Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/11/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Ted (in) Lieu (of fill in the blank) pulled out his cell phone and on the Congressional record called Candace Owens a ****er lover. I saw it !
  2. 2 points
    I’m not knowledgeable or passionate about art but I have followed many of your conversations with interest. When you point out the inconsistency that music doesn’t fit her criteria but she called it art anyway, they break into gibberish or avoid the issue, it’s comical, I’m always entertained by it. I also don’t get the either–or rigidity regarding whether this or that discipline is art, say, architecture. Keeping water out is utility not art, but a textured roof that looks like waves of wind over tall grass and costs three times a traditional roof and raises the cost of the home by 8% is art because it was done for contemplation and aesthetic consideration, the essential characteristic of art. Insisting on the absence of utility strikes me as definition by exclusion. We can make distinctions, we can call it fine art or pure art when there is no utility at all. But if someone’s favorite sculpture turns out, unbeknownst to them, to be a personal aircraft — you press this button here and wings fold out and you can fly away in the thing — then now they have to pick a new favorite sculpture because this one isn’t art anymore? Seems like definition by non–essentials to me.
  3. 2 points
    President Trump Prime Minister Trump King Trump 2020 , and let’s get 2024 for Ivanka !!!!! God bless POTUS
  4. 2 points
    Ellen, I see some. The Notre Dame Cathedral is definitely a human species thing. It was not built by one man or woman. It was a group effort over generations--the best of mankind--from the 1100's (with history continuing to be added over the centuries). The ancient building was in a form--a concrete, not abstract, form--anyone could walk into today. Walking into it (before the fire) was not like looking at artifacts from an archaeological dig, but was walking into a fully functional building in use in today's society. When you do that, all you can do is marvel about the human species (and about God for the religious) that it was built about 900 years or so ago. Knowing that things like that exist gives most people comfort on a deep "I came from that" level. That's what I feel. I think that is a species-related emotion although I don't recall Bloom talking about this particular emotion. But, to me, seeing that building go up in flames left me feeling like my great grandfather, who was in perfect health yesterday, just died. (That's a hypothetical to demonstrate the emotion.) The comfort of belonging to a historical lineage is something so much a part of me and underground in my mind, I never verbalized it properly. And hanging around Rand-world drove it further underground except as banter about coming from hillbillies and things like that. Now, one physical proof of my inner certainty of belonging to a long line of humans who strive for greatness has gone away. No wonder it's bothersome. It makes me sad and melancholy and really pissed off when I think it may have been arson. As an aside, Bloom says people who wither away and die of depression are suffering from a species emotion (my paraphrase since I'm going by memory--I think his words were different, but the concept is the same). Super-depressed people don't feel like they are worth anything to the species, to anyone else, or even to themselves anymore. Bloom says this self-destructive shutting-down emotion is built into all of us, meaning it can manifest under the right conditions in anyone, so the species can be culled of useless members like cells of a body organ die. The dead get replaced by the new. I find this thought fascinating and--for now at least--it sure seems like this mental mechanism (including for other emotions as well) is one of the core components of human values. For a fiction writer, this opens up a whole world of compelling nuance in big picture events and character motivations--nuance that will resonate universally in others as it does in me. Like I said, I don't believe this species thinking is either-or with individualism. Humans are both individuals and members of the human species. Good and evil exist for both the individual and the species. Ditto for illness and health. If some of Rand's scope excesses can be reduced to a size where their validation can be checked by observation of anyone, and room made for the stuff pertaining to individual human nature she left out, I think this kind of species thinking aligns perfectly with her kind of thinking. At least, I intend to pursue this path until it leads somewhere good or bad (or both ) in my writing and my own thinking. Michael
  5. 2 points
    You've probably heard of the concept "man cold" or "man flu." I've heard it mentioned in pop culture for a few years now, and have been observing it with interest. And I just experienced it firsthand for the first time. I'm not talking about the cold, but about certain women's reactions to it. The glee. The superiority. I have a cold. I'm still up and about. I've taken the standard over the counter remedies, but I'm coughing and sneezing, my nose is running, and my voice is a bit rough. Despite going about my life as normal, I've been ridiculed by a few women whom I barely even know. They're very excited about mocking me for having a "man cold," even though I'm not actually displaying the behavior that defines it (staying in bed, doing nothing, moaning -- in other words, being affected by it, where women with colds are said to not be affected, or are strong enough to not allow colds to affect them). It's very psychologically fulfilling to them to verbally kick men when they are experiencing illness or weakness, and to derive a sense of superiority from doing so. There's no accompanying interest in science or comparing symptoms and ailments. It's just pure psychological thrill of belittling the enemy. Anyway, it reminded me of this thread, and the excitement that Billy seems to experience in focusing on right-wing conspiracy believers, but not so much left-wing conspiracy believers. Seems to have a lot of similarities to the "man cold" relishers. J
  6. 2 points
    Her white nationalism is settled consensus.
  7. 2 points
    Yeah, but I've heard that she loves Hitler. They say that she's a black white-nationalist, and was caught on tape admitting that she wants another holocaust. Why would they say stuff like that if it wasn't true? Huh?
  8. 2 points
    Second that. Partly second that. Jon's form of trash talk doesn't bother me in the circumstances in which he's using it. He doesn't use it indiscriminately. I'd use a different metaphor for William. Insidious poison. Slithery. Never quite coming out with a thing. Insinuating. I've seen that for some while. Ellen
  9. 2 points
    One of the general differences between those on the left and right is that the right understands the left's views... You can see this with their parody and satire. Leftist characters are portrayed accurately, and sometimes, right-wing media creators can even explain the left's views better than actual leftists. The parody and satire created by leftists, though, is consistently egregious--like the description of Jussie Smollett's attackers, for example (pretty much every right leaning person knew it was bullshit immediately). Again, it's a generalization. Obviously not all right-wingers understand the left's talking points, but for the most part, they get it... while for the left, the opposite is true. They can't even conceive of what they are arguing against. So what you end up with is ignorant, and possibly stupid, people who the right is gently trying to point out as ignorant and stupid... which reaffirms the leftist's belief that people on the right are immoral (mean). Obviously accusing someone of being immoral is worse than accusing someone of being stupid... so it's insane. This is pretty much just venting... but it's really annoying that this is the case. Politics has become a chore where people with good ideas have to hold the hands of their attackers to help them see what they're missing.
  10. 2 points
  11. 2 points
    Vote fraud in Texas and Illinois elected the Kennedy-Johnson ticket in 1960. Massive vote fraud has made California a state completely dominated by the Democrat Party. If not for the Electoral College California would have made that criminal bitch Hillary President. Whether the Electoral College will do the same next time is problematic. It could give the Senate to the Dems. I find your naivete hard to get my brain around. ---Brant
  12. 2 points
    Jonathan, It's funny. When you ask for repeatable scientific results re Climate Change, you always get blah blah blah and they never use the term "repeatable results." It's like going into a small eatery and saying, "Do you have an ice cream cone?" And the person says, "Here's some tasty steamed octopus." You ask, "What about an ice cream cone?" The person says, "Look at these green beans and mashed potatoes. How big a portion do you want?" "But I want an ice cream cone." "Well, you've come to the right place. Our mac and cheese is amazing." "Don't you have ice cream cones?" "Only stupid people think we don't have hamburgers." "You really don't have ice cream cones?" "True believer idiot. The dinner rolls are right in front of you. God, some people..." He throws a stack of menus in your face--ones that do not list ice cream cones... And on it goes. It's amazing to watch. Michael
  13. 2 points
    I love "on the sidelines" of #TrumpKimSummit. He's negotiating peace with a nuclear—armed country, ending a state of war that has existed between us for the last 70 years. While doing that he scores a deal for $12.7 billion of planes, then goes out for a smoke break with Phu Trong and a few of the Bamboo guys and returns with an additional $2.9 billion dollars. Best President ever.
  14. 1 point
    Hmmm. Conspiracy-tinged? WTF. So, in today's world, NOT coming to an immediate conclusion that no malicious intent was involved is to present a conspiracy-tinged mindset? Merely keeping an open mind and expressing hope that a devastating event was an accident is vicious? Speculating about possible causes that might be worth considering is now bad and kooky? J
  15. 1 point
    William, I went ahead and saw the video you posted that I didn't see the other day. At the time, I imagined you were trying to present the idea that manipulation of results by the social media giants doesn't exist, it only exists by malicious viewers. If all you are talking about is spammers, though, yeah, the bots do exist and they do the things in the video. I even know where to buy some bots like that. And artificial views and all that. The process shown in the video of pumping out a large number of different videos with essentially the same content is called "video spinning," which came from article spinning, which was invented by a guy on the Warrior Forum about a decade ago. He invented a code to replace words at random within an article based on synonyms. Once you coded an article the right way, you would put it in his program, click and an article came out. Click again and a different article came out. Click again and a different one and so on. The idea was to trick Google into not thinking this was duplicate content (thus get better search engine rankings). Or, if you didn't want to write an article, you could get one off the Internet somewhere, spin it, then run it through Copyscape to make sure not enough was equal to the original to constitute plagiarism. This article spinning process is a common part of the arsenal these days in OMG's (one man gangs). The kind of video you showed above is an advance version of this. Instead of articles, you have different ways to manipulate different video outcomes. Also, the large viewership is not really that large--mostly bots or the followers of some celeb who got tricked into recommending one of these videos. The fact is, nobody watches more than once or twice. All the rest is artificially inflated. I just looked on Google and there is a free, low quality article spinner here. (There exist very high quality ones, too.) You don't have to code anything in this freebie since so many articles have been spun over the years, they already have an automatic bank of synonyms. Here is what the first five paragraphs of this post looks like spun once. (This way you will get an idea of what I am talking about.) I could spin it as many times as I want and it would be different every time. The idea in using these things is to clean up the ridiculous-sounding stuff before posting a particular version to a blog or site, but many people don't even bother. For the record, here's the sales page for a rather low quality video spinning software. So I don't agree with the guy in your video about the psychological manipulation of users with these kinds of tools. The different users are attracted to these things based on polarities, which are engineered by keywords and the like, but they are not persuaded by anything. In other words, the same people who do a pro-Trump channel also do everything the same, but with an anti-Trump channel to pick up that part of the audience. They want you to click on ads and only that. They're not into "changing the narrative." The social media giants are, though. They do the real nasty behavior engineering. These same social media giants have to fight spammers at the same time. Those are two completely different issues. Just because bots exist, that does not mean, for example, the despicable collusion by the social media giants to deplatform Alex Jones because they did not like his popularity on pushing an agenda they do not share was justified. It was not justified, it was done by humans on purpose for political reasons, and it was despicable Bots also do not mean "muh Russians" elected Donald Trump. To be fair, I mostly take back my negativity about the first video ("Manipulating the YouTube Algorithm..."). It's not bad. If you are interested in seeing a bit behind the scenes re spambots, it's OK. However, and here's the rub... If you think this has any political influence or covert psychological manipulation (like the guy says at times) to make people vote differently, etc. it's quite misleading. Use common sense. (I say this to the reader, too.) Would anyone change their vote based on the robotic voiced video you posted? How many people do you know would even watch it to the end? Michael
  16. 1 point
    LOL... btw - Cher is getting roasted by her own peeps all over the Internet for this tweet. Michael
  17. 1 point
    Moving Illegal Alien Overflow to Sanctuary Cities This is a hoot. Here is what is happening from what I both read and infer. (We can add articles and links in the discussion.) Certain anti-Trump forces (crony establishment ruling class types) are trying to overwhelm the immigration system to create chaos and are funding massive quantities of immigrants to the US in a sudden surge. These ruling class idiots want to stop the wall and keep the borders open thinking this favors their ill-gotten globalism games and keeps them running things. So they are using a Cloward–Piven strategy. This means you overwhelm a government program (several at the same time is better), or any aid distribution system for that matter, with so many claimants and petitioners that the system collapses from lack of resources. Then you use this collapse as an excuse to completely take over and centralize the problem under the government. Essentially, it's a power-grab. Don't forget the cost of the new centralization will need to be paid for with new taxes and require new regulations, licenses, and God knows what all. That is what they are trying to do with President Trump right now. The Washington Post, obviously in on it, started the buzz with an article a couple of days ago saying that Trump was thinking of sending the overflow of immigrants at the border to sanctuary cities. Their intent was to stir up public opinion against Trump and his supporters by showing what horrible people they are. But the cigar turned out to be a trick cigar and it blew up in their faces. President Trump liked the idea and said let's do it. Suddenly, most of the local leaders of sanctuary cities are having a shit fit. Why? Because their own resources and system--not the federal government's--are going to be blown sky high paying for these newcomers and their own constituents are going to get irritated as all get-out when everything goes to shit in their neighborhoods trying to assimilate all these poor people who don't speak English. The number of illegal aliens needed to wreck local budgets and systems (especially of sanctuary cities) will not substantially aggravate the already horrible illegal alien problem of the US, so there's no real downside for President Trump to do this. Besides, according to the current law, the Federal Government can only hold immigrants for 20 days before they have to be released. President Trump's idea is that instead of releasing them in border cities and towns, he wants to ship them to sanctuary cities all over the US. This is a kind of Cloward-Piven boomerang. Rush Limbaugh pointed out that Nancy Pelosi called illegal aliens "Gifts of Love." Essentially, President Trump wants to ship a whole bunch of Gifts of Love to Democratic neighborhoods (including affluent ones like where Pelosi lives) and sanctuary cities to show them how much he cares. So why all the howling from Dems all of a sudden? Don't they want some love? Michael
  18. 1 point
    I don't know why it won't embed in the post above. Michael
  19. 1 point
    William, Yesterday on my end, they were not. Today they are (Chrome and Brave). I like your explanation of https for the reader. I don't muck around in these things with IPB because they do all that on their end and I imagine the delay was due to their proprietary encryption. But I actually pay for this service on another website (the upcoming blog). I'm thinking of moving that site to a hosting company that uses Cloudflare since it's free for Wordpress sites. Michael
  20. 1 point
    Is your fiction debut about ready to go? Scott Adams did a show on this topic today: Nothing to do with Rand of course.
  21. 1 point
    Michael: I’m looking forward to this project of yours. Cool stuff.
  22. 1 point
    I don't get drunk in company - or precisely "drunk," period. But once or twice a week I have two or three beers over the course of a few hours while pacing and thinking and listening to an overnight classical music program I like. My thoughts make phantasmic shapes somewhat like a dream tapestry but with more coherence. Where the "force" thing comes from, I don't know. I've had it since I was a young child. (And, yes, Michael, I do have a mothering thing, too, but not so strongly as some women. It tends to be more situational, activated in some circumstances.) Ellen
  23. 1 point
    Sometimes, those who accuse others of a crime or a psychological aberration are diverting attention from those very faults in themselves. So for instance calling someone a girl, or a homo, an asshole, or a pedophile is because of the thoughts of their crimes or aberrations MUST REMAIN HIDDEN! Is that the case with Letendre? edit. What a rotten human being.
  24. 1 point
    So, then you are saying his desire to "debunk" crimes is a crime deserving of slander and libel?
  25. 1 point
    How long do you think it will take to forget the name of the judge overseeing this decision, I'm not even aware of the name now. Any bets that person retires in say two years, just to be safe, and lives remarkable well on a judge's pension (?) , or am I just too cynical.
  26. 1 point
    Just Jussie escaping justice ...
  27. 1 point
    There is no Federal debt. It's de jure not de facto. This "debt" is money already put into the economy. If it's a cause of inflation it's already happened. Tackling the debt means taking money out of the economy causing a recession or depression. --Brant
  28. 1 point
    Why is Maddow going to prison? For corrupting "reason" or for overblown emotionalism?
  29. 1 point
  30. 1 point
    Any changes in the system are driven by changes. This seems obvious but there is an often overlooked implication of that statement. Even though an aspect of the system might have a large factor in the energy balance (albedo) it isn't relevant to changes unless it is changing as well. Albedo is made up of 3 main components scattering by the land and surface, clouds, and reflection from ice and snow. Of these 3 factors, the first and last are changing the most. Land use changes (clearing of forests) creates an increase in albedo while melting of snow and sea ice creates a decrease in albedo. Clouds overall aren't changing from much to none. I've seen some reports putting them at a slight decline, but currently can't find that. So as to whether or not they are impactful to albedo, I'd have to say no. What is referred to as the wild card, or uncertainty with clouds is what kind of feedback clouds will be. Everyone recognizes without issue that clouds reflect sunlight, but they also trap heat. How a cloud impacts the system not only depends on the cloud type that forms but also the timing of them. Obviously nighttime clouds are rather lousy at reflecting incoming light but do a wonderful job of trapping heat. Overall, the feedback effect of clouds is currently considered 'likely positive' (https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3402). Clouds are what will bring the system back into equilibrium eventually. As I see it, the simplistic explanation is: Warming causes a decrease in relative humidity -> causes a decrease in cloud production -> less cloud production means a gradual buildup of specific humidity -> this eventually restores the hydrologic (cloud) cycle The hydrologic cycle can't really be fully restored though until the system has stopped warming. Current observations are specific humidity is increasing but relative is still in decline. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-humidity Good general link about clouds https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/cloud-cover
  31. 1 point
    Apologies for not interpreting your question as simply what did the GHE refer too. Apparently I've spent too much time arguing with deniers about basic founded principals that I saw your question as an attack on the existence of the greenhouse effect. In regards to your question about repeatable science, I'm going to go back once again to radiative transfer models(RTM or LBL for line-by-line). This is how we approx the GHE for the system. The RTM's demonstrate that we have a very solid understanding of how much energy the system emits when it's fed the proper inputs (as is the case for all models). This is demonstrated when we run models for a particular region and then use a satellite to take a snapshot of the upwelling infrared (IR) of that region. That is what the original image I linked you was demonstrating. Here's another prime example of how well MODTRAN matches satellite observations. For reference, the x-axis simply represents wavelengths (or wavenumbers) and the y-axis represents intensity.
  32. 1 point
    Thanks for the question. First, a link. Yes the number they are using is 6m, rather than .5m, but there are other assumptions being made by your question that are inaccurate. So I'll focus on those inaccuracies. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-could-rise-at-least-6-meters/ Yes, for 2C warming the middle of the road number is around .5m of SLR (sea level rise). This is not the amount of SLR you can expect once you've reached 2C warmer, it's the amount you can expect once the system has fully equilibriated and is back to being in dynamic balance. I say all that because we aren't there. We've warmed over 1C already, and there's currently another 1-1.5C of warming in the pipeline if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow. As we continue to increase co2 concentrations we are only adding more warming into that pipeline. I guess my main point here is it's an ok assumption that we might only rise .5m in 80 yrs, it's not ok to think that that is all the SLR that will occur. I also agree that 80yrs seems like a while for humans to migrate and adapt. However, many of the towns, cities, and villages that do lie within this danger zone of SLR aren't going to be salvageable. One can't simply relocate the city of Miami for example (although their issue is partly subsidence, I hope it's illustrative of the issue nonetheless). The other things that is glossed over by these statements and questions revolves around the inherent chaos of storm systems in these areas. Many coastal towns have been built to account for these storm surges safely. Be it through barriers or simply proximity to the coastline in more remote parts of the world, these natural and man-made barriers or going to prove to be less effective. This raises the long term costs and damages associated with SLR. Now, will we rise 6m? I hope not. That's very drastic change given the timespan. That's the key issue and concern behind AGW after all. It's not whether or not the ice caps have disappeared in the past, they have. It's not whether or not we've been warmer in the past, we have. It's not about whether or not co2 has been higher in the past, it has. The issues surrounding the current changes to the system is how quickly they are changing. The most recent mass extinction (PETM - Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum) event seems to most likely have been driven by a very large outgassing of methane. Methane is a more potent ghg than co2, however it has a relatively short lifecycle in the atmosphere. That's because methane (ch4) breaks down into co2 and water, and the co2 has a very long adjustment time in the atmosphere. So this co2 can have a very long and persistent effect. My reason for mentioning the PETM is the current rate of change far exceeds the rate's seen in the PETM. The 1C warming we've witnessed over the last 100yrs would have taken 2500yrs during the PETM, and it wiped out approx 50-60% of the biosphere. These mass extinction events don't happen literally overnight, only figuratively. Too much of the dismissal by individuals on the basis of lack of evidence, I think , is due to not witnessing a catastrophe due to AGW during their individual lifetime. My personal thoughts on it is that the human lifespan and experience isn't long enough for any individual to realize the full impacts of what is happening. Each subsequent generation going forward will see a slightly less productive, slightly more shallow biosphere. There won't be a morning that comes where all of humanity to wake up and realize something terrible has happened, like a bomb going off. It will be a much slower and more gradual slide and to me, that's more dangerous because it simply leaves the doors open to individuals to dismiss as some other cause.
  33. 1 point
    What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae. The game is that we asked for repeatable, so Brad is going to pretend to not understand the context, and give all sorts of examples of repeatable in regard to noncontroversial pieces of the puzzle, while hoping that we didn't notice that he switched to talking about pieces when we were specifically asking for repeatable entire picture. It's like someone saying that granite floats on air. You ask for proof via repeatable experiments, and douchebag then goes into the repeatable science of the mineralogical composition of granite, and what evidence there is to label it felsic. Do you know what felsic means? Huh, stupid? No? But yet you have your big important opinions about rocks not floating! Science denier! That, and another tack is bickering about how badly Brad's being treated, and who said what. Boo hoo hoo. Brad has lots of time for all of that, but no time for answering my questions. That's fanboy/activist stuff, not science. Science is actually the mindset that the alarmist fanboy/activists ridicule: critical thinking, skepticism, caution, testing, etc. A truly scientific mindset is that of trying as hard as one can to find flaws in any theory. I don't get the impression that Brad, Meatball2, or Billy have ever taken that approach. Their mindset seems to be that of confirmation bias, heroically fighting the silly "denier" rubes, tee hee heeing, and high-fiving. But maybe I'm wrong. I guess Meatball2 is gone, but I'd like to ask Brad and Billy to tell us about their critical examination of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. What are your biggest criticisms? Do you have any? What holes have you found in the theory? What are the biggest weaknesses in whatever theory you have the most confidence? Do you feel that you have to hide them? Show us your critical scientific side rather than just the fanboy side. After all, even the IPCC identifies severe weaknesses. It admits to significant limitations. Anyway, there's no need for the trick of trying to obscure the forest with leaves. It's really as simple as X amount of CO2 over time period Y should equal temperature Z. Sounding like a broken record: In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us 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. J
  34. 1 point
    Newcomers, please, take a minute to read and respect the basic guidelines that rule on this site (at least in the abstract, since old-timers generally get a break). I was a moderator on an insanely-combative site, Syria Comment, back a few years. My main take-away from those forum rules boils down to one thing: do not needlessly personalize discussion. See the present SC guidelines in the peekaboo at bottom. Objectivist Living Guidelines:
  35. 1 point
    I don't see how Facebook is going to avoid the MySpace effect and tank to a ghost of its former self. When the stampede starts (actually it has started, but it's way early in its early stage), it's going to be quite a show. Get this: Facebook Bans Zero Hedge and this: Facebook takes down Elizabeth Warren ads calling for breakup of Facebook Rather than refute, Facebook is banning. And it thinks banning will work to silence major figures in our culture. And once the people at Facebook get into this habit, I predict they will go haywire. They are pissing off people of all persuasions. Man oh man... Michael
  36. 1 point
    "Discussion was his main interest. Even 'difficult' disputes were in his wheelhouse. We will never forget his contributions to rational debate and disagreement."
  37. 1 point
    They really don't seem to grasp the differences between the concepts "hypothesis," "prediction," and "conclusion."
  38. 1 point
    Let's hum the hymn, "There will be peace in the valley." I stopped reading Jon for a while but now I am back at it. Jon, just for the record (what a bs saying) if I am drinking alcohol and posting I will stick in a "hic" somewhere otherwise my obtuseness is coming from a clear head or is that oxymoronic? It's great having Ed post here.
  39. 1 point
    The Art of the Deal
  40. 1 point
    Ooops, sorry, I just saw your post after what I posted what you see below. But I'll keep it up now for the record as we seek some understanding! ....... Michael - Assuming Jon is not a troll (you'd know better than I), he kind of make my point. Schultz sees far left Dems discrediting his party. Folks can point to the extremists and say "See these crazies! That's the Dems. I rest my case." So Schultz offers an alternative. David Kelley decades ago saw the dogmatic Objectivists discrediting the truly rational, open Objectivists. Folks could point to them and say "See these crazies! That's Objectivism. I rest my case." So David offered an alternative. Someone like Jon makes it easy for our opponents to say "See that crazy! That's Objectivist living. I rest my case." It is sad that after all these decades, these types are still infest Objectivist circles. I always appreciate Objectivist Living though I don't get here much anymore now that I'm doing more public policy. But keep up the example, Michael, of what Objectivism can be and should be!
  41. 1 point
    Ed, Who is Joe? btw - This is only tangentially related to your article, but you might find it amusing. The leftie propaganda actually does work on the young. I wonder if Schulz will speak at UCLA after this video reaches its peak of virality. I mean, according to the left, if anyone needs a reeducation camp, it's him. Michael
  42. 1 point
    Peter - Joe's not worth debating with. Reason won't reach him. Anyway, Schultz adds an interesting element to the Democrats' inter-party battles.
  43. 1 point
    Good god! You have been in a state of war for 18 years and under martlal law! Who knew? Soon though, I know you will conquer Eastasia, I mean Terror, and return to 1939, I mean normal.
  44. 1 point
    Hey hey, look let’s talk about trying to invoke the 25 th , misguided and all that , and eat up all the space and air so none will be left for FISA abuses, you know real prosecutable stuff.
  45. 1 point
    Trump has Made America so Great that now the victims of racist hate have to send themselves their own hate letters.
  46. 1 point
    Lionel says the Deep State's coup as laid out in McCabe's new book did not succeed in getting rid of President Trump for one reason only: the Second Amendment. You know, after seeing the video, I agree. He's right. Especially in his example about Egypt. At one time, Hosni Mubarak had ordered his military to go house by house in Cairo, round up people and arrest them. The military refused and told him to do it himself if he wants it done so badly. They said too many people have Kalashnikovs in their homes and that would be a suicide mission. So transpose that to the massive amount of Trump supporters who freely exercise their Second Amendment rights. What would they do in the event of a Deep State coup by bogus charges, etc.? Lionel says that prospect is what kept the coup from spreading among former Obama insiders and their sympathizers. But let him explain. He does a great job of it. Michael
  47. 1 point
    Wow. That's cool, Master of Chutzpah! I have the old and new testaments in my full name which I will not broadcast. I grew a beard when I got out of the army but it itched and had dandruff so after shampooing it a few times when I did my top hair . . . I cut it off. edit. My cat Sparks, named after the Jodie Foster character in that movie Contact? who is my, icon had to have an ear cut off because of cancer, but she is still going strong. She is now a renowned thousand dollar cat.
  48. 1 point
    Now you pay up, Assholes. Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump FollowFollow @realDonaldTrump More California has been forced to cancel the massive bullet train project after having spent and wasted many billions of dollars. They owe the Federal Government three and a half billion dollars. We want that money back now. Whole project is a “green” disaster! 5:29 PM - 13 Feb 2019
  49. 1 point
    Welcome, Sir Billy! I hope you enjoy OL as much as I do. Michael
  50. 1 point
    Interesting! So I Googled it: U.S. Space Force estimated to cost $13 billion in first five years: memo https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-space/u-s-space-force-estimated-to-cost-13-billion-in-first-five-years-memo-idUSKCN1LX2GZ WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force estimated start up costs for a proposed U.S. Space Force, a new military service backed by President Donald Trump, will be around $13 billion in the first five years, according to a Department of Defense memo seen by Reuters. The Air Force, the U.S. military branch that takes responsibility for space, authored the Sept. 14 memo outlining a proposal for “a lethality focused organization that will field space superiority capabilities.” [...] The memo estimated that creating a Space Force will cost in excess of $3 billion in the first 12 months with an additional $10 billion needed over the following four years. The U.S. Air Force estimated that there could be more than 13,000 people in the new “Department of the Space Force.” ________ But the Air Force already handles these responsibilities, so Donald Trump is adding an unnecessary program costing taxpayers money. What's the difference between him and a Democrat when it comes to this?