• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Shootist Jeff

Fire and Fury - the trump expose

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, soak_ed said:

I a little leery of statistics from a company that operates bariatric surgery clinics in Mexico, but whatever.   According to the US CDC web page:  

  • Percent of adults aged 20 and over with obesity: 37.9% (2013-2014)
  • Percent of adults aged 20 and over with overweight, including obesity: 70.7% (2013-2014)

A lot more data here.

Based on my observations, kids in Poland are getting heavier, the first generation to grow up with McDonald's computer/video games, and other ills of modern society.  It appears to me that people here from their late teens until around 50-60 years old are quite fit and trim overall.  Women here don't use having a child as an excuse to get fat.  You see people everywhere walking, at all times of the day and into the night, or riding bikes.  Not necessarily out of a desire to be fit, often just that having a car is expensive.   When folks here get into their 50s-60s, they tend to spread out a little but nothing like what I have seen in my visits to the US where it appears that almost everybody is overweight to some extent.  Quite honestly, I find the fat epidemic in the US quite disgusting.  There is absolutely no way that 70% of the people in Poland are overweight or obese.  Not even close.

Here is a better source https://content.worldobesity.org/site_media/filer_public/25/88/25885047-3daa-420a-8d67-7edaa2cb62cc/poland_extended_report_nov_2017compressed.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I was being serious.  Oprah ticks of at least 1,2,3 & 7 

I wonder if Kitty Kelley's tell all "Oprah" will have the same impact as Fire and Fury

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

WTF is it with fat Americans?

Total thread creep, but I am not talking packed on a few pounds in old age . I am talking can barely walk 20 yards without falling over dead need a battery chair walruses.

Back to the book - not as fun as I thought at first. Kind of like reading a memoir from a junior reported in the Fuhrer Bunker. "Hitler is batshit crazy and does insane stuff" and all the Nazis pretend he is great to see what they can get out of it.

Well no shit.................:rolleyes:

More Liberal tolerance and inclusiveness on display.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sean said:

Sounds about right -

 

I've read half of Wolff's book. It is as unprincipled and cartoonish and full of fancies masquerading as facts as I thought it would be. It's the work of a journalistic malefactor.
But it doesn't strike me as false.

It's a new kind of truth, artificial truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hillary said:

I was being serious.  Oprah ticks of at least 1,2,3 & 7 

I wonder if Kitty Kelley's tell all "Oprah" will have the same impact as Fire and Fury

If a book has little to no impact seven years ago, it won't light any fires in ten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

It's a new kind of truth, artificial truth.

Did you read the rest of John Podhoretz' Twitter feed? I find it amazing anyone would take him seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Sean said:

Sounds about right -

 

I've read half of Wolff's book. It is as unprincipled and cartoonish and full of fancies masquerading as facts as I thought it would be. It's the work of a journalistic malefactor.
But it doesn't strike me as false.

 

From 2nd Wiki paragraph:

"At The Weekly Standard, one staff member said, Podhoretz's "arrogance and egotism had a psychological effect people can't quite believe." At The Washington Times a colleague reported, he was "permanently frozen in juvenalia." Glenn Garvin, the Central American bureau chief of the Miami Herald, once said that at the Times, Podhoretz "constantly complained that his brilliance wasn't appreciated."[4]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I am neither tolerant nor inclusive if that means toeratinr including malignant fabulists.

 

 

I think the time has come to place Hillary Happy Jackary on IGNORE, so please don't quote IT any more?  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Dog said:

It's a new kind of truth, artificial truth.

Alternative facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

I think the time has come to place Hillary Happy Jackary on IGNORE, so please don't quote IT any more?  Thanks!

I considered it, but then realized that we’re running out of righties to ridicule. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hillary said:

Oprah for president.  I think I posted that the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. Nominating anyone that lacks at least one of the following characteristics will be almost impossible. 

  1. Racial minority (half and half is ok and in the case of Native Americans 1/32nd is ok too)
  2. Female
  3. LGBQRSTWXYZ
  4. Muslim, atheist, satanist 
  5. Socialist
  6. financially unsuccessful (i.e. Bernie Sanders)
  7. Last name is Winfrey

It would be interesting to see Oprah square off against President Trump.  Let's compare the points some point to as "qualifications" -

She is arguably about as rich as he is - Forbes has her worth as $2.8 billion and his at $3.1 billion.  Difference is she earned ALL of her money, had no "small loan" of a million dollars from Dad, and has never sought bankruptcy protection for herself or her companies.

