Escape from Elba
Exiles of the New York Times
June 18, 2018, 03:21:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: As you may have noticed, this is a very old backup, I'm still working through restoring the site.  Don't be surprised if you post and it all goes missing....
 
  Home Help Search Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 38
16  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: June 07, 2018, 09:44:48 PM
Quote from: Times Reporter’s Records Are Seized in Justice Dept. Inquiry
Prosecutors seized phone and email records as part of an investigation into leaks by a former Senate aide. It was the first known use of such an aggressive tactic under President Trump.

Why do I get the feeling I'm in a Japanese horror film where the newspapers says "Strange Reptile spotted in Tokyo Harbor"?
17  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: June 07, 2018, 09:39:29 PM
$1 Billion U.S. Fine Will End Sanctions on Chinese Telecom Firm: Headline NYT.

The United States of America and her motto "What? Yeah, Make me an offer."
18  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: June 05, 2018, 10:58:49 AM
Trump will not be the first POTUS to pardon himself.

George Herbert Walker Bush distracted the world by sending troupes into Somalia after he lost his re-election bid. And then quietly pardoned all persons involved in the Iran Contra investigation. Because they had Bush dead to rights!

What ought to be told to Trump is that we will let him pardon himself but ONLY if he allocutes. And ANYTHING he forgets to allocate to, he is liable for. (Then he will be eligible for state prosecutions. For example, if he cheated on his taxes, that means he also cheated on his state taxes. He can't pardon himself for state crimes. )

He is going to then need to admit to money laundering for the Russian Mob. And in doing that he is going to have to expose them.

I opine that for people like Paul Manafort, this is not about prison. This is about the "Russian Solution" which means they are going to kill you. Guaranteed. These people are in bed not with hookers, but guys with meat hooks who will make your death take weeks! The stupid fucks! A jail cell would be a great alternative, if only there was a way to protect your mother, wife and children from being peeled with a dull knife.

Mohmar had a tough way to go, but he was dead in a couple of minutes. Manafort won't be so lucky, unless he has a cyanide capsule in his tooth.

Am I wrong?
19  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: June 05, 2018, 10:32:16 AM
And you call Trump pompous?
Actually, I call Maureen Dowd an idiot. Or did, until I stopped.reading anything she writes.

Ditto!
20  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: June 03, 2018, 08:45:27 PM
someone explain why people think being able to spell means that somehow you're highly intelligent.

how many of those spelling bee "winners" have truly made something of themselves?



Since when has being highly intelligent meant you were likely to make something of yourself?


Good point.   I've never really thought of spelling skill as a basic overall barometer of intelligence.   So I'm not sure why anyone would say "people think" that generally.  

I think there's an example of the logic error "affirming the consequent" there.  

If Bill is smart,  he can spell words well.  

Bill can spell words well.

Ergo,  Bill is smart.  

See the logic flaw there?   Affirming the consequent doesn't mean the antecedent is true.    

The top spellers tend to be highly intelligent.

It's not that spelling makes them so, but that spelling is where they have chosen to put some (or much) of their energies while young.

Yeah, if Bill can spell words well he is intelligent. That doesn't mean that he will be a nuclear physicist or a Doctor of Philosophy. But the lack of high achievement says far less about individual intelligence than spelling ability does.

so nobody says hi to Josh?
21  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: June 01, 2018, 04:54:02 PM
Tony,

You're right. You could interview people from your couch. All you need are people. People to talk to and people to watch the interview.

That's a chicken/egg because people will watch you if you have interesting people and interesting people will generally only want to be interviewed if you bring the people to see them.

But that is based upon the idea that the only interesting people are people that are interested in fame.

I would sincerely suggest that you could interview someone like Red State Ward, or KidBamboo, or Mr. Utley, virtually anybody here. This is an interesting collection of characters that in some ways are the archetype of Internet flame warriors.

A series of discussions with "alpha dogs" from popular comment boards across the net has the potential to be a fascinating "behind the curtain" series that shows how , in real life, they're actually quite the Casper Milquetoast character, even though they seem like Giganticsoreus Rex on the forum.

The effort to humanize the players could lead to a more peaceful world as people can put a person to the personality.

Shucks, I'll bet that working inside of You Tube would be fertile. Not to mention, you're promoting the You Tube content itself. (I kind of went off the low speed rail there. But if you were to interview people that have you tube channels, first of all you don't have to go far to find them, second of all they are all looking for ways to get more subscribers, and they'll all be promoting your channel on their channels!)

It's a winner, Tony. And you are the guy with the cullones to go get it done.

Good luck! 
22  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: June 01, 2018, 02:12:50 PM
Why did we shift to the topic of Hillary?  She isn't holding office.


Red, like much of the right, is stalking her. They were so prepared to spend eight years attacking her when she won, the decided to just keep on doing it when she lost.

She brings it on herself.

Most losing candidates (and ex-Presidents as well) fade from the spotlight.  Hil has chosen not to.  Has to earn the cabbage.

If Hillary Clinton can steal spotlight from the biggest hambone in the history of pork I say, "You go girl!"

Fact of the matter is that any mention of Hillary is a reminder of the alternate reality we didn't choose. Trumpissants want us to wear the blinders so we never will say "gee, this reality really sucks pig nutz! Especially compared to the reality we had and the one we could have had!"

And you're right, too. You will always get a liberal's blood pressure to rise when you do a smack down of Hillary. Because she was only the most qualified candidate we have had for President in most of our lifetimes (which is giving FDR, a benefit of the doubt, otherwise we're talking who? John Adams?) Versus the last four  five six SEVEN EIGHT Republican presidents! (Trump, W, G.W, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Ike, Hoover!) And you can still stand there and expect me to accept your opinion of who ought to hold the (what used to be) highest office in the free world!?

This election is not about Trump (saw a poster in Maine of a candidate who claimed to be "Trump Strong") it is about the abject failure we call the Republican Party (which even though they don't like it, includes the Conservative Party, and the looney Libertarian Party, and the John Birchers, and the Neo Nazi's and the KKK and the Neo Soviets) The party that was obstructive as a minority party and DEstructive as a majority party.
23  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: May 31, 2018, 05:12:56 PM

The number of small companies raising wages hit a record high in the U.S. this month. That’s according to the latest National Federation of Independent Business employment survey, due out later today. A full 35% of owners of small firms report increasing labor compensation, the highest percentage since NFIB started asking about it in 1986.


Funny thing about this is. There are somewhere near 21,000,000 small businesses in the USA. Of those only about 7 million of those have more than just the one employee. Which is 33.3% so either 109% of those small businesses (don't forget the name of the org is NFIB National Federation of Independent Businesses, so we're not talking IBM here) are paying increases. Or the numbers are bogus somehow (for example, "Well I work alone but I'm having a good year so I'm paying myself more.")

Let us not forget that there has been an increase in the minimum wage. So, while it sounds like you're being toutful of the strong economy, let us not forget that it was Government that caused this increase. Let us also not forget that there was a loud voice that said that a raise of the minimum wage spelled disaster for small businesses. That now seems to be wrong. And the voice seems to be shouting that the rise in wages is a good thing!

Why am I not surprised?

You can always trust the Wall Street Journal to cite a "survey" from a partisan industry lobbyist to support business friendly policy.

The facts are the tax cuts have led to no discernible uptick in growth, wages are up a whopping $75 over the first quarter since tax cuts passed, and note how REDSTATEWARD hasn't quoted the stock market lately...

Trump's Tax Cuts have ben exactly as effective as its critics said they would, for American workers and for wealthy stock owners.
Whew
The two of you prove beyond a doubt that the tax cuts are strong boosts to our economy. But keep on bitching. It reaffirms that we are finally on the right track to a recovery Obama botched.

So you're saying we interpreted your citation correctly.

OK.

Nobody has said that the tax cuts weren't strong boosts to the economy that was already growing. Was it the right thing to do? NO. We should have used the money to pay down the debt. We should have used the money to fix the roads. To build a nation that is ready for the 22nd century.  Instead we bought 100,000,000,000 dollars worth of AAPL.

I drove up and down to/from the coast and I discovered a trick. Always align one of your tires with the center of the lane. because that gets you out of the ruts that have been worn into the roads. The ride is smoother and quieter and a lot less wear and tear on your tires. THAT is how bad the roads are in this country! But gubmint is stealing tax money.

24  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: May 31, 2018, 04:51:38 PM
I could have sworn I heard Red being against the called for boycott of Starbucks.
1 a boycott that never happened since NO ONE was for it
Quote
But now he's all for the market censorship.
2 English must be your second language
Quote
"The fact that Net Neutrality talk is all based what 'could' happen is proof." (sic ish)

If "all" meant what you want it to mean, then maybe. But we are also talking about what ISPs do NOW.  They charge too much for slower speeds. But, like the frog in the pot of water, you have no way of knowing. Your water is just fine, lookit this, there are even bubbles now. Getting better all the time.
3Ifyou (sic) are a fool don’t blame me if you are parted by your ISP from your money.
Quote


Yeah then there is this:

"Everyone claims to be a small government Libertarian until they’re up to their ass in flood waters..." NYKnicks12


"Which, too often, is the result of tax-hungry governments encouraging development of high-risk  beach front properties
relying on federally blessed flood insurance that winds  up leaving all taxpayers holding the sand bags." RedStateWard

First of all, the flooding is the result of blahblahblah? No! The flooding is the result of too much water in too small a space. If you want to discuss why there is too much water, or why there is too little space for it to go without causing flooding, fine. But let's try to make some sense here.
4 Okay. Try making some

Quote

 Secondly:
26 dead in West Virginia Flooding

Which of those West Virginia fat cats was it with the greedy gubmint beach house?
5 Beats me

Quote
Third is the tax hungry government, and then the taxpayers being stuck with the bag. Well why doesn't the tax greedy government just increase the land taxes on those properties and buy the flood insurance themselves? And the flood insurance ought to be based on loss ratio versus premiums plus investment surplus.
6
The government has no money to do anything unless it takes it from you.
Quote
I can see some of the craters on the moon you are howling at here Red. And it is interesting to see you switch your ideological fervor from Trump to Rand in so few posts. I wonder if you can see it too?
7Trump is not a conservative.  Rand wrote a book. What is your point?
Quote
But think third about what you are saying. That it is the fault of governments, giving into the demands of the wealthy developers. Because the government needs the tax revenues to do things like, oh I don't know, underpay their teachers and police officers? Maybe do an infrastructure project to divert the flood waters (which by NOW we have to at least consider, are going to keep coming!) away from populated areas.

Further, you're conflating the anger towards Houston which is ironic in that it is exactly Randian Libertarianism that resulted in Houston granting building permits in the flood zones.

It takes more government to govern more people not less. It takes more government to be able to say "No! You can't build there!"

It takes more infrastructure spending to make the changes we are going to need to make in order for us to survive (let alone! Not to even mention Thrive!) the results of sequences of bad decisions this nation has made one after the next after the next for the past 40 (at least) years.

 8Government that governs least is a laudable goal. But it has nothing to do with the amount of people it needs to manage a society of 320 million.
Quote

We can agree on the problems. But your solutions don't work. They never have. They probably never will.

9Ah Contraire.
Name a country more successful than ours.

1/2. Not the point. The point was that you were against it when it was perceived to be "thems" that wanted a to use the power of the pocketbook to voice opposition. Yet here you are today saying that the market should be free to decide which ISP is giving the best service.

3. So your internet is free? If you can get free internet, why can't we all have free high speed internet?

4. I can lead a horse's ass to water. Just because he a lot of it passes through, doesn't mean he knows shit. Your response to NYKnicks12 was a non sequitur. "Good  sense" would have been to leave the road apples that fall out of you on the road. You're right. When you're right you're right. But when you type! Jebus Christmas! You're way wrong.

