ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [380] -- Unintelligible Yelling

[ Posted Friday, February 26th, 2016 – 18:23 PST ]

That title, of course, refers to the most recent Republican debate, where in a fit of frustration the caption writers at CNN just gave up and ran "Unintelligible yelling" as the caption. Yep, that about sums it up, doesn't it?

In two-and-a-half hours of mostly-unintelligible yelling, there was little discussion of anything that hadn't been covered -- multiple times -- in pretty much every single other Republican debate. Oh, sure, there were amusing moments, such as Ben Carson's criteria for picking Supreme Court justices ("The fruit salad of their life is what I will look at"), and the bickering between Donald Trump and the only two candidates with a prayer of ever beating him -- but that's all par for the course. Trump provided a few amusing moments on his own, as when he started with: "It doesn't help if I start saying I'm very pro-Israel," and then finished with: "With that being said, I am totally pro-Israel." But by this point in the process, such blatant contradictions form a core part of Trump's brand, so it was really nothing new.

Marco Rubio played the part of a yappy little attack dog all night long, but only really landed one good blow on Trump (when he turned the "you repeat things" attack back on Trump) for all his heartfelt effort. Today, Trump trumped (sorry, but there's no other word for it) Rubio's news cycle by announcing the endorsement of Chris Christie (the man who originally landed the "you repeat things" blow on Rubio).

Super Tuesday is approaching fast, so the Republican levels of viciousness will likely increase all weekend long. So we've all got that to look forward to.

But while the debate was the most current event on the Republican side, more momentous things happened earlier in the week. Donald Trump absolutely dominated the South Carolina primaries last Saturday, taking all 50 of the 50 delegates up for grabs (even though they were doled out proportionally, not winner-take-all). Trump followed this up with a decisive win in the Nevada caucuses on Tuesday night -- reaping the highest percentage of the GOP vote he's yet managed (46 percent). Along the way, Jeb! Bush's campaign was left at the side of the road like an expensive sports car which has hit a large tree -- a smoldering (and pricey) ruin.

Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich are all now relying on the same campaign strategy: win your home state, and then when the voters all decide you're the best candidate from that point on, you'll win the nomination! No, really -- that's the plan for all three of them. At this point, it is looking like Ted Cruz and John Kasich may possibly be able to win (respectively) Texas and Ohio, but Marco Rubio is pretty far behind Trump in Florida. Even if Cruz wins Texas, he may not win any of the other Super Tuesday Southern states -- which would effectively end his campaign. Texas has a lot of delegates, but not nearly enough to win the nomination. At this point, the safe bet is that Donald Trump will continue to steamroll his way to victory on the Republican side.

Republicans who have convinced themselves that Trump could never win are now in full-panic mode. Their latest brilliant idea for stopping Trump is to have Cruz and Rubio form a ticket on their own, and band together to take down The Donald. The only problem with this plan would be Cruz and Rubio agreeing on who will be vice president and who will run at the top of the ticket. Can any sane individual picture either one of these men saying to the other: "Well, you're doing better in the polls, so I'll go ahead and stop campaigning to be your veep"? To run for president requires an outsized ego (to state the obvious), meaning neither one of these guys is going to just fold their campaign up at this point, no matter how many party insiders urge them to do so.

Apparently the more-amusing thing to watch on television last night was a hilarious speech by Lindsey Graham (note: this was a lighthearted speech given in fun, to provide the necessary comedic context). In it, Graham surveyed the GOP presidential landscape and concluded: "My party has gone batshit crazy." Nice to hear such honesty! He also neatly summed up the feelings of all his Republican Senate colleagues towards one of the candidates: "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you." Hoo boy! America could have its own Julius Caesar drama -- what a concept!

Other Republicans (or former Republicans) are making similar comparisons. In an extraordinary piece by noted neo-conservative Robert Kagan (which ends with him endorsing Hillary Clinton for president), the "we're living in the time of classic literature" theme is also evident:

A plague has descended on the [Republican] party in the form of the most successful demagogue-charlatan in the history of U.S. politics. The party searches desperately for the cause and the remedy without realizing that, like Oedipus, it is the party itself that brought on this plague. The party's own political crimes are being punished in a bit of cosmic justice fit for a Greek tragedy.

Let's be clear: Trump is no fluke. Nor is he hijacking the Republican Party or the conservative movement, if there is such a thing. He is, rather, the party's creation, its Frankenstein monster, brought to life by the party, fed by the party and now made strong enough to destroy its maker.

That's just the beginning -- Kagan goes on to brutally lay bare what brought the Republican Party to such a position, in excruciating detail. I had to check to make sure the article wasn't written by some ultra-liberal commentator at least once, while reading it -- it's that scathing an indictment.

Of course, many Democrats are enjoying the heck out of this whole spectacle. But if Trump is the Republican nominee, he will be able to (as Mitt Romney wasn't) "Etch-A-Sketch" himself into whatever he thinks he needs to be to win the general election. Does anyone really think Trump is "going to be held to account" for any of his current positions? He'll become the master of the pivot, and denounce anyone who points out he's now for something he used to be against a few weeks ago. He's already done so numerous times, and so far he's gotten away with it. There are rumors that Democrats are doing a much better job of opposition research on Trump than any of the Republican candidates, so hopefully that'll help, but anyone now thinking that Trump will be easy for the Democratic nominee to beat is in for a surprise, that's our guess.

Trump's next move is likely to just flat-out state that he's not releasing his tax returns because they're "none of your business." Think he can't get away with this? Mitt Romney only partially released a redacted scant few years of tax returns, and nobody in the press seemed to care. Trump will only be taking this to its logical conclusion. Just as we're never going to see Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs speech transcripts, we're also never going to see Trump's tax returns.

The other big drama in Washington is really just beginning -- this one's going to play out all year long, in fact. Barack Obama is going to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, and the Republicans are going to utterly ignore him. Watch for this theme in Democratic campaign ads this fall, folks! Obama already performed one head-fake on the issue, leaking that he might name Republican Brian Sandoval to the high court, but Sandoval himself shot this idea down the next day. As we said, we're going to see this drama play out all year. The best thing that could happen (politically) would be a West Wing moment, where Obama's nominee goes to Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Judiciary Committee members, and the Republican senators all just leave him or her waiting in the hallway because they're refusing to even shake his or her hand. Bring a television camera along, that'd be our advice!

A few lighthearted campaign items deserve to be mentioned before we move along to our awards. The first is that any fan of Senator Al Franken really needs to check out his "reading mean tweets" video, in support of Hillary Clinton. This is noteworthy because Franken has been awfully buttoned-down as a senator, because of fears that he won't appear serious enough to his constituents. We always thought these fears were overblown, so it is good to see Franken doing a little political comedy once again. Let Al be Al!

From the other side of the Democratic race, you can now buy a marijuana pipe to show your support for Bernie Sanders. No, really! This is entirely fitting, since Sanders has not been afraid to actually use the word "marijuana" on the campaign trail. Stoners are, obviously, feelin' the Bern. Bern one for Bernie!

Speaking of deep space (there's a segue for the ages), apparently there's some rather freaky music to be found on the dark side of the moon. You can't make this stuff up -- although, technically, it's the "far side" of the moon (so both Pink Floyd and Gary Larson can share credit, we suppose). There is no dark side of the moon, really. Ahem.

Here are the transcripts of what the Apollo 10 astronauts had to say about the phenomenon, which could not have been from any Earthly signal (since the moon was blocking all such radio waves at the time).

"It sounds like, you know, outer space-type music."

"You hear that? That whistling sound? Whooooooooo!"

"Well, that sure is weird music!"

. . .

"It's unbelievable! You know?"

"Shall we tell them [Houston] about it?"

"I don't know. We ought to think about it."

And you thought Pink Floyd was spacey!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

There was more news from the campaign trail last week than just the unintelligible yelling over on the Republican side, of course. Which is why Hillary Clinton was the unquestionable Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week last week.

Clinton started the week off with a victory in Nevada, picked up the endorsement of Harry Reid a few days later, and will end her week with a landslide win in South Carolina, if all the polls are right. She'll then be able to claim she's won three out of the first four contests, and will have a lot of momentum heading into Super Tuesday next week. If Clinton turns out to be the nominee, Nevada will be seen as a key turning point.

Clinton still has a lot of work to do among Democratic voters, of course. She was confronted by one of these this week, in a protest at a $500-a-seat fundraiser. The protester reminded Clinton of a speech she gave in 1996 about violent crime, where Clinton said:

They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called "superpredators." No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.

