Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, February 23, 2013

Questioned by a second grader at Mark Twain Elementary in Sioux Falls, S.D., Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said he's not running for president in 2016. "Do I plan on running for President?" Thune said. "I don't. I enjoy the job I have. And being the president is a very, very hard job." The same class has grilled Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) and Sioux Falls Mayor Mike Huether (D).

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

Who the hell is John Thune?

#1 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2013-02-23 06:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

A tragic loss for the country. Who?

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-23 06:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually any one who doesn't want the job of president is someone we should consider for the position.

#3 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2013-02-23 07:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

OH NOOOOOOOOOO tell me it aint so..DAMN DAMN DAMN AND DRAT...

what will we do..what WILL we do....WHAT will we do..

who's he again?

#4 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-02-23 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's a little weird that DR political junkies are professing not to know who John Thune is.

#5 | Posted by pragmatist at 2013-02-23 07:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

OK genius, you tell us who John Thune is.

#6 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2013-02-23 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"you tell us who John Thune is."

Who?

#7 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-23 07:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who's John Galt?

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-23 08:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

what will we do..what WILL we do....WHAT will we do..

who's he again?

#4 | Posted by afkabl2

he was the guy who was gonna be your hero, Thad McCotterpin's running mate

#9 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-02-23 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

He's a South Dakota Senator, 'Rat. : ) I didn't say I know a lot about him, but I certainly know the name. He was written and spoken of a fair bit in the last primary season. If memory serves, he's a personality-less moderate. But memory is often faulty. I was just pointing out that I would think that the political junkies of the DR would at least recognize the name.

#10 | Posted by pragmatist at 2013-02-23 08:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

I understand why you asked that question PRAG...its you know a joke...

#11 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-02-23 11:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey, Thune's on first!

Who?

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-23 11:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

TAO

"Actually any one who doesn't want the job of president is someone we should consider for the position."

Yeah, sure. LOL Fred Thompson was way underrated.

#13 | Posted by Twinpac at 2013-02-24 01:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hard to build much of a campaign operating out of South Dakota. The last guy who tried that, so far as I recollected, was George McGovern and that didn't pan out too well.

#14 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-24 09:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

"If memory serves, he's a personality-less moderate. But memory is often faulty. I was just pointing out that I would think that the political junkies of the DR would at least recognize the name."

He handily defeated "Puff" Daschle, the Democrat Senate Minority Leader in 2004.
Incidently, I came across something you might wanna peruse, Prag. I've mentioned it before but you pled ignorance and no interest. Do your self a favor and look it over.

www.westernjournalism.com

#15 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-24 09:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

He handily defeated "Puff" Daschle, the Democrat Senate Minority Leader in 2004.

"Handily," meaning by about the same percentage as Obama defeated Mittens this last time around. Thanks for climbing on board and admitting just how handily the GOP got its collective butt handed to it at the national level. Good man.

#16 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-24 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Thanks for climbing on board and admitting just how handily the GOP got its collective butt handed to it at the national level."

Yeah...but I take heart that 30 of the governorships are held by republicans and only 19 by democrats with one being independent. Republicans also control 27 state legislatures. It all starts at the local levels, right, Doc? I believe 2014 might see the worm turning more too. Go ahead, enjoy the current mayhem taking place as long as you can.

#17 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-24 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Do your self a favor and look it over."

Why are you bringing this up? I glanced at it. It seems to be more tripe about the Rules for Radicals, at least a few of which have been practiced by pols of both sides for ages. What's your point? Was the list at the end really your point? He lost me at "under God." We are not a Christian nation, nor a religious nation. We have some religious folks and some atheists. One category is not better than the other.

As for who Thune defeated, I don't care. Again, my point was that at least some who claimed not to know the name on this site had to be just claiming for fun (right, Afk?). I'm not a GOP watcher, and I know his name.

#18 | Posted by pragmatist at 2013-02-24 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It seems to be more tripe about the Rules for Radicals, at least a few of which have been practiced by pols of both sides for ages."

Tripe...right, Prag. My point was that the "Rules" are being masterfully practiced today by this administration as they have never been practiced before. Since you don't know what the rules are, you just can't see it. Well, it's all to be expected seeing as how Barackus Caesar lectured on and taught them long before running for office. There's method to his madness in office today...You probably won't read this article, but here's an excerpt.