5. Then how could there have been a flood? Floods are caused mostly by money hungry gubmints and grubby developers of beach front properties. In West Virginia.

6. You have no money unless the government makes it. You have no market for your goods unless the government maintains it. Money is an illusion and you don't get any more of it if everybody pays less in taxes. Stop following the juvenile musings of an 11 year old Grover Norquist. Unless your own intellect peaked at age 10.

7. So the answer is "No," you can't go back and see yourself switching dicks in the middle of a screw. We can see you doing it.

8. Just too fucking stupid to bother commenting on.

25  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: May 31, 2018, 03:55:39 PM

The number of small companies raising wages hit a record high in the U.S. this month. That’s according to the latest National Federation of Independent Business employment survey, due out later today. A full 35% of owners of small firms report increasing labor compensation, the highest percentage since NFIB started asking about it in 1986.


Funny thing about this is. There are somewhere near 21,000,000 small businesses in the USA. Of those only about 7 million of those have more than just the one employee. Which is 33.3% so either 109% of those small businesses (don't forget the name of the org is NFIB National Federation of Independent Businesses, so we're not talking IBM here) are paying increases. Or the numbers are bogus somehow (for example, "Well I work alone but I'm having a good year so I'm paying myself more.")

Let us not forget that there has been an increase in the minimum wage. So, while it sounds like you're being toutful of the strong economy, let us not forget that it was Government that caused this increase. Let us also not forget that there was a loud voice that said that a raise of the minimum wage spelled disaster for small businesses. That now seems to be wrong. And the voice seems to be shouting that the rise in wages is a good thing!

Why am I not surprised?
26  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: May 31, 2018, 03:43:32 PM
I could have sworn I heard Red being against the called for boycott of Starbucks.

But now he's all for the market censorship.

"The fact that Net Neutrality talk is all based what 'could' happen is proof." (sic ish)

If "all" meant what you want it to mean, then maybe. But we are also talking about what ISPs do NOW.  They charge too much for slower speeds. But, like the frog in the pot of water, you have no way of knowing. Your water is just fine, lookit this, there are even bubbles now. Getting better all the time.

Yeah then there is this:

"Everyone claims to be a small government Libertarian until they’re up to their ass in flood waters..." NYKnicks12


"Which, too often, is the result of tax-hungry governments encouraging development of high-risk  beach front properties
relying on federally blessed flood insurance that winds  up leaving all taxpayers holding the sand bags." RedStateWard

First of all, the flooding is the result of blahblahblah? No! The flooding is the result of too much water in too small a space. If you want to discuss why there is too much water, or why there is too little space for it to go without causing flooding, fine. But let's try to make some sense here.

 Secondly:
26 dead in West Virginia Flooding

Which of those West Virginia fat cats was it with the greedy gubmint beach house?

Third is the tax hungry government, and then the taxpayers being stuck with the bag. Well why doesn't the tax greedy government just increase the land taxes on those properties and buy the flood insurance themselves? And the flood insurance ought to be based on loss ratio versus premiums plus investment surplus.

I can see some of the craters on the moon you are howling at here Red. And it is interesting to see you switch your ideological fervor from Trump to Rand in so few posts. I wonder if you can see it too?

But think third about what you are saying. That it is the fault of governments, giving into the demands of the wealthy developers. Because the government needs the tax revenues to do things like, oh I don't know, underpay their teachers and police officers? Maybe do an infrastructure project to divert the flood waters (which by NOW we have to at least consider, are going to keep coming!) away from populated areas.

Further, you're conflating the anger towards Houston which is ironic in that it is exactly Randian Libertarianism that resulted in Houston granting building permits in the flood zones.

It takes more government to govern more people not less. It takes more government to be able to say "No! You can't build there!"

It takes more infrastructure spending to make the changes we are going to need to make in order for us to survive (let alone! Not to even mention Thrive!) the results of sequences of bad decisions this nation has made one after the next after the next for the past 40 (at least) years.