Clinton was at first fazed by this complaint, saying: "You know what? Nobody's ever asked me before. You're the first person to ask me and I'm happy to address it." She then went on to ignore the issue for the rest of her speech, since the protester had by then been escorted out by the Secret Service.

Later on, Clinton did recover enough to apologize (somewhat) for her former words in response to a reporter's question:

In that speech, I was talking about the impact violent crime and vicious drug cartels were having on communities across the country and the particular danger they posed to children and families. Looking back, I shouldn't have used those words, and I wouldn't use them today.

But that was really the only flaw in an otherwise admirable week for Clinton. Imagine if Bernie Sanders had edged Clinton out in Nevada -- we'd be having a very different conversation right now about Clinton's chances at becoming the nominee. Perhaps this is unfairly weighting the Nevada results to a level of importance they really shouldn't have, but that's the way politics goes. If Bernie had won, the stories would all be about "Clinton campaign in disarray" and "Clinton getting increasingly desperate." Neither of those headlines appeared, because Bernie didn't win. That was the difference Nevada made.

And after two very close finishes against Bernie in Iowa and Nevada, Clinton seems poised to win big this Saturday. Sanders has all but given up campaigning in South Carolina, a good indicator that the only remaining question is how big a landslide will Hillary achieve.

This race isn't over, not by any means. There's a lot of campaigning to go, and Bernie still does have a possible path to victory (albeit one that got a lot steeper this week). But Hillary owned this week. She was clearly the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week, the fourteenth time she's won our illustrious Golden Backbone award.

[Hillary Clinton is technically a private citizen, and we do not provide contact information to political campaigns, so you'll have to look up her campaign site on your own, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We honestly thought that once Eric Holder left office that he'd never win another Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award, but we're going to go ahead and give him another one anyway.

In a recently-published interview with the PBS show Frontline, Holder spoke about the insanity of marijuana being classified as one of the most dangerous illegal drugs out there by the federal government. He expressed his support for rescheduling marijuana, which would mean moving it out of the Schedule I category. He certainly sounded supportive of the idea:

You know, we treat marijuana in the same way that we treat heroin now, and that clearly is not appropriate. So at a minimum, I think Congress needs to do that. Then I think we need to look at what happens in Colorado and what happens in Washington.

Sounds pretty reasonable, so why does it qualify him for the MDDOTW award? Well, because for his entire term in office as Attorney General, Eric Holder could have quite easily fixed the problem on his own. The Attorney General is given the power to reschedule (or even deschedule) any substance with his own signature. That's it. That's all it would have taken.

He didn't.

This makes his support for the idea now especially galling. He could have changed the insanity of marijuana being legally treated the same as heroin. Yes, insanity is the correct word. Here is a partial list of Schedule II drugs (all of which are supposedly less harmful than marijuana, mind you): cocaine, opium, amphetamine, Demerol, methamphetamine, and PCP. Yep, weed's obviously more dangerous than crystal meth and cocaine, right? Insanity -- there's just no other word for this type of thinking.

Eric Holder, during his entire time in office as the head of the Justice Department, tried to punt this political football to Congress. He continues to do so, even while expressing support for the idea today. But Congress does not have to be involved at all. The Justice Department could have acted on its own at any time while Holder was in charge. It failed to. So Eric Holder is just as responsible for marijuana being equated to heroin in federal law as the people who originally made such a boneheaded and anti-scientific decision.

For not admitting his own culpability in preserving an insane status quo in the federal War On Weed, Eric Holder is easily our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. There was only one reason why he didn't change this insanity when he had the chance to, and that reason is political cowardice. Plain and simple. And that's pretty disappointing indeed. Too little, too late, Mister Holder.

[Eric Holder is also a private citizen now, so you'll have to seek his contact information online to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 380 (2/26/16)

There's no theme to this week's talking points, other than poking lots of fun at the Republican nomination circus. Enjoy, and as always, use responsibly.

 

1
   Groundhog debate

It's always February 2nd on the GOP stage.

"Why is it that in pretty much every single Republican presidential debate we only get questions about the same exact topics? Last night, they spent almost an hour talking about immigration. An hour! After they spent a similar amount of time on it in every other Republican debate! The same exact questions get asked, over and over and over. The names of the moderators change, but the questions mysteriously stay the same. Americans actually do care about more issues than just immigration, border security, terrorism, and hearing how much you hate Obamacare, guys. There are all sorts of other issues the candidates could be asked about, in fact. But I guess we'll just keep getting the same Republican debate, over and over again. It's like watching Groundhog Day, really."

 

2
   And they love you, Donald!

This one almost doesn't need any punchline.

"After winning the Nevada caucuses, Donald Trump said (and I quote), I love the poorly-educated, unquote. Well, you know what, Donald? It seems they love you right back!"

 

3
   Cruz oozing sleaze

It's a good thing people started noticing the way Ted Cruz is running his campaign.

"Ted Cruz was supposed to be the candidate for evangelical Republican voters, but he's losing their support fast. Maybe this is because he has proven to be the sleaziest guy in the Republican race -- which is really saying something, isn't it? He just had to fire a top aide for mistakenly smearing that Marco Rubio doesn't love the Bible. That's pretty low, and evangelical voters have noticed. His campaign looks for all the world like the dirty-tricks campaigns of Richard Nixon, in fact. No wonder even his fellow Republican senators hate him so much. Cruz oozes more sleaze than a used car salesman."

 

4
   Fantasyland

As mentioned earlier, establishment Republicans are getting panicky.

"Have you heard the latest bright idea from the establishment Republicans for saving their party from nominating Donald Trump? It's pure fantasy -- Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are supposed to get together and figure out which one of them should drop out of the race to be the vice-presidential pick of the other. The only possible flaw with this plan is that they both -- obviously -- see themselves at the top of the Republican ticket. It's like the prisoner's dilemma -- dropping out might mean that somebody else has a better chance to beat Trump, but they all see themselves as that somebody. Rubio and Cruz are never in a million, billion years going to form some unity anti-Trump ticket, and anyone who believes this is going to happen is just barking mad."

 

5
   Finally, a plan!

Well, sort of....

"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed Congress in 2010. Since that time, Republicans everywhere have been vowing to come up with their own plan to replace the hated Obamacare. They've had over five years and counting. What have they come up with in all of this time? A House bill to rally around? A Senate plan to replace Obamacare? A bill they can pass and put on the president's desk? No, no, and no. In fact, Republicans have just proudly unveiled a 'mission statement' that is only 251 words long and has absolutely zero specifics. Think about that -- it took them over five years to even come up with a two-page hazy framework of a concept. At this rate, it'll take them roughly a century to even get the language of an actual bill together, and another few centuries to bicker over the details. They keep yelling 'repeal and replace Obamacare,' but they have proven for almost six years now that they are absolutely incapable of the second half of that equation. At the rate of 50 words per year, it's going to take them approximately forever to achieve their goal."

 

6
   That pesky Constitution

Barack Obama gave an interview this week where he laid out his case for nominating a Supreme Court justice, as the Constitution fully requires him to do. This is an excellent thing to point out to all those Republicans who worship the Constitution:

I recognize the politics are hard for them because the easier thing to do is to give in to the most extreme voices within their party and stand pat and do nothing. But that's not our job. Our job is to fulfill our constitutional duties.... I've got a year to go. I don't think they would approve of me abdicating on my duties as commander-in-chief and to stop doing all the other work that I've got to do!

 

7
   Oregon looking pretty good

Whenever liberals argue that conservative governors (of states like Kansas and Louisiana) are a disaster for the state, they should hold up one of their own as an excellent example of what good liberal government looks like.

"Governor Kate Brown of Oregon has done an extraordinary job in her first year in office. During her leadership, Oregon passed the first-in-the-nation automatic voter registration law, an example other states can learn from. Brown also passed a law requiring health insurers to prescribe birth control for a full year, and allowing women to get a birth control prescription from a pharmacist -- two commonsense reforms that benefit all of Oregon's women. Brown called birth control access 'a fundamental right for women.' Brown has also passed gun control background checks, mandatory paid sick leave, and she's 'banned the box' on employment forms. In her spare time, she signed legislation to restrict community college tuition to $50 per term for students who attend right after high school. And she's about to sign one of the most progressive minimum wage bills in the country. This is what good government looks like, and other states should be looking to emulate Oregon under the leadership of Kate Brown."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

138 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [380] -- Unintelligible Yelling”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are rumors that Democrats are doing a much better job of opposition research on Trump than any of the Republican candidates,

    Yea.. And there were rumors that Trump wouldn't last the month.. Then it was JUST the summer of Trump... Then the rumors said he would implode by New Years. Then of course, there was the rumor that Iowa's loss would doom Trump... :D

    It's all nothing but wish-casting... Take it from someone who knows.. :D

    The best thing that could happen (politically) would be a West Wing moment, where Obama's nominee goes to Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Judiciary Committee members, and the Republican senators all just leave him or her waiting in the hallway because they're refusing to even shake his or her hand.

