Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Yes, he's objectively a crazy pile of circus peanut shit.

Show Posts

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

Messages - Heinz Hershold

1
You mentioned poisonous plants.

What do you think I should do about them on my land, given the animals that I have?

Sure hope you don't have any white snakeroot on your property, considering that it's indigenous to Missouri.
Quote
"Occurs in rich or rocky woods, bottomland forests, bases and ledges of bluffs, clearings, banks of streams and rivers, pastures, old fields, roadsides, waste places and other open, disturbed areas. The common name comes from an old and incorrect belief that this plant could help treat snakebites. Instead, this plant is toxic to mammals and can kill cattle and horses (where the malady is called "trembles") as well as humans, who can be killed by drinking milk from poisoned cattle."


Now, this ^^^^ is what I call a useful, informative post. I hope you paid attention to this one, Dave.

Why should I? 

Oh, I don't know. I just thought if I were raising goats and cattle on wooded land somewhere in Missouri, this White Snakeroot plant is something that I would want to know about and keep an eye on.
And, I would most likely say thanks to Catislava for the heads-up information.

2
You mentioned poisonous plants.

What do you think I should do about them on my land, given the animals that I have?

Sure hope you don't have any white snakeroot on your property, considering that it's indigenous to Missouri.
Quote
"Occurs in rich or rocky woods, bottomland forests, bases and ledges of bluffs, clearings, banks of streams and rivers, pastures, old fields, roadsides, waste places and other open, disturbed areas. The common name comes from an old and incorrect belief that this plant could help treat snakebites. Instead, this plant is toxic to mammals and can kill cattle and horses (where the malady is called "trembles") as well as humans, who can be killed by drinking milk from poisoned cattle."


Now, this ^^^^ is what I call a useful, informative post. I hope you paid attention to this one, Dave.
Why should I?  Not a single HMG practitioner I have ever sat under in class has EVER mentioned a single poisonous plant or the need to account for them in any way. The reason you think this is important can only be that you have been brainwashed, either consciously or unconsciously, by modern conventional agricultural thinking.

Which is complete garbage.

Worse than garbage, actually. It is literally destroying our planet.

See?


I do now, yes.
3
You mentioned poisonous plants.

What do you think I should do about them on my land, given the animals that I have?

Sure hope you don't have any white snakeroot on your property, considering that it's indigenous to Missouri.
Quote
"Occurs in rich or rocky woods, bottomland forests, bases and ledges of bluffs, clearings, banks of streams and rivers, pastures, old fields, roadsides, waste places and other open, disturbed areas. The common name comes from an old and incorrect belief that this plant could help treat snakebites. Instead, this plant is toxic to mammals and can kill cattle and horses (where the malady is called "trembles") as well as humans, who can be killed by drinking milk from poisoned cattle."


Now, this ^^^^ is what I call a useful, informative post. I hope you paid attention to this one, Dave.
4
Here's the latest from Thomas Robb...
http://amppob.com/trump-good-for-everybody-says-thomas-robb-of-the-kkk/
Seems like an unusual KKKer in that he claims to not Advocate violence and claims to want equal opportunity for both blacks and whites. If that's true, then it was kind of stupid of him to associate his movement with the KKK.


Lots of KKK leaders and white supremacists make claims of non-violence. It gives them an out if any of their members commit violent acts ("Oh, we don't support actual violence, not us!") And there's always a victim-blaming caveat - "If those people stayed in their place/left our white wimmin alone/didn't demand opportunities only whites should have/ went back to Africa/etc., nothing would have happened to them." They lie, to stay on the safe side of the law and to fool people like you.

They are the scum of the earth in your country, Dave, and it is unsettling how often you defend people known to support them, tacitly or by vague innuendo.



They are the scum of the earth in any country, including yours! Your comment, and the Sky News video, strike me just a bit self-righteous as it gives the impression of the Brits, and others, looking down their noses at American racism and the KKK, when in fact it was the Scots ideology of clan kinship, that played a large role in the establishment of the KKK in the first place. Even the burning cross, emblematic of the KKK, is based on the Crann Tara, a fiery cross which had been a traditional means of calling Scottish clans to arms.

African slaves were introduced to the American colonies long before the establishment of the United States, and slavery was legalized in the colonies under British Law. Given the fact that racism and hate crimes are on the rise in the UK, perhaps Sky News should spend their time looking closer to home for their reports. Just a thought.



No, Heinz, I was responding to Dave's weak-ass white-knighting (hah!) of a KKK leader in the USA, not reviewing the entire history of racism, racist organisations, or the prevalence of racism everywhere in the world.

I'm sadly very aware of racism in my own country, especially since we've just seen an outrageous example of it in a courtroom in Saskatchewan.

My apologies. I was reading something into your post that wasn't there.

What happened in Saskatchewan?
5
Here's the latest from Thomas Robb...
http://amppob.com/trump-good-for-everybody-says-thomas-robb-of-the-kkk/
Seems like an unusual KKKer in that he claims to not Advocate violence and claims to want equal opportunity for both blacks and whites. If that's true, then it was kind of stupid of him to associate his movement with the KKK.


Lots of KKK leaders and white supremacists make claims of non-violence. It gives them an out if any of their members commit violent acts ("Oh, we don't support actual violence, not us!") And there's always a victim-blaming caveat - "If those people stayed in their place/left our white wimmin alone/didn't demand opportunities only whites should have/ went back to Africa/etc., nothing would have happened to them." They lie, to stay on the safe side of the law and to fool people like you.

They are the scum of the earth in your country, Dave, and it is unsettling how often you defend people known to support them, tacitly or by vague innuendo.



They are the scum of the earth in any country, including yours! Your comment, and the Sky News video, strike me just a bit self-righteous as it gives the impression of the Brits, and others, looking down their noses at American racism and the KKK, when in fact it was the Scots ideology of clan kinship, that played a large role in the establishment of the KKK in the first place. Even the burning cross, emblematic of the KKK, is based on the Crann Tara, a fiery cross which had been a traditional means of calling Scottish clans to arms.

African slaves were introduced to the American colonies long before the establishment of the United States, and slavery was legalized in the colonies under British Law. Given the fact that racism and hate crimes are on the rise in the UK, perhaps Sky News should spend their time looking closer to home for their reports. Just a thought.

Wow, there's some serious reaching. Burning cross used to call the clans to arms is justification for burning cross used to intimidate blacks.

Who the fuck suggested anything about "justification", Now THAT is some serious reaching, you moron. No wonder Dave has you on ignore.

Yes, the import of slaves to the Americas, in this case, North America, did start up and flourish under British sovereignty over the colonies. But it was also the Brits that put that trade down long before the US Civil War.

BTW, Borealis isn't British.

Yes, I know. I was referring to Sky News.
6
Here's the latest from Thomas Robb...
http://amppob.com/trump-good-for-everybody-says-thomas-robb-of-the-kkk/
Seems like an unusual KKKer in that he claims to not Advocate violence and claims to want equal opportunity for both blacks and whites. If that's true, then it was kind of stupid of him to associate his movement with the KKK.


Lots of KKK leaders and white supremacists make claims of non-violence. It gives them an out if any of their members commit violent acts ("Oh, we don't support actual violence, not us!") And there's always a victim-blaming caveat - "If those people stayed in their place/left our white wimmin alone/didn't demand opportunities only whites should have/ went back to Africa/etc., nothing would have happened to them." They lie, to stay on the safe side of the law and to fool people like you.

They are the scum of the earth in your country, Dave, and it is unsettling how often you defend people known to support them, tacitly or by vague innuendo.



They are the scum of the earth in any country, including yours! Your comment, and the Sky News video, strike me just a bit self-righteous as it gives the impression of the Brits, and others, looking down their noses at American racism and the KKK, when in fact it was the Scots ideology of clan kinship, that played a large role in the establishment of the KKK in the first place. Even the burning cross, emblematic of the KKK, is based on the Crann Tara, a fiery cross which had been a traditional means of calling Scottish clans to arms.

African slaves were introduced to the American colonies long before the establishment of the United States, and slavery was legalized in the colonies under British Law. Given the fact that racism and hate crimes are on the rise in the UK, perhaps Sky News should spend their time looking closer to home for their reports. Just a thought.

7
Freaking awesome article...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/06/who-doesnt-love-a-parade/#more-145579
So Dave "totally opposed to violence and believes completely in non-violent solutions" Hawkins is rah-rahing Trump's big military parade.

Colour me surprised. :P


It's a parade, not a military assault. Most people love parades. The military bands are awesome. But if Trump thinks he can out-parade the Russkis, he is in for a disappointment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Iu0pvZP-dM
8
Honestly I really don't get the argument here. If legitimate evidence came to light via the Steele / GPS work, then it shouldn't make an ounce of difference how it was funded. Legitimate evidence is legitimate evidence.

Now if somehow DOJ went to bat on fabricated evidence and were somehow forced to through political pressure, then that's probably a different story.

But so far, nobody seems to be disputing the evidence from the Steele dossier just that the gathering of the evidence was paid for by Hillary and Trump's Republican opposition during the primaries.

With the info known so far, it appears to my small mind that the only person who may be in some kind of trouble would be the judge who authorized the FISA warrant if the evidence provided to the court turns out to be questionable and the judge knew so when he/she authorized the warrant.

FBI Director Comey's own description of the Steele / GPS document, that was used in its FISA application to surveil Carter Page (and by extension the Trump campaign) as "salacious and unverified". That hardly sounds like "legitimate evidence" to me.
Hint:  "salacious and unverified " did not apply to the entire document. Pee tape.

I am not aware that a "pee tape" was part of the dossier. The "salacious and unverified " comment was made by Comey and I understood (thought) he was referring to the entire dossier.


Surveilling Career Page is surveilling Carter Page.  Not the Trump campaign.

Since he was a campaign advisor, it amounts to the same thing. IMO

I am not saying there was no reason to have surveillance of Page, but if one of the principal reasons was a dossier compiled and paid for by a Clinton campaign operative, that is a problem.
9
The Department of Justice is a part of the Executive Branch, under the direction of the Attorney General and ultimately the President. The Executive Branch is responsible for enforcing the laws of the land, while the Federal Courts (Judicial Branch) try the cases that are brought to them by the executive (District Courts), hear appeals (Courts of Appeals), and ultimately decide the constitutionality of laws passed by the Legislature and actions of the Executive (Supreme Court).
10
This is a longstanding issue in both the English and us legal systems. The AG is appointed by the president but the Doj is regulated by the judiciary. The point of the independence of the prosecutorial mechanism should be pretty easy to figure out.


Do you have a source for the bolded part?
11
Ben - not sure I'd say that the DoJ taking orders automatically means it did nothing wrong; I'd say Bork did wrong when finishing the Saturday Night Massacre rather than resigning.

It wouldn't match what Dave is claiming, but, well...
I agree. I'm just trying to follow Dave's logic here. I can't think of any reason why he keeps saying the DOJ needs to remember they're part of the executive branch other than to say that they need to remember they work for the president. He can feel free to clarify if he's trying to make some other point. But if that's his point, he needs to be consistent. If they should be showing deference to Trump now, then they should have shown equal deference to Obama when he was in office. And if they shouldn't have put his orders above the law (which I would agree with), then they shouldn't do so for Trump either.
My logic is as follows ...

1) The entire DOJ is under the Executive branch and includes the FBI, DEA, etc. and is not itself a constitutionally ordained branch. There are only three constitutionally ordained branches - the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary (not DOJ).

2) Since the DOJ works for the President, (snip rest)

You are an ignorant moron. The Doj does not work for the executive.

I was not sure about this so looked it up.

1). The DOJ is an executive department of the Federal Government.

2). According to the unitary executive theory, the President possesses the power to control the entire executive branch "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" --Article II, Section 1.

12
Honestly I really don't get the argument here. If legitimate evidence came to light via the Steele / GPS work, then it shouldn't make an ounce of difference how it was funded. Legitimate evidence is legitimate evidence.

Now if somehow DOJ went to bat on fabricated evidence and were somehow forced to through political pressure, then that's probably a different story.

But so far, nobody seems to be disputing the evidence from the Steele dossier just that the gathering of the evidence was paid for by Hillary and Trump's Republican opposition during the primaries.

With the info known so far, it appears to my small mind that the only person who may be in some kind of trouble would be the judge who authorized the FISA warrant if the evidence provided to the court turns out to be questionable and the judge knew so when he/she authorized the warrant.

FBI Director Comey's own description of the Steele / GPS document, that was used in its FISA application to surveil Carter Page (and by extension the Trump campaign) as "salacious and unverified". That hardly sounds like "legitimate evidence" to me.

Trump obviously thought that releasing the memo would vindicate him, but more probably all it has accomplished is to widen the division between the political parties. It will be interesting to see if any Democrats at all will support the next CR to keep the government funded. I fear a long shutdown may be looming.

13
Not that anyone should take seriously anything some manipulative bitch who simply happens to have worked as a special agent for the FBI in counter-intelligence and a done a bit of octohattery at Yale Law school.

What would she know about the legal aspects of countersurveillance operations? and why should we trust her anyway?  AND she looks like she comes from some shithole country. 


Those chips on your shoulder must be getting heavy.


She probably even votes Dem.


Why would you even suggest such a thing?

14
Quote
THE head of the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention resigned overnight -- a day after a report revealed she had bought stock in a tobacco company soon after being nominated to the post last year by President Trump.

Donald Trump's anti-smoking boss Brenda Fitzgerald resigns over tobacco stock investments



Rollin rollin rollin

Yeehah

Wow. You are not actually trying to count that as a head rolling are you? It has absolutely nothing to do with anything we are talking about.
15
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
How is heat content measured? 
Levitus et al. 2012

So heat content is determined by measured temperature - in a shock result.  Why then did you wish to rephrase SR's specification of temperature into heat content?
heating  =  adding heat
Yes it does equal adding heat, but how much? I will try to find out!

The graphic showing change in heat content certainly gives the impression that the increase in temperature must be quite large, judging from the "hockey stick" appearance.

From the graph, the Delta (Increase) in Heat Content from 1980 to today is about 1.5E23 Joules

The dimensionally correct equation for Delta Heat Content in the oceans is:

 Delta Heat Content (J) = Delta T (K) x specific heat water (JK-1Kg-1) x Total Ocean Mass (Kg)

We can solve that instead for the Delta Temperature:

Delta T (K) = Delta Heat Content / [Specific Heat Water (JK-1Kg-1) X Total Ocean Mass (Kg)]

We already know the Delta Heat Content is 1.5E23 Joules from the graphic

The specific heat water is 3985 JKg-1K-1
Total Ocean Mass is 1.37E21 Kg
So Delta T = 1.5E23 J / (3985 JKg-1K-1 X 1.37E21 Kg)

So, Delta T of the Oceans since 1980 = +0.0275 K
Unless I screwed up the math, (possible) it doesn't look like much of an increase.





16
Once again, I find in this place some disturbing examples of  not just bias, but outright hypocrisy.

In my Post 5721  I wrote: "You are probably supporting her (Hillary Clinton) because she is a woman and that is hardly a rational reason to make her POTUS"

Which is not such a far-fetched notion since Hillary openly played the gender card saying "I'm a woman! Vote for me!" and 54% of woman voters did exactly that, compared to 42% who voted for Trump. So, gender was certainly a major factor in the election.

However, in Reply#5740 Ben The Biased wrote: "This suggestion, absent any apparent evidence, really says more about you than it does about anyone else"

Well maybe it does. Maybe it says that I understand what the issues were in the last election.

But then we have Borealis, in Reply#5741 saying "You're right. The accusation that a woman is supporting another woman in a position of power or authority because they are both women is deeply insulting - as if women can't or won't judge an individual on merits, but merely from gender bias"

So, according to Borealis, my suggestion became an accusation, and it was Deeply Insulting?

But now see the Hypocrisy:

In Reply#5898 Voxrat Asserts without evidence "Bottom line:
I am convinced that a substantial fraction of this bizarre, extreme, irrational, Obama-hatred is basically down to racism.
I won't speculate whether that is the basis for Hawkins's - in particular - bizarre, extreme, irrational Obama-hatred, but I'm pretty sure it is for a substantial fraction of the RWNJ sources he echoes"


Followed by Faid in Reply#5899 "It was always 'cause of racism- Either conscious or subconscious"

Finally Rick B in Reply#5900 provides the coup de grâce:

"For Dave and his ilk, having had the country led by a 'nigger' for eight years they damn sure weren't going to have it led by a fucking woman!!"

Can you see the hypocrisy? It is hard to deny it, but some of you will no doubt find a way. Many people here (at least eight, according to the Likes)  found it deeply insulting that I suggested something that was actually quite an obvious factor in the last election, (the gender card), but nobody (except myself) is objecting to the overt charge of racism and the particularly offensive way that it is being made.




Hey Heinz:

That's highly inaccurate.

Whether "gender played a role in the election" or not does not allow you (or anyone) to say that "probably" a specific person on this forum supports Clinton "because she is a woman".

The irrational hatred many people have against Obama is also a fact. It is also a fact that this irrational haterd can be, and often is quite obviously revealed to be, due to racism. Just browse a few of the comments in the same blogs Dave links to.

Notice, also, the clear asymmetry in whether or note one supports someone, and whether they have an irrational hatred of someone.

Your attempted equivalency is seriously flawed.

Meanwhile, if someone demonstrates bias, it's you. I asked you to explain to me (having read the text) where Clinton supposedly laughed about the girl being raped, or about managing to let the rapist up with a light sentence.
You didn't respond.
And yet, you adamantly believe that that dialogue is some kind of moral damnation of her, which means she should never be president.

OTOH, the known and undisputed words and actions of Trump that reveal him to be an amoral creep apparently do not deter you from wanting to "give him a chance".

Same with the Ivana allegations. You said she is not a reliable witness because she changed her testimony, but you were keen to say that she "no doubt" made the accusation because her shyster lawyer told her to.

When people told you that she might have retracted because of the clauses in the settlement by Trump's  shyster lawyers, the Benefit of the Doubt suddenly became a Holy Banner for you.

I don't think you are arguing in good faith, Heinz. I feel like partisanship is influencing your views.

But it would help to dispel my suspicions, if you simply explained where in that interview you think that HRC laughs  at the girls' rape, or for accomplishing the rapist's lucky break. Then we'll see.
On the last matter above, I interpret the whole thing as a fairly smart lawyer who though defending her client to the best of her ability and may well have gotten him the best deal he could expect, also made sure he voluntarily acknowledged his actions and admitted guilt, in court and under oath so he can not later retract either and was subject to some sort of sanction, probably the more onerous being labled a sex offender and having to register pretty much wherever he goes. And it was not a slam dunk she could have gotten him acquitted despite the incompetence of the police and prosecutor, it may well have been he'd have been convicted despite their flailures, and even if there were subsequent appeals that exonerated him, there would have been all the cost of a trial and the subsequent appeals, and regardless of the outcome, the embarrassment of the police and prosecutors (assuming it became a story in the national media), and all the extra time the defendant would have spent incarcerated and the victim exposed to inquiry into her personal life.

I think Clinton pulled off a hat trick, that she did the best she realistically could for everyone involved.

She certainly did the best for herself.
How is that? Did she make a lot of money as the Public Defender in this case?
Did she gain loads of public and professional respect for her handling of this case?
Did her handling of this case substantially further her career?

What, exactly, are you referring to as "best for herself"?

It was her first trial case, wasn't it?

She sure as hell wasn't going to lose it even though she knew the man was guilty beyond any doubt.
17
By the way, I see the problems in agriculture and many other areas as structural as well ... I'm about ready to address this in the "Saving Agriculture" thread ...

I would argue that my approach is even more vital when it comes to ecology and sustainability.  We are part of the ecosystem we want to change, and radical solutions or changes to any ecosystem are often disastrous.

Google cane toads.  Yes, there are some Big Buttons, but some are catastrophic.
Mongooses as well.
English Ivy.
Gourd Ivy.
The list is virtually endless as humans without appropriate knowledge regularly take apparently easy options simply because they are easy.
Sort of like what could have happened with the recent button pushing in Hawaii and perhaps what actually led to Ye Bigge Olde Fludde and at that Tower rather than the "fake" jahwehsplanation that's been fed to us.

Probably a liberal pushed the button thinking it would somehow make Trump look bad for his posturing with that imbecile in North Korea.

Far more probable that it's part of the carefully orchestrated  illuminati plan.
More likely a competitor resort area trying to scare people away from Hawaii and to them.

Vegas?
18
It was deeply insulting to ME, Heinz, and probably to any other woman reading your post, that my support for Hillary (actually I did not "support" her, not being a US voter, but I would have liked to have seen her as your president) was because she was a woman.

We have a number of political parties in the UK, and at various times, some of them have been led by women.  At no point have I voted for a party because it was led by a woman, and at no point have I voted against a party because it was led by a man.  I have voted for men and for women as leaders of my own party.

I consistently voted against the party led by Margaret Thatcher.
I consistently voted against the party now led by Theresa May.
I voted for Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party when there were two alternative female candidates.  One of them was my second choice.

I was thrilled when Aung San Suu Kyi became leader of Myanmar.  I utterly condemn her current rule and think she should resign.

This is because being female does NOT prevent me from exercising my judgement over who would, or would not, be a good leader, and does not cause me to prioritise femaleness over competence or policies.

To suggest it does is deeply insulting to me, and to any woman reading your post.

Yes, I would like to see more woman in positions of power NOT because they are better than men, or would do more for my gender than men would (that is patently NOT the case cf Thatcher) but because I think it would be an indicator that finally the barriers that prevent women achieving positions of power are finally going down.  As a wise man or woman, once said: we will know that women have achieved parity when we start seeing merely mediocre women in positions of power.




I don't accept that my suggestion was offensive at all when HRC actually extolled women to vote for her because she is a woman!

And 54% to 42% did in fact do just that. Do you really believe all those votes were based on the issues? I think that very probably many of those votes were based on women wanting a woman president., and I am probably right!

Furthermore,  I think you are taking offense selectively. I do not see you taking offense at Rick B's post.
Maybe you didn't read it? You should:
"For Dave and his ilk, having had the country led by a 'nigger' for eight years they damn sure weren't going to have it led by a fucking woman!!"
Your taking offense at my mild suggestion of gender bias while completely ignoring the above very offensive post, says a great deal about you.
Could you go over to one of the Socrates threads? Dave is not the only one who needs a friend.

Maybe you haven't really been reading my posts? I am not here to make friends; not with Dave, not with Socrates and certainly not with a gang of group-think liberals who are quick to accuse others of having irrational bias but seem to be oblivious to their own. I am here to express my own, independent views on the issues and I don't really give a damn what the group-think consensus of opinion is.

I am not a Republican and I have said I could not and did not, vote for Trump or Hillary, but I am thinking now that I should have voted for Trump.

Now that Trump is the POTUS I want to give him a chance to succeed, as failure will be bad not just for him, but bad for the country. As far as I can tell, he is doing a good job on the economy, bringing back much investment and that creates jobs. He is working to secure the borders. I appreciate the importance of having strong borders; without them you do not really have a country. He seems to be coming around on the DACA issue and just maybe his stance against North Korea has played a part in the North and South talking again. All in all, I don't see a lot to complain about, but I am sure others do.

 I think you liberal Democrats just cannot get over the fact that Hillary lost, since it seemed to you that her presidency was pre-ordained and you were preparing for a coronation. Well, that is just tough! You need to get over it and accept what happened with a stiff upper lip.  I suspect some of you would be happy if Trump were to be assassinated, given how much irrational hatred you have for him.

 If Trump were to walk on water, the MSM would have as the Headline "Breaking News, Trump can't swim" that is how biased the media is against him.

Getting back on topic for this thread;  I am convinced from what I have seen of text messages between Strzok and Page, and mentions of Andrew McCabe, plus Comey's exoneration of HRC even before the investigation was completed, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton on the plane, and the FBI assisting HRC with the destruction of evidence, that something stinks at both the FBI and the DOJ, and stinks bad!

I believe that heads will roll and if they don't, the stench will just get worse. I have faith that the Justice system of the USA will finally awake and clear out all the dishonest players, either by resignations or otherwise. I don't care if anyone goes to jail or not; for me, heads rolling means they are no longer in official government positions where they can abuse their power.

TLDR Version: I don't give a fuck what you think about me, I will continue to pursue the truth.



19
By the way, I see the problems in agriculture and many other areas as structural as well ... I'm about ready to address this in the "Saving Agriculture" thread ...

I would argue that my approach is even more vital when it comes to ecology and sustainability.  We are part of the ecosystem we want to change, and radical solutions or changes to any ecosystem are often disastrous.

Google cane toads.  Yes, there are some Big Buttons, but some are catastrophic.
Mongooses as well.
English Ivy.
Gourd Ivy.
The list is virtually endless as humans without appropriate knowledge regularly take apparently easy options simply because they are easy.
Sort of like what could have happened with the recent button pushing in Hawaii and perhaps what actually led to Ye Bigge Olde Fludde and at that Tower rather than the "fake" jahwehsplanation that's been fed to us.

Probably a liberal pushed the button thinking it would somehow make Trump look bad for his posturing with that imbecile in North Korea.
20
It was deeply insulting to ME, Heinz, and probably to any other woman reading your post, that my support for Hillary (actually I did not "support" her, not being a US voter, but I would have liked to have seen her as your president) was because she was a woman.

We have a number of political parties in the UK, and at various times, some of them have been led by women.  At no point have I voted for a party because it was led by a woman, and at no point have I voted against a party because it was led by a man.  I have voted for men and for women as leaders of my own party.

I consistently voted against the party led by Margaret Thatcher.
I consistently voted against the party now led by Theresa May.
I voted for Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party when there were two alternative female candidates.  One of them was my second choice.

I was thrilled when Aung San Suu Kyi became leader of Myanmar.  I utterly condemn her current rule and think she should resign.

This is because being female does NOT prevent me from exercising my judgement over who would, or would not, be a good leader, and does not cause me to prioritise femaleness over competence or policies.

To suggest it does is deeply insulting to me, and to any woman reading your post.

Yes, I would like to see more woman in positions of power NOT because they are better than men, or would do more for my gender than men would (that is patently NOT the case cf Thatcher) but because I think it would be an indicator that finally the barriers that prevent women achieving positions of power are finally going down.  As a wise man or woman, once said: we will know that women have achieved parity when we start seeing merely mediocre women in positions of power.




I don't accept that my suggestion was offensive at all when HRC actually extolled women to vote for her because she is a woman!

And 54% to 42% did in fact do just that. Do you really believe all those votes were based on the issues? I think that very probably many of those votes were based on women wanting a woman president., and I am probably right!

Furthermore,  I think you are taking offense selectively. I do not see you taking offense at Rick B's post.
Maybe you didn't read it? You should:
"For Dave and his ilk, having had the country led by a 'nigger' for eight years they damn sure weren't going to have it led by a fucking woman!!"
Your taking offense at my mild suggestion of gender bias while completely ignoring the above very offensive post, says a great deal about you.



21
Once again, I find in this place some disturbing examples of  not just bias, but outright hypocrisy.

In my Post 5721  I wrote: "You are probably supporting her (Hillary Clinton) because she is a woman and that is hardly a rational reason to make her POTUS"

Which is not such a far-fetched notion since Hillary openly played the gender card saying "I'm a woman! Vote for me!" and 54% of woman voters did exactly that, compared to 42% who voted for Trump. So, gender was certainly a major factor in the election.

However, in Reply#5740 Ben The Biased wrote: "This suggestion, absent any apparent evidence, really says more about you than it does about anyone else"

Well maybe it does. Maybe it says that I understand what the issues were in the last election.

But then we have Borealis, in Reply#5741 saying "You're right. The accusation that a woman is supporting another woman in a position of power or authority because they are both women is deeply insulting - as if women can't or won't judge an individual on merits, but merely from gender bias"

So, according to Borealis, my suggestion became an accusation, and it was Deeply Insulting?

But now see the Hypocrisy:

In Reply#5898 Voxrat Asserts without evidence "Bottom line:
I am convinced that a substantial fraction of this bizarre, extreme, irrational, Obama-hatred is basically down to racism.
I won't speculate whether that is the basis for Hawkins's - in particular - bizarre, extreme, irrational Obama-hatred, but I'm pretty sure it is for a substantial fraction of the RWNJ sources he echoes"


Followed by Faid in Reply#5899 "It was always 'cause of racism- Either conscious or subconscious"

Finally Rick B in Reply#5900 provides the coup de grâce:

"For Dave and his ilk, having had the country led by a 'nigger' for eight years they damn sure weren't going to have it led by a fucking woman!!"

Can you see the hypocrisy? It is hard to deny it, but some of you will no doubt find a way. Many people here (at least eight, according to the Likes)  found it deeply insulting that I suggested something that was actually quite an obvious factor in the last election, (the gender card), but nobody (except myself) is objecting to the overt charge of racism and the particularly offensive way that it is being made.




Hey Heinz:

That's highly inaccurate.

Whether "gender played a role in the election" or not does not allow you (or anyone) to say that "probably" a specific person on this forum supports Clinton "because she is a woman".

The irrational hatred many people have against Obama is also a fact. It is also a fact that this irrational haterd can be, and often is quite obviously revealed to be, due to racism. Just browse a few of the comments in the same blogs Dave links to.

Notice, also, the clear asymmetry in whether or note one supports someone, and whether they have an irrational hatred of someone.

Your attempted equivalency is seriously flawed.

Meanwhile, if someone demonstrates bias, it's you. I asked you to explain to me (having read the text) where Clinton supposedly laughed about the girl being raped, or about managing to let the rapist up with a light sentence.
You didn't respond.
And yet, you adamantly believe that that dialogue is some kind of moral damnation of her, which means she should never be president.

OTOH, the known and undisputed words and actions of Trump that reveal him to be an amoral creep apparently do not deter you from wanting to "give him a chance".

Same with the Ivana allegations. You said she is not a reliable witness because she changed her testimony, but you were keen to say that she "no doubt" made the accusation because her shyster lawyer told her to.

When people told you that she might have retracted because of the clauses in the settlement by Trump's  shyster lawyers, the Benefit of the Doubt suddenly became a Holy Banner for you.

I don't think you are arguing in good faith, Heinz. I feel like partisanship is influencing your views.

But it would help to dispel my suspicions, if you simply explained where in that interview you think that HRC laughs  at the girls' rape, or for accomplishing the rapist's lucky break. Then we'll see.
On the last matter above, I interpret the whole thing as a fairly smart lawyer who though defending her client to the best of her ability and may well have gotten him the best deal he could expect, also made sure he voluntarily acknowledged his actions and admitted guilt, in court and under oath so he can not later retract either and was subject to some sort of sanction, probably the more onerous being labled a sex offender and having to register pretty much wherever he goes. And it was not a slam dunk she could have gotten him acquitted despite the incompetence of the police and prosecutor, it may well have been he'd have been convicted despite their flailures, and even if there were subsequent appeals that exonerated him, there would have been all the cost of a trial and the subsequent appeals, and regardless of the outcome, the embarrassment of the police and prosecutors (assuming it became a story in the national media), and all the extra time the defendant would have spent incarcerated and the victim exposed to inquiry into her personal life.

I think Clinton pulled off a hat trick, that she did the best she realistically could for everyone involved.

She certainly did the best for herself.
22
Once again, I find in this place some disturbing examples of  not just bias, but outright hypocrisy.

In my Post 5721  I wrote: "You are probably supporting her (Hillary Clinton) because she is a woman and that is hardly a rational reason to make her POTUS"

Which is not such a far-fetched notion since Hillary openly played the gender card saying "I'm a woman! Vote for me!" and 54% of woman voters did exactly that, compared to 42% who voted for Trump. So, gender was certainly a major factor in the election.

However, in Reply#5740 Ben The Biased wrote: "This suggestion, absent any apparent evidence, really says more about you than it does about anyone else"

Well maybe it does. Maybe it says that I understand what the issues were in the last election.

But then we have Borealis, in Reply#5741 saying "You're right. The accusation that a woman is supporting another woman in a position of power or authority because they are both women is deeply insulting - as if women can't or won't judge an individual on merits, but merely from gender bias"

So, according to Borealis, my suggestion became an accusation, and it was Deeply Insulting?

But now see the Hypocrisy:

In Reply#5898 Voxrat Asserts without evidence "Bottom line:
I am convinced that a substantial fraction of this bizarre, extreme, irrational, Obama-hatred is basically down to racism.
I won't speculate whether that is the basis for Hawkins's - in particular - bizarre, extreme, irrational Obama-hatred, but I'm pretty sure it is for a substantial fraction of the RWNJ sources he echoes"


Followed by Faid in Reply#5899 "It was always 'cause of racism- Either conscious or subconscious"

Finally Rick B in Reply#5900 provides the coup de grâce:

"For Dave and his ilk, having had the country led by a 'nigger' for eight years they damn sure weren't going to have it led by a fucking woman!!"

Can you see the hypocrisy? It is hard to deny it, but some of you will no doubt find a way. Many people here (at least eight, according to the Likes)  found it deeply insulting that I suggested something that was actually quite an obvious factor in the last election, (the gender card), but nobody (except myself) is objecting to the overt charge of racism and the particularly offensive way that it is being made.
You realize there are different people here right?
Ben The Biased, Borealis, VoxRat, Rick B and Faid having different priorities for what is offensive enough to merit a reaction does not make them hypocrites.

Also, you complaining about VoxRat "asserting without evidence" that he is convinced and pretty sure of something is a strange.
What better evidence could there possibly be for what VoxRat is convinced and pretty sure of than VoxRat's own words?

You come across as a bit of a muddlehead.

This is probably the most muddleheaded post I have seen in a long while!

You are actually saying, that since Voxrat said he is "convinced"  - that a substantial fraction of this bizarre, extreme, irrational, Obama-hatred is basically down to racism -  then he need not supply any evidence except for his own words.

So, according to that muddleheaded "logic" all I need to say is that I am convinced - You are probably supporting her (Hillary Clinton) because she is a woman and that is hardly a rational reason to make her POTUS - and there can be no argument because hey, my own words are good enough!

Now, who is the muddlehead here? I am convinced it is you!
23
Once again, I find in this place some disturbing examples of  not just bias, but outright hypocrisy.

In my Post 5721  I wrote: "You are probably supporting her (Hillary Clinton) because she is a woman and that is hardly a rational reason to make her POTUS"

Which is not such a far-fetched notion since Hillary openly played the gender card saying "I'm a woman! Vote for me!" and 54% of woman voters did exactly that, compared to 42% who voted for Trump. So, gender was certainly a major factor in the election.

However, in Reply#5740 Ben The Biased wrote: "This suggestion, absent any apparent evidence, really says more about you than it does about anyone else"

Well maybe it does. Maybe it says that I understand what the issues were in the last election.

But then we have Borealis, in Reply#5741 saying "You're right. The accusation that a woman is supporting another woman in a position of power or authority because they are both women is deeply insulting - as if women can't or won't judge an individual on merits, but merely from gender bias"

So, according to Borealis, my suggestion became an accusation, and it was Deeply Insulting?

But now see the Hypocrisy:

In Reply#5898 Voxrat Asserts without evidence "Bottom line:
I am convinced that a substantial fraction of this bizarre, extreme, irrational, Obama-hatred is basically down to racism.
I won't speculate whether that is the basis for Hawkins's - in particular - bizarre, extreme, irrational Obama-hatred, but I'm pretty sure it is for a substantial fraction of the RWNJ sources he echoes"


Followed by Faid in Reply#5899 "It was always 'cause of racism- Either conscious or subconscious"

Finally Rick B in Reply#5900 provides the coup de grâce:

"For Dave and his ilk, having had the country led by a 'nigger' for eight years they damn sure weren't going to have it led by a fucking woman!!"

Can you see the hypocrisy? It is hard to deny it, but some of you will no doubt find a way. Many people here (at least eight, according to the Likes)  found it deeply insulting that I suggested something that was actually quite an obvious factor in the last election, (the gender card), but nobody (except myself) is objecting to the overt charge of racism and the particularly offensive way that it is being made.



24


Yeah, it should. Do you have any idea how many poor bastards have been falsely accused and had their lives ruined? It is not all one way.

What a surprise. Heinz is a redpill MRA omg way more rape accusations than real rapes i want to believe!

You seeing any indication Trump's life has been ruined by rape allegations? In fact, Ivana's accusation of actual rape is not the only one, but the others, as is common with rape, which is usually a private crime with no witnesses - or no uninvolved witnesses, are difficult or impossible to verify. Which is why neither Pingu nor I brought them up, even though it is certainly possible they are true.


Oh boy! Now you are going all flaming feminista on me, LOL

I did not say Trump's life was ruined by the allegations, but it may have been without the retraction. Of course, that would make you happy even if the rape claim was false, would it not?

And I know it is often difficult or impossible to verify if a rape charge is false or not, but false charge DO happen, and fairly often at that.

According to some studies, Romney in particular, false accusations of rape can be anywhere from 1.5% to 90% of cases reported! So take your pick.

I would have thought it may be 10%, but the actual number does not matter. All I am saying is that it does happen and it seems to me that once such a claim is retracted, that should be the end of both the legal issue and the story. But, given human nature, and the allure of a juicy story about someone who you don't like in the first place, I realize the latter part is too much to ask for.


25
Should we believe her earlier testimony which was no doubt orchestrated with the help of a shyster divorce lawyer looking for the largest possible settlement, or should we believe her retraction now?
... which may well be the result of a substantial monetary inducement?

:dunno:  Personally, I'm agnostic on this one.

So am I, which means I have seen no convincing evidence that Trump is a rapist, unlike the man who did IN FACT rape the 12-year-old girl and Hillary defended, then laughed about getting him up on a lesser charge.

The girl was torn up, needed stitches and was never the same afterwards. Hillary thought that was amusing.

She does not belong in the White House, she belongs in the BiG House, with bars on the windows.

For what crime?


I am not saying she broke any laws with regards to the rape case, I mention it only to shed light on her character.
But she does belong in jail for other things she did:

She did, in fact, store classified information at an unauthorized location (her private server) and enabled the communication of classified information to persons unauthorized to have it, both of which are felonies. At the very least she mishandled classified information which is a misdemeanor.

She also destroyed evidence after it was already subpoenaed, which is obstruction and a felony.

Do I think she will end up in jail? No, she will skate but I do believe some heads will roll at the FBI and the DOJ, at least I hope so.