Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Drudge tweaked his page again. He actually did another earlier I didn't post showing Cruz looking stern and pointing with his right finger. Man, is Druge busy today... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 One of the reasons Federal Senators in the Post WWII mold suck as Executives, e.g....O'bama, Johnson, Kennedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 1 hour ago, Selene said: One of the reasons Federal Senators in the Post WWII mold suck as Executives, e.g....O'bama, Johnson, Kennedy Which Kennedy. Are you including Jack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 4 hours ago, Roger Bissell said: I guess MSK was too busy stomping and stomping Robert... Roger, This stayed in the back of my mind. Robert Campbell also talked a lot about stomping. I don't think in those terms. Is this what you guys do when you go to bed. Dream about stomping? Have nightmares about stomping? Does your bogeyman stomp instead of eat people? But just at face value, I presume you are talking about me stomping Robert Campbell. I don't know if you are talking about the same Robert Campbell I know, but it can't be. Nobody stomps the Robert Campbell I know. If someone has stomped him, I haven't seen it. And I've known him for quite a few years now. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Check this one out, folks. Donald Trump loves Ayn Rand. You weren't prepared for that one, were you? Donald Trump's 'kinder, gentler' version by Kirsten Powers April 11, 2016 USA Today From the article (my bold): Powers said: Is Donald Trump about to make a pivot toward presidential? In an hour-long interview Thursday in his New York office, Trump promised, “The time is going to be soon.” . . . Could he build coalitions with people who had wronged him? Could he, for example, see appointing Sen. Marco Rubio to a position in his administration? “Yes. I like Marco Rubio. Yeah. I could,” he answered. As for a potential Rubio vice president: “There are people I have in mind in terms of vice president. I just haven’t told anybody names. ... I do like Marco. I do like (John) Kasich. … I like (Scott) Walker actually in a lot of ways. I hit him very hard. ... But I’ve always liked him. There are people I like, but I don’t think they like me because I have hit them hard.” He seems to have forgiven Rubio for his cringe-inducing attempt at stand-up comedy at Trump’s expense. “He made a mistake,” Trump said. “He became Don Rickles for about four days, and then I became worse than Don Rickles.” . . . Trump described himself as an Ayn Rand fan. He said of her novel The Fountainhead, “It relates to business (and) beauty (and) life and inner emotions. That book relates to ... everything.” He identified with Howard Roark, the novel's idealistic protagonist who designs skyscrapers and rages against the establishment. When I pointed out that The Fountainhead is in a way about the tyranny of groupthink, Trump sat up and said, “That’s what is happening here.” He then recounted a call he received from a liberal journalist: “How does it feel to have done what you have done? I said what have I done. He said nobody ever in the history of this country has done what you have done. And I said, well, if I lose, then no big deal. And he said no, no, if you lose, it doesn’t matter because this will be talked about forever. "And I said it will be talked about more if I win.” Right from the horse's mouth. Man, do I feel vindicated. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) Edited April 12, 2016 by william.scherk Video! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 11 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Check this one out, folks. Donald Trump loves Ayn Rand. You weren't prepared for that one, were you? Donald Trump's 'kinder, gentler' version by Kirsten Powers April 11, 2016 USA Today From the article (my bold): Right from the horse's mouth. Man, do I feel vindicated. Michael Nah, you had it all the way. I am still surprised that a human being who in actuality brought great buildings, panoramic golf courses and projects that are run very well into existence not to be supported by alleged followers of Ayn's Producer personality type hero still stumps me. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said: Which Kennedy. Are you including Jack? Bob, there is only one Kennedy that was President from January 20th 1961 to November 22, 1963. Camelot. The 1000 days President A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Roger, This stayed in the back of my mind. Robert Campbell also talked a lot about stomping. I don't think in those terms. Is this what you guys do when you go to bed. Dream about stomping? Have nightmares about stomping? Does your bogeyman stomp instead of eat people? But just at face value, I presume you are talking about me stomping Robert Campbell. I don't know if you are talking about the same Robert Campbell I know, but it can't be. Nobody stomps the Robert Campbell I know. If someone has stomped him, I haven't seen it. And I've known him for quite a few years now. Michael I challenge Roger Campbell to a stomping match. If I win Cruz gets nominated. If Roger wins Trump Cruz gets nominated. I win if Roger wins. --Brant MacGregor stomp, stomp, stomp! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 One day size will matter... Thank you Albany, New York!