Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/09/2009 in Blog Comments

  1. William, Exactly. Rules to follow instead of using your brain to identify. According to your own explanation, algorithms are rules used for calculations and problem-solving. That means measurement and human-designed processes. That does not mean core identifications. As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. That's what algorithms get you without correct identifications. You don't use an algorithm to see if it's day or night when you want to go out. You look out the window. You don't use an algorithm to identify whether it's a snake in the grass or a water hose. You observe more closely. And do on. The closest thing you can use as an algorithm for basic identifications in order to not fall into brainless (literally) bigotry is to ask yourself, (1) What do I know? and (2) How do I know it? But there is no way to make the rules themselves (the algorithm) give you the answer automatically. You yourself have to do the thinking. You might want to do that when waging your campaign to ridicule Q. What do you know about Q? Not much apparently. You know the fringe and that's about it. The rest is generalities you get from others. How do you know it? You restrict your observation (the kind that shows you the difference between the snake and the garden hose) to the most quirky and loopy examples you can find. If you see something more serious, you ignore it. This is what I have seen in your writings on Q. There is no algorithm to provide you with a method that will make all people who find value in Q become like the loopy and quirky ones. There is only bigotry. And that is based on faulty identification, habit as a learned response to "What is it?", and a strong negative emotional imprint as frame. (Incidentally, that correctly describes TDS and any other form of blind hatred or blind contempt brought to the social level. That goes for all sides, too.) An algorithm is a tool for the brain. It is not a replacement. On a more fun level, Ray Bradbury once wrote a short story ("There Will Come Soft Rains") about an automatic house in an automatic neighborhood system that went through its day fixing meals, cleaning, making repairs, chiming the time, and so on. Except there were no humans left on earth. Only shadows left on the walls, presumably from a nuclear explosion. All of the "algorithms" and robotic routines they governed were designed for human activities, but there were no humans anymore. The thing just churned on and there was no meaning to the activities anymore. That, to me, is a great metaphor for how many people seek to use their brains. Michael
    2 points
  2. I think you're right, in the long run. (POTUS has already made clear he'll intervene if the mayor and governor don't step up, and since they're flipped him off in response, he most likely will.) But I admit that I personally can't just casually dismiss the short-term threats, if the reports are true about businesses being "shaken down", the property damage, etc. I'm also thinking about how it's affecting people psychologically, having to witness this, especially the potentially innocent people caught in the cross-fire. (And now, there's someone acting as "warlord" already edging out Antifa?) The O'ist conception of government's legitimate function is to protect people from the initiation of force, and in Seattle, government has not only abdicated that function, it's aiding and abetting in that initiation. This headline says it all: "Antifa Deserves a Military Response" https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2020/06/11/the-morning-briefing-antifa-deserves-a-military-response-n516040 And yes, I know Trump is letting the leftists state leaders expose themselves before he steps in, to "show" the people, and maybe that's necessary. But for HOW long? How long do people have to watch and endure other's suffering before it crosses the line from strategy to sadism? When is it enough? "Trust the plan", I hear. Still, it chafes against the O'ist impulse in me to stop the initiation of force. (Yes, maybe those people aren't so innocent, ideologically speaking, etc. Or, regarding the innocent, the Q explanation "you can't just tell the people, they have to be shown." Perhaps. Still isn't easy to watch. Like the Taggert Tunnel disaster scene. Even Dagny had to be told, upon leaving New York to the darkness, "don't look down!", lest she turn into a pillar of salt...)
    2 points
  3. My thought wasn’t directed solely at Brad and not necessarily only about money. Gore and Gore-like people do it to fleece money from the ‘system’ , Hollywood type virtue-signalers are probably motivated by an inherent narcissism. And they need their parrots to help move masses to accept the building of the ‘system’ or even to just be complacent enough to not fight back against the building .
    2 points
  4. Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability. Once again, falsifiable hypothesis and their approx date: And their conclusions:
    2 points
  5. Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
    2 points
  6. 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
    2 points
  7. So does William discuss? No, he posts a link: Slide, slip, slither, avoid - and then whine if you're called dishonest And what the linked-to list is about, as Michael points out, isn't how to have a discussion but how to indoctrinate. Ellen
    2 points
  8. 2 points
  9. 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
    2 points
  10. 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!
    2 points
  11. Heh. Comey's daughter (yeah, that Comey) is the lead prosecutor. Anyone doubt how this is going to turn out? The good news is that I believe the MAGA side now has a whole lot of sneaky shit they will be pulling just to get the information out there. They would not do that before, but I think they are fed up with the persecution, and especially with the pedo stuff. Michael
    1 point
  12. Just botching it. Giving impressions of a sound bite Tv interview on a subject on which I didn't,t have any knowledge. I should not have bothered to post it. I really didn't know he had presented the evidence publicly on other occasions, but I should have. So I apologize to Mr. Wood unreservedly. I never, ever knowingly write anything here which I believe to be untrue, unless in obvious sarcasm . Nor do I write it elsewhere come to that.
    1 point
  13. T, Yup. Here's how I said it on another thread a day or so ago: Michael
    1 point
  14. Billy refuses to discuss climate science with Jonathan at his very own climate blog here at OL because Billy is incapable of discussing science or anything technical. That is why he posts links, instead of making his own points in his own voice. That is why he has never responded to my chemtrail posts. It is all over his little head. He can sneer. And he is expert at tricks like "Jon has yet to present any persuasive evidence regarding chemtrails." How convenient. No response in years. But Billy can't respond, you see, as there is no persuasive evidence in my lengthy posts (that go over his head.) Poor little lightweight has to keep up these tricks and sneers to avoid discussing anything substantial and looking like an idiot to all who know something and can see. I have made lengthy posts on the subject. Billy the lightweight has pointed at links.
    1 point
  15. I'll wait till the end of October (surprises?) before I post a final prediction. My last prediction was that Kamala Harris would not be chosen to be on the ticket with Biden ... this should be known in a few days. I am currently stocking metaphorical "crow" ... What makes Lichtman's prediction intriguing or notable is that he has was only wrong once (Gore/Bush), and that his 13 Keys criteria are mostly the same as ever. And that none of the criteria take any notice of polling. Enphases added. Also ... He may be "emotional," but the criteria still remain, Peter. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, not in the heart of the baker. [for a local news angle on the Ohio Governor, via WKYC Studios: ] Ohio churchgoer with COVID-19 infects 91 others as state struggles to contain spread of virus
    1 point
  16. Watching your Pantyfa scum friends get severely mistreated by order of my President is going to be so, so sweet.
    1 point
  17. I know that there are more than one guy with 'you disgusting scumbag' in his mouth reading here. I think 'yds,' and I and invisible readers are all dealing with some relatively straightforward questions, questions that should be amenable to reason of the Randian stripe. Which explanation of of the Twitter Card image behaviour is the more reasonable, makes least assumptions, is the fruit of investigation and inquiry? Which stands up to close scrutiny? Which accounts for all the evidence (including such items as the Q cut and paste from a dev blog)? There would be plenty more questions in play, maybe, if we had a bigger quorum of active members. "Did Obama.org (or Obama race riot sorrows machine) organize a ritual murder of George Floyd?" "Some folk may claim that Q 'warned off' Obama in drops 4436 & 4437*. Does the evidence brought forth from rational inquiry support that claim?" "How would you explain in your own words the three Q drops that caused much discussion and explanatory hypothesizing?" My question to myself is 'what explains why and how some people's beliefs survive a reasonable debunking?' "Let a hundred flowers bloom," said Deng, before he realized how that would probably work out for one-party rule in China and shut it all down. 'Let your freedom of conscience ring. Don't be afraid of devils conjured up to incite prejudice and rage. If evil there is, beware of making The Fundamental Attribution Error.' I paraphrase. As might be apparent, I am not of the Gibbet Enthusiast Party.
    1 point
  18. A fun read, if you like oddities, quirks and foibles ... The Church of QAnon: Will conspiracy theories form the basis of a new religious movement? May 18, 2020 7.12am EDT
    1 point
  19. Well, as part of a debate, it is necessary to see where each party doesn't agree. Cause of increasing atmospheric co2 is what?
    1 point
  20. No, I really don't. Whether humans have caused the increase in atmospheric co2 is a key component to whether or not humans are driving global warming. But I guess you know that.
    1 point
  21. When spouting government conspiracies of control, the burden of proof is on the spouter.
    1 point
  22. "Fuck off, pedophile." The QAnon movement is chockful of anti-semitic garbage -- based on the wildest bullshit peddled by the Q-collective itself. If the correspondent wasn't so opposed to reason, he'd figure that one out on his own.
    1 point
  23. I gave readers a straightforward explanation -- how to make sure a quote will comprise a tweet from an earlier comment. The Mike Rothschild tweet remains where it was posted. Nothing was deleted. Intelligent readers will most likely accept a parsimonious explanation -- that the attempted quote failed to include the 'white-space' following the embedded tweet -- and thus failed to show. Anyone can check to see if the "missing" tweet is still there ...
    1 point
  24. Exclusive: Russia Carried Out A 'Stunning' Breach Of FBI Communications System, Escalating The Spy Game On U.S. Soil
    1 point
  25. 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
    1 point
  26. Here's a story that invites thought about 'Fake News' ... Court revives suit alleging Fox News inflicted 'emotional torture' on Seth Rich family
    1 point
  27. The Gang from QAnon Anonymous podcast hooked up with the jaded, middle-class meddler Jared Holt. Maybe we could assemble a list of OL Member-Approved QAnon-whisperers. My guess is that Praying Medic, InTheMatrixxx, Liz Crokin and Joe M (StormIsUponUs) would be in a Top Ten.
    1 point
  28. Huh? Doesn't it have everything to do with this thread? As in, if we don't completely get rid of freedom, and if we don't immediately start punishing evil deniers, then, by the end of next week, the entire planet will be on fire just like that, followed shortly by everything being five thousand feet underwater due to all of the ice, everywhere, melting? J
    1 point
  29. Yes, I agree there is uncertainty. The most recent work is looking like the total feedback is positive. That's why I specifically quoted their work (saying 'likely positive') as well as provided a link to their paper (albeit paywalled) and provided the key diagram that supports their assertion.
    1 point
  30. Jonathan, You've nailed so many correct points, especially about the rhetorical methods of these Meatball geniuses, I quoted the entire post. Basically the bullshit these pro-sky-is-falling climate crisis people serve up hasn't changed ever since Michael Crichton wrote State of Fear. Probably before, but I know it from this date because that's when I started following it. Crichton used to run a discussion forum back then (around 2004) and, after a gazillion posts between warring factions on manmade global warming, he simply shut down the discussions. I remember the phrase he used: "Same old same old." You called this new batch of Meatballs who showed up on OL "fanboy/activists." I think that's about right. Their behavior fits fanboy/activists to a tee. I thought the Brad Meatball was a bit different, but you know what convinced me he wasn't? I don't think he's very smart. I mean, if you're going to snark, at least don't be totally clueless. I told him I've been at this stuff for a long time. And Brad Meatball genius, posting on a forum I have run for 15 years with a published record of it all right at his fingertips, snarks back my own words, "And just because you say it, that makes it true?" That's retarded. You'd think the guy didn't have eyes to see what was right in front of him to ask that. So if snark is the genus, and his snark question is the conceptual referent, we have a specific differentia (retarded), so we can call this retarded snark. Part of your last paragraph bears repeating: You're never going to get that from the climate change crisis Meatballs. You are going to get the evasive techniques you so well described. I don't think that's ever going to change. Hell, even doing it the Meatball way, I asked him what GTE was and he was too caught up in his snark to answer. For someone who wants to be the enlightener of the rubes and lecture professor and says we have to start at the beginning, once again, that's retarded. It just is. I have no doubt the Brad Meatball has some learning, but like I said, this particular Meatball is pretty dumb. Michael
    1 point
  31. 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
    1 point
  32. Michael, you wrote, in the linked post: "This event hasn't been the first rodeo over here about this topic. One of our members, for example, Ellen Stuttle is personal friends with Richard Lindzen and her husband is a scientist who works in the field. She doesn't post much anymore, though. She's been suffering from an illness that precludes her looking long hours at a computer screen. " Rats. I'm going to have to break down and post something on William's blog, which I'm very reluctant to do. But, Michael, since you made that statement publicly, I think I'd best publicly correct an implication and a fact. I'm not "personal friends with Richard Lindzen" in the way your statement might sound - the kind of relationship where one chats about personal things, etc. I know him, through my husband. I've had conversations with him a number of times at conferences, sat with him, and his wife if she was attending, at the dinners, been to his home in Boston once for a climatology-conversation-geared get-together. I like him and I think he's enjoyed his exchanges with me. I respect him enormously as a scientist. He has a mind for physics, he could have gone into one of the prestige fields and been a big name. Instead, he went into climatology, from love of the subject. It was not a prestige subject when Dick went into it, and he never had any expectation of ending up a limelight person in a battle against scientific corruption. Larry, my husband, is not "a scientist in the field," i.e., climatology. He's a full professor of physics, with special interests in mathematical physics, symmetry, and relativity. He started studying climate issues in 2004, out of concern about the scare prognostications. He didn't need long to discover how shoddily-based those were. He's become a minor expert on climatology, just through his own studies, but he isn't "in the field." The main draw for him, which keeps him involved in climate disputes, is hatred for the scientific corruption and the creeping erosion of scientific honor. (The selling out on scientific integrity spreads to other fields, even to unrelated fields where researchers look the other way and give lip service to climate alarm because their universities are getting climate-related research funding, also from PC motives which can affect scientists like other people.) As to the physical problem which keeps me from spending long hours at a computer, that's correct, I do have such a problem, but it isn't the only reason I hardly post these days. There are also some nefarious doings I'm involved in helping with trying to counter (things related to reducing human population). I'm kept busy with explorings - which I don't want to talk about publicly. As to the rest of your post: Bravo! I think you did a really good job of explaining to Brad the situation regarding William's OL activities. Cheers, Ellen
    1 point
  33. Here is a perfect example of why I am not going to engage much with this person. I said I was not interested in him. I don't like his bullshit bullying manner of showing up out of nowhere, bossing people around and giving out homework. I refuse to talk to people like that. I never show up anywhere the way he did. He interprets my objection to him as not showing interest in science. Legend in his own mind and so on. It's just bullshit. No wonder these people are losing the climate change moral panic. (btw - I vote. Millions of people like me do, too. If we have any say about it, these jokers will never compel us to do or fund anything. There's an object lesson there, too, but I doubt it will be learned by these kinds of folks.) Michael
    1 point
  34. As I said, can't make you drink. http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/getting-the-source-code-for-climate-models/ Did you badger your teachers for not answering the test questions for you too?
    1 point
  35. How shall I respond to a comment that presumes I operate in bad faith? "Deflection and blah blah blah" ...
    1 point
  36. yawn... False conspiracy theories are the real problem say the elitists. Unending war for profit, mass surveillance, screwing the middle class with bogus crony corporatist schemes, using slave labor and calling it globalism, and so on don't really count to these folks, do they? Well, here's a fact for those who care about facts. Talking about false conspiracies have not caused even 0.1% or the enormous damage and loss of innocent life the elitist boneheads in the ruling class have caused. It's all the fault of the false conspiracies... So say the elitist boneheads on the way to the bank, their power centers and their occupations of unearned privilege. False conspiracies do one thing in reality, though. They make it hard has hell for the elitists to make people agree with them. They need the common people to SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP GODDAMMIT. How else can they perpetrate their garbage and crony scams in peace? So now they are writing books asking nicely and with kindness for people to sit down and shut up goddammit. Fuck them. We don't need fewer false conspiracy theories. We need more. We need robust debate, always, not goddam gatekeepers who think they are better than others to the extent they get to tell all people what they can look at and consider. Most people are good. They are not cattle. They'll figure things out over time. They always have. And they sure as hell don't need idiots from the ruling class to tell them what to think. Here's a far better book by Tucker Carlson that looks at precisely the kind of person who wants such unearned power. It's No. 1 on Amazon right now. I've read it and it's one of the best books on current politics I have ever read. Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution And there's this. Tucker doesn't mean "selfish" in a Randian sense. He means it in a childish and thuggish sense. Hurting people on purpose and taking their things. My favorite observation by Tucker is the sheer incompetence of the current ruling class. He said there has never been a more incompetent ruling class in human history. This batch is just plain stupid. I agree. The've turned science into a religion, are now working on getting rid of due process and believing this is good, and so on. And not one of them can do a goddam thing of value. One video I saw elsewhere asked an interesting question. If you were stranded on a desert island, who would you want to be stranded with? People who wag their finger at you over gender identity crises, who call you racist every time you disagree with them, and so on? Or plumbers, carpenters, fishermen, and so on? Give me a conspiracy theorist any day of the week over an asshole elitist who wants to rule me because he thinks he's a superior life form. He's not a superior life form. He's a goddam fool who's time of cultural relevance is--thankfully--coming to an end... Michael
    1 point
  37. Meanwhile, we managed to dodge an ice age. http://reason.com/blog/2018/09/10/thank-a-farmer-if-you-hate-ice-ages
    1 point
  38. You believe they seek out employees who receive government assistance? I don't see how one could prove that true or false. If it were true it would get leaked out eventually (via some internal policy manual becoming public). If not true, there would never be confirmation of the fact. As to postage, at least where I live, Amazon does its own deliveries. Which tells me that bringing that part of the business in-house is cheaper and/or more reliable than using USPS.
    1 point
  39. I'm going to have to insist you answer my first question: Is it the responsibility of an employer to ensure the economic stability/status of its employees? Yes, no, maybe, sometimes?
    1 point
  40. Zzzzzz. Oh, sorry. I skimmed the article to see if it has occurred to anyone to try to investigate and measure the effects that Muh Russians' efforts may or may not have had on anyone. Apparently not. Is there any evidence at all that they influenced anyone to a greater degree than my cousin's thousands of attempts on social media to convince others of the powers of essential oils and healing crystals? (Zero likes, zero replies, several ignores and unfollows, and a few unfriends.) No? It's just too fucking scary, so we have to take measures immediately to control everything? Maybe it's even "settled science" already, and anyone who asks about proof is a "science denier"? J
    1 point
  41. It occurred to me that I may have misunderstood Billy's meaning. In referring to "Jonathan's homework," Billy, did you mean not the homework that you think that I have neglected to turn in, but the homework that I've assigned to you? If so, sorry for the misunderstanding above. However, my response still remains the same in essence: It is not homework that I'm giving to you, but rather the reality of the requirements of science, and the dictates of the onus of proof. It's not some irrelevant or tangentially silly burden that old Jonathan has come up with to waste your time, but the core of the issue at hand.
    1 point
  42. But what makes you think I'd disagree with that? I only say that such a triviality is not relevant in this discussion. You could as well say "A is A", well so what? Of course I'd condemn both. So? Oh, but evolution could in principle be falsified. That this so far never has happened is very strong evidence for the correctness of the theory. You shouldn't believe what creationists say... See for example: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13675-evolution-myths-evolution-cannot-be-disproved/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/what-would-disprove-evolution/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00045845 What you call anecdotes are verified historical facts, many from Freud's own letters to his fiancée (quite revealing, and therefore longtime suppressed) , his publications, and letters and publications of contemporaries. It is no tabloid gossip, as sometimes is suggested. But, as I wrote before, the central point is that he either lied about his treatment of certain patients, or even made up stories out of whole cloth, but did use those stories as evidence for his theories. That is what makes him a quack, even if his theories might accidentally be correct (never mind that the probability of that is quite low). It may be good fiction, but it isn’t science. For that matter, Freud was certainly a gifted writer, his Die Traumdeutung and his Zur Psychopathologie des Alltagslebens I’ve read many times, it makes fascinating reading, although I’d now have more problems with his tricks and deception. An artist, but not a scientist.
    1 point
  43. So, you're saying that the "switch" was already on? As in automatically? But then, what, the person volitionally turns it on again, even though it's already on? Do you understand the contradiction now? If not, you should think about it a bit more. Focus harder. Let's review: Tony said that "Switching on thinking and focus is volitional..." That means that one chooses to think and focus. But in order to choose, one must already be thinking, and also focused, about the subject of whether to choose to think and focus or not. And if one is already thinking and focused, prior to making the conscious, volitional choice to think and focus, then, therefore, thinking and focusing would be automatic, and not volitional. So, I replied, "If one isn't already thinking and focused, how does one 'volitionally switch on' thinking and focus?" Then you piped in with an answer that reveals that you didn't understand the gist of the question. Your response doesn't answer the question. J
    1 point
  44. Toothless garbage people. They used to be the salt of the Earth, the honorable working man, the blue collar hero, the underdog, the common folk who were the heart and soul of the Democratic party. The Dems shafted them. So they left. And now we see what the Dems always thought of them. Not only that, but now the entire Republican party is defined by the characteristics of the "garbage" that abandoned the Dems. The whole party now is undereducated, toothless trash. They don't know their heads from their asses, and are politically gullible and naive. They're stupid, and don't know how to vote for what's best for them. They became that in one election cycle. Pretty revealing attitudes. J
    1 point