uncool2pillow Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 When I hear of Zimmerman, I always immediately think of that telegram Germany sent Mexico that offered an alliance during WW1.The book by Barbara Tuchman is a great read. Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Or Bob Dylan's long lost cousin. LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 How would the Trans-Pacific Partnership be good for the U.S.? It seems like Obama's deal is thinking it will help us compete with China in Asian Pacific countries, but at the expense of current local environmental and labor regulations and eventually, manufacturing growth. Smells bad. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 The man who shot at George Zimmerman has been arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and firing a deadly missile into an occupied conveyance. http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/15/us/george-zimmerman-truck-shot/index.html Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 This general is leading our fight against ISIS. The article makes him sound like he's the greatest warrior and thinker in the Army. He spent much of his career leading a unit whose existence the Army doesn't even acknowledge. A very interesting read. http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/01/nagata-islamic-state-terror-obama-pentagon-syria-special-forces/ Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Well it appears two more people have jumped into the GOP Presidential nomination clown car. We have Rick Santorum and George Pataki declaring this week. Which if you are keeping score at home this bring the GOP candidates up to 18 declared and 8 still "exploring." http://2016.republican-candidates.org/#Declared-Republican-Candidates In case you are interested on the Democratic side to 7 declared and 3 exploring. http://2016.democratic-candidates.org/#Declared-Democratic-Candidates Personally I am excited about Morrison Bonpasse. If there is one thing we need back in the White House is some sweet beard action. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Personally I am excited about Morrison Bonpasse. If there is one thing we need back in the White House is some sweet beard action. Best Presidents with facial hair: Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt. Best Presidential facial hair: Taft's stache, Van Buren's flared mutton chops Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Best Presidents with facial hair: Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt. Best Presidential facial hair: Taft's stache, Van Buren's flared mutton chops How could one forget Chester A Arthur's sweet chops? Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 But his are too long - "sidewhiskers" Van Buren's chops are pure. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Lindsey Graham is now in the GOP race, which vacillates from a clown car to a circular firing squad. I say circular firing squad because America's Liberty PAC put out this fine ad in support of Rand Paul. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7qy-4CBBZo The ad full of half truths and misinformation and it pushes another birther issue on us with Ted Cruz. Which is about as low as you can get. Plus the ad is not even clever and extremely poorly produced. It looks like it was done by a college freshman on his iMac. I am all for creative and funny ads, but this was just plain stupid. My hope was that Rand Paul (who honestly in the past couple days has impressed me) would quickly distant himself from this ad and those who produced it. But alas he has not. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Graham is a "confirmed bachelor." Every campaign team and tabloid probably has some dirt on him that they're holding onto until the appropriate time. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Well, it goes to show that democrats and republicans are politically idiotic in equal turns. While the Dems fall victim to a meandering lack of backbone in office, the GOP seems to like to destroy itself every time the white house has an opening. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Graham is a "confirmed bachelor." Every campaign team and tabloid probably has some dirt on him that they're holding onto until the appropriate time. Ugh, that would be worse and more despicable than Rand's commercial calling Ted Cruz a Canadian. My hope is that either side would refrain from any of the homophobic "dirt" or innuendos about Lindsey Graham's sexuality. Things like that have no place in a political debate. It is shame that because a person is a "confirmed bachelor" that person's sexuality is called into question. It is even more of a shame that a person's sexuality is even a issue and one that someone would use against another person. My thought on Graham is that he is not a real contender. Nor does he really see himself as a real contender. He is there to grandstand and further promote his foreign policy views (ie if a country slights the US in anyway then we should invade and bomb them back to the stone age.) Or to position himself as a potential Secretary of State. So I highly doubt any this "dirt" will come out. He claims he has the most foreign policy experience of any candidate in the race. Which may be true in number of years, but I would look at the quality of those years. Sitting on a committee is far different from acting as the chief diplomat of the United States of America. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 You give politicians and their teams too much credit if you think that they wouldn't out a presidential candidate with a track record of voting against gay issues. Like it or not, we live in an era where slinging mud at an opponent is more effective than campaigning on your own strengths and accomplishments. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Kevin G, I disagree with you and agree with Hixter. I'll take it a step further though and say that if Graham is gay, then he should be outed, due to his voting record on gay issues. It isn't mudslinging to call out hypocrisy that is harmful to people. Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Why out him? He has no chance to become President anyway. If he is closeted, leave him there. What is funnier than shit (since shit isn't really funny) is anyone thinking they know what to do about ISIS. No one really knows. it is kind of beyond our control, sadly. LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Kevin G, I disagree with you and agree with Hixter. I'll take it a step further though and say that if Graham is gay, then he should be outed, due to his voting record on gay issues. It isn't mudslinging to call out hypocrisy that is harmful to people. Nobody disagrees with me and Hixter, you must take a side. There is no indication that Graham is gay. You can play in hypotheticals all you want, but until he either comes out by his own free will or is caught soliciting sex in a public bathroom (ala Larry Craig) it is all innuendo and rumor. These things have no place in the political debate. Lambaste him on his record on gay rights, because it is wrong. Don't do it because he is a "confirmed bachelor" and talks in an effeminate voice. You give politicians and their teams too much credit if you think that they wouldn't out a presidential candidate with a track record of voting against gay issues. Like it or not, we live in an era where slinging mud at an opponent is more effective than campaigning on your own strengths and accomplishments. I don't give them credit, at the first sign that Graham is a creditable threat there will be stories. But right now he is not a credible threat. He is a high ranking part of the GOP establishment and to bring him down by another member of the GOP would be really weird and unlikely, especially if his presidential candidacy is really going nowhere. Take for example Bernie Sanders, when he became a credible threat (or slight threat) to the establishment Dems. Once that happened his 1972 essay came out. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/31/411014337/bernie-sanders-likens-salacious-1972-essay-to-fifty-shades-of-grey. So yeah the political teams probably Graham stories prepped and ready, but they won't be put out, unless he gains a lot more popularity. As for the Dems, it is even more unlikely that they would bother with Lindsey Graham. Let the GOP circular firing squad take care of the GOP candidates, if it comes to that. If Graham is a closeted homosexual, he would have to be pretty stupid to run for president. Because as a politician he knows what campaigns are like and he would know that it would come out. He has been in public office for three decades and there has been no credible story about his sexuality. You would have thought something would have come out by now. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Why out him? He has no chance to become President anyway. If he is closeted, leave him there. LouieBBecause if he is, he has power over peoples lives and, therefore, his hypocrisy should be made known. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 There are plenty of reasons to be against Lindsey Graham, his sexuality being the least of them. What do people think of Bernie's candidacy? My first reaction is, "Snowball, meet Hell." He says plenty of things with which I happen to agree, but as Jon Stewart recently pointed out, Americans are too used to a polished, prepackaged, focus-grouped candidate to take a guy like Sanders seriously as a candidate. We can probably thank Reagan and Clinton for that. The last time someone as unconventional-looking (I'm trying to be kind) as Sanders had a shot was Mike Dukakis. And we all know how that worked out. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 You give politicians and their teams too much credit if you think that they wouldn't out a presidential candidate with a track record of voting against gay issues. Like it or not, we live in an era where slinging mud at an opponent is more effective than campaigning on your own strengths and accomplishments.you can thank the republicans and specifically Karl Rove for that. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Hey. Ross Perot got 19% of the vote. That's not bad. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Because if he is, he has power over peoples lives and, therefore, his hypocrisy should be made known. So what you are talking about is purely hypothetical. Thus the emphasis on the if. I don't think anyone would disagree with you on your purely hypothetical scenario. He should be pointed out for his hypocrisy. But if he is not gay then there really is no hypocrisy is there? It is just bigotry. Point out the bigotry. Isn't that enough? Shouldn't that be enough? As for the politics of it all. To question a person's sexuality (or to infer on someone's sexuality) is worse then inferring Obama is a foreign born socialist. There are a million reasons that Graham would make a terrible president. What he does in the bedroom is not one of them. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 What a politician does in the bedroom with consenting adults is nobody's business. But what lengths they might go to in order to cover up their acts *is* a big deal. We've seen career after career destroyed by sex scandals, so a rich and powerful politician might find himself susceptible to blackmail or tempted to use his clout to destroy an accuser. Voters are understandedly turned off by politicians who lie about or attempt to cover up their affairs. Just last week we saw Denny Hastert charged with paying millions to a blackmailer in order to cover up some sort of sexual act. What if the blackmailer had been a hostile foreign intelligent service instead of a greedy individual? And who knows how far a closeted presidential candidate - especially a Republican - might go if confronted by someone with evidence showing that they've been lying about their orientation? Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Voters are understandedly turned off by politicians who lie about or attempt to cover up their affairs. Unless they are democrats In regards to Lindsey Graham, there is absolutely no proof that he is gay. There is not one shred of credible evidence that points to his sexuality. Any politician or politician's emissary who calls into question Graham's sexuality with out proof should be ashamed. Simple as that. But yet you make it seem like he has been visiting gay bathhouses on a regular basis and have been covering up. Yes if he is covering up any indiscretions and there is proof this needs to be brought to the attention of the public, because it is important. But there is no proof that he is covering anything up. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts