All they had to do

[rangerssuck]

I don't think that any sane person could deny that passages of Melania Trump's speech were lifted directly from Michelle Obama's speech. Yet somehow the Trump campaign has chosen to flat out deny it.

All they had to do was issue a statement that acknowledged that a mistake had been made and that they are sorry that it happened, and it would have gone away in a day or so. But they are instead saying that it never happened.

Simply running the speech through a plagiarism checker (many are free online - just google it) would have revealed the problems, which were severe enough that, had this been a college paper, she would be looking for another college. Yet, according to the campaign, 93% of the words were her own, so the rest doesn't matter.

All I'm saying is:

1) it would have been very easy to get out of this by either having checked in advance or by admitting the error and moving on,

2) Imagine the uproar if Michelle or Hillary had been caught stealing from Melania.

Sheesh.

[Mark Storkamp]

In article <daca53d0-1778-40b3...@googlegroups.com>,

rangerssuck <range...@gmail.com> wrote:


>
> 2) Imagine the uproar if Michelle or Hillary had been caught stealing from
> Melania.
>
> Sheesh.

I imagine it would be similar to the uproar when Hillary accused Obama
of plagiarism 8 years ago. You'd never hear about it except on a few
blogs.

[The Voice]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 07:01:45 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
<range...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't think that any sane person could deny that passages of Melania Trump's speech
> were lifted directly from Michelle Obama's speech. Yet somehow the Trump campaign
> has chosen to flat out deny it.

Gross incompetence in both the original mistake and the denials.

Some details here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/politics/melania-trump-convention-speech.html?_r=0

All very funny! I don't think it could have turned out any worse if
they'd put Wieber in charge. Except for the extra stink. :)

[dca...@krl.org]

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 10:01:47 AM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:
> I don't think that any sane person could deny that passages of Melania Trump's speech were lifted directly from Michelle Obama's speech. Yet somehow the Trump campaign has chosen to flat out deny it.

I consider myself a sane person and do not think there was any intentional plagiarism. If I had the job of a speech writer and was assigned to write a speech for the spouse of the nominee, the first thing I would do in read all the speeches that spouses have made. Then make an outline of the points I wanted to cover. And finally write the speech. Doing that I would very likely use some of the same phrases as were in some of the original speeches. And very likely some phrases as " True Blue " and " Red White and Blue. "

Anyone deliberately plagiarizing would run the speech thru a checker and change things as necessary to have it pass as original work.

Dan

Now has anyone run Michel's speech thru a program to see if she was original or not.

[The Voice]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 07:01:45 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
<range...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't think that any sane person could deny that passages of Melania Trump's speech were lifted directly
> from Michelle Obama's speech. Yet somehow the Trump campaign has chosen to flat out deny it.
>
>All they had to do was issue a statement that acknowledged that a mistake had been made and
> that they are sorry that it happened, and it would have gone away in a day or so.
>But they are instead saying that it never happened.

I see they just took your advice. Thankfully, they spent a day making
a dozen different excuses and denials before learning the hard way. I
say thankfully because the whole thing demonstrated the level of their
incompetence.

[rangerssuck]

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 1:29:11 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 10:01:47 AM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:
> > I don't think that any sane person could deny that passages of Melania Trump's speech were lifted directly from Michelle Obama's speech. Yet somehow the Trump campaign has chosen to flat out deny it.
>
> I consider myself a sane person and do not think there was any intentional plagiarism. If I had the job of a speech writer and was assigned to write a speech for the spouse of the nominee, the first thing I would do in read all the speeches that spouses have made. Then make an outline of the points I wanted to cover. And finally write the speech. Doing that I would very likely use some of the same phrases as were in some of the original speeches.

And you'd soon be looking for a new job.

And very likely some phrases as " True Blue " and " Red White and Blue. "

You're kidding, right? Have you actually looked at the two texts? If you had handed in a college paper with the words Trump used, you'd be looking for a new college.

Would you feel comfortable if a candidate made a speech including "Ask not what your country can do for you...?" How about "We have nothing to fear...?"

Plagiarism is plagiarism. She did it, she got caught. Now they deny that it ever happened, Not very classy, IMO.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/20/2016 10:29 AM, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 10:01:47 AM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:
>> I don't think that any sane person could deny that passages of Melania Trump's speech were lifted directly from Michelle Obama's speech. Yet somehow the Trump campaign has chosen to flat out deny it.
>
> I consider myself a sane person and do not think there was any intentional plagiarism.

What he should have said is honest and objective person, not sane
person. You are not honest and objective. You're a right-wing partisan
and you refuse to acknowledge when your right-wing idols fuck up.

Michelle:
"And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you
work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you
do what you say you're going to do; that you treat people with dignity
and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't agree
with them."

Melania the plagiarist:
"From a young age, my parents impressed on me the *values that you work
hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do
what you say* and keep your promise, *that you treat people with respect*."

The words between asterisks in the plagiarist's speech are lifted
/verbatim/ from Michelle's except for the dropping of "dignity."


Michelle:
"And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and to
pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children — and
all children in this nation — to know that the only limit to the height
of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to
work for them."

Melania the plagiarist:
"They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily lives. That
is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son. And we need to
pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow. Because we want
our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your
achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work
for them."

This is not quite /verbatim/, but awfully close. It's plagiarism, plain
and simple.

I notice there wasn't any metalworking content to your post.

[dca...@krl.org]

[dca...@krl.org]

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 1:55:07 PM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:

>
> Would you feel comfortable if a candidate made a speech including "Ask not what your country can do for you...?" How about "We have nothing to fear...?"
>
> Plagiarism is plagiarism. She did it, she got caught. Now they deny that it ever happened, Not very classy, IMO.

If I recall correctly " ask not what your country can do for you............" was plagiarised by Kennedy. And also " We have nothing to fear ......"

So did that make you uncomfortable?

Dan

[dca...@krl.org]

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 1:58:22 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>

> What he should have said is honest and objective person, not sane
> person. You are not honest and objective. You're a right-wing partisan
> and you refuse to acknowledge when your right-wing idols fuck up.
>
>
>
>

> This is not quite /verbatim/, but awfully close. It's plagiarism, plain
> and simple.
>
> I notice there wasn't any metalworking content to your post.

I am not a right wing partisan. And I am honest and objective. For me it is hard to believe that someone intentionally plagiarized and did not bother to change it enough to have it not be caught. Much easier to believe someone had read a speech and later wrote it using the same phasing.

I can remember having to write something about Galileo. I read four or five encyclopedia accounts. And then could not write an original piece. Everything I knew about Galileo was something I had read. I could only make it original by changing his birth date and how long he lived. And if I did that then it was wrong.

Now about metal working. Did a little brazing with some Sil-Fos 5. Do not really like that stuff. Sil-Fos 10 is so much better. So scrounged around in my stuff and found ten ounces of real silver solder. But it has Cadmium in it. So best used outside.

Did a little machining of a part for a Parker Vise. It is the part that causes the jaw to open up. Just hacking a bit out of aluminum to get the right sizes.
The vise is one of the larger ones. Must be about eighty lbs. I have another Parker Vise that is a much smaller one. But the vise I use all the time is a Columbian.

