[Granny Bear]

When it rains, it pours.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/...vance.html

[Motley]

She deserved to lose her job on CNN. That's pretty low. Not sure what being Christian has to do with it, but there's no defending that.

[Granny Bear]

In the article, she is quoted as saying that she is a Christian woman being persecuted.

[Hoot Gibson]

Brazille also claimed in her interview with Megyn Kelly that she was a Christian woman who was being persecuted. She also kept saying that nobody knows how the Wikileaks documents have been tampered with - without actually saying that the message that she had written had been falsified. That seems to be the standard way that liberals are dealing with the Wikileaks disclosures. They emphasize that the documents were stolen and that "we don't know which of them might have been altered."

I have also heard them saying that the document in question "does not look familiar." What I have not heard are clear denials that the messages about which they are being questioned have been doctored.

What I take away from their evasive non-denial denials is that the documents are the genuine articles and Democrats are afraid to make claims that they have been edited or forged because there could be other copies floating around that might catch them in an irrefutable lie.

[Granny Bear]

Well their damage control may have been a bit frenzied because, so far, it hasn't been effective.

[Hoot Gibson]

Well their damage control may have been a bit frenzied because, so far, it hasn't been effective.

If they had not destroyed so much evidence, they could have produced the originals to make their case. Of course, the originals would have required some editing to make them different from the Wikileaks copies.

[The Urban Sombrero]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-shows-t...25964.html

Partisans relish the slime on the opponent's turf, tend to ignore it on their own.

[Hoot Gibson]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-shows-t...25964.html

Partisans relish the slime on the opponent's turf, tend to ignore it on their own.

You certainly do.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You certainly do.

You are mistaken. I think the slime is on both turfs, just in different corners.

[Granny Bear]

It is. I just get excited when some is actually reported on Hillary.

Those reports are so rare these days.

[TheRealThing]

^^LOL, don't help him out Granny. To say the sliming exists on both sides is a bit disingenuous. On the one hand we have ongoing probes and investigations running within the FBI, thousands of WikiLeak revelations, Judicial Watch revelations, confiscated laptops and other devices, and the parade of factual evidence goes on to include the statements foreign powers. While on the other all we really have is the left's anecdotal wishful thinking in the place of hard evidence. It's no contest.

[Granny Bear]

Assange was reported as saying in an interview that he could confirm the hacking was not from Russian hackers, neither was the information released through WikiLeaks.

After the dirt started shaking out from the Clinton Foundation, it is amazing to me that the media don't have her head on a stick.

[The Urban Sombrero]

^^LOL, don't help him out Granny. To say the sliming exists on both sides is a bit disingenuous. On the one hand we have ongoing probes and investigations running within the FBI, thousands of WikiLeak revelations, Judicial Watch revelations, confiscated laptops and other devices, and the parade of factual evidence goes on to include the statements foreign powers. While on the other all we really have is the left's anecdotal wishful thinking in the place of hard evidence. It's no contest.

Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere?

[The Urban Sombrero]

I am no fan of the Clintons. They seem to think rules are for other people, and telling the truth is a matter of whether or not it's politically expedient. However, to offer up DJT as some bastion of virtue, when the truth is to the contrary, that is where the partisan loves only the slime on the opponent's turf.

[TheRealThing]

I am no fan of the Clintons. They seem to think rules are for other people, and telling the truth is a matter of whether or not it's politically expedient. However, to offer up DJT as some bastion of virtue, when the truth is to the contrary, that is where the partisan loves only the slime on the opponent's turf.

I'm not so sure about that. Both sides are in no way equally guilty of mud slinging. That is a DNC talking point.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I'm not so sure about that. Both sides are in no way equally guilty of mud slinging. That is a DNC talking point.

"DJT is a sexist, racist, cauldron of blustery, maladjusted judgement who is just this side of way too nutty to be President."

"HRC is a conniving, lying, crooked, dang-near-dead political operative who is just this side of Obama, if not his twin, who will keep this nation on track to implode."

I would suggest that slime is on both sides.

[TheRealThing]

Wherever you dredged up those two quotes is anybody's guess, but they weren't made by anybody of significance.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Wherever you dredged up those two quotes is anybody's guess, but they weren't made by anybody of significance.

I let pass your lecture on quotes. However, quotation marks can also denote things other than a direct statement by a person.

The campaigns of both DJT and HRC sling slime. The DNC and the RNC sling slime. "At least we ain't the DNC" may be a fuzzy feel good for white evangelicals convinced that Jesus wears a sweater with an elephant insignia, but the fact is that slime tactics wear both red and blue.

[TheRealThing]

I let pass your lecture on quotes. However, quotation marks can also denote things other than a direct statement by a person.

The campaigns of both DJT and HRC sling slime. The DNC and the RNC sling slime. "At least we ain't the DNC" may be a fuzzy feel good for white evangelicals convinced that Jesus wears a sweater with an elephant insignia, but the fact is that slime tactics wear both red and blue.

Well gosh, thanks for cutting me some slack. Most people like to know to whom the quote is attributable. To me the fact is you cannot demonstrate your rationale that both sides do it in any meaningful manner, while the news reports are filled each day with new stories of Dems slamming Republicans. In fact I've listened to Obama slam Republicans in every speech he has ever made, and that includes the G20.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Well gosh, thanks for cutting me some slack. Most people like to know to whom the quote is attributable. To me the fact is you cannot demonstrate your rationale that both sides do it in any meaningful manner, while the news reports are filled each day with new stories of Dems slamming Republicans. In fact I've listened to Obama slam Republicans in every speech he has ever made, and that includes the G20.

Are you serious? I guess I imagined prominent members of the GOP labeling Bill Clinton a rapist, speculating that Hillary had blood clots, suggesting President Obama bowed to Mohammed and sympathized with jihadists? Are you serious? Both sides go to the slime because they know the base loves it.

[Hoot Gibson]

Are you serious? I guess I imagined prominent members of the GOP labeling Bill Clinton a rapist, speculating that Hillary had blood clots, suggesting President Obama bowed to Mohammed and sympathized with jihadists? Are you serious? Both sides go to the slime because they know the base loves it.

I had no idea Juanita Broaddrick was a prominent Republican. What office did she hold? Congresswoman? Senator? Governor? First Lady?

Bill Clinton did not rape or harass prominent women. He preyed on those with far less power than himself and Hillary then threatened and intimidated most of them into keeping silent. Both of the Clintons have been serial abusers of women in their own way and those who vote for them are enablers.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I had no idea Juanita Broaddrick was a prominent Republican. What office did she hold? Congresswoman? Senator? Governor? First Lady?

Bill Clinton did not rape or harass prominent women. He preyed on those with far less power than himself and Hillary then threatened and intimidated most of them into keeping silent. Both of the Clintons have been serial abusers of women in their own way and those who vote for them are enablers.

"The accusers of Bill Clinton are straight up honest. The accusers of Donald Trump are low down skanks and liars." This is typical of the partisan, red or blue.

My point is not to defend Hillary nor slander Trump. Nor is it to marginalize or minimize legitimate differences on a wide array of issues between the Republicans and Democrats. It is to say that slime politics is practiced by both the DNC and RNC all down the line. The electronic media does not focus on the gigantic issues facing us, as it is easier to get ratings reporting on the tawdry and banal. It is easier, I guess, for the public to understand a Congressman sending a photo of himself in his skivvies than for a nuanced discussion about foreign policy.

[Hoot Gibson]

"The accusers of Bill Clinton are straight up honest. The accusers of Donald Trump are low down skanks and liars." This is typical of the partisan, red or blue.

My point is not to defend Hillary nor slander Trump. Nor is it to marginalize or minimize legitimate differences on a wide array of issues between the Republicans and Democrats. It is to say that slime politics is practiced by both the DNC and RNC all down the line. The electronic media does not focus on the gigantic issues facing us, as it is easier to get ratings reporting on the tawdry and banal. It is easier, I guess, for the public to understand a Congressman sending a photo of himself in his skivvies than for a nuanced discussion about foreign policy.

Juanita Broddrick did not just start making allegations against Bill Clinton late in a presidential campaign as a result of a cattle call.

You are lucky that the public does not understand foreign policy because Hillary's foreign policy debacles and her sale of access to the nation's top foreign policy office would be a no-brain disqualifier for her. For people like Hillary to get elected, ignorance of her record must be pervasive.

The Clintons are experienced in wallowing in the mud with political opponents as a strategy to divert attention away from their myriad of character flaws and policy failures. Let's giver credit where it is due.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Juanita Broddrick did not just start making allegations against Bill Clinton late in a presidential campaign as a result of a cattle call.

You are lucky that the public does not understand foreign policy because Hillary's foreign policy debacles and her sale of access to the nation's top foreign policy office would be a no-brain disqualifier for her. For people like Hillary to get elected, ignorance of her record must be pervasive.

The Clintons are experienced in wallowing in the mud with political opponents as a strategy to divert attention away from their myriad of character flaws and policy failures. Let's giver credit where it is due.

Actually, for people like Hillary to get elected, she needs an opponent who is more bluster than substance, more playground bully than nuanced tactician.

It seems you take as religion every accusation made at those politically different, and as fairy tale those accusations directed at those with whom you agree. Partisan to the core, it appears.

[TheRealThing]

^^You seem to have lost that aloof above-it-all posting demeanor you've been cultivating of late. I can understand why, as concern of the race having tightened up so much is reflected in the communications of Hillary Clinton and her supporters, all of which are starting to foam at the mouth just a bit.

What you like to refer to as red v blue theatrics, others see differently. Outside the epic political mud wars of your view, exists something called right v wrong or truth v untruth. It's not a pick your poison proposition as you liberals would love to make it. No, the choice is waay more significant than the us versus them argument of the 24/7 news loop. There is the record which is accessible by virtue of memory and research, just as there is a genuine ability to discern the distortions, untruths and misdirections of which the left has become so adept. At this point the people aren't buying the lies.

[Hoot Gibson]

Actually, for people like Hillary to get elected, she needs an opponent who is more bluster than substance, more playground bully than nuanced tactician.

It seems you take as religion every accusation made at those politically different, and as fairy tale those accusations directed at those with whom you agree. Partisan to the core, it appears.

Despite repeatedly claiming that you are not a fan of the Clintons, you never seem to get around to criticizing any of her actions. Not only that, you always seem to mount a defense when anybody else points out her many, many faults.

You speak about partisanship as if you are not a partisan. It is really quite amusing. I have never understood why some of the most partisan people in this country object so strongly when their partisanship is pointed out to them. Most of those same people claim themselves to be "moderates," as if they take great pride in being a fence straddler. Do you consider yourself to b a moderate?

I have not issue with partisans. In fact, I am most partial to conservative candidates. Lest you have forgotten, I authored most of the negative posts about Donald Trump that have been written in BGR threads since he declared himself to be a religious, conservative, Republican candidate for office.

Unlike you, when I say that I am not a fan of Trump or Hillary, I am not shy about providing specific reasons for my disdain for both.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Despite repeatedly claiming that you are not a fan of the Clintons, you never seem to get around to criticizing any of her actions. Not only that, you always seem to mount a defense when anybody else points out her many, many faults.

You speak about partisanship as if you are not a partisan. It is really quite amusing. I have never understood why some of the most partisan people in this country object so strongly when their partisanship is pointed out to them. Most of those same people claim themselves to be "moderates," as if they take great pride in being a fence straddler. Do you consider yourself to b a moderate?

I have not issue with partisans. In fact, I am most partial to conservative candidates. Lest you have forgotten, I authored most of the negative posts about Donald Trump that have been written in BGR threads since he declared himself to be a religious, conservative, Republican candidate for office.

