This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

All spam threads have been merged here.

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 3 of 4]

Yeah only black people get pulled over because cops can see through black windows. It's a special power they have. Did you know that?

View user profile
Late evening bump.

View user profile
Trump is going to be impeached for crimes against his country.

View user profile
SADLY, THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY DEFINES THE ENTIRE NATION NOW IN THE EYES OF THE WORLD, AND HAS EXPOSED OUR BELOVED COUNTRY TO RIDICULE AND DISDAIN.  TURMOIL, CONFUSION AND DISTRUST HAVE ONLY DEEPENED AROUND THE PLANET, AND THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY THREATENS TO BE JUDGED BY HISTORY AS THE WORST DISASTER THAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE U.S. OF A., RUINING OUR LEGACY FOR THE AGES.

PUT THAT IN YOUR BUMPING, SPAMMING THREAD AND SMOKE IT!!

View user profile
He's going to be impeached so we won't have to worry about it.

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:SADLY, THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY DEFINES THE ENTIRE NATION NOW IN THE EYES OF THE WORLD, AND HAS EXPOSED OUR BELOVED COUNTRY TO RIDICULE AND DISDAIN.  TURMOIL, CONFUSION AND DISTRUST HAVE ONLY DEEPENED AROUND THE PLANET, AND THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY THREATENS TO BE JUDGED BY HISTORY AS THE WORST DISASTER THAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE U.S. OF A., RUINING OUR LEGACY FOR THE AGES.

PUT THAT IN YOUR BUMPING, SPAMMING THREAD AND SMOKE IT!!

Amen sister!

View user profile
IMASOCK wrote:
They are working on locking her away

AND YOUR PROOF OF THIS IS...???????  AND WHO ARE "THEY"????  SHOW SUBSTANTIAL, CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OR SHUT UP.

View user profile
“You can dislike the fact that Obama was elected, yes, definitely, and yet still understand and accept ultimately that he was elected this time around. Or you can have a complete mental and emotional collapse and let the Obama presidency define you

Advice imasock took 8 years ago.

View user profile
Yeah only black people get pulled over because cops can see through black windows. It's a special power they have. Did you know that?


I do know that the data is not corrupted by personal issues with men or black people which says that driving while black is a real legal problem in America. I do know that the fake plate checks, and tinted window arguments to bypass the constitution is standard operating practice in the driving while black expanding problem.

I am excited that HD mirror cameras are selling really well as citizens in their ads are showing bad stops all over America where you can remove the mirror camera unit from your backup mirror and take it into court. It has a swivel which allows a person to swivel to the driver's window when the officer approaches the car. As the Minneapolis shooting of the woman who made a 911 call turned their cameras off, every black kid should not get into a car without one which is only fifty bucks. Until those folks who provide cover to a standing army keeping a segment of our population in a state of martial law where the constitution is thrown out, videos by citizens will be required because racist do not change their views.

View user profile
The leftists never demanded accountability during Obama's terms... never.

Their credibility is shot.

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:SADLY, THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY DEFINES THE ENTIRE NATION NOW IN THE EYES OF THE WORLD, AND HAS EXPOSED OUR BELOVED COUNTRY TO RIDICULE AND DISDAIN.  TURMOIL, CONFUSION AND DISTRUST HAVE ONLY DEEPENED AROUND THE PLANET, AND THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY THREATENS TO BE JUDGED BY HISTORY AS THE WORST DISASTER THAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE U.S. OF A., RUINING OUR LEGACY FOR THE AGES.

PUT THAT IN YOUR BUMPING, SPAMMING THREAD AND SMOKE IT!!

Yep. And electing him has made our country look like it's full of backward, easily-misled idiots. Which, unfortunately, it is, by around 36% at last count...

Naturally countries like Russia are going to try to exploit that, while other countries mistrust us. America has become willfully ignorant of world history, but other countries, where the bombs actually fell, remember things that happened around 80 years ago. And we look a lot like the country that caused it did, in its early stages, what with all this "the press is the enemy" and "lock up our political opponents" and "this ethnicity is the enemy" and demands for loyalty, rampant nationalism, etc. stuff going on. It's still early yet, but the direction they want to take things is already clear.

View user profile
Racists don't change their views? You did. But then again it was only after you faced your mortality and the fear of possibly spending your afterlife in hell. I'm sure your God will consider it was for selfish reasons and not because you had a real epiphany.

