[TheRealThing]

Heard an interview with Ted Cruz this morning. As usual, he was eloquent and I agreed with everything he said. Nothing to see there, however, there was one point that I would have expanded on if I were him.

For years now, we've been hearing about a supposed wave of public groaning, fatigue if you will, with regard to America's war efforts in recent wars. Ted was asked about public war weariness, and he answered it very well. But as I began, I believe this idea of the US being war weary is a planted notion. To demonstrate my point we need to fall back in time to the days preceding the Iraq War Resolution of 2002 which, had the overwhelming support of the Democratic Conference of the day. As has been mentioned, the US Congress as a whole, was solidly behind invasion.

Only later, after it was realized that the now infamous WMD's had been in some way disposed of, did Democrats the likes of Hillary Clinton et-al, start blaming Republicans and George W in particular for the war, pointing to the cost in terms of blood and treasure. The point is this, the morale of the American public, and the US Armed Services I might add, up until this point were riding a wave of enthusiasm and pride for the accomplishments of our foreign policy efforts. Liberals were the ones who poisoned the well of public opinion, their bias and contempt for traditional American values were apparent in their constant attacks and defeatist rhetoric.

There are two latencies shared by all liberal/progressives, (the group from which Hillary proudly hails). The first is the misguided belief that mankind is somehow evolving and becoming better over time. As if time is some sort of magic elixir, an absurdity which thinking folks reject out of hand. At any rate, because liberals imagine that men are evolving toward, I don't know... godhood I suppose, they have talked themselves into this idea of universal enlightenment, in which all men will ultimately transform into higher beings. Therefore, we see references made to this fantasy every day from the highest office in the land. Case in point, just yesterday I heard Mr Obama make a reference to, and I'm paraphrasing here, in his mention of "moral values all nations hold common" in his denouncement of the terrorist attack in Paris. What pray tell, would those be? He speaks further of men like Putin being on the wrong side of history and, the dawn of 21st Century thinking. All of which amount to little more than the secret handshake for some boys club somewhere IMHO. And I can assure that the bad guys esteem such smoke and mirror logic to an even lesser degree. And BTW, anybody heard the libs or their media right arm screaming about the enormous military casualties under the present administration?

The second is the youthful-like surety that they (libs) are right about whatever seems to pop into their heads, and the willingness to say whatever is necessary to win. All parents are familiar with the days during the growth of their children when said children suddenly decide they know it all, and how ragingly confident they are in that state. What we have seen in the attitudes of those elected to high office is what happens when college classroom smugness and assumption, are applied to statesmanship and foreign policy. Again to use Obama as the example, here we had a 47 year old honorary prof, who thought he knew more than senior Pentagon officials about the proper role of US military power in the world.

There is a reason Dems always act like they can't be touched. The smugness of Bill Clinton, is therefore reflected on the face of Hillary. Although nobody really wants war, it is none the less as Ted Cruz put it during the last debate. "You think defending this country is expensive? Try not defending it."

The people are not nearly as war weary as is continually parroted. And part of the smugness on the faces of Dems is owing to the fact that they know they can plant about anything they want into the minds of "the people", and expect it to take firm root. I mean, I remember Hillary's charge up San Juan Hill (Iraq), and I'm certain the media do too.

[Hoot Gibson]

Heard an interview with Ted Cruz this morning. As usual, he was eloquent and I agreed with everything he said. Nothing to see there, however, there was one point that I would have expanded on if I were him.

For years now, we've been hearing about a supposed wave of public groaning, fatigue if you will, with regard to America's war efforts in recent wars. Ted was asked about public war weariness, and he answered it very well. But as I began, I believe this idea of the US being war weary is a planted notion. To demonstrate my point we need to fall back in time to the days preceding the Iraq War Resolution of 2002 which, had the overwhelming support of the Democratic Conference of the day. As has been mentioned, the US Congress as a whole, was solidly behind invasion.

