Considering Mr.Khan supports Sharia Law, he has no right to lecture anyone on the constitution.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Typical lefty. Justifying violence when it's your side doing it. Nice.
How is it "obvious"?
When you made stupid remarks over and over then it's either because you're really stupid or they are on purpose. Which is it for The Donald?
Again, Hillary's "corruption" has been discussed, investigated and numerous congressional hearings have been held and not one of those events has ever found any criminal wrong-doing or corruption. Emails, Benghazi...emails, Benghazi...emails, Benghazi...I can turn on talk radio any day and I am sure to hear the same two subjects and people saying the same things. You want the media to repeat the same old, stale news that everyone has already heard over and over and over. The media isn't talking about Trump's "I'd like to punch him in the face" comment or Trump mocking a disabled reporter...they talk about what he did YESTERDAY! He's like a membership in the Jelly of the Month club...the gift that keeps giving. If Trump isn't smart enough to stop saying dumb things then how on earth is he smart enough to be POTUS?
During the primaries everyone who supported someone other than Trump was complaining that he was getting billions in free media. The media was only talking about Trump and they were talking about the stupid, divisive and controversial remarks over and over...and the Trump fans ate it up. "He tells it like it is" they would say. Well, what has changed?
His own party is disowning him. Everyone with an ounce of common sense is disowning him. Hell, I honestly believe he is trying to sabotage his own campaign because he really wants nothing to do with being POTUS. He likes the idea of thinking he could be...but the POTUS must live in a bubble. Has to be respectful of and be respected by world leaders. Has to live in a house without his name on the building.
What pass has HRC received? What is out there that has not been reported and discussed? I spend a lot of time in the car driving listening to the radio. I listen to conservative talk radio for hours every week...they talk about the same things. If they can't come up with something new, how do you expect anyone else to do so?
How much political discussion would there be if we had to focus on the positive of the candidate we are choosing to vote for?
What I hate about this time is bringing down the other candidate doesn't make yours better, at all.
They both suck so why bother?
-DaBoss, yes the gun industry is a billion dollar industry. It's why they started the NRA to be organized and have power. While the lefty people say our candidate is not coming to get your guns, they aren't acknowledging that laws will be in place for the public to legally only be allowed shotguns, single shot rifles and 6 shooters.
And yes that is what the anti gun people want to be in place from this day forward. Then they will slowly(years and years of slow) confiscate anything more high caliber than that until you only own in secrecy or what you own is so extinct it won't matter anymore.
That is the goal.
What I hate about this time is bringing down the other candidate doesn't make yours better, at all.
They both suck so why bother?
-DaBoss, yes the gun industry is a billion dollar industry. It's why they started the NRA to be organized and have power. While the lefty people say our candidate is not coming to get your guns, they aren't acknowledging that laws will be in place for the public to legally only be allowed shotguns, single shot rifles and 6 shooters.
And yes that is what the anti gun people want to be in place from this day forward. Then they will slowly(years and years of slow) confiscate anything more high caliber than that until you only own in secrecy or what you own is so extinct it won't matter anymore.
That is the goal.
It's wild how the left has threw the LBG&T community under the bus for their new Muslim voting block.
So do you have any proof he supports Sharia Law? Or is it simply because he's Muslim and you think all Muslims do so? Just like all Christians believe the same things...
![[eyeroll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/rolleye/rolleye0011.r191677.gif "Eye roll [eyeroll]")
A large percentage of Muslims do believe in sharia. So it's a good bet that a taliban sympathizer would too.So do you have any proof he supports Sharia Law? Or is it simply because he's Muslim and you think all Muslims do so? Just like all Christians believe the same things...
At this point, Trump loses by double-digits. My opinion.
You might want to google his name. Think you will find the answer to your question there.So do you have any proof he supports Sharia Law? Or is it simply because he's Muslim and you think all Muslims do so? Just like all Christians believe the same things...
It's one thing to be reported, it's quite another to dissect and spin things into a negative slant.
Nothing she says or does RIGHT NOW even gets a tenth the coverage or break down that Trump does.
An Iranian scientist named in her emails that had given us info was just EXECUTED!
What does USA Today have over the clear connection with Hillary's private server?
That Trump used "people have said" to spread rumors!
We heard for a solid week that Trump was in with the Russians, telling them to hack into govt computers to find emails of hers, when anyone that heard what he said knew that isn't what he said. Assange comes out and says it was a DNC staffer that was recently murdered that was leak, and we get crickets.
Could you imagine the cry to resign if the father of a man who just killed 50 people in the name of ISIS sat behind Trump at a rally?
How bout if he said he was going to tax the middle class, it be plastered wall to wall.
He screwed up with Khan, should've let that go.
Bill, Constitutions are living documents...at least all of them that survive. What is "a well regulated militia"? When the Constitution was written we basically had no army. It consisted of 718 soldiers and was very poorly funded. When we went to war most soldiers provided their own weapons. A man shot squirrels and Red Coats with the same weapon.
Nobody wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment...nobody in the mainstream anyway. Perhaps it does need to be rewritten. You really think if James Madison and the founding fathers wrote the Constitution today that the right to bear arms would be left so open to interpretation? You think WalMart should be able to sell RPGs or .50 caliber machine guns? Come on!
How is a nuclear weapon not just another arm? Should Bill Gates be able to buy and own his own nukes?
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. There is nothing that you couldn't own in 1789 when the Constitution was written that you can't own today and nobody is trying to take your black powder rifles away.
Why is it reasonable people can't see that the discussion is over where that line should be drawn?
No. It isn't "differing opinions". It's "every single line of evidence points to this conclusion" vs. "financial interest la-la-la I can't hear you".
Actually what I find is a few rightwing nut cases making the claim. Nowhere will you find any credible evidence that Khizr Kahn wants to replace our Constitution or supports the implementation of Sharia Law.
I don't believe the Constitution is a living document, but thats another topic.
I'm not saying I think Hillary wants to take guns, I wrote twice I don't think she will.
However, if the second amendment needs to be rewritten it needs to be done through a constitutional convention and sent to the states like the Constituition says.
Not by an unelected group of judges.
Where is the line on guns allowed? Black powder rifle, single shot shotgun? Semi automatic shotguns weren't available then, so are they good or not? You see where the slope gets slippery?
Every single line of evidence, you sure about that? Or just the ones you want to believe? Follow the money Moe.
A constitution, by definition, is not a living breathing document. A living breathing document is the exact opposite of a constitution. That's why the amendment process was made so difficult by the founders.
The founding principles of a nation do not change over time. However those who hate those founding principles gain power. That's when they start to claim a constitution isn't a document containing fundamental principles, but something that changes over time.
If the founders wrote the Constitution today, I doubt they'd leave much to interpretation. They'd probably see the calls from the left and federal government to take away the right to own guns from the citizenry, and make it 100% explicit that every citizen has the right to bear arms (to the extent it isn't explicit already).
I'm fully comfortable with anyone who wants to buy a nuke or fighter jet on the open market buying one. If you can afford it, and can find a manufacturer who will sell it to you, go for it. I'm much more uncomfortable with supplying other nations with high powered military weaponry.
Wouldn't it be a lot more efficient, to allow the drug cartels and terrorists to purchase weapons on the open market rather than having Obama and Clinton smuggle them the weapons? Hell, the sellers might actually exercise some judgment in who they sell to.
The founding principles of a nation do not change over time. However those who hate those founding principles gain power. That's when they start to claim a constitution isn't a document containing fundamental principles, but something that changes over time.
If the founders wrote the Constitution today, I doubt they'd leave much to interpretation. They'd probably see the calls from the left and federal government to take away the right to own guns from the citizenry, and make it 100% explicit that every citizen has the right to bear arms (to the extent it isn't explicit already).
