In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
At this point ,Donald Trump is a Capitalist...Cruz is a Rhino , So are all the rest of the Republicans except maybe Paul....Donald is the head of a large Corp.....Cruz is a Texas Senator ,who hasn't done anymore than Obama!...The Republicans have owned the Congress for two years and have done nothing , so lets give a non politician a try..[;)]
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
The problem with your argument is, the things that CAN be said about Trump (negatively) aren't necessarily true of other candidates (Cruz, Carson, and Rubio... though the latter only to an extent).
The Trump train needs derailed end of story. It's a shame more folks, particularly on this board can't see thru him.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
The problem with your argument is, the things that CAN be said about Trump (negatively) aren't necessarily true of other candidates (Cruz, Carson, and Rubio... though the latter only to an extent).
The Trump train needs derailed end of story. It's a shame more folks, particularly on this board can't see thru him.
Any candidate that pisses you off is my candidate.
quote:Originally posted by Smitty500mag
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
The problem with your argument is, the things that CAN be said about Trump (negatively) aren't necessarily true of other candidates (Cruz, Carson, and Rubio... though the latter only to an extent).
The Trump train needs derailed end of story. It's a shame more folks, particularly on this board can't see thru him.
Any candidate that pisses you off is my candidate.
The only one that does is Hillary. Have at it.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
The problem with your argument is, the things that CAN be said about Trump (negatively) aren't necessarily true of other candidates (Cruz, Carson, and Rubio... though the latter only to an extent).
The Trump train needs derailed end of story. It's a shame more folks, particularly on this board can't see thru him.
There is no problem with my argument, but there is with your comprehension.
The point is not that any of the Republican hopefuls have negatives, but that you and others are doing the democrats' job for them by emphasizing them.
Instead of bad mouthing, try talking about the strengths of the candidates that YOU like and forget attacking the ones you don't.
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
I did not mention Palin or McCain once during the last election, Joe. [:)]
Talking people up is always more challenging that bringing them down, as history has shown us.
Ted Cruz, other than his bellicose approach to the use of the military and potentially his flawed support of a VAT light holds very positive positions on all major issues. His downside is an abrasive personality that the McConnell and probably Ryan will object to and allow their personal affront to derail those positive issues Cruz would try to implement.
Rubio has a better chance to work with Congress, but his position on NSA surveillance suggests a support of Big Government at the expense of the individual that is off-putting. I do believe that he would be a more effective POTUS than either Trump or Cruz because he is a more measured individual, and displays a temperament that would allow for movement on fiscally conservative issues that he and the vast majority of the GOP state that they hold.
Paul, yes Paul once again, scores virtually 100% on the issues that liberty minded individuals hold dear. He is more measured than Cruz, but would face a groundswell of objection by the rank and file GOP because he believes too much in the rights of the individual regarding the meaningless social issues that seem to be so important to the social conservative idiocy that makes up much of the GOP base. His reluctance to call for the carpet bombing of the Middle East, while the obviously proper position, does not curry favor to the power mad segment of the GOP base as well.
If we want a pure Constitutional approach to the office of POTUS, Rand Paul is the obvious choice. His problem is that he has virtually no constituency in the House and Senate, and his (and the country's) most important positions will be tough to get through.
If we want an improved neo-con approach to the office of POTUS, Cruz fits the bill well, and though he would have difficulty getting his largest issues implemented, would serve well to begin to steer the ship of state back to a Republic that better respects the Constitution upon which it is based.
If you want a classic neo-con position, pushed slightly towards the Constitution, Marco Rubio is a reasonable suggestion, and may, in reality be the best selection. He, for the most part, seems to understand the meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments, and would probably be the most effective of the three in getting things implemented. He would embark this nation on a incremental, though somewhat flawed direction change towards the Constitution, and has the greatest chance of success in getting this started.
If you want an ignorant, big government narcissist to replace the current ignorant big government narcissist; a man who strongly believes in the power of the Federal Government (and who probably has never even read the U.S. Constitution) Trump fits this bill well. He would be a continuation of the Obama Presidency where the office of POTUS is subservient to the emotion and whims of the man who occupies the post.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
The problem with your argument is, the things that CAN be said about Trump (negatively) aren't necessarily true of other candidates (Cruz, Carson, and Rubio... though the latter only to an extent).
