Astonishing Lie by Hillary regarding Trump "Choke"
I'm really floored about how disgustingly low Hillary (and her cronies) will go to criticize Trump. A few months ago, both were invited to see the Mexican president; only Trump went. When Trump returned, he was asked by the MSM (mainstream media) if he had discussed who would pay for the wall. Trump said that he hadn't. For a few days, there was criticism of Trump for FAILING to negotiate this matter. That criticism re-surfaced within the last day or so (October 20), with Hillary claiming Trump had "choked". Well, as radio commentator Paul Harvey would have said, here's the rest of the story. It turns out that there is an American Federal law called the Logan Act which prohibits private citizens from engaging in diplomatic activity with foreign nations. It's been around for 200+ years, and violation is a felony...although there have never been any convictions and only one indictment in that entire time. It does not prohibit a person from merely meeting with a foreign government official, just engaging in diplomacy with him. (What amounts to "diplomacy" has not been tested, due to the virtual lack of prosecutions.) Hillary Clinton is supposed to have at one point been a lawyer. Not a good lawyer, I have to conclude. In fact, she must have been a very bad lawyer. But she has now outdone herself for criticizing Trump...for Trump's FAILURE to commit a Federal felony! You see, she has actually claimed Trump "choked": That Trump DIDN'T negotiate this matter, apparently not to Hillary's satisfaction. So, indeed, Hillary is blasting Trump for FAILING to engage in diplomacy with the Mexican president: For FAILING to commit a felony! And don't try to suggest that maybe, Trump did indeed secretly try to negotiate with the Mexican president, but simply failed to get an agreement. While such a hypothetical scenario might be called a violation of the Logan Act, at the same time it couldn't ALSO be called "choking": To raise the issue during the meeting, but to merely fail to get positive results wouldn't be a "choke", of course. So, by calling Trump's supposed actions (or lack of actions?) "choking", Hillary has essentially admitted that she DIDN'T believe that Trump had attempted to negotiate, and thus had not violated the Logan Act. But others in the media were even more clueless. And it's not that I'm the first person to raise this issue: Do a Google search for 'hillary trump mexico wall Logan', and you can even find some articles within the first few days of Trump's Mexican visit, claiming that Trump DID violate the Logan Act. If Trump had actually said he negotiated, you can be sure that Hillary would have accused him of committing a crime. But no, he didn't, so now she's accusing him of, in effect, NOT COMMITTING a crime. Failure to negotiate as a private citizen with the President of Mexico. Failure to commit a Federal felony. How awful! How cynical can a person be to try to prepare not one, but in fact TWO separate, and opposite traps for her opponent: If Trump tried to negotiate, she would accuse him of a crime. If Trump failed to try to negotiate, she would, and in fact did, accuse him of "choking". Is it possible to engage in a more disgusting and devious fraud in front of the entire world, and not be called out on it? How dishonest can a person get? To be sure, I'm still going to vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, as I always do. But I feel I must challenge anyone who would otherwise vote for Hillary Clinton: Do you feel proud that your chosen candidate is such a massive liar, fraudster, influence-peddler, scam-artist, and deviously corrupt woman? "And those are her GOOD qualities", I hear her supporters fawning. Jim Bell
And Trump is a bastion of truth :) His stated policies on torture, gitmo, libel law, use of nukes, etc somehow makes him less dangerous than HC? They are none of them any good. There is no good choice. I don't think there's ever been a good choice. John
On Oct 21, 2016, at 4:22 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm really floored about how disgustingly low Hillary (and her cronies) will go to criticize Trump. A few months ago, both were invited to see the Mexican president; only Trump went. When Trump returned, he was asked by the MSM (mainstream media) if he had discussed who would pay for the wall. Trump said that he hadn't. For a few days, there was criticism of Trump for FAILING to negotiate this matter. That criticism re-surfaced within the last day or so (October 20), with Hillary claiming Trump had "choked".
Well, as radio commentator Paul Harvey would have said, here's the rest of the story. It turns out that there is an American Federal law called the Logan Act which prohibits private citizens from engaging in diplomatic activity with foreign nations. It's been around for 200+ years, and violation is a felony...although there have never been any convictions and only one indictment in that entire time. It does not prohibit a person from merely meeting with a foreign government official, just engaging in diplomacy with him. (What amounts to "diplomacy" has not been tested, due to the virtual lack of prosecutions.)
Hillary Clinton is supposed to have at one point been a lawyer. Not a good lawyer, I have to conclude. In fact, she must have been a very bad lawyer. But she has now outdone herself for criticizing Trump...for Trump's FAILURE to commit a Federal felony! You see, she has actually claimed Trump "choked": That Trump DIDN'T negotiate this matter, apparently not to Hillary's satisfaction. So, indeed, Hillary is blasting Trump for FAILING to engage in diplomacy with the Mexican president: For FAILING to commit a felony!
