[Hoot Gibson]

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016...-campaign/

"Going ahead and calling out" is direct evidence that you have a closed, "don't bother me with evidence," mindset. You have confused your political affiliations with a Council of angels evidently.

I will state it again: politics is dirty business, and the RNC slings slime in equal proportion to the DNC.

I guess it depends on what the definitions of "slime" is. Do you consider attacking Hillary Clinton for setting up her own unsecured basement server for the illegal hosting of classified information a "sliming?" What about Trump's attacks against Hillary for the destruction of at least 33,000 documents that were under subpoena at the time she ordered them destroyed? Is that a case of sliming? What about when Trump points out that Hillary has repeatedly lied about receiving and sending classified information using her homebrew sever? Is that your idea of "sliming?" It these examples are what you define as "sliming," then you are right about Republicans sliming Hillary Clinton.

However, I believe that most rational people would see such attacks as attempts to hold a criminal accountable for her crimes and understand that there are many American citizens who have been sentenced, fined, and fired for similar crimes that they committed on a much smaller scale.

Trump is definitely not above fabricating charges against a political opponent, it was one of my biggest issues with him during the Republican primaries - but in Hillary Clinton, he is running against a deeply corrupt politician whose actions would be unbelievable if done by a Tom Clancy or Vince Flynn character. Who needs to slime a crooked opponent when the truth is so well documented and disturbing? It is often said that, "You can't make this stuff up," but in Hillary's case that is the literal truth.

[TheRealThing]

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016...-campaign/

"Going ahead and calling out" is direct evidence that you have a closed, "don't bother me with evidence," mindset. You have confused your political affiliations with a Council of angels evidently.

I will state it again: politics is dirty business, and the RNC slings slime in equal proportion to the DNC.

And I will state again that you are clueless. Sorry, but if your best response to my challenge is to cite some bitter lamentation from a proud die hard #NeverTrumpster, you are as woefully and willingly I might add, uninformed as Leon Wolf and his pinch nosed boss Erik Erikson are certifiable. The actions and antics of your source 'Red States,' have relegated Wolf and Erikson to the backwaters of news sources even by internet standards, as their current state of irrelevancy clearly demonstrates.

They wanted Cruz, I got that. But their obsession with dredging up the daily mournful wail has gotten to be a bit much. Like I said, you can't name a single case to rival, in any way, the anti-American machinations of the left.

[The Urban Sombrero]

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/debun...spiracies/

The partisan is, by definition, nigh incapable of objective analysis. In the Vince Lombardi method, what matters is winning. With the Scalia replacement out there, all that matters to either side is winning.

Yet again I state that sliming wears both red and blue. And, if you guys deny that, I'd be careful about throwing around words like "clueless."

[Hoot Gibson]

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/debun...spiracies/

The partisan is, by definition, nigh incapable of objective analysis. In the Vince Lombardi method, what matters is winning. With the Scalia replacement out there, all that matters to either side is winning.

Yet again I state that sliming wears both red and blue. And, if you guys deny that, I'd be careful about throwing around words like "clueless."

I gave you an opportunity to demonstrate that you know the difference between political smears and legitimate character issues and you dodged my questions. As far as I can tell, when it comes to objectivity, you are all hat and no cattle.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I gave you an opportunity to demonstrate that you know the difference between political smears and legitimate character issues and you dodged my questions. As far as I can tell, when it comes to objectivity, you are all hat and no cattle.

I find it ironic that you would here be suggesting that Donald Trump does not have "legitimate character issues" and that he avoids "political smears." I have stated my concerns with the Clintons in this thread. I have clearly stated the DNC uses slime tactics. It is, however, not "clueless" to assert that the RNC also uses slime tactics. I have also stated that Donald Trump, in my view, is not racist nor sexist, though a bit vulgar and uncouth at times. Also, I am not claiming to be without biases; however, I am not a partisan.