View user profile
Racists don't change their views? You did. But then again it was only after you faced your mortality and the fear of possibly spending your afterlife in hell. I'm sure your God will consider it was for selfish reasons and not because you had a real epiphany.

You really do have a reading deficit over the years where your comprehension is non existent on some conceptual higher level thought. First, I was born into a system which every day through a hundred signals tells me that black people are inferior, less intelligent, and dangerous. I also have been immersed in white privilege which when I buy real estate or where I live has always been surrounded by that white privilege. From grade school I have tried to fight racism and hate, but the truth is in studies of black children choosing which baby doll is the pretty doll, or mean doll these young children choose the white baby over the black baby. Is it self hate at four and five years old, or are these children already being bombarded with white privilege and the perception that darker skin is bad.

One never completely can reject racism taught as a child. The idea that mortality or questionable concepts of heaven and hell are what drive a person to rationally question their own and societies stereotypes is a life time pursuit which has nothing to do with death. Some dear friends have the same journey, but who work to rationally prove that in fact black people are inferior. The moral choices are simple. You join the lynch mob, and send a letter, or you condemn the same, and call balls and strikes fairly. It is that simple. Driving while black is a huge American problem which if you are not so blind to your own slant and racist indoctrination, you deny and fight the truth.

View user profile
I'm afraid your opinion of those who lack higher level thought conceptions is only equaled by your opinion everyone is a racist. You despise stereotypical views then you engage in one of the highest order despite irrefutable proof. You lack the ability to discern individual circumstances which makes you as racist as the one's you are calling so.

View user profile
There was a clear reason Vlad wanted Trump to be President. He was controllable. Hillary not so much.

View user profile
Comprehension of concepts is a simple yes or no answer. It does not involve stereotypes. Either a person understands that 2 + 2= 4 or they do not understand. The deficiency is not discovered by stereotype but actual lack of understanding of a concept. The concept that driving while black results in unequal treatment and verified by empirical studies as shown by my earlier law review article is simple comprehension of that concept, and not a stereotype, but a concept backed by empirical evidence.

View user profile
Oh yeah? Do you understand the concept of visual proof as opposed to self righteous race baiting w/ no proof? You can post all the empirical studies you want but absolute proof will win out every time. Do you get that concept, Oatie? I doubt it.

View user profile
http://nypost.com/2017/07/15/hillarys-white-house-would-be-no-different-from-trumps/

It wouldn’t have taken much for Hillary Clinton to prevail on Election Night. Donald Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins of less than 1 percent in three states that had gone Democratic in the previous five elections — Michigan by 10,000 votes, Wisconsin by 22,000 and Pennsylvania by 34,000.

Yes, if only she hadn’t run what was likely the worst presidential campaign in our lifetimes, Hillary Clinton could have stitched together around 80,000 votes and could have been sitting in the Oval Office right now.

The interesting question is: How would America in July 2017 be different under a President Clinton rather than a President Trump?

The astonishing answer, if you really think it through, is: not all that different when it comes to policy.
Let’s face it: With the exception of the Supreme Court appointment and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, Trump has astoundingly little in the accomplishments column — especially for a president whose party controls both houses of Congress.

We’re nearing the end of July without a health-care reform bill. There’s no tax cut. Trump has his Cabinet in place but hundreds of sub-cabinet positions have yet to be filled. His flashy effort to restrict immigration from Muslim countries ran afoul of the courts and is only now being implemented in part.
Yes, Trump struck Syria in response to the use of chemical weapons in April — but President Hillary might well have done the same.

So Trump has gotten very little done. The same would have been true if Hillary had won.
She would have taken office with Congress in exactly the same configuration that Trump found—a four-seat Republican majority in the Senate and a 24-seat GOP advantage in the House of Representatives.

What would the Republicans have done in the Hillary era so far? They would have sought to stymie her, or challenge her.

They would have rejected any effort she would have made to revise ObamaCare in favor of outright repeal — a repeal she would have vetoed.
They might have sought to block some of her Cabinet appointments and slowed down the process of filling the departments, but she would certainly have sent far more nominees up to Capitol Hill for confirmation than Trump has and would have gotten most of them through.

Once again, the sole major difference would have been in the composition of the Supreme Court. But it’s very possible that by this point, Hillary’s nominee would not yet have been confirmed — and Gorsuch’s first few votes on the court did not result in critical policy changes that will affect America’s future.
The most significant case on which he sat, a religious-freedom issue, was decided seven to two, so if he hadn’t been on the court and a more liberal person had been, the vote might have been six to three instead.
Gorsuch did rule on Trump’s travel ban, but all the liberal justices ruled (at least partially) in Trump’s favor anyway.

In the case of Hillary, her own ethically compromised self would have been sharing living quarters with her ethically compromised ex-president husband.
So what would have been different? For one thing, we would not be living through the insanely overheated Trumpian political atmosphere in Washington and throughout the culture.

Hillary is many things, and many not good things, but she is not a sower of chaos or the subject of infighting so constant that no one can even catch a breath before one weird story is displaced by another. She’s far too boring for that.

Of course, since we wouldn’t ever have had to live through the insanity of the past six months, we wouldn’t be aware of what we were missing.
And in one respect, the Hillary White House would very much resemble the Trump White House in that there would be an ongoing melodrama surrounding the high jinks of Hillary’s family.

With Trump, we have his son and his daughter and his son-in-law conducting themselves in an unprecedented manner at the highest reaches of power. In the case of Hillary, her own ethically compromised self would have been sharing living quarters with her ethically compromised ex-president husband.

Given how readily he (and she) were willing to raise money for their foundation using her position at the State Department, would it really be the case those efforts would have ceased — on Bill’s behalf at least — when the Clintons returned to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Liberals are obsessed with the possible violations of the emoluments clause with the continuing existence of the Trump Organization — and conservatives would have been just as consumed with the question of the behavior of Clinton Inc. during a Clinton administration.

The corporate donors and wealthy donors and foreign donors who filled the coffers of the Clinton Foundation would all be hovering around the Hillary White House. Their quest for access, the successes they scored in winning that access and the jobs they secured as a reward for their loyalty would be grist for media mills and congressional committees.

We would have been awash in a scandal narrative that would not be quite as breathless or bonkers as the Trump White House helps to generate but would have been disturbing and unpleasant.

Moreover, the questions raised about the unprecedented nature of the Trump presidency would have been raised by the dynastic Clinton White House, featuring a candidate who got elected despite her e-mail scandals and the spouse who was only the second president in history to have been impeached.


In the end, then, this “what if” scenario suggests July 2017 under a Clinton presidency might have been distressingly similar to what we’re living through right now. In either timeline, the United States evidently has a rendezvous with destiny it doesn’t deserve — but which it has visited upon itself.

View user profile
Is that why Hillary sold 20% of our uranium stock to the Russians for a healthy donation to the Clinton Slush Fund errrrrrrrrrrrrr Global Initiative?

View user profile
Far out.

In the span of only a little over six months, this Trump supporter has been reduced to specious speculation that the results would've been equally as bad had his opponent prevailed.

In reality, Clinton is a practiced politician with decades of experience and contacts from which to draw, as opposed to the lazy, undisciplined, and incompetent nitwit currently befouling the Oval Office.

View user profile
Sal wrote:Far out.

In the span of only a little over six months, this Trump supporter has been reduced to specious speculation that the results would've been equally as bad had his opponent prevailed.

In reality, Clinton is a practiced politician with decades of experience and contacts from which to draw, as opposed to the lazy, undisciplined, and incompetent nitwit currently befouling the Oval Office.

Delusional you are....the best thing is that we never see another KKKLinton as POTUS.

View user profile
IMASOCK wrote:Is that why Hillary sold 20% of our uranium stock to the Russians for a healthy donation to the Clinton Slush Fund errrrrrrrrrrrrr Global Initiative?

Russia fears Hillary.....she was bought.

View user profile
IMASOCK wrote:Is that why Hillary sold 20% of our uranium stock to the Russians for a healthy donation to the Clinton Slush Fund errrrrrrrrrrrrr Global Initiative?

Pace, factCheck.org rates that claim FALSE.

Trump wrongly said that Hillary Clinton “gave” Russia 20 percent of the uranium in the United States. Clinton was one of nine votes approving the deal. She alone couldn’t have stopped the deal, which involved 20 percent of U.S. production capacity, not stocks, and the uranium can’t go to Russia without export licenses.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/factchecking-trumps-news-conference/Trump repeated his misleading claim that Hillary Clinton “gave” Russia one-fifth of all U.S. uranium.
Trump: You know, they say I’m close to Russia. Hillary Clinton gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States. She’s close to Russia.

