Election is over. Okay. Now what? Comparisons are made from 9/11 to mirror 11/9. Okay, we get that.
Are we being respectful? Some.. Most.. No.
Vitriolic behavior still reigns on the other side.
Ethics Lesson #1
We know what you watch. We get that, we know what channel you favor, we get that, we know the voices that get inside your head that mess with your thought process and mess with your ability to formulate something on your own without fact checking, we get that. We also know you get behind a computer, and see a person on the streets and regurgitate what talking points you hear from these people or persons.
We also understand your frustrations. But again, persons and people prevented you from getting what the desired outcome.
Example: You want a loan, so you go to a bank. Now the bank you go to don't like you. They think you are deplorable *grins*
So you go to the bank manager, they say no, you go above the bank manager, they say no, you then go to the corporate office. And they say no. You need to fix your gutters and your roof, but everything you do isn't working. Why? Because they don't like you. They don't want to help you. You aren't a good person so they refuse to help you.
Ethics Lesson #2
T- Is it True? Of course to you its true. The emails were lost (But they were duplicates) Oh but still! Bengazi.
FALSE: Administration officials watched the attacks unfold in real time but did nothing to intervene.
FALSE: Requests issued by U.S. personnel for military back-up during the attacks were denied.
FALSE: General Carter Ham was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi attacks.
FALSE: Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi attacks.
H- Is it Helpful? You are spreading talking points of something which are not factual information. Or Skewered information
The parents of two of the four Americans who were killed in the Benghazi terror attack in 2012 are suing Hillary Clinton, alleging the then-secretary of state's "reckless handling" of classified information contributed to their deaths.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch USA on behalf of Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, and Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, for allegedly wrongfully causing the death of their sons as well as for defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Judge Andrew Napolitano said this morning that the case will probably fall short in court because of Clinton's immunity.
Napolitano said that government officials are given immunity from such lawsuits as long as they behave within the authority that was given to them.
"They are not personally liable for the unforeseen, or even intended, consequences of their behavior," he explained.
I - Is in Inspiring? Yes maybe to your base, but its called FILTERING.
Filtering occurs when messages pass through an intermediary in the communication channel. Filtering often can alter the original message, limit its effectiveness or render it incomprehensible. Upward communication filtering occurs when employees pass a message intended for upper-level management through an immediate supervisor. The employee’s immediate superior may change information in the message to reflect the supervisor’s opinion or understanding of the situation. Filtering also occurs when the message's recipient allows the message to pass through multiple individuals before reaching its final, intended party.
N- Is it Necessary?
Do you find the need to belittle people to get your point across just so you can feel better about yourself?
And to be fair to the Neocons.
You all proud of yourself? Party of NO.
Did you kiss your guns last night saying "Hitlary didn't take you my sweet loving rifle. You are staying with me. No one is gonna take away my 2nd Amendment right.. NO sirrrie!
K- Is it kind? NO.. Its not kind...
Because if we keep on the direction we are going. We will end up back here.
Repeal the EPA ACT
REPEAL Roe V. Wade
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.
Later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability. The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.
I DO NOT WANT TO COME BACK TO THIS TIME!
I do not want to come back to this time...
Or this time...
And if you refuse to THINK.. I dont want to be a part of your discussion