Oh bullshit you're probably some button down ivy league account or lawyer.👔
0 Replies
layman
-1
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 10:39 pm
Back in Tail-gunner Joe's days, the House had a committee which investigated "Unamerican Activities." Unfortunately, I think it's since been dismantled.
Not to worry, though. Ryan and his homeys are set to create a similar committee, next session. I think they're gunna call it the House Committee on Untrumpian Thought Patterns."
Among other things, it will authorize the creation of a special force trained to infiltrate foreign countries to abduct suspicious derelicts and deliver them to Trump's henchmen for punishment which will make waterboarding look like a sunday picnic.
Just a little heads-up, Blathy.
0 Replies
layman
1
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 11:07 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
Have you ever studied behavior that is much different than your own? This is what I do daily.
Sometimes. I even watched your video for a spell. But when it came to the part which said there was no such thing as "human nature," and claimed that human characteristics such as "envy" were a product only of "culture," I kinda gave it up.
Some say they aint really but two kinda people in the world: Individualists, and collectivists:
Quote:
Individualist—The individual identifies primarily with self...Looking after and taking care of oneself, being self-sufficient, guarantees the well-being of the group. Independence and self-reliance are greatly stressed and valued. One may choose to join groups, but group membership is not essential to one’s identity or success.
Collectivist—One’s identity is, in large part, a function of one’s membership and role in a group, e.g., the family or work team. The survival and success of the group ensures the well-being of the individual, so that by considering the needs and feelings of others, one protects oneself. Harmony and the interdependence of group members are stressed and valued. Group members are relatively close psychologically and emotionally, but distant toward nongroup members.
Which kinda perv ya think the guy who made your video was, eh, RL?
0 Replies
Blickers
3
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 11:15 pm
@georgeob1,
Congratulations, georgeob1. You reprint Maureen Dowd's column with much fanfare and criticism of Blatham. You make sardonic comments about Maureen Dowd's desertion of her former opinions. Then one of your conservative friends has to publicly inform you that the column you posted clearly said it was written by her brother, as his Christmas gift to her.
Hell, george, at least blatham actually reads the damn columns before he posts them.
Hell,george, at least blatham actually reads the damn columns before he posts them.
No, he don't. Either that, or else he thinks others can't read for themselves. Half the time the actual article he posts completely undermines, or even flatly contradicts, the point he claims it's making.
0 Replies
layman
2
Sun 11 Dec, 2016 11:50 pm
@Blickers,
Dowd aint always completely wrong. She has said, for example: "Al Gore is so feminized and diversified and ecologically correct that he's practically lactating," while referring to the Democratic party as the "mommy party." She also said he was a "pompous messenger."
As for Hillary Clinton, well....
Quote:
In 2014, an analysis of 21 years of Maureen Dowd's columns about Hillary Clinton titled "The Numbers Behind Maureen Dowd's 21-Year Long Campaign Against Hillary Clinton," found that of the 195 columns by Dowd since November 1993 containing significant mentions of Clinton, 72 percent (141 columns) were negative towards Clinton. Numerous other commentators have criticized Dowd for having an obsession with Bill and especially Hillary Clinton.
She seems to have the ability to spot pansy-ass frauds, at least
If Maureen Dowd has been against Hillary so much, then it's all the more reason george shouldn't have thought she was such a rat deserting a sinking ship. Fact is, for all the fanfare george put behind the Maureen Dowd article he posted, he really should have read it first.
Fact is, for all the fanfare george put behind the Maureen Dowd article he posted, he really should have read it first.
He did read it first--every word of it. But he didn't, as you posit, post HER article (which only added a brief introduction); he posted her brother's article.
I get the distinct feeling that some of the libs in this thread don't really listen to a word of what Trump says. They listen to left-wing pundits who tell them what Trump said (which is very selective in both content and disposition). I suspect that's exactly the way they want it, and don't even care to listen to Trump directly. They like the "slant" they get by staying in the lib echo chamber, and may, indeed, demand it.
I may be wrong. Trump participated in a somewhat in-depth interview with Chris Wallace today, and they discussed a number of very significant policies--climate, taxes, jobs, etc. Wallace also probed Trump's personal mindset and "style." They also discussed particular decisions such as cabinet choices, oil pipelines, etc. If anyone cares to listen to it, and haven't yet, just click below.
0 Replies
layman
1
Mon 12 Dec, 2016 03:53 am
@layman,
Another thing about Dowd that gives her a big edge over many other NY journalists is that, unlike them, she doesn't think there's some need to go to Tennessee, or wherever, to find and interview the (to them) mythical "trump voter." Her own family is full of them. She only need go home to understand the "mindset." She certainly knows that not all Trump supporters are redneck racists. In that respect she is much better qualified to write about the Trump phenomenon than most.
Add to that the fact that she has an iconoclastic streak and is not slavishly devoted to promoting the virtues of a particular party (see above), and I start to figure that she is probably one of the more reliable reporters from the left as regards Trump.
0 Replies
blatham
1
Mon 12 Dec, 2016 05:03 am
How delightful to have you all here. People who love me, all together in one place. You do me an honor.
Looking back up the thread a ways, I see there was some consternation regarding a Dowd family piece that was thoughtfully quoted in part or in full, I'm not sure.
I don't know the brother though if I recall, he's a conservative. I suppose I could read the thing but I'm busy with typing. In any case, loyal readers, here's my opinions about Maureen.
I used to love her writing. She could weave wonderfully bright. original and funny pieces. During the Clinton years, she became increasingly gossipy. And catty. Still worthwhile much of the time and fresh. Bush could have been and would have been a great foil for her style but then 9/11 happened and her schtick just did not fit at all and her reliance on it left her without much to say. I haven't read her since other than perhaps four or five columns.
Journalism isn't (or isn't supposed to be) a high school pep rally for establishment democrats. Once you come to grips with that, you'll value most authentic journalism that sometimes calls bullshit on your gluttonous sacred cows.
Journalism isn't (or isn't supposed to be) a high school pep rally for establishment democrats. Once you come to grips with that, you'll value most authentic journalism that sometimes calls bullshit on your gluttonous sacred cows.
No cow should be sacred.
Right on, Sista!
0 Replies
blatham
3
Mon 12 Dec, 2016 05:50 am
Does it not seem an oddness that Trump, though he has so far had only two or four intelligence briefings, is convinced that Russia had no role in any hacking involving the election? On what data could he be basing his stated opinion? That Putin's assurances are more dependable than the cumulative intel resources of America? That a general who we know is critically undiscerning in information choices figures all the intel people are dolts? Or cross-dressing Jews?
And if you put this to Trump, he'd say, "My sources. I've got incredible sources. The best, believe me. And I'm like super smart. Ask anybody. Ask the Latinos. They love me. And you know, this is amazing. I just found this out. They love me down in Mexico like you wouldn't believe. 70% maybe 80% of them want me to be their president too. It's incredible. My people are going over the constitution and the bill of right now on this but, you know, I think I'm going to concentrate on the overwhelming majority of real Americans who supported me. "
Does it not seem an oddness that Trump, though he has so far had only two or four intelligence briefings, is convinced that Russia had no role in any hacking involving the election? On what data could he be basing his stated opinion? That Putin's assurances are more dependable than the cumulative intel resources of America? That a general who we know is critically undiscerning in information choices figures all the intel people are dolts? Or cross-dressing Jews?
And if you put this to Trump, he'd say, "My sources. I've got incredible sources. The best, believe me. And I'm like super smart. Ask anybody. Ask the Latinos. They love me. And you know, this is amazing. I just found this out. They love me down in Mexico like you wouldn't believe. 70% maybe 80% of them want me to be their president too. It's incredible. My people are going over the constitution and the bill of right now on this but, you know, I think I'm going to concentrate on the overwhelming majority of real Americans who supported me. "
Blathy has obviously refused to look at the video I just posted, where Trump answers that very question at some length.
Exactly what I thought he would do.
Frankly, Blathy, your uniformed, half-baked, ideology-driven speculation is quite predictable and redundant. It gets extremely boring.
