Wednesday, September 13, 2017

OPEN THREAD WEDNESDAY.

MORE DISCLAIMERSLots to talk about on this open thread Wednesday.

For instance, do you think that it's cool for the White House to call for the firing of someone because they exercised their 1st Amendment right? (Let's see now, he won't condemn Nazis, but trump wants a sports reporter fired for saying something that most of us believe is true.)

Is it cool for the Treasury Secretary to get a government jet to go on his honeymoon? He thought it was. 

Now we know why Susan Rice unmasked trump and his peeps.  Seems there was some hanky- panky going on with trump and some of his Middle Eastern friends.

Another day another high school shooting in America.

Finally, is it too soon to make mention of the fact that the two states that were hit the hardest by these two monster hurricanes,  both have climate change deniers for governors?




31 comments:

Anonymous said...


And so it is written:

The battle of Armageddon refers to the final war between human governments and God. These governments and their supporters oppose God even now by refusing to submit to his rulership. (Psalm 2:2) The battle of Armageddon will bring human rulership to an end.—Daniel 2:44.

While we do not know how God will use his power, he will have at his disposal weapons such as those he has used in the past—hail, earthquake, flooding downpour, fire and sulfur, lightning, and disease. (Job 38:22, 23; Ezekiel 38:19, 22; Habakkuk 3:10, 11; Zechariah 14:12) In confusion, at least some of God’s enemies will kill each other, yet they will ultimately realize that it is God who is fighting against them.—Ezekiel 38:21, 23; Zechariah 14:13.

Anonymous said...

See, this is why I have not been happy with liberals/leftists who react with glee whenever someone gets fired from their job after saying stupid, bigoted shit on Facebook, followed by the inevitable viral social media pile-on.

They always make the same glib argument: freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

Okay, fine, the First Amendment doesn't legally prevent anyone but the government from exacting retribution against people for expressing political views. But the concept of freedom of speech should be broader than the First Amendment. We should all encourage the general principle that businesses do not own their employees and do not get to police the political statements they make outside the workplace.

Otherwise, it won't be just the bigots posting pictures of the Obama family as gorillas who pay the price. It will also be people like Jemele Hill who are told to STFU or face termination, after they express controversial opinions.

Anonymous said...

Your sentence about the high school shooting has the wrong link.

Anonymous said...

Darryl Strawberry On Fox News: "Yes sir master...
I is a good house negro..I just luv Donald Trump...
he was always so good to this here house negro...
I is gonna pray for him after I get finished "stepping and fetching" and "shucking and jiving."

I'm is such a good house negro. That's why Donald invited me into the house...he knows I just luvs my master. yes sir sir master sir.
You can keep telling the cops to shoot me, and beati my ass any time they want. Cause I'm a good self hating house negro.

dinthebeast said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXToviObdoA

"We think we can make ourselves safer by making ourselves less free. I'll tell you something: When you make yourself less free, all that happens afterward is that you are less free, you are not safer."


The Flynns, both of them, are in a heap of trouble.

-Doug in Oakland

PilotX said...

Sarah Huckleberry is a mean spirited one ain't she? Just so much venom and a total lack of self awareness. It's hilarious to see conservatives describe liberal hate while almost shouting and coming across as very hateful. I guess she doesn't know how disrespectful her boss is "Mr. Grab em by the pussy" while describing all of the faults of "the left". I do have to admit she is good at her job which requires a lack of irony and a sense of humor. Spicy tried it but no human could really do that job.

Yīshēng is a genius said...

👩🏽‍⚕️🔬👍🏽

Limpbaugh said...

Speaking of climate change, Trump just appointed a climate change denier to run NASA. But don't pat yourself on the back too hard if you believe in climate change but you suspend belief of Issac Newton's first and third laws of motion to believe the scientifically impossible official story of 9/11.


I wonder what the world would be like if Al Gore had been president instead of George Bush. The economy was good when Bill was president largely because of Al Gore. As a Senator, Al Gore sort of did "invent" the internet and it led to the dot com economic boom. As a senator, Gore wrote legislation and got it passed that mandated that major computer systems interface with each other and use fiber optics.

