Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/26/2019 in all areas

  1. 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.
  2. 2 points
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 1 point
    Yeah, dumbass, for emotionalism. Co–conspirators are guilty of every crime the conspiracy commits. For example, if your role is to arrive in the getaway car and all you do is drive that car, you are going away for a long time for bank robbery. If one of your co–conspirators shoots a teller, even though that was against the plan, you are going away for murder. If one of your co–conspirators murders someone years later, in order to keep the robbery hidden, then you can be put away for that murder, as well. Maddow can and will be put away for any number of acts of sedition and other high crimes committed by her and her Mockingbird handlers.
  7. 1 point
    Why is Maddow going to prison? For corrupting "reason" or for overblown emotionalism?
  8. 1 point
    We can check—off Mueller exoneration.
  9. 1 point
    I agree it is odd that few people have heard of him, outside of scholars. I'd say Comte observed and approved of the sacrifice sickness always visible in society, and uplifted the concept (and named it). An idea precedes, outlives, and is larger than the thinker. Like philosophers do, he had spin-off influence on others e.g. on Marx (!) and Mill and Spencer. Robert Campbell has a very good essay in OL somewhere, on Comte and altruism, wrt Rand's take on them. He confirms she got it precisely right. Wiki: Influenced by the utopian socialist Henri Saint-Simon,[4] Comte developed the positive philosophy in an attempt to remedy the social malaise of the French Revolution, calling for a new social doctrine based on the sciences. Comte was a major influence on 19th-century thought, influencing the work of social thinkers such as Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, and George Eliot.[6] His concept of sociologie and social evolutionism set the tone for early social theorists andanthropologists such as Harriet Martineau and Herbert Spencer, evolving into modern academic sociology presented byÉmile Durkheim as practical and objective social research.
  10. 1 point
    This guy Josh of https://kiwifarms.net is one who apparently hosted or posted links to the video and is exchanging love letters with NZ police ... On 3/17/2019 6:12 AM, MICHAEL, John (JP) wrote:Good afternoonI am hoping that you can help us with an investigation the New Zealand Police are working on.On 15 March 2019 there was a shooting in New Zealand with multiple fatalities at two mosques in the city of Christchurch.The alleged offender in this matter is a Brenton TARRANT.At around the time of the shooting there were a number of posts and links posted on kiwifarms.net <http://kiwifarms.net> relating to the shooting and TARRANTWe would like to preserve any posts and technical data including IP addresses, email addresses etc linked to these posts pending a formal legal request .Could you please advise what legal process you require for this request and also confirm preservation of the data requested pending legal process.Kind regardsJohnJohn Michael__Detective Senior Sergeant**E-mail: john.michael@police.govt.nz <mailto:john.michael@police.govt.nz>===============================================================WARNINGThe information contained in this email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this message or any of its contents.Also note, the views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect those of the New Zealand Police. If you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately--- Is this a joke? I'm not turning over information about my users. The person responsible for posting the video and manifesto PDF is myself.I feel real bad for you guys, you've got a quiet nation and now this attack is going to be the first thing people think of for the next 10 years when they hear the name New Zealand, but you can't do this. Tell your superiors they're going to make the entire country and its government look like clowns by trying to censor the Internet. You're a small, irrelevant island nation barely more recognizable than any other nameless pacific sovereignty. You do not have the clout to eradicate a video from the Internet and you do not have the legal reach to imprison everyone whose posted it. If anyone turns over to you the information they're asking for they're not only cowards, but they're fucking idiots.My name is Joshua Moon, I'm a US Citizen living overseas. My company is contained within a Florida company. If you need an address to send physical documents to this works.Lolcow LLC913 Beal Pkwy NWSuite A-1017Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547If you're wondering, no. Kiwi Farms has nothing to do with New Zealand. Our name is a pointed jab at some of the mushmouthed autistic people we make fun of. Absolutely nothing about our community is NZ oriented.And I don't give a single solitary fuck what section 50 of your faggot law say about sharing your email. Fuck you and fuck your shithole country.- Josh--- Hi JoshAppreciate your quick response.Will definitely consider what you have said.RegardsJohnJohn MichaelDetective Senior SergeantE-mail: john.michael@police.govt.nz
  11. 1 point
    Here is how Chelsea Clinton is seen on the true progressive left: It's not pretty. Just look at the hatred. Riffing off of Rush, in Chelsea Clinton's defense, she married a Jew, thus has Jew kids--to put it in the most blunt manner possible to highlight the part her protesters don't want highlighted. In other words, a Jew going to a Muslim event like this... Guess what happens? Can anybody say bigotry meets crony corruption? Michael
  12. 1 point
    It's worth it dude if you want to spoof the world. Wayne's World. Wayne's World.
  13. 1 point
    I find this to be a slippery slope. Hiroshima was a product of humans. Just because we evolved in nature and utilize parts of isn't a safe implication that what we are doing isn't destructive. Human history is quite frequently filled with humans acting as if there were no repercussions for their actions when in hindsight we realize how ignorantly we acting. I absolutely agree that adding to the shared knowledge base is key to human growth. Seems a bit pointless to do so, however, when given access to the information individuals simply disregard the warnings in favour of their own whims.
  14. 1 point
    I'll do my best. In regards to who and when, Joseph Fourier first hypothesized about the greenhouse effect. He noted that the atmosphere must in some way be absorbing, or inhibiiting, invisible light (IR) from leaving the planet (approx 1820's): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier Arrhennius in 1896 would be the first to hypothesize that changing co2, including by burning fossil fuels, could enhance the GHE. He also estimated that doubling co2 might lead to approx 5C change in temps! This is seeming a bit high with current research, but I find how close his number is to out estimates to be truly remarkable. https://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm In regards to your comments about changes in the experiment (changes in equipment and observational biases), Zeke has a great writeup here in regards to they why, where, when, who of adjustments. The end result: adjustments don't impact the overall global trend in any significant way. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records I can't say for certain that all algorithms are publicly available for download, but some are for sure. For example, here is NOAA PHA algorithm. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/pairwise-homogeneity-adjustment-software Whether the algorithm is publicly available or not, I can say with a greater degree of certainty the they provide literature explaining their methodlogy: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-summary.pdf Raw and adjusted data are also available through NOAA and other collection agencies. Some people have gone so far as to create their own individual algorithms from scratch: @caerbannog666 has tons of plots on his page and his algorithm is available for anyone to download, go through, and compile on their own. Or if using other's work isn't your thing, come up with your own methodology. As another example of individual analysis, @BubbasRanch has done his own work, and is most definitely on the skeptic side of the debate. However, his results, albeit he doesn't communicate it well in my opinion, agree rather well with NASA results. He also never explicitly compares his results in a side-by-side fashion as @caerbanogg666 does, but I would still personally vouch for his work, just not the implications of what he says it means 😉 That's all I have time for at the moment. Let me know if you have questions about any of this content, or where which questions I can focus my next responses on. 1-2 direct questions at a time is much easier to field and respond to than 5-6 huge open ended questions. Thanks.
  15. 1 point
    I like it when Rush Limbaugh plays a recording of 10 or so left wing newsies who spoke about the same issue that day. Many times they don't just parrot each other, they say "exactly the same thing in the same way." Their "talking points" come from one source. They are nearly reciting a script. The mystery is: "Who provides their thinking?"
  16. 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
  17. 1 point
    How integral or statistically significant is the albedo value to the overall maths or modeling? The first link you provided describes cloud formation predictions as a ‘wildcard’, what was the albedo value in the 2500 yr span that you have compared to the post industrial span and consequent temperature ‘spike(s)’ and if indeterminate, does any of that affect your confidence in predictions?
  18. 1 point
    I can't say precisely when all of these hypothesis were made, but these are the staple hypothesis of AGW: (https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/predictions-future-global-climate) 1. First and foremost - burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric concentrations of co2. Seems like a no-brainer but I've crossed paths with individuals who dispute that the current rise in atm co2 is not due to human burning of fossil fuels. 2. As a consequence of #1, Increasing non-condensing greenhouse gas concentrations will cause the system to warm 3. As a consequence of #1, pH of the ocean will shift to a more acidic pH as they absorb more co2 4. Along with #2, increasing ghg will simultaneously cause the stratosphere and on up to cool 5. As a consequence of #2, there will be some positive feedbacks triggered, ie reduced albedo due to loss of sea ice, increased water vapor in the atm 6. As a consequence of #2, there will be sea level rise (SLR). There are 2 reasons for this. 1 - warmer water takes up more volume and 2 - melting glaciers To me, those are the key hypothses of AGW, each of which has now been observed. See below for simple responses to each point, starting with #2. If I need to cover my bases on #1, let me know: 2. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ 3. http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/page.do?pid=112157 4. https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp (contains links to supporting papers) 5. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06207 6. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022 For those wanting to read papers that might be behind a paywall, there is a chrome (maybe firefox as well) extension called unpaywallme. It will give you a lock icon that changes to color when you reach a paywalled paper that has a free version available. It's not 100%, but it will get you most papers for free.
  19. 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.
  20. 1 point
    It's "Meatpuppets" in general, but our specific special guests are "Meatballs," just out of endearment. J
  21. 1 point
    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
  22. 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:
  23. 1 point
    Godwin's Law is not a law of physics nor a true counter argument to anything without an add on explanation. --Brant
  24. 1 point
    It's a natural reaction to the Meatpuppet strategy, and less distasteful and cowardly. J
  25. 1 point
    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?
  26. 1 point
    One of the authors involved in the "Grievance Studies" hoax/sting has a new article up at Areos: "Should Universities Teach Conspiracy Theories as Knowledge?"
  27. 1 point
    Which question? Lots to scroll through so yeah, I just kinda hopped in somewhere.
  28. 1 point
    One reply gets me labeled and I'm supposed to think this isn't a hostile environment?
  29. 1 point
    How shall I respond to a comment that presumes I operate in bad faith? "Deflection and blah blah blah" ...
  30. 1 point
    I'd think if the secretary didn't burn them they weren't burned (destroyed). But I don't think anybody was Hoover's master. I do think he was PR oriented, however, and he didn't mess with the Mafia or the drug trade. I sent him a letter once and got a nice reply. --Brant now you've got me wondering
  31. 1 point
    btw - I am no fan of Corsi. I actually read Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump. This could have been a very good book, but was basically a rehash of stuff from online discussions and videos without much improvement. I know because there is nothing in the book I hadn't seen before back when I read it. And, don't forget, most of the stuff one gets online needs a lot of improvement. This didn't happen in Corsi's book. Whether I like Corsi or not, agree with him or not, consider him to be sloppy and speculative or not, think he does more bad than good for spreading a pro-Trump message or not, even think his QAnon stuff that he promoted up to getting in trouble with Mueller is credible or mostly made up to promote himself and sell his book, that does not excuse what the Mueller people did to him. I get tickled by people who think Corsi was a kook until he said a message they agree with (his apology stuff). Then he becomes a credible source. L O friggin' L. In other words, to these people, Corsi lies until he doesn't. And they'll decide when he doesn't and becomes a sage. To me, Corsi is a kind of scholar for the fringe of the pro-Trump people. And he's not a very good scholar. In fact, at times, he's awful. To get value out of his work, you have to use him in the same manner you use all the major conspiracy folks. He's a blunt instrument to crack open topics that the powerful want buried, but he's not reliable for the details. And all of his conclusions need to be taken as a batch of uneven opinions--some spot on, some wacky and everything in between--that need further research. There's a trick to using these fringe folks correctly. See where the powerful get the most agitated and do the most damage to the fringe folks and right there will be the stuff to look at. (For a real good example, remember when they threw everything they had at a rather mediocre YouTube video maker to cover up the Benghazi mess? Or when they railroaded Dinesh D'Souza over campaign finance? Etc.?) Since Mueller came at Corsi with guns blazing, that's where the rot is. It doesn't matter what Corsi says from that point on. What he was talking about is what they want silenced. In my opinion, starting with Seth Rich... Michael
  32. 1 point
    Not supported by the evidence, Jon, sorry. By 'confession' do you mean the note of retraction posted at Infowars and cited above? I guess what I don't understand is why one might believe the retraction and apology cannot cohere with the truth. In other words, if Corsi says "I relied on a bunch of shit that has been retracted," then why is that suspect? Is it because Corsi himself is suspect? So, do you think Corsi is entirely making up what he relates in the retraction/apology? This seems to imply that Corsi was tortured. Where is the evidence of torture? Jon is a Mueller defender -- he says Mueller is a white-hat. Does that factor in to your own opinion? Speaking of zealotry.
  33. 1 point
    I think that Benjamin J.S. al-Haddad [b.j.al.haddad@gmail.com] is the corresponding author. Generally-speaking, one can request a 'reprint' directly from a corresponding author -- and they are happy to send one to you. There has been a bit of 'looky here' in mainstream reporting . LINK
  34. 1 point
    This is President Trump. Read more here. I got choked up seeing this. Michael
  35. 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."
  36. 1 point
    While we're asking stuff, I ask you to get a thorough psychiatric evaluation, and if you don't do it, I might call you such terrible names that you will go mad with terror and turn into a raving liberal. (Such are the heights of rational discourse on OL these days, apparently).
  37. 1 point
    Hell, I don't mind if all the people in the entire country become supporters of President Trump. That would stop all the ills of partisan prejudice as warned in the article. Michael
  38. 1 point
    Former Trump White House lawyer calls Mueller 'American hero,' says probe is no witch hunt.
  39. 1 point
    Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails and they murdered him for it. The feelings of his friends and family have nothing to do with anything, and so, people who cite those feelings are full of shit.
  40. 1 point
    They really don't seem to grasp the differences between the concepts "hypothesis," "prediction," and "conclusion."
  41. 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.
  42. 1 point
    Michael Just a blurt to make the blurter feel good, I apologize. It was a sarcastic remark in regard to the Trump-haters/MSM and what their reactions may sound like after reading the posts about the progress Trump and his administration have had toward Making AGA. TDS and their intellectual dishonesty will never allow them to admit any 'good' from Trump without trying to tie it to his personal advantage ( or that of his family and their business dealings) and or how he keeps somehow advantaging Russia and specifically Putin's designs for Russia. I'll refrain from posting until I cobble together more coherent ideas with at least 50 or more words. But blurting does feel good for the lazy, I suppose that is what emoticons/jis are for, and likes and trophies.
  43. 1 point
    tmj, I remember a time when who what when where why and how were taught as elements of clear expression. Now the thing is blurting out cryptic opinions that I call "cheap profundity." It makes the blurter feel good, I guess. If there is an idea or something specific that led you to share your wisdom with us, I would be interested. I'm serious. I'm curious. What are you talking about? Michael
  44. 1 point
    Man , Vlad is just leading him around by the nose.
  45. 1 point
    The Art of the Deal
  46. 1 point
    I do NOT dislike you. ---Brant we just aren't best buds I do like Carol (we just aren't best buds)
  47. 1 point
    Jon, I frequently disagree with with your style of presentation and I'm having a hard time getting my brain around this "Q" stuff, but you're grounded. I can deal with that. Ed declines to be grounded, he says or implies by the likes of you. I can't take it further into a broader characterization like you did for that'd be unfair to him by me which is not to say you were unfair to him. Maybe you were and maybe you weren't. But he was unfair to you. That's because he does not participate here. He floats in and floats out. That makes his rudeness to you primary and your rudeness to him secondary. Sometimes with others here your rudeness might be described as primary to primary as with Carol. (She doesn't float in and out; she walks☺️.) --Brant
  48. 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!
  49. 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
  50. 1 point