I'm fully comfortable with anyone who wants to buy a nuke or fighter jet on the open market buying one. If you can afford it, and can find a manufacturer who will sell it to you, go for it. I'm much more uncomfortable with supplying other nations with high powered military weaponry.
Wouldn't it be a lot more efficient, to allow the drug cartels and terrorists to purchase weapons on the open market rather than having Obama and Clinton smuggle them the weapons? Hell, the sellers might actually exercise some judgment in who they sell to.
Guess you are not looking in the right place. Might want to check out the book he wrote in 1983.
Well in your favor Fuzz he does say in an interview that there is no such thing as Sharia Law.
How are they a disgrace? Because you dont agree? Please insert your irrefutable evidence that they dont discriminate and hence the need for calling them a disgrace.I would like to be shown why you think this, because maybe I am wrong.
For example, if someone were to make a claim, without any evidence of such claim, you know, citing actual data, then said person would be a disgrace.
Since you said it, I assume you are not a disgrace and can back it up with actual evidence that counters said report and is so irrefutable, that no other person could make such a claim.
TIA!
As most know I have been a Trump supporter from Day 1. That said, the stupid comments he makes has to end. No, I do not think he is advocating someone kill Hillary. I think it was a quick joke in his mind that went bad (yet again). He has to realize everything he says is going to be scrutinized every way imaginable. Hillary will get a pass on everything.
For now on he needs to stay to the script and when he thinks of something to say off the cuff, don't say it! He is going to start losing sure votes if he does not clean it up.
For now on he needs to stay to the script and when he thinks of something to say off the cuff, don't say it! He is going to start losing sure votes if he does not clean it up.
Sorry buddy. The left wants to chip away at the second amendment until you're left with a 8 shot revolver that shoots blanks. You obviously have no clue about proposed legislation by the anti gun liberals and just regurgitate "we don't want your guns" all while the people you support are in fact trying desperately to do just that.
Hillary Clinton wants bans (as does most liberals) or all high capacity mags (which isn't even high capacity), followed by lowering the magazines to 8 rounds (essentially making most semi automatics useless). The want to ban stocks, tubes, flash hiders, etc. take a look at most liberal ran cities like New York and Chicago. Take a look at states like California and read up. 10 pound trigger pulls sound like a great defense gun to you?
You don't know shit about guns, or anti gun legislation. Stop pretending you do.
What some of you don't realize is YOU don't want guns taken, but the people you support actually do. take a listen to Eric Holden sometimes on gun propaganda. He lays it out perfectly. He even uses the phrase "we must brainwash."
All it takes is the Supreme Court flipping, allowing gun manufacturers to be sued, and it's over.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
They can find this out but no wrongdoing from Hillary? Classic.
Oh and I wonder why Baltimore has one of the worst murder/crime rates in the country? Notice when the cops left them alone they had a record year for murders?
I say pull every cop out of black areas and just use then to protect nicer areas, businesses & the immediate downtown areas. Let's see how they enjoy no cops and can get a hard look of why police are so present in those areas. It won't take long to figure out.
Took about 5 seconds to find this…
Khan wrote “Juristic Classification Of Islamic Law” in the Houston Journal of International Law in 1983. In it he breaks down different levels of Islamic law. Khan writes that the Quran and the Sunnah which were both directly created by the Muslim prophet Muhammad were the only sources in Muhammad’s lifetime that “were recognized as binding.”
Do You Think It Was Mistake Of The DNC To Allow Khizr Khan To Speak At The Convention?
“The Shari’ah-was completed during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammed, in the Quran and Sunnah. This brings up an important fact which is generally overlooked, that the invariable and basic rules of Islamic Law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah (Quran and Sunnah), which are few and limited,” Khan continues to write. “All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.”
In the journal article, Khan goes on to explain the importance of Islamic laws and interpretations to Muslim followers. He writes that: “The present form of the Quran is one and the same in every part of the Muslim world, and it has been so all through the centuries. This, Muslims believe, is due to the fact that the compilation and arrangement of chapters was completed-under divine instructions-by the Prophet himself.”
It is due to this that Khan writes, “to Muslims, the Quran being the very word of God, it is the absolute authority from which springs the very conception of legality and every legal obligation.”
Khizr Khan (R), accompanied by his wife Ghazala Khan (L), walks off stage after speaking about their son US Army Captain Humayun Khan who was killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq 12 years ago, on the final night of the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Center, July 28, 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. / AFP / Robyn Beck (Photo credit should read ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)
The Muslim attorney writes that, “it has to be admitted, however, that the Quran, being basically a book of religious guidance, is not an easy reference for legal studies. It is more particularly an appeal to faith and the human soul rather than a classification of legal prescriptions.” Khan added that, “the major portion of the Quran is, as with every Holy Book, a code of divine exhortation and moral principals.”
The attorney has law degrees from Punjab University in Pakistan and Harvard University.
Khan then goes on to write about the Sunnah. This is the “human, though prophetic, clarification of the Quran by Muhammed.” The rest of the journal is about interpretations of Islamic law by Islamic jurists distant from Muhammed himself. These are called Qiyas.
Khan includes quotes from Islamic scholars about Qiyas. One of them is from Said Abu Hanifa, who says it is, “slanderous is their saying that we give our qiyas any priority over the Shariah. Do we need opinion when there is a sacred text?”
A short biography of Khan in the journal article says that he is the author of “In Defense of OPEC” and “Legal Index of the Quran.” It also lists that he is the co-founder of Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law. Both these texts and the journal were not able to be found in a search of academic databases.
Cardkilla, the left absolutely wants to take guns away.
I enjoyed this hidden camera at the DNC showing what it's all about.
The left loves big government, pushes gun control every step of the way and you don't think they're wanting to chip away at the second amendment to eventually get guns? You can bet the house that will be one of the first things a Hillary Supreme Court will do.
In California the governor signed a bill requiring background checks on ammo and of course, the Senate voted to exempt themselves from new gun laws.
Oh, it's happening and people have every right to fear it and rightfully call these scumbags out for it. Big government doesn't stop. It keeps getting bigger and bigger. There's no reason to think they won't do this especially wih HC in office and loony leftists dominating the Supreme Court.
I enjoyed this hidden camera at the DNC showing what it's all about.
The left loves big government, pushes gun control every step of the way and you don't think they're wanting to chip away at the second amendment to eventually get guns? You can bet the house that will be one of the first things a Hillary Supreme Court will do.
In California the governor signed a bill requiring background checks on ammo and of course, the Senate voted to exempt themselves from new gun laws.
Oh, it's happening and people have every right to fear it and rightfully call these scumbags out for it. Big government doesn't stop. It keeps getting bigger and bigger. There's no reason to think they won't do this especially wih HC in office and loony leftists dominating the Supreme Court.
Trust Hillary!
EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Aide Cheryl Mills OK’d Oil Deal That Put $500K In Bill’s Pocket
9:37 PM 08/09/2016
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly defended an embattled banker during an official visit to Bangladesh while Clinton Foundation officials tried to steer money from an Abu Dhabi oil company into the banker’s coffers.
A Daily Caller News Foundation investigation traced the convoluted payment by TAQA — formally known as the the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company — to Muhammad Yunus’ Grameen Bank. Yunus is a long-time friend and Clinton Foundation donor.
The oil company deal eventually put as much as $500,000 into President Bill Clinton’s pockets via a speaking fee he got in Scotland.
The complicated set of international transactions is contained in a cryptic May 7, 2012, email chain between Cheryl Mills, then Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, and Amitabh Desai, the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director. The email chain was obtained by Citizens United, the conservative activist group that is the lead plaintiff in multiple federal Freedom of Information Act court cases.
TAQA is a huge oil and gas company 74 percent owned by the Abu Dhabi government that operates in 11 countries, including Canada and the United States. The firm in 2010 won the first of three “blanket agreements” with the Obama administration to import billions of cubic feet of natural gas from Canada into the United States.
[dcquiz] The Mills-Desai email exchange was not unique. The Department of State estimates the number of emails between Hillary’s top State Department staff and Clinton Foundation officials includes more than 12,000 separate communications.
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Cateras on July 25, 2016, rejected a State Department request to release the emails over a 27-month period and ordered release of most of them by Nov. 4, just days before the presidential election pitting Hillary against Republican nominee Donald Trump.
The email chain provides a peek into the byzantine worldwide network of deals hatched by the Clinton Foundation, and illustrates the massive potential conflicts of interest involving the Clintons, their foundation, wealthy donors and foreign officials.
The issue of the TAQA donation was initially raised by Clinton Foundation development officer Linda Andich, who read an Associated Press article about Clinton’s intervention on behalf of Yunus during an official visit to Bangladesh.
Yunus was charged by an official Bangladeshi commission with financial mismanagement of Grameen Bank, a government bank that was supposed to give out “micro-loans” to poor women in the country. He was eventually forced to leave the bank.
“Just reading about HRC’s support of the Grameen Bank, which prompted me to check in for any updates for the State Department, re: the Donation from TAQA,” Andich wrote Desai and Dennis Cheng, the Clinton Foundation’s chief development officer, on the morning of May 7.
Three hours later, Desai contacted Mills, saying, “we’d welcome your guidance on accepting funds from TAQA.” Mills replied, “Will call to discuss.”
The emails show foundation officials were trying to complete a deal offered by TAQA managing director Leo Koot in Scotland. He agreed to give $60,000 to the foundation for Bill to speak at a Scotland charity and auction. The winner of the auction was to get a “Special Day with President Bill Clinton in New York.”
The foundation accepted the $60,000, and Bill went to Scotland where he received an additional $250,000 to $500,000 for his speech before a group called “Business For Change,” according to the Foundation’s website. The black tie dinner was to raise funds for Yunus and his Grameen Bank.
Yunus is a long-time friend of the Clinton’s, going back to Bill’s time as governor of Arkansas. He has often been a featured speaker at the annual Clinton Global Initiative celebrity galas in New York. His Grameen America foundation donated between $100,000 to $250,000, according to the Clinton Foundation website.
During Hillary’s tenure as the chief U.S. diplomat, the U.S. Agency for International Development, a State Department division, also awarded millions of grant dollars to Yunus and to his allies.
“Mixing official State Department business and actions with Clinton Foundation fundraising is a huge red flag,” Citizens United President David Bossie told TheDCNF. “What do discussions of foreign donations from the TAQA Group have to do with Hillary Clinton’s official duties as Secretary of State?”
The Clinton-Mills-Abu Dhabi relationship has been as long as it has been deep. Mills negotiated a deal between New York University and Abu Dhabi while working at the State Department, an issue that raised an uproar among Republicans in Congress.
Bill further earned $15 million in a hedge fund deal with business partner Sheikh Mohammed bin-Rashid al-Marktoum, the UAE’s authoritarian ruler. He collected an additional $5.6 million to serve as “honorary chairman” of a Dubai-based for-profit network of Islamic K-12 schools throughout the world. The curriculum featured in those schools includes instruction on Sharia Law, which is at the heart of Islamic terrorist ideologies behind groups like Islamic State.
Bill collected another $1 million for two speeches he delivered in Abu Dhabi that were paid for by the royal government while Hillary was secretary of state.
Clinton spoke in the country while the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security were deliberating on opening a U.S. facility there to ease entering the country for U.S. travelers. The State Department overruled opposition from unions to support the facility.
“What was the priority for Hillary Clinton’s staff at the State Department?” Bossie asked. “International diplomacy for the American people or international fundraising for her family foundation?”
EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Aide Cheryl Mills OK’d Oil Deal That Put $500K In Bill’s Pocket
9:37 PM 08/09/2016
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly defended an embattled banker during an official visit to Bangladesh while Clinton Foundation officials tried to steer money from an Abu Dhabi oil company into the banker’s coffers.
