Trump: Give Me the Republican Nomination or I Will Give Obama a Second Term (Update: “Rawhide” Video Added)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
It’s really hard to understand this comment in any other way:
Donald Trump will “probably” run as an independent candidate for U.S. President in 2012 if he does not receive the Republican party’s nomination, he told the Wall Street Journal in a video interview on Monday.
“I hate what’s happening to the country,” said Mr. Trump, a real estate tycoon and host of the NBC show “Celebrity Apprentice.” He will not formally make a decision until June, however, when this season of his television show is over. “I can’t run during the airing of that show,” Mr. Trump said, “I’m not allowed to.” But he said he would make an announcement “by June” and his candidacy looks increasingly likely.
You might remember in 1992 how Ross Perot served as a spoiler. Many political observers believe that Clinton would not have become president if Ross hadn’t taken so many votes from Bush “Sr.,” and this data seems to back that assertion up, although to be fair one can never be sure where those votes would have gone, otherwise. And that is what Trump is threatening us with.
As for whether Trump should be the nominee. Well, on paper he looks … okay. I do prefer a person with executive experience and he does have that but … can I say something…?
God help me, the comb over is a problem for me.
Look, people go bald. It happens. It doesn’t reflect on them as persons. And of course many good presidents have gone bald…
I am sure a full head of hair helps a person to win votes, but Donald doesn’t have that. He has this:
And every guy who has looked at his father’s balding head and worried that this was his destiny, can definitely understand the impulse that leads you there. I have thankfully been spared the experience of losing my hair, and I am frankly unsure how well I would take it if I did.
But still, it just says something about Trump as a person, that he allows himself to look like this. He can’t help the fact he went bald, but he can control how he reacts to it — and a comb over is just about the worst way to do so. It says he has a bad combination of uncontrolled vanity and lack of self-awareness. Seriously, look at his picture and instead try to imagine him with typical male pattern baldness. Does it really look so bad? Doesn’t it actually look better than what he is doing to himself now if only because it is more dignified?
So, in a way I have a problem with Trump’s combover for the same reason I had a problem with this:*
All people try to look good. Besides the fact that most people have a normal and excusable level of vanity, it helps us in our business and in life because other people respond better to good looking people. It’s not fair, but it’s life. But there are reasonable limits and that comb over, combined with a general sense that Trump is a loud, garish, and shallow man, makes me dislike his character.
I won’t say I wouldn’t support him if he was the nominee against Obama. But I would be holding my nose some as I pulled the lever. And this comment about running independently only increases the stench.
Update: GMTA. Ed Morrissey sees the same Perot angle and points out that Trump may have business experience, but some of it is pretty negative.
Update (II): And Ed links, writing: “Aaron Worthing says it’s all about the combover.” Heh.
—————————————
* There was a version intercut with an image of Bush doing a quick pat on his head to fix his hair, all to the tune of the theme from Rawhide, which in my opinion was much funnier, but I couldn’t track that one down. If you guys can find a link to that one, let me know.
Update: We found the video! (If it doesn’t play, go here.)
A big thanks to madawaskan in the comments for the catch. It was not an easy find and I thank everyone who looked.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Well the dousche did say he was an obama voter in 08 because of palin.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:32 amDoh
i didn’t know that, and yes, that is schmucky of him.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:35 amTrump is a megalomaniacal rich man. Perot, at least, I was convinced truly believed he had some good ideas for the country. Trump is just a massive egotist.
What his latest message tells me is that anybody opposed to Obama needs to vote for anybody BUT Trump in the primary. If Trump receives only a few percent in the GOP Primary process, that has the best chance of convincing him he can’t possibly win. If he comes anywhere close to getting the GOP nomination, then clearly he’ll run even when he loses the nomination.
God save us from the egos of the uber-wealthy.
PatHMV (890f26) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:40 amUmmm…might wanna edit that headline….
“THIRD TERM?””””
Just sayin…
Eric in Chicago (fd42ae) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:46 amAaron that is redundant.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:47 amI do recall he was in favor of McCain, but he was bitterly opposed to Bush, specially on the war.
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:47 amWell he’s off to a good start pandering to paranoid conspiracy theorists appealing to the base.
Trump sends investigators to Hawaii to look into Obama
In his own words, responding to the New York Times’ editorial:
His wisdom on China has also been illuminating – essentially “they cheated at the olympics, therefore something sinister is afoot.”
This will end well. I’ll vote Libertarian or Green or something if this clown gets the nomination.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:50 amReally?
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:50 amThere was a version intercut with an image of Bush doing a quick pat on his head to fix his hair, all to the tune of the theme from Rawhide, which in my opinion was much funnier, but I couldn’t track that one down. If you guys can find a link to that one, let me know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMvt7aye7K8 seems to be the video you’re thinking of, but Youtube killed the audio because, and I quote, “This video contains an audio track that has not been authorized by WMG. The audio has been disabled.”
I wonder if this sort of thing falls under the “parody” clause of fair use doctrine? My reading is “probably not, since Rawhide isn’t what’s being parodied,” but it still feels like an overreach by the copyright holder. Are their commercial interests actually harmed in any way by the use of this music track?
Anyway, if someone finds a copy of that video that still contains the musical track, I’d like to know.
Robin Munn (e06b66) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:50 amEric
Frak… need more caffeine.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:56 ammunn
i suspected something like that.
and yeah, if i owned the rights to rawhide, i would have given the licensing for dirt cheap, because of all the free publicity to the song. like offer the license for $1. it is penny wise and pound foolish of them.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:58 amAnybody remember ‘the Republican chosen one’, anointed by the media, Rudy Giuliani? Combover. Just sayin’…
Aaron, your posts continue to be great. Just sayin’…
TimesDisliker (8b06b5) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:59 amtimes
as for guiliani, that’s fair. i don’t think i have seen him do it as much recently, but here’s one showing him doing that.
http://www.ontheissues.org/rudy_giuliani.htm
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:06 amYou are on to something, Aaron. Anybody else remember Al Gore’s Trump-like magic on his hairline and bald spot? Turns out, by any measure, Gore lost the election. The moral here? Let it shine, Bro!
TimesDisliker (8b06b5) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:11 amTrump is an expert on running organizations that produce nothing, and are essentially nothing more than middle men, moving cash from this person to that person, and he knows how to drive organizations into bankruptcy.
But, we already have the Democrats, so what do we need him for?
Dave Surls (fcaa5b) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:18 amChina did cheat.
And yes I encourage people to vote third party if this obama supporter gets the GOP nomination.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:21 amAaron –
My guess is that Warner Music Group isn’t even aware of the existence of this particular video. Youtube set up an automatic song-recognition algorithm to tag any songs used in Youtube videos with their proper artist and copyright holder, then allowed the copyright holders to say “We don’t want our songs used on Youtube”, which automatically disabled all use of those songs.
I agree on the short-sightedness of their decision, though: smarter to consider Youtube videos like public libraries. A 14-year-old kid who watches a Youtube video of your song probably wouldn’t have bought the CD, but if he listens to the song enough and really loves it, he might well buy the CD later on when he’s in college and has a bit of disposable income. Look at what Baen discovered when they set up the Baen Free Library: people were going out and buying paper copies of books that were entirely available for free online. The sales of paper copies of certain titles went up, measurably and permanently, after they were placed in the Baen Free Library.
The Recording Industry Association of America is practically defining the term “penny wise and pound foolish” these days, which is why sites like bandcamp.com are eating their lunch and drinking their milkshake. Guess what, RIAA? You don’t actually create any of the content you own: you’re dependent on artists signing your contracts. And when the artists can get a much better deal from bandcamp.com and other self-publishing sites, and end up with a lot more money in their own pocket, why should they bother to sign your extortionate contracts? You’re working yourselves out of a job, and when you finally go out of business, nobody will miss you.
Robin Munn (e06b66) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:25 am==as for guiliani, that’s fair. i don’t think i have seen him do it as much recently==
I read somewhere that Rudi’s current wife told him (before they were married) that women do not find comb overs to be sexy and to cut it out. Apparently he immediately changed over to the pompadour style which he currently wears and which is a vast improvement.
elissa (1a2b2e) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:30 amThe RIAA are clueless. It’s like they watched the whole 1980’s film industry battle against the videocassette recorder and said “yeah – let’s re-enact that battle, and choose the losing side.”
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:32 amI prefer men who didn’t keep their “girl hair”. Either tightly cropped hair or lovely pate- this is what does it for me, especially if the man has a nicely shaped jawline and skull.
Testosterone for the win, fellas.
