Posted on Apr 27, 2017

Muddy Maxine Waters: What a Riot

3.68K

It's sad because her district is in such need of leadership, funding and aid. Just seems for the poorer and more violence ridden Congressional districts.........the Democrats find a slum lord to hang around for 20-40 years that does absolutely nothing for a district in real need.

Muddy Maxine Waters: What a Riot

Posted from cnsnews.com

Posted in these groups:

Election 2016 Elections logo

Elections

Democrats

Republicans

Edited >1 y ago

Posted >1 y ago

Responses: 19

CPT Jack Durish

Posted >1 y ago

Sadly, I doubt that anyone in her district is reading RP or cnsnews. Thus, we haven't heard the last of Mad Maxine...

(3)

Comment

(0)

SSG Warren Swan

Posted >1 y ago

Reading the article, when you begin by insulting the subject without giving any meaningful reasoning behind it, you've lost any credibility right there. Much the same way I feel about insulting the First Ladies. The writer is free to say what she wants, but if I or anyone else took her to task and used some of the insults she used on her against her, she would balk and say reverse discrimination. She also was on Fox news and some of her past was a bit over the top then. Note she's conveniently working from home. I don't care about party affiliation, but when you're writing to make folks think, make them think about the cause and the effect. This doesn't do it at all. If this is the best she can do to show "crookedness" by the DNC, why not bring up Gingrich and all the messed up crap he was doing WHILE going after Bubba for the same thing? Why didn't she mention "America's Mayor" for the openly racist stop and frisk that applied everywhere in NYC except Manhattan? No mention of "America's Mayor" and his initial push to ban Muslims to Trump and how it was discarded when read, it wasn't in the interest of America, it was strictly based off bigotry and hate on the Islamic faith. If you're going to call the ball, and say the ball is wrong, be open to ALL the sides and make sure your side of the ball isn't as dirty or "Muddy" as the side of the ball you're hiding. This isn't against the poster, or any comment made to him, but to the writer, you failed now, just like you did at Fox.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/03/08/former-house-speaker-newt-gingrich-acknowledges-having-affair-during-clinton.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstitutional/
"Several judges have called the executive order “unconstitutional”. Over the weekend, Attorneys General from 16 US states condemned the President’s order and the “chaotic situation” it had created". http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-ban-rudy-giuliani-how-legally-create-islam-us-immigration-entry-visa-new-york-a7552751.html
I don't even care forGeraldo but http://crooksandliars.com/2007/10/15/did-malkin-quit-oreillys-factor-over-geraldo-clash

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich Acknowledges Having Affair During Clinton Impeachment

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

(2)

Comment

(0)

show previous comments

SSG Warren Swan

>1 y

SPC Erich Guenther - No problem. That's fair enough. Check the site name, the very first sentence after the date and ask who said this again? How was it spun when his very own mouth mentioned Muslim not "Muslim Countries". "(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". This isn't a political part issue. Carter did the same in the 70's with the Iranians. So I can't find fault or the use of selective sites when it's common knowledge this was done, and why.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/times-banned-immigrants [login to see] 28941.html
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

times-banned-immigrants-170128183528941.html

(0)

SPC Erich Guenther

>1 y

SSG Warren Swan - "On Friday, Donald Trump barred citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries - Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen - from entering the United States for at least the next 90 days." It again says "Muslim Majority" countries when there is no way to really know how many citizens of those countries are practicing Muslims. Further, if we call it an outright Muslim ban then it would be Global and include all Muslims..........and clearly it excludes other what are referred to as Muslim Majority Countries such as Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, etc.

(0)

SSG Warren Swan

>1 y

SPC Erich Guenther - that's pulling straws. The initial push was what he said on the site. Anyone can take it back, but that doesn't mean he did not say it. Now Guiliani even said he did it and asked HIM to make it legal. How did that work? Even conservative judges are taking chunks of ass on this one, turning it down. "(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on"...this was his initial push, pre-dates all of the courtroom mess we have now. If you can negate this, then all we're doing is spinning wheels, and it's not mass media who is making the spin, it's actually your distaste of a political party (which is fine), but having blind loyalty to another finding strawman arguments to lay blame on the other, ignoring what clearly was said. Two men know what they said, two sites report on it, one belonging to the POTUS himself, the other with the man who was asked to personally make it "legal". Cut and Dry. If this is what you want, fine. I could care less and you're entitled to how you feel. You earned it like the rest of us.

(0)

SPC Erich Guenther

>1 y

SSG Warren Swan - I do think the initial story was spin on whatever he intended with his remarks and the story grew from there. The issue I have is both he and the White House have issued repeated clarifications that it was not a Muslim Ban per se. Yet the Democrats acting in 5th grader playground mode are running around rejecting the clarifications and saying "too late you said it first". Its that type of nonsense I refuse to follow as a grown adult. Just like if someone apologizes and it is genuine, they should be taken at their word and we should not have people on the Left running around that are more than likely agnostic and probably said far worse things in public....... saying "unforgivable", etc.

(1)

(0)