ChrisWeigant.com

Trump Successfully Trolls Media, Again

[ Posted Thursday, June 29th, 2017 – 16:12 UTC ]

When will they ever learn? Once again, Donald Trump has almost completely hijacked the American news media for the day, by viciously attacking two media personalities on Twitter. The rest of the media then obligingly chased after this shiny, shiny object almost to the exclusion of all else. Again. We're all caught in this neverending cycle, it seems.

There are ways to break out of this cycle -- such as the media treating it as so boring it is barely worth mentioning. "Trump tweeted some offensive and idiotic stuff again this morning. In other news..." or perhaps: "The president is once again acting like a petulant 6-year-old on Twitter, much to every American's dismay. Now let's take a look at the weather...."

Instead, Trump's tweets are the lead story. They are splashed word-for-word on every screen and read by every anchor in full. Reactions from the insulted parties are reported. Politicians on both sides of the aisle weigh in. White House toadies defend the indefensible, once again. Pundits utter bon mots. And much of the news cycle of the day is thus consumed.

Donald Trump has completely redefined the term "bully pulpit." Rather than meaning "a president's ability to talk directly to the people, bypassing the media entirely" it now means "a president's ability to directly bully other people." His wife is actually supposed to be leading a campaign against cyberbullying, which is now no more than a pathetic joke, when her husband is Cyberbully-in-Chief.

Trump is never going to stop doing this. He finds it highly entertaining, and it gets his name in the news, which he loves (no matter what they're saying about him). His fervent followers are never going to fault him for it, although his support among all others continues to sink like a stone. But somewhere between 35 and 40 percent of the public love it when Trump "takes on the media" in whatever fashion strikes his fancy.

At this point, about the only thing that's a relief about Trump's tweeting is that he's confined himself to attacking media stars, Hollywood stars, Democrats, and occasionally his own fellow Republicans. Just imagine what would happen if Trump decided to start a Twitter war with the leaders of China or North Korea. Things could be worse, in other words.

The media would be better served at this point by examining the timeline leading up to Trump's tweetstorms. Rather than focus on the current target of Trump's attacks, focus on what caused Trump to blow his stack in the first place. "After being dealt a heavy setback in the efforts to reform healthcare this week, Donald Trump exploded on Twitter this morning" is a much better way to frame the story, in other words. "This sort of thing has become the norm for Trump, since these Twitter outbreaks usually happen when Trump is handed a big political loss, as this timeline plainly shows..." might be a good followup.

At the heart of Trump's petulance is the fact that he is a massively unpopular president, and he's pushing an agenda that is also massively unpopular. The Senate healthcare bill polls at less than 20 percent support from the public. Fewer than one in five Americans want to see it happen. Trump has never cared about the details of this effort at all (he still doesn't, according to some Republican senators who met with him this week). He just wants to sign something that "repeals Obamacare" and move on. To date, he has fully supported the efforts in Congress to break every single campaign pledge Trump ever made about healthcare. It will not cover more people. It will not cover everyone. Everyone does not love it. Medicaid is being slashed, even though Trump promised he'd never do so. People are going to have to pay more to get less. Throughout it all, Trump blithely ignores all the details. Style is much more important to him than substance. Holding a victory party in the Rose Garden is much more important than finding out the bill being celebrated is "mean" and doesn't have "heart."

Donald Trump has entirely punted the crafting of an agenda to everyone but himself, contrary to all the promises he made that he alone knew all the answers to all of America's problems. He was going to personally reveal a plan to defeat the Islamic State. Instead, he's let his generals implement the same plan Obama used (that Trump used to criticize so fiercely). Trump personally was going to unveil the magic healthcare plan to solve all problems, but he never did. Not only did he fail to come up with any sort of plan on his own, he can't even be bothered to learn what is in any of the congressional bills. To date, he has not publicly supported or opposed any one single part of any of the bills drafted so far. Trump didn't just fail to come up with any plan, he simply does not care what is in any of them, period. If Congress passed a one-page bill that just outlawed anyone in government from ever using the term "Obamacare" ever again, Trump would probably be happy enough to sign it and declare victory.

The lack of a quick and easy victory in Congress is obviously frustrating Trump. All he cares about is the win, and he has yet to get a single major legislative win of any sort. That should really be what people discuss at length whenever he lashes out on Twitter. Our president has so little self-control that he feels free to pick fights with the people he sees on his television screen each morning. This is driven by his lack of political competence, which should be getting more obvious with each and every Twitter eruption.

If the media were smarter, they'd attack Trump back in the best way to take on any bully -- by laughing at him. Bullies are, at their core, insecure people. Being laughed at is what bullies fear the most. Just ask Nelson Muntz.

So the next time the media is faced with a Trump tweetstorm launched against one of their own, they should respond with: "And Donald Trump is feeling the political heat once again, as he launched a laughably transparent attempt to distract from his continued string of losing in the game of politics." Start calling him something like "Bad Joke Trump" to hammer this home. "Donald Trump, not content to be the laughingstock of the world, is apparently attempting to prove to every American what a laughable excuse for a president he truly is."

Don't get distracted by Trump's actual attack, in other words. Don't microanalyze each of Trump's tweeted words for some sort of cosmic significance. Focus instead on the instability of the president of the United States lowering himself to the level of a petulant bully. And then laugh right in his face, because that's what he really fears and hates. It may be the only real way to break out of this endless cycle.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

100 Comments on “Trump Successfully Trolls Media, Again”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    hey CW, way to get the column in early today!

    here's something that donald cares about:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DB7Gw_pUIAAVo0d.jpg

    :)
    JL

  2. [2] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    While you criticized the media, you just wrote a column about Trump's antics rather than something substantive.

    It's not a bad column or anything, but leading by example... condense the column into one paragraph and then move on... may be better.

    A

  3. [3] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Purely for topical continuity, this link is to my comment elsewhere which mentions this ...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/27/travel-ban-ruling-mishmash/#comment-104183

    ...and as a public service, michale's reply to that comment is this link:

    [same url]/2017/06/27/travel-ban-ruling-mishmash/#comment-104196

  4. [4] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey neil

    Don't be scared off by the title, because this is an interesting 3 part interview with an economist from India.

