Hillary and Trump

[joeblast]

funny, because all I see is hatin' on an alpha...but maybe I'm biased, because my best friend is a sort of amalgamation of donald trump, howard stern, and dave brockie

[Jim D.]

I was up late last night and early this morning and caught an article about how Trumps's kicking out the baby was orchestrated by the media to make him look insensity. The commentator about this fact is also in the media, but he chooses to sit with the audience because he can be more objective about who is there to report on. Well, he broke it down for us and guess what the baby being kicked out was taken out of context. Now is it possible that what you know about Trump is false and fabricated by the media...all of the negative stuff.

 

Now John Kennedy...had an affair with Marilyn Monroe and was connected to the Outfit. He got his job through his father's influcence with the Outfit. Kennedy got killed because Moo Moo Giancana thought he would have the President in his back pocket. But John's brother Bobbie mess that up for Giancana. Ted killed a woman he met a party and got away with it (Chappaquiddick incident).

 

Nixon was a neroutic as they come. His claim to fame was Watergate. He put John Lennon on the black list

 

Lydon B. Johnson...he extended the War in Vietnam and by 1968 the year I got out, he had 548,000 troops there...and we were loosing the War.

 

Bill Clinton...Monica Lewiniski lie, Whitewater scandal

 

Trump...not getting any on the side, owns his own business, used Chapter 7 entitlement and maybe Chapter 13, uses the court system to protect his investments and losses, puts people to work, dislikes Politicians, doesn't act like a Polished Politician...he is more like a Jimmy Hoffa type...for the people and talked like the people...he has the money, so he doesn't need to money, he is a wise business man like Ross Perot...and he is willing to straighten out the NATO mess and straighten out those that owe us.

[liminal_luke]

I find Trump to be just immediately, blatantly, shockingly ... under-developed as a human being. He is so clearly an emotional 8 year old; it's incomprehensible to me that it's even a discussion that he should be in the running *at* *all*. And yet, here he is, the GOP nominee.

 

 

He´s either really that way or pretending to be.  I think the people who support Trump like him because of -- rather than in spite of -- his apparent immaturity.  Many of us find bravado and bluster appealing.  Narcissism is widely seen as strength; sensitivity as weakness. Maybe it´s validating to see a presidential candidate embody our lowest-common-denominator impulses. 

Edited August 7, 2016 by liminal_luke

[Trunk]

.. taken out of context.

 

Did those others encourage people at their rallies to start fist fights with each other and offer to pay for their legal fees if they did?  Did they 'defend' the size and functionality of their penises during presidential debates?

The contexts of the above:

1. Incites violence at own presidential rallies (plural, though I've only seen him offer to pay legal fees once).

2. 'Defends' size/functionality of own penis at presidential debate.

... both televised world wide.

 

To me, either one of those alone would disqualify a U.S. presidential candidate.  Clearly lacks really basic character development past a child level, I'd say somewhere in grade school.  To me, it's just astounding that it's even a conversation.  That you (or anyone) could look at even those two items and say, "yup, I support him as having maturity and judgement to run the most powerful country on earth" ... well, you're just brushing over, ... it's just flabbergasting to me.

 

I mean, we are talking about the president of the United States (or even any country), right?  Including highly complex domestic, foreign, military, diplomatic, science, environment, legal, social issues with as much gravity in real world consequences as it gets.  It seems there's been some confusion of the tone, maturity and level of discernment required of a presidential candidate as with a WWF event.  Huge, HUGE difference.  (Odd that I feel I need to actually say that.)

 

It's just bizarre, surreal.  I keep expecting Rod Serling to pop in and explain the set-up

 

 

 

p.s.

And I get that other presidents are flawed individuals.  (More than that... that *every*one has major flaws that maybe as children we assume that adults didn't have.)  It's a matter of degree... that often people develop enough so that they can operate in a relatively mature and functional way through a large enough portion of their life that they ... well, so that they function (mostly, and then they deal with their 'shadow' in whatever way/s they do).  For others, their lack of development becomes their predominant basis for life activity.  Trump is just blatantly in the latter category.  Couldn't be more obvious.  If you've looked at *any* Trump material and haven't seen that already...  I don't know that could present anything that would reach you.  (And there's *plenty* to present, not just "left wing" - but from every direction.)

 

p.p.s.

... I think the people who support Trump like him because of -- rather than in spite of -- his apparent immaturity. Many of us find bravado and bluster appealing. Narcissism is widely seen as strength; sensitivity as weakness. Maybe it´s validating to see a presidential candidate embody our lowest-common-denominator impulses.

 

Yup: he is playing to "the collective shadow", to the lowest common denominator, the lowest unrefined impulses, "the id".

 

edit - re: narcissism:

Some years ago I read the best rated amazon book on narcissism that I could find.  It was *not* merely the colloquial use of "narcissist", but was a very deep, comprehensive hard-hitting book by a clinical professional.  I find it extremely relevant to the current situation.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Trunk

[Jim D.]

I would rather have an unpolished guy who is not afraid to be himself try and run our country as if it were a corporation. Ross Perot tried to do that as an independent i 1992. He went up against Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton. The U.S. just wasn't ready for a business man. You see what happend to our National Debt with the two Bushes and then the Clintons.

[Aetherous]

Trump is just running his campaign in an anti-PC way, because he knows that many (including himself) dislike the two faced/lying nature of politicians. Other people are more demanding of a sense of decorum from their candidates. There are negative aspects to both sides of this...a candidate might have a great sense of decorum, but be absolutely corrupt in very clear ways. The other candidate might have no sense of decorum, but really be a decent person at heart who does a good job in everything.

[Karl]

If you don't like either of the candidates but vote republican, then vote Garry Johnson, if you can't bring yourself to get beyond left wing, then Jill Stein.

 

Johnson seems to have done pretty well for his democratic state as a republican as has his running mate. If making the US great again is a high priority, those two have proven they are up to the job.

[Trunk]

I would rather have an unpolished guy who is not afraid to be himself ...

 

Trump is just running his campaign in an anti-PC way, ..., but really be a decent person at heart who does a good job in everything.

 

Really?, really???

 

So, you are brushing off the issue of a national-level candidate inciting violence at his rallies, multiple times, as merely:

"unpolished", "not afraid to be himself",

"anti-PC ... a decent person at heart"???

 

:lol:

Edited August 7, 2016 by Trunk

[Aetherous]

Really?, really???

 

So, you are brushing off the issue of a leader inciting violence at his rallies, multiple times, as merely:

"unpolished", "not afraid to be himself",

"anti-PC ... a decent person at heart"???

 

:lol:

I personally take much of what he says in jest.

 

And this is not him inciting violence at all...

 

[Jim D.]

If I were in a lecture hall and hecklers started in on me, I would encourage security to get rid of them any way they could. And if the audience had a few guys there that wanted to take things into their own hands and get rid of the hecklers, that would be fine by me.

 

When I look back on the Democratic Convention held in Chicago in 1968, and I have no problem with the way Richard J. Daley handled the protestors. The convention was held during a year of violence, political turbulence, and civil unrest, particularly riots in more than 100 citiesfollowing the assassination of Martin Lutther King on April 4. Following that Robert Kennedy was assasinated.

 

I believe in peaceful protesting, but not in violent protesting or allowing hecklers to go on. Their intention is to be disruptive. I believe the 2nd Amendment was created for people with a good sense of boundaries.

 

Here is another thought. I worked inside a Maximum Security Prison for 10 years as a adjunct lecturer eployed by my alma mater, Lewis University. I taught Humanities and Social Sciences. If I were being heckled by a student and they would not quit this immature behavior, I would call the CO, and they would remove them.

 

So, what is the difference. The prisoner gets the treatment, and the civilian doesn't. But if my public forum comes under the annoyance of hecklers, and I have them removed, I believe in violence?

