Posted on 01/03/2016 6:12:14 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
Bump!
Really not very original...kind of lame, actually. I'm open to hearing anything better you can come up with.
"that’s exactly what I said in my initial post.
Really?
"Nowhere did I state nor imply an affirmative response to the question."
No?
"No, I do not want a dictator."
And yet:
"I want a chief executive who can bitch-slap his own branch of government. I want some iron-fisted bastard to do a smashmouth beatdown of the departments, to a tenth of their current size, and eliminate most of them. Somebody with CEO experience."
So, yeah, in that sense...I do."
31 posted on 12/25/2015, 11:16:20 AM by ROCKLOBSTER
I thought it would help with accuracy to post all of what you said, since jpsb conveniently managed to excluse that last sentence.
About the "iron-fisted bastard who will do the smashmouth beatdowns".
Cruz has done so, as has Palin to a small degree. Trump certainly has.
Who will inform the public of this?
No one gets anything past the MSM goalies. Except Donald Trump. Let’s hope he goes there.
Well, that only leads me to conclude that you otherwise approve of the status quo of millions of career political RAT-hacks "serving" in six-figure, do-nothing/no-show jobs and who are being used to attack the very American people who are paying their salaries.
Oh wait...Are you a bureaucRAT?
I seriously doubt that you are going to try and tell me that the Executive branch is run as a bottom-up, self-regulating entity, where even the lowest positions have an equal voice in operations.
If that were the case, there would be no need for a CEO, other than to serve as a figurehead.
Is that what you want?
Really not very original...kind of lame, actually. I'm open to hearing anything better you can come up with.
Yeah?
Well, I was going to open with "Snotty Kathy" but I thought that may have been a little harsh.
Book mark
It was not my choice, but we were faced with either Romney or Obama. Not doing everything possible to keep Obama out was foolish.You gave several preposterous straw man arguments. I will give you one that is more appropriate. If you are having a heart attack and have just learned you also have to fight cancer, which do you fight first? I will fight the heart attack, which is immediately life threatening, and then I will fight the battle against cancer.
We have the same goal of battling the GOP-e. But allowing Obama a second term, after we saw what he was doing and knowing what he was planning, was national suicide. There is the right time and place to make a stand against the GOP-e. Timing is everything. It was not 2012. Obama was not just some Democrat. He was a person deliberately destroying the country. Jackasses let it happen.
That's it? File the scenarios under 'strawman arguments' and move on? The point was that most of the time in real life we never accept the terms of a lesser evil no-win scenario. Doesn't the highest office in the land deserve the same consideration? Well I do. But I admit it took a long time to get it hammered into my own thick skull.
Nice try with the heart attack though. Unfortunately you immediately contradicted your alleged plan to get the GOPe illness later: "and then I will fight the battle against cancer" by virtue of the fact that your only immediate choice is to vote for the GOPe today, throwing them their expected lifeline, and had Romney won, the cancer is metastasized beyond treatment. Face it, there is no plan to crush the GOPe under any Lesser-of-two-evil scenario because they rig the scenario that way.
Look, believe whatever you want, I'm just amazed that this kind of talk continues today, AFTER two more, subsequent events ..
Those two things happened since Romney 2012, and while they do not change the past, they re-affirm the bullseye correct instinct of those that bailed out in 2012. Those that you unfortunately call jackasses.
I'll bet you still blame Perot for Clinton, right? Well I voted for Bush41 right alongside you ... however ... this has become a retroactive IQ Test. I was wrong then. I would however pass the test today. You?
About the "iron-fisted bastard who will do the smashmouth beatdowns".
Well, that only leads me to conclude that you otherwise approve of the status quo of millions of career political RAT-hacks "serving" in six-figure, do-nothing/no-show jobs and who are being used to attack the very American people who are paying their salaries.Oh wait...Are you a bureaucRAT?
I assume Cathy is talking about Trump again, worried now that we'll get a right-wing totalitarian hitler nazi mussolini strongman < insert more insults here > which are the left-wingers talking points. She should know this by now.
You really don't have to worry about this Catherine. The (D)ummycrats and the (R)epublicrats would quickly rediscover the Constitution and impeachment power and independent counsels, special prosecutors, joint select committees and everything else once a non-member of the uniparty gets the White House. You can take that to the bank.
AUTOMATED RESPONSE
Doug has determined that his time is worth more than to dialogue with you. He apologizes if that hurts your feelings.
For the record, my pro-Trump sentiments have to do with his potential towards creative destruction of that PC-imprisoning paradigm we’re in. It might prove a monumentally needed reshuffling of the deck, a goal beyond the simple realm of politics and an election. Do I trust Trump? No, not really. Not at all. And he’s boorish and offputting to boot. But I don’t really trust anyone these days, including the American people. And least of all, the GOP-E.
As for TV, it’s undeniably a conduit for the moral rot that engulfs society. I divorced myself from most of the culture twenty years ago, to avoid its wearying ill-effect on my own character and values. But I still utilize my tv-set and dvd-player all the time, to watch vintage shows and movies (like ancient 1930s b-westerns), which are far more alligned with my personal tastes and value-system. It might even buttress them.
Again, with respect -- I dispute that assumption. I've got ants and I have a lot of things that will tick them off. What I need is something that will make them leave my house alone. Somebody here on another thread was lauding Trump for having such great presentation skills. As on any gig -- the presenter is selling something that others create. If you buy the presenter, all you end up with is a good presenter.
I do think Trump is a sincere and genuine patriot. I think he is fully convinced on that "personal brand" upon which he apparently puts a dollar value of some $4 or $5 billion, according to Forbes Mag.
For all that, the video of him I've seen exhibits a hot-headed slow thinker who is less articulate than he is emotive. Truly, anyone asked on national TV the stupid question, "Have you ever asked God for forgiveness?" [3.30 seconds into the video] who hesitates as the audience laughs nervously, and says "That's a tough question," then spends the next several minutes answering "not me, I do things differently" -- anyone who does that is a bad risk for a vote, I don't care who ya are!
;^)
Your assumptions about Cathy are all wet. She is disgusted to see so many so-called conservatives openly call for a dictator, but at the same time she realizes that supporting a progressive (Trump) inevitably necessitates a leftward slide.
If you're looking for leftwingers, you've found them in the ones who want to trash the Constitution and install a tyrant. Me? I support the Constitutional conservative in the race.
Leftwinger' talking points...too bad Trump fans made the author's point by saying, yeah, come to think of it, a dictator IS just what we want.
"You really don't have to worry about this Catherine. The (D)ummycrats and the (R)epublicrats would quickly rediscover the Constitution and impeachment power and independent counsels, special prosecutors, joint select committees and everything else once a non-member of the uniparty gets the White House. You can take that to the bank."
Whatever. Support progressive Trump if you want; he'll never be the nominee, and I wouldn't back him under any circumstances.
I'll stick with conservatism.
Yep. I was madder than hell at Perot voters at the time, but in retrospect, I'm grateful to them because they helped put Clinton in on a plurality, which was a good thing and would have been as good if Bush41/Dole had won. It blows me away that in spite of the fact that Bill Clinton was held in such low regard that never was he able to muster more than a minority to vote for him, pretty much everybody buys into the MSM myth that he was "popular."
He was rejected both times by the majority, it hurt him, he was steamrolled by the Republican revolution, and then impeached.
In 2012, I voted for a plurality at the top of the ticket, using my vote the best I could to weaken whichever leftist won, Romney or Obama. See my tagline.
Me too, brother FReeper. As I write this, I am typing to the soundtrack of Peter Gunn -- got the whole TV series on DVDs, fell in love with the music (Victor Feldman on vibes!!! Henry Mancini score!) -- it was a different era. My particular weakness is Columbo, Wanted Dead or Alive, Perry Mason, Columbo, Gunsmoke, and Leave it to Beaver, God help me. I find great escape in them, because they were good entertainment with great values, and the closest thing to a time machine I've got.
Greene, we're rare kindred spirits in that we don't partake of broadcast TV or cable. We're few and far between! I just cannot fathom folks who have a TV or five or six in the house and leave them on constantly, or who plan their evenings around TV shows. I've done it, fleetingly ... why would anyone anywhere ever want to watch more than one episode of "The Apprentice," if even one? I shake my head in wonder. I know, I'm a snob, they tell me.
Oh well, as Billy Barty the pool sharp bookie friend on Peter Gunn used to say when bidding master PI Pete adieu, "Think tall."
Indeed. Almost every vintage (pre-1970) tv-series that has been ‘officially’ released, I have on dvd. Over 200 dvd-sets, down to the more obscure titles, like “Johnny Staccato,” “The Lieutenant,” “Yancy Derringer,” “Dangerous Assignment,” “Man with a Camera,” and beyond. All genres. And that’s not even counting the bootleg material I’ve amassed of even more rare shows.
Even if the aesthetic merits of some vintage fare might occasionally be lacking, I still get the vicarious enjoyment of the cultural milieu that parallels my tastes and belief system, catering to everything from patriotism, tradition, and morality.
I'm also a bit of a Yakima Canut nut. I love watching the really old John Wayne B westerns with Yak. He was an amazing guy, an old dude (in his early 40s) at the time he did all those insane stunts. Man ... I can rerun and rewatch him leaping up from the ground to saddle a mount in one move -- frickin' amazing ... my dad was an advanced horseman and for him, Yak was always the star of the Western. I can see why.
I suspect that he was given some phony briefing on Benghazi and “ongoing operations” and a non-disclosure form.
It is SOP of this administration and the left in general.
My crazy theory is a Non-Disclosure agreement was signed by Romney after a through (but phony) Benghazi security briefing and warning about compromising on going operations.
Mitt had Obama on the ropes over Libya before the debate, then something shut him down.
Just a theory, but I remember all the personnel from Libya that were forced to sign NDAs and forbidden to talk to congress or anyone.
There is no similarity between these Eurofilth control-freaks and a freedom loving American patriot.
And since she still hasn’t responded, I continue to conclude that she approves of the big government status quo, and that she may well be a federal-payroll, big-government parasite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.