jonottawa

Ken, note how the self-proclaimed 'rational thinkers' whose intolerance for those with beliefs they disagree with is palpable (and is, in fact, the subject of this discussion) continue to misuse the words 'bigot' and 'bigotry' after being repeatedly corrected. big·ot·ry ˈbiɡətrē/ noun noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. It seems to me that what you are calling for is LESS BIGOTRY & their response is HELLZ NO! I concur with Mike on this point: I too give up on the bigots (except I use the word as it is actually defined.) The first goal, if we are to solve the serious issues facing our societies, is to reject bigotry, censorship, political correctness and other attacks on free speech. Here's a great (and concise) speech by Milo that perfectly encapsulates my view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw_uHnT5EWo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9TShlMkQnc

Non-citizens living in the US illegally wouldn't have voted for Mitt Romney, so it would have been a VERY strange tweet in that case.

Oh maybe you mean THIS fake news. Where we let incredibly biased and shameful companies like Google and Facebook (who deliberately distort the information their users receive) tell us what news stories are worth reading? It's sad, but in order to learn anything from a Canadian Press story these days, you have to skip the story and read the comments: "Canadian propaganda from Canadian media and Canadian government institutions are the GREATEST threat to Canadian democracy. It starts in kindergarten and never stops." Couldn't agree more! "Spread fake news like Saddam had WMD, Clinton dodged sniper fire in Bosnia, Assad gas his own people, Clinton had 50 points lead over Trump. Putin is responsible for my missing socks in the dryer." Snopes said this is false (because they don't recognize obvious attempts at humor.) "Fake news? You mean Yahoo!, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Google, etc.?" Precisely! "Oh please. Hillary is a hated woman in America. It wouldn't have mattered what stories came out, people who were planning to vote for Trump weren't all of a sudden going to vote for her. She says she is for the women ... yet her past says otherwise when she called the women who her husband raped and sexually assaulted liars and w(ho)res. Oh right, she's only for women until her power is at stake then the claws come out. LOL And since she flip flops on stances more than a fish out of water (as evidenced by her time in the senate), the voters who saw her for who she truly is, a power hungry corrupt global elitist and lapdog of George Soros," Correctamundo! "American liberal media spreads nothing but fake anti-Trump news." Well, to be fair, they also spread fake pro-Globalist news. "The election is over. Move on!" What? Over? Did you say 'Over'? Nothing is over until WE decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! And it ain't over now. "Give it up yahoo. You lost!" Hey now, they've still got to try to rig the recounts in 3 states first. Stay tuned! "The organizations trying their hardest to push us into a war with Russia are not participating in propaganda though. LOL As soon as the MSM realizes what a joke they have become and just die, the better off the planet will be." If only it were that simple. "Americans are being played." Only the ones who still give the slightest credence to the MSM. "More Democrat National Corruption Party Propaganda a la Goebbels" Bingo! And this wasn't a carefully selected sample of comments, these were ALL of the most popular comments.

re: "Fake News" I'll give some examples. Trump believes that a nation has the right to enforce its borders. MSM: "That's racist!" Trump believes that a nation should serve the interests of its CITIZENS first and foremost. MSM: "That's racist!" Trump believes that a nation should enforce its laws, including its immigration laws. MSM: "That's racist!" Trump believes that a nation's immigration policy should be crafted so as to maximize the benefit of that policy to that nation's citizens. MSM: "That's racist!" Trump believes that people who choose to migrate to a country should do so with a willingness to assimilate to the culture of that country, not with the expectation that the citizens of that country conform to their beliefs. MSM: "That's racist!" Trump believes that the Constitution means what it says and that that's why the founding fathers explicitly set up an AMENDMENT PROCESS. MSM: "It's the current year!" As for scandals: Trump hires lawyers and accountants to legally minimize his tax liability like EVERY OTHER WEALTHY PERSON ON EARTH and the NYT tries to make that a scandal. The only scandal there is the behavior of the former 'newspaper of record.' Trump's hiring history proves he's not a racist or a misogynist. He's the most gay-friendly President-Elect in US History. Like many successful men (and past presidents,) was he a womanizer in his younger days? Yes. Does his conduct towards women come CLOSE to as awful as Bill Clinton's? No, not close. As for Hillary, the 2 main charges against her are true. 1. If anyone else had set up a private server and had done what she did with it, they'd have been charged and convicted of (or pled to) a felony for endangering US national security. 2. She sold access and influence for tens of millions of dollars. She's corrupt. Giving a 'speech' doesn't magically turn a huge bribe into a legitimate source of income. If it did, we might as well legalize bribery. That's leaving aside the health issues, the rigged primary (colluding with the DNC against Bernie,) the collusion with the MSM, the disgusting list of her top donors, and the policy disasters like amnesty that she pledged. Leaving aside the shenanigans on Facebook, Twitter and Google where they shut down anti-Hillary voices & messed with trending topics and search results to favor Hillary. So tell me about this fake news.

I'm not sure what you mean, I hardly ever cite the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS or ABC or the partisan hacks at NYT or Washington Post as evidence. But seriously, the ENTIRE mainstream media was pushing for Hillary to win. Their coverage was skewed to be more favorable to her. Their talking points, their framing of the arguments, their choice of which stories to cover & how much to cover them. That, to me, is the epitome of FAKE NEWS. On a personal level, I condemn the use of fake stories (or bogus arguments) on EITHER side. And Hillary's supporters were far more guilty of that than Trump's. Because the common attacks against Hillary were fundamentally HONEST (if somewhat exaggerated in some instances.)

To me the Hamilton thing was much like the 'We didn't vote for Bush' thing. They had the right to do what they did, but it was inappropriate in that venue. If someone had done the same to Obama in December 2008, the backlash would have been monumental. Generally what folks on my side stress is intellectual honesty & consistency. And the other side seldom gives us that, because they know they lose the argument the moment that they do. As for the Black kid, those who surrender their allegiance to ANY cause and join the other side always make for interesting stories but those stories seldom prove anything. Millions of lifelong Democrats voted for Trump, but we're not reading stories about them for some reason. Anyway, here's a good story in Breitbart why Trump would be nuts to choose Romney for State. Interesting: Obama urged Clinton to concede on Election Night

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7heXZPl2hik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dcrjuPSs80

I stand corrected.

A load of bunk. A mostly incoherent list of 14 'features', many of which apply as much, if not more, to the regressive left, as to any other political group. An excuse for fear-mongering and 'whoever disagrees with me is a Nazi.' Typical of the discourse rational thinkers face these days.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/01/coulter-headshot-640x480-640x480.jpg Ann Coulter: A Night to Remember "In fairness, we Trump supporters don’t want to be sore winners, so we ought to set a time limit on our gloating. I propose three years." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO4xfj0ISoY

I'm not sure if the people who are claiming that 3rd world overpopulation is a trivial problem (or not a problem at all) are just being politically correct, or deliberately obtuse, or what. But anyway, let's do a hypothetical: In Year 1, there are 2 countries A & B. They are identical. They both have 10M people and same resources/area etc. They contribute equally to global warming & environmental damage. Country A promotes a sustainable economy & sets ~zero population growth as one of its goals. Country B has the cancer cell (or Ponzi scheme, if you prefer) growth model. In Year 50, Country A now has 10M people. They (overwhelmingly) are prosperous & happy. The government consistently balances the budget. There is high social trust. There is almost no crime. The mainstream media is honest, fairly presents both sides of contentious issues, & acts as a valuable independent check on the government. Each generation feels that they are slightly better off than their parents were. Jobs, housing, access to medical care & resources are plentiful. Post-secondary education is inexpensive & spots are awarded based on MERIT. Their air and waterways are clean. And those who don't or can't work are well taken care of because they are SO FEW IN NUMBER. If lack of work becomes an issue (unlikely as the population ages,) the hours in a workweek for government employees can always be reduced (say from 40 to 35.) There is a generous (scaled) EITC for low-wage jobs so that people WANT TO DO many of the necessary jobs that 'nobody wants to do' & to provide a strong incentive for people to work (a full-time worker always outearns a non-worker.) They don't obsess about their carbon footprints because they've done the RESPONSIBLE thing by limiting their population growth. Their per capita carbon usage is 50% higher than country B's. So they do 15M carbonks to the Earth's climate change model. By not artificially capping carbon output per capita, their industries are more competitive, helping to offset the disadvantage that their lack of child or slave labor creates. In Year 50, Country B has 60M people. They (mostly) aren't so prosperous or happy. The government permanently runs large deficits. Special interests from various factions perpetually squabble over government largesse. Crime is a serious problem. The mainstream media is a (almost completely) one-sided propaganda arm of corporate and partisan interests. Each generation sees a little bit less opportunity and prosperity than their parents had. Jobs, housing, medical care & resources are scarce. There's a lot of pollution & poverty. The infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) is crumbling under the weight of the population & the lack of resources for maintenance. Most jobs that are available pay poverty wages & are unpleasant. The government of Country B imports scads of immigrants from 3rd world countries to do many of those jobs (and turns a blind eye to the hordes of non citizens entering the country illegally, willing to work in the black market for even less than minimum wage,) banking on the votes those people will give them in the future. This drives down wages for those jobs even further & leads many 'working class' citizens of Country B to turn to drugs (both illegal & legally prescribed,) hopelessness & despair, forever leaving the workforce & becoming dependent on the social safety net (itself crumbling under the unsustainable weight.) The greedy corporations in Country B are happy because they get to privatize the profits that plentiful cheap labor provides and socialize the huge costs of these immigrants & non-citizens living in the country illegally. The few good jobs are allocated primarily based on gender/race/sexual orientation & on a willingness to unquestioningly parrot Big Brother's overriding narrative: “Multiculturalism is our strength.” Any deviation from the party line is met with social ostracism & is often career-ending. Country B does 60M carbonks to the Earth's climate change model, 4 times as much as Country A. But they look down their nose at & try to Climate-shame Country A, whose citizens have a 50% higher carbon footprint per capita. Now you can argue until you're blue in the face that Country B is the optimal approach or that Country A's residents should feel guilty for using 50% more carbon per capita than Country B. Or that Country A is racist. Or that societies where 'values' like illegitimacy, hedonism, equality of outcome & lawlessness are promoted turn out better than societies where they value marriage, family, equality of opportunity & respect for the law. Or that you don't recognize (a close facsimile of) Country B in the world you see out your window. Or that Western countries didn't look a LOT like Country A (perhaps absent a few easily managed 'tweaks') 50 or 60 years ago. But I'm not buying. (Speaking of not buying, I'm not materialistic. Unlike some in this forum, I don't see buying cheap junk made by child labor in a toxic cloud of pollution in China that will end up in a landfill in <5 years as a desirable social good. I have never owned a smartphone (unlike most of these 'refugees') or a flat-screen TV. My one computer is a 3.5 year old laptop.) As for Green technology, my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that most (the vast majority?) of the 'Green' 'businesses' that received subsidies from the Obama administration (presumably as a reward for campaign donations in most cases?) have (predictably) gone bankrupt. Many of the so-called 'Green' technologies are themselves TERRIBLE for the environment (toxic batteries, etc.) YOU can have faith that there will be a super-Green breakthrough (like cold fusion or something) where electricity will be free, plentiful & cause no environmental harm, but until that breakthrough happens, let's do the responsible thing & plan for it NOT happening. Let's stop being Country B. Let's emulate Country A. And let's help 3rd world countries eventually (but ASAP) become Country A too, not by poaching from their (often incredibly shallow) talent pool (making it harder for them to advance,) or, conversely, by taking their poorest & least skilled into our own populations (dramatically increasing our OWN national carbon footprints, rewarding bad behavior, & creating a de facto lottery system where a few souls reap unearned windfalls while the vast majority get nothing) but by rewarding them for making good decisions (and withholding those rewards if they make bad ones.)

American leaders have been trying to off that guy for 50+ years and President Trump does it in <3 weeks, WOW! I'll never get tired of winning. Here's how fellow Marxist Justin Trudeau reacted:

He's stumbling out of the gate. Listening to too many establishment Republicans, no doubt. Taking his supporters for granted in a hopelessly naive effort to court the other side. But we'll see. I'm always prepared for disappointment. Still SO SO SO SO relieved we're not looking at President Hillary. If his gambit works and he unites America, I'll be stunned. Obama tried that (in a far more favorable media environment) and failed miserably. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUnv6Kb7syQ Anyway, I'm doing my part to help him by criticizing him in here, forcing my fan club to either agree with me or support Trump. :P

Trump's had a bad week. Here are a few of the tweets I composed last night. I'm not sure which ones to send. @realDonaldTrump gets mocked on SNL for backtracking on all his promises. He responds by backtracking on all his promises. I didn't expect @realDonaldTrump to get tired of winning after only 2 weeks. He seems determined to lose now that he's won the election. @realDonaldTrump we didn't elect a weathervane, we elected a leader to represent US. Stop dancing to the MSM's tune. YOU set the narrative. I don't know what dirt they have on @realDonaldTrump to coerce him into caving on all the principles he ran on but it must be pretty juicy. I wish @SenatorSessions or @AnnCoulter or @hannity would grab @realDonaldTrump by the p*ssy and shake some sense into him. MAN UP, Mr. President. I don't enjoy chewing out America's last best hope. But when @realDonaldTrump caves on core principles, the backlash must be SWIFT & FEROCIOUS If @realDonaldTrump learns that his supporters don't care if he caves on his campaign promises, do you think he'll stop doing it? @realDonaldTrump YOU might have been lying when you said Hillary shouldn't be above the law, but WE weren't. #LockHerUp @realDonaldTrump YOU might not think selling access & influence to foreign governments is wrong, but WE do. #LockHerUp @realDonaldTrump YOU might think that there's one set of laws for the people & a different set for the elites, but we DON'T. #LockHerUp @realDonaldTrump thinks he looks magnanimous & presidential by inviting traitors into his cabinet when he only looks weak & unprincipled. @realDonaldTrump what did caving on Hillary or kowtowing to Bibi gain you? NOTHING. You just show that you can be ROLLED. @realDonaldTrump thinks he can befriend his enemies. His enemies will show him how foolish he is. If you want a friend, get a DOG! As pathetic a president as @georgewbush was, at least he didn't betray his strongest supporters before he even moved into the WH.

Happy Turkey Day! http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/print-edition/20161119_LDD001_0.jpg Here are some good articles on anger management and displaced aggression that certain people might find helpful: How To Stop Taking Out Your Anger On Others 20 Things to Do When You’re Feeling Angry with Someone Learning Not to Lash Out And here's a wonderful product that also might help: "Fast pain relief from Internet arguments." http://i.imgur.com/wbpd14m.jpg

Continuing the discussion from the Trumpenthread: Why did the environmental movement drop the issue of overpopulation? "“First, governments must acknowledge the problem and declare their commitment to ending population growth; this commitment should also include an end to immigration.”" "The Sierra Club, for example, in 1969 urged “the people of the United States to abandon population growth as a pattern and goal; to commit themselves to limit the total population of the United States in order to achieve a balance between population and resources; and to achieve a stable population no later than the year 1990.”" So PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do me a favor and STOP PRETENDING TO CARE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE or the ENVIRONMENT if you're not addressing 3rd world overpopulation! Don't be this guy: http://quoteinvestigator.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/muttjeff01.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect TIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOv5Z5uivP0

your ecological footprint is 1.42 global hectares (estimated) if everyone lived like you, we'd need 0.8 planets to support global consumption But 'third world residents' don't always stay in the third world. They migrate (and are currently doing so in massive numbers, with no end in sight.) And then they demand meat, cars, air-conditioning, the TV, the blow-dryer and lots of manufactured and transported goods. Besides, it's racist to plan a system where people who live (and remain) in the 3rd world don't eventually get access to something approaching a first world lifestyle, is it not? But that is INCONCEIVABLE when their population growth rate is so astronomical. Edit: I see there's already a lengthy climate change thread. If I decide to continue this, I'll do it there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR65AmNJsDM And yes, it's a cover, but a pretty good one. I don't think Mr. Brooks wants to let people listen to his song for free.

Weird. My Internet has been terrible/sluggish all day (I've even downloaded a virus scanner to see if I have a bug.) I made a duplicate post in here. Now I see Helene & Kaitlyn both making duplicate posts. Coincidence?

Duplicate post. I might as well put something here: Good article on Breitbart about letting Hillary & Bill off the hook. I completely concur with Schweizer. Peter Schweizer: Letting Hillary off the Hook Is ‘Definition of a Rigged System’ "“My bottom line position, Alex, is, look, he should not even be commenting on this. It’s not appropriate for a President of the United States to be talking about a possible criminal investigation that’s taking place by the FBI at this point. It’s just simply not his place,” Schweizer said." I couldn't have said it better myself.

*consensus* As for climate change, assuming it's real & man-made, I'm still waiting to hear solutions that address the #1 driver of environmental devastation: 3rd world overpopulation.

You're offering false extremes on Israel. It isn't kowtow to Bibi or drop all support for Israel. On Hillary it gains him nothing, costs him credibility with his supporters & gives aid and comfort to his enemies. We elected him in part to restore America as a Nation of Laws. Not to insert himself into an ongoing investigation. I wish you'd stop calling him Banner. Bannon's not going anywhere, nor is there any justification for vilifying him when we've had Jarrett & Rove as the last 2 presidential consiglieres. And I have no interest in what 60% of Americans want to see. I'm interested in what's right. He (understandably) has a blind spot where his children are concerned. You're again offering false extremes, this time on compromise. You don't negotiate with yourself. You don't signal a willingness to work with an enemy who hates you UNTIL they offer to work with you. Obviously if the Democrats signal a willingness to compromise to help push parts of his agenda forward in exchange for something they want, THEN you compromise. As for Obama's signaling a willingness to act in a bi-partisan way at the beginning of his first term, that's in the past so I'll just agree to disagree.