OT

[Gary]

Just this minute I saw on CNN (very liberal news)

"Trump called immigrant problem an invasion."
(True enough with the US southern border)

Very next sentence was:
"New Zealand gunman said the same thing"

Unbelievable! Now they're trying to tie Trump
to what happened in New Zealand. Democrats
will go to no end to twist things.

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Saturday, March 16, 2019 at 11:22:50 AM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
>
> Unbelievable! Now they're trying to tie Trump
> to what happened in New Zealand. Democrats
> will go to no end to twist things.
>

Everybody, whether democrat, republican, independent, socialist, communist,
no matter the ideology, wants to get their point across and sway the way the
world thinks to their way of thinking.

Was there any mention of any of these democrats being able to cook?

[GM]

Gary, I used to be a rock - ribbed liberal Democrat, but I decided to vote for The Donald, and I look forward to voting for him again. Back when he announced I thought he was a joke, but then he started demolishing old shibboleths...

I LUV that he creamed TWO political parties, the mainstrean media and also has the US coastal elites so aghast that I hear that "Trump Derangement Syndrome" will be in the DSM:

https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm

He has faults, but we as a nation we are {{{{{{ FAR }}}}}} better off with him as Prez...

Here's an excellent new book, those of any political persuasion should give it a gander (the author has written authorative tomes on WWII and much else):

https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/victor-davis-hanson/the-case-for-trump/9781541673533/

"PREFACE

The Case for Trump explains why Donald J. Trump won the 2016 election—and why I and 62,984,827 other Americans (46 percent of the popular vote) supported him on Election Day. I also hope readers of the book will learn why Trump’s critics increasingly despise rather than just oppose him. Often their venom reveals as much about themselves and their visions for the country as it does about their opposition to the actual record of governance of the mercurial Trump.

Donald Trump ran as an abject outsider. He is now our first American president without either prior political or military experience. Frustrated voters in 2016 saw that unique absence of a political résumé as a plus, not a drawback, and so elected a candidate deemed to have no chance of becoming president.

The near-septuagenarian billionaire candidate, unlike his rivals in the primaries, did not need any money, and had little requirement in the primaries to raise any from others. Name recognition was no problem. He already was famous—or rather notorious. He took risks, given that he did not care whether the coastal elite hated his guts. These realities unexpectedly proved advantages, given that much of the country instead wanted someone—perhaps almost anyone—to ride in and fix things that compromised political professionals would not dare do. With Trump, anything was now felt by his backers to be doable. His sometimes scary message was that what could not be fixed could be dismantled.

Trump challenged more than the agendas and assumptions of the political establishment. His method of campaigning and governing, indeed his very manner of speech and appearance, was an affront to the Washington political classes and media—and to the norms of political discourse and behavior. His supporters saw the hysterical outrage that Trump instilled instead as a catharsis. His uncouthness, even if it was at times antithetical to their own code of conduct, was greeted by them as a long-needed comeuppance to the doublespeak and hedging that characterized modern politics.

Trump became the old silent majority’s pushback to the new, loud progressive minority’s orthodoxy. His voters quite liked the idea that others loathed him. The hysterics of Trump’s opponents at last disclosed to the public the real toxic venom that they had always harbored for the deplorables and irredeemables. The media and the progressive opposition never quite caught on that trading insults with Donald Trump was unwise, at least if they wished to cling to the pretense that contemporary journalists and politicians were somehow professional and civic minded.

Predictably as president, Trump said and did things that were also long overdue in the twilight of the seventy-three-year-old post-war order. Or as former secretary of state Henry Kissinger remarked in July 2018 of the fiery pot that Trump had stirred overseas, “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretense.”

Trumpism on the campaign trail and after the election was also a political belief that the interior of the country should not be written off as an aging and irrelevant backwater. It was not its own fault that it had missed out on globalization. Nor had midwestern red and purple states become permanently politically neutered by either new demographics or their own despair at the new centers of cultural and financial power on the coasts. Instead, America’s once industrial heartland was poised for a renaissance if given the chance. Voters who believed that promise could in the heartland’s eleventh hour still win Trump an election.

Perhaps most importantly, Trump was not Hillary Clinton. After the primaries are over, most presidential elections are rarely choices between seasoned political pros and amateur outsiders, or good nominees versus bad ones. They are decisions about tolerable and less tolerable candidates.

Both Clinton and Trump entered the 2016 race amid scandal. But Clinton’s miscreant behavior was viewed as quite different. She had almost always been in the public eye, either as a first lady, a senator, and secretary of state, or a campaigner for and surrogate of her husband and a candidate herself. In other words, Hillary Clinton’s life had been embedded in high-stakes politics. She, like her husband, had leveraged public offices to end up a multimillionaire many times over—well apart from the serial scandals of Whitewater, cattle-future speculations, the demonization of Bill Clinton’s liaisons, the Clinton Foundation’s finances, the Benghazi fiasco, the Uranium One deal, the unauthorized use of a private email server as secretary of state, and the hiring of Christopher Steele to compile a dossier on Donald Trump. Hillary also somehow became quite rich by monetizing the likelihood that she would be eventually the spouse of the president, or later, and far more lucratively, the president herself.

Trump’s sins (e.g., multiple bankruptcies, failed product lines, endless lawsuits, creepy sexual scandals, loud public spats, crude language, and gratuitous cruelty), in contrast, were seen as those of a self-declared multibillionaire wheeler-dealer in private enterprise. His past tawdriness was regrettable and at times he had found himself in legal trouble. But Trump had not yet abused the people’s trust by acting unethically while in office—even if the default reason was that he had never yet held elected or appointed positions. Voters in 2016 preferred an authentic bad boy of the private sector to the public’s disingenuous good girl. Apparently, uncouth authenticity trumped insincere conventionality.

Donald Trump’s agenda also arose as the antithesis to the new Democratic Party of Barack Obama. After 2008, Democrats were increasingly candid in voicing socialist bromides. And they were many, including open borders, identity politics, higher taxes, more government regulation, free college tuition, single-payer government-run health care, taxpayer-subsidized green energy, rollbacks of fossil-fuel production, and a European Union–like foreign policy. Progressives talked up these leftist visions mostly among themselves without much idea how they sounded to a majority quite unlike themselves. To be called a socialist was now a proud badge of honor, no longer to be written off as a right-wing slur. By 2018, Trump’s Democratic critics were not shy about calling for the abolition of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and were courting openly avowed socialist candidates.

Yet these supposedly populist proposals were proving an anathema to the traditional working classes of rural America, as well as urban blue-collar industrial workers and many of the self-employed. Democrats also advanced them with a cultural disdain for the lower middle classes and rural people in general. Twenty-first-century progressivism had become increasingly pyramidal, perhaps best called “oligarchical socialism,” with the extremely wealthy advocating for redistribution for the poor. Elites not subject to the ramifications of their own policies ruled from on top. The subsidized poor answered them from far below. Both barely disguised a shared disdain for the struggle of most of those in between.

The Republican traditional answer to such Democratic overreach after 2009 had resulted in historic electoral gains in state and local offices, and the recapture of the US Congress. Yet Republicans had not won a presidential vote with a 51 percent plurality since 1988. They had lost the popular vote in five out of the six preceding elections. Something clearly had gone wrong with Republican leadership at the national level. Bob Dole, the late John McCain, Mitt Romney, and other establishmentarians proved hardly effective mastheads.

The Republicans also had their own sort of unpopular dogmas in addition to uninspiring national candidates. Fair trade was seen as less important than free trade. Illegal immigration was largely ignored to ensure inexpensive unskilled labor for businesses. Constant overseas interventions were seen as the necessary wages of global leadership. Huge annual budget deficits were ignored. A powerful and rich United States could supposedly afford both trade deficits and to underwrite ossified military alliances and optional adventures. The culture and concerns of the two coasts mattered more than what was in between, as if both Democrats and Republicans would draw their talent from and serve first those on the Eastern and Western seaboards.

All these themes—who the outlier Trump was and how he behaved, the anger of the red-state interior, the unattractive alternative of Hillary Clinton, the progressive takeover of the Democratic Party, and the inept Republican response to it—frame each chapter of this book.

Yet if candidate Trump should have been elected, does president Trump warrant such confidence? Has he pursued a positive agenda, rather than just being against what the two-party establishment had been for, and has his controversial and often chaotic governance nevertheless proven effective?

At the end of his second year in office, the answer was yes. The Case for Trump argues that at home the economy in Trump’s first six hundred days was better than at any time in the last decade. Massive deregulation, stepped-up energy production, tax cuts, increased border enforcement, and talking up the American brand produced a synergistic economic upswing, as evidenced by gross domestic product (GDP) growth, a roaring stock market, and near record unemployment. Abroad, Trump restored military deterrence, and questioned the previously unquestionable assumptions of the global status quo, both the nostrums of our friends and the ascendance of our enemies. The obdurate Never Trump Republicans of 2016 by mid-2018 had become either largely irrelevant or had begun to support the Trump agenda.

