jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (62 posts)

Hillary for president ?

  1. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 10 months ago

    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12868176.jpg

    Hillary or,  ANY ONE OF THEM ,  why do we keep  up the same insanity ?

    1. Live to Learn profile image82
      Live to Learnposted 10 months ago in reply to this

      Because the Clinton's have more audacity than most all other politicians combined. They are so greedy and clueless of common morals and decency that the average person only assumes that those who point it out have to have some axe to grind.

      1. ahorseback profile image50
        ahorsebackposted 10 months ago in reply to this

        Got that right !  Wait here and see .

  2. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 10 months ago

    Hillary-ious meme!   lol 
    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12868344.png
    It would be like a third term of the Obama Administration. sad

    1. ahorseback profile image50
      ahorsebackposted 10 months ago in reply to this

      Hillary could just as well send a tape recorded message to New Hampshire this week  .    She   simply repeats the same  boring rhetoric   much like Sanders always does .

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

        So what type of crap am I hearing from Trump and Cruz? Compared with them Hillary Clinton is music to the ears.

    2. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

      Gotta be better than a first term for a Trump or Cruz administration....

  3. Live to Learn profile image82
    Live to Learnposted 10 months ago

    Just read that Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright are trying to shame women into supporting Hillary just because she's a woman. And it appears Hillary isn't attempting to distance herself from them.

    It's pretty pathetic. As if we are supposed to ignore everything else because she wears a skirt. As a woman it is one of the most offensive things I've heard in the campaigns so far and an insult to the intelligence of all American women.

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

      Ms. Clinton leaves a whole lot to be desired, believe me. But Trump and Cruz are worse....

      1. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 10 months ago in reply to this

        Not sure what that has to do with this.

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

          nothing, my apologies for battle fatigue from another thread. Your assessment of the situation as you describe it is correct, of course

          1. Live to Learn profile image82
            Live to Learnposted 10 months ago in reply to this

            I apologize too for being short. I was quite put out when I saw that. And they call themselves educated women.

    2. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
      Kathleen Cochranposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Don't vote for her because she is a woman.  Vote for her only if you want the most qualified person to be president. 

      And accusations are not convictions.  She has had stuff flung at her for 30 years.  Nothing has stuck.  Don't you have to ask yourself why at some point?

      1. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        Look at the Clinton body count lists.   Just saying.

        1. Live to Learn profile image82
          Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          It's no use. Clinton supporters would step over dead bodies to get to a Clinton rally and never see what they were stepping over.

      2. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        I am fully aware that nothing has stuck. I don't think I implied she should be brought up on charges. I simply find her to be dishonest and arrogant. There is nothing illegal in that, but it is two traits I do not like in a politician.

    3. LauraD093 profile image84
      LauraD093posted 9 months ago in reply to this

      I feel the same wrote a hub --take a peek and let me know what U think

  4. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 10 months ago

    There was a time when I was younger and voting that I'd say , "Well , no matter who I vote for ,whoever wins  is going to be a decent leader "   Today though  , I see every   dramatic movie or scene in a movie that portrayed the Romans throwing live Christians into the lions den , that's what I in envision in  modern day elections . Americans are too focused on  competition for one , but  image for another .

    Todays candidates are so polished,  perfectly dressed in   presentational costumes ,  rhetorically perfected in politic-speech .,    It is Always  in what someone is SAYING and how they say it that I am  attracted to .  but when I hear absolutely no substance in a line of  speech from a candidate , I am forever turned off  to them . 

    Hillary is exactly one of those who "says" so little  in a speech  while droning on and on  .  Trump is another  ,   Cruz is very close to the same .  American  voters have become so dumbed down to honesty , to  substantial amounts of meaning in speech .   The ONLY thing that comes to my mind today when it comes to the game is  American Idol or  the Apprentice  .  Sad , but I believe its says more about the voters  than even the roboti-cism of the  candidates.

