Recommended Posts

It is hard to forget those whiners back then, demanding his commitment to the eventual nominee lest he be a sore loser and bolt the party if he lost the nomination.

Turns out some of them are the sore-losing scumbags they warned us about.

I wonder how it feels being all the terrible things they would be calling us if someone else had been nominated and it was us being whiny, sore-losing little bitches.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 15k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4643

  • Peter

    1450

  • Jon Letendre

    1319

  • Brant Gaede

    884

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

Even more hilarious, how about all those dorks who donated money to Stormy Daniels' GoFundMe campaign for legal expenses? This money will now go to President Trump to pay his lawyers. How co

Posted Images

34 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

I wonder how it feels being the all the terrible things they would be calling us if someone else had been nominated and it was us being whiny, sore-losing little bitches.

Jon,

I don't think the hypocrisy part bothers them one bit. Unbelievably, they posture as if they practice a code of honor (which, as this case shows, they don't).

It's the losing that stings.

I wonder how that phrase, "the American people," tastes in their mouth when they say it these days.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

I don't think the hypocrisy part bothers them one bit. Unbelievably, they posture as if they practice a code of honor (which, as this case shows, they don't).

It's the losing that stings.

I wonder how that phrase, "the American people," tastes in their mouth when they say it these days.

:)

Michael

Sure, the losing.

But still, knowing one is a whiny little bitch has to sting, too.

"I am Mitt Romney, whiny little loser bitch."

"My name is Jeb! whiny little...."

You won't hear them say that, because Daytime Denial is easy, but in the dark, late at night, lying in bed, there is no one to lie to and one must fight off thoughts of one's manifest whiny little bitchness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

No one "is in fact" guilty.  one is guilty if convicted.  

So I'm not guilty of rape if I rape and the law won't/can't/doesn't touch me.

--Brant

whee!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

So I'm not guilty of rape if I rape and the law won't/can't/doesn't touch me.

--Brant

whee!

Not legally.  Guilt must be proven in court.  Until that happens your are legally innocent.  Guilt is a -legal- term. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 

24 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

So I'm not guilty of rape if I rape and the law won't/can't/doesn't touch me.

--Brant

whee!

Not legally.  Guilt must be proven in court.  Until that happens your are legally innocent.  Guilt is a -legal- term. 

 

You guys are arguing at cross purposes aka duelling definitions.

Webster's New World Dictionary - guilty:

1. having guilt, deserving blame or punishment, culpable (guilt: the state of having done a wrong or committed an offense; culpability, legal or ethical).

2. having one's guilt proved; legally judged an offender.

1 is being guilty *in fact.*

2 is being *found*/*proved* guilty *in a court of law.*

You can be guilty in fact and be legally "innocent" (as in: not found guilty). I.e., a guilty man can fail to be *found* guilty, and that doesn't make him not guilty in fact, just not guilty in the eyes of the law. (The same is true for women. :cool: )

REB

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

You won't hear them say that, because Daytime Denial is easy, but in the dark, late at night, lying in bed, there is no one to lie to and one must fight off thoughts of one's manifest whiny little bitchness.

Jon,

I admit, this thought beguiles me--it appeals to the wrong side of me maybe (seeing how I want to focus on making stuff), but man do I enjoy the thought.

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

I admit, this thought beguiles me--it appeals to the wrong side of me maybe (seeing how I want to focus on making stuff), but man do I enjoy the thought.

:) 

Michael

I know this is the Trump humor thread, but I find the fact that the Republican weenies who are not supporting Trump--after having signed a pledge that they would when it was to their advantage to pledge such support--are the worst kind of hypocrites, twice over.   First, for signing the pledge in the first place.  Second, for not renouncing the pledge while they were still in the game, i.e., when it could have actually affected them.    Anybody can be an anti Trump hero now, when they are no longer on the ballots.  This doesn't apply to Romney, of course, as he didn't run.

As to Jon's point about laying awake in bed at night, not a chance.   Sadly, you are giving these guys way too much credit for having scruples.    The power of the human mind to rationalize when under pressure is almost unlimited.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PDS said:

As to Jon's point about laying awake in bed at night, not a chance.   Sadly, you are giving these guys way too much credit for having scruples.    The power of the human mind to rationalize when under pressure is almost unlimited.  

You're deluded.

--Brant

it's unlimited

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you are both right about that and it is very depressing.

However, I Dont think their game can be airtight.

Romney stopped caring about being a worthless little loser bitch, but he knows why he is reluctant to run again.

It's because he might show his ass and lose in front of the whole world, again.

He is smart enough to grasp this simple modus whatever.... If he wasn't such a weak little loser bitch we would be arguing the merits of a second Romney term, instead of wondering the level of his grasp of his worthless little bitchness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger wrote: You can be guilty in fact and be legally "innocent" (as in: not found guilty). I.e., a guilty man can fail to be *found* guilty, and that doesn't make him not guilty in fact, just not guilty in the eyes of the law. end quote

Exactly, Roger. And a person in an emergency situation is entitled to act to prevent force used against them too. You are pushed. What do you do? Protesters at a Trump rally push against the police. A cop sees something suspicious. You see someone pull, and point a gun. Do what is *necessary* and it is morally, and prove-ably legal.

Peter

Neal Boortz wrote about crooked politicians: 'Liar' is just as ugly a word as 'thief,' because it implies the presence of just as ugly a sin in one case as in the other. If a man lies under oath or procures the lie of another under oath, if he perjures himself or suborns perjury, he is guilty under the statute law . . . . Under the higher law, under the great law of morality and righteousness, he is precisely as guilty if, instead of lying in a court, he lies in a newspaper or on the stump; and in all probability, the evil effects of his conduct are infinitely more widespread and more pernicious. end quote

A real oldie. Julius Caesar said: Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar. end quote

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops. It was Neal quoting Teddy Roosevelt from May 12, 1900 about political liars.

 

Here’s a good one. Can you guess who said it?

 

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom.  My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.  And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests, " I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can. 

 

(It was Barry Goldwater.)  Does Trump sound a bit like Barry?

Peter  

Link to post
Share on other sites

TIME is quoted on the back of my copy of The Conscience of a Conservative:

"Goldwater's unabashed, unapologetic conservatism has struck a responsive note in a nation wondering if there is some alternative to an ever-expanding welfare state."

 

More copy on the back:

"Senator Barry Goldwater, the descendant of a pioneer Arizona family, was a successful businessman before he was elected to the senate in 1952 

[...]

He is the Republican party's most sought after speaker

[...]

He is considered a strong possibility as the Republican candidate for the Presidency in 1964"

 

I guess that last part is very different, unless, are people starting to say that of Trump yet? Haven't seen that yet, but maybe they are, maybe some are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Conscience of a Conservative

Chapter Six

Freedom For Labor

"If I had to select the vote I regard as the most important of my Senate career it would be the one I cast on the Kennedy-Ervin "Labor Reform" Bill of 1959. The Senate passed the measure 95-1; the dissenting vote was mine. The measure had been advertised as a cure-all for the evils uncovered by the McClellan Committee investigation. I opposed it because I felt certain that legislation which pretended to respond to the popular demand for safeguards against Union power, but actually did not do so, would preclude the possibility of meaningful legislation for some time to come."

Link to post
Share on other sites

That book (and one following it?) was written by L. Brent Bozell Jr. Goldwater merely signed off on it as reflective of his views by putting himself down as the author. A US Senator has no business writing books while in office. That's one reason Profiles In Courage wasn't written by Kennedy, but by the very brainy and literate Ted Sorensen.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Forward:

"In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that the people's welfare depends on individual self reliance rather than on state paternalism, Congress annually deliberates over whether the increase in government welfarism should be small or large.

In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that the federal government spends too much, Congress annually deliberates over whether to raise the federal budget by a few billion dollars or by many billion.

In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that individual liberty depends on decentralized government, Congress annually deliberates over whether vigorous or halting steps should be taken to bring state government into line with federal policy.

[...]

"Why have American people been unable to translate their views into appropriate political action?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not their views, that's why. Time passes; things change; not necessarily for the better. That's today. When this was written it was also generally not their views too, only not so bad. Thus the quote was wrong, even in 1960. Now, we can ask the same about Rand's political influence. Where is it? Why is it as it is whatever it is?

--Brant

too much on Rand; not enough on us?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Rand's political influence. Where is it? Why is it as it is whatever it is?

We have not had a military draft for about 40 years, due to Rand's influence on Martin Anderson who advised Richard Nixon to make and keep a campaign pledge to end it.

Some (mostly leftists?) claim that if the draft were still in effect, we would not have been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the 5000+ who died there would still be alive. Perhaps, but perhaps more would have died elsewhere. Hard to invest in retrospect.

REB

Link to post
Share on other sites

A modern army hasn't much use for draftees. It runs on brains. I suppose in Israel it's different. They have a lot of brains to pick from.

--Brant

aren't they socialists?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

TIME is quoted on the back of my copy of The Conscience of a Conservative:

Jon,

One thing nobody is saying right now (that I have seen) is that Fred Trump was one of Goldwater's biggest backers for his presidential run. This is the political background Trump cut his teeth on.

Roger Stone discusses this and many other things on Reddit:

In another video by Stone (I would have to find it), he said something really interesting about Vince Foster. Like in the video above, he thinks Foster committed suicide. But in the other video it was not because of depression.

Stone said Foster was having an affair with Hillary and she essentially blamed him for the health care debacle and dumped him. Apparently she humiliated Foster in front of a lot of people in a meeting shortly before his suicide. However, Stone says Hillary had his body removed from his office so the office would not turn into a crime scene for the FBI. With Foster's body in the park, the park police investigated, not the FBI. Who knows what hidden treasures the FBI would have found in Foster's office?

Speculation, of course. But man, does that sound plausible...

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now