The Trump train needs derailed end of story. It's a shame more folks, particularly on this board can't see thru him.
There is no problem with my argument, but there is with your comprehension.
The point is not that any of the Republican hopefuls have negatives, but that you and others are doing the democrats' job for them by emphasizing them.
Instead of bad mouthing, try talking about the strengths of the candidates that YOU like and forget attacking the ones you don't.
I started an entire thread on it. Feel free to join in, or at least pay attention.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
I did not mention Palin or McCain once during the last election, Joe. [:)]
Talking people up is always more challenging that bringing them down, as history has shown us.
Ted Cruz, other than his bellicose approach to the use of the military and potentially his flawed support of a VAT light holds very positive positions on all major issues. His downside is an abrasive personality that the McConnell and probably Ryan will object to and allow their personal affront to derail those positive issues Cruz would try to implement.
Rubio has a better chance to work with Congress, but his position on NSA surveillance suggests a support of Big Government at the expense of the individual that is off-putting. I do believe that he would be a more effective POTUS than either Trump or Cruz because he is a more measured individual, and displays a temperament that would allow for movement on fiscally conservative issues that he and the vast majority of the GOP state that they hold.
Paul, yes Paul once again, scores virtually 100% on the issues that liberty minded individuals hold dear. He is more measured than Cruz, but would face a groundswell of objection by the rank and file GOP because he believes too much in the rights of the individual regarding the meaningless social issues that seem to be so important to the social conservative idiocy that makes up much of the GOP base. His reluctance to call for the carpet bombing of the Middle East, while the obviously proper position, does not curry favor to the power mad segment of the GOP base as well.
If we want a pure Constitutional approach to the office of POTUS, Rand Paul is the obvious choice. His problem is that he has virtually no constituency in the House and Senate, and his (and the country's) most important positions will be tough to get through.
If we want an improved neo-con approach to the office of POTUS, Cruz fits the bill well, and though he would have difficulty getting his largest issues implemented, would serve well to begin to steer the ship of state back to a Republic that better respects the Constitution upon which it is based.
If you want a classic neo-con position, pushed slightly towards the Constitution, Marco Rubio is a reasonable suggestion, and may, in reality be the best selection. He, for the most part, seems to understand the meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments, and would probably be the most effective of the three in getting things implemented. He would embark this nation on a incremental, though somewhat flawed direction change towards the Constitution, and has the greatest chance of success in getting this started.
If you want an ignorant, big government narcissist to replace the current ignorant big government narcissist; a man who strongly believes in the power of the Federal Government (and who probably has never even read the U.S. Constitution) Trump fits this bill well. He would be a continuation of the Obama Presidency where the office of POTUS is subservient to the emotion and whims of the man who occupies the post.
Yes, but he has his own jet,and will stay at his own hotels when vacationing....and he is White![:o)]....with 4 billion dollars...
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
I guess the "favorite turd" approach is no longer an operative approach.
I can't believe(Christian, Jewdin,and Muslim)feelings you have,that you would use that phrase...(turd)I am very disappointed![xx(]
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Neither obscene, nor pornographic, and placed in quotes because that is the expression to which I am referring, which was not of my origin. I don't parade it around.Just poor taste.quote:Did you say anything when that was the common expression here during the last election ?Irrelevant to the discussion.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Of course it is relevant.
Whining about "poor taste" doesn't mean much when such a claim appears to be very selectively applied.
It would seem that it is only in poor taste to you if it calls people to some sort of accountability and consistency with their previous posts. Or if I use it and you can't think of anything else to complain about.
If you have objected to its use anywhere here, feel free to post the cite.
A quick and easy google of the term returns over 2,000 uses of the term in one way or another in these forums.
Should provide plenty of opportunities.
Barz , go get a bar of soap and suck on it...be nice..[:o)]
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
You mean, except for being the crux of your argument.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
You mean, except for being the crux of your argument.
Not true. The point of my argument was that we should avoid negatives about conservative (or non-Democrat) candidates for the reason cited.
