[WideRight05]

Please do differ with me on whatever you would like. But understand, whether I'm on here complaining about Barack or not, is up to me.

Well I did live in those days in fact. And they were even more laid back than you could likely imagine. People actually left more than their cars unlocked, though at one point I drove a 63 Chevy convertible that had a coveted 8 track player and I often left the top down parked on Winchester Ave all night, with 8 track tapes laying around on the front seat no less. Doors to people's houses were not only unlocked, they stood open to allow inflow of the cool night air. Only a hook latch on a screen door provided security, windows were raised at night for the same reason, and nothing ever happened. We laid rubber on the streets. Drive-In movies and the BlueGrass were considered high entertainment value recreational options, and I can truthfully say I believe those who missed living in that day missed the golden age of this land.

That being said, I don't know what 3 paragraphs you're talking about because I don't know what you consider to be your initial post. At any rate, my contention about the congressional turnover of 2010 and 2014 would be that voters are in the process of waking up to current events and the affairs of state. It has the look of a wave election to me, and I am not convinced the wave is finished. I believe Trump's victory was further evidence of same, and I believe the other and more classy of the GOP 16 were rejected for the same reason. So though I do consider acceptance of a lawfully prosecuted primary season to be enough of a door slam to settle the argument of who should be the nominee, there is quite a bit more to it than that. The more we change, the greater the distance we put between where we are and where we were in the days described above.

I made my opinion about Ted Cruz very clear, if you took offense on his behalf I don't know how else to explain what is by any standard, the impossibly fortuitous opportunity that I believe lies before him.

You seem to be looking to provoke or otherwise pick some kind of blog fight. I will not engage you on those terms. When I post I have what I believe to be good reasons for so doing. If you make a point and I choose to address it that's one thing. But I'm not bound by some rule or code to answer you on every thought you may choose to direct my way. Lastly, I said statesmen have a servant's heart and that being the case, when they have the opportunity to serve they step up. When Washington and his buddies were trying to separate this country from England they didn't know which awaited, glorious freedom or the hangman's noose. I suggested that Cruz could fill a rare niche in history because I believe his country needs him. In saying that, in no way did I suggest Cruz was unpatriotic.

You've been the one taking offense, according to what you have posted TRT. You felt the need to suggest that the quote I made came from Hoot when in fact it did not. I don't kiss Hoot's rear the way that some of the Trump supporters on here have with yours. You may think it makes you feel better, having a few people behind you, most of whom also struggle to defend Trump, but I find it funny that you imply me working with Hoot when you've been high-fiving every one of their accusations and insults.

You take every criticism of Donald Trump as a personal attack. It's not. I don't like what Donald Trump stands for (or rather, doesn't stand for) and I don't trust him. I have stated multiple times on this forum that I have no issue with those voting for Donald Trump because of the need to keep Hillary out, though. It seems to me that you're the one trying to provoke the fight. I merely disagreed with your post and then you took a cheap shot at me in post #485. You're the one getting offended. I like Ted Cruz, but any of the other candidates with the exception of Pataki I would have been fine with. Christie, Bush, or Kasich, I would have been hesitant but probably would have felt the same way I did about them that I did with McCain or Romney. Not good, but would have probably voted for Christie or Bush reluctantly and would have thought deeply before voting for Kasich.

Yes, you being on here complaining about Obama is up to you. But don't you think it's hypocritical to do express concern about Obama and then try to tell others who feel concern and complain about Trump that they shouldn't be doing that? You're not bound by rule or code to address anything, no. But I have tried, and tried, and tried to get an understanding of you and the only thing I can get is that Trump won the nomination and that Chris Christie and other Republicans supported him so I should support him too. That's the kind of thinking liberals use. If you merely disagree, I'll be happy to discuss the issue with you. But if you're going to hurl insults, I'm not sitting back and taking it.

I honestly don't want the discussion going in this direction, the same way it has gone with you and Hoot. But I'm also not going to sit back and take insults being hurled at me.