jonottawa

In spite of my "War is NOT Peace ..." line in the Trump thread, I think we're living much more in a Brave New World than we are in 1984. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World Destruction of the family. ✓ Pernicious education system. ✓ Discouragement of critical thinking. ✓ Discouragement of individual action and initiative. ✓ Widespread drug use. ✓ Promotion of recreational sex. ✓ Pair-bonding is obsolete. ✓ Spiritual needs met by mock religious services. ✓ Materialism & consumption are heavily promoted. ✓

This one? It's from post 2882, not deleted. It's worse than that. I've heard that some bars discriminate against ugly people and try to hire cute people for their waitstaff or as bartenders. Some strip clubs do that TOO, they even discriminate against FAT people! Even news organizations like FoxNews tend to hire women who are considered really attractive. I've even heard rumors that magazines like Vogue won't put you on the cover if you're an average-looking person! It's unconscionable. It's barbaric. It's medieval. Don't these people know that it's the CURRENT YEAR!? Thank-you Kaitlyn! You've opened my eyes. I'm walking down to Handsome Boy Modeling School RIGHT NOW!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTRcskwiRRA

I admire a guy who loves his family, but I think Trump is making a big mistake by giving his children so much influence, especially his son-in-law. He needs to nip that problem in the bud. He also needs to pick Corker for State. Bolton? Giuliani? Gingrich? I mean, come on, let's be serious.

Indeed. That's what my last question was meant to establish. http://i.quoteaddicts.com/media/q1/641109.png

Another poor 'misunderstood' Hillary supporter :rolleyes: NSFW! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaLa_q4ESd8 http://www.wibc.com/blogs/indys-morning-news/melyssa-jo-kelly-example-how-people-treat-police-officers "This is a sign of not only a demented woman, but a dangerous and sick society, one that we just simply have to fix. We should at least not allow it here in Indianapolis This comes out of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Two Des Moines officers were [recently] killed in an ambush-style attack. And in this coffee shop is...Melyssa Jo Kelly. She's older, she's in her sixties, and she's white... . She's being disruptive, she's being rude, she's being asked to leave by the owners of the coffeehouse. She refuses to leave. The cops come and here is this woman, this 65-year-old white woman, and she starts taunting the police. Why are you taking your life out on a cop? Two cops get murdered and your response is 'good' because somebody else is in a hospital bed? The things don't relate. She instigated every step of the way. She wanted a physical confrontation and then she wouldn't leave. And yes, after being asked by the owners to leave, she's screaming and yelling like she's being oppressed. If this is how people are really treating cops, we have a societal problem that is bigger than I ever thought. The good news is, I don't think this is anything in the mainstream." Thank God someone who RESPECTS law enforcement will be our next president. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290586-police-union-clinton-snubbed-us

Childish insults aside, that was a fairly good post, Mike. I was trained in business school to be a 'free trade' acolyte too, but reality intervened. I think 'protectionism never works' is a HUGE overbid. The German economy pre-WWII flourished, in part due to protectionism. The Chinese economic ascendancy was fueled in part by protectionism. But I think we'll get lost in the weeds if we start arguing about that. What I don't get is: If blue-collar, low-skilled jobs are vanishing, why does it make economic sense to flood the country with millions of unskilled immigrants who will vote for politicians that allow in countless more unskilled immigrants? (Or if you disagree with any of the premises of this question, please explain.) Or do you acknowledge that immigration (of unskilled potential workers) TODAY does not make economic sense and should only be done for 'humanitarian' reasons? And should it continue (as 3rd world overpopulation marches on) until our own standard of living drops to a 3rd world level or until when? And if there is a logical stopping point, what makes you think we'll stop once we reach that point? Or to pursue this to its logical extreme: If you could wave a wand and teleport the 50 million poorest people on earth to Canada over the next 5 years, would you do it? If someone's answer to that question is no, does that make her a racist?

Sorry folks, the Democrats stopped being the 'reality-based' community about the time Obama was being sworn in. We've tried it your way for 50+ years. Before President Trump, America has been in freefall. We used to be the sole military & economic superpower. We had high social capital. We used to reward excellence & value thrift & hard work. A family, even a fairly large one, could thrive with only one blue-collar breadwinner. Our schools taught skills that were useful instead of gibberish. Our mass media was mostly honest/accurate & there were serious repercussions when they deliberately weren't. Americans overwhelmingly were happy, law-abiding & productive & didn't need a myriad of psych meds to cope with their existence. We went to the moon. We honored mothers and fathers. Each generation had it better than the last. We lived within our means. We dreamed BIG. Then the baby boomers came along & decided degeneracy, anarchy, welfare, psych meds, narcissism & hedonism was the answer to every problem. Well you can say it over and over again, you can sit in your echo chamber until the cows come home, but LOOK AROUND, it just ain't so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFyf0MXXhJk

On this we agree and anyone who's serious about global warming or sustainability DOES agree. (Specifically 3rd world overpopulation, since the western world is barely at replacement growth, if that.) And there's nothing 'abstract' about it. It's by far the most important issue of our time. My birth father wrote a book that's half-decent on the subject. Thanks for reminding me of another reason I dislike Hillary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_zDW6fCgZo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYbNbJG3-1k

Yes, I amended that post in the <10 minutes between when I posted it and when you replied. I worded it sloppily.

This wasn't some fake edit. Watch the whole interview if you want. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLLt-a6dI_0 RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us? OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote. Someone asks on behalf of NON-CITIZENS if they should be fearful of voting and Obama's reply was an unequivocal NO. He didn't immediately say: If you're not a US Citizen, it is illegal for you to vote & you should not register to vote. He said some malarkey about if you vote, you become a citizen. I don't understand what he meant, but neither would some uneducated non-citizen. He UNDERSTOOD the question, and his answer was shameful. As for Snopes, yeah, they were in the tank for Hillary. So linking Snopes as some kind of authority is absurd. Take the simple claim that Hillary defended a child rapist & then later laughed about it. 100% true. Snopes' verdict: Mostly false. http://yournewswire.com/snopes-caught-lying-for-hillary-again-questions-raised/ And if you don't know the Kathy Shelton story, you should educate yourself. Because it's truly heartbreaking.

By popular request: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kvRuyYKkkU

Kaitlyn, let me flesh out my answer a bit since you went to the trouble of composing such a well-reasoned post: The Constitution. (I think the verb 'rape' is overused fwiw. :) But anyway.) Yes, "liberals" are all for the Constitution as long as the Constitution enshrines whatever pet issue is popular in the CURRENT YEAR as an inviolable human right for all time. You can't say you're FOR the Constitution if that essentially means you IGNORE the plain language of the Constitution at your discretion. We used to amend the Constitution when we wanted new rights (or to give up certain rights as in the case of Prohibition.) That's our tradition. That's what being FOR the Constitution means. Rule of law. POTUS went on television and urged non-citizens to vote for Hillary. Soros riots are going on right now. Sanctuary cities. Come on, how many examples do you need? Checks and balances. Executive orders overturning US immigration law. Partisan DoJ interference in the FBI investigation of Hillary. A judiciary that's as politicized as the legislative branch. I think this administration has taken all the bad examples from Dubya and Dubyalled down on them. Ethical journalism: "Some liberal posters agree that the mainstream media is slightly biased in their favor. Most liberals agreed with me when I stated that journalists kowtowed to CAIR instead of reporting their honest findings for fear of being sued or fired by their employer who feared being sued." Slightly biased? Only with respect to CAIR? C'mon now. The MSM is no longer credible as a news source. It's gotten so bad that even FoxNews (with the exception of Hannity, who is too powerful to be bullied by the Murdoch boys) were shilling for Hillary this cycle! Morality: "This is an interesting one. I believe there is a high correlation between religious people and conservatives. However, the Left believes they are the moral ones while we are being the immoral (racist, bigoted, deplorable) ones." Here's another case of Humpty Dumpty and Alice. Bigotry means intolerance for views you disagree with. Is there anyone MORE bigoted than a typical 2016 "liberal"? Is there anything more racist than discriminating against someone because of the color of her skin (Affirmative Action)? Patriotism We agree. Meritocracy. We agree. America has always been the land of opportunity. Equality of opportunity. Not a communist-style equality of outcomes. "However, I voted or someone who I guessed would be less qualified for the job of POTUS. I think that probably less than half the people that voted for him thought he was less qualified than Ms. Clinton. However, ilke me, they either thought that corruption would be worse under her, or favored him over her selecting Supreme Court justices. So TBH I did not choose the top position based on merit alone so I have to admit that there are things other than merit that matter." I think you're (inadvertently) playing word games a bit here. If we agree that Hillary (who I supported in 2008 fwiw, because she was VASTLY more qualified than Obama) is theoretically more capable than President Trump, but way too corrupt to effectively serve, then HE is MORE QUALIFIED. Not being corrupt or owned/controlled by lobbyists is one of the QUALIFICATIONS for being a good president. Freedom of speech. "Both sides have issues there. The right wants to limit free speech in mosques that they feel will lead to terrorism, or least monitor the speech and shut down the mosques if they fear the speech might lead to terrorist plots. While I am undecided whether this is a good idea or not, it definitely flies in the face of free speech. The left wants to curb speech that they feel might be hurtful to snowflakes, and in some cases curb speech that espouses conservative ideas because it might make people who were brought up with liberal ideas uncomfortable. In the former, they have gone too far in some cases but their rationale is that they are trying to stop people from just being jerks who want to belittle others. To us that seems laughable because they are belittling us calling us bigots and stupid and backward and deplorable but they honestly believe that their motives are good. And if you need a law to keep someone from saying something to a known autistic person that the one saying it knows is going to cause a fit, so be it. Yes, it's curbing free speech, but if you need to curb free speech to stop someone from being a hurtful jackass, I guess I have to agree with the Left on that one. However, the Left will take it much too far and curb some free speech that has no business being curbed just to make sure all the cases where people are being hurtful are included." Inciting violence (or terrorist acts) has always been against the law and has never been included in the common definition of "free speech". So I see your argument as a false equivalence. Right to bear arms. We agree. "However, overall, I don't think that most liberals hate America. When conservatives argue that America was better before progressiveism started, the liberals correctly point out that those were the days of Jim Crow laws and women not voting. Many of them are idealists and see a country that they love that can be improved. In every generation, the youth were idealists who pictured an improved America and the older people, many of who were idealists in their youth, have come to realize what works and what won't work and embrace more conservative principles. Some never switch over. But they don't hate America in their own minds, which means they don't hate America." They hate what America has always represented. They want to transform it into something else, something completely foreign to its magnificent founding documents of 1776/1787. Something all of its founding fathers would have been appalled and disgusted by. So yes, they hate America. Do they hate the dirt? No. But America is not magic dirt. America is a nation based on very real & timeless ideals.

Yes Kaitlyn, we are in disagreement, but only about whether we are in disagreement or not. (Though now this is a paradox.) Your "intelligent" liberal friends seem to agree with Humpty Dumpty. I'm with Alice. "“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”" ... As for snowflake, here's a definition: Generation Snowflake

To the best of my knowledge I have had NONE of my posts removed from this thread (or from this forum in the last 5+ years.) If there was one, this is certainly the first I'm hearing of it. Is this just a random smear or ?

Gwen Ifill http://www.providencejournal.com/storyimage/PJ/20160520/NEWS/160509347/AR/0/AR-160509347.jpg

You seem to be confusing me holding Mr. Berg to his own self-professed standards with how I feel about being verbally abused. When I was verbally abused here, I laughed. I didn't flag the post. I'm used to being attacked; the mob is seldom right & so I tend to be on the other side. But carry on with your fanciful narrative if it makes you feel good. I'm with Churchill on this one: The full quote is even better and more germane: "So we must beware of a tyranny of opinion which tries to make only one side of a question the one which may be heard. Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." ~ Winston Churchill October 13, 1943

I wonder if sleeping with Anthony Weiner gave her that epiphany. Amazing what a debt our nation owes to that pervert. http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2011/06/08/anthony-weiners-ex-kirsten-powers-he-lied-to-me/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/43603140.cached.jpg http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/08/anthony-weiners-ex-kirsten-powers-he-lied-to-me.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only 'ugly rudeness' I've seen in this thread is ugly rudeness by Hillary supporters against Trump supporters. I don't recall you condemning it. What Hillary supporters SEEM to want is to be able to say anything they want, no matter how rude, or inflammatory, or even illegal, and then cry victim when someone is rude to them in return. (Women who say they want equality, but then play the gender card when someone insults them, for instance.) That's what Political Correctness has become. And Kirsten Powers has it right, that isn't acceptable.

Thank-you for that beautiful article. So viscerally true & so perfectly captures the political attitudes & climate. I have a jpg of a Facebook post that perfectly illustrates what you mean. It's here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxNaJrIXUAA1vBe.jpg I'd just plug it in, but it's beyond offensive & NSFW. This is the crazy, violent, deranged attitude that the corrupt MSM has spawned among many Hillary supporters. "The current problem of USA is the dictate of infantile, hysterical dictators who behave like the 3 year old." I think this image captures that sentiment well: Though I hate how the word 'liberal' has been bastardized, since I am a liberal. Just like 'conservative' was bastardized by Dubya and his neo-con cronies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism Speaking of immigrants ...

Yes, they're called Islamic terrorists. They not only WOULD mimic ISIS, they HAVE mimicked ISIS, and they will again. And President Trump will protect America from them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism Democrats are the party of media bias and collusion, of the constitution meaning whatever the popular culture of the day thinks it should mean, of a corrupt Justice Department, of open borders, of globalism, of rigged primaries, of election fraud, of immorality, of misandry, of hedonism, of degeneracy, of deadbeat dads, of prescription drug addiction, of corruption, graft, bribery & lobbyists calling the shots. Many of them call for the murder of the President-elect & the rape of the future First Lady (both hashtags are trending on Twitter.) And just here on this forum, we can see how offensively many behave, violating the rule against personal attacks again and again. President Trump rejects all that. God bless him. And God bless the country that elected him in a landslide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqEddipbpkw https://youtu.be/zY3nRgEZTm8?t=5m47s

Brilliant post. The essence of it is that the regressive Left hates America (the constitution, rule of law, checks & balances, ethical journalism, morality, patriotism, liberty, meritocracy, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, don't tread on me.) And many Americans still love America. And so the regressive Left has decided in its infinite wisdom to replace Americans who love America with foreigners who hate America as much as they do.

Ummm, yes. I've noticed. LOL Even MSNBC's Chris Matthews gets it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjVNI6UiHV4

I guess you could ask her what her motive was. http://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2016/11/louisiana-woman-falsely-accuse-trump/

Very thoughtful article on Trump's immigration policy for those who aren't completely beyond reason: https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/who-we-are-as-a-people-the-syrian-refugee-question/ "The common-sense citizen is forgiven for thinking this train of thought insane." That's the 2016 election in a nutshell.

So according to your analysis, if we average yearly deficits of $2 TRILLION over the next 10 years, everything will be fine, because the debt will only have doubled? #NotSureIfTrolling I disagree with most of this, but I like the headline: Spoiled Americans now want to flee what they created