  5. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 10 months ago

    Hillary is heavily bank rolled by Wall Street cash / big banks, she's another puppet.

    http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12870683.jpg

    Hillary Clinton is a liar. She uses the old Nazi Joseph Goebbels adage:
    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

    The lie: Hillary is 100% Confident Nothing Will Come From FBI Email Probe.

    Former Secretary Clinton is still facing a possible felony for 18 U.S.C § 793:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/18/3a.11

    But, it looks like the Obama Administration is going to allow the cover-up since blaming a YouTube video lie didn't work so well with Benghazi.  (but, I'm sure some people believe that one)

    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12870698.jpg

    Right now the Democratic presidential candidates are fighting over who is the biggest socialist and who is the most “progressive” Progressive.  sad

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

      Perhaps, but I would rather have that argument than decide between Hitler and Stalin, (Trump and Cruz) who is the stronger advocate for a Fascist America.

      Fascism scares me a lot more than does socialism.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 10 months ago in reply to this

        Why?  At least fascism says "I will force you to do as I wish while ruining your life".  The socialist says "I promise you milk, candy and paradise"...and ruins your life while your back is turned to eat.  One is up-front about their intentions, the other a sly manipulator pandering to the greed of the people, but in the end both will reduce your society/country to a wasteland of poverty and regret. 

        Both will leave you hating someone - the fascist leaders or those who expect compensation for their efforts, but at least socialism will leave you with a good feeling that it's not your fault - it's your right to demand what others produce and somebody else's fault for not giving it to you.

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

          Almost every modern industrial society have more elements of socialism in their makeup than does the U.S .

          There are many successful societies based on socialism, how many successful societies have fascism as its base?

          So, you choose, Sweden or the Third Reich.....

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 10 months ago in reply to this

            How conveniently you sweep Greece under the rug.  Along with the other failed socialistic countries.  The EU is in considerable trouble, with socialistic policies being the single biggest reason.  With capitalistic nations the likes of Germany being the glue that is supporting the failures to date.

            No, you choose: Greece or a lifetime of providing for yourself, without demanding that others do it for you.

            Of course, one must wonder if socialism is the culprit or democracy. " It <democracy> depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens... which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it... which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses.  For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader – the barbarians enter Rome."
            [Robert Heinlein, To Sail Beyond The Sunset]

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 10 months ago in reply to this

              Quite the contrary, Germany has a far more socialistic economic platform than does the US. They seem to be doing pretty well.

              Youve changed the focus of our comparison, why use the the most troubled EU member as an example instead of the more successful?

              fascism is political
              socialism is economic

              Greece, socialism that had failed or life in Nazi Germany. Fascism, totalitarianism, no rights to the citizens. What makes you think that in such a system that what you earn would necessarily stay with you? Without the rule of law, nothing else can be relied upon. So, do you still want to make that choice?

              And for the most part this system has been very generous to the wealthiest of us. What is it now, correct me if I am in error, 1 percent controlling over 50 percent of the nations wealth and increasing exponentially. That is not sustainable over the long term. And these people did not concentrate all of that wealth because they were so much smarter than the rest of us. The game is rigged to make sure that they continue to acquire more at the expense of the rest of us. That is the REAL threat to democracy.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 10 months ago in reply to this

                "Germany has a far more socialistic economic platform than does the US. They seem to be doing pretty well."

                Don't know about "far" more, but it is more.  It is also far less that most of the other states in the EU.  Perhaps they've learned about going too far down that deadly road?

                Aren't you putting the cart before the horse?  They became wealthy via the system, while others did well and a small percentage failed miserably.  Would you rather have everyone fail miserably, just to keep it all equal?

                "The game is rigged to make sure that they continue to acquire more at the expense of the rest of us."

                Oh?  And just how is it rigged?  Before you point out that the rich are bribing our "leaders" to maintain their wealth, I'd point out that that is a failure of our political system, not capitalism.  AND that firmly chaining the people to those politicians (the same ones being bribed) for their life support doesn't seem like a workable solution.  I'd encourage you to think about where Clinton's primary financial support, for example, is coming from as well.  (Hint: it ain't the poor people.  It isn't even the middle class man-in-the-street.  None of the candidates get support from either of those.)

