O'Riley out at Fox

[Gary]

Looks like there's a job opening for foamy if he wants it.

"Twenty-First Century Fox Inc has decided to part ways with star cable
news host Bill O’Reilly following allegations of sexual harassment, the
company said on Wednesday."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/fox-news-bill-oreilly-fired/article34748685/

http://tinyurl.com/mzjxl8n

Wow.


- Gary

[Gary]

And, yes, the subject line should be "O'Reilly out at Fox".

[Kenji]

On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 12:36:25 UTC-7, Gary wrote:
> Looks like there's a job opening for foamy if he wants it.

FUCK IT! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!

[Spiral]

It's all about the ad-bucks.
Even O'Dingus can't beat that rap.

Been at least 8-10 years since I accidentally watched Fox "News", mostly
because I don't like being told how to think, so I never saw this guy on TV.
When I read he was a Rhodes Scholar, I was surprised someone that educated
would need to sell their soul for a living.
Then again, what kind of educated man turns in to a sexual predator? The
kind with more money than they'll ever figure out how to spend.

Given the public's capacity for stupidity (i.e., Trump), he'll be back in
two years, after tanning at his beach palace somewhere. Turns out that was a
damned good guess:

https://patch.com/new-york/easthampton/bill-oreilly-buys-15-acres-of-oceanfront-for-85-million_0a2bcf69

http://heavy.com/entertainment/2016/06/bill-oreilly-net-worth-fox-news-killing-books-charity-money-age-conservative-pundit-how-much-is-paid/

Which re-instills in me that propaganda is huge business in the U.S., if
you're good on camera and don't care about coming back as a zoo animal in
your afterlife.
Limbaugh had enough money from his propaganda days at Fox to offer 350
million dollars cash for a pro football team. I'm sure he had change
leftover.
Guess it IS easy to sell your soul.

What the hell, I'm sure my price is in there somewhere: "Who do we sell to
John Q Trailer Park today--Communism or Big Oil & Banking?"
It's the American way now, sign me up.

[Gary]

On 2017-04-20 1:41 PM, Spiral wrote:
> Gary wrote:
>
>> Looks like there's a job opening for foamy if he wants it.
>>
>> "Twenty-First Century Fox Inc has decided to part ways with star cable
>> news host Bill O’Reilly following allegations of sexual harassment, the
>> company said on Wednesday."
>>
>> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/fox-news-bill-oreilly-fired/article34748685/
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/mzjxl8n
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>>
>> - Gary
>
> It's all about the ad-bucks.
> Even O'Dingus can't beat that rap.
>
> Been at least 8-10 years since I accidentally watched Fox "News", mostly
> because I don't like being told how to think, so I never saw this guy on TV.
> When I read he was a Rhodes Scholar, I was surprised someone that educated
> would need to sell their soul for a living.

When I finally started watching O'Reilly over the past few years I was
surprised - he wasn't the total right-wing wack-job that I had thought
he was from watching the occasional snippets on other shows.

Even when I disagreed with the guy (which was often) I found his
opinions worth considering.

Yes, he could be arrogant, domineering and condescending towards guests
on his show. But I don't think he could be easily dismissed as a nut.

To what extent did he actually believe everything he said during his
show and to what extent was he simply faking it for his audience, who knows?

But, much to my surprise, I think I'm going to miss him. A bit.

- Gary

[Spiral]

Interesting. I'll keep an eye out, until I hear HOW I should be thinking,
then off it goes.
Rex Murphy was a Rhodes scholar. Don't it show?

[Spiral]

This just came out today:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/oreilly-out-1.4078256

[foamy]

Gary <Gary.wrote:

>> Been at least 8-10 years since I accidentally watched Fox "News", mostly
>> because I don't like being told how to think, so I never saw this guy on TV.
>> When I read he was a Rhodes Scholar, I was surprised someone that educated
>> would need to sell their soul for a living.
> When I finally started watching O'Reilly over the past few years I was
>surprised - he wasn't the total right-wing wack-job that I had thought
>he was from watching the occasional snippets on other shows.
> Even when I disagreed with the guy (which was often) I found his
>opinions worth considering.
> Yes, he could be arrogant, domineering and condescending towards guests
>on his show. But I don't think he could be easily dismissed as a nut.
> To what extent did he actually believe everything he said during his
>show and to what extent was he simply faking it for his audience, who knows?
> But, much to my surprise, I think I'm going to miss him. A bit.
>- Gary

Good post. As much as you can ' know ' an individual from tv, I couldn't
stand the prick as a person. He ranks high on my ' kickface ' scale. As for
his show the irony is he's really not the right wing whack job that so many
on the left like to assert. One hint as to the value to place on the opinion
of his most vocal critics, is usually contained in the first few words of
their anti-O'Reilly rants -- I never watch the (****#^*) but......

In an article for Breitbart, Senior Editor Pollak, hit the nail on the head
when he wrote, " In truth, the secret of O’Reilly’s success was that he was a
centrist. He hit the elusive sweet spot that many media outlets covet, but few
actually bother to pursue."

I found it a good read, and for those innerested:

http://www.breitbart.
com/big-journalism/2017/04/19/bill-oreilly-secret-centrist-not-conservative/

http://tinyurl.com/mzwepzu

Because I like to go to a knife fight armed, I seldom watch his show unless
there's a guest on I want to see. As a result I watch the complete left wing
nut jobs, Maddow, Tapper, Mathews, O'Donnell, Hayes, Lemon et al.

Frustrating to watch without the ability to respond with a bullshit, but still
a wonderment to me that individuals as mentioned above, actually exist in
this world.

Jim

[Gary]

I think, in a mirror-image like way, we're both doing the same thing -
we're watching shows that challenge our convictions. So I watch Fox and
you watch MSNBC.

And I think that's a really useful thing to do. No matter how certain
we may think we're right, we could still be wrong. And it's useful to
remind ourselves that there are intelligent people who have opposing
views to our own.

- Centrist Gary

[Gary]

Interesting article.

But I wonder about the vitriol that is being spewed by both sides in
the political media?

It's entertaining, but what damage is it doing to the political system?

- Gary

[foamy]

Spiral <spi...@onemoremile.org> wrote:
>Gary wrote:
>
>> On 2017-04-20 1:41 PM, Spiral wrote:
>>> Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looks like there's a job opening for foamy if he wants it.

If nominated I will not accept, if elected I will not serve. Oh wait, what was
the $ize of that contract again ?

What I find amazing, is there's yet to be a single instance of actual sexual
misconduct brought forth. Nothing so far is in the slightest sense been
proven or demonstrated. Simple bastardizing of the principle of presumption
of innocence, based upon reported payouts to some women from Fox or O'Reilly.

This morning was amazing, Lisa Bloom, well-trained daughter of the legendary
ambulance chaser Gloria Allred, trotted out the two most recent women to join
the gaggle of devestated ' victims '. One, a black woman, explained how deeply
violated she was years back when working as a temp at FNN, she encountered
O'Reilly as she was exiting an elevator when he said, " Looking good girl ".
She went on to explain how racist that remark was, and how the hair was
standing up on the back of her neck as she walked away. [ as an side, check
out the video, Bill was obviously lying ].

The second woman's grab for her 15 minute$, was because, " He could undress
you with his eyes. It was creepy. "

And the band plays on.

Jim

[Dutch]

foamy wrote:
> Spiral <spi...@onemoremile.org> wrote:
>> Gary wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-04-20 1:41 PM, Spiral wrote:
>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looks like there's a job opening for foamy if he wants it.
>
> If nominated I will not accept, if elected I will not serve. Oh wait, what was
> the $ize of that contract again ?
>
> What I find amazing, is there's yet to be a single instance of actual sexual
> misconduct brought forth. Nothing so far is in the slightest sense been
> proven or demonstrated. Simple bastardizing of the principle of presumption
> of innocence, based upon reported payouts to some women from Fox or O'Reilly.

Payouts to prevent details from getting reported, get it?

> This morning was amazing, Lisa Bloom, well-trained daughter of the legendary
> ambulance chaser Gloria Allred, trotted out the two most recent women to join
> the gaggle of devestated ' victims '. One, a black woman, explained how deeply
> violated she was years back when working as a temp at FNN, she encountered
> O'Reilly as she was exiting an elevator when he said, " Looking good girl ".
> She went on to explain how racist that remark was, and how the hair was
> standing up on the back of her neck as she walked away. [ as an side, check
> out the video, Bill was obviously lying ].
>
> The second woman's grab for her 15 minute$, was because, " He could undress
> you with his eyes. It was creepy. "
>
> And the band plays on.
>
> Jim

You really are a dinosaur Jim.

[foamy]

Dutch wrote:


>> What I find amazing, is there's yet to be a single instance of actual sexual
>> misconduct brought forth. Nothing so far is in the slightest sense been
>> proven or demonstrated. Simple bastardizing of the principle of presumption
>> of innocence, based upon reported payouts to some women from Fox or O'Reilly.
>
>Payouts to prevent details from getting reported, get it?

Oh geez, never crossed my mind. Thank God I can be schooled by your infinite
wisdom. While you're at it being an asshole, perhaps you can tell me what
details were avoided that would rise to him being guilty of sexual assault
and/or harrassment. I'll wait fuckface.

