winsor

Trump will be very strong, and will be the best at attacking back at his enemies. That weak Kenyan Obama would probably ignore an offensive tweet from some evildoer in China. When Trump is president, he'll have the launch codes, and no one will attack him more than once! That's what being strong is all about. I'm sure he will carry through on his nuclear attacks every bit as often as he does his lawsuits.

Both are equally ignorant about world politics. What's to know? You watch the news and you have everything you need, right? Okay, OTOH you have people who are apparently well versed but could fuck up a wet dream in practice. Hillary, for example.

Cruz is another thoroughly revolting presence, and I preferred not to take him seriously when he was in contention. Hillary has always stood to gain over whatever poison could be stirred into the GOP - toxic though it may already be. She has not made it as far as she has by any excess of integrity, and I would not put it past Trump to play the fool in the limelight for another 15 minutes of fame. Whether Hillary or The Donald prevails, we're fucked. The guys at South Park look like dewy-eyed optimists in their choice of candidates by comparison.

Hey, Trump went to the best schools and uses the best words. He said so himself.

Yoo hoo! I'm not angry!

Somehow I am beginning to suspect that Trump is a shill for Hillary. Hillary is such a loathsome piece of shit that there is no way in hell she could prevail over any but the most unpalatable opposition. Enter Donald Trump. If in advance Clinton, Inc. struck a deal with The Donald whereby he agreed to throw a wrench in the Republican party in return for endless sweetheart deals after her coronation, they could not get more bang for the buck. A turd in the punchbowl he is, so nobody expected him to do as well as he has. If he really screws the pooch such that Hillary assumes the throne, that would support my suspicion. If he screws up and wins, that does not completely negate the idea that his initial goals were quite different. The good news is that this political season is good for losing weight. Thinking hard about either candidate is enough to make one retch.

Sanders is an Independent. He is not a Dem, he just caucuses with them. According to Wikipedia, since 2015 he's been D . . . When Cooper asked him at a townhall, "In your heart are you a democrat?", and Bernies said "Sure." Soooo - Wether you like it or not he has declared democrat. From Sanders' OWN web site this morning: Bernie Sanders is serving his second term in the U.S. Senate after winning re-election in 2012 with 71 percent of the vote. His previous 16 years in the House of Representatives make him the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history. If we are cool with people with penises declaring themselves to be women and so forth, what's all the fuss about a commie declaring himself to be a Democrat? It's about the same..

There are many powers the government should not have. Deciding who gets to reproduce is very close to the top of the list. I agree. I leave that choice to the indigent - if you want to go on the dole, you can't do so if fertile. If the ability to reproduce is more important to you than is public support, that's a win-win - you stay fertile and self-sufficient. The "War on Poverty" turning kids into a cash crop has had entirely predictable consequences. My approach is nothing more than an official 'if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em' policy. Again, if you have a better idea, I'm all ears. BTW, reducing the population to sustainable levels is of orders of magnitude greater significance than addressing "Climate Change." Worrying about greenhouse gases is on a par with focusing on the cholesterol numbers of a patient in a burn unit with burns over 80% of their body. Sure, it's an issue, but greenhouse gases => climate change is symptomatic of other fundamental problems. Anyone who views 'Global Warming' - by whatever name - as the chief concern of mankind is desperately in need of a clue.

Chris Rock - When Can White People Say Niggah? https://youtu.be/qPDetBACaU0?t=44 Ah, the Stepin Fetchit for today. A professional .

Ah, that's too much, IMO. How do you figure? If you are in such bad shape that you will give up the possibility of having accidental kids, taking unexpected offspring out of the equation is doing you a favor. If the kids that are born are generally from from economically stable families, that's a bad thing? If you want to address poverty, the only way is to reduce the number of the poverty-stricken. Doing so retroactively is generally viewed as being really bad manners. If you have a better way, let me know. I'm all ears.

The penalty for treason is traditionally hanging by the neck until dead. You don't really expect one of Trump's advisors (Al Baldasaro) to be aware of facts like that, do you? The firing squad has more truthiness. I think they should think of it less as punishment and more as a form of entertainment. They could make a reality show out of it, say, "Dancing on Air." Has a nice ring to it.

The penalty for treason is traditionally hanging by the neck until dead.

Sounds like a testosterone fest by any measure.

Since this is a given, my recommended policy of "if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" seems quite reasonable. A condition of receiving public assistance is REVERSIBLE sterilization. If, during your childbearing years, you can afford the reversal procedure, you can go ahead and have kids. If you can't afford the procedure, you sure as hell can't afford kids. People in poverty having kids they can't afford simply perpetuates the process. It was apparent to me in the '60s that, so long as the next generation of poverty-stricken people is underwritten, the cycle of poverty is never-ending. I would like to live and work in an environment where ethnicity was not a factor. I bridle against people who take offense at having a big deal made of their ethnicity, but reserve the right to make a big deal about their ethnicity - you can't have it both ways. When people use racist logic to make accusations of racism, they have lost their audience. Much though people bitch about stereotypes, there is often too solid a basis for them. For example, during a blackout in Manhattan, in our neighborhood people were out with flashlights directing traffic and there was ZERO crime. None. Other neighborhoods looked like a war zone in the morning. Was it a matter of socioeconomic status or ethnicity? I suppose it was more the former than the latter, but the latter was used enough as an excuse that it could not be overlooked. The general ebb and flow of the discussion goes something like this: "I prefer to treat people as individuals, without regard to ethnicity." "You just be saying that because you be a racist honky motherfucker." "I want nothing to do with anyone displaying any hint of the attitude you just expressed." One does not need to "hate" anything to disagree with behavior patterns that are largely displayed by one group or another. Stating opposition to puppy dogs being used for food is not voicing antipathy toward particular cultures that do so. Disliking rioters does not mean that one hates particular student groups or sports fans that get out of hand. Having to mince words regarding racial groups is racist, and I find it offensive.

But it is that verbiage, and associated behaviour that needs to be addressed. Yes, this is a flash point issue. There are blacks out there that are advocating killing cops, for Christ's sake. And they are killing cops, while the president is saying they have legitimate concerns. It's insane. Agreed. Be advised that there are people who wouldn't say 'shit' if they had a mouth full of it. I have heard hour long discussions between negroes where, if you removed 'motherfucker' and 'nigger' from the text you could have jotted it down on an 3x5 card, both terms having less significance than punctuation. Nevertheless, a beige person using such verbiage is deemed sinful beyond redemption. In any event, you should remember that using such terms will tend to get the odd uterus in a knot, and there WILL BE REPERCUSSIONS. You have been warned.

Funniest shit right there! I that case they should have signed 'Mel Torme,' 'James Brown,' 'Arnold Schwarzenegger,' 'Johnny Cash' and 'Liberace.' Hey, if you're not picky about who's who, neither are we.

My family is made up of individuals who have differing affiliations. To criticize the various groups as such is often quite valid. Unions? Liberal Arts Students? Medical Professionals? Military? Political Party Members? Take your pick. With regard to non-family groups, it's not so much fixing people as noting that the source of misfortune is often quite apparent. If I'm on the beach and the tide goes WAY out, I'm getting to higher ground ASAP. You don't want to? Your call. If people want to be considered as individuals, fine. If they want to identify as part of one crowd or another, that's cool too. You can't have it both ways. If, for example, I'm working or doing business with people who have same-sex relationships, it is largely a matter of indifference. If they insist on making a big deal about it, and become a power bloc in some fashion, I can only compare their stated values with mine. If they are compatible, fine, if they are not, they are not. If people want to voice their grievances such that they are no threat to me or the people around me, I'm cool with that. If they seek to pose a threat to me or my loved ones, that's their call and I will respond accordingly (likely by doing everything I can to avoid them). They will most assuredly not engender sympathy by doing so.

Funny stuff. I make reference to studies that showed that, for various reasons, peoples moving into an area tend to agglomerate. Without red-lining, it was found that negroes moving into Champaign-Urbana, for example, would pay a premium to buy into a largely black neighborhood. There are neighborhoods where the population is predominantly Italian, Polish, Cambodian, or Somali. Some people will not venture out of an environment where they can do all their business in some variant of Spanish. Some isolation is economic, where you go where you can afford, and other isolation is voluntary. I made reference to the voluntary variety, and I am sure you can find references to support what I describe. White people do the same thing and it isn't a problem. Why is it a problem for "people of colour" as you put it? I do not recall either thinking or saying that it was a problem. After being indoctrinated with the idea that 'the ghetto' was universally involuntary, I found it interesting when I first read an article in which people explained why they would pay 10-15% more for a house in a 'ghetto' neighborhood than in one with a mixed background (in Champaign/Urbana the population is massively diverse). Whether it is good or bad, and the whys and wherefores, really depends on whom you ask.

Funny stuff. I make reference to studies that showed that, for various reasons, peoples moving into an area tend to agglomerate. Without red-lining, it was found that negroes moving into Champaign-Urbana, for example, would pay a premium to buy into a largely black neighborhood. There are neighborhoods where the population is predominantly Italian, Polish, Cambodian, or Somali. Some people will not venture out of an environment where they can do all their business in some variant of Spanish. Some isolation is economic, where you go where you can afford, and other isolation is voluntary. I made reference to the voluntary variety, and I am sure you can find references to support what I describe.

What is this "community"? You suggest some kind of homogeneity that I don't see, any more than Charles Krauthammer and Charles Manson are representative of a "community" of white folks. I make reference to the self-isolation of 'people of color' in various municipalities, and to the norms imposed therein. Black Media are quite specific about what constitutes 'blackness,' and what are criteria for being an 'Uncle Tom' or an 'Oreo,' and these standards are applied operationally, to a greater or lesser extent, across the American Negro population. Your educational discipline requires an understanding of the difference between analytic and stochastic processes (e.g., laminar vs. turbulent flow), so you understand that a statistical correlation does not mean that 'all Catholics are...' or 'no Masons are...' I'll go with 'better than even odds' here.

The byword of the administration, as voiced by Rahm Emanuel, is "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." In the same sense that on options trader doesn't care whether the market goes up or down, so long as there is movement, I have seen this administration capitalize upon quite a variety of disasters. I do not think that "BHO wants to racially divide the nation" any more than a surfer wants tsunamis, but I do think that harmony is as much a threat to BHO as glassy water is to a surfer. Without waves, either is out of business. Cops need crime to justify their existence. Oncologists rely on an endless supply of cancer patients to pay for their educational debts. Warriors need wars. Agitators for racial equality require the perception of 'racism' to stay in business. Nothing personal. BTW, I avoid using the "some of my best friends are " argument, since it is largely irrelevant. I try to put things into such context as to avoid falling into the same trap as did Margaret Mead, who dutifully recorded as fact everything the Samoans told her to test the limits of her gullibility.

When making a point on a flashpoint subject, it is usually best to avoid verbiage that can be used to invalidate your thesis. If people are being mean poopyheads, you don't gain much ground by calling them 'mean poopyheads.' If you provide the data and let people draw their own conclusions, those that are willing to figure it out will be on the side of 'gosh, those guys sound like mean poopyheads,' and those on the opposite side will say 'hey, he's making them out to be mean poopyheads!' The protagonist in one of Kurt Vonnegut's novels (Deadeye Dick?) noted that he did not resort to profanity, since it gave simple minds the grounds to avoid thinking about the point. The reason I can't read Ann Coulter is not the content of her arguments, it's the volume. I would have to wear earplugs to get far enough into her dissertation to find out if she has a point hidden amongst the snark. I refuse to use the term coined by Jesse Jackson - 'African Americans' - since it is purely racist. Moroccans, Egyptians and Boers immigrants are more surely 'African Americans' than the mixed race people to whom the term ostensibly applies, but they are excluded by dint of race. Martin Luther King used the term 'negro,' and so do I. If the definition is appropriate and unambiguous, mincing words serves only to obfuscate the issue. Anyone who has had much exposure to the American Negro Experience is aware that, regardless of the enmity of others, real or imagined, the American Negro Community is its own worst enemy. For all the claims that everyone else is intent upon their failure, I can not think of much of anyone who would object to the transformation of that particular minority into a massively productive and responsible community, where the primary concerns are education, taxes and financial issues rather than welfare, gangs, larceny, shootings, illegitimate offspring, drug and alcohol addiction and so forth. For all the bitching about stereotypes, I have repeatedly been amazed by how many people work very hard to foster them. Whether it be bikers who take lessons to appear to be badasses, girls to put a great deal of time and money into appearing to be trollops, or people who otherwise spend a great deal of time and money to appear to be one thing or another (rich, smart, what have you). A suggestion is to make your point without worrying about bringing anyone around to your way of thinking. Often things are so obvious that people that disagree with the obvious are working hard at maintaining their denial. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is not a king, he's a pariah. BSBD, Winsor

Wrong. Makes a change from UFO stories in the Daily Mail. Any confirmation from a real newspaper? I dunno. Are these guys any better?

Wrong. It is the norm for dreadful regimes on the wane to engage in an orgy of violence. Often the carnage is overshadowed by other events, and does not get much coverage. The Japanese withdrawal from the Philippines is an example.

South Park's treatment was overly optimistic.