                But what did you think of the quote?  Isn't that what we're seeing?  And in spades in Europe?

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  Just want you to know that I am certainly going to address this very soon!!

                2. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  Wilderness, you believe that the reason that the rich is bribing our government to maintain their wealth is a fault of political system not capitalism. I could agree with that, but it is the conservatives/GOP that are most resistant to making the changes necessary to remove the fault. They have been the ones that resists campaign finance reform and consider inordinate influence of money in politics the equivalence of 'speech'.Until they take that obligation seriously, they remain an accessory to the problem and one would go on to believe that they would prefer this status quo.

                  I am thinking about the Clinton campaign, she having trouble with me and other progressives on just the points that you are making. Bernie is the only one that is not getting his seed money from the big shots, only to be beholding to them later.

                  The system works best with a combination of capitalism and socialism in measured amounts. But as the system currently is, capitalism with the rich and powerful having their tenacles on the political system, is more abusive than not. I need a serious candidate that recognizes this and is prepared to speak truth to power.

      2. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 10 months ago in reply to this

        Fascism and Communism are two sides of the same coin called totalitarianism if you want to bring it to the level of  "Hitler and Stalin" ... err... (Hillary and Bernie). 

        I'm not here to argue.  Maybe you are right about Trump and Cruz being that way to some degree, maybe not.  How could you possibly know that?   But, this thread isn't about them, is it?  Its about Hillary / Hitler.   

        I would love to see a president who will take the US away from the political, social, and cultural changes that fundamentally have been transforming the nation under the Obama Administration, while erasing traditional ideas regarding good and evil. 

        Hillary does not fit on the "good" side of the coin, no matter how many two headed coin tosses she wins.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 10 months ago in reply to this

          Unfortunately, too many of those ideas about good and evil and been just plain wrong.  Evil in themselves, which is why they are (and have been) left along the wayside with other uncivilized ideas of behavior.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Hillary Clinton was NOT fired nor is there any evidence of “Lying and Unethical Behavior” during her tenure on the Watergate Investigative Committee! 

      Ironically, the false claims in this graphic reflect the “Lying and Unethical Behavior” we see repeated in these forums by the same small set of people.   

      In this particular case, the lie first appeared in 2008 during Ms. Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. It was one of many accusations made by Attorney Jerry Zeifman, who thirty-four years earlier had worked as the Chief Council on the permanent legal staff of the House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Peter Rodino.

      Mr. Zeifman asserted (1) that he was Hillary’s supervisor during the House Watergate investigation and (2) that he fired her from the investigation for "unethical, dishonest" conduct. He wrote in February 2008, “My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations."

      He lied and his lies quickly began to unravel when they were compared to the facts:

      Fact 1: Mr. Zeifman was never Hillary’s supervisor.

      When the Watergate scandal unfolded, Judiciary Committee Chairman Rodino appointed former U.S. Justice Department lawyer John Doar to form and to lead a separate Impeachment Inquiry staff to investigate whether President Nixon had committed impeachable offenses. Among the 43 attorneys hired by Mr. Doar was a 26-year-old Yale Law School graduate named Hillary Rodham. Hillary’s supervisor was John Doar and not Jerry Zeifman. Both Doar and Zeifman reported directly to the Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino! {1}

      Fact 2: Jerry Zeifman did NOT fire Hillary Rodham!

      Jerry Zeifman is on the record contradicting his own lies on more than one occasion. Back in the mid-90s, in his book Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of Richard Nixon (Thunder's Mouth Press, 1996), Mr. Zeifman definitely did NOT say he “fired” or “terminated” her. Instead, according to his published account of the final days of the Watergate Investigative Committee, he acknowledged that Hillary remained a member of the inquiry staff until the very end, departing along with everyone else when it was totally disbanded following President Nixon's resignation in August 1974: “Hillary was twenty-seven when the impeachment inquiry staff was disbanded. The next morning she took a train down to Little Rock, Arkansas. She moved in with Bill Clinton and they eventually married." {1}

      But, there is more.  Jerry Zeifman contradicted his own lies on more than one occasion! In 1998, the Scripps Howard News Service referred to Mr. Zeifman’s unflattering memories of Hillary’s work on the committee and quoted him saying, “If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her.” {2}

      A decade later he was telling the public that he HAD fired her! However, by his own admission, Jerry Zeifman did not fire Hillary Rodham and did not have the authority to do so. 

