Monday, February 8, 2016

"Hack-a-player" is only entertaining to Mark Cuban

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has recently spoken out on the "hack-a-player" strategy, saying he's changed his mind on the matter, and after the season, it's quite possible we could see a rule change regarding the matter.

He elaborated, saying, "At the end of the day, we are an entertainment property, and it's clear when you're in the arena that fans are looking at me shrugging their shoulders with that look saying, "Aren't you going to do something about this?'"

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban appears to disagree with Silver, as he recently uttered the following:

- "Will they leave him in or leave him out? How do both teams feel about it? How will they foul? Is it a new creative way, or is it just chasing? ... Does he make the free throws? If he makes one or two, will they do so again? Did the strategy work?"

- "We have to realize that the number of basketball purists that aren't in the media is probably under 1,000 people globally. There is no special basketball beauty in walking the ball up the court and dribbling around the perimeter. Will we change that too?"

- "[Parents could spend time] watching the shots and telling your kids why practice matters and how amazing it is that they can do something that an NBA player can't.

Will a 7-foot man try to run and escape a foul so he doesn't have to do what so many 12-year-olds do in games every day?"

Cuban insinuated that the "hack-a-player" strategy is both fascinating and entertaining. I don't know what the Dallas owner is watching, but I'm definitely on Commissioner Silver's side here. It's one thing for a team to intentionally foul a poor foul shooter toward the end of a game. It's quite another for this to be a team's "strategy" for 48 minutes, and there's absolutely nothing fascinating nor entertaining about a team intentionally fouling a poor free throw shooter for the entire duration of a game. That's not basketball. That doesn't even qualify as "strategy" as far as I'm concerned, for what kind of intellect does it take for a well-paid coach to tell his guys, "Okay, for 48 minutes, we're going to be alternating guys when we're on defense to foul their poorest free throw shooter. Why? Because they always seem to beat us and I've given up trying to outsmart their coach. Yes, this is why they're paying me the big money"?

Personally, I like Pardon The Interruption co-host Tony Kornheiser's idea regarding the matter. He recently suggested that the "hack-a-player" strategy should result in a team being rewarded free throws and the ball back during the first 45 minutes of a game, but for it to be legal in the final 3 minutes. This would likely result in a significant drop in intentional fouls for a large majority of the game, yet wouldn't completely do away with it either. Mark Cuban can believe whatever he'd like, but I and many other fans are going to change the channel if we're subjected to "hack-a-player" games, ticketholders will feel ripped off, and the league will lose fans and money unless a change is made. If the Mavericks owner doesn't believe me, perhaps he should go around asking die-hard NBA fans this question: "To you, what's more entertaining, watching Shaquille O'Neal shoot 40 free throws in a game, or writing the words 'paint dry' with the slowest drying paint ever created and actually watching it do so?"

Super Bowl 50

- Was that not one of the ugliest Super Bowls in recent memory? The game may not have been a blowout, but it may as well have been. The two teams combined to turn the ball over 6 times, were penalized 18 others, the quarterbacks completed 31 of 64 pass attempts (48.4%) and averaged just 4.7 yards per pass attempt, and the winning team gained fewer than 200 yards total offense (194 to be exact). Yeah, with a game like that, I think we can rest assured Peyton Manning wasn't on HGH during its proceedings...

- I have nothing against Coldplay and like a few of their songs, but was surprised by the announcement they'd be the centerpiece of this year's halftime show. They're not known for the fun, upbeat, dance-worthy music that's typically played during the Super Bowl halftime show. What I found to be even more surprising was when I heard that Beyonce and Bruno Mars would be accompanying Coldplay on stage during their performance. The three of them all have good songs on their own, and while just Beyonce and Bruno Mars could have mixed well and provided an entertaining halftime show, Coldplay kind of felt like the odd person out, which was especially strange considering the fact they were the so-called headliner. Combining Coldplay with dance/r&b/soul music would have been like combining Whitney Houston with Limp Bizkit, Metallica with Adele, or Donald Trump with common sense; it just doesn't work.

- While I liked a couple commercials, the Prius one in particular, what in the world was up with that Mountain Dew Kickstart commercial featuring the "puppy monkey baby"? Did the writers seriously think, "So, what's cute? Puppies are cute; people love them. Monkies are cute too. Everyone loves babies; I mean, just look at Facebook. Whoa! What if we combined all three for our commercial?!? Puppy monkey baby! It's genius, I tell you, fricking genius!" No, not exactly. What'll Mountain Dew come up with next? Kitty emu preschooler? Gerbil t-rex adolescent? Guinea pig humpback whale young adult? Hopefully they don't read this and take my ridiculous suggestions seriously...

- The three biggest highlights from the Super Bowl (for me)? 1) Lady Gaga singing the National Anthem, 2) the extended Prius commercial, and 3) the after-show with Stephen Colbert. Yes, the game was THAT good. Hopefully exotic animal expert Will Ferrell will enlighten us on puppy monkey babies during his next showing on The Late Show.

Sunday, February 7, 2016

Twitter followers to avoid (and/or block)

While I have thoroughly enjoyed my Twitter experience to this point, I am quite thankful of the "block" option, especially when it comes to the following demographics:

PA (Pacifieroholics Anonymous): Unless we're talking about our own children, I can't think of a time when a person would say, "You know who I love more than anyone else? Whiners!" Just the other day, I posted a link to an article which a follower didn't find interesting, so she felt the need to comment, saying, "Are you ever going to post anything of importance? Seriously?" Really? If she had read the article and wanted to make a comment about it, so be it, but of what point is there, other than whining, to go out of her way to complain about an article's title which doesn't intrigue her? So, as I typically do, I handed her a pacifier and carried on with my day.

Seriously serious: There are times I wonder if people even bother to read my profile before following me. I don't hide my identity or beliefs any. In my bio, I mention that I'm a satirist and think the Tea Party so crazy, a Long Island Iced Tea party would be more sane. So why some feel the need to follow me and criticize my satirical tweets as being offensive is beyond me. That'd be like me following a musician and tweeting to them, "Why do you always have to tweet about the instruments you play and the gigs you have? It's boring!" I mean, what do these people expect, for me, a satirist, to regularly tweet about the dictionary, encyclopedia, and periodic table? Actually, I do mention those in tweets on occasion, so nevermind...

Their friends' greatest enemy: I'm progressive and am leaning toward Bernie Sanders, however, am also realistic in thinking Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. I try not to show bias toward either candidate with my tweets, but do post news about them both. Whenever I post a positive story about Sanders, a handful of Clinton supporters will bash Bernie, and vice versa when I post a positive story about Clinton. Can't we all just get along, and by "we," I mean Democrats? Perhaps after a candidate gets rewarded with the party's nomination, the two can start a short bar-hopping reality series, entitled, Weekend At Hillary and Bernie's.

"I like long walks on the beach...and trolling": Who doesn't love trolls, right? Trolls are like construction: They always seem to be around, don't seem to do anything productive, and while there are days when things are going well and they don't phase you, there are other days when they're cause for a migraine. Fortunately, unlike with construction, we can block trolls.

"Sarcasm is like a foreign language or something...": While I'll be the first to admit that it's becoming increasingly more difficult to differentiate satire from reality at times, I'll also be the first to say it's incredibly sad how regularly this seems to occur. Even when I post articles by writers at The Onion or Andy Borowitz, I'll receive multiple angry comments, saying something along the lines of: "These people are sick!" or "How can we let this happen?!?" or "I can't believe this is true! On second thought, I can!" Oh, but I wish you wouldn't... be continued... (well, maybe...)

Oh, Twitter trolls...

As regular readers will know, I've had a great deal of fun on my Twitter page on #GOPDebate nights. During the eight debates, I've posted between 20 and 50 sarcastic tweets at the expense of the seemingly endless candidates. This has resulted in a significant number of "likes," "retweets," compliments, multiple mentions on other websites, and yes, trolls. I guess it kind of comes with the territory, yet 99.9% of the time I read these trolls' comments, I can't help but shake my head and do my best Linda Blair impersonation, as my eyes roll back so far even she would be impressed.

Just last night, I received a few such comments, three of which stood out from the rest. The tweet which generated most of the trolls' comments was this one:

"Trump: 'Conservatives are all about conserving, except oil, the environment, money, & human life, you know, b/c of guns & stuff.'


1) "Your just projecting your anger, racism, and bigotry! Doesn't help your cause any lib!"

Say what?!? Does oil = anger, the environment = race, and money = bigotry? That's interesting... Oh, and not making any sense doesn't help your cause any either, Mr. Troll...

2) "Human life? Which party is responsible for all the abortions and selling fetus brains and body parts? Democrats!"

Actually, that Carly Fiorina claim has been debunked more times than Donald Trump has uttered the word "big." Even Fox News has confronted Ms. Fiorina on the matter ( When a claim is debunked by multiple (reputable) sources, that doesn't make said claim a fact... As the kids nowadays would say, "Just sayin'..."

3) "Detroit, Michigan is what happens when Democrats get control!"

Seriously?!? First off, there's a great deal of blame to go around for Detroit's downfall. Conservatives can attempt to lay the entire blame on Democratic leaders, but they'd be inaccurate in saying only Democrats were in power during the city's downturn. Not only that, but they'd be failing to look at the bigger picture. As Richard Wolff explains in this article (, "Detroit's decline is a distinctively capitalist failure: The auto industry Big Three were loyal only to shareholders, not the people of Detroit. The city was gutted by that social choice." Not only that, but from a logic perspective, the argument is a weak one, for it's a prime example of cherry-picking. The author of this post focused his attention on one example and attempted to cast that example as a trend rather than an aberration, yet provided no evidence to prove this. It'd be like if I pointed to the 9/11 attacks under then President Bush and said, "This is what happens when Republicans get control!" Pretty ridiculous, right? Perhaps this poster may want to look at and compare the economy under Republican vs. Democratic presidents in recent decades before making another such egregious mistake.

Then today, I posted a fact-check to Donald Trump's claim that the U.S. is the most taxed country in the world. The fact-checkers graded the statement as "false," provided evidence to support this grade, and to this, I received a response claiming Trump's claim was actually correct ( No matter what the poster wants to believe, here's what the report, conducted by Joshua Gillin and Louis Jacobson, said:

- "In OECD data from 2014, the most recent year available, the United States was far from the most highly taxed among this group.

Taxation accounted for 26 percent of GDP, which ranks America 27th out of 30 countries (the OECD average was more than 34 percent).The top five highest-taxed countries as a percentage of GDP were Denmark, France, Belgium, Finland and Italy, all topping 43 percent. Korea, Chile and Mexico were the only nations ranked lower than the United States."

- "As for tax revenue per capita, we move up a bit.

America is 17th out of 29 countries by this measure on the OECD list, with taxes totaling $14,994 per person. The top five were Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland, which ranged from a high of almost $50,000 to to more than $23,000. Twelve nations were lower than the United States. The bottom two, Turkey and Chile, had tax revenues per capita of less than $3,000."

- "Industrialized economies are the best yardstick, but U.S. taxation as a percentage of GDP ranks 12th from the bottom if you compare it with a larger roster of 115 countries."

It's like the poster didn't even read the report. Shocking, I know, right? Trolls, please do me, and everyone else you attempt to anger, a few favors: Read the tweets before commenting on them, make certain you're responding to the right post, make sure your replies make some sense, don't resort to fallacies or debunked claims, and before clicking "tweet," as yourself this question: "Will posting this make me sound dumber than Rick Perry counting to 3?" Thanks a bunch! Have a nice day!

The Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders camps need to eventually come together

I was quite ignorant and apathetic when it came to the world of politics until 9/11. Before that morning, I gave no thought to elections, party affiliation, lobbying and special interests, voter participation, or the world around my high school/college friends, family, and I. I was 20 years old, incredibly naive, took our liberties for granted, and was finally awoken that morning. I have a feeling this was true for a lot of people - 9/11 was this country's ultimate wake-up call. However, unlike many others, who were prompted to develop severe paranoia, of Muslims in particular, due to the attacks, I was prompted to read, research, write, and discover who I was, what I believed, and what I could do to make a difference.

Slowly but surely, I discovered I was a progressive, and for the first time in my life, got involved in the run up to the 2004 election. While I wasn't overly enthused about John Kerry as the Democratic candidate, I was not at all a fan of George W. Bush and his administration, Vice President Dick Cheney in particular. I didn't believe in sacrificing civil liberties for a (false) sense of security, as occurred via the passage of the Patriot Act. I was also quite hesitant on invading Iraq and fighting the "war on terror," for I had a hunch it'd be impossible to win such a war (see the war on drugs), would be a waste of money, and that President Bush and his administration weren't revealing the whole truth to us. Of course, I couldn't prove any of this at the time, but in hindsight, I have to say, my gut feeling was once again right on the money.

I became even more involved in the run up to the 2008 election. Unlike with John Kerry, Barack Obama made me feel a sense of enthusiasm and hope I had yet to experience with a presidential candidate. While he was an up-and-comer and had my support, I still thought Hillary Clinton would wind up being the Democratic nominee. Throughout the primaries, ardent Obama and Clinton supporters went at one another, threatening to not vote for the other candidate if he/she became the Democratic nominee. Insults were thrown at one another and there were a few moments during the process when I thought to myself, "No matter who wins the nomination, be it Obama or Clinton, they could very well lose the election because of all the vitriol during the primaries." Fortunately that wasn't the case, but fast-forward 8 years and it's like deja vu, as the Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders camps are at each other's throats with criticism, threatening to not vote on election day if their candidate isn't the party's nominee, and once again, it leaves me worried.

I can fully understand a person possessing a great deal of passion for a particular candidate and feeling disappointed if he/she doesn't wind up being the party's nominee. However, at the end of the day, whether it's Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders leading the Democratic Party heading toward November's election, we're going to need both camps to come together in order to keep the Oval Office out of the hands of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio. Whether you're a Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders supporter, try looking back at all the progress we've made in the past 7 years, and ask yourself if it's really worth sacrificing all that progress and additional progress moving forward because your preferred candidate doesn't become the party's nominee. The GOP candidates, Senator Rubio in particular, like to claim that if a Democrat wins the coming election, America as we know it will be a thing of the past. In my opinion, they have it backwards. If a Republican wins the election and the party hangs onto control of Congress, millions of Americans, myself included, can say goodbye to their healthcare, women will likely have to say goodbye to their reproductive rights (Roe v. Wade could be overturned), war will again be our first option, Reaganomics will continue rearing its ugly head, Citizens United won't be altered, civil liberties will be sacrificed for a false sense of security, discrimination in the workplace will be permitted, prison and drug reform will be less likely than Donald Trump winning a Mr. Universe competition, gun violence will continue being ignored, education and infrastructure spending will be sacrificed in favor of paranoia-spending, our troops' needs will get neglected when they return home, and the country will be "great again" only for rich straight white Christian males. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders may be the perfect candidate, but they both want to continue moving this country forward, which is a far cry from what the GOP frontrunners are proposing. While there may be times when we need to take a step back in order to take a few steps forward, that progress may be next to impossible if we are forced to take several steps back as the GOP intends. Please keep that in mind as the election nears.

My Updated GOP Candidate Rankings (down to 9...)

It seems like I did this just a week ago. Oh, that's right, because I did: Three candidates have suspended their campaigns since then (Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and Rand Paul), so we're now down to 9. Here are my updated rankings of the remaining candidates:

9) Ted Cruz (up 3 spots): It's ironic how the Cruz campaign has decided to roll with the slogan "TrusTed," considering every time the Texas senator opens his mouth during a debate he averages approximately four lies per sentence.

8) Marco Rubio (up 3 spots): Given how the Florida senator appears to prepare for debates, I have to believe when being introduced to someone, he says, "Hi, I'm Marco Rubio; hi, I'm Marco Rubio; hi, I'm Marco Rubio." Yeah, we got  you the first time...

7) Carly Fiorina (up 3 spots): I didn't hear her speak last night, so her silence was quite refreshing. To this point in the primary season, it was by far and away her most honest debate performance.

6) Ben Carson (no change): After listening to Ben Carson speak, I now know I no longer need to take Melatonin to help put me to sleep at night; I can just listen to the former neurosurgeon at a debate, and I'll be out within 2 minutes, tops...

5) Donald Trump (up 2 spots): After receiving the loudest boos I've heard at a debate this primary season, Trump is probably telling the media, "Look, these were Northeasterners, with those thick accents, and chanting my first name, Donald, but it sounded like Doooooo-nald. They weren't booing, just saying my name." Riiight...

4) Jim Gilmore (up 1 spot): I've only seen the man in one debate, so of all the GOP candidates, he's provided me with the fewest headaches this primary season. Thanks, Jim!

3) Chris Christie (up 1 spot): I actually enjoyed Governor Christie's performance last night, especially when he went after Rubio. While he may want to keep up that line of attack, however, he may want to stray away from sayings which include the word bridge/bridges...

2) Jeb Bush (up 1 spot): Where has this Jeb! been all campaign season? Jeb appeared to be asleep at the wheel during the first six Republican debates, but has suddenly awoken the previous two. The question is, will it be too little too late? We'll have to wait and see on that, but in the meantime, Jeb may want to make certain he doesn't utter the phrase "mission accomplished" just yet...

1) John Kasich (no change): In my opinion, Kasich gave his best performance of the debate season last night. While there was still some repetition in his responses, it was limited, he provided more variation than has been typical, and he showcased some emotion, which has also been atypical for the Ohio governor. I'll be curious to see how he places in the New Hampshire primary and whether or not he decides to stay in the race following Tuesday's results.

My hopeful 2016 presidential election: Democrat Bernie Sanders vs. Republican John Kasich (no change)

My predicted 2016 presidential election: Democrat Hillary Clinton vs. Republican Donald Trump (no change)


It wasn't until an hour into the debate last night when I realized yet another GOP debate was airing. Fighting a headache throughout the proceedings, I tried to make the most of the final two hours of the debate, ended up posting 18 tweets during its duration, and will now list them, from the most to the least popular (to check out all my tweets, you can go here -

1) Cruz: "On Day 1, I will reverse all of President Obama's 228 unConstitutional executive orders, but none of Reagan's 381!"
47 Likes, 42 Retweets

2) Trump: "Conservatives are all about conserving, except oil, the environment, money, & human life, you know, b/c of guns & stuff."
51 Likes, 29 Retweets

3) Rubio: "When I'm president, I'll fight to take away LGBTs rights, but that does not make me a bigot!"
39 Likes, 27 Retweets

4) Rubio: "Dems are extremists for believing in LGBT & women's rights, & for decreasing abortion through contraception & education."
30 Likes, 27 Retweets

5) Rubio: "My strategy for every debate is to write down four talking points on this 3 x 5 notecard & repeat them throughout."
26 Likes, 21 Retweets

6) Rubio: "Muslims aren't discriminated against w/threats & stuff! Christians are for not being able to discriminate against gays!"
29 Likes, 15 Retweets

7) Carson: "I'm all about common sense, like when I said Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery. Amen."
22 Likes, 10 Retweets

8) Jeb!: "Conservatives believe in limited government, unless you're a minority, a woman, a Muslim, an LGBT person, etc. Fact!"
14 Likes, 14 Retweets

9) Trump: "Here's my specific plan: 1) Repeal Obamacare, 2) Replace it, & 3) Do something bigger & better. Period. Like yeah."
17 Likes, 10 Retweets

10) Deep Closing Thoughts with Donald Trump
"If I'm elected president, we'll do three things: 1) Win, 2) Win, and 3) Win!"
14 Likes, 10 Retweets

11) Cruz: "Webster's wrong. In my dictionary, waterboarding isn't torture. It's not not torture, but it's not torture, you know?"
11 Likes, 12 Retweets

12) Christie: "I'm now going to talk to everyone about bridges..."
12 Likes, 8 Retweets

12) Rubio: "On my 3 x 5 notecard, point #4 reads, 'HYPERBOLE! HYPERBOLE! HYPERBOLE! HYPERBOLE! Repeat.'"
12 Likes, 8 Retweets

14) Rubio: "It's not leadership to keep trying something knowing nothing will happen, well, unless it's repealing Obamacare."
14 Likes, 5 Retweets

15) Jeb!: "I'm going to finally show off my exclamation point and pick a fight with Trump! As my wise brother said, 'Bring 'em on!'"
8 Likes, 8 Retweets

16) Carson: "What are we talking about? Healthcare? I'm going to talk about North Korea, my webpage, & wanting to talk more instead."
10 Likes, 5 Retweets

17) Trump: "If I become president, I'll make things disappear quickly. From this point forward, just call me Witch Trump."
11 Likes, 2 Retweets

18) Cruz: "The World Health Organization & their biased rankings may not agree with me, but socialized healthcare just doesn't work!"
2 Likes, 2 Retweets

Totals: 367 Likes, 245 Retweets (Averages of 20.4 Likes, 13.6 Retweets)

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Bob Woodward's angry woman problem

Speaking on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Wednesday, journalist Bob Woodward had some interesting comments regarding Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, as he said the following:

"There is something unrelaxed about the way she is communicating. Has nobody told her that the microphone works? Because she always keeps it up here. The genius of Reagan was...Reagan kept it down low."

NPR's Cokie Roberts responded to Woodward's critique by saying, "These are rallies, though, and it's hard to do that at a rally."

Kristin Soltis Anderson then added, "When she's loud and feisty, she's trying to support this narrative that she's fighting for us."

Later in the show, Woodward brought up the topic again, saying, "I'm sorry to dwell on the tone issue, but there is something here, where Hillary Clinton suggests that she's almost not comfortable with herself. And self-acceptance is something that you communicate on television."

Co-host Joe Scarborough then butted in, saying, "Go back and watch Margaret Thatcher in Britain in 1975. Often, she would find a man in her party that she would reduce with little more than a whisper. But you were right though. Hillary is always up here and again, it's just not natural to her."

Woodward responded, "She could make a case for herself if she would just kind of lower the temperature and...get off this screaming stuff."

I'm sorry, but really?!? Has he watched any of the Republican debates? Has he listened to Rick Santorum speak about religious freedom? To Donald Trump speak about Muslims? To Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz speak about anything at all? While Hillary Clinton may very well speak with a fire, fight, and passion at times, why does Bob Woodward feel the need to single her out from the rest? Why does it come across as unnatural for Hillary Clinton to speak loudly at rallies about issues for which she feels passionate, yet natural for the likes of Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz to speak in a similar tone about such topics? Why the double standard? At least Clinton illustrates some semblance of balance between her fiery rants and light-hearted moments. I'm seriously starting to wonder if Marco Rubio knows what light-hearted means. Here's how I picture him reacting in the following situations:

Setting: At his wedding

Rubio: "I DO! I SAID I F**KING DO, OKAY?!?"

Setting: Watching a sitcom


Setting: At a library


Setting: A romantic candlelight dinner


Setting: Intercourse


"Pro-Lifers" should be pro-Planned Parenthood

It's never made a great deal of sense to me why so many self-described Christian conservatives have ardently fought to defund Planned Parenthood. Granted, the family planning facility does provide abortion services, however, only 3% of their spending goes to these procedures, while 97% of it goes to improving women's health and preventing the need for abortions.

The Texas Policy Evaluation Project furthered my perplexion regarding the matter, as they recently released a study proving my point. After the Lone Star State stripped Planned Parenthood of its funding in 2013, here's what happened:

- 35% decline in IUD and implant claims

- 27% spike in births

One of the authors of the study, Amanda Jean Stevenson, said this about their findings:

"The U.S. continues to have higher rates of unintended pregnancies than most rich nations, and we know that U.S. and Texas women face barriers as they try to access preventative services. It's a public health issue that Texas women struggle to achieve their reproductive goals."

Abortion isn't a pleasant procedure and I can understand why some may hold a partial dislike for Planned Parenthood due to the facilities providing them. However, let's stop being naive and start being more realistic on the matter. Whether abortions are legal or illegal, they are going to take place, so why not try to decrease their frequency without stripping away women's reproductive rights? How can we do that? Simple. Education and contraception. Comprehensive sex education courses have proven to be much more effective than abstinence-only courses in preventing unwanted pregnancies, and with that, abortions. The same is true with regard to access to contraception. The more couples properly utilize contraception, the fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions will take place. Planned Parenthood provides both, and while these family planning facilities may provide abortions, without their presence, there would be a great number more abortions. If one is truly "pro-life," they should be pro-Planned Parenthood.

The GOP's double standard on mosque visitation

Remember when then President George W. Bush visited a mosque not long after the 9/11 attacks? If you answered no, you're not alone, for it seems many Republican politicians don't recall this event either.

Even before Barack Obama visited a mosque yesterday, which was the first time he had done so during his presidency, Fox News, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and others felt the need to criticize him for it.

Speaking to Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, Trump said, "I think that we can go to lots of places. I don't know, maybe he feels comfortable there. We have a lot of problems in this country, Greta. There are a lot of places he can go and he chose a mosque. I saw that just a little while ago. So that's his decision, it's fine."

Rubio went one step further, as he made the following comments:

"I'm tired of being divided against each other for political reasons like this president's done. Always pitting people against each other. Always! Look at today: He gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.

Of course there's discrimination in America, of every kind. But the bigger issue is radical Islam. And by the way way, radical Islam poses a threat to Muslims themselves. They argue that. They'll tell you that. But again, it's this constant pitting people against each other that - I can't stand that. It's hurting our country badly."

Oddly enough, following Bush's post-9/11 mosque visit, here is what the Washington Post reported about the event:

"In a gesture that surprised and gratified Islamic leaders, Bush stepped up an already intense effort by his administration to prevent hate crimes and discrimination against nearly 10 million American Arabs and Muslims in retaliation for the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks by Middle Eastern terrorists.

'The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam,' said the president, escorted by Islamic clerics into the ornate mosque full of Turkish tile, Persian rugs and Egyptian paintings. 'Islam is peace.'"

So, Fox News, Mr. Trump, Senator Rubio, what's the difference between President Bush visiting a mosque speaking out against anti-Muslim discrimination and President Obama doing so? I'm waiting...

Forget it; I have a feeling I'll be waiting a while. I'll answer the question for them. There is no difference between the actions of Presidents Bush and Obama; the difference is in the reactions to their actions. Marco Rubio's reaction, in particular, is a prime example of projection. In claiming President Obama is dividing the country by visiting a mosque and doing so for political reasons, it's actually Senator Rubio who's using the president's mosque visitation for political reasons and in the process, dividing the country.

Even if Senator Rubio isn't projecting, his comments are nonsensical. How does division via inclusion or division through acceptance make any logical sense? How is President Obama dividing a nation by attempting to make those most susceptible to being discriminated against feel welcome?

It isn't divisive to try and provide equal rights for all U.S. citizens. It isn't divisive to try and provide equal pay for equal work regardless of gender. It isn't divisive to try and legalize marriage rights regardless of orientation. It isn't divisive to try and provide equal opportunity regardless of race. It isn't divisive to try and showcase respect regardless of religious affiliation. President Obama hasn't been dividing this country by trying to make everyone feel like an integral part of it; Marco Rubio and his ilk have been dividing this country by taking advantage of people's prejudices and using them for political reasons to prompt fear, illusion, and votes on election day.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Cam Newton's right...

As many of my long time readers should know, I'm extremely nonpartisan when it comes to sports. While I have always loved both participating and spectating many sports, I'm not a homer for any one team. I enjoy sporting events like I enjoy movies. I appreciate good coaching/directing, solid execution/acting, can't seem to get enough twists and turns in the plots, and love a good, unexpected climax. Having said that, I similarly try not to hop on or off a player's bandwagon too quickly, which places me at odds with a majority of sportswriters/ESPN talking heads. This is especially the case with NFL quarterbacks, whom analysts seem to fall in and out of love with more quickly and more frequently than middle schoolers named Romeo and Juliet. When columnists fell in love with Andrew Luck and Colin Kaepernick of Indianapolis and San Francisco, respectively, I said, "Let's hold up just a minute. They certainly have potential, but let's wait a couple more years to see how they progress." Following the two quarterbacks' subpar showings this past season, many of these same analysts suggested the former Pro Bowl quarterbacks may have already reached their peak, and once again, I said, "Let's not write them off just yet." The same has been true of Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton. From a numbers perspective, he got off to a great start in his NFL career, and sportswriters everywhere were drooling at this. However, once his main vertical threat, Steve Smith, darted for Baltimore, his numbers regressed, not to mention his injuries seem to become more frequent, and the drooling sportswriters were beginning to wonder if this was the start of a downward trend for the young quarterback. He then decided to quiet his critics with an MVP-caliber season this year. Throughout all this, I've held rather steady, but unlike with both Luck and Kaepernick, have been greatly impressed with Newton's progressions this season. However, I'm still not going to guarantee him a spot in the Hall of Fame just yet. While he's a beast of a man (size wise) and has significantly improved his passing skills, with his style of play, he always runs the risk of an injury, so nothing should be set in stone at the moment.

While Newton has quieted his critics with regard to his play and his team's success, he's been on the receiving end of an increasing number of critiques regarding his "arrogance," celebrations, and even his long-term relationship/family life. At this, he recently told the media the following:

"I'm an African-American quarterback that scares people because they haven't seen nothing that they can compare me to. People are going to judge, and have opinions on things I don't have control over."

He added:

"I think it's a trick question. If I answer it truthfully it's going to be 'Aw, he's this or that.' But I will say it anyway.

I don't think people have seen what I am or what I'm trying to do.

I said that prior to me being in this situation. But when I said it then it was like, 'Oh he is immature,' or, 'Oh he's young and this that and the third.' I felt a certain type of way then and I feel a certain type of way now - nothing has pretty much changed. They talk about maturity. They talk about skillset. ... The only thing that has changed (about me) is that we're winning now."

So, ESPN and other media outlets decided to run with this and debate whether Cam Newton's criticized more for his on-the-field antics or his race. Well, ESPN just released these poll results on the matter:

- 62% believe the criticism is due to Newton's style of play, 14% think it's due to his race

- 38% of black fans believe the criticism is due to Newton's style of play, 34% think it's due to his race

I have to side with Cam Newton and the "black fans" whom took part in this survey. There can be no denying Cam Newton is a big personality, an athlete who draws attention wherever he goes and doesn't she away from it, and isn't afraid to showcase he loves football and is having fun while playing on Sundays. However, he isn't the only such player who does this, yet is arguably called out for it more than any other player in the league. Aaron Rodgers loves doing the discount double-check dance after leading a touchdown drive. Why isn't he criticized like Cam Newton is for doing the "dab" after leading his team to a touchdown? While I think the criticism is partially due to Newton's style of play, I'd be remiss if I didn't say I thought it had something to do with his race as well.

For those who like to label Cam Newton as arrogant, name me one NFL starting quarterback that isn't. I have a feeling I'll be waiting a while. It's perfectly fine for NFL fans to dislike Cam Newton's style of play or to dislike the Carolina Panthers as a team, but don't judge him as a person off the field due to his flashy play on the field, cut it out with the double-standards regarding celebrations, and if you want Newton and the Panthers to cool it with their celebrations I have one simple solution - stop them from scoring touchdowns and winning. Okay, so perhaps that won't be so simple considering the fact they're 17-1 this year, but it's a solution nonetheless.

Hillary Clinton meme in poor taste

I stumbled upon this Hillary Clinton meme on Facebook and thought it was in poor taste: 

I admit I thought the bits about "a rattlesnake with a 'pet me' sign," "a prostate exam from Captain Hook," and to a lesser extent, "Emails from a Nigerian Princess" and "gas station sushi," were humorous, I was taken aback by the references to Ray Rice and Bill Cosby. It's one thing for those whom despise Hillary Clinton to say they don't trust her to lead this country; it's quite another to say they'd trust a man caught on camera punching his girlfriend and a man accused of drugging and raping many women more than former Secretary of State Clinton. That comparison is in incredibly poor taste, especially considering the fact Hillary Clinton is a woman, and every one of Ray Rice and Bill Cosby's alleged victims were women. I may not trust Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio to lead this country, but I'm also not going to compare them to Ray Rice in an elevator or Bill Cosby as a bartender.

As a side-note, I found the mentions of "Mexican tap water," "a Jimmy Carter economic plan," and "Brian Williams news reports" unintentionally humorous as well. When reading that, I had to laugh and think, "You mean, Flint tap water (thanks to Republican Governor Rick Snyder), George W. Bush's economic plan, and Fox News reports, right?"

A nonsensical Bernie Sanders meme

Just yesterday, I saw this meme posted by someone on Facebook: 

Yes, I'm still scratching my head as well, and for two reasons: 1) How in the world is this supposed to be funny? and 2) How in the world does it make any sense whatsoever? 

The meme appears to try linking Bernie Sanders supporters, as displayed at this rally, to the reason(s) why socialism doesn't work. However, even if I'm at all accurate on the message the meme is trying to convey, it's an extremely weak attempt, and a nonsensical one at that. 

One reason this is such a weak meme is the fact a similar photo could be taken at a rally of each and every presidential candidate, from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton to even the likes of Rick Santorum and Carly Fiorina, whom are placing near the very bottom of GOP polls. Each of these candidates' rallies would showcase many supporters, some of which are holding up signs illustrating strong support for him or her. If the author of this meme wanted to stay consistent with his or her "logic" (or lack there of), would it then make sense to post similar photos of Trump supporters, Santorum supporters, Clinton supporters, or Fiorina supporters? "This is what happens when every kid gets a trophy." My guess is the author would say no. But why then would it make logical sense to suggest "socialism" results in thousands of Bernie Sanders supporters appearing at a rally of his and showcasing why socialism is ineffective, yet not make sense to suggest thousands of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Ben Carson supporters appearing at a rally of theirs would showcase something similar? The logic and consistency of this meme are more off than I am urinating outside during a Category 5 hurricane. 

Not only that, but outside of the signs, there's no mention of Bernie Sanders in this meme, his voting history, his policy ideas, etc. It leaves actual thought and detail to the wayside as it loudly declares in its best Caveman voice: "Bernie Sanders, supporters, socialism, BAD!"

On that note, after seeing this meme, I immediately thought of similar ideas for the ten remaining GOP candidates:

GOP (Bernie Sanders): "This is what happens when every kid gets a trophy."

Jeb Bush: "This is what happens when a kid's brother ignores terrorist threats, lies the country into war, turns surpluses into record deficits, responds poorly to major hurricanes, leads the country into a recession, declares mission accomplished before it's so, and comes across like a 17-year-old kindergartner."

Ben Carson: "This is what happens when a kid's family was aided by the government growing up, yet develops serious amnesia in his early 60s."

Chris Christie: "This is what happens when a kid looks down, asks why it's so small, and continues asking this well into his 30s, before deciding to compensate by buying a big truck, several guns, and forming a gang by the name of The Big Pieces."

Ted Cruz: "This is what happens when a Canadian kid immigrates to the United States, decides to hate all other immigrants, and seeks to become the most hated man in the country, all the while obsessively reading Dr. Seuss books and aspiring to write his own version of one, entitled, "Carpet Bombs and Ham."

Carly Fiorina: "This is what happens when a kid tells her teacher, 'The biggest life lesson I've ever learned is my pants won't actually catch on fire for lying.'"

Jim Gilmore: "This is what happens when a kid's goal is to become the anti-Cheers and continually go places where no one knows his name."

John Kasich: "This is what happens when a kid gets laughed at and kicked out of high school drama club."

Marco Rubio: "This is what happens when a 28-year-old kid thinks the Harvey Danger song, 'Flagpole Sitta,' was written about his life."

Rick Santorum: "This is what happens when a kid doesn't realize Jesus is messing with him."

Donald Trump: "This is what happens when a kid gets a 'small' $1 million loan from his father."

GOP/Tea Party: "This is what happens when grown-up kids want to turn a republic into an oligarchy."

"Valentine's Day: Could Bad Grammar = Forever Alone?" (Grammarly)

Valentine's Day Grammar 2016 Infographic

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Info on my Facebook business, Twitter, and Tumblr pages

Here's the URL to my Facebook business page. I update it fairly regularly, but still haven't put forth a great deal of effort yet in researching matters and attempting to make the most out of it. In any case, it can be perused here:

Up next is my Twitter page. I'm still not 100% certain what I'm doing on there yet, but feel I'm gradually getting the hang of it and am up to 32,712 followers. I update it daily with many of my own tweets, but also by retweeting some others'. It can be found here:

Lastly, here's my Tumblr page, which I've neglected quite a bit recently, but if you're at all curious, you can find it at the following link:

Weekly update of my book information

For new readers (and regular ones, I suppose), here's some information pertaining to my books.

All twelve of my books can be purchased in paperback form at the following site (and others):

The ten books I've written and released in the past 4 years (yes, I've been on a roll) can be purchased for much cheaper in Kindle form at the following link:

Sunday, January 31, 2016

My Updated GOP Candidate Rankings (we're at a dozen...)

As I've been doing following every GOP debate, I thought I'd update my candidate rankings. My most recent rankings (up til now) were posted a couple weeks ago at the following link -

Since then, I've learned former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore is still in the race. While I had heard that Mr. Gilmore entered the race a while back, since I had yet to see him in any debate (even at the JV table), I assumed he dropped out. Well, apparently I was mistaken, as he made his first such appearance last week on Fox (News). So, we're back to a dozen candidates. Hopefully that number shrinks quite substantially following the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary. Without further ado, here are my updated rankings:

12) Ted Cruz (down 1 spot): It seems that once anyone gets to know Ted Cruz, there's a 97.86% chance they won't like him. Hell, George W. Bush and Bob Dole, among many other Republicans, have even expressed their dislike of the Texas senator. So how is he in contention for the GOP nomination? I have no fricking idea. Perhaps among many GOP voters the question isn't, "Who would you most like to have a beer with?" it's "Who would you most like to bash over the head with a bottle of beer?"

11) Marco Rubio (down 1 spot): Rubio is inching ever so closely to overtaking Senator Cruz for my least favorite Republican candidate. While his debate performances have often been lauded by conservative talking heads, they give me headaches. Regardless whether he's approached with a question about ISIS or his favorite movie, Rubio seems to respond in an angry, combative, paranoid tone of voice, which leaves me wondering, "Did he yell 'I do!" at his wedding?"

10) Carly Fiorina (down 2 spots): She might be a good debater in the sense that she often speaks articulately, with emotion, and knows how to bash everyone around her, Hillary Clinton in particular. However, over the course of all seven debates, I believe I've heard her utter one factual statement. Everything else has been hogwash. Now, whenever she opens her mouth, my mind immediately thinks, "I wonder what kind of BS she's going to spew this time." After she falls short this election season, it's my belief her life goal will be to debunk those whom debunked her Planned Parenthood claims, even though those claims have been debunked more times than Donald Trump has spoken highly of himself.

9) Mike Huckabee (no change): The guy comes across like a grandfather at times, telling his grandkids a handful of stories every time they get together. While this makes him more personable than most other GOP candidates from the surface, once one digs into the actual content and accuracy of these very stories, they soon realize he's full of crap, which detracts from that initial appeal. If he would begin his stories by saying, "Let me say up front this is just a parable. It's not true in the literal sense, but I feel it makes a good point," I'd have more respect for him. However, I think there's less chance of that occurring than finding a winning lottery ticket on the sink of a bar by the name of Drink Because You're SOL.

8) Rick Santorum (down 1 spot): The guy is a slightly toned-down version of Marco Rubio, as he often sounds angry, but it's not quite as constant. He's also toned down his anti-LGBT rhetoric, which has been nice. I'm not sure why he's still in the race. Maybe life at home is boring him, he's delusional about his chances, or he's attempting to set the record for most kiddie-table debate performances.

7) Donald Trump (down 1 spot): So the guy wants to convince the public he can destroy every terrorist organization around the globe, yet can't face moderator Megyn Kelly of the conservatively-biased Fox News Channel in a debate? Mr. Tough Guy indeed...

6) Ben Carson (down 1 spot): Mr. Carson comes across like a nice guy, but the more he talks, the less sense he seems to make. Did he really call Vladimir Putin a "one-horse country"?

5) Jim Gilmore (debut): Like 99% of the population, I hardly know anything about this guy, which is enough to place him at #5 on my list. Yes, that's how little I think of the previous seven candidates.

4) Chris Christie (no change): Senator Christie perplexes me. He comes across like this year's version of John McCain (from 2008) and Mitt Romney (from 2012), which likely wouldn't bode well for him if he became the party's nominee. Away from the debate stage, he comes across as a moderate Republican, willing to work with the other side to get things done. However, on the debate stage, he comes across as extremely partisan and anything but moderate. I don't know why candidates like Christie continue to use this tactic in today's day and age. Psst, there are such things as smartphones, the Internet, and YouTube now...

3) Jeb Bush (no change): I think Bush had his strongest debate showing yet, but how much will that impact his standing in the polls and the likelihood of him becoming the party's nominee? It's too early to tell. It'll be interesting to see if the Jeb transformed to Jeb! regressing back to Jeb even potentially to the point of Jeb? will once again progress to Jeb! 

2) Rand Paul (no change): In my opinion, the big winner of the Fox News debate, if there was one, was Rand Paul. The crowd was behind him from the start. He was provided more time to speak than usual, and used that time to try and appeal to moderates, conservatives, and liberals alike. He also avoided the seemingly inevitable boxing match with Chris Christie, so that's good...

1) John Kasich (no change): The Ohio governor was slightly less repetitive in his most recent debate showing. However, his performance was still fairly forgettable. He's polling well in New Hampshire, but is struggling elsewhere. It'll be interesting to see if a solid showing in New Hampshire helps boost Kasich in other states or if the state is a mere outlier and he'll drop out soon regardless of his standing in The Granite State. In any case, Mr. Kasich, would you mind telling us about balancing the budget again? Thanks...

My hopeful 2016 presidential election: Democrat Bernie Sanders vs. Republican John Kasich (no change)

My predicted 2016 presidential election: Democrat Hillary Clinton vs. Republican Donald Trump (Clinton vs. Ted Cruz last time)

Friday, January 29, 2016


As has been the case with each and every Republican debate, I had a field day on Twitter. I watched both debates (yes, all three hours of them) and came up with the following Tweets, which I'll list from the most to least popular (all my tweets can be viewed here -

1) Jeb!: "I've seen some polls where I'm way ahead of Hillary Clinton. I believe they were conducted by Steve Harvey."
36 Likes, 18 Retweets

2) Rubio: "Anyone who lied to soldiers' families cannot be President of the United States, except for Bush & other Republicans!"
24 Likes, 27 Retweets

3) Carson: "Please don't ask me any questions for the next 7 minutes. I'm going to take my 9:45 nap. Thank you."
36 Likes, 10 Retweets

4) Rand: "Hillary shouldn't be held responsible for her husband's actions, but like, we should still call her out on it, you know?"
28 Likes, 13 Retweets

5) Rubio: "Hate speech = hate action when it comes to Muslim extremists, but not for the man who attacked Planned Parenthood!"
24 Likes, 16 Retweets

5) Cruz: "We need to stand up for marriage equality in this country, unless you're gay, but that's different."
25 Likes, 15 Retweets

7) Christie: "I always take responsibility as governor. Just take our internal investigation of Bridgegate for instance..."
21 Likes, 15 Retweets

8) Carson: "My goal for my closing comments is to make everyone fall asleep like I've been doing for half this debate."
24 Likes, 10 Retweets

9) Fiorina: "I never personally attacked Hillary Clinton. Now allow me to bash her for the next minute or two."
16 Likes, 15 Retweets

9) Carson: "Unlike myself, we are blessed with tremendous energy in this great nation."
21 Likes, 10 Retweets

9) Carson: "Wait, the question is for me? I just woke up from my nap. Can I get some coffee?"
25 Likes, 6 Retweets

12) Kasich: "We need to take better care of the mentally ill, including those up here running for president."
22 Likes, 7 Retweets

13) Fiorina: "I'm now going to pull out the Trump card & whine about Fox being biased against Republicans b/c I'm on hallucinogens."
16 Likes, 12 Retweets

14) Rubio: "Forget actual fact-checkers. Just go to my website for all the real facts."
15 Likes, 12 Retweets

15) Fiorina: "Here are the facts about Planned Parenthood. When I say facts, I mean bullsh*t."
15 Likes, 11 Retweets

15) Cruz: "Obamacare may have given people healthcare & jobs may have been created, but it cost Americans jobs and healthcare!"
15 Likes, 11 Retweets

15) Cruz: "There's all these lobbyists & Democrats who spend loads of money. We need responsible spending, like under Reagan & Bush!"
16 Likes, 10 Retweets

18) Gilmore's wife: (leaves a message on his cell) "Honey, are you watching the debate? There's some guy that looks just like you!"
14 Likes, 11 Retweets

19) Jeb!: "Look, I probably won't get elected, so please do me a favor and buy my book off Amazon."
18 Likes, 6 Retweets

20) Rubio: "I'm now going to sound angry as I proclaim my love for Jesus, because it's my natural voice."
17 Likes, 6 Retweets

21) Cruz: "If I'm elected president, I promise to do something every day I haven't in a very long time - tell the truth!"
17 Likes, 5 Retweets

22) Cruz: "Let me take this time to complain about the media again. If this continues, I may have to leave the stage & cry w/Donald."
11 Likes, 10 Retweets

23) Santorum: "Obama is the most divisive president ever not b/c of all the myths which were spread about him by good Christians!"
16 Likes, 4 Retweets

23) Cruz: "I'm now going to prove to everyone I'm an idiot. Here it is... If you want the truth, just listen to Rush Limbaugh!"
13 Likes, 7 Retweets

25) Gilmore: "Even though only 4 people knew who I was before tonight, when I become president..."
12 Likes, 7 Retweets

25) Cruz: "I won't tell you how to fix immigration now, but go to my website and every answer is right there!"
12 Likes, 7 Retweets

27) Carson: "Forget ISIS & other such groups. What's really endangering America is political correctness, & well, that's about it."
12 Likes, 5 Retweets

28) Cruz: "Carpet-bombing to me is like brushing your teeth. I do it every single day with a top-of-the-line Dyson vacuum cleaner!"
11 Likes, 5 Retweets

28) Huckabee: "I'm not feeling the Bern. I'm feeling the Reagan! Trickle-down economics is the only way to solve poverty & stuff."
14 Likes, 2 Retweets

30) Kelly: "Let's open the debate by talking about the elephant not in the room - Donald Trump. Yes, I just called him an elephant."
12 Likes, 3 Retweets

30) Jeb!: "I now officially have two major crushes: 1) Supergirl and 2) Dulce Candy."
12 Likes, 3 Retweets

32) Rand Paul: "For the first time all evening, I'm going to say something which makes sense w/regard to prison & drug reform."
8 Likes, 5 Retweets

32) Rubio: "My college buddies are taking shots every time I use a hyperbole. I'm going to get them all trashed right now!"
9 Likes, 4 Retweets

34) Rubio: "I've never ever ever supported cap-and-trade! Well, except when... Hey, does anyone have water?"
#GOPDebate …
7 Likes, 5 Retweets

34) GOP candidates: "We made a bet in Vegas that we could utter the word 'amnesty' over 97 times in 3 minutes during the debate."
9 Likes, 3 Retweets

34) Rubio: "Listen to whatever I have to say! I said listen to me, dammit!"

Brick (from "Anchorman"): "Loud noises!"
10 Likes, 2 Retweets

37) Fiorina: "I'm going to take Hillary's what-difference-at-this-point-does-it-make quote out of context again, because America!"
4 Likes, 7 Retweets

37) Gilmore: "Did you skip me? Hey, did you skip me?"

Fox: "Who are you again?"
8 Likes, 3 Retweets

37) Gilmore: "I'm a proud NRA member, it's more dangerous now than ever, blah blah blah, & Hillary, show us your emails! Like yeah!"
10 Likes, 1 Retweet

40) Rubio: "If disaster means better than the previous president, the past 7 years have been the biggest disaster in U.S. history!"
4 Likes, 4 Retweets

41) Fox: "We're being told your name is Jim Gilmore. Is that correct? If so, in 5 words or less, tell us a bit about yourself."
5 Likes, 1 Retweet

41) Cruz: "It should be about substance, & even though I don't answer questions & love vagueness, that's what I'm going to be about!"
5 Likes, 1 Retweet

41) Jeb!: "My brother is the greatest man alive & I adore my father. Just sayin'... Wait, reverse that. Yeah..."
6 Likes, 0 Retweets

44) Christie: "By calling out a few bad eggs in the police force, Obama & Clinton have shown they're against all cops!"
3 Likes, 2 Retweets

45) Fiorina: "Hillary can lie as long as she can get away with it, but she won't be president! At 1-2% support, I will!"
2 Likes, 2 Retweets

45) Huckabee: "PBO doesn't know how hard it is to put food on the table!"
W: "Or to put food on your family."
#GOPDebate …
3 Likes, 1 Retweet

47) Christie: "When you say Cruz and Rubio, Mr. Wallace, you mean Hillary Clinton, correct? I'll answer it as such."
4 Likes, 0 Retweets

Totals: 668 Likes, 340 Retweets (averages of 14.2 Likes, 7.2 Retweets)