Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/20/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Last July Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard published “Regarding Carl Barney and Scientology” in defense of Barney. That didn’t satisfy some of his readers so a few days ago he published a Part Two, same webpage as what is now called Part One. I review it at: Barney Continues Telling His Story
  2. 2 points
    Not some maintenance guy at a theme park, folks, the Director of their music division.
  3. 2 points
    By Ron Unz, the latest in his American Pravda series: John McCain, Jeffrey Epstein, and Pizzagate “Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings” It’s long but the lucid style makes it easy to read.
  4. 2 points
    Billy has closed further comments on his "Placeholder for GW/CC 'How I got here’” climate doom thread, and just when I thought that he might finally be interested in actual discussion. So, I’m starting this thread to answer some of the responses that he gave in his last post — and thanks, Billy, for those responses, instead of your typical non-responsiveness. Billy replied to me: My understanding is that Tyndall's testing of his hypotheses were well-defined and carefully controlled, and his results were and are repeatable. I’ve been asking you to provide the same in regard to hypotheses of man-made climate change. Do you understand that Tyndall’s work does not answer my questions? Billy: You reap what you sow, Billy. Heh. Don’t like being accused and psychoanalyzed? Hmmm. Maybe consider not doing it to others. Let’s have a conversation. I’ve been asking for one for years. I’ve been asking the same questions, and you’ve been ignoring them, dodging them, and serving “tasty steamed octopus” (in other words, posting everything but answers to my questions while acting as if you’re answering the questions). I’ve also asked if you have a problem with my requests for you to show me the science, and, if so, to explain why you think that my questions are invalid, improper, not applicable, or whatever. No response. No explanation. Instead of having a discussion, you decide to ignore questions, and then devise ways of testing what I know about Tyndall or Weart, or whomever else. You don’t need to know how much I know. Science isn’t about establishing authority. He who knows the most doesn’t become right just by having the most knowledge. All that matters is repeatable results of successfully tested predictions of hypotheses. That’s what I’ve been asking you -- over and over and over again -- to provide. That’s the question that I’ve been asking you to provide the answers to. Show me the science. I’ve displayed the patience of a saint. I’ve asked countless times in regard to the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change: "Show me the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record." My belief and understanding is that you have not answered my questions. Nor did Brad when he was here, nor the second meatball. I’m not interested in suspecting what will happen in regard to "predictions of global warming to come.” Predictions are not the end of science. For the billionth fucking time, I’m interested in the predictions of the past having come true in reality after having been precisely defined. I'm interested in climatology following the requirements of the scientific method. As I’ve asked ad nauseam: "I'm asking to see 'the science' which puts the hypothesis to the test, and succeeds reliably and repeatedly. I'm asking for open access to all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what are the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record?” "How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along." "What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why? "Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it?" It isn’t a card game. Science isn’t about seeing the other guys' cards. It’s about identifying reality via a specific process. You seem to want to believe that I have beliefs that you need to counter. I don’t. I’m asking to see the science. No other method will work. I don’t accept substitutes, and all you’ve been focusing on is substitutes. Focus on the science. Focus on answering my questions rather than trying to guess my beliefs so that you can formulate a strategy to counter them. I haven’t read it. I’ve come across references to it, and quotes from it. I’m neither excited about reading it, nor opposed. Does it answer my questions? If so, please just cut to the chase and say so. Cite the relevant passages. There’s Billy doing exactly what he complains about when the Others™ do it right back to him. Anyway, to answer your question, no, your recommendation isn’t the kiss of death. Why are you so passionate about getting me to read it? Does it address the questions that I’ve been asking for years? If not, why would I find it worth reading? Are you hoping that, since it convinced you, it will do the same for me, and make me forget all about the questions that I’ve asked that you can’t answer? You poor darling. Victims who can’t take what they dish out are the most victimized of all victims. It's do damned unfair that people treat you almost as poorly as you treat them. Yes, please do come back if you learn that new material, especially if it answers my questions. We really don't need any more of your new material that doesn't answer the questions, or doesn't explain why you won't answer the questions. J
  5. 2 points
    It's true that the strategy isn't going to work, but "dealing with climate change" isn't what it's aimed at. Ruling the world is. Ellen
  6. 2 points
    I'm not here to defend the morality of most self-proclaimed secularists (I should add, secularism is merely one political position, not a whole ideology in and of itself. Objectivism is a secular philosophy that promotes secularism, after all). I think you're going off topic. The reality is that "being good without god" is a significant question that many theists ponder. Natural Law provided an answer to that question. And Christians/Evangelicals never appealed to the state to enshrine their values? Evangelical Christianity in particular has been resolutely illiberal. They only defend classical liberalism when convenient for them, or when they're losing a culture war. When they're in power, they have shown a consistent tendency towards using the state to enforce their beliefs on others. Not that most members of the secular left are any better. But again, that isn't the point.