>> This morning was amazing, Lisa Bloom, well-trained daughter of the legendary
>> ambulance chaser Gloria Allred, trotted out the two most recent women to join
>> the gaggle of devestated ' victims '. One, a black woman, explained how
> deeply
>> violated she was years back when working as a temp at FNN, she encountered
>> O'Reilly as she was exiting an elevator when he said, " Looking good girl ".
>> She went on to explain how racist that remark was, and how the hair was
>> standing up on the back of her neck as she walked away. [ as an side, check
>> out the video, Bill was obviously lying ].
>>
>> The second woman's grab for her 15 minute$, was because, " He could undress
>> you with his eyes. It was creepy. "
>>
>> And the band plays on.
>> Jim
>You really are a dinosaur Jim.

Those were the facts as presented putz. A fucking old snowflake, who wudda
thunk it. I'll see if I can find a safe space for you.

Jim

[Dutch]

foamy wrote:
[..]

> While you're at it being an asshole, perhaps you can tell me what
> details were avoided that would rise to him being guilty of sexual >assault
> and/or harrassment. I'll wait fuckface.

13 million dollars worth, that's why nobody knows the details.

>>> This morning was amazing, Lisa Bloom, well-trained daughter of the legendary
>>> ambulance chaser Gloria Allred, trotted out the two most recent women to join
>>> the gaggle of devestated ' victims '. One, a black woman, explained how
>> deeply
>>> violated she was years back when working as a temp at FNN, she encountered
>>> O'Reilly as she was exiting an elevator when he said, " Looking good girl ".
>>> She went on to explain how racist that remark was, and how the hair was
>>> standing up on the back of her neck as she walked away. [ as an side, check
>>> out the video, Bill was obviously lying ].
>>>
>>> The second woman's grab for her 15 minute$, was because, " He could undress
>>> you with his eyes. It was creepy. "
>>>
>>> And the band plays on.
>>> Jim
>> You really are a dinosaur Jim.
>
> Those were the facts as presented putz. A fucking old snowflake, who wudda
> thunk it. I'll see if I can find a safe space for you.

Don't minimize the psychological damage a lech like O'Reilly in a
position of power does. It's time for that kind of garbage to be
history. How can we lecture Muslims when we put up with that shit?

[foamy]

Dutch wrote:

>foamy wrote:
>[..]
>
>> While you're at it being an asshole, perhaps you can tell me what
>> details were avoided that would rise to him being guilty of sexual >assault
>> and/or harrassment. I'll wait fuckface.
>
>13 million dollars worth, that's why nobody knows the details.

I called you fuckface as a takeoff on an old joke. When I read it now, it just
comes off as vulgar and mean, so I apologize.

The fact that no one other than the parties involved know the details is
precisely why assumption should not equal presumption. It is common
practice for corps and individuals to settle out of court, even frivilous and
meritless ones in order to avoid the high cost and publicity, in the most
sue-happy country on earth. From FNN's perspective it's chump change
to avoid the most insideous of practices which has crept into the legal
system, that being discovery. The expansion of discovery has allowed
the likes of Bloom to go on fishing expeditions, and expand a case of
a faulty blender in your kitchen, to rummaging through your bedroom
drawers checking out your underwear and sex toys.

>> Those were the facts as presented putz. A fucking old snowflake, who wudda
>> thunk it. I'll see if I can find a safe space for you.
>
>Don't minimize the psychological damage a lech like O'Reilly in a
>position of power does. It's time for that kind of garbage to be
>history. How can we lecture Muslims when we put up with that shit?

I again ask, what ' garbage ' ? Tell me what O'Reilly did. And yes, it's not
only appropriate to criticize Muslims, it should be mandatory for
everyone to shout from the rooftops what the scumbags engage in.
We _know_ without fear of contradiction what the lowlife pukes do.

There's 500,000 young girls in the USA alone who have had or are at risk of
gential mutilation. To somehow equate that with the ' psychological damage '
claimed by the likes of the latest two examples I provided, is off the wall.

Mayhaps you want to rethink that.

North American society started to collapse when mommas no longer told their
children, sticks and stones...

Jim

[Gary]

On 2017-04-23 5:38 AM, foamy wrote:

> Tell me what O'Reilly did.

Here's the NY Times article from April 2017 that started O'Reilly's
downfall:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/business/media/bill-oreilly-sexual-harassment-fox-news.html

http://tinyurl.com/kmpmsyp

A couple of quotes:

"The women who made allegations against Mr. O’Reilly either worked for
him or appeared on his show. They have complained about a wide range of
behavior, including verbal abuse, lewd comments, unwanted advances and
phone calls in which it sounded as if Mr. O’Reilly was masturbating,
according to documents and interviews."

and

"According to legal experts, companies occasionally settle disputes that
they believe have little merit because it is less risky than taking the
matters to trial, which can be costly and create a string of
embarrassing headlines."


- Gary

[Dutch]

foamy wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> foamy wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>>> While you're at it being an asshole, perhaps you can tell me what
>>> details were avoided that would rise to him being guilty of sexual >assault
>>> and/or harrassment. I'll wait fuckface.
>>
>> 13 million dollars worth, that's why nobody knows the details.
>
> I called you fuckface as a takeoff on an old joke. When I read it now, it just
> comes off as vulgar and mean, so I apologize.

No need, I consider fuckface a term of endearment in this context, when
we're having a disagreement.

> The fact that no one other than the parties involved know the details is
> precisely why assumption should not equal presumption.

Where there's smoke.. I can't see Fox getting rid of their most valuable
asset if there wasn't a LOT of there there.

Anyway, be skeptical, fine, but disparaging the women who come forward
is a bridge too far imo. The ones I saw interviewed were not asking for
money, and this is not the kind of fame anyone wants.

>>> Those were the facts as presented putz. A fucking old snowflake, who wudda
>>> thunk it. I'll see if I can find a safe space for you.
>>
>> Don't minimize the psychological damage a lech like O'Reilly in a
>> position of power does. It's time for that kind of garbage to be
>> history. How can we lecture Muslims when we put up with that shit?
>
> I again ask, what ' garbage ' ? Tell me what O'Reilly did. And yes, it's not
> only appropriate to criticize Muslims, it should be mandatory for
> everyone to shout from the rooftops what the scumbags engage in.
> We _know_ without fear of contradiction what the lowlife pukes do.
>
> There's 500,000 young girls in the USA alone who have had or are at risk of
> gential mutilation. To somehow equate that with the ' psychological damage '
> claimed by the likes of the latest two examples I provided, is off the wall.
>
> Mayhaps you want to rethink that.

I just think that if we want to condemn the treatment of women in other
cultures we better not be hypocritical and look the other way at this
kind of behaviour.

> North American society started to collapse when mommas no longer told their
> children, sticks and stones...

This is a powerful figure, like Roger Ailes, that makes it a whole other
level of scumbaggery than inappropriate remarks between peers which is
bad enough. It's more on the level of pedophilia.

[foamy]

Gary wrote:
>On 2017-04-23 5:38 AM, foamy wrote:
>
>> Tell me what O'Reilly did.
>
> Here's the NY Times article from April 2017 that started O'Reilly's
>downfall:

>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/business/media/bill-oreilly-sexual-harassmen
>t-fox-news.html

< snipped for brevity >

My point is these are_allegations_. There has been no determination as to
their veracity.

Jim

[foamy]

Dutch wrote:

>> I called you fuckface as a takeoff on an old joke. When I read it now, it
> just
>> comes off as vulgar and mean, so I apologize.
>
>No need, I consider fuckface a term of endearment in this context, when
>we're having a disagreement.

That's good, thanks.

>> The fact that no one other than the parties involved know the details is
>> precisely why assumption should not equal presumption.

>Where there's smoke.. I can't see Fox getting rid of their most valuable
>asset if there wasn't a LOT of there there.

I think it can be broken down into two stages. The first, Fox paying off the
the first thrumsome. Paying 13 mill was pocket change from a net who
makes/made 100's of millions from the show, and it made perfect sense to
just make it go away, regardless of the validity of the claims. Unfortunately
for them, it didn't, and knowing what they know now, if there was no truth
to the claims, they very might well have decided to fight it.

The second, given the feeding frenzy by competing media and the left, they
really had no choice. It was clear it just wasn't going to fade. It will be
interesting to see how the ratings fair with Carlson in the seat. I think they
will continue to blow CNN and MSNBC outta the water. A perhaps factoid
of interest, FNN has a higher percentage of dems and independants audience
than MSNBC and CNN have of independants and Republicans, combined.

>Anyway, be skeptical, fine, but disparaging the women who come forward
>is a bridge too far imo. The ones I saw interviewed were not asking for
>money, and this is not the kind of fame anyone wants.

I don't think accusers of any sex or situation should be given automatic
immunity from criticism. The woman I mentioned who said he said,' lookin
good ' and was so devestated, when asked if she would sue, said not right
now. Bet the farm...

>I just think that if we want to condemn the treatment of women in other
>cultures we better not be hypocritical and look the other way at this
>kind of behaviour.

I totally agree. But we weren't talking about Bill Cosby where everything the
puke did has been verified. With O'Reilly we don't know, so I don't think
there's anything hypocritcal in putting him in a holding pattern until or if
we do know.

>> North American society started to collapse when mommas no longer told their
>> children, sticks and stones...
>
>This is a powerful figure, like Roger Ailes, that makes it a whole other
>level of scumbaggery than inappropriate remarks between peers which is
>bad enough. It's more on the level of pedophilia.

I have always distinguished between words and actions. To me there's a big
difference between unwanted actual grabbing of a womans' ' pussy ' and talking
about being able to with a friend in private. Any guy who has spent any time
with the boys, and claims not to have said things which if made in mixed
public company, is flat out lying. The same I'm positive could be said by
women given similar circumstances.

The one thing which jumps out at me is to date I've never seen any allegation
of any physical abuse. That's not to say there has to be for a woman to feel
abused, its just I guess I don't understand and can't walk in those moccasins.
Or tell the guy to fuck off and walk away.

