Last weekend of summer! This year has just flown by – and we all hope that the election will soon be over, but deep down we all know it’ll be a 269-269 tie and it will just go on and on and on…
Hillary is going to beg for some Millenial support. Meh. I guess she could offer to cancel student loan debt and that my wow some…but the bottom line is that the kids aren’t going to turn out in droves for a 69 year old politician who has been clinging on to DC for 25 years.
Netanyahu is catching some flack from the usual suspects about his accusation that the Palestinian leadership wants to ethnically cleanse Jews from the West Bank…but the bottom line is that is what they demand.
Hillary is “freakishly” unpopular – or, at least, that is how Progressives view it. The actuality is that she’s a corrupt barnacle on the American body politic and no one really likes her, nor wants her to be President.
Shocking news: Obama Administration covering up a report showing that the border is pretty much wide open. I know, you just can’t believe this.
A look at what the first city on Mars might be like. As for me – until we really get a handle on radiation in space and what low/zero gravity does to humans (or find a way to manufacture, as it were, gravity at need), we’re really not going to get anywhere in deep space. We can go to Mars (and I think we should), if we like – but I suspect we can’t stay there long, with current technology.
Barack Obama’s legacy. It ain’t too good. But you already knew that because you bought this book. Right? Come on, it’s only $3.99 on Kindle. Geesh. Can’t get a cup of coffee for that, and this will last longer.
Scare a Democrat friend of yours: point out this Michigan poll.
Blogs For Victory 
I have always liked Ben Shapiro and his willingness to take the fight to progressives in hostile territory, which is a badge of honor and he does it very well however his anti Trumpism is now bordering on hysteria and his recent article is a good example:
Take the alt-righters, for example. They openly state that they have no interest in conservatism or the Constitution – the ideas have been tried, and they have failed. The only way to preserve “Western civilization” is by allegiance to European ethnicity. What sort of “Western civilization” must be preserved? Not limited government; not individual responsibility; not equality of rights. The alt-right thinks that a white brand of ethnic polarization is the only way to protect against an invasion of Third Worlders, Muslims, and other undesirables.
First of all the “alt right” is a completely manufactured label by progressives and here Ben gives it credibility which is a huge mistake. Secondly, if Ben and his NeverTrumper cohorts are insistent on only supporting candidates of strong virtuous conservative principles, then where was their vocal opposition to Bush’s expansion of government? Where is their outrage at the many Tea Party representatives who have fallen in line behind the Obama agenda? Where was their outrage at Reagan’s tariffs and amnesty efforts? Ben readily admits that Nixon began the decline of conservatism, but what I don’t see is any substantive plan on their part to sell conservative principles to the electorate, nor any willingness to plug in and help shape a new movement. The only thing Ben and his cohorts seem to enjoy is being contrarian and penning outrage at the rubes who can’t see the wisdom and high mindedness of their brand of conservatism. It’s not exactly a winning strategy.
From my perspective, Trump has staked out more conservative positions than Bush, McCain or Romney ever did.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/9165/have-we-reached-end-conservatism-ben-shapiro?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
Look what Wikipedia says about this “alt-right” concept:
“The alt-right is a segment of right-wing ideologies presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in the United States. It has been described as a movement unified by support for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, as well as by opposition to multiculturalism and immigration.
The alt-right has no official ideology, although various sources have said that it is associated with white nationalism, white supremacism, antisemitism, right-wing populism, nativism, and the neoreactionary movement."
OK, let’s deconstruct this toxic little hit piece.
(1) A list of issues is not an “ideology”. It is not a blueprint for governance. It is merely a laundry list of opinions and gripes. There is only one true “right wing ideology” and that is that we have to run the nation according to its Constitution. The rest is just a mishmash of issues which often contradict each other, as issues tend to be highly personal and often emotion-based.
(2) “It has been described as….” is really all we need to read, as this is weasel-wording at its worst. But then it adds to its lack of actual statement of fact by saying “..it is associated with..” these nasty things. What this entire second paragraph says is that some people have attributed some nasty things to a newly invented demographic they have named “alt-right” and now we are supposed to take this as a real thing, with real definitions of real people.
The Left, owning its own dictionary, has always played fast and loose with definitions, to the point that few words have any real objective meaning any more. What the hell is “white nationalism”? And so on.
The whole construct is a Leftist construct, designed to smear anyone even remotely connected with conservatism, and you are right when you say Shapiro should never have given it any credibility by using the term as if it means anything else.
I read Shapiro’s piece with less angst than it sounds you did. Yes, he does say he won’t vote for Trump, but he doesn’t trash Trump or argue against voting for him. He kind of tends to imply that voting for Trump, that supporting Trump as the best alternative in the race, is a move to the left, but then he also acknowledges that it is just prudent.
“Conservatism will only die when its leading advocates become its detractors. This has been my fear of the Trump transformation – that in order to defeat Hillary Clinton, Republicans were willing to do anything, including embracing Hillary-esque policy. That’s happening. It doesn’t have to; there’s a rational position that rejects Trump’s ideas when they represent leftism, but still supports him over Hillary. That’s Mark Levin’s position, for example: educate about conservatism while making a lesser-of-two evils choice. There are also those, like me, who refuse to embrace a Republican candidate who fights against basic conservative principles.”
I agree with you that Trump is not fighting against basic conservative principles. I think it is clear that he has not always held to them, which is NOT the same as “fighting against them”, but he is telling us he has accepted them now, and until he proves himself to be a liar we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I think Trump is totally goal-oriented. As long as his goal was to make money in his business, that was his single-minded focus, and I don’t think it was influenced by any objective political belief system. He did what he thought he had to do to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish. I’m not saying that is a good thing, necessarily, but it also means he didn’t do what he did out of allegiance to some political principle. Now his goals are (1) to win the presidency, and (2) HOPEFULLY, to be a president dedicated to helping the country run according to conservative principles. His past tells us that when these are his goals, that will be his focus, and that is what he will strive to accomplish.
“until he proves himself to be a liar we have to give him the benefit of the doubt”
Trump has proven to be a liar umpty-ump times, in business, in politics and even personally with infidelity. With such a rich history of lying, why does he deserve the benefit of the doubt?
And there goes Bob, just Bobbing along in his Bobbish way, pulling a statement out of context so he can whine some more about Trump.
..but he is telling us he has accepted them (conservative principles) now, and until he proves himself to be a liar we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Take a peek at basic sentence construction, Bob—you may have it all memorized, given the lectures you have given on the concept. The latter part of the sentence has to refer back to what precedes it. Not precedes it by years, or months, or even days. By what precedes it IN THE SENTENCE.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, you won’t vote for Trump and you are pissed off that anyone will and we should all cede the whole country to the Dems without a fight because….because…..because, well, that will send a message. Yeah, that’s the ticket. A message. And why should anything be more important than the fleeting satisfaction of a finger in the eye of the GOP?
Really………………
Go find a tissue and take a pill, Bob.
Ah, Amazonka wants to go straight to ugliness. So be it.
Here is how reading works, honey. You had posted (and repeated in your response) that Trump changed his tune and, until he is shown to be a liar he should be believed. Then, when I retorted that he has more than proven himself a liar, I was refuting that point, dear. Simply underlining your previous post does nothing to refute my point. He is a well-established liar so, no, you should not give him the benefit of the doubt he is a changed man.
Perhaps an example of the exact same conversation in a different context will make it clear to you, as English is not your forte.
Suppose you are a battered wife who says to me “My husband says he’ll never hit me again and, until he is proven a liar I’ll believe him.”
“B-b-but,” I respond, “he’s beaten you many times.”
To which you would say, “Hey, idiot, didn’t you see where I said “he says he’ll never hit me again?”
