heheheheheehehehehehehehehehehehe :D

Michale

"Yes, I heard that.. I also heard they are going to be bringing back Kirk's father, George...

Not sure how they'll do that little piece... :D"

Yes, with Chris Hemsworth playing him again. That will be very interesting, since aren't Pine and Hemsworth about the same age?

Also, I don't know if I will be able to stand seeing that much good looking manhood on the screen together at the same time. :-D

Now, hold on a sec, can't you just..... huh??? OH... er... thanx.. :D

Though not about using the term Bimbo obviously. Bimbo denotes a stupid, empty headed brutish individual who is mainly concerned with enhancing their own superficial physical attributes. Hillary may be many things, but unintelligent and lacking in shrewdness is certainly not one of them.

Fair enough...

:D

Also, have you heard? They have already confirmed officially that there is in fact, yet a 4th Star Trek movie with Chris Pine and cast in the works.

Yes, I heard that.. I also heard they are going to be bringing back Kirk's father, George...

Not sure how they'll do that little piece... :D

Ever read the George Kirk novel FINAL FRONTIER??

I highly recommend it if you haven't...

Michale

Also, have you heard? They have already confirmed officially that there is in fact, yet a 4th Star Trek movie with Chris Pine and cast in the works.

"Cruz is the most "calculating" politician ya'all have ever seen???
Cruz has been "calculating" for a few years now..
Crooked Bimbo Hillary has been "calculating" for over two DECADES!!
But, of course ya'all's partisan ideological filters won't allow you to see that, let alone acknowledge it.."

Actually Michale, this is again one of the few times where I do in fact agree with you. Though not about using the term Bimbo obviously. Bimbo denotes a stupid, empty headed brutish individual who is mainly concerned with enhancing their own superficial physical attributes. Hillary may be many things, but unintelligent and lacking in shrewdness is certainly not one of them.

In any case, both Clintons and Cruz are all extremely calculating individuals as politicians. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just makes them very competent at what they do, in this case, being politicians. Something that Trump is very obviously not. Trump forte is in an entirely different realm.

If anyone could be called a bimbo, it is Trump. Something again, that he is very good at. Use as many terms as you like; reality star, narcissist, publicity seeker, self centered, someone who revels in his own ignorance and doesn't really care or even get the fact of how ignorant he is, (by ignorant I mean lacking in intellectual knowledge, not stupid) with a total lack of self control and the attention span of a mosquito, unless the subject is about himself, etc.

Definitely not in the same sphere or league as the calculating, intelligent, controlled, Machiavellian individuals that Cruz and Clinton are. Which is what would make them powerful effective Presidents if they got power. Something Trump would certainly not be.

Also, please notice I did not necessarily say "good" as in the good, moral, Disney like things they would do to better humanity. I am not quite THAT naive. I would also way more agree with what Clinton would try to accomplish, and oppose most of what Cruz would stand for. But that does not mean I could not appreciate the obvious level of skill at least of either one.

He has been proven WRONG... INCOMPETENTLY wrong at EVERY turn...

Now... DO you want to address the POINT of the article??

Or do you just want to nibble and quibble around the periphery because you CAN'T address the main point??

Michale

OK.. So, extrapolating your claim to the here and now...

Because the GOP believe they are legitimate, that gives their position validity???

The original statement implied that Muslims have NEVER had a grievance against the West that THEY'VE considered valid,

That may be YOUR spin on the original statement, but that wasn't the original statement..

The original statement was Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West.

And that is a true and factual statement..

The point of the article is Odumbo was dreaming when he thought he could just make nice with terrorists and they would cease their terrorism..

He has been proven WRONG... INCOMPETENTLY wrong at EVERY turn...

Hey, I used to call it marriage.

Sorry ta hear that... Sincerely...

Michale

No, again, the question is, do THEY think it's legitimate? The Crusades is one of dozens of reasons they think they have to believe what they believe. The original statement implied that Muslims have NEVER had a grievance against the West that THEY'VE considered valid, until dreamy-eyed Obama came along and encouraged them to make up reasons to attack us. That's just such utter nonsense as to make this conversation a waste of blog space.

And then turn around and demonize and vilify them when they say something you don't agree with.. How is this NOT hypocrisy?

Hey, I used to call it marriage.

And then turn around and demonize and vilify them when they say something you don't agree with..

How is this NOT hypocrisy???

Michale

hehehehehehehe OK, now THAT was funny.. Far surpasses my 'wet dream' crack.. :D

They certainly do. In any case, I've yet to see a real scholar of war who advises ignoring your enemy's reasons for fighting, even if you don't yourself agree on their legitimacy.

So, let me see if I understand you..

YOU are saying that ISIS and Al Qaeda are committing their atrocities BECAUSE OF THE CRUSADES!??

And you are further saying that it's LEGITIMATE??

Well..... OKAAAY.....