    Part 1

    http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19420:Jayati-Ghosh-On-Imperialism-in-the-21st-Century-Pt.13

    It starts with a rehash of the history, and get's more relevant to current issues about 10 minutes into part 1.

    The interviewer is awful, but let's the economist do most of the talking, and she is great.

    A

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    We seem to be living in some sort of reality-TV show, or meta reality-TV show.

    Either we are talking about the tweets in reality-TV terms, or we are talking about the fact that we are talking about the tweets in reality-TV terms.

    Then Altohone[2] has a whole post on the above, instead of leading by example and mentioning something else in her post.

    BTW, they have just linked a pesticide to bee harm, when I thought that was the point of pesticides.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40382086

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone [4] - thanks - I'll watch it later tonight.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al(ice) is a she? I'm so confused ...

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Please tell me they're not trying to kill the bees ... :(

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    Donald Trump has completely redefined the term "bully pulpit." Rather than meaning "a president's ability to talk directly to the people, bypassing the media entirely" it now means "a president's ability to directly bully other people." His wife is actually supposed to be leading a campaign against cyberbullying, which is now no more than a pathetic joke, when her husband is Cyberbully-in-Chief.

    OR...

    Or President Trump is being bullied and simply responds in kind...

    At the heart of Trump's petulance is the fact that he is a massively unpopular president, and he's pushing an agenda that is also massively unpopular.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night. :D

    The ONLY group that Trump is "massively" unpopular with is the Anti-Trumpers.. Patriotic Americans love their President *AND* his agenda.. :D

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    Travel ban takes effect as State Department defines ‘close family’
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/travel-ban-to-take-effect-as-state-department-defines-close-family/2017/06/29/03eb8a8e-eba6-4749-9fa2-79117be89884_story.html

    But!! But!!! But!!

    Ya'all SAID this was NEVER going to happen!!!

    That there CAN'T be a travel ban because it's unconstitutional!!

    What gives!!???

    Were ya'all..... WRONG??? AGAIN!???

    {ccchhhiiirrrrrppppppp..... chiiirrrrrrppppppppp}

    :D

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    Word on K Street is that the Washington Post has been sitting on a story that's going to drop when green lighted. Regardless if it's true or otherwise, it being circulating out there and with Paul Manafort registering with the DOJ retroactively as a foreign agent... in like Mike Flynn... Small-Hands-Small-Mind is naturally getting frustrated and agitated so naturally turning all that rage toward his crutch and whining hysterically about being bullied by the big bad news people.

    The Twitter tantrum wasn't the least bit unexpected. Poor Donald. Ain't it just terrible how they treat the treasonous in this country? :)

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    Apparently, I was wrong about the definition of what constitutes a bona fide family connection..

    And so were you.. :D

    The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 defines "family connection" as a parent, spouse, child, an adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling, as well as their stepfamily counterparts...

    President Trump is simply going by the law...

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Word on K Street is that the Washington Post has been sitting on a story that's going to drop when green lighted.

    Cite???

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    And in other news...

    Justice Department gives up Washington Redskins name fight
    http://pro32.ap.org/article/justice-department-gives-washington-redskins-name-fight

    Do you Lefties ever get tired of losing?? :D

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    House passes Kate’s Law, as part of illegal immigrant crackdown
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/29/house-passes-kate-s-law-as-part-illegal-immigrant-crackdown.html

    And another win for the Trump Administration.. :D

    President Trump was wrong however..

    I am NOT getting tired of winning :D

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    Our president has so little self-control that he feels free to pick fights with the people he sees on his television screen each morning.

    As opposed to a *DEMOCRAT* POTUS who has "so little self-control" that he has to molest young interns in the oval office...

    I don't recall anyone here complaining about THAT, eh?? :^/

    The '-D' POTUS gets a pass for such abhorrent behavior but the '-R' POTUS is raked over the coals for responding in kind to a twit attack...

    Lefty "logic"... :^/

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    BTW, they have just linked a pesticide to bee harm, when I thought that was the point of pesticides.

    Only if ya think that bees are a pest.. :D

    Which, if you are, is VERY short-sighted thinking...

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    Mad genius of Trump drives schoolmarms of political press crazy
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/29/donald-trumps-mad-genius-drives-schoolmarms-of-pol/

    Once again.. President Trump says "JUMP" and the Dumbocrats and their lapdogs, the MSM, JUMP... :D

    Nope.. STILL not getting tired of winning.. :D

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Lefty "logic"... :^/

    Notable exceptions noted... :D

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    A high-profile and powerful man takes to social media -- where he has tens of millions of followers -- to allege a prominent woman was "bleeding badly" after a plastic surgery operation.

    If that high-profile man was the CEO of a major company, he would, at minimum, be forced to apologize, and, at most, be fired. If that high-profile man was an actor, he'd likely be blackballed by Hollywood for future roles.

    Then why, when that person is the President of the United States, should we treat that sort of behavior any differently?
    -Chris Cilliza, CNN

    A high-profile and powerful man takes a young intern into his office and molests her and has her perform oral sex on him..

    If that high-profile man was the CEO of a major company, he would, at minimum, be forced to apologize, and, at most, be fired. If that high-profile man was an actor, he'd likely be blackballed by Hollywood for future roles.

    Then why, when that person is the President of the United States, should we treat that sort of behavior any differently?

    Isn't it funny how attacks against President Trump can, and DOES, work both ways???

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Remember when we were talking about stripping naturalized citizens of their citizenship??

    Houston federal judge revokes sex offender's naturalized citizenship

    A federal judge this week approved an order revoking the naturalized citizenship of a Harris County man convicted of a sex offense more than 20 years earlier, one of a growing number of immigrants stripped of citizenship in a push that began in the final years of the Obama administration.
    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Federal-judge-approves-revoking-sex-offender-s-11256582.php

    I have no problem with that.. :D

  22. [22] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    As opposed to a *DEMOCRAT* POTUS who has "so little self-control" that he has to molest young interns in the oval office...