"The late Harvard Professor Saul Alinsky wrote that the key to weaken -- then take over America, its economy and its people -- is to "destroy the middle class." Alinsky advocated use of class and race warfare. He believed that "wealth redistribution," taking from those who work and giving it to those who don't, is the catalyst to bring down the U.S. economy and free-market capitalism. After four years in office, Obama is well on his way to doing just that. Alinsky's socialist guidebook is embedded in Obama's record of economic policies that he has visited upon all Americans and their families -- specifically the "middle class."

www.canadafreepress.com

#19 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-24 10:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

"We are not a Christian nation, nor a religious nation. We have some religious folks and some atheists."

Your opinion...probably skewed by that "worldview" you cling to so tightly. According to this Pew survey the nation is 77% Christian, 6% "other faiths" and 17% "unaffiliated" which includes atheists, agnostics etc.

usatoday30.usatoday.com

#20 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-24 10:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not having the rules discussion. I stand by what I've said about it since the rw brought Alinsky into the public forum. But thanks for clarifying why you brought it up. Why don't you write an essay explaining how each rule is so masterfully practiced, and publish it as an open letter to misguided liberals? Granted, that has nothing to do with anything I said in this thread prior to your bringing it up, but you did say "by the way." Also, I find it absurd that anyone could think that a person would devote pretty much his or her life to becoming president in order to destroy the country. That's conspiracy-theory nonsense.

77% Christian, by self-identification. That covers a lot of ground. My ultimate point, as you know, is about what makes America great. It's not our Christianity. And our government is a secular government, as it needs to be. That's not my opinion and nothing to do with my worldview; it's in that little thing called the Constitution. There are those in this country who want it to be otherwise; I hope they never get their wish. I have no problem with Christians; I do have problems with anyone whose faith drives (not informs but drives) their policy-making. Even Carter, the best-known religious president of my lifetime, knew better than that.

#21 | Posted by pragmatist at 2013-02-24 11:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Also, I find it absurd that anyone could think that a person would devote pretty much his or her life to becoming president in order to destroy the country. That's conspiracy-theory nonsense."

HE doesn't THINK he's destroying the country. He said he was going to fundamentally TRANSFORM the country and has set about transforming the U.S. into a semi-socialist nanny state. Now we have a failing economy that is affected by a myriad of choking regulations, highest corporate tax in the world, a permanent dependent class, and excessive spending. The size of the government is expanding, spending is increasing....well, I could go on but to no avail. You've never read and WON'T read "Dreams FROM My Father" or "The Audicity of Hope" so it won't make sense to you that he's accomlishing just what he said, in accordance with those dreams FROM his father.

"Even Carter, the best-known religious president of my lifetime, knew better than that."

I think Carter was an honorable man, just in over his head. I don't think Obama is religious at all other than for expediency sake AND he's an outright liar. He's spending a lot of time right now trying to convince the country that this sequestration wasn't HIS idea. Look up the signs of narcissism and see how many traits fit. OH...you probably don't have the time and aren't interested. You probably think I'm being "absurd" too.

#22 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-24 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

You've got to be the most boring person in your neighborhood.

#23 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-24 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"HE doesn't THINK he's destroying the country. He said he was going to fundamentally TRANSFORM the country"

That's not the same as DESTROY.

"and has set about transforming the U.S. into a semi-socialist nanny state."

So you say. And yet his actions show that he's a Wall St guy too. Confusing, isn't it? Maybe you should take this up with a far left liberal, actual socialist, and/or a true Obama partisan. I am none of those things.

"Now we have a failing economy that is affected by a myriad of choking regulations, highest corporate tax in the world, a permanent dependent class, and excessive spending."

Some of those things were true before. And you say choking; I say necessary (well, for some; I don't know all the regulations; do you?). Excessive spending? Oh, like two unnecessary wars?

"The size of the government is expanding, spending is increasing...."

And has been for decades.

"well, I could go on but to no avail. You've never read and WON'T read "Dreams FROM My Father" or "The Audicity of Hope" so it won't make sense to you that he's accomlishing just what he said, in accordance with those dreams FROM his father."

You're right: I won't read them. I don't have time to engage in such reading, especially when I don't care. As far as accomplishing, you said DESTROY. Your words, not his. He wants to TRANSFORM. Well, that's his right to want that. And if the American people don't like his policies and goals, they have the right to vote him out. It seems that didn't work out. Btw, I was serious about the explication of the Rules. I don't see it as so much more amazing than any politician or administration before.

