Discussion:
Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election
(too old to reply)
mg
2018-04-08 17:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election

Featured News Story April 3rd, 2018

A new study suggests that fake news had a significant impact on the
2016 election, so much so that it may have given President Trump a
pathway to win. The Left argued that the data shows a high probability
that false stories cost Clinton the election, while the Right
highlighted other studies that concluded fake news had little to no
effect on the outcome."

From the Center
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/381449-researchers-say-fake-news-had-substantial-impact-on-2016-election

From the Left
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/a-new-study-suggests-fake-news-might-have-won-donald-trump-the-2016-election/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader

From the Right
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/fake-news-study-has-problems/
GLOBALIST
2018-04-08 18:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election
Featured News Story April 3rd, 2018
A new study suggests that fake news had a significant impact on the
2016 election, so much so that it may have given President Trump a
pathway to win. The Left argued that the data shows a high probability
that false stories cost Clinton the election, while the Right
highlighted other studies that concluded fake news had little to no
effect on the outcome."
From the Center
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/381449-researchers-say-fake-news-had-substantial-impact-on-2016-election
From the Left
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/a-new-study-suggests-fake-news-might-have-won-donald-trump-the-2016-election/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader
From the Right
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/fake-news-study-has-problems/
I doubt if on-line news effected my vote at all.
I just heard everything in the Primaries, the Convention
and all the huge crowds were Trump spoke. In other words
I did not go thru any other 2nd parties.
El Castor
2018-04-08 18:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election
Featured News Story April 3rd, 2018
A new study suggests that fake news had a significant impact on the
2016 election, so much so that it may have given President Trump a
pathway to win. The Left argued that the data shows a high probability
that false stories cost Clinton the election, while the Right
highlighted other studies that concluded fake news had little to no
effect on the outcome."
From the Center
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/381449-researchers-say-fake-news-had-substantial-impact-on-2016-election
From the Left
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/a-new-study-suggests-fake-news-might-have-won-donald-trump-the-2016-election/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader
From the Right
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/fake-news-study-has-problems/
Thanks for posting both sides of the story, but I still have a few
problems with your fake news parade. I don't doubt that fake news
exists (often out of journalistic incompetence and a willingness to
believe stories that fit a particular political belief), but I do have
a problem with a couple of examples posted in the study -- were they
really fake news, and did they have a Russian origin? I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS, and as for her health, who among us has not seen videos of her
repeated stumbles. It's so bad that she can't get into a car or walk
down a few stairs unless she is accompanied by a aquad of butt
catchers.

Oh, and no, we do not need a government truth squad that filters the
news and fines or arrests anyone deemed to have been a purveyor of
"fake news" -- whatever that is. 1984, here we come.
mg
2018-04-08 23:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 11:21:59 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election
Featured News Story April 3rd, 2018
A new study suggests that fake news had a significant impact on the
2016 election, so much so that it may have given President Trump a
pathway to win. The Left argued that the data shows a high probability
that false stories cost Clinton the election, while the Right
highlighted other studies that concluded fake news had little to no
effect on the outcome."
From the Center
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/381449-researchers-say-fake-news-had-substantial-impact-on-2016-election
From the Left
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/a-new-study-suggests-fake-news-might-have-won-donald-trump-the-2016-election/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader
From the Right
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/fake-news-study-has-problems/
Thanks for posting both sides of the story, but I still have a few
problems with your fake news parade. I don't doubt that fake news
exists (often out of journalistic incompetence and a willingness to
believe stories that fit a particular political belief), but I do have
a problem with a couple of examples posted in the study -- were they
really fake news, and did they have a Russian origin? I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS, and as for her health, who among us has not seen videos of her
repeated stumbles. It's so bad that she can't get into a car or walk
down a few stairs unless she is accompanied by a aquad of butt
catchers.
Oh, and no, we do not need a government truth squad that filters the
news and fines or arrests anyone deemed to have been a purveyor of
"fake news" -- whatever that is. 1984, here we come.
In our political/economic system, we like to solve a lot of our
problems with good, old-fashioned competition, but what do you do when
that doesn't work and most of the competition has been eliminated and
the monopoly was actually created by the government. (In this case
Bill Clinton). Sometimes, when monopolies happen, the government has
to step up and do something. An example that comes to mind is the
break up of Ma Bell.

Was that a good thing or a bad thing? Here's an interesting article
(editorial) written by somebody who thinks it was an awful thing.
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/09/business/l-ma-bell-s-breakup-039070.html
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-09 04:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/8/2018 11:21 AM, El Castor wrote:

{snip}
Post by El Castor
I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS,
You have just entered the Werner Zone.
El Castor
2018-04-09 08:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS,
You have just entered the Werner Zone.
Not quite ...

