I can really start to see this guy as president now

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not think anyone can bully anyone else on a chat forum.

Trump running for President would be the very nicest thing America could do for late night talk show hosts.

Not to mention the Hair Club for Men.

Have you ever wondered what goes on at Hair Club for Men meetings? Do they shampoo, comb and set? Do they compare the merits of Vitalis vs. Brylcreem?  And why are there no term limits on their president?

[Kramer]

I do not think anyone can bully anyone else on a chat forum.

Trump running for President would be the very nicest thing America could do for late night talk show hosts.

Not to mention the Hair Club for Men.

Have you ever wondered what goes on at Hair Club for Men meetings? Do they shampoo, comb and set? Do they compare the merits of Vitalis vs. Brylcreem?  And why are there no term limits on their president?

Have you ever wondered what goes on at Hair Club for Men meetings?

Only a fat bald guy like you would wonder such trivial thoughts, the rest of us could care less. You seem to be fixated on peoples looks, specifically presidential candidates. Did Hillary's thunder thighs bother you at all, or the large black marks under her eyes? Did Obama's dumbo ears give you pause whilst in the voting booth? For someone that prides himself on being so damn smart, you come off as a little man; I wonder out loud if you suffer from penis envy, do you?

[Christians4LessGvt]

Trumps hair is ridiculous, but I don't care what someone
looks like if they can get our country back on the right track.

The Republicans need to nominate someone that can really,
really, really, "take the heat". Trump has potential. I assume
Trump can take a lot of heat and handle it. Chris Christie it appears
can handle the heat. Some of the others, although I like them
just can't take the heat or come off looking like a loser when the
heat gets really hot....Palin, Gingrich, Pawlenty...ect.
We need a tough guy to battle the shit the leftist are gonna throw!

[sirs]

Granted this is a bit of a campaign tangent, but I agree with C, that the GOP needs to literally start functioning the way Reagan functioned.  i.e. This is the way we need to go, and then explains the why, very clearly, very reasonably, and not down in a typical elitist condescending mode.  And when the left starts with the knee jerk racial attacks, classwarfare attacks, and personal attacks, the candidate needs to stop trying to circle the wagons and play defense

That's what torpedoed Arnold, as Gov.  He campaigned 1 way (Reaganesque), was elected easily,  then Governed another (Moderate Liberal RINO), attempting to placate everyone, and alienating everyone, producing some of the worst poll#'s at the end of his tenure, and CA on the brink of utter economic collapse

[R.R.]

AS I recall, I never said that I expected Dennis Kucinich would be elected president.

That's true. I don't remember you saying that. What you did say is that you thought Kucinich would be the Democrat nominee for president. Big difference. Nice try, loser. You said he was right on all the issues and he was against the liberation of Iraq. You said something along the lines of, "He is going to be the Democrat nominee. Watch and see. He will be."

He ended up dropping out of the race for the Democrat nomination.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I did not say that I thought that Kucinich would get the nomination, either.

I said only that I voted for him in the FL primary. because the other candidates were gutless about the Iraq invasion.

There is no way that Arnold could have been a success as governor of California. I don't think anyone could be.

The voters there can vote themselves benefits with 50+% of the vote, but it takes a 2/3rds majority to vote for taxes to pay for benefits.

That makes it pretty much impossible for anyone to govern. The only solution would be to convince a majority of the voters not to vote for benefits, or to convince 2/3rds of them to tax themselves to pay for it.

[Kramer]

I did not say that I thought that Kucinich would get the nomination, either.

I said only that I voted for him him the FL primary. because the other candidates were gutless about the Iraq invasion.

How do you feel about Obama's gutless attack on Libya, and his flip-flops, with regards to Bush and Iraq and just about everything he said to get elected? Pretty disgusting, right?

[Christians4LessGvt]

I said only that I voted for him him the FL primary.

"him him"?
Is that a grammatical and/or a spelling error?
I told you about glass houses. 
BTW XO are you aware the man you voted for Dennis Kucinich stated
that Obama's War in Libya may be an impeachable offense?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I fail to see why you call the attack on Libya "gutless". I do not expect any president to personally lead troops into battle. I expect any manuver in which our soldiers are unharmed to be more successful than one in which they are harmed. A "shock and awe" campaign does not seem to be a good idea in this case.

It seems that having Europeans do the heavy lifting on this operation is a wise decision.

Qadaffi cannot now enter Benghazi and murder everyone who opposed him, as he said he would do. That is a plus.

This could turn out well or it could turn out poorly either way, whether they decided to attack Qaddafi or not. I do not think that how this turns out is mostly up to President Obama or NATO.

I have never said that I agree with Dennis Kucinich on everything. No one is going to impeach President Obama, just like no one impeached Juniorbush. I would say that this is excessive rhetoric and nothing will come of it.

McCain and Palin said a whole lot more stupid crap trying to get elected than President Obama did. He's done a better job than McCain would have done.

I see no reason whatever to jump up and down and rant about everything like you do.

[BT]

I think the whole rationale of the NATO no fly zone in Libya is to keep the number of Muslim refugees to France and Italy to a trickle.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I see nothing particularly wrong with doing all we can to limit the number of refugees. European concerns about protecting their jobs and their borders are no less valid than those of the US. I don't see this as the whole rationale, but it surely is one of several concerns.

Preventing the Libyan Air Force from targeting infrastructure is certainly a positive thing as well. The fewer people that die or are displaces, the better. Chaos does not benefit Libyans, Europeans or Americans.

Egypt shares a border with Libya, and the stability of Egypt has to be a major concern of the US, as the less disruption there is in Egypt, the less we shall need to pay out in foreign aid to keep Egypt from erupting. I do not think that a peaceful transition of Egypt from a military dictatorship to something more democratic is assured. Egypt is important both as a central focus of the Arab world and as a country that could cause major problems with Israel.

 

[Christians4LessGvt]

I see nothing particularly wrong with doing all we can to limit the number of refugees. European concerns about protecting their jobs and their borders are no less valid than those of the US. I don't see this as the whole rationale, but it surely is one of several concerns.

yeah lets spends hundreds of millions to help prevent a European border
invasion while we allow millions to cross our own borders illegally! 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not see this as related in any way to the US border situation. It is not a question of taking money from the US border to support a no fly zone in Libya. You present this inaccurately as an either/or situation. This is not the case.

It is entirely possible that the US and others are being reimbursed for this action in Libya by other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE under the table. The monetary cost of the first Gulf war was almost entirely covered by the Kuwaitis and Saudis.

The US and NATO do not want to be accused of being mercenaries. The Saudis do not wish to be accused of paying the cost of killing other Arabs.

[sirs]

I heard an excerpt from the Rachal Maddow show, where they're all in defending Obama's hypocrisy, most notably how he chose this "humanitarian" mission to place our military in, because it was apparently a small enough problem, that the risk to our troops was minimal.  So, Humantarian efforts are good, so long as the dictator is a pipsqueak, and only a few hundred have been killed.  But apparently bad, if we're talking thousands upon thousands of citizens being slaughtered or gased

And isn't China the chief purchaser of Lybian oil and other exports?  So we're using our resources, and putting our troops in harm's way for.....China? 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think China is the main importer of Libyan oil. Libya certainly exports more to the EC than to China. Instability in the Middle East threatens Israel. The US is Israel's only friend. Any severe fluctuation in the price of oil threatens the US economy far more than the Chinese economy.

Your argument is largely bogus. The US and the EC are doing this for their own benefit. There is not way to exclude China from the benefits, but in no way is China the main beneficiary.\

Now let us imagine the hideous squawk that the reactionary right would emit if there were a Chinese aircraft carrier off the coast of Benghazi.

Imagine the screeds that clowns like Derbyshire and Lintball would produce.