    I don't recall anyone here complaining about THAT, eh?? :^/

    Well at the time I had only a vague understanding of what "cheating with" someone meant(which is how my mom explained it to me). I was five years old in 1998.

    Cheating on one's spouse is clearly immoral(assuming Hillary actually still cared at that point). And I think you could fairly say it was a disgrace to the office of president and by extension, the country. Lying(or if you want to mince words "misleading" in a deceptive way) about the affair is to me the biggest line he crossed.

    Has Lewinsky accused him of "molesting" her? I mean, she gave him a blowjob right? I seem to recall reading an interview with Lewinsky where she said their relationship was "consensual", but also said something like "he took advantage of me". Perhaps I can find that interview in a bit. I took it to mean that he used his position of authority to take advantage of her. When your boss asks you to do something, you do it. When it's the president, even more so. I take "molested" to imply non-consensual sexual contact. I don't know where Lewinsky has claimed that.

    Another point. Even if there is good evidence out there to suggest Clinton "molested" Lewinsky as you say, using that as an excuse for Trump's behavior is deflecting. Just as, in the case of Bill Clinton we expect the person in a position of authority to refrain from using his position of authority to get sex with an intern, we expect the president to refrain from saying nasty things about a media personality because they said something about him he doesn't like( even something nasty). It's bad enough when anyone launches into personal attacks and insults. When it is the most powerful person in the country, that gives it weight. As for Trunp responding in kind, I think we have a right to expect a president to conduct himself better than some media personality, and stay out of petty squabbles. We had a right to expect better from Clinton too. Both men failed those expectations. But pointing to a Democratic president's bad behavior in the past doesn't justify a Republican president's behavior now.

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    B,

    Well at the time I had only a vague understanding of what "cheating with" someone meant(which is how my mom explained it to me). I was five years old in 1998.

    Gods, I feel so old. :D

    Cheating on one's spouse is clearly immoral(assuming Hillary actually still cared at that point). And I think you could fairly say it was a disgrace to the office of president and by extension, the country. Lying(or if you want to mince words "misleading" in a deceptive way) about the affair is to me the biggest line he crossed.

    It wasn't so much "cheating" on one's spouse. If the "playing" is mutually agreed upon, how can it be cheating?? My lovely wife and I use to "play" like that all the time..

    No, the context that brings about the hypocrisy is when the Left complains that Trump is "disgracing" the high office..

    Those same Lefties didn't have a problem when a Democrat was REALLY disgracing the high office..

    That's my point..

    Has Lewinsky accused him of "molesting" her? I mean, she gave him a blowjob right? I seem to recall reading an interview with Lewinsky where she said their relationship was "consensual", but also said something like "he took advantage of me". Perhaps I can find that interview in a bit. I took it to mean that he used his position of authority to take advantage of her. When your boss asks you to do something, you do it. When it's the president, even more so. I take "molested" to imply non-consensual sexual contact. I don't know where Lewinsky has claimed that.

    I use the term "molesting" in the context of a much older male in a position of authority and a much younger intern... The fact that it was consensual is not relevant..

    Give you an example..

    A 70yr old Republican CEO orders a 18 yr old from the mailroom to come up to his office. They have sex or various approximations of sex that is entirely consensual..

    While it might not be "molesting" in the strictest definition of the term, I am certain many women's groups would find that term to be dead on ballz accurate..

    And I would agree with that up to, but not including, the criminal sense...

    Another point. Even if there is good evidence out there to suggest Clinton "molested" Lewinsky as you say, using that as an excuse for Trump's behavior is deflecting.

    If I were addressing Trump's behavior, you would have a very good point..

    But I am not.. I am addressing the hypocrisy of the group solely based on the '-D' / '-R' that comes after the perpetrator's name..

    Just as, in the case of Bill Clinton we expect the person in a position of authority to refrain from using his position of authority to get sex with an intern, we expect the president to refrain from saying nasty things about a media personality because they said something about him he doesn't like( even something nasty).

    And yet, the expectation of Bill Clinton is COMPLETELY ignored when demanding the expectation of President Trump...

    THAT's my point..

    As for Trunp responding in kind, I think we have a right to expect a president to conduct himself better than some media personality, and stay out of petty squabbles.

    Yea, it's called "political correctness"..

    One of the reasons why Trump was elected.. Because he doesn't play the political correct game..

    . We had a right to expect better from Clinton too. Both men failed those expectations. But pointing to a Democratic president's bad behavior in the past doesn't justify a Republican president's behavior now.

    I am not claiming it does..

    I am simply pointing out that the foundation for attacking Trump is invalid and SOLELY based on partisan bigotry..

    And, as such, it belays the seriousness of the accusation and makes it easy to write off as nothing but Party bigotry...

    There is a very easy way to avoid these types of come-backs..

    Simply acknowledge the Democrat's faults when condemning Republicans for the same faults..

    "Yes, it's true... A Democrat has been totally and completely abhorrent in the area of disgracing the high office... BUT.... yada yada yada yada...."

    Something like that and I wouldn't have a leg to stand on... :D

    Easy Peezy Lemon Squeezy

    :D

    And, again I have to ask..

    Where have you been all my {Weigantian} life!!!?? :D

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    B,

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/06/29/trump-successfully-trolls-media-again/#comment-104238

    That illustrates PERFECTLY the hypocrisy of the Left that I am talking about...

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    As for Trunp responding in kind, I think we have a right to expect a president to conduct himself better than some media personality, and stay out of petty squabbles.

    President Trump is being bullied..

    And we all went thru elementary school and know the best way to deal with a bully is to bloody their nose...

    The politically correct way is to turn the other cheek and take the "moral" high road...

    The AMERICAN way is to body slam the bully and make him think twice about being a bully..

    "We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way!"
    -Toby Keith, COURTESY OF THE RED, WHITE AND BLUE

    :D

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:
  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    I am simply pointing out that the foundation for attacking Trump is invalid and SOLELY based on partisan bigotry..

