Merzik Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 (edited) 28 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said: "NeoCon Trotskyites!" The mind boggles So you are not aware of the history of the neocons ? Do some research. . The facts are there. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061303.html Edited October 16, 2016 by Merzik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintLouisBlues Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, Merzik said: So you are not aware of the history of the neocons ? Do some research. Google Justin Raimundo Neocons for a start. The facts are there. The opinions are certainly there. A fine old rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 53 minutes ago, Merzik said: Daily Beast story investigating her use of the word “rape” to describe a 1989 incident between the former couple is “totally without merit.” “I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit,” Ivana said in a statement to CNN on Tuesday. “Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.” The story cites legal documents from their divorce proceedings, as well as a 1993 biography called “Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump,” by Harry Hurt III. The book mentions Ivana’s use of the word “rape” to describe the 1989 incident, which she said made her feel “violated. In a note published on the first page of “Lost Tycoon,” Ivana acknowledged making the statements, but clarified that she did not mean them in a “literal or criminal sense.” “During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” Ivana’s statement reads. “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.” Was not rape. Period. Ever had sex with your wife when angry? A little rough perhaps but not rape by her own admission. She has nothing but good things to say about him...not just that she will vote for him. One of the first things a wife of Donald learns, after the ink dries on the pre-nup agreement, is how to craft a statement disavowing anything bad said about him, past/present/future. Plus, trashing her ex-husband's reputation might put a damper on his money-making prowess, and therefore lessen the amount she gets for child support/alimony. It's in her financial interests to now say good things about the man who, she swore in a statement, raped her. There are details in that sworn statement. Have you read it? It ain't pretty. Additionally, Trump's lawyer initially claimed it was not against the law to rape one's wife. The lawyer was later proven to be wrong. If Trump can't even get a personal lawyer who knows the law, how good would he be at appointing judges? Look at his doctor or look at the people he huddles with daily, and you get further proof of what a complete loser he is when it comes to finding adept people to bolster his image. Re; the Constitution: Trump is on record as saying "delay, delay, delay" when asked whether Congress should vote on a Supreme Court nominee. It's Congress' Constitutional duty to do that. In essence, Trump is telling elected leaders (and Americans in general) to not abide by the Constitution. Trump also wants to trash 'due process' by calling for HRC to be jailed. 47 minutes ago, The Old Bull said: Trump says outrageus statements to get himself on the front page and it works. What he really has in mind nowbody knows. To vote for him would be a gamble but better than a vote for Hillary, in the pocket of big business .To cosy with the Saudies and other war mongers a horrible person. It's too bad you think HRC is a horrible person. Most American voters don't agree with you (will be borne out in 3 weeks). In sum, a minority of Americans will be ceaselessly depressed for the next 8.3 years by having their first female president - someone they're sworn to hate every moment of their waking hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merzik Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, Andaman Al said: without reading the article, I saw Stein being interviewed. She said that because Clinton wants to establish a no fly zone in Syria it would start a nuclear war with the Russians !!! Another one who needs to join Johnson and Trump on remedial classes for world politics, history and military strategy. Major General Dunford agrees with Ms Stein: "The enforcement of a “no-fly” zone in Syria would mean a US war with both Syria and Russia, the top US uniformed commander told the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spelled out the grave implications of the policy advocated by both predominant sections within the Republican Party as well as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton amid rising violence in Syria and increasing pressure by Washington on the Russian government to unilaterally agree to grounding its own aircraft as well as those of the Syrian government..." http://www.globalresearch.ca/top-us-general-warns-syrian-no-fly-zone-means-war-with-russia/5547581 Edited October 16, 2016 by Merzik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merzik Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 1 hour ago, boomerangutang said: Re; the Constitution: Trump is on record as saying "delay, delay, delay" when asked whether Congress should vote on a Supreme Court nominee. It's Congress' Constitutional duty to do that. In essence, Trump is telling elected leaders (and Americans in general) to not abide by the Constitution. Trump also wants to trash 'due process' by calling for HRC to be jailed. "...Rather than confirming President George H.W. Bush’s picks for federal judgeships,The New York Times from Sept. 1, 1992, reports, Senate Democrats delayed nominees “to preserve the vacancies for [Arkansas] Gov. Bill Clinton to fill if he is elected president.” Som nam na ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 2 hours ago, SaintLouisBlues said: "NeoCon Trotskyites!" The mind boggles You have to understand something about Merzik. I'm not sure if it was in this thread or not but somebody uses a picture of Groucho Marx as his avatar. Merzik opined on the basis of that choice of avatar that the poster must be Jewish. In other words, in Merzik's mind the most salient feature about one of the greatest comedians ever to live was that he was Jewish. So when Merzik calls neocons Trotskyites, to him that's synonymous with.... Well, I think you can figure out the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLCrab Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 Apropos to this election no matter for whom (From Night at the Opera): Fiorello (Chico): Hey, wait, wait. What does this say here? This thing here. Driftwood(Groucho): Oh, that? Oh, that's the usual clause. That's in every contract. That just says uh, it says uh, "If any of the parties participating in this contract is shown not to be in their right mind, the entire agreement is automatically nullified." Fiorello: Well, I don't know... Driftwood: It's all right, that's, that's in every contract. That's, that's what they call a 'sanity clause'. Fiorello: Ha ha ha ha ha! You can't fool me! There ain't no Sanity Clause! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merzik Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 (edited) "The Guardian‘s latest Trump accuser Cathy Heller is a life-long Democrat, big Democratic donor, and her husband and son run a New York City real estate development company that is in competition with Donald Trump’s own real estate business, The Trump Organization. Conflict of interest much? Cathy Heller has donated thousands of dollars to Democratic groups since at least 2007, including Obama and Hillary campaigns, according to FEC filings. Just this year Cathy Heller has already donated the maximum $2700 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. She has been a registered active Democrat since at least 1988, according to Nexis..." On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 8:21 AM, keemapoot said: Keemapoot...no doubt you will be in the front lines in Hillary's jihad against Russia ? Have fun. Putin is a commie ? Rubbish. He played a key role stopping the communist coup attempt in 1991 that tried to save the USSR. This is why Yeltsin brought him into his administration. Alexandre Soltzhenitsyn himself was a Putin supporter. Was he a commie too? Doubt you have ever been to Russia in your life. Edited October 17, 2016 by Merzik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amykat Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/opinion/burning-down-the-house.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 More agitprop from the DNC, who incidentally have a joint bank account with the Clinton foundation.https://www.youtube.com/embed/5IuJGHuIkzYSent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now