Michale

Hey, I represent that remark. Unlike Trump, I'll reach out to an unlikely ally any chance I can. Then, with permission, I can start fondling.

You had to go back to the CRUSADES!?

They certainly do. In any case, I've yet to see a real scholar of war who advises ignoring your enemy's reasons for fighting, even if you don't yourself agree on their legitimacy.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
– Sun Tzu

:D

Michale

You had to go back to the CRUSADES!!!????? Odumbo, is that you!!??? :D

I'll let that little piece of idiocy stand on it's own (lack of) merits...

Well, apparently, the Murdochs believe that a moral foundation isn't needed, just a quick reading of Ailes' contract. I don't have to condemn Ailes. He's out already.

Well, at least we agree you have no moral foundation..

And I'll end this little commentary thread as I started it..

So what???

Who cares??

The ONLY reason YOU care is because your Partisan Ideological Filter that controls you DEMANDS you attack and vilify ANYTHING and ANYONE with a -R after their name.. EVEN if it means you jump into bed with someone with a -R after their name...

:D

Michale

You're misreading the sentence. It said Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West (in context: from their perspective). Never? Religious zealots never criticized the crusades, or the legitimization of Israel, or the six-day war, or the partitioning of the Middle East by (mostly) Britain, or the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Iran, or the West's support for dictators in the region, and on, and on, and on?

None of that changes the fact that your defense of the serial sexual harasser Bill Clinton proves you have absolutely NO MORAL foundation to condemn Ailes.

Well, apparently, the Murdochs believe that a moral foundation isn't needed, just a quick reading of Ailes' contract. I don't have to condemn Ailes. He's out already.

"Oh my god and the quarterback is toast!"
- Die Hard

It's what the Left Wingery calls them...

Double standard much??? :D

Face it, this is a losing debate for you...

The Left Wingery has demonized and vilified Kelly and Carlson six thousand ways from sunday...

Now that they are saying what you want to hear??

Yer BFFFLs...

Hypocrisy much??

Michale

I think I found your "legitimate grievances" from radical islam..

Pro-Al Qaeda jihadis are issuing a series of directives ahead of next month’s Olympics urging their followers to carry out so-called 'lone wolf' attacks at the Rio Games, according to material obtained by The Foreign Desk.

“From amongst the worst enemies, the most famous enemies for general Muslims is to attack Israelis. As general Muslims all agree to it and it causes more popularity for the Mujahideen amongst the Muslims,” they state.
http://www.foreigndesknews.com/world/middle-east/pro-al-qaeda-group-calls-target-olympics-emphasizes-attacks-u-s-france-israel-u-k-athletes/

Yer weird....

Michale

In other words, Clinton is everything you accuse Ailes of and so much worse.. Clinton is the Democrat's Bill Cosby...

But you can't admit that even though it's dead on ballz factually accurate....

Michale

OK.. Fine...

What legitimate grievance does radical islam have against the West??

Put up, concede the point or shut up...

I remember Lindsay Graham trying to explain to his fellow Republicans back during the impeachment why what Clinton did couldn't be termed 'workplace sexual harassment'. It didn't go over very well in a room full of party zealots, some of whom (we know now), had a very broad interpretation of that particular statute when it came to their own behavior. For his part, Graham was more fixated on describing Lewinsky, who was 23 at the time, as a much younger person, so that he could portray Clinton as a molester. By comparison, Taylor Swift has been winning awards for writing about the men she's slept with for over half a decade, and right now she's only 26.

blaa blaa blaaa.. None of that changes the fact that your defense of the serial sexual harasser Bill Clinton proves you have absolutely NO MORAL foundation to condemn Ailes...

NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA......

Michale

Yea, what kinda sick twisted idiotic contemptible moron would move to a state, SOLELY to run for office in that state..

"Hillary Clinton Moves To New York To Run For Senate"

Oh... wait.. :D

Yer making this WAY too easy for me.. :D

Michale

I haven't said anything about the FoxNews bimbos that ya'all in the Left Wingery haven't said many MANY times over...

That's it. Keep callin' them bimbos. The soccer moms will just love it.

It's still workplace sexual harassment..

I remember Lindsay Graham trying to explain to his fellow Republicans back during the impeachment why what Clinton did couldn't be termed 'workplace sexual harassment'. It didn't go over very well in a room full of party zealots, some of whom (we know now), had a very broad interpretation of that particular statute when it came to their own behavior. For his part, Graham was more fixated on describing Lewinsky, who was 23 at the time, as a much younger person, so that he could portray Clinton as a molester. By comparison, Taylor Swift has been winning awards for writing about the men she's slept with for over half a decade, and right now she's only 26.

This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to deflect the fact that Hillary's numbers are dropping like a stone...

Blah, blah, blah, blah, 'Convention Bump', blah, blah, blah, September.

