Climate of Complete Certainty

[bitrex]

On 2/11/20 8:37 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:06:23 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/11/20 5:40 PM, John Robertson wrote:

Wow, not only does he like being lied to but he'll even help craft the
lies he is to be told! A true fan.

I'm not a fan of anyone. But it is interesting to have a President who
was never a lawyer, never held office before, and got rich *before* he
was an elected official.


He got rich because his daddy both financed and then would bail him out.
It is not like Dwight who started from scratch!

DJT is just another shyster. Blue Suede Shoe salesman...

I get the impression DJT was never very naturally good with women or did
very well without a billion dollar bankroll behind his propositions.

Therefore I suspect he was never particular good at "sales." Show me a
man who can walk into a downtown bar on a Saturday night in T-shirt and
jeans with ten dollars in his pocket and walk out with a lovely young
lass on his arm four hours later and I'll show you a salesman.

Is that what you want in a President?

No, I don't particularly want a salesman for President but if we were to
have a salesman as President I'd at least want some objective
confirmation they had been good at the job! At least some positive Yelp
reviews or something.

In any case Trump was in real-estate speculation/finance he was a
hustler, sales/marketing not really his department.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:35:08 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:40:39 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com
wrote:

On 2020/02/11 12:41 p.m., John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:12:14 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/10/20 10:04 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:05:19 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:38 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.

Works for me.



Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

Hillary's team had a mountain of brains, and money, and lost.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based....),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.

Good grief, force yourself to read the Sunday New York Times. It's all
Trump, Race, Trump, Global Warming, Trump, and Trump.


Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).

Cheers,
James Arthur

The small biz tax cuts will pay off bigly, but slowly.

If the stock market tanks before November, DT can blame the
coronavirus. Again, he's lucky.



Wow, not only does he like being lied to but he'll even help craft the
lies he is to be told! A true fan.

I'm not a fan of anyone. But it is interesting to have a President who
was never a lawyer, never held office before, and got rich *before* he
was an elected official.


He got rich because his daddy both financed and then would bail him out.
It is not like Dwight who started from scratch!

DJT is just another shyster. Blue Suede Shoe salesman...

I don't see how having a liar and a cheat in charge of a country is
going to do any good for the general population. Unlike China and
Russia, democracies usually have protections in place to avoid this sort
of fiasco.

Fiasco? All you are doing is calling names at a legally elected
President.

That's what democracy is all about. And Trump certainly deserves quite a lot of name-calling, even if you can't understand why.

And the Russian intervention in his election wasn't in the least legal. The Mueller report named a number of Russians who would be prosecuted if they were ever silly enough to show up in the US traveling under those names.

He might not have established that Trump colluded in the intervention - and the Russians would have been mad to let him in on it - but the process that got Trump into power wasn't flawless.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:56:55 PM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:

On 2/11/20 8:37 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:06:23 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/11/20 5:40 PM, John Robertson wrote:

Wow, not only does he like being lied to but he'll even help craft the
lies he is to be told! A true fan.

I'm not a fan of anyone. But it is interesting to have a President who
was never a lawyer, never held office before, and got rich *before* he
was an elected official.


He got rich because his daddy both financed and then would bail him out.
It is not like Dwight who started from scratch!

DJT is just another shyster. Blue Suede Shoe salesman...

I get the impression DJT was never very naturally good with women or did
very well without a billion dollar bankroll behind his propositions.

Therefore I suspect he was never particular good at "sales." Show me a
man who can walk into a downtown bar on a Saturday night in T-shirt and
jeans with ten dollars in his pocket and walk out with a lovely young
lass on his arm four hours later and I'll show you a salesman.

Is that what you want in a President?


No, I don't particularly want a salesman for President but if we were to
have a salesman as President I'd at least want some objective
confirmation they had been good at the job! At least some positive Yelp
reviews or something.

In any case Trump was in real-estate speculation/finance he was a
hustler, sales/marketing not really his department.

And "his" book on the subject - "The Art of the Deal" - was ghost-written.

Trump doesn't seem to have the attention span to write a paragraph, let alone a book.

He likes Twitter because he can keep focused for long enough to string together up to 280 characters. Apparently, he still seems to be confining himself to the old 140 character limit, which might say something about his attention span.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Fiasco? All you are doing is calling names at a legally elected
President.

Fiasco describes a situation accurately, is not name-calling.
This 'legally elected president' is thought by over 50% of the legally elected representatives
of his nation to be a criminal, but less than 2/3. That means something important,
and the meaning is not 'winner'.

 

[John Robertson]

On 2020/02/11 5:25 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 7:41:20 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:12:14 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/10/20 10:04 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:05:19 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:38 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.

Works for me.



Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

Hillary's team had a mountain of brains, and money, and lost.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.

Good grief, force yourself to read the Sunday New York Times. It's all
Trump, Race, Trump, Global Warming, Trump, and Trump.


Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).

Cheers,
James Arthur

The small biz tax cuts will pay off bigly, but slowly.

If the stock market tanks before November, DT can blame the
coronavirus. Again, he's lucky.



Wow, not only does he like being lied to but he'll even help craft the
lies he is to be told! A true fan.

I'm not a fan of anyone. But it is interesting to have a President who
was never a lawyer, never held office before, and got rich *before* he
was an elected official.

There's a Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times."

That expression is not Chinese and is, perhaps, somewhat racist in its
original intent from the 1930s:

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/may-you-live-in-interesting-times.html

https://www.chinasprout.com/community/guestcolumns/21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times

Do try to research your expressions, one can make assumptions if one
doesn't check every now and then...

The expression is certainly valid as a curse, it just has nothing to do
with China. I had thought so too until I dug into it after a writer I
respect (John Scalzi) exposed the myth behind it.

Trump has made life much too "interesting" for comfort. John Larkin doesn't know enough to notice the down-side of being lead by somebody who is almost as ignorant as he is, and equally unwilling to get his head around an understanding any model of the world that is complicate enough to be useful.

Bashing people rather than explain where you differ in your perspective
is usually counterproductive. I don't agree with John Larkin's politics,
but I try to expose him to my perspective rather than simply denigrating
him.

(donning my flame suit)

John ;-#)#

 

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 10:37:20 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 7:05:24 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:38 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.

Works for me.



Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

Hillary's team had a mountain of brains, and money, and lost.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

Trump is loved here. I've never seen anything like it.
(I'm ~60) I see no such enthusiasm on the left.
And much as I like Joe Rogan, if Bernie was the D nominee..
I'd be hard pressed to vote for either he or T.
I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.
I try to listen to as little news as possible.
Sports and weather are OK. Except for my below average
hockey team.

I mostly keep up with events on the internet, which makes it easy
to check what is and is not true. For example, I'll read the
news coverage, then watch video of the president making a
statement, and marvel that the coverage isn't anything like
what was actually said. It's amazing. Orwellian.

Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).
Yeah more deficit spending. If you can borrow at ~zero interest
it seems silly not to... but it's not what I would do.

Deficit spending eventually destroys a country. But we can't blame
the president. The president's policies have raised more revenues,
but the House of Representatives sets the spending, and they insist
on spending it all and more.

Revenues are up under the new tax rules, not down. Booming economy
and companies repatriating have added overall revenue. But the Dems
wanted more welfare, and the Repubs weren't averse to spending in
their states, either.

I heard a good piece today pointing out that the president's
budget request promotes fiscal restraint, which the Congress
insists on larding up with gimmedats.

But no one's backed him on it, so there's been no point in the
prez going after the deficit -- it's a losing battle. A second
term sans witch hunts might include that fight.

Which leaves us here: Dems always wanting to spend much more is
a given, so if Repubs won't fight for fiscal sanity, insanity
shall prevail.

America's a pretty nice country, a beacon of hope and freedom.
The world would be a much worse place without it. It sure would
be a shame to have world-wide freedom and self-rule collapse in
a fiscal conflagration, just because some pointy-headed People
Who Know Better couldn't live within our means.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[bitrex]

On 2/11/20 7:56 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

This might be even a worse one. With todays media influence they'd elect
even a chimp telling them he is on their side.

95% of the US media was on Hillary's side. And the deplorable
uneducated flyover yokels noticed.

Over the country as a whole, three million more voters chose Hillary than Trump.

In the three flyover states that turned out to be crucial, that Russians had put in alot of effort of social media to support Triimp and he got about 80,000 more votes than she did in the three states where it actually mattered.

Trump won by a very thin margin, with Russian help.

That his opponent still had 3 million more popular votes in a race
against an admittedly divisive and relatively unpopular Democratic
candidate doesn't bode well given that the senator from Vermont, a
highly popular candidate with those all-important celebrity
endorsements, even from Joe Rogan, seems to be cleaning up in the
primaries (to the establishment Democrat's once-again shock and dismay.)

Trump may have to call in some of those new
the-President-can-do-no-wrong-powers he's been granted by the Senate if
he wants to pull this one out.

I don't know how to apply the old saw "Age and treachery shall overcome
youth and skill" when both participants are in their 70s and the
treacherous one is the younger.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 1:29:51 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:

On 2020/02/11 5:25 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 7:41:20 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:12:14 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/10/20 10:04 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:05:19 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:38 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.

Works for me.



Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

Hillary's team had a mountain of brains, and money, and lost.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based....),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.

Good grief, force yourself to read the Sunday New York Times. It's all
Trump, Race, Trump, Global Warming, Trump, and Trump.


Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).

Cheers,
James Arthur

The small biz tax cuts will pay off bigly, but slowly.

If the stock market tanks before November, DT can blame the
coronavirus. Again, he's lucky.



Wow, not only does he like being lied to but he'll even help craft the
lies he is to be told! A true fan.

I'm not a fan of anyone. But it is interesting to have a President who
was never a lawyer, never held office before, and got rich *before* he
was an elected official.

There's a Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times."

That expression is not Chinese and is, perhaps, somewhat racist in its
original intent from the 1930s:

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/may-you-live-in-interesting-times.html

https://www.chinasprout.com/community/guestcolumns/21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times

Do try to research your expressions, one can make assumptions if one
doesn't check every now and then...

The expression is certainly valid as a curse, it just has nothing to do
with China. I had thought so too until I dug into it after a writer I
respect (John Scalzi) exposed the myth behind it.


Trump has made life much too "interesting" for comfort. John Larkin doesn't know enough to notice the down-side of being lead by somebody who is almost as ignorant as he is, and equally unwilling to get his head around an understanding any model of the world that is complicate enough to be useful.

Bashing people rather than explain where you differ in your perspective
is usually counterproductive. I don't agree with John Larkin's politics,
but I try to expose him to my perspective rather than simply denigrating
him.

(donning my flame suit)

Why don't you go off and design an interesting electronic circuit?

I'm perfectly happy to explain why my perspective differs, and have been known to change my ideas in response to other peoples explanations.

John Larkin is fixed in his views, and totally incapable of realising that quite a few of them are demonstrable nonsense.

He's been like that for the twenty years I've been posting here, and while it took me quite a while to lose patience with him, I'm now afraid that his status as our most prolific poster is damaging the quality of what gets posted - because quite a lot of what he posts is dangerous nonsense.

His admiration for Trump is merely foolish. His gullible acceptance of climate change denial is rather more dangerous.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:54:11 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:16:34 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 2/10/20 7:05 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.

Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).

Cheers,
James Arthur


Imagine being so ignorant of the potential geopolitical/military
consequences of assassinating Soleimani that no theater missile defense
systems were moved into position around the targets in Iraq that Iran
would be most likely to target in a retaliatory strike.

A retaliation in that fashion was entirely predictable and Iranian
missiles being shot out of the sky making a massive PR-lose for the
Iranians would have been entirely predictable to the Iranians as well,
making their decision to launch a lot more difficult at the very least.

Instead US forces had no option but to watch as the missiles fell on
their heads and it was mostly by good fortune that nobody was killed,
though many were injured and Trump has tried to down-play the injuries.

Yep, total unawareness of cause-and-effect can appear like wisdom for a
while. Must be a great feeling to see that while our Saudi Arabian
friends get a missile defense system the US-based Iraqi forces got
_nothing_.

I'm sure there will be someone who will argue what a "grand strategist"
he is, allowing US troops to have missiles fall on them with no
fore-thought and no means of defense.

A guy was killing lots of our guys, so we killed him instead.

Yes. Killing him was moral, to save many more lives. Obama killed OBL,
who was retired and quietly enjoying his porn.

The math ain't that complicated.

It's not like, for example, promoting all the wrong people in
an Arab 'Spring' that set that whole part of the world on fire,
producing the largest mass migration of refugees fleeing their
homelands in world history, and possibly destabilizing Europe.

Look up the video: "We came, we saw, he died." Scariest thing I've
ever seen. Most destructive too, probably.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:42:04 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 10:37:20 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 7:05:24 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:38 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.

Works for me.



Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

Hillary's team had a mountain of brains, and money, and lost.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

Trump is loved here. I've never seen anything like it.
(I'm ~60) I see no such enthusiasm on the left.
And much as I like Joe Rogan, if Bernie was the D nominee..
I'd be hard pressed to vote for either he or T.
I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.
I try to listen to as little news as possible.
Sports and weather are OK. Except for my below average
hockey team.

I mostly keep up with events on the internet, which makes it easy
to check what is and is not true. For example, I'll read the
news coverage, then watch video of the president making a
statement, and marvel that the coverage isn't anything like
what was actually said. It's amazing. Orwellian.

The lefty press like to insert "debunked" and "unproven" every chance
they get. There must be a mandatory list of insults with a daily quota
for the NYT, CNN, NPR reporters.

People do notice this. It makes some mad. It shows up in turnout.

With the US mostly divided into two tribes who are about as rational
as soccer fans, turnout is what will matter.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:29:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 12:12:11 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 11:35:14 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 10:05:09 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Unfortunately, in some so-called sciences, there is no proof.

Meaningless. Proof is a concept applicable in logic and mathematics.
In science, we can disprove, or test, or measure.

What in the world do you mean by 'so-called sciences' ?

Sociology. Psychology. Ethnic studies. Climatology.

But, climatology DOES have predictive value.

Since when? It's been making absurd predictions for about 50 years
now. The West Side Highway is still above the waterline. Crop
production keeps improving. Deaths from major climate/weather events
are way, way down. The planet isn't dying, it's greening.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:48:55 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 11/02/20 18:05, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 08:31:16 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 10/02/2020 17:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:17:51 -0800 (PST), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh I didn't read the NY times article. There is much that is kinda 'broken'
in science that many on the left don't want to see.
Take peer-review as one problem. Peer review can operate as a gate keeper
for ideas, and not to get the 'best' science published.
GH


Exactly. In some areas of study, having an unorthodox idea can be
career-ending. Peer review is one enforcement mechanism to suppress
genuinely new ideas. Of course, the more a science is subject to
experimental verification, the more tolerant it is of radical ideas.

Only if it is an unorthodox view that conflicts with one of the
conservation laws, flat Earth, alien abduction or psychic powers.

Extraordinary claims require *EXTRAORDINARY* proof.

Even then the odd senior physics researcher has survived being conned by
the likes of Uri Geller without too much damage to their conventional
research career. The amazing Randi designed experiments that were much
less inclined to to succumb to his "psychic powers" than those designed
by physicists. Physics is not used to experimental subjects that cheat.

Unfortunately, in some so-called sciences, there is no proof.

In that case it isn't a science.

As Phil says, if it has "Science" in its name, it isn't one.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:13:16 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/11/20 3:41 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:12:14 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/10/20 10:04 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:05:19 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:38 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.

Works for me.



Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

Hillary's team had a mountain of brains, and money, and lost.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.

Good grief, force yourself to read the Sunday New York Times. It's all
Trump, Race, Trump, Global Warming, Trump, and Trump.


Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).

Cheers,
James Arthur

The small biz tax cuts will pay off bigly, but slowly.

If the stock market tanks before November, DT can blame the
coronavirus. Again, he's lucky.



Wow, not only does he like being lied to but he'll even help craft the
lies he is to be told! A true fan.

I'm not a fan of anyone. But it is interesting to have a President who
was never a lawyer, never held office before, and got rich *before* he
was an elected official.


You mean Dwight Eisenhower? He's no Dwight Eisenhower that's for sure.

Was he rich? Maybe on a General's salary.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:43:53 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Fiasco? All you are doing is calling names at a legally elected
President.

Fiasco describes a situation accurately, is not name-calling.
This 'legally elected president' is thought by over 50% of the legally elected representatives
of his nation to be a criminal, but less than 2/3. That means something important,
and the meaning is not 'winner'.

Well, vote against him.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:16:34 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:

On 2/10/20 7:05 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.

Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).

Cheers,
James Arthur


Imagine being so ignorant of the potential geopolitical/military
consequences of assassinating Soleimani that no theater missile defense
systems were moved into position around the targets in Iraq that Iran
would be most likely to target in a retaliatory strike.

A retaliation in that fashion was entirely predictable and Iranian
missiles being shot out of the sky making a massive PR-lose for the
Iranians would have been entirely predictable to the Iranians as well,
making their decision to launch a lot more difficult at the very least.

Instead US forces had no option but to watch as the missiles fell on
their heads and it was mostly by good fortune that nobody was killed,
though many were injured and Trump has tried to down-play the injuries.

Yep, total unawareness of cause-and-effect can appear like wisdom for a
while. Must be a great feeling to see that while our Saudi Arabian
friends get a missile defense system the US-based Iraqi forces got
_nothing_.

I'm sure there will be someone who will argue what a "grand strategist"
he is, allowing US troops to have missiles fall on them with no
fore-thought and no means of defense.

A guy was killing lots of our guys, so we killed him instead.

The math ain't that complicated.

It's not like, for example, promoting all the wrong people in
an Arab 'Spring' that set that whole part of the world on fire,
producing the largest mass migration of refugees fleeing their
homelands in world history, and possibly destabilizing Europe.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 7:46:11 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:29:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

But, climatology DOES have predictive value.

Since when? It's been making absurd predictions for about 50 years...

Climate change/global warming is one, about 30 years old now.
It's a pretty big one, how could you have missed it?

 

[bitrex]

On 2/11/20 10:48 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:13:16 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/11/20 3:41 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:12:14 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/10/20 10:04 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:05:19 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:38 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.

Works for me.



Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

Hillary's team had a mountain of brains, and money, and lost.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.

Good grief, force yourself to read the Sunday New York Times. It's all
Trump, Race, Trump, Global Warming, Trump, and Trump.


Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).

Cheers,
James Arthur

The small biz tax cuts will pay off bigly, but slowly.

If the stock market tanks before November, DT can blame the
coronavirus. Again, he's lucky.



Wow, not only does he like being lied to but he'll even help craft the
lies he is to be told! A true fan.

I'm not a fan of anyone. But it is interesting to have a President who
was never a lawyer, never held office before, and got rich *before* he
was an elected official.


You mean Dwight Eisenhower? He's no Dwight Eisenhower that's for sure.

Was he rich? Maybe on a General's salary.

Probably not a billionaire (didn't exist yet) or equivalent but I doubt
he struggled to put food on the table on whatever pension Supreme
Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force paid after returning to
civilian life.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 2:54:14 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:16:34 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 2/10/20 7:05 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.

Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).

Cheers,
James Arthur


Imagine being so ignorant of the potential geopolitical/military
consequences of assassinating Soleimani that no theater missile defense
systems were moved into position around the targets in Iraq that Iran
would be most likely to target in a retaliatory strike.

A retaliation in that fashion was entirely predictable and Iranian
missiles being shot out of the sky making a massive PR-lose for the
Iranians would have been entirely predictable to the Iranians as well,
making their decision to launch a lot more difficult at the very least.

Instead US forces had no option but to watch as the missiles fell on
their heads and it was mostly by good fortune that nobody was killed,
though many were injured and Trump has tried to down-play the injuries.

Yep, total unawareness of cause-and-effect can appear like wisdom for a
while. Must be a great feeling to see that while our Saudi Arabian
friends get a missile defense system the US-based Iraqi forces got
_nothing_.

I'm sure there will be someone who will argue what a "grand strategist"
he is, allowing US troops to have missiles fall on them with no
fore-thought and no means of defense.

A guy was killing lots of our guys, so we killed him instead.

And his replacement is going to be more restrained?

> The math ain't that complicated.

Sadly, you aren't dong the right math.

It's not like, for example, promoting all the wrong people in
an Arab 'Spring' that set that whole part of the world on fire,
producing the largest mass migration of refugees fleeing their
homelands in world history, and possibly destabilizing Europe.

The Arab Spring was driven by Arab leaders who couldn't see that it was important to keep their populations fed.

No amount of foreign intervention - short of shipping lots of cheap food - would have helped, and no Republican could have countenanced that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 3:04:38 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:42:04 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 10:37:20 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 7:05:24 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:38 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com
wrote:

On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.

Works for me.



Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.

Hillary's team had a mountain of brains, and money, and lost.


Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based....),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

Trump is loved here. I've never seen anything like it.
(I'm ~60) I see no such enthusiasm on the left.
And much as I like Joe Rogan, if Bernie was the D nominee..
I'd be hard pressed to vote for either he or T.
I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.
I try to listen to as little news as possible.
Sports and weather are OK. Except for my below average
hockey team.

I mostly keep up with events on the internet, which makes it easy
to check what is and is not true. For example, I'll read the
news coverage, then watch video of the president making a
statement, and marvel that the coverage isn't anything like
what was actually said. It's amazing. Orwellian.

The lefty press like to insert "debunked" and "unproven" every chance
they get. There must be a mandatory list of insults with a daily quota
for the NYT, CNN, NPR reporters.

People do notice this. It makes some mad. It shows up in turnout.

With the US mostly divided into two tribes who are about as rational
as soccer fans, turnout is what will matter.

James Arthur and John Larkin don't seem to members of the more rational fraction.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 3:09:08 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:54:11 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:16:34 AM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 2/10/20 7:05 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

He has common sense, a will to win, and luck.

Super smart people I admire have met with Trump privately.
They were blown away. They say the man's brilliant.

I'm amazed at the level of his opposition's ignorance. PBS'
Newshour's Mark Shields and David Gergen, for example.

Easing obnoxious regs and lowering the marginal corporate tax
rate have re-ignited half the country (or more).

Cheers,
James Arthur


Imagine being so ignorant of the potential geopolitical/military
consequences of assassinating Soleimani that no theater missile defense
systems were moved into position around the targets in Iraq that Iran
would be most likely to target in a retaliatory strike.

A retaliation in that fashion was entirely predictable and Iranian
missiles being shot out of the sky making a massive PR-lose for the
Iranians would have been entirely predictable to the Iranians as well,
making their decision to launch a lot more difficult at the very least.

Instead US forces had no option but to watch as the missiles fell on
their heads and it was mostly by good fortune that nobody was killed,
though many were injured and Trump has tried to down-play the injuries.

Yep, total unawareness of cause-and-effect can appear like wisdom for a
while. Must be a great feeling to see that while our Saudi Arabian
friends get a missile defense system the US-based Iraqi forces got
_nothing_.

I'm sure there will be someone who will argue what a "grand strategist"
he is, allowing US troops to have missiles fall on them with no
fore-thought and no means of defense.

A guy was killing lots of our guys, so we killed him instead.

Yes. Killing him was moral, to save many more lives. Obama killed OBL,
who was retired and quietly enjoying his porn.


The math ain't that complicated.

It's not like, for example, promoting all the wrong people in
an Arab 'Spring' that set that whole part of the world on fire,
producing the largest mass migration of refugees fleeing their
homelands in world history, and possibly destabilizing Europe.

Look up the video: "We came, we saw, he died." Scariest thing I've
ever seen. Most destructive too, probably.

If looked at by a right wing lunatic.

More realistic viewers saw Clinton mouse-trapped by an unexpected question, and grimacing about the response she improvised on the spot.

John Larkin seems to have forgotten that Gaddafi was responsible for the getting the bomb onto the Pan Am flight that came down on Lockerbie in Scotland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

Clinton wasn't in a position where she could call his death regrettable (which it wasn't).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney