ChrisWeigant.com

Netroots: Energized And Looking Forward

[ Posted Friday, August 11th, 2017 – 14:26 PDT ]

I know I said I wouldn't be doing live-blogging from Netroots Nation, but I have to at least file a general report as a sort of overview of my impressions of the convention. It's either that or just blow off writing anything until next Monday, so you have the choice of either reading what's going on here in Atlanta or instead spending more time stressing out about when the missiles might start flying (which everyone's been doing all week long, it appears). It's your choice, really. Just wanted to give fair warning before I begin.

Netroots is two-thirds over, at this point. Saturday will be the third of three days, but so far the biggest impression I've come away with is that the activist left is incredibly energized this particular year, and is working hard to change things for the better in the run-up to next year's midterm elections.

I believe this is the sixth time I've attended Netroots Nation, although my wife and I did not attend last year's convention. We got to attend the Democratic National Convention in 2016 instead, so it's been a while since I've experienced Netroots.

The most heartening thing I've seen so far is how unified the atmosphere is. I've been to Netroots in years following big election losses before, and some of these had a pervasive atmosphere of disappointment, if not outright depression. This is not the case this year at all, I'm happy to report, even though 2016 was the most dismal election loss Democrats have suffered in a long time. Instead of downcast attitudes, people have responded by energetically rededicating themselves to ushering in political change, and the overall feeling is actually one of optimism.

Partly this is due to how obvious it is that Donald Trump has no idea what he's doing, and how the bickering and infighting among congressional Republicans has meant they've gotten almost nothing on their agenda accomplished. Things may have been different if Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Trump had successfully passed major conservative legislation, but that not only hasn't happened but it also doesn't seem likely any time soon. This has been an unexpected source of delight for the left, obviously. Republicans love to run on a platform of "government doesn't work," but when they actually take control, they seem determined to prove their own slogan, to put it another (and more snarky) way.

But -- also surprisingly -- anti-Trumpism is not actually the overarching theme of this year's Netroots. Oh, sure, most of the breakout sessions mention the awfulness of Trump's presidency in passing, but it's more of a pro-forma thing, and not the core message. Instead of looking backwards, most everyone here is looking forwards and planning for a more positive future rather than moaning and groaning about the past.

Another pleasant surprise is the overwhelming unity I've seen. Now, partly this is due to the makeup of the attendees -- this is an unabashedly lefty group, and always has been. Even so, there seems to be no lingering resentment or overt schism remaining between the Hillary Clinton wing of the party and the followers of Bernie Sanders. There simply are no undercurrents of such a Democrat-versus-Democrat divide. Again, I did not attend in 2016, but in 2015 (in Phoenix) there was already a measurable amount of tension between Sanders and Clinton supporters (exacerbated by the fact that Bernie showed up in person, while Hillary blew it off). But this particular hatchet seems to have been well-buried by now. Losing presidential elections has a way of focusing people in on what is truly important, I suppose.

I'm not even going to attempt to provide commentary on the individual sessions we've been attending, as those who are truly interested can find video of a lot of them online.

[Aside: Since I was asked this in a previous comment -- if you're looking for my smiling face in any of the video coverage, you can spot me by looking for a Baltimore Orioles baseball cap with a bright orange brim and black top -- which may be plainly visible in the background to many interviews on the next Full Frontal With Samantha Bee, as they seemed to be everywhere in the hallways, conducting interviews. Just in case anyone's interested, although I can't promise that all my photobombing won't end up on the cutting room floor.]

In any case, I've got to run. The hardest thing about attending Netroots is that there is so much to do and see, and so little time. I am heading off to a "meet the candidates" happy hour, which is always a high point of these conferences, since you get to meet unknown candidates for House and Senate races. Some of these are destined for eventual stardom within the Democratic Party, so it's always fun to see those that truly shine, before anyone else even knows their names. To end on another baseball note, it's like watching eventual superstars while they're still in the minor leagues, before they hit the big time.

So that's my Netroots report for 2017. Kind of disjointed and all over the map, but then that is also true of the conventions themselves. Have a great weekend everyone, and I'll be back with regular columns starting Monday, I promise!

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

293 Comments on “Netroots: Energized And Looking Forward”

  1. [1] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Glad to hear that you're having a good time, CW, and glad to hear that hatchets are being buried. I hope to think that by the time the next test comes around, we can all go forward together.

    p.s. wearing my bullseye this weekend. It's a bit far for for KIJ to reach, but who knows what sort of guidance systems those things have...

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    I echo the "Hope Yer Having Fun" sentiments, CW.. :D

    I think it's great that Lefties can get together and have some fun before they are trounced again in 2018.. :D

    But, as they say....

    Time and tide something something....

    President Donald Trump warned of possible military action in Venezuela on Friday, even as he amplified threats of an armed response to North Korea missile buildup.

    Mr. Trump said a military option is possible in Venezuela, though he provided few details, while the president also stepped up his warnings to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as he spoke at a press conference at his golf course in Bedminster, N.J., on Friday.

    “I’m not going to rule out a military option,” Mr. Trump told reporters when asked about the situation in the South American country. “Venezuela is a mess.”
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-won-t-rule-out-military-option-for-venezuela-1502490803

    See, now... This is just stoopid, with a capital stoo....

    Yea, Venezuela is a mess but it's NOT our mess...

    Going after NK and the little runt has logic.. It's pure self-defense...

    But Venezuela???

    Let the 3rd world hell hole collapse..

    Com'on President Trump... There is absolutely NO STRATEGIC or TACTICAL REASON to involve the US in Venezuelan affairs..

    Get Americans out and let the fires burn....

    Makes us no never mind...

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    “North Korea is a serious thing. You have {President Trump} making bellicose threats against somebody else who has very little to lose over there. Kim Jong-un, the world always thought he was not a responsible leader well he’s acting more responsible than {President Trump} is. And what I’m telling you is once you start seeing missile launches, you’re going to see—the time for cranking up the anti-war machine is right now. So if you don’t want to get caught, deer-in-the-headlights, start calling for diplomacy in North Korea immediately.”
    -Democrat Keith Ellison

    This is EXACTLY why Dumbocrats lose elections and the Dumbocrat Party is at the WORST level it's been in over a century....

    They are so anti-America, it's pathetic....

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that narrow spectrum."
    -Noam Chomsky

    Well... THAT explains a lot about the Democrat Party.. :D

  5. [5] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that narrow spectrum."
    -Noam Chomsky

    Well... THAT explains a lot about the Democrat Party.. :D

    That you disagree explains a lot more about YOU! :D

    Allowing idiotic suggestions or destructive concepts to be given legitimacy by treating them as acceptable opinions is a massive waste of time and only serves to distract from real solutions being heard.

  6. [6] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that narrow spectrum."
    -Noam Chomsky

    Well... THAT explains a lot about the Democrat Party.. :D

    That you disagree explains a lot more about YOU! :D

    Allowing idiotic suggestions or destructive concepts to be given legitimacy by treating them as acceptable opinions is a massive waste of time and only serves to distract from real solutions being heard.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    HOLY CARP!!!!

    The Jags beat the Pats!!!!

    We are truly at the End Of Days!! :D

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    That you disagree explains a lot more about YOU! :D

    So, YOU agree that it's OK to "strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion"???

    Like I said.. Explains a lot about ya'all and the Dumbocrats in general..

    Allowing idiotic suggestions or destructive concepts to be given legitimacy by treating them as acceptable opinions is a massive waste of time and only serves to distract from real solutions being heard.

    Yea, but WHO makes the determination as to what suggestions and concepts are "idiotic" and "destructive"???

    More to the point, what is the CRITERIA for that determination??

    You guessed it... PARTY Loyalty... Ideological purity...

    Basically what you are saying is that it's OK to limit debate and discussion SOLELY to those subjects that are ideologically pure...

    Yea, like I said.. It explains why Dumbocrats can't win elections.... :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can think of several groups that wanted to limit "idiotic" suggestions and "destructive" concepts from the discussion so that "pure" solutions can be heard..

    Al Qaeda

    NAZIs

    Hezbollah

    Hamas

    The Soviet Union

    Jonestown

    So, yea... The Dumbocrat Party is in great company... :^/

    Gods forbid Dumbocrats should actually be exposed to diversity!!!

    "OH MY GOD, WHAT A FUCKING NIGHTMARE!!!"
    -Marissa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

  10. [10] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Gods forbid Dumbocrats should actually be exposed to diversity!

    We have a first amendment that allows speech that might be deemed 'idiotic', which is why the ACLU is representing Milo.

    Most Democrats believe in free expression, and the contingent that pushed 'safe spaces' and 'microaggressions' is actually just a fringe. Don't judge the cake by the missing candle.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    We have a first amendment that allows speech that might be deemed 'idiotic', which is why the ACLU is representing Milo.

    Why would the ACLU have to represent Milo??

    Oh yea, that's right. Because a plethora of Democrats have attacked him and violently attacked others to prevent him from speaking...

    Most Democrats believe in free expression,

    And yet, Democrats VIOLENTLY oppose free expression that they don't agree with...

    And yet....

    Allowing idiotic suggestions or destructive concepts to be given legitimacy by treating them as acceptable opinions is a massive waste of time and only serves to distract from real solutions being heard.

    So, are you saying you disagree with that??

    pushed 'safe spaces' and 'microaggressions' is actually just a fringe.

    And yet, you have never condemned this "fringe"... Why is that??

    PARTY UBER ALLES

    :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    I understand the words you are saying and I agree with your words..

    Unfortunately (for you) the ACTIONS of the vast majority of Democrats simply cannot be reconciled with your lofty words...

    The actions of the Dumbocrat Party says MORE about the Party than the lofty pretentious words...

  13. [13] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Unfortunately (for you) the ACTIONS of the vast majority of Democrats simply cannot be reconciled with your lofty words...

    Oh, yes they can. Most folks are just fine, else the world would be a much worse place than it is.

    I'm not cynical about people, but boy can they say some stupid shit sometimes.

  14. [14] 
    neilm wrote:

    CW:

    I'm not familiar with Netroot Nation and can't find info on the Minor League Happy Hour, so perhaps you can tell me if Pete Buttigieg (Mayor of South Bend, IN) is attending.

    TIA. Neil.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, yes they can. Most folks are just fine, else the world would be a much worse place than it is.

    According to ya'all, under President Trump, the world IS "much worse"...

    I'm not cynical about people, but boy can they say some stupid shit sometimes.

    And yet, to hear ya'all tell it, only President Trump and people with -Rs after their name are the ONLY ones who say "stupid shit"....

    Funny how that is, eh???

    Allowing idiotic suggestions or destructive concepts to be given legitimacy by treating them as acceptable opinions is a massive waste of time and only serves to distract from real solutions being heard.

    So, are you saying you disagree with that??

    So, I guess you agree with that, eh? :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    I'm not familiar with Netroot Nation

    HEATHEN!!!!! :D

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    What is an idiotic suggestion or destructive concept and what is a real solution is open to interpretation.
    From my perspective, labeling opinions that you disagree with as unacceptable is what keeps real solutions from being heard.
    Discussing the suggestion or concept is how we determine if it legitimate, idiotic or destructive.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    From my perspective, labeling opinions that you disagree with as unacceptable is what keeps real solutions from being heard.

    By jove, I think he's got it!!!! :D

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    The minute you start traveling down the "acceptable speech" road, it's a slippery slope indeed....

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    The minute you start traveling down the "acceptable speech" road, it's a slippery slope indeed....

    I am sure we can ALL agree on that...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a totally unrelated note..

    I am trying to find a book...

    It's a one word title along the impact of REVELATION or something similar...

    It's a story about the 2nd coming of Christ who arrives in modern day Israel. At least it was modern day back when I read it, 20-30 years ago...

    It follows the similar path that the original bible version has... An Israeli military man (general, colonel) betrays this Jesus..

    I remember the cover had a picture of a huge stone monument or something with a door opened at the bottom of the monument and a bright light shining out of the door...

    That's all I remember about it..

    Sound familiar to anyone???

  22. [22] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    my favorite "second coming" is by ken siegmann:

    http://members.cruzio.com/~zerocity/siegman.htm

    "Maybe we should call the Pope," said the agent.
    "Who," asked the second coming?

    i may have shared this poem at an earlier date, but good things bear repeating.

    JL

  23. [23] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    something about the link to my favorite second coming poem got stuck in the filters. so for anyone who cares about an awesome second coming poem, google second coming by ken siegmann.

    here's a snippet:

    Sitting before the man who would become his agent,
    the second coming explained about God and Salvation
    and Peace and how much God loved purple flowers.
    The agent thought he was nuts.
    But there was something compelling about this man
    in his robe, scraggly beard and sandals,
    appearing a little dazed, or maybe just ethereal.

    "Maybe we should call the Pope," said the agent.
    "Who," asked the second coming?
    "It's too complicated to explain.
    Maybe we should call a news conference."

    The agent called the New York Times and the New York Post
    and the Washington Post and the Daily News
    and the National Enquirer, the American Spectator,
    ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The Christian Broadcasting Network,
    the Christian Science Monitor, various Web site providers,
    the White House, and his mother.

  24. [24] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and another:

    Asked about welfare reform, he said:
    "We should not turn our backs on the poor."
    On the Middle East: "Those people have never gotten along."
    On Rwanda: "Feed the people and there will be peace."
    On Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton: "Father forgive them.
    They know not..."
    On the Christian Coalition: "They're using my name
    without my permission."
    On premarital sex: "Is this something new?"
    On homosexuality: "Is this something new?"
    On the current state of the world:
    "It's pretty much as I left it, just more crowded."

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    filter test 2:

    members

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    filter test 3:

    cruzio

  27. [27] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    somehow those last two with a dotcom at the end gets stuck in the filter.

    filter test 4:

    /~zerocity/siegman.htm

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    whoa, i guess the words from [24] and [25] get caught any time they're in the same post together.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    appearing a little dazed, or maybe just ethereal.

