OT: Shocking news

[bitrex]

The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
seriously, who knew?

It seems they just unpack him from his suspended animation pod every
decade or so, replace whatever preservative substance is in his veins
with real blood, and shock him back into action like Dr. Frankenstein.

I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say that the true loss to
America from this administration's cabinet will be to the rolls of AARP.

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
<bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>seriously, who knew?
>

What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.

Just as so much "science" is wrong.

Imagine the bunglers and back-stabbers of the Clinton team, who were
brutally wrong, who confidentally expected over 300 electoral votes,
who were sure that Pensylvania and Florida and Wisconsin were in the
bag, managing the economy and government and military of the USA.

Wrongness the the true hallmark of our times.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

[Martin Brown]

On 12/11/2016 06:30, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>> seriously, who knew?
>>
>
> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>
> Just as so much "science" is wrong.

Polling data isn't science. Most of the Trump voters were too ashamed to
admit that they were going to vote for a misogynistic demagogue.

> Imagine the bunglers and back-stabbers of the Clinton team, who were
> brutally wrong, who confidentally expected over 300 electoral votes,
> who were sure that Pensylvania and Florida and Wisconsin were in the
> bag, managing the economy and government and military of the USA.
>
> Wrongness the the true hallmark of our times.

You mean like electing the wrong President?

Looks like he is already reneging on his election promises...

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Tom Gardner]

On 12/11/16 09:37, Martin Brown wrote:

> Looks like he is already reneging on his election promises...

I wonder if this anecdote foreshadows the future...

In 1967 there was a nasty civil war in Biafra/Nigeria.
One of the perps, General Yakubu "Jack" Dan-Yumma Gowon,
later came to the University of Warwick, where he was
a godsend to the political science department :)

There's a board game called "Diplomacy" where you can
make mutual assistance pacts with the other players
in order to try to gain world dominance. There is
nothing in the rules which prevents reneging on such
pacts; that makes the game interesting.

My cousin used to play Diplomacy with Gowon, and Gowon,
despite his demonstrable real-world experience, always
lost heavily.

Why? Because the other players completely distrusted
Gowan's ability to keep to his word, so they would
never enter any pact with him.

Apparently Trump has already said that it doesn't
matter what he said during the campaign, because
he won.

People are not doing deals with Boris Johnson because
he is a proven liar - and they say that to his face.

[Rob]

Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>>
>> Just as so much "science" is wrong.
>
> Polling data isn't science. Most of the Trump voters were too ashamed to
> admit that they were going to vote for a misogynistic demagogue.

That often affects the polls for persons and parties with extremist
views. Also, I don't understand why it matters that "experts were
so wrong". For elections, only the result matters, not the predictions.

> Looks like he is already reneging on his election promises...

Over here, politicians operate in different modes. Campaign mode
(pre-election) and operating mode are completely different. In
campaign mode they promise lots of things, later they just say the
opposite. In our case they can easily cover that up because there
is never one party in the government so there is always a compromise.
However, it is my belief they would even do that when they would
have full control.

Our prime minister is known to make promises all the time, that he
can easily know he never will be able to fulfill, then later he just
apologizes and moves on making more promises. It appears to be
completely wired in his mind that political promises are only to
win elections and do not matter afterwards.

[bill....@ieee.org]

And John Larkin is the man of the moment.

Nate Silver did point out that he was assessing probabilities. While a victory for Clinton did look more probable than one for Trump the odds were no better than 2:1 and that in his sports predictions those sort of odds left the predicted winner losing once in roughly three events.

After the event it's easy to claim that the odds were wrong, and Brexit does suggest an explanation. Some commentators drew attention to the Brexit misprediction before the election. UK and US working-class politics are wildly different, but both groups are facing a lot of unemployment, and are consequently susceptible to anti-immigrant lies.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bitrex]

On 11/12/2016 05:23 AM, Rob wrote:
> Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>>>
>>> Just as so much "science" is wrong.
>>
>> Polling data isn't science. Most of the Trump voters were too ashamed to
>> admit that they were going to vote for a misogynistic demagogue.
>
> That often affects the polls for persons and parties with extremist
> views. Also, I don't understand why it matters that "experts were
> so wrong". For elections, only the result matters, not the predictions.
>
>> Looks like he is already reneging on his election promises...
>
> Over here, politicians operate in different modes. Campaign mode
> (pre-election) and operating mode are completely different. In
> campaign mode they promise lots of things, later they just say the
> opposite.

It sometimes takes a while for us (them? not really sure anymore) to
figure out we've been had, but it isn't like we always just shrug our
shoulders and chalk campaign promises up to "pillow talk."

Politicians can and do fall on the swords of their broken promises.
Americans can be a very fickle bunch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_no_new_taxes

[bitrex]

Yeah, the odds were off because even what you might call the "limousine
Conservatives", whose ideology is one of free markets, fiscal restraint,
and smaller government, were detached from just how White Pride the
Conservative base really was.

My impression is that much of the base doesn't care so much about those
Ivy League Cato Institute academic notions - they simply went along with
them because it was the best cover story at the time. They like jobs and
whiteness, and would be perfectly content with whatever political
philosophy could make it happen, even, ah, some fashion of Socialist one.

[Rob]

bitrex <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> Politicians can and do fall on the swords of their broken promises.
> Americans can be a very fickle bunch.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_no_new_taxes

Our current prime minister is sometimes reminded that during campaign he
promised to lower taxes by 1000 euro for every working person, something
that of course never materialized.

But that did not keep him from making more promises about things that
are not even under his control...

[bitrex]

Yes, and one of the biggest failings was of the "limousine
Conservatives" (or in the case of sociopath ghouls like Peter Thiel,
"Spaceship Conservatives") to recognize why DT had a shot at winning
where McCain and Romney lost.

Even as a liberal, McCain and Romney were certainly to my mind more
appealing people than Donald Trump, with a more appealing message, by a
longshot. I likely wouldn't have been particularly happy with Mitt or
McCain as POTUS, but in some sense I'd rationalize it to myself as
"Okay, these are very much in the similar vein as the guys I've seen
before, we can probably work together."

And finally the Conservative base didn't really want those guys, for
what I would say is exactly that reason. "Working together" was a nice
concept to pay lip service to, but it was never something that was
particularly on the table.

When Conservatives say regarding DT "We want an outsider President not
beholden to the establishment" what I hear is "We want a President so
repulsive that none of the bad guys even want to deal with him."

And, when as has been posted here so many times, that you guys believe
you're in a fight to the death against "wimps" and "degenerates", that
makes it easier to "win."

For my part, I did prefer the devils that I knew to the devil that I
don't, I'll admit it ("devil" is used as a figure of speech here, btw.)
If Romney had won in 2012, I think it's rather unlikely there would be
guys roaring around my city waving Confederate flags and Romney banners,
shouting racial slurs out the window, as if the Republican party had
just won Desert Storm.

That's definitely the devil that I don't know, and an America I don't
understand.

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 1:30:33 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
> >Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
> >seriously, who knew?
> >
>
> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.

Actually they were not wrong, they were delusionally over optimistic. Clinton won everywhere the polls came in comfortably above the MOE, say 4-5% range or more. Then she just happened to lose everywhere the polls fell within the MOE. The major failing of the DNC was selecting a candidate that was predicted to have polling this close when they had others with predicted polling well above Clinton, even O'Malley would have done better.

>
> Just as so much "science" is wrong.
>
> Imagine the bunglers and back-stabbers of the Clinton team, who were
> brutally wrong, who confidentally expected over 300 electoral votes,
> who were sure that Pensylvania and Florida and Wisconsin were in the
> bag, managing the economy and government and military of the USA.

Well that's the thing, and getting these f_ck-ups out of government is a good thing.

>
> Wrongness the the true hallmark of our times.

It's the era of leadership fraud, and it's not just the public sector, the private sector has been operating this way for 40 years now! Society is in deep trouble when it gets cornered into relying on politicians to do anything- they are the most worthless do-nothing bunch of scum to be found anywhere. Now that we're down to the wire on taking real action on CO2 pollution, it's over for mankind, by the time it REALLY becomes obvious to the idiots, we will have tripped into the point of no return, and this will be coming up shortly.

[John Larkin]

Of course you don't understand it. That was my point. Hardly anybody
understands it, but that doesn't inhibit them from trying to control
it.

[Tom Del Rosso]

bitrex wrote:
> how
> White Pride the Conservative base really was.

You know jack shit about conservatives.

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 06:35:16 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 1:30:33 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
>> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>> >Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>> >seriously, who knew?
>> >
>>
>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>
>Actually they were not wrong, they were delusionally over optimistic.

There's a difference?

> Clinton won everywhere the polls came in comfortably above the MOE, say 4-5% range or more. Then she just happened to lose everywhere the polls fell within the MOE. The major failing of the DNC was selecting a candidate that was predicted to have polling this close when they had others with predicted polling well above Clinton, even O'Malley would have done better.
>
>>
>> Just as so much "science" is wrong.
>>
>> Imagine the bunglers and back-stabbers of the Clinton team, who were
>> brutally wrong, who confidentally expected over 300 electoral votes,
>> who were sure that Pensylvania and Florida and Wisconsin were in the
>> bag, managing the economy and government and military of the USA.
>
>
>Well that's the thing, and getting these f_ck-ups out of government is a good thing.
>
>>
>> Wrongness the the true hallmark of our times.
>
>
>It's the era of leadership fraud, and it's not just the public sector, the private sector has been operating this way for 40 years now! Society is in deep trouble when it gets cornered into relying on politicians to do anything- they are the most worthless do-nothing bunch of scum to be found anywhere. Now that we're down to the wire on taking real action on CO2 pollution, it's over for mankind, by the time it REALLY becomes obvious to the idiots, we will have tripped into the point of no return, and this will be coming up shortly.

We need a back-to-basics, old-time-morality, MicroEconomics 101
approach to managing society. Anything past that smashes in to the
wrongness, the inability to understand causality in complex chaotic
systems. Experts keep pushing on the wrong nodes and getting
unexpected results.

[Mike Perkins]

On 12/11/2016 11:54, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

<snip>

> After the event it's easy to claim that the odds were wrong, and
> Brexit does suggest an explanation. Some commentators drew attention
> to the Brexit misprediction before the election. UK and US
> working-class politics are wildly different, but both groups are
> facing a lot of unemployment, and are consequently susceptible to
> anti-immigrant lies.

Which lies are they, that there has been an excess of 250,000 net
migration into the UK for the past few years, the official figures
issued in May 2016 were 330,000?

UK employment is at an all time high, but UK wages aren't. In respect of
wages I think you'll find the same is true your side of the pond.

Politics is all lies, the ones told on one side are no different to the
other. The only time there is an accusation of a lie and subsequent
abuse is where they have lost, not only the election but also the argument.

--
Mike Perkins
Video Solutions Ltd
www.videosolutions.ltd.uk

[John Larkin]

The election was swung by individuals who voted for Barack Obama last
time, and voted for Donald Trump this time.

[bitrex]

You seem so upset. I'm sorry I touched such a sensitive topic for you.

[bitrex]

You don't seem to recognize that this is a red herring to the actual
issue, and in fact sort of proves my point: US elections for the past 25
years or so have often been decided by what is a finally _trivial_
number of voters in "swing states."

I can't speak to the reasons for why a bunch of perpetually undecided
Florida and Ohio voters do what they do - they may not even understand
themselves. What I'm speaking to is the ~45 million voters who vote for
Conservative candidates every single election, be it Reagan, Romney,
McCain, Trump, or the Grand Pubah of Zanzibar, so long as they have the
color red on their logo, and from all indications turned out in larger
than expected numbers to support this guy than the previous two.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/11/09/largest-evangelical-turnout-in-history-helps-donald-trump-defeat-pro-abortion-hillary-clinton/

But why this time and not last? Certainly Barack Obama was every bit as
pro-abortion as Hillary Clinton.

Oh, and DT has stated he never once asked God for forgiveness, either.

Can you imagine guys in lifted trucks flying Confederate flags driving
around celebrating with Mitt Romney flags hanging from their windows as
if they personally won Desert Storm?

Hmm.

[bitrex]

On 11/12/2016 11:33 AM, John Larkin wrote:

> Of course you don't understand it. That was my point. Hardly anybody
> understands it, but that doesn't inhibit them from trying to control
> it.

Do you? Are you the only one, or are there others? Where can I discover
this secret knowledge of which all the other intelligent people in the
world are unable to comprehended?

[bitrex]

On 11/12/2016 11:33 AM, John Larkin wrote:

> Of course you don't understand it. That was my point. Hardly anybody
> understands it, but that doesn't inhibit them from trying to control
> it.

This is bordering on some fashion of Rosicrucian/Gnostic esotericism
type of explanation, John.

[bitrex]

Which results are the ones you want?

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>> seriously, who knew?
>>
>
> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.

The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They
make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know
how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get
what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that
will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It
doesn't always work.



--
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

[John Larkin]

High-gain, un-understood chaotic systems are hard to control. The
universe works that way.

What's impressive is that "experts" think they do understand, and can
control, such systems.

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:46:48 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>John Larkin wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
>> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>> seriously, who knew?
>>>
>>
>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>
>
> The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They
>make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know
>how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get
>what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that
>will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It
>doesn't always work.

The New York Times has "rededicated" itself to honest reporting. I
only regret that I had but one subscription to cancel.

[M Philbrook]

In article <yZIVz.51559$WD2....@fx35.iad>,
bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net says...

Looking at your track record, you don't appear to be the sharpest tool
in the shed.

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

Den lørdag den 12. november 2016 kl. 19.46.55 UTC+1 skrev Michael Terrell:
> John Larkin wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
> > <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
> >> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
> >> seriously, who knew?
> >>
> >
> > What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
> > paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
> > a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>
>
> The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They
> make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know
> how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get
> what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that
> will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It
> doesn't always work.

Cheating on the polls would be stupid, the reason Clinton lost was that
the media kept saying she was sure to win so her voted didn't bother to
go vote

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

Den lørdag den 12. november 2016 kl. 07.30.33 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
> >Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
> >seriously, who knew?
> >
>
> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>

Michael Moore of all people said that Trump would win and even made
a powerful speech as to why.

https://youtu.be/wxDRqeuLNag

[John Larkin]

I think a lot of votes were deliberate middle-finger-salutes to the
mudstream press. The flyover, uneducated, working-class people got
tired of being mocked and exploited by the coastal elites that they
feed.

[bitrex]

It was my impression that the "coastal elites" primarily mocked the
overtly bigoted working-class people, so why the rest of the simple
country folk would become angered by aspersions cast on people whose
values they are also in active opposition to, or at least do not share,
is certainly anyone's guess.

[Tom Gardner]

I doubt voters cared much about the /press/. Thumbing their noses
to those in power is far more plausible.

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, the renowned bitrex

<bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>seriously, who knew?
>

>It seems they just unpack him from his suspended animation pod every
>decade or so, replace whatever preservative substance is in his veins
>with real blood, and shock him back into action like Dr. Frankenstein.
>
>I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say that the true loss to
>America from this administration's cabinet will be to the rolls of AARP.

I was invited to an event here in the Toronto area with Speaker Newt
at the end of September. He (along with Laura Ingram) did a reasonable
and fairly articulate job defending Trump. He wouldn't be the worst
possible choice for Sec. State.

What role do you suggest for Pat Buchanan?

--sp

--
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Amazon link for AoE 3rd Edition: http://tinyurl.com/ntrpwu8

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 1:44:37 PM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:
> On 11/12/2016 04:36 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:30:38 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
> > <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
> >
> >> Den lørdag den 12. november 2016 kl. 19.46.55 UTC+1 skrev Michael Terrell:
> >>> John Larkin wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
> >>>> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
> >>>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
> >>>>> seriously, who knew?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
> >>>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
> >>>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They
> >>> make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know
> >>> how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get
> >>> what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that
> >>> will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It
> >>> doesn't always work.
> >>
> >> Cheating on the polls would be stupid, the reason Clinton lost was that
> >> the media kept saying she was sure to win so her voted didn't bother to
> >> go vote

I must admit that the Dems are showing unusual sense in not claiming voter fraud after more or less discounting it earlier (more or less because they did leave wiggle room that the Russians might hack the vote in Trump's favor).

