Posted on 02/16/2016 12:29:37 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
There are very, very few people whose endorsement of a candidate matters to me, and among them Thomas Sowell may be at the top of the list. Thus, when he speaks his mind, I listen carefully.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
LOL....#13 just proved my point entirely, nuff said.
I knew it - suppose you gotta do the /s thing for some.
There weren't many good options at the time.
______________________________
Fred Dicker: What is it going to mean for Donald Trump to have Bill de Blasio as [New York City] Mayor? "
Donald Trump: "He's a smart guy that knows what's going on really big league and I think he is not going to want to destroy New York."
(Voice Over: That was Donald Trump a little over two years ago, endorsing [Marxist] Bill de Blasio for New York Mayor)
Donald Trump: "I think pretty strongly that he'll end up being a good mayor, maybe a very good mayor."
(Voice Over: De Blasio ran on class warfare, sanctuary cities and ending stop and frisk. De Blasio's sided with looters and cop killers against the police, with teachers unions against schoolchildren and with PC liberals to let the homeless run wild on city streets)
Donald Trump: "I think he is going to want to make New York great. ..."
http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/19/trump-endorsed-bill-de-blasio/
________________________________________
"In continuing his "New York values" line of attack, Ted Cruz brought up an interview Donald Trump gave years ago in which he himself emphasized his New York background as being important to his political philosophy.
And now we have that interview.
Cruz's campaign posted the video earlier today of Trump with Tim Russert on Meet the Press in 1999.
Russert asked Trump about gay marriage. Trump didn't want to comment on it, but said he has no problem with gays in the military.
He explained, "I've lived in New York City and Manhattan all my life, okay? So my views are a little bit different than if I lived in Iowa."
When Russert asked Trump about abortion, he said he's "pro-choice in every respect" and again cited his New York background, which he said has a "different attitude" from most of the country
http://www.mediaite.com/online/heres-the-1999-donald-trump-new-york-values-interview-cruz-has-been-talking-about/
________________________________________
"the way Trump described his "evolution" from the pro-choice to pro-life position raises some interesting questions.
He said: "Friends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted. And it wasn't aborted. And that child today is a total superstar, a great, great child. And I saw that. And I saw other instances."
Now, I'm one who cheers whenever someone publicly switches from supporting abortion rights to supporting human rights for all - including the unborn. I am glad to see people like Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion, or Bernard Nathanson, founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, become pro-life activists.
But I find it difficult to cheer Trump's conversion, because the reason he gives for being pro-life doesn't correspond to the pro-life ethic.
Trump says he is pro-life because of a "superstar" child who could have been aborted.
Consider how he responded to a reporter who wondered if he would have become pro-life had the child been a "loser":
"Probably not, but I've never thought of it. I would say no, but in this case it was an easy one because he's such an outstanding person."
To summarize Trump's view: "I'm pro-life because we shouldn't abort fetuses that may grow up to be outstanding people."
But opponents of abortion take a different position: "I'm pro-life because we shouldn't kill innocent human beings, no matter who they might grow up to be."
Trump's reason for being pro-life depends on the potential outcome of the child in the womb, rather than the fact that there is a child in the womb. But the pro-life ethic is grounded in the inherent worth of all humanity. It is wrong to commit violence against innocent human beings. Full stop.
And that's where, ironically, Trump's position sounds similar to the pro-choice idea that the human fetus is "potential life" or that the value of the unborn depends on whether or not the child is "wanted."
Extending Trump's logic leads to more problems. If we adopt the position of abortion opponents merely because of what a child may grow up to be (a "superstar!"), then why should we care if 67 percent of Down syndrome children are aborted after a prenatal diagnosis? What would Trump say if he were told there's a better chance an "unwanted" child from an impoverished or minority neighborhood would grow up to be involved in crime? ..."
http://www.religionnews.com/2016/01/26/problem-trumps-change-heart-abortion-commentary/
________________________________________
"50 years is enough , " Trump said in an interview with the Daily Caller published Tuesday, referring to Obama's decision to re-establish U.S. ties with Cuba.
"I think it's fine. I think it's fine, but we should have made a better deal," Trump added. " The concept of opening with Cuba is fine."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/donald-trump-cuba-diplomatic-opening/index.html
________________________________________
Trump: Vladimir Putin's praise is 'a great honor'...It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond ,"
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
________________________________________
"I think that I would probably get along with him [Putin] very well."
--Donald Trump, CBS' Face The Nation, Oct 2015
________________________________________
Joe Scarborough: Again, he [Putin] kills journalists that don't agree with him
Trump: Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe, so, you know. There's a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. Lot of killing going on, a lot of stupidity, and that's the way it is.
*******************************************************************
Here's Trump giving his support to the traitor-in-chief on his worldwide apology tour...
TRUMP [on the Larry King Show (April 15, 2009), referring to the then newly elected communist president (Obama)]: "Well, I really like him. I think that he's working very hard. He's trying to rebuild our reputation throughout the world. I mean, we really have lost a lot of reputation in the world. The previous administration [GW Bush] was a total disaster, a total catastrophe."
CNN LARRY KING LIVE Interview with Donald Trump
April 15, 2009
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0904/15/lkl.01.html
_________________________________________________________
The President's Apology Tour
Great leaders aren't defined by consensus.
By Karl Rove
April 23, 2009
President Barack Obama has finished the second leg of his international confession tour. In less than 100 days, he has apologized on three continents for what he views as the sins of America and his predecessors. ..."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124044156269345357
_________________________________________________________
"Well, I really like him. I think that he's working very hard. He's trying to rebuild our reputation throughout the world."--Trump, April 15, 2009
_________________________________________________________
From the New York Times
Feb 14, 2016
Transcript of the Republican Presidential Debate
TRUMP: You do whatever you want. You call it whatever you want. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
______________________________________________
The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.
The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States' acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein's Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
Note that despite the firestorm of slander the Bush administration endured over its "lies" on WMD, the president never acted to declassify the information on the CIA buyback program, and as a result today it is an article of faith on the left that he lied us into war.
At the time of the invasion of Iraq, there was no way to know that:
These munitions were remnants of an Iraqi special weapons program that was abandoned long before the 2003 invasion,
But:
they turned up sporadically during the American occupation in buried caches, as part of improvised bombs or on black markets.
American Thinker reported on the WMD evidence found in Iraq 11 years ago.
The CIA's program appears to have put at risk soldiers who were not warned of the risks they faced in handling these potent weapons:
Not long after Operation Avarice had secured its 400th rocket, in 2006, American troops were exposed several times to other chemical weapons. Many of these veterans said that they had not been warned by their units about the risks posed by the chemical weapons and that their medical care and follow-up were substandard, in part because military doctors seemed unaware that chemical munitions remained in Iraq.
In some cases, victims of exposure said, officers forbade them to discuss what had occurred. The Pentagon now says hundreds of other veterans reported on health-screening forms that they believed they too had been exposed during the war.
Aaron Stein, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said the belated acknowledgment of a chemical-rocket purchases, as well as the potentially worrisome laboratory analysis of the related sarin samples, raised questions about the military's commitment to the well-being of those it sent to war.
We have been fed a line of bull over Saddam and WMDs.
President Bush "lied" about Iraq's WMDs - thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated by the likes of Ron Fournier and Jon Stewart as a kind of progressive catechism. Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.
C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt write:
The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.
The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States' acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein's Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
Note that despite the firestorm of slander the Bush administration endured over its "lies" on WMD, the president never acted to declassify the information on the CIA buyback program, and as a result today it is an article of faith on the left that he lied us into war.
At the time of the invasion of Iraq, there was no way to know that:
These munitions were remnants of an Iraqi special weapons program that was abandoned long before the 2003 invasion,
But:
they turned up sporadically during the American occupation in buried caches, as part of improvised bombs or on black markets.
American Thinker reported on the WMD evidence found in Iraq 11 years ago.
The CIA's program appears to have put at risk soldiers who were not warned of the risks they faced in handling these potent weapons:
Not long after Operation Avarice had secured its 400th rocket, in 2006, American troops were exposed several times to other chemical weapons. Many of these veterans said that they had not been warned by their units about the risks posed by the chemical weapons and that their medical care and follow-up were substandard, in part because military doctors seemed unaware that chemical munitions remained in Iraq.
In some cases, victims of exposure said, officers forbade them to discuss what had occurred. The Pentagon now says hundreds of other veterans reported on health-screening forms that they believed they too had been exposed during the war.
Aaron Stein, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said the belated acknowledgment of a chemical-rocket purchases, as well as the potentially worrisome laboratory analysis of the related sarin samples, raised questions about the military's commitment to the well-being of those it sent to war.
We have been fed a line of bull over Saddam and WMDs.
Agreed, and that was kind of the point of my post.
” that uncle tom, he should just stay on the farm” /Sarcasm/
Considering the times, and the half-way decent history of McCain beforehand (military veteran, POW, etc.) we didn't have much of a choice. I backed him, too. Wouldn't do it again, though.
Dr. Sowell is much more than a great thinker, he is a fantastic communicator. Such simple, elegant language is understandable, or should be, even to Obamabots, if they would but listen.
Yeah, I supported Palin as VP, and that old guy for the other role.
Sorry, but it was far from obvious. On this site these days with all of the absolute craziness being said, it's hard not to take any off-the-wall comment seriously.
Palin was icing on the cake, but I did zero in for the guy for the top post.
With deference to ETL, with some of the crazy sh!t that spewed around here lately, it is sometimes difficult to tell.
Just offering a little back up FRiend ;)
See post #32
Are you serious? I can't tell you how many times I've read in these past few months some totally crazy crap and said to myself, no way, they have-to be joking. Then it turns out they were dead serious. The site has been overrun by lunatics and imbeciles of late.
bttt
I did. Thanks. And again, sorry.
Looking back at your post now I realize the subtle/sarc humor in it. But then, there surely would be a lot of folks here who thought it to be serious. Many here, as we see 24/7 nowadays, would agree 100% with it and similar remarks. We have all kinds of kooks on the site these days.
I think his comment was intended to be sardonic.
Yes indeed with genius and crystalline logic Sowell proved how wonderful zero trade barriers would be for America.
Like all nitwit economists they sound like Einstein.
Problem is, lots of people took his advice.
Now we are ruined financially as a nation, as a result of his idiotic theories, just as the last generation was ruined by the buttholish Keynesian hogwash that everybody bought into.
To clarify, we may thank Keynes for our astronomical and hopeless debt to China and other hostile nations.
But we must thank Sowell for the fact that there are no manufacturing jobs in the US now, and no hope of any coming back anytime soon.
The only thing missing is a Nobel Prize for Sowell. That would be fitting, just as Obama and Algore got theirs for their genius at improving our world.
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/words-language/difference-between-sarcastic-and-sardonic/
Either way, he wasn’t being serious.
I probably should have recalled his name and known what his positions were, though others I’m sure would have taken it as serious with all that’s been going on around here lately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.