ChrisWeigant.com

From The Archives -- Our 51st "Estado"

[ Posted Thursday, March 28th, 2019 – 17:19 UTC ]

[Program Note: Still too far under the weather to write today, sorry. But I did see that Democrats have now introduced a bill in Congress which would make Puerto Rico our 51st state, so I thought it was time to dust off the following column, written over 10 years ago. Obviously, the issues being fought over have changed slightly (hurricane recovery rather than the English language), but it still makes some interesting points. Oh, and one final technical note: I can't promise all these old links still work, sorry.]

 

Originally published June 27, 2007

In the midst of the immigration debate raging in both houses of Congress, an old chestnut has been revived by Republicans: declaring English the national language. The issue polls extremely high with the general public, and Republicans even passed an amendment in the Senate earlier this month by a vote of 64-33, which means a bunch of Democrats (17 of them) voted for it as well. A similar amendment is part of the debate in the House. My question to these lingual purists is: what happens if Puerto Rico becomes the 51st state of the Union?

This is one of those back-burner issues that comes up for a vote now and again (in Puerto Rico), but then "never actually happens" -- so Americans feel free to ignore it as a whole. Or, I should say, "Americans outside of Puerto Rico," since all Puerto Ricans are already American citizens. But every referendum that happens, the percentage voting for statehood gets larger and larger. While it shouldn't be seen as an inevitability, it should indeed be seen as a strong possibility. Say, within the next ten years or so.

So what are we going to do if an American state speaks Spanish as their primary language? It's a question worth thinking about ahead of time.

There's a joke I heard while I was living in Europe, which goes like this:

Q: What do you call a person who speaks three languages?

A: "Trilingual."

Q: What do you call a person who speaks two languages?

A: "Bilingual."

Q: What do you call a person who speaks one language?

A: "An American."

This is obviously due to people from countries (who don't speak English) getting very tired of American tourists who seem to think that: "a-NY-bo-DY... who... speaks... ENG-lish... SLOW-ly... E-nough... and... who... e-NUN-ci-ATES... their... WORDS... well... E-nough..." can be understood by anyone on the planet, no matter what language they speak. You can understand their frustration, if you've ever seen an ignorant American tourist perform this embarrassing pantomime in another country.

But back to the home front. The first question raised is: "How the heck does a territory become a state, anyway?" This is the primary question asked by most Americans, which is due to the fact that we are now in the longest period in American history without admitting a new state. The last states who joined the Union were, of course, Hawaii and Alaska, both in 1959. This happened almost 47 years after the 48th state (Arizona) was admitted in 1912 -- but we have now gone almost 48 years without admitting a new state, breaking the previous record.

The answer is a little vague. Here is the relevant text from the Constitution:

Article IV, Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

In practical terms, this has usually meant that (1) the territory in question has to have a certain minimum number of people living in it, (2) they have to vote on it and have the majority favor statehood, and (3) they have to have a state constitutional convention, to enact a state constitution. And then, of course, Congress gets to vote whether to admit them or not.

Now, there really is only one candidate for becoming the 51st state: Puerto Rico. Ignoring deluded fantasies of splitting either California or Texas into multiple new states, and also ignoring the perennial push to declare the District of Columbia a state; Puerto Rico is really the only viable candidate. All the other U.S. territories (mostly islands in the Pacific) simply don't have enough people living in them.

Well, OK, I can't just ignore Washington, D.C. -- simply because they've got one heck of an amusing way of showing how annoyed they are that they have no (voting) representatives in Congress: their vehicle license plates. Since 2001, their license plates have provocatively displayed the following slogan: "Taxation Without Representation."

What a hoot! Using a Revolutionary War slogan on their official license plates to let all the congressional legislators (who see these plates on a daily basis, it should be noted) know how annoyed they are that they have no congressional representation who can cast a vote.

But I digress.

Puerto Rico has been actively considering statehood for some time now. They have held three referenda on the issue in the last few decades. The numbers and the trends they show are interesting, but not conclusive. The first of these three votes took place in 1967. 60.4% voted for continued "commonwealth" status, and 39.0% voted for statehood. The next took place in 1993. This time the vote was much closer, with 48.6% choosing the status quo of being a commonwealth, but 46.3% chose statehood (the numbers don't add up to 100% because other options, such as becoming an independent country, were also on the ballot). That's a spread of only 2.3% -- a pretty small margin. The most recent of these votes took place in 1998. The vote was a little skewed because the "commonwealth" faction overreached and used vague and unpopular language, so the "status quo" vote went to the newly-added "none of the above" option on the ballot. The outcome was 50.3% for "none of the above" and 46.5% for statehood. While the total percentage for statehood was higher than in 1993 by 0.2%, the "spread" was also higher, at 3.8%. So, statistically speaking, it's not clear what would happen if another vote were held today -- the trend could go either way, in other words.

But you've got to admit, it's still a pretty small margin. Which means that at some time during the next 10 years, another referendum could happen on the island, and if they reach a majority, then they will begin working on ratifying a state constitution and applying to Congress for statehood.

And it's an absolute certainty that their state constitution will not be "English-only" or proclaim English as the state language. Quite the opposite: they may set into their state constitution that the state government will conduct its affairs in two languages: Spanish and English. Or they may even (gasp!) declare Spanish their official state language.

So what is Congress going to do when faced with such a dilemma? What will the president (whomever it happens to be) say about the issue? Republican presidential candidates are already on record, with the exception of John McCain, of supporting English as a national language (it plays to their xenophobic base). But even John McCain, after denouncing such efforts, voted for that English-only amendment to the immigration bill (mentioned earlier). The Arizona Republic article skewers McCain thusly: "Anyone know the Spanish translation for flip-flop?"

What would we all do if a Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico became our 51st state (after we redesign the U.S. flag, that is)? Obviously, at this point, any "English is our national language" nonsense will have to be repealed.

Of course, it would all be a lot easier if Democrats wouldn't vote for such silliness in the first place, but that may be too much to ask during the horse-trading which is currently at the center of the immigration debate. The most intelligent commentary I've heard on the subject comes from a retired Air Force officer, in an op-ed to the tiny Central Shenandoah Valley News Leader. It's worth reading for the common sense he offers.

I say let's not be the butt of the rest of the world's jokes. Let's admit that America can still be America with two official languages. Let's welcome Puerto Rico (if and when it happens) as our 51st state -- with no linguistic jingoism. We will wind up as a stronger country for having done so.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

195 Comments on “From The Archives -- Our 51st "Estado"”

  1. [1] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I've got an idea that beats the hell out of that one. Why don't we give it back to whomever we stole it from? We'd be far ahead even if we had to pay them to take it!

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    We "stole" it from Spain, Stucki. Those guys whom you are positively adamant are "white man" because their skin is lighter than the Native Americans... that second voyage of Columbus we were talking about the other day.

    While Columbus never set foot in North America, he did land there and named it after John the Baptist... "San Juan Bautista."

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    TRUMP UNLEASHED

    'The hoax is finally dead! The collusion delusion is over!' Trump blasts the Mueller probe 'fraud,' claims the inquest was 'ridiculous bullshit,' declares he has been 'totally exonerated' and demands 'accountability' from Democrats and the media

    Donald Trump is declaring his victory after his name was cleared by the Mueller investigation in his first campaign rally since the report's release last week

    He spoke before a crowd of more than 11,000 at the Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, Michigan on Thursday

    He boasted its been an 'incredible couple of weeks for America' and said that 'the Russia hoax is finally dead'

    He demanded 'accountability' from Department of Justice, FBI officials, and media outlets who perpetuated the Russian collusion theories

    Trump also launched a blistering attack against House
    Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, who still insists there's evidence of collusion with the Kremlin

    'Little pencil-neck Adam Schiff! Got the smallest, thinnest neck I've ever seen,' Trump said
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6862783/Trump-declares-victory-Mueller-rally-end-Russia-probe.html

    Heh

    Democrats must feel lower than whale shit at the moment..

    It's a joyous thing to behold because it's so...sooooo.. well-deserved..

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the Dumbocrat response???

    "Republicans are scaredy-cats"

    BBWBWBBWBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Give it to 'em good, Carrie Give it to 'em good!
    -CAROUSEL

    :D

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Two Americas Have Grown Much Fiercer
    The U.S. was divided 46 years ago. But no one saw it as a fight to the death.

    Sometimes you write about the most obvious thing in the world because it is the most important thing. Reaction to the outcome of Robert Mueller’s investigation shows Americans again how divided we are. If you are more or less of the left, you experienced the probe as a search for truth that would restore the previous world of politics. Instead the traitor got away with it and you feel destabilized, deflated. If you are of the Trumpian right, it was from the beginning an attempted coup, the establishment using everything it had to remove a force it could not defeat at the polls. You are energized, elated.

    Now both sides will settle down, with the left as forthcoming in its defeat as the right is forbearing in its victory. I just wanted to show you my fantasy life. The Trump forces will strike with a great pent-up anger, and the left will never let go.

    Both sides will be intensely human. And inhuman. Because the past few years the character of our political divisions has changed, and this must be noted again. People are proud of their bitterness now. Old America used to accept our splits as part of the price of being us—numerous, varied, ornery. Current America, with its moderating institutions (churches) going down and its dividing institutions (the internet) rising, sees our polarization not as something to be healed but a reason for being, something to get up for. There’s a finality to it, a war-to-the-death quality.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-two-americas-have-grown-much-fiercer-11553816463

    Noonan has always been a Trump hater so much of what she says about President Trump and his supporters should be taken with a huge grain of salt..

    But when she describes the divide between Left and Right, she is dead on ballz accurate..

    And what is so sadly head-shaking funny is that it's the Left who is to blame...

    Obama and Obama Democrats is what gave us President Trump.. One would think such a radical Right Turn would cause the Left to stop and consider WHY President Trump came to be..

    But the Left did NOT stop and contemplate.. The Left doubled down on mean and intolerance and hate...

    And here are... In Noonan's Two Americas

    At this rate, we'll be in Kurt Schlichter's PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC by 2030...

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in other non-Mueller/Trump related news.. (Yes, there is some, if you can believe it... :D

    The 3 Democrats Who Voted Against the Green New Deal

    They contributed to its decisive defeat in the Senate on Tuesday, 57–0..

    The Senate rejected the Green New Deal on Tuesday, in a decisive 57–0 vote that Democrats decried as a political stunt meant to divide their caucus.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/climate-change-which-democrats-oppose-green-new-deal/585802/

    The awesome New Green Deal from Occasional Cortex..

    And not a SINGLE DEMOCRAT voted for it!!!

    It's nice to get them on record as not supporting such an impossible bullshit waste of time and photons..

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/mm/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimedotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2019%2F03%2Ftim190408v1_trump.rain_.cover_.jpg&w=800&c=sc&poi=face&q=85

    Oh what a beautiful morning...
    Oh what a beautiful day...
    I have a beautiful feeling...
    Everything's going my way....

    "It's a great day to be an American, isn't it!?"
    -Agent J, MEN IN BLACK III

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in still other news..

    Justice yields at intersection in Jussie Smollett case

    How do you lie to the police, smear an entire city, exploit decades of racial violence suffered by black Americans … and get away with it?

    ADVERTISING

    inRead invented by Teads
    How do you commit a DUI in Suffolk County, but only get charged with speeding — or not charged at all? Or beat someone’s head in at a bar but walk away with a disorderly conduct slap on the wrist?

    Like they say in real estate: Location, location, location. You just have to be at the intersection of “PC Politics” Boulevard and “Social Justice” Lane.

    Most Americans gasped aloud when they heard that Fox TV star Jussie Smollett was getting a pass after allegedly faking a #MAGA-hat hate crime, noose and all. After the Cook County DA let him walk, Smollett took the story from despicable to disgusting by declaring himself the victim.

    Then there’s the entire premise of the progressive left, namely that there should be different rules for different people. Only, it’s not about “wealth and celebrity.” It’s “race and sexuality.”

    What — you think the charges were dropped because Jussie’s a rich and famous Fox TV star? OK, what would have happened if the hoax had been perpetrated by Sean Hannity? He’s all those things, too.

    But if Hannity got caught falsely claiming two black guys attacked him while shouting “This is Obama Country!,” you think Cook County would be dropping the charges? No, he’d be sitting in a cell right now.

    Like I said: “Location.” Smollett, as an openly gay African-American man, has “intersectionality.” It means that, In the world of liberal politics, he’s part of a special victim class that, as Orwell said in “Animal Farm,” is “more equal than others.”

    If you need proof, just read the “Rollins memo” in Suffolk County. District Attorney Rachael Rollins literally declares that intersectional criminals — illegal immigrants of color caught breaking the law — will receive special treatment that will be denied to American citizens. A DUI charge for a working-class white guy will be reduced to some lesser misdemeanor for an illegal immigrant, all in the name of social justice.
    https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/03/28/justice-yields-at-intersection-in-smollett-case/

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Trooper Brooke Jones-Story
    Illinois State Police, Illinois
    End of Watch: Thursday, March 28, 2019

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  10. [10] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    I've never been to Spain, but I know that Spaniards, along with all of the original Europeans, are definitly considered "palefaces" by the native Americans (most people just say "white"), but you seem to be hung of on that designation.

    Would you prefer a different adjective for the first Europeans to arrive on the western hemisphere and bring the horses which later became such an important part of the native culture?

  11. [11] 
    John M wrote:

    "Now, there really is only one candidate for becoming the 51st state: Puerto Rico. Ignoring deluded fantasies of splitting either California or Texas into multiple new states, and also ignoring the perennial push to declare the District of Columbia a state; Puerto Rico is really the only viable candidate. All the other U.S. territories (mostly islands in the Pacific) simply don't have enough people living in them."

    Actually this is not quite true.

    The Northwest Ordinance stipulated the creation of at least three but not more than five states out of the Northwest Territory. Once sixty thousand people resided in a territory, they could apply for statehood. Like when Michigan became a state in the 1830's from that territory.

    Currently therefore, both Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands would also both qualify for statehood based on population alone, as set forth by Congress. Guam currently has about 165,000 and the U.S. Virgin Island approx. 105,000

  12. [12] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M

    How about Russia? I haven't Googled it, but I'm betting they have pleanty of people to meet the population criterion.

  13. [13] 
    John M wrote:

    There have since been TWO more referendums since the one C.W. mentioned in 1998.

    In the 2012 status referendum, voters were asked two questions: (1) whether they agreed to continue with Puerto Rico's territorial status, and (2) to indicate the political status they preferred from three possibilities: statehood, independence, or a sovereign nation in free association with the United States. 53.97% voted "No" on the first question, expressing themselves against maintaining the current political status, and 46.03% voted "Yes", to maintain the current political status. Of those who answered on the second question 61.16% chose statehood, 33.34% chose free association, and 5.49% chose independence.

    Because there were almost 500,000 blank ballots in the 2012 referendum, creating confusion as to the voters' true desire, Congress decided to ignore the vote.

    The 2017 referendum offered three options: Statehood, Independence/Free Association, and "Current Territorial Status". If the majority of the people voted for the Independence/Free Association, a second vote would have been held to determine the preference: full independence as a nation or associated free state status with independence but with a "free and voluntary political association" between Puerto Rico and the United States.

    The referendum was boycotted by all the major parties against statehood for several reasons. Those who did vote however overwhelmingly chose statehood by 97%; turnout, however, was only 23%, a historically low figure. Independence received only 1.5 % of the vote, and continued Commonwealth status only 1.3 %. But because turnout was so low, and the vote was boycotted by the opposition, it was not seen as really legitimate. Therefore, no definitive action on the results has yet been taken.

    A Compact of Free Association would cover topics such as the role of the U.S. military in Puerto Rico, the use of the U.S. currency, free trade between the two entities, and whether Puerto Ricans would be U.S. citizens. Such a Compact cannot be unilaterally terminated by either party.

    Statehood would include an additional $10 billion per year in federal funds, the right to vote in presidential
    elections, voting representation in Congress (both the U.S. House and Senate) higher Social Security and Medicare benefits, and a right for its government agencies and municipalities to file for bankruptcy. The latter is currently prohibited.

  14. [14] 
    John M wrote:

    [12] C. R. Stucki

    "How about Russia? I haven't Googled it, but I'm betting they have pleanty of people to meet the population criterion."

    As I am sure you know, Russians are NOT American citizens and would therefore not qualify under ANY circumstances. Therefore yours is simply a stupid throw away comment that doesn't add anything to the discussion of the topic at hand.

    While, on the other hand, the people of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (Washington D.C. or as they would like to be called, the state of New Columbia) are ALL American citizens and therefore could technically apply for statehood if they met the other criteria.

  15. [15] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M

    Yeah, you're right about the Russians being non-citizens, but how about if they applied for naturalization?

    Anyway, citizenship isn't really the criterion you care about, right?

    I'm betting that would be much more likely party affiliation, agreed?

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyway, citizenship isn't really the criterion you care about, right?

    I'm betting that would be much more likely party affiliation, agreed?

    Heh....

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow...

    I guess all the fights gone out of ya'all....

    Understandable...

    Last man standing...

  18. [18] 
    Paula wrote:

    The cover-up by the traitor-in-chief and his minions continues.

    Blotus has his klan rally last night then scurries to his golf course to have more secret visits to take bribes while Javanka pass (sell) classified info to the Saudis, Chinese and Putin.

    McConnell says he's doing nuthin' re: ACA - he'll wait for DJT's "plan". I'll give ol' Mitch credit for cynical intelligence on that one - he knows the stupid ACA full repeal is a massive loser. (Not that he cares about people - just his and the GOP's collective traitorous hides.)

    80+ % of the public believes Blotus is NOT exonerated by the report and want to see it.

    Adam Schiff is a hero and 9 scumbag repubs on the Intelligence Committee are - rightly - savaged for their whiney-ass letter yesterday.

  19. [19] 
    John M wrote:

    [15] C. R. Stucki

    "Yeah, you're right about the Russians being non-citizens, but how about if they applied for naturalization?"

    You REALLY think making an entire hostile country of communists and socialists of 145 million people American citizens is something remotely realistic that the American people would support?

    "Anyway, citizenship isn't really the criterion you care about, right?"

    WRONG

    "I'm betting that would be much more likely party affiliation, agreed?"

    No, not agreed. 1) Please don't assign to me motives that you know absolutely nothing about. 2) Please don't assume that Puerto Ricans or anyone else would automatically vote overwhelmingly as Democrats. The current non-voting representative of Puerto Rico in the U.S. House, for example, currently caucuses with the Republicans and not with the Democrats.

    To do both 1) and 2), assign and assume without firsthand knowledge on your part, is to only show your own stupidity.

  20. [20] 
    John M wrote:

    [16] Michale

    "Anyway, citizenship isn't really the criterion you care about, right?

    I'm betting that would be much more likely party affiliation, agreed?

    Heh...."

    For you to agree with Stucki also only shows your own stupidity as well.

  21. [21] 
    John M wrote:

    [15] C. R. Stucki

    "I'm betting that would be much more likely party affiliation, agreed?"

    Also, please point out to me where in here where I have ever stated my own personal preference for or against Puerto Rican statehood so that you might be able to even remotely draw some sort of conclusion about how I reagrd the applicants party affiliation?

  22. [22] 
    John M wrote:

    And the merits therefore of their statehood based on those concerns?

  23. [23] 
    John M wrote:

    The two major political parties on Puerto Rico are: The Popular Democratic Party, and the New Progressive Party, neither of which has an exact counterpart on the American mainland.

    The Popular Democratic Party, has historically been opposed to statehood, for example. While the New Progressive Party, which despite its name, is actually the successor to the Puerto Rican Republican Party, favors statehood.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    The cover-up by the traitor-in-chief and his minions continues.

    Blotus has his klan rally last night then scurries to his golf course to have more secret visits to take bribes while Javanka pass (sell) classified info to the Saudis, Chinese and Putin.

    McConnell says he's doing nuthin' re: ACA - he'll wait for DJT's "plan". I'll give ol' Mitch credit for cynical intelligence on that one - he knows the stupid ACA full repeal is a massive loser. (Not that he cares about people - just his and the GOP's collective traitorous hides.)

    80+ % of the public believes Blotus is NOT exonerated by the report and want to see it.

    Adam Schiff is a hero and 9 scumbag repubs on the Intelligence Committee are - rightly - savaged for their whiney-ass letter yesterday.

    "Amazing. Everything you said is exactly wrong.."
    -Luke Skywalker

    I won't bother asking you for FACTS to support your claims because we both know you don't have any...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    For you to agree with Stucki also only shows your own stupidity as well.

    That's funny..

    Because it was YOU who was agreeing with Stucki yesterday.... :D

    Further.....

    "'Further-the-less' is NOT a word.. STOP using it!!!"
    -Charlie Sheen, SPIN CITY

    Stucki and I were dead on ballz accurate regarding Russia collusion and ALL of ya'all were wrong...

    So, if there is ANYONE who is showing stoopidity, it's ya'all... :D

    ON another note... Do you watch GOT???

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    10

    I've never been to Spain, but I know that Spaniards, along with all of the original Europeans, are definitly considered "palefaces" by the native Americans (most people just say "white"), but you seem to be hung of on that designation.

    I'm beginning to believe you just enjoy being wrong because you're incorrect again, Stucki! All of the original Europeans weren't "white" or your other term "white man." I cannot fathom how in the world anyone would make the claim that "original Europeans, are definitly considered 'palefaces' by the native Americans" when there were approximately 560+ different tribes of Native Americans who some didn't even know the others existed.

    The term "white man" is nothing more than a social construct that didn't exist until several centuries after Cristoforo Colombo "discovered America" (actually, he didn't and never set foot in North America) and proved the world wasn't flat (actually, he didn't do that either) and the Spanish brought horses back from whence they originally originated without any help whatsoever from "white man."

    You should allow yourself to learn something through the posts of TS. The man knows what he's talking about; you, however... not so much. :)

  27. [27] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M [23]

    PR is a welfare bottomless pit, agreed? I don't profess to know the ins and outs of PR political ideology, but when the natives can't keep people employed, fed, housed and electrified, and they are going to be looking for subsidies, there can be no doubt as to whether they would send Ds or Rs to dongress, right?

    But go ahead and tell me you never thought of that.

  28. [28] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [26]

    Oh yeah, now that you mention it, I remember old Christoforo C. He played the lead on some old TV detective series back in the 70's or maybe the 80's, didn't he?

    Sometime (not urgent) remind me which of the native Europeans were not at least light skinned, if not "white".

    And if the term "white man" used to describe the Europeans who brought horses to the western hemisphere bothers you , give me your favorite adjective/term/ whatever and I'll substi - Oh what the hell, forget about it, I enjoy bothering you.

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Me too, Stucki.

    You are kind of an awesome person in your own way. Of course, most of us are. :)

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    Sounds like the IC and multiple lawmakers have contacted Barr and taken issue with his initial correspondence (can you say "obstruction") regarding the "Mueller report" since Barr's latest correspondence contains more than just a little backtracking language. In the letter, Barr also boxes Trump in regarding executive privilege and Trump's statement that he would leave it up to Barr and that he wouldn't mind the report being released to the public. Barr is not sending the report to the White House for review. This is the part where Trump's lawyers backtrack and say "he didn't mean it," likely privately.

    https://tinyurl.com/yyx8y5v3

    Barr says he will release the report in mid April after redaction of:

    (1) material subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) that by law cannot be made public; (2) material the intelligence community identifies as potentially compromising sensitive sources and methods; (3) material that could affect other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other Department offices; and (4) information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties."

