Recommended Posts

Look at Marco Rubio acting like he doesn't know what Infowars is or who Alex Jones is.

Rubio is establishment elitist and he's acting like it. 

If getting the social media censorship problem falls to him to resolve, he won't do anything.

I did get a kick out of Alex's chutzpah in calling Rubio a fratboy and so on. :) But notice it only came after Rubio did his little politician thing of pretending he didn't know about Alex and double-speaking everything.

I don't think Rubio realizes yet the size of the voting block that Alex represents.

But he'll find out before too long.

The overall emotional impression you get watching this, even if you don't like Alex, is that Alex has in-your-face balls and Rubio is a dainty "let them eat cake" Republican insider protected by privilege.

A mongrel pitbull and a peacock pansy butterfly.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


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

Look at Marco Rubio acting like he doesn't know what Infowars is or who Alex Jones is.

Weird. What a strange way to deal with it. With all of the news that was focused on Jones, how could Rubio NOT be aware of Jones and his troubles? How out of touch with the culture, and how isolated -- cloistered, one might say -- would a senator have to be to not know about the social media banning and spankings?

Pretty funny, though! Jones should make this into his thing. Get up in their faces.

J

Share this post


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

Look at Marco Rubio acting like he doesn't know what Infowars is or who Alex Jones is.

Rubio is establishment elitist and he's acting like it. 

If getting the social media censorship problem falls to him to resolve, he won't do anything.

I did get a kick out of Alex's chutzpah in calling Rubio a fratboy and so on. :) But notice it only came after Rubio did his little politician thing of pretending he didn't know about Alex and double-speaking everything.

I don't think Rubio realizes yet the size of the voting block that Alex represents.

But he'll find out before too long.

The overall emotional impression you get watching this, even if you don't like Alex, is that Alex has in-your-face balls and Rubio is a dainty "let them eat cake" Republican insider protected by privilege.

A mongrel pitbull and a peacock pansy butterfly.

:) 

Michael

Rubio might be President one day, meanwhile Alex is currently going down in flames and looks desperate here.

How many times did Alex have to plug INFOWARS during this clip?  Publicity stunt.

Alex is a bully.

Share this post


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

Alex is a bully.

Korben,

Alex got thrown off of social media platforms that helped destroy whole countries in the Middle East (think dead women and babies for a visual), platforms that helped the American government conduct secret surveillance on citizens, etc. etc. etc., and he's the bully?

Hell, Rubio wants to use the US military to outright invade Venezuela, to wage war on Venezuela--a country that doesn't have a pot to piss in right now, and Alex is the bully?

We have vastly different notions of what bullying is.

And, no, Bush-toady Rubio will never become president. The Bush dynasty and what they represent has been halted in its tracks. But I don't mind if they, Rubio included, enjoy their parties with the Clintons and Obamas.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moments from the hearings yesterday on Capitol Hill.  

 

Share this post


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

William,

Talk about dodging a bullet.

Imagine if the protester had been a black woman. 

Or a non-conservative.

OMG! War on women! He's trying to sell women, as if they were objects or cattle!!! He's unfit for office! Etc.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laura Loomer took top honours in the Self-Absorbed Histrionics award ceremony last month. Lady wants her blue-tick verification back, @jack!

 

Share this post


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

Or a non-conservative.

OMG! War on women! He's trying to sell women, as if they were objects or cattle!!! He's unfit for office! Etc.

J

Well other than Maggie Thatcher have you seen many women that are actually good in office?

Here in Canada...

Rutherford..

Kim Campbell..

Rachel Notley..

Useless As tits on a fish..

 

Share this post


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

Here in Canada...

Rutherford..

Kim Campbell..

Rachel Notley..

My fave lady premier of BC (back in the end days of the Social Credit party) was Rita Johnston. A wonderful story of an electoral wipe-out.

christyPremierBC.png

The most successful woman to lead the province was Christy Clark, shown above. She was a calm and assured leader. BC had great leadership when it was most needed, in the aftermath of the US financial crisis and the poor market for exports afterwards. 

The greatest lady power in North America surely has to come down to a contest between Dixie Lee Ray and Ma Ferguson. My favourite provincial lady leader beyond the clown-show of Johnston's destruction of entrenched power is the little-heralded Kathy Dunderdale of Newfoundland and Labrador. 

Conservative Canadian ladies, all. Except for Clark, who was Liberal leader, which means the same thing in BC.

I tended to enjoy conservative female pioneers in office who worked their own individual way to the top (yeah, fuck you, Secretary Clinton, on that topic).

Thatcher and I had a secret and long-lasting relationship ... leaving a firm impression of competence and authority built on reason. Even if I did not agree with any policy she drove, the policy could be perfectly explicated by her ad lib. She gave some amazing parliamentary speeches, brisk,  assured, on top of every detail of her brief. She was impressive. She led.  She faced off Gorbachev and worked hard with Reagan to assure the orderly destruction of the Soviet Union.  She was a democratic version of Indira Gandhi --- fiercely protective of individual rights and the benefits of the Western bloc.

I did like one aspect of Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State -- a real drive for girl education rights in the world. America can be proud of that impulse, if not the record, for its own great ideals motivated it.  Women power comes from girl power in my experience. Empower girl and woman in non-democracies in the developing world, the very first step they make is to take more control of their own individual destinies. Opportunity knocks, as they say.

Another woman in North American power that I  admired was Ann Richards.  Her kind of political personality is no more.  Tough, Texan, smart, engaged, Democratic, "one of the boys." A lot to like, even if her policies translated a bit to the 'right wing' in Canada. 

ZZZZzzzzzz

[Added pic of Christy Clark giving her side-eye.  Her shtick was honed as a radio host, as calm and assured in tone as only a Canadian can be. I didn't admire her due to her dishonourable behaviour during the 'ethnic vote' scandal, but her side-eye did a lot of the work in cabinet. Nobody in cabinet suggested she resign. She ruled the roost in Victoria.]

My favourite current provincial party leader is the gay brown Muslim indigenous law wonk David Khan, in Alberta. He has had pancakes in all seventy-odd ridings in the land. He is one of the 'good kind' of Canadian Muslim, Ismaili, and loves to wear plaid. A normal Liberal with political diligence for such a young person. He may or may not win a seat to fix his leadership.

Ya might think Alberta is not gay-tolerant. Au contraire ... it's a socially-libertarian kind of place, as industry, commerce and services draw in waves of labour from other provinces, of all ranks, of all political stripes and views, as well as 'New Canadians' from the four winds.  In Alberta people don't presume you are an asshole, but are alert to that possibility, and among the most forthright of  Canadian citizens. Full-throated politics, in other words. My last striking memoris of Alberta were the business-class black males and females striding to work in the winter dark in the Edmonton business district, the utter Canadian solution to 'mixing.'  Solution: allow thorough mixing. Do not segregate. Reduce barriers.  Git along. Be ambitious and go for it.

In other words, 80% are a lot like Jules!]

ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Edited by william.scherk
She's no Jagmeet Singh! One fatal comma; Christy pic and potted bio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone other than me find it odd..from an Oist point of view with all these NAFTA negotiations/tariffs etc... 

“When those that produce everything have to ask permission from those that produce nothing..your society is doomed.”

Shouldn’t trade simply be between a buyer and seller to negotiate what something is sold or bought for regardless of point of origin/destination?

Seems to me people that should know this forgot that principle and most people are not even aware of the principle..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

Does anyone other than me find it odd..from an Oist point of view with all these NAFTA negotiations/tariffs etc... 

“When those that produce everything have to ask permission from those that produce nothing..your society is doomed.”

Shouldn’t trade simply be between a buyer and seller to negotiate what something is sold or bought for regardless of point of origin/destination?

Seems to me people that should know this forgot that principle and most people are not even aware of the principle..

Jules,

I used to find it odd.

Not anymore.

The O-Land people I have interacted with generally ignore the reality process in implementing a principle like the one you mentioned. Several do what I call remote control philosophy. If you don't like a certain reality, push a button (i.e., mouth a principle) to change the channel and reality is supposed to change instantly like on TV. Since reality never does, after you push the button and the screen stays the same, you get to call the people on the screen idiots, immoral, unprincipled, etc.

:) 

I'll take Trump's approach every time. State the principle as a goal, then treat others as they treat you--sometimes treat them worse--if negotiations fail on the way of getting there. From what I see unfolding in real time, he's well on the way.

He may not ever get to zero tariffs and zero government subsidies on both sides of a trade disagreement with a country (like he stated he wanted with Canada), but he will eventually get to a fair low-cost balance where restrictions and taxes are relatively the same on both sides.

As to wanting buyer and seller to be left alone between countries, I presume you would like contracts to be enforced when disagreements occur. Right? Courts and so forth. Right? And how about a means for collecting from a scumbag trader other than sending him a letter? If a guy rips you off, wouldn't you want some legal way to get what is yours? That means guns backing it, bro. Law enforcement.

:) 

Both sides have to provide the same basic playing field if such enforcement is ever to be anything other than a tool to keep crony insiders doing what crony insiders like to do most (that is screw everybody, keep all the money, and protect cartels and block newcomers by law--and back that up with guns :) ).

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jules Troy said:

So keeping dispute resolution intact within the NAFTA agreement would be a good thing would it not?

Jules,

Maybe.

But I'm not a fan of a country giving up its sovereignty to technocrats.

My gut tells me to let the legislation be similar in both countries and treat it like a treaty.

I see nothing wrong with letting a Canadian sue an American in an American court and vice-versa without the need for letters rogatory if a trade treaty is in place.

I see nothing wrong with a separate shared preliminary arbitration system, though.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee Stranahan makes a really good point, not just for social media terms of service.

How about the fricken' bill that get passed>

Who the hell reads them? And among those who do, who the hell understands them?

It's a con game: Burying the con (in this case power) with massive amounts of bullshit.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


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

Jules,

I used to find it odd.

Not anymore.

The O-Land people I have interacted with generally ignore the reality process in implementing a principle like the one you mentioned. Several do what I call remote control philosophy. If you don't like a certain reality, push a button (i.e., mouth a principle) to change the channel and reality is supposed to change instantly like on TV. Since reality never does, after you push the button and the screen stays the same, you get to call the people on the screen idiots, immoral, unprincipled, etc.

:) 

 

Michael

2

Yup, Michael, it slays me when Objectivists play up the 'interventionist-protectionist' trade issue, now (as if this wasn't in place ever before) - and specifically against this Administration. I find sometimes they apply variable and highest standards to your President, anticipating a reality which isn't there yet (what I think of loosely, as the idealist, 'President John Galt' syndrome). I'm not expert on the matter, but it seems trade and tariffs slide often into a one-sided business which needs correcting if a country is going to hold its own and rebuild an economy. I gather many domestic regulations are being hacked away by Trump, isn't that plenty for O'ists to applaud? Laissez-faire, far as I know, would only be of individuals and individual businesses/industries trading internationally, without government support and aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They just won't let go of Diamond and Silk.

Now the social media giants want to lose the massively growing black conservative audience.

You can't make this up.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A disturbing story via Buzzfeed writers Pranav Dixit and Ryan Mac in New Delhi:  "How WhatsApp Destroyed A Village: In July, residents of a rural Indian town saw rumors of child kidnappers on WhatsApp. Then they beat five strangers to death."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2018 at 5:04 PM, Jules Troy said:

Anthony there are plenty of super pissed Canadians that wish we could punt Trudeau now instead of waiting until next year..

Yeah, when push comes to shove, the immediate antidote for the Leftist drift (or dive) in recent times in several places, I think will be the election of Conservatives. That's a correction only in political terms I'm sorry to say, but we are certainly seeing more good sense, rationality and attendance to nations' values coming from the conservative intellectuals. From what I hear of Trudeau, who (also) wished for Canada to imitate the progressive European 'model', his and his party's punting will be a step in the right direction. I am betting on the North Americas and their realists!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of stuff is causing a major legislative shift re tech and social media giants.

They want antitrust suits, well, they are going to get antitrust suits.

btw - Based on this alone, does anyone still contend that Google (or Alphabet) is a private company only?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe something like this will start appearing in Congress before too long.

If it does, the politicians will screw it up over time, but this is where things are headed.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now some real dirt is coming out.

From Breitbart:

LEAKED VIDEO: Google Leadership’s Dismayed Reaction to Trump Election

A one hour and something bashfest of Trump and Trump supporters by the top brass of Google.

Sorry, the video doesn't embed, so you have to go to Breitbart to see it, but at least it will not be censored.

Sergey Brin thinks Trump supporters are fascists and communists and vote out of boredom.

And they want to use Artificial Intelligence to make sure this doesn't happen again.

I'm not making this up.

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...