BigOlBear

Good grief! I actually agree with a Glaucon post. (Well, most of it anyway.) I need to go see a priest.

RockKnutne Loc: Valhöll

I fear it is because we have stared into the abyss too long BOB. We have that thing called the thousand-yard stare.

"A battlefield syndrome in which a soldier may become lost in thought due to stress from the fight. The 1000 Yard Stare is named such because the soldier may seem to be focusing on an object very far away, and may even become unresponsive to external stimuli. The phrase was coined during the Vietnam war."

"Many soldiers are stuck in the 1000 Yard Stare after combat stress."

You'll see, we don't really agree with him, we have PTSD. Ask Glaucon, he'll confirm my diagnosis...

:wink: :XD: :XD: :XD:

Jack2014

Thought I'd help you out big ol bear!
Is this your candidate?

Don’t Laugh But Rand Paul Thinks Democrats Are Afraid Of Him

This has to be the funniest line of the year! Hahahahahahaha. Yhis puke needs to be a comedian.

By: Jason Easleymore from Jason Easley
Sunday, August, 24th, 2014, 5:03 pm
30

Delusion can be added to the list of issues that plague Rand Paul after the Kentucky senator claimed that Democrats are afraid of him.

Here is what Paul said during a taped interview on Meet The Press, “I think that’s what scares the Democrats the most, is that in a general election, were I to run, there’s going to be a lot of independents and even some Democrats who say, ‘You know what? We are tired of war. We’re worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war because she’s so gung ho.’”

The problem for Rand Paul is that the 2016 election isn’t going to be about foreign policy. 2016 is going to be about jobs and the economy. The other big issue that Paul has is that the establishment of his own party isn’t going to support his pseudo-isolationist talk. The Republican Party is still defending the Iraq war and arguing that Obama should be doing more in Iraq.

It is doubtful that the Republican Party will suddenly throw away their neo-con tendencies and rally behind Rand Paul. Sen. Paul’s rise is the byproduct of the fact that most of the top tier Republican candidates are under either investigation or indictment. Democrats would love to run against Rand Paul. Hillary Clinton, or whoever the Democratic nominee is will have a field day with Rand Paul’s record.


The old Democrats are afraid of me trick is something that Republicans pull out when they need to reassure the base that they aren’t too radical, but Sen. Paul represents nothing new or different from the Republican Party. He blamed “big government” for the violence in Ferguson. He talks a good game on the war on drugs US intervention, but those positions run counter to the majority opinion in his own party.

A Rand Paul nomination would cause many Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton. The more likely outcome for 2016 is that an establishment Republican will emerge that the party leadership will rally around. Democrats aren’t afraid of Rand Paul at all. They would love to take him on, but the Republican Party itself is unlikely to give Democrats the chance.

Self board approved fraud. Hahahah any repuglicans need eye surgery?

Jack2014

[quote=RockKnutne]I fear it is because we have stared into the abyss too long

Were you in WW1, os something, rocks-for-brains?

Jack2014

Big OL bear balls,
Here's a whole Sunday full of R goof balls you can choose from.
Don't pick Wallace,or Crowley,or Schieffer, or Todd.
It's amazing how these fools don't realize that the Turks and the Kurds are not friendly. Arming the Kurds could have serious consequences for future Turkish problems with expansionist Kurdish demands on Turkey and Iran.

Sunday Shows Feature Same Old Republicans Spouting Off The Same Old Tired Talking Points

By: Justin Baragonamore from Justin Baragona
Sunday, August, 24th, 2014, 6:09 pm

If it’s Sunday, that means it is time for the same old GOP fame whores to show up on our television sets and push their particular talking point while simultaneously blaming President Obama for anything and everything. That was particularly the case this Sunday as all of the Sunday show regulars showed up. They were chomping at the bit to push the case for full-scale war in the Middle East. The ongoing situation with ISIS was used by the warmongering GOP lawmakers to ostensibly make the case that a long-term military mission needs to be put in place.

It was a full-on assault by the most notoriously camera addicted figures from the Republican Party. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) made an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press. Rogers was the most frequent Sunday show guest in 2013 and looks well on his way to repeating in 2014. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) showed up on Fox News Sunday. McCain finished second to Rogers in 2013 and is doing his best to retake the crown in 2014. McCain good buddy Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was on CNN’s State of the Union. Graham was tied for 5th in 2013 but seems to be making a push for a top 3 showing this year.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who typically parrots Graham and McCain, appeared on Face the Nation on CBS. Ayotte made 10 Sunday show appearances in 2013 and has been seen numerous times so far this year. Another frequent guest, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), who made 13 appearances in 2013, turned up at ABC’s This Week. All of these guests pretty much said the same things. Essentially, the all made sure to toe the line when it came to pushing the neo-con narrative that further military action needs to be take against ISIS and a war with American boots on the ground is an inevitability.

On This Week, McCaul used the well-worn neo-con line that we need to fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Congressman, if — if you get the kind of expansion you and General Allen then are talking about, won’t that require a new authorization from Congress?
The 2001 authorization targeted al Qaeda, not ISIS. It would be a real stretch to put this under the Iraq authorization of 2002.

So won’t Congress have to act here?
MCCAUL: We believe that the administration should be in consultation with Congress. So far, they have, under The War Powers Act. But once that period of time expires, we believe it’s necessary to come back to the Congress to get additional authorities and to update, if you will, the authored use of military force.
With respect to General Allen’s comments on regional strategy, I — I whole-heartedly agree. I believe that America, the United States shouldn’t bear this burden alone. We have regional allies, both Muslim allies and European allies, that can bring a lot of pressure on ISIS. And I don’t think you’re going to — you’re going to win this with a containment policy alone. This administration thus far has only dealt with containment. We need to expand these air strikes so that we can ultimately defeat and eliminate ISIS, because I would far prefer to eliminate them over here than have to deal with them…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, that…
MCCAUL: — in the United States.
As Jason Easley pointed out, McCain told Fox News Sunday show host Chris Wallace that he wants President Obama to do “stupid stuff” in the Middle East and essentially place troops on the ground there. As one would figure from Fox News, there was no real sort of pushback from Wallace. Meanwhile, on Meet the Press, Rogers actually did get resistance and tough questions from the moderator, because Chris Jansing was filling in for outgoing host David Gregory. If this were Chuck Todd, as it will be in a month, Rogers would have been able to safely recite his talking points without worrying about follow-up questions.

State of the Union host Candy Crowley essentially let Graham spout off his talking points without any challenge whatsoever. Graham was on at the same time as Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), and they were both asked questions regarding their assessments of the threat if ISIS. Graham claimed that ISIS was an immediate threat to the homeland. Instead of following up with Graham regarding that claim, Crowley just moved on to her next set of questions.

CROWLEY: Senator Graham, I am trying to kind of — kind of home in on, what is the immediate threat to the homeland? Because there are a number of people saying, it’s not — really not an immediate threat, has to be dealt with. It’s a threat to the region, but it’s not an immediate threat to the U.S.
GRAHAM: Well, I would argue that the intel that we have been provided in Congress is that there are hundreds of American citizens holding U.S. passports. There are European citizens going to the fight that can penetrate America by having European-U.S. passports.
A lot of jihadists have flocked to area. They have expressed the will to hit the homeland. That’s part of their agenda is to drive us out of the Mideast. Do they have the capability to hit the homeland — homeland? I would say yes.
It’s about time now to assume the worst about these guys, rather than to underestimating them. They’re not the J.V. team anymore. They’re the most prominent terrorist organization in the world, but they’re not the only one. They’re in competition with the other jihadist groups.
And the gold medal will be awarded to the group that can hit America. They’re fighting for status with al Qaeda, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Nusra. All of these guys are bidding for future recruits and status, and the gold medal goes to the one that can hit us here at home. To those who underestimate this threat, you do so at America’s peril.
Ayotte essentially repeated the same strategy to Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation. When Schieffer asked her what we should do against ISIS and in the Middle East, Ayotte responded with the following.

And what I think is that a containment strategy is not going to cut it. We need a strategy to defeat ISIS. As the secretary of defense has described, it is an imminent threat to us. It’s like nothing we have ever seen in terms of the sophistication of this group, the funding, the territory that they control.
And we need a strategy that is going to expand the airstrikes, going to support the Kurds further and the Iraqi forces, but in particular the Kurds, get them the military equipment that they are requesting, and also look at supporting more and more support and enhancement for the moderate opposition in Syria to deal with the sanctuaries in Syria.
We have to do that if we want to defeat ISIS, as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said this week. And then I would say also the political solution is important. We need an Iraqi government that is inclusive.
It would at least be a change of pace if we could see some slightly different faces saying these things. But we aren’t so lucky. Nope, instead we just get the same tired actors repeating the same bad lines, time and time again.
Sunday Shows Feature Same Old Republicans Spouting Off The Same Old Tired Talking Points was written by Justin Baragona for PoliticusUSA.
© PoliticusUSA, Sun, Aug 24th, 2014 — All Rights Reserved
→ Read more about Justin Baragona ←

Try it you'll like it Mickey


Can't fix a broken mirror with bucheney duct tape

BigOlBear

OK let's go. I'm going along with your request even though it's not entirely clear to me how we debate candidates. Seems like we should be discussing issues ... like immigration, fiscal policy, foreign policy or something like that.

As you are no doubt aware, the Republican field is wide open with only one serious person even hinting a possible run and a few declared nobodies with no chance. So far, the ones I like include Scott Walker and Ben Carson. There are people I'd like to see run ... like Mitch Daniels ... but they won't consider it.

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that your two choices would be a Senator listed as being tied for most liberal in Congress along with the only registered Socialist in Congress. But it does tell us just how far left you are.

Surely you would agree that both your choices are quite a ways out of the mainstream of American thinking. Do you believe that either of them would stand a chance of being elected? If Brown's name was Sharon instead of Sherrod he might stand a chance. The Dems think it's a woman's turn and it would seem that there actually is a voting block out there who consider gender to be a qualification. This is the man who threw the monkey wrench in Obama's plan to install Larry Summers as the new Fed chief by lining up 20 colleagues to sign a letter expressing support for Janet Yellen. He is brazenly anti-free trade and unbendingly pro-union. In 2012, he put a sign outside the Ohio Democratic Party headquarters proclaimed: “Only vehicles assembled by union workers in North America are welcome in this parking lot.” Brown’s older daughter Emily is a union organizer for SEIU. His base is in the extreme left and he would stand little chance of earning many independent votes and no chance of earning any conservative votes. Ranked as the leftmost senator in 2009 and 2010 by National Journal, Sherrod has a lifetime 7.77 rating from the American Conservative Union. What sort of voting history puts someone to the left of Dianne Feinstein and Harry Reid? His most recent votes include voting for New START, the DREAM Act, and Craig Becker’s appointment to the NLRB. He voted against an earmark moratorium, D.C. school choice, death tax repeal, and a fence on the southern border. He also voted for Obama’s “stimulus,” Cash for Clunkers, Obamacare, and Eric Holder’s confirmation as Attorney General. He voted against medical malpractice reform, D.C. school choice, and de-funding ACORN. He voted for more risky Fannie & Freddie lending, two separate $4 billion Fannie & Freddie bailouts, the auto industry bailout, TARP, and a tax hike on energy companies. He voted against missile defense, an earmark moratorium, and a discretionary spending cap.

If he has any executive experience at all I'm not aware of it. Doesn't it seem like that would be a good thing for somebody seeking the most important executive job in the world? There's so much more that shows that this man stands no chance of getting the Democrat nomination, let alone winning the presidency. I have a few things to do and them I'll come back and talk about the Socialist Sanders.

BigOlBear

Sorry but I don't have time to read all your cut and paste stuff and I'm pretty sure you didn't either. Cute pics though. You must have a hard drive full of this propaganda.

Jack2014

[quote=RockKnutne]I believe the lady said, liberalism has f**ked everything up in this country. She said that as lovingly as she could. When a doctor tells you that you have cancer and about six months to live, would a hug and a kiss from him really help the news or, even matter?

I understood what she said and, didn't find it mindless or hateful at all. I am a translator by hobby and so, I find understanding words from most anyone comes naturally to me. Try it, you'll

Your what? I call you a whitewashers and her too! Translate that!
Rocks for brains and you sit on them too.

And this poster means?

Jack2014

[quote=BigOlBear]OK let's go. I'm going along with your request even though
Scott Walker,the crook? Is that one of your choices?
The man who destroyed one of the better educational systems in the US.
The man who decided to destroy unions at the behest of the Fascist Koch's?
I picked Brown and Sanders because they are honest people. You obviously picked Walker because he's a crook and operates at the Kochs request thru ALEC. He even looks and talks like a slime ball.or maybe rotten cheese.
Carson,I know little about him and his policies. So perhaps you can fill me in?
Is he a Ryan desciple? I don't trust people that for some reason have a successful career and then don't teach. Pass on his knowledge as it should be in the professions. Since your a hateful Tper,he must be one too. In which case he is already a failure.
Your comment about why we are discussing candidates is easy. You pukes brought it up.
I don't think either of your selections stand a chance against even VP Biden. Before you scream and holler,Biden wiped the floor with Ryan the last go round. I'm surprised you didn't pick that loser.
Have you read the latest about Walker and his illegal contacts with his PACS?
You won't see it on Faux or Limppaugh or O'Fairy! Just a reminder for your records.

There are no Rs capable of following these rules

BigOlBear

[quote=Jack2014]

Your post is so full of invectives that I can't quite follow your point.

the crook?
the Fascist Koch's?
slime ball?
rotten cheese?
hateful Tper?
failure?
You pukes?
loser?
Faux ?
Limppaugh?
O'Fairy?

...al in one simple-minded little post. Much as I hate to watch you pound your chest and claim victory, I don't really care to waste any more time providing honest and factual information only to have you launch into these hate-filled rants. I doubt even your liberal buddies would come to your defense. You're just not worth it.

Retired669

You're quitting already?.....Just when things were about to get interesting too......bummer

BigOlBear

Would you have engaged in that sort of debate?

Retired669

Looks like the typical thread around here.... :thumbup: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

BigOlBear

Maybe typical but not all. I see plenty of posts between people exchanging opinions, information, and ideas. I also see way too many that are nothing more than playground nonsense. I was interested in an actual debate but I didn't get it.

Jack2014

Wow one hammer blow and you get out!
You say you provided intelligent commentary? Where? In your bathroom?
You said you backed Walker and you were just about to get clobbered. As follows:
Bombshell: WI Gov Walker Illegally Rerouted Donations to, then Coordinated With, Club for Growth
byericlewis0

270 Comments / 270 New
Holy cow. The court documents Puddytat said were coming have now been released. From The New York Times:

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin played a greater role than previously known in arranging for wealthy contributors to donate to a powerful conservative organization in his home state as it battled a two-year campaign to recall Mr. Walker and Republican lawmakers, according to court documents released Friday.
...

As rendered in the court documents, another email between senior staff members described Mr. Walker’s taking a personal interest in how the work of conservative committees was orchestrated, saying that Mr. Walker wanted all contributions to go to the Club for Growth.

“As the governor discussed ... he wants all the issue advocacy efforts run thru one group to ensure correct messaging,” Kate Doner, a fund-raising consultant for Mr. Walker, wrote to R. J. Johnson, the campaign consultant and a major adviser to the Club for Growth. “We had some past problems with multiple groups doing work on ‘behalf’ of Gov. Walker and it caused some issues.”

(my bold)
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Here's a juicy tidbit from AP, via Politico:

Those who donated to Wisconsin Club for Growth included Gogebic Taconite LLC, which has proposed opening a 4½-mile long iron mine in northern Wisconsin. The company gave $700,000 to Club for Growth in 2011 and 2012. Walker signed legislation last year streamlining state mining requirements and paving the way for the project.
http://www.politico.com/...
More details from Bloomberg Business Week:

One of the documents unsealed yesterday was an April 15 Milwaukee federal court filing opposing U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa’s subsequent decision to block the probe. In it, lawyers for Schmitz described evidence gathered by an investigator they said underpinned their good-faith belief that Walker and others plotted to shunt donations away from his official campaign organization and to the issue advocacy group.

...
Contributors to Club for Growth included SAC Capital Advisors LP founder Steven A. Cohen, who gave $1 million one month after another SAC executive met with the governor in 2012, according to the documents.

(my bold)
http://www.businessweek.com/...
There are a couple of elements to the illegality, it seems. First, you can't tell a donor, "don't give directly to me, because there are limits on that. Instead, give to (outside group x), and you can give as much as you want, and no one will know you gave, nor how much." Secondly, you can't then coordinate with said group to craft a unified campaign message.

According to the New York Times, among those whose donations Walker successfully shunted to the Club for Growth were the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Kenneth Langone of Home Depot, and Donald Trump.

Here, courtesy of the Journal Sentinel, are some of the original documents released today by the court:
http://www.jsonline.com/...