Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

sigh...

Michael

So he is a Dirty Old Man.  So what? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

So he is a Dirty Old Man.  So what? 

Bob,

I'm not going to seriously debate this pedophile with you. It's boring.

I am a kooky conspiracy theorist and you are the wise old man who warns everyone of everything so they won't be stupid.

So there. By happy.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Brant Gaede said:

You keep leading with your chin.

--Brant

Can you explain what you just wrote.  I am not following it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

I'm not going to seriously debate this pedophile with you. It's boring.

I am a kooky conspiracy theorist and you are the wise old man who warns everyone of everything so they won't be stupid.

So there. By happy.

Michael

I am not debating anything.  I do not doubt that this creature was convicted of sexually coercing an underage female.   At least he was not buggering a young boy.  I leave that to the Priests.  I simply do not see the significance of these frequently committed common place wrong doing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 I simply do not see the significance of these frequently committed common place wrong doing.  

Bob,

Blackmail of the powerful. Epstein has videotapes of everyone who is anyone doing things with underage kids they should not be doing. That's how he got off so easy.

Epstein is a very valuable person to a lot of people...

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

He means you make dogmatic opinions about issues you know nothing about.

:evil:  :) 

(As to the metaphor, a boxer who leads with his chin gets KO'd pretty quickly.)

Michael

Actually I make dogmatic  non-opinions of things they are of no importance to me.

I do not debate politics.  I consider politics degrading,  corrupt and stupid so I do not take politics too seriously.  And I know little about politics because I choose to know little about politics.  I intend to keep my escutcheon clean and bright.  I leave politics and conspiracies to you (and gladly). 

I am more interested in physics and mathematics than I am in politics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I do not debate politics.  I consider politics degrading,  corrupt and stupid so I do not take politics too seriously.  And I know little about politics because I choose to know little about politics.

Then what are you doing mucking around on this thread?

A is not A all of a sudden?

:evil:  :)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Susan Rice is trying to cut a deal.

Mike Cernovich has some amazing government and law enforcement sources due to the stories he has broken recently in advance of the mainstream press (especially about Susan Rice). He says the lawyers of Susan Rice have reached out to the FBI asking for immunity for her.

When Comey was still there, he could cover for her.

Now it doesn't look so good and, according to Cernovich, she's terrified.

If Rice cracks and spills the beans on the Obama administration and Clinton shenanigans in exchange for immunity, all hell is going to break loose.

:) 

Michael

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

Then what are you doing mucking around on this thread?

A is not A all of a sudden?

:evil:  :)

Michael

Making an epistemological point, that opinion is NOT fact.  That guesses (while sometimes true)  are not facts.  That judgments (while sometimes correct)  are not facts.  Very few positive declarative sentences uttered  within the context of politics  are statements of fact.

That is why I am a stickler for the results of trials which are constrained by the rules of evidence (no hear-say,  no perjury,  cross-examined and subject to voidor).   The declarative sentences  uttered by political "mavens"   are rarely statements of fact. 

I am just being The Little Boy who points out that the Emperor  is Bare Ass Naked.  That is my "Mission from God".  

I am an epistemological pain in the ass.

That is why, in dictatorships,  people like me are the first ones killed off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

That is why I am a stickler for the results of trials which are constrained by the rules of evidence (no hear-say,  no perjury,  cross-examined and subject to voidor).

Which is pure bullshit because nobody was positing the issues as facts in the manner you pontificated, except after you did and I addressed that specifically with Epstein.

You are looking at a story in your mind about your heroic nature as a stickler and projecting it onto the reality of others as if it were true. It's like a person who shows up pontificating about oranges in the middle of a discussion about apples, then congratulating himself on what a fine job he did in educating the others to keep them from making errors and showing how the emperor is naked (and even peppering it with a martyr complex--and from you that's kinda funny because martyr ain't your style :) ).

In other words, you are making up facts about a discussion you don't understand, that you misinterpret, and spreading these false facts around to teach others.

That's a stickler, all right. But not for evidence.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

in dictatorships, people like me are the first ones killed off. 

Well, no, people like you are pampered and well-fed in dictatorships, because they need weapons designers and ballistics equations. :P

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

Which is pure bullshit because nobody was positing the issues as facts in the manner you pontificated, except after you did and I addressed that specifically with Epstein.