    Take note of "(3) material that could affect other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other Department offices." The Special Counsel had a narrow definition of his mandate, and we still don't know how that was defined by Rosenstein and the various assorted AG's.

    What we absolutely know from history is that Mueller doled out cases ad nauseam and used "speaking indictments," some with heavy redactions in order to protect other cases. The "speaking indictments" and "spin-off" cases are just as alive and well as they ever were. :)

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's interesting to note that Mueller and his team are working with Barr and HIS team to redact and sanitize the Mueller report.

    SO...

    If Mueller is the hero and the man of integrity that the Left has incessantly claimed he is..

    The Left has NOTHING to worry about...

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    28

    Sometime (not urgent) remind me which of the native Europeans were not at least light skinned, if not "white".

    First things first, Stucki, the period goes on the inside of a quote at the end of a sentence, exempli gratia: "white."

    "Not urgent?" What do you mean "not urgent"? I should think a person would want to clear up their confusion as soon as humanly possible. ;)

    As I said before, the term "white man" is a social construct. It's generally simply a construct of colonialists or Americans and others who like to box people in with a label of either "black," "brown," or "white," since history goes back only a few hundred years in America. However, European history goes back for thousands of years where there is no such recorded history of origins.

    "Europeans" generally do not consider themselves as either "black" or "white" like the keys of a piano. They generally identify themselves as Norwegian, Turkish, Baltic, Latin, Greek, Spanish, Iberian, Bosnian, Serbian, Slavic, Finnish, Italian, Georgian, Greek, Hungarian, Portuguese, Catalan, Polish, Spanish, Macedonian, French, Austrian, English, Swiss, Danish, Welsh, Corsican, Irish, Scottish, Swedish, Campanian, Estonian, Latvian, German, Russian, etc.

    So keeping all of the above in mind, in answer to your question, the Spanish who brought the horses back to North America wouldn't exactly be considered "white man" using the social construct that didn't exist until several centuries later after they arrived and didn't exactly discover North America since somebody else had already done that. Other Europeans like Romani, Moors, and many others didn't exactly fit the "white man" social construct either.

    Class dismissed. :)

  33. [33] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Subject-verb agreement. "A person" is singular , so "would want to clear up HIS/HER (sorry, don't know how to do italics, and don't want to learn) confusion . .', right?

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS

    Aw, shucks, Stucki, I thought we were already well past the fact that I believe you have multiple personalities. I certainly would not want to upset one of them by excluding them from our conversations. :)

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Europeans" generally do not consider themselves as either "black" or "white" like the keys of a piano. They generally identify themselves as Norwegian, Turkish, Baltic, Latin, Greek, ...

    I'm from Scotland and we consider ourselves "peely wally"

    https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/word-of-the-day-peely-wally-1-2563515

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    35

    Used in a sentence: "I would wager CW looks affy peely-wally lately." ;)

  37. [37] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [8]

    RE: Jussie Smollett’s case

    It isn’t that shocking that they decided not to prosecute him, the man paid people to injure him out of a need for attention — do you think they could find a jury that at least one person would not take pity on someone like that?

    It’s a shame that he won’t be punished more by our justice system, but trust me when I say that the larger gay community isn’t rushing to offer him support. He’s hurt actual victims of homophobic attacks far worse than he realizes, and we don’t forgive those that do not deserve our forgiveness. He’s got a long road ahead of him with very little support behind him — sadly, the most likely outcome is that he’ll take his own life within a year.

  38. [38] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale[8]

    Dang it, I hit the submit button before I pasted this back in:

    How do you lie to the police, smear an entire city, exploit decades of racial violence suffered by black Americans … and get away with it?

    ADVERTISING

    inRead invented by Teads

    So you are saying that advertising is the reason Smollett got off? Branding is king in the Trump era, obviously!

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    It isn’t that shocking that they decided not to prosecute him, the man paid people to injure him out of a need for attention — do you think they could find a jury that at least one person would not take pity on someone like that?

    Amongst racist Left Wingers??

    Probably not..

    It’s a shame that he won’t be punished more by our justice system, but trust me when I say that the larger gay community isn’t rushing to offer him support.

    Present company excepted, of course.. :D

    He’s hurt actual victims of homophobic attacks far worse than he realizes, and we don’t forgive those that do not deserve our forgiveness. He’s got a long road ahead of him with very little support behind him — sadly, the most likely outcome is that he’ll take his own life within a year.

    Yea, probably not..

    He lost this one gig (EMPIRE) because it's with the FOX network..

    Left Wingers fall all over themselves to worship people who do what Smollets did.. Just look at Christine Ford...

    He's going to have a book deal and acting/commentary offers up the ying-yang...

    So you are saying that advertising is the reason Smollett got off? Branding is king in the Trump era, obviously!

    *I* am not saying anything in that article...

    Smollets got off because he checks all the Left Wing boxes.. Had Smollets been a white straight guy who tried to indict the entire gay black community, he would have been executed...

    Hopefully the Feds will prosecute Smollets' crime as a hate crime. Because that is exactly what it is..

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm from Scotland and we consider ourselves "peely wally"

    https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/word-of-the-day-peely-wally-1-2563515

    Which means you agree with CRS that Europeans don't consider themselves white or black...

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    An Awkward Kiss Changed How I Saw Joe Biden
    https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/an-awkward-kiss-changed-how-i-saw-joe-biden.html

    I think Joe Biden will NOT enter the Presidential race...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Famous civil rights group suffers from 'systemic culture of racism and sexism,' staffers say
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/splc-leadership-crisis/index.html

    And, for the Democrat Party, the hits just keep on coming!!

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Biden just got Kavanaugh'ed...

  44. [44] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [8]

    Hey bright guy, you copied an ad that was in the article!

    Why would you repost the article if it made no sense? The author wasn’t suggesting that “advertising” was how Smollett was able to get off.

    What did you think the author was saying if you did not realize that?

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hey bright guy,

    "Jafar, you're too kind! I blushing..."
    -Iago, ALADDIN

    :D

    Why would you repost the article if it made no sense? The author wasn’t suggesting that “advertising” was how Smollett was able to get off.

    I never said the article didn't make sense.. I simply pointed out the information.. Doesn't mean I agree with every point..

    Unlike others, I don't suffer from HHPTDS... Not everything that happens is because of Trump..

    Smollets is a lying racist scumbag...

    You seem to have a problem when it's a guy who is a Republican and is a "lying racist scumbag" (according to ya'all)...

    But not with a guy with a -D after his name... :D

  46. [46] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    So let me get this straight....

    when you post things under your name, we should NOT assume that you actually believe, agree with, or support the subject matter of or the actual statements made in said posts?

    YET you constantly accuse us of believing and supporting statements that we have never posted!?!

    I would say that I’ve missed this aspect of your postings on here, but then I’d be lying, too.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    when you post things under your name, we should NOT assume that you actually believe, agree with, or support the subject matter of or the actual statements made in said posts?

    When I post news articles and commentary, you can be assured that I do support the salient points..

    But, since I am a thinking person, you can also be assured it's likely I don't agree with every single point, lock step with the author..

    What ya think I am?? A Democrat!!?? :D

    YET you constantly accuse us of believing and supporting statements that we have never posted!?!

    Often, but not always, because of the SILENCE GIVES ASSENT rule that ya'all established during the Charlottesville incident...

    If there is ever a time where I have stated that you believe, either by commission or omission something you don't believe, please.. Feel free to point it out and we can discuss the topic and I can point out why yer wrong.. :D

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that was pretty funny.

    michale, i enjoy your posts and found this place significantly less entertaining without them. i even missed the seventeen-post binge-rants. however, there are a few areas where your willful ignorance of key facts really is cringe-worthy. racism is one of these areas.

    JL

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    michale, i enjoy your posts and found this place significantly less entertaining without them. i even missed the seventeen-post binge-rants.

    Danke.. :D

    however, there are a few areas where your willful ignorance of key facts really is cringe-worthy. racism is one of these areas

    Not at all.. I simply define racism as Dr Martin Luther King defined racism..

    Your definition is more... ahem.. "nuanced" that allows you to believe black is white and white is black...

    I don't begrudge you your definition. It obviously works for you, so who am I to judge... :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your definition is more... ahem.. "nuanced" that allows you to believe black is white and white is black...

    That came out wrong..

    If I recall correctly, you believe that racism is a function of power..

    And therefore a black person could never be racist because a black person doesn't have any power...

    Am I recalling that correctly???

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:
  52. [52] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I see where Rachel Maddow is somewhere between nervous breakdown and wrist-slashing over the Mueller report, after banking heavily on it for 2 1/2 yrs to produce Trump downfall.

    Will any rational person miss her?

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Will any rational person miss her?

    OH!!! OH!!!! I KNOW!! I KNOW!!! PICK ME!!! PICK ME!!!! I KNOW!!!

    It's funny.. She's got that DEER-IN-HEADLIGHTS look...

    Like "HOLY FRAK!!! WHAT DO I DO NOW!!!???"

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh... WOW...

    Hodoor.... Hodoor.... Hodoor....

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Trooper Gerald Ellis
    Illinois State Police, Illinois
    End of Watch: Saturday, March 30, 2019

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  56. [56] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If I recall correctly, you believe that racism is a function of power..

    that part you got right.

    And therefore a black person could never be racist because a black person doesn't have any power... Am I recalling that correctly???

    not exactly - if you ask most black people, by and large they'll tell you black people can be racist too. however, it's a social construct - there's no precise line between racist and not racist. sure there are some examples so obvious that they're agreed upon by a strong enough majority to say they're definitely racist. but in most cases it has to be a judgment made by an individual about an individual. that judgment can be made from side to side and from bottom to top, but not from top to bottom.

    it's kind-of like jews can make holocaust jokes, but germans probably shouldn't.

    JL

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    it's kind-of like jews can make holocaust jokes, but germans probably shouldn't.

    Or like black people use the word 'nigger', but white people probably shouldn't??

    It's that politically correct double standard that weakens your argument..

    Racism is racism, regardless of the color of the skin that wields it.

    Jussie Smollets is as much of a racist as Susan Smith...

    That's what Dr Martin Luther King would say...

    If I recall correctly, you believe that racism is a function of power..

    that part you got right.

    I got it "right" in the sense of that's what you believe..

    But it's not factually accurate...

    Racism is racism, whether it's wielded by the highest and the mightiest or the lowliest pheasant....

    Or any other lowly bird...

  58. [58] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale

    Smollets is a lying racist scumbag...

    You seem to have a problem when it's a guy who is a Republican and is a "lying racist scumbag" (according to ya'all)...

    But not with a guy with a -D after his name... :D

    1. Smollett’s does not have a -D after his name.

    2. You don’t seem to have a problem when it’s a guy who is a Republican and is a “lying racist scumbag”, thus your continued fawning over Trump.

    3. I made it very clear that I thought Smollett deserved to be punished for his crimes and the damage he has done to the gay community. You keep ignoring this fact. I can only assume it is done because you want one of your “you can’t be critical of Trump because you weren’t tough on some past historical figure for their crimes which may or may not have anything to do with what Trump is guilty of” moments and I messed it up.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Racism is racism, whether it's wielded by the highest and the mightiest or the lowliest pheasant....

    I mean, think about it..

    You get some white trash redneck hillbilly from Podunk, Kentucky who gets pulled over by a black Kentucky State Trooper...

    Does the white trash redneck have any real power???

    No.. All the power resides with the black Kentucky Trooper...

    You can't tell me he (or she) CAN'T be racist...

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. Smollett’s does not have a -D after his name.

    Oh puullleeeessee..

    You trying to tell me that Smollets is not a card carrying victim/member of the Democrat Party???

    If you believe that, I have some swampland down here in FL I wanna sell you...

    2. You don’t seem to have a problem when it’s a guy who is a Republican and is a “lying racist scumbag”, thus your continued fawning over Trump.

    You have yet to provide ANY facts that prove President Trump is a racist..

    Until you do, I'll "fawn".. To use your word, not mine..