Only later, after it was realized that the now infamous WMD's had been in some way disposed of, did Democrats the likes of Hillary Clinton et-al, start blaming Republicans and George W in particular for the war, pointing to the cost in terms of blood and treasure. The point is this, the morale of the American public, and the US Armed Services I might add, up until this point were riding a wave of enthusiasm and pride for the accomplishments of our foreign policy efforts. Liberals were the ones who poisoned the well of public opinion, their bias and contempt for traditional American values were apparent in their constant attacks and defeatist rhetoric.

There are two latencies shared by all liberal/progressives, (the group from which Hillary proudly hails). The first is the misguided belief that mankind is somehow evolving and becoming better over time. As if time is some sort of magic elixir, an absurdity which thinking folks reject out of hand. At any rate, because liberals imagine that men are evolving toward, I don't know... godhood I suppose, they have talked themselves into this idea of universal enlightenment, in which all men will ultimately transform into higher beings. Therefore, we see references made to this fantasy every day from the highest office in the land. Case in point, just yesterday I heard Mr Obama make a reference to, and I'm paraphrasing here, in his mention of "moral values all nations hold common" in his denouncement of the terrorist attack in Paris. What pray tell, would those be? He speaks further of men like Putin being on the wrong side of history and, the dawn of 21st Century thinking. All of which amount to little more than the secret handshake for some boys club somewhere IMHO. And I can assure that the bad guys esteem such smoke and mirror logic to an even lesser degree. And BTW, anybody heard the libs or their media right arm screaming about the enormous military casualties under the present administration?

The second is the youthful-like surety that they (libs) are right about whatever seems to pop into their heads, and the willingness to say whatever is necessary to win. All parents are familiar with the days during the growth of their children when said children suddenly decide they know it all, and how ragingly confident they are in that state. What we have seen in the attitudes of those elected to high office is what happens when college classroom smugness and assumption, are applied to statesmanship and foreign policy. Again to use Obama as the example, here we had a 47 year old honorary prof, who thought he knew more than senior Pentagon officials about the proper role of US military power in the world.

There is a reason Dems always act like they can't be touched. The smugness of Bill Clinton, is therefore reflected on the face of Hillary. Although nobody really wants war, it is none the less as Ted Cruz put it during the last debate. "You think defending this country is expensive? Try not defending it."

The people are not nearly as war weary as is continually parroted. And part of the smugness on the faces of Dems is owing to the fact that they know they can plant about anything they want into the minds of "the people", and expect it to take firm root. I mean, I remember Hillary's charge up San Juan Hill (Iraq), and I'm certain the media do too.

Well said, TRT. I also listened to Cruz's interview and as I recall, he hinted at something that I think should become a cornerstone of his campaign. He essentially said that he will use all legal means to crush the ISIS threat but we will not engage in nation building.

I believe that the first presidential candidate who clearly and repeatedly articulates what I hope will become the "Cruz Doctrine" will see an immediate and lasting bump in the polls. In a nutshell that policy would be:

"When countries support or tolerate terrorist operations, we will destroy whatever is necessary, including people and buildings, bridges, roads, railroads, and other infrastructure to secure United States sovereignty and the safety and freedom of our citizens. After eliminating the terrorist threat, the task of rebuilding your country (or not) will be your's and your's alone. Do not provoke us and do not give safe harbor to those who do."

I am sure that Cruz can state the policy more eloquently, but the time has come for this country to adopt a scorched earth policy towards Muslim terrorists. To me, this policy would be a perfect fit to a firm stand against illegal immigration and it is one that would enjoy bi-partisan support among voters. There would be howls from the "you broke it, you fix it" international lawyer types, but this country can no longer afford to continue rebuilding countries that provoke wars by allowing Muslim terrorists and religious scholars to wage war against the U.S. from their soil.

Countries like Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan will never be democracies as long as Muslims make up the majority of their populations, and it is time we quit pretending that they will. We also need to stop using so many expensive smart weapons when a large, cheap bomb will do more lasting damage. If enemies want to use hospitals and schools as anti-aircraft centers, then they can build new hospitals and schools by reducing their weapons budgets.

It is way past time for people in this country to understand that children raised by terrorist parents are the primary source of new terrorists. Hitting schools and hospitals in areas dominated by Muslim terrorists when those schools and hospitals are used to shield weapons should be considered fair game during times of war and we are at war with radical Islamists.

Reagan won the Cold War by making the war prohibitively expensive for the Soviets. Likewise, waging terrorism should be made very, very expensive and the way to do that is to blow up things that they hold dear and kill terrorists and their families.

[TheRealThing]

Well said, TRT. I also listened to Cruz's interview and as I recall, he hinted at something that I think should become a cornerstone of his campaign. He essentially said that he will use all legal means to crush the ISIS threat but we will not engage in nation building.

I believe that the first presidential candidate who clearly and repeatedly articulates what I hope will become the "Cruz Doctrine" will see an immediate and lasting bump in the polls. In a nutshell that policy would be:

"When countries support or tolerate terrorist operations, we will destroy whatever is necessary, including people and buildings, bridges, roads, railroads, and other infrastructure to secure United States sovereignty and the safety and freedom of our citizens. After eliminating the terrorist threat, the task of rebuilding your country (or not) will be your's and your's alone. Do not provoke us and do not give safe harbor to those who do."

I am sure that Cruz can state the policy more eloquently, but the time has come for this country to adopt a scorched earth policy towards Muslim terrorists. To me, this policy would be a perfect fit to a firm stand against illegal immigration and it is one that would enjoy bi-partisan support among voters. There would be howls from the "you broke it, you fix it" international lawyer types, but this country can no longer afford to continue rebuilding countries that provoke wars by allowing Muslim terrorists and religious scholars to wage war against the U.S. from their soil.

Countries like Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan will never be democracies as long as Muslims make up the majority of their populations, and it is time we quit pretending that they will. We also need to stop using so many expensive smart weapons when a large, cheap bomb will do more lasting damage. If enemies want to use hospitals and schools as anti-aircraft centers, then they can build new hospitals and schools by reducing their weapons budgets.

It is way past time for people in this country to understand that children raised by terrorist parents are the primary source of new terrorists. Hitting schools and hospitals in areas dominated by Muslim terrorists when those schools and hospitals are used to shield weapons should be considered fair game during times of war and we are at war with radical Islamists.

Reagan won the Cold War by making the war prohibitively expensive for the Soviets. Likewise, waging terrorism should be made very, very expensive and the way to do that is to blow up things that they hold dear and kill terrorists and their families.

Agreed. We also heard from Geraldo today. His daughter was in the stadium involved in the Paris attacks yesterday. He was already pulling in his liberal horns and we can bet if anything like that happens in the jewel of modern civilization, that being the US, we will see a return to Congressional thinking more along the lines of 2002.

[Hoot Gibson]

Agreed. We also heard from Geraldo today. His daughter was in the stadium involved in the Paris attacks yesterday. He was already pulling in his liberal horns and we can bet if anything like that happens in the jewel of modern civilization, that being the US, we will see a return to Congressional thinking more along the lines of 2002.

Geraldo makes me sick. I keep hoping that he will become so agitated on The Five that he throws a punch at one of the other panelists and forces Roger Ailes to fire him. The only other person on FNC that turns my stomach the way that Geraldo does is Shep Smith. I told my wife this morning that watching Shep is like watching Ted Baxter work live without a script. If MSNBC hired Shep, their ratings would go down, and that would be no small feat. I have no idea how Smith landed or keeps his job.

As for Geraldo, the only good thing that I have to say about him is that he has guts. Maybe I am mistaking stupidity and conceit for courage, but I give the man credit for covering wars on the battlefield instead of from a safe distance. That being said, I truly doubt that Geraldo votes for many Republicans, despite his claim to be one himself.

[Bob Seger]

Geraldo makes me sick. I keep hoping that he will become so agitated on The Five that he throws a punch at one of the other panelists and forces Roger Ailes to fire him. The only other person on FNC that turns my stomach the way that Geraldo does is Shep Smith. I told my wife this morning that watching Shep is like watching Ted Baxter work live without a script. If MSNBC hired Shep, their ratings would go down, and that would be no small feat. I have no idea how Smith landed or keeps his job.

As for Geraldo, the only good thing that I have to say about him is that he has guts. Maybe I am mistaking stupidity and conceit for courage, but I give the man credit for covering wars on the battlefield instead of from a safe distance. That being said, I truly doubt that Geraldo votes for many Republicans, despite his claim to be one himself.

Exactly!!

[TheRealThing]

Geraldo makes me sick. I keep hoping that he will become so agitated on The Five that he throws a punch at one of the other panelists and forces Roger Ailes to fire him. The only other person on FNC that turns my stomach the way that Geraldo does is Shep Smith. I told my wife this morning that watching Shep is like watching Ted Baxter work live without a script. If MSNBC hired Shep, their ratings would go down, and that would be no small feat. I have no idea how Smith landed or keeps his job.

As for Geraldo, the only good thing that I have to say about him is that he has guts. Maybe I am mistaking stupidity and conceit for courage, but I give the man credit for covering wars on the battlefield instead of from a safe distance. That being said, I truly doubt that Geraldo votes for many Republicans, despite his claim to be one himself.

LOL, he'd better not try that on Eric, matter of fact I would say Kimberly would be able to give him all he wanted.

I remember Geraldo from the old days when he did stuff like Jerry Springer does. I would not have taken him serious back then and as you mention, but for his war correspondence he would still be a joke. If he doesn't have one of the biiggest egos on the planet, he is certainly number one on FOX. Geraldo might be registered as a Republican, but he's a liberal/progressive.

I don't know what Ailes problem is where Shep is concerned, I'm pretty sure he must affect most men the way he does me, you and Seger. Or maybe the guy is just senile?

[Hoot Gibson]

LOL, he'd better not try that on Eric, matter of fact I would say Kimberly would be able to give him all he wanted.

I remember Geraldo from the old days when he did stuff like Jerry Springer does. I would not have taken him serious back then and as you mention, but for his war correspondence he would still be a joke. If he doesn't have one of the biiggest egos on the planet, he is certainly number one on FOX. Geraldo might be registered as a Republican, but he's a liberal/progressive.

I don't know what Ailes problem is where Shep is concerned, I'm pretty sure he must affect most men the way he does me, you and Seger. Or maybe the guy is just senile?

:lmao: It was an argument between Geraldo and Eric that started me hoping that Geraldo would throw a punch and I believe that he was very close to doing so. I don't remember what the topic was, but Eric was making Geraldo look like a fool and Geraldo got so angry, he was quivering. You are probably right about Kimberly. I don't think Geraldo would want to tangle with her.

[Bob Seger]

LOL, he'd better not try that on Eric, matter of fact I would say Kimberly would be able to give him all he wanted.

I remember Geraldo from the old days when he did stuff like Jerry Springer does. I would not have taken him serious back then and as you mention, but for his war correspondence he would still be a joke. If he doesn't have one of the biiggest egos on the planet, he is certainly number one on FOX. Geraldo might be registered as a Republican, but he's a liberal/progressive.

I don't know what Ailes problem is where Shep is concerned, I'm pretty sure he must affect most men the way he does me, you and Seger. Or maybe the guy is just senile?

It got so bad Friday night while I was watching the coverage in Paris, that I did the unthinkable...I had heard just about all I could stand of Shep and turned the station to CNN....I realize that I probably will have to turn my conservative badge in but I swear I just couldn't take it any more.....I figured there is no way it could be any worse...

But I did redeem myself in switching it back to Fox when Smith's commentary coverage was over.

I hope you true Americans can forgive me for my drastic measures, as I've honestly not been able to sleep much since friday due to my sins. My conscience is killing me.

[Bob Seger]

:lmao: It was an argument between Geraldo and Eric that started me hoping that Geraldo would throw a punch and I believe that he was very close to doing so. I don't remember what the topic was, but Eric was making Geraldo look like a fool and Geraldo got so angry, he was quivering. You are probably right about Kimberly. I don't think Geraldo would want to tangle with her.

Actually there have been a couple of dramatic moments between Rivera and Bolling... The one that I would assume you are talking about is where the Iranian Nuke deal was the topic. Geraldo was going on and on about how the Iranians had just cause in reciting the Death to America rhetoric and both Kimberly and Eric injected their counter claims that that was a ridiculous statement. Geraldo got animated and claimed that Bolling was attempting to make him look stupid and he didn't like that at all....Your right, Rivera was quivering he was so mad....There is nothing that would have been more pleasurable than to watch Bolling clean Rivera's clock on the air....As Bolling is a former professional athlete I think that it is safe to say that he wouldn't have had much trouble in doing so....We can still dream of the day when that actually happens.

[Hoot Gibson]

Actually there have been a couple of dramatic moments between Rivera and Bolling... The one that I would assume you are talking about is where the Iranian Nuke deal was the topic. Geraldo was going on and on about how the Iranians had just cause in reciting the Death to America rhetoric and both Kimberly and Eric injected their counter claims that that was a ridiculous statement. Geraldo got animated and claimed that Bolling was attempting to make him look stupid and he didn't like that at all....Your right, Rivera was quivering he was so mad....There is nothing that would have been more pleasurable than to watch Bolling clean Rivera's clock on the air....As Bolling is a former professional athlete I think that it is safe to say that he wouldn't have had much trouble in doing so....We can still dream of the day when that actually happens.

Geraldo was just being honest. Bolling was making him look stupid and Geraldo was making it look easy. lol

[TheRealThing]

It got so bad Friday night while I was watching the coverage in Paris, that I did the unthinkable...I had heard just about all I could stand of Shep and turned the station to CNN....I realize that I probably will have to turn my conservative badge in but I swear I just couldn't take it any more.....I figured there is no way it could be any worse...

But I did redeem myself in switching it back to Fox when Smith's commentary coverage was over.

I hope you true Americans can forgive me for my drastic measures, as I've honestly not been able to sleep much since friday due to my sins. My conscience is killing me.

Geraldo is one of those who thinks it is his job to tell the people what they should think, to give them their opinion in other words. That's why he goes into orbit when someone on the panel, or when one whom is speaking from the conservative view point counters his narrative with solid reasoning. You know, that is embarrassing him in front of what he imagines to be his adoring public. You can imagine what ego's these news ninrods must have, they've got millions of people depending on them for their opinion!

And I have a confession too. When Shep's face showed up, I just kept my finger on the channel button, and even then I saw enough of him to tick me off. Matter of fact I just annoyed myself even writing about it. nicker:

[TheRealThing]

Every time I think I've heard the stupidest thing possible come from the lips of an Obama Administration official I get proved wrong.

Unbelievably mere hours ago, Secretary of State John Kerry said in a speech before the planet now mind you, but more particularly standing right in front of the people of Paris, that the Charlie Hebdo attack had "legitimacy." Seriously? Thankfully, there have already been calls for Kerry to step down on FNB, although recent history teaches us an upgrade is not likely.

John Kerry--- "There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy" (for the Charlie Hebdo attack)
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/11/17/ker...-of-wrong/

Heaven help us. :igiveup:

[Hoot Gibson]

Every time I think I've heard the stupidest thing possible come from the lips of an Obama Administration official I get proved wrong.

Unbelievably mere hours ago, Secretary of State John Kerry said in a speech before the planet now mind you, but more particularly standing right in front of the people of Paris, that the Charlie Hebdo attack had "legitimacy." Seriously? Thankfully, there have already been calls for Kerry to step down on FNB, although recent history teaches us an upgrade is not likely.

John Kerry--- "There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy" (for the Charlie Hebdo attack)
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/11/17/ker...-of-wrong/

Heaven help us. :igiveup:

As long as Kerry breathes, we have probably not heard the stupidest thing that he will say. Every time that Lurch opens his mouths he reminds me the time that he was caught saying of G.W. Bush, "I can't believe that I am losing to this idiot." The old adage, ""Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt," also frequently enters my head when I listen to Kerry speak.

I am not sure who has been a worse Sec. of State, Kerry or that old, easily confused woman...Mrs. Clinton.

I am still not sold on Trump, but one thing is certain, he understands the role that ridicule can play in effectively spreading a political message. Trump could and would use Huma Abedin's email message about Hillary being often confused to paint a picture of an aging woman who is too dependent on her caretakers to run a country. The email message has the makings of a great SNL skit if NBC was more concerned about ratings and less concerned about helping to elect another Democrat.

[TheRealThing]

The thing that is so unnerving about his gaffe is it was unscripted. There was an idea he wanted to proffer which basically holds that those of the Arab World who foment and murder are driven to do it by others, and that they are thusly in some way inherently absolved of responsibility for their own actions. That is the belief shared by liberals of the day. So if I understand Mr Kerry correctly, those stricken by indoctrination into Radical Islam are excusably incapable of any form of self control and when they decide to murder a few hundred or a few thousand, we should just shut up and clean up the mess. It follows then, if Charlie Hebdo puts out cartoons which show a lack of respect for the profit, their employees should expect to be "dispatched" in a way not of the journalistic norm? :please:

Therefore in condensed form, we caused all this and now it is up to us to take our medicine. And BTW, as Mr Obama has stated, we really are going all the way back to the Crusades here. Somehow I seriously doubt that little tidbit was taught in the grade schools of Honolulu.

[TheRealThing]

As long as Kerry breathes, we have probably not heard the stupidest thing that he will say. Every time that Lurch opens his mouths he reminds me the time that he was caught saying of G.W. Bush, "I can't believe that I am losing to this idiot." The old adage, ""Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt," also frequently enters my head when I listen to Kerry speak.

I am not sure who has been a worse Sec. of State, Kerry or that old, easily confused woman...Mrs. Clinton.

I am still not sold on Trump, but one thing is certain, he understands the role that ridicule can play in effectively spreading a political message. Trump could and would use Huma Abedin's email message about Hillary being often confused to paint a picture of an aging woman who is too dependent on her caretakers to run a country. The email message has the makings of a great SNL skit if NBC was more concerned about ratings and less concerned about helping to elect another Democrat.

I'm not all that sold either. But were it to come down to him or Hill, I just hope it is her repeating the same line as above, and not Trump.

[TheRealThing]

The rats have been scurrying about the woodpile again.

EXCERPT---
"Top Republican establishment forces are joining up to eliminate Donald Trump from the presidential race through a "guerrilla campaign," backed by secret donors, The Wall Street Journal reports Saturday.

In a page-one story, the paper reported that anti-Trump efforts are being spearheaded by a one-time Republican National Party online communications director who worked briefly for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's failed bid for the GOP nomination.

The group, called Trump Card LLC , is headed by former RNC employee Liz Mair. A detailed memo of their plans, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, says without efforts from GOP establishment, "Trump is exceedingly unlikely to implode or be forced out of the race."

Further, Mair asserts in the memo, "the stark reality is that unless something dramatic and unconventional is done, Trump will be the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton will become president.”
Read http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/secret-...z3sBQMVAw4


Shenanigans such as this should come with a high penalty. I knew Trump would meet with tremendous resistance, and I suspected his own party would lead the charge. Sad to say the least. I mean, it's obvious this twit is banking everything on the recent and very apt to change, early polling. Heck, if polls were that dependable we could just dispense with the elective process and run the darn place on polls.

[Hoot Gibson]

The rats have been scurrying about the woodpile again.

EXCERPT---
"Top Republican establishment forces are joining up to eliminate Donald Trump from the presidential race through a "guerrilla campaign," backed by secret donors, The Wall Street Journal reports Saturday.

In a page-one story, the paper reported that anti-Trump efforts are being spearheaded by a one-time Republican National Party online communications director who worked briefly for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's failed bid for the GOP nomination.

The group, called Trump Card LLC , is headed by former RNC employee Liz Mair. A detailed memo of their plans, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, says without efforts from GOP establishment, "Trump is exceedingly unlikely to implode or be forced out of the race."

Further, Mair asserts in the memo, "the stark reality is that unless something dramatic and unconventional is done, Trump will be the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton will become president.”
Read http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/secret-...z3sBQMVAw4


Shenanigans such as this should come with a high penalty. I knew Trump would meet with tremendous resistance, and I suspected his own party would lead the charge. Sad to say the least. I mean, it's obvious this twit is banking everything on the recent and very apt to change, early polling. Heck, if polls were that dependable we could just dispense with the elective process and run the darn place on polls.

Both major parties try to hand pick the candidate that they prefer or at least limit the potential candidates to a small number of the "right type" of candidates. They make it as difficult as possible for candidates that they consider out of the mainstream to get on state ballots and they try to rig the primary and convention process through scheduling that favors well financed (party approved) candidates and through "super delegates" (i.e., some pigs are created more equal than others).

Donald Trump has thrown a large wrench into the GOPe's attempt to rig the outcome of the nomination process and Ted Cruz's campaign reminds me of a car drafting behind a tractor trailer to improve its gas mileage. I am sure that Reince Priebus, Paul Ryan, John McCain, Mit Romney, and the rest of the Rockefeller wing of the party are in panic mode at the prospect of Trump or Cruz winning the nomination, but I think that those two are the most likely winners.

It is ironic to me that the perception that the GOPe has tried to rig the nomination process and the Republican Congress has thwarted the will of its constituents by going along to get along with Obama and his socialist agenda have fueled the campaigns of Trump, Cruz, and the other party "outsiders."

Maybe Jeb will decide to run a third party campaign to siphon off some of the Clinton votes because he sure will not attract much support from traditional Republican voters. A Jeb and Bernie unity ticket would be nice.

Victory is going to be sweet.

[TheRealThing]

Both major parties try to hand pick the candidate that they prefer or at least limit the potential candidates to a small number of the "right type" of candidates. They make it as difficult as possible for candidates that they consider out of the mainstream to get on state ballots and they try to rig the primary and convention process through scheduling that favors well financed (party approved) candidates and through "super delegates" (i.e., some pigs are created more equal than others).

Donald Trump has thrown a large wrench into the GOPe's attempt to rig the outcome of the nomination process and Ted Cruz's campaign reminds me of a car drafting behind a tractor trailer to improve its gas mileage. I am sure that Reince Priebus, Paul Ryan, John McCain, Mit Romney, and the rest of the Rockefeller wing of the party are in panic mode at the prospect of Trump or Cruz winning the nomination, but I think that those two are the most likely winners.

It is ironic to me that the perception that the GOPe has tried to rig the nomination process and the Republican Congress has thwarted the will of its constituents by going along to get along with Obama and his socialist agenda have fueled the campaigns of Trump, Cruz, and the other party "outsiders."

Maybe Jeb will decide to run a third party campaign to siphon off some of the Clinton votes because he sure will not attract much support from traditional Republican voters. A Jeb and Bernie unity ticket would be nice.

Victory is going to be sweet.

LOL, impressive post even by your standards. Victory indeed will be sweet. As you have pointed out, if an awakening is afoot we might as well get all that dirty laundry out there. Republicans take their constituents for granted nearly as much as do the Dems, and I would not think of protecting them for one second. If they cheat their own base in trying to control them with secretive tactics, they should be exposed.

If we come out of the political tunnel this go-round, it will be a testament to two things. First on the secular level, would be the wisdom of the founders in forging an elective process which has the potential to rid itself of rats, even if they are dressed as statesmen. Secondly and more importantly, would be the sovereignty of God. He is indeed longsuffering and I can only hope "the people" are ready to emerge and govern themselves once more with integrity.

ABTW, I'm trying to imagine how a Jeb and Bernie ticket would look and sound. Especially if they were as honest and bold, as Trump has been.

[tvtimeout]

Heard an interview with Ted Cruz this morning. As usual, he was eloquent and I agreed with everything he said. Nothing to see there, however, there was one point that I would have expanded on if I were him.

For years now, we've been hearing about a supposed wave of public groaning, fatigue if you will, with regard to America's war efforts in recent wars. Ted was asked about public war weariness, and he answered it very well. But as I began, I believe this idea of the US being war weary is a planted notion. To demonstrate my point we need to fall back in time to the days preceding the Iraq War Resolution of 2002 which, had the overwhelming support of the Democratic Conference of the day. As has been mentioned, the US Congress as a whole, was solidly behind invasion.

Only later, after it was realized that the now infamous WMD's had been in some way disposed of, did Democrats the likes of Hillary Clinton et-al, start blaming Republicans and George W in particular for the war, pointing to the cost in terms of blood and treasure. The point is this, the morale of the American public, and the US Armed Services I might add, up until this point were riding a wave of enthusiasm and pride for the accomplishments of our foreign policy efforts. Liberals were the ones who poisoned the well of public opinion, their bias and contempt for traditional American values were apparent in their constant attacks and defeatist rhetoric.

There are two latencies shared by all liberal/progressives, (the group from which Hillary proudly hails). The first is the misguided belief that mankind is somehow evolving and becoming better over time. As if time is some sort of magic elixir, an absurdity which thinking folks reject out of hand. At any rate, because liberals imagine that men are evolving toward, I don't know... godhood I suppose, they have talked themselves into this idea of universal enlightenment, in which all men will ultimately transform into higher beings. Therefore, we see references made to this fantasy every day from the highest office in the land. Case in point, just yesterday I heard Mr Obama make a reference to, and I'm paraphrasing here, in his mention of "moral values all nations hold common" in his denouncement of the terrorist attack in Paris. What pray tell, would those be? He speaks further of men like Putin being on the wrong side of history and, the dawn of 21st Century thinking. All of which amount to little more than the secret handshake for some boys club somewhere IMHO. And I can assure that the bad guys esteem such smoke and mirror logic to an even lesser degree. And BTW, anybody heard the libs or their media right arm screaming about the enormous military casualties under the present administration?

The second is the youthful-like surety that they (libs) are right about whatever seems to pop into their heads, and the willingness to say whatever is necessary to win. All parents are familiar with the days during the growth of their children when said children suddenly decide they know it all, and how ragingly confident they are in that state. What we have seen in the attitudes of those elected to high office is what happens when college classroom smugness and assumption, are applied to statesmanship and foreign policy. Again to use Obama as the example, here we had a 47 year old honorary prof, who thought he knew more than senior Pentagon officials about the proper role of US military power in the world.

There is a reason Dems always act like they can't be touched. The smugness of Bill Clinton, is therefore reflected on the face of Hillary. Although nobody really wants war, it is none the less as Ted Cruz put it during the last debate. "You think defending this country is expensive? Try not defending it."

The people are not nearly as war weary as is continually parroted. And part of the smugness on the faces of Dems is owing to the fact that they know they can plant about anything they want into the minds of "the people", and expect it to take firm root. I mean, I remember Hillary's charge up San Juan Hill (Iraq), and I'm certain the media do too.

Speak for yourself... lost my best friend in Iraq. We spent 1 billion dollars a month for ten years in that country. Could you possibly imagine if we spent that type of money in Eastern Kentucky... for the wise sages we spend 757 million dollars a year in food stamps as a nation.

[Hoot Gibson]

Speak for yourself... lost my best friend in Iraq. We spent 1 billion dollars a month for ten years in that country. Could you possibly imagine if we spent that type of money in Eastern Kentucky... for the wise sages we spend 757 million dollars a year in food stamps as a nation.

I imagine if we spent more taxpayer money in eastern Kentucky, there would be more ambulance chasing lawyers looking for their third, more phony disability claims, and a boom in the illicit drug trade. It would still be a very unattractive region for private sector investment, which is what real prosperity requires.

[TheRealThing]

Speak for yourself... lost my best friend in Iraq. We spent 1 billion dollars a month for ten years in that country. Could you possibly imagine if we spent that type of money in Eastern Kentucky... for the wise sages we spend 757 million dollars a year in food stamps as a nation.

I was speaking for myself but, thanks for extending me that privilege. That's the real difference between you and me and likely your unfortunate friend. I am a veteran having served my country during time of war. I've heard people like you diss and dishonor the heroes gone on who actually served many times. And frankly all those who did not serve, suffer from the same malady, cluelessness.

Go sign up and defend your country and then come back and bad mouth the war in Iraq. I'll give you something to hang your head in shame about if you care to lay down your kool aid for just a minute. The Democratic Congress that led the charge to invade Iraq at the outset, who then saw a backdoor opportunity to make political hay by shamelessly switching that position of support. Maybe your attention span only lasts until the next time one of the Dem's big guns gets up to speak but, the rest of us remember back a little further.

One of the roles of federal government is not to give money to Whitley Co. or anywhere else.