Jim

[Dutch]

foamy wrote:
> I have always distinguished between words and actions.

Yes, but words can inflict as much or more harm than a grope when the
victim is vulnerable.

To me there's a big
> difference between unwanted actual grabbing of a womans' ' pussy ' and talking
> about being able to with a friend in private. Any guy who has spent any time
> with the boys, and claims not to have said things which if made in mixed
> public company, is flat out lying. The same I'm positive could be said by
> women given similar circumstances.

The pussy grabbing quote on its own I agree. It was a private
conversation between men. But there is plenty of other stuff about Trump
to back up that he has done some pretty lowlife stuff. Maybe not to the
Cosby level, but grossly inappropriate for someone in his position.

>
> The one thing which jumps out at me is to date I've never seen any allegation
> of any physical abuse. That's not to say there has to be for a woman to feel
> abused, its just I guess I don't understand and can't walk in those moccasins.
> Or tell the guy to fuck off and walk away.

Some do, but when the man is in a position of power potentially over a
woman's career, she can feel powerless. It can be traumatic. Being a man
I can only empathize, but I believe it. The idea that there a lot of
lying attention seeking women out there is just not believable to me.
That goes for Bill Clinton as well.

This newsgroup needed a heated debate to wake it up, glad to oblige.

[Nyssa]

I'll jump in with an observation from the female point of
view of these types of situations.

Many women who have dealt with this type of verbal and beyond
abuse in the office place realize that if she makes a "fuss"
about it to higher ups or even HR, it will usually be worse
for her that the creep doing the mouthing off. She'll be
labeled as either a trouble maker or for not being a "team
player" (oh, how I detest that term!) and be told to basically
suck it up because it's just boys being boys or whatever. Don't
be so thin skinned! Look for the possibility of a poor
performance review coming up as well...for the complainer.

Most women in corporations know this is what will be (not)
done and won't make the official complaint in the first place,
although some kvetching to other women over lunch or outside
of the workplace will probably go on.

Now if the others being kvetched to or kvetching themselves
start comparing notes it might end up that they pool their
complaints and go en masse, but I wouldn't count on it happening,
Blame the victim and all of that.

Unless a LOT of women independently come forward with
similar complaints, nothing will be done. Even then, depending
on how far up the food chain the sleeze is, it could still
be "cured" by the company by saying the idiot will be given
a training course or counseling to make him more sensitive,
blah, blah, blah. And it will continue, possibly after a
brief hiatus.

No doubt a similar thing happened at Fox News and most of
the women working there who had experienced the abuse knew
that if they complained it would be worse for them than
the abuser and kept quiet as would happen in most corporations
without the celebrity factor mixed in.

Probably because some of those abused were NOT employees
directly, but guests and somewhat celebrities in their own
right, they felt they could make the complaints about their
treatment with less blowback.

Once the outsiders complained and were listened to, the
others finally came forward with their own stories in support
and with less likelihood they would be ignored or punished
for their complaints. Hence what seems to be piling on once
the guy is down.

Nyssa, who has never watched Fox News or O'Reilly but has
seen and heard about similar things happening in corporations
where she's worked but with no justice to the abused since
it's hushed up

[Kenji]

On Saturday, 22 April 2017 11:15:43 UTC-7, Gary wrote:

> But I wonder about the vitriol that is being spewed by both sides in
> the political media?
>
> It's entertaining, but what damage is it doing to the political system?

It IS the political system. Trump won by his consistent negative branding of his critics (e.g. Lyin' Ted, Crooked Hilary, the Failing New York Times) more than his policies. At least, as I understand his policies, which are in several of his books which I have never seen quoted in any media.

Also, is it a reduction in civility and if so, is it harmful?

It is a contentious scene, these pundit shows, but we have a long way to go to equal the contentiousness of the Taiwanese legislature, see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_violence

Is it harmful? Well, Chomsky used to urge Americans to debate politics with the intensity and irreverence that call-in shows have long encouraged regarding football. Chomsky wrote that if amateurs can challenge the wisdom of experienced professional coaches, why can't we also dare to upset the assumptions of political leaders? He may not have been thinking that this would lead to Occupy Democrats and Infowars, but I don't mind it really.

What is hard is that there is no such thing as a trusted source. Everything is partisan.

And it always was. The comfort of certainty was illusory.

[Gary]

And you're right.

It's possible that O'Reilly is an innocent victim here. That is,
several women over the years concocted false stories about sexual
harassment in order to cash a quick (and substantial) cheque. Then, when
the NY Times publicized these stories in April, various advertisers
freaked and started pulling their ads from O'Reilly's show. Fox
executives, seeing a hit to their bottom line, then threw an innocent
O'Reilly overboard.

It's possible, I suppose.

And it's also possible that the women are telling the truth and
O'Reilly is a serial sexual harasser.

In any event, all the individuals involved here (including O'Reilly)
seem to have come out of it with a potload of money.

- Gary

[Gary]

On 2017-04-24 6:40 AM, Nyssa wrote:

> I'll jump in with an observation from the female point of
> view of these types of situations.

Thanks, Nyssa. Good post.

- Gary

[Gary]

An interesting post, Kenji.

The one thing I would say, though, is that when people get really
worked up over a game it may lead to an occasional riot.

When people get really worked up over politics, it can lead to a civil war.

At this point, I don't think this a concern. Much of the fulminating
and vitriol (real or pretended) is confined to politicians and the
talking media heads. I suspect most people, of whatever political
persuasion, shrug off most of the noise.

At this point.

But though the shouting and demonizing by both sides can activate a
politician's base and help get him/her re-elected or can ensure a good
salary for a media talking head, how long before this poisonous
atmosphere starts to infect the general public with bad results?

- Gary

[Spiral]

Trying here to figure out what you has to occur to be a noisy telephone
masturbator.

It's uncomfortably visual. I'll stop thinking now.

[Spiral]

Kenji wrote:

> On Saturday, 22 April 2017 11:15:43 UTC-7, Gary wrote:
>
>> But I wonder about the vitriol that is being spewed by both sides in
>> the political media?
>>
>> It's entertaining, but what damage is it doing to the political system?
>
> It IS the political system. Trump won by his consistent negative branding
> of his critics (e.g. Lyin' Ted, Crooked Hilary, the Failing New York
> Times) more than his policies. At least, as I understand his policies,
> which are in several of his books which I have never seen quoted in any
> media.
>
> Also, is it a reduction in civility and if so, is it harmful?
>
> It is a contentious scene, these pundit shows, but we have a long way to
> go to equal the contentiousness of the Taiwanese legislature, see:
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_violence
>
> Is it harmful? Well, Chomsky used to urge Americans to debate politics
> with the intensity and irreverence that call-in shows have long encouraged
> regarding football. Chomsky wrote that if amateurs can challenge the
> wisdom of experienced professional coaches, why can't we also dare to
> upset the assumptions of political leaders?

That kind of falls under the purview of the parliamentary governmental
system, much more vocal as opposed to the American Senate and House system.
I always found the Canadian and British system very refreshing.

> He may not have been thinking
> that this would lead to Occupy Democrats and Infowars, but I don't mind it
> really.
>
> What is hard is that there is no such thing as a trusted source.
> Everything is partisan.
>
> And it always was. The comfort of certainty was illusory.

Sadly, dishonesty grows in politics.

[Spiral]

You're late to that party. The divisiveness among people has increased
immeasurably in the last decade due to propaganda from shit like Fox News
and the liberal university Thought Police. Instead of using their own minds,
and it's not an exaggeration to say that most people today do not,
especially the young ones, people depend on media douches putting a
sensationalist sound bite on issues, so they can parrot their heroes later.
I just spent three days working at a college here and I will swear an oath
that today's youth are thumb-sucking stupid. The minds of eight year-olds.
Jaw-dropping comments from young adults.
No one wants to use their head today.

I just wish people would take issues one logical step at a time. I wish
Logic was required curriculum starting in high school. It kind of bullet-
proofs the head from nonsense, steers you to a balance.

I've posted here before, that once you drink the Kool-Aid and tout either
political side, you fucking lose. Divisiveness is chaos, hallmark to the
Communist party, and while everyone is battling over minute details about
what bathroom some tranny uses, the big picture passes by unreported.

I'm betting that Trump knows this. Bet that most Pols did long before him.
Throw the public a sound bite, stir them up and while they're busy jerking
off about it in the press, as a politician, you own a Community Chest card
to all the treasury dinero you can wheelbarrow away. What the hell, that's
why they're there in the first place. Did you think it was to "make America
great again?"

[Dutch]

Gary wrote:
>
> At this point, I don't think this a concern. Much of the
> fulminating and vitriol (real or pretended) is confined to politicians
> and the talking media heads. I suspect most people, of whatever
> political persuasion, shrug off most of the noise.

I'm genuinely concerned that when the heat really starts to get cranked
up on the Trump gang regarding collaborating with the Russians to swing
the election it'll be bombs away, again. Anything to create a
distraction and bring up his popularity rating. This is a time honoured
tactic, Americans love it when they get to blow something up..

It was great to see Obama again. A man with an intellect, a genuine
smile and a wry sense of humour. What a stark contrast to that smug,
smirking, witless goofball they've got in there now.

[foamy]

Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>I'm genuinely concerned that when the heat really starts to get cranked
>up on the Trump gang regarding collaborating with the Russians to swing
>the election it'll be bombs away, again. Anything to create a
>distraction and bring up his popularity rating. This is a time honoured
>tactic, Americans love it when they get to blow something up..