    You mean like Joe Biden did in 1992 to DOZENS of judicial nominees??

    Once again.. Democrats.. Republicans. Two sides of the same coin...

    his race isn't over, not by any means. There's a lot of campaigning to go, and Bernie still does have a possible path to victory (albeit one that got a lot steeper this week).

    I wish I could be as hopeful..

    As much as it truly and sincerely pains me to say... Stick a fork in Bernie.. He is done..

    The Bern has been quenched.. :(

    Think about that -- it took them over five years to even come up with a two-page hazy framework of a concept.

    It took Senate Democrats longer to come up with a budget.. And that's... yunno... One of the BIG things that the Majority Party in the Senate is spose to do...

    I'm just sayin...

    I recognize the politics are hard for them because the easier thing to do is to give in to the most extreme voices within their party and stand pat and do nothing. But that's not our job. Our job is to fulfill our constitutional duties.... I've got a year to go. I don't think they would approve of me abdicating on my duties as commander-in-chief and to stop doing all the other work that I've got to do!

    Oooooo dueling quotes!! :D

    I'll see your Obama quote and raise you a Biden quote.. :D

    "It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

    Some will criticize such a decision and say that it is nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat would be able to fill it. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way (and it is) action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me . . . we will be in deep trouble as an institution."
    Joe Biden, Chairman Senate Judiciary Committee, 1992

    Oregon looking pretty good

    Oh, come on now.. After Kichenbacher, Attila the Hun would "look pretty good" :D

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    his race isn't over, not by any means. There's a lot of campaigning to go, and Bernie still does have a possible path to victory (albeit one that got a lot steeper this week).

    The ONLY thing that Bernie can accomplish is to pull Hillary FURTHER to the Left... And THAT will cause problems for Hillary in the General..

    Our job is to fulfill our constitutional duties....

    It's hilarious how Obama only cares about his "constitutional duties" when it suits his ideology...

    Something about faithfully executing the laws of the land is ALSO a "constitutional duty"... Obama doesn't give a rat's ass about THAT duty...

    Funny, iddn't it.. :^/

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Novelist Bret Easton Ellis, for example, recently tweeted: "Just back from a dinner in West Hollywood: shocked the majority of the table was voting for Trump but they would never admit it publicly.” What he describes is preference falsification — but if people stop hiding, it will become a cascade. And Ellis himself has started that process with this tweet. Meanwhile, confronted with PC nonsense, college students have started chanting ”Trump! Trump!” (Law professor Ann Althouse has been predicting this cascade for weeks.)
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/25/donald-trump-supporters-brexit-preference-falsfication-2016-primaries-column/80856410/

    The wave is coming, people..

    You can ride it.. Or be capsized by it...

    Your choice...

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Before I read this week's Friday Talking Points, I want to mention a couple of things before I forget them.

    CW - I've just realized that you'll hit the FTP 400 mark this year! It doesn't seem all that long ago when we were celebrating the 300th FTP. By my reckoning it will happen on July 15th which doesn't seem that far away at all.

    The second thing is just a bit of fun: a chart showing Jeb's campaign progress and, because we cannot post images here (as far as I know), I put it online at: http://tinyurl.com/znzubsl

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Favor to ask..

    Would anyone with HuffPoo access check the current FTP commentary there and see if my comments are actually being seen??

    Just want to see if I have been shadow-banned.. :D

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-bill-clinton-snaps-at-veteran-during-speech-shut-up-and-listen-to-my-answer/

    Looks like Bill Clinton is channeling his inner Donald Trump..

    Of course, ya'all will condemn Bill Clinton for this, JUST like you condemn Donald Trump...

    Right?? :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don't worry Michale, your 'fairy tale' comments are alive and well over at HuffPo.

    Your comparison of 2008 to 2016 is, of course, fatuous, just like the 'fairy tale' fairy tale.

  8. [8] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don't worry Michale, your 'fairy tale' comments are alive and well over at HuffPo.

    Your comparison of 2008 to 2016 is, of course, fatuous, just like the 'fairy tale' fairy tale.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your comparison of 2008 to 2016 is, of course, fatuous, just like the 'fairy tale' fairy tale.

    Of course, that's what you would say..

    The "first black president" was accused of RACISM!!!

    If that doesn't qualify for "crass, crude and vitriolic", nothing does.. :D

    But thanx for confirmation.. The guy who I responded to also responded so I guess I am not shadow-banned..

    But the day is young... :D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the other hand, I am using my "inside" voice there ( heh) so I might last... :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    neilm wrote:

    You can keep trying Michale ;)

    I've been banned from a well known right wing news site - and not for language, but for inconvenient facts. They first blocked my username, then, when I got a new one, they blocked my IP address.

    I really got under their skin. Links to scientific papers and articles in The Economist that undermine the key points in their articles seem to be off limits for this well known right wing media site. So much for free speech.

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    Of course, that's what you would say..

    .. because it is correct ;)

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    've been banned from a well known right wing news site - and not for language, but for inconvenient facts. They first blocked my username, then, when I got a new one, they blocked my IP address.

    Same exact reason I was banned from Banter Line. I decimated more than a dozen arguments regarding the Sanford Shooting issue.. Costa and Cohen went ape-shit crazy and finally banned me.. Costa had to revamp his entire blog just to accommodate the ban. It was hilarious.. :D

    I really got under their skin. Links to scientific papers and articles in The Economist that undermine the key points in their articles seem to be off limits for this well known right wing media site. So much for free speech.

    I know, right!? :D

    But keep in mind, "FREE SPEECH" is a unique AMERICA concept...

    Blogs/BBS's are like little dictatorships where Constitutional rights do not apply...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's just the beginning -- Kagan goes on to brutally lay bare what brought the Republican Party to such a position, in excruciating detail. I had to check to make sure the article wasn't written by some ultra-liberal commentator at least once, while reading it -- it's that scathing an indictment.

    Republicans are solely and completely looking out for the Republican Party... Anything they say against Donald Trump can be safely ignored...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    neilm wrote:

    Republicans are solely and completely looking out for the Republican Party

    This is becoming an existential question for the right wing - do they have a party, or is it parties? Who leads the party? Will Trump become the leader if he wins the nomination? Or the presidency? Will the party reject Trump at the convention "just because they can" and run their own candidate, ensuring a certain loss for both but biting the bullet in 2016 (when many of them think a Trump nomination is basically a loss anyway?) to establish control in 2018 and beyond?

    Interesting times.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    But keep in mind, "FREE SPEECH" is a unique AMERICA concept...

    Blogs/BBS's are like little dictatorships where Constitutional rights do not apply...

    Present company excepted, of course.. :D

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Paula wrote:

    Hillary won BIG in SC -- not unexpected; she's projected to have gotten over 80% of the African American vote -- not surprising; biggest good news though was AA turnout was HIGH. I am really pleased about that. Hope that continues on into Super Tuesday for both Hillary and Bernie. Feels good to see evidence of enthusiasm displayed through actually voting. That is where it counts the most.

    I forget where this discussion happened but someone made the point online this week that turnout in 2008 -- of Dems -- was strongly driven by anti-Bush sentiment. May the Donald work a similar magic!

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    What did you think of Hillary's speech?

    I thought it was pretty amazing - love and kindness, making America whole - now that's a winning election theme if ever I heard one!

  19. [19] 
    Paula wrote:

    Elizabeth: I liked her speech quite a bit. I liked her mentioning the 5 mothers and Flint. And yes, making America whole. This campaign has brought out of the shadows so many festering problems that have been neglected in Washington. Even Trump's candidacy has had that positive byproduct -- in all of the anguished articles asking "how can Trump be winning" there are discussions about unemployment and insecurity as well as the tactics that have been used for so long by the right to foment hatred.

    It ain't over yet on the Dem side but the big challenge for us will be reuniting the party when Hillary or Bernie loses because it's so vital we get turnout in November.

