ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [394] -- Trump Nickname Contest Finalists

[ Posted Friday, June 3rd, 2016 – 17:05 PDT ]

Once again, we've got a rather long end section today, so we're going to present our wrap-up of the week's news in rather abbreviated fashion. This is because we are finally (only a few weeks late!) unveiling the finalists in our "come up with a playground taunt for Trump" contest (which initially ran back in FTP [391]), so there's that to look forward to, down in the talking points section.

So, quickly and to the point: Donald Trump all but declared war (once again) on the media this week, after they actually did their jobs and investigated whether Trump had made good on his claims of donating millions to veterans' charities. Turns out, he hadn't (at least, not fully). When he was forced to quickly start writing checks by investigative journalists, he (of course) flipped his lid. He held a press conference where he exhibited (once again) his sneering disdain for the media, and for anyone who ever questions anything he says. Perhaps this will fully open the eyes of the media who still refuse to call Trump on the carpet for some of his bigger whoppers? One would like to think so, at any rate.

The "Never Trump" movement has now entered the embalming phase, as Bill Kristol announced he had finally found someone to mount a third-party conservative run for the White House (maybe). He is a guy almost nobody has ever heard of, who is still not even fully committed to running. That whimpering sound you hear is the "Never Trump" movement's death rattle, folks.

Or maybe it is the pathetic whimpering of the last major Republican officeholder to renounce all moral and ethical standing and subserviently fall into line behind the Trump candidacy, firmly placing party above country. We cannot claim original credit for this line (we think we heard it on a late-night comedy show, but we're not certain), but the best way we've heard to sum this up is: "Paul Ryan just stuck his head so far up Trump's butt that he bumped into Chris Christie."

Over on the Democratic side of the race, Bernie Sanders continues to barnstorm around California, which (of course) led to disdain and snarkiness about dirty hippies actually voting from the inside-the-Beltway press corps. Bernie might just win the Golden State next Tuesday, which has the same inside-the-Beltway crowd all a-flutter. But Bernie has now succeeded not only in pulling Hillary Clinton in the direction the Democratic Party used to strive for, but he's also managed to shift President Barack Obama in the same positive direction. Obama gave what can only be called "his first Democratic campaign speech in the 2016 race" this week in Indiana, and there was one very interesting excerpt:

And then we have to tackle retirement security. That's something that keeps a lot of people up at night.... Let's face it -- a lot of Americans don't have retirement savings. Even if they've got an account set up, they just don't have enough money at the end of the month to save as much as they'd like because they're just barely paying the bills. Fewer and fewer people have pensions they can really count on, which is why Social Security is more important than ever.

We can't afford to weaken Social Security. We should be strengthening Social Security. And not only do we need to strengthen its long-term health, it's time we finally made Social Security more generous and increased its benefits so that today's retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement that they've earned. And we could start paying for it by asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute a little bit more. They can afford it. I can afford it.

This is in stark contrast to that time when Obama was ready to sign off on cuts to Social Security as part of the (shudder) "Grand Bargain," a few years back. So Bernie is pulling not only Hillary to positions the vast majority of the public approves of, but also the current leader of the Democratic Party as well. Way to go, Bernie!

Things are getting so good that Democrats are now openly wondering whether they'll actually be able to retake control of the House of Representatives. Now that's a dream worth working towards, right?

OK, two quick unrelated news tidbits, and then we'll get on with the rest of the column. The first is the big philatelic news -- the 99th original "Inverted Jenny" stamp (what younger stamp collectors often refer to as the "upside-down airplane stamp") has been located, after being stolen decades ago. There are only 100 of these in existence (only one full sheet was sold), and now all but one of them are accounted for. In American stamp-collecting news, that's about as big as it gets, folks!

And in other "hobby" news, we end with the following report about the intrepid folks at the Drug Enforcement Agency, keeping America safe from... uh, well... maybe not. Here's the whole story from the AP:

A New York prosecutor has told jurors at a criminal trial that a Drug Enforcement Administration supervisory agent and another employee lied by not disclosing their ownership in a New Jersey strip club.

Prosecutor Paul Monteleoni says the men did so because the ownership could prevent them from maintaining D.E.A. top-secret security clearance.

The prosecutor made the accusation Tuesday during opening statements in the trial of Glen Glover, of Lyndhurst, New Jersey, and David Polos, of West Nyack, New York. Glover is a suspended D.E.A. telecommunications specialist. Polos is a retired former assistant special agent in charge of the New York office.

Defense attorney Marc Mukasey says prosecutors wrongly took an investment and hobby and insisted it should have been described as a job on a government document.

It's a "hobby" to own a strip club? Wow -- who knew? That certainly sounds more interesting than stamp collecting, we have to admit....

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Although we personally attended a most-impressive Bernie Sanders rally this week (which we wrote about earlier, with slightly-blurry photos), we have to say that Hillary Clinton was easily the winner of the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award this week, for the speech she gave yesterday.

With this speech, Hillary Clinton has kicked off her general election campaign. She was smart to do so because nothing has been stopping her from pivoting from attacking Bernie to attacking her real foe, Donald Trump. She finally realized this and cut loose with a speech which was downright scathing in nature.

The 2016 general election campaign for president is quite likely to be the most vicious political battle of recent memory. Perhaps even "of our lifetimes." Donald Trump has simply ignored the normal political candidate's playbook, the tacitly agreed-upon rules for propriety in any presidential campaign, and any negative reactions from the media all along, and he's going to continue to do so all the way to November.

What this all means is that Hillary Clinton is going to have the political fight of her life on her hands -- a fight that has already begun. By going on the offense this early, she is signaling that she is not going to lay low for a few months during the summer (this used to be a normal occurrence in the presidential contest, but Barack Obama masterfully defined Mitt Romney very early on in 2012, so it is likely a thing of the past now). She also is signaling that she's fully capable of playing by the new rules (which might be stated as: "there are no rules anymore").

Now, Clinton still has plenty of room for improvement. The speech was brilliantly written, with plenty of humor and snarkiness and vicious (but truthful) digs at Trump. However, the delivery wasn't the best -- Clinton still has yet to hit her real stride in delivering such speeches, and such zingers.

She's got time to improve on this, though. For now, the content of the speech was so breathtaking that few noticed her rather flat delivery (although some did, to be fair). But she'll likely improve her performance over time. By the convention, she should have worked out the kinks and be able to deliver such a forceful speech in such a way as to provoke cheering and standing ovations from Democratic crowds. She's already got the material, she just needs to tighten her delivery a bit.

While she's still got room for improvement in style, on substance the speech was a clear indication that she's not going to be caught bringing only a knife to a gunfight. She's going to hit Trump, hit him hard, and hit him where it hurts him the most. This is precisely what she's going to need to do to counter his blizzard of bluster. Of course, every Democrat is eagerly awaiting seeing Clinton and Trump debate each other, but there likely won't be many of these debates and they're still a long way off. Most of the campaigning will happen through stump speeches. And Hillary Clinton just proved she's unafraid of fighting just as hard as she needs to in order to win the White House.

For doing so to such acclaim, Hillary Clinton is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[As a rule, we do not link to campaign websites, so you'll have to search Clinton's contact information for yourself, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This one, sadly, was pretty easy. They may not all have technically been Democrats, but they certainly were anti-Trump, so that's close enough for us at this point.

The Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week goes to all the protesters at Donald Trump rallies who think it's a good idea to resort to violence to make their political point. The most recent example was in San Jose, but sadly this was not an isolated incident. In particular, California protesters (so much for being the "mellow" state) seemed last week to be awfully quick to resort to throwing things, sucker-punches, and other odious behavior.

This, to be very blunt, does not help your cause. Far from it. In fact, it places Trump followers in the role of being the reasonable ones. This is completely counterproductive, folks.

All violence at political rallies deserves condemnation -- loud, swift, and unequivocal. No matter which side the perpetrators are on. Yelling and screaming are allowable. Threats are not. Chucking eggs (and other missiles) is definitely beyond the pale. And punching someone just for their political beliefs is worthy of nothing but condemnation.

Again: You. Are. Not. Helping. Your. Cause.

So stop it. Now.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 394 (6/3/16)

We have been remiss here at Friday Talking Points world headquarters, we sheepishly admit. We ran a contest three weeks ago, and have yet to announce any winners. But the wait is now over! We are going to present our finalists today, and then we'll pick an overall winner next week.

Because we have so many entries worth noting, though, we had to pre-empt the entire talking points section today. If you'd prefer some more standard Democratic talking points, we would instead point you to the transcript of Hillary Clinton's recent anti-Trump speech, which is chock full of zingers and excellent talking points.

Our contest was, of course, to pick a new nickname for Donald Trump. We threw the challenge out there because we weren't that impressed with what the Clinton camp had come up with:

OK, as promised, we've saved our contest for last. We were prompted to create this contest by an article about how Team Clinton was test-driving "Dangerous Donald" as a playground taunt to level at Trump. The article expresses some skepticism that this will work, and we tend to agree. So what label can you come up with for Hillary Clinton (and all the Clintonistas) to use for the next six months?

We'll start the suggestions off with a few of our own, to get the playground ball rolling (as it were). Trump has reached into the land of cartoons to come up with "Goofy" as a label for Elizabeth Warren, so we thought "Dopey Donald" might be a good comeback. Of course, this one would have to get tweeted from Warren to be the most effective. Or how about "Dingbat Donald"? The idea is to ridicule Trump, which "Dangerous Donald" doesn't really achieve. Get under his skin. Make him tear his hair out (now that would be worth watching!). The last one we came up with (before we open up the comments for your entries) is a bit long-winded, but it does have a nice 50's rock-n-roll ring to it: Trumpa-Lumpa-Ding-Dong. Can you do better than this? Sure you can! Let everyone know about it in the comments, as always.

While we still profess a certain soft spot for "Trumpa-Lumpa-Ding-Dong," we are (in fairness) going to disallow all the ones we came up with to inspire others.

Before we get to the finalists, we first wanted to thank all participants -- we got a better response than we've gotten on the last few contests we've run, so right there we considered it a success. But it wasn't just the quantity of the entries, it was also the quality of the responses that impressed us.

This column runs in multiple outlets (still waiting for that syndication deal, though...), all of which reacted favorably. From commenter "Me." at Democratic Underground we got two very workable possibilities: Dirty Donnie and Dishonest Don. Both of these have the qualities that are needed -- short, snappy, and designed to get under Trump's skin in a major way. "Johnny Armstrong" at Huffington Post also had a good one: Con-Man Trump. [Note: HuffPost comments don't have individual permalinks, so this one link will have to do for all of the entries.] All of these attack Trump's persona as master businessman, which he (quite obviously) hates being challenged on in any way. The prize for shortest and snappiest of these goes to Con Don or the alternative Don the Con (both from commenter "Kick" at ChrisWeigant.com).

There were a few that might be useful for some Democrats, but which are pretty obviously out of bounds for Hillary Clinton herself to utter. The first of these (from "Johnny Armstrong" at HuffPost) was Slick Donald which would bring up the obvious negative of what her husband was previously called -- and Hillary doesn't need that association. Likewise Raping Donald (from "Steedo" at my site), which is a little too vicious for daily use. I have to say, though, "Steedo" made a good case for his entry:

The nickname should flow naturally as a response to what we know he will say. He has already started with the notion that Bill is a sexual predator making Hil an enabler. Her debate answer should be: "There were 17 Republicans running for president but only one was accused of rape, by one of his eastern-European mail-order brides. From now on I'm calling him Raping Donald." And proceed to do so at every available opportunity.

Likewise falling on the wrong side of the "too crude" line was one truly memorable moniker: Dumbass Don (from "flying rabbit" at Democratic Underground). That's got a real ring to it, doesn't it? They could get "Red" from That 70s Show to do the commercials!

Also too crude, but downright brilliant was the entry from "Kick" (my site) or "Kick Len" (Huffington Post). It even comes with a pronunciation guide:

Benedict Donald: pronounced "Been A Dick," with a silent "T" like Stephen Colbert.

That was pretty funny, although we just can't see Hillary Clinton using it, in all seriousness. Also viciously amusing were two entries from "goode trickle" at my site, the first of which would have been a finalist if it weren't for the fact that we also can't see Clinton actually beginning to use it: Trumpenfuhrer (also, as he pointed out, Trump might actually like that one). His second one was even further over the line: Needledick McTrumpstick. Funny as heck, but completely unusable for Hillary.

There were other entries that had some funny explanations, including two from "Mark Moctezuma" at HuffPost: (Bedtime for) Donzo and Dishonest Donald (which was followed with the amusing line: "Do you have hemorrhoids or is that your tongue?").

Our personal favorite in the "funny, just because" category had to have been Clownfish Von Trump (from "Kick" at my site). That one's even got a movie tie-in, what with the Finding Nemo sequel! We're not sure why that one tickled us more than the rest, but Clownfish Von Trump just seems to roll off the tongue (try saying it out loud...).

Runner-up for "rolls off the tongue best" would have to be a riff on a news item (about "Boaty McBoatface") at the top of the FTP column with the contest at the end: Trumpy McTrumpface, from "BashiBazouk" at my site.

There were several entries which relied upon alliteration worth mentioning. Ding Dong Donald ("goode trickle" from my site), Tedious Trump ("Speak2" from my site), and the more ornate Oligarch Orangutan (from "Don Harris" at my site). "John From Censornati" at my site easily takes the prize for alliteration, though, for his two entries: The Mystic Tan Misogynist and Tiny-fingered Twitter Troll Trump. Whew!

There was also an entire category of names inspired by either cartoons or cartoonish characters. Donald Schmuck (from "nypoet22" at my site) is pretty hilarious, and there were also two on the same Charlie And The Chocolate Factory theme: Troompa Loompa (also from "nypoet22" at my site) and Doompla Troompla (from"ListenWhenYouHear" at my site). Those both work well because of the unnatural orange color of both Oompa-Loompas and Donald Trump's face, of course.

 

Contest Finalists

With such an excellent range of entries to choose from, we found it impossible to narrow it down to only one winner. So we're presenting our top four favorites for your consideration. Vote for any of these in the comments, and next week we'll see which one edges out the rest.

Our first finalist was from the cartoon category, and came from "JoeG" at my site: Trumpty Dumpty, which seems funny, snappy, and downright workable all at the same time. Hearing Trumpty Dumpty immediately brings to mind "...had a great fall" -- and you could do all sorts of things with that. The connotations of sitting on a wall and falling off would be an absolute gold mine for Democrats to riff off of.

The next finalist was "nypoet22" from my site, who came up with what was likely the first entry of the contest from anyone, which suggested a beautiful name that really needs no explanation: Crazy Uncle Donald. Every family's got one, we all see them at Thanksgiving and other get-together holidays, and they all sound exactly like Donald Trump when they open their mouths. As we said, the simple beauty is that it is entirely self-explanatory.

Our third finalist was "Balthasar" from my site, who came up with the simplest -- and yet, most vicious -- playground taunt possible: Poor Donald. Wow -- this one works on multiple levels! Trump hates people questioning his self-professed fortune, he is easily goaded by attacks on his business problems, and it also has the flavor of "Richie Rich, the poor little rich boy." There's also a Benjamin Franklin "anti-Poor Richard" theme as well (Trump is best known for his pithy Tweets, after all, and Poor Richard would have absolutely loved Twitter!). Add in the contemptuous and dismissive quality (imagine Hillary sneering "Poor Donald" to see what we mean), and this is a strong contender to win the contest, we thought. He even gives proper credit to what inspired it:

I'd like to take a page out of the 1992 playbook and echo Ann Richards' devastating characterization of George senior:

"Poor George: born with a silver foot in his mouth."

Poor Donald is apt in so many ways, from his thinner-than-rice-paper skin, to his actual bank account, to the way he is in completely over his head.

And our last finalist is from "goode trickle" at my site, who came up with a great pun sure to bring a smile to Conan O'Brien fans everywhere: Trumpf The Insult Comic Dog. Man, who wouldn't pay money to see Triumph debate Trumpf? We realize this one's probably too long to be an actual contender, but it was easily one of our favorite entries, for sheer cleverness alone.