Advantage - Oprah.

She is a bigger TV personality than he was or ever will be.  No question.  Use whatever metric you want.  He uses name recognition and she owns the studio.

Advantage - Oprah.

They both "speak their mind".  Big difference is she is intelligent and can speak in complete sentences.  He isn't and can't.

Advantage - Oprah.

Anything else?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

It would be interesting to see Oprah square off against President Trump.  Let's compare the points some point to as "qualifications" -

She is arguably about as rich as he is - Forbes has her worth as $2.8 billion and his at $3.1 billion.  Difference is she earned ALL of her money, had no "small loan of a million dollars from Dad, and has never sought bankruptcy protection for herself or her companies.

Advantage - Oprah.

She is a bigger TV personality than he was or ever will be.  No question.  Use whatever metric you want.  He uses name recognition and she owns the studio.

Advantage - Oprah.

They both "speak their mind".  Big difference is she is intelligent and can speak in complete sentences.  He isn't and can't.

Advantage - Oprah.

Anything else?

She has better hair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Oprah. :rolleyes:

How ridiculous do you want to make your country look?

How about learning from the Trump & Reagan experiences instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

President Oprah. :rolleyes:

How ridiculous do you want to make your country look?

How about learning from the Trump & Reagan experiences instead?

I am not advocating for as a viable candidate. 

Just pointing out that, using the very "qualifications" some point to as evidence of President Trump being fit for the job, she beats him in each.

Heck, I used to watch her on Dialing for Dollars on Channel 13.  Hard to fathom that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

It's a new kind of truth, artificial truth.

No one on the right should ever say a damned thing about "artificial truths", after we were treated by Kellyanne to "alternate facts".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

It's a new kind of truth, artificial truth.

@Dog kinda truthiness is what it is....  Doggy Stylin Baby! It's the new craze! Everyone's doing the Doggy Shuffle!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I am not advocating for as a viable candidate. 

Just pointing out that, using the very "qualifications" some point to as evidence of President Trump being fit for the job, she beats him in each.

Heck, I used to watch her on Dialing for Dollars on Channel 13.  Hard to fathom that.

For one, she actually got rich, on her own, starting from nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sean said:

She has better hair. 

She would crush it with the women folk...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

WTF is it with fat Americans?

Total thread creep, but I am not talking packed on a few pounds in old age . I am talking can barely walk 20 yards without falling over dead need a battery chair walruses.

 

this thread creep should be over in the fuck the elderly and infirm thread

bj and the redneck can address the topic directly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

For one, she actually got rich, on her own, starting from nothing.

See my first point in Post #113.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

No one on the right should ever say a damned thing about "artificial truths", after we were treated by Kellyanne to "alternate facts".

It's a bipartisan phenomena. Witness the excitement over a book in which a known embellisher writes about a known embellisher citing a known embellisher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

It would be interesting to see Oprah square off against President Trump.  Let's compare the points some point to as "qualifications" -

She is arguably about as rich as he is - Forbes has her worth as $2.8 billion and his at $3.1 billion.  Difference is she earned ALL of her money, had no "small loan" of a million dollars from Dad, and has never sought bankruptcy protection for herself or her companies.

Advantage - Oprah.

She is a bigger TV personality than he was or ever will be.  No question.  Use whatever metric you want.  He uses name recognition and she owns the studio.

Advantage - Oprah.

They both "speak their mind".  Big difference is she is intelligent and can speak in complete sentences.  He isn't and can't.

Advantage - Oprah.

Anything else?

He's a white male racist whack job misogynist. Advantage - Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Dog said:

It's a bipartisan phenomena. Witness the excitement over a book in which a known embellisher writes about a known embellisher citing a known embellisher.

Would you suggest taking a position nothing from proven liars should be trusted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

See my first point in Post #113.

yeah, I should read all posts before replying....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Dog said:

It's a bipartisan phenomena. Witness the excitement over a book in which a known embellisher writes about a known embellisher citing a known embellisher.

I didn't know you wrote a book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Would you suggest taking a position nothing from proven liars should be trusted?

Healthy skepticism is in order, not everything a proven liar says is false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dog said:

Healthy skepticism is in order, not everything a proven liar says is false.

How many times do you prefer to be lied to before you stop listening?

For me, it can be counted on one hand with a few fingers left over.