Maybe they just didn't want to go through the "hanging chad" embarrassment again.

> > I think a lot of votes were deliberate middle-finger-salutes to the
> > mudstream press. The flyover, uneducated, working-class people got
> > tired of being mocked and exploited by the coastal elites that they
> > feed.
>
> It was my impression that the "coastal elites" primarily mocked the
> overtly bigoted working-class people,

Are you even capable of recognizing that you're parroting the DNC stereotype of all working-class-whites-are-bigots, much less refraining from it?

Perhaps you fancy yourself to be one of the elite...

> so why the rest of the simple
> country folk would become angered by aspersions cast on people whose
> values they are also in active opposition to, or at least do not share,
> is certainly anyone's guess.

"Simple country folk" know when they're being insulted.

Apparently it takes a Brit comedian to "get" what so many of America's lamestream elites don't (NSFW):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs


Mark L. Fergerson

[Spehro Pefhany]

It's *almost* as if, when you keep labeling people who disagree with
you racist, homophobic, sexist Nazi pigs, they'll eventually turn on
you. Hmmm.

[bitrex]

I don't know, when Conservative comedians poke fun at $8 Starbucks latte
drinking academic hipster social justice warriors from NYC, I think it's
pretty funny, too. They are insufferable, aren't they?

I don't get upset, because that's not me. Why does Real America take it
so personally? Maybe they need thicker skins. What a bunch of cupcakes.

[bitrex]

On 11/12/2016 05:07 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> "Simple country folk" know when they're being insulted.

Oh, honey. Did you feel insulted? Did the big man need a safe space
because someone made some meanie-head jokes?

[bule...@columbus.rr.com]

Nate silver punted on the election. He had trump at 30% which was the threshold he set to stay credible and not get laughed at when hillary beat him. He knew something was not right. He started calling a lot of state elections at 50 50. I kind of felt sorry for him cause i think he knew he was in a box.

[bule...@columbus.rr.com]

I read that. The bagdad bob speeches were more believable

[bitrex]

I think part of the problem is that there isn't some gold standard of
racism, sexism, or homophobia to go by. There is no "sexist" measuring
stick maintained by the NIST like a platinum meter bar, or one for
homophobia, or one for racism.

Some people want a wall, and some don't. Some of the people who don't
believe that construction of it would be racist, and when they make that
statement it's not out of intentional malice, they're simply stating a
fact which they know, as obvious on its face as that the sky is blue.

And you're sitting around wondering why in the world they're calling you
a racist, and they're sitting around wondering how in the world you
can't notice that the sky is blue.

How did they get that way? Well, they probably learned it in a "liberal
university" slash indoctrination center. If that's the case, then it
starts to make you wonder if anyone can be trained to believe just about
anything.

And if that's the case, what room is left for moral absolutes?

[bitrex]

If I absolutely had to pick, Secretary of Defense, probably.

[bitrex]

Reason being is that he's finally right, it's not worth facing down a
nuclear conflict over the Ukraine or Georgia. What some of the other
Conservative hawks available for the job would suggest in that situation
is definitely anyone's guess.

The question is would Russia be satisfied with that. Unfortunately,
probably not. Maybe we'll all be uploaded into computers before we have
to worry about it. Probably not.

As it sees is popular to say these days: least-worst option.

[John Larkin]

Comedian?

[krw]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 11:35:05 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
<fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

>bitrex wrote:
>> how
>> White Pride the Conservative base really was.
>

>You know jack shit about conservatives.
>

Liars lie. Did you expect otherwise?

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 17:04:33 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, the renowned bitrex
><bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>seriously, who knew?
>>
>>It seems they just unpack him from his suspended animation pod every
>>decade or so, replace whatever preservative substance is in his veins
>>with real blood, and shock him back into action like Dr. Frankenstein.
>>
>>I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say that the true loss to
>>America from this administration's cabinet will be to the rolls of AARP.
>
>I was invited to an event here in the Toronto area with Speaker Newt
>at the end of September. He (along with Laura Ingram) did a reasonable
>and fairly articulate job defending Trump. He wouldn't be the worst
>possible choice for Sec. State.
>

Wow, imagine meetings between Newt and some EC bigwigs. What fun.

[krw]

Prosperity works for me. Too bad there are 95M who can't find jobs.

[krw]

Which is exactly what the lefties in this group are doing.

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

he is actually an actor playing a news reporter, that a made up
character makes more sense that actual news says a lot

[bitrex]

On 11/12/2016 06:31 PM, krw wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 17:09:17 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
> <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:36:32 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
>> <jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:30:38 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
>>> <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Den lørdag den 12. november 2016 kl. 19.46.55 UTC+1 skrev Michael Terrell:
>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
>>>>>> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>>>>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>>>>>> seriously, who knew?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>>>>>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>>>>>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They
>>>>> make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know
>>>>> how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get
>>>>> what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that
>>>>> will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It
>>>>> doesn't always work.

>>>>at

>>>> Cheating on the polls would be stupid, the reason Clinton lost was that
>>>> the media kept saying she was sure to win so her voted didn't bother to
>>>> go vote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think a lot of votes were deliberate middle-finger-salutes to the
>>> mudstream press. The flyover, uneducated, working-class people got
>>> tired of being mocked and exploited by the coastal elites that they
>>> feed.
>>
>> It's *almost* as if, when you keep labeling people who disagree with
>> you racist, homophobic, sexist Nazi pigs, they'll eventually turn on
>> you. Hmmm.
>
> Which is exactly what the lefties in this group are doing.
>

You seem to conflate harsh words with thinly-veiled threats to fire off
a few rounds in retaliation for them. Perhaps that's one of the few
methods of self-expression you're familiar with, but I assure you
they're not really in the same ballpark.

I would say that whatever words liberals say that offend you, my best
guess is that the overwhelming majority of us don't go to bed thinking
"Gosh, I wonder what I can do tomorrow to make Conservatives suffer a
bit more." While you probably feel his methods were misguided, if Obama
woke up tomorrow and every jobless Conservative had suddenly become
employed by a new business I'm sure there would be few people more
pleased than he would be.

Conversely, a large fraction of the anti-Left posts I see here are chock
full of violent, vengeful fantasies. Sadly, I can only conclude that the
main reason for the rage is simply because it's an amusing pastime;
because it's fun.

[bitrex]

I have literally talked to parents who had their own children shot to
death by gang members who were far less angry at the assailants than
some of the posters here seem to be over...mean names someone somewhere
called them.

[bitrex]

Sort of like that time SNL ran a "spoof" debate show and the comedians
just read the transcript of the debates verbatim

[krw]

Ah, the little snowflake is scareded.

>
>I would say that whatever words liberals say that offend you, my best
>guess is that the overwhelming majority of us don't go to bed thinking
>"Gosh, I wonder what I can do tomorrow to make Conservatives suffer a
>bit more." While you probably feel his methods were misguided, if Obama
>woke up tomorrow and every jobless Conservative had suddenly become
>employed by a new business I'm sure there would be few people more
>pleased than he would be.

Bullshit. You go to bed thinking about how you can control
(everyone). If you don't those you support *certainly* do. The ends
justify the means (which you do believe in).

>
>Conversely, a large fraction of the anti-Left posts I see here are chock
>full of violent, vengeful fantasies. Sadly, I can only conclude that the
>main reason for the rage is simply because it's an amusing pastime;
>because it's fun.
>

You're full of shit but I'm not telling anyone anything new.

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 8:09:02 AM UTC+11, M Philbrook wrote:
> In article <yZIVz.51559$WD2....@fx35.iad>,
> bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net says...
> >
> > On 11/12/2016 11:33 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> > > Of course you don't understand it. That was my point. Hardly anybody
> > > understands it, but that doesn't inhibit them from trying to control
> > > it.
> >
> > Do you? Are you the only one, or are there others? Where can I discover
> > this secret knowledge of which all the other intelligent people in the
> > world are unable to comprehended?
>
> Looking at your track record, you don't appear to be the sharpest tool
> in the shed.

Jamie's judgement about who might be the sharpest tool in the shed is not entirely reliable. Intellectually speaking, he's not even a tool - he's of absolutely no use to anybody, except perhaps as an example of what the gullible half-wit might be thinking.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 5:53:53 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:15:33 -0500, bitrex
> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >On 11/12/2016 11:33 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> >> Of course you don't understand it. That was my point. Hardly anybody
> >> understands it, but that doesn't inhibit them from trying to control
> >> it.
> >

> >This is bordering on some fashion of Rosicrucian/Gnostic esotericism
> >type of explanation, John.
>
> High-gain, un-understood chaotic systems are hard to control. The
> universe works that way.
>
> What's impressive is that "experts" think they do understand, and can
> control, such systems.

What's even more impressive is that experts sometimes can. John Larkin doesn't know about that kind of stuff, and doesn't realise that there's information out there that he could know if he worked at finding it out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_chaos

What he does know has been spoon fed to him by the Murdoch media, and he doesn't know enough to realise that they aren't entirely reliable.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

> >>>>> Cheating at the polls would be stupid, the reason Clinton lost was that

> >>>>> the media kept saying she was sure to win so her voted didn't bother to

> >>>>> go vote.

Probably not the whole story.

> >>>> I think a lot of votes were deliberate middle-finger-salutes to the
> >>>> mudstream press. The flyover, uneducated, working-class people got
> >>>> tired of being mocked and exploited by the coastal elites that they
> >>>> feed.
> >>>
> >>> It's *almost* as if, when you keep labeling people who disagree with
> >>> you racist, homophobic, sexist Nazi pigs, they'll eventually turn on
> >>> you. Hmmm.
> >>
> >> Which is exactly what the lefties in this group are doing.

Not that I've noticed. I've certainly spent time pointing out that Clinton labelled half of Trumps's supporters as deplorable, which was only a quarter of the population, at most.

> >You seem to conflate harsh words with thinly-veiled threats to fire off
> >a few rounds in retaliation for them. Perhaps that's one of the few
> >methods of self-expression you're familiar with, but I assure you
> >they're not really in the same ballpark.
>

> Ah, the little snowflake is scared.

That kind of threat has been made here from time to time, but never acted on. Nobody in their right mind would be scared about it, but one has to wonder about the mental health standards that make it any kind of remotely tolerable behaviour. Making that kind of threat doesn't make you a dangerous nutter, but there are dangerous nutters who have made that kind of threat before delivering on it.

> >I would say that whatever words liberals say that offend you, my best
> >guess is that the overwhelming majority of us don't go to bed thinking
> >"Gosh, I wonder what I can do tomorrow to make Conservatives suffer a
> >bit more." While you probably feel his methods were misguided, if Obama
> >woke up tomorrow and every jobless Conservative had suddenly become
> >employed by a new business I'm sure there would be few people more
> >pleased than he would be.
>
> Bullshit. You go to bed thinking about how you can control
> (everyone). If you don't those you support *certainly* do. The ends
> justify the means (which you do believe in).

Krw is confident enough about what he knows to make that kind of assertion. If he had a working brain in his head he'd realise that that it had to be total nonsense - he's merely articulated what he believes to be the communist agenda (not that any communist would have expressed it quite that way). The fact that he thinks that socialists think that way is pure ignorance - the socialists kicked Marx out of the movement in 1870 precisely because they thought that that particular aberration would lead to tyranny, which it did.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Martin]

Oh no! Buchanan-fodder?

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 9:04:37 AM UTC+11, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, the renowned bitrex
> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
> >Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
> >seriously, who knew?
> >
> >It seems they just unpack him from his suspended animation pod every
> >decade or so, replace whatever preservative substance is in his veins
> >with real blood, and shock him back into action like Dr. Frankenstein.
> >
> >I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say that the true loss to
> >America from this administration's cabinet will be to the rolls of AARP.
>
> I was invited to an event here in the Toronto area with Speaker Newt
> at the end of September. He (along with Laura Ingram) did a reasonable
> and fairly articulate job defending Trump. He wouldn't be the worst
> possible choice for Sec. State.

Anybody who has been censured for an ethics violation isn't a good choice for dealing with people who might bribe him.

> What role do you suggest for Pat Buchanan?

Since they shut Bedlam to the public there haven't been any obvious options.

The house of Representatives has a minority leader, but there's no post of rabid minority leader, because there's no official rabid minority party - the Tea Party is merely a rabid faction of the Republican Party.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bill....@ieee.org]

They'd give him money, and both sides would emerge happy. The US national interest might not. What did you think being censured for ethics violations actually means?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Alie...@gmail.com]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Yeah, sure, when a candidate I dislike least doesn't win, I totally lose it; I threaten to leave the country (but never do), blame everyone but the candidate, go out in the streets and riot and burn cars and shoot people just like Conserva... no, wait.

After all these years it's fairly clear that Dems vote with their emotions instead of their brains *and assume everyone else does too*.

Carry your own emotional baggage, boy. I won't do it for you.


Mark L. Fergerson

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 8:48:43 PM UTC+11, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 2:26:52 PM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:
> > On 11/12/2016 05:07 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> >
> > > "Simple country folk" know when they're being insulted.
> >
> > Oh, honey. Did you feel insulted? Did the big man need a safe space
> > because someone made some meanie-head jokes?
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> Yeah, sure, when a candidate I dislike least doesn't win, I totally lose it; I threaten to leave the country (but never do), blame everyone but the candidate, go out in the streets and riot and burn cars and shoot people just like Conserva... no, wait.
>
> After all these years it's fairly clear that Dems vote with their emotions instead of their brains *and assume everyone else does too*.

There are perfectly rational reasons for being upset that the least qualified candidate for president ever has won a majority of the electoral college votes.

> Carry your own emotional baggage, boy. I won't do it for you.

There's nothing emotional about being unhappy that a candidate distinguished only by "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" has won the election.

We can only hope that the electoral college does the job it was designed to do, and throws him out.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bitrex]

On 11/13/2016 04:48 AM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 2:26:52 PM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:
>> On 11/12/2016 05:07 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>>
>>> "Simple country folk" know when they're being insulted.
>>
>> Oh, honey. Did you feel insulted? Did the big man need a safe space
>> because someone made some meanie-head jokes?
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>

> I threaten to leave the country (but never do)

Tell me, after you beat your wife, do you get even angrier when she
tells you she wants a divorce?

> blame everyone but the candidate

Why would I blame someone who isn't deserving of blame?

> go out in the streets and riot and burn cars and shoot people just like Conserva... no, wait.

Nobody has shot anyone. However, I do know that Conservative guys here
constantly post and fantasize about getting a chance to use their
arsenal, to the point that one can only assume they must get some
quasi-sexual thrill out of it.

[bitrex]

On 11/12/2016 10:52 PM, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

>>> I would say that whatever words liberals say that offend you, my best
>>> guess is that the overwhelming majority of us don't go to bed thinking
>>> "Gosh, I wonder what I can do tomorrow to make Conservatives suffer a
>>> bit more." While you probably feel his methods were misguided, if Obama
>>> woke up tomorrow and every jobless Conservative had suddenly become
>>> employed by a new business I'm sure there would be few people more
>>> pleased than he would be.
>>

>> Bullshit. You go to behd thinking about how you can control

>> (everyone). If you don't those you support *certainly* do. The ends
>> justify the means (which you do believe in).
>
> Krw is confident enough about what he knows to make that kind of assertion. If he had a working brain in his head he'd realise that that it had to be total nonsense - he's merely articulated what he believes to be the communist agenda (not that any communist would have expressed it quite that way). The fact that he thinks that socialists think that way is pure ignorance - the socialists kicked Marx out of the movement in 1870 precisely because they thought that that particular aberration would lead to tyranny, which it did.
>

He doesn't believe it, because to his mind it's a totally ridiculous
notion that anyone in the world isn't constantly pondering how they can
control him, as it's clear that's what _he_ thinks about a great
majority of the time. If someone tells him different, the only
"rational" explanation must be that they're simply lying to him.

In psychology, this is known as "projection."

[M Philbrook]

In article <ddf0cf3d-e03f-4741...@googlegroups.com>,
bill....@ieee.org says...

It looks like you took a page out of your own biography.

Its been said experience is a better teacher. Thanks for sharing a
little of that about yourself.

Jamie

[M Philbrook]

In article <2d9f2ct9gpjjiaqlu...@4ax.com>,
k...@somewhere.com says...

> >>
> >>>
> >>> It's the era of leadership fraud, and it's not just the public sector, the private sector has been operating this way for 40 years now! Society is in deep trouble when it gets cornered into relying on politicians to do anything- they are the most worthless do-nothing bunch of scum to be found anywhere. Now that we're down to the wire on taking real action on CO2 pollution, it's over for mankind, by the time it REALLY becomes obvious to the idiots, we will have
tripped into the point of no return, and this will be coming up shortly.
> >>
> >> We need a back-to-basics, old-time-morality, MicroEconomics 101
> >> approach to managing society. Anything past that smashes in to the
> >> wrongness, the inability to understand causality in complex chaotic
> >> systems. Experts keep pushing on the wrong nodes and getting
> >> unexpected results.
> >
> >Which results are the ones you want?
>
> Prosperity works for me. Too bad there are 95M who can't find jobs.

> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 18:29:20 -0500
>
>

Is that the latest count of those out of work or those that really
want to work?

Jamie

[M Philbrook]

In article <8U0Wz.33634$Uz2....@fx29.iad>,
bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net says...

> >> pleased than he would be.
> >>
> >> Bullshit. You go to behd thinking about how you can control
> >> (everyone). If you don't those you support *certainly* do. The ends
> >> justify the means (which you do believe in).
> >
> > Krw is confident enough about what he knows to make that kind of assertion. If he had a working brain in his head he'd realise that that it had to be total nonsense - he's merely articulated what he believes to be the communist agenda (not that any communist would have expressed it quite that way). The fact that he thinks that socialists think that way is pure ignorance - the socialists kicked Marx out of the movement in 1870 precisely because they thought that that
particular aberration would lead to tyranny, which it did.
> >
>
> He doesn't believe it, because to his mind it's a totally ridiculous
> notion that anyone in the world isn't constantly pondering how they can
> control him, as it's clear that's what _he_ thinks about a great
> majority of the time. If someone tells him different, the only
> "rational" explanation must be that they're simply lying to him.
>
> In psychology, this is known as "projection."

> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:53:23 -0500
>
>

Conspiring with Slow-Man will get you a lot of popularity points.

Jamie

[M Philbrook]

In article <Dg0Wz.71357$EI2....@fx06.iad>,
bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net says...

>
> On 11/13/2016 04:48 AM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 2:26:52 PM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:
> >> On 11/12/2016 05:07 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Simple country folk" know when they're being insulted.
> >>
> >> Oh, honey. Did you feel insulted? Did the big man need a safe space
> >> because someone made some meanie-head jokes?
> >
> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> >
> > I threaten to leave the country (but never do)
>
> Tell me, after you beat your wife, do you get even angrier when she
> tells you she wants a divorce?

No one here even talked or made comment about beating their spouse.

Leads me to believe you are projecting your personally traits on
others.

I really have no problem with that however, spouse beating isn't a
good use of badgering.

You really should be careful with the choice of tools you pick in a
battle you obviously can't win.

Do you think you have impunity?

Jamie

[bitrex]

Pretty sure I wasn't particularly popular already. ;-)

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 12:07:03 -0500, M Philbrook wrote:

> It looks like you took a page out of your own biography.

Yeah, Sloman projecting again. Gets tiresome after a while.

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:02:58 -0500, bitrex
<bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 11/12/2016 12:50 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:14:05 -0500, bitrex
>> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/12/2016 06:54 AM, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 5:30:33 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex

>>>>> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>>>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>>>>> seriously, who knew?
>>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>>>>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>>>>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>>>>>

>>>>> Just as so much "science" is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine the bunglers and back-stabbers of the Clinton team, who were
>>>>> brutally wrong, who confidentally expected over 300 electoral votes,
>>>>> who were sure that Pensylvania and Florida and Wisconsin were in the
>>>>> bag, managing the economy and government and military of the USA.
>>>>>

>>>>> Wrongness the the true hallmark of our times.
>>>>

>>>> And John Larkin is the man of the moment.
>>>>
>>>> Nate Silver did point out that he was assessing probabilities. While a victory for Clinton did look more probable than one for Trump the odds were no better than 2:1 and that in his sports predictions those sort of odds left the predicted winner losing once in roughly three events.
>>>>
>>>> After the event it's easy to claim that the odds were wrong, and Brexit does suggest an explanation. Some commentators drew attention to the Brexit misprediction before the election. UK and US working-class politics are wildly different, but both groups are facing a lot of unemployment, and are consequently susceptible to anti-immigrant lies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, the odds were off because even what you might call the "limousine
>>> Conservatives", whose ideology is one of free markets, fiscal restraint,
>>> and smaller government, were detached from just how White Pride the
>>> Conservative base really was.
>>>
>>
>> The election was swung by individuals who voted for Barack Obama last
>> time, and voted for Donald Trump this time.
>
>You don't seem to recognize that this is a red herring to the actual
>issue, and in fact sort of proves my point: US elections for the past 25
>years or so have often been decided by what is a finally _trivial_
>number of voters in "swing states."
>
>I can't speak to the reasons for why a bunch of perpetually undecided
>Florida and Ohio voters do what they do - they may not even understand
>themselves. What I'm speaking to is the ~45 million voters who vote for
>Conservative candidates every single election, be it Reagan, Romney,
>McCain, Trump, or the Grand Pubah of Zanzibar, so long as they have the
>color red on their logo, and from all indications turned out in larger
>than expected numbers to support this guy than the previous two.
>
>http://www.lifenews.com/2016/11/09/largest-evangelical-turnout-in-history-helps-donald-trump-defeat-pro-abortion-hillary-clinton/
>
>But why this time and not last? Certainly Barack Obama was every bit as
>pro-abortion as Hillary Clinton.
>
>Oh, and DT has stated he never once asked God for forgiveness, either.
>
>Can you imagine guys in lifted trucks flying Confederate flags driving
>around celebrating with Mitt Romney flags hanging from their windows as
>if they personally won Desert Storm?
>
>Hmm.

There may be a few guys in trucks flying Rebel flags; some of those
may be sincere, some may be funded by Soros. I believe they have a
legal right to drive and wave flags, whoever is paying for it.

The people who are burning Portland and Oakland and LA do not have a
legal right to do so.

[krw]

Of working age, not in the work force. Some are happy on welfare, no
doubt.

[krw]

Did you expect differently? Communists of a feather...

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 8:11:19 AM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:
> On 11/13/2016 04:48 AM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 2:26:52 PM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:
> >> On 11/12/2016 05:07 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Simple country folk" know when they're being insulted.
> >>
> >> Oh, honey. Did you feel insulted? Did the big man need a safe space
> >> because someone made some meanie-head jokes?
> >
> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> >
> > I threaten to leave the country (but never do)
>
> Tell me, after you beat your wife, do you get even angrier when she
> tells you she wants a divorce?

That was the most pathetic attempt at redirecting I've ever seen.

I didn't marry a girl, I married a full-grown woman who can defend herself. Neither of us would think of beating the other.

I wonder what your home life is like that the idea comes to your mind so easily.

Now, about those pissant Hollywood Liberals who repeatedly threaten to abandon the country when their candidate loses, and never actually do it?

> > blame everyone but the candidate
>
> Why would I blame someone who isn't deserving of blame?

Okay, so you blame Hillary for her loss. That's sensible, at least.

> > go out in the streets and riot and burn cars and shoot people just like
> > Conserva... no, wait.
>
> Nobody has shot anyone. However, I do know that Conservative guys here
> constantly post and fantasize about getting a chance to use their
> arsenal, to the point that one can only assume they must get some
> quasi-sexual thrill out of it.

Still you deflect from the point.

When was the last time Conservatives threw hissy fits in public because their candidate lost?

Perhaps more Play-Doh, coloring books, and tissues and hot chocolate should be budgeted into the next election:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/10/u-of-michigan-gives-students-play-doh-coloring-books-to-cope-with-trump/


Mark L. Fergerson

[JW]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:11:27 -0800 (PST) "nu...@bid.nes"
<Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in Message id:
<faedab73-01bc-4951...@googlegroups.com>:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/09/boston-schools-offer-counseling-support-for-students-staff-after-stunning-trump-win/ZUqpKtQPs99EOLsRo2YMPK/story.html
Right in Bitrex's home state. (And unfortunately, mine...)

[Julian Barnes]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:43:25 -0500, JW wrote:

> https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/09/boston-schools-offer-
counseling-support-for-students-staff-after-stunning-trump-win/

ZUqpKtQPs99EOLsRo2YMPK/story.html
> Right in Bitrex's home state. (And unfortunately, mine...)

Gee it must have been tewwible for the students to have to witness
democwacy in action.

[bill....@ieee.org]

Democracy is where the candidate with the most popular votes ends up winning the election.

As we have to keep reminding people like Julian Barnes, the USA isn't a democracy, but a republic.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:46:48 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
>>> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>>> seriously, who knew?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>>
>>

>> The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They
>> make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know
>> how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get
>> what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that
>> will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It
>> doesn't always work.
>

> The New York Times has "rededicated" itself to honest reporting. I
> only regret that I had but one subscription to cancel.


How can they rededicate to something that they never were?


--
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

[Michael A. Terrell]

bule...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> I read that. The bagdad bob speeches were more believable


I kept thinking of Baghdad Bob's '20,000 truckloads of...' whenever
Hillary was whining.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> Den lørdag den 12. november 2016 kl. 19.46.55 UTC+1 skrev Michael Terrell:

>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:34:49 -0500, bitrex
>>> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The most shocking part of the Trump victory is the realization that Newt
>>>> Gingrich is somehow still among the land of the living. I mean
>>>> seriously, who knew?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is shocking to me about this election is how many people, highly
>>> paid experts, journalists, researchers, managers, were so wrong. Over
>>> a billion dollars wrong. Tens of millions of votes wrong.
>>
>>
>> The polls were wrong, because they wanted them to be wrong. They
>> make the calls they needed to, to get the results they wanted. They know
>> how people are registered, so they call from the lists, until they get
>> what they need, for that day's numbers. It's one of their tricks, that
>> will cause some undecided to vote the way they want people to vote. It
>> doesn't always work.
>

> Cheating on the polls would be stupid, the reason Clinton lost was that

> the media kept saying she was sure to win so her voted didn't bother to
> go vote

Have you ever worked in broadcast or printed news? I have.

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 1:49:06 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

> There may be a few guys in trucks flying Rebel flags; some of those
> may be sincere, some may be funded by Soros. I believe they have a
> legal right to drive and wave flags, whoever is paying for it.
>
> The people who are burning Portland and Oakland and LA do not have a
> legal right to do so.

There have been citations for blocking traffic, and for trespassing.
A couple of trash cans on fire isn't burning a city, let alone three.