[76] The fact that they're not firing her makes me wonder if they paid her to take the fall. That's so out of character for Trump.

Yer just attacking the poor employee because she is a woman and she is black... :^/

Michale

You mean, like you just did above with Clinton's accusers???

And you said your Filter was not engaged.. :D

Further, I haven't said anything about the FoxNews bimbos that ya'all in the Left Wingery haven't said many MANY times over...

So, please.. Spare me the faux-righteous indignation.. It's blatantly obvious bull carp...

The desperate attempt to swing the conversation over to Bill Clinton only reminds people that the GOP tied the country up for TWO YEARS investigating every alleged Clinton peccadillo and came up with only Monica, and that was (very) consensual.

It's still workplace sexual harassment..

At least, it would be if Clinton didn't have a -D after his name..

Face the facts, Balthasar.. Your defense of Clinton and his rapes and sexual assaults gives you absolutely NO MORAL leg to stand on vis a vis the Ailes issue..

NO... MORAL... FOUNDATION....

This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to deflect the fact that Hillary's numbers are dropping like a stone...

I understand your desperation, I really do...

But a spade is still a spade.. A hoe is still a hoe...

Michale

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/07/six-more-women-allege-ailes-sexual-harassment.html

If there's really nothing to this, why is Ailes on his way out the door? Would Fox risk a sympathy walkout by O'Reilly and Hannity if they didn't think that (perhaps not-yet-public) allegations against Ailes wouldn't do even more harm to their brand?

And of course, the only defense you've offered is to diminish and degrade the accusers, which plays right into the narrative about the attitude of Righties toward women. It's a neat trap for Y'all:
the more you defend Ailes, the worse you look for it.

The desperate attempt to swing the conversation over to Bill Clinton only reminds people that the GOP tied the country up for TWO YEARS investigating every alleged Clinton peccadillo and came up with only Monica, and that was (very) consensual. As a result Clinton left office with a 75% approval rating. So, bring it.

When President Obama entered office, he dreamed that his hope-and-change messaging and his references to his familial Islamic roots would win over the Muslim world. The soon-to-be Nobel Peace Prize laureate would make the U.S. liked in the Middle East. Then, terrorism would decrease.

Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West. America and Europe had welcomed in Muslim immigrants -- even as Christians were persecuted and driven out of the Middle East.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/07/21/the_dream_of_muslim_outreach_has_become_a_nightmare_131265.html

Yep....

Hussein Odumbo is a moron...

Michale

That's not Trek...

That's a pale Politically Correct BS lackadaisical corruption of true Trek...

Star Trek 90210..

It will likely kill the franchise...

And yes, I'll be watching it too... :D

Michale

I am in such a good mood, what with seeing once again how much I am needed around here, I'll forgo the obvious SPELLING LAME retort... :D

But, yes... The GOP is as orgasmically partisan as ya'all are...

Thereby proving once again, that there is no difference between GOP and DEMs.. Both are orgasmically enslaved by Party Dogma and have fully functional Partisan Ideological Filters... :D

Michale

I know, right!!?? Woe is the ignorant who do not realize the importance of Trek....

(although we do have disagreements about the relative worth of TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise, I must admit).

TNG was mostly boring and tedious.. But I am biased because they stole a script from me..

Voyager was Trek LOST IN SPACE, but it grew on me and I came to like it a lot..

Enterprise was OK.. But Scott Bakula will ALWAYS be Dr Sam Beckett and doesn't do a starship captain very well...

But credit where credit is due.. X4

The story arc that explained why Klingons looked like humans in Kirk's time was BEAUTIFUL! I have never seen CANON adhered to so beautifully and seamlessly...

The story arc with Brent Spiner was some of the best story-telling on TV ever...

Any episode that has Commander Shran* in it was awesome..

And the Series finale.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXotJu1CapU

... was awesome.....

*The actor that plays Shran holds the record for most Star Trek aliens portrayed.. Jeffery Combs played a Ferengi, a Vorta, an Andorian, and an unknown alien spieces in Voyager... The previous record holder was Mark Leanard who portrayed all of Trek's major aliens, Klingon, Romulan and Vulcan.. Combs is one of the best actors in Hollywood and his filmography is impressive, to say the least. One of my favorite roles of his was in FRIGHTENERS with Michael J Fox.. :D

I am also constrained to point out that you didn't mention DS9, which I didn't like much when it was airing, but have binged watch the entire series once or twice and it grew on me. Avery Brooks form of acting is somewhat annoying. I think he was trying to channel HAWK too much... :D

Er.... Did you WANT to talk about Trek??

Or were you just making chit-chat?? :D

Michale

But... but... Trump himself promised it'd be the best TV ever!

Heh.

Exactly... But then Trump realized that what is most important here is to unify the GOP.. So he supplanted his own desires to serve the good of the many...