These themes frame the formal plan of this book. The argument covers the three years since Trump announced his presidential bid in July 2015 to mid-2018, as he neared the end of the second year of his presidency.

Part 1, the first three chapters of the book, explore (1) the nature of a divided America that Trump found and leveraged, (2) the signature issues by which he as a candidate successfully massaged that split, and (3) the clever use of his own person to fuel his often-divisive message.

As for those challenging Trump for the Republican nomination, part 2’s three chapters review all the anemic alternatives to Trump that prepared his pathway to election. The steady move leftward of the Democratic Party made victory far easier for Trump. Democrats were no longer much interested in the plight of the white working class.

Early on, Trump also counted on the inability of out-of-touch Republicans to galvanize conservative voters. Republicans had become stereotyped as a party at the national level of persuasive abstractions and logical think-tank theories. Wall Street, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the Republican Party could not convince the lost half of America that doctrinaire agendas would do much for anyone anytime soon.

Just as importantly, Trump argued that both parties were embedded deeply within the shadow government of the “deep state.” For Trump, that vague and controversial term could mean almost whatever he wished. Sometimes it was an amorphous bureaucratic beast that had taken on a life of its own to transcend politics and become parasitic. Its main aim was no longer public service, but to survive and multiply. The insidious power and reach of the IRS, of unelected law-making justices, of the intelligence agencies, of the social welfare bureaucracies, and of the regulatory agencies increasingly controlled, frightened, and sickened Americans.

So Trump blasted this “swamp” that, he claimed, had targeted his candidacy. His them-us rhetoric galvanized voters of both parties in a way not seen in the quarter century since the sloppy populism of third-party candidate Ross Perot.

In part 3, I examine Trump’s three larger themes that framed his political agenda: America was no longer great; he was certainly not Hillary Clinton; and somebody in some sense “unpresidential” was sorely needed in the White House. Trump nonstop warned of American decline and he promised to make the next generation’s lives better than those of their parents’. Trump’s “Make America Great” theme, however, was neither rosy optimism nor gloom-and-doom declinism. Instead, it came off to half the country as “can do-ism”: an innately great people had let the wrong politicians drive their country into a quagmire. But it still could be led out of the morass to reclaim rapidly its former greatness by simply swapping leaders and agendas. The problem was one of the spirit and mind, not a dearth of resources, enemies at the gates, or a failed economic or social system.

Trump also hammered on the particular unsuitability of the insider Hillary Clinton. He turned Clinton into not just another corrupt politician (“crooked Hillary”) or a liberal bogeywoman. She was now also emblemized as a careerist government totem, and thus by extension the icon of what was wrong with conventional American politics.

Both as candidate and president, Trump also was judged by his critics in the media in an ahistorical vacuum, without much appreciation that prior presidents had on occasion adopted his brand of invective without commensurate criticism, given the pre-internet age and a media that was often seen in the past as an extension of the Oval Office. In addition, Trump’s method and message could not be separated, either by critics or supporters. If other politicians had adopted his policies, but delivered them in the manner of Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, then they would have likely failed to get elected, and if elected likely not carried them all out. Yet if different candidates had embraced Bush or Rubio agendas, but talked and tweeted like Trump, they would have certainly flopped even more so.

In part 4, I assess the volatile Trump presidency, which began without a honeymoon. From the morning after his victory, he met hysterical efforts to thwart his agenda and soon to abort his presidency. Unlike prior Republican presidents, Trump saw the hatred of the Left as an existential challenge. As a sometimes former liberal, perhaps Trump was shocked at the animosity he incurred, given that he had always before easily navigated among the cultural and political Left. But now, candidate and president Trump would either defeat the “fake news” press or it would surely crush him. There could be no draw, no truce, no reconciliation. No quarter was asked, none received. Trump never bought into the decorum that a president never stoops to answer cheap criticism. Rather, he insisted that he even must be petty and answer everything and always in kind, or often more crudely than his attackers.

I end part 4 with a critique of Trump’s governance through his first eighteen months in office, and show how he achieved initial economic and foreign policy results not seen in a generation.

A brief epilogue speculates on the lasting effect, if any, of Trump’s efforts at national renewal in general—and in particular on whether Trumpism has changed the conservative movement or the Republican Party in any lasting way.

I end with a few notes of caution. I wrote the first draft of this book in mid-2018, after about six hundred days of the Trump presidency. Given the failure of the polls in 2016 and a collective loss of confidence in their predictive accuracy, a mostly anti-Trump mainstream media, and Trump’s own volatility, it is impossible to calibrate the ultimate fate of the Trump administration or even the course of events in the next week, much less the next 860 days.

One example of this Trump paradox of polling contrary to popular wisdom is illustrative. In mid-July 2018, Trump was pronounced by experts in Washington to have suffered the worst ten days of his presidency. Furor met his supposedly star-crossed Russian summit. Then there was the subsequent clearly sloppy press conference with Russian president Putin in Helsinki, Finland, that earned stinging criticism from even Republican pundits and politicians. Trump traded barbs with his now indicted former lawyer and likely government witness Michael Cohen. CNN released an example of attorney Cohen’s secretly recorded old conversations with Trump about possible payments to a long-ago paramour. More media predictions about the course of Robert Mueller’s nonending investigation focused on obstruction and conspiracy. Yet in the NBC/WSJ poll, Trump through it all climbed a point to a 45 percent favorability rating—with near-record approval from Republicans. Critics publicly rejoiced that Trump still did not win 50 percent approval, but privately they feared that the paradoxes and ironies that had accompanied his improbable 2016 victory were still poorly understood—and still in play.

Donald Trump’s political career started in mid-2015 when he announced his presidential candidacy. Although Trump was a prior tabloid celebrity, and had voiced often conflicting views in print and on television on a wide range of issues, we learned the details of his politics and leadership mostly from three years of campaigning and governance. Given that paucity of information, for analyses of Trump’s rhetoric, agenda, and record I draw freely on evidence and quotations from both his campaign and brief presidency. That is a legitimate chronological conflation of material for at least two reasons.

So far Trump has proved to be one of the rare presidents who has attempted to do what he said he would. He has also not acted much differently in 2017–18 than he said he would during 2015–16. That continuum is why his critics understandably fear him, and why his hard-core supporters often seem to relish their terror.

Only after the election did Trump’s critics more boldly express their contempt for his supporters. Their disgust was unwise to vent fully when it was still crucial to win swing states. What blue-state America really felt about Trump’s voters in 2016 often fully emerged only in 2017–18, when it was a question not of winning a close election, but of delegitimizing a presidency.

I often speak of the “Trump voter” or the “Trump base.” Yet those supporters were not necessarily synonymous with the “Republican base” or even the “conservative base.” Instead, they were a new mishmash of older, loosely defined interests that often were the mirror images of those of Ross Perot, the Ronald Reagan candidacy, and the Tea Party. They could be Democrats, Independents, or (more often) discontented Republicans. Trump could not win the presidency or maintain his support without them, but he also could not succeed only with them. They were instead the force multipliers that allowed a Republican president to win in key states thought unwinnable. And yet they were usually not necessarily assets transferable to other establishment Republican candidates.

Trump is not just a political phenomenon. His person dominates the news, the popular culture, and the world’s attention. About Trump, no one is neutral, no one calm. All agree that Trump meant to do something big, either undoing the last half century of American progressivism, or sparking a cultural and political renaissance like no other president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or crashing the traditional American political establishment and its norms of behavior altogether. All knew that he was no Bush, no Clinton or Obama. Americans accepted that reality from the first day they met Trump in his new role as a politician and had their impressions confirmed each day of his presidency.

Finally, I note that I have never met Donald Trump. Nor have I visited the Trump White House. I have never been offered, sought, or accepted any appointment from the Trump administration. Nor have I been in communications with members of the Trump campaign and have not sought out anyone in the administration. Living on a farm in central California can preclude inside knowledge of Washington politics, but, on the upside, it also allows some distance and thereby I hope objectivity.

I wish to thank Jennifer Hanson, Bruce Thornton, David Berkey, Megan Ring, and my literary agents Glen Hartley and Lynn Chu for offering valuable improvements to the manuscript, along with Lara Heimart, my editor at Basic Books, for both her constructive criticism and encouragement. For the past fifteen years I have enjoyed the support of and residence at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and the encouragement of its former and present directors, John Raisian and Thomas Gilligan. I owe a special debt of gratitude for the continued direct help of Hoover overseers Martin Anderson; Lew Davies; Robert, Rebekah, and Jennifer Mercer; Roger Mertz; Jeremiah Milbank; and Victor Trione, as well as the confidence and support of Roger and Susan Hertog. Roger for over a decade has been a treasured friend who has offered me invaluable insight on a variety of issues.

Trump is a polarizing figure whose very name prompts controversy that soon turns to acrimony. My aim again in The Case for Trump is to explain why he ran for president, why he surprised his critics in winning the 2016 Republican primaries and general election, and why, despite media frenzy and the nonstop Twitter bombast, Trump’s appointments and his record of governance have improved the economy, found a rare mean between an interventionist foreign policy and isolationism, and taken on a toxic establishment and political culture that long ago needed an accounting.

Victor Davis Hanson

Selma, California..."

[dsi1]

My take on Mr. Trump was that he had to be elected or this country would burn. Such was the anger of the nationalist right in this country. I figure people would learn he was a total nutcase and then kick his ass out on the street and things would normalize and the anger would subside.

Well it was one of the few times that I was wrong. He's embolden the white racists/supremacists/disenfranchised whose new battle cry is "Make America great again - go back to where you came from, this is my country now." We now face the very real possibility of a nationalist movement taking over the rule of law in America. People might think that it can't happen here - as usual, they are wrong. They're always wrong.

[Bruce]

You shouldn't watch CNN. Way too confusing for you. You should eat
cheeseburgers and watch Fox News. Huh huh.

[Bruce]

Trump proves that fascism can become a major movement in the US.

[GM]

"Pardon My Sarong"*, but I'm gay, I work in workforce development, I am a HUGE advocate for "returning citizens" aka the formerly incarcerated, addicted, low - income peeps, women, also the homeless, LGBTQ and immigrants...

My motto: "Social Justice comes from a PAYCHECK..."

Second motto: "Socialism is fine until you have to start using others' money - Margaret Thatcher..."

NO one has done more to empower these groups than The Donald, he has empowered them ECONOMICALLY...there are more jobs than you can shake a stick at (we will see if this continues...) and that is the only thing that counts...

Recently I've seen three ex - felons, several single moms (on welfare), a trans person and many others gain good manufacturing jobs, meaning $20.00 + per hour plus benefits, plus after probation union membership and a chance at lucrative manufacturing apprentiships that after the FOURTH year pay a base of $101K...

ds1 I like you, but you are really addle - brained re: Trump..does not mean I dismiss your opinions, but I will if you do not back them up with FACTS - which you fail to do, you just resort to canned cant...

PS: I also work with Third World (legally admitted) immigrants, they all appreciate the USA, and they also like Trump...

--
Best
Greg

[dsi1]

I like you too but I can't make heads or tales of your disjointed post.

[Bruce]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 12:29:33 -0700 (PDT), GM
<gregorymorr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>PS: I also work with Third World (legally admitted) immigrants, they all appreciate the USA, and they also like Trump...

lol

[A Moose in Love]

On Saturday, March 16, 2019 at 12:22:50 PM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> Just this minute I saw on CNN (very liberal news)

crap news network

[Sqwertz]

And you just the same thing. You think there are two teams, one
that hates trump and one that loves him. And that you either belong
to one team or another and that each teams members all hold the same
exact opinions.

Do you really love trump? Do you think all republicans on Capital
Hill love Trump? Half of them? How many other people do you love
that have been proven to lie to you hundreds of times? Or do you
deny that Trump has ever lied to you more than once or twice? Or
even at all?

Majors Painting, Inc has 5 contractors. You send each of them out
every morning on different jobs to paint a house. They come back
each day at 4:59pm and say they say they painted that house. But
come Friday you find out 25 houses hadn't been painted. How many
employees do you have left on Saturday and why?

Because I'm going to flap my wings and fly to the moon tomorrow if
you give me $10. And when I get there I'm going to hold press
conference stating that I owe this momentous achievement all to Gary
Majors in Virginia Beach - who made it all possible. $10 to my
paypal account is all it takes.

-sw

[Bruce]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 15:22:59 -0500, Sqwertz <sqwe...@gmail.invalid>
wrote:

>Because I'm going to flap my wings and fly to the moon tomorrow if
>you give me $10. And when I get there I'm going to hold press
>conference stating that I owe this momentous achievement all to Gary
>Majors in Virginia Beach - who made it all possible. $10 to my
>paypal account is all it takes.

Gary, did you ever have a relative who was a Major?

[Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl]

They need to tie the NZ thing to the source, and to find the source
you must first fine the one.... Someone call morpheous because neo is
hiding. Sorry Matrix flashback... Anyway as I was saying the source is
christianity, after that is completed we have to consider what trump
needs to be tied to, besides the rear bumper just before a long trip
it should be tied to that organization that is know for its incredible
stupidity.. Oh wait that is christianity...ahh now I see why trump is
tied to the NZ thing. Well done gary

--

____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

[Nancy2]

Could we please, PLEASE, keep politics out of this newsgroup? Those posts have no place
here.

N.

[U.S. Janet B.]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 12:22:26 -0500, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:

too bad you didn't know that the shooter's manifesto specifically
names rump as the symbol of renewed white identity. And then the part
where a reporter (not CNN) asked rump if he thought white nationalism
was a growing problem and he said no, just a small group of people.
Then he went on to talk about his wall and used the same words to
identify people as the shooter did. The point of all this is that
words matter and at least for one terrorist, rump's word was a call to
arms.
BTW, there has been a 17 percent increase in attacks of this nature in
the United States. The increase began in 2016.

[Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl]

Yo nancy you need be sure you quote the previous message.
Also the can of worms was opened but not by me so why are you telling
me?

[Bruce]

I guess the can of worms is supposed to bring this thread back on
topic.

[jmcquown]

I agree! (and your reply needed no quoting :) )

Jill

[jmcquown]

On 3/16/2019 1:06 PM, itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
> On Saturday, March 16, 2019 at 11:22:50 AM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
>>
>> Unbelievable! Now they're trying to tie Trump
>> to what happened in New Zealand. Democrats
>> will go to no end to twist things.
>>

> Was there any mention of any of these democrats being able to cook?
>

Maybe it's time for him to rant against women wearing makeup again. :)

Jill

[Bruce]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 20:32:27 -0400, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Gary's got that in common with Popeye: they're both into nuns.

[penm...@aol.com]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 11:55:15 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

I really don't care about women wearing make up so long as they don't
give up slathering on hooker red lipstick... gotta love those wittness
marks on my peepee.

[Jack Granade]

On 3/16/2019 9:22 PM, penm...@aol.com Sheldon wrote:
> gotta love those wittness marks on my peepee.
>

That Mexican broad flosses her teeth with it.

[Hank Rogers]

Yoose sure loves yoose peepee Popeye.

Those witness marks are from the transvestites yoose hang out wif.

[U.S. Janet B.]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 16:37:44 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
<ellor...@gmail.com> wrote:

you're free to join the conversations about religion, cars, or
property tax or just plain bitching about one rfc member or another

[Ed Pawlowski]

Nuns don't wear makeup, but many wear a costume.

[Julie Bove]

"Gary" <g.ma...@att.net> wrote in message news:5C8D30D2...@att.net...

This is one reason why I quit watching TV.

[Bruce]

I thought everybody here watched Downton Abbey and there are no
Democrats in it.

[jmcquown]

Jack Granade wrote :

> On 3/16/2019 9:22 PM, penm...@aol.com Sheldon wrote:
>> gotta love those wittness marks on my peepee.
>>
> That Mexican broad flosses her teeth with it.
>

You mean his skank wife, right?

https://imgur.com/a/BTxhlbh LOL!

Jill
Jill

[Nancy2]

Dear Christwhatever, I did not target you...I just posted my request. Not everything is
about you. If you thought it was about you, then you are able to identify my posts without
quotes from previous posters, so good for you. ;-))

N.

[Nancy2]

USJanet, I know that, but so far, this group has not been overwhelmed by political posts,
so I am just hoping to keep it like that. OT is fine, except for politics. LOL.

N.

[Gary]

"OT" in the subject line says it all. Just ignore and move on.
Should we also never talk about local birds, scottish ancestry,
beloved cat stories, what's in our kitchen cabinets, picking on
certain others here...on and on.

Anyway, we always talk about everything eventually. The
occassional politics subject should be fine just talking between
us here. Only problem comes when just one person will talk
politics and crosspost to many political groups. THAT'S when all
hell breaks loose and any NG gets swamped.

Anyone here that wants to read about cooking and recipes *ONLY*,
I suggest grabbing a cookbook from your bookshelf and read that.
The NYT cookbook is a good one. RFC is based on cooking but not
limited. Don't act stupid and don't try to police this newsgroup,
Jill. You tried that in ACC years ago and we ran you off.