You are looking at a story in your mind about your heroic nature as a stickler and projecting it onto the reality of others as if it were true. It's like a person who shows up pontificating about oranges in the middle of a discussion about apples, then congratulating himself on what a fine job he did in educating the others to keep them from making errors and showing how the emperor is naked (and even peppering it with a martyr complex--and from you that's kinda funny because martyr ain't your style :) ).

In other words, you are making up facts about a discussion you don't understand, that you misinterpret, and spreading these false facts around to teach others.

That's a stickler, all right. But not for evidence.

Michael

I don't have a heroic nature.   And I am looking for facts more than I am looking for stories,  although in some situations stories are all we have.  If we must have stories let us have stories that are internally consistent and are comensurable and coherent with what facts we do have (coherence theory of truth).  And if we must  do empirical induction  then let us do our inductions  along the lines of Bayesian Inference.  

I don't -make up facts-.  I -seek- facts.  

All I have said so far is that the guesses, allegations and innuendos   I have read thus  far is not well supported by  evidence  admitted in trials  under legally strict rules of evidence (no hear-say,  no perjury, and evidence  exhibited or discovered under cross-examined testimony).  Is that too unreasonable to seek?

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

Then why do we keep talking about Bob instead of talking about Comey in a thread about Comey?

:evil: 

Michael

Because  the  various "stories"  about why Comey was fired  are not based on certifiable fact.  All we know is that Comey was fired and that The Donald was not happy with his performance.  The Donald said so.  Anything beyond that is speculation and innuendo.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s going on Pogo? I knows little about politics ‘cause I chooses to know little about politics.

Well, Porky Pine, at first it seemed like “things” was happening at a break neck pace. But then “the drag” started as he drained the swamp. Now, the swamp water may be rising.

What’ll I’s do Pogo? I cain’t walk on water.

Don’t know, Porky. I spose we could give our local rep a call to support the President, or ask the Prez to fire more progressive goof balls like Comey.

Will he even listen, Pogo?

Pogo [walks away, muttering discontentedly, to the guy behind the banyon tree]: Michael, things gettin' so slow 'round this swamp, us folks will have to take up eatin' crows! The end.

Guest cartoonist, Peter, in for Walt Kelly. 

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

Because  the  various "stories"  about why Comey was fired  are not based on certifiable fact.  All we know is that Comey was fired and that The Donald was not happy with his performance.  The Donald said so.  Anything beyond that is speculation and innuendo.

That's not why we keep talking about Bob...

We keep talking about Bob because Bob keeps talking about Bob...

:)

Michael

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

That's not why we keep talking about Bob...

We keep talking about Bob because Bob keeps talking about Bob...

:)

Michael

Now, on Fox, the White House is saying it was not just one thing that got Comey fired.

From MSN: "He's a showboat, he's a grandstander, the FBI has been in turmoil," Trump said of Comey in his wide-ranging interview with Holt. "You know that, I know that. Everybody knows that. You take a look at the FBI a year ago, it was in virtual turmoil, less than a year ago. It hasn't recovered from that."

Trump said he never tried to pressure Comey into dropping the FBI probe of the Trump campaign and insisted, "I want to find out if there was a problem in the election having to do with Russia."

Asked by Holt if by firing Comey he was trying to send a "lay off" message to his successor, Trump said, "I'm not."

"If Russia did anything, I want to know that," he said.

But Trump also insisted there was no "collusion between me and my campaign and the Russians. "

"Also, the Russians did not affect the vote," he said.

Holt's interview with the president came as Washington was still reeling over Trump's firing of Comey on Tuesday.

Trump insisted he canned Comey because "he was not doing a good job" and the White House on Wednesday cited the FBI chief's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation as the reason they were firing the veteran G-man.

The Democrats, many of whom believe that Comey's intrusion into the election helped Trump win the presidency, immediately denounced the move and called for the appointment of a special prosecutor as New York Senator Charles Schumer suggested a "cover-up" was underway.

"The timing of Director Comey's dismissal to me and many committee members on both sides of the aisle is especially troubling," Senator Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, said Thursday at the opening of a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

"He was leading an active counterintelligence investigation into any links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government or its representatives, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere in our election," he said. "We were scheduled to hear directly from Director Comey in open session today."

