Fetzer on "False Paul" McCartney

[Dave Reitzes]

Call this a bonus track, if you like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOVFhS8sdVU

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 5:55:06 AM UTC+1, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> Call this a bonus track, if you like.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOVFhS8sdVU

Has James Jabba Fetzer been replaced with his reptilian doppleganger? Is
Judyth an alien ? Is Trine Day a limited hangout ? Is there going to be
a nuclear war? The last two questions were serious.

[bigdog]

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> Call this a bonus track, if you like.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOVFhS8sdVU

It speaks volumes that there are actually people who take Fetzer seriously.

[Alex Foyle]

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 5:55:06 AM UTC+1, Dave Reitzes wrote:

> Call this a bonus track, if you like.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOVFhS8sdVU

Oh my, there is no stupidty that Fetzer won't swallow ... although the
real deal on this can be found in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsPCQ932vlU

That one is at least well done, although the whole idea is still complete
bs imo.

[BOZ]

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 12:55:06 AM UTC-4, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> Call this a bonus track, if you like.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOVFhS8sdVU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMgo1JNm2qg

[BOZ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead#/media/File:Batman222june1970.jpg

[David Von Pein]

FYI....

Two years ago, I added this video below to one of my YouTube channels.
It's from WABC Radio in October 1969, near the beginning of the "Paul Is
Dead" craze. This D.J. was fired the next day, btw. I'm sure Fetzer would
love this broadcast....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76LpowsSTzI

[Dave Reitzes]

Thanks, Alex. I may check that video out sometime. I first became aware of
the "Paul is Dead" thing when I became a huge Beatles fan as a teenager.
(Having been born in 1969, I missed the initial wave of Beatlemania.) I
guess when you get a phenomenon as huge as the Beatles, there are bound to
be some crazy ideas tagging along.

Off the top of my head, I can think of five areas where conspiracy
theories and the Beatles intersect:

1. Theories of the Beatles as Satanic messengers
2. Theories of the Beatles as Communist subversives
3. Charles Manson's beliefs, which his followers embraced in a very deadly
way (as well as subsequent theories that Manson and his followers had been
manipulated by government forces)
4. "Paul is Dead"
5. Conspiracy theories about the murder of John Lennon

Dave

[Sandy McCroskey]

But not so surprising in a country where people take Donald Trump
seriously.

[John McAdams]

On 10 Dec 2015 16:15:41 -0500, Sandy McCroskey

Let's be careful about the anti-Americanism here.

The Trump movement is similar to the "right wing populist" parties in
Europe, which have been getting a lot of traction lately.

Due to the American electoral system (single member district, winner
take all) Trump has to be in one of the major parties. It happens
that the Republicans have the dubious honor of having him in their
race, although Trump isn't a Republican. He's not really a Democrat
either. He's just a Trumpian.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[BOZ]

John Lennon stated: "'Imagine', which says: 'Imagine that there was no
more religion, no more country, no more politics,' is virtually the
Communist manifesto"

[BOZ]

John Lennon was not a Beatle when he sang Imagine but he said , "There is
no real Communist state in the world; you must realize that. The Socialism
I speak about ... [is] not the way some daft Russian might do it, or the
Chinese might do it. That might suit them. Us, we should have a nice ...
British Socialism."[

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/9/2015 9:03 PM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 7:58:21 PM UTC-5, Alex Foyle wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 5:55:06 AM UTC+1, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>> Call this a bonus track, if you like.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOVFhS8sdVU
>>
>> Oh my, there is no stupidty that Fetzer won't swallow ... although the
>> real deal on this can be found in this video:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsPCQ932vlU
>>
>> That one is at least well done, although the whole idea is still complete
>> bs imo.
>
>
> Thanks, Alex. I may check that video out sometime. I first became aware of
> the "Paul is Dead" thing when I became a huge Beatles fan as a teenager.
> (Having been born in 1969, I missed the initial wave of Beatlemania.) I
> guess when you get a phenomenon as huge as the Beatles, there are bound to
> be some crazy ideas tagging along.
>

Well, it was fun for a couple of days. I guess now it's a meme.

> Off the top of my head, I can think of five areas where conspiracy
> theories and the Beatles intersect:
>
> 1. Theories of the Beatles as Satanic messengers
> 2. Theories of the Beatles as Communist subversives
> 3. Charles Manson's beliefs, which his followers embraced in a very deadly
> way (as well as subsequent theories that Manson and his followers had been
> manipulated by government forces)
> 4. "Paul is Dead"
> 5. Conspiracy theories about the murder of John Lennon
>

You're not trying hard enough to win your tinfoil hat.

> Dave
>

[BOZ]

Donald Trump should be taken very seriously. Are you giving away any free
copies of THE NATION McCroskey?

[BOZ]

Who do you recommend Dr McAdams? Fiorina? Fiorina was involved with the
Clinton Global Initiative. Rubio backs the most leftwing Pope in history.
Jeb Bush couldn't spell his first name. If Donald Trump goes
Independent... Hillary Clinton will be the next President and it's 8 years
of more bad luck for you Americans.

[BOZ]

According to Wikipedia:"Back in the U.S.S.R." shocked many conservatives
in the United States, because the song appeared to be praising the US's
enemy, the North Vietnamese. The line "You don't know how lucky you are,
boys"

[BOZ]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 6:33:00 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:

Politically, the release of "Revolution" prompted immediate responses from
the New Left and counterculture press. Ramparts branded it a "betrayal",
and the New Left Review said the song was "a lamentable petty bourgeois
cry of fear".[39] The far left contrasted "Revolution" with a song by the
Rolling Stones that was inspired by similar events and released around the
same time: "Street Fighting Man" was perceived to be more supportive of
their cause.[3] Others on the left praised the Beatles for rejecting
radicalism and advocating "pacifist idealism".[40] The song's apparent
scepticism about revolution caused Lennon to become the target of a few
minority Trotskyist, Leninist and in particular Maoist groups.[41]

The far right remained suspicious of the Beatles, saying they were
moderate subversives who were "warning the Maoists not to 'blow' the
revolution by pushing too hard".[7] As further evidence of group's
supposed "pro-Soviet" sentiments, the John Birch Society magazine cited
another song on the White Album, "Back in the U.S.S.R."[42] Anti-communist
and far-right groups also picked on the track "Piggies", which was about
social class and corporate greed.(WIKIPEDIA)

[Mark Florio]

No, Boz, while I understand some of the frustrations of his supporters, he
should not be taken seriously, and he is not a conservative, certainly not
from my independent voter POV. Small-c conservatives try to bring
Americans together not divide them. Not one vote has been cast yet, but I
would not be surprised if he got the nomination. That's how divided
(screwed up?) this nation is. Call me a pessimist. Mark

[Sandy McCroskey]

The rising popularity of such a brain-dead demagogue should be taken as
seriously as the horrifying rise of le Front national in France.

I can send you any Nation issue you request, "BOZ," and you can also
read a number of articles free online before you are asked if you would
like to contribute.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 12/10/15 4:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2015 16:15:41 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/9/15 2:47 PM, BOZ wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 6:00:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>>>> Call this a bonus track, if you like.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOVFhS8sdVU
>>>>
>>>> It speaks volumes that there are actually people who take Fetzer seriously.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead#/media/File:Batman222june1970.jpg
>>>
>>
>> But not so surprising in a country where people take Donald Trump
>> seriously.
>>
>
> Let's be careful about the anti-Americanism here.
>

There's nothing "anti-American" in what I said. It is very disturbing
that in this country today so many people can tolerate, let alone
revere, an idiotic clown like this. That has nothing to do with any
supposed essence of "Americanism." I do believe it is, in fact, inimical
to anything positive that "American" has ever connoted.

> The Trump movement is similar to the "right wing populist" parties in
> Europe, which have been getting a lot of traction lately.

The first-round results of the regional elections in France were more
terrifying than the attacks of treize novembre. Voter pour le Front
national, c'est exactement quoi Daech veut que les gens fassent !

>
> Due to the American electoral system (single member district, winner
> take all) Trump has to be in one of the major parties. It happens
> that the Republicans have the dubious honor of having him in their
> race, although Trump isn't a Republican. He's not really a Democrat
> either. He's just a Trumpian.
>
> .John

And yet none of the other candidates will stand up and say they won't
support Trump if he becomes their party's candidate.

The GOP, however, desperately needs those non-educated, non-Hispanic,
non-black, people to (make sure there's gas in the pick-up and maybe drink
only one six-pack the night before election day so they can get up in time
to make it to the polls to) vote for their candidate, so the GOP
establishment sure doesn't want to see Trump run as an independent either.

[Anthony Marsh]

Because they were against war.
“War is not healthy for children and other living things.”

[Anthony Marsh]

"YOU" Americans? Do you think of yourself as a foreigner?

[Anthony Marsh]

Is Trump giving away free copies of his book "MY STRUGGLE"?

[Anthony Marsh]

Eloquent. As I said before, Communism is only an ideal to work towards.
Now one has actually put it into use.
Utopia can quickly become Distopia.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/10/2015 5:32 PM, BOZ wrote:

No. Communism is politics. Communism can not be universal. It's always
nation by nation. And there are differen flavors of Communism.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/10/2015 4:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2015 16:15:41 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/9/15 2:47 PM, BOZ wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 6:00:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>>>> Call this a bonus track, if you like.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOVFhS8sdVU
>>>>
>>>> It speaks volumes that there are actually people who take Fetzer seriously.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead#/media/File:Batman222june1970.jpg
>>>
>>
>> But not so surprising in a country where people take Donald Trump
>> seriously.
>>
>
> Let's be careful about the anti-Americanism here.
>
> The Trump movement is similar to the "right wing populist" parties in
> Europe, which have been getting a lot of traction lately.
>

Yes, but you don't seem to understand that this is exactly what DASH
wants. Their goal is to spark Armageddon. Like the Taliban they don't
have the technology to send a billion Muslims into the West to kill all
infidels. So they commit acts of terror to lure us into going there to
attack them.

> Due to the American electoral system (single member district, winner
> take all) Trump has to be in one of the major parties. It happens

Only if he wants to win (he doesn't). Remember Ross Perot? It's more fun
to be the spoiler, especially when you are independently wealthy.
The plan is to wait him out until after the first 6 primaries, then dump
him so he can't run as an independent.

> that the Republicans have the dubious honor of having him in their
> race, although Trump isn't a Republican. He's not really a Democrat
> either. He's just a Trumpian.
>

Cute. But I think that would be more like an admirer. Like a Whovian.

How about the conspiracy theory that Bill Clinton is bribing him with
whores to make him run as the spoiler to help Hillary get elected?
What would they call Bill then? First Spouse.
SPOTUS?
Hey, I just invented it. Free for this month only. No shipping charge.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[BOZ]

My Struggle to make 4 billion dollars by D J Trump. Are women allowed to
drive cars in Saudi Arabia yet? This law has nothing to do with Islam
because it's about global warming.Did you know that Hitler's Mein Kampf
and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were translated into Arabic and
are popular among Moslems. I think it's called MY JIHAD.

[BOZ]

Do you like the North Korean flavor?

[BOZ]

Dystopia! Learn to spell.

[Bud]

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 2:51:22 PM UTC-5, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 12/10/15 4:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> > On 10 Dec 2015 16:15:41 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
> > <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/9/15 2:47 PM, BOZ wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 6:00:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> >>>>> Call this a bonus track, if you like.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOVFhS8sdVU
> >>>>
> >>>> It speaks volumes that there are actually people who take Fetzer seriously.
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead#/media/File:Batman222june1970.jpg
> >>>
> >>
> >> But not so surprising in a country where people take Donald Trump
> >> seriously.
> >>
> >
> > Let's be careful about the anti-Americanism here.
> >
>
> There's nothing "anti-American" in what I said. It is very disturbing
> that in this country today so many people can tolerate, let alone
> revere, an idiotic clown like this.

He gives voice to a lot of issues some Americans are disturbed about.

> That has nothing to do with any
> supposed essence of "Americanism." I do believe it is, in fact, inimical
> to anything positive that "American" has ever connoted.
>
> > The Trump movement is similar to the "right wing populist" parties in
> > Europe, which have been getting a lot of traction lately.
>
> The first-round results of the regional elections in France were more
> terrifying than the attacks of treize novembre. Voter pour le Front
> national, c'est exactement quoi Daech veut que les gens fassent !
>
> >
> > Due to the American electoral system (single member district, winner
> > take all) Trump has to be in one of the major parties. It happens
> > that the Republicans have the dubious honor of having him in their
> > race, although Trump isn't a Republican. He's not really a Democrat
> > either. He's just a Trumpian.
> >
> > .John
>
> And yet none of the other candidates will stand up and say they won't
> support Trump if he becomes their party's candidate.
>
> The GOP, however, desperately needs those non-educated, non-Hispanic,
> non-black, people to (make sure there's gas in the pick-up and maybe drink
> only one six-pack the night before election day so they can get up in time
> to make it to the polls to) vote for their candidate, so the GOP
> establishment sure doesn't want to see Trump run as an independent either.

The white, truck driving, six pack drinking Americans are the people
carrying this country, despite the scorn heaped upon them by the liberal
elite. They are the pack animals carrying the load and they have more
weight foisted onto them daily. They have to work until they drop and if
they form a group like the Tea Party to look after their interests it is
labeled racist. Why wouldn`t they pin their hopes on Trump when every
mainstream politician has sold them down the river?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

It's not just France, as you know. These anti-immigration parties - with
their strong nativist element - are rising all through Europe. But there
are legitimate concerns about uncontrolled immigration and the difficulty
of assimilating this influx of Muslims and if the "vital center" doesn't
respond to these legitimate worries then many people will turn to them.

We have a world problem with radical Islam. Ignoring it or worrying about
a backlash isn't enough.

And I'll just add that it would be great if the Nation held real fascists
like Putin to some standards, Sandy. Mr. and Mrs. Cohen's defense of his
policies is pretty silly.

[Anthony Marsh]

They read the Post Mortem and burned it.
What else can they do with only 28% of the vote? Only obstruct.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/11/2015 2:47 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 12/10/15 10:35 PM, BOZ wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 5:15:42 PM UTC-4, Sandy McCroskey
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/9/15 2:47 PM, BOZ wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 6:00:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>>>>> Call this a bonus track, if you like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOVFhS8sdVU
>>>>>
>>>>> It speaks volumes that there are actually people who take Fetzer
>>>>> seriously.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead#/media/File:Batman222june1970.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> But not so surprising in a country where people take Donald Trump
>>> seriously.
>>
>> Donald Trump should be taken very seriously. Are you giving away any
>> free
>> copies of THE NATION McCroskey?
>>
>
>
> The rising popularity of such a brain-dead demagogue should be taken as
> seriously as the horrifying rise of le Front national in France.
>

You have a talent for understating things. When the Titanic hit the
Iceberg, you got on the PA and said, "Nothing to worry about, folks.
We're just stopping for ice."

> I can send you any Nation issue you request, "BOZ," and you can also
> read a number of articles free online before you are asked if you would
> like to contribute.
>

Thanks. Please send me a copy of the issue where you wrote about the JFK
assassination.
Don't suppose you guys will get digital until the NEXT Century?
What's your readership this year? 52,000?

>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

You're an optimist.

[BOZ]

Le Pen: Danger number one is two-faced. One, Islamic fundamentalism, which
is a kind of totalitarianism in the 21st Century. The second is
globalisation, which is another kind of totalitarianism, the ideology of
free business with no boundaries. (April 2015)

[Sandy McCroskey]

Uh... because Trump is an idiot and a buffoon?

Saying we should block all Muslims is playing to bigotry, but saying
that this would only be " until our country's representatives can figure
out what is going on" is simply moronic. Maybe a week, a month, a year?
And then they'll find The Answer? Nothing in real life is that simple.

It's even not his politics so much as his unmitigated ignorance that I
find offensive.

The less education a Republican has, the more likely they are to vote
for Trump. The establishment is terrified that he could be the GOP
candidate, and equally scared that he'll run as an independent and take
with him the idiot vote that they desperately need.

But I sincerely think that a lot of people who go to Trump rallies might
not remember to vote. So somebody might get elected who would really
help them, after all.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 12/12/15 8:23 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:47:49 PM UTC-6, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 12/10/15 10:35 PM, BOZ wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 5:15:42 PM UTC-4, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>> On 12/9/15 2:47 PM, BOZ wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 6:00:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>>>>>> Call this a bonus track, if you like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOVFhS8sdVU
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It speaks volumes that there are actually people who take Fetzer seriously.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead#/media/File:Batman222june1970.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But not so surprising in a country where people take Donald Trump
>>>> seriously.
>>>
>>> Donald Trump should be taken very seriously. Are you giving away any free
>>> copies of THE NATION McCroskey?
>>>
>>
>>
>> The rising popularity of such a brain-dead demagogue should be taken as
>> seriously as the horrifying rise of le Front national in France.
>>
>> I can send you any Nation issue you request, "BOZ," and you can also
>> read a number of articles free online before you are asked if you would
>> like to contribute.
>
> It's not just France, as you know.

Yes, but I have a special relationship with France, and there is a very
fraught election going on--today! The recent attacks are so clearly what
has driven many people into the arms of the FN. Today, though,
participation in the vote is higher than during the first round. My
fingers are crossed.

> These anti-immigration parties - with
> their strong nativist element - are rising all through Europe. But there
> are legitimate concerns about uncontrolled immigration and the difficulty
> of assimilating this influx of Muslims and if the "vital center" doesn't
> respond to these legitimate worries then many people will turn to them.
>
> We have a world problem with radical Islam. Ignoring it or worrying about
> a backlash isn't enough.
>
> And I'll just add that it would be great if the Nation held real fascists
> like Putin to some standards, Sandy. Mr. and Mrs. Cohen's defense of his
> policies is pretty silly.
>
>

(Katrina didn't change her name, Steven.)
At last year's holiday party, I told Steve I was wondering if Wikileaks
was going to uncover the secret e-mails between him and Putin. He took
it in stride.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Marsh, you've never heard the Marxist slogan, "Workers OF THE WORLD
unite"? "Socialism in one country" was a Stalinist deviation from Marx's
vision.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 12/12/15 8:14 PM, Bud wrote:

> The white, truck driving, six pack drinking Americans are the people
> carrying this country,

I question the racial breakdown in that characterization.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I never said that I did.

> Don't suppose you guys will get digital until the NEXT Century?

What is this supposed to mean?

We have a pretty successful and recently revamped (to wide acclaim)
website. We also have a digital archive.

We publish much more content online than ever gets into print.

Digital subscriptions to TheNation.com have for some time been
encouraged rather than subs to the print edition, because it costs too
much to print and mail.

[Anthony Marsh]

Boo-hoo for the Nazis here. The Nazi party in France was just defeated
in the election.

> We have a world problem with radical Islam. Ignoring it or worrying about
> a backlash isn't enough.
>

Any chance that education might help? Or isn't that worth a try? PBS just
ran a show comparing the 3 major religions and pointed out that Jewish law
is almost identical to Muslim law.

Women finally won the right to vote, but they still can't drive cars.
Hormones, you know.

[Anthony Marsh]

No thanks. When I drove the college kids to the Korean church they tried
to get me to try the Korean food at dinner. Much too hot for me.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/12/2015 8:06 PM, BOZ wrote:
> On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 8:18:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 12/10/2015 10:35 PM, BOZ wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 5:15:42 PM UTC-4, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>> On 12/9/15 2:47 PM, BOZ wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 6:00:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>>>>>> Call this a bonus track, if you like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOVFhS8sdVU
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It speaks volumes that there are actually people who take Fetzer seriously.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead#/media/File:Batman222june1970.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But not so surprising in a country where people take Donald Trump
>>>> seriously.
>>>
>>> Donald Trump should be taken very seriously. Are you giving away any free
>>> copies of THE NATION McCroskey?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Is Trump giving away free copies of his book "MY STRUGGLE"?
>
> My Struggle to make 4 billion dollars by D J Trump. Are women allowed to
> drive cars in Saudi Arabia yet? This law has nothing to do with Islam

Did you know that women in Saudi Arabia just got the right to vote? But
no, not the right to drive a car. And Saudi Arabia still beheads people.

> because it's about global warming.Did you know that Hitler's Mein Kampf
> and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were translated into Arabic and
> are popular among Moslems. I think it's called MY JIHAD.
>

Funny, but you might remember that several Arab countries supported
Hitler, only because he killed Jews.

Regarding fossil fuels, Germany invented the processes for converting
coal into gasoline and jet fuel.

Synthetic fuel grades included "T.L. [jet] fuel ", "first quality aviation
gasoline", "aviation base gasoline", and "gasoline - middle oil";[18] and
"producer gas" and diesel were synthesized for fuel as well (e.g.,
converted armored tanks used producer gas).[17]:4,s2 By early 1944, German
synthetic fuel production had reached more than 124,000 barrels per day
(19,700 m3/d) from 25 plants,[21][verification needed] including 10 in the
Ruhr Area.[22]:239 In 1937, the four central Germany lignite coal plants
at B?hlen, Leuna, Magdeburg/Rothensee, and Zeitz, along with the Ruhr Area
bituminous coal plant at Scholven/Buer, had produced 4.8 million barrels
(760?103 m3) of fuel. Four new hydrogenation plants (German: Hydrierwerke)
were subsequently erected at Bottrop-Welheim (which used "Bituminous coal
tar pitch"),[18] Gelsenkirchen (Nordstern), P?litz, and, at 200,000
tons/yr[18] Wesseling.[23] Nordstern and P?litz/Stettin used bituminous
coal, as did the new Blechhammer plants.[18] Heydebreck synthesized food
oil, which was tested on concentration camp prisoners.[24] The Geilenberg
Special Staff was using 350,000 mostly foreign forced laborers to
reconstruct the bombed synthetic oil plants,[22]:210,224 and, in an
emergency decentralization program, to build 7 underground hydrogenation
plants for bombing protection (none were completed). (Planners had
rejected an earlier such proposal because the war was to be won before the
bunkers would be completed.)[20] In July 1944, the 'Cuckoo' project
underground synthetic oil plant (800,000 m2) was being "carved out of the
Himmelsburg" North of the Mittelwerk, but the plant was unfinished at the
end of WWII.[17]

Indirect Fischer-Tropsch ("FT") technologies were brought to the US after
World War 2, and a 7,000 barrels per day (1,100 m3/d) plant was designed
by HRI, and built in Brownsville Texas. The plant represented the first
commercial use of high-temperature Fischer Tropsch conversion. It operated
from 1950 to 1955, when it was shut down when the price of oil dropped due
to enhanced production and huge discoveries in the Middle East.[14]

[Sandy McCroskey]

The National Front was started by former collaborationists and apologists
for Vichy. Today it is still controlled by racists and thugs. You should
look into the parties with which it has made common cause on the
(anti-)European level. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in
assuming that you do not really know what the party is really about.

/sandy

[Bud]

You brought up race, when you said... "those non-educated, non-Hispanic,
non-black, people...". Like any good liberal you felt it was fair game to
denigrate white males, something you wouldn`t think of doing to any other
ethnic group. The point I was making was that if you take Joe Sixpack out
of the equation the whole system collapses, yet it seems to irk you on
some level that his vote is counted. And had I said something along the
lines of "They can`t get the brown people in the inner cities to put down
their crack pipes long enough to go out and vote." you would view this as
inflammatory. Typical liberal double standard.

[John McAdams]

Many years ago, about the time Noah got off the ark, I had a sociology
professor. A good liberal, he spouted the usual line about how it is
bad to stereotype certain groups.

But I quickly found out that he stereotyped all those groups he
believed didn't share his political opinions.

That made obvious what has become more and more evident since: the
people who talk most about tolerance are the most intolerant, and the
people who talk most about "inclusion" have the most exclusionist
attitudes.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Oops.
I did not mean to give the impression that I really think Trump has any
chance at all of becoming president!

[Anthony Marsh]

It's a generalization. 99.7% are white. Only a handful are black and
only one or two are asian.

[Anthony Marsh]

Then the recent election should restore your faith in France. The Nazi
lost big time. No seats.

BTW, I could have mentioned that I also have personal relationship with
France, as in romantic. My old girlfriend is French and lives in Paris.
But if I do that then the chief Nazi here will claim that I make
everything about me.

And no I can't tell you his name, because you complain about my making fun
of other posters silly aliases. Or maybe you think that's he real name.
Should I start making fun of your codename instead?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/13/2015 11:34 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:

But Donald Trump doesn't live in the real world. Everything is a reality
show to him.

[Bud]

> >> The GOP, however, desperately needs those to (make sure there's gas in the pick-up anon-educated, non-Hispanic,
> >> non-black, people nd maybe drink

> >> only one six-pack the night before election day so they can get up in time
> >> to make it to the polls to) vote for their candidate, so the GOP
> >> establishment sure doesn't want to see Trump run as an independent either.
> >
> > The white, truck driving, six pack drinking Americans are the people
> > carrying this country, despite the scorn heaped upon them by the liberal
> > elite. They are the pack animals carrying the load and they have more
> > weight foisted onto them daily. They have to work until they drop and if
> > they form a group like the Tea Party to look after their interests it is
> > labeled racist. Why wouldn`t they pin their hopes on Trump when every
> > mainstream politician has sold them down the river?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Uh... because Trump is an idiot and a buffoon?

I don`t disagree. But so is Al Sharpton. So is Jesse Jackson. But some
of the outlandish things they say strike a cord with a segment of society.

> Saying we should block all Muslims is playing to bigotry, but saying
> that this would only be " until our country's representatives can figure
> out what is going on" is simply moronic. Maybe a week, a month, a year?
> And then they'll find The Answer? Nothing in real life is that simple.
>
> It's even not his politics so much as his unmitigated ignorance that I
> find offensive.

What I found offensive was that you felt it was ok to denigrate his
supporters. I`m tired of progressives thinking it is alright to put down
the red state trailer dwellers but then declaring that it is not alright
to call black criminals "thugs" (a lifestyle celebrated in certain
segments of black culture). You were putting down the white, working class
people of this country because you feel they are a group that it is
alright to put down. You demonstrated liberal elitism, hypocrisy and the
bias of the media. Consider it a teaching moment.

> The less education a Republican has, the more likely they are to vote
> for Trump.

Who compiled this information? This is something I`ve never seen done
with any other candidate. Perhaps we should quiz people before we allow
them to vote, see if they are smart enough to have their vote counted.
Somehow I see this hurting liberal candidates more than Republicans. Heres
an interesting video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3ZLJj_q4xI

> The establishment is terrified that he could be the GOP
> candidate, and equally scared that he'll run as an independent and take> with him the idiot vote that they desperately need.

You mean like Nader did to the Democrats?

And I don`t see liberal candidates turning way voters because they are
stupid.

But you really are showing your true liberal colors, again denigrating

> But I sincerely think that a lot of people who go to Trump rallies might
> not remember to vote.

I remember when Obama ran the first time a bunch of rappers got together
and performed concerts to raise money for Obama`s campaign. I remember
rapper Jay Z saying that if Obama lost, he would buy guns for the whole
hood. What I don`t remember is the media looking to see how smart the
people who attended these concerts were.

[Bud]

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 8:31:29 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2015 20:26:46 -0500, Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 11:35:25 PM UTC-5, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> >> On 12/12/15 8:14 PM, Bud wrote:
> >> > The white, truck driving, six pack drinking Americans are the people
> >> > carrying this country,
> >>
> >> I question the racial breakdown in that characterization.
> >
> > You brought up race, when you said... "those non-educated, non-Hispanic,
> >non-black, people...". Like any good liberal you felt it was fair game to
> >denigrate white males, something you wouldn`t think of doing to any other
> >ethnic group. The point I was making was that if you take Joe Sixpack out
> >of the equation the whole system collapses, yet it seems to irk you on
> >some level that his vote is counted. And had I said something along the
> >lines of "They can`t get the brown people in the inner cities to put down
> >their crack pipes long enough to go out and vote." you would view this as
> >inflammatory. Typical liberal double standard.
> >
>
> Many years ago, about the time Noah got off the ark, I had a sociology
> professor. A good liberal, he spouted the usual line about how it is
> bad to stereotype certain groups.
>
> But I quickly found out that he stereotyped all those groups he
> believed didn't share his political opinions.

This is what really pushed the button with me (that, plus the fact that
I`ve been watching a lot of SJW stuff on youtube lately). Sandy, like a
lot of liberals want to label a group "stupid" or use some other form of
ad hominem because they can`t bear to bring themselves to accept that that
group might have legitimate gripes.

> That made obvious what has become more and more evident since: the
> people who talk most about tolerance are the most intolerant, and the
> people who talk most about "inclusion" have the most exclusionist
> attitudes.
>
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

It`s true, the liberals who expose the principle of free speech are the
first ones to want to limit other people`s rights in regards to that
freedom. It`s the conservatives that are doing the most fighting to
preserve that freedom.

What I`ve been watching lately on youtube closely relates to this, long
story short an internet drama involving feminists who tried some dirty,
underhanded stuff to silence their critics (letter writing an employer to
try to get the person fired, a tactic you are familiar with .John) and had
it backfire on them. The striking thing is how reasonable the critics are
and how irrational the feminists and their supporters are. They are fine
in a seminar or lecture setting, speaking to the converted, but go off the
hook when their ideas are challenged. Anyone interested can search
"thunderfoot, laughing witch" on youtube, you`ll find a slew of videos on
it.

[Mark Florio]

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 1:51:22 PM UTC-6, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 12/10/15 4:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> > On 10 Dec 2015 16:15:41 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
> > <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/9/15 2:47 PM, BOZ wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 6:00:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> >>>>> Call this a bonus track, if you like.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOVFhS8sdVU
> >>>>
> >>>> It speaks volumes that there are actually people who take Fetzer seriously.
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead#/media/File:Batman222june1970.jpg
> >>>
> >>
> >> But not so surprising in a country where people take Donald Trump
> >> seriously.
> >>
> >
> > Let's be careful about the anti-Americanism here.
> >
>
> There's nothing "anti-American" in what I said. It is very disturbing
> that in this country today so many people can tolerate, let alone

> revere, an idiotic clown like this. That has nothing to do with any

> supposed essence of "Americanism." I do believe it is, in fact, inimical
> to anything positive that "American" has ever connoted.
>
> > The Trump movement is similar to the "right wing populist" parties in
> > Europe, which have been getting a lot of traction lately.
>
> The first-round results of the regional elections in France were more
> terrifying than the attacks of treize novembre. Voter pour le Front
> national, c'est exactement quoi Daech veut que les gens fassent !
>
> >
> > Due to the American electoral system (single member district, winner
> > take all) Trump has to be in one of the major parties. It happens
> > that the Republicans have the dubious honor of having him in their
> > race, although Trump isn't a Republican. He's not really a Democrat
> > either. He's just a Trumpian.
> >
> > .John
>
> And yet none of the other candidates will stand up and say they won't
> support Trump if he becomes their party's candidate.
>

> The GOP, however, desperately needs those non-educated, non-Hispanic,
> non-black, people to (make sure there's gas in the pick-up and maybe drink

> only one six-pack the night before election day so they can get up in time
> to make it to the polls to) vote for their candidate, so the GOP
> establishment sure doesn't want to see Trump run as an independent either.

Whoa, Sandy. Your cultural intolerance (hatred?) is off the charts. I'm
surprised. I thought you were wiser, more thoughtful, than that.

JFK had a well-known aversion to putting on hats in public, right up to
the last morning of his life. With one exception. Whenever he was
presented with one during the 1960 campaign, he gladly put on a hardhat, a
yellow one usually. Also whatever color a coal miner was wearing.

There was a time, a blink of an eye in history, when the Democratic Party
depended upon working class whites to help makeup a winning coalition.
(See Truman's 1948 campaign rhetoric for one example). Today, cultural PC
liberalism has smothered the party's lunchbucket, moderate liberalism.

I'm not going to turn this into a political speech, but one of the main
reasons for Trump's rise is that workers of whatever color believe, with
good reason I think, they have been shafted by our Internationals Trade
Agreements, NAFTA and now TPP. (The title of former Senator Dorgan's book
comes to mind, "Take This Job and Ship It".) Overseas that is. The people
you are belittling do not believe either party establishment cares about
let alone addresses their concerns.

I'll get off the soapbox now. This newsgroup is about who killed a man
who was our most inclusive president. He spent his last breakfast meeting
with conservative business people.

Food for thought. And we need a lot more it in this country.

Mark

[BOZ]

It would be nice to see Donald Trump fire Obama.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Come on! I didn't call anybody any names (not yet). And I'm pretty sure
the demographics back me up. Are you denying that a lot of Trump
supporters drive pick-ups, gulp down entire six-packs and aren't very
educated? OK, OK, fine! Maybe some drive semis and drink Thunderbird...
I'm joking!

My point was that I don't think all the people who go to Trump rallies are
likely to actually vote. I'm saying I doubt if they have the same
seriousness and commitment as you see on the part of, say, Sanders
supporters. Of course, no one can prove this now one way or the other.

> I`m tired of progressives thinking it is alright to put down
> the red state trailer dwellers but then declaring that it is not alright
> to call black criminals "thugs" (a lifestyle celebrated in certain
> segments of black culture). You were putting down the white, working class
> people of this country

I question the racial breakdown of this characterization.

There are lots of folks in the working class who aren't white.
And who certainly do not support Trump.

Trump supporters do not represent, all by their pasty selves, "THE"
working class.

> because you feel they are a group that it is
> alright to put down. You demonstrated liberal elitism, hypocrisy and the
> bias of the media. Consider it a teaching moment.
>

Oh, brother. No, I don't see it that way. But I'm sorry if you are hoping
to vote for Trump and I offended you by saying that the typical Trump
supporter seems to be an ignorant redneck. Just can't help it. I calls 'em
like I sees 'em.

As for literacy tests or the like for voters, of course I'm not for that.
(And--are you kidding?--I especially want all those people who say they'll
vote for Trump in the Republican primaries to actually do it! Yes! Yes!
Yes!)

It's the Republicans who have lately mounted a nationwide campaign to roll
back voting rights. I do hope those with libertarian convictions will
stand up against any attack on the principle of "one person, one vote"
(which, yes, is valid no matter how stupid the person).

[Sandy McCroskey]

I got the news at 2pm our time via French radio and texted a few amies one
word: "Whew!"

It was a relief, but the big picture, and what it portends for 2017, is
nothing to be overjoyed about.

The National Front lost because the Socialists dropped out of the two
regions where Marine Le Pen and her niece Marion were, respectively,
running, and where the PS had come in last during the first round (and
expelled from the party the candidate who refused to step down in le Grand
Est) and appealed to its adherents to vote for the candidate for the
center-right party, Sarkozy's Republicans. Sarko's gang, however, refused
to return the favor, breaking with a truly republican tradition--and
setting up some suspenseful triangular races.

The New York Times headline today said the National Front "stumbled," but
that is inaccurate--after all, le FN got more votes in the second round
than in the first. They didn't stumble, they were *beaten*, by a
"mobilisation citoyen." But that meant that the center-right party won
seven regions (and the most populous), to the Socialists' five.

> BTW, I could have mentioned that I also have personal relationship with
> France, as in romantic. My old girlfriend is French and lives in Paris.
> But if I do that then the chief Nazi here will claim that I make
> everything about me.
>

Oh, so better not say that then. Ha ha

> And no I can't tell you his name, because you complain about my making
> fun of other posters silly aliases. Or maybe you think that's he real
> name. Should I start making fun of your codename instead?
>

No idea what you're talking about now.
Nor do I care.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 12/14/15 8:26 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 11:35:25 PM UTC-5, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 12/12/15 8:14 PM, Bud wrote:
>>> The white, truck driving, six pack drinking Americans are the people
>>> carrying this country,
>>
>> I question the racial breakdown in that characterization.
>
> You brought up race, when you said... "those non-educated, non-Hispanic,
> non-black, people...". Like any good liberal you felt it was fair game to
> denigrate white males, something you wouldn`t think of doing to any other
> ethnic group.

Hey, I happen to be a white male. From West Virginia, actually.

I was only denigrating a white male who roots for Trump. OK, I could have
left out the pickup and the six-pack. But hey, at least I didn't put him
in a trailer park.

You, however, said,

"The white, truck driving, six pack drinking Americans are the people
carrying this country,"

which I would gladly agree with, Bud... if you weren't leaving out so
many people.

> The point I was making was that if you take Joe Sixpack out
> of the equation the whole system collapses, yet it seems to irk you on
> some level that his vote is counted.

No, I just hope he makes it to the polls to make Trump the Republican
nominee.

Anybody who runs against Trump on a national level is a shoo-in.

> And had I said something along the
> lines of "They can`t get the brown people in the inner cities to put down
> their crack pipes long enough to go out and vote." you would view this as
> inflammatory. Typical liberal double standard.

It wouldn't have been nearly so tempting to stereotype if Trump
supporters weren't such a self-selected homogeneous group.

[Sandy McCroskey]

No, the make-up of the working class that is "carrying this country" is
not 99.7 percent white. Quite wrong.

[Anthony Marsh]

I notice that you say that only because they are black.
You wouldn't say that about George Bush and Dick Cheney.

>> Saying we should block all Muslims is playing to bigotry, but saying
>> that this would only be " until our country's representatives can figure
>> out what is going on" is simply moronic. Maybe a week, a month, a year?
>> And then they'll find The Answer? Nothing in real life is that simple.
>>
>> It's even not his politics so much as his unmitigated ignorance that I
>> find offensive.
>
> What I found offensive was that you felt it was ok to denigrate his
> supporters. I`m tired of progressives thinking it is alright to put down

Because his supporters are racist kooks.

> the red state trailer dwellers but then declaring that it is not alright
> to call black criminals "thugs" (a lifestyle celebrated in certain
> segments of black culture). You were putting down the white, working class

Not any more than some Italians celebrate the Mafia. But we don't see
you attacking them. Only blacks.

> people of this country because you feel they are a group that it is
> alright to put down. You demonstrated liberal elitism, hypocrisy and the
> bias of the media. Consider it a teaching moment.
>
>> The less education a Republican has, the more likely they are to vote
>> for Trump.
>
> Who compiled this information? This is something I`ve never seen done

I quoted the article.

> with any other candidate. Perhaps we should quiz people before we allow

We haven't had a candidate like Trump in a long time. Even Goldwater
wasn't that racist.

> them to vote, see if they are smart enough to have their vote counted.
> Somehow I see this hurting liberal candidates more than Republicans. Heres
> an interesting video...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3ZLJj_q4xI
>
>> The establishment is terrified that he could be the GOP
>> candidate, and equally scared that he'll run as an independent and take> with him the idiot vote that they desperately need.
>
> You mean like Nader did to the Democrats?
>
> And I don`t see liberal candidates turning way voters because they are
> stupid.
>

Liberals have special programs for the stupid.

> But you really are showing your true liberal colors, again denigrating
>> But I sincerely think that a lot of people who go to Trump rallies might
>> not remember to vote.
>
> I remember when Obama ran the first time a bunch of rappers got together
> and performed concerts to raise money for Obama`s campaign. I remember
> rapper Jay Z saying that if Obama lost, he would buy guns for the whole
> hood. What I don`t remember is the media looking to see how smart the
> people who attended these concerts were.
>

They did.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I said I hope somebody gets elected who will help the people who so often
vote against their own interests, so many of whom are now infatuated with
Trump.

>
> JFK had a well-known aversion to putting on hats in public, right up to
> the last morning of his life. With one exception. Whenever he was
> presented with one during the 1960 campaign, he gladly put on a hardhat, a
> yellow one usually. Also whatever color a coal miner was wearing.
>

> There was a time, a blink of an eye in history, when the Democratic Party
> depended upon working class whites to help makeup a winning coalition.
> (See Truman's 1948 campaign rhetoric for one example). Today, cultural PC
> liberalism has smothered the party's lunchbucket, moderate liberalism.
>
> I'm not going to turn this into a political speech, but one of the main
> reasons for Trump's rise is that workers of whatever color believe,

Trump clearly cares only about what *white* workers believe, and it's
almost exclusively *white* people who support Trump.

> with good reason I think, they have been shafted by our Internationals Trade
> Agreements, NAFTA and now TPP.

Yes, indeed.

> (The title of former Senator Dorgan's book
> comes to mind, "Take This Job and Ship It".) Overseas that is. The people
> you are belittling do not believe either party establishment cares about
> let alone addresses their concerns.
>

To take a word from The Simpsons, it would embiggen the most belittled
person to take the wool from their eyes.


But I didn't mean to insult pickup drivers or six-pack drinkers in
general. Some such folks will surely vote for Bernie (like the gun
owners of Vermont).

> I'll get off the soapbox now. This newsgroup is about who killed a man
> who was our most inclusive president.

JFK was rather patrician, actually. He wasn't nearly as comfortable with
people of a lower economic standing as LBJ was.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I accept that they have legitimate gripes.
But I can't see anybody who would vote for Trump as anything but stupid.

By the way, when I depicted a hypothetical someone who drives a pickup
and drinks six-packs, the only thing that makes either of those details
an implicit insult in your eyes is that you know I am talking about
someone I consider stupid because they support Trump.

(I think I had the image of a "tailgate party" in mind. I wonder where
that came from...?)

>
>> That made obvious what has become more and more evident since: the
>> people who talk most about tolerance are the most intolerant, and the
>> people who talk most about "inclusion" have the most exclusionist
>> attitudes.
>>
>> .John
>> -----------------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> It`s true, the liberals who expose

espouse

> the principle of free speech are the
> first ones to want to limit other people`s rights in regards to that
> freedom. It`s the conservatives that are doing the most fighting to
> preserve that freedom.
>

What have conservatives got against the Voting Rights Act?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/14/2015 8:31 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2015 20:26:46 -0500, Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 11:35:25 PM UTC-5, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>> On 12/12/15 8:14 PM, Bud wrote:
>>>> The white, truck driving, six pack drinking Americans are the people
>>>> carrying this country,
>>>
>>> I question the racial breakdown in that characterization.
>>
>> You brought up race, when you said... "those non-educated, non-Hispanic,
>> non-black, people...". Like any good liberal you felt it was fair game to
>> denigrate white males, something you wouldn`t think of doing to any other
>> ethnic group. The point I was making was that if you take Joe Sixpack out
>> of the equation the whole system collapses, yet it seems to irk you on
>> some level that his vote is counted. And had I said something along the
>> lines of "They can`t get the brown people in the inner cities to put down
>> their crack pipes long enough to go out and vote." you would view this as
>> inflammatory. Typical liberal double standard.
>>
>
> Many years ago, about the time Noah got off the ark, I had a sociology
> professor. A good liberal, he spouted the usual line about how it is
> bad to stereotype certain groups.
>
> But I quickly found out that he stereotyped all those groups he
> believed didn't share his political opinions.
>

So this is your cookie-cutter rant against political correctness.
Was he also in the ACLU?

> That made obvious what has become more and more evident since: the
> people who talk most about tolerance are the most intolerant, and the
> people who talk most about "inclusion" have the most exclusionist
> attitudes.
>

Is this anything like your reverse racism theory?

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Bud]

Calling people names in not the only way to put people down.

> And I'm pretty sure
> the demographics back me up. Are you denying that a lot of Trump
> supporters drive pick-ups, gulp down entire six-packs and aren't very
> educated? OK, OK, fine! Maybe some drive semis and drink Thunderbird...
> I'm joking!

You liberals just don`t get it. I`ll tell you what, Jesse Jackson ran
for President, why don`t you show the educational breakdown of his
supporters. You can bet that information was never collected, and really,
why should it be?

> My point was that I don't think all the people who go to Trump rallies are
> likely to actually vote. I'm saying I doubt if they have the same
> seriousness and commitment as you see on the part of, say, Sanders
> supporters. Of course, no one can prove this now one way or the other.
>
> > I`m tired of progressives thinking it is alright to put down
> > the red state trailer dwellers but then declaring that it is not alright
> > to call black criminals "thugs" (a lifestyle celebrated in certain
> > segments of black culture). You were putting down the white, working class
> > people of this country
>
> I question the racial breakdown of this characterization.

You made it racial. You interjected race. And you are ducking the point.
Why is it fair game to put down certain groups and with other groups there
is a strict, hands off protectionist policy in place?

> There are lots of folks in the working class who aren't white.
> And who certainly do not support Trump.
>
> Trump supporters do not represent, all by their pasty selves, "THE"
> working class.

Never the point. The point was about the liberal elite media (which you
are a member) thinking these people are racist red state trailer trash.
You couldn`t get away with this kind of thinking with any other group.

> > because you feel they are a group that it is
> > alright to put down. You demonstrated liberal elitism, hypocrisy and the
> > bias of the media. Consider it a teaching moment.
> >
>
> Oh, brother. No, I don't see it that way. But I'm sorry if you are hoping
> to vote for Trump and I offended you by saying that the typical Trump
> supporter seems to be an ignorant redneck.

I argued with my brother-in-law (a lukewarm Trump supporter) at
Thanksgiving over what an idiot Trump is, thats not the point. You
liberals just don`t see the double standard of it being fair game to
denigrate only one group of people in this country, white men.

> Just can't help it. I calls 'em
> like I sees 'em.

Liberals like to be able to do this. They don`t like it so much when
other people do.

If you are allowed to think of certain groups as dumb rednecks then you
have to fine with people thinking Muslims are dangerous.

>
> As for literacy tests or the like for voters, of course I'm not for that.

Then why did you bring up education? Why is it ok to look at the
education (or lack thereof) of Trump supporters? Was this ever done with
Obama supporters?

> (And--are you kidding?--I especially want all those people who say they'll
> vote for Trump in the Republican primaries to actually do it! Yes! Yes!
> Yes!)
>
> It's the Republicans who have lately mounted a nationwide campaign to roll
> back voting rights. I do hope those with libertarian convictions will
> stand up against any attack on the principle of "one person, one vote"
> (which, yes, is valid no matter how stupid the person).

Weren`t the motor/voter laws enacted so the Democrats could get their
lazy and stupid constituency registered to vote?

[Bud]

Do you feel it would be ok to denigrate or stereotype a self-selected
homogeneous group of blacks?

And aren`t Muslims a self-selected homogeneous group? And illegal
aliens, surely theres a self-selected homogeneous group. Why would you
have a problem with Trump stereotyping these groups?

[Bud]

I say it because they are idiots and buffoons.

> You wouldn't say that about George Bush and Dick Cheney.
>
> >> Saying we should block all Muslims is playing to bigotry, but saying
> >> that this would only be " until our country's representatives can figure
> >> out what is going on" is simply moronic. Maybe a week, a month, a year?
> >> And then they'll find The Answer? Nothing in real life is that simple.
> >>
> >> It's even not his politics so much as his unmitigated ignorance that I
> >> find offensive.
> >
> > What I found offensive was that you felt it was ok to denigrate his
> > supporters. I`m tired of progressives thinking it is alright to put down
>
> Because his supporters are racist kooks.

So were Obama`s, what does that have to do with anything?

> > the red state trailer dwellers but then declaring that it is not alright
> > to call black criminals "thugs" (a lifestyle celebrated in certain
> > segments of black culture). You were putting down the white, working class
>
> Not any more than some Italians celebrate the Mafia. But we don't see
> you attacking them. Only blacks.

I use blacks because they are the best group to use when you want to illustrate liberal hypocrisy.

> > people of this country because you feel they are a group that it is
> > alright to put down. You demonstrated liberal elitism, hypocrisy and the
> > bias of the media. Consider it a teaching moment.
> >
> >> The less education a Republican has, the more likely they are to vote
> >> for Trump.
> >
> > Who compiled this information? This is something I`ve never seen done
>
> I quoted the article.

I`ve quoted articles also, what does that have to do with anything?

> > with any other candidate. Perhaps we should quiz people before we allow
>
> We haven't had a candidate like Trump in a long time. Even Goldwater
> wasn't that racist.

Liberals ideas are so bad they are forced to try to silence their opposition either with censorship or ad hominem.

> > them to vote, see if they are smart enough to have their vote counted.
> > Somehow I see this hurting liberal candidates more than Republicans. Heres
> > an interesting video...
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3ZLJj_q4xI
> >
> >> The establishment is terrified that he could be the GOP
> >> candidate, and equally scared that he'll run as an independent and take> with him the idiot vote that they desperately need.
> >
> > You mean like Nader did to the Democrats?
> >
> > And I don`t see liberal candidates turning way voters because they are
> > stupid.
> >
>
> Liberals have special programs for the stupid.

NOW. NAACP. ACLU.

> > But you really are showing your true liberal colors, again denigrating
> >> But I sincerely think that a lot of people who go to Trump rallies might
> >> not remember to vote.
> >
> > I remember when Obama ran the first time a bunch of rappers got together
> > and performed concerts to raise money for Obama`s campaign. I remember
> > rapper Jay Z saying that if Obama lost, he would buy guns for the whole
> > hood. What I don`t remember is the media looking to see how smart the
> > people who attended these concerts were.
> >
>
> They did.

What did they find?

[Bud]

I would think the same of anyone who thought Oswald was a pasty, but it
is something a lot of otherwise intelligent people believe.

> By the way, when I depicted a hypothetical someone who drives a pickup
> and drinks six-packs, the only thing that makes either of those details
> an implicit insult in your eyes is that you know I am talking about
> someone I consider stupid because they support Trump.

I fully understand. If someone called the Michael Brown supporters in
Ferguson welfare dependent fried chicken eaters, this wouldn`t be racist
at all, but would merely be a reflection of the opinion that they have
taken a stupid position.

> (I think I had the image of a "tailgate party" in mind. I wonder where
> that came from...?)

Have you ever been to a tailgate party? Plenty of cocktail parties, not
many tailgate parties I`d guess. Something the lowbrows do, easy enough to
make an association with the Trump supporters.

>
> >
> >> That made obvious what has become more and more evident since: the
> >> people who talk most about tolerance are the most intolerant, and the
> >> people who talk most about "inclusion" have the most exclusionist
> >> attitudes.
> >>
> >> .John
> >> -----------------------
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> >
> > It`s true, the liberals who expose
>
> espouse

Thank you.

> > the principle of free speech are the
> > first ones to want to limit other people`s rights in regards to that
> > freedom. It`s the conservatives that are doing the most fighting to
> > preserve that freedom.
> >
>
> What have conservatives got against the Voting Rights Act?

What do they say?

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

This coming November, The donald will buy each redneck that voted for him
a pitcher of beer at their favourite watering hole, as long as he ain't no
dang muslim. His minions will hand out 'Trump beer chits' to receive
their complimentary pitcher of Pabst Pablum Beer. This is a fake reality
show, after all.

[Sandy McCroskey]

"Denigrate"? The *worst* thing I said about them is that they are stupid
for voting for Trump. Is it more "denigrating" than that to say they drive
pickups or drink beer? Hardly. I don't drive, but I had two beers (Old
Rasputin) the other night. Yeah, I think some of those people might not
make it to the polls, for whatever reason, and I imagined one. If a person
is unemployed, they sometime don't have a daytime schedule and might stay
up too late drinking.

> And aren`t Muslims a self-selected homogeneous group?

(Tell that to the two groups at each other's throats in many regions of
the Middle East.)

If I mentioned a Muslim man with a beard bowing to Mecca, would that be
stereotyping?

> And illegal
> aliens, surely theres a self-selected homogeneous group.

Hardly. Much diversity there. They're from many countries and faiths.

> Why would you
> have a problem with Trump stereotyping these groups?
>

Well, it's not so easy, for one thing!
Ha ha.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I was only putting down Trump supporters for supporting Trump.
I already apologized for any perceived slight of other pickup drivers or
beer-drinkers.

What are you going on about?

>
>> There are lots of folks in the working class who aren't white.
>> And who certainly do not support Trump.
>>
>> Trump supporters do not represent, all by their pasty selves, "THE"
>> working class.
>
> Never the point.

Your phrasing did not make that clear, that's all.

> The point was about the liberal elite media (which you
> are a member) thinking these people are racist red state trailer trash.

"Racist," check; many of them clearly are.
"Red-state": Do you see that as an insult?
"Trailer trash": I already reminded you that I didn't mention trailer
parks. Sheesh!

> You couldn`t get away with this kind of thinking with any other group.
>

I can't get away with thinking at all, evidently.

>>> because you feel they are a group that it is
>>> alright to put down. You demonstrated liberal elitism, hypocrisy and the
>>> bias of the media. Consider it a teaching moment.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, brother. No, I don't see it that way. But I'm sorry if you are hoping
>> to vote for Trump and I offended you by saying that the typical Trump
>> supporter seems to be an ignorant redneck.
>
> I argued with my brother-in-law (a lukewarm Trump supporter) at
> Thanksgiving over what an idiot Trump is, thats not the point. You
> liberals just don`t see the double standard of it being fair game to
> denigrate only one group of people in this country, white men.
>

Once again: I am a white man. From a little town in a hillbilly state.
Also, some of my best friends are white men.

I do not denigrate white men as a class.

But white men who would vote for Trump are a few bricks short of a load.

>> Just can't help it. I calls 'em
>> like I sees 'em.
>
> Liberals like to be able to do this. They don`t like it so much when
> other people do.
>
> If you are allowed to think of certain groups as dumb rednecks then you
> have to fine with people thinking Muslims are dangerous.
>

Are you simply denying the existence of dumb rednecks?

(Perhaps there is some redundancy in this phraseology. But if "redneck"
just means a person from a certain ethnic background, and does not itself
imply stupidity, then I am sure there are smart rednecks too.)

I am fine with someone thinking someone like Taliban leader Mansour is
dangerous; that obviously doesn't mean all Muslims are dangerous.

>>
>> As for literacy tests or the like for voters, of course I'm not for that.
>
> Then why did you bring up education? Why is it ok to look at the
> education (or lack thereof) of Trump supporters? Was this ever done with
> Obama supporters?
>

The information about education must have been voluntarily supplied by the
people questioned at the rallies. It seems to me an obvious question to
ask when you have someone like Trump gathering such huge crowds by
spouting such unadulterated nonsense. (I also wonder about Carson
voters...) A reality-TV star!

But this is something pollsters tend to be curious about. It's not new
with or exclusive to Trump.

Quick Google:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/econostats/2012/11/11/are-obama-voters-smarter-than-romney-voters/
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/nov/05/larry-sabato/education-level-tied-voting-tendencies/
http://www.businessinsider.com/voting-by-sex-age-race-money-and-education-2012-11
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109156/obama-retains-strength-among-highly-educated.aspx
etc.
etc.
etc.

>> (And--are you kidding?--I especially want all those people who say they'll
>> vote for Trump in the Republican primaries to actually do it! Yes! Yes!
>> Yes!)
>>
>> It's the Republicans who have lately mounted a nationwide campaign to roll
>> back voting rights. I do hope those with libertarian convictions will
>> stand up against any attack on the principle of "one person, one vote"
>> (which, yes, is valid no matter how stupid the person).
>
> Weren`t the motor/voter laws enacted so the Democrats could get their
> lazy and stupid constituency registered to vote?
>

Loaded question ("lazy and stupid"), and dodged mine. Do you even *know*
about the multiple attacks on the Voting Rights Act?

[Anthony Marsh]

Not all Muslims are the same. You don't even realize that Sunni kill
Shia and vice versa.
Not all whites are racists. There are even some blacks who are racists.

> aliens, surely theres a self-selected homogeneous group. Why would you
> have a problem with Trump stereotyping these groups?
>

Two different things. We have a problem with Trump.
And we don't like anyone stereotyping anyone.

>

[Sandy McCroskey]

Trump reminds me of that SNL character who is grown, capable executive,
but whose body has remained that of an infant. I mean that his
personality has remained on an infantile level.

>
>> By the way, when I depicted a hypothetical someone who drives a pickup
>> and drinks six-packs, the only thing that makes either of those details
>> an implicit insult in your eyes is that you know I am talking about
>> someone I consider stupid because they support Trump.
>
> I fully understand. If someone called the Michael Brown supporters in
> Ferguson welfare dependent fried chicken eaters, this wouldn`t be racist
> at all, but would merely be a reflection of the opinion that they have
> taken a stupid position.
>

I believe I acknowledged your point already about slandering other
pickup drivers and beer drinkers.

>> (I think I had the image of a "tailgate party" in mind. I wonder where
>> that came from...?)
>
> Have you ever been to a tailgate party? Plenty of cocktail parties, not
> many tailgate parties I`d guess. Something the lowbrows do, easy enough to
> make an association with the Trump supporters.
>

I meant that the notion may have come to my mind from Trump's apocryphal
tales of tailgate parties in New Jersey celebrating the fall of the Twin
Towers

>>
>>>
>>>> That made obvious what has become more and more evident since: the
>>>> people who talk most about tolerance are the most intolerant, and the
>>>> people who talk most about "inclusion" have the most exclusionist
>>>> attitudes.
>>>>
>>>> .John
>>>> -----------------------
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>>
>>> It`s true, the liberals who expose
>>
>> espouse
>
> Thank you.
>
>>> the principle of free speech are the
>>> first ones to want to limit other people`s rights in regards to that
>>> freedom. It`s the conservatives that are doing the most fighting to
>>> preserve that freedom.
>>>
>>
>> What have conservatives got against the Voting Rights Act?
>
> What do they say?
>

Glad you asked. They bring forth apocryphal tales about a non-existing
voting fraud problem. Other than that, they got nothing.

[Bud]

Oh stop it. You see these folks as stupid, toothless, racist redneck
tornado bait. The kid from "Deliverance" without the banjo. Thats fine, I
just hate the hypocrisy.

> > And aren`t Muslims a self-selected homogeneous group?
>
> (Tell that to the two groups at each other's throats in many regions of
> the Middle East.)
>
> If I mentioned a Muslim man with a beard bowing to Mecca, would that be
> stereotyping?

I don`t have any problem with bias and stereotyping, I want to be able
to say that Asian women are bad drivers. It`s the liberals of the world
who think it can only be done at the expense of one group, white men.

> > And illegal
> > aliens, surely theres a self-selected homogeneous group.
>
> Hardly. Much diversity there.

Less than in the Trump camp.

> They're from many countries and faiths.

Mostly one country, and one faith.

[John McAdams]

Why don't we talk about the wacky people who vote for Bernie Sanders.

You know, the Socialist who thinks that since we have 23 brands of
deodorant, that is why children are supposedly starving:

https://reason.com/blog/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-dont-need-23-choices-of-d

Apparently, as a college student, he read "The Engineers and the Price
System" and has learn nothing since.

The guy who thinks that global warming causes terrorism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cUi1s9lpys

A lot are the Prius driving, latte sipping, NPR listening yuppies. But
those are mostly Hillary people.

No, the core are the lumpen intellectuals. You know, the people who
drive rusted out Volvos, still smoke pot past age 25, and have friends
who are vegan. They have degrees in things like "Comparative
Literature" or "Native American Studies."

Ahem: Sandy, are you seeing how both sides can play this game?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

What about devious?

> By the way, when I depicted a hypothetical someone who drives a pickup
> and drinks six-packs, the only thing that makes either of those details
> an implicit insult in your eyes is that you know I am talking about
> someone I consider stupid because they support Trump.
>
> (I think I had the image of a "tailgate party" in mind. I wonder where
> that came from...?)
>
>
>>
>>> That made obvious what has become more and more evident since: the
>>> people who talk most about tolerance are the most intolerant, and the
>>> people who talk most about "inclusion" have the most exclusionist
>>> attitudes.
>>>
>>> .John
>>> -----------------------
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> It`s true, the liberals who expose
>
> espouse
>
>> the principle of free speech are the
>> first ones to want to limit other people`s rights in regards to that
>> freedom. It`s the conservatives that are doing the most fighting to
>> preserve that freedom.
>>
>
> What have conservatives got against the Voting Rights Act?
>

It allows blacks to vote.

[Anthony Marsh]

I didn't claim that. The white, trucking driving, six pack drinking
Americans do not total 99.7%

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/15/2015 2:37 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:

Isn't that the goal of this reality TV show?
If Trump wins the nomination, Al Gore may be tempted to jump in.

[Anthony Marsh]

You make an excellent point, but you tend to forget history and that JFK
only wore hats on special occasions to make a point.

Someone even wrote an entire article about this little bit of trivia:

http://www.primermagazine.com/2010/learn/the-man-who-killed-the-hat

Legend has it that JFK single-handedly killed the hat industry by being
the first President not to wear a hat to his inauguration. While JFK did
wear a hat en route to the ceremony, he removed it before addressing the
crowd. The hat industry started to decline shortly after Kennedy?s
promotion to the Oval Office, prompting many to believe he was the cause
of death.

http://www.primermagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/JFK-Hat/JFK-Hat-Walking1.jpg


Megan had some cute points, but her critics pointed out some flaws in
her arguments. Especially that the new car models made it difficult to
drive while wearing a top hat.

But it may have also been out of respect for the outgoing President,
Eisenhower. Did Nixon like to wear hats?

I also think that JFK wanted to be able to tip his hat as a sign of
respect at such an important event.

> There was a time, a blink of an eye in history, when the Democratic Party
> depended upon working class whites to help makeup a winning coalition.

You also tend to forget that before LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act,
Democrats won because all the racists down South joined the Democratic
Party and hated the Republicans. You tend to forget that it was a
Republic President who led the Civil War.

> (See Truman's 1948 campaign rhetoric for one example). Today, cultural PC
> liberalism has smothered the party's lunchbucket, moderate liberalism.
>
> I'm not going to turn this into a political speech, but one of the main
> reasons for Trump's rise is that workers of whatever color believe, with

Whatever color? Is this a joke?
The general feeling is that Obama has done more for minorities than for
whites.

> good reason I think, they have been shafted by our Internationals Trade
> Agreements, NAFTA and now TPP. (The title of former Senator Dorgan's book
> comes to mind, "Take This Job and Ship It".) Overseas that is. The people
> you are belittling do not believe either party establishment cares about
> let alone addresses their concerns.
>

Funny, but overseas does not have to mean non-white.

> I'll get off the soapbox now. This newsgroup is about who killed a man
> who was our most inclusive president. He spent his last breakfast meeting
> with conservative business people.
>

But it's also about Liberals versus Nazis.


Yes, but he wasn't black. And wasn't he the first Catholic President.
That made him hated by all the Bible thumpers Down South.
Will there ever be another Catholic President? And if there ever is, do
they also have to assassinate him or her?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/15/2015 2:28 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 8:31:29 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:

>> On 14 Dec 2015 20:26:46 -0500, Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 11:35:25 PM UTC-5, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/15 8:14 PM, Bud wrote:
>>>>> The white, truck driving, six pack drinking Americans are the people
>>>>> carrying this country,
>>>>
>>>> I question the racial breakdown in that characterization.
>>>
>>> You brought up race, when you said... "those non-educated, non-Hispanic,
>>> non-black, people...". Like any good liberal you felt it was fair game to
>>> denigrate white males, something you wouldn`t think of doing to any other

>>> ethnic group. The point I was making was that if you take Joe Sixpack out

>>> of the equation the whole system collapses, yet it seems to irk you on

>>> some level that his vote is counted. And had I said something along the

>>> lines of "They can`t get the brown people in the inner cities to put down
>>> their crack pipes long enough to go out and vote." you would view this as
>>> inflammatory. Typical liberal double standard.
>>>
>>

>> Many years ago, about the time Noah got off the ark, I had a sociology
>> professor. A good liberal, he spouted the usual line about how it is
>> bad to stereotype certain groups.
>>
>> But I quickly found out that he stereotyped all those groups he
>> believed didn't share his political opinions.
>
> This is what really pushed the button with me (that, plus the fact that
> I`ve been watching a lot of SJW stuff on youtube lately). Sandy, like a
> lot of liberals want to label a group "stupid" or use some other form of
> ad hominem because they can`t bear to bring themselves to accept that that
> group might have legitimate gripes.
>
>

>> That made obvious what has become more and more evident since: the
>> people who talk most about tolerance are the most intolerant, and the
>> people who talk most about "inclusion" have the most exclusionist
>> attitudes.
>>
>> .John
>> -----------------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

> It`s true, the liberals who expose the principle of free speech are the

Espouse. Is it only the Liberals who are educated?

> first ones to want to limit other people`s rights in regards to that
> freedom. It`s the conservatives that are doing the most fighting to
> preserve that freedom.
>

Not exactly. They only fight for Hate Speech.

> What I`ve been watching lately on youtube closely relates to this, long
> story short an internet drama involving feminists who tried some dirty,
> underhanded stuff to silence their critics (letter writing an employer to
> try to get the person fired, a tactic you are familiar with .John) and had
> it backfire on them. The striking thing is how reasonable the critics are
> and how irrational the feminists and their supporters are. They are fine
> in a seminar or lecture setting, speaking to the converted, but go off the
> hook when their ideas are challenged. Anyone interested can search
> "thunderfoot, laughing witch" on youtube, you`ll find a slew of videos on
> it.
>

Is this part of your theory about what you call Feminazis?

[Bud]

You wrote...

" The GOP, however, desperately needs those non-educated,..."

[stupid]

" non-Hispanic, non-black,..."

[white]

" people to (make sure there's gas in the pick-up and maybe drink only one

six-pack the night before election day so they can get up in time to make

it to the polls to) vote for their candidate,..."

[rednecks]

I knew just what you meant by what you said, the connotations were
clear. I`d just like you to take ownership of the disdain you obviously
feel for this group, not just for backing Trump but overall.

> What are you going on about?

I thought I was clear, I`ll try to word my question better...

Why do liberals feel it is fair game to put down one particular group,
white males, but with every other group there is a strict, hands off
policy?

> >
> >> There are lots of folks in the working class who aren't white.
> >> And who certainly do not support Trump.
> >>
> >> Trump supporters do not represent, all by their pasty selves, "THE"
> >> working class.
> >
> > Never the point.
>
> Your phrasing did not make that clear, that's all.
>
> > The point was about the liberal elite media (which you
> > are a member) thinking these people are racist red state trailer trash.
>
> "Racist," check; many of them clearly are.
> "Red-state": Do you see that as an insult?
> "Trailer trash": I already reminded you that I didn't mention trailer
> parks. Sheesh!
>
> > You couldn`t get away with this kind of thinking with any other group.
> >
>
> I can't get away with thinking at all, evidently.

I`m trying to help you. Liberals in general have a real blind spot when
it comes to their own double standards and hypocrisy.

> >>> because you feel they are a group that it is
> >>> alright to put down. You demonstrated liberal elitism, hypocrisy and the
> >>> bias of the media. Consider it a teaching moment.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Oh, brother. No, I don't see it that way. But I'm sorry if you are hoping
> >> to vote for Trump and I offended you by saying that the typical Trump
> >> supporter seems to be an ignorant redneck.
> >
> > I argued with my brother-in-law (a lukewarm Trump supporter) at
> > Thanksgiving over what an idiot Trump is, thats not the point. You
> > liberals just don`t see the double standard of it being fair game to
> > denigrate only one group of people in this country, white men.
> >
>
> Once again: I am a white man. From a little town in a hillbilly state.
> Also, some of my best friends are white men.

You are a liberal. Liberalism has been cultivating a culture of
hostility against white men.

> I do not denigrate white men as a class.

But you would agree that there is a white male power structure in this
country, that it is inherently evil, and that anything that takes power
from that structure should be considered progress.

> But white men who would vote for Trump are a few bricks short of a load.

Trump speak their language in ways Hillary never could.

> >> Just can't help it. I calls 'em
> >> like I sees 'em.
> >
> > Liberals like to be able to do this. They don`t like it so much when
> > other people do.
> >
> > If you are allowed to think of certain groups as dumb rednecks then you
> > have to fine with people thinking Muslims are dangerous.
> >
> Are you simply denying the existence of dumb rednecks?

Are you denying the existence of dangerous Muslims? Why is it only good
to acknowledge certain realities and not others?

> (Perhaps there is some redundancy in this phraseology. But if "redneck"
> just means a person from a certain ethnic background, and does not itself
> imply stupidity, then I am sure there are smart rednecks too.)
>
> I am fine with someone thinking someone like Taliban leader Mansour is
> dangerous; that obviously doesn't mean all Muslims are dangerous.

Just the ones who read and follow the teachings of the Koran.

>
> >>
> >> As for literacy tests or the like for voters, of course I'm not for that.
> >
> > Then why did you bring up education? Why is it ok to look at the
> > education (or lack thereof) of Trump supporters? Was this ever done with
> > Obama supporters?
> >
>
> The information about education must have been voluntarily supplied by the
> people questioned at the rallies.

It wasn`t the supplying of the information I was questioning, it was the
motivations for gathering of it.

> It seems to me an obvious question to
> ask when you have someone like Trump gathering such huge crowds by
> spouting such unadulterated nonsense. (I also wonder about Carson
> voters...) A reality-TV star!
>
> But this is something pollsters tend to be curious about. It's not new
> with or exclusive to Trump.
>
> Quick Google:
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/econostats/2012/11/11/are-obama-voters-smarter-than-romney-voters/
> http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/nov/05/larry-sabato/education-level-tied-voting-tendencies/
> http://www.businessinsider.com/voting-by-sex-age-race-money-and-education-2012-11
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/109156/obama-retains-strength-among-highly-educated.aspx
> etc.
> etc.
> etc.
>
>
> >> (And--are you kidding?--I especially want all those people who say they'll
> >> vote for Trump in the Republican primaries to actually do it! Yes! Yes!
> >> Yes!)
> >>
> >> It's the Republicans who have lately mounted a nationwide campaign to roll
> >> back voting rights. I do hope those with libertarian convictions will
> >> stand up against any attack on the principle of "one person, one vote"
> >> (which, yes, is valid no matter how stupid the person).
> >
> > Weren`t the motor/voter laws enacted so the Democrats could get their
> > lazy and stupid constituency registered to vote?
> >
>
> Loaded question ("lazy and stupid"),

Hmmm, Since Trump says idiotic things the people who come out to hear
him are idiots. But since it was always simple and easy to register to
vote we can`t say the laws were changed to accommodate the lazy and
stupid.

> and dodged mine. Do you even *know*
> about the multiple attacks on the Voting Rights Act?

Haven`t been following the issue. Are you sure I would think they were
attacks?

[gwmcc...@gmail.com]

.John writes: Ahem: Sandy, are you seeing how both sides can play this
game?

I say I find it funny that you think you're telling ne me something I
didn't know.

[gwmcc...@gmail.com]

I turn 60 Friday and I no longer smoke cannabis. For the last few years. I
have only vaporized it. Daily. Nightly. And often in the afternoon. I also
have dear friends who are vegan. You wanna stereotype me and poke fun? I
can take it. I simply Consider The Source.

[gwmcc...@gmail.com]

Bud writes: "I don`t have any problem with bias and stereotyping,"

OK, you said it, I didn't.
I'm outta here.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 12/16/15 11:06 PM, John McAdams wrote:

>
> Why don't we talk about the wacky people who vote for Bernie Sanders.
>
> You know, the Socialist who thinks that since we have 23 brands of
> deodorant, that is why children are supposedly starving:

Did you really mean to say this: "supposedly starving"?

I hope you realize, children in the world *are* starving.
In fact, children in this very country are starving.

Maybe you meant to say "supposedly why children are starving"?
Hope so.

>
> https://reason.com/blog/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-dont-need-23-choices-of-d
>

As for the "Hit and Run" (seriously?!) blog: The only reason we have
dozens of different brands of underarm deodorant, with minimal
differences, despite what the millions of dollars' worth of advertising
for each brand will tell you, is because the profit motive rules the
capitalist world. It's a sign that our society's priorities are askew.

Of course, if you don't think that starving children is a real problem,
anywhere, then it's fine with you if people spend most of their energy
coming up with products people don't need and convincing them that they
need them.

(Personally, I shower regularly and have no use for underarm deodorant.)

> Apparently, as a college student, he read "The Engineers and the Price
> System" and has learn nothing since.
>
> The guy who thinks that global warming causes terrorism:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cUi1s9lpys

Sanders said "climate change is directly related to the growth of
terrorism."

He didn't say it "causes terrorism," which would imply that it was the
sufficient and solitary cause.

But Politifact ruled Sanders's statement "Mostly False" merely because
of the word "directly." The site was, however, okay with the Defense
Department's characterization of climate change as a "threat multiplier."

I am all for precision in language, y'know, but I think Politifact is
splitting hairs. When Sanders goes on to explain what he means, with
explicit reference to the what the CIA has said, it is clear that he
isn't implying anything ridiculous but only referring to the role
growing scarcity of resources and the turmoil created by natural
disasters play in increasing global instability.

You right-wingers seem to amuse yourselves by interpreting Sanders's
statement as saying something that no sane person would even say, and
the precise nature of which I can hardly even imagine! I don't
understand how y'all can believe that anyone else, outside an insane
asylum, could think that climate change could be the (single, solitary)
cause of terrorism. How would that work?

On the other hand... "Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan
said that CIA analysts see 'climate change' as a 'deeper cause' of the
instability seen in places like Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Yemen and Libya."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/cia-director-cites-impact-climate-change-deeper-cause-global

And from a very mainstream source, Time magazine:
http://time.com/4113801/climate-change-terrorism/
"...many academics and national security experts agree that climate
change contributes to an uncertain world where terrorism can thrive."

Of course, since you don't *believe* in climate change, I'm talking to
the wall here...

/sm

[Jason Burke]

On 12/13/2015 11:03 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 12/11/2015 2:47 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 12/10/15 10:35 PM, BOZ wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 5:15:42 PM UTC-4, Sandy McCroskey

>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/9/15 2:47 PM, BOZ wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 6:00:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>>>>>> Call this a bonus track, if you like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOVFhS8sdVU
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It speaks volumes that there are actually people who take Fetzer
>>>>>> seriously.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead#/media/File:Batman222june1970.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But not so surprising in a country where people take Donald Trump
>>>> seriously.
>>>

>>> Donald Trump should be taken very seriously. Are you giving away any
>>> free
>>> copies of THE NATION McCroskey?
>>>
>>
>>
>> The rising popularity of such a brain-dead demagogue should be taken as
>> seriously as the horrifying rise of le Front national in France.
>>
>
> You have a talent for understating things. When the Titanic hit the
> Iceberg, you got on the PA and said, "Nothing to worry about, folks.
> We're just stopping for ice."
>
>> I can send you any Nation issue you request, "BOZ," and you can also
>> read a number of articles free online before you are asked if you would
>> like to contribute.
>>
>
> Thanks. Please send me a copy of the issue where you wrote about the JFK
> assassination.
> Don't suppose you guys will get digital until the NEXT Century?
> What's your readership this year? 52,000?

Nah, that's the number of 1916 Standing Liberty Quarters struck.
But you *knew* that, didn't you, Tony?

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Jason Burke]

On 12/15/2015 11:37 AM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 12/14/15 10:36 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:

>> On 12/13/2015 11:35 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>> On 12/12/15 8:14 PM, Bud wrote:
>>>> The white, truck driving, six pack drinking Americans are the people
>>>> carrying this country,
>>>

>>> I question the racial breakdown in that characterization.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's a generalization. 99.7% are white. Only a handful are black and
>> only one or two are asian.
>>
>>
>
> No, the make-up of the working class that is "carrying this country" is
> not 99.7 percent white. Quite wrong.
>
>

C'mon. You *really* expected Tony to provide a verifiable number? (Or a
verifiable *anything*...)

[John McAdams]

Just wanted to be sure you knew that, if you think you can get some
rhetorical advantage stereotyping people who don't share your
political views, the tactic can backfire.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 17 Dec 2015 18:10:01 -0500, Sandy McCroskey

<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 12/16/15 11:06 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>>
>> Why don't we talk about the wacky people who vote for Bernie Sanders.
>>
>> You know, the Socialist who thinks that since we have 23 brands of
>> deodorant, that is why children are supposedly starving:
>
>Did you really mean to say this: "supposedly starving"?
>
>I hope you realize, children in the world *are* starving.
>In fact, children in this very country are starving.
>
>Maybe you meant to say "supposedly why children are starving"?
>Hope so.
>
>>
>> https://reason.com/blog/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-dont-need-23-choices-of-d
>>
>
>As for the "Hit and Run" (seriously?!) blog: The only reason we have
>dozens of different brands of underarm deodorant, with minimal
>differences, despite what the millions of dollars' worth of advertising
>for each brand will tell you, is because the profit motive rules the
>capitalist world. It's a sign that our society's priorities are askew.
>
>Of course, if you don't think that starving children is a real problem,
>anywhere, then it's fine with you if people spend most of their energy
>coming up with products people don't need and convincing them that they
>need them.
>

So you think government should dictate one brand of deodorant that
everybody has to use.

Nationalize the personal hygiene industry!

You really are old school.

>(Personally, I shower regularly and have no use for underarm deodorant.)
>
>
>
>> Apparently, as a college student, he read "The Engineers and the Price
>> System" and has learn nothing since.
>>
>> The guy who thinks that global warming causes terrorism:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cUi1s9lpys
>
>Sanders said "climate change is directly related to the growth of
>terrorism."
>
>He didn't say it "causes terrorism," which would imply that it was the
>sufficient and solitary cause.
>
>But Politifact ruled Sanders's statement "Mostly False" merely because
>of the word "directly." The site was, however, okay with the Defense
>Department's characterization of climate change as a "threat multiplier."
>
>I am all for precision in language, y'know, but I think Politifact is
>splitting hairs. When Sanders goes on to explain what he means, with
>explicit reference to the what the CIA has said, it is clear that he
>isn't implying anything ridiculous but only referring to the role
>growing scarcity of resources and the turmoil created by natural
>disasters play in increasing global instability.
>

You are talking about a CIA that, for political reasons, will spout
the politically correct line.

>You right-wingers seem to amuse yourselves by interpreting Sanders's
>statement as saying something that no sane person would even say, and
>the precise nature of which I can hardly even imagine! I don't
>understand how y'all can believe that anyone else, outside an insane
>asylum, could think that climate change could be the (single, solitary)
>cause of terrorism. How would that work?
>

Even climate alarmists, who think we face a disaster in a hundred
years or so, can't believe that the 0.6 degrees Celsius run up in
temperatures in the 20th Century has *anything* to do with ISIS.

>On the other hand... "Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan
>said that CIA analysts see 'climate change' as a 'deeper cause' of the
>instability seen in places like Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Yemen and Libya."
>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/cia-director-cites-impact-climate-change-deeper-cause-global
>
>And from a very mainstream source, Time magazine:
>http://time.com/4113801/climate-change-terrorism/

Oh, a "mainstream" source, eh?

Mainstream liberal.

>"...many academics and national security experts agree that climate
>change contributes to an uncertain world where terrorism can thrive."
>

That's silly.

>Of course, since you don't *believe* in climate change, I'm talking to
>the wall here...
>

Of course, since you are a climate alarmist, I'm talking to a wall
here.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 11 Dec 2015 14:51:21 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>The GOP, however, desperately needs those non-educated, non-Hispanic,
>non-black, people to (make sure there's gas in the pick-up and maybe drink

>only one six-pack the night before election day so they can get up in time

>to make it to the polls to) vote for their candidate, so the GOP
>establishment sure doesn't want to see Trump run as an independent either.
>

Oh, the irony!

These are the people who, until just a few decades ago, you leftists
looked to to bring socialism to America.

Didn't work out that way, did it?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Ace Kefford]

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> Call this a bonus track, if you like.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOVFhS8sdVU

Everyone knows McCartney didn't die back then, because if that were true,
how could he and the other Beatles have put out an album under the name
Klaatu? (Just the first one by the way, the others were by Canadian
impostors hired by the secret government.)

[Sandy McCroskey]

You're not following the conversation.
What I questioned was this phrasing:

"The white, truck driving, six pack drinking Americans are the people

carrying this country."

You said, "It's a generalization. 99.7% are white."

Cherchez l'erreur.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 12/16/15 10:41 PM, Bud wrote:
> Oh stop it. You see these folks as stupid, toothless,

Hold it right there. I've had no natural teeth myself since I was in
10th grade. I am from Appalachia, remember.
(This is not a joke. Real nice set of dentures, though.)