 

Obama and Hillary have put up with Hecklers. I think Hillary may have tried to answer them politely. Why? Is the image of being civilized and reasonable that important?

[liminal_luke]

 Is the image of being civilized and reasonable that important?

 

That depends.  If you´re just bumming about on the Off Topic section of TheDaoBums being uncivilized and unreasonable is A-OK (though, even here, civility helps). Bantering around the dinner table with family and friends who know and love you?  Make all the off-color comments you like.

 

But this guy wants to be president.  It´s a job that requires impulse control and maturity and uncommon common sense.  Nobody likes to be heckled, but being heckled comes with campaigning for president.  There are law enforcement officers and security personnel at rallies.  These are people who have been trained to deal with protesters.  They should be allowed to do their jobs.

 

Trump said that if people "got rough" with hecklers, he would pay their legal fees.  We can argue about whether or not this constitutes "inciting" violence.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Trump offered to fund violence.  Maybe he was joking.  I don´t care.  Either way, this is not a man I want as president of my country.

 

Perhaps I shouldn´t be shocked anymore, but it always surprises me to discover that other people think differently than I do.  Some people here on TB, people whose wisdom I otherwise respect, seem to like Trump -- and I just don´t know what to make of that.  I think the appeal comes precisely because he isn´t civilized and doesn´t appear to care what impression he makes.  There´s a downhome "this is who I am, take me or leave me" quality that strikes many as honest, refreshingly guileless, American. He comes out and says what so many of us secretly feel and would like to say, but don´t.  And we admire him for it.

 

Trump is kind of an asshole, but he´s an unrepettent one and that´s a quality we tend to like in our leaders.  Take the comment he made to Celebrity Apprentice contestent Brande Roderick: must be a pretty picture, you dropping to your knees.  Now, I don´t really fault Trump for that opinion.  Lots of us have sexual fantasies that involve control and submission.  Fantasy is fantasy.  

 

But, come on folks, that´s not the kind of thing you say publically when you want to be a world leader.  It´s the kind of desire you share with your wife, confess to your therapist, blather on about with your unconditionally loving Bassett Hound.  You got to wonder about someone who says it´s on TV

 

Then again, people seem to love him for it, so maybe he´s smarter than I think.

Edited August 8, 2016 by liminal_luke

[futuredaze]

 

The contexts of the above:

1. Incites violence at own presidential rallies (plural, though I've only seen him offer to pay legal fees once).

2. 'Defends' size/functionality of own penis at presidential debate.

... both televised world wide.

 

To me, either one of those alone would disqualify a U.S. presidential candidate.  Clearly lacks really basic character development past a child level, I'd say somewhere in grade school.  To me, it's just astounding that it's even a conversation.  That you (or anyone) could look at even those two items and say, "yup, I support him as having maturity and judgement to run the most powerful country on earth" ... well, you're just brushing over, ... it's just flabbergasting to me.

 

I mean, we are talking about the president of the United States (or even any country), right?  Including highly complex domestic, foreign, military, diplomatic, science, environment, legal, social issues with as much gravity in real world consequences as it gets.  It seems there's been some confusion of the tone, maturity and level of discernment required of a presidential candidate as with a WWF event.  Huge, HUGE difference.  (Odd that I feel I need to actually say that.)

 

It's just bizarre, surreal.  I keep expecting Rod Serling to pop in and explain the set-up

 

 

 

p.s.

And I get that other presidents are flawed individuals.  (More than that... that *every*one has major flaws that maybe as children we assume that adults didn't have.)  It's a matter of degree... that often people develop enough so that they can operate in a relatively mature and functional way through a large enough portion of their life that they ... well, so that they function (mostly, and then they deal with their 'shadow' in whatever way/s they do).  For others, their lack of development becomes their predominant basis for life activity.  Trump is just blatantly in the latter category.  Couldn't be more obvious.  If you've looked at *any* Trump material and haven't seen that already...  I don't know that could present anything that would reach you.  (And there's *plenty* to present, not just "left wing" - but from every direction.)

 

p.p.s.

 

Yup: he is playing to "the collective shadow", to the lowest common denominator, the lowest unrefined impulses, "the id".

 

edit - re: narcissism:

Some years ago I read the best rated amazon book on narcissism that I could find.  It was *not* merely the colloquial use of "narcissist", but was a very deep, comprehensive hard-hitting book by a clinical professional.  I find it extremely relevant to the current situation.

 

What do you mean by "incites violence?"  Do you have any evidence?  It seems to me that he is only telling people to respond with violence when others are inciting it.

 

Trump only talked about his penis size because Marco Rubio was being so classy and witty and brought up Trump's hand and penis size to begin with.  So again, you are getting upset at Donald Trump for something he did not start, but merely responded to.

 

Your psychological hypothesis is interesting, but misses the point, in my opinion.  Yes, he is playing to the "shadow" or Id, but any skillful persuader would try to appeal to Id on some level.  Likewise, they would be wise to appeal to superego and ego too.  Think what you want to think, but I know that my Id was repulsed by Trump at first, when I was not paying attention to the GOP primaries and more following Clinton/Sanders.  I only heard the mainstream news, and thought he was not a serious candidate.  Then Sanders got screwed, and I looked into Trump, and using the sum of my rationality and intuition, I came to the realization that I thought Trump to be the better choice than Clinton.

Edited August 8, 2016 by futuredaze

[Jim D.]

None of the Presidents I have cited had impluse control issues in their private lives. It is the character of the man that I vote for. The Party he/she belongs to does make a difference to me. I started out wanting Hillary to be President, because I thought that a female President would do a better job than the males that had it before her. I thought that having her husband as an advisor by virtue of his being her husband would be an asset to her being Commander in Chief.  But has her dishonesty was exposed I had a change of heart. You see, I have a responsibility to me to use my vote in the best interest of me and what I find valueable. And rigorous honesty is very high on my priority list. If all of the Presidents came forward and admited their weaknesses and took responsiblity for their immoral and dishonest behavior they would have gained my respect. And if they truly repented, in other words, cut the bullshit out, I would have voted for them again. If Hillary at this point took responsibility for her dishonesty and made her amends to the United States of American, revealed the nature of those lost email, the nature of Whitewater, and anything connected with her dishonesty in Politics and Private life, I would melt and give her a chance at running this country. But the Hillary I have seen is self centered and insensitive. I do not want her to lead me.

 

Trump is a choice for me because he reflects my value system. I believe that any failing company can be turned around and made to make a profit. I like honestly down to earth people who are their own person. Trump is so rich he does not have to kiss ass. I worked three jobs most of my life because I did not want to have to kiss ass to keep a job. Bosses exploit their workers because they know they can, especially in a down economy. The CEO's and Board of Directors and share holders get rich off the backs of the average man like you and me. They call it capitalism. I call it a pathetic dictatorship.

 

I didn't like Trump in his reality show. I watched it a couple of times, and decided that he did not deserve my attention. What I did not like was his firing people. My issue with this was along the way I was fired by Administration when I did not fall in line with the way they did business and how they treated their employess. And since I live in a no cause State, the boss can fire you no matter what. There is no defense unles you can prove up wrongful discharge. So, I had an issue with Trump because he was big bad Trump who could fire you if he wanted too.

 

So, if a man does not like another man, at least for me, than there is something about that man that I recognize in me. That is how it is that voting for the character of a man makes it simple and fair for me.

[Trunk]

I personally take much of what he says in jest.

 

What do you mean by "incites violence?"  Do you have any evidence?

 

 

There are plenty of other clips of him inciting violence, if you do some simple searching.  And this stuff was in the news for a while.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Trunk

[futuredaze]

Yeah it is kind of over-the-top, and a bit douchey.  but still, if a Trump supporter went to a Sanders rally, stirred up shit, and got beat up, I would think "yeah, maybe they don't deserve it, but they had it coming."  It isn't like Trump is encouraging people to beat up supporters of Hillary or Sanders at their rallys.  In many ways, by Democrats attacking Trump supporters, they look a lot worse, but the media tries to spin it in a way that makes Trump look like the instigator, even though it is the media that is making people hate Trump because they think he is "literally Hitler."

 

Personally, I think there are worse things.  Supporting the War in Iraq, for instance, seems a lot more harmful to many more people than what Trump is doing at these rallys.  I can see why people don't like Trump's personality, but is that really more important than policy and past record?  Clinton's record is horrible - check out the film Clinton Cash:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/

 

If you think Trump was "inciting violence," look at recent acts by Obama - censoring/making excuses for ISIS-inspired murder in Orlando, trying to justify BLM violence b/c of "systemic racism."  Much worse than saying some mean things at a rally, don't you think?  Divider in chief, indeed.

Edited August 8, 2016 by futuredaze

[Jetsun]

I don't buy a lot of the bullshit about Trump and in some ways he is quite refreshing, the main thing which worries me about him is that he is clearly incredibly sensitive and insecure so can't take any criticism without becoming hyper defensive. That is a worrying characteristic when many have said one of the main character traits to be a good president is having thick skin.

[joeblast]

Like I have commented in another thead people generally do not want to think or research. They leave it up to others, like the media to feed them information, and then they decide. That is how it is that I vote for the character of a man. And if the character is not there, they don't get my vote. I will not choose the lessor of two evils.

 

I really wanted McCain to win in 2008. I respected his military career, especially his enduring Hanoi Hilton.

McCain is a perennial insider and gave material support to the north vietnamese - if his character was that stupendous, he'd have seen his own death over there.  But since the vietnam war was a farce to begin with...

 

If you don't like either of the candidates but vote republican, then vote Garry Johnson, if you can't bring yourself to get beyond left wing, then Jill Stein.

 

Johnson seems to have done pretty well for his democratic state as a republican as has his running mate. If making the US great again is a high priority, those two have proven they are up to the job.

I think his position on marijuana is funny - he claims to be a libertarian, but wants to legalize and tax it with zero constitutional authority behind it.  If you're going to walk the walk, then WALK IT.  Not that I really care about its legal status one way or the other, but if one is going to be consistent, then one should be consistent and follow the goddam piece of paper if they claim to be a libertarian.

[Jim D.]

McCain is a perennial insider and gave material support to the north vietnamese - if his character was that stupendous, he'd have seen his own death over there.  But since the vietnam war was a farce to begin with...

 

I think his position on marijuana is funny - he claims to be a libertarian, but wants to legalize and tax it with zero constitutional authority behind it.  If you're going to walk the walk, then WALK IT.  Not that I really care about its legal status one way or the other, but if one is going to be consistent, then one should be consistent and follow the goddam piece of paper if they claim to be a libertarian.

 

I do not know where you are getting your information Joeblast, but McCain was in North Vietnamese prison camp called Hanoi Hilton for five years where he was tortured routinely. He spent 5.5 years there. Read Faith of my Fathers 1999.

 

Karl, legalizing Marijuana and then taxing it is not something new to the U.S. See Harrison Narcotic Tax Act 1914,

 

Karl, it is O.K. to be flexible. The is how it is that new laws have been legislated since the Constituion was developed and signed off on.

 

I don't walk the talk all the time. My philosophy is I have the right to change my mind given additional data.

[joeblast]

that's kinda like saying if you want to know the mind of god, read the bible   I have no doubts that those who launched that war had an interest in a positive story for him

 

 

taxing mj - no constitutional authority, full stop, there is no constitutional authority to say anything about it, it is one of those matters reserved to the states.

 

 

flexible is one thing, breaking is another.

 

 

anyway...

 

looks like ol cankles there is literally starting to short circuit....

 

 

 

 

 

seizure drugs

[futuredaze]

I don't buy a lot of the bullshit about Trump and in some ways he is quite refreshing, the main thing which worries me about him is that he is clearly incredibly sensitive and insecure so can't take any criticism without becoming hyper defensive. That is a worrying characteristic when many have said one of the main character traits to be a good president is having thick skin.

 

Is there any instance that comes to mind?  I mean with all the smear going on, it is understandable that he will get upset and defensive, but is there any times you think he did anything extreme after being accused of something?

 

Ultimately, it is about weighing the pros and the cons.  As far as I am concerned, Trump has some definite cons but at least he has some pros, unlike Hillary.  Hillary is the textbook definition of an establishment politician, who takes lots of donations both personal and to the Clinton Foundation, in exchange for some service.  Look at her deal with Russia where we sell to them 20% of our Uranium, a deal which many millions of dollars went to the Clintons.  And people think Trump is working with the Russians because Putin complemented him once, whereas there is actually evidence of the Clinton's working with Russia and Putin for personal gain.  Hillary might say good stuff about the environment, but her actions don't show that, and that is more important than her words.

Edited August 8, 2016 by futuredaze

[Karl]

McCain is a perennial insider and gave material support to the north vietnamese - if his character was that stupendous, he'd have seen his own death over there.  But since the vietnam war was a farce to begin with...

 

 

I think his position on marijuana is funny - he claims to be a libertarian, but wants to legalize and tax it with zero constitutional authority behind it.  If you're going to walk the walk, then WALK IT.  Not that I really care about its legal status one way or the other, but if one is going to be consistent, then one should be consistent and follow the goddam piece of paper if they claim to be a libertarian.

I don't know what a libertarian is these days. He is for small state and nominally Laissez Faire markets. Personally I wouldn't vote for any of them as I don't vote in UK elections, but if you must vote and your head is with republican principles he would be a fairly solid alternative and, it is not impossible for him to get sufficient states to vote his way, to a least get him in the debates. I'm only suggesting this if the other two candidates are so unpalatable that you really don't want -the better of two evils'.

 

As far as cannabis I think it means more study. I used to take the view that it should be legalised as the state should keep out of the decisions about what one puts in ones body. The problem is that there are sufficient instances of this drug causing serious, permanent mental changes. My niece became schitzophrenic as a direct result of trying it once. A lot of the 'so called' terrorists appear to be regular users who have been in and out of mental care. Maybe it isn't cannabis alone, perhaps it's the effects with other drugs such as steroids, mood control drugs, or a cocktail effect, but we don't want to condone people taking something supposedly harmless which later results in an irrational action which harms innocent people.

[Karl]

I do not know where you are getting your information Joeblast, but McCain was in North Vietnamese prison camp called Hanoi Hilton for five years where he was tortured routinely. He spent 5.5 years there. Read Faith of my Fathers 1999.

 

Karl, legalizing Marijuana and then taxing it is not something new to the U.S. See Harrison Narcotic Tax Act 1914,

 

Karl, it is O.K. to be flexible. The is how it is that new laws have been legislated since the Constituion was developed and signed off on.

 

I don't walk the talk all the time. My philosophy is I have the right to change my mind given additional data.

I'm not sure why you are addressing your comments specifically to me ?

[Jim D.]

Joeblast, I just want you to cite your information about McCain's supporting the North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. You obviously have a resentment for McCain...and don't know the man...or want to get to know him. It is just easier to give an opinion that is uninformed. Right? Just want to hear you self talk. I was in the Army 1966 -1968, trained to go to Vietnam. I achieved a rank of E4 Specialist. Qualified for OCS because of my IQ. Wound up in Officer's Payroll Divison Fort Knox, Kentucky. I was in during the Pueblo Incident. Could have been extended.

