[The Urban Sombrero]

Yeah I do. Even Sombrero had to concede that one. :biggrin:

"Bravo, Bob" was not a concession. I did think his analogy was witty.

[TheRealThing]

Of course, what you replied did not follow. I realize you are a veteran, most likely a caucasian. You don't believe in the concept of conscientious objection. What can one say to that? It speaks for itself. But, there is this: Justice Harlan found merit in Ali's objection based on his religious beliefs.

Birds of a feather---

[The Urban Sombrero]

Birds of a feather---

So, Justice Harlan, Eisenhower appointee, still no good for you? I believe you may just be Alt Right.

[TheRealThing]

Ah, the daily news mercifully delivers us from the drudgery of endless circular debate about something that does not even exist, essential liberty.

A Wisconsin judge has denied Get-Rill-Jill's lawsuit which would have mandated a hand recount in his state. Thank God there yet remains a remnant of the sound of mind. The good judge no doubt an example of one of those essential liberty denying conservatives. :Clap:

But the death blow has fallen in a different state, Pennsylvania. A judge there has ruled, "Per Pennsylvania regulations, there is only one way remaining for Jill Stein to get a recount in Pennsylvania and it is a complicated process. BillyPenn reports that Stein would have to file for a court appeal and present a “prima facie case” showing that voter fraud took place."

Ding dong--- the witch is dead.

[Bob Seger]

Of course, what you replied did not follow. I realize you are a veteran, most likely a caucasian. You don't believe in the concept of conscientious objection. What can one say to that? It speaks for itself. But, there is this: Justice Harlan found merit in Ali's objection based on his religious beliefs.

I picture you as many things Geraldo, (jellyfish, comes quickly to mind), but never a racist...That is about as racist of a statement that I've read on here..

Does that speak for it's self too?

[TheRealThing]

I picture you as many things Geraldo, but never a racist...That is about as racist of a statement that I've read on here..

Does that speak for it's self too?

LOL, he knows he's in a corner but he just cannot lay down that brush.

[Bob Seger]

So, Justice Harlan, Eisenhower appointee, still no good for you? I believe you may just be Alt Right.

What does political party have to do with anything? ...Since when is cowardice an issue of whether one is a republican or a democrat..

I surely do detect another racial innuendo, though.


Is being a patriot confined to one being a Caucasian? Brown, red, yellow, black, purple, or green doesn't qualify one's self?...Do you realize how you are coming across?

[The Urban Sombrero]

What does political party have to do with anything? ...Since when is cowardice an issue of whether one is a republican or a democrat..

I surely do detect another racial innuendo, though.


Is being a patriot confined to one being a Caucasian? Brown, red, yellow, black, purple, or green doesn't qualify one's self?...Do you realize how you are coming across?

Actually, Bob, I believe you suggested it a liberal thing, or leave it to an ultra liberal, to find in Ali's case a legitimate example of conscientious objection. However, Clay v. United States, the opinion was written by a conservative jurist appointed by a conservative President, which is exactly the opposite of anything racist, as both Ike and Harlan are caucasians. My assumption that TRT is caucasian has to do with his own posts and his own expressed disdain for what I seem to recall he once called "Black Islam."

Mohammed Ali was not a coward. I would caution you about lecturing about how one is coming across. I've read your posts, Bob. This is a familiar strategy for you here. Ol' "turn the tables" Bob. Eh, save it for the easily intimidated youngsters. I know your game and have seen it plenty.

[TheRealThing]

Actually, Bob, I believe you suggested it a liberal thing, or leave it to an ultra liberal, to find in Ali's case a legitimate example of conscientious objection. However, Clay v. United States, the opinion was written by a conservative jurist appointed by a conservative President, which is exactly the opposite of anything racist, as both Ike and Harlan are caucasians. My assumption that TRT is caucasian has to do with his own posts and his own expressed disdain for what I seem to recall he once called "Black Islam."

Mohammed Ali was not a coward. I would caution you about lecturing about how one is coming across. I've read your posts, Bob. This is a familiar strategy for you here. Ol' "turn the tables" Bob. Eh, save it for the easily intimidated youngsters. I know your game and have seen it plenty.