    Damn!! ETHERAL was a possibility, but no luck..

    It's like RHAPSODY or REVELATION or RAPTURE or something like that...

    Any Word Association AI out there?? :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:
  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Damn!! ETHERAL [sic] was a possibility, but no luck..

    are you sure that isn't just your spelling of ethereal?

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Naw, Google corrected me..

    This is driving me to distraction..

    GENESIS feels really REALLY close.....

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Things are more crystallized in my brain about the story line...

    The novel is from the 70s or the 80s...

    A man named Joshua exits from a sacred tomb in Israel.. Due to things he knows and says, it is assumed he is the second coming of Christ.. An Israel soldier who is part of the story wrestles with his conscience and his faith
    and ends up playing the role of Judas...

    The story plays out and history repeats itself culminating in Joshua's death...

    That's all I got...

    Anywho, any help in locating this book would be most appreciated...

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    The battle of Charlottesville: At least two seriously hurt in clashes between white nationalists and counter-protesters at massive march in Virginia as governor warns public to 'stay away'
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4783914/White-nationalists-hold-torch-lit-march-UVA-campus.html

    What a bunch of scumbags..

    Seriously, cretins like this should be hunted down and shot like the animals that they are...

    They look so prissy with their tiki torch marching.. :^/

    Lusers......

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump is condemning these assholes..

    “We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!”

    I wonder how many on the Left will condemn President Trump's use of Twitter now...

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well the extremists got what they wanted. Blood on the street today.

    Honestly, the looney right and the looney left are really just a bunch of thugs.

    I grew up in Glasgow and on a Saturday night you knew there were going to be some nut cases who just wanted a fight - we used to hope they'd just find each other and leave the normal people alone.

    Looks like some violent idiot ran people over now in breaking news - let's hope nobody got seriously hurt.

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    I wonder how many on the Left will condemn President Trump's use of Twitter now...

    It isn't his use of twitter - most of his own party hope that he stops using that - it is what he says. I congratulate him, however the person he pretended he didn't know during the election, David Duke, made clear his interpretation of 45's victory.

    I'd like to see 45 explicitly say to him "not in my name". He's keeping his thumbs quiet so far.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/08/12/david-duke-trump-charlottesville-protest-nr.cnn

  38. [38] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Who exactly are you suggesting we hunt down and shoot?

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who exactly are you suggesting we hunt down and shoot?

    Well the extremists got what they wanted. Blood on the street today.

    Honestly, the looney right and the looney left are really just a bunch of thugs.

    That answer your question?? :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    It isn't his use of twitter -

    Despite ALL the facts to the contrary... :D

    I'd like to see 45 explicitly say to him "not in my name". He's keeping his thumbs quiet so far.

    I would like to see that as well..

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well the extremists got what they wanted. Blood on the street today.

    Honestly, the looney right and the looney left are really just a bunch of thugs.

    If I could see this kind of condemnation from ya'all when it's the LEFT nutballs who instigate this crap and attack people....

    I would have a LOT less posts around here... :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    But please.. NOT during the Holiday Fund Raiser...

    My job is hard enough as it is... :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like some violent idiot ran people over now in breaking news - let's hope nobody got seriously hurt.

    1 Dead, 19 wounded...

  44. [44] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    does virginia have capital punishment?

  45. [45] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And yet, Democrats VIOLENTLY oppose free expression that they don't agree with...

    Funny, it was people protesting the White Supremacist rally in Virginia that just got mowed down leaving one dead and 19 injured.

    It was David Duke who addressed the crowd and proclaimed, "“We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in, that’s why we voted for Donald Trump."

    Funny, after Trump tweeted condemning the violence that occurred, Duke responded with a tweet of his own directed at Trump:

    I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency, not radical leftists. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/896420822780444672

    Then there was NRA TV host Grant Stinchfield praising Trump right before suggesting that North Korea should bomb Sacramento instead of Guam.

    You might want to take the beam out of your side's eye before worrying about anyone else's.

  46. [46] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    I believe you have combined the story lines of multiple Christian books.

    Joshua by Joeseph Girzone tells the story of Christ figure named Joshua that comes from a small town in America.

    Tim LaHaye also wrote about a fictional Joshua Jordan that is the Christ figure in his The End Series. LaHaye's sounds more like what you were describing.

  47. [47] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    I believe you have combined the story lines of multiple Christian books

    Sorry, that didn't come out right. I meant to say what you described fits the storyline of multiple books by different authors.

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    yeah, donald needs to realize that generalities aren't enough. it's not enough to condemn bigotry in general; when a large group of nazis and klan think you support them and their agendas, you need to be explicit that you oppose them and everything they stand for.

    JL

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Funny, it was people protesting the White Supremacist rally in Virginia that just got mowed down leaving one dead and 19 injured.

    Yes... THIS time...

    What about all the Berkeley riots that no one here (NEN) condemned????

    Funny, after Trump tweeted condemning the violence that occurred, Duke responded with a tweet of his own directed at Trump:

    And...???

    Sorry, that didn't come out right. I meant to say what you described fits the storyline of multiple books by different authors.

    Possible.. I remember the cover of the book quite clearly.. I am something of an Israel-phile and I also remember the Israel connection...

    Oh well, it'll come to me.. :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    yeah, donald needs to realize that generalities aren't enough. it's not enough to condemn bigotry in general;

    And yet, when it comes to Left Wing violence and rioting and destruction, that is exactly what ya'all do.. NEN

    I'm just sayin'...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    does virginia have capital punishment?

    I thought you Lefties were against the Death Penalty.. :D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    You might want to take the beam out of your side's eye before worrying about anyone else's.

    I have no "side".. :D

    One of the plentiful joys of being me... :D

    "You really don't know anything, do you? Glitches can't leave their games... One of the joys of being me..."
    -Vanillopee Von Schweetz, WRECK IT RALPH

    :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny, after Trump tweeted condemning the violence that occurred, Duke responded with a tweet of his own directed at Trump:

    How many times did ONLY Black Lives Matter scumbags make similar comments towards Odumbo??

    Back then ya'all absolved Odumbo of ANY connection to those scumbags..

    Yet, ya'all want to tie President Trump to THESE racist scumbags??

    Beam... Eye... Du auch... :D

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact of the matter is, there is really no difference in the connections that President Trump has with these white racist scumbags and the connections that Odumbo had with black racist scumbags...

    When it comes to connections to violent racist groups, ya'all are as correct now as I was back then...

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny, it was people protesting the White Supremacist rally in Virginia that just got mowed down leaving one dead and 19 injured.

    And it was 5 cops in Dallas that were gunned down during an ONLY Black Lives Matter rally...

    What's your point???

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact of the matter is, there is really no difference in the connections that President Trump has with these white racist scumbags and the connections that Odumbo had with black racist scumbags...

    In fact, Odumbo is MORE responsible for OBLM-caused death and destruction because Odumbo actively encouraged the anti-cop hysteria and violence by giving credence to the claims that the cops were in the wrong in the various incidents......

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrat Stacey Evans’ speech to a conference of progressive activists descended into chaos on Saturday, as protesters interrupted her repeatedly and she struggled to make herself heard over chants of “support black women.”

    Evans, a Smyrna state legislator who is white, expected a tough audience at the Netroots Nation event, where her rival Stacey Abrams was treated like royalty. But she said she at least expected to be able to make it through her remarks.

    Who knew that Netroots Nation would be a hotbed of racism... :^/

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone wanna condemn THAT ^^^^^ blatant racism from the Left???

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    33

    What a bunch of scumbags..

    Seriously, cretins like this should be hunted down and shot like the animals that they are...

    no... No... NO! Call them whatever name you wish and say whatever you wish in anger in the privacy of your own home, but it's not part of the solution to dehumanize your fellow citizens by referring to them as animals and encourage others to take up arms against them. They're exercising their right to free speech as guaranteed under the United States Constitution, and as long as they're not breaking any laws, they have every right to do so whether we agree or disagree with their cause.

    Michale, it's a mystery to me why you would condemn the violence at Berkeley and then turn around and say something like this. These guys are no different than Milo; let them speak.

    I truly hope you're just kidding about taking up arms against your fellow Americans; encouraging this type behavior is just wrong on so many levels. If this is your idea of condemning violence, then in my opinion, it's an epic fail. :)

    They look so prissy with their tiki torch marching.. :^/

    Yep. Reminds me of the angry mob scene in Shrek where Big Green sets them straight.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i-mahaKcIY

    If only Big Orange would step up and do likewise. :)

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    no... No... NO! Call them whatever name you wish and say whatever you wish in anger in the privacy of your own home, but it's not part of the solution to dehumanize your fellow citizens by referring to them as animals and encourage others to take up arms against them.

    That's your opinion and I respect that...

    But I have a feeling the family of the woman killed by those retched forms of pond scum would disagree with you and agree with me..

    Yep. Reminds me of the angry mob scene in Shrek where Big Green sets them straight.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i-mahaKcIY

    heh.. I love the SHREK movies.. 4-Ever After was the absolute best...

    If only Big Orange would step up and do likewise. :)

    He did.. Quite admirably too..

    President Trump did a LOT better condemning those cretins than Odumbo did with the OBLM scumbags...

    Michale, it's a mystery to me why you would condemn the violence at Berkeley and then turn around and say something like this. These guys are no different than Milo; let them speak.

    If they JUST spoke, I would agree with you..

    Just as if the scumbags of the OBLM or ANTI-FAs *JUST* spoke, I wouldn't have a problem with any of them.....

    But they don't JUST speak, so I don't agree...

    The AntiFas ATTACK people who disagree with them. They extort city officials into closing down parades SOLELY because Republicans are marching in the parades..

    The OBLM scumbags *KILL COPS*....

    These racist dirtbags attack people solely because they are a different color or a different religion..

    Sorry, in my book, once ANY of those groups cross the line into physical violence.... It's open season...

    I'll let you read that book if you want.. :D

    They're exercising their right to free speech as guaranteed under the United States Constitution, and as long as they're not breaking any laws, they have every right to do so whether we agree or disagree with their cause.

    Defending the free speech rights of racist scumbags and their right to be racist.....???

    Credit where credit is due... That is VERY impressive...

    "Your stock is rising, Number Two"
    -Dr Evil, AUSTIN POWERS: THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME

    :D

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Defending the free speech rights of racist scumbags and their right to be racist.....???

    Credit where credit is due... That is VERY impressive...

    You're a bigger person than I am....

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, it's a mystery to me why you would condemn the violence at Berkeley and then turn around and say something like this.

    It's simple...

    For those who employ violence, violence is the ONLY thing they understand...

    They are bullies...

    And what do you do with bullies.. You hit them back harder and faster and longer...

    "They put one of ours in the hospital, you put one of their's in the morgue... It's the Chicago way.."
    -Sean Connery, THE UNTOUCHABLES

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    43

    does virginia have capital punishment?

    Yes... Virginia: Executing the guilty since 1608 -- Jamestown.

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    does virginia have capital punishment?

    Yes... Virginia: Executing the guilty since 1608 -- Jamestown.

    I'm not a fan of capital punishment. Execution is an act carried out in my name, and I don't think taking a human life is right - it brings us down to the lowest level.

    Don't get me wrong, if somebody commits a heinous crime society should be protected - for the rest of their natural life if needs be.

    This is a strictly personal moral argument, and I understand why most Americans disagree with me, however there are some other arguments against capital punishment:

    1. Cost - the cost of keeping a 20 year old in prison for the rest of their life is not inconsiderable, however the cost of multiple trials and checks is also very expensive and in fact a study in California showed that the state would save billions if the death penalty was eliminated (https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/california-cost-study-2011)

    2. Justice - sorry, but the criminal justice system makes mistakes. You can free a wrongly imprisoned person, but there is no reversing the death penalty. It is bad enough that people are killed in my name who are guilty, but killing innocent people is plain wrong from every standpoint.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. Cost - the cost of keeping a 20 year old in prison for the rest of their life is not inconsiderable, however the cost of multiple trials and checks is also very expensive and in fact a study in California showed that the state would save billions if the death penalty was eliminated (https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/california-cost-study-2011)

    The solution is simple.. Reduce the multiple trials and checks..

    "Most states are abolishing the Death Penalty.. My state is putting in an Express Lane!"
    -Ron White

  66. [66] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Suggested title for upcoming article:

    "Al Gore Takes On Big Money Democrat Deniers".

    At the Netroots conference Al Gore said that Bernie and his supporters proved that a small contribution campaign can work. He actually seemed very agitated when he spoke about the importance of getting the Big Money out of politics.

    So for all you Big Money Democrat Deniers here, who are you going to believe- Me or Al Gore?

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    So for all you Big Money Democrat Deniers here, who are you going to believe- Me or Al Gore?

    Yer kidding, right???

    :D

    Al Gore is the guy who made over 300 million dollars off the Global Warming con...

    Al Gore speaking against Big Money in politics is like Josef Stalin speaking against genocide and mass murder...

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    The solution is simple.. Reduce the multiple trials and checks..

    Then you make problem #2 worse. No thanks.

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    So for all you Big Money Democrat Deniers here, who are you going to believe- Me or Al Gore?

    I already believe you Don, but I don't think this is the most pressing problem.

    We have lost the interest of people in their government and money is a symptom, not a cause.

    Perhaps the spectacular disaster that is unfolding in the White House at the moment will motivate people - and maybe C'ville is an indication of that.

    Pre-paid politicians wouldn't last a minute if people actually cared about their Government.

    Every time I see emotional patriotism sweep across our country I want to scream "What is your country? It isn't the land you stand on! It isn't the people, you only know a tiny percentage of the 320M! Your country is the system that unite us together and while you shout "Land of the Free" you can't be bothered to get involved for 15 minutes a week and get informed and really care!"

    But I don't because people would look at me and think I'm a nut.

  70. [70] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @neil,

    my view is an increased threshold for proving guilt ought to be enough to prevent the innocent from being executed. whatever the financial cost, it's still not as high a price as what happens if the prisoner escapes and kills again.

    @michale,

    we're talking about nazis and klansmen here. your attempt to draw an obama parallel in this case is ludicrous, because there is no parallel - not since reagan and the birchers.

    Ain't no f*ing ballpark neither. Now, look, maybe your method of massage differs from mine, but, you know, touching his wife's feet and sticking your tongue in the holiest of holies ain't the same f*ing ballpark. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same f*ing sport!
    ~pulp fiction

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then you make problem #2 worse. No thanks.

    Not doing something that would help society because of the possibility of errors is ridiculous...

    They used to say if man could fly, he'd have wings, but he did fly. He discovered he had to. Do you wish that the first Apollo mission hadn't reached the moon, or that we hadn't gone on to Mars and then to the nearest star? That's like saying you wish that you still operated with scalpels and sewed your patients up with catgut like your great-great-great-great grandfather used to. I'm in command. I could order this, but I'm not because Doctor McCoy is right in pointing out the enormous danger potential in any contact with life and intelligence as fantastically advanced as this, but I must point out that the possibilities - the potential for knowledge and advancement - is equally great. Risk! Risk is our business. That's what this starship is all about. That's why we're aboard her. You may dissent without prejudice. Do I hear a negative vote?
    -Captain James T Kirk

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    we're talking about nazis and klansmen here. your attempt to draw an obama parallel in this case is ludicrous, because there is no parallel - not since reagan and the birchers.

    Thats your opinion and I respect that..

    But I see no difference between nazis and klansmen and OBLM racist thugs...

    Shoot them all and let Lucifer sort them out...

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I don't because people would look at me and think I'm a nut.

    "Sometimes ya feel like a nut. Sometimes ya don't.."

    :D

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    my view is an increased threshold for proving guilt ought to be enough to prevent the innocent from being executed. whatever the financial cost, it's still not as high a price as what happens if the prisoner escapes and kills again.

    "Yep..."
    -Paula

    :D

  75. [75] 
    neilm wrote:

    I've seen some speculation thrown around that 45 wants a war with NoKo or Venezuela to boost his numbers. It occurred to me too.

    But then I thought: he already has two wars he could get involved in: Syria and Ukraine - so either: (1) he really is scared of Putin; (2) he is too dumb to think of these options; or (3) he is just running his mouth off to make sure he gets on TV again.

    Probably (3).

  76. [76] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm, Michale-
    "...people would look at me and think I'm a nut."
    As an official quarter-nut (My grandmother's maiden name was Nutt- in Nutley, NJ) I have learned to live with being a nut. I figure if I can't fight it I may as well try to pass it off as a strength.

    When I used to drive an ice cream truck and certain people asked for a cone I would ask if they wanted the male or female cone. When they asked what's the difference I would answer that the male cone has nuts.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    ut then I thought: he already has two wars he could get involved in: Syria and Ukraine - so either: (1) he really is scared of Putin; (2) he is too dumb to think of these options; or (3) he is just running his mouth off to make sure he gets on TV again.

    OR.....

    He feels really strongly about it and wants to do what's right for America..

    "We can't discard a possibility just because we don't happen to like it."
    -Martin Sheen, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I mentioned about, personally I think President Trump is whacked for going after Venezuela...

    There is absolutely NO strategic interests there and NO self-defense interests there...

    I understand the concept of doing the right thing, but we also need to pick our battles and not let our battles pick us...

    "Choose your battles, Captain.. Don't let your battles choose you."
    -SSgt Omar, COD-INFINITE WARFARE

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    When I used to drive an ice cream truck and certain people asked for a cone I would ask if they wanted the male or female cone. When they asked what's the difference I would answer that the male cone has nuts.

    hehehehehe...

    I had a customer bring a laptop in. Had keys that were sticking.. All it needed was a good shot from the air compressor... Worked fine.. She came to pick it up.. Told her it was all fixed. She asked, "What did you do??"...

    "Er... Well.. I gave it a blow job..."

    She started laughing as I was turning fifty shades of red... :D

    True story...

  80. [80] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    Is climate the most pressing issue?
    Al Gore says we can't fix climate until we fix our democracy.
    Taking that one step further Jane Mayer said in a discussion with Bernie Sanders that we can't solve other issues until we get the Big Money out of politics.
    You may not agree that that makes getting the Big Money out of politics the most pressing issue, but it seems to me that it is the first step to solving many other problems and the first step is the most pressing concern.
    And just because something is not the most pressing issue doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it.
    My point is that many here have used the excuse that the Democrats have to take Big Money to be competitive. Al Gore says that is not true.
    You could probably sign up to participate in One Demand in 15 minutes. Not 15 minutes every week. You might even have time left over to email a few friends to let them know about the opportunity.
    And just 15 minutes a week to check up on small contribution candidates,etc. would be enough to be a useful, productive participant.
    People need to stop worrying about whether other people think they are nuts and grow a pair to, as Al Gore said, fight for our democracy and return the power to the people.
    People need to be inspired to be motivated to take on not just the disaster in the White House but also the Big Money Democrats.
    The disaster in the White House (and the Congress) is the symptom and the Big Money Democrats are part of the cause.

  81. [81] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Dare I ask if you used the barter system to secure payment?

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dare I ask if you used the barter system to secure payment?

    "What kind of guy do you think I am!!!"
    "We've established that. We're discussing payment now.."

    hehehehehe

    Naw, stuff like that, I do for free...

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, that came out wrong....

    "STUFF" being minor computer repairs, cleanings, etc etc...

    Just wanted to make that clear...

  84. [84] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "You could probably sign up to participate in One Demand in 15 minutes."

    With apologies to Geico:
    "In just 15 minutes and you can save more than 15% on your taxes and get more than 15% more in services."

    And apologies to another company:
    "Now THAT'S progressive!"

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    59

    But I have a feeling the family of the woman killed by those retched forms of pond scum would disagree with you and agree with me..

    You might concern yourself with whether or not strangers agree with you or approve, but you'd be wrong to conclude that everyone does. Also, I was referring to their UVA tiki torch rally and NOT any violence that occurred that night or the violence/murder of the following day, and it was not by accident that I emphasized in bold "as long as they're not breaking any laws" they should be allowed to exercise their Constitutional Rights.

    These racist dirtbags attack people solely because they are a different color or a different religion..

    So clearly it's the violence that bothers you because obviously it's the right of American citizens to assemble peaceably in protest.

    Sorry, in my book, once ANY of those groups cross the line into physical violence.... It's open season...

    Sure, if you're directly attacked, you would naturally have a right to defend yourself, but if you're advocating the use of firearms against a group you don't like for being violent, then you're simply responding to dirtbaggery by becoming a dirtbag (no offense, borrowing your term).

    Defending the free speech rights of racist scumbags and their right to be racist.....???

    What can I say? I'm one of those true patriots who knows what's in the Constitution and sworn to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. I particularly do NOT take kindly to scumbags, con artists, and traitors, and I'm actually quite proficient in knowing them when I see them. Come for American democracy and reap what you sow. :)

  86. [86] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If only I could get Peyton Manning to sing:
    "One Demand is on your side."

  87. [87] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And to take the Peyton Manning reference one step further:
    "Better ingredients make better politicians."

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    So clearly it's the violence that bothers you because obviously it's the right of American citizens to assemble peaceably in protest.

    Abso-frakin'-tively....

    Apologies if I didn't make that clear...

    The right to swing one's arms ends where someone else's nose begins..

    Sure, if you're directly attacked, you would naturally have a right to defend yourself, but if you're advocating the use of firearms against a group you don't like for being violent, then you're simply responding to dirtbaggery by becoming a dirtbag (no offense, borrowing your term)

    None taken...

    But if you recognize the concept of self-defense as legitimate, then you must also recognize the concept of defense of others..

    They are kinda a set...

    {Stuart puts a boob paperweight on his desk}
    "I got it from The Knocker Locker.."
    {Nikki slides the paperweight into the garbage. Stuart thinks for a minute, the pulls another out of his drawer and puts it on his desk...}
    "They come in pairs... Duuuuhhhh"

    -SPIN CITY

    :D

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    I read some information that the guy in the charger had swerved into that group after someone from that group threw a rock at the car and broke the windshield...

    If true, that puts the incident in a whole other light...

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    While not invoking former President Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton by name, Ms. Warren sent an unambiguous message that she believes the Clinton effort to push Democrats toward the political center should be relegated to history.

    “The Democratic Party isn’t going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime bill,” she said, highlighting measures Mr. Clinton signed into law as president that are reviled by much of the left. “It is not going to happen.”

    Yet Ms. Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat who is widely thought to be considering running for president in 2020, noted to about 1,000 activists here for the yearly Netroots Nation meeting that they hardly needed to worry about the party shifting to the middle as it did in the 1990s. Liberals, she said, have taken charge.

    “We are not the gate-crashers of today’s Democratic Party,” Ms. Warren said, invoking a term first used to describe the liberal blogosphere that emerged a decade ago. “We are not a wing of today’s Democratic Party. We are the heart and soul of today’s Democratic Party.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-democrats-liberals.html

  91. [91] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "You could probably sign up to participate in One Demand in 15 minutes."

    Whether Big Money is the most pressing issue or not it is a pressing issue. If you want the Big Money out you have to stop voting for Big Money candidates and start voting against them before it is no longer possible to fix our democracy through the ballot box.

    "If you want it, here it is, come and get it- but you better hurry cause it's going fast."
    Come and Get It
    -Beatles

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    63

    I'm not a fan of capital punishment. Execution is an act carried out in my name, and I don't think taking a human life is right - it brings us down to the lowest level.

    I feel about capital punishment the way I feel about the nuclear arsenal: Great as a deterrent yet catastrophic upon implementation. I mean, really... broken down to its core, we insist that the taking of a life is a crime against humanity deserving of humanity taking your life, and a country shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons that could wipe out large chunks of the world's population, and to stop that from happening, we'll deploy our nuclear arsenal and wipe out large chunks of the world's population.

    This is a strictly personal moral argument, and I understand why most Americans disagree with me, however there are some other arguments against capital punishment.

    On moral grounds, I agree with you, but then there are all those other grounds.

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What is a "nephew-Nazi"?

  94. [94] 
    neilm wrote:

    I feel about capital punishment the way I feel about the nuclear arsenal: Great as a deterrent

    There was a study in 2009 that dug into this (link below) and found:

    Policy Implications

    Although policymakers and the public can continue to base support for use of the death penalty on retribution, religion, or other justifications, defending its use based solely on its deterrent effect is contrary to the evidence presented here. At a minimum, policymakers should refrain from justifying its use by claiming that it is a deterrent to homicide and should consider less costly, more effective ways of addressing crime.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00596.x/full

  95. [95] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well in one way 45 has fulfilled his "taking us back to the past" promises ... we are getting more worried about dying in a Nuclear Holocaust than we have been since the 1980s.

    Thanks 45!

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The White House spokespeople don't want to attach their names to White House statements anymore?

    Not surprising.

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Can America survive the Trump era?

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "I read some information that the guy in the charger had swerved into that group after someone from that group threw a rock at the car and broke the windshield"...Michale

    Chris, be very careful ... if you care about your blog, and I know you do.

  99. [99] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz0
    "Can America survive the Trump era?"
    Not if the only alternative is the Big Money Democrats.

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Re. [97]

    Just to be clear ... I'm not talking about censorship or even blog moderation.

    I'm talking about fighting back against the ugliest forms of propaganda and fake news and standing up in no uncertain terms for the reality-based truth of the matter.

    It takes time and effort to do that and if the time and effort cannot be expended, then another remedy should be sought.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can America survive the Trump era?

    Not only survive, but FLOURISH!!!

    It's the Reagan years all over again! :D

    I'm talking about fighting back against the ugliest forms of propaganda and fake news and standing up in no uncertain terms for the reality-based truth of the matter.

    THAT's the problem...

    Truth is subjective... No different than propaganda or fake news...

    "THEIR TRUTH IS NOT YOUR TRUTH!!"
    -Oracle Of Yonada, STAR TREK

    FACTS is where the battle needs to be fought...

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, you have made it exceedingly clear that you don't know what truth is.

    I, for one, will never succumb to the widespread effort to destroy truth.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, you have made it exceedingly clear that you don't know what truth is.

    Whose truth??

    I, for one, will never succumb to the widespread effort to destroy truth.

    Which truth??

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I rest my case as you have concluded it for me.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Give you an example..

    For a christian, the "truth" is that there is a god..

    For an athiest, the "truth" is that there isn't...

    Which "truth" is THE truth???

    For a Russian, the "truth" is that the Russian system of government is the best system of government..

    For an American, the "truth" is that the American system of government is the best system of government..

    You see the point??

    Truth is subjective and depends on emotional and subjective factors..

    FACTS do not...

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    I rest my case as you have concluded it for me.

    "You're welcome"
    -Maui, MOANA

    :D

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You are very mixed up, Michale. You don't know that the truth and facts are one in the same and not subjective. And I am done with this nonsense.

  108. [108] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Which truth?"
    The one that hangs out with Justice and the American way in Superman's never ending battle.

  109. [109] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As an American I must disagree that the American system of government is the best system of government.
    That is like saying the Democrats are the best political party just because they are not as bad as the Republicans.
    Our system may be better than other systems but it desperately needs improvement. If what we have now is the best, then maybe it's time to reconsider if government is worth having or not.

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A system of government is only as good as the people that run it.

  111. [111] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A system of government is only as good as the people who run it.

  112. [112] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Right now, America has a very bad system of government.

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are very mixed up, Michale. You don't know that the truth and facts are one in the same and not subjective.

    As I have proven with the christian/athiest example, this is not factually accurate...

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Right now, America has a very bad system of government.

    That's your truth and I get that...

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, Michale ... that is just my opinion.

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you get that?

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    As an American I must disagree that the American system of government is the best system of government.
    That is like saying the Democrats are the best political party just because they are not as bad as the Republicans.
    Our system may be better than other systems but it desperately needs improvement. If what we have now is the best, then maybe it's time to reconsider if government is worth having or not.

    That's your truth....

    Someone else's truth may be different..

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, Michale ... that is just my opinion.

    Truth = opinion

    NOW yer getting it!! :D

    "And dat's da truth...ppppffffffffffffffftttttttttt"
    -Edith Ann, LAUGH-IN

  119. [119] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [111] Right now, America has a very bad system of government.

    [112] As an American I must disagree that the American system of government is the best system of government.

    Oh, give the ol' Lady a chance. We don't have a utopian's dream of a government, but ours has done pretty well by us in the past, and can again. There are worse, and most others fit into that category.

    If you ever read Asimov's Foundation, you might recognize this moment as a 'Seldon Crisis' - a stress test for the entire society. Normally a Seldon Crisis involved both internal and external challenges, and so it is for us - our institutions and government are under attack from our own politicians, while every would-be enemy of the US now has at least a website, a hacker, a bomb-maker and a big mouth. Putin has ushered in a new sort of conflict - psychological warfare, which is all but indistinguishable from normal politics, except that its aim is the opposite: to sow division rather than comity.

    In the Asimov books, these crisis points were predicted, in our own society they were somewhat predictable - the founders knew that popular fashion could overwhelm common sense, and deliberately divided the government to slow that down - to push it into chambers of deliberation.

    We'll see if that works. I've traveled the world, and seen different governments at work. I still believe in our ragged little template, imperfect as it is. The knock on parliamentary governments used to be that they were subject to group-think. Although it could be argued that, in recent years, thanks to Adventures in Gerrymandering, the American system has become more parliamentary, less Republican (in the classic sense), to our detriment. Let us hope that we can outgrow that impulse, and retain our small 'd' democracy without invoking the senseless mob.

  120. [120] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthasar-
    I guess I should have said the system of government we have now (controlled by Big Money) as opposed to the ideal (controlled by votes).
    I agree we should give the Ol' Lady a chance. It starts by voting for small contribution candidates that are more likely to deliver the small 'd' democracy than the Big Money candidates.

  121. [121] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar, don't quote me out of context.

  122. [122] 
    altohone wrote:

    LB
    delayed response to comment 32 from What Crisis?

    I'll check out the book.
    Thanks for the suggestion.

    A

  123. [123] 
    altohone wrote:

    delayed response to comment 35 from What Crisis? and others

    A report from Bloomberg about a story reported a week earlier?
    Forget to take your Ensure or something?

    As for your nonsense, your dismissal of stories with citations as unsubstantiated, or as "fake news" when you have yet to note a single factual inaccuracy is just bizarre.
    How you toe the establishment line like that while endlessly claiming not to makes no sense whatsoever.

    A

  124. [124] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Truth = opinion

    Man, that is so wrong. Truth, like science, is subject to revision as new facts are revealed. Opinion, by contrast, isn't subject to truth at all. I've read lots of opinions that didn't have a single verifiable fact in them.

    I could, for instance, opine that Trump should be impeached immediately, and present my best case to back that up, but under oath, I have to admit that the Truth is that even under extreme circumstances, Trump won't be impeached immediately because the wheels of government dictate that almost nothing happens 'immediately', and impeachment is in that category of things that have never happened 'immediately'. That truth is subject to change, but reliable, and that's usually the best that we can ever get: Truth rarely wears bold colors, mostly preferring a 'London Fog in the rain' style.

    That may be intensely frustrating for partisans, who prefer the world to be painted in Manichean white and black with bright red lines, but Truth is actually far more subtle, and we have that to thank for many entertaining hours of Sherlock Holmes stories.

  125. [125] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    philosophical inquiry into the nature of personal belief does not mean that all reality is subjective.

    i.e. there is a single truth, there are just some areas where due to the limitations of our species we can't necessarily know what it is. where facts are concerned, truth can be established. on matters of belief, people may call their opinions true, but they can't prove it. the idea that there are "different truths" is a misinterpretation of what truth is.

    JL

  126. [126] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @balthasar,

    in general i agree with your assessment of our ongoing search for Truth. i would make the slight distinction that it isn't truth itself that's subject to change, but our ability to perceive it.

    JL

  127. [127] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    delayed response to comment 56 from What Crisis?

    It was an interesting article... maybe if you had posted the link more people would have taken an interest?
    It's disheartening how so many stick their heads in the sand when events are reported that may well have consequences or even dramatic effects on our country.

    I'm glad you're not one of them.

    A

  128. [128] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [120] Balthasar, don't quote me out of context.

    How did I do that? It was literally the only line in your post [111]. If you'd like me to tie that to the statement in [110] "A system of government is only as good as the people who run it.", I'd answer, well obviously, but that statement does not demand that the following statement is true. If you want your statement to be crystal clear, it should be phrased, "If it is true that 'a system of government is only as good as the people who run it', then right now, America has a very bad system of government." and I would have debated that. No offense, but the two thoughts don't necessarily follow.

    To your point, I think that the American system of government is distinct and separate from those that currently haunt its halls of government. It has survived the likes of Aaron Burr, Strom Thurmond and Newt Gingrich, and overcome corrupt presidents like Harding and Nixon. It has weathered economic catastrophes, wars, improprieties and impeachments.

    The secret to this resiliency, I think, is that it was specifically designed to diffuse power, particularly away from the executive, so that it wouldn't be "only as good as the people who run it" but also subject to two differently configured representative voting bodies, the Supreme Court, and the States, who can overturn anything the Federal Government does through Constitutional Amendment, most recently flexing that muscle when they collectively overturned Prohibition in the 1930's. So buck up, Liz, America's not as untethered as it's made out to be, by either the politicians or the press.

  129. [129] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you want your statement to be crystal clear, it should be phrased, "If it is true that 'a system of government is only as good as the people who run it', then right now, America has a very bad system of government." and I would have debated that. No offense, but the two thoughts don't necessarily follow.

    Thanks for clarifying what I meant and should have wrote in one singular post.

    Unbelievable.

  130. [130] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So buck up, Liz, America's not as untethered as it's made out to be, by either the politicians or the press.

    Point missed, again.

  131. [131] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [125] I would make the slight distinction that it isn't truth itself that's subject to change, but our ability to perceive it.

    Point well made and taken, JL. Unfortunately, that leaves lots of room for obfuscation. If Kellyanne Conway has taught us anything, it's that the Truth can be made to do stupid dog tricks, particularly when mixed with stupid doggerel that isn't Truth at all.

  132. [132] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Thanks for clarifying what I meant and should have wrote in one singular post.

    Point missed, again.

    Then be clear. I'm not Michale, I want to understand your point, not substitute my own. It's up to you to facilitate that.

  133. [133] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Already done.

  134. [134] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Already done.

    Fine, then. Since I'm not inclined to embark on a game of 'twenty questions', we'll leave it at that. Here's hoping that I 'get it' the next time.

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL, Balthy, et al..

    For a christian, the "truth" is that there is a god..

    For an athiest, the "truth" is that there isn't...

    Which "truth" is THE truth???

    Answer: Truth is as individual as a person's belief...

    When you're five, it's "true" that there is a Santa Claus...

    When your 25, it's no longer true... Hopefully...

    One's person's "truth" is another person's bullshit..

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    i.e. there is a single truth, there are just some areas where due to the limitations of our species we can't necessarily know what it is. where facts are concerned, truth can be established. on matters of belief, people may call their opinions true, but they can't prove it. the idea that there are "different truths" is a misinterpretation of what truth is.

    Until such time as we can know that "single" truth, the fact is that truth do NOT always equals facts...

    Using "truth" and "fact" interchangeably is simply a way to push one's opinion on someone else who may have a different "truth"...

    All facts MAY be truth...

    All truth MAY be facts..

    But truth does NOT automatically equal facts...

  137. [137] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am in a terrible, terrible mood today ... just to be clear.

  138. [138] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One's person's "truth" is another person's bullshit..

    Actually, the truth of the matter is that one person's opinion (your opinion, for example, Michale) may be considered bullshit by another person (me, for example, heh).

  139. [139] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You've got that backwards, M..

    Christians (and others) believe that there is a God but can't provide any evidence beyond that. Indeed, if one disputes the belief that God has a 'designated prophet' rule, most religions fall apart immediately.

    Truth is subject to new fact, however, so if a giant Monty Python foot were to descend from the heavens and smoosh Trump, I daresay there wouldn't be an atheist left on the planet.

    So evidence has power that belief does not. As Holmes himself said, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

    That is not to say that 'eliminating the impossible' is any easy task. Evolutionists will claim that it is impossible that nature could have accidentally constructed eyeballs and self-awareness, scientists disagree. Climate Deniers will claim that it is impossible for the tiny works and manipulations of mankind could affect the long-term health and climate of the entire planet. Scientists disagree. Aunt May thinks she sees the ghost of Uncle Ben in the morning. Nobody disagrees (because it's Aunt May, after all) but most think, "Poor Aunt May."

    It is in those grey areas where there is no assertion of an impossibility, or where facts are uncertain, that the most mischief occurs. That's why we must pin our opinion of what constitutes "truth" to provable fact - all else is merely speculation. To do otherwise is to put ourselves in the position of that five year old naif, who is unable to discern fact from fiction (which is why we don't extend the vote to children).

  140. [140] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Make that: Anti-evolutionists will claim...

  141. [141] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's better! :)

  142. [142] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You know, you could have just said creationists ...

  143. [143] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You're right. I thought of that.

  144. [144] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [136] was an apology, by the way ... :)

  145. [145] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @balthasar,

    way to include spider man in the discussion!

    JL

  146. [146] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [136] was an apology, by the way ... :)

    And was noticed. I didn't want to rub your nose in it by commenting on it, but thank you. I can be terse too, so should probably shoulder some of the blame when things go sideways like that. I'd never hold it against you.

    way to include spider man in the discussion!

    Thanks, and a shout-out to Don's reference to Superman in post [107] as well. I actually waited weeks before trotting out Hari Seldon as well, though the 'Seldon Crisis' had occurred to me that long ago. Seems fitting that fictional characters should populate a discussion on 'truth'. Very modern. :)

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    None of what you said disputes the contention of truth vs opinion..

    Put another way.. Is a christian's "truth" that there IS a god??

    It's a simple yes or no answer..

    Or to be more specific..

    If you were to ask a christian, "Is it true that there is a god?"... what do you think their answer would be??

    Of course, their answer would be "HELL YES it's true there is a god"

    Like I have said before, for MANY on the Left, the "truth" is that Hillary won the election..

    You and I both know that THAT "truth" is not factual..

    Truth does not equal facts...

    That's the only point I am making...

    And if ya'all could see past the Left vs Right meme and just examine the statement free of ideological blinders, you would agree with that point...

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, the truth of the matter is that one person's opinion (your opinion, for example, Michale) may be considered bullshit by another person (me, for example, heh).

    Once again, that is YOUR truth...

    And I would no more try to dissuade you from your truth than I would try to dissuade a christian from THEIR truth that there is a god...

    But the coin of the realm around here are FACTS, not truth...

    At least, that's the way it was for a long long time...

    In a galaxy far far away...

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Archaeology is the search for facts, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Professor Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. So forget any ideas you've got about lost cities, exotic travel, and digging up the world. We do not follow maps to buried treasure, and "X" never, ever marks the spot."
    -Indiana Jones, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

    :D

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Three?? Three!!! Seven?? Seven!! Ten..??? Ten..??? Ten?? Where's the Ten.... Look around for the ten.. TEN!! Oh... er... uh... X marks the spot..."
    --Indiana Jones, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvywOjh_hdY

    :D

  151. [151] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [146] Is a christian's "truth" that there IS a god?

    Of course, which is why it is up to us to test every assertion of truth against the facts as we know them, and then challenge assertions that don't hold up to that standard. The Christian's assertion that his beliefs are 'truth' is belied by his inability to present rational facts or evidence to support that assertion.

    And asserting that one believes that a duck is an elephant doesn't make it true, unless one can present evidence (say, DNA) that indicates that they are, indeed, genetically related. Otherwise, as they say, 'the facts don't bear them out'.

    Which is why Kellyanne Conway's assertion that there are "alternative facts" is so insidious, deliberately muddying the waters of reality-based thinking. As Chuck Todd replied correctly, "'Alternative facts' are just falsehoods."

    And falsehoods are the opposite of truths. They are non-facts.

    As the late Senator Moynihan said, "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts." So you can assert all you want that an opinion or belief that you hold is 'the truth', but if it doesn't conform to the facts, it is not the truth. That's a fact.

  152. [152] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Like I have said before, for MANY on the Left, the "truth" is that Hillary won the election.

    I don't know of anyone who denies that the election was certified by the Electoral College, based on the vote totals that were presented to them by the states. I do often hear the fact that Hillary 'won' the national popular vote cited, which is true, but I've never heard that cited either as a reason to void the election.

    You and I both know that THAT "truth" is not factual.

    True at this time, but that 'truth' could change, if, for example, it's found that voting machines in key districts were tampered with (yet another security expert was on this week, explaining how absurdly easy that would be to do), voter rolls were tampered with (it's known that in some places voter rolls WERE tampered with, but the true extent of that tampering nationwide is not currently known), that it was 'thrown' by Hillary (not currently asserted in this case, but on the list), that millions of Canukes poured into Wisconsin and Michigan to illegally vote for Trump (also not currently asserted), or that it was the result of a concerted effort to undermine the voting process through collusion with an adversarial state, say, Russia (which is being investigated).

    We'll eventually know the truth or falsity of all those allegations. Until then, the truth is that Trump 'won' the election. It is, however, subject to revision after review and fact-seeking.

  153. [153] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Canukes? What are they?

  154. [154] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    For the record, we don't have nuclear weapons up here.

  155. [155] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "...millions of canukes poured into Wisconsin and Michigan to illegally vote for Trump..."
    And I thought Canadians liked us.
    Of course, I was also shocked (SHOCKED!) to find out that Superman is fictional.
    Oh well, looks like we're going to have to build a wall across the northern border, too.

  156. [156] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Canukes???

  157. [157] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Canukes:
    Canadians so pissed at the United States (or jealous of it's awesomeness) that they entered the country illegally to exercise the nuclear option of electing Trump.

  158. [158] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Canukes - weaponized Canadians

    Terrantinos - latinos from Earth

    Deustchebags - abrasive Germans

    Isosceles Try-Anglos - Brits who attempt to take two sides, equally.

    Francophiles - anyone who can sit through "127 Hours" without hating themselves

  159. [159] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Let's try that again:

    Deutschebags - abrasive Hessians.

  160. [160] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    134

    For a christian, the "truth" is that there is a god..

    For an athiest, the "truth" is that there isn't...

    Which "truth" is THE truth???

    Semantics antics: You're insisting that belief and truth are identical when they aren't necessarily. Obviously, when the majority of people use the term "truth," they're referring to things that are true versus false and fact versus fiction... and NOT referring to beliefs or opinions.

    Answer: Truth is as individual as a person's belief...

    When you're five, it's "true" that there is a Santa Claus...

    Oh, God... not this Santa Claus bullshit again! See what I did there? :)

    The truth is, not every 5-year-old child believed in Santa Claus. A child isn't born hating others based on their politics/religion/color/etc. or believing in God or Santa; they must be taught either by their parents/society/etc. I was taught there was no Santa Claus... I never believed in him, and even if I had believed, it wouldn't have magically turned my belief into the truth. What we are taught to believe and what is true aren't necessarily the same thing, and you have a tendency to play semantics with "truth."

    When your 25, it's no longer true... Hopefully...

    Whether you're 25 or 5, Santa Claus is fiction regardless your beliefs; one's age does not magically determine truth from bullshit.

    One's person's "truth" is another person's bullshit..

    Semantics... one of those things we take issue with unless it's our semantics. :)

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, which is why it is up to us to test every assertion of truth against the facts as we know them, and then challenge assertions that don't hold up to that standard. The Christian's assertion that his beliefs are 'truth' is belied by his inability to present rational facts or evidence to support that assertion.

    So, what you are saying is that a person's TRUTH is subjective and FACTS can prove their "TRUTH" is bullshit...

    Yea.. That's exactly what I am saying..

    I am glad we can agree.. :D

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    Everyone would be better off if we worried less about TRUTH and more about FACTS...

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Semantics antics: You're insisting that belief and truth are identical when they aren't necessarily.

    To the person that BELIEVES, they ARE identical...

    THAT's my point..

    Ya'all believe that President Trump is scum of the earth.. That's ya'all's truth...

    Fanatical Trump supporters believe that President Trump is the second coming.. That's their truth..

    And THEIR truth is just as valid to them as ya'all's is to ya'all....

    That is why "TRUTH" is not a good barometer to determine reality...

    Because TRUTH is subjective...

    That's all I am saying..

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting...

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/13/why-were-the-police-held-back-in-charlottesville/

    Dumbocrat Mayor.. Dumbocrat Governor...

    Stand down orders given to LEOs....

    VERY interesting...

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    And let's be perfectly clear...

    White Supremacist scumbags weren't the only thugs in Charlottesville over the weekend...

    The Left Wing AntiFa fascists were out in full force, attacking people and assaulting reporters...

    Any condemnation of that beyond the generic and lame "I condemn all violence" platitude???

  166. [166] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you own a dictionary, Michale?

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you own a dictionary, Michale?

    I do.. It's called dictionary.com :D

  168. [168] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Look up 'truth' and 'true' and post the result here.

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are we having a better day today, Liz?? :D

  170. [170] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    After you look up truth and true, look up fact and opinion.

  171. [171] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, then stop posting nonsense about the use of these terms.

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, my normal dictionary is wrong.. :D

    I stand by my statement...

    Truth does not equal facts..

    And if you need confirmation of this??

    A subjective truth is a truth based off of a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions. Everything we know is based off of our input - our senses, our perception. Thus, everything we know is subjective. All truths are subjective.
    http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/4316

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, then stop posting nonsense about the use of these terms.

    Like I said.. I understand that YOUR truth is that what I post is 'nonsense'...

    But your truth, while true for you, is not factual..

    I can cite truth after truth after truth that turned out to be NOT true once the FACTS proved the truth wrong..

    You can hold onto your truth as tightly as you need to..

    Me?? I am going to stick with FACTS...

  174. [174] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Subjective truth does not equal truth. This is where you go astray, Michale.

    I didn't ask you to look up "subjective truth" ...

  175. [175] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are we having a better day today, Liz??

    I can only speak for myself and say that it remains to be seen.

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I am constrained to point out that dictionary definitions are not absolute and are, often times, not true...

  177. [177] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Like I said.. I understand that YOUR truth is that what I post is 'nonsense'...

    That wasn't my truth, it was my opinion.

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    Subjective truth does not equal truth. This is where you go astray, Michale.

    ALL truths are subjective truth..

    THAT's the point you don't get..

    Like I said, for you, it's "truth" that Donald Trump is an incompetent President..

    But that is not factually accurate, even though you believe that truth with all your heart..

  179. [179] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And I am constrained to point out that dictionary definitions are not absolute and are, often times, not true...

    That is your opinion. :)

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    That wasn't my truth, it was my opinion.

    OK, then it's NOT the truth.. :D I can live with that..

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I am constrained to point out that dictionary definitions are not absolute and are, often times, not true...

    That is your opinion. :)

    Is it???

    marriage
    noun [ C/U ] US ? /?mær·?d?/
    ?
    a legally accepted relationship between a man and a woman in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this:
    [ C ] a long and happy marriage

    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/marriage

    Is it REALLY just "my opinion"???

    Or is it factual??

  182. [182] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ALL truths are subjective truth..

    That is your opinion - which is false as it has no basis in reality.

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    We're probably better off just agreeing to disagree...

    In a perfect world, yes.. Truth = Fact...

    But we don't live in a perfect world and there is simply NO WAY you will convince me that ya'all's "truths" are equal to facts...

  184. [184] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Opinions, even yours, can indeed represent the truth of the matter.

  185. [185] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You are getting closer ... all you have to do now is admit that there is a difference between opinion and truth and that the two may or may not be one in the same such that truth always comports with reality whereas opinion may not.

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are getting closer ... all you have to do now is admit that there is a difference between opinion and truth and that the two may or may not be one in the same such that truth always comports with reality whereas opinion may not.

    I was very close to agreeing until you said that last part..

    The truth does NOT always comport with reality. It's been my experience that truth RARELY comports with reality....

  187. [187] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The truth does NOT always comport with reality. It's been my experience that truth RARELY comports with reality....

    Substitute opinion for truth and you will begin to understand, Michale.

    I am hopeful that lesson has been learned.

  188. [188] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump’s efforts to enlist the services of a large firm have so far been rebuffed. White-collar experts at three high-powered firms, Sullivan & Cromwell, Steptoe & Johnson, and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, have turned him down, say two people familiar with the matter. Some firms had conflicts that prevented them from taking the job; others worried that Trump wouldn’t follow legal advice, potentially damaging their firms’ reputation, two people said.

    45 is trying to use public opinion and slander (e.g. Mueller and his team are Democrats and this is a partisan investigation) instead of getting a serious legal team. This will prove to be a costly mistake in the eyes of most legal experts.

    A legal team that is up to speed with where Mueller is going and is investigating where he might go will have the capability to fight every request for information, be prepared for every hostile witness and may even be able to mitigate testimony from witnesses.

    An understaffed team, even led by strong legal minds such as Dowd and Cobb, will simply not have the firepower to mount any resistance to Mueller. Of course, as the quote above shows, fear of working with 45 and his haphazard management style is proving to be a real problem.

    This could turn out to be a legal bloodbath. How the politicians will react is uncertain, but it will put 45's position in the hands of Ryan and McConnell.

    45 better skissing McConnell's behind big time - but instead he is trying to throw him under the bus.

    Tragic.

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    Substitute opinion for truth and you will begin to understand, Michale.

    You are the one bringing opinion into this discussion, not me..

    Is President Trump incompetent??

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    45 is trying to use public opinion and slander (e.g. Mueller and his team are Democrats and this is a partisan investigation) instead of getting a serious legal team. This will prove to be a costly mistake in the eyes of most legal experts.

    Only Anti-Trump legal experts.. :D

    An understaffed team, even led by strong legal minds such as Dowd and Cobb, will simply not have the firepower to mount any resistance to Mueller.

    Mueller's legal team of NOT-45 supporters, you mean..

    This could turn out to be a legal bloodbath. How the politicians will react is uncertain, but it will put 45's position in the hands of Ryan and McConnell.

    TRUMP IS TOAST PREDICTION #9176 :D

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    Substitute opinion for truth and you will begin to understand, Michale.

    Yer right.. I DO understand now..

    Ya'all claim that yer opinions are "true"... :D

    OK, I get it.. Thanx

  192. [192] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is President Trump incompetent??

    It is my opinion that Donald Trump does not possess the requisite knowledge nor the inclination to learn to act competently as the president of the United States of America.

    It is also my opinion that he has an uncanny ability to attract voters with messages they want to hear and to keep their support even when he fails to live up to those messages.

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is my opinion that Donald Trump does not possess the requisite knowledge nor the inclination to learn to act competently as the president of the United States of America.

    It is also my opinion that he has an uncanny ability to attract voters with messages they want to hear and to keep their support even when he fails to live up to those messages.

    OK.. So what you are saying is not the truth, it's just your opinion...

    That's great....

  194. [194] 
    neilm wrote:

    Only Anti-Trump legal experts.. :D

    I'm not a 45 fan, so if you want to encourage his legally disastrous approach to this (i.e. ad hominem attacks on the investigators) then go right ahead.

    This may play well with the fan boys and many will lap up the conspiracy theories, but the hard legal facts are the only thing that will count in court.

    If 45 loses the court case his fate will be in Ryan and McConnell's hands. How much are you looking forward to that?

  195. [195] 
    neilm wrote:

    It is my opinion that Donald Trump does not possess the requisite knowledge nor the inclination to learn to act competently as the president of the United States of America.

    It is also my opinion that he has an uncanny ability to attract voters with messages they want to hear and to keep their support even when he fails to live up to those messages.

    I agree with Elizabeth.

  196. [196] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So what you are saying is not the truth ...

    Well, that's YOUR opinion. :)

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm not a 45 fan, so if you want to encourage his legally disastrous approach to this (i.e. ad hominem attacks on the investigators) then go right ahead.

    Just stating a fact...

    This may play well with the fan boys and many will lap up the conspiracy theories, but the hard legal facts are the only thing that will count in court.

    Lemme know when ya'all have some hard legal facts that prove President Trump did anything wrong. :D

    I agree with Elizabeth.

    OK, so you have the same opinion as Liz...

    But it's NOT the truth....

    Just so long as we're clear on that..

  198. [198] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks, Neil.

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    How much are you looking forward to that?

    I'll let ya know when ya'all have some FACTS that prove it will happen.. :D

  200. [200] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm not a 45 fan, so if you want to encourage his legally disastrous approach to this (i.e. ad hominem attacks on the investigators) then go right ahead.

    Just stating a fact...

    It isn't a fact, it is an incorrect conclusion based on the thinking of a seriously underpowered brain (45's, not yours).

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    It isn't a fact,

    It IS a fact.. Mueller's legal team is populated with NOT-45 supporters/donors...

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe it will help you understand it if I say it's also the truth... :D

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
    -Obi-Wan Kenobi

    'nuff said...

  204. [204] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    59

    That's your opinion and I respect that...

    But I have a feeling the family of the woman killed by those retched forms of pond scum would disagree with you and agree with me..

    Let's review how that "feeling" you had about the family of the woman killed... Heather Heyer... turned out. As I said, encouraging your fellow Americans to take up arms against people they disagree with would be fighting dirtbaggery by becoming a dirtbag. I'll leave it to you to select your own website since it's all over the Internet.

    I think he’s still very young, and I’m sorry he believed that hate could fix problems. Hate only brings more hate. Heather was not about hate, Heather was about stopping hatred. Heather was about bringing an end to injustice.

    She began to cry as she added, I don’t want her death to be a focus for more hatred, I want her death to be a rallying cry for justice and equality and fairness and compassion. I’m very sorry that he chose that path because he has now ruined his life as well as robbed a great many of us of someone we love very much.

    No mother wants to lose a child, but I’m proud of her, she said. I’m proud of what she did.

    In other news, Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier issued a statement quitting the president's American Manufacturing Council over the president's lack of leadership regarding the events in Charlotte and immediately earned a more vigorous denunciation from the president than the neo-Nazis. :(

    http://www.businessinsider.com/merck-ceo-kenneth-frazier-resigns-from-trump-manufacturing-council-2017-8

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's review how that "feeling" you had about the family of the woman killed... Heather Heyer... turned out. As I said, encouraging your fellow Americans to take up arms against people they disagree with would be fighting dirtbaggery by becoming a dirtbag.

    If I had advocated taking up arms against people SOLELY because there is disagreement, you would have a point..

    But I didn't, so you don't...

    Yes, I am sure Heather's mother feels that way.. Just as I am sure many in Heather's family feel as I would if someone took my loved one from me...

  206. [206] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Just what the truth is- I can't say anymore."
    The Night: Nights in White Satin
    - Moody Blues

  207. [207] 
    neilm wrote:

    Mueller is a Republican.

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller is a Republican.

    Mueller is an Anti-Trumper who stocked his team with other Anti-Trumpers to make it easier to take down President Trump...

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Just what the truth is- I can't say anymore."

    Exactly...

    It's hard to know what the "truth" is...

    It's EASY to know what the FACTS are.....

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is there ANYONE on Mueller's team who voted for and/or donated to President Trump's campaign??

    No there is not...

    'nuff said...

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    Both Democrats and Republicans said over the weekend that Trump missed a chance to unite the country with his remarks on Saturday, in which he condemned “hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides” but failed to specifically call out the white-nationalist groups behind the weekend’s violence.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-14/trump-to-meet-with-fbi-justice-on-violent-rally-sessions-says

    How is this any different than Odumbo failing to specifically call out Islamic terrorists for their attacks and violence??

    Answer: It's not...

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    Merck & Co.’s CEO resigned from Trump’s council of manufacturing executives Monday, saying “America’s leaders must honor our fundamental values” by rejecting expressions of hatred, bigotry and group supremacy.

    EXCEPT when it's OBLM scumbags who are expressing those EXACT sentiments.. :^/

    Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy....

  213. [213] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    204

    If I had advocated taking up arms against people SOLELY because there is disagreement, you would have a point..

    But I didn't, so you don't...

    Of course I have a point, and once again and as per usual, you take my words and spin them in order to dismiss them... it's what you do here nearly daily. Nowhere did I say you were advocating taking up arms against people "SOLELY because there is disagreement."

    I said:

    * It's "not part of the solution to dehumanize your fellow citizens by referring to them as animals and encourage others to take up arms against them."

    * "If you're advocating the use of firearms against a group you don't like for being violent, then you're simply responding to dirtbaggery by becoming a dirtbag.

    Since you're obviously not encouraging the use of firearms against these groups because you agree with them, and we've already established that you disagreed with them for their violence, then spare us your bullshit spin when you incessantly whine that you value facts. You cannot claim to value facts when you constantly spin them when you're presented with them.

    Yes, I am sure Heather's mother feels that way.. Just as I am sure many in Heather's family feel as I would if someone took my loved one from me...

    So "you are sure Heather's mother feels that way," but you weren't saying that yesterday, and today when presented with facts that refute what you said yesterday, you simply ignore those facts in favor of your opinion with the utterly nonsensical response: "I am sure."

    So while you're opining that you are "sure many in Heather's family feel as I would if someone took my loved one from me," why don't you allow yourself to consider the possibility that the "scumbag" who perpetrated this act for whatever reason may have simply decided to do so using the reasoning:

    Sorry, in my book, once ANY of those groups cross the line into physical violence.... It's open season. ~ Michale

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    BERKELEY (CBS SF) — A worker at a Berkeley hot dog chain has lost his job after being outed on social media as being one of the Charlottesville white supremacist protesters.

    A poster at Berkeley’s Top Dog said that Cole White — who was identified on Twitter — no longer works at the restaurant. White had been a cook at the fast-food restaurant.

    KPIX 5 legal analyst Melissa Caen weighed in on the legality of possibly firing White for attending the rally.

    “It’s not a First Amendment issue,” she said. “Remember, that only protects you from actions by the government based on your speech. It doesn’t protect you from actions by your private employer. It’s also probably not a discrimination issue, because going to a rally like this, participating like this, doesn’t make you a member of a protected class.”

    So, if some business fires a straight employee for attending a Pro-LGBQRSTUV rally, that is perfectly acceptable???

    Gotta love the double-standards and blatant hypocrisy... :^/

  215. [215] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    207

    Mueller is an Anti-Trumper who stocked his team with other Anti-Trumpers to make it easier to take down President Trump...

    Prove it.

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nowhere did I say you were advocating taking up arms against people "SOLELY because there is disagreement."

    Uh... Yes you did..

    As I said, encouraging your fellow Americans to take up arms against people they disagree with would be fighting dirtbaggery by becoming a dirtbag.
    -Kick

    Nowhere did I encourage fellow Americans to take up arms against people they disagree with...

    Since you're obviously not encouraging the use of firearms against these groups because you agree with them,

    NOW whose making up shit and spin'ing her ass off... :D

    So "you are sure Heather's mother feels that way," but you weren't saying that yesterday, and today when presented with facts that refute what you said yesterday, you simply ignore those facts in favor of your opinion with the utterly nonsensical response: "I am sure."

    Nice spin.. :D

    why don't you allow yourself to consider the possibility that the "scumbag" who perpetrated this act for whatever reason may have simply decided to do so using the reasoning:

    The same reason I don't allow myself to buy into your bullshit spin.. :D

  217. [217] 
    Paula wrote:

    We have a nazi in the White House.

    Anyone with a brain could see it coming.

    There are monsters in America and their leader is a fat, orange-faced, spray-headed, traitorous disgrace.

    There is no going back from this weekend.

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    Prove it.

    I'll be happy to..

    Once you provide all the citations I have requested from you.. :D

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    We have a nazi in the White House.

    Anyone with a brain could see it coming.

    There are monsters in America and their leader is a fat, orange-faced, spray-headed, traitorous disgrace.

    And here we have Paula's "truth"... :D

    Great timing.. :D

    There is no going back from this weekend.

    Ooooooooooo TRUMP IS TOAST PREDICTION #10,964

    :D

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump

    STOCKS SOAR...
    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/geopolitics-and-earnings-remain-front-and-center-for-wall-street.html

    Making America Great Again

    Gotta love it... :D

  221. [221] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "marriage
    noun
    a legally accepted relationship between a man and a woman in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this:
    [ C ] a long and happy marriage

    Is it REALLY just "my opinion"???

    Or is it factual??"

    It MAY be YOUR OPINION, but it is NO LONGER FACTUAL, as the DEFINITION of marriage has changed since that statement was written.

    A more accurate, truthful and factual definition of marriage would now read as: a legally accepted relationship between any two individuals (regardless of sex or gender) in which they live as spouse and spouse, or the official ceremony which results in this:

    Just like the definition of the universe and our place in it before and after Copernicus changed from an Earth centered one, where the sun went around the Earth, to a sun centered one, where the Earth revolves around the sun instead.

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    It MAY be YOUR OPINION, but it is NO LONGER FACTUAL, as the DEFINITION of marriage has changed since that statement was written.

    But it's STILL someone's "truth"...

    Which is exactly my point..

    Many MANY "truths" are not factual and are dependent on perspective and point of view...

    My point in bringing that up is to show that dictionary definitions are not always factually accurate..

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    My point in bringing that up is to show that dictionary definitions are not always factually accurate..

    Thank you, JM for helping me to prove my point.. :D

  224. [224] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Prove it.

    I'll be happy to..

    Once you provide all the citations I have requested from you.. :D"

    You sound JUST as EVASIVE as Trump, which is hardly surprising. Maybe I should let Orrin Hatch help you out?

    "We should call evil by its name. My brother didn't give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home."

    Or this other gem that has been widely quoted this morning:

    "When you dance with the devil, the devil doesn't change. The devil changed you."

  225. [225] 
    John M wrote:

    Elizabeth wrote:

    "It is my opinion that Donald Trump does not possess the requisite knowledge nor the inclination to learn to act competently as the president of the United States of America.

    It is also my opinion that he has an uncanny ability to attract voters with messages they want to hear and to keep their support even when he fails to live up to those messages."

    I too agree with both Elizabeth and neilm.

  226. [226] 
    Michale wrote:

    You sound JUST as EVASIVE as Trump, which is hardly surprising. Maybe I should let Orrin Hatch help you out?

    No, I am just getting tired of everyone demanding citations, yet refusing to provide citations for ANY of their claims..

  227. [227] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "So, if some business fires a straight employee for attending a Pro-LGBQRSTUV rally, that is perfectly acceptable???

    Gotta love the double-standards and blatant hypocrisy..."

    Who's??? Yours???

    It would in fact be perfectly legal. Especially since he was not fired for an innate condition over which he has no control, his "straightness" but over his conduct that his employer felt reflected poorly on their business image. Now, whether he should be free to do whatever he wants on his own time away from work, without any impact on his job, is another question entirely.

    Anti-discrimination laws protect you from arbitrary sanctions based on physical characteristics like race, gender, sexual orientation (both gay and straight) etc.

    They do not protect you from the consequences of any actions you take.

    You can't be discriminated against for being an alcoholic.

    You CAN however be fired from your job for drunk driving.

  228. [228] 
    Michale wrote:

    "We should call evil by its name. My brother didn't give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home."

    Like I said...

    Where was that sentiment from ya'all when Odumbo refused to call Islamic evil by it's name??

    Ahh yes... Ya'all don't care about evil or it's name..

    It's nothing but PARTY UBER ALLES

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    It would in fact be perfectly legal.

    So, are you saying that you would NOT have a problem with a guy being fired SOLELY because it attended an LGBTQRSTUV rally???

    Com'on, JM!!

    I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night...

    :^/

  230. [230] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "President Trump

    STOCKS SOAR...

    Making America Great Again

    Gotta love it... :D"

    And when the stock market inevitably turns down and falls again like it always does???

    Or IF Trump does something really stupid that spooks the stock market???

    Will you still give Trump credit then for making America great again??? Or will you equally criticize him for it???

  231. [231] 
    Michale wrote:

    Will you still give Trump credit then for making America great again??? Or will you equally criticize him for it???

    *IF* it happens, we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.. :D

    But, I have a track record of condemning President Trump when I feel he deserves it..

    Unlike most of ya'all who refused to condemn Odumbo at all... :D

  232. [232] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Where was that sentiment from ya'all when Odumbo refused to call Islamic evil by it's name??

    Ahh yes... Ya'all don't care about evil or it's name..

    It's nothing but PARTY UBER ALLES"

    Take a good look in the MIRROR Michale, and ask yourself:

    Don't you realize there is a difference??? Between IMPLYING ALL of Islam or Christianity (or Mexicans or immigrants, or refugees) as criminals, or terrorists, or evil, and all NAZIS or KKK members as such???

    Trump is being JUSTLY criticized for trying to make that same FALSE MORAL EQUIVALENCY.

    The chickens have come home to roost, and Charlottesville is what we see as the result.

  233. [233] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    215

    Uh... Yes you did..

    Wrong. We had a conversation yesterday wherein we had already established that you disagreed with their violence, and obviously you're not advocating taking up arms against them because you agree with them.

    Nowhere did I encourage fellow Americans to take up arms against people they disagree with...

    Why would you encourage fellow Americans to take up arms against people you agreed with? We'd obviously already covered the fact that you disagreed with their violence. You disagree with their actions so obviously you disagree with them and encouraged "open season."

    NOW whose making up shit and spin'ing her ass off... :D

    Who is Michale. I'll take "Issues Already Discussed On This Webpage" for $500, Alex. *LOL* Also, if you'd like to be referred to as "her," I'm sure the group could accommodate that. Those were direct quotes from our conversation yesterday where we'd already established that you disagreed with these groups because of their violence... no spin required on my part, merely quoting statements from yesterday versus the utter nonsensical exercise of yours wherein you pretend every post is conversation that is wholly contained within one comment box.

    The same reason I don't allow myself to buy into your bullshit spin.. :D

    You "buy into" and post the bullshit spin of a multitude of alt-right websites and admittedly love the pathologically lying con artist that is the BLOTUS -- Big Liar of the United States -- yet you claim to take issue with spin. Nice try, though. I hope you're not deluding yourself that you're fooling anyone else but yourself. :)

  234. [234] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "So, are you saying that you would NOT have a problem with a guy being fired SOLELY because it attended an LGBTQRSTUV rally???

    Com'on, JM!!

    I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night..."

    I did NOT say I would personally agree with it, but unlike the instance of the cake for a gay wedding, I would acknowledge that in this instance, they would still be perfectly within their legal rights to do so.

  235. [235] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't you realize there is a difference??? Between IMPLYING ALL of Islam or Christianity (or Mexicans or immigrants, or refugees) as criminals, or terrorists, or evil, and all NAZIS or KKK members as such???

    You can spin it all you want...

    How is saying ISLAMIC TERRORISTS describing ALL of Islam??

    Answer: It isn't.. It's specifying a specific group....

    The chickens have come home to roost, and Charlottesville is what we see as the result.

    Yea, it's funny how ya'all say that about Charlottesville..

    But when it's Left Wing scumbags assaulting and killing people and burning neighborhoods, it's "Ho hum, what's new on TV??"

    The hypocrisy is pathetic...

  236. [236] 
    Michale wrote:

    You disagree with their actions so obviously you disagree with them and encouraged "open season."

    Yes.. I disagree with their ACTIONS of hurting and killing people...

    What's your point??

    I hope you're not deluding yourself that you're fooling anyone else but yourself. :)

    Apparently, you think I am fooling a lot of people because you hysterically try to spin what I say to make your bogus point. :D

    Yer trying too hard.. Everyone can see that..

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    I did NOT say I would personally agree with it, but unlike the instance of the cake for a gay wedding, I would acknowledge that in this instance, they would still be perfectly within their legal rights to do so.

    So, you wouldn't speak out against it at all?? You would just accept it and defend the employer's legal right to do that??

    Yea.. Like I said..

    AT night..

    Not LAST night.. :D

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes.. I disagree with their ACTIONS of hurting and killing people...

    What's your point??

    Unlike ya'all, I disagree with those actions, REGARDLESS of any PARTY considerations..

    Ya'all (NEN) cannot make the same claim...

    Where were all ya'all's Berkeley condemnations??

    Non-existent..

  239. [239] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "But when it's Left Wing scumbags assaulting and killing people and burning neighborhoods, it's "Ho hum, what's new on TV??"

    The hypocrisy is pathetic..."

    Now who's trying to SPIN things??? Again, false moral equivalency.

    The woman who was killed as part of the ant-fascist demonstration, in no way is on the same level with the Nazi demonstrators who showed up with guns and in body armor. I don't recall any left wing murderers. I do however remember when left wingers went on a riot rampage in Seattle at the World Trade Conference, being widely condemned, as well as other instances since.

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_THE_LATEST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-08-14-12-49-59

    Ya'all happy now???

    Of course not.. Yer Party bigotry won't allow you to be satisfied with ANYTHING President Trump says...

    President Trump did something that Odumbo couldn't EVER do...

    Condemn evil with specificity....

  241. [241] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't recall any left wing murderers.

    James Hodgkison... The fact that you forget that proves my point..

    I do however remember when left wingers went on a riot rampage in Seattle at the World Trade Conference, being widely condemned, as well as other instances since.

    Yea??? Here in Weigantia???

    Show me.... Prove it...

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    The woman who was killed as part of the ant-fascist demonstration,

    Yea and the scumbags who destroyed Berkeley were ALSO at an anti-fascist demonstration..

    Funny how no one (NEN) here condemned THAT destruction...

    At an OBLM protest, FIVE cops were gunned down in cold blood..

    Funny how no one here condemned OBLM for that...

    I realize that your "truth" is that there is no hate and violence and intolerance coming from the Left..

    But the FACTS paint a completely different picture...

  243. [243] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "So, you wouldn't speak out against it at all?? You would just accept it and defend the employer's legal right to do that??

    Yea.. Like I said..

    AT night..

    Not LAST night.. :D"

    Like others have warned you Michale, please don't put words in my mouth or assume what I would do, especially when I have already told you otherwise.

    I don't recall any left wing murderers. - I take that back, or at least I have to modify it a little, IF you want to go ALL the way back to the 1970's and groups like The Weathermen or the Red Army Faction etc. They were also condemned and we have not seen their kind of left wing radical violence since.

    Unlike the KKK, for example, which has never ceased its violence since the 1860's right up to the present day.

  244. [244] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like others have warned you Michale, please don't put words in my mouth or assume what I would do, especially when I have already told you otherwise.

    Yea, you told me.. But your actions here belay that claim..

    I don't recall any left wing murderers. -

    Really?? Never heard of James Hodgkison???

    Never heard of 5 cops being gunned down in Dallas?? 3 cops in Baton Rouge??

    But you prove my point for me... YOu ignore ANY violence from the Left..

    Unlike the KKK, for example, which has never ceased its violence since the 1860's right up to the present day.

    And who do we have to THANK for the KKK???

    Yep.. The Dumbocrat Party..

    The KKK is all yers, sunshine.. Without the Dumbocrat Party, there wouldn't have BEEN any KKK....

  245. [245] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM: "It is my opinion that Donald Trump does not possess the requisite knowledge nor the inclination to learn to act competently as the president of the United States of America.

    It is also my opinion that he has an uncanny ability to attract voters with messages they want to hear and to keep their support even when he fails to live up to those messages."

    John M: I too agree with both Elizabeth and neilm.

    And although I don't have the pleasure of being an "M"... I too agree with EM, NM, and JM. :)

  246. [246] 
    altohone wrote:

    219

    87% of all stocks are owned by the 1%.

    A

  247. [247] 
    Michale wrote:

    I too agree with EM, NM, and JM. :)

    Shocker... :D

    As long as ya'all concede that your claims are not the truth, then I won't say boo.. :D

  248. [248] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Ya'all happy now???

    Of course not.. Yer Party bigotry won't allow you to be satisfied with ANYTHING President Trump says...

    President Trump did something that Odumbo couldn't EVER do...

    Condemn evil with specificity...."

    Bullshit. And NO, I am not entirely happy. But at least he FINALLY did say SOMETHING. Though it really would have mattered more and made the most impact, had he made the statement right after the event had happened. Instead he waited until after 48 hours had passed and after receiving tremendous political blow back, even from his own party, over how inadequate his first statements were. It's almost a case of too little too late now, and an attempt at political damage control, rather than out of any real moral outrage or concern. In fact, it smacks a lot more of political cowardice and a fear of unfavorable consequences, rather than courage and statesmanship. That IS going to be the perception.

    "I do however remember when left wingers went on a riot rampage in Seattle at the World Trade Conference, being widely condemned, as well as other instances since.

    Yea??? Here in Weigantia???

    Show me.... Prove it..."

    I can't, since I was not a member then and it happened in 1999.

  249. [249] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    EM: "It is my opinion that Donald Trump does not possess the requisite knowledge nor the inclination to learn to act competently as the president of the United States of America.

    It is also my opinion that he has an uncanny ability to attract voters with messages they want to hear and to keep their support even when he fails to live up to those messages."

    John M: I too agree with both Elizabeth and neilm.

    Kick: And although I don't have the pleasure of being an "M"... I too agree with EM, NM, and JM. :)

    Oh yeah, I agree too. Endorsement given.

  250. [250] 
    Michale wrote:

    87% of all stocks are owned by the 1%.

    And if Weigantians hadn't made such hysterical BS proclamations that the stock market would bottom out or explode if President Trump was elected, I wouldn't be pointing out how wrong they all were... :D

  251. [251] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bullshit. And NO, I am not entirely happy.

    Like I said..

    President Trump could do EXACTLY as you want him to and you would STILL find something to bitch about..

    I can't, since I was not a member then and it happened in 1999.

    What about the "other instances since"???

    I'll make it easy for ya...

    Within the last year...

    gOT mILK?? :D

  252. [252] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "And who do we have to THANK for the KKK???

    Yep.. The Dumbocrat Party..

    The KKK is all yers, sunshine.. Without the Dumbocrat Party, there wouldn't have BEEN any KKK...."

    More BULLSHIT and FALSE equivalency again. You ignore the switch that took place between the Republican and Democratic parties during the Johnson and Nixon administrations. They effectively switched places. Neither one currently shares anything in common with their historical ancestors other than their current names.

    The modern KKK is all your modern Repukeocrat party's problem, they are the ones who currently own it, lock, stock and barrel, cupcake.

  253. [253] 
    Michale wrote:

    More BULLSHIT and FALSE equivalency again. You ignore the switch that took place between the Republican and Democratic parties during the Johnson and Nixon administrations. They effectively switched places. Neither one currently shares anything in common with their historical ancestors other than their current names.

    Which doesn't CHANGE the **FACT** that we have the Dumbocrat Party to thank for the KKK...

    Considering the hysterical bigotry on display by the CURRENT Dumbocrat Party, it's obvious that today's Party has a LOT in common with the Party that started the KKK..

    Sorry, if it upsets you, but the Dumbocrat Party's history and the KKK's history is intertwined and will be for all of eternity..

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain 'Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    The modern KKK is all your modern Repukeocrat party's problem, they are the ones who currently own it, lock, stock and barrel, cupcake.

    If I were a Republican, you might have a point..

    But I am not, so you don't.. :D

  254. [254] 
    Michale wrote:

    they are the ones who currently own it, lock, stock and barrel, cupcake.

    "You DO know how to talk to me, JOHN SHEPARD!!!"
    -Todd, STARGATE ATLANTIS

    :D

  255. [255] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ya'all happy now?

    Not half as happy as the basket of deplorables who marched at that rally, who believe that Trump's two days of tacit approval is all they need to know about where the President stands on the matter.

    As John Oliver said last night: “Nazis are a lot like cats. If they like you, it’s probably because you’re feeding them.”

    After two days of silence on the matter, Trump's statement about racism today carries all of the sincerity of a schoolboy apologizing while his mother stands beside him, holding his ear.

    And alt-right guru Bannon is still at his post, organizing his 'poisons' shelf.

    The message was heard loud and clear, but it wasn't the message that Trump reluctantly made today.

  256. [256] 
    Michale wrote:

    After two days of silence on the matter, Trump's statement about racism today carries all of the sincerity of a schoolboy apologizing while his mother stands beside him, holding his ear.

    So, in other words, all the of encouragement for President Trump to say something was hypocritical because it wasn't going to be acceptable anyways..

    Thank you for proving my point...

  257. [257] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump could read a speech written by Pelosi, Sanders and Warren and ya'all would STILL attack President Trump....

    So, honestly.. Why should anyone believe ya'all have any credibility???

  258. [258] 
    altohone wrote:

    John M
    238

    I know you're arguing with a type who makes false claims... i.e. claiming cop killers are BLM activists when they weren't, or that antiFas are left wingers when you don't need to be a left winger to oppose fascism (see current news reports about Repubs condemning fascists). when condemning fascism doesn't make you a left winger (see status quo Democrats), when antiFas itself doesn't claim to be a left wing organization, and when the counter-demonstration in Cville wasn't even organized by that group... but I do still feel the need to comment about this-

    "I do however remember when left wingers went on a riot rampage in Seattle at the World Trade Conference, being widely condemned, as well as other instances since."

    The people who chose to riot in Seattle were not part of the left wing organizations who were peacefully demonstrating in Seattle.
    Opportunities to riot attract people who seek opportunities to riot.
    And while I'm sure there are exceptions, those people generally do not conform to left wing ideologies.

    I'm not aware of any investigation in Seattle that determined the political ideologies of those arrested for violence.

    And, just for the sake of relevance, anyone familiar with Cointelpro or Operation Chaos or some of the incidents around Occupy, history has shown that violence that has occurred during left wing protests has often been the result of agent provacateurs.

    So, it is worth considering that the left is intentionally targeted and falsely blamed in an effort to smear them, and that joining in by repeating such claims puts you on iffy ground in a general sense.

    A

  259. [259] 
    altohone wrote:

    249

    As usual, you are now falsely claiming that the cheering for the stock market is simply to refute unnamed Weigantians, when you have in fact been using it to tout the effectiveness of Trump making something great again, when it's mostly benefitting the few, and not benefitting the majority... and is a poor indicator of the health and vitality of our economy.

    A dishonest dodge yet again.

    A

  260. [260] 
    Michale wrote:

    As usual, you are now falsely claiming that the cheering for the stock market is simply to refute unnamed Weigantians, when you have in fact been using it to tout the effectiveness of Trump making something great again, when it's mostly benefitting the few, and not benefitting the majority... and is a poor indicator of the health and vitality of our economy.

    As usual, you make claims that have absolutely NO SUBSTANTIATION or facts to support.. :D

    I have been cheering the rise of the stock market because it shows how absolutely WRONG Weigantians have been with their hysterical anti-Trump predictions..

    :D And you just hate it because you know I am dead on ballz accurate.. :D

    A dishonest dodge yet again.

    Coming from you, that's a compliment.. :D

  261. [261] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, it is worth considering that the left is intentionally targeted and falsely blamed in an effort to smear them, and that joining in by repeating such claims puts you on iffy ground in a general sense.

    Yea, the Left is as pure as the driven snow.. :^/

  262. [262] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    it was a good speech, and if donald had given it two days ago it could have been effective and meaningful. better late than never, but better on-time than late.

    JL

  263. [263] 
    Michale wrote:

    it was a good speech, and if donald had given it two days ago it could have been effective and meaningful. better late than never, but better on-time than late.

    That's what I like about you, JL.. Next to Liz, yer the ONLY one who will give President Trump credit when it's due...

  264. [264] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, honestly.. Why should anyone believe ya'all have any credibility?

    Really? When nobody from here to Zanzibar takes a single thing Trump says seriously? How many more times will Tillerson and Mattis have to step forward to 'clarify' the president's remarks, or will Sarah Huckabee Sanders have to assert that he was only "joking"?

    Even the North Koreans called out Trump for what they called a "load of nonsense". Since that's not really an english phrase, I assume that a more accurate translation would be "load of bullshit".

    It takes one to know one, as they say.

  265. [265] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? When nobody from here to Zanzibar takes a single thing Trump says seriously?

    No.. No one here in Weigantia takes Trump seriously...

    No one amongst the Left Wingery takes Trump seriously...

    Ya'all never did..

    And THAT is why he won the election... :D

    Don't ya'all feel like idjuts.. :D

  266. [266] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even the North Koreans called out Trump for what they called a "load of nonsense".

    Yea, the NORKS said the same thing about Odumbo..

    Was it valid then??

    Of course not.. It's *ONLY* valid when it's said against a person with a '-R' after their name...

    Party bigotry.. Nothing more...

  267. [267] 
    Paula wrote:

    The Nazis think Blotus was only saying what he had to. They don't believe him and are celebrating, thinking his dodge of a condemnation speech has been accepted.

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/508086/

    Donald Trump Is Following His Usual White Nationalist Playbook

    There will be no leadership from him on this because he is a white nationalist/nazi himself. And he has nazis in his cabinet.

  268. [268] 
    Michale wrote:

    How come there are no condemnations of the racism during Netroots Nation????

    That also happened days ago and the condemnation from the Left??

    {{chhhiirrrrrpppppppp}} {{cccchhhiirrrrrrppppppp}}

  269. [269] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Nazis think Blotus was only saying what he had to. They don't believe him and are celebrating, thinking his dodge of a condemnation speech has been accepted.

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/508086/

    Donald Trump Is Following His Usual White Nationalist Playbook

    There will be no leadership from him on this because he is a white nationalist/nazi himself. And he has nazis in his cabinet.

    Once again, the "truth" according to Paula.. :D

    THIS is exactly why it's IMPOSSIBLE to take ya'all seriously...

    It's nothing but hysterical bullshit.....

  270. [270] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And THAT is why he won the election..

    It's true - while we knew the Right was filled with idjuts, we just never thought that the entire right were morons. Believing the best about people, and all that. Truly, that mainstream Republicans would vote for this manic clown came as a complete shock to us.

    We won't make that mistake again, trust me.

  271. [271] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Once again, the "truth" according to Paula

    Go Paula! You go, girl!

  272. [272] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    235

    Yes.. I disagree with their ACTIONS of hurting and killing people...

    What's your point??

    So we had already established that yesterday... that you disagreed with their actions... and me stating today that you disagreed with them isn't the equivalent of me saying you disagreed "SOLELY because there is disagreement" when we've obviously already established yesterday that you disagreed with their actions. Nowhere did I say you disagreed with them "SOLELY" for one reason.

    Apparently, you think I am fooling a lot of people because you hysterically try to spin what I say to make your bogus point. :D

    I don't have to spin what you said on this same webpage since I can quote it and link to it.

    Michale: These racist dirtbags attack people solely because they are a different color or a different religion..

    Kick: So clearly it's the violence that bothers you because obviously it's the right of American citizens to assemble peaceably in protest.

    Michale: Sorry, in my book, once ANY of those groups cross the line into physical violence.... It's open season...

    Kick: Sure, if you're directly attacked, you would naturally have a right to defend yourself, but if you're advocating the use of firearms against a group you don't like for being violent, then you're simply responding to dirtbaggery by becoming a dirtbag (no offense, borrowing your term).

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/08/11/netroots-energized-and-looking-forward/#comment-107603

    That was yesterday. You're obviously advocating violence against a group you disagree with. Nowhere in my post today did I say you were advocating violence "SOLELY because there is disagreement," although... seriously... it doesn't really take a rocket scientist to determine your disagreement with a group you refer to as "Only Black Lives Matter," just to highlight that which is so obviously obvious. :)

    Yer trying too hard.. Everyone can see that..

    You're projecting again. It's your daily routine that if anyone makes a valid point, you simply put words in their mouth and dismiss them. The CEO of Merck? Put words in his mouth and dismiss him as a hypocrite at post [211].

    Own it... it's your standard operational bullshit that plays out here near daily. :)

  273. [273] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    it was a good speech, and if donald had given it two days ago it could have been effective and meaningful. better late than never, but better on-time than late.

    At least he finally uttered the words he seems so intent on avoiding for reasons that are unclear to me ... neo-Nazis, white supremacists, KKK, other hate groups ...

    But, his little address today, starting off as it did with his great economic achievements, struck me as not only being late but still not nearly enough.

    He didn't spell out the vicious agenda of these groups and I'm not even sure if he understands what these hate groups are about or that the threat they pose goes way beyond Charlottesville or the real fear of these groups that so many of his fellow citizens feel when they are reminded of the abhorrent history of the KKK at the sight of hundreds of angry white men wielding torches ...

    No, the president didn't go nearly far enough.

    Maybe next time ...

  274. [274] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, by "next time", I meant the next time he tries to respond to what happened in Charlottesville, not the next time an incident like this happens again, which I hope and pray that it doesn't ...

  275. [275] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    249

    And if Weigantians hadn't made such hysterical BS proclamations that the stock market would bottom out or explode if President Trump was elected, I wouldn't be pointing out how wrong they all were... :D

    You keep posting this accusation over and over. I don't recall anyone saying this (not to be confused with an accusation... I'm asking). Are you perhaps confusing the Brexit vote with the U.S. election? <-- A question... not to be confused with an accusation. Thank you. :)

  276. [276] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    272

    At least he finally uttered the words he seems so intent on avoiding for reasons that are unclear to me ... neo-Nazis, white supremacists, KKK, other hate groups ...

    I believe for the same reason he won't criticize Putin, as this article does a marvelous job in explanation:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-putin-connections-to-american-alt-right-and-white-nationalists-2017-8

    But, his little address today, starting off as it did with his great economic achievements, struck me as not only being late but still not nearly enough.

    Totally agree with EM's entire post... EVERY. SINGLE. WORD. It's the simplest thing you could possibly do as President of the United States... to denounce Nazis, white nationalists, and white supremacists giving Nazi salutes and shouting "sieg heil" and the N-word at passers-by... so why won't this President do that in no uncertain terms?

    And as long as Stephen Miller, Sebastian Gorka, and Steve Bannon... former CEO of Breitbart, the "platform for the alt-right"... are allowed a place in the White House as policy advisors and Chief Strategist to the President of the United States, why would anyone dismiss the idea that President Trump is providing a platform for the alt-right?

  277. [277] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    266

    There will be no leadership from him on this because he is a white nationalist/nazi himself. And he has nazis in his cabinet.

    Yep... and unless and until Trump removes Miller, Gorka, and Bannon from the people's White House, why should anyone conclude otherwise? Many of the righties want to compartmentalize the issue and move on, but this issue didn't happen in a vacuum; the Birther-in-Chief has a long history that precedes his 2016 campaign by decades.

  278. [278] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, the "truth" according to Paula

    Go Paula! You go, girl!

    Like I said...

    It's impossible to take ANYONE seriously who hysterically rants about the President in such a manner..

    That's why I never took Right Wingers seriously when they ranted about Odumbo in EXACTLY this same manner..

  279. [279] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't recall anyone saying this (not to be confused with an accusation... I'm asking). Are you perhaps confusing the Brexit vote with the U.S. election? <-- A question... not to be confused with an accusation. Thank you. :)

    If I post the facts and prove that I am dead on, will you concede the point?? :D

  280. [280] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's true - while we knew the Right was filled with idjuts, we just never thought that the entire right were morons.

    Yea... NO bigotry there... :D

    Of course, then you concede that Mueller and Comey are morons..

    "Oh NO!! THEY are OK because they are doing what I want!!!"
    -Balthasar

    :D

  281. [281] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's impossible to take ANYONE seriously who hysterically rants about the President in such a manner..

    That's why I never took Right Wingers seriously when they ranted about Odumbo in EXACTLY this same manner..

    I mean, TRY to think about it objectively..

    THE PRESIDENT IS A NAZI!!!

    is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than

    THE PRESIDENT IS A MUSLIM MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE!!!!!

    Both totally hysterical "truth" without a HINT of factual evidence....

    You people (NEN) are no different than the Hysterical Right Wingers ya'all condemned throughout the Odumbo years...

  282. [282] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mattis: If North Korea fires missile at US, it's 'game on'
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/14/mattis-if-north-korea-fires-missile-at-us-its-game-on.html

    Go MAD DOG!!! :D

  283. [283] 
    Michale wrote:

    Some of the better Mad Dog Mattis quotes:

    "The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot."

    Yep, I can think of a bunch of racist scumbags who fit that bill..

    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."

    Ooorraaaaaaa

    "There is nothing better than getting shot at and missed. It’s really great."

    Heh... been there....

    "You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it’s going to be bad."

    And that's what it's like around here.. Bad...

    "I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all."

    One of my favorites...

    Lil Runt Kim made a big mistake trying to test the mettle of SecDef Mattis...

  284. [284] 
    Paula wrote:

    Balthasar, Kick: thanks. Kick [276] - yep.

    There is no acceptable defense at this point for Blotus, for his horrible sidekicks, for his criminality and cowardice, and especially for the violence he has loosed upon us. He has wanted Americans to be afraid of him, and afraid of his murderous followers. I am afraid of them in that they are armed and dangerous, and I'm not. They could kill me easily. They could hurt me easily. They will hurt and kill people physically weaker than them. Unarmed people. There is no forgiving that and no excusing that.

    But from the second America's morons elected Blotus a showdown was inevitable. I am heartened at the outcry against these nazis. There are more decent Americans than these murderous thugs. Our system is fighting back, our citizens are fighting back. And there is redemption for people who blew it with their votes, know it, acknowledge it, and learn from it.

    Blotus hit 34% in Gallup today. He will go lower. This may be the tipping point. Because it, too, is inevitable.

    And meanwhile, what about General what's his name who was going to straighten Blotus out? Did he force Blotus's insincere teleprompter speech I wonder? Will he force Bannon, Miller etc. out? Because they have to go. As does Blotus.

  285. [285] 
    altohone wrote:

    259

    You made the claim about cheerleading for the stock market... you back it up.
    Name names, dates and times.

    You demanding I prove a negative may be par on your putt-putt course, but it won't sell here.

    Of course, that still wouldn't explain Trump's bull.

    260

    Cointelpro and Operation Chaos are proven history... complete with congressional hearings and top secret document verification released through the FOIA.

    The hippies got something right.
    - Dodgeball

    Criminal behavior targeting leftists from the nations top law enforcement agency and intelligence agency is well worth remembering as it remains a fact of life.

    (the British just had an inquiry about government agents infiltrating activist groups, and the police in Germany just got caught making false claims about G20 protestors in Hamburg... so it's not just a problem in America)

    Or are you just bitter that your lies and false equivalency about BLM were called out in a thread dominated by a discussion of a white supremacist killing an innocent protestor and injuring 15 others, and making Trump look ever worse with his pathetic response?

    Or maybe you'll trot out a story about someone throwing a rock in an attempt to justify the murder again?
    Not that you offered any evidence of course, but the notion that a cracked windshield is worth a life and other injuries does reek of yet another desperate attempt to defend the indefensible... and an underlying motivation... but that's just my opinion.

    A

  286. [286] 
    altohone wrote:

    281

    Go general!!!

    Not turning the other cheek is truly exemplary and unusual in these parts.

    Let's praise children for eating all their ice cream too.

    A

  287. [287] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    278

    If I post the facts and prove that I am dead on, will you concede the point?? :D

    I would like to take the opportunity to outline what I think is a huge problem of yours. I asked you a simple question, and I took great pains to reiterate on more than one occasion that it was a question and not to be confused with an accusation... repeat... repeat.

    So you come back with your bullshit and act like it's a damn accusation. Just answer the damn question. You're acting as though everyone here said this, and you keep posting it claiming we did. So it's a simple question.

    So you said: And if Weigantians hadn't made such hysterical BS proclamations that the stock market would bottom out or explode if President Trump was elected, I wouldn't be pointing out how wrong they all were... :D

    So please just answer whether or not you may have confused this with the Brexit vote, and if not, I would be interested in seeing "such hysterical BS proclamations that the stock market would bottom out or explode if (obviously no one called him president at the time) Trump was elected."

    Thank you. :)

  288. [288] 
    Michale wrote:

    North Korea Backs Off Guam Missile-Attack Threat
    Kim Jong Un warns he could change his mind if the U.S. persists in ‘extremely dangerous reckless actions’

    And THAT'S how you handle bullies!!!

    Way Ta Go, President Trump!!!!

  289. [289] 
    Michale wrote:

    You made the claim about cheerleading for the stock market... you back it up.
    Name names, dates and times.

    Once you substantiate all the BS you have spewed, I'll be happy to reciprocate..

    Demanding something of others that you refuse to do yourself is hypocrisy..

  290. [290] 
    Michale wrote:

    I asked you a simple question, and I took great pains to reiterate on more than one occasion that it was a question and not to be confused with an accusation... repeat... repeat.

    I just as nicely asked that if I DO find the points, will you concede that you were wrong and I was right..

    I have been burned too many times by ya'all to spend time researching only to have the facts ignored...

    So, I'll... with the utmost respect and admiration, ask again..

    If I PROVE my point, will you concede that you were wrong and I was right??

    I would like to take the opportunity to outline what I think is a huge problem of yours.

    In YOUR opinion.. :D

  291. [291] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not turning the other cheek is truly exemplary and unusual in these parts.

    I know, right!!

    After the cowardice and LEAD FROM BEHIND (AKA The Coward Of The Country) bullshit from Odumo and his minions, President Trump's and General Mattis' bravery and courage is a welcome breath of fresh air...

    "She's a breath of fresh ass... I mean a breast of fresh air.."
    -Artimus Gordon, WILD WILD WEST

    :D

  292. [292] 
    altohone wrote:

    288

    You're lying to dodge.
    Not unexpected.

    290

    Pathetic sarcasm meter you've got too... or are you lying yet again?

    A

  293. [293] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    289

    I just as nicely asked that if I DO find the points, will you concede that you were wrong and I was right..

    Actually, your response was not "just as nicely" because it insinuates I am/was accusing you when I was/am not. BUT... BUT... and this is a big BUT... I am going to let this slide because I see that you are discussing this with A01 also so therefore probably getting people confused as you have done before.

    So, to review:

    * I am not accusing you of being wrong, just saying I don't remember a lot of people claiming the U.S. election of Trump would tank the stock market.
    * I do remember that type discussion regarding the Brexit vote.

    Since you're discussing this with someone else, I will concede the point on my behalf but will not by any stretch of the imagination concede for anyone else and presume to speak for anyone else by putting words in their mouth and/or lumping them together... like YOU do.

    I will go on record now that I'll bet your proof is not going to live up to your characterization of: hysterical BS proclamations that the stock market would bottom out or explode if President Trump was elected.

    So, I'll... with the utmost respect and admiration, ask again..

    Who are you and what have you done with Michale?

    If I PROVE my point, will you concede that you were wrong and I was right??

    You are proving my point here with this putting words in my mouth. I did not say you were wrong... nor did I ever accuse you of being wrong. I took great pains to say it was not an accusation, and I reiterated my point. I simply said I did not remember anyone doing this and asked you if perhaps you had confused it with the Brexit vote, where several of us definitely said the market would tank if the vote was for Brexit.

    In YOUR opinion.. :D

    Obviously my opinion, and obviously some opinions happen to be facts. And since you keep insisting repetitively that I admit I was wrong when I never accused you of being wrong, it seems as though you are doing your level best to provide ample evidence that my opinion is, in fact, correct. :)

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]