Al Gore probably wouldn't have used 9/11 to lie us into endless wars against "terrorism". In fact, 9/11 might not have even happened. One of bin Laden's main complaints was the American troops that Bush Sr. stationed in Saudi Arabia. Al Gore wasn't the son of George Bush Sr. It also is very likely that Gore would have paid more attention to Al Qaeda than George Bush Jr. did. You don't have to believe, like I do, that Bush knew the hijackings were planned. Bush might not have known about the extra damage that people like Cheney and Rumsfeld had added on, but the PNAC Committee neocons wouldn't have even been in a Gore Administration. That is one more reason to believe even if 9/11 did happen Gore probably would have gone after bin Laden instead of using it as an excuse to overthrow countries. They would have gotten bin Laden at Tora Bora instead of letting their boogeyman get away.

dinthebeast said...

Bin Laden's son is gearing up to fill the power vacuum being created by the destruction ISIS:

https://ctc.usma.edu/posts/hamza-bin-ladin-from-steadfast-son-to-al-qaidas-leader-in-waiting

And while Ms. Huckhuck was busy saying that calling her boss a racist was a firing offense, she was strategically forgetting her damn boss calling Barack Obama a racist, so as to avoid advocating for his firing.

-Doug in Oakland

pterochromics said...

- Historically, the First Amendment applied, first and foremost, TO THE PRESS. It was originally to prevent government censorship of information which some might consider embarrassing to the government.
- Over the years, this was interpreted as including the personal expression of individual citizens.
- The problem is that there is no longer any line drawn between informed opinion, and deliberate defamation ((also known as "lies")).
- The question regarding Ms. Hill is not only whether a president has the right to demand that a member of the press be fired for disseminating critical, or even insulting, comments about said president - the question is also the extent to which a statement of fact, however crudely expressed, is to be criminalized as defamation.
- If someone treats, and speaks about, women in ways which are part and parcel of the definition of "misogyny", is calling it that to now be a criminal act because it is levied against a certain privileged few, while those who have, and continue to, spread proven, known lies are rewarded because their defamation targets those who are outside of the privileged group?
- The same question holds for the word "bigot".
- I beg your patience for what will seem like a digression, but I'll tie it into the difference between truth spoken inelegantly, and defamation couched in 'purple prose':
In the Gospels, we read that Jesus taught that "...false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect," and that they "come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves"; listeners became upset and asked how is it even possible to tell the difference between those who speak truly and those who speak falsely, and Jesus said,
Matthew 7:16 "By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." And this is elaborated upon:
Matthew 12:35 "The good man brings good things out of his good store of treasure, and the evil man brings evil things out of his evil store of treasure." - This theme occurs throughout the Old Testament, and in other instances in the Gospels.
- How this ties in is that the totality of a person's words and actions are the "fruit" that is borne by the "tree" of that person's fundamental character. Humans are, by nature, imperfect beings, and even the best of us will occasionally lose their temper and speak harshly or rudely, but one can look at the totality of that person's words and actions and realize that the person's fundamental character is good.
- The opposite is also true - one can shout more loudly than all others that he/she is "honest" and is "speaking the truth", but similarly, looking at the totality of that person's words and actions will reveal the fundamental hypocrisy and meanness of their character.
-
- I'm not familiar with Ms. Hill, her tweets did not say anything which was not based upon the words and actions of the person about whom she was writing. And the fact is that a person of good character would not merely howl and bark for her job to be taken away from her - that person would deal with the situation in a way that would "bear good fruit", and not merely "thorns".
-


dinthebeast said...

Sometimes harsh and rude words are called for; they have their place like all other words. Sometimes the truth is ugly and unpleasant, and palliative linguistic measures, which are also sometimes called for, are simply lies.
I have learned a system by which these seemingly non-reconcilable facts can exist in quasi-harmony, and its name is manners.

-Doug in Oakland

Limpbaugh said...

I think when Susan Rice talked about Benghazi she was cherry picking from intelligence analysis possibilities more than outright lying. Some kind of combination of following orders and believing what she wanted to believe. She definitely wasn't open to reasonable possibilities other than the peaceful protest theory that turned out be wrong. This time she is the one who is in trouble. I wouldn't be quick to believe that spying on the political opposition had a non political purpose. She could be lying or rationalizing her wrong doing. And she may have been following orders. I think this guy (a progressive who voted for Sanders then Jill Stein and predicted Trump would win) was talking to the Field Negro followers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJftOyGusp4

pterochromics said...

Meanwhile, re:
"Finally, is it too soon to make mention of the fact that the two states that were hit the hardest by these two monster hurricanes, both have climate change deniers for governors?"
- Too soon, hmmm. People around the world have been noting that bit of irony, as well as the fact that many of the same people who were militating for secession not too long ago are now not merely requesting, but *demanding*, Federal aid ((one can only imagine that they only see it as "commiefascistosocialism" when it's OTHER people getting assistance...)).
- Frankly, there have been knowledgeable intelligent people who have been warning, based upon Houston's fairly recent past flooding events, that this area was in serious danger. Some measures were being taken, but by and large, the warnings were dismissed as "too expensive".
- So really, when is it "too soon" to remind our elected so-called "representatives" that their own bank accounts have continued bloating while huge swathes of the area ended up floating...? When is it "too soon" to note that this is part of what happen when a Nation devolves into a disorganized rabble because the cultural ideal is no longer "E Pluribus Unum", but rather, "I got mine so f*ck you all"...?
-

pterochromics (in Houston) said...

@ Doug in Oakland
- Yup, sometimes the truth *is* ugly :(

dinthebeast said...

Andy Borowitz for the win:

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Upbraiding the ESPN anchor Jemele Hill for calling Donald Trump a “white supremacist,” the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said on Wednesday that “no one has done more than President Trump to prove that white people are not superior.”

“It’s grossly unfair that Ms. Hill sought to portray Donald Trump as an upholder of white supremacy, when everything he says or does directly undermines that whole concept,” Sanders said. “Anyone who thinks that Donald Trump is on some mission to make white people look good hasn’t been paying attention.”

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/white-house-rejects-supremacist-label-no-one-has-done-more-than-trump-to-prove-white-people-are-not-superior

And before any Pig People get their trotters in a twist: this is satire. A joke. Remember those?

-Doug in Oakland

Limpbaugh said...

It is beginning to look like one motive for the Russia hacking lie might be to have it as a cover excuse for "wiretapping" Trump. Obama protected the Bush war criminals. Hopefully Trump will drain some swamp.

Lilacpr said...

Don't worry they're no going to fire her! They want her to say that. CNN after all ;)

Anonymous said...

"- The problem is that there is no longer any line drawn between informed opinion, and deliberate defamation ((also known as "lies")).
- The question regarding Ms. Hill is not only whether a president has the right to demand that a member of the press be fired for disseminating critical, or even insulting, comments about said president - the question is also the extent to which a statement of fact, however crudely expressed, is to be criminalized as defamation."


Defamation laws in the U.S. are kind of weak. Maybe they need to be stronger, given the way character assassination is used to take down decent political candidates.

But do you think this applies to Trump and Jemele Hill? Do you think that he could prevail against her in court with a defamation suit on the grounds that he is not a racist and was not elected by racists?

LOL, I'd sure like to see him try. All he'd manage to prove is that he is officially, legally, king of the racists.

Anonymous said...

"I think this guy (a progressive who voted for Sanders then Jill Stein and predicted Trump would win) was talking to the Field Negro followers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJftOyGusp4"

Oh, you mean that Ron Paul supporter who voted for Sanders then lost his mind and decided Hillary Clinton was the anti-Christ and devoted his life to taking vengeance against her? He's a deranged Republican.

So, you know, fuck that guy.

mike from iowa said...

Whiny,sappy bawlbaby at NRA got his kickers in a twist because people refer to instruments of death as weapons. Guns that were created to kill people are not weapons.Huh?

pterochromics said...

"Anonymous wrote:
Defamation laws in the U.S. are kind of weak. Maybe they need to be stronger, given the way character assassination is used to take down decent political candidates.


- That's an important point - I'll try to git it its due consideration, but I had a bad night's sleep and my brain is tired, so apologies in advance ;)
- Anyhoo, assuming that the burden of proof has been met, the defamation laws center upon proving *intent*, which is always a quagmire but especially so when it comes to First Amendment issues. I think the laws don't necessarily need to be stronger as much as they need to be made more clear.
- The larger problem is shared by all laws, that being the struggle between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". If the courts go too far towards following the "letter of the law", justice is thwarted by clever lawyers who make technical points based upon minutiae, upon specific words. I think ((but unsure so check me on it)) that this is "sophistry". At the same time, if the courts go too far towards relying upon "the spirit of the law", justice is thwarted because the argument ends up focusing upon trying to read the minds, so to speak, of the people who wrote the law.
- In both extremes, the focus is taken off of the the fact that one person deliberately or accidentally/unintentionally ended up harming another, and instead, arguments center around the words and phrases used to write the law.
- I know that doesn't help much :( I'm just noting that, no matter how detailed a law is made, no matter how much it is clarified, and no matter how much 'stronger' it's made, there will always be people who are guilty, but have enough money to pay clever lawyers to find loopholes, make technical arguments, and use other bits of intellectual sleight-of-hand to keep the guilty from bearing the consequences of their bad actions.