    And every event I see with Hillary or Bernie or both of them is such a relief and contrast to these awful, awful Republican debates. Like a spiritual cool glass of water on a hot day.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    Well, I'm sorry to say that I see no redeeming qualities or positive by-products of the Trump campaign or of what the Republicans have been pedaling for the last couple of decades and even longer.

    In future, you must resist the urge to find any hint of a silver lining in the Trump campaign. :)

    Seriously, though, the stakes are far too high for any attempt to find positives within the remarkably destructive Trump campaign.

    I'm guessing that the challenge of uniting the Democratic party won't be much of a challenge at all.

  21. [21] 
    Paula wrote:

    Let's put it this way: as long as Trump ultimately loses (the nomination/election) his candidacy will have had some positive results in that he has pretty much lifted the carefully constructed Republican veil right off the corpse of the party and showed the world exactly how rotted it is. All sorts of things are being talked about now by "mainstream media", by disaffected Republicans, by any number of people who have been telling themselves "it really isn't so bad" -- on both sides of the aisle. Sunlight, sunlight, sunlight!

    If he were to win the general, though, God help us all.

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bernie's speech, from what I saw of it, was very good, too ... though, I don't believe he congratulated Hillary on her HUGE ... ahem ... win ... or did I miss that part?

    That's okay ... there's going to be so much Democratic winning we're all going to be sick and tired of it very soon. :)

  23. [23] 
    Paula wrote:

    22: so much Democratic winning -- hear hear!

    Bernie is good. They both are. If Hillary wins I hope she reaches out to him to do what he can to push his agenda through, or at least keep it alive while the country catches up. Some of the things he's pushing for will ultimately come to fruition, I think, and hope.

  24. [24] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [13] -

    But keep in mind, "FREE SPEECH" is a unique AMERICA concept...

    Blogs/BBS's are like little dictatorships where Constitutional rights do not apply...

    I don't know why, but the following dialog from "A Child's Garden Of Grass" (1960s pro-weed comedy album) flitted through my mind when I contemplated being the CW.com dictator and overlord....

    [in a Germanic-English accent]: "Your papers, please!"

    [in a hippie-dippie accent]: "Uh, sorry, man, all I got is a pipe..."

    Heh.

    My record, for newcomers --

    Almost 10 years blogging... never had to ban a commenter once. I retain the power to do so, but in each case of "over the line" comments, a stern warning did the trick.

    Of course, that's why Michale's still here... but I digress....

    Heh.

    -CW

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Mopshell [4] -

    Thanks for noticing! This column was inspired by a column at democraticunderground.com called something like "The Top 10 Republican Idiots Of The Week." It was freakin' hilarious, but the guy who did it eventually had life intervene (I think his wife had a baby) and the column died. At the time, he was in the 300s. When I started this column, I never thought it would ever get that high.

    I think I've now surpassed him. But the big anniversary will be this summer, which I alluded to in my previous comment. This June will mark 10 full years of blogging -- the first year on the HuffPost exclusively, and then in 2007 CW.com was born.

    Woo hoo!

    Michale [6] -

    You should check that Bill Clinton video link. I get "database error" when trying to follow it...

    Michale [14] -

    Did you read Kagan's article? It was pretty scathing...

    neilm [15] -

    For months now, people have been saying things like "Do you think Trump will make a third-party run?" I've been answering: "Trump will be the GOP nominee -- the question is whether the establishment Republicans split off and try a third-party run."

    Looks like that's the question of the hour, at this point. If they're going to do so, they've got to make a move by like mid-March, so this'll be interesting to watch....

    Michale [16] -

    Your papers, please!

    Heh.

    Paula [17] -

    I've been a little concerned that voter turnout on the Dem side is down from 2008 -- was SC turnout bigger than 2008? Bigger than 2012? I haven't looked it up yet...

    LizM [18] -

    It was pretty good, saw most of it. She's learned to say "we" a lot more often... a notable (and positive) difference from her earlier victory speeches.

    LizM [20] -

    If Donald Trump causes the death and total realignment of the Republican Party, that will indeed be a silver lining. Not sure if it'll actually happen at this point, but it could.

    Paula [21] -

    Indeed. Especially that last bit.

    LizM -

    Didn't know Bernie gave a speech, thought he was on an airplane.

    Paula [23] -

    Even if Bernie loses, he's had a positive effect on Hillary's campaign rhetoric, at the very least.

    OK, that's it for now, gotta watch SNL now...

    :-)

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, that's why Michale's still here... but I digress....

    Heh.

    Heh :D

    This June will mark 10 full years of blogging -- the first year on the HuffPost exclusively, and then in 2007 CW.com was born.

    Are you sure it wasn't 2006???

    I could swear that it was Sep of 2006.

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    CW [25] -

    The voter numbers for the SC Democratic Primary were down roughly 30% from 2008. Also, fewer Democrats have voted in primaries and caucuses than Republicans in all four states so far.

    However, historically primary turnout has not been a reliable indicator of general election turnout. Michael McDonald, a professor at the University of Florida and a voter turnout guru, notes that in 2000 the Republican primary turnout ran ahead of that for Democrats (by around 3 million votes), and yet Al Gore won the popular vote over George W Bush.

    Over at RealClearPolitics, Sean Trende adds that 1988 saw the second-highest Democratic primary turnout ever. But Republican George H.W. Bush went on to win the general election anyway.

    http://www.vox.com/2016/2/24/11109764/republican-turnout-democrats-2016

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iowa students admonished for "Trump!" chants at hoops game
    http://www.fox5ny.com/news/97968971-story

    And THIS is exactly why Trump will become our next POTUS...

    Hysterical, irrational and illogical PC run amok..

    If the "diverse" team had won and the "predominantly white team" had lost and and the winning team chanted HILLARY, HILLARY, HILLARY not a damn thing would have been said...

    I mean, irrational and hysterical PC is bad enough..

    But irrational and hysterical PC that is so completely biased and bigoted??

    A hundred times worse...

    Get used to saying President Trump, people... Americans are mad as hell and they ain't gonna take this PC crap anymore...

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iowa students admonished for "Trump!" chants at hoops game
    http://tinyurl.com/gn6cgtf

    And THIS is exactly why Trump will become our next POTUS...

    Hysterical, irrational and illogical PC run amok..

    If the "diverse" team had won and the "predominantly white team" had lost and and the winning team chanted HILLARY, HILLARY, HILLARY not a damn thing would have been said...

    I mean, irrational and hysterical PC is bad enough..

    But irrational and hysterical PC that is so completely biased and bigoted??

    A hundred times worse...

    Get used to saying President Trump, people... Americans are mad as hell and they ain't gonna take this PC crap anymore...

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you sure it wasn't 2006???

    I could swear that it was Sep of 2006.

    Aha!!

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2006/09/15/so-is-torturing-a-daughter-ok/

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/07/07/so-is-torturing-a-daughter-ok-2/

    And there is the same commentary with some comments.. :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Trump is having one of his Klan meetings in town Tuesday. I would definitely go and see the orange-faced, short-fingered vulgarian's performance live, but I have a dental appointment that conflicts with the Donald and the dentist sounds like more fun anyway. Sad!

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is having one of his Klan meetings in town Tuesday.

    And yet.. NO ONE.... either here or on HuffPoo....

    NO ONE has been able to come up with a SINGLE racist remark by Donald Trump....

    Funny, iddn't it.. :D

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    As you well know people use the term 'racist' when they mean 'bigoted'. Are you willing to state that Trump hasn't said a SINGLE bigoted statement?

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    As you well know people use the term 'racist' when they mean 'bigoted'.

    Well, then those people are wrong..

    I get it.. "racist" is MUCH more damning than "bigoted"...

    But to call Trump a "racist" is a lie.. Pure and simple...

    Are you willing to state that Trump hasn't said a SINGLE bigoted statement?

    I am willing to state... AND back up with facts... that Trump hasn't said anything more bigoted than anyone else...

    Present company INCLUDED...

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    Let's have a 'Bigot-off'

    You find the most bigoted statement by Hillary, and I'll find one worse, probably by a great deal, from Trump ;)

    I'll start:

    "The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. … When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

    Note that he does not say 'illegal' anywhere - just Mexicans in general.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    You find the most bigoted statement by Hillary, and I'll find one worse, probably by a great deal, from Trump ;)

    "Republicans are the enemy"
    -Hillary Clinton

    "Republicans are terrorists"
    -Hillary Clinton

    I win :D

    Note that he does not say 'illegal' anywhere - just Mexicans in general.

    That's because you only quote the part of the speech that supports your contention...

    The first part of the speech details exactly WHO he is talking about. Those that are a "drain" on America's resources.. That is clearly pointing to ILLEGAL immigrants as NO ONE has made the case that LEGAL immigrants are a drain on America's resources..

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's examine the two statements..

    Trump referred to BY DEFINITION criminals, as rapists and drug dealers...

    Is there ample evidence to support that claim that many many MANY illegal immigrants ARE, in fact, drug dealers and rapists.. It's a proven FACT that they ARE criminals..

    Now, Hillary called fellow Americans "terrorists" and "the enemy" SOLELY AND COMPLETELY because of a political/ideological difference of opinion...

    Trump is bigoted against drug dealers and rapists... Guess what??

    So am I....

    Hillary is bigoted against fellow Americans whose SOLE "CRIME" is politically disagreeing with her..

    Now, I don't care WHO you are... Hillary's bigotry is TONNES worse than Trump's...

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    You didn't know Bernie gave a speech? Was I dreaming it?

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    If Donald Trump causes the death and total realignment of the Republican Party, that will indeed be a silver lining. Not sure if it'll actually happen at this point, but it could.

    Not sure, eh?

    Well, when it comes to silver linings, let's say we stick with the here and now and not talk about any possible future positive credit to individuals like Donald Trump and other such fantastical outcomes.

    Not in THIS blog space, anyway!

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-bill-clinton-snaps-at-veteran-during-speech-shut-up-and-listen-to-my-answer/

    That link works now...

    Funny that NO ONE wants to condemn Bill Clinton acting exactly like Donald Trump... :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Press Forbidden from Filming Hillary Boarding Private Plane
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001305

    Release the transcripts, Hillary!!

    What are you hiding??

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    "Republicans are terrorists"

    Slight problem ... Hillary never said that - you got fooled by the right wing nonsense machine. You lose.

    However, people are saying that, I'm just saying. I hear these things about Republicans. I'm not saying it is true, just that people are saying it.

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    Note: my trumpmode ... /trumpmode tags got deleted from "However" to "saying it." in the comment above.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Slight problem ... Hillary never said that - you got fooled by the right wing nonsense machine. You lose.

    Actually, Hillary DID say it.. And she earned a CW.COM MDDOTW award FOR saying it... :D

    However, people are saying that, I'm just saying. I hear these things about Republicans. I'm not saying it is true, just that people are saying it.

    And the people who are saying it are BIGOTs...

    Right??? :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale [29]:

    Re "Trump Trump Trump"

    Here is the problem, and you suffer from this a lot. Nobody said "Hillary Hillary Hillary" to demean an opposing team. Yet you make up a quote, then make up the response you think would happen.

    Maybe if you just lived in the real world, you'd be better off.

    1. There are plenty of instances where the left has been wrong and not been called on it by the media.

    2. There are plenty of instances where the right has been wrong and not been called on it by the media.

    3. There are plenty of instances where the left has been wrong and has been called on it by the media.

    4. There are plenty of instances where the right has been wrong and has been called on it by the media.

    By focusing on #1, and making up instances in addition when you want to defend in indefensible case of #4, you are just showing that, for all your protestations, you have a strong right wing bias.

    Fortunately, I'm perfect, so if you want to run all your draft comments by me before you post them, I'll be there for you ;)

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    Link to the quote please. I've looked everywhere for it. And I mean a verbatim quote, not a 'well she said that these attitudes are the same as terrorists' nonsense.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nobody said "Hillary Hillary Hillary" to demean an opposing team. Yet you make up a quote, then make up the response you think would happen.

    But I am saying that if it DID happen, then nothing would have been said..

    It's perfectly OK, acceptable and even ENCOURAGED for the Left Wingery to be racist and bigoted against the Right Wingery...

    http://news.yahoo.com/black-milwaukee-sheriff-takes-black-lives-matter-movement-120700515.html?bcmt=1456673097250-1cf95325-a5e5-4994-a492-a82184325b41_00006b000000000000000000000000-868d7fdb-bbcd-4ceb-be1e-135d71e7ca59&bcmt_s=u#mediacommentsugc_container

    Fortunately, I'm perfect, so if you want to run all your draft comments by me before you post them, I'll be there for you ;)

    I know you are and I know you will.. That's why I like you so much.. :D

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    neilm wrote:

    However, people are saying that, I'm just saying. I hear these things about Republicans. I'm not saying it is true, just that people are saying it.

    And the people who are saying it are BIGOTs...

    Right??? :D

    My sarcastic "" "" tags got left off.

  50. [50] 
    neilm wrote:

    Dammit - they've been processed out by the parser again.

    There were trumpmode on and trumpmode off tags in the original to show the sarcasm.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Is there a summary of MDDOTW awards???

    I know you awarded Hillary a MDDOTW award for calling Republicans
    "terrorists", but can't find it..

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Never mind..

    Found it...

    But, for the second week in a row, Hillary Clinton is the recipient of our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. Clinton, like all presidential candidates these days, is struggling to be heard among the thousands of "Did you hear what Trump just said?" stories. So she apparently thought she'd use some shocking language of her own, and compared her political opponents to terrorists, because (by her logic) they both treat women badly.
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/08/28/ftp359/

    I accept your concession.. :D

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    neilm wrote:

    There was a speech around August last year where Hillary compared the attitudes of Republicans towards women to the same attitudes espoused by terrorists.

    They specifically say that she never said "Republicans are terrorists"

    http://www.redstate.com/kimberly_ross/2015/08/27/hillary-clinton-believes-gop-field-full-terrorists/

  54. [54] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hillary never said "Republicans are terrorists"

    Here is a racist Trump retweet:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3329934/Donald-Trump-branded-racist-retweeting-statistics-murders-committed-black-people.html

    Totally made up numbers, as anybody with an ounce of decency, a few seconds on Google and some plain common sense would have known.

    2-0 to me. Please proceed g'vnor.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    There was a speech around August last year where Hillary compared the attitudes of Republicans towards women to the same attitudes espoused by terrorists.

    They specifically say that she never said "Republicans are terrorists"

    Now yer just splitting hairs...

    "Comparing Republicans to terrorists" is no different than calling Republicans terrorists..

    A difference which makes no difference is no difference
    -Commander Spock

    Here is a racist Trump retweet:

    Donald Trump retweeted figures on murders committed by black people

    So????

    So, stating a FACT about black people is "racist"???

    Who knew.... :D

    Even regardless of THAT, it's simply a RETWEET...

    It's not a statement from Trump...

    Even if it were a DIRECT TWEET it wouldn't qualify because it's not a statement from Trump..

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    Another bigoted lie from The Donald ...

    "there were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey where you have large Arab population."

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    "96% of violent deaths of black people are perpetrated by black people..."

    That's a documented fact...

    Is it racist??

    Of course not...

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    The "numbers" in the retweet were a fabrication from a racist group. A total lie designed to denigrate a particular race.

    Re Hillary" Saying something is saying something. Not saying something isn't. Why don't you just quote the actual quote rather than the right wing media summary of Hillary's statement?

  59. [59] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    NeilM,

    "As you well know people use the term 'racist' when they mean 'bigoted'."

    . . . and I didn't say either one, but the Klan has gotten the message somehow or other. Trump sends his message telepathically. He doesn't drop F-bombs or say racist things. Just ask him.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another bigoted lie from The Donald ...

    Still not racism...

    I could list THOUSANDS of bigoted lies from Obama, Hillary, etc etc etc...

    The "numbers" in the retweet were a fabrication from a racist group. A total lie designed to denigrate a particular race.

    Being wrong does not a racist statement make..

    Yer REALLY reaching... :D

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    or say racist things.

    He doesn't...

    And it's driving you crazy!!! :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even if you were right about Hillary not calling Republicans terrorists, you still haven't addressed Hillary's "Republicans are the enemy" bigotry..

    And THAT is worse than ANY bigotry exhibited by Trump..

    Because THAT bigotry was directed at fellow Americans SOLELY and COMPLETELY because of political disagreement..

    That is just pathetically sad...

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re Hillary" Saying something is saying something. Not saying something isn't. Why don't you just quote the actual quote rather than the right wing media summary of Hillary's statement?

    Uh.... I quoted CW's summary of Hillary's statement...

    Oh snap! :D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Republicans are the enemy" - another "quote" that isn't. Try to find it verbatim and post a link.

    Seems you accept the right wing media summary in reverse Evian mode.

    And remember, we are in a "bigot-off" not a "racist-off". I'll play along with your correct, but pedantic use of "racist", but you should look at the changing meaning of the word "decimate" to see where the limits of pedantry currently are:

    http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/09/does-decimate-mean-destroy-one-tenth/

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Republicans are the enemy" - another "quote" that isn't. Try to find it verbatim and post a link.

    Oh jesus, neil.. NOW look who is "pedantic"...

    Hillary was asked which enemy she is most proud of.. She said "Republicans"....

    You're wrong.. Time and time again..

    Why can't you concede the point gracefully.... I would if I was wrong...

  66. [66] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    If somebody told me I was Trump's enemy, I'd be proud. However I don't think of him as an enemy, so I wouldn't say "Trump is the enemy", but I do think he is somebody that needs to be stood up to. So if my opposition to his ideas and crudeness made me his enemy, so be it, there is nothing I can do about that.

    Thus:

    Trump says "Neil is the enemy".

    Michale asks me which enemy am I most proud of.

    I say "Donald Trump" because he can't refute my positions so he resorts to hatred.

    At no point am I saying Donald Trump is my enemy, he is saying that.

    See the difference?

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have not seen such a great example of tap dancing since I was in the OCS Talent Show...

    Kudos... :D

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    What you seem to be saying is that Hillary said she was proud to have Republicans as her enemy because Republicans have stated "Hillary Clinton is the enemy"....

    Aww right... Aww right...

    Now all you have to do is find the quote where Republican leadership said QUOTE Hillary Clinton is the enemy END QUOTE

    Have at it....

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:
  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    "The Democratic Party is the enemy of the people"

    "Hillary Clinton is the enemy of the people"

    http://thedailycoin.org/?p=56316

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Hillary Clinton is the enemy of America"

    http://grandmageri422.me/category/hillary-clinton-2/

  72. [72] 
    neilm wrote:
  73. [73] 
    neilm wrote:

    Not Trump's Sunday Best?

    1. Pretended he didn't know who David Duke was, or what he represented three times today (Sunday) - which was strange because he disavowed him on Friday.

    2. Retweeted a Mussolini quote, also today.

    I have no idea why he punted on David Duke - it would have been easier just to say "Hey, I addressed this on Friday, do your research."

    Plus the Mussolini quote was from a twitter account that was designed to send Donald Mussolini quotes in the hope he'd retweet them. The handle: ilduce2016 should have been a give away.

    The guy's genius is publicity, and perhaps he believes that there is no such thing as bad publicity (dubious, e.g. ask poor Monica Lewinski, etc.), but if the term 'racist' (yes I know Michale, it should be bigot) is swirling around your head, is this the best way to address it?

    BTW - if you haven't seen Monica's TED talk, it is very interesting:

    https://www.ted.com/talks/monica_lewinsky_the_price_of_shame?language=en

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhh So, Rush Limbaugh is part of the Republican leadership???

    On par with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid???

    Com'on, neil... You have gone WAY off the deep end with this...

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see now, it's pointless to debate this issue..

    Neil suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome.. Or Hillary Brown Nosing Syndrome..

    Or a combination of the two....

    Trump is going to be the GOP Nominee, despite all your claims to the contrary... You were wrong.. Live with it..

    Trump is going to be the next POTUS, despite all your claims to the contrary... Ditto... :D

    If you want to wager, let's get to it.. :D But you might want to talk to David... heh

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    neilm wrote:

    Fair enough Michale, I couldn't find any direct quote from e.g. Mitch McConnell.

    However Rush was feted as one of the leaders by such people as:

    In 1992, Ronald Reagan sent Limbaugh a letter in which he thanked him "for all you're doing to promote Republican and conservative principles ... [and] you have become the Number One voice for conservatism in our Country."

    On February 28, 2009, following his self-described "first address to the nation" lasting 90 minutes, carried live on CNN and Fox News and recorded for C-SPAN, Limbaugh received CPAC's "Defender of the Constitution Award", a document originally signed by Benjamin Franklin, given to someone "who has stood up for the First Amendment ... Rush Limbaugh is for America, exactly what Benjamin Franklin did for the Founding Fathers ... the only way we will be successful is if we listen to Rush Limbaugh."

    When the Republican Party won control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections, the freshman Republican class awarded Limbaugh an honorary membership in their caucus. This event confirmed him as an influential figure on the national political scene.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    The guy's genius is publicity, and perhaps he believes that there is no such thing as bad publicity (dubious, e.g. ask poor Monica Lewinski, etc.), but if the term 'racist' (yes I know Michale, it should be bigot) is swirling around your head, is this the best way to address it?

    If it SHOULD be bigot, then why continue to use the false and BS term of "racist"...

    Because racist is more inflammatory and who gives a shit about accuracy!!

    INFLAMMATORY is what is called for, even if it is total BS.. So INFLAMMATORY it is...

    Now, if you REALLY want to talk "racist", we can discuss Bill Clinton's claims in 2008 that "A few years ago this guy (Obama) would have been carrying our luggage!!"....

    But you don't REALLY want to talk about racist comments unless you can pin said comments on the GOP..

    Gotcha.. {wink wink}....

  78. [78] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'll admit that I was wrong when I stated that I didn't think Trump had much chance of winning the nomination. And I'm not going to take a bet on November, because there is one person's 'vote' that could be the only vote in the November election that could swing it for Trump.

    If Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi commits to launch an attack on U.S. soil in the September to November timeframe, his 'vote' would be all that it needs for this country to swing to Trump.

    I sincerely hope this doesn't happen for the obvious reasons, but who better for ISIS than The Donald in the White House - then the three clowns of the apocalypse, Trump, Putin and al-Baghdadi would be in place to start WW III. Since this is ISIS's goal (see http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ ), I'm not going to rule out him trying.

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    I used the term 'racist' (and note the quotes) because that is the term being used about him. Note that I qualified it for you.

    The term bigot, while more accurate, is not as familiar in the U.S.

    For example, Cruz accused Trump of condoning racism in a tweet today.

    e.g.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-racist-endorsement-i-don-t-know-anything-about-n527576

  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:

    Re 2008 and Clinton Racism Claim:

    Hillary won a larger percentage of the African-American vote in SC yesterday than Obama did in 2008.

    Hmm ;)

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi commits to launch an attack on U.S. soil in the September to November timeframe, his 'vote' would be all that it needs for this country to swing to Trump.

    I completely and unequivocally agree...

    And I think that the WHY is a fascinating study... :D

    I used the term 'racist' (and note the quotes) because that is the term being used about him.

    Yea and lying bitch hag is the term used about Hillary..

    Of course, you'll be adopting that as well, right?? :D

    Hillary won a larger percentage of the African-American vote in SC yesterday than Obama did in 2008.

    Hmm ;)

    Exactly my point...

    The Left Wingery doesn't want to make racist claims about the Clintons, even though the Clintons made BLATANTLY racist comments..

    So, why should ANYONE believe the Left Wingery when they accuse Trump of racism???

    Thank you for proving my point for me.. :D

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    I'm struggling to understand how the Clintons can be perceived as racist when Hillary got 80+% of the African-American vote in South Carolina.

    Given the choice between several hundred thousand African-American voters thinking that Hillary isn't a racist, and the right wing blogosphere thinking she is, I'm going with the people who really understand racism because they have been on the wrong side of it for generations.

    Also, Trump's Republican opponents are throwing about the term 'racist' as well as the press.

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    So I tried to find the source for the "carrying our bag" quote.

    I can't find anything before 2010* and it is attributed to 'sources of Tim Russert'. Russert died in June 2008.

    The conversation was a supposedly private discussion between Bill and Ted Kennedy, who died in 2009.

    It sounds out of character for a person who self identified as 'the first Black President' and who is genuinely admired by the African-American community, but those ol' boys from the South will never surprise me.

    *The quote was used in the New Yorker in 2012 which is a pretty reliable journal, so if anybody knows of the definitive source, let me know.

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Were the Clintons accused of racism in the 2008 election??

    Yes, they were...

    Did Bill Clinton make a BLATANTLY racist comment about Barack Obama during the 2008 Democrat Primary...

    Yes, he did..

    I am completely gabberflasted that you are ACTUALLY arguing these facts..

    But, considering we are talking about ideological enslavement on your part, I really shouldn't be so shocked...

    Slavery is insidious, to be sure...

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    SEN. SESSIONS TO ENDORSE TRUMP
    Sun Feb 28 2016 16:36:22 ET

    The conservative soul of the US Senate, Jeff Sessions, will endorse Trump this evening at a Huntsville, Alabama rally...

    This news will be delivered as a suprise to all 25k Alabamians in attendance at the Trump rally and all participating news media....

    Developing...

    "Trump can't be the GOP nominee no way no how!!"
    -Left Wingery

    :D

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Seriously?

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I mean, geez ... I'd rather watch a Trump rally.

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If SPECTRE doesn't win the Oscar for Best Original Song, then there is simply no justice in the world.

    Here's Sam Smith ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jzDnsjYv9A

  89. [89] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    Did Bill Clinton make a blatantly racist comment about Obama? Do you mean the "bag" comment? Do you have an actual quote and a source?

    Given that two of your "quotes" have fallen by the wayside already, are you sure about this? Where did you hear it?

    Do you know the context? Could it have been:

    "Can you believe how amazing America can be? A few years ago this guy would have been carrying our bags."

    Or "Obama will never be accepted in the South, they will think 'a few years ago this guy would been carrying our bags', he can't be president."

    Or maybe he never said it at all?

    Or maybe he is a closet racist and has pulled the wool over everybody's eyes except for a few 'concerned right wingers'.

    I'm willing to accept the truth, but it needs to be the reliable.

    Does this sound like the Bill Clinton we know?

  90. [90] 
    neilm wrote:

    One on the eye for Cruz - Sessions endorses Trump!

    Whoot!

    Cruz is the really scary one. Don't get me wrong, Trump is a nutcase, and Rubio is a wind up doll, but Cruz believes some really nutty things.

    Looks like I owe Michale a "You told me so" - the establishment is starting to get behind Trump.

  91. [91] 
    neilm wrote:

    One in the eye for Cruz

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did Bill Clinton make a blatantly racist comment about Obama? Do you mean the "bag" comment? Do you have an actual quote and a source?

    Of course I do..

    But if I have learned ANYTHING in this commentary thread, it's that facts mean little stacked up against ideological slavery...

    Do you know the context? Could it have been:

    "Can you believe how amazing America can be? A few years ago this guy would have been carrying our bags."

    yea... THAT was the context... :^/

    Does this sound like the Bill Clinton we know?

    The guy that will say or do anything to get back into the White House with more fertile and nubile interns??

    Yep.. Sounds EXACTLY like the Bill Clinton we know...

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like I owe Michale a "You told me so" - the establishment is starting to get behind Trump.

    Thanks ya... :D

    Much appreciated...

    Trump is going to be the nominee... And he will wipe the floor with Hillary Clinton...

    The majority of really enthusiastic Bernie supporters are enthusiastic because they are anti-establishment. Those supporters will go to Trump.. Independents, by far, will go to Trump...

    The ONLY groups that will go Hillary are the Pro Establishment Groups, the Pro Status Quo Groups and those that vote with their vaginas...

    Hillary is going to be toast in the general...

    Ya'all better hope that Hillary is indicted BEFORE the Primary is over...

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    If SPECTRE doesn't win the Oscar for Best Original Song, then there is simply no justice in the world.

    The OSCARS this year was a joke...

    Claiming that Hollywood is racist is like claiming Berkeley is racist..

    Pedantic pandering... :^/

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Tonight, I’m asking you to join millions of Americans … to take the pledge. A pledge that says, ‘I will intervene in a situation where consent has not or cannot be given.'”
    -Joe Biden

    Of course, Biden was talking about Juannita Broderick, Kathleen Wiley, Paula Jones and all the others who were raped and sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton....

    Right???

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Over the span of a couple weeks, both here and at HuffPoo (never in my life would I have thought I would be able to say that.. :D )......

    "Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are you to use this craft to travel back in time.. Never in my life would I have thought I would have to give such an order."
    -General George Hammond, STARGATE SG-1

    :D

    Anyways, moving on...

    I have put out the challenge for anyone to find a comment made by Donald Trump that justifies calling him a racist..

    To date, not ONE single person has been able to find ONE single comment that supports the contention that Donald Trump is a racist..

    Therefore, there is only one logical conclusion..

    Calling Donald Trump a racist is the "cool" thing for the Left Wingery to do, despite the fact there is no supporting evidence to substantiate the accusation...

    In that, it's kind of like when the Right Wingery says that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. It's the "cool" thing for the Right Wingery to do, despite the fact that there is no supporting evidence to substantiate the accusation...

    Having said that, there is absolutely NO QUESTION that Donald Trump is a bigot. Of course he is...

    But he is no more a bigot than Hillary Clinton who said that Republicans are the "enemy", who said that Republicans are "terrorists"...

    In other words, Trump is no more a bigot than anyone else who attacks Republicans or Democrats...

    So, call Donald Trump a bigot, if you must.. It will make ya'all feel better and won't matter one whit to Trump supporters or Trump's stading in the election..

    But, unless there are any FACTS to support the accusation of racism...???

    Well, that just says more about the accuser than it does about Donald Trump...

    (cross posted to huffingtonpost.com)

    As an aside question to Joshua...

    That my inside voice?? :D

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The OSCARS this year was a joke...

    I thought the show was pretty good.

    Biden was a pleasant surprise. His standing ovation was something more than a pleasant surprise.

    And, my prediction for best song was ... what's your phrase for it ... dead on balz accurate? ... well, it was!

    Not sure what your response has to do with Spectre winning for best song ... I mean, it was the very best song and that's two in a row for Bond films!

    I've noticed you get yourself worked up too easily about EVERYTHING. You need to seriously lighten up, life is too short.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, my prediction for best song was ... what's your phrase for it ... dead on balz accurate? ... well, it was!

    I wasn't too keen on the song.. But on the other hand, I wasn't too keen on SPECTRE.. The entire Bond franchise peaked at Pierce Brosnan and has gone way down hill since Craig took over..

    The time jumping alone was enough to give me nosebleeds.. :D

    Having said all that, I am happy that you called it.. :D

    I've noticed you get yourself worked up too easily about EVERYTHING. You need to seriously lighten up, life is too short.

    That's EXACTLY my complaint..

    Can't we just have an AWARDS show without all the BS false accusations of racism!??

    Can't we just honor great actors without shoving skin color down everyone's throat??

    Everyone needs to seriously lighten up about skin color... Life is too short to go around falsely accusing EVERYONE of racism at the drop of a dime..

    That's it EXACTLY.. You get me.. :D

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all better hope that Hillary is indicted BEFORE the Primary is over...

    Hillary's Victories Mean Painful Legal Choices for DOJ, WH

    Before Democrats officially settle, though, Clinton, Lynch, and Barack Obama have a treacherous bridge to cross.

    Standing athwart it is FBI Director James Comey, an experienced prosecutor and consummate professional with some 100-150 agents investigating the Democratic front-runner, the Clinton Foundation, and (presumably) several of Hillary’s closest aides: Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Jake Sullivan.

    Clinton voters are oblivious to the dangers. Polls show they no longer consider her “honest and trustworthy,” but they still don’t think she has committed any crimes. Countless Clinton supporters have told me, “These investigations won’t find anything. The Benghazi hearings proved it. This is simply a partisan witch hunt.”

    They are half right. The Benghazi hearings proved, once again, that Congress has the investigative prowess of Homer Simpson. They are right that Republicans hate her. Divided as the GOP is, it is united in thinking Bill and Hillary are corrupt, self-serving liars.

    But the GOP is not leading the criminal investigation. The FBI is. The bureau is not partisan, and it is not on a witch hunt. Despite the obvious risks of investigating the presumptive Democratic nominee during a Democratic administration, its agents are sorting through mountains of evidence pointing to serious, deliberate crimes.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/29/hillarys_victories_mean_painful_legal_choices_for_doj_wh.html

    Ya'all better realize the reality PDQ...

    It's entirely likely that Clinton will be wearing two hats after the Primary...

    The hat of the Democrat Nominee for POTUS..

    And the hat of an indicted co-conspirator in a long LONG list of serious felonies...

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've noticed you get yourself worked up too easily about EVERYTHING.

    No... Just false accusations of racism to further an ideological agenda that is at odds with who we are as Americans..

    That tends to piss me off to no end...

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You love the feeling, Michale.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.facebook.com/SAHMUncensored/videos/1096469740395102/

    I want one with X-WING software! :D

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    You love the feeling, Michale.

    Love may be too strong a word..

    I like being on the correct side of decency and common sense, if that's what you mean.. :D

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, that's not at all what I meant.

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you had actually listened to what Chris Rock had to say, you would undoubtedly be in complete agreement.

    But, you don't seem able to listen ...

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://nypost.com/2016/02/28/hillary-could-lose-to-trump-in-democratic-new-york/

    Someone want to tell me again how Trump will lose the General?? :D

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you had actually listened to what Chris Rock had to say, you would undoubtedly be in complete agreement.

    But, you don't seem able to listen ...

    Oh sure.. I listen.. He just doesn't say the same thing to me that he says to those who see racism in *everything*...

    I did like his Jada jab though.. :D funny... :D

    Regardless, I am not talking about Chris Rock.. He's a funny guy..

    I am talking about all the whiners and cry babies who elevate victim status to an art form..

    THOSE are the ones that spoiled the Oscars...

    So there wasn't a black person nominated.. Maybe there just wasn't a black person good enough compared to all the other artists..

    Are the whiners and cry babies suggesting that we put in RACE as a criteria for nomination???

    Isn't that kinda... yunno... RACIST???

    That's all I am saying... I am completely, unequivocally and demonstrably color blind in this issue..

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, that's not at all what I meant.

    of course.. But it's early and I had the grand babies all weekend...

    So, I am a little loopy... :D I mean more so than normally... :D

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Bleyd wrote:

    Completely random thought of the day:

    "Trump trump trump Trump trump." is a viable sentence.

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like I wasn't alone in my assessment of the Oscars...

    8 year low in viewership...

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Trump trump trump Trump trump." is a viable sentence.

    I'll bite...

    How so?? :D

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "Trump trump trump Trump trump." is a viable sentence.

    that's kind-of like, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo."

    JL

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's kind-of like, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo."

    "I.. uh... ya lost me..."
    -Wreck It Ralph

    :D

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    As long as the Democrat Party insists on having a coronation of Queen Hillary...

    Conservatives to Target Clinton Aides After Last E-Mail Drop
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-29/conservatives-to-target-clinton-aides-after-final-e-mail-release

    ...... it's NEVER going to end.

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hope I'm not going to have to re-type that last comment in reply to Michale ... because I am out of time ...

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It had no links, by the way ...

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope I'm not going to have to re-type that last comment in reply to Michale ... because I am out of time ...

    I am sure it will magically reappear soon.. :D

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale [113]

    it's a sentence that linguists use to show how a seemingly nonsensical sentence can be grammatically correct. In the sentence, the same word means a city in upstate new york, a species of ungulate and a verb meaning to completely fool someone.

    to paraphrase, "Some bison from erie county, new york who are bamboozled by some other bison from erie county, new york, bewilder the tormenting erie county bison in turn."

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

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhhh I see... :D

    Thanx

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-if-hillary-clintons-indicted/article/2584119

    An article that EVERY Weigantian should read....

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I wasn't too keen on the song.. But on the other hand, I wasn't too keen on SPECTRE.. The entire Bond franchise peaked at Pierce Brosnan and has gone way down hill since Craig took over..

    That's interesting. But, I strongly disagree, not surprisingly. :)

    Because, with Daniel Craig, we have the most versatile Bond in that his films virtually span the 50+ years-long Bond film franchise, from the beginning to the end or, as it were, the present - from my all-time favourite Bond film, Casino Royale through to the near finale of SPECTRE. Of course, we're told that James Bond will return.

    That's the beauty of the Bond film franchise and why I believe it has lasted so long - each Bond was just about right for his own era, particularly the classic Bond of Sean Connery and the enormously fun ride that was the Brosnan Bond, including one of my top favourites, Die Another Day. Craig put Bond on a definite upward trajectory and helped to ensure that the franchise will go on for some great length of time, yet.

    As for the SPECTRE theme song, I thought it was perfect for the film. Most intriguing is that it is sung in the first person, from Bond's point of view. I think that's a first for the franchise.

    When it comes to the Bond films, you just have to go with the flow and appreciate the special ambience that makes each one of them unique and memorable, in their own right.

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Main Street speaks out: Top candidate for small biz
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/29/main-street-speaks-out-top-candidate-for-small-biz.html

    It's going to be Trump, people...

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Re #121

    Maybe I am just getting old, but I don't like my heros to change with the eras..

    It's like making GI JOE a UN Organization instead of a US Fighting Force or making Superman forgo Truth Justice And The American Way and renounce his US citizenship or killing 6 billion Vulcans to create Star Trek 90210..

    It's nothing but more political correctness run amok..

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because, with Daniel Craig, we have the most versatile Bond in that his films virtually span the 50+ years-long Bond film franchise, from the beginning to the end or, as it were, the present - from my all-time favourite Bond film, Casino Royale through to the near finale of SPECTRE. Of course, we're told that James Bond will return.

    Don't get me wrong.. Daniel Craig is a fine actor.. The blame for the decline of the James Bond franchise rests with the producers and those that push politically correct memes instead of staying true to the essence that IS Bond.. James Bond...

    It's the same type of moronic Politically Correct stupidity that decided it would be a great idea if they made Green Lantern gay or made GI JOE the Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, a United Nations team...

    Pushing diversity SOLELY for the sake of diversity is ridiculous..

    Frak'ing with American heroes JUST to push diversity for diversity's sake is insulting...

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Had a comment ate up by the NNL Filter..

    Would ya mind??

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another front....

    No one wants to talk about Obamacare anymore..

    Poll: Only 15 percent say they have benefited from ObamaCare
    thehill.com/policy/healthcare/271130-poll-majority-of-americans-feel-unaffected-by-obamacare

    8 of 11 Remaining Co-Ops on the Brink...
    freebeacon.com/issues/official-8-of-11-remaining-obamacare-co-ops-on-the-brink/

    Geee.. I wonder why... :D

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Maybe I am just getting old ...

    Yes, that's probably it.

    No, I'm quite sure that's what it is.

    I, on the other hand, am just getting older. :)

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, that's probably it.

    No, I'm quite sure that's what it is.

    I, on the other hand, am just getting older. :)

    Touche' Well played...

    "You wouldn't hit a guy with glasses, would you!? {{WHAAM}} You hit a guy WITH glasses.. heh Well played.."
    -King Candy, WRECK IT RALPH

    :D

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    If actors truly want to make a difference to the world's ills, then I urge them to follow Ronald Reagan and go into politics where they can make a proper difference.
    In the meantime, I urge them to all please stick a cork in it and let the Oscars become again what it should always be: a celebration of cinema, not a puritanical pulpit.

    -Piers Morgan

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3469889/PIERS-MORGAN-don-t-watch-Oscars-harangued-racism-rape-sex-abuse-greedy-bankers-global-warming-gay-rights.html#ixzz41eetH31C

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Once again, Piers Morgan shows that he doesn't know much about what he talks about.

    Cinema has ALWAYS been political. And, what would be the point of a silly awards show for cinema players if political statements, in one form or another, wouldn't be a huge part of it.

    I mean, really ...

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact that viewership was at an 8 year low.....

    Well, it would seem that Piers hit this one outta the park.. :D

    It's an actor's job to entertain, not push their views on people..

    ESPECIALLY when they are such blatant hypocrites about it..

    I mean, come on.. DiCaprio lecturing people about dumping carbon into the air??

    Puuullllleeeeeeesseee....

    That's like me lecturing ya'all that we should be nice to Hillary Clinton... :D

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I thought the Oscars this year was a great show and I don't really care what anyone else thinks. :)

  133. [133] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz [131],

    i didn't see the show, but i loved sacha baron cohen's "Ali G" segment, especially since the academy told him not to.

    JL

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought the Oscars this year was a great show and I don't really care what anyone else thinks. :)

    But would you have thought it was a great show if there was massive pontificating about how we should support the oil industry, how Citizens United is completely and utterly awesome and how the Black Lives Matter group is nothing but a ruthless band of super-predator hate-mongering racists that must be brought to heel..

    Would you have enjoyed the show then?? :D

    Somehow I think.... NOT... :D

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's just asinine, Michale. Because that kind of show would never happen except, perhaps, in your alternate universe.

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's just asinine, Michale. Because that kind of show would never happen except, perhaps, in your alternate universe.

    But would the Liz in that alternate universe LIKE it?? :D

    THAT is the question..

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The Liz wouldn't be caught dead in that universe, don'tcha know.

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Liz wouldn't be caught dead in that universe, don'tcha know.

    hehehehehehe

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.