The claim that Trump has certain unique negatives that apply only to him is still an appeal to the negative side, an attack, no matter how it is justified.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Of course it is relevant.How so?quote:Whining about "poor taste" doesn't mean much when such a claim appears to be very selectively applied.It was in no way "whining." And, yes, it was selectively applied because you were the only user of the particular vulgarity.quote:It would seem that it is only in poor taste to you if it calls people to some sort of accountability and consistency with their previous posts. Or if I use it and you can't think of anything else to complain about.
If you have objected to its use anywhere here, feel free to post the cite.I did not object; I merely stated a fact: it was in bad taste. Is that citation enough?quote:
A quick and easy google of the term returns over 2,000 uses of the term in one way or another in these forums.
Should provide plenty of opportunities.
It has been said that there is no accounting for taste. In my opinion, your statement was in poor taste. In your opininon...well, I don't really care what your opinion is since it is in poor taste.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
It's a fact, it's an opinion, it's whatever you want it to be.Gracious of you.quote:
Whining about "poor taste" doesn't mean much when such a claim appears to be very selectively applied.You obviously do not know the meaning of the word whining. It far better applies to your caviling than my original statement.quote:
It would seem that it is only in poor taste to you if it calls people to some sort of accountability and consistency with their previous posts. Or if I use it and you can't think of anything else to complain about.It is in poor taste if you use a vulgarity to express a thought that could be as well as or better expressed with an unoffensive phrase.quote:
Your opinion is noted. If you have a better means by which to reference the argument, please post it.
Otherwise, thanks for dropping by.
You are welcome, and thank you as well for your sententious explanation.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Well, tallcharlie, it all comes down to just a few things for me in this matter.
Firstly, I would apologize to you if I felt that you were truly offended. However, after my dealings with you over the years, I find any such claim by you to be dubious, at best. If you had conveyed such feelings to others in the past, it would certainly carry more credibility. Otherwise, you are captive to your own history here in this forum.
Secondly, while there are things which are lawful, but not expedient, I do not find a way to convey the thought and specific forum reference without placing the reference in quotes. You can use whatever terms you wish to post, but please do not presume to have any meaningful credibility to tell me what I should post.
And finally, an adult response would be to respond to the concept contained in my post, which is the issue I raised.
I am not the issue, whether you would prefer to avoid the concept, or not.
I don't believe I said or indicated even that I was offended, merely that your post was in bad taste, as it was.
Unless I totally misunderstood, your "concept" could have been stated: "I guess the lesser of two evils is no longer an operative approach."
In any event, I enjoyed the reminder of your modus operandi.
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
You mean, except for being the crux of your argument.
Not true. The point of my argument was that we should avoid negatives about conservative (or non-Democrat) candidates for the reason cited.
The claim that Trump has certain unique negatives that apply only to him is still an appeal to the negative side, an attack, no matter how it is justified.
Ok that's BS. It was the crux of your argument. you said (and I quote... heck look up there, it's still there):
"You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination."
So, either you didn't mean what you said, or you forgot. Which is it?
I still contend that Trump has qualities unique to his own self that can't be argued about the other potential nominees. "He's a punk", being one of the main ones.
Furthermore, you're argument simultaneously assumes Trump is a conservative, when patently he is not. Care to swing again, cause you're striking out.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
You mean, except for being the crux of your argument.
Not true. The point of my argument was that we should avoid negatives about conservative (or non-Democrat) candidates for the reason cited.
The claim that Trump has certain unique negatives that apply only to him is still an appeal to the negative side, an attack, no matter how it is justified.
Ok that's BS. It was the crux of your argument. you said (and I quote... heck look up there, it's still there):
"You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination."
So, either you didn't mean what you said, or you forgot. Which is it?
I still contend that Trump has qualities unique to his own self that can't be argued about the other potential nominees. "He's a punk", being one of the main ones.I do not suffer fools gladly.
You readily and repeatedly admit that you are attacking Trump.
You attempt to excuse your actions by claiming that Trump has certain unique qualities that are not shared by the other candidates.
Yet the fact remains that you are attacking Trump.
What part of "attacking" do you not understand?quote:Furthermore, you're argument simultaneously assumes Trump is a conservative, when patently he is not. Care to swing again, cause you're striking out.
What part of "(or non-Democrat)" do you not understand?
What part of "the idiots attacking any Republican candidate they don't like" do you not understand?
Why do you fix on one reference to "conservative" among several others referring to Republican and non-Democrat? Is it because your argument is plainly bankrupt? That you must fix on some minor, insignificant phrase to even come close to making a point?
