Replies

LOL, am I bantering with Karl Rove?

I cut and pasted the words, and their meanings, that you wanted me to peruse on the internet to provide context as to how those words lend credence to my argument, that the topic is not as narrow as your tunnel vision only allows for. I can do a lot more than cut & paste BTW.

Let me allay your distress concerning my abilities to think logically. I do just fine on my own, and I don't need a talking head to form logical conclusions. I also write coded programs for computers which requires good structured logic if a programmer is any good at his profession.

Apparently sarcasm escapes you with regards to the caps on comment. Oh well. It also is how you yell at someone who gets under your skin causing great agitation. I'm glad that wasn't the reason for the caps, yet I did clearly say affect. Which could be construed as emphasis if one thinks outside the box.

I understood perfectly what Juan was doing, yet I doubt his sentiments carry across the entire industry. But if you want to believe that, that is your right. Again though, I do not give much credence to talking heads as they are merely providing their opinions. Often time I wonder if they are even educated opinions, and not just emotional opinions.

I can state with 99.9% certainty that he said nothing about Clinton accepting foreign contributions when Bill was running for re-election, and the same holds true with Obama accepting foreign contributions in both elections. In the public I should add. Otherwise, I am certain it would have been news for weeks on end with the left chewing him up into little pieces. A google search produces nothing either. Just for your information that is not a negative that is impossible to prove or disprove. One can either offer up evidence that he stated it, or if they can't then it's obvious that it never occurred. We live in the electronic information age where even things we wished we hadn't said linger out there in cyberspace much to our dismay.

Perhaps you need to comprehend what you read, as I clearly stated that Hillary will run. She seeks power. To be the first woman President would be the whipped cream with the cherry on top.

Of course I do not know for certain if Hillary will be the nominee, but I made the statement and am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I am not playing both sides of the coin assuring that I am correct. I am stating that my belief (should I cap that for you to emphasis that?) is she will not be the nominee. I come to that conclusion because she got beat by an unknown when she was very well known. On top of that her husband is somewhat of a beloved hero to the Democrats, at least as far as his success with the economy is concerned. Since that time her stock has plummeted, especially with the hard core left. My guess is the moderate to right leaning left voters are not all that enthusiastic about her either. Lastly I believe the Democratic apparatchik despise her. That's my logical conclusion regarding Hillary and I'm sticking to it.

Who knows, perhaps Juan's motivation is to ensure she doesn't become the party's nominee. Meaning his motivation isn't to call her on foreign donations, but rather cast her in a bad light. I have no problem with that on its face, but I am also not impressed with his comment either.

LOL, as Reagan would say, there you go again. Now I possess a certain foolish and infantile arrogance because I won't submit to what you want to frame as the topic. I can't help it if you cannot see the larger topic, within the smaller topic you chose it to be.

I will say one thing, you do make me laugh. See I am not as humorless as you stated I was.

I'm sure you will speed read this as you have my other posts. Oh well. Much like your thinking that getting a Republican President will cure all ills America is experiencing (which leads me to the opinion of why you are so excited as to what Juan said), it's apparent your refusal to look at bigger pictures, and tuning out anything longer than sound bites, is what shapes your thinking.