stevenash

"Compassion" noted.

And if you run over somebody and they happen to be a "protected class" , I wonder if the accusation will be that you are seeking to run down those who don't look like you?

Maybe the fringe left is not as "compassionate" as they portray themselves to be?

There was a plethora of Feds involved in Ferguson and Baltimore as well. They did their level best to find fault with the officers and simply couldn't do it.

Many Dems believe that the Dems possess superior intellect.

Rest assured I would not walk 18 holes. Not because I am physically unable to handle it but because I am too impatient to be out there that long.

Yes, don't let objectivity get in the way of party loyalty.

Then, you are endorsing the current "methods" and feel they are productive?

If the email has sensitive information in it, someone with the background/experience of Mrs. Clinton should NOT need a designation attached to it in order to understand it contains sensitive material.

I am not nearly as interested in whether or not she technically broke any laws as I am with the fact that someone in her position with her experience ought to know if something is classified whether it is marked that way or not. If the "smartest woman in the world" is unable, after 30 years of government involvement, to discern between secret and not so secret emails, then she is simply INCOMPETENT.

I worry very much about it happening in Times Square. Despite the political unpopularity of it, I will say that I am strongly in favor of profiling.

I hope someone will answer this question. I know how critical it is for this country to protect its citizens and try to prevent terrorist events from taking place in this country and the rest of the world as well. I also know how important it is to not judge a sector of our society by the actions of a few from within that sector. But is it better to run the risk of "offending" or temporarily inconveniencing some within that sector to save lives or is it better to be less vigilant in the name of "tolerance" and/or political correctness.

What my comment reveals( from my "unenlightened" perspective) is that in more cases than not, when interacting with lefties, they are fully convinced that their positions, determinations, and values come from a more "objective", more "reasoned" and more deeply "analyzed" position and I am very confident that, in actuality, they are no different than anyone else. Just as business success has nothing to do with party affiliation, I believe that neither does intelligence. I have a very close personal friend who is a highly decorated Ivy League grad and served in the House of Representatives , was a highly acclaimed Broadway star, and served as the Director of International Goodwill. From my unworldly perspective, I consider him to be the "smartest guy I know". In speaking with my intelligent friend on the phone the other day,( and he is considerably more" worldly" than most) he told me that Newt Gingrich was amongst those who he considers the smartest people he knows. And old simple me is compelled to believe there is much credibility to his assertion. As for your last sentence, it is fairly "revealing" in and of itself. Put me down as one who believes it is not possible to totally "quantify" intelligence.

Your comment suggests quite strongly ( contrary to the belief of much of the left) that intellectual superiority is not the exclusive province of the left.

Big Girl- Do you agree with the President that ISIS is the JV?

I find it interesting that a well known Republican has the guts to stand up and complain about who represents his party. When is the last time a Democrat did that?

the obvious point was that every President presides over a new market high.

Big Girl and Newtobie will tell you that what happened in his past doesn't matter ( but what happened in George Zimmermans past matters)

no problem. I am sure there is a "compassionate" government program that will take care of him. Who knows, maybe Josh Earnest can use him.

Is it likely that MSNBC lost its feed also?

I know this is partially sarcasm, but it could actually be, to some extent, true.

Just wanted to let everyone know that the stock market has hit an all time high. I also wanted to pre-empt any lefty nut cases that will get on here and try to give credit for that to our President. How do I do that? Simply by making you aware that the last time a sitting President could NOT claim to have a new all time high during his Presidency was 1974-77 when Gerald Ford was in for less than a full term. In other words, our resilient economy/markets can and do recover from most any negative event, regardless of who occupied the office during the decline or who occupied it during the recovery. I hope that higher taxes and more regulations don't strangle that resiliency. The only unique thing about this recovery is that the current President will leave office as the only modern day President to never have a single year of 3% or better GDP..He also presided over our only downgrade of US. debt. Since he took office, the economy ( GDP) has grown at an average rate of 2.1% while the average recovery from a recession has been in the 3.5% area. That growth is what is critical to creating jobs and that growth can do it so much better than an inefficient, incompetent government(irrespective of the party in control) can.