Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Lloyd Perna

Pages: [1] 2
1
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 21, 2019, 11:14:08 AM »
You are wrong.  Congress passes the appropriation.  It is at the discretion of the Secretaries of State and Defense whether it gets spent or not.




2
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 21, 2019, 10:59:56 AM »
 Who gets to decide that giving aid to Ukraine is in the US interest?

3
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 21, 2019, 10:06:39 AM »
Schiff, the leakers, everyone even remotely involved will be subpoenaed- including Joe and Hunter Biden. Perhaps even Obama if they want to go scorched earth. Does anyone have any illusions about whether or not Trump wants to go scorched earth?

Do they get to ignore the subpoenas like everyone close to Trump?

If it were simply a congressional "Investigation" I think Obama and Joe could argue Executive Privilege, Hunter certainly not.  I'm not sure if Executive Privilege would apply in an actual Impeachment Trial though.

4
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 21, 2019, 06:39:01 AM »
Lloyd Perna,

Quote
As the exchange was taking place, the chyron on CNN stated: “SONDLAND: ‘YES’ THERE WAS QUID PRO QUO IN UKRAINE SCANDAL.”

He was directly told that to get the aid would require the public statement.  Hence the headline is correct.

What appears to be confusing you is that Trump didn't tell Sondland that, he 'presumed' it was Trump who was directing Guilianni and others to tell him that.

So Turner merely was decieving you.  The headline is accurate.

In the testimony I quoted above he testified that no one on the Planet told him that Trump was tying the aid to investigations.  Not even Guilianni.  Please provide his testimony that contradicts this, because I cant find it.


5
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 21, 2019, 06:08:29 AM »
https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1197232692171083777

Video of Rep. Turner questioning Sondland yesterday.

As the exchange was taking place, the chyron on CNN stated: “SONDLAND: ‘YES’ THERE WAS QUID PRO QUO IN UKRAINE SCANDAL.”
Quote
Turner: “After you testified, Chairman [Adam] Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony and if you pull up CNN today, right now, their banner says ‘Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid,'” Turner said. “Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland? That you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid? Because I don’t think you’re saying that.”

Sondland: “I’ve said repeatedly Congressman, I was presuming,”

Turner: “So, no one told you? Giuliani didn’t tell you? Mulvaney didn’t tell you? Pompeo didn’t tell you? Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations, is that correct?”

Sondland: “I think I already testified,”

Turner: “No, answer the question, Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to the investigations? Because if your answer is ‘yes,’ then the chairman is wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong.”

Turner: “No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?”

Sondland: “Yes”

Turner: “So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?” Turner pressed.

Sondland: “Other than my own presumption,”

Turner: “Which is nothing,”

Seriously, barring some new evidence, Shouldn't this shut the door on this whole charade?


6
General Comments / Re: In any other administration...
« on: November 15, 2019, 03:01:17 PM »
Regardless, the Clinton foundation didn't violate any laws. And that's what's important, right?

Fenring:
Quote
There is no point questioning the virtue of his methods of spending money; only the legality of it is relevant.

We won't know until there is an investigation.  Isn't that how this works now?

7
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 07, 2019, 01:39:33 PM »
What would you prefer we call it?

8
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 07, 2019, 01:20:09 PM »
What other evidence are you talking about?  The only evidence we have are the transcript of the call and the transcripts of the testimony that have been released thus far.  If there is no question you should be able to produce at least some of the evidence you are talking about.

9
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 07, 2019, 12:20:03 PM »
Quote
I always believed that suspending aid to Ukraine was ill-advised, although I did not know (and still do not know) when, why or by whom the aid was suspended. 

It seems pretty clear to me that he does not today know that there was a link anywhere but in his own mind.

10
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 07, 2019, 12:12:31 PM »
Lloyd, you seem to think that somehow pertinent - you do realize that what you referred to preceded what Warsaw quoted in time, right?  Sondland "presumed" in early September, but this presumption was then superseded by additional knowledge (after "speaking individually with Mr. Yermak" and that "Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself.")

That was clear, right - that Sondland was describing how his understanding evolved?

Yes I understand the timeline.  What is quoted does not indicate that the link between the Aid and the public statement was anything but his own presumption.

11
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 07, 2019, 11:08:49 AM »
You left part of it out.  Emphasis is mine.

Quote
I always believed that suspending aid to Ukraine was ill-advised, although I did not know (and still do not know) when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.  However, by the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.

12
General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: October 31, 2019, 07:05:40 PM »
I'm pretty sure Morrison held a press conference and released his prepared statement.

13
General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: October 31, 2019, 03:40:17 PM »
So Former NSC official Tim Morrison testified today.  Here are a couple of the highlights.

1. He was on the call between Trump and Zelensky and he said "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed"  He also testified that the transcript “accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call,”

2. “I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the [military funding] review until August 28, 2019,” (The Day Schiff tweeted about it)

3. He said Taylor lied mis-remembered about Sondland demanding a public statement from Zelensky committing to a Burisma investigation “My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland’s proposal to [Ukrainian National Security Advisor Andriy] Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general — not President Zelensky — would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation,”





14
General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: October 30, 2019, 04:52:06 PM »
I agree we need someone to testify about the transcript, maybe even more then one person, but it needs to be out in public.  I don't see why you expect everyone to take at face value a select portion of the secret testimony that has been leaked by Schiff to prop up his narrative.

15
General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: October 30, 2019, 03:14:47 PM »
How do we know what Vindman testified?  What is the source?  Why should we believe them?  What else did he testify to that hasn't been leaked?  Why are the transcripts being kept secret?

16
General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: October 30, 2019, 11:44:52 AM »
If these meetings are supposed to be secret, how are these statements getting out?  Who is releasing them?  Why?

17
General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: October 30, 2019, 10:14:06 AM »
Isn't that convenient.

“I have never in my life seen anything like what happened today, during the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman,” said Rep. Devin Nunes, (R-CA) on Fox News’s “Hannity.”

“It was unprecedented,” continued Nunes. “I mean, they’ve been bad at most of these depositions, but to interrupt us continually to coach the witness, to decide… what we’re going to be able to ask the witness.”

“And, to see someone coach a witness, this isn’t the first time that Schiff — Schiff is very good at coaching witnesses.”

Rep. Jim Jordan also supported Nunes statement, and provided more detailed of what went through inside the hearing.

“When we asked [Vindman] who he spoke to after important events in July — Adam Schiff says, ‘no, no, no, we’re not going to let him answer that question,” Jordan said.





18
General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: October 30, 2019, 09:30:01 AM »
Does anyone have a transcript of the testimony?

19
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 23, 2019, 12:09:28 PM »
Why just yesterday he used the word "lynching" in a way that he knew was a secret racist dog whistle. He's an affront to decency and we shouldn't let the validity of evidence stand in the way of what we all know is the greater good.

I think this one is funny.  I guess dog whistles are only for Republicans.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/biden-1998-impeach-kfile/index.html

Quote
In an appearance on CNN in October 1998, however, Biden said the impending impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton could be viewed as a "partisan lynching."
"Even if the President should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard, the very high bar, that was set by the founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense," Biden said.
The Biden campaign declined to comment.

20
General Comments / Re: They’re all Russian agents
« on: October 22, 2019, 01:36:55 PM »
"Literally everyone associated with Trump is a criminal that has “broken many laws”"

It's a pretty good guess, given the track record of investigations into so many of his appointees and associates.  As for Rudy, he's survived on bluster, misdirection and pure bluffing.  I can't swear he'll be indicted, and if indicted, tried and found guilty, and if found guilty consigned to prison for a term as long as his 3rd wife would wish on him.  He should go through all of those things, but his best chance to stay out of jail until he dies of prostate cancer (ah, right - he already had it removed) or is assassinated by agents of an erstwhile Russian business partner, is to get a pardon.  My money is on the pardon, which won't stop the SDNY office from passing along their evidentiary material to the state, but it will slow things down.

This line of thought reminded me of "The Gulag Archipelago"  If you haven't read it, It's worth the effort.

Quote
“Andrei Yanuaryevich (one longs to blurt out, “Jaguaryevich”) Vyshinsky, availing himself of the most flexible dialectics (of a sort nowadays not permitted either Soviet citizens or electronic calculators, since to them yes is yes and no is no), pointed out in a report which became famous in certain circles that it is never possible for mortal men to establish absolute truth, but relative truth only. He then proceeded to a further step, which jurists of the last two thousand years had not been willing to take: that the truth established by interrogation and trial could not be absolute, but only, so to speak, relative. Therefore, when we sign a sentence ordering someone to be shot we can never be absolutely certain, but only approximately, in view of certain hypotheses, and in a certain sense, that we are punishing a guilty person. Thence arose the most practical conclusion: that it was useless to seek absolute evidence-for evidence is always relative-or unchallengeable witnesses-for they can say different things at different times. The proofs of guilt were relative, approximate, and the interrogator could find them, even when there was no evidence and no witness, without leaving his office, “basing his conclusions not only on his own intellect but also on his Party sensitivity, his moral forces” (in other words, the superiority of someone who has slept well, has been well fed, and has not been beaten up) “and on his character” (i.e., his willingness to apply cruelty!)… In only one respect did Vyshinsky fail to be consistent and retreat from dialectical logic: for some reason, the executioner’s bullet which he allowed was not relative but absolute…”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

21
General Comments / Re: G7 2020
« on: October 17, 2019, 04:41:30 PM »
It's my understanding that the resort is providing its services at cost.  12 resorts were evaluated.

“We used the same set of criteria that other administrations used,” he said. “It became apparent at the end of that process that Doral was far and away, far and away, the best facility to host this conference.”


If he's not making any profit from it, how is it self dealing?

22
General Comments / Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« on: August 15, 2019, 01:35:24 PM »
Report today from the autopsy is that Epstein had multiple broken bones in his neck. Apparently this is consistent with strangulation and it strongly implies he did not die by simply hanging. I’m not sure if it does or not but conspiracy types will certainly love this detail.

Actually the 'broken bones' are the hyoid - which is consistent with hanging as well as strangulation.  Given that he is elderly it is extremely common for the hyoid to break during a hanging.  If it had been other neck bones (cervical vertibrate) then it would be more reasonable to suspect foul play or if he had been in his early 20's (there is a 25% chance overall risk of hyoid being broken during a hanging, but it is drastically lower at young ages, and dramatically higher for elderly) - but the hyoid being broken is quite common in hanging of elderly even from short distances so doesn't tell us much - it doesn't rule out strangulation but it isn't evidence supporting it either.

Actually, If we go to the source of the report, The Washington Post, there is a bit more information.

Quote
An autopsy found that financier Jeffrey Epstein suffered multiple breaks in his neck bones, according to two people familiar with the findings, deepening the mystery about the circumstances around his death.

Among the bones broken in Epstein’s neck was the hyoid bone, which in men is near the Adam’s apple. Such breaks can occur in those who hang themselves, particularly if they are older, according to forensics experts and studies on the subject. But they are more common in victims of homicide by strangulation, the experts said.

So it seems that other neck bones were also broken.

23
General Comments / Re: Neo-segregation
« on: May 23, 2019, 12:11:33 PM »
So you would be ok with White only dorms, as long as they are voluntary and not enforced by ordinance?

24
General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 19, 2019, 01:01:32 PM »
Quote
Mueller acknowledges that the administration fully cooperated with the investigation in every way.

Who said that, Crunch?  And why should I believe that person?

And if the administration cooperated with the investigation "in every way," why are there 11 instances of apparent obstruction of justice listed in the report?  ???

I think you are misstating what the report says.  I think a more correct statement would be "there were 11 instances of possible obstruction investigated and the evidence they found for each is summarized in the report"

The report makes no statement regarding whether that evidence supports an obstruction charge.

25
General Comments / Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« on: April 05, 2019, 12:01:30 PM »
The only way he could reasonably have been prosecuted is if the police had done a sting where the attackers got him on tape.

While I think it more likely than not that Smollett staged it - beyond a reasonable doubt probably isn't possible with the evidence they had.

Do you have access to the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury?  If not I don't know how you could jump to that conclusion.  The Police Department certainly feel like they have a case.

26
General Comments / Re: Biden on the block
« on: April 01, 2019, 01:29:04 PM »
So Lloyd, what do you think should happen to Biden?  Should we just forgive him for this faux pas?  Or does this disqualify him for the Presidency?  Is this really a serious matter?

He hasn't been accused of or committed a crime that I can see. I don't think it disqualifies him.  I do think we should look at it in the bigger picture.  I've seen lots of photos that look like he's making women uncomfortable with his inappropriate touching.  Seems kind of creepy to me.  Nor does he seem to have apologized.  I think If I were voting in the Democratic primary I would not vote for him.

27
General Comments / Re: Biden on the block
« on: April 01, 2019, 11:04:05 AM »
You don't have to imagine.  She described the interaction in detail.

Quote
I found my way to the holding room for the speakers, where everyone was chatting, taking photos, and getting ready to speak to the hundreds of voters in the audience. Just before the speeches, we were ushered to the side of the stage where we were lined up by order of introduction. As I was taking deep breaths and preparing myself to make my case to the crowd, I felt two hands on my shoulders. I froze. “Why is the vice-president of the United States touching me?”

I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified. I thought to myself, “I didn’t wash my hair today and the vice-president of the United States is smelling it. And also, what in the actual *censored*? Why is the vice-president of the United States smelling my hair?” He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn’t process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused. There is a Spanish saying, “tragame tierra,” it means, “earth, swallow me whole.” I couldn’t move and I couldn’t say anything. I wanted nothing more than to get Biden away from me. My name was called and I was never happier to get on stage in front of an audience.

https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/an-awkward-kiss-changed-how-i-saw-joe-biden.html

28
Smells like collusion.  Biden must be compromised.  Everyone in his circle must be investigated.  We need a special prosecutor.

29
General Comments / Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« on: March 14, 2019, 03:24:19 PM »
Lowered voting age has been proposed where / by who?

It was proposed as an amendment to the "For the People Act" in the House last week.  124 Democrats and 1 Republican voted for it 

"including California Reps. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters and Ted Lieu, Hawaii Rep. and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar."

Today Nancy Pelosi said “I myself, personally, I’m not speaking for my caucus, I myself have always been for lowering the voting age to 16, I think it’s really important to capture kids when they’re in high school when they’re interested in all of this when they’re learning about government to be able to vote."



30
General Comments / Re: Getting money back ok?
« on: February 23, 2019, 10:35:09 AM »
I would find somebody else to build the deck and sue the guy in small claims. 

31
General Comments / Re: Getting money back ok?
« on: February 23, 2019, 10:10:40 AM »
Did he do some work but its not finished or did he never start? If he just took your money and never did any work I would definitely take him to small claims court.

32
General Comments / Re: 12-year old non-violent criminals
« on: February 22, 2019, 08:04:46 AM »
Donald, do you think a child should be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a swastika and a white supremacist slogan on it to school?  Do you think any school system in the country would allow that?  What about a T-shirt supporting the Border Wall and President Trump?

Personally, I think all of those things should be allowed including the boy who wants to sit in protest of the anthem or the pledge.  I don't see any difference between them when it comes to someone's right to free speech.   Somehow, most of the people running our public schools think they are different.

33
General Comments / Re: The Green New Deal
« on: February 11, 2019, 12:20:37 PM »
Oh, Just found this.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics/migrants-arizona-arrests/index.html

Seems to support Seriati's story.

34
General Comments / Re: The Green New Deal
« on: February 11, 2019, 12:08:03 PM »
I haven't seen anything about them getting picked up on the other side but, Reuters is reporting that US Border Patrol agents are saying
Quote
Large bus loads of individuals are being bussed up to the border and we don't have any infrastructure in that area

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1PX28R

35
General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: January 24, 2019, 03:56:03 PM »
Shouldn't you be more outraged because it happened to a Veteran?  That Veteran offered his life to protect his (and your) right to express his political support by wearing that t-shirt.

36
General Comments / Re: Injustice of the Republican Tax bill
« on: January 04, 2019, 02:24:00 PM »
And Lloyd, no, campaigns are not all publicly funded, or do you think that lobbying is no longer a thing?

Why did you add the word all in there, that's not what I said?

We do have public funding for elections available.

https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/understanding-ways-support-federal-candidates/presidential-elections/public-funding-presidential-elections/

37
General Comments / Re: Injustice of the Republican Tax bill
« on: January 04, 2019, 12:52:27 PM »
I support a secure border.  I don't know, but I suspect that when you take into account the costs of illegal immigration that would be prevented over the long term that it would be at least revenue neutral.

38
General Comments / Re: Injustice of the Republican Tax bill
« on: January 04, 2019, 12:38:27 PM »
It’s very hard to cut the taxes for people that pay little or no taxes. Demagogues work the angle of “benefiting only the rich” to take advantage of those that don’t understand our tax system.

If there really was all that extra money lying around to pass back around to the rich (since you agree that the poor weren't pay much tax anyhow) then why does it benefit the country again to give more to those who already have? Why not spend it on infrastructure, or border security, or anything else that can benefit everyone in the country simuntanesouly, including the rich? How abput spending it on a public campaign finance program so that corporate lobbying can be banned outright? This idea alone should be worth more to the rich than a tax cut; surely they would enjoy uncorrupted governance, right? ;)  Or could it be that the most powerful moguls stand to gain from things exactly as they are...

  • There is no "extra" money lying around, our government spends far more than the tax revenue it takes from those who have earned it.
  • Nobody is "giving" more to those who already have.  They are taking less.
  • I think we should spend taxes on programs that benefit everyone.  I think the problem is how do we determine if a program benefits everyone or just some special interest?  Instead, maybe we should spend more efficiently, eliminate all the pork projects, government bloat and excessive regulations so we don't have to take so much money from our taxpayers?
  • We already have public funding of elections. Given that it has been settled that political spending by corporations is speech that is protected by the first amendment, I don't see how spending more public money on elections will ensure "uncorrupted governance"

39
General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: November 20, 2018, 04:50:45 PM »
I don't think the Police would have arrested him if there weren't a credible allegation.

I mean a publicly credible allegation.  We don't know who made the allegation, what the specific allegation is, etc.  We know that the initial reporting is that it was his estranged wife, but she has publicly denied it.  I'm not saying it definitely didn't happen, but at this point all we know is that an arrest was made and he is out on bail.

Ok, Looks like more details are coming out.  Is this "publicly credible"?


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michael-avenatti-accuser-says-he-dragged-her-left-her-marks-n938656


40
General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: November 16, 2018, 11:45:49 AM »
I don't think the Police would have arrested him if there weren't a credible allegation.

41
Kelly was talking about a lady from Real Housewives of New York who was called racist for darkening her skin and dressing up like Diana Ross for Halloween, here is what she said.

Quote
And people said that that was racist. And I don’t know! I thought like, who doesn’t love Diana Ross? She wants to look like Diana Ross for one day, and I don’t know how that got racist on Halloween.

Meanwhile Jimmy Kimmel once actually dressed up in blackface as Karl Malone an mocked how he speaks yet he is still working?  Where is ABC on this issue? https://youtu.be/-wse5lgIDxM
Quote
Sometime at night, Karl Malone look up at sky and say, “What the hell goin’ on up there? Do UFO live on other planet, phonin’ home like E.T.?’ Karl Malone read on TV about white people gettin’ deducted (sic) by alien, speakin’ all kind of hell up they butt. And that’s a damn thing. Now, Karl Malone never seen no flyin’ saucer itself, but if he do, that goin’ to be a spooky time. That’s why Karl Malone say, ‘Government got to step up and give 102% to keepin’ them little green men of this here earth, ‘cause the day them dudes sticks somethin’ up Karl Malone butt, well, that ain’t gonna be no good time for nobody, especially Karl Malone butt. Listen up, E.T.’ you better stay the hell back. Nanoo, nanoo. Until next time, this here Karl Malone.


42
General Comments / Re: Sticks and Stones
« on: October 23, 2018, 02:25:24 PM »
Fenring,  There are lots of systems that are unfair by design.  That doesn't make them racist.  For example, The US tax code is highly unfair to the wealthiest taxpayers.  Most of those people are white.  Would you say that is racist?  It seems to me that your argument relies on the unequal outcome.

43
General Comments / Re: Sticks and Stones
« on: October 23, 2018, 12:22:23 PM »
Quote
And it's also possible to unintentionally create a law that does this same thing, with no ill intent on the part of the designer. But the resulting structure (in this case a law) is 'racist'; if we were to think like pagans and to attribute intent to natural phenomena, we might well be inclined to call that law 'a racist'.

I'm struggling to think of an example of a law that is unintentionally racist without resorting to some statistical disparity that couldn't reasonably be explained by something other than racism.  Do you have one in mind?

44
You can listen to the whole debate on Jordan Petersen's podcast.

From a quick look at an article, Fry complains about:

Statue removal. This is a big one for a lot of people, and they often equate it with "erasing history", when nobody on the PC side is advocating removing anyone from the history books, they just want to remove these people from a place of honor and admiration.

Trigger words. The idea that literature must be avoided because it contains ideas of racism and other items.

I'm curious about the source of the article.  A transcript is available with a mumbership to Munk Debates that requires an email address.  A bit of Fry, sans Laurie:

Quote
Now, in agreeing to participate in this debate and stand on this side of the argument, I'm fully aware that many people who choose —incorrectly, in my view — to see this issue in terms of left and right, devalued and exploded terms as I think they are, will believe that I am betraying myself in such causes and values that I’ve espoused over the years. I’ve been given huge grief already, simply because I'm standing here next to Professor Peterson, which is the very reason that I'm standing here in the first place. I'm standing next to someone with whom I have, you know, differences, shall we say, in term of politics and all kinds of other things, precisely because I think all this has got to stop — this rage, resentment, hostility, intolerance; above all, this with-us-or-against us certainty.
A Grand Canyon has opened up in our world. The fissure, the crack, grows wider every day. Neither side can hear a word that the other shrieks; nor do they want to. While these armies and propagandists in the culture wars clash, down below in the enormous space between the two sides, the people of the world try to get on with their lives, alternately baffled, bored, and betrayed by the horrible noises and explosions that echo all around. I think it’s time for this toxic, binary, zerosum madness to stop before we destroy ourselves. I’d better nail my colours to the mast before I go any further than this; it’s only polite to give you a sense of where I come from. All my adult life I have been what you might call a leftie, a soft leftie, a liberal of the most hand-wringing, milksop, milk-toast variety. Not a burning man-the-barricades socialist; not even really a progressive worth the name. I've been on marches, but I’ve never quite dared wave placards or banners.
Am I a loathed member of that band, an SJW — a social justice warrior? I don’t think highly of social injustice, I have to say, but I character myself mostly as a social justice worrier. My intellectual heroes, growing up, were Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore, liberal thinkers, people like that, writers like E. M. Forster. I believed, and I think I still do believe, in the sanctity of human
relations, the primacy of the heart, and friendship and love and common interest. These are more personal interior beliefs than they are political exterior convictions, more a humanistic version of a religious impulse, I suppose. I trust in humanity, I believe in humanity — I think I do, despite all that has happened in the forty years of my adulthood. I am soft, and I can easily be swept away by harder hearts and harder intellects. I'm sometimes surprised to be described as an activist, but over time I have energetically involved myself with what you might call causes. I grew up knowing that I was gay — well, in fact, from the very first I knew I was gay. I remember when I was born, looking up and saying, “That’s the last time I'm going out one of those!”
I'm Jewish, so I have a natural, obvious horror of racism. Naturally I want racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, bullying, bigotry, intolerance of all human kinds to end. That’s
surely a given amongst all of us.
The question is how such a golden aim is to be achieved. My ultimate objection to political correctness is not that it combines so much of what I have spent a lifetime loathing and opposing: preachiness (with great respect), piety, self-righteousness, heresyhunting, denunciation, shaming, assertion without evidence, accusation, inquisition, censoring. That’s not why I'm incurring the
wrath of my fellow liberals by standing on this side of the house.

My real objection is that I don’t think political correctness works. I want to achieve, I want to get to the golden hill, but I don’t think that’s the way to get there. I believe one of the greatest human failings is to prefer to be right than to be effective. And political correctness is always obsessed with how right it is, without thinking of how effective it might be. I wouldn’t class myself as a classical libertarian, but I do relish transgression, and I deeply and instinctively distrust conformity and orthodoxy. Progress is not achieved by preachers and guardians of morality but, to paraphrase Yevgeny Zamyatin, by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels, and skeptics. I may be wrong — I hope to learn this evening. I really do think I may be wrong. I'm prepared to entertain the possibility that political correctness will bring us more tolerance and a better world. But I'm not sure, and I would like this quotation from my hero, Bertrand Russell, to hover over the evening: “One of the painful things about our time, is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.” Let doubt prevail.

45
General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: October 03, 2018, 06:10:24 PM »
Quote
It's hard to imagine TheDrake that you could have a legitimate basis to claim he perjured himself in saying he never blacked out.  You'd have to have proof of an event occurring that he doesn't remember (which if he denies the event is impossible to determine if he's lying).  In this case, we DON'T have proof the event occurred and the accusation is uncorroborated and not terribly credible.

Anyone who runs around boofing with his DKE pals is going to get blackout drunk. No, I can't point to a specific detail or a person making the claim that they talked to him the morning after a party and he didn't remember a large chunk of time. It strains plausibility to the breaking point.

As for the credibility of an anonymous ex-boyfriend recounting his experiences with her 20-25 years ago... and one whose own statement describes that she cheated on him and used his credit card after they broke up? That doesn't really prove perjury either.

Well, its not anonymous.  The man in question is Brian Merrick.  I do find it somewhat humorous that many people are completely willing to take Ford's uncorroborated testimony as unassailable truth but very quickly discount this man's testimony because it is uncorroborated

46
General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: September 19, 2018, 06:52:58 PM »
So, What I'm hearing is that any accusation of wrongdoing now disqualifies anyone from public office?  Are we going to hold everybody to that standard?

47
I served with General Mattis.  If he wanted to say this, he would not do it anonymously.

48
General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: September 05, 2018, 12:54:35 PM »
I googled "trump voter fraud new hampshire" and the first result found this article from May this year.

https://www.concordmonitor.com/Database-flags-142-possible-voter-fraud-cases-17835841

Quote
After the 2016 general election, the system flagged 94,610 New Hampshire voters whose first and last names and dates of birth matched those in other states. That amounts to about 1 in 9 voters, but officials eliminated all but 142 of the matches after taking a closer look at middle names and other information, including the marked checklists maintained by poll workers. Of the 142, officials have sent 51 to the attorney general’s office for investigation and are waiting for information from other states on the rest, Secretary of State Bill Gardner told the Ballot Law Commission.

I'm willing to give this one to Trump since at the time of the tweet I would have considered this a problem as well.  I'm glad that after a year investigating that we can say that there were probably only somewhere between 51 and 142 actual cases of voter fraud.


49
General Comments / Re: Trump verses Google Search
« on: August 30, 2018, 03:22:05 PM »
Personally, I don't believe that google is really cooking the results to disfavor Trump specifically. Though, it wouldn't surprise me if some sites were penalized (or favored) by the algorithm based on their content (keywords)

I think the underlying issue is that Google's algorithm (and all the other search engines I believe) is not transparent.  If Google was more forthcoming with how the algorithm works, it doesn't need to be specific, and the search results displayed some information on each result that correlates to that explanation, then I think most of these claims could easily be dismissed.  Unfortunately, that would probably result in search results being worse overall due to SEO optimizers gaming the algorithm even more than they do already.

50
Ok, let's break it down.

Quote
"In the eyes of the law, yes. But in the eyes of good and evil, here’s the argument: If you’re a punk who comes to start trouble in a mask and hurt people, you’re not about any virtuous cause," he continued. "You’re just somebody that’s going to be held to the standard of doing something wrong."
Here he says if your just here to start trouble you're in the wrong.  I agree.

Quote
"But when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they’re fighting? I argue no."
But here, he says that as long as you are here to call out the bigots then sure, if they make you mad mess them up, they deserve it.

Quote
Fighting matters, too, there’s no question about that. But drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it, because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimizes hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out.
Now he waffles a bit, maybe its not totally ok to fight but don't worry, our cause is just

Quote
Antifa or whomever ... or malcontent or misguided, they are also wrong to hit, but fighting hate is right, And in a clash between hate and those who oppose it, those who oppose it are on the side of right.”
More talking out of both sides of his mouth.  Its wrong to commit violence.  but not so much if its against these bad people.

"And in a clash between hate and those who oppose it, those who oppose it are on the side of right.”

Pages: [1] 2