anatess2

Except that.... there's no + to the left of the quote button. There's not even a quote button. There's only a Quote link. I'm, of course, using the stupidest browser ever marketed... IE.

Ron Paul's foreign policy position is Isolationist. He says what JAG said he'd love to do above - retreat unto ourselves and let the rest of the world stew in its own juices. Put the bulk of our efforts into Defense instead of Offensive-Defense or worse, Offense (wars of aggression as Ron puts it).

I just want to interrupt this lovely conversation to say... HI DAHLIA!

I still haven't figured out how to multi-quote... This is actually a response to both NT and Jojo. On that Fields vs. Cory thing. This is why candidates hire no less than 100 people to filter everything from the campaign. So they don't make these kinds of stupid mistakes. No, the mistake was not Cory catching up to Trump by side-swiping Michelle. That was a clearly a non-issue (I'm attaching the video for you). The issue is Cory's response to Michelle's vanity-piece. This would have been done and over with if instead of Cory accusing Michelle of being delusional, if he would have just said, "I was trying to catch up to Trump and didn't realize she was there."... or not even made any reply at all. Michelle's overblown account of the story juxtaposed to the video would have been enough of a reply. The media can fight about it amongst themselves (Brietbart is pro-Trump). A good campaign handler would have put a lid on this as this is a Trump vulnerability (the opposition is running with this type of narrative for their attack pieces). Instead, Cory fed the fire so that the opposition found a reason to prop up Michelle all the way to filing charges. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLmQtOvU4Bc Now, whether this move (starting from the Cory response all the way to the charges being filed) is a "campaign handled" response strategy... I don't think so. I don't see that this has value. The "display of Trump loyalty" narrative is not necessary - that was never questioned by anybody. Now, whether using this incident on the campaign trail is a Trump-media-manipulation move... that is possible, but it doesn't make sense. He has the Cruz National Enquirer story out there with Roger Stone making noise about it. He wouldn't have wanted to drown that with his own campaign problems... unless he's trying to protect Katrina Pierson.

I can agree with this. But this does not make Hillary better than him.

Trump is a very clumsy communicator and that's putting it mildly. He's a bull in a china shop when it comes to this. That's his biggest problem. That doesn't mean that he sees Ivanka as an object or that he's a creep (the creep label is owned by Cruz right now). The guy has been molding Ivanka to lead the Trump Organization with her brothers since she was born. The problem with America is you can't tell somebody "you have a nice body" anymore because the feminists take umbrage at the same exact time that they clothe those bodies in revealing clothing to be noticed. So yes, it's not normal in today's society in the same time that having gay sex is now considered normal. The lack of respect for the women in his family? There wouldn't be anybody else that has more qualification to speak to that than Ivanka herself: "Well, clearly [he respects women]," she says. "Otherwise, I wouldn't be where I am. If he didn't feel that women were as competent as men, I would be relegated to some role subordinate to my brothers. … He 100 percent believes in equality of gender, so, yes, absolutely—socially, politically, and economically, [he has] confidence in women to do any job that a man can do, and my whole life has been proof of that." Plus this gem: But, of course, Ivanka's thoughts does not matter... because the LEFTIST PLAYBOOK is in full force. By the way, THAT'S what I wanted you to think about - that these kinds of smears are tried and true character assassination methods in the left's playbook which the right is now playing... it goes to show that when it comes to a threat to the "establishment" the left and the right are in the same side of the playground.

Except that the remark was made ages ago before he ran for the Presidency. So, I don't know how that could have been an unforced error. I'm sure each of us have our own "I can't believe I just said that" moments... the difference is, we don't have cameras following our every move ever since we were in our early 20's.

FINALLY... I get good substance in the Cruz versus Trump race. Now, before you call me a Trumpster, I just want to get things out of the way... I have no objection between Cruz and Trump. They both have strengths and weaknesses - some weaknesses easily surmountable, other weaknesses not as easy. But when it comes to policy issues, these 2 guys are not that far different that they are much closer together than each of them are close to Kasich. Except for Foreign Policy. I've been following this one, being as patient as I can until it all fleshes out - more because Trump's 30-odd years of history on his principles of this one points to him consistently veering away from the standard American policy of Interventionism but he didn't really commit fully to it until the past 2 weeks (after he formed his starter pack of foreign policy advisers). The past 2 weeks he's been talking and talking about foreign policy (buried in the noise of wives and reporter abuse)... his AIPAC speech was interesting, until last night's Town Hall where it all just gels solid. Now, if you watched last night's Town Hall - it was so frustrating for me that I had my husband's football foamies hitting the TV every few minutes. Trump is just a very bad communicator. His head is on foreign policy and national security... he completely forgot all about immigration which is the bread and butter of his campaign. He can't turn on a dime like Cruz and Kasich can. Cruz and Kasich, of course, aced the Town Hall... as usual... they were very clear and very precise on their answers to the questions. They detailed when they wanted to detail, and expertly evaded when they needed to evade. I've worked on campaigns for so long that I can spot when a candidate just makes your campaign managers proud - and this was one of them for Cruz and Kasich. Trump, on the other hand... frustrating, as usual... at least he forced himself to complete his sentences even having to stop Cooper many times to complete a thought (which he takes too long to get to). But... there was a very important nugget there that placed him in direct contrast to Cruz. Foreign policy. Now, Internationalism versus Isolationism is not a new debate at all. Adams (aligning with Washington) was in direct opposition to Jefferson in this matter regarding American's involvement with France back in the days of the newly formed republic. It hasn't abated through the Colonial wars, World War II and through the current Ron/Rand Paul campaigns. As a Filipino, I believe the current American policy of Internationalism is not universally welcome in the world stage. Even the Philippines had their stint of anti-American involvement back in the 80's/90's where we kicked out American bases. I do acknowledge the good things America has done for the international community - preparing the Philippines for Independence and helping vanquish Germany and Japan in World War II. The Middle Eastern involvement is not as stellar. Now, the Cruz versus Trump campaigns brings new light to this age-old conflict of philosophies. Cruz = Internationalism (Interventionism)... the standard American policy consistently applied without interruption from Pearl Harbor to W Bush. Obama's foreign policy is incoherent, so I'm going to exclude it from consideration even as he says he is Internationalist. Trump = Unilateralism (Americanism). This has become really clear this past 2 weeks. I wasn't sure if he was Isolationist (like Ross Perot and Ron Paul) and it took me a while to piece together what he really stands for. So, in a nutshell, this is his stance: The United States should not expend its foreign-policy energy and power unless its allies, partners, or other stakeholders have a similar commitment to solving the issue at hand. This is not Isolationist. This is more American protectiveness. Trump's stance may be the compromise between Interventionism and Isolationism. I'm gonna have to give it more thought especially as it pertains to nuclear proliferation and Iran. I have formed a few conclusions about it (my principles has not aligned with Interventionism but because of my country's experiences with US involvement, I cannot support Isolationism either), but I have to give it more thought. So... throw out some ideas! And remember... Hillary's foreign policy is all over the map. She sounded like Cruz in AIPAC and sounds like Obama on the campaign trail. She's just saying whatever she needs to say to get elected. NEVER HILLARY!

You do know that Ivanka was a model right? And you do know what models use for their trade right? I mean - they don't become models because they're smart (although, she's that too). So a guy talking about her assets in her career of choice can't say anything about her body that is the reason she would get chosen for the job (instead of her Trump name)...... okay.

Calling a spade a spade means: He doesn't have a team of Campaign and/or Political analysts, advisers, speech writers, debate preppers, image makers, image rehabbers, and all the other slew of people a Campaign hires to scrub, polish, groom, and filter a politician's actions/speeches. For example: Hillary Clinton does not go out in Public without having been prepped by her team on what to say in the next 24 hours. When she walks into a seemingly random restaurant, that restaurant has been prepped, filtered, and "sanitized" so that the risk of her actually having to answer a question she has no prepared answers for is minimized. She, therefore, doesn't say anything that she hasn't practiced before with keywords and catch phrases carefully prepped by her team including cadence and pitch. The press has also been prepped for her. They are given a list of topics that is okay to ask and if they ask anything else that is not on that list, they will not be invited again or Hillary will not appear on their show again. There's a reason Hillary very rarely appears on Fox. All of this is done so that Hillary will have a very small chance of, if not never, say anything that will alienate specific voters. You might think this is just Hillary. It is not. It is ALL candidates except for the smattering of outsiders and 3rd party runners. Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, et. al., has their own vast team of campaign handlers/analysts/whathaveyous. The ones that have been doing this for a long time are familiar with the game now that they don't need as much scrubbing. The newbies who are not lawyers - like Sara Palin who needed a ginormous whole lot of prepping and scrubbing while running for VP, so much so that she was given lines to memorize and deliver in debates so that she doesn't say anything that the handlers will have to figure out how to damage-control the next day - gets hounded for every single off-remark she makes and every single seemingly out-of-place word plastered on the next day's news to be sullied and dirtied and made fun of. This is the epitome of Political Correctness so much so that if a candidate goes off-script (like Biden is famous of doing - but he gets a pass because the left-leaning media protects him and brushes it off as "It's just Joe..."), he/she gets immediately attacked for whatever offense they have made. This has gotten so bad that you can't call a specific woman ugly anymore without it being applied as a statement against all women and made a paragon of sexism. You can't even call your daughter pretty without getting painted as a pervert. You can't say "I got so mad I could punch someone in the face" without it being made a paragon of hatred and violence. You can't say, "What do you mean black lives matter? All lives matter!" or "I support Law Enforcement Officers" without it being paraded as racism. This is what you have been used to in the last 50 years. If you read the debates on the floor of Congress in the days of your Founding Fathers, you will not see today's version of "civil discourse". Rather, you will see Congress at each other's throats calling the other names... and then going home to cool off, have some ale with their opponents, and go back at it again the next day. The ones imbued with a natural gift of wit gets to be admired for having skewered the other with the magnificent use of language without getting his hands dirty and gets to be respected more. Yet the amount of wit a man has holds no bearing on the kind of policies he actually stands for... So yes, whenever you use racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobe, etc... that's the Left's Playbook. That's how they've ended Republican careers. Have you ever wondered how it came about that it doesn't matter how many black/latinos are running in the Republican race, Republicans are still going to be racists? And all black Republican political leaders are Uncle Toms? That's the success of Political Correctness being used as an assault rifle by the Left with the help of the Left-leaning media to character-assassinate Republicans. And guess what... REPUBLICANS ARE USING THE SAME PLAYBOOK TO SKEWER THEIR OWN FRONT-RUNNER. Think about that.

Email/Call with a time you plan to stop by to drop off a little gift. If she replies, then good, you can talk about a good time, if not, go ahead and stop by. Don't expect to be invited in... just have some little give-away package to hand off and say, "I just wanted to give this to you...". If she invites you in good. If not, then drive off. If she doesn't open the door, just hang the gift on the doorknob or something. At least that's what I do.

The only Reagan book I've read outside of the school textbook is Killing Reagan. Oh, I read his letters to Nancy... if that counts.

Garfield and Andrew Johnson would be tough to beat. Johnson and his brother were sold to slavery... or the white version of slavery.. when their father died. Garfield's father also died and those days, women just don't make good living, so Garfield struggled all his life in Ohio. That said... poverty builds character yes... but Reagan was a very successful actor with all that behind him before he landed on the governor's house. Reagan was great despite of his childhood, not because of it.

Then it wasn't that he wasn't born to privilege. It was that he as born to an alcoholic. And to claim that Reagan was great because of the conditions of his birth short-changes the character of the man - which is what is more the source of his greatness. I will bet my liver that he will still be just as great if he was born with a silver spoon.

I was talking about the difference between from 100-1830s and 1830s onwards.

B'Elanna is the token Kling-on. Although half-breed, she is the go-to character when they want the Kling-on bullheadedness and aggression. She's female and Voyager is big on showcasing the females... so they gave her lots of chutzpah while they gave Janeway lots of compassion and they gave Seven-of-Nine lots of brains to make them all different strengths of woman. It's a TV show. 40 minutes worth of script. These tend to keep character angst more cardboard-like sticking to their character cardboard traits. Not too deep, but maximized drama. If you want more depth, make a movie. So, this episode is just another one of the character theme... of course, B'Elanna goes full Kling-on. That's her cardboard. The Doctor is a perfect foil. He's just a program. The writers can make him as robotic as a regular EMH is supposed to be or as human as they want to give him acquired traits - the writers can use him however they need to make the script move. Of course, tampering with the Doctor is par for the course. He's not supposed to even have human moral codes other than what is programmed into an EMH. Everything else he acquired is an anomaly (yeah yeah, he did have his own episode of human angst allowing Kim to live out his Voyager contract) so writers can vacillate between treating him as a life-form or treating him no more than "Computer". As far as forgiveness and all that... This is sure not the only... or even worse... ethical crimes committed by the cast of characters. I mean... Janeway's tampering of Seven of Nine with her absolute refusal and desire to be returned to the Borg lasted episodes... Even the Doctor pointed out the questionable ethics of her insistence that the Doctor remove her borg technology that Janeway acknowledged is not what Seven wants... B'Elanna making decisions for her own unborn baby sounds more acceptable than THAT!

Just wanted to clarify this one. "As of 1830" is 1830 onwards isn't it? Just wanted to make sure this is clear that there was no authority until the 1830s... The authority was restored in 1830 and remains until today.

Aaaahhhmm.... this is not quite accurate. First of all, even though Marvel Studios is now a Walt Disney Subsidiary, Disney only has license to distribute the movies, Marvel Studios, unlike Lucas Films, still retained the production license with their name Marvel Studios and all their contracts prior to the Disney merger. When Marvel movies open, you see the Marvel marque flashing instead of the Walt Disney marque with Cinderella's castle. Disney bought out Lucas Films lock, stock, and barrel so Disney can do whatever it wants with any and all Star Wars characters and flash Cinderella's castle when the Star Wars movie opens and Lucas can't do anything about it. As far as the Fox character rights... Fox has rights to "Mutants'. Marvel has rights to "Avengers". Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are in the complicated position of being both. So, technically, Marvel has rights to Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch as long as they don't mention that they are "Mutants" and they don't use their background as Magneto's children. Hence the retcon backstory of them getting their powers through a Hydra experiment. Silver Samurai and Sunfire are also crossovers so they can also be used in Big Hero 6 as long as Disney Animation Studios do not reference them as mutants and avoid the storyline that connects them to Charles Xavier and Wolverine. Silver Samurai is a Hydra lackey, Hydra is Marvel so Marvel can use him in the Captain America or Avengers storyline too. Also, Silver Samurai is one of Daredevil's antagonists and Daredevil is now back in Marvel. So he can show up there too.

That's pretty much most of the US Presidents. That's not what made him special.

The 3 states last week were all Caucuses. Bernie edges out Hillary on caucuses because he has the "excitement" factor that can pull a big turnout in caucuses. There are only 3 Caucuses left for a total of 28 delegates. Even if we give all 28 delegates to Bernie, he will still need to get at least 57% of all the other States to win the pledged delegates. Remember, there are no winner-take-all states in the Democrat elections. Hillary only needs less than 800 votes to clench the pledged delegates. And we still have New York (247 delegates), Pennsylvania (189 delegates), California (475 delegates), and New Jersey (126 delegates) to go... all 4 big delegate pool states all breaking for Hillary by at least 20 statistical points. And that's not counting the Superdelegates who will not break out of the Hillary camp unless Bernie edges Hillary out of the popular vote. He can't use the Superdelegates to "pad" his votes if he runs short of the 2026 pledged delegates he needs to win over Hillary. So... the Las Vegas betting zoo only put 3% chance of Bernie becoming the nominee and that is mostly because of the chance that Hillary is going to be indicted (which she won't be as long as Obama is President... it's a classic case of y'owe me). Cruz (and even Kasich) has a path to the nomination only because of the majority vote requirement of winning the Republican nomination. Republican side doesn't have super delegates. Rather, they have a majority of representative votes (the exact same way an electoral college works). Majority means over 50%. So, Cruz may need 70% of the rest of the delegates (mathematically possible due to winner-take-all states) to get to 51% of the vote, but he needs much less than that with Kasich in the running to deny Trump of getting to 51%. Kasich has no mathematical path to the nomination on the first ballot, but he can deny Trump and Cruz from getting to the 51% too. So, the convention can still possibly be up for grabs to the candidate who can persuade a delegate to switch their vote after the first ballot to climb up to the 51% mark.

I'm a deeply patriotic Filipino who grew up in the Philippines and I believe America is the greatest country on the planet.

There's always the alternate ending... ;)

Yes, but not all Muslim attacks are Breaking News. In the same manner that not all black crimes in the US are breaking news, nor all police killing of a black person in the US is breaking news.

You completely misunderstood what I said. I said... the BREAKING NEWS COVERAGE selection gives the impression that Muslims are only killing Westerners.

Yes.