Originally Posted by Guest

Well, tell us when the last time was that Americans fought in a war for our freedom.

Sure was not Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Korea. World War II was the last time. That war ended 70 years ago.

How many soldiers died in all those wars after WWII? I bet their mothers would have liked them to stay home instead of being involved in civil wars or wars based on lies.

Each "war" has its own story and to present them in this manner as if they were all the same, in the same time period with all the same 'actors" is extremely short sighted.

You have a very distorted and very naive view of history.

Of course, each has negatives...each had people who did not want us in them.

Heck, you mention WW2 as the last time, etc. Do you know how many history books have been written as to how many died BECAUSE WE WAITED TO GET INVOLVED ?

You make history sound simple....trust me...it is not.

Originally Posted by Guest

Well, tell us when the last time was that Americans fought in a war for our freedom.

Sure was not Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Korea. World War II was the last time. That war ended 70 years ago.

How many soldiers died in all those wars after WWII? I bet their mothers would have liked them to stay home instead of being involved in civil wars or wars based on lies.

I would have rather stayed home, but I didn't think your bed was large enough for us both to hide under.

Originally Posted by Guest

Well, tell us when the last time was that Americans fought in a war for our freedom.

Sure was not Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Korea. World War II was the last time. That war ended 70 years ago.

How many soldiers died in all those wars after WWII? I bet their mothers would have liked them to stay home instead of being involved in civil wars or wars based on lies.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

"Except For Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, WAR has Never done much of anything good... "

"You can lead a liberal to the truth, but you can't make them THINK !"

Originally Posted by Guest

I would have rather stayed home, but I didn't think your bed was large enough for us both to hide under.

Originally Posted by Guest

"Media Matters for America (MMfA) is an IRS tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization that purports to document supposed conservative media bias. Media Matters Action Network (MMAN) is the affiliated 501(c)(4) organization that is the advocacy arm of MMfA.

Media Matters original goal was to serve as a “fact-checker” that focused on conservative media programming. But in practice, the organization primarily criticizes the opinions of Rush Limbaugh and the hosts and guests of Fox News Channel. MMfA was particularly focused Glenn Beck and was credited with leading the campaign to remove the host from Fox News airwaves.

In 2004, Democratic political operative and journalist David Brock received $2 million from several rich progressives to start Media Matters, with the goal of “monitoring” conservative commentators and to note any factual errors that they present on their television and radio programs. There was also an expectation that the material could be used by liberal talk radio hosts to help fill air time. MMfA was developed with help from the Center for American Progress.

https://www.activistfacts.com/organi...s-for-america/

So why didn't the IRS investigate Media Matters tax exempt 501 (c) (3) status as they had virtually ever conservative organization seeking such relief? Why did the IRS go on such a witch hunt ( criminal in nature) following Citizens United?

Progressives have a corner on unethical and dare I say tipping close to criminal dealings in order to prevail .

Originally Posted by Guest

First, speaking of the candidates as you did, a FULL year ahead before any primaries serves no purpose. Of course, you know the list of leaders in polls at this time is filled with mostly non Presidents so will not respond to that part. I also find it offensive and rude calling people idiots. Does not do anything but make you look bad frankly but that is your call. Mostly when I speak negative, as I do and will, on Clinton for example or even our President, I offer a backup for what I am saying and have never referred to anyone as you did WITHOUT backing it up.

You are misunderstanding the idea here. I am taking no side on the continuing debate on Fox news. That debate was begun by Media Matters and the Democrat party in concert with their media outlets. I am neither a watcher of Fox news on a steady basis, nor any of the cable news channels.

I am being a bit self centered here, but want to insure you understand where I am coming from. I watch Morning Joe every morning of my life actually and have since the day it began. I also will watch CNN and MSNBC depending on what I am looking for.

Not sure I understand your question on other stations, but the implication is that Fox is favored to watch because they lean right and that Republicans have no other place to go. Now that gets to the crux of my point.

I subscribe to theory that you learn by investigating. Investigate by reading. If you want to add some tv watching to your background, so be it. Most of the basis for my information and posts are from reading.

The very nature of my comments revolve about people who actually use Media Matters or other sources (THINK PROGRESS for one). Those sites do not lean left; THEY ARE ACTUAL WORKING PARTS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY and using them as a source of information is totally dumb because you will only read revisionist history or revisionist facts. YOU WILL NOT LEARN ANYTHING. YOU WILL BE BRAINWASHED.

You are presenting your brain with information you know by its very essence is skewed and it is not hidden that is what it is. I am not inventing these things. Heck, Media Matters is a tax exempt orginization and THINK PROGRESS was set up by and for the Democratic party.

Then, to use that as a source on a political forum to make a point simply shows how naive and brainwashed you are.

I do not ever want to be that way. I respect people disagreeing with me but based on the facts and not spoon fed revised and mostly screened information.

Do the Republicans have such sites ? OF COURSE THEY DO. I see very little of them used to make a point on here and have just grown every frustrated with people using all these sites that are not even pretending to be news sites.

Fox is biased...ok.....but it is in fact a news orginization despite the cute little remarks that the sheep use on here use to describe them. I am not defending Fox in anyway and totally understand that their NON NEWS PROGRAMMING is skewed right.

What your point is I am not sure, but hope I clarified mine. Presenting things as news that are diatribes from a political party is sort of self degeneration of a sort. You simply admit you are brainwashed and have nothing to add from your own mind.

On the Benghazi question you raise, I think we have just begun with the questions and they will sharpen as more information is known. Ms Clinton is on the record on a number of things that she cannot take back. It was a political action, both hers and the Presidents and the commitee.

As I said, so what to the politics of the committee. Every black person shot by a white policeman is used by the Democratic party and the WH...every multiple shooting is used by anti gun people and if you are anywhere near as smart as you purport yourself to be, you know how it works. Benghazi committee was and is only part 1

It seems, sir, that you have no problem with the initial person making insulting remakes about someone, but have a problem with the person that responds in kind. If that is the way you want to play things, fine.

I have never read Media Matters. So, I have no idea what you are talking about. Why do you people always do this? Always try to place on someone that doesn't agree with you on the extreme. You always want to pigeonhole someone to the far left, that makes it easier to get your point across. You have a hard time dealing with a moderate independent, which I am, but very little problem dealing with a far left Democratic.

You watch Morning Joe. So, you heard that the only person asking questions that related to the Benghazi attacks was Representative Duckworth. Everybody else was either attacking Hillary Clinton, or defending her. There will be no sharper questions as the hearing goes on, just more political nonsense. That may include the Democrats walking out of the hearing. There is a big difference between using Benghazi as a political attack on your opponent, and gun violence as a trigger for stricter gun laws. What legislation s going to come out of the Benghazi hearing?

Back to the Republicans running for president, you watch Morning Joe, so you saw the interview with John Kasich. This is the fifth time I asked this question with no responses. What is wrong with John Kasich as the Republican's candidate for president? You had to see that he was a clear thinking, well informed, reasonable person running for president. He knows that he has to work with Democrats to get things done, and this makes him unacceptable as Republican candidate for president.

Originally Posted by Guest

It seems, sir, that you have no problem with the initial person making insulting remakes about someone, but have a problem with the person that responds in kind. If that is the way you want to play things, fine.

I have never read Media Matters. So, I have no idea what you are talking about. Why do you people always do this? Always try to place on someone that doesn't agree with you on the extreme. You always want to pigeonhole someone to the far left, that makes it easier to get your point across. You have a hard time dealing with a moderate independent, which I am, but very little problem dealing with a far left Democratic.

You watch Morning Joe. So, you heard that the only person asking questions that related to the Benghazi attacks was Representative Duckworth. Everybody else was either attacking Hillary Clinton, or defending her. There will be no sharper questions as the hearing goes on, just more political nonsense. That may include the Democrats walking out of the hearing. There is a big difference between using Benghazi as a political attack on your opponent, and gun violence as a trigger for stricter gun laws. What legislation s going to come out of the Benghazi hearing?

Back to the Republicans running for president, you watch Morning Joe, so you saw the interview with John Kasich. This is the fifth time I asked this question with no responses. What is wrong with John Kasich as the Republican's candidate for president? You had to see that he was a clear thinking, well informed, reasonable person running for president. He knows that he has to work with Democrats to get things done, and this makes him unacceptable as Republican candidate for president.

Originally Posted by Guest

It seems, sir, that you have no problem with the initial person making insulting remakes about someone, but have a problem with the person that responds in kind. If that is the way you want to play things, fine.

I have never read Media Matters. So, I have no idea what you are talking about. Why do you people always do this? Always try to place on someone that doesn't agree with you on the extreme. You always want to pigeonhole someone to the far left, that makes it easier to get your point across. You have a hard time dealing with a moderate independent, which I am, but very little problem dealing with a far left Democratic.

You watch Morning Joe. So, you heard that the only person asking questions that related to the Benghazi attacks was Representative Duckworth. Everybody else was either attacking Hillary Clinton, or defending her. There will be no sharper questions as the hearing goes on, just more political nonsense. That may include the Democrats walking out of the hearing. There is a big difference between using Benghazi as a political attack on your opponent, and gun violence as a trigger for stricter gun laws. What legislation s going to come out of the Benghazi hearing?

Back to the Republicans running for president, you watch Morning Joe, so you saw the interview with John Kasich. This is the fifth time I asked this question with no responses. What is wrong with John Kasich as the Republican's candidate for president? You had to see that he was a clear thinking, well informed, reasonable person running for president. He knows that he has to work with Democrats to get things done, and this makes him unacceptable as Republican candidate for president.

