You realize that after he made that passionate speech saying he would not vote for the bill that brought him back to Washington, McCain did vote for the Senate's first try at a ‘repeal and replace’ bill, do you not?
It was still a good speech. That he voted to begin debate on the bill is not inconsistent with the content of his remarks. We need to discuss, and find compromise, to fix our healthcare problem.
Now, if he does actually vote for the "skinny" bill or any other version that would cause so many people to lose health care or long term care coverage than I will most definitely be disappointed in Mr. McCain. And I will update the post.
He did more than vote to begin debate. He voted for McConnell's first version of ‘repeal and replace’ (although he voted against the second version--the ‘repeal and delay’ version).
Yes, it looks like you are correct. That makes his remarks in his speech about not voting for a repeal and replace bill that didn't include things that the Governor of AZ wants confusing.
Just as a matter of curiosity, did you ever think that Trump & Co. would be this bad? I mean to the extent that they have shown little real caring about the American people in general?
If Pence has been brought down to tie-break then McConnell thinks it's gonna be closer than I was expecting it to be. (I thought it'd go down to defeat by four or five votes--probably one of them being McCain.)
I thought he'd have kicked off the first stages of a recession by now.
It has been said that the US economy is like an aircraft carrier, slow to turn. We are probably still seeing the effect of policies put in place by the previous administration.
But give him time, he may yet pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Just a passing thought. Some of my two international readers have pointed out that we seem to focus a lot on what is happening with Trump and our domestic politics. But really what is going on here has an effect on them and others in the world. Not just because of possible changes in policy but because I believe we are seeing a real attempt to curtail the liberty and equality that has been a goal of our country ever since its founding. While I don't believe that we have always acted as perfectly as McCain implied in his speech, I do believe that we have had a balancing effect against some of the bad that is in this world. That is why what is happening here with Trump & his minions is something that needs to be addressed as something of extreme importance.
"We are probably still seeing the effect of policies put in place by the previous administration."
Definitely, for instance, we are still working under an Obama signed federal budget. Takes at least a year for a new administration's policies to kick in. (However, preliminary, anticipatory movement can occur prior to that year.)
"But give him time, he may yet pull defeat out of the jaws of victory."
I'm certainly not rooting for a recession, but I did fear we'd be in the first stages of one by now. Oddly enough, like the dedicated Trumpkins who convinced themselves that Trump was ‘just talk’ when said things they didn't like, but was telling the truth when he said things they did like, the movers and shakers of the economy seem to have been seeing and hearing what they wanted to see and hear these first several months. Reality will eventually catch up with them, always does (folks are starting to notice that Trump's no genius dealmaker for instance and the dedicated Trumpkins are learning to make excuses for him on that score, for just one example).
[Lynnette]: "Why is it that some article's I link to I can do a copy/paste of part of the content and some I can't? For some reason this one I can't."
It's a bit convoluted. The HTML element you were trying to select was a new-fangled HTML5 figcaption element. It was embedded in a figure element, the entirety of which was set up as a hyperlink using an anchor tag. Therefore the browser changes to a hand cursor (or equivalent) when you hover over it. Usually with links you can click somewhere outside the link and drag over the part you want to select as text. But it seems the browser wants to treat the figure element as a single block, so you end up only being able to select all or nothing.
[Chumpy]: "unlike our very own Petes, I'm entirely uneducated on these matters, what little I know I've discovered by myself"
LOL. Funny how -- when it suited ya -- y'all discounted the formal education in maths and physics that I do have, but now credit me with an education in computing which I don't have. :-)
You seem to equate ‘formal education’ with the college classes you did take. I suppose that is a common definition. I did not, however, presume to label it a ‘formal’ education under that definition (or any other definition for that matter). I was actually referencing your claimed expertise in programming. I have no idea whether you took college classes for that or acquired your education elsewhere, nor did I pretend to know that.
[Lynnette]: "I believe we are seeing a real attempt to curtail the liberty and equality that has been a goal of our country ever since its founding."
Could you give some examples? I presume Obamacare can't be an example, because even if you believe in affordable health care (and I do) it is of too recent vintage to count as "a goal of your country ever since its founding".
Btw, I'm surprise nobody's mentioned Anthony Scaramucci yet. He's not even in place a wet week as White House communications director and he already sounds like a lowlife scumbag. I imagine he will soon feature quite a lot alongside Trump in media hit pieces. Unfortunately, he seems to be doing his damnedest to make sure any negative reputation is deserved.
In a move with which I am not familiar, the Pakistani Supreme Court has ousted Pakistan's Prime Minister (and Finance Minister) on corruption charges. Reuters An unstable place just got more unstable.
"I was actually referencing your claimed expertise in programming."
As it happens, I do have a formal education in programming. But it dates from before web browsers (or the web) existed, so not very useful in diagnosing Lynnette's problem (which has nothing much to do with programming anyway).
This is Sharif's third time in power in Pakistan and he's never managed to complete a term. First time round he got fired on corruption charges too, second time he was deposed and exiled by his own pick for army chief, now he's gone again. Pakistan is one of the politically rottenest countries on the planet. The US is right to tread carefully in its alliance with them.
"I do have some basic education in math and physics though, and seem to be more than a match for you on those subjects."
LOL. Pity it ended around age six, judgin' by the acumen y'all displayed in algebra. Also, ya should've taken a supplementary short course in common sense -- when ten thousand people on the interwebs say yer wrong, yer probably wrong.
It seems that McConnell is following Shorthands' lead and is gonna try to pin the blame for the Republican failure to repeal it on the Democrats. link This will work with the dedicated Trumpkins. They're rapidly changing stance from the idea that Shorthands was gonna break the ‘Establishment’. The idea now is that it's the fault of the ‘Establishment’ that Trump can't get anything done. Seems the ‘Deep State’ is resisting him--evildoers that they are. Surprise! (How could then not have anticipated that would happen?)
"First time round he got fired on corruption charges too…"
By the Pakistani President (who's probably equally corrupt), not by the Supreme Court. In fact the Supreme Court held that the dismissal by the President was improper in that case, but political realities on the ground meant that Sharif did not get reinstated.
"We have not had 10,000 people weigh in on our disagreement."
Au contraire, the point on which you decided to stall the argument was documented on a Wikipedia page which has been visited nearly a quarter of a million times in total, and two hundred times daily on average. It's had 41 different editors and 154 people who watch every edit. Not one of them aver spotted the fallacy that you imagined was in there. Neither did any of the 300 contributors to the Quora question I raised on yer behalf. When so many people have to be wrong for y'all to be right, I reckon argumentum ad numerum* must be strongly considered.
* Nope, it's not numerium -- only mentionin' that seein' as y'all have stated ya expect me to police yore typos.
"That's because I did not imagine ‘the fallacy’ to which you're referring."
The ‘because’ part of that is a best guess. That I did not imagine up ‘the fallacy’ Petes has now imaged up for me to hold for him, he shoots at his strawman argument is a fact.
North Korea has fired another missile towards Japan. Probably an ICBM capable of hitting Alaska at least, maybe even further south. Kim appears to think that Shorthands isn't paying him enough attention.
Obama was often cautious about the use of American military power. I generally found him to be too easy to sway towards intervention and then reluctant to stick it out. Trump, however is ignorant of both the relevant politics and the military factors. If he manages to guess one of his foreign interventions correctly it'll be almost entirely by accident. But, accidents can happen.
"If there is a solution to the current migration crisis, it lies in sealing the EU’s external borders and establishing a system to screen migrants outside Europe." CarnegieEurope (emphasis added)
As I've said before; it's too late to try to keep them out after they're already in. One would think this would be fairly obvious, but I've had trouble getting the distinction across to Marcus, who seems to think the proper solution is to discriminate against the newcomers after they've been let in.
"The company behind the Keystone XL pipeline has not yet determined whether there is enough demand for the project to justify actually building it, a top executive said today. " *** The company says it remains confident in the project. But it has been struggling to find enough customers…." Politico.com
Perhaps a leading indicator for Shorthands' popularity going forward: I noticed that The Boy Scouts of America apologized to their membership (and their families) for Shorthands' speech at the National Boy Scouts' Jamboree. Now his speech earlier today (given in Suffolk County New York) on the occasion of the ‘National Peace Officers' Memorial Service’ has drawn rebukes from police groups across the nation, including the Suffolk County Police.
[Lynnette]: "I believe we are seeing a real attempt to curtail the liberty and equality that has been a goal of our country ever since its founding."
[Petes]: "Could you give some examples?"
The first and most obvious would be the President's tweets. While people may argue that his tweeting is simply free speech the contents of some of those tweets are a blatant attack on those who disagree with him. Now most people who are attacked like that on the internet will probably shrug it off, but when those attacks are directed from the President of the United States they can have a very chilling effect on dissent, which is a little more ominous. People do have a right to disagree with him.
I believe that a society which really wants so strive for equality will make every attempt to care for those who cannot care for themselves. There is a certain human dignity that all have a right to. With the proposed budget under the Trump administration there are deep cuts to programs that have always acted as a safety net. While I understand that balancing the budget, or at least making a dent in our debt, is very important, doing so on the backs of the poor, the elderly, or the disabled is not the right way to go about it. This is an extension of the health care issue.
There also appears to be some kind of concerted effort to stifle dissent within agencies of the government. Granted, Trump has a right enforce his policies, but that does not mean arm twisting or threatening those in opposition.
As Senator McCain pointed out in his speech, which I linked to in my post, the US Senate is, or has tried to be as set forth in the US Constitution, a deliberative governmental body with powers that are equal to the Executive branch. It is part of our checks and balances to prevent a dictatorship. Threats against any member for not voting a certain way should be viewed with concern, if not outright disgust.
As everyone knows management tends to set the tone for how a company is run. To a certain extent that goes for a government. If you have a bigoted, or antagonistic commander in chief, you may find that there are those who will follow his/her lead. So you get incidents like this. This also explains the concern of some of those who have been on the receiving end of some of Trump's recent speeches, such as the one Lee referred to in Suffolk County. Not to be "too nice" to suspects, in Trump's words, is to give a green light to those who may act upon their duties a little too "strenuously". Not exactly a good idea in a country where equality is a dream. As you have noted before, Petes, we seem to already have a problem with some police behavior.
At the heart of a democracy is the right to vote. Those who may seek to meddle, shall we say, with that right are always to be questioned, even if they are the government.
I have nothing but admiration for those who stand up to bullying, like I believe Senators Collins, McCain, & Murkowsky did when they rejected a bill that would have been a bad choice for the American people. They are the true patriots here today.
The North Koreans claim to have issued a ‘stern warning’ to the United States with their latest missile launch. NBCNews Nevertheless, Shorthands has still not noticed them. Today's Trumptweets are instead all about how the Senate should abandon the filibuster rule entirely and go to a simple majority vote. (Shorthands doesn't seem to notice that they'd gotten around the filibuster rule for his ‘repeal and whatever comes’ vote on ObamaCare, and he couldn't even get a simple majority behind the plan.) Also a brief denial that the Russians were trying to get him elected (he's about the only person in government who still claims to believe that, although Sean Hannity will back ‘im up on it.)
Personally, I'm thinking that it it ever comes time ‘for Lil' Kim to get vaporised’ Shorthands is more likely to administer a sound tweeting instead.
Personally, I'm thinking that it it ever comes time ‘for Lil' Kim to get vaporised’ Shorthands is more likely to administer a sound tweeting instead.
Tweeting his displeasure does seem to be his MO. Perhaps that is not such a bad thing in the case of North Korea. While the missile launches happening now are of concern, yes, initiating some kind of military action at this time may not be the wisest course. I am rather curious, though, that the North Koreans are suddenly having such great success.
"I am rather curious, though, that the North Koreans are suddenly having such great success."
They've been demonstrating work on rocket technology here lately, not miniaturization of fission bombs. It may be an easier subject given their general level of technology.
"The first and most obvious would be the President's tweets."
And then there are the attempts to derail the investigations into Russian tampering with our last election, and whether persons in his campaign were working in collusion with the Russians. Independence of the Department of Justice from political pressure is an important norm of American politics and justice. Mentioning his tweets may have been meant to cover this too, but it's important enough to bear specific mention. It's called ‘obstruction of justice’ and it was an element all three impeachments in America's history (including the one Nixon averted by resigning before they had to vote on it).
"And then there are the attempts to derail the investigations into Russian tampering with our last election…"
Ya know, now that I look at that I realize I should have also mentioned the threats to reopen criminal investigations against Hillary Clinton, ‘cause there's more to it than just trying to keep Justice off the backs of himself and his campaign. There's the threats to use the Justice Department against his political opponents that's part of the same problem. The American notion of liberty and equality depends on equal justice before the law, on the idea that the same laws apply to everybody. Too often we fall short of that ideal. But Trump just trashes the ideal entirely and very publicly; he makes the law the servant of The Leader. It's one of the worst things he's done in office. It's a true danger to the Republic, as Trump himself is not. Sally Yates in the New York Times
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Now, back to what brought me back here… Mid-morning Shorthands found his Twitter again and he's now publicly threatening to hold back the monthly ObamaCare subsidy payments. Trumptweets I'm not sure how long he's got to decide before the September payments are due to be made (the deadline to cut off the August payments has passed).
The NK retaliatory thread is mainly conventional, yet, They cant respond with nukes against even Japan, not close to being able to nuke the US. they might could go nuclear against their southeen neighbors, not certain.
But what is certain is they could reduce Seoul to rubbles by conventional means. Thats their main threat against any attack.
The South Koreans would be just as dead from conventional weapons, probably several hundred thousand just from the first bombardment of Seoul. Dead is dead; whether or not it was nukes don't change that.
Well, it appears that the North Koreans did finally get Shorthands' attention, and he did administer a sound tweeting in response, but to the Chinese rather than to the North Koreans.
Independence of the Department of Justice from political pressure is an important norm of American politics and justice. Mentioning his tweets may have been meant to cover this too, but it's important enough to bear specific mention. It's called ‘obstruction of justice’ and it was an element all three impeachments in America's history (including the one Nixon averted by resigning before they had to vote on it).
Yes, you are right. I probably should have placed that as a separate link under the "stifling of dissent" in governmental agencies too. His browbeating of judges in his tweets or remarks elsewhere is a disturbing part of the pattern. And given that the judicial branch is another check to a dictatorship it is very important.
As unsettling as the advance of North Korean missile technology is, I just can't get as worried about that as I do other things out there. I do not really believe that the North Koreans are ready to go to war with the US, which is what an attack on us or South Korea would result in. China would not be able to protect them. Even his Orangeness would have to respond in kind.
I see from the conservative Op-Eds that they're beginning to notice that Shorthands' refers to other Republicans as ‘they’ and ‘them’, as in ‘they look like fools’. And, I recall that the now discharged Reince Priebus was originally considered Shorthands' emissary to the Republican ‘Establishment’ in Congress.
I believe the honeymoon may be over. (Yeah, I know, they say Shorthands' didn't get a honeymoon period, but I think that's wrong--I think he was on his honeymoon period before, folks just didn't recognize it as such, but it's about over, and now his relationship with the Republicans in Congress is gonna begin to go downhill.)
You might be right. I am sensing some disaffection setting in. I don't think Trump's treatment of Sessions set well in some quarters. There are also hints that for those running in the 2018 elections distancing themselves from Trump may be a popular tactic. The one thing that would add proof to this theory is if the Republicans in Congress actually start to work with Democrats. A long shot, I know, but one can dream.
[Petes]: "Just out of curiosity, how do you know what fallacy I'm referring to?"
[Chumpy]: "I have a good memory and this is not the first time you've suffered this particular fantasy attack."
LOL. Fortunately the Internet doesn't forget, unlike yerself. There's nearly 400 responses to this question, every one of which disagrees with you. There's even a comment buried in there somewhere from YOU ... trying to make the case that the fallacy appeared somewhere other than the place that 99% of respondents said it did. Then there's the tens of thousands of people who have viewed the Wikipedia page that contains the same fallacy. Not one of them has apparently spotted the mistake that YOU imagined was there.
I realise, of course, that yer delusion can never be cured on account of it doesn't suit ya for it to be cured. But it's fun to remind ya every now 'n' again.
[Lynnette]: "I believe we are seeing a real attempt to curtail the liberty and equality that has been a goal of our country ever since its founding." etc.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a considered answer. I don't agree with all of it. For instance, the level of burden sharing through taxation is a balance that political opposites will always disagree on. Just as I think extreme Republicans who portray all taxation as a socialist plot to redistribute income are being outlandish, I think it is excessive to accuse those in favour of tighter spending rules of trying to curtail liberty and equality. That sort of language is polarising and ignores that there are different visions of the role of society.
I do agree with you that Trump's online behaviour is unpresidential to say the least. The guy is an oaf. I shudder to think what the new sleazeball, Mooch, will bring to White House communications. Only thing for certain is that SNL will have a field day ;-)
"There's even a comment buried in there somewhere from YOU…"
No, there's not. (That whole paragraph appears to be an extended Petes fantasy. I see no reason to specifically deny more than just the most egregious example.)
He was always figured to merely be a useful tool to them, as a signing party to the bills they wanted to pass. They never figured to have to accommodate him. Problem is they can't agree on what to pass; the Republican Party is in disarray internally (else he'd never have gotten the nomination in the first place). And, it turns out he's no help in getting bills passed, and they need the help; they need a leader; they got Trump instead. If they can't pass stuff for him to sign, then he's of no use to them.
I noticed that Shorthands has told reporters that he ‘swore in’ John Kelly as his new chief of staff. I don't think that's an official office requiring an oath of office. (It's a discretionary hire by White House--not every President has bothered to have a chief of staff.) I'll be interested in finding out what Kelly swore to.
Back from wonderful Prague. Exited the train station in Malmö only to be met with begging gypsies, cloaked women and lingering africans. How we have fallen...
By the end of the century, the global temperature is likely to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
This rise in temperature is the ominous conclusion reached by two different studies using entirely different methods published in the journal Nature Climate Change on Monday.
"By the end of the century, the global temperature is likely to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius…"
And that's even if we somehow managed to quit spewing fossil fueled carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which ain't likely.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Folks are making a big deal about John Kelly's ascension to the position of chief of staff at the White House, and his sacking of Anthony Scaramucci. I think folks may be making too much of that. Scaramucci proved himself a potential rival for the limelight. This is an unforgivable sin in Trumplandia. Kelly didn't get Shorthands to do anything he didn't already want to do. Kelly merely gave him an excuse. Furthermore, if Kelly is capable of imposing some discipline on the White House (and on Trump) then Kelly will win praise from the rest of the Republican Party. Trump does not share the limelight. Success by Kelly will cause alienation and backlash from Trump. No one is allowed to win except Trump. So, if Kelly comes to be seen as a successful chief of staff, then Trump will have to get rid of him.
TrumpTweets: After months of alleging that the media wanted him to quit tweeting, Shorthands has expanded the list of evil folks who want to take his twitter away to include unspecified ‘Trump enemies’.
A warning to his new chief of staff perhaps? "Don't go there."
Or maybe a shot at the Republicans in Congress who've been publicly saying that the tweeting's gotta stop?
Given all the ex-generals now populating Castle Trump, I'm beginning to worry that Shorthands might talk himself into starting a war in the Far East without anybody around to talk him out of it. What's the chances they're gonna be fully up to speed on non-military alternatives?
What's the chances they're gonna be fully up to speed on non-military alternatives?
I don't know about that, but I do think at least Mattis is trying to keep heads cool. He did warn that war with North Korea would be extraordinarily difficult.
One poll, one time. Rasmussen will come in higher. He's still at 38% in the RCP averages. If he's at 33% in that average in a week or 10 days it'll mean there's been real movement.
(It was the failure of the ‘repeal and whatever’ that lead to the drop. He's lucky. Success in that effort would have lead to an even greater drop. Back during the last presidential election there were several articles which explored the phenomena of the dedicated Trumpkins who believed Trump when he said things they wanted to hear, and dismissed as ‘just talk’ the things he said that they didn't want to hear. Trump usually managed to promise to be on both sides of every issue, so this allowed dedicated Trumpkins who didn't agree with each other to both pretend that Trump agreed with them against the other one. Unfortunately for Trump (and for some of them), now that he's the President he can't effectively take both sides of a question. (He tried to take all possible sides with the ‘repeal and whatever’ push for ObamaCare, but that didn't work out to well for him; additional efforts in that vein aren't gonna work out any better). Now, no matter which side he takes, he's gonna start losing support from previously dedicated Trumpkins who convinced themselves that this particular position statement was ‘just talk’ which they could safely ignore, and that they could instead rely on what he said when he said the exact opposite of the position he's now gonna be taking as President.)
"Washington (CNN)More than half of young Syrian refugees don't plan to return home permanently unless the war in their country comes to an end and ISIS is eliminated.
That's according to the ninth annual Burson-Marsteller Arab Youth Survey, which looks at the hopes, concerns and goals of young Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon.
Only 7% said that President Bashar al-Assad would have to be pushed from power for them to return."
A good thing the US got Trump elected who at least tries to direct the fighting against ISIS, instead of Hillary who would have increased Obama's arming of jihadists and escalated the conflict against Russia and Assad instead.
"More than half of young Syrian refugees don't plan to return home permanently unless…" Marcus ↑↑
"In total, 18,007 Syrian refugees were resettled in the United States between October 1, 2011 and December 31, 2016."
Figure maybe 25% of those 18,000 Syrians qualify as ‘young Syrians’ according to whatever definition they used. Figure half those don't wanna go home unless Da‘esh is removed. We're talkin’ maybe 2,300 Syrians integrating into a population of more than 310 million people.
I don't think that's a significant enough number to make it ‘A good thing the US got Trump elected…."
What are you blabberin' bout now Lee? Syrian refugees to the US it seems - them 18K. That's what you're blabberin' bout? No connection at all to what I posted so why quote me with regards to that?
I bet among them 18K a clear majority would choose to stay on in the US, probably 90% plus, regardless of ISIS or Assad.
But in my aqtual quote you might have, if you had actually read it, noticed this part:
"young Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon."
Meaning the figures are for the ones living in neighboring countries. Not those few lucky ones who made it to the USA, or into western Europe for that matter.
We weren't talking 'bout the few and lucky economic migrants here, we were talking about the actual refugees in the vincinity of Syria - the bulk of those displaced. And they seem to fear ISIS way more than Assad.
"Bit of a clanger from some Scandinavian rightwingers ;-)"
It's quite comical and I really can't see how people honestly thought them there empty bus seats were burka-clad ladies. Some of em' might be just trolling, but yeah, there probably are those who jump on the bandwagon because they see what they want to not want to see.
You're right; I overlooked that part. Makes your connection to the election of Trump entirely specious. (He's basically letting his generals pursue what would have been Hillary's policy vis-á-vis Assad, but without any strategy behind it, just inertia without an exit plan.)
That's what YOU say. He has tried his damnedest to work with Russia in Syria. He has said over and over again that ISIS is the ones he would like to see shut down. He ordered the CIA to stop arming the "moderate" (Meaning al qaeda) terrorists Obama armed.
He at least tried.
But what we have to consider is not only what Trump actually has accomplished, but what MIGHT have been the case if the mad cow in chief Hillary had been elected instead.
Then it would probably been a resurgent ISIS, because of weapons Hillary supplied not ISIS but Nusra (basically Al Queada), et.al, (which would end up with ISIS sooner or later) and focus on getting rid of Assad and a severely more hostile approach to anything with regards to Russia.
Thank GOD for Trump! He at least tries to fight back against an insane and corrupt deep state.
An organisation funded by (who else?) George Soros, has been in contact with human trafficers in Libya only to get pickup-locations in the Med to bring as many africans as possible into the EU.
And no, them on the boats aren't women, or children, or the elderly, or fleeing the "brutal war in Syria", they are 20-30 YO african men looking for better economic opportunities in Europe.
Even during the "gas baby meme" and the "drowned baby meme" the MSM pushed in 2015 the actual Syrians were a mere 15% of the actual flood of "refugees" into Europe.
You relly ought to ask yourselves why the media is so dishonest about this.
That the feelings of 1800 Syrians relocated to the USA are more important than the millions dislocated in the vincinity?
What do you stand by Lee, on this issue? And what's your opinion? (and I do know you can't really voice an opinion until you get your talking points from WaPo or wherever, but at least try Lee)
Not quite as brave, but almost as brave, as when y'all wrecked Iraq for no real reason.
How fucking proud you must feel, taking part in all that bravery. I bet Lynnettes tomatoes grow redder and fuller, Lee's inate tirades down at the local dines somehow seems important, and all in all it's just red, white an' blue for ya'll.
Lynnette, I bet that 10 iraqi children burnt to death by white phospousous in Fallujah and then 5 Eritreans trying to get better economic prospects but posing as "syrian refugees", that really gives you a solid and a god night's sleep. Right Lynnette?
1. I do not want to kill people in other nations. No forcing interventions at all unless by necessity.
2. If arabs in arabia choose to have customs we in the west don't agree with, then let them, as long as they stay where they are. Let the evolve or devolve as they themselves see fit.
3. No large movments of people, migration, emmigration or whatnot. The Globe is FULL, and more people is not a real benefit in any area (although it might be a short term economic benefit). We do not need more people. Period.
By the way, even Rasmussen Reports (who seem to consider it their job to prove Trump is popular, if evidence for such a finding can possibly be found or prepared) now show Trump down below a 40% approval rating, even Rasmussen (Trump's still holding at 38% on the RCP averages though; what'll matter is if that holds up through the coming week).
Lynnette: "I wonder, would you say that if the roles were reversed? If, say, Europe became uninhabitable?"
Seeing as only 85% of the "refugees" during the worst crisis in the fall of 2015 were actually from Syria, and the rest were economic migrants looking for a better life in other people's countries - I can't really take your question seriously.
Today even LESS of the "refugees" are from war torn areas. But even more are from Africa and driven by pure economics.
And, mind you, I don't fault any african who sees an opportunity and heads north. I fault OUR leaders for not stopping this. As it is perfectly clear, with the trajectories of population growth, that this will NOT stop, NOT dwindle, but ONLY increase for each and every year until societal, maybe even planetary, collapse.
You, Lynnette, are a cruel person in that you let your "feels", without any logical thought whatsoever, dictate your opinion, leading to maybe our species collapse due to over population and resource depletion.
You, and your ilk, damn future generations and do so only because of feel-good insanity.
Had just a couple drinks last night, never got intoxicated, but NOW IT'S FRIDAY so bring it bitch!
Nah, but seriously, ya'll are just so boring these days that tuning in sober seems more a chore than a passing of time.
That YOU don't get tired of scanning the Internet for every MSM tidbit negative of Trump and then posting it here only to get inane praise from Lynnette is beyond belief sad. YOU should seriously consider taking up drinking as a hobby, Lee.
"Had just a couple drinks last night, never got intoxicated…"
The first assertion indicates you don't hold your liquor all that well. The second one seems contradicted by that string of non sequiturs from last night.
What, from last evening, was so bad though? Cause' I've read it all again and it seems good enough to me. Maybe some Ad Hominem attacks, but I actually think they were not that un-called for. In the format of a comment section to a blog you can't expect every post to be civil. I just try to stay inside the boundaries. So far, not banned.
And I do hold my liqour well, Lee. Just sometimes (too often, I know, I am aware) I hold a bit too much of it and at those times I really should not type thoughts at all. Last night was NOT one of those times. But it does happen, and when it happens I, myself, say so - so there's no need for you to try to police my comments based on wether I was sober or tipsy or drunk as a fucking skunk. Just stop that, wydontcha?
"I'm gonna need a at least one more hint at what the hell you think you're getting at here."
You wrote "Shoulda guessed; he's boozed up again" aimed at me and my recent comments. And I ask you what I wrote that made you come to that conclution.
What did I say that led you to believe only a "boozed up" person would say it?
Lee C is obviously hitting the crack pipe again, given his yesterday posts, or he's snortin' some grinded up OxyContin - hell I don't even know, but this wigga is way whacked an' must be trippin' cause I's don know what the hell him's 'bout up in this motherfucker. Fur realz!
"And I ask you what I wrote that made you come to that conclution."
An almost unbroken string of non sequiturs brought me to that conclusion. Your premises did not lead to your conclusions (too much unfilled space between the two). Add in your reliance on ad hominem attacks and I concluded that drunk was the most likely explanation.
As for ‘what you said’, I would advise you to re-read your comments from last night. That's what ya said.
I'm not like you Lee. I'm not following a subject down a rabbit hole to argue the meaning of of for an eternity until my opponent gives way out of sheer boredom. That you, Lee, not me.
I sometimes fire off a string of thoughts with no real intention of following up on every second one in any minute detail you could ever consider.
The bigger picture - that's me.
Anal introspection into any important or not so important or even irrelevant phenomena - that's you.
Lynnette: I wonder, would you say that if the roles were reversed? If, say, Europe became uninhabitable?
Marcus: Seeing as only 85% of the "refugees" during the worst crisis in the fall of 2015 were actually from Syria, and the rest were economic migrants looking for a better life in other people's countries - I can't really take your question seriously.
My question had more to do with climate change. There could come a time when some areas of the Earth may not be desirable to live in, and there is at least once scenario that could affect Europe like that.
We do not agree on what is the most danger to our life on this planet, climate change or population growth. This is not a question of being cruel.
"YOU don't get tired of scanning the Internet for every MSM tidbit negative of Trump and then posting it here…" Marcus @ Fri Aug 04, 02:22:00 pm ↑↑
"Some readers have asked a fair and important question: Why is nearly every column of mine about Trump? The answer is: Trump. His behavior is so extreme and so dangerous that to respond only episodically and occasionally is to risk allowing it to appear acceptable. Outrageous words and outrageous actions require expressions of outrage in return, each and every time. That will continue until the danger subsides." Ruth Marcus in The Washington Post
That last quote has the additional advantage of being taken from The Washington Post, which will likely inflame Marcus even further.
Lynnette: "My question had more to do with climate change. There could come a time when some areas of the Earth may not be desirable to live in, and there is at least once scenario that could affect Europe like that.
We do not agree on what is the most danger to our life on this planet, climate change or population growth. This is not a question of being cruel."
Oh and here we DO have a subject I feel I could dive right into and debate. Maybe you Lynnette, who now seems to be the Chief of this blog as Pete is rarely grazing us with his apperance, could start a post entirely on this subject.
Because I for one am unable to see how a rapidly growing population, and an attempt to make an ever greater part of that population into consumers, could possibly not have any effect on the environment.
There are alledgedly more plastics than fish in the seas these days (that's one allegation I for one do not believe - but it is made - and plastics in the seas ARE a problem). The fresh waters are being depleted at a far more rapid pace than they are being replaced, especially in areas prone to conflict already.
Then there's the "warming problem" that ya'll buy hook line and sinker. Well even if it IS true (and I'm not saying it isn't), isn't in quite obvious that an increasing human population will inevitably add to that problem?
Also, your question wether climate change would lead to Europeans becoming refugees then - no. That MIGHT have been the cade if we were talking about the reverse, a new ice age. But a heating of the planet will NOT affect Scandinavia in an isolated sense. We will not need to flee cause warmings in centuries to come.
And IF we were to flee for some sudden and heretowit unimaginable cause I seriously doubt the moslems to the south of us would be all that welcoming to us and our way of life. Yet we are supposed to "Integrate" with them. Bullshit!
A moslem coming to the west can build a mosque, dress his whife in bed sheets like a ghost, pray in the streets, hold demonstrations in favour of his faith, etc.
A "christian" or non-believer coming into ANY moslem ruled nation. Can the women walk around in a bikini? Can I have a few beers out in the open? Can I publicly say I do not believe in God, or for that matter say I believe in Jesus Christ?
And, try to imagine if 100.000 Scandinavians decended upon Saudi Arabia and a portion of them started boozing up and raping Saudi women left and right. What do you imagine that would lead to?
Lee: "That last quote has the additional advantage of being taken from The Washington Post, which will likely inflame Marcus even further."
Inflamed? By you? Nah, I see you as a joke Lee. And I already knew where you got your talking points so the WaPo angle is no surprise to me.
The one thing that's baffling, really baffling, to me is that after the solid beatings you took from Bruno back in the day and even more so by PeteS more recently you still show up here with an online straight face presuming to have some authority. Ya'll got WRECKED boy, and on more than one occation. WRECKED. Utterly destroyed.
I mean YOU arguning science with Pete. C'mon. Fur realz? Anyone with two functioning neurons or more knows Pete's got ya'll beat from the moment the argument is made.
Hell, I myself stay away from arguing science with Pete becausse I know I would lose, and I am smarter than you Lee, so how you thought you could argue science with Pete is just a testiment to how fucking dumb you really are.
You got got and you got owned over and over and everyone saw it x-cept yallselves. It was sad. Really.
I do miss Zeyad the most. We've had some correspondence and he did set me straight on some issues (and he was 100% correct) but still - I do miss him the most.
Second I miss Pete. Probably the most inelligent person to post here, even though I am not on board with his politics. His annihalations of Lee remain his most potent contributions. Deluded about politics as he is, he's extremely knowing on tech matters.
Bridget: a woman I rarely agreed with at the time (the war on Iraq) but still felt I could have come to an agreement with. Plus a hard-speaking female. I miss her.
Bruno: Who could not miss him and his excellent analysis of world affairs. The one person I would most of all have liked to have a beer with.
AnItalian: Could be a contestor for Pete as for the most intelligent person to ever post here. Hilarious screeds. Using irony before it was mainstream for the AltRight to do so. But unfotuately also a euro-commie in the reddest scheme of things.
Oh, and I forgot the windshield-washing-drinking Canuck called John. How could I forrget him? The red canuck commie who tried to meme my own name from Marcus to Mucous. That never stuck and John is most likely dead by now.
Also, your question wether climate change would lead to Europeans becoming refugees then - no. That MIGHT have been the cade if we were talking about the reverse, a new ice age. But a heating of the planet will NOT affect Scandinavia in an isolated sense. We will not need to flee cause warmings in centuries to come.
Maybe you Lynnette, who now seems to be the Chief of this blog as Pete is rarely grazing us with his apperance, could start a post entirely on this subject.
I am not sure what happened with Zeyad. Last I looked he had turned into a duck, or perhaps it was a goose? Not sure. Nor did I hear back when I inquired if he was OK.
Second I miss Pete.
Petes is still around periodically it seems. But last I heard he was busy with real life and not too interested in Trump debates. Unfortunate, because like Lee I suspect Trump is a topic of immense importance to not just us, but the world. His ass backwards take on science is a danger to our future on this planet.
Bridget:
I have always found Bridget to be an intelligent person. But we do have disagreements on climate change.
Bruno:
Curiously enough I would be interested to know what Bruno makes of what has transpired since the Orange One was elected. It would seem, on the surface of things, that he has gotten exactly what he wanted. Yet, I don't really know what his views on climate change were.
AnItalian: Could be a contestor for Pete as for the most intelligent person to ever post here. Hilarious screeds.
"BLOOMINGTON, Minn. — The FBI was searching for suspects Saturday after an explosive device detonated at a suburban Minneapolis mosque as people were preparing for morning prayers…" Politico.com
Lynnette: "I am not sure what happened with Zeyad. Last I looked he had turned into a duck, or perhaps it was a goose? Not sure. Nor did I hear back when I inquired if he was OK."
Well, he's doin' alright. Not to break any confidence I feel I can tell ta'll he's alright. Got tired of the "inane circle jerk" over here, is what I remember and feel I can say without doxing Zeyad.
Lynnette: "Seriously? Oh dear, you must be drinking again..."
Oh no I was not drinking. Are you smoking crack again? Well actually I WAS drinking, but never mind. The person behind the AnItalian moniker was clearly VERY intelligent, maybe even more so than Pete but that's a toss up.
That you did not agree with him is no sign that he was not intelligent. (I'm not sure he would admit it openly but I am sure Lee would agree AnItalian is in at least top 3 when it comes to intelligence over here. Then he probably thinks HE's also in that top three, and he isn't, so the nopinion of his dumbass is not really relevant.)
133 comments:
You realize that after he made that passionate speech saying he would not vote for the bill that brought him back to Washington, McCain did vote for the Senate's first try at a ‘repeal and replace’ bill, do you not?
It was still a good speech. That he voted to begin debate on the bill is not inconsistent with the content of his remarks. We need to discuss, and find compromise, to fix our healthcare problem.
Now, if he does actually vote for the "skinny" bill or any other version that would cause so many people to lose health care or long term care coverage than I will most definitely be disappointed in Mr. McCain. And I will update the post.
Hmmm...yeah, I know, "than" should be "then".
He did more than vote to begin debate. He voted for McConnell's first version of ‘repeal and replace’ (although he voted against the second version--the ‘repeal and delay’ version).
Yes, it looks like you are correct. That makes his remarks in his speech about not voting for a repeal and replace bill that didn't include things that the Governor of AZ wants confusing.
I see that Mike Pence has arrived to be in place to cast a tie breaking vote if necessary.
Just as a matter of curiosity, did you ever think that Trump & Co. would be this bad? I mean to the extent that they have shown little real caring about the American people in general?
"…did you ever think that Trump & Co. would be this bad?"
Yes, in fact I expected worse. I thought he'd have kicked off the first stages of a recession by now.
If Pence has been brought down to tie-break then McConnell thinks it's gonna be closer than I was expecting it to be. (I thought it'd go down to defeat by four or five votes--probably one of them being McCain.)
I thought he'd have kicked off the first stages of a recession by now.
It has been said that the US economy is like an aircraft carrier, slow to turn. We are probably still seeing the effect of policies put in place by the previous administration.
But give him time, he may yet pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.
The bill by failed by 3 votes, one of them McCain. I am pleased to note that my faith in him was not misplaced.
ignore the extra "by" in that comment.
Just a passing thought. Some of my two international readers have pointed out that we seem to focus a lot on what is happening with Trump and our domestic politics. But really what is going on here has an effect on them and others in the world. Not just because of possible changes in policy but because I believe we are seeing a real attempt to curtail the liberty and equality that has been a goal of our country ever since its founding. While I don't believe that we have always acted as perfectly as McCain implied in his speech, I do believe that we have had a balancing effect against some of the bad that is in this world. That is why what is happening here with Trump & his minions is something that needs to be addressed as something of extreme importance.
"We are probably still seeing the effect of policies put in place by
the previous administration."
Definitely, for instance, we are still working under an Obama signed federal budget. Takes at least a year for a new administration's policies to kick in. (However, preliminary, anticipatory movement can occur prior to that year.)
"But give him time, he may yet pull defeat out of the jaws of victory."
I'm certainly not rooting for a recession, but I did fear we'd be in the first stages of one by now. Oddly enough, like the dedicated Trumpkins who convinced themselves that Trump was ‘just talk’ when said things they didn't like, but was telling the truth when he said things they did like, the movers and shakers of the economy seem to have been seeing and hearing what they wanted to see and hear these first several months. Reality will eventually catch up with them, always does (folks are starting to notice that Trump's no genius dealmaker for instance and the dedicated Trumpkins are learning to make excuses for him on that score, for just one example).
"Some of my two international readers have pointed out that we
seem to focus a lot on what is happening with Trump and our
domestic politics."
They would remain intermittent participants even if…
[Lynnette]: "Why is it that some article's I link to I can do a copy/paste of part of the content and some I can't? For some reason this one I can't."
It's a bit convoluted. The HTML element you were trying to select was a new-fangled HTML5 figcaption element. It was embedded in a figure element, the entirety of which was set up as a hyperlink using an anchor tag. Therefore the browser changes to a hand cursor (or equivalent) when you hover over it. Usually with links you can click somewhere outside the link and drag over the part you want to select as text. But it seems the browser wants to treat the figure element as a single block, so you end up only being able to select all or nothing.
[Chumpy]: "unlike our very own Petes, I'm entirely uneducated on these matters, what little I know I've discovered by myself"
LOL. Funny how -- when it suited ya -- y'all discounted the formal education in maths and physics that I do have, but now credit me with an education in computing which I don't have. :-)
(Seein' as y'all were jes' mentionin' disbelievin' things ya don't like, and seemin'ly makin' up things ya do).
You seem to equate ‘formal education’ with the college classes you did take. I suppose that is a common definition. I did not, however, presume to label it a ‘formal’ education under that definition (or any other definition for that matter). I was actually referencing your claimed expertise in programming. I have no idea whether you took college classes for that or acquired your education elsewhere, nor did I pretend to know that.
[Lynnette]: "I believe we are seeing a real attempt to curtail the liberty and equality that has been a goal of our country ever since its founding."
Could you give some examples? I presume Obamacare can't be an example, because even if you believe in affordable health care (and I do) it is of too recent vintage to count as "a goal of your country ever since its founding".
Btw, I'm surprise nobody's mentioned Anthony Scaramucci yet. He's not even in place a wet week as White House communications director and he already sounds like a lowlife scumbag. I imagine he will soon feature quite a lot alongside Trump in media hit pieces. Unfortunately, he seems to be doing his damnedest to make sure any negative reputation is deserved.
In a move with which I am not familiar, the Pakistani Supreme Court has ousted Pakistan's Prime Minister (and Finance Minister) on corruption charges. Reuters An unstable place just got more unstable.
"I was actually referencing your claimed expertise in programming."
As it happens, I do have a formal education in programming. But it dates from before web browsers (or the web) existed, so not very useful in diagnosing Lynnette's problem (which has nothing much to do with programming anyway).
"I'm surprise nobody's mentioned Anthony Scaramucci yet."
He's a sideshow, of no particular importance. And Shorthands is rapidly wearing down the ‘shock response’ to his administration's antics.
"…which has nothing much to do with programming anyway…"
Not much relevant is still more education on the subject than I've taken. I've just stumbled across stuff and had to figure it out (or not).
I do have some basic education in math and physics though, and seem to be more than a match for you on those subjects.
This is Sharif's third time in power in Pakistan and he's never managed to complete a term. First time round he got fired on corruption charges too, second time he was deposed and exiled by his own pick for army chief, now he's gone again. Pakistan is one of the politically rottenest countries on the planet. The US is right to tread carefully in its alliance with them.
"I do have some basic education in math and physics though, and seem to be more than a match for you on those subjects."
LOL. Pity it ended around age six, judgin' by the acumen y'all displayed in algebra. Also, ya should've taken a supplementary short course in common sense -- when ten thousand people on the interwebs say yer wrong, yer probably wrong.
On the subject of the ObamaCare vote…
It seems that McConnell is following Shorthands' lead and is gonna try to pin the blame for the Republican failure to repeal it on the Democrats. link This will work with the dedicated Trumpkins. They're rapidly changing stance from the idea that Shorthands was gonna break the ‘Establishment’. The idea now is that it's the fault of the ‘Establishment’ that Trump can't get anything done. Seems the ‘Deep State’ is resisting him--evildoers that they are. Surprise!
(How could then not have anticipated that would happen?)
"…when ten thousand people on the interwebs say yer wrong, yer probably wrong."
We have not had 10,000 people weigh in on our disagreement.
Even so, you are relying there on the fallacy known as ‘argumentum ad numerium’.
Typo correction:
"(How could they not have anticipated that would happen?)"
Petes lurks about.
"First time round he got fired on corruption charges too…"
By the Pakistani President (who's probably equally corrupt), not by the Supreme Court. In fact the Supreme Court held that the dismissal by the President was improper in that case, but political realities on the ground meant that Sharif did not get reinstated.
"We have not had 10,000 people weigh in on our disagreement."
Au contraire, the point on which you decided to stall the argument was documented on a Wikipedia page which has been visited nearly a quarter of a million times in total, and two hundred times daily on average. It's had 41 different editors and 154 people who watch every edit. Not one of them aver spotted the fallacy that you imagined was in there. Neither did any of the 300 contributors to the Quora question I raised on yer behalf. When so many people have to be wrong for y'all to be right, I reckon argumentum ad numerum* must be strongly considered.
* Nope, it's not numerium -- only mentionin' that seein' as y'all have stated ya expect me to police yore typos.
"Not one of them aver [sic] spotted the fallacy that you imagined
was in there."
That's because I did not imagine ‘the fallacy’ to which you're referring. (Another Petes fantasy attack manifesting itsef here.)
N.B.
"That's because I did not imagine ‘the fallacy’ to which you're referring."
The ‘because’ part of that is a best guess. That I did not imagine up ‘the fallacy’ Petes has now imaged up for me to hold for him, he shoots at his strawman argument is a fact.
"(Another Petes fantasy attack manifesting itself here.)"
――――――――――――――――――――
"…as he shoots at his strawman…"
North Korea has fired another missile towards Japan. Probably an ICBM capable of hitting Alaska at least, maybe even further south. Kim appears to think that Shorthands isn't paying him enough attention.
If the time comes for Lil' Kim to get vaporised, you might be thankful for a Trump rather than an Obama in the White House.
"That's because I did not imagine ‘the fallacy’ to which you're referring."
Just out of curiosity, how do you know what fallacy I'm referring to?
"…you might be thankful for a Trump…"
Or not.
Obama was often cautious about the use of American military power. I generally found him to be too easy to sway towards intervention and then reluctant to stick it out.
Trump, however is ignorant of both the relevant politics and the military factors. If he manages to guess one of his foreign interventions correctly it'll be almost entirely by accident. But, accidents can happen.
"Just out of curiosity, how do you know what fallacy I'm referring to?"
I have a good memory and this is not the first time you've suffered this particular fantasy attack.
"If there is a solution to the current migration crisis, it lies in sealing
the EU’s external borders and establishing a system to screen
migrants outside Europe."
CarnegieEurope (emphasis added)
As I've said before; it's too late to try to keep them out after they're already in. One would think this would be fairly obvious, but I've had trouble getting the distinction across to Marcus, who seems to think the proper solution is to discriminate against the newcomers after they've been let in.
"The company behind the Keystone XL pipeline has not yet
determined whether there is enough demand for the project to justify
actually building it, a top executive said today.
" *** The company says it remains confident in the project. But it has
been struggling to find enough customers…."
Politico.com
Perhaps a leading indicator for Shorthands' popularity going forward: I noticed that The Boy Scouts of America apologized to their membership (and their families) for Shorthands' speech at the National Boy Scouts' Jamboree. Now his speech earlier today (given in Suffolk County New York) on the occasion of the ‘National Peace Officers' Memorial Service’ has drawn rebukes from police groups across the nation, including the Suffolk County Police.
But it seems the browser wants to treat the figure element as a single block, so you end up only being able to select all or nothing.
Thanks for the explanation. I will just have to work around it.
[Lynnette]: "I believe we are seeing a real attempt to curtail the liberty and equality that has been a goal of our country ever since its founding."
[Petes]: "Could you give some examples?"
The first and most obvious would be the President's tweets. While people may argue that his tweeting is simply free speech the contents of some of those tweets are a blatant attack on those who disagree with him. Now most people who are attacked like that on the internet will probably shrug it off, but when those attacks are directed from the President of the United States they can have a very chilling effect on dissent, which is a little more ominous. People do have a right to disagree with him.
I believe that a society which really wants so strive for equality will make every attempt to care for those who cannot care for themselves. There is a certain human dignity that all have a right to. With the proposed budget under the Trump administration there are deep cuts to programs that have always acted as a safety net. While I understand that balancing the budget, or at least making a dent in our debt, is very important, doing so on the backs of the poor, the elderly, or the disabled is not the right way to go about it. This is an extension of the health care issue.
There also appears to be some kind of concerted effort to stifle dissent within agencies of the government. Granted, Trump has a right enforce his policies, but that does not mean arm twisting or threatening those in opposition.
As Senator McCain pointed out in his speech, which I linked to in my post, the US Senate is, or has tried to be as set forth in the US Constitution, a deliberative governmental body with powers that are equal to the Executive branch. It is part of our checks and balances to prevent a dictatorship. Threats against any member for not voting a certain way should be viewed with concern, if not outright disgust.
As everyone knows management tends to set the tone for how a company is run. To a certain extent that goes for a government. If you have a bigoted, or antagonistic commander in chief, you may find that there are those who will follow his/her lead. So you get incidents like this. This also explains the concern of some of those who have been on the receiving end of some of Trump's recent speeches, such as the one Lee referred to in Suffolk County. Not to be "too nice" to suspects, in Trump's words, is to give a green light to those who may act upon their duties a little too "strenuously". Not exactly a good idea in a country where equality is a dream. As you have noted before, Petes, we seem to already have a problem with some police behavior.
At the heart of a democracy is the right to vote. Those who may seek to meddle, shall we say, with that right are always to be questioned, even if they are the government.
I have nothing but admiration for those who stand up to bullying, like I believe Senators Collins, McCain, & Murkowsky did when they rejected a bill that would have been a bad choice for the American people. They are the true patriots here today.
The North Koreans claim to have issued a ‘stern warning’ to the United States with their latest missile launch. NBCNews Nevertheless, Shorthands has still not noticed them. Today's Trumptweets are instead all about how the Senate should abandon the filibuster rule entirely and go to a simple majority vote. (Shorthands doesn't seem to notice that they'd gotten around the filibuster rule for his ‘repeal and whatever comes’ vote on ObamaCare, and he couldn't even get a simple majority behind the plan.) Also a brief denial that the Russians were trying to get him elected (he's about the only person in government who still claims to believe that, although Sean Hannity will back ‘im up on it.)
Personally, I'm thinking that it it ever comes time ‘for Lil' Kim to get vaporised’ Shorthands is more likely to administer a sound tweeting instead.
Personally, I'm thinking that it it ever comes time ‘for Lil' Kim to get vaporised’ Shorthands is more likely to administer a sound tweeting instead.
Tweeting his displeasure does seem to be his MO. Perhaps that is not such a bad thing in the case of North Korea. While the missile launches happening now are of concern, yes, initiating some kind of military action at this time may not be the wisest course. I am rather curious, though, that the North Koreans are suddenly having such great success.
"I am rather curious, though, that the North Koreans are suddenly
having such great success."
They've been demonstrating work on rocket technology here lately, not miniaturization of fission bombs. It may be an easier subject given their general level of technology.
"The first and most obvious would be the President's tweets."
And then there are the attempts to derail the investigations into Russian tampering with our last election, and whether persons in his campaign were working in collusion with the Russians. Independence of the Department of Justice from political pressure is an important norm of American politics and justice. Mentioning his tweets may have been meant to cover this too, but it's important enough to bear specific mention. It's called ‘obstruction of justice’ and it was an element all three impeachments in America's history (including the one Nixon averted by resigning before they had to vote on it).
"And then there are the attempts to derail the investigations into
Russian tampering with our last election…"
Ya know, now that I look at that I realize I should have also mentioned the threats to reopen criminal investigations against Hillary Clinton, ‘cause there's more to it than just trying to keep Justice off the backs of himself and his campaign. There's the threats to use the Justice Department against his political opponents that's part of the same problem.
The American notion of liberty and equality depends on equal justice before the law, on the idea that the same laws apply to everybody. Too often we fall short of that ideal. But Trump just trashes the ideal entirely and very publicly; he makes the law the servant of The Leader. It's one of the worst things he's done in office. It's a true danger to the Republic, as Trump himself is not. Sally Yates in the New York Times
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Now, back to what brought me back here… Mid-morning Shorthands found his Twitter again and he's now publicly threatening to hold back the monthly ObamaCare subsidy payments. Trumptweets I'm not sure how long he's got to decide before the September payments are due to be made (the deadline to cut off the August payments has passed).
The NK retaliatory thread is mainly conventional, yet, They cant respond with nukes against even Japan, not close to being able to nuke the US. they might could go nuclear against their southeen neighbors, not certain.
But what is certain is they could reduce Seoul to rubbles by conventional means. Thats their main threat against any attack.
The South Koreans would be just as dead from conventional weapons, probably several hundred thousand just from the first bombardment of Seoul. Dead is dead; whether or not it was nukes don't change that.
Well, it appears that the North Koreans did finally get Shorthands' attention, and he did administer a sound tweeting in response, but to the Chinese rather than to the North Koreans.
Independence of the Department of Justice from political pressure is an important norm of American politics and justice. Mentioning his tweets may have been meant to cover this too, but it's important enough to bear specific mention. It's called ‘obstruction of justice’ and it was an element all three impeachments in America's history (including the one Nixon averted by resigning before they had to vote on it).
Yes, you are right. I probably should have placed that as a separate link under the "stifling of dissent" in governmental agencies too. His browbeating of judges in his tweets or remarks elsewhere is a disturbing part of the pattern. And given that the judicial branch is another check to a dictatorship it is very important.
As unsettling as the advance of North Korean missile technology is, I just can't get as worried about that as I do other things out there. I do not really believe that the North Koreans are ready to go to war with the US, which is what an attack on us or South Korea would result in. China would not be able to protect them. Even his Orangeness would have to respond in kind.
Back from vacation, Marcus? I hope you had nice weather and a relaxing break from all of the real world drama.
Still in Prague Lynnette. Just spat out a few comments while at my hotel, using my iPad, a wonderful tool while travelling.
@ Lynnette,
I see from the conservative Op-Eds that they're beginning to notice that Shorthands' refers to other Republicans as ‘they’ and ‘them’, as in ‘they look like fools’.
And, I recall that the now discharged Reince Priebus was originally considered Shorthands' emissary to the Republican ‘Establishment’ in Congress.
I believe the honeymoon may be over. (Yeah, I know, they say Shorthands' didn't get a honeymoon period, but I think that's wrong--I think he was on his honeymoon period before, folks just didn't recognize it as such, but it's about over, and now his relationship with the Republicans in Congress is gonna begin to go downhill.)
You might be right. I am sensing some disaffection setting in. I don't think Trump's treatment of Sessions set well in some quarters. There are also hints that for those running in the 2018 elections distancing themselves from Trump may be a popular tactic. The one thing that would add proof to this theory is if the Republicans in Congress actually start to work with Democrats. A long shot, I know, but one can dream.
Just spat out a few comments while at my hotel, using my iPad, a wonderful tool while travelling.
Yes, the world at your fingertips. :)
[Petes]: "Just out of curiosity, how do you know what fallacy I'm referring to?"
[Chumpy]: "I have a good memory and this is not the first time you've suffered this particular fantasy attack."
LOL. Fortunately the Internet doesn't forget, unlike yerself. There's nearly 400 responses to this question, every one of which disagrees with you. There's even a comment buried in there somewhere from YOU ... trying to make the case that the fallacy appeared somewhere other than the place that 99% of respondents said it did. Then there's the tens of thousands of people who have viewed the Wikipedia page that contains the same fallacy. Not one of them has apparently spotted the mistake that YOU imagined was there.
I realise, of course, that yer delusion can never be cured on account of it doesn't suit ya for it to be cured. But it's fun to remind ya every now 'n' again.
[Lynnette]: "I believe we are seeing a real attempt to curtail the liberty and equality that has been a goal of our country ever since its founding." etc.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a considered answer. I don't agree with all of it. For instance, the level of burden sharing through taxation is a balance that political opposites will always disagree on. Just as I think extreme Republicans who portray all taxation as a socialist plot to redistribute income are being outlandish, I think it is excessive to accuse those in favour of tighter spending rules of trying to curtail liberty and equality. That sort of language is polarising and ignores that there are different visions of the role of society.
I do agree with you that Trump's online behaviour is unpresidential to say the least. The guy is an oaf. I shudder to think what the new sleazeball, Mooch, will bring to White House communications. Only thing for certain is that SNL will have a field day ;-)
"There's even a comment buried in there somewhere from YOU…"
No, there's not. (That whole paragraph appears to be an extended Petes fantasy. I see no reason to specifically deny more than just the most egregious example.)
"But it's fun to remind ya every now 'n' again."
I would suppose that you find your own fantasies quite gratifying.
"I am sensing some disaffection setting in."
He was always figured to merely be a useful tool to them, as a signing party to the bills they wanted to pass. They never figured to have to accommodate him. Problem is they can't agree on what to pass; the Republican Party is in disarray internally (else he'd never have gotten the nomination in the first place). And, it turns out he's no help in getting bills passed, and they need the help; they need a leader; they got Trump instead.
If they can't pass stuff for him to sign, then he's of no use to them.
I noticed that Shorthands has told reporters that he ‘swore in’ John Kelly as his new chief of staff. I don't think that's an official office requiring an oath of office. (It's a discretionary hire by White House--not every President has bothered to have a chief of staff.) I'll be interested in finding out what Kelly swore to.
Back from wonderful Prague. Exited the train station in Malmö only to be met with begging gypsies, cloaked women and lingering africans. How we have fallen...
Washington Post Headline: Trump dictated son’s misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer
Kinda puts Shorthands right in the middle of it.
I shudder to think what the new sleazeball, Mooch, will bring to White House communications.
Fear not, he is apparently already gone. It kind of reminds me of a saying we have about our Minnesota weather, just wait a moment and it will change.
Kinda puts Shorthands right in the middle of it.
I think he always has been.
"I think he always has been."
Yeah, but, ‘I think…’ ain't near as good as having the goods on ‘im.
How we have fallen...
One might say that the whole planet has fallen.
By the end of the century, the global temperature is likely to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
This rise in temperature is the ominous conclusion reached by two different studies using entirely different methods published in the journal Nature Climate Change on Monday.
"By the end of the century, the global temperature is likely to rise
more than 2 degrees Celsius…"
And that's even if we somehow managed to quit spewing fossil fueled carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which ain't likely.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Folks are making a big deal about John Kelly's ascension to the position of chief of staff at the White House, and his sacking of Anthony Scaramucci. I think folks may be making too much of that. Scaramucci proved himself a potential rival for the limelight. This is an unforgivable sin in Trumplandia. Kelly didn't get Shorthands to do anything he didn't already want to do. Kelly merely gave him an excuse.
Furthermore, if Kelly is capable of imposing some discipline on the White House (and on Trump) then Kelly will win praise from the rest of the Republican Party. Trump does not share the limelight. Success by Kelly will cause alienation and backlash from Trump. No one is allowed to win except Trump. So, if Kelly comes to be seen as a successful chief of staff, then Trump will have to get rid of him.
TrumpTweets: After months of alleging that the media wanted him to quit tweeting, Shorthands has expanded the list of evil folks who want to take his twitter away to include unspecified ‘Trump enemies’.
A warning to his new chief of staff perhaps? "Don't go there."
Or maybe a shot at the Republicans in Congress who've been publicly saying that the tweeting's gotta stop?
My guess would be Congress. He doesn't seem overly thrilled with the Republicans there at the moment.
Given all the ex-generals now populating Castle Trump, I'm beginning to worry that Shorthands might talk himself into starting a war in the Far East without anybody around to talk him out of it.
What's the chances they're gonna be fully up to speed on non-military alternatives?
It appears that Trump's approval rating has fallen to 33%.
What's the chances they're gonna be fully up to speed on non-military alternatives?
I don't know about that, but I do think at least Mattis is trying to keep heads cool. He did warn that war with North Korea would be extraordinarily difficult.
"…Trump's approval rating has fallen to 33%."
One poll, one time. Rasmussen will come in higher. He's still at 38% in the RCP averages. If he's at 33% in that average in a week or 10 days it'll mean there's been real movement.
(It was the failure of the ‘repeal and whatever’ that lead to the drop. He's lucky. Success in that effort would have lead to an even greater drop. Back during the last presidential election there were several articles which explored the phenomena of the dedicated Trumpkins who believed Trump when he said things they wanted to hear, and dismissed as ‘just talk’ the things he said that they didn't want to hear. Trump usually managed to promise to be on both sides of every issue, so this allowed dedicated Trumpkins who didn't agree with each other to both pretend that Trump agreed with them against the other one.
Unfortunately for Trump (and for some of them), now that he's the President he can't effectively take both sides of a question. (He tried to take all possible sides with the ‘repeal and whatever’ push for ObamaCare, but that didn't work out to well for him; additional efforts in that vein aren't gonna work out any better).
Now, no matter which side he takes, he's gonna start losing support from previously dedicated Trumpkins who convinced themselves that this particular position statement was ‘just talk’ which they could safely ignore, and that they could instead rely on what he said when he said the exact opposite of the position he's now gonna be taking as President.)
Impeachment prediction
He mentions Nixon and Clinton both facing impeachment in their fifth year. I don't think Shorthands is gonna have a fifth year.
(I'm still thinking indictment instead of impeachment.)
Bit of a clanger from some Scandinavian rightwingers ;-)
CNN:
"Washington (CNN)More than half of young Syrian refugees don't plan to return home permanently unless the war in their country comes to an end and ISIS is eliminated.
That's according to the ninth annual Burson-Marsteller Arab Youth Survey, which looks at the hopes, concerns and goals of young Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon.
Only 7% said that President Bashar al-Assad would have to be pushed from power for them to return."
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/arab-youth-survey/index.html
A good thing the US got Trump elected who at least tries to direct the fighting against ISIS, instead of Hillary who would have increased Obama's arming of jihadists and escalated the conflict against Russia and Assad instead.
"More than half of young Syrian refugees don't plan to return home
permanently unless…"
Marcus ↑↑
"In total, 18,007 Syrian refugees were resettled in the United
States between October 1, 2011 and December 31, 2016."
Figure maybe 25% of those 18,000 Syrians qualify as ‘young Syrians’ according to whatever definition they used. Figure half those don't wanna go home unless Da‘esh is removed. We're talkin’ maybe 2,300 Syrians integrating into a population of more than 310 million people.
I don't think that's a significant enough number to make it ‘A good thing the US got Trump elected…."
Oh, I forgot to include the link for that 18,000 number. Done now.
What are you blabberin' bout now Lee? Syrian refugees to the US it seems - them 18K. That's what you're blabberin' bout? No connection at all to what I posted so why quote me with regards to that?
I bet among them 18K a clear majority would choose to stay on in the US, probably 90% plus, regardless of ISIS or Assad.
But in my aqtual quote you might have, if you had actually read it, noticed this part:
"young Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon."
Meaning the figures are for the ones living in neighboring countries. Not those few lucky ones who made it to the USA, or into western Europe for that matter.
We weren't talking 'bout the few and lucky economic migrants here, we were talking about the actual refugees in the vincinity of Syria - the bulk of those displaced. And they seem to fear ISIS way more than Assad.
Then again CNN is FAKE NEWS so it might be them just playin' us all. Who knows?
Pete:
"Bit of a clanger from some Scandinavian rightwingers ;-)"
It's quite comical and I really can't see how people honestly thought them there empty bus seats were burka-clad ladies. Some of em' might be just trolling, but yeah, there probably are those who jump on the bandwagon because they see what they want to not want to see.
"…young Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon…"
You're right; I overlooked that part. Makes your connection to the election of Trump entirely specious. (He's basically letting his generals pursue what would have been Hillary's policy vis-á-vis Assad, but without any strategy behind it, just inertia without an exit plan.)
That's what YOU say. He has tried his damnedest to work with Russia in Syria. He has said over and over again that ISIS is the ones he would like to see shut down. He ordered the CIA to stop arming the "moderate" (Meaning al qaeda) terrorists Obama armed.
He at least tried.
But what we have to consider is not only what Trump actually has accomplished, but what MIGHT have been the case if the mad cow in chief Hillary had been elected instead.
Then it would probably been a resurgent ISIS, because of weapons Hillary supplied not ISIS but Nusra (basically Al Queada), et.al, (which would end up with ISIS sooner or later) and focus on getting rid of Assad and a severely more hostile approach to anything with regards to Russia.
Thank GOD for Trump! He at least tries to fight back against an insane and corrupt deep state.
Left wing human traffickers arrested in Italy:
http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2017/08/02/nave-sequestrata-alla-ong-testimone-dopo-un-salvataggio-operatori-della-iuventa-ridiedero-gommone-agli-scafisti/3772378/
An organisation funded by (who else?) George Soros, has been in contact with human trafficers in Libya only to get pickup-locations in the Med to bring as many africans as possible into the EU.
And no, them on the boats aren't women, or children, or the elderly, or fleeing the "brutal war in Syria", they are 20-30 YO african men looking for better economic opportunities in Europe.
Even during the "gas baby meme" and the "drowned baby meme" the MSM pushed in 2015 the actual Syrians were a mere 15% of the actual flood of "refugees" into Europe.
You relly ought to ask yourselves why the media is so dishonest about this.
"He at least tries to fight back against an insane and corrupt deep state."
You are way too far out over the edge here to even bother with.
I'll stand by my statement. I'm not going to bother trying to talk sense to you over this.
What statement are you standing by, exactly?
That the feelings of 1800 Syrians relocated to the USA are more important than the millions dislocated in the vincinity?
What do you stand by Lee, on this issue? And what's your opinion? (and I do know you can't really voice an opinion until you get your talking points from WaPo or wherever, but at least try Lee)
Bravery! just so brave!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing
Not quite as brave, but almost as brave, as when y'all wrecked Iraq for no real reason.
How fucking proud you must feel, taking part in all that bravery. I bet Lynnettes tomatoes grow redder and fuller, Lee's inate tirades down at the local dines somehow seems important, and all in all it's just red, white an'
blue for ya'll.
So brave!
Lynnette, I bet that 10 iraqi children burnt to death by white phospousous in Fallujah and then 5 Eritreans trying to get better economic prospects but posing as "syrian refugees", that really gives you a solid and a god night's sleep. Right Lynnette?
Because MY opinion is this:
1. I do not want to kill people in other nations. No forcing interventions at all unless by necessity.
2. If arabs in arabia choose to have customs we in the west don't agree with, then let them, as long as they stay where they are. Let the evolve or devolve as they themselves see fit.
3. No large movments of people, migration, emmigration or whatnot. The Globe is FULL, and more people is not a real benefit in any area (although it might be a short term economic benefit). We do not need more people. Period.
Shoulda guessed; he's boozed up again. (Woulda guessed if it'd been a Friday.)
(I'm still thinking indictment instead of impeachment.)
You might be right. They seem to be digging into the financial aspects of the Trump Russia relationship even as we speak.
Bit of a clanger from some Scandinavian rightwingers ;-)
LOL! I guess you really do see what you want to see.
No large movments of people, migration, emmigration or whatnot.
I wonder, would you say that if the roles were reversed? If, say, Europe became uninhabitable?
By the way, even Rasmussen Reports (who seem to consider it their job to prove Trump is popular, if evidence for such a finding can possibly be found or prepared) now show Trump down below a 40% approval rating, even Rasmussen (Trump's still holding at 38% on the RCP averages though; what'll matter is if that holds up through the coming week).
Lynnette: "I wonder, would you say that if the roles were reversed? If, say, Europe became uninhabitable?"
Seeing as only 85% of the "refugees" during the worst crisis in the fall of 2015 were actually from Syria, and the rest were economic migrants looking for a better life in other people's countries - I can't really take your question seriously.
Today even LESS of the "refugees" are from war torn areas. But even more are from Africa and driven by pure economics.
And, mind you, I don't fault any african who sees an opportunity and heads north. I fault OUR leaders for not stopping this. As it is perfectly clear, with the trajectories of population growth, that this will NOT stop, NOT dwindle, but ONLY increase for each and every year until societal, maybe even planetary, collapse.
You, Lynnette, are a cruel person in that you let your "feels", without any logical thought whatsoever, dictate your opinion, leading to maybe our species collapse due to over population and resource depletion.
You, and your ilk, damn future generations and do so only because of feel-good insanity.
Lee: "(Woulda guessed if it'd been a Friday.)"
Had just a couple drinks last night, never got intoxicated, but NOW IT'S FRIDAY so bring it bitch!
Nah, but seriously, ya'll are just so boring these days that tuning in sober seems more a chore than a passing of time.
That YOU don't get tired of scanning the Internet for every MSM tidbit negative of Trump and then posting it here only to get inane praise from Lynnette is beyond belief sad. YOU should seriously consider taking up drinking as a hobby, Lee.
"Had just a couple drinks last night, never got intoxicated…"
The first assertion indicates you don't hold your liquor all that well. The second one seems contradicted by that string of non sequiturs from last night.
What, from last evening, was so bad though? Cause' I've read it all again and it seems good enough to me. Maybe some Ad Hominem attacks, but I actually think they were not that un-called for. In the format of a comment section to a blog you can't expect every post to be civil. I just try to stay inside the boundaries. So far, not banned.
"What, from last evening, was so bad though?"
How bad is ‘so bad’? I'm gonna need a at least one more hint at what the hell you think you're getting at here.
And I do hold my liqour well, Lee. Just sometimes (too often, I know, I am aware) I hold a bit too much of it and at those times I really should not type thoughts at all. Last night was NOT one of those times. But it does happen, and when it happens I, myself, say so - so there's no need for you to try to police my comments based on wether I was sober or tipsy or drunk as a fucking skunk. Just stop that, wydontcha?
"…so there's no need for you to try to police my comments…"
I was not policing your comments. I neither suggested that you quit posting comments nor suggested that Lynnette should delete them.
Lee:
"I'm gonna need a at least one more hint at what the hell you think you're getting at here."
You wrote "Shoulda guessed; he's boozed up again" aimed at me and my recent comments. And I ask you what I wrote that made you come to that conclution.
What did I say that led you to believe only a "boozed up" person would say it?
Lee C is obviously hitting the crack pipe again, given his yesterday posts, or he's snortin' some grinded up OxyContin - hell I don't even know, but this wigga is way whacked an' must be trippin' cause I's don know what the hell him's 'bout up in this motherfucker. Fur realz!
"And I ask you what I wrote that made you come to that conclution."
An almost unbroken string of non sequiturs brought me to that conclusion. Your premises did not lead to your conclusions (too much unfilled space between the two). Add in your reliance on ad hominem attacks and I concluded that drunk was the most likely explanation.
As for ‘what you said’, I would advise you to re-read your comments from last night. That's what ya said.
Post Script:
And you seemed to be having trouble picking a subject; you were all over the board on a multitude of subjects.
I'm not like you Lee. I'm not following a subject down a rabbit hole to argue the meaning of of for an eternity until my opponent gives way out of sheer boredom. That you, Lee, not me.
I sometimes fire off a string of thoughts with no real intention of following up on every second one in any minute detail you could ever consider.
The bigger picture - that's me.
Anal introspection into any important or not so important or even irrelevant phenomena - that's you.
We're just different likke that I guess.
Lynnette: I wonder, would you say that if the roles were reversed? If, say, Europe became uninhabitable?
Marcus: Seeing as only 85% of the "refugees" during the worst crisis in the fall of 2015 were actually from Syria, and the rest were economic migrants looking for a better life in other people's countries - I can't really take your question seriously.
My question had more to do with climate change. There could come a time when some areas of the Earth may not be desirable to live in, and there is at least once scenario that could affect Europe like that.
We do not agree on what is the most danger to our life on this planet, climate change or population growth. This is not a question of being cruel.
"YOU don't get tired of scanning the Internet for every MSM tidbit
negative of Trump and then posting it here…"
Marcus @ Fri Aug 04, 02:22:00 pm ↑↑
"Some readers have asked a fair and important question: Why is
nearly every column of mine about Trump? The answer is: Trump. His
behavior is so extreme and so dangerous that to respond only
episodically and occasionally is to risk allowing it to appear
acceptable. Outrageous words and outrageous actions require
expressions of outrage in return, each and every time. That will
continue until the danger subsides."
Ruth Marcus in The Washington Post
That last quote has the additional advantage of being taken from The Washington Post, which will likely inflame Marcus even further.
Lynnette: "My question had more to do with climate change. There could come a time when some areas of the Earth may not be desirable to live in, and there is at least once scenario that could affect Europe like that.
We do not agree on what is the most danger to our life on this planet, climate change or population growth. This is not a question of being cruel."
Oh and here we DO have a subject I feel I could dive right into and debate. Maybe you Lynnette, who now seems to be the Chief of this blog as Pete is rarely grazing us with his apperance, could start a post entirely on this subject.
Because I for one am unable to see how a rapidly growing population, and an attempt to make an ever greater part of that population into consumers, could possibly not have any effect on the environment.
There are alledgedly more plastics than fish in the seas these days (that's one allegation I for one do not believe - but it is made - and plastics in the seas ARE a problem). The fresh waters are being depleted at a far more rapid pace than they are being replaced, especially in areas prone to conflict already.
Then there's the "warming problem" that ya'll buy hook line and sinker. Well even if it IS true (and I'm not saying it isn't), isn't in quite obvious that an increasing human population will inevitably add to that problem?
Also, your question wether climate change would lead to Europeans becoming refugees then - no. That MIGHT have been the cade if we were talking about the reverse, a new ice age. But a heating of the planet will NOT affect Scandinavia in an isolated sense. We will not need to flee cause warmings in centuries to come.
And IF we were to flee for some sudden and heretowit unimaginable cause I seriously doubt the moslems to the south of us would be all that welcoming to us and our way of life. Yet we are supposed to "Integrate" with them. Bullshit!
A moslem coming to the west can build a mosque, dress his whife in bed sheets like a ghost, pray in the streets, hold demonstrations in favour of his faith, etc.
A "christian" or non-believer coming into ANY moslem ruled nation. Can the women walk around in a bikini? Can I have a few beers out in the open? Can I publicly say I do not believe in God, or for that matter say I believe in Jesus Christ?
And, try to imagine if 100.000 Scandinavians decended upon Saudi Arabia and a portion of them started boozing up and raping Saudi women left and right. What do you imagine that would lead to?
Lee: "That last quote has the additional advantage of being taken from The Washington Post, which will likely inflame Marcus even further."
Inflamed? By you? Nah, I see you as a joke Lee. And I already knew where you got your talking points so the WaPo angle is no surprise to me.
The one thing that's baffling, really baffling, to me is that after the solid beatings you took from Bruno back in the day and even more so by PeteS more recently you still show up here with an online straight face presuming to have some authority. Ya'll got WRECKED boy, and on more than one occation. WRECKED. Utterly destroyed.
I mean YOU arguning science with Pete. C'mon. Fur realz? Anyone with two functioning neurons or more knows Pete's got ya'll beat from the moment the argument is made.
Hell, I myself stay away from arguing science with Pete becausse I know I would lose, and I am smarter than you Lee, so how you thought you could argue science with Pete is just a testiment to how fucking dumb you really are.
You got got and you got owned over and over and everyone saw it x-cept yallselves. It was sad. Really.
It worked. Major rant.
Truth though, that's gotta hurt. Cause ya'll know it's truth spoken.
For that matter, the time I myself stopped tryin' to have a debate here was more or less when Pete went AWOL.
No one left to actually debate. No Zeyad, no Bridget, no Pete, not even an UmAyad.
Only stickin' 'round for the lulz these days. Trollin' mixed with real stuff seein' whether ya'll can distinguish amongst them.
"…seein' whether ya'll can distinguish amongst them."
That would assume either of us care to observe the distinction. You probably assume too much there.
I do miss Zeyad the most. We've had some correspondence and he did set me straight on some issues (and he was 100% correct) but still - I do miss him the most.
Second I miss Pete. Probably the most inelligent person to post here, even though I am not on board with his politics. His annihalations of Lee remain his most potent contributions. Deluded about politics as he is, he's extremely knowing on tech matters.
Bridget: a woman I rarely agreed with at the time (the war on Iraq) but still felt I could have come to an agreement with. Plus a hard-speaking female. I miss her.
Bruno: Who could not miss him and his excellent analysis of world affairs. The one person I would most of all have liked to have a beer with.
AnItalian: Could be a contestor for Pete as for the most intelligent person to ever post here. Hilarious screeds. Using irony before it was mainstream for the AltRight to do so. But unfotuately also a euro-commie in the reddest scheme of things.
Anywho, It's been a journey!
Oh, and I forgot the windshield-washing-drinking Canuck called John. How could I forrget him? The red canuck commie who tried to meme my own name from Marcus to Mucous. That never stuck and John is most likely dead by now.
Also, your question wether climate change would lead to Europeans becoming refugees then - no. That MIGHT have been the cade if we were talking about the reverse, a new ice age. But a heating of the planet will NOT affect Scandinavia in an isolated sense. We will not need to flee cause warmings in centuries to come.
Maybe you Lynnette, who now seems to be the Chief of this blog as Pete is rarely grazing us with his apperance, could start a post entirely on this subject.
Well, Marcus, funny you should mention that...
I do miss Zeyad the most.
I am not sure what happened with Zeyad. Last I looked he had turned into a duck, or perhaps it was a goose? Not sure. Nor did I hear back when I inquired if he was OK.
Second I miss Pete.
Petes is still around periodically it seems. But last I heard he was busy with real life and not too interested in Trump debates. Unfortunate, because like Lee I suspect Trump is a topic of immense importance to not just us, but the world. His ass backwards take on science is a danger to our future on this planet.
Bridget:
I have always found Bridget to be an intelligent person. But we do have disagreements on climate change.
Bruno:
Curiously enough I would be interested to know what Bruno makes of what has transpired since the Orange One was elected. It would seem, on the surface of things, that he has gotten exactly what he wanted. Yet, I don't really know what his views on climate change were.
AnItalian: Could be a contestor for Pete as for the most intelligent person to ever post here. Hilarious screeds.
Seriously? Oh dear, you must be drinking again...
Not helpful.
"BLOOMINGTON, Minn. — The FBI was searching for suspects
Saturday after an explosive device detonated at a suburban
Minneapolis mosque as people were preparing for morning prayers…"
Politico.com
I saw that. I don't know may details yet.
*sigh*
"many", not "may"
Lynnette: "I am not sure what happened with Zeyad. Last I looked he had turned into a duck, or perhaps it was a goose? Not sure. Nor did I hear back when I inquired if he was OK."
Well, he's doin' alright. Not to break any confidence I feel I can tell ta'll he's alright. Got tired of the "inane circle jerk" over here, is what I remember and feel I can say without doxing Zeyad.
Lynnette: "Seriously? Oh dear, you must be drinking again..."
Oh no I was not drinking. Are you smoking crack again? Well actually I WAS drinking, but never mind. The person behind the AnItalian moniker was clearly VERY intelligent, maybe even more so than Pete but that's a toss up.
That you did not agree with him is no sign that he was not intelligent. (I'm not sure he would admit it openly but I am sure Lee would agree AnItalian is in at least top 3 when it comes to intelligence over here. Then he probably thinks HE's also in that top three, and he isn't, so the nopinion of his dumbass is not really relevant.)
Post a Comment