I think you should run in 2020. I'd vote for you just based on your last 2 posts alone.

And that is how you resist BreRabbit by throwing their shit right back in their face. Comrade Supreme Leader Trump has already done most of the work for us.

Wow, are you all responding to someone in particular or anyone who voted for Trump ? Just curious.

Thanks Pops, they will takin Putin's pickle in every orafice before this is all over. These commies are just getting a little taste of it.

PattyG

Good to see you round these parts again.

I think you should run in 2020. I'd vote for you just based on your last 2 posts alone.

Oh hell yeah!

No doubt, we don't need anyone getting hurt. Nice to see someone else here who isn't viewing it as a spectator sport and salivating in anticipation of some good ol headbustin Chicago DNC 68 style, just choke em with a boot on their neck and drag em off to RFK, right?

Interesting though that trump is firing the one guy in charge of the entire security of the inauguration at the very minute he takes office, with no replacement.

Wott could go wrong???

PattyG and BoytonBrother…

Russia is no longer a communist country, hasn‘t been for quite some time...so you’ll have to come up with something more up to date, something other than “Pinko” and “Commies” to use in your little rants. And you gotta love the irony of liberals (who embrace a lot of socialist/Marxist/”commie” ideology) calling other people “Pinkos”.

And all this time I thought liberals considered Trump and the GOP to be a bunch of evil crony capitalists/corporatists. Who knew they were “Commies“? Great stuff!

And calling out whimpering liberals does not make one a “Trumpette“. I didn’t vote for Trump, and don‘t recall ever defending him or his family. I guess in your narrow little view of the world, there can only be two kinds of people…liberals or Trumpettes. Sorry to disappoint you, but I am neither. Hard for you to fathom I’m sure - this idea that people can actually be opposed to both whimpering liberals and Trump at the same time - but guess what…there are actually lots of people in this country who despise both.

What does the tea party have to do with anything?? Are they still even a relevant force in politics??

And as for the patriots who fought in the American Revolution…if you think the vision they had for America, the nation they wanted to build, the role of the government in that nation, the ideals that they were willing to die for, etc…if you think that vision of America even remotely resembles the liberal/progressive agenda of Barry and Hillary…well, then you and I have very, very different understandings of history.

But I’m sure the “patriotism” of the Left will be on full display over the next 24 hours…and over the next 4-8 years, also…looking forward to seeing what the Left’s idea of true patriotism looks like…

And of course...it goes without saying that the ignorant, immature, knee jerk reactions of Trump will also be on full display via Twitter.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/back-u-s-s-r-how-todays-russia-soviet-era-n453536

MOSCOW — Post-communist Russia has gone from a friend of the United States to a rival under President Vladimir Putin. It is challenging the West on a number of fronts, including its involvement in the Ukraine and Syria, while also cracking down on dissent at home.
All of this echoes the Soviet Union, critics say. "Putin is blatantly exploiting the Soviet nostalgia," opposition politician Boris Nemtsov said a year before his still-unsolved assassination in February.
But how similar is the Russia of today to the communist regime that ruled from 1922 until the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991? NBC News spells out the main similarities between Putin's Russia and the U.S.S.R. — and the differences.

The Anthem

One of freshly elected Putin's decisions in 2000 was to restore the Soviet national anthem from 1944 — the one he grew up with. Two-thirds of the population approved of the move by 2002, according to leading Russian pollsters.

The newish song comes with tweaked lyrics — there are no more mentions of the Communist Party, for example. They were, however, written by the same octogenarian poet who penned the Soviet anthem.

The Party

In Soviet times, there were no parties other than the Communist Party, and membership was a prerequisite for career advancement. Nowadays, Putin's United Russia party dominates the federal parliament and most local legislatures, and officials in the executive branch, businessmen working with the state and even artists are sometimes card-carrying party members.

Nowadays, though, political alternatives do exist — including a modern communist one. And it is quite possible to make a career without a party affiliation.

Spies

By the mid-2000s, up to 80 percent of the Russian ruling establishment was made up of people with backgrounds in security services, according to a study by acclaimed sociologist Olga Kryshtanovskaya. The trend was confirmed in numerous subsequent studies. Above all, this included the Soviet secret police, the KGB, which handled counter-espionage and brutally suppressed political dissent.

The KGB's successor the Federal Security Service (FSB) was stripped down in the 1990s but it is now back to being both powerful and feared. It is tasked with fighting spies and extremists, but it also monitors the political opposition to the government. Putin himself is a product of the KGB, having served in the service from 1975 until the collapse of communism in 1991.

Some things have changed: In Soviet times, the KGB was the operative arm of the Communist Party, which ran the country. Now United Russia Party is run by KGB veterans.

Dissidents

Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union's feared leader who ran the country with an iron fist from 1924 until 1953, purged, imprisoned and executed his critics. Even in post-Stalin times, the regime punished those who threatened or disagreed with it so dissidents were fired, jailed, expelled, confined to psychiatric wards and harassed by the KGB.

Russia's opposition today also fights an asymmetric battle: Its leaders face criminal cases and regular arrests, thugs harass them at events and officials drown them in red tape.

But things are different today. More than 8,000 people were convicted in the post-Stalin era on dissent-related charges. Now Russia has 50 political prisoners, according to rights group Memorial, confirming that political persecution is limited to a handful of show trials, small-time harassment and alleged vote rigging.

Media Control

Soviet media broadcast only what officials wanted it to, and access to foreign media was banned. In the 2000s, one of Putin's first moves was to bring back under state control the leading television channels, Russians' main source of information. They have since turned into pro-government vehicles.
Nevertheless, Russia has many independent small media outlets that offer alternative points of view. Now because of the Internet, cable and the accessibility of international print media, Russians can get their hands on a wide variety of organizations — even NBC News.

Russian policymakers tried embracing capitalism, liberalism and Western-style democracy after 1991, but by 2015 the country is back to antagonizing the West on ideological grounds. Moscow's backing of Syria's President Bashar Assad, who the White House firmly opposes, is the latest but not the only example of that.
A key difference is the ideology underpinning Russia's stance in the world Communism has been traded for conservatism. Putin paints Russia as the healthy opposite of a lawless, immoral West. State-endorsed religion also plays an important role, with traditionalist values touted as an alternative to the "godless" Western tolerance.

But Russia is a capitalist economy now, which means deeper integration in the globalized world and more personal freedom — to work, travel, learn and soak in Western values.

Homophobia

In Soviet times, "sodomy" was punished with up to five years in prison. In Putin's Russia, "promotion of homosexuality" to minors carries fines and arrests, and public displays of same-sex affection or transgender behavior can result in public abuse. But homosexuality is not a crime anymore, even if some people are intolerant of it and public figures often speak out against it.

[Edited on 1/20/2017 by PattyG]

Russia is no longer a communist country, hasn‘t been for quite some time...so you’ll have to come up with something more up to date, something other than “Pinko” and “Commies” to use in your little rants. And you gotta love the irony of liberals (who embrace a lot of socialist/Marxist/”commie” ideology) calling other people “Pinkos”.

And all this time I thought liberals considered Trump and the GOP to be a bunch of evil crony capitalists/corporatists. Who knew they were “Commies“? Great stuff!

And calling out whimpering liberals does not make one a “Trumpette“. I didn’t vote for Trump, and don‘t recall ever defending him or his family. I guess in your narrow little view of the world, there can only be two kinds of people…liberals or Trumpettes. Sorry to disappoint you, but I am neither. Hard for you to fathom I’m sure - this idea that people can actually be opposed to both whimpering liberals and Trump at the same time - but guess what…there are actually lots of people in this country who despise both.

What does the tea party have to do with anything?? Are they still even a relevant force in politics??

And as for the patriots who fought in the American Revolution…if you think the vision they had for America, the nation they wanted to build, the role of the government in that nation, the ideals that they were willing to die for, etc…if you think that vision of America even remotely resembles the liberal/progressive agenda of Barry and Hillary…well, then you and I have very, very different understandings of history.

But I’m sure the “patriotism” of the Left will be on full display over the next 24 hours…and over the next 4-8 years, also…looking forward to seeing what the Left’s idea of true patriotism looks like…

And of course...it goes without saying that the ignorant, immature, knee jerk reactions of Trump will also be on full display via Twitter.

My understanding of history is just fine. Here is a little something for you from a whimpering liberal that you may or may not despise as noted in your rant in the above quoted response. Yes, I know, I know, I didn't vote for Trump. I expect to be hearing a lot of that in the future. I will stick with Pinko and Commie since the conservatives will be in lock step with threatening American Corporation's to bend to their will with threats and $$ to tuck into their g-strings. Oh by the way, 24 hours later and no murderous rampages by the left. I am sure that saddens many.

America’s founding fathers were classical liberals, meaning they favored liberty, private property, capitalism, freedom of religion, and a limited Republican style of government. See definition of classical liberalism.
I say this only as a technicality, and from a historical perspective, as the Tories, King’s men, and Loyalists (the conservatives of the day) were all but forced to choose between “The Crown” and the principles of Liberalism due to the events leading up to the Revolution and America’s victory in it.

After the Revolution, many loyalists were forced to flee, and those who stayed weren’t always treated kindly.
Certainly, no loyalist (no true Tory, Loyalist, or King’s men; i.e. no “true” conservative) was going to have a position in the new government. The leaders of the new government would be comprised solely of Patriots.
Even our most conservative founders like Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Adams, and Gouverneur Morris were types of liberals (conservative liberals in terms of economics and central power)… They were just a different type of liberal than the more radically classically liberal (and often socially conservative) Anti-Federalists like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.

FACT: The Glorious Revolution and England, the American Revolution, and the French Revolutions were all liberal revolutions. The rebels in each case fought for principles of liberalism and against kings. America was founded on the principles of the enlightenment (as can be clearly seen in the structure of the Republican government enacted by the Constitution, and the classical liberal principles enacted by the Bill of Rights).

FACT: Before the Revolution, about a third of the colonists were loyal to Britain, a third neutral, and a third wanting rebellion. All the founders were essentially patriots (those who wanted rebellion) and none were openly loyal to Britain. The Patriots called those who supported Britain, “persons inimical to the liberties of America.”

All the founders were also Republicans (in that they favored a Republic). They were almost all Democrats (favoring elements of democracy) and Federalists (favoring a federation or confederation of states.

[Edited on 1/20/2017 by PattyG]

Redfish,

It is a clash of entirely different and mutually exclusive world views in some cases, and at the very least a clash of entirely different political philosophies or views on the role of government. It's not a casual disagreement over what to have for dinner. When we reason with one another - and use the art of persuasion or communication skills - we are trying to change the other person's beliefs about a particular issue and get them to see things our way. So the other person's beliefs are at the very heart of the issue/problem.

I'm sad to hear that you view it this way. It's certainly not what the Founding Fathers wanted and not what the Constitution describes. Different beliefs are the root of the problem? Seriously?

PattyG - I’m glad that you used the term “classical liberals” because that word “classical” is a very important distinction. As you mentioned, “classical liberalism” refers to an ideology which advocated individual liberty/responsibility, private property, an unhampered free market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, a limited Republican style of government, etc.

Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. There was no need for the “classical” distinction. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary (at least here in the US) because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals, a large centralized nanny/welfare state, socialist/Marxist ideology, “liberal” social/cultural values (for example, the LGBT agenda), and so on and so forth. So the “social/modern/new” version of liberalism - if it can even still be called liberalism at all - is essentially the exact opposite of “classical liberalism”. The Left may have hijacked the term “liberalism”, but they are not true liberals, at least not as “classical liberalism” is concerned. So…those “whimpering liberals” that I made reference to are “modern” liberals, and bear no resemblance whatsoever to the great “classical liberal” patriots of the past. And this is why so many people in this country view modern liberals as enemies of America. And this is exactly why I took exception with those great “classic liberal” patriots being compared with modern whimpering liberals.

If there is anyone who still carries on the great legacy of classical liberalism today, it would be libertarians (little “l”, not the Libertarian party) or true, old school conservatives (not neo-cons or the GOP). But it certainly would not be the Democratic party, progressives, or “modern” liberals.

So just to be clear…and now that we have our terms properly defined…which version of liberalism is it that you are defending, and that several generations of your ancestors have fought for?

Redfish,

It is a clash of entirely different and mutually exclusive world views in some cases, and at the very least a clash of entirely different political philosophies or views on the role of government. It's not a casual disagreement over what to have for dinner. When we reason with one another - and use the art of persuasion or communication skills - we are trying to change the other person's beliefs about a particular issue and get them to see things our way. So the other person's beliefs are at the very heart of the issue/problem.

I'm sad to hear that you view it this way. It's certainly not what the Founding Fathers wanted and not what the Constitution describes. Different beliefs are the root of the problem? Seriously?