[Gary]

jmcquown wrote:

>
> itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
> > Gary wrote:
> >> Unbelievable! Now they're trying to tie Trump
> >> to what happened in New Zealand. Democrats
> >> will go to no end to twist things.
> >>
> > Was there any mention of any of these democrats being able to cook?
> >
> Maybe it's time for him to rant against women wearing makeup again. :)

I said my opinion of that once long ago. Was that a rant?
I'll say a bit more now since you dragged that up.

Liberal leaning women here that hate the rich evil corporations
might want to start with the $multi-billion cosmetic industries.
These evil rich capitalists have totally brainwashed half of the
world's population into believing that "beauty" only comes from
their bottles and tubes. Brainwashed from very young ages just
like many religious nutcases are brainwashed also very young.

My main thing actually was the red lipstick that is so common.
Look at any two pictures of a woman with and without lipstick.
The natural look wins hands down every time.

How would you women feel if your man (husband, boyfriend) wore
red lipstick often? I'll bet you would be embarrassed to go out
in public with him.

OK...all that said, I will admit that even *I* wore red lipstick
once back when I was about age 27-28. Only for about an hour or
so though. It didn't work for me but it made my little one happy.
:)
http://www.hostpic.org/images/1903181644290097.jpg

[GM]

LOL...!!!

Is Jill simply clueless, or is she having us on with a bit of japery...???

Or perhaps she's deep into the box wine again...

For nigh on 20 years now Jill has used rfc as her own personal "Dear Diary", we've been privy to every niggling listless detail of her boring life...

She was one of the original "Nutty rfc Female Trio", the others being Mothra Hughes and Dear Dead Departed Sheryl Rosen, so I guess Jill has some "standing" as a still - extant survivor of that august froup...

"Jill McQuown - forgotten, but not gone..."

<snigger>

--
Best
Greg

[Cindy Hamilton]

He marked it OT. Why did you read it?

Cindy Hamilton

[muun...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, March 16, 2019 at 1:11:38 PM UTC-4, GM wrote:

> Gary wrote:
>
> > Just this minute I saw on CNN (very liberal news)
> >
> > "Trump called immigrant problem an invasion."
> > (True enough with the US southern border)
> >
> > Very next sentence was:
> > "New Zealand gunman said the same thing"
> >

> > Unbelievable! Now they're trying to tie Trump
> > to what happened in New Zealand. Democrats
> > will go to no end to twist things.
>
>