I've posted a lot on this before. Hillary's State Department and the
CIA were knee deep in the delivery of weapons to Syrian "rebels" aimed
at overthrowing Assad's Alawite government. Hard to prove, but
Ambassador Stevens was probably in Benghazzi coordinating the
departure of a shipload of Khadaffi weapons, paid for by Qatar, and
destined for Syria, when he was killed by a Libyan militia that wanted
the weapons for itself.

"C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
By ERIC SCHMITTJUNE 21, 2012 "
"Spokesmen for the White House, State Department and C.I.A. would not
comment on any intelligence operations supporting the Syrian rebels,
some details of which were reported last week by The Wall Street
Journal."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html

"Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria
By DAVID E. SANGEROCT. 14, 2012"
"“The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid
are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” said one American
official familiar with the outlines of those findings, commenting on
an operation that in American eyes has increasingly gone awry."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html

"Study shows US weapons given to Syrian rebels ended up in ISIS hands"
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/364917-study-shows-us-weapons-given-to-syrian-rebels-ended-up-in-isiss-hands

As I said, I am convinced that Hillary did participate in, and/or
approve of, sales and delivery of weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and
likely some elements of an incipient ISIS. Not a secret. Read all
about it in the NY Times, Reuters, BBC, etc.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-09 15:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS,
You have just entered the Werner Zone.
Not quite ...
I've posted a lot on this before. Hillary's State Department and the
CIA were knee deep in the delivery of weapons to Syrian "rebels" aimed
at overthrowing Assad's Alawite government.
Perhaps. But your post seemed to imply she knew ahead of time the
weapons were going to Islamists and went ahead anyway. That's Werner
territory not supported by the Times.
Post by El Castor
Hard to prove, but
Ambassador Stevens was probably in Benghazzi coordinating the
departure of a shipload of Khadaffi weapons, paid for by Qatar, and
destined for Syria, when he was killed by a Libyan militia that wanted
the weapons for itself.
"C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
By ERIC SCHMITTJUNE 21, 2012 "
"Spokesmen for the White House, State Department and C.I.A. would not
comment on any intelligence operations supporting the Syrian rebels,
some details of which were reported last week by The Wall Street
Journal."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria
By DAVID E. SANGEROCT. 14, 2012"
"“The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid
are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” said one American
official familiar with the outlines of those findings, commenting on
an operation that in American eyes has increasingly gone awry."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Study shows US weapons given to Syrian rebels ended up in ISIS hands"
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/364917-study-shows-us-weapons-given-to-syrian-rebels-ended-up-in-isiss-hands
As I said, I am convinced that Hillary did participate in, and/or
approve of, sales and delivery of weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and
likely some elements of an incipient ISIS. Not a secret. Read all
about it in the NY Times, Reuters, BBC, etc.
El Castor
2018-04-09 19:00:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS,
You have just entered the Werner Zone.
Not quite ...
I've posted a lot on this before. Hillary's State Department and the
CIA were knee deep in the delivery of weapons to Syrian "rebels" aimed
at overthrowing Assad's Alawite government.
Perhaps. But your post seemed to imply she knew ahead of time the
weapons were going to Islamists and went ahead anyway. That's Werner
territory not supported by the Times.
Hmmmm. The old "she just didn't know" argument. Well, it really
doesn't seem to have been a secret.

NY Times, Oct 2012:
"Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria"
"Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to
supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad
are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular
opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to
American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html

The Nation, Five years later, 2017:
"Why Does the US Continue to Arm Terrorists in Syria?
The “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” should be a top priority for the
115th Congress."
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-us-continue-to-arm-terrorists-in-syria/

I guess Hillary and her boss didn't read the paper -- or perhaps they
were more concerned with getting rid of Assad and pleasing our Sunnii
allies in Saudi Arabia, the emirates, and Turkey. Arming jihadists --
just a cost of doing business in a chaos like Syria? Which is it?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Hard to prove, but
Ambassador Stevens was probably in Benghazzi coordinating the
departure of a shipload of Khadaffi weapons, paid for by Qatar, and
destined for Syria, when he was killed by a Libyan militia that wanted
the weapons for itself.
"C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
By ERIC SCHMITTJUNE 21, 2012 "
"Spokesmen for the White House, State Department and C.I.A. would not
comment on any intelligence operations supporting the Syrian rebels,
some details of which were reported last week by The Wall Street
Journal."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria
By DAVID E. SANGEROCT. 14, 2012"
"“The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid
are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” said one American
official familiar with the outlines of those findings, commenting on
an operation that in American eyes has increasingly gone awry."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Study shows US weapons given to Syrian rebels ended up in ISIS hands"
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/364917-study-shows-us-weapons-given-to-syrian-rebels-ended-up-in-isiss-hands
As I said, I am convinced that Hillary did participate in, and/or
approve of, sales and delivery of weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and
likely some elements of an incipient ISIS. Not a secret. Read all
about it in the NY Times, Reuters, BBC, etc.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-09 21:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS,
You have just entered the Werner Zone.
Not quite ...
I've posted a lot on this before. Hillary's State Department and the
CIA were knee deep in the delivery of weapons to Syrian "rebels" aimed
at overthrowing Assad's Alawite government.
Perhaps. But your post seemed to imply she knew ahead of time the
weapons were going to Islamists and went ahead anyway. That's Werner
territory not supported by the Times.
Hmmmm. The old "she just didn't know" argument. Well, it really
doesn't seem to have been a secret.
"Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria"
"Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to
supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad
are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular
opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to
American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Why Does the US Continue to Arm Terrorists in Syria?
The “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” should be a top priority for the
115th Congress."
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-us-continue-to-arm-terrorists-in-syria/
I guess Hillary and her boss didn't read the paper -- or perhaps they
were more concerned with getting rid of Assad and pleasing our Sunnii
allies in Saudi Arabia, the emirates, and Turkey. Arming jihadists --
just a cost of doing business in a chaos like Syria? Which is it?
Of course she read the paper, but the Times article predates our direct
military support and the Obama administration made a good faith effort
to vet the groups receiving arms. You can reasonably argue they were
naive. You can argue we should now reverse the policy. But you are in
downtown Wernerville (or perhaps mgville) when you argue Clinton
intentionally armed Islamist terrorists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Train_and_Equip_Program
islander
2018-04-09 23:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS,
You have just entered the Werner Zone.
Not quite ...
I've posted a lot on this before. Hillary's State Department and the
CIA were knee deep in the delivery of weapons to Syrian "rebels" aimed
at overthrowing Assad's Alawite government.
Perhaps.  But your post seemed to imply she knew ahead of time the
weapons were going to Islamists and went ahead anyway.  That's Werner
territory not supported by the Times.
Hmmmm. The old "she just didn't know" argument. Well, it really
doesn't seem to have been a secret.
"Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria"
"Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to
supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad
are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular
opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to
American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Why Does the US Continue to Arm Terrorists in Syria?
The “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” should be a top priority for the
115th Congress."
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-us-continue-to-arm-terrorists-in-syria/
I guess Hillary and her boss didn't read the paper -- or perhaps they
were more concerned with getting rid of Assad and pleasing our Sunnii
allies in Saudi Arabia, the emirates, and Turkey. Arming jihadists --
just a cost of doing business in a chaos like Syria? Which is it?
Of course she read the paper, but the Times article predates our direct
military support and the Obama administration made a good faith effort
to vet the groups receiving arms.  You can reasonably argue they were
naive.  You can argue we should now reverse the policy.  But you are in
downtown Wernerville (or perhaps mgville) when you argue Clinton
intentionally armed Islamist terrorists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Train_and_Equip_Program
What is missing in this discussion is the fact that the Obama
administration was under serious attack in Congress because our
intelligence in the region was pretty abysmal. It is totally
understandable to me that we were ramping up our CIA presence in Libya
and especially the effort in Benghazi and that Stevens was getting a
first hand look at how that was progressing. Stevens was known to take
risks with his personal safety, so his presence there is not a surprise.
He was popular with the Libyan people and felt that it was important
to trust them. We also know that there were efforts underway with an
arms dealer to ship arms out of Libya, paid for by the Sunnis, most
notably Saudi Arabia.

Were we behind the arms shipments or were we simply trying to find out
what was going on? Read the news accounts in late 2012 and early 2013,
especially after Steven's journal was released. Also, check McCain's
and Graham's criticisms of intelligence in Libya in 2011.
El Castor
2018-04-10 21:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS,
You have just entered the Werner Zone.
Not quite ...
I've posted a lot on this before. Hillary's State Department and the
CIA were knee deep in the delivery of weapons to Syrian "rebels" aimed
at overthrowing Assad's Alawite government.
Perhaps. But your post seemed to imply she knew ahead of time the
weapons were going to Islamists and went ahead anyway. That's Werner
territory not supported by the Times.
Hmmmm. The old "she just didn't know" argument. Well, it really
doesn't seem to have been a secret.
"Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria"
"Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to
supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad
are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular
opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to
American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Why Does the US Continue to Arm Terrorists in Syria?
The “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” should be a top priority for the
115th Congress."
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-us-continue-to-arm-terrorists-in-syria/
I guess Hillary and her boss didn't read the paper -- or perhaps they
were more concerned with getting rid of Assad and pleasing our Sunnii
allies in Saudi Arabia, the emirates, and Turkey. Arming jihadists --
just a cost of doing business in a chaos like Syria? Which is it?
Of course she read the paper, but the Times article predates our direct
military support and the Obama administration made a good faith effort
to vet the groups receiving arms. You can reasonably argue they were
naive.
Perhaps they were.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You can argue we should now reverse the policy.
That decision is beyond my pay grade. We got ourselves into this mess
in what is an important element in stopping Iranian expansion in the
Middle East. It is not about Assad, nerve gas, jihadists or ISIS,
bottom line, it's about Iran, and Iran's enemies (our allies) in the
Middle East.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But you are in
downtown Wernerville (or perhaps mgville) when you argue Clinton
intentionally armed Islamist terrorists.
Please don't put words in my mouth. Clinton and Obama did not set out
to arm "Islamist terrorists", but they did set out to arm the enemies
of Assad's pro-Iranian minority Alawite government. The Middle East
and Islam being what it is, the most ardent enemies of the minority
pseudo Shiites running a majority Sunni country like Syria, are going
to be dedicated Sunnis who consider Shiites to be apostates deserving
of death. Might many of those Assad hating Sunnis who are willing to
take up guns and fight the Shiite loving Alawites also find ISIS
attractive? Of course they do and did. If you believe otherwise it is
you who are being naive. Obama, Clinton, and the CIA did what they
could to funnel arms to the "good" Sunnis of Syria, but in the end
they knew that once those weapons left their hands, some, or most, of
the ultimate recipients would be what you would call an Islamist
terrorist and Hillary, Obama, and the CIA would call an enemy of
Assad.

