Draker Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Look at this coward too.. can't believe how coward he was running away and hiding.. 2 Link to comment
bananahamuck Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Donny doesn't really look frightened to me,,, he looks startled and ducks a little at first BUT ,,, then it looks to me ,, that he spins around and then the Secret service guy pushes him back a little,,,,,,, almost as if he is heading in the direction of the ruckus.. Kinda in like a Fred Sanford "hold me back" type posturing but still,, not hiding from it. I'm not a Donald fan just observing what i saw on video. 1 Link to comment
Z-train Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 This never gets old-unlike Bernie. 1 Link to comment
Z-train Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 No that would be Warren Harding. But then could I do better? Let's see, I did not go to law school, did not finish college. I am qualified to judge because...? I suppose I should just keep my f@#$ing negative opinions to myself. It's called humility. Please-a few more non sequiturs. 1 Link to comment
paradime Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 It takes massive ego drive for anyone to run a successful campaign, be it for mayor of a small town, or the US presidency. An ego uncheck is a dangerous thing though. There is a huge difference between humble self confidence, and an over inflated sense of self worth. I think our culture has lost the ability to distinguish between the two qualities. It used to be that our heroes were driven by altruism and the greater good, but more and more, our heroes have become a reflection of pure self ego serving the desires of the id. That is to say, we now identify with those individuals who demonstrate the balls to get what they want. That may be the absolute ideal for the capitalist ethos, but projecting that mindset into the global political arena has always lead to an escalation of conflict. This I, me, my ideology of European aristocracy brought humanity the first world war. On the other hand, trusting one's enemies share your sense of altruism and serving the greater good gave us the second world war, 20 years later. What I see in Trump is the poster child of an inflated sense of self worth, and a myopically self centered world view. I understand why that appeals to disillusioned American's damaged egos, but I fear these people have no sense of the political cost or consequences. If Trump's message is what the most powerful country in the world identifies with, than the rest of the world must, and WILL respond in like. Bravado begets bravado. Case in point. After 9/11, America had the most global political capital it's had sense the end of WWII. What did tough guy Bush do? He whipped out his Dick... Chaney plan to invade Iraq. He could have used that capital to take the moral high ground against extremest terror, and put serious hurt directly on the people responsible. But instead, tough guy Bush pissed it away on selfish pursuits, lost our moral credibility on the world stage in the process, and threw gasoline on the flames extremest hatred while Americans cheered. Now extremism has a much louder recruiting voice in the islamic world. Bravado forces a vicious loop of action reaction. Humble self confidence gives the ability to choose when and how to act as needed. Obviously this is just my opinion, but right or wrong, I hope it makes sense, rather than insights. Link to comment
Draker Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 If any of you buy into Alex Jones here is a video. Some interesting theories.. but the guy interviewed is also not unbiased so.. take it with a grain or pound of salt. Up to you.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt4oRhINk2E Link to comment
datzenmike Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 And Obama has some of the best(teleprompter not-withstanding)And he is the biggest piece of shit to EVER sit in the WH. Your point is moot. And BTW-the Kennedys were/are the biggest pieces of crap to ever darken our country political system. Obama can say a speech but.... it doesn't deliver, doesn't inspire, doesn't...... anything. Now JFK delivered a speech. Only thing wrong with 'the Kennedys' was the rest of the family bullshit. Look at this coward too.. can't believe how coward he was running away and hiding.. Not sure who you mean, but. One... In a perceived life or death situation you have a duty above all else to yourself and everyone around you to preserve your life as best you can. No shame in that. Two.... In a perceived life or death situation where your duty is to protect and preserve the lives of others... It's alright to try and fail, but heaven help you if you fail to try. Link to comment
Draker Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 That was written in sarcasm font in reply to earlier comments. 3 Link to comment
q-tip Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 I picked up a magazine about the president's, only a few weren't included in the tally (assisibated or died early in their term). But one thing it has made me realize it's that a loy of the president's were shit. 1 Link to comment
RatVonDude Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 Please-a few more non sequiturs. NICE :thumbup: however i think it's more like Please, your statements are non sequitur: that is, Donald Trump's hair will not effect global warming. anyway...... A + 1 Link to comment
Z-train Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 Obama can say a speech but.... it doesn't deliver, doesn't inspire, doesn't...... anything. Now JFK delivered a speech. Only thing wrong with 'the Kennedys' was the rest of the family bullshit.Joe Kennedy bought the election for JFK.It today's media existed during JFK's time,he would have made Clinton look celibate. Then there's the Captain of the Chappaquiddick rescue squad. Then there's RFK-he basically got his brother killed. 2 Link to comment
paradime Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 Joe Kennedy bought the election for JFK.It today's media existed during JFK's time,he would have made Clinton look celibate. Then there's the Captain of the Chappaquiddick rescue squad. Then there's RFK-he basically got his brother killed. No argument to the first three points, but name one modern candidate whose election wasn't paid for by "other's" interests. In the end was JFK a tool for his father's political motives, or did he demonstrate a platform that was totally contrary to his father's neo-elitist agenda? Weather or not you agree with John Kennedy's progressive politics, like Reagan, he motivated America to reach for great things though high ideals. IMO, that is what makes a great leader, and in turn what makes a country great. To this day, I couldn't give a flying fuck about a president's sex life, but Clinton was straight up dumb lying to try and cover his up. By doing that, he disgraced the office, and for that I think he deserved what he got. The fact is, the political mechanics who crucified Clinton should have been lining up to suck that man's dick given the budget surplus he left behind. Those same mechanics put George Jr in office, and look what shape he left this country in. By NO means am I a fan of the Clintons, but when you consider Bush ran as a moderate fiscal conservative, why isn't he a target for character assassination? Judging JFK's presidency based on his family's obvious shortcomings, and the sexuality of his time seems like a pretty biased assessment. Okay, all that lofty BS aside... RFK got his brother killed? Please elucidate. This is a new perspective for me, so it come from pure ignorance, not dubiousness. Is that in reference to Robert going after organized crime? It may be an ignorant rationalization, but I saw that as an attempt to differentiate their administration from their fathers shady past. Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 Kennedy's, Bush's, Clinton's....all self-serving mobsters. 2 Link to comment
datzenmike Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 Ya gits wat ya pays fer 1 Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 1 Link to comment
datzenmike Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 I think Castro didn't want to be seen by his people as being hugged by Obama or hugging Obama. He may also not like being touched but I'm sure the intelligence service would have known and prepped the president on preventing this gaff. Sooner or later these two countries will have to get along. Fully getting along will likely be after Raul has passed on. 1 Link to comment
Ratwagon1600 Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 Murica !! 3 Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 No argument to the first three points, but name one modern candidate whose election wasn't paid for by "other's" interests. In the end was JFK a tool for his father's political motives, or did he demonstrate a platform that was totally contrary to his father's neo-elitist agenda? Weather or not you agree with John Kennedy's progressive politics, like Reagan, he motivated America to reach for great things though high ideals. IMO, that is what makes a great leader, and in turn what makes a country great. To this day, I couldn't give a flying fuck about a president's sex life, but Clinton was straight up dumb lying to try and cover his up. By doing that, he disgraced the office, and for that I think he deserved what he got. The fact is, the political mechanics who crucified Clinton should have been lining up to suck that man's dick given the budget surplus he left behind. Those same mechanics put George Jr in office, and look what shape he left this country in. By NO means am I a fan of the Clintons, but when you consider Bush ran as a moderate fiscal conservative, why isn't he a target for character assassination? Judging JFK's presidency based on his family's obvious shortcomings, and the sexuality of his time seems like a pretty biased assessment. Okay, all that lofty BS aside... RFK got his brother killed? Please elucidate. This is a new perspective for me, so it come from pure ignorance, not dubiousness. Is that in reference to Robert going after organized crime? It may be an ignorant rationalization, but I saw that as an attempt to differentiate their administration from their fathers shady past. You do know just like the whole Glass-Steagall repeal being Bush's fault Myth? So was the myth of a surplus being left behind by Clinton. The Congress are the ones who manage the books, and there was no surplus of funds. Debt to GPD was far better off, but no money was pooled up. Our government is not designed for Plus side economics, or surplus. 4 Link to comment
KoHeartsGPA Posted March 26, 2016 Report Share Posted March 26, 2016 Murica....by credit cards....for credit cards! Ha!, our new slogan! Link to comment
Recommended Posts