Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Classic-Xer]

(07-30-2016, 05:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-29-2016, 09:09 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-29-2016, 08:57 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(07-29-2016, 08:34 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-29-2016, 08:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I concur that good men do not cheat on their wives. I can't think of many men of genius-grade intelligence more sexually active and strictly heterosexual than Bill Clinton, past or present -- except perhaps Johann Sebastian Bach.

That is why i said GENTLEMEN do not cheat on their wives. A gentleman is supposed to be a good man. I am naturally suspicious when people go round throwing out that this and that does not make a real man or woman. So stupid. We are real men or women. But the character of a person is what should be viewed as being good or not by today's standards.

Yup, gentlemen don't let their trouser snakes wander off like Bill Clinton.  We refer to guys like Bill Clinton as "Tom Cats" because that animal is what they act like.

He also could be spreading some STI or getting it from someone. That is the way to go about it. Then of course go back to his unsuspecting wife and giving it to her. Not to mention breaking trust and vows and the like....
I mean it is his biz but when married you are hurting your loved one while doing that. If you have problems, talk to your partner. If it does not work out break it off. Responsibility.

The point being made above by brower is that Bill was not turned off by Hillary; nor should any "real" man or anyone else be, whether (s)he is a "real man" or not. As far as using Bill's behavior to determine who should be elected to what is concerned, "it is his biz" is the relevant point, and always was. No other point is relevant. I know you love to go off into irrelevant arguments Tara, but it serves no purpose. Stick to the point. Trump is the point of this thread. Conservatives like Classic and Galen will do anything to get people off the relevant point. You can just enjoy the music on the other thread too, or think too much and argue about nothing. It's your call.

The point that I made to you was that Bill Clinton isn't considered a REAL man. REAL men value their wives and don't do things that could hurt their wives. REAL men don't stayed married to woman they're not as attracted to for the sake of themselves or the sake their political careers. Your point was that he's a man and I assume that that you believe that all men are still the same. PB's point was that he was one of the greatest liberal Casanova's of our time.

[Eric the Green]

(07-30-2016, 02:25 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 05:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-29-2016, 09:09 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-29-2016, 08:57 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(07-29-2016, 08:34 PM)taramarie Wrote: That is why i said GENTLEMEN do not cheat on their wives. A gentleman is supposed to be a good man. I am naturally suspicious when people go round throwing out that this and that does not make a real man or woman. So stupid. We are real men or women. But the character of a person is what should be viewed as being good or not by today's standards.

Yup, gentlemen don't let their trouser snakes wander off like Bill Clinton.  We refer to guys like Bill Clinton as "Tom Cats" because that animal is what they act like.

He also could be spreading some STI or getting it from someone. That is the way to go about it. Then of course go back to his unsuspecting wife and giving it to her. Not to mention breaking trust and vows and the like....
I mean it is his biz but when married you are hurting your loved one while doing that. If you have problems, talk to your partner. If it does not work out break it off. Responsibility.

The point being made above by brower is that Bill was not turned off by Hillary; nor should any "real" man or anyone else be, whether (s)he is a "real man" or not. As far as using Bill's behavior to determine who should be elected to what is concerned, "it is his biz" is the relevant point, and always was. No other point is relevant. I know you love to go off into irrelevant arguments Tara, but it serves no purpose. Stick to the point. Trump is the point of this thread. Conservatives like Classic and Galen will do anything to get people off the relevant point. You can just enjoy the music on the other thread too, or think too much and argue about nothing. It's your call.

The point that I made to you was that Bill Clinton isn't considered a REAL man. REAL men value their wives and don't do things that could hurt their wives. REAL men don't stayed married to woman they're not as attracted to for the sake of themselves or the sake their political careers. Your point was that he's a man and I assume that that you believe that all men are still the same. PB's point was that he was one of the greatest liberal Casanova's of our time.

Fine. But real men are not going to vote against Hillary because they are "real men." Real men will vote for Hillary, because real men respect women, and Hillary is qualified for the presidency, and she is a real woman, as Bill called her this week. (Did you catch that one; "you nominated the real one," not the Republican-made "cartoon." Whatever else Bill is, he's a great explainer and speaker. The best; and the one with the highest candidate horoscope score in our times.)

[Odin]

(07-30-2016, 01:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lets see, the Democrats are allowed to "hit" Trump for this and that or for whatever they want but Trump is chastised for saying he's going to "hit" them back. Are you into child's play? Do you think child's play is going to resolve issues? Do you really want to do liberal child play with an old school adult? I'll do liberal child's play if you want just for shits and giggles and to see how many emotional twits it drums up. Hell, I played that game all through the Bush years. I played it with Kiff. Where's Kiff? I played it so well that your numbers fell greatly and older posters began dropping out. I "hit" hard and I "hit" where it has the greatest impact and where it really hurts. I expect more from a so-called intelligent adult like yourself. I know who the real bully beaters are and who they tend to support. I also know the name of candidate who represents them. Did you go to a similar high school as me? A larger suburban high school with several social groups? If you did, did you pay much attention to what actually made it work?

