Robert Green posted for all of us...



"rbowman" wrote in message
...
On 01/18/2016 05:32 PM, Robert Green wrote:
Grover Norquist is a traitor who should practice what he preaches.

When I was a kid I had an imaginary friend as some kids do by the name
of Grover Groundhog. I have trouble taking people by the name of Grover
seriously.

Sesame Street's Grover only adds to that perception.

Grover drove her

--
Tekkie

On 01/17/2016 05:49 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:41:54 -0800, T wrote:

On 01/12/2016 03:25 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Came across some more info by a constitutional scholar...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...html?tid=sm_fb

He concludes Cruz is ineligible.


Which was the point Trump was getting at and the article that Trump
was referring to. If it is not resolved and Cruz gets nominated,
there will be a lawsuit.

I hope Cruz does get this squared away before any nomination as
I think he would make Trump an excellent VP. Or a P, if
Trump doesn't get in.

Exactly. It's clear to anyone with the ability to read (or listen)
that this is NOT a settled issue. Yet people like Trader4 want to
pretend it is and argue with anyone who says it's unsettled.


It was the Washington post that raised the issue. If you look
at the ebb and flow of Democrats between American Pravda
and congressional democratic offices, it doesn't take a
rocket scientist to figure out the Libs already know about it
and are planning something over it.

Trump was only commenting on the above. I really wish Cruz would
get this out of the way, so he can run without if shadowing him.
This time Cruz should listen to Trump.

On 01/17/2016 07:02 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 7:57:54 AM UTC-6, T wrote:
On 01/16/2016 07:03 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per T:
On 01/14/2016 09:22 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
I suggest to the more extreme of those people that they take a few
months off, rent an apartment in Mogadishu and, if they survive, report
back on how things are with little or no government.


Pete,

This is a bad argument. Maybe not if you were conversing with
a libertarian.

Conservatives see the only three legitimate responsibilities
of the Central Government to be:

1) regulate the currency
2) protect from invasion
3) protect one citizen from another

The rest is for the states (10 amendment). A central

....(lotta good stuff clipped)....

I will give you a "do over" on your "Mogadishu" argument.

That was pretty good.

I don't agree with all of it - but you clearly nailed me on Mogadishu.

One thing I take issue with - and it's not just your post; it's more a
me-against-the-rest-of-the-world thing - is the use of the word
"Conservative".

I don't like it's use as a blanket description of Republican Party
positions - especially those which advocate changing the status quo.

I don't know a better word.... "Right-Wing" is too pejorative.... but
"Conservative" to me is pretty much Merriam-Webster's third definition:

"a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or
institutions : traditional

b : marked by moderation or caution a conservative estimate

c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance,
style, or manners"

Based on that, I would say that people who want to change the status-quo
(no matter whether they perceive it as good or bad) are not
"Conservative".

Also, I'm big on the "Moderation or caution" aspect.

A conservative person, faced with a situation that has a significant
possibility of becoming catastrophic, will take remedial action to
prevent that situation.

They will *not* argue for delaying action because there is still some
doubt as to whether it actually will turn catastrophic... they will play
the odds and incur the expense to make sure it cannot happen.

"Conservative" people pay for homeowner's insurance - unless they are so
wealthy that losing a house is non-catastrophic for them.

Based on that, the Repub position on climate change is not conservative
at all.

Ditto the admonition to reduce the size of government - and, therefore
change the status quo. Certainly, the admonition to reduce government
"... to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in
the bathtub." is anything but conservative.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

But increasing the size/role of government is not conservative either.

OTOH, those who take a position against gay marriage (which, BTW, I
support) actually are conservative in Merriam-Webster's sense of the
word.

I am not saying that Conservative=Good or Non-Conservative=Bad.... there
are times for each.... And plenty shades of grey......

But I do quarrel with the blanket use of "Conservative" to describe
policies, actions, and political parties that are actually quite the
opposite.



Hi Pete,

You bring up very interesting points. What we are looking at
is who controls the language controls the agenda. Political
correctness (mind control) for instance.

The dictionary definitions for political tags do not mean
anything any more.

Conservatives don't want to conserve or keep the status quo.
We use to be called "Liberals" or "Jeffersonian Liberals".

Socialists stole the name from us because they liked the
way it sounded better. And, since they control the media,
they got away with it.