 

BTW all the protestors stopped protesting the War in Vietnam when the draft was abolished. They had not interest in the War before the draft or after the draft. They had no interest in the history of Vietnam and its oppressors. They just didn't want to step up and join the ranks of others that wanted to protect the US and other countries from being oppressed, and exploited by those that would. The protestors were in my opinion cowards and whinny babies that just didn't want to go into the Army. Poor you!, I would never trust a guy like that in the jungle. He would never have my back. If we were pinned down and he was holding me up from exiting the fire zone, I would have to leave him there.  And if he was going to give my position away, I would not have a problem with slitting his throat and leaving him there. I can't stand whinners especially if they are suppose to be men.

 

So Joeblast, do your homework before you make a comment. And quit posting pictures when you have the time to look up what I have suggested. You are just taking the easier softer way out.

[Jim D.]

Karl, my apologies. I thought I saw you being quoted by Joeblast. My mistake.

[joeblast]

I don't know what a libertarian is these days. He is for small state and nominally Laissez Faire markets. Personally I wouldn't vote for any of them as I don't vote in UK elections, but if you must vote and your head is with republican principles he would be a fairly solid alternative and, it is not impossible for him to get sufficient states to vote his way, to a least get him in the debates. I'm only suggesting this if the other two candidates are so unpalatable that you really don't want -the better of two evils'.

 

As far as cannabis I think it means more study. I used to take the view that it should be legalised as the state should keep out of the decisions about what one puts in ones body. The problem is that there are sufficient instances of this drug causing serious, permanent mental changes. My niece became schitzophrenic as a direct result of trying it once. A lot of the 'so called' terrorists appear to be regular users who have been in and out of mental care. Maybe it isn't cannabis alone, perhaps it's the effects with other drugs such as steroids, mood control drugs, or a cocktail effect, but we don't want to condone people taking something supposedly harmless which later results in an irrational action which harms innocent people.

libertarians purportedly take a strict constitutional interpretation, ol gary does not, so I dont know why he's calling himself a libertarian.

 

your niece became schizo after trying weed once?  I think that's curiously unlikely and pretty much impossible unless it was laced with something preposterous.

 

maybe people's mileage may vary, but I've never ever seen being a pothead lead to much aside from   laziness and munchies.  

 

anyway, the only reason it was made illegal in the first place was because of congressional buy-offs from the cotton folks, not because of any health concern.  as always, follow the money. 

 

Joeblast, I just want you to cite your information about McCain's supporting the North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. You obviously have a resentment for McCain...and don't know the man...or want to get to know him. It is just easier to give an opinion that is uninformed. Right? Just want to hear you self talk. I was in the Army 1966 -1968, trained to go to Vietnam. I achieved a rank of E4 Specialist. Qualified for OCS because of my IQ. Wound up in Officer's Payroll Divison Fort Knox, Kentucky. I was in during the Pueblo Incident. Could have been extended.

 

BTW all the protestors stopped protesting the War in Vietnam when the draft was abolished. They had not interest in the War before the draft or after the draft. They had no interest in the history of Vietnam and its oppressors. They just didn't want to step up and join the ranks of others that wanted to protect the US and other countries from being oppressed, and exploited by those that would. The protestors were in my opinion cowards and whinny babies that just didn't want to go into the Army. Poor you!, I would never trust a guy like that in the jungle. He would never have my back. If we were pinned down and he was holding me up from exiting the fire zone, I would have to leave him there.  And if he was going to give my position away, I would not have a problem with slitting his throat and leaving him there. I can't stand whinners especially if they are suppose to be men.

 

So Joeblast, do your homework before you make a comment. And quit posting pictures when you have the time to look up what I have suggested. You are just taking the easier softer way out.

neocons be neocons, I consider mccain a traitor to the us constitution, like all other neocons.  you apparently like your source of information for him, and will merely be inclined to dismiss sources that say to the contrary as hogwash - since you're so sternly defending him, after all.

Edited August 8, 2016 by joeblast