stevenash

Obama enjoyed and still enjoys a lot of unjustified loyalty

Then if you wont defend Clintons behavior with women and believe he is one of the greatest Presidents ever, you would concede that anything true about Trump PRIOR to his presidency should not be a factor in judging his presidential performance any more than anything true about Clinton DURING his presidency?

Especially since he belongs to the "party of compassion"

This one rings a bell also: [Hidden Content]

So are you now saying that there is very little if any tangible evidence that Mr. Trump is a sexual predator other than the infamous "grab em" comment which is hardly sufficient upon which to make broad based assumptions/conclusions? Based upon another earlier post you made, do I understand you correctly when you say if more than a couple make an allegation, it collectively makes him guilty? If so, couldn't a man of means "hire" several people to make an allegation and thus we could assume guilt? If my memory is correct, the Duke lacrosse scandal, in which just about everyone concluded guilt, come about via a single accusation only to discover it was a farse?

If a settlement has been paid, where should I look so I know its happened rather than simply deducing it has happened? The only thing that seems certain, to this point, is that Mr. Trump made a statement to a single individual. To assign him all of these various labels would seem to be a bit excessive unless there is evidence that he has been forced to pay off several women. Furthermore, I personally know of a couple of circumstances ( though not sexually related) where a "payoff" came about NOT because the accused was guilty but to avoid long drawn out litigation that is costly and time consuming. Yes, there are plenty of attorneys who pursue suits not because they have a good case but because they know how to work the system. If you deny this happens, I will be forced to accept all further contentions with some additional salt.

No Tobie, your party says you should pay more because it believes the government is more capable of deploying/investing money than a successful business enterprise is. That philosophy is a major contributor to the FACT that the last President is the only one in history who had a two term stint in which he NEVER had a year with 3% GDP growth. Hmmm- let me see- If Apple or Amazon pays some more monies to the government via taxes, will the government make that money more productive or could Apple and Amazon have done better with it?

then cast your vote for those who believe in a smaller and less intrusive government.

I cant see the pic but I am guessing that the inference regards how much more compact and how much more inexpensive this hard drive has become. I can absolutely, unequivocally assure you that this change came from competition in the free market and not from government "oversight"/interference.

I don't think so. Have I said anything in this thread that is inaccurate or overtly biased? ( On the other hand, my guess is that there is no such thing as a $270,000 value disparity for two houses in the same neighborhood/street. I believe it was "created" to try and make a point and that point was fallacious.

According to the theory advanced by your party, your brothers taxes should be paid by you. You know, the old Obama "fair share" theory. Additionally, if and when a tax reduction comes along, the left way would be for your brother ( even though he is paying nothing) to scream that the reduction only benefits the rich.

Thanks BigCam for being honest enough to admit that that particular situation was severely mishandled.

[Hidden Content]

Forecast response: Grab em

I have offered the "he served with honor and distinction" debacle no less than 10 times on this board and it is always ignored so we can discuss important things like Trump saying "grab em".

Are you suggesting that, other than in self defense, there IS a reason to shoot people?

You trust no site except MSNBC and Thinkprogress.org

The shooter was dishonorably discharged from the military. This makes him ineligible to own firearms. His case number: No. 14-0387/AF. U.S. v. Devin P. KELLEY. CCA 38267. So, how did he get firearms? Could more laws have prevented him from obtaining guns? The confusing part is that it was illegal for him to have firearms, why did he break the law? Perhaps we need a law that states one cannot break the law that they are not supposed to be breaking? It's clearly obvious that we need more laws!

Only your perception. Nothing factual about that statement at all. No different than me saying that you believe black people have never been guilty of a crime.

AMEN

Everybody ( with the exception of 1) realized I was being facetious

when you accuse me of something, I would appreciate it if you could provide a bit of documentation/evidence rather than just spouting/spewing what your "instincts" tell you.

I simply say to everybody: If Washington is over run by this type of person and behavior, why on earth would ANYBODY want to increase the size and scope of government?

Six, if you are just now coming to the realization that there are considerably more from the right than from the left on this board, you are less "enlightened" than I thought you were.