#MakeAmericaGreatAgain #Trump2016https://t.co/IAOuSY5VDC pic.twitter.com/WcItUuxej8— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2016 Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Selene said: Bob, there is only one Kennedy that was President from January 20th 1961 to November 22, 1963. Camelot. The 1000 days President A... You mentioned Senators, hence the question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 6 hours ago, Selene said: Wow Roger, wouldn't it be easier to just wipe the egg off your face? What? I love me some facial ova. Makes a convenient snack when I'm too busy to cook or forage. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Page 216 of 216 1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said: You mentioned Senators, hence the question Bob, JFK was the Senator from Massachusetts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 22 minutes ago, Selene said: Page 216 of 216 Bob, JFK was the Senator from Massachusetts. So was Ted. Hence my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Adam, It's about Jeb's drug dealing business in college and the later whitewash. Michael No more Bushes. --Brant bring in the brooms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said: So was Ted. Hence my question. I understand that. I was speaking about a specific class Senators, Post WWII and who served as President with no Executive experience - O'bama and JFK. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Jeb's drug dealing business in college and the later whitewash. Uh, oh - looks like a c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y! OMG, OMG, OMG. You know what this means? Cruz realizes he has lost the Evangelical vote, and now he's gone full-tilt libertarian! Or, more likely, he's repaying Jeb, the drug dealer, by legalizing his side-business. But wait, wouldn't legalizing marijuana take a lot of the (criminal) profit out of it? Hmmmm. I know there's a dirty, dirty, dirty little plot somewhere here. The geniuses at (L)OL surely will be able to figure it out...REB http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/04/11/ted-cruz-supports-ending-federal-criminalization-marijuana/ Ted Cruz Supports Ending the Federal Criminalization of Marijuana By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary) | April 11th, 2016 at 01:30 PM | 76 This isn’t exactly a new position for Cruz, but it’s a nice contrast to Trump when you see a candidate with some intellectual consistency. I think that Cruz’s most hardcore base (deeply evangelical conservatives) are probably not all that keen on legalized weed. But Ted Cruz is a guy who believes in Federalism as a principle, and the issue of marijuana legalization (vel non) is more or less a quintessential state police function, which ought to be decided by the states. Ted Cruz agrees: In two interviews on Saturday, Ted Cruz reiterated his support for marijuana federalism. “Personally,” he told the ABC station in Denver, “I would vote against marijuana legalization. If the state of Texas had a referendum on it, I would vote no. But I think it is the prerogative of the states to make that determination. I think the people of Colorado have the right to make the decision that they’ve made under the Constitution, and as president I would respect that right.” Talking to The Denver Post the same day, Cruz explained the practical advantages of letting states go their own way. “It is an opportunity for the rest of the country to see what happens here in Colorado, what happens in Washington state, see the states implement the policies,” he said. “If it works well, other states may choose to follow. If it doesn’t work well, other states may choose not to follow.” He said it was too early to say how legalization is going in Colorado. Those comments comport with what Cruz said at last year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. “I actually think this is a great embodiment of what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called ‘the laboratories of democracy,'” he told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that’s their prerogative. I personally don’t agree with it, but that’s their right.” If this is your position on abortion, it makes no sense that it wouldn’t also be your position on marijuana. While Cruz often gets criticized for being a caricature of the hard core conservative, he’s actually a pretty thoughtful guy. I’ve known him over the years to seriously listen to anyone who has a good idea on something, and change his position when presented with new evidence. The marijuana issue is one of those issues – Cruz used to be a critic of the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce (probably unconstitutional) Federal law in Colorado when Colorado legalized marijuana, but now his thinking has clearly changed. It’s difficult to find a political reason for it since it will probably hurt him with voters he is trying to court, so the remaining explanation is that he’s trying to be consistent. Which, as I noted, is a nice change of pace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary) | April 11th, 2016 at 01:30 PM | 76 This isn’t exactly a new position for Cruz, but it’s a nice contrast to Trump when you see a candidate with some intellectual consistency. I think that Cruz’s most hardcore base (deeply evangelical conservatives) are probably not all that keen on legalized weed. But Ted Cruz is a guy who believes in Federalism as a principle, and the issue of marijuana legalization (vel non) is more or less a quintessential state police function, which ought to be decided by the states. Ted Cruz agrees: In two interviews on Saturday, Ted Cruz reiterated his support for marijuana federalism. “Personally,” he told the ABC station in Denver, “I would vote against marijuana legalization. If the state of Texas had a referendum on it, I would vote no. But I think it is the prerogative of the states to make that determination. I think the people of Colorado have the right to make the decision that they’ve made under the Constitution, and as president I would respect that right.” Talking to The Denver Post the same day, Cruz explained the practical advantages of letting states go their own way. “It is an opportunity for the rest of the country to see what happens here in Colorado, what happens in Washington state, see the states implement the policies,” he said. “If it works well, other states may choose to follow. If it doesn’t work well, other states may choose not to follow.” He said it was too early to say how legalization is going in Colorado. Those comments comport with what Cruz said at last year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. “I actually think this is a great embodiment of what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called ‘the laboratories of democracy,'” he told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that’s their prerogative. I personally don’t agree with it, but that’s their right.” If this is your position on abortion, it makes no sense that it wouldn’t also be your position on marijuana. While Cruz often gets criticized for being a caricature of the hard core conservative, he’s actually a pretty thoughtful guy. I’ve known him over the years to seriously listen to anyone who has a good idea on something, and change his position when presented with new evidence. The marijuana issue is one of those issues – Cruz used to be a critic of the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce (probably unconstitutional) Federal law in Colorado when Colorado legalized marijuana, but now his thinking has clearly changed. It’s difficult to find a political reason for it since it will probably hurt him with voters he is trying to court, so the remaining explanation is that he’s trying to be consistent. Which, as I noted, is a nice change of pace.
Roger Bissell Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: 8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Roger, This stayed in the back of my mind. Robert Campbell also talked a lot about stomping. I don't think in those terms. Is this what you guys do when you go to bed. Dream about stomping? Have nightmares about stomping? Does your bogeyman stomp instead of eat people? But just at face value, I presume you are talking about me stomping Robert Campbell. I don't know if you are talking about the same Robert Campbell I know, but it can't be. Nobody stomps the Robert Campbell I know. If someone has stomped him, I haven't seen it. And I've known him for quite a few years now. Michael I challenge Roger Campbell to a stomping match. If I win Cruz gets nominated. If Roger wins Trump Cruz gets nominated. I win if Roger wins. --Brant MacGregor Brant, your words have revealed the psycho-epistemology of a prehistoric savage. You need to go back and read David Stuart Kelley's The Art of Rationalizing, or his previous book on the enumeration of Republicans, The Elephants of the Census, which he wrote under the tutelage of Pennard Leakoff. Good luck with your studies. Sincerely, Robert Bissell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 4 hours ago, Roger Bissell said: Uh, oh - looks like a c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y! OMG, OMG, OMG. You know what this means? Cruz realizes he has lost the Evangelical vote, and now he's gone full-tilt libertarian! Or, more likely, he's repaying Jeb, the drug dealer, by legalizing his side-business. But wait, wouldn't legalizing marijuana take a lot of the (criminal) profit out of it? Hmmmm. I know there's a dirty, dirty, dirty little plot somewhere here. The geniuses at (L)OL surely will be able to figure it out...REB Roger, LOL... You know when this kind of lampooning doesn't work? When there actually is hidden misbehavior and it gets uncovered in a way no one can deny anymore. For example, I recall seeing all kinds of people being derided for warning about a surveillance state, the construction in Utah, and so on. Hootin' and hollerin' about tin foil hats. The lizard people. UFOs. James Bond villains. The whole enchilada. (drum roll...) Then Edward Snowden happened. Man did the fun and games stop. (I even saw some of the mockers get really really pissed at Snowden and want him tried for treason. And they were really hateful about it. Overly hateful. I used to think it was because they were authoritarian, but now I think it's more personal. They don't like being wrong, and they HATE being proven wrong in public. Hate it, I tell you! So off with Snowden's head! That fucker made them look like fools to everyone! ) But Jeb's weed dealing is not a big problem. It's only a tiny fractal showing the pattern. He gets a buddy, they do stuff they're not supposed to do, they get in a jam, his friend takes the fall and he gets off. It's been that way his entire life. Take a look at that book sometime. Jeb has been bouncing around my turf, Latin America, getting himself entangled with worst kinds of people. Man... you would think being a Bush and all, he would learn to keep up appearances. It's a good thing Americans don't give a crap about Latin America enough to know who the good guys and the bad guys are down there. If they did, Jeb would not have made it nearly as far as he did in the election, even with a cool $140 million to piss down the drain. On Cruz, I like his stance on weed. I'm not sure he would actually do it once in office, though. Not after he prayed and got a message from God rebuking him, then positive feedback from his religious peers for his integrity toward God when he flip-flops. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 6 hours ago, Roger Bissell said: Brant, your words have revealed the psycho-epistemology of a prehistoric savage. You need to go back and read David Stuart Kelley's The Art of Rationalizing, or his previous book on the enumeration of Republicans, The Elephants of the Census, which he wrote under the tutelage of Pennard Leakoff. Good luck with your studies. Sincerely, Robert Bissell How about Atlas Ducked? --The Highlander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 8 hours ago, Selene said: I understand that. I was speaking about a specific class Senators, Post WWII and who served as President with no Executive experience - O'bama and JFK. A... Gotcha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 People are dissatisfied with the delegate system, especially super delegates and anytime someone gets more delegates but lost the vote, yet we vote in primaries. Is it time to accept the primary vote as we do the Presidential vote and skip archaic conventions? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Trump is a mixed metaphor. We have miles to go before we possibly hit the Trump bump in the road, so I am like the cat wanting to go out. The door is opened, but it is raining outside. I decide to stay inside. Thomas Sowell agrees with Bret Stephan’s assumption below. Hypothetically, Obama was unknown. Politically, Trump is relatively unknown. Therefore, Trump will follow the path of Obama. Perhaps Trump will also be disastrous for our Constitutional values, but he will be uniquely disastrous. Maybe. Maybe not. I know Trump supporters don’t like the investigative thinking ANYONE has done to come to the conclusion to select any other primary candidate, but I think most of us have done our due diligence. If we finally reach the oasis, don’t drink from the stale well first. That’s a good one. Peter Today, April 12, 2016 in Townhall, Thomas Sowell wrote: In so far as the voting public believes the fallacy that choosing someone other than Trump is ignoring "the voice of the people," when Trump has the most delegates, his threat carries weight. In reality, Trump has never gotten a majority of the votes in any state. In other words, "the voice of the people" has been consistently against nominating Trump. In a poll of Republican voters in Wisconsin, 20 percent of them said that they would be "concerned" if Trump became President of the United States, and 35 percent said that they would be "scared." . . . . Ignorance is dangerous enough in itself. But ignorance on the part of an egomaniac, who announces that he is his own best advisor, is incorrigible ignorance. He can surround himself with the best minds in the country and it will not do any good if they are just there for window dressing . . . . A headline on Bret Stephens' column in the Wall Street Journal -- "Trump Is Obama Squared" -- hit the nail on the head. After seven long years of disaster after disaster, at home and abroad, under the Obama administration, have we learned nothing about the dangers of choosing an untested candidate for President of the United States on the basis of his saying things we want to hear? Elections are not held to make us feel good at the time, but to select someone with the depth of knowledge and character to be entrusted with our lives and the future of the nation. end quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 7 minutes ago, Peter said: Trump is a mixed metaphor. We have miles to go before we possibly hit the Trump bump in the road, so I am like the cat wanting to go out. The door is opened, but it is raining outside. I decide to stay inside. Thomas Sowell agrees with Bret Stephan’s assumption below. Hypothetically, Obama was unknown. Politically, Trump is relatively unknown. Therefore, Trump will follow the path of Obama. Perhaps Trump will also be disastrous for our Constitutional values, but he will be uniquely disastrous. Maybe. Maybe not. I know Trump supporters don’t like the investigative thinking ANYONE has done to come to the conclusion to select any other primary candidate, but I think most of us have done our due diligence. If we finally reach the oasis, don’t drink from the stale well first. That’s a good one. Peter Today, April 12, 2016 in Townhall, Thomas Sowell wrote: In so far as the voting public believes the fallacy that choosing someone other than Trump is ignoring "the voice of the people," when Trump has the most delegates, his threat carries weight. In reality, Trump has never gotten a majority of the votes in any state. In other words, "the voice of the people" has been consistently against nominating Trump. In a poll of Republican voters in Wisconsin, 20 percent of them said that they would be "concerned" if Trump became President of the United States, and 35 percent said that they would be "scared." . . . . Ignorance is dangerous enough in itself. But ignorance on the part of an egomaniac, who announces that he is his own best advisor, is incorrigible ignorance. He can surround himself with the best minds in the country and it will not do any good if they are just there for window dressing . . . . A headline on Bret Stephens' column in the Wall Street Journal -- "Trump Is Obama Squared" -- hit the nail on the head. After seven long years of disaster after disaster, at home and abroad, under the Obama administration, have we learned nothing about the dangers of choosing an untested candidate for President of the United States on the basis of his saying things we want to hear? Elections are not held to make us feel good at the time, but to select someone with the depth of knowledge and character to be entrusted with our lives and the future of the nation. end quote Any candidate who has never held a political executive office is "untested" as President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now