Notice the left has gone crickets ? The reason is there's no there there, and
the notion that Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russians was utter
nonsense on day 1 and remains so.

>It was great to see Obama again. A man with an intellect, a genuine
>smile and a wry sense of humour. What a stark contrast to that smug,
>smirking, witless goofball they've got in there now.

I truly wanted to throw up when I read this. I never could and never will
understand the love for a man I consider not worthy or deserving of respect
or affection.

In my opinion, he should be tried for treason and when found guilty face
a firing squad at sunrise.

Politico, as far left a publication as exists, published an in depth expose'of
the lies and hidden dealings and coverups Obama engaged in with the
Iran deal which resulted in to name a few, American deaths, further funding
of terrorists, a guarantee of Iran becoming a Nuke Nation, the stealing
of military technology, and a deadly threat to America, Israel, and other
countries.

I realize those who don't want to hear it, most likely wont read it, but for
anyone concerned:

http://www.politico.
com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966

http://tinyurl.com/lqxhpgm

Jim

[foamy]

Gary wrote:

> It's possible that O'Reilly is an innocent victim here. That is,
>several women over the years concocted false stories about sexual
>harassment in order to cash a quick (and substantial) cheque. Then, when
>the NY Times publicized these stories in April, various advertisers
>freaked and started pulling their ads from O'Reilly's show. Fox
>executives, seeing a hit to their bottom line, then threw an innocent
>O'Reilly overboard.
> It's possible, I suppose.
> And it's also possible that the women are telling the truth and
>O'Reilly is a serial sexual harasser.

>- Gary

I think there's an additional possibility. The women, either sincerely, or
delusionally, have convinced themselves that what occurred was sexual
misconduct, when it wouldn't meet the minimal requirements legally or
via a general objective consensus.

Just cause someone says it's so, doesn't make it so, anymore than Bruce
cutting of his dick makes him a woman.

Jim

[Gary]

On 2017-04-25 7:44 AM, foamy wrote:
> Gary wrote:
>
>> It's possible that O'Reilly is an innocent victim here. That is,
>> several women over the years concocted false stories about sexual
>> harassment in order to cash a quick (and substantial) cheque. Then, when
>> the NY Times publicized these stories in April, various advertisers
>> freaked and started pulling their ads from O'Reilly's show. Fox
>> executives, seeing a hit to their bottom line, then threw an innocent
>> O'Reilly overboard.
>> It's possible, I suppose.
>> And it's also possible that the women are telling the truth and
>> O'Reilly is a serial sexual harasser.
>> - Gary
>
> I think there's an additional possibility. The women, either sincerely, or
> delusionally, have convinced themselves that what occurred was sexual
> misconduct, when it wouldn't meet the minimal requirements legally or
> via a general objective consensus.

Yes, you're right - that's a third possibility.

Fourth, anyone?

- Gary

[pawn]

Zombie apocalypse?

[pawn]

On 2017-04-23 6:51 PM, foamy wrote:

>
> The one thing which jumps out at me is to date I've never seen any allegation
> of any physical abuse. That's not to say there has to be for a woman to feel
> abused, its just I guess I don't understand and can't walk in those moccasins.
> Or tell the guy to fuck off and walk away.
>
> Jim
>

True but even if it's as simple as a horny older dude coming on to the
girls around the station, it really does kind of damage the brand. He
really does put himself out there as this "above it all" kind of guy.

[pawn]

On 2017-04-23 9:06 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> Some do, but when the man is in a position of power potentially over a
> woman's career, she can feel powerless. It can be traumatic. Being a man
> I can only empathize, but I believe it. The idea that there a lot of
> lying attention seeking women out there is just not believable to me.
> That goes for Bill Clinton as well.

True story: in 2004, I was engineering manager of a fairly large
consulting company and we were at a staff party at a pool hall. A drunk
girl from accounting that I barely knew walked up to me and started
flaunting her tits at me and batting her eyelashes. Real inappropriate
stuff. I had seen her act this way before so I called her on it and
basically said "What are you doing? Why do you do this?" Her response
was "I'm in a loveless marriage."

Foolishly, I engaged and expressed sympathy and asked why she stayed
with him. She told me they had kids and I said "Oh, then I understand,
your children have to come first." That was it. Nothing else stated or
implied in any way. She ran off to the bathroom and two or three of her
friends went with her. 10 minutes later a couple of them came out
swearing at me, in my face like they were ready to throw down.
Apparently, I called her a "bad mother." I was unable to fight back in
any way whatsoever (As a senior employee, I would have looked like a
fool arguing with them, so I was damned if I did and damned of I
didn't). Although there were never really any tangible repercussions
(mostly because there were witnesses that saw the exchange and backed me
up), I was always turned off by this incident and it was one primary
reason why I decided office politics weren't for me and I started my own
company and I've been self employed ever since.

In every meaningful way, that could be described as sexual harassment.
It was a lewd, unwanted and inappropriate advance on her part and when
it didn't go the way she expected, she turned to a political ploy to
punish me.

I often wonder how this story would have gone if there were no
witnesses. I mean, talk about powerless. There's literally no outcome
that would have looked good for me. How many men just have to deal with
situations like this as part of their life without having a PC culture
automatically jumping to their aid with triggered language like "trauma"
and "powerless"?

[foamy]

pawn wrote:

>True but even if it's as simple as a horny older dude coming on to the
>girls around the station, it really does kind of damage the brand. He
>really does put himself out there as this "above it all" kind of guy.

Oh I think he's a asshole nonpareil. An egomaniacal narcissistic prick.
I have no doubt he'd be capable of being a sexist pig. What I've never
really understood is his popularity. I've come to believe it's not him per
se, but the show, which is the only alternative to the left dominated nets.

Jim

[Dutch]

foamy wrote:
> Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm genuinely concerned that when the heat really starts to get cranked
>> up on the Trump gang regarding collaborating with the Russians to swing
>> the election it'll be bombs away, again. Anything to create a
>> distraction and bring up his popularity rating. This is a time honoured
>> tactic, Americans love it when they get to blow something up..
>
> Notice the left has gone crickets ? The reason is there's no there there,

The issue has not died in the media at all, but the investigations are
ongoing, so there's not a ot of new information to report.

and
> the notion that Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russians was utter
> nonsense on day 1 and remains so.

Fuck! Talk about denial.. There are Russian hack-marks all over that
election and plenty of obvious evidence of inappropriate relationships
and secret conversations all over the place.

>
>> It was great to see Obama again. A man with an intellect, a genuine
>> smile and a wry sense of humour. What a stark contrast to that smug,
>> smirking, witless goofball they've got in there now.
>
> I truly wanted to throw up when I read this.

I know what you mean, Donald Trump gives me that sick feeling every time
I see that smug lying bastard on TV.

I never could and never will
> understand the love for a man I consider not worthy or deserving of respect
> or affection.

He's a great man, a decent man, and will go down and history as a fine
president who did a lot of good given the circumstances he faced.
Trump's legacy will amount to a giant shit-stain on the underpants of
America.

>
> In my opinion, he should be tried for treason and when found guilty face
> a firing squad at sunrise.
>
> Politico, as far left a publication as exists, published an in depth expose'of
> the lies and hidden dealings and coverups Obama engaged in with the
> Iran deal which resulted in to name a few, American deaths, further funding
> of terrorists, a guarantee of Iran becoming a Nuke Nation, the stealing
> of military technology, and a deadly threat to America, Israel, and other
> countries.
>
> I realize those who don't want to hear it, most likely wont read it, but for
> anyone concerned:

You mean for anyone who wants a good fix of Obama-hate to distract from
the dumpster fire that is the current administration. That is a very
one-sided view of the deal, others are less politically charged. The
consensus I've read is that they are better with the deal in place than
without it, despite its drawbacks.


There are few stories of U.S. foreign policy over the past 30 years that
can be called anything short of disastrous, so this deal having negative
consequences should not surprise anyone.

[Dutch]

I'll tell you how it would have gone if there had been no witnesses and
you ended up being unjustly shamed or worse. You would have felt
powerless and traumatized.

[foamy]

Dutch wrote:

>He's a great man, a decent man, and will go down and history as a fine
>president who did a lot of good given the circumstances he faced.
>Trump's legacy will amount to a giant shit-stain on the underpants of
>America.

Oh is this the same man who said in 2009, "I did not run for office to be
helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street."

And then today agreed to a payment of $400,000.00 to speak at a Wall Street
bank ?

Helluva decent man.

Jim

[Dutch]

He's not holding an elected office any more. Sure that seems like a lot
of money to shleps like us, but it's what speakers of his stature
command. He's a star, probably the most sought after speaker in the
world. And you can bet that his message on healthcare will be to endorse
more affordable coverage for more people, it's what he has always stood
for. They shouldn't expect anything different.

The other thing is, what is your basis for comparison? Popular
ex-presidents get high speaking fees.

> Helluva decent man.

Absolutely, especially when compared to you-know-who, the insulting,
womanizing, serial lying crook. The exact opposite of a decent man

[Nyssa]

Can I choose "None of the Above"?

Honestly, the entire spectrum of politicians are so out
of touch with the real world I wouldn't trust any of them
to pick up my grocery order for me much less manage a
government.

Disgusting!