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
It is sad to see you need descend to priggery in order to have something to say.
I believe it can be safely stated that you are the one that carried this conversation to an obnoxious degree. I merely stated that your words were in poor taste, as they were.
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
You mean, except for being the crux of your argument.
Not true. The point of my argument was that we should avoid negatives about conservative (or non-Democrat) candidates for the reason cited.
The claim that Trump has certain unique negatives that apply only to him is still an appeal to the negative side, an attack, no matter how it is justified.
Ok that's BS. It was the crux of your argument. you said (and I quote... heck look up there, it's still there):
"You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination."
So, either you didn't mean what you said, or you forgot. Which is it?
I still contend that Trump has qualities unique to his own self that can't be argued about the other potential nominees. "He's a punk", being one of the main ones.I do not suffer fools gladly.
You readily and repeatedly admit that you are attacking Trump.
You attempt to excuse your actions by claiming that Trump has certain unique qualities that are not shared by the other candidates.
Yet the fact remains that you are attacking Trump.
What part of "attacking" do you not understand?quote:Furthermore, you're argument simultaneously assumes Trump is a conservative, when patently he is not. Care to swing again, cause you're striking out.
What part of "(or non-Democrat)" do you not understand?
What part of "the idiots attacking any Republican candidate they don't like" do you not understand?
Why do you fix on one reference to "conservative" among several others referring to Republican and non-Democrat? Is it because your argument is plainly bankrupt? That you must fix on some minor, insignificant phrase to even come close to making a point?
In other words, you have no rebuttal whatsoever. That's fine, but it sure took you a lot of words to admit that.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. PerfectIn other words, you have no rebuttal whatsoever. That's fine, but it sure took you a lot of words to admit that.
If that is what you believe, I have but one question for you: who ties your shoes for you?
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. PerfectIn other words, you have no rebuttal whatsoever. That's fine, but it sure took you a lot of words to admit that.
If that is what you believe, I have but one question for you: who ties your shoes for you?
You claim not to be able to suffer fools. How do you live with yourself?
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. PerfectIn other words, you have no rebuttal whatsoever. That's fine, but it sure took you a lot of words to admit that.
If that is what you believe, I have but one question for you: who ties your shoes for you?
You claim not to be able to suffer fools. How do you live with yourself?
That is so clever. Did you think of that one without help?
"I will be changing very rapidly. I'm very capable of changing to anything I want to change to."
He has proven this is true as he has changed virtually all of his positions over the past 5 years. What does this statement tell up about the convictions of the man?
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. PerfectIn other words, you have no rebuttal whatsoever. That's fine, but it sure took you a lot of words to admit that.
If that is what you believe, I have but one question for you: who ties your shoes for you?
You claim not to be able to suffer fools. How do you live with yourself?
That is so clever. Did you think of that one without help?
Thank you. I did.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Not to interrupt this erudite exchange, but I am curious how Trump supporters react to this little gem by Mr. Trump?
"I will be changing very rapidly. I'm very capable of changing to anything I want to change to."
He has proven this is true as he has changed virtually all of his positions over the past 5 years. What does this statement tell up about the convictions of the man?
Sean Hannity's Idol doesn't hold court in this game...Trump sees where the nation is going,and is the best for the job!
Comments
and the rest is Fill in the Blank___________________. No more Bush's no more Clinton's.[:D][;)]
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
And herein lies the problem: the idiots attacking any Republican candidate they don't like for whatever trifling reason.
Haven't you learned yet?
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
And herein lies the problem: the idiots attacking any Republican candidate they don't like for whatever trifling reason.
Haven't you learned yet?
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
The problem with your argument is, the things that CAN be said about Trump (negatively) aren't necessarily true of other candidates (Cruz, Carson, and Rubio... though the latter only to an extent).
The Trump train needs derailed end of story. It's a shame more folks, particularly on this board can't see thru him.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
And herein lies the problem: the idiots attacking any Republican candidate they don't like for whatever trifling reason.
Haven't you learned yet?
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
The problem with your argument is, the things that CAN be said about Trump (negatively) aren't necessarily true of other candidates (Cruz, Carson, and Rubio... though the latter only to an extent).
The Trump train needs derailed end of story. It's a shame more folks, particularly on this board can't see thru him.
Any candidate that pisses you off is my candidate.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
And herein lies the problem: the idiots attacking any Republican candidate they don't like for whatever trifling reason.
Haven't you learned yet?
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
The problem with your argument is, the things that CAN be said about Trump (negatively) aren't necessarily true of other candidates (Cruz, Carson, and Rubio... though the latter only to an extent).
The Trump train needs derailed end of story. It's a shame more folks, particularly on this board can't see thru him.
Any candidate that pisses you off is my candidate.
The only one that does is Hillary. Have at it.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
And herein lies the problem: the idiots attacking any Republican candidate they don't like for whatever trifling reason.
Haven't you learned yet?
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
The problem with your argument is, the things that CAN be said about Trump (negatively) aren't necessarily true of other candidates (Cruz, Carson, and Rubio... though the latter only to an extent).
The Trump train needs derailed end of story. It's a shame more folks, particularly on this board can't see thru him.
There is no problem with my argument, but there is with your comprehension.
The point is not that any of the Republican hopefuls have negatives, but that you and others are doing the democrats' job for them by emphasizing them.
Instead of bad mouthing, try talking about the strengths of the candidates that YOU like and forget attacking the ones you don't.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
And herein lies the problem: the idiots attacking any Republican candidate they don't like for whatever trifling reason.
Haven't you learned yet?
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
I did not mention Palin or McCain once during the last election, Joe. [:)]
Talking people up is always more challenging that bringing them down, as history has shown us.
Ted Cruz, other than his bellicose approach to the use of the military and potentially his flawed support of a VAT light holds very positive positions on all major issues. His downside is an abrasive personality that the McConnell and probably Ryan will object to and allow their personal affront to derail those positive issues Cruz would try to implement.
Rubio has a better chance to work with Congress, but his position on NSA surveillance suggests a support of Big Government at the expense of the individual that is off-putting. I do believe that he would be a more effective POTUS than either Trump or Cruz because he is a more measured individual, and displays a temperament that would allow for movement on fiscally conservative issues that he and the vast majority of the GOP state that they hold.
Paul, yes Paul once again, scores virtually 100% on the issues that liberty minded individuals hold dear. He is more measured than Cruz, but would face a groundswell of objection by the rank and file GOP because he believes too much in the rights of the individual regarding the meaningless social issues that seem to be so important to the social conservative idiocy that makes up much of the GOP base. His reluctance to call for the carpet bombing of the Middle East, while the obviously proper position, does not curry favor to the power mad segment of the GOP base as well.
If we want a pure Constitutional approach to the office of POTUS, Rand Paul is the obvious choice. His problem is that he has virtually no constituency in the House and Senate, and his (and the country's) most important positions will be tough to get through.
If we want an improved neo-con approach to the office of POTUS, Cruz fits the bill well, and though he would have difficulty getting his largest issues implemented, would serve well to begin to steer the ship of state back to a Republic that better respects the Constitution upon which it is based.
If you want a classic neo-con position, pushed slightly towards the Constitution, Marco Rubio is a reasonable suggestion, and may, in reality be the best selection. He, for the most part, seems to understand the meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments, and would probably be the most effective of the three in getting things implemented. He would embark this nation on a incremental, though somewhat flawed direction change towards the Constitution, and has the greatest chance of success in getting this started.
If you want an ignorant, big government narcissist to replace the current ignorant big government narcissist; a man who strongly believes in the power of the Federal Government (and who probably has never even read the U.S. Constitution) Trump fits this bill well. He would be a continuation of the Obama Presidency where the office of POTUS is subservient to the emotion and whims of the man who occupies the post.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
And herein lies the problem: the idiots attacking any Republican candidate they don't like for whatever trifling reason.
Haven't you learned yet?
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
The problem with your argument is, the things that CAN be said about Trump (negatively) aren't necessarily true of other candidates (Cruz, Carson, and Rubio... though the latter only to an extent).
The Trump train needs derailed end of story. It's a shame more folks, particularly on this board can't see thru him.
There is no problem with my argument, but there is with your comprehension.
The point is not that any of the Republican hopefuls have negatives, but that you and others are doing the democrats' job for them by emphasizing them.
Instead of bad mouthing, try talking about the strengths of the candidates that YOU like and forget attacking the ones you don't.
I started an entire thread on it. Feel free to join in, or at least pay attention.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
43 %.......President Trump!......better than Hillary....and he can beat her...
Trump does worse vs. Hillary than all other GOP contenders.
He is probably the one GOP candidate who will never be able to beat Hillary.
Why?
Because he forfeits the honest card. Every other GOP candidate can go after Clinton's blatant lying. Trump cannot because he is just as bad.
The truth of the matter is that little Donald is in way over his head and he does not know how to get out. He may a play to position himself to be a broker in deciding who would become President. It has now gone to his head - a vast and empty space....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
And herein lies the problem: the idiots attacking any Republican candidate they don't like for whatever trifling reason.
Haven't you learned yet?
The last election, many people on this site were crucifying Sarah Palin and John McCain, and look what we got.
You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination.
If you like a particular candidate, then talk up his or her positive points, but save the negatives for the Democrats.
I did not mention Palin or McCain once during the last election, Joe. [:)]
Talking people up is always more challenging that bringing them down, as history has shown us.
Ted Cruz, other than his bellicose approach to the use of the military and potentially his flawed support of a VAT light holds very positive positions on all major issues. His downside is an abrasive personality that the McConnell and probably Ryan will object to and allow their personal affront to derail those positive issues Cruz would try to implement.
Rubio has a better chance to work with Congress, but his position on NSA surveillance suggests a support of Big Government at the expense of the individual that is off-putting. I do believe that he would be a more effective POTUS than either Trump or Cruz because he is a more measured individual, and displays a temperament that would allow for movement on fiscally conservative issues that he and the vast majority of the GOP state that they hold.
Paul, yes Paul once again, scores virtually 100% on the issues that liberty minded individuals hold dear. He is more measured than Cruz, but would face a groundswell of objection by the rank and file GOP because he believes too much in the rights of the individual regarding the meaningless social issues that seem to be so important to the social conservative idiocy that makes up much of the GOP base. His reluctance to call for the carpet bombing of the Middle East, while the obviously proper position, does not curry favor to the power mad segment of the GOP base as well.
If we want a pure Constitutional approach to the office of POTUS, Rand Paul is the obvious choice. His problem is that he has virtually no constituency in the House and Senate, and his (and the country's) most important positions will be tough to get through.
If we want an improved neo-con approach to the office of POTUS, Cruz fits the bill well, and though he would have difficulty getting his largest issues implemented, would serve well to begin to steer the ship of state back to a Republic that better respects the Constitution upon which it is based.
If you want a classic neo-con position, pushed slightly towards the Constitution, Marco Rubio is a reasonable suggestion, and may, in reality be the best selection. He, for the most part, seems to understand the meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments, and would probably be the most effective of the three in getting things implemented. He would embark this nation on a incremental, though somewhat flawed direction change towards the Constitution, and has the greatest chance of success in getting this started.
If you want an ignorant, big government narcissist to replace the current ignorant big government narcissist; a man who strongly believes in the power of the Federal Government (and who probably has never even read the U.S. Constitution) Trump fits this bill well. He would be a continuation of the Obama Presidency where the office of POTUS is subservient to the emotion and whims of the man who occupies the post.
Yes, but he has his own jet,and will stay at his own hotels when vacationing....and he is White![:o)]....with 4 billion dollars...
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
I guess the "favorite turd" approach is no longer an operative approach.
I can't believe(Christian, Jewdin,and Muslim)feelings you have,that you would use that phrase...(turd)I am very disappointed![xx(]
Neither obscene, nor pornographic, and placed in quotes because that is the expression to which I am referring, which was not of my origin. I don't parade it around.Just poor taste.quote:Did you say anything when that was the common expression here during the last election ?Irrelevant to the discussion.
Of course it is relevant.
Whining about "poor taste" doesn't mean much when such a claim appears to be very selectively applied.
It would seem that it is only in poor taste to you if it calls people to some sort of accountability and consistency with their previous posts. Or if I use it and you can't think of anything else to complain about.
If you have objected to its use anywhere here, feel free to post the cite.
A quick and easy google of the term returns over 2,000 uses of the term in one way or another in these forums.
Should provide plenty of opportunities.
Barz , go get a bar of soap and suck on it...be nice..[:o)]
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
You mean, except for being the crux of your argument.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
You mean, except for being the crux of your argument.
Not true. The point of my argument was that we should avoid negatives about conservative (or non-Democrat) candidates for the reason cited.
The claim that Trump has certain unique negatives that apply only to him is still an appeal to the negative side, an attack, no matter how it is justified.
Of course it is relevant.How so?quote:Whining about "poor taste" doesn't mean much when such a claim appears to be very selectively applied.It was in no way "whining." And, yes, it was selectively applied because you were the only user of the particular vulgarity.quote:It would seem that it is only in poor taste to you if it calls people to some sort of accountability and consistency with their previous posts. Or if I use it and you can't think of anything else to complain about.
If you have objected to its use anywhere here, feel free to post the cite.I did not object; I merely stated a fact: it was in bad taste. Is that citation enough?quote:
A quick and easy google of the term returns over 2,000 uses of the term in one way or another in these forums.
Should provide plenty of opportunities.
It has been said that there is no accounting for taste. In my opinion, your statement was in poor taste. In your opininon...well, I don't really care what your opinion is since it is in poor taste.
It's a fact, it's an opinion, it's whatever you want it to be.Gracious of you.quote:
Whining about "poor taste" doesn't mean much when such a claim appears to be very selectively applied.You obviously do not know the meaning of the word whining. It far better applies to your caviling than my original statement.quote:
It would seem that it is only in poor taste to you if it calls people to some sort of accountability and consistency with their previous posts. Or if I use it and you can't think of anything else to complain about.It is in poor taste if you use a vulgarity to express a thought that could be as well as or better expressed with an unoffensive phrase.quote:
Your opinion is noted. If you have a better means by which to reference the argument, please post it.
Otherwise, thanks for dropping by.
You are welcome, and thank you as well for your sententious explanation.
Well, tallcharlie, it all comes down to just a few things for me in this matter.
Firstly, I would apologize to you if I felt that you were truly offended. However, after my dealings with you over the years, I find any such claim by you to be dubious, at best. If you had conveyed such feelings to others in the past, it would certainly carry more credibility. Otherwise, you are captive to your own history here in this forum.
Secondly, while there are things which are lawful, but not expedient, I do not find a way to convey the thought and specific forum reference without placing the reference in quotes. You can use whatever terms you wish to post, but please do not presume to have any meaningful credibility to tell me what I should post.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/turd
And finally, an adult response would be to respond to the concept contained in my post, which is the issue I raised.
I am not the issue, whether you would prefer to avoid the concept, or not.
I don't believe I said or indicated even that I was offended, merely that your post was in bad taste, as it was.
Unless I totally misunderstood, your "concept" could have been stated: "I guess the lesser of two evils is no longer an operative approach."
In any event, I enjoyed the reminder of your modus operandi.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
You mean, except for being the crux of your argument.
Not true. The point of my argument was that we should avoid negatives about conservative (or non-Democrat) candidates for the reason cited.
The claim that Trump has certain unique negatives that apply only to him is still an appeal to the negative side, an attack, no matter how it is justified.
Ok that's BS. It was the crux of your argument. you said (and I quote... heck look up there, it's still there):
"You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination."
So, either you didn't mean what you said, or you forgot. Which is it?
I still contend that Trump has qualities unique to his own self that can't be argued about the other potential nominees. "He's a punk", being one of the main ones.
Furthermore, you're argument simultaneously assumes Trump is a conservative, when patently he is not. Care to swing again, cause you're striking out.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
You mean, except for being the crux of your argument.
Not true. The point of my argument was that we should avoid negatives about conservative (or non-Democrat) candidates for the reason cited.
The claim that Trump has certain unique negatives that apply only to him is still an appeal to the negative side, an attack, no matter how it is justified.
Ok that's BS. It was the crux of your argument. you said (and I quote... heck look up there, it's still there):
"You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination."
So, either you didn't mean what you said, or you forgot. Which is it?
I still contend that Trump has qualities unique to his own self that can't be argued about the other potential nominees. "He's a punk", being one of the main ones.I do not suffer fools gladly.
You readily and repeatedly admit that you are attacking Trump.
You attempt to excuse your actions by claiming that Trump has certain unique qualities that are not shared by the other candidates.
Yet the fact remains that you are attacking Trump.
What part of "attacking" do you not understand?quote:Furthermore, you're argument simultaneously assumes Trump is a conservative, when patently he is not. Care to swing again, cause you're striking out.
What part of "(or non-Democrat)" do you not understand?
What part of "the idiots attacking any Republican candidate they don't like" do you not understand?
Why do you fix on one reference to "conservative" among several others referring to Republican and non-Democrat? Is it because your argument is plainly bankrupt? That you must fix on some minor, insignificant phrase to even come close to making a point?
It is sad to see you need descend to priggery in order to have something to say.
I believe it can be safely stated that you are the one that carried this conversation to an obnoxious degree. I merely stated that your words were in poor taste, as they were.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Great, Mr. Perfect,you got half the message, but you missed the part about, "...forget attacking the ones you don't [like].
And you didn't get the other half of my earlier message: the attacks on Trump are specific to his character, not something that can be similarly leveraged against the other GOP candidates.
Which is totally irrelevant.
You mean, except for being the crux of your argument.
Not true. The point of my argument was that we should avoid negatives about conservative (or non-Democrat) candidates for the reason cited.
The claim that Trump has certain unique negatives that apply only to him is still an appeal to the negative side, an attack, no matter how it is justified.
Ok that's BS. It was the crux of your argument. you said (and I quote... heck look up there, it's still there):
"You can be sure of one thing with your attacks on the Republican candidates, every negative thing you say will be used against whomever wins the nomination."
So, either you didn't mean what you said, or you forgot. Which is it?
I still contend that Trump has qualities unique to his own self that can't be argued about the other potential nominees. "He's a punk", being one of the main ones.I do not suffer fools gladly.
You readily and repeatedly admit that you are attacking Trump.
You attempt to excuse your actions by claiming that Trump has certain unique qualities that are not shared by the other candidates.
Yet the fact remains that you are attacking Trump.
What part of "attacking" do you not understand?quote:Furthermore, you're argument simultaneously assumes Trump is a conservative, when patently he is not. Care to swing again, cause you're striking out.
What part of "(or non-Democrat)" do you not understand?
What part of "the idiots attacking any Republican candidate they don't like" do you not understand?
Why do you fix on one reference to "conservative" among several others referring to Republican and non-Democrat? Is it because your argument is plainly bankrupt? That you must fix on some minor, insignificant phrase to even come close to making a point?
In other words, you have no rebuttal whatsoever. That's fine, but it sure took you a lot of words to admit that.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
If that is what you believe, I have but one question for you: who ties your shoes for you?
quote:Originally posted by Mr. PerfectIn other words, you have no rebuttal whatsoever. That's fine, but it sure took you a lot of words to admit that.
If that is what you believe, I have but one question for you: who ties your shoes for you?
You claim not to be able to suffer fools. How do you live with yourself?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. PerfectIn other words, you have no rebuttal whatsoever. That's fine, but it sure took you a lot of words to admit that.
If that is what you believe, I have but one question for you: who ties your shoes for you?
You claim not to be able to suffer fools. How do you live with yourself?
That is so clever. Did you think of that one without help?
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/02/11/mark-levin-blasts-trumps-chameleon-comment-whats-he-going-change
"I will be changing very rapidly. I'm very capable of changing to anything I want to change to."
He has proven this is true as he has changed virtually all of his positions over the past 5 years. What does this statement tell up about the convictions of the man?
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. PerfectIn other words, you have no rebuttal whatsoever. That's fine, but it sure took you a lot of words to admit that.
If that is what you believe, I have but one question for you: who ties your shoes for you?
You claim not to be able to suffer fools. How do you live with yourself?
That is so clever. Did you think of that one without help?
Thank you. I did.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Not to interrupt this erudite exchange, but I am curious how Trump supporters react to this little gem by Mr. Trump?
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/02/11/mark-levin-blasts-trumps-chameleon-comment-whats-he-going-change
"I will be changing very rapidly. I'm very capable of changing to anything I want to change to."
He has proven this is true as he has changed virtually all of his positions over the past 5 years. What does this statement tell up about the convictions of the man?
Sean Hannity's Idol doesn't hold court in this game...Trump sees where the nation is going,and is the best for the job!