Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Carol, quoting Michael, since William lost the touch in fixing the ipsquote, said:

Pettiness--which is how readers interpret the need to be right at all costs--does not become you.

It doesn't exceed mind-reading or talking down or other managerial sins, but yeah, finger-wagging does not become anyone. Luckily for the Republic, Michael and I tend to pre-apologize  for being kind of a jerk. I forget exactly where and the gists.  But I think he and I both get sorry for being a bit too "lit."  As long as we are in control of our arguments, and not driven by mere lizard-brain emotion, we make our points stronger.  Putting the other person down beneath you makes for great wrestling, MMA and other recreational bloodsports -- and is appropriate in survival situations. I'd even excuse Carol pulling a gun on the odd rabid hare gnawing at the door.

The danger for all is as always, personalizing discussion to the point of a curl of the lip and "You."  You,  you and you. "People like you," "Your peeps," "You believe X," and so on, or worse -- as if personal faults in character or motive were sole key to disagreement.  Re-deploying disagreement to reasonable fact disputes can often solve incipient issues, and yet can derail into 'defects' not in argument but in personality.  A 'stand-down' from over-personal rhetoric can soothe the waters.  Carol, you gain six points for your sharp cheddar tone but perfect al dente under pressure.  I could never be so benevolent, since I am Puck. A not entirely nice pixie of the hearth.

So, Michael and Carol, you will pre-forgive me for getting personal. It ain't personal.  Think what fun various disagreements had here could be in person! No questions left unanswered, wine, snacks, sunshine, mutual education.  

Which reminds me, a lot of  you readers are waiting for the latest William Scott Scherk snail mail caper.  I am so sorry. But "you people" will have to wait until Canada Day or maybe even the Fourth. 

Edited by william.scherk
"Is he still trading on his freaking Syria Comment moderating duties? Yeesh."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liars 

A large component of narcissistic behavior is the lie. They will lie about anything, in any situation, often for no reason at all.

This catches people out because normal people don't expect others to lie. At least not very much! Nobody is ready for the extent and the frequency with which narcissists tell lies. 

And they will often mix in half truths to the stories they tell so they seem believable. And if a person knows part of the story is true, they are more willing to accept that the rest is true too.

But the narcissists are not fazed if they are caught out in a lie, either! They simply change their story to try and fit the new facts, all the time adding to the chaos...

https://www.decision-making-confidence.com/narcissistic-behavior.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Bill O'Reilly now qualified for membership in a Hate Club for Men?  If criticism of administration policies or optics puts someone on the wrong side of Big Daddy, I almost feel forced to say yeah.  If it saddens or pisses off Laura Bush and Bill O'Reilly, and increases the temperature in the Blob's collective mind, there will surely be public opinion victory by noonish this coming Friday.  If the flocks of tromping-across-Mexico-fleeing-mostly-shithole-death-threats-in-Guatemala are too stupid to know that everything is going to go badly for them and their family from the moment of apprehension, it will play out in America's favour. In the long run. In the medium run.  The very vision of a "we will fuck you up" welcome for illegal entries is the point. Or maybe I am reading from the other guy's cue cards again. I don't know. Could we please have two opinions on this matter, Teacher?

Trump ain't afraid to be tough. If you don't like it, hate away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Democrats did their jobs half as much as they resist,  then border issues would be resolved iin a day.

They prefer the status quo, (put in place by them,) while they pretend to care about the children - the sex trafficking of whom they deny and joke about in other contexts - and quote their favorite Bush.

Sick, sick, sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Edited by william.scherk
Whoopee transplant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Is Bill O'Reilly now qualified for membership in a Hate Club for Men?  If criticism of administration policies or optics puts someone on the wrong side of Big Daddy, I almost feel forced to say yeah.  If it saddens or pisses off Laura Bush and Bill O'Reilly, and increases the temperature in the Blob's collective mind, there will surely be public opinion victory by noonish this coming Friday.  If the flocks of tromping-across-Mexico-fleeing-mostly-shithole-death-threats-in-Guatemala are too stupid to know that everything is going to go badly for them and their family from the moment of apprehension, it will play out in America's favour. In the long run. In the medium run.  The very vision of a "we will fuck you up" welcome for illegal entries is the point. Or maybe I am reading from the other guy's cue cards again. I don't know. Could we please have two opinions on this matter, Teacher?

Trump ain't afraid to be tough. If you don't like it, hate away.

 

This one will be interesting to watch unfold. It's all optics. No one had any problem whatsoever when the previous administration was keeping kids in cages, and no one is proposing any solutions, including Mrs. Bush. What should happen? What should the law be, and what policies would be "moral" by Mrs. Bush's beliefs? When parents commit crimes, should their children be incarcerated with them? Is that what she wants? Should the children be set free and left to fend for themselves on the streets? Does Mrs. Bush prefer that? Should parents be absolved of all crimes so as not to disrupt the lives of their children? Should immigration laws be selectively ignored when former First Ladies and the malleable masses start expressing feelings? Should we also apply these ideas of laws and feelings to all other issues, or only to those that have become the Narrative™ and the latest fashion in outrage?

J

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who exactly is Laura Bush ????? 

She had a boyfriend , who asked her to marry him , got married , and her husband won the Presidency . 

Who cares about her views and why does she not comment on all the injustices done to humanity in the Bush years 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

If Democrats did their jobs half as much as they resist,  then border issues would be resolved iin a day.

They prefer the status quo, (put in place by them,) while they pretend to care about the children - the sex trafficking of whom they deny and joke about in other contexts - and quote their favorite Bush.

Sick, sick, sick.

Bravo !!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Liars 

A large component of narcissistic behavior is the lie. They will lie about anything, in any situation, often for no reason at all.

This catches people out because normal people don't expect others to lie. At least not very much! Nobody is ready for the extent and the frequency with which narcissists tell lies. 

And they will often mix in half truths to the stories they tell so they seem believable. And if a person knows part of the story is true, they are more willing to accept that the rest is true too.

But the narcissists are not fazed if they are caught out in a lie, either! They simply change their story to try and fit the new facts, all the time adding to the chaos...

https://www.decision-making-confidence.com/narcissistic-behavior.html

Jon,

William isn't a narcissist.

Carol isn't a narcissist.

I'm not a narcissist.

Good news is that you're not a narcissist.

Bad news is that Trump (likely) is a narcissist.

Sad!

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2018 at 11:01 AM, 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

Maybe I missed the point, but this interview was very smooth and tame.  Trump didn't have to get aggressive and George wasn't either.  Trump did fine here, I thought it was a good interview.  How is George an attack dog?  If memory serves, Trump and George have been somewhat cordial over the years.  Are you saying that George chickened out and didn't get aggressive for some reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

How is George an attack dog?

Korben,

Clintonista supremo.

But you're right. I shouldn't talk bad about dogs. Dogs rock. :) 

Stephanopoulos is more like an attack shit-weasel. He attacks from behind...

:) 

8 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Are you saying that George chickened out and didn't get aggressive for some reason?

Nope.

He normally sets verbal traps for anti-Clinton people and has the fake news machine on standby to launch super-redundant press-bombs of predigested propaganda buzz-phrases at a moment's notice (the Media Matters machine). He didn't manage to get a trap to go boom this time, but that's not what I was saying. I was merely saying he was having to swallow the good news about North Korea without his usual snark. Probably because he never expected there to be any good news. He seemed more lost--deer in the headlights kind of thing--than cowed. Kinda clueless and disbelieving. He did not come off smooth and in control like he normally does. And, in my opinion, he's the most polished attack shit-weasel of the bunch.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2018 at 5:56 PM, caroljane said:

 

Many thanks for kind words, Marc. 

My friend Trudy does have some Dagny-like characteristics - she is a self-made success though, did not inherit a railroad to run but started her own business, but as a person she does not resemble Ms Taggart of the Scornful Smiles, thank heavens. She is more into the Verbal Lambasting or the Hot Retort, and is a great storyteller.

Good question about Atlas, I don't know if she has read it, I will ask her. If not she might try it, if I don't tell her about Galt's Speech. On the other hand, do I want to give her more ammunition to be a righteous righter? Must think about.

For the last two days I have been like you! by working out and taking saunas. The workouts consisted of dragging myself from my bed to the door, and the saunas occurred when I opened the door and went outside.  Thank god we can all breathe again today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Marc said:

Who exactly is Laura Bush ????? 

She had a boyfriend , who asked her to marry him , got married , and her husband won the Presidency . 

Who cares about her views and why does she not comment on all the injustices done to humanity in the Bush years 

Canadians almost always get this slightly wrong, because of separation of Head of Government from  Head of State. 

Up here, the Head of State is on our loonie, the enduring head,  Elizabeth, as Queen of Canada.**  The moment she steps on Canadian soil she assumes the role, purely symbolic, but one full step above the appointed Governor-General of the day.  The GG subordinate, she or he, assumes full powers of State once she steps off the soil.

That full power of state is called "Royal Assent" and fits in a  thimble with room for a thumb.  Legally, the vice-regal assent can be devolved to the Chief Justice. Who knew?

So, in our system, a guy with a weird hat, or a gal with the awesome wardrobe (think Jeanne Sauve) is the very last symbolic line in authority. But has almost zero constitutional authority.  That authority is vested in the Government, via Parliament. In other words, Parliament is Supreme in governance, except for the theatrical hangover of colonialism and empire, the unbroken history under the once-powerful Crown.  To this day, the Crown prosecutes in the name of R (Regina), but the R in R v Criminal  herself has actually fuck all to do with prosecution. 

A guy with weird hat is the one who shows up on State Visits.  All that means is that Canada turns on its Royal Symbolic State to fully and completely honour the visiting State with our top brass, the ones without which a certain R system-fiction would fall apart.

In other words, who is this woman?

1475583586336

Whoever she is, she moved on.

Back to the USA ...

Down there the head of government and head of state, or Head of State and Government is a President. No ands, ifs or buts. He (so far) embodies both the symbolic State power and the apex (executive or agent) of government power.  It is a simpler system, the republican, much simpler than the Canadian hodge-podge of theatre and power without power.  Boring side-nuance about 'balance of powers.'

Yeah, so the danged  First Lady thing and back to Laura Bush, whom you do not disrespect.  She, like every living spouse of a president, may demand protection of the Secret Service to this day.  Why? -- even with the violent reputation of the US as a given?

Because in terms of theatre and symbology and State, a First Lady (note the capitalization) has become a servant and actor of State. That's right. A civil servant. And a VIP.

So, Laura Bush performed the duties of Spouse of President, which officialized role has waxed and waned in importance and energy, but guess what?  Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to perform duties of state, to never waver in support of your husband's work, to serve as a symbol of benevolent America.  Just Say No. Be Best. Eat Vegetables. Elect My Husband. Oh, what lovely flowers.

It's a tough secular-royal consort-ish job. I think Melania has the best modern approach to it, breaking expectations, retaining independence and privacy, while -- of course, it's her job -- showing up gorgeous and free to State Dinners and suchlike, and meeting Heads of State and government from foreign shores upon request or protocol. 

Oh, the most important unwritten expectation is that a First Lady theatrical performance of State Duties  -- kind of like a Governor-General -- be as politically-neutral in terms of controversy as possible.  This allows the role-play to be sigh controversial though, and I think partly explains the need for the Secret Service.  

So, does a partially-informed people like me from north of the border get a say on US politics?  Yes, of course, because the cross-border open society reality is that you can speak your mind on any topic save incitement to violence. So, people like you and me, Marc, get a say on anything.  From north of the border we can expostulate and/or join up chains of hoopla dancers. Milk Warriors from down south can become jingoistic avengers of fifty years of terror-trade. Guns. They get a say.

We get a say.

And ... so does a Symbolic Person get a wee squeak of opinion now and again.

South of the border the former executives and spouses generally keep the freaking face-hole shut on direct criticism of the following administration (taking political yeehaw from the preceding is Ur-politicking, mind).  Think of the reams of Obama critiques delivered by George W during the 8 tormenting years of Democrat executive.

That's right, he said fuck all of that nature.  He inhabited the more traditional concept of the role of President. Same with Reagan. Do not speak evil of your own party, commandment one through fifty, do not harshly attack a Commander In Chief and Lovely Symbol of America at his side.  Spending the First Lady Office budget. Wallpaper. Eating good food. Just Say No. Just Say Nothing if you are Pat Nixon. Go to Betty Ford if you are a drunk.

So, Laura, Laura, Laura, you useless, feckless hypocrite. You said nothing, sweet fuck all of political consequence during your performance as federal-budgeted Helpmeet. Now you're out of employment for ten years, you mouth off against an Executive. Hah?

This Canadian could say he thinks you should give your head a shake, bitch. Who listens to you? And who listens to this Canadian?

_____________

** the story is slightly enhanced in compressed re-telling. The last visit of the Queen to America's Washington state. In her remarks at a university she commented on the Pig War something like this: "To think that just X years ago we were here at the brink of war.  We will never go to war again. Think about that. Thank you for a safe and bullet-proof visit. Er, Tomorrow, I go north as Queen of Canada!"  I heard a possibly-hallucinated giddy "whew!" in her voice when she said that, since she had been confined to such a Pope-mobile security bubble for the duration. It isn't that she is or was so popular up here (I mean, she is, abstractly, as a British cultural export product), but that she would be free.  In the sense of having full theatrical sovereign powers, she would be at home, on her throne.

Her basic message to the university crowd was thanksgiving for the enduring peace between the realms.  Dicking with symbolism can sometimes rile unruly thinkers unduly.

Who are these people?

Spoiler

WUQLKNRVDZHVFMIIEG65O3D53Q

Julie_Payette_CSA.jpg

image.jpg

Like the Queen, the vice-regal civil-servant GG reads Throne Speeches, and is otherwise expected to Nary Ever Utter a Political Word.

When they do, it is noticeable. In Canada, they almost never do.  In the USA, the Executive Consorts sometimes do ...

Edited by william.scherk
Who cares? Who wants "unruly" discussion? Nuance or nits, you decide. At least make a compelling reading experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Buchanan wrote in Townhall: The U.S. Hispanic population, already estimated at nearly 60 million, is predicted to exceed 100 million by 2050, just 32 years away. And Europe's southern border is more imperiled than ours. A week ago, the new populist regime in Rome refused to allow a boat full of migrants from Libya to land in Sicily. Malta also turned them away. After a voyage of almost a week and 1,000 miles, 630 migrants were landed in Valencia, Spain. end quote

And William wrote: Down there the head of government and head of state, or Head of State and Government is a President. No ands, ifs or buts. end quote

I wonder if President Trump will start to kill the Honduran gangsters with drone strikes? Have you noticed that every time some ISIS guy is proclaimed the new poobah, he is nearly instantly killed? Unfortunately, we don’t have unlimited surveillance abilities.  

I agree with the sayings that “without borders there is no country,” “why don’t they stay in their own countries and make them a better place?” and “why is Mexico letting them cross their entire country to get to their U.S. border?”

Put more heat on the Mexican government to do the legal and right thing. It’s time to make them pay, not just for the wall, but for the havoc they are abetting, at our shared border. We could stop ALL trade with Mexico, except for those American countries with manufacturing plants in Mexico.

I do love a fried crab cake on a hamburger type bun, with or without ketchup. Mmmmm! Locally, legal visas are not being given for Mexican “crab pickers,” and Americans don’t want the job. If wagers were raised so that Americans would take the jobs then American crab meat could not compete with South American crab meat, and might not sell. Peter   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Peter said:

Pat Buchanan wrote in Townhall:

Trump and the Invasion of the West

Quote

I agree with the sayings that “without borders there is no country,” “why don’t they stay in their own countries and make them a better place?”

Why didn't Ayn Rand stay in Soviet Russia to make it a better place? Why do Americans think it is their birthright to travel anywhere in the world for trade, business or pleasure?  Why do Americans move abroad?  Shouldn't they stay home and fix their own country?  It is apparently pretty well-fucked, or it was until January last year.

Why does America even pay attention to the Central American shitholes like Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras? Besides droning them?

Quote

“why is Mexico letting them cross their entire country to get to their U.S. border?”

Why is the USA letting brown and black and Hispanic oh no people cross their entire country to plague Canada's southern border?

Quote

Put more heat on the Mexican government to do the legal and right thing. It’s time to make them pay, not just for the wall, but for the havoc they are abetting, at our shared border.

"The legal and right thing" at the border with the screaming child hostages ... is ...?  Mexico is in a state of hatred for the Trump administration. Doing anything the angry Executive suggests is Political Death south of the border. Don't you know how national self-interest works?

Quote

We could stop ALL trade with Mexico, except for those American countries with manufacturing plants in Mexico.

An Emperor could do that.  It's not going to happen, despite revenge fantasies and crypto-racialist alarmism and general whoopee.

Quote

Locally, legal visas are not being given for Mexican “crab pickers,” and Americans don’t want the job.

Trump properties get all the Mexican and other scarey Hispanic temporary worker visas they want. 

The worst aspect of Pat Buchanan is "White Fear."  Oh, no, America cannot survive with brown Hispanic interlopers. As Europe is doomed, so too the former Shining City on the Hill.

Pull up the drawbridge and start breeding true, ya white people.  

Edited by william.scherk
Drawbridging
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well shucks, William. What a spicy invective cake with raisins under the sun and jalapeno icing! When did it become Eugenics to want smart, perfect children, based on individual judgement? I am all for legal immigration though I imagine Pat Buchanan and I might disagree about some things. What I do agree with him about, is in keeping our culture “Renaissance European,” our main document of final authority, The U.S. Constitution, and keeping our country safe. That IS the job of government. 

I sure don’t want foreign criminals, gangs, or cartel members illegally crossing our borders or continuing on into the great white north, and Canada. When every second counts, the police are only minutes away. Well, maybe a half an hour, so you just hang in there, you victims of crime!

Just across the border in Delaware the legislature just failed to get multi-round rifles banned, which are legal weapons under the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Two democrats who were expected to vote to ban those weapons wisely did not show up, because it would have cost them votes in the next election, especially in the most southern Delaware area, Sussex County. I have a multi-round weapon and a single shot shotgun yet I still feel a little apprehension when I hear an unrecognized noise out here in the country.

Back to immigration. What do Canadians and Americans care more for, illegals who are breaking the law, or their own citizens? And I do believe their sob stories and reasons for bringing their kids with them, but by having zero tolerance we are not encouraging illegal immigration. They are not refugees and their illegal crossings are not from a state of emergency. I am benevolent but not altruistic or stupid.  Peter        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, 'Renaissance European' said:

What do Canadians and Americans care more for, illegals who are breaking the law, or their own citizens? 

The fallacy of the excluded middle takes over.  Most 'safe third country' refugee cases are settled up here (or were until Trump) by listening to their claims, then sending them immediately back to the US system.  We had a mutual agreement to prevent 'country shopping' for claims.  Unfortunately, the climate changed under Trumpdom and refugee claimants of certain sorts do not believe they will get a fair hearing in the USA any more. 

Given Canada's smugly-enunciated policy of being a "gentler, kinder" America, the powers-of-discretion presently allow "border-jumpers" to make a claim without immediate deportation. And so far this round, without separating families or incarcerating children.

This will emerge as an election issue, since Canada has its share of whites-only revanchists operating under cover of 'care' ... and stoking fear and anger is always a tool.

57 minutes ago, Peter said:

They are not refugees

That is an opinion.  The actual determination is within the law, via immigration judges.

The hoopla is still fearsome and intense. Time for a Meme, everybody.!

And don't whatever you do peek to see what the Q-Anon fraternity of conspiracists is all about today in the epistemological swamps.  If you do want to see naked racialism in operation, look that way. 

In the ugly rampage of the stream ... 

Spoiler
4:20 PM ET, June 19, 2018

memeorandum

 TOP ITEMS: 
i29.jpgshare.png McKay Coppins / The Atlantic:
The Outrage Over Family Separation Is Exactly What Stephen Miller Wants  —  When the news stories began to surface last month of sobbing young migrant children being forcibly removed from their parents at the border, many close White House watchers instantly suspected Stephen Miller was behind it.
Discussion:
Andrew Egger / Weekly Standard:   Fake News From DHS
RELATED:
i72.jpgshare.png McClatchy Washington Bureau:
Exclusive: US officials likely lost track of nearly 6,000 unaccompanied migrant kids  —  WASHINGTON  —  The Trump administration has likely lost track of nearly 6,000 unaccompanied migrant children, thousands more than lawmakers were alerted to last month, according to a McClatchy review of federal data.
RELATED:
RELATED:
i5.jpgshare.png Salvador Rizzo / Washington Post:
The facts about Trump's policy of separating families at the border  —  “I hate the children being taken away.  The Democrats have to change their law.  That's their law.”  —  “We have the worst immigration laws in the entire world.  Nobody has such sad, such bad and actually, in many cases …
Discussion:
RELATED:
i44.jpgshare.png Burgess Everett / Politico:
Trump loses temper over border wall funding  —  The president complained in a private meeting that Senate Republicans won't fully fund his wall — and threatened a shutdown in September.  —  President Donald Trump is getting frustrated with his administration's own demands for border wall funding.
RELATED:
share.png Politico: 
Nielsen becomes face of Trump's border separations
Discussion:

URL: https://www.memeorandum.com/180619/h1620

Edited by william.scherk
Hoopla, harm to US interests and alliances and international image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Given Canada's smugly-enunciated policy of being a "gentler, kinder" America, the powers-of-discretion presently allow "border-jumpers" to make a claim without immediate deportation. And so far this round, without separating families or incarcerating children.

This will emerge as an election issue, since Canada has its share of whites-only revanchists operating under cover of 'care' ... and stoking fear and anger is always a tool.

Kind of funny, but Canada has squat to say about the current Supreme Grand Hoopla over child incarceration.  Even under goading in Parliament ...

Quote

Trudeau Suggests It’s Not His Place To Condemn Trump’s Migrant Child Policy
"I have been very clear on the role that Canadians expect of me."
By Ryan Maloney

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has suggested that it would be "playing politics" for him to condemn the forcible separation of migrant children from their parents at the Mexico-U.S. border.

New Democrats pressed Trudeau in question period Monday to suspend Canada's Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S. due to the "zero tolerance" immigration policy that has seen nearly 2,000 children placed in holding facilities in the U.S. while their parents face prosecution.

The prime minister did not mention Trump in his response and suggested Canadians do not expect him to weigh in on the matter.

"From the very beginning I have been very clear on the role that Canadians expect of me — to stand up firmly and unequivocally for our values, for our interests, to protect Canadians and to make sure that we're doing well, as well as having a constructive relationship with the United States," Trudeau said. "That's what we're going to remain focused on."

[...]

The prime minister said Canadians understand the importance of being "firm and unequivocal" on human rights but cautioned against seeking to score points on the matter.

"What we will not do is play politics with this," Trudeau said.

Under the Safe Third Country Agreement, which came into effect in 2004, Canada and the U.S. recognize each other as safe places for refugee claimants to seek protection. The agreement requires people to apply for asylum in the first country where they arrive, unless an immediate family member lives in the other country.

Canada can turn back would-be refugees at the border on the basis that they must instead make claims in the U.S., where they first arrived. However in what some have called a loophole that has contributed to a surge in irregular crossings, the pact only applies at official border points.

Loopholes!

Share this post


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

Isn't William cute when he gets angry?

:evil:

Now I need to post something about human trafficking of children on the border with Mexico and nobody talking about it...

:evil:

Michael

Don't be modest Michael, you are also cute, in fact the Men of OL are quite magnificent in their wrath, raving loonies excepted.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Many thanks for kind words, Marc. 

My friend Trudy does have some Dagny-like characteristics - she is a self-made success though, did not inherit a railroad to run but started her own business, but as a person she does not resemble Ms Taggart of the Scornful Smiles, thank heavens. She is more into the Verbal Lambasting or the Hot Retort, and is a great storyteller.

Good question about Atlas, I don't know if she has read it, I will ask her. If not she might try it, if I don't tell her about Galt's Speech. On the other hand, do I want to give her more ammunition to be a righteous righter? Must think about.

For the last two days I have been like you! by working out and taking saunas. The workouts consisted of dragging myself from my bed to the door, and the saunas occurred when I opened the door and went outside.  Thank god we can all breathe again today.

I already love Ms. Trudy ! 

I would love to see PM Trudy rather than PM Trudeau . 

Imagine Galt in the Whitehouse and Dagny in 24 Sussex 

The story keeps getting better 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Marc said:

I already love Ms. Trudy ! 

I would love to see PM Trudy rather than PM Trudeau . 

Imagine Galt in the Whitehouse and Dagny in 24 Sussex 

The story keeps getting better 

lol her husband is named John but he is a retired radio host,  who flunked high school algebra,no designing engines for him!

Trudy would totally agree with you about Trudeau that is for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ultimate horrifying aspect of Total Aztec Mongrel Takeover of these presently united States is that future stars will have an extra baseline of beauty beyond Jennifer Lopez and Beyonce Knowles.

Never forget the huge punishing power of American Entertainment. Your products dominate the entire world's imagination, as they should.  Your melting pot actually melts to a degree imaginable, as does Canada's. The edges blur and given one and a half generations, they all sound the same, down to regional variations.  Offer not available in Quebec.  Actually, who am I fooling, it blends all over the damn place.

If there is anywhere on earth a better example of blending the races than North America, I haven't found it.  The dynamism of free movement, free expression and relatively free enterprise sort out the details within a rule of law. Delays due to slavery and segregation may be expected.

ngam-nhan-sac-chi-em-phu-nu-tren-khap-th

http://theatlasofbeauty.com/post/156630241369/in-the-villages-and-small-towns-of-guatemala-most

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...