2016 Election

Quote: rxwine

I hope Hillary's strategy at the first debate, instead of shaking hands, she licks Trump's face. Hopefully EB will be watching, so he can talk about his hysteria induced blindness.

There may not be a debate. Hillary will refuse to occupy the same stage with ________(fill in the blank with any or all of the standard name calling). Truth is, she's scared to death to debate Trump.

Maybe Reagan didn't send us into a war in a traditional sense, just increased wasteful spending on war on drugs to unimaginable heights which has continued to date, with zero reasonably anticipated or realized affect, other than just locking up some people who are immediately replaced, again with zero affect.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Donald Regan was President? Oh, you're talking about Ronald Reagan (with two A's)...

Wow, a spelling error. You must be a really
smart person to spot that. If I pointed out
sp errors on all the forums I'm on, that's all
I'd be doing.

Donald Regan? Really?

Quote: EvenBob

Wow, a spelling error. You must be a really
smart person to spot that. If I pointed out
sp errors on all the forums I'm on, that's all
I'd be doing.

Donald Regan? Really?

In case you didn't notice, it is (it's) (it's) a way of determining intelligence to some around here. Of course some of the same people believe in and write about global warming and act like they actually believe in it. Or they truly are smart and have found a way to make money off the saps that fall for it, which does make them smart. Ripping off and exploiting tree hugging hippies is ok in my book. I think most of us agree you never wise up a chump.

Quote: EvenBob

Trump is far more qualified than Obama ever
was to be president. It's not even an argument.

Obama at least had a rudimentary knowledge of how the Constitution works. That right there alone made him 10x more qualified than Trump.

Quote: Boz

In case you didn't notice, it is (it's) (it's) a way of determining intelligence to some around here. Of course some of the same people believe in and write about global warming and act like they actually believe in it. Or they truly are smart and have found a way to make money off the saps that fall for it, which does make them smart. Ripping off and exploiting tree hugging hippies is ok in my book. I think most of us agree you never wise up a chump.

Easy on the 'tree huggers', don't make me call you a 'chump'.
Signed 'Tree Huggin Republican' (and there's several of us, we got a gang, specializes in bar fights ;-)

Quote: ams288

Obama at least had a rudimentary knowledge of how the Constitution works.

So when he signed the NDAA into law, he was fully aware he was committing treason?

Aren't you glad he kept his original campaign promises and got us out of Afghanistan and closed Gitmo. {snarc} I just loved it when he brought all those thieving bankers to justice.

Gotta respect a man who keeps his word.

Quote: Boz

Of course some of the same people believe in and write about global warming and act like they actually believe in it. Or they truly are smart and have found a way to make money off the saps that fall for it, which does make them smart. Ripping off and exploiting tree hugging hippies is ok in my book.

Sure, tree-hugging hippies like:

* George W. Bush (R)
* Governor Chris Christie (R)
* A majority of Republicans in general*
* Nearly half of Republican legislators*
* The Pope

But go ahead, keep trying to convince us that it's only tree-hugging hippies who acknowledge climate change, instead of the reality that it's a majority of even Republicans, and an overwhelming majority of Americans in general. Those kinds of blatant factual errors make it easy for readers to realize that anything you say can be safely ignored.

Quote: petroglyph

Aren't you glad he kept his original campaign promises and got us out of Afghanistan and closed Gitmo. {snarc} I just loved it when he brought all those thieving bankers to justice.

Gotta respect a man who keeps his word.

What does this have to do with him having a rudimentary knowledge of the Constitution?

This nonsensical argument seems to point to a severe case of ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).

For treatment, I'd recommend three days without Fox News or right wing blogs. Symptoms should start to subside....

Quote: MichaelBluejay

But go ahead, keep trying to convince us that it's only tree-hugging hippies who acknowledge climate change, .

I have climate change at my house today.
It's Spring and the days are warmer. I
thought about running around pulling
out my hair in distress, when I remembered
this happens every year, almost.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Sure, tree-hugging hippies like:

* George W. Bush (R)
* Governor Chris Christie (R)
* A majority of Republicans in general*
* Nearly half of Republican legislators*
* The Pope

But go ahead, keep trying to convince us that it's only tree-hugging hippies who acknowledge climate change, instead of the reality that it's a majority of even Republicans, and an overwhelming majority of Americans in general. Those kinds of blatant factual errors make it easy for readers to realize that anything you say can be safely ignored.

And it is easy to ignore anything you say because of your obvious beyond extreme liberal bias. Again unless it is all is a money making act, which seems probable based on the odds of anyone seemingly as smart as you act believing that nonsense. And adding the refusal to fly is genius. Take those saps for all you can my friend, they deserve it!

I will vote for the first candidate to say "Why should we care about climate change, it has happened for thousands of years."

I try to be open minded but I just don't get climate change. So what if it changes and gets hotter every year. Civilization will adapt or it won't. Why care?

Quote: ams288

What does this have to do with him having a rudimentary knowledge of the Constitution?

This nonsensical argument seems to point to a severe case of ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).

For treatment, I'd recommend three days without Fox News or right wing blogs. Symptoms should start to subside....

Not that it would make any difference to your posting, but I have never watched network news since the early 70's or cnn during 9/11. I couldn't turn it off, I was mesmerized. MSM is just propaganda, Bernay's style.

I recognize your agenda.

Quote: DRich

I will vote for the first candidate to say "Why should we care about climate change, it has happened for thousands of years."

I try to be open minded but I just don't get climate change. So what if it changes and gets hotter every year. Civilization will adapt or it won't. Why care?

I dunno man I hate shopping for clothes. This will mean more trips to Macy's or Ross.

Quote: mcallister3200

Maybe Reagan didn't send us into a war in a traditional sense, just increased wasteful spending on war on drugs to unimaginable heights which has continued to date, with zero reasonably anticipated or realized affect, other than just locking up some people who are immediately replaced, again with zero affect.

This is the problem that I have with all politicians. I thought Reagan was a fine President, but he obviously made mistakes--as every single President does. If the "War on Drugs" is a "failure", why don't we fix it? Why don't we put the best minds available on the problem and figure out ways to control drug use in a manner that costs less and is more effective? I understand the arguments for legalization of drugs but, beyond marijuana, I can't see a good case for it. The harder drugs cause huge dependency issues and lots of deaths--why would we legalize that? There is a happy medium there; we just need to be willing to find it,

Politicians are afraid to be bold because they just want to keep their jobs for the rest of their lives. I think that is why they are being rejected this time around by many--people realize that politicians don't really care about the people, in spite of what they all say.

(I know...some do...but the nature of the beast is to get in power and keep power)

Quote: petroglyph

Not that it would make any difference to your posting, but I have never watched network news since the early 70's or cnn during 9/11. I couldn't turn it off, I was mesmerized. MSM is just propaganda, Bernay's style.

I recognize your agenda.

Could you let me know what my agenda is?

Cause I'm not sure I even recognize my agenda....

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Chill boys and girls, it still is 'early'.
Gabes said he had voted Dem in Cook County once or twice.
Are you even allowed to vote Rep in Cook County?
Maybe you can, but they just drop 2 Dem votes in when you leave to offset you?
Cook County needs serious fumigation, at least ;-)

When I grabbed my primary ballot the pollworker asked me "Democrat or Independent"

Quote: Boz

And it is easy to ignore anything you say because of your obvious beyond extreme liberal bias.

Boz logic: Paying attention to actual facts instead of made-up fantasy = extreme liberal bias

Quote: Boz

Again unless it is all is a money making act, which seems probable based on the odds of anyone seemingly as smart as you act believing that nonsense.

When a rational person thinks of a word to describe the conclusion that 98% of scientists have come to, "nonsense" isn't one of them.

And yet again, even most REPUBLICANS acknowledge climate change. So why are you wasting your time with me? Start trying to convince your fellow right-wingers, because among even Republicans, you're in the minority. And ring up the universities and explain to the scientists why your understanding of climate mechanics is superior to theirs.

I don't know whether to believe in climate change at all. I mean I believe the climate changes, it has been since the Earth came to be. You don't have to be a scientist to know we have gone through ice ages, tropical periods etc. What I don't understand is why 5-10 years ago it stopped being called "Global Warming" and all of a sudden became "Climate Change" Global warming was the catch phrase for 20-30 years, why did it suddenly go by the wayside? Could it be that the data suggests that the world was no longer warming?

Also, I am a fan of history, and one lesson I have learned from history, is people in power generally use crises or perceived crises in order to make rules and laws in order to make their populations more compliant and reverent to them. History is loaded with people who take advantage of people whose reference of time begins at their birth and ends at their death and they use that to make it seem like problems in their current day are more profound and more critical than any problems in the history of mankind and people willingly give up freedoms in the name of fixing a critical problem.

There is a saying in politics that says "never waste a crisis" as crises are seen by politicians as ways of improving their popularity and cache and thus making their agendas easier to pass. I cannot help but think that we in the US are victim to some of this line of thinking. I believe organizations like the UN are basically set up to blame the US for all the world's problems and to get the US to pay to fix them, or perhaps more accurately, to blame the US for all the world's problems as a way to get money from the US to spend on other things. I don't believe the US is the most offensive to the environment in terms of emissions or pollutants, yet we get blamed for it and are forced to pay the brunt of the cost. Why is that?

Quote: Gabes22

I don't know whether to believe in climate change at all. I mean I believe the climate changes, it has been since the Earth came to be. You don't have to be a scientist to know we have gone through ice ages, tropical periods etc. What I don't understand is why 5-10 years ago it stopped being called "Global Warming" and all of a sudden became "Climate Change" Global warming was the catch phrase for 20-30 years, why did it suddenly go by the wayside? Could it be that the data suggests that the world was no longer warming?

There's a long answer to this. The data do not suggest that warming has stopped.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326

Quote: harvson3

There's a long answer to this. The data do not suggest that warming has stopped.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326

I have read articles on both sides of the issue. I do not consider myself an expert at all, but I have developed skepticism at the alarmist part of the issue--the part that led to believers to figure out ways to make money on climate change/global warming. Simply put, I find it hard to believe that the rich people "committed" to the issue really give a damn about their pollution (private jets, multiple mansions creating pollution, etc.) but they care a hell of a lot about mine. I'm supposed to reduce my minimal carbon footprint and buy "offsets" for the carbon I do produce.

Real solutions with real commerce behind them? I'd be all for it. You can't keep polluting forever and not have some kind of an impact. I just want the damn people stirring up all the trouble to stop preaching and start practicing what they preach!!!

"If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases."

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Climategate-You-should-be-steamed-1715225.php

Your link goes to a six-year-old op-ed about the controversy at East Anglia University in the UK. All those scientists involved have been investigated - by six different panels - and have been cleared of any accusations of scientific misconduct. The scientists have been told to be less snarky in their emails. I suggest you find new links.

I'd be glad to see your support for policies like cross-subsidization to increase solar use (such as that overturned at the Nevada PUC recently), emissions taxes for airlines (such as those proposed by the EU), and greater regulation of gas storage tanks (such as that proposed in California following the recent Aliso Canyon methane leak), though I don't really see how personal emissions of those proposing these ideas enters into it. That's analogous to seeing a mangrove swamp renewal project proposed to save New Orleans but being concerned that some of the construction workers pee in the Gulf.

Reducing individual carbon emissions is a virtue, but reducing emission significantly requires widespread collection action.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

When a rational person thinks of a word to describe the conclusion that 98% of scientists have come to, "nonsense" isn't one of them.

That 98 percent achievement is the same pinnacle reached by paragons like Khrushchev and Castro. Some ideal to aspire to! Some indication of free and intensive discussion!

There are two sides to the story; that is the only reason for that link. I found many others, but this particular discussion is probably better had on DT than here in the Election 2016 thread.

I actually said that I'd like to do something about pollution in my post, I just don't trust people like Gore that seem more interested in gaining personal wealth without really inventing a product or process that helps the situation. I am also skeptical of people who tell me to do less while they do more... I am not against them making every honest dollar they can and spending that how they wish, but don't tell me how to behave when you behave in the opposite manner. Chose one way or the other...

Quote: harvson3

Your link goes to a six-year-old op-ed about the controversy at East Anglia University in the UK. All those scientists involved have been investigated - by six different panels - and have been cleared of any accusations of scientific misconduct. The scientists have been told to be less snarky in their emails. I suggest you find new links.

I'd be glad to see your support for policies like cross-subsidization to increase solar use (such as that overturned at the Nevada PUC recently), emissions taxes for airlines (such as those proposed by the EU), and greater regulation of gas storage tanks (such as that proposed in California following the recent Aliso Canyon methane leak), though I don't really see how personal emissions of those proposing these ideas enters into it. That's analogous to seeing a mangrove swamp renewal project proposed to save New Orleans but being concerned that some of the construction workers pee in the Gulf.

Reducing individual carbon emissions is a virtue, but reducing emission significantly requires widespread collection action.

I do not doubt your word but a link to the discussion of the investigation - by six different panels - would make for interesting reading material. Cheers / 2F

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Boz logic: Paying attention to actual facts instead of made-up fantasy = extreme liberal bias

When a rational person thinks of a word to describe the conclusion that 98% of scientists have come to, "nonsense" isn't one of them.

And yet again, even most REPUBLICANS acknowledge climate change. So why are you wasting your time with me? Start trying to convince your fellow right-wingers, because among even Republicans, you're in the minority. And ring up the universities and explain to the scientists why your understanding of climate mechanics is superior to theirs.

You don't fly because it causes "Global Warming"= Extreme Liberal Bias (as a gimmick). Sorry but that is the way I see it. 98% of the people would see that as extreme. The record airline profits would say I am correct.

Dude, I get it, you have to stick with the story to make money. Many people do it and play a character all the time to support their family. Nothing wrong with that. But even Hulk Hogan had to admit his tool wasn't 10 inches in court. I believe you even changed your name as part of the act. If you kids end up better off financially from it, you made the right call.

I respect anyone who finds a legal way to make money, that's what made American Great before envy and victimization became a political winning tactic. And with people like you and others who want others to share in the greatness, I ask that you consider joining the team with Donald Trump to "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN".

Quote: Boz

, I ask that you consider joining the team with Donald Trump to "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN".

He proposes a 45% tariff on goods imported from China
That will destroy the economy
Are business leaders or economists demanding a 45% tariff?
Of course not because it will destroy American businesses
How does this make America great?

slogans don't mean jack if the policy is to destroy our economy.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

the conclusion that 98% of scientists have come to,

I love stats like this. No source, no nothing.
What scientists, where, what kind of
scientists. Everywhere I look I'm seeing
GW being called the biggest scam ever.
Climate Change is a meaningless phase,
it's like Wet Water. Well duh, water is
wet and climate does change.

Where are you getting this 45% number from? I could not find it on Trump's website on his China policy that is for sure. What is seems to be saying is that China is manipulating its currency and the currency is undervalued by anywhere from 15-40% in an effort to enact a tariff when there is none enacted on paper. His policy seems to want to counterbalance that manipulation or rid itself of it. On the outset, I find it amazing that somebody can make a product, ship it halfway around the world and sell it here cheaper than with something we can make the next state over. What I would love to encourage is more products being made here and that seems to be what he is wanting to do. Whether it will be successful or not is another issue but I can tell you one thing, if you have driven around this country the past 20 years or so, there seems to be a vacant factory in basically any town

Quote: Gabes22

Where are you getting this 45% number from?

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-45-tariff-chinese-imports-china-2016-1

Quote: ams288

Could you let me know what my agenda is?

Cause I'm not sure I even recognize my agenda....

I hear ya, just be true to yourself.

OT; isn't this beautiful? https://youtu.be/2JEFkT1zHio

Quote: terapined

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-45-tariff-chinese-imports-china-2016-1

Is there something better than that. Why is it cut off right at the end of the statement, which would probably explain it?

All four remaining candidates that have a chance of winning the nomination (Kasich needs 106% of available delegates; that won't happen) are complaining about China. Perhaps Trump ups the game a bit but he is making a threat as part of his position,,,which is similar to the rest in that they all want a better deal on trade. We are getting our butts kicked by China's policies; I hope that the President who is elected really intends to work this issue...

"Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday said the problem with trade deals is that the U.S. doesn’t force other countries to live up to their end of the bargain.

She said America has to “stand up” to China and make it stop unfair trade practices that hurt U.S. businesses and kill U.S. jobs."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/23/hillary-clinton-blasts-china-us-trade-woes/

"Point number-seven of Bernie’s Presidential agenda is ending such trade policies. Instead of passing such trade deals again and again, Bernie argues we must “develop trade policies which demand that American corporations create jobs here, and not abroad.”

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-china/

"A much better solution that works is the tax plan I've laid out which would enable our exports to be tax-free, would tax our imports, would not raise prices for Americans, and would not result in reciprocal tariffs. Fix the problem and that's what's missing from what Donald says."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/10/ted_cruz_donald_trump_is_right_about_trade_but_china_bad_is_not_a_solution.html

"TRUMP: The 45 percent tax is a threat. It was not a tax, it was a threat. It will be a tax if they don't behave. Take China as an example. I have many friends, great manufacturers, they want to go into China. They can't. China won't let them. We talk about free trade. It's not tree free trade, it's stupid trade.

China dumps everything that they have over here. No tax, no nothing, no problems, no curfews (ph), no anything. We can't get into China. I have the best people, manufacturers, they can't get in. When they get in, they have to pay a tremendous tax.

The 45 percent is a threat that if they don't behave, if they don't follow the rules and regulations so that we can have it equal on both sides, we will tax you. It doesn't have to be 45, it could be less. But it has to be something because our country and our trade and our deals and most importantly our jobs are going to hell.​​"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/10/ted_cruz_donald_trump_is_right_about_trade_but_china_bad_is_not_a_solution.html

(I am, for the moment, ignoring the Republican establishment's attempts to undermine the front runner. They may succeed in the end, but these four are the clear leaders right now)

How are people who claim that Obama has racially divided America supporting Trump, or at least do not appear to be concerned that he would make it even worse? Seems hypocritical, but maybe I'm missing something?

Quote: mcallister3200

How are people who claim that Obama has racially divided America supporting Trump, or at least do not appear to be concerned that he would make it even worse? Seems hypocritical, but maybe I'm missing something?

Yes, you are missing the point that Trump is for ANYONE and EVERYONE in America willing to work hard to "Make America Great again". Not sure why anyone currently in America legally would have an issue with that.

Perhaps I answered my own question there, and yours.

Quote: mcallister3200

How are people who claim that Obama has racially divided America supporting Trump, or at least do not appear to be concerned that he would make it even worse? Seems hypocritical, but maybe I'm missing something?

IMO, "they" claim that about Obama because Obama is half-black and has shown some empathy for black youths, is a role model for them as a responsible husband and parent and a professional success. So they say that because it wounds him, because it works to be on the offensive when trying to demean an opponent, and reflects their feelings about having a black man in the White House. It doesn't have to be true; it just has to be effective and get a rise. They are the same people who support Trump because of his racist and sexist statements. Note: I am NOT saying every person who supports Trump is a racist. But I think he's demonstrated that he is one, and there are many people supporting him because of it. And I do think Trump would make it much worse.

Quote: Boz

Yes, you are missing the point that Trump is for ANYONE and EVERYONE in America willing to work hard to "Make America Great again". Not sure why anyone currently in America legally would have an issue with that.

Everything about the man seems to say, "Make Trump Great". That's what he should run on.

Quote: mcallister3200

How are people who claim that Obama has racially divided America supporting Trump, or at least do not appear to be concerned that he would make it even worse? Seems hypocritical, but maybe I'm missing something?

Are they the same people? Personally, I take racism, sexism, religious hatred as a basic part of life that one must deal with. I don't think there is any doubt that racial issues are better than they were 50 years ago. That said, who cares? Racism has two sides to the coin. 1) is the one most people condemn, which is blatant hatred towards a group because of their skin color or nationality, but also there is the other side 2) which is pride in your race or culture as a feeling it is better, mostly because you are a part of it. This includes wanting to frequent businesses that reflect your culture. There is a point of pride if you are a black man, and you purchase from a black-owned business, or if you are a man of faith and wish to frequent a business run by somebody from your church. There is that feeling among all racial or ethnic groups and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it whatsoever, but make no mistake about it, it is unabashedly racist. Part of this pride is what makes different areas of cities in this country unique and interesting to visit. I mean if there wasn't segregation to an extent would there be a China Town in any city? Would you have your Italian, or Irish, or Mexican neighborhoods? I think those are all neighborhoods that are worth preserving

Furthermore, everybody has their own issues with race, culture and religions out there. Who doesn't? Many people say they don't and they treat everybody equally, but those people really aren't looking in the mirror and they are lying to you when they say that. In my line of work, in order to be successful you have to understand where people from different cultures come from. There are many salesman in the auto industry who won't take an Indian customer merely because they feel they will whittle them down and make only $50 on a sale that took 4 hours to complete, same with Russian, Polish, Jews, Chinese etc. I, on the other hand, understand the culture a bit more, and have no problem taking the customer because I understand their motivations and hot button issues quite a bit more.

Trump, OTOH, I don't see as any more racist than anyone out there. He is being branded one because A) he wants to deport 12 million people who are here illegally in the first place, which TBQH, is something that wouldn't have been an issue today if Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama would have dealt with to begin with. I think it is a perfectly reasonable point of view to have. I just don't think, and I think Trump is coming around to this line of thinking that it is logistically impossible and B) he doesn't want to grant visas to people from certain Arab nations. While you may disagree with it, given the situation in the world, it a reasonable point of view. I happen to disagree with it, I would rather be a bit more proactive on a micro basis rather than a macro one.

That was thoughtful Gabes, I enjoyed reading it. Thx

Bernie's wife went to see the "Tent City" that Arpaio runs, bringing with her a couple of ideas about the place that were untrue. Sheriff Joe met her and answered her questions. Bernie came a little unhinged in the interview when asked about this--his narrative did not match with what really is going on there, so he really didn't want to talk about it.

He went on and on about more money for education, etc. Yes, those things may help but we toss a lot of money at education and it hasn't always been used to the right purposes (a lot of waste). Once someone decides to be a criminal, then they do have to go somewhere when sentenced to jail.

http://conservativetribune.com/sanders-sheriff-joes-tent-city/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Huckabee&utm_campaign=manualpost

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/18/bernie_sanders_walks_off_interview_after_asked_about_wifes_clash_with_arpaio.html

Poor Barry. Today was his big speech where
he kisses Castro's backside in full view of
the world, and those pesky Muslim terrorists,
whose existence Barry won't even acknowledge,
stole his spotlight. Irony comes to mind.

Being home sick sucks, but it gave me an opportunity to watch a few shows (at least for a few minutes) that I never watch in between naps. I woke up just as the view started and they began talking about today's terrorist attacks. All of them seemed to dislike Trump to at least some extent (Whoopi was off; though I would think she would be similar in attitude) but Behar was beside herself when the other three seemed to say that Trump seemed like the one that sounded like he would protect us better than the others today.

They played one of his statements, talked about him, then started to go around and talk about Clinton's statement...after it played, they didn't talk about Clinton at all...they just talked about Trump more. Not all of it was positive, but he got most of the attention during the opening piece. Joy was almost beside herself and they did manage to get in some attacks, but it was interesting to watch.

Anyway...the guy gets a lot of attention, like him or not...

Quote: RonC

They played one of his statements, talked about him, then started to go around and talk about Clinton's statement...after it played, they didn't talk about Clinton at all...

Hill and Barry have the same response to
Muslim terrorists. They squeeze their eyes
shut, put their hands over their ears, and
go 'la la la la la la' till everybody stops
talking about them. The other day Hill
said that at least nobody died in Libya.
Like Benghazi never happened.

In comedy news.

Quote:

Sarah Palin will star in a new Judge Judy-style courtroom reality show in 2017, according to a publicist for a Montana production
company.

Quote: RonC

I woke up just as the view started and they began talking about today's terrorist attacks. All of them seemed to dislike Trump to at least some extent (Oprah was off; though I would think she would be similar in attitude)

Oh dear...

This seriously made me cringe.

While they are both rich black women, Oprah Winfrey and Whoopi Goldberg are actually two different people.

Quote: ams288

Oh dear...

This seriously made me cringe.

While they are both rich black women, Oprah Winfrey and Whoopi Goldberg are actually two different people.

Very different people. I almost like Whoopi ;-)

Quote: ams288

Oprah Winfrey and Whoopi Goldberg are actually two different people.

One is really rich and the other is a
dumbass talentless hack.

Quote: ams288

Oh dear...

This seriously made me cringe.

While they are both rich black women, Oprah Winfrey and Whoopi Goldberg are actually two different people.

I have corrected my post...sorry for the error...someone was talking about Oprah on TV when I was typing the paragraph and I made a mistake. It happens...

Please don't try to make more of it; that would be silly.

Cheers!!

Anybody remember that Trump almost predicted
something like this two months ago. In Belgium.

Asked by the Fox Business Network anchor Maria Bartiromo about the feasibility of his proposal to bar foreign Muslims from entering the United States, Mr. Trump argued that Belgium and France had been blighted by the failure of Muslims in these countries to integrate.

“There is something going on, Maria,” he said. “Go to Brussels. Go to Paris. Go to different places. There is something going on and it’s not good, where they want Shariah law, where they want this, where they want things that — you know, there has to be some assimilation. There is no assimilation. There is something bad going on.”…

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/22/flashback-new-york-times-mocked-trump-for-saying-there-is-something-bad-going-on-in-brussels/

Quote: Boz

Dude, I get it, you have to stick with the story to make money.

Out of my *hundreds* of pages of content, I have a *single* page about climate change, which has two little ads at the very bottom, way below the fold. You think *that* is making me rich? Seriously?

Quote: EvenBob

I love stats like this. No source, no nothing.

You should get an Olympic award for irony.

Quote: EvenBob

What scientists, where, what kind of scientists.

Geez, it's not like it's hard to find: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Read the whole thing before you post again.

Quote: EvenBob

Everywhere I look I'm seeing GW being called the biggest scam ever.

Well then, you're not very good at looking outside your bubble, are you?