You have heard that one definition of insanity, haven't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

How many times do you prefer to be lied to before you stop listening?

For me, it can be counted on one hand with a few fingers left over.

You have heard that one definition of insanity, haven't you?

That must really limit your political choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

That must really limit your political choices.

We've never had anyone like President Trump.  Never.

Most politicians fib, embellish, and lie.  They can be on both sides of the aisle.

President Trump lies for the practice.  He seems constitutionally incapable of being honest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

That must really limit your political choices.

Wipes out most of one particular party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SloopJonB said:
22 hours ago, Hillary said:

Even his critics adnmit he has given several decent speeches and even off the cuff interviews. 

Got any links?

I've never seen anything but rambling stupidity or ranting bullying.

I mean that - I truly can't recall ever seeing him deliver an address that I would regard as even being fit for some sort of local organization dinner.

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I get disgusted pretty thoroughly when I see a young person using the scooters at Walmart.

Went to MegaLoMart the other day and a mother and daughter were scouring the aisles, looking for something and talking loudly to each other about the ongoing search.

Both spilling all over scooters. Mom was probably pushing 50, I doubt the daughter was 30.

I was a little disgusted but also just sad, especially for the daughter. That's normal to her. Walking around the store like I do is not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Went to MegaLoMart the other day and a mother and daughter were scouring the aisles, looking for something and talking loudly to each other about the ongoing search.

Both spilling all over scooters. Mom was probably pushing 50, I doubt the daughter was 30.

I was a little disgusted but also just sad, especially for the daughter. That's normal to her. Walking around the store like I do is not.

 

Walmart doesn't discriminate, if a person says they need the scooter, they get the scooter. If you happen to see an old disabled person hobbling around pushing a shopping cart, that's the result. Fair or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hillary said:

That's rich. Go review defamation laws in the UK and Europe.

What has that got to do with anything? Trump is so hell bent on being isolationist, the UK and Europe barely figure in his myopic view of the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Walmart doesn't discriminate, if a person says they need the scooter, they get the scooter. If you happen to see an old disabled person hobbling around pushing a shopping cart, that's the result. Fair or not.

They had a wall lined with scooters, which was also sad.

And both of these women, including the young one, really did need a scooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Oooopsies.  I thought President Trump claimed Wolff just made up shit for his book.

It seems WH staff were told to speak with Wolff.

I thought it was kinda odd that these guys invited said Scribe to the party, and now are ducking under the desks. What did they think would be the result?

Then, I remembered who's actually IN the administration, and it became clear.

Just another example of incompetence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Uncooperative Tom said:

They had a wall lined with scooters, which was also sad.

And both of these women, including the young one, really did need a scooter.

I don't doubt it, these are usually the same people who I see admiring the creampuffs. Death by diabetes, so unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mad said:

What has that got to do with anything? Trump is so hell bent on being isolationist, the UK and Europe barely figure in his myopic view of the world. 

Our anti-Europe, Ridgeline lover, F35 aficionado thinks that the US should all-of-a-sudden start using European approaches to Free Speech. Of course, the Europeans don't have a "right" to free speech. Which I assume means he wants to give away that right in the US as well....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Our anti-Europe, Ridgeline lover, F35 aficionado thinks that the US should all-of-a-sudden start using European approaches to Free Speech. Of course, the Europeans don't have a "right" to free speech. Which I assume means he wants to give away that right in the US as well....

Yes they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badlatitude said:

I dare you to go to Berlin and scream Nazi at someone. 

Dude...Do you think Europeans have no right to free speech too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

They have it - for some instances of free speech but not others.

 

Exactly, common sense and history has slowly bought limits and boundaries to what can and can’t said. 

Banning of incitement of racial and religious hatred seem to make sense to many here.  Opinions will obviously differ. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Dog said:

Dude...Do you think Europeans have no right to free speech too?

Come one now, you're normally well acquainted with facts, although you try to duck and weave. Do you really not know about the restrictions to speech in, say, the UK?  Shit you say here would get you some pretty big libel liabilities over across the pond.

 

Educate yourself:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-us-and-uk-have-some-surprising-differences_us_58d5674fe4b0c0980ac0e5c2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Dog said:

Dude...Do you think Europeans have no right to free speech too?