"But do you think this applies to Trump and Jemele Hill? Do you think that he could prevail against her in court with a defamation suit on the grounds that he is not a racist and was not elected by racists?

- Do I think Jemele Hill "defamed" Trump by calling him a bigot and so on? Nah. There is that old saying: "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck."
- Could Trump sue her and prevail? Well, his past behavior has been to use siege warfare, not to win battles on any field of honor. In other words, in legal conflicts, he has, in the past, merely used his wealth to wear people down, make them go broke, so that they simply are forced to give up. That's how he has "prevailed" in the past: not by being proven innocent, but rather, by laying financial siege and basically bankrupting the other person until they surrender.
- So the question is not whether he could win a legal decision against Jemele Hill ((I doubt he could)), but rather, the question is whether he could out-spend Jemele Hill into giving up ((I'd say almost definitely)).


"LOL, I'd sure like to see him try. All he'd manage to prove is that he is officially, legally, king of the racists.

- I honestly do not believe he'd care. Narcissists don't - in the past, he's waved-off any and all criticism; he has simply ignored criticism, rejected it as nonsense, as irrelevant. After all, he's got piles of money, and most of his critics are mere peons.
- As for the peons who support him, well, remember, there are always some people who worship golden idols.

- Ugh, I hope some of that made sense. I'm about falling asleep on my keyboard =:-O!

Anonymous said...

"but rather, the question is whether he could out-spend Jemele Hill into giving up ((I'd say almost definitely))."

I'd say almost definitely not. If such a case went forward, it wouldn't be Jemele Hill funding her legal fees. She could count on contributions from everybody who hates Donald Trump.

Any idea how large is the number of people who hate Donald Trump, in 2017?

Anonymous said...

What grabs my attention the most these days is one; how the population is so eager to jump to the defense of black entertainers. I really don't get it. I'm a black man and enjoy my share of entertainment. But should my world really revolve around what happens to Colin Kaepernick or Jamelle Hill?? Really? Is this the best we have to offer? I don't recall Hill or Kaepernick doing anything particular to solicit the support of the black community until they felt they had been wronged somehow. Personally, I believe that this is just a publicity stunt by Hill who would prefer not to share the stage with her more talented counterpart on ESPN.

Two; have we as a society just gone numb to the absolute tyranny of the militarized police force in America? The Freddie Gray case, or lack thereof, barely gets a mention in the halls of discord. Does the black community bear some responsibility for allowing this kind of brutality to become commonplace?

KEMELYEN

mike from iowa said...

Ms Hill should be applauded for truthfulness. Drumpf is even worse than she sez.

In the world whitey wingnuts and the NRA envision she would have been well within her rights to whip out a REEVOlVER and settle Drumpf's racist tendencies.

PilotX said...

I have to start watching her show.

mike from iowa said...

Russians on Facebook tried to organize anti-HRC rallies in Texas days before the 2016 election that Putin used to install Dirtbag Donnie Drumpfucker in the WH.

dinthebeast said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Thank you. You had me worried for a minute.

KEMELYEN

pterochromics said...

Anonymous wrote "I'd say almost definitely not. If such a case went forward, it wouldn't be Jemele Hill funding her legal fees. She could count on contributions from everybody who hates Donald Trump. // Any idea how large is the number of people who hate Donald Trump, in 2017?"

- I wish I had a better name than "Anonymous" to reply to ;)
- Anyway, I hadn't thought about the probability of Group Funding. There would have to be a well-publicized appeal to garner enough funding, but it could be a very interesting thing, if it happened ;)

Anonymous said...

Any idea how large is the number of people who hate Donald Trump, in 2017?
12:20 PM

about 40+million illegal aliens in America........

Blogger said...

[Download] $12,234 in 2 months Betting Robot?

Let me get it straight.

I dont care about sports. Shame on me but I don't even know the football rules. Never cared less.

I tried everything from forex & stocks to internet marketing and affiliate products.. I even made some money but then lost it all away when the stock market went south.

I think I finally found it. Download Today!!