  7. 1 point
    I don’t know. I suspect you two know more and for longer, than I. Four years ago I didn’t know anything. Had you asked me what is the Illuminati, Luciferianism, Freemasonry, Babylonian Mystery Religions, what were the Sumerians into? I’d have had nothing. I would have answered “Occult stuff. But I don’t know what that word means.” I do think we can be sure that they are good at hiding everything and none of our guesses stand much chance of steering around the misinfo, fake whistleblowers, etc. that cloud everything. History tells us that the “original” Illuminati was eliminated, period. No doubt in twenty years after some fierce battles we will again be assured it has been eliminated, period. I won’t believe it the second time, either. I think it is just as likely that when they were exposed in 17XX they decided upon that narrative. History also tells us that the Julii, Caesar’s family “died out.” And maybe they did all die, by the hands of some competing family who murdered them all, took their property and then convinced the plebs they too all died out. How convenient. If I win the lottery tomorrow, skip the taxes and “die out” you’ll know in fact I am probably really on a beach somewhere, right? And that’s just if I win the lottery. What if I rule the world? Doesn’t that make everyone want to kill me? Wouldn’t it be better for me, for us, the ruling team, if we were known to have “died out” so we can then create circles within circles as Michael described and go on ruling, unknown to all? So some teams I do believe go way, way back, and they know it, they are hyper-aware of their lineage. I think other teams, such as mafias, are more recent. As to is it being one or many interlocking, I see two possibilities. 1) Many teams have joined up in the last 100 years, for mutual survival. They got deep into evil and a more connected world could take one of them down, then another, then all. Their criminality and evil grew and I think each group came to understand they had to unite, each backing the other. The bloodline aristocratic satanists, the criminal mafias, the Nazis (“no, no, Jon, they died out.” Ha!) the Catholic Church, Hollywood, etc. All of them together as one interlocking system I call The Gang. I mean people who have their hands on levers, not their slaves. Jeffrey Epstein was just a slave. I don’t believe any of us have ever yet seen the faces or heard the real names of the people with their hands on the levers. 2) One very old, very successful team created or infiltrated all of the people’s and orgs mentioned in 1. I chose “The Gang” because it sounds vague and because I really don’t know exactly who. I think that Trump’s election precipitated yet more alliances of people into evil. They didn’t see that coming, believed their bosses had it all covered and it wasn’t going to be possible. They’re vulnerable now, they know they’re all on that terrible bastard’s target list and they have joined forces to stay alive.
  8. 1 point
    Communism might better be viewed as a tool of the Powers That Be – perhaps a more palatable term than the Illuminati. Antony Sutton wrote about this. Rand’s The Objectivist favorably reviewed one of his books, about Western technological aid being responsible for the viability of the Soviet Union. Rand also recommended the book after one of her Ford Hall Forum lectures, in the Q&A. He went on to write more wide ranging books. This interview transcript is a good introduction to his later work. Here’s a list of video interviews and books.