So that's our finalist list. Let everyone know what you think, or attempt your own late entries if the muse strikes you. Either way, we'll return next week (same bat time, same bat channel) and reveal our contest winner. First place will receive absolutely nothing, other than bragging rights among your friends (and online). Vote for the nickname you think would work best against Donald Trump, everyone! And if you really think any of them are perfect, forward them on to Hillary's campaign for their consideration....

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

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

 

267 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [394] -- Trump Nickname Contest Finalists”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's too late to name Trump but Drunken Donald fits because that's how he's sounding these days and I'm guessing it's only going to get worse from here on in.

  2. [2] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    EM

    Ask and you shall receive...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pex6o6f3YE

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He sounds drunk to me without the manipulation of sound.

  4. [4] 
    sd4david wrote:

    Temper Tantrum Trump....then when he throws a fit, Hillary can do a Reagan and say "There you go again"

    Also Donnie, Little Don, and Don we now our gay apparel.

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, I should have included this in the article -

    A big hat-tip to nypoet22 for reminding me to revisit the contest in the first place!

    :-)

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, quickly and to the point: Donald Trump all but declared war (once again) on the media this week, after they actually did their jobs and investigated whether Trump had made good on his claims of donating millions to veterans' charities. Turns out, he hadn't (at least, not fully). When he was forced to quickly start writing checks by investigative journalists, he (of course) flipped his lid. He held a press conference where he exhibited (once again) his sneering disdain for the media, and for anyone who ever questions anything he says. Perhaps this will fully open the eyes of the media who still refuse to call Trump on the carpet for some of his bigger whoppers? One would like to think so, at any rate.

    Wow.. Never thought I would see ya commiserating with the Media.. :D

    I guess the "enemy of my enemy" meme is a valid one..

    "The enemy of my enemy is the enemy I kill last"
    -Klingon Proverb

    "come up with a playground taunt for Trump" contest

    Well, I can't knock ya for lack of honesty.. :D

    Or maybe it is the pathetic whimpering of the last major Republican officeholder to renounce all moral and ethical standing and subserviently fall into line behind the Trump candidacy, firmly placing party above country.

    Again, I have to make this point.. Which I am sure will be ignored, as all my good points are ignored..

    Isn't this EXACTLY what you are expecting Sanders and his minions to do??

    "to renounce all moral and ethical standing and subserviently fall into line behind the Hillary candidacy, firmly placing party above country."

    Something about a GOOSE and a GANDER come to mind.. :D

    "What's good for the goose, is nobody's business but the gander's."
    -Ralph Furley, THREE'S COMPANY

    :D

    Things are getting so good that Democrats are now openly wondering whether they'll actually be able to retake control of the House of Representatives. Now that's a dream worth working towards, right?

    How is pulling the Democrat Party leftward towards the abyss going to endure itself to the people and thereby allowing the Dem Party to take the people's House??

    For doing so to such acclaim, Hillary Clinton is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

    It was billed as a Foreign Policy speech. It was nothing but a I HATE DONALD TRUMP speech...

    But it did prove one thing beyond ANY doubt..

    Hillary Clinton is one of the LAST person to lecture Donald Trump on Foreign Policy... The other, of course, being Hussein Obama...

    My point?? About the ONLY good thing from the Establishment's foreign policy for the last 20 years is the killing of Obama Bin Laden.. er.. I mean Osama Bin Laden...

    For the past 20 years, it's been one foreign policy disaster after another..

    And Hillary Clinton EPITOMIZES these disasters, not to mention having a personal hand in many of them...

    And she presumes to lecture someone else about Foreign Policy???

    The Establishment's Foreign Policy has been a joke for over 2 decades...

    The Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week goes to all the protesters at Donald Trump rallies who think it's a good idea to resort to violence to make their political point. The most recent example was in San Jose, but sadly this was not an isolated incident. In particular, California protesters (so much for being the "mellow" state) seemed last week to be awfully quick to resort to throwing things, sucker-punches, and other odious behavior.

    You see, Weigantians!?? *THAT* is how it's done...

    Kudos, CW.....

    Because we have so many entries worth noting, though, we had to pre-empt the entire talking points section today. If you'd prefer some more standard Democratic talking points, we would instead point you to the transcript of Hillary Clinton's recent anti-Trump speech, which is chock full of zingers and excellent talking points.

    Yep.. Just as I said.. What Klan Clinton likes to call a "MAJOR Foreign Policy" address is NOTHING but an "I HATE TRUMP" speech...

    I am not going to dignify with a response the "playground" (your word, not mine :D ) antics about the Let's See How Bad We Can Ridicule A Fellow American So That We Sound Like 3rd Graders contest.

    But I am somewhat confused... I see a couple names from your site that I don't recognize and did not properly welcome.. I mean, I DID welcome "KICK" and had a pretty decent conversation before he bailed..

    But I don't remember JoeG...

    So, for being remiss in my welcome duties, I submit I be fined 100 quatloos..

    Here's one for you, JoeG...

    "Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does anyone remember the "good old days"??

    When people actually went after candidates for POLICY rather than personal attacks?? :D

    Crooked Hillary??

    Been A Dick Donald??

    Is THIS what we all have been reduced to??

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in honor of Muhammed Ali's passing..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqMk-AuTDZE

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Hillary Clinton EPITOMIZES these disasters, not to mention having a personal hand in many of them...

    And she presumes to lecture someone else about Foreign Policy???

    The Establishment's Foreign Policy has been a joke for over 2 decades...

    Hillary's 'major' foreign policy speech shows how clueless she is about Trump
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/06/03/hillarys-major-foreign-policy-speech-shows-how-clueless-is-about-trump.html?intcmp=hphz04

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [7] -

    Couple of things...

    As for the MSM, I hit them when they're weak, no matter who they're being weak towards -- Dem or GOP. In general, I think anyone living inside the Beltway has an IQ drop of like 25 points -- at least, that's the conclusion I reach when watching the usual suspects on teevee....

    As for the whole "playground taunt" thing, you're not really claiming the high moral ground for Republicans (and Trump) on this, are you? Just wondering. Heh.

    OK, touché on that Ryan-Sanders supporters thing. You don't normally have a point on the whole "false equivolence" thing, but this time I think you're justified in bringing it up. How's that? Hey, I'm in a good mood -- I FELT THE BERN this week. Heh.

    As for Dems and the House, read that article I linked to. Dems are putting a lot of energy into recruiting good candidates in possibly-swing districts. Ever seen "Moneyball"? Same idea...

    As for the "it was billed as a foreign policy speech," thank you for reminding me of something I left out of this article. Please insert the following pretty much anywhere in the MIDOTW section:

    Also, Hillary successfully trolled all the major media outlets in anticipation of this speech. She billed it in advance as a "major foreign policy speech" which got them all salivating and caused them all to run her speech live from the start. Then she did the old switcheroo on them, and read an entirely different speech. This was simply brilliant manipulation of the press -- something Donald Trump's been doing since Day One, and another good sign from Team Hillary for the general election. By the time she got going on her anti-Trump screed, the networks were captivated, and were positively guaranteed not to cut away from her speech. This was downright brilliant, and bodes well for the rest of the campaign.

    There? Satisfied? Thanks for pointing out the lack of commentary on this aspect of her speech.

    Heh.

    As for the violence comments, I really also should have pointed out that this is the second time in two weeks I've had to hand out the MDDOTW to those perpetrating or threatening violence. C'mon, guys, Democrats are supposed to be better than this....

    As for not noticing new commenters, I hereby restore your 100 Quatloos intact and instead fine myself 500 Quatloos.

    I have been remiss in welcoming new users to my site, for which I sincerely apologize and offer up a mea culpa maxima.

    Let me make sure I've covered everybody... in my next comment...

    -CW

  11. [11] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    I wrote an article for Daily Kos this week... and it went to the front page! That's a first for me. :-)

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/05/31/1532650/-Trump-Attacks-and-shoots-down-his-own-party

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    Hope you don't mind, but I dragged this discussion forward..

    SERIOUSLY?!? Was Trump the victim of the violence that he is being accused of creating the environment that promoted said violence?

    Yes, Trump *IS* the victim here because it's Trump that the Left wants to erroneously and unfairly blame for the violence..

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    MS,

    I wrote an article for Daily Kos this week... and it went to the front page! That's a first for me. :-)

    Congrats!!! Normally, I wouldn't be caught dead on KOS, but in light of this auspicious occasion, I'll make an exception... :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for the whole "playground taunt" thing, you're not really claiming the high moral ground for Republicans (and Trump) on this, are you? Just wondering. Heh.

    Heh :D

    If it makes ya feel any better, I DID cringe when I typed it out.. :D

    OK, touché on that Ryan-Sanders supporters thing. You don't normally have a point on the whole "false equivolence" thing, but this time I think you're justified in bringing it up. How's that? Hey, I'm in a good mood -- I FELT THE BERN this week. Heh.

    Danke.. :D

    Seriously, though. The acknowledgement is a appreciated and means a lot to me.. :D

    This was simply brilliant manipulation of the press -- something Donald Trump's been doing since Day One,

    So, once again, Klan Clinton takes her cues from Trump.. :D

    She seems to always be playing catch up..

    There? Satisfied? Thanks for pointing out the lack of commentary on this aspect of her speech.

    Heh.

    Hoisted by my own Picard!!! :D heh

    As for the violence comments, I really also should have pointed out that this is the second time in two weeks I've had to hand out the MDDOTW to those perpetrating or threatening violence. C'mon, guys, Democrats are supposed to be better than this....

    Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

    Yes, Democrats DO claim to be better than that..

    But, when the rubber hits the road...... They ain't...

    As for not noticing new commenters, I hereby restore your 100 Quatloos intact and instead fine myself 500 Quatloos.

    I have been remiss in welcoming new users to my site, for which I sincerely apologize and offer up a mea culpa maxima.

    Fair enough..

    Maybe we should have a SWEAR JAR type mechanism... A Mea Culpa Jar... :D

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does anyone remember the "good old days"??

    When people actually went after candidates for POLICY rather than personal attacks?? :D

    Crooked Hillary??

    Been A Dick Donald??

    Is THIS what we all have been reduced to??

    On the other hand, it would be REALLY hard to give up Rhymes-With-Witch Hillary...

    So........ :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Great article..

    I won't nitpick beyond this one point...

    Trump's campaign is "broke" like Hillary was "dead broke" when she left the White House.. :D

    Overall, I think you miss one very salient point..

    Trump will do well in the General *BECAUSE* he is not Establishment/Jeb..

    This election is about one thing and one thing only..

    The incompetence of the Government/Establishment..

    Hillary is the EPITOME of this incompetent Establishment...

    Trump is the ANTI-THESIS of this incompetent Establishment..

    The voters in America are OVER-WHELMINGLY Anti-Establishment...

    Democrats, Republicans, Independents... We're all sick and tired of the incompetent Establishment..

    How can Trump lose???

    Great article... And congrats on making the front page! :D

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, sorry, meant to say (for Michale):

    "Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?"
    -Ellen Ripley, Aliens

    Heh.

    -CW

  18. [18] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, here's the reason for my self-imposed 500-Quatloo fine:

    From the first day this contest column ran (May 13) until now, I have been abysmally falling down on the job of welcoming new users to my site. I usually do this with a personal comment directly to the new user, so I hope everyone will forgive me for doing it in bulk fashion here. Hey, it's been a busy couple of weeks around CW.com, but that's a pretty weak excuse, I do realize.

    In any case, here is my standard spiel to every new user:

    Thank you for commenting on my site, and my apologies for any delay in posting your first comment. Once your first comment has been approved, however, you should be able to comment on any article and see your comment appear instantly.

    There's only one caveat to that -- you can't post multiple links in a single comment, because comments with mutliple links are automatically held for moderation. So split your comment up into multiple comments with single links, and they'll be OK. Also, this site has a rather robust automatic filter to block out all comment spam (almost a decade in, we have had NOT ONE spam comment actually publicly posted), so occasionally a comment of yours will be held for moderation for seemingly no reason at all, for which we apologize in advance.

    Here is the list of the last few weeks of new users (or those whose login names I don't easily recognize: my apologies if I've included anyone from further back in this list, and my apologies also if I've missed any new commenters...):

    karen rusk
    Steedo
    Kick
    Balthasar
    JoeG
    Dawn
    Teacher1941
    DecayedOldBritishLiberal
    4Crawford -- OK, I just know that's one I should recognize from earlier times, I have to admit, but I do welcome you back to the site! :-)
    sd4david

    This list, I should add, just goes to prove how remiss I've been in following comments in the past few weeks. Hey, I've been scrambling to get ready for the Democratic National Convention (and their security checks) as well as dealing with offline problems, so I claim "I've been busy" once again. It's lame, but there it is.

    In any case, I do fully welcome all to the site, and assure everyone that from now on your comments should post instantly. My comments section is a rough bunch, but we do almost universally welcome in newcomers, that at least I can promise!

    :-)

    -CW

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    My comments section is a rough bunch,

    HAY!! I resemble that remark!!! :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    Yes, Trump *IS* the victim here because it's Trump that the Left wants to erroneously and unfairly blame for the violence..

    In other words, Trump is no more to blame for Left Wingery violence because of his rhetoric that the woman is to blame for the rape because of her short skirt...

    Further......

    "Furthertheless is NOT a word. Stop using it!!"
    -Charlie Sheen, SPIN CITY

    :D

    Further, think about it..

    "WE HATE YOU BECAUSE YOU ESPOUSE HATRED AND VIOLENCE!! WE'RE GOING TO KICK THE ASSES OF EVERYONE THAT SUPPORTS YOU!!!"
    -The Left Wingery...

    To paraphrase Robin Williams...

    "Whooaaaa {Democrat} logic...."

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's really funny...

    If ya'all really stop and think about it (like ya did with the TRUMP=RACIST meme) who has Trump really espoused hatred towards???

    Illegal immigrant criminals and muslim terrorists... How could ANY American have a problem with that??

    Compare and contrast that to Hillary and Bernie.. Who do THEY espoused hatred towards??

    Rich successful Americans who haven't committed a SINGLE crime...

    Once again, when one ignores the hysteria and just looks at the facts???

    Quite a different picture emerges....

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    Naming competition:

    My vote is for "Poor Donald" - it works well in many ways, as pointed out. It will really get under his skin, because it can be use to continually pick at the tax returns open wound ("if your not poor, just prove it with your long form 1040 Donald"). It can be used in mock sympathy ("poor Donald doesn't realize you are not meant to attack your own party's Governors"), and so on. Marvelous stuff.

    I meant to submit "Daft Donald" but I must have forgotten (heavy travel schedule).

    Mopshell [11]: Excellent article! If Trump loses, as I fully expect, I wonder if the Republicans might take the 2016 post mortem more seriously than they took the 2012 one. Your article would be a good primer for them.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    ("if your not poor, just prove it with your long form 1040 Donald")

    If you're not a two-faced sleazy rhymes-with-witch, just prove it by releasing your Banker Buddy transcripts..

    See!! It works too!!! :D

    Mopshell [11]: Excellent article! If Trump loses, as I fully expect, I wonder if the Republicans might take the 2016 post mortem more seriously than they took the 2012 one. Your article would be a good primer for them.

    And, when Trump wins??? :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you're not a two-faced sleazy rhymes-with-witch, just prove it by releasing your Banker Buddy transcripts..

    If you're not a two-faced sleazy rhymes-with-witch, just prove it by releasing your Banker Buddy transcripts, Hillary...

    Grrrrrr

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    EM [1], goode trickle [2]

    This video has been making the Facebook rounds as well.

    Your Drunken Neighbor with Donald's voice:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwp-J1j6Q54

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am glad we're concentrating on the IMPORTANT stuff this election.. :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If ya'all really stop and think about it (like ya did with the TRUMP=RACIST meme) who has Trump really espoused hatred towards???

    um, okay. The Washington Post recently (May 27) came out with a list of 224 people, places or groups Trump has insulted, just on Twitter. It seems Trump is like a human cluster-goo-bomb, sliming nearly everyone indiscriminately.

    As for your specific examples, the problem is, is that Trump didn't say 'illegal immigrant criminals', he said 'Mexicans' and described them as 'criminals' and 'rapists'. This to appease a voting bloc that doesn't seem to understand that immigration along the US-Mexico border is in negative numbers - more leaving than staying! So if anything, Trump's wall would keep them in.

    And Trump didn't say he wanted to ban Muslim terrorists (who wouldn't?), he said he wanted "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." That would include the late Mohammed Ali and Casey Kasem, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Dr. Oz, Janet Jackson, Shaq.

    You might say that's not hatred, but since he describes CNN, Politico and Tavis Smiley as "haters" for doing little more than not saying nice things about him, I'd say the burden is on him to prove that he isn't hateful.

    While he's at it, he can explain this to women, the disabled, Asian-Americans, the British, the Germans, and the Pope.

    As for the very rich -

    If they weren't personally involved in the near-collapse of the US financial system, aren't dodging taxes or parking their money offshore, using sweatshop workers in third world nations, corrupting officials in third world countries, or selling products that they know harm people,

    the rich would still be guilty of neglecting America. Willful, nearly malicious neglect. Consider that the top 1/10th of one percent has as much cash as the next 120 million people or so, yet many of them manage somehow to pay no taxes at all, let's say (generously) a third. So that's as if 40 million people skipped the whole tax thing. It's that huge. Since the poor can't pay taxes, if the rich won't pay their share of taxes, the only folks left to fund the military, the police, the schools, the roads, the courts, and the rest are the middle class. Duh.

    But here we are, infrastructure crumbling, sea levels rising, and epidemics looming, and yet, they don't want to pay taxes for any of it. It's malicious neglect of America's future in return for their short-term gains. It's rude.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, let's not worry that Hillary opened up the totality of the State Department to our enemies....

    Let's concentrate on mocking Donald Trump..

    Yea.. THAT's an informed voter at work.. :^/

    {/sarcasm}

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    um, okay. The Washington Post recently (May 27) came out with a list of 224 people, places or groups Trump has insulted, just on Twitter. It seems Trump is like a human cluster-goo-bomb, sliming nearly everyone indiscriminately.

    And, if I had the interest, I could also come up with HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of people, places and groups that Democrats have insulted..

    I wasn't aware the Left Wingery was such a delicate flower that they can't handle insults...

    As for your specific examples, the problem is, is that Trump didn't say 'illegal immigrant criminals', he said 'Mexicans' and described them as 'criminals' and 'rapists'.

    Trump was talking about those immigrants that are a DRAIN on our resources.. The ONLY immigrant group that fits that category are ILLEGAL immigrants...

    So, yes.. Trump WAS talking about ILLEGAL immigrants...

    Even if Trump WAS talking about ALL mexicans, that doesn't make him racist..

    You DO know that "mexican" is a nationality, not a race...

    Right???

    And Trump didn't say he wanted to ban Muslim terrorists (who wouldn't?), he said he wanted "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

    Yes, a TEMPORARY shutdown of Muslims entering the US so that it can be ascertained whether or not they are terrorists.

    Anyone who has a problem with that is a few fries short of a Happy Meal..

    Of course, Trump COULD have advocated interning Muslims in concentration camps..

    Oh wait.. That's what DEMOCRATS do... :^/

    Sure ya want to go with the holier-than-thou attitude??? :D

    As to the rest..

    So, you are perfectly OK with Bernie and Hillary demonizing a certain group of Americans who have committed NO crimes???

    Hate much?? :D

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, you are perfectly OK with discrimination, hate, intolerance and violence..

    As long as it's directed towards the RIGHT people..

    That's my point...

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which is why it's perfectly acceptable for parents to teach their kids that it's perfectly acceptable to advocate killing Trump....

    :^/

    But if parent's teach their kids that it's perfectly acceptable to kill Hussein Obama, THAT means they are racist..

    Once again, let's talk to Robin Williams..

    "Whooaaaa {Democrat} logic"

    :^/

    Michale

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/muslim-nevertrump-thug-claims-chased-tackled-trump-supporter-san-jose-rally/

    Yea, Left Wingers are SOOO peaceful, non-violent and tolerant....

    NOT

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    The press are starting to grow some wrt Daft Donald:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/03/jake-tapper-asked-donald-trump-if-his-judge-attack-was-racist-then-followed-up-23-times/

    23 times Donald ducked, but he can't escape the racist charge this time.

    If the press (obviously Fox News isn't press) realize that getting Donald to say things they want him to say is going to be far more popular than just letting him riff like a drunken sailor (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwp-J1j6Q54) we should expect some real fun.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another issue I have mentioned before..

    http://heatst.com/uk/five-presidents-eus-jean-claude-juncker-drunk-in-public-slaps-leaders/

    This is the problem with Britain staying in the EU... If Juncker is a prick and makes decisions that are contrary to the well-being of Brits, then the Brits are scrooed..

    They have NO RECOURSE whatsoever...

    It would be a BIG mistake for Britain to remain in the EU...

    Neil... You have contacts in the UK...

    What are you hearing??

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Glenn Reynolds: Donald Trump is the response to a bullying culture
    Abusive political correctness drives voters into the impolitic billionaire's loud embrace

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/31/donald-trump-politically-correct-speech-codes-column/85163810/

    And there you have it, my fellow Weigantians..

    Why Trump will win the election...

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    This video has been making the Facebook rounds as well.

    Your Drunken Neighbor with Donald's voice:

    Well, since we're doing YOUTUBE videos..... :D

    https://youtu.be/vqYJRc0TJkQ

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooopss. Here's another YouTube video detailing Hillary's connection with the KKK..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT7SDjso9uo

    And it's on YouTube so it HAS to be accurate!!!

    YouTube'ing is fun!!! Let's do it some more... :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/ronald-reagan-was-once-donald-trump.html

    Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it...

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    I love, love love 'Poor Donald.' Not only is it not 3rd grade playground, so a candidate wouldn't have to abase herself by using it but, as has been pointed out, it is very flexible. Poor Donald may be imbued with astonishment and incredulity, parental concern, or, as Ann Richards so ably demonstrated, pure sarcasm.

    Poor is the go-anywhere, do-anything adjective for discussing Donald Trump's policy proposals, vision, speeches, etc. Whatever the moment calls for, 'Poor Donald' will support a cogent, fact-based statement.

    I can just hear Pete Smith intoning 'Poor Donald.' For those too young to remember, here's a short short featuring the dulcet, nasal tones of Pete Smith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it2vUEBF_NQ

  40. [40] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Establishment Dems cheering on Hillary's neocon foreign policy isn't going to help her win over Bernie supporters... nor most Americans as the WP article you linked to had the mindless idiot mentioning... and I have to reluctantly say... he isn't wrong about that.

    So, yes, the Trumpon is erratic and unqualified, but Hillary attacking him on ISIS when it was policies she supported that created ISIS doesn't sell well except maybe with the ignorant or delusional.
    That is not unlike attacking the Trumpon for taking advantage of the housing crisis when 5 out of 6 of Hillary's biggest donors she has gleefully embraced not only did the same, but also helped create the problem through a massive fraud.
    Again, maybe it will work with the ignorant or delusional, but informed people with a conscience aren't going to be won over.

    The establishment media praise for her speech (despite the fact that it was difficult to watch due to her "room for improvement in delivery" and the substance) seemed to hinge on the notion that her new approach is going to be effective.
    (would love to see the ratings from the beginning of the speech compared to the end... I bet a lot of folks changed the channel)

    Though I can understand why the establishment "news" media liked her new approach for the entertainment value they hold most dear, their (and the Clinton campaign PR) conclusions about effectiveness seem to be jumping the gun.
    Aren't we supposed to see an uptick in her poll numbers, or a drop in the Trumpon's before that becomes factual?
    Isn't that probably just more of the same "This is what will end his campaign" mantra you've been talking about for months?

    I also have to question the assumption that after decades of practice on the stump, a few more months are going to lead to noticeable and necessary improvement for Hillary.

    And, like the electoral college post, the talk about Dems retaking the House when the Hillary vs the Trumpon poll numbers suggest nothing of the sort also doesn't come across as objective punditry either.

    Assuming Bernie doesn't pull off a miracle, or another factor doesn't come into play (shhh... the report that must not be named)...

    ... and the more that I see of Hillary and the Trumpon...

    ... the more I will happily and enthusiastically be voting for Jill Stein.

    A

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    With the primary season near its end, a defiant Bernie Sanders declared Saturday that the Democratic presidential process should not be decided by party leaders and elected officials, predicting a contested summer convention against rival Hillary Clinton.

    Speaking to reporters three days before the California primary, Sanders showed few signs of surrender, vowing to take his bid to the Philadelphia convention in July. He urged news organizations not to anoint Clinton as the presumptive nominee through a combination of pledged delegates and superdelegates.
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_SANDERS_FUTURE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-06-04-12-55-53

    I don't think Bernie is going to go quietly into that good night...

    Ya'all see??? It's Karma....

    Ya'all were laughing at the GOP over their contested convention and hootin' and hollerin' how grand it's gonna be...

    But Karma said, "Na uh bitches!!" :D

    Karma is a fickle one.. :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    But Karma said, "Na uh bitches!!" :D

    Please accept that in the purest Charlie Bradbury form of endearment... :D

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    dsws wrote:

    I'm too late to be included in the contest, but here's my contribution for the Name Donald Trump effort: Cousin Id. Now, strictly speaking, it's the name of Trump's brain-leech disguised as a hairpiece.

    Cousin Id 2016
    Because I, for one, welcome our new brain-leech overlords.

  44. [44] 
    dsws wrote:

    Here's another possible contribution to the national vocabulary.

    Kkkayfabe (noun): The practice of going to great lengths to maintain the pretense that Donald Trump is "real".

  45. [45] 
    dsws wrote:

    Does anyone remember the "good old days"??

    Hey CW, how's your book coming along?

  46. [46] 
    sd4david wrote:

    The ONLY thing I don't like about your site, and I've been a reader for about a year, is Michale spamming it. If s/he has so much to say, perhaps s/he should create his/her own blog, instead of being a free rider on your hard work.

  47. [47] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    sd4david-

    Heh, you would not be the first one. I think it was best put by one the regulars here, akadjian?, after a long bunch of Michale posts, replied: "Get your own dam blog."

    But the reality is no one would read it. Here he has a captive audience that seems to have to read everything no matter how inane and repetitive...

  48. [48] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Even if Trump WAS talking about ALL mexicans, that doesn't make him racist..

    ..if he could make the distinction between Mexicans and other latinos, and I don't think he can. Besides what you've just implied is that it's okay, because all he did was call the people of an entire country rapists and criminals.

    Yes, a TEMPORARY shutdown of Muslims entering the US so that it can be ascertained whether or not they are terrorists....Of course, Trump COULD have advocated interning Muslims in concentration camps..

    My turn: you are aware that people don't walk around with little stickers on them saying 'I'm a Muslim', nor does every Muslim come from the Middle East. There are Swedish Muslims, right? Just presenting the choice as one of either a full ban or internment is absurdly fascist. So everyone heard the dog whistle loud and clear: Fuck Muslims. We get it. So do Muslims.

    So, you are perfectly OK with Bernie and Hillary demonizing a certain group of Americans who have committed NO crimes??? Hate much??

    As much as the very rich would like to have us believe that suggesting that they pay their share of taxes is equivalent to being beaten in a prison shower, it's not. I'm sure Hillary could say honestly that some of her best friends are rich, so there's no chance that she's 'demonizing' that entire class of people. What she and Bernie have both said, for instance, is that capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as an 8 hour shift and that a full day's work should provide a living wage. That's not radical, or marxist, or even out of the mainstream, and it's certainly not demonization, rich folks' tender feelings notwithstanding.

    PS: we've been told for nearly forty years that raising corporate taxes and wages would hurt workers, and that lowering corporate taxes and suppressing wages would help workers, and the evidence is in: that's a crock of bull.

  49. [49] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oop, forgot to add the symbols in for italics. Looks like I'm arguing with myself. Okay, post [46] is a response to Michale in post [29].

  50. [50] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    P.P.S.: Thanks, CW, for the belated welcome to the site, and for an excellent presentation of my nickname suggestion. Quite a happy surprise, for me!

  51. [51] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey again CW

    "So Bernie is pulling not only Hillary to positions the vast majority of the public approves of, but also the current leader of the Democratic Party as well. Way to go, Bernie!"

    First of all, "pulling Hillary to positions" she shouldn't need to be pulled to is pathetic, and serious doubts should be maintained that her campaign rhetoric can be trusted.

    In my opinion, anybody that believes that Obama or Hillary will fight to expand SS benefits is gullible.

    Obama is attempting to help Hillary with her little problem with the Left (aka the Democratic base) by flip-flopping on this issue.

    Expanding SS benefits is the 2016 version of the public option... an issue a corporatist neoliberal like Hillary can claim to support which will then be dropped like a hot potato once elected.

    Hillary's rich donors, who all support cutting SS (or privatizing it even) know that she isn't serious when she claims to support it.

    The other day you mentioned areas where you know she will disappoint... well, expect this issue to fall into that category.

    A

  52. [52] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthasar
    re 46

    Hillary is a multi-millionaire... who can be seen on YouTube saying "actually, we're not that well off".

    So, "I'm sure Hillary could say honestly that some of her best friends are rich"... uh, yeah, and she could say it about herself too. But she chooses to lie instead, or she is very much out of touch with average Americans due to her hobnobbing with billionaires.

    Moving on, 5 out of 6 of her largest donors are guilty of crimes (not just legalized tax evasion), but Obama's Justice Department allowed them to subvert the rule of law and buy their way out with billions in settlements.

    As for Hillary's claims to support raising capital gains and corporate taxes, be prepared to be disappointed. She ain't Bernie and it won't happen on her watch.

    I fully agree with your final paragraph, but I think you are mistaken in believing that Hillary does too.

    A

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ONLY thing I don't like about your site, and I've been a reader for about a year, is Michale spamming it.

    And the only thing about people I don't like is when they throw out completely inane and inaccurate terminology based on nothing more than ignorance and bigotry... :D

    If s/he has so much to say, perhaps s/he should create his/her own blog, instead of being a free rider on your hard work.

    heh.. Now THAT's funny... :D

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    But the reality is no one would read it. Here he has a captive audience that seems to have to read everything no matter how inane and repetitive..

    No one's forcing anyone to read anything..

    The fact that you do is on you, not on me.. :D

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    ..if he could make the distinction between Mexicans and other latinos, and I don't think he can.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    That's just your political bigotry talking...

    Besides what you've just implied is that it's okay, because all he did was call the people of an entire country rapists and criminals.

    Even if he WAS talking about an entire country, I never said it was "OK"..

    I simply said that it doesn't make Trump a racist...

    But it's a moot point because Trump WASN'T talking about an entire country..

    He was talking about criminals that murder, rape, assault and attack innocent Americans..

    Ya know?? YOUR fellow countrymen??

    My turn: you are aware that people don't walk around with little stickers on them saying 'I'm a Muslim', nor does every Muslim come from the Middle East. There are Swedish Muslims, right? Just presenting the choice as one of either a full ban or internment is absurdly fascist. So everyone heard the dog whistle loud and clear: Fuck Muslims. We get it. So do Muslims.

    You DO realize that entry into the US based on religion IS codified in US Law, right???

    As much as the very rich would like to have us believe that suggesting that they pay their share of taxes is equivalent to being beaten in a prison shower, it's not. I'm sure Hillary could say honestly that some of her best friends are rich, so there's no chance that she's 'demonizing' that entire class of people. What she and Bernie have both said, for instance, is that capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as an 8 hour shift and that a full day's work should provide a living wage. That's not radical, or marxist, or even out of the mainstream, and it's certainly not demonization, rich folks' tender feelings notwithstanding.

    SO, in other words, you have NO problem with Bernie and Hillary demonizing fellow Americans, SOLELY based on their success..

    That's kewl.. You can believe whatever you want...

    But don't try and denigrate Trump for SAYING exactly what YOU believe, just using a different target group...

    PS: we've been told for nearly forty years that raising corporate taxes and wages would hurt workers, and that lowering corporate taxes and suppressing wages would help workers, and the evidence is in: that's a crock of bull.

    That's your opinion and I respect that..

    But it's an opinion borne of political bigotry, not a logical analysis...

    Oop, forgot to add the symbols in for italics. Looks like I'm arguing with myself. Okay, post [46] is a response to Michale in post [29].

