Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

Time for a shave down at Occam's Barbershop.

Sometimes a vain asshole is just a vain asshole.

:) 

Michael

You're probably right.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Stephanopolis interviewed President Trump on ABC (video posted here** by Michael).  Here's the full-text transcript from the network:

 

___________________________________

** 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link-back added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another perspective on President Trump's North Korea agreement.

Yup...

I have some minor disagreements with Styx, but that's about it.

(btw - I find his libertarian-oriented common sense and rational big-picture political vision wedded to that occult crap of his visuals weirdly funny in a postmodern sort of way. Whatever rings your ding-a-ling, I guess... :) )

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

See it and weep anti-Trumpers.

This is your attack dog interviewing President Trump.

President Trump even said he likes Justin Trudeau, but that little stunt is going to cost him a lot of money.

I wonder what the voting in Canada will look like when the reality of this cost becomes more than just words and hits actual bank accounts.

:) 

Michael

The "little stunt" was speaking truth to power.  I am proud of our prime minister.

Correction... Trump said he liked Trudeau, past tense.  Trump  only likes people in political life, who are not named Trump, who bend over for  him, and not backwards either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caroljane said:
7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

See it and weep anti-Trumpers.

I am proud of our prime minister.

Moving gently but firmly away from histrionic jingoism and into a boring side note, the video (produced by the NSC) I posted elsewhere was a form of propaganda directed at Kim Jong Un and his tablemates/honchos -- not the meda vampire corps or anybody else -- if I understand, if I understand the rationale correctly.  And I had failed to note the President's tweet.

 

Edited by william.scherk
Grrrrrrrammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier, some jingoistic harpy took a pill and 'wondered' about the Island Encounter ...

On 6/11/2018 at 2:40 PM, Dreamy 49 North said:

If he has a glimpse of North Korea strategies and tactics [...]

-- Kim wants to reform his country without losing his head
-- Kim wants to move away from spending so much fucking money on his military
-- Kim wants to do a Deng for his country, unleash the motor of the world, capitalism
-- Kim wants an end to the state of war between the ROK and the DPRK ... with a stand-down and eventual evacuation of US "protective" forces
-- Kim wants some form of reconciliation beyond a mutual non-hostility pact
-- Kim wants to continue on Juche for the foreseeable future

If I was one of the folks debriefing the Prez, or if I was somebody he called, I think I'd ask for his detailed reading, using my list as questions.

From following the presidential remarks and interview-ettes, remind me to find Brett Baier's Air Force One interview.  I want to know if we get any closer to Kim's actual plan for himself and his country.

I've been reading some South Korean media coverage, and trying to interpret the handshake deal from various points of view and vested interests. Business, wouldn't you know, is positive. There's always a dollar to be made.

Other than that, there is both a sober side and an effervescent side.  The idea that the USA will "guarantee" the DPRK's system is not new (I think it was part of previously dashed agreements in the 90s), but it is sort of a bottom, basement, foundation to an intense interest in South Korea to de-escalate the war. The more effervescent opinion seems to believe that over the fifteen years it might take to denuclearize, the South's immense relative wealth and cultural power will be dripped into the North -- and that the culture of the South will begin to absorb its poor cousins, step by step.

In my mood celebrating all the theatrics, I side with the effervescent hopefuls.  On the distant rosy horizon, Unification, peace, plenty, freedom, blah.

The sober-sided South Koreans of course lay out the history of failed agreements past. I detect a slight electricity underneath that sombre recitation, and the ugliest facts about the DPRK.  I call it hope, heavily redacted by reason. Who knows?

Quote

In a fit of optimism, I see a DPRK-ROK peace treaty outline informing the discussions, and I see broad strokes accepted

If it doesn't work out, a certain also-optimistic somebody is quoted saying he'll find some excuse, excuse the paraphrase.

If I get just the one phone call from Air Force One, I'd suggest (after ritual praise) that the Koreas themselves figure out all the necessary steps for themselves.  What can the US do but guarantee a relatively non-bellicose posture while they figure out their mutual business.

The only bone in the fish is the file euphemistically known as "human rights." It is often an American concern, but not always.

-- I will keep my eyes peeled for reports out of the DPRK, in hopes of answering my questions of how the handshake will be presented to the people as a harbinger of change or simply a deepening of the Chairman's mystique.  If tending to the second, I join the effervescent opinion that says it is going to be a struggle for Kim, and he will need to play his cards close to his chest, along with a machine-gun or two.

Edited by william.scherk
"Relatively" is not a bad word; added machine gun paragraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, caroljane said:

The "little stunt" was speaking truth to power.  I am proud of our prime minister.

Carol,

As you should be.

Besides, it's not my money that will be going down the drain. A small part of it will be yours as you will see when you go to the supermarket later.

But when the truth-speaking and all-inspiring prime minister's constituents--especially the traditional insider elites (the ones who really count)--see that it will be their money--and see the size of the amount coming out of their pockets and going down the drain, I'm not so sure he will be consoled by the current adulation of his fans and followers, probably because, if human nature stays true to course, his status will sharply change to the negative. People get pissed when the lose a lot of money over blah blah blah...

Just look at the Canadian freeloaders among the elitists who have lived off American largesse and stupidity for decades complaining right now as the well dries up...

They're angry. 

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

Just look at the Canadian freeloaders among the elitists who have lived off American largesse and stupidity for decades complaining right now as the well dries up...

They're angry. 

:) 

Michael

Which elite freeloaders do you refer to? Apparently, we have so many...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, caroljane said:

Which elite freeloaders do you refer to? Apparently, we have so many...

Carol,

Dairy industry owners and their cronies, for one, hiding behind 270% protectionist tariffs. (I know, I know, the 270% is an oversimplification as there is a quota system and there are different products with different tariffs from cheese to ice cream to all kinds of things, so there are exceptions. But there are many cases above that number, too. So this is a general aggregate number. Even if, in some calculations, it's off by a few percentage points, it's still way too high for anyone to call fair.)

What this means is that Canadian dairy companies do not have to compete or even be very good. They don't have to do anything for this benefit except be Canadian. They don't have to produce a better product at a lower price. They have a guaranteed market.

Meanwhile, Canadian companies ship oodles of products in other areas to the US enjoying a huge market with small to no tariffs. Now that the US is saying that door is going to close unless the other opens, the Canadians (led by the elitist cronies) are calling foul.

The freeloading is ending and they are pissed.

Let's make something clear. President Trump is not threatening to close down Canada's dairy industries--or any Canadian industry for that matter (like aluminium). He doesn't have that power nor does he seek it. He's simply saying we will stop trading if push comes to shove and Canada keeps demanding that the US keep giving American wealth to foreign (and domestic) freeloaders while damaging American producers.

Reciprocal tariffs or no tariffs at all. That's fair.

This is simple economics.

To me, it's kind of "duh" level logic. And it makes me wonder about the motives of those who think this is wrong. (I'm talking about the public elitists, the ones on top, not you, who I place as someone who grew up in this culture and was never a top-level insider. You may not believe it, but I guarantee you will be shocked the day you realize--fully realize the extent--that your fearless leaders say one thing to the masses, and the opposite to each other in their elitist club.) 

Trade agreements (like NAFTA) with forced tariffs favoring one country over another is crony-corporatist-in-bed-with-the-government bullshit. It's the dream-come-true of freeloaders (if they are on the inside--for everyone else it's an impassable barrier and nightmare if they want to work in a protected industry). This is an elitist game. Calling it free trade is the same crap as calling Obamacare "affordable." The word means one thing and the reality to which it refers, except for the freeloaders, is the opposite.

btw - I should mention that American elitists are freeloaders of this system, too. Big time.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,  are you implying that by co-creating NAFTA , Ronald Reagan was a dupe of the Canadian dairy industry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, caroljane said:

Michael,  are you implying that by co-creating NAFTA , Ronald Reagan was a dupe of the Canadian dairy industry?

Carol,

NAFTA was not Reagan's finest hour.

He set up the old boy's club (NAFTA). We can't lay at his feet how the old boys played within that club, but we can certainly fault him for not seeing how old boy insiders play in general when they get protection.

He put the goddam monkeys in charge of the banana grove.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jonathan said:

You're probably right.

Jonathan,

Well, De Niro get the attention he wanted.

Yay! (he says to himself.) He's relevant to the mainstream again...

:) 

"Too many shots to the head by real boxers..."

LOLOL...

:) 

And this:

De Niro also got a new nickname.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand...

In this cooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrnnnnerrrrrrrr...

The oooooooooooomnnnnnnnnnnnne...

The oooooooooooooooonnnnnlyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...

The unforgetablllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllle... llle... llle...

PUNCHY!!!

06.13.2018-08.21.png

Wake up, little Punchy, wake up...

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, caroljane said:

The "little stunt" was speaking truth to power.

Carol,

OMG.

I think I have to rethink my thinking.

The backlash to G7 is devastating...

(Actually, the Honourable Brittlestar made me think of you.)

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, caroljane said:
16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Just look at the Canadian freeloaders among the elitists who have lived off American largesse and stupidity for decades complaining right now as the well dries up...

Which elite freeloaders do you refer to? Apparently, we have so many...

Here's one (if you are in the mood to "just look";  click and go image):

chilliwackMilkWar.png

Mr Toop has been feasting on the cadavers of American greatness for far too long, and now the Milk War is on.

Edited by william.scherk
"US dairy-supports are beyond my ken."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

Well, De Niro get the attention he wanted.

Yay! (he says to himself.) He's relevant to the mainstream again...

:) 

 

"Too many shots to the head by real boxers..."

LOLOL...

:) 

And this:

 

De Niro also got a new nickname.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand...

In this cooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrnnnnerrrrrrrr...

The oooooooooooomnnnnnnnnnnnne...

The oooooooooooooooonnnnnlyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...

The unforgetablllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllle... llle... llle...

PUNCHY!!!

06.13.2018-08.21.png

Wake up, little Punchy, wake up...

:) 

Michael

I'd still be interested in discovering what, if anything, little old Punchy believes that Trump has done, or wants to do, that is so horrific that Punchy has to throw a profane tantrum at an entertainment awards show on national television while not bothering to ever explain specifically what has gotten him so angry. Does he have the brains and self-awareness to know what has stirred up such hatred in him? Is he capable of anything other than grunting and making threats?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, caroljane said:

The "little stunt" was speaking truth to power.

I got the impression that it was more about power speaking down to someone who just spoke truth to power.

It appeared to be the attitude of a group making demands and citing expectations of having their impression of their own power obeyed and bowed to.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a bit more Milky Way perspective (from the Canadian 'fake news' source Global?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knocking the termites out of the woodwork. I don't know if "derangement syndrome" applies any more. Closest I can come up with, is "nihilist insanity", as heard publicly from another entertainer-type, Bill Maher who longs for a US economic recession(all very well when you're a millionaire) to bring the president down. Next up, I swear is on some minds (CNN), but nobody's quite so stupid to say publicly(yet) is wishing for the talks with NK to collapse, and have to go to war with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Here's one (if you are in the mood to "just look";  click and go image):

William,

I looked.

I liked this quote (amidst the boilerplate talking points):

Quote

Canada’s supply management system for dairy, eggs, and poultry, limits production, and aims to avoid saturating the market, by keeping prices steady, and incomes steady for producers.

I wonder who does the managing, I wonder, I wonder. And who does the price fixing, I wonder, I wonder. And who decides the keeping "incomes steady" part, I wonder, I wonder...

Crony insiders backed by protective tariffs, maybe? 

:)

But wait! There's more!

Quote

“There’s over a trillion dollars invested in dairy quota in Canada. It’s equity. Farmers use it as debt leverage,” Toop added.

Money games? A trillion dollars? In cows? That amount of debt leverage for what, pray tell? Hmmmm?...

Hell, here's an idea. If you have to pay a debt, just get a politician to change a quota and you've got your leverage. You're golden. And your bankers can issue derivatives on it all day long. You can keep this up forever juggling things back and forth (until it goes boom like all freeloading does eventually). Everybody makes money except those who get screwed.

Wouldn't it be great to go into business and freeload to your heart's content never have competition? 

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

I'd still be interested in discovering what, if anything, little old Punchy believes that Trump has done, or wants to do, that is so horrific that Punchy has to throw a profane tantrum at an entertainment awards show on national television while not bothering to ever explain specifically what has gotten him so angry. Does he have the brains and self-awareness to know what has stirred up such hatred in him? Is he capable of anything other than grunting and making threats?

Jonathan,

Take a good long look.

That's what raw hatred looks like.

That's the stuff that takes entire countries down a dark dark path to dictatorships and wars of conquest.

It's called targeting a scapegoat for your hatred and pushing to get others on board with you. The issues are beside the point. Power is the point.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

Take a good long look.

That's what raw hatred looks like.

That's the stuff that takes entire countries down a dark dark path to dictatorships and wars of conquest.

It's called targeting a scapegoat for your hatred and pushing to get others on board with you. The issues are beside the point. Power is the point.

Michael

I should think raw hatred is what Jong Un's countless starving and tortured prisoners see from their Dear Leader.- Trump's  "smart and talented" new pal.  Calling the leader of his longtime  largest trading partner and firm ally "dishonest and weak" is nothing to Trump - just another reflexive sneer against whoever he's displeased  with at the time.  But it is utterly despicable to a nation who give and expect honesty and good faith in negotiation.

Michael, did you not explain that Trump's foul insults   and ungrounded accusations against opponents are OK because words are his weapons against enemies who are out to destroy him?  Well, he is out to destroy our major industries, and the credibility of our Prime Minister. Yet if our leader protests, it is "raw hatred."  C'mon, now.

Oh well, Trump admires dictators, so perhaps if Trudeau perfects his hating technique,  he might get more dictatorial, and regain Trump's regard...now there's a strategy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2018 at 4:03 PM, william.scherk said:

From following the presidential remarks and interview-ettes, remind me to find Brett Baier's Air Force One interview.  I want to know if we get any closer to Kim's actual plan for himself and his country.

Here's the interview from Fox:

I'd say the weirdest part comes at around 7:00. Your mileage may differ, based on expectations and desire for an Emperor.

 

25 minutes ago, caroljane said:

Yet if our leader protests, it is "raw hatred."  C'mon, now.

We used to call this the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, informally.

Edited by william.scherk
Informally, it's not Cult of the Leader? No, scapegoating Trudeau for Trump's histrionic peevishness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caroljane said:

I should think raw hatred is what Jong Un's countless starving and tortured prisoners see from their Dear Leader.- Trump's  "smart and talented" new pal.  Calling the leader of his longtime  largest trading partner and firm ally "dishonest and weak" is nothing to Trump - just another reflexive sneer against whoever he's displeased  with at the time.  But it is utterly despicable to a nation who give and expect honesty and good faith in negotiation.

Michael, did you not explain that Trump's foul insults   and ungrounded accusations against opponents are OK because words are his weapons against enemies who are out to destroy him?  Well, he is out to destroy our major industries, and the credibility of our Prime Minister. Yet if our leader protests, it is "raw hatred."  C'mon, now.

Oh well, Trump admires dictators, so perhaps if Trudeau perfects his hating technique,  he might get more dictatorial, and regain Trump's regard...now there's a strategy...

Carol,

I don't mind your context-dropping.

For the producers of the world, things like defusing the NK problem happen in stages. For anti-Trumpers, they must happen like on-off switches or... sumpin' or another... magical thinking and all...

But at least, back here in reality, the world will not be blown up for now. And that means we get to keep on arguing about it. With your way of doing it (or not doing it), we might not be able to after a while.

And, who knows? Once the nukes are gone, maybe North Korea will step into the modern world. If that happens, Trump people figure we can worry about Kim later.

Of course, anti-Trumpers could wag their fingers at the nukes and try to shame them into not dropping...

Or maybe try a gotcha to see if that would work...

:evil:  :) 

You know that President Trump did what your wonder boys could never do--he is defusing this real and present danger, something your wonder boys could not even dream of doing. It's no wonder you guys hate President Trump so much. He makes your idols look like the incompetent and corrupt fools they are.

So there.

:) 

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caroljane said:

Michael, did you not explain that Trump's foul insults   and ungrounded accusations against opponents are OK because words are his weapons against enemies who are out to destroy him?  Well, he is out to destroy our major industries, and the credibility of our Prime Minister. Yet if our leader protests, it is "raw hatred."  C'mon, now.

Carol,

You are making three huuuuuuuge mischaracterizations. 

1. President Trump does not use words as weapons. If I ever said he did, I wrote poorly. Using words as weapons (and means of punishment, etc.) is for people who think like you do. President Trump lives in reality by doing things. Deeds, not words. And he's a builder, not warrior. A producer. As for explaining, I have explained this point until I am blue in the face, but it never seems to get through.

You guys always confound words with deeds and prioritize the words as if they could alter reality. Your peeps use terms like "control the narrative" and crap like that to make up appear like it's down for the masses. You think a different narrative results in a different reality. But narrative alone ultimately doesn't work. Narratives are words, not deeds, so this is magical thinking. Wishing. For President Trump and those who think like him, words used in a rhetorical manner are merely persuasion tools to get people out of his way so he can build. If he ever needs a weapon for real, I imagine he will haul out a gun. That's what I would do.

2. President Trump is not out to destroy any industry whatsoever. If a freeloader industry or country does not want to trade fair and square, he merely will stop trading with them. How is that destroying anything? They can trade in their own country. They can trade with other countries. That's what freedom looks like. 

There are over seven billion people on the planet. The US has about four hundred million. That leaves over six billion and six hundred million to trade with if the US stops trading with any country. So cry me a river...

3. I was referring to Robert De Niro as "raw hatred." I'm pretty sure I was clear about that. Is it the way I write or are you having trouble tracking?

I should write "C'mon, now." But I won't even if I just did. :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just remembered the "Linguistic Kill Shot" of Scott Adams. This is a nickname that sticks to the target like glue. President Trump is a master at coming up with these nicknames (Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, Crooked Hillary, Low-Energy Jeb, Rocket Man, etc.).

I suppose that could be considered using a word as a weapon by a person in a literal-minded mode. But to me, it's clear it's a metaphor like the ones they use in sports where a talented player is called a "killer," or has a "killer move," and so on. 

If I were to categorize the nickname thing with a fighting resource, I would call it judo or some other martial art that leverages the opponent's own movement against him. In other words, the nickname leverages the opponent's on nature against him. It could never stick unless it contained an easily observable negative truth about the opponent, one that the public sees even though nobody ever talks about it until the nickname goes public.

To me, using words as weapons goes something like what Media Matters does. They bombard sponsors of political commentators they don't like with thousands and thousands of angry social media messages from thousands of different users in a very short time. The sponsors, believing these angry users are paying customers of theirs, generally flee the commentator. But when the truth comes out, it's only a system that has about ten real people or so making up thousands of fake accounts and operating Internet bots to blast out messages from them. That's a weapon using words.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...