Have not been doing too much metalworking. Have been digging a drainage ditch from past the veggie garden to the creek. It has been wet up until the last couple of days.

Dan

[The Voice]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:47:29 -0700 (PDT), "dca...@krl.org"
<dca...@krl.org> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 1:58:22 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> What he should have said is honest and objective person, not sane
>> person. You are not honest and objective. You're a right-wing partisan
>> and you refuse to acknowledge when your right-wing idols fuck up.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This is not quite /verbatim/, but awfully close. It's plagiarism, plain
>> and simple.
>>
>> I notice there wasn't any metalworking content to your post.
>
>
>I am not a right wing partisan. And I am honest and objective. For me it is hard
> to believe that someone intentionally plagiarized and did not bother to change
> it enough to have it not be caught.

The speechwriter has admitted that she and Melania BOTH knew they were
modeling the speech on MB's. But she's taking blame for basically, not
changing them enough, and not checking that they'd been changed
enough. That's probably BS, and it's not very good. But what's a lot
worse is that the campaign claimed, among other BS excuses, that
Melania wrote the speech. It's a glorious fuckup.

[dpb]

On 07/20/2016 12:55 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
...

> Would you feel comfortable if a candidate made a speech including
> "Ask not what your country can do for you...?" How about "We have
> nothing to fear...?"

As one of the major news networks noted last night, Kennedy wasn't
original in that, nor was Roosevelt.

> Plagiarism is plagiarism. ...

And there's only so many ways one can utter the same platitudes so
unless it's something far more meaty in concept or detail than simply
these kinds of fluff words, it's totally immaterial even if it were
actually lifted but has pretty high probability of simply being
coincidental use of the same old rhetoric of no substance other than to
sound good.

--

[Rudy Canoza]

I notice there wasn't *any content at all* to your post this time.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/20/2016 11:20 AM, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 1:55:07 PM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:
>
>>
>> Would you feel comfortable if a candidate made a speech including "Ask not what your country can do for you...?"

I don't care which sleazy thieving collectivist said it first, it's a
rotten exhortation all the way around. I don't live in order to "serve"
my country, nor anyone else.

> How about "We have nothing to fear...?"

It's not plagiarism if you simply borrow some proverb or popular bromide.

>>
>> Plagiarism is plagiarism. She did it, she got caught. Now they deny that it ever happened, Not very classy, IMO.
>
> If I recall correctly " ask not what your country can do for you............" was plagiarised by Kennedy.

Alleged; never proved.

[rangerssuck]

Nice attempt at deflection. If you've got a problem with those two lines, then take it up with those people. I was trying to get across the point that if she (Trump) had used words that were immediately recognized by you as someone else's, without having to hear it on the news, maybe your take would have been different. Maybe not.

[rangerssuck]

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 5:46:47 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 7/20/2016 11:20 AM, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 1:55:07 PM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Would you feel comfortable if a candidate made a speech including "Ask not what your country can do for you...?"
>
> I don't care which sleazy thieving collectivist said it first, it's a
> rotten exhortation all the way around. I don't live in order to "serve"
> my country, nor anyone else.

Obviously not the point of this conversation.

>
> > How about "We have nothing to fear...?"
>
> It's not plagiarism if you simply borrow some proverb or popular bromide.

Obama's words were neither of those, and if you're "borrowing," attribution is called for.

>
> >>
> >> Plagiarism is plagiarism. She did it, she got caught. Now they deny that it ever happened, Not very classy, IMO.
> >
> > If I recall correctly " ask not what your country can do for you............" was plagiarised by Kennedy.
>
> Alleged; never proved.

Again, not the point here.

[dpb]

On 07/20/2016 4:56 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
...

> the point that if she (Trump) had used words that were immediately
> recognized by you as someone else's, without having to hear it on the
> news, maybe your take would have been different. Maybe not.

Hell, "everybody's" folks have said the same thing, probably since the
days of Noah. The phrases made so much of are nothing but bromides; of
no substance whatever; using them is basically as important as calling a
tissue "Kleenex" is trademark infringement.

--

[Jim Wilkins]

"rangerssuck" <range...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a7569f8-9f24-4107...@googlegroups.com...

================

Snopes is struggling to excuse Michelle Obama for plagiarizing
Alinsky's "the world as it is" and "the world as it should be".
http://www.snopes.com/michelle-obama-copied-her-2008-dnc-speech-from-saul-alinsky/

[dca...@krl.org]

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 5:46:47 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>

> > If I recall correctly " ask not what your country can do for you............" was plagiarised by Kennedy.
>
> Alleged; never proved.

Actually proved that he had heard the phase before.

Dan

[Jim Wilkins]

<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:96d1c263-ebbc-4b81...@googlegroups.com...

============

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/19/melania-trump-plagiarism-hillary-biden-barack-michelle/

But they were innocent of bad intent, by the Orwellian logic of "four
legs good, two legs bad".

[The Voice]

The odds of these particular strings of words being accidentally the
same, are something like 1 in a trillion. And now the speechwriter has
claimed that MT read the words to her over the phone, and that they
discussed MT's admiration for MO. Meanwhile, the Trump fools claim
that BO is the antichrist. It's a great demonstration of the Trump
camp's incompetence. What, they couldn't find a HC speech to crib? LOL
It gets better... apparently, the Trump camp paid two real
speechwriters, and their work was thrown out in favor of one of the
ghost writers of Trumps books, who didn't think to use free software
to preclude any chance of even accidentally plagiarizing. She probably
thinks she's set for life by taking the blame. Thing is, Trump is
notoriously cheap, so good luck to her collecting.

[goodsoldi...@geemail.org]

I've viewed this thread with considerable awe. One woman says,
essentially, "I was brought up in a decent home and my folks taught me
not to lie, cheat or steal, and we want to teach out kids to do the
same", and another woman says, "my folks were decent people and taught
me to have values like not stealing, or lying or cheating people and I
hope we can do the same thing for our kids". And this becomes a matter
for debate?

What is next? Someone walks out of the house tomorrow morning and the
neighbor lady comes out of their house and he says, "Good Morning",
and she replies "Yes, a good morning". I can only assume that he leaps
into the air, spins around three times and starts screaming "You
plagiarized me! You plagiarized me!"

Or, how about this, "It appears that political debate in the United
States has reached a new low in inanity".
--
Cheers,

Schweik

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Prefixed with " as a great person (or president) before me once put it
so eloquently, " makes it perfectly acceptable - even if you cannot
remember who said it.

[dpb]

On 07/20/2016 7:26 PM, The Voice wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:05:37 -0500, dpb<no...@non.net> wrote:
>
>> On 07/20/2016 4:56 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> the point that if she (Trump) had used words that were immediately
>>> recognized by you as someone else's, without having to hear it on the
>>> news, maybe your take would have been different. Maybe not.
>>
>> Hell, "everybody's" folks have said the same thing, probably since the
>> days of Noah. The phrases made so much of are nothing but bromides; of
>> no substance whatever; using them is basically as important as calling a
>> tissue "Kleenex" is trademark infringement.
>
> The odds of these particular strings of words being accidentally the

> same, are something like 1 in a trillion. ...