    I'll rephrase...

    I am pointing out that the foundation for attacking Trump MAY be valid, but that the motivation is SOLELY based on partisan bigotry...

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump is an IN YOUR FACE kind of President... I really don't have a problem with that.. Although I DO admit that sometimes, it's a bit tedious and prompts some eye-rolling..

    But I am constrained to point out that the Left, including practically every Weigantian here LOVED it when Obama got in people's faces, especially Republicans..

    During a SOTU address, Obama snidely reminded the Republicans how he (Obama) had won all his elections...

    Oh my how Weigantians swooned at that.. Oh my how they loved it and cheered it...

    So, what can we deduce from all of these facts??

    That the Left in general and Weigantians in particular don't really MIND an IN-YOUR-FACE POTUS as long as (s)he has a '-D' after their name..

    Once again, the point is not the action, but the hypocrisy in cheering/condemning the action...

    Do you see my point?

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I am pointing out that the foundation for attacking Trump MAY be valid, but that the motivation is SOLELY based on partisan bigotry...

    Thank you for reading my mind. I'd been under the impression that Trump is just a dirtbag.

    Must've burnt the asses of Pubs that Obama turned out to be such a boy scout, given the way that they like to use Clinton's behavior as an excuse for their own indiscretions all the time.

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    Thank you for reading my mind.

    It was pretty scary :D

    I'd been under the impression that Trump is just a dirtbag.

    But he is *ONLY* a dirtbag in your mind because he has a -R after his name..

    That's the point..

    Must've burnt the asses of Pubs that Obama turned out to be such a boy scout,

    BBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Pot smoking druggie... A boy scout??? :D

    You have a weird definition of "boy scout" :D

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    Women are outraged and fed up with this President. Impeachment isn't enough. Should we explore exile?
    -Maxine Waters

    Funny how we don't hear anything from ya'all about WATERS' crazy twits...

    Oh yea.. That's right..

    She has a -D after her name so it's perfectly acceptable...

    It's all about the hypocrisy...

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let's try not to let this blog site slide into the gutter with Donald Trump.

    It is important to ignore the nonsense and resist the incompetent.

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    Let's try not to let this blog site slide into the gutter with Donald Trump.

    I am all for that...

    Just get people to stop calling Trump childish and immature names and we can all be gutter free.. :D

    It is important to ignore the nonsense and resist the incompetent.

    "If only.... IF only...."
    -Hades, HERCULES

    :D

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Just get people to stop calling Trump childish and immature names and we can all be gutter free..

    You mean, only Trump gets to call people childish and immature names.

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    You mean, only Trump gets to call people childish and immature names.

    No, if ya'all stop and Trump continues then ya'all will actually have a moral leg to stand on when you condemn him..

    As of now, ya'all have none...

    But if not having any logical and rational foundation for your attacks and accusations against President Trump doesn't bother ya'all??

    By all means.. Carry on.... :D

  36. [36] 
    michale wrote:

    You mean, only Trump gets to call people childish and immature names.

    Further, I think that Liz was referring to the planetary limits of Weigantia, not the world in general.. :D

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No, if ya'all stop and Trump continues then ya'all will actually have a moral leg to stand on when you condemn him..

    I think we already did that, and he continued. And then he did it again. Admit it, if most Republicans had a say, Trump's cellphone would be at the bottom of the Potomac. Your boy seems to be afflicted with a serious case of obsessive affectional disorder manifesting in excessive excratory emittance.

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    think we already did that, and he continued.

    Nope.. Never happened..

    Admit it, if most Republicans had a say, Trump's cellphone would be at the bottom of the Potomac. Your boy seems to be afflicted with a serious case of obsessive affectional disorder manifesting in excessive excratory emittance.

    I have already shown that Trumps tweets CAN be annoying..

    But that doesn't mean he's a bad person..

    Your comments are also very annoying, even more so than Trump..

    That doesn't mean you are the spawn of Lucifer and should be beheaded....

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That doesn't mean you are the spawn of Lucifer and should be beheaded....

    Tsk! Such violent imagery. Makes one wonder: how many millions have to lose their healthcare before Lucifer says, "Hey, leave my spawn alone. At least they know the difference between right and wrong!"

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump placed himself to the left of the other Republican candidates on a variety of economic issues. And when it came to the socially conservative “values voter,” the Democrats were locked in to their extremely liberal base, particularly with Hillary Clinton as the nominee.

    Right now the Democrats know they’re in a bind. They want to learn how to connect with the forgotten voter in the heartland. Drutman’s little diagram tells them how they can do so. And also why they can never do so. They’re never going to be able to walk away from liberal identity politics, from full abortion rights, from the gender-benders. They’re stuck in the loser quadrant.
    http://nypost.com/2017/06/29/trumps-still-sitting-in-the-sweet-spot-of-american-politics/

    And there it is...

    Democrats MUST connect with middle-class Joe & Jane Sixpack...

    But Democrats CAN'T connect with Joe and Jane as long as the Democrat Party clings to identity politics...

    And Democrats will NEVER give up identity politics..

    Ergo... Democrats will continue to lose...

  41. [41] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    First, thanks to all for the birthday greetings.

    Altohone makes a good point in comment 2.
    What is needed is a combination of today's column and yesterday's.

    "Trump trolls media again and the media responds by bringing back the public option"

    This would be a paragraph about Trump's tweet and then on to an article about how One Demand can create demand and viability for the public to have other options than the false choice between the two divisions of the Big Money Corporate Party.

    So come on CW, lead by example and be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. This is no time for incrementalism. The 2018 election is too important to wait any longer to make the changes to our political system that both CMP divisions of the Big Money Party and the "resistance" are resisting so they can continue to exploit the divisions they created and maintain.

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    Tsk! Such violent imagery.

    It's the Left Wingery way.. :D

    Makes one wonder: how many millions have to lose their healthcare before Lucifer says, "Hey, leave my spawn alone. At least they know the difference between right and wrong!"