SarahW (af7312) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:34 amHere is juxtaposed Bush/Edwards hair prep. Soundless to me…
SarahW (af7312) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:38 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFepRYNHUVc
Where’s your tweet button?????
jann (46193f) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:38 amHis comment about running as an independent guarantees that he will not be the Republican candidate. It also guarantees that the press will treat him with respect–they know that a third-party candidate will probably help Obama, so they will not try to destroy him as they did with Palin. (However, a person like Trump could also draw many people who would otherwise vote for Obama. There are many people who are gradually awakening to the fact that Obama is a disaster as president but who consider it sinful to vote Republican.)
nohype (428b10) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:47 amthis is so utterly transparent, only a fool doesn’t see what is happening. Ross Perot Redux. Trump has a snowballs chance in hell of being elected to anything, he knows it, Obama’s people know it, they are loving being able to tie him to the GOP.
He plays the birther card and the Muslim card, all those nasty things the chattering classes at the NY/LATimes use as a ram against the Tea Party, and will use as a battering ram against him if he does run, but it plays well with the proles.
Trump if he runs 3rd party will pull votes from any Republican candidate on the ballot simply because there is a segment of this population that is stupid and will vote for him because of his TV popularity, not because of his actual ability, keep in mind, he’s bankrupted 3 times (the lat one in 04 was 50 million in assets to 500 million in liabilities) he’s a modern PT Barnum, and real players in the Business world know that he’s small change and a chump. Who owns Trump Towers? It’s not Donald Trump, but his names on the building so it dupes a lot of morons, the same morons who think hes as successful businessman, when hes only a successful promoter of himself.
Without his fathers money Trump would probably be that guy handing out leaflets to the porno theatre.
tgs (0efecf) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:58 amThe issue is not Trump, though it is easy to make him the issue. If Trump gets a significant portion of the Republican primary vote, it indicates just how damaged the Republican Party is with Republicans. For those of you who mention Perot, I would say the same thing about the Republican Party in 1992. Bush I destroyed himself with Republicans. Sure, there is no Republican incumbent, but the party is still damaged, maybe even broken. It was not the Republicans that carried 2010, it was the Tea Party who voted for candidates that were more conservative, but not necessarily conservative enough. Reid, Pelosi, et al, may equate Republicans and the Tea Party, but I gotta believe most of you here don’t.
If the best the GOP can do is socialist medicine Lite like Romney and Daniels, they lose. If it’s Pawlenty, I think he loses because he is dull. A wing of the Party that Palin calls the Bluebloods would probably prefer a loss to a Palin, Bachman, or someone else who is less elite, and frankly, more conservative.
So maybe Trump is the best we can do, under the circumstances. If so, it serves us right.
Scott (2daa98) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:30 amWhy do people insist on mischaracterizing Mitch Daniels?
JD (dd4e87) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:32 amI thought I was the only one that made the connection between Trump and Edwards- but maybe it’s more obvious than I thought- it’s the vanity.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:50 amTrump is a Moby.
He wants Obama elected again, and his only plan is to sabotage the right and prevent a repeat of 2010.
All the birther stuff and other Obama put-downs are meant to make him credible to the angry right to pull votes from the eventual repub candidate. He has always planned to run as an independent.
He is Axelrod’s hole card to get Uncle O his next four years.
Troll Feeder (d79689) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:58 amBush and Edwards adjusting hair
Sabba Hillel (dd522e) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:11 amUm, can you explain what exactly is “lite” about Daniels? I have my own qualms about him, but they have nothing to do with any alleged “liteness”.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:14 amIf Trump can get to the bottom of this birth certificate thing, he’ll have done the world a favour. I’m sure the thing exists, and therefore for enough money someone in the system can produce it; publish it and let us put the whole issue behind us.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:17 amHow is Trump, except for the doo, any worse than most of the establishment nozzles?
JD (d56362) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:22 amTrump doesn’t have “hair.” He has a “fibrous halo.”
Mitch (890cbf) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:23 amI don’t know what to think of Trump yet just that he has more bigger balls and more smartness in his head than prissy prissy Romneycare Romney.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:26 amLet Trump be Trump, he’s doing a pretty good impersonation of a serious birther and the effect on the MFMedia stooges is a ray of sunshine in this dimming world. Who knows he may just drive the Obamites to make a huge mistake and at least he shows the Lindsey Graham Republicans has the cowards they are!
westie (ece8d5) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:27 amRe: Daniels and Health care
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261285/mitch-daniels-s-obamacare-problem-michael-f-cannon?page=1
So maybe Mass Care Lite would have been more appropriate.
Money quote: “Daniels is using HSAs to expand dependence on government.”
Scott (2daa98) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:28 amNational Review are big Romney whores – especially the fat lifeydoodle chick.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:29 amHere this could be his campaign song-with a few tweaks:
You’re dirty sweet and your my guy!
You’ve got a fibrous halo!
Bang a Gong
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:32 amHey he could fill up the cabinet “positions” with his exes.
Ivanka-Secretary of Skiing Backwards…
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:34 amBaldness is caused by an extremely powerful brain that generates an Electro-Magnetic Pulse that destroys hair follicles from underneath. Most of the other bald men I know are bright enough to realize this.
BarSinister (a9e7f6) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:35 amYes, Perot did bring Clinton. But really was the first George Bush better than Clinton? And what happened 2 years later, a landslide for the conservative GOP resulting in a balanced budget and reduction in welfare. I think Perot’s third party candidacy was good for America. Many of us are tired of the Dems and GOP dividing the spoils. We trust NEITHER party.
Wayne (b37235) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:36 amTrue, but we got the CRA revisions, Motor voter, (both of these were Cloward/Piven strategies,) we got our first cuts in intelligence funding, and
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:45 amthe Enron style accounting principles, along with
the first inklings of cap n trade.
Kind of funny Trump complaining about how things are being run in this country when he himself has received a taxpayer bailout years ago. Kind of like Pawlenty complaining about taxes when he added to the cost of purchasing a pack of cigarettes with a fee instead of having to go through the Mn House and Senate with a tax.
Moe (d2310f) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:58 amI’m sorry if Trump was a hoochie-(to borrow a term from happyfeet) you could see Trump’s-
Freak Flag.
And if I thought Trump was a rational actor I’d almost think he made a deal with the Obama administration that started something like:
get Holder to take the KSM out of Manhattan.
But then we wouldn’t want to fly the conspiracy flag…
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:02 amok I decidered what I think about the Trumpster… the third party threat is almost fatal to my esteem for him I think… except – if Team R nominates a faily faily douche in the mold of Romney or Pawlenty what’s a little pikachu to do?
It’s a conundrum.
And the dirty socialist media will be a lot eager and willing to let Trump play the role of spoiler.
Team R needs to get serious about drafting some credible candidates. Haley Barbour? Good grief.
So it might could be we need third party thinkings, just maybe Trump is less than the ideal third party insurgent?
This is not going to end well.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:06 amAlso it’s vastly more respectable to run as a third party candidate from the get-go than to wait til the voters reject you and then run anyway.
But then Trump and class are not exactly on speaking terms.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:08 amI’m volunteering right now to do the security clearance interviews-
Ya baby!
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:12 amAnything that happens I blame on the Republican establishment. If the GOP would run a credible candidate, someone with a little “moxy”, not too much baggage, perhaps a popular governor or successful big city mayor (that not east coast).
I still blame Obama on the GOP, McCain for Chr*st sake! The republicans are set to shoot themselves in the foot again for 2012 as retread Romney has just announced his intentions, makes me want to puke.
We need a true Tea Party candidate with values and conviction. Perhaps this should be a 4 way race if the GOP will not listen to their constituency.
tonynoboloney (5ecd79) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:18 amThank you! Exactly. Trump is screwing over the GOP by invading our primary process. He’s not really much of a conservative as a loudmouth on conspiracy theories, who will expertly suck the oxygen away from other candidates, and then use all the publicity and benefits of running in our system against our system.
We need to require candidates to sign a pledge that they will not run against our nominee.
—
another point: I’m no fan of Medicaid, but the worst thing about Daniels is that his state changed a threshold for Medicaid, which is really not that radical. The idea that this is similar to Romneycare, let alone Obamacare, is an aggressive distortion. Daniels also imposed a high deductible plan. that’s great for men, and inherently about personal responsibility. He also sued to have Obamacare declared unconstitutional, and don’t tell me his using the funds his state is entitled to somehow proves he is in favor of Obamacare. I’m so sick of Democrats insisting red states forgo all the money their citizens are paying in taxes.
It’s not that I think Daniels is perfect, but he’s nothing like Romney on healthcare. He successfully turned a screwed up economy into a success. He’s a serious fiscal conservative, rather than a mere pundit. He’s lacking something valuable that I see in Palin, but then, she’s lacking something Daniels has that I find critical. Either of them strikes me as much more genuine than most candidates, and I think that article was far too misleading to be an accident.
Anyhow, Trump is not a threat to laugh off. If he’s serious about this, then it’s extremely likely Obama will win reelection. I’m already hearing excuse after excuse as to why this is the GOP’s fault, but if you love your country, you’ll recognize that the GOP’s deficits and mistakes were not existential threats to this country like today’s deficit has become. It was feckless and deserves criticism, but the GOP is the only way towards reform.
Where is Trump on spending? He said he wishes we built more ‘stuff’ like China does. He sounds like an FDR republican (which is meant to sound like nonsense).
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:34 amWell we need more manufacturing, and energy, something the former communists in Russia and China, have figured out better than us.
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:37 amI guess I don’t understand. You’re blaming GOP primary voters for not listing to ‘their constituency’?
Stop blaming, and be part of the solution. Go volunteer for Palin or Bachmann, but also see the big picture and look for the most electable candidate (maybe you’ll think it’s them!). It’s a lot harder to find the perfect candidate than you’re letting on. Governors have had to deal with so many issues that someone will find some reason they are ‘socialists’. Even Palin gets hit with that crap.
The truth is that the GOP did drop the ball at a critical point when we could have shrank the government, and only a fool wouldn’t be frustrated with that, but blaming the GOP is not a solution to that problem. We just have to continue the decade long process of seeing the Tea Party take over the GOP. We’re going to have setbacks (Murkowski) and if we can’t stomach that, then the country is screwed, and we should just blame ourselves.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:39 amSo, Kathryn Jean Lopez is hf’s latest conservative female to hate. Is it because she is a) conservative female, b) overweight or c) prolife. Or perhaps all three.
As for Trump, I’m with the ones that believe he is a spoiler to let Obama win. He has donated to way too many Democraps to think otherwise. But I’m a conservative woman so my opinion probably doesn’t count.
PatAZ (d09837) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:45 amWell, part of the issue is that it’s a lot easier for plutocrats and commies to create tons of manufacturing. hell, this is a big looming bubble for China. Russia is excellent at PR, but they are no economic powerhouse.
You already know that the solution to more manufacturing is less government, which has the inconvenient consequence of not giving politicians enough credit. Trump or Murtha or Obama can’t put their name on the side of something huge, and that cuts the appeal for them.
I guess Trump realizes this, having built from the private side, but that’s his idea if he’s president. Tons of stimulus.
Frankly, now is time for us to draft Sarah Palin into the race. She would suck the oxygen away from the phoney Trump candidates, and that needs to happen as early as possible. She represents a legitimate POV, and I think that faction vs the more issue specific Daniels faction vs the ‘moderate’ (Huck or Romney or NE Rino) faction will produce the primary competition we need.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:46 amI do recall a profile of ‘The Donald’ (yes, it has to be more than 20 years ago), when one of his executives told a relevant story: Trump took another executive, who was fast losing his hair, aside and gave him a tube of cream. He told the exec that it would help him retain his hair. He also said that losing hair was a sign of genetic weakness, and balding men were inferior performers in business, and in life. Awesome story.
P.S. – here is a 1 minute awesome video of Donald Trump shaving Vince McMahon’s head at WM27. Enjoy!
TimesDisliker (8b06b5) — 4/12/2011 @ 11:01 amAaron-
Here is the video with the Rawhide audio:
myspace.com
***
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/12/2011 @ 11:12 amtimes
well, genetics might be one cause, but this is what my grandfather said, and he didn’t lose his hair until he got chemo in his 70’s (which doesn’t county imho). he said 1) wash your hair every day and 2) never wear hats.
i followed that advice pretty closely and so far, so good. and it makes some sense. dirtiness might cause hair loss in the sense of pores clogging up and the like. and basically the evolutionary reason why we have hair is about the same reason why we wear hats. so maybe if a hat is there, your hair thinks “i’m not needed” and commits suicide.
of course it might be genetics, too. he was my mother’s father, after all. But why not hedge your bets?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/12/2011 @ 11:15 ammad
thanks! I have just updated it.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/12/2011 @ 11:20 amIf he’s serious about this, then it’s extremely likely Obama will win reelection.
Mr. Dustin it’s extremely likely bumble will win reelection anyway. It would be unfortunate to let Mr. Trump become a convenient scapegoat to divert blame from Team R’s inability to offer America a non-risible slate of candidates I think.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 11:29 amhappyfeet, I think we have a chance to win, so long as we have a fair fight.
Obama has lost a ton of the unaffiliated vote in swing states. He’s extremely vulnerable, even if we nominate an imperfect candidate.
Frankly, I thought Obama would do a better job tracking to the right than he has.
No, Trump isn’t a convenient scapegoat if he follows through. If he runs as a Republican, and then against our party, that will undermine the Republican party. Of course, he knows this and thinks it’s super-clever strategy because he’s not really a fan of the GOP anyway.
I can’t tell who exactly is running yet, but even Romney is better than Trump or Obama, and I freaking can’t stand Romney.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 11:35 amTrump donated to Harry Reid against Sharon Angle.
How much more transparent could this be? He is a democrat doing his best impression of a cartoon Republican. He’s ignoring the actual ideas of the Tea Party or the current GOP leadership. He’s ignoring Paul Ryan’s budget.
Instead, he’s bashing Obama for not using enough stimulus and dumbly speaking of some unprovable conspiracy BS.
Now, I’ll grant happyfeet that this wouldn’t be a problem if the GOP were the ideal. A loser like trump couldn’t fool the suckers if we had much better leadership over the past 18 years. But I’ll go ahead and bash Trump anyway.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 11:40 amoh. Me I think it’s all too likely I would support a third party Trump against the uninspiring and lame lame lame Team R nominee.
Team R just doesn’t speak to the for real issues facing America, as demonstrated by how they obsessed on the Planned Parenthood issue they failed to campaign on in 2010… while Obama rolled them on the spending issue what they made a “Pledge to America” to address.
Losers.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 11:45 amOK. I think the issue for you is that you just don’t agree with the right on politics. Why not support Obama? He’s not opposed to Planned Parenthood. Like Trump, he supports huge deficits and Harry Reid style politics.
What does Trump offer you that Obama doesn’t? I guess I’m not really sure where you stand politically, but it’s a free country. Vote for Trump if he’s your best representative. OK, let me be honest: there’s no difference between a vote for third party Trump and Obama, anyway. It’s a vote against the only realistic shot this country has of thwarting the massive expansion of government.
Me, I realize that we are out of money as a country. We need to defund anything we can. Planned Parenthood is an excellent example of corruption for social politics. I want the government to stay the hell our of my personal life, so I insist on defunding Planned Parenthood. I don’t want my money going into that, when there is a superior private sector solution. Planned Parenthood lies about what they accomplish because they have no choice.
To me, defunding Planned Parenthood was a two birds with one stone issue, and sure, there’s an element of cynical politics to that, but compared to Trump, Harry Reid fanboy, pretending to be “very conservative” while laying the groundwork to make it impossible for Obama to lose? Let’s be reasonable. Trump is a hell of a lot more shameless.
Maybe you can clarify what Trump offers you.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 11:52 amI will bet you a hundred dollars that Trump takes away more Democrat votes in an Independent run then Republicans, because the Democrats only have the radical Obama they are dying for someone more JFK like which is why they keep choosing our RINO candidates for us.
JadedByPolitcs (a74345) — 4/12/2011 @ 11:56 amWait, wait, wait. Harry Reid has a “style”?
Kman (5576bf) — 4/12/2011 @ 12:01 pmAaron
No problemo-it’s weird how much funnier it is with the audio.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 4/12/2011 @ 12:01 pmJaded, that’s a great possibility, but how would you avoid that, if you were trying to make sure you only siphoned support from Obama’s challengers?
Why: maybe you could show a lot of support for birthers! You could make a show of telling Whoopi Goldberg that you have secret investigators about to prove some newsmax type stories (and then you never do!).
That would be an effective way to burn that bridge, if your real goal wasn’t to win as much support as possible, and you wanted to continue supporting democrats (like Trump does). Hell, the guy donated to Spector once he defected to the democrat party. What kind of conservative does that?
So that’s why Trump has not promoted his democrat bona fides to show democrats he is open to their POV. He’s done all he can to burn that bridge, as though he really doesn’t want their support.
—
Now, I do agree that some democrats would love to have someone better than Obama to support.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 12:02 pmTrump, Gingrich, and Palin are fundamentally different from Romney, Huckabee and Pawlenty, in that the latter seriously want to be President, while the former are nothing more than grifters, seeing a Presidential run as a quick way to make a buck off the rubes.
Liberty60 (53aeab) — 4/12/2011 @ 12:03 pmWe’ll see Mr. Dustin but if Team R offers America a useless limpdick Romney Huckabee Pawlenty nominee, then a vote for Trump will be a fitting rebuke what could never be confuzzled as an endorsement of bumble’s socialist vendetta against America I think.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 12:15 pmTrump’s heavily invested in Chicago real estate, his agent is Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, Ari (the same agent who represents Michael Moore) and he gave a 6 figure donation to the democrat senatorial committee.
He’s given money to Joe Biden, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, and Ted Kennedy.
It’s true that Trump has also given money to Republicans. He gave $2000 to Bush 43. But his donations are heavily lopsided towards democrats. His support for Republicans is mostly limited to the most prominent Republicans in power (his President, Newt when he was Speaker, and Rudy when he was mayor). His support for Democrats is sweeping.