    3. I made it very clear that I thought Smollett deserved to be punished for his crimes and the damage he has done to the gay community. You keep ignoring this fact.

    No, I didn't ignore that fact.. That's why I took it easy on you..

    You appear to agree that Smollets is a card carrying scumbag liar.. I applaud you for that..

    Smollets is a scumbag racist liar... You know that, I know that..

    Where we differ is you believe he SHOULDN'T be legally punished for his crimes...

    I believe he should..

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    The overall problem is that the Left has begun to use false accusations of racism and sexism and the like as a POLITICAL weapon..

    This is a two-fold problem..

    FALSE accusations of racism and sexism and other 'isms is worse and more cowardly than the actual 'isms themselves...

    And, it makes it harder for REAL charges of racism and sexism and other 'isms to stick...

    Once again, a perfect example of Left Winger zealots being their own worst enemies...

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    The overall problem is that the Left has begun to use false accusations of racism and sexism and the like as a POLITICAL weapon..

    We're also seeing that with the latest accusations against Biden..

    Where he is being Kavanaugh'ed...

  63. [63] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "It's that politically correct double standard that weakens your argument.."

    no, it's the difference between physical reality and social constructs, physical science and social science. you have one problem with racism and the converse problem with global warming. physical reality can be 100% factual, and is not subject to differing opinions. social constructs can reach a level of confidence or prediction, but are never quite 100% factual. you seem genuinely unable to tell the difference, and as a result you write very long posts that sound incredibly ignorant on both topics.

  64. [64] 
    John M wrote:

    [25] Michale

    "For you to agree with Stucki also only shows your own stupidity as well.

    That's funny..

    Because it was YOU who was agreeing with Stucki yesterday.... :D"

    You know very well that was based on CONTEXT. Just because you say something brilliant doesn't mean you can't say something totally idiotic next.

  65. [65] 
    John M wrote:

    [27] C. R. Stucki

    "PR is a welfare bottomless pit, agreed?"

    You mean like other, already existing American states like Mississippi or Kentucky, right??? Both of which send heavily Republican delegations to Congress I do believe.

  66. [66] 
    John M wrote:

    [50] Michale

    "If I recall correctly, you believe that racism is a function of power..

    And therefore a black person could never be racist because a black person doesn't have any power...

    Am I recalling that correctly???"

    The concept as explained by the African-American lead character from the 2014 movie “Dear White People” is:

    “Black people can’t be racist. Prejudiced, yes, but not racist. Racism describes a system of disadvantage based on race. Black people can’t be racists since we don’t stand to benefit from such a system.”

    This argument’s main point is that minorities can’t be racist because they have no power to act on such antagonism.

    Hope that was helpful to your understanding. :-)

    Class dismissed!

  67. [67] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @john,

    that is one existing definition of racism, but it's not dominant over other definitions. the trouble with the competing definitions is that race is a construct with no basis in hard science. humans made it up as an excuse for enslaving people with a range of ethnic ancestries.

    JL

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    this is a pretty good essay on the topic, by michelle gao, a current student at harvard:

    https://www.thecrimson.com/column/between-the-lines/article/2018/8/10/gao-who-can-be-racist/

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    While I'm certain you don't need me to tell you this, you're exactly right about high-profile criminals. Almost without exception, they're treated more favorably for all kinds of reasons, not the least of all being, among many others, that prosecutors generally do not like to lose a case while the whole world (or a very large chunk of it) is watching.

    I don't care what "color" a criminal is (or lack thereof). I don't care what their religious preference is (or lack thereof) or their political preference (or lack thereof) or gender or whatever. If somebody is a criminal as defined by United States statutes at the time they committed the crime, they deserve prosecution under the law for their offenses.

    However, reality being what it is means that high-profile cases like Jussie Smollet and Donald Trump and "insert well-known person's name here" are going to always enjoy the luxury of prosecutors showing them leeway in charging them with criminal offenses where the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt"... a near impossible bar to clear with a grand jury or a sitting jury when it's a famous person... because regardless who they are, people near unanimously share a trait wherein they simply do not or cannot believe that their "icon" is actually a "con," because that reflects on their own judgment, and there is absolutely nothing that a human can do to change the fact that they're human. :)

  70. [70] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [69]

    Re: "As defined by U.S. statutes . . "

    The problem there is, somebody has to interpret the statutes. For instance, you define information (in the form of political "dirt") as being "a thing of value", on a par with $, because anything that gets you elected over your opponent, seems, (not altogether unreasonably) definitely kinda valuable.

    Unfortunately, you and your fellow lefties are the only ones who feel thusly. The people who count (prosecutors, judges and the like, plus people inordinately endowed with common sense (such as I, of course), disagree.

  71. [71] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    anyhow, puerto rico really should be a state.

  72. [72] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i think i was saying this a few days ago, "why the mueller summary is a big win for america"

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/andrew-sullivan-mueller-summary-is-a-big-win-for-america.html

  73. [73] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Where we differ is you believe he SHOULDN'T be legally punished for his crimes...

    I believe he should..

    If I believe that he SHOULDN’T be legally punished for his crimes, then why did I say:

    “It’s a shame that he won’t be punished more by our justice system...”?

    I think you are simply seeing what you WANT to see so you can make your sweeping generalizations about everyone else here. Sorry to spoil your fun!

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    70

    The problem there is, somebody has to interpret the statutes. For instance, you define information (in the form of political "dirt") as being "a thing of value", on a par with $, because anything that gets you elected over your opponent, seems, (not altogether unreasonably) definitely kinda valuable.

    I've got bad news for you, Stucki. It isn't me who defines "information" as being a "thing of value." It's the courts and millions of other people who buy books, newspapers, magazines, internet access, etc. Have you never bought a book that contained information? Are you really this ignorant about the value of information?

    Unfortunately, you and your fellow lefties are the only ones who feel thusly.

    Setting aside the fact that everyone who isn't a fan of Donald Trump isn't a leftie, you should divest yourself of the ridiculous and asinine brain fart of an idea that Republicans don't pay for information or "dirt." The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website funded by a major Republican donor, first hired the research firm Fusion GPS in 2015 that produced what colloquially became known as the "Steele dossier." The information/dirt they were paying for wasn't limited to Donald Trump, rather they purchased information/dirt regarding a shitload of other candidates. The Washington Free Beacon has admitted to being the original purchaser of the "dirt" on the multiple GOP candidates, and I'd be happy to supply a link to that but for the fact that this information is contained on a website that isn't free, where people are required to pay for the information they provide.

    The people who count (prosecutors, judges and the like, plus people inordinately endowed with common sense (such as I, of course), disagree.

    It isn't even up for debate that information is a thing of value. It's called "intel" by the IC, and I can assure that it costs money, but that's another story (several actually). It's generally called "research" by "prosecutors, judges, and the like," and they'd actually be the first ones in line to explain how information isn't free since they charge access to the information they produce.

    https://www.pacer.gov/psc/hfaq.html

    Please proceed to go right on insisting ad nauseam that "information" or "dirt" (your term) isn't a thing of value... then you'll have no need whatsoever to wonder why it is that most everybody here believes you're slow-witted and detached. :)

  75. [75] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [69]

    While I agree with your comments, I wasn’t making my assessment of why they dropped the charges based on his being famous or wealthy. While I agree with you on the difficulty some DA’s might face in getting a conviction against a famous defendant, I am not sure Smollett has achieved that level of stardom where there would be much difficulty in finding a jury that doesn’t know who he is.

    No, the reason I think the prosecution chose not to go after him being is because he is the only one who was physically injured by his actions AND self-harming for attention is a pretty clear indicator that he suffers from some psychological issues. His defense team would make him out to be a sick man in need of our help and compassion — and they are right. He does deserve to be punished for his dishonesty, but unlike the mother who claimed her children were kidnapped by black men to cover up her crimes of murdering her own children, Smollett was not covering up a crime. He paid guys to beat him up....to hurt him. Had he been trying to coverup a crime against any other person with his false report, they would not have let him off!

    The police nor the hospital truly bought his story (He showed up at the hospital with the noose still around his neck...why would he run for blocks with that still around his neck?). The press, however, ran with it like a kid with a new toy!

    His were not the actions of a criminal mastermind — they were a cry for help from a sick individual. Any mediocre defense attorney would be able to get at least one juror to vote to acquit.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know very well that was based on CONTEXT. Just because you say something brilliant doesn't mean you can't say something totally idiotic next.

    Doesn't matter WHY you agreed with Stucki..

    You said agreeing with Stucki makes you stupid. You didn't allow for "context" or a reason when you made the claim..

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    no, it's the difference between physical reality and social constructs, physical science and social science. you have one problem with racism and the converse problem with global warming. physical reality can be 100% factual, and is not subject to differing opinions. social constructs can reach a level of confidence or prediction, but are never quite 100% factual. you seem genuinely unable to tell the difference, and as a result you write very long posts that sound incredibly ignorant on both topics.

    Because I deal in physical reality and leave the "social constructs" IE political correctness to ya'all.. :D

    In essence, you are completely agreeing with me because "social constructs" are formed by ya'all's ideology.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    and as a result you write very long posts that sound incredibly ignorant on both topics.

    They only SOUND incredibly ignorant because you are running them thru your "social construct" (IE your ideological) filter..

    In the "physical reality" (IE The REAL world) they are perfectly logical and rational..

    Ya'all are living in the Matrix of your ideology where the rules can be bent.. Black is white, up is down, right is left...

    I am living in the real world...

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    If I believe that he SHOULDN’T be legally punished for his crimes, then why did I say:

    Because you throw out a bone, knowing it's the politically correct thing to do.. :D

    Let's lay it out, then..

    Do you think that Smollets should be punished to the full extent of the law and receive the maximum jail time allowed under his crimes??

    Yes or No...

    In other words, do you agree with me on Smollets or not?

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    75

    While I agree with your comments, I wasn’t making my assessment of why they dropped the charges based on his being famous or wealthy.

    Yes, sir. I was simply adding my perspective onto yours. While he's certainly the only victim "physically" harmed, you already discussed the ways this type of crime affects people who are actual victims of crime as well as others. I also think you're dead on with your comments about the mental aspect that could be utilized by a halfway decent defense attorney, and I also don't think he's all too famous either... but when he falsely accused people and connected his ridiculous farce to the extremely high-profile person formally known as the President of the United States, he instantly became that "famous"... or "infamous," depending on one's perspective... and became infinitely newsworthy with a story splashed across the headlines of every news outlet and rag mag from sea to shining sea, multiple times a day, which I believe was the object of his pathetic exercise.

    So be careful what you wish for, and never... and I mean never... pay your accomplices via a banking instrument.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    They only SOUND incredibly ignorant because you are running them thru your "social construct" (IE your ideological) filter..

    In the "physical reality" (IE The REAL world) they are perfectly logical and rational..

    And, not only are my arguments logical and rational to those who live in the REAL world, IE physical reality....

    They are breathtakingly dead on ballz accurate to those whose "social construct" tells them that President Trump is the greatest president since Saint Ronald Reagan and global warming is the greatest con since the Trojan horse...

    I am REALLY beginning to warm to your theory, JL...

    You may have created a monster here.. :D heh

    Now, for the gods' sake!! Tell me how Stannis Baratheon was able to get his massive cavalry army north of The Wall....

    It's killing me not knowing!!!

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    Eastwatch-by-the-sea

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thanx..

    Yea, I thought it was something like that.. But was it mentioned??

    I mean, one moment Davos Seaworth has an epiphany and the next moment the cavalry rides in to save the day.. Literally..

    Did I miss anything in between that indicated this course of action??

    Thanx again..

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am REALLY beginning to warm to your theory, JL...

    I understand ya'all so much better now..

    When Trump was elected, how the very fabric of ya'all's social construct must have been reamed and rend'ed and mutilated beyond all recognition..

    A LOT of things make so much more sense now..

