group of "deacons" cannot be questioned on anything.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #41 on: March 12, 2014, 07:24:08 pm »

Sheila Jackson Lee Thinks the Constitution is 400 Years Old



Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Texas) declared the U.S. Constitution to be 400 years old Wednesday on the House floor, which would mean it was signed in 1614.

“Maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman and others, for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years, operating under a constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not,” she said.

That would be seven years after Jamestown, Virginia became America’s first permanent English settlement.

Lee is off by only 173 years. It was adopted on Sep. 17, 1787.

http://freebeacon.com/sheila-jackson-lee-thinks-the-constitution-is-400-years-old/http://freebeacon.com/sheila-jackson-lee-thinks-the-constitution-is-400-years-old/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: March 12, 2014, 08:54:59 pm »

Well, the King James Bible is approximately 400 years old! Wink

 Cheesy It wouldn't surprise me if Sheila Jackson Lee forgot all about 9/11, and has no idea who the Vice President is.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #43 on: March 13, 2014, 04:04:07 am »

 Cheesy The Vice President doesn't know who the Vice President is!
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #44 on: March 28, 2014, 12:04:48 pm »



Reid Denies Making Videotaped Claim that Obamacare Horror Stories Are 'Lies'
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: March 29, 2014, 09:41:55 am »



Bill Maher Tricks Guests With ‘Racist’ Paul Ryan Quote That Was Actually Said by Michelle Obama — The Reaction He Gets Is Priceless

After his guests thoroughly slammed Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) over his comments on the importance of changing the culture of “inner cities” to emphasize the value of “work,” HBO’s Bill Maher pulled a fast one.

He read another similar quote from Ryan… except it was actually said by first lady Michelle Obama.

“When it comes to getting an education, too many of our young people just can’t be bothered. They’re sitting on couches for hours playing video games, watching TV. Instead of dreaming of being a teacher or a lawyer or a business leader, they’re fantasizing about being a baller or a rapper,” Maher said, quoting the first lady.

When Maher revealed what he had done, comedian W. Kamau Bell was visibly surprised. It took a moment for him to come up with a reply.

The audience was noticeably silent as well.

“Is something less true if a white person says it?” Maher asked the panel.

“I don’t think this a Republican or Democrat issue, this is a people issue,” Bell replied.

“Well, yeah suddenly,” Maher joked. He also said the first lady’s comments sound even more like telling black people not to be “lazy.”

Bell then defended Michelle Obama’s comments, saying “she was talking to black people — we talk to each other differently than we talk in front of you.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/29/bill-maher-tricks-guests-with-racist-paul-ryan-quote-that-was-actually-said-by-michelle-obama-the-reaction-he-gets-is-priceless/

Quote
Bill Maher used his Friday night HBO show Real Time to point out a blatant hypocrisy when it comes to racism in the United States. But in order to make his point, Maher had to mislead his panel of guests.

Maher read a recent quote from Paul Ryan about inner city men not valuing work that got Ryan accused of being racist, and two out of three of Maher's panelists agreed with the criticism. Maher then read another quote he said was by Ryan, which stated that most young black men are just sitting around dreaming of becoming a "baller" or "rapper." Again, a majority of panelists cringed at its racist overtones. But then Maher revealed that in fact first lady Michelle Obama said the last quote -- and an uncomfortable hush fell across the entire studio.

At the start of the segment, Maher read the real Paul Ryan quote:

    We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work…

Maher asked his panel, "Is this a case where he's just being honest and it's not about race, or are we seeing race here where it shouldn't be? Because that was the criticism -- is that he was talking in code."

Guest comedian W. Kamau Bell, who hosts a show on FX called Totally Biased, responded:

    I'm going to go ahead and say that there was race there -- that he was talking about black people when he said that. He was talking about blacks and Latinos when he said that, absolutely. Because you can't blame the people in the inner city -- blacks and Latinos -- for not having jobs when there's no jobs to get in the inner cities. And you can't blame them when the schools suck, the hospital sucks, there's no grocery store, all their fathers are in jail -- you can't blame them for not doing better when that's the case.

Another panelist, Neera Tanden, president of Center for American Progress, agreed:

    What I think is really abominable about what he said is that he is really blaming people because there are no jobs in these communities and when you look at [Ryan's] budget -- what does his budget do? Cuts all the programs in these communities -- programs that have helped create jobs and takes it, and actually his budget every year until now, has given massive tax cuts to the wealthy.

The only voice of reason came form Rick Lazio, a former Republican congressman from New York, who retorted:

    In fairness, most of these inner cities are run by Democratic mayors, you've got a democratic president, and at one point you had a democratic Congress -- Senate and House -- and I don't see that they did a single thing effectively to help people in inner cities.

Maher continues by reading another quote that he attributes to Ryan only to reveals it is actually from Mrs. Obama:

    'When it comes to getting an education, too many of our young people just can’t be bothered. They’re sitting on couches for hours playing video games, watching TV. Instead of dreaming of being a teacher or a lawyer or a business leader, they’re fantasizing about being a baller or a rapper.'

    Oh, wait! That wasn't him, that was Michelle Obama.

Maher points out the "hushed silence."

Then Bell proves Maher's point. Here is the rest of the conversation:

    Bell: I don't think this is a Republican or Democrat issue, this is a people issue.

    Lazio: But you just called Ryan a racist.

    Bell: Did I actually say he was a racist?

    Lazio: Basically.

    Bell: There's no basically calling somebody a racist. You're either a racist or you're not a racist.

    Maher: C'mon! I just read this and you thought it was from Paul Ryan.

    Bell: Because you told me it was. [laughs]

    Maher: For a reason -- I'm just asking, is something less true if a white person says it about black people?

    Bell: [stuttering] The truth is the truth and a lie is a lie. I'm not here to represent the side of like, 'If black people say it, it's more true because black people said it.'

    Maher: No, but it does sound like Michelle Obama is agreeing with Paul Ryan. This sounds even more like, 'Hey, black people don't be lazy.'

    Bell: First of all, where did she say it? Did she say it in front of black people with no cameras...

    Maher: She said it at Bowie State commencement speech.

    Bell: See, that's black people. She was talking to black people. We talk to each other differently than we talk when we are in front of you.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/racist-bill-maher-makes-fool-his-black-guest

W. Kamau Bell

Thanx for exposing yourself for the racist that you are.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 04:06:34 pm by Mark » Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2014, 04:57:45 am »

Quote
Bell then defended Michelle Obama’s comments, saying “she was talking to black people — we talk to each other differently than we talk in front of you.”

See, THAT is a racist attitude! How can people not see it? Why do they "talk...differently" to each other than to people who are not black?

What have they to hide? Their racist attitude, that's what, under the guise of "cultural differences".

Reasonable people who are not racist want a decent politician in office, most blacks seem to want a black person in office.

Personally, I think that the only people who are pushing the race card is the black community.

By talking differently amongst themselves than what they would around whites, it's rather obvious the black community are their own worst problem.

They have won the race war and it's now clear we all have rights, not just whites, yet the black community is still sitting back whining about racism when everybody else has left the protest!  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: April 07, 2014, 08:49:26 am »

Congressional Candidate Appears to Have One Harsh Message for the NRA & Its Supporters

Quote
Anyone who supports Obama hating get off my train. Anyone who supports sucking the tit of the NRA get off my train.
Congressional Candidate Appears to Have One Harsh Message for the NRA & Its SupportersApril 5, 2014 9:47pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
Congressional Candidate Appears to Have One Harsh Message for the NRA & Its Supporters
@VoteMike2014
DickinsonForCongress

Quote
Rides at amusement parks say you must be this tall to ride this ride. My campaign says you must be this smart to vote for us.
Congressional Candidate Appears to Have One Harsh Message for the NRA & Its SupportersApril 5, 2014 9:47pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
Congressional Candidate Appears to Have One Harsh Message for the NRA & Its Supporters
@VoteMike2014
DickinsonForCongres

Quote
Anti choice, abortion haters are all basically mentally disabled. They cannot see or reason. It's all bible thumping
Congressional Candidate Appears to Have One Harsh Message for the NRA & Its SupportersApril 5, 2014 10:50pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
Congressional Candidate Appears to Have One Harsh Message for the NRA & Its Supporters
@VoteMike2014
DickinsonForCongress

Quote
@danieljpayne @HustlerMag @NRA that the NRA is a god awful fear mongering group and those who support the NRA are pure trash
Congressional Candidate Appears to Have One Harsh Message for the NRA & Its SupportersApril 5, 2014 8:52am via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
Congressional Candidate Appears to Have One Harsh Message for the NRA & Its Supporters
@VoteMike2014
DickinsonForCongress

A Congressional candidate running for the nomination to unseat House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) ignited an Internet firestorm when he appeared to go on a tirade against conservatives and the National Rifle Association Saturday night.

Mike Dickinson rejected support — on a Twitter account appearing to belong to him — from anyone who supports the NRA, is pro-life or participates in “Obama hating.”