No one who claims to be ‘very conservative’ was giving this much money to far leftists.
Now, is Trump a hard core democrat true believer? Or is he more of a game playing crook? I guess that’s for people to decide for themselves, but I also know that he’s a ridiculous option for conservatives.
—
Liberty, what makes Palin less serious about running for President than Huckabee? When I’ve looked up Trump’s positions on this or that issue, such as Ryan’s budget, I keep running into serious opining by Palin. I think it’s amazing people keep dismissing her as though she’s not a fundamentally serious candidate. I think her resume is a bit weak, but her intentions are not.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 12:16 pmWhile I disagreed with many of Perot’s policy positions, he had the respect of many as a smart, savvy businessman, with credible and sound fiscal policy analysis. Trump on the other hand has gone through at least one major financial restructuring, and seen as a pompous a__.
Trump will take few votes away from any candidate – Pat Paulsen will have more votes.
Joe-Dallas (6120a4) — 4/12/2011 @ 12:17 pmOn the one hand, if ‘they’ (as in we) offer such a crappy candidate, they (as in we) deserve some kind of rebuke.
On the other hand, I love my country.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 12:17 pmLiberty is going to prove its idiocy again today?
JD (306f5d) — 4/12/2011 @ 12:29 pmPeople in the U.S. are voting like Palestinians.
Take that any way you want to.
TimesDisliker (8b06b5) — 4/12/2011 @ 12:57 pmWaitaminnit, now what’s wrong with Barbour? He seems to have successfully guided his state through some very tough times, and that’s a high recommendation. And before that he was a competent administrator, performed well under pressure, all qualities we should look for in a president. As is the case with Daniels, I have no idea what he thinks about foreign policy; but I look forward to finding out. So what’s your objection to him?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/12/2011 @ 12:58 pmwe must arrest this alarming trend of Americans voting like Palestinians
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:00 pmFor now I’m still a Palin supporter, but I can see myself supporting Daniels, Barbour, or Pawlenty. Maybe even Thune.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:00 pmBarbour is an ok guy but he’s not presidential plus he’s a global warming whore.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:02 pmYes, why can’t people take a wait and see approach to candidates who haven’t quite proven they are the best one yet?
This is why we have debates. Let’s not conclude the field sucks until we’ve had a better chance to see what their agendas are.
I’m pretty closed minded myself, in the case of most of the 2008 candidates for example, but it’s not really the best thing.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:02 pmBarbour is not a global warming whore. Good lord. How many times does he have to say he doesn’t think it’s proven, or even openly mock it? He opposed cap and tax, he supports oil drilling. When he said we can act as though it’s happening, he’s saying we can generally try to use more nuclear power and avoid pollution.
The truth is that global warming is a BS issue in the meta sense. Most of the non-economically devastating solutions to global warming are good ideas, whether or not global warming is occurring. We should try to modernize our sources of electricity with nuclear power. We should try to move away from oil for running cars, to the extent that we can. We should try to limit air pollution, which is not a good thing.
So when Barbour tries to diffuse this issue with the adult answer that his solutions solve this problem whether it’s real or not, I resent that he’s now called a whore. The guy has explicitly denied that global warming is proven.
Come on, happyfeet. You’re saying you’ll rebuke the GOP with support of Trump because their candidates are not blowhards about denying global warming? Why shouldn’t they be political? They are politicians? Global warming is the easiest problem for Republicans to solve because the only viable solutions to it are good ideas in and of themselves.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:08 pmHappyfeet is all about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:11 pmWhat do you mean again, JD, wasn’t the first time clear enough, pikachu, that Barbour story is about as true as the poisoned cupcakes, no actual there in, Dustin, you raise some significant concerns, add
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:11 pmto that Soros having invested in one of Trump’s projects, I know he’s in everything, like Keyser
Soyze
LOL, yes, he’s basically a old school Bond villain. He probably has a moonbase.
Anyway, sure, it would be sweet if Republicans just obnoxiously mocked global warming, but since a smart leader should push nuclear power and other good solutions, it’s politically expedient to note that this conveniently cleans the air.
Is that really so awful?
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:14 pmMr. Dustin a willingness to call a lie a lie is a very important quality in a candidate, and global warming is a lie. It’s trickery with the sole purpose of advancing a collectivist dirty socialist agenda, and while I understand that the vast majority of cowardly Team Rs would never say as much out loud, formulations like “we should proceed in national policy as if global warming is actually happening” are actively unhelpful. It’s no different than saying “we should act as if a lie is true.”
Gack.
We should act as if the lies are lies and then go out for pancakes.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:18 pmRelax! Trump serves a purpose in keeping the political media and celebrity sites occupied while the boring but necessary work of cutting the budget and deficit goes on. Sarah P may actually get a little breather from the circus. Trump’s like PT Barnum in a 21st century kind of way. He loves drawing a crowd and creating a buzz. It’s kind of cool that he just does and says whatever is on his mind because he really doesn’t care what any body else thinks about him.
elissa (1a2b2e) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:19 pmThere’s no proof he actually said it, and it actually runs counter to his whole record,
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:21 pmoh. Ok then.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:22 pmHe’s definitely better than Romney Pawlenty Huckabee.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:23 pmOK, let’s clarify this. A lot of liars have lied in attempts to convince people global warming is true.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t true, and many of the people arguing against the liars simply note that this is an unpredictable aspect of nature and it is completely unproven whether man has warmed the earth, if it’s dooming us, or stoppable by the government, etc.
It isn’t proven that man hasn’t warmed the earth, and in fact, there’s probably some truth to that. It’s just not the kind of truth we should be scrambling to ruin the economy over. It’s the kind of thing that, if happening at all, is conveniently addressed very well by Barbour’s proposals anyway.
See what I mean?
I’m not endorsing Barbour. He’s not my guy. But when he said we can proceed with his plans, even assuming global warming exists, it’s not the same as pretending the liars didn’t lie. This is actually the best way to take the rug out from under the liars who screw up data, put global warming analysis sats in storage, and try to hide the truth.
It reminds me of a kid who demands pancakes because he’s hungry, when he’s not really hungry at all. his mama will give him lima beans and let him know that this will cure his hunger, and since that solution isn’t ruining this child’s health any more than nuclear power would harm America, we can proceed as though the child is hungry, and take away the manufactured crisis to boot.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:26 pmnononono
the lie is that government policy can make the earth cool down to some optimal wonderfulness
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:28 pmAnd I do know that Barbour has noted, in the case of cap and tax at least, that it is ridiculous to think such policies would have that effect.
But air pollution is a problem. It really would be nice if we could move away from coal and other fossil fuels enough to be energy independent, and this would also clean the air. Would it clean the air enough to cool the world? I think that notion is ridiculous, but it’s still the only viable plan to do so.
That’s part of what’s annoying about global warming. It sucks the attention away from real environmental problems with actual solutions, and it’s also so crammed with dishonesty that many just reject environmentalism altogether.
But there’s no reason why a Republican shouldn’t be an environmentalist, and I’ve always wanted more republicans to just note the truth that they cab offer a solution that limits ‘greenhouse gases’.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:34 pmthere’s a lot of evidence that particulate pollution cools the erf, really
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:35 pmwhy cleaner air could speed global warming
ohnoes
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:37 pmwell, happyfeet, I’m not sure you’re hearing me.
switching to nuclear power will clean the air. Dirty air causes acid rain and cancer. It’s not clear how much impact air pollution has on temp, or how contrary types of air pollution weigh against eachother, and it’s clear the earth will warm and cool regardless, anyway.
We do need a better energy policy. We will have an easier time becoming independent of Opec, too.
I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss that, just in case the LAT is right that air pollution is a shield protecting us from global warming. I realize you’re just joking, but you’re the one who claims to know, for sure, the truth of this matter, and is relying on this to reject someone for merely having some leadership on energy policy.
There’s a big difference between saying global warning is a lie, and saying it hasn’t been proven and we have the same optimal choice whether it’s true or not.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:43 pmThere maybe some global warming, although one of the largest alarmist, admitted there had been none
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:46 pmin a decade, but we’re really talking about AGW,
‘man made’ global warming.
it’s ok I believe Mr. narciso if he says Barbour’s quote was debunked – the source is ABC News it’s not like you can take it to the bank
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:54 pmAir pollution is an ongoing problem here? Really? I think data does not support that assertion, as it was my understanding that air quality is significantly better than in the past.
JD (6e25b4) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:55 pmair pollution is responsible for 9 billion premature deaths every year
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:59 pmI could be very wrong.
JD (2647ac) — 4/12/2011 @ 1:59 pmI’m not suggesting it’s the end of the world, but yes, coal plants produce air pollution. Sure, there are better coal plant technologies available, but anyone who is serious about environmentalism should consider the benefit nuclear offers.
You know, we could get into a battle of experts here, but regardless, it’s my belief that coal and other forms of air pollution do cause some cancer and do kill some people.
Back that up, so I know what you’re referring to.
In my experience, areas downwind from coal plants have more cancer than areas that aren’t, and it’s no surprise that people who work in the coal industry face a lot of health consequences too. I could start rattling off the thing coal releases into the air, but I’m more interested int his data that shows there’s no air pollution problems anymore.
No, I think the way I’ve made my argument will survive this data, which probably is more of a ‘it was worse once!’ or ‘it hasn’t been proven absolutely’ argument. After all, I’m saying air quality is just gravy on top of the energy independence and superior value.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:12 pmI mean, do I have to prove that cancer rates increase when fossil fuels are burned? That’s been peer reviewed and known for a fact for almost 70 years.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:14 pmProbably more than that, if you’re not restricting it to humans…
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:16 pmI’m sure air pollution is a problem, all you S. Cal residents could testify, although they can over do it, in it’s impact, part of the attack on Bush was
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:18 pmthat he turned Texas into a Gledi Prime type place,
Dustin, you’ll agree that’s not quite right
BS, Dustin. You went from arguing in the general concept that air pollution causes global warming and is an ongoing issue to arguing the assertion that living downwind of a coal fired energy plant is bad for you, as is jamming your head in a smokestack scrubber for hours on end.
JD (6e25b4) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:21 pmYes, by no means am I trying to sign on to environmental government regulations.
Again, this is just gravy to me. I honestly think the way forward makes sense whether or not someone wants to fight air pollution or global warming. Cap and tax is just going to collapse our economy. treaties seem to benefit the worst polluters in the world, like China. But if we have a cleaner technology that helps create energy independence, it’s OK to make an ‘in arguendo’ point.
I didn’t realize the Barbour quote was not verified, btw. I’m not really worried about him, one way or the other, but this is an interesting problem the right has.
There are a lot of issues where we’re too busy trying to prove there is no problem, instead of noting the solution to this problem is not government regulation, whether the problem exists or not. Just getting out of the way leads to cleaner air, since regulation is what stops nuclear power.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:25 pmI did?
Sorry, but do these even contradict?
—
Anyway, you’re not following me, which is probably my fault, though not because I’m dishonest. I think reducing air pollution is obviously a good thing, whether or not it has an impact on global warming. In fact, JD, if you reread my comments, I repeatedly note I have no idea how much air pollution increase or reduces the temperature, but I note there is a cleaner technology that the government is getting in the way of.
You’re the one making the verifiable claim, JD. You said you had data showing that air pollution is not an ongoing problem, so I naturally pointed out the obvious fact that of course if causes some problems and asked you to back up your claim.
I’m non committed as to whether or not global warming is caused by air pollution, because I don’t see any proof of it. I’m simply noting that we should do something that would reduce fossil fuel burning anyway, so why not point that out when people make the point they are worried about global warming?
Am I really coming across as evasive or BS?
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:30 pmfossil fuel burning is awesome cause it lets you convert oils into wealth which is good especially if your little country can’t even make cars what have functional steering wheels
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:33 pmCoal, nuclear, cancer, whatever. What about Donald Trump’s hair?
Mitch (890cbf) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:33 pmIt’s a synthetic poly alloy.
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:38 pmDonald Trump is not a politician and not a serious candidate. He is, however, a rich celebrity, which means the media will cover him. I am very comfortable with him throwing barbs at Obama about his relationship with Tony Rezko, oil prices, and other stuff that puts the administration on defense.
I think he’s enjoying embarrassing Obama and that’s about as far as it goes. Trump knows he’s got no shot and he’s not rich enough or dumb enough to bankroll his own losing campaign all the way through the primaries and to the bitter end. He’ll be out by the end of the year. He’s just stirring things up for sh*ts and giggles.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:42 pmLOL, yes that was pretty horrible.
Happyfeet, were you aware that we import oil from OPEC? I’d like to see the USA produce enough oil for her complete independence from those who hate us. One way to do this is to increase production, which I think could get us to 10 million to 15 million barrels a day. Maybe a bit more?
We still need to think long term about other solutions. While drilling for more oil, we should build a few hundred nuclear reactors (in places that don’t get earthquakes and tsunamis, of course).
It’s not like I’m demanding no more air pollution. I’m noting that my plan is good in more than one way.
Long term, we really could move to hydrogen fuel cell cars if we had much cheaper electricity. It is a damn shame that Obama’s idea of stimulus was shovel ready nonsense, when if he was hellbent on spending money, we had things we could have spent that on.
As you say, oil turns into money, but sometimes it does that by taking my money and putting into the hands of terrorists. And by sometimes I mean basically all the time.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:43 pmI hope you’re right. I hope I look like a hysterical sucker. I guess I just lack confidence about American politics. I see Trump as happy to be a losing candidate. He’s been a loser many times in the past, due to predictably egocentric choices he’s made.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:45 pmI did not realize we imported oil from OPEC.
This situation is worse than I thought.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:46 pmFeets, fossil fuels are miracle stuffs that have a thousand and three uses, more if another George Washington Carver shows up, and (unless the Russians are right about inorganic generation) there’s only so much of them. If we can find some way to stop burning them in our cars, we’d have so much more of them left for making plastics and nylons and vaccines and who knows, maybe even peabnut butter.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:47 pmAlso, as a practical matter, we need oil for cars. We would need oil for cars if 100 nuclear reactors were built tonight. So we need to drill for oil.
We don’t need coal for electricity, except insofar as we have a limited ability to generate power. So let’s not conflate oil with all air pollution, because oil drilling is not yet even close to optional.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:47 pmLOL.
Anyway, Milhouse is right, isn’t he? So global warming hoaxers are jerks… that doesn’t mean we have to drive gasoline cars forever. I think this is a solution that the free market will happily solve for us if we just get the government out of the way, and we’ll also have cleaner air, whether that matters to you or not. I doubt it bothers you, of course.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:49 pmAnd Dustin’s right, cleaner air is worth having just for its own sake, if it’s not too expensive. I don’t believe in spending too much to get it, but if we can get it essentially for free then we’d be idiots not to. And if that global warming stuff does turn out to be true after all, and cleaning up the air happens to cure it, well, then we can all go out for lagniappe. Which is a kind of pasta, isn’t it?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:51 pmnot pasta
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 2:59 pmI think coal plants are awesome cause we have the technology plus the coal. We can also pursue coal gasification, which is coming along nicely, mostly in China, because of they are a brave and forward-looking people.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 3:00 pmyes, carlitos, didn’t you think I knew that?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/12/2011 @ 3:11 pmwhatever it sounds tasty
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 3:12 pmWe also have the technology for nuclear power, Happyfeet. And of course, the rockies have plenty of uranium.
I don’t think merely being able to burn coal should fill us with too much pride. I’m glad we’ve cleaned it up a lot over the years (and new coal plants should replace old ones for this reason, though sometimes hysterical nuts stop this from happening).
Anyway, this discussion fills me with a sense of dread.
a lot of people are much more interested in voting for something that says ‘f— you’ than in trying to vote in a way that leads to the best result.
For example, one big reason Palin has so much backing is because electing her would infuriate a lot of the most nasty bastards on the left. I think that’s nice, but it’s not the best reason to support Palin. It’s actually insulting, since she’s got more going for her than being an arch conservative (Which I don’t even think she really is).
We have happyfeet nearly ready to give up entirely and vote for Trump! Trump! Why? Because the GOP wanted to defund planned parenthood?
And look at this resistance to clean air. ‘why, I thought air pollution wasn’t a problem according to the data!’ said JD. No, what he really thinks, in my opinion, is that he’s tired of paying respect to environmental causes at all, because a lot of the people who champion environmental causes are dirtbag lying socialists, who committed grand fraud to con people into believing in global warming.
And so we’ve got a list of candidates for which there is a really easy way for us to do the democrats work for them. We can pick each of them apart. Haley is a “global warming whore”, Daniels is “Obamacare-lite”. Most of these arguments are based on the thinnest load of crap, and the people pushing them ignore very substantial arguments, such as the one I offered explaining that the actual energy policies Barbour proposes are economically friendly and non-hysterical.
This is what happened in 2008. We ruled out every single candidate who relied on the right for any substantial support, and wound up with a candidate whose coalition didn’t rely on conservatives because he was John Mccain. And of course, then many ruled out their own nominee.
So that’s why I’m dreading 2012. Happyfeet is gearing up to vote for Trump if he’s a third party candidate, and who cares what the overall consequence is because it’s too important to send the same message to the GOP for the 500th time that they aren’t perfect.
And yeah, I know, they are worse than merely imperfect. They also happen to be our best bet.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 3:16 pmSorry Milhouse, sometimes I can’t tell. No offense intended. Anyway, a good excuse for me to learn a little etymology.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 3:27 pmOur homeless shelters are overpopulated because we accept the homeless from other states but NY is wising up let’s hope this is permanent.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/12/2011 @ 3:31 pmI agree I like nuclear too but nuclear energy seems to be a better fit for brave, competent countries what have an eye to the future, not our one. I think America, being cowardly and stupid and poor, is better served by burning cheap coal, because even if it’s dirty, it doesn’t terrify your average timorous American, and plus it’s cheap – which is a highly desirable quality in an energy source for a little country what has squandered its wealth and has limited prospects for future success.