Whatta guy, that Trump, eh? :D

OK, I'll give you credit, as long as you go back and read some of my articles from last July and August -- I also saw "Trump, nominee" as a serious reality long ago.

You saw it before most, that is true.. Credit where credit is due.. But even as YOU saw it, everyone else here never did..

And, with the exception of you, has ANYONE else here acknowledged that they were wrong??

of course not.. Because their partisan ideological filters simply will NOT allow them to do so...

And I have to admit, you're right about Nate Silver. He screwed the pooch on the whole Trump thing, no doubt.

See!!!??? That is *EXACTLY* what I am talking about...

YOU can acknowledge the facts.. YOU can actually articulate the words, "Michale, you were right"...

NO ONE else here can do that..

Because their tongues would surely turn to fire if they EVER articulated such a heinous idea...

Liz said it perfectly and spoke for everyone when she said, "I never apologize" which is simply another way of saying, "We're never wrong" which, in turn can be extrapolated into, "Michale is never right"

Apprently, CW... You can actually turn OFF your PIF when warranted.. Congrats. :D

Hey, at least save a couple minutes of video or send me a photo or two -- I'll be traveling on Saturday!

Don't worry.. I'll make sure ya will be able to bask in my humiliation.. :D heh

What's that you say? Groping newswomen? Is there something going on at Fox News I should be aware of?

Heh. Been so focused on convention I've been largely ignoring this story, at least for the time being, but lo, how the mighty have fallen, eh?

There was no groping newswomen. That's just Balthasar's factually-challenged wet dream...

Supposedly Ailes propositioned one of the FoxNews bimbos and gave a hug to another FoxNews bimbos 10 years ago that said bimbo didn't like...

Of course, none of this is proven or factual.. And it's NOTHING compared to the rape, sexual assaults and sexual harassments done by Bill Clinton over the years..

But none of that matters to those who are ruled by their Partisan Ideological Filters... :^/

Michale

Actually, I'm a huge Star Trek fan, and will be seeing the new movie tomorrow.

And I do remember that election, and how the Republicans were so anxious not to lose the seat that they flew in Alan Keys to oppose Obama. That was also a neat piece of luck, as Keys turned out to be a terrible candidate, and was viewed as a carpetbagger to boot.

Recharge and rejuvenate, so to speak..

But, after reading the downright delusional and orgasmicly partisan rhetoric that passes for "serious" conversations and "common sense" discussions???

Well, it just became painfully obvious how much I am really needed around here...

So, no rest for the weary...

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends.. I am as constant as the northern star!!"
-General Chang, STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country

Now if THAT's not a perfect set up for ya'all, NOTHING is!! :D

Michale

If THAT doesn't prove beyond ANY doubt that partisan ideological filters are fully engaged around here...

NOTHING will....

Cruz is the most "calculating" politician ya'all have ever seen???

Cruz has been "calculating" for a few years now..

Crooked Bimbo Hillary has been "calculating" for over two DECADES!!

But, of course ya'all's partisan ideological filters won't allow you to see that, let alone acknowledge it..

Ya'all's PIFs are fully functional and engaged... Congrats...

Ya'all should be so proud of your lockstep slavery.. er.. loyalty to the Demcorat Party...

:^/

Michale

:^/

Michale

But are you comparing Trump to Barabbas?

Oh, you caught that one, did ya? Guilty!

Trump could actually wind up making money off of this election, and the GOP will go broke as a result! God only knows how much each of his children are being paid for their "expertise" in...... ummmm....what was it they were supposed to know how to do, again???...it doesn't matter, they are the greatest ever!

If I were him, I'd head for French Polynesia, a pleasant enough place for anyone to be ... :)

Trump didn't look too happy. Probably wishing he had sprung for the Cruz Control Package. I just had to sat that.

No, I think Cruz was booed when the audience there and watching on TV realized what precisely Ted Cruz was attempting to do with this golden opportunity to speak at the Republican convention.

When it dawned on everyone there that the point Cruz was hammering home is that he is the one who should have been the Republican nominee for president because it is he who is the standard bearer for conservative values and he who respects and defends the constitution.

It felt to me that when it became clear that Cruz's speech was nothing less than an extension of Cruz's presidential campaign may become one of the most historic moments in US convention history. At the very least, I think they'll be talking about this speech for a very long time.

This is a Hail Mary designed to appeal to the Bernie voters, but probably will be too little to really make a difference. If it does start to impact the polls, I expect a backroom deal between Hillary and Wall St. to let Hillary trash Wall St. with a nod and a wink (it helps that Clinton has strong NY ties) - both know that no Republican house will pass a G-S-like law, especially if Hillary waits until she has really annoyed them over something else just before she introduces it.