    Thanx for the heads up.. I might have missed it.. :D I mean that sincerely..

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    RE #50

    What he said... :D

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for Hillary Clinton...

    Posted directly outside President Clinton's Oval Office, Former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne reveals what he observed of Hillary Clinton's character and the culture inside the White House while protecting the First Family.

    Coming in 3 weeks his tell-all book: 'CRISIS OF CHARACTER!'

    MORE

    The secret project is causing deep concern inside of Clinton's campaign, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

    Specific details of the agent's confessional are being held under tight embargo.

    "What I saw in the 1990s sickend me," Byrne explains. "I want you to hear my story."

    The hits just KEEP ON COMING!!! :D

    You can beat that Trump is going to have a FIELD DAY with this new book... :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Re #53...

    Sorry, I forgot to sum up..

    Trump is many things.. Some good, some bad...

    But there are absolutely NO CREDIBLE facts that indicates Trump is a racist..

    Anyone who accuses Trump of being a racist without ANY facts to support it says more about the accuser than it says about Trump...

    That's all I am saying..

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    sd4david,

    There is a very simple solution to getting rid of me.. While I would be happy to tell you, I would ask that you don't go spreading it around.. :D

    Beat me in debates... :D

    The only reason I stick around is because, either by omission or.... just omission, I usually prevail in debates around here...

    Trust me, I wouldn't want to hang around a place where I am always getting my ass kicked.. :D

    So, you want me gone??

    Gimme yer best shot... I give you a plethora of subjects to choose from...

    Engage and destroy... :D

    Hay, I said it was simple... I didn't say it was easy.. heh

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    I'm too late to be included in the contest, but here's my contribution for the Name Donald Trump effort: Cousin Id. Now, strictly speaking, it's the name of Trump's brain-leech disguised as a hairpiece.

    Awwwww you too?? :(

    heh

    Michale

    heh

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    sd4david,

    Having said all of the afore....

    "Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    My turn: you are aware that people don't walk around with little stickers on them saying 'I'm a Muslim', nor does every Muslim come from the Middle East. There are Swedish Muslims, right? Just presenting the choice as one of either a full ban or internment is absurdly fascist. So everyone heard the dog whistle loud and clear: Fuck Muslims. We get it. So do Muslims.

    But you really haven't addressed the issue..

    What is WRONG with making sure that muslims coming into this country aren't terrorists??

    Like Trump and the false accusations of racism... This is simply another "Sounds Really Bad" sound-bite issue that, when examined under the cold and objective light of reality, doesn't amount to a glass of warm spit...

    It's our government's JOB to make sure that muslims coming into this country are not terrorists..

    Trump is simply stating that the government under his administration WILL DO IT'S JOB!!!

    And ya'all attack him for that???

    Once again, Robin Williams has the floor..

    "Whooaaaa {Democrat} logic...."

    Michale
    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, quickly and to the point: Donald Trump all but declared war (once again) on the media this week, after they actually did their jobs and investigated whether Trump had made good on his claims of donating millions to veterans' charities. Turns out, he hadn't (at least, not fully).

    So, let's compare...

    Trump has given Veterans Groups over 6 million dollars in the last 6 months..

    Hillary and Bubba have given Veterans Groups less than 70,000 dollars in the last TEN YEARS

    And TRUMP is the bad guy???

    On what planet in what galaxy???? :D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can beat that Trump is going to have a FIELD DAY with this new book... :D

    "BET", even... :D

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    As for Hillary's claims to support raising capital gains and corporate taxes, be prepared to be disappointed. She ain't Bernie and it won't happen on her watch.

    @alto,

    she also ain't congress, and it won't happen on their watch regardless. you are aware that tax bills can only come from the house of representatives, right? dems have a shot at taking the senate this cycle, but due to additional gerrymandering after the last census, it's extremely unlikely they'll take the house before 2022, and even then they need a major overhaul in state level politics because the GOP dominates state legislatures and governors' offices as well.

    JL

  66. [66] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It's our government's JOB to make sure that muslims coming into this country are not terrorists..

    no, it's our government's job to make sure NOBODY coming into our country is a terrorist. i have no problem with an extensive screening of all new visitors, but singling out only muslims for special treatment is practically a hate crime.

    christians, jews, hindus, sikhs, atheists or anybody else could have terrorists in their ranks too, so why single out people from one religion and make it more difficult for them to enter than anyone else? either ban everyone equally or come up with a better criterion than religion.

  67. [67] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @CW [5],

    my pleasure :)

    JL

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    no, it's our government's job to make sure NOBODY coming into our country is a terrorist. i have no problem with an extensive screening of all new visitors, but singling out only muslims for special treatment is practically a hate crime.

    When you have a chinese person who has committed a murder, do cops go to Harlem or Chinatown to look for the suspect??

    Going with the facts and the odds is NOT "hate".... It's common sense...

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    christians, jews, hindus, sikhs, atheists or anybody else could have terrorists in their ranks too, so why single out people from one religion and make it more difficult for them to enter than anyone else?

    If the percentages supported jews as terrorists, then they would be taken aside for more scrutiny... But the percentages DON'T support that...

    either ban everyone equally or come up with a better criterion than religion.

    You DO realize that immigration based on religion IS codified in US Law, right???

    Further, let's face the facts.. The Left Wingery is all about NO criteria...

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the percentages supported jews as terrorists, then they would be taken aside for more scrutiny... But the percentages DON'T support that...

    If you have 20% of a one religious population committing terrorism and .5% of another religious population committing terrorism, where does a SMART commander put his resources??

    Basically, the Left Wingery wants to live in a koom-bye-yaa world where everything is awesome...

    And the Left wants to force EVERYONE to live there, regardless of how many innocent people have to die...

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Going with the facts and the odds is NOT "hate".... It's common sense...

    And if there is ONE thing that the Left Wingery is HUGELY lacking, in spades, is common sense...

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "If the percentages supported jews as terrorists, then they would be taken aside for more scrutiny... But the percentages DON'T support that..."

    it is not okay to make people of one ethnicity endure undue scrutiny due to "odds." israel does not gamble with security like this, so why should we? in addition to being offensive and discriminatory, blanket bans on people of one religion also won't be effective.

    JL

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There are only two days left - and a lot of signatures to go - to sign the American Eagle Day petition!

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/american-eagle-dayan-official-national-day-celebrate-our-living-symbol-freedomthe-bald-eagle

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    it is not okay to make people of one ethnicity endure undue scrutiny due to "odds."

    The hell it ain't...

    israel does not gamble with security like this, so why should we?

    Yer kidding, right???

    Israel practically INVENTED profiling...

    And it's why they have been so successful in counter terrorism...

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are only two days left - and a lot of signatures to go - to sign the American Eagle Day petition!

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/american-eagle-dayan-official-national-day-celebrate-our-living-symbol-freedomthe-bald-eagle

    Done... :D

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yer kidding, right???

    Israel practically INVENTED profiling...

    And it's why they have been so successful in counter terrorism...

    You see... The Israelis know that saving lives is more important than being politically correct..

    A lesson the Democrat Party refuses to learn....

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in other news...

    Philippine president-elect urges public to kill drug dealers
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/58fc2315d488426ca2512fc9fc8d6427/philippine-president-elect-urges-public-kill-drug-dealers

    A leader with the right idea......

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3436639/posts

    Meet Juan Hernandez... He's hispanic... He's gay....

    And he was beaten because he supports Trump....

    Someone remind me how it's TRUMP supporters who are violent and out of control???

    I seem to have forgotten what with all the FACTS to the contrary.... :^/

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    most of the bald eagles i've seen have been in canada. go fig.

    @michale,

    Israel practically INVENTED profiling...

    israel profiles based on actual terrorist ties and signs that have been proven to be connected to terrorism, not based on how someone looks or what religion they are. that's why their profiling is effective and based on relevant facts, while ours is ineffective and bigoted.

    JL

  80. [80] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet22
    63

    Yes, thank you for the civics refresher.

    It won't happen with Hillary as the Dem candidate for sure, but even if there were a miraculous Dem sweep in the House, Hillary would find a way to prevent a change in the tax code that would harm her rich buddies.

    If there were a closely divided House, there is no evidence to suggest she would expend the political capital or exert the pressure or even make the proposal... and pretending that leadership from the president on such an issue has no influence on potential results is to deny the historical record.

    But the comment I was responding to seemed to be equating the motivations of Bernie and Hillary on the issue, when this campaign has made it crystal clear that is not the case.

    I wish it were otherwise.

    The Democratic establishment as led by Obama and supported by Clinton has in fact been proposing cutting corporate tax rates even more in exchange for closing loopholes in a revenue neutral fashion which would by definition not address the tremendous shift in the tax burden from the rich and corporations onto the backs of the middle class that occurred over the last 30 years.

    Unlike my opinion of Hillary based on her record and who she chooses to associate with and take money from, that is a verifiable fact.

    Bernie's proposals are for a progressive shift.
    Rather different, wouldn't you say?

    A

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    israel profiles based on actual terrorist ties and signs that have been proven to be connected to terrorism, not based on how someone looks or what religion they are.

    Absolutely, unequivocally and 1000% WRONG...

    Many factors go into a profile...

    Physical appearance is one.. Origination is another.. Overt/covert signs of radicalization is a third...

    These are the factors that PROMPT Israeli agents to run a check for terrorist ties and connections...

    In short racial/ethnic/religious profiling is what determines whether or not a subject is looked into further...

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    while ours is ineffective and bigoted.

    And yet, up until the Messiah entered the picture, there wasn't a SINGLE Terrorist attack on US proper since 9/11....

    Ineffective???

    Sheeya right....

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unlike my opinion of Hillary based on her record and who she chooses to associate with and take money from, that is a verifiable fact.

    "Facts??? We don't need no stinkin' FACTS!!!"
    -The Democrat Party

    :D

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    In short racial/ethnic/religious profiling is what determines whether or not a subject is looked into further...

    Don't take my word for it... Talk to any Israeli who has CT experience...

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the term "racial profiling" doesn't even EXIST in hebrew. yes, a name or an appearance can result in individual scrutiny from israeli security, but it's only in the context of real warning signs. israel doesn't block people SOLELY based on their religion; they profile EVERY passenger until they can definitively rule out terrorism, obviously this takes longer for some than others, but then they move on.

    JL

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    the term "racial profiling" doesn't even EXIST in hebrew.

    Which doesn't change the fact that Israeli operators routinely profile suspects based on a multitude of factors..

    I can assure you that "FAIR" or "POLITICALLY CORRECT" is not considered in ANY way, shape or form...

    Which is EXACTLY as it should be...

    israel doesn't block people SOLELY based on their religion;

    But the US does.. It's codified in US Law...

    Christians are given preferential treatment. Well, they SHOULD be, according to the law..

    It's ANOTHER law that Obama has chosen to ignore...

    It's a moot point...

    ONLY politically correct Left Wingers object to further scrutiny of muslims....

    The vast majority of Americans are all for it...

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I can assure you that "FAIR" or "POLITICALLY CORRECT" is not considered in ANY way, shape or form...

    politically correct is not considered, but it's absolutely fair. every single passenger coming to israel is profiled to rule out terrorism, no matter what their name, their religion or how they look. i agree that the current administration has allowed TSA agents to profile unfairly and ineffectively.

    JL

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    politically correct is not considered, but it's absolutely fair.

    WRONG... Trust me, I speak from experience..

    When lives are on the line, "FAIR" is not considered whatsoever..

    i agree that the current administration has allowed TSA agents to profile unfairly and ineffectively.

    No argument there... :D

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    When lives are on the line, "FAIR" is not considered whatsoever..

    it may not be considered, but it's nonetheless achieved. profiling everybody, no mater who, is the epitome of fairness, whether intentional or no.

    JL

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    When lives are on the line, "FAIR" is not considered whatsoever..

    Something that is drilled into every JEEP at the academy...

    If someone comes at you with his fists, you use your asp...

    Someone comes at you with a knife, you clear leather and drop them...

    "FAIR" has nothing to do with the line of work we're discussing...

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Someone comes at you with a knife, you clear leather and drop them...

    Although, these days, I imagine the vernacular is "clear nylon"... :D

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (75)-
    I thought we were supposed to condemn all violence?
    Just curious- Does that include the prescription drug companies?

  93. [93] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    it's only the rest of us who have to issue blanket condemnations of violence, without exceptions. michale is the only one qualified to decide which violence is "self-defense" and which isn't; the rest of us are hypocrites if we encounter exceptions. do try to keep up.

    JL

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  95. [95] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Considering Rodrigo Duterte history, I would not be surprised if a few journalists and members of various political opposition parties are suddenly "caught dealing drugs" and dealt with accordingly...

  96. [96] 
    neilm wrote:

    I was having a few beers with some old Brit friends, and one of them came up with the following theory:

    You can judge the danger of Brexit based on the stock market. If the FTSE index drops out of line with the U.S. and key EU markets, it looks like the City is concerned the vote will be to leave (to see why this is a concern for the City, check out Martin Wolf's video on the FT: http://video.ft.com/4854069744001/Martin-Wolf-on-Brexit-fears/World).

    My friend then proposed that it might be possible to hedge against a close Trump election in November by shorting the S&P. A much better, and legal, way to bet on the election than the prediction markets.

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    Considering Rodrigo Duterte history, I would not be surprised if a few journalists and members of various political opposition parties are suddenly "caught dealing drugs" and dealt with accordingly...

    Or maybe judges who go against him?

  98. [98] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Hey, Bashi...

    Don't forget about what a peach Fujimori is...

    They have a tough hold your nose choice. Talk about being caught between an aunthoritarian and an authoritarian....

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    Just curious- Does that include the prescription drug companies?

    Do tell....

    JL,

    it's only the rest of us who have to issue blanket condemnations of violence, without exceptions. michale is the only one qualified to decide which violence is "self-defense" and which isn't; the rest of us are hypocrites if we encounter exceptions. do try to keep up.

    I don't issue blanket condemnations because I believe that is the lazy way out for people enslaved by Party ideology...

    No offense intended... :D

    Which is why I condemn on a case by case basis...

    I honestly don't understand why ya'all are upset..

    Am I asking too much that ya'all be CONSISTENT??

    That if violence is bad when it comes from the Right, then it's ALSO bad if it comes from the Left??

    Bashi,

    Considering Rodrigo Duterte history, I would not be surprised if a few journalists and members of various political opposition parties are suddenly "caught dealing drugs" and dealt with accordingly...

    And yet, the people of the Philippines overwhelmingly voted them as their leader...

    What makes ALL of them wrong and you right???

    I am sensing a pattern here... :D

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    I thought we were supposed to condemn all violence?
    Just curious- Does that include the prescription drug companies?

    Ahhh I see what you are saying now.. Apologies. I didn't bother to scroll up to see exactly what you are referring to..

    But you bring up the exact point I mentioned above taking things by a case by case basis...

    Not ALL violence is bad...

    You ever read the Jake Grafton novel, UNDER SEIGE???

    *****SPOILER*******
    *****SPOILER*******
    *****SPOILER*******
    *****SPOILER*******
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    At the end of the book, the citizens of Washington DC rounded up all the drug dealers and hung them from lamp posts...

    While violent, it's violence that I can approve of...

    Drug dealers are scum of the earth, in many ways worse than terrorists..

    If I must get specific (which, apparently, I must :D ) the violence that I am referring to here in Weigantia is the violence that furthers a partisan Party agenda or candidate..

    Allow me to illustrate exactly where I am coming from...

    Trump Support Punches Protestor

    "My god, how violent Trump supporters are!!! How could anyone be so violent over something like this!!! Trump supporters are violent racists!!!!!"
    -Weigantians

    Trump advocates self defense

    "There goes Trump again!! Advocating violence against people he doesn't agree with!!! What a complete scumbag Trump is!!! How could ANYONE support such a violent racist!!!"
    -Weigantians

    Violent thugs attack Trump supporters in New Mexico. Cops and Trump supporters injured...

    {{chiirrrrrpppppp}} {{{cchhhirrrrpppp}}}

    Violent thugs attack Trump supporters in San Jose. Cops and Trump supporters injured...

    {{{chirrrrrrrrppppppppp}}} {{{ccchhhiiirrrrrrpppppp}}}

    Now tell me.. Honestly....

    Isn't that blatantly hypocritical??

    As I said above... All I am asking for is a little consistency???

    I admit that I may have fallen to the side of the consistency trail on occasion..

    But jesus, at least I make an effort to be consistent... :D

    I saids it befores and I'll says it agains...

    If one doesn't condemn ALL campaign violence than one has absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION to condemn ANY campaign violence..

    And if one has to be poked, prodded and cajoled to condemn ALL campaign violence then that's a pretty good indication that one doesn't REALLY have a problem with SOME campaign violence.

    Am I wrong??

    "You're not wrong."
    -God AKA Chuck

    :D

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, ladies and gentle-beings... It's time for MMMMR...

    “If I were {Sanders' Supporters}, I’d be screaming too because they know they will be toast by election day.”
    -Bill Clinton

    Awwwww how sweet...

    Bubba is advocating destroying Bernie supporters.. :^/

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bombshell book reveals how Hillary terrified White House staff
    http://pagesix.com/2016/06/05/tell-all-book-reveals-hillarys-erratic-uncontrollable-ways-in-the-white-house/

    Yea... Trump is SOOOOOO violent...

    Let's put calm, cool and collected Hillary into the Oval Office.. :^/

    "I have been calm.. I have been cool.. I have never been collected.. I've been collected FROM... But I have never been collected"
    -George Carlin

    :D

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of State and a foundation run by her husband collects many, many dollars from foreign governments — governments which are dictatorships? Yeah, I do have a problem with that. Yeah, I do."
    -Bernie Sanders

    What logical, thinking for themselves American WOULDN'T have a problem with that??

    I mean, seriously... The Clinton Slush Fund takes in MILLIONS of dollars from governments that have a HORRIBLE record of human rights abuses against women..

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-faces-test-of-record-aiding-women.html?_r=0

    And no one here has a problem with that???

    Mind-blowing... Simply mind-blowing...

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.
    -Dilbert

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-for-president-of-the-united-states

    The whole commentary is hilarious beyond words.. :D

    Like Homer Simpson says:

    "It's funny cuz it's true.."

    :D

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton took a leaf out of Donald Trump’s book on Thursday, assailing the presumptive GOP nominee in unusually sharp and personal terms in a speech in San Diego.

    It was an attack that thrilled Democrats, in part because it gave them some respite from doubts that had been growing about Clinton’s campaigning style.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/282227-five-things-hillary-clinton-could-learn-from-trump

    Well, so much for the claim that Hillary is not going to go into the gutter with Trump... :D

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am actually surprised that no one here has brought up comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel

    When Sonia Sotomayor said that being a “wise Latina” influences her decisions for the better, that—we were told—was not merely nothing to worry about but a sign of her judicial temperament and fitness for the High Court. When Trump says being a Latino will influence this judge’s hearing of his case, he’s Hitler.
    http://journalofamericangreatness.blogspot.com/2016/06/trump-and-judge.html

    I am guessing it's because ya'all recognize what a luser of an argument it is..

    If so.. Kudos... :D

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrats had a script for 2016. Backed by big-money donors, party insiders, liberal institutions, universal name recognition, the media and terror on the part of all other serious potential candidates, Hillary Clinton would glide to the nomination, her path marked by rose petals.

    Gentlemen would doff their caps as smiling troubadours gently strummed their lutes by the side of the path to the nomination.

    Somehow a coronation turned into “Mad Max: Fury Road.” Every time Hillary looked in the rearview mirror, there he was: a nutty old socialist chained to the grille of a monster truck and screaming imprecations into the wind.
    http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/hillary-is-cheating-her-way-to-the-democratic-nomination/

    hehehehehehehe Now THAT was funny!!! :D

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hope ya'all enjoyed today's MMMMR :D

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (98)-
    Didn't read the book. But if it ends the way you say, then there should have been a sequel.
    In this sequel, if it had anything to do with reality, there would be many new drug dealers that were even more violent replacing the dead ones because only the supply side was eliminated and not the demand.
    The only way to stop this from becoming a never ending story is to make it legal for the people that want drugs to buy them.
    Then the dealers would be able to protect their assets by calling the police. It is the drug laws that cause the problem of violent drug dealers because you have to be willing to protect your own assets. The illegal nature of the business attracts these people to the business.
    While many of these people would still be violent if the drug laws did not exist, they would not have all the money they get from selling drugs.
    So killing drug dealers only perpetuates the problem. Killing the people that support and passed the drug laws is tempting, but also not the answer. The answer is to stop voting for the politicians that support the laws against drugs.

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    So killing drug dealers only perpetuates the problem.

    I disagree...

    You kill enough, the word will get around...

    It's like the DADD (Dads Against Daughters Dating) slogan..

    Shoot the first few and then word will get around.

    :D

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only way to stop this from becoming a never ending story is to make it legal for the people that want drugs to buy them.

    Well, yes, that is certainly a possible solution..

    I can do that one better..

    Let's eliminate ALL laws..

    That will mean there won't be any criminals anymore...

    :D

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Barack Obama had a message for Muslim Americans preparing to observe the beginning of Ramadan on Sunday: He'll protect them from people like Donald Trump who threaten their religious liberties.
    In an official statement, Obama said America would continue to welcome immigrants and refugees, despite “the voices that seek to divide us.”

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/ramadan-obama-trump-muslims-223921#ixzz4AnuLQMKf

    Just a slight tweak to make it more factually accurate..

    In an official statement, Obama said America would continue to welcome criminals and terrorists, despite “the voices that seek to prevent that.”

    There...

    NOW it's more in keeping with reality...

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can do that one better..

    Let's eliminate ALL laws..

    That will mean there won't be any criminals anymore...

    I mean, honestly.. Think about it..

    We can, in one fell swoop, eliminate ALL crime and ENSURE that there are NO MORE criminals!!

    What an idea, eh!!!! :D

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    And yet, the people of the Philippines overwhelmingly voted them as their leader...

    I had not realized 38% was "overwhelmingly"...

  115. [115] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (108, 109)-
    Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than condemn all laws, let's deal with them on a case by case basis and just get rid of the ones that are counter productive and deny citizens that ability to make up their own minds about how they choose to live their lives. The ones that actually result in the abdication by the government of the responsibility to make sure that the suppliers operate in an ethical manner that legalization and regulation would provide.

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    I had not realized 38% was "overwhelmingly"...

    There's a lot of things you don't realize, my friend.. :D

    Ironically enough, it's all based on your partisan ideology.. :D

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than condemn all laws, let's deal with them on a case by case basis and just get rid of the ones that are counter productive and deny citizens that ability to make up their own minds about how they choose to live their lives. The ones that actually result in the abdication by the government of the responsibility to make sure that the suppliers operate in an ethical manner that legalization and regulation would provide.

    And you see no down side to complete and utter legalization???

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    deny citizens that ability to make up their own minds about how they choose to live their lives.

    But, that's what ALL laws do!!

    If the law prevents john doe from stealing, then the law is denying a citizens ability to choose how they live their lives!!

    So, taking your drug legalization position to it's next logical step, let's do away with *ALL* laws that deny a citizens ability to choose how they live their lives...

    If the goal is complete and unfettered freedom to do WHAT a citizen wants then obviously laws have to go...

    LEGALIZE EVERYTHING!!!!!

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Ironically enough, it's all based on your partisan ideology.. :D

    Says the person who supports murder when it fits their political bias...

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Simply put, the argument that ya'all make for drug legalization is the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT that can be made for legalizing EVERYTHING...

    If the citizen's right to choose is the ONLY factor......

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Simply put, the argument that ya'all make for drug legalization is the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT that can be made for legalizing EVERYTHING...

    No, because once you take the money and crime out of drugs they generally only have bad consequences for the user. Most other crimes are crimes because they affect people beyond the perpetrator.

    If the citizen's right to choose is the ONLY factor......

    Considering you are the only one here arguing this, have a ball...

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama's crappy economy is going to kill Hillary's chances of winning the White House..

    http://nypost.com/2016/06/05/the-lousy-obama-economy-is-killing-hillary-clintons-hopes/

    Even WITHOUT FBI Director Comey's recommendation...

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Says the person who supports murder when it fits their political bias...

    It has nothing to do with political bias and everything to do with two and a half decades of seeing what drugs do to people..

    And it's not murder any more than the Obama Bin Laden killing was "murder"...

    Any more than killing Harambe was "murder"...

    No, because once you take the money and crime out of drugs they generally only have bad consequences for the user.

    And your vast LEO experience tells you this??? Shall I list how many people have died in Colorado since marijuana was legalized as a DIRECT result of that legalization???

    Considering you are the only one here arguing this, have a ball...

    let's deal with them on a case by case basis and just get rid of the ones that are counter productive and deny citizens that ability to make up their own minds about how they choose to live their lives.
    -Don Harris

    Do you EVER get tired of being wrong???

    You are making it an obvious habit...

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, because once you take the money and crime out of drugs they generally only have bad consequences for the user.

    And your vast LEO experience tells you this??? Shall I list how many people have died in Colorado since marijuana was legalized as a DIRECT result of that legalization???

    Not to mention how their deaths affect OTHER people..

    I never thought I would hear you espouse the concept that drug usage is a victimless crime... :^/

    Yea.. Yer a liberal all right..

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are making it an obvious habit...

    Get it?? Drugs?? Habit?? :D

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    It has nothing to do with political bias and everything to do with two and a half decades of seeing what drugs do to people..

    And it's not murder any more than the Obama Bin Laden killing was "murder"...

    Any more than killing Harambe was "murder"...

    Bullshit. You are supporting murder. The terrorists had at least some form of due process. Duterte is says if you see a drug dealer, kill them. No mention of due process what so ever...

    And your vast LEO experience tells you this??? Shall I list how many people have died in Colorado since marijuana was legalized as a DIRECT result of that legalization???

    Please do. Actually backing up your arguments would be a refreshing change...

    I never thought I would hear you espouse the concept that drug usage is a victimless crime... :^/

    I said generally, not absolutely. Try to keep up with the English language...

    Yea.. Yer a liberal all right..

    Better than being a supporter of murder...

  127. [127] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Am I asking too much that ya'all be CONSISTENT??

    if it's mentioned in the same breath as your own penchant for judging circumstances on an individual basis, then yes. in your world, everyone must be 100% consistent except you, nobody is entitled to cite context except you, nobody can define a term except you, except when the term you cite proves you wrong, in which case only you may redefine it. yours is a dizzying world to try to navigate.

    JL

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bullshit. You are supporting murder. The terrorists had at least some form of due process. Duterte is says if you see a drug dealer, kill them. No mention of due process what so ever...

    I know that's what you believe..

    But I believe different.. Drug dealers are no different than terrorists..

    The world is a better place without them..

    Please do. Actually backing up your arguments would be a refreshing change...

    Once I did, would you concede the point?? You would simply nitpick and try to debate what the definition of 'is' is..

    So explain why should I bother???

    Suffice it to say that there has been MANY marijuana related deaths in states that have legalized the drug...

    I said generally, not absolutely. Try to keep up with the English language...

    So you admit that drugs are NOT a victimless crime..

    Great.. We agree...

    Better than being a supporter of murder...

    As I said, it's not murder..

    Not that I expect your bleeding heart to understand the distinction..

    Considering you are the only one here arguing this, have a ball...

    let's deal with them on a case by case basis and just get rid of the ones that are counter productive and deny citizens that ability to make up their own minds about how they choose to live their lives.
    -Don Harris

    Do you EVER get tired of being wrong???

    Ooops, you forgot one, Bashi..

    This is why I never bother with substantiating anything with you..

    Because even when I prove you are stone cold and dead on ballz WRONG, you refuse to concede the point..

    This is one example.. My NPA bona fides are another example..

    You are constantly wrong, yet refuse to address that fact...

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    But I believe different.. Drug dealers are no different than terrorists..

    So, murdering is OK if it fits your political bias. Got it. One would think someone with alleged LEO experience would know better. Guess not...

    Once I did, would you concede the point?? You would simply nitpick and try to debate what the definition of 'is' is..

    Just like you are doing now? If you have to put conditions on it, can you really back your argument up?

    This is why I never bother with substantiating anything with you..

    Because even when I prove you are stone cold and dead on ballz WRONG, you refuse to concede the point..

    Yawn. It's really because you fear proving yourself wrong. Something you are quite adept at...

    As I said, it's not murder..

    Not that I expect your bleeding heart to understand the distinction..

    Actually I was expecting your alleged LEO experience to understand the distinction. Were you really a LEO or only play one on the internet?

    So you admit that drugs are NOT a victimless crime..

    Great.. We agree...

    Once money is removed, drugs are mostly a victimless crime.

    Do you EVER get tired of being wrong???

    Prove me wrong sometime and I will tell you :D

    This is one example.. My NPA bona fides are another example..

    You NPA bona fides are nonexistent. As has been proven many times.

    You are constantly wrong, yet refuse to address that fact...

    All evidence to the contrary...

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, murdering is OK if it fits your political bias.

    Only a Liberal would think that hating terrorists and wanting them dead is "political bias"... :^/

    Got it. One would think someone with alleged LEO experience would know better.

    Which proves that you are completely and unequivocally ignorant of LEO issues..

    Yawn. It's really because you fear proving yourself wrong. Something you are quite adept at...

    Whatever helps you sleep at night. As I said, my bona fides are well established.. :D

    Once money is removed, drugs are mostly a victimless crime.

    Says one who is COMPLETELY ignorant of dealing with the victims...

    Do a ride along with inner city cops.. If you have the scrot...

    Prove me wrong sometime and I will tell you :D

    I already did.. Twice.. You just ignore the proof.. :D

    You NPA bona fides are nonexistent. As has been proven many times.

    As I said.. Whatever helps you sleep at night.. :D

    You are constantly wrong, yet refuse to address that fact...

    All evidence to the contrary...

    You mean the evidence of Don Harris's quote??

    You mean the evidence of my NPA bona fides ascertained by none other than the Grand Poobah hisself??

    Where did you address these facts??

    Answer: No where..

    You CAN'T address them because they prove how full of bovine feces you really are... :D

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Which proves that you are completely and unequivocally ignorant of LEO issues..

    So, by your book intentionally killing someone without due process is not murder?

    You mean the evidence of Don Harris's quote??

    I read it and decided to ignore your mischaracterization of his argument.

    You mean the evidence of my NPA bona fides ascertained by none other than the Grand Poobah hisself??

    Another case of understanding context it was given rather than blanket coverage. Nice try though...

    You CAN'T address them because they prove how full of bovine feces you really are... :D

    Yawn.

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, by your book intentionally killing someone without due process is not murder?

    Are you serious??

    Obama has "intentionally" killed THOUSANDS of innocent people without "due process"..

    Is Obama a murderer???

    I read it and decided to ignore your mischaracterization of his argument.

    Of course you did. Because it PROVED you were wrong when you said that *I* was the only one bringing it up..

    But, as I proved, I was simply responding to Don Harris's bringing it up...

    Ergo, you were WRONG.. Just like you were wrong about my NPA bona fides...

    Face it, Bashi... You can't win... :D
    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    if it's mentioned in the same breath as your own penchant for judging circumstances on an individual basis, then yes. in your world, everyone must be 100% consistent except you, nobody is entitled to cite context except you,

    EVERYONE is entitled to cite "context"..

    The problem is ya'all's "context" is "It's Left Winger violence so it's perfectly acceptable.."

    The problem is not that I don't accept "context"... The problem is ya'all's "context" is solely and 1000% based on ya'all's Party ideology...

    nobody can define a term except you, except when the term you cite proves you wrong, in which case only you may redefine it. yours is a dizzying world to try to navigate.

    Not at all... My world is completely logical and based on common sense...

    It's ya'all's "nuanced" and "mitigated" and "equivocated" and "what the meaning of 'is' is" world that is impossible to navigate...

    I call a spade a spade...

    Ya'all are, like, "well, it's a shoveling instrument that can serve a variety of functions, solely based on the the political ideology of those employing the instrument and whether the diversity OF the person employing the instrument is of sufficient political correctness to employ said instrument."

    IT'S A FRAKIN' SPADE!!!!

    Michale

  134. [134] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Are you serious??

    Yes. Very. I read Duterte's speech. That is exactly what he is advocating. I'm just surprised you support him.

    Obama has "intentionally" killed THOUSANDS of innocent people without "due process"..

    Bullshit. And if you really were once in the security services as you allege you would know how the decisions are made. It's not civilian court but every target is vetted and signed off on. Collateral damage and mistakes are way too common and I would most likely argue against much of our middle east policy regardless of administration. But whether under Bush or Obama it's not murder as it's defined to law enforcement.

    Cue: "but under Bush..."

    But, as I proved, I was simply responding to Don Harris's bringing it up...

    If you were responding rather than misrepresenting...

    Ergo, you were WRONG.. Just like you were wrong about my NPA bona fides...

    No. No I wasn't...

    Face it, Bashi... You can't win... :D

    Such proclamations in place of good rhetoric does not lend much confidence to your argument.

  135. [135] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You call this arguing!?

    To what end, exactly?

    This is not argument - it is rather a total waste of precious time.

  136. [136] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    it is rather a total waste of precious time.

    You say that like it's a bad thing ;-)

  137. [137] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Unbelievable.

  138. [138] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Believe it!

  139. [139] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bashi, wouldn't you rather argue the merits, or lack thereof, of President Obama's use of drones throughout the Middle East and countless other such important matters?

    If so, then don't engage with Michale - engage with the rest of us as we ignore Michale's nonsense. He can join in when he decides to actually engage in an enlightened conversation about the issues that really matter without resorting to name-calling and other Trump tactics.

  140. [140] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Feeding Michale is like feeding pigeons: we probably shouldn't but all do it anyway...

    Aside from that, I'm more interested in Duterte than drones. It's an interesting example of the perils of multiparty forms of democracy. I understand why he got the votes he did but is acting more Chávez than Giuliani. Would breaking the control of the two party system end up with more Trumps rather than less?

  141. [141] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Your two-party system is not the problem. Get money out of it and competent candidates and your problems are solved.

    Two parties are enough.

  142. [142] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Feeding pigeons, I would assume, is a relaxing enterprise. Not so with Michale. Not by a long shot!

  143. [143] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    perhaps, but not nearly as entertaining. for example, pigeons have an awful lot of trouble quoting star trek ;)

  144. [144] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Your two-party system is not the problem. Get money out of it and competent candidates and your problems are solved.

    Money is like water. It will find cracks where you never thought possible. All dams leak, just not enough to prevent function. The money problem is this: if you want a high level of competence you either have to pay for it at competitive levels (as in an order or orders of magnitude more than currently) or accept that candidates are going in to office for other reasons, and I don't think you can easily select/differentiate for altruism over ego or greed at the election level...

  145. [145] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I call a spade a spade...

    sometimes... but...

    sometimes you call any object a spade before looking at it.

    sometimes you call a spade a dirty lowlife thuggish spade.

    sometimes you say we can't possibly know whether or not it's a spade, because not a single spade prediction model has yet accurately predicted spades on a global scale.

    sometimes you call any garden implement a spade by association.

    sometimes you say it's not important whether or not it's a spade, because the guy on the other side of the fence has a spade too, and his spade is even sharper - oh, the hypocrisy!

    sometimes you claim an object is a spade, and assume you're right because nobody steps forward to contradict your spade claim.

    sometimes you claim an object as a spade because 37% of the population said so in a poll, so it must be true.

    sometimes you call something a spade because you called it a spade before, verifying your current assertion of spade-dom.

    sometimes you call a spade not a spade at all, because the owner unequivocally denied that it was a spade, and anyhow it was the neighbors who have the real spades. why isn't anyone calling THEM out on THEIR spades?

    sometimes you call a shovel a spade, because it's a "difference that makes no difference."

    sometimes you call a spade a construction crane, because it's really just a matter of degree.

    sometimes you call a duck a spade, because if it looks like a spade and quacks like a spade...

    sometimes you call a garden weasel a spade, because the term garden weasel is just too politically correct.

    sometimes you call your own spade someone else's spade, because only they are the hypocrites about spades, while you treat all spades equally.

    sometimes you call a spade a club or a heart, because they share common characteristics.

    and sometimes you refuse to acknowledge a spade no matter how much evidence there is that it is one unequivocally, resorting to all manner of logical fallacy and distortion to avoid the unavoidable truth of what it is.

    JL

  146. [146] 
    Paula wrote:

    [143] Epic!

  147. [147] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (133)-
    My apologies. I should have known better than to poke the bear.

  148. [148] 
    Paula wrote:

    Hey Chris: You're being quoted on Blue Nation Review:
    http://bluenationreview.com/hillarys-greatest-strength-is-being-overlooked/
    !!!

  149. [149] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    nypoet22 [143]

    OK, no point in continuing, you win the internet today!

    It's Funny 'Cause it's True.

    -Homer Simpson

  150. [150] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    The education professional takes someone to school...

    And, wait for it, it was a spade.... i have this song running through my head now.

    spade,spade,spade,spade,spade,spadely, spade....

  151. [151] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You're on a roll, Joshua!

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Bullshit. And if you really were once in the security services as you allege you would know how the decisions are made. It's not civilian court but every target is vetted and signed off on. Collateral damage and mistakes are way too common and I would most likely argue against much of our middle east policy regardless of administration. But whether under Bush or Obama it's not murder as it's defined to law enforcement.

    It's MURDER as YOU defined "murder" a few comments ago..

    "intentionally killing someone without due process"

    That was how YOU defined "Murder"..

    But, of course, you CHANGE the definition, once you are PROVEN to be bullshitting again..

    If you were responding rather than misrepresenting...

    His position was very clear.. Only YOU are misrepresenting..

    You were wrong Bashi and got caught.. Man up and admit it..

    Such proclamations in place of good rhetoric does not lend much confidence to your argument.

    And yet, you ALWAYS bail...

    Funny how that is, eh?? :D

    Michale

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    sometimes you call a spade a dirty lowlife thuggish spade.

    And I was right, wasn't I???

    EVERY one of you called the dirty lowlife thug an innocent angelic child and the spade, ya'all called a racist..

    I turned out to be dead on ballz right and YA'ALL turned out to be 10000% wrong..

    Did anyone here concede that???

    Not a single one..

    Thanx.. Yours was an EXCELLENT comment that proved my point exactly.. :D

    Michale

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    You call this arguing!?

    To what end, exactly?

    This is not argument - it is rather a total waste of precious time.

    That's your opinion, Liz and I respect that.

    But it's an opinion borne completely from political bigotry and has no basis in fact..

    Even if this WAS a "precious waste of time" then it's Bashi's and Joshua's and Paula's and GT's and Don Harris' and my time to waste...

    Is it not???

    Michale

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your two-party system is not the problem. Get money out of it and competent candidates and your problems are solved.

    Yea, that's what ya'all keep saying..

    But the problem is, ya'all only want the money out of the RIGHT Wingery's campaigns..

    Ya'all are PERFECTLY fine with all the money that's in the LEFT Wingery's campaigns...

    There's a word for that... :D

    Michale

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    If so, then don't engage with Michale - engage with the rest of us as we ignore Michale's nonsense. He can join in when he decides to actually engage in an enlightened conversation about the issues

    The problem here is ya'all don't WANT to talk about the issues..

    Ya'all's "issues" consist of how awesome Obama is or how awesome Hillary is or how awesome the Democrats are...

    If anyone points out how WRONG ya'all are and has the FACTS to back it up??

    All of the sudden it's not a "serious" conversation...

    The facts clearly show this to be an accurate assessment..

    that really matter without resorting to name-calling and other Trump tactics.

    Name-calling???

    That's ya'all's schtick, not mine sweethart.. :D Your comment is a perfect example..

    Michale

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, no point in continuing, you win the internet today!

    It's Funny 'Cause it's True.

    -Homer Simpson

    See, now, if ya'all were fair about everything, it would be pointed out that it wasn't Homer Simpson who said that, but rather it was Fat Tony... As has been done to me incessantly...

    But, of course, you won't be corrected because you are politically acceptable and don't warrant correction..

    :D

    The bias and bigotry is so blatant and thick you can cut it with a knife...

    Michale

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz (133)-
    My apologies. I should have known better than to poke the bear.

    Yes... But, of course, it's **ALL** my fault right?? :^D

    Michale

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    The education professional takes someone to school...

    Don't you have a denial to address somewhere?? :D

    Besides, as I have proven, the educational professional just proved my point perfectly...

    Michale

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see ya'all have gone from 3rd graders on a playground to high school bullies in record time...

    Impressive...

    But ya'all should know me well enough to know how I respond to bullies...

    Michale

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny... :D

    As little as a few weeks ago, everyone here was talking about the GOP's contested convention.. It was non-stop "It's going to be a bloodbath!!!" and "There will be violence!!!" and so on and so on ad nasuem..

    But NOW.....

    Now that the GOP convention is going to go as smooth as silk...

    Now it's the DEMCORAT convention that's going to be full of violence and bloodshed...

    NOW no one wants to talk about contested conventions, eh?? :D

    "Gee, I wonder why that is!!!"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

    I know, I know.. No one here can concede that I was right and ya'all were wrong...

    I understand why ya'all can't and I forgive ya'all.. Even Bashi... :D

    Michale

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    This BREXIT issue continues to fascinate me..

    It's amazing.. ALL the reasons that people give to go against BREXIST are corporatist profits reasons..

    "A disaster for everyone" is how Henri de Castries, the boss of AXA and a director of HSBC, describes Brexit. But in particular, it is a disaster for his banking and big business colleagues at Bilderberg. Thomas Enders, the CEO of Airbus, who sits on Bilderberg's steering committee – the group's governing body – said, in a recent interview with CNBC, that his industry would be "lobbying" against Brexit.

    Goldman Sachs has two senior representatives on Bilderberg's steering committee: James A. Johnson, a board member of the bank, and Robert Zoellick, the chairman of Goldman Sachs' board of international advisors. We know from Charity Commission accounts that Goldman Sachs, along with BP, is one of the key funders of the group, and we also know that they've been pumping "a substantial six-figure sum" into the Remain campaign. And Goldman Sachs doesn't spend money lightly. The Remain campaign is clearly close to whatever they have instead of a heart.
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bilderberg-2016-we-can-expect-desperate-lobbying-against-brexit-big-business-1563898

    All the people that ya'all claim to hate.. The bankers, the CEOs... ALL of the people ya'all demonize on a regular basis..

    They are ALL for keeping Britain in the EU because of corporate profits...

    Kinda puts the BREXIT issue into a whole new light, eh?? :D

    Michale

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    and sometimes you refuse to acknowledge a spade no matter how much evidence there is that it is one unequivocally, resorting to all manner of logical fallacy and distortion to avoid the unavoidable truth of what it is.

    You mean, like you do when it was PROVEN beyond ANY doubt that Hilllary lied, yet you refused to concede this fact??

    You mean, like that?? :D

    Joshua, you were wrong.. Hillary lied.. And you simply CAN'T concede the fact that I was right and ya'all were wrong...

    It's like if you buy a used truck and you say, "Michale, look at this awesome truck I bought!!!"

    And I say, "That's a great used truck, Joshua!!"

    But you INSIST, "It's NOT a 'used' truck, you idjut!!! It's a 'PRE-OWNED' truck!!"

    And I respond, "Yea.. like I said... a USED truck.."

    "NOT USED!!!! PRE-OWNED!!!! PRE-OWNED!!! PRE-OWNED!!!! PRE-OWNED!!!!"

    Ya'all get so caught up in semantics and what the definition of 'is' is that you sound batshit crazy..

    But, what's REALLY funny is that ya'all's batshit crazy semantics ONLY occur when you defend Democrats...

    When we're talking about Republicans, a spade is a spade...

    When we are talking about Democrats, it's it's a shoveling instrument that can serve a variety of functions, solely based on the the political ideology of those employing the instrument and whether the diversity OF the person employing the instrument is of sufficient political correctness to employ said instrument.

    And what makes it all even more hilarious is that ya'all are so blatant about the hypocrisy, but DENY that it IS hypocrisy..

    Would you ever defend a Republican that lied with the semantical "lawyerly evasion"????

    "Ya know, people.. Bush didn't lie. He just engaged in 'lawyerly evasions'..."

    Would that cross *ANY* of ya'all's lips... er... fingers???

    Of course not..... Democrats are as pure as the driven snow... Republicans are Mark Pellegrino incarnate...

    Pure, unadulterated bigotry...

    Michale

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    He can join in when he decides to actually engage in an enlightened conversation about the issues that really matter without resorting to name-calling and other Trump tactics.

    Have you every chided or condemned John From Censornati on his "non serious" postings??

    JFC is *THE* most non-serious commenter in Weigantia. Even BASHI agreed with me that JFC needs to come with a translation matrix..

    But have you ever condemned him for his non-serious posts??

    No.. And the reason you haven't is because JFC is politically acceptable to you and says things that YOU agree with.. Hence, he is serious by your "standards"...

    That's why I can't take your accusations of being "non-serious" at face value..

    Because the FACTS clearly show that your ONLY criteria for "non-serious" is that it speaks ill of Democrats.. Anything that puts the Left Wingery in a bad light is "not serious"....

    Anything that says how awesome the Left Wingery is and how bad/evil the Republicans are is automagically "serious"...

    Am I wrong???

    Nope.. I'm not...

    Michale

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    But whether under Bush or Obama it's not murder as it's defined to law enforcement.

    Yet, MANY people here in Weigantia have accused Bush of murder..

    Did you call them on it?? Did you correct them??

    No you did not...

    Ergo, it's only "not murder" when the POTUS doesn't have a '-D' after his name....

    Michale

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ergo, it's only "not murder" when the POTUS doesn't have a '-D' after his name....

    Grrrrrrr

    Ergo, it's only "not murder" when the POTUS has a '-D' after his name....

    That's what I get for trying to do a triple negative with a full gainer and a half twist.. :D

    Michale

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    My lovely wife and I watched ZOOTOPIA last night.. :D

    It was a really funny movie, but the one thing that really hit me was how it nearly exactly paralleled the Democrat/Republican narrative as told by the Democrat Party..

    One of the characters is a dead on ballz accurate ringer for Hillary Clinton..

    I highly recommend a viewing.. :D

    Michale

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    All the people that ya'all claim to hate.. The bankers, the CEOs... ALL of the people ya'all demonize on a regular basis..

    They are ALL for keeping Britain in the EU because of corporate profits...

    Kinda puts the BREXIT issue into a whole new light, eh?? :D

    At least, it would for those who are not enslaved by Party ideology and dogma..

    But ya'all should know me well enough to know how I respond to bullies...

    :D

    Michale

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    JFC is *THE* most non-serious commenter in Weigantia. Even BASHI agreed with me that JFC needs to come with a translation matrix..

    10,000 Quatloos says Bashi denies EVER agreeing with me on this.. :D

    Michale

  170. [170] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Michale,

    No,

    I don't have anything to address.

    It really is as simple as this, YOU asked the partisan question.

    YOU received the APPROPRIATE answer to your question that illustrated the flaw in your basic question.

    YOU did not like the answer and had nothing in the gas tank and so you took the discussion off target...I simply killed time on a layover from hell.

    YOU never directly asked my position, like most adults would, YOU simply assumed I support STRICTLY left wing violence, it could very well be that I also support right wing violence...or no violence.

    Plain and simple FACT is you don't know and YOU did not ask...so STFU when it comes to issuing your opinion on my position, especially when you can't be bothered to ask properly.

    On behalf of Bash,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DYje57V_BY

  171. [171] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    or if that source was not good enough.

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

  172. [172] 
    goode trickle wrote:
  173. [173] 
    goode trickle wrote:
  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the truth finally comes out!!!

    Trump provided a private jet for Dick Roman...
    http://sjfm.us/temp/trump.jpg

    Trump is a Leviathan!!!! :D

    Michale

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    YOU received the APPROPRIATE answer to your question that illustrated the flaw in your basic question.

    YOU did not like the answer and had nothing in the gas tank and so you took the discussion off target...I simply killed time on a layover from hell.

    How the hell could I have known whether I liked it or not??

    I couldn't even UNDERSTAND it!!! I figured you were taking lessons from JFC or something.. :D

    YOU never directly asked my position, like most adults would, YOU simply assumed I support STRICTLY left wing violence, it could very well be that I also support right wing violence...or no violence.

    Of course I assumed you support Left Wing violence because you never condemn Left Wing violence...

    But you sure are eager to speak up against RIGHT Wing violence..

    So, it IS a logical conclusion to come to..

    Plain and simple FACT is you don't know and YOU did not ask...so STFU when it comes to issuing your opinion on my position, especially when you can't be bothered to ask properly.

    Forgive me for not asking "properly"...

    What is "properly" in Left Wingery Hypocrisy??? I don't speak "hypocrisy" so I wouldn't know...

    Plain and simple FACT is you don't know and YOU did not ask...so STFU

    Blow me.. :D

    Michale

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:


    or if that source was not good enough.

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

    Yea, *I* know that Homer said it..

    But that didn't stop Weigantians from bashing me over it... :D

    Several times, as a matter of fact..

    It just proves my point..

    If you are politically acceptable, you can say ANY inane or bullshit thing you want (see JFC) and no one says boo...

    But if you are NOT politically acceptable, you get hammered on the most silliest and moronic nit-picking points imaginable..

    Like JL, you proved my point perfectly... :D

    Thank you... :D

    Michale

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    YOU never directly asked my position, like most adults would, YOU simply assumed I support STRICTLY left wing violence, it could very well be that I also support right wing violence...or no violence.

    But if I HAVE to ask about condemning LEFT wing violence (which is funny because I never had to ASK if you condemn violence from the Right Wing. You were always right there condemning it without ANY prompting).... I'll go ahead and ask..

    DO you condemn violence and thuggery from Left Wingers directed at Trump and his supporters....

    {{{chiirrrrrppppppppp}}} {{cchiiirrrrrrrrpppppp}}

    Michale

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me dumb it down for ya, GT...

    If you condemn the Right Wingery for even the SLIGHTEST iota of violence at the drop of a dime...

    And you completely ignore the brutal and horrific violence from the Left Wingery....

    Isn't the ONLY logical conclusion is that you support violence from the Left Wingery??

    Don't hate me just because I forgo hysterical partisanship and deal exclusively in logic and facts....

    Michale

  179. [179] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    DO you condemn violence and thuggery from Left Wingers directed at Trump and his supporters....

    Why yes in fact I find it very unhelpful, dangerous, and a waste of time and energy....CW said it very succinctly

    Now that wasn't so hard was it?

    {{{chiirrrrrppppppppp}}} {{cchiiirrrrrrrrpppppp}}

    Really? really? I guess I was lucky that i am waiting to go to Portland, Finaly some American food...

    Don't hate me just because I forgo hysterical partisanship and deal exclusively in logic and facts....

    Sorry, I don't invest enough emotion in comment sections to have that level of emotional attachment where hate could come into play. As for the rest of it ..I am glad to see you have a rich and subtle sense of humor :D

    Have fun Gang i'm out of comment land for the next 10 D or so....

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why yes in fact I find it very unhelpful, dangerous, and a waste of time and energy....CW said it very succinctly

    OK, fair enough... I accept your claim that you oppose Left Wingery violence against the Right Wingery..

    Now that wasn't so hard was it?

    No, it wasn't hard... But it COULD have been avoided if you would have just staked a claim as you would have if it were Right Wingery violence... :D

    Sorry, I don't invest enough emotion in comment sections to have that level of emotional attachment where hate could come into play.

    Ahhhhhh I guess the SHUT THE FUCK UP acronym kinda threw me... :D heh

    As for the rest of it ..I am glad to see you have a rich and subtle sense of humor :D

    I do indeed.. It's one of my best traits.. Thank you for noticing...

    :D

    Fly safe....

    Michale

  181. [181] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Name-calling??? That's ya'all's schtick, not mine sweethart..

    Yes, of course. Just like Trump, you can dish it out alright but your thin skin won't let you take it. :)

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, of course. Just like Trump, you can dish it out alright but your thin skin won't let you take it. :)

    Come'on Liz..

    I would think that my being here after TEN YEARS of it would prove beyond ANY doubt that I can "take" it... :D

    Michale

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't mistake my responding in kind as any indication that I cannot "take it"...

    I can take it just fine.. And, like Trump, I usually give a LOT better than I get.. :D

    Michale

  184. [184] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You can take it, just not very well.

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can take it, just not very well.

    I respect your opinion...

    I know, I know.. You would prefer I simply cower with a. "Please sir, can I have some more..."

    But when I am attacked, bullied and ganged up on, I simply respond in kind..

    The right that ya'all exercise to abuse me is the same right I have to respond in kind... :D

    It's not a difficult concept...

    We can have nice, pleasant interesting discussions and debates....

    Or we can get down in the mud and wallow around, lashing out and slinging our poo at each other... :D

    Whichever way ya'all wanna go... :D

    Michale

  186. [186] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    That was how YOU defined "Murder"..

    Yes, I did. Enemies of the US usually don't like to come to the US and sit in a courtroom with their twelve jurors before being sent back and then killed so the military has other forms of due process to identify targets that are acceptable to kill.

    But, of course, you CHANGE the definition, once you are PROVEN to be bullshitting again..

    I did not change anything. If you projected your own definition of due process, that's on you.

    Did you call them on it?? Did you correct them??

    Can you show me in the bylaws of this site where I am obligated to do so?

    See, now, if ya'all were fair about everything, it would be pointed out that it wasn't Homer Simpson who said that, but rather it was Fat Tony... As has been done to me incessantly...

    Fat Tony says: it's funny because it's true.
    Homer says: it's funny cause' it's true.

    My quote was "Homer" correct and not "Tony" correct, therefore attributed to Homer...

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    I did not change anything.

    Despite the fact that I PROVED you did..

    Can you show me in the bylaws of this site where I am obligated to do so?

    No laws.. But you don't get to say you are not a hypocrite over it because the facts clearly show you are...

    Fat Tony says: it's funny because it's true.
    Homer says: it's funny cause' it's true.

    OMG, really!!!??????

    Oh come on.. Please!!! Let's talk about what the definition of 'is' is!!!! Can we do that next!!!!

    You guys are HILARIOUS the way you fall all over yourselves to justify the unjustifiable!!!! :D

    Seriously.. You crack me up... :D

    Michale

  188. [188] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Despite the fact that I PROVED you did..

    Ah, no.

    No laws.. But you don't get to say you are not a hypocrite over it because the facts clearly show you are...

    I would only be a hypocrite if I called Bush a murder, which I am pretty sure I did not, but you are welcome to check...

    OMG, really!!!??????

    Oh come on.. Please!!! Let's talk about what the definition of 'is' is!!!! Can we do that next!!!!

    You guys are HILARIOUS the way you fall all over yourselves to justify the unjustifiable!!!! :D

    You suck at Simpson quotes, no need to get hysterical about it :D

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    Homer says: it's funny cause' it's true.

    Since nit-picking and lames are the name of your game..

    That should be 'cause, not cause'

    Lames are so.... lame... :D

    Michale

  190. [190] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Weak.

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ah, no.

    Yep.. You changed the definition when I called you on your BS.. :D

    I would only be a hypocrite if I called Bush a murder, which I am pretty sure I did not, but you are welcome to check...

    You would be a hypocrite when you always correct me, but you didn't correct anyone who claimed Bush was a murderer...

    Ergo, the HYPOCRITE label fits perfectly..

    You suck at Simpson quotes, no need to get hysterical about it :D

    And you suck at actually debating anything.. Your "arguments" consist of "I know you are, but what am I!?"

    Are you REALLY going to talk to ME quotes??? Son, I can run rings around you... :D

    But regardless of all these FACTS, the point of this particular issue as that I had the Simpsons quotes correct, but I was jumped on...

    YOU had the Simpson quote incorrect and were given a pass...

    That's the point... :D

    Michale

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    Weak.

    Yes, I know.. But, since I have to stoop to your level, it's what we got... :D

    Michale

  193. [193] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Yep.. You changed the definition when I called you on your BS.. :D

    You might want to re-read the thread. As I have no idea what you are talking about. Where did I redefine anything?

    Are you REALLY going to talk to ME quotes??? Son, I can run rings around you... :D

    Well, maybe, just not Simpsons quotes...

    But regardless of all these FACTS, the point of this particular issue as that I had the Simpsons quotes correct, but I was jumped on...

    Well, if you knew your Simpsons quotes, you would have either written the correct version of "(be)cause" in the first place or knew enough to rip them a new one for wrongly accusing you. But you don't, so you didn't.

    Don't blame me for your lack of Simpsons knowledge...

    YOU had the Simpson quote incorrect and were given a pass...

    Oh no! I made a slight punctuation error! It's the end of the world! I will never be able to show my face in polite society again... or something like that. Yawn. But hey, with your rhetoric failing you, maybe you have a career as a spelling and grammar nazi...

  194. [194] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But when I am attacked, bullied and ganged up on, I simply respond in kind..The right that ya'all exercise to abuse me is the same right I have to respond in kind... :D

    You have that completely ass-backwards, Michale.

  195. [195] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Which, by the way, is another Trump tactic. :)

  196. [196] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We can have nice, pleasant interesting discussions and debates....

    Please, let me know when you are ready to travel that road.

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    You might want to re-read the thread. As I have no idea what you are talking about. Where did I redefine anything?

    And then you plead ignorance.. Yep, pure Bashi.. :D

    Well, if you knew your Simpsons quotes, you would have either written the correct version of "(be)cause" in the first place or knew enough to rip them a new one for wrongly accusing you. But you don't, so you didn't.

    At the time, I DID...

    Did it make any difference?? Nope...

    I was still attacked...

    As usual, you miss the point.. :^/

    Oh no! I made a slight punctuation error! It's the end of the world! I will never be able to show my face in polite society again... or something like that.

    And *I* made a slight cause/because error.. And it WAS the end of the world!! At least it was for those enslaved by Party ideology...

    Michale

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You have that completely ass-backwards, Michale.

    I would ask exactly HOW I have it "completely ass-backwards" but I know you would simply ignore it because you have no rational response..

    So I won't bother asking..

    "Good morning Danny, you're late. I know you don't have a good excuse so I won't force you to come up with a bad one."
    -Captain Whitaker

    :D

    Please, let me know when you are ready to travel that road.

    I am ALWAYS on that road..

    But often times I get mugged by thugs and cretins and get pulled off to side roads.. :D

    Michale

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You have that completely ass-backwards, Michale.

    I would ask exactly HOW I have it "completely ass-backwards" but I know you would simply ignore it because you have no rational response..

    So I won't bother asking..

    "Good morning Danny, you're late. I know you don't have a good excuse so I won't force you to come up with a bad one."
    -Captain Whitaker

    :D

    Please, let me know when you are ready to travel that road.

    I am ALWAYS on that road..

    But often times I get mugged by thugs and cretins and get pulled off to side roads.. :D

    Michale

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welp, now that the Primaries are over...

    NOW the REAL fun begins... :D

    Michale

  201. [201] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You wrote, "But when I am attacked, bullied and ganged up on, I simply respond in kind..The right that ya'all exercise to abuse me is the same right I have to respond in kind..." :D

    You have it ass-backwards in the sense that you are the attacker, bully and you gang up on everyone here, all the time in countless ways. The abuse does not come from us. We only point out your bully ways.

    You may respond as you wish.

  202. [202] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am ALWAYS on that road..

    You wouldn't know that road if you fell over that road, I'm very sorry to say.

  203. [203] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In listening to Trump and his surrogates try to explain away his inherently racist comments about a sitting judge, it's clear that Trump's tactics are your very own. Which is to say that you both try to turn your own inability to argue based on the facts into a contest of who can debase the facts in a more completely incoherent fashion.

    It's really amazing how you and Trump use precisely the same tactics!

  204. [204] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Even Ron Fournier sees Trump for precisely what he is.

  205. [205] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But often times I get mugged by thugs and cretins and get pulled off to side roads.. :D

    Is that how you think of all of us?

  206. [206] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is that how you think of all of us?

    It's how I sometimes think of some of you...

    Especially since Friday...

    Michale

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    In listening to Trump and his surrogates try to explain away his inherently racist comments about a sitting judge,

    Interesting..

    But when Sotomayer said that should would use her latina heritage to guide her decisions.. No one here had ANY problem with that..

    But now we have a hispanic judge who is a member of a racist organization and Trump merely points out the EXACT same thing that Sotomayer said..

    All of the sudden, ya'all have a problem with it..

    How is this not hypocrisy???

    Michale

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is that how you think of all of us?

    Take sp4david's drive-by ignorant, bigoted and completely false statement for example..

    He spews a bile of ignorant crap and then runs away and hides..

    If THAT is not a rhetorical mugging, what is???

    Michale

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting..

    But when Sotomayer said that should would use her latina heritage to guide her decisions.. No one here had ANY problem with that..

    But now we have a hispanic judge who is a member of a racist organization and Trump merely points out the EXACT same thing that Sotomayer said..

    All of the sudden, ya'all have a problem with it..

    How is this not hypocrisy???

    I know, I know, I know...

    It's a "non-serious" response..

    Most of my facts ARE 'non-serious' around here...

    :^/

    But hay... At least I have sarcasm.. :D

    Michale

  210. [210] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    As usual, you miss the point.. :^/

    What? That it's OK to lash out at someone for the correct usage (minus a tiny punctuation error) of Sipmpsons quotes because you could not successfully defend yourself in a similar situation? I had not realized you were such a delicate flower...

    And then you plead ignorance.. Yep, pure Bashi.. :D

    And you try to change the subject to avoid admitting you support murder. That had not gone unnoticed...

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    What? That it's OK to lash out at someone for the correct usage (minus a tiny punctuation error) of Sipmpsons quotes because you could not successfully defend yourself in a similar situation? I had not realized you were such a delicate flower...

    Like I said..

    You missed the point...

    And you try to change the subject to avoid admitting you support murder. That had not gone unnoticed...

    I support YOUR definition of murder...

    The first one. Not the one you changed it to when your bullshit was exposed for all to see...

    Michale

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    And you try to change the subject to avoid admitting you support murder.

    I support the execution of scumbags and terrorists and drug dealers....

    Hay, tell ya what.. Pretend that they are Republicans and Trump supporters..

    THEN ya'all will feel the exact same way... :^D

    "It's funny cuz it's true."
    -Homer Simpson

    Michale

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have it ass-backwards in the sense that you are the attacker, bully and you gang up on everyone here, all the time in countless ways.

    Despite ALL the *facts* to the contrary...

    See Comments #132 thru #148.....

    NOTHING but personal attacks and bullying.....

    Like I said.. Ya'all have hysteria...

    I have facts....

    Michale

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    I won't bother mentioning sp4david's ignorant and hysterical personal attack...

    It was from an ignorant JEEP so it doesn't figure into my facts...

    Michale

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    We need RD to weigh in here..

    He's the only one (outside of the Grand Poobah hisself) that has shown even the SLIGHTEST proclivity to approach things in a fair, logical, objective and non-hysterical manner... He's the ONLY one (besides your's truly) that has called you Left Wingers on ya'all's BLATANT bigotry....

    I would accept his moderating this debate... :D

    RDnewman... Ya got yer ears on???

    Michale

  216. [216] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The first one. Not the one you changed it to when your bullshit was exposed for all to see...

    And yet you are unable to point out the change. Interesting that...

    I support the execution of scumbags and terrorists and drug dealers....

    But do you support any random citizen executing "scumbags and terrorists and drug dealers" on their own without any sort of due process? Because that is what Duterte was calling for in his speech...

    You missed the point...

    You accused me of something, you were proved wrong and now you are butt hurt about it. What's there to understand?

    I won't bother mentioning sp4david's ignorant and hysterical personal attack...

    He called you a forum spammer. You have so far have 125 out 212 posts in this thread, and a word count comparison would be even more lopsided. That is quite descriptive, actually. It also plays in to Elizabeth's bully comment. Don't like being called a spammer. Don't spam. Pretty simple really...

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    And yet you are unable to point out the change. Interesting that...

    I did.. Twice...

    The fact that you refuse to acknowledge is not interesting..

    It's par for the course with you...

    But do you support any random citizen executing "scumbags and terrorists and drug dealers" on their own without any sort of due process? Because that is what Duterte was calling for in his speech...