If you read anything I write, you know I have the fire of the
American Revolution coursing though my veins and I want to kick
the Status Quo ass all down the street. I am quite the "radical"
and the "Revolutionary". I want to kick the elites out and
reestablish foundational America. "Establishment Republicans"
or RINO collaborators are the bane of my existence.

So what am I really? Tea Party does describe me. Conservative
is a bad description but it sticks, so ...

And now "revolutionary" have been co-oped to mean "communist",
not Jeffersonian Liberalism. Another word game.

Add to that "progressive". "Progress" only if you mean
reestablishing the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany as
"progress". Geepers creepers! Folks that don't believe
in free speech, massive bloated government, or individuals
controlling their own lives is "progress"? Everyone who
disagrees with them is a "racist" whether there is any
evidence or not?

Which brings to mind, will actual victims of racism
be ignored because of the distortion the "progressives"
have made of the word "racism" to mean "I disagree
with you"?

"Liberal" now has nothing to do with Foundational America,
personal freedom or any form of limited government. It
is used in place of "socialist" because Liberals think
it sounds better. Again they get away with it as they
control the media.

"Illegal Aliens" are "undocumented workers" even though
what they are doing is a felony (real law, not "I don't
like what your are doing"). Again trying to control
the language for political gain.

And on and on and so forth.

I do have to admire Bernie as he is "honest" about
what he is. There is no difference between Bernie
and Hillary: they are both Socialists. Well,
Hillary is a criminal (actual laws, not "I just
don't like her", speaking of abusing the language).

Here is Hillary squirming about the difference between
a socialist and a Democrat (there ain't no difference):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElgqOYQ9DV4

Hmm: she is a "progressive" what? The difference
is what?

If you control the language, you control the mindset
of the public.

Trump has really thrown a wrench into the works
setting political correctness on its head. Have
you notices all the rest of the clowns/cowards on the bus
will now talk about "forbidden" subjects after Trump
takes all the arrows?

I don't know, maybe I am just a "rabble-rouser".

America lost more people as a percent of our population
in the Revolutionary War than any war in our history.
It is still coursing through our veins despite
what the establishment elites think. They are in
for a big surprise this next election. Freedom
isn't free.

-T

Illegal entry is a Federal Crime but from what I understand, it's a misdemeanor. Forging documents, using false ID, etc are felonies. The feds frak with American Citizens because they can easily find us. ¯\_à²*_à²*_/¯

[8~{} Uncle Citizen Monster


But political correctness says we can't call it illegal
because the Dems want dependents and the RINOs want
the cheap labor. So they control the language.

On 01/18/2016 06:36 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 01/18/2016 05:32 PM, Robert Green wrote:
Grover Norquist is a traitor who should practice what he preaches.

When I was a kid I had an imaginary friend as some kids do by the name
of Grover Groundhog. I have trouble taking people by the name of Grover
seriously.

Which state is he running in?

On 01/19/2016 03:36 PM, T wrote:
On 01/18/2016 06:36 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 01/18/2016 05:32 PM, Robert Green wrote:
Grover Norquist is a traitor who should practice what he preaches.

When I was a kid I had an imaginary friend as some kids do by the name
of Grover Groundhog. I have trouble taking people by the name of Grover
seriously.

Which state is he running in?

Well, if Daffy Duck gets nominated, I will have to abandon
Grover

On 01/16/2016 06:25 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:

I'll agree Sanders has liabilities but I don't know about the wipe the
floor part.

Yea, after I hit "Send" I thought that was a bit extreme..... "Prevail"
would have been a more proper choice of words.

Back in the mainframe days, I worked with a lady that said every
keyboard needed an "OH **** !" key. You hit "Send", realize something
in the note was ill-advised.... then you hit the "OH **** !" key and the
email is cancelled before anybody sees it.


I am trying to figure out a hand held "take back" device.
Put you foot in your mouth, hit the button, and no one
knows the difference.

If I ever get it working, I am going to be so stinkin'
rich!

On 01/17/2016 05:45 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
ust set it to search for stuff on the
subject prior to around 2012. You'll get lots of hits. You'll see
the whole "Is Cruz eligible?" question has been in play quite a while,
well before Trump echoed it.

Instead of blaming this on Trump, Cruz really needs to fix the problem.
This started with the Washington Post, not Trump. Since there
is a revolving door between American Pravda and Democrat organizations,
especially Democrat Congressional staffs, it is a really good bet
that the dems knew about this a long time ago and are planning on making
hay out of it. Cruz need to fix this right away.

Just out of curiosity, there is a rumor that Cruz supports
H1b visas. Can anyone confirm or deny?

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-5, Tekkie(R) wrote:
Oren posted for all of us...



On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:28:48 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Guy who mocks a disablend NY Times reporter, doing the flailing arm
thing,


He didn't know the guy was disabled (correct spelling)


An obvious lie. As I pointed out, Trump started the mocking by saying
"Have you seen this guy?". And then mimicking his exaggerated body
movements. If Trump didn't know he was disabled, how was it that
he knew how to mock him? And Trump even claimed he's never seen
the reporter, while the reporter says that he extensively covered
Trump in the past, they were on a first name basis, etc. So, we
know who the liar is here.

Yes. Trump knew. It shows how he operates. Nothing ****es me much,
but making fun of a person with a disability will crank my wrench.

I guess Todd could defend the actual video.

From what I saw reported he was not aware at the time the person was
disabled.

Good grief, you Trumpies are unbelievable. Trump starts off with
"HAVE YOU SEEN THIS GUY"? His exact words. Then mimicks the
exaggerated movements of the disabled guy. And from that you
conjure up it was "reported" that he was not aware that the reporter
was disabled? The only one saying that Trump was unaware is Trump
and he's obviously lying, again.

Also, as I pointed out 3 times now, the reporter covered Trump in
the past, the stories he wrote are on record, and the reporter
says that he was on a first name basis with Trump. And to top it
off, this fits exactly with the Trump modus operandi, viciously
attack anyone that disagrees with him in any way. Certainly a
guy that would say John McCain is no war hero, that Megyn Kelly
has blood coming out of her wherever, would and did mock the
disabled reporter. And all the reporter did was say that he
couldn't back up Trump's claim of thousands and thousands of
Arabs celebrating in JC on 9/11. No one else can either, including
Trump himself who has zilch to support it.

But feel free to believe whatever lies you like.



He supposedly apologized the next day. It's murky (like all
politicians) but that's how the big T is.

Wrong again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...me-an-apology/

Headline:

"Trump: I won't apologize to the New York Times for mocking its reporter -- the paper 'should give me an apology"

Also shows how manipulative Trump is, he owes an apology to the
reporter, not the paper, but he refused to apologize to either
and as usual twists it into Trump vs the NY Times, instead of
Trump needing to apologize for his totally offensive remarks.


I am refraining from listening to
the endless erection coverage.

Which shows why you don't know WTF you're talking about and
what Trump is really doing and saying.

On 01/19/2016 04:36 PM, T wrote:
Well, if Daffy Duck gets nominated, I will have to abandon
Grover

I'd go with Heckle and Jeckle. They can decide which one is VP. They're
black and white so everybody will be happy.

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 5:36:52 PM UTC-6, T wrote:
On 01/19/2016 03:36 PM, T wrote:
On 01/18/2016 06:36 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 01/18/2016 05:32 PM, Robert Green wrote:
Grover Norquist is a traitor who should practice what he preaches.

When I was a kid I had an imaginary friend as some kids do by the name
of Grover Groundhog. I have trouble taking people by the name of Grover
seriously.

Which state is he running in?

Well, if Daffy Duck gets nominated, I will have to abandon
Grover

There is always the guy I'm voting for if he gets the Republican nomination, Sponge Bob Square Pants. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Sponge Monster

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:26:42 -0800, T wrote:

Instead of blaming this on Trump, Cruz really needs to fix the problem.

What problem? The law is clear in this matter.

I guess you only have the "facts" that matter to you but not the law?

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:30:56 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:26:42 -0800, T wrote:

Instead of blaming this on Trump, Cruz really needs to fix the problem.

What problem? The law is clear in this matter.

I guess you only have the "facts" that matter to you but not the law?

There is no "law" in this area when it comes to defning what a
"natural born" citizen is. There are some other laws about children
born out of country but none specifically defining natural born. As a
result, it needs to be "settled" and commonly these kinds of questions
get settled in the Supreme Court.

