"Failure to back the Republican nominee will lead to a Hillary Clinton presidency, which should be unacceptable to any conservative. *** "The country must not be savaged by a third Obama term."
Here's what the right-wing crazies do not get. Obama's favorability ratings are way higher than Hillary's and that much higher yet than are Trumps. Most of the country does not hate Obama; they do not consider him the illegitimate President, the Kenyan-born secret Marxist, secret Muslim of the right-wing's fetid fantasies. He'd win a third term if he ran against either of the current candidates, and do it walkin’ away. Making Hillary out to be Obama's third term is not an attack that'll resonate with anybody don't already hate Hillary with a passion borne of ten years' of preparation for and eager anticipation of feelin’ the passion. In other words, folks already Trump supporters.
No way it's a winning argument in the general election.
(And, Pete's back; he couldn't quite let it go after all. I rather doubt he's ready to face his delusions though, so we'll just not go there when he finally shows up here. I have come to the suspicion that there's a high probability that he's an only child though, or, if not, estranged from his siblings then. Maybe we'll ask about that.)
Condoleezza Rice has preemptively declined to serve as Trumps veep candidate. Yahoo I don't reckon she was on his short list, but she ain't takin’ no chances.
It looks like Omar Mateen has had some issues for some time. I have to wonder if there was much, if any, ideological motive behind his behavior. That doesn't it make it any less tragic, but it does reinforce the belief that Daesh is appealing to many who are on the fringes of society.
"I have to wonder if there was much, if any, ideological motive behind his behavior."
You're not the only one to wonder that. He apparently started thinking about killing people long before he decided to say that he was allied with Da’esh.
""Mateen and [Dylann] Roof are of the same ilk. ‘Like Dylann Roof, this was someone who had anger building up and wanted to find some hook that would justify it, or find a community that would accept this as righteous…’." Politico.com
Republicans, however, are concentrated on the need to blame "Radical Islam" and to repeat that phrase out loud at every available opportunity (and to create the necessary opportunities if they doesn't arise organically.)
And, just by the way, Trump's failure to rally support from beyond the crazy ‘base’ in the wake of the Orlando massacre is resuscitating the #NeverTrump crowd. They're organizing again for Cleveland in July. NBC'sFirstRead. They don't have themselves a savior identified yet, and ya can't beat somebody, not even Trump, with nobody, but they're still hoping for a miracle.
Never went away, actually... leastways, not too far. Just spend a couple of days up the mountains with patchy cellular data coverage.
[Chump]: I don't believe I've made an argument that you haven't tried to steal. You even latched onto the ‘Ciao for now’ quip I sometimes use--and now you're borrowing my earlier observation that you're actually nuts. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But, I think, in your case, it's more like envy.
LOL. Well, I thought I should stick to vocabulary y'all have shown ya can understand. Unfortunately, there ain't any when it comes to maths. I haven't stolen any of yer delusional arguments on that front. You can keep that level of crazy to y'all's self.
Y'all figured out yet why 10,000 people have never made so much as a murmur about the secret intentional mistake that y'all allege was squirreled into that Wikipedia procedure? Or why everyone who was explicitly asked said there wasn't any mistake? Couldn't be that there never was any mistake?
Oh, and I note y'all is very shy of mentionin' that the batshit crazy factorisation that y'all argued for ain't even a polynomial, and thus is not even a valid factorisation by y'all's own definition. It don't get much more embarrassin' that that. Any merely averagely insane person would've slunk off to lick their wounds at this point. But y'all seem to have a fatal attraction for paradin' y'all's ignorance.
You choose to be delusional; it really don't make any difference in the final outcome. You're still crazy.
You keep harping on your delusions; that don't make you sane.
You can't let it go; that don't make it my problem.
Nothin’s changed Petes.
[O]"ne of the things more coffee brings with it (along with a night's sleep) is a new perspective. "Given that: Neither Lynnette nor Marcus is following this… *** "Let me know when you're ready. If you're never ready, not a problem for me." Lee C. @ Thu Jun 16, 06:18:00 am
That's still how things stand.
Your brief, hysterical paroxysm after I indicated I's good with things as they are didn't change anything
I still got no problem with things as they are, either way.
You wanna keep wallowing; that still don't make it my problem.
And you're still wrong.
And you're still batshit crazy.
And that's still how things stand.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ But, on another, somewhat related, subject…
[Chump]: "I still got no problem with things as they are, either way."
Of course you don't. Ten thousand people say you're wrong, but you reckon that here -- with an audience of two who have professed no knowledge of the topic, and even less interest -- y'all can brave it out to the end. And ya know what, yer probably right. Doesn't mean you ain't a delusional narcissist, or that ya know one tenth of the algebra I did at ten years old. You and me both know that, and I'm fine with that too. Ain't gonna roll over, though, no matter how many times ya try to put out yer cover story for yer great big audience of two. LOL.
[Chump]: "But, on another, somewhat related, subject… You were an only child, weren't ya?"
Even bigger LOL. Is this the same sort of stalker mentality that made ya write me an e-mail -- what was it, all of ten years back -- allegin' that I was gay? Tell ya what, chump, if y'all weren't safely squirreled away in some log cabin 4,000 miles away, I'd be callin' the cops on ya. As it is, yer just a bit of light entertainment, and a sad and salutary lesson on the combined effects of a poor education plus tellin' kids they can be great at anything.
Even if that were true (note well the use of the subjunctive tense there; we're assuming something contrary to the known facts in order to discuss the argument anyway without having to divert to the unimportant fact that the argument happens to not be true)--that is called the ‘argumentum ad populum’ fallacy.
That had not occurred to me. I'm not sure who you're confusing me with there; don't think I much care, either who you're confusing me with or whether or not you're gay; I'm not Catholic, so gay ain't a big deal to me so long as I don't get any extra hands laid on me (then I kinda object to it).
I think I've got the odds in my favor on the only child thing though. You're welcome to report that to the cops if ya want.
I got an idea… Perhaps we oughta make up a new name for the ‘slingin’ bullshit all directions as ya go along’ style of argument; we can call call it the Pete Sword fallacy or ‘argumentum ad petes’.
How's that sound? You be feelin’ important now? Maybe you can calm down a little?
Enjoyin' the diversion chump? Run out of invalid non-polynomial factorisations to pull outta yer ass? Apart from 10,000 people say yer wrong, y'all can't possibly be right by yer own definition. I'll happily dwell on that for as long as ya want. LOL.
[Chump]: "that is called the ‘argumentum ad populum’ fallacy"
Hmmm. Who was it hilariously claimed that the Wikipedia procedure contained an intentional (but unmentioned) mistake and the sole bullshit justification was that "everyone knew it was wrong". Ok, ok, maybe argumentum ad populum is less apt in that case than argumentum ad insaniam.
Ain't goin' back over all yer bullshit diversions for now. How about we just stick with yore factorisation which can't possibly be right by yore own definition. Won't help y'all with the correct factorisation, but then I gave ya that over four years ago and it still ain't sunk in. Yore factorisation is easier for me to repeat as a one-sentence bullshit stopper, and might lead ya eventually to seekin' the correct one (i.e. mine).
Reminder for the audience. Here's Lee's bullshit factorisation:
(√(ab) + b)(√(ab) - b)
That's not even a possible factorisation, let alone the correct one. LOL.
I think, given that a must equal b, or ya never get here in the first place, it'd probably be more elegant, simpler anyway, to write it as (a - b)×(b - b).
Woohoo. Four more factorisations pulled outta yer ass (and all of 'em different from the one ya swore blind for months was correct). It's a good think ya can't do simple multiplication neither, or y'all would instantly realise none of those is a correct factorisation.
"given that a must equal b, or ya never get here in the first place"
Nope, that's y'all's classic iggerance on the subject shinin' thru once yet agin. There is a correct factorisation regardless of the values of a and b. Use x and y instead, if it helps ya ignore the irrelevant context ya can't get outta yer head.
Actually, we tried that. Ya didn't get it. Ain't never gonna get it, 'cos ya don't wanna get it. But I'll repeat it for y'all anyway, 'cos I know it annoys ya:
THE VALUES OF a and b ARE IRRELEVANT. We asked those clever folks on the interwebz. They told ya so, jes' like I did. Ciao, chumpy.
Yep, there it is. The expression that Lee says can't possibly be a valid factorisation, even though he came up with it hisself. Y'all never did value consistency, I guess.
Am I the only one that's noticed that Petes spends a lot of time arguing with the things he says I said and spends damn little time, little as he can get by with, dealing with the things I actually say?
Just wonderin’ if it's only me that's noticed that.
Yep. There it is. In all its bullshitty incorrectness.
I notice y'all have once more returned to playing the dopy eejit, and carefully avoiding claiming it's a correct factorisation. Y'all know it'll take me two milliseconds to post y'all's own definition of how it cannot be correct.
I decided to not correct the typo just above so's you'd have something to rag ‘bout; you're probably at the ragging on misspellings stage, or real close. But, I do have a question…
How is it you decide to quote yourself, change the line by dropping a word, but yet you keep the quote marks? How does that happen?
"I notice you decided to dispense with the word "possible" this time."
That's right. It ain't a factorisation at all. That's what I meant by "bullshit". Since y'all are still playin' the dopy eejit, I'm spelling it out for ya. It ain't a factorisation.
I see. You seem to be having a fine time arguing with yourself there. S'pose one of you gonna win at some point down the line, or you s'pect to be able to keep this goin’ forever?
Oh, and if you decide to take a break from arguing with yourself, there's still that question hangin’ out there ‘bout retaining the quote marks; I still don't get that.
"you s'pect to be able to keep this goin’ forever?"
Forever's quite a long time, but I guess I can keep it going for as long as you keep tryin' to obfuscate. Wouldn't like folks to forget that y'all been wrong all along, from the get go, for four years of self-inflicted ignorance. Speakin' of which:
"Lee's incorrect attempt at factorisation: (√(ab) + b)(√(ab) - b) That's not even a factorisation, let alone the correct one. The correct one's been given by Wikipedia all along. LOL."
Oh, yeah, and as we're putting this subject to bed… Let us not forget that we got here because you remembered ‘all too well’ as you told us, ‘bout how you'd published your mighty mystery maths about Einstein. That turned on ya in a second, and now you're facing a truth or dare moment on this subsequent supporting fantasy of yours and it comes right down to it, you don't dare. That's two in a row clown.
Sit there with it.
On the other hand, if ya decide to get brave…
"Let me know when you're ready. If you're never ready, not a problem for me." Lee C. @ Thu Jun 16, 06:18:00 am
Been busy all day so I've only now managed to read a little here. That Politico article was very good, Lee.
Republicans, however, are concentrated on the need to blame "Radical Islam" and to repeat that phrase out loud at every available opportunity
Yes. From what I have read they are right, Mateen does bear more resemblance to some of the right wing crazies we have here rather than a true Islamist ideologue. He was a disturbed person bent on doing something violent and that was how he chose to act out. Tragically for all concerned.
But the article does make a good point about the problems our law enforcement people have dealing with those who would commit violent terrorist acts as the result of some internal issues they themselves are struggling with. You can't always prevent them from acting upon their thoughts, when you're not quite sure what those thoughts really are. We have always been a society who believes one is innocent until proven guilty. Or at least that is how the law reads. How do we prevent a "broken windows" scenario from happening with these kinds of crimes?
Yes, but I believe we are very close to done. It's not going anywhere except around and around in a circle. I'm pretty sure that even two fully disinterested audience members will have figured that out by now. (Petes actually can't go anywhere unless I chase him, which I figured out earlier today, which is why we're going around and around in a circle just now, waiting for ya'll to notice the circlin’.) The only thing left for him is one last, loud (probably loud, maybe also frantic) general disturbance of some sort, much sound and fury and dust and smoke, in which he passionately declaims his own self the undisputed king of the world and genius par excellence (or some only slightly lesser grandeousness along those lines), and me an illiterate hick. Sure as hell he ain't gonna get his courage up… So…
Other than that last bit of braying on his part, we're done.
Only thing we don't got is one single person who agrees with your laughable attempt. To wit:
"Lee's incorrect attempt at factorisation: (√(ab) + b)(√(ab) - b) That's not even a factorisation, let alone the correct one. The correct one's been given by Wikipedia all along. LOL."
Any chance yore gonna try to explain that one? Of course not.
To summarise for "the audience": Lee's asking to revisit something that's been explained to him dozens upon dozens of times already. Even had it not been so explained, his own alternative explanation is shown to be nonsensical by a definition Lee linked to himself. We have no other candidates for a correct explanation, since all of Lee's laughable attempts to backtrack have contained simple multiplication errors. In short: Lee has his explanation, he has no alternative, and it's time to shut up.
Oh, and Lee is no longer even trying to support any of his own explanations which have all been blown to smithereens. He's completely out of ideas on that front. He's resorted to just repeating his demand for the explanation that's already been given to him, as is his wont when cornered.
"Nah, lame; he's not gonna be able to quit on that"
... followed by Lee not bein' able to quit on that.
That's ok. Y'all have stopped makin' any new claims. The ones ya had all got shot to shit. The lack of new claims is as close to capitulation as yore ever gonna get. I'm happy to take that as a win.
Correction: nobody but you. Otherwise ya wouldn'a posted hundreds of comments makin' a fool of yerself by contradictin' what was obviously true all along. Now you've been shown to be an idiot and even you have no new claims to make. I'm happy to take that as a win.
Actually, I figured if Lynnette was actually paying attention… But, appears not. And you make the judgment that this is about whether or not you ‘win’, by which you mean are you still able to think up bullshit to spout. Sorta long as you can keep going ya ain't lost type of thing. I don't play that game--I hammered Paul Edwards into the ground once just for the sake of doin’ it; on account of nobody else would. You ain't really a challenge; you're not even in the same league, fat boy. Your slander games with the ersatz ‘Italian’ notwithstanding--not in the same league.
I'm right; you're wrong; we both know it (somewhere inside it bothers you that you're wrong, your fantasies can't protect from that--that's why you're so angry and abusive; that's what all the name callin’s about)--but it was never about being right for you, and it was never about bein’ the last man standing with me. I done that deed on Paul Edwards; you're not even a challenge; you're not even worth lettin’ you pretend you're a challenge.
Call it a win if ya want; nobody cares; including me. I just gave it that last day to make the record clear that you couldn't go anywhere with what ya had--all you could do was circle. ‘Cause you're wrong and ya sure as hell can't go there, and there was noplace else to go. Circle, circle; done and done.
Listening a bit to Putin on Fareed Zakaria's show. In response to a question about Trump he said that Russia doesn't interfere in the internal affairs of other countries...okay, seriously, ROFL!
Here's a piece on how Trump might win. Basically, it comes down to if ya squint real hard and indulge yourself in some of that fantasy Catholic Math that Petes keeps handy…. Oh! Wait! Petes is bettin’ on Trump ain't he? Ah, yes he, or was, last he was bettin’ out loud.
The NYT is hypothocizing that Trump may speak on all four nights of the Republican convention, on account of a lack of other Republicans willing to take the stage in Cleveland.
That should be interesting. He'll definitely get in the last word at the convention that way--Petes would need to call that a win.
LOL. Such bile! I thought you said I was the one "just gathering up for a real outburst". Seems that was merely you projectin'.
"I'm right; you're wrong; we both know it"
Nope. You provided the link yourself that showed you couldn't be right. Would you like me to repost that for you, in case you can't remember your own argument? We don't need me to prove you wrong -- you did that yourself.
As for me being right ... apart from showing that 10,000 people agree with me I can't really take ya any further on that one. You're too dumb to learn, and no amount of coaching is gonna make you less intransigent anyway, which is all it was ever about for you.
It was actually a fairly casual contempt and most folks would recognize it as such, I think. It only seemed like it was vicious to you because 1. It was true, and 2. It was aimed at you.
Hint: If ya count the characters, and especially if ya count the empty spaces as characters, ya can make it seem longer than it is. Try to remember that for next time.
From 1: "The aim of factoring is usually to reduce ... polynomials to irreducible polynomials. ...The opposite of polynomial factorization is expansion, the multiplying together of polynomial factors to an “expanded” polynomial."
From 3: My factorisation, b(a - b), is a polynomial factorisation. 'b' is a polynomial consisting of a single monomial, while (a - b) is a bivariate polynomial. Lee's attempted factorisation, (√(ab) + b)(√(ab) - b) does not consist of polynomials at all.
Let us hope so. You're bein’ a dumbass, maybe on purpose, maybe it's natural. When it gets down to specifics you can't handle the distinctions, or don't want to; either or…
The specifics are above for all to see. Regardless of yer bitchin', y'all have stopped makin' any new claims. The ones ya had all got shot to shit. The lack of new claims is as close to capitulation as yore ever gonna get. I'm happy to take that as a win.
Well, at least the links to the specifics are above. And you're still worried ‘bout whether or not you ‘won’; and since I'm not even playin’ your particular game, nothin’ much has changed. To wit:
"You seem to be having a fine time arguing with yourself there. S'pose one of you gonna win at some point down the line, or you s'pect to be able to keep this goin’ forever?" Lee C. @ Sat Jun 18, 09:12:00 pm, supra
Took better than a day and a half for you to beat yourself. But, perhaps congratulations are in order anyway. You might have found yourself in a standoff forever; that woulda been takin’ your crazy to a whole new level, but you managed at least to avoid that; that's gotta be worth somethin’.
Oh, I'm not gone. (For one thing I don't think you're really done arguing with your imaginary Lee C. -- I think I may call him iLee in the future to keep things straight. I'll have to figure on that, may be too much trouble tryin’ to keep straight who think you're addressing. Anyway, if, as I suspect, you're not done, I do wanna watch; wouldn't wanna miss the laughs.)
Marcus and Lynnette, I will give a short demonstration of what Lee's been unable to comprehend for years. Even if you've forgotten your algebra, this requires only the most basic geometry. You don't even have to remember complicated multiplication.
You'll remember that the area of a rectangle is the result of multiplying the length of its sides. Have a look at this picture. The top rectangle has sides of length a and b and therefore has area ab.
In the lower rectangle we've taken a length of b off the long side, to make two resultant rectangles. One of them -- the shaded one -- is obviously a square of side b, with area b².
The remaining rectangle has one unchanged side of length b and one reduced side of length (a - b) (since we took length b from a). As usual, its area is the product of its sides: b(a - b). But we have another way to get the area. It's simply the original large rectangle, ab, less the shaded square, b², giving (ab - b²).
Clearly the two methods of getting the area must give the same result, so b(a - b) = (ab - b²). Now, multiplying two terms together to give a product is the reverse of factorisation. So by definition, the factors of (ab - b²) are b and (a - b). And since we haven't assigned any numerical values to a and b to make this argument, it's clear that their values make no difference to the result.
Actually I'd prefer if y'all would shut the hell up and take yer beatin' like a man, but ya can't help buzzin' around like an annoyin' hornet. Here's a tip for ya: fly on the wall is supposed to be silent. Let's see how long ya can maintain it.
Has anyone ever noticed that gardens take a lot of weeding? I mean, one day they look so nice and orderly, and the next it's like a jungle out there. *sigh*
So, I noticed that the US Senate has shot down another attempt at gun control. Strangely enough the one thing that Trump and Hillary actually kind of agree on. It will be interesting to see what the NRA makes of Trump's gun control noises.
It appears, last I looked, that Daesh is having trouble holding on to Fallujah (what's left of it).
But are they eyeing Bangladesh? It does seem that you stomp them out in one place and they just pop up in another. Or at least the local extremists seem to like to jump on that band wagon. Maybe they know it will garner them more publicity?
"Maybe they know it will garner them more publicity?"
And more publicity brings in more recruits, and more contributions. The local radical jihadi leader type will want to be seen as affiliated with whomever's hot at the moment.
I wasn't aware y'all had any mode apart from buzzin'. Unlike yerself I don't need to do any chest-thumpin' attention seeking. For Lynnette and Marcus sixty seconds of attention to the post at Mon Jun 20, 09:03:00 am above will have explained what y'all spent the last four years misunderstandin'.
"Unlike yerself I don't need to do any chest-thumpin' attention seeking."
I think instead that probably everybody has noticed how much, how vehemently, passionately, and especially how often you're compelled to pronounce yourself ‘the winner’ on various matters. Perhaps you think denying that compulsion is sufficient to cause people to forget what they've noticed; I suspect otherwise.
Marco Rubio, who clearly didn't enjoy serving his first term in the Senate, has decided to run for another term in the Senate. He needs a stage to launch another Presidential campaign in 2020, and this looks to be his best bet. CNN
They're staging a sit-in on the floor of the House. I kid you not.
A group of Democratic representatives are staging a sit-in in the House to protest the lack of legislation, or even holding a vote, on gun control legislation. I think I have actually found some legislators I can really be proud of.
"Unlike yerself I don't need to do any chest-thumpin' attention seeking."
What?! Here I thought you guys were just going on to pad my comments section because you felt sorry for me. *sniff* Not too many commenters here, you know.
"I thought you guys were just going on to pad my comments section…"
If that'd been the case I'd have pursued that hint he dropped about him being gay. What with him being also a preachy, puritanical type of Catholic, that'd sure draw more interest than him trying to convince people he ‘won’ some imaginary math argument long time ago that he can't even explain these days.
Lynnette, I am probably the only one here rooting for and hoping for Brexit (although not seriously beleiving it will pass). I can just say that I am appaled by the un-elected beaurucrats in Brussels having a real impact on peoples lives. They are IMO a waste of both money and a threat to people's will.
YOU in the USA should be very succeptible to this argument. After all, would YOU vote to give up your nations own voice and give the say-so in really important matters to some sort of world government?
"I am probably the only one here rooting for and hoping for Brexit…"
Yeah, you probably are. I'm ambivalent about it; can't figure out which side to root for. On the bright side, no matter how it comes out, a serious run at Britain exiting the E.U. should cause those ‘un-elected [bureaucrats] in Brussels’ to take notice that they're not exactly endearing themselves to the populations they supposedly serve. I said ‘should’ not will, in fact, probably won't, but we can hold out the hope.
After all, would YOU vote to give up your nations own voice and give the say-so in really important matters to some sort of world government?
I suppose one might say that we did when we joined the UN, but in reality I think we might not always defer to their collective judgement on some matters.
I really think what we are seeing in the UK with this vote is similar to what we are seeing in the US with people who are supporting Trump. It is a protest against the status quo because that status quo is now leaving many people out in the cold. Should the status quo be changed? Probably. But is it necessary to make that change in such a way as to possibly upset the apple cart? I don't know who is right about the effects of a Brexit, but I do see the possibility of economic upheaval in the UK that might very well be far more unpleasant than the current status quo.
On the bright side, no matter how it comes out, a serious run at Britain exiting the E.U. should cause those ‘un-elected [bureaucrats] in Brussels’ to take notice that they're not exactly endearing themselves to the populations they supposedly serve.
One would hope the same would be true with our politicians here with the rise of Trump. But I'm not holding my breath.
I'm expecting a bitter fight among the survivors in the various Republican factions after Trump leads them into a massacre in November. I don't expect the party to survive in its current incarnation. (Democratic Party will probably reorganize within a few years thereafter.)
So far, the pols I know who're happy with the British exit from the E.U. include Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson. Civilians include Marcus the Swede.
This is clearly the year of people giving the middle finger to the establishment. Hillary ought to take note.
I'm hoping that she and others do. Because while I think some change on how things are done is needed, I certainly don't want it ushered in by someone like Trump.
So far, the pols I know who're happy with the British exit from the E.U. include Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson.
That in itself should tell you whether or not this is a good or bad thing.
But Putin probably shouldn't be too happy yet. Despite his animosity, and perhaps a little jealousy, of the success of the EU and the West in general, having a prosperous neighbor is better than having a poorer one.
That's probably a good idea; the American stock markets disconnected from the American economy some years ago. They're still tethered, somewhat, but it's no longer a direct link.
The Brits got out just in time. A new "initiative" was sneaked through by the unelected bureaocrats just the same evening as Brexit. One that not one single country in the EU would have allowed through their national parliament was shoved down our collective throats by the Brussels politburo:
It's because of stuff like this I rooted for Brexit and havs hopes for a future Swexit.
Lee C however would probably applaud this new initiative by Brussels. Always siding with the establishent. Democracy and the will of the people seems low on his list of priorities. Would've made a fine communist, Lee C would. A loyal party member.
It seems that the ‘right’ of migrants to freely move around within the E.U. was already granted, but that they hadn't come up with standardized E.U. identity documents everybody recognized. I'm not a big fan of these migrants getting the legal right to move around freely in the first place, but, given that ya'll done that anyway, I think getting some standardized documentation that's resistant to forgery is probably a good idea.
I have been wondering what's to come of that migrant camp that had established itself around the Chunnel entrance near Calais, France. I think is the French entrance. Last I heard they were still there in the thousands trying to figure out how to sneak through the tunnel to England while they waited for the Brits to give it up and let them through. The Brits having pulled the plug on E.U. membership, sneaking through the tunnel will probably be guarded against even more heavily now, and obviously the Brits ain't gonna give it up and just let ‘em pour on through. So, what're they gonna do now? Get weapons and try to force their way through?
Lee: "It seems that the ‘right’ of migrants to freely move around within the E.U. was already granted, but that they hadn't come up with standardized E.U. identity documents everybody recognized. I'm not a big fan of these migrants getting the legal right to move around freely in the first place, but, given that ya'll done that anyway, I think getting some standardized documentation that's resistant to forgery is probably a good idea."
Ya think? I am sitting about a kilometer from Swedens main border-control, the bridge from Copenhagen to Malmö. The migrants cannot get past any longer, as of January. So the "right" to free movement has certainly been curtailed and not only here. Curtailed by decisions taken by nation states.
But what if the EU grants these passports and we are treaty bound to honor them? Then our border controls lose their purpose and our soveregnity is diminished yet again. As a result of a decision by unelected people we cannot punish by not voting for them in the future. I am no fan of that and I would have thought most Americans could actually understand that point of view.
Lee: "I have been wondering what's to come of that migrant camp that had established itself around the Chunnel entrance near Calais, France."
You mean the "refugees" "fleeing" France?
Lee: "The Brits having pulled the plug on E.U. membership, sneaking through the tunnel will probably be guarded against even more heavily now, and obviously the Brits ain't gonna give it up and just let ‘em pour on through. So, what're they gonna do now? Get weapons and try to force their way through?"
I actually don't see much changing. That path was already well guarded and the Brits will not have to change much. The migrants will likely keep at it with attempts. It's not like the lack of an EU membership will in itself mean Britain will become less attractive. Other measures might be taken that might have that effect, but the ritain being in or out of the EU will not change much. I don't see them attempting an armed assault. It would be impossible and counter productive and dangerous, and I don't think they'd be that foolish.
BTW, I know you're no fan of Trump and I understand you think Putin is a brutish thug, but what's your beef with Boris Johnson? He seems a decent enough guy to me. Maybe a bit of a maverick but not a bad person or politician.
As a result of a decision by unelected people we cannot punish by not voting for them in the future. I am no fan of that and I would have thought most Americans could actually understand that point of view.
Perhaps I am having trouble since I don't really have any knowledge of how the EU is structured pertaining to how rules and regulations are passed. Does not each member state have a say in that? How on earth could anyone just turn over all control to people who may not be from their own country without requiring that every member has a say, or some recourse, if they disagree with policy? How are the people who sit in decision making positions chosen, if not by member votes?
Yeah, some people. Lynnette, the Brexit side won with over 1.2 million votes. In the whole 16+ million who voted to leave you're obviously gonna be able to find a few who have second thoughts if you look hard enough. Will you find 1.2 million of them? Not likely.
Frankly dragging out one or two who publicly admit they were so ill informed they change their mind after just one day looks like just bad losers to me. At least Cameron had the spine to accept the loss with dignity and respect the peoples choice. The bad losers in left wing media - not so much.
Lynnette: "Does not each member state have a say in that? How on earth could anyone just turn over all control to people who may not be from their own country without requiring that every member has a say, or some recourse, if they disagree with policy?"
A good question indeed. How could it happen? The EU has gradually and over a long period of time been grabbing power whenever it could. This current example with an EU passport for refugees is a perfect example. It just pops up and becomes law without ANY debate or forewarnings. I hadn't even heard it mentiioned a week ago. As I said I am convinced not one single national parliament could get away with this because they know they would likely be voted out of office and they know for sure they couldn't defend the idea to the people they represent. And yet there it is.
The whole system is rotten, which is why I want out of it. I was previously of the opinion that the general idea of the EU was sound but that it needed reform. Now I my level of trust is so low I don't believe in reform any longer. I want it torn apart and broken down. So obviously I celebrate Brexit and think the good people of Britain did the whole continent a solid favour.
Border controls were put up by the Social Democratic led government after the migrant crisis late last year got so severe (2K migrants per day) it almost broke the society. From Europe's laxest immigration policy to one of its toughest in a matter of weeks.
We tend to call that a "conversion under the gallows" and I am still pissed off at the folks who for so long ignored or demonised those who warned we were heading for a catastrophic situation, only to come around and still demonise us while they implement the policies we asked for. The hypocracy is quite unreal.
"It just pops up and becomes law without ANY debate or forewarnings. I hadn't even heard it mentiioned a week ago."
It appears that Marcus likewise doesn't ‘really have any knowledge of how the EU is structured pertaining to how rules and regulations are passed.’ This proposal has yet to be adopted. "To enter into force, this informal deal needs to be formally endorsed by the full [European] Parliament and the Council of Ministers."
(I noticed on the upper right hand side that Marcus' source here was also reporting an actual Elvis sighting; the real live Elvis is apparently working undercover as a groundskeeper at Graceland in Memphis.)
I resisted any temptation to go back and google this, just working offa memory here…
As I understood it, the countries which started throwing up border barriers to immigrants (starting with Hungary and going on to Sweden eventually) claimed a right to do that in contravention of the ‘Schengen’ agreement on account of a claim of national emergency. Those claims remain outstanding, unadjudicated.
Standardized E.U. documents for the migrants will not decide that issue.
So YOU say. I have seen the opposite with my own two eyes. How "EU law" permitts responsible legislation oon the home front. Much as "UN resolutions" do in some cases.
F-ck it. Ya'll in the USA take a couple of couples of million muslim or african refugees then. Why dontcha? You seem so hellbent on Europe doing so should be a goood thing so why don't you put your money where your mouth is and lead by example?
Lee: "Standardized E.U. documents for the migrants will not decide that issue."
So YOU say. We have border controls in place right now. Way too late but we have 'em.
But IF migrants suddenly turn up with some sort of EU migrant passport that enables said migrants a free ride cross any EU border, then what?
YOU might think that we'll just keep our border controls. I, with on sight experience, will suspect a new refugee stream that we "cannot stop" due to "international agreements". Heard it all before.
Lee: "What little I know about Mr. Johnson suggests his allegiance to the truth is no more well developed than is that of Trump nor Nigel Farage."
Not content with pissing on Boris Johnson without any actual argument as to what he's done wrong, now you try to piss on Farage as well. A decent man who aims above all else to let the people he represents have their say. (Something that clearly doesn't sit well with Communist minded Lee C - politburea diehard)
Farage might possibly be the fourth best politician in Europe after Victor Orban, Beata Szydło and Bohuslav Sobotka. Well, that's just mentioning sitting prime ministers. Marine Le Pen deserves a mentioning too since she's the future president of France and a wonderful woman and an exceptionally talented politician. Pia Kjearsgard in denmark isn't all that bad either, nor Siv Jensen in Norway. Lots of wonderfully talented conservative and nationalistic women around.
More hysterics. You'll be unable to find anything I've written that suggests that Europe ought to be taking in Muslim refugees by the millions, or even by the thousands. Never happened. I've never been in favor of taking in refugees in bulk.
I can see, before my minds eye, an image of Lee C in a court at the Red Square condenmning dissidents and having them thrown down into the dungeons beneath Lublyanka because they "thought wrong" according to the Party consensus.
Not doin' the actual torturing or executions himself. But as a stalwarth mid level member of the establishment permitting it to happening. No protests from Lee C - the agent for any higher auuthority.
It's been a long time since I ran across anybody who thought that claiming I was a commie was a valid argument. Marcus is going old time hysterical on us.
Commie is just a label Lee. Obviously it all started with a protest against private ownership. But it did evolve into a whole lot more. And that's where you come in.
You're the kind of everytime-rooting-for-the-etsblishent that has the gall to speak against such a thing as Brexit. That's always on the NATO ticket That supports out of principle everything that your State Department or Pentagon comes up with. And who would support the more establishment minded candidate in your own elections just because.
It's actually quite tragic. Because you do obviously have a thinking mind but you limit yourself so much it isn't functioning.
Lee: "Tell me Marcus, where do ya stand on that Elvis sighting reported in your prior source?"
Another f-ing dumb question. What does it matter? Does it have ANY bearing on the EU-legislation mentioned in the article I linked to?
Either that EU-legislation is non existent, a lie, or it is true. I have no reason to believe it's a lie. I think it's true. So far. If evidence to the contrary reaches me I will obviously change my mind. But I will NOT change my mind based on an unrelated article from that same source.
I didn't actually take a positon on that; wrote that I was ambivalent at best on the subject. What I spoke against was Nigel Farage lying about the few things I actually did know to be facts in that YouTube you posted.
"What does it matter?"
If your source is reporting Elvis sightings, you probably need a new source.
"What little (nah, quite a lot) I know of Hillary Clinton suggests her allegiance to the truth is nil."
That doesn't improve Mr. Johnson's reputation for veracity. (You've attacked Hillary on this point before, apparently being of the opinion that if you attack her on this point then I must adopt a contrary postition. Hasn't worked yet; ain't likely it's gonna work in the future.)
Just for the record; I am, in fact, philosophically a firm free market capitalist type of the old school (Adam Smith type). Not a commie. That doesn't mean I'm one of the neo-capitalist types, the corporate capitalists of today's right-wing political parties who seem to think that a market captured by a cabal of financial manipulators is somehow ‘free’ because it's captured by non-governmental powers who're then left unregulated and unmolested by government.
154 comments:
He's baackkk! 12:40:00 pm
I ran across this more or less by accident:
"Failure to back the Republican nominee will lead to a Hillary Clinton presidency,
which should be unacceptable to any conservative.
***
"The country must not be savaged by a third Obama term."
Here's what the right-wing crazies do not get. Obama's favorability ratings are way higher than Hillary's and that much higher yet than are Trumps. Most of the country does not hate Obama; they do not consider him the illegitimate President, the Kenyan-born secret Marxist, secret Muslim of the right-wing's fetid fantasies.
He'd win a third term if he ran against either of the current candidates, and do it walkin’ away. Making Hillary out to be Obama's third term is not an attack that'll resonate with anybody don't already hate Hillary with a passion borne of ten years' of preparation for and eager anticipation of feelin’ the passion. In other words, folks already Trump supporters.
No way it's a winning argument in the general election.
(And, Pete's back; he couldn't quite let it go after all. I rather doubt he's ready to face his delusions though, so we'll just not go there when he finally shows up here. I have come to the suspicion that there's a high probability that he's an only child though, or, if not, estranged from his siblings then. Maybe we'll ask about that.)
Oh, yeah, link for the quote
I had a thought for Trumps' veep; Hillary's choice is still a blank for me, but I got a thought on Trump's pick.
Sarah Palin!
That would make it an even better ticket to avoid!
Ya gotta figure it's a short list of possibles. Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich, Jeff Sessions, Sarah Palin, maybe a few others, but not many.
Condoleezza Rice has preemptively declined to serve as Trumps veep candidate. Yahoo I don't reckon she was on his short list, but she ain't takin’ no chances.
It looks like Omar Mateen has had some issues for some time. I have to wonder if there was much, if any, ideological motive behind his behavior. That doesn't it make it any less tragic, but it does reinforce the belief that Daesh is appealing to many who are on the fringes of society.
I don't reckon she was on his short list, but she ain't takin’ no chances.
I suspect there are others who feel the same.
A possible Clinton VP choice.
"I have to wonder if there was much, if any, ideological motive behind
his behavior."
You're not the only one to wonder that. He apparently started thinking about killing people long before he decided to say that he was allied with Da’esh.
""Mateen and [Dylann] Roof are of the same ilk. ‘Like Dylann Roof, this
was someone who had anger building up and wanted to find some
hook that would justify it, or find a community that would accept this as
righteous…’."
Politico.com
Republicans, however, are concentrated on the need to blame "Radical Islam" and to repeat that phrase out loud at every available opportunity (and to create the necessary opportunities if they doesn't arise organically.)
And, just by the way, Trump's failure to rally support from beyond the crazy ‘base’ in the wake of the Orlando massacre is resuscitating the #NeverTrump crowd. They're organizing again for Cleveland in July. NBC'sFirstRead. They don't have themselves a savior identified yet, and ya can't beat somebody, not even Trump, with nobody, but they're still hoping for a miracle.
[Chump]: He's baackkk!
Never went away, actually... leastways, not too far. Just spend a couple of days up the mountains with patchy cellular data coverage.
[Chump]: I don't believe I've made an argument that you haven't tried to steal. You even latched onto the ‘Ciao for now’ quip I sometimes use--and now you're borrowing my earlier observation that you're actually nuts. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But, I think, in your case, it's more like envy.
LOL. Well, I thought I should stick to vocabulary y'all have shown ya can understand. Unfortunately, there ain't any when it comes to maths. I haven't stolen any of yer delusional arguments on that front. You can keep that level of crazy to y'all's self.
Y'all figured out yet why 10,000 people have never made so much as a murmur about the secret intentional mistake that y'all allege was squirreled into that Wikipedia procedure? Or why everyone who was explicitly asked said there wasn't any mistake? Couldn't be that there never was any mistake?
Oh, and I note y'all is very shy of mentionin' that the batshit crazy factorisation that y'all argued for ain't even a polynomial, and thus is not even a valid factorisation by y'all's own definition. It don't get much more embarrassin' that that. Any merely averagely insane person would've slunk off to lick their wounds at this point. But y'all seem to have a fatal attraction for paradin' y'all's ignorance.
You choose to be delusional; it really don't make any difference in the final outcome. You're still crazy.
You keep harping on your delusions; that don't make you sane.
You can't let it go; that don't make it my problem.
Nothin’s changed Petes.
[O]"ne of the things more coffee brings with it (along with a night's
sleep) is a new perspective.
"Given that: Neither Lynnette nor Marcus is following this…
***
"Let me know when you're ready. If you're never ready, not a problem
for me."
Lee C. @ Thu Jun 16, 06:18:00 am
That's still how things stand.
Your brief, hysterical paroxysm after I indicated I's good with things as they are didn't change anything
I still got no problem with things as they are, either way.
You wanna keep wallowing; that still don't make it my problem.
And you're still wrong.
And you're still batshit crazy.
And that's still how things stand.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
But, on another, somewhat related, subject…
You were an only child, weren't ya?
[Chump]: "I still got no problem with things as they are, either way."
Of course you don't. Ten thousand people say you're wrong, but you reckon that here -- with an audience of two who have professed no knowledge of the topic, and even less interest -- y'all can brave it out to the end. And ya know what, yer probably right. Doesn't mean you ain't a delusional narcissist, or that ya know one tenth of the algebra I did at ten years old. You and me both know that, and I'm fine with that too. Ain't gonna roll over, though, no matter how many times ya try to put out yer cover story for yer great big audience of two. LOL.
[Chump]: "But, on another, somewhat related, subject… You were an only child, weren't ya?"
Even bigger LOL. Is this the same sort of stalker mentality that made ya write me an e-mail -- what was it, all of ten years back -- allegin' that I was gay? Tell ya what, chump, if y'all weren't safely squirreled away in some log cabin 4,000 miles away, I'd be callin' the cops on ya. As it is, yer just a bit of light entertainment, and a sad and salutary lesson on the combined effects of a poor education plus tellin' kids they can be great at anything.
"Ten thousand people say you're wrong…"
Even if that were true (note well the use of the subjunctive tense there; we're assuming something contrary to the known facts in order to discuss the argument anyway without having to divert to the unimportant fact that the argument happens to not be true)--that is called the ‘argumentum ad populum’ fallacy.
…allegin' that I was gay?"
That had not occurred to me. I'm not sure who you're confusing me with there; don't think I much care, either who you're confusing me with or whether or not you're gay; I'm not Catholic, so gay ain't a big deal to me so long as I don't get any extra hands laid on me (then I kinda object to it).
I think I've got the odds in my favor on the only child thing though. You're welcome to report that to the cops if ya want.
I got an idea…
Perhaps we oughta make up a new name for the ‘slingin’ bullshit all directions as ya go along’ style of argument; we can call call it the Pete Sword fallacy or ‘argumentum ad petes’.
How's that sound? You be feelin’ important now? Maybe you can calm down a little?
Enjoyin' the diversion chump? Run out of invalid non-polynomial factorisations to pull outta yer ass? Apart from 10,000 people say yer wrong, y'all can't possibly be right by yer own definition. I'll happily dwell on that for as long as ya want. LOL.
[Chump]: "that is called the ‘argumentum ad populum’ fallacy"
Hmmm. Who was it hilariously claimed that the Wikipedia procedure contained an intentional (but unmentioned) mistake and the sole bullshit justification was that "everyone knew it was wrong". Ok, ok, maybe argumentum ad populum is less apt in that case than argumentum ad insaniam.
"Who was it hilariously claimed that the Wikipedia procedure contained
an intentional (but unmentioned) mistake…"
That was you. You kept calling it a fallacy though. Mistake is what Wiki called it. Are you calling it a ‘mistake’ now?
"…and the sole bullshit justification was that "everyone knew it was wrong".
Ah, our virginal case of ‘argumentum ad petes’, random bullshit slung out on the move. Congrats.
"Let me know when you're ready. If you're never ready, not a problem
for me."
Lee C. @ Thu Jun 16, 06:18:00 am
(Is that the sound of Chumpy's favourite pastime -- furious Googlin'? :-)
And, I can wait. This has obviously got it's claws in ya. So, I can wait. Let me know when you're ready.
Ciao for now.
Ain't goin' back over all yer bullshit diversions for now. How about we just stick with yore factorisation which can't possibly be right by yore own definition. Won't help y'all with the correct factorisation, but then I gave ya that over four years ago and it still ain't sunk in. Yore factorisation is easier for me to repeat as a one-sentence bullshit stopper, and might lead ya eventually to seekin' the correct one (i.e. mine).
Reminder for the audience. Here's Lee's bullshit factorisation:
(√(ab) + b)(√(ab) - b)
That's not even a possible factorisation, let alone the correct one. LOL.
I think, given that a must equal b, or ya never get here in the first place, it'd probably be more elegant, simpler anyway, to write it as (a - b)×(b - b).
typo there, that'd be (a + b)×(b - b).
Or, maybe the plus sign should go on the other side, whadda ya think? (a + b)×(b - b).
Or? (a - b)×(b + b)…
Tell ya what… Why don't we just cut to the chase.
"Let me know when you're ready. If you're never ready, not a problem
for me."
Lee C. @ Thu Jun 16, 06:18:00 am
Ciao for now; for real.
Woohoo. Four more factorisations pulled outta yer ass (and all of 'em different from the one ya swore blind for months was correct). It's a good think ya can't do simple multiplication neither, or y'all would instantly realise none of those is a correct factorisation.
"given that a must equal b, or ya never get here in the first place"
Nope, that's y'all's classic iggerance on the subject shinin' thru once yet agin. There is a correct factorisation regardless of the values of a and b. Use x and y instead, if it helps ya ignore the irrelevant context ya can't get outta yer head.
Actually, we tried that. Ya didn't get it. Ain't never gonna get it, 'cos ya don't wanna get it. But I'll repeat it for y'all anyway, 'cos I know it annoys ya:
THE VALUES OF a and b ARE IRRELEVANT. We asked those clever folks on the interwebz. They told ya so, jes' like I did. Ciao, chumpy.
"Let me know when you're ready. If you're never ready, not a problem
for me."
Lee C. @ Thu Jun 16, 06:18:00 am
"Lee's bullshit factorisation: (√(ab) + b)(√(ab) - b)
That's not even a possible factorisation, let alone the correct one. LOL."
"That's not even a possible factorisation…"
And yet, there it is, right there on the page in front of us and written out for us by Petes, no less.
Yep, there it is. The expression that Lee says can't possibly be a valid factorisation, even though he came up with it hisself. Y'all never did value consistency, I guess.
Btw, nice music selection Lynnette. Forgot to say that, what we Lee buzzin' around like an annoying horsefly.
Am I the only one that's noticed that Petes spends a lot of time arguing with the things he says I said and spends damn little time, little as he can get by with, dealing with the things I actually say?
Just wonderin’ if it's only me that's noticed that.
"Am I the only one that's noticed ..."
Seein' as yer lyin' through yer ass, yeah, probably.
Oh, and:
"Lee's bullshit factorisation: (√(ab) + b)(√(ab) - b)
That's not even a possible factorisation, let alone the correct one. LOL."
And yet, there it is, right there on the page in front of us and written out for us by Petes, no less.
Yep. There it is. In all its bullshitty incorrectness.
I notice y'all have once more returned to playing the dopy eejit, and carefully avoiding claiming it's a correct factorisation. Y'all know it'll take me two milliseconds to post y'all's own definition of how it cannot be correct.
And once more, lest Lee try to divert attention from:
"Lee's bullshit factorisation: (√(ab) + b)(√(ab) - b)
That's not even a possible factorisation, let alone the correct one. LOL."
"That's not even a possible factorisation…
And yet, there it is, right there on the page in front of us and written out for us by Petes, no less.
[Emperor's new chump]: "And yet, there it is"
Yep. There it is. It's pure bullshit. Nothin' new about Lee spewin' bullshit.
I can write it as many times as y'all attempt to obfuscate. But just to focus yer tiny mind:
"Lee's incorrect attempt at factorisation: (√(ab) + b)(√(ab) - b)
That's not even a factorisation, let alone the correct one. LOL."
"That's not even a factorisation…"
I notice you decided to dispense with the word "possible" this time. And yet, there is still is…
I decided to not correct the typo just above so's you'd have something to rag ‘bout; you're probably at the ragging on misspellings stage, or real close. But, I do have a question…
How is it you decide to quote yourself, change the line by dropping a word, but yet you keep the quote marks? How does that happen?
"I notice you decided to dispense with the word "possible" this time."
That's right. It ain't a factorisation at all. That's what I meant by "bullshit". Since y'all are still playin' the dopy eejit, I'm spelling it out for ya. It ain't a factorisation.
"That's right…and etc."
I see.
You seem to be having a fine time arguing with yourself there. S'pose one of you gonna win at some point down the line, or you s'pect to be able to keep this goin’ forever?
Oh, and if you decide to take a break from arguing with yourself, there's still that question hangin’ out there ‘bout retaining the quote marks; I still don't get that.
"you s'pect to be able to keep this goin’ forever?"
Forever's quite a long time, but I guess I can keep it going for as long as you keep tryin' to obfuscate. Wouldn't like folks to forget that y'all been wrong all along, from the get go, for four years of self-inflicted ignorance. Speakin' of which:
"Lee's incorrect attempt at factorisation: (√(ab) + b)(√(ab) - b)
That's not even a factorisation, let alone the correct one.
The correct one's been given by Wikipedia all along. LOL."
Yeah, right…
"Let me know when you're ready. If you're never ready, not a problem
for me."
Lee C. @ Thu Jun 16, 06:18:00 am
Short of that you can roll ‘round in all the fantasies you wanna roll in. Not a problem.
And that's still how things stand.
Oh, yeah, and as we're putting this subject to bed… Let us not forget that we got here because you remembered ‘all too well’ as you told us, ‘bout how you'd published your mighty mystery maths about Einstein. That turned on ya in a second, and now you're facing a truth or dare moment on this subsequent supporting fantasy of yours and it comes right down to it, you don't dare. That's two in a row clown.
Sit there with it.
On the other hand, if ya decide to get brave…
"Let me know when you're ready. If you're never ready, not a problem
for me."
Lee C. @ Thu Jun 16, 06:18:00 am
Ahh at it again, I see. lol!
Been busy all day so I've only now managed to read a little here. That Politico article was very good, Lee.
Republicans, however, are concentrated on the need to blame "Radical Islam" and to repeat that phrase out loud at every available opportunity
Yes. From what I have read they are right, Mateen does bear more resemblance to some of the right wing crazies we have here rather than a true Islamist ideologue. He was a disturbed person bent on doing something violent and that was how he chose to act out. Tragically for all concerned.
But the article does make a good point about the problems our law enforcement people have dealing with those who would commit violent terrorist acts as the result of some internal issues they themselves are struggling with. You can't always prevent them from acting upon their thoughts, when you're not quite sure what those thoughts really are. We have always been a society who believes one is innocent until proven guilty. Or at least that is how the law reads. How do we prevent a "broken windows" scenario from happening with these kinds of crimes?
Now, I'm off to bed. Night all.
"Ahh at it again, I see. lol!"
Yes, but I believe we are very close to done. It's not going anywhere except around and around in a circle. I'm pretty sure that even two fully disinterested audience members will have figured that out by now. (Petes actually can't go anywhere unless I chase him, which I figured out earlier today, which is why we're going around and around in a circle just now, waiting for ya'll to notice the circlin’.)
The only thing left for him is one last, loud (probably loud, maybe also frantic) general disturbance of some sort, much sound and fury and dust and smoke, in which he passionately declaims his own self the undisputed king of the world and genius par excellence (or some only slightly lesser grandeousness along those lines), and me an illiterate hick. Sure as hell he ain't gonna get his courage up… So…
Other than that last bit of braying on his part, we're done.
[Chump]: "Let me know when you're ready" [followed by yet another yawn-inducing link to how a = b]
Ready for what, chumpy? To let ya know that the values of a and b are irrelevant? I did that over four years ago. Whole bunch of other people let ya know too, most recently all these people on quora.com who were asked that very specific question, plus hundreds (including maths professors) here and thousands on wikipedia.
Only thing we don't got is one single person who agrees with your laughable attempt. To wit:
"Lee's incorrect attempt at factorisation: (√(ab) + b)(√(ab) - b)
That's not even a factorisation, let alone the correct one.
The correct one's been given by Wikipedia all along. LOL."
Any chance yore gonna try to explain that one? Of course not.
To summarise for "the audience": Lee's asking to revisit something that's been explained to him dozens upon dozens of times already. Even had it not been so explained, his own alternative explanation is shown to be nonsensical by a definition Lee linked to himself. We have no other candidates for a correct explanation, since all of Lee's laughable attempts to backtrack have contained simple multiplication errors. In short: Lee has his explanation, he has no alternative, and it's time to shut up.
Oh, and Lee is no longer even trying to support any of his own explanations which have all been blown to smithereens. He's completely out of ideas on that front. He's resorted to just repeating his demand for the explanation that's already been given to him, as is his wont when cornered.
Nah, lame; he's not gonna be able to quit on that; he's just gathering up for a real outburst.
"Oh, and Lee is no longer even trying to support any of his own explanations…
I'm right; you're wrong, but you're still batshit crazy, and they're not payin’ attention.
"Nah, lame; he's not gonna be able to quit on that"
... followed by Lee not bein' able to quit on that.
That's ok. Y'all have stopped makin' any new claims. The ones ya had all got shot to shit. The lack of new claims is as close to capitulation as yore ever gonna get. I'm happy to take that as a win.
"I'm happy to take that as a win."
Nobody cares what pretenses you operate under.
Correction: nobody but you. Otherwise ya wouldn'a posted hundreds of comments makin' a fool of yerself by contradictin' what was obviously true all along. Now you've been shown to be an idiot and even you have no new claims to make. I'm happy to take that as a win.
Actually, I figured if Lynnette was actually paying attention…
But, appears not. And you make the judgment that this is about whether or not you ‘win’, by which you mean are you still able to think up bullshit to spout. Sorta long as you can keep going ya ain't lost type of thing. I don't play that game--I hammered Paul Edwards into the ground once just for the sake of doin’ it; on account of nobody else would. You ain't really a challenge; you're not even in the same league, fat boy. Your slander games with the ersatz ‘Italian’ notwithstanding--not in the same league.
I'm right; you're wrong; we both know it (somewhere inside it bothers you that you're wrong, your fantasies can't protect from that--that's why you're so angry and abusive; that's what all the name callin’s about)--but it was never about being right for you, and it was never about bein’ the last man standing with me. I done that deed on Paul Edwards; you're not even a challenge; you're not even worth lettin’ you pretend you're a challenge.
Call it a win if ya want; nobody cares; including me. I just gave it that last day to make the record clear that you couldn't go anywhere with what ya had--all you could do was circle. ‘Cause you're wrong and ya sure as hell can't go there, and there was noplace else to go. Circle, circle; done and done.
Ciao for now.
Btw, nice music selection Lynnette.
Thank you.
I listened to a number of renditions, but I liked that one the best. They did quite well for a high school choir.
Listening a bit to Putin on Fareed Zakaria's show. In response to a question about Trump he said that Russia doesn't interfere in the internal affairs of other countries...okay, seriously, ROFL!
"okay, seriously, ROFL!"
Maybe somebody's told him that his prior statements on Trump's behalf didn't go over so well with the general electorate.
Here's a piece on how Trump might win. Basically, it comes down to if ya squint real hard and indulge yourself in some of that fantasy Catholic Math that Petes keeps handy…. Oh! Wait! Petes is bettin’ on Trump ain't he? Ah, yes he, or was, last he was bettin’ out loud.
The
NYT is hypothocizing that Trump may speak on all four nights of the Republican convention, on account of a lack of other Republicans willing to take the stage in Cleveland.
That should be interesting. He'll definitely get in the last word at the convention that way--Petes would need to call that a win.
[Chump]: "blah blah blah" [for 250 words]
LOL. Such bile! I thought you said I was the one "just gathering up for a real outburst". Seems that was merely you projectin'.
"I'm right; you're wrong; we both know it"
Nope. You provided the link yourself that showed you couldn't be right. Would you like me to repost that for you, in case you can't remember your own argument? We don't need me to prove you wrong -- you did that yourself.
As for me being right ... apart from showing that 10,000 people agree with me I can't really take ya any further on that one. You're too dumb to learn, and no amount of coaching is gonna make you less intransigent anyway, which is all it was ever about for you.
I'm happy to take that as a win.
"LOL. Such bile!"
It was actually a fairly casual contempt and most folks would recognize it as such, I think. It only seemed like it was vicious to you because 1. It was true, and 2. It was aimed at you.
Hint: If ya count the characters, and especially if ya count the empty spaces as characters, ya can make it seem longer than it is. Try to remember that for next time.
"Would you like me to repost that [link] for you…?"
Yes.
And once again, I'm happy to take that as a win.
Crap! Blogger just dumped my lengthy post summarisin' Lee's inane previous links. (Don't get yer hopes up Chumpy -- I will certainly post them again).
Gotta be a quicker summary this time:
1. Lee C @ Tue Jun 14, 01:55:00 pm where Lee provides a definition of factorisation.
2. Lee C @ Thursday, May 24, 2012 where Lee provides the definition of a polynomial (but fails to read his own links).
3. Wikipedia's formal definition of a polynomial from Lee's link.
From 1: "The aim of factoring is usually to reduce ... polynomials to irreducible polynomials. ...The opposite of polynomial factorization is expansion, the multiplying together of polynomial factors to an “expanded” polynomial."
From 3: My factorisation, b(a - b), is a polynomial factorisation. 'b' is a polynomial consisting of a single monomial, while (a - b) is a bivariate polynomial. Lee's attempted factorisation, (√(ab) + b)(√(ab) - b) does not consist of polynomials at all.
As I said, Lee proved his own self wrong.
"Gotta be a quicker summary this time:"
Let us hope so. You're bein’ a dumbass, maybe on purpose, maybe it's natural.
When it gets down to specifics you can't handle the distinctions, or don't want to; either or…
Yeah, that was quicker, wasn't it?
The specifics are above for all to see. Regardless of yer bitchin', y'all have stopped makin' any new claims. The ones ya had all got shot to shit. The lack of new claims is as close to capitulation as yore ever gonna get. I'm happy to take that as a win.
"The specifics are above for all to see."
Well, at least the links to the specifics are above. And you're still worried ‘bout whether or not you ‘won’; and since I'm not even playin’ your particular game, nothin’ much has changed. To wit:
"You seem to be having a fine time arguing with yourself there.
S'pose one of you gonna win at some point down the line, or you s'pect
to be able to keep this goin’ forever?"
Lee C. @ Sat Jun 18, 09:12:00 pm, supra
Took better than a day and a half for you to beat yourself. But, perhaps congratulations are in order anyway. You might have found yourself in a standoff forever; that woulda been takin’ your crazy to a whole new level, but you managed at least to avoid that; that's gotta be worth somethin’.
" I'm not even playin’ your particular game"
Sensible move, quittin'. Y'all never stood a chance anyway.
More like it's just too crowded in your head, what with you now playin’ the part of both antagonists.
Ciao, loser.
Oh, I'm not gone. (For one thing I don't think you're really done arguing with your imaginary Lee C. -- I think I may call him iLee in the future to keep things straight. I'll have to figure on that, may be too much trouble tryin’ to keep straight who think you're addressing. Anyway, if, as I suspect, you're not done, I do wanna watch; wouldn't wanna miss the laughs.)
Bloomberg is reminding us that, in America, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than by a Muslim terrorist.
"Oh, I'm not gone."
Yep, you are. As far as makin' any new claims that haven't already been shot to shit you been gone for years.
"Oh, I'm not gone."
"Yep, you are."
See, now why would I want to miss that?
Carry on.
You might wanna cover yer eyes and stop up yer ears for the next bit, chump. Don't bother respondin'. It's not aimed at you.
Marcus and Lynnette, I will give a short demonstration of what Lee's been unable to comprehend for years. Even if you've forgotten your algebra, this requires only the most basic geometry. You don't even have to remember complicated multiplication.
You'll remember that the area of a rectangle is the result of multiplying the length of its sides. Have a look at this picture. The top rectangle has sides of length a and b and therefore has area ab.
In the lower rectangle we've taken a length of b off the long side, to make two resultant rectangles. One of them -- the shaded one -- is obviously a square of side b, with area b².
The remaining rectangle has one unchanged side of length b and one reduced side of length (a - b) (since we took length b from a). As usual, its area is the product of its sides: b(a - b). But we have another way to get the area. It's simply the original large rectangle, ab, less the shaded square, b², giving (ab - b²).
Clearly the two methods of getting the area must give the same result, so b(a - b) = (ab - b²). Now, multiplying two terms together to give a product is the reverse of factorisation. So by definition, the factors of (ab - b²) are b and (a - b). And since we haven't assigned any numerical values to a and b to make this argument, it's clear that their values make no difference to the result.
It really is that simple.
"You might wanna cover yer eyes and stop up yer ears…"
Oh hell no, that was at least as good a laugh as ‘Yep, you are.’
Well nobody expected ya to grasp elementary geometry any more than ya did elementary algebra. Woulda been a big surprise, in fact.
Yeah, right. I think I'll just do the fly on the wall thing here for awhile now.
Yep, I can see how from y'all's point of view that's a better metaphor than slinkin' off with yer tail between yer legs ;-)
You appear to be desperate for a response. Here's a response…
fly on wall → · ←
↑
Actually I'd prefer if y'all would shut the hell up and take yer beatin' like a man, but ya can't help buzzin' around like an annoyin' hornet. Here's a tip for ya: fly on the wall is supposed to be silent. Let's see how long ya can maintain it.
"Actually I'd prefer if y'all would shut the hell up…"
Silly-ass fat boy, I don't give a damn what you want.
Has anyone ever noticed that gardens take a lot of weeding? I mean, one day they look so nice and orderly, and the next it's like a jungle out there. *sigh*
So, I noticed that the US Senate has shot down another attempt at gun control. Strangely enough the one thing that Trump and Hillary actually kind of agree on. It will be interesting to see what the NRA makes of Trump's gun control noises.
It appears, last I looked, that Daesh is having trouble holding on to Fallujah (what's left of it).
But are they eyeing Bangladesh? It does seem that you stomp them out in one place and they just pop up in another. Or at least the local extremists seem to like to jump on that band wagon. Maybe they know it will garner them more publicity?
"Maybe they know it will garner them more publicity?"
And more publicity brings in more recruits, and more contributions. The local radical jihadi leader type will want to be seen as affiliated with whomever's hot at the moment.
"Silly-ass fat boy, I don't give a damn what you want."
Ooh. Consider me admonished.
Is that campy bitchin' what ya meant by "fly on the wall"?
LOL.
It's what I meant by ‘for awhile’….
I think you need to do more to get Lynnette's and Marcus’ attention. (Long as I'm in buzzing mode here, I'll offer some advice on that.)
I wasn't aware y'all had any mode apart from buzzin'. Unlike yerself I don't need to do any chest-thumpin' attention seeking. For Lynnette and Marcus sixty seconds of attention to the post at Mon Jun 20, 09:03:00 am above will have explained what y'all spent the last four years misunderstandin'.
"Unlike yerself I don't need to do any chest-thumpin' attention seeking."
I think instead that probably everybody has noticed how much, how vehemently, passionately, and especially how often you're compelled to pronounce yourself ‘the winner’ on various matters. Perhaps you think denying that compulsion is sufficient to cause people to forget what they've noticed; I suspect otherwise.
"Perhaps you think denying that compulsion is sufficient…"
And, then again, could be that's just another manifestation of your crazy bubblin’ up there.
Marco Rubio, who clearly didn't enjoy serving his first term in the Senate, has decided to run for another term in the Senate. He needs a stage to launch another Presidential campaign in 2020, and this looks to be his best bet. CNN
A sit-in?
They're staging a sit-in on the floor of the House. I kid you not.
A group of Democratic representatives are staging a sit-in in the House to protest the lack of legislation, or even holding a vote, on gun control legislation. I think I have actually found some legislators I can really be proud of.
"Unlike yerself I don't need to do any chest-thumpin' attention seeking."
What?! Here I thought you guys were just going on to pad my comments section because you felt sorry for me. *sniff* Not too many commenters here, you know.
I see I am not the only one to see a similarity between the Trump campaign and the Brexit vote in the UK.
"I thought you guys were just going on to pad my comments section…"
If that'd been the case I'd have pursued that hint he dropped about him being gay. What with him being also a preachy, puritanical type of Catholic, that'd sure draw more interest than him trying to convince people he ‘won’ some imaginary math argument long time ago that he can't even explain these days.
It looks like 6:00 PM my time for Brexit results to start coming in.
Lynnette, I am probably the only one here rooting for and hoping for Brexit (although not seriously beleiving it will pass). I can just say that I am appaled by the un-elected beaurucrats in Brussels having a real impact on peoples lives. They are IMO a waste of both money and a threat to people's will.
YOU in the USA should be very succeptible to this argument. After all, would YOU vote to give up your nations own voice and give the say-so in really important matters to some sort of world government?
"I am probably the only one here rooting for and hoping for Brexit…"
Yeah, you probably are. I'm ambivalent about it; can't figure out which side to root for. On the bright side, no matter how it comes out, a serious run at Britain exiting the E.U. should cause those ‘un-elected [bureaucrats] in Brussels’ to take notice that they're not exactly endearing themselves to the populations they supposedly serve. I said ‘should’ not will, in fact, probably won't, but we can hold out the hope.
Farage tells it like it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5wJHhfpzSA
Unfortunately I think he'll lose.
"Farage tells it like it is:"
On the few, very few, occasions where I happened to know something about some of the ‘facts’ he indulged in, he misstated those facts.
After all, would YOU vote to give up your nations own voice and give the say-so in really important matters to some sort of world government?
I suppose one might say that we did when we joined the UN, but in reality I think we might not always defer to their collective judgement on some matters.
I really think what we are seeing in the UK with this vote is similar to what we are seeing in the US with people who are supporting Trump. It is a protest against the status quo because that status quo is now leaving many people out in the cold. Should the status quo be changed? Probably. But is it necessary to make that change in such a way as to possibly upset the apple cart? I don't know who is right about the effects of a Brexit, but I do see the possibility of economic upheaval in the UK that might very well be far more unpleasant than the current status quo.
On the bright side, no matter how it comes out, a serious run at Britain exiting the E.U. should cause those ‘un-elected [bureaucrats] in Brussels’ to take notice that they're not exactly endearing themselves to the populations they supposedly serve.
One would hope the same would be true with our politicians here with the rise of Trump. But I'm not holding my breath.
"But I'm not holding my breath."
I'm expecting a bitter fight among the survivors in the various Republican factions after Trump leads them into a massacre in November. I don't expect the party to survive in its current incarnation. (Democratic Party will probably reorganize within a few years thereafter.)
It's looking like the Leave side has a slight edge right now.
Brexit won by 1.2 million votes. This is clearly the year of people giving the middle finger to the establishment. Hillary ought to take note.
So far, the pols I know who're happy with the British exit from the E.U. include Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson.
Civilians include Marcus the Swede.
This is clearly the year of people giving the middle finger to the establishment. Hillary ought to take note.
I'm hoping that she and others do. Because while I think some change on how things are done is needed, I certainly don't want it ushered in by someone like Trump.
So far, the pols I know who're happy with the British exit from the E.U. include Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson.
That in itself should tell you whether or not this is a good or bad thing.
But Putin probably shouldn't be too happy yet. Despite his animosity, and perhaps a little jealousy, of the success of the EU and the West in general, having a prosperous neighbor is better than having a poorer one.
Now I'm off to do various errands and chores...I'm going to ignore the tanking stock market.
"I'm going to ignore the tanking stock market."
That's probably a good idea; the American stock markets disconnected from the American economy some years ago. They're still tethered, somewhat, but it's no longer a direct link.
The Brits got out just in time. A new "initiative" was sneaked through by the unelected bureaocrats just the same evening as Brexit. One that not one single country in the EU would have allowed through their national parliament was shoved down our collective throats by the Brussels politburo:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/682887/EU-announces-migrant-passpost-on-EU-referendum-day
It's because of stuff like this I rooted for Brexit and havs hopes for a future Swexit.
Lee C however would probably applaud this new initiative by Brussels. Always siding with the establishent. Democracy and the will of the people seems low on his list of priorities. Would've made a fine communist, Lee C would. A loyal party member.
"Civilians include Marcus the Swede." And 16 million voting Brits. Lest you forget how this actually came to pass.
It seems that the ‘right’ of migrants to freely move around within the E.U. was already granted, but that they hadn't come up with standardized E.U. identity documents everybody recognized.
I'm not a big fan of these migrants getting the legal right to move around freely in the first place, but, given that ya'll done that anyway, I think getting some standardized documentation that's resistant to forgery is probably a good idea.
I have been wondering what's to come of that migrant camp that had established itself around the Chunnel entrance near Calais, France. I think is the French entrance. Last I heard they were still there in the thousands trying to figure out how to sneak through the tunnel to England while they waited for the Brits to give it up and let them through. The Brits having pulled the plug on E.U. membership, sneaking through the tunnel will probably be guarded against even more heavily now, and obviously the Brits ain't gonna give it up and just let ‘em pour on through. So, what're they gonna do now? Get weapons and try to force their way through?
Lee: "It seems that the ‘right’ of migrants to freely move around within the E.U. was already granted, but that they hadn't come up with standardized E.U. identity documents everybody recognized.
I'm not a big fan of these migrants getting the legal right to move around freely in the first place, but, given that ya'll done that anyway, I think getting some standardized documentation that's resistant to forgery is probably a good idea."
Ya think? I am sitting about a kilometer from Swedens main border-control, the bridge from Copenhagen to Malmö. The migrants cannot get past any longer, as of January. So the "right" to free movement has certainly been curtailed and not only here. Curtailed by decisions taken by nation states.
But what if the EU grants these passports and we are treaty bound to honor them? Then our border controls lose their purpose and our soveregnity is diminished yet again. As a result of a decision by unelected people we cannot punish by not voting for them in the future. I am no fan of that and I would have thought most Americans could actually understand that point of view.
Lee: "I have been wondering what's to come of that migrant camp that had established itself around the Chunnel entrance near Calais, France."
You mean the "refugees" "fleeing" France?
Lee: "The Brits having pulled the plug on E.U. membership, sneaking through the tunnel will probably be guarded against even more heavily now, and obviously the Brits ain't gonna give it up and just let ‘em pour on through. So, what're they gonna do now? Get weapons and try to force their way through?"
I actually don't see much changing. That path was already well guarded and the Brits will not have to change much. The migrants will likely keep at it with attempts. It's not like the lack of an EU membership will in itself mean Britain will become less attractive. Other measures might be taken that might have that effect, but the ritain being in or out of the EU will not change much. I don't see them attempting an armed assault. It would be impossible and counter productive and dangerous, and I don't think they'd be that foolish.
BTW, I know you're no fan of Trump and I understand you think Putin is a brutish thug, but what's your beef with Boris Johnson? He seems a decent enough guy to me. Maybe a bit of a maverick but not a bad person or politician.
It seems that some of the possible consequences are sinking in with a Brexit vote and people are starting to wonder what they have done.
As a result of a decision by unelected people we cannot punish by not voting for them in the future. I am no fan of that and I would have thought most Americans could actually understand that point of view.
Perhaps I am having trouble since I don't really have any knowledge of how the EU is structured pertaining to how rules and regulations are passed. Does not each member state have a say in that? How on earth could anyone just turn over all control to people who may not be from their own country without requiring that every member has a say, or some recourse, if they disagree with policy? How are the people who sit in decision making positions chosen, if not by member votes?
Yeah, some people. Lynnette, the Brexit side won with over 1.2 million votes. In the whole 16+ million who voted to leave you're obviously gonna be able to find a few who have second thoughts if you look hard enough. Will you find 1.2 million of them? Not likely.
Frankly dragging out one or two who publicly admit they were so ill informed they change their mind after just one day looks like just bad losers to me. At least Cameron had the spine to accept the loss with dignity and respect the peoples choice. The bad losers in left wing media - not so much.
Lynnette: "Does not each member state have a say in that? How on earth could anyone just turn over all control to people who may not be from their own country without requiring that every member has a say, or some recourse, if they disagree with policy?"
A good question indeed. How could it happen? The EU has gradually and over a long period of time been grabbing power whenever it could. This current example with an EU passport for refugees is a perfect example. It just pops up and becomes law without ANY debate or forewarnings. I hadn't even heard it mentiioned a week ago. As I said I am convinced not one single national parliament could get away with this because they know they would likely be voted out of office and they know for sure they couldn't defend the idea to the people they represent. And yet there it is.
The whole system is rotten, which is why I want out of it. I was previously of the opinion that the general idea of the EU was sound but that it needed reform. Now I my level of trust is so low I don't believe in reform any longer. I want it torn apart and broken down. So obviously I celebrate Brexit and think the good people of Britain did the whole continent a solid favour.
"The migrants cannot get past any longer, as of January."
What changed in January?
Border controls were put up by the Social Democratic led government after the migrant crisis late last year got so severe (2K migrants per day) it almost broke the society. From Europe's laxest immigration policy to one of its toughest in a matter of weeks.
We tend to call that a "conversion under the gallows" and I am still pissed off at the folks who for so long ignored or demonised those who warned we were heading for a catastrophic situation, only to come around and still demonise us while they implement the policies we asked for. The hypocracy is quite unreal.
"It just pops up and becomes law without ANY debate or forewarnings.
I hadn't even heard it mentiioned a week ago."
It appears that Marcus likewise doesn't ‘really have any knowledge of how the EU is structured pertaining to how rules and regulations are passed.’ This proposal has yet to be adopted. "To enter into force, this informal deal needs to be formally endorsed by the full [European] Parliament and the Council of Ministers."
(I noticed on the upper right hand side that Marcus' source here was also reporting an actual Elvis sighting; the real live Elvis is apparently working undercover as a groundskeeper at Graceland in Memphis.)
"…but what's your beef with Boris Johnson?"
What little I know about Mr. Johnson suggests his allegiance to the truth is no more well developed than is that of Trump nor Nigel Farage.
I resisted any temptation to go back and google this, just working offa memory here…
As I understood it, the countries which started throwing up border barriers to immigrants (starting with Hungary and going on to Sweden eventually) claimed a right to do that in contravention of the ‘Schengen’ agreement on account of a claim of national emergency. Those claims remain outstanding, unadjudicated.
Standardized E.U. documents for the migrants will not decide that issue.
Marcus is merely indulging in hysterics.
So YOU say. I have seen the opposite with my own two eyes. How "EU law" permitts responsible legislation oon the home front. Much as "UN resolutions" do in some cases.
F-ck it. Ya'll in the USA take a couple of couples of million muslim or african refugees then. Why dontcha? You seem so hellbent on Europe doing so should be a goood thing so why don't you put your money where your mouth is and lead by example?
Lee: "Standardized E.U. documents for the migrants will not decide that issue."
So YOU say. We have border controls in place right now. Way too late but we have 'em.
But IF migrants suddenly turn up with some sort of EU migrant passport that enables said migrants a free ride cross any EU border, then what?
YOU might think that we'll just keep our border controls. I, with on sight experience, will suspect a new refugee stream that we "cannot stop" due to "international agreements". Heard it all before.
Lee: "What little I know about Mr. Johnson suggests his allegiance to the truth is no more well developed than is that of Trump nor Nigel Farage."
Not content with pissing on Boris Johnson without any actual argument as to what he's done wrong, now you try to piss on Farage as well. A decent man who aims above all else to let the people he represents have their say. (Something that clearly doesn't sit well with Communist minded Lee C - politburea diehard)
Farage might possibly be the fourth best politician in Europe after Victor Orban, Beata Szydło and Bohuslav Sobotka. Well, that's just mentioning sitting prime ministers. Marine Le Pen deserves a mentioning too since she's the future president of France and a wonderful woman and an exceptionally talented politician. Pia Kjearsgard in denmark isn't all that bad either, nor Siv Jensen in Norway. Lots of wonderfully talented conservative and nationalistic women around.
"You seem so hellbent on Europe doing so…"
More hysterics. You'll be unable to find anything I've written that suggests that Europe ought to be taking in Muslim refugees by the millions, or even by the thousands. Never happened. I've never been in favor of taking in refugees in bulk.
I can see, before my minds eye, an image of Lee C in a court at the Red Square condenmning dissidents and having them thrown down into the dungeons beneath Lublyanka because they "thought wrong" according to the Party consensus.
Not doin' the actual torturing or executions himself. But as a stalwarth mid level member of the establishment permitting it to happening. No protests from Lee C - the agent for any higher auuthority.
It's been a long time since I ran across anybody who thought that claiming I was a commie was a valid argument. Marcus is going old time hysterical on us.
Tell me Marcus, where do ya stand on that Elvis sighting reported in your prior source?
Commie is just a label Lee. Obviously it all started with a protest against private ownership. But it did evolve into a whole lot more. And that's where you come in.
You're the kind of everytime-rooting-for-the-etsblishent that has the gall to speak against such a thing as Brexit. That's always on the NATO ticket That supports out of principle everything that your State Department or Pentagon comes up with. And who would support the more establishment minded candidate in your own elections just because.
It's actually quite tragic. Because you do obviously have a thinking mind but you limit yourself so much it isn't functioning.
Lee: "Tell me Marcus, where do ya stand on that Elvis sighting reported in your prior source?"
Another f-ing dumb question. What does it matter? Does it have ANY bearing on the EU-legislation mentioned in the article I linked to?
Either that EU-legislation is non existent, a lie, or it is true. I have no reason to believe it's a lie. I think it's true. So far. If evidence to the contrary reaches me I will obviously change my mind. But I will NOT change my mind based on an unrelated article from that same source.
Lee: "What little I know about Mr. Johnson suggests his allegiance to the truth is no more well developed than is that of Trump nor Nigel Farage."
What little (nah, quite a lot) I know of Hillary Clinton suggests her allegiance to the truth is nil.
Here's a speach from Orban in Hungary (who Pete sees as a fascist but who is probably the greatest man in Europe right now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbINrdyAXlE
What can you actually say you disagree with?
An even better speach and traslated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63538O0h4oA
Forza Hungaruy!
Pete's not the only one who thinks he's a raving fascist.
"…gall to speak against such a thing as Brexit."
I didn't actually take a positon on that; wrote that I was ambivalent at best on the subject. What I spoke against was Nigel Farage lying about the few things I actually did know to be facts in that YouTube you posted.
"What does it matter?"
If your source is reporting Elvis sightings, you probably need a new source.
"What little (nah, quite a lot) I know of Hillary Clinton suggests her
allegiance to the truth is nil."
That doesn't improve Mr. Johnson's reputation for veracity. (You've attacked Hillary on this point before, apparently being of the opinion that if you attack her on this point then I must adopt a contrary postition. Hasn't worked yet; ain't likely it's gonna work in the future.)
Actually, Marcus, it was I who supported the Remain side in the Brexit vote, not Lee.
Just for the record; I am, in fact, philosophically a firm free market capitalist type of the old school (Adam Smith type). Not a commie.
That doesn't mean I'm one of the neo-capitalist types, the corporate capitalists of today's right-wing political parties who seem to think that a market captured by a cabal of financial manipulators is somehow ‘free’ because it's captured by non-governmental powers who're then left unregulated and unmolested by government.
Post a Comment