Should Trump continue to funnel weapons into Syria? I don't know, but
I expect Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Israel want him to. Iran,
Iraq, Russia, and Hezbollah would rather we did not.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-10 23:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS,
You have just entered the Werner Zone.
Not quite ...
I've posted a lot on this before. Hillary's State Department and the
CIA were knee deep in the delivery of weapons to Syrian "rebels" aimed
at overthrowing Assad's Alawite government.
Perhaps. But your post seemed to imply she knew ahead of time the
weapons were going to Islamists and went ahead anyway. That's Werner
territory not supported by the Times.
Hmmmm. The old "she just didn't know" argument. Well, it really
doesn't seem to have been a secret.
"Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria"
"Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to
supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad
are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular
opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to
American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Why Does the US Continue to Arm Terrorists in Syria?
The “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” should be a top priority for the
115th Congress."
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-us-continue-to-arm-terrorists-in-syria/
I guess Hillary and her boss didn't read the paper -- or perhaps they
were more concerned with getting rid of Assad and pleasing our Sunnii
allies in Saudi Arabia, the emirates, and Turkey. Arming jihadists --
just a cost of doing business in a chaos like Syria? Which is it?
Of course she read the paper, but the Times article predates our direct
military support and the Obama administration made a good faith effort
to vet the groups receiving arms. You can reasonably argue they were
naive.
Perhaps they were.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You can argue we should now reverse the policy.
That decision is beyond my pay grade. We got ourselves into this mess
in what is an important element in stopping Iranian expansion in the
Middle East. It is not about Assad, nerve gas, jihadists or ISIS,
bottom line, it's about Iran, and Iran's enemies (our allies) in the
Middle East.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But you are in
downtown Wernerville (or perhaps mgville) when you argue Clinton
intentionally armed Islamist terrorists.
Please don't put words in my mouth. Clinton and Obama did not set out
to arm "Islamist terrorists", but they did set out to arm the enemies
of Assad's pro-Iranian minority Alawite government. The Middle East
and Islam being what it is, the most ardent enemies of the minority
pseudo Shiites running a majority Sunni country like Syria, are going
to be dedicated Sunnis who consider Shiites to be apostates deserving
of death. Might many of those Assad hating Sunnis who are willing to
take up guns and fight the Shiite loving Alawites also find ISIS
attractive? Of course they do and did. If you believe otherwise it is
you who are being naive. Obama, Clinton, and the CIA did what they
could to funnel arms to the "good" Sunnis of Syria, but in the end
they knew that once those weapons left their hands, some, or most, of
the ultimate recipients would be what you would call an Islamist
terrorist and Hillary, Obama, and the CIA would call an enemy of
Assad.
Sorry. "they knew that once those weapons left their hands, some, or
most, of the ultimate recipients would be what you would call an
Islamist terrorist" sounds like mgville to me.
Post by El Castor
Should Trump continue to funnel weapons into Syria? I don't know, but
I expect Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Israel want him to. Iran,
Iraq, Russia, and Hezbollah would rather we did not.
El Castor
2018-04-11 09:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:45:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS,
You have just entered the Werner Zone.
Not quite ...
I've posted a lot on this before. Hillary's State Department and the
CIA were knee deep in the delivery of weapons to Syrian "rebels" aimed
at overthrowing Assad's Alawite government.
Perhaps. But your post seemed to imply she knew ahead of time the
weapons were going to Islamists and went ahead anyway. That's Werner
territory not supported by the Times.
Hmmmm. The old "she just didn't know" argument. Well, it really
doesn't seem to have been a secret.
"Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria"
"Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to
supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad
are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular
opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to
American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Why Does the US Continue to Arm Terrorists in Syria?
The “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” should be a top priority for the
115th Congress."
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-us-continue-to-arm-terrorists-in-syria/
I guess Hillary and her boss didn't read the paper -- or perhaps they
were more concerned with getting rid of Assad and pleasing our Sunnii
allies in Saudi Arabia, the emirates, and Turkey. Arming jihadists --
just a cost of doing business in a chaos like Syria? Which is it?
Of course she read the paper, but the Times article predates our direct
military support and the Obama administration made a good faith effort
to vet the groups receiving arms. You can reasonably argue they were
naive.
Perhaps they were.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You can argue we should now reverse the policy.
That decision is beyond my pay grade. We got ourselves into this mess
in what is an important element in stopping Iranian expansion in the
Middle East. It is not about Assad, nerve gas, jihadists or ISIS,
bottom line, it's about Iran, and Iran's enemies (our allies) in the
Middle East.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But you are in
downtown Wernerville (or perhaps mgville) when you argue Clinton
intentionally armed Islamist terrorists.
Please don't put words in my mouth. Clinton and Obama did not set out
to arm "Islamist terrorists", but they did set out to arm the enemies
of Assad's pro-Iranian minority Alawite government. The Middle East
and Islam being what it is, the most ardent enemies of the minority
pseudo Shiites running a majority Sunni country like Syria, are going
to be dedicated Sunnis who consider Shiites to be apostates deserving
of death. Might many of those Assad hating Sunnis who are willing to
take up guns and fight the Shiite loving Alawites also find ISIS
attractive? Of course they do and did. If you believe otherwise it is
you who are being naive. Obama, Clinton, and the CIA did what they
could to funnel arms to the "good" Sunnis of Syria, but in the end
they knew that once those weapons left their hands, some, or most, of
the ultimate recipients would be what you would call an Islamist
terrorist and Hillary, Obama, and the CIA would call an enemy of
Assad.
Sorry. "they knew that once those weapons left their hands, some, or
most, of the ultimate recipients would be what you would call an
Islamist terrorist" sounds like mgville to me.
Of course they knew. How many links to legitimate sources must I
post??

"Why Does the US Continue to Arm Terrorists in Syria?" ...
"Alarmingly, according to a report on February 8 in the Financial
Times, “MOM-backed commanders”—that is to say, US-backed rebel
commanders—“regularly inflated their forces’ numbers to pocket extra
salaries, and some jacked up weapons requests to hoard or to sell on
the black market. Inevitably, much of that ended up in Isis hands.”
“The CIA knew about this, of course,” a former US-backed rebel
commander told the FT, “everyone in MOM did.” "
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-us-continue-to-arm-terrorists-in-syria/

"Nothing has come in for more mockery during the Obama
administration’s halting steps into the Syrian civil war than its
employment of “moderate” to describe the kind of rebels it is willing
to back. In one of the more widely cited japes, The New Yorker’s
resident humorist, Andy Borowitz, presented a “Moderate Syrian
Application Form,” in which applicants were asked to describe
themselves as either “A) Moderate, B) Very moderate, C) Crazy moderate
or D) Other.”
After Senator John McCain allegedly posed with Syrians “on our side”
who turned out to be kidnappers—a report later called into
question—Jon Stewart cracked, “Not everyone is going to be wearing
their ‘HELLO I’M A TERRORIST’ name badge.” "
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/21/moderate-rebels-please-raise-your-hands-283449.html

And ...

"CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was
attacked'
The CIA has been subjecting operatives to monthly polygraph tests in
an attempt to suppress details of a reported US arms smuggling
operation in Benghazi that was ongoing when its ambassador was killed
by a mob in the city last year, according to reports. "
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Should Trump continue to funnel weapons into Syria? I don't know, but
I expect Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Israel want him to. Iran,
Iraq, Russia, and Hezbollah would rather we did not.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-11 15:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:45:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Sorry. "they knew that once those weapons left their hands, some, or
most, of the ultimate recipients would be what you would call an
Islamist terrorist" sounds like mgville to me.
Of course they knew. How many links to legitimate sources must I
post??
I'm OK that they knew it was a risk and perhaps acted foolishly
believing the risk was worth taking (your sources support this
argument). The mgville part is if you believe they believed it was
going to happen and went ahead anyway (your sources do not support this
argument).
Post by El Castor
"Why Does the US Continue to Arm Terrorists in Syria?" ...
"Alarmingly, according to a report on February 8 in the Financial
Times, “MOM-backed commanders”—that is to say, US-backed rebel
commanders—“regularly inflated their forces’ numbers to pocket extra
salaries, and some jacked up weapons requests to hoard or to sell on
the black market. Inevitably, much of that ended up in Isis hands.”
“The CIA knew about this, of course,” a former US-backed rebel
commander told the FT, “everyone in MOM did.” "
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-us-continue-to-arm-terrorists-in-syria/
"Nothing has come in for more mockery during the Obama
administration’s halting steps into the Syrian civil war than its
employment of “moderate” to describe the kind of rebels it is willing
to back. In one of the more widely cited japes, The New Yorker’s
resident humorist, Andy Borowitz, presented a “Moderate Syrian
Application Form,” in which applicants were asked to describe
themselves as either “A) Moderate, B) Very moderate, C) Crazy moderate
or D) Other.”
After Senator John McCain allegedly posed with Syrians “on our side”
who turned out to be kidnappers—a report later called into
question—Jon Stewart cracked, “Not everyone is going to be wearing
their ‘HELLO I’M A TERRORIST’ name badge.” "
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/21/moderate-rebels-please-raise-your-hands-283449.html
And ...
"CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was
attacked'
The CIA has been subjecting operatives to monthly polygraph tests in
an attempt to suppress details of a reported US arms smuggling
operation in Benghazi that was ongoing when its ambassador was killed
by a mob in the city last year, according to reports. "
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Should Trump continue to funnel weapons into Syria? I don't know, but
I expect Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Israel want him to. Iran,
Iraq, Russia, and Hezbollah would rather we did not.
El Castor
2018-04-11 18:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:42:51 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:45:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Sorry. "they knew that once those weapons left their hands, some, or
most, of the ultimate recipients would be what you would call an
Islamist terrorist" sounds like mgville to me.
Of course they knew. How many links to legitimate sources must I
post??
I'm OK that they knew it was a risk and perhaps acted foolishly
believing the risk was worth taking (your sources support this
argument). The mgville part is if you believe they believed it was
going to happen and went ahead anyway (your sources do not support this
argument).
I'm not sure what a "mgville" part is, so hard to comment on that.
But, we knew from the beginning that the nature of Syrian political,
religious, and cultural disarray made it impossible to be sure about
the people we were arming -- and what they would do with the guns we
gave them. But we went ahead with it, admittedly trying our best to
get the guns in the right hands, but knowing from the get go that our
ability to insure that our guns got in those right hands, and stayed
there, was an impossibility. I suspect that our logic was that whoever
got them, patriot, criminal, bandit, or fanatic, would most likely be
a Sunni opposed to Assad's pro-Iranian Alawite government. So what did
Obama and Hillary accomplish? Chaos and a flood of Syrian immigrants
pouring into Europe.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
"Why Does the US Continue to Arm Terrorists in Syria?" ...
"Alarmingly, according to a report on February 8 in the Financial
Times, “MOM-backed commanders”—that is to say, US-backed rebel
commanders—“regularly inflated their forces’ numbers to pocket extra
salaries, and some jacked up weapons requests to hoard or to sell on
the black market. Inevitably, much of that ended up in Isis hands.”
“The CIA knew about this, of course,” a former US-backed rebel
commander told the FT, “everyone in MOM did.” "
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-us-continue-to-arm-terrorists-in-syria/
"Nothing has come in for more mockery during the Obama
administration’s halting steps into the Syrian civil war than its
employment of “moderate” to describe the kind of rebels it is willing
to back. In one of the more widely cited japes, The New Yorker’s
resident humorist, Andy Borowitz, presented a “Moderate Syrian
Application Form,” in which applicants were asked to describe
themselves as either “A) Moderate, B) Very moderate, C) Crazy moderate
or D) Other.”
After Senator John McCain allegedly posed with Syrians “on our side”
who turned out to be kidnappers—a report later called into
question—Jon Stewart cracked, “Not everyone is going to be wearing
their ‘HELLO I’M A TERRORIST’ name badge.” "
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/21/moderate-rebels-please-raise-your-hands-283449.html
And ...
"CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was
attacked'
The CIA has been subjecting operatives to monthly polygraph tests in
an attempt to suppress details of a reported US arms smuggling
operation in Benghazi that was ongoing when its ambassador was killed
by a mob in the city last year, according to reports. "
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Should Trump continue to funnel weapons into Syria? I don't know, but
I expect Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Israel want him to. Iran,
Iraq, Russia, and Hezbollah would rather we did not.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-11 19:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:42:51 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:45:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Sorry. "they knew that once those weapons left their hands, some, or
most, of the ultimate recipients would be what you would call an
Islamist terrorist" sounds like mgville to me.
Of course they knew. How many links to legitimate sources must I
post??
I'm OK that they knew it was a risk and perhaps acted foolishly
believing the risk was worth taking (your sources support this
argument). The mgville part is if you believe they believed it was
going to happen and went ahead anyway (your sources do not support this
argument).
I'm not sure what a "mgville" part is, so hard to comment on that.
But, we knew from the beginning that the nature of Syrian political,
religious, and cultural disarray made it impossible to be sure about
the people we were arming -- and what they would do with the guns we
gave them. But we went ahead with it, admittedly trying our best to
get the guns in the right hands,
So far, so good.
Post by El Castor
but knowing from the get go that our
ability to insure that our guns got in those right hands, and stayed
there, was an impossibility.
If it were known that it was *impossible*, then you are accusing Obama
and Clinton of knowingly arming terrorists. That's what I call mgville
(crazy, conspiracy talk).
El Castor
2018-04-12 00:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:35:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:42:51 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:45:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Sorry. "they knew that once those weapons left their hands, some, or
most, of the ultimate recipients would be what you would call an
Islamist terrorist" sounds like mgville to me.
Of course they knew. How many links to legitimate sources must I
post??
I'm OK that they knew it was a risk and perhaps acted foolishly
believing the risk was worth taking (your sources support this
argument). The mgville part is if you believe they believed it was
going to happen and went ahead anyway (your sources do not support this
argument).
I'm not sure what a "mgville" part is, so hard to comment on that.
But, we knew from the beginning that the nature of Syrian political,
religious, and cultural disarray made it impossible to be sure about
the people we were arming -- and what they would do with the guns we
gave them. But we went ahead with it, admittedly trying our best to
get the guns in the right hands,
So far, so good.
Post by El Castor
but knowing from the get go that our
ability to insure that our guns got in those right hands, and stayed
there, was an impossibility.
If it were known that it was *impossible*, then you are accusing Obama
and Clinton of knowingly arming terrorists. That's what I call mgville
(crazy, conspiracy talk).
It was impossible to get all the guns into the hands of the brave
Sunni freedom fighters -- whoever they are. We've known that from the
beginning. Syria is a chaotic confused mess, and we have made it
worse. Didn't you read what I posted? Our guns were even used by rival
Sunni factions to fight each other!

"In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the
CIA"
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html

Maybe the CIA would hire you to go over there and straighten the mess
out? Oh no, wait! You're a Jew! The brave freedom fighters would kill
you!

Gary
2018-04-08 18:36:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election
Featured News Story April 3rd, 2018
A new study suggests that fake news had a significant impact on the
2016 election, so much so that it may have given President Trump a
pathway to win. The Left argued that the data shows a high probability
that false stories cost Clinton the election, while the Right
highlighted other studies that concluded fake news had little to no
effect on the outcome."
From the Center
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/381449-researchers-say-fake-news-had-substantial-impact-on-2016-election
From the Left
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/a-new-study-suggests-fake-news-might-have-won-donald-trump-the-2016-election/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader
From the Right
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/fake-news-study-has-problems/
That is most interesting. But I think they lie. For instance,
Washington Post (above) says:

".... suggests that about 4 percent of President Barack Obama's 2012
supporters were dissuaded from voting for Clinton in 2016 by belief in
fake news stories..."

I looked up Obama's vote in 2012. It was 65,918,507. And Hillary's
in 2016 was -- 65,853,652.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

I subtract Hillary's from Obama's and get a difference of 64,855. I
take Obama's vote and multiply by 4% and get -- 2,636,740. If my
figures are correct -- Hillary did not get 4% less votes than Obama.

Oh, well ! Figures are fun :-)
mg
2018-04-09 01:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
"Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election
Featured News Story April 3rd, 2018
A new study suggests that fake news had a significant impact on the
2016 election, so much so that it may have given President Trump a
pathway to win. The Left argued that the data shows a high probability
that false stories cost Clinton the election, while the Right
highlighted other studies that concluded fake news had little to no
effect on the outcome."
From the Center
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/381449-researchers-say-fake-news-had-substantial-impact-on-2016-election
From the Left
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/a-new-study-suggests-fake-news-might-have-won-donald-trump-the-2016-election/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader
From the Right
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/fake-news-study-has-problems/
That is most interesting. But I think they lie. For instance,
".... suggests that about 4 percent of President Barack Obama's 2012
supporters were dissuaded from voting for Clinton in 2016 by belief in
fake news stories..."
I looked up Obama's vote in 2012. It was 65,918,507. And Hillary's
in 2016 was -- 65,853,652.
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
I subtract Hillary's from Obama's and get a difference of 64,855. I
take Obama's vote and multiply by 4% and get -- 2,636,740. If my
figures are correct -- Hillary did not get 4% less votes than Obama.
Oh, well ! Figures are fun :-)
To be honest, I never read any of those articles. I need to do my
income tax and really I shouldn't be doing anything else until I get
that done. After that, I have a huge amount of work to do outside the
house and some inside work, also. It's depressing to think about it
and the economy is so good right now that it's hard to get a handyman.
I'm almost hoping for a recession so that I can find somebody to help
me. :-)

In regard to the election, though, my knee jerk reaction is that her
health isn't good enough to be president and she's probably lucky that
she's not in jail, anyway. :-)
El Castor
2018-04-09 08:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
"Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election
Featured News Story April 3rd, 2018
A new study suggests that fake news had a significant impact on the
2016 election, so much so that it may have given President Trump a
pathway to win. The Left argued that the data shows a high probability
that false stories cost Clinton the election, while the Right
highlighted other studies that concluded fake news had little to no
effect on the outcome."
From the Center
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/381449-researchers-say-fake-news-had-substantial-impact-on-2016-election
From the Left
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/a-new-study-suggests-fake-news-might-have-won-donald-trump-the-2016-election/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader
From the Right
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/fake-news-study-has-problems/
That is most interesting. But I think they lie. For instance,
".... suggests that about 4 percent of President Barack Obama's 2012
supporters were dissuaded from voting for Clinton in 2016 by belief in
fake news stories..."
I looked up Obama's vote in 2012. It was 65,918,507. And Hillary's
in 2016 was -- 65,853,652.
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
I subtract Hillary's from Obama's and get a difference of 64,855. I
take Obama's vote and multiply by 4% and get -- 2,636,740. If my
figures are correct -- Hillary did not get 4% less votes than Obama.
Oh, well ! Figures are fun :-)
To be honest, I never read any of those articles. I need to do my
income tax and really I shouldn't be doing anything else until I get
that done. After that, I have a huge amount of work to do outside the
house and some inside work, also. It's depressing to think about it
and the economy is so good right now that it's hard to get a handyman.
I'm almost hoping for a recession so that I can find somebody to help
me. :-)
In regard to the election, though, my knee jerk reaction is that her
health isn't good enough to be president and she's probably lucky that
she's not in jail, anyway. :-)
Oh, oh! Another victim of Russian fake news! Where is the Truth Bureau
when we need it?
mg
2018-04-11 02:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:04:40 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
"Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election
Featured News Story April 3rd, 2018
A new study suggests that fake news had a significant impact on the
2016 election, so much so that it may have given President Trump a
pathway to win. The Left argued that the data shows a high probability
that false stories cost Clinton the election, while the Right
highlighted other studies that concluded fake news had little to no
effect on the outcome."
From the Center
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/381449-researchers-say-fake-news-had-substantial-impact-on-2016-election
From the Left
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/a-new-study-suggests-fake-news-might-have-won-donald-trump-the-2016-election/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader
From the Right
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/fake-news-study-has-problems/
That is most interesting. But I think they lie. For instance,
".... suggests that about 4 percent of President Barack Obama's 2012
supporters were dissuaded from voting for Clinton in 2016 by belief in
fake news stories..."
I looked up Obama's vote in 2012. It was 65,918,507. And Hillary's
in 2016 was -- 65,853,652.
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
I subtract Hillary's from Obama's and get a difference of 64,855. I
take Obama's vote and multiply by 4% and get -- 2,636,740. If my
figures are correct -- Hillary did not get 4% less votes than Obama.
Oh, well ! Figures are fun :-)
To be honest, I never read any of those articles. I need to do my
income tax and really I shouldn't be doing anything else until I get
that done. After that, I have a huge amount of work to do outside the
house and some inside work, also. It's depressing to think about it
and the economy is so good right now that it's hard to get a handyman.
I'm almost hoping for a recession so that I can find somebody to help
me. :-)
In regard to the election, though, my knee jerk reaction is that her
health isn't good enough to be president and she's probably lucky that
she's not in jail, anyway. :-)
Oh, oh! Another victim of Russian fake news! Where is the Truth Bureau
when we need it?
They were probably kicked out to make room for the Good-Guy/Bad-Guy
Bureau.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-11 03:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:04:40 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
In regard to the election, though, my knee jerk reaction is that her
health isn't good enough to be president and she's probably lucky that
she's not in jail, anyway. :-)
Oh, oh! Another victim of Russian fake news! Where is the Truth Bureau
when we need it?
They were probably kicked out to make room for the Good-Guy/Bad-Guy
Bureau.
Has anybody checked Joe McCarthy's grave lately,
to make sure the ground hasn't been disturbed?
Here's his grave, and the ground doesn't look
disturbed yet, but there's an unidentified woman
in the picture who looks like she's up to no good.

https://tinyurl.com/y8lqyw65
mg
2018-04-11 14:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:04:40 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
In regard to the election, though, my knee jerk reaction is that her
health isn't good enough to be president and she's probably lucky that
she's not in jail, anyway. :-)
Oh, oh! Another victim of Russian fake news! Where is the Truth Bureau
when we need it?
They were probably kicked out to make room for the Good-Guy/Bad-Guy
Bureau.
Has anybody checked Joe McCarthy's grave lately,
to make sure the ground hasn't been disturbed?
Here's his grave, and the ground doesn't look
disturbed yet, but there's an unidentified woman
in the picture who looks like she's up to no good.
https://tinyurl.com/y8lqyw65
One of the great things about witch hunts is that the ideologues are
able to protect people from the pain of thinking.



------------------------------
All ideologies are idiotic,
whether religious or political,
for it is conceptual thinking,
the conceptual word, which has
so unfortunately divided man.
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti
Loading...