    There is a LOT to assimilate and re-evaluate..

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Eastwatch-by-the-sea

    Eastwatch-by-the-Sea is the easternmost castle of the Night's Watch along the Wall, located on a grey, windswept shore by the Bay of Seals.[1] Near Eastwatch live some fisherfolk and to the west lies Greenguard.[2]

    The commander of Eastwatch is Cotter Pyke, while its maester is Harmune. The Night's Watch keeps several galleys at Eastwatch, including larger vessels capable of crossing the narrow sea and lean fighting vessels. The galleys patrol the Bay of Seals in part to catch smugglers who trade weapons to the free folk.[3] Ships stationed at Eastwatch include the Talon, the Blackbird, and the Storm Crow.

    Some free folk trade with the Night's Watch at Eastwatch; wildlings prefer it to Castle Black, because trading ships from across the Narrow Sea visit.[4] Sure-footed mules are bred by the Watch at Eastwatch.[5]
    http://quartermaester.info/

    Ahhhhh It's all coming together...

  86. [86] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "I understand ya'all so much better now..."

    alas, you really don't. if you're genuinely interested to know what a social construct is, i'll try to explain. however, if you're only interested in trying to be right, i'll spend that part of my morning entertaining my own baby.

    JL

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    alas, you really don't. if you're genuinely interested to know what a social construct is, i'll try to explain. however, if you're only interested in trying to be right, i'll spend that part of my morning entertaining my own baby.

    I know what a "social construct" is..

    Social constructivism is a sociological theory of knowledge according to which human development is socially situated and knowledge is constructed through interaction with others.

    And I also know what you will tell me you think it is...

    And I am certain those two definitions will be quite different..

    The thing about social construct is that it's different things to different people...

    EYE OF THE BEHOLDER type stuff.. M'hensai...

    I am happy though, that you acknowledge that my life exists in and my knowledge comes from the realm of the "physical reality". I have always said I am nothing but a knuckle-dragging ground-pounder.. :D

    I am happy to leave the "social construct" stuff in the hands of the philosophers, the dreamers, the poets.. Even the poets from NY.. ESPECIALLY the poets from NY... :D

    So yea.. Probably better to spend time with your baby.. :D How is the little tyke?? :D

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    however, if you're only interested in trying to be right

    David (Akadjian) once asked me if I want to be right or do I want to be happy?

    :D

  89. [89] 
    John M wrote:

    [76] Michale

    "Doesn't matter WHY you agreed with Stucki..

    You said agreeing with Stucki makes you stupid. You didn't allow for "context" or a reason when you made the claim.."

    That's because to anyone with half a brain, other then you, the fact that context was implied, was entirely self-evident.

    Leave it to you to once again try to move the goalposts and wiggle out of things once you have been proven wrong.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Leave it to you to once again try to move the goalposts

    Actually, it's YOU who moved the goalposts, who tried to wiggle out because you were proven wrong..

    Context, in this case, is a social construct and allows you to believe whatever you want to believe, facts be damned..

    In the "physical reality" you said "Anyone who agrees with Stucki is stoopid." and then had to back-pedal when you were reminded that YOU agreed with Stucki the previous day..

    'S ok, JM.. Like Balthy, I like you too so I won't twist the knife...... MUCH... :D

  91. [91] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I know what a "social construct" is...

    ... and then proceed to cite the definition of something completely different.

    since my wife is feeding the one-year old now, i'll indulge you. if we're doing dictionary definitions, here's the correct one:

    an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society
    ~merriam webster

    britannica goes a little further, and i'm snipping the key features here:

    it is a mental construction.
    [snip]
    Any given construct derives its scientific value from the shared meaning it represents for different people.
    [snip]
    Constructs are hypothetical. They exist as concepts but not as tangible entities. Some constructs, however, become so familiar and ingrained in common use that most people assume their manifest existence. For example, it might be supposed that gravity can be shown by dropping an object to the floor. All that has been demonstrated in that case, however, is the falling of an object, not gravity. Gravity is a label for the hypothetical cause of the falling object, not the observable event.

    next class is on construct validity.

    JL

  92. [92] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Assuming that you have not reached your expiration date, at some point this week you may decide to write aboot AOC and her call to small donors to not contribute to the DCCC and contribute directly to candidates and the list she provided of three candidates to contribute to.

    Will this be the final domino to fall that gets you to realize how many parts of One Demand are being discussed and/or implemented in weaker and isolated efforts and that maybe it is time to offer up the complete package that was offering all these little pieces and more all together long before they were considered possible or even worth discussion?

    As far back as 2000, the Hundred Dollar Party (the precursor to One Demand) was advocating small donors contributing directly to candidates, taking on the current major parties in the primaries and citizens pledging contributions to candidates like the Maine Anti-Collins Fund (one of your ideas of the year in 2018). When it became Voucher Vendetta so citizens could work together both inside and outside the CMPs it advocated providing a list of small donor candidates.

    But even if this is not enough for you to do your job and provide information to citizens that they are not getting, it should be enough for you to explore what a small donor is and the difference between small donor candidates and small contribution candidates.

    If this is too difficult a subject for you to tackle, I will be happy to send you my article ("Are you supporting a small donor candidate or a small contribution candidate?") recently submitted to several "news" outlets (don't worry, it probably won't be published as they have never published or responded to previous submissions) for you to use as a guideline or even a guest article.

    Come on, CW, it's time for you to step up to the plate and address this issue and show the rest of the media how they are supposed to do their job.

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    ... and then proceed to cite the definition of something completely different.

    In your opinion, based on your own social construct..

    an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society

    OK, this one works for me too..

    Which "people"?? Who decides what's acceptable??

    With every comment you prove my point..

    Social constructs are subjective and solely based on the perspective of those that adhere to them..

    "God bless you" when some sneezes is a social construct that many in society would consider "acceptable"..

    But it would be very offensive to others...

    As I said.. Social constructs are subjective and based largely on the ideology of the individual..

    Respect for the office of the President Of The United States is another social construct..

    During the Obama years, such respect (the social construct) was acceptable to Democrats and abhorrent to Republicans..

    Under President Trump, such respect (the social construct) is acceptable to Republicans and abhorrent to Democrats..

    Of course there are exceptions to both, but by and large, the rule is sustained..

    The long and short of it is a "social construct" is variable and subjective and is a lousy foundation for an argument..

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    The long and short of it is a "social construct" is variable and subjective and is a lousy foundation for an argument..

    It's akin to the "EVERYBODY DOES IT"

    It's a ridiculous foundation..

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's akin to the "EVERYBODY DOES IT"

    ...argument.

  96. [96] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [74]

    Re: "Everybody thinks you're slow-witted and detached."

    Wrong - Your hoped-for saviour, Bobby 3 twigs, happens to agree with me, and that's gonna be the death of you, when you finally have to admit that I was right all along.

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    David (Akadjian) once asked me if I want to be right or do I want to be happy?

    Well I hope you are deliriously happy Michale, because for sure you are seldom right.

    Are you still supporting the con man you were enthusiastic about in 2016? Or have you figured out Mexico isn't going to pay for the wall, the only people being locked up at Trump's associates, and, brace yourself for this one, Trump didn't have a better plan for healthcare that was going to be less expensive and much better and cover everybody including pre-existing conditions, etc.?

    Learning you'd been hopelessly lied to by Trump about these realities would put a dent in anybody's happiness.

  98. [98] 
    neilm wrote:

    Bobby 3 twigs, happens to agree with me

    Oh, really? You've seen the report then?

    Remember, Mueller can't indict a sitting President, that was Barr's role, and Barr wrote a cover letter for his resume saying that he wouldn't when applying for the AG job.

    I think I'll wait and see what is in the report before I make any final decision. I've said from Day 1 that the Russians would not be stupid enough to trust any of the Trump family to keep their mouths shut, however that doesn't mean the family didn't try to set up a secret line of communication with Putin, or that the Trump Tower Moscow project wasn't used as a way to influence Trump's positions on key subjects (e.g. Crimea and sanctions, NATO, missile treaties, etc.). I'm not sure the Mueller report will cover these areas, and if not I'd like to see somebody looking into the possibility that the Russian oligarchs manipulated Trump.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well I hope you are deliriously happy Michale, because for sure you are seldom right.

    Based on your social construct (your ideological bent) I am sure this is true..

    But based on objective physical reality, I am more often factually accurate than I am wrong..

    Howz that Russia Collusion verdict workin' out for ya?? :D

    Learning you'd been hopelessly lied to by Trump about these realities would put a dent in anybody's happiness.

    You tell me.. You were hopelessly lied to by Odumbo.. Did that put a dent in your happiness??? :D

  100. [100] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    A few of us (and I think that includes you) suspected from the beginning that the Russian collusion thing was going to be the greatest anti-cliamactic event since the last time I tried to make love.

    "Released" or not, the "report" is not gonna bring about Trump's downfall, and by now, you KNOW it.

  101. [101] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Oops - make that read "anti-climactic", so Kick doesnt have to express indignation.

  102. [102] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Released" or not, the "report" is not gonna bring about Trump's downfall, and by now, you KNOW it.

    CRS - since I don't trust Trump to tell the truth, I simply want to see the report myself to understand what is in it. In particular, aside from the "collusion" claims that I've dismissed from the start, I'd like to see the Deutsche Bank and Russian mob money facts if there are any. And anything else that Trump doesn't want us to know about.

    I suspect that a lot of the report will be "redacted" in an attempt to cover the asses of Trump and his family from some embarrassing, if not illegal, actions - particularly around the constant lying about "no involvement in any Russia projects".

    Lastly, obstruction of justice is often a subjective decision that Barr made clear he'd block in his application letter for the role of AG, basically regardless of evidence because he believed the investigation should never have taken place. I'd like to see for myself the evidence for and against to make my own decision.

  103. [103] 
    neilm wrote:

    "anti-climactic"

    In 40 years of dealing with legal cases from a business perspective I've never found any "climactic" (frankly, I'm pretty happy about that).

  104. [104] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    That's all OK, but really, is there ANYBODY with an ounce of brains who didn't know LONG before 2016, that Trump is a world-class asshole, a chronic liar and cheat, an overall unethical person, etc.?

    But we elected him anyway, and as the saying goes, "elections have consequences"! When we screw up, we live with the consequences.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Released" or not, the "report" is not gonna bring about Trump's downfall, and by now, you KNOW it.

    Of course he knows it. He's always known it.

    But his ideology forbids him from acknowledging this fact... This reality...

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS - since I don't trust Trump to tell the truth, I simply want to see the report myself to understand what is in it.

    You're not hearing it from Trump..

    You are hearing it, by default, from Mueller..

    But the person you are hearing it from is immaterial..

    It's not WHO you are hearing it from... It's WHAT you are hearing that you simply won't accept..

    The fabric of your social construct is that Trump is an all around evil person and anything that says different is simply unacceptable to you...

  107. [107] 
    neilm wrote:

    That's all OK, but really, is there ANYBODY with an ounce of brains who didn't know LONG before 2016, that Trump is a world-class asshole, a chronic liar and cheat, an overall unethical person, etc.?

    This isn't only about Trump - this is an indictment of the Republican Party that spawned then embraced Trump and all he stands for.

    I've spend a lot of time reading about global finance and policy, and I believe that the vision the Republican Party had for the power of markets was their strongest message. This is not an area the Democrats have impressed me with, and it is important that one of our parties support fair markets.

    We need two rational parties to push and pull on the issues and develop compromises. Currently we have hatred and stubbornness due to extremism, and frankly I see the Republican Party as the primary cause of this in the last 25 years.

    Michale will immediately assume this is because I've got a "D" tattooed on my forehead, but he'd be wrong. There is no party that gets everything right or everything wrong. Obamacare is a good thing and it came out of a conservative think tank.

  108. [108] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Obamacare is not a "good thing". It's a half-assed makeshift piecemeal pretend solution to a nearly intractable problem.

