User Profile: toadicusrex


Member Since: February 01, 2011


  • [1] October 17, 2016 at 4:56pm

    This is why we can’t have nice things.
    Putin is not a friend. He seeks to undermine the US politically, monetarily and militarily. This is why it is next to impossible to argue with someone who refuses to see evil for what it is.
    If you don’t know why the internet should not be given over to “the world”, you’re part of the problem.
    If you don’t know why morals matter in a leader, you’re part of the problem.
    If you don’t think knowing where your candidate stands on principles, you’re part of the problem.
    If you just want your candidate to get in the other party’s face and say soundbites, you’re part of the problem.
    If you get a thrill when your candidate promises things that aren’t realistic, you’re part of the problem.
    If you don’t know why having the federal government into the school system is evil, you’re part of the problem.
    When the majority of our country chooses evil, whether it’s “this” evil or “that” evil, we’re still ripe for destruction. I will vote my conscience; I will vote for the best candidate. It’s a principle, and going against that because you scream the binary argument in my face won’t change my mind; it is PRINCIPLE. I will NOT choose evil just because you say that if I don’t, we’ll get the “other” evil.
    I’ll keep praying for the country, though.

  • September 27, 2016 at 4:57am

    @PrincessKitty Sean Hannity was not forced to endorse Trump. I’m not sure where you got that bit of hearsay, but it’s not true.

    Now, if Hannity was being honest, he would have immediately admitted he was doing a “hard” endorsement of Trump early on. Instead, he pretended impartiality with a “soft” endorsement (i.e. he didn’t admit his predilection, but attempted to maintain his “air of neutrality”) and had other candidates on his show that he proceeded to treat very unfairly.

    I’m sorry, I don’t think you characterize my disgust with Hannity correctly. And I don’t think giving his endorsement so late in the process, especially since he decided to hold onto his neutrality credentials when he so clearly wasn’t, suggests he has balls. I think he is a ***** though.

  • September 27, 2016 at 4:51am

    For you trumpeters that responded; please read what I’m saying. I don’t think you understand.

    Equal airtime is not the same as equal treatment. Consider Sean’s treatment of Cruz over Colorado, where Trump didn’t even try to compete. Sean, who knows what Colorado is like and could have easily done a little research to educate himself (which, I might add, I believe he did; however he had an image of Cruz he desired to portray and nothing was going to dissuade him from that goal. But that’s my opinion) instead chose to act exasperated and irritated that Cruz didn’t answer in the way he wanted and wouldn’t take his baited questions. Political theatre at it’s worst, imho.

    Even if my opinion is completely wrong, and Hannity was simply ignorant and heartfelt in his understanding of Colorado and their primary system, it leaves Hannity again looking like a tool; he didn’t understand and yet chose to lambast someone over it. It speaks of a lack of professionalism at its best.

    Say what you like, these are my opinions; but if, like many in the media, you claim to be impartial and that you are just delivering facts, as Sean had claimed for a long time, you ought to actually give more than lip service to being impartial. Sean’s bias was obvious (unless you’re a trumpeter, I guess).

    I can’t support Trump. He is a vile man whose god is money. And the Gospel of Money has no problem with pretending to be something you aren’t to get what you want.

    I’ll keep praying for America.

  • [14] September 20, 2016 at 10:21pm

    It’s not about beating Hillary, Rooster. It’s about doing what’s right. And electing Trump wasn’t a win. I can’t in good conscience vote for a guy that I know fundamentally disagrees with so many things I stand for on principle. Sad that I don’t have someone in the race.

    Talk about having no choices.

  • [13] September 20, 2016 at 10:17pm

    Why did he need to come on Hannity’s program when Hannity was already shilling for him? That’s called wasted money, rooster.

  • [92] September 20, 2016 at 10:15pm

    That isn’t the problem. During the primaries Hannity said he wasn’t endorsing any candidate; yet he did. I can’t listen to him anymore. What he did to Ted Cruz was despicable, in my opinion.

    Responses (11) +
  • [4] August 30, 2016 at 4:53pm

    Thank you for illustrating my point brilliantly, Shagstar.

  • [6] August 30, 2016 at 4:44pm

    I listened as he excoriated Cruz. He had no reason to do so; he blamed Cruz and nobody was going to convince him otherwise. This was over the Colorado polls, where Trump didn’t even bother to show up. He demanded that Cruz explain how Colorado polls worked, despite the fact that it was kind of his job to know how that worked. I was utterly repulsed. I quit listening to him that day and haven’t since.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] August 30, 2016 at 4:19pm

    This is infuriating. Your memory is that bad? Really?

    Shagstar, we had Cruz. We had a good candidate – of course, that’s a matter of opinion. Trumpeters voted for Trump and nothing would have dissuaded them from that – and now you call Cruz supporters “crybabies”, and claim there wasn’t an alternative. What would have been a good alternative, then? The fact is that Trumpeters and people of that ilk just wanted the soundbite, not substance. They got their soundbite master, the guy that says “what’s on his mind” and … now wait a minute… he changes his mind and trumpeters are not angry? What’s this? I guess it really didn’t matter what he said, so long as he looked popular when he said it. You liked the badmouthing, the labels, the childish behavior on-stage… that’s what you wanted. You got it.

    So keep waiting for an alternative, Shagstar. Nobody will ever meet your criteria, because the only criteria you apparently have is that the person behave like Trump, which would defeat the purpose of the “alternative”.

    You don’t understand principles. You didn’t vote on them. You just wanted someone angry at the system, willing to “change” it. Frankly so did the French, right after the U.S. procured their independence. But their independence didn’t result in two hundred years of prosperity and growth; their independence resulted in fear, beheading, and abject poverty. They merely changed one master for another.

  • [2] August 19, 2016 at 10:42pm

    Alright, venrooy. If you carefully re-read my post, you’ll find that I address this. But to reiterate, the only reason that a third party system isn’t viable is because the masses believe it is so; so rather than vote by principle and conscience they (we) frequently choose “the lesser of two evils”. As a result, we always get evil.

    I’m sorry, but I can’t in good conscience just go along with that; it has never worked and as you astutely pointed out, we do need to study history.
    My purpose for my vote is to support the person I believe is the best for the job; there is no other purpose. I don’t care what you read into it. That is why we vote.

    You are playing the political game that Falcon4 mentioned being played by career politicians if you are doing anything else. What do republicans in congress try to do? Compromise their values just enough to get their bills passed. And what are you doing? Compromising your values just enough to get “your guy” elected. But we’re angry at them; but we ought to look more in the mirror.

    I’m sorry – I won’t play the political game with you. I will vote my conscience, let the cards fall where they may.

  • [1] August 19, 2016 at 9:48am

    Subject-pronoun agreement here…. I’m really not sure what you’re saying. Are you saying that Glenn Beck is saying nothing new here? Let me rephrase -

    Every single thing that Glenn has complained about Trump is exactly what Beck has already done or said or complained about?

    Well, that doesn’t make sense… why would that matter if Beck had said it before? Ok, another go:

    Every single thing that Glenn has complained about Trump is exactly what Trump has already done or said or complained about.

    So you’re trying to say Trump and Glenn basically agree on everything? Then why are we discussing the opposite? Are you saying you can’t understand why Glenn doesn’t support Trump?

    Sorry, I’m really trying to process what you’re saying but it’s too vague for me.

  • [8] August 19, 2016 at 9:41am

    Wow, guys. So…. I mention that I agree with Glenn Beck in the first paragraph of my reply to Monk. I then lay out the case against Mr. Trump and the false choice fallacy of the two-parties-only argument. So you bring up comments Glenn Beck said about Romney or Trump winning? Or that Beck wants Hillary to win (that one takes that cake… that’s ridiculous in the extreme… but it’s based on the two-parties-only argument which, by the way, I refuted in my reply….). Fact is that I didn’t say anything about Beck’s prognostication. They’re my feelings on the subject. Good heavens, you must think I’m just in lock-step with Beck.

    I don’t know if that’s a hard concept, but it doesn’t seem so to me. I don’t care what Beck said while extrapolating out evidences that to him pointed to one thing or the other. I also don’t care about what Beck said in support of the two-parties-only argument. That is my own dilemma at the moment, and I resent the insinuation that, again, I am merely Beck’s mindless follower.

    And Wigone… with all due respect, even putting “FACTS” in all uppercase doesn’t make that particular hypothesis a “fact”. Read what you wrote. Unless it’s already happened, it’s a hypothesis. And I reject the premise that electing Trump is “slowing the decay”. We don’t know that. As I pointed out in my comment, we have no idea what Trump will do because he’s either a crazy or he’s just getting the attention he wants – without meaning what he says.

  • [43] August 19, 2016 at 5:16am

    I hope that you’re right, monk. But I am on Glenn’s side here. I think Trump is extremely dangerous, perhaps as dangerous as Hillary. He is not a constitutionalist by any stretch of the imagination.

    I am left in a quandary. I think it’s a false choice to say that I have to either vote for Trump or Hillary; proclaiming that false choice creates the scenario in which it becomes true when voters are scared off of voting for principle simply because they’ve been told that a vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary. It isn’t true, and I’d rather be on the losing side than allow a man like that to re-shape the political powers-that-be to where he is considered “conservative”. Liberals already can’t understand conservatives; with Trump they won’t be able to really see a real difference.

    Trump’s stated policies are erratic; they are intended (I believe) to be attention-grabbing. Whether or not he intends to do what he says is completely unclear – if we were to take him at face value it would be morally repulsive if he did many of the things he has said during the campaign (threatening US companies with tariffs, increasing the minimum wage, banning gun ownership from a “new” secret list, imprisoning people that don’t inform on neighbors, etc). So if I were to vote for him, I’m essentially voting for those things. If he doesn’t mean it, he’s just an attention whore – and we don’t have any idea what he will actually do, or what he really believes.

    Responses (7) +
  • May 10, 2016 at 1:15pm

    No but:

    1. The lie that Cruz had extramarital affairs with… what was it, four women?
    2. The lie that Cruz’s dad met with Lee Harvey Oswald?
    3. The lie that votes didn’t take place in Colorado?
    4. The lie that Vicente Fox saying Mexico wasn’t going to pay for the wall influenced policy decisions to raise up the wall 10 feet higher?

    Come on, dude. You have to see SOMETHING. Good luck, TedsBrother. Honestly, good luck. You bought what he sold without checking the sticker. It’s a painful lesson that America has had to learn time and time again – and you didn’t see it at the time, you didn’t open your eyes. The campaign was built on what you wanted to hear. He immediately changed some of his policies after Cruz pulled out of the race.

    I’ll say it again, in simpler terms; you do not know the man. You voted in a wildcard in some dream that the wildcard would match your dream. You have every indication from his own history that he does not, but the dream was enticing, and you wanted to believe. But it is just a dream, with all the potential of turning into a nightmare.

    So again, good luck. Honestly. To us all.

  • [1] May 7, 2016 at 12:07am

    That was a YUGE comment! No, just kidding. Stupid parrots.

  • [5] May 7, 2016 at 12:06am

    We’ll see who’s a liar when all is said and done.

  • [3] May 7, 2016 at 12:05am

    Do you know why the Electoral college is in place, watash? I’m going to guess the answer “no”. Term limits are good. And the “ONE” who offers to help us take control isn’t offering that at all; he’s offering for HIM to take control. We still have no idea what he really believes or values. He lied through his teeth during the primary. What’s mind-boggling to me is that people actually believed it.

  • [6] May 7, 2016 at 12:02am

    Trumpeters have already done enough to help Hillary. Not much we can do will change that. They nominated a progressive in conservative clothing. Maybe they should have done some homework and stopped cheering for a bully.

  • [4] May 6, 2016 at 4:46pm

    lolz I think it’s spelled Yuge. And like most other Trump-isms, I don’t believe it has a shred of credibility.

  • [1] May 6, 2016 at 2:30pm

    Good luck with that. There will come a point when you realize that all of the lies you sucked in actually were only just lies.

    Responses (2) +