So you are a mean-spirited asshole and a bully, got it. You are a vile, disgusting human being, just like the Talking Yam you support for President.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-30-2016, 02:34 PM)Odin Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 01:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lets see, the Democrats are allowed to "hit" Trump for this and that or for whatever they want but Trump is chastised for saying he's going to "hit" them back. Are you into child's play? Do you think child's play is going to resolve issues? Do you really want to do liberal child play with an old school adult? I'll do liberal child's play if you want just for shits and giggles and to see how many emotional twits it drums up. Hell, I played that game all through the Bush years. I played it with Kiff. Where's Kiff? I played it so well that your numbers fell greatly and older posters began dropping out. I "hit" hard and I "hit" where it has the greatest impact and where it really hurts. I expect more from a so-called intelligent adult like yourself. I know who the real bully beaters are and who they tend to support. I also know the name of candidate who represents them. Did you go to a similar high school as me? A larger suburban high school with several social groups? If you did, did you pay much attention to what actually made it work?

So you are a mean-spirited asshole and a bully, got it. You are a vile, disgusting human being, just like the Talking Yam you support for President.

Pssst.  Odin.  Didn't you hear the word?  When they go low, you're supposed to go high. It's just like playing goal line football. The guys with the higher center of gravity win.  

[Classic-Xer]

(07-30-2016, 02:09 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 01:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 10:04 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The Cleveland convention crowd did their 'Lock her up!" chant a week ago.  Trump just endorsed that, 'I'm starting to agree'

This is par for the course with his use of language that pushes the spiral of violence.  He doesn't say he wants to rebut what the Democratic speakers are saying, he says he wants to be physically violent with them.  He doesn't say he wants to defeat his opponent in an election, he says he wants to imprison opposing politicians.

Now, I'm not quite one to say Trump is Hitler's long lost clone.  Trump does show a persistent liking for Agricultural Age tyrannic government, with his endorsement of great leaders like Saddam Hussain.  He might be as close to a Cynic Hero restoree politicians as we are apt to find.  Still, not all tyrants or wannabe tyrants are equally bad.  At this point Trump is reality connected enough to state his mind but not to try to act on it.  He hasn't actually punched anybody.  He didn't find any Republican Philadelphia cops and send them into the convention to arrest Hillary.

But I wouldn't want to tempt him by granting him the power to actually do what he says he wants to do.

Lets see, the Democrats are allowed to "hit" Trump for this and that or for whatever they want but Trump is chastised for saying he's going to "hit" them back. Are you into child's play? Do you think child's play is going to resolve issues? Do you really want to do liberal child play with an old school adult? I'll do liberal child's play if you want just for shits and giggles and to see how many emotional twits it drums up. Hell, I played that game all through the Bush years. I played it with Kiff. Where's Kiff? I played it so well that your numbers fell greatly and older posters began dropping out. I "hit" hard and I "hit" where it has the greatest impact and where it really hurts. I expect more from a so-called intelligent adult like yourself. I know who the real bully beaters are and who they tend to support. I also know the name of candidate who represents them. Did you go to a similar high school as me? A larger suburban high school with several social groups? If you did, did you pay much attention to what actually made it work?

Did you watch the conventions at all?  If so, did you pay attention?  It seems not.  'Hit' is Trump's word.  He is the one shifting the discussion from the exchange of ideas and ideals to a tone of not so veiled violence.

Why would I waste my valuable time watching a bunch of Democrats pumping themselves up? I get it, the Democrats still believe that they're the greatest people on Earth and their presence alone entitles them to x amount of support. "Hit" is the word that a group of liberals chose from a context in which it was said. Smart are capable of figuring that out themselves. I used to hate it when a so-called intelligent person would completely ignore the context and exploit one word that I said as if I used it literally. Child's play. I can't stand liberal child's play. Did child's play defeat Bush when times were more serious? Nope. Are times more serious? Yep. Lets see, "hitting" cops for this and that and whatever they want has resulted in several dead cops. Do you think any white progressive dumb fucks ever thought about that? Where do you think white progressives should rank with white Americans who aren't life long Democrats? If your honest and aware of all the negatives said about white people, you would rank yourself at the bottom.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-30-2016, 02:34 PM)Odin Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 01:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lets see, the Democrats are allowed to "hit" Trump for this and that or for whatever they want but Trump is chastised for saying he's going to "hit" them back. Are you into child's play? Do you think child's play is going to resolve issues? Do you really want to do liberal child play with an old school adult? I'll do liberal child's play if you want just for shits and giggles and to see how many emotional twits it drums up. Hell, I played that game all through the Bush years. I played it with Kiff. Where's Kiff? I played it so well that your numbers fell greatly and older posters began dropping out. I "hit" hard and I "hit" where it has the greatest impact and where it really hurts. I expect more from a so-called intelligent adult like yourself. I know who the real bully beaters are and who they tend to support. I also know the name of candidate who represents them. Did you go to a similar high school as me? A larger suburban high school with several social groups? If you did, did you pay much attention to what actually made it work?

So you are a mean-spirited asshole and a bully, got it. You are a vile, disgusting human being, just like the Talking Yam you support for President.

