Big Joe's free speech nails women's marchers

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Monday, January 23. 2017

Big Joe's free speech nails women's marchers

Posted by Bruce Kesler at 18:41 | Comments (28) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Wise beyond his weight.

#1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-01-23 18:46 (Reply)

Definitely the smartest guy on the block.

#1.1 Amazed on 2017-01-24 17:10 (Reply)

Big Joe knew what he was talking about. These people at walk just wanted to cause trouble. These demonstrations are setup by Liberals & they should understand 63 million people voted for Mr. Trump. This is a Democracy & they should abide by laws or leave.

#1.2 Joan Schneider (Link) on 2017-01-26 14:22 (Reply)

Joan Schneider: This is a Democracy & they should abide by laws or leave.

They were abiding by the laws while exercising their First Amendment rights, which guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

#1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-27 09:32 (Reply)

For sure. And there's the President's pick for the 'community outreach' position...

#2 XRay on 2017-01-23 21:17 (Reply)

Excellent choice! We need more like him.

#2.1 B Hammer on 2017-01-23 21:51 (Reply)

Wow...Trump should find this guy and hug him. Big Joe plus Diamond and Silk=unstoppable...

#3 aimsmallmisssmall on 2017-01-23 22:35 (Reply)

waaay smarter than most faculty ! ;-)

#4 faculty wife on 2017-01-24 01:20 (Reply)

In just one day, Donald Trump got more fat women to go out walking than Michelle Obama did in 8 years.

#5 Ben David on 2017-01-24 04:13 (Reply)

Big Joe for Congress!

#6 bd on 2017-01-24 06:31 (Reply)

I concur.

Where do I send my donation.

#6.1 Mark M. on 2017-01-24 08:59 (Reply)

Joe: anarchy in the street

The Woman's March was hardly anarchy, but a valid expression of the right to peaceably assemble for a redress of grievances.

Joe: He was elected rightfully I mean by the majority of the country

No. Trump only received 46% of the vote, three million votes fewer than Clinton.

Joe: Did you see people doing all this? No, because we united behind our American president.

While Obama did enjoy strong support at beginning of his term, he was also vigorously opposed by the Tea Party Movement, an obstructionist Congress, and by birther and other conspiracy groups.

That's just the first minute.

#7 Zachriel on 2017-01-24 07:08 (Reply)

Clinton didn't get a majority of the popular vote either, but it's irrelevant.

The electoral college was created for a reason - the founders had the remarkable foresight to envision large urban states dominated by moochers and elitist assholes. Or maybe it was just good luck.

Obama wasn't opposed by an obstructionist congress. That's simply your biased view from the far left. Rather, a reasonable congress that was trying to protect and defend the Constitution was opposed by a leftist president who went overboard with his executive powers. Even Obama tacitly admits that what he did was problematic - he said Trump should avoid doing the same things.

Was the FemiNazi march anarchy in the street. Yep! It was - in the final analysis - a bunch of pro-abortion hypocrites complaining that their definition of government interference is the federal government refusing to interfere (by giving them abortions, birth control, etc.). In order to garner the support of the useful idiots a.k.a. Democrat voters, college kids, etc., they LIED about the march being an equal rights issue.

I agree with scull man - you're an asshole...and a stupid one at that.

#7.1 mike m on 2017-01-24 08:34 (Reply)

mike m: Clinton didn't get a majority of the popular vote either

But Joe said that Trump got a majority, which is not correct.

mike m: Obama wasn't opposed by an obstructionist congress.

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." — Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate

mike m: Was the FemiNazi march anarchy in the street. Yep!

It's hard to take someone seriously who uses the term "FemiNazi". In any case, the march was planned in advance, had all the permits required by law, and millions of people protested peaceably. That does not meet the definition of anarchy.

#7.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-24 14:47 (Reply)

While Obama did enjoy strong support at beginning of his term, he was also vigorously opposed by the Tea Party Movement, an obstructionist Congress, and by birther and other conspiracy groups.
The problem with your narrative is that it leaves out a rather important fact: at the beginning of his first term, the Republicans in Congress tried to work with Obama. NYT_Eric Cantor: What the Obama Presidency Looked Like to the Opposition.He started with an outstretched hand. Then that changed.

QUOTE:

John and I established a working group on the recovery. We knew many of the traditional Republican policies had been consistently rejected by the Democrats, so we aimed to formulate policies that both sides could embrace....
We didn’t know how the White House would receive our plan, but we knew the president was wildly popular and could use the bully pulpit against us....A few weeks later, John and I, along with the other congressional leaders, met with President Obama at the White House to discuss our plan as well as his proposed stimulus bill. Bringing along a one-page outline of our working group’s recommendations, I rather brazenly asked the president if I could hand it out at the meeting. The president agreed, and after glancing at it, he said to me, “Eric, I don’t see anything crazy in here.”

I was hopeful. But later in the meeting, when I mentioned that a stimulus package built around government spending would be too much like “old Washington,” the president’s tone changed. He said: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.”

When the Republicans tried to work with President Obama, he turned them down: I won. Obama's arrogance and partisanship resulted in the "obstructionist" Republicans.

#7.2 Gringo on 2017-01-24 12:19 (Reply)

Gringo: NYT_Eric Cantor: What the Obama Presidency Looked Like to the Opposition.He started with an outstretched hand. Then that changed.

Citing Eric Cantor is hardly a convincing.

QUOTE:

I was hopeful. But later in the meeting, when I mentioned that a stimulus package built around government spending would be too much like “old Washington,” the president’s tone changed.

The final stimulus included some of the spending that the Democrats wanted, and some of the tax cuts that the Republicans wanted.

#7.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-24 14:53 (Reply)

Citing Eric Cantor is hardly a convincing.
Writing an incoherent sentence isn't very convincing.

The final stimulus included some of the spending that the Democrats wanted, and some of the tax cuts that the Republicans wanted.
Which explains why no Republicans voted for the Stimulus. Yeah,right.
I was going to request that you document your assertion, but realized that I would be more likely to fly to to the moon than to get documentation.

#7.2.1.1 Gringo on 2017-01-24 16:19 (Reply)

Gringo: Which explains why no Republicans voted for the Stimulus.

That's not quite correct, but still demonstrates the point. Even though it included provisions that Republicans had called for, most voted against the bill anyway.

Gringo: I was going to request that you document your assertion

"Mr. Obama is now on a quest to reshape the legislation in a way that will bring Senate Republicans, and perhaps eventually some House members as well, on board."

"Earlier Sunday, leading Senate Democrats suggested they would be willing to consider several Republican proposals, including a $15,000 tax credit for all home buyers."

www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/us/politics/02obama.html

Some of the provisions Republicans had wanted that were part of the final bill include an increase in AMT floor, a homebuyer credit, allowing businesses a longer term to write off losses, and a total of $288 billion in tax cuts.

#7.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-24 17:14 (Reply)

Z-
You're such an asshole.

Get a life.

(Waiting for my italiisized educational moment)

#8 Scullman on 2017-01-24 07:17 (Reply)

Big Joe, a man that gets it. You know none of those twits actually knows the history of Margaret Sanger and her real purpose of eugenics.

#9 JC on 2017-01-24 07:52 (Reply)

I love this man.

#10 Sheryl👆🏼 Bryant on 2017-01-24 08:06 (Reply)

Yep.

Ironic that the real Hillery couldn't draw a crowd with a pulse - in fact her events looked like the end of Spinal Tap but Idealized Hillery Past All Real Chance of Ever Being Elected has this. That's got to hurt. Watch for a spike in babies named Hillery. I think Liz Warren might also take the blame and the fall as the only one who could have brought Bernie like enthusiasm (and Bernie supporters) to the fold. I think much of this is a grieving process. A lot of older women supported Hillery and now they are doing the math and thinking they might not live to see a woman president. There is no heir apparent. As for the wisdom of it, I can't see it. All it's doing is driving people that were meh on Trump over to his side and making the deplorable more united. I know this because the deplorable have a sign (like the sign of the fish) and the longer I see this sign out when it's not suppose to be the more crisp new ones I see and little ones the more I know that they are digging in.

#11 Karen on 2017-01-24 09:34 (Reply)

Hey Bruce: Is that your son? Smart kid with a good sense of humor!

#12 Apple Pie on 2017-01-24 09:58 (Reply)

Who IS that guy?!

#13 Gene on 2017-01-24 11:00 (Reply)

This deserves wider notice.

I sent the link to Drudge.

Send it to everyone.

#14 James Graham on 2017-01-24 11:25 (Reply)

I know that harping and carping, hectoring and lecturing, chiding and scolding are part of the human condition. Boy, some folks seem to live for it, like the lady who was escorted off the plane for harassing and abusing her seat mate. I am astounded at the lack of self awareness and the inability for these folks, apparently mostly women, to grapple with just how tedious, boring and tone deaf they are. When they really get going they are reminiscent of the Salem witch trials. They make it so easy for others to tune them out.

#15 Exasperated on 2017-01-24 12:00 (Reply)

The saddest part is the young woman arguing with Joe that Margaret Sanger wasn't a racist. Check your story, woman.

#16 Dangerous Dean on 2017-01-27 19:26 (Reply)

Dangerous Dean: The saddest part is the young woman arguing with Joe that Margaret Sanger wasn't a racist.

So was Lincoln. But Sanger was probably less racist than most whites of her time.

#16.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-28 09:19 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Monday, January 23. 2017

Big Joe's free speech nails women's marchers