    Did you complain when millions lost their healthcare due to TrainWreckCare??

    No, you did not..

    Hence you don't get to complain about the GOP plan.. :D

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Back to the nonsense.

    Michale (23)-
    How can it be cheating if the playing is mutually agreed upon?
    Marriage is a three way contract. And no the third party is not a fictional spirit- it is with the rest of society.
    The two people that marry agree to only be with each other and society gives them benefits and privileges based on that commitment. They do not have the right to remain married and violate that commitment while still receiving the benefits and privileges. That is fraud.

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hence you don't get to complain about the GOP plan

    After putting this new turd on the table, they no longer get to complain about Obamacare.

    By the way, Obamacare is vastly more popular than anything the GOP has proposed to 'replace' it with, so far.

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    The two people that marry agree to only be with each other and society gives them benefits and privileges based on that commitment. They do not have the right to remain married and violate that commitment while still receiving the benefits and privileges.

    But that commitment is SOLELY and COMPLETELY defined by the married couple themselves..

    Further, it's up to the married couple define for themselves what constitutes a violation of said commitment..

    Or, as you saying that the state and the state alone defines what marriage is?? :D

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    that's a pretty rigid view of marriage law. in 29 of the 50 states cheating on your spouse is not illegal, and most states that do have infidelity laws define it very rigidly as sexual intercourse, meaning the Clinton-Lewinski affair wouldn't count.

    JL

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    After putting this new turd on the table, they no longer get to complain about Obamacare.

    That's your opinion....

    By the way, Obamacare is vastly more popular than anything the GOP has proposed to 'replace' it with, so far.

    Only with the Left Wingery...

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But that commitment is SOLELY and COMPLETELY defined by the married couple themselves..

    Further, it's up to the married couple define for themselves what constitutes a violation of said commitment..

    not exactly. in some jurisdictions (including the military) adultery laws can be enforced regardless of whether or not the spouse consents.

    JL

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    not exactly. in some jurisdictions (including the military) adultery laws can be enforced regardless of whether or not the spouse consents.

    Legally, perhaps..

    But I was referring to.... spiritually, for lack of a better term...

    But it's an interesting turn about, isn't it.. Ya'all are defending the state's right to define marriage.. :D

  50. [50] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The commitment is not defined by the married couple. Any change to the commitment must be agreed to by all three parties.
    Just because it is not illegal doesn't mean it is not a violation of the contract which should cause the loss of benefits and privileges without additional criminal penalties.

  51. [51] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Altohone-
    While I would also like to see more substantial content from the media, maybe they are just giving the people what they want.
    You don't have to look any farther than the comments here to see that people prefer the distractions over anything substantial.

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Me: Obamacare is vastly more popular than anything the GOP has proposed to 'replace' it with, so far.

    M [47]: Only with the Left Wingery...

    FiveThirtyEight: The GOP Health Care Bill Is Unpopular Even In Republican Districts

  53. [53] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    are you suggesting that people in open marriages are in violation of their marriage contract and should be divested of all the rights and privileges that the marriage entails?

    JL

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    FiveThirtyEight: The GOP Health Care Bill Is Unpopular Even In Republican Districts

    Like I said... ONLY with the Left Wingery.. :D

    538 scrooed the call on the election..

    They have no credibility..

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    are you suggesting that people in open marriages are in violation of their marriage contract and should be divested of all the rights and privileges that the marriage entails?

    Exactly....

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    There is so much infinitely more to marriage than who one has sex with....

  57. [57] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    are you suggesting that people in open marriages are in violation of their marriage contract and should be divested of all the rights and privileges that the marriage entails?

    Exactly....

    Well, that's a split in the Conservative camp, isn't it, between the 'libertarian' conservatives, who believe that the state should have little or no control over personal relationships (Ayn Rand, for instance, had an open marriage), and Social Conservatives, who seem to believe that we have no crevices or private relationships that are not of concern to the state.

    So you're siding with theocratic socialism?

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, that's a split in the Conservative camp, isn't it

    I wouldn't know.. I am not part of the Conservative camp... :D

    So you're siding with theocratic socialism?

    I am siding with myself..

    And it's a GREAT side to be on :D

  59. [59] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I am siding with myself..And it's a GREAT side to be on :D

    Noted.

  60. [60] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So you're saying that you have no particular theological or philosophical basis for judging and condemning others' lifestyle and relationship choices, but would enforce your narrow view by force of law.

    You're right, you're becoming less conservative by the minute.

  61. [61] 
    michale wrote:

    So you're saying that you have no particular theological or philosophical basis for judging and condemning others' lifestyle and relationship choices,

    No..

    I am saying I don't judge or condemn others' lifestyle or relationship choices..

    As long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me or mine..

  62. [62] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @balthasar,

    i think you're confusing michale's views with don's. michale has stated many times that he's completely libertarian when it comes to people's private behavior. it was don's comment that we're taking issue with. Don wrote:

    The two people that marry agree to only be with each other and society gives them benefits and privileges based on that commitment. They do not have the right to remain married and violate that commitment while still receiving the benefits and privileges. That is fraud.

    michale's response was i think an agreement with my response - incredulity at such an extreme view on the state's rights to dictate who is and is not entitled to marriage rights.

    JL

  63. [63] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    michale's response was i think an agreement with my response - incredulity at such an extreme view on the state's rights to dictate who is and is not entitled to marriage rights.

    I would certainly weigh in on that side. I was responding to [55], which seems to side with your description of Don's point of view.

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    33

    Just get people to stop calling Trump childish and immature names and we can all be gutter free.. :D

    Oh my heavens, dearest, but aren't you perhaps forgetting that you lack the "moral foundation" to lecture others about name calling? And now you've gone above and given ample proof that you also lack the "moral foundation" to whine incessantly about "Bubba" and his marital infidelity. Tisk, tisk. Without a "moral founation," how will you deflect all those attacks coming from Trump Trash when he picks up his crutch and starts his Small-Hands-Small-Mind revenge tweeting?

    You poor dear; you've tried so desperately to make this your safe space because apparently itty bitty words from anyone else who doesn't share your love of DICKtater Don seem to hurt your widdle fee-fees where you take them personally against yourself. Whyever do you do that when words against Benedict Donald aren't actually about you?

    By the way, speaking of Benedict, have you boned up on all your history regarding American traitor presidents in order to deflect for President Treason? Let's see... Nixon wasn't actually a liberal although he would qualify by today's standards since he did usher in the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency with the stroke of a pen by Executive Order, but you still can't credibly use Nixon for deflection because although he was lots of things, that particular Dick wasn't a traitor to his country like current President Benedict DICKtater. :)

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the world. The president is the spokesman for democracy and liberty. Isn’t it time we brought back the pomp and circumstance and the sense of awe for that office that we all held?

    That means everyone in the administration should look and act professionally, especially the president.

    Impressions matter.

  66. [66] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet (53)-
    No I'm not suggesting it- I'm saying it.

  67. [67] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And if expecting people to be held accountable when they don't live up to their commitments is extreme then consider me an extremist on this issue.
    But let's get real. It has been reported that more than 50% of people violate their contract and more than 50% of marriages end in divorce so I am saying, not suggesting, that we get rid of marriage as a legal entity because it doesn't work as a legal entity.
    But as long as we have it should be enforced. Otherwise why have it?

  68. [68] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the world.

    The president is the spokesman for democracy and liberty.

    Isn’t it time we brought back the pomp and circumstance and the sense of awe for that office that we all held?

    That means everyone in the administration should look and act professionally, especially the President.

    Impressions matter.

    Trump’s 2015 campaign tome, Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again.

    From the mouth of people with baby hands! Too bad Trump never bothered to actually read the book he "wrote".

  69. [69] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Damn it, Kick! Great minds definitely think alike!!!

  70. [70] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    But apparently y'all take the Dire Straits view on this issue:

    "Money for nothing and chicks for free."

  71. [71] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "I want my, I want my, my infidelity..."

  72. [72] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    But let's get real. It has been reported that more than 50% of people violate their contract and more than 50% of marriages end in divorce so I am saying, not suggesting, that we get rid of marriage as a legal entity because it doesn't work as a legal entity.
    But as long as we have it should be enforced. Otherwise why have it?

    So do we get rid of corporations as well since most businesses will fail eventually?

    How can you say that marriage does not work as a legal entity? The protections and legal benefits of marriage end when the marriage does! That is how it is supposed to work, correct?

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh my heavens, dearest, but aren't you perhaps forgetting that you lack the "moral foundation" to lecture others about name calling?

    I have plenty of moral foundation as my name-calling is beget by ya'all's...

    I have aptly proven beyond ANY doubt that I can have adult and mature conversations without name-calling..

    With a handful of exceptions, no one here can make the same claim..

  74. [74] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    5

    Nice.
    Twice.

    Though two sentences and then moving on to a different topic in the next comment doesn't really compare to the column very well... but I could have combined the two.

    As for the bees, while you are leading by example, the issue does not serve well when seeking political gain. Dems can't challenge Trump on pesticides when they too refused to act on the issue. It has been known for years that neonics kill bees, and neither Obama nor Congress acted when they could have.

    It's not unlike their inability to challenge Trump on say bombing Syria on false pretenses... because Dems supported that too.

    The trumpling here offered some opinion piece to talk about Dems failing because they are stuck on LGBTQ rights and liberal ideas, but that isn't the problem at all. It's their inability to challenge on economics (and to a lesser extent foreign policy) where they are completely unable to distinguish themselves from the Repubs, because they are serving the exact same interests.

    A

  75. [75] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    7

    Just don't call me late for dinner, right?

    A

  76. [76] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I have aptly proven beyond ANY doubt that I can have adult and mature conversations without name-calling..

    How many years of yoga training did it require before you were able to put your head inside of your own anus? Not name calling, just asking a pertinent question!

  77. [77] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Incorrect. Why should the protections and legal benefits continue when the commitment to obtain those benefits is not continued?

    Getting rid of corporations because businesses fail makes no sense because not all businesses are corporations.
    But I am all for getting rid of corporations. Corporations were designed as e legal entity to shield business owners of their responsibilities.
    I believe business owners will behave more responsibly if they are held accountable for their actions.
    There is no benefit to society for having corporations.

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the world. The president is the spokesman for democracy and liberty. Isn’t it time we brought back the pomp and circumstance and the sense of awe for that office that we all held?

    That means everyone in the administration should look and act professionally, especially the president.

    Impressions matter.

    As usual, you ignore my point and create a straw man argument because you can't address my point..

    Why didn't "impressions matter" when your Democrat was getting a blow job from a intern a third his age in the oval office and was doing her with a cigar??

    "Impressions" didn't seem to matter then...

    Why now??

    Because NOW the POTUS has a -R after his name and THEN the POTUS had a -D after his name..

    And *THAT* is the *ONLY* thing that matters to ya'all...

  79. [79] 
    altohone wrote:

    Don
    41

    "So come on CW, lead by example and be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. This is no time for incrementalism."

    Thanks, but I would argue that the public option is "incrementalism".

    Single Payer Medicare For All is what the majority want, and it's the only way to cover everybody while saving trillions of dollars.

    Politically, the public option is basically following Obama's failed strategy of compromising before the debate even begins.
    Single Payer is what Democrats need to pursue in order to motivate voters... on the health care issue anyway.

    A

  80. [80] 
    altohone wrote:

    Don
    51

    "While I would also like to see more substantial content from the media, maybe they are just giving the people what they want."

    Huge segments of Americans wouldn't be abandoning mainstream media and seeking out alternative sources if that was true across the board.

    It does, unfortunately, remain true for too many.

    Did you catch this when I posted the link last week?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVQH-dYIzgghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVQH-dYIzgg

    A

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    Not name calling, just asking a pertinent question!

    Pertinent, in YOUR opinion...

    But in reality just another personal attack.. :D

  82. [82] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey neil and gang

    IMF revises down US growth estimates

    "It lowered the expected growth rate for 2017 from 2.3 percent to 2.1 percent and for 2018 from 2.5 percent to 2.1 percent as well."

    "Despite having high per capita income and being one of the most flexible, competitive, and innovative economies in the world, the US model appears to be having difficulties adapting to the secular changes.

    The shifts were having real consequences for people’s livelihood.

    Household incomes are stagnating for a large share of the population (in inflation-adjusted terms, more than half of US households has a lower income today than they did in 2000); job opportunities are deteriorating with many workers too discouraged to remain in the labor force (since 2007, the labor force participation rate has fallen from 66 to below 63 percent…); prospects for upward mobility are waning; and the poverty rate (at 13.5 percent) is one of the highest among advanced economies.”

    "It stated that, as currently framed, “the budget implies significant cuts to discretionary spending that, in the staff’s view, would seem to place a disproportionate share of the adjustment burden on low- and middle-income households. This would appear to counter the budget’s goal of promoting safety and prosperity for all Americans.”

    -
    -

    Note that "half of US households has a lower income today than they did in 2000" part.

    Half are earning less than they did in 2000... and at the same time paying much more for basic necessities like housing and health care.

    Where are the Democrats?
    Nowhere, that's where.
    Their Big Money donors want it that way, so that's the way it is.

    A

  83. [83] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    granted there's quite a bit of proverbial bathwater, but i'm still opposed to throwing out the babies along with it. if the traditional concept of marriage has outlived its usefulness, don't eliminate the practice entirely, redefine it more broadly to better serve society.

    same thing with corporations; the worst excesses of multinational conglomerates do not mean the entire concept of protecting investments from personal liability does not have some legitimate positive impact. corporations were initially conceived as a way to serve the public by gathering private money to build public institutions. over the years they have drastically overreached their intended purpose, but that does not make them inherently bad. like any tool, the corporation is only as good or bad as the individuals who use it. restore some individual liability to executives and their boards, and they will be more careful in their pursuit of profit.

    JL

  84. [84] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    nypoet-
    As for marriage: The baby grew up and moved out.
    As for corporations: You are confusing the bathtub with the toilet. When the toilet is full of shit it needs to flushed and/or plunged.
    Mercy flush PLEASE!

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    "Hay... Hay buddy, how bout a courtesy flush, eh?"
    -Tom Arnold, AUSTIN POWERS

    :D

  86. [86] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Altohone (79)-
    I can understand that you see single payer as the goal. But I was using the term public option from the title of CW's article and the incrementalism reference was referring to the public having more options by CW informing citizens about the opportunity provided by One Demand.
    But for health insurance the public option lets people choose. If people are opposed to getting coverage from the government they should be allowed to pay more to buy it from insurance companies.

  87. [87] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Altohone-
    Funny clip. Jimmy Dore is much less annoying when he doesn't talk as much.

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    78

    As usual, you ignore my point and create a straw man argument because you can't address my point..

    Why didn't "impressions matter" when your Democrat was getting a blow job from a intern a third his age in the oval office and was doing her with a cigar??

    I don't have a "Democrat," but then again you'd much rather focus on me than Benedict Donald and current events; we all know why that is, but I digress. By your own admission, you lack the "moral foundation" to proselytize about marital infidelity since you're an admitted "player" just like Bubba/Trump. Now we know why you constantly talk about Bubba's infidelities while defending Donald's personal attacks against others. You have to conflate a consenting woman in love with the POTUS as an attack on her in order to demonstrate your love of DICKtater Don, and quite simply it's your admitted thing too, Player. Could you possibly get your jollies somewhere else? NOT everyone here is a Player like you and Bubba/Trump.

    "Impressions" didn't seem to matter then...

    Why now??

    You should ask your Orange Crush since he's the one who actually said it. I do agree it's hypocrisy at its very finest on the part of Benedict DICKtater Don.

    Hey, LWYH, great minds do think alike. Don't you just love it when Players like Michale take issue with hypocrisy while his head is so far up his back channel he has no idea that he's been "Trumped!" :)

    Because NOW the POTUS has a -R after his name and THEN the POTUS had a -D after his name..

    And *THAT* is the *ONLY* thing that matters to ya'all...

    Actually, Player, you're the ONLY ONE on this board who is overly obsessed with that utter Party bigot nonsense. It's pretty much all you talk about while you're flailing around daily in an attempt to create a safe space for yourself. *LOL* :)

  89. [89] 
    michale wrote:

    Actually, Player, you're the ONLY ONE on this board who is overly obsessed with that utter Party bigot nonsense. It's pretty much all you talk about

    That's because it's all you ever have... :D

    Quit acting like a Party bigot and I'll quit calling out your bigotry..

    It's that simple...

  90. [90] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Part of what was missed in the Great Distraction was the announcement of changing the mission and size of the federal law enforcement presence in Chicago. Of particular importance, of course, is A.T.F. Chicago is ground zero for the Firearms part of the acronym.

    Chicago Sun Times has morning reporting at http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/trumps-feds-arrive-in-chicago-to-fight-gun-crime/

    One interesting and telling fact in that reporting is the clear organized crime nature of much of the carnage; in several reported cases, multiple shooters used the same gun:

    "One 9mm gun has been linked to 28 shootings, including several murders, on the West Side," [head of the Chicago Police Department’s organized crime unit] said.

    This could be a significant surge in this battle.

    It's the same battle that Columbia has engaged at high cost in treasure and blood. It's the same social affliction that Mexico is suffering. And why should we think the US is immune?

    All three are on the same supply chain. All the gangs are funded by the same powders and chemicals. All face the same underlying social problems, and the biggest problems are not growers or users. Overarching, it's grinding poverty and ignorance. It's generations coming of age with no hope or dreams.

    It took generations to get here, and we should expect it to take at least a generation to get back out.

    Before that climb out can even start, people need to get their neighborhoods back, and again sit out on the stoops in the evening and watch each other's kids as they play together up and down the sidewalk.

    For the citizens to become neighbors again, they have to get their neighborhood back from those who hold it unlawfully now.

    It's time to come for the gangs.

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    89

    That's because it's all you ever have... :D

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Quit acting like a Party bigot and I'll quit calling out your bigotry..

    It's that simple...

    I agree it's a "simple" argument, but it's getting pathological at this point, which is generally what happens with players like you and Bubba/Trump... you can't stop making up lies about others because it's quite simply what those with "simple" minds have to do. You can't compete on the issues so you resort to your daily lies about others.

    I'm only one of multiple millions and millions of people not affiliated with a Party who doesn't share your love of DICKtater Don. Your LYING about me a million times cannot and will NOT change that FACT.

    Please do pull your head out long enough to try and keep up with current events/issues and do refrain from turning every issue into a lying monotonous rant about other posters. If you can't keep up and have to resort to the pathological and admitted lying and "simple" argument you've beaten to death, others will naturally conclude it's all you've got because you're way out of your league... thus necessitating your LIES. *LOL* :)

  92. [92] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    LeaningBlue [90]: Chicago's 785 murders last year dwarf, say, St. Louis' 478 , but Chicago's population is eight times larger, so St. Louis, and 13 other cities have a higher per capita murder rate than Chicago's 17.5 per 100,000:

    St. Louis (59.3)
    Baltimore (55.4)
    Detroit (43.8)
    New Orleans (41.7)
    Milwaukee (24.2)
    Washington D.C. (24.1)
    Kansas City, Missouri (23)
    Cincinnati, Ohio (22.1)
    Memphis, Tennessee (20.5)
    Oakland, California (20.3)
    Atlanta (20.2)
    Pittsburgh (18.6)
    Philadelphia (17.9)

    So is this FBI task force about 'helping' Chicago, or shaming Rahm Emanuel, Obama's former chief of staff? I'm sure Rahm will welcome the extra muscle, but he's also facing the fact that Sessions has rejected a proposed consent decree that would have made the Chicago City Police agree to a range of policy changes designed to improve their relations with at-risk communities, completing a process that had been in the works for years.

    For his part Hizzoner Emanuel has said that he will nevertheless try to gain credibility with local leaders by holding the department to higher levels of transparency, but local stories I've read suggest that community leaders view this as yet another example of the CPD managing to dodge accountability and reform.

    Now, if I'm the mayor of St. Louis, I'm pissed, and thinking: "where's my FBI task force?"

  93. [93] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don,

    Incorrect. Why should the protections and legal benefits continue when the commitment to obtain those benefits is not continued?

    The benefits do not continue if the couple divorces! Why punish the other 50% that DO stay married? And trying to force couples to stay together simply because they made a commitment to each other years ago is the worst reason to stay together. I'll take LOVE over OBLIGATION every time.

  94. [94] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Why didn't "impressions matter" when your Democrat was getting a blow job from a intern a third his age in the oval office and was doing her with a cigar??

    It did. I was a Republican supporter back then. You seem to forget that Bill and Donald were pretty good buds back in the day.

    But go ahead and bash the Democrat who got a blowjob by a person acting under their own free will while you defend the man who bragged about his fame allowing him to commit sexual assault without fear of repercussions.

  95. [95] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Devon's former chief is an amazing woman who has made a name for herself in law enforcement for going in and helping to reform departments that need strong leadership. She went to Chicago... and left after 6 months. It sounds like the Feds NEED to go in to clean house and set up an extensive retraining program that will weed out those that in all levels of management that aren't as open to change as they need to be.

  96. [96] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    listen-
    But the benefits continue if they don't divorce while not living up to their commitment.
    I agree that if they don't want to be with each other they should divorce. And even if they do want to be with each other while being with other people they should also divorce.
    If you want to be married then be married and live up to the commitment or divorce. But don't take the benefits without living up to the commitment.

  97. [97] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    points for superb counter-analogies! nonetheless, grown up marriage doesn't need to be locked out of the house and her key confiscated; we must treat adult children like grown-ups, even if they don't always act like grown-ups.

    ...and what you're proposing to do with corporations isn't a flush, it's a colostomy.

    to digress, i believe that in spite of their many shortcomings, both marriage and corporations serve some valuable roles, without which our society would not work.

    JL

  98. [98] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    When are you going to learn??

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    You simply saying that does not make it so..

    There is a plethora of facts to support the conclusion that you are acting like a Party bigot..

    Quit acting that way and I'll quit calling you on it..

    Duh....

  99. [99] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    There is a plethora of facts to support the conclusion that you are acting like a Party bigot..

    one could quite accurately say the same about you. however, neither you nor kick is affiliated with any political party, so i'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it must be something else.

    JL

    Well, you told me I have a plethora. And I just would like to know if you know what a plethora is. I would not like to think that a person would tell someone he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has *no idea* what it means to have a plethora.
    Forgive me, El Guapo. I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education. But could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?
    ~ the 3 amigos

  100. [100] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    98

    There is a plethora of facts to support the conclusion that you are acting like a Party bigot..

    Your "Party bigot bullshit" is nothing more than incessant name calling because you've proven without doubt that you can't actually debate issues. Therefore, you insist on falsely labeling people with your outright LIES... the same utter nonsensical bullshit over and over as if it's some kind of new argument every day. It's pathetic and sad.

    There are thousands of facts to support the conclusion that you have no learning ability whatsoever. Keep typing out your same old tired BS all the time, and there will be a plethora more to go with those because you've got little else to offer except beating the same horse over and over; it's dead already.

    If getting attention by looking like a whiny repetitive child is what you were aiming for, then you've succeeded. :)

    LUCKY: Great! You've killed the invisible swordsman.
    NED: He's dead alright.
    DUSTY: How was I supposed to know where he was?
    LUCKY: You were supposed to fire up. We both fired up!
    It's like living with a six-year-old.

    ~ ¡Three Amigos!

    Good movie choice, JL! :)

Comments for this article are closed.