    The real solution is to get the insurance industry out of the healthcare system, or at least 90% out, and to realize that "for-profit" healthcare is not viable in the modern world.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    This isn't only about Trump - this is an indictment of the Republican Party that spawned then embraced Trump and all he stands for.

    I can assure you with complete sincerity...

    It wasn't the Republicans that gave us President Trump..

    It was the incompetence and malfeasance of the Obama and the Democrats and how they attacked and demonized anyone that didn't toe their Party Line... THAT is what gave us President Trump..

    There is no party that gets everything right or everything wrong.

    And yet, all we ever hear from you is how wrong the Republicans are and how always correct the Democrats are..

    If I assume it's because you have a -D tatoo'ed on your forehead, it's because you have never said or done anything to dissuade me from that notion..

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obamacare is a good thing and it came out of a conservative think tank.

    If ObamaCare was such a good thing, why was it a failure and did not pass constitutional muster??

  111. [111] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    please stop using words while you still don't understand what they mean.

    you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means.
    ~inigo montoya - the princess bride

    Which "people"?? Who decides what's acceptable??

    in physical and social science, no one can decide if a construct is or is not "acceptable." what they decide is whether or not it's VALID.

    validity in a construct means the extent to which it actually is what people say it is. the reason most people accept that gravity (britannica's example) is a valid construct is because physicists can PROVE it describes the relationships between large objects (e.g. planets) mathematically.

    while mathematical proof is one of the strongest arguments in favor of a construct's validity, constructs can have differing degrees of validity for various reasons.

    the reason the construct of "race" has some validity is mainly because most people accept that it exists. the reason its validity is limited is that it does not withstand scientific scrutiny in any other way. thus, race is purely a "social construct" because it exists solely as a function of what people think.

    next: why one can't apply the same type of reasoning to racism and global warming without being horribly wrong.

    JL

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    validity in a construct means the extent to which it actually is what people say it is.

    Validity (or lack thereof) is ALSO determined by WHICH people say it is..

    You have said nothing to convince me that any social construct is valid over physical reality...

    You sound exactly like Morpheus explaining the "reality" of The Matrix..

    NONE of it is valid where it conflicts with physical reality...

  113. [113] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You sound exactly like Morpheus explaining the "reality" of The Matrix..

    And you sound different? You make points that sound valid, but have no more substance.

    The only thing we can do is wait to see the entire, whole, complete report.

    Then we will ALL know what's valid & what isn't.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    And you sound different? You make points that sound valid, but have no more substance.

    Except MY points are valid within the physical reality.. JL has conceded as much...

    It's only when one looks at them thru the filter of The Matrix.... Thru the skewed prism glass of Party slavery, do they look invalid..

    The only thing we can do is wait to see the entire, whole, complete report.

    If Barr had released the synopsis that said Trump was guilty as hell, would you need to see the whole entire complete report??

    No... You would support it whole-heartedly without reservation..

    So, please.. Don't insult my intelligence by trying to make believe you still have a chance to pull some shred of dignity out of this...

    You lost...

    If Barr had mis-characterized any portion of Mueller's report, Mueller would have spoken up..

    You are only prolonging the agony and the damage to the Democrat Party by clinging to some hope that up is down and white is black...

    Then we will ALL know what's valid & what isn't.

    We already know.. You simply can't accept it because your social construct is too damaged to bear another defeat at the hands of the physical reality...

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    When all is said and done, at the end of the day...

    I would rather be ruled by cold objective facts and the physical reality...

    Than be drowned in the mire and muck and subjectivity of social constructs...

  116. [116] 
    neilm wrote:

    When all is said and done, at the end of the day...

    I would rather be ruled by cold objective facts and the physical reality...

    Than be drowned in the mire and muck and subjectivity of social constructs..

    If only. You live in a conspiracy bubble where your "facts" are decided by you on a "do I like it" basis.

    Just remind us of your understanding of climate science one more time, briefly please, so we can all judge your grip on reality.

  117. [117] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Except MY points are valid within the physical reality.. JL has conceded as much...

    no they're not, and i've said the exact opposite of what you're saying i've "conceded." your points have absolutely no validity because they're based in claims of fact that aren't factual.

    JL

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    no, it's the difference between physical reality and social constructs, physical science and social science. you have one problem with racism and the converse problem with global warming. physical reality can be 100% factual, and is not subject to differing opinions. social constructs can reach a level of confidence or prediction, but are never quite 100% factual. you seem genuinely unable to tell the difference, and as a result you write very long posts that sound incredibly ignorant on both topics.

    Because I deal in physical reality and leave the "social constructs" IE political correctness to ya'all.. :D

    In essence, you are completely agreeing with me because "social constructs" are formed by ya'all's ideology.

    You never disputed this. Silence gives assent.. As ya'all established at Charlottesville..

    Ya'all will always have your social constructs...

    And I'll always have physical reality...

    It works out great.. :D

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    based in claims of fact that aren't factual.

    But you are not talking about facts.. You are talking about social constructs.. Which is nothing but whatever any said person feels it is at any given moment..

    It's vaporware... It's the antithesis of facts and reality..

    I am perfectly happy with the physical reality (IE facts) and leave ya'all with the metaphysical, the social constructs...

    In other words, ya'all have the mind's eye of reality..

    And I have the physical factual reality..

    What's not to love?? :D

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    If only. You live in a conspiracy bubble where your "facts" are decided by you on a "do I like it" basis.

    Says the nimrod who has been screaming "RUSSIA!!! COLLUSION!!!! RUSSIA!!! COLLUSION!!!" for the last 2+ years... :D

    Just remind us of your understanding of climate science one more time, briefly please, so we can all judge your grip on reality.

    Just remind me again how President Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election...

    For that matter, remind me again how Hillary will win the election and Trump will NEVER be POTUS??

    I just want to judge your grip on reality..

    Or, in YOUR case, lack thereof... :D

    You can't win, Neil.. I have FACTS on my side..

    And all you have is your conspiracy theories, your social construct and your pud in yer hand.... :D

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay... If you want to talk about your bullshit Humans Cause Global Warming bullshit, I'll be happy to..

    Not a SINGLE SOLITARY prediction of catastrophe has EVER come to be...

    Not a SINGLE SOLITARY model has ever accurately predicted ANYTHING...

    So, let's look at the FACTS and REALITY..

    Your hysterical OH MY GODS, THE WORLD IS ENDING IN 12 YEARS!!!! is 1000% bullshit..

    THAT is the reality...

    Your totally bupkis and utterly impossible and ignorant NEW GREEN DEAL is completely and utterly 1000% bullshit...

    THAT is the reality...

  122. [122] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Speaking of global warming/climate change, I can testify to the reality of it. I've been an active hobby gardener for well over 60 yra. We still have the shortest growing season in the entire country, but it's a good 6 wks longer than it was in the 50's. Believe me, the problem of an extra 6 wks of home-grown, vine-ripened tomatoes every fall is a burden we Podunkians can bear.

    Of course the residents of Slobovia are going to say Well, what about the downside? Well, it's not all that bad. We still have EXACTLY the same number of hurricanes we've always had (zero), the same number of floods (zero), the same number of droughts (zero), the same number of forest fires (many), the same number of hot spells and cold spells, etc. etc.

    Actually, we LOVE global warming in Podunkia, please send more of it!

    And in anticipation of the obligatory comment I'm bound to get from the Democratics (as in "You're too dumb to understand the difference between "climate" and "weather"), I will respond in advance, OK, you tell me the difference! It ain't all that complicated. Is it not true the weather is the means by which climate manifests itself? How hard to grasp is that???

  123. [123] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You never disputed this. Silence gives assent..

    this again? silence does not give assent now, has not given assent in charlottesville or any other city, and will not give assent at any time or place in the future. i provided a link to disprove that fallacy, and you responded by claiming that at some time in the distant past i assented to your fallacious argument by being silent about it. if you keep this up, i may have to reconsider stig's comment about you not knowing a fact if moe howard hit you over the head with it.

    What are these electrolytes? Do you even know?
    - They're what they use to make Brawndo!
    But why do they use them to make Brawndo?
    - Because Brawndo's got electrolytes!
    ~idiocracy

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    silence does not give assent now, has not given assent in charlottesville or any other city, and will not give assent at any time or place in the future.

    And yet, when Paula and all the other hysterical Trump/America haters were spewing, "TRUMP WAS SILENT ABOUT THE NEO-NAZIS IN CHARLOTTESVILLE!!!! THAT MEANS HE AGREES WITH THEM!!!" you never said ONE word about how silence does not give assent..

    Why is that??? Why were you silent???

    Why didn't you lecture Paula et al about the fallacy etc etc???

    You didn't want to rock the boat and disagree with someone who has the same "social construct" that you do..

    Silence, indeed... DOES give assent..

    In more ways then one..

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, hay... By all means..

    Lecture Paula about how, just because she thinks Trump was silent about the Neo-Nazis, that doesn't mean that Trump agrees with them..

    Go ahead.. I double dog DARE you....

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    And hay..

    Since we're talking about Silence and Assent..

    Biden faces new scrutiny from Dems over behavior with women
    https://apnews.com/58cfe094174b4f3abd6ef66c90cbb004

    Biden sexually assaults women and probably attended High School parties where he was the ringleader of a child rape ring....

    Funny how ya'all are silent about that, eh??

  127. [127] 
    neilm wrote:

    If only. You live in a conspiracy bubble where your "facts" are decided by you on a "do I like it" basis.

    Says the nimrod who has been screaming "RUSSIA!!! COLLUSION!!!! RUSSIA!!! COLLUSION!!!" for the last 2+ years... :D

    Loser. Everybody here knows I've said from the start that the Russians are sufficiently smart to know Trump is such an idiot that he can't be trusted.

  128. [128] 
    neilm wrote:

    Believe me, the problem of an extra 6 wks of home-grown, vine-ripened tomatoes every fall is a burden we Podunkians can bear.

    ...

    Actually, we LOVE global warming in Podunkia, please send more of it!

    There were always going to be local "winners" and "losers" as the climate changes. We all know that, it is part of the predictions in the IPCC reports.

    In fact, working group 2 of the reports addresses this:

    Working Group II Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

    Working Group II assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change and options for adapting to it.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/working-group/wg2/?idp=676

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Loser. Everybody here knows I've said from the start that the Russians are sufficiently smart to know Trump is such an idiot that he can't be trusted.

    And yet, that didn't stop you from screaming "RUSSIA!!! COLLUSION!!! RUSSIA!!! COLLUSION!!!" for the last 2+ years....

    Working Group II Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

    Working Group II assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change and options for adapting to it.

    THE UN!!!!!!??????

    BBBBWWWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHQAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    The UN!!???

    BBBWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

    Yer funny!!!

  130. [130] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    although climate change is a more comprehensive term that includes more of the consequences, personally i prefer the term global warming, since it's an observable, measurable thing that is objectively happening. the globe as a whole has gained more heat at a faster rate in the last hundred years than it ever has in the history of the planet.

    Not a SINGLE SOLITARY model has ever accurately predicted ANYTHING...

    again, this inane argument stems from the failure to distinguish physical constructs from social constructs. predictive validity is one of the weaker methods of validating a hypothesis. since there's hard data available, predictive models are more to bhelp us respond.

  131. [131] 
    neilm wrote:

    Not a SINGLE SOLITARY model has ever accurately predicted ANYTHING...

    Michale doesn't understand science. It is like arguing with a two year old about Quantum Dynamics - you're better just to pat him on the head and wait for him to get bored and find some other subject he can display his biases on. He is a "feelie", and does not have any truck with reality.

    Reality is a complex, scary thing for Michale. When he comes in contact with reality his brain starts to have to deal with extreme levels of cognitive dissonance. This is why he goes on rants - it isn't directed at us, it is his way to try to convince himself that, despite all forms of reality to the contrary, he is actually more of an expert on climate science than everybody who has studied it in depth; that Trump never lies, but Obama couldn't tell the truth ever; that everybody who disagrees with him is only doing it to adhere to party political purity; and that guns can't be the cause of the massive discrepancy in gun violence in the U.S. compared to other wealthy nations, and many poor ones.

    I look on his rants as the mental illness therapy my friend Michale needs to keep it together, but please don't mistake the need to publicly "take his meds" with anything sensible.

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale doesn't understand science.

    And yet, you can't point to a SINGLE catastrophic prediction that has ever came true..

    You can't point to a SINGLE model that has been factually accurate...

    All you have is your subjective social construct..

    Not a fact in the bunch...

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    BIDEN DEFENDS
    HISTORY OF UNWANTED TOUCHING

    https://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/article_cba7d87e-fac8-5339-9621-de52b1155e48.html

    No one wants to talk about this..

    Geee... I wonder why!!

    BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  134. [134] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i'll discuss biden if you like. even the person accusing him says he didn't do anything violent or sexual. she says she felt uncomfortable and didn't mention it. biden says he doesn't remember but will listen to her. it's not a great look for him, but that doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as kavanaugh.

    this being the justice kavanaugh who (allegedly) held a woman down and tried to rape her, was so stone drunk he didn't remember, then when confronted with his actions years later issued a blanket denial and acted as if HE were the victim.

    Oh yeah, 'cos as soon as I walked into this room, I felt like I was looking into a mirror.
    ~danny devito - twins

  135. [135] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Silence could just mean it's not interesting because it's just a rehash of trading talking points and other nonsense.

    "What's a rerun?"
    "You'll find out."
    -Back to the Future

  136. [136] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ...it's not all that bad. We still have EXACTLY the same number of hurricanes we've always had (zero), the same number of floods (zero), the same number of droughts (zero), the same number of forest fires (many), the same number of hot spells and cold spells, etc. etc.

    Well, then get ready for a flood of refugees.

  137. [137] 
    John M wrote:

    [110] Michale

    "If ObamaCare was such a good thing, why was it a failure and did not pass constitutional muster??"

    1) Obamacare is NOT a failure, despite repeated Republican attempts to kill it. Having 20 million ADDITIONAL people having healthcare who didn't have it before is a SUCCESS.

    2) Obamacare has NOT been declared unconstitutional YET. ONLY the individual MANDATE was struck down. Obamacare as a whole is still operating, thank you very much!

  138. [138] 
    John M wrote:

    [136] Elizabeth Miller

    "Well, then get ready for a flood of refugees."

    Not that I disagree with you, but isn't Climate Change rather far off topic from was supposed to be the subject at hand of Puerto Rican statehood? :-D

  139. [139] 
    Kick wrote:

    How did Stannis Baratheon get north of the Wall?

    So if you're watching the Games of Thrones series, you've seen the map of the area multiple times in a myriad of different ways. After Lord Commander Mormont informs the Night's Watch recruits which group they're in and Jon, Samwell, and others are made stewards, Maester Aemon then further makes individual assignments and tells one of them he is being sent to Eastwatch. Later in the series (right before the baby dragons are hatched), Lord Commander Mormont tells Jon that men outside Eastwatch had found four blue-eyed corpses and were wise enough to burn them. Fast forward quite a bit later in the series where Jon is asked by a wildling how many of the 19 castles guarding the Wall are manned. Jon informs that there are 3 and is asked to name them, which he does: Castle Black, Eastwatch-by-the-Sea, and the Shadow Tower.

    Meanwhile, after they're virtually wiped out by the green goop at the Battle of Blackwater, Stannis Baratheon and crew must ultimately hire a new fleet and ultimately travel to Braavos to the Iron Bank for funds where Davos Seaworth locates that dude in the baths (he tosses him a bag of gold coins). Sailing this fleet North from Braavos would quite naturally land this hired fleet at the Wall at Eastwatch… you know... "by the sea."

    Do I know this with complete certainty? It's fiction anyway... so... I absolutely do not, but the perps did sail to the North by sea as per their usual modus operandi, and Eastwatch-by-the-Sea is where they would land beyond the Wall for easy access. :)

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    this being the justice kavanaugh who (allegedly) held a woman down and tried to rape her, was so stone drunk he didn't remember,

    "Amazing. Everything you said just now is wrong.."
    -Luke Skywalker

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    That's an AWESOME assessment...

    Thank you VERY much.. I mean that sincerely..

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    ) Obamacare is NOT a failure,

    AFFORDABLE Care Act

    The very NAME proves it's a failure..

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obamacare has NOT been declared unconstitutional YET.

    I didn't say Obamacare was declared unconstitutional..

    I said it didn't pass constitutional muster..

    And it hasn't...

    It's going to the SCOTUS and it's fairly certain, what with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, which way the court will rule this time..

    Once again.. Ya'all lost.. Get over it..

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, then get ready for a flood of refugees.

    Not if President Trump closes the border...

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    Silence could just mean it's not interesting because it's just a rehash of trading talking points and other nonsense.

    And yet, during the Charlottesville debacle, President Trump's supposed "silence" meant ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY...

    Funny how that is, eh?? Totally different standards for a guy the Left hysterically and irrationally hates..

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump ‘saving’ Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ginsburg: report
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-saving-judge-amy-coney-barret-to-replace-ginsburg-report

    Yes! :D If ya'all will remember, I was a fan of Judge Barrett's to replace Justice Kennedy. But that spot went to Kavanaugh..

    Imagine the world when the SCOTUS is 6-3 Conservative...

    It warms the cockles of my heart.. :D

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Occasional Cortex,

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez falsely claims Republicans amended Constitution to kick FDR out of office
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-falsely-claims-republicans-amended-constitution-to-kick-fdr-out-of-office

    The gift to Republicans that keeps on giving... :D

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Builders of walls, be they made of razor wire or bricks, will end up becoming prisoners of the walls they build. I realize that with this problem (of migration), a government has a hot potato in its hands, but it must be resolved differently, humanely, not with razor wire."
    -Pope Francis

    The pope's words would have more meaning if he wasn't a hypocrite and lived behind these walls..

    https://images.tmz.com/2016/02/18/021816-vatican-wall-getty-6.jpg

    Tear down your walls, Pope Francis..

    THEN your words would have some real meaning..

    Religion... The epitome of hypocrisy...

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    High-capacity gun magazines to remain legal in California, judge rules

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. – High-capacity gun magazines will remain legal in California under a ruling Friday by a federal judge who cited a home invasion where a woman used the extra bullets in her weapon to kill an attacker and two other cases women without additional ammunition ran out of bullets.

    "Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts," San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote. He called the law that would have banned possessing any magazines holding more than 10 bullets unconstitutional.

    California law has prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000, but those who had them before were allowed to keep them.
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/judge-blocks-californias-high-capacity-ammunition-ban

    And THIS is why it's important that the SCOTUS remains as conservative as possible for the remainder of my lifetime..

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    it's not a great look for him, but that doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as kavanaugh.

    It's still a young incident. The fallout likely hasn't been fully realized...

    Do you think it should disqualify Biden from running for POTUS??

    As to the incident itself, it was obviously traumatic enough for the woman to stick with her for all these years...

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting article..

    Joe Biden's Al Franken problem

    Joe Biden has an Al Franken problem.

    Though he hasn't even officially announced he's running for president, on Friday Biden was hit with the first of what could be more #MeToo accusations. Lucy Flores, a former Nevada assemblywoman, wrote that in 2014, when she was seeking office and Biden was still vice president, he smelled her hair and then planted an unwanted kiss on the back of her head.

    The problem for Biden is similar to the one faced by Franken when he was forced to resign from the Senate: Descriptions of misconduct are more believable when consistent with visual evidence.

    In the case of Franken, who several women accused of groping them, we had a photo in which he mocking groped a sleeping Leeann Tweeden when the two were touring together for the USO. The existence of the photo made it impossible for Franken or his defenders to dismiss Tweeden or other female accusers.

    In Biden's case, there is not just photo evidence, but video evidence of him acting creepily among younger women as VP. His antics of rubbing women's shoulders at events, sniffing their hair, and pecking at them has been the subject of YouTube compilations for years. There's also a photo of Biden planting his nose in the hair of actress Eva Longoria at the same fundraiser in which Flores said he took liberties with her.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/joe-bidens-al-franken-problem

    Excellent comparison...

    It's not that what Biden did was outrageous..

    It's that, in this hysterical zero-tolerance atmosphere that Democrats have created, the most innocent of gestures or actions could prove fatal to political careers...

    I am sure Democrats didn't plan on the vast majority of casualties to be fellow Democrats..

    Certainly, Hoisted By Their Own Picard... :D

  152. [152] 
    Kick wrote:

    Stucki

    This is not up for debate: Your interpretation of statutes doesn't change them even a tiny bit. Everyone who commits an offense by definition is not necessarily prosecuted for the perpetration of that particular crime, and then there is also the facts we've discussed ad nauseam about the longstanding DOJ directive regarding the indictment of a sitting POTUS.

    Also, just to state the glaring obvious, let's imagine the SCO's office did find evidence of crimes committed by the President of the United States who literally has his "finger on the button" -- just to use a figure of speech because obviously that's not how it works. Setting aside all the heretofore mentioned written rules of the DOJ we've already covered multiple times, do you honestly believe the freakin' Attorney General would advertise a listing of criminal offenses of the POTUS and his associates via bullet list in a summary letter? Um... nope!

    Regarding this ridiculous spew of yours wherein you claim repeatedly that information received from foreign nationals wouldn't qualify as a "thing of value," you should interpret my future silence regarding your thoughts on this issue as me not giving a shit what your uninformed opinion is. :)

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    AOC: Our Side Doesn’t Name-Call Like Those Xenophobic, White Supremacists On The Right

    MSNBC hosted a town hall event Friday night with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez discussing her Green New Deal. During a discussion in the second segment of the event, former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis suggested the left was in danger of becoming the thing it hated most, i.e. the Tea Party. He politely suggested that the crowd in Brooklyn (where the town hall was held) cheering for AOC was the mirror image of the one at Trump’s recent rally who were cheering “AOC sucks.”

    SEE ALSO: “Congestion pricing” is the worst top-down solution to urban traffic

    The crowd in Brooklyn didn’t like that comparison and started booing Inglis. To his credit, host Chris Hayes cautioned them, “You guys are making his point when you do that.” But AOC’s response to that challenge has to be the funniest and most embarrassing moment of the night. Here’s her explanation for why her crowd is not the “Tea Party of the left.”

    “We are committed to policies that make American lives better and we’re actually talking about something substantive, we’re not calling anyone names,” AOC said. She continued, “People say ‘Tea Party of the left’ and I find this phrase very interesting…because the grounding of the Tea Party was xenophobia, the underpinnings of white supremacy…” After a bit of rambling, she added, “Here’s a really big difference. The Koch Brothers funded the Tea Party and everyday people funded my campaign.” This was met with wild applause.

    Chris Hayes did not point out that AOC had just proven Rep. Inglis’s point. Literally one sentence after arguing “we’re not calling anyone names” she called the Tea Party xenophobic, white supremacist, and puppets for billionaires. Her entire answer was shrill name calling and the crowd’s reaction was really applause for themselves. They’re better people than those deplorables who call people names.
    https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03/30/aoc-not-tea-party-left/

    A well made point to what I have been saying for years..

    The Hysterical Left is becoming EVERYTHING it accuses the Right of being..

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:
  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny..

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb032919dAPR20190329024510.jpg

    You would have thought Democrats would have figured that THIS should be Plan A.

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:
  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/goodwyn_Hangover_lr_3-28-1920190328041343.jpg

    The problem with excessive drinking is the hangovers that follow.

    Ya'all know what that's like, eh? :D

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:
  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whew... I gotta take a break.. Gonna pace myself..

  160. [160] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not if President Trump closes the border...

    Say, what!? He's going to close the borders between the states!?

    Oh, Michale, I was obviously talking about internally displaced people due to severe climatic impacts who will begin to migrate to utopia's like where CRS appears to live. Heh.

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, Michale, I was obviously talking about internally displaced people due to severe climatic impacts who will begin to migrate to utopia's like where CRS appears to live

    Obvious to you and those who share your social constructs..

    Not obvious to one who's grounded in the physical reality..

    However, be that as it may, my apologies for misunderstanding what you were meaning..

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk032719dAPR20190326054509.jpg

    Admit it..

    Russia Collusion was not the slam dunk ya'all were hoping it would be, eh?? :D

  163. [163] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Have no fears about bothering me with future "silence on the subject". I'm well aware of how traumatic it must be for you.

    However, believe it or not, fact of the matter is, I could easily tolerate PRESENT SILENCE "on the subject".

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz032619dAPR_A20190326104912.jpg

    "I don't care WHO you are, that right thar was funny as hell, I tell yooo waaat!!"
    -Larry The Cable Guy..

    I believe I used that EXACT quote a bit ago to describe those who STILL think that collusion is there.. :D

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Collusion_doesn't_exist_120190326115837.jpg

    What!!!???? No Santa Claus!!!????

  166. [166] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    DOUBLE SHOCKER!

    Andy Kaufman is still alive and running for president in 2020 as a small donor candidate!

    http://WWW.FAcakenews.com/pie/andy-kaufman-ultimate-dark-horse-candidate

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just finished Season 6 of GOT...

    My mind is well and truly blown away... WOW...

  168. [168] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Sorry, the link to the article is not working.

    But here is the video of his campaign announcement:

    https://wwww.youtube.com/watch?v=EJi6nyW6faA

  169. [169] 
    Don Harris wrote:
  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since JL has an issue with Biden being Kavanaugh'ed, even though Kavanaugh is more innocent than Biden....

    Biden says he never meant to make women feel uncomfortable
    https://apnews.com/a2a11e7e88fb42738773321a1485d2c0

    Perhaps the apropos meme is that Biden is being Franken'ed...

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden accuser Lucy Flores says she'd still support Biden over Trump
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-accuser-lucy-flores-says-shed-still-support-biden-over-trump/

    A perfect example of a Party slave...

    But I have to wonder.. If this were true, why would she do damage to Biden that would favor Trump??

  172. [172] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Could we say that those pinning their hopes on "collusion" have now suffered a "collision" with reality?

  173. [173] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Biden accuser Lucy Flores says she'd still support Biden over Trump

    Oops. That wasn't supposed to happen, was it! Hard to keep up the oppo research pouring into the internet these days. OMG, another one complaining because he rubbed her nose? Is this real?

  174. [174] 
    Michale wrote:

    SECOND WOMAN SPEAKS
    https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-biden-grabbed-aide-20190401-vl7chim3hrdjtcwu2tszrhozzm-story.html

    Biden is toast.. Doesn't matter if he is Kavanaugh'ed or Franken'ed...

    He's toast..

    Sorry to say...

    He would have really made the primary campaign interesting...

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oops. That wasn't supposed to happen, was it! Hard to keep up the oppo research pouring into the internet these days. OMG, another one complaining because he rubbed her nose? Is this real?

    Yep..

    How do you like yer Dumbocrats now???

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    Could we say that those pinning their hopes on "collusion" have now suffered a "collision" with reality?

    "You could say that..."
    "I *DID* say that.. Would *YOU* say that??"

    -MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

  177. [177] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    141

    You're welcome. Can't wait to see how it ends.

    Want to hear some of my Game of Throne predictions?

    No? THEN DON'T READ THIS!

    I think Daenerys Targaryen isn't the sister of Rhaegar Targaryen; I think she is Rhaegar's daughter. I also think that Tyrion Lannister isn't a Lannister at all, and I think Gendry isn't the bastard son of Robert Baratheon; I think Gendry is the son of Robert and Cersei... the one who supposedly died at birth... except he didn't actually die.

    I have more theories, but those are quite enough to make me sound crazy. :)

  178. [178] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well, i went through about five hundred posts from the week of charlottesville, and nobody here said boo about donald giving assent to the nazis. a few people said they wished he'd spoken sooner or didn't sound sincere, but that's about it.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/08/page/2/

    so, having conclusively disproved the claim that someone here was hypocritical about this fallacy a year and a half ago august (and even if they HAD been, which nobody was), we're back at the ex-siletio fallacy. no matter how many times somebody might make the assertion that silence equals assent, it is still fallacious and false.

  179. [179] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    163

    I'm well aware of how traumatic it must be for you.

    Traumatic? *shakes head* If you really believe that, then you're not remotely "well aware" and demonstrably remain firmly in the clutch of the throes of delusion.

    However, believe it or not, fact of the matter is, I could easily tolerate PRESENT SILENCE "on the subject".

    That would be easier to believe if you'd stop spewing the same bullshit over and over. No one on this blog ever thought the POTUS was going to be removed from office based on multiple reasons:

    * the makeup of Congress
    * the rules of removal
    * history and the fact that none ever has
    * current longstanding directives of the DOJ regarding indictment.

    As for those persons not currently serving as the POTUS, all bets are off since the same rules don't apply to them. As I have stated many times: they'll either cooperate with the SCO or "some of them are going to prison," which has already happened multiple times and more on the way. Count on it. :)

  180. [180] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM

    The primary process is designed to weed out the candidates, and Lucy Flores is nothing more than Bernie Sanders playing gardener with a really big hoe. Watch your kneecaps, Joe.

    Democrats need to stop eating their own and/or allowing them to be eaten, and Bernie needs to stop trying to reinvent the Democratic Party in his own image.

    As you were. :)

  181. [181] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I appreciate that.

  182. [182] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Re: "No one on this blog ever thought . . ."

    You gotta be kidding me, or more likely, yourself. neilm hoped, but he was more realistic than you girls. At least two of you all but promised me that he was a goner. You KNEW he got "something of value" (the infamous Hillary-ious "dirt"), and you KNEW that it was against the law, ergo, you KNEW he's a goner!

    Finally, two plus yrs later, the collusin delusion had a collision with reality, and now you're backpedaling at top speed.

  183. [183] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    181

    If you liked that one, I got another one for you. Apologies but you're going to have to click a link for this one because it's a picture.

    http://tinyurl.com/yyycdndz

    It's Bernie's hoe with her hands all over a President, and that garden tool doesn't look the least bit upset about the physical contact. I wonder if she got his consent before she put her grimy hands all over him? Do you think she thought about her obvious invasion of his personal space?

    Watch your kneecaps, Bubba! ;)

  184. [184] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    181

    Another one EM. Same drill.

    http://tinyurl.com/yxmvdsjx

    Look how she is touching poor Joe. You think she got his permission? I doubt it. I wonder if he felt violated when she invaded his personal space? Is that legal?

    Watch your kneecaps, Joe! ;)

  185. [185] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you think I'm gonna click on those links, Kick, you're crazy!

  186. [186] 
    Kick wrote:

    We're all crazy; what exactly does that have to do with the pictures? ;)

    Sorry I can't post them. :)

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    You're welcome. Can't wait to see how it ends.

    Want to hear some of my Game of Throne predictions?

    Awesome predictions.. :D

    Wanted to ask...

    The flashback scene that Bran had when he saw Neds sister dying after giving birth.

    Was the baby Jon?? Which would mean that Jon Snow is actually not a bastard, that he is a Stark by blood...

    If this is true, this would beg the question, why would Ned try to pass him off as his bastard son instead of his nephew by blood??

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    a few people said they wished he'd spoken sooner

    In other words, people complained that he didn't condemn the Nazis..

    In still other words, people stated that his silence meant he supported the Nazis..

    In shorter words, Silence Gives Assent..

    So, since we agreed that people here said that President Trump should have spoken sooner and by not speaking sooner, it meant he supported the Nazis...

    In all your readings, did you find ANY comments from ANYONE telling those people that, just because President Trump didn't speak sooner, that does NOT mean President Trump supports the NAZIs...

    That was my whole point..

    If you find a comment like that, a comment that states "Whoa now.. Silence does NOT give assent, people!!" or words to that affect, I'll be happy to concede I was wrong..

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is slow to call out the alt-right's action as terrorism because they are acting how they believe he has instructed them to act. The alt-right refer to Trump on 4chan as "GEOTUS", which stands for "God Emperor of The United States". I'm sure Trump just eats that up!
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/08/14/terrorism-is-terrorism/#comment-107807

    That sounds like the author of the post is saying SILENCE GIVES ASSENT...

    This genie can't bet stuffed back in the bottle. And no one believes him anyway because we all know he's lying. He's a white supremacist himself and is rapidly reaching the point where only other white supremacist/nazis support him.

    His "presidency" is over. He'll still be there for awhile but his presidency is over. At this point its unsalvageable. It's now a matter of how ugly the process of getting rid of him is going to get and how many people are going to be hurt or killed. This weekend was his Katrina, only, as will all things Blotus, turned up to 11.

    And I just throw this one out there because it's funny as hell.. :D

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    Woops..

    I was wrong.. I *DID* find a commenter who condemned those who said, in essence, SILENCE GIVES ASSENT...

    "Silence gives assent."
    Not wanting to give assent where it is not due, I am compelled to condemn all the condemning.

    -Don Harris, http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/08/14/terrorism-is-terrorism/#comment-107854

    Congrats, DH... You are the exception that emphasizes the rule...

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno...

    Taking a trip down memory lane can be fun..

    And quietly working in the background to protect our democracy, ignoring all the distractions from 45 and the alt-right, Robert Mueller turns over some more stones and pretty ugly things crawl out:
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/08/14/terrorism-is-terrorism/#comment-107844

    Apparently, the "ugly things" had NOTHING to do with Russia Collusion... :D

  192. [192] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I'm an exception to the rule?

    Well, there's a first time for everything. :D

  193. [193] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    187

    Wanted to ask...

    The flashback scene that Bran had when he saw Neds sister dying after giving birth.

    Was the baby Jon??

    I intentionally wrote my predictions so as not to reveal anything. What do you think? I told my SO who Jon Snow was right straight away (I had to play catch up during Season 2, which didn't take long). So we're watching, and I looked over and told him and listed all the clues... Episode 1, Season 1 where they all but announced his parentage during a conversation in the crypts at Winterfell between Eddard "Ned" Stark and Robert Baratheon. Seriously. Go back yourself and watch the first episode of the entire series, pay attention, and see if you don't immediately know his parentage in hindsight. All too easy. What was hard was waiting year after year until it was finally revealed.

    Which would mean that Jon Snow is actually not a bastard, that he is a Stark by blood...

    Also revealed in Season 1, Episode 2 when the last thing Ned tells Jon when they part -- Ned for Kings Landing and Jon for Castle Black: "You are a Stark. You might not have my name, but you have my blood."

    If this is true, this would beg the question, why would Ned try to pass him off as his bastard son instead of his nephew by blood??

    Go back and watch Season 1, Episode 1. It's all literally revealed right straight out of the gate under Winterfell in the crypts. :)

  194. [194] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    In all your readings, did you find ANY comments from ANYONE telling those people that, just because President Trump didn't speak sooner, that does NOT mean President Trump supports the NAZIs...

    so...... by NOT saying that donald DIDN'T support the nazis and klansmen, we were all secretly saying that he DID support the nazis and klansmen?

    this fallacy is called ad ignorantium, or "argument from ignorance." in this case it certainly suits you ;p

    JL

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Go back and watch Season 1, Episode 1. It's all literally revealed right straight out of the gate under Winterfell in the crypts. :)

    Yea, I started watching GOT a couple weeks ago.. I wasn't well versed on who was who and what was what..

    I am 2 episodes away from being all caught up.. Then I'll have to wait with everyone else to find out what happens in Season 8... I think I'll rewatch from Season 1, now that I have a (somewhat) firm grounding in GOT...

    Thanx for your insights..

Comments for this article are closed.