Despite the overwhelming reaction to the tweets, the self-described “liberal Democrat” did not appear to issue any apologies. In fact, on Sunday morning he appeared to respond to some criticism by continuing to mock the intelligence of those questioning him.

“I went to engineering school and I support the NRA,” one person tweeted him.

“Went or graduated? RW has large college dropout rate,” a tweet on the Dickinson account replied.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/06/congressional-candidate-appears-to-have-one-harsh-message-for-the-nra-its-supporters/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: April 07, 2014, 10:04:56 am »

And the irony of all of this is that GOP-voters don't like Eric Cantor either(b/c he supports immigration reform, the NSA, and supports other Obama initiatives). And for that matter too - the NRA supports some measures of gun control(ie-they support the idea that guns should be taken out of the hands of the "mentally ill" - forget about the part where this same "mentally ill" are getting harmed by these mind-altering pharmaceutical drugs).

Sometimes it's just somewhat fun to sit back and watch this little sideshow.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: April 11, 2014, 08:51:55 am »

Congressional Candidate Appears to Have One Harsh Message for the NRA & Its Supporters

A Congressional candidate running for the nomination to unseat House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) ignited an Internet firestorm when he appeared to go on a tirade against conservatives and the National Rifle Association Saturday night.

Mike ****inson rejected support — on a Twitter account appearing to belong to him — from anyone who supports the NRA, is pro-life or participates in “Obama hating.”

Despite the overwhelming reaction to the tweets, the self-described “liberal Democrat” did not appear to issue any apologies. In fact, on Sunday morning he appeared to respond to some criticism by continuing to mock the intelligence of those questioning him.

“I went to engineering school and I support the NRA,” one person tweeted him.

“Went or graduated? RW has large college dropout rate,” a tweet on the ****inson account replied.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/06/congressional-candidate-appears-to-have-one-harsh-message-for-the-nra-its-supporters/


Greta Van Susteren Eviscerates Democrat Who Promises War On FNC and Tea Party
"That wasn't quite true, was it? It was wrong; it was a lie. Little bit of a lie, right? Tiny one, little bit of a lie?"




On her Fox News program Thursday, Greta Van Susteren interviewed Democratic Congressional Candidate Mike Dickinson who has promised “a war on the Tea Party, Fox News, NRA and other trash.” By the time the interview was done, Greta disproved each of his points about the Tea Party and Fox and she showed him to be dishonest in his campaign, arguing, "You don't mention any place in this little paragraph on your web site about working for Larry Flynt and writing stuff for him. You don't write about that at all, do you? You don't write about the strip clubs. You don't write when you lied to the newspaper and bragged you were the CEO of a strip club organization that you are not?"

The interview began with Van Susteren reading Dickinson's tweet "if elected I promise war on the Tea Party, Fox News, NRA and other trash." The host then turned to the guest and asked, "Why do you hate me?"  After a few more questions it was established that Dickinson, who is Eric Cantor's Democratic opponent, doesn't watch On The Record, and as Van Susteren commented, must have potatoes in his ears.

The conversation turned to the Tea Party; Van Susteren asked if anyone in the Tea Party was arrested in his district. After the Virginia Democrat conceded no laws were broken, Van Susteren got him to concede the only problem with the Tea Party was that Dickinson didn't like their message, and that the Tea Party "portray themselves as something that's totally not who they are."

That last phase gave Van Susteren the opening for the coup de grace:

    Van Susteren: Well, that’s really bad to portray yourself as not who you are, right?

    Dickinson: Exactly.

    Van Susteren: All right, then, let's go to this. Speaking of that a letter to the Times-Dispatch you wrote January 29, 2013, you claimed you were the CEO of Mid Atlantic Show Clubs, which is a group of strip clubs and stuff, right?

    Dickinson: That's correct.

    Van Susteren: That wasn't true, was it?

    Dickinson: I worked -- I was a consultant for them.

    Van Susteren: It says CEO of Mid Atlantic, were you the CEO?

    Dickinson:  I was the, I guess, the consulting operations director.

    Van Susteren: That wasn't quite true, was it? It was wrong; it was a lie. Little bit of a lie, right? Tiny one, little bit of a lie?

    Dickinson:  Yes.

    Van Susteren: All right. You like transparency? I went to your campaign website and it talks about how are. It says meet Mike. Okay. Meet Mike and do you know what? You didn't put in here about how you were a lobbyist for strip clubs and you learned from Larry Fyint not to sugarcoat but tell it how it is. But you didn’t tell it like it is here, right?

    Dickinson: If somebody asks me I will tell them what Larry Flynt said to me.

So it went for another few minutes; Van Susteren asking about every inconsistency and lack of transparency, Dickinson having to admit he wasn't being totally honest.

She ended by pointing out:

    You don't mention any place in this little paragraph on your web site about working for Larry Flynt and writing stuff for him. You don't write about that at all, do you? You don't write about the strip clubs. You don't write when you lied to the newspaper and bragged you were the CEO of a strip club organization that you are not?

One thing Van Susteren didn't point out is that for someone who wants to wage war on Fox News, Dickinson sure likes to be seen on their network.  At the end of February he appeared on the Sean Hannity program and had a similarlt embarrassing interview.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/greta-van-susteren-eviscerates-democrat-who-promises-war-fnc-and-tea-party
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: April 11, 2014, 09:04:54 am »

Ahhhh!! Say it isnt so! The REV. Al Sharpton caught lying? whats the world coming too. oh wait, he lies everytime he speaks.

Facts Derail Lying Sharpton's Informant Tale
Former FBI Mafia snitch spins fabricated story


In a desperate effort to explain away his work as a paid government informant, the Rev. Al Sharpton yesterday claimed that he first ran into the FBI’s arms after his life was threatened by gangsters, an incident that prompted him to then record 10 face-to-face encounters with one of those dangerous hoodlums.

That story is a lie.

In fact, Sharpton’s fabricated tale is belied by FBI records that provide a clear account of when and why he began working as a cooperating informant. After unveiling his fable at a morning press conference, Sharpton repeated his claims last night at the close of his “PoliticsNation” show on MSNBC, where fact checkers and bosses alike do not appear concerned with the truthfulness of the host’s off- and on-air pronouncements. well duh, its MSNBC .

By tampering with the chronology of--and motive for--his enlistment as an FBI informant, Sharpton is furiously attempting to cast that cooperation in the most favorable light possible. He was not a rat or a snitch, Sharpton protests. In fact, the reverend contends that he was not even aware the FBI considered him an informant. The money he was paid by his FBI handler? Well, that was just reimbursements for carfare, Sharpton claims. As he explained to MSNBC viewers, Sharpton was just a victim looking for Uncle Sam’s protection and intervention.

Sharpton contends that he first contacted the FBI in early-1984, immediately after his life was threatened by Salvatore Pisello, a wiseguy with music industry connections. As Sharpton tells it, Pisello was incensed that the activist was threatening to stage boycotts and demonstrations unless black promoters were given a piece of the upcoming “Victory Tour” featuring Michael Jackson and his brothers.

At a press conference yesterday at his Harlem headquarters, Sharpton claimed that Gambino soldier Joseph “Joe Bana” Buonanno set up the meeting at which Pisello threatened his life. In his autobiography, Sharpton reported that Pisello traveled from Los Angeles to New York to threaten him. The book, however, makes no mention of Buonanno, who is deceased, or his purported role in facilitating Pisello’s alleged death threat.

Sharpton did not bother to tell reporters how he knew Buonanno in the first place. Buonanno had been involved in the record industry for decades, and was business partners with Robert Curington, a convicted felon who also happened to be a close associate of Sharpton’s (and a vice president of the reverend’s not-for-profit National Youth Movement).

Concerned for his safety, Sharpton claims that he called the FBI in early-1984 and reported the Pisello encounter. In short order, the reverend began cooperating with federal agents. Spurred by the threat, Sharpton says he taped a series of ten face-to-face meetings with Buonanno--but not Pisello, the hoodlum who allegedly threatened the activist’s life.

Those Sharpton recordings--made with an FBI-issued briefcase containing a hidden recording device--spanned a three-month period beginning in April 1984, according to FBI records.

As Sharpton spun out this tale Tuesday, he claimed to have detailed the Mafia death threat in his 1986 book “Go And Tell Pharaoh.” He dismissed TSG’s review of this period of his life as “old news” since he had purportedly already written the story himself years ago.

However, while Sharpton’s book does refer to a menacing gangster named “Sal,” Buonanno does not rate a single mention. Additionally, Sharpton’s problems with “Sal” appear to have been settled quickly--and in the activist’s favor, according to the book.

So, if Pisello was the hood who purportedly threatened Sharpton’s life, why did the FBI direct the reverend to surreptitiously record Buonanno on 10 separate occasions? Because those recordings had nothing to do with the alleged Pisello threat, according to several law enforcement sources. In fact, two investigators said they could recall no connection between Buonanno and Pisello (who was never charged with threatening Sharpton).

Sharpton’s story, built on a narrative conflation, is preposterous. He wants viewers and journalists to believe that the FBI, upon being told about Pisello’s death threat, sent the reverend out wired to record another guy. Ten times.

Here is what actually happened:

Sharpton began cooperating with the FBI in mid-1983. So he had actually been working as a confidential informant for about nine months before Pisello’s purported threat, an encounter that Sharpton now falsely claims prompted him to first contact federal agents (and subsequently begin recording Buonanno).

The reverend was “flipped” by FBI agents three months after he was filmed in March 1983 (during a bureau sting) talking **** with an undercover agent. On a Thursday afternoon in June 1983, Sharpton showed up at a Manhattan apartment expecting to meet again with the undercover agent, who was posing as a former South American druglord seeking to launder money through boxing promotions.

Instead, Sharpton was confronted by FBI agents who showed him the “****” videotape. The panicked reverend agreed--on the spot--to cooperate with federal agents, according to sources familiar with the contents of Sharpton’s FBI informant file.

At the direction of his FBI handlers, Sharpton initially recorded conversations with boxing promoter Don King, who was the principal target of “Crown Royal,” the FBI undercover operation that had ensnared Sharpton in March 1983.

The date that Sharpton began cooperating is further fixed in a July 1984 draft of a wiretap affidavit. That document, sworn by an FBI agent, referred to Sharpton as “CI-7,” short for confidential informant #7. The description of “CI-7” noted that he had been providing information to the bureau for “in excess of one year.” “CI-7,” the document reported, had made a series of surreptitious recordings of Buonanno discussing a variety of Mafia business.

Sharpton wants the public to believe that he used his FBI valise to secretly record a wiseguy---over and over and over again--because another wiseguy threatened his life. Oh, he has also claimed that these mafioso were allegedly oppressing black recording artists, too.

So, that being the case, the FBI summaries of Sharpton’s meetings with Buonanno must be filled with references to threats directed at the civil rights leader. Surely Sharpton would have asked Buonanno something like, “Joe, why does your friend Sal want me dead?” Or even, “Joe, when you set up that meeting with Sal, did you know that he was going to threaten to clip me?” Maybe Sharpton would even take the opportunity to try and extract details of the mob’s pernicious influence on minority performers.

Strangely, though, the bureau summaries contain no such information. In fact, they read as if the two men were old friends, amiably discussing topics like extortion, murder, “made” men, and a guy named “Chin.” Buonanno even told Sharpton about his eighth-grade education and his birthday. Somehow Sharpton--who appeared remarkably comfortable with the wiseguy--was able to hide any signs of duress, despite that supposed death threat hanging over his processed head.

As TSG reported earlier this week, Sharpton’s involvement with Buonanno--a supposed facilitator of Mafia death threats--did not cease after his briefcase was switched off.

In fact, several years later, when Sharpton and Curington were seeking to collect a six-figure consulting fee owed to them by Joe Robinson, founder of Sugar Hill Records, “Joe Bana” was one of several hoodlums who showed up unannounced at the label’s New Jersey office. The hoodlums threatened Robinson over the money owed to Sharpton and Curington, whom the Drug Enforcement Administration once termed a “Class 1” narcotics trafficker.

After Robinson complained to police about the mob muscle pressuring him, a local cop kept an eye out for wiseguys arriving at Sugar Hill’s headquarters. One day, Detective Edward Stempinski of the Englewood Police Department caught Buonanno and a Genovese crime family figure at Sugar Hill. Stempinski, now retired, recalled that the wiseguys “didn’t look like they should be going into a rapper’s studio.”

So while Sharpton now links Buonanno to Pisello, “Joe Bana” was apparently an acceptable debt collector even after supposedly helping expedite a Mafia death threat. Perhaps the reverend consulted the Bible (Colossians 3:13), which advises, “Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.”

As he closed his “PoliticsNation” show yesterday, Sharpton claimed that he approached the FBI to “try to protect myself and others,” adding that, “I was an American citizen with every right to call law enforcement.” He also declared, “We must live in a country where people can call law enforcement and not be castigated.” (1 page)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/Al-Sharpton-918273
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: April 11, 2014, 01:32:55 pm »

Quote
Greta Van Susteren Eviscerates Democrat Who Promises War On FNC and Tea Party
"That wasn't quite true, was it? It was wrong; it was a lie. Little bit of a lie, right? Tiny one, little bit of a lie?"