[Sandy McCroskey]

Of course, I had also read articles like this about an event in Iowa,
earlier in the game.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/us/politics/donald-trump-gets-rock-star-greeting-in-iowa.html

<QUOTE>

Arriving more than an hour late, Mr. Trump offered a speech of less than a
minute on the state party?s stage. But that was beside the point, as
star-struck supporters greeted him like a stadium rocker during a
sprawling tailgate party before kickoff.

[...]

Three other Republican candidates not named Trump also glad-handed and
posed for selfies among the tailgating football fans before the game. But
their receptions were of a different order. Rarely has the contrast
between a conventional politician and the celebrity candidacy of Mr. Trump
seemed clearer.

</QUOTE>

and
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/donald-trump-scott-walker-iowa-football-tailgate-2016-213578#ixzz3ubFHFvrQ
Trump vs. Walker: A tale of two tailgates At Iowa's big annual college
football showdown, Donald Trump was the winner.

(And I'm not a big sports fan, which really surprises you, right?)

[Bud]

I was educated by a mostly liberal inner city public school system. A
word like "expouse" wouldn`t have been a word I was taught in my formal
education (had a very left wing teacher teaching the class how to write
Haiku, when he could have been teaching useful words such as this), but a
word I picked up from reading various things during the course of my life.
Like coming across someone on the street you vaguely know, there is no
guarantee you will remember their name or details about them.

> > first ones to want to limit other people`s rights in regards to that
> > freedom. It`s the conservatives that are doing the most fighting to
> > preserve that freedom.
> >
>
> Not exactly. They only fight for Hate Speech.

Yes, they would fight for your right to say the hateful things you do.
Liberals like to dictate what can be said.

[Bud]

On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 1:50:27 PM UTC-5, gwmcc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Bud writes: "I don`t have any problem with bias and stereotyping,"
>
> OK, you said it, I didn't.

But why wouldn`t you? It is only honest to say everyone is biased and
everyone stereotypes certain other people.

> I'm outta here.

Yes, a good place to end it.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I've leafed through the Quran, too, and been startled by the frequency of
violent imprecations against unbelievers.

But, as I suppose that you are nevertheless aware, most Muslims by far
deny and deplore the interpretation of the Quran as justifying violence.
They refer to other passages from their scripture to maintain that their
religion is one of tolerance.

I don't find it at all difficult to believe that this "holy book" can
teach mutually contradictory things. I also know that the Christians' Old
Testament, the Jews' Torah, shows the god of the Israelites condoning mass
murder and ethnic cleansing, and this doesn't mean that Christians or Jews
condone such things today... I mean, not *all* of them.

So the question is, Are you going to claim that the Muslims who profess
peace--the vast majority of Muslims worldwide--are really wolves in
sheeps' clothing, that they can't be trusted, that they are all
essentially terrorists hidden among us?

Are you going to cross that line?
But you already did.

>>
>>>>
>>>> As for literacy tests or the like for voters, of course I'm not for that.
>>>
>>> Then why did you bring up education? Why is it ok to look at the
>>> education (or lack thereof) of Trump supporters? Was this ever done with
>>> Obama supporters?
>>>
>>
>> The information about education must have been voluntarily supplied by the
>> people questioned at the rallies.
>
> It wasn`t the supplying of the information I was questioning, it was the
> motivations for gathering of it.
>

And then I went on to give my honest opinion about that...

Well, those who applaud, sure.

> But since it was always simple and easy to register to
> vote we can`t say the laws were changed to accommodate the lazy and
> stupid.
>

If it has always been simple and easy to register to vote, what do you
think the Voting Rights Act was about?

But I am beginning to think you don't know anything about the Voting
Rights Act.*

>> and dodged mine. Do you even *know*
>> about the multiple attacks on the Voting Rights Act?
>
> Haven`t been following the issue.

(* Well, was I right?)

> Are you sure I would think they were
> attacks?
>

I gave you that much credit.

[Anthony Marsh]

I didn't know they were still being called Yuppies. Did you get that tip
from your rightwing newsletter? But I do know the type you are talking
about. We have lots of them up here if you run out of the out there.

> No, the core are the lumpen intellectuals. You know, the people who

Haven't heard that in decades. Are there any still alive?

> drive rusted out Volvos, still smoke pot past age 25, and have friends
> who are vegan. They have degrees in things like "Comparative
> Literature" or "Native American Studies."
>
> Ahem: Sandy, are you seeing how both sides can play this game?
>

Well, at least we can't call your comments racist.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

So you are saying that white women are never racist?
Who sews those white KKK robes?

>>> And illegal
>>> aliens, surely theres a self-selected homogeneous group.
>>
>> Hardly. Much diversity there.
>
> Less than in the Trump camp.
>
>> They're from many countries and faiths.
>
> Mostly one country, and one faith.
>>

Which country, which faith?
Mexicans who are Catholic?

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 12/17/15 6:23 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2015 18:10:01 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/16/15 11:06 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why don't we talk about the wacky people who vote for Bernie Sanders.
>>>
>>> You know, the Socialist who thinks that since we have 23 brands of
>>> deodorant, that is why children are supposedly starving:
>>
>> Did you really mean to say this: "supposedly starving"?
>>
>> I hope you realize, children in the world *are* starving.
>> In fact, children in this very country are starving.
>>
>> Maybe you meant to say "supposedly why children are starving"?
>> Hope so.
>>
>>>
>>> https://reason.com/blog/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-dont-need-23-choices-of-d
>>>
>>
>> As for the "Hit and Run" (seriously?!) blog: The only reason we have
>> dozens of different brands of underarm deodorant, with minimal
>> differences, despite what the millions of dollars' worth of advertising
>> for each brand will tell you, is because the profit motive rules the
>> capitalist world. It's a sign that our society's priorities are askew.
>>
>> Of course, if you don't think that starving children is a real problem,
>> anywhere, then it's fine with you if people spend most of their energy
>> coming up with products people don't need and convincing them that they
>> need them.
>>
>
> So you think government should dictate one brand of deodorant that
> everybody has to use.
>

That is not what I said, or even hinted at. That would be a very strange
misinterpretation, if I didn't know that you are thinking of... the Soviet
Union!

> Nationalize the personal hygiene industry!
>
> You really are old school.

Not me!

>
>> (Personally, I shower regularly and have no use for underarm deodorant.)
>>
>>
>>
>>> Apparently, as a college student, he read "The Engineers and the Price
>>> System" and has learn nothing since.
>>>
>>> The guy who thinks that global warming causes terrorism:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cUi1s9lpys
>>
>> Sanders said "climate change is directly related to the growth of
>> terrorism."
>>
>> He didn't say it "causes terrorism," which would imply that it was the
>> sufficient and solitary cause.
>>
>> But Politifact ruled Sanders's statement "Mostly False" merely because
>> of the word "directly." The site was, however, okay with the Defense
>> Department's characterization of climate change as a "threat multiplier."
>>
>> I am all for precision in language, y'know, but I think Politifact is
>> splitting hairs. When Sanders goes on to explain what he means, with
>> explicit reference to the what the CIA has said, it is clear that he
>> isn't implying anything ridiculous but only referring to the role
>> growing scarcity of resources and the turmoil created by natural
>> disasters play in increasing global instability.
>>
>
> You are talking about a CIA that, for political reasons, will spout
> the politically correct line.
>

That may be true. But I still find it strange that you question the
basic truth that natural resource scarcity exacerbates world turmoil.

>> You right-wingers seem to amuse yourselves by interpreting Sanders's
>> statement as saying something that no sane person would even say, and
>> the precise nature of which I can hardly even imagine! I don't
>> understand how y'all can believe that anyone else, outside an insane
>> asylum, could think that climate change could be the (single, solitary)
>> cause of terrorism. How would that work?
>>
>
> Even climate alarmists, who think we face a disaster in a hundred
> years or so, can't believe that the 0.6 degrees Celsius run up in
> temperatures in the 20th Century has *anything* to do with ISIS.
>

Sanders didn't specify ISIS.

>> On the other hand... "Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan
>> said that CIA analysts see 'climate change' as a 'deeper cause' of the
>> instability seen in places like Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Yemen and Libya."
>> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/cia-director-cites-impact-climate-change-deeper-cause-global
>>
>> And from a very mainstream source, Time magazine:
>> http://time.com/4113801/climate-change-terrorism/
>
> Oh, a "mainstream" source, eh?
>
> Mainstream liberal.
>

Way too mainstream for me, usually, in any case.

>> "...many academics and national security experts agree that climate
>> change contributes to an uncertain world where terrorism can thrive."
>>
>
> That's silly.
>

I guess it would be silly to anyone who doesn't believe in
anthropomorphic climate change.

>> Of course, since you don't *believe* in climate change, I'm talking to
>> the wall here...
>>
>
> Of course, since you are a climate alarmist, I'm talking to a wall
> here.
>

Okay, you don't believe in incipient man-caused climate change. Does that
mean you don't care that air pollution is reducing the lung capacity of
kids and inducing premature mortality all over India (for example)?

[John McAdams]

On 18 Dec 2015 14:33:12 -0500, Sandy McCroskey

But see above. You seemed to be endorsing Sander's ideas, talking
about evil capitalist advertising.

Islamic jihadism really can't be blamed on "natural resource
scarcity."

Maybe Hitler wanting to conquer the Caucusus could be blamed on that.

And how do we have "natural resource scarcity? Oil and natural gas,
for example, are more plentiful than ever.

>>> You right-wingers seem to amuse yourselves by interpreting Sanders's
>>> statement as saying something that no sane person would even say, and
>>> the precise nature of which I can hardly even imagine! I don't
>>> understand how y'all can believe that anyone else, outside an insane
>>> asylum, could think that climate change could be the (single, solitary)
>>> cause of terrorism. How would that work?
>>>
>>
>> Even climate alarmists, who think we face a disaster in a hundred
>> years or so, can't believe that the 0.6 degrees Celsius run up in
>> temperatures in the 20th Century has *anything* to do with ISIS.
>>
>
>Sanders didn't specify ISIS.
>

Same thing applies to any terrorist group you could name.

>>> On the other hand... "Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan
>>> said that CIA analysts see 'climate change' as a 'deeper cause' of the
>>> instability seen in places like Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Yemen and Libya."
>>> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/cia-director-cites-impact-climate-change-deeper-cause-global
>>>
>>> And from a very mainstream source, Time magazine:
>>> http://time.com/4113801/climate-change-terrorism/
>>
>> Oh, a "mainstream" source, eh?
>>
>> Mainstream liberal.
>>
>
>Way too mainstream for me, usually, in any case.
>
>>> "...many academics and national security experts agree that climate
>>> change contributes to an uncertain world where terrorism can thrive."
>>>
>>
>> That's silly.
>>
>
>I guess it would be silly to anyone who doesn't believe in
>anthropomorphic climate change.
>

It should sound silly to a believer. Should you not be skeptical of
such vague and vacuous verbiage?

>>> Of course, since you don't *believe* in climate change, I'm talking to
>>> the wall here...
>>>
>>
>> Of course, since you are a climate alarmist, I'm talking to a wall
>> here.
>>
>
>Okay, you don't believe in incipient man-caused climate change. Does that
>mean you don't care that air pollution is reducing the lung capacity of
>kids and inducing premature mortality all over India (for example)?
>

If you are talking about particulates, that is real pollution, very
different from carbon dioxide.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Sandy McCroskey]

These are the people who brought us Medicare and Social Security, a
living wage (where it exists), a humane work-week (ditto), paid
vacations etc.

Today, not all workers are right-wingers, far from it.
Only the duped ones.