Earlier, Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders insisted Trump "had been considering letting Director Comey go since the day he was elected."

And Trump himself tweeted later Wednesday, "Dems have been complaining for months & months about Dir. Comey. Now that he has been fired they PRETEND to be aggrieved. Phony hypocrites!" end quote

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

Now, on Fox, the White House is saying it was not just one thing that got Comey fired.

Peter,

I just saw the White House briefing with Sarah Huckabee Sanders standing in for Sean Spicer. (She's quite a star in her own right and smooth as silk covering polished steel bullets in the way she handles the press. :) )

Frankly, I was embarrassed for the press. All they could do was ask the same questions over and over about Comey and they kept getting the story wrong every time.

The real story is that President Trump is the one in charge. He lives that, not just plays the role of that. The press story is that President Trump is a freak of nature who accidentally landed in high office and has to cover his ass to keep from being destroyed from shame.

If you look at the timeline...

1. President Trump was dissatisfied with Comey a few months ago,
2. Trump gave him a chance,
3. Trump supported him in public like he does all his staff,
4. Trump's confidence gradually eroded,
5. Trump finally had enough,
6. Trump asked for a few other opinions from his trusted staff before formally firing him,

... it all makes sense. (Add to that, Trump's instinct for maximum theatrical impact. :) )

If you look at it from the press lens, the pathetic imposter Trump needed to cover his ass with the DOJ and Rosenstein, so discovering that he wanted to fire Comey before that recommendation was released--and did not tell that to the press in the formal statement--was a humongous gotcha for them.

The press doesn't see how silly they come off by repeating the same crap over and over. They don't think people perceive that they keep repeating the same questions that have been answered as if they were contributing something new. And the looks of snarky all-knowing disdainful disbelief on their faces makes one think of fanatical zealots being told the world will not end on such-and-such date.

President Trump got input from the DOJ, not a letter to cover his ass. If he thought he needed to fire Comey without consulting anyone, he would have done so in a heartbeat. In fact, that's practically what he did with Flynn.

The press in America is so screwed up, it's painful to watch them.

They come off to me like a combination of college snowflakes on a massive outraged guilt trip that their safe space was canceled and flat-earthers.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great analyses Michael. Sanders, (Huckabee . . .any relation to Mike?) was on my TV but I had the sound turned down. I wish I had listened to her, instead of just noting the scrawl across the bottom of the screen, as I played online Scrabble and then typed a bit.

Michael also wrote: They come off to me like a combination of college snowflakes on a massive outraged guilt trip that their safe space was canceled and flat-earthers. end quote

Snowflakes is a good term and I hereby coin the word Cornflakes too. Tracinski was just writing about how the left is alluding to Harry Potter and the Star Wars franchises when they discuss Donald’us Magnus Trump.

My mind is a-cruising today. Michael wrote about, “. . . .  fanatical zealots being told the world will not end on such-and-such date.”

Thank you great Apollo because I was worried about the end times after hearing Stephen Hawking saying we only have a century, and then a conservative later said America only has a hundred years to go. I do worry that we (the civilized, free world) has not YET found a way to keep nukes out of the hands of the bad guys. It is just too much to hand over to a madman or a terrorist who can then kill millions to make a trivial point, and perhaps ignite a nuclear war.

After the really big war, nuclear winter or biological warfare/mutations, rebirth and rebuilding, and then the continuing birth defects and DNA changes to our species, could humanity continue to progress at a fast clip like we have seen for five centuries or more? I don’t want to go back. Does anyone have any suggestions about how to keep nukes from going off like firecrackers? I certainly do not want us to unilaterally disarm in any way. Space is the way to go but we need earth to house The Starfleet Academy. I am still optimistic but I think the Trump revolution has slowed down.

Peter     

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

Sanders, (Huckabee . . .any relation to Mike?)...

Peter,

Daughter.

btw - I just read a rumor from Paul Joseph Watson at Infowars that Sean Spicer might be out and President Trump is doing a purge of establishment folks.

White House Sources: Trump Looks To Replace Spicer As Purge Of Establishment Advisers Begins

It's kind of a nothing-burger of an article, saying some insiders claim Spicer will be gone and others deny it. But there does seem to be some talk that President Trump is going to make a lurch to his Bannon-like base.

Also, PJW generally breaks very accurate news compared to the mainstream.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now