Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/17/2018 in all areas

  1. 2 points
  2. 2 points
    Oh, I am staggered! It is a genius plot and This Story Must Be Told. And finally the world will see sex scenes that reflect Real Life and Right Values and Canadian Respectability, I can't wait! I must commune with my muse now -- the first lines of dialogue are coming to me -- oh, oh, ohhh!
  3. 2 points
  4. 2 points
    Here's an elegant response (video is in her tweet, so I cut it from the quote). With love from this lady: Michael
  5. 2 points
    Bill is a kind and thoughtful soul. Annnnd he is freeking smart!
  6. 2 points
    "They think his tactic is his strategy". Good one, Michael. "They" can only see a lesser, intermediate 'sacrifice' (towards ultimate gain) to be the greater - or only one that matters. Short-term thinking? "Concrete bound"? (Altruists, accustomed to sacrifice?)
  7. 2 points
    Jon, William isn't a narcissist. Carol isn't a narcissist. I'm not a narcissist. Good news is that you're not a narcissist. Bad news is that Trump (likely) is a narcissist. Sad!
  8. 1 point
    Over in the active Incel thread, there are a few misunderstandings ... here, for example, Michael notes the superiority of his position with regard to assessing the probability that Adam Schiff is a "Ruling Class Pedophile." Investigating the claims is like pulling teeth.
  9. 1 point
  10. 1 point
    I saw this panel discussion in person. About 24 hours later the CEO of ARI said that there were already 130,000 views of it on You Tube. I may comment on it later.
  11. 1 point
    OK, I just saw a minute and a half of the video. It's not a Rachel Maddow video, even though she was the thumbnail. It's a video meant to mock conspiracy theorists by showing how kooky they are or something... (Same old, same old...) Michael EDIT: I don't want to get too snarky, though. Let me add to the fun: Michael
  12. 1 point
    You can come to my sauna anytime , any day , just bring Dagny ! You’re not poor , you’re wealthy of incredible knowledge and great insight . You can’t call an election , nor admit that Trump is John Galt but you and I are sauna buddies and real Canadians , through and through !
  13. 1 point
    Not to beat a dead horse, but you could have had at least one young male reader had you not insulted his mother, the buyer of his books and the enforcer of daily reading time. He enjoys at least 75% of his reading list. Who knows. You might have been part of the 75%. Either way, at least one of your books would have ended up being read by a dude and then donated to a library. Avoiding alienation of potential readers really doesn't require all that much schmoozing or marketing.
  14. 1 point
    Jonathan, There is a concept I've noticed that goes by almost everyone in O-Land. It's the difference between strategy and tactics. The strategy is the long game and the tactics are the immediate maneuvers. A good strategy, for example, is to establish foreign relations with a hostile country so both can live in peace. A good tactic, even within this strategy, is to kill their people when those people attack you. If you don't kill them, they will kill you. I learned this in chess. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn as a tactic because that's the only way to win according to a specific strategy. I once wrote about this on the old SoloHQ: To Turn or Not to Turn - A Question of Cheek. That's the article that caused the major shitstorm over there at the time. The thing that shocked me the most back then was that people not only didn't understand the difference between strategy and tactic, they actively resisted learning it. They equated it with "the ends justify the means" and turned off their brains. They did what I call deducing reality from a principle rather than deriving the principle from reality. To illustrate, in my example above, one may loathe killing humans and one may love peaceful coexistence. When one is attacked, though, one kills. Killing is not a justification for peace, not even in this context. Killing is not blanket hypocrisy for the peace-lover. It's a requirement of reality if you want to live, someone is hell bent on killing you, and that person is physically attacking you. (Later, if you can organize an armed group, you can think about niceties like jailing the asshole who is attacking you.) I see a lot of people make this mistake with President Trump all the time. They think his tactic is his strategy. He even says openly how much he dislikes some of his tactics. For example, when he called Kim Jong-un "little rocket man," he said in an interview he felt silly. But he had to do it. He decided to run a strategy to avoid being in the "kill or be killed" situation. According to that strategy, he evaluated reality and came up with his tactics. Notice, he didn't say taunting bloody dictators is justified by the ends. He didn't even think in those terms. He looked at the reality of Kim Jong-un and saw that taunting him was one of the effective ways to get him to pay attention and realize this time it was serious. Once he got the bloody dictator's focused attention, the taunting stopped. The taunting was a peaceful tactic to get rid of an obstacle. Oh, there was another way to get Kim Jong-un to pay attention and realize this time it was serious. President Trump could have bombed the shit out of North Korea. Would that have been a "principled" way of acting on as compared to the taunting? Something to think about when thinking about principles... Now look at tariffs (and, by extension, government subsidies for free-market companies). President Trump does not like them at all--on principle, in fact. But his problem is the US constantly trades with (1) countries that do like them and practice them against the US, (2) countries that freeload off of America, and (3) insider cronies--both foreign and domestic--who make a killing off of major tariff and subsidy imbalances while screwing the rest of humanity. How does he get their attention and make them realize this time it's serious? He does to them--in a manner that can be undone--what they do to others. He creates leverage. If you read between the lines on his first tweet about Harley-Davidson, you see he is not happy about having to institute tariffs. He told HD to be patient. What does that mean, be patient? That means his strategy has not had time to win the long game. He's still in the trenches with tactics. This is neither "ends justify the means" stuff, nor is it President Trump working toward a world of high tariffs and insider crony deals, nor is it moral failing, nor is it President Trump being a doofus and/or being fooled by some manipulative eggheads around him. Just take a look at what's going on in the world right now. Has the world turned into a dictatorship run on tariffs and subsidies (actually, it was already that if you wanted to get into certain industries) or is there suddenly a hell of a lot of people sitting up and paying attention? You know who I'm talking about---the ones toward whom the money alway flows, the ones who are always patting you on the head while saying one thing and doing another. I can just imagine them thinking, as if coming up with this thought all on their own, Damn, this is serious! President Trump just got their attention big-time. What comes next--negotiating, implementing and building--is the major component of President Trump's strategy, not this initial part. What happens in this phase is merely framing, clarifying rules and boundaries and demonstrating consequences. After negotiations get underway with people who are finally paying attention for a change, I expect to see many, if not all, of these tariffs fall. So, as a rare exception, I disagree with your evaluation. I am certain President Trump is fully in the game--and winning. To repeat, strategy and tactics... Michael
  15. 1 point
    Someone is writing restaurant reviews on Executive Time.
  16. 1 point
    How would the left, its media, and average citizens who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome react to the following: Trump signs an executive order establishing a massive welcoming compound at a specific border site, with free showers, nutritious meals, laundry services, and all sorts of donated clothing and such. Oppressed people of central and South America are invited and encouraged to come to this facility en route to Canada. Once the travelers have had an opportunity to freshen up and replenish their energies, they will board comfortable buses headed for another compound right next to the Canadian border. Instead of building Trump's wall, he decides to take the left's slogan to heart, and build bridges (and a high-capacity highway from the southern compound to the northern). Travelers are delivered to the Canadian border, and assisted in crossing. During their bus ride, they were taught how to take advantage of Canada's system. In the event that Canada cold-heartedly resists or prevents border crossings, U.S. agents will assist them in sneaking across. How would Canada react? What would their frantic lefties, and ours, say? J
  17. 1 point
    This guy puts the US/Canada Trade “imbalance” pretty good. http://www.greaterfool.ca/
  18. 1 point
    Is the moon thee? Sounds like Shakespear. Oh my darling, your face is so shiny. Are thee the moon?
  19. 1 point
    Jones is certainly more kooky than not, registering on the Kookmeter just slightly less kooky than Dan Rather, Paul Krugman and Mika Brzezinski. His particular paranoia and lunacy is almost right about at their level. J
  20. 1 point
    Carol, I never said that. I merely agreed with you (in a half-assed manner at that) when you claimed Reagan had co-founded NAFTA. The US government claims he co-founded the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, instead. Maybe that agreement morphed into NAFTA later when talks opened with Mexico, but by then, Reagan was not in power. Hell, he was already out of power--way out of power--when talks opened with Mexico. See what I mean? This is boooooring to the reader... And insisting you are right makes it even more boooooring to the reader... Repeat after me: I stand corrected. I stand corrected. I stand corrected. I stand corrected. I stand corrected. I stand corrected. I stand corrected. I stand corrected. I stand corrected. I stand corrected. I stand corrected. I stand corrected. See if twelve times does it for you. If not, try another series of reps before going to sleep at night. And keep this up--doing morning reps and evening reps--until the pain goes away, as it surely will. This remedy never fails. Friday. In a post in response to you. I even quoted you. Regardless. I am happy to repeat my diabolical plans: So there. Michael
  21. 1 point
    I don’t know why Carol said Reagan or why you accepted it - I must be missing something. Wasn’t it Bill Clinton, 1994?
  22. 1 point
    Oh Criminy! I must vote for this passage as best laugh of the week.
  23. 1 point
    Robert, LOL... You're in need of a biography. The entire story is in: The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden My Years with Ayn Rand by Nathaniel Branden Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne Heller Each of these books bears a different perspective, of course. Barbara's bio is colored by her being a top insider for almost two decades, than apostate. So she includes parts based on witnessing Rand and other parts not, but all based on deep research. (The movie with Helen Mirren is not all that good and does not reflect Barbara's book in hardly anything, but other than that, it's OK. ) Nathaniel's bio is actually a memoir-bio and Rand's role is diminished as she is one of four different NB women he wrote about: Barbara, Ayn, Patrecia and Devers. (btw - The acronym of the title is My War. ) Anne's book is a traditional bio and a good one. Well researched and well written. The orthos hate these books (being orthos and all), but as time goes on, these books have become accepted by the general audience as interesting works on Rand, and reasonable at worst. Unless you want to suffer a severe case of impotence from a massive attack of soul-sucking boredom, stay away from the attempted rebuttal by Valliant of the books by Barbara and Nathaniel. PARC is like watching paint dry while sharp fingernails scrape across a blackboard. Seriously. I've known men who have lost all feeling in their penis from reading it. One did recover after four years, though. But then he went mad and had to be institutionalized. A couple of women I knew fared worse, they committed suicide... Michael
  24. 1 point
    Happy Bloomsday from John Horgan!
  25. 1 point
    I never knew this existed - I am watching it now... http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/09/holocaust-film-too-shocking-to-show-night-will-fall-alfred-hitchcock