He’s wrong on several counts. The deal Clinton had a role in approving gave Russia ownership of 20 percent of U.S. production capacity — not existing stocks of uranium. Furthermore, Clinton alone could not have stopped the deal; only the president could have done that with a finding that national security would be endangered. Lastly, none of the uranium goes to Russia. That would require export licenses.
Trump was referring to Clinton’s role in the 2010 purchase by Russia’s nuclear agency of Uranium One, a Toronto-based company with mining operations in Kazakhstan, Tanzania and the United States, where the company’s operations amount to about 20 percent of annual U.S. production capacity.
The fact is — as we reported nearly two years ago — Clinton had no veto power to stop that deal. She was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee that unanimously approved it, a panel that also includes the secretaries of the treasury, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)
Only the president could have stopped the sale, and only if at least one member of the foreign investment committee had objected. And even then, the president cannot prohibit a transaction without finding “credible evidence” that the “foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair the national security,” according to the federal regulation that governs such matters.
Finally, Russia may own the mines, but the uranium coming out of them stays in the U.S. As the Nuclear Regulatory Commission noted when it approved the sale, “no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.”
Trump made the same claim in slightly different words three times during his news conference. It’s a replay of a bogus accusation he made during last year’s campaign, when it was debunked by us and other independent fact-checking sites. But constant repetition doesn’t make a false statement true.


View user profile
Ha!  So we've gone from defenses of the piece-of-shit you voted for to fantasies about "yeah, well, Hillary would have been just as bad!"

Very Happy

And from what I've been seeing, here and elsewhere, all those cries of "you lost, libs, get over it!" should be sounding more like, "You won, conservatives, get over it!"  I'm hearing more whiney complaints about Hillary from conservatives now than I did when she was running.  They're not gonna let winning an election stop 'em from being sore losers! Very Happy  Other than getting to remind us that they won, they really don't seem to be enjoying victory much.

Can't really blame 'em.  There hasn't been much to enjoy.

You'd think they never won the election at all.  Y'know why?   Because they're figuring out they didn't.   Oh, I know, electoral college and all that, I understand it.  Hillary got 3 million more votes than Dumb Donald, but I know he legitimately won.  The Russians aided and abetted by leaking hacked info that influenced voters, but, still, they did vote the way they voted.  The voting machines themselves weren't hacked.  It was dumb, it was a mistake, and you're fools for doing it, but, yes, Donald Trump did legitimately get elected president, and I've never claimed differently.  

But... you didn't really win by getting that wet firecracker in the White House, didja?  Once you got the box open that thing you bought turned out not to be as good as it looked in the comic-book ads, did it?  The "great deal-maker" stuff turned out to be bullshit.  You're not gonna get a wall that Mexico pays for.  If you get a health care plan at all, it'll be some crap that makes people miss Obamacare.  You've got North Korea going farther with its weapons program than ever before and Russia laughing up its sleeve because nobody's scared of your tantrum-throwin' internet troll TV-show clown.  And he lies all the time and, god, does he have to golf so much after he mocked Obama for doing that?  Doesn't he know how bad it makes you look?  Christians made a mockery of their moral values voting for a pussy-grabber for... this?  

Not much fun running things with a needy praise-addicted mentally ill dendrite-cluster of poor impulse controls at the helm, is it?  It's kind of... embarrassing.  You finally get your chance to run things, and, oh shit, it's a flustercluck.  You see the results he's getting, the way the world is no longer looking at America as the world leader, the scarily-horrible trade position he's put us in out of spite, the historically-low approval and constant stream of lies and scandal that are all yours now, and suddenly you kinda-sorta wish you hadn't won, don'tcha?  You won't admit it in public, I know, but when you wake up at night, in bed, and know that the clown is probably tweeting something crazy, you wish it.

You got what you wanted, but you didn't think it out all that well, and oh fuck but it sucks, doesn't it?  You could have gotten Mitt to run again!  You could have had Kasich, you could have had Jeb!, and none of those would be universally loved, by any means, but they'd at least know how to behave and they wouldn't be scandal-generating machines that you just can't stop.   But, nope, your silly party had to vote based on who hated the Meskins 'n' the Muslims the most and who'd let you say the n-word again and -- most of all -- who'd really piss off them damn liberals who make ya feel so stupid.  