The irony of all this is that even the GOP establishment is warring against the Tea Party too.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #52 on: April 13, 2014, 02:58:51 am »

The established parties needed something to deflect attention off them. So they invented the Tea Party, a "political party" that doesn't even exist.

To my knowledge, there is no place in the country that you can register to vote with the "Tea Party".
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #53 on: April 22, 2014, 02:10:20 pm »

John Paul Stevens: Rewrite the Constitution to Ban Guns

To the man once known as the "Chief Justice of the Liberal Supreme Court," America's Constitution is an outdated and flawed document that needs fixing.

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says he'd make at least six changes to the Constitution, two of which are (so predictably) related to guns. Of course he'd abolish the death penalty (although not for unborn children), limit spending on elections (especially those mean old Republicans), and end the practice of gerrymandering.

The profound ideas are part of his new book, "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution." Stevens, 94, uses the tome to rewrite (or eliminate) Supreme Court decisions on which he dissented.

Stevens would alter the Second Amendment to allow  gun control (he was on the losing end of a 5-4 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court declared Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense). He would make it clear that only a state's militia, not citizens, has a constitutional right to bear arms. The alteration, he said, would allow lawmakers to ban gun ownership altogether.

But he's not optimistic the idea will go anywhere.

"I'd think the chance of changing the Second Amendment is pretty remote," Stevens told the Associated Press. "The purpose is to cause further reflection over a period of time because it seems to me with ample time and ample reflection, people in the United States would come to the same conclusion that people in other countries have."

Stevens would also have a constitutional amendment to allow Congress to force states to participate in the gun checks (he was again on the losing side of Printz v. United States, in which the court voted 5-4 to ban forced federal gun checks).

Appointed by President Gerald Ford in 1975, Stevens went on to become one of the court's most liberal members. The court ruled contrary to his opinion often, so Stevens came up with the six amendments to fix what he considers mistakes (never mind that the Constitution has been amended just 18 times since the Founding Fathers wrote the charter).

On gerrymandering, Stevens' amendment would require that congressional and state districts be "compact and composed of contiguous territory." And he objects to recent rulings that struck down federal limits on political contributions by wealthy individuals, saying they were "not about electing your representative."

"It's about financing the election of representatives of other people. It's about the influence of out-of-state voters on the election in your district. It sort of exposes a basic flaw in the recent cases," he told the AP.

Stevens predicts that some big issues will soon come before the court, according to USA Today.

    Among the issues to watch for, he said, are a constitutional right to same-sex marriage ('Sooner or later, they'll have to address the question'), gun control ([Justice Antonin] Scalia's 2008 opinion protecting handguns in the home won't be the final word), and government surveillance programs, which Stevens defends as constitutional.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/john-paul-stevens-rewrite-constitution-ban-guns
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: May 06, 2014, 04:59:32 am »

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #55 on: May 07, 2014, 07:46:22 am »

6 Times Democrats Demonstrated Their Hatred of the Bible

On Monday, news broke that ubiquitously idiotic Secretary of State John Kerry uttered these immortal lines at a talk with embassy staff in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia:



    This is a time here in Africa where there are a number of different cross-currents of modernity that are coming together to make things even more challenging. Some people believe that people ought to be able to only do what they say they ought to do, or to believe what they say they ought to believe, or live by their interpretation of something that was written down a thousand plus, two thousand years ago. That’s not the way I think most people want to live.

Putting aside the rocky seas and cross-currents of modernity, Kerry’s statement that most people do not want to live based on “something that was written down a thousand plus, two thousand years ago” demonstrates his – and his party’s – enormous hatred for the Bible. They see the Bible as an antiquated document, a dire opponent of the new, modern morality. Kerry makes no distinction between the Koran, the Old Testament, or the New Testament; he makes no distinction between the myriad streams of religious thought throughout history. They are all the same. Anyone who believes in ancient codes of morality is out of step with history.

In this, Kerry is no different from the rest of his party. Today’s Democratic Party has become the enemy of Biblical religion. Not only do they stand for the morality of Biblically-sanctioned behavior including same-sex marriage and abortion, their words and actions prove their distaste for that gauche old document.

Barack Obama’s “Bitter Clingers.” In April 2008, then-Senator Obama was caught on tape at a fundraiser in San Francisco. Obama stated:

    You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Only idiots, racists, xenophobes, and gun-clingers believe in the Bible.

Democrats Attempt to Remove God from the Platform. In 2012, the Democratic National Convention had to overrule its own constituents in order to place God back in the platform. The 2008 platform included this language: “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.” That was the only mention. Even that mention was removed, and only approved after DNC Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa violated the rules of the convention and declared over a voice vote that God would be placed back in.