I think Team R is a lost cause Mr. Dustin. It’s the fetus party anymore. It completely escapes me how those losers have such boundless energy for fetal management issues while our spendy spendy little country is floundering about with no dignity or reason making quite the spectacle of itself.
It’s quite nutty.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 3:37 pmoh. Daniels btw is very very amazingly wonderful and I think he would be a very wise president, prudent and sage and attendant to our little country’s welfare in a way none of the other Team R candidates promise to be.
It’s absolutely unthinkable that the fetus party would nominate such a wonderful and timely candidate.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 3:47 pmFeets, foetuses are people too. That’s the whole point. And a dead foetus doesn’t care about the debt, because s/he’s never going to have to pay it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/12/2011 @ 3:49 pmFetuses and gay marriage paranoia get out the vote come election day. That’s what it’s about.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 3:57 pmDo you really f@cking think I am advocating for air pollution, Dustin? Or was it not clear that I was pointing out that air quality today is significantly better than in the past? The rest of yours is just baloney, but I am irritable, so I am going to step away. Arguing that air immediately downwind of a coal plant is not a good argument to support your assertion that air pollution is an ongoing societal issue.
JD (109425) — 4/12/2011 @ 4:00 pmI, for one, am pro-air pollution. Always have been.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 4:04 pmthe premiere ongoing societal issue is of course fetuses, and they are a jealous lot
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 4:06 pmAnd look at this resistance to clean air. ‘why, I thought air pollution wasn’t a problem according to the data!’ said JD.
JD (318f81) — 4/12/2011 @ 4:09 pmthis is a picture of Chand Baori, in India
it’s a well!
here is a big huge high def picture of it – that green splatch at the bottom is the water
here is a whole gallery of pictures of it
it was begun in the 9th or 10th century, which is many many moons ago
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 4:15 pmoh. here is the gallery link
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 4:18 pmMr. Feets – Team D is the Dead Foetus Party. They were going to shut the government down unless the money laundering operation to kill foetuses and elect Team D politicians with Planned Parenthood was funded.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/12/2011 @ 4:29 pmJD – Why are you against clean air and clean water?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/12/2011 @ 4:30 pmhttp://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/40-years-later-air-quality-has-never.html
The EPA’s own charts concur.
JD (318f81) — 4/12/2011 @ 4:32 pmtgs said: “…there is a segment of this population that is stupid…”
How do you think Obama got elected?
Jim (e35d11) — 4/12/2011 @ 4:40 pmre: dead fetus party
Just throwing this out there. Fair Warning – I will slink away cowardly due to dinner reservations in a few.
There are like 4 million live births in the US every year. Somewhere between 10 and 40% of conceptions end in “spontaneous abortion,” more commonly called miscarriages. The CDC tells me it’s less than a million abortions per year, and Planned Parenthood does around 250,000. So, depending on the math, God is doing like 170% and 260% more abortions than Planned Parenthood.
I realize that God’s already been defunded, but isn’t that kind of jerky? Fetuses are people too, right?
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 4:46 pmYou’re right, carlitos, that is kind of jerky. Because natural deaths, which are part of life itself, are exactly the same as planned abortions.
[eyeroll]
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/12/2011 @ 5:00 pmI’m just trying to determine where God fits in, that’s all. Some people seem to think he’s doing everything to everybody personally.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 5:03 pmcarlitos – How much do the Democrats give to God?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/12/2011 @ 5:05 pmRemember that good feeling you got when Paladino, got on the scene, good times huh, by the way Stone
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/12/2011 @ 5:10 pmhas worked for both.
Well, at least you’re owning this claim.
I think this is wrong.
Also, I didn’t say ‘immediately’ so let’s drop the weasel words. Where I grew up, East Texas, there is a substantially higher rate of cancer, and it’s largely due to coal plants.
Yeah, that’s a problem in my opinion. If we can’t avoid some air pollution, that’s understandable, but I would like to replace older coal plants with clean coal, and I would like to replace as many coal plants with nuclear power.
And remember, JD, you’re the one who said you had data proving that air pollution isn’t an issue, and you’re the one who failed to back up your claims.
Of course you’re irritable. Who wouldn’t be, if they had to prove the claims you do.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 5:15 pmthe Democrats didn’t get distracted by the fetuses Mr. daley they kept their eye on the ball of spending every last cent they possibly can –
It was the fetus party what got rolled and tricked into not really cutting much spending at all – tricked into failing at the single most important issue what they campaigned on 2010, when foolish voters voted for them thinking that their “Pledge to America” to cut spending meant they gave a crap about cutting spending.
No. They cared about the fetuses, and so they will have a symbolic vote about the fetuses, while the socialists carry on spending and spending. And what do we know about abortion rates as you move down the socioeconomic ladder? They go up a bit, no?
Yes. Quite dramatically. And Boehner has done his part with his failure to control spending to ensure that the victimy lower classes of America expand and grow and grow! As America’s economy collapses under a tsunami of debt, more and more abortions will be demanded by desperate, jobless haplessly-impregnated American hoochies, and they will have all the ruinous dollar-destructive spending that Team R failed to control to thank for their plight.
If Team R really gave a crap about the precious little baby fetuses, they’d focus on doing what it takes to restore prosperity I think.
chop chop
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 5:15 pmJust quoting this again, and still waiting for JD to provide his data.
I guess I have to do this, because he’s attempted to shift the goalposts.
Sarcastic or not (obviously sarcasm), I already explained why JD is opposed to clean air. It’s because he doesn’t support, he merely opposes. At least in this case, when environmentalism comes up.
But logically, it would be absurd to say JD isn’t opposing clean air. I bring up an argument relying on a premise that less air pollution would be good, and he directly contradicts that because, specifically, he doesn’t think air pollution is an ongoing problem.
No, I guess he probably doesn’t mean it. It’s ridiculous.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 5:22 pmIt’s a fairly good bet, that the weaker the vote on the fetus party, is, the weaker is general attachment to constitutional principles. McCain nominally a prolifer, but he went along with the Soros and Pew funded astroturf Campaign Finance Boondoggle, Chafee, Specter, Jeffords, all abysmal on ant kind of constitutional integrity at all, and of course, you have riding to the rescue of NPR, PP et al, Lisa Murkowski and Scott Brown, that’s all new levels of bumblefail, with ‘Sutton/James’ my name for Dodd/Frank, New START
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/12/2011 @ 5:31 pmet al. tell me where I’m wrong.
Well, the truth is that the GOP’s recent ‘win’ on the budget is leading to increased spending, so by all means, bash the GOP for the message that this is an effective first step.
I’m not seeing how planned parenthood defunding got in the way. You keep saying this aspect shows the GOP wasn’t trying to reduce spending, but I think the truth is this just wasn’t the right moment to stare Obama and Reid down. We have more of an advantage when the debt ceiling is reached.
Your logic is that Boehner did it because he didn’t stop someone else doing it. The democrats are more powerful than the Republicans in the US Government right now. You are right the GOP has failed to cut spending. I just think their failure is not deliberate.
Otherwise your logic is sound… a great way to fight abortion is to ensure we have a more prosperous nation. But why can’t republicans also defund planned parenthood? How can they possibly be fiscally conservative and not defund?
I realize I’m making a weak argument. To be honest, I’m not confident in the GOP either until they do much better. But they remain the best bet.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 5:32 pmcorrelation is not causation Mr. narciso
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 5:33 pmin this context – and I know I’m beating a dead fetal horse – but in this context the planned parenthood defunding would have been a lot more compelling if it had actually been architected to save monies, which the Pence amendment was NOT
So as you can see there is nothing at all fiscally conservative about Pence’s yearning to defund planned parenthood – it’s just he hates planned parenthood cause of they are inimical to the health and welfare of the sacred fetuses. It’s a thing. But it’s not a fiscally conservative thing. It’s just a fetus thing.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/12/2011 @ 5:45 pmAnd remember, JD, you’re the one who said you had data proving that air pollution isn’t an issue, and you’re the one who failed to back up your claims.
Lie
You chose to not read the info I linked to.
JD (318f81) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:08 pmhttp://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/40-years-later-air-quality-has-never.html
And it is you running around. With the goalposts, not I.
JD (318f81) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:11 pmhttp://www.epa.gov/40th/achieve.html
The idea that air pollution is even a critical issue today is laughable. Sure, if you live downwind from a coal plant, it is not optimal. Nobody is f@cking arguing otherwise, Dustin, no matter how hard you try to make it out that I am. It also likely sucks to live inside a smoke stack. So seem to be insistent on putting positions in my mouth that ido not hold. I oppose this type of demagoguery. Yes, I am in opposition to that. Very much. Usually you are better than this.