So, like a bunch of not-very-serious kids you went with the guy you thought was funny on that teeevee show, and... here ya are!  That's your guy the world's looking at, and nobody but you seems to like.   Suddenly the people who sneered at everybody-gets-a-trophy... want a trophy.

Your party looks like a bunch of dopes, your voters look ridiculous, and you're still unhappy as hell and left with nothing to do but still complain about that Clinton lady because you feel like somehow you got cheated in winning with somebody who turned out to make you look so bad.

Democrats lost, but at least we still get to be happy about who we voted for, and secure that we made the right choice.  That's getting harder to find on your side.  And it's not going to get much better.

Turns out that "winning" with Trump is maybe worse than losing.  At least if you'd lost, you wouldn't have to be responsible.  You could complain about everything Hillary was doing, rather than having to defend a guy you're culpable for that you secretly know is far less competent and doing a far worse job than she would have.  You'd have a united Republican party, and the Dems would have to be on defense.

Instead, you've got to try to sell America a turd sandwich and even FOX News can't put enough brainwash-mayonnaise on it to make more than 36% willing to bite into it.

So, all that's left is to keep trying to make people hate Hillary... after it doesn't matter anymore.   She's not running again.  I think she'd have been a much better president, but, so what, that ship's sailed and it ain't coming back, so, I don't care if anybody hates her or not, or if you console yourself with fantasies that she'd be terrible.  We'll never know, will we?  And it doesn't matter if she'd have been good or not, because what we've got is Trump, and Trump is a wall-to-wall mess.   And that's not woulda-been, that's all-the-way-IS.

That's what you've got to deal with.  No escape.  You've made Hillary immaterial.  Congrats!  She lost, get over it.  Either defend the guy who's making you look like un-serious dimwits -- and have fun with that if you try! Very Happy -- or don't, but don't pretend that "but-Hillary's" gonna save you from what you did.

View user profile
knothead wrote:
IMASOCK wrote:Is that why Hillary sold 20% of our uranium stock to the Russians for a healthy donation to the Clinton Slush Fund errrrrrrrrrrrrr Global Initiative?

Pace, factCheck.org rates that claim FALSE.

Trump wrongly said that Hillary Clinton “gave” Russia 20 percent of the uranium in the United States. Clinton was one of nine votes approving the deal. She alone couldn’t have stopped the deal, which involved 20 percent of U.S. production capacity, not stocks, and the uranium can’t go to Russia without export licenses.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/factchecking-trumps-news-conference/Trump repeated his misleading claim that Hillary Clinton “gave” Russia one-fifth of all U.S. uranium.
Trump: You know, they say I’m close to Russia. Hillary Clinton gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States. She’s close to Russia.

He’s wrong on several counts. The deal Clinton had a role in approving gave Russia ownership of 20 percent of U.S. production capacity — not existing stocks of uranium. Furthermore, Clinton alone could not have stopped the deal; only the president could have done that with a finding that national security would be endangered. Lastly, none of the uranium goes to Russia. That would require export licenses.
Trump was referring to Clinton’s role in the 2010 purchase by Russia’s nuclear agency of Uranium One, a Toronto-based company with mining operations in Kazakhstan, Tanzania and the United States, where the company’s operations amount to about 20 percent of annual U.S. production capacity.
The fact is — as we reported nearly two years ago — Clinton had no veto power to stop that deal. She was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee that unanimously approved it, a panel that also includes the secretaries of the treasury, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)
Only the president could have stopped the sale, and only if at least one member of the foreign investment committee had objected. And even then, the president cannot prohibit a transaction without finding “credible evidence” that the “foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair the national security,” according to the federal regulation that governs such matters.
Finally, Russia may own the mines, but the uranium coming out of them stays in the U.S. As the Nuclear Regulatory Commission noted when it approved the sale, “no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.”
Trump made the same claim in slightly different words three times during his news conference. It’s a replay of a bogus accusation he made during last year’s campaign, when it was debunked by us and other independent fact-checking sites. But constant repetition doesn’t make a false statement true.



She could say yea or nay...but no nay for the CAYSH she was getting:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html


So who is really beholden to the Russians? Trump doesn't have any dog in the hunt over uranium (strategic asset).

From the article:
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

She's crooked and dirty and only helps America when it serves her to do so. And, Factcheck is a democratic run business. Very BIASED.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum