Wall Street Journal: Rand Paul for president

[Ravi]

And so he should be. Because maybe what the GOP needs is another humbling landslide defeat. When moderation on a subject like immigration is ideologically disqualifying, but bark-at-the-moon lunacy about Halliburton is not, then the party has worse problems than merely its choice of nominee.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303663604579501441901549788

[Green Arrow]

Wait, so now that Rand Paul is also calling out Cheney's profiting off the Iraq War, it's suddenly "lunacy" to do so?

[Alyosha]

Ravi's mad today. :D

[Ethereal]

Bret Stephens is not "The Wall Street Journal", he's one opinion writer who never saw a foreign military adventure he didn't like. Of course, Stephens would never, ever sign up for military service himself, because he's got better things to do, like pen opinion pieces about how important it is for the US to involve itself in every foreign quagmire that ever existed.

[Ravi]

Wait, so now that Rand Paul is also calling out Cheney's profiting off the Iraq War, it's suddenly "lunacy" to do so?
I asked before, what is Rand Paul going to do about it? Aside from make unprovable accusations, that is. :)

I think the opinion writer is correct. The GOP needs to go down in flames one more time and maybe then they'll flush the loons out of their party.

[Alyosha]

Bret Stephens is not "The Wall Street Journal", he's one opinion writer who never saw a foreign military adventure he didn't like. Of course, Stephens would never, ever sign up for military service himself, because he's got better things to do, like pen opinion pieces about how important it is for the US to involve itself in every foreign quagmire that ever existed.

Ravi gets confused sometimes when it comes to reviewing her source.

[Alyosha]

I asked before, what is Rand Paul going to do about it? Aside from make unprovable accusations, that is. :)

I think the opinion writer is correct. The GOP needs to go down in flames one more time and maybe then they'll flush the loons out of their party.

What can he do about it? Are you confusing a Senator with our Attorney General? It's okay if you were. Not everyone is savvy on how these things work.

[Ravi]

What can he do about it? Are you confusing a Senator with our Attorney General? It's okay if you were. Not everyone is savvy on how these things work.
so, nothing. As I thought.

[Green Arrow]

I asked before, what is Rand Paul going to do about it? Aside from make unprovable accusations, that is. :)

Unprovable accusations about Cheney's war profiteering? We have his stock profile as public record that shows he owned $8 million worth in Halliburton stocks, as well as stocks in Lockheed Martin. Both companies had lucrative defense contracts with the federal government, especially Halliburton, while he was Vice President.

As for what he's going to do about it, probably nothing. Cheney is unfortunately part of the class of "Untouchables." He's wise to keep the eyes of the people on it, however. It's an important lesson to be learned.


I think the opinion writer is correct. The GOP needs to go down in flames one more time and maybe then they'll flush the loons out of their party.

It probably won't happen unless the GOP nominates someone like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, though. Unless Hillary elects not to run and the Democrats nominate someone else, in which case a fresh GOP nominee and a fresh Democrat nominee may be a good contest.

[Alyosha]

so, nothing. As I thought.

Proving you are clueless, yet again.

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/mps/manual/ag.htm

He is the only one that can file suit for past crimes as Cheney is no longer (nor was he when Rand took his seat as Senator) the Vice President,thus impeachable.

Dearest Ravi, can you please try to make a sensible argument for once today? You don't know the purpose of an advisory board, you don't know the difference between scientific peer review and an op ed piece by historians and religion majors, and you don't know that it is the attorney general who must direct any activities of national indictment upon Dick Cheney.

Seriously, you're embarrassing the forum. :rollseyes:

[Green Arrow]

Proving you are clueless, yet again.

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/mps/manual/ag.htm

He is the only one that can file suit for past crimes as Cheney is no longer (nor was he when Rand took his seat as Senator) the Vice President,thus impeachable.

Dearest Ravi, can you please try to make a sensible argument for once today? You don't know the purpose of an advisory board, you don't know the difference between scientific peer review and an op ed piece by historians and religion majors, and you don't know that it is the attorney general who must direct any activities of national indictment upon Dick Cheney.

Seriously, you're embarrassing the forum. :rollseyes:

Oh, shit. Now she's going to summon the juniekraken.

[Alyosha]

For those like Ravi who don't yet know the duties of our Attorney General (http://www.justice.gov/jmd/mps/manual/ag.htm):

The position of Attorney General was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. In June 1870 Congress enacted a law entitled “An Act to Establish the Department of Justice.” This Act established the Attorney General as head of the Department of Justice and gave the Attorney General direction and control of U.S. Attorneys and all other counsel employed on behalf of the United States. The Act also vested in the Attorney General supervisory power over the accounts of U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.

The mission of the Office of the Attorney General is to supervise and direct the administration and operation of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals Service, which are all within the Department of Justice.
The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

Represent the United States in legal matters.
Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.
Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

[Alyosha]

Oh, shit. Now she's going to summon the juniekraken.

Oh don't worry, Junie will show up right after she's done running Ravi's errands for the day. Await the large font!

[Ravi]

Unprovable accusations about Cheney's war profiteering? We have his stock profile as public record that shows he owned $8 million worth in Halliburton stocks, as well as stocks in Lockheed Martin. Both companies had lucrative defense contracts with the federal government, especially Halliburton, while he was Vice President.

As for what he's going to do about it, probably nothing. Cheney is unfortunately part of the class of "Untouchables." He's wise to keep the eyes of the people on it, however. It's an important lesson to be learned.



It probably won't happen unless the GOP nominates someone like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, though. Unless Hillary elects not to run and the Democrats nominate someone else, in which case a fresh GOP nominee and a fresh Democrat nominee may be a good contest.
Right, unprovable. But more importantly he isn't going to do anything about it, like call for a Congressional investigation. He's just going to say it because it will get him votes.

[Alyosha]

Right, unprovable. But more importantly he isn't going to do anything about it, like call for a Congressional investigation.

A Congressional investigation to do what? Remove Cheney from office? :roflmao:

Ohhhh, Ravi.

[hanger4]

Unprovable accusations about Cheney's war profiteering? We have his stock profile as public record that shows he owned $8 million worth in Halliburton stocks, as well as stocks in Lockheed Martin. Both companies had lucrative defense contracts with the federal government, especially Halliburton, while he was Vice President. As for what he's going to do about it, probably nothing. Cheney is unfortunately part of the class of "Untouchables." He's wise to keep the eyes of the people on it, however. It's an important lesson to be learned.It probably won't happen unless the GOP nominates someone like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, though. Unless Hillary elects not to run and the Democrats nominate someone else, in which case a fresh GOP nominee and a fresh Democrat nominee may be a good contest.All stocks were in a charitable trust.

[Ravi]

A Congressional investigation to do what? Remove Cheney from office? :roflmao:

Ohhhh, Ravi.

Here is a simple definition for the simple of mind. From wikipedia.


Investigative hearings share some of the characteristics of legislative and oversight hearings. The difference lies in Congress’s stated determination to investigate, usually when there is a suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of public officials acting in their official capacity, or private citizens whose activities suggest the need for a legislative remedy.

Rand Paul is going to run his mouth about Cheney's so-called criminal behavior and Rand Paul is going to do nothing about it.

[Green Arrow]

Right, unprovable.

How is Cheney's own stock portfolio, which is public record, "unprovable"?


But more importantly he isn't going to do anything about it, like call for a Congressional investigation. He's just going to say it because it will get him votes.

Congress cannot investigate private citizens, even if those private citizens once held office in the U.S. government.

[Alyosha]

Here is a simple definition for the simple of mind. From wikipedia.


Well, we all knew it would be wikipedia. But again, Cheney is not in office and these activities are not ongoing and have no need of legislative remedy at the moment.

However, I can make a list of those things he's proposed that would put in an end to those types of activities and I can also make a list of who (and their party) shot them down.

You want to do this Ravi?

I'm off all day, so we might as well.




Rand Paul is going to run his mouth about Cheney's so-called criminal behavior and Rand Paul is going to do nothing about it.

Going to? He said it in 2008. Oh, jeez, you're so behind! :laugh:

[Alyosha]

And lest anyone think otherwise, this delicious thread is all because Ravi thinks that I'm going to be bothered by her speaking ill of Rand Paul. When this doesn't work, she'll probably start a thread on Ethereal, Codename, or Green Arrow in the Hole.

:roflmao:

[GrassrootsConservative]

Dearest Ravi, can you please try to make a sensible argument for once today?

:laughing4: Doubt it.

[Ravi]

How is Cheney's own stock portfolio, which is public record, "unprovable"?



Congress cannot investigate private citizens, even if those private citizens once held office in the U.S. government.LOL! Of course Congress can investigate private citizens.

And Cheney might be an evil troll, but there is no evidence out there that he started or supported a war to make a profit.

[Alyosha]

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=sponsored_legislation

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=412492

You'll see proposals that would have prevented such behavior.

So, are we on to a thread about Ethereal now? How about we have a Codename Section call out thread. Those might really actually sting.


:D

[Alyosha]

LOL! Of course Congress can investigate private citizens.

And Cheney might be an evil troll, but there is no evidence out there that he started or supported a war to make a profit.

No evidence or not enough? Do you know the difference? Oh, man, don't go. You're so much fun today.

[Ravi]

Well, we all knew it would be wikipedia. But again, Cheney is not in office and these activities are not ongoing and have no need of legislative remedy at the moment.

However, I can make a list of those things he's proposed that would put in an end to those types of activities and I can also make a list of who (and their party) shot them down.

You want to do this Ravi?

I'm off all day, so we might as well.



Going to? He said it in 2008. Oh, jeez, you're so behind! :laugh:

So you're backtracking now. You said he couldn't do anything about it but now you are saying he has proposals to do something about it. Make up your mind.

[Ravi]

And lest anyone think otherwise, this delicious thread is all because Ravi thinks that I'm going to be bothered by her speaking ill of Rand Paul. When this doesn't work, she'll probably start a thread on Ethereal, Codename, or Green Arrow in the Hole.

:roflmao:

Now that is funny.

[Alyosha]

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation05.html

Broad as the power of inquiry is, it is not unlimited. The power of investigation may properly be employed only ''in aid of the legislative function.'' 166 (http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation05.html#f166)Its outermost boundaries are marked, then, by the outermost boundaries of the power to legislate. In principle, the Court is clear on the limitations, clear ''that neither house of Congress possesses a 'general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen'; that the power actually possessed is limited to inquiries relating to matters of which the particular house 'has jurisdiction' and in respect of which it rightfully may take other action; that if the inquiry relates to 'a matter wherein relief or redress could be had only by a judicial proceeding' it is not within the range of this power, but must be left to the courts, conformably to the constitutional separation of governmental powers; and that for the purpose of determining the essential character of the inquiry recourse must be had to the resolution or order under which it is made.'' 167 (http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation05.html#f167) - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation05.html#sthash.lh9kv3Nl.dpuf

[Alyosha]

So you're backtracking now. You said he couldn't do anything about it but now you are saying he has proposals to do something about it. Make up your mind.

I said that he couldn't do anything about it because it--dum dum dummmmmm--occurred in the past.

You do know what "the past" is, Ravi? We're not going that remedial are we?

[Ravi]

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation05.html

Broad as the power of inquiry is, it is not unlimited. The power of investigation may properly be employed only ''in aid of the legislative function.'' 166 (http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation05.html#f166)Its outermost boundaries are marked, then, by the outermost boundaries of the power to legislate. In principle, the Court is clear on the limitations, clear ''that neither house of Congress possesses a 'general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen'; that the power actually possessed is limited to inquiries relating to matters of which the particular house 'has jurisdiction' and in respect of which it rightfully may take other action; that if the inquiry relates to 'a matter wherein relief or redress could be had only by a judicial proceeding' it is not within the range of this power, but must be left to the courts, conformably to the constitutional separation of governmental powers; and that for the purpose of determining the essential character of the inquiry recourse must be had to the resolution or order under which it is made.'' 167 (http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation05.html#f167) - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation05.html#sthash.lh9kv3Nl.dpuf
Are you sure you are a lawyer? A company engaged in business with the government is not the private affairs of the citizen. It's a very public affair.

[Ravi]

I said that he couldn't do anything about it because it--dum dum dummmmmm--occurred in the past.

You do know what "the past" is, Ravi? We're not going that remedial are we?Now you're back to saying he's going to let criminal behavior slide while pretending outrage to get votes.

[Alyosha]

Are you sure you are a lawyer? A company engaged in business with the government is not the private affairs of the citizen. It's a very public affair.

Is Dick Cheney a company? Are you sure you're native English speaker?

[Ravi]

Is Dick Cheney a company? Are you sure you're native English speaker?
Haliburton is a company. Are you sure you're sentient?

[Alyosha]

Now you're back to saying he's going to let criminal behavior slide while pretending outrage to get votes.


And here we go again...

IF you wish to indict someone for criminal activity that occurred in the past of this "type" then you'd have to be the US attorney general who has the power to act on behalf of the US government and indict him for criminal activity.

If you wish to write a law that will prevent it in the future, then you propose a bill.

If you wish to impeach a current Vice President then you can put it before the Congress.

Are you following me?

[Alyosha]

Haliburton is a company. Are you sure you're sentient?

Is Halliburton a private citizen? Seriously, it's like I'm dealing with a meth head.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Is Halliburton a private citizen? Seriously, it's like I'm dealing with a meth head.

Nice pun. Intended or unintended?

[Ravi]

And here we go again...

IF you wish to indict someone for criminal activity that occurred in the past of this "type" then you'd have to be the US attorney general who has the power to act on behalf of the US government and indict him for criminal activity.

If you wish to write a law that will prevent it in the future, then you propose a bill.

If you wish to impeach a current Vice President then you can put it before the Congress.

Are you following me?
Why would I follow you when you don't know what you are talking about. Read about a Congressional investigation in the thirties that investigated happenings in the past. It's actually somewhat similar to Cheney's supposed crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nye_Committee

[Ravi]

Is Halliburton a private citizen? Seriously, it's like I'm dealing with a meth head.
LMAO A meth head could run rings around your arguments. When are you going out west to represent Bundy? That would be the funniest trial, evah!

[Alyosha]

Why would I follow you when you don't know what you are talking about. Read about a Congressional investigation in the thirties that investigated happenings in the past. It's actually somewhat similar to Cheney's supposed crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nye_Committee

Ravi don't be a thick dunce that keeps moving the goal posts! Where did I say that Congress cannot investigate things? You asked what Rand would do about Cheney and I told you that it would take the attorney general to indict for actions in the past, that if this were the past he could try to impeach him, but as it is he can (and has) proposed bills to prevent this from happening in the future.

I've yet to figure out if you move the goal posts when you're losing ground on purpose or if you're just an ADHD type.

[Alyosha]

LMAO A meth head could run rings around your arguments. When are you going out west to represent Bundy? That would be the funniest trial, evah!

I'm sorry that you're upset at being challenged but can you funnel some of that hate into something that's actually funny? A woman of yours and Junie's age saying things like "evah" and "teh gheyz" is just embarassing.

Seriously. Go back and get some new schtick.

[Ravi]

Ravi don't be a thick dunce that keeps moving the goal posts! Where did I say that Congress cannot investigate things? You asked what Rand would do about Cheney and I told you that it would take the attorney general to indict for actions in the past, that if this were the past he could try to impeach him, but as it is he can (and has) proposed bills to prevent this from happening in the future.

I've yet to figure out if you move the goal posts when you're losing ground on purpose or if you're just an ADHD type.

I asked you what Rand Paul was going to do about it. You said he couldn't do anything about it, only an AG could. I responded that he could call for a Congressional investigation. You claimed Congress can't investigate a person or a past happening. I showed you that they could.

Now you've kicked yourself out of the ball park.

Rand Paul will do nothing and we all know it.

[Alyosha]

I asked you what Rand Paul was going to do about it.

What I just said. :rollseyes: Boy, you're on today.




You said he couldn't do anything about it, only an AG could.

I said: He is the only one that can file suit for past crimes as Cheney is no longer (nor was he when Rand took his seat as Senator) the Vice President,thus impeachable.

This is correct. Dick Cheney deserves to be in prison and that would take Eric Holder's participation.



I responded that he could call for a Congressional investigation.

And I responded with:

A Congressional investigation to do what? Remove Cheney from office? :roflmao:

Ohhhh, Ravi.



You claimed Congress can't investigate a person or a past happening.

I claimed the Congress does not have the authority to investigate a private citizen and showed you the ruling, yes. I never said Congress could not investigate a past happening. Show me where?




I showed you that they could.


You showed yourself. I never denied that Congress couldn't investigate a past happening, the 911 Commission was one such investigation. I said that nothing can be done to Dick Cheney without Eric Holder's participation because an investigation isn't an indictment or punitive. The punishment would be an impeachment (which I said can't happen since he's no longer Vice President) OR a criminal indictment which takes what?

The participation of the attorney general.



Now you've kicked yourself out of the ball park.


Ohhhh Ravi.



Rand Paul will do nothing and we all know it.

Except propose legislation to prevent it from happening again (see links).

My work here is done!

[Green Arrow]

I asked you what Rand Paul was going to do about it. You said he couldn't do anything about it, only an AG could. I responded that he could call for a Congressional investigation. You claimed Congress can't investigate a person or a past happening. I showed you that they could.

Now you've kicked yourself out of the ball park.

Rand Paul will do nothing and we all know it.

The problem is you are incapable of following an argument. That, or a liar. Not sure which. I'm not uncharitable like you, so I prefer to go with the nicer conclusion, that you're just not very good at following arguments.

[Ravi]

The problem is you are incapable of following an argument. That, or a liar. Not sure which. I'm not uncharitable like you, so I prefer to go with the nicer conclusion, that you're just not very good at following arguments.
Nice attempt at trying to stick up for your buddy's flailing.

[Green Arrow]

Nice attempt at trying to stick up for your buddy's flailing.

What flailing? Her point is simple and concise. Rand Paul is doing the only thing he is physically capable of doing: putting forth bills in Congress to ensure that future Dick Cheneys don't happen.

The particular instance of him condemning Cheney, btw, happened in 2008. Rand Paul didn't take office until 2011. So he was condemning Cheney's actions before he was even running for Congress, let alone in Congress. And then upon taking office, he starts submitting bills to make sure that no politician can ever do what Cheney did again.

[Alyosha]

Nice attempt at trying to stick up for your buddy's flailing.

What flailing? By citing my own quotes against your (I'll be nice) "paraphrasing" of what I said I proved, yet again, that I'm correct and you're full of crap.

((does snoopy dance))

[junie]

Now that is funny.


lol the hysterical narcissist must think WSJ conspired against her to write that article! :loco:


Rand Paul for President

Because what the GOP needs is a humbling landslide defeat.

April 14, 2014 7:03 p.m.


:laughing4:

[Alyosha]

Junie, you know Ravi likes her delicates steamed not flat-pressed, right?

[junie]

yep they wrote that just to upset YOU palyosha! :rofl:

[Alyosha]

yep they wrote that just to upset YOU palyosha! :rofl:

Refugee


you see, this is the level of "witty repartee" we get on American forums. She really thinks that's super funny. I'm not kidding. She does.


We're all going to have to start taking drugs to feel entertained. I swear this place...

http://37.media.tumblr.com/e5126c691389e995937ad465edf6b61e/tumblr_mszboaDpKE1spey9uo1_500.gif

[junie]

I asked before, what is Rand Paul going to do about it? Aside from make unprovable accusations, that is. :)

I think the opinion writer is correct. The GOP needs to go down in flames one more time and maybe then they'll flush the loons out of their party.



such a shame the delusional never learn, cuz it certainly would be nice if things were different...

[zelmo1234]

How is Cheney's own stock portfolio, which is public record, "unprovable"?



Congress cannot investigate private citizens, even if those private citizens once held office in the U.S. government.

Also I am not sure if this is true for Vice Presidents but Presidents from the tie they take office until they leave office are not in charge or even able to be aware of their private investments

They re kept totally in the dark on what they are invested in! It may be the same for Vice presidents.

[zelmo1234]

Are you sure you are a lawyer? A company engaged in business with the government is not the private affairs of the citizen. It's a very public affair.

Correct, but the stock holders of that company is a private affair!

And guess what. Obama will have a shit load of Halliburton stock too, because the investors knew that it was a good bet for making money, he just does not know it because he is not allowed to!

[zelmo1234]

Haliburton is a company. Are you sure you're sentient?

Is Chaney the sole owner of Halliburton?

[zelmo1234]

LMAO A meth head could run rings around your arguments. When are you going out west to represent Bundy? That would be the funniest trial, evah!

So what charges would you bring the Chaney man up on!

[zelmo1234]

What flailing? By citing my own quotes against your (I'll be nice) "paraphrasing" of what I said I proved, yet again, that I'm correct and you're full of crap.

((does snoopy dance))

I would like to see a video of that dance!!! :)

[Chris]

I would like to see a video of that dance!!! :)

Was going to post before but got sidetracked...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFNLbAs3KAU

[zelmo1234]

let us just look at where the Democratic anger is coming from!

They more than likely will be running Mrs Clinton for President in 2016! She is going to run up against some people in her own party that are going to open a lot of cans of worms, because the Clintons are despised by the Obama wing of the party!

If she is to have any chance of beating anyone from the republican party she will have to run of making dramatic changes to the ACA or getting rid of it all together. )Remember Obama has postponed all of the really nasty stuff to take effect in early 2017 so the next election is going to be a lot about the dramatic job and insurance losses brought about by the ACA!

Liberals know this and it pisses them off! They also know that the economy is likely to be worse than it is today in 2016 so that is not going to go in their favor either.

Next they are more than likely going to lose control of the Senate, lose more seats in the house. so they will have 2 years of getting nothing that they want and will likely have to cave on some issues or face getting many of their pet projects defunded!

So what is left for them to do! They must destroy the personhood of any and all republican candidates! It is all that they have left. Look at the rage over Bridgegate, and No Rand, And Ted Cruz and Perry! None of this is based on facts or policies but vulgar personal attacks

This is totally supported by the party that thinks that the press will continue to run cover for the DNC and their candidates. However one huge problem that many Democrats understand, Hillary is not black, and that is why we have the War on women, because they are hoping against hope that they can turn women into the new black by November of 2016'


If they can't, then Hilary will be vetted and a lot of nasty shit will come out, and the GOP will have control of all three houses! Hitting the rest button an everything including the ACA that Obama had tried to accomplish in the destruction of the USA!

So when you look at it in this light you can understand that Ravi, Exotix, Cigar and others are just pissed at everyone and everything. they are likely heading for 40 years in the political desert, just like they did after Carter!

[zelmo1234]

Was going to post before but got sidetracked...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFNLbAs3KAU

That is what I mean, I want to see her doing it! :)

[Refugee]

@Refugee (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1060)


you see, this is the level of "witty repartee" we get on American forums. She really thinks that's super funny. I'm not kidding. She does.


We're all going to have to start taking drugs to feel entertained. I swear this place...



In the UK we call it a 'wind up'. A key in your back that when wound up makes you perform. A bit like fishing, someone who knows what they're doing throws a line and watches the fishes jump about wriggling on the end of it. The person with the key is laughing at you. Disengage and give them the key back! :smiley:

[Mister D]

And so he should be. Because maybe what the GOP needs is another humbling landslide defeat. When moderation on a subject like immigration is ideologically disqualifying, but bark-at-the-moon lunacy about Halliburton is not, then the party has worse problems than merely its choice of nominee.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303663604579501441901549788
Ravi when something or other is the position of the editorial board they will let you know. This is an op ed.

[Chris]

In the UK we call it a 'wind up'. A key in your back that when wound up makes you perform. A bit like fishing, someone who knows what they're doing throws a line and watches the fishes jump about wriggling on the end of it. The person with the key is laughing at you. Disengage and give them the key back! :smiley:



The fishing metaphor is apt.