birdog1960

rubbish. a leopard doesn't change his spots. only a narcissist would choose the public persona of a narcissist. we're seeing his true, very ugly colors. he has no empathy for anyone. it's been shown abundantly by his actions throughout his life.

not that trump would be the first prez with a mental illness but I think he clearly meets criteria for this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/stop-walking-eggshells/201510/does-donald-trump-have-narcissistic-personality-disorder

yes, it's early but i'm a bit surprised it's this close: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton. I mean I get the pinheads here voting for trump but 40+ percent of the country? that's extremely scary. " idiocracy" is too often cited on this forum but in this case it's entirely appropriate. oh, and notice that the only poll that shows trump ahead is fox yet it's the "main street media" that is biased.

except that npr isn't promoting anything. they're reporting on the potential benefits versus risks to this massive experiment.

i think it was at least in part PED's. but what a thing of sports beauty in his prime. watched him hit driver- 5 or 6 iron to the par 5, 570 yd , 18th hole at torrey pines http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080122/news_1s22buick.html while in his prime. routine tap in birdie. didn't even win the tourney (i think he was top 5) but even on a bad week for him he was amazing. it was almost as if the other players were shocked that they actually beat him and he was just as shocked that he didn't win. he was as dominant in his sport as anyone has ever been. but he's well and truly done.

nice even piece on npr that i heard on the ride home: http://www.npr.org/2015/12/01/458006877/new-york-banks-on-a-solar-factory-to-ignite-buffalo-s-economy. more to come tomorrow. opinions?

yes, the one that says nothing about war or invasion: http://www.cfr.org/international-organizations-and-alliances/un-security-council-resolution-688-iraq/p11206 somebody oughta tell oc this….fortunaely not around much lately. occasional appearances are more than adequate,

but the action of 94 in Iraq was not.

it's not my definition, it's the constitution which just about every pinhead con takes literally just as they do the bible unless it doesn't suit their purpose. you argued that Iraq was a war because Clinton sent troops ( to Kuwait btw). why should the criteria be different for Haiti? oh that's right - cuz u say it is!

it never ceases to amaze me that simpletons on the right like you take documents like the constitution at face value until, well, until it doesn't suit your purpose. the constitution clearly defines war: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/War. I guess that's not as clear as missiles being included in the right of citizens to bear arms, huh? ooh and btw, Clinton sent a similar number of troops to Haiti. did we have a war in Haiti that no one talks about?

by a declaration of war or recognition of such by an international body. this endless parsing and dancing on pinheads as a form of argument is juvenile and tiresome. but that's the point, non?

who deemed it as war (and not war zone...tom said "war") other than you two delusional cons. parsing meanings outside their intended use is a weak, desperate move but yall do it on a nearly daily basis.

not a sign of peace doesn't equal war. here we go with the redefinition of everyday words as part of you cons argument. it's a pretty desperate tactic. I can't find any international body or even a xccoalition leader labeling ths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones as war. of course dc tom is under the terribly false and delusional impression that since he believes it to be so, it is. nothing could be further from the truth.

perhaps a link to an international body making such a statement would help your argument. hell, i'd settle for a prez debate quote or even a primary quote from a candidate making that statement.

um, no. just no. we were not at war with iraq when w took office.

pretty big, stinkin bag of crap: That may not have been the whole story, though. Bush's first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, told his memoirist in 2004 that Bush had planned "on day one" to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (and would use the Sept. 11 attacks nine months later as justification). So maybe presidents really do plan to start wars on their first day.

this is it. i think this is a fair assessment. all these picks are on whaley and it's far from a top notch performance. the bills can do better. and we'll see how many offers whaley gets. he might still be available as a scout.

1st day plans of repug hopefuls: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-gop-100days-comment-71af15a0-9773-11e5-aca6-1ae3be6f06d2-20151130-story.html

im thinkin fdr died before 64...

it does if you read it in context. relatively refers to relative to republicans. I stand by that statement

the real question is "can the bills do better than whaley?". i'll bet the pegula's conclude that they can.

as for the first, you can blame the dixiecrat equivalents to trump and carson for that (i'm sure you remember George Wallace). as for the latter, they found their way back to the light. will the repubs? I think not. hmmm....just had a quick look and someone else noticed the similarities: http://theweek.com/articles/590711/donald-trump-running-most-explicitly-racist-campaign-since-1968

since you lost the point, it was that the repub party has veered greatly from its ideals and core principles while the left has remained relatively consistent.

he's a proven loser. lose him.

yes, their positions are close. much closer than cruz, trump or carson and eisenhower.