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 22:44:28 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 01/17/2016 06:47 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Anytime they ask for race and there is no option to not check a box,
check the Native American box. Assuming you were born in the USA.
Almost all of us are native Americans.

Sorry, I'm a non-Hispanic Caucasian. I could have been born anyplace in
the world and I'd still be a non-Hispanic Caucasian. I'm not related to
Pocahontas Warren.


Are you an American and were you born on American soil? Then you are
a Native American.. or .. American Native.. arrange the words however
you wish and pick the choice on the form that most closely matches.

On 01/20/2016 06:13 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Are you an American and were you born on American soil? Then you are
a Native American.. or .. American Native.. arrange the words however
you wish and pick the choice on the form that most closely matches.

There is blood and then there are geographical or political accidents.

On 01/19/2016 08:26 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 01/19/2016 04:36 PM, T wrote:
Well, if Daffy Duck gets nominated, I will have to abandon
Grover

I'd go with Heckle and Jeckle. They can decide which one is VP. They're
black and white so everybody will be happy.

But Daffy has EVERY human emotion: greed, fear, greed, curiosity,
greed, anger, greed, avarice, greed. Did I mention "greed"?

On 01/19/2016 08:37 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 5:36:52 PM UTC-6, T wrote:
On 01/19/2016 03:36 PM, T wrote:
On 01/18/2016 06:36 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 01/18/2016 05:32 PM, Robert Green wrote:
Grover Norquist is a traitor who should practice what he preaches.

When I was a kid I had an imaginary friend as some kids do by the name
of Grover Groundhog. I have trouble taking people by the name of Grover
seriously.

Which state is he running in?

Well, if Daffy Duck gets nominated, I will have to abandon
Grover

There is always the guy I'm voting for if he gets the Republican nomination, Sponge Bob Square Pants. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Sponge Monster


Is he greedy and disloyal to his friends?

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 8:13:29 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:30:56 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:26:42 -0800, T wrote:

Instead of blaming this on Trump, Cruz really needs to fix the problem.

What problem? The law is clear in this matter.

I guess you only have the "facts" that matter to you but not the law?

There is no "law" in this area when it comes to defning what a
"natural born" citizen is. There are some other laws about children
born out of country but none specifically defining natural born. As a
result, it needs to be "settled" and commonly these kinds of questions
get settled in the Supreme Court.

It may not have been fully defined, but it was defined enough in the
first Congress so that it would have included Cruz. The Naturalization
Act specified that children born to US citizen parents abroad were
considered natural born. That was circa the time the constitution,
with it's clause, was adopted and shows the thinking.

Asked 3 times now and still not answered. The intent of the framers
of the constitution is clear, they were worried about a foreigner
somehow becoming president. Do you really think that they intended
that if Franklin's wife, or Jefferson's wife, gave birth to a child
while they were travelling outside the country, that 50 years later,
having spent almost all his life here, that child should be banned
from running because he's a foreign threat?

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 5:27:57 AM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 01/19/2016 08:26 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 01/19/2016 04:36 PM, T wrote:
Well, if Daffy Duck gets nominated, I will have to abandon
Grover

I'd go with Heckle and Jeckle. They can decide which one is VP. They're
black and white so everybody will be happy.

But Daffy has EVERY human emotion: greed, fear, greed, curiosity,
greed, anger, greed, avarice, greed. Did I mention "greed"?

I thought you were voting for Donald Duck. BTW, speaking of greed,
where are all the Trump charitable foundations, hospitals, etc?

On 01/21/2016 06:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:
I thought you were voting for Donald Duck. BTW, speaking of greed,
where are all the Trump charitable foundations, hospitals, etc?

Google Annabelle Hill.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:11:11 -0700, "Ashton Crusher"
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:30:56 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:26:42 -0800, T wrote:

Instead of blaming this on Trump, Cruz really needs to fix the problem.

What problem? The law is clear in this matter.

I guess you only have the "facts" that matter to you but not the law?

There is no "law" in this area when it comes to defning what a
"natural born" citizen is. There are some other laws about children
born out of country but none specifically defining natural born. As a
result, it needs to be "settled" and commonly these kinds of questions
get settled in the Supreme Court.

To get to SCOTUS, a person has to have standing and show harm done.
Four Justices have to agree to hear the case. Do you really think the
recent civil case filed in Houston will get that far? I don't.

The case is Schwartz v. Cruz, 4:16-cv-00106, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas (Houston).

On 01/21/2016 11:42 AM, Oren wrote:
To get to SCOTUS, a person has to have standing and show harm done.
Four Justices have to agree to hear the case. Do you really think the
recent civil case filed in Houston will get that far? I don't.

The case is Schwartz v. Cruz, 4:16-cv-00106, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas (Houston).

Probably not, but the idea would be to harass Cruz. That
is why I think he should be it taken care of right now.

Sort of like Hillary and her "if she doesn't get arrested"
thing.

If Cruz wins, the flood of laid off IT workers from
by Cruz's new H1b visas trying to be consultants will
put me out of business. It suddenly has gotten
real personal.

Maybe Cruz can have one of Stromin' "continuing revelations"
and change his mind. Cruz may be good for the country, but
sure will be bad for anyone with a STEM degree. Currently,
50% of STEM degree holders can not find work in the STEM
industry. So Cruz is on my **** list at the moment.

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 2:06:45 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
Currently,
50% of STEM degree holders can not find work in the STEM
industry. So Cruz is on my **** list at the moment.

And your source for that statistic would be? And don't give
us some kook website either.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 11:06:42 -0800, T wrote:

On 01/21/2016 11:42 AM, Oren wrote:
To get to SCOTUS, a person has to have standing and show harm done.
Four Justices have to agree to hear the case. Do you really think the
recent civil case filed in Houston will get that far? I don't.

The case is Schwartz v. Cruz, 4:16-cv-00106, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas (Houston).

Probably not, but the idea would be to harass Cruz. That
is why I think he should be it taken care of right now.

You make my point. This case is from a liberal socialist lawyer,
Berine Sanders supporter. Cruz doesn't have to prove anything. He is
eligible to run.

On 01/22/2016 03:51 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 11:06:42 -0800, T wrote:

On 01/21/2016 11:42 AM, Oren wrote:
To get to SCOTUS, a person has to have standing and show harm done.
Four Justices have to agree to hear the case. Do you really think the
recent civil case filed in Houston will get that far? I don't.

The case is Schwartz v. Cruz, 4:16-cv-00106, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas (Houston).

Probably not, but the idea would be to harass Cruz. That
is why I think he should be it taken care of right now.

You make my point. This case is from a liberal socialist lawyer,
Berine Sanders supporter. Cruz doesn't have to prove anything. He is
eligible to run.


Believe me, since American Pravda (Washington Post) was the
one raising the point (not Trump), the Libs are going to
harass Cruz with this if he doesn't get it fixed up
before he gets any kind of nomination. They are
super ****ed at the fuss that was made of someone
we knows phony birth certificate from Hawaii.

Per T:
The Dems toss s*** out whether
or not it is real.

Replace "Dems" with "Politicians" and I think it will be closer...
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 07:18:11 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:


Why would any real conservative support a candidate who is
clueless about conservatism. The National Review just had a
whole issue devoted to 22 leading conservatives exposing Trump
for what he is, which is no conservative.

A good read. They say what you and I have been telling Tumpies here
for awhile.

..."Saint Paul admonished Timothy, “If anyone aspires to the office
of overseer . . . he must not be a recent convert, or he may become
puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil” (1
Timothy 3:1,6)."

Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination

G

Per Oren:
Why would any real conservative support a candidate who is
clueless about conservatism. The National Review just had a
whole issue devoted to 22 leading conservatives exposing Trump
for what he is, which is no conservative.

A good read. They say what you and I have been telling Tumpies here
for awhile.

On last night's Charlie Rose they were discussing the Republican Party's
dilemma.

What I took away:

- The Republican party is divided into roughly 3 constituencies:
+ The Angry
+ The Socially-Conservatives and Religious Fundamentalists
+ The Establishment

- Trump has The Angry

- Cruz has The Socially-Conservatives and Religious Fundamentalists

- The Establishment is currently getting split up among at least 4
candidates.

- The dilemma is that, unless The Establishment can unify and get behind
one guy, either Cruz or Trump is going to get the nomination and
neither one looks strong enough against Hillary.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:34:25 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

On last night's Charlie Rose they were discussing the Republican Party's
dilemma.