Well, you might think you know Bob's game, I say you don't. I know you don't have the first darn clue what you're talking about concerning my use of the term Black Islam, I never used it. Now, I did say Ali was a self professed Black Muslim and he was heavily influenced by Malcolm X. Malcolm if you will recall, was a sweetheart of a man advocating black supremacy and violent social upheaval. But I'm certain you disagree with my disdain for one of this nation's first home grown muslim extremists.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Well, you might think you know Bob's game, I say you don't. I know you don't have the first darn clue what you're talking about concerning my use of the term Black Islam, I never used it. Now, I did say Ali was a self professed Black Muslim and he was heavily influenced by Malcolm X. Malcolm if you will recall, was a sweetheart of a man advocating black supremacy and violent social upheaval. But I'm certain you disagree with my disdain for one of this nation's first home grown muslim extremists.

"Black Muslim" as opposed to "Black Islam" is splitting hairs.

The disagreement is about conscientious objection, and the FACT that Eisenhower appointee Justice Harlan saw in Ali's case a legitimate exercise of conscientious objection.

In my view, the person who disagrees with a behavior, yet defends the freedom to make a choice based on the principles of essential liberty and freedom of conscience is exercising something quintessential in the American charter.

I did not say I know "Bob's game." I know he uses "turn the tables" to see if a poster can stand up under a bit of heat. I've read back through his postings.

[Bob Seger]

"Black Muslim" as opposed to "Black Islam" is splitting hairs.

The disagreement is about conscientious objection, and the FACT that Eisenhower appointee Justice Harlan saw in Ali's case a legitimate exercise of conscientious objection.

In my view, the person who disagrees with a behavior, yet defends the freedom to make a choice based on the principles of essential liberty and freedom of conscience is exercising something quintessential in the American charter.

I did not say I know "Bob's game." I know he uses "turn the tables" to see if a poster can stand up under a bit of heat. I've read back through his postings.

Bob with a strategy?

Bob with a gameplan?

nicker:


All I know is that those who cry racist , are usually the racist...We'll refer to that as basic Racist 101..Somewhat disappointed, Geraldo, considering this is a "for fun" discussion board..


And by the way, "The Louisville Lip" WAS a coward.

[Bob Seger]

Well, you might think you know Bob's game, I say you don't. I know you don't have the first darn clue what you're talking about concerning my use of the term Black Islam, I never used it. Now, I did say Ali was a self professed Black Muslim and he was heavily influenced by Malcolm X. Malcolm if you will recall, was a sweetheart of a man advocating black supremacy and violent social upheaval. But I'm certain you disagree with my disdain for one of this nation's first home grown muslim extremists.

He was probably financed by a younger George Soros at the time too...You know, two really "great guys".

[Bob Seger]

Actually, Bob, I believe you suggested it a liberal thing, or leave it to an ultra liberal, to find in Ali's case a legitimate example of conscientious objection. However, Clay v. United States, the opinion was written by a conservative jurist appointed by a conservative President, which is exactly the opposite of anything racist, as both Ike and Harlan are caucasians. My assumption that TRT is caucasian has to do with his own posts and his own expressed disdain for what I seem to recall he once called "Black Islam."

Mohammed Ali was not a coward. I would caution you about lecturing about how one is coming across. I've read your posts, Bob. This is a familiar strategy for you here. Ol' "turn the tables" Bob. Eh, save it for the easily intimidated youngsters. I know your game and have seen it plenty.

And how exactly does your racist connotation aptly apply to that scenario?:popcorn:

[The Urban Sombrero]

And how exactly does your racist connotation aptly apply to that scenario?:popcorn:

The implication, Bob, was that a caucasian veteran of the Vietnam War still calling Ali "Cassius Clay" and an insurrectionist ***** and a coward is worth noting.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Bob with a strategy?

Bob with a gameplan?

nicker:


All I know is that those who cry racist , are usually the racist...We'll refer to that as basic Racist 101..Somewhat disappointed, Geraldo, considering this is a "for fun" discussion board..


And by the way, "The Louisville Lip" WAS a coward.

Mohammed Ali was his name. From the overflow of your heart, your keyboard speaks, I guess.
This is for fun, Bob, but you can't hide from your own words and presentation of ideas, then try to flip the script in some pedantic trickery. For a caucasian to refuse to call him Mohammed Ali is suggestive. Justice Harlan, writing for the court, recognized him as a conscientious objector.

[Bob Seger]

The implication, Bob, was that a caucasian veteran of the Vietnam War still calling Ali "Cassius Clay" and an insurrectionist ***** and a coward is worth noting.

In Louisville, Kentucky on January 17, 1942, Marcellus and Odessa Clay announced the arrival of their son, and proudly christened him as Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.

But by all means, if it helps you to further enhance your narrative, keep referring to what Marcellus and Odessa Clay named their son, as racist.

[Bob Seger]

Mohammed Ali was his name. From the overflow of your heart, your keyboard speaks, I guess.
This is for fun, Bob, but you can't hide from your own words and presentation of ideas, then try to flip the script in some pedantic trickery. For a caucasian to refuse to call him Mohammed Ali is suggestive. Justice Harlan, writing for the court, recognized him as a conscientious objector.

Overflow of my heart?


LOL....I am not the one who absolutely cannot discuss any subject without throwing a racist innuendo, a racist connotation, or a racist accusation into the mix...I never ever even consider that stuff while forum jousting...You seem to be about the only one who does....Perhaps what dwells deep in your own heart is what cannot be suppressed in normal everyday communications? Hmmmmmm?

[TheRealThing]

"Black Muslim" as opposed to "Black Islam" is splitting hairs.

The disagreement is about conscientious objection, and the FACT that Eisenhower appointee Justice Harlan saw in Ali's case a legitimate exercise of conscientious objection.

In my view, the person who disagrees with a behavior, yet defends the freedom to make a choice based on the principles of essential liberty and freedom of conscience is exercising something quintessential in the American charter.

I did not say I know "Bob's game." I know he uses "turn the tables" to see if a poster can stand up under a bit of heat. I've read back through his postings.

LOL, I don't think you know what you said.
"I know your game and have seen it plenty." Does that sound at all familiar to you? If not, and I suspect in your case that could well be the problem, take a stroll up memory lane to post #38 and refresh your memory. You did say you know Bob's game now didn't you?

And no, my differentiation of the two terms is not splitting hairs. One exists, the other does not. Black Muslim is an actual class of a religion. the term Black Islam however, was evidently pulled from the same basket you got the idea of essential liberty from. If you or anybody else would care to check up on my assertion, try a Google search of the term 'Black Islam' and see if anything comes up. nicker:

And so class in summation, what did we learn today? First there is no such thing as Black Islam. Second we learned that there is no such thing as essential liberty, at least in a form that can be aptly defined. It would be therefore foolhardy, to undertake building a defense of an idea which does not exist, using an interpretative tool of the law which does not exist, in order to give birth to social doctrine. Nonetheless ladies and gentlemen, I give you the liberal, whose rationales are based on the science of nothing. And who are so proud these days to expose themselves before the masses, resplendently clad in the "new clothes' of their delusion.

[The Urban Sombrero]

LOL, I don't think you know what you said.
"I know your game and have seen it plenty." Does that sound at all familiar to you? If not, and I suspect in your case that could well be the problem, take a stroll up memory lane to post #38 and refresh your memory. You did say you know Bob's game now didn't you?

And no, my differentiation of the two terms is not splitting hairs. One exists, the other does not. Black Muslim is an actual class of a religion. the term Black Islam however, was evidently pulled from the same basket you got the idea of essential liberty from. If you or anybody else would care to check up on my assertion, try a Google search of the term 'Black Islam' and see if anything comes up. nicker:

And so class in summation, what did we learn today? First there is no such thing as Black Islam. Second we learned that there is no such thing as essential liberty, at least in a form that can be aptly defined. It would be therefore foolhardy, to undertake building a defense of an idea which does not exist, using an interpretative tool of the law which does not exist, in order to give birth to social doctrine. Nonetheless ladies and gentlemen, I give you the liberal, whose rationales are based on the science of nothing. And who are so proud these days to expose themselves before the masses, resplendently clad in the "new clothes' of their delusion.

Look at the reference: "I know your game" went back to the "turn the tables" approach, which Bob uses a lot, per a quick perusal of his postings. Your inference is that I am somehow claiming Bob is an easy puzzle which I have figured out. That is not what is being said. You take a limited scope meaning and suggest it is universal. Dismissed.

Essential liberty and freedom of conscience have been defined in many ways in our discussions, and, again, for all your excessive verbal flatuence, you have settled the issue for yourself, which was not hard because you mistake sincerity and faithfulness to an OPINION for some sort of knightish defense of truth.

So, yet again you parade around the ring, arms thrown skyward, declaring yourself Head Rooster in Charge, your politics wagging your faith.

[TheRealThing]

Look at the reference: "I know your game" went back to the "turn the tables" approach, which Bob uses a lot, per a quick perusal of his postings. Dismissed.

Essential liberty and freedom of conscience have been defined in many ways in our discussions, and, again, for all your excessive verbal flatuence, you have settled the issue for yourself, which was not hard because you mistake sincerity and faithfulness to an OPINION for some sort of knightish defense of truth.

So, yet again you parade around the ring, arms thrown skyward, declaring yourself Head Rooster in Charge, your politics wagging your faith.

Well it was your post I quoted from. So from among the plurality of those competing voices who evidently post things from that keyboard of yours, that one was not you. That about right? That is unless it is your keyboard which is possessed. :yikes: You said it pal.

Nope. Essential liberty is not recorded anywhere in the founding documents. The phrase was never mentioned other than on the one occasion I have documented in which it was purposefully omitted from the final draft.

But I am happy to report that though you cannot seem to do so, I can define the concept of 'freedom of conscience' for you, as seen from the eyes of none other than William Penn.

Penn and other Quakers believed that everyone had to seek God in his or her own way. Penn also thought that religious tolerance – or “liberty of conscience” – would create stronger governments and wealthier societies. Other English thinkers in the 1600s shared these ideas. But Penn had the opportunity to act on his beliefs. In Pennsylvania, religious tolerance was the law.
Penn’s ideas inspired our nation’s founding fathers. Penn’s vision lives on in the American government’s most important document, the United States Constitution.
http://www.pennsburymanor.org/history/wi...n-history/


SAID GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM PENN, DECEMBER 7, 1682----

AN ACT for FREEDOM of CONSCIENCE


Wheras the glory of almighty God and the good of mankind is the reason and end of government and, therefore, government in itself is a venerable ordinance of God. And forasmuch as it is principally desired and intended by the Proprietary and Governor and the freemen of the province of Pennsylvania and territories thereunto belonging to make and establish such laws as shall best preserve true christian and civil liberty in opposition to all unchristian, licentious, and unjust practices, whereby God may have his due, Caesar his due, and the people their due, from tyranny and oppression on the one side and insolence and licentiousness on the other, so that the best and firmest foundation may be laid for the present and future happiness of both the Governor and people of the province and territories aforesaid and their posterity.

Be it, therefore, enacted by William Penn, Proprietary and Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the deputies of the freemen of this province and counties aforesaid in assembly met and by the authority of the same, that these following chapters and paragraphs shall be the laws of Pennsylvania and the territories thereof.

Chap. I. Almighty God, being only Lord of conscience, father of lights and spirits, and the author as well as object of all divine knowledge, faith, and worship, who can only enlighten the mind and persuade and convince the understandings of people. In due reverence to his sovereignty over the souls of mankind;

Be it enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that no person now or at any time hereafter living in this province, who shall confess and acknowledge one almighty God to be the creator, upholder, and ruler of the world, and who professes him or herself obliged in conscience to live peaceably and quietly under the civil government, shall in any case be molested or prejudiced for his or her conscientious persuasion or practice. Nor shall he or she at any time be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever contrary to his or her mind, but shall freely and fully enjoy his, or her, christian liberty in that respect, without any interruption or reflection. And if any person shall abuse or deride any other for his or her different persuasion and practice in matters of religion, such person shall be looked upon as a disturber of the peace and be punished accordingly.

But to the end that looseness, irreligion, and atheism may not creep in under pretense of conscience in this province, be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that, according to the example of the primitive Christians and for the ease of the creation, every first day of the week, called the Lord’s day, people shall abstain from their usual and common toil and labor that, whether masters, parents, children, or servants, they may the better dispose themselves to read the scriptures of truth at home or frequent such meetings of religious worship abroad as may best suit their respective persuasions.

Chap. II. And be it further enacted by, etc., that all officers and persons commissioned and employed in the service of the government in this province and all members and deputies elected to serve in the Assembly thereof and all that have a right to elect such deputies shall be such as profess and declare they believe in Jesus Christ to be the son of God, the savior of the world, and that are not convicted of ill-fame or unsober and dishonest conversation and that are of twenty-one years of age at least.

Chap. III. And be it further enacted, etc., that whosoever shall swear in their common conversation by the name of God or Christ or Jesus, being legally convicted thereof, shall pay, for every such offense, five shillings or suffer five days imprisonment in the house of correction at hard labor to the behoof of the public and be fed with bread and water only during that time.

Chap. V. And be it further enacted, etc., for the better prevention of corrupt communication, that whosoever shall speak loosely and profanely of almighty God, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the scriptures of truth, and is legally convicted thereof, shall pay, for every such offense, five shillings or suffer five days imprisonment in the house of correction at hard labor to the behoof of the public and be fed with bread and water only during that time,

Chap. VI. And be it further enacted, etc., that whosoever shall, in their conversation, at any time curse himself or any other and is legally convicted thereof shall pay for every such offense five shillings or suffer five days imprisonment as aforesaid.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆️⬆️

The error, of course, was on your part, as you vagabond through posts looking for the "gotcha." The clear reference of Bob's "game" was the turn the tables aspect.

William Penn, Quaker, set out to establish a state in accordance with Quaker values. Over and over again, I have stated our Founding Fathers were deeply influenced by Judaeo-Christian values, and that is clear in the Constitution. However, they were also influenced by Deism (which is a far cry from atheism) and the ideas of the Enlightenment. If Penn visualized his colony as a Quaker place, Jefferson did not envision America as a Christian state in like manner. This does not mean Jefferson thought it anything other than good that Judaeo-Christian values be embraced by the public.

Most of the time, TRT, I see where you are coming from and agree with you. I just feel in a few areas you inflate the tire beyond what it was meant to hold.

[TheRealThing]

⬆️⬆️

The error, of course, was on your part, as you vagabond through posts looking for the "gotcha." The clear reference of Bob's "game" was the turn the tables aspect.

William Penn, Quaker, set out to establish a state in accordance with Quaker values. Over and over again, I have stated our Founding Fathers were deeply influenced by Judaeo-Christian values, and that is clear in the Constitution. However, they were also influenced by Deism (which is a far cry from atheism) and the ideas of the Enlightenment. If Penn visualized his colony as a Quaker place, Jefferson did not envision America as a Christian state in like manner. This does not mean Jefferson thought it anything other than good that Judaeo-Christian values be embraced by the public.

Most of the time, TRT, I see where you are coming from and agree with you. I just feel in a few areas you inflate the tire beyond what it was meant to hold.

Well thank you for that kind concession, I appreciate it. The record stands, fairly a stone face of accurate facts carefully recorded by those who at one time risked their very lives in defiance against the leader of the world's mightiest empire, Mad King George. They had faced impossible odds and by the grace of God, come out on top. Owing to the miracle of our own heritage, there is no way anybody would be able to convince me that the clarity of said record should be mitigated by interlopers or compromised by scoffers.

Now, I do not accept the notion that deists had any meaningful impact on our founding. Three out of the 238 men who could reasonably be considered to have been a founder were deist. I named them for you. The most notable of the three was obviously Ben Franklin. And history proves that he recanted his youthful flirtation with deism and humbly returned to his Christian roots. By the time of the formation of our government, his call to unity through a moving prayer he offered on the floor of the convention, is said to have been the lone factor in breaking what had seemed to be an unbreachable impasse.

Freedom of conscience was a term relative to freedom of religion, which just meant government hands off the Church. And even the most casual perusal of Governor Penn's 'Act for Freedom of Conscience' removes all doubt as to Who these men attributed Godhood. The God of Israel. The contention has been made time and time again by the left, and the lie taught in our institutions of higher learning and now high schools, that God is whatever or whoever man might imagine. The founders were influenced by Christianity.

LOL, so you think I inflate my arguments huh? That is certainly up for you to decide, I must say. However, where you see me overinflating, I see you stretching that gnat's butt one boxcar too far. :biggrin:

[TheRealThing]

⬆️⬆️

The error, of course, was on your part, as you vagabond through posts looking for the "gotcha." The clear reference of Bob's "game" was the turn the tables aspect.

William Penn, Quaker, set out to establish a state in accordance with Quaker values. Over and over again, I have stated our Founding Fathers were deeply influenced by Judaeo-Christian values, and that is clear in the Constitution. However, they were also influenced by Deism (which is a far cry from atheism) and the ideas of the Enlightenment. If Penn visualized his colony as a Quaker place, Jefferson did not envision America as a Christian state in like manner. This does not mean Jefferson thought it anything other than good that Judaeo-Christian values be embraced by the public.

Most of the time, TRT, I see where you are coming from and agree with you. I just feel in a few areas you inflate the tire beyond what it was meant to hold.

BTW, something else could stand a little sunlight here. Do you see how far those who, "have a form of Godliness but deny the power thereof," have taken Penn's term Freedom of Conscience? If went from glowing praises for Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior to, do whatever you think is right,† Where Penn would have all men to at least acknowledge an outward respect for the Creator, today's liberal keeps the title of his Act and dumps everything else in order to validate one of nature's most grievous sins, homosexuality.

† Proverbs 21:2 (KJV)
2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

In this example it is easy to see the distortions and deceptions of the liberal historical revisionist at work.

[The Urban Sombrero]

BTW, something else could stand a little sunlight here. Do you see how far those who, "have a form of Godliness but deny the power thereof," have taken Penn's term Freedom of Conscience? If went from glowing praises for Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior to, do whatever you think is right,† Where Penn would have all men to at least acknowledge an outward respect for the Creator, today's liberal keeps the title of his Act and dumps everything else in order to validate one of nature's most grievous sins, homosexuality.

† Proverbs 21:2 (KJV)
2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

In this example it is easy to see the distortions and deceptions of the liberal historical revisionist at work.

God allowed choice. Consequence followed. The Constitution is not the Great White Throne judgment. To grant equal protection is not to validate. The adulterer who leaves one woman to marry another is granted equal protection. This does not validate adultery.

The four "dig points" do not offer the "open and shut case" scenario you present. Nuance matters.

Now, there may well be others who validate choices contrary to Scriptural teaching, suggesting one path is as good as another, and if a man act in his own belief that is enough, etc., but that is not the opinion I am offering.

To disagree with a person's beliefs, actions, choices but yet to defend the function of choice, of essential liberty, is not moral relativism.

[TheRealThing]

God allowed choice. Consequence followed. The Constitution is not the Great White Throne judgment. To grant equal protection is not to validate. The adulterer who leaves one woman to marry another is granted equal protection. This does not validate adultery.

The four "dig points" do not offer the "open and shut case" scenario you present. Nuance matters.

Now, there may well be others who validate choices contrary to Scriptural teaching, suggesting one path is as good as another, and if a man act in his own belief that is enough, etc., but that is not the opinion I am offering.

To disagree with a person's beliefs, actions, choices but yet to defend the function of choice, of essential liberty, is not moral relativism.

Of course it is. And you can add moral activism to it as well. AFTR, I don't know if you've seen the news lately, but the only crowd trying to deny choice are those on the left. You're in there pitching as hard as you can for the losing team there ace. Just like you try to say who one votes for doesn't matter because both sides are equally culpable for things like the national scourge of abortion on demand. The city councils of Sodom and Gomorrah likely held you view with regard to politics and man made laws that back up homosexuality.

And I guarantee you this one thing, nuance won't mean squat in the endless eternity which awaits us all, and it certainly doesn't mitigate the horror and hellishness of the millions of silent screams. God heard them though. After all the revisionist duck and dodge and effort the liberal will have spent denying the impact of a man's faith in this vaporous lifespan, do you really think he will be proud at the judgment? And I know this irks you no end, but no thanks, I like my politics mixed with the reality of the truth.

Men don't need a defender in the cause of rebellion against God. That is the factor which will separate them from Him forever, you argument is pointless.

[Granny Bear]

So, any of you guys read about the Harvard political forum??

Kellieanne Conway was accused of manipulating the election for a white racist supremacist. She reportedly had help from the Russian hackers and FBI Comey, and that's what really defeated Clinton.

Instead of any healing going on here, the divide is getting deeper by the day.

It still surprises me how Clinton's camp can do all the things that they have, in the past, begged the Trump camp NOT to do. Evidently when THEY do it, it's okay.

Can you imagine the outrage if Trump, being the loser, accused Obama of being a black racist and joining a campaign to demand a recount of votes from three states? Amazing!!

There's a double standard here and the gap widens by the day.

[TheRealThing]

So, any of you guys read about the Harvard political forum??

Kellieanne Conway was accused of manipulating the election for a white racist supremacist. She reportedly had help from the Russian hackers and FBI Comey, and that's what really defeated Clinton.

Instead of any healing going on here, the divide is getting deeper by the day.

It still surprises me how Clinton's camp can do all the things that they have, in the past, begged the Trump camp NOT to do. Evidently when THEY do it, it's okay.

Can you imagine the outrage if Trump, being the loser, accused Obama of being a black racist and joining a campaign to demand a recount of votes from three states? Amazing!!

There's a double standard here and the gap widens by the day.

You are so right Granny. And now that the voter are awake they might as well see the whole picture if you ask me. Jennifer Palmieri just cannot manage to pull of the same identity bait and switch that her boss Hillary has so perfected. When pushed, though in public, she lets fly with her real feelings and her 'private' face is revealed. The Harvard Political Forum offers the voter a wealth of get real in which to mine for the real truth. Dems loathe Republicans and that sentiment is eclipsed only by their contempt. These guys are capable of shenanigans so beyond the pale that when reported by agencies like FBN, though the proper impact should be outrage, what we see it is more often a combination of deer in the headlights and are you kidding me? With the politicized DOJ in perpetual vapor-lock, and since the average citizen have nothing to fight with but their vote, enter one President Donald J Trump.

Somewhere along the line the party was commandeered by ragingly leftist ideologues. Dems gone on, men like Tip O'Neill for example, though openly critical of Republicans nonetheless did not put party above country. That has all changed as what we are seeing IMHO is nothing short of a socialist terraforming of this land at the hands of frothing Dems ala Palmieri. And you can bet at such candid moments as the forum of point, she reflects the true face of the woman who gives her marching orders, good ol Hill.

Now, if the Dems were not so accustomed to winning by skirting the fringes, they would not have been so candidly out of the closet with their accusations against the winner of the election, DJT. If they didn't do it, they wouldn't accuse others of doing it, and such candor BTW reveals a favored political tactic. If you will notice, every last time that Dems have been outed on something, appologists and party spokesmen always immediately point their fingers at Republicans accusing them of the same or worse. The idea is to mitigate the impact of their crime on the minds of the voter. This in the face of undeniable evidence that the Dems made an all out effort to register illegals to vote;

National Review reports:
The Obama Administration Wants to Make Sure Non-Citizens Vote in the Upcoming Election

Several well-funded organizations — including the League of Women Voters and the NAACP — are fighting efforts to prevent non-citizens from voting illegally in the upcoming presidential election. And the United States Department of Justice, under the direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, is helping them.

On February 12, these groups filed a lawsuit in D.C. federal court seeking to reverse a recent decision by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The Commission’s decision allows Kansas and other states, including Arizona and Georgia, to enforce state laws ensuring that only citizens register to vote when they use a federally designed registration form. An initial hearing in the case is set for Monday afternoon, February 22.
End Excerpt--


All one has to do to understand how well the left's guise is working in this day is to compare two events which took place simultaneously only last evening. The Harvard Forum and the DJT rally in Cincinnati, OH. Denial and doubledown on identity politics versus an American public which is clearly ready to move past same.

[Granny Bear]

This may sound crazy, but Palmieri was one of the Clinton staff members for which I had a degree of respect. I always found her to be genuine and very well informed. Even though I disagreed with much of what she said, I am more than surprised at how she acted during the forum.

Guess I was wrong.

[TheRealThing]

This may sound crazy, but Palmieri was one of the Clinton staff members for which I had a degree of respect. I always found her to be genuine and very well informed. Even though I disagreed with much of what she said, I am more than surprised at how she acted during the forum.

Guess I was wrong.

Public face versus private face, otherwise known as two faced. :biggrin:

[Granny Bear]

I am reminded of Hillary's answer to the question....what if Trump doesn't accept the results of the election......

"horrifying"