  9. 1 point
    Michael, Terminology problems again. I think that you're using "The Gang" as more or less synonymous with elitists. That isn't how I'm using the term, and hasn't been my impression of how Jon is using it. Instead, what I mean - and I think Jon means (he can correct me if I'm misunderstanding him) - is certain long-lined families and connected persons and organizations, loosely "The Illuminati" plus some others. Ellen
  10. 1 point
    Murderous weirdo and huge Democratic fund raiser pal of Senator Liddle Adam Schitt has finally been arrested. This third victim didn’t even die, but something has changed in California. “LOS ANGELES – Ed Buck, a prominent Democratic Party donor, was arrested Tuesday and charged with operating a drug house after a third man reportedly suffered an overdose inside his West Hollywood home last week and survived. “These fetishes include supplying and personally administering dangerously large doses of narcotics to his victims,” the prosecutors wrote, according to the Times.” I think he may be playing charades. The answer phrase is See You in 2020. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/major-democratic-donor-ed-buck-arrested-charged-with-running-drug-den.amp
  11. 1 point
    23 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: Sorry, I took you for meaning the dumb ones’ failures are ignored, but you surely meant the fails, period, are ignored. Do have experience with cats? Allowed outdoors? You’ve watched them while they are outdoors? In my experience the intelligence depicted in the video just scratches the surface of cats’ abilities. Almost my whole life I've lived with cats. Only when the last one died, 18 years old, we've decided not to take another cat, as that one would probably survive us, and that is an unbearable idea to us, as we've no idea what would become of it then. And yes, they can be clever. When it suits them.
  12. 1 point
    Exclusive: Russia Carried Out A 'Stunning' Breach Of FBI Communications System, Escalating The Spy Game On U.S. Soil
  13. 1 point
    Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
  14. 1 point
    Heh. I hadn’t visited Billy’s Twitter page in a while. The stuff he’s interested in and reposting is instructive. It seems that there are quite a lot of false things that he savors and needs to believe. J
  15. 1 point
    Here's a recent radio minterview with Kinzer to get a better gist of the book. It not only deals with drugs and stress, it also deals with James Bond-level poisoning and other goodies. (Gottlieb was like Q, the gadget guy, in Bond stories. Except Gottlieb was real and deadly.) There is a fact Kinzer said in this interview that is not in the book. The same medical examiner who worked on the Epstein "suicided" case also worked on the Frank Olson case (an MK-Ultra insider who was "suicided" out a tenth-floor hotel window in the 1950's). That would be Dr. Michael Baden of JFK assassination (and other celebrity deaths) fame. I tried to corroborate this with a quick search online, but couldn't. Still, I believe Baden was involved in the Olson case in some manner, either back then or more recently when Olson's remains were exhumed. Michael
  16. 1 point
    Michael, OK, we weren't on the same "religionist"-meaning wavelength. I definitely see William as scientistic. Very much so, and I've seen him that way practically from my earliest acquaintance with his posts on the old SoloHQ. I think that he gets major self-esteem boost from considering himself fighting for Science-Good against Religion-Bad. And he constantly preaches scientism in his indirect fashion. So, agreed about his being religionist in the sense you've been meaning. All the same, scientistic as I think William is, I nonetheless don't see him believing specifically in AGW because "scientists say." He is aware that there are a lot of good scientists who say nay. I think he mistakenly believes - because of developments in the Arctic - that the yay-sayers have been vindicated. But fine with me not arguing about that. I wouldn't want to get into the details in any case since I don't consider educating William worth the time and trouble. Ellen
  17. 1 point
    Slither slither ... Ellen
  18. 1 point
    Jon, Neither did I. I don't think it was publicized anywhere important. On the other hand, the entire world through the fake news mainstream media knew about the impeachment demonstrations. They didn't report on the turnout (or lack of turnout to be more exact), but everyone knew about the impeachment demonstrations. Michael
  19. 1 point
    Jon, Word has it Bolton was a rip-righteous leaker and that's why he was canned--the latest being leaks about meetings with the Taliban. Bolton's extensive media blast saying he quit instead of being fired lends credence to this idea. Bolton sure liked him some media... Michael
  20. 1 point
    I'm not sure John Bolton ever understood his true role in this administration. He was always leverage for negotiating, never consideration for contracts. More leverage is easy for President Trump to find these days... Michael
  21. 1 point
    Gitmo? From the Baltimore Sun -- which was the source of the Zerohedge article: The Zerohedge article had a 'this article will be updated' tag at the bottom. As of this moment, the story is not updated ...
  22. 1 point
    Jonathan, This particular news item caught the attention of POTUS. He just retweeted this: Leave it to President Trump to be helpful to his critics. He's using his massive audience to help the manmade climate change people brand themselves correctly. Michael
  23. 1 point
  24. 1 point
    The upside to suspending disbelief just long enough to seriously ponder and explore the things Michael points out is that you might come to understand big truths years before most everyone else. You will have to be brave because you may end up concluding that just about everything you know about the world you were born into is terribly, tragically, false. I went through it in 2015-16 and it was quite unsettling.
  25. 1 point
    “Next Top Model scout Jean-Luc Brunel flew poor 12-year-old triplets in from France as a BIRTHDAY PRESENT for Jeffrey Epstein to abuse, unsealed documents claim” ”He was so excited about the entire event, replayed over and over again over the next course of weeks how cute they were and how you could tell they were really young,' she said.“ +10 The fresh allegations were made by Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who claims she was recruited to be a 'sex slave' by the millionaire financier and his girlfriend Ghislane Maxwell when she was 15 in 1999. Giuffre, 35, is seen holding a photo of her 16-year-old self https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7371693/Jean-Luc-Brunel-gave-Jeffrey-Epstein-three-poor-12-year-old-triplets-France-birthday-present.html
  26. 1 point
    P, I agree with this. It reminds me of anonymous Internet trolls who are really nasty to people, but when faced in reality one-on-one, are nice or cower. The underlying principle is that harming or killing humans at a distance (whether physical or psychological) is tempting and much easier than face-to-face. It's one of the reasons enemies need to be dehumanized in war. Convincing people to kill a thing is a lot more effective than convincing them to kill humans like themselves. Both drones and AI provide such distance. Anonymity provides even more. On a sticking point, I don't like applying the concept of suicide to a machine. Calling a delivery system for a bomb a "suicide drone" is the conceptual equivalent of calling a bomb (which is technically a machine) a "suicide bomb" simply because it self-destructs when it blows up. That's a lot different than human beings blowing themselves up with bombs in order to kill others. Anyone who would consider a human being as nothing more than a delivery system for bombs does not share my love of human beings. Michael
  27. 1 point
    Here's how it works. 1. Lots of leaks were happening. 2. Goofy stories about Trump suddenly appeared in the fakes news media. 3. Trump suddenly fired an insider. 4. Less leaks were immediately discernible in headline feeds. 5. The fake news media now says the insider was fired because she said Tiffany was fat (and so on). Everybody believes the insider was fired because she said Tiffany was fat (and so on). Except everybody doesn't believe it... They think the fake news media puts out fake news. Michael
  28. 1 point
    Here is the Alice in Wonderland technique video that Amazing Polly mentioned in her video above. Also, for anyone who wants to go deeper, here is the link at the National Security Archive on interrogation techniques. You can get the PDF version to several manuals there. These manuals are what the US government has used and, for the most part, is probably still using in updated materials with even more creepy stuff added due to advances in neuroscience and modern psychology. And the Wikipedia page for good measure: U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals. Michael
  29. 1 point
    Jonathan, Cannuck epistemology handed down from their leadership? Michael
  30. 1 point
    It will be shown they knew all about their rapist employee, for many, many years. “Paz de la Huerta is adding The Walt Disney Company, its CEO Bob Iger and ex-chairman Michael Eisner to the actress’ sexual assault lawsuit against disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/entertainment/paz-de-la-huerta-disney-bob-iger-michael-eisner-harvey-weinstein.amp
  31. 1 point
    What's especially disturbing to me about the alleged professionals diagnosing Trump (and his followers) is that their descriptions of their alleged observations don't match reality. They speak of constant "tantrums," "meltdowns," "tirades," and such, to describe Trump's calm explanations of his disagreement with his political opponents. They infer the worst possible motives in any statement that he makes, assign those motives to him despite evidence to the contrary, and then judge his mental health based on nothing but those hostile inferences and false assignations. These are people who are practicing mental health professionals. It appears that climatology isn't the only profession which has been polluted by political activism. J
  32. 1 point
    It is interesting to discover that not buying into the climate doom narrative, and not wanting to punish the rich, are examples of craziness. Heh. What is wrong with you? We're going to stick it to those who have more than we do, and you're not going to support us and help us take what we want? You must be mentally ill!
  33. 1 point
    "Consistent application of principles" is 1) reductionism to find them then 2) constructionism to apply them. But "principles" is a plural and principles can collide with each other. Enter, rigorous use of critical thinking. Shall we apply morality and blow up the world or is it more moral not to blow up the world and apply the other in safer times? The primary job of an American President is the physical protection of the United States and its citizens. Since Rand wasn't President she was free to get off on the morality, but not to prescribe and apply policy. Kennedy was free in the context of his duties to go to the ballet. Rand stayed clean and Kennedy got dirty. Politics is a very dirty business. Much dirtier today then way back then. --Brant Trump is dirty
  34. 1 point
  35. 1 point
    "Former Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates may not be able to escape Epstein-gate after all, after it was revealed last week that the billionaire traveled with Jeffrey Epstein on his infamous 'Lolita Express' Boeing 727 in 2013 - four years after Epstein served time for pedophilia. "In addition to Gates - other famous figures who flew aboard the Lolita Express include legendary newsman Walter Cronkite, architect Peter Marino, and of course Bill Clinton, Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Prince Andrew. " https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-22/why-did-bill-gates-fly-epsteins-lolita-express-after-pedophiles-prison-stint
  36. 1 point
    The pupil has not demonstrated an understanding of “tiresome reading suggestion #34.” So much for in his own words. Worst fake professor ever. Cartman is a better fake cop. Cartman fakes having been in ‘Nam better than this.
  37. 1 point
    https://images.app.goo.gl/mcu6uuSnxqmcAvJ1A
  38. 1 point
    Insecurities? Psychobabble framing. I'll tell you what my intent in this discussion was: to show that your arguments for implying tampering with the picture were false. Reread our discussion on that matter. You'll see that I quite neutrally, without any personal remark, told you why your argument was fallacious. You return with new arguments, which I also show to be false. Then you start with personal remarks: Observe the condescending tone, and the start of psychologizing: I would have no experience in such matters. How do you know? Because I disagree with you? Further I'm a "believer" who "cannot think outside the box", and therefore explaining it to me will probably be "wasted effort". Don't you see that you're now exactly doing what you are reproaching me for? Not that it bothers me, but your double standard does. Yes, and you are a great shutter down of discussions. When I wrote (about the beard of the statue): "Curious, I just see a beard, an ear and hair on top. No, it's not very clear, but that is due to the fact that the image of the white statue is rather bleached out by overexposure, and it isn't very sharp anyway. That seems to me to be a more likely explanation of what you see, than the notion that some evil conspirator has painted an extra beard on the statue or has removed some embarrassing details of the statue", your reply is: Escalating again, after a quite normal remark of mine. Probably because you think with your all-knowing psychologizing mind that this must be what I'm really thinking. Well, even if that were the case, I didn't say that, and it is nowhere implied in what I really said. Talk about thin-skinned. You seem to be describing yourself. Getting power, bullying, silencing dissenters, you must have a big social standing fear.
  39. 1 point
    not true. She provided a good expression of what I was thinking about (ugh!) government, politics and the state. On scientific and mathematical issues she was a great Hollywood script writer.
  40. 1 point
    which puzzle is that?
  41. 1 point
    As I'd said in the post Bob replied to. How many repetitions will be needed before he pays attention? Ellen
  42. 1 point
    I am glad you posted that. I was going to post Palmer's lecture. it is excellent and it deals quite well the difficulties in making decent models of climate. His discourse on the Navier Stokes equation which he likens to an array or Russian dolls (of decreasing scale) is first rate. The interesting and ironic thing is that the climate alarmists might be right (although they have not proven themselves so). I think good sense should prevail and we should really get busy transitioning our power producing technology away from those means which produce a CO2 overload. While I do not believe we we turn in Venus in the next century, the longer we put the task off the harder it will be to avoid climatic effects from CO2, CH4 and increased water vapor production. I think a steady business like program to develop non-combustion means of generating electricity will not only improve technology over all, but may be beneficial in terms of avoiding climatic extremities. In conjunction with such a technology progression I think stopping the Boys from Brazil from leveling the Amazon Rain Forrest and planting many many trees would be good for the planet.
  43. 1 point
    Technically Lindzen is correct. But blanket is a good analogy. Blankets keep your body from losing heat quickly on a cold night. The CO2, NH4 and H2O(g) slow down the rate at which IR energy is radiated into space. In effect they slow down the energy loss in the IR bands and make the equlibrium temperature of the earth with space somewhat higher. W.O. CO2 the temperature of the Earth with space would average around -15 deg C. With the amount of CO2 we have the a temperature that averages around 18 deg C. The CO2 absorbs energy in the IR band and radiates that energy to the surrounding cooler air and the ground. That accounts for the 33 deg difference. If the Sun went out CO2 or no CO2 the earth would eventually be at the temperature of space or maybe a little warmer because of some geothermal heat reaching the surface. The source of all warming on Earth is the Sun (ignoring the small geothermal output). Like all bodies at temperature above 0 K (absolute zero) it will radiate heat until temperature equilibrium with the surroundings is reached. It is the heat we get from the Sun that keeps us as warm as we are. Even if the doomsday sayers were right and the temperature of the Earth at the surface increased much further we would radiate out energy faster. This is the result of the Stefan Boltzmann law with says the rate at which body radiate energy is proportional to the 4 th power of the temperature difference between the body and its surrounding. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_equilibrium_temperature for details. This article has the mathematics of radiation.
  44. 1 point
    I have no idea who started the notion that global warming is a hoax. Tyndall showed that CO2 retards the out-radiation in the IR bands back in 1880. So we get a blanket effect. CO2 does not generate heat, it slows down the rate at which heat is radiated back into space a bit. Without CO2 in the atmosphere not only would plants not grow or exist but the equilibrium temperature at the Earth's surface would be -15 deg C. In short Earth would be frozen and lifeless on land and the only place where life could exist is in the deep oceans next to the geothermal vents.
  45. 1 point
    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/a-neuroscientist-explains-trump-has-a-mental-disorder-that-makes-him-a-dangerous-world-leader/
  46. 1 point
    Yeah, that Trump, he's a regular Barry Goldwater, all right - in one major respect: he's going down to a landslide defeat in November. We can only hope that there's another Reagan that emerges during the campaign who will one day step up to the plate and truly restore America's greatness and, more importantly, her liberty. REB
  47. 1 point
    It doesn't matter whom the Republicans nominate this year. There's no one who can or will stand up to Hillary. Once the candidates get to the fall televised debates, and she unleashes the full force of her horrid, abrasive, righteousness behind the morality of altruism - welfare statism, politically correct statism, etc. - the GOP candidate will fall all over himself to prove that he isn't as cruel and heartless as Evita's smear attacks paint him as being. All of his planned attacks on her character and record will boomerang, as she "proves" how much she wants to do to unite an already great country, and how "greatness" without unity (and loads of redistribution and forced acceptance of the differences of others) can never bring us together or keep us great. And then, in November, the GOP would-be POTUS will fall into the electoral ditch, dazed and bleeding from a landslide defeat, wondering what happened to his hopes to beat this lying, corrupt, malevolent witch in the race for the White House. And then the rest of us will have to put up with 4-8 years of her. And no, she isn't just a little worse than Bill. She's a lot worse. And she will have a Democratic Congress to work with. And the golden opportunity to nominate 2-3-4 Supreme Court justices, ensuring liberal-leaning decisions for the next generation. Our only hope, if there is one, is that Trump's bull-in-the-china-shop machinations will have succeeded, one way or another, in destroying the Republican Party, so that a new, better, more individual liberty oriented party can emerge that will push for more economic freedom, civil liberties, and non-interventionistic foreign policy. And no, there is no "transition" candidate who can get us there, only some who might have slowed the progress toward the cliff, while others in unguarded moments give indications that they would be little different from the turkey presently in the White House. REB
  48. 1 point
    Robert, It's a quip. Read into it whatever you want, but it's a quip. Banter. Playful exaggeration of my support of Trump. How it is you didn't get this? Does the prospect of having your man lose hurt that much? Michael
  49. 1 point
    I protest against thread drift here, trivialities like wealth distribution are distractions from the crucial topics of weddings and ill puppies and the heartwarming benevolence of Floridians, none of them socialists, it is well known that there are no socialists in Florida.
  50. 0 points
    In Iran, Trump shoots their space launches right before ignition and Tweet-taunts them in public for all to see. Won't be long there. In U.K., if the Queen is as checkmated as I suspect and consequently refuses to approve the traitor's recent BREXIT-prevention law, then they will pull themselves away from the Fourth Reich this year. In France, approximately two people approve of Macron and the Yellow Vests have not let up for about a year now. Traitor Macron will be their last puppet in France. Somewhere in Germany Hitler's daughter is literally in bed shaking right now, just like how Daddy went out. Won't be long.