What I took away:

- The Republican party is divided into roughly 3 constituencies:
+ The Angry
+ The Socially-Conservatives and Religious Fundamentalists
+ The Establishment

- Trump has The Angry

- Cruz has The Socially-Conservatives and Religious Fundamentalists

- The Establishment is currently getting split up among at least 4
candidates.

- The dilemma is that, unless The Establishment can unify and get behind
one guy, either Cruz or Trump is going to get the nomination and
neither one looks strong enough against Hillary.

The good news is Clintonocchio is being measured by the FBI for her
new orange pant suit. That growing nose could put yer eye out kid.

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/125500/Hillary-Clinton-in-Prison-2016--125773.jpg

On 1/23/2016 6:00 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:34:25 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

On last night's Charlie Rose they were discussing the Republican Party's
dilemma.

What I took away:

- The Republican party is divided into roughly 3 constituencies:
+ The Angry
+ The Socially-Conservatives and Religious Fundamentalists
+ The Establishment

- Trump has The Angry

- Cruz has The Socially-Conservatives and Religious Fundamentalists

- The Establishment is currently getting split up among at least 4
candidates.

- The dilemma is that, unless The Establishment can unify and get behind
one guy, either Cruz or Trump is going to get the nomination and
neither one looks strong enough against Hillary.

The good news is Clintonocchio is being measured by the FBI for her
new orange pant suit. That growing nose could put yer eye out kid.

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/125500/Hillary-Clinton-in-Prison-2016--125773.jpg


That's what I've been saying. Crazy Uncle Joe will displace her. I
just hope we do not run Goofy Cousin Donald.

On 01/23/2016 04:32 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per T:
The Dems toss s*** out whether
or not it is real.

Replace "Dems" with "Politicians" and I think it will be closer...


You have a point. But, since "Dems" control the press
(American Pravda), the "Dems" are a lot more successful
with it. This is how they get away with political
correctness (mind control)

If you don't want to argue the merits of something,
just call the other side a bunch of unfounded names.
If they stick, you don't have to argue your point.

On 01/23/2016 12:34 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
either Cruz or Trump is going to get the nomination and
neither one looks strong enough against Hillary.

That is the tired remedy the Dems use on Reps so
they will nominate a RINO, keeping the Reps base
home, and insuring a Dem win.

Hillary is such an incredibly week candidate. She
is everyone's worst nightmare of an ex-wife.

Biden on the other hand, will give us a run for
our money. Notice how quiet the Dems are about that?
They want us to focus our attention on someone
that is not going to be running anyway. (Bernie
may be the fly in that ointment.)

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message

stuff snipped

- The Republican party is divided into roughly 3 constituencies:
+ The Angry
+ The Socially-Conservatives and Religious Fundamentalists
+ The Establishment

I read the results of an interesting study that claims that Trump's
supporters are authoritarian and give a sample 4 part questionnaire that
evaluated a person's attitudes towards authority. I'll see if I can find
it. It explains a lot and points out how flawed many political surveys are
in that they fail to ask the right questions.

--
Bobby G.

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:46:08 PM UTC-6, T wrote:
On 01/23/2016 04:32 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per T:
The Dems toss s*** out whether
or not it is real.

Replace "Dems" with "Politicians" and I think it will be closer...


You have a point. But, since "Dems" control the press
(American Pravda), the "Dems" are a lot more successful
with it. This is how they get away with political
correctness (mind control)

If you don't want to argue the merits of something,
just call the other side a bunch of unfounded names.
If they stick, you don't have to argue your point.

I believe that sane Americans have had enough of Political Correctness and are no longer going to be The Silent Majority. I don't like being mean and ugly to anyone but it's getting harder and harder for me to keep from yelling,"STFU you dumbass!" in the face of those PC morons. As I get older I've noticed that I'm becoming less tolerant even though I love my Liberal friends. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Angry Monster

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 12:46:08 AM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 01/23/2016 04:32 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per T:
The Dems toss s*** out whether
or not it is real.

Replace "Dems" with "Politicians" and I think it will be closer...


You have a point. But, since "Dems" control the press
(American Pravda), the "Dems" are a lot more successful
with it. This is how they get away with political
correctness (mind control)

If you don't want to argue the merits of something,
just call the other side a bunch of unfounded names.
If they stick, you don't have to argue your point.

Odd, that's exactly the Trump method, and you just love him.
Look at some excellent very recent examples:

Union Leader newspaper endorses Christie, Trump attacks it
as a failing paper, calls the editor a lowlife, etc. He made
a whole 15 min rambling speech.

Glen Beck endorses Cruz, Trump calls him a dope, says his
radio show is failing, has no audience, etc.

National Review has 22 real, bona fide conservatives that give
their reasons for not believing Trump is a conservative and how
he will damage the conservative cause, Trump says National Review
is a failing "paper" and irrelevant.

In every one of those, Trump didn't respond at all to the issues,
the merits, it was just an ad hominem attack. Trump does this almost
every single day. Totally different rules and standards.

Per Frank:

That's what I've been saying. Crazy Uncle Joe will displace her. I
just hope we do not run Goofy Cousin Donald.

Yesterday I heard that Bloomberg is considering a run as Independent.

I've vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat:

- Experienced in politics

- Experienced running a very large organization (NYC)

- Pragmatic: No big ideological axes to grind.

- Not beholden to special interests - by virtue of being
really, really rich

- Still young enough....


I'd even feel comfortable with Bloomberg's doing things that I would
disapprove of off the top of my head - just because I think the guy is
supremely competent and knows a whole lot more than I ever will.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 01/24/2016 07:33 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
- Pragmatic: No big ideological axes to grind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everytown_for_Gun_Safety

Is that a big enough ax?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/bloombe...or-presidency/

"The former mayor is largely a social liberal — he fought for same-sex
marriage in New York and is pro-abortion rights. He also became arguably
the nation’s most vocal proponent of gun control, using his fortune to
bankroll candidates across the country who clash with the National Rifle
Association, the influential gun rights lobbying group.

But liberals have found fault with his cozy ties to Wall Street and his
unquestioned support for the New York Police Department, which drove
down crime during his tenure but engaged in tactics that a federal judge
later ruled discriminated against minorities."

That's not going to play well with either the god and guns crowd or
#blacklivesmatter.

- Still young enough....

73? I guess it's time to start interviewing gerontologists for the White
House Staff. I figured at some point in life I would be older than the
presidential candidates. Not this year the way it's going.

It would be fun to watch him run. He's got all the boxes in the populist
list of things to hate checked off.

(PeteCresswell) posted for all of us...



Per Frank:

That's what I've been saying. Crazy Uncle Joe will displace her. I
just hope we do not run Goofy Cousin Donald.

Yesterday I heard that Bloomberg is considering a run as Independent.

I've vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat:

- Experienced in politics

- Experienced running a very large organization (NYC)

- Pragmatic: No big ideological axes to grind.

- Not beholden to special interests - by virtue of being
really, really rich

- Still young enough....


I'd even feel comfortable with Bloomberg's doing things that I would
disapprove of off the top of my head - just because I think the guy is
supremely competent and knows a whole lot more than I ever will.

I wouldn't. I think he is a liberal. He banned this and that in NYC. He has
better things to do. He wants to tell you how to run your life. He is
fervently anti-gun. I don't have the warm & fuzzies for him. Of course I
don't have it for ALL of them. I'm independent so I can't vote for either
parties line up. Really rotten state of affairs IMO. We can't get better
bozos than these? I know Billary wouldn't get my vote in ANY case but
Sanders, O'Malley??? The crew from crazy-land.

--
Tekkie

Uncle Monster posted for all of us...



On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 11:46:08 PM UTC-6, T wrote:
On 01/23/2016 04:32 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per T:
The Dems toss s*** out whether
or not it is real.

Replace "Dems" with "Politicians" and I think it will be closer...


You have a point. But, since "Dems" control the press
(American Pravda), the "Dems" are a lot more successful
with it. This is how they get away with political
correctness (mind control)

If you don't want to argue the merits of something,
just call the other side a bunch of unfounded names.
If they stick, you don't have to argue your point.

I believe that sane Americans have had enough of Political Correctness and are no longer going to be The Silent Majority. I don't like being mean and ugly to anyone but it's getting harder and harder for me to keep from yelling,"STFU you dumbass!" in the face of those PC morons. As I get older I've noticed that I'm becoming less tolerant even though I love my Liberal friends. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Angry Monster

+1 I believe the policritters of ALL stripes have ignored the voters more
and more to shift to personal agendas.

--
Tekkie