Dude...Go try to sell copies of Mien Kampf in Berlin, or stand around Warsaw with a sign that says "Kill All the Jews".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Dude...Go try to sell copies of Mien Kampf in Berlin, or stand around Warsaw with a sign that says "Kill All the Jews".

Or hold a "Unite the Right" rally...but I'm being redundant again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The founding fathers disagree.  Had they not been able to shoot redcoats - we wouldn't be having this conversation.  

There are Canadian and Australian commonwealth members here that might disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

Wikileaks taking money from the author's pockets.

It's kinda surprising that they seem to be taking a side....

Wikileaks took a side a long time ago. It's one of the criticisms that Anonymous has with them - namely that the free information thing is a good idea but the WL leadership picking and choosing what to release (alongside international actors selectively obtaining and releasing targeted hacks to them) has corrupted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:
4 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Oooopsies.  I thought President Trump claimed Wolff just made up shit for his book.

It seems WH staff were told to speak with Wolff.

I thought it was kinda odd that these guys invited said Scribe to the party, and now are ducking under the desks. What did they think would be the result?

Then, I remembered who's actually IN the administration, and it became clear.

Just another example of incompetence.

I think he got permission once, and they sort of forgot he was there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

I think he got permission once, and they sort of forgot he was there.

There is also the fact that staff were told to speak to him that slaps Trump upside the head.

Personally, I would LOVE to see Trump take the man to court, but we all know he hasn't the balls to do more than have his lawyers fish for the tapes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raz'r said:

I thought it was kinda odd that these guys invited said Scribe to the party, and now are ducking under the desks. What did they think would be the result?

Then, I remembered who's actually IN the administration, and it became clear.

Just another example of incompetence.

A dozen years ago, I asked a political journalist why a politician would work with a writer or journalist like Woodward or similar. Especially on touchy topics.

The answer was that most politicians not only think they are smarter than the last politician that was taken down, they also think they are smarter than the journalist. Basically, personality and ego. Without the ego, they wouldn't be there in the first place to eventually be taken down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

There is also the fact that staff were told to speak to him that slaps Trump upside the head.

Personally, I would LOVE to see Trump take the man to court, but we all know he hasn't the balls to do more than have his lawyers fish for the tapes. 

New York's Finest will do nothing to keep this story in the headlines, and most definitely will not do anything to expose himself to discovery requests over this stuff.  There will be plenty of old fashioned New York Big Talk, but nothing of any substance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raz'r said:

For one, she actually got rich, on her own, starting from nothing.

Starting from LESS than nothing - literally barefoot.

No question she'd be better than Trump but that is such a low bar it's underground.

Are name recognition and money the only qualifications needed for the job now?

Idiocracy has been achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dog said:

Healthy skepticism is in order, not everything a proven liar says is false.

Why would you continue to listen to a proven liar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Why would you continue to listen to a proven liar?

Nut, blind squirrel, you know the drill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

They have it - for some instances of free speech but not others.

 

We can't shout fire in a theater.

4 hours ago, Left Shift said:

Dude...Go try to sell copies of Mien Kampf in Berlin, or stand around Warsaw with a sign that says "Kill All the Jews".

Dude...Go shout Ni**er on the south side of Chicago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Why would you continue to listen to a proven liar?

Same reason you do. He's the president of the Unites States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Dude...Go shout Ni**er on the south side of Chicago. 

What will the government do to me, if I do?

Another one who does not take into account the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Come one now, you're normally well acquainted with facts, although you try to duck and weave. Do you really not know about the restrictions to speech in, say, the UK?  Shit you say here would get you some pretty big libel liabilities over across the pond.

 

Educate yourself:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-us-and-uk-have-some-surprising-differences_us_58d5674fe4b0c0980ac0e5c2

The guy who thinks Europeans don't have free speech rights says I need to educate myself...fuck me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

What will the government do to me, if I do?

Another one who does not take into account the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment. 

What will government do to you if you shout fire in a theater?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

What will government do to you if you shout fire in a theater?

Why are you avoiding my question?

I intentionally omitted the “fire” scenario, as it is a different beast  

Deflect much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

Why are you avoiding my question?

I intentionally omitted the “fire” scenario, as it is a different beast  

Deflect much?

Speaking of deflections, I simply point out that Europeans enjoy free speech rights and you guys go all stupid.  Do you believe Europeans enjoy free speech rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Speaking of deflections, I simply point out that Europeans enjoy free speech rights and you guys go all stupid.  Do you believe Europeans enjoy free speech rights?

You continue to avoid answering a simple question. 

I wonder if it is because you have trouble maintaining focus of because the example I questioned is ludicrous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you want to bash your President, it would be better to try and stay close to some facts, rather than quote a grade A bullshitter, as described by reasonable folks that he claims to quote. The same reasonable folks have said they have never spoken with him. How would he get first hand knowledge of the first night in the White House?

What do you all think about the long overdue lowering of the corporate tax in the US. Was that a bad thing too.

Just asking. Unkle Krusty. My red neck Yankee tractor buddies are on his side.

I voted Conservative up here, and I am not happy with our new spender in chief, but I will not start a thread about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

You continue to avoid answering a simple question. 

I wonder if it is because you have trouble maintaining focus of because the example I questioned is ludicrous. 

OFGS, here you go BD...If you shout ni**er on the south side of Chicago the government will not do anything to you. Now your turn...Do you believe Europeans enjoy free speech rights or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Captain Gigi said:

As a btw, this is why they made me editor-in-chief once upon a time, or another reason why I don’t post often in the SA Forums: It seems many users find it difficult to understand what I write.
 
The stats on my Sailing Anarchy 01.08.2018 blog post, according to https://readable.io/text/

  • Reading Ease: Difficult
  • Grade Level: Grade 12
  • Vocabulary: Rich
  • Sentiment analysis: Positive

Captain Gigi's Sailing Anarchy post, "The Captain Says...," 01.08.2018  © readable.io.png

Analysis of Captain Gigi's Sailing Anarchy post, "The Captain Says...," 01.08.2018  © readable.io.png

I hear you're also a stable genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Dog said:

OFGS, here you go BD...If you shout ni**er on the south side of Chicago the government will not do anything to you. Now your turn...Do you believe Europeans enjoy free speech rights or not?

So, including that scenario was a bit of bullshit. Glad you can admit that. 

Since you seem so damned persistent in making me answer a question I never spoke about - “Yes, Europeans do enjoy some forms of protected speech. It is not the same as in the US, nor is it the same from one European nation to the next.”

Happy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Gigi said:

Here's how Trump ranks among presidents re: his reading level. 'Nuff said.5a5432668e088_PresidentialVocabularybyGradeLevelFlesch-KincaidGradeLevelfactba.se2018_01_08.png.70cf590b124d4d1c89b0640023e86f4c.png

Protest!  Two reasons,    Trump barely reads his teleprompter on a good day, and Truman read most anything he could.   He claimed he had read his local library by age 14 but only “attended a little college” due to poor finances.   Simple words reflect his common origins and a simple style, not ability.   Read the bottom of pp 243 and 244 of this book excerpt.    https://books.google.com/books?id=KDzeAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=truman+read+at+the+library+of+congress&source=bl&ots=tCNHrrzlce&sig=ascZ2M9sg9ZBqPDeGFMA9OXLSxc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFhKWZg8rYAhXH1IMKHXjxDqY4ChDoATAGegQIBBAB#v=onepage&q=truman read at the library of congress&f=false      He also pushed for community colleges, so others without money could enjoy a better formal education than he did.   

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/x1412423079/5-things-to-know-about-Harry-Trumans-education

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2009/spring/truman-history.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Unkle Crusty said:

I think if you want to bash your President, it would be better to try and stay close to some facts, rather than quote a grade A bullshitter, as described by reasonable folks that he claims to quote. The same reasonable folks have said they have never spoken with him. How would he get first hand knowledge of the first night in the White House?

See, the way I see it, if you're a publishing company going up against a well-funded narcissist with a penchant for threatening litigation whenever someone says something about him he doesn't like... you'd make damned sure that there are records backing up any assertions made in the book. I don't trust the author - I trust that the publisher's legal department has the ammunition to survive a libel suit and come out the other side alive & kicking.

Trump and those in his employ don't suffer negative consequences by lying about the contents of the book. As long as they don't bring it to court, they can spin everything as "He said, we said" credibility contest. No harm, no foul, nothing to lose. 

The company that published the book and the author can lose everything. They need to have evidence to point to someone having said what they claim they did or Trump (plus family) can sue them into oblivion with the existing libel laws. They cannot rely on "He said, we said" - they need to have the tapes to back everything they print. They know this, Trump knows this, which is why it'll never see the inside of a courtroom. Trump cannot afford for those tapes to be played in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites