Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369424 is a reply to message #369389] Sat, 23 June 2018 10:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 21:54:14 -0400, Richard Thiebaud
> <thiebauddick2@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/22/2018 08:08 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:44:15 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:41:40 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:54:24 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:34:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:44:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> You wouldn't expect unbiased info from someone who was actually there in
>>>> >>>>>> the trenches. I think historians believe it takes a generation or so for
>>>> >>>>>> unbiased history to be possible.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> When it comes to history, how does one identify 'bias' and separate
>>>> >>>>> it out from fact?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> For instance, there remains great debate over FDR, his wife, his
>>>> >>>>> handling of the Depression and the New Deal, and his handling of
>>>> >>>>> WW II. Back then, many conservatives hated him, and indeed, many
>>>> >>>>> hate him and his policies to this day.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> His wife was also quite controversial. NBC for a while had on
>>>> >>>>> old broadcasts of Meet the Press--they had Nixon, Martin Luther
>>>> >>>>> King, and Eleanor Roosevelt, among other historical figures.
>>>> >>>>> Fascinating!
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> ER said something I didn't like: in response to a question, she
>>>> >>>>> denied being an elder statesman and denied being a politician. In
>>>> >>>>> fact she was both and very much so. Even if she personally running
>>>> >>>>> for office or held a policy position, she was most certainly active
>>>> >>>>> behind the scenes and maintained a lot of influence in her party.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Martin Luther King did a fantastic job in response to hostile
>>>> >>>>> questioning. Several guys kept challenging him along the lines
>>>> >>>>> of "don't blacks have enough now? Aren't you going too far?"
>>>> >>>>> King maintained he sought equal rights, not just a few rights.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Nixon was sad to watch. His appearance was post Watergate.
>>>> >>>>> Curiously, in light of today's events, he said he wished he
>>>> >>>>> could've pardoned his top aides but it would've looked bad.
>>>> >>>>> He also made an excellent political analysis of the ongoing
>>>> >>>>> races, and everything he predicted in the broadcast came true.
>>>> >>>>> What a waste of talent.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Nixon was a treasonous war criminal who illegally conspired with South
>>>> >>>> Vietnamese officials to prolong the war for his political benefit in 1968,
>>>> >>>> resulting in the needless death of thousands of young American men,
>>>> >>>> along with the waste of billions of dollars and the loss of some standing
>>>> >>>> around the world as it was revealed what a disaster Vietnam had become.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Yeah, and Ford pardoned him to help America heal. I consider him
>>>> >>> really dumb for doing that. And I do believe Noxon, and his VP, along
>>>> >>> with his cabinet, are criminals.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Not dumb, a traitor. Justice denied is no justice at all.
>>>> >
>>>> > The Constitution defines treason rather narrowly. What particular
>>>> > provision did Nixon violate?
>>>>
>>>> Ford.
>>>> Sold justice for personal gain.
>>>> Traitor to his country and our system of government.
>>>
>>> So where, exactly, in the definition of "treason" in the Constitution,
>>> is "sold justice for personal gain" listed?
>>>
>>>
>> Google "constitution treason".
>
> <plonk>

Hey me too!

I really don't care about some lawyerly definition of treason.
I can see that Ford did not have the good of the country in mind,
only his own and his parties interests. Therefore he acted against
the good of the country. A traitor to everything we should stand for.
Something exactly like what you are doing.

--
Dan Espen
Re: the mysterious east, was tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369425 is a reply to message #369403] Sat, 23 June 2018 10:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On 23 Jun 2018 07:22:08 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:

> On 2018-06-23, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:52:50 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
>> <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1442455386.551354357.297902.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > would likely still be a very weak economy.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly! And we wouldn't be flooded with so much cheap junk.
>>>
>>> I doubt it. European countries were already switching recognition
>>> from Taiwan to the mainland so the only difference would be where the
>>> greater trade ties were.
>>
>> Except that Europe doesn't have an IBM to teach them how to make
>> industry-leading computers or an Intel to teach them how to make
>> industry-leading microprocessors and on and on.
>>
>> They're kicking our butt because we taught them how to do it.
>>
>
> I don't think that IBM or _intel_ was involved in computers when
> the vital decisions were made.

I'm pretty sure that both were involved in computers in 1972.

> The British could have dominated the business, except that they made
> the work on breaking the German codes during WWII a secret.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. They didn't.

> LEO was a working model that would be viable today.

Except that if Britain had ever had a thriving computer industry it
would have been destroyed by the Wilson government along with most of
the rest of British industry.

> It goes on and on.
>
>
> cheap junk, Americans vote with their wallets. We complain
>>> about cheap Chinese junk, but given a choice between a cheap Chinese
>>> product and a slightly more expensive American made one, we'll pick
>>> the cheap one every time? Remember when Walmart said "Made in the
>>> USA"? Probably not.
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369426 is a reply to message #369423] Sat, 23 June 2018 10:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:38:48 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:44:15 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:41:40 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:54:24 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:34:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:44:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>>> You wouldn't expect unbiased info from someone who was actually there in
>>>> >>>>> the trenches. I think historians believe it takes a generation or so for
>>>> >>>>> unbiased history to be possible.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>When it comes to history, how does one identify 'bias' and separate
>>>> >>>>it out from fact?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>For instance, there remains great debate over FDR, his wife, his
>>>> >>>>handling of the Depression and the New Deal, and his handling of
>>>> >>>>WW II. Back then, many conservatives hated him, and indeed, many
>>>> >>>>hate him and his policies to this day.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>His wife was also quite controversial. NBC for a while had on
>>>> >>>>old broadcasts of Meet the Press--they had Nixon, Martin Luther
>>>> >>>>King, and Eleanor Roosevelt, among other historical figures.
>>>> >>>>Fascinating!
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>ER said something I didn't like: in response to a question, she
>>>> >>>>denied being an elder statesman and denied being a politician. In
>>>> >>>>fact she was both and very much so. Even if she personally running
>>>> >>>>for office or held a policy position, she was most certainly active
>>>> >>>>behind the scenes and maintained a lot of influence in her party.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>Martin Luther King did a fantastic job in response to hostile
>>>> >>>>questioning. Several guys kept challenging him along the lines
>>>> >>>>of "don't blacks have enough now? Aren't you going too far?"
>>>> >>>>King maintained he sought equal rights, not just a few rights.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>Nixon was sad to watch. His appearance was post Watergate.
>>>> >>>>Curiously, in light of today's events, he said he wished he
>>>> >>>>could've pardoned his top aides but it would've looked bad.
>>>> >>>>He also made an excellent political analysis of the ongoing
>>>> >>>>races, and everything he predicted in the broadcast came true.
>>>> >>>>What a waste of talent.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Nixon was a treasonous war criminal who illegally conspired with South
>>>> >>>Vietnamese officials to prolong the war for his political benefit in 1968,
>>>> >>>resulting in the needless death of thousands of young American men,
>>>> >>>along with the waste of billions of dollars and the loss of some standing
>>>> >>>around the world as it was revealed what a disaster Vietnam had become.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Yeah, and Ford pardoned him to help America heal. I consider him
>>>> >> really dumb for doing that. And I do believe Noxon, and his VP, along
>>>> >> with his cabinet, are criminals.
>>>> >
>>>> >Not dumb, a traitor. Justice denied is no justice at all.
>>>>
>>>> The Constitution defines treason rather narrowly. What particular
>>>> provision did Nixon violate?
>>>
>>> Ford.
>>> Sold justice for personal gain.
>>> Traitor to his country and our system of government.
>>
>> So where, exactly, in the definition of "treason" in the Constitution,
>> is "sold justice for personal gain" listed?
>
> Split hairs all you like.
> He's still a nasty piece of work that sold out his country for his own
> profit.
> A traitor to everything this country SHOULD stand for.
> Defend his actions to show us all how low you can go.

I believe the Founders had a pretty good idea what this country
"should stand for". And they also had a certain expertise on the
topic of treason, having successfully committed it, by any definition
including their own, on a massive scale. If you want to throw around
the word "treason" to refer to any action of which you disapprove then
_you_ are the "traitor to everything this country SHOULD stand for".

Unfortunately, it's not illegal in this country for a politician to be
an arsewipe. If it was they would all be in jail.
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369428 is a reply to message #369412] Sat, 23 June 2018 11:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2018-06-23, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>> [their descendants] formed
>> the main opposition to the US invasion in 1812.
>>
>
> The Loyalists are largely glossed over in most US histories. I have been
> reading a bit about them and feel more sympathy than I did. A lot of them
> were wealthy landowners who feared (rightly) that the'd lose their
> property, but many were just average people. The fact that they were
> persecuted here before they were driven out is ignored.
>

There was a book a while ago, something about "Travel to the Holy
Mountain", or something like that. Abercrombie, I think was the author.
Anyway, he crossed Cilicia on his way, and was talking to some of the
Farmers there.

"Who was here before you?", when they told how they had not been there for that
long.

"Nobody. Nobody live here."

The people before, of course, were the Armenians.


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369429 is a reply to message #369424] Sat, 23 June 2018 11:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2018-06-23, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 21:54:14 -0400, Richard Thiebaud
>> <thiebauddick2@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/22/2018 08:08 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:44:15 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >
>> <plonk>
>
> Hey me too!
>
> I really don't care about some lawyerly definition of treason.
> I can see that Ford did not have the good of the country in mind,
> only his own and his parties interests. Therefore he acted against
> the good of the country. A traitor to everything we should stand for.
> Something exactly like what you are doing.
>

The punishment for treason in England was to be hung, drawn, and quartered. That
meant being hung until almost dead, revived, having your insides pulled out, than
horses would be roped to your limbs and your body pulled apart.

Careful with using words.

PS, the Irish patriot Robert Emmet was one of the last to be executed like that.


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: the mysterious east, was tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369430 is a reply to message #369425] Sat, 23 June 2018 11:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2018 07:22:08 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>
>> On 2018-06-23, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:52:50 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
>>> <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <1442455386.551354357.297902.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> would likely still be a very weak economy.
>>>> >
>>>> > Exactly! And we wouldn't be flooded with so much cheap junk.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt it. European countries were already switching recognition
>>>> from Taiwan to the mainland so the only difference would be where the
>>>> greater trade ties were.
>>>
>>> Except that Europe doesn't have an IBM to teach them how to make
>>> industry-leading computers or an Intel to teach them how to make
>>> industry-leading microprocessors and on and on.
>>>
>>> They're kicking our butt because we taught them how to do it.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think that IBM or _intel_ was involved in computers when
>> the vital decisions were made.
>
> I'm pretty sure that both were involved in computers in 1972.
>
>> The British could have dominated the business, except that they made
>> the work on breaking the German codes during WWII a secret.
>
> Coulda, shoulda, woulda. They didn't.
>
>> LEO was a working model that would be viable today.
>
> Except that if Britain had ever had a thriving computer industry it
> would have been destroyed by the Wilson government along with most of
> the rest of British industry.

At one point "Silicon Glen" was looking like a younger brother of Silicon
Valley, but it seems to have faded.

>
>> It goes on and on.
>>
>>
>> cheap junk, Americans vote with their wallets. We complain
>>>> about cheap Chinese junk, but given a choice between a cheap Chinese
>>>> product and a slightly more expensive American made one, we'll pick
>>>> the cheap one every time? Remember when Walmart said "Made in the
>>>> USA"? Probably not.
>



--
Pete
Re: the mysterious east, was tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369433 is a reply to message #369425] Sat, 23 June 2018 11:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2018-06-23, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2018 07:22:08 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>
>> On 2018-06-23, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:52:50 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
>>> <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <1442455386.551354357.297902.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't think that IBM or _intel_ was involved in computers when
>> the vital decisions were made.
>
> I'm pretty sure that both were involved in computers in 1972.
>
>> The


I was thinking more of 1950 or so.


>> British could have dominated the business, except that they made
>> the work on breaking the German codes during WWII a secret.
>
> Coulda, shoulda, woulda. They didn't.

One of the reasons that it was secret, from what I have read, was
that a company in switzerland was making and selling the German
code machines until well into the 1960's. That gained the British,
after about 1946 or so, the US-British gchq, the secrets of many
countries that still used the Enigma-type machines, but contributed
to the loss of the computer industry to Usistan.

>
>> LEO was a working model that would be viable today.
>
> Except that if Britain had ever had a thriving computer industry it
> would have been destroyed by the Wilson government along with most of
> the rest of British industry.
>
>> It goes on and on.
>>
>>
>> cheap junk, Americans vote with their wallets. We complain
>>>> about cheap Chinese junk, but given a choice between a cheap Chinese
>>>> product and a slightly more expensive American made one, we'll pick
>>>> the cheap one every time? Remember when Walmart said "Made in the
>>>> USA"? Probably not.


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369434 is a reply to message #369389] Sat, 23 June 2018 12:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 22:43:49 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 21:54:14 -0400, Richard Thiebaud
> <thiebauddick2@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/22/2018 08:08 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:44:15 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:41:40 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:54:24 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:34:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:44:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> You wouldn't expect unbiased info from someone who was actually there in
>>>> >>>>>> the trenches. I think historians believe it takes a generation or so for
>>>> >>>>>> unbiased history to be possible.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> When it comes to history, how does one identify 'bias' and separate
>>>> >>>>> it out from fact?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> For instance, there remains great debate over FDR, his wife, his
>>>> >>>>> handling of the Depression and the New Deal, and his handling of
>>>> >>>>> WW II. Back then, many conservatives hated him, and indeed, many
>>>> >>>>> hate him and his policies to this day.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> His wife was also quite controversial. NBC for a while had on
>>>> >>>>> old broadcasts of Meet the Press--they had Nixon, Martin Luther
>>>> >>>>> King, and Eleanor Roosevelt, among other historical figures.
>>>> >>>>> Fascinating!
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> ER said something I didn't like: in response to a question, she
>>>> >>>>> denied being an elder statesman and denied being a politician. In
>>>> >>>>> fact she was both and very much so. Even if she personally running
>>>> >>>>> for office or held a policy position, she was most certainly active
>>>> >>>>> behind the scenes and maintained a lot of influence in her party.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Martin Luther King did a fantastic job in response to hostile
>>>> >>>>> questioning. Several guys kept challenging him along the lines
>>>> >>>>> of "don't blacks have enough now? Aren't you going too far?"
>>>> >>>>> King maintained he sought equal rights, not just a few rights.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Nixon was sad to watch. His appearance was post Watergate.
>>>> >>>>> Curiously, in light of today's events, he said he wished he
>>>> >>>>> could've pardoned his top aides but it would've looked bad.
>>>> >>>>> He also made an excellent political analysis of the ongoing
>>>> >>>>> races, and everything he predicted in the broadcast came true.
>>>> >>>>> What a waste of talent.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Nixon was a treasonous war criminal who illegally conspired with South
>>>> >>>> Vietnamese officials to prolong the war for his political benefit in 1968,
>>>> >>>> resulting in the needless death of thousands of young American men,
>>>> >>>> along with the waste of billions of dollars and the loss of some standing
>>>> >>>> around the world as it was revealed what a disaster Vietnam had become.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Yeah, and Ford pardoned him to help America heal. I consider him
>>>> >>> really dumb for doing that. And I do believe Noxon, and his VP, along
>>>> >>> with his cabinet, are criminals.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Not dumb, a traitor. Justice denied is no justice at all.
>>>> >
>>>> > The Constitution defines treason rather narrowly. What particular
>>>> > provision did Nixon violate?
>>>>
>>>> Ford.
>>>> Sold justice for personal gain.
>>>> Traitor to his country and our system of government.
>>>
>>> So where, exactly, in the definition of "treason" in the Constitution,
>>> is "sold justice for personal gain" listed?
>>>
>>>
>> Google "constitution treason".
>
> <plonk>

Reality too much for ya ?
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369435 is a reply to message #369428] Sat, 23 June 2018 12:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP

On 23 Jun 2018 15:33:26 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:

> On 2018-06-23, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>> [their descendants] formed
>>> the main opposition to the US invasion in 1812.
>>>
>>
>> The Loyalists are largely glossed over in most US histories. I have been
>> reading a bit about them and feel more sympathy than I did. A lot of them
>> were wealthy landowners who feared (rightly) that the'd lose their
>> property, but many were just average people. The fact that they were
>> persecuted here before they were driven out is ignored.
>>
>
> There was a book a while ago, something about "Travel to the Holy
> Mountain", or something like that. Abercrombie, I think was the author.
> Anyway, he crossed Cilicia on his way, and was talking to some of the
> Farmers there.
>
> "Who was here before you?", when they told how they had not been there for that
> long.
>
> "Nobody. Nobody live here."
>
> The people before, of course, were the Armenians.

Yes, the Turks defy claims they murdered many Armenians. But they did
do that.
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369436 is a reply to message #369219] Sat, 23 June 2018 13:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:10:16 AM UTC-6, Questor wrote:

> The geopolitical uncertainty in the wake of World War II gave rise to a
> situation that allowed the U.S. to engage in a proxy war against the Communists.
> We had no other interests in the region. Eisenhower had a chance to disengage
> in 1955 as well when the French were pulling out, but the war got cast as an
> existential battle between democracy and communism. It became a black hole
> that we could not escape until the entire doomed enterprise collapsed.

What is Communism? Read _The Gulag Archipelago_.

Hence, that paragraph is worded wrong, because it doesn't cast all the blame for
the sufferings of the Vietnamese people on the Communist side.

It is true that the United States' motives were imperfect. Sadly, they were not
acting solely out of altruistic concern for the well-being of the people of
South Vietnam. And they also failed to take care of the interests of their
soldiers, by sending a sufficiently massive force to the area that they could
win the war in a series of victorious battles with few casualties on their side.

But all that pales into insignificance beside the major fact that there would be
no war at all if North Vietnam had not chosen to attempt to take over South
Vietnam. If it stayed peacefully on its side of the border, there would have
been no downwards evolution of South Vietnamese democracy, and instead South
Vietnam would be happy and prosperous like South Korea today.

North Vietnamese aggression created the whole problem in the first place. If
there had been no push-back against Communist aggression, then the other
countries in the region would have feared they would be next, and that would
have gotten their governments to try and ingratiate themselves with the
Communists.

In Communism, the world was facing an evil menace, just as it was with Nazism.

John Savard
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369438 is a reply to message #369409] Sat, 23 June 2018 13:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2018-06-23, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 23/06/2018 02:54, Richard Thiebaud wrote:
>
>> On 06/22/2018 08:08 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> So where, exactly, in the definition of "treason" in the Constitution,
>>> is "sold justice for personal gain" listed?
>>
>> Google "constitution treason".
>
> Treason is a concept that is alien to government by the people.

FSVO "people". Politicians are people too.

--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ Fight low-contrast text in web pages! http://contrastrebellion.com
Re: meanwhile in eastern Asia, was tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369440 is a reply to message #369364] Sat, 23 June 2018 14:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 5:34:54 PM UTC-4, JimP wrote:

>> Even with Nixon's dark side, I think now I'd rather have him
>> back in office than Trump. I think Nixon, in his own way,
>> still wanted to have a better country.
>
> My understanding of Nixon was that he decided if someone, or an
> orginization, was against him, they were against America.
>
> I believe he was mistaken.

Actually, as proven by Ambrose, the opposition WAS out to
get him. First, Nixon still had many enemies from the 1950s,
and now those people were in a position of power in Congress
and media. They remembered well how aggressive he was and
it time to fight back, and they did. Secondly, by 1969 when
he assumed office, the country was badly polarized by the war.
The Left was furious that Nixon won the presidency and furious
in general against the establishment, which they saw Nixon as
the prime representative. The Left was aggressively protesting
against Nixon on day one.

I think Nixon was very thin skinned and took the opposition very
personally. A president has to be thick-skinned. Nixon was
furious about it, plus his narrow '68 victory and fear of the
Kennedy's, and all contributed to his dark side, which he would
not or could not control. That ruined him.

The weird thing was that Nixon relished being "in the arena".
He hated being a general lawyer after his failed 1962 campaign.
He loved politics and couldn't wait to get back in it.

When Bill Clinton discretely telephoned Nixon for advice, Nixon
was overjoyed to be consulted.
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369441 is a reply to message #369436] Sat, 23 June 2018 14:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hancock4 is currently offline  hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 1:20:22 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:10:16 AM UTC-6, Questor wrote:
>
>> The geopolitical uncertainty in the wake of World War II gave rise to a
>> situation that allowed the U.S. to engage in a proxy war against the Communists.
>> We had no other interests in the region. Eisenhower had a chance to disengage
>> in 1955 as well when the French were pulling out, but the war got cast as an
>> existential battle between democracy and communism. It became a black hole
>> that we could not escape until the entire doomed enterprise collapsed.
>
> What is Communism? Read _The Gulag Archipelago_.
>
> Hence, that paragraph is worded wrong, because it doesn't cast all the blame for
> the sufferings of the Vietnamese people on the Communist side.
>
> It is true that the United States' motives were imperfect. Sadly, they were not
> acting solely out of altruistic concern for the well-being of the people of
> South Vietnam. And they also failed to take care of the interests of their
> soldiers, by sending a sufficiently massive force to the area that they could
> win the war in a series of victorious battles with few casualties on their side.
>
> But all that pales into insignificance beside the major fact that there would be
> no war at all if North Vietnam had not chosen to attempt to take over South
> Vietnam. If it stayed peacefully on its side of the border, there would have
> been no downwards evolution of South Vietnamese democracy, and instead South
> Vietnam would be happy and prosperous like South Korea today.
>
> North Vietnamese aggression created the whole problem in the first place. If
> there had been no push-back against Communist aggression, then the other
> countries in the region would have feared they would be next, and that would
> have gotten their governments to try and ingratiate themselves with the
> Communists.
>
> In Communism, the world was facing an evil menace, just as it was with Nazism.

I do agree the aggression of the communists in Vietnam was a big
part of the problem. However, in my humble opinion, there were other
problems, too. First, unlike Korea, South Vietnam was not a
legitimate country, but something artificially imposed on the people
without strong popular support. The designated South Vietnamese
leaders were those friendly to the west, not representing the people.
Many tried to impose Catholicism on the people which was resented.
Many were brutal dictators. I believe the US Govt was clueless
about all of this, which greatly contributed to the screw-ups.

I'm not sure of this, but I believe Ho Chi Minh originally asked
the West for help to get freedom from French exploitation, and
was rebuffed. He therefore turned to the East and got support.
Opposition to external colonial masters was a big part of the
issue in Vietnam and its neighbors, and the US was NOT seen as
a liberator.
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369444 is a reply to message #369261] Sat, 23 June 2018 14:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 21:54:17 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:10:16 AM UTC-6, Questor wrote:
>
>> You need to go a little further back in your history. The Vietnam war started
>> in the mid-1800s when the French invaded and placed the region under colonial
>> rule. Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh were fighting to get their country back.
>
> Communism, in Vietnam, in Cuba, in China, in Russia has been a horrifying and
> frightful system of tyranny. We should, properly, react to it as we do to
> Nazism.
>
> I wish the United States could have successfully defended South Vietnam against
> Communist aggression without sending any American boys to fight there. However,
> I can't think of a way they could have done this.

There is no such thing as South Vietnam. The Vietnamese have had a distinct
identify as a people for hundreds of years, with their own language and culture,
forged in large part by fending off repeated invasion attempts by the Chinese.
The North/South divisions were arbitrary, imposed on Vietnamese by the West, and
have no basis for existence other than political expediency for the occupying
forces.

Ho Chi Minh was first and foremost a Vietnamese Nationalist. He wanted to throw
off French colonial rule and establish a Vietnamese state. He adopted communism
while in exile in Europe because Lenin wrote strongly against colonialism.
Ho Chi Minh wanted freedom and self-determination for his people, and when the
U.S. thwarted that desire by backing the French and their continued occupation
of his country, he was naturally driven to align with communist ideologues who
offered to aid his fight.

You want to know how the U.S. could have avoided Communist "aggression?" By
telling the French to leave after World War II and granting the Vietnamese their
freedom then. Instead they supported a series of essentially puppet governments
in the South that were beholden to U.S. aid and interests, and that didn't have
the full backing of the people they purported to represent. It took the French
about ten years to figure out that was a losing proposition. The United States
has never learned that lesson.
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369445 is a reply to message #369235] Sat, 23 June 2018 14:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:29:27 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 3:44:59 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> Of course, if the United States did not truly care about the people of Vietnam -
>> undermining the democratic government of South Vietnam to get a more compliant
>> war partner, abandoning South Vietnam to Communist conquest in the end - then
>> indeed drafting Americans to fight there was wasteful. The American people
>> rightly expect the American government to regard American blood as sacred; any
>> one who presumes to shed that blood should expect to be wiped off the face of
>> the Earth.
>
> In reading books both by and about McNamara, it sure seems Vietnam
> was a huge blunder based on political contingency (the Democrats didn't
> want to appear weak on communism*) and stupidity (the government
> was focused on other issues and purged all experts**).
>
> * When China fell to the communists, the Republicans made a major
> campaign issue about it, accusing the Dems of "losing China". The
> Dems were determined not to repeat that mistake, thus Kennedy and
> Johnson escalating the U.S. involvement. Johnson knew damn war
> the war was unwinnable, yet still escalated it to avoid a political
> loss.

It was indeed Truman who was taken to task for "losing China," and as a result
he approves a $23M aid package for the French. That was the first major step in
U.S. involvement in Vietnam. But it's not just Democratic Presidents who viewed
the situation and made the decision to escalate. You've conveniently glossed
over eight years of the Eisenhower administration.

In 1952, the United States, through aid to France, is paying 30% of the war's
costs. By 1954, it's 80%. During this time, Vice President Nixon epouses the
Domino Theory to garner support for this expenditure. Then in 1955, Diem wins
election in the South. The French announce their complete withdrawl from
Vietnam. At this point, President Eisenhower could have also withdrawn the
United States from Vietnam. He doesn't.


> ** During McCarthyism, a lot of experts on Asia were accused of
> being communists and purged from government. Other good people
> avoided government service since it was under attack. As a result,
> the government didn't have anyone who properly understood the
> Vietnamese situation and could approach it properly. What the
> U.S. assumed was very different than the desires of the people.
> In addition, the Kennedy administration was brand knew and
> focused on many other issues and relegated Vietnam to the back
> burner. The sudden ascension of Johnson left the government
> further confused and continued with Vietnam being a low priority
> in terms of understanding it.

Oh, there were many people who understood the situation well enough.
They were ignored, because their opinions didn't fit the desired narrative.

There is a cycle that is seen over and over and over again in the Vietnam war,
first with the French for a few years, and which the United States dutifully
repeated. There's an incident of failure to establish control of the population
(i.e., "pacify"); military and political officials make optimistic forecasts
later shown to be based on omissions, misstatements, or lies; brutal tactics
(such as the napalming of villages) come to light and their press coverage
dampens public support for the war; additional resources are called for as
"peace is at hand;" more money and personnel are allocated and fighting
escalates, yet there is a failure to control the population...
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369446 is a reply to message #369241] Sat, 23 June 2018 14:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:12 -0400, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 3:44:59 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, if the United States did not truly care about the people of Vietnam -
>>> undermining the democratic government of South Vietnam to get a more compliant
>>> war partner, abandoning South Vietnam to Communist conquest in the end - then
>>> indeed drafting Americans to fight there was wasteful. The American people
>>> rightly expect the American government to regard American blood as sacred; any
>>> one who presumes to shed that blood should expect to be wiped off the face of
>>> the Earth.
>>
>> In reading books both by and about McNamara, it sure seems Vietnam
>> was a huge blunder based on political contingency (the Democrats didn't
>> want to appear weak on communism*) and stupidity (the government
>> was focused on other issues and purged all experts**).
>>
>> * When China fell to the communists, the Republicans made a major
>> campaign issue about it, accusing the Dems of "losing China". The
>> Dems were determined not to repeat that mistake, thus Kennedy and
>> Johnson escalating the U.S. involvement. Johnson knew damn war
>> the war was unwinnable, yet still escalated it to avoid a political
>> loss.
>>
>> ** During McCarthyism, a lot of experts on Asia were accused of
>> being communists and purged from government. Other good people
>> avoided government service since it was under attack. As a result,
>> the government didn't have anyone who properly understood the
>> Vietnamese situation and could approach it properly. What the
>> U.S. assumed was very different than the desires of the people.
>
> The South Vietnamese "desired" communism so much that hundreds of thousands
> fled to the US when Ho's cronies took over. Many who didn't leave were
> killed or underwent "re-education."

It had nothing to do with desiring communism and everything to do with fleeing a
country where they probably had been collaborators with a defeated enemy
occupying force and subsequently would be viewed as traitors by their
countrymen.
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369447 is a reply to message #369223] Sat, 23 June 2018 14:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 18:50:07 +0100, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 21/06/2018 18:08, Questor wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 20:13:41 +0100, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 20/06/2018 18:54, Questor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So do tell us, "Hancock4," what was your draft status during the Vietnam War?
>>>> Did you serve, or did you have a deferment? How many young men of your
>>>> acquaintance -- brothers, cousins, friends, neighbors -- went to Vietnam and
>>>> were killed or maimed?
>>>
>>> His status is irrelevant for anybody who sets out to travel around the
>>> World fully intent and prepared to kill his fellow man receives only
>>> his just deserts if he himself is killed or wounded.
>>
>> In this case, you can be excused of your ignorance about the politics of a
>> distant country fifty years ago.
>
> Not a relevant comment. No justification at all for killing your
> fellow man. All wars have those who have greater understanding than
> the sheep herds of the governments and who refuse to take part
> in the wars that are organised.

I tried to explain about a particular aspect of the sociopolitical situation in
the U.S. at that time, but you still don't understand.

It is your absolutist moral pronouncements that are irrelevant.

My more nuanced point was about people who support a warmonger yet are safely
insulated by circumstance from any possibility of suffering adverse consequences
from said warmongering.
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369448 is a reply to message #369269] Sat, 23 June 2018 14:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 00:18:01 -0500, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com>
wrote:
> On 6/21/2018 4:47 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> Hence my belief that the French have been the source of every bad thing
>> that has happened in the last 200 years or so.
>
> The British did more tan their share also. Remember Rhodesia, South
> Africa, India/Pakistan, and others that were victims of English
> colonialism. Both France and England mishandled their policies toward
> the Nazis prior to Churchill taking charge of Britain. Remembering the
> horrors of World War I, the leaders of Britain and France were reticent
> to admit that World War II was already inevitable.

All the colonial/imperial powers share in the blame. The English, French,
Spanish, Portugese, and of course the U.S. all meddled strongly in the affairs
of other peoples, resulting in disasters of varying degrees. Some of which we
are still experiencing, for example the artificial divisions imposed on the
Middle East a hundred years ago (mentioned elsewhere in the thread).
Re: meanwhile in eastern Asia, was tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369449 is a reply to message #369358] Sat, 23 June 2018 14:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
usenet is currently offline  usenet
Messages: 556
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 13:54:31 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 8:11:38 PM UTC-4, John Levine wrote:
>> If Nixon had been able to hang on longer he'd probably have passed
>> single payer healthcare, too. He was a very frustrating character,
>> totally without morals who did a lot of bad stuff and a modest amount
>> of good stuff.
>
> Nixon's biographer Stephen Ambrose started off his research
> expecting to write a hatchet job on Nixon. Ambrose didn't like
> Nixon. However, as Ambrose got into it, he found out that the
> story of Nixon was complex with various parts. It turned out
> some accusations against Nixon from the 1950s were not true,
> and some of Nixon's critiques were true.
>
> Ambrose ended up writing a three volume set. Excellent, balanced
> work--tells both the good and the bad.
>
> During his presidency, Nixon did do some good things.

I hear Hitler was nice to his dog.


> Even with Nixon's dark side, I think now I'd rather have him
> back in office than Trump.

That is such a low bar, an ant couldn't limbo under it.
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369450 is a reply to message #369429] Sat, 23 June 2018 14:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 23 Jun 2018 15:38:37 GMT
mausg@mail.com wrote:

> The punishment for treason in England was to be hung, drawn, and
> quartered. That meant being hung until almost dead, revived, having your
> insides pulled out, than horses would be roped to your limbs and your
> body pulled apart.

After which some poor blameless slob had to clean up the mess.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: meanwhile in eastern Asia, was tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369451 is a reply to message #369440] Sat, 23 June 2018 15:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 5:34:54 PM UTC-4, JimP wrote:
>
>>> Even with Nixon's dark side, I think now I'd rather have him
>>> back in office than Trump. I think Nixon, in his own way,
>>> still wanted to have a better country.
>>
>> My understanding of Nixon was that he decided if someone, or an
>> orginization, was against him, they were against America.
>>
>> I believe he was mistaken.
>
> Actually, as proven by Ambrose, the opposition WAS out to
> get him. First, Nixon still had many enemies from the 1950s,
> and now those people were in a position of power in Congress
> and media. They remembered well how aggressive he was and
> it time to fight back, and they did. Secondly, by 1969 when
> he assumed office, the country was badly polarized by the war.
> The Left was furious that Nixon won the presidency and furious
> in general against the establishment, which they saw Nixon as
> the prime representative. The Left was aggressively protesting
> against Nixon on day one.
>
> I think Nixon was very thin skinned and took the opposition very
> personally. A president has to be thick-skinned. Nixon was
> furious about it, plus his narrow '68 victory and fear of the
> Kennedy's, and all contributed to his dark side, which he would
> not or could not control. That ruined him.

Sounds a bit like the current situation, doesn't it?

--
Pete
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369452 is a reply to message #369444] Sat, 23 June 2018 15:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 21:54:17 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:10:16 AM UTC-6, Questor wrote:
>>
>>> You need to go a little further back in your history. The Vietnam war started
>>> in the mid-1800s when the French invaded and placed the region under colonial
>>> rule. Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh were fighting to get their country back.
>>
>> Communism, in Vietnam, in Cuba, in China, in Russia has been a horrifying and
>> frightful system of tyranny. We should, properly, react to it as we do to
>> Nazism.
>>
>> I wish the United States could have successfully defended South Vietnam against
>> Communist aggression without sending any American boys to fight there. However,
>> I can't think of a way they could have done this.
>
> There is no such thing as South Vietnam. The Vietnamese have had a distinct
> identify as a people for hundreds of years, with their own language and culture,
> forged in large part by fending off repeated invasion attempts by the Chinese.
> The North/South divisions were arbitrary, imposed on Vietnamese by the West, and
> have no basis for existence other than political expediency for the occupying
> forces.

Actually, I think there had been a split, going back to the middle ages.
Likewise Korea. Reading some Korean history in _ Archaeology_ magazine I
discovered that the peninsula was divided into two kingdoms for a long time
(the more militaristic North eventually won and took over the South :-)

--
Pete
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369453 is a reply to message #369446] Sat, 23 June 2018 15:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:12 -0400, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 3:44:59 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course, if the United States did not truly care about the people of Vietnam -
>>>> undermining the democratic government of South Vietnam to get a more compliant
>>>> war partner, abandoning South Vietnam to Communist conquest in the end - then
>>>> indeed drafting Americans to fight there was wasteful. The American people
>>>> rightly expect the American government to regard American blood as sacred; any
>>>> one who presumes to shed that blood should expect to be wiped off the face of
>>>> the Earth.
>>>
>>> In reading books both by and about McNamara, it sure seems Vietnam
>>> was a huge blunder based on political contingency (the Democrats didn't
>>> want to appear weak on communism*) and stupidity (the government
>>> was focused on other issues and purged all experts**).
>>>
>>> * When China fell to the communists, the Republicans made a major
>>> campaign issue about it, accusing the Dems of "losing China". The
>>> Dems were determined not to repeat that mistake, thus Kennedy and
>>> Johnson escalating the U.S. involvement. Johnson knew damn war
>>> the war was unwinnable, yet still escalated it to avoid a political
>>> loss.
>>>
>>> ** During McCarthyism, a lot of experts on Asia were accused of
>>> being communists and purged from government. Other good people
>>> avoided government service since it was under attack. As a result,
>>> the government didn't have anyone who properly understood the
>>> Vietnamese situation and could approach it properly. What the
>>> U.S. assumed was very different than the desires of the people.
>>
>> The South Vietnamese "desired" communism so much that hundreds of thousands
>> fled to the US when Ho's cronies took over. Many who didn't leave were
>> killed or underwent "re-education."
>
> It had nothing to do with desiring communism and everything to do with fleeing a
> country where they probably had been collaborators with a defeated enemy
> occupying force and subsequently would be viewed as traitors by their
> countrymen.
>
>

Or patriots who loved their country and were then brutalized by the junta
that took over.

--
Pete
Re: the mysterious east, was tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369454 is a reply to message #369413] Sat, 23 June 2018 15:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jorgen Grahn is currently offline  Jorgen Grahn
Messages: 606
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Sat, 2018-06-23, Peter Flass wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On 22 Jun 2018 21:43:44 GMT
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> And it's not the first time. Back in the '60s, "Made in Japan" was
>>> a joke. The Japanese improved their quality (and increased their
>>> prices) so the supply of cheap junk moved to Korea. When Korean
>>> goods started improving, supply of cheap junk shifted to China.
>>
>> It makes me wonder who's next, because what usually goes along
>> with the cheap junk is a slice of quality manufacturing, usually supplying
>> parts to the previous junk supplier for making their quality products. This
>> underpins the move to quality in the junk supplier.
>>
>
> We're running out of places. Bangladesh now seems to produce a lot of
> clothing, of not-too-bad quality. That's about it for the underdeveloped
> areas in Asia. I guess Africa is next. This is a good thing, raising
> standards of living wherever it spreads, although the benefits are uneven.

Someone at work talked about a piece of satire, where they
extrapolated and found the single guy (in Afghanistan, IIRC) who in
the future would singlehandedly manufacture everything. Presumably
for slave wages.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369455 is a reply to message #369447] Sat, 23 June 2018 16:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Gareth's Downstairs Computer

On 23/06/2018 19:56, Questor wrote:
>
> I tried to explain about a particular aspect of the sociopolitical situation in
> the U.S. at that time, but you still don't understand.
> It is your absolutist moral pronouncements that are irrelevant.
> My more nuanced point was about people who support a warmonger yet are safely
> insulated by circumstance from any possibility of suffering adverse consequences
> from said warmongering.

No call for an ad hominem attack, but it is noticeable that it is those
who support warmongering in support of a supposed high social attitude
are very quick to resort to an intolerant personal viewpoint that gives
the lie to their high social attitude.

Not you, of course?
Re: the mysterious east, was tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369456 is a reply to message #369422] Sat, 23 June 2018 16:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andrew Swallow is currently offline  Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 23/06/2018 15:34, Dan Espen wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>
>> Is it possible that the problem in Britain is that personal contacts and
>> status matter more than in the US? Here it seems like anybody with anything
>> resembling a good idea can get financing to start a company.
>
> Perhaps, but I think not.
> Having worked at Bell Labs, I saw first hand how poorly equipped
> scientists are to bring a product to market.
> You need a combination of scientists and marketing to make lots of
> money. For example, Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs.
>
> As much as I despise marketing I admit it's a necessary ingredient.
> Not sure why Britain would come up short in the marketing department but
> American marketing is certainly world class. (The bastards.)
>

Britain never understood that manufacturing is a team effort and still
thinks the lone inventor can run both production and act as a salesman.
How to go from an invention to a mass produced product is not understood.
Re: a botched DC burglary, was tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369459 is a reply to message #369318] Sat, 23 June 2018 17:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Levine is currently offline  John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <pgj200$hs6$2@dont-email.me>,
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yeah, and Ford pardoned him to help America heal. I consider him
>>>> really dumb for doing that. And I do believe Noxon, and his VP, along
>>>> with his cabinet, are criminals.
>>>
>>> Not dumb, a traitor. Justice denied is no justice at all.
>>
>> The Constitution defines treason rather narrowly. What particular
>> provision did Nixon violate?
>
> Ford.
> Sold justice for personal gain.

Personal gain? He would have been president whether or not he
pardoned Nixon. In retrospect the pardon was a mistake but at the
time it wasn't hard to see why he thought it was in the national
interest.

Nixon asked members of Congress for advice on who to pick to replace
Agnew, and Ford was the near unanimous choice. If there was any sort
of conspiracy, it had about 500 co-conspirators.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369461 is a reply to message #369426] Sat, 23 June 2018 18:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:38:48 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:44:15 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:41:40 -0400, Dan Espen
>>>> > <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:54:24 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:34:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>>On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:44:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> You wouldn't expect unbiased info from someone who was
>>>> >>>>>> actually there in the trenches. I think historians believe it
>>>> >>>>>> takes a generation or so for unbiased history to be possible.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>When it comes to history, how does one identify 'bias' and
>>>> >>>>>separate it out from fact?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>For instance, there remains great debate over FDR, his wife,
>>>> >>>>>his handling of the Depression and the New Deal, and his
>>>> >>>>>handling of WW II. Back then, many conservatives hated him,
>>>> >>>>>and indeed, many hate him and his policies to this day.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>His wife was also quite controversial. NBC for a while had on
>>>> >>>>>old broadcasts of Meet the Press--they had Nixon, Martin Luther
>>>> >>>>>King, and Eleanor Roosevelt, among other historical figures.
>>>> >>>>>Fascinating!
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>ER said something I didn't like: in response to a question, she
>>>> >>>>>denied being an elder statesman and denied being a politician.
>>>> >>>>>In fact she was both and very much so. Even if she personally
>>>> >>>>>running for office or held a policy position, she was most
>>>> >>>>>certainly active behind the scenes and maintained a lot of
>>>> >>>>>influence in her party.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>Martin Luther King did a fantastic job in response to hostile
>>>> >>>>>questioning. Several guys kept challenging him along the lines
>>>> >>>>>of "don't blacks have enough now? Aren't you going too far?"
>>>> >>>>>King maintained he sought equal rights, not just a few rights.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>Nixon was sad to watch. His appearance was post Watergate.
>>>> >>>>>Curiously, in light of today's events, he said he wished he
>>>> >>>>>could've pardoned his top aides but it would've looked bad. He
>>>> >>>>>also made an excellent political analysis of the ongoing races,
>>>> >>>>>and everything he predicted in the broadcast came true. What a
>>>> >>>>>waste of talent.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>Nixon was a treasonous war criminal who illegally conspired with
>>>> >>>>South Vietnamese officials to prolong the war for his political
>>>> >>>>benefit in 1968, resulting in the needless death of thousands of
>>>> >>>>young American men, along with the waste of billions of dollars
>>>> >>>>and the loss of some standing around the world as it was
>>>> >>>>revealed what a disaster Vietnam had become.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Yeah, and Ford pardoned him to help America heal. I consider him
>>>> >>> really dumb for doing that. And I do believe Noxon, and his VP,
>>>> >>> along with his cabinet, are criminals.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Not dumb, a traitor. Justice denied is no justice at all.
>>>> >
>>>> > The Constitution defines treason rather narrowly. What particular
>>>> > provision did Nixon violate?
>>>>
>>>> Ford. Sold justice for personal gain. Traitor to his country and
>>>> our system of government.
>>>
>>> So where, exactly, in the definition of "treason" in the
>>> Constitution, is "sold justice for personal gain" listed?
>>
>> Split hairs all you like. He's still a nasty piece of work that sold
>> out his country for his own profit. A traitor to everything this
>> country SHOULD stand for. Defend his actions to show us all how low
>> you can go.
>
> I believe the Founders had a pretty good idea what this country
> "should stand for". And they also had a certain expertise on the
> topic of treason, having successfully committed it, by any definition
> including their own, on a massive scale. If you want to throw around
> the word "treason" to refer to any action of which you disapprove then
> _you_ are the "traitor to everything this country SHOULD stand for".
>
> Unfortunately, it's not illegal in this country for a politician to be
> an arsewipe. If it was they would all be in jail.

I call this the "they are all bad fallacy". The right wing has given us
one bad actor after another. There is just no comparison.

--
Dan Espen
Re: meanwhile in eastern Asia, was tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369462 is a reply to message #369440] Sat, 23 June 2018 18:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 5:34:54 PM UTC-4, JimP wrote:
>
>>> Even with Nixon's dark side, I think now I'd rather have him
>>> back in office than Trump. I think Nixon, in his own way,
>>> still wanted to have a better country.
>>
>> My understanding of Nixon was that he decided if someone, or an
>> orginization, was against him, they were against America.
>>
>> I believe he was mistaken.
>
> Actually, as proven by Ambrose, the opposition WAS out to
> get him. First, Nixon still had many enemies from the 1950s,
> and now those people were in a position of power in Congress
> and media. They remembered well how aggressive he was and
> it time to fight back, and they did. Secondly, by 1969 when
> he assumed office, the country was badly polarized by the war.
> The Left was furious that Nixon won the presidency and furious
> in general against the establishment, which they saw Nixon as
> the prime representative. The Left was aggressively protesting
> against Nixon on day one.
>
> I think Nixon was very thin skinned and took the opposition very
> personally. A president has to be thick-skinned. Nixon was
> furious about it, plus his narrow '68 victory and fear of the
> Kennedy's, and all contributed to his dark side, which he would
> not or could not control. That ruined him.
>
> The weird thing was that Nixon relished being "in the arena".
> He hated being a general lawyer after his failed 1962 campaign.
> He loved politics and couldn't wait to get back in it.
>
> When Bill Clinton discretely telephoned Nixon for advice, Nixon
> was overjoyed to be consulted.

That "left" you are referring too was the anti-war movement.

Yeah they were pissed when Nixon won election, then re-election
promising to end the war and then went right on killing
young Americans.

The opposition was out to get him for good reason.

--
Dan Espen
Re: a botched DC burglary, was tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369463 is a reply to message #369459] Sat, 23 June 2018 19:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:

> In article <pgj200$hs6$2@dont-email.me>,
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Yeah, and Ford pardoned him to help America heal. I consider him
>>>> > really dumb for doing that. And I do believe Noxon, and his VP, along
>>>> > with his cabinet, are criminals.
>>>>
>>>> Not dumb, a traitor. Justice denied is no justice at all.
>>>
>>> The Constitution defines treason rather narrowly. What particular
>>> provision did Nixon violate?
>>
>> Ford.
>> Sold justice for personal gain.
>
> Personal gain? He would have been president whether or not he
> pardoned Nixon. In retrospect the pardon was a mistake but at the
> time it wasn't hard to see why he thought it was in the national
> interest.

Rather, in the interests of his party, and he thought,
his ultimate re-election.

--
Dan Espen
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369464 is a reply to message #369441] Sat, 23 June 2018 19:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 11:24:57 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 1:20:22 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:10:16 AM UTC-6, Questor wrote:
>>
>>> The geopolitical uncertainty in the wake of World War II gave rise to a
>>> situation that allowed the U.S. to engage in a proxy war against the Communists.
>>> We had no other interests in the region. Eisenhower had a chance to disengage
>>> in 1955 as well when the French were pulling out, but the war got cast as an
>>> existential battle between democracy and communism. It became a black hole
>>> that we could not escape until the entire doomed enterprise collapsed.
>>
>> What is Communism? Read _The Gulag Archipelago_.
>>
>> Hence, that paragraph is worded wrong, because it doesn't cast all the blame for
>> the sufferings of the Vietnamese people on the Communist side.
>>
>> It is true that the United States' motives were imperfect. Sadly, they were not
>> acting solely out of altruistic concern for the well-being of the people of
>> South Vietnam. And they also failed to take care of the interests of their
>> soldiers, by sending a sufficiently massive force to the area that they could
>> win the war in a series of victorious battles with few casualties on their side.
>>
>> But all that pales into insignificance beside the major fact that there would be
>> no war at all if North Vietnam had not chosen to attempt to take over South
>> Vietnam. If it stayed peacefully on its side of the border, there would have
>> been no downwards evolution of South Vietnamese democracy, and instead South
>> Vietnam would be happy and prosperous like South Korea today.
>>
>> North Vietnamese aggression created the whole problem in the first place. If
>> there had been no push-back against Communist aggression, then the other
>> countries in the region would have feared they would be next, and that would
>> have gotten their governments to try and ingratiate themselves with the
>> Communists.
>>
>> In Communism, the world was facing an evil menace, just as it was with Nazism.
>
> I do agree the aggression of the communists in Vietnam was a big
> part of the problem. However, in my humble opinion, there were other
> problems, too. First, unlike Korea, South Vietnam was not a
> legitimate country, but something artificially imposed on the people
> without strong popular support. The designated South Vietnamese
> leaders were those friendly to the west, not representing the people.
> Many tried to impose Catholicism on the people which was resented.
> Many were brutal dictators. I believe the US Govt was clueless
> about all of this, which greatly contributed to the screw-ups.
>
> I'm not sure of this, but I believe Ho Chi Minh originally asked
> the West for help to get freedom from French exploitation, and
> was rebuffed. He therefore turned to the East and got support.
> Opposition to external colonial masters was a big part of the
> issue in Vietnam and its neighbors, and the US was NOT seen as
> a liberator.

Yes, it was the Dulles brothers that rebuffed Ho, just like they
rebuffed Castro.
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369465 is a reply to message #369461] Sat, 23 June 2018 19:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 18:46:14 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:38:48 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:44:15 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:41:40 -0400, Dan Espen
>>>> >> <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:54:24 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>>On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:34:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:44:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> You wouldn't expect unbiased info from someone who was
>>>> >>>>>>> actually there in the trenches. I think historians believe it
>>>> >>>>>>> takes a generation or so for unbiased history to be possible.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>When it comes to history, how does one identify 'bias' and
>>>> >>>>>>separate it out from fact?
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>For instance, there remains great debate over FDR, his wife,
>>>> >>>>>>his handling of the Depression and the New Deal, and his
>>>> >>>>>>handling of WW II. Back then, many conservatives hated him,
>>>> >>>>>>and indeed, many hate him and his policies to this day.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>His wife was also quite controversial. NBC for a while had on
>>>> >>>>>>old broadcasts of Meet the Press--they had Nixon, Martin Luther
>>>> >>>>>>King, and Eleanor Roosevelt, among other historical figures.
>>>> >>>>>>Fascinating!
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>ER said something I didn't like: in response to a question, she
>>>> >>>>>>denied being an elder statesman and denied being a politician.
>>>> >>>>>>In fact she was both and very much so. Even if she personally
>>>> >>>>>>running for office or held a policy position, she was most
>>>> >>>>>>certainly active behind the scenes and maintained a lot of
>>>> >>>>>>influence in her party.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>Martin Luther King did a fantastic job in response to hostile
>>>> >>>>>>questioning. Several guys kept challenging him along the lines
>>>> >>>>>>of "don't blacks have enough now? Aren't you going too far?"
>>>> >>>>>>King maintained he sought equal rights, not just a few rights.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>Nixon was sad to watch. His appearance was post Watergate.
>>>> >>>>>>Curiously, in light of today's events, he said he wished he
>>>> >>>>>>could've pardoned his top aides but it would've looked bad. He
>>>> >>>>>>also made an excellent political analysis of the ongoing races,
>>>> >>>>>>and everything he predicted in the broadcast came true. What a
>>>> >>>>>>waste of talent.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>Nixon was a treasonous war criminal who illegally conspired with
>>>> >>>>>South Vietnamese officials to prolong the war for his political
>>>> >>>>>benefit in 1968, resulting in the needless death of thousands of
>>>> >>>>>young American men, along with the waste of billions of dollars
>>>> >>>>>and the loss of some standing around the world as it was
>>>> >>>>>revealed what a disaster Vietnam had become.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Yeah, and Ford pardoned him to help America heal. I consider him
>>>> >>>> really dumb for doing that. And I do believe Noxon, and his VP,
>>>> >>>> along with his cabinet, are criminals.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Not dumb, a traitor. Justice denied is no justice at all.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The Constitution defines treason rather narrowly. What particular
>>>> >> provision did Nixon violate?
>>>> >
>>>> >Ford. Sold justice for personal gain. Traitor to his country and
>>>> >our system of government.
>>>>
>>>> So where, exactly, in the definition of "treason" in the
>>>> Constitution, is "sold justice for personal gain" listed?
>>>
>>> Split hairs all you like. He's still a nasty piece of work that sold
>>> out his country for his own profit. A traitor to everything this
>>> country SHOULD stand for. Defend his actions to show us all how low
>>> you can go.
>>
>> I believe the Founders had a pretty good idea what this country
>> "should stand for". And they also had a certain expertise on the
>> topic of treason, having successfully committed it, by any definition
>> including their own, on a massive scale. If you want to throw around
>> the word "treason" to refer to any action of which you disapprove then
>> _you_ are the "traitor to everything this country SHOULD stand for".
>>
>> Unfortunately, it's not illegal in this country for a politician to be
>> an arsewipe. If it was they would all be in jail.
>
> I call this the "they are all bad fallacy". The right wing has given us
> one bad actor after another. There is just no comparison.

There is no "fallacy". They _are_ all bad.
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369494 is a reply to message #369461] Sun, 24 June 2018 13:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:38:48 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:44:15 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:41:40 -0400, Dan Espen
>>>> >> <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:54:24 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:34:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:44:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> You wouldn't expect unbiased info from someone who was
>>>> >>>>>>> actually there in the trenches. I think historians believe it
>>>> >>>>>>> takes a generation or so for unbiased history to be possible.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> When it comes to history, how does one identify 'bias' and
>>>> >>>>>> separate it out from fact?
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> For instance, there remains great debate over FDR, his wife,
>>>> >>>>>> his handling of the Depression and the New Deal, and his
>>>> >>>>>> handling of WW II. Back then, many conservatives hated him,
>>>> >>>>>> and indeed, many hate him and his policies to this day.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> His wife was also quite controversial. NBC for a while had on
>>>> >>>>>> old broadcasts of Meet the Press--they had Nixon, Martin Luther
>>>> >>>>>> King, and Eleanor Roosevelt, among other historical figures.
>>>> >>>>>> Fascinating!
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> ER said something I didn't like: in response to a question, she
>>>> >>>>>> denied being an elder statesman and denied being a politician.
>>>> >>>>>> In fact she was both and very much so. Even if she personally
>>>> >>>>>> running for office or held a policy position, she was most
>>>> >>>>>> certainly active behind the scenes and maintained a lot of
>>>> >>>>>> influence in her party.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Martin Luther King did a fantastic job in response to hostile
>>>> >>>>>> questioning. Several guys kept challenging him along the lines
>>>> >>>>>> of "don't blacks have enough now? Aren't you going too far?"
>>>> >>>>>> King maintained he sought equal rights, not just a few rights.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Nixon was sad to watch. His appearance was post Watergate.
>>>> >>>>>> Curiously, in light of today's events, he said he wished he
>>>> >>>>>> could've pardoned his top aides but it would've looked bad. He
>>>> >>>>>> also made an excellent political analysis of the ongoing races,
>>>> >>>>>> and everything he predicted in the broadcast came true. What a
>>>> >>>>>> waste of talent.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Nixon was a treasonous war criminal who illegally conspired with
>>>> >>>>> South Vietnamese officials to prolong the war for his political
>>>> >>>>> benefit in 1968, resulting in the needless death of thousands of
>>>> >>>>> young American men, along with the waste of billions of dollars
>>>> >>>>> and the loss of some standing around the world as it was
>>>> >>>>> revealed what a disaster Vietnam had become.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Yeah, and Ford pardoned him to help America heal. I consider him
>>>> >>>> really dumb for doing that. And I do believe Noxon, and his VP,
>>>> >>>> along with his cabinet, are criminals.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Not dumb, a traitor. Justice denied is no justice at all.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The Constitution defines treason rather narrowly. What particular
>>>> >> provision did Nixon violate?
>>>> >
>>>> > Ford. Sold justice for personal gain. Traitor to his country and
>>>> > our system of government.
>>>>
>>>> So where, exactly, in the definition of "treason" in the
>>>> Constitution, is "sold justice for personal gain" listed?
>>>
>>> Split hairs all you like. He's still a nasty piece of work that sold
>>> out his country for his own profit. A traitor to everything this
>>> country SHOULD stand for. Defend his actions to show us all how low
>>> you can go.
>>
>> I believe the Founders had a pretty good idea what this country
>> "should stand for". And they also had a certain expertise on the
>> topic of treason, having successfully committed it, by any definition
>> including their own, on a massive scale. If you want to throw around
>> the word "treason" to refer to any action of which you disapprove then
>> _you_ are the "traitor to everything this country SHOULD stand for".
>>
>> Unfortunately, it's not illegal in this country for a politician to be
>> an arsewipe. If it was they would all be in jail.
>
> I call this the "they are all bad fallacy". The right wing has given us
> one bad actor after another. There is just no comparison.
>

Actually only one jerk, and as a Conservative Republican since the days of
Barry Goldwater I disown him.

When he got in I thought "well, he's obnoxious, but maybe it's a chance to
get some things done." He's so incompetent (fortunate for your side) that
he trips over his own tongue and nothing gets done. My latest theory is
that he's a front for Vlad, who's doing everything possible to mess us up.
He's obnoxious and incompetent on purpose, because no one could be that bad
by accident.

--
Pete
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369497 is a reply to message #369494] Sun, 24 June 2018 14:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 13:23:08 -0400, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:38:48 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:44:15 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:41:40 -0400, Dan Espen
>>>> >>> <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:54:24 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:34:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:44:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>> You wouldn't expect unbiased info from someone who was
>>>> >>>>>>>> actually there in the trenches. I think historians believe it
>>>> >>>>>>>> takes a generation or so for unbiased history to be possible.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> When it comes to history, how does one identify 'bias' and
>>>> >>>>>>> separate it out from fact?
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> For instance, there remains great debate over FDR, his wife,
>>>> >>>>>>> his handling of the Depression and the New Deal, and his
>>>> >>>>>>> handling of WW II. Back then, many conservatives hated him,
>>>> >>>>>>> and indeed, many hate him and his policies to this day.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> His wife was also quite controversial. NBC for a while had on
>>>> >>>>>>> old broadcasts of Meet the Press--they had Nixon, Martin Luther
>>>> >>>>>>> King, and Eleanor Roosevelt, among other historical figures.
>>>> >>>>>>> Fascinating!
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> ER said something I didn't like: in response to a question, she
>>>> >>>>>>> denied being an elder statesman and denied being a politician.
>>>> >>>>>>> In fact she was both and very much so. Even if she personally
>>>> >>>>>>> running for office or held a policy position, she was most
>>>> >>>>>>> certainly active behind the scenes and maintained a lot of
>>>> >>>>>>> influence in her party.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Martin Luther King did a fantastic job in response to hostile
>>>> >>>>>>> questioning. Several guys kept challenging him along the lines
>>>> >>>>>>> of "don't blacks have enough now? Aren't you going too far?"
>>>> >>>>>>> King maintained he sought equal rights, not just a few rights.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Nixon was sad to watch. His appearance was post Watergate.
>>>> >>>>>>> Curiously, in light of today's events, he said he wished he
>>>> >>>>>>> could've pardoned his top aides but it would've looked bad. He
>>>> >>>>>>> also made an excellent political analysis of the ongoing races,
>>>> >>>>>>> and everything he predicted in the broadcast came true. What a
>>>> >>>>>>> waste of talent.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Nixon was a treasonous war criminal who illegally conspired with
>>>> >>>>>> South Vietnamese officials to prolong the war for his political
>>>> >>>>>> benefit in 1968, resulting in the needless death of thousands of
>>>> >>>>>> young American men, along with the waste of billions of dollars
>>>> >>>>>> and the loss of some standing around the world as it was
>>>> >>>>>> revealed what a disaster Vietnam had become.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Yeah, and Ford pardoned him to help America heal. I consider him
>>>> >>>>> really dumb for doing that. And I do believe Noxon, and his VP,
>>>> >>>>> along with his cabinet, are criminals.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Not dumb, a traitor. Justice denied is no justice at all.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The Constitution defines treason rather narrowly. What particular
>>>> >>> provision did Nixon violate?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Ford. Sold justice for personal gain. Traitor to his country and
>>>> >> our system of government.
>>>> >
>>>> > So where, exactly, in the definition of "treason" in the
>>>> > Constitution, is "sold justice for personal gain" listed?
>>>>
>>>> Split hairs all you like. He's still a nasty piece of work that sold
>>>> out his country for his own profit. A traitor to everything this
>>>> country SHOULD stand for. Defend his actions to show us all how low
>>>> you can go.
>>>
>>> I believe the Founders had a pretty good idea what this country
>>> "should stand for". And they also had a certain expertise on the
>>> topic of treason, having successfully committed it, by any definition
>>> including their own, on a massive scale. If you want to throw around
>>> the word "treason" to refer to any action of which you disapprove then
>>> _you_ are the "traitor to everything this country SHOULD stand for".
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, it's not illegal in this country for a politician to be
>>> an arsewipe. If it was they would all be in jail.
>>
>> I call this the "they are all bad fallacy". The right wing has given us
>> one bad actor after another. There is just no comparison.
>>
>
> Actually only one jerk, and as a Conservative Republican since the days of
> Barry Goldwater I disown him.
>
> When he got in I thought "well, he's obnoxious, but maybe it's a chance to
> get some things done." He's so incompetent (fortunate for your side) that
> he trips over his own tongue and nothing gets done. My latest theory is
> that he's a front for Vlad, who's doing everything possible to mess us up.
> He's obnoxious and incompetent on purpose, because no one could be that bad
> by accident.

Bear in mind that to a certain portion of the American body politic,
if a member of the opposing party risked his life to save a baby from
a fire it was misfeasance, malfeasance, skulduggery and likely
treason.
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369498 is a reply to message #369494] Sun, 24 June 2018 14:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 13:23:08 -0400, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:38:48 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:44:15 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:41:40 -0400, Dan Espen
>>>> >>> <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:54:24 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:34:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:44:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>> You wouldn't expect unbiased info from someone who was
>>>> >>>>>>>> actually there in the trenches. I think historians believe it
>>>> >>>>>>>> takes a generation or so for unbiased history to be possible.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> When it comes to history, how does one identify 'bias' and
>>>> >>>>>>> separate it out from fact?
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> For instance, there remains great debate over FDR, his wife,
>>>> >>>>>>> his handling of the Depression and the New Deal, and his
>>>> >>>>>>> handling of WW II. Back then, many conservatives hated him,
>>>> >>>>>>> and indeed, many hate him and his policies to this day.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> His wife was also quite controversial. NBC for a while had on
>>>> >>>>>>> old broadcasts of Meet the Press--they had Nixon, Martin Luther
>>>> >>>>>>> King, and Eleanor Roosevelt, among other historical figures.
>>>> >>>>>>> Fascinating!
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> ER said something I didn't like: in response to a question, she
>>>> >>>>>>> denied being an elder statesman and denied being a politician.
>>>> >>>>>>> In fact she was both and very much so. Even if she personally
>>>> >>>>>>> running for office or held a policy position, she was most
>>>> >>>>>>> certainly active behind the scenes and maintained a lot of
>>>> >>>>>>> influence in her party.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Martin Luther King did a fantastic job in response to hostile
>>>> >>>>>>> questioning. Several guys kept challenging him along the lines
>>>> >>>>>>> of "don't blacks have enough now? Aren't you going too far?"
>>>> >>>>>>> King maintained he sought equal rights, not just a few rights.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Nixon was sad to watch. His appearance was post Watergate.
>>>> >>>>>>> Curiously, in light of today's events, he said he wished he
>>>> >>>>>>> could've pardoned his top aides but it would've looked bad. He
>>>> >>>>>>> also made an excellent political analysis of the ongoing races,
>>>> >>>>>>> and everything he predicted in the broadcast came true. What a
>>>> >>>>>>> waste of talent.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Nixon was a treasonous war criminal who illegally conspired with
>>>> >>>>>> South Vietnamese officials to prolong the war for his political
>>>> >>>>>> benefit in 1968, resulting in the needless death of thousands of
>>>> >>>>>> young American men, along with the waste of billions of dollars
>>>> >>>>>> and the loss of some standing around the world as it was
>>>> >>>>>> revealed what a disaster Vietnam had become.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Yeah, and Ford pardoned him to help America heal. I consider him
>>>> >>>>> really dumb for doing that. And I do believe Noxon, and his VP,
>>>> >>>>> along with his cabinet, are criminals.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Not dumb, a traitor. Justice denied is no justice at all.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The Constitution defines treason rather narrowly. What particular
>>>> >>> provision did Nixon violate?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Ford. Sold justice for personal gain. Traitor to his country and
>>>> >> our system of government.
>>>> >
>>>> > So where, exactly, in the definition of "treason" in the
>>>> > Constitution, is "sold justice for personal gain" listed?
>>>>
>>>> Split hairs all you like. He's still a nasty piece of work that sold
>>>> out his country for his own profit. A traitor to everything this
>>>> country SHOULD stand for. Defend his actions to show us all how low
>>>> you can go.
>>>
>>> I believe the Founders had a pretty good idea what this country
>>> "should stand for". And they also had a certain expertise on the
>>> topic of treason, having successfully committed it, by any definition
>>> including their own, on a massive scale. If you want to throw around
>>> the word "treason" to refer to any action of which you disapprove then
>>> _you_ are the "traitor to everything this country SHOULD stand for".
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, it's not illegal in this country for a politician to be
>>> an arsewipe. If it was they would all be in jail.
>>
>> I call this the "they are all bad fallacy". The right wing has given us
>> one bad actor after another. There is just no comparison.
>>
>
> Actually only one jerk, and as a Conservative Republican since the days of
> Barry Goldwater I disown him.
>
> When he got in I thought "well, he's obnoxious, but maybe it's a chance to
> get some things done." He's so incompetent (fortunate for your side) that
> he trips over his own tongue and nothing gets done. My latest theory is
> that he's a front for Vlad, who's doing everything possible to mess us up.
> He's obnoxious and incompetent on purpose, because no one could be that bad
> by accident.

Yeah, I know a number of people who feel the current dork is a puppet
of Putin or maybe Xi.
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369499 is a reply to message #369497] Sun, 24 June 2018 14:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 14:33:17 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 13:23:08 -0400, Peter Flass
> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:38:48 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:44:15 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:41:40 -0400, Dan Espen
>>>> >>>> <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:54:24 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:34:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:44:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>> You wouldn't expect unbiased info from someone who was
>>>> >>>>>>>>> actually there in the trenches. I think historians believe it
>>>> >>>>>>>>> takes a generation or so for unbiased history to be possible.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> When it comes to history, how does one identify 'bias' and
>>>> >>>>>>>> separate it out from fact?
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> For instance, there remains great debate over FDR, his wife,
>>>> >>>>>>>> his handling of the Depression and the New Deal, and his
>>>> >>>>>>>> handling of WW II. Back then, many conservatives hated him,
>>>> >>>>>>>> and indeed, many hate him and his policies to this day.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> His wife was also quite controversial. NBC for a while had on
>>>> >>>>>>>> old broadcasts of Meet the Press--they had Nixon, Martin Luther
>>>> >>>>>>>> King, and Eleanor Roosevelt, among other historical figures.
>>>> >>>>>>>> Fascinating!
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> ER said something I didn't like: in response to a question, she
>>>> >>>>>>>> denied being an elder statesman and denied being a politician.
>>>> >>>>>>>> In fact she was both and very much so. Even if she personally
>>>> >>>>>>>> running for office or held a policy position, she was most
>>>> >>>>>>>> certainly active behind the scenes and maintained a lot of
>>>> >>>>>>>> influence in her party.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Martin Luther King did a fantastic job in response to hostile
>>>> >>>>>>>> questioning. Several guys kept challenging him along the lines
>>>> >>>>>>>> of "don't blacks have enough now? Aren't you going too far?"
>>>> >>>>>>>> King maintained he sought equal rights, not just a few rights.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Nixon was sad to watch. His appearance was post Watergate.
>>>> >>>>>>>> Curiously, in light of today's events, he said he wished he
>>>> >>>>>>>> could've pardoned his top aides but it would've looked bad. He
>>>> >>>>>>>> also made an excellent political analysis of the ongoing races,
>>>> >>>>>>>> and everything he predicted in the broadcast came true. What a
>>>> >>>>>>>> waste of talent.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Nixon was a treasonous war criminal who illegally conspired with
>>>> >>>>>>> South Vietnamese officials to prolong the war for his political
>>>> >>>>>>> benefit in 1968, resulting in the needless death of thousands of
>>>> >>>>>>> young American men, along with the waste of billions of dollars
>>>> >>>>>>> and the loss of some standing around the world as it was
>>>> >>>>>>> revealed what a disaster Vietnam had become.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, and Ford pardoned him to help America heal. I consider him
>>>> >>>>>> really dumb for doing that. And I do believe Noxon, and his VP,
>>>> >>>>>> along with his cabinet, are criminals.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Not dumb, a traitor. Justice denied is no justice at all.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> The Constitution defines treason rather narrowly. What particular
>>>> >>>> provision did Nixon violate?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Ford. Sold justice for personal gain. Traitor to his country and
>>>> >>> our system of government.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> So where, exactly, in the definition of "treason" in the
>>>> >> Constitution, is "sold justice for personal gain" listed?
>>>> >
>>>> > Split hairs all you like. He's still a nasty piece of work that sold
>>>> > out his country for his own profit. A traitor to everything this
>>>> > country SHOULD stand for. Defend his actions to show us all how low
>>>> > you can go.
>>>>
>>>> I believe the Founders had a pretty good idea what this country
>>>> "should stand for". And they also had a certain expertise on the
>>>> topic of treason, having successfully committed it, by any definition
>>>> including their own, on a massive scale. If you want to throw around
>>>> the word "treason" to refer to any action of which you disapprove then
>>>> _you_ are the "traitor to everything this country SHOULD stand for".
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, it's not illegal in this country for a politician to be
>>>> an arsewipe. If it was they would all be in jail.
>>>
>>> I call this the "they are all bad fallacy". The right wing has given us
>>> one bad actor after another. There is just no comparison.
>>>
>>
>> Actually only one jerk, and as a Conservative Republican since the days of
>> Barry Goldwater I disown him.
>>
>> When he got in I thought "well, he's obnoxious, but maybe it's a chance to
>> get some things done." He's so incompetent (fortunate for your side) that
>> he trips over his own tongue and nothing gets done. My latest theory is
>> that he's a front for Vlad, who's doing everything possible to mess us up.
>> He's obnoxious and incompetent on purpose, because no one could be that bad
>> by accident.
>
> Bear in mind that to a certain portion of the American body politic,
> if a member of the opposing party risked his life to save a baby from
> a fire it was misfeasance, malfeasance, skulduggery and likely
> treason.

Just like the current debacle. Anyone speaking out against it is now
being labeled just like the old red baiting days, but tey are being
called socialists. Sad that conservatives think child abuse is okay.
But I'm not very surprised.
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369509 is a reply to message #369494] Sun, 24 June 2018 18:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:

> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:38:48 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:44:15 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:41:40 -0400, Dan Espen
>>>> >>> <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:54:24 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:34:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:44:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>> You wouldn't expect unbiased info from someone who was
>>>> >>>>>>>> actually there in the trenches. I think historians believe it
>>>> >>>>>>>> takes a generation or so for unbiased history to be possible.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> When it comes to history, how does one identify 'bias' and
>>>> >>>>>>> separate it out from fact?
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> For instance, there remains great debate over FDR, his wife,
>>>> >>>>>>> his handling of the Depression and the New Deal, and his
>>>> >>>>>>> handling of WW II. Back then, many conservatives hated him,
>>>> >>>>>>> and indeed, many hate him and his policies to this day.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> His wife was also quite controversial. NBC for a while had on
>>>> >>>>>>> old broadcasts of Meet the Press--they had Nixon, Martin Luther
>>>> >>>>>>> King, and Eleanor Roosevelt, among other historical figures.
>>>> >>>>>>> Fascinating!
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> ER said something I didn't like: in response to a question, she
>>>> >>>>>>> denied being an elder statesman and denied being a politician.
>>>> >>>>>>> In fact she was both and very much so. Even if she personally
>>>> >>>>>>> running for office or held a policy position, she was most
>>>> >>>>>>> certainly active behind the scenes and maintained a lot of
>>>> >>>>>>> influence in her party.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Martin Luther King did a fantastic job in response to hostile
>>>> >>>>>>> questioning. Several guys kept challenging him along the lines
>>>> >>>>>>> of "don't blacks have enough now? Aren't you going too far?"
>>>> >>>>>>> King maintained he sought equal rights, not just a few rights.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Nixon was sad to watch. His appearance was post Watergate.
>>>> >>>>>>> Curiously, in light of today's events, he said he wished he
>>>> >>>>>>> could've pardoned his top aides but it would've looked bad. He
>>>> >>>>>>> also made an excellent political analysis of the ongoing races,
>>>> >>>>>>> and everything he predicted in the broadcast came true. What a
>>>> >>>>>>> waste of talent.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Nixon was a treasonous war criminal who illegally conspired with
>>>> >>>>>> South Vietnamese officials to prolong the war for his political
>>>> >>>>>> benefit in 1968, resulting in the needless death of thousands of
>>>> >>>>>> young American men, along with the waste of billions of dollars
>>>> >>>>>> and the loss of some standing around the world as it was
>>>> >>>>>> revealed what a disaster Vietnam had become.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Yeah, and Ford pardoned him to help America heal. I consider him
>>>> >>>>> really dumb for doing that. And I do believe Noxon, and his VP,
>>>> >>>>> along with his cabinet, are criminals.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Not dumb, a traitor. Justice denied is no justice at all.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The Constitution defines treason rather narrowly. What particular
>>>> >>> provision did Nixon violate?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Ford. Sold justice for personal gain. Traitor to his country and
>>>> >> our system of government.
>>>> >
>>>> > So where, exactly, in the definition of "treason" in the
>>>> > Constitution, is "sold justice for personal gain" listed?
>>>>
>>>> Split hairs all you like. He's still a nasty piece of work that sold
>>>> out his country for his own profit. A traitor to everything this
>>>> country SHOULD stand for. Defend his actions to show us all how low
>>>> you can go.
>>>
>>> I believe the Founders had a pretty good idea what this country
>>> "should stand for". And they also had a certain expertise on the
>>> topic of treason, having successfully committed it, by any definition
>>> including their own, on a massive scale. If you want to throw around
>>> the word "treason" to refer to any action of which you disapprove then
>>> _you_ are the "traitor to everything this country SHOULD stand for".
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, it's not illegal in this country for a politician to be
>>> an arsewipe. If it was they would all be in jail.
>>
>> I call this the "they are all bad fallacy". The right wing has given us
>> one bad actor after another. There is just no comparison.
>>
>
> Actually only one jerk, and as a Conservative Republican since the days of
> Barry Goldwater I disown him.
>
> When he got in I thought "well, he's obnoxious, but maybe it's a chance to
> get some things done." He's so incompetent (fortunate for your side) that
> he trips over his own tongue and nothing gets done. My latest theory is
> that he's a front for Vlad, who's doing everything possible to mess us up.
> He's obnoxious and incompetent on purpose, because no one could be that bad
> by accident.

Nixon, secret plan to end the war.
Actual plan was to sacrifice more Americans to his vanity.

Ford, denied justice because he knew he couldn't win
an election after prosecution.

Regan, arranged for the hostages to be held until his election.
Sold arms to Iran to fight a war in Nicaragua, after being told
by congress that we were not to interfere in Nicaragua.

Bush the first, won election by promising that we could read his lips,
then turned around and raised taxes.

GWB, invaded a country on false premises. Collapsed the economy.
Allowed our worst terrorist attack to occur after ridiculing Clinton's
daily terrorist briefings.

Did I miss one?

Those are just the presidents.
How about the large scale thievery including the Abramhoff scandal.
How about the way the Republican party committed suicide after
prosecuting Bill? How Newt even shows his face in public is a mystery.
There were a bunch of others that had to leave government in disgrace
including Bob Livingston.
Find any of those "Fiscal Conservatives" lately?

It's all pablum for the simple minded.
Surprising it appeals to anyone with intelligence.

--
Dan Espen
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369511 is a reply to message #369509] Sun, 24 June 2018 18:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:38:48 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:44:15 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:41:40 -0400, Dan Espen
>>>> >>>> <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:54:24 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:34:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:44:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>> You wouldn't expect unbiased info from someone who was
>>>> >>>>>>>>> actually there in the trenches. I think historians believe it
>>>> >>>>>>>>> takes a generation or so for unbiased history to be possible.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> When it comes to history, how does one identify 'bias' and
>>>> >>>>>>>> separate it out from fact?
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> For instance, there remains great debate over FDR, his wife,
>>>> >>>>>>>> his handling of the Depression and the New Deal, and his
>>>> >>>>>>>> handling of WW II. Back then, many conservatives hated him,
>>>> >>>>>>>> and indeed, many hate him and his policies to this day.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> His wife was also quite controversial. NBC for a while had on
>>>> >>>>>>>> old broadcasts of Meet the Press--they had Nixon, Martin Luther
>>>> >>>>>>>> King, and Eleanor Roosevelt, among other historical figures.
>>>> >>>>>>>> Fascinating!
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> ER said something I didn't like: in response to a question, she
>>>> >>>>>>>> denied being an elder statesman and denied being a politician.
>>>> >>>>>>>> In fact she was both and very much so. Even if she personally
>>>> >>>>>>>> running for office or held a policy position, she was most
>>>> >>>>>>>> certainly active behind the scenes and maintained a lot of
>>>> >>>>>>>> influence in her party.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Martin Luther King did a fantastic job in response to hostile
>>>> >>>>>>>> questioning. Several guys kept challenging him along the lines
>>>> >>>>>>>> of "don't blacks have enough now? Aren't you going too far?"
>>>> >>>>>>>> King maintained he sought equal rights, not just a few rights.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Nixon was sad to watch. His appearance was post Watergate.
>>>> >>>>>>>> Curiously, in light of today's events, he said he wished he
>>>> >>>>>>>> could've pardoned his top aides but it would've looked bad. He
>>>> >>>>>>>> also made an excellent political analysis of the ongoing races,
>>>> >>>>>>>> and everything he predicted in the broadcast came true. What a
>>>> >>>>>>>> waste of talent.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Nixon was a treasonous war criminal who illegally conspired with
>>>> >>>>>>> South Vietnamese officials to prolong the war for his political
>>>> >>>>>>> benefit in 1968, resulting in the needless death of thousands of
>>>> >>>>>>> young American men, along with the waste of billions of dollars
>>>> >>>>>>> and the loss of some standing around the world as it was
>>>> >>>>>>> revealed what a disaster Vietnam had become.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, and Ford pardoned him to help America heal. I consider him
>>>> >>>>>> really dumb for doing that. And I do believe Noxon, and his VP,
>>>> >>>>>> along with his cabinet, are criminals.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Not dumb, a traitor. Justice denied is no justice at all.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> The Constitution defines treason rather narrowly. What particular
>>>> >>>> provision did Nixon violate?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Ford. Sold justice for personal gain. Traitor to his country and
>>>> >>> our system of government.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> So where, exactly, in the definition of "treason" in the
>>>> >> Constitution, is "sold justice for personal gain" listed?
>>>> >
>>>> > Split hairs all you like. He's still a nasty piece of work that sold
>>>> > out his country for his own profit. A traitor to everything this
>>>> > country SHOULD stand for. Defend his actions to show us all how low
>>>> > you can go.
>>>>
>>>> I believe the Founders had a pretty good idea what this country
>>>> "should stand for". And they also had a certain expertise on the
>>>> topic of treason, having successfully committed it, by any definition
>>>> including their own, on a massive scale. If you want to throw around
>>>> the word "treason" to refer to any action of which you disapprove then
>>>> _you_ are the "traitor to everything this country SHOULD stand for".
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, it's not illegal in this country for a politician to be
>>>> an arsewipe. If it was they would all be in jail.
>>>
>>> I call this the "they are all bad fallacy". The right wing has given us
>>> one bad actor after another. There is just no comparison.
>>>
>>
>> Actually only one jerk, and as a Conservative Republican since the days of
>> Barry Goldwater I disown him.
>>
>> When he got in I thought "well, he's obnoxious, but maybe it's a chance to
>> get some things done." He's so incompetent (fortunate for your side) that
>> he trips over his own tongue and nothing gets done. My latest theory is
>> that he's a front for Vlad, who's doing everything possible to mess us up.
>> He's obnoxious and incompetent on purpose, because no one could be that bad
>> by accident.
>
> Nixon, secret plan to end the war.
> Actual plan was to sacrifice more Americans to his vanity.
>
> Ford, denied justice because he knew he couldn't win
> an election after prosecution.
>
> Regan, arranged for the hostages to be held until his election.
> Sold arms to Iran to fight a war in Nicaragua, after being told
> by congress that we were not to interfere in Nicaragua.
>
> Bush the first, won election by promising that we could read his lips,
> then turned around and raised taxes.
>
> GWB, invaded a country on false premises. Collapsed the economy.
> Allowed our worst terrorist attack to occur after ridiculing Clinton's
> daily terrorist briefings.
>
> Did I miss one?
>
> Those are just the presidents.
> How about the large scale thievery including the Abramhoff scandal.
> How about the way the Republican party committed suicide after
> prosecuting Bill? How Newt even shows his face in public is a mystery.
> There were a bunch of others that had to leave government in disgrace
> including Bob Livingston.
> Find any of those "Fiscal Conservatives" lately?
>
> It's all pablum for the simple minded.
> Surprising it appeals to anyone with intelligence.
>

Plenty of Dems, too. Enough tar to cover all of them.

--
Pete
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369513 is a reply to message #369509] Sun, 24 June 2018 18:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 18:07:46 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:38:48 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:44:15 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:41:40 -0400, Dan Espen
>>>> >>>> <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:54:24 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:34:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:44:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>> You wouldn't expect unbiased info from someone who was
>>>> >>>>>>>>> actually there in the trenches. I think historians believe it
>>>> >>>>>>>>> takes a generation or so for unbiased history to be possible.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> When it comes to history, how does one identify 'bias' and
>>>> >>>>>>>> separate it out from fact?
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> For instance, there remains great debate over FDR, his wife,
>>>> >>>>>>>> his handling of the Depression and the New Deal, and his
>>>> >>>>>>>> handling of WW II. Back then, many conservatives hated him,
>>>> >>>>>>>> and indeed, many hate him and his policies to this day.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> His wife was also quite controversial. NBC for a while had on
>>>> >>>>>>>> old broadcasts of Meet the Press--they had Nixon, Martin Luther
>>>> >>>>>>>> King, and Eleanor Roosevelt, among other historical figures.
>>>> >>>>>>>> Fascinating!
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> ER said something I didn't like: in response to a question, she
>>>> >>>>>>>> denied being an elder statesman and denied being a politician.
>>>> >>>>>>>> In fact she was both and very much so. Even if she personally
>>>> >>>>>>>> running for office or held a policy position, she was most
>>>> >>>>>>>> certainly active behind the scenes and maintained a lot of
>>>> >>>>>>>> influence in her party.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Martin Luther King did a fantastic job in response to hostile
>>>> >>>>>>>> questioning. Several guys kept challenging him along the lines
>>>> >>>>>>>> of "don't blacks have enough now? Aren't you going too far?"
>>>> >>>>>>>> King maintained he sought equal rights, not just a few rights.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Nixon was sad to watch. His appearance was post Watergate.
>>>> >>>>>>>> Curiously, in light of today's events, he said he wished he
>>>> >>>>>>>> could've pardoned his top aides but it would've looked bad. He
>>>> >>>>>>>> also made an excellent political analysis of the ongoing races,
>>>> >>>>>>>> and everything he predicted in the broadcast came true. What a
>>>> >>>>>>>> waste of talent.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Nixon was a treasonous war criminal who illegally conspired with
>>>> >>>>>>> South Vietnamese officials to prolong the war for his political
>>>> >>>>>>> benefit in 1968, resulting in the needless death of thousands of
>>>> >>>>>>> young American men, along with the waste of billions of dollars
>>>> >>>>>>> and the loss of some standing around the world as it was
>>>> >>>>>>> revealed what a disaster Vietnam had become.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, and Ford pardoned him to help America heal. I consider him
>>>> >>>>>> really dumb for doing that. And I do believe Noxon, and his VP,
>>>> >>>>>> along with his cabinet, are criminals.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Not dumb, a traitor. Justice denied is no justice at all.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> The Constitution defines treason rather narrowly. What particular
>>>> >>>> provision did Nixon violate?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Ford. Sold justice for personal gain. Traitor to his country and
>>>> >>> our system of government.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> So where, exactly, in the definition of "treason" in the
>>>> >> Constitution, is "sold justice for personal gain" listed?
>>>> >
>>>> > Split hairs all you like. He's still a nasty piece of work that sold
>>>> > out his country for his own profit. A traitor to everything this
>>>> > country SHOULD stand for. Defend his actions to show us all how low
>>>> > you can go.
>>>>
>>>> I believe the Founders had a pretty good idea what this country
>>>> "should stand for". And they also had a certain expertise on the
>>>> topic of treason, having successfully committed it, by any definition
>>>> including their own, on a massive scale. If you want to throw around
>>>> the word "treason" to refer to any action of which you disapprove then
>>>> _you_ are the "traitor to everything this country SHOULD stand for".
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, it's not illegal in this country for a politician to be
>>>> an arsewipe. If it was they would all be in jail.
>>>
>>> I call this the "they are all bad fallacy". The right wing has given us
>>> one bad actor after another. There is just no comparison.
>>>
>>
>> Actually only one jerk, and as a Conservative Republican since the days of
>> Barry Goldwater I disown him.
>>
>> When he got in I thought "well, he's obnoxious, but maybe it's a chance to
>> get some things done." He's so incompetent (fortunate for your side) that
>> he trips over his own tongue and nothing gets done. My latest theory is
>> that he's a front for Vlad, who's doing everything possible to mess us up.
>> He's obnoxious and incompetent on purpose, because no one could be that bad
>> by accident.
>
> Nixon, secret plan to end the war.
> Actual plan was to sacrifice more Americans to his vanity.
>
> Ford, denied justice because he knew he couldn't win
> an election after prosecution.
>
> Regan, arranged for the hostages to be held until his election.
> Sold arms to Iran to fight a war in Nicaragua, after being told
> by congress that we were not to interfere in Nicaragua.
>
> Bush the first, won election by promising that we could read his lips,
> then turned around and raised taxes.
>
> GWB, invaded a country on false premises. Collapsed the economy.
> Allowed our worst terrorist attack to occur after ridiculing Clinton's
> daily terrorist briefings.
>
> Did I miss one?
>
> Those are just the presidents.
> How about the large scale thievery including the Abramhoff scandal.
> How about the way the Republican party committed suicide after
> prosecuting Bill? How Newt even shows his face in public is a mystery.
> There were a bunch of others that had to leave government in disgrace
> including Bob Livingston.
> Find any of those "Fiscal Conservatives" lately?
>
> It's all pablum for the simple minded.
> Surprising it appeals to anyone with intelligence.

Dan, why does all this matter so much to you? What do you think
railing about it is going to accomplish other than raising your blood
pressure and getting you an argument from someone on the other side?
Re: tablets and desktops was Has Microsoft [message #369520 is a reply to message #369513] Sun, 24 June 2018 23:21 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 18:07:46 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:38:48 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:44:15 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:41:40 -0400, Dan Espen
>>>> >>>>> <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:54:24 GMT, usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:34:53 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 6:44:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't expect unbiased info from someone who was
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> actually there in the trenches. I think historians believe it
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> takes a generation or so for unbiased history to be possible.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> When it comes to history, how does one identify 'bias' and
>>>> >>>>>>>>> separate it out from fact?
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> For instance, there remains great debate over FDR, his wife,
>>>> >>>>>>>>> his handling of the Depression and the New Deal, and his
>>>> >>>>>>>>> handling of WW II. Back then, many conservatives hated him,
>>>> >>>>>>>>> and indeed, many hate him and his policies to this day.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> His wife was also quite controversial. NBC for a while had on
>>>> >>>>>>>>> old broadcasts of Meet the Press--they had Nixon, Martin Luther
>>>> >>>>>>>>> King, and Eleanor Roosevelt, among other historical figures.
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fascinating!
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> ER said something I didn't like: in response to a question, she
>>>> >>>>>>>>> denied being an elder statesman and denied being a politician.
>>>> >>>>>>>>> In fact she was both and very much so. Even if she personally
>>>> >>>>>>>>> running for office or held a policy position, she was most
>>>> >>>>>>>>> certainly active behind the scenes and maintained a lot of
>>>> >>>>>>>>> influence in her party.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Martin Luther King did a fantastic job in response to hostile
>>>> >>>>>>>>> questioning. Several guys kept challenging him along the lines
>>>> >>>>>>>>> of "don't blacks have enough now? Aren't you going too far?"
>>>> >>>>>>>>> King maintained he sought equal rights, not just a few rights.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nixon was sad to watch. His appearance was post Watergate.
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Curiously, in light of today's events, he said he wished he
>>>> >>>>>>>>> could've pardoned his top aides but it would've looked bad. He
>>>> >>>>>>>>> also made an excellent political analysis of the ongoing races,
>>>> >>>>>>>>> and everything he predicted in the broadcast came true. What a
>>>> >>>>>>>>> waste of talent.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Nixon was a treasonous war criminal who illegally conspired with
>>>> >>>>>>>> South Vietnamese officials to prolong the war for his political
>>>> >>>>>>>> benefit in 1968, resulting in the needless death of thousands of
>>>> >>>>>>>> young American men, along with the waste of billions of dollars
>>>> >>>>>>>> and the loss of some standing around the world as it was
>>>> >>>>>>>> revealed what a disaster Vietnam had become.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, and Ford pardoned him to help America heal. I consider him
>>>> >>>>>>> really dumb for doing that. And I do believe Noxon, and his VP,
>>>> >>>>>>> along with his cabinet, are criminals.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Not dumb, a traitor. Justice denied is no justice at all.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> The Constitution defines treason rather narrowly. What particular
>>>> >>>>> provision did Nixon violate?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Ford. Sold justice for personal gain. Traitor to his country and
>>>> >>>> our system of government.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So where, exactly, in the definition of "treason" in the
>>>> >>> Constitution, is "sold justice for personal gain" listed?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Split hairs all you like. He's still a nasty piece of work that sold
>>>> >> out his country for his own profit. A traitor to everything this
>>>> >> country SHOULD stand for. Defend his actions to show us all how low
>>>> >> you can go.
>>>> >
>>>> > I believe the Founders had a pretty good idea what this country
>>>> > "should stand for". And they also had a certain expertise on the
>>>> > topic of treason, having successfully committed it, by any definition
>>>> > including their own, on a massive scale. If you want to throw around
>>>> > the word "treason" to refer to any action of which you disapprove then
>>>> > _you_ are the "traitor to everything this country SHOULD stand for".
>>>> >
>>>> > Unfortunately, it's not illegal in this country for a politician to be
>>>> > an arsewipe. If it was they would all be in jail.
>>>>
>>>> I call this the "they are all bad fallacy". The right wing has given us
>>>> one bad actor after another. There is just no comparison.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually only one jerk, and as a Conservative Republican since the days of
>>> Barry Goldwater I disown him.
>>>
>>> When he got in I thought "well, he's obnoxious, but maybe it's a chance to
>>> get some things done." He's so incompetent (fortunate for your side) that
>>> he trips over his own tongue and nothing gets done. My latest theory is
>>> that he's a front for Vlad, who's doing everything possible to mess us up.
>>> He's obnoxious and incompetent on purpose, because no one could be that bad
>>> by accident.
>>
>> Nixon, secret plan to end the war.
>> Actual plan was to sacrifice more Americans to his vanity.
>>
>> Ford, denied justice because he knew he couldn't win
>> an election after prosecution.
>>
>> Regan, arranged for the hostages to be held until his election.
>> Sold arms to Iran to fight a war in Nicaragua, after being told
>> by congress that we were not to interfere in Nicaragua.
>>
>> Bush the first, won election by promising that we could read his lips,
>> then turned around and raised taxes.
>>
>> GWB, invaded a country on false premises. Collapsed the economy.
>> Allowed our worst terrorist attack to occur after ridiculing Clinton's
>> daily terrorist briefings.
>>
>> Did I miss one?
>>
>> Those are just the presidents.
>> How about the large scale thievery including the Abramhoff scandal.
>> How about the way the Republican party committed suicide after
>> prosecuting Bill? How Newt even shows his face in public is a mystery.
>> There were a bunch of others that had to leave government in disgrace
>> including Bob Livingston.
>> Find any of those "Fiscal Conservatives" lately?
>>
>> It's all pablum for the simple minded.
>> Surprising it appeals to anyone with intelligence.
>
> Dan, why does all this matter so much to you? What do you think
> railing about it is going to accomplish other than raising your blood
> pressure and getting you an argument from someone on the other side?

Just telling it like I see it.
Writing the above didn't make me mad.

I haven't been mad enough to affect my blood pressure in a long time.

Trump is unique in his own right, but most of the existing collection
of "conservatives" have fallen right in with him.
A few of them have the decency to resign, but mostly it takes
a terminal illness before they put the country before their own
interests.

Why everyone can't see them for what they are is a mystery to me.

--
Dan Espen
Pages (8): [ «    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Is the "Is LINUX the inheritor of the Earth?" thread the inheritor of this news group?
Next Topic: Energy too cheap to meter
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Thu Mar 28 08:29:13 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.10551 seconds