Hasn't SHE also been filmed mocking Trump at her rallies...another person with disabilities, but his are purely mental.

EDIT: Also, is his mocking a disabled man really the most important flub he's made? Wouldn't disputing some of his policies be more to the point and make more of a difference. I mean, we already know he's a douchebag, and that's a selling point for most of his followers, not a deal breaker. Explain how his tax plan doubles the national debt, raises taxes on all non millionaires, and ends all social programs many of his followers use to live, while drastically lowering tax rates on millionaires and making it easier for them to hide money and move businesses out of the country, contrary to what he tells them in his rallies. I see this as a huge part of the problem this election, it's become all about personality, nothing of substance at all, because neither main candidate wants to discuss their plans or history.

EDIT: The following statement has been found to be inaccurate.

Um...keep in mind that she's NOT the nominee yet, people. It's another lie from her campaign, repeated by all media organizations.
A candidate needs 2383 PLEDGED delegates to win the nomination. She has 2184. Because there seems to be some question among Clinton supporters, 2184 < 2383. She's 199 short. That doesn't mean Sanders has much chance, it means the claim that "she won the nomination" is a BOLD FACED LIE that apparently 90% of Americans are gullible and ignorant enough to buy. Don't be a sucker and fall for then repeat another lie. Wait for the convention before calling her the nominee. She didn't win yet.

Aww shucks, I'm honoured you deigned to comment to me directly rather than out here... /eyeroll

ps. "sook"

To sulk, crack a sad and act like a big fat baby when you don't get your own way.

An Australian slang term used to indicate another person is soft, easily upset, or just a plain pussy.

Somewhat appropriate methinks.

edit: Have included the "private" comment to my profile. Newt, if you think you're so justified surely you don't have to post backdoor snipes at people when they're standing right in front of you... =)

BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!! Really?!? Too funny.


When you 3-4 repeatedly (intentionally, or from lack of comprehension ability) COMPLETELY misread what I wrote because of your being triggered, yes, it's you.

Tell me when 'Feminism' has worked AGAINST women or FOR men in it's 'sexual equality' mission. You can't. You just whine. 'No no no no no no no....you're wrong'.

Yes, it's you 3-4 who got upset and started misreading from the first post and being insulting because of your failure....it was not 'everyone else in the thread', it was the few who remained in the discussion because they were triggered and/or didn't comprehend.

Well, you completely misunderstood the "bold", and apparently still can't grasp the concept even after being corrected about the meaning, so, yeah, reading comprehension, not your strong point........I have been tested, and I read and comprehend better than 99% of Americans. Again, how did YOU score? EDIT:...or is it my fault for writing at above an 8th grade level?


This ridiculous BS with you triggered 'feminists' is SOOO not worth my completely worthless time. There's absolutely no point conversing with someone who simply can't comprehend something they think they disagree with, or who misreads over and over and fights phantom red herrings like Don Quixote with a windmill.

Thank you, come again.

PS OK, I'll go back and downvote, since you decided to call me a "little sook", whatever the hell that is (it's not English), I'm pretty certain it's MEANT to be an insult....so you're wish is my command, downvoteing the ad hom.

Oh yeah, I'm not a feminist. /grin

I have only been restating my opinion slightly differently to correct those who MISREAD my posts for the last day....like you

Yup, when everyone else in the thread disagrees with what you are saying, or how you are saying it, or the other things you're doing, it's obviously everyone else that has the problem... =)

No, I'm more worried about what the movement actually does, and feminism only works for women's equality.

Wow, talk about painting the world in broad strokes. I guess all Catholics are pedo's too?

You people were all triggered and apparently can't read because of your anger.

*giggle* Yup, it's everyone else. Not you.

PS: The bold (by which I think you mean the capitalized) was not PASSIVE aggressive, the edit was.

No, the bold that I put bold html tags around so it showed up as bold...

And I'm the one that apparently has reading problems. X D

I'm just done with this constant sniping by people who can't or won't read. Bye.

Don't let your ego hit you in the ass on the way out the door. /waves!

ps. You have far more in common with the 3rd wave feminazi's than you would like to think.

Edit: pps. Downvote me more baby, just shows you for the petty little sook that you are. ; )

Then perhaps you need a reading comprehension class. I have never even IMPLIED that others should follow my lead EDIT: UNLESS THEY ARE LIKE MINDED. I have, in fact, repeatedly said this is ONLY MY OPINION, NOT INSTRUCTIONS. I have not tried to "talk her out of" anything. I have repeated that 'others may think differently' ad nauseam.
I have only been restating my opinion slightly differently to correct those who MISREAD my posts for the last day....like you. You can't grasp that someone might have an opinion that different, but is NOT telling you or others to think the same way? That's on you.

YES IN MY OPINION. DUH. You can disagree all you like, but don't say I told you to follow, don't say I told you you're wrong to belong, don't say I tried to shame you. I did no such thing.

No, I'm more worried about what the movement actually does, and feminism only works for women's equality. If they also worked for male equality, I wouldn't care so much that the name is 'misleading'....IN MY OPINION. Since they don't work towards men's equality as well, it's apt....and it's not for me....it's also clearly only working for women's rights, not for total equality for all, contrary to many unsupported claims.

Go back to 8th grade and take reading comprehension.
I did not say or imply that 'only those like minded can understand', but 'only those like minded are being discussed'.
I'm just done with this constant sniping by people who can't or won't read. Bye.

You people were all triggered and apparently can't read because of your anger. Before you reply in kind, I scored in the 99th percentile in reading comprehension....how did you score?

PS: The bold (by which I think you mean the capitalized) was not PASSIVE aggressive, the edit was.

I re-read my post, all I said was that you were doing pretty much what Bareboards predicted, ie:

"Is this going to be one of these long back-and-forths, where you try to talk me out of something? I really don't want to go there. It's exhausting. "

We are all well aware of your opinion. And as I said, you have gone well past the point of discussion and now you're just repeating the same opinion over and over again as if reading it for the umpteenth time is going to peel back scales from our eyes...

I'll quote you earlier:

I'm stating that the word "feminist" as a word is not descriptive of a movement that works for "equality", it's descriptive of a movement that puts women first.

Some of those of us that have worked for equality of the sexes for decades are somewhat insulted by that misnomer, and very insulted by those that use the name "feminist" to describe man haters (that means both the man haters themselves and those that call all feminists man haters).

A misnomer in your opinion. We heard you the first time, I'd guess almost everyone understood you the first time. Some of us just don't agree with you, and a certain member has already politely asked you not to do exactly what you're doing. You're so worried about what name is attached to the movement to accord everyone equal rights that you forgot common courtesy? \= |

ps. I particularly enjoyed the passive aggressive snipe in bold below. Only like minded people really understand you and those that disagree are obviously misunderstanding (otherwise they'd totally agree right???). You'll just have to live with the concept that the sift is not a trigger-free-safe-space-echo-chamber. ; )

They heard the girls screaming for help....they did NOTHING but wait for them to stop screaming before calling for help, and then they LIED and claimed they tried to help but couldn't. They know they murdered those children, that's why they lied and claimed they tried to save them. It was a clear, bold faced lie intended to cover up their lack of required lifesaving action.
Attempting to help drowning children is not dying a hero's death...it might possibly lead to that if the cops are idiots and go about it the wrong way, but claiming that attempting a rescue is dying a hero's death is just absolute bullshit. If water is too scary for cops these days, we should shoot them all in the head and put them out of their terrified living nightmares, because the only logical excuse is they have rabies and uncontrolled hydrophobia, so it would be a mercy killing, not murder to put them all down. I think you should re-think your position.

I think if this was a family member, you would feel 100% differently. These murderers chased the girls into the water, sat by and watched them die, then only afterwards called for 'help' ('help' that they knew could not come in time to help) and tried to hide that murder by claiming they tried but couldn't help themselves....when in fact they clearly didn't try to save them in any way. That's depraved indifference/murder at best, intentional premeditated murder in all reality. If those cops had driven into the water and citizens sat back and watched them die screaming, every citizen there would be charged with the murder of a police officer. Cops have a HIGHER duty than normal citizens to protect others, not a lesser duty.

I guess this means we'll never again hear the bullshit line that 'cops do a dangerous job and should get some leeway' if 4 ft of water is so terrifyingly dangerous that they let children die rather than step into it. If they are such sniveling cowards that any possible danger paralyzes them, they are absolutely useless and need to be fired.

Yeah, thanks, but I don't think my 'dislike' (or distrust) of Clinton needs any help. I'm more disgusted by her daily. All I need is to see what she's doing today, boldly and consistently lying about herself and her opponents, to know I really don't want her as my president. If I knew ALL her foibles, she might rank below Trump...and ER MER GERD! That's nuts!
I just really hope Bernie doesn't get screwed out of the nomination, or that he runs as an independent if he does. He'll get my vote if possible.

"Clinton’s debating performance is formidable because it combines her intelligence with a sincerity and level of conviction that often seem absent in other forums."

Sweet Zombie Jesus. SINCERITY!?!? I had to turn the debate off 1/2 way through because people bold faced lying to me really pisses me off, and it's all she did, lie about Sanders, his record, and his plans. She looked incredibly desperate and quite Trump like to me....willing to make up or twist anything to attack any 'threat'. That's not a character trait I want in a president.

Her position that if one doesn't vote against anything and everything the NRA is in favor of, one is an NRA shill, is disgustingly disingenuous. He voted against a bill that would make the entire industry culpable for any misuse of their product....meaning they could prosecute the manufacturer and gun store if someone uses a gun for anything illegal....and I'm damn glad he did. That's a TERRIBLE way to try to curtail gun violence, and was an irrational and obvious slap at the gun industry, and would set a disastrous precedent...imagine if the auto industry had to defend itself against charges every time someone had an accident, and had to pay every time someone is found to be guilty of any infraction....now extend that to every industry. Sanders saw the implications of that kind of over reach and didn't vote for it. Boo hoo.
Her constant misrepresentation of his national medical plan, actually stating that he'll make tens of thousands of people LOSE their insurance and cost $15 trillion while knowing that his plan gets EVERYONE 'insured' for 1/2 the cost by removing the insurance industry that supplies nothing is just plain insulting to anyone able to follow along. If you can understand that simple set of facts, you should be pissed at Hillary for lying to your face, because you KNOW she understands it...she's not dumb.
I certainly didn't see her 'crushing' Sanders on any single point...maybe I need to watch the rest of it, did it turn around 180deg at the end? (I doubt it).

WTF?!? "Tangible plan"? What on earth could you possibly mean by that?
The "plan" to round up over 11 million people and deport them, but with zero details about it?
The "plan" to make Mexico pay to build a 2500 mile wall, with zero details about how?
The "plan" to illegally deny fugitives entry to states because, you know, Muslims are bad...MmmmK?
The "plan" to skew the tax system even more in favor of those in the top 5%, to the detriment of the middle and lower classes?
His "plan" to be a smarmy, dickish, douchebag to anyone that isn't in his camp...but also to completely control those people to make them do exactly what he wants...again with zero details how he plans to do so?
The "plan" to force China to...I don't know...ignore all our debt and treat us like the boss we are?

As for Clinton's being 'currently under Federal investigation by America's FBI department.'...the "email scandal" has, just like Benghazi, turned up absolutely zero illegal behavior and is nothing more than a red herring designed by the (absolutely not) "conservative" side of our political system, has gone absolutely no where, and only matters to people who would NEVER have voted for her in the first place...if you think differently, you really need to get out of the Fox bubble and look around at reality for a bit.

Little could be more disastrous for the country than having that vitriolic humanoid pumpkin as our 'leader', since the only successful leading he's ever done is leading people to hate each other, and leading far more people to hate HIM. He's a fairly terrible business man, successful only due to starting with a "tiny loan" (his words, really more of a gift from daddy) of a million dollars and being forced to allow others to take control of his investments. He's a bold faced liar, in fact the truth does not seem to be palatable to him in the least....and he's clearly admitted that in his books and sees it as a good thing to hyper exaggerate and minimize. He's a 'good Christian', who's been divorced how many times? There's no way on earth his plans would even be tried. He (and other republican candidates) don't even have a grasp of what the president does or how, claiming they'll 'repeal the ACA on day one', and they'll discard multiple government departments...somethings the president simply CAN'T just do...along with most of their other ridiculous, impossible 'plans'. They all know they wouldn't actually have that power, yet they all lie to you and tell you they will do the hateful things they've convinced you are the right thing to do by themselves. Fortunately our system is designed so that one nutjob, or even one party of nutjobs can't change laws precipitously.

I hate to tell you, but Bernie Sanders is not excluded for being honest and knowledgeable. ALL candidates are socialist, he's just honest enough to admit it. Tax breaks for the rich...socialism. Bailouts for the airlines and banks...socialism. Social security...socialism. Medicare...socialism. "jobs programs"...socialism. Public parks...socialism. Public roads...socialism. Need I go on?

Your mischaracterization of Obama's record is so patently ridiculous it's not worth contradicting.

I'm definitely on the other side of the, uh... pew?, but to me Colbert would be the one I'd accuse of the part I bolded in your comment -- at least in this specific scenario.

I'd agree that outside of this meeting of the two, if you consider the two of them separately as the individual helms of their individual shows, Colbert is certainly more tactful and graceful when broaching touchy subjects like this than Maher is. But on the other hand, I think that whatever Maher may lack in tact and grace, he makes up for in "calls it as he sees it" honesty and usually pretty solid logic.

I like both of them.

Yes, that's true, but is one exempt from that if one is PART of congress? I hope not, but perhaps.
As I saw it, when he said HE pulled the chart directly from planned parenthood's corporate records, that was testimony being offered to the other members of congress in the hearing, not a question, and it was clearly, intentionally, blatantly false testimony at that.
He said HE pulled the information and created the chart...which was an obvious and bold faced lie, it was not a mistake, not a misunderstanding, it was a lie. Unfortunately, I'm also fairly certain absolutely zero will come of it.

I think we just got to the bottom of the truth of that.
Isn't it a felony to lie to congress? Didn't that guy just boldly and clearly lie to congress?
Can the house ethics committee please do it's job and arrest this liar? Please?!?
I feel like the ethics committee becoming a partisan political weapon rather than doing it's clearly delineated job of policing congress is a large part of the problem with our government today.

You seem to have answered your own question.

Mind read much? Based on his name and his homemade clock in a briefcase you figured out what his thoughts and his intentions were? That's an insanely bold assumption my friend with the information you have.

Haven't seen this one in circulation yet:

Dear Chancellor Merkel,

The never-ending austerity that Europe is force-feeding the Greek people is simply not working. Now Greece has loudly said no more.

As most of the world knew it would, austerity has crushed the Greek economy, led to mass unemployment, a collapse of the banking system, made the external debt crisis far worse, with the debt problem escalating to an unpayable 175% of GDP. The economy now lies broken with tax receipts nose-diving, output and employment depressed, and businesses starved of capital.

The humanitarian impact has been colossal – 40% of children now live in poverty, infant mortality is sky-rocketing and youth unemployment is close to 50%. Corruption, tax evasion and bad accounting by previous Greek governments helped create the debt problem. But the series of so-called adjustment programs has served only to make a Great Depression the likes of which have been unseen in Europe since 1929-1933. The medicine prescribed by the German Finance Ministry and Brussels has bled the patient, not cured the disease.

Together we urge you to lead Europe to a course correction before it is too late for Greece and for the Eurozone. Right now, the Greek government is being asked to put a gun to its head and pull the trigger. Sadly, the bullet will not only kill off Greece’s future in Europe. The collateral damage will kill the Eurozone as a beacon of hope, prosperity, and democracy, and could lead to far-reaching economic consequences across the world.