I can take on a mean-spirited bully (whether they're a bitch or an asshole makes no difference to me) because I have the ability to become as ruthless and mean-spirited as them. I'm not a bully and I have never been a bully. What's the value of pushing around some liberal minded geek? I've never understood the value of doing it. In high school, you would have liked me. You wouldn't have associated me with them. You would've have associated me with the ones who were able to tell them to knock it off and leave you alone. Hell, you might even have felt good when we began giving the bullies (bully) a dose of their own medicine.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-30-2016, 03:35 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Why would I waste my valuable time watching a bunch of Democrats pumping themselves up? I get it, the Democrats still believe that they're the greatest people on Earth and their presence alone entitles them to x amount of support. "Hit" is the word that a group of liberals chose from a context in which it was said. Smart are capable of figuring that out themselves. I used to hate it when a so-called intelligent person would completely ignore the context and exploit one word that I said as if I used it literally. Child's play. I can't stand liberal child's play. Did child's play defeat Bush when times were more serious? Nope. Are times more serious? Yep. Lets see, "hitting" cops for this and that and whatever they want has resulted in several dead cops. Do you think any white progressive dumb fucks ever thought about that? Where do you think white progressives should rank with white Americans who aren't life long Democrats? If your honest and aware of all the negatives said about white people, you would rank yourself at the bottom.

Ummm....  Haven't you noticed that Bush 43 has exiled himself from politics?  The respectable candidates don't want his endorsement, while even he wouldn't endorse Trump?  In 2008 he interrupted Obama's 'cut and run' debate with McCain's 'stay the course' position by shifting his policy to the Democratic position at the peak of the presidential campaign.  Pulled the rug right out from under McCain even before he revealed that his economic policies were causing the greatest collapse since the Great Depression.  All those military bases he built in Iraq, and the world's largest embassy complex?  Empty.  You know how well his plans worked and are perceived of as working?

Well, of course you don't.  Are things comfortable in your echo chamber?  Have you even tried to evaluate the differences between the world as is and the daydreams of how you wish it to be?

Obama picked up Bush's decision to withdraw troops from the region fairly smoothly.  It didn't unring the bell, however.  Trump is right in one thing at least.  Saddam Hussain was a strong leader, terrorizing his own people into a semblance of peace through fear.  Remove Saddam and the whole area went up in flames.  The initial thought that high tech would be an effective cost multiplier for US troops worked great when fighting tank divisions, but didn't work at all when fighting insurgents.  Sometimes there is no substitute for boots on the ground.  Bush 43 pushed the US military to its limits and then some, using and over using the reserves, burning them out, and he still couldn't sustain a sufficient force on the ground to nation build Iraq into a nice complacent puppet state.  Thus, what he tried to do was a failure, expensive in blood, iron and gold.  Thus a lot of folk are more pleased with Obama's and Hillary's more mature efforts since.  The boys are back home.  They aren't apt to return without a clear path to victory.  No such path has been suggested.

Anyway, as one who is listening to both sides, the Democrats are now closer to the Reagan unraveling era military position than Trump.  Trump is not going to win votes abandoning long established allies and replacing reasoned policy with bullying bombast.

Really.  Bush 43 isn't going to be the rallying point for the remnants of the Republican Party.  He's a pariah among his own party, what's left of them.  Sheesh.

Yes, times are more serious.  An awful lot of folk who are listening with open minds will attribute the current serious times more to Bush 43 than any other single individual.  Trump doesn't want and isn't seeking to ride those coat tails.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-30-2016, 04:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 03:35 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Why would I waste my valuable time watching a bunch of Democrats pumping themselves up? I get it, the Democrats still believe that they're the greatest people on Earth and their presence alone entitles them to x amount of support. "Hit" is the word that a group of liberals chose from a context in which it was said. Smart are capable of figuring that out themselves. I used to hate it when a so-called intelligent person would completely ignore the context and exploit one word that I said as if I used it literally. Child's play. I can't stand liberal child's play. Did child's play defeat Bush when times were more serious? Nope. Are times more serious? Yep. Lets see, "hitting" cops for this and that and whatever they want has resulted in several dead cops. Do you think any white progressive dumb fucks ever thought about that? Where do you think white progressives should rank with white Americans who aren't life long Democrats? If your honest and aware of all the negatives said about white people, you would rank yourself at the bottom.

Ummm....  Haven't you noticed that Bush 43 has exiled himself from politics?  The respectable candidates don't want his endorsement, while even he wouldn't endorse Trump?  In 2008 he interrupted Obama's 'cut and run' debate with McCain's 'stay the course' position by shifting his policy to the Democratic position at the peak of the presidential campaign.  Pulled the rug right out from under McCain even before he revealed that his economic policies were causing the greatest collapse since the Great Depression.  All those military bases he built in Iraq, and the world's largest embassy complex?  Empty.  You know how well his plans worked and are perceived of as working?

Well, of course you don't.  Are things comfortable in your echo chamber?  Have you even tried to evaluate the differences between the world as is and the daydreams of how you wish it to be?

Obama picked up Bush's decision to withdraw troops from the region fairly smoothly.  It didn't unring the bell, however.  Trump is right in one thing at least.  Saddam Hussain was a strong leader, terrorizing his own people into a semblance of peace through fear.  Remove Saddam and the whole area went up in flames.  The initial thought that high tech would be an effective cost multiplier for US troops worked great when fighting tank divisions, but didn't work at all when fighting insurgents.  Sometimes there is no substitute for boots on the ground.  Bush 43 pushed the US military to its limits and then some, using and over using the reserves, burning them out, and he still couldn't sustain a sufficient force on the ground to nation build Iraq into a nice complacent puppet state.  Thus, what he tried to do was a failure, expensive in blood, iron and gold.  Thus a lot of folk are more pleased with Obama's and Hillary's more mature efforts since.  The boys are back home.  They aren't apt to return without a clear path to victory.  No such path has been suggested.

Anyway, as one who is listening to both sides, the Democrats are now closer to the Reagan unraveling era military position than Trump.  Trump is not going to win votes abandoning long established allies and replacing reasoned policy with bullying bombast.

Really.  Bush 43 isn't going to be the rallying point for the remnants of the Republican Party.  He's a pariah among his own party, what's left of them.  Sheesh.

Yes, times are more serious.  An awful lot of folk who are listening with open minds will attribute the current serious times more to Bush 43 than any other single individual.  Trump doesn't want and isn't seeking to ride those coat tails.

I haven't noticed that he's been missing and I didn't really care if he attended the convention or not.. BTW, my time is to valuable to waste on Republicans trying to pump themselves up and feel each others pain after being soundly defeated by the independent wing of the Republican party. A wing that is quite capable of moving in your direction and splitting a weaker party in two. Hell, Romney could disappear tomorrow, I would not notice or even care for that matter. After all, one does not represent makeup of an entire party. Volunteer armies like we have are hard to sustain when two political parties are at war with other. How can soldiers win wars against obvious bad guys when a portion of their politicians associate them as being the bad guys. I'm sorry dude, you're party is screwed up. I thought the Democrats supporting Bush initially and abruptly turning against him and then using the war politically was pretty low at the time considering what was a stake at the time and the results that we are seeing/experiencing today.

[playwrite]

(07-30-2016, 01:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 10:04 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The Cleveland convention crowd did their 'Lock her up!" chant a week ago.  Trump just endorsed that, 'I'm starting to agree'

This is par for the course with his use of language that pushes the spiral of violence.  He doesn't say he wants to rebut what the Democratic speakers are saying, he says he wants to be physically violent with them.  He doesn't say he wants to defeat his opponent in an election, he says he wants to imprison opposing politicians.

Now, I'm not quite one to say Trump is Hitler's long lost clone.  Trump does show a persistent liking for Agricultural Age tyrannic government, with his endorsement of great leaders like Saddam Hussain.  He might be as close to a Cynic Hero restoree politicians as we are apt to find.  Still, not all tyrants or wannabe tyrants are equally bad.  At this point Trump is reality connected enough to state his mind but not to try to act on it.  He hasn't actually punched anybody.  He didn't find any Republican Philadelphia cops and send them into the convention to arrest Hillary.

But I wouldn't want to tempt him by granting him the power to actually do what he says he wants to do.

Lets see, the Democrats are allowed to "hit" Trump for this and that or for whatever they want but Trump is chastised for saying he's going to "hit" them back. Are you into child's play? Do you think child's play is going to resolve issues? Do you really want to do liberal child play with an old school adult? I'll do liberal child's play if you want just for shits and giggles and to see how many emotional twits it drums up. Hell, I played that game all through the Bush years. I played it with Kiff. Where's Kiff? I played it so well that your numbers fell greatly and older posters began dropping out. I "hit" hard and I "hit" where it has the greatest impact and where it really hurts. I expect more from a so-called intelligent adult like yourself. I know who the real bully beaters are and who they tend to support. I also know the name of candidate who represents them. Did you go to a similar high school as me? A larger suburban high school with several social groups? If you did, did you pay much attention to what actually made it work?

There's a huge gap between calling your opponent unfit for office (see the 1st Amendment) and  'hitting' back that you will put your opponent in jail once you come to power.  We are NOT a banana republic.

The fact that you can't grasp that difference clearly indicates that you are a sheeple wanting to be ruled by Comrade Trump on the behalf of Tsar Putin.  It is people like you that cause democracies to die.

[Eric the Green]

(07-30-2016, 06:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I thought the Democrats supporting Bush initially and abruptly turning against him and then using the war politically was pretty low at the time considering what was a stake at the time and the results that we are seeing/experiencing today.

What was at stake in our generation was to move away from war, especially wars that are not necessary and which do nothing but cause trouble. What was at stake was that we could be a people who could turn a nation around when it did the wrong thing, as was done for the first time in Vietnam and was the beginning of a world without war. The results we see today are the result of the failure to stop Bush and the failure of the people to vote against him, betraying the new values of our new revolution of peace.

[pbrower2a]

(07-30-2016, 02:05 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 01:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 10:04 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The Cleveland convention crowd did their 'Lock her up!" chant a week ago.  Trump just endorsed that, 'I'm starting to agree'

This is par for the course with his use of language that pushes the spiral of violence.  He doesn't say he wants to rebut what the Democratic speakers are saying, he says he wants to be physically violent with them.  He doesn't say he wants to defeat his opponent in an election, he says he wants to imprison opposing politicians.

Now, I'm not quite one to say Trump is Hitler's long lost clone.  Trump does show a persistent liking for Agricultural Age tyrannic government, with his endorsement of great leaders like Saddam Hussain.  He might be as close to a Cynic Hero restoree politicians as we are apt to find.  Still, not all tyrants or wannabe tyrants are equally bad.  At this point Trump is reality connected enough to state his mind but not to try to act on it.  He hasn't actually punched anybody.  He didn't find any Republican Philadelphia cops and send them into the convention to arrest Hillary.

But I wouldn't want to tempt him by granting him the power to actually do what he says he wants to do.

Lets see, the Democrats are allowed to "hit" Trump for this and that or for whatever they want but Trump is chastised for saying he's going to "hit" them back. Are you into child's play? Do you think child's play is going to resolve issues? Do you really want to do liberal child play with an old school adult? I'll do liberal child's play if you want just for shits and giggles and to see how many emotional twits it drums up. Hell, I played that game all through the Bush years. I played it with Kiff. Where's Kiff? I played it so well that your numbers fell greatly and older posters began dropping out. I "hit" hard and I "hit" where it has the greatest impact and where it really hurts. I expect more from a so-called intelligent adult like yourself. I know who the real bully beaters are and who they tend to support. I also know the name of candidate who represents them. Did you go to a similar high school as me? A larger suburban high school with several social groups? If you did, did you pay much attention to what actually made it work?

Did you watch the conventions at all?  If so, did you pay attention.  It seems not.  'Hit' is Trump's word.  He is the one shifting the discussion from exchange of ideas and ideals to a tone of not so veiled violence.

Wikipedia has a dictionary, and it has a definition for the word hit as a verb.

hit ‎(third-person singular simple present hits, present participle hitting, simple past [b]hit[/b] or (dialectal) hat or (rare, dialectal) het, past participle [b]hit[/b] or (dialectal) hitten)

1. (heading, physical) To strike.
   
   1. (transitive) To administer a blow to, directly or with a weapon or missile.  [quotations ▼]One boy hit the other.‎
      
   2. (transitive) To come into contact with forcefully and suddenly.  [quotations ▼]The ball hit the fence.‎
      
   3. (transitive, slang) To kill a person, usually on the instructions of a third party. Hit him tonight and throw the body in the river.‎
      
   4. (transitive, military) To attack, especially amphibiously. If intelligence had been what it should have been, I don't think we'd ever have hit that island.‎
      

The third meaning is particularly ominous.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-30-2016, 11:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Wikipedia has a dictionary, and it has a definition for the word hit as a verb.

hit ‎(third-person singular simple present hits, present participle hitting, simple past [b]hit[/b] or (dialectal) hat or (rare, dialectal) het, past participle [b]hit[/b] or (dialectal) hitten)

1. (heading, physical) To strike.
   
   1. (transitive) To administer a blow to, directly or with a weapon or missile.  [quotations ▼]One boy hit the other.‎
      
   2. (transitive) To come into contact with forcefully and suddenly.  [quotations ▼]The ball hit the fence.‎
      
   3. (transitive, slang) To kill a person, usually on the instructions of a third party. Hit him tonight and throw the body in the river.‎
      
   4. (transitive, military) To attack, especially amphibiously. If intelligence had been what it should have been, I don't think we'd ever have hit that island.‎
      

The third meaning is particularly ominous.

Ah, but you are assuming the use of English.  Every once in a while in political discussion on the net, you get Humpty Dumpty linguistics.

Lewis Carroll Wrote:"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
 Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
 "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
 "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

If someone makes an assumption, such as Humpty does in the above example, that he is the Master, no truth or fact matters except the proclamations of the Master..  Always keep this in mind when dealing with wannabe Masters and you'll get along fine.  

[pbrower2a]

(07-30-2016, 01:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 10:04 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The Cleveland convention crowd did their 'Lock her up!" chant a week ago.  Trump just endorsed that, 'I'm starting to agree'

This is par for the course with his use of language that pushes the spiral of violence.  He doesn't say he wants to rebut what the Democratic speakers are saying, he says he wants to be physically violent with them.  He doesn't say he wants to defeat his opponent in an election, he says he wants to imprison opposing politicians.

Now, I'm not quite one to say Trump is Hitler's long lost clone.  Trump does show a persistent liking for Agricultural Age tyrannic government, with his endorsement of great leaders like Saddam Hussain.  He might be as close to a Cynic Hero restoree politicians as we are apt to find.  Still, not all tyrants or wannabe tyrants are equally bad.  At this point Trump is reality connected enough to state his mind but not to try to act on it.  He hasn't actually punched anybody.  He didn't find any Republican Philadelphia cops and send them into the convention to arrest Hillary.

But I wouldn't want to tempt him by granting him the power to actually do what he says he wants to do.

Lets see, the Democrats are allowed to "hit" Trump for this and that or for whatever they want but Trump is chastised for saying he's going to "hit" them back. Are you into child's play? Do you think child's play is going to resolve issues? Do you really want to do liberal child play with an old school adult? I'll do liberal child's play if you want just for shits and giggles and to see how many emotional twits it drums up. Hell, I played that game all through the Bush years. I played it with Kiff. Where's Kiff? I played it so well that your numbers fell greatly and older posters began dropping out. I "hit" hard and I "hit" where it has the greatest impact and where it really hurts. I expect more from a so-called intelligent adult like yourself. I know who the real bully beaters are and who they tend to support. I also know the name of candidate who represents them. Did you go to a similar high school as me? A larger suburban high school with several social groups? If you did, did you pay much attention to what actually made it work?

We liberal Democrats are more likely to use words, statistics, and images. Such is my practice. It is non-violent. The nastiest threat that I have to offer is that gross failure of a political elite to serve the welfare of the people while enriching and pampering themselves is the historical precedents of Jacobinism, Bolshevism, and Maoism that never emerge in healthy societies. I am not so sure of what Donald Trump means when he says "hit". I hope that with Donald Trump such does not mean "hit" as in underworld parlance. In view of the sick games that he plays with words (contrast Barack Obama, who says what he means and means what he says), Donald Trump scares me.

Donald Trump has a proclivity for linguistic ambiguity, and when it comes from someone exercising extreme power (President of the United States is about as powerful as Imperator Romanus once meant) one needs good cause to not expect the worst. The difference between President of the United States and Imperator Romanus,  aside from reach and weapons, is that the Roman Emperors were generally worse than American Presidents. George W. Bush, one of our worst, was more moral than practically every Roman Emperor around for a similar amount of time. Our Founding Fathers may have had much admiration of Rome -- but they wisely chose to reject (except for one blatant and ultimately disastrous oversight) the depravities of ancient Rome.

We liberal democrats have come to redefine even such stock phrases of the Right in recent years as fiscal responsibility, military strength, law and order, and family values to include more people. Not starting wars for profit is financial responsibility, and choosing caution in escalation of disputes and differences into war is one way of keeping military strength intact. We have long given up the idea that criminals are consequences of exploitation and oppression instead of bad characters who would hurt others even if they had all the assets that they wanted. Our concept of family values includes respect for same-sex couples while tightening protection of children and cracking down on sexual trafficking. You did hear Senator Amy Klobuchar call for harsher laws and more rigid enforcement of existing and new laws against sex trafficking, did you not?

Yes, Classic X'er, you are good at hitting people in their feelings while suggesting that you are the martyr of some noble cause. Your cause is economic sadism on behalf of people who believe that America fares best so long as the Right People get everything that they want -- which means ... everything! The more power and rewards that our elites have gotten, the more miserable life has become for the rest of us. Those elites would love to convince us that they radiate some quality of their own wonderfulness that enhances our lives because we get vicarious pleasure from their exuberant indulgence. If right-wing Republicans have formulated such as theories, Donald Trump offers himself as an example of the person who radiates the wonder that is himself.

Donald Trump has gone far off the edge. He represents much that is wrong in America -- most importantly the rapaciousness and pathological narcissism of many members of the economic elites. Even worse, he has suggested that bigotry and violence that Republicans from the time of Abraham Lincoln to George W. Bush have eschewed might be a good thing.

The word that Donald Trump has used that most scares me is "hit", which in its most ominous definition suggests the underworld slang term "whack", as in "Al Capone allegedly whacked rival gangsters in the St. Valentine's Day massacre". I have cause to believe that the word does not simply mean the minor assault of a slap in the face or a minor punch into someone's fat belly. I wonder if that sort of hit suggests a Mafia-like hit against a critic or opponent. Sure, most of us accept that the assassination of Osama bin Laden had to be done in much the same manner as an underworld hit, as in "Barack Obama whacked Osama bin Laden" or "The Mossad whacked perpetrators of the killers of the Israeli Olympic team".

It is wise that people not toy with evil. Political violence has long been far outside the realm of the acceptable in American life. We have a Presidential nominee who has gone far beyond the measured rhetoric of George Wallace in 1968. We have a Presidential nominee who has seen nothing wrong with the beating of hecklers.

Donald Trump is simply too risky a choice for President. Conservatives who cannot quite stomach voting for Hillary Clinton because she promises much that Barack Obama offered have a valid alternative to the top of the Republican ticket in Gary Johnson, who is closer to the economic and social orthodoxy of the Republican Party of Reagan and both Bushes. His admiration for dictators sickens me.

[pbrower2a]

(07-31-2016, 08:45 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 11:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Wikipedia has a dictionary, and it has a definition for the word hit as a verb.

hit ‎(third-person singular simple present hits, present participle hitting, simple past [b]hit[/b] or (dialectal) hat or (rare, dialectal) het, past participle [b]hit[/b] or (dialectal) hitten)

1. (heading, physical) To strike.
   
   1. (transitive) To administer a blow to, directly or with a weapon or missile.  [quotations ▼]One boy hit the other.‎
      
   2. (transitive) To come into contact with forcefully and suddenly.  [quotations ▼]The ball hit the fence.‎
      
   3. (transitive, slang) To kill a person, usually on the instructions of a third party. Hit him tonight and throw the body in the river.‎
      
   4. (transitive, military) To attack, especially amphibiously. If intelligence had been what it should have been, I don't think we'd ever have hit that island.‎
      

The third meaning is particularly ominous.

Ah, but you are assuming the use of English.  Every once in a while in political discussion on the net, you get Humpty Dumpty linguistics.

Lewis Carroll Wrote:"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
 Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
 "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
 "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

If someone makes an assumption, such as Humpty does in the above example, that he is the Master, no truth or fact matters except the proclamations of the Master..  Always keep this in mind when dealing with wannabe Masters and you'll get along fine.  

I don't know whether Donald Trump even understands the possible meanings of what he says. Contrast Sarah Palin, prone to create such a neologism as "refudiate" (which does not pass my spell checker as the infamous "normalcy" of Warren G. Harding), a warning sign as much for suspect words as for spelling errors and tpyos) or using a word in an unorthodox way (as in "Barack Obama pals with terrorists"). Is the word salad of of Donald Trump more sophisticated than the word salad of Sarah Palin, or does he not understand the significance of some of his word choices? At least we all understand what Sarah Palin meant with the effort to blend the words "refute" and "repudiate", and we can figure out what Sarah Palin means when she uses the word "pal" as a verb.

Verbal integrity is an essential part of a minimal standard of honesty. If one is to use a word in a way that has multiple meanings with significance to someone else then one must demonstrate which meaning applies to that word at that time. Then, another important part of  the minimal standard of honesty, one must act in a way consistent with the meaning that one has expressed.

...Lewis Carroll was not only the author of two of the greatest works of the childhood canon of literature, but also a superb mathematician... and logician. His "Humpty Dumpty" is, of course, a dangerous liar. Lewis Carroll is unsurpassed in teaching an important lesson to children. If uses a word in a way in which it has two or more different meanings and one of those can be extremely hurtful, then it is up to the person who uses that word to make clear which meaning that word has.  Donald Trump obviously does not mean that he is going to slap his opponents and critics in the face. Neither is he going to give someone a forceful strike as in a block or tackle in football (he is obviously too old and not in shape to do that). Military force upon a military target is obviously never a one-man task today. So guess what that leaves! Al Capone used hired killers on an impromptu basis. Leaders without responsibility use a secret police like BOSS, the Mukhabarat, SAVAK, Stasi, KGB, or the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission. (I made some edits to Wikipedia to put the latter in the same league as the Gestapo and the OGPU -- "secret police" -- and those have stuck). Yes, America has some precedent for a secret police, even if not at the federal level. The FBI is unlikely to do such dirty work for the President, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, the Supreme Court, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff; it needs some violation of federal law (like occupation or destruction of federal property) for it to act. Should Donald Trump try to form some federal law enforcement agency or use an existing one to enforce his will in violation of the rights enumerated in the Constitution, then we have a Constitutional Crisis.

One can lie using any language. Just think of the nightmare of 1984  in which the vile regime of Oceania has turned practically every noun, verb, adjective, or adverb into a lie as "Newspeak" and made any communication other than command meaningless. Were I to imagine a sequel  to 1984  in which people reacquire their freedom, then much of the cure is the abandonment of Newspeak (that word passes my spellchecker) for practically anything else. Classical Latin, Old English, Cherokee, Korean, Quechua, or Esperanto would all suffice -- but not the English barbarized into something practically useless in a free society with an active culture.

[Bob Butler 54]

CNN asks "Did Trump go too far?" verbally abusing a Gold Star Mother?

I personally think he didn't 'go' too far.  He's been too far for quite some time.  He's just marking time in place where he's been all along.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-30-2016, 08:15 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 01:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-30-2016, 10:04 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The Cleveland convention crowd did their 'Lock her up!" chant a week ago.  Trump just endorsed that, 'I'm starting to agree'

This is par for the course with his use of language that pushes the spiral of violence.  He doesn't say he wants to rebut what the Democratic speakers are saying, he says he wants to be physically violent with them.  He doesn't say he wants to defeat his opponent in an election, he says he wants to imprison opposing politicians.

Now, I'm not quite one to say Trump is Hitler's long lost clone.  Trump does show a persistent liking for Agricultural Age tyrannic government, with his endorsement of great leaders like Saddam Hussain.  He might be as close to a Cynic Hero restoree politicians as we are apt to find.  Still, not all tyrants or wannabe tyrants are equally bad.  At this point Trump is reality connected enough to state his mind but not to try to act on it.  He hasn't actually punched anybody.  He didn't find any Republican Philadelphia cops and send them into the convention to arrest Hillary.

But I wouldn't want to tempt him by granting him the power to actually do what he says he wants to do.