      Equally as important, these facts not only reveal the truth but they expose the unscrupulous few among us whom we see regularly posting lies in these forums as part of a malicious need to falsely malign the reputations of others. They also reveal that the “Lying and Unethical Behavior” claimed in the graphic above actually belong to the person who didn’t bother to verify if it was true.   
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp
      {2} http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/stat … 080404.pdf

    3. colorfulone profile image87
      colorfuloneposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Let's bring the whole post to the next page.  Okey! 
      I'm not going to split hairs over a meme by unknown.
      But...
      http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12880791.jpg
      Funny that ISIS made a new video after Hillary lied.  wink

      You do know who created ISIS?

  6. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 9 months ago

    Quilligrapher, I did a little research. I suppose "fired" is not the best choice of words on the meme someone made.   

    The fact is that Hillary was "terminated"  because of her unethical conduct on the Watergate committee investigation.   

    Hardly worth alluding to suggesting someone is lying, but small wheels turn in that direction...while splitting hairs.  (?)  sad   Its a meme!

    I had to laugh when I read comments for this meme on FB because someone said it was photo-shopped and the older photo wasn't even Hillary.  lol  You might think that humorous too, so I shared that.  wink   (good blonde joke) 

    On the other hand, if Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar, you are defending her.   Google that!

    1. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Check your research Colorfulone, according to what I read, (which conforms to Quill's response), she was not fired and remained on the investigative committee until it was disbanded upon Nixon's resignation.

      From Snopes.com;
      "...Quite tellingly, Zeifman made absolutely no mention of having "fired" or "terminated" Hillary Rodham, nor of telling her that he "could not recommend her for any further positions," in his 1995 book; he only started claiming so much later. Back in 1995 he noted that Hillary had remained with the inquiry staff up until the end, leaving only when President Nixon's August 1974 resignation made the issue of impeachment moot and the Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry staff was therefore disbanded: "

      GA

  7. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 9 months ago

    “Well, let me put it this way: I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — were no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not — recommend her for any further positions.”
    ~ 2008, Jerry Zeifman   smile  He changed his passion? 

    I have not read his 1995 book. Have you, GA?
    Snoops leans liberal and reports falsehoods?  It is reported.
    All this over a meme.

    1. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Jerry Zeifman  has been debunked and discredited by many sources other than Snopes.com, including by his own words - as Quill pointed out.

      ps. it may seem an over-blown reaction to a meme, but when memes are dishonest - and still posted by someone trying to make a point - then they deserved to be called-out just as much as other dishonest claims do.

      GA

      1. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        Good point...I will check the facts on memes more closely going forward...

    2. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      If you have evidence that Snopes.com reported falsehoods concerning Jerry Zeifman’s contradicting statements, then simply produce the proof instead of resorting to more unsupported innuendo. If you have evidence that Jerry Zeifman, not John Doar, hired and supervised Hillary Rodham then simply produce it. If you have evidence that Hillary Rodham did not actually serve on the Watergate impeachment inquiry staff until the final days of its existence then simply produce it. 

      You posted this claim that has been debunked more than once by the very same person who said she had been fired. Now, you need to tell us which one of the three liars you would like us to believe: the Jerry Zeifman who said he terminated her because of "unethical, dishonest" conduct, the Jerry Zeifman who said he didn’t have the power to fire her or the Jerry Zeifman who said she left under the same circumstances as everybody else, i.e. when the entire investigative staff was disbanded.