You give yourself much credit. I was not responding to YOU; I was responding to the posts on Media Matters.

Let's understand, all is not about YOU. Nobody did anything to you, yet you seem to always feel put upon.


Again, let me help you understand. Republicans criticized for using Benghazi for political purpose. I say, so what...every black shooting by a white is made a political issue by the Democratic Party....every multiple victim shooting is made political by the Democratic Party. That was the extent of it.

My perception of candidates and yours is different, thankfully, and since we are so far away, while I have preferences, my mind is not made up. The debates might help if they are finally able to discuss issues.

I might add to the last post, the continuing politicizing of black/white continues as the President AND VALARIE JARRETT met with Black Lives Matter last week, and encouraged them to keep going.

He says he understands them. While blacks continue to be slaughtered in Chicago and elsewhere, NOBODY goes there to March. In NYC where another policeman was just killed, there was an anti police rally.

No politics here, right ?

Originally Posted by Guest

I might add to the last post, the continuing politicizing of black/white continues as the President AND VALARIE JARRETT met with Black Lives Matter last week, and encouraged them to keep going.

He says he understands them. While blacks continue to be slaughtered in Chicago and elsewhere, NOBODY goes there to March. In NYC where another policeman was just killed, there was an anti police rally.

No politics here, right ?

He is padding the future positions of the Barry and Michelle movement.
A new law firm....Sharpton, Jackson, Obama and Obama; Special interest, minority and racial bias experts. If you don't have the problem we can get it for you!!!

Originally Posted by Guest

He is padding the future positions of the Barry and Michelle movement.
A new law firm....Sharpton, Jackson, Obama and Obama; Special interest, minority and racial bias experts. If you don't have the problem we can get it for you!!!

You are assuming that the Obama's will ever wish to work again.

Originally Posted by Guest

Benghazi: GOP's helping hand for Hillary Clinton - CNN.com

I am having a little trouble really with the continued attacks on Hillary Clinton.

She is a snake and a sneaky horrible person! SHE and her husband are all about power and making money. Remember when she gave a fund manager a $1,000 and within months it was $100,000!!!!

What about all the other scandals during their time in Arkansas while she was with the Law Firm there.

The other day she went off talking about Republicans and women's issues. She compared the Republicans to the Terrorists in how they treat their woman. She should have compared the terrorists to her husband in how he treated women!!!!!
She is a joke!

Originally Posted by Guest

She is a snake and a sneaky horrible person! SHE and her husband are all about power and making money. Remember when she gave a fund manager a $1,000 and within months it was $100,000!!!!

What about all the other scandals during their time in Arkansas while she was with the Law Firm there.

The other day she went off talking about Republicans and women's issues. She compared the Republicans to the Terrorists in how they treat their woman. She should have compared the terrorists to her husband in how he treated women!!!!!
She is a joke!

Originally Posted by Guest

You give yourself much credit. I was not responding to YOU; I was responding to the posts on Media Matters.

Let's understand, all is not about YOU. Nobody did anything to you, yet you seem to always feel put upon.


Again, let me help you understand. Republicans criticized for using Benghazi for political purpose. I say, so what...every black shooting by a white is made a political issue by the Democratic Party....every multiple victim shooting is made political by the Democratic Party. That was the extent of it.

My perception of candidates and yours is different, thankfully, and since we are so far away, while I have preferences, my mind is not made up. The debates might help if they are finally able to discuss issues.

You simply can't help yourself. In the real world when you hit "quote post", most normal people think that you are replying to them. In your world when you get called on a stupid assumption, you reply with the above attack someone that actually has a brain.

You don't watch Morning Joe. So you have no idea, what John Kasich said during that interview. I am looking for a candidate that is willing to work the Democrats to get things done. You are looking for someone that literally wants to continue with deadlock in Washington. Getting something done requires something that they don't have any respect for opposing views. I am right. You are wrong. So, why should a bother lowering myself to even talk with an interior being? All men are created equal, but Republicans are more equal.

Concerning Benghazi, since it is nothing more than a political stunt, the Republican National committee should reimburse the government for the cost of the hearing.

You know Hillary to me never did answer the questions like they were asked, she side step the question & answered it just the way she wanted. When she didn't answer the question the way it was asked, what do we think she'll do as president if something like this come up when she's running the country. She can turn the whole situation around & probably continue to blame it on Bush & sound convincing enough that we'll buy & if we don't like it what she says, what are we going to do about it, NOTHING! Hillary to me is a pathetic liar & dishonest person. Besides did we really think Hillary would be thrown out of the campaign, she's the Dem. best candidate out of the 5 that's running. Don't know why the other 4 are wasting money!