> Gary, I used to be a rock - ribbed liberal Democrat, but I decided to vote for The Donald, and I look forward to voting for him again. Back when he announced I thought he was a joke, but then he started demolishing old shibboleths...
>
> I LUV that he creamed TWO political parties, the mainstrean media and also has the US coastal elites so aghast that I hear that "Trump Derangement Syndrome" will be in the DSM:
>
> https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm
>
> He has faults, but we as a nation we are {{{{{{ FAR }}}}}} better off with him as Prez...
>
> Here's an excellent new book, those of any political persuasion should give it a gander (the author has written authorative tomes on WWII and much else):
>
> https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/victor-davis-hanson/the-case-for-trump/9781541673533/
>
> "PREFACE
>
> The Case for Trump explains why Donald J. Trump won the 2016 election—and why I and 62,984,827 other Americans (46 percent of the popular vote) supported him on Election Day. I also hope readers of the book will learn why Trump’s critics increasingly despise rather than just oppose him. Often their venom reveals as much about themselves and their visions for the country as it does about their opposition to the actual record of governance of the mercurial Trump.
>
> Donald Trump ran as an abject outsider. He is now our first American president without either prior political or military experience. Frustrated voters in 2016 saw that unique absence of a political résumé as a plus, not a drawback, and so elected a candidate deemed to have no chance of becoming president.
>
> The near-septuagenarian billionaire candidate, unlike his rivals in the primaries, did not need any money, and had little requirement in the primaries to raise any from others. Name recognition was no problem. He already was famous—or rather notorious. He took risks, given that he did not care whether the coastal elite hated his guts. These realities unexpectedly proved advantages, given that much of the country instead wanted someone—perhaps almost anyone—to ride in and fix things that compromised political professionals would not dare do. With Trump, anything was now felt by his backers to be doable. His sometimes scary message was that what could not be fixed could be dismantled.
>
> Trump challenged more than the agendas and assumptions of the political establishment. His method of campaigning and governing, indeed his very manner of speech and appearance, was an affront to the Washington political classes and media—and to the norms of political discourse and behavior. His supporters saw the hysterical outrage that Trump instilled instead as a catharsis. His uncouthness, even if it was at times antithetical to their own code of conduct, was greeted by them as a long-needed comeuppance to the doublespeak and hedging that characterized modern politics.
>
> Trump became the old silent majority’s pushback to the new, loud progressive minority’s orthodoxy. His voters quite liked the idea that others loathed him. The hysterics of Trump’s opponents at last disclosed to the public the real toxic venom that they had always harbored for the deplorables and irredeemables. The media and the progressive opposition never quite caught on that trading insults with Donald Trump was unwise, at least if they wished to cling to the pretense that contemporary journalists and politicians were somehow professional and civic minded.
>
> Predictably as president, Trump said and did things that were also long overdue in the twilight of the seventy-three-year-old post-war order. Or as former secretary of state Henry Kissinger remarked in July 2018 of the fiery pot that Trump had stirred overseas, “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretense.”
>
> Trumpism on the campaign trail and after the election was also a political belief that the interior of the country should not be written off as an aging and irrelevant backwater. It was not its own fault that it had missed out on globalization. Nor had midwestern red and purple states become permanently politically neutered by either new demographics or their own despair at the new centers of cultural and financial power on the coasts. Instead, America’s once industrial heartland was poised for a renaissance if given the chance. Voters who believed that promise could in the heartland’s eleventh hour still win Trump an election.
>
> Perhaps most importantly, Trump was not Hillary Clinton. After the primaries are over, most presidential elections are rarely choices between seasoned political pros and amateur outsiders, or good nominees versus bad ones. They are decisions about tolerable and less tolerable candidates.
>
> Both Clinton and Trump entered the 2016 race amid scandal. But Clinton’s miscreant behavior was viewed as quite different. She had almost always been in the public eye, either as a first lady, a senator, and secretary of state, or a campaigner for and surrogate of her husband and a candidate herself. In other words, Hillary Clinton’s life had been embedded in high-stakes politics. She, like her husband, had leveraged public offices to end up a multimillionaire many times over—well apart from the serial scandals of Whitewater, cattle-future speculations, the demonization of Bill Clinton’s liaisons, the Clinton Foundation’s finances, the Benghazi fiasco, the Uranium One deal, the unauthorized use of a private email server as secretary of state, and the hiring of Christopher Steele to compile a dossier on Donald Trump. Hillary also somehow became quite rich by monetizing the likelihood that she would be eventually the spouse of the president, or later, and far more lucratively, the president herself.
>
> Trump’s sins (e.g., multiple bankruptcies, failed product lines, endless lawsuits, creepy sexual scandals, loud public spats, crude language, and gratuitous cruelty), in contrast, were seen as those of a self-declared multibillionaire wheeler-dealer in private enterprise. His past tawdriness was regrettable and at times he had found himself in legal trouble. But Trump had not yet abused the people’s trust by acting unethically while in office—even if the default reason was that he had never yet held elected or appointed positions. Voters in 2016 preferred an authentic bad boy of the private sector to the public’s disingenuous good girl. Apparently, uncouth authenticity trumped insincere conventionality.
>
> Donald Trump’s agenda also arose as the antithesis to the new Democratic Party of Barack Obama. After 2008, Democrats were increasingly candid in voicing socialist bromides. And they were many, including open borders, identity politics, higher taxes, more government regulation, free college tuition, single-payer government-run health care, taxpayer-subsidized green energy, rollbacks of fossil-fuel production, and a European Union–like foreign policy. Progressives talked up these leftist visions mostly among themselves without much idea how they sounded to a majority quite unlike themselves. To be called a socialist was now a proud badge of honor, no longer to be written off as a right-wing slur. By 2018, Trump’s Democratic critics were not shy about calling for the abolition of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and were courting openly avowed socialist candidates.
>
> Yet these supposedly populist proposals were proving an anathema to the traditional working classes of rural America, as well as urban blue-collar industrial workers and many of the self-employed. Democrats also advanced them with a cultural disdain for the lower middle classes and rural people in general. Twenty-first-century progressivism had become increasingly pyramidal, perhaps best called “oligarchical socialism,” with the extremely wealthy advocating for redistribution for the poor. Elites not subject to the ramifications of their own policies ruled from on top. The subsidized poor answered them from far below. Both barely disguised a shared disdain for the struggle of most of those in between.
>
> The Republican traditional answer to such Democratic overreach after 2009 had resulted in historic electoral gains in state and local offices, and the recapture of the US Congress. Yet Republicans had not won a presidential vote with a 51 percent plurality since 1988. They had lost the popular vote in five out of the six preceding elections. Something clearly had gone wrong with Republican leadership at the national level. Bob Dole, the late John McCain, Mitt Romney, and other establishmentarians proved hardly effective mastheads.
>
> The Republicans also had their own sort of unpopular dogmas in addition to uninspiring national candidates. Fair trade was seen as less important than free trade. Illegal immigration was largely ignored to ensure inexpensive unskilled labor for businesses. Constant overseas interventions were seen as the necessary wages of global leadership. Huge annual budget deficits were ignored. A powerful and rich United States could supposedly afford both trade deficits and to underwrite ossified military alliances and optional adventures. The culture and concerns of the two coasts mattered more than what was in between, as if both Democrats and Republicans would draw their talent from and serve first those on the Eastern and Western seaboards.
>
> All these themes—who the outlier Trump was and how he behaved, the anger of the red-state interior, the unattractive alternative of Hillary Clinton, the progressive takeover of the Democratic Party, and the inept Republican response to it—frame each chapter of this book.
>
> Yet if candidate Trump should have been elected, does president Trump warrant such confidence? Has he pursued a positive agenda, rather than just being against what the two-party establishment had been for, and has his controversial and often chaotic governance nevertheless proven effective?
>
> At the end of his second year in office, the answer was yes. The Case for Trump argues that at home the economy in Trump’s first six hundred days was better than at any time in the last decade. Massive deregulation, stepped-up energy production, tax cuts, increased border enforcement, and talking up the American brand produced a synergistic economic upswing, as evidenced by gross domestic product (GDP) growth, a roaring stock market, and near record unemployment. Abroad, Trump restored military deterrence, and questioned the previously unquestionable assumptions of the global status quo, both the nostrums of our friends and the ascendance of our enemies. The obdurate Never Trump Republicans of 2016 by mid-2018 had become either largely irrelevant or had begun to support the Trump agenda.
>
> These themes frame the formal plan of this book. The argument covers the three years since Trump announced his presidential bid in July 2015 to mid-2018, as he neared the end of the second year of his presidency.
>
> Part 1, the first three chapters of the book, explore (1) the nature of a divided America that Trump found and leveraged, (2) the signature issues by which he as a candidate successfully massaged that split, and (3) the clever use of his own person to fuel his often-divisive message.
>
> As for those challenging Trump for the Republican nomination, part 2’s three chapters review all the anemic alternatives to Trump that prepared his pathway to election. The steady move leftward of the Democratic Party made victory far easier for Trump. Democrats were no longer much interested in the plight of the white working class.
>
> Early on, Trump also counted on the inability of out-of-touch Republicans to galvanize conservative voters. Republicans had become stereotyped as a party at the national level of persuasive abstractions and logical think-tank theories. Wall Street, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the Republican Party could not convince the lost half of America that doctrinaire agendas would do much for anyone anytime soon.
>
> Just as importantly, Trump argued that both parties were embedded deeply within the shadow government of the “deep state.” For Trump, that vague and controversial term could mean almost whatever he wished. Sometimes it was an amorphous bureaucratic beast that had taken on a life of its own to transcend politics and become parasitic. Its main aim was no longer public service, but to survive and multiply. The insidious power and reach of the IRS, of unelected law-making justices, of the intelligence agencies, of the social welfare bureaucracies, and of the regulatory agencies increasingly controlled, frightened, and sickened Americans.
>
> So Trump blasted this “swamp” that, he claimed, had targeted his candidacy. His them-us rhetoric galvanized voters of both parties in a way not seen in the quarter century since the sloppy populism of third-party candidate Ross Perot.
>
> In part 3, I examine Trump’s three larger themes that framed his political agenda: America was no longer great; he was certainly not Hillary Clinton; and somebody in some sense “unpresidential” was sorely needed in the White House. Trump nonstop warned of American decline and he promised to make the next generation’s lives better than those of their parents’. Trump’s “Make America Great” theme, however, was neither rosy optimism nor gloom-and-doom declinism. Instead, it came off to half the country as “can do-ism”: an innately great people had let the wrong politicians drive their country into a quagmire. But it still could be led out of the morass to reclaim rapidly its former greatness by simply swapping leaders and agendas. The problem was one of the spirit and mind, not a dearth of resources, enemies at the gates, or a failed economic or social system.
>
> Trump also hammered on the particular unsuitability of the insider Hillary Clinton. He turned Clinton into not just another corrupt politician (“crooked Hillary”) or a liberal bogeywoman. She was now also emblemized as a careerist government totem, and thus by extension the icon of what was wrong with conventional American politics.
>
> Both as candidate and president, Trump also was judged by his critics in the media in an ahistorical vacuum, without much appreciation that prior presidents had on occasion adopted his brand of invective without commensurate criticism, given the pre-internet age and a media that was often seen in the past as an extension of the Oval Office. In addition, Trump’s method and message could not be separated, either by critics or supporters. If other politicians had adopted his policies, but delivered them in the manner of Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, then they would have likely failed to get elected, and if elected likely not carried them all out. Yet if different candidates had embraced Bush or Rubio agendas, but talked and tweeted like Trump, they would have certainly flopped even more so.
>
> In part 4, I assess the volatile Trump presidency, which began without a honeymoon. From the morning after his victory, he met hysterical efforts to thwart his agenda and soon to abort his presidency. Unlike prior Republican presidents, Trump saw the hatred of the Left as an existential challenge. As a sometimes former liberal, perhaps Trump was shocked at the animosity he incurred, given that he had always before easily navigated among the cultural and political Left. But now, candidate and president Trump would either defeat the “fake news” press or it would surely crush him. There could be no draw, no truce, no reconciliation. No quarter was asked, none received. Trump never bought into the decorum that a president never stoops to answer cheap criticism. Rather, he insisted that he even must be petty and answer everything and always in kind, or often more crudely than his attackers.
>
> I end part 4 with a critique of Trump’s governance through his first eighteen months in office, and show how he achieved initial economic and foreign policy results not seen in a generation.
>
> A brief epilogue speculates on the lasting effect, if any, of Trump’s efforts at national renewal in general—and in particular on whether Trumpism has changed the conservative movement or the Republican Party in any lasting way.
>
> I end with a few notes of caution. I wrote the first draft of this book in mid-2018, after about six hundred days of the Trump presidency. Given the failure of the polls in 2016 and a collective loss of confidence in their predictive accuracy, a mostly anti-Trump mainstream media, and Trump’s own volatility, it is impossible to calibrate the ultimate fate of the Trump administration or even the course of events in the next week, much less the next 860 days.
>
> One example of this Trump paradox of polling contrary to popular wisdom is illustrative. In mid-July 2018, Trump was pronounced by experts in Washington to have suffered the worst ten days of his presidency. Furor met his supposedly star-crossed Russian summit. Then there was the subsequent clearly sloppy press conference with Russian president Putin in Helsinki, Finland, that earned stinging criticism from even Republican pundits and politicians. Trump traded barbs with his now indicted former lawyer and likely government witness Michael Cohen. CNN released an example of attorney Cohen’s secretly recorded old conversations with Trump about possible payments to a long-ago paramour. More media predictions about the course of Robert Mueller’s nonending investigation focused on obstruction and conspiracy. Yet in the NBC/WSJ poll, Trump through it all climbed a point to a 45 percent favorability rating—with near-record approval from Republicans. Critics publicly rejoiced that Trump still did not win 50 percent approval, but privately they feared that the paradoxes and ironies that had accompanied his improbable 2016 victory were still poorly understood—and still in play.
>
> Donald Trump’s political career started in mid-2015 when he announced his presidential candidacy. Although Trump was a prior tabloid celebrity, and had voiced often conflicting views in print and on television on a wide range of issues, we learned the details of his politics and leadership mostly from three years of campaigning and governance. Given that paucity of information, for analyses of Trump’s rhetoric, agenda, and record I draw freely on evidence and quotations from both his campaign and brief presidency. That is a legitimate chronological conflation of material for at least two reasons.
>
> So far Trump has proved to be one of the rare presidents who has attempted to do what he said he would. He has also not acted much differently in 2017–18 than he said he would during 2015–16. That continuum is why his critics understandably fear him, and why his hard-core supporters often seem to relish their terror.
>
> Only after the election did Trump’s critics more boldly express their contempt for his supporters. Their disgust was unwise to vent fully when it was still crucial to win swing states. What blue-state America really felt about Trump’s voters in 2016 often fully emerged only in 2017–18, when it was a question not of winning a close election, but of delegitimizing a presidency.
>
> I often speak of the “Trump voter” or the “Trump base.” Yet those supporters were not necessarily synonymous with the “Republican base” or even the “conservative base.” Instead, they were a new mishmash of older, loosely defined interests that often were the mirror images of those of Ross Perot, the Ronald Reagan candidacy, and the Tea Party. They could be Democrats, Independents, or (more often) discontented Republicans. Trump could not win the presidency or maintain his support without them, but he also could not succeed only with them. They were instead the force multipliers that allowed a Republican president to win in key states thought unwinnable. And yet they were usually not necessarily assets transferable to other establishment Republican candidates.
>
> Trump is not just a political phenomenon. His person dominates the news, the popular culture, and the world’s attention. About Trump, no one is neutral, no one calm. All agree that Trump meant to do something big, either undoing the last half century of American progressivism, or sparking a cultural and political renaissance like no other president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or crashing the traditional American political establishment and its norms of behavior altogether. All knew that he was no Bush, no Clinton or Obama. Americans accepted that reality from the first day they met Trump in his new role as a politician and had their impressions confirmed each day of his presidency.
>
> Finally, I note that I have never met Donald Trump. Nor have I visited the Trump White House. I have never been offered, sought, or accepted any appointment from the Trump administration. Nor have I been in communications with members of the Trump campaign and have not sought out anyone in the administration. Living on a farm in central California can preclude inside knowledge of Washington politics, but, on the upside, it also allows some distance and thereby I hope objectivity.
>
> I wish to thank Jennifer Hanson, Bruce Thornton, David Berkey, Megan Ring, and my literary agents Glen Hartley and Lynn Chu for offering valuable improvements to the manuscript, along with Lara Heimart, my editor at Basic Books, for both her constructive criticism and encouragement. For the past fifteen years I have enjoyed the support of and residence at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and the encouragement of its former and present directors, John Raisian and Thomas Gilligan. I owe a special debt of gratitude for the continued direct help of Hoover overseers Martin Anderson; Lew Davies; Robert, Rebekah, and Jennifer Mercer; Roger Mertz; Jeremiah Milbank; and Victor Trione, as well as the confidence and support of Roger and Susan Hertog. Roger for over a decade has been a treasured friend who has offered me invaluable insight on a variety of issues.
>
> Trump is a polarizing figure whose very name prompts controversy that soon turns to acrimony. My aim again in The Case for Trump is to explain why he ran for president, why he surprised his critics in winning the 2016 Republican primaries and general election, and why, despite media frenzy and the nonstop Twitter bombast, Trump’s appointments and his record of governance have improved the economy, found a rare mean between an interventionist foreign policy and isolationism, and taken on a toxic establishment and political culture that long ago needed an accounting.
>
> Victor Davis Hanson
>
> Selma, California..."