G-S is poorly understood - by the time it was repealed in 1999 (by Bill Clinton - part of the reason Trump has targeted it) there were so many exemptions it was not operational anyway. It also would have done little, if anything, to address the 2008 crisis since it wasn't the FDIC insurance that prompted the bailouts but the counterparty interconnections that meant that there was a potential disastrous domino effect requiring a strong intervention to stop the toppling.

I read today that Romney is going to vote for Clinton. Don't know if true.

This is a seminal election. Fortunately Trump is losing support with college educated whites and all minorities (vs. Romney in 2012), which makes his support and turnout with non-college educated whites need to reach blow-out levels to win.

But are you comparing Trump to Barabbas?

;)

Now let me be clear, if you think I am comparing Hillary Clinton to Jesus Christ, you are wrong -- something I am sure that you are used to hearing by now! The comparison is between the crowd attending the RNC and the one before Pilate, and the recognition that we are prone to make foolish choices when we allow hatred to override our ability to think!

Per Plumline/WaPo -- in 3 major polls 65%+ see HRC as qualified to be President; even larger majorities see Donald Trump as unqualified to be President. Plenty of people who don't like HRC still see her has qualified.

Good.

One last note on Star Trek. I think I wrote a whole article about this, or maybe it was just bantering with Michale in the comments, but here's proof ST is connected with today's politics:

If it wasn't for Seven Of Nine, we'd never have elected Barack Obama. Look up the details of Jeri Ryan's husband's fall from grace, and notice who got elected in his place.

:-)

-CW

There wasn't much of an audience left, to tell you the truth. Saw some news orgs are finally starting to notice the emptiness of the arena -- CBS showed comparison shots at the same time of night as the first two nights from GOP conventions past, and it was a stark difference. Trump can't even fill the arena! Although I expect tonight and tomorrow night will be better attended, to be fair.

Michale [2] -

You go on and on about how it's not a good show and scheduling and such..

You don't get it.. It wasn't about putting on a show for the American people...

But... but... Trump himself promised it'd be the best TV ever!

Heh.

Michale [4] -

OK, I'll give you credit, as long as you go back and read some of my articles from last July and August -- I also saw "Trump, nominee" as a serious reality long ago.

And I have to admit, you're right about Nate Silver. He screwed the pooch on the whole Trump thing, no doubt.

TheStig [13] -

Hey, I'm just watchin' on TV with everyone else... the RNC turned down my request for a press pass. I guess they read one of my articles, or something (heh).

Minor kerfluffle today with some communist org trying to burn a US flag. There's a good story in Salon about how the protesters are outnumbered by the press (salivating over the possibility of some violence), by like 2-to-1. I can look up the link if you need it, it's a good piece. Other than that, outside seems pretty darn calm.

I actually went to school pretty close to Wright State, here's my WS story: I blew it, and failed to get tickets to a surprise concert by the Talking Heads at WS for their homecoming, in the early 80s. David Byrne was an OH local, so he gave the local fans a very intimate concert (this was at the height of their fame, when they were filling stadiums). One of my biggest missed opportunities to see a band in my life...

:-)

Don Harris [16] -

I've been thinking of writing an article about how whoever wins will have the same problem as Bill Clinton did (which would be ironic if it's his wife) -- because the third-party voting will likely be quite high, it's almost guaranteed that whoever wins will have less than 50% of the popular vote, which will immediately lead to talk of "not having a true mandate." Maybe I'll write it after the conventions, seems a little gloomy during the two parties' parties.

Michale [17] -

Nope, didn't even apply for GOP press pass in 2012 -- never thought I'd get in to the Dems, let alone the GOP. But this year, the prospect for absolute chaos was so high I had to bite the bullet and try to convince them to let me in. Looks like they should have -- at least I'd be another warm body in the crowd for the cameras (something they've obviously been lacking... heh).

Don Harris [19] -

Oooo -- points for quoting a Styx song from Grand Illusion that is NOT "Come Sail Away"!

After watching Melania, I really should go look up the lyrics to "Miss America"... heh...

Michale [32] -

Hey, at least save a couple minutes of video or send me a photo or two -- I'll be traveling on Saturday!

Balthasar [33] -

What's that you say? Groping newswomen? Is there something going on at Fox News I should be aware of?

Heh. Been so focused on convention I've been largely ignoring this story, at least for the time being, but lo, how the mighty have fallen, eh?

John M [36] -

I won't be seriously paying attention to the polls until about a week or so after the Dem convention is over -- it takes time for any "bumps" to appear in actual polls.

Oh, teaser for column series: "Electoral Math" will begin again soon, folks!

:-)

Balthasar [48] -

Happy moonday indeed! One of my earliest memories, in fact.

Balthasar [53] -

Hey, watch it! Star Trek quizzes sound like fun to me... but then it's one of the few things me and Michale see eye-to-eye on (although we do have disagreements about the relative worth of TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise, I must admit).

OK, that's it for now everyone, gotta go watch the GOPfest once again...

Look for a late posting tonight.

-CW

Whatever....

Michale

"Ahhhh So, you slam me for cherry picking the parts of the article that supports my position...

And then you turn around and do the EXACT same thing?? :D"

Actually NOT. Since the WHOLE thrust of the article was discussing Hillary Clinton's lead in the polls and the question of how firm it was, AND was NOT about how her lead was slipping away and how she was losing to Trump.

Now, if I HAD cherry picked something out about Hillary's lead in an article that was in fact about how poor her lead was and how it was dropping like a stone, you WOULD have a point.

But since I DIDN'T and that was NOT what the article was in fact discussing, YOU DON'T.

Thank you for that concession that I was right and you were wrong...

Who was hurt, again, exactly?

Who gets hurt if I say ALL Crooked Hillary supporters are racist scumbags???

Trump supporters that believe the moon landing is a hoax? I'd bet my cat that the number of Trump supporters who believe that is higher than it is among Democrats.

Just like I would bet my dog that the number of Crooked Hillary supporters who believe that 9/11 was an inside job is a lot higher than the number of Trump supporters who believe that...

It's one of those facts that, while being entirely accurate, has absolutely NO bearing on the discussion at hand...

"Are we done??"
-Todd, STARGATE: ATLANTIS, The Last Man

Michale

That's right, you said "hurtful". Who was hurt, again, exactly? Trump supporters that believe the moon landing is a hoax? I'd bet my cat that the number of Trump supporters who believe that is higher than it is among Democrats.

The were specifically directed to Party leadership in the case of the first one and Weigantians in a couple and you specifically in the rest.....

I have NEVER attacked Crooked Hillary supporters *JUST* because they were Crooked Hillary supporters...

Ya'all cannot make the same claim...

But, like I said. Whatever...

You'll believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts... Always having to correct ya'all with the facts is becoming tiresome...

Michale

Okay, let's compare that to some of the things you've said about Hillary supporters TODAY, eh?
The sensitivity and consideration is palpable:

Your Party routinely beautifies scumbags and thugs and demonizes LEOs...

And attacking people without ANY supporting facts is what ya'all do....

Unlike ya'all who only want facts when it is ideologically advantageous to have them..

Let's face the facts.... You only care about sexual harassment when it's committed by someone with a -R after their name...

You'll ignore rape and sexual harassment and sexual assault when it comes from someone with a -D after their name..

The sad thing is, ya'all actually BELIEVE this crap ya'all spew...

And if I had said "harmful" you would have an argument..

But... Well, you know the rest...

Is civility, respect and tolerance too much to ask???

Apparently, it is...

Fine, whatever.....

Michale

You cannot make the same claim...

But that doesn't matter because they are just Trump supporters and don't deserve any kind of consideration whatsoever....

:^/

Michale

Nor was mine, unless a harmless joke directed at Trump supporters' apparent willingness to buy into conspiracy theories is considered 'harmful'.

Nonsense. Grow a skin.

At least my link wasn't hurtful to fellow Americans....

You cannot make the same claim...

That's the difference that makes all the difference...

But you can get away with it because everyone else has the same firmware in their ideological filters that you have in yours....

:^/

Michale

Betcha twenty quatloos that you can't find a link to an elected democrat making that accusation.

And you only believe that because Ailes has a -R after his name...

And the Murdochs? What's their ideological angle?

Says the guy who posted a link to a Star Trek quiz.

No, they are men who have a '-D' after their name...

That is your ONLY consideration...

as Ailes is not.

And you only believe that because Ailes has a -R after his name...

Partisan ideology colors EVERYTHING...

I could fill a hundred posts with all of the things on which I disagree with Ann Coulter, but in this case.....

She says what I want to hear so I trust her implicitly...

:^/

Michale

As opposed to Democrats who believe that Bush and the MOSSAD planned and executed 9/11....

Like I said... Partisan ideology colors EVERYTHING ya'all say and do.... :^/

Michale

You know why? Because they are men of good reputation and character, as Ailes is not. For the record, I'd be just as skeptical if accusations of this sort were made against, say, George Will, or any of the Bush's.

because it's ideologically advantageous to treat Coulter and Kelly as the goddesses of facts, ya'all fall all over yerselves to do so...

I could fill a hundred posts with all of the things on which I disagree with Ann Coulter, but in this case I have to take her motives into account: she has no reason to lie about the stories she's heard about Ailes, as he's likely to be a potential employer someday.

As for Kelly, she had even more to lose by coming forward, being involved currently in contract negotiations with Fox. In the end, it looks like the Murdochs decided that she was the more credible witness in this affair as well.

And this is what passes for "serious" discussions??

:^/

The sad thing is, ya'all actually BELIEVE this crap ya'all spew...

Michale

So happy Moonday, everyone.

That even goes for Trump supporters, who might be celebrating "the day we faked the moon landing" day.

But, because it's ideologically advantageous to treat Coulter and Kelly as the goddesses of facts, ya'all fall all over yerselves to do so...

And ya'all REALLY believe that ya'all's ideology doesn't color EVERYTHING ya'all say and do???

REALLY??? :D

Just in case ya missed that one, Balthasar.. :D

Michale

Bullshit...

They ALL stood up just fine.... The ONLY problem was that Clinton has a -D after his name....

Clinton is no different than Bill Cosby....

Let's face the facts.... You only care about sexual harassment when it's committed by someone with a -R after their name...

You'll ignore rape and sexual harassment and sexual assault when it comes from someone with a -D after their name..

These are the facts...

Ailes gave Kelly a hug she didn't like a decade ago..

That's Ailes' spin.

Actually, that's Kelly's statement..

But, like I said.. You don't care about the facts...

Truth is, Coulter's right, it's over. Murdock's sons have made it clear that Ailes is out by Aug. 1, unless he wants to face firing for cause, an option he seems inclined to take.

So???

I know, I know.. Yer all excited over this and you can barely contain the glee...

But honestly, who really cares??

It's not as if Ailes was responsible for the deaths of Americans or anything...

Michale

False. None of those allegations ever stood up, and they've been litigated in the media for twenty years. What we do know for sure about are a few fleeting sexual encounters initiated by an intern, or as Maher puts it: 'prison sex'.

Ailes gave Kelly a hug she didn't like a decade ago..

That's Ailes' spin. The truth is: "Sources tell New York that Kelly has described Ailes' actions 'in detail', but her remarks have not been made public."

Truth is, Coulter's right, it's over. Murdock's sons have made it clear that Ailes is out by Aug. 1, unless he wants to face firing for cause, an option he seems inclined to take.

Yesterday, Ann Coulter joined a growing number of women who have accused Ailes of impropriety. When told details of accusations being made by Fox host Megyn Kelly, who joined a growing list of women accusing Ailes, which includes former anchor Gretchen Carlson and a half-dozen others, Coulter said, "Oh boy, I have better details than that, from every woman who has ever been employed by Fox, which I have not."

As usual your "facts" really aren't...

Coulter never claimed to be sexually harassed by Ailes.. She claims to have heard from someone(s) who has...

Third-person hearsay from someone the Left Wingery has vilified 6 ways from Sunday...

But NOW.....

NOW that she is saying what you want to hear, all of the sudden, her words have the golden squeek of truth, justice and the American way....

Ideological filter strikes again..

Michale

;)

"Lookin' good, Lewis.."
"Feelin' good, Billy Ray"
-Trading Places

:D

Michale

And Kelly was SOOO broken up about this "sexual harassment" that she latched onto Ailes as a mentor to further her career..

And now, it furthers her career to bring up decade old news..

And YA'ALL lap it up because your ideological filter demands it...

Again... jesus h christ!!!

Michale

Let's see.. Bill Clinton RAPED women and sexually assaulted women..

Ailes gave Kelly a hug she didn't like a decade ago..

And ya'all slam *ME* for false equivalencies???

Jesus h christ!!!

Michale

I am ALWAYS interested in facts..

Unlike ya'all who only want facts when it is ideologically advantageous to have them..

Take your sudden love of Ann Coulter right now...

Ya'all have called her every name in the book, including "bitch" if I am not mistaken..

But now that she says what you want to hear, all of the sudden her words are gospel??

You want to know Megyn Kelly's (another one ya'all have attacked in the past) idea of "sexual harassment"???

A hug she didn't like 10 years ago..

If Kelly had made that accusation against Joe Biden or Hussein Odumbo, ya'all would have laughed your asses off. And I would have joined you...

But, because it's ideologically advantageous to treat Coulter and Kelly as the goddesses of facts, ya'all fall all over yerselves to do so...

And ya'all REALLY believe that ya'all's ideology doesn't color EVERYTHING ya'all say and do???

REALLY??? :D

Michale

Not the sort of deal he'd have offered to Bill Clinton, eh?

You might want to actually cite MORE of the article Michale, rather than just ONLY what seems to support your position, SUCH AS:

Ahhhh So, you slam me for cherry picking the parts of the article that supports my position...

And then you turn around and do the EXACT same thing?? :D

In other words, if Clinton and the Democrats have a REALLY GOOD well run convention, it might just PERMANENTLY cement Hillary's lead over Trump going into the election. THAT'S THE POINT of the article YOU cited.

And if the dog hadn't stopped, he would have caught the rabbit...

If Hillary keels over from a black black heart attack, then her numbers might go up as well...

If it happens, I'll be glad to concede the point..

