This story of Montreal police spying on La Presse journalist Patrick Lagace is not good and quite disturbing.
There should be professional and public outrage.
There should be professional and public outrage.
2016-10-31
2016-10-28
Hillary Is Worse Than Trump: And It's Not Even A Debate
At this point, I can't understand how anyone could support Hillary let alone vote for her.
As if we haven't heard enough about how amoral and thoroughly without scruples or principles this incompetent fiend is:
"It seems that Hillary Clinton and lying have been intimately acquainted with each other for decades, long before her role in the recent Benghazi cover up.
Perhaps all of this practice accounts for how good she’s become at it, and why violating the Constitution doesn’t appear to bother her conscience.
In her younger days, Clinton served as an attorney during the Watergate investigation, but was apparently fired for her bad behavior.
Jerry Zeifman, described as a lifelong Democrat, served as Clinton’s supervisor and gave her the boot immediately after the investigation concluded. He was so dissatisfied with Hillary’s performance that he also refused to give her a good recommendation.
When pressed for reasons as to why he fired her, Zeifman said it was because she was a liar, completely unethical, dishonest, and conspired to violate the Constitution."
It's enough. Send her away already. She's trouble.
Such a disingenuous sociopath is dangerous. The question shouldn't be whether Trump will start a war.
The question should be pointed directly at her.
As if we haven't heard enough about how amoral and thoroughly without scruples or principles this incompetent fiend is:
"It seems that Hillary Clinton and lying have been intimately acquainted with each other for decades, long before her role in the recent Benghazi cover up.
Perhaps all of this practice accounts for how good she’s become at it, and why violating the Constitution doesn’t appear to bother her conscience.
In her younger days, Clinton served as an attorney during the Watergate investigation, but was apparently fired for her bad behavior.
Jerry Zeifman, described as a lifelong Democrat, served as Clinton’s supervisor and gave her the boot immediately after the investigation concluded. He was so dissatisfied with Hillary’s performance that he also refused to give her a good recommendation.
When pressed for reasons as to why he fired her, Zeifman said it was because she was a liar, completely unethical, dishonest, and conspired to violate the Constitution."
It's enough. Send her away already. She's trouble.
Such a disingenuous sociopath is dangerous. The question shouldn't be whether Trump will start a war.
The question should be pointed directly at her.
What If Trump Wins?; FBI Reopens Hillary Email Investigation - MSM Silent
Just thought about something.
*If* Trump wins, will the left escalate their crimes from petty vandalism?
Right now, wikileaks and Project Veritas have revealed the shenanigans from Democrat insiders.
And Hillary supporters aren't even hiding their criminal behavior but flaunting it as some sort of self-righteous act with the tacit help of the mainstream press.
As one commenter put it to describe the shallow and infantile mindset of the leftist activist, 'Me right! Me smash!'
It's all in their own words. They commit crimes and engage in corruption right in the open. This is how they view things. This is how much they respect people.
So if Trump running elicits so much anger what will they do when he wins?
***
Also. This thing about the nuclear button. Please.
Just stop if you bought into that bit.
***
It probably won't lead anywhere but the timing is interesting. Still...
Explain once again to me how the mainstream press are not in cahoots with the Democrat party again?
The FBI reopened its investigation of Hilary's emails (one would hope they weren't willing to stake their reputations on Hillary of all people) and not one of them reported it. Did they find intent because I think this is what tenuously was protecting her?
WaPo, NYT, NBC - whatever. They shouldn't even be in your browser anymore.
Anyway. This is about to give Krugman a stroke so....there's that.
*If* Trump wins, will the left escalate their crimes from petty vandalism?
Right now, wikileaks and Project Veritas have revealed the shenanigans from Democrat insiders.
And Hillary supporters aren't even hiding their criminal behavior but flaunting it as some sort of self-righteous act with the tacit help of the mainstream press.
As one commenter put it to describe the shallow and infantile mindset of the leftist activist, 'Me right! Me smash!'
It's all in their own words. They commit crimes and engage in corruption right in the open. This is how they view things. This is how much they respect people.
So if Trump running elicits so much anger what will they do when he wins?
***
Also. This thing about the nuclear button. Please.
Just stop if you bought into that bit.
***
It probably won't lead anywhere but the timing is interesting. Still...
Explain once again to me how the mainstream press are not in cahoots with the Democrat party again?
The FBI reopened its investigation of Hilary's emails (one would hope they weren't willing to stake their reputations on Hillary of all people) and not one of them reported it. Did they find intent because I think this is what tenuously was protecting her?
WaPo, NYT, NBC - whatever. They shouldn't even be in your browser anymore.
Anyway. This is about to give Krugman a stroke so....there's that.
The Jews Made Them Do It: Palestinians Continue To Be Morally Bankrupted
And thoroughly deserve to have no country.
Over the years I've come to believe a Palestinian nation-state would likely be just another hostile, dysfunctional Arab country contributing nothing to the advancement of humanity. They'd still likely maintain their deranged and destructive stance against Israel. Palestine will never be at peace if they don't change their thinking.
"The Palestinian Authority has dedicated a new school to the mastermind of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) reported Tuesday.
A school in the West Bank city of Tulkarem has been named “the Martyr Salah Khalaf School” in memory of the leader of the Black September terrorist group. Khalaf, who was also known as Abu Iyad, planned the attack on the Israeli Olympic compound at the 1972 Munich Olympics, during which 11 Israeli athletes and coaches were tortured and killed. Khalaf also had a role in the 1973 takeover of the American embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, which ended in the murder of two American diplomats and a Belgian envoy."
Disgusting.
These buffoons (and their idiot supporters in the West) claim to want to have peace but don't seem willing to do all the little things that can get them there.
How can they come to any peace negotiation table with a straight face and how can anyone take them seriously?
A troublesome and violent people, rooted in violent rhetoric and education, this is what they do.
Over the years I've come to believe a Palestinian nation-state would likely be just another hostile, dysfunctional Arab country contributing nothing to the advancement of humanity. They'd still likely maintain their deranged and destructive stance against Israel. Palestine will never be at peace if they don't change their thinking.
"The Palestinian Authority has dedicated a new school to the mastermind of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) reported Tuesday.
A school in the West Bank city of Tulkarem has been named “the Martyr Salah Khalaf School” in memory of the leader of the Black September terrorist group. Khalaf, who was also known as Abu Iyad, planned the attack on the Israeli Olympic compound at the 1972 Munich Olympics, during which 11 Israeli athletes and coaches were tortured and killed. Khalaf also had a role in the 1973 takeover of the American embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, which ended in the murder of two American diplomats and a Belgian envoy."
Disgusting.
These buffoons (and their idiot supporters in the West) claim to want to have peace but don't seem willing to do all the little things that can get them there.
How can they come to any peace negotiation table with a straight face and how can anyone take them seriously?
A troublesome and violent people, rooted in violent rhetoric and education, this is what they do.
Obama Commutes Sentences
Finally, we find something Obama using his pen to good use.
Sure we bash him around here, but when you act as a humanist, you will be given credit.
Although they're not pardons. It will be very hard for these people to find jobs, vote or even own a gun as is their right. So, it's all tepid praise.
"...Obama clearly is trying hard to make up for lost time. In a speech on Tuesday, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said there will be "many more [commutations] to come." Yesterday White House Counsel Neil Eggleston said Obama is committed to "using his clemency authority through the remainder of his time in office." If he maintains this month's rate in November, December, and January, his total will be around 1,500. If he picks up the pace, he could still reach the "thousands" predicted in 2014.
Even 2,000 commutations would represent just 6.9 percent of the 29,000 or so petitions Obama has received, making him slightly more merciful than Richard Nixon by that measure. That nevertheless would represent a huge improvement from where Obama stood just six months ago."
Sure we bash him around here, but when you act as a humanist, you will be given credit.
Although they're not pardons. It will be very hard for these people to find jobs, vote or even own a gun as is their right. So, it's all tepid praise.
"...Obama clearly is trying hard to make up for lost time. In a speech on Tuesday, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said there will be "many more [commutations] to come." Yesterday White House Counsel Neil Eggleston said Obama is committed to "using his clemency authority through the remainder of his time in office." If he maintains this month's rate in November, December, and January, his total will be around 1,500. If he picks up the pace, he could still reach the "thousands" predicted in 2014.
Even 2,000 commutations would represent just 6.9 percent of the 29,000 or so petitions Obama has received, making him slightly more merciful than Richard Nixon by that measure. That nevertheless would represent a huge improvement from where Obama stood just six months ago."
Artificial Intelligence Likes Trump
AI system has Trump more popular than Obama in 2008.
Look. If he does win it will be more because the American voting public decided Hillary is just plain bad news and carries too much baggage. It will be as much a sober vote as it would be a protest one.
The calculation, I presume, would be simple: We see and know what Hillary (who speaking of artificial thinking, wants to spend - among other dubious things passing off as progressive, $500 million on bullying. May as well waste it on something fun if you're going to waste money) is. She has a track record - 30 years they say; though I believe it's actually, what, 18 as a public servant?
Public servant. Two words that describe exactly what she is. She neither cares for the public and you can bet she doesn't see herself as a servant. A master more but not servant.
Anyway.
We don't know what Trump would be like because all we have are his words.
Trump is an awful option. But it wouldn't be irrational to vote for him all things considered.
Look. If he does win it will be more because the American voting public decided Hillary is just plain bad news and carries too much baggage. It will be as much a sober vote as it would be a protest one.
The calculation, I presume, would be simple: We see and know what Hillary (who speaking of artificial thinking, wants to spend - among other dubious things passing off as progressive, $500 million on bullying. May as well waste it on something fun if you're going to waste money) is. She has a track record - 30 years they say; though I believe it's actually, what, 18 as a public servant?
Public servant. Two words that describe exactly what she is. She neither cares for the public and you can bet she doesn't see herself as a servant. A master more but not servant.
Anyway.
We don't know what Trump would be like because all we have are his words.
Trump is an awful option. But it wouldn't be irrational to vote for him all things considered.
2016-10-27
Canadian Liberal Governance: Amateur Emotionalism
I was reading about Trudeau's first 100 days report card where he garnered on average a 'B' and a majority of Canadians feel he's doing an 'adequate' job. Whatever that means.
He's adequate.
From where I sit, it's a D. As in dud. Very amateurish and emotional. Never mind he's shown a passive-aggressive stance and dictatorial impulse (see carbon tax threat to the provinces).
Once again, I can't but disagree with my fellow Canadians.
It's a rule rather than an exception these days.
He's adequate.
From where I sit, it's a D. As in dud. Very amateurish and emotional. Never mind he's shown a passive-aggressive stance and dictatorial impulse (see carbon tax threat to the provinces).
Once again, I can't but disagree with my fellow Canadians.
It's a rule rather than an exception these days.
Innovation Survives Obamacare Tax; For Now
Among the many controversial (read bad for progress and innovation) features of Obamacare (the pathway to single payer) was the 2.3% tax on revenues (not profits; revenues) on medical devices.
Thankfully, after push back it's been suspended - hopefully for good.
It would have had a chilling effect on R&D and innovation.
But hey. Who cares right? You get to read Obama and his thoughts on human progress (which by the way, happens ins spite of his progressive outlook. This is more like his legacy) over at Wired magazine - who are all wild eyed giddy over this guy.
How disingenuous is this smart alec narcissist?
"Let's start with the big picture. By almost every measure, this country is better, and the world is better, than it was 50 years ago, 30 years ago, or even eight years ago. Leave aside the sepia tones of the 1950s, a time when women, minorities, and people with disabilities were shut out of huge parts of American life."
I'll let you see the neat trick he's trying to pass over you.
Unlike him, I respect my readers and people in general.
Thankfully, after push back it's been suspended - hopefully for good.
It would have had a chilling effect on R&D and innovation.
But hey. Who cares right? You get to read Obama and his thoughts on human progress (which by the way, happens ins spite of his progressive outlook. This is more like his legacy) over at Wired magazine - who are all wild eyed giddy over this guy.
How disingenuous is this smart alec narcissist?
"Let's start with the big picture. By almost every measure, this country is better, and the world is better, than it was 50 years ago, 30 years ago, or even eight years ago. Leave aside the sepia tones of the 1950s, a time when women, minorities, and people with disabilities were shut out of huge parts of American life."
I'll let you see the neat trick he's trying to pass over you.
Unlike him, I respect my readers and people in general.
Daily Derp: How Does It Feel?
Post-irony
***
Bob Dylan, looks like, has concluded Nobel Prizes are no different than winning a prize at the amusement park.
Plus he has a view on Israel that runs contrary to the left's take. How long before they turn on him?
How does it feel to be on your own?
***
That good old tolerant progressivism.
Being gay Trump supporters is grounds for threats.
Sorts of like stories we read about pseudo-self-righteous, hyper partisan assholes who justify committing acts of vandalizing because Trump is evil. What a sad, sordid state of affairs and points straight into the minds of progressives and their seething intolerance sometimes graduating into acts of violence.
Remember all those alleged acts of violence by Trump supporters? Turns out it was the Democratic campaign as exposed by Wikileaks who orchestrated - which should not surprise people.
These people have no principles and need to seriously grow up.
***
When I found out Chrystia Freeland was a Rhodes Scholar I wondered are they giving those things out like candy?
Looks like they're not big on character either.
I am thoroughly not impressed by what I see from graduates from famous post-secondary education.
Freeland reasons like a 12 year-old.
***
It's not being a hack journalist when you serve your Hilary master.
***
'We should have nominated Rand Paul'.
No shit.
***
Investment in infrastructure government style.
We must tear things down twice to progress - and jobs!
Drink!
The Romans are wondering what the fuck is wrong with us.
***
Millennials have an impressive understanding of history. I pulled this gem off the internet.
"I'd argue that more people died under Bush than Stalin. It's all due to the strange double standard we use when defining who a victim of capitalism is, versus a victim of communism.
Today, thousands of people, most of them children, will die of easily prevented diseases the world over. Their governments are powerless to help because they're in debt to the World Bank, the ultimate tool of capitalism's ability to grab a country by the balls. All the 'low cost, high return' infrastructure projects that they persuaded developing countries to invest in turned out to be the opposite of all of that, and soon they're struggling just to make interest payments.
When that happens, the World Bank can force the country to make whatever concessions they like. Mining precious natural resources and selling them for a fraction of their value. International corporations controlling water and gas. Healthy and nutritious traditional crops ploughed over and replaced with quick cash crops like coffee. Healthcare and education go to ruin, and why? Because they're not profitable for the World Bank.
Sure, we can point to 40 million people who Stalin shipped off to the gulags. But it's more difficult to point to 10 milllion needless deaths per year in the developing world and call them victims of capitalism, because: either there's no figurehead to point at, or worse, the figurehead is us.
No word on Obama's (and Hilary's) murders.
Very ignorant minds.
***
It makes me Angery!
***
Are you ready for the cultural appropriation threat meter?
Fall of the West reason 3949555677888.
When the stupid outnumber even the mildly intelligent that's a problem.
***
Hillary asserts Russia is not interested in fighting ISIS (not exactly true) but rather, is interested in keeping Assad in power. But Assad is fighting ISIS. She lied. And for what?
How would Politifact rate this disingenuous assertion?
Here's the problem. When Putin can articulate a clearer action plan on Syria than Obama ever did, that's a check mate moment. Now Hillary is talking insane agitating for war against Russia. I know the Russian military is no match for the Americans but come on! Nor do I condone the actions of Russia and the Syrian army in East Aleppo which the U.S. is set to do something similar in Mosul.
Remember when she joked about having killed Khaddafy? A true statesman with respect doesn't do stuff like that. You do the deed and don't brag about it (no matter how bad the idiot was) like a petulant little twirp.
***
Trump would prosecute Hillary!
OMG!
Remember when Democrats did it?
***
Top Ten battles in world history.
Millennials, listen up. Learn something.
***
Science must fall.
Because science and economics are 'white'. You didn't know that?
Come on! STOP BEING SO RACIST!
Very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very stupid, ignorant and dangerous stupid girl.
***
No, no. Nothing to worry about, right Merkel?
***
No, Diana Carew - you don't know how economics works thank you very much.
And notice the usual progressive smile-smirk whenever someone dares challenges their untenable positions.
People don't owe people a post-secondary education. It's illogical to think the economy can keep up with the sense of entitlement. In any event, the economy could be more dynamic if not, you know, for all the excessive regulations that slow down the pace of creativity. Regulations I'm sure her ilk would support.
***
Bob Dylan, looks like, has concluded Nobel Prizes are no different than winning a prize at the amusement park.
Plus he has a view on Israel that runs contrary to the left's take. How long before they turn on him?
How does it feel to be on your own?
***
That good old tolerant progressivism.
Being gay Trump supporters is grounds for threats.
Sorts of like stories we read about pseudo-self-righteous, hyper partisan assholes who justify committing acts of vandalizing because Trump is evil. What a sad, sordid state of affairs and points straight into the minds of progressives and their seething intolerance sometimes graduating into acts of violence.
Remember all those alleged acts of violence by Trump supporters? Turns out it was the Democratic campaign as exposed by Wikileaks who orchestrated - which should not surprise people.
These people have no principles and need to seriously grow up.
***
When I found out Chrystia Freeland was a Rhodes Scholar I wondered are they giving those things out like candy?
Looks like they're not big on character either.
I am thoroughly not impressed by what I see from graduates from famous post-secondary education.
Freeland reasons like a 12 year-old.
***
It's not being a hack journalist when you serve your Hilary master.
***
'We should have nominated Rand Paul'.
No shit.
***
Investment in infrastructure government style.
We must tear things down twice to progress - and jobs!
Drink!
The Romans are wondering what the fuck is wrong with us.
***
Millennials have an impressive understanding of history. I pulled this gem off the internet.
"I'd argue that more people died under Bush than Stalin. It's all due to the strange double standard we use when defining who a victim of capitalism is, versus a victim of communism.
Today, thousands of people, most of them children, will die of easily prevented diseases the world over. Their governments are powerless to help because they're in debt to the World Bank, the ultimate tool of capitalism's ability to grab a country by the balls. All the 'low cost, high return' infrastructure projects that they persuaded developing countries to invest in turned out to be the opposite of all of that, and soon they're struggling just to make interest payments.
When that happens, the World Bank can force the country to make whatever concessions they like. Mining precious natural resources and selling them for a fraction of their value. International corporations controlling water and gas. Healthy and nutritious traditional crops ploughed over and replaced with quick cash crops like coffee. Healthcare and education go to ruin, and why? Because they're not profitable for the World Bank.
Sure, we can point to 40 million people who Stalin shipped off to the gulags. But it's more difficult to point to 10 milllion needless deaths per year in the developing world and call them victims of capitalism, because: either there's no figurehead to point at, or worse, the figurehead is us.
No word on Obama's (and Hilary's) murders.
Very ignorant minds.
***
It makes me Angery!
***
Are you ready for the cultural appropriation threat meter?
Fall of the West reason 3949555677888.
When the stupid outnumber even the mildly intelligent that's a problem.
***
Hillary asserts Russia is not interested in fighting ISIS (not exactly true) but rather, is interested in keeping Assad in power. But Assad is fighting ISIS. She lied. And for what?
How would Politifact rate this disingenuous assertion?
Here's the problem. When Putin can articulate a clearer action plan on Syria than Obama ever did, that's a check mate moment. Now Hillary is talking insane agitating for war against Russia. I know the Russian military is no match for the Americans but come on! Nor do I condone the actions of Russia and the Syrian army in East Aleppo which the U.S. is set to do something similar in Mosul.
Remember when she joked about having killed Khaddafy? A true statesman with respect doesn't do stuff like that. You do the deed and don't brag about it (no matter how bad the idiot was) like a petulant little twirp.
***
Trump would prosecute Hillary!
OMG!
Remember when Democrats did it?
***
Top Ten battles in world history.
Millennials, listen up. Learn something.
***
Science must fall.
Because science and economics are 'white'. You didn't know that?
Come on! STOP BEING SO RACIST!
Very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very stupid, ignorant and dangerous stupid girl.
***
No, no. Nothing to worry about, right Merkel?
***
No, Diana Carew - you don't know how economics works thank you very much.
And notice the usual progressive smile-smirk whenever someone dares challenges their untenable positions.
People don't owe people a post-secondary education. It's illogical to think the economy can keep up with the sense of entitlement. In any event, the economy could be more dynamic if not, you know, for all the excessive regulations that slow down the pace of creativity. Regulations I'm sure her ilk would support.
Quote Of The Day
"The Seider/Richardson events could not have given Samuel Adams
a better tool for kicking the revolutionary propaganda campaign into a
higher gear. It was a cold dreary winter day when Christopher Seider was
murdered. Christopher Seider along with a dozen other school boys were
among an angry mob in front of a building throwing rocks at the shop of a
Loyalist merchant. Ebenezer Richardson, a rather unsavory Loyalist who
had worked as a confidential informant to the Attorney General and
Customs and friend of Lilly came along, and tried to defend the merchant
but was hit in the head with a rock. Ebenezer went back to his house
for his musket. From there he climbed up a two story building and aiming
his musket into the mob began to fire at random. In doing that Ebenezer
shot Christopher Seider. Christopher Seider died with two bullets
inserted in him, one right above the heart and the other in the eye at
approximately 9pm that evening. After Christopher was shot the angry mob
dragged Ebenezer to jail. Christopher Seider's body was taken to
Faneuil Hall."
"....Sam Adams called Christopher "the first martyr to American liberty". As for Ebenezer Richardson the judge found him “not guilty”, but was later tortured by local Patriots....Christopher Seider's death united the citizens of Boston against the British."
--Boston Massacre Historical Society
"....Sam Adams called Christopher "the first martyr to American liberty". As for Ebenezer Richardson the judge found him “not guilty”, but was later tortured by local Patriots....Christopher Seider's death united the citizens of Boston against the British."
--Boston Massacre Historical Society
Dilbert's Scott Adams Fights The Bully Party
Long excerpt:
'I’ve been trying to figure out what common trait binds Clinton supporters together. As far as I can tell, the most unifying characteristic is a willingness to bully in all its forms.
If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, they will steal it.
If you have a Trump bumper sticker, they will deface your car. If you speak of Trump at work you could get fired.
On social media, almost every message I get from a Clinton supporter is a bullying type of message. They insult. They try to shame. They label. And obviously they threaten my livelihood.
We know from Project Veritas that Clinton supporters tried to incite violence at Trump rallies. The media downplays it.
We also know Clinton’s side hired paid trolls to bully online. You don’t hear much about that.
Yesterday, by no coincidence, Huffington Post, Salon, and Daily Kos all published similar-sounding hit pieces on me, presumably to lower my influence. (That reason, plus jealousy, are the only reasons writers write about other writers.)
Joe Biden said he wanted to take Trump behind the bleachers and beat him up. No one on Clinton’s side disavowed that call to violence because, I assume, they consider it justified hyperbole.
Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion. But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics. What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person. No one can be a bad person for opposing Hitler, right?
Some Trump supporters online have suggested that people who intend to vote for Trump should wear their Trump hats on election day. That is a dangerous idea, and I strongly discourage it. There would be riots in the streets because we already know the bullies would attack. But on election day, inviting those attacks is an extra-dangerous idea. Violence is bad on any day, but on election day, Republicans are far more likely to unholster in an effort to protect their voting rights. Things will get wet fast.
Yes, yes, I realize Trump supporters say bad things about Clinton supporters too. I don’t defend the bad apples on either side. I’ll just point out that Trump’s message is about uniting all Americans under one flag. The Clinton message is that some Americans are good people and the other 40% are some form of deplorables, deserving of shame, vandalism, punishing taxation, and violence. She has literally turned Americans on each other. It is hard for me to imagine a worse thing for a presidential candidate to do.
I’ll say that again.
As far as I can tell, the worst thing a presidential candidate can do is turn Americans against each other. Clinton is doing that, intentionally.
Intentionally...."
Perfect.
And pretty much what I've been observimg.
Hillary and the Democrats are bullies. Maybe she should spend the $500 million on bullying on herself and her party.
'I’ve been trying to figure out what common trait binds Clinton supporters together. As far as I can tell, the most unifying characteristic is a willingness to bully in all its forms.
If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, they will steal it.
If you have a Trump bumper sticker, they will deface your car. If you speak of Trump at work you could get fired.
On social media, almost every message I get from a Clinton supporter is a bullying type of message. They insult. They try to shame. They label. And obviously they threaten my livelihood.
We know from Project Veritas that Clinton supporters tried to incite violence at Trump rallies. The media downplays it.
We also know Clinton’s side hired paid trolls to bully online. You don’t hear much about that.
Yesterday, by no coincidence, Huffington Post, Salon, and Daily Kos all published similar-sounding hit pieces on me, presumably to lower my influence. (That reason, plus jealousy, are the only reasons writers write about other writers.)
Joe Biden said he wanted to take Trump behind the bleachers and beat him up. No one on Clinton’s side disavowed that call to violence because, I assume, they consider it justified hyperbole.
Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion. But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics. What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person. No one can be a bad person for opposing Hitler, right?
Some Trump supporters online have suggested that people who intend to vote for Trump should wear their Trump hats on election day. That is a dangerous idea, and I strongly discourage it. There would be riots in the streets because we already know the bullies would attack. But on election day, inviting those attacks is an extra-dangerous idea. Violence is bad on any day, but on election day, Republicans are far more likely to unholster in an effort to protect their voting rights. Things will get wet fast.
Yes, yes, I realize Trump supporters say bad things about Clinton supporters too. I don’t defend the bad apples on either side. I’ll just point out that Trump’s message is about uniting all Americans under one flag. The Clinton message is that some Americans are good people and the other 40% are some form of deplorables, deserving of shame, vandalism, punishing taxation, and violence. She has literally turned Americans on each other. It is hard for me to imagine a worse thing for a presidential candidate to do.
I’ll say that again.
As far as I can tell, the worst thing a presidential candidate can do is turn Americans against each other. Clinton is doing that, intentionally.
Intentionally...."
Perfect.
And pretty much what I've been observimg.
Hillary and the Democrats are bullies. Maybe she should spend the $500 million on bullying on herself and her party.
Rethinking The Non-Aggression Principle
By Julian Sanchez.
As one person I know - an Objectivist - libertarianism isn't a philosophy but a loose code of principles.
Personally, to understand libertarianism, it takes intelligence. The one thing I like about them is they're viciously consistent and have a keen understanding of 'the unseen' unintended consequences of government interventionism. If anything, they're a talented group of skeptical minds who know how to spot bull shit from a mile away.
It's, I think, also about making aware of trade-offs with our laws. If you accept a law, then you have to accept the government will forcefully enforce it and this means death to innocence sometimes. They argue too many laws are bad for society and many of our vices (ie drug use) is best left to free people acting as their own free and moral agents. Once the government gets involved, well, you get the war on drugs. They understand better than any group Tacitus's dictum of 'the more numerous the laws, the more corrupted the society.'
Or, as PJ O'Rourke put it 'would you kill your mother to pave I-95?'
As for a philosophical outlook, it complements well with classical liberalism; the Latin language of philosophy.
Liberalism may be dead and taken over by the dark, short-sighted, mean-spirited and stupid mind of a progressive, but classical liberalism has but a faint pulse among contemporary minds.
It's a shame because what took over is a disgrace and dishonors the liberal tradition that forms the base of Western civilization and excellence.
As one person I know - an Objectivist - libertarianism isn't a philosophy but a loose code of principles.
Personally, to understand libertarianism, it takes intelligence. The one thing I like about them is they're viciously consistent and have a keen understanding of 'the unseen' unintended consequences of government interventionism. If anything, they're a talented group of skeptical minds who know how to spot bull shit from a mile away.
It's, I think, also about making aware of trade-offs with our laws. If you accept a law, then you have to accept the government will forcefully enforce it and this means death to innocence sometimes. They argue too many laws are bad for society and many of our vices (ie drug use) is best left to free people acting as their own free and moral agents. Once the government gets involved, well, you get the war on drugs. They understand better than any group Tacitus's dictum of 'the more numerous the laws, the more corrupted the society.'
Or, as PJ O'Rourke put it 'would you kill your mother to pave I-95?'
As for a philosophical outlook, it complements well with classical liberalism; the Latin language of philosophy.
Liberalism may be dead and taken over by the dark, short-sighted, mean-spirited and stupid mind of a progressive, but classical liberalism has but a faint pulse among contemporary minds.
It's a shame because what took over is a disgrace and dishonors the liberal tradition that forms the base of Western civilization and excellence.
Hillary Is Corrupt Reason 49595669777998
Amusing how the story about Wikileaks exposing Hillary's emails is less about her and more about Julian Assange.
It goes something like 'why is he doing it?' and 'what's his angle?' and 'why isn't he doing the same to the GOP?'
The last one is especially intriguing given there is no GOP candidate who had an unsecured private server. There's nothing to go after but apparently Assange is *supposed* to just do it. It's all character assassination and shooting the messenger with little actual examination of, you know, the content of the emails by the person committing the crime.
Whatever.
Make what you will of it.
All I know is you will vote for an obviously contemptible and corrupted individual who thinks little of people and rules and laws. And you will not get to call others for their corruption for you've - by your vote - tacitly approved of such behavior.
Here are some leaks.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
The last link had this:
“Do we actually know who told Hillary she could use a private email? And has that person been drawn and quartered?” Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden, a longtime Clinton ally who has a close relationship with Podesta, declared in a July email, saying the "whole thing is f---ing insane.”Podesta and the Clinton campaign have not authenticated the emails' veracity. National security experts have said the emails, like internal emails at the Democratic National Committee, were all but certainly stolen by Russian-aligned hackers and given to WikiLeaks in order to try to influence the election and hurt Clinton."
There they go again. It's always someone's fault. Russia, Assange.
How about next time you fucking follow the law and don't try to be an arrogant, disingenuous asshole?
That way, the charge the Russians are behind it may be more credible.
Oh. And
Here.
"Long before Hillary Clinton called millions of Americans a “basket of deplorables,” her top campaign advisers and liberal allies openly mocked Catholics, Southerners and a host of other groups, according to newly released emails that offer a stunning window into the vitriol inside the Clinton world less than a month before Election Day.
The emails, published by WikiLeaks after a hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s private account, also show Clinton campaign officials and Democratic leaders disparaging supporters of Sen. Bernard Sanders as “self-righteous” whiners, calling Hispanic party leaders such as Bill Richardson “needy Latinos,” labeling CNN anchor Jake Tapper “a d—k” and even lambasting longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal.
The sheer number of insults in the email trove has left the Clinton campaign, along with outside organizations such as the Center for American Progress that were routinely involved in the brutal bad-mouthing, unable or unwilling to respond. Instead, they have blamed the hack on Russia and have refused to even confirm that the emails are genuine, though they also haven’t denied their authenticity.
The Clinton campaign’s biggest problem may be its assault on Catholics. Prominent Catholic organizations called on Clinton campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri to resign after the surfacing of messages showing her making fun of the faith. The campaign of Republican nominee Donald Trump seized on the opportunity to appeal to religious voters."
Democrats are so enlightened and rational it literally is leaving me in tears!
But keep telling yourself Trump is more vile and she's cut out or qualified to lead.
Ga'head.
It goes something like 'why is he doing it?' and 'what's his angle?' and 'why isn't he doing the same to the GOP?'
The last one is especially intriguing given there is no GOP candidate who had an unsecured private server. There's nothing to go after but apparently Assange is *supposed* to just do it. It's all character assassination and shooting the messenger with little actual examination of, you know, the content of the emails by the person committing the crime.
Whatever.
Make what you will of it.
All I know is you will vote for an obviously contemptible and corrupted individual who thinks little of people and rules and laws. And you will not get to call others for their corruption for you've - by your vote - tacitly approved of such behavior.
Here are some leaks.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
The last link had this:
“Do we actually know who told Hillary she could use a private email? And has that person been drawn and quartered?” Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden, a longtime Clinton ally who has a close relationship with Podesta, declared in a July email, saying the "whole thing is f---ing insane.”Podesta and the Clinton campaign have not authenticated the emails' veracity. National security experts have said the emails, like internal emails at the Democratic National Committee, were all but certainly stolen by Russian-aligned hackers and given to WikiLeaks in order to try to influence the election and hurt Clinton."
There they go again. It's always someone's fault. Russia, Assange.
How about next time you fucking follow the law and don't try to be an arrogant, disingenuous asshole?
That way, the charge the Russians are behind it may be more credible.
Oh. And
Here.
"Long before Hillary Clinton called millions of Americans a “basket of deplorables,” her top campaign advisers and liberal allies openly mocked Catholics, Southerners and a host of other groups, according to newly released emails that offer a stunning window into the vitriol inside the Clinton world less than a month before Election Day.
The emails, published by WikiLeaks after a hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s private account, also show Clinton campaign officials and Democratic leaders disparaging supporters of Sen. Bernard Sanders as “self-righteous” whiners, calling Hispanic party leaders such as Bill Richardson “needy Latinos,” labeling CNN anchor Jake Tapper “a d—k” and even lambasting longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal.
The sheer number of insults in the email trove has left the Clinton campaign, along with outside organizations such as the Center for American Progress that were routinely involved in the brutal bad-mouthing, unable or unwilling to respond. Instead, they have blamed the hack on Russia and have refused to even confirm that the emails are genuine, though they also haven’t denied their authenticity.
The Clinton campaign’s biggest problem may be its assault on Catholics. Prominent Catholic organizations called on Clinton campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri to resign after the surfacing of messages showing her making fun of the faith. The campaign of Republican nominee Donald Trump seized on the opportunity to appeal to religious voters."
Democrats are so enlightened and rational it literally is leaving me in tears!
But keep telling yourself Trump is more vile and she's cut out or qualified to lead.
Ga'head.
Climate Change Cultists Are Nasty Anti-Humanist
Climate change cultists are nasty people.
Neither rational nor humanist.
It's amazing how many articles I read where people daring to challenge climate change orthodoxy (in all its magnificent manipulations and bull shit) are often told to die. The less violent will simply charge you're in the back pocket of big business or some other gibberish.
And the worst offenders aren't on blogs.
Nope.
They lurk in the comments section of mainstream places like The Washington Post and New York Times.
Don't you dare ever challenge them.
Sorta like Tesla cultists.
It's impossible to reason with them.
Mostly because, as noted, we're in a Dark Age.
See, a Dark Age isn't a period where everything turns literally black. It manifests itself in, well, stuff like discussions where one side merely looks to silence another; to censor and even imprison.
Interesting because they're always telling us how humanist they are. Which they aren't. They're just little fascists pretending 'science is settled'.
That's their shtick. Believe in something, call it settled and squash all opposition. Never does it enter their pompous minds they could be wrong. Never does it occur to this arrogant little anti-humanist Luddites their whole prevailing models and calculations could be off. Nor can they accept that when manipulation and falsification takes place and endless streams of failed apocalyptic predictions (you know, like when Al Gore said England would drown by 2000 or thereabouts), it's only normal skeptics will point to credibility.
As we ought to.
But you can't do this with such aggressive, unthinking minds.
Folly of man indeed.
This whole thing, in the latest saga of Witches versus the people, about Democrat AG's going after Exxon is nothing but that - a witch hunt; an exercise in pant shitting stupidity; a shakedown.
It's not unreasonable to figure like how government shakes down Big Tabacky they have a live one with with oil companies.
In a nutshell, they're chasing ghosts in hope of an 'a-ha' moment. Only, they're less on a path to finding criminals and crooks and more on eventually imprisoning scientists who don't share the prevailing climate change view.
Crazy? Tell that to the scientists in Italy who are doing time for failing to predict earthquakes.
THAT'S what you idiots who blindingly support this crap are setting yourselves up for.
There's more than enough valid literature questioning whether man is solely at fault and it's enough to make pause the path we're on - which isn't a good one. It's not a stretch to be at a point where we do imprison people only to find out - oh, oh - maybe man wasn't at fault after all!
Anyway. I got this from Reason's comments:
The way I see it, if you're not asking enough questions and just accepting, then you're not doing your job.
Now if you don't mind, I have to go cash my Exxon check before I do left-wing nut cases a favor and die.
***
Long story short.
Climate change cultists present 'global warming because man. Act now or die. Because consensus.'
Sound minds say, 'Oh. Okay. Let me look into this because sounds important.'
Sound increasingly informed mind starts to see troubling and contradictory information begins to ask questions about methodology, interpretation of data etc.
Climate change cultists have a chance to respond in healthy exchange of ideas since they presented the argument. They do for a while.
Sound mind gives way to skeptical query as responses not standing up to scrutiny.
Climate change go on attack demanding censorship and imprisonment because how dare they be challenged.
And this is where we fucking are. A politicized mess where too much money and reputations are staked in climate change.
It's not about earth and it's not about you. Al Gore couldn't care less about either. Understand?
Ask and be skeptical.
CUI BONO?
Neither rational nor humanist.
It's amazing how many articles I read where people daring to challenge climate change orthodoxy (in all its magnificent manipulations and bull shit) are often told to die. The less violent will simply charge you're in the back pocket of big business or some other gibberish.
And the worst offenders aren't on blogs.
Nope.
They lurk in the comments section of mainstream places like The Washington Post and New York Times.
Don't you dare ever challenge them.
Sorta like Tesla cultists.
It's impossible to reason with them.
Mostly because, as noted, we're in a Dark Age.
See, a Dark Age isn't a period where everything turns literally black. It manifests itself in, well, stuff like discussions where one side merely looks to silence another; to censor and even imprison.
Interesting because they're always telling us how humanist they are. Which they aren't. They're just little fascists pretending 'science is settled'.
That's their shtick. Believe in something, call it settled and squash all opposition. Never does it enter their pompous minds they could be wrong. Never does it occur to this arrogant little anti-humanist Luddites their whole prevailing models and calculations could be off. Nor can they accept that when manipulation and falsification takes place and endless streams of failed apocalyptic predictions (you know, like when Al Gore said England would drown by 2000 or thereabouts), it's only normal skeptics will point to credibility.
As we ought to.
But you can't do this with such aggressive, unthinking minds.
Folly of man indeed.
This whole thing, in the latest saga of Witches versus the people, about Democrat AG's going after Exxon is nothing but that - a witch hunt; an exercise in pant shitting stupidity; a shakedown.
It's not unreasonable to figure like how government shakes down Big Tabacky they have a live one with with oil companies.
In a nutshell, they're chasing ghosts in hope of an 'a-ha' moment. Only, they're less on a path to finding criminals and crooks and more on eventually imprisoning scientists who don't share the prevailing climate change view.
Crazy? Tell that to the scientists in Italy who are doing time for failing to predict earthquakes.
THAT'S what you idiots who blindingly support this crap are setting yourselves up for.
There's more than enough valid literature questioning whether man is solely at fault and it's enough to make pause the path we're on - which isn't a good one. It's not a stretch to be at a point where we do imprison people only to find out - oh, oh - maybe man wasn't at fault after all!
Anyway. I got this from Reason's comments:
- Allegation 3: The recent collapse of oil prices has had companies writing down the value of their oil reserves. Exxon has not joined the pack. Ergo Exxon is misleading investors into thinking they are worth more than they actually are.
Exxon's response: We conservatively value our oil reserves ($65 per barrell IIRC). These valuations are consistent with the expected price of oil a few years out (true last I checked). Ergo we didn't write them down because we didn't write them up when oil prices were high.
I expect that Schneiderman is desperately searching for something, anything(!) to pin on Exxon in an effort to claim they misled shareholders.
Because his original plan - to unearth documents that Al Gore's crowd could use to leverage a version of the Tobacco settlement that would provide Al Gore's empire of anti-fossil fuel activist orgs a steady source of income is in tatters. At this point he is tryign to save himself, because he's pretty much in Nifong territory and he knows it."
"There are three different allegations to date that I know of:
Allegation 1: Exxon knew in the 70's and 80's that CO2 was dangerous and tried to cover it up from their shareholders. Reality according to the documents - Exxon knew in the 70's and 80's that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and were concerned it might be dangerous. They funded development of some early primitive GCM's that showed it might be a problem, it might not. There is no evidence they tried to manipulate the GCM's to make CO2 benign and plenty of evidence that they did not. As the IPCC became ever more politicized they withdrew gradually from funding research. Their warnings to shareholders were based on IPCC summaries.
So that allegation collapsed
Allegation 2: Exxon knew recently that they would probably be unable to pump all the oil reserved they had, due to the Paris Accord. Thus valuing these stranded assets above 0 was misleading to shareholders about the value of the company.
Exxon's response: We can't predict what politicians will do, but governments closing off oil fields has been happening ever since the oil industry started, and we warn investors that we operate at a risk of governments shutting down components of our business.
That allegation has collapsed
Allegation 1: Exxon knew in the 70's and 80's that CO2 was dangerous and tried to cover it up from their shareholders. Reality according to the documents - Exxon knew in the 70's and 80's that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and were concerned it might be dangerous. They funded development of some early primitive GCM's that showed it might be a problem, it might not. There is no evidence they tried to manipulate the GCM's to make CO2 benign and plenty of evidence that they did not. As the IPCC became ever more politicized they withdrew gradually from funding research. Their warnings to shareholders were based on IPCC summaries.
So that allegation collapsed
Allegation 2: Exxon knew recently that they would probably be unable to pump all the oil reserved they had, due to the Paris Accord. Thus valuing these stranded assets above 0 was misleading to shareholders about the value of the company.
Exxon's response: We can't predict what politicians will do, but governments closing off oil fields has been happening ever since the oil industry started, and we warn investors that we operate at a risk of governments shutting down components of our business.
That allegation has collapsed
The way I see it, if you're not asking enough questions and just accepting, then you're not doing your job.
Now if you don't mind, I have to go cash my Exxon check before I do left-wing nut cases a favor and die.
***
Long story short.
Climate change cultists present 'global warming because man. Act now or die. Because consensus.'
Sound minds say, 'Oh. Okay. Let me look into this because sounds important.'
Sound increasingly informed mind starts to see troubling and contradictory information begins to ask questions about methodology, interpretation of data etc.
Climate change cultists have a chance to respond in healthy exchange of ideas since they presented the argument. They do for a while.
Sound mind gives way to skeptical query as responses not standing up to scrutiny.
Climate change go on attack demanding censorship and imprisonment because how dare they be challenged.
And this is where we fucking are. A politicized mess where too much money and reputations are staked in climate change.
It's not about earth and it's not about you. Al Gore couldn't care less about either. Understand?
Ask and be skeptical.
CUI BONO?
Climate Change Cultists Are Nasty Anti-Humanist
Climate change cultists are nasty people.
Neither rational nor humanist.
It's amazing how many articles I read where people daring to challenge climate change orthodoxy (in all its magnificent manipulations and bull shit) are often told to die. The less violent will simply charge you're in the back pocket of big business or some other gibberish.
And the worst offenders aren't on blogs.
Nope.
They lurk in the comments section of mainstream places like The Washington Post and New York Times.
Don't you dare ever challenge them.
Sorta like Tesla cultists.
It's impossible to reason with them.
Mostly because, as noted, we're in a Dark Age.
See, a Dark Age isn't a period where everything turns literally black. It manifests itself in, well, stuff like discussions where one side merely looks to silence another; to censor and even imprison.
Interesting because they're always telling us how humanist they are. Which they aren't. They're just little fascists pretending 'science is settled'.
That's their shtick. Believe in something, call it settled and squash all opposition. Never does it enter their fucking, middling, pompous minds they could be wrong. Never does it occur to this arrogant little anti-humanist Luddites their whole prevailing models and calculations could be off. Nor can they accept that when manipulation and falsification takes place and endless streams of failed apocalyptic predictions (you know, like when Al Gore said England would drown by 2000 or thereabouts), it's only normal skeptics will point to credibility.
As we ought to.
But you can't do this with such aggressive, unthinking minds.
Folly of man indeed.
This whole thing, in the latest saga of Witches versus the people, about Democrat AG's going after Exxon is nothing but that - a witch hunt; an exercise in pant shitting stupidity; a shakedown.
It's not unreasonable to figure like how government shakes down Big Tabacky they have a live one with with oil companies. Why does it smell like Al Gore is sniffing around this?
In a nutshell, they're chasing ghosts in hope of an 'a-ha' moment. Only, they're less on a path to finding criminals and crooks and more on eventually imprisoning scientists who don't share the prevailing climate change view.
Crazy? Tell that to the scientists in Italy who are doing time for failing to predict earthquakes.
THAT'S what you idiots who blindingly support this crap are setting yourselves up for.
Anyway. I got this from Reason's comments:
Now if you don't mind, I have to go cash my Exxon check before I do left-wing nut cases a favor and die.
***
Long story short.
Climate change cultists present 'global warming because man. Act now or die. Because consensus.'
Sound minds say, 'Oh. Okay. Let me look into this because sounds important.'
Sound increasingly informed mind starts to see troubling and contradictory information begins to ask questions about methodology, interpretation of data etc.
Climate change cultists have a chance to respond in healthy exchange of ideas since they presented the argument. They do for a while.
Sound mind gives way to skeptical query as responses not standing up to scrutiny.
Climate change go on attack demanding censorship and imprisonment because how dare they be challenged.
And this is where we fucking are. A politicized mess where too much money and reputations are staked in climate change.
It's not about earth and it's not about you. Al Gore couldn't care less about either. Understand?
Ask and be skeptical.
CUI BONO?
Neither rational nor humanist.
It's amazing how many articles I read where people daring to challenge climate change orthodoxy (in all its magnificent manipulations and bull shit) are often told to die. The less violent will simply charge you're in the back pocket of big business or some other gibberish.
And the worst offenders aren't on blogs.
Nope.
They lurk in the comments section of mainstream places like The Washington Post and New York Times.
Don't you dare ever challenge them.
Sorta like Tesla cultists.
It's impossible to reason with them.
Mostly because, as noted, we're in a Dark Age.
See, a Dark Age isn't a period where everything turns literally black. It manifests itself in, well, stuff like discussions where one side merely looks to silence another; to censor and even imprison.
Interesting because they're always telling us how humanist they are. Which they aren't. They're just little fascists pretending 'science is settled'.
That's their shtick. Believe in something, call it settled and squash all opposition. Never does it enter their fucking, middling, pompous minds they could be wrong. Never does it occur to this arrogant little anti-humanist Luddites their whole prevailing models and calculations could be off. Nor can they accept that when manipulation and falsification takes place and endless streams of failed apocalyptic predictions (you know, like when Al Gore said England would drown by 2000 or thereabouts), it's only normal skeptics will point to credibility.
As we ought to.
But you can't do this with such aggressive, unthinking minds.
Folly of man indeed.
This whole thing, in the latest saga of Witches versus the people, about Democrat AG's going after Exxon is nothing but that - a witch hunt; an exercise in pant shitting stupidity; a shakedown.
It's not unreasonable to figure like how government shakes down Big Tabacky they have a live one with with oil companies. Why does it smell like Al Gore is sniffing around this?
In a nutshell, they're chasing ghosts in hope of an 'a-ha' moment. Only, they're less on a path to finding criminals and crooks and more on eventually imprisoning scientists who don't share the prevailing climate change view.
Crazy? Tell that to the scientists in Italy who are doing time for failing to predict earthquakes.
THAT'S what you idiots who blindingly support this crap are setting yourselves up for.
Anyway. I got this from Reason's comments:
- Allegation 3: The recent collapse of oil prices has had companies writing down the value of their oil reserves. Exxon has not joined the pack. Ergo Exxon is misleading investors into thinking they are worth more than they actually are.
Exxon's response: We conservatively value our oil reserves ($65 per barrell IIRC). These valuations are consistent with the expected price of oil a few years out (true last I checked). Ergo we didn't write them down because we didn't write them up when oil prices were high.
I expect that Schneiderman is desperately searching for something, anything(!) to pin on Exxon in an effort to claim they misled shareholders.
Because his original plan - to unearth documents that Al Gore's crowd could use to leverage a version of the Tobacco settlement that would provide Al Gore's empire of anti-fossil fuel activist orgs a steady source of income is in tatters. At this point he is tryign to save himself, because he's pretty much in Nifong territory and he knows it."
"There are three different allegations to date that I know of:
Allegation 1: Exxon knew in the 70's and 80's that CO2 was dangerous and tried to cover it up from their shareholders. Reality according to the documents - Exxon knew in the 70's and 80's that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and were concerned it might be dangerous. They funded development of some early primitive GCM's that showed it might be a problem, it might not. There is no evidence they tried to manipulate the GCM's to make CO2 benign and plenty of evidence that they did not. As the IPCC became ever more politicized they withdrew gradually from funding research. Their warnings to shareholders were based on IPCC summaries.
So that allegation collapsed
Allegation 2: Exxon knew recently that they would probably be unable to pump all the oil reserved they had, due to the Paris Accord. Thus valuing these stranded assets above 0 was misleading to shareholders about the value of the company.
Exxon's response: We can't predict what politicians will do, but governments closing off oil fields has been happening ever since the oil industry started, and we warn investors that we operate at a risk of governments shutting down components of our business.
That allegation has collapsed
Allegation 1: Exxon knew in the 70's and 80's that CO2 was dangerous and tried to cover it up from their shareholders. Reality according to the documents - Exxon knew in the 70's and 80's that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and were concerned it might be dangerous. They funded development of some early primitive GCM's that showed it might be a problem, it might not. There is no evidence they tried to manipulate the GCM's to make CO2 benign and plenty of evidence that they did not. As the IPCC became ever more politicized they withdrew gradually from funding research. Their warnings to shareholders were based on IPCC summaries.
So that allegation collapsed
Allegation 2: Exxon knew recently that they would probably be unable to pump all the oil reserved they had, due to the Paris Accord. Thus valuing these stranded assets above 0 was misleading to shareholders about the value of the company.
Exxon's response: We can't predict what politicians will do, but governments closing off oil fields has been happening ever since the oil industry started, and we warn investors that we operate at a risk of governments shutting down components of our business.
That allegation has collapsed
Now if you don't mind, I have to go cash my Exxon check before I do left-wing nut cases a favor and die.
***
Long story short.
Climate change cultists present 'global warming because man. Act now or die. Because consensus.'
Sound minds say, 'Oh. Okay. Let me look into this because sounds important.'
Sound increasingly informed mind starts to see troubling and contradictory information begins to ask questions about methodology, interpretation of data etc.
Climate change cultists have a chance to respond in healthy exchange of ideas since they presented the argument. They do for a while.
Sound mind gives way to skeptical query as responses not standing up to scrutiny.
Climate change go on attack demanding censorship and imprisonment because how dare they be challenged.
And this is where we fucking are. A politicized mess where too much money and reputations are staked in climate change.
It's not about earth and it's not about you. Al Gore couldn't care less about either. Understand?
Ask and be skeptical.
CUI BONO?
Meet The Most Vile Man In America: Hint Not Donald Trump
Jonathan Gruber:
"Look, once again, there's no sense of oh it just has to be fixed. The law is working as designed; however, it could work better, and I think probably the most important thing experts would agree on is that we need a larger mandate penalty. We have individuals who are essentially free riding on the system. They're essentially waiting until they get sick and then getting health insurance. The whole idea of this plan which was pioneered in Massachusetts was that the individual mandate penalty would bring those people into the system and have them participate. The penalty right now is probably too low and that's something ideally we would fix."
I remember when Rush Limbaugh asserted all this was by design and the brain dead hyenas on the left mobilized to engage in the usual character assassination. But he has been proven right every single step of the way. The end game always was single payer and therefore socialized medicine at the end of the line. Always.
But notice how utterly despicable the way they go about achieving it.
While you point out all the flaws, errors, faulty premises, concerns etc., they scoff it off and demonize and dismiss your arguments, but then once it does turn into law and operates as people who criticized it thought it was, they turn around and say, 'yeh. Like, duh!'
One of the last nations on earth where health care services of the highest order exists, is on a path to....Canadian style universal care.
And you're trying to tell me we're not in a dark age when we accept mediocrity in order to achieve 'equality'?
"Look, once again, there's no sense of oh it just has to be fixed. The law is working as designed; however, it could work better, and I think probably the most important thing experts would agree on is that we need a larger mandate penalty. We have individuals who are essentially free riding on the system. They're essentially waiting until they get sick and then getting health insurance. The whole idea of this plan which was pioneered in Massachusetts was that the individual mandate penalty would bring those people into the system and have them participate. The penalty right now is probably too low and that's something ideally we would fix."
I remember when Rush Limbaugh asserted all this was by design and the brain dead hyenas on the left mobilized to engage in the usual character assassination. But he has been proven right every single step of the way. The end game always was single payer and therefore socialized medicine at the end of the line. Always.
But notice how utterly despicable the way they go about achieving it.
While you point out all the flaws, errors, faulty premises, concerns etc., they scoff it off and demonize and dismiss your arguments, but then once it does turn into law and operates as people who criticized it thought it was, they turn around and say, 'yeh. Like, duh!'
One of the last nations on earth where health care services of the highest order exists, is on a path to....Canadian style universal care.
And you're trying to tell me we're not in a dark age when we accept mediocrity in order to achieve 'equality'?
2016-10-26
Belated Sports Post: Ali And Howe
Bare with me. This is an old post about the passing of Muhammad Ali and Gordie Howe I never got around to. So, forgive me if it sounds a little dated but it still deserves some time.
I never did quite discuss Ali's passing the way I wanted to. It was a subject that deserved a little bit of thought but it came at a time where I couldn't spare the time while Louisville, Kentucky; Floral, Saskatchewan and Detroit, Michigan mourned their sporting legends.
Best I could offer is an interview I heard with his long-time biographer who had been around Ali more than anyone.
Anyway.
I can't possibly add more to what's been said about Ali already.
Nonetheless, allow me to offer a couple brief thoughts.
Ali is more complex than Howe because his persona extended beyond boxing laced with political overtones whereas Howe was your typical understated Canadian hockey player.
Ali obviously means many things to different people but let me stick to boxing as my comments aren't going to offer anything original on the socio-political front. I heard New York Times writer Dave Anderson on the radio the other day and expertly (and soberly) wading through Ali's life and times he agreed that Ali was perhaps 'over loved' possibly because he was an incredible self-promoter.
This larger than life image possibly obscured his actual boxing legacy. Though I'm no expert, based on what I've read by experts over the years, he isn't always considered the best ever. The overall *consensus* has him in the top 5 for sure.
Where there's much debate about Ali's placing among the greatest, there isn't much doubt Howe is in the conversation as the greatest ever. He, along with Gretzky and Orr, each have their legion of supporters. You can easily make the claim he was the greatest hockey player more than Ali as the greatest boxer. And judging by those arms, he would have done okay in the ring looks like. Lord me.
Whatever.
There's no debating they helped change their respective sports forever.
***
Quick word about the Copa America that took place for the first time on U.S. soil. And not surprisingly, it went off without any violence. American sports culture is amazing that way.
It simply isn't the case in Europe with soccer.
I know this may and possibly will ruffle feathers with the inevitable 'it's a small percentage of people causing the trouble' (which is not exactly true. European violence is persistent and large enough to cause significant property damage, injuries and sometimes deaths along with the occasional postponement of matches), the fact is you don't even get that in North America as a whole.
The violence we see in South America and Europe is simply absent here.
I never did quite discuss Ali's passing the way I wanted to. It was a subject that deserved a little bit of thought but it came at a time where I couldn't spare the time while Louisville, Kentucky; Floral, Saskatchewan and Detroit, Michigan mourned their sporting legends.
Best I could offer is an interview I heard with his long-time biographer who had been around Ali more than anyone.
Anyway.
I can't possibly add more to what's been said about Ali already.
Nonetheless, allow me to offer a couple brief thoughts.
Ali is more complex than Howe because his persona extended beyond boxing laced with political overtones whereas Howe was your typical understated Canadian hockey player.
Ali obviously means many things to different people but let me stick to boxing as my comments aren't going to offer anything original on the socio-political front. I heard New York Times writer Dave Anderson on the radio the other day and expertly (and soberly) wading through Ali's life and times he agreed that Ali was perhaps 'over loved' possibly because he was an incredible self-promoter.
This larger than life image possibly obscured his actual boxing legacy. Though I'm no expert, based on what I've read by experts over the years, he isn't always considered the best ever. The overall *consensus* has him in the top 5 for sure.
Where there's much debate about Ali's placing among the greatest, there isn't much doubt Howe is in the conversation as the greatest ever. He, along with Gretzky and Orr, each have their legion of supporters. You can easily make the claim he was the greatest hockey player more than Ali as the greatest boxer. And judging by those arms, he would have done okay in the ring looks like. Lord me.
Whatever.
There's no debating they helped change their respective sports forever.
***
Quick word about the Copa America that took place for the first time on U.S. soil. And not surprisingly, it went off without any violence. American sports culture is amazing that way.
It simply isn't the case in Europe with soccer.
I know this may and possibly will ruffle feathers with the inevitable 'it's a small percentage of people causing the trouble' (which is not exactly true. European violence is persistent and large enough to cause significant property damage, injuries and sometimes deaths along with the occasional postponement of matches), the fact is you don't even get that in North America as a whole.
The violence we see in South America and Europe is simply absent here.
Pseudo-Intellectual Professors Are Gonna Pseudo
And now another installment of Derpy Professors say the darndest things!'
"Forget Halloween costumes and yoga, there’s a new symbol of cultural appropriation—the canoe.
According to Misao Dean, Professor of English at the University of Victoria, the canoe can be a symbol of colonialism, imperialism and genocide due to history. She also accused the canoers of cultural appropriation because they are primarily white men and have a privileged place in society."
Ah.
Yeah, but what's her opinion on kayaks?
***
Canoe from wiki:
"The word canoe comes from the Carib kenu (dugout), via the Spanish canoa.[4]
Constructed between 8200 and 7600 BC, and found in the Netherlands, the Pesse canoe may be the oldest known canoe. Excavations in Denmark reveal the use of dugouts and paddles during the Ertebølle period, (ca 5300 BC – 3950 BC).[5]"
Fricken Dutch! Ruining a perfectly sound narrative!
I swear, if I ever catch these over paid, pseudo-intellectual professor-social-warriors eating Italian food...
***
Recently some celebrity named Vanessa Hudgeons was mauled by idiots for having braids.
One commenter said, 'She wasn't offended, by an African-American, by it'.
While we can applaud her good sense and grace, I don't give a shit she's not offended since braids and dreadlocks are not African or black in origin. So, in a sense, we can actually argue by the facts of history, it was culturally appropriated from elsewhere! And another thing, since I'm on it and need to knock sense into this misplaced nonsense, there's nothing original in rap music. So who gives a shit about white musicians who rap? I'll be sure to heckle some random black SJW about the Marsalis brothers and their classical music training and the next time I see Wynton playing the trumpet:
"The earliest trumpets date back to 1500 BC and earlier. The bronze and silver trumpets from Tutankhamun's grave in Egypt, bronze lurs from Scandinavia, and metal trumpets from China date back to this period.[2] Trumpets from the Oxus civilization (3rd millennium BC) of Central Asia have decorated swellings in the middle, yet are made out of one sheet of metal, which is considered a technical wonder.[3]"
Whatever.
As I've mentioned before, anyone who uses the term is profoundly ignorant and anti-humanist.
Now if you don't mind, I may want to go listen to some FUCKING JAZZ.
"Forget Halloween costumes and yoga, there’s a new symbol of cultural appropriation—the canoe.
According to Misao Dean, Professor of English at the University of Victoria, the canoe can be a symbol of colonialism, imperialism and genocide due to history. She also accused the canoers of cultural appropriation because they are primarily white men and have a privileged place in society."
Ah.
Yeah, but what's her opinion on kayaks?
***
Canoe from wiki:
"The word canoe comes from the Carib kenu (dugout), via the Spanish canoa.[4]
Constructed between 8200 and 7600 BC, and found in the Netherlands, the Pesse canoe may be the oldest known canoe. Excavations in Denmark reveal the use of dugouts and paddles during the Ertebølle period, (ca 5300 BC – 3950 BC).[5]"
Fricken Dutch! Ruining a perfectly sound narrative!
I swear, if I ever catch these over paid, pseudo-intellectual professor-social-warriors eating Italian food...
***
Recently some celebrity named Vanessa Hudgeons was mauled by idiots for having braids.
One commenter said, 'She wasn't offended, by an African-American, by it'.
While we can applaud her good sense and grace, I don't give a shit she's not offended since braids and dreadlocks are not African or black in origin. So, in a sense, we can actually argue by the facts of history, it was culturally appropriated from elsewhere! And another thing, since I'm on it and need to knock sense into this misplaced nonsense, there's nothing original in rap music. So who gives a shit about white musicians who rap? I'll be sure to heckle some random black SJW about the Marsalis brothers and their classical music training and the next time I see Wynton playing the trumpet:
"The earliest trumpets date back to 1500 BC and earlier. The bronze and silver trumpets from Tutankhamun's grave in Egypt, bronze lurs from Scandinavia, and metal trumpets from China date back to this period.[2] Trumpets from the Oxus civilization (3rd millennium BC) of Central Asia have decorated swellings in the middle, yet are made out of one sheet of metal, which is considered a technical wonder.[3]"
Whatever.
As I've mentioned before, anyone who uses the term is profoundly ignorant and anti-humanist.
Now if you don't mind, I may want to go listen to some FUCKING JAZZ.
2016-10-25
Scandinavia's Success Is Not A Secret
Progressives love to leverage Scandinavia (and Europe at large) to guilt ride and extort North Americans into accepting more welfare is the civilized thing to do.
Not in my view it is.
It's actually barbaric to offer welfare to those who don't need it. It's called enabling. And this is how we enslave humans and bludgeon their spirit. It's anti-humanist.
But this is not the point of my post.
Often we hear about how if socialism is so bad, how come Scandinavia (and no, Finland is not part of Scandinavia! But Iceland is) is successful?
Simple really.
And for the sake of argument let's use Sweden.
The Industrial Revolution, propelled by the legacy of the Age of Reason (where true genius actually kept idiots at bay) and classical liberalism, came late to Sweden. But once smart Swedes figured out the blueprint, it soon became a wild success story. By the early 20th century, its economy was on the move (as was their impressive sports record. Sweden may not have won a World Cup but it does have in its record a finals appearance. Its soccer legacy is substantial and nothing to sneer at) as confirmed by traditional metrics used to assess an economy.
Scandinavia as a whole succeeded because it embraced classical liberal concepts of free markets and free minds.
Once times were good, it was time to rape and pillage the coffers. This is where socialists and progressives enter. They used the money to expand the welfare state and entrenched themselves (the idiots overtook the smart people by now) in all aspects of Scandinavian life.
However, Scandinavians seem to have a mean pragmatic streak in them (they recognize where the gravy train originates) because each time they begin to run out of money, they seem to know how to revert back to the methods that enrich them. This has been the key to them staying afloat.
And so the cycle goes.
Free markets and minds lead to wealth and prosperity. This can't be denied or refuted.
Closed markets and minds reverse this. This can't be denied or refuted as well.
No. There is no in between.
There is only one degree of freedom.
Not in my view it is.
It's actually barbaric to offer welfare to those who don't need it. It's called enabling. And this is how we enslave humans and bludgeon their spirit. It's anti-humanist.
But this is not the point of my post.
Often we hear about how if socialism is so bad, how come Scandinavia (and no, Finland is not part of Scandinavia! But Iceland is) is successful?
Simple really.
And for the sake of argument let's use Sweden.
The Industrial Revolution, propelled by the legacy of the Age of Reason (where true genius actually kept idiots at bay) and classical liberalism, came late to Sweden. But once smart Swedes figured out the blueprint, it soon became a wild success story. By the early 20th century, its economy was on the move (as was their impressive sports record. Sweden may not have won a World Cup but it does have in its record a finals appearance. Its soccer legacy is substantial and nothing to sneer at) as confirmed by traditional metrics used to assess an economy.
Scandinavia as a whole succeeded because it embraced classical liberal concepts of free markets and free minds.
Once times were good, it was time to rape and pillage the coffers. This is where socialists and progressives enter. They used the money to expand the welfare state and entrenched themselves (the idiots overtook the smart people by now) in all aspects of Scandinavian life.
However, Scandinavians seem to have a mean pragmatic streak in them (they recognize where the gravy train originates) because each time they begin to run out of money, they seem to know how to revert back to the methods that enrich them. This has been the key to them staying afloat.
And so the cycle goes.
Free markets and minds lead to wealth and prosperity. This can't be denied or refuted.
Closed markets and minds reverse this. This can't be denied or refuted as well.
No. There is no in between.
There is only one degree of freedom.
Dark Clouds Forming And A Call To Classical Entrepreneurship
Troubling trends for the Canadian economy.
As we all know, the Liberals predictably tabled a spending budget - drink! - soon after they seized power. At the time, I wasn't the only one who noticed it was all spend with little provisions on how to pay it back. In addition, if you're going to increase government spending, it's important the economy grows at a healthy pace - which isn't the case at the moment. Government revenues have also dropped off.
With the sluggish U.S. economy basically in recession - drink! - it's bound to have a negative impact on the Canadian economy.
Dark clouds are forming.
***
Word on entrepreneurship. Finance Minister Bill Morneau recently said Canadians would have to get used to having on average three careers in their lifetimes making it crucial they garner different skills in order to make changes. Read, not jobs but careers.
That put a lot of strain on future generations for sure.
Increasingly gone is the notion of an employee making a lifetime commitment to a company. The new economy and ever changing, confused and unsettled mindset among millennials has all but assured its end as its currently formulated.
I'm sure something will happen to reset the trajectory - it always does - that few if any of us can foresee - unless you're a sci-fi writer. They always seem to know the future.
But in the meantime, I repeat my assertion we should be teaching finance, bookkeeping and business early in school ( I see way too much economic and financial illiteracy and it now has reached disturbing levels for me) so that students naturally endowed with an entrepreneurial spirit receive the proper skills to start a business.
One way to encourage more entrepreneurs is to remove the anti-business rhetoric from our discourse, lessen the tax and regulatory burden and not place obstacles in front of innovative companies that upset the market.
Many of the great and dynamic ideas of our times come from the United States. It doesn't have to.
My personal view is we should ditch the 'top down' idea government 'spurns innovation' and leave in the hands of those best suited for it: Free individuals.
***
There's an ideological, I submit, component to this.
Millennials for their part, need to read more and knock it off with their flirtation with Marxist and Communist bull shit. If they want to work and contribute, they will have to embrace capitalism and get acquainted with its basic tenets free of all the left-wing gibberish.
There's no time to entertain bull shit anymore. Leave that to trust fund and career politicians and academics. They have nothing to lose and have enough connections to ensure they're well taken care of.
Not so much for the average person.
Smarten up I say. Think for yourself. Save your money. Invest it wisely. Don't rely on anyone or the government. Don't wait for the government to give you the signal. You carve your own path. Don't make them believe your future and success is in someone's hands. This is not true and unhelpful. So ignore the Obamas and Warrens and other fearists of this world and their dated progressive nonsense who scream '1% of the population is stealing from you or preventing you from moving forward'. There is no bloody Koch - or any - conspiracy. Such talk is for natural born losers.
Only you prevent yourself from progressing. YOU.
It's all doable. A little self-belief and drive and away you go. I believe in you. Trust me. These words will help you more than any current progressive will. Remember, to a progressive, you're a means to a collectivist end.
Classical entrepreneurship demands you act in self-interest. Only once you and your lot are secured can you contribute to strengthening your community at large.
Just get it done.
No excuses.
As we all know, the Liberals predictably tabled a spending budget - drink! - soon after they seized power. At the time, I wasn't the only one who noticed it was all spend with little provisions on how to pay it back. In addition, if you're going to increase government spending, it's important the economy grows at a healthy pace - which isn't the case at the moment. Government revenues have also dropped off.
With the sluggish U.S. economy basically in recession - drink! - it's bound to have a negative impact on the Canadian economy.
Dark clouds are forming.
***
Word on entrepreneurship. Finance Minister Bill Morneau recently said Canadians would have to get used to having on average three careers in their lifetimes making it crucial they garner different skills in order to make changes. Read, not jobs but careers.
That put a lot of strain on future generations for sure.
Increasingly gone is the notion of an employee making a lifetime commitment to a company. The new economy and ever changing, confused and unsettled mindset among millennials has all but assured its end as its currently formulated.
I'm sure something will happen to reset the trajectory - it always does - that few if any of us can foresee - unless you're a sci-fi writer. They always seem to know the future.
But in the meantime, I repeat my assertion we should be teaching finance, bookkeeping and business early in school ( I see way too much economic and financial illiteracy and it now has reached disturbing levels for me) so that students naturally endowed with an entrepreneurial spirit receive the proper skills to start a business.
One way to encourage more entrepreneurs is to remove the anti-business rhetoric from our discourse, lessen the tax and regulatory burden and not place obstacles in front of innovative companies that upset the market.
Many of the great and dynamic ideas of our times come from the United States. It doesn't have to.
My personal view is we should ditch the 'top down' idea government 'spurns innovation' and leave in the hands of those best suited for it: Free individuals.
***
There's an ideological, I submit, component to this.
Millennials for their part, need to read more and knock it off with their flirtation with Marxist and Communist bull shit. If they want to work and contribute, they will have to embrace capitalism and get acquainted with its basic tenets free of all the left-wing gibberish.
There's no time to entertain bull shit anymore. Leave that to trust fund and career politicians and academics. They have nothing to lose and have enough connections to ensure they're well taken care of.
Not so much for the average person.
Smarten up I say. Think for yourself. Save your money. Invest it wisely. Don't rely on anyone or the government. Don't wait for the government to give you the signal. You carve your own path. Don't make them believe your future and success is in someone's hands. This is not true and unhelpful. So ignore the Obamas and Warrens and other fearists of this world and their dated progressive nonsense who scream '1% of the population is stealing from you or preventing you from moving forward'. There is no bloody Koch - or any - conspiracy. Such talk is for natural born losers.
Only you prevent yourself from progressing. YOU.
It's all doable. A little self-belief and drive and away you go. I believe in you. Trust me. These words will help you more than any current progressive will. Remember, to a progressive, you're a means to a collectivist end.
Classical entrepreneurship demands you act in self-interest. Only once you and your lot are secured can you contribute to strengthening your community at large.
Just get it done.
No excuses.
Thought (s) Of The Day
Censorship of any kind should anger and insult you. Profoundly and personally.
***
Every time minimum wage goes up - as mandated - someone is frozen out of entering the labor market.
Congratulations.
***
Every time Hillary smiles an orphan dies.
***
Every time minimum wage goes up - as mandated - someone is frozen out of entering the labor market.
Congratulations.
***
Every time Hillary smiles an orphan dies.
Deep Thoughts With Obama
Upon being asked by Jimmy Kimmel about why people distrust Hillary, Obama offered a garden snake variety type of response along the lines of, 'well, when you're around 30 years it's bound to happen people are gonna dig up stuff about you'.
Huh. Is that a fact?
It's an interesting comment and I admit it's got some level of truth to it. Stick around long enough and well, stories.
But here's the thing. The stories around Hillary are largely of her own doing and choices and it's a reflection of a healthy and engaged citizenry or journalism it be investigated and exposed. She doesn't get to do things any citizen would have been locked up for and then be shielded by such an excuse put forth by Obama.
I don't see how, for example, the fact she used her Foundation to enrich herself while SofS or setting up an unsecured private server, or insult people calling them 'deplorables' can qualify under Obama's claim.
People do work in one place for the same amount of time and manage to, you know, not engage in questionable activities. It's astonishing how much of a long leash we give politicians.
His position, while makes sense on the surface, doesn't pass the sniff test with Hillary.
She's thoroughly corrupted and in it for the cold, hard cash and power.
A classic public servant she ain't.
Huh. Is that a fact?
It's an interesting comment and I admit it's got some level of truth to it. Stick around long enough and well, stories.
But here's the thing. The stories around Hillary are largely of her own doing and choices and it's a reflection of a healthy and engaged citizenry or journalism it be investigated and exposed. She doesn't get to do things any citizen would have been locked up for and then be shielded by such an excuse put forth by Obama.
I don't see how, for example, the fact she used her Foundation to enrich herself while SofS or setting up an unsecured private server, or insult people calling them 'deplorables' can qualify under Obama's claim.
People do work in one place for the same amount of time and manage to, you know, not engage in questionable activities. It's astonishing how much of a long leash we give politicians.
His position, while makes sense on the surface, doesn't pass the sniff test with Hillary.
She's thoroughly corrupted and in it for the cold, hard cash and power.
A classic public servant she ain't.
I've Come To Freeland's Emotional Rescue
You may have heard the story of Canada's seven year trade deal negotiation (CETA) with the EU started under Harper's Conservatives (which wasn't terribly, interestingly, popular among Canadians either) and continued by the Liberals.
It didn't go too well. And International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland made sure to let us all know where she stood:
"Canada worked really hard, and me personally, I worked very hard," she said in French, expressing Canada's disappointment — as well as her own — at this turn of events.
"It's become evident for me, for Canada, that the European Union isn't capable now to have an international treaty even with a country that has very European values like Canada. And even with a country so nice, with a lot of patience like Canada."
....
We have decided to return home. I am very sad. It is emotional for me," she told reporters. "The only good thing I can say is that tomorrow morning I will be at home with my three kids."
Good grief. See it here.
Geez, Chrystia get it together. Kleenex tissues are .59 cents at Shoppers.
But what did you expect from someone who made a lot of money writing a book covering all the left-wing talking points of our times. Plutocrats? Check! Income inequality? Check! Fair wages and rigged systems? Check! But she does it from the lofty position of the classes said to be destroying the rest of us. It read a little like, well, her outburst. It didn't feel all that much thinking went into it.
It goes without saying, me being a psycho extremist, if I'd write a book telling tales opposite to this narrative you'd hear the lone monkey in the crowd coughing. It's just not in. None of the cool kids are doing it!
Never mind she's your run of the mill progressive who hated such trade deals until she came to like them. But it won prizes (as if those are worth anything these days) - PRIZES, ANDY! - so she must be saying something good, T.C. unlike you!
Look, it's simple. Take a touchy emotional and vapid subject like 'Income inequality' or 'climate change' or 'peace' and write a book and watch the prize panelists shower you with gifts. She had all that access and this is what she came up with?
Cynical even for me, I know, but it's all more about principals than principles.
Anyway.
You're representing an entire nation for crying out loud. Okay. Wrong choice of phrase.
And heeeeere's Justin Zoolander and The Shiny Pony Riders!
I don't profess to know the details of CETA having read it on and off for years and couldn't get too worked up about it. I've grown to realize trade deals don't benefit me all that much. It's just another trade deal that apparently if not signed signals the end of business and trade as we know it. Or some crap like that.
Trade deals are soooo over rated and passe.
In any event, I'm not going to bash Canada because quite frankly Wallonia is a socialist mistake enclave. And judging from what I've read out of Europe, they ain't too happy about it either.
Which probably means the Walloons - ack! - did something right.
I mean, to piss off so many elites has to be a good thing, no?
And nothing is better salty tears than elitist salty tears.
Whatever. I never saw what everyone seems to see in Freeland. She came off as wooden and awkward and without much of an original or deep thought whenever she appeared on The McLaughlin Group. Her defense in Parliament only cemented my view of her not being much of a speaker. I really hope she's better in private.
Her bio says she's a Rhodes Scholar - but so is Rachel Maddow, you know? Being a RS doesn't give a license to be a free and critical thinker - and a former managing editor of the Financial Times - which baffles me because I never got a glimpse of all the knowledge whenever she had a chance to show it.
Now she's Canada's International Trade Minister. Come to think of it, it makes sense why Trudeau would have selected her.
Who cries when she puts in an honest day's work but to with no results.
Welcome to the real world, pal.
***
Freeland is the sort of tart (with all the appropriate degrees) that just follows the intellectual trends believing them to be healthy and rational discourse. She's scripted in her head leaving her little room to wiggle around when confronted with substantial debate.
Much like her boss I guess.
Barbara Kay of The National Post got to the heart of it. Kay was able to put into perfect words how a progressive mindset operates.
Excerpts. Warning: Trigger warning for the intelligent:
"Maher went on to blast multiculturalism: “this idea that somehow we do share values that all religions are alike is bullshit, and we need to call it bullshit.” That galvanized Freeland who “now more than ever” called for respect for “diversity,” because — here’s where she lost the thread — “we in Canada are not going to say Muslims are worse than Christians, or are worse than Jews, or worse than atheists.” Maher shot back, “Not as people, the ideas are worse.”
Maher and his other guests were keen to talk about those ideas, but Freeland just couldn’t bring herself to go there. You could almost see alarm bells ringing in her brain: “Offensive to Muslims! Abort! Abort!” It was as though an automatic pilot had overridden her manual controls. Unable to engage, she remained doggedly on script: “it is incredibly dangerous, and very wrong, to … say there is something wrong with being a Muslim,” which nobody on the panel had said; in fact, both King and Domenech spoke sympathetically of Muslim victims of jihadism.
Finally — and it was kind of funny/sad to see her incredulity — the penny dropped, and she asked, “Are you guys saying the Muslim faith is by definition worse than other people’s?” Maher answered, “Yes, the ideas.” A troubled Freeland, one could see, felt way out of her Canadian comfort zone. She flailed, accusing Maher of “demonizing” Islam. Maher retorted: “I’m not demonizing, I’m just reporting. You are making it a demonization.”
And so it went. Soothing multiculti platitudes that would have had CBC’s Peter Mansbridge gravely nodding agreement weren’t doing the trick with Maher. He just kept lobbing disturbing statistical grenades at Freeland, such as Pew polls that put support for honour killings, even in moderately Islamic Indonesia, at 18 per cent. Lamely, Freeland bunted with the Bible’s “an eye for an eye.” “Well, we don’t listen to the Bible,” Maher crisply returned.
Clearly Maher (as well as King and Domenech) and Freeland were talking past each other. The American panelists, intellectually marinated in First Amendment rights, understood that while it is wrong to defame any faith group collectively (like, say, “Muslim men hate women”), it is impossible under U.S. law to demonize an idea ( “Sharia law is misogynistic”). But Western progressives, splendidly represented by Freeland, no longer grasp the distinction. They have internalized the pernicious, anti-democratic, dangerous notion of “Islamophobia” — the very concept was invented and promoted by stealth-jihad strategists — which interprets as defamation criticism of Islam itself."
This is the key sentence. It's why when someone, say, suggest police or education reform, they're told they 'hate' cops or teacher - and the children. Always the children.
Canada has no impulse or cherished laws protecting free speech. It doesn't exist and don't think or take for granted this country would defend your right to free speech or expression.
America is the last nation on earth to fight that battle.
And they're hanging on.
For now.
***
It didn't go too well. And International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland made sure to let us all know where she stood:
"Canada worked really hard, and me personally, I worked very hard," she said in French, expressing Canada's disappointment — as well as her own — at this turn of events.
"It's become evident for me, for Canada, that the European Union isn't capable now to have an international treaty even with a country that has very European values like Canada. And even with a country so nice, with a lot of patience like Canada."
....
We have decided to return home. I am very sad. It is emotional for me," she told reporters. "The only good thing I can say is that tomorrow morning I will be at home with my three kids."
Good grief. See it here.
Geez, Chrystia get it together. Kleenex tissues are .59 cents at Shoppers.
But what did you expect from someone who made a lot of money writing a book covering all the left-wing talking points of our times. Plutocrats? Check! Income inequality? Check! Fair wages and rigged systems? Check! But she does it from the lofty position of the classes said to be destroying the rest of us. It read a little like, well, her outburst. It didn't feel all that much thinking went into it.
It goes without saying, me being a psycho extremist, if I'd write a book telling tales opposite to this narrative you'd hear the lone monkey in the crowd coughing. It's just not in. None of the cool kids are doing it!
Never mind she's your run of the mill progressive who hated such trade deals until she came to like them. But it won prizes (as if those are worth anything these days) - PRIZES, ANDY! - so she must be saying something good, T.C. unlike you!
Look, it's simple. Take a touchy emotional and vapid subject like 'Income inequality' or 'climate change' or 'peace' and write a book and watch the prize panelists shower you with gifts. She had all that access and this is what she came up with?
Cynical even for me, I know, but it's all more about principals than principles.
Anyway.
You're representing an entire nation for crying out loud. Okay. Wrong choice of phrase.
And heeeeere's Justin Zoolander and The Shiny Pony Riders!
I don't profess to know the details of CETA having read it on and off for years and couldn't get too worked up about it. I've grown to realize trade deals don't benefit me all that much. It's just another trade deal that apparently if not signed signals the end of business and trade as we know it. Or some crap like that.
Trade deals are soooo over rated and passe.
In any event, I'm not going to bash Canada because quite frankly Wallonia is a socialist mistake enclave. And judging from what I've read out of Europe, they ain't too happy about it either.
Which probably means the Walloons - ack! - did something right.
I mean, to piss off so many elites has to be a good thing, no?
And nothing is better salty tears than elitist salty tears.
Whatever. I never saw what everyone seems to see in Freeland. She came off as wooden and awkward and without much of an original or deep thought whenever she appeared on The McLaughlin Group. Her defense in Parliament only cemented my view of her not being much of a speaker. I really hope she's better in private.
Her bio says she's a Rhodes Scholar - but so is Rachel Maddow, you know? Being a RS doesn't give a license to be a free and critical thinker - and a former managing editor of the Financial Times - which baffles me because I never got a glimpse of all the knowledge whenever she had a chance to show it.
Now she's Canada's International Trade Minister. Come to think of it, it makes sense why Trudeau would have selected her.
Who cries when she puts in an honest day's work but to with no results.
Welcome to the real world, pal.
***
Freeland is the sort of tart (with all the appropriate degrees) that just follows the intellectual trends believing them to be healthy and rational discourse. She's scripted in her head leaving her little room to wiggle around when confronted with substantial debate.
Much like her boss I guess.
Barbara Kay of The National Post got to the heart of it. Kay was able to put into perfect words how a progressive mindset operates.
Excerpts. Warning: Trigger warning for the intelligent:
"Maher went on to blast multiculturalism: “this idea that somehow we do share values that all religions are alike is bullshit, and we need to call it bullshit.” That galvanized Freeland who “now more than ever” called for respect for “diversity,” because — here’s where she lost the thread — “we in Canada are not going to say Muslims are worse than Christians, or are worse than Jews, or worse than atheists.” Maher shot back, “Not as people, the ideas are worse.”
Maher and his other guests were keen to talk about those ideas, but Freeland just couldn’t bring herself to go there. You could almost see alarm bells ringing in her brain: “Offensive to Muslims! Abort! Abort!” It was as though an automatic pilot had overridden her manual controls. Unable to engage, she remained doggedly on script: “it is incredibly dangerous, and very wrong, to … say there is something wrong with being a Muslim,” which nobody on the panel had said; in fact, both King and Domenech spoke sympathetically of Muslim victims of jihadism.
Finally — and it was kind of funny/sad to see her incredulity — the penny dropped, and she asked, “Are you guys saying the Muslim faith is by definition worse than other people’s?” Maher answered, “Yes, the ideas.” A troubled Freeland, one could see, felt way out of her Canadian comfort zone. She flailed, accusing Maher of “demonizing” Islam. Maher retorted: “I’m not demonizing, I’m just reporting. You are making it a demonization.”
And so it went. Soothing multiculti platitudes that would have had CBC’s Peter Mansbridge gravely nodding agreement weren’t doing the trick with Maher. He just kept lobbing disturbing statistical grenades at Freeland, such as Pew polls that put support for honour killings, even in moderately Islamic Indonesia, at 18 per cent. Lamely, Freeland bunted with the Bible’s “an eye for an eye.” “Well, we don’t listen to the Bible,” Maher crisply returned.
Clearly Maher (as well as King and Domenech) and Freeland were talking past each other. The American panelists, intellectually marinated in First Amendment rights, understood that while it is wrong to defame any faith group collectively (like, say, “Muslim men hate women”), it is impossible under U.S. law to demonize an idea ( “Sharia law is misogynistic”). But Western progressives, splendidly represented by Freeland, no longer grasp the distinction. They have internalized the pernicious, anti-democratic, dangerous notion of “Islamophobia” — the very concept was invented and promoted by stealth-jihad strategists — which interprets as defamation criticism of Islam itself."
This is the key sentence. It's why when someone, say, suggest police or education reform, they're told they 'hate' cops or teacher - and the children. Always the children.
Canada has no impulse or cherished laws protecting free speech. It doesn't exist and don't think or take for granted this country would defend your right to free speech or expression.
America is the last nation on earth to fight that battle.
And they're hanging on.
For now.
***
2016-10-23
Missing The Point On Uber And Lyft
Innovation sometimes disrupts particularly unhealthy market set ups like monopolies.
Uber and Lyft are a product of an innovative entrepreneurial spirit. It shouldn't have to be threatened by officials to survive. If it were to fail, especially by design, its impact and the consequences would be catastrophic to future entrepreneurial minds and ideas.
Taxis are an antiquated service protected by the government by limiting competition.
Uber came in and exploded this game board and consumers can but benefit from this.
Taxi drivers who invested several hundred thousand dollars in order to be honored with a permit bestowed by the state should really be directing their anger at the government for fostering such an environment; unless the Taxi cartel had a hand in creating this monstrosity. Then they no one else to blame but their own stupidity.
Offering a service at competitive prices is what should determine whether Uber and Lyft survive. Not unholy political machinations using coercive power to protect one group against another.
Before you question Uber's tactics, remember. It could happen to you should you have a great idea. Because a great idea always threatens entrenched interests.
***
But we've always had an uneasy relationship with entrepreneurs and business as a whole. The progressive cries of a 'rigged system' and 'pay your fair share' and 'equal playing fields' stretch back to Roman times. Which hastened the fall of Rome which at one point operated pretty much like Western nations during its classical liberal apex.
Once the money rolls in, it's time to redistribute and when you start down that path, everyone feels entitles to someone's splits.
The other day I was watching 'Wayward Pines'. The sci-fi drama story of a town given to dictatorial governance in order to protect the human species threatened by 'Abbies'. It's a fun show.
During one episode a character was explaining what their vision was for the town and why he selected teachers, doctors, police officers and farmers. These noble professionals and civil servants were depicted in nothing but a positive light and key cornerstones of civilization.
Of course, great civilizations throughout history have existed and operated without such a criteria.
It was a curious passage and one I can't help notice structured into television and film culture.
But notice the absence of entrepreneurs. Notice the omission of the one class who provide the willingness to risk to innovate that spurn growth and jobs.
Alas, to keep in line with the progressive dogma (sometimes I wonder if it's even done wittingly. I think we're just conditioned to assume this is how it is) that it's all driven by greed looking to rape and enslave people.
It's a shallow if not ignorant view but a powerful one.
The more intelligent progressives understand it but they're the ones who insist on regulations to ensure a 'fairer playing for all'.
Of course, the idea of an enlightened society driven and governed by yeoman and civil servant dedication is a romantic one as it is wrong headed and just assumes they can't be corrupted or inept.
One man's utopia is another man's dystopia.
If we can't accept and indeed protect the idea of needing innovative ideas be propelled into action, then we're asking for trouble and have no business wondering 'wha happened'? There should be no interference nor should be beg for permission to enter voluntary exchanges for goods and services provided except to ask 'how can we facilitate or protect' your experience? And a little humility into understanding who pays their salaries and pensions can be helpful to the process.
Too often I hear of bureaucrats talk as if they're the beginning of time and essence.
No, they are not. Bureaucrats have no business determining who and what gets to live. That's called a dictatorship by other means. Besides, they don't know a quarter of what they purport to know.
In Wayward Pines, everyone is assigned a 'duty'. So if you're told to make toys, you make toys even if you don't want to.
Sound familiar?
Feudalistic and communistic, no?
The way the planners of the town are behaving - though understandable - we see how a police state must eventually collapse since it runs contrary to the human spirit. You can't keep people down and clueless for too long.
Our hunger for knowledge and freedom is just too great and eventually hits political masters like a tsunami.
The trick, I guess, is less on how to control our actions but rather how to harness and treat with care this cherished and beautiful aspect of human nature.
No one likes to be told what to do and when forced to do so, well, I suppose just sealed is the fate of the community to which we're a part of: Doom.
Uber and Lyft are a product of an innovative entrepreneurial spirit. It shouldn't have to be threatened by officials to survive. If it were to fail, especially by design, its impact and the consequences would be catastrophic to future entrepreneurial minds and ideas.
Taxis are an antiquated service protected by the government by limiting competition.
Uber came in and exploded this game board and consumers can but benefit from this.
Taxi drivers who invested several hundred thousand dollars in order to be honored with a permit bestowed by the state should really be directing their anger at the government for fostering such an environment; unless the Taxi cartel had a hand in creating this monstrosity. Then they no one else to blame but their own stupidity.
Offering a service at competitive prices is what should determine whether Uber and Lyft survive. Not unholy political machinations using coercive power to protect one group against another.
Before you question Uber's tactics, remember. It could happen to you should you have a great idea. Because a great idea always threatens entrenched interests.
***
But we've always had an uneasy relationship with entrepreneurs and business as a whole. The progressive cries of a 'rigged system' and 'pay your fair share' and 'equal playing fields' stretch back to Roman times. Which hastened the fall of Rome which at one point operated pretty much like Western nations during its classical liberal apex.
Once the money rolls in, it's time to redistribute and when you start down that path, everyone feels entitles to someone's splits.
The other day I was watching 'Wayward Pines'. The sci-fi drama story of a town given to dictatorial governance in order to protect the human species threatened by 'Abbies'. It's a fun show.
During one episode a character was explaining what their vision was for the town and why he selected teachers, doctors, police officers and farmers. These noble professionals and civil servants were depicted in nothing but a positive light and key cornerstones of civilization.
Of course, great civilizations throughout history have existed and operated without such a criteria.
It was a curious passage and one I can't help notice structured into television and film culture.
But notice the absence of entrepreneurs. Notice the omission of the one class who provide the willingness to risk to innovate that spurn growth and jobs.
Alas, to keep in line with the progressive dogma (sometimes I wonder if it's even done wittingly. I think we're just conditioned to assume this is how it is) that it's all driven by greed looking to rape and enslave people.
It's a shallow if not ignorant view but a powerful one.
The more intelligent progressives understand it but they're the ones who insist on regulations to ensure a 'fairer playing for all'.
Of course, the idea of an enlightened society driven and governed by yeoman and civil servant dedication is a romantic one as it is wrong headed and just assumes they can't be corrupted or inept.
One man's utopia is another man's dystopia.
If we can't accept and indeed protect the idea of needing innovative ideas be propelled into action, then we're asking for trouble and have no business wondering 'wha happened'? There should be no interference nor should be beg for permission to enter voluntary exchanges for goods and services provided except to ask 'how can we facilitate or protect' your experience? And a little humility into understanding who pays their salaries and pensions can be helpful to the process.
Too often I hear of bureaucrats talk as if they're the beginning of time and essence.
No, they are not. Bureaucrats have no business determining who and what gets to live. That's called a dictatorship by other means. Besides, they don't know a quarter of what they purport to know.
In Wayward Pines, everyone is assigned a 'duty'. So if you're told to make toys, you make toys even if you don't want to.
Sound familiar?
Feudalistic and communistic, no?
The way the planners of the town are behaving - though understandable - we see how a police state must eventually collapse since it runs contrary to the human spirit. You can't keep people down and clueless for too long.
Our hunger for knowledge and freedom is just too great and eventually hits political masters like a tsunami.
The trick, I guess, is less on how to control our actions but rather how to harness and treat with care this cherished and beautiful aspect of human nature.
No one likes to be told what to do and when forced to do so, well, I suppose just sealed is the fate of the community to which we're a part of: Doom.
2016-10-20
Misleading Titles
Naturopath doctor.
A naturopath is not a doctor.
They do not go through the vigorous training and education of a doctor.
They may have mastered the language of a doctor and may believe they're medical experts, but they aren't.
A naturopath is not a doctor.
They do not go through the vigorous training and education of a doctor.
They may have mastered the language of a doctor and may believe they're medical experts, but they aren't.
2016-10-14
Hypocrisy Reigns In Presidential Race
Let me see. Since critical thinking is all the rage among people these days.
So.
Trump says something in private 10 years ago (which is pretty much standard garbage in any locker room from high school all the way to the pros - and more on this in a second) and it's a massive issue brought to over blown proportions and is fair game for scrutiny.
BUT.
Hillary's private emails - on an unsecured private server that broke the law - are not fair grounds for debate and discussion?
Methinks there's much hypocrisy in the system.
In fact, as wikileaks is showing (and the media is ignoring as they slowly close ranks with Hillary), Hillary's contempt for people is actually more impressive and shockingly breathtaking in its arrogance. No one is spared from Catholics to Latinos to Southerners.
At best, an apologist can say 'it's true' but that would make them the very sort of person progressives claims to hate, no?
It's all projection isn't it?
As for Michelle kicking in her thoughts about Trump. Perhaps a hashtag is in need here. In any event, I'm sure she asked her daughters to leave the room each time Bill entered the room, right?
I mentioned sports locker rooms. Everyone knows much vulgarity happens in locker rooms. I've been part of those myself and quite frankly to this day my friends and I continue to make crude jokes. It's a fallacy of the progressive left (now into thought control) to believe what's said will turn into action.
To hear ESPN or sports media people say things like 'I've never heard it' (in locker rooms) is so incredibly disingenuous, it's full of shit it's astonishing. Just like they never saw any steroids in MLB (it took investigative journalists and bloggers to break the scandal), they're acting like a bunch of lying cunts here.
Like political 'journalists' and talking heads, they're just worried about their access and getting invited to the right cocktail parties I reckon.
Anyway, Hillary. She's bad news.
So.
Trump says something in private 10 years ago (which is pretty much standard garbage in any locker room from high school all the way to the pros - and more on this in a second) and it's a massive issue brought to over blown proportions and is fair game for scrutiny.
BUT.
Hillary's private emails - on an unsecured private server that broke the law - are not fair grounds for debate and discussion?
Methinks there's much hypocrisy in the system.
In fact, as wikileaks is showing (and the media is ignoring as they slowly close ranks with Hillary), Hillary's contempt for people is actually more impressive and shockingly breathtaking in its arrogance. No one is spared from Catholics to Latinos to Southerners.
At best, an apologist can say 'it's true' but that would make them the very sort of person progressives claims to hate, no?
It's all projection isn't it?
As for Michelle kicking in her thoughts about Trump. Perhaps a hashtag is in need here. In any event, I'm sure she asked her daughters to leave the room each time Bill entered the room, right?
I mentioned sports locker rooms. Everyone knows much vulgarity happens in locker rooms. I've been part of those myself and quite frankly to this day my friends and I continue to make crude jokes. It's a fallacy of the progressive left (now into thought control) to believe what's said will turn into action.
To hear ESPN or sports media people say things like 'I've never heard it' (in locker rooms) is so incredibly disingenuous, it's full of shit it's astonishing. Just like they never saw any steroids in MLB (it took investigative journalists and bloggers to break the scandal), they're acting like a bunch of lying cunts here.
Like political 'journalists' and talking heads, they're just worried about their access and getting invited to the right cocktail parties I reckon.
Anyway, Hillary. She's bad news.
2016-10-13
They're Doing Great Things With MRI Technology
You people.
Yeh. You. The ones who are calling Hillary Clinton 'inspiring' and 'competent' and 'caring'.
You need to get your heads checked.
It baffles the mind.
Yeh. You. The ones who are calling Hillary Clinton 'inspiring' and 'competent' and 'caring'.
You need to get your heads checked.
It baffles the mind.
2016-10-11
Movie Trailer And Music Video
Hillary, Trump, Trudeau...slim pickings for real.
Gary Johnson is the only sane choice. Really.
Gary Johnson is the only sane choice. Really.
2016-10-09
Presidential Debate: Hillary Is Pure Evil
Just a couple of quick takes:
1) The moderators were ridiculously bias again. From Crowley to Holt and now Anderson and the other chick, it's embarrassing and unprofessional. Trump calling them out on it was fair. Remember kids, the liberal media is a myth and part of a 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. And the calls to subdue applause for Trump but not Hillary was pretty blatant as well.
2) They overplayed what he said 11 years ago and it left him an opening to call out Bill Clinton who actually was/is a sexual predator. But again...the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' made him do it.
3) Overall, Trump did better than expected and was particularly effective in hammering her emails and foreign policy.
4) Hillary made a strange assertion when she claimed Russia isn't interested in fighting ISIS because they want to keep Assad in power. Isn't Assad fighting against ISIS? The rebels, of course, being a diverse group in fine Arabesque fashion with a few with connections to ISIS to various degrees.
The moderators were busy trying to find ways to derail Trump to notice I guess.
5) She lies. But not in a politically savvy or coy sense that's come to be accepted but in a disturbingly cavalier manner. For example, Trump said she was Secretary of State when Obama issued his 'red line' ultimatum to Syria. She brazenly replied she was gone by the time Obama made the warning. What makes this stunning is that it's easily verifiable. That she was SofS can't be disputed. Yet, there she is lying to the American population.
And she leads in the polls. Crazy.
6) Clearly, the Clintons have no soul. One is serial sexual assaulter and the other a criminal and a liar. But people pay big bucks to get these two to speak at their events and galas.
7) The saddest most astonishing thing? This vile and repugnant bag of skin is going to be President. An incorrigibly corrupted and inept woman to the core who holds the American population at large in such contempt it makes you wonder if Americans who vote for her have any self-esteem, is going to lead the world's most powerful country.
Oh, check this quality fact checking out from the broadcasting company caught in a few media faux pas in the past:
FACT CHECK: Trump says Clinton "acid washed" her email server. She did not.
More #debate
fact checks: http://nbcnews.to/2c6w8lx
***
Updated with a video!
***
Another update.
PolitiFact ✔ @PolitiFact
1) The moderators were ridiculously bias again. From Crowley to Holt and now Anderson and the other chick, it's embarrassing and unprofessional. Trump calling them out on it was fair. Remember kids, the liberal media is a myth and part of a 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. And the calls to subdue applause for Trump but not Hillary was pretty blatant as well.
2) They overplayed what he said 11 years ago and it left him an opening to call out Bill Clinton who actually was/is a sexual predator. But again...the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' made him do it.
3) Overall, Trump did better than expected and was particularly effective in hammering her emails and foreign policy.
4) Hillary made a strange assertion when she claimed Russia isn't interested in fighting ISIS because they want to keep Assad in power. Isn't Assad fighting against ISIS? The rebels, of course, being a diverse group in fine Arabesque fashion with a few with connections to ISIS to various degrees.
The moderators were busy trying to find ways to derail Trump to notice I guess.
5) She lies. But not in a politically savvy or coy sense that's come to be accepted but in a disturbingly cavalier manner. For example, Trump said she was Secretary of State when Obama issued his 'red line' ultimatum to Syria. She brazenly replied she was gone by the time Obama made the warning. What makes this stunning is that it's easily verifiable. That she was SofS can't be disputed. Yet, there she is lying to the American population.
And she leads in the polls. Crazy.
6) Clearly, the Clintons have no soul. One is serial sexual assaulter and the other a criminal and a liar. But people pay big bucks to get these two to speak at their events and galas.
7) The saddest most astonishing thing? This vile and repugnant bag of skin is going to be President. An incorrigibly corrupted and inept woman to the core who holds the American population at large in such contempt it makes you wonder if Americans who vote for her have any self-esteem, is going to lead the world's most powerful country.
Oh, check this quality fact checking out from the broadcasting company caught in a few media faux pas in the past:
NBC News fact checks: http://nbcnews.to/2c6w8lx ***
Updated with a video!
***
Another update.
PolitiFact ✔ @PolitiFact
Half True for Trump claim that Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after getting a subpoena http://bit.ly/2dEmmIa
Daily Derp: Obama Fixing Messes Badly
Shallow critics of libertarian thought like to point to Somalia as some sort of example of what a libertarian society would look like. Somalia is chaos and has nothing to do with libertarian principles. Then again, these same one-dimensional statist minds deliberately confuse individualism with 'isolation' or misanthropy.
If there is any example closest to the classical liberal model it's Hong Kon.
***
Once again, the Trudeau liberals will put Canada on a bad financial path. The carbon price tax will cost Canadians about $2400 a year.
And for what exactly?
Oh and watch him eloquently explain the tax.
Impressive stuff right there.
***
It's quite remarkable to listen to people still talk about Obama as if he's 'fixing a mess' and that he's the second coming of FDR having pulled the U.S. economy out of a deep recession.
The Obama economy is anything but a success story. Among other things, the U.S. is currently in a recession.
And the country's deficit and (potentially catastrophic) unfunded liabilities remain a major concern.
What about the stock markets? QE has kept the game going for a little while keeping interest rates low makes the markets accustomed, if not addicted, to the Fed's involvement through various schemes like bail outs and printing.
The markets are less driven by growth and more by stuff like cutting back on spending or jobs.
What about unemployment? They're right back where they were under Bush when he left office but the labor participation rate has gone up.
***
Speaking of Obama 'fixing a mess' we turn our attention to foreign policy.
I'm still unclear as to what exactly he fixed. Never mind Iraq for a second.
No one asked him to wage war against Libya without congressional support plunging that country into civil war or topple Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood reigns, or attempt to bomb Syria or sign a meaningless deal with Iran the country is already ignoring.
Making a mess of things isn't just through invasions. You can wreak havoc through stuff like bombing and killing Americans with drones without due process.
If Bush's 'unilateralism' and invasion of Iraq are to forever be a negative mark on his Presidency, I don't see how Obama's own mess and ignoring of Congress is any better.
Back to Iraq. He pulled the troops out despite being warned of its possible ramifications. It has since then been posited this decision and move gave rise to ISIS. But even if we're charitable and not pin this entirely on Obama, he was made aware of ISIS's slow expansion and growing power to which he did little or nothing to counter.
It can be asserted Obama's foreign policy is worst than Bush given he was supposed to be a 'big picture, chess playing' operator.
But hey, he did get Bin Laden, right?
To think this guy got a Nobel peace prize!
From AP:
"He is the erstwhile anti-war candidate, now engaged in more theaters of war than his predecessor. He is the commander-in-chief who pulled more than a hundred thousand U.S. troops out of harm's way in Iraq, but also began a slow trickle back in. He recoiled against full-scale, conventional war, while embracing the brave new world of drone attacks. He has championed diplomacy on climate change, nuclear proliferation and has torn down walls to Cuba and Myanmar, but failed repeatedly to broker a lasting pause to more than six years of slaughter in Syria.
If there was consensus Obama had not yet earned his Nobel Peace Prize when he received it in 2009, there's little such agreement on whether he deserves it today.
"I don't think he would have been in the speculation of the Nobel committee now, in 2016, even if he had not already won," said Kristian Berg Harpviken, director of the Peace Research Institute of Oslo, and a close watcher of the Nobel committee. Harpviken said he views Obama's foreign policy as more conventional and limited than he expected, particularly regarding his use of multilateral cooperation and institutions.
When it comes to finding new instruments for peace, he said, "Obama has been stuck in the old paradigm."
***
Ten most corrupt politicians in U.S. history. Guess who leads the list? Hint: It starts with a Democrat.
Just like they head the list of most incarcerated politicians by a ratio of 2:1.
But if you look closely, it's because of Republican obstructionism.
***
In the 'Americans have lost their minds' or 'U.S. colleges run by a bunch of Title IX psychos' file, a University of Tennessee student is accused of harassment for spelling the instructor's name wrong.
Another one of those 'messes' Obama tried to fix? I mean, he did ask schools to enforce Title IX.
***
Russians aren't fans of Obama.
Not that I care what they think of Obama.
Obama may be an unimaginative, average speaking, vapid progressive but dammit! He's OUR unimaginative you know the rest.
***
Oh look. More example of Obama fixing a mess.
UK Parliament select sub committee eviscerates intervention in Libya.
Obama is no Ray Donovan that's for sure.
***
Obama must be a really bad sweeper.
***
"A team of top scientists is telling world leaders to stop congratulating themselves on the Paris agreement to fight climate change because if more isn't done, global temperatures will likely hit dangerous warming levels in about 35 years."
They're never going to shut the fuck about it are they?
This bunch give it 35 years.
And based on this bull shit, we're gonna come up with still more pant shitting bull shit laws, taxes and regulations.
'What? Our grant is up in five years? Make sure your targets go beyond that!'
***
Face palm.
If there is any example closest to the classical liberal model it's Hong Kon.
***
Once again, the Trudeau liberals will put Canada on a bad financial path. The carbon
And for what exactly?
Oh and watch him eloquently explain the tax.
Impressive stuff right there.
***
It's quite remarkable to listen to people still talk about Obama as if he's 'fixing a mess' and that he's the second coming of FDR having pulled the U.S. economy out of a deep recession.
The Obama economy is anything but a success story. Among other things, the U.S. is currently in a recession.
And the country's deficit and (potentially catastrophic) unfunded liabilities remain a major concern.
What about the stock markets? QE has kept the game going for a little while keeping interest rates low makes the markets accustomed, if not addicted, to the Fed's involvement through various schemes like bail outs and printing.
The markets are less driven by growth and more by stuff like cutting back on spending or jobs.
What about unemployment? They're right back where they were under Bush when he left office but the labor participation rate has gone up.
***
Speaking of Obama 'fixing a mess' we turn our attention to foreign policy.
I'm still unclear as to what exactly he fixed. Never mind Iraq for a second.
No one asked him to wage war against Libya without congressional support plunging that country into civil war or topple Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood reigns, or attempt to bomb Syria or sign a meaningless deal with Iran the country is already ignoring.
Making a mess of things isn't just through invasions. You can wreak havoc through stuff like bombing and killing Americans with drones without due process.
If Bush's 'unilateralism' and invasion of Iraq are to forever be a negative mark on his Presidency, I don't see how Obama's own mess and ignoring of Congress is any better.
Back to Iraq. He pulled the troops out despite being warned of its possible ramifications. It has since then been posited this decision and move gave rise to ISIS. But even if we're charitable and not pin this entirely on Obama, he was made aware of ISIS's slow expansion and growing power to which he did little or nothing to counter.
It can be asserted Obama's foreign policy is worst than Bush given he was supposed to be a 'big picture, chess playing' operator.
But hey, he did get Bin Laden, right?
To think this guy got a Nobel peace prize!
From AP:
"He is the erstwhile anti-war candidate, now engaged in more theaters of war than his predecessor. He is the commander-in-chief who pulled more than a hundred thousand U.S. troops out of harm's way in Iraq, but also began a slow trickle back in. He recoiled against full-scale, conventional war, while embracing the brave new world of drone attacks. He has championed diplomacy on climate change, nuclear proliferation and has torn down walls to Cuba and Myanmar, but failed repeatedly to broker a lasting pause to more than six years of slaughter in Syria.
If there was consensus Obama had not yet earned his Nobel Peace Prize when he received it in 2009, there's little such agreement on whether he deserves it today.
"I don't think he would have been in the speculation of the Nobel committee now, in 2016, even if he had not already won," said Kristian Berg Harpviken, director of the Peace Research Institute of Oslo, and a close watcher of the Nobel committee. Harpviken said he views Obama's foreign policy as more conventional and limited than he expected, particularly regarding his use of multilateral cooperation and institutions.
When it comes to finding new instruments for peace, he said, "Obama has been stuck in the old paradigm."
***
Ten most corrupt politicians in U.S. history. Guess who leads the list? Hint: It starts with a Democrat.
Just like they head the list of most incarcerated politicians by a ratio of 2:1.
But if you look closely, it's because of Republican obstructionism.
***
In the 'Americans have lost their minds' or 'U.S. colleges run by a bunch of Title IX psychos' file, a University of Tennessee student is accused of harassment for spelling the instructor's name wrong.
Another one of those 'messes' Obama tried to fix? I mean, he did ask schools to enforce Title IX.
***
Russians aren't fans of Obama.
Not that I care what they think of Obama.
Obama may be an unimaginative, average speaking, vapid progressive but dammit! He's OUR unimaginative you know the rest.
***
Oh look. More example of Obama fixing a mess.
UK Parliament select sub committee eviscerates intervention in Libya.
Obama is no Ray Donovan that's for sure.
***
Obama must be a really bad sweeper.
***
"A team of top scientists is telling world leaders to stop congratulating themselves on the Paris agreement to fight climate change because if more isn't done, global temperatures will likely hit dangerous warming levels in about 35 years."
They're never going to shut the fuck about it are they?
This bunch give it 35 years.
And based on this bull shit, we're gonna come up with still more pant shitting bull shit laws, taxes and regulations.
'What? Our grant is up in five years? Make sure your targets go beyond that!'
***
Face palm.
Among the additional projects to get
funding is a scheme aimed at ‘preventing radicalisation leading to
violent extremism through music’.
‘The
pilot project will aim to reach out to the younger generation in
Europe, especially those most at risk of radicalisation by bringing
together through concerts and mentoring schemes young classical
musicians and young people of diverse backgrounds.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)