In the 1950s Europe was founded on the forgiveness of past debts, notably Germany’s, which generated a massive contribution to post-war economic growth, peace, and democracy. Today we need to restructure and reduce Greek debt, give the economy breathing room to recover, and allow Greece to pay off a reduced burden of debt over a long period of time. Now is the time for a humane rethink of the punitive and failed programme of austerity of recent years and to agree to a major reduction of Greece’s debts in conjunction with much needed reforms in Greece.

We urge you to take this vital action of leadership for Greece and Germany, and also for the world. History will remember you for your actions this week. We expect and count on you to provide the bold and generous steps towards Greece that will serve Europe for generations to come.

Yours sincerely,

Heiner Flassbeck, former State Secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Finance;

Thomas Piketty, Professor of Economics at the Paris School of Economics;

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development, Professor of Health Policy and Management, and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University;

Dani Rodrik, Albert O. Hirschman Professor of Social Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton;

Simon Wren-Lewis, Professor of economics, Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University

Ah Asmo, this is humorous. Not in a way that has me thinking less of you, but due to the fact that even the smartest people make the most indefensible arguments. Stewart always has a joke when Republicans (and sometimes Democrats) do the same thing Chaos just did and which you defended--which is to ignore the "implied" in a statement. Usually Republicans use hate speech or such, but they just don't say the hate literally (Often when Obama's policies were compared to Nazi Germany's policies, for example.)

I.e, "Hey, I'm not saying Obama is like Hitler, but look at the smoke stacks coming from the White House?! They look like Jew smoke to you?!"

Another, but this one in more relation to our conversation.

I.e., Hey Lawdeedaw, when you have dick in your mouth does it taste good? WOAH, I DIDN'T SAY YOU SUCK DICK! YOU IMPLIED THAT! I just asked, you know, when dick is in your mouth...

See how utterly indefensible that above statement is? Or why Stewart gets so pissed, rightly so, when people make that argument? People can hide behind the most obvious statements and it's bullshit. Or people can be ignorant of the statements you make, and it's just as bullshit.

If you can't see the sense that makes, don't respond to this post please. I don't argue with ideology that blinds people to clear points and I have agreed with my fair share of points over the years when I have been wrong...so I expect it returned in kind.

Second, you do have a point about me being judgmental. I am jaded because every marriage I observed growing up was toxic. "Dad can't divorce mom, even tho she abuses us kids." Was a wonderful house I lived in. My wife was beaten for years by her husband, until she took poverty and destitution over that, and then met me. The list goes on and on, yada yada, no more need to explain my own life history because it isn't necessarily what happens in all of America. So I look at the worst aspects of marriage. Aspects that are as universal as the fact that we eat, breathe, shit and die.

Of course I also use history and stats to back up my judgment. So; marriage is a civil contract based on liberty and property (At least the part of marriage that matters to the government insofar as the rights they give you.) If the world's population of homosexuals is around 2.5% or so, depending on the estimates, then cheating (seeking out more than one relationship at a time) is much more naturally inherent to humans than sexual orientation by far. This is also natural in regards to the homosexual relationships as well. Cheating causes so much grief, repercussions, and yet it is only one bad aspect of being tied into a contract that many societies make difficult to break either through legal means or cultural taboos. Furthermore, abuse, divorce, long-term separation for business matters, much of these things kind of lend credence to the fact that marriage is created by society and has nothing to do with the "apparent" definitions we apply to it.

And Asmo, naughty naughty Asmo, you implied something...I am in no way shape or form telling other people what "their relationship is about." Just because I say something is inconvenient for damn near everyone (For some it is not) doesn't really mean much of anything. Shoes are inconvenient because you have to tie their laces. Is that me telling you how to shoe? No. How about kids? Kids are a hell of an inconvenience, but if you said I was degrading parenthood, especially my own, I would tell you to fuck yourself with that bold-faced lie.

If you are focused on the "property" aspect of that comment, well, you have an issue with my definition of the government's hand in marriage.