Lets see, the Democrats are allowed to "hit" Trump for this and that or for whatever they want but Trump is chastised for saying he's going to "hit" them back. Are you into child's play? Do you think child's play is going to resolve issues? Do you really want to do liberal child play with an old school adult? I'll do liberal child's play if you want just for shits and giggles and to see how many emotional twits it drums up. Hell, I played that game all through the Bush years. I played it with Kiff. Where's Kiff? I played it so well that your numbers fell greatly and older posters began dropping out. I "hit" hard and I "hit" where it has the greatest impact and where it really hurts. I expect more from a so-called intelligent adult like yourself. I know who the real bully beaters are and who they tend to support. I also know the name of candidate who represents them. Did you go to a similar high school as me? A larger suburban high school with several social groups? If you did, did you pay much attention to what actually made it work?

There's a huge gap between calling your opponent unfit for office (see the 1st Amendment) and  'hitting' back that you will put your opponent in jail once you come to power.  We are NOT a banana republic.

The fact that you can't grasp that difference clearly indicates that you are a sheeple wanting to be ruled by Comrade Trump on the behalf of Tsar Putin.  It is people like you that cause democracies to die.

We are on the path to becoming a banana republic. All one has to do is look at the growing divide in your party. The right ain't socialist dude. The left is about half socialist and more in tune with the views of the world. You better wise up. The working class Democrats are starting to move over to the Republican side. The old uppity Republicans ain't happy but who cares. It's people like you who offer people one viable choice (your choice) that causes democracies to die. Don't blame me, I'm not dumb enough to attach free college, free health insurance and $15 an hour wage to a poor vote. How long do you hope this blind stupidity is going to last? Let me guess, long enough for you die and not be around to experience the ickiness when the split begins between the haves and have not's.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-31-2016, 07:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN asks "Did Trump go too far?" verbally abusing a Gold Star Mother?

I personally think he didn't 'go' too far.  He's been too far for quite some time.  He's just marking time in place where he's been all along.

I think it's a shame that Democrats decided to use those people for their own political gains. Do you think that they took into account the fifty people who were slaughtered in a nightclub not so long ago or the eighty people who were slaughtered by a radical Muslim a little while ago and the feelings of all the Americans associated with the loss of them before they addressed the nation in regards to their interests relating to Muslims in general? Are immigrant Muslim more valuable to the Democrats than the people who died in Florida and in France?

[Eric the Green]

The Republicans are also to blame for the fifty people slaughtered in a nightclub, because they put the guns in the hands of the madman with their permissive gun policies. The Democrats certainly could not have deported an American citizen just because he was a Muslim. To suggest otherwise is to change this country into Saudi Arabia.

[Eric the Green]

(07-31-2016, 07:39 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: We are on the path to becoming a banana republic. All one has to do is look at the growing divide in your party. The right ain't socialist dude. The left is about half socialist and more in tune with the views of the world. You better wise up. The working class Democrats are starting to move over to the Republican side. The old uppity Republicans ain't happy but who cares. It's people like you who offer people one viable choice (your choice) that causes democracies to die. Don't blame me, I'm not dumb enough to attach free college, free health insurance and $15 an hour wage to a poor vote. How long do you hope this blind stupidity is going to last? Let me guess, long enough for you die and not be around to experience the ickiness when the split begins between the haves and have not's.

The split is long since here, because we DON'T have the things you oppose and call socialist, like free college for the middle class, health insurance (which is not free but should be reasonable cost) and a livable, non-poverty, non-slave minimum wage of $15 an hour. Banana Republics are those where the rich own everything. That is what your policies lead to, and have been leading to in America for 36 years and counting. Reaganomics has got to be put out to pasture; the sooner the better.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-31-2016, 08:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-31-2016, 07:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN asks "Did Trump go too far?" verbally abusing a Gold Star Mother?

I personally think he didn't 'go' too far.  He's been too far for quite some time.  He's just marking time in place where he's been all along.

I think it's a shame that Democrats decided to use those people for their own political gains. Do you think that they took into account the fifty people who were slaughtered in a nightclub not so long ago or the eighty people who were slaughtered by a radical Muslim a little while ago and the feelings of all the Americans associated with the loss of them before they addressed the nation in regards to their interests relating to Muslims in general? Are immigrant Muslim more valuable to the Democrats than the people who died in Florida and in France?

It was Trump who was using their son for personal political purpose.  The parents of the dead boy had no particular interest in politics until Trump stepped into their lives.  They just wanted him to stop playing political football with their son's grave.

I can't speak for all Democrats, but I'm of the mind that all men are created equal.  A lot of Americans value that principle.  It's traditional in this country.  Now, the French have more responsibility for the people on French soil, and the US has more responsibility for folks on our soil, but I'd kind of hope that the two nations are exchanging intelligence freely and value all equally.

Only a racist, or since Orlando has been mentioned someone with an attitude towards gay people, would start thinking in terms of whether this person is more important than that person.  You don't look at the color of someone's skin, their religion, or their language and decide this person deserves to be valued more or protected more than someone else.  At least, that's what Americans are supposed to believe.  Not everyone in America follows American values.