Nancy Pelosi’s Faux-Religious Biblical Ignorance. In 2008, Nancy Pelosi wrote, “The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.’” She said it on Earth Day, Martin Luther King Day, and Christmas. There is no such verse. But Pelosi does think her moral values, including her ardent support for abortion, are the values of Jesus.

Harry Reid Says His Enemies Always Cite The Bible. Those horrible Bible-thumpers just won’t leave the Senate Majority Leader alone. After criticizing rancher Cliven Bundy (and calling his supporters domestic terrorists), Reid said he received “ugly, vile, vulgar” mailed threats. Nearly all, he stated, cited the Bible. Reid has also criticized fellow Mormon Mitt Romney, stating that he is “not the face of Mormonism” and that Romney had “sullied” the religion.

Barney Frank’s Bible Hatred. The self-proclaimed “pot-smoking atheist” said that he was looking forward to his husband swearing him in on the Constitution rather than the Bible.

The general distaste for the Bible so long as it doesn’t back Democratic positions doesn’t stop many Democrats from citing it in cynical fashion. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) stated in September that opposing increases to federal welfare would send you to hell: “Anyone that’s familiar with the Bible, anything like that, Jesus said that you’re going straight to hell if you don’t treat the lesser of his brothers and sisters.” That paraphrase, used frequently by Barack Obama, is a favorite of leftists who don’t seem to read Thessalonians 3:10 (“He who is not willing to work, let him not eat”).

But selective Biblical quotation is a favorite of leftists who interpret the Bible the same way they do the Constitution: as a Chinese menu designed to allow picking and choosing. That’s because when many Democrats take the Bible as a whole, they realize how much they despise it. After all, the Bible doesn’t state that Barack Obama and government ought to be given divine power.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/06/6-Times-Democrats-Demonstrated-Their-Hatred-of-the-Bible
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: May 28, 2014, 08:19:10 am »

CNN Anchor Thinks Michelle Obama Signs Bills Into Law
Let's just say Ms. Costello is a little confused these days.






CNN anchor Carol Costello thinks the First Lady of the United States is somehow constitutionally empowered to sign bills into law.

Newsbusters noted that the confused anchor at the "most trusted name in news" was reporting on the ongoing fight over the school lunch mandates put in place by Congress in 2010. After showing a clip of Michelle Obama, who championed the effort, Costello informed her audience that Mrs. Obama used non-existent executive authority to sign the act into law:

    That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when she signed the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act into law. Well now some members of Congress and the food industry want to roll back that initiative and loosen requirements to cut costs. Today the First Lady takes the unusual step of delivering White House remarks speaking out against that House measure and in another twist, a one-time ally of Mrs. Obama's initiative is now a critic.

Of course, this is the same CNN anchor who proclaimed some sort of biblical basis for global warming last week when she proclaimed "climate change deniers aren't listening to science or they’re not reading the Bible" so let's just say Ms. Costello is a little confused these days. 

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/cnn-anchor-thinks-michelle-obama-signs-bills-law
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #57 on: May 29, 2014, 05:37:11 am »

Hillary Frowns On Income Inequality From Atop A Glittering Mountain Of Wealth And Privilege
Let them eat cake. But you know, YOUR cake. Not hers.


Jerome Hudson at The Daily Surge on Wednesday pointed out a glaring, if typical, disconnect between the rhetoric and reality of Hillary Clinton in her new video promoting her new book. In the video, the former Secretary says that we have to make the "hard choices" necessary to fight the "cancer" of inequality.

"I think people will see that we are strong and well-equipped to restore prosperity here at home, to deal with the cancer of inequality," she says, adding that it "doesn’t happen by accident or wishing for it or engaging in ideological and rhetorical battles." This sounds like a precursor to remarking on the value of hard work, entrepreneurial spirit, or American ingenuity. Instead, she makes the assertion that prosperity only happens when "people come together and make a series of choices, including some hard choices to establish a foundation for a strong economy, a strong united society." You know, it takes a village. Or if you prefer "you didn't build that."

Hudson points out the glaring inequity in Clinton's video about inequality.

    Hillary, champion of the middle class, has made more than 90 speeches since leaving her post as Sec. of State. And if you guessed that she has been speaking to your average middle class audience, you’d be dead wrong. Most of Hillary’s high-profile appearances included private equity firms, big investment banks, and a host of colleges and universities. Hillary was recently hammered when her usual speaking fee of $200,000 a speech was revealed by the New York Times.

    Hillary also snagged an $8 million advance for her memoir “Living History” and another $14 million for “Hard Choices.”

That's right, the very book Hillary is promoting in this talk of hard choices and the "cancer" of inequality has brought her a whopping, multi-million dollar payday right off the bat. One would guess that enormous advance isn't going to be "spread around."

Not that this is anything new for the party of the people. Just last month National Review reported on pet Democrat economist Paul Krugman being paid a quarter of a million dollars to study, you guessed it, income inequality. And one can hardly leave the house or go online without hearing some celebrity demanding higher taxes for more social benefits, never mind that they are absolutely free to pay more right this very minute if they chose.

Being wealthy is no bar to helping the middle class prosper. In fact, innovators and achievers are almost always job creators and wealth creators for the middle class. But Democrats don't believe in that. They daily espouse the Robin Hood doctrine of the economy. Hudson concludes that "it’s going to be really hard for a serial-millionaire, one-percenter like Hillary Clinton to put herself up as America’s foremost champion of the middle-class," but that's usually untrue. Above all their other sloganeering and catch phrasing, one motto stands apart as the singular summary of the Democrats: do as I say, not as I do.

In any case, just remember this. Our leadership is not, "somehow, endowed, from birth, of our country." Because sense to make, is that, thought, she has.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/hillary-frowns-income-inequality-atop-glittering-mountain-wealth-and-privilege
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: July 17, 2014, 11:48:24 am »

No, you're not watching a Hellywood movie... Shocked

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/16/senate-republicans-paid-mississippi-attack-ads-pai/
7/16/14
Senate Republicans paid for Mississippi attack ads painting tea partyers as racist: report

Mississippi attack ads that painted conservative Republicans and tea partyers as racists were funded by Senate Republicans, RedState Editor-in-Chief Erick Erickson has confirmed.

Advertisements by All Citizens for Mississippi, which attacked state Sen. Chris McDaniel and painted conservatives as racists, were partly funded by Sens. Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Rob Portman, Bob Corker and Roy Blunt, RedState senate-republican-leaders-paid-for-attacks-against-conservatives/” target=”_blank”>reported.

According to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission, All Citizens for Mississippi received funding from a Haley Barbour-backed group called Mississippi Conservatives.

“Mississippi Conservatives, in turn, was funded in part by Sally Bradshaw of the RNC’s Growth and Opportunity Project, former RNC Chairman and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the political action committees created for Senators Mitch McConnell ($50,000), John Cornyn ($50,000), Rob Portman ($25,000), Bob Corker ($25,000), and Roy Blunt ($5,000),” the report said.

Mr. McDaniel, who was narrowly defeated by Republican Sen. Thad Cochran after being forced into a runoff, has called on the Mississippi Supreme Court for an emergency order granting him access to original poll books.

He hopes to prove that some people who voted in the June 24 runoff election that killed his Senate chances also cast ballots in the June 3 Democratic primary, CBS News senate-runoff-saga/” target=”_blank”>reported Wednesday.

Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21124



View Profile
« Reply #59 on: August 07, 2014, 07:27:43 pm »

Dem Rep: I Voted Against Funding Israel’s Anti-Missile Program Because We Need A Cease Fire

what??  Huh

Yeah, that would have worked.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Of course) appeared on Meet The Press yesterday to make it clear that he is as clueless about foreign policy and the nature of Hamas as just about every other Democrat.

When flailing host David Gregory (D-also) pointed out to Ellison that he supported Iron Dome, Israel’s anti-missile system that has effectively and repeatedly thwarted the attempts of Hamas to kill Israeli civilians, Ellison nodded in agreement.

“I always did,” Ellison said.

Then, Gregory asked him why he just voted against additional funding for Iron Dome.

“Because a cease-fire is what we should prioritize now,” was Ellison’s answer.

We would like to express our amazement at the fact that Ellison said that with a straight face, but we’ve long been accustomed to Democrats appearing absolutely bonkers when it comes to understanding the nature of evil around the world.

“A cease-fire protects civilians on both sides,” Ellison continued, apparently willing to double-down on his ignorance on national television. “It doesn’t just say we’re only concerned about people on one side.”

In fact, we should only be concerned about people on one side. Israel is a constitutional democracy. Hamas is a terrorist organization.

So, yeah. Let’s be concerned with the people who promote democracy by giving them protection from the terrorists.

That policy makes sense to everybody except Democratic politicians.

Have  a look at the video below.



http://downtrend.com/brian-carey/dem-rep-i-voted-against-funding-israels-anti-missile-program-because-we-need-a-cease-fire/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines