Bytor – read much? As I clearly stated, it is Trump’s option not to participate. However, as I also stated, this would be a good opportunity for him to clearly state to his critics the reasons they should trust his values. Exactly which part of that is untrue? My point is that yelling and screaming at people just for disagreeing with you is not an attractive quality. I’ve given Trump the benefit of the doubt and listened to his answers. He’s vague about actual policy and changes his mind all the time. I don’t find him trustworthy. He could yell at all the right people, and go down south to start building the fence himself, but that doesn’t mean he has character and will do the right thing. Would I love to have a candidate that can both stand up for himself and take our country in the right direction? Yes. But Trump has not proven himself to be that person. He’s loud and fun to listen to, but none of his supporters can seem to verbalize which policies of his they trust and support. It usually resorts to name-calling instead of a discussion about actual facts. (You win the prize, by the way, for resorting to personal attacks by the second sentence. It usually takes people at least 3).
[-2] August 28, 2015 at 2:26pm
Okay folks, some of your reactions to this are really hard to comprehend. So Brad Thor decides to challenge Trump to a debate to discuss his qualifications as a conservative. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Thor making this challenge. It’s silly to call him “just an author,” as he’s also a voter with a decent audience for his opinions. If Donald Trump IS conservative, such a debate should be no problem for him. If he has the time and inclination, it would be a great way to silence his critics on the right. Certainly, it is his option not to participate, but the fact that Brad Thor is inviting him to an open debate on the issues shouldn’t be considered an insult. The only reason to get angry is if you DON’T want to see Trump pinned down on his actual views, because the details might take some of the shine off your candidate. Come on, people! The MSM is going to try to rip the GOP candidate to shreds in the general election, no matter who it is. Mother Theresa could be the nominee and they’d accuse her of weakness on social issues. Whoever gets the nomination is going to have to be ready for MUCH harder challenges than a debate with a novelist. If Trump can’t handle that (or, similarly, being asked a hard question or two by a female moderator without crying about it for weeks afterward), then he’s simply not ready for the job. Period.
But you are also implying that if Trump doesn't take this challenge, that some how that disqualifies him as being conservative? ... You're an idiot and a fool!
Oh is that right? If this guy gets an audience with Trump then 2.5M other people at this quasi municipal level should get a shot as well, no? As wonderful as this sounds the only acknowledgement this will receive is the article itself. This simply doesn't reach any level of interest from someone the majority of folks have never heard about which would be Mr. Thor.
Bytor - read much? As I clearly stated, it is Trump's option not to participate. However, as I also stated, this would be a good opportunity for him to clearly state to his critics the reasons they should trust his values. Exactly which part of that is untrue? My point is that yelling and screaming at people just for disagreeing with you is not an attractive quality. I've given Trump the benefit of the doubt and listened to his answers. He's vague about actual policy and changes his mind all the time. I don't find him trustworthy. He could yell at all the right people, and go down south to start building the fence himself, but that doesn't mean he has character and will do the right thing. Would I love to have a candidate that can both stand up for himself and take our country in the right direction? Yes. But Trump has not proven himself to be that person. He's loud and fun to listen to, but none of his supporters can seem to verbalize which policies of his they trust and support. It usually resorts to name-calling instead of a discussion about actual facts. (You win the prize, by the way, for resorting to personal attacks by the second sentence. It usually takes people at least 3).
 August 25, 2015 at 12:01pm
 August 21, 2015 at 4:19pm
Interesting to note that you don’t address the validity of the school’s statement, but rather choose to create an imaginary response to an imaginary sticker. You then quote unrelated Planned Parenthood talking points about the recent videos. If open-mindedness and consistency are your goals, as you seem to imply, then you will also need to acknowledge that every video ever played on the news or television has also been edited. Many news videos were also obtained via undercover sting operations. Neither of those characteristics take away from the truth of what was uncovered. But then, it’s possible you’re really NOT open-minded and consistent. Otherwise you would admit that Mary’s statement in Luke 1, about “how shall this be, seeing as I know not a man?” is a pretty good indicator of what she actually meant.
 August 21, 2015 at 4:12pm
Not quite sure how this got past your eagle eye, but the sticker itself was not promoted as a birth control tool. Rather it was intended to state the school’s policy on the subject and to encourage discussion with parents. Again, none of this its content is shocking or controversial unless you’re a teenage boy trying to get your classmates to have sex with you, so I’m not sure what all the uproar is about.
 August 21, 2015 at 2:34pm
How exactly is stating that abstinence is the best form of birth control “propoganda”? In what way is that statement untrue, or deliberate misinformation for the purpose of achieving a goal (aka propoganda)?
 August 21, 2015 at 2:30pm
On occasion, Itkije, one must use context to read between the lines. I realize that requires a higher level of thinking skills, but I’m sure you can manage it. The woman’s reference is clearly to “religions” that oppose sex outside of marriage, which is historically a conservative position.
 August 18, 2015 at 11:46am
As a woman and a conservative, I truly believe that a woman’s emotions can work to her advantage even in the arena of politics. That said, women have been lied to for so long that it has become a matter of pride to use the term “feminist” and to act on the basis that women are oppressed. This fits right in with the Democrat agenda and allows them to continue to manipulate both women and men into staying in lockstep towards a progressive Utopia. The only way we change this is to get the truth out there, and to raise our daughters (and sons) to understand what male/female equality really means. It’s not about forcing everyone into the workplace, legislating that everyone receive the same salary, or beancounting in college sports programs. Equality is about everyone having the freedom to pursue who they are, and one’s gender is a big part of that. A woman pursuing life as a homemaker IS equal to her husband who works outside the home to support the family. Equality is not “sameness.” For those looking for a tool to educate people about this, I’d recommend the book “The Flipside of Feminism” by Suzanne Venker. Good stuff.
that would be pretty tough for me since i get about 200 checks per year from a crapton of different sources.
not everyone works in a cubicle-job.
Yeah-Guys like East and myself generally accept only cash or certified check for our gigilo activities. I learned all I know from Deuce Bigelow!
the only way!!
Or get whoever issued it to stop payment and reissue a new one. What's the drama? People are such childish crybabies. "I've been persecuted call 911! Call the news! OMG! Something didn't go my way!"
I bank with USAA. We have the convenience of depositing checks electronically. I scan or take a picture using a PC, tablet or smartphone of the front and signed back of the checks. I choose which account, how much the check is for, and I have immediate access to the funds. I then write VOID on the checks and shred after a few days.
There is a $10,000 per day limit, so large checks have to be mailed or deposited at my local credit union (which then requires the standard 10-day hold).
I love being able to bring in the mail after work and still deposit any checks that night at my leisure in the safety and comfort of my home!
Um .. where is the news in this story?
 August 10, 2015 at 7:39pm
Ha! This made my day. Maybe there is hope for civilization after all….
August 10, 2015 at 2:49pm
Exactly! Trump has been useful, but he’s not a good fit for the Presidency.
This country is so upside down there is no good fit for the presidency anymore. Ronald Reagan would be showing his temper if he were here now, believe me.
 August 10, 2015 at 2:48pm
Nice one. :D
August 10, 2015 at 2:48pm
All of a sudden “I’m rubber and you’re glue” is replaying in my head. I guess that’s about the same level as this argument.
 August 10, 2015 at 2:45pm
Did you really just claim that Trump “never gives up on his principles”? The man has changed positions on every major topic multiple times within the past 6 to 10 years. His principles seem to be on a sliding scale depending on what he’s trying to accomplish. His ability to make a lot of money has very little to do with his qualifications for the Presidency.
I think John Paul meant that Donald never gives up on his " principals", you know, from his high schools etc?
 August 10, 2015 at 2:43pm
I was very upset at the questions as well as the tone of the moderators, but that doesn’t justify Trump’s response. As a Presidential candidate (rather than a radio commentator) he needs to be prepared for any type of question…even stupid or unprofessional ones. The MSM post-primary debates will be considerably tougher on the GOP nominee. Trump had the opportunity to respond in a Presidential – or professional – manner, but all he has done is complain that people aren’t treating him with enough respect. True or not, that can only go so far before it’s basically just whining. It’s not an attractive quality.
 August 10, 2015 at 2:40pm
Grammar aside, the main issue with your comment is that you did not reference or refute any actual fallacies or errors contained in Matt’s article. Which of his statements was incorrect?
Because what is going on is “Operation Chaos” and this writer has no idea…..
If it wasn’t for Trump being in the race, then the GOPe would have been spending their time getting rid of conservatives, and then Jeb wins. Before Trump entered the race, the GOPe had all but coronated Jeb. The debate has proven how terrified they are that he’s spoiling their plans.
I’m supporting Trump to run for the nomination, but I am voting for Cruz to win it.
Right now, Trump is the only one willing and able to go toe-to-toe with the GOPe and their megabuck doners and not be intimidated. Yes! I know Trump isn’t conservative, but that’s not the point. He’s a dirty fighter and he is tearing up the GOPe and stealing their lunch. This will make it alot easier for the conservatives like Cruz and Paul to get their messages out.
yes, typos and grammar are indeed the pressing issues of our time. Lets go the other route, please substantiate any of Matt OPINIONS and name calling?
 August 10, 2015 at 2:36pm
Torry – I’m not “attacking.” I’m merely pointing out that the stream-of-consciousness style is a poor choice for communicating a logical argument. It is very difficult to discern the point of Crystalsky’s “paragraph-sentence.”
 August 10, 2015 at 12:28pm
Well said, Matt. Voting with your emotions rather than your brain always results in disaster. This would be the GOP equivalent of electing Barack Obama, except that Trump would work towards the same progressive goals.
 August 10, 2015 at 12:27pm
Who do you see as “not eligible”? Also, if you’re not a supporter then why do you care whether Trump is covered on a GOP survey?
It's a flow of consciousness style, basically a rough gathering of thoughts on a theme...I had not problem grasping and agreeing with the substance. Why not attack the substance instead of the style?
Torry - I'm not "attacking." I'm merely pointing out that the stream-of-consciousness style is a poor choice for communicating a logical argument. It is very difficult to discern the point of Crystalsky's "paragraph-sentence."
Well, that was your issue in pre-supposing you were reading a “logical argument” vs. a “flow of consciousness" style.
Both the communicator AND those receiving the communication are charged with open mindedness — unless, of course, true understanding is not the goal.