    Yes I do.. As long as they ARE terrorists or drug dealers, I don't have a problem with that. Sue me...

    You accused me of something, you were proved wrong and now you are butt hurt about it. What's there to understand?

    I have already explained THAT 4 times.. If you can't comprehend , a fifth time seems pointless..

    He called you a forum spammer.

    And the little coward defines "spam" as something he doesn't want to read...

    Like I said.. IGNORANT....

    He also called me a "free rider"....

    Again... IGNORANT....

    Michale

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the little coward defines "spam" as something he doesn't want to read...

    Apparently, you define spam the same way...

    Birds of a feather.... :D

    Michale

  219. [219] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I did.. Twice...

    Bullshit. Link to it.

    Yes I do.. As long as they ARE terrorists or drug dealers, I don't have a problem with that. Sue me...

    But how do you know without due process?

    I have already explained THAT 4 times.. If you can't comprehend , a fifth time seems pointless..

    Yup. Butt hurt...

    And the little coward defines "spam" as something he doesn't want to read...

    There is a huge difference between not wanting to read a specific topic and not minding a topic but not wanting to read it over 125 frikken posts. It's not the subject that makes you a forum spammer, it's massive volume of posts.

    He also called me a "free rider"....

    Oh, the horror!

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have so far have 125 out 212 posts in this thread, and a word count comparison would be even more lopsided.

    Oh wait... You define "spam" as something that is posted a lot AND you don't want to read...

    What's the matter, sunshine?? Facts hurt?? :D

    Michale

  221. [221] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bullshit. Link to it.

    Up above, sunshine... :D

    Yes I do.. As long as they ARE terrorists or drug dealers, I don't have a problem with that. Sue me...

    But how do you know without due process?

    If I see a crime, do I need "due process" to determine that a crime has been committed..

    No, I don't...

    There is a huge difference between not wanting to read a specific topic and not minding a topic but not wanting to read it over 125 frikken posts. It's not the subject that makes you a forum spammer, it's massive volume of posts.

    The massive volume of posts, filled with facts that YOU don't want to read...

    Cry me a river, snowflake...

    Oh, the horror!

    Nope.. Just ignorant...

    And cowardly, since he hasn't shown his face since then....

    If he TRULY believe the bullshit he was posting, he wouldn't run away and hide...

    But you know all about running away and hiding, don'tcha snowflake... :D

    Michale

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    If I see a crime, do I need "due process" to determine that a crime has been committed..

    No, I don't...

    Only cowards and liberals need things like 'what the meaning of IS is' and 'lawerly evasions' type bullshit to hide behind..

    Michale

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is a huge difference between not wanting to read a specific topic and not minding a topic but not wanting to read it over 125 frikken posts. It's not the subject that makes you a forum spammer, it's massive volume of posts.

    The QUIT reading them!!! Jeezus...

    What a frakin' moron...

    Michale

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    And cowardly, since he hasn't shown his face since then....

    If he TRULY believe the bullshit he was posting, he wouldn't run away and hide...

    I mean, honestly...

    He attacks me and then doesn't have the cajones to stick around..

    And THAT's the coward you are rallying behind, Bashi???

    Like I said.. Birds of a yellow feather..... :D

    Michale

  225. [225] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Up above, sunshine... :D

    If you can't even show the post # before and after I will just have to assume you are full of shit. I've looked it over and have found my argument to be consistent. Put up or shut up.

    The massive volume of posts, filled with facts that YOU don't want to read...

    Well, they are filled with something. Facts are not one of them...

    He attacks me and then doesn't have the cajones to stick around..

    If you could understand written English, you would have noticed he was addressing Chris not you. The fact that you are so butt hurt about is, well, just hilarious...

  226. [226] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You DID call it dead on ballz accurate...

    I am just like Donald Trump..

    When one makes unfair, ignorant and bigoted attacks against me, I respond...

    It's very simple....

    Michale

  227. [227] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you can't even show the post # before and after I will just have to assume you are full of shit. I've looked it over and have found my argument to be consistent. Put up or shut up.

    I have... You still assume I am full of shit.. So....

    As an aside.. do you know what happens when you make an ASSUMPTION??

    You make an ass out of YOU and 'umption...

    So... yea... it fits.. :D

    Well, they are filled with something. Facts are not one of them...

    That's your claim.. But you have no facts to support it.. Funny how that is the way it ALWAYS is, eh Bashi?? :D

    If you could understand written English, you would have noticed he was addressing Chris not you.

    Yes.. He was addressing Chris and making personal attacks on me...

    It's not surprising you can't comprehend this...

    Limited intelligence is a mark of the Party slave and fanatic... :D

    "I can do this all day."
    -Captain Steve Rogers, CAPTAIN AMERICA-CIVIL WAR

    :D

    Michale

  228. [228] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh Bashi???? Where are you???

    Did you run away again??? :D

    OK, I have a proposition for you that MIGHT allow you to save SOME semblance of face...

    You claim that my comments are "spam"...

    Fine...

    Find me a LEGITIMATE and ACCEPTABLE definition of SPAM that applies to MY COMMENTS and my comments only..

    No equivocation no mitigation...

    I have a feeling you will PROVE how utterly full of shit you are, so I am giving you this chance to PROVE that you are not a sad and ignorant troll....

    Find me a definition of SPAM that fits ME and no one else...

    You have your challenge..

    Are you going to accept it or run away like the ignorant coward you have always been???

    Yer call, snowflake... :D

    Michale

  229. [229] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    When one makes unfair, ignorant and bigoted attacks against me, I respond...

    ...with unfair, ignorant and bigoted attacks.

  230. [230] 
    Michale wrote:

    When one makes unfair, ignorant and bigoted attacks against me, I respond...

    ...with unfair, ignorant and bigoted attacks.

    Yes, you are repeating what I have said..

    Are you punch drunk???? Or just drunk???? :D

    heh

    Michale

  231. [231] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you have your definition of SPAM???

    tick, tock Bashi... Tick tock... :D

    Michale

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Gonna take a dip in the pool, Bashi...

    I expect you'll have that SPAM definition for me when I am done... :D

    tick tock...

    Michale

  233. [233] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I have... You still assume I am full of shit.. So....

    As an aside.. do you know what happens when you make an ASSUMPTION??

    You make an ass out of YOU and 'umption...

    So... yea... it fits.. :D

    Still got nothing, eh? Back up your accusation first. I'm still waiting.

    Tick tock...

  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, in other words, you are COMPLETELY full of shit when you claimed that my comments are SPAM....

    There.. I backed up my accusation that you are full of shit.. :D

    Michale

  235. [235] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Tick tock...

  236. [236] 
    Michale wrote:

    Translation...

    You and sp4david made an accusation against me and now you can't provide ANY facts to support your accusation...

    Ergo, my comments are NOT spam and you and sp4david are completely and utterly full of shit..

    I am glad that THAT is settled... :D

    Michale

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since I am so much like Trump (as Liz points out) I now dub thee, Full O Shit Bashi.... :D

    Of course, you CAN follow Trump's (and my) lead and come up with a nickname for me..

    But that will be just you acknowledging that Trump (and me) have it going on and are worthy of copying... :D

    You can't win, Bashi.. You don't have the brain cells..

    "Don't match wits with Spock. He will cut you to pieces every time."
    -Ensign Hikaru Sulu

    :D

    "I am laughing at the superior intellect"
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    :D

    Not so safe and secure down in mommy's basement, are ya Bashi?? :D

    Michale

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    sp4david,

    You want to come out from your hiding spot and take your licks too???

    No???

    Didn't think so... :D

    Michale

  239. [239] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I guess this debate is over...

    Chalk up another by omission win for Michale... :D

    Ni all

    Michale

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, it's settled..

    My comments are NOT spam and Bashi and sp4david are full of shit... :D

    And so it goes and so it goes....

    Michale

  241. [241] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news..

    New ISIS ‘Kill’ List Claims To Target Thousands Of Americans
    ISIS "kill" lists have called on ISIS loyalists to attack everyone from Minnesota cops to State Department employees and ordinary Americans
    Most of the names and the accompanying addresses listed appear to belong to people in the United States, Australia, and Canada. Out of 7,848 people identified as being in the U.S. alone, 1,445 were listed as having addresses in California, 643 in Florida, 341 in Washington, 333 in Texas, 331 in Illinois, and 290 in New York.

    http://www.vocativ.com/326931/new-isis-kill-list-claims-to-target-thousands-of-americans/

    Ooooo I wonder if I am one of the lucky 643 in Florida... :D

    heh

    Michale

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    In listening to Trump and his surrogates try to explain away his inherently racist comments about a sitting judge,

    I responded to this, but you might have missed it..

    Trump said the EXACT same thing that Sotomayer said..

    Sotomayer said that her being a "wise latina" would guide her decisions. That she would make judicial decisions BASED on her race and what's best for her race...

    And now Trump is pointing out that this judge, who is a member of a racist organization no different than the KKK, could do the same thing...

    The guy who has a '-R' after his name says the EXACT same thing that the woman with a '-D' after her name..

    Yet the 'R' guy is racist, but the 'D' woman is not...

    Where is the logic???

    You want a discussion about the issues?? You've got one...

    Michale

  243. [243] 
    Michale wrote:

    You want a discussion about the issues?? You've got one...

    Well, actually not an issue. It's nothing but an unfounded and illogical personal attack against Donald Trump..

    But, hay.. Beggars can't be choosers, eh? :D

    Michale

  244. [244] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    First off, I'm not letting you get away with changing the subject instead of backing up your accusation against me. You first...

    Second, why are you hysterically asking for a definition of a word that was not used against you?

    Back up your accusation up first, then ask for the correct word and I can get you a definition that fits...

  245. [245] 
    Michale wrote:

    First off, I'm not letting you get away with changing the subject instead of backing up your accusation against me. You first...

    So like you.. You accuse me of something completely unfounded and then, when asked for facts, you throw ANYTHING you can think of to avoid the issue...

    You have NO FACTS to support the accusation that I am spamming..

    Why don't you man up and admit it..

    Second, why are you hysterically asking for a definition of a word that was not used against you?

    Really???

    That's not what you said above??

    "He called you a forum spammer."

    So, which is it Bashi??

    He used the word against me or he didn't???

    Once again, your bullshit is caught and displayed for all to see...

    Back up your accusation up first, then ask for the correct word and I can get you a definition that fits...

    TRANSLATION: I am full of shit and know that the accusation of SPAM is completely and utter bullshit...

    Gotcha {wink, wink}

    heh...

    Yer outclassed, Bashi.. Go home and lick your wounds...

    Michale

  246. [246] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Tick tock

  247. [247] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bull shit... :D

    You blew it, Bashi...

    You made an accusation that you simply CANNOT back up with facts and now you are trying to weasel out of it..

    But everyone here can see the plain facts...

    Michale

  248. [248] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am not the one who has to prove anything..

    You and sp4david accused me of spamming...

    David has run away because he knows he is full of shit..

    So, it's up to you to back up the accusation..

    But you and I and everyone here KNOWS you can't back it up...

    :D

    Michale...

  249. [249] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yoooo Hooooo Full O Shit Bashi????

    Did you run away again??? :D

    Michale

  250. [250] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Still waiting...

  251. [251] 
    Michale wrote:

    Waiting for what??

    You got caught in more bullshit and now yer trying to weasel your way out of it.. :D

    Michale

  252. [252] 
    Michale wrote:

    What you are doing is so transparent, it's embarrassing..

    I am embarrassed for you, FOS Bashi.. :D

    Michale

  253. [253] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    See post [244]

  254. [254] 
    Michale wrote:

    First off, I'm not letting you get away with changing the subject instead of backing up your accusation against me. You first...

    What, exactly, am I supposed to back up???

    Second, why are you hysterically asking for a definition of a word that was not used against you?

    I have already addressed this..

    It was YOU who said that sp4david called me a "forum spammer".

    He called you a forum spammer. You have so far have 125 out 212 posts in this thread, and a word count comparison would be even more lopsided. That is quite descriptive, actually. It also plays in to Elizabeth's bully comment. Don't like being called a spammer. Don't spam. Pretty simple really...
    -BashiBazKook

    Now, if you want retract THAT, we can end your charade...

    As usual, the balls in your court.. You can address it.. Or you can obfuscate and run away like you usually do...

    "I can do this all day..."
    -Captain Steve Rogers

    Thanx, Liz :D

    Michale

  255. [255] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look, it's real simple..

    The cowardly little shit, sp4david, accused me of spamming cw.com...

    You agreed with him, saying that "it's quite descriptive actually"...

    All I am asking for is for you to BACK UP your accusation with some relevant facts..

    If you can't, then man up and say that you can't...

    Jeezus, you must be a lawyer in your day job... That's the only thing that could explain your complete and utter incompetence....

    Michale

  256. [256] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    What, exactly, am I supposed to back up???

    The thread is above look it up. I mentioned it over and over and over and over...

    You keep asking for a definition of the word "spam". The word that sd4david used, though related, has the correct definition as he used it that the base word "spam" does not.

  257. [257] 
    Michale wrote:

    The thread is above look it up. I mentioned it over and over and over and over...

    You mention a lot of things "over and over and over and over"...

    I am not going to try and devine what's in that angst-riddled noggin' of yours..

    You want me to back something up...

    Tell me what it is.. Otherwise it will be even MORE painfully obvious than it is already that you are evading...

    You keep asking for a definition of the word "spam". The word that sd4david used, though related, has the correct definition as he used it that the base word "spam" does not.

    And that "correct definition" is?????

    Jeezus, it's like trying to talk to my 3 yr old autistic grandson... :^/

    Michale

  258. [258] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    And that "correct definition" is?????

    Ask for the correct word.

    And yes, after blabbing almost incoherently with sophomoric taunts and name calling you get to read through two hundred and fifty some odd posts to find both the correct word and your accusation. Maybe once you skim past some of your posts you will feel a bit embarrassed by your behavior. Or not. You can just keep up the sophomoric stuff. It's mildly entertaining. Good to know we did not get under your skin. Heh...

  259. [259] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You can't run, Dean. Not from me. I'm inside that angsty little noggin of yours."
    -Alastair, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

    Michale

  260. [260] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ask for the correct word.

    And yes, after blabbing almost incoherently with sophomoric taunts and name calling you get to read through two hundred and fifty some odd posts to find both the correct word and your accusation. Maybe once you skim past some of your posts you will feel a bit embarrassed by your behavior. Or not. You can just keep up the sophomoric stuff. It's mildly entertaining. Good to know we did not get under your skin. Heh...

    never have, never will.. :D

    So, you concede that my posts are NOT spam...

    Glad we finally settled that....

    Like Joshua, you were wrong and just can't admit it...

    Michale

  261. [261] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    If that's what you need to do to save face...

  262. [262] 
    Michale wrote:

    If that's what you need to do to save face...

    I don't need to save face..

    You did that for me when you accused me of SPAMMING but couldn't back it up with any facts.. :D

    Thanx, buddy.... :D

    Michale

  263. [263] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Sorry, I'm not playing your game. You back up your accusation first. I have the definition of the word ready to copy over. I'll check back to see if you can handle it but otherwise I'm sure you must get in the last word, so have at it...

  264. [264] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, I'm not playing your game.

    Yea, that's what you keep saying..

    And yet... Here you are.. :D

    You back up your accusation first.

    yea, like I said.. a 3yr old.. What accusation was that???

    I have the definition of the word ready to copy over.

    yea, yea, yea.. You keep saying that. Yet, you can't PROVE it.. :D

    I'm sure you must get in the last word, so have at it...

    I always do because you always run away...

    So, I guess we're back to Full O Shit Bashi... :D

    Don't worry.. I'll be around to remind you how I bested you...

    AGAIN.... :D

    You have a happy day, my friend.. I am having a blast!!! First Joshua and now you...

    It truly is a frabjous day... :D

    Michale

  265. [265] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Don't cross brains with Spock. He'll cut you to pieces every time..."
    -Ensign Hikaru Sulu...

    :D

    Michale

  266. [266] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanx, Liz :D

    You are most welcome. And, no, I still haven't seen it ... :(

  267. [267] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are most welcome. And, no, I still haven't seen it ... :(

    Please do.. It will give us something IMPORTANT to discuss.. :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.