We can agree on the problems. But your solutions don't work. They never have. They probably never will.
27  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: May 31, 2018, 01:58:31 PM
Quote
Problem solved. Except for one thing. I know what I think that one thing is. Do you know what that one thing is?
Errrrrr……Brown-skinned people moving into ‘your’ area?

Well, no because they are already there.

But yes, too.

The "conservative" who would have said "The problem will be that then more illegals will move in and the employers will hire them for less than they are paying the newly legals!"

Which has validity to it.

But there is a very simple answer to that as well. (By "simple" I mean easily explained, but of course talk is cheap.) But that solution will bring up a different problem. and when you get to that easy fix (which is easy but would be a fight to achieve) then there is no problem and we are whizzing our way into a future of paradigm shifted top gear.
28  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: May 31, 2018, 01:52:16 PM
Just the opposite.  The point of net neutrality is to prevent blocking, throttling, or limited content choice that cherry-picks or diminishes content in a manner that censors certain points of view.  Deliberate omission has been weaponized by content providers before.  My example, drawing upon another medium, exampled how censorship can happen.  

That rhetorical spitball was slimy and intellectually dishonest, even for you.

You are the one inviting censorship.



The only way to see RedStateWard turn around on Net Neutrality is when a Democrat wants control of the net. Period.

You won't convince him with Sinclair, because he wasn't convinced with Clear Channel. Back when they banned the Dixie Chicks that was AOK with the right wing.

But Let ABC cancel Roseanne (a woman the right wing HATED when she was a champion of the "little people" with her profane show. Wasn't she nearly half the reason for that Parents Against TV group?) and now "Conservatives" want to cry that this is her first amendment right! (Her first amendment was that it was Ambien, that wasn't right either) The people that were just fine with corporate censorship, now are both against it AND for it (no net neutrality).

The thing is that they won't don't can't (Who the hell can tell which it is?) see that they are on both sides of the same issue, and they are managing to be wrong both times!

29  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: May 31, 2018, 01:15:33 PM

It's the one thing that Adam Smith did speak of that is constantly ignored (probably due to ignorance of the fact) by "Free Market" zealots. There is no such thing as a free market and there cannot be. Because the ultimate recourse for the consumer is the judicial system. And by definition, the judicial system is there to rule by rule of law. Rule of Law is anathema to Libertarianism.


There is no market economy without the rule of law, just to be clear.
Rule of Law is anathema to Libertarianism?
I think you conflated libertarianism with libertinism.


Perhaps. Or perhaps it was the Nick Spinner School of Libertarianism and font work that has things In, de con flated, filetted and felated.

However, It is the central thought to Libertarianism that the government rules best which rules least.


30  National / Bush Administration / Re: Bush Administration on: May 31, 2018, 11:30:43 AM
Driving at night is always fun.

Friday night driving towards Boston I picked up the Basketball game. Cleveland was taking it to the Celts. But there wasn't the whining and moaning I usually hear when Boston is losing.

Turned out the station I was getting loud and clear was a Cleveland radio station, You have to love AM radio!

So the game was over and I moved on to a more local station where the caller was talking about this and about that, and then got to his real point. Sanctuary Cities! He was a'gin 'em . He made the point that the city had a $40billion operating budget (I figure he must be talking about maybe Worchester? It has to be big, but I would think Boston is bigger) of which $3.7Billion goes to dealing with "Illegals" between education, health care and incarceration and police and housing and feeding these people it comes to 3.7 out of 40.

That's a pretty big number. And I don't take it at face value. But I would say to the man. There is a simple solution to that. Make them legal. It's not like they are taking jobs, they are already doing that. But if you made them legal then they would qualify for Minimum Wage. They would be paying into the system (taxes, SSI etc) and they would be buying houses as homes to live in.  Is there a problem with that? Because people come here to work and get paid. These are the kinds of citizens that any working community should want to be made up of.

Problem solved.

Except for one thing. I know what I think that one thing is. Do you know what that one thing is?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 38
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!