View Single Post
      08-16-2015, 12:59 AM   #84
Major General
tony20009's Avatar

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
... I've run out of fingers and toes to count how often I see one person say or intimate that another is stupid (or something akin to it) rather than engage in substantive discussion. Mr. Trump is little different, and that's why, at least right now, he's resonating with the general public.

All the best.
...and to that point, from just page two of this thread we have the following....
Originally Posted by Nick the Greek View Post
If Mr Trump gets to be president, the USA will become the laughing stock of the world.

"President Trump".............

" President Fart"

"President loud expulsion of anal gas"......

Originally Posted by FenixMike View Post
Problem is, no one is defending republicans... they are just as much at fault as anyone, if not more and I side with neither currently. Clinton is an idiot (both of them), Bush is also an idiot (all of them). I just dont like seeing Clinton up on a pedastol as if he was handed down from the heavens and saved our economy, but a lot of people like to remember the past how they want instead of what history actually says.
Originally Posted by Doc Oc View Post
I actually liked some of RP's ideas. Might've voted for him. I respected McCain too. Was planning to vote for him until he selected that fool as his running mate....
Originally Posted by FenixMike View Post
McCain is an idiot, and out of curiosity, what specifically dont you like about Palin?
Now here's thing. For all the conservatives who are so quick to call just about anyone whom they don't like an idiot, the data in one study show that in at least one dimension -- cognitive reflection -- conservative Republicans are less adept than are both Democrats and Libertarians. (

What is cognitive reflection? Basically it's the ability and willingness to use reason over intuition, even when intuition seems to give a sound answer. Put another way, it's the greater predilection for logos over pathos. (The paper referenced above provides a scholarly and comprehensive explanation of what cognitive reflection entails.)

Another researcher at the London School of Economics and Political Science, Dr. Satoshi Kanazaw, studied why liberals are in general smarter than conservatives. His research, documented is here: .

Now I don't know anything objective about Mr. Trump's intelligence or that of other members here. I do know that disparagingly bandying about empty and unsubstantiated claims doesn't boost one's appearance of intelligence, neither is it a mark of intelligence. I don't mind that folks want to assert someone is stupid, but if one is of a mind to do so, then one must also present a cogent argument supporting that conclusion.

Originally Posted by FenixMike View Post
No, I am saying regarding the balanced budget and leaving office with just a lot of negative instead of stupid amounts. Clinton gets some credit, especially for his assault weapon ban, not allowing firearms on military bases and plenty of other liberal ideas I dont agree with.
I know what you are referring to with the emboldened phrase above, but put as you have, it sounds like something only an idiot would do. Mr. Clinton may be many things, but stupid in the main is not among them. Mr. Clinton is also in fact the only President to have been a Rhodes Scholar.

(Here are some other Rhodes Scholars: . Well known among them are Rachel Maddow, Cory Booker, Susan Rice, George Stephanopoulos, David Vitter (U.S. Senator), Russ Feingold, David Kendall, David Souter, and Bobby Jindal.)

For clarification, it was during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, not Bill Clinton, that the U.S. Department of Defense issued a directive in February 1992 affecting the carrying of firearms on bases by military personnel. That directive ( was eventually implemented through a regulation (, 190-14 issued by the Department of the Army (not via executive order) in March 1993, just two months after President Clinton assumed office.

Additionally, that change in regulations (which applied only to the Army, not other branches of the U.S. armed forces) did not ban the carrying of weapons by soldiers on Army bases; rather, it restricted the authorization to carry firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement and security duties, and to personnel stationed at facilities where there was "a reasonable expectation that life or Army assets would be jeopardized if firearms were not carried."

Steven Bucci, a military expert for The Heritage Foundation who served 28 years in the Army and retired in 2005 with the rank of colonel, also [said] that Clinton is not to blame.
"I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking to put blame on someone for disarming the military," said Bucci, when asked if Clinton was responsible. "I think that's kind of a bogus story." "We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones," he added, noting only Military Police have had that authority.
Yes, it happened during Clinton's presidency, so he get the blame/credit for doing it in exactly the same way and for the same reasons Regan gets credit for freeing the American hostages from Iran.

Originally Posted by FenixMike View Post
Problem is, no one is defending Republicans... they are just as much at fault as anyone, if not more, and I side with neither currently.....
What defending do Republicans deserve if, as you write, they are "just as much at fault, if not more?" Why is the absence of outcries of support for a party one feels is as much or more blameworthy a problem, and specifically a problem in your mind?

All the best.

'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed