Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Marc said:

FHCI ! 

Not at the same time though , lolollll

I  checked out FCHI ,mainly to see how close it was to North Toronto where my son nearly went, and I am gobsmacked at the list of alumni! The music program seems to be emphasized now , were you involved in that?

Neve Campbell, Lorne Michaels - American network heaven!

Share this post


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

The President is clear about Jeff Sessions. He has little confidence in him.  So what are ya gonna do about it, Boss? You got rid of Derp, Durp, Darp, Dirp and Dorp from your cabinet, so what's the hold-up with Mr Magoo --who shoulda told you he'd have to recuse if the Kislyak-campaign meetings came to light?

Trump does offer up an excuse in the interview with sweet Ainsley as to why he's afeared of firing Sessions.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{Amusing when lefty-liberals go all prissily sanctimonious...(and "character", wth do they know about character?)}

 

By Laura Harris :

"When the President's Behavior Is Reprehensible".

image: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0914/hollis.jpg

Published August 23,2018 

 

"The news about the president is shocking. Behavior that would get most people fired has taken place, and something must be done. Are we, as a nation, not up in arms when a president:

—Is repeatedly and humiliatingly unfaithful to his wife?

—Engages in sexually exploitative conduct with young women working for him?

—Is credibly accused of sexual misconduct by more than one woman?

—Uses racial slurs to describe African-Americans, in the crudest possible terms?

—Lies to the American public repeatedly?

—Spies on journalists and denies them access to the White House?

—Interferes with investigations into foreign nationals suspected of illegal activity?

—Cozies up to hostile nations?

—Issues executive orders of questionable legality — and then brags about it?

—Refers to political opponents as "enemies"?

—Insults large swaths of the American public?

Aren't you appalled? Are you ready to call your congressional representatives and demand impeachment?

That's unfortunate, because it's too late.

All of the behavior described above was engaged in by presidents who have already left office — oh, and all Democrats, by the way.

Former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was unfaithful to Eleanor Roosevelt. (A New York Times article about FDR's long-term affair with Lucy Mercer waxes nostalgic about the days of "an obliging press and retinues of discreet enablers" that enabled presidents to keep their dalliances private. Make of that what you will.) Former President John F. Kennedy's infidelity to his wife, Jackie Kennedy, was pathological. (He — along with his father, Joseph Kennedy — apparently enjoyed a liaison with actress Marlene Dietrich. Ew.) And not much need be said about former President Bill Clinton.

Ditto for sexually exploitative conduct. Mimi Alford wrote a book about her affair with JFK when she was a 19-year-old White House intern. (Kennedy's behavior was not only that of a predator but also a pimp.) Clinton had a notorious sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky (about which he lied under oath, setting the stage for his impeachment) and has been accused of sexual assault — including rape — by multiple women.

Former President Lyndon Johnson's language was racist day in and day out. He used the N-word and other racial slurs against African-Americans in general, those who worked for him and even former Justice Thurgood Marshall — whom he nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court!

When it comes to lying to the public, former President Barack Obama had a great run. He lied about the Benghazi terrorist attack. He lied — repeatedly — about what Obamacare would do to Americans' health care coverage and costs. (The New York Times gently acknowledged that Obama "clearly misspoke." Um, yes — three dozen times.)

In fact, President Obama can take credit for a number of the items listed above. He spied on journalist James Rosen, "went to war" against Fox News and severely curtailed press access to the White House. Obama deliberately impeded an investigation into drug running and money laundering by terrorist organization Hezbollah because it interfered with the deal he wanted with Iran (which he also lied about, by the way).

 

 

Obama was also fond of lording his power — whether or not completely in conformity with constitutional limits — over his political opponents. Notable Obama quotables include "Elections matter," and "I won," and "I've got a pen ... and I've got a telephone." Obama's executive orders on immigration impermissibly usurped the legislative prerogative of Congress, and the federal appointments he made without Senate approval — while the Senate was in session — exceeded the lawful limits of executive power, as the Supreme Court unanimously pointed out.

Nor was President Obama more solicitous of the federal judiciary — at least when it decided cases against him. Obama's Department of the Interior was held in contempt by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, for refusing to remove a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico that the court had previously found to be unconstitutional.

And he displayed his share of disdain for the public, saying at one point, "We're gonna punish our enemies, and we're gonna reward our friends," and infamously describing the denizens of Rust Belt states as "bitter" anti-immigrant bigots who "cling to guns or religion."

To say, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" is to throw in the towel and tacitly accept this kind of behavior as a matter of course from our elected officials. If we don't like where we are now, we'll rue the day when that attitude becomes explicit.

That said, it is the media and other highly visible thought leaders — largely on the left — who bear the lion's share of responsibility for the curious position in which we find ourselves. They have displayed craven hypocrisy in their willingness to excuse improper, immoral and even unlawful conduct from politicians on their side and then try to whip the American public into a furor by feigning outrage and indignation when anything even approaching that which they've winked at is engaged in by Republicans.

That, dear friends, is what has gotten us here. It is why so many Trump voters don't give a damn about the allegations of surgically enhanced porn stars or ethically challenged lawyers.

If the president's conduct is truly reprehensible, it should matter. But if it doesn't matter for all, then — like it or not — it won't matter for any".


 

Share this post


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

{Amusing when lefty-liberals go all prissily sanctimonious...(and "character", wth do they know about character?)}

 

By Laura Harris :

"When the President's Behavior Is Reprehensible".

image: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0914/hollis.jpg

Published August 23,2018 

 

"The news about the president is shocking. Behavior that would get most people fired has taken place, and something must be done. Are we, as a nation, not up in arms when a president:

—Is repeatedly and humiliatingly unfaithful to his wife?

—Engages in sexually exploitative conduct with young women working for him?

—Is credibly accused of sexual misconduct by more than one woman?

—Uses racial slurs to describe African-Americans, in the crudest possible terms?

—Lies to the American public repeatedly?

—Spies on journalists and denies them access to the White House?

—Interferes with investigations into foreign nationals suspected of illegal activity?

—Cozies up to hostile nations?

—Issues executive orders of questionable legality — and then brags about it?

—Refers to political opponents as "enemies"?

—Insults large swaths of the American public?

Aren't you appalled? Are you ready to call your congressional representatives and demand impeachment?

That's unfortunate, because it's too late.

All of the behavior described above was engaged in by presidents who have already left office — oh, and all Democrats, by the way.

Former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was unfaithful to Eleanor Roosevelt. (A New York Times article about FDR's long-term affair with Lucy Mercer waxes nostalgic about the days of "an obliging press and retinues of discreet enablers" that enabled presidents to keep their dalliances private. Make of that what you will.) Former President John F. Kennedy's infidelity to his wife, Jackie Kennedy, was pathological. (He — along with his father, Joseph Kennedy — apparently enjoyed a liaison with actress Marlene Dietrich. Ew.) And not much need be said about former President Bill Clinton.

Ditto for sexually exploitative conduct. Mimi Alford wrote a book about her affair with JFK when she was a 19-year-old White House intern. (Kennedy's behavior was not only that of a predator but also a pimp.) Clinton had a notorious sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky (about which he lied under oath, setting the stage for his impeachment) and has been accused of sexual assault — including rape — by multiple women.

Former President Lyndon Johnson's language was racist day in and day out. He used the N-word and other racial slurs against African-Americans in general, those who worked for him and even former Justice Thurgood Marshall — whom he nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court!

When it comes to lying to the public, former President Barack Obama had a great run. He lied about the Benghazi terrorist attack. He lied — repeatedly — about what Obamacare would do to Americans' health care coverage and costs. (The New York Times gently acknowledged that Obama "clearly misspoke." Um, yes — three dozen times.)

In fact, President Obama can take credit for a number of the items listed above. He spied on journalist James Rosen, "went to war" against Fox News and severely curtailed press access to the White House. Obama deliberately impeded an investigation into drug running and money laundering by terrorist organization Hezbollah because it interfered with the deal he wanted with Iran (which he also lied about, by the way).

 

 

Obama was also fond of lording his power — whether or not completely in conformity with constitutional limits — over his political opponents. Notable Obama quotables include "Elections matter," and "I won," and "I've got a pen ... and I've got a telephone." Obama's executive orders on immigration impermissibly usurped the legislative prerogative of Congress, and the federal appointments he made without Senate approval — while the Senate was in session — exceeded the lawful limits of executive power, as the Supreme Court unanimously pointed out.

Nor was President Obama more solicitous of the federal judiciary — at least when it decided cases against him. Obama's Department of the Interior was held in contempt by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, for refusing to remove a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico that the court had previously found to be unconstitutional.

And he displayed his share of disdain for the public, saying at one point, "We're gonna punish our enemies, and we're gonna reward our friends," and infamously describing the denizens of Rust Belt states as "bitter" anti-immigrant bigots who "cling to guns or religion."

To say, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" is to throw in the towel and tacitly accept this kind of behavior as a matter of course from our elected officials. If we don't like where we are now, we'll rue the day when that attitude becomes explicit.

That said, it is the media and other highly visible thought leaders — largely on the left — who bear the lion's share of responsibility for the curious position in which we find ourselves. They have displayed craven hypocrisy in their willingness to excuse improper, immoral and even unlawful conduct from politicians on their side and then try to whip the American public into a furor by feigning outrage and indignation when anything even approaching that which they've winked at is engaged in by Republicans.

That, dear friends, is what has gotten us here. It is why so many Trump voters don't give a damn about the allegations of surgically enhanced porn stars or ethically challenged lawyers.

If the president's conduct is truly reprehensible, it should matter. But if it doesn't matter for all, then — like it or not — it won't matter for any".


 

Tony. this made me flashback to a book I read decades ago, before Bill Clinton even,  wish I could remember the name or author. Its thesis was that politicians by their very nature are hypersexual, and thus must be hypocritical faithful family men.... which no longer obtains obviously, Except for Mike Pence who dares go nowhere without his wife for fear , I guess , of what even Jimmy Carter confessed to as "lust in his heart."

AT, those were innocent days.

Share this post


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

From today's early morning broadcast of an interview with President Trump, by Fox News's Ainsley Earhardt.

Good lord, nearly every phrase out of his mouth needs a fact check

Sad!

Share this post


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

Good lord, nearly every phrase out of his mouth needs a fact check

Korben,

No it doesn't.

Trump supporters know what he means. They don't need fact checks to know what he means, even when he exaggerates. They can tell the difference between rhetoric and science.

Lots of people who don't like him, though, can't tell this difference. For instance, many of his critics, despite behaving like proper politicians and elitists with good manners, have faith in the apocalypse. They call it manmade climate change. They constantly replace fact with rhetoric to prove it, too--and literally can't tell the difference.

I've debated this long enough to see the pattern.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump supporters know what he means. They don't need fact checks to know what he means, even when he exaggerates. They can tell the difference between rhetoric and science.

Lots of people who don't like him, though, can't tell this difference. For instance, many of his critics, despite behaving like proper politicians and elitists with good manners, have faith in the apocalypse. They call it manmade climate change. They constantly replace fact with rhetoric to prove it, too--and literally can't tell the difference.

Rush Limbaugh accidentally came up with a question that laser-targets the epistemology of this issue. He was discussing the South Africa problem (confiscating farms of white owners and the way the left spins this in the press). Then he did a tangent on socialism, where the epistemology kicked in.

South Africa Is Indeed Looking to Seize Farms!

Now for the epistemology lesson from that transcript.

Quote

I mean, if reality right in front of a person’s face cannot teach them the truth, then what chance do words have?

I can almost hear Ayn Rand say, from her grave, "Finally someone gets it."

:) 

But that's what indoctrination over years in school does to a person's mind (which is what happened in America). It teaches people to blank out what they see, not just blank out words.

Trump supporters prioritize reality in their communications, not gotchas over words with fluid meanings as a replacement for observation.

That's how Trump supporters know the difference between rhetoric, humor, science and so forth. They even have a partitioned-off mental place to restrict any certainties they may believe about unknown unknowns: religion. But barring that field, they deal with reality as their foundational communication standard.

Lots of Trump critics never learned how to communicate using reality for conceptual referents, nor communicate conceptually for that matter. All they use is words without context, word games, and posture (mostly about social standing).

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply to item 490  Even in climate "science"  the  climate modelers  sponsored by the IPCC put their models  before accurate hard data.  The result: models that don't predict climate outcomes well.  In science there is a technical term for models and hypotheses  that turn out predictions that are at odds with carefully observed reality. That technical term?   "Just plain wrong"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...

I'll just let the President speak for himself.

 

:) 

Michael

Share this post


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

Korben,

No it doesn't.

Trump supporters know what he means. They don't need fact checks to know what he means, even when he exaggerates....

Michael

That is true. Trump supporters are hyper-intuitive  and always know exactly what he means, especially when he doesn't know himself.

Share this post


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

Tony. this made me flashback to a book I read decades ago, before Bill Clinton even,  wish I could remember the name or author. Its thesis was that politicians by their very nature are hypersexual, and thus must be hypocritical faithful family men.... which no longer obtains obviously, Except for Mike Pence who dares go nowhere without his wife for fear , I guess , of what even Jimmy Carter confessed to as "lust in his heart."

AT, those were innocent days.

The "Innocent days" were enabled by 'bad boys', the eccentric, opinionated leaders and statesmen who had the vision and guts to make hard choices in the bad times. You reminded me of a famous one. Not least because my Dad was an admirer of him, and had his recorded speeches and bios, but because I've just seen the film "Churchill", Winston C. was such a leader in such a time. By accounts, he was bombastic, rude, dictatorial and egocentric. He also identified the evils of Nazism early, when his opponents wanted to appease Hitler and 'keep the peace'. Single-handedly he held the morale and forces of Britain together through its dark days. Also, tellingly of his value-emotions, the film, set just before D-Day, emphasised Churchill's horror of the possible huge losses of "brave young men" on the Normandy beaches, and fought to delay and move the landings to less-defended beaches. Ike over-ruled him, and the rest is history. The question remains, what history would we have today, without the mind and acts of one man?

You and I have seen a few generations and several leaders in every part come and go, and with that hindsight it becomes quite easy to see a pattern: that the "soft" leaders and/or innocent times nearly always rested upon the existence and efforts of previous bad boys at historical tipping points - who could see their present reality a little better, perceive future consequences of wrongs/evil a little clearer and knew what had to be done to sustain a country's and the West's values. In the interims, have come all the politically-correct, apologist prisses of politicians and followers, who ridicule and ignore their predecessors' vision and resolve, and who are probably blind to the fact that they are standing on the shoulders of strong, good men (but bad boys). Larry Elder wrote a column -Bad men, Good Presidents- recently in a similar vein..[ No, that was Walter Williiams]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad Men, Good Presidents

image: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0214/wwilliams.jpg

By Walter Williams

Published August 22,2018

 

 

 

With the continuing hysteria about Donald Trump's presidency, a few questions come to mind. The first: Can a bad man become a good president? The second: Does one's being a good man guarantee he'll be a good president? Third: Does having a good president require a good man? Is there any evidence of Lord Acton's argument that "great men are almost always bad men"?

I think former President Jimmy Carter was a good man who became a weak and bad president, both in domestic matters and in foreign affairs. President Bill Clinton was a bad man who became a reasonably good president in domestic and foreign matters. But then there was that impeachment issue that greatly tarnished his presidency.

What about our current president? I think Trump's personal behavior prior to his presidency is not something we'd call high character. We might put him down as a bad man, but what about his presidency? I think that he'd qualify for this description: a bad man but good president. The average reader might ask, "Williams, what's your evidence?"


In a recent letter to me, Stephen Moore, a George Mason University graduate and a distinguished visiting fellow for the Project for Economic Growth at The Heritage Foundation, put together a list of President Trump's achievements. I recognize the possibility that they will be seen as horrible, maybe treasonous, by the nation's leftists.

Trump has appointed Neil Gorsuch and nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Both men have stellar judicial qualifications and a deep respect for the U.S. Constitution. In addition, Trump has nominated more than two dozen lower court judges who have similar respect for our Constitution and are not likely to make laws from the bench.

Trump has shepherded through Congress the largest personal and corporate tax cuts since the Reagan administration. His administration has created a 35 percent reduction in regulations. Those reductions, including the rollback of costly Environmental Protection Agency regulations, have led to the biggest energy boom in history, making the U.S. the world's No. 1 energy producer and thus ending our dependence on Middle Eastern oil producers.

The Trump administration has ended the Obamacare mandate and reformed the very costly Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Helping with these economic matters is free marketer Larry Kudlow, whom Trump appointed as director of the National Economic Council. As a result of the gross domestic product's growth spurt, caused by tax cuts and deregulation, unemployment is less than 4 percent. Black unemployment is hovering around the all-time low at 6.6 percent. In fact, it's estimated that there are 6 million more jobs than workers. Also on the domestic front, the Trump administration is trying to push through sweeping prison and sentencing reforms.

 

 

President Trump has also made important gains in international affairs. He's gotten us out of the Paris climate accord. Aside from the fact that the agreement imposed costs and special disadvantages on the U.S., the Paris agreement should have been presented as a treaty to the U.S. Senate. Trump also got us out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the Iranian nuclear deal. Aside from Iran's violation of both the letter and the spirit of the agreement, it, too, should have been presented before the U.S. Senate for approval. President Barack Obama did not present either the Paris climate accord or the Iranian nuclear deal for Senate approval. He knew neither would have passed muster and instead used his executive powers.

Also on the international front, Trump has gotten North Korean tyrant Kim Jong Un to the bargaining table to negotiate denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. He's gotten our NATO allies to cough up more money for their own defense. Trump is rebuilding our military strength, which is beginning to put the fear of God into our adversaries.

The bottom line is that President Donald Trump does not have the personal character that we would want our children to imitate but has turned out to be a good president, save his grossly misguided international trade policies.


 

Share this post


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

That is true. Trump supporters are hyper-intuitive  and always know exactly what he means, especially when he doesn't know himself.

Much in the same way that angry Carol and her fellow TDS sufferers always know exactly what Trump really means and what he really believes, even when he says and does the opposite. He says that he wants everyone to succeed and have a better life, and is proud that Americans of Mexican and African heritage are doing better than at any time in the past? Well, Carol just knows that that means that he's a racists who hates latinos and blacks, wants to keep them down, and even kill them!

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2018 at 11:49 AM, william.scherk said:

Another guy whose law studies have given him a certain insight. Styxhexenhammer666 opines on Manafort woes and the Cohen plea:

 

 

OMG, tee hee hee, here's another one! Look at what this legal ignoramus has to say:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/08/23/dershowitz-trump-did-not-commit-crime-if-money-paid-women-came-out-his-own-pocket

I guess that his "law studies" have given him a "certain insight." Oh, dear, oh, dear. How gauche. What a dilettante. How utterly embarrassing.

J

Share this post


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

LOL...

I'll just let the President speak for himself.

In two of the quoted tweets the President addresses Jeff Sessions ... "Come on Jeff, you can do it, the country is waiting!"  and "Ex-NSA contractor to spend 63 months in jail over “classified” information. Gee, this is “small potatoes” compared to what Hillary Clinton did! So unfair Jeff, Double Standard."

The President snipes at the Attorney-General via Twitter ... but Sessions says:

DlTMgtIU8AAi2iB.jpg

Trump did not mention the person sentenced to jail, nor does he seem to understand the guilty plea of Reality Winner. "Classified"  seems a scare quote, but who knows?  

Anyway, Trump-supporters are said to be rather reality-oriented:  "Trump supporters know what he means. They don't need fact checks to know what he means."

We can come back to the President's tweets as he navigates the universe.  A couple of things not yet reported here ...

  • Two guys at the top of AMI (the National Inquirer's publisher) have accepted immunity from prosecution ...
  • The chief financial officer of the Trump organization received immunity from prosecution in the 'fixer' case ... 
  • The self-dealing of the defunct Trump Foundation is the subject of a state criminal probe (as well as a suit brought by the state A-G).
  • The 'fixer' will be able to testify...
  • The defunct foundation may answer state charges at an October trial

It might be time for a committee of benghazi or two ...

"Hi Jeff!  I didn't understand a word you said ..."

Share this post


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

We can come back to the President's tweets as he navigates the universe.  A couple of things not yet reported here ...

  • Two guys at the top of AMI (the National Inquirer's publisher) have accepted immunity from prosecution ...
  • The chief financial officer of the Trump organization received immunity from prosecution in the 'fixer' case ... 
  • The self-dealing of the defunct Trump Foundation is the subject of a state criminal probe (as well as a suit brought by the state A-G).
  • The 'fixer' will be able to testify...
  • The defunct foundation may answer state charges at an October trial

It might be time for a committee of benghazi or two ...

William,

Most of this is in NY. Yet you are putting it in the context of Jeff Sessions.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A blast from the past ...

On 3/25/2016 at 6:26 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Donald Trump and David Pecker are friends. So what? Among Trump's many talents, he's a marketer and National Enquirer is a media vehicle (among the many Mr. Pecker controls). Why wouldn't they be friends? Trump is friends with many people in the media, left, right, center, highbrow, lowbrow, all media formats, too.

Friends no more.  Hush money pay-offs criminal charges bank fraud immunity jail time whoopee ...

On 3/26/2016 at 10:21 AM, Peter said:

I am becoming repulsed and ALARMED by Donald Trump’s personality and thinking. I worry that the press will be rushing in like they do after a bombing to film and document the latest Trump atrocity as President. I have a question for everyone reading this. He is an experienced communicator. What went wrong? What is wrong with Donald Trump? I don’t mean his crudity, but what is wrong with his decision making ability? Would he be dangerous as President? I think more so, with each passing day. Trump seems to be like a sullen, brooding, bullying, violent juvenile.

ALARM will have made sense until one joined a cult of leadership and fell in line.  And now few Trump-supporters care about any of this 'personality and thinking' stuff. It's almost as if previous observations were flushed out into the septic tank.

Still, at least one can keep up the Fake News staging. Eg

The Manhattan district attorney's office is considering pursuing criminal charges against the Trump Organization and two senior company officials in connection with Michael D. Cohen's hush money payment to an adult film actress 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

In two of the quoted tweets the President addresses Jeff Sessions ...

Yeah, he feels that he can't fire Sessions without massive public backlash, so he's putting on the pressure to get him to quit. It reminds me of the U.S. military cranking up the tunes outside of the nuncio to irritate Noriega. Trump should give that a shot: Blast death metal in the hallway of Sessions's office.

J

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...