76
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
79
3DHS / How the Clinton is losing the moronic vote
« on: May 05, 2016, 07:47:29 PM »
While the Lamestream Media, Wall Street, and international interests have sucked up to the Clinton corruption machine, the ignorant constituency that Clinton was completely expecting to support her as well, continues to grow in size and support to side with Sanders' message of out of control corporate interests and DC running everyone else into the ground
Now, she presumes to expect all those ignorant folks to flock to her, when she pulls her superdelegate card at the Democrat Convention. Polls aren't being very kind to her, in that presumption
Now, she presumes to expect all those ignorant folks to flock to her, when she pulls her superdelegate card at the Democrat Convention. Polls aren't being very kind to her, in that presumption
80
3DHS / Time to buck up
« on: May 04, 2016, 05:48:03 PM »
As a Ted Cruz supporter, I have the appropriate regret that my guy will not be the nominee. I share that lament with millions of other Republicans whose favored candidates took the exit ramp.
For my part, I sought the bold and consistent conservatism Cruz would have brought to the Oval Office. It struck me as the best antidote to the nightmare we have traveled during two terms of Barack Obama.
But now I have a job to do, as a Republican, as a conservative, as an American. It is my job to resist any urge to walk off in a huff, allowing my wounded feelings to permit a Hillary Clinton presidency.
There are two kinds of Republicans now: those who get that and those who don’t.
The ones who don’t may be fans of Cruz or Kasich, Rubio voters still not over it, or the tiny sliver of Republicans who still can’t believe it’s not Jeb.
Maybe they are pundits who just can’t believe their antennae were aimed so badly.
Maybe they are donor-class elites stunned that voters did not follow their suggestions.
Maybe they are party bosses quivering at the thought of a nominee who won’t march to their tune.
Maybe they are establishment comfort-zone addicts getting the vapors because the old half-measures have fallen out of favor.
No matter the reason, to everyone whose head slumped as Donald Trump delivered his Indiana victory speech, which might as well have been his nomination acceptance speech, a wake-up call is due.
It is time to wake up from the absurd dreams of a third party run. It is time to wake up from the stupor that has led so many to insult the millions of Americans who have given Trump his victory. It is time to wake up from the twisted revenge fantasy of the geniuses who preach that some punishment must be meted out for the sin of elevating Trump.
The punishment they offer is a Hillary Clinton presidency, and no conservative should be willing to pay that price.
Is Trump’s conservatism spotty? Does some of his populism actually offend conservative values? Yes.
Has some of his behavior been soundly un-presidential? To say the least.
While some criticism of Trump has been wildly excessive and poisonous, some of it has been more than deserved.
But any conservatives stewing in the juices of resentment need to recognize that we have an economy to save and a Constitution to protect. Donald Trump will not approach either task with the clarity of a Cruz, but he will be a better steward of both than the absolutely guaranteed disaster of Obama’s third term.
A Hillary presidency will bring certain ruin to the Supreme Court. Illegal immigration will be ignored if not encouraged. Crushing government expansion will suffocate businesses and taxpayers. Global jihad will be soft-pedaled. The Second Amendment will be attacked without end. The political correctness that suppresses rights and poisons discourse will have a continued home in the presidency.
The suggestion that Hillary and Trump are sort of the same thing is evidence of a deep perceptual disorder. The good news is that there is a cure. It’s called the healing power of time, coupled with the growing menace of the Hillary campaign.
I don’t know if George Will can be deprogrammed, and he will probably be joined by a snooty resistance that will never accept the will of the primary voters. But for most, once the conventions come and go, a comforting focus will settle in.
People deep in despair today will come to realize that at worst, Donald Trump is a candidate who does not bring a complete package of conservatism. At best, he may actually do the conservative things he says he will do, and the rest will be a mixed bag no worse than “big-government conservative” George W. Bush offered, and surely no worse than his brother Jeb would have tried to sell us.
Trump himself may be of value in this healing process. His primary competition is gone, and with it the engrossing but jarring persona he put on to gain this victory. Tuesday night, Ted Cruz was no longer “Lyin’ Ted,” but a “tough, smart competitor.”
Trump will no longer be the source of messy Republican internecine warfare. From here on out, it will only come from the tattered shreds of the NeverTrump cult or highbrow pseudo-intelligentsia who just can’t get over their grudges.
We should pray that even they will decide to fight the battle every conservative must now take up: the fight to save America from Hillary Clinton.
Conservatism is not harmed in the least by a Trump nomination. It is what it is, and its adherents will remain strong and vocal. if a President Trump needs some pushback from conservatives, he will get it.
What he needs from conservatives from here on out is support— not because he was everyone’s first or even second choice, but because now he is the only choice.
The system has worked. Not everyone is happy. Democrats still exist, and must be beaten in November. In this very different year, those constants remain.
Now everybody grow up, armor up, and let’s kick the Democratic Party out of the White House.
Couldn't have said it better, myself
For my part, I sought the bold and consistent conservatism Cruz would have brought to the Oval Office. It struck me as the best antidote to the nightmare we have traveled during two terms of Barack Obama.
But now I have a job to do, as a Republican, as a conservative, as an American. It is my job to resist any urge to walk off in a huff, allowing my wounded feelings to permit a Hillary Clinton presidency.
There are two kinds of Republicans now: those who get that and those who don’t.
The ones who don’t may be fans of Cruz or Kasich, Rubio voters still not over it, or the tiny sliver of Republicans who still can’t believe it’s not Jeb.
Maybe they are pundits who just can’t believe their antennae were aimed so badly.
Maybe they are donor-class elites stunned that voters did not follow their suggestions.
Maybe they are party bosses quivering at the thought of a nominee who won’t march to their tune.
Maybe they are establishment comfort-zone addicts getting the vapors because the old half-measures have fallen out of favor.
No matter the reason, to everyone whose head slumped as Donald Trump delivered his Indiana victory speech, which might as well have been his nomination acceptance speech, a wake-up call is due.
It is time to wake up from the absurd dreams of a third party run. It is time to wake up from the stupor that has led so many to insult the millions of Americans who have given Trump his victory. It is time to wake up from the twisted revenge fantasy of the geniuses who preach that some punishment must be meted out for the sin of elevating Trump.
The punishment they offer is a Hillary Clinton presidency, and no conservative should be willing to pay that price.
Is Trump’s conservatism spotty? Does some of his populism actually offend conservative values? Yes.
Has some of his behavior been soundly un-presidential? To say the least.
While some criticism of Trump has been wildly excessive and poisonous, some of it has been more than deserved.
But any conservatives stewing in the juices of resentment need to recognize that we have an economy to save and a Constitution to protect. Donald Trump will not approach either task with the clarity of a Cruz, but he will be a better steward of both than the absolutely guaranteed disaster of Obama’s third term.
A Hillary presidency will bring certain ruin to the Supreme Court. Illegal immigration will be ignored if not encouraged. Crushing government expansion will suffocate businesses and taxpayers. Global jihad will be soft-pedaled. The Second Amendment will be attacked without end. The political correctness that suppresses rights and poisons discourse will have a continued home in the presidency.
The suggestion that Hillary and Trump are sort of the same thing is evidence of a deep perceptual disorder. The good news is that there is a cure. It’s called the healing power of time, coupled with the growing menace of the Hillary campaign.
I don’t know if George Will can be deprogrammed, and he will probably be joined by a snooty resistance that will never accept the will of the primary voters. But for most, once the conventions come and go, a comforting focus will settle in.
People deep in despair today will come to realize that at worst, Donald Trump is a candidate who does not bring a complete package of conservatism. At best, he may actually do the conservative things he says he will do, and the rest will be a mixed bag no worse than “big-government conservative” George W. Bush offered, and surely no worse than his brother Jeb would have tried to sell us.
Trump himself may be of value in this healing process. His primary competition is gone, and with it the engrossing but jarring persona he put on to gain this victory. Tuesday night, Ted Cruz was no longer “Lyin’ Ted,” but a “tough, smart competitor.”
Trump will no longer be the source of messy Republican internecine warfare. From here on out, it will only come from the tattered shreds of the NeverTrump cult or highbrow pseudo-intelligentsia who just can’t get over their grudges.
We should pray that even they will decide to fight the battle every conservative must now take up: the fight to save America from Hillary Clinton.
Conservatism is not harmed in the least by a Trump nomination. It is what it is, and its adherents will remain strong and vocal. if a President Trump needs some pushback from conservatives, he will get it.
What he needs from conservatives from here on out is support— not because he was everyone’s first or even second choice, but because now he is the only choice.
The system has worked. Not everyone is happy. Democrats still exist, and must be beaten in November. In this very different year, those constants remain.
Now everybody grow up, armor up, and let’s kick the Democratic Party out of the White House.
Couldn't have said it better, myself
81
3DHS / Riddle me this
« on: April 23, 2016, 02:11:24 PM »
If its perfectly ok for folks like the Boss, and other entertainers not choose not to perform at a certain venue, based on some "principled position", how is that any different than a baker or florist choosing not to perform functions for a certain venue, based on a principled religious position??
Yet one is celebrated & the other condemned, .... by the same folks
Yet one is celebrated & the other condemned, .... by the same folks
82
3DHS / Ahem...Why is Obama Commenting on a Clinton Investigation....
« on: April 12, 2016, 12:18:55 AM »
That he claims to know nothing about??
Back in October President Obama was asked during an interview with 60 Minutes about Democrat presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's ongoing email scandal. Many in the FBI were outraged over his response.
Federal agents were still cataloging the classified information from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal email server last week when President Obama went on television and played down the matter.
“I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it had been a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”
Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Mrs. Clinton’s email setup did in fact put any of the nation’s secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.
Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server was compromised or whether to recommend charges, according to the law enforcement officials. But to investigators, it sounded as if Mr. Obama had already decided the answers to their questions and cleared anyone involved of wrongdoing.
Over the weekend, Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace asked the question again. Obama answered by first claiming he had to be careful about commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation and then proceeded to comment about how
a) Clinton was an "outstanding" Secretary of State
b) that she didn't jeopardize national security through use of a private server
c) she was simply "careless" rather than intentional in her efforts to set up and use a private email server to conduct all of her government business.
After his answer, the Obama White House maintained the President doesn't speak to the FBI or Department of Justice directly about ongoing investigations.
Obama also emphasized the importance of what the definition of is, is.
"There's classified and then there's classified," Obama said in defense of Clinton. "There's top secret and then there's really top secret."
As a refresher, Clinton did in fact store, send and receive the most top secret of classified information on her private server and put human sources in grave danger by doing so. Not to mention that dozens of her closest aides at the State Department also sent and received top secret, classified information on private email accounts and servers.
The White House is willing to admit President Obama did in fact exchange emails with Clinton while she was using a private account, but maintains Obama was unaware her emails were being hosted on a private, unsecured server.
So which one is it?
1) Obama is discussing the case with DOJ and FBI, making it political
or
2) is openly opining and putting his finger on the political scale in the public forum while the FBI continues it's criminal investigation.
One thing is At this point, it's becoming more clear President Obama is attempting to influence, or even obstruct, this investigation in one way or another.
Back in October President Obama was asked during an interview with 60 Minutes about Democrat presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's ongoing email scandal. Many in the FBI were outraged over his response.
Federal agents were still cataloging the classified information from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal email server last week when President Obama went on television and played down the matter.
“I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it had been a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”
Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Mrs. Clinton’s email setup did in fact put any of the nation’s secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.
Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server was compromised or whether to recommend charges, according to the law enforcement officials. But to investigators, it sounded as if Mr. Obama had already decided the answers to their questions and cleared anyone involved of wrongdoing.
Over the weekend, Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace asked the question again. Obama answered by first claiming he had to be careful about commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation and then proceeded to comment about how
a) Clinton was an "outstanding" Secretary of State
b) that she didn't jeopardize national security through use of a private server
c) she was simply "careless" rather than intentional in her efforts to set up and use a private email server to conduct all of her government business.
After his answer, the Obama White House maintained the President doesn't speak to the FBI or Department of Justice directly about ongoing investigations.
Obama also emphasized the importance of what the definition of is, is.
"There's classified and then there's classified," Obama said in defense of Clinton. "There's top secret and then there's really top secret."
As a refresher, Clinton did in fact store, send and receive the most top secret of classified information on her private server and put human sources in grave danger by doing so. Not to mention that dozens of her closest aides at the State Department also sent and received top secret, classified information on private email accounts and servers.
The White House is willing to admit President Obama did in fact exchange emails with Clinton while she was using a private account, but maintains Obama was unaware her emails were being hosted on a private, unsecured server.
So which one is it?
1) Obama is discussing the case with DOJ and FBI, making it political
or
2) is openly opining and putting his finger on the political scale in the public forum while the FBI continues it's criminal investigation.
One thing is At this point, it's becoming more clear President Obama is attempting to influence, or even obstruct, this investigation in one way or another.
83
3DHS / Is this not the case?
« on: April 05, 2016, 01:51:14 PM »
Has the modern left in America really come to believe that communism, socialism, Marxism and totalitarianism -- or other terms for the monopolization of power into the hands of a ruling elite -- are superior to free-market capitalism??
84
3DHS / Political Optics
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:22:56 PM »
- Clinton once had a massive double digit lead over Sanders in NY. Now, while she still leads, those decreasing #'s are apparently looking bad for her image in her "home state". So much so, she's had to go back to NY to try and shore up support. And its laughable how she's supposedly the "better candidate" than Sanders at taking on Wall Street, when she's been the beneficiary of millions in donations from Wall Street, while Sanders is #1 on Wall Street's hit list. But those optics......
- Trump's ongoing stance on abortion enters phase 6 apparently. As in, his positions on this very prominent topic have gone from:
1) in 1999...."very Pro-choice, in every respect"
2) very anti-abortion, following an apparent "pro-life conversion
3) then proclaimed he would even "punish" women who have abortions
4) Clarification of #3, as released by his campaign
5) Laws are set, and we should just leave abortion alone, though "personally, he's pro-life"
6) Would pursue a "pro-life agenda via judicial appointments", with a goal of returning the issue to state legislatures
So, while it can be argued that some of thse latter stances are clarifications of one another, again, the political optics are.....less than stellar, to say the the least
- Trump's ongoing stance on abortion enters phase 6 apparently. As in, his positions on this very prominent topic have gone from:
1) in 1999...."very Pro-choice, in every respect"
2) very anti-abortion, following an apparent "pro-life conversion
3) then proclaimed he would even "punish" women who have abortions
4) Clarification of #3, as released by his campaign
5) Laws are set, and we should just leave abortion alone, though "personally, he's pro-life"
6) Would pursue a "pro-life agenda via judicial appointments", with a goal of returning the issue to state legislatures
So, while it can be argued that some of thse latter stances are clarifications of one another, again, the political optics are.....less than stellar, to say the the least
85
3DHS / Campus Lunacy
« on: March 30, 2016, 06:08:35 PM »
...or perhaps better titled, Student Snowflakes. As it would appear that one of the commonalities that Sanders (& Clinton) are generating, is a growing chorus of malcontent students, who are so fragile, that the slightest phrase can apparently cause them considerable mental hardship. The erection of so called "safe zones". The notion that simply posting #trump 2016 is akin to violence. I heard a story today where a black student got all upset after seeing some white guy in dreadlocks, and how dare he try to "co-opt her culture". Good God 
This is a generation of ignorant millineals, who have no fricken clue about our Constutition, and in particular the 1st amendment. The freedom of speech includes speech that could possibly make your blood boil. Those that support the Constitution like myself, would defend someone's right to say something I would otherwise totally abhor. THAT's what seperates us from so many other countries on this globe. THATs what seperates us from a colonial England, a communist Russia, or a Fascist Germany
This is a generation of ignorant millineals, who have no fricken clue about our Constutition, and in particular the 1st amendment. The freedom of speech includes speech that could possibly make your blood boil. Those that support the Constitution like myself, would defend someone's right to say something I would otherwise totally abhor. THAT's what seperates us from so many other countries on this globe. THATs what seperates us from a colonial England, a communist Russia, or a Fascist Germany
86
3DHS / So, so, so typical......sad, but typical
« on: March 11, 2016, 10:58:43 PM »
So, again, the disclaimer, I'm not a Trump fan. I'd rank him near the bottom of any GOP list, for President. But I understand the why he's generating so much support. The people of this country are seriously fed up with the political establishment. In particular, the conservative base is fed up with being promised how the GOP would reign in the political exploits of Obama & the Dems, only to be thrown under the bus after they're elected to majority power.
But look at the absolute epitome of the left, as what took place in Chicago tonight. Trump sets up a rally, where THOUSANDS are coming to attend. But instead of protesters exercising their 1st amendment rights to simply protest, they go above and beyond to cause violent chaos, in an effort to get the event canceled....and they do.....and they're proud they were able to silence so many from exercising their 1st amendment rights, in particular Trump.
And then they have the gall to accuse Trump of inciting them, as if they have no control of their own actions
But look at the absolute epitome of the left, as what took place in Chicago tonight. Trump sets up a rally, where THOUSANDS are coming to attend. But instead of protesters exercising their 1st amendment rights to simply protest, they go above and beyond to cause violent chaos, in an effort to get the event canceled....and they do.....and they're proud they were able to silence so many from exercising their 1st amendment rights, in particular Trump.
And then they have the gall to accuse Trump of inciting them, as if they have no control of their own actions
87
3DHS / The Sanders/Trump Phenomenon
« on: March 09, 2016, 02:04:29 PM »
...or more accurately, the electorate is mad as hell phenomenon. So folks can erroneously rail that Trump is simply catering to racists and isolationists, yet ignores why Sanders has been giving Clinton all forms of campaign fits. You see, the reason both have been drawing the crowds and attention has squat to do with catering to racists, and everything to do with catering to those who are fed up with the DC status quo.....aka "the Establishment". The left is fed up with the double standing, pathological lying Clinton machine, and the right is fed up with the continual being thrown under the bus after ignoring everything the candidates campaigned on, to get them elected
Now the base of each of these fed up crowds, couldn't be any different....young millineals, convinced they have a right to everything, except being offended, and Bernie's going to "take it to those evil rich bastards", while the vast majority of Trump supporters have latched on to the ONLY candidate who comes about as serious in controlling our disastrous border enforcement
The point I'm making however is look at how each "party" is dealing with the phenomenon. The GOP trotted out Romney, who trashed Trump more than he trashed Obama's piss poor record as President. They also keep throwing out the notion of a contested convention. The Establishment" hates the idea of a non-member taking control, but the people of the country get to have the final say.
Now, look over at the Democrat party. Sanders could very easily get more delegates than Clinton, and NOT be the people's pick, because the Democrats have these "super-delegates", who get to pledge who they're going to vote for regardless of what the people say. And guess who has nearly every super-delegate vote. That's right, Clinton. Its one of the reasons so many Democrats decided not to even try running, because the Democrat party, as personified by Debbie Washerman Schultz, have stacked the deck so far in Clinton's favor, even before the campaign got into full gear. 1st they were going to limit debates, but then when the DNC saw that Clinton needed to "reintroduce her", all of a sudden, more debates were planned for. Point being, as opposed to the GOP, it would appear that the people don't get to decide who the Democrat's nominee is going to be
Now the base of each of these fed up crowds, couldn't be any different....young millineals, convinced they have a right to everything, except being offended, and Bernie's going to "take it to those evil rich bastards", while the vast majority of Trump supporters have latched on to the ONLY candidate who comes about as serious in controlling our disastrous border enforcement
The point I'm making however is look at how each "party" is dealing with the phenomenon. The GOP trotted out Romney, who trashed Trump more than he trashed Obama's piss poor record as President. They also keep throwing out the notion of a contested convention. The Establishment" hates the idea of a non-member taking control, but the people of the country get to have the final say.
Now, look over at the Democrat party. Sanders could very easily get more delegates than Clinton, and NOT be the people's pick, because the Democrats have these "super-delegates", who get to pledge who they're going to vote for regardless of what the people say. And guess who has nearly every super-delegate vote. That's right, Clinton. Its one of the reasons so many Democrats decided not to even try running, because the Democrat party, as personified by Debbie Washerman Schultz, have stacked the deck so far in Clinton's favor, even before the campaign got into full gear. 1st they were going to limit debates, but then when the DNC saw that Clinton needed to "reintroduce her", all of a sudden, more debates were planned for. Point being, as opposed to the GOP, it would appear that the people don't get to decide who the Democrat's nominee is going to be
88
3DHS / Micro aggressions?? How about macro idiocy
« on: March 04, 2016, 02:02:45 PM »
There's a whole hearted fascist movement sweeping academia, and being propelled into the populace as well.....this transparent effort to both silence critics of the latest PC fad or liberal platform, as well as trying to push racial hostility even further than what's transpired under this President's policies & rhetoric. The term is "micro aggression". Apparently, these are aggressions that people (whites) produce, that they don't realize are horribly offensive, and can send some minority into a postal-like state of uncontrolled rage. Oh wait......its simply just found to be offensive. Burning an American flag is about as offensive as one can get. Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that.....just someone exercising their 1st amendment, right? So, what's the difference? The difference is hypocrisy.
But let's top that hypocrisy with idiocy. Recently, 3 black females accused a group of white guys of assaulting them, based on their race, on a NY bus. They claimed they were targeted for their color, attacked, and bystanders seemed to look on. Even received a supportive tweet from Clinton ahhh....but.....
*roll the tape*
....the bus video, that they apparently were not aware of, clearly demonstrates precisely the opposite. They initiated the insults....they initiated the assaults.....and now they are being charged for assault and filing a false police report.
But it gets better......apparently there's a letter of support FOR THE HOAX, from what I believe is a professor, claiming that it was a justified act, since it brings to light the issue of micro-aggressions, that only blacks can catch. Get that? The criminal hoax of falsely claiming being attacked, based on race alone, is jusified because it brings to light the apparent ever growing problem of micro-aggression, against the black community, on the whole
You really can't make this stuff up. I'll keep digging to find out who this person is, who supports the criminal hoax
But let's top that hypocrisy with idiocy. Recently, 3 black females accused a group of white guys of assaulting them, based on their race, on a NY bus. They claimed they were targeted for their color, attacked, and bystanders seemed to look on. Even received a supportive tweet from Clinton ahhh....but.....
*roll the tape*
....the bus video, that they apparently were not aware of, clearly demonstrates precisely the opposite. They initiated the insults....they initiated the assaults.....and now they are being charged for assault and filing a false police report.
But it gets better......apparently there's a letter of support FOR THE HOAX, from what I believe is a professor, claiming that it was a justified act, since it brings to light the issue of micro-aggressions, that only blacks can catch. Get that? The criminal hoax of falsely claiming being attacked, based on race alone, is jusified because it brings to light the apparent ever growing problem of micro-aggression, against the black community, on the whole
You really can't make this stuff up. I'll keep digging to find out who this person is, who supports the criminal hoax
89
3DHS / The + side with Trump
« on: February 26, 2016, 01:42:41 PM »
While I would be holding my nose in pulling his lever if he were the GOP Presidential nominee, a distinct positive scenario is growing.....the number of uber left celebrities who have pledged to move out of the U.S., if Trump were to become President. Add to the growing list;
- Whoopi Goldberg
- Raven-Symoné
- and now Al Sharpton (of course that could also be because he's looking how to pay off his massive tax debt, and using Trump as an excuse)
I'm liking Trump more and more, all of a sudden
- Whoopi Goldberg
- Raven-Symoné
- and now Al Sharpton (of course that could also be because he's looking how to pay off his massive tax debt, and using Trump as an excuse)
I'm liking Trump more and more, all of a sudden
90
3DHS / Who are the 3 best Presidents in U.S. History?
« on: February 25, 2016, 04:36:32 PM »
...and in no particular order