Unlike you, when I say that I am not a fan of Trump or Hillary, I am not shy about providing specific reasons for my disdain for both.

Unless I imagined it, I posted my dislike of how the Clintons seem to think rules are for other people, and distort truth when convenient or expedient. Trump and Clinton are deeply flawed candidates, yet they carry the flag for a whole host of values and beliefs and convictions for Republicans and Democrats. Issue driven voters aren't necessarily partisan. The media plays the slime game, and both the DNC and RNC participate. In my view, it is partisan to deny that, on either side's part.

[Hoot Gibson]

Unless I imagined it, I posted my dislike of how the Clintons seem to think rules are for other people, and distort truth when convenient or expedient. Trump and Clinton are deeply flawed candidates, yet they carry the flag for a whole host of values and beliefs and convictions for Republicans and Democrats. Issue driven voters aren't necessarily partisan. The media plays the slime game, and both the DNC and RNC participate. In my view, it is partisan to deny that, on either side's part.

Partisanship is not an evil thing to be avoided. The Clintons are evil things to be avoided. Neither Hillary, her husband, or her friends the Trumps would be welcome in my home.

Being a partisan does not mean that you must be a straight party voter. It means that you are not afraid to admit that certain candidates share your vision more strongly than others. I no longer consider voting for any Democratic candidates because the party's positions on issues is diametrically opposed to my positions.

However, I do not oppose the Clintons only out of mere partisanship. I oppose them because I consider them criminals. One Clinton impeachment was quite enough without putting another one into position to uphold their part of the bargains for which foreign nationals and crony capitalists have already paid.

[TheRealThing]

Unless I imagined it, I posted my dislike of how the Clintons seem to think rules are for other people, and distort truth when convenient or expedient. Trump and Clinton are deeply flawed candidates, yet they carry the flag for a whole host of values and beliefs and convictions for Republicans and Democrats. Issue driven voters aren't necessarily partisan. The media plays the slime game, and both the DNC and RNC participate. In my view, it is partisan to deny that, on either side's part.

Again, this statement is patently false. I would be very interested to see you cite a Republican initiated parallel to Hillary's having hired thugs to violently disrupt Trump rallies, while at the same time colluding with media to propagate a lie in alleging that Trump supporters were the ones to blame. Good and decent American Patriots were injured and maimed by said thugs BTW. The narrative if you will recall spewn from the lips of Hillary herself, was that Trump supporters are dark and nefarious lowlifes, a basket of deplorables motivated by their clandestine ties with the KKK and other white supremacist groups. Of course, after having watched the violent shenanigans of the manufactured Occupy Main Street movement, it wasn't much of a stretch to assume such backdoor machinations had become a tool for Democrats; And right on cue we got manufactured anarchy at Trump rallies (until they were exposed for it).

Both sides DON'T slime. Only the Dems do it to any appreciable degree. In fact in a twist of irony, I would say it is the Republicans who've been more passionately converted into the diverse universe. I've never seen a Dem come out and slam their nominee for not respecting the liberals' version of a religiously couched adherence to secular diversity in the way Speaker of the House Paul Ryan just did. I mean, didn't his words just drip with the milk of brotherhood? And though Ryan's criticisms were misguided, and though Trump's statements were taken out of context, it none the less had the effect of setting back Trump's candidacy. In other words Ryan felt so strongly about his liberal university-diversity indoctrination, he was willing at that point to see Hillary take the White House and watch his party descend yet again into irrelevancy. Now, say what you want, but no Dem is about to go against his party no matter how much monkey puke he has to drink.

But please, go ahead and set me straight. Name one time Republicans have sent bus loads of protestors into an area to create havoc in the name of social justice. How many get out the vote drives with the goal of registering as many as possible illegal aliens to vote in American Presidential elections sponsored by Republicans? I'll go ahead and call you out ahead of time, you can't.

[The Urban Sombrero]

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.