Not sure what is so hard to understand…maybe a simple example will help you. One person has a belief that we should have a large and very powerful central government that manages the economy and provides cradle-to-grave welfare benefits by forcefully taking money out of the pockets of Group A and redistributing it to group B. Another person believes that we should have a very limited decentralized government with power resting in the states, a true free market economy, no wealth redistribution, etc. These two opposing BELIEFS are absolutely at the root of the problem. I’m sorry if that saddens you, but that is reality. Reality does tend to be cold and harsh at times, life isn’t always fair. That doesn’t mean that these people can’t compromise or meet in the middle at times in spite of their different beliefs. But their beliefs are absolutely what causes the issues and divisions. If everyone believed the same thing, there would be no need for elections or revolutions.

[Edited on 1/21/2017 by Redfish7]

Redfish,

It is a clash of entirely different and mutually exclusive world views in some cases, and at the very least a clash of entirely different political philosophies or views on the role of government. It's not a casual disagreement over what to have for dinner. When we reason with one another - and use the art of persuasion or communication skills - we are trying to change the other person's beliefs about a particular issue and get them to see things our way. So the other person's beliefs are at the very heart of the issue/problem.

I'm sad to hear that you view it this way. It's certainly not what the Founding Fathers wanted and not what the Constitution describes. Different beliefs are the root of the problem? Seriously?

Not sure what is so hard to understand…maybe a simple example will help you. One person has a belief that we should have a large and very powerful central government that manages the economy and provides cradle-to-grave welfare benefits by forcefully taking money out the pockets of Group A and redistributing it to group B. Another person believes that we should have a very limited decentralized government with power resting in the states, a true free market economy, no wealth redistribution, etc. These two opposing BELIEFS are absolutely at the root of the problem. I’m sorry if that saddens you, but that is reality. Reality does tend to be cold and harsh at times, life isn’t always fair. That doesn’t mean that these people can’t compromise or meet in the middle at times in spite of their different beliefs. But their beliefs are absolutely what causes the issues and divisions. If everyone believed the same thing, there would be no need for elections or revolutions.

The founding fathers would have had a good laugh at gary "captain aleppo" johnson. 😛

Sorry, but I have no idea what your remark even means, much less how it is relevant to the conversation going on between BoytonBrother and I.

Ever notice that whenever anyone starts out with the caveat of "I despise both sides," how fast it becomes plainly evident that is actually not the case?

Ever notice that whenever anyone starts out with the caveat of "I despise both sides," how fast it becomes plainly evident that is actually not the case?

Yeah. I'm looking at you, Redfish7, BigV and Fujirich.

Ever notice that whenever anyone starts out with the caveat of "I despise both sides," how fast it becomes plainly evident that is actually not the case?

Yeah. I'm looking at you, Redfish7, BigV and Fujirich.

Well, OK jkeller/Bhawk...look all you want...assume whatever it is you want to assume about me. It's all good.

One person has a belief that we should have a large and very powerful central government that manages the economy and provides cradle-to-grave welfare benefits by forcefully taking money out of the pockets of Group A and redistributing it to group B. Another person believes that we should have a very limited decentralized government with power resting in the states, a true free market economy, no wealth redistribution, etc. These two opposing BELIEFS are absolutely at the root of the problem. I’m sorry if that saddens you, but that is reality.

You don't understand the whole point of this country, wow. The Founding Fathers realized that it's perfectly natural and healty to have opposing views and ideas, and created the Constitution around that. They didn't intend for us to denigrate the opposing view with the type of inflammatory rhetoric you just used to describe the left. You clearly hold contempt for a liberal point of view, so the "problem" that you are referring to is the problem of you being affected by an opposing view. Because the Founding Fathers and millions of other Americans can respect and appreciate the opposinng view and never presents a problem in the first place. The ones who deem it a problem and begin to denigrate, are the problem.

[Edited on 1/21/2017 by BoytonBrother]

The founding fathers would have had a good laugh at gary "captain aleppo" johnson.

And you think they'd be wanting to go to war in Syria?

For those in favor of a true free market economy I have a question for you. Should we get rid of all government regulations into the market? How would that benefit the every citizen of this country? Would my work place still be a safe environment? Would the environment be as bad as it was in the late 60's?

You don't understand the whole point of this country, wow. The Founding Fathers realized that it's perfectly natural and healty to have opposing views and ideas, and created the Constitution around that. They didn't intend for us to denigrate the opposing view with the type of inflammatory rhetoric you just used to describe the left. You clearly hold contempt for a liberal point of view, so the "problem" that you are referring to is the problem of you being affected by an opposing view. Because the Founding Fathers and millions of other Americans can respect and appreciate the opposinng view and never presents a problem in the first place. The ones who deem it a problem and begin to denigrate, are the problem.

[Edited on 1/21/2017 by BoytonBrother]

So…the Founding Fathers never denigrated their opponents’ views, never used inflammatory rhetoric, and never held contempt for other political views? Ever read any of their speeches or debates? People on the left don’t hold contempt for the “deplorables” on the right? It’s called politics. It’s called debate. I think where you are getting confused is that you are trying to lump political beliefs in with all other categories of beliefs. Sure…we can all respect and appreciate the diversity of opposing viewpoints in religion, culture, ethnicity, art, philosophy and lots of other areas…and it does not affect us. I can even respect and appreciate opposing political beliefs in the same way…up to a point. What you don’t seem to understand is that political beliefs get converted into monetary policy, laws/regulations, foreign policy (wars), school curriculums, ad infinitum…and then they do literally affect millions, if not billions, in this nation and around the world. So when an opposing belief has the potential to become law and be forcefully imposed on an entire nation…and if it has the potential to negatively impact/harm me, my family, my community or the world…yes, I do deem it a problem. And if deeming that a problem means that I am the problem…well, then…yes, absolutely count me as part of the problem. I will gladly accept that label.

It would be great if we really did live in this “everyone gets along and plays nice” fantasy world, or if we lived in a world where people could not use the State to impose/enforce their views on others. But we don’t. In the real world, ideas/beliefs have real consequences…and people some times get their feelings hurt.

Ever notice that whenever anyone starts out with the caveat of "I despise both sides," how fast it becomes plainly evident that is actually not the case?

Yeah. I'm looking at you, Redfish7, BigV and Fujirich.

Well, OK jkeller/Bhawk...look all you want...assume whatever it is you want to assume about me. It's all good.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm reading posts and drawing conclusions.

For those in favor of a true free market economy I have a question for you. Should we get rid of all government regulations into the market? How would that benefit the every citizen of this country? Would my work place still be a safe environment? Would the environment be as bad as it was in the late 60's?

I don't favor a true free market, but just to get you some answer on this so it's not lost in the other arguments...those favoring less (or no?) government regulations say that financial risk would motivate businesses to have safe work or outside atmosphere environment. As in, if your workplace say didn't have some OSHA regulation that you have to wear safety toe shoes or safety glasses while performing certain tasks at your job...the company may proactively institute such a requirement on their own for their employees to reduce the risk of injury and as a result reduce the risk of a lawsuit which would cost them financially (or even risk that injured employee being out of work and them having to hire and train a new person - again costing them money). Or somebody might say xyz CEO doesn't want dirty air and dirty water because they breathe and drink that same water, so why not care about the environment?

The truth is that if businesses are left to their own devises, they may institute some of their own regulations for their own interests or public perception or good will of their company. However, sales, profit and growth always will take precedent with other safety issues finding it's self in the back seat.

Some may argue that there should be little to no regulation, some would say we need to go further. The trick is finding a balance, one that businesses can tolerate and profitably operate within and one which protects workers and environment.

And this is a big thing when we have our properly regulated US companies building and operating here to produce a product for sale, and then we allow in a foreign produced good for sale in our market, but that company did not bear the cost of the same regulations we did. So not only do they have a lower labor cost advantage going into their product, they have lower overhead costs overall. The answer isn't for us to drop our regulations dangerously low, the answer is to impose a tarriff tax on those goods that come into our market that undermine safety and environmental concerns we care about.

Ever notice that whenever anyone starts out with the caveat of "I despise both sides," how fast it becomes plainly evident that is actually not the case?

Yeah. I'm looking at you, Redfish7, BigV and Fujirich.

Well, OK jkeller/Bhawk...look all you want...assume whatever it is you want to assume about me. It's all good.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm reading posts and drawing conclusions.

One conclusion being that because I have contempt for the political ideology of the left (which is apparent from my posts), I can't also have contempt for the political ideology of the right. That is an assumption. A second conclusion being that because I have not clearly expressed my contempt for the ideology of the right on this forum, then that contempt does not truly exist. Again...another assumption. Nevertheless...if my choice of words upsets you...if you don't like to be accused of making assumptions...then I will gladly rephrase it for you...

"...draw whatever conclusions you want to draw about me. It's all good."

Better??

Ever notice that whenever anyone starts out with the caveat of "I despise both sides," how fast it becomes plainly evident that is actually not the case?

Yeah. I'm looking at you, Redfish7, BigV and Fujirich.

Well, OK jkeller/Bhawk...look all you want...assume whatever it is you want to assume about me. It's all good.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm reading posts and drawing conclusions.

One conclusion being that because I have contempt for the political ideology of the left (which is apparent from my posts), I can't also have contempt for the political ideology of the right. That is an assumption. A second conclusion being that because I have not clearly expressed my contempt for the ideology of the right on this forum, then that contempt does not truly exist. Again...another assumption. Nevertheless...if my choice of words upsets you...if you don't like to be accused of making assumptions...then I will gladly rephrase it for you...

"...draw whatever conclusions you want to draw about me. It's all good."

Better??

This is an internet message board. I don't know you personally, have no idea who you are. To that end, one can only draw a conclusion to whatever it is you have posted so far. And, actually, neither I or anyone else need anyone else's permission on how a post is interpreted. A written post on a public, free website is going to be interpreted as soon as you click "Post Reply."

Nevertheless...if my choice of words upsets you...

Interesting assumption on your part. What makes you conclude I'm upset?

A second conclusion being that because I have not clearly expressed my contempt for the ideology of the right on this forum, then that contempt does not truly exist.

Something tells me that anti-right manifesto won't be coming forth anytime soon. However, I could be quite wrong.

And this is a big thing when we have our properly regulated US companies building and operating here to produce a product for sale, and then we allow in a foreign produced good for sale in our market, but that company did not bear the cost of the same regulations we did. So not only do they have a lower labor cost advantage going into their product, they have lower overhead costs overall. The answer isn't for us to drop our regulations dangerously low, the answer is to impose a tarriff tax on those goods that come into our market that undermine safety and environmental concerns we care about.

Here's a very small example of what drives me nuts, personally.

The very noble, honorable and shared goal of buying American products first is one that should be undertaken by all of us. However, that is not always the case because purchasing and business decisions are made completely outside of that notion.

My local grocery store seems to only ever stock Chinese garlic. Seems pretty inconsequential, right? Thing is, millions and millions of pounds annually of some of the best garlic anywhere is grown in Texas.

OK, so, who is the stopgap here? The importer that ordered it? The local produce distributor that ordered it from the importer? The produce manager at the grocery store that ordered it from the local produce distributor? Me or anyone else for buying it in the end?

Most consumers don't care. We've been inundated with millions and millions of foreign goods for decades now. In what is almost now a purely consumer culture, "Made in China" or "Made in Taiwan" is just a given that most people just ignore.

I know this is a miniscule example of an item that costs 75 cents, but, one could ask these same questions about anything imported.

Then...there's this inconvenient question...are all foreign-made products bad? I buy gin and scotch made in England and Scotland, wine made in Italy and France. Am I and everyone else at the liquor store traitors to the Republic?

This is where, IMO, the extreme populism of the political season and the extreme populism that drives the new administration will fall short quickly. Big statements and platitudes and bumper sticker solutions to complex problems don't actually solve anything. You have to do the work. Is America up to it in the matter of trade by making a commitment to American made products?

To that end, take the big ticket item of cars. What if a foreign-made car is of better quality? Does nationalist pride take precedence to value of purchase?

Regardless of who is President, everyone has to buy in, pun intended.

Bhawk - OK, then conclude that I'm a dishonest person...like I said, draw whatever conclusions you want...

[Edited on 1/21/2017 by Redfish7]

I'd rather be dazzled with an eloquent dissertation on the things you find contemptible on the right. No bueno?

Bhawk - If (as already stated multiple times) I'm cool with whatever conclusions you have drawn, totally fine with you thinking I'm dishonest or whatever...then why on earth would I feel in any way compelled to vindicate myself with an "eloquent dissertation"? Your proposal assumes that I have some level of interest in proving that your conclusions are not valid. Let me help you..I don't.

Oh well, never hurts to ask.