Nyssa, who thinks it's beyond repairing at this point short
of that zombie apocalypse pawn mentioned

[pawn]

On 2017-04-25 11:15 PM, Dutch wrote:

> pawn wrote:
>> I often wonder how this story would have gone if there were no
>> witnesses. I mean, talk about powerless. There's literally no outcome
>> that would have looked good for me. How many men just have to deal with
>> situations like this as part of their life without having a PC culture
>> automatically jumping to their aid with triggered language like "trauma"
>> and "powerless"?
>
> I'll tell you how it would have gone if there had been no witnesses and
> you ended up being unjustly shamed or worse. You would have felt
> powerless and traumatized.
>

I don't think you're getting that I did feel powerless and a little
traumatized (unless you don't think changing jobs was significant enough
to warrant the word trauma). And my larger point was, I wonder how many
sexual harassment cases are as trivial (or not trivial) as my example?
Some? None? Only those involved or those who witnessed them know for
sure. I also wonder how many men deal with similar stories and just
shrug it off and go on where a woman would hold on to it until they see
an opportunity to fight back.

[pawn]

Well, I for one would turn off The Factor as soon as I realized it was a
guest host on any given episode. I agree with your assessment, but he
certainly draws an audience.

[Kenji]

On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 08:10:04 UTC-7, pawn wrote:

I don't doubt for a second that this incident was deeply troubling and that you were wronged by it.

I do doubt that men suffer this kind of sexual harassment and trauma in the workplace at anything close to the rate that women do, just because in our culture men are typically the pursuers and women typically are the choosers.

That's neither here nor there when it comes to your case, of course.

You could have fought it, but what would you win? Not your joy of coming to work.

[Dutch]

I don't know. In my limited experience male-in-power harassing
vulnerable female is by far the most common dynamic. But of course it is
reprehensible whichever way it goes.

[Gary]

Maybe it shows that Bernie was right: both the Democrats and
Republicans are controlled by the rich.

Here's an article about Obama and his willingness to take this fee:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15419740/obama-speaking-fee

http://tinyurl.com/n2u96fa

- Gary

[Gary]

On 2017-04-24 11:03 PM, Spiral wrote:

> I just wish people would take issues one logical step at a time. I wish
> Logic was required curriculum starting in high school. It kind of bullet-
> proofs the head from nonsense, steers you to a balance.
>
> I've posted here before, that once you drink the Kool-Aid and tout either
> political side, you fucking lose.

Over the years, I've come to agree with this. I used to treat politics
like a team sport - you cheer for one party and boo the other.

But now I can find things in most party's platforms that I agree and
disagree with.

Makes it harder to vote but it saves a lot of needless aggravation
caused by defending some policy you don't actually agree with or
criticizing some policy you do agree with simply because of the party
that policy originated from.

- Gary

[Dutch]

While I don't think taking the money makes him a hypocrite, because he's
now a private citizen, I agree that he doesn't need the money and if he
wants to set an example to the young progressive community, he ought to
donate the money to charity.

I really knew I hated the move when I saw a panel show on CNN and the
Republican pundits were all defending him.

[foamy]

Dutch wrote:

>He's not holding an elected office any more. Sure that seems like a lot
>of money to shleps like us, but it's what speakers of his stature
>command. He's a star, probably the most sought after speaker in the
>world.

And you don't see the hypocrisy ? Just as the Clintons were knee deep in
shit with their pay to play, you think the bank is just paying him 400K to
hear his sparking wit and endearingly oratory ?

>> Helluva decent man.
>
>Absolutely, especially when compared to you-know-who, the insulting,
>womanizing, serial lying crook. The exact opposite of a decent man

Didn't you mom ever tell you, just cause Johnny jumps off a bridge doesn't
mean you have to.

Using your logic, anyone could be a great person simply by comparing them
to Hitler. Obama's lack of character, ethics and morality stand on their own.

Jim

[foamy]

pawn wrote:

>Well, I for one would turn off The Factor as soon as I realized it was a
>guest host on any given episode. I agree with your assessment, but he
>certainly draws an audience.

Oh ya, I too would not bother to watch if certain guest hosts were on
like Bowling or the little smartass shithead Gutfeld.

There's no doubt O'Reilly has a loyal gaggle of fans, I just wonder what
percentage of the total audience that group comprises.

Jim

[foamy]

Dutch wrote:

>While I don't think taking the money makes him a hypocrite, because he's
>now a private citizen, I agree that he doesn't need the money and if he
>wants to set an example to the young progressive community, he ought to
>donate the money to charity.
>
>I really knew I hated the move when I saw a panel show on CNN and the
>Republican pundits were all defending him.

lol, you sure you want the world to know you actually watch Lemon ?

Oops, I think I just outted you.

Jim

[Dutch]

foamy wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> He's not holding an elected office any more. Sure that seems like a lot
>> of money to shleps like us, but it's what speakers of his stature
>> command. He's a star, probably the most sought after speaker in the
>> world.
>
> And you don't see the hypocrisy?

The optics are piss poor but it's not the hypocrisy that you portrayed.

He said that as president he was not going to be in the business of
making Wall Street rich. Whether you think he was or wasn't too cozy
with Wall St as POTUS, he's not in that position any longer. And if you
want to get right down to it, this makes Wall St poorer, not richer.

> Just as the Clintons were knee deep in
> shit with their pay to play, you think the bank is just paying him 400K to
> hear his sparking wit and endearingly oratory ?

He has ZERO control over government policy. His former opposition owns
the Whitehouse and both houses of congress. He may be popular with many
people, but he's a private citizen, that is all.

>>> Helluva decent man.
>>
>> Absolutely, especially when compared to you-know-who, the insulting,
>> womanizing, serial lying crook. The exact opposite of a decent man
>
> Didn't you mom ever tell you, just cause Johnny jumps off a bridge doesn't
> mean you have to.
>
> Using your logic, anyone could be a great person simply by comparing them
> to Hitler. Obama's lack of character, ethics and morality stand on their own.

Partisan bullshit. I never said he was a saint. He also wasn't much of a
leftist. He was a centrist, a pragmatist and a tough president.

How can you seriously be spending one minute questioning the ethics of a
*former* president when the current administration is up to their necks
in enough shit to sink an aircraft carrier?. The connections to Russia
alone are enough to stop a train.

[Dutch]

I like Don Lemon.

> Oops, I think I just outted you.

How does a Canadian living on the west coast end up leaning as right as
you? What is the life path that formed your political bent? Seriously,
if I didn't know better I'd say you were from Texas or Missouri.

[foamy]

Dutch wrote:

>He has ZERO control over government policy. His former opposition owns
>the Whitehouse and both houses of congress. He may be popular with many
>people, but he's a private citizen, that is all.

Sorry but that a really naive position. It's immaterial if he's outta office,
it's all about ACCESS and CONNECTIONS.

Bobby Banker: Great speech Barry, thanks a lot. Say, could you by any chance
introduce me to Maxine Waters ? I hear she's hot.

Obama: Oh thanks Bobby I really enjoyed my time with you. Sure, I can hook you
up, have fun.

>> Using your logic, anyone could be a great person simply by comparing them
>> to Hitler. Obama's lack of character, ethics and morality stand on their own.
>
>Partisan bullshit. I never said he was a saint. He also wasn't much of a
>leftist. He was a centrist, a pragmatist and a tough president.

>How can you seriously be spending one minute questioning the ethics of a
>*former* president when the current administration is up to their necks
>in enough shit to sink an aircraft carrier?. The connections to Russia
>alone are enough to stop a train.

You are doing again exactly what I pointed out. Trump's character is
irrelevant to assessing Obama's. And you will eat your words with respect
to the groundless claim that the Trump team had anything to do with the
allegations that the Russians hacked into Clintons emails abbetted by Trump.
If you have any evidence whatsoever that Trump knew or was involved, please
put it forward, because to date there's been _nothing_.

Jim

[Gary]

On 2017-04-27 12:02 PM, Dutch wrote:
> foamy wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>> He's not holding an elected office any more. Sure that seems like a lot
>>> of money to shleps like us, but it's what speakers of his stature
>>> command. He's a star, probably the most sought after speaker in the
>>> world.
>>
>> And you don't see the hypocrisy?
>
> The optics are piss poor but it's not the hypocrisy that you portrayed.
>
> He said that as president he was not going to be in the business of
> making Wall Street rich. Whether you think he was or wasn't too cozy
> with Wall St as POTUS, he's not in that position any longer. And if you
> want to get right down to it, this makes Wall St poorer, not richer.

The problem is that his acceptance of the money supports the notion
that he supported Wall Street during his presidency and that this
"speaking fee" is, in fact, a payoff from Wall Street to Obama for
favors done during his presidency.

It could also be construed as a message from Wall Street to current
and future politicians - you play ball with us while you're in power and
we'll look after you when your political career is over.

- Gary

[foamy]

Dutch wrote:

>>> I really knew I hated the move when I saw a panel show on CNN and the
>>> Republican pundits were all defending him.
>>
>> lol, you sure you want the world to know you actually watch Lemon ?
>
>I like Don Lemon.

Oh so you're the one ? Obviously intellect doesn't play a role in your
affection for him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpVd7k1Uw6A

>How does a Canadian living on the west coast end up leaning as right as
>you? What is the life path that formed your political bent? Seriously,
>if I didn't know better I'd say you were from Texas or Missouri.

Hook em horns !! I'm not nearly as right wing as you portray me. It's just
that you are so far left anyone hangin around the middle is seen by you to
be further right than [ insert Atilla the Hun wannabee ].

I should have mentioned this in my other response. Good old Barry scored
another 400K for a speech to the A&E network.

Since you believe being out of office exempts him from criticism, let's try
this: He condemns the KKK while pres, but after he leaves office accepts
a 400K offer from the Grand Wiz to address the clannies. Any prob with that ?

Jim

[Dutch]

foamy wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> He has ZERO control over government policy. His former opposition owns
>> the Whitehouse and both houses of congress. He may be popular with many
>> people, but he's a private citizen, that is all.
>
> Sorry but that a really naive position. It's immaterial if he's outta office,
> it's all about ACCESS and CONNECTIONS.
>
> Bobby Banker: Great speech Barry, thanks a lot. Say, could you by any chance
> introduce me to Maxine Waters ? I hear she's hot.
>
> Obama: Oh thanks Bobby I really enjoyed my time with you. Sure, I can hook you
> up, have fun.

And you call me naive? You greatly underestimate Democratic congressmen
if you think they are that easily manipulated.

>
>>> Using your logic, anyone could be a great person simply by comparing them
>>> to Hitler. Obama's lack of character, ethics and morality stand on their own.
>>
>> Partisan bullshit. I never said he was a saint. He also wasn't much of a
>> leftist. He was a centrist, a pragmatist and a tough president.
>
>> How can you seriously be spending one minute questioning the ethics of a
>> *former* president when the current administration is up to their necks
>> in enough shit to sink an aircraft carrier?. The connections to Russia
>> alone are enough to stop a train.
>
> You are doing again exactly what I pointed out. Trump's character is
> irrelevant to assessing Obama's.

I didn't say it was. I am questioning YOUR judgement and priorities. You
are obsessed with the perceived failures of a previous president while
the current one is poised to drive civilization off a cliff.

The thing is Obama is gone. He arguably left the U.S. in a better state
than he found it. But the point is, he is history. The only reason to
bring up what he's doing or did is to distract from the ongoing Trump
fiasco.

And you will eat your words with respect
> to the groundless claim that the Trump team had anything to do with the
> allegations that the Russians hacked into Clintons emails abbetted by Trump.
> If you have any evidence whatsoever that Trump knew or was involved, please
> put it forward, because to date there's been _nothing_.

No evidence? Are you INSANE? The shell casings are all over the floor,
they just haven't found the gun yet, or if they have they aren't telling
us until they have rock-solid cases..

Flynn, Manafore, Paige, Kushner, Tillerson, Sessions, almost the whole
Trump inner circle, off the top off my head, all have had contacts with
Russian agents that have raised suspicions and/or which they have
conveniently neglected to mention at key times. There's been enough
drip-drip to fill an Olympic swimming pool. And when that shit hits the
fan The Donald won't have anywhere to hide.

Then there's the Cabinet appointments. It seems like the main criterion
for a cabinet post is that you want the department you are going to head
to cease to be useful.

[Dutch]

Gary wrote:
> On 2017-04-27 12:02 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> foamy wrote:
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>> He's not holding an elected office any more. Sure that seems like a lot
>>>> of money to shleps like us, but it's what speakers of his stature
>>>> command. He's a star, probably the most sought after speaker in the
>>>> world.
>>>
>>> And you don't see the hypocrisy?
>>
>> The optics are piss poor but it's not the hypocrisy that you portrayed.
>>
>> He said that as president he was not going to be in the business of
>> making Wall Street rich. Whether you think he was or wasn't too cozy
>> with Wall St as POTUS, he's not in that position any longer. And if you
>> want to get right down to it, this makes Wall St poorer, not richer.
>
> The problem is that his acceptance of the money supports the notion
> that he supported Wall Street during his presidency and that this
> "speaking fee" is, in fact, a payoff from Wall Street to Obama for
> favors done during his presidency.

Its true, he wasn't as hard on Wall Street as he should have been, but
what president has been?

>
> It could also be construed as a message from Wall Street to current
> and future politicians - you play ball with us while you're in power and
> we'll look after you when your political career is over.

Also true, also par for the course. I never said Obama was a saint or a
revolutionary, I said he is a decent, honorable man and was a fine
president.

Now maybe if someone like Bernie had gotten in with a Dem majority in
congress something might have happened to turn the thing around, but
even that is a long shot. Wall Street (I almost said White Street.
Freudian slip) pulls the strings and the Whitehouse jumps. Did you see
who they trotted out with the new tax plan? Two dudes from Goldman Sachs.

[Dutch]

foamy wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>
>>>> I really knew I hated the move when I saw a panel show on CNN and the
>>>> Republican pundits were all defending him.
>>>
>>> lol, you sure you want the world to know you actually watch Lemon ?
>>
>> I like Don Lemon.
>
> Oh so you're the one ? Obviously intellect doesn't play a role in your
> affection for him.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpVd7k1Uw6A

He's obviously not a physicist, but he did preface the question with "I
know this is propsterous."

I watch him all the time. He's smart and fair and fun to watch.

You don't like because he is to the left of you, which means he's smart
and fair.

>> How does a Canadian living on the west coast end up leaning as right as
>> you? What is the life path that formed your political bent? Seriously,
>> if I didn't know better I'd say you were from Texas or Missouri.
>
> Hook em horns !! I'm not nearly as right wing as you portray me.

Yer damn right you are. Nobody but a died in the wool rightard still
goes on about Obama or Hillary, not while there's a rampaging bull
elephant in the Whitehouse (figuratively, since he's hardly ever there).

It's just
> that you are so far left anyone hangin around the middle is seen by you to
> be further right than [ insert Atilla the Hun wannabee ].

Nope, I am very middle of the road on most issues, left on some, right
on others. Common sense on all. Name any issue.

>
> I should have mentioned this in my other response. Good old Barry scored
> another 400K for a speech to the A&E network.

So what? They obviously think it's good value or they wouldn't pay it.
George W. Bush has been doing it for years. I never criticized it
because its none of my business. I thought you believed in free enterprise.

>
> Since you believe being out of office exempts him from criticism,

I never said he should be exempt from criticism. I'm saying that it's
phony to say this makes him a hypocrite based on his previous positions.
The Democrats want him to ride in a white horse and rescue them from the
mess the party is in, but he's no knight in shining armor.

let's try
> this: He condemns the KKK while pres, but after he leaves office accepts
> a 400K offer from the Grand Wiz to address the clannies. Any prob with that ?

What are you talking about?

[foamy]

Dutch wrote:

>> Oh so you're the one ? Obviously intellect doesn't play a role in your
>> affection for him.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpVd7k1Uw6A
>
>He's obviously not a physicist, but he did preface the question with "I
>know this is propsterous."

What a surprise, you conveniently left out the rest of the quote which
demonstrated just how dumb he is. The full quote:

" I know it's preposperous, BUT is it preposperous you think Mary ? "

[ as an aside, Mary's answer was just as stupid, but she's a smart woman
and I have to assume she was rattled by the idiots question, and simply
misspoke ].

>I watch him all the time. He's smart and fair and fun to watch.

Oh, so you're the one:

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/category/ratings

I take it you never watched the CNN anchors quiz show which ran about
5 episodes ?

"You can't ring in Don, there wasn't even a question there," Cooper said.
"Oh, sorry," Lemon said.

Lemon was hands down the dumbest, followed closely by Brooke Baldwin
and Erin Burnett. John Berman was clearly the most intelligent.

>You don't like because he is to the left of you, which means he's smart
>and fair.

Feel better now ?

>let's try
>> this: He condemns the KKK while pres, but after he leaves office accepts
>> a 400K offer from the Grand Wiz to address the clannies. Any prob with that ?
>
>What are you talking about?

That says it all, the analogy escaped you.

Jim

[Dutch]

foamy wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>
>>> Oh so you're the one ? Obviously intellect doesn't play a role in your
>>> affection for him.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpVd7k1Uw6A
>>
>> He's obviously not a physicist, but he did preface the question with "I
>> know this is propsterous."
>
> What a surprise, you conveniently left out the rest of the quote which
> demonstrated just how dumb he is. The full quote:
>
> " I know it's preposperous, BUT is it preposperous you think Mary ? "
>
> [ as an aside, Mary's answer was just as stupid, but she's a smart woman
> and I have to assume she was rattled by the idiots question, and simply
> misspoke ].
>
>> I watch him all the time. He's smart and fair and fun to watch.
>
> Oh, so you're the one:
>
> http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/category/ratings
>
> I take it you never watched the CNN anchors quiz show which ran about
> 5 episodes ?
>
> "You can't ring in Don, there wasn't even a question there," Cooper said.
> "Oh, sorry," Lemon said.
>
> Lemon was hands down the dumbest, followed closely by Brooke Baldwin
> and Erin Burnett. John Berman was clearly the most intelligent.

In others words, you don't like their politics. They say stuff that
hurts your ears.

Here's one that'll explode your head, the brightest mind on the left is
Rachel Maddow. The woman is brilliant.

>> You don't like because he is to the left of you, which means he's smart
>> and fair.
>
> Feel better now ?

Naw, it was a bit of a low blow, but I am really struggling to get my
head around how an apparently reasonable person like you, from a similar
background can think so radically different from me. One of us is crazy,
and I feel fine. :)

>
>> let's try
>>> this: He condemns the KKK while pres, but after he leaves office accepts
>>> a 400K offer from the Grand Wiz to address the clannies. Any prob with that ?
>>
>> What are you talking about?
>
> That says it all, the analogy escaped you.

All I recall in this regard is Trump saying "Who is David Duke? never
heard of him." And not distancing himself from the extremist groups that
endorsed him.

But here's the problem with your charge; Obama said that as president he
was not going to be in the business of making life easy for Wall Street.
He was promising to tighten regulations. Whether he succeeded or not is
an open question. But he never said Wall Street banks are evil and I
will never have anything to with them, ever. If he had said something
like that then your charge would hold water.

But more significant to me is that anyone gives a shit. The U.S. powered
by The Donald's tiny brain and massive ego is lurching towards a
catastrophic military confrontation with North Korea, never mind the
trade embargoes on our exports that will kill the BC economy.

[foamy]

Dutch wrote:

>> Lemon was hands down the dumbest, followed closely by Brooke Baldwin
>> and Erin Burnett. John Berman was clearly the most intelligent.
>
>In others words, you don't like their politics. They say stuff that
>hurts your ears.

Hurt ? Hell no, it's music to my ears to see CNN tank even further by giving
a job to Don 'There are ways not to perform oral sex ' Lemon ---the dumbest
individual to ever anchor a network show.

>Here's one that'll explode your head, the brightest mind on the left is
>Rachel Maddow. The woman is brilliant.

Wow quite the compliment. Isn't that like saying you don't sweat much for
a fat slob ? Actually I'd like to boink her [?]. She's pretty smart but when
her ideology competes with her intelligence, ideology often wins and
some dumb shit is produced. Like when she asked why Ambassador Stevens,
murdered in Benghazi, would have Clintons email. I'll spare you the details,
it was dumb.

As an aside, I'll bet you 2 million NGBP's over, oh wait, you don't have any,
I'll lend you some. I'll bet I watch her as much if not more than you do.
Unlike virtually all of the left who read, listen, and watch something in
order to reenforce their beliefs, I watch what challenges mine.

>Naw, it was a bit of a low blow, but I am really struggling to get my
>head around how an apparently reasonable person like you, from a similar
>background can think so radically different from me. One of us is crazy,
>and I feel fine. :)

I'm puzzled too. The only explanation I've been able to come up with, is you
are still experiencing acid flashbacks and haven't quite got past the hippy
70's. I hired an investigator to verify this, and I'm pretty sure he'll come
back to me with photos of you in bellbottoms and platforms settling in with
your bong eager to watch Chris Mathews. I only did this, not to invade your
privacy, but simply because I think an intervention is necessary.

>But here's the problem with your charge; Obama said that as president he
>was not going to be in the business of making life easy for Wall Street.
>He was promising to tighten regulations. Whether he succeeded or not is
>an open question. But he never said Wall Street banks are evil and I
>will never have anything to with them, ever. If he had said something
>like that then your charge would hold water.

Oh oh. In his WH exit in an interview with Steve Kroft:

Kroft: You're not going to go to Wall Street to make a lot of money ?
Obama: I'm not going to Wall Street.

[ I guess an hour Wall Street driveby for 400K doesn't count as ' going ' ].

He and Michelle around the end of Feb. signed a 60 million dollar book
deal. 800K he got in a couple days is just chump change, so what does
that say ?

Some reactions on the Wall Street payolla:

Bernie, the Independant de facto leader of the dems:

" distasteful, not a good idea he did that, and It's not a good idea, and I'm
sorry President Obama made that choice.

Pocahontas, Democrats presidential nominee in 2020 and casino applicant
for the Tsenacommacah Nation:

"I was troubled by that, and blah blah "

There were more but who cares. It's not just the right who think it was
hypocritical, wrong and unnecessary.

>But more significant to me is that anyone gives a shit. The U.S. powered
>by The Donald's tiny brain and massive ego is lurching towards a

>catastrophic military confrontation with North Korea...

Good, pay me now or pay me big time later. Trump has accomplished what
hasn't been since the Nixon and Reagan visits in the 70's and 80's, the
establishment of a relationship and understanding with China. The UN
Security Council is of no consequence. China is critical, but if their actions
in conjunction with universal sanctions don't result in a dismantling of the
little psychoshits nukes, I see no solution other than a preemptive blowing
up to smithereens. Which of course would be brutal for South Korea.

The Seals were training and formulating a plan to kill the prick, against US
Law, but who would give a shit. I can't see how that could be done though.

never mind the
>trade embargoes on our exports that will kill the BC economy.

Nah, the economy will be in the toilet after the you elect the NDP
in the upcoming election. :-)

Jim

[Dutch]

foamy wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>
>>> Lemon was hands down the dumbest, followed closely by Brooke Baldwin
>>> and Erin Burnett. John Berman was clearly the most intelligent.
>>
>> In others words, you don't like their politics. They say stuff that
>> hurts your ears.
>
> Hurt ? Hell no, it's music to my ears to see CNN tank even further by giving
> a job to Don 'There are ways not to perform oral sex ' Lemon ---the dumbest
> individual to ever anchor a network show.

I'm puzzled. The CNN hosts are a pretty vanilla crew, I don't see that
any one stands out from the rest, except wait.. he's not vanilla is he?

>
>> Here's one that'll explode your head, the brightest mind on the left is
>> Rachel Maddow. The woman is brilliant.
>
> Wow quite the compliment. Isn't that like saying you don't sweat much for
> a fat slob ? Actually I'd like to boink her [?].

You're not her type, you have a ball.

She's pretty smart but when
> her ideology competes with her intelligence, ideology often wins and
> some dumb shit is produced. Like when she asked why Ambassador Stevens,
> murdered in Benghazi, would have Clintons email. I'll spare you the details,
> it was dumb.

Quit cherry-picking a dumb thing someone you oppose ideologically might
have said, focus on the body of work. Yes she's an unashamed lefty, but
her arguments are tight.

>
> As an aside, I'll bet you 2 million NGBP's over, oh wait, you don't have any,
> I'll lend you some. I'll bet I watch her as much if not more than you do.
> Unlike virtually all of the left who read, listen, and watch something in
> order to reenforce their beliefs, I watch what challenges mine.

I try to watch Fox News sometimes, I even added it to my cable package
last year, but it's just too annoying. What they say most of the time
seems to be just pure bullshit. But I admit it, like most people, I
prefer to listen to the spin I can agree with. I watch MSNBC sometimes,
but not that much. Like Fox, it's too slanted. CNN at least has opposing
pov's on their panels.

[..]

The only explanation I've been able to come up with, is you
> are still experiencing acid flashbacks and haven't quite got past the hippy
> 70's.

I'm of the opinion that it is the right that are mired in the past more
than the left. "Make America great again", bring back manufacturing and
coal (yea right} women and nigras knowing their place, spare the rod,
what environment? Leave it to Beaver, What Me Worry?

Yet I hate the ultra-pc "Islamophobe!" screeching left as much as I hate
the nationalist radicals who want herd all Muslims into the desert and
nuke them. I hate welfare cheats and corporate cheaters.

It's hard for a voice or reason to find a comfort zone.

>
>> But here's the problem with your charge; Obama said that as president he
>> was not going to be in the business of making life easy for Wall Street.
>> He was promising to tighten regulations. Whether he succeeded or not is
>> an open question. But he never said Wall Street banks are evil and I
>> will never have anything to with them, ever. If he had said something
>> like that then your charge would hold water.
>
> Oh oh. In his WH exit in an interview with Steve Kroft:
>
> Kroft: You're not going to go to Wall Street to make a lot of money ?
> Obama: I'm not going to Wall Street.
>
> [ I guess an hour Wall Street driveby for 400K doesn't count as ' going ' ].

I don't think Kroft meant giving one-off speeches. 400k is not a huge
sum in that world. That's a week's wages to a pro athlete. It's a strata
that makes ordinary people glaze over.

> He and Michelle around the end of Feb. signed a 60 million dollar book
> deal. 800K he got in a couple days is just chump change, so what does
> that say ?

It says that they are hugely popular highly respected figures whose
books are going to sell millions and make the publisher a shitload of dough.

>
> Some reactions on the Wall Street payolla:
>
> Bernie, the Independant de facto leader of the dems:
>
> " distasteful, not a good idea he did that, and It's not a good idea, and I'm
> sorry President Obama made that choice.
>
> Pocahontas, Democrats presidential nominee in 2020 and casino applicant
> for the Tsenacommacah Nation:
>
> "I was troubled by that, and blah blah "
>
> There were more but who cares. It's not just the right who think it was
> hypocritical, wrong and unnecessary.

Every right-wing pundit I've heard has said so what, this is America.

The left who are still in the trenches have to fight the war of
perception against a man, Trump, who is a master of hypnotizing his
followers. And the optics are poor, for people had the notion that Obama
was some kind of saint, which he never was. He is a tough-minded
pragmatist.

>
>> But more significant to me is that anyone gives a shit. The U.S. powered
>> by The Donald's tiny brain and massive ego is lurching towards a
>> catastrophic military confrontation with North Korea...
>
> Good, pay me now or pay me big time later. Trump has accomplished what
> hasn't been since the Nixon and Reagan visits in the 70's and 80's, the
> establishment of a relationship and understanding with China.

He had one meeting where he learned that all his ideas about them and N.
Korea were delusions. And he learned that they *aren't* currency
manipulators after all. It's like having a 12 year old in the
Whitehouse. There has been ZERO change in relations with China, except
that Trump's reckless talk probably makes them and everyone else in the
region very nervous.

The UN
> Security Council is of no consequence. China is critical, but if their actions
> in conjunction with universal sanctions don't result in a dismantling of the
> little psychoshits nukes, I see no solution other than a preemptive blowing
> up to smithereens. Which of course would be brutal for South Korea.
>
> The Seals were training and formulating a plan to kill the prick, against US
> Law, but who would give a shit. I can't see how that could be done though.

I see no purpose behind drumming up tensions between the big dick and
the little prick, it's insanity on a global scale. He talks about
keeping his cards close to his vest. He needs to shut up about Kim Jung Il.

> never mind the
>> trade embargoes on our exports that will kill the BC economy.
>
> Nah, the economy will be in the toilet after the you elect the NDP
> in the upcoming election. :-)

I don't like the BC NDP. I disagree with most of their policies.

[foamy]

Dutch wrote:

>> Wow quite the compliment. Isn't that like saying you don't sweat much for
>> a fat slob ? Actually I'd like to boink her [?].
>
>You're not her type, you have a ball.

Hah ! You're an elephant.

>Quit cherry-picking a dumb thing someone you oppose ideologically might
>have said, focus on the body of work. Yes she's an unashamed lefty, but
>her arguments are tight.

Oh really ? I haven't seen her ever argue the facts of any policy, proposition
or position. What she does, wait for it, is take something Trump said, and
build a show around mocking him. Maddow was nowheresville in
the ratings before she went into full 60 minute mock mode. Her ratings hit
the roof when she kept her audience on the edge of their seat for a day with
her stunning discovery and scoop of Trump's income taxes. Unfortunately
for poor Rachael it backfired and she herself was mocked, even by avid
supporters, when the big revelation bombed when it was seen Trump paid
over 38 mill in taxes that year at a higher rate than such darlings like Obama
and the hypocritical socialist puke Saunders.

> Like Fox, it's too slanted. CNN at least has opposing
>pov's on their panels.

That's actually funny. The reality is their public hangings, I mean ' panels '
are never balanced. Here's just one typical example of a CNN fair fight
from a recent Coopers' AC360 show:

In the Blue corner:

Cooper.....left as they come.
Paul Begala..long time Clinton[s] aide, superpack head, dem strategist
Jen Psaki..Obama White House Communications Director
Gloria Berger..CNN leftie correspondant
Jim Acosta..same as above
David Chalian..same as above
David Gergen..pres advisor to Clinton, and CNN Senior Political Analyst

And in the Red Corner:

Jeffrey Lord....CNN political analyst on the right

>He had one meeting where he learned that all his ideas about them and N.
>Korea were delusions. And he learned that they *aren't* currency
>manipulators after all.

Nope, you're wrong on this. What Trump did was brilliant. Called out China
for being currency manipulators, which they were, invited and met with Xi
Jinping at Mar-a-Lago, discussed the danger to the world from the psycho
in North Korea, and asked Chinas' help. In return Trump deep-sixed the
manipulator charge and actions. Trump mocked the media blabbering about
his reversal of the manipulator charge, when he said, nows not the right time
to call China a currency manipulator, what am I going to say to him, thanks
for your help with North Korea, but btw you are a currency manipulator.

It's like having a 12 year old in the
>Whitehouse. There has been ZERO change in relations with China, except
>that Trump's reckless talk probably makes them and everyone else in the
>region very nervous.

Sorry Dutch, but you haven't been paying attention. Since the Trumpster:

-- for the first time EVER ! China did not support Russia in a U.N. Security
Council veto vote surrounding Syria.

-- China stopped oil shipments to NK
-- China refused and turned back coal ships from NK
-- China in the U.N. Security Council the other day condemned NK and agreed
to increased sanctions.
-- China moved 100K + troops to the China/NK border.

And there have been more, but hopefully you get the point.

>I see no purpose behind drumming up tensions between the big dick and
>the little prick, it's insanity on a global scale. He talks about
>keeping his cards close to his vest. He needs to shut up about Kim Jung Il.

No, shutting up was Obamas schtick and look where the world is. Trump
speaking up has alerted the world to what exactly has been going on and
the inherent threat. The shithead is producing 1 nuke every 6 weeks. The
stockpile is huge. All the military experts have said at the rate they are
going they will have delivery missles which could reach NA, not to mention
proximal nations and allies.

I hope you're not a reflection of this old saying: If you can keep your head
while all those around you are losing theirs, you obviously don't understand
the gravity of the situation.

[Gary]

On 2017-04-30 8:23 AM, foamy wrote:

> it was seen Trump paid
> over 38 mill in taxes that year at a higher rate than such darlings like Obama
> and the hypocritical socialist puke Saunders.

Let's just disregard the "puke" part.

In what way is Bernie Sanders "hypocritical"?

- Gary

[Dutch]

foamy wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>
>>> Wow quite the compliment. Isn't that like saying you don't sweat much for
>>> a fat slob ? Actually I'd like to boink her [?].
>>
>> You're not her type, you have a ball.
>
> Hah ! You're an elephant.
>
>> Quit cherry-picking a dumb thing someone you oppose ideologically might
>> have said, focus on the body of work. Yes she's an unashamed lefty, but
>> her arguments are tight.
>
> Oh really ? I haven't seen her ever argue the facts of any policy, proposition
> or position. What she does, wait for it, is take something Trump said, and
> build a show around mocking him.

That's just not true at all. She covers a lot of moving parts of an
issue she tackles and knits them all together very cleverly creating
powerful narratives. She doesn't make the Trump administration look bad,
She shows that it IS bad.

Maddow was nowheresville in
> the ratings before she went into full 60 minute mock mode. Her ratings hit
> the roof when she kept her audience on the edge of their seat for a day with
> her stunning discovery and scoop of Trump's income taxes. Unfortunately
> for poor Rachael it backfired and she herself was mocked, even by avid
> supporters, when the big revelation bombed when it was seen Trump paid
> over 38 mill in taxes that year at a higher rate

Ratings shmatings. Trump is the president, and he's a moron. American
righties are Fox News junkies. Democrats spread their viewing around
more, contrary to what you said earlier. The American TV viewer on
average is such a dipshit that good ratings are almost an indictment.

> than such darlings like Obama
> and the hypocritical socialist puke Saunders.

Saunders is trying slow down the income inequality freight train that
has been steaming out of control since Reagan. You probably think that's
a good thing "because freedom" or something, I don't know. I can't
figure guys like yo out at all.

>
>> Like Fox, it's too slanted. CNN at least has opposing
>> pov's on their panels.
>
> That's actually funny. The reality is their public hangings, I mean ' panels '
> are never balanced. Here's just one typical example of a CNN fair fight
> from a recent Coopers' AC360 show:
>
> In the Blue corner:
>
> Cooper.....left as they come.
> Paul Begala..long time Clinton[s] aide, superpack head, dem strategist
> Jen Psaki..Obama White House Communications Director
> Gloria Berger..CNN leftie correspondant
> Jim Acosta..same as above
> David Chalian..same as above
> David Gergen..pres advisor to Clinton, and CNN Senior Political Analyst
>
> And in the Red Corner:
>
> Jeffrey Lord....CNN political analyst on the right

I didn;t say they gave equal time to the right, but at least there is
someone to give the Republican POV.

>
>> He had one meeting where he learned that all his ideas about them and N.
>> Korea were delusions. And he learned that they *aren't* currency
>> manipulators after all.
>
> Nope, you're wrong on this. What Trump did was brilliant. Called out China
> for being currency manipulators, which they were, invited and met with Xi
> Jinping at Mar-a-Lago, discussed the danger to the world from the psycho
> in North Korea, and asked Chinas' help. In return Trump deep-sixed the
> manipulator charge and actions. Trump mocked the media blabbering about
> his reversal of the manipulator charge, when he said, nows not the right time
> to call China a currency manipulator, what am I going to say to him, thanks
> for your help with North Korea, but btw you are a currency manipulator.

You're in the 4D chess move camp. He's just all over the place. He
believes whoever he talked to last.

>
> It's like having a 12 year old in the
>> Whitehouse. There has been ZERO change in relations with China, except
>> that Trump's reckless talk probably makes them and everyone else in the
>> region very nervous.
>
> Sorry Dutch, but you haven't been paying attention. Since the Trumpster:
>
> -- for the first time EVER ! China did not support Russia in a U.N. Security
> Council veto vote surrounding Syria.

Wow, pasted directly from a Trump tweet. We all know how credible that is.

>
> -- China stopped oil shipments to NK

North Korea relies almost entirely on China for oil. The Asian giant
shipped about 500,000 tons of crude to the North each year until 2013,
according to the Chinese customs agency. Bilateral ties cooled that year
after Pyongyang carried out its third nuclear test, and exports
officially have remained at zero since 2014. But China is believed to
still provide crude to North Korea off the books

> -- China refused and turned back coal ships from NK

In February, before Trump could have had any effect.

> -- China in the U.N. Security Council the other day condemned NK and agreed
> to increased sanctions.
> -- China moved 100K + troops to the China/NK border.
>
> And there have been more, but hopefully you get the point.

Yea, I'm sorry but Trump squandered any credibility he might have had
with me long ago, around the "Birther Scandal" days.

The guy is a serial liar and manipulator.

>
>
>> I see no purpose behind drumming up tensions between the big dick and
>> the little prick, it's insanity on a global scale. He talks about
>> keeping his cards close to his vest. He needs to shut up about Kim Jung Il.
>
> No, shutting up was Obamas schtick and look where the world is.

There are no nukes flying around.

Trump
> speaking up has alerted the world to what exactly has been going on and
> the inherent threat. The shithead is producing 1 nuke every 6 weeks. The
> stockpile is huge. All the military experts have said at the rate they are
> going they will have delivery missles which could reach NA, not to mention
> proximal nations and allies.

Just doubt, doubt, doubt, anything that comes out of the Whitehouse and
anyone who supports it.
They can't

> I hope you're not a reflection of this old saying: If you can keep your head
> while all those around you are losing theirs, you obviously don't understand
> the gravity of the situation.

I'm far from keeping my head, my head is exploding, I just hope the
world doesn't follow suit.

I heard Trump trying to butter up the little prick today, basically
saying how tough it must be for him at his age to run a country. I think
that's kind of smart, but I don't trust he won't blow it the next time
he opens his mouth.