A Daily Caller News Foundation investigation traced the convoluted payment by TAQA — formally known as the the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company — to Muhammad Yunus’ Grameen Bank. Yunus is a long-time friend and Clinton Foundation donor.
The oil company deal eventually put as much as $500,000 into President Bill Clinton’s pockets via a speaking fee he got in Scotland.
The complicated set of international transactions is contained in a cryptic May 7, 2012, email chain between Cheryl Mills, then Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, and Amitabh Desai, the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director. The email chain was obtained by Citizens United, the conservative activist group that is the lead plaintiff in multiple federal Freedom of Information Act court cases.
TAQA is a huge oil and gas company 74 percent owned by the Abu Dhabi government that operates in 11 countries, including Canada and the United States. The firm in 2010 won the first of three “blanket agreements” with the Obama administration to import billions of cubic feet of natural gas from Canada into the United States.
[dcquiz] The Mills-Desai email exchange was not unique. The Department of State estimates the number of emails between Hillary’s top State Department staff and Clinton Foundation officials includes more than 12,000 separate communications.
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Cateras on July 25, 2016, rejected a State Department request to release the emails over a 27-month period and ordered release of most of them by Nov. 4, just days before the presidential election pitting Hillary against Republican nominee Donald Trump.
The email chain provides a peek into the byzantine worldwide network of deals hatched by the Clinton Foundation, and illustrates the massive potential conflicts of interest involving the Clintons, their foundation, wealthy donors and foreign officials.
The issue of the TAQA donation was initially raised by Clinton Foundation development officer Linda Andich, who read an Associated Press article about Clinton’s intervention on behalf of Yunus during an official visit to Bangladesh.
Yunus was charged by an official Bangladeshi commission with financial mismanagement of Grameen Bank, a government bank that was supposed to give out “micro-loans” to poor women in the country. He was eventually forced to leave the bank.
“Just reading about HRC’s support of the Grameen Bank, which prompted me to check in for any updates for the State Department, re: the Donation from TAQA,” Andich wrote Desai and Dennis Cheng, the Clinton Foundation’s chief development officer, on the morning of May 7.
Three hours later, Desai contacted Mills, saying, “we’d welcome your guidance on accepting funds from TAQA.” Mills replied, “Will call to discuss.”
The emails show foundation officials were trying to complete a deal offered by TAQA managing director Leo Koot in Scotland. He agreed to give $60,000 to the foundation for Bill to speak at a Scotland charity and auction. The winner of the auction was to get a “Special Day with President Bill Clinton in New York.”
The foundation accepted the $60,000, and Bill went to Scotland where he received an additional $250,000 to $500,000 for his speech before a group called “Business For Change,” according to the Foundation’s website. The black tie dinner was to raise funds for Yunus and his Grameen Bank.
Yunus is a long-time friend of the Clinton’s, going back to Bill’s time as governor of Arkansas. He has often been a featured speaker at the annual Clinton Global Initiative celebrity galas in New York. His Grameen America foundation donated between $100,000 to $250,000, according to the Clinton Foundation website.
During Hillary’s tenure as the chief U.S. diplomat, the U.S. Agency for International Development, a State Department division, also awarded millions of grant dollars to Yunus and to his allies.
“Mixing official State Department business and actions with Clinton Foundation fundraising is a huge red flag,” Citizens United President David Bossie told TheDCNF. “What do discussions of foreign donations from the TAQA Group have to do with Hillary Clinton’s official duties as Secretary of State?”
The Clinton-Mills-Abu Dhabi relationship has been as long as it has been deep. Mills negotiated a deal between New York University and Abu Dhabi while working at the State Department, an issue that raised an uproar among Republicans in Congress.
Bill further earned $15 million in a hedge fund deal with business partner Sheikh Mohammed bin-Rashid al-Marktoum, the UAE’s authoritarian ruler. He collected an additional $5.6 million to serve as “honorary chairman” of a Dubai-based for-profit network of Islamic K-12 schools throughout the world. The curriculum featured in those schools includes instruction on Sharia Law, which is at the heart of Islamic terrorist ideologies behind groups like Islamic State.
Bill collected another $1 million for two speeches he delivered in Abu Dhabi that were paid for by the royal government while Hillary was secretary of state.
Clinton spoke in the country while the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security were deliberating on opening a U.S. facility there to ease entering the country for U.S. travelers. The State Department overruled opposition from unions to support the facility.
“What was the priority for Hillary Clinton’s staff at the State Department?” Bossie asked. “International diplomacy for the American people or international fundraising for her family foundation?”
Could a liberal actually try and tackle this please? I noticed it went ignored and I'm not suprised. Why do rich men deserve the right, but common Americans don't?
Good Lord Bill. HRC has never said she was going to raise taxes on the middle class. She gives the same campaign speech every day and one day out of literally hundreds it was unclear if she articulated the "n't" in "aren't".
Consider the source. Assange, Breibart and others are routinely suggesting conspiracy after conspiracy. If you are a political operative that is always working to try and sling mud on the same people...never backed with fact, only innuendo then you become the Boy who cried wolf.
As a son and as a father I understand that my father wasn't responsible for any of the bad decisions I have made in life and I don't think I should be held responsible if my son, especially at 30 yrs old did something heinous either. Besides, HRC can't control who supports her, who shows up at public rallies any more that Trump can control if David Duke and Duke supporters, support Trump. What Trump CAN control is when asked about David Duke claiming he doesn't know who he is and then sticking to that story although Trump cited David Duke as a reason he couldn't support the Reform Party in 2000.
Iran says he was executed for spying and he was arrested there long before the email was exposed. And the email only said that we should "let our friend go". Who knows if he was really a spy? He was wanting to go to Iran, a country with whom at that time we didn't have diplomatic relations. It would have required State Dept approval to allow him to travel there. You want to believe he was a spy because that fits what you want to believe. What if he wasn't?
Add...if Assange had a source on the inside then couldn't that source just as easily filtered an email from anywhere? Absolutely.
My god. If you honestly believe the socialist party doesn't want to ban most of all guns, then you're not educated on the topic at all.
For you libs that don't want them banned or limited to only the rich, do us a favor and don't ignore what gun people are telling you. Research it, and. And your officials get behind the second amendment. Don't put your head in the sand and pretend it's not happening. Just a simple request. It's the one thing we should all agree on as average Americans.
For you libs that don't want them banned or limited to only the rich, do us a favor and don't ignore what gun people are telling you. Research it, and. And your officials get behind the second amendment. Don't put your head in the sand and pretend it's not happening. Just a simple request. It's the one thing we should all agree on as average Americans.
Fuzz do you not think it a little strange that Ormar ended up behind her? He could have been anywhere in that building and he ends up behind her. Someone drop the ball in this one Fuzz?
Trust in Hillary!
The complicated set of international transactions is contained in a cryptic May 7, 2012, email chain between Cheryl Mills, then Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, and Amitabh Desai, the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director. The email chain was obtained by Citizens United, the conservative activist group that is the lead plaintiff in multiple federal Freedom of Information Act court cases.
The complicated set of international transactions is contained in a cryptic May 7, 2012, email chain between Cheryl Mills, then Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, and Amitabh Desai, the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director. The email chain was obtained by Citizens United, the conservative activist group that is the lead plaintiff in multiple federal Freedom of Information Act court cases.
Yeah, but I think there is another point in the absurdity in liberal behavior from her gaff. She obviously didn't mean to say she was going to raise taxes...however, imagine the explosion from msnbc, vox, huffy puffy post, on and on if Trump made that gaff. And they would, they are obsessed about soundbites.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Lol at anyone calling Assange a conspiracy theorist. A conspiracy theorist is someone who says Bush was behind 911, or that Trump is tied to Putin.
No. He's a man with actual proof. Proof that's been provided.
No. He's a man with actual proof. Proof that's been provided.
Similar threads
