• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

A Republican candidate is finally smart about avoiding lying accusations... and the liars inc are all mad about it.

W54/XM-388

Online Training Member
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Supporter+
  • Oct 1, 2005
    13,901
    30,629
    Dallas, TX


    So finally one of the Republican candidates gets intelligent and decides no way in hell is he going to get put in a situation to have another lying daughter of Satan try to destroy him with her vile lies like these godless type are so happy to do to further their cause...

    Of course said daughter of Satan is rather upset at being denied the ability to work her evil.

    I'm hoping all decent men everywhere start following his example and cut the legs out from under the lying Communist female horde.
     


    So finally one of the Republican candidates gets intelligent and decides no way in hell is he going to get put in a situation to have another lying daughter of Satan try to destroy him with her vile lies like these godless type are so happy to do to further their cause...

    Of course said daughter of Satan is rather upset at being denied the ability to work her evil.

    I'm hoping all decent men everywhere start following his example and cut the legs out from under the lying Communist female horde.

    I saw that yesterday and considered posting it but chose not to.

    Couldnt you leave the over the top religion out of it?

    Your type is as bad as they are.
     
    I saw that yesterday and considered posting it but chose not to.
    Couldnt you leave the over the top religion out of it?
    Your type is as bad as they are.

    You are welcome to post suggestions of alternate names to call the evil SJW communist females who think it's a virtue to destroy anybody good and decent with lies and expect to never answer for it. I'd love to hear them, it would give me more ideas to use.

    I like using names & descriptions that really get them mad and get them to blow their temper so everybody gets to see the "real" them.
    The quicker you can get SJW/Communist/Democrat types to blow their top and show how ugly they are the better.

    I find that with the SJW / Communist types, you just mention a few religious keywords and the hatred inside them explodes almost immediately.
    They of course will automatically assume you are a follower of a certain carpenter that lived in a Roman provence around 2000 years ago, despite the fact there is a much later Prophet that also used similar terminology & there is the small chance you could be a follower of them instead.

    But I would suggest your statement of "Your type is as bad as they are", is not actually factually correct and is more likely emotionally derived based on your personal dislike for certain things based on your own opinions & experiences rather than actual provable facts and actual actions based on modern current actions by various parties.

    I don't know many of whatever you assume "Your type" is these days going around making it a point of virtue to destroy anyone they can with false allegations regardless of truth, with everyone of their kind cheering them onward.

    Now if you want to throw in Muslims as your examples of "Your type" I'd suggest that you realize that according to the SJW/Communists, it seems Muslims and Communists can't do any wrong... (As in if a Muslim does anything bad then it's just "their culture"... and you can't be mean to muslims unless you are a real communist and then you can do anything you want to them).
     
    ^^^Youre correct in that I should not have used "Your type". Perhaps, "That approach' would have been better.

    I used to use the approach you speak of, its called baiting, and sometimes find myself falling into it, but have been learning a better way. The way Mr. Campbell did it. He led by example. He didnt condemn her. He didnt call her a SJW communist. He just stood by his personal convictions. He, so to speak, didnt cover his light, he put it on the mantle for all to see. He led by example. She was looking for a fight and he refused to give it to her, and Ill bet his conduct impacted her at some deep level. Our actions are like seeds we plant in the field of life and the return to us as we have sown. Some fall on rocky ground and die. Some fall on mediocre ground and return little. Some fall o fertile ground and return 30/60/100 fold. You never know the ground until the harvest returns. What seeds are you planting?

    Think about the girl in the other thread, the one who got kicked off the USWNT for her Christian convictions. She didnt scream or start a row. She stood strong and for that she will win a crown of glory.

    Dont talk about the Truth, the Light, be the truth, be the light.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Zorrosdens
    I read most of the yahoo version then went to the comments. A few thousand had already posted and nearly all of them regardless of political lean sided with Mr. Foster.
     
    Last edited:
    I think he is referencing Koresh

    You are welcome to post suggestions of alternate names to call the evil SJW communist females who think it's a virtue to destroy anybody good and decent with lies and expect to never answer for it. I'd love to hear them, it would give me more ideas to use.

    I like using names & descriptions that really get them mad and get them to blow their temper so everybody gets to see the "real" them.
    The quicker you can get SJW/Communist/Democrat types to blow their top and show how ugly they are the better.

    I find that with the SJW / Communist types, you just mention a few religious keywords and the hatred inside them explodes almost immediately.
    They of course will automatically assume you are a follower of a certain carpenter that lived in a Roman provence around 2000 years ago, despite the fact there is a much later Prophet that also used similar terminology & there is the small chance you could be a follower of them instead.

    But I would suggest your statement of "Your type is as bad as they are", is not actually factually correct and is more likely emotionally derived based on your personal dislike for certain things based on your own opinions & experiences rather than actual provable facts and actual actions based on modern current actions by various parties.

    I don't know many of whatever you assume "Your type" is these days going around making it a point of virtue to destroy anyone they can with false allegations regardless of truth, with everyone of their kind cheering them onward.

    Now if you want to throw in Muslims as your examples of "Your type" I'd suggest that you realize that according to the SJW/Communists, it seems Muslims and Communists can't do any wrong... (As in if a Muslim does anything bad then it's just "their culture"... and you can't be mean to muslims unless you are a real communist and then you can do anything you want to them).
     
    Nope, ya'll didnt read my follow up. Ive said what I have to say and Im done with it.

    At least until next time the bad people touch your woo woo in an inappropriate manner.


    It's chigger season, we call them redbugs.
    You are like the redbugs that like to inhabit my teak porch rockers. Aggravating to the point of madness, always latching on to places typically notoriously difficult to scratch, mostly a set of balls or the crack of someone's ass.
    Really hard to get rid of.
     
    Last edited:
    I like Mr Campbell.

    My reasons need not make sense to another soul.

    I think its a good rule and idea.

    I dont even get into pictures if hoochies some love to post.
    Only woman who is supposed to turn me on, is my woman.

    My strong belief and I only apply this rule to myself. Others do as others may.
     
    Campbell countered why there should be an 'onus' on her to bring a colleague along for an interview when she is simply trying to do her job.

    He's not required to help you do your job.

    'I have yet to hear of a female politician (don't y'all forget those exist!) who's invoked the Billy Graham rule when dealing with male colleagues.

    Perhaps female politicians are more depraved than male counterparts.
     
    So after reading some additional articles the common theme brought up (on liberal sites) is that he either doesn’t trust himself or he doesn’t trust women. News flash, a public official is not going to trust that a left wing lesbian reporter would not make false accusations against him in the future when she has proof they spent time alone together. The whole Kavanaugh debacle proved that you can be found guilty in the court of public opinion by someone simply pointing the finger and saying he did it with zero supporting evidence and major gaps in the reported event.

    Additionally they brought up about how women in positions of power don’t require such rules but let’s be real, when is the last time you heard a man accusing a woman of sexual harassment or rape that was actually taken seriously and didn’t involved a teacher and a minor?

    When I was in college a football player was accused of raping a girl in his dorm, he lost his scholarship, was kicked out of school and was looking at jail time before the investigators figured out she was lying. That kid lost everything and will always have that incident associated with him even though he was completely acquitted. So if a woman would lie to punish a man simply because he refused to date her it is completely possible for a woman to lie to sabotage someone she doesn’t agree with politically while furthering her own career.
     
    He can believe whatever he wants, and I certainly don't have a problem with it practically, especially with some SJW type woman who may just make shit up about you to further her mad-dog political beliefs.

    What I don't like about it is putting a Christian spin on it. There's nothing in the Bible at all related to the idea you can't be alone with a woman who isn't your wife. Christians are supposed to have control over their sinful impulses through Christ, and to be it would strongly bring that into question if a man felt he could not sexually resist a woman one on one. Quite frankly that sort of dim view of humanity and supposition that all men are animals incapable of controlling themselves smacks of the Koran.
     
    News flash, a public official is not going to trust that a left wing lesbian reporter would not make false accusations

    Was there something in the other articles that indicated she is left-wing/lesbian? I ask because her reaction is so entitled and militant that it seems she is more interested in activism than reporting.

    I especially liked her opinion that it wasn't her "responsibility to make him feel comfortable with the situation...and this weird request you have." Um, YOU asked HIM if YOU could go with him in HIS truck, alone. THAT'S why it's your responsibility, you idiot. He owes you nothing if you can't respect personal requests based on his own convictions. I believe a Muslim candidate would be forbidden to allow her along as well unless she was a relative (am I remembering that right)? What would she have to say about that? And finally, if for no other reason, she can thank the #MeToo movement for making her job more complicated. Don't blame the men who are forced to protect themselves from exactly this kind of situation.
     
    He can believe whatever he wants, and I certainly don't have a problem with it practically, especially with some SJW type woman who may just make shit up about you to further her mad-dog political beliefs.

    What I don't like about it is putting a Christian spin on it. There's nothing in the Bible at all related to the idea you can't be alone with a woman who isn't your wife. Christians are supposed to have control over their sinful impulses through Christ, and to be it would strongly bring that into question if a man felt he could not sexually resist a woman one on one. Quite frankly that sort of dim view of humanity and supposition that all men are animals incapable of controlling themselves smacks of the Koran.

    I agree with this and wish he hadn't really brought that into it. As you said, the Bible doesn't really mention it other than to say to avoid all appearances of evil. It is up to the individual to determine what that might be, and it can be different in different cultures (to a point).

    The other thought I had is, if Mr. Foster is going to go out on a limb in public and take such a narrow stand on religious principles, he danged well better have his house in order and not have any skeletons hiding in the closet. People forgive weakness, but not hypocrisy so much.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Alabusa
    He can believe whatever he wants, and I certainly don't have a problem with it practically, especially with some SJW type woman who may just make shit up about you to further her mad-dog political beliefs.

    What I don't like about it is putting a Christian spin on it. There's nothing in the Bible at all related to the idea you can't be alone with a woman who isn't your wife. Christians are supposed to have control over their sinful impulses through Christ, and to be it would strongly bring that into question if a man felt he could not sexually resist a woman one on one. Quite frankly that sort of dim view of humanity and supposition that all men are animals incapable of controlling themselves smacks of the Koran.

    If you study western history, including how the laws worked in Europe for a long time up till recently and even in this country till about 50 years ago. A man being alone with a woman not related to him and not his wife was highly frowned on kind of for this very reason (and the same thing for an unmarried woman to be alone with a man not related to her). To have spent the day alone with an attractive woman not related / married to you was pretty much a guarantee that there would be endless gossip that you did something.

    Now different Christian sects had/have it as doctrine/practice or didn't/don't. You'll find most everything over the years & to this day.
    You'll also notice however Orthodox Jews follow an even stricter code of conduct for married men and women not their wives / relations
    (But strangely nobody seems to criticize them for it... now why is that?) No talking, no touching, no being in the same room alone etc.

    Some Christians do follow the path that one should not only not do the sin, but avoid the appearance of the sin being a possibility, avoid situations where you would be tempted to sin, and avoid putting themselves in a position where one could sin. I can find no specific fault in that. You'll find many follow that path or at least respect it.


    Much like if you don't do drugs... well someone you know comes and says, hey come hang out at our brand new drug den to celebrate the legalization of weed, just hang, you don't have to smoke, and you can just talk and catch up. So you say... thanks, but if you want to hang out, how about the park or the movies not your drug den, I don't want to be around places where drug taking may happen or have any appearance that I was at a place where it may occur.

    Many other cultures in the east also had strict rules about who hangs out alone with women that are not their wives.

    This is not a new issue, it's just new in that we haven't been used to people being so brazen / shameless / flaunting their lies before and all the communists egging them on and then covering up for their lies.
    (It used to be if you made allegations that were proven untrue, you were shamed enough to have to permanently get out of town at the least).

    Yes the Muslims also do it to, and there again in varies by region from the crazed fanatics in Saudi beating people over it and torturing them, to places more moderate like Iran where you simply sign a 30 day "marriage" contract paper be it for a couple hours or a couple weeks and hang out as you wish. Then when done, no problem walk away.
     
    i think there is a lot of political gamesmanship going on, on both sides here hahaha

    He could have just ignored or said "no" to her request and this would never have been a story but they are both getting a lot of free press that they think their bases/readership will eat up ...

    at least that's my take on it haha
     
    • Like
    Reactions: W54/XM-388
    Was there something in the other articles that indicated she is left-wing/lesbian? I ask because her reaction is so entitled and militant that it seems she is more interested in activism than reporting.

    I especially liked her opinion that it wasn't her "responsibility to make him feel comfortable with the situation...and this weird request you have." Um, YOU asked HIM if YOU could go with him in HIS truck, alone. THAT'S why it's your responsibility, you idiot. He owes you nothing if you can't respect personal requests based on his own convictions. I believe a Muslim candidate would be forbidden to allow her along as well unless she was a relative (am I remembering that right)? What would she have to say about that? And finally, if for no other reason, she can thank the #MeToo movement for making her job more complicated. Don't blame the men who are forced to protect themselves from exactly this kind of situation.



    Above is the link about her getting married in 2013 and I think her twitter bio explains her beliefs well enough to understand her position. Her reaction to this whole situation proves she had no intention of unbiased reporting and was simply looking for a way to hurt his campaign.

    2BA9F9FF-051B-4E29-AA61-62CA00FB69E7.png
     
    Boom! The whole thing is a setup, as I suspected. This is another mission in her campaign to “dismantle the patriarchy of MS.” Foster would have been smart to call her out on it. This was strategical from the beginning. I knew it didn’t smell right.
     
    I agree he could have been more tactful in how he delivered his reasons. Or perhaps he was and crappy reporting made it overblown?

    And who does not agree he should avoid being alone with a leftist nut-job lady?
    Thats the key part of wisdom here.

    Dont trust em!