When it DOESN'T happen, will you answer the question?? :D

Michale

So, suddenly you're interested in facts. Try this:

Yesterday, Ann Coulter joined a growing number of women who have accused Ailes of impropriety. When told details of accusations being made by Fox host Megyn Kelly, who joined a growing list of women accusing Ailes, which includes former anchor Gretchen Carlson and a half-dozen others, Coulter said, "Oh boy, I have better details than that, from every woman who has ever been employed by Fox, which I have not."

Coulter added, "So that means he’s definitely out, by the way."

You might want to actually cite MORE of the article Michale, rather than just ONLY what seems to support your position, SUCH AS:

"The flip side is that the recent polls could just as easily prove to be a low-water mark for Clinton. Conventions have oftentimes helped the incumbent party’s candidate. One of the biggest turnarounds came in 1988, when Michael Dukakis, the upstart winner of the Democratic nomination, held a lead of 6 or 7 percentage points going into the conventions. But a well-staged Republican convention in New Orleans helped to unify the GOP and highlight the successes of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, and Bush eventually won by a landslide.
What’s relatively safe to say is that we’ll know a lot more in a month or so.

But Clinton remains ahead of Trump in the clear majority of polls. She leads by about the same margin that Barack Obama did heading into the conventions in 2008, and by a somewhat larger margin than Obama did in 2012."

"If Trump is so bad and Hillary is so good, WHY is the election so close??"

In other words, if Clinton and the Democrats have a REALLY GOOD well run convention, it might just PERMANENTLY cement Hillary's lead over Trump going into the election. THAT'S THE POINT of the article YOU cited.

lookin' GOOD!

;)

JL

Another TRUMP IS TOAST prediction... This is wha??? The 20th??? 22nd???

It's what they do. Other than groping the newswomen, of course.

And attacking people without ANY supporting facts is what ya'all do....

Michale

fox took a quote out of context and made it out to mean something completely different from what was intended.

It's what they do. Other than groping the newswomen, of course.

It's interesting to me that, while establishment republicans are either incognito or running for the hills, the righty media establishment is all-in for Trump. Now, that's not surprising to me, because righty media seems to be what comprises Trump's entire data set on policy matters, so of course the two are sympatico.

Part of Trump's power is his ability to make the cameras swing in his direction. He accomplishes this by emphasizing hot-button issues that the media can't resist, or is talking about already.

Whether he does this deliberately, or whether it's a by-product of his 'unique' media bubble, it is a clever end-run around the usual candidate's problem of how to get his/her issues into the media. When you think about it, even his media-bashing is something the media can't resist discussing, so it's a go-to when things get dull.

The downside for Trump is that the media can go sideways on him, as it has several times in the last month or so. He believes himself to be good at damage control; he'd better be, because he's in the ring with the Grand Master and current reigning champion of damage control.

So this could end like Rocky I...

http://sjfm.us/temp/HillaryHero.jpg

I'll wear it this Saturday and give you access to the cams to confirm.. :D

After Saturday, I am going to mark out HERO and write in BIATCH :D hehehehe

Michale

you're really going to argue over the meaning of the word "we" - the context doesn't change because you want "we" to mean just the house rather than the house and senate together. the quote was still taken during reconciliation, still taken out of context, still not about a final version because the senate hadn't brought anything out yet. your argument is fallacious and currently delving even deeper into the abyss of wishful thinking.

JL

No, that's the SPIN after the fact..

If THAT is what Pelosi had meant, she would have said "**THEY** have to pass it before we can know what's in it.."

But she didn't say that... She said **We** have to pass it.....

Your argument is identical to LD's argument when he was trying to claim that Obama DIDN'T lie about the health care legislation..

But your spin is as week and un-factual as his was...

But I'll give you credit.. That was some pretty fancy tap-dancing.. :D

Michale

- Are you sure?
I'm positive.
~my cousin vinny

“the outside groups...were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on.

i.e. the quote referred to two different versions. the subtext of the quote was, "if the senate doesn't pass a bill too, there's no point discussing what's in the house bill."

"Who are you going to believe?? ME or the facts??"
-Nancy Pelosi

:D

She has a bigger partisan filter than all of ya'all put together... :D

Michale

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Crooked Hillary continues her free-fall :D

Michale

I have already made the offer that I will forge GE polls if everyone else will.. :D

Michale

Yea.. THAT's the argument I was talking about.. :D

Michale

"You're fooling yourself" (STYX)

i couldn't have said it better. either donald or hillary will be the next president, make your peace with that.

JL

i believe i said something about predicting the outcome of presidential elections in july being an example of blowing smoke out one's rectum.

But the question remains...
If Trump is so bad and Hillary is so good, WHY is the election so close??
There are 2 possibilities and 2 possibilities ONLY..

incorrect on both counts. the flaw in your logic is that it rests on the ad populum fallacy, the mistaken idea that something can be accurate simply because many or most people believe it.

at least logically speaking, hillary may be great or awful and donald may be great or awful, completely irrespective of their poll numbers.

JL