[Hoot Gibson]

I find it ironic that you would here be suggesting that Donald Trump does not have "legitimate character issues" and that he avoids "political smears." I have stated my concerns with the Clintons in this thread. I have clearly stated the DNC uses slime tactics. It is, however, not "clueless" to assert that the RNC also uses slime tactics. I have also stated that Donald Trump, in my view, is not racist nor sexist, though a bit vulgar and uncouth at times. Also, I am not claiming to be without biases; however, I am not a partisan.

I have never said that Donald Trump does not have character flaws. (See "The Case Against Donald Trump.") Trump carries around a heavy load of character flaws. However, I asked you a series of questions about some undisputed facts abut Hillary Clinton, which Trump has made a focus of his campaign, and asked you if you would define those factual attacks as "slime." You have now repeatedly refused to respond and have attempted to change the subject.

Let me make this easy for you to understand. I have heavily criticized both Hillary and Trump and have been so tough on Trump that I have been personally attacked and called a Hillary supporter - a true sliming, IMO. You on the other hand have simply taken an everybody does it approach in defending Hillary's attacks on Trump, but defended her against some very legitimate criticism.

If I have missed examples of you criticizing Hillary for specific actions or defending Trump against criticism, then feel free to set me straight. I think that I would have remembered you defending Trump, because I have criticized him more than anybody else here.

Do I need to repeat my questions of you, or do you intend to invoke the 5th? You are most definitely a partisan, which is nothing to be embarrassed about. However, it is important that partisans like us retain some objectivity and do not go down the "my party, right or wrong" alley.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I have never said that Donald Trump does not have character flaws. (See "The Case Against Donald Trump.") Trump carries around a heavy load of character flaws. However, I asked you a series of questions about some undisputed facts abut Hillary Clinton, which Trump has made a focus of his campaign, and asked you if you would define those factual attacks as "slime." You have now repeatedly refused to respond and have attempted to change the subject.

Let me make this easy for you to understand. I have heavily criticized both Hillary and Trump and have been so tough on Trump that I have been personally attacked and called a Hillary supporter - a true sliming, IMO. You on the other hand have simply taken an everybody does it approach in defending Hillary's attacks on Trump, but defended her against some very legitimate criticism.

If I have missed examples of you criticizing Hillary for specific actions or defending Trump against criticism, then feel free to set me straight. I think that I would have remembered you defending Trump, because I have criticized him more than anybody else here.

Do I need to repeat my questions of you, or do you intend to invoke the 5th?

I said that, in my view, Trump is not racist nor sexist. Now, isn't that a sweeping rejection of a great deal of the slime? On the other hand, he is not above a phraseology that gains him support among clearly racist groups.

Hillary and Bill have a penchant to play fast and loose with the rules. This includes email scandal and a great many other shenanigans. Now, I am not as ready to throw out "criminal," but would go "unethical."

Benghazi. I do not blame HRC for Benghazi, though the duplicitousness of all spin assumes on the inability of the news cycle and public to navigate nuance.

The partisan has an internal spin that is almost immune to objectivity. I have said previously that, as to our inner cities, the ideas of Jack Kemp were better than pandering to poverty. I think Jack Kemp would have been an excellent President, though I often disagreed with him. Again, I am not claiming absence of biases and preferences, nor that legitimate issues as to HRC's handling of email = slime. However, slime exists, has been used, appears in threads in this Forum, and wears both red and blue.

[Hoot Gibson]

I said that, in my view, Trump is not racist nor sexist. Now, isn't that a sweeping rejection of a great deal of the slime? On the other hand, he is not above a phraseology that gains him support among clearly racist groups.

Hillary and Bill have a penchant to play fast and loose with the rules. This includes email scandal and a great many other shenanigans. Now, I am not as ready to throw out "criminal," but would go "unethical."

Benghazi. I do not blame HRC for Benghazi, though the duplicitousness of all spin assumes on the inability of the news cycle and public to navigate nuance.

The partisan has an internal spin that is almost immune to objectivity. I have said previously that, as to our inner cities, the ideas of Jack Kemp were better than pandering to poverty. I think Jack Kemp would have been an exvellent President, though I often disagreed with him. Again, I am not claiming absence of biases and preferences, nor that legitimate issues as to HRC's handling of email = slime. However, slime exists, has been used, appears in threads in this Forum, and wears both red and blue.

Well, I think you are making some progress.

I do get tired of people talking about Hillaries "personal email server," and I thank you for not preferencing "email" with "personal." When Hillary set up a server in her home for sending and receiving email messages among federal employees engaged in doing the peoples' business, the server and the email traffic it handled ceased being "personal." Every single classified document that was routed through that server was the result of a deliberate criminal act. There is no other way for a classified document to make the leap from the federal government's SIPR net to her home-brew server.

IMO, Hillary Clinton's deliberate violation of the Espionage Act, her conspiracy to avoid complying with FOIA requests, and her exchange of access to Bill, Chelsea, and herself, in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation, are the most important reasons to vote against her.

As much as I criticized Donald Trump for his dishonest smears against Ted Cruz and other Republican presidential candidates, I believe that he has run a much cleaner campaign against Hillary Clinton. If Trump needed to fabricate bogus claims against Hillary to win the election, I have no doubt that he would do so. However, why would anybody make phony charges against Hillary when the truth is so devastating?

[The Urban Sombrero]

Well, I think you are making some progress.

I do get tired of people talking about Hillaries "personal email server," and I thank you for not preferencing "email" with "personal." When Hillary set up a server in her home for sending and receiving email messages among federal employees engaged in doing the peoples' business, the server and the email traffic it handled ceased being "personal." Every single classified document that was routed through that server was the result of a deliberate criminal act. There is no other way for a classified document to make the leap from the federal government's SIPR net to her home-brew server.

IMO, Hillary Clinton's deliberate violation of the Espionage Act, her conspiracy to avoid complying with FOIA requests, and her exchange of access to Bill, Chelsea, and herself, in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation, are the most important reasons to vote against her.

As much as I criticized Donald Trump for his dishonest smears against Ted Cruz and other Republican presidential candidates, I believe that he has run a much cleaner campaign against Hillary Clinton. If Trump needed to fabricate bogus claims against Hillary to win the election, I have no doubt that he would do so. However, why would anybody make phony charges against Hillary when the truth is so devastating?

This is on a different note, but I think Arizona Congresswoman Martha McSally stands a real good shot of being the GOP's first female nominee for President... impressive lady and a candidate who can be a uniter in my view.

[TheRealThing]

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/debun...spiracies/

The partisan is, by definition, nigh incapable of objective analysis. In the Vince Lombardi method, what matters is winning. With the Scalia replacement out there, all that matters to either side is winning.

Yet again I state that sliming wears both red and blue. And, if you guys deny that, I'd be careful about throwing around words like "clueless."

And yet again I state that you cannot name a single Republican case to compare even faintly with the latest news of record.

[The Urban Sombrero]

And yet again I state that you cannot name a single Republican case to compare even faintly with the latest news of record.

And, yet again, you will reject any source that does not echo that which you believe. If you truly believe that the RNC does not employ slime tactics, in spite of the facts, far be it from me to disturb your peace.

[The Urban Sombrero]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek....ent=safari

Again, I am no fan of HRC, but this article raises some issues worth contemplating, and it also sheds light on the point I am asserting that TRT views as "clueless."

[Hoot Gibson]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek....ent=safari

Again, I am no fan of HRC, but this article raises some issues worth contemplating, and it also sheds light on the point I am asserting that TRT views as "clueless."

Yet another "I am no fan of Hillary, but..." post. If you are no fan of Hillary, how about making a few "I am no fan of Hillary because..." posts? The article to which you posted no longer exists at that location. The RNC probably hacked into the Newsweak website and removed it, those slimy #$@&@#s.

[TheRealThing]

And, yet again, you will reject any source that does not echo that which you believe. If you truly believe that the RNC does not employ slime tactics, in spite of the facts, far be it from me to disturb your peace.