      Further, the more troubling issue is not this particular meme, opinions about Hillary Rodham Clinton, or clashing political ideologies. This is about not having respect for the truth. This is about unethical posts that abet a consortium of unscrupulous, manipulating liars by spreading their toxic bile here in our virtual meeting place. The stream of false claims reveals how comfortable these instigators feel when in the company of liars. They cut and paste the most incredible and the most irrational accusations without exercising their moral and ethical obligation to always speak the truth.  They are obviously content with becoming liars too.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

  8. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 9 months ago

    Subject: Bill Clinton's Loving Wife
    By Dick Morris.

    Dick Morris, former political advisor to President Bill Clinton.

    If you happen to see the Bill Clinton five minute TV ad for Hillary in which he introduces the commercial by saying he wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary's background, beware as I was there for most of their presidency and know them better than just about anyone. I offer a few corrections:

    Bill says : "In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the poor."

    The REAL facts are:
    Hillary's main extra-curricular activity in 'Law School' was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a 'Federal Agent'. She went to Court every day as part of a Law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.

    Bill says : "Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a Children's rights project for poor kids."

    The REAL facts are:
    Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.

    Bill says : "Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers."

    The REAL facts are:
    She flunked the D.C. bar exam, 'Yes', flunked it, it is a matter of record, and only passed the Arkansas bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas, 'None', and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She did not join the prestigious Rose Law Firm until Bill became Arkansas Attorney General and was made a partner only after he was elected Arkansas Governor.

    Bill says : "President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its Chairman."

    The REAL facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill's support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary then became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter's choice to be chairman.

    Bill says: "She served on the board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital."

    The REAL facts are: Yes she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Wal-Mart Board of Directors, for a substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care practices.

    Bill says : "Hillary didn't succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994 but she kept working at it and helped to create the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance."

    The REAL facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP. It was included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. I know; I helped to negotiate the deal. The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals' tobacco settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.

    Bill says: "Hillary was the face of America all over the World." (LOL)

    The REAL facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.

    Bill says : "Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for Children's and Women's issues."

    The REAL facts are : Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she has passed only four substantive pieces of legislation. One set up a national park in Puerto Rico. A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer's or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 911 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire N.Y. delegation. Presently she is trying to have the US memorialize Woodstock.

    Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton. She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our Country (that's you and me) when it comes to the 'War on Terror'

    1. She wants to close GITMO and move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.

    2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA.

    3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

    4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells and supporters in the USA.

    5. She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the Military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists even though such tactics might save American lives. One cannot think of a single 'Bill', Hillary has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our Country in the 'War on Terror'. But, one can think of a lot of comments she has made that weaken our Country and makes it a more dangerous situation for all of us.Bottom line: She goes hand in hand with the ACLU on far too many issues where common sense is abandoned.

    Share this with everyone you know, ask them to prove Dick Morris wrong.Think about it - he's (Dick Morris) said all of this openly, thus if he were not truthful he'd be liable for 'Defamation of Character!'
    And you better believe Hillary would sue him.

    Her winning in 2016 means the final death knell for America! Her whole public life has been a LIE.


    By Dick Morris, former political advisor to President Bill Clinton

  9. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 9 months ago

    I have total respect for the Truth.  Jesus is the Truth!   
    I have no respect for Hillary Clinton or Bill and their politics.
    This is a forum, not a court of law. I can't take that seriously.   
    Hillary barks like a dog.   wink
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovYnLL9Yow

    The public no longer seems to want the dog food that the establishment dishes out.

    I think you told me one time that the forums should be fun, Quill.  I took that to heart because its good advice to have fun.  Life is too short not to.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but I do not recall telling you that the forums should be fun although it is quite possible that I did. Are you now saying that you think it is fun to post lies in the forums? I am certain I never suggested to anyone that having fun in the forums should include suspending one’s ethical obligations while posting here. 

      You also said, "I have total respect for the Truth.  Jesus is the Truth! "

      LOL!  When I spoke about having respect for the truth, I didn’t use an uppercase “T” and by “truth” I obviously didn’t mean Jesus. How cleverly you changed my meaning.

      Nevertheless, I am happy to read that you have a relationship with Jesus. It means you already know He condemns those who bear false witness even though many of your posts here clearly do not respect His commandment. Both Luke and Mathew had something to say about truth even in the age of the internet:
      “Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness," {1}

      Mathew quotes Jesus by name: "Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,{2}

      Finally, you and Jesus might want to run through the following passage together:
      “There are six things that the lord strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.” {3}

      I hope you have a pleasant evening.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1}Luke 18:20
      {2} Mathew 19:18
      {3} Proverbs 6:16–19

  10. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    The left has expounded their  fallacy of  no more dynasty's , Clintons  , Bushes ,  whoever . I would truly believe that if the left in America  was truly serious about all of the ideological argument that they have promoted for  a couple of decades now ,  They would present FAR, FAR more of a choice than Hillary and Sanders , AND   Sanders is a joke .  But seriously  "That's all you got " is Hillary?

  11. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 9 months ago

    All Christians are sinners saved by the Grace of God, through faith.  All of our "righteousnesses are as filthy rags".  I am a sinner, that's why I need the Savior.  Jesus did away with the law of sin and death, and there is therefore no more condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.  That does not mean we should go on sinning... He washes white as snow! 

    However, if you wish to live under the law and condemnation, by all means...have at it.   As I remember it ain't no picnic. 

    Jesus doesn't have to be crucified again, "It is finished."  ...according to His Word, ... He is the Word. 

    God bless you, Quill.  <~~  I mean that.

    1. Live to Learn profile image82
      Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      I've got to weigh in on this one. Quilligrapher pointed out that something you consistently share was not true. That's all. It appears you are now stating that you don't owe anyone honesty, truth, fairness, etc. etc because you are bound by no law since you love Jesus.

      Jesus was the embodiment of the law. The spirit of the law. If you have no respect for the law, then you have no respect for Jesus. In my opinion. Not a loving relationship on your side. 

      The reason the law can be abolished is that you understand the good of the law, the reasons for the law, and you strive to be the embodiment of the law. No one needs to enforce it on you because you chose to live it. You can strive to apply it fairly and evenly because you understand what it is meant to achieve. Sure, you'll fail from time to time because what it hopes to achieve is fairness and equity on this plane of existence. It is a cosmic mandate to love and take care of one another as we would ourselves; in the absence of the presence of God. No one is God, so we just pick ourselves up and try again.

      Everything Quilligrapher pointed out makes it clear that you do not care for the law. You are simply happy that you don't believe you are expected to abide by it.

      1. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        Quilligrapher pointed out that something you consistently share was not true.  - You are Cute!

        That is not a fair or truthful assessment, it is false.  I can expect that from you?... because of how you have commented before in the forms, and I can see your heart.  Thank you for weighing in, its always interesting to see how you filter things through your religious life experiences and beliefs.  -  I do understand that.  No disrespect to you!

        According to the law...Leviticus 1:14-17 (NIV)

        14 “‘If the offering to the Lord is a burnt offering of birds, you are to offer a dove or a young pigeon. 15 The priest shall bring it to the altar, wring off the head and burn it on the altar; its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar. 16 He is to remove the crop and the feathers[a] and throw them down east of the altar where the ashes are. 17 He shall tear it open by the wings, not dividing it completely, and then the priest shall burn it on the wood that is burning on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord."

        Well, last week I burned doves and pigeons as part of my religious routine according to the law to please God. I was surprised (even shocked) when my neighbor told me to stop that saying... it is cruelty to animals and against the law. 

        Live to Learn, will  you please help me pray for my neighbor's soul so he can finally see the Truth?  I could go on and on with examples of how people are not obeying God's laws and don't want to allow me to practice them because of the laws of the land.  I'm so confuse.  wink 

        See how silly is that?  I do not have a need to vindicate myself.  But, if you have a need to blame or cast suspicions, that's your thing...it has nothing to do with me...  That is on you.

        Romans 8:2  "...because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death."   --  I believe God's Word is Truth. 

        Romans 13:8 ... "Owe nothing to anyone--except for your obligation to love one another. If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill the requirements of God's law."  --- What translation did you read?

        ---  I love you with the Love of the Lord!  smile

        P.S. This is false..."in the absence of the presence of God."   .... the thing is, His presence is not absent.   Please read: ...  Matthew 28:20. 
        That's The GOOD NEWS!  - It is a Spiritual Relationship. 

        But, you can throw your religion around all you like? 
        God bless!

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          Oh gawd.... no, no, no. And I posted in your favor before I read this.

          Com'on Colorfulone this is the Politics and Social Issues forum, not a Religious forum. Mitigating the intent behind fuzzy facts is one thing, defending religious fervor is another.

          You are on your own here.

          GA

        2. Live to Learn profile image82
          Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          I don't so much care what you say on political topics. It is your opinion. If you would simply leave your religion out of it, I'd ignore your comments.

          One does tend to gag when bias, innuendo, comments that don't even warrant the label of half truths are wrapped into some smarmy 'Oh Jesus loves me for who I am so I can act any way I want without him being severely disappointed'. I do sincerely hope there isn't a God in heaven who fits that bill.

          1. colorfulone profile image87
            colorfuloneposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            Listen, it was you that came at me with your version of bias / pious religion. Isn't that a bit hypo?  http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1351 … ost2797962

            It seems to me that you are the one who thinks they can act anyway they want. sad   Personally, I do not think that way. So, are you externalizing and using transference?  I think so.  It backfired, didn't it?

            BTW, Jesus is a loving God, Who loves everyone. That will never change no matter how much you disagree.  This is why I do no like religion, it misses the Good News and spews false doctrines (lies).

            Now, can we get back to the topic of Hillary?   Gag!

            1. Live to Learn profile image82
              Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              If you could leave the religion out of it, fine. As I said, I can ignore most of what you say but your response to Quill was so far beyond acceptable that I felt like commenting.

      2. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        Wow. I followed the referenced exchange and your response sure seems a bit over the top to me.

        I also thought Quill was a tad strident in his second reply to Colorfulone, but her pattern of posting unsupportable, (in some cases blatantly misleading), partisan statements and memes legitimately opened the door to such responses. Still... I can think of at least a couple other frequent BS posters that are much more deserving of such barbs than she is.

        I have had several exchanges with Colorfulone over the accuracy of some of her posts, but I don't at all agree with the characterization in your response. Her enthusiasm for her beliefs and her obvious desire to participate in these forums may cause her to be a little less thorough than she should be vetting her facts, but I don't think that zeal warrants such a strong character attack.

        In my neck of the woods we might just consider that she sometimes has a problem with facts - bless her heart.

        GA

        1. Live to Learn profile image82
          Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          I suppose using an ounce of fact wrapped around 15 ounces of bs and lies does still mean there is an ounce of fact involved.  Not commendable. Not honest and not very nice. But, since there may have been one ounce of fact I can see why some might advocate ignoring the 15 ounces of bs.

          1. GA Anderson profile image86
            GA Andersonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            OK, I can already see that I am going to need a longer handle on this shovel. Because I think this is a subjective discussion.

            The point of your response wasn't the direction I was initially taking. And almost anything else I say is going to amount to beating up on Colorfulone. So, I will just leave things where they lie - only adding that we might be talking about degrees. What I view as a drizzle is apparently a down-pour to you.

            GA

            1. Live to Learn profile image82
              Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              I think you are probably right.

  12. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    Meanwhile ,back to the point , Hillary says and  she thinks Americans aren't ready for a woman as president  , right ! .....Why NOT play the gender card Hillary , play it out for every single vote that you can get ,  after all America has only advanced  just so far from its  cultural origins . 
    I say nonsense Hillary ,  most real men believe that a woman is far better at some things than any man is . Multi-tasking for one thing !   Who out there ,as a man , doesn't get a headache when he has to multi-task two or three  things  in any given day ?   I think that it's purely SHAMEFUL that she  even hints at the gender issue though . 
    I believe its time for Hillary to accept that  America just simply may not like her ,   Maybe its time that she accepts that she's just not  good enough to win the popularity contest , maybe its her record of .amounting to .................well , nothing .

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      I agree that to cite her sex as something that qualifies her over the rest and not her history is just as bad as when McCain put that nin-com-poop from Alaska on his ticket to snatch the women's vote from Hillary leaving the 2008 race. Hillary has made this race about her and not the people. She defends the money flowing in from Wall Street and says it never had or ever will sway her actions because of it. That statement has to be followed up by the question over her honesty and integrity which polls show her very lacking.

    2. colorfulone profile image87
      colorfuloneposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      I totally agree that Hillary is not suited for office of the president. Playing the female card for her is politics and poker hoping to appeal to female voters. Most woman are not that stupid unless they are just voting for the party. 

      Please, accept my apology for off topic conversation, ahorseback.

  13. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 9 months ago

    My last response to Quill was inline with his religious comment. I will respond to comments as they deserve, unless I choose to ignore them.  But, I like the guy and most likely will not ignore him.   

    Quill: http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2797773
    Me:  http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2797776

    By faith we have been made acceptable to God.  That's the ticket.  smile

    If, you or someone else wants to come-at me with their religion, I am not going to worry about if I am "acceptable" to you or not.  I already know the answer to that by your words. I won't walk on eggshells because you want me to be something I am not, that's controlling....and, "so far beyond acceptable"...Live to Learn. 

    Now, I said that with as much love and respect as I could muster at the moment.  Enjoy your life! 

    So, how about that Hillary?

    1. Live to Learn profile image82
      Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      What about Hillary? Don't like her, would never vote for her. However, I wouldn't degrade myself by spreading either lies or half truths because I don't think she is qualified to be president.

  14. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 9 months ago

    #glasshouses #pot #kettle #black 
    Hmm!  Would you degrade yourself by spreading false doctrine? roll
    I guess that's ok?  How about blowing things out of proportion? 

    Hillary shouldn't even be running for president while under an FBI investigation.  I don't think she will get the nomination...she would really have to cheat, but money talks. 

    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12886284.jpg

    1. Live to Learn profile image82
      Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Is that on the topic of Hillary, or is it your religion? Since I don't support Hillary I don't know that false doctrine, in reference to her, would mean I would be spreading it.

      If you are talking about religion, you are in the wrong forum for that discussion.



      Again, is that a political question or a religious one?



      They all cheat. And they all know money talks. That's why they throw so much into their campaigns. If we made it impossible for anyone to run who has cheated then we wouldn't have anyone running.

      1. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        sad  Okey, I love a good sense of humor.  But, you got me laughing.  smile 
        What a great way to start a day!   TY

        Those who live by making their own doctrines die by making their own doctrines...does that work for you? Instead, I have found...tis' so sweet to trust in Jesus and take Him at His Word!

        What's that saying, "Alls fair in politics and poker?"  We have to expect it when the stakes are so high, but we don't have to agree with the tactics of some. It is unacceptable in a countries leadership, and those government officials should be fired.  I almost feel bad about saying how I actually feel about Hillary, only because I know that there are people who believe every lie she repeats over and over.  Its like saying Santa isn't real, but I gotta' admit that she could sell snowballs in hell.

        1. Live to Learn profile image82
          Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          Saying they all do it is not implying that it is fair. It is simply that each, to their own degree, is dirty. Playing dirty isn't right. So, do we stoop to their level or do we fairly assess facts, not fall prey to other's attempts to bias our opinions? Or just wallow through the mud with them?

  15. 78
    AspiringWordsmithposted 9 months ago

    To be honest though, can any of these politicians be trusted?
    It could be the case that if she ever needs advice, who would be a better advisor than her husband. Although the same can be said for the Bush Dynasty as well and look how well that turned out in the end.

 
working