JD (318f81) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:15 pmThe Donald’s ego could well be the death of us.
Icy Texan (68b024) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:44 pmI think Team R is a lost cause Mr. Dustin. It’s the fetus party anymore. It completely escapes me how those losers have such boundless energy for fetal management issues while our spendy spendy little country is floundering about with no dignity or reason making quite the spectacle of itself.
Deliciously ironic to be lectured about our country’s lost dignity while simultaneously denigrating pro-life R’s trying to protect babies from being killed on the the taxpayer’s dime.
Dude, that is what dignity looks like.
Dana (9f3823) — 4/12/2011 @ 6:55 pmIt’s kind of cool that he just does and says whatever is on his mind because he really doesn’t care what any body else thinks about him.
elissa, I agree. It’s refreshing not to wade through bullshit, lies, rhetoric and company lines. He’s rich enough to not be in some fat cat’s back pocket so why not just say it out loud? The thoughts of Pawlenty, Barbour, Romney and Palin depress me, so I’m just enjoying the entertainment Trump provides.
Upthread someone mentioned he’s egotistical (too lazy to get the quote), well, yeah, of course he is: by default, anyone who believes they have what it takes to be the leader of the free world is an egoist.
Dana (9f3823) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:08 pm127. …foetuses are people too. That’s the whole point. And a dead foetus doesn’t care about the debt, because s/he’s never going to have to pay it.
Comment by Milhouse — 4/12/2011 @ 3:49 pm
Or, like 2/3 of the US citizenry, contribute far more to it than they will ever pay against it.
137. tgs said: “…there is a segment of this population that is stupid…”
TimesDisliker (8b06b5) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:15 pmHow do you think Obama got elected?
Comment by Jim — 4/12/2011 @ 4:40 pm
Because most of the US votes like Palestinians.
Mr. Feets – That was indeed an interesting link what all of 286 people have viewed.
“Talking Points The abortion rate decreases as income level rises. The abortion rate for women living more than 100% below the poverty line is 42 per 1000 women…. ”
How do the smart people you get your talking points from figure it is possible, theoretically, to live at more than 100% below the poverty level?
Meanwhile, your support and that of Team D for the lawbreakers and fetus killers of Planned Parenthood what apparently America cannot do without giving them gobs of government money because otherwise Hairy Reid and Obama would have shut down the government is PRIORITY ONE, not prosperity, not jobs, not the deficit. Put that in your vegan pancakes and eat ’em wif dignity if you can.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:19 pmI apologize, Dustin. I am having rougher edges than you deserve, though I do not think you have accurately portrayed my position or words correctly even once. I ran a half marathon on Sunday, and it is catching up to me today.
JD (318f81) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:35 pmWhy not let Jharp run.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/12/2011 @ 7:48 pmWhich god is that?
Anyway, when this god kills fetuses, that’s ok, but when Planned Parenthood does it, it’s evil. Right? This will be a strong plank of a fiscally-responsible Republican party platform? 1.4 trillion to buy me a bunch of kids who’s moms don’t want them? Awesome. Great plan. This should solidify Republican majorities through 2024.
(Dinner was great, thanks for asking. Went to Morton’s)
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:19 pmJD – congrats on the half marathon! I ran the Shamrock Shuffle 8k and I tweaked a knee. Slow going.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:21 pm==It’s refreshing not to wade through bullshit, lies, rhetoric and company lines==
Heh, Dana–
Somehow I doubt the Donald spends very much time thinking about or parsing what the meaning of is, is.
elissa (1a2b2e) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:23 pmYour an piece of trash.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:24 pmDer. “whose” not “who’s.” We had a little wine with the meat.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:26 pm_______________________________________
Donald Trump will “probably” run as an independent candidate for U.S. President in 2012… “I hate what’s happening to the country,” said Mr. Trump
If he really was bothered by what’s happening to the US, and was tactically more astute — and not just such a grand egotist — he’d show more humility and caution.
Mark (411533) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:33 pmThanks, Carlitos. Sprint, or possibly Olympic triathlon next.
JD (318f81) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:37 pm“I’m just trying to determine where God fits in”
God can and does kill everybody.
Doesn’t mean we get to.
Dave Surls (7f8e4e) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:45 pmWhy’s that?
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:49 pm“Why’s that?”
‘Cause God say don’t do that.
Dave Surls (7f8e4e) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:51 pm“Which god is that?”
carlitos – That’s your question. You introduced God into the discussion.
Does God kill babies with government money? Does God flout laws requiring reporting of sexual predators? Just askin’.
Not feeling your comparison here.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:54 pmDustin – You know where I can buy a good double wide next to a coal fire electric utility or maybe a tire plant? I’m tired of clear skies in my town and think I want to move to a place just like that. Life’s a choice, right?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/12/2011 @ 8:59 pmI have no idea what you’re saying here.
daley, I only introduced “God” into the discussion because he’s apparently the world’s most prolific abortionist. Government funding seems moot given His murderous intentions.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:04 pmGod kills everybody, in the end. So why make a big deal about murder? Is that your thinking?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:20 pmCarlitos is just going on an anti-god screed.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:23 pmWell, he sounds like quite the guy. Allow me to not vote Republican based on such a sick murderous f**k.
Yes, that’s my thinking. If your fairy-tale sky-god man kills everyone and is a sonofabitch like he seems in Numbers and Deuteronomy, I really won’t be voting His way. I’m much more interested in the deficit.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:25 pmYou would never vote republican anyway.
And notice how you atheists insult religion as being for the weak.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:27 pmMy last 4 presidential votes:
McCain
Bush
Bush
Dole
Just because you’re a moron, doesn’t say anything about my voting patterns.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:33 pmYes. You’ve got it. Just as when Charles Manson or Mohammed Atta or Mao Zedong or some anonymous gangbanger do it it’s evil.
My God, the soul that You put in me is pure; You created it, You formed it, You blew it into me, You keep it in me, and You will eventually take it from me, and return it to me in the future. So long as the soul is in me I thank You, Lord, my and my ancestors’ God, Master of all works, Lord of all souls.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/12/2011 @ 9:58 pmDude those four people were not that conservative if palin gets the nominee it is highly unlikely you’d vote for her anyways and by the way don’t project.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:04 pmYou’re hilarious. I voted for the Republican presidential candidate for the past 16 years, and it’s “not that conservative” so it doesn’t matter. You’re an idiot. If the Republican party cares what you think, I’d happily rethink my registration. Moron.
Milhouse, you believe in some crazy stuff. God bless you.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:10 pmHey! Over in the other thread you said you voted for Browne in ’96! NTTAWWT, so did I. But how do you now claim to have voted for Dole after all? Are there two carlitoses posting here?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:16 pmHey Milhouse –
My bad. I did vote for Browne in ’96 (and to be fair Andre Marrou in ’92). I was totally wrong – Dole did note get my vote that year.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:29 pmnot
carlitos (00428f) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:31 pmcarlitos, how do you forget who you voted for for president?
And why in the world are you trolling so hard about God? What’s that got to do with anything? How does voting against a God of an imperfect world help you with your deficit problem?
Isn’t the GOP the best bet we have of combating the deficit?
OK, I get it… you have fundies, and want to spite them with your vote. As I said earlier, there is a lot of that going around, but if you care about deficits, you need to vote for Republicans in every general election.
BTW, not everyone thinks God is interacting in real time with every good and bad thing that happens, and maybe, just maybe, the religion you’re bashing thinks there is some drastically higher plane of good and evil that helps balance out the good and evil we’re aware of here. I know this isn’t a particularly unknown concept.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:39 pmJD, you sure as hell don’t owe me an apology for disagreeing with me, even without being super polite. There’s a line, and you don’t cross it. If people didn’t call BS on me, I wouldn’t comment here anyway.
And congrats on the half marathon.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:42 pmYes, life’s a choice. That’s why most Republican politicians who aren’t crazy choose to show responsible environmentalism. They refuse to let the nutcase warming theorists hijack the idea of clean air and water and all that crap.
Obviously, one reason they do this is because everyone likes clean air and water, and why let the left use this issue to cripple our economy if there’s a much more responsible way forward?
Sadly, we squandered a boom in the late 1990s, and again in the next decade, where we should have been pushing hard for nuclear power. As a result, it’s harder to migrate to other fuel sources for cars, it’s harder to be energy independent generally, and yeah, air pollution is causing damage to people. Coal, for example, is drastically filthier to KW than nuclear, and causes far more death and cancer. I think most of us have seen those stats thrown around recently.
I guess at some point I need to start ignoring the repeated sarcastic responses, which I realize are from a lack of a better argument. I’m right about this, after all. We are choosing to live in a dirtier country that is dependent on foreign sources of energy and has no long term plan out. Hell, now that Japan’s glowing in the dark, my proposal probably takes on a pie in the sky vibe.
It’s pretty frustrating.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/12/2011 @ 10:58 pmMaybe you’re a little younger than I am, but Dole / Clinton in 1996 really wasn’t that memorable. 🙂 Clinton probably carried 90% of my district.
The Libertarians had a statewide candidate for school board that had 5% plus in 1992, so I voted for them to try and keep them on the ballot, given Illinois’ arcane election laws. Otherwise, it would have been Dole. I’m pretty sure that I voted for Steve Forbes in the primary that year.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/13/2011 @ 6:08 amDustin – I’ll try to stop
carlitos (00428f) — 4/13/2011 @ 6:15 amtrollingposting on religion, especially here.“daley, I only introduced “God” into the discussion because he’s apparently the world’s most prolific abortionist. Government funding seems moot given His murderous intentions.”
carlitos – Funding is not moot. I’m not giving him my tax dollar or other loot to do it or telling others to do it. Your comparison is completely false.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/13/2011 @ 6:26 amdaley – if you’re not giving this god any loot, we have no issue. I’m trying to think of a way that Republicans can win on economics without pandering to the religious base and I’m coming up empty. At the very least, it seems like it’s needed for turnout.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/13/2011 @ 6:54 am“daley – if you’re not giving this god any loot, we have no issue.”
carlitos – Your comparison is false on other bases. We have laws to control the behavior and operation of PP and can potentially put them out of business for violating the law. How do you control God?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/13/2011 @ 6:59 amLook, all I’m saying is that the focus on PP’s 250k abortions seems misplaced. They perform 25% of man-made abortions, and maybe 10% if you include “natural” abortions. As Mr. Pence said “Eliminating Title X funding has never been my goal,” what’s the point? Stop pretending it’s a budget issue. As feets said, it’s a fetus issue.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/13/2011 @ 7:14 amNo, they are just part of the Fenton archipelago of left wing organizations,
http://www.fenton.com/news/planned-parenthood-hiring-for-communications-vp/
narciso (8a8b93) — 4/13/2011 @ 7:18 amI really had no preference between Dole and Clinton, but preferred either of them to Perot. Even in hindsight, I have never had reason to change that assessment, or to regret having voted for Browne. In the primary I too voted for Forbes.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/13/2011 @ 7:26 amFenton sounds like a mixed bag.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/13/2011 @ 7:29 amYour logic is breathtakingly stupid. It’s like saying, “Every natural death is God’s fault, therefore God murders way more people than anyone else, therefore we shouldn’t get too worked up about other murderers.”
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 4/13/2011 @ 7:36 amCarlitos, any cause or campaign with Fenton’s grubby fingerprints on it should be assumed toxic.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/13/2011 @ 7:53 amI don’t blame every natural death on any diety. I’m just trying to reconcile this:
with the anti-abortion-as-budget-issue stance. It seems inconsistent to me.
carlitos (00428f) — 4/13/2011 @ 8:04 amWell, I thought it seemed like you were headed for an interesting point, and then you just seemed to start being trollish instead with this ‘God is a republican, so I’ll spite that killer’ thing. I get your point, but it’s such a limited point that doesn’t have to be repeated over and over when you could move on.
Reread your comments and tell me you don’t see why it looks trollish. I know you’re a lot better than this most of the time.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:21 amBenjamin Netanyahu refused to meet with Bieber over him not meeting with terror victims on the gaza border………..maybe if you moved them he might have gone to visit with them i still hate Bieber.
Sorry for the off topic.
DohBiden (984d23) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:22 amit is possible, theoretically, to live at more than 100% below the poverty level
it looks like there’s a typo in the slide notes Mr. daley but the chart is labeled correctly – hoochies what live below the poverty line are enthusiastic about aborting fetuses – which really just tracks with common sense I think
And Team R is welcome to fetus it up all day long and twice on Sundays, it’s just that it doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence that they’re on the ball with respect to for reals problems.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/13/2011 @ 9:35 amTrump is the only Republican this and many other Independents will vote for. To heck with any religious freaks and tea bagger clowns. America need an individual with cogs to take on the free traders that are destroying the American middle class. He understands the free trade agreements have to be revisited and changed to fair trade agreements. The A h—s in the GOP who don’t like him are more interested in social B.S. than what counts for this country. Lets all vote to get rid of all religious freaks and tea bagging fools in 2012. The country has to do this to survive.
packeryman (e55553) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:19 pmpackeryman, you make a very unconvincing “Independent”. And not just from the capitalization of “Independent”.
And the anti-religious bigotry? That only makes the act that much less convincing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:22 pmI agree with Trump if the “Baggers won’t give him the nomination”, shame on these sorry individuals refusal to nominate this guy because of their tainted view of, norms, values and mores. Their idea is to impose their religious belief on the majority. MY way or the highway. they have tried to defund planned parenthood, in TX they now require women having an abortion to be administered a sonogram an vied( so much for no government interference in healthcare, ONLY WHAT WE WANT). Wake up america and seniors and vote all tea baggers out in 2012
packeryman (e55553) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:34 pmAh, I figured out who the faux “Independent” is. Our old bigot blogroach.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:40 pmYes, the Tea Party is so evil to not nominate a big government democrat like Trump. LOL.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:40 pmLeftist clowns are so dull, dishonest, and dim.
JD (d56362) — 4/14/2011 @ 4:41 pmIt is normal for those who think alike(cultist) to condemn others who differ. I guess voting Republican six out of the last eight presidential elections make me a faux Independent. This kind of one way thinking is why the far right will lose the party. Continue with the shallow minded B.S. and time will tell. The inability to compromise as promoted by Limbaugh and other far right wing shock jocks does nothing to promote a government of the people. Who with the mental capacity to think for themselves can stay in the Democratic or Republican party with this level of mental capacity.
packeryman (e55553) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:47 pmI love how the Moby’s think that by simply insisting they are who they demonstrably are not, it will make it so. Kind of like how Barcky talks about economics. You are not the first, and will not be the last, peckerman. You are not original, you are simply pedestrian, tiresome, predictable, and boring.
JD (318f81) — 4/14/2011 @ 9:54 pmI wonder if this is the same “packeryman” who, on other sites, calls Tea Partiers “baggers” and insults them.
Because it is indeed common for people who think alike (such as the Left) to condemn others who differ.
Honestly. My brother tells me that, in order to know what they Left is doing, pay attention to what they accuse the Right of doing. And it seems to be true.
Simon Jester (92ac45) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:07 pmI suppose it is impossible for those on the far right or left to think outside the limitations of the mental box they have imposed upon themselves. That limitation does not allow rational thinking outside of the box. Therefore those who do not think alike are irrational from that view point left or right.Illogical reasoning, that is why most often the public will always return to the middle of the political spectrum(human behavior like the bell curve, most operate in the middle of the political spectrum), Look at history, it repeats itself.When one group moves to far in either direction, it will swing the other way. One side cannot impose their religious norms, values, and or mores on others. Those doing that goes back to their inability to think outside of their own mental box. It is a sad state of affairs to see the country so divided over such petty B.S.
packeryman (e55553) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:17 pm“To heck with any religious freaks and tea bagger clowns.”
then…
“It is normal for those who think alike(cultist) to condemn others who differ.”
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
Dave Surls (c6613f) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:28 pm“One side cannot impose their religious norms, values, and or mores on others.”
Bitter clingers be warned!
So trite, so old.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:41 pmPearl clutcher on Aisle 5.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/14/2011 @ 10:42 pmPackeryman, if you’re against free trade then you are a religious fanatic of the extreme far left fringe. Every economist in the world, from right to left, agrees on free trade, which makes your opposition to it even more a religious dogma than is opposition to evolution.
The TEA Party movement has no religious beliefs at all, so how can it be trying to impose them on anyone? It’s you who wants to impose your irrational and reactionary belief in protection on the public. Your claim to have voted for all those Republicans is ludicrous and implausible.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/14/2011 @ 11:20 pm“if you’re against free trade then you are a religious fanatic of the extreme far left fringe.”
I favor the old Republican policy which boiled down to laissez-faire at home and a strong protective tariff when it came to dealing with foreign nations.
I agree that favoring strong tariffs is a left wing position. If you want the government to control something, that’s left wing by definition, at least that’s the way I define the political spectrum.
I agree with Trump’s position on tariffs, except I don’t think the guy has a sincere bone in his body, and will switch positions at the drop of a hat, according to what best suits the current needs of Donald Trump.
He’s basically done that all his life. A Democrat one day, a Republican the next, and then back to being a Democrat again.
This is guy is serious bad news, and exactly what this country doesn’t need in a leadership position. The problem isn’t his (current) positions. The problem is him.
Dave Surls (c6613f) — 4/15/2011 @ 12:05 amWhy does this not surprise me? At least you admit that on the ultimate defining issue, the issue that gave birth to classical liberalism, you’re a leftist.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/15/2011 @ 12:09 am“you’re a leftist.”
Very astute. You actually understood what I said.
On the issue of a protective tariff, I take a left wing position.
Dave Surls (c6613f) — 4/15/2011 @ 12:54 am