I didn't reject the source, I merely pointed out the motivating impetus for their point of view. The alleges in the story you cited still fall woefully short of any effective indictment in which you could justify your absurdly shallow claim that both sides are guilty in same food fight. They don't both do it. At any rate like your logic, your link does not work.

I said you could not name an incident and obviously you cannot. But then, I knew you couldn't and thus my confident assertion having said as much before your laughably weak attempt. Name an occasion in which the RNC used slimed tactics. I'm still waiting and you're still dodging.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I didn't reject the source, I merely pointed out the motivating impetus for their point of view. The alleges in the story you cited still fall woefully short of any effective indictment in which you could justify your absurdly shallow claim that both sides are guilty in same food fight. They don't both do it. At any rate like your logic, your link does not work.

I said you could not name an incident and obviously you cannot. But then, I knew you couldn't and thus my confident assertion having said as much before your laughably weak attempt. Name an occasion in which the RNC used slimed tactics. I'm still waiting and you're still dodging.

What is laughable is your self- righteous blather. I suppose, to you, attempting to link HRC to "pervert" status through the misfortune of a top confidante's marriage breakup is not slime tactics.

It is almost religion the way you folks go to the "dodge" position, denying contrary information as idiot's belief.

I'm sorry, TRT, but your belief in the RNC's halo is actually what is laughable. I'm not weighing the slime on a scales and claiming "50/50" either. From Southern Baptist ol' Jesse Helms to "Hussein Obama is the antichrist" and here you are in dishonorable denial?

[TheRealThing]

What is laughable is your self- righteous blather. I suppose, to you, attempting to link HRC to "pervert" status through the misfortune of a top confidante's marriage breakup is not slime tactics.

It is almost religion the way you folks go to the "dodge" position, denying contrary information as idiot's belief.

I'm sorry, TRT, but your belief in the RNC's halo is actually what is laughable. I'm not weighing the slime on a scales and claiming "50/50" either. From Southern Baptist ol' Jesse Helms to "Hussein Obama is the antichrist" and here you are in dishonorable denial?

Name a RNC slime, or admit you're blowing gas.

[Hoot Gibson]

Well, I think you are making some progress.

I do get tired of people talking about Hillaries "personal email server," and I thank you for not preferencing "email" with "personal." When Hillary set up a server in her home for sending and receiving email messages among federal employees engaged in doing the peoples' business, the server and the email traffic it handled ceased being "personal." Every single classified document that was routed through that server was the result of a deliberate criminal act. There is no other way for a classified document to make the leap from the federal government's SIPR net to her home-brew server.

IMO, Hillary Clinton's deliberate violation of the Espionage Act, her conspiracy to avoid complying with FOIA requests, and her exchange of access to Bill, Chelsea, and herself, in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation, are the most important reasons to vote against her.

As much as I criticized Donald Trump for his dishonest smears against Ted Cruz and other Republican presidential candidates, I believe that he has run a much cleaner campaign against Hillary Clinton. If Trump needed to fabricate bogus claims against Hillary to win the election, I have no doubt that he would do so. However, why would anybody make phony charges against Hillary when the truth is so devastating?

I must have been tired when I posted this. I made Hillary plural and one is certainly more than enough and "preferencing" should have been "prefacing."

[Granny Bear]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't consider negative FACTS about someone as "slime".

[The Urban Sombrero]

Name a RNC slime, or admit you're blowing gas.

I have given you some already. Promoting the idea that HRC belongs in jail, as if settled law makes it plain? That's slime. Suggesting HRC, by being an acquaintance of a confidante's husband, is linked to perversion. That's slime. It is as much slime as is painting Donald Trump as a racist. Now, the DNC will fault me, suggesting the evidence is that he is a racist. And, guys like you will fault me, claiming use of Willie Horton, and "she's a pervert" and "she belongs in jail, filthy traitor" isn't slime. But it is. Lowest common denominator stuff. I'm not even calling down fire and brimstone, so to speak, about it, as it is politics, which is tough and often nasty.

If you weren't a Christian Reconstructionist, and such a partisan homer, you wouldn't be fighting an obvious truth so hard as to prove yourself blind to it. Imagine how hard it is for a homer to admit he's a homer when his partisanship won't allow him to admit fault.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't consider negative FACTS about someone as "slime".

Dearest Granny, champion of the mountains, and beloved matron of BGR, the email server issue is fact. However, that it rises to an imprisonable felony? Opinion. I could continue, but of course you do not wish to defend, well, or did you?

[TheRealThing]

I have given you some already. Promoting the idea that HRC belongs in jail, as if settled law makes it plain? That's slime. Suggesting HRC, by being an acquaintance of a confidante's husband, is linked to perversion. That's slime. It is as much slime as is painting Donald Trump as a racist. Now, the DNC will fault me, suggesting the evidence is that he is a racist. And, guys like you will fault me, claiming use of Willie Horton, and "she's a pervert" and "she belongs in jail, filthy traitor" isn't slime. But it is. Lowest common denominator stuff. I'm not even calling down fire and brimstone, so to speak, about it, as it is politics, which is tough and often nasty.

If you weren't a Christian Reconstructionist, and such a partisan homer, you wouldn't be fighting an obvious truth so hard as to prove yourself blind to it. Imagine how hard it is for a homer to admit he's a homer when his partisanship won't allow him to admit fault.

You've given nothing. I always said a liberal's greatest gift is the power of self delusion. And what RNC official was it again who said any of the things in the bolded part of your post?

But despite the foregoing mention of your particular gift, there is one thing that is obvious, and that is your partisan support for Hillary. Hill's campaign like Obama's before her, has been nothing but a slam fest.

[Granny Bear]

Dearest Granny, champion of the mountains, and beloved matron of BGR, the email server issue is fact. However, that it rises to an imprisonable felony? Opinion. I could continue, but of course you do not wish to defend, well, or did you?

A bit condescending, don't you think?

The FACT that others are imprisoned on felony charges for doing the exact same thing as Hillary, perhaps not as much as she, is no opinion.

Oh, and you are slipping a little. I didn't want to defend my opinion in the other thread; simply because it was requested.

[The Urban Sombrero]

A bit condescending, don't you think?

The FACT that others are imprisoned on felony charges for doing the exact same thing as Hillary, perhaps not as much as she, is no opinion.

Oh, and you are slipping a little. I didn't want to defend my opinion in the other thread; simply because it was requested.

See, it is that "exact same thing" language that suggests an intolerance for nuance in favor of a "black or white" worldview that refuses to distinguish. Now, ultimately, HRC might go down as an email/classified criminal. I doubt it. Ultimately, as I have said, I am no fan of the Clintons. However, I struggle to stomach Homer Partisan no matter if he/she wear a red or blue sweater. As for slipping, thou knowest.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You've given nothing. I always said a liberal's greatest gift is the power of self delusion. And what RNC official was it again who said any of the things in the bolded part of your post?

But despite the foregoing mention of your particular gift, there is one thing that is obvious, and that is your partisan support for Hillary. Hill's campaign like Obama's before her, has been nothing but a slam fest.

Of course, I have stated the DNC uses slime. I will not be voting for HRC tomorrow. However, I will also not be blinded by Christian Reconstructionism and a "Homer the Partisan" cataract the size of a silver dollar.

[TheRealThing]

Of course, I have stated the DNC uses slime. I will not be voting for HRC tomorrow. However, I will also not be blinded by Christian Reconstructionism and a "Homer the Partisan" cataract the size of a silver dollar.

What you stated was both sides are guilty. I asked for one, as in singular, example of the RNC having done something noteworthy and you can't deliver.

I have supported Republicans as my posts on here reveal. But regarding the entrenched GOP elite, I have clearly indicated my displeasure. In fact, I would say two of Mr Obama's go-to water boys have been none other than Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. They were mistaken to think that Republican Presidential prospects would be better as the result of their acquiescence. Clearly, they were not done rolling over as the Republican nomination began and their criticisms of Trump were meant to create space between Trump's positions and the politically correct corner that the Dems had them painted into. What I pointed out was simply the fact that the Trump movement is the very predictable reaction of fed up voters who finally started to wake up for the midterms of 2010 and 2014. I've been saying voters would awaken for years.

08/25/2015---- Very true and as such is the impetus behind the Trump phenomena. Hopefully people are up to their eyeballs with the lies. The practice of lying to the voter started as just a few white lies hear and there but, since the legal shenanigans of the venerable William Jefferson Clinton, the practice has banged afterburner, so to speak.

Being quite comfortable in their beds of self delusion, gullible and slumbering voters have been the source of much consternation as they will seemingly swallow any thing served up to them by the DNC or their media comrades in arms, rather than to make any kind of an effort to vet the drivel they hear. During the 80's and 90's both the media and Dems dared to stretch the truth, but not like they are willing to do in our time. What has always driven me up the wall is the willingness of the public to believe or disbelieve what they hear based on the party affiliation of those speaking. Such a concept is so patently absurd on it's face I would have never expected to see those using it to reap much in the way of benefit but, was I ever wrong! So, summarizing the political knowledge of the low information voter would go something like this; "Dems can't lie and Republicans can't tell the truth."


To borrow a movie line, let us hope that "the sleeper has awakened."

12/08/2012---- Good post. The wake up hasn't occurred for most but, there is one thing I know that many will not admit. People on the take will see the country fall long before they give up the first freebie.

10/13/2012---- [TEXT DELETED]
Our military is facing debilitating cuts, (by the way, anybody care to hazard a guess as to what it will mean to our national defense when Obama has his reelection in the bag and he cuts his secret 'deal' with Russia?) our land is being held hostage by green czars heading up agencies such as the EPA, fossil fuels upon which our existence hinge, are being outlawed for use through more and more ridgid regulations. Book after book has been written by frantic folks trying to get the attention of the American voter before it's too late. Well, guess what? America has less than 3 1/2 weeks to wake up.

07/11/2011--- [TEXT DELETED] As long as the bank holds out the dream can go on but, when the money's gone everybody is going to wake up real fast.

Across the ocean the 27 member states of the Euorpean Union are starting to drop like flies. Italy now in the cross hairs of economic collapse is the third largest economy in Europe and seventh in the world. Will our leaders wake up and smell the coffee to tame spending and entitlements in time to divert us from a similar fate? Time to see the truth about US politics, vote for the candidate not the party. Anytime somebody is promising you something for nothing you know he or she is a fraud. Much less when we see politicians pitting citizens against each other for the purpose of personal gain, in most cases elected office, tempting riots or worse. People like this are, let's say less than honorable. Use your vote with integrity in 2012.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆️⬆️

I have, of course, given any number of examples of where the RNC participated in lowest common denominator, or slime, tactics. Your refusal to accept them is no rebuttal of their existence. To me, it is disingenuous to suggest Mitch McConnell has aided President Obama in any way. He vowed to oppose him at every step, and he pretty much has. I would not question, TRT, your belief in your cause, nor the integrity with which you hold your positions. We just disagree in many areas.

[TheRealThing]

⬆️⬆️

I have, of course, given any number of examples of where the RNC participated in lowest common denominator, or slime, tactics. Your refusal to accept them is no rebuttal of their existence. To me, it is disingenuous to suggest Mitch McConnell has aided President Obama in any way. He vowed to oppose him at every step, and he pretty much has. I would not question, TRT, your belief in your cause, nor the integrity with which you hold your positions. We just disagree in many areas.

Okay. And your homer comments are what are disingenuous. But let's come at this from a different angle then. Dust off the most profound RNC trespass from among those you have given and that I have evidently missed, and repost it. And if you don't mind, provide the plausible link which indicates culpability to the RNC.