SarasotaSabre

I agree with the bolded as the 2 current part candidates expose the worst of our 2 party oligarchy. There has never been a greater need for a viable 3rd party construct but big money, big lobbyists, the media, and nefarious interests on both the D & R sides continue to prevent this. What I have just stated is a central plank to my position paper I will be working on to deliver to SS with the goal of explaining the "real" BuffaninATL ... Remember, we are one party away from a dictatorship ..... just sayin' Make BUFFALO great again !!

extremely partisan photo removed from profile..... :w00t: :w00t:

zing pow boom

this is a good post and actually pretty damn funny

OK fair enough - but I would opine "talking points" and "groupthink" are two terms overused here to describe opposing POV, and I have admitted to using the latter somewhat carelessly

I would argue that goes both ways, or this is a one-sided forum with yes men.

I think for myself due to the classic liberal arts education I was fortunate to receive, which taught me how to think critically, argue rationally, and analyze from all angles. In my estimation that's what makes me a free thinker, but if you feel compelled to disagree that I'm not, then so be it. I get my own opinions & conclusions drawn from the world around me, from multiple sources and from being an informed world citizen, so if you think I spout Fox most of the time, I'm sorry, you're dead wrong.

I have contributed (or tried to) this Board for several years, and b/c I don't opine with the majority, that makes me a troll some of the time? Yes I agree the rhetoric was charged, but I wasn't the one hurling personal insults & invectives. If your mission is to sway others, by all means go for it. I don't expect to convert anyone, but I do expect to engage in thoughtful dialogue. If I led with a spurious comment about why Clinton left out the year 1998, then that mistake is on me and I'll own up to it. FWIW, I should note that although Rachel Maddow gave Bill an A+, she was offended by part of his speech.

Thank you SwampD, I will take some consolation in your compliment. And I agree with the bolded. "Groupthink" is a word tossed around loosely & sometimes carelessly, by myself included. I respect where you are coming from; and in order for me to be fair, I should state in a separate post where my beliefs and values emanate from. I believe that might help others here understand another position not emanating merely from "spewing Fox News talking points", as I have been accused of doing. RE: the bolded, which political positions like the ones I have written down, if I may ask, are downright dangerous? As I stated above, maybe I need to do a better job of articulating my positions and beliefs/

Thanks Whiskey - at the end of the day that's what drives me batty here sometimes; I see things differently from the majority here, and so much could be gained (on both sides) by understanding where the other person is coming from.....then before I know it, I'm up to my eyeballs in a keyboard shouting match - complete with invectives, insults, and putdowns. Nothing gained from that M.O. You're right, you may not ever change my mind, but at least we should all learn from others' viewpoints and experiences. I'll end this idiocy right here and now by not acknowledging, or giving any credence to, your last attempted retort. And you can call all the bullschitt you want.

I would agree. Biden has cred in my book.

I'll take BagBoy's kind advice and not fall for the obvious bait cast by your attempted insults. It's the condescension of your ilk that degrades the quality of content here and pushed people away. Just read what you wrote above, look yourself in the mirror, have a Stuart Smalley moment, and ask yourself: is what I wrote to ATL of any higher caliber than a 3rd grader trying to make fun of someone else? And, no - I don't need to look up synonyms. I'm comfortable with my vocabulary aptitude. Thanks for checking though. I do respect where you're coming from and do identify that as an area of self-improvement....thank you

OK, we'll see how that might play out. I'm fairly confident the pay for play, quid pro quo deals, the malfeasance of the CGI, conflicts of interest, etc., ad nauseum are all unique to the Clinton Brand. And something tells me Trump won't need to steal everything from the White House on the way out - dude, really - did you see K-9's comments back to me, or just bother to read mine? I did not sense a scent of humor or sarcasm - at all. So stand down.... if that's your spin, have at it - good times indeed

very substantial. Have a great evening. red herring alert. Trump's not the one who was impeached.

To the unkind sir: your comments are uncouth, out of line, offensive, uncivil, unmannerly, abhorrent, rude, discourteous, opprobrious, insolent, & odious.... and that's just for starters. I'm not a free thinker b/c I don't agree with your groupthink psychobabble? No wonder many here have refrained from wading back into this cesspool. Nice work K-9

I can't disagree with the points you make; this is a civil exchange unlike those would say "me & the GOP", as if I was a surrogate. It's a freaking uber-fan hockey board we're on here ....

entrapping a President after he looked in the center of the camera and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"? What's a load of garbage is your blatantly partisan revisionist history. Billy was impeached, get over it. And I'm not "dictating to anyone what is 'sanctified' in another person's marriage" = private family matter my arse. There is nothing sanctimonious about the Clintons' marriage - certainly nothing worth passing judgment on, even if I wanted to.The Clinton "marriage" is one borne out of pure lust for power and political expediency, that's it. Sorry to burst your bubble. And I'm a free-thinking man who does not speak for the GOP.....FYI

that's certainly one interpretation (albeit slightly flawed) of a"private family affair" which led to impeachment - no small feat. Sorry, the sanctity of the "private family affair" was broken when BillyBoy's DNA was found on that infamous blue garment.

was it a tinfoil cray-cray hat ?? not the loose & fast analogy I was thinking of but I can try to indulge you ...FWIW, I was/am not trying to be optimistic about his candidacy, just pragmatic. I understand a large part of DT is the car crash you try to look away from.

I do agree with everything above N'eo; I am not a big fan of Trump for several reasons which have been propagated throughout this topic. I would say the only real chance Trump can win and/or retain any credibility is if he a) surrounds himself with A+ talent and readily admits this gig is not in his pedigree; b) stops behaving like a pre-teen on Twitter; c) changes the narrative by getting his schit together and acting/speaking more Presidential (...I know, that's a big ask....); d) enlist those A+ players/policy experts to outline specifics of what he aspires to get done. I have a cray-cray idea: Trump is so bat-schit nutso that he actually knows way more than he is letting on or is divulging, and this whole run-up is a charade leading up to the Sept-Nov stretch run. It falls in line with his explanation for being totally non-specific b/c he doesn't want to telegraph everything he intends to do, which is polar opposite of Obama. But then again, I may be wrong..... which I certainly have been before

agreed, he did give a good speech - but he conveniently forgot one year in his recitation of the Clinton marriage and family legacy: 1998 http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/bill-clintons-big-omission-from-his-speech-at-the-democratic-national-convention/news-story/bfbfc59ba19f4b4982faf5b86933e927

Joe, I am sincerely sorry about your job loss in 2008 and can totally appreciate the correlation between manufacturing losses relative to IT operation/app support. I con understand the points you make about your feelings on how Obama took steps to address, although fundamentally I am against any bailouts due to their capricious nature - who get bailed out & who does not. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the DNC email wikileak flap.

Thank you Joe, I appreciate it. Will all due respect, I would argue that President Obama has zero impact on the continued growth of the IT/tech space, which continues to ascend organically, esp. relative to the cloud/security space I am in. This ascension is due to pervasive, continued innovation, R & D, and acquisition activity which is completely independent of any fiscal policy, government stimulus, or specific job creation programs. As per the HRC/DNC per the bolded, are you OK with suggesting the info in the following links are merely "brainstorming ideas"? They seem far more malignant than that....and could have easily been fed through the DNC surrogates to influence messaging, ergo voting. It's a domino effect, or House of Cards if you like which fell on DWS http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/damaging-emails-dnc-wikileaks-dump/story?id=40852448 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails-fundraising.html?_r=0 You know the saying....if it looks like a rotten fish and smells like a rotten fish, it is a rotten fish

Thank you Mr. Egg - I appreciate that; I do get to stay in ATL so the Mrs. is happy as we are starting our 5 y/o girl in Kindergarten here. I am thrilled to be coming up to Buffalo this weekend for my sister's wedding !!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/julian-assange-slams-hillary-clinton-first-interview-following-wikileaks-dnc-email-release-video/ Assange told Democracy Now that it’s quite remarkable what happened in the last few days. He slammed ‘corrupt’ Hillary Clinton: JULIAN ASSANGE: JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, I mean, that’s interesting. We have seen that with a lot of other publications. I guess there’s a question: What does that mean for the U.S. Democratic Party? It is important for there to be examples of accountability. The resignation was an example of that. Now, of course, Hillary Clinton has tried to immediately produce a counter-example by putting out a statement, within hours, saying that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a great friend, and she’s incorporating her into her campaign, she’s going to be pushing for her re-election to the Congress. So that’s a very interesting signaling by Hillary Clinton that if you act in a corrupt way that benefits Hillary Clinton, you will be taken care of. Why does she need to put that out? Certainly, it’s not a signal that helps with the public at all. It’s not a signal that helps with unity at the DNC, at the convention. It’s a signal to Hillary Clinton partisans to keep on going on, you’ll be taken care of. But it’s a very destructive signal for a future presidency, because it’s—effectively, it’s expanding the Overton window of corruption. It doesn’t really matter what you do, how you behave; as long as that is going to benefit Hillary Clinton, you’ll be protected. http://americanlookout.com/democratic-party-chair-resigns-over-email-scandal-then-gets-hired-by-hillary-campaign/ If I was DWS I'd look like crap in that photo too -