#3
Baxter has a lot of moving parts that will inevitably require the attention of a mechanic. He will need hardware and software upgrades from time to time. Somewhere along the line he's gonna need a human and that human's salary is gonna have to be considerable if Baxter is so important.
[Breitbart] Former New York Lt. Governor Betsy McCaughey warned against attending the 2016 Rio Olympics due to concerns about the Zika virus Sunday on New York AM 970 AM radio show "The Cats Roundtable."
"If you were going to design a method to take a very severe disease and spread it worldwide really quickly... you would hold an event at the epicenter of that disease, Brazil, and invite 500,000 people to attend," McCaughey told host John Catsimatidis. "I sympathize with the athletes who have trained and especially with the Brazilian economy, but the fact is this is going to spread this disease around the world."
This is as coherently as I can write with the phone, and I'm posting it here because I couldn't post it to Wheelus. It's a story illustrating why I'm not concerned about the reports of Trump's racism.
Thought for the day, OS: I think I've mentioned R before. American of Mexican descent who I subcontracted stuff to, back when I was a person.
About four or five years ago some political group had put up a billboard on hwy 90, right by the turnoff to the shop. It featured Ronald Reagan in a denim shirt and white cowboy hat and a gigantic smile, with "Remember real hope and change!" next to the picture.
R. being conservative in nature, took a picture of it on his phone, and posted it to his Facebook page.
A niece of his in Fatlanta posted back that she thought it was racist. Apparently seriously.
If Mexicans are going to adhere to the great leftist suicide religion by a 4 to 1 margin, and dismiss any deviation from that as Racist!eleventy, then non religious leftists are going to dismiss their opinions as "they're just a bunch of la raza stooges..." which I understand is closer to what Trump said than "he's just a goddamn ______..."
The real problem with Trump? If I post numbers, facts and figures to certain allegedly mainstream websites, say, links to Anthony Watts' site, they'll be censored as 'denialism' and memory holed as just another nazi.
Trump can blast through that shit by not caring, and he gets airtime while doing it. If he really is a racist, he's been empowered by the people who called me, R, and The Huntress (who I later found out helped put up the sign) racist for not being devout little socialists
Thing from Snowy Mountain is a regular at Rantburg.com
Posted by: Thing From Trump Mountain ||
06/06/2016 10:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
[Daily Caller] Appearing on CNN’s "Reliable Sources," Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik lambasted President Obama for his attacks on a free press, saying the President was "trying to criminalize reporting."
Responding to criticism of presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump’s criticisms of the political press, Zurawik responded, "What happened to the press under Obama was really deadly."
"If, when we say what a threat Trump is to the press, and he is, all the things you listed I agree," Zurawik said. "But so far, nothing rivals what President Obama did to James Risen, did to James Rosen, and did to the AP. Trying to criminalize reporting. They called Rosen a criminal co-conspirator. Eric Holder wrote that to get the subpoena. They subpoenaed Risen. Ask Risen what he called him. He said he’s the biggest threat -- the Obama administration was the biggest threat to the press in a generation."
h/t Instapundit
I’ve decided to come off the sidelines and endorse a candidate for President of the United States.
I’ll start by reminding readers that my politics don’t align with any of the candidates. My interest in the race has been limited to Trump’s extraordinary persuasion skills. But lately Hillary Clinton has moved into the persuasion game ‐ and away from boring facts and policies ‐ with great success. Let’s talk about that.
This past week we saw Clinton pair the idea of President Trump with nuclear disaster, racism, Hitler, the Holocaust, and whatever else makes you tremble in fear.
That is good persuasion if you can pull it off because fear is a strong motivator. It is also a sharp pivot from Clinton’s prior approach of talking about her mastery of policy details, her experience, and her gender. Trump took her so-called "woman card" and turned it into a liability. So Clinton wisely pivoted. Her new scare tactics are solid-gold persuasion. I wouldn’t be surprised if you see Clinton’s numbers versus Trump improve in June, at least temporarily, until Trump finds a counter-move.
The only downside I can see to the new approach is that it is likely to trigger a race war in the United States. And I would be a top-ten assassination target in that scenario because once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him. And obviously it would be okay to kill anyone who actively supports a genocidal dictator, including anyone who wrote about his persuasion skills in positive terms. (I’m called an "apologist" on Twitter, or sometimes just Joseph Goebbels).
If Clinton successfully pairs Trump with Hitler in your mind ‐ as she is doing ‐ and loses anyway, about a quarter of the country will think it is morally justified to assassinate their own leader. I too would feel that way if an actual Hitler came to power in this country. I would join the resistance and try to take out the Hitler-like leader. You should do the same. No one wants an actual President Hitler.
So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me ‐ and here I am being 100% serious ‐ that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.
As I have often said, I have no psychic powers and I don’t know which candidate would be the best president. But I do know which outcome is most likely to get me killed by my fellow citizens. So for safety reason, I’m on team Clinton.
My prediction remains that Trump will win in a landslide based on his superior persuasion skills. But don’t blame me for anything President Trump does in office because I endorse Clinton.
#1
Disappointing post g(r)om. I'll take you at your word that you are 100% serious. I believe that the Vichy French thought much the same way. If you follow your logic, you are in fact, supporting a Hitler-like candidate in the Hildabeast. A candidate much known for her transference. In voting to protect yourself you actually put all of us at risk. I'd rather you not vote at all since you don't align with any candidate. At any rate, don't blame me for anything President Clinton does in office..
#3
Ummm, #1 Warthog - That's Scott Adams talking, not grom.
And apparently you missed this paragraph:
"So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me - and here I am being 100% serious ‐ that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president."
Unfortunately, I suspect he's not as tongue-in-cheek as he usually is.
Posted by: Barbara ||
06/06/2016 18:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The post is clearly titled "My endorsement" and it does not state anywhere the name of Scott Adams. Confusion is understandable when the poster doesn't make it clear.
#5
Try clicking through, EP, before you draw conclusions, and particularly before you comment.
Also, "h/t Instapundit" is another clue (unless the Blogfadder quotes grom a lot, and I haven't noticed him doing that.)
Posted by: Barbara ||
06/06/2016 21:52 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Confusion happens -- no big deal. I've made the same mistake as Elmavish Panda1401, and now he won't make it again, which is more than can be said for me.
In trying to explain how the State Department snipped out several embarrassing minutes from a 2013 press briefing video, an agency spokesman claimed "it's not illegal" that "there were no rules specifically barring this type of scrubbing" ["State Department says a request, not a 'glitch,' purged part of briefing video," news, June 2]. That is high nonsense. The Federal Records Act, enacted in 1950 and amended in 2014, requires each agency head to "make and preserve records" (which include documents "regardless of physical form") and to guard against their "removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction."
The State Department itself has manuals, handbooks and annual reports on its record-management practices. Evidently, the agency scrubbed not only its video but also its spokesman's memory.
This scandal is more evidence of something my organization and others have encountered in our Freedom of Information Act requests: While this administration claims to be the most transparent in history, it repeatedly confuses transparency with invisibility.
From TFA:
[WSJ] What elevates Mr. Trump’s remarks to the reprehensible is his equation of ethnicity with bias. That truly is an attack on the independence of the judiciary because it means that a judge can be disqualified from a case merely for his personal background, rather than for any material conflict of interest.
The suit against Trump University is a classic civil fraud case that has nothing to do with ethnicity. Judge Curiel happens to be an American born in Indiana to immigrant parents, but that is of no legal import. He shouldn’t be judged by the ancestry of his parents any more than Chief Justice Roberts should be barred from ruling on religious liberty cases like the Little Sisters of the Poor because he is a Roman Catholic. More at the link
#2
Most American colleges and universities are just as much classical civil fraud agents, but with cover. Can you say 'student loan program' and 'debt' as in indentured servitude?
#5
Words and PC bullshi* The Mexican left, Vicenti Fox, and everyone else can say whatever they want about gringos, wave the Mexican flag in California, beat Trump rally goers, but Trump can't express his doubts about a judge ?
[AmericanThinker] It’s looking to be a long hot summer, full of violence against Trump supporters, exposure of Clinton wrongdoing, and continued loathsome behavior by the president, academics, and the media. To its shame, at this crucial juncture many of the once-respected members of the right’s commentariat are failing their readers and proving to be America’s biggest losers.
Space constraints prevent me from detailing all the wrongdoing of Hillary Clinton and her aides and allies, but here are just some turned up this week.
Breitbart reports that it is now clear that Hillary shared the names of covert U.S. intelligence figures on her unprotected server, which had been targeted by “Russia-linked hacker attempts,” jeopardizing their lives and operations. (Compare and contrast her behavior with that of Lewis Libby and the difference in the politicized responses of this administration with Bush’s. Or even with this administration’s response to clear lawbreaking as opposed to scurrilous, baseless claims in the prior administration.)
When Bush commuted the sentence of Libby, who had not leaked the name of a covert agent -- and actually he should have pardoned him altogether but failed to -- Hillary was quick on the draw:
"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." Clip and save this should she be indicted and pardoned on far worse conduct -- actually being the source of the leak of real covert agents.
The scandals continue to involve the Clinton Family Foundation as well the emails. As Don Surber observes, however, “Press scrutiny -- applies to Republicans, not Democrats.” More at the link
Enough! Apply the laws to all, equally. Had I done these things with codeword/caveat classified data I would be breaking rocks at Leavenworth or hard time federal penitentiary. This is evidence enough to indict and probably arrest this lying disloyal criminal. Do it now. And investigate the Clinton Family Foundation, its founders and its funders under RICO laws. If justice dept refuses to move, then put together a special independent prosecutor in Congress before the Democrats take over.
Hey leftys here's one for you: NO JUSTICE NO PEACE. How you like it now, your chickens coming home to roost?
[RS] In an absurd segment on PBS, the moron-in-chief makes a pretty absurd argument for taking away gun rights from Americans. But it SOUNDS pretty reasonable to the untrained ear.
So, he's saying that he knows of people who are ISIS sympathizers, and he's angry that he can't take away their gun rights. Oh hey, I have a question - WHY NOT JUST ARREST ISIS SYMPATHIZERS?!?! This is a stupid argument. If there is enough evidence that these people are a threat, then arrest them, you moron. If there's not enough evidence that these people are a threat, then it's PROBABLY unconstitutional to take their gun rights away. People have noted that the no-fly list has little accountability, and NO formal recourse for protest. That means that you can be on that list and not know why, and you can't do anything about it. THAT means that Obama is trying to summarily take away people's constitutional rights without any trial, without any recourse, and without any notification.
But he doesn't say any of that while misleading the American people because he's full of crap.
[DAWN] WHO is a bigger enemy for Pakistain? The bandidosmurderous Moslems or drones? The answer to this question may not be as simple as it appears.
The killing of the Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Akhtar Mansour in a US drone strike in Balochistan ...the Pak province bordering Kandahar and Uruzgun provinces in Afghanistan and Sistan Baluchistan in Iran. Its native Baloch propulation is being displaced by Pashtuns and Punjabis and they aren't happy about it... has triggered a complex debate about different issues including illusory sovereignty, regional stability, peace in Afghanistan and the security of the China-Pakistain Economic Corridor, etc. A negative impact on already deteriorating Pakistain-US relations was expected, but the incident also brought Iran into the picture; reportedly, Mullah Mansour was coming from Iran when he was hit by the drone.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
06/06/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistain Proxies
#1
Starting to be a whole lot of "Who Cares?" in this reader.
[Guardian] Scientists to test hypothesis that a weight loss programme for breast cancer patients after medical treatment lowers risk of disease returning.
A large trial is being launched this summer to establish whether diet and exercise regimes should be prescribed by doctors for women who have had breast cancer in the same way that they prescribe drugs, to prevent the disease returning and potentially save lives.
Women who are overweight or obese have a higher risk of breast cancer. But accumulating evidence suggests that becoming fitter and losing some pounds after a diagnosis could cut the chances of a recurrence and even lower the risk of death.
A number of small studies looking at the benefits of exercise and weight loss on cancer by researchers at Yale University in the US are being presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting (ASCO) in Chicago.
Prof Melinda Irwin, associate director at Yale Cancer Center and professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, said: "We found a strong connection between exercise after diagnosis and mortality afterwards.
"Most interestingly, it showed the impact on changes in activity on mortality ‐ even if you’ve never been active before taking regular exercise seemed to show a great impact."
A celebration of the perceived demise of "white America" as he, a white law professor, and his leftist allies see it.
[Salon] Donald Trump was born 70 years ago this month, at the very beginning of the baby boom. At that time, America was, in every sense, an unambiguously white country.
First, in demographic terms, nearly 90 percent of the population was categorized as white. Thus endeth the "demographic part of this presentation. Next, et seq., the Marxist analysis.
Groups that in the not-too-distant past had been considered only partially or imperfectly or not really white – such as Irish and German Catholics, Italians, and Jews – had by now been largely granted white status, as part of a melting pot ideology which claimed to transform a multi-ethnic population into a society in which race and ethnicity were subsumed into a single American identity.
Oh dear. I do hope the writer is not an actual historian, as he is tad premature in his timing: Mr. Trump was born in 1946, but Yale, and presumably the other Ivies as well, only gave up on Jewish quotas for enrollment in the 1960s, according to the New York Times. One assumes Jews were only one of the many ethnic groups receiving such treatment.
(That this ideology could flourish in a culture that still featured massive legal discrimination against African Americans indicates the extent to which white America managed to avoid even thinking about the existence of black people.) I thought we were talking about race. But now, we're talking about ideology. What ideology, pray tell, is in play here?
Second, the political, economic, and cultural dominance of white America was so taken for granted by white Americans that it was, as a social matter, invisible to them. At that time, whiteness in America was what sociologists call an “unmarked category.” It was an "unmarked category" because government did not keep track of ethnicity until the civil rights act.
For example, if a white person had been shown a photograph of the Senate, it’s practically certain that he or she would simply not have noticed that it was made up exclusively of white people. (Nor would the observer have noticed that all these people happened to be men, but that’s a different topic.) Nothing I saw in the laws extant at the time prevent other minorities from running for Senate. The men who were elected to the Senate were out there to do one job: rob the rest of us blind.
Of course the observer would not have noticed that all those people were men, because since 1921 there were always some Congresswomen, and since 1931 only six years when there were no female Senators. Link.
In other words, “white” and “American” were essentially synonyms. Hispanics made up less than two percent of the population, and they outnumbered Asian-Americans ten to one. Basically everyone in America was either white or black, and while in theory black people were full citizens too, in practice they weren’t, most obviously in the Jim Crow south, but in reality in the rest of the country as well. In the Jim Crow south as well as the smug liberal north. Things weren't much better in the north than in the south.
That country no longer exists: or rather it only continues to exist in the increasingly panicked imaginations of the sorts of white people who have – it still seems incredible when one puts it into words – made Donald Trump the Republican party’s presidential candidate. Panicked? Have you seen the anti-Trump riots? If anything the rise of Trump can be seen as a counter to a leftist racialist movement, which will be discarded once the left gets its eight year lease on the national pocketbook. On a personal note, I wouldn't vote for Trump if my life depended on it, but for the Red Queen. I personally am a 'molten lava' voter: I will swim through molten lava to vote against Hilarity...
Today, barely three out of five Americans are non-Hispanic whites. In another two or three decades, “white” people, as traditionally defined, will make up less than half the population. White America is in the process of disappearing, and it’s no surprise that tens of millions of people who thought of this as their country are frightened by the thought that it isn’t any more. I fail to see, and I have yet to hear from Republicans I know in meat space about race. They are all to a man worried about the growth of government, and the unrelenting runaway power of those who are behind that growth.
All this helps explain incidents such as Trump’s claim this week that a federal judge who has ruled against him in a lawsuit is a “Mexican,” even though the judge was born in Indiana. Clueless journalists treated this as yet another example of Trump’s apparently bottomless ignorance, when in fact it’s obviously a strategic choice on his part. Strategic choice because of another Affirmative Action jurist decides to press a civil suit.
To Trump’s supporters, a person of Mexican ancestry is Mexican, rather than American, because Americans are white, and “Mexicans” aren’t. To the overt racists who make up Trump’s – and to a significant extent, the contemporary Republican party’s – electoral base, non-whites are at best Americans by courtesy or sufferance, because America has always been a white country. Again, I have yet to hear from the circles I move in anything about race. They are more concerned, as am I about the raw power of government.
A few years ago, Trump discovered that there was an enormous untapped market, as he would think of it, for overt racism in mainstream American politics. This is why he laid the groundwork for his presidential run by constantly repeating paranoid nonsense about Barack Obama not really being an American. He was, as they say in the business schools, establishing his “brand.” I have never accept Obama as an American because he does not accept my beliefs in the Constitution.
President Obama spent his formative years abroad, and after his return fantasized about being an African prince. At a gut level he does not respond to the world as an American.
It is very important to keep in mind that Donald Trump is now the leader of the Republican party, and that this means the Republican party is now the party of overt racism, in pretty much the same way the southern wing of the Democratic party was the party of overt, unreconstructed racism seventy years ago, when Trump first began to contaminate the planet. The Democratic party is about subtle racism. Nah, the Democrats are not subtle about it at all...
Every single Republican politician has charges of racism, sexism, stupidity -- and often Nazism as well -- hurled at him. Being Black, Hispanic, or female is no protection, which suggests the charge is meaningless.
Saying so isn’t considered polite,
... lies are rude by definition...
because that would imply that, as long as it’s the party of Trump, and, more important, Trumpism, being a Republican is no longer a respectable thing to be. It isn’t. Change your registration. I vote Republican, horrified as I am about a New York liberal running for president. Paul Campos is a Marxist, pro Hillary fluffer at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
#3
Isn't this one of the things people (like me) who opposed Trump warned about - his tacit tolerance of racism in some of his supporters? Now with the racist comments about the judge in his fraud case, associating him with racism is easily shown in his own words. You can bet it will be used as a very broad brush in the mainstream media to tar the entire party and all candidates who do not disavow him. And worse, a large number of voters still depend on that source for voting information. This will be devastating on down-ticket races.
It has 3 effects, first it drives away moderates due to labeling regardless of truth behind it (Goebbels repetition of a lie, used by the left press now), and second it splits the usual base of the Republican party even further due to not wanting to be associated with a racist. Third, it causes the down-ticket to split away from the party lead, weakening both.
The Trump supporters have already chased many conservatives like me away, and now they seem bent on running headlong in some sort of Gotterdammerung for the GOP in their anger at "the establishment", failing to hold themselves accountable for the candidate who they supported.
Admittedly I do not understand why such blind support exists on the right. IMHO Trump had far more serious flaws for the general election than any of the other candidates. I recognize that all candidates have flaws, but the Trump people very vocally attack anyone posting such things about their candidate. Its hero worship, almost cult-like behavior from that subset of supporters. I thought "we" on the liberty/right side of things learned better after seeing this on the left with Obama. instead, people are imitating it.
As for Campos, he is a lefty crank with an axe to grind. And with this, he will stir up the Skinheads and Nazis, who will oblige him with a vociferous and hate filled attack barrage to help him prove his point that racists support Trump and thus help his case with guilt-by-association.
Sad that it came to this. Our only hope is that Hillary gets indicted before Trump flames out completely. Yeah, right.
#4
And before you ask, no I am not voting for Trump, nor Hillary nor Libertarian whoever. I haven't voted for liberals in general in a long time. And don't give me that crap that if I don't vote for Trump its a vote for Hillary. It isn't, and more than not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump. It just shows you to be using fallacious argumentation, and irrational. Here is my candidate>
#5
Of course the observer would not have noticed that all those people were men, because since 1921 there were always some Congresswomen, and since 1931 only six years when there were no female Senators
...Actually, the first female member of Congress got there in 1916, Jeanette Rankin. She would be considered very liberal today, and has the distinction of voting against both the US entry into WWI (one of 56 Congresscritters to do so) and WWII (the ONLY one to do so.)
Seems to me Professor Whatshisname believes that women in US national politics starts only after the Nineteenth Amendment. The fact is that by 1921, forty states out of forty-eight allowed women to vote in one form or another, though it was far from uniform.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/06/2016 5:12 Comments ||
Top||
#6
O.S. - how do your grandkids, who have never had the chance to live and love and have grandkids of their own, like your bumper sticker? That's exactly the kind of nihilism, exactly the kind of "take my ball and burn it all down" attitude that regulars at Rantburg generally oppose.
I don't even have kids and that attitude bothers me.
You're entitled to put it on your car. Just step back for a minute and think before you do. I've always respected your posts and contributions.
That bumper sticker is sick, IMO.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
06/06/2016 5:25 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The fear and paranoia is not the Trumpers. It is on the left.
How do I know? Because the violence is being initiated by the left.
The real issue of fear in this election isn't white people afraid of losing "privilege", that ridiculous term used by the fake educated NPR-listening pseudointellectual class whose thought process has been perverted by the Gramscian termite and Frankfurt School absurdity. The fear in this election that is palpable is that of those whose income stream depends on either direct government funding, or on regulations that force people to purchase their goods/services. Welfare recipients/public employees, grant and subsidy recipients, and rent-seekers whose business would vanish in a more sane regulatory environment are absolutely terrified right now with the prospect of having their rice bowl smashed. And yet, absent the smashing of millions of rice bowls in the near future, the country fails anyways, and the rice bowl gets smashed eventually.
"You HAVE to keep this mess, this Blue State model going, even if only for four more years! I have a mortgage to pay! I have vacations to take! If you try and take away my good thing, I, I, I'll KILL YOU!"
That, not fear of a multi-ethnic America, is the terror in this election.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
06/06/2016 5:38 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Donald Trump was born 70 years ago this month, at the very beginning of the baby boom. At that time, America was, in every sense, an unambiguously white country.
First, in demographic terms, nearly 90 percent of the population was categorized as white.
That was before the Left decided to introduce a new classification called 'Hispanic' to manipulate the data.
#10
Used to be a racist was somebody who'd lynch Negroes for being literate. Nowaday, you're a racist for point out that some "African-American" college graduates are illiterate.
p.s. If an Afrikaner emigrates to US, does he become an African-American? How about North Africans?
pp.s. I understand some Americans are not "natural born", are they unnatural born, or (like Superman) supernatural born?
From Rattler Gator:what kind of dumbbells on the Judiciary Committee ok a judge active in La Raza?
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2016 at 08:51 PM
Clarice, I have a theory. We have a nation full of conservative lawyers who: [1] still can't quite figure out the game that has been played on them, [2] still insist on the niceties of the profession even as blatant politics are played from the bench, [3] still aghast that the equivalent of a street fighter aspires to the Presidency (he's not even a lawyer, you know?) and is close to attaining it.
That Trump is just so damn uncouth! I mean, hey . . . you have a problem with La Raza? Hell, follow the rules and file a petition to have the offending judge removed. What's the big deal, man?
They completely miss the issue the presumptive nominee is putting forward, Clarice. They scoff at the mention of Big Boy Politics in this situation because they still don't grasp that the very issue Trump is raising re Judge Curiel *is* the effectuation of Big Boy Politics from the bench and no damn petition to have the Judge removed from this singular case even remotely begins to address the issue that Trump quite rightly is saying (to the nation, mind you) needs to be addressed.
In fact, it is casually insulting to presume he has no real issue with the Judge and to assert it's really all about muddying up a case he's sure to lose. Trump seems to me to be saying this isn't a matter just for lawyers and their protocols. The NATION needs to think about this.
So . . . what kind of dumbbells, Clarice? The kind that aren't dumbbells at all. Just a group with a bunch of peers and social cohorts overly concerned with the niceties of judicial protocol while their adversaries play Big Boy Politics in legislative chambers and from the bench, completely unimpeded.
#16
And don't give me that crap that if I don't vote for Trump its a vote for Hillary. It isn't, and more than not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump.
You're right OS. Not voting is the same as a vote for the winner. The same as a vote for the giant meteor. The same as being dead - but then you'd be voting (D).
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/06/2016 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Hiram Rhodes Revels and Blanche Kelso Bruce were the first Black Senators.
#19
And you can keep your meteor to yourself. I still have things I'd like to do in this world, come Hildebeest or high water, I plan on staying alive as long as God will let me.
#22
I think that's what most of us are doing, #21 Thing. :-(
Posted by: Barbara ||
06/06/2016 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Whatever you do, don't 'sit this one out' completely. At least vote for your state, local and national representatives.
If Shillary wins, without them we're screwed.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
06/06/2016 20:38 Comments ||
Top||
#24
At least vote for your state, local and national representatives.
The red states and red communities are balancing budgets, starting to work toward controlling pension and benefits costs, and fighting the feds on gun control, Obamacare, even BDS and bathrooms. And among those politicians will come the future president and Congresscritters, honed sharp in these battles and considerably clearer on what changes are needed and how to get them done.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Daily Caller] Appearing on CNN’s "Reliable Sources," Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik lambasted President Obama for his attacks on a free press, saying the President was "trying to criminalize reporting."
In trying to explain how the State Department snipped out several embarrassing minutes from a 2013 press briefing video, an agency spokesman claimed 