Compute that, please... :)

My point is, "so what!" -- it's just a trivial piece of conventional
wisdom of no import that is and has been standard fare for "since
forever". There wasn't anything unique about it four (or eight?) years
ago, any more than there isn't this year nor will there be next time
somebody says the same thing (or very similar).

--

[Jim Wilkins]

"dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in message
news:nmpjl8$g9m$1...@dont-email.me...

More significantly after two terms it still needed to be said.

[dpb]

And will bear repeating probably until the Second Coming...

--

[dpb]

On 07/20/2016 11:38 PM, dpb wrote:
...

>> The odds of these particular strings of words being accidentally the
>> same, are something like 1 in a trillion. ...
>
> Compute that, please... :)

...

That is, once having decided to make a similar point, what're the odds
of being able to do so _without_ it sounding similar to somebody else's
having done that in the past?

Sure, maybe they just lifted it; again, it's so mundane and so common as
to be routine.

The only real problem is they didn't have their act together in crisis
management as the original subject of the thread implies...the Trump
campaign reflects its head--tempestuous and react with bluster before
thought.

--

[The Voice]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 23:38:58 -0500, dpb <no...@non.net> wrote:

>On 07/20/2016 7:26 PM, The Voice wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:05:37 -0500, dpb<no...@non.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/20/2016 4:56 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> the point that if she (Trump) had used words that were immediately
>>>> recognized by you as someone else's, without having to hear it on the
>>>> news, maybe your take would have been different. Maybe not.
>>>
>>> Hell, "everybody's" folks have said the same thing, probably since the
>>> days of Noah. The phrases made so much of are nothing but bromides; of
>>> no substance whatever; using them is basically as important as calling a
>>> tissue "Kleenex" is trademark infringement.
>>
>> The odds of these particular strings of words being accidentally the
>> same, are something like 1 in a trillion. ...
>
>Compute that, please... :)

One of about a trillion :) articles doing the math.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/19/melania-trump-speech-the-odds-of-a-word-match.html

>My point is, "so what!" -- it's just a trivial piece of conventional
>wisdom of no import that is and has been standard fare for "since
>forever". There wasn't anything unique about it four (or eight?) years
>ago, any more than there isn't this year nor will there be next time
>somebody says the same thing (or very similar).

Sure. But there are several points. One is that instead of stringing
together her own meaningless drivel, MT needed to crib from the wife
of the alleged antichrist. Too funny. Another is that her camp's first
reaction to the incompetence was to claim MT wrote the speech and it
was entirely original. That was a ridiculous lie, and it was entirely
predictable that no sensible person would believe it, not to mention a
lot of Trumpers. The campaign is already dogged by articles about MT's
phony college degree, so telling a new lie was doubly insane. All that
incompetence coming from a guy who claims that everyone else is
incompetent.

[Ignoramus5298]

Hillary is more like Melania trump than like Donald.

The reason is, she is a nobody, Bill Clinton totally promoted her, and
now she is just a vehicle for getting her husband Bill back into the White
House.

i

[The Voice]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:27:36 +0700, goodsoldi...@geemail.org

wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:36:58 -0700, The Voice <t...@mb.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 07:01:45 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
>><range...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't think that any sane person could deny that passages of Melania Trump's speech were lifted directly
>>> from Michelle Obama's speech. Yet somehow the Trump campaign has chosen to flat out deny it.
>>>
>>>All they had to do was issue a statement that acknowledged that a mistake had been made and
>>> that they are sorry that it happened, and it would have gone away in a day or so.
>>>But they are instead saying that it never happened.
>>
>>I see they just took your advice. Thankfully, they spent a day making
>>a dozen different excuses and denials before learning the hard way. I
>>say thankfully because the whole thing demonstrated the level of their
>>incompetence.
>
>I've viewed this thread with considerable awe. One woman says,
>essentially, "I was brought up in a decent home and my folks taught me
>not to lie, cheat or steal, and we want to teach out kids to do the
>same", and another woman says, "my folks were decent people and taught
>me to have values like not stealing, or lying or cheating people and I
>hope we can do the same thing for our kids". And this becomes a matter
>for debate?

Of course. Look at the big picture. Trump wants to present his wife as
something other than arm candy. So his camp claims she has a degree,
when it's sure to come out (as it did) that she dropped out of college
after a short time. In order to continue the charade, he hires
professional speech writers, and then throws away their work. Instead
one his ghost writers puts something together, and if anyone believes
her story, she neglects to check that the words Melania read over the
phone are original, which is one of the main jobs of a speech writer.
When the shit hits the fan, the camp tells more lies even though it
was predictable that nobody would believe them. So, instead of
convincing the world that his wife was more than her looks, he
accomplished the opposite.

[The Voice]

That's nothing. Did you know that the moon landing was faked, and that
Elvis is still alive? I bet you do!

[The Voice]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:58:01 -0500, dpb <no...@non.net> wrote:


>Sure, maybe they just lifted it

There's no maybe about it. They've admitted it. Sheesh.

[Bob La Londe]

"The Voice" <t...@mb.net> wrote in message
news:4cl1pbd54ckgot5cq...@4ax.com...

Sorry, no. You are wrong. Elvis died two years ago. Only a small handfull
of us closest friends were invited to the funeral.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[mogu...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 1:04:31 PM UTC-4, Bob La Londe wrote:
> "The Voice" <t...@mb.net> wrote in message
> news:4cl1pbd54ckgot5cq...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:56:14 -0500, Ignoramus5298
> > <ignora...@NOSPAM.5298.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>Hillary is more like Melania trump than like Donald.
> >>
> >>The reason is, she is a nobody, Bill Clinton totally promoted her, and
> >>now she is just a vehicle for getting her husband Bill back into the White
> >>House.
> >>
> >>i
> >
> > That's nothing. Did you know that the moon landing was faked, and that
> > Elvis is still alive? I bet you do!
>
> Sorry, no. You are wrong. Elvis died two years ago. Only a small handfull
> of us closest friends were invited to the funeral.

if Trump says it, people here might believe it.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 10:01:47 AM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:

> Simply running the speech through a plagiarism checker (many are free online - just google it) would have revealed the problems,

> Sheesh.

Sometimes people are a lot more stupid than what I can conceive of.

Dan

[dpb]

Do I give a ...???

--

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/20/2016 11:47 AM, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 1:58:22 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> What he should have said is honest and objective person, not sane
>> person. You are not honest and objective. You're a right-wing partisan
>> and you refuse to acknowledge when your right-wing idols fuck up.
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> This is not quite /verbatim/, but awfully close. It's plagiarism, plain
>> and simple.
>>
>> I notice there wasn't any metalworking content to your post.
>
>

> I am not a right wing partisan.

Bullshit.


> And I am honest and objective.

More bullshit.

> For me it is hard to believe that someone intentionally plagiarized and did not bother to change it enough to have it not be caught.

What she read is *so close* to being a /verbatim/ lifting of Michelle's
speech that concluding it was knowingly done by someone who was
literally reading Michelle's speech is the only rational conclusion.

[dpb]

On 07/21/2016 8:49 AM, The Voice wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 23:38:58 -0500, dpb<no...@non.net> wrote:

...

>>> The odds of these particular strings of words being accidentally the
>>> same, are something like 1 in a trillion. ...
>>
>> Compute that, please... :)
>
> One of about a trillion :) articles doing the math.
> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/19/melania-trump-speech-the-odds-of-a-word-match.html

...

Assuming 50:50 odds for every sequential letter is absurd
assumption--given an initial intended thought, the choice of words even
possible in context is somewhat limited with grammatical rules and
meaning; once a word is chosen then the letter sequence is fixed
(barring misspellings).

That it was lifted wasn't really a bone of contention in my view; only
that it really just doesn't matter much (as in any at all) in reality.

That the Trump campaign committee is reacts as its candidate with
bluster before thinking is simply also reflective and unsurprising, at
least to me.

One would hope that in 300M population there'd be two individuals more
qualified than the pair we're getting from which to choose... :(

--

[Rudy Canoza]

No, it was never proved; it was only alleged.

[dca...@krl.org]

Actually proved.

Dan

[dca...@krl.org]

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 1:50:16 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> >
> > I am not a right wing partisan.
>
> Bullshit.
>
>
> > And I am honest and objective.
>
> More bullshit.
>

An empty assertion without any evidence.

Dan

[The Voice]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:58:36 -0500, dpb <no...@non.net> wrote:

>On 07/21/2016 8:49 AM, The Voice wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 23:38:58 -0500, dpb<no...@non.net> wrote:
>...
>
>>>> The odds of these particular strings of words being accidentally the
>>>> same, are something like 1 in a trillion. ...
>>>
>>> Compute that, please... :)
>>
>> One of about a trillion :) articles doing the math.
>> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/19/melania-trump-speech-the-odds-of-a-word-match.html
>...
>
>Assuming 50:50 odds for every sequential letter is absurd
>assumption--given an initial intended thought, the choice of words even
>possible in context is somewhat limited with grammatical rules and
>meaning; once a word is chosen then the letter sequence is fixed
>(barring misspellings).

Ok, so maybe the odds are somewhat less than 1 in 5 septillion. But
the math articles were only written because so many people refuse to
accept reality There was never a shred of sensible doubt; the text was
lifted. It was so fucking obvious that the Trump camp owned up to it.
Which is quite something coming from a guy who can't bring himself to
admit he wears a hairpiece, even after this hilarious article was
written.
http://gawker.com/is-donald-trump-s-hair-a-60-000-weave-a-gawker-invest-1777581357

>That it was lifted wasn't really a bone of contention in my view; only
>that it really just doesn't matter much (as in any at all) in reality.

MT allegedly spent weeks preparing for her big moment, which was
designed to demonstrate that at the very least, she could write (LOL)
and read a short speech, in order to prove that she's not just some
bimbo. That is an eighth grade challenge that she flubbed. DT probably
signed off on it, but of course he'll never accept any blame. The
cribbing turned out to be THE most important element of the failure.
If not for that, the Trump camp would NEVER have admitted a damned
thing.

>That the Trump campaign committee is reacts as its candidate with
>bluster before thinking is simply also reflective and unsurprising, at
>least to me.

I'm not surprised either. But it is some glorious karma. The speech
included some drivel about honesty being the best policy or some such.
Then the campaign tells a big fat lie that they have to walk back a
day later.

>One would hope that in 300M population there'd be two individuals more
>qualified than the pair we're getting from which to choose... :(

There were many better candidates. Voters made their choice. I agree
with the analysts who believe that Trump will destroy the GOP. But
they gave it to him to destroy, so nothing to cry about.

[dpb]

On 07/21/2016 3:02 PM, The Voice wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:58:36 -0500, dpb<no...@non.net> wrote:
>> On 07/21/2016 8:49 AM, The Voice wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 23:38:58 -0500, dpb<no...@non.net> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>>>> The odds of these particular strings of words being accidentally the
>>>>> same, are something like 1 in a trillion. ...
>>>>
>>>> Compute that, please... :)
>>>
>>> One of about a trillion :) articles doing the math.
>>> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/19/melania-trump-speech-the-odds-of-a-word-match.html
>> ...
>>
>> Assuming 50:50 odds for every sequential letter is absurd
>> assumption--given an initial intended thought, the choice of words even
>> possible in context is somewhat limited with grammatical rules and
>> meaning; once a word is chosen then the letter sequence is fixed
>> (barring misspellings).
>
> Ok, so maybe the odds are somewhat less than 1 in 5 septillion. But
> the math articles were only written because so many people refuse to

> accept reality ...

Given the source, I'd say that _particular_ article was written with the
express purpose of inflating the number as much as possible knowing such
lack of knowledge of basic statistics/probability would let it go by
unchallenged.

Again, altho I'd not paid any attention and hadn't actually read the
two, sure it's obvious w/o any great analysis but still imo other than
the campaign's lack of aplomb in first not vetting well-enough and then
in follow-on it's simply media doing all they know to do any more--try
to create a controversy instead of reporting on real issues. Of course,
real issues aren't addressed by _any_ candidate or party any longer in
any real sense.

--

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:29:05 -0700 (PDT), "dca...@krl.org"
<dca...@krl.org> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 10:01:47 AM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:

>> I don't think that any sane person could deny that passages of Melania Trump's speech were lifted directly from Michelle Obama's speech. Yet somehow the Trump campaign has chosen to flat out deny it.
>

>I consider myself a sane person and do not think there was any intentional plagiarism. If I had the job of a speech writer and was assigned to write a speech for the spouse of the nominee, the first thing I would do in read all the speeches that spouses have made. Then make an outline of the points I wanted to cover. And finally write the speech. Doing that I would very likely use some of the same phrases as were in some of the original speeches. And very likely some phrases as " True Blue " and " Red White and Blue. "
>
>Anyone deliberately plagiarizing would run the speech thru a checker and change things as necessary to have it pass as original work.
>
> Dan
>
>Now has anyone run Michel's speech thru a program to see if she was original or not.
>
>

Funny you should ask that....

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/19/melania-trump-plagiarism-hillary-biden-barack-michelle/

Seems Michelle plagiarized Saul Alinkskys work.....

Funny that....

[The Voice]

It IS a real issue to get caught cheating in a speech about being
honest, and then trying to lie your way out of it. They can whine all
they want about it getting blown out of proportion, but they do the
same thing all the time. So it looks good on them. You know you have a
problem when you can't even your get your own deluded base to believe
your story. The whole idea of branding the arm candy as a professor
was dumb anyway. The base knows how she got where she is, and they
don't care. Old white men especially wish they could have somebody
like her, and would probably prefer her to be stupid and keep quiet.
You can't get caught plagiarizing if you're barefoot and in the
kitchen. :)

[The Voice]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:22:52 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hey Wieber, you should try your logic on your county about those
unpaid taxes. Just give them the name of somebody else you know who's
dodging taxes. I'm sure they'll zero out your balance. In fact, your
case is so strong you should write a demand letter, and post it right
here. Next to your record of non payment and liens
http://www.kcttc.co.kern.ca.us/Payment/ATNDetails.aspx?NUMBER=03930320008&NUM_TYPE=AT&YR=H
so we can see how great the strategy worked.

[Rudy Canoza]

Only alleged.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/21/2016 12:40 PM, dca...@krl.org wrote:

> On 7/20/2016 2:49 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/20/2016 11:47 AM, dca...@krl.org wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 1:58:22 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What he should have said is honest and objective person, not sane
>>>> person. You are not honest and objective. You're a right-wing partisan
>>>> and you refuse to acknowledge when your right-wing idols fuck up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is not quite /verbatim/, but awfully close. It's plagiarism, plain
>>>> and simple.
>>>>
>>>> I notice there wasn't any metalworking content to your post.
>>>
>>>

>>> I am not a right wing partisan.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>
>>> And I am honest and objective.
>>
>> More bullshit.
>
>
> An empty assertion without any evidence.

No, I've given the evidence right here.

>>> For me it is hard to believe that someone intentionally plagiarized
>>> and did not bother to change it enough to have it not be caught.
>>
>> What she read is *so close* to being a /verbatim/ lifting of Michelle's
>> speech that concluding it was knowingly done by someone who was
>> literally reading Michelle's speech is the only rational conclusion.

There it is again.

[Greg Stearns]

Seems some fuckwitted clod at Breitbart has *alleged* that she
plagiarized from Alinsky, but there's no evidence.

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:22:52 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

>On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:29:05 -0700 (PDT), "dca...@krl.org"<dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>>On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 10:01:47 AM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:
>>> I don't think that any sane person could deny that passages of Melania Trump's speech were lifted directly from Michelle Obama's speech. Yet somehow the Trump campaign has chosen to flat out deny it.
>>I consider myself a sane person and do not think there was any intentional plagiarism. If I had the job of a speech writer and was assigned to write a speech for the spouse of the nominee, the first thing I would do in read all the speeches that spouses have made. Then make an outline of the points I wanted to cover. And finally write the speech. Doing that I would very likely use some of the same phrases as were in some of the original speeches. And very likely some phrases as " True Blue " and " Red White and Blue. "
>>
>>Anyone deliberately plagiarizing would run the speech thru a checker and change things as necessary to have it pass as original work.
>>

>>Now has anyone run Michel's speech thru a program to see if she was original or not.
>>
>Funny you should ask that....
>
>http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/19/melania-trump-plagiarism-hillary-biden-barack-michelle/
>
>Seems Michelle plagiarized Saul Alinkskys work.....
>
>Funny that....

Remember when Slow Joe Biden lifted the life experiences of Neil
Kinnock, being the first Biden to not go down into the Welsh coal
mines, and the first to go to university?
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

[dca...@krl.org]

definitely proved.

Dan

[dpb]

On 07/21/2016 6:00 PM, The Voice wrote:
...

> It IS a real issue to get caught cheating in a speech about being

> honest, and then trying to lie your way out of it. ...

If it were anything of more significance than platitudinal rhetoric that
had been repeated I'd be more inclined to agree there would be some
reason to consider it as an event; for just repeating conventional
wisdom on child-rearing principles whether somebody else worded it that
way earlier or not is still a "so what!" in my book (whichever way it
would have been in sequence if roles were reversed).

The one item is, I've already agreed, not "'fessing up" off the bat; I
don't know who was the first responder on the scene and whether that
person even actually knew the facts or just presumed and followed the
donald's lead of trying to bluster through or what, but as have already
said, not just waiting until had all the facts or telling it straight if
did just illustrates weren't ready for prime time.

Of course, I also go back to the pack o' hyenas of the press preferring
to find something of the sort rather than report on substantive issues
as being of little value to promoting dialogue and reasoned
discourse--all they're after is ratings.

--

[The Voice]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:41:47 -0500, dpb <no...@non.net> wrote:

>On 07/21/2016 6:00 PM, The Voice wrote:
>...
>
>> It IS a real issue to get caught cheating in a speech about being
>> honest, and then trying to lie your way out of it. ...
>
>If it were anything of more significance than platitudinal rhetoric that
>had been repeated I'd be more inclined to agree there would be some
>reason to consider it as an event; for just repeating conventional
>wisdom on child-rearing principles whether somebody else worded it that
>way earlier or not is still a "so what!" in my book (whichever way it
>would have been in sequence if roles were reversed).

When I was in eighth grade, everyone had to write, memorize, and
deliver a speech. Mine was a couple of single spaced pages long, and I
had no trouble with the task. MT had it much easier. She had a 3
decade head start, a "team" of writers, and a teleprompter. Based on
what I know about her now, I do not consider her very smart.

>The one item is, I've already agreed, not "'fessing up" off the bat; I
>don't know who was the first responder on the scene and whether that
>person even actually knew the facts or just presumed and followed the
>donald's lead of trying to bluster through or what, but as have already
>said, not just waiting until had all the facts or telling it straight if
>did just illustrates weren't ready for prime time.
>
>Of course, I also go back to the pack o' hyenas of the press preferring
>to find something of the sort rather than report on substantive issues
>as being of little value to promoting dialogue and reasoned
>discourse--all they're after is ratings.

It WAS substantive. When you claim that you can do a very very good
excellent better than anyone else job of running an entire nation, you
damn well should be able to hire a competent speech writer for an
important speech. It's not like this was the first campaign flub. I
don't think that Trump does much of anything well. See the Trump
"University" fiasco for an example. If he gets elected, it will be for
the same reasons Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho got
elected. In fact, here is a fun page that allows readers to put
Trump's braggadocio in perspective.
http://flavorwire.com/537887/who-said-it-presidential-hopeful-donald-trump-or-idiocracy-president-camacho

[Ignoramus20626]

You are right. Come on people.

Someone lifted fragments of several sentences that are of extremely
generic nature. On the scale of 0 to 10 it is a 1.
i

[The Voice]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:10:56 -0500, Ignoramus20626

Remind me again... if you have a team of speech writers, why do you
need to model your words on someone else's, much less copy any of them
verbatim? She had one job...

Trump is absolutely ruthless with his own personal attacks, and
everyone around him surely knows that the pitchforks are out. If MT
didn't want to chance being roasted for flubbing an easy job, then she
could have easily stood on the sidelines. Don't cry for her. If Trump
wins he'll probably appoint her Secetary of Education or State.

[Tom Gardner]

On 7/21/2016 6:22 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> Seems Michelle plagiarized Saul Alinkskys work.....
>
> Funny that....
>
>

I understand that! I quote Alinksky daily, along with Cloward and
Piven. Where else can you find such concentrated wisdom?

[Ignoramus20626]

On 2016-07-22, The Voice <t...@mb.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:10:56 -0500, Ignoramus20626
><ignoram...@NOSPAM.20626.invalid> wrote:
>
>>You are right. Come on people.
>>
>>Someone lifted fragments of several sentences that are of extremely
>>generic nature. On the scale of 0 to 10 it is a 1.
>
> Remind me again... if you have a team of speech writers, why do you
> need to model your words on someone else's, much less copy any of them
> verbatim? She had one job...

One speech writer got lazy and rephrased a couple of loose and generic
sentence fragments.

Contrary to what moralists said, lying and cheating is overwhelmingly
prevalent among human beings.

Your annoying and unreasonable attitude tilts me towards voting for
Donald Trump.

> Trump is absolutely ruthless with his own personal attacks, and
> everyone around him surely knows that the pitchforks are out. If MT
> didn't want to chance being roasted for flubbing an easy job, then she
> could have easily stood on the sidelines. Don't cry for her. If Trump
> wins he'll probably appoint her Secetary of Education or State.

Trump is a turd, however Hillary is much worse.

i

[edhun...@gmail.com]

More likely you quote Glenn Beck paraphrasing Alinsky, Cloward and Piven, since it's unlikely that you have read the history of basic incomes and guaranteed minimum incomes, as favored by Friedrich Hayak, Milton Friedman, and Richard Nixon, among other flaming liberals. <g>

[edhun...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:40:34 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus20626 wrote:
> On 2016-07-22, The Voice <t...@mb.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:10:56 -0500, Ignoramus20626
> ><ignoram...@NOSPAM.20626.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>You are right. Come on people.
> >>
> >>Someone lifted fragments of several sentences that are of extremely
> >>generic nature. On the scale of 0 to 10 it is a 1.
> >
> > Remind me again... if you have a team of speech writers, why do you
> > need to model your words on someone else's, much less copy any of them
> > verbatim? She had one job...
>
> One speech writer got lazy and rephrased a couple of loose and generic
> sentence fragments.

Nonsense. You didn't read the apology. What it said is this:

"McIver explained that she included the passages from Michelle Obama's speech after listening to Melania Trump read passages from the 2008 address."

"'Over the phone, she read me some passages from Mrs. Obama's speech as examples. I wrote them down and later included some of the phrasing in the draft that ultimately became the final speech. I did not check Mrs. Obama's speeches. This was my mistake, and I feel terrible for the chaos I have caused Melania and the Trumps, as well as to Mrs. Obama. No harm was meant.'"

And here's the part that doesn't fly: If Malania read the passages from Michelle Obama's speech to the speechwriter because she like them, how in the hell did she NOT recognize them when she was practicing her own speech?

There's some serious bullshit in the story. It doesn't sound like laziness, and those particular passages are hardly "loose and generic sentence fragments" to begin with.

>
> Contrary to what moralists said, lying and cheating is overwhelmingly
> prevalent among human beings.
>
> Your annoying and unreasonable attitude tilts me towards voting for
> Donald Trump.

Another rational vote for Trump! That's a great reason to choose a president, Iggy -- somebody annoys you on Usenet.

I suppose that's as good as any of the other reasons we hear.

--
Ed Huntress

[alvin...@geemail.org]

I see. You walk out of the front door and the neighbor woman is
sweeping her fronts steps so you tip your hat and say, "Good Morning,
Mrs Jones" and she replies, "Good Morning". I assume that you leap up,
spin around three times and land shrieking "You! You plagiarized me!".

As the old saying goes, "You Sir are a fool".
--

Alvin D.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:57:41 PM UTC-4, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:

> Another rational vote for Trump! That's a great reason to choose a president, Iggy -- somebody annoys you on Usenet.
>
> I suppose that's as good as any of the other reasons we hear.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
> >
>

> > Trump is a turd, however Hillary is much worse.
> >
> > i

But iggy did not say he was voting for Trump because someone on Usenet annoys him. He said someone on Usenet annoys him and does not convince him to not vote for Trump. He also said Hillary is worse than Trump.

I am not sure that she is worse. Trump is kind of an unknown. Could be good, could be bad. But Hillary is known to be bad. No question there.

Dan

[edhun...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 7:17:58 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:57:41 PM UTC-4, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Another rational vote for Trump! That's a great reason to choose a president, Iggy -- somebody annoys you on Usenet.
> >
> > I suppose that's as good as any of the other reasons we hear.
> >
> > --
> > Ed Huntress
> > >
> >
> > > Trump is a turd, however Hillary is much worse.
> > >
> > > i
>
> But iggy did not say he was voting for Trump because someone on Usenet annoys him. He said someone on Usenet annoys him and does not convince him to not vote for Trump.

No, that's the OPPOSITE of what he said. He said that it tilted him TOWARD voting for Trump.

>He also said Hillary is worse than Trump.

Which is nonsense from any angle, but he's entitled to his opinion.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:10:45 AM UTC-4, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:

> >
> > But iggy did not say he was voting for Trump because someone on Usenet annoys him. He said someone on Usenet annoys him and does not convince him to not vote for Trump.
>
> No, that's the OPPOSITE of what he said. He said that it tilted him TOWARD voting for Trump.
>

It is not the opposite of what he said. You must have missed the double negative in my post.

But he did not say that he was going to vote for Trump because of anything posted here.

> >He also said Hillary is worse than Trump.
>
> Which is nonsense from any angle, but he's entitled to his opinion.
>

But Hillary is worse than Trump. That is pretty much fact. From bribes cleaned up by using cattle futures , to private email server to evade government requirements on emails, to lack of caution in defending consols, and taking money from foreign governments in contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is terrible.


Not voting for Hillary is not nonsense.

Dan

[edhun...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 9:16:59 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:10:45 AM UTC-4, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >
> > > But iggy did not say he was voting for Trump because someone on Usenet annoys him. He said someone on Usenet annoys him and does not convince him to not vote for Trump.
> >
> > No, that's the OPPOSITE of what he said. He said that it tilted him TOWARD voting for Trump.
> >
> It is not the opposite of what he said. You must have missed the double negative in my post.

I didn't miss anything. You just put words in his mouth and missed what he actually said.

>
> But he did not say that he was going to vote for Trump because of anything posted here.

He said it makes him lean toward Trump.

>
>
> > >He also said Hillary is worse than Trump.
> >
> > Which is nonsense from any angle, but he's entitled to his opinion.
> >
>
> But Hillary is worse than Trump. That is pretty much fact. From bribes cleaned up by using cattle futures , to private email server to evade government requirements on emails, to lack of caution in defending consols, and taking money from foreign governments in contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is terrible.

You have all of the Republican talking points down pat, Dan.

>
>
> Not voting for Hillary is not nonsense.

I didn't say that it was. Are you going to misconstrue the words again and claim that I did?

--
Ed Huntress

[The Voice]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 21:40:27 -0500, Ignoramus20626

<ignoram...@NOSPAM.20626.invalid> wrote:

>On 2016-07-22, The Voice <t...@mb.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:10:56 -0500, Ignoramus20626
>><ignoram...@NOSPAM.20626.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>You are right. Come on people.
>>>
>>>Someone lifted fragments of several sentences that are of extremely
>>>generic nature. On the scale of 0 to 10 it is a 1.
>>
>> Remind me again... if you have a team of speech writers, why do you
>> need to model your words on someone else's, much less copy any of them
>> verbatim? She had one job...
>
>One speech writer got lazy and rephrased a couple of loose and generic
>sentence fragments.

She isn't a speechwriter, she's a ghost writer of "Trump's" books.
They did hire real speechwriters, but threw out their work. If anyone
believes her story, she's merely incompetent. But it's more likely
that Trump himself signed off on the speech without verifying that
someone qualified had checked it first. It's another demonstration of
ineptitude from the gang that can't shoot straight, and a great
preview of what to expect if he's elected.

>Contrary to what moralists said, lying and cheating is overwhelmingly
>prevalent among human beings.

You betcha! Not sure if it's more prevalent than ignorance though.

>Your annoying and unreasonable attitude tilts me towards voting for
>Donald Trump.

Good, and a nice example of your shallow thinking. You deserve to be
on the wrong side of history. And if he's elected, you deserve to have
to make excuses for why you ignored all the warning signs, and used
your vote the same way a petulant child stamps his feet.

>> Trump is absolutely ruthless with his own personal attacks, and
>> everyone around him surely knows that the pitchforks are out. If MT
>> didn't want to chance being roasted for flubbing an easy job, then she
>> could have easily stood on the sidelines. Don't cry for her. If Trump
>> wins he'll probably appoint her Secetary of Education or State.
>
>Trump is a turd, however Hillary is much worse.

Your analysis is worth than either of them.

For anyone who takes their vote seriously, this is a sobering read.
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/12218136/donald-trump-nomination-afraid

[The Voice]

LOL Your lack of reason reminds me of Wieber. Is that you Wieber?

>
>As the old saying goes, "You Sir are a fool".

Whew! I sure as hell don't want people like you agreeing with me.

[The Voice]

Gardner is too busy lobbying to prevent the cancellation of Family
Circus. "most educating read ever" - Tom Gardner :)

[dca...@krl.org]

On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 9:26:37 AM UTC-4, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:

> You have all of the Republican talking points down pat, Dan.
>
> >

> Ed Huntress
>
> >

What are the Republican talking points? My impression is the Republican party is fractured and there is no " Republican talking points ". There is Trump talking points , and Cruz talking points, and so on.

Dan

[edhun...@gmail.com]

The one thing they have in common is the 25-year narrative that demonizes Hillary. They spend more time holding witchhunt hearings than they do debating and passing legislation.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/23/2016 6:16 AM, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:10:45 AM UTC-4, edhun...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>
>>> But iggy did not say he was voting for Trump because someone on Usenet annoys him. He said someone on Usenet annoys him and does not convince him to not vote for Trump.
>>
>> No, that's the OPPOSITE of what he said. He said that it tilted him TOWARD voting for Trump.
>>
> It is not the opposite of what he said. You must have missed the double negative in my post.
>
> But he did not say that he was going to vote for Trump because of anything posted here.
>
>
>>> He also said Hillary is worse than Trump.
>>
>> Which is nonsense from any angle, but he's entitled to his opinion.
>>
>
> But Hillary is worse than Trump. That is pretty much fact.

No, that's your ignorant opinion, and you're wrong. I loathe Hillary
and have for close to 25 years, and a small part of me wants her to lose
just because of her arrogant assumption of how great she is, and that it
is "her time" to assume the presidency and that it is her "due." I hate
her for that. But Trump is worse. He is worse than her in nearly every
way, not least because he stridently articulates authoritarian
positions. Trump doesn't merely adopt a "great man" rationale for why
he should be president - he thinks of himself as The Greatest Man.
Stupid assholes have tried to compare him to Hitler, but the better
comparison is to Mussolini.

Trump is worse than Hillary. This is fact.

[Gunner Asch]

Indeed. Ed is a perfect example of "RINO Republican" that is going
to go bye bye this election cycle. The People are pissed as hell and
are going to vote for Trump..and a bunch of new Republicans ...simply
to clear the deadwood and those RINOs who have made up the RP
leadership for so long.

http://www.conservapedia.com/RINO

Better to try something new..than people like Bitch McConnel who bend
over and take it in the ass from the Left.

This has been happening for some years now...Romney, McCain.....

"The RINO targets of attack argue they follow middle of the road
policies and are not liberals; they claim they get results, and insist
that without them the Congress would be totally controlled by liberal
Democrats and Republicans would rarely have any success.

Conservatives respond that in the heyday of "Rockefeller liberalism"
in the GOP the Democrats always controlled Congress, and the GOP only
took power when Newt Gingrich launched a national conservative
"Contract with America" in 1994, ending 40 years of Democratic control
of the House.

The notion that we need to elect Democrat-lite type of politicians is
false. The election cycles of 2010 and 2012 proved that many RINO
candidates are unelectable. RINO candidates wasted millions of
dollars; Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Scott Brown, Linda McMahon, and
many others could not connect with the people in liberal blue states."

The political spectrum swings Left and Right in 40ish year cycles..and
its now swinging to the Right. Get used to it

Its actually quite refreshing to see a non politician winning the
Whitehouse and having a very smart very Conservative VP at his side,
heading up the Senate gives a pretty good backup.

If they manage to kill Trump, and I have absolute conviction that the
Left is going to try...they will have Pence.

It will be most interesting to watch the interaction between them.
Pence has been a politician for a long time..and will help keep Trump
pointed in the Constitutional direction.

We do indeed live in interesting times.

As for the Hildabeast...not a chance in hell she will win...losing in
a landslide..and the Democratic party will try desperately any form of
voter fraud they can..and after the last 20 yrs of egregious
efforts..will be caught, rounded up and jailed enmass.

Soros is gonna be truely screwed. One businessman against the
other....no rules, no padding..full contact.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[dca...@krl.org]

On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 11:39:58 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Trump is worse than Hillary. This is fact.

Or at least your opinion.

Dan

[edhun...@gmail.com]

You have created several problems for yourself with this contradictory pile of ideas, Gunner. First, Pence isn't going to "point" Trump in any direction. He's going to get pointed, and he'll have to follow Trump around like the guys who used to follow horses around with a broom and a dust pan. If Pence decides to push his conservative agenda, he'll be more like a dog chasing a car. God help him if he catches it.

There is nothing "conservative" about Trump's policies (his policies of the week, that is), and nothing ideological at all, really. They're classical populism. The central idea of all American populism, throughout our history, is this: "I'm not getting enough, and someone else is getting too much." The "someone else" often, as now, starts with a wealthy elite. Then the range of scapegoats expands, often (as now) including other racial or ethnic groups. It's a position based on resentment, which evolves into bitterness, and becomes hatred. For example, read any of your political posts. You hate and want to kill people who disagree with you politically.

Populism is not always misplaced. There was a lot of truth behind the "Free Silver" movement and the positions of the Populist Party of the late 1800s. Even now, resentment over the maldistribution of wealth and incomes is fair enough.

But the key points about American populism are that it's loaded with contradictions; it has no ideology behind it; it needs conspiracy theories to sustain it; and there is no foundation of principles or substantial goals to keep it alive.

So it always dies quickly. No matter what happens in this election, Trumpism will become old news before you know it. It may tear the Republican Party apart; conservatives are going to shape up as a resisting force before the inauguration, and they and the reactionary populists will be at each other's throats.

Once again, Gunner, you're going to find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

--
Ed Huntress

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 09:36:20 -0700

typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>

>>> Ed Huntress
>>>
>>> >
>>
>>What are the Republican talking points? My impression is the Republican party is fractured and there is no " Republican talking points ". There is Trump talking points , and Cruz talking points, and so on.
>>
>> Dan
>
>Indeed. Ed is a perfect example of "RINO Republican" that is going
>to go bye bye this election cycle. The People are pissed as hell and
>are going to vote for Trump..and a bunch of new Republicans ...simply
>to clear the deadwood and those RINOs who have made up the RP
>leadership for so long.
>
>http://www.conservapedia.com/RINO
>
>Better to try something new..than people like Bitch McConnel who bend
>over and take it in the ass from the Left.
>
>This has been happening for some years now...Romney, McCain.....
>
>"The RINO targets of attack argue they follow middle of the road
>policies and are not liberals; they claim they get results, and insist
>that without them the Congress would be totally controlled by liberal
>Democrats and Republicans would rarely have any success.

And the Government's Other Party Operatives have this teensy small
problem of trying to explain how the failure to repeal Obamacare,
defund Planned Parenthood, and then passing the Reid/Pelosi "Cronybus
2" budget is suppose to be a failure for the "liberals".
That last one was why I'm in the "GOP - Whigs for the 21st
Century" camp, and why so many people went for Trump.

[Gunner Asch]

Well said!

[Gunner Asch]

We have seen Wuddies opinion before. Typically with a 100% failure
rate. Shrug

Sucks to be his parents..if he knew who they were.

[Gemini Dreams]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 09:36:20 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The People are pissed as hell and
>are going to vote for Trump..and a bunch of new Republicans ...simply
>to clear the deadwood and those RINOs who have made up the RP
>leadership for so long.

Yet another Wieber deep political analysis!

Tag along readers, on a trip to yesteryear... the date was Tue, 25 Aug
2009, and Wieber graced the world with one of his infamous
predictions:

"The same Obama that now enjoys less than 50% approval rating?
The same Obama that is destroying the nation and the People are
awakening to this fact?

Snicker...a blind retard would win over Obama at this point.

But hey..in less than 3 yrs..all the Leftists will be dead or on the
run..so the point is moot anyways."

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.rush-limbaugh/lD-9YbYyy6Y/xEO2XwDyiBIJ

Some things never change, horrible Weiber predictions being one, and
his failure to learn from his mistakes and stop making galactically
stupid predictions being 2 and 3.

[Gemini Dreams]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 13:15:08 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 10:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "dca...@krl.org"
><dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 11:39:58 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> Trump is worse than Hillary. This is fact.
>>
>>Or at least your opinion.
>>
>> Dan
>
>We have seen Wuddies opinion before. Typically with a 100% failure
>rate. Shrug

You start by making up a number for somebody else's failure rate,
while neglecting to quantify your own. Has anybody anywhere ever been
more wrong than you?

>Sucks to be his parents..if he knew who they were.

Sucks to be someone who writes stuff like that, after writing stuff
like this:

"Gunner, student of history"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.machines.cnc/msg/7312daff1e449364

"Though I AM a student of history"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/msg/84be46090d3146f7

What history are you a student of, Wieber? Surely not the history of
your own failures, which you are unable to comprehend or admit,
despite Google making them so readily available.

[alvin...@geemail.org]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 09:36:20 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Gee, old gunner been telling us about the up-coming "cull" where all
the dead beats are going to disappear (not realizing that when he
talks about dead beats he is describing himself) for ten years or so.
Now he is telling us that Hillary is gonna lose.

I wonder? Will we have to wait ten years for that prediction to come
true? Longer?

If he is as accurate about Hillary as he is about the Great Cull it
looks like Hills is gonna be President for Life.

>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Unfortunately good old Avast plumb missed the weiber versus.
--

Alvin D.

[alvin...@geemail.org]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 13:14:08 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I see. "With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels
alone." And you shout "Well Said?"

A real truism if I ever heard one as you certainly could qualify to
the Poster boy" for that and prove, without doubt that "Age travels
alone". Or in modern Americanisms, "An feeble old fart without a
thought left in his head".
--

Alvin D.

[alvin...@geemail.org]

Sort of a "Modern American dumb ass" it could be said.
--

Alvin D.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/23/2016 10:07 AM, dca...@krl.org wrote:

>> Trump is worse than Hillary. This is fact.
>
> Or at least your opinion.

It's fact - that's *why* it's my opinion.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 2:29:54 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> >> Trump is worse than Hillary. This is fact.
> >
> > Or at least your opinion.
>
> It's fact - that's *why* it's my opinion.

It is a fact that it is your opinion. If it were a fact you ought to be able to cite a reference and have some numbers to substantiate your claim.

Dan

[Gunner Asch]

Widdle Wudy is really a brainless little dwork isnt he.....sad
really....very sad.

[Gemini Dreams]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 12:55:15 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 12:36:02 -0700 (PDT), "dca...@krl.org"
><dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 2:29:54 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> >> Trump is worse than Hillary. This is fact.
>>> >
>>> > Or at least your opinion.
>>>
>>> It's fact - that's *why* it's my opinion.
>>
>>It is a fact that it is your opinion. If it were a fact you ought to be able to cite a reference and have some numbers to substantiate your claim.
>>
>> Dan
>
>Widdle Wudy is really a brainless little dwork isnt he.....sad
>really....very sad.

Hey Wieber, can you explain why all those you accuse of being
brainless, have normal middle class lives, while you remain
perpetually broke?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/24/2016 12:36 PM, dca...@krl.org wrote:

>>>> Trump is worse than Hillary. This is fact.
>>>
>>> Or at least your opinion.
>>
>> It's fact - that's *why* it's my opinion.
>
> It is a fact

That's right. And that is precisely why it's my opinion.

Here's another fact: your pal gummer never rode a motorcycle at 264mph.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 8:03:46 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> >
> > It is a fact
>
> That's right. And that is precisely why it's my opinion.
>
> Here's another fact: your pal gummer never rode a motorcycle at 264mph.

What a clown. Cutting and pasting to obscure the fact that you are just posting an opinion. Do you really think the people that read this use group are that stupid?



Dan

[alvin...@geemail.org]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 12:55:15 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hmm... lets see. Feeble Weiber is calling Widdly Wudy names?

A guy who couldn't pass the intelligence test for a job packing
snacks is calling other people names?

It is sometimes called social envy, "resentful feelings against people
of a higher social class". Or in other words the envy of a complete
failure toward others who have jobs ( and who can pay their taxes)
--

Alvin D.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/24/2016 5:12 PM, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 8:03:46 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>>
>>> It is a fact
>>
>> That's right. And that is precisely why it's my opinion.
>>
>> Here's another fact: your pal gummer never rode a motorcycle at 264mph.
>
> What a clown. Cutting and pasting to obscure the fact that you are just posting an opinion.

I'm not. I'm posting a fact. Trump is objectively worse than Clinton,
even as bad as Clinton is.

Also, gummer never rode a motorcycle at 264mph.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 10:48:35 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:

You amuse me.

Dan

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/25/2016 7:59 AM, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 10:48:35 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> You amuse me.

Oh, you have me rolling on the floor laughing with tears gushing from my
eyes. You are so transparent and phony.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 11:17:58 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Oh, you have me rolling on the floor laughing with tears gushing from my
> eyes. You are so transparent and phony.

you are still amusing.

Dan

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 8:45:34 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 7/21/2016 6:22 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> >
> > Seems Michelle plagiarized Saul Alinkskys work.....
>
> I understand that! I quote Alinksky daily, along with Cloward and
> Piven. Where else can you find such concentrated wisdom?

That and the writings of Bill Ayers and Frank Marshall Davis are certainly more valuable than books that always seem to end on chapter 11.