I bet the dumb SOB Donald Trump can't even boil water.

[Nancy2]

Cindy, I have no excuses for reading an OT post. I was just reading along and there it was.
Besides, many OT posts are fun and I might have something OT to add. So sorry. But
I really don't mind OT posts EXCEPT for political ones, as I explained. No worries, I
give up. ;-))

N.

[penm...@aol.com]

Off topic posts were tabooo long ago when everyone was on dial-up and
paid by the minute and downloading was excruciatingly slow... that no
longer applies... instead when opening the first post and it's of no
interest simply delete the thread unread. It's really no longer
necessary to mark a post OT, in fact who's to say what should be
censored?

[Ed Pawlowski]

How about an updated picture? Now that you are more mature that
lipstick may make you look stunning today. You'd have to fight off the
women, maybe a couple of guys too.

[Kathy Martin]

penm...@aol.com Sheldon wrote:
> Off topic posts were tabooo long ago when everyone was on dial-up and
> paid by the minute and downloading was excruciatingly slow.
>

Sez the rank noOb that still uses AOL. LOL!

[U.S. Janet B.]

would you please name the liberal leaning women here that hate the
rich evil corporations and the corporations they hate? While you are
at it, also bring along the list of men (liberal or conservative, I
don't care) who speak negatively against corporations they don't like.
Janet US

[Gary]

With all due respect, Nancy2. You can't pick and choose OT
topics. Just go with it.

[U.S. Janet B.]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 06:47:31 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
<ellor...@gmail.com> wrote:

what is it that distresses you so over politics and not religion or
race or bigotry or hating and bullying on members of rfc?

[Gary]

"U.S. Janet B." wrote:
>
> would you please name the liberal leaning women here that hate the
> rich evil corporations and the corporations they hate? While you are
> at it, also bring along the list of men (liberal or conservative, I
> don't care) who speak negatively against corporations they don't like.

You are on the top of the list, Mrs. Liberal Sweetheart.
(PS to others: Boy am I in trouble now!)

Are you brain dead this morning? All liberals hate the big greedy
corporations that "don't pay their fair share of taxes, etc."
It's in YOUR DNC manifest that you constantly quote here. Search
back in threads here as far as you want to go. Read your own old
posts. It's all the same. Any conservative that argues get
nothing but name calling...stupid, only watches FOX news, etc.

Did you notice that your liberal hero NancyP has backed way off
on Trump? She's doing damage control now that much of the US has
realized just how nuts the left has gone. If she doesn't stop
that and fix it now, all those 30+ democrat hopefuls won't stand
a chance in 2020.

Again...I'm not a Trump fan but I don't like how he's been made
to swim upstream constantly. Nice to see that much of the US
recognizes that now. I just don't like seeing anyone unfairly
picked on. That's why I defended JanetUK the other day and why
I'm now in Ophelia's baby head-in-sand killfile. :)

[Gary]

muun...@gmail.com wrote:
> I bet the dumb SOB Donald Trump can't even boil water.

And I'll bet you asked him how to do it, idiot.

[Gary]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> How about an updated picture?

Ed, remember that my camera quit working about a year ago?
I took a selfie and the camera freaked out and died right then.

> Now that you are more mature

That's debatable. ;)

> lipstick may make you look stunning today. You'd have to fight off the
> women, maybe a couple of guys too.

I'd have to find some of those fashion high heels too though.
I don't think they make heels in size 14

Speaking of guys hitting on me...that's actually happened a few
times in my life. I didn't freak out but I just nicely thanked
them for their interest but "no, I'm not that way." Each time as
was walking away, I would always think, "DAMMIT, why won't a
pretty GIRL approach me like that?" heheh

Right now, currently, I'm having to fend off a few single grammas
in the neighborhood. If they only knew, they would quit trying
for me. ;-D "Desperate women only, apply now!" lol

[cshenk]

In article <pBOjE.76973$C55....@fx33.iad>, ka...@noneya.invalid
says...

Sheldon was banned from WEBTV.

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Monday, March 18, 2019 at 8:01:20 AM UTC-5, muun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
LOTS and LOTS of snippage.

>
> I bet the dumb SOB Donald Trump can't even boil water.
>

Maybe, maybe not but I bet at least HE knows how trim e.n.d.l.e.s.s unnecessary
lines of text just to post a one line retort. Any relation to OhFeelMe?

[U.S. Janet B.]

I notice that you didn't research my challenge. I have never said
that I hate a corporation. Actually, I specifically try to avoid the
concept of hate, period.
You've changed your original statement now to "all liberals hate. . ."
I did challenge you to search back through my old posts and you
didn't, couldn't, wouldn't.
You won't acknowledge that there are men here who speak out frequently
against corporations without any bias of political affiliation.
You constantly lash out at women here without any provocation.
You are quite insecure, especially so with women.
I think you should get another ferret as a companion animal .

[Gary]

And now he uses AOL. heheh

For what it's worth, I visited a friend one morning and she did
have WEBTV. She let me play with it and send an email to a few
friends. I was actually impressed with it. Good for a cheap
internet thing only using a tv for a monitor. Not anything to
criticize really. It was a good thing for those without
computers.

But then my first computer experience was with the Commodore
Vic-20 followed a few years later by the Commodore C-64. Both
used your tv for a monitor. This was very early years in home
computing. With that old hardware, I learned how to program and
even how to program communication software, etc. They were
excellent learning basic computers and I had it all nailed.

Then I bought my very first modem. 300 baud. heheh What cutting
edge hardware. ;)

My first online experience was very old Compuserve. You paid
maybe $10 per month and had access to just a handful of free
"webpages." This was before the real web started. A few things
were free but to do more you would be charged extra per minute.
Scary to use much. Also...no email then.

Then I could also connect to the college computer and do my
computing homework from home instead of going into the computer
lab late at night. I would just send my work to the computer
right before I left for class, go into the computer lab and my
printed out homework was there waiting for me.

Funny how all that is so ancient now.
This was all back in the early 1980's.

Sorry here. I just went off reminiscing to "the good ol days."

[lucreti...@fl.it]

Gary how do you defend Trump with regard to all the nasty things he
says about McCain? The man was well thought of, why does he do it?
Bad enough he cranks on endlessly about Obama and Hillary - they are
the past!

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Monday, March 18, 2019 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, I visited a friend one morning and she did
> have WEBTV. She let me play with it and send an email to a few
> friends. I was actually impressed with it. Good for a cheap
> internet thing only using a tv for a monitor. Not anything to
> criticize really. It was a good thing for those without
> computers.
>

I started out with WebTV back in about 1997 and yes, it used the tv as its'
monitor. At the beginning it was pretty darn good as they were doing up-
dates to the system all the time. Then they introduced the Xbox and all
their resources went into development, support, and advertising and WebTV
was left to wither on the vine. Finally, it got to the point it was only
good for e-mail as no banking could be done with it. Videos were just
wishful thinking as was Facebook for those interested.

Although I kept my box and account up to the bitter end I did opt for my
first laptop in about 2003. They had finally reached a somewhat reasonable
price by that time and I took the plunge and on dial up!!

[dsi1]

On Monday, March 18, 2019 at 8:55:02 AM UTC-10, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>
> I notice that you didn't research my challenge. I have never said
> that I hate a corporation. Actually, I specifically try to avoid the
> concept of hate, period.
> You've changed your original statement now to "all liberals hate. . ."
> I did challenge you to search back through my old posts and you
> didn't, couldn't, wouldn't.
> You won't acknowledge that there are men here who speak out frequently
> against corporations without any bias of political affiliation.
> You constantly lash out at women here without any provocation.
> You are quite insecure, especially so with women.
> I think you should get another ferret as a companion animal .

Talk is cheap on rfc. The people here spend it like they were big name Hollywood movie stars. :)

[graham]

On 2019-03-18 1:29 p.m., heyjoe wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 08:05:49 -0500
> in Message-ID: <news:5C8F97AD...@att.net>
> Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote :

>
>> Should we also never talk about local birds, scottish ancestry,
>> beloved cat stories,
>

> Unless someone is talking about how to cook a cat/dog/bird/etc or what
> are appropriate sides to accompany it, I don't want to read about them,
> any more than I want to read about sex, religion

THEN REMOVE YOUR BY-LINE!!!!

[Bruce]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 13:38:11 -0500, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:

>You are on the top of the list, Mrs. Liberal Sweetheart.
>(PS to others: Boy am I in trouble now!)
>
>Are you brain dead this morning? All liberals hate the big greedy
>corporations that "don't pay their fair share of taxes, etc."
>It's in YOUR DNC manifest that you constantly quote here. Search
>back in threads here as far as you want to go. Read your own old
>posts. It's all the same. Any conservative that argues get
>nothing but name calling...stupid, only watches FOX news, etc.
>
>Did you notice that your liberal hero NancyP has backed way off
>on Trump? She's doing damage control now that much of the US has
>realized just how nuts the left has gone. If she doesn't stop
>that and fix it now, all those 30+ democrat hopefuls won't stand
>a chance in 2020.
>
>Again...I'm not a Trump fan but I don't like how he's been made
>to swim upstream constantly. Nice to see that much of the US
>recognizes that now. I just don't like seeing anyone unfairly
>picked on. That's why I defended JanetUK the other day and why
>I'm now in Ophelia's baby head-in-sand killfile. :)

If you defend the likes of Janet UK and Trump against bullying, your
head is where your ass should be and vice versa. Huh huh.

[Bruce]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 13:38:30 -0500, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:

Defending your hero again?

[A Moose in Love]

janet uk is one of the good ones. she can swear like a frank.

[Bruce]

I'm not surprised. There are also people here who suck op to Sqwertz.

[dsi1]

On Saturday, March 16, 2019 at 6:22:50 AM UTC-10, Gary wrote:
> Just this minute I saw on CNN (very liberal news)
>
> "Trump called immigrant problem an invasion."
> (True enough with the US southern border)
>
> Very next sentence was:
> "New Zealand gunman said the same thing"
>

> Unbelievable! Now they're trying to tie Trump
> to what happened in New Zealand. Democrats
> will go to no end to twist things.

This just in. It's the biggest bit of non-news to psychiatric professionals.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/18/kellyanne-conways-husband-george-conway-has-an-urgent-warning-about-trumps-mental-health.html

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662

[Nancy2]

Hey all, I said no worries, I give up. I am just sick of the political posts, that's all. They don't
distress me, as it were, I am just tired of them.
But y'all do as you wish, it's o.k. with me, I shall complain no more.
Like I said earlier: I give up. That is all on this topic of OT, from me.

N.

OB: Food. I have a stubborn sinus infection and have not been able to taste or smell for
TWO WEEKS! This is as long as it has ever happened to me, although I get sinus infections
on an annual or bi-annual basis. It is so depressing trying to find something to eat...I don't want to use
something I have in the freezer because it is so good and I want to save it for when I can taste again,
but I have to have some protein at least. Lately, I have been eating Atkins protein bars for lunch.

[Leonard Blaisdell]

In article <6c117cf1-3b58-46a4...@googlegroups.com>,

Nancy2 <ellor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> OB: Food. I have a stubborn sinus infection and have not been able to taste
> or smell for
> TWO WEEKS! This is as long as it has ever happened to me, although I get
> sinus infections
> on an annual or bi-annual basis. It is so depressing trying to find
> something to eat...I don't want to use
> something I have in the freezer because it is so good and I want to save it
> for when I can taste again,
> but I have to have some protein at least. Lately, I have been eating Atkins protein bars for lunch.

Best wishes. Get well soon!

leo

[dsi1]

I have had that. It seems to be an epidemic on this rock. I have also lost my sense of smell/taste. It was alarming at first but it always comes back. Good luck to you.

[Ophelia]

"Nancy2" wrote in message
news:6c117cf1-3b58-46a4...@googlegroups.com...

==

Sorry to hear that. Hope it clears up soon. Be careful that you are
eating enough!!

[Nancy2]

Thank you, guys, for the get well wishes. I a.l.m.o.s.t had a twinge of a taste sensation this
morning, but it has gone away. Dammit. I am too impatient. And Ophelia, no problem...this
at the least, has been good for my diet. ;-))

N.

[jmcquown]

On 3/18/2019 9:08 AM, Gary wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
>>> Gary wrote:

>>>> Unbelievable! Now they're trying to tie Trump
>>>> to what happened in New Zealand. Democrats
>>>> will go to no end to twist things.
>>>>

>>> Was there any mention of any of these democrats being able to cook?
>>>
>> Maybe it's time for him to rant against women wearing makeup again. :)
>
> I said my opinion of that once long ago. Was that a rant?
> I'll say a bit more now since you dragged that up.
>
> Liberal leaning women here that hate the rich evil corporations
> might want to start with the $multi-billion cosmetic industries.

Sorry, what? Political leanings have nothing to do with whether or not
a woman chooses to wear makeup.

> These evil rich capitalists have totally brainwashed half of the
> world's population into believing that "beauty" only comes from
> their bottles and tubes.

You really believe that?

> Brainwashed from very young ages just
> like many religious nutcases are brainwashed also very young.
>

Uh, okay. That's not why I wanted to wear makeup as a young woman but
that's your take on it.

> My main thing actually was the red lipstick that is so common.
> Look at any two pictures of a woman with and without lipstick.
> The natural look wins hands down every time.
>

I've never had the complexion or skin tone to wear red lipstick. I know
better. I'm also not influenced by advertising.

> How would you women feel if your man (husband, boyfriend) wore
> red lipstick often? I'll bet you would be embarrassed to go out
> in public with him.
>

Actually, no. One night my SO and I got a little tipsy and he asked me
to put a little makeup on him. Not flamboyant, but he wondered about a
little face makeup and some eye shadow. Then we went to a restaurant
and had a bite to eat. No one noticed. I didn't mind. It was just a
silly little thing we did. He's an artist, interested in colours on faces.

Look back in ancient history. Men wore makeup just as much as women.
The Egyptians with kohl eyeliners and henna powders and dyes. In
Europe, men with powdered wigs and powdered faces. And yes, lipstick
and eyebrow pencils.

It's only in recent history men threw off wearing makeup. Seems to be
coming back into fashion in some circles. I don't actually care.

> OK...all that said, I will admit that even *I* wore red lipstick
> once back when I was about age 27-28. Only for about an hour or
> so though. It didn't work for me but it made my little one happy.
> :)
> http://www.hostpic.org/images/1903181644290097.jpg
>

Your daughter is cute but that's an old pic. Likely she wanted to play
dress-up and as a good dad you agreed. All kids like to play dress-up.
That's why boys of that era wanted to be a cowboy with a vest and toy
guns. Or want to play army. No, they didn't wear makeup.

I wear very minimal face makeup and certainly not every day. I used to
have very long, beautiful eyelashes. I wore mascara, minimal eye liner
and eye shadow. I like makeup! I won't apologize for it.

Fact: when you get older your eyelashes grow shorter. So I don't wear
mascara anymore. I still occasionally put on a neutral eye shadow.

Makeup doesn't define me. But I do like wearing it from time to time.
No red lipstick, ever.

Jill

[jmcquown]

I want to know who "brainwashed" me. Not Corporations. Sure,
corporations sell cosmetics. I grew up in a generation of women who
wore makeup. And I liked makeup! Couldn't wait to wear my first eye
shadow and lip gloss and mascara!

I don't care much about it anymore. I wear minimal makeup these days.

There's not a conspiracy to brainwash anyone. Makeup (for both men and
women) is ancient. Well before those "evil corporations".

I don't know about you, Janet, but I don't pay much attention to the
advertising. And I never wear red lipstick. It doesn't suit me. :)

Jill

[jmcquown]

Jesu Christe! Can't we pullleeeze stop talking about Trump? He's an
idiot and I'm embarrassed by him as an American.

Jill

[U.S. Janet B.]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:10:30 -0400, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>
wrote:

I think my mother put red lipstick on me for my tap dancing recital ;)
That would be the only time.
I've always worn makeup. I like it. When you get old your eyes tend
to disappear and a little bit of eye liner and eye brow pencil puts
your face back in focus.
I don't know, maybe Gary has been trying to hook up with professional
ladies. I just hope that he doesn't do an ego downer on his daughter
if she wears or wants to wear makeup.
BTW, I don't color my hair rainbow colors or cover my body with
tattoos. I don't care who does. It's o.k. with me. I wonder if
those who do are liberals or conservatives?
Janet US

[Ophelia]

"U.S. Janet B." wrote in message
news:tnk79e5q4h8n6p06o...@4ax.com...

==

lol

[Cindy Hamilton]

I've never worn makeup. My glasses tend to cover up my
eyes anyway.

Cindy Hamilton

[Ophelia]

"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message
news:dec19066-73d4-455a...@googlegroups.com...

==

I did when I was a teenager. Not since:)

[penm...@aol.com]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:17:48 -0600, U.S. Janet B. <J...@nospam.com>
wrote:

You're not the hooker red type. I think you're more the pinkish mauve
type... you don't strike me as someone into heavy make up... I don't
think you bother with eye make up. I imagine you're more into lightly
parfumed cleavage... probably a pinch of earthy bakers yeast between
your boobs, nothing sexier.

[penm...@aol.com]

You wear your horn rims to bed, yik! I doubt any real man is focusing
on your eyes at night.

[GM]

"Men rarely make passes at goils who wear glasses..."

OTOH there's the case of the bride on her wedding night who was so dim - sighted that she started performing fellatio on a bedknob, she had mistaken it for her hubbie's weenie...!!!

--
Best
Greg

[jmcquown]

LOLOL Sheldon. I don't bake so, sorry, I don't have any yeast.

>> I think my mother put red lipstick on me for my tap dancing recital ;)
>> That would be the only time.
>> I've always worn makeup. I like it. When you get old your eyes tend
>> to disappear and a little bit of eye liner and eye brow pencil puts
>> your face back in focus.
>> I don't know, maybe Gary has been trying to hook up with professional
>> ladies. I just hope that he doesn't do an ego downer on his daughter
>> if she wears or wants to wear makeup.
>> BTW, I don't color my hair rainbow colors or cover my body with
>> tattoos. I don't care who does. It's o.k. with me. I wonder if
>> those who do are liberals or conservatives?
>> Janet US

My manager at work has rainbow hair. I never know what colour it might
be from one week to the next. Copper on the top graduating to purple
and then blue? Then just blue and purple. She has very long, thick
hair. Sometimes it's pink and blue. She uses something called 'Ooops'
to strip her hair dye and change it. I hate to think what that's doing
to her hair. Not my business. She also wears copper and blue
eyeshadow, dark eyeliner and dark lipstick. She has an ankle tatoo. No
idea about her politics; again, I don't care.

Jill

[jmcquown]

On 3/18/2019 2:42 PM, Gary wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> How about an updated picture?
>
> Ed, remember that my camera quit working about a year ago?
> I took a selfie and the camera freaked out and died right then.
>
>> Now that you are more mature
> That's debatable. ;)
>
>> lipstick may make you look stunning today. You'd have to fight off the
>> women, maybe a couple of guys too.
>
> I'd have to find some of those fashion high heels too though.
> I don't think they make heels in size 14
>
Sure they do! Look for a shop that serves transgenders. Heh.

> Speaking of guys hitting on me...that's actually happened a few
> times in my life. I didn't freak out but I just nicely thanked
> them for their interest but "no, I'm not that way." Each time as
> was walking away, I would always think, "DAMMIT, why won't a
> pretty GIRL approach me like that?" heheh
>
Maybe you weren't in the right place. Or, at that age, shouldn't have
been looking for a GIRL.

> Right now, currently, I'm having to fend off a few single grammas
> in the neighborhood. If they only knew, they would quit trying
> for me. ;-D "Desperate women only, apply now!" lol
>
Exactly how young a companion might you be looking for? Don't forget,
you're not exactly a (OB Food: Spring chicken).

I've had more than one woman hit on me in a social situation in my
lifetime. I merely replied, "I'm flattered, but I'm not into that."
They didn't take offense. Neither did I.

Jill

[jmcquown]

On 3/18/2019 9:05 AM, Gary wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>>

>> On 3/16/2019 7:37 PM, Nancy2 wrote:
>>> Could we please, PLEASE, keep politics out of this newsgroup? Those posts have no place
>>> here.
>>>
>>> N.
>>>
>> I agree! (and your reply needed no quoting :) )
>
> "OT" in the subject line says it all. Just ignore and move on.

> Should we also never talk about local birds, scottish ancestry,

> beloved cat stories, what's in our kitchen cabinets, picking on
> certain others here...on and on.
>
> Anyway, we always talk about everything eventually. The
> occassional politics subject should be fine just talking between
> us here. Only problem comes when just one person will talk
> politics and crosspost to many political groups. THAT'S when all
> hell breaks loose and any NG gets swamped.
>
> Anyone here that wants to read about cooking and recipes *ONLY*,
> I suggest grabbing a cookbook from your bookshelf and read that.
> The NYT cookbook is a good one. RFC is based on cooking but not
> limited. Don't act stupid and don't try to police this newsgroup,
> Jill. You tried that in ACC years ago and we ran you off.
>
I'm not trying to police the NG. What the heck is ACC?

Jill

[Bruce]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 20:48:43 -0400, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On 3/18/2019 2:42 PM, Gary wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> How about an updated picture?
>>
>> Ed, remember that my camera quit working about a year ago?
>> I took a selfie and the camera freaked out and died right then.
>>
>>> Now that you are more mature
>> That's debatable. ;)
>>
>>> lipstick may make you look stunning today. You'd have to fight off the
>>> women, maybe a couple of guys too.
>>
>> I'd have to find some of those fashion high heels too though.
>> I don't think they make heels in size 14
>>
>Sure they do! Look for a shop that serves transgenders. Heh.

He'd look pretty garish!

[Bruce]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 20:49:52 -0400, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Yes, you are. You often question people as to why they even talk to
<name of person you don't like>.

[Hank Rogers]

Pull up yoose pants Popeye and GTFO. All these wommens done told yoose
low down sorry ass to leave them be ... years ago!

[Gary]

jmcquown wrote:

>
> Gary wrote:
> > Speaking of guys hitting on me...that's actually happened a few
> > times in my life. I didn't freak out but I just nicely thanked
> > them for their interest but "no, I'm not that way." Each time as
> > was walking away, I would always think, "DAMMIT, why won't a
> > pretty GIRL approach me like that?" heheh

> Maybe you weren't in the right place. Or, at that age, shouldn't have
> been looking for a GIRL.

Jill, I was just shopping, not looking.
About my use of "Girl," I still refer to all females as girls
and that's not derogatory at all in my mind. It shouldn't be
in your mind either. All females are girls, simple enough.

Would you rather I refer to older women as grammas or just old
ladies? There is no hidden meaning in my descriptions of females,
trust me. I call older men boys or guys too. no big deal.

> > Right now, currently, I'm having to fend off a few single grammas
> > in the neighborhood. If they only knew, they would quit trying
> > for me. ;-D "Desperate women only, apply now!" lol

> Exactly how young a companion might you be looking for? Don't forget,
> you're not exactly a (OB Food: Spring chicken).

I'm not looking for any companion, Jill.
If I accidently run into a "wow" GIRL someday
all will change but I've given up and I don't even
care anymore. Living alone does have it's benefits
as you well know yourself.

As you also know, I'm almost age 108 now according to official
White House records so don't tell me that I'm not a spring
chicken anymore. I damn sure know that and don't need to be
reminded of it. :)