OK, now we get to the part where you say things I’ve never said and claim them as mine. You know, the part where you always end up saying I misquoted YOU?
1. You said that I feel “pissed off that anyone will (vote Trump)” based on nothing.
I try to convince Conservatives to move away from the GOP. No anger. No being pissed. Find me a post of mine where I am angry at another poster for voting Trump?
2. “we should all cede the whole country to the Dems without a fight because….because…..because, well, that will send a message”
Again, words that reflect not a single post of mine ever. I feel the country already IS ceded to the Left, as Clinton will surely win. I am not here to send the Dems a message, they do not know I exist, same as the GOP and the Libertarians. I wish to move Conservatism away from the GOP, who has ceded conservative ethos to win an election.
Good luck with your words, Amazonka, and keep your dreams of Daddy winning alive.
I’ve been looking at your obsession with putting a “K” in my name and your loopy and somewhat disturbing account of why you think it belongs there as just more evidence of your being somewhat unhinged. Your determination to pick fights has always supported that observation. Your insistence on reframing what I say adds inherent dishonesty to an already unsavory mix. But your insistence on this “Daddy” meme, going back to what you tried to pass off as a joke but which seems to live on in your mind of me wanting to BE Ivanka Trump (to the point of putting a “K” in my name, (which of course I never did because it is just plain stupid) because of daddy issues vis-a-vis Donald and me is just plain creepy.
That pretty much sums you up, Bob. Ick. Just plain stupid, mean-spirited and icky. Muy icky. These little peeks into your disturbed psyche are not pleasant. Eeeuuwww. (Shudder)
And don’t bother whimpering back here with one of your sad little “I know what you are but what am I” efforts to keep this going. I am engaged in civil, friendly, serious and meaningful discussions with everyone here but you. And you don’t matter.
Your posts have degenerated into nothing but personal attacks. If you have a new idea you can post it. // Moderator
Bob, I have news for you. Trump is going to win. Hillary lost this election today when she went very nasty and personal on Trump instead of countering his policies. Trump has over the last two weeks laid out some very detailed plans on several issues so all Trump has to do now in the debate is stay policy oriented, act civil and show some humor and the presidency is his. Hillary has no record and no policies to run on, she is simply trying to discredit Trump and people are seeing through it. The birther issue is a non starter and people just don’t give a damn anymore.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves – it is early in the third quarter and Trump, at best, only up by a field goal. Lot of campaign left to go through.
But with the birther issue today, several things were laid out quite starkly for us:
1. Trump just knows how to make the MSM dance, even when they don’t want to. Reagan could do that, too.
2. The MSM is, for the 10,000,000th time, proved to be a mere arm of the DNC and corrupt to the bone – they tried desperately to “debunk” the idea that Hillary didn’t originate the birther issue and in a strictly Clintonian sense, this was true…Hillary Clinton, herself, does not appear to have ever made the accusation…but when Sid Blumenthal is chatting up editors on the subject, you know it is at the behest of Hillary.
3. Any Conservative/GOPer who decides to take a ride on the DNC/MSM train to harm Trump is going to get badly burned. It is like a huge number of Conservative/GOPers simply forgot the last 20-30 years! Is the MSM ever honest in how it deals with a GOPer? Is the MSM ever other than a propaganda arm for the DNC? There are plenty of real issues to take Trump to task over – the trouble is that they either also cut against Hillary or don’t really harm Trump. But the MSM can’t just report the facts – they have to dishonestly propagandize for the DNC…and, so, what they say will simply not be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Hitching your Never Trump star to that wagon is never, ever going to work out well.
Hillary is the Seinfeld of POTUS candidates, her campaign is about nothing. She has no energy, no substance, and no vision of where she wants to lead the country. It is simply “her turn” and in an anti establishment year, she is toast.
Good article over at AT this morning:
If we fail to act soon, we will lose our last vestiges of liberty and the rule of law to a corrupt government, an over-reaching executive megalith, a complacent legislature, and a faithless judiciary. We the people want a peaceful process to reclaim our republic. Well, this is it, and the time is now. Those in Washington won’t reform, so we must do it for them.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/the_road_to_restoring_our_republic.html#ixzz4KW9zAd4G
A couple of days ago three Phoenix police officers were targeted and nearly killed by a car which sped into them, and yesterday a NY police officer was attacked with a hatchet and suffered a sever facial cut and both of theses instances have received little media attention and not one word of condemnation from the POTUS. WTF is going on in this country?
The progressive agenda is tearing this country apart and it must be stopped.
What is going on in this country is a systematic deconstruction of the rule of law, of objective right and wrong and of all objective stand-alone truths, and of the entire concept of people being individuals instead of part of various collectives and demographics which can and are turned against each other in a massive chess game with the federal government moving the pieces.
WTF’s going on in this country? Did you miss the memo Cluster? Black Lives Matter, that’s what. Who cares about the trivialities you’re talking about.
To be fair, Rusty, it’s Black Lives Matter, Pick-a-Gender and Climate Change/Global Warming.
So Brian Pagliano, the architect of the Clinton private server, has pled the 5th and failed to appear in front of Congress. Why would he do this considering he has been given immunity? Because he values his life. It would not shock me at all that should he testify, he would end up dying of some “unforeseen circumstance”.
And why is Bernie Sanders now campaigning for Hillary? It’s payback for his new $600K lake front “cabin”.
The Democrat party is nothing more than a crime family syndicate.
So it’s time for Trump to point out who has been given immunity and the fact that innocent people don’t need immunity. Immunity is for guilty people, who trade their knowledge of other guilty people for a free pass on their own guilt.
Pagliano knows too much, as do the two employees with North Platte who also pled the 5th. In fact the emails between the guys at North Platte expressing concern over deleting emails and possibly covering up a lot of “shady sh*t”, says a lot. Had they testified, their lives would be ruined. Don’t doubt that.
If given immunity to testify, the only way their lives would be ruined would be by Clinton clean-up crews taking them out. See my next post about what happens when records are deleted in private companies. Everyone knows you have to keep records.
In our own company, the decision makers know they can’t tear out a page from a notebook, in case that notebook has to be used to verify some decision or record some action or conversation. The covers say how many pages are in each notebook, and to be used in a legal action that number of pages has to remain in the book. And that is just personal notes, of who called and when and what was discussed, just the general things we jot down during a day at work.
I don’t see any raised Leftist eyebrows at the leading Socialist in the country having a seasonal retreat that costs more than half a million dollars and is twice the cost of the average full-time residence in the area.
Kind of reminds you of the Soviet elites whose limousines took them past the lines of people waiting in hopes of being able to buy a couple of potatoes, on their way to their luxurious dachas for lavish weekend revelries, doesn’t it?
What a brilliant move by Trump:
WASHINGTON — The media showed up to the presidential ballroom of the new Trump International Hotel on Friday morning expecting Donald Trump to take questions about whether he still questions President Obama’s birthplace. Instead, they got more than a half hour of a variety of military heroes — generals, medal of honor recipients and a gold star wife — expressing support for the Republican nominee. And it all aired live on the cable news networks.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/media-outraged-after-trump-tricks-them-to-cover-endorsements-from-military-heroes/#ixzz4KRpcviTm
Cluster and Ama,
On definitional terms I don’t quite agree with your take on the alt right. First of all, it’s not so much a “completely manufactured label by progressives” as it is a nascent movement that is presently essentially leaderless and divergent on a variety of issues and therefore hard to comprehensively define. I don’t think the alt right as a false construct but a very real groundswell; I think it’s a somewhat nebulous group of people organized around several basic principles: Immigration (secure borders, reduction and discouragement of illegals, tightly controls or at perhaps temporary bans); race realism; anti-PC; anti-identity politics; anti-social engineering; anti-globalism; anti-multiculticulturalism; support for Donald Trump who gives expression to these things.
The problem is that the left falsely equates every one of these policy preferences with racism, xenophobia, sexism, etc. As PC as America is today these accusations have been very effective, but I think increasingly less so, hence the rise of Trump.
As I’ve said, there are no leaders, but I generally like the writings of Steve Sailor.
Rusty, I like your definition of Alt-Right. I especially like the phrase “race realism”. If your definition is accurate, then you are right, the Left are simply redefining those things in ugly terms designed to fool the willingly gullible. The problem is that those kinds of things wear out after a while, so the ante has to be constantly upped in an effort to keep the outrage amped up, and that’s how we end up with a “basket of deplorables”. I guess they used up all the “isms” and “ists”.
It’s just that names get out of control. Take “neocon” for example. It started off as shorthand for “neoconservative” or people new to conservatism, mostly due to the influence of Ronald Reagan. By the time the Left got through with it it meant warmongering capitalist oppressors.
“By the time the Left got through with it it meant warmongering capitalist oppressors.”
Well, to be fair, I think think the actions of the Bush administration had something to do with ruining the brand. For the record, the alt right is firmly opposed to the neocon moniker.
someone called??
No. Probably just tinnitus
September 12, 2016, 09:35 am
Members of Clinton’s staff have battled pneumonia bug
By Mark Hensch
CLINTONS-PNEUMONIA-ALSO-PLAGUED-CAMPAIGN-STAFF
Members of Hillary Clinton’s staff had pneumonia before the candidate came down with it, according to a report.
At least half a dozen senior staff members in Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters battled the illness before the Democratic presidential nominee was diagnosed with the illness on Sunday, People reported Monday.
“Everyone’s been sick,” a campaign source told the publication.
The source said pneumonia cases began popping up among Clinton’s staff in late August, two weeks before the former first lady’s diagnosis. Among those affected were campaign aides who travel closely with Clinton.
Campaign manager Robby Mook was among those who were sick. Two of Clinton’s top advisers received emergency medical treatment during their illness.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295392-clintons-pneumonia-also-plagued-campaign-staff
However, ” In the letter Clinton released Wednesday “to allay concerns after her weekend medical scare,” her personal doctor stated she diagnosed the former secretary of state with “a mild non-contagious bacterial pneumonia” on September 2.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/15/no-such-thing-as-non-contagious-bacterial-pneumonia/#ixzz4KSOvrlIV
So if her pneumonia was “non-contagious” how did she get it from her staff, and if she didn’t get it from her staff then why the blurb on how so many of her staff had had pneumonia in the days prior to her illness?
And why does a doctor say there is no such thing as “non-contagious bacterial pneumonia”, pointing out that there are medical codes for being bitten by a cow, being hurt at an opera, and being burned by water skis on fire, but there no code for “non-contagious bacterial pneumonia”,
So she was kinda sick with something “mild” and “non-contagious” she caught from her staff, went to a big memorial service but soon couldn’t stand or walk or support herself but didn’t need to go to the ER (though “two of her top advisers” had required emergency medical treatment for THEIR pneumonia) and then after an hour and a half “resting” or maybe some kind of treatment by a doctor who happened to be at her daughter’s apartment, who knows, she bounced back enough to ditch her Secret Service guards and take a stroll and smile and wave and hug a little girl—whose mother is no doubt relieved to learn that while Hillary caught her pneumonia from someone else in her it was no longer contagious.
It is clearly the strain of non-contagious pneumonia that smooths out wrinkled skin, drops many pounds off a chunky body, and makes someone look 20 years younger. Too bad it’s not contagious—that would be enough for me to give her a hug.
To quote Spook, “when you put it like that, it sounds bad”
I like the take of Scott Adams, Dilbert cartoonist, on Trump. Adams is a trained hypnotist and filters his perceptions through the lenses of persuasion and power. Day by day, it’s getting much harder for the left to characterize Trump as stupid and impulsive.
“Do you remember way—-way—-way—back in July, when the public thought Trump was the candidate they couldn’t trust with the nuclear arsenal? That was before we realized he could moderate his personality on command, as he is doing now. We’re about to enter our fifth consecutive week of Trump doing more outreach than outrage.
It turns out that Trump’s base personality is “winning.” Everything else he does is designed to get that result. He needed to be loud and outrageous in the primaries, so he was. He needs to be presidential in this phase of the election cycle, so he is.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has revealed herself to be frail, medicated, and probably duplicitous about her health. We also hear reports that she’s a drinker with a bad temper. Suddenly, Clinton looks like the unstable personality in this race. Who do you want controlling the nuclear arsenal now?”
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150449295541/when-reality-turned-inside-out
Why are my posts not taking?
For some reason they went to the Spam folder. This is not because we don’t want you to post or because there was anything wrong with them. We will watch to see if it happens again. The post in question has been reinstated. // Moderator
Really strange, I can’t seem to get this post up. Maybe with this preamble:
I like the take of Scott Adams, Dilbert cartoonist, on Trump. Adams is a trained hypnotist and filters his perceptions through the lenses of persuasion and power dynamics. Day by day, it’s getting much harder for the left to characterize Trump as stupid and impulsive.
“Do you remember way—-way—-way—back in July, when the public thought Trump was the candidate they couldn’t trust with the nuclear arsenal? That was before we realized he could moderate his personality on command, as he is doing now. We’re about to enter our fifth consecutive week of Trump doing more outreach than outrage.
It turns out that Trump’s base personality is “winning.” Everything else he does is designed to get that result. He needed to be loud and outrageous in the primaries, so he was. He needs to be presidential in this phase of the election cycle, so he is.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has revealed herself to be frail, medicated, and probably duplicitous about her health. We also hear reports that she’s a drinker with a bad temper. Suddenly, Clinton looks like the unstable personality in this race. Who do you want controlling the nuclear arsenal now?”
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150449295541/when-reality-turned-inside-out
Sorry. I don’t know why your posts went to Spam but we will watch that folder to see if it happens again. // Moderator
If you read through his past posts you’ll see that Adams has long predicted Trump wins by a landslide.
I can see that I need to start paying attention to his blog. I always found Dilbert to be really funny, in that disturbing kind of funny of Catch-22.
Rusty, thanks for bringing up the Adams blog. I’ll be following it.
He wrote this: emphasis mine
“On April 29th of 2016 I expanded on the thought in this post.
I have blogged and tweeted that Hillary Clinton looks unhealthy to me. And I have mentioned on Twitter that one of the skills of a hypnotist is identifying subtle bodily changes. Observation is a huge part of a hypnotist’s skill. You look for micro changes in muscle tone, breathing, posture, and anything else that can tell you whether your technique is working or you need to quickly pivot to a new approach. Think of it as rapid A-B testing on humans. And like any skill, one gets better with practice. I have more than three decades of practice for this specific skill.
What I see in Clinton’s health is an unusual level of variability. Sometimes her eyes bug out, sometimes they are tired and baggy. Sometimes she looks puffy, sometimes not. It would be easy to assume fatigue is the important variable. And that is clearly a big factor. But notice that the other candidates have little variability in their physicality. Trump always looks like Trump. Cruz always looks like Cruz, and so on. Sometimes we think we can detect fatigue in their answers, but visually the other candidates appear about the same every day.
Clinton, on the other hand, looks like an entirely different person every few days. That suggests some greater variability in her health. And that’s probably a tell for medications that are waxing and waning but rarely at the ideal levels. Or perhaps the underlying conditions have normal variability. Or both.”
Clinton, on the other hand, looks like an entirely different person every few days. Back to body double thinking? Which of those two explanations is more disturbing?
This ties in with my comments on how trained people can see things other people can’t. One of the things a trained person can spot, that goes right past someone not aware of it, is compensatory behavior. That is, the effort to compensate for something. The most obvious example is squinting—-one may squint to try to compensate for poor vision.
There are compensatory behaviors for all sorts of things. People with hand tremors will often try to hide them by making sure they are holding something, such as a glass, or even grasping one hand with another. The doctor pointed out an odd arrangement of fingers which he said can be to control tremors. People usually try to compensate for balance issues by being close to something they can grab if necessary, and in more extreme cases always holding onto something. (This was especially obvious in Hillary’s visit to Joe Biden’s old house, when after a big hug from a stout neighbor she reached around the woman to grab onto a railing, and later had to move her hand from a chair back to a table.) Look how often Hillary is seen with someone else holding her elbow, or her holding onto someone else. This is not normal for a 70-year-old woman in good health. I’ve slipped on an icy step (never on dry stairs) and had someone grasp my arm for a moment to steady me, but I have never had to have two people, one on each side, basically carry me up the stairs.
An expert can point out oddly rigid posture, such as the posture of Hillary as she is being carried up the stairs, and leaning against the bollard while waiting for her van. Both postures are consistent with a neurological “freeze”.
I have bad knees with some occasional structural weakness, after years of bone-on-bone wear, and I never go up or down a flight of stairs without holding onto a railing. That is in case of a weakness, not because that is the only way I can go up or down stairs. It just makes me feel more secure. But I can walk and stand without having to grab onto something, because my problem is structural, not neurological, one of strength in my legs and not of balance.
I also looked up Steve Sailer and found this gem:
“Deplorable” is a dysphemism for “honest.”
Definition of dysphemism
: the substitution of a disagreeable, offensive, or disparaging expression for an agreeable or inoffensive one; also : an expression so substituted
See also under: Linguistic practices of the American Democrat Party
Holy Cow. Here’s a fine Progressive actually suggesting the debates be on a tape delay so “experts” can check the veracity of a candidate’s claims. If Big Brother declares them to be false,well then:
“During the silences, of which there would no doubt be many, viewers would see the candidate’s lips moving. But there would be an overlay of text saying, “He’s talking about [insert subject] but making false statements; here’s the truth about this subject: … ” and so on.”
I can’t believe an American journalist is suggesting such a thing.This is the type of crap I’m sick of with the left. Only a moron could not foresee that a system like this would lead to all kinds off error and abuse, not to mention establish an extremely slippery slope for censoring other types of badspeak. If Clinton’s elected, look for this type of thing to become more common. The proposals will be similar to oppressive Canadian and European hate speech laws–all of them, to my knowledge, enacted by the left.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/politicians-war-on-truth/500282/
This Dan Gilmore sounds like a perfectly wonderful little Thought Police advocate. As if the whole idea were not disturbing enough, note that he claims Trump engages in non-stop lying, whereas Hillary only has some occasional “dissembling”.
What could be more Orwellian than a picture of a politician speaking, but without any sound, while someone else is telling you “He is saying this and that, but what he is saying is a lie, and this is the truth about this and that”. The next step could be “He is saying this but he really means that”.
What’s the late night comedy show where people lip sync what the characters in movies are saying? At least that is sometimes funny, and not Stalinesque.
Just as a start, I wonder if Mr. Gilmore defines Hillary’s repeated lies under oath “dissembling” or outright lies.
What could be more Orwellian than a picture of a politician speaking, but without any sound, while someone else is telling you “He is saying this and that, but what he is saying is a lie, and this is the truth about this and that”. The next step could be “He is saying this but he really means that”.
Exactly. Nice way of putting it. What ever happened to journalists just doing their job? If you’re a journalist and you think a candidate is lying, write a powerful and persuasive article that exposes their lies.
Also, whatever happened to the concept of letting a Presidential candidate stand up for herself? If Trump lies in the course of a debate, shouldn’t it be primarily Clinton’s job to point that out, at least in real time? Isn’t that part of what debates are all about? Can you imagine this ridiculous fact-checking proposal in the era of a competent Presidential nominee like Reagan or Bill Clinton?
Very well said. The image of the press rushing to the defense of a candidate while she huddles behind the barrier they have erected paints a pretty bad picture of both the candidate and the press.
Another quirk of Leftist hypocrisy:
In Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a right to kill one’s unborn child because this act is covered under a “right to privacy”. Yet there is no “right to privacy” when it comes to disrobing, showering, or using a toilet in any place ruled by Leftist demands that men be allowed to use women’s facilities at will.
What could be more demanding of a basic need for privacy than disrobing or taking a shower? Yet this is not a right, in Leftspeak. Like most rights, to the Left there are boundaries which can be defined by the Left.
http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/09/when-liberty-forces-18-girls-into-a-single-stall-shower-room
Interesting quote here:
“There’s no such thing as a vote that doesn’t matter,” Obama said. “It all matters. And after we have achieved historic turnout in 2008 and 2012, especially in the African-American community, I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down it’s guard and fails to activate itself in this election. You want to give me a good send off? Go vote!”
So Obama will consider it a personal insult to him if people with his skin color do not get out and vote to protect HIS legacy. Regardless that living conditions are measurably worse for black Americans, Obama tells them that they need to drag themselves to the polls and vote to continue the same old policies so that Obama doesn’t look bad. So in other words, don’t vote for your own well being, vote for Obama’s well being.
Looking at this another way, this is an open admission that Hillary is such a terrible candidate that the only way she can win is to convince black people that they have one more chance to vote for Obama, by voting for her. “OK, I realize you have a hard time voting for Hillary Clinton. Who wouldn’t? But you can think of it as a vote for me, if you are dumb enough to buy into that crap. Hey, it’s all we’ve got, except Vote For Hillary Or The Dog Gets It.”
The air of desperation in the Dem camp is palpable.
Just the fact that the media and Democrats (sorry for repeating myself) are dragging out the birther issue clearly shows that they have nothing to run on and are in complete desperation.
To be fair, the Right has never done its job on the so-called “birther issue”. In fact, many, including otherwise respectable people like Hugh Hewitt, have jumped on the bandwagon and decried what I see as a solemn duty of Americans to make sure every president is legally qualified for the job.
I feel the same way about Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, both of whom I admire and respect, both of whom I think would make an excellent president. But as an American, I think I have a duty to make sure that no one who is not a Natural Born Citizen is allowed to run for that office. Race has nothing to do with it. All Obama ever had to do was produce records, and he never did, yet the Left has been successful in turning the whole thing around to make it look like the problem was some people on the right.
I think we had a right to expect that someone planning to run for the presidency would have his ducks in a row—birth certificate in hand. college records in hand, everything there that might be called upon to verify his background and eligibility. Seeing refusal to provide these things, coupled with the lies that accompanied the refusals, quite naturally led to more concerns.
The Right failed miserably in pointing this out. Maybe Trump can.
All Obama ever had to do was produce records, and he never did
BINGO. That’s exactly right. Obama was the original birther and the only reason his birth certificate was not readily available was because this became a huge political wedge issue that Democrats could exploit to enflame passions and divide the populace.
Everyone needs to remember this: Not to be outdone by Hillary’s derision towards millions of Americans, Obama gave his own parting shot:
On his recent Asian tour, President Obama characterized his fellow Americans (the most productive workers in the world) as “lazy.” In fact, he went on to deride Americans for a list of supposed transgressions ranging from the Vietnam War to environmental desecration to the 19th century treatment of Native Americans. “If you’re in the United States,” the president said, “sometimes you can feel lazy and think we’re so big we don’t have to really know anything about other people.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/technology_breaches_the_media_maginot_line_.html#ixzz4Kc8oduUI
Criticizing and bashing America seems to be very in vogue these days by Putin, Kim Un, Castro, etc., and evidently even our own progressive leadership. Wouldn’t it be nice to have someone take the mantle of leadership and start identifying the real problems that exist around the world and not the contrived, politically correct problems?
So let’s see if Trump can tie this America-bashing to Hillary. Remember, they stood in front of the country holding hands while he promised us that she would carry on his legacy and his agendas. He tied her to him, and Trump needs to make that tie binding. He needs to quote Obama, and refer to the speech where they held hands and pledged that she would be Obama The Second, and ask voters if they really want another four years of having a president who hates and disparages this country.
(I suppose that would be sneered at as “white nationalism”.)
She’s already slandered a quarter of the voting population, calling them “deplorable”, and the predecessor she has pledged to honor in her term by continuing in his footsteps is now trashing the rest of us.
Everyone here has been conversing with Rusty in a polite, civilized manner, something that, a few months ago, I would not have thought possible. He’s even made some points that had me scratching my head and saying, I hadn’t looked at it that way before. That’s something of a first for me WRT statements by Liberals.
Both Amazona and I have changed our views over the years. She’s often referred to her younger self as an unexamined Liberal, while I readily admit to having been an unexamined Republican. A combination of lots of reading, observation and self-examination have led to both of us going through somewhat of a transformation, hers admittedly more radical than mine. I think both of us tend to be unique among Conservatives in that confirmation bias is generally not a significant factor in our thinking. I can’t speak for Amazona, but that wasn’t always the case with me. I largely have the Internet to thank for that.
To be honest, I’m not so much suspicious of Rusty as I am curious. So, Rusty, if you’re game, I’d love to hear what’s led to your seemingly changed views, at least on the topics you’ve discussed here, but any aspect of social, political or economic philosophy is on the table as far as I’m concerned. The only way we expand our minds is to keep them open to new ideas or to the possibility that what we believe may not be correct.
I am a little more familiar with Rusty than most of you here because of my time over at “brand X” so to speak and in my opinion Rusty’s views really haven’t changed that much. Again in my opinion, Rusty is definitely left of center but is also very independent, quite sharp on a lot of issues and does not have any blind allegiances so his support of Trump in this campaign is not out of character. I have seen him challenge both progressives and conservatives and often has some pretty good points. I think there are a lot of “left of center” folks like Rusty who feel the same way and also support Trump and that is another reason why I think Trump will win this thing.
Cluster, do you define “left of center” in terms of positions on certain issues, or on a position of how best to govern the nation?
I ask because I could be considered “left of center” on some issues but I am firmly in the conservative camp if we are talking about severely restricting the size, scope and power of the federal government and keeping most authority in the states, or with the people.
For example, since Rusty has been engaged in this recent discussion, he has indicated that he is not interested in discussing abortion. That tells me that on this issue he stands more to the Left. But much of his commentary has indicated a distaste for overly strong central authority, which tends to lean toward conservatism when it comes to governance. So in this case it might come down to a personal belief that abortion is OK, but also a conviction that this is not a federal issue and should be left up to the states to decide, which would move him to the right in spite of his personal stance on this one topic.
Poor Rusty, having us all discuss him like this.
I think we get all tangled up in linguistic spaghetti when we use issues to define political identity, and vice versa. I wish we could come up with a way to easily differentiate between the two. There was a feeble effort, once, using the terms “social LIberal” and “fiscal conservative” but as fiscal matters can be related more to issues than to governance it really wasn’t much help.
As I have said, in my opinion a Wiccan lesbian abortion provider on welfare is a conservative if she doesn’t think the federal government has any place in any of these areas, and any authority exerted in any of these areas has to come from state or local legislation, and if she is adamantly against a Central Authority exerting control over peoples’ lives. If she believes in the Constitution and all it guarantees and stands for, without effort to rewrite it to accommodate expansion of the federal government or its authority, she is a conservative.
Yes, left of center on issues. I would say Rusty leans libertarian in terms of governance and I am sure Rusty will come in to set us straight. 🙂
That’s kind of the feeling I have been getting from his posts. I, too, am pretty much a libertarian, lower-case “l” as the Libertarian Party is kinda goofy and too isolationist for my taste. In a world where people can travel across oceans in hours, with so many porous borders, with so many people sworn to destroy us and everything we stand for in so many countries, I think we need the ability to intercede on foreign soil when it appears our own national security is at stake.
I also waffle a little on pure libertarianism when it comes to legislation at the state or local level. While I might not like it, or like some of the conclusions and laws that result, the fact is that there are an awful lot of things that demand some kind of formalization of terms, rules, and so on. So at the federal level I am more hard core, but acknowledging the need and right to make laws more locally.
My, all this attention. You’re making me bashful! But seriously, so much to say. I think Cluster’s take on my views and their evolution is pretty accurate (especially the “quite sharp on a lot of issues” part!) To address Spook in particular, I think my views have evolved somewhat over the years but more than that I believe my emphasis and priorities have evolved much more. That is, a different set of ideas, issues and principles appear to me to be very important at the present time and thus have changed my focus. So, if I were to look back on past arguments I’ve had here with you folks I think my views on those matters have remained pretty much the same. The difference is that we’re not talking about those issues now and I’ve prioritized a new set of issues that I feel very passionately about.
Immigration would have to be first on the list. As far as I’m concerned, once you watch the video Spook posted the other day (https://www.youtube.com/embed/44vzMNG2fZc), what other issues are there? Fact is, I’ve been increasingly aware of this situation for the last few years and I believe this nation is at a tipping point. I find the worldwide push for open borders and globalization strange and highly disturbing, and the way it’s been suddenly sped up in the last couple of years should give pause to any rational Western person. It’s not alarmist to frame this in terms of the survival of Western Democracy. It looks like Europe, in their orgy of ethnomasochism may already be lost. Demography is destiny. Muslims outbreed Brits, the most popular baby name in London is currently Mohamed, and you don’t have to be a math whiz to figure out that it’s only a matter of time before England is majority Muslim. What happens then? Again, you don’t have to guess. All you have to do is simply take a look at the dozens of other majority Muslim countries around the world–that’s what happens. No thanks, I prefer America as it is, warts and all.
And frankly, I see this as a quite liberal position. I’m advocating for a continuation of our enlightened values. When Progressives advocate for increased third world immigration they’re advocating for importing values that run very counter to ours. They’re advocating the increase of homophobia, sexism, religious intolerance, suppression of speech, just to name a few. And they call the people who want to slow this process down and thoughtfully consider the issues “bigots” and “xenophobic”. Ridiculous.
I’m pressed for time and will post more later, but those are just a few thoughts.
I sort of thought that’s where you were coming from, even before Cluster’s analysis. Even the few Conservatives left here don’t always agree on everything but we’re generally able to disagree without being disagreeable, even Bob, when he isn’t picking a fight based on who can pick the most fly sh*t out of the pepper shaker. If Left and Right can’t start finding some common ground solutions to our myriad of problems, we will eventually be fighting each other in the streets, and, in spite of bluster on the part of many Conservatives, even myself on occasion, that’s not something that we really want. I look forward to some interesting conversations.
I hear you. And like you and Ama seem to indicate, I think the distinction between right and left is fracturing allowing for a bunch of crossover migration. It’s exciting; I think that’s the way it should be, it’s healthy. This is the first time in my life I haven’t regarded all Republicans as sworn enemies. Unfortunately, most of my fellow travelers on the left are still firmly entrenched in the us v. them mentality, very regressive and limiting.
Continuing on that thought, one change I see in myself is that I’m more patriotic than I used to be. I’ve come to appreciate the uniqueness of the American experiment and how rare the freedoms we enjoy are in world history. It’s something that certainly should not be taken for granted. I think this insight came with age and having kids.
It’s amazing that the left takes such issue with the phrases “make America great again” and “America first”. Many Leftists actually think these are vulgar, racist statements. How did we get to a place where it’s in any way controversial for a country’s presidential candidate to declare his first priority is to the citizens of the country he seeks to lead?
Funny enough, Bill Clinton in 1992 used the phrase make America great again and it wasn’t xenophobic back then. Neither was securing the border and clamping down on illegal immigration as Clinton spoke of in his 1996 SOTU address. I agree with you on the immigration/refugee crisis and that we are at, or dangerously close to a tipping point. We can not allow that to happen.
Not to rain on your parade too much, but additional research revealed that the video of Muslim immigrants over-running Europe turns out to be a carefully crafted piece of propaganda. (I know — I was shocked too) Snopes, in which I don’t exactly have unbridled faith, says the content is not accurately portrayed, or something like that, not that’s it’s a complete fabrication. From other sources I’ve read, it would seem that the facts on the ground in Europe are so grim that enhancing them really isn’t necessary.
What I don’t understand, given what’s happening in Europe, is why anyone, regardless of political or ideological persuasion, would want to duplicate it here.
I read the Snopes “debunking” and the first thing I thought was “Why are they so determined to make it look like this is fake?” Yes, they did address a few aspects of the film, and show that they had been taken out of context or in some way misrepresented. But they just ignored the bulk of the video. From what I got from the Snopes article was that they didn’t argue about the video of the hundreds/thousands of young men swarming into various European countries, or the filth they left behind, or the belligerent staring into the camera and shouting the intent to destroy us and our way of life, or the attacks on women. I’d say that Snopes only addressed about 10-15% of the whole video if that much.
It was clear that they wanted the whole video dismissed as falsified, for propaganda purposes, but they only focused on a few bits, and even without those bits the thing was scary as hell. Look at it any way you want to—-the numbers, the violence, the rage, the hatred of everything we stand for, the determination to not only vanquish but destroy us—those were not faked.
.
This is what Snopes had to say about the video: emphasis mine
…the above-displayed video contains several clips unrelated to the refugee crisis in Europe.
Several? How many? They address three. Well, more like two and a half, as they don’t deny the scene on the train took place, just quibble about it not being significant because it happened before the “Syrian refugee crisis”. And of course having rabid Muslims brag about destroying us and our culture doesn’t count if it took place back in 2010.
Take the clip shown at the 7:43 mark, for example. The audio comes from a man talking about how he is afraid to walk down the street due to the growing refugee population, while the visual shows someone being attacked. In the context of the video it is reasonable to assume that the man is being attacked by refugees, but that is not the case. Instead of showing refugees attacking an innocent civilian, the clip actually shows two Slovakian migrant workers who were attacked by leftist activist in Stockholm:
That’s one.
Similarly, a clip at the 7:51 mark that is played as the narrator talks about “crime skyrocketing” has nothing to do with refugees. The clip comes from a 2013 incident in which soccer fans rioted following Paris Saint-Germain’s first French league title in 19 years.
That’s two. And by the way, most of the people in that clip looked like they were from the Middle East so I would like to know if they were Muslims, given a pass by Snopes because they were rioting after a soccer match instead of for some other reason. Just because they rioted “following” a match does not give them a pass or mean they are not violent or a danger.
The video also uses previously debunked footage purportedly showing Muslims on a train in Germany in 2015. That piece of footage actually came from France and was first uploaded to YouTube in 2010, before the current Syrian refugee crisis began:
Not the point. Snopes is trying to convey the message that if these violent and hateful sentiments were delivered prior to whatever Snopes has chosen to call “the current Syrian refugee crisis” then those sentiments are not worth our attention. I say the opposite is true—–if Muslims in France were talking like this back in 2010, then the situation has been very bad for a lot longer than we realize.
Snopes used faulty logic and efforts to mislead in their “debunking” and even then could only come up with two examples that may not have been related to Muslim dedication to destroying us and everything we stand for due to their religious teachings.
Props to Snopes, though, for admitting that the first attack they covered was by a leftist activist.
http://www.snopes.com/2015/11/17/disturbing-muslim-refugee-video/
Totally agree with Ama here. I knew from the get go the video was propaganda and am not at all surprised that one or two of the many dozens of clips are false. Note that Snopes is not really debunking the video at all or declaring it to be false; Snopes is presenting an opinion piece on the film that finds a couple factual errors and therefor would prefer for us to view the entire thing as bullshit. “That a wrap folks! Nothing to see here!”
Anybody following the news will know that as sensationalistic as the film is it’s a fairly accurate snapshot of whats going on in Europe. Would Snopes prefer a nice, sober news report out of Rotherham about the mass gang rapes of hundreds of local children perpetrated by Pakistanis? Authorities there covered that one up out of fear of being called racist. Oh wait, never mind, those gang rapes started as early as 1997, way before the current immigrant crisis. “That a wrap folks! Nothing to see here!”
I’m sure the children being raped back in 97 wouldn’t call it a crisis.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28939089
I’m sure the children being raped back in 97 wouldn’t call it a crisis.
1997? You mean like in the previous century? That doesn’t even count.
Rusty, in all seriousness, I understand what drives most liberal thought, but for the life of me, I don’t understand what drives the mindset, largely on the Left, that says we should allow unfettered immigration from countries that are identified as hotbeds or even sponsors of terrorism? Is it the old, “if I feed the alligator it’ll eat me last” meme?
One characteristic I have seen on the Left is the desire/need to feel better than other people. The more I observe the Left the more I see this.
I have often written that espousing certain positions is the shortcut to the Higher Moral Ground, and this is what I see with the Left’s promotion of unfettered immigration, even when those immigrants have stated their intent to kill or at least overrun their hosts and take over their culture.
I see several kinds of thought processes at work, when it comes to kindness and generosity. One is the most common kind, the kind that simply does good and kind and generous things because it is the right thing to do, without fanfare and without expecting accolades. One, which is how I see most of the average Left-leaning populace, wants credit for being good, so publicly supports plans and policies they think are good and kind and generous, and they do it less for the fact that these are good things to do and more because espousing them labels them in their minds as good people. Not just good people, but better people than those who don’t. And I think that is the key—the need to feel better than others. So they come out in favor of policies full of feel-goodness, like taking in the downtrodden refugees. It’s usually more about just taking a position rather than actually doing anything, or doing something simple but dramatic, like showing up at a train station with welcome signs. (Yet you don’t see them at airports with signs welcoming our military back home after serving out country. Go figure.)
It’s all about LOOK AT MEEE! LOOK HOW TOLERANT I AM! LOOK HOW OPEN MINDED I AM! LOOK HOW GENEROUS I AM (with OPM, but don’t lets quibble) and LOOK HOW SUPERIOR I AM! I took my children to a train station to tell refugees we LOVE them—-and then we went home, and the refugees went wherever people like that go.
Then there are those who need to expand on their perception of their superiority, so they demonize those who don’t think the way they do, labeling them as selfish, greedy, cruel, indifferent, making the gap between them and the special people even larger. This lets them feel even more superior, without putting out any additional effort to actually DO anything of value.
We see this smug sense of superiority all the time, along with the shrill accusations that those who don’t take their path to this Higher Moral Ground are, therefore, immoral. (Racist, sexist, ageist, xenophobic, homophobic, just plain phobic, etc.)
I see everyday Leftism (as opposed to the activist kind) as short-sighted. There is a focus on the immediate goal, and on doing what it takes to feel good about it, without looking on down the road to recognize those Unintended Consequences.
People are homeless? Give them money. (OPM of course.) Boom! Problem solved.
People are hungry? Give them money. (OPM of course.) Boom! Problem solved.
People are unemployed? Give them money. (OPM of course.) Boom! Problem solved.
Gay people feel left out because they can’t use the same word for their unions as straight people? Redefine the word. Boom! Problem solved.
Children and adolescents feel confused and isolated? Let them choose a gender. Boom! Problem solved.
Teachers want more pay and benefits without doing better work? Secure their jobs with teachers’ unions and block efforts to create educational alternatives. Boom! Problem solved
Not enough students graduating from high school? Lower the standards. Boom! Problem solved.
Constitution making it too hard to enact Leftist policies? Ignore the Constitution. Boom! Problem solved.
Congress won’t give you everything you want? Just have the president play king and make laws in the Oval Office. Boom! Problem solved.
Seeing uprooted people desperate and unable to go back to their homes? Invite them all to come here! Boom! Problem solved.
People taking advantage or our porous borders and swamping our systems? Make them all legal and then we won’t have illegals living here. Boom! Problem solved.
Pesky conservatives pointing out problems with our “solutions”? Demonize them, ridicule them, call them names, and dismiss them. Boom! Problem solved.
And so on. Consequences? What consequences? If you never look past the immediate issue, you don’t see what your actions might lead to, so you play Scarlett O’Hara and decide you’ll think about that tomorrow. You can always slap a band-aid on any problem that might come up.
Running out of money? Raise taxes. Boom! Problem solved. People can’t read, write or spell? Throw out the rules for reading, writing and spelling. Boom! Problem solved. New president from the other party now in the Oval Office and doing what your guy did, making his own laws? Uh-oh.
Spook,
“I don’t understand what drives the mindset, largely on the Left, that says we should allow unfettered immigration from countries that are identified as hotbeds or even sponsors of terrorism?”
This is a conundrum, worthy of a separate thread I think. The effects of such immigration are so counterintuitive and polarizing to healthy societies you would think opposition would be the norm. Well actually, if you poll native populations of your average Joe or Hans, you do in fact see much opposition to it. Hence Brexit, Merkles collapse, and the rise of so called “far right” parties across Europe.
But it’s far from only the left who are for open borders, it’s pretty much all global elites who are for it, and that includes plenty of Republicans. I think it was someone on the alt right who coined the term, “Invade the world, invite the world”. GW Bush epitomized this. He seemed to encourage a very porous Mexican border and in the ten years after 911 we actually had a large increase in Muslim immigration compared to the ten years previous, a truly mind-bending statistic to throw out there at your next cocktail party.
I think we get a clue when we realize that virtually all multinational conglomerates are in favor of open borders. After all, isn’t it really the richest people and groups in the world that really call the shots? This crosses party lines; Soros and the Koch brothers are bosom buddies when it comes to the mass migration of the third world into the West.
The question is why. It’s obvious that a cheap, docile, replaceable labor supply is a huge plus for these people. Societal destabilization might work in their favor as well; similar to how our political elites like to stir up racial conflict in order to distract the populous from noticing their shrinking portion of the national wealth. And then there’s the egalitarianism of the left, white guilt, etc.
Soros and the Koch brothers are bosom buddies when it comes to the mass migration of the third world into the West.
You’re absolutely right and that is why the Koch Bros. are in fierce opposition to Trump as is Soros. Have you ever heard of Eko Atlantic? I heard Bill Clinton mention this project just kind of as a side remark one time so I googled it:
http://www.ekoatlantic.com/category/project-updates/
I don’t know if this is anything but it looks interesting and has the appearance of a mega financial hub that the world elite will no doubt control and a vehicle from which they could impose agenda driven policies for access and aid. Kind of a CGI Foundation on steroids.
Just one example of short-sighted “problem solving”. A few years ago Colorado drivers’ license offices were swamped because people were not passing the written tests so were taking them over and over again. The state only charged a fee for issuing a license, so there was no downside to just hanging out in the office and taking the test over and over again till you got enough right answers, and that’s what people were doing.
One solution to this problem would have been to spread the fee for getting a license over a couple of elements, so instead of paying $25.00 when the license is actually issued you might pay $10.00 for taking the written test and $15.00 when the license is issued. This kind of approach would encourage people to study at home instead of using Motor Vehicle staff as tutors.
But Liberal Colorado just lowered the standards for passing the test. Boom! Problem solved.
Did this mean putting more people on the road who had less knowledge of the rules? What’s your point? The backlog in the offices was reduced, and wasn’t that the goal?
Rusty, you make very good points. However, going back to my Unintended Consequences meme, expanding open borders to militant Muslims means the influx does not consist of “…a cheap, docile, replaceable labor supply..” Ask France.
When your immigrant population refuses to assimilate to any degree and maintains its own language and culture even when that culture is antithetical to the culture of the host state, you do not have “..a cheap, docile, replaceable labor supply..” you have an invasion.
If you try to accommodate the other culture, such as allowing multiple breaks for prayer, establishing places for foot washing and so forth, your immigrant population becomes less financially beneficial, as well as creating conflict with native Americans and immigrants of other cultures who do not demand or get such special attention.
The basic idea is good, a kind of convection process applied to people. Poor uneducated people with minor skill sets are encouraged to immigrate here, where they fill low-paying jobs. Theoretically our educational system will prepare their children for better jobs, and the social convection process begins, as the next generations rise economically and are replaced by new lower-tier workers. It’s a good process. It offers alternatives to poor people in other nations whose own countries offer them and their offspring no hope for advancement or change, it makes it possible for our labor-dependent culture to function, and in general it has helped make out nation an economic powerhouse while enriching many lives.
This whole process goes out the window when the immigrant population refuses to work, or at least refuses to work under the same conditions applied to everyone else. An example is that of taxi drivers in France. Driving a cab is a traditional entry level job for immigrants, but what France saw was Muslim taxi drivers who refused to pick up women. It is common in France to take your dog with you, and Muslim cab drivers would not pick up a man if he had a dog with him. There were no Muslim-driven cabs on the street during prayer times. If your religion and/or culture don’t let you interact or even acknowledge women, you can’t function in a workplace where women are employed, much less one where women are in management, and you can’t be in positions of dealing with the public. Factor in hatred, antagonism, belligerence, and the desire to destroy your host nation, and you have the opposite of “..a cheap, docile, replaceable labor supply..” You just have a problem, a social cancer that is eating you alive.
I heard a radio call the other day from a woman who had been in a mild auto accident. She asked the other driver if he was OK, and he refused to look at her or answer her. There was a child seat in the other car, and she kept asking if a child had been in the car, and he refused to look at her or answer her. Finally a man arrived, and the other driver would acknowledge him and talk to him—-the other driver was a Muslim, and refused to even acknowledge that a woman was talking to him, much less stoop to answering her. Expand this to dealing with female law enforcement officers, EMTs, doctors, teachers, and you see a massive problem that is not offset by having “…a cheap, docile, replaceable labor supply..:
Social destabilization is good for some people, up to a point. Nervous or frightened people tend to turn to strong authority figures for protection and comfort, and this helps the Left. They also tend to cluster in groups of people like themselves, which helps with the divide and conquer tactic of the Left, its separation of individuals into demographic groups which can then be manipulated, turned against each other or banded together against a common (invented) foe.
I just think that trying to apply these tactics to a massive influx of hate-driven ideologues whose primary goal in life is to destroy the very people who have invited them in is suicidal, and I think this is starting to sink in. It is still butting heads with the “I’m so much more tolerant and therefore evolved and superior” mindset that has driven the acceptance of this invasion, but I think that is starting to fade a little.
I have told this story before but a few years ago here in Phoenix a Muslim man ran down and killed his teenage daughter with his car because he felt she had become to “westernized”. He fled to the Middle East, I think Saudi and has never been brought back to face the charges. Worse yet, there was little condemnation from the fairly large Muslim community here in Phoenix.
Anyone who subscribes to Sharia law can not, and should never become an American citizen. Aside from that, while the Muslim culture is rich with history and tradition and is an important component to the diversity of this world, we are different people with a different cultures and on many occasions, those two cultures do not mix well. And you know what? That’s ok. In fact that is actually how it should be and why a borderless world is wrong and only serves to kill people’s identity, culture and eventually their soul. When I go to France, I want to see and feel the incredible French history, cuisine, art, architecture, & people. When I go to Kuwait I want to see their incredible history, cuisine, art, architecture & people, etc., etc. We will all lose this in a borderless world as promoted by the world elite ie; George Soros and by extension Obama, and Hillary Clinton. We can also throw into that mix Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Francois Hollande, & the UN. Europe is real close to being gone and four more years of unchecked immigration and refugees here at home and we will be at that tipping point where we just gave away this country because of political correctness and misguided compassion.
Ama,
“When your immigrant population refuses to assimilate to any degree and maintains its own language and culture even when that culture is antithetical to the culture of the host state, you do not have “..a cheap, docile, replaceable labor supply..” you have an invasion.”
Yeah, I basically agree with this. I’m not saying that the corporate multinationalist’s globalization plan is well thought out, I think there are a variety of unintended consequences being overlooked, but a desire for cheap labor is probably still a factor in the equation. And who knows, in the long run most of these unintended consequences tend to effect the masses, not the elite, so what do they care? What does someone who takes a limo everywhere care about disrupted cab service? The labor I’m talking about is in the factories and concerns owned by the corporate multinationalists and there they will continue to call the shots. Sure, they’ll run into religious and cultural snags, but they’ll make a few concessions and if that doesn’t work they’ll move on to the next batch of illiterate immigrants.
Just one take on things, hardly comprehensive. Hate to be so pessimistic, and I certainly don’t claim to know all of the answers. Somebody give me a rosier outlook!
Rusty, I think you are right in your assessment of why these big entities used to favor immigration, and even porous borders if they would add to the cheap labor force. My point is that they may have miscalculated when they looked at Middle Eastern Islamic immigrants as being similarly manageable.
A lot of Colorado businesses have been happy with their Somalian immigrants. Yes, they have to make some accommodations for religious practices, but they have also drawn a line and said while they will make some concessions they won’t turn the whole company over for religious rites. In particular, a lot of Somalis work in some meat packing companies up in northern Colorado, and they wanted them all to be able to leave the line at certain times so they could all go pray. Management said no way, they were not shutting down the line and they were not going to make non-Muslims take up the slack, and the last I heard the matter was settled.
BUT…the Somalis came from cultures in which people work. The came to the United States expecting to work. I don’t think the young Middle Eastern men we saw in those videos are interested in line work or factory work or lawn care or any of the other entry level jobs recent immigrants traditionally use to get themselves established.
I’m just saying that with this particular demographic of immigrant, the conventional wisdom may not apply. I think these companies may spend a lot of time and energy trying to pound square pegs into round holes and realize they need to go back to countries with different value systems to find their cheap labor.
Not only can advocates and followers of Sharia law not become citizens, they have to set aside this belief system while traveling or staying in the United States, and accept our laws and customs while they are here.
I guess the easiest way to look at it is if you drive every day in the United States and you visit the UK, you WILL drive on the left side of the road, or you won’t drive. Period. No one cares about your heritage, your customs or even that your religion says you have to drive on the right. It doesn’t matter. In the UK you drive on the left.
If you come here, you follow our laws. Period. End of discussion. And if you want to be a citizen you formally renounce your allegiance to any other rule of law.
Of course, we have to have the backbone to enforce our laws and not turn into whimpering apologists if someone says he prefers his own laws and we, as advocates of “diversity” should let him follow them instead.
Amen, sister.
You know what I say to the “body double” meme? Phooey. Yeah, that’s right. Phooey. It’s nothing compared to a whole faked video. Pah. Pshaw.
I got the following email from a trusted friend:
Received this today from a good friend whose son works in the TV/movie industry in L.A.
He got the following from his friend:
Received from my TV commercial director son who knows the technology in this business.
The Orwellian nature of Hillary’s campaign continues – a rally that was completely staged – Hillary was being shot on green screen in a studio elsewhere. Insanity.Watch the clips below, and you can read the details in the attached article.In the CGI clip she disappears from view for a few seconds while the background remains – the hallmark of a composited image.
SHOCKING !!! PROOF That Hillary Clinton Rally In Greensboro NC IS A “FAKE” – Check
It Out – YouTube CGI Nominee – YouTube
Begin forwarded message: From: Forbidden Knowledge TVnewsletter@forbiddenknowledgetv.net>
Subject: CGI Nominee
Date: September 18,
Dear xxxx I’ve been trying to stay away from this dreadful topic but this technical breakdown is
impossible to ignore.
If the Mainstream Media weren’t already in a free-fall collapse, in terms of its credibility, it should have a crash landing once people analyze this video and understand what’s
going on.
This is the “pool camera”feed that went out to the TV networks on September 15th, covering Hillary Clinton’s alleged campaign rally in Greensboro, North Carolina.
It comes from from the official YouTube account of the ABC affiliate station, ABC15 Arizona.
verify this. Take the original YouTube
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXZp2LZucP0
and put it into the field at: http://rowvid.com
This is a website which enables you to watch videos at
various speeds. Scroll up to just before minute 20:51 in the video and play back
at 0.25 speed. You will see very clearly that this shot is a composite of two video feeds and one or more graphics feeds.
This becomes very clear, because the video feed of Hillary’s angle drops out,completely for a
moment and all we see is the background. If you look at the beginning of the clip, you will also see cellphone cameras recording a totally different background, which strongly suggests that the”crowd” is yet another composited element of this video production.
Other feedsof this same event posted to YouTube, such as that of FOXNEWS appear to have
had a solid connection with the pool video feed and do not show this disruption of elements, which are so easily distinguishable in the composite that went out to ABC’s Arizona affiliate station.
Apparently, ABC15 Arizona had a dodgy satellite connection. These observations are not
partisan. The implications are very disturbing. That a presidential nominee is
staging false rallies using paid attendees, with the collusion of the big television
news networks needs to be publicly outed.
Video: (1 and a half mins):
CGI Nominee
http://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/cgi-nominee/
I can’t attest to the validity of this statement. I did read the comments and one said that if you use Chrome you can set the speed, so I did go down to .25 of normal and did see what the email refers to. Anybody here technically astute enough to comment on this?
Fully admitting it might be a hoax, but if it is it is a creative fun hoax. And what if it’s true?
Snopes debunks a similar claim, but not this one.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-used-green-screen-to-make-a-fake-crowd-in-nevada/
In the Snopes clip, Hillary is wearing a different outfit, the event was at the end of August, and it was in Nevada. However, the same claims are made, mostly that the screens on the cell phones don’t show what the video shows.
I truly have no idea. I guess the only reason this has legs at all is because it is about someone so thoroughly dishonest in every way, nothing seems too outlandish.
Watching the news on a Denver station tonight I saw a flash of broken pixillation similar to that in the Hillary video. I have seen things like this before, and thought it is a broken or disrupted feed.
However, I have never seen a figure just disappear for a couple of frames, leaving just the background. I do some work with Photo Shop, which uses layers—you do your base work on one layer, then create a different layer to edit or change something, so if you have to go back you can just pick the layer that has the elements you want to edit without changing the whole thing. That is what that part of the video looked like to me—-as if the top layer had been removed, showing only the bottom or base layer. I’ve never seen it on a video. But in the frames I saw, the background remained crisp and clear, with a kind of ghostly shadow of a partial figure hovering in one corner, and then suddenly Hillary was back in the middle of the frame, in front of the backdrop.