Azalin

Thank you

I have no clue as to the origin of the often-used 3.5. I used to know what "belinda" meant, but have forgotten.

Thanks - now I've got that loathsome song stuck in my head.

I have the feeling that I should have heard that one before, but it made me laugh regardless.

Are you crazy? He has my vote!

Personally, I prefer jalapeno massage oil.

:lol:

I'm of Irish descent, and I drink margaritas and tequila (Sauza Conmemmorativo exclusively) whenever the hell I damn well please, which is often. I'd start drinking Cognac on Cinco de Mayo just to piss the snowflakes off, but they apparently don't know enough about history to be offended by that.

Okay, I'll respond to you in my own inimitable fashion: I like you - you remind me of myself when I was young and really, really freakin' stupid. Is that more to your liking? I'm a bit amateurish using the "I" word. Forgive me.

They're just too stupid to think things through before they act. At this rate, nobody is going to have to take them on directly, because they're doing more harm to their movement than any organized opposition could.

You Idiot! (single-use permission granted by DC Tom)

Musk is smart enough to understand that the vast majority of electricity used to recharge his electric cars is generated by burning fossil fuel.

In a follow-up to your linked story, 2 of the 3 girls making false accusations have been expelled, the 3rd getting a 2-year suspension: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/UAlbany-women-punished-by-college-for-bus-attack-7396568.php this line made me laugh: "In a letter responding to the women's dismissal, Burwell's lawyer Frederick Brewington said testimony against his client was filled with "Trumpisms."

The irony is that I'm not even sure how to reply to that.

I wasn't speaking broadly, just sharing my opinion on how Trump gained the nomination, and what I believe the Republican party did to cause that to happen. Citizens United doesn't factor into my observation at all.

Then we will agree to disagree. I don't have a horse in this race and I don't support anybody. I'm just calling it as I see it.

" A protocol of the hearing noted that God did not turn up for the session, although it did not specify how the court determined the Omnipresent was not in fact there, as opposed to merely exercising the right to remain silent."

You may well be right about everything you're saying. My original point was simply that the disconnect between the party leadership and the rank & file across the nation is what set the stage for Trump to gain the nomination, and that things might have been different had the party leaders paid closer attention to the people who put them in Washington in the first place.

All they need to know is that La Raza aren't a bunch of white people flaunting their privilege.

That pretty much sums up my view as well.

I'm not attempting to justify anything. I'm only saying that there are reasons why so many republican/libertarian-minded people are dissatisfied with the Republican party, and that they've done a poor job in turning that perception around. Now we have this.

You can disagree all you want, it doesn't matter to me. If you think that Trump is responsible for his own ascendancy to the party's nomination, that's your prerogative. I will continue to view it as being the Republicans' fault. With regard to Cruz, of course he stood against the ACA for his own benefit. He's a politician. With respect to national level politics, perception among the voting public is everything. You don't inspire people with moderation.

What they could have done is at least make some show of resistance to Obama's agenda instead of the tacit disagreement doled out in sound bites. They could have at least taken a symbolic stand along with Cruz against the ACA instead of treating him with ridicule. They could have taken a more aggressive stand against illegal immigration instead of going along with the gang of eight's soft policy regarding amnesty. They spent too much effort trying to appear as moderate, non-extremists to groups who will always portray them as being extremists regardless ( ie most major media outlets and the democrat party), and in doing so continued to alienate their base. They said that they couldn't stop the Obama agenda unless they had the House, so voters gave it to them. Then they said that they couldn't do anything unless they had the Senate, so voters gave it to them. Then, they said that they needed the White House in order to get anything done. Establishment Republicans have come across as being too moderate with regard to standing up for conservative and libertarian principles, and have portrayed the one candidate who relentlessly stands up for those principles - Cruz - as being an extremist and "Lucifer incarnate". How is this not obvious? A lot of those people who are pissed at the "establishment" supported Cruz, not Trump.

And the more they fight him, the less relevant they will become. They're the ones that are splitting the party, but they're going to blame him for it. If both parties aren't learning a lesson right now, they'll never learn it. And it isn't Trump or Bernie teaching them the lesson - it's the voters.

As I've said before, it's the national Republican party - and especially the elected Republicans in Washington's fault that Trump has risen this far in the primary. For decades, they've paid only lip service to conservative and libertarian members of the party in order to garner their votes, while despising people like Cruz and any/all of the TEA Party organizations. Personally, I would have loved to see Cruz get the nomination, but it ain't happening this time around. Trump is a different animal than your typical politician. He's said some outrageously ridiculous (not to mention classless) things during his rise to the nomination, but he's very obviously appealing to the millions of people who are completely fed up with the noodle-spined resistance to the Obama agenda that Republicans have displayed over the last 7-plus years. The same for Cruz - he literally had the entire party lined up against him, only gaining meager party support once it became obvious that Trump was close to gaining the nomination. Compare today's run of the mill Washington Republican with John F. Kennedy - Kennedy was anti-soviet-communism, anti-socialism as a political system, pro-national defense, and pro-supply-side, in stark contrast with today's version of the American "right". I'm not a Trump supporter, but I will be voting against whichever socialist gets the nod from the Democrats. All anyone who sympathizes with Republicans and Libertarians can do at this point is cross their fingers and pray that there's substance to Trump aside from the bombast and bluster.