"I think Carter was an honorable man, just in over his head."

Agree. How do you feel about Bush? : ) (Not deflecting. Partly joking and partly curious. I think Bush did stupid [...] that hurt our country, but I don't think he was evil, merely possessed of a vision for this country that I think was wrong and damaging. Sort of how you feel about Obama, but you go much, much farther than I.)

"I don't think Obama is religious at all other than for expediency sake AND he's an outright liar."

Think shmink. If that's true of him, it's probably true of the majority of politicians who go to church.

"He's spending a lot of time right now trying to convince the country that this sequestration wasn't HIS idea."

As you know, I avoid discussions of the economy. I lurk. I'm smart enough to know when I don't know enough about a topic, and wise enough to act on that recognition.

"Look up the signs of narcissism and see how many traits fit. OH...you probably don't have the time and aren't interested. You probably think I'm being "absurd" too."

I do think you're being generally absurd on this topic, at least in so far as DESTROY goes, and, at least so far, in regard to your stance on the Rules.

I know about narcissism, and I know you critics love to throw that label around. Again, make your explication and we can argue it. It's never as simple as "SEE!" I don't interpret his actions and statements the way y'all do. You're as guilty of interpretation in your criticism of this president as many far lefties are in theirs of the last guy.

And and btw, if you're gonna get all bothered by my saying you're being absurd, then you oughtta rethink the way you talk to me. I just laugh at you now when you do that (worldview worldview; to quote Doc, jeep jeep jeep). It's healthy; try it.

So ... what do you think of John Thune? : )

#24 | Posted by pragmatist at 2013-02-24 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why can't I just learn to go for the one-liner? (sigh)

#25 | Posted by pragmatist at 2013-02-24 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You've got to be the most boring person in your neighborhood."

I'm the ONLY person in my neighborhood (well,the wife, you know.) Only two houses up here and I just about never see the other guy. We can't see his house anyway, just his vehicle occasionally. Besides, he, and the greatest majority of the whole county kinda have the same views as I. I'm sure I'm not nearly as boring as YOU are annoying though.

#26 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-24 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm the ONLY person in my neighborhood (well,the wife, you know.)"

So are you more or less boring than your wife? : ) I was going to say "Then you must be the most boring and most interesting guy in your neighborhood," but I reread and Doc said person. Damn. He killed my joke before I even had a chance to birth it. (Insert abortion joke here.)

#27 | Posted by pragmatist at 2013-02-24 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Excessive spending? Oh, like two unnecessary wars."

As I said in an earlier post to Doc, I have ALWAYS considered Bush to have been a big government, big spending wannabe-conservative. THIS guy in office now is Bush on steroids!
MUST you and your little friends always deflect to Bush, Bush, Bush, even if it is covertly? I wasn't fond of Bush, didn't vote for him in the primary and I CERTAINLY am not fond of Obama. Incidently, before you ask, I didn't vote for Romney in the primary either.

"I know about narcissism, and I know you critics love to throw that label around."

HOW would you know? Did you look it up? How did you find the time?

"As you know, I avoid discussions of the economy."

I wasn't alluding to the economy. I was referring to his truthfulness. The sequestration was HIS idea and now he's saying it wasn't.He's travelling all over talking about how it will cause firefighters, police, teachers etc. to lose their jobs and that's all BS and he knows it too.

"So ... what do you think of John Thune? : )"

Don't really know all that much but I know he's a lot more conservative than Daschle was.

In the spirit of helping youout...the first three signs:

"Sign #1: Unilateral listening.

What I want is all that matters. When we make decisions together, what you want, your concerns, your feelings..these are mere whispers, inconveniences and irrelevancies. When we discuss issues, my opinions are right. Yours are wrong or else of minimal importance. If you expect to have input, you are undermining me.

Instead of listening in order to be responsive, narcissistic listening listens to dismiss, negate, ignore, minimize, denigrate or otherwise render irrelevant other people's concerns. One specific indicator: frequent responses that begin with "But....", which is linguistically a backspace-delete key."

"Sign #2 It's all about me.

I know more, I know better, I'm more interesting, When we talk, it's mostly about me. In conversations, I take up most of the air time. Maybe that's why people say I suck up all the air in a room.

When I want something, I need to have it. Never mind how you feel about it; it's all about me. I'm big and important and you are merely also here, mostly to do things for me, like a third arm."

Narcissistic people are sometimes, and even often, generous. The difficulty with trusting a narcissist to take actions that are sympathetic to your interests comes at the times when what they want is contrary to what someone else wants. Odds are that at these times they will act in a manner that is selfish, that is, responsive only to their own concerns."

"Sign #3: The rules don't apply to me.

I can have affairs, cut into a line where others are waiting, cheat on my taxes, and ignore rules that get in the way of my doing what I want.. Rules are for other people to follow.

Narcissists suffer from what I call Tall Man Syndrome. They experience themselves as above others, so the rules don't apply to them.

#28 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-24 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#28 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Signs of narcissism (cont.)

"Sign #4: Your concerns are really criticisms of me, and I hate being criticized.

If you insist on my listening and taking your concerns seriously I'm likely to get mad. Criticism hurts. I can criticize others, and often do, but if you criticize me you're hurting my feelings so I'll hurt you back.

Narcissists paradoxically manifest an inflated idea of their own importance, yet are quick to feel deflated by negative feedback.

In addition, because they think everything is about them, they hear others' attempts to talk about personal feelings as veiled criticisms of themselves. Taking others' concerns as personal criticism is called personalizing. E.g., If she says "I'm feeling lonely," her narcissistic friend will hear, "You don't spend enough time with me."

"Sign #5: When things go wrong between us, it's always your fault.

I can't be expected to apologize or to admit blame. I'm above others and above reproach. You shouldn't have… . Don't threaten me with expecting me to say how I've contributed to a problem or I'll get mad at you.

Unwillingness to take responsibility for mistakes goes hand-in-hand with quickness to blame. This trait may come from confusing the part with the whole. If I've done one thing that's not right, then I must be all bad. That's also all-or-nothing thinking."

"Sign #6: If I'm angry, it's your fault.

You made me mad. You didn't listen to me. You criticized me. You're trying to control me. Your view is wrong. So you need to apologize, not me.

"II's never my fault if things didn't go well. I'm not responsible for the problem. Someone else is. I'm not responsible either for my anger. If I'm mad that's your fault."

Narcissists may seem generally quite socially agile. At the same time, they also can be quick to anger, and when they do, will immediately blame their anger on others. What do they react to with anger?

Critical comments will do it. As I said above, as much as narcissisitc folks see themselves as special, they also can be remarkably thin-skinned. Any feedback that punctures their belief in total specialness can feel quite threatening. The immediate response will be to issue blame."

#29 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-24 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Retort Insta-Poll:

How many of you scroll past massive blocks of text like the ones posted by Jestgettinglongwinded?

#30 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-24 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually any one who doesn't want the job of president is someone we should consider for the position.

#3 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2013-02-23 07:41 PM | Reply

Very wise, Tao, and very true. Americans continue to shoot themselves in the foot with their votes.

#31 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-24 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

How many of you scroll past massive blocks of text like the ones posted by Jestgettinglongwinded?

#30 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-24 03:01 PM | Reply |

Actually I found this one to be particularly interesting----one aspect seems to focus on narcissists having a hard time listening to others---I wonder if it's the same thing as posters having a hard time reading the "long winded" posts of others.

#32 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-24 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"MUST you and your little friends always deflect to Bush, Bush, Bush, even if it is covertly?"

I wasn't deflecting. It's suddenly wrong by you to look at history? Weird.

"HOW would you know? Did you look it up? How did you find the time?"

It is a concept I am familiar with. I have studied psychology; I don't need to look it up. (And quit your nonsense about time. My time is my own to use as I choose. Unlike you, I'm not retired. I haven't read a book for myself in two years. And when I do, it's not going to be political writing.) And I've read tons of criticism of Obama as narcissist, so I'm just gonna skip the next seven paragraphs.

"I wonder if it's the same thing as posters having a hard time reading the "long winded" posts of others."

Or the need of some to post long-windedly without actually connecting to the person they're saying is narcissistic? : ) (I am aware, yes, that I myself have been accused of being long-winded.)

Jest, I'm more interested in your extensive explication of how this administration is more masterful than any other regarding the Rules, especially given that the Rules rely on concepts that are hardly unique to left-wing agitators.

#33 | Posted by pragmatist at 2013-02-24 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement