To follow the dino, one must know the dino.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLriU...
No, I did not fight stegosauri every day like those idiots told you twice. There were plenty of other critters, and you feel like sleeping all day and ten some after eating just about any of them.

We will disagree on the use of the military, blarman. I don't care to use my time to argue about it. Almost everything done since 1990 by the US militarily has been a disaster, and it has created the wrecked economy, the loss of liberty, the unconstitutional expansion of government, 9-11, the insane national debt, the unbridled power of the executive branch that the Revolution was fought to end. That is the same idiotic foreign policy that McMullin, and Trump, and Hitlery want to follow. With leaders like these wasting their resources the people would be better off to cut military spending by 70%. The USA has attacked and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Hate us for our Freedom? What a Sick Joke! the US military has bombed people into submission because the dictator that the US put in power got greedy with one of his neighbors, then the US did it again ostensibly because he had WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (OOOO, BAD.) Lying sacks of shit in Washington wage war for money, not ethical principles. Give the looters a hammer and every country in the world looks like a nail. Time to take away the hammer.

I too was disappointed in Romney. I could almost believe that the way he caved in the second and third debates after such a brilliant performance in the first one was... intentional. No explanation there at all.

As for Beck, I enjoy the storytelling. I really appreciate how he draws in the context and history of any particular issue. His grasp of history is incredible, but I don't always see eye-to-eye on the politics. And he called Benghazi for what it was on the third day - a collusion by Hillary to cover up arms sales to militant groups.

I can't stand listening to Hannity anymore. He's let his cheerleading for Trump outweigh all other considerations. I used to listen to Rush as well, but he doesn't seem to be as relevant any more. Savage was always interesting, but his extreme-of-extreme views and rhetoric turned me off - as did our local station's decisions to stop carrying him. Alex Jones has the occasional gem, but you really have to search through the conspiracy theory stuff and it's generally not worth my time.

Um, that's quite the conspiracy theory, don't you think? This isn't the Vatican we're talking about with political ties affecting billions of people and a history of 1500+ years of controlling nations. But hey, maybe you can be the next Dan Brown! ;)

I agree. We don't have a lot of history or policy discussion with which to view McMullin. And he hasn't thrust himself into the political ring like Trump in the past. I, too, would like to see a more seasoned individual. But, then again, I'd also like to see a return to the true Electoral College and a lot of other strictly Constitutional matters. ;)

He has repeatedly worked in positions in government that act to reduce liberty, increase the state, and loot from others. Anyone with a brain knows what the CIA does. Anyone who was an adult in 2006-2008 knows what Goldman Saches does. McMullin CHOSE voluntarily to work for the enemy. I don't have to be there in person to understand that. I can't help that you cannot see it. I'm not asking for your blessing, blarman. As I said before you can have whatever opinion you wish.

That's what happens with a D beside your name.

I think we have found agreement. You are right in your comments. Why people could actually want Hillary in a position of power is crazy. the only ones "stronger together" with her are her big money donors !

"the mormon leadership is pretty open about affecting local government to BAN what they call sex clubs"

So you and they have a policy disagreement about a societal issue. That's precisely the role of government. You can argue and say that your belief is in opposition to theirs and that's going to be true. But every single policy decision of government IS a moral decision. And if we truly say that our government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" to try to restrict any given group from attempting to participate in the legislative process through legal means (assuming of course all the means were legal) is to violate our own First Amendment. They aren't doing anything any differently from the Sierra Club (minus the eco-terrorism thing), the NRA, or hundreds of others groups expressing their own self-interest. What you really have a disagreement with is their morality principles. I get that. I just want to make sure you understand where your own objections are coming from as well. But what everyone should recognize is that republican government is never going to be anything but a contest of ideals. It's never going to be 100% agreement. What is key is in how we deal with those differences of opinion.

"I say thats wrong"

Wrong because it differs from your values or wrong from a moral perspective? They are two completely different lines of reasoning.

"For a long time they hated blacks and wouldnt allow them to even be in the church"

If you'd like to know the whole story, I can give it to you, but since it's a little off-topic I'll suggest a private thread. Short version: it was never about hate and membership was never forbidden.

"I am sorry I offend your sensibilities, these are my thoughts on the subject and I should be allowed to express them."

There is a hilarious quote I like to rely on: "He who takes offense when none is intended is a fool. And he who takes offense when it is intended an even greater fool." I don't take offense from someone honestly giving their opinion. In this case: you. And yes, you have every right to express your opinions. My larger concern was that you seemed very eager to want to restrict one group's First Amendment and fundamental right to expression simply because you disagreed with them, and moreover that you had never engaged a member of that group to understand their point of view. If you turn the entire situation around, the imposition into their communities (who started Las Vegas?) of these sex clubs is an affront to their beliefs. Someone has to give. So they can either ignore their teachings entirely or they can vote based on what they believe in. I have to admire them for their conviction - even if it isn't popular.

Ignorance breeds mistrust, but in many cases it also simply leads to erroneous conclusions. In your case: the irrational (and if that offends you I apologize) fear of a religionist like a Mormon attempting to "convert" through force some part of this nation. In my opinion, that would be an impeachable offense, and one I think both Democrats AND Republicans could agree on. I would hold the same opinion of a Sikh, Muslim, Jew, or Wiccan, but I'd really only be worried about the Muslim since their religion espouses coercive conversion as a legitimate policy position. If world history tells us anything, however, I'd be even more worried about a communist gaining the Presidency. Communists have killed more than 100 million of their own citizens in the past 100 years or so - and the first two things they did was to forbid religion and outlaw guns.

"Actually I can understand..."

The history is certainly there, but I think there is a simpler answer: that they are encouraged to be politically active. Not to take a particular side or party, but to vote their beliefs. I really think that is what is happening in Utah and why McMullin is playing well there. Mormons are big family people. They look at Donald Trump and they see another Bill Clinton. Then they look at Hillary Clinton and see something arguably worse. To them, nearly ANY third party is going to be attractive!

There are Conscious Humans that can and have resisted drinking the local cool aide.

I doubt it...they aren't "Americans". Sneaky little rug rats...peeping while your sleeping...perverts!

I will do that but it won't count...but I knew that too, It's a protest vote at best.

Hey...are you getting the daily gulch email with all the chosen post for the day...I haven't got on since saturday.

Good points, and true.

Write in?

I am not impressed with either Romney or Beck, Beck is all over the place, and Romney did not campaign in a way that seemed to indicate he wanted the job. My humble opinion, of course. I cannot say that pedigree sways me. I do wish he had been there earlier though.

Working in the "secret" part of government exposes you to a lot of things they would rather keep secret. As with the Beast, signing a form saying you understand the penalties for mishandling and revealing classified information, does not always equate to doing it. There is nothing to stop a person of that faith from working inside for a few years and taking their info back to their church, for future use as needed. There is nothing saying it happens, but it would be an excellent way to gather information. Maybe there is a reason they flock to the secret side? The Beast proved you can say "I'm stupid" and people agree with you, then elect you Prersident, so, no penalties...

He jumped in right after Cruz conceded to Trump at the behest of the #NeverTrump-ers. There were many who saw the coming train wreck of Donald Trump and were looking for another candidate. Yes, it was definitely last minute and had almost no hope of being a major factor.

Saw him in 2 hr's of interviews on the Blaze...he'd be my pick if he was on the ballot in Conn...as of now, he is not.

He jumped in when (among many others) Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney decided they couldn't endorse Trump or Johnson. Mormon connection? Probably. Romney is very influential in the fundraising sphere of politics among Republicans.

Ok, I'm in...Your Saurianship?

That is the problem with a short fuse candidate, it becomes unclear whether he is really as he says, or not. His experience is questionable, in that none of it would seem to generate a "less government is better" approach. Don't get me wrong, I really, really like what is on the outside, the question is: what is on the inside? That is what we run into over and over again. People will still say Billy boy was a wonderful president, yet he did nothing substantial, he had 8 years of gridlock.

Sorry, I didn't get enough of the context to follow your comment. Care to expound?

And THOSE are arguments I can agree with you on. These are arguments based on substance - not hyperbole or opinion. I told you I didn't agree with his positions, but your attacks were something else entirely, which was why I called you out on them. Thank you for spending the time to voice cogent objections to policy positions.

Regarding the size of the military, I can cite several rational reasons to argue for such a position such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc., so that one is a matter of debate, especially given the age of our military and the sheer size of territory we have to defend. I think there are arguments to be made there on both sides and both deserve our consideration.

Regarding meddling in the affairs of other nations, I will probably agree with you. There are various forms of "meddling" - everything from espionage to economic, however, so any real debate would have to be very specific. I'm not generally inclined to political or military meddling in other nations, but I'm all about sanctions and economic policy as a tool for foreign diplomacy.

Regarding empire building, that too is a mixed bag. I think it's okay to help build up a potential ally, but the biggest problem is that you have to start with a culture espousing similar values. In my opinion, the Middle Eastern nations simply don't qualify there, which is why our efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. have been such miserable failures. But at the same time, I don't believe the "chickens coming home to roost" nonsense. I have a friend who was a Colonel who served in Afghanistan who did a special informative session with pictures to explain the situation over there - why it was a mixed bag. But I don't blame the US. I believe that every individual makes their own choices in life: choices that include who to make their enemies. Those who want to attack us have been doing so since the inception of the US. To try to blame that on political decisions made in the past twenty years is just looking for a scapegoat and misplacing blame the same way Obama tries to blame Bush for all his problems. The issues with those people run much deeper into ideology than simply response to certain actions. Those are excuses to hide the real intent and emotion.

I am inclined to agree Freedom, I am believing there will be an impeachment before a year is up. I also believe it will fail after they make a deal. The whole timing of the mess says "rigged" which is what Trump tries to say, but he is so convoluted it gets lost.

President Dino Allosaur,
Has a nice ring to it. Khalling as VP. Get Herb7734 as Advisor to the pres. OUC as Secretary of State , Nickursis as secretary of the Navy, Mr.Robert Gore as SCOTUS, Blarman press secretary. Put MichaelArrethum on border and vetting of immigrants. Sounds like a pretty nice gulch.