And don't try to suggest that maybe, Trump did indeed secretly try to negotiate with the Mexican president, but simply failed to get an agreement. While such a hypothetical scenario might be called a violation of the Logan Act, at the same time it couldn't ALSO be called "choking": To raise the issue during the meeting, but to merely fail to get positive results wouldn't be a "choke", of course. So, by calling Trump's supposed actions (or lack of actions?) "choking", Hillary has essentially admitted that she DIDN'T believe that Trump had attempted to negotiate, and thus had not violated the Logan Act.
But others in the media were even more clueless. And it's not that I'm the first person to raise this issue: Do a Google search for 'hillary trump mexico wall Logan', and you can even find some articles within the first few days of Trump's Mexican visit, claiming that Trump DID violate the Logan Act. If Trump had actually said he negotiated, you can be sure that Hillary would have accused him of committing a crime. But no, he didn't, so now she's accusing him of, in effect, NOT COMMITTING a crime. Failure to negotiate as a private citizen with the President of Mexico. Failure to commit a Federal felony. How awful!
How cynical can a person be to try to prepare not one, but in fact TWO separate, and opposite traps for her opponent: If Trump tried to negotiate, she would accuse him of a crime. If Trump failed to try to negotiate, she would, and in fact did, accuse him of "choking".
Is it possible to engage in a more disgusting and devious fraud in front of the entire world, and not be called out on it? How dishonest can a person get?
To be sure, I'm still going to vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, as I always do. But I feel I must challenge anyone who would otherwise vote for Hillary Clinton: Do you feel proud that your chosen candidate is such a massive liar, fraudster, influence-peddler, scam-artist, and deviously corrupt woman? "And those are her GOOD qualities", I hear her supporters fawning.
Jim Bell
Inline Comments: From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
And Trump is a bastion of truth :) A lot of the media feel the need to call Trump a "liar" when I don't think the label applies. For one example, about a year ago, Trump claimed that he had seen (on video) crowds of Muslims in New Jersey applauding and celebrating when the Twin Towers were attacked and fell in September 2001. This was called "a lie". But a "lie" is a deliberate falsehood. This statement, made in 2015, was about 14 years after the facts. People generally don't realize how unreliable human memory can be, including their own. (Mostly, I suspect, because there is usually nobody else challenging them on their memories. Few errors are corrected. The vast majority of errors remain uncorrected.) Scientific studies have shown this to be true. Would it really be so surprising if Trump had simply mis-remembered what he saw? And so he didn't lie, he simply made an ERROR. But no, it's called a "LIE", because the news media have to have something to say to counter what Hillary's accused of: Repeated and proveable lying. Further, September 2001 was about four years prior to the foundation of YouTube, which has become the standard storage facility for individual-generated videos, including copies from the media. It is fairly easily searchable. Prior to 2005, while individuals certainly had VCRs, recordings simply sat on videotape on their own shelves, and so others' video was not easily searched for and found. I am not suggesting that Trump was right, but even if he was right, evidence of that would almost by definition be very difficult to find. It might be in the archives of some news station or network somewhere, but that is not searchable by ordinary people. And, given that the MSM has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be 'in the tank' for Hillary Clinton, I strongly doubt that these commercial operations would take the time to search, or if they found something confirming Trump was right, they wouldn't publicize it. That would, if it occurred, me a TREMENDOUS coup for Trump. My own opinion is that Trump was indeed probably wrong, but to me that clearly doesn't make him a "liar". "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I think that the people who CALLED Trump a "liar" are, themselves, "liars". They mischaracterize a very likely ERROR as if it were a "lie". I think the main reason for the great over-use of the label the MSM puts on Trump, "liar", is mostly a schoolyard-fight-type reaction to the fact that THEIR favorite candidate, Hillary, is so thoroughly a liar. "So are you!" is the way it's often put.
His stated policies on torture, Yes, I don't like that. But do you think that will actually be translated into actions later, if Trump is elected? It happened during Bush 43's era, but it has become publicized and neutralized. gitmo, If you don't like our invasion of Iraq (I don't either, and never did: Until early 2013 I hated Bush 43 more than Obama.), you will not find a need to capture and house people, possibly from the battlefield. I think the wisdom of the Afghanistan invasion is somewhat less challengeable, but again, some form of containment will be necessary. Of the type, location, and duration represented by Gitmo? I don't know. What are your objections to Gitmo? Is it that they are holding people, AT ALL? Or for how long they have held them? Or where they are being held? Or under what conditions?
libel law, American libel law has a serious ingrained problem, traceable to an early 60's case called New York Times v. Sullivan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan Sullivan sued, locally, and the NYT could have lost many millions of dollars. You know, southern local jury, etc. Libel suits are brought whereever the libel is published, which means for the NYT it would have been anywhere copies are sold and/or delivered. The Supreme Court could have fixed the problem by ELIMINATING libel law, but it didn't have the courage to do that. Rather, it invented (perhaps adopted, taken from elsewhere) an exception, if the person was a "public figure" (a vague concept that has led to 50+ years of litigation: "What is a Public Figure") that person couldn't sue unless he could show "actual malice", what turned into a term of art: It didn't actually follow the common, or even the then-current legal, definitions of the words "actual" or "malice". It was simply a fictional construct designed to make it harder for suits of this kind to be filed and win. Prominent people who are lied about have been heavily victimized due to NYT v. Sullivan.
use of nukes, etc somehow makes him less dangerous than HC? Go back and find the ACTUAL quote. This one was widely misrepresented by the news media, which was and is in the tank for Hillary. As I recall, a large fraction of these kinds of controversies were based, in large part, on misrepresentations of what Trump said or did.
"They are none of them any good. There is no good choice. I don't think there's ever been a good choice." Yes, but a lot of the criticism of Trump is utter biased, misleading NONSENSE. That still doesn't make him a "desireable" candidate, but Hillary's supporters are desperately grasping at straws to help her. Jim Bell On Oct 21, 2016, at 4:22 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: I'm really floored about how disgustingly low Hillary (and her cronies) will go to criticize Trump. A few months ago, both were invited to see the Mexican president; only Trump went. When Trump returned, he was asked by the MSM (mainstream media) if he had discussed who would pay for the wall. Trump said that he hadn't. For a few days, there was criticism of Trump for FAILING to negotiate this matter. That criticism re-surfaced within the last day or so (October 20), with Hillary claiming Trump had "choked". Well, as radio commentator Paul Harvey would have said, here's the rest of the story. It turns out that there is an American Federal law called the Logan Act which prohibits private citizens from engaging in diplomatic activity with foreign nations. It's been around for 200+ years, and violation is a felony...although there have never been any convictions and only one indictment in that entire time. It does not prohibit a person from merely meeting with a foreign government official, just engaging in diplomacy with him. (What amounts to "diplomacy" has not been tested, due to the virtual lack of prosecutions.) Hillary Clinton is supposed to have at one point been a lawyer. Not a good lawyer, I have to conclude. In fact, she must have been a very bad lawyer. But she has now outdone herself for criticizing Trump...for Trump's FAILURE to commit a Federal felony! You see, she has actually claimed Trump "choked": That Trump DIDN'T negotiate this matter, apparently not to Hillary's satisfaction. So, indeed, Hillary is blasting Trump for FAILING to engage in diplomacy with the Mexican president: For FAILING to commit a felony! And don't try to suggest that maybe, Trump did indeed secretly try to negotiate with the Mexican president, but simply failed to get an agreement. While such a hypothetical scenario might be called a violation of the Logan Act, at the same time it couldn't ALSO be called "choking": To raise the issue during the meeting, but to merely fail to get positive results wouldn't be a "choke", of course. So, by calling Trump's supposed actions (or lack of actions?) "choking", Hillary has essentially admitted that she DIDN'T believe that Trump had attempted to negotiate, and thus had not violated the Logan Act. But others in the media were even more clueless. And it's not that I'm the first person to raise this issue: Do a Google search for 'hillary trump mexico wall Logan', and you can even find some articles within the first few days of Trump's Mexican visit, claiming that Trump DID violate the Logan Act. If Trump had actually said he negotiated, you can be sure that Hillary would have accused him of committing a crime. But no, he didn't, so now she's accusing him of, in effect, NOT COMMITTING a crime. Failure to negotiate as a private citizen with the President of Mexico. Failure to commit a Federal felony. How awful! How cynical can a person be to try to prepare not one, but in fact TWO separate, and opposite traps for her opponent: If Trump tried to negotiate, she would accuse him of a crime. If Trump failed to try to negotiate, she would, and in fact did, accuse him of "choking". Is it possible to engage in a more disgusting and devious fraud in front of the entire world, and not be called out on it? How dishonest can a person get? To be sure, I'm still going to vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, as I always do. But I feel I must challenge anyone who would otherwise vote for Hillary Clinton: Do you feel proud that your chosen candidate is such a massive liar, fraudster, influence-peddler, scam-artist, and deviously corrupt woman? "And those are her GOOD qualities", I hear her supporters fawning. Jim Bell
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 09:04:09PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
gitmo, If you don't like our invasion of Iraq (I don't either, and never did: Until early 2013 I hated Bush 43 more than Obama.), you will not find a need to capture and house people, possibly from the battlefield. I
Inline Comments: From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> think the wisdom of the Afghanistan invasion is somewhat less challengeable, but again, some form of containment will be necessary. Of the type, location, and duration represented by Gitmo? I don't know. What are your objections to Gitmo? Is it that they are holding people, AT ALL? Or for how long they have held them? Or where they are being held? Or under what conditions?
None of the above. It's the total lack of legal due process, which is supposedly one of the pillars of democracy and the "modern justice system". American Military Spying Banking Killing Industrial Complex operates outside the law in many ways (by the "common man's" view at least), and this shall continue to be totally unacceptable to many / most people in the world.
use of nukes, etc somehow makes him less dangerous than HC?
John is quite the propagandist - cherry picking phrases out of context and constructing libellious phrases e.g. "Holocaust denier". This "Trump's use of nukes" meme is just another superficial, slanderous and outright cheap propaganda that John loves to parrot. And so:
Go back and find the ACTUAL quote.
is about the only sane response to a lot of what John / "jnn" says.
This one was widely misrepresented by the news media, which was and is in the tank for Hillary. As I
John also comes across as quite the Hillary shill.
recall, a large fraction of these kinds of controversies were based, in large part, on misrepresentations of what Trump said or did.
John: "They are none of them any good. There is no good choice. I don't think there's ever been a good choice."
Yes, but a lot of the criticism of Trump is utter biased, misleading NONSENSE. That still doesn't make him a "desireable" candidate, but Hillary's supporters are desperately grasping at straws to help her.
Given Hillary Clinton is such an evil gory woman who loves killing men, it says a lot about those who publicly support her, who scrape the barrel for her. And there are hordes of these folk - that's pretty scary. But that's the reality in America today. This is a very violent and immoral reality that exists inside many humans living in America. It's quite sick from some peoples' points of view...
To "Zenann Harkness" - Ive never supported Hillary, as you well know. Calling Trump an ass is NOT the same thing as supporting HC. You on the other hand are an unabashed apologist and 100% supporter and admirer of Putin and his dictatorship. YOU calling anyone a shill for anything is, to use a cliched term, the height of hypocrisy. I'm of the mind that they are all scum. I don't know how much it really matters comparing the relative scum. Pardon me for not bothering to respond properly inline. I'm replying from a phone and it's cumbersome as fuck. John
On Oct 22, 2016, at 6:53 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
gitmo, If you don't like our invasion of Iraq (I don't either, and never did: Until early 2013 I hated Bush 43 more than Obama.), you will not find a need to capture and house people, possibly from the battlefield. I
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 09:04:09PM +0000, jim bell wrote: Inline Comments: From: John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> think the wisdom of the Afghanistan invasion is somewhat less challengeable, but again, some form of containment will be necessary. Of the type, location, and duration represented by Gitmo? I don't know. What are your objections to Gitmo? Is it that they are holding people, AT ALL? Or for how long they have held them? Or where they are being held? Or under what conditions?
None of the above. It's the total lack of legal due process, which is supposedly one of the pillars of democracy and the "modern justice system".
American Military Spying Banking Killing Industrial Complex operates outside the law in many ways (by the "common man's" view at least), and this shall continue to be totally unacceptable to many / most people in the world.
use of nukes, etc somehow makes him less dangerous than HC?
John is quite the propagandist - cherry picking phrases out of context and constructing libellious phrases e.g. "Holocaust denier". This "Trump's use of nukes" meme is just another superficial, slanderous and outright cheap propaganda that John loves to parrot.
And so:
Go back and find the ACTUAL quote.
is about the only sane response to a lot of what John / "jnn" says.
This one was widely misrepresented by the news media, which was and is in the tank for Hillary. As I
John also comes across as quite the Hillary shill.
recall, a large fraction of these kinds of controversies were based, in large part, on misrepresentations of what Trump said or did.
John: "They are none of them any good. There is no good choice. I don't think there's ever been a good choice."
Yes, but a lot of the criticism of Trump is utter biased, misleading NONSENSE. That still doesn't make him a "desireable" candidate, but Hillary's supporters are desperately grasping at straws to help her.
Given Hillary Clinton is such an evil gory woman who loves killing men, it says a lot about those who publicly support her, who scrape the barrel for her.
And there are hordes of these folk - that's pretty scary. But that's the reality in America today. This is a very violent and immoral reality that exists inside many humans living in America. It's quite sick from some peoples' points of view...
In Russia, under Putin, Russians are free In America, Americans are not free - as the fate of Brendan Eich demonstrates. To attain a similar level of freedom in the US, we will need to end elections, for everyone who goes to Harvard is taught, and required to believe, that whites are a cancer upon the earth and white civilization needs to be eradicated. This teaching is, like "liquidation of the kulaks as a class", deliberately ambiguous as to whether whites need to be erased physically or merely culturally, but by the time the teaching filters out of Havard down to their voter banks, it necessarily simplifies to the doctrine that whites need to be erased physically, "cultural erasure" being a little bit too complicated for the more typical Democrat voter, a little bit too complicated for the low part of the high low alliance.
The prog elite erases Shakespeare https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/12/14/students-penn-remove-portrait... http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/02/18/black-students-burn-pa... Appoints a black ape Mrs Helsinki. http://www.misshelsinki.fi/ But by the time this program filters down to their BLM vote bank in Ferguson it gets simplified ....
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:33 PM, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Appoints a black ape Mrs Helsinki. http://www.misshelsinki.fi/
"Black ape"?! Like all the "Homo sapiens sapiens" of this planet, you have a strong connection with simians. Did you already study the human evolution? If you really think that black people are "black apes", you are a "white ape" and, obviously, not one of the most intelligent "apes" of your specie. I do _not_ support any kind of discrimination against races and I do believe it's terribly wrong and immoral to judge someone for their skin's color. I am not supporting any actions against white people, but the black people always suffered serious injustices committed by white people. How do you think they should feel about it? Happy, grateful for being killed, for being considered an "inferior" race and treated as slaves before in History and now as criminals? It's really easy to understand their revolt, their pain. You don't need to be a smart person to understand it. Injustice always hurts. Some people have black skin and it's pretty beautiful. Really ugly is being a heartless person, a human being able to humiliate brothers and sisters of the same specie calling them "apes". You are North American, right? In few days, you will have the kind of President that you deserve. I sincerely wish USA lots of good luck. Most of the people of your country deserve my consideration and respect, but people like you and "Tramp" spread hate, violence, prejudices and all kinds of intolerance in the world. Hope you both and all those who give support to hate speeches feel the consequences of it in your souls.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote: On 01/10/2017 08:41 PM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
In few days, you will have the kind of President that you deserve.
I am still crying, Razer. These racist speeches are f_cking illogical and so, so deeply hurtful. I am heart broken and pretty sad. I swear I am not able of understanding so much hate. The world needs to change a lot.
On 01/10/2017 09:50 PM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
The world needs to change a lot.
The people need to change alot before anything changes 'globally'. Given that people are bombarded by (at least) marketing campaigns for shiny plastic stuff people are dying making in places they never see, and the evil underlying semantic of every speck of that brain-bombardment is "You aren't a good enough human being unless you have [specific and typically unnecessary shiny plastic stuff]", I don't see any real change on the horizon. We've been pitted against each other from ethnic hatred to killing for 'beanie babies'. Rock promoter Bill Graham was quoted as saying "Lets kill all the lawyers. Kill them tonight." But that's because he was selling music and image. I say "Lets kill all the marketers ('OEM sales engineers' too!). Kill them tonight." Then maybe images of fat white men with gold toilets and whore wives won't be so prone to imitation. One can only hope. Rr
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
We've been pitted against each other from ethnic hatred to killing for 'beanie babies'.
I swear I cannot remember it. 'Beanie babies'? Are you sure? We've been pitted against each other because a lot - a looooot! - of things, but I didn't understand this reference. :-/
On 01/11/2017 07:54 AM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net <mailto:g2s@riseup.net>>wrote:
We've been pitted against each other from ethnic hatred to killing for 'beanie babies'.
I swear I cannot remember it. 'Beanie babies'? Are you sure? We've been pitted against each other because a lot - a looooot! - of things, but I didn't understand this reference. :-/
10. Death by Beanie
“In October 1999, Jeffrey White, then 29, shot security guard Harry Simmons, 63, at a lumberyard in Elkins, W.Va, a small town where people used to line up at 4 a.m. outside the Hallmark store when a Beanie Babies shipment was due. Police said that White, who later confessed to the crime, blamed Simmons for getting him fired from his job at the lumberyard. But the two also had a dispute over $150 and several hundred dollars' worth of Beanie Babies that Simmons lent White, purportedly to start a trading business.”
—The Los Angeles Times, August 31, 2004
Read about children getting trampled at shopping malls and the toys ripped from their tender little fingers, and divorce settlements revolving around who got which stuffed toy ... http://mentalfloss.com/article/66006/12-media-accounts-beanie-babies-hysteri... Also see Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping Choir... What Would Jesus Buy? 5 minute intro sequence, link to full movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m_5qoeO4D8 Rr
Appoints a black ape Mrs Helsinki. http://www.misshelsinki.fi/
"Black ape"?! Like all the "Homo sapiens sapiens" of this planet, you have a strong connection with simians.
Some of us closer than others. That all humans are one species is not a fact about biology, but a fact about terminology. Darwin observed that differences between races were easily large enough to categorize them as species differences, rather than race differences, but did not want to wind up drawing an arbitrary line through the Sahara. The difference between spotted owls and barred owls is less than the difference between whites and east asians, but they get a species designation, in part because bird watchers are splitters.
Did you already study the human evolution? If you really think that black people are "black apes", you are a "white ape" and, obviously, not one of the most intelligent "apes" of your specie.
I, and Darwin, have studied human evolution extensively and deeply. Charles Darwin optimistically predicted: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” Thomas Dixon correctly pointed out. “Since the dawn of history the negro has owned the continent of Africa - rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.” People point out the great Zimbabwe as a supposed counter example to Thomas Dixon, but gene testing shows that local legends that the place was built by Hebrew gold miners are true. Similarly the ancient cities of Ethiopia - built by Kings of the line of King Solomon, with the assistance of regular imports of fresh Jewish architects.
Some people have black skin and it's pretty beautiful.
There are some hot Tutsis. Mrs Helsinki, however, is not one of them. If you look at Mrs Helsinki, and look at a hot Tutsi, it is obvious which one is further from the ape, and closer to modern type human. Which is why our government has been sponsoring the genocide of Tutsis in the Congo. Like owls intermediate between the spotted and barred, Tutsis are an embarrassment, and progs need to exterminate embarrassments.
On 01/10/2017 10:58 PM, James A. Donald wrote: [On 01/10/2017 09:41 PM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:] Dude, maybe get a fucking clue about quoting properly?
Appoints a black ape Mrs Helsinki. http://www.misshelsinki.fi/
"Black ape"?! Like all the "Homo sapiens sapiens" of this planet, you have a strong connection with simians.
Some of us closer than others.
Now this is really amusing. So basically, way back in the day, there were two main waves of migration out of Africa. One culminated in the Neanderthals and related groups on other continents. The other culminated in modern non-African humans. Now, it's plain that Neanderthals were closer to other simians than are modern humans. Just because of the timing. But no Neanderthal genes remain in modern African humans. But modern non-African humans, especially northern Europeans, have lots of them. Because Neanderthal fucking was pretty common, I guess. In addition to slaughter, of course. So anyway, some Europeans are arguably more ape-like than Africans ;) <SNIP>
Did you already study the human evolution? If you really think that black people are "black apes", you are a "white ape" and, obviously, not one of the most intelligent "apes" of your specie.
I, and Darwin, have studied human evolution extensively and deeply.
Charles Darwin optimistically predicted:
Darwin obviously didn't know much about human evolution. Nobody did, at the time, of course. <SNIP>
-- John On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:58 AM, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Appoints a black ape Mrs Helsinki. http://www.misshelsinki.fi/
"Black ape"?! Like all the "Homo sapiens sapiens" of this planet, you have a strong connection with simians.
Some of us closer than others.
That all humans are one species is not a fact about biology, but a fact about terminology. Darwin observed that differences between races were easily large enough to categorize them as species differences, rather than race differences, but did not want to wind up drawing an arbitrary line through the Sahara.
The difference between spotted owls and barred owls is less than the difference between whites and east asians, but they get a species designation, in part because bird watchers are splitters.
Did you already study the human evolution? If you really think that black people are "black apes", you are a "white ape" and, obviously, not one of the most intelligent "apes" of your specie.
I, and Darwin, have studied human evolution extensively and deeply. Charles Darwin optimistically predicted: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
Thomas Dixon correctly pointed out. “Since the dawn of history the negro has owned the continent of Africa - rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.”
People point out the great Zimbabwe as a supposed counter example to Thomas Dixon, but gene testing shows that local legends that the place was built by Hebrew gold miners are true. Similarly the ancient cities of Ethiopia - built by Kings of the line of King Solomon, with the assistance of regular imports of fresh Jewish architects.
King Solomon is a myth. Get your fucking racist fairy tales straight.
Some people have black skin and it's pretty beautiful.
There are some hot Tutsis. Mrs Helsinki, however, is not one of them.
If you look at Mrs Helsinki, and look at a hot Tutsi, it is obvious which one is further from the ape, and closer to modern type human. Which is why our government has been sponsoring the genocide of Tutsis in the Congo. Like owls intermediate between the spotted and barred, Tutsis are an embarrassment, and progs need to exterminate embarrassments.
I think Zen has found a new friend, someone almost as disgusting as him!
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:40 AM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
I think Zen has found a new friend, someone almost as disgusting as him!
Zzz is still blocked and I don't receive his messages anymore, but I read his message about “Super-Holocaust of Whites " today because of Jan's message and I - literally! - puked my breakfast. Zzz is really repulsive, a disgusting person, a complete waste of space, oxygen, food, water, everything. And he is always mentioning "politicians" to give support to his stupid racist theories. Corrupt politicians and dictators are NOT sources of knowledge or good references of anything, aff... :(( About King Solomon's mention, it's bizarre the way how some people uses the Bible and biblical references to justify their most stupid prejudices. Oh, talking about biblical references, here is a pretty OT-OT-OT song just to make you and Juan laugh, hahaha!! Remember: - I am a bit Catholic... but I am also a bit Buddhist, a bit Shinto, a bit Jew, a bit Hindu, a bit Muslim, a bit Spiritualist, a bit Umbandist, a bit Wicca, and a bit Atheist, obviously! :D *"Every Sperm is Sacred" - Monty Python's The Meaning of Life* https://youtu.be/fUspLVStPbk There are Jews in the world. There are Buddhists. There are Hindus and Mormons, and then There are those that follow Mohammed, but I've never been one of them. I'm a Roman Catholic, And have been since before I was born, And the one thing they say about Catholics is: They'll take you as soon as you're warm. You don't have to be a six-footer. You don't have to have a great brain. You don't have to have any clothes on. You're A Catholic the moment Dad came, Because Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. Let the heathen spill theirs On the dusty ground. God shall make them pay for Each sperm that can't be found. Every sperm is wanted. Every sperm is good. Every sperm is needed In your neighborhood. Hindu, Taoist, Mormon, Spill theirs just anywhere, But God loves those who treat their Semen with more care. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted,... CHILDREN: ...God get quite irate. Every sperm is sacred. BRIDE and GROOM: Every sperm is good. Every sperm is needed... CARDINALS: ...In your neighbourhood! Every sperm is useful. Every sperm is fine. God needs everybody's. Mine! And mine! And mine! Let the Pagan spill theirs O'er mountain, hill, and plain. HOLY STATUES: God shall strike them down for Each sperm that's spilt in vain. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is good. Every sperm is needed In your neighborhood. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite iraaaaaate!
On 01/11/2017 08:08 AM, Razer wrote:
On 01/10/2017 09:58 PM, [some random racist] wrote:
I, and Darwin, have studied human evolution extensively and deeply.
Charles Darwin would spit o you for cherry-picking what he wrote.
Yes, there's that. But also, he was also probably a racist. Given the cultural context, I mean. And in any case, he truly did know next to nothing about human evolution. Nobody did, then. So he was just bullshitting. Maybe trying to ingratiate himself to the religiously racist establishment. Anyway, quoting him selectively about human evolution makes about as much sense as quoting him about plate tectonics. He was a geologist, after all. Or quoting Ludwig Boltzmann about design of gas turbines.
On 01/11/2017 07:52 PM, Mirimir wrote:
On 01/11/2017 08:08 AM, Razer wrote:
On 01/10/2017 09:58 PM, [some random racist] wrote:
I, and Darwin, have studied human evolution extensively and deeply. Charles Darwin would spit o you for cherry-picking what he wrote.
Yes, there's that.
But also, he was also probably a racist. Given the cultural context, I mean. And in any case, he truly did know next to nothing about human evolution. Nobody did, then. So he was just bullshitting. Maybe trying to ingratiate himself to the religiously racist establishment.
Anyway, quoting him selectively about human evolution makes about as much sense as quoting him about plate tectonics. He was a geologist, after all. Or quoting Ludwig Boltzmann about design of gas turbines.
Darwin is so taken out of context and disabused. For instance he DID define who 'the fittest' were. Not the strongest or most ruthless. Those who cooperate the best. admittedly that's a psychopathic strong-point. Even if they don't have the same goals they're masters of the 'temporary alliance' (the "B" of the ABCs of psychopathy, no "Bonds"). He also used the word "Love" a lot. Something that psychopaths don't do so well. Rr Ps. I think this is whatsisname who was posting long diatribes a while back Can't place the handle.
Some people have black skin and it's pretty beautiful.
On 1/11/2017 3:58 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
There are some hot Tutsis. Mrs Helsinki, however, is not one of them.
Also hot Ethiopians. But the hot Ethiopians are not exactly negroes, or at least they do not think they are negroes. They think they are dark skinned semites, and have some ancient history to justify this story.
Darwin discussing whether to classify humans as one species or several: We will first consider the arguments which may be advanced in favour of classing the races of man as distinct species, and then and then the arguments on the other side. … The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spoken of in a trustworthy work as a well-known phenomenon; and this, although a different consideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced as a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races. … Now if we reflect on the weighty arguments above given, for raising the races of man to the dignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side in defining them, it seems that the term “sub-species”might here be used with propriety. But from long habit the term “race” will perhaps always be employed. … Through the means just specified, aided perhaps by others as yet undiscovered, man has been raised to his present state. Butsince he attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true species Our naturalist would then perhaps turn to geographical distribution, and he would probably declare that those forms must be distinct species, which differ not only in appearance, but are fitted for hot, as well as damp or dry countries, and for the Arctic regions. He might appeal to the fact that no species in the group next to man–namely, the Quadrumana, can resist low temperature, or any considerable change of climate; and that the species which come nearest to man have never been reared to maturity, even under the temperate climate of Europe. He would be deeply impressed with the fact, first noticed by Agassiz (7. ‘Diversity of Origin of the Human Races,’ in the ‘Christian Examiner,’ July 1850.), that the different races of man are distributed over the world in the same zoological provinces, as those inhabited by undoubtedly distinct species and genera of mammals. This is manifestly the case with the Australian, Mongolian, and Negro races of man; in a less well-marked manner with the Hottentots; but plainly with the Papuans and Malays, who are separated, as Mr. Wallace has shewn, by nearly the same line which divides the great Malayan and Australian zoological provinces. The Aborigines of America range throughout the Continent; and this at first appears opposed to the above rule, for most ofthe productions of the Southern and Northern halves differ widely: yet some few living forms,as the opossum, range from the one into the other, as did formerly some of the gigantic Edentata. The Esquimaux, like other Arctic animals, extend round the whole polar regions. It should be observed that the amount of difference between the mammals of the several zoological provinces does not correspond with the degree of separation between the latter; so that it can hardly be considered as an anomaly that the Negro differs more, and the American much less from the other races of man, than do the mammals of the African and American continents from the mammals of the other provinces. Man, it may be added, does not appear to have aboriginally inhabited any oceanic island; and in this respect, he resembles the other members of his class. In determining whether the supposed varieties of the same kind of domestic animal should be ranked as such, or as specifically distinct, that is,whether any of them are descended from distinct wild species, every naturalist would lay much stress on the fact of their external parasites being specifically distinct. All the more stress would be laid on this fact, as it would be an exceptional one; for I am informed by Mr. Denny that the most different kinds of dogs, fowls, and pigeons, in England, are infested by the same species of Pediculi or lice. Now Mr. A. Murray has carefully examined the Pediculi collected indifferent countries from the different races of man (8. ‘Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,’ vol. xxii, 1861, p. 567.); and he finds that they differ, not only in colour, but in the structure of their claws and limbs. In every case in which many specimens were obtained the differences were constant. The surgeon of a whaling ship in the Pacific assured me that when the Pediculi, with which some Sandwich Islanders on board swarmed, strayed on to the bodies of the English sailors, they died in the course of three or four days. These Pediculi were darker coloured, and appeared different from those proper to the natives of Chiloe in South America,of which he gave me specimens. These, again, appeared larger and much softer than European lice. Mr. Murray procured four kinds from Africa, namely, from the Negroes of the Eastern and Western coasts, from the Hottentots and Kaffirs; two kinds from the natives of Australia; two from North and two from South America. In these latter cases it may be presumed that the Pediculi came from natives inhabiting different districts. With insects slight structural differences, if constant, are generally esteemed of specific value: and the fact of the races of man being infested by parasites, which appear to be specifically distinct, might fairly be urged as an argument that the races themselves ought to be classed as distinct species.
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 02:41:12 -0200 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:33 PM, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Appoints a black ape Mrs Helsinki. http://www.misshelsinki.fi/
"Black ape"?! Like all the "Homo sapiens sapiens" of this planet, you have a strong connection with simians.
No, no, no. White christians descend from white christians. You can go back all you like and until reaching the origin of the world, 6000 years ago, and all you'll find is white christians.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/22/2016 05:04 PM, jim bell wrote:
Inline Comments: *From:* John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
And Trump is a bastion of truth :)
A lot of the media feel the need to call Trump a "liar" when I don't think the label applies. For one example, about a year ago, Trump claimed that he had seen (on video) crowds of Muslims in New Jersey applauding and celebrating when the Twin Towers were attacked and fell in September 2001. This was called "a lie". But a "lie" is a deliberate falsehood. This statement, made in 2015, was about 14 years after the facts. People generally don't realize how unreliable human memory can be, including their own. (Mostly, I suspect, because there is usually nobody else challenging them on their memories. Few errors are corrected. The vast majority of errors remain uncorrected.)
I do remember the most likely basis for Trump's statement: FOX or some other overtly Fascist outlet broadcast a video of Palestinians dancing and celebrating, "because 911 attack." What really happened was that a camera crew at some rally on an unrelated topic started throwing candy to the kids and incited a "happy riot," and the resulting video was picked up for propaganda purposes. So Trump probably misremembered that as footage from New Jersey. Not that I think this matters in the least, or detracts from the fact that Donny mouthed off that inflammatory bullshit for the same reason he always does: To provoke a hate/fear reaction in both his supporters and detractors. That's what he does: Proves his importance by pissing people off. :o/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYC/K/AAoJEECU6c5Xzmuqr5MH/RfUfI1zt5YQFlZ0GqTRFmaA y4HdYm6ke1kTfrKzNpfeTifsuxN8tuTru5Xof6zQjtuLOPhw0iMN1NKOfc1A706A f9aQgLz+ZeyuMPsMCNiLCFmd+NbSJuVvVssa2XCX/tBd3B6hmn59JRCODPNFITFj 5R3d7/+wbvPL2DmBCDJLar5DcC9kH7hPt/Eiba5CFRTGrAmxdk/tY7xuDMFX0PwW 5osxRsTvGSqetolKA4tkZwYqNmBu3t6yUyukJ/RyIwbmUfW1MidB0w5+Ocwtcv7j 73auwK/oesC4TkYgPWO5DB0vqN1+VGscsaDTy1mOEQKTRQSh6a1DRcPrYkgDSx0= =428B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 10/22/2016 04:14 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
On 10/22/2016 05:04 PM, jim bell wrote:
Inline Comments: *From:* John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
And Trump is a bastion of truth :)
A lot of the media feel the need to call Trump a "liar" when I don't think the label applies. For one example, about a year ago, Trump claimed that he had seen (on video) crowds of Muslims in New Jersey applauding and celebrating when the Twin Towers were attacked and fell in September 2001. This was called "a lie". But a "lie" is a deliberate falsehood. This statement, made in 2015, was about 14 years after the facts. People generally don't realize how unreliable human memory can be, including their own. (Mostly, I suspect, because there is usually nobody else challenging them on their memories. Few errors are corrected. The vast majority of errors remain uncorrected.)
I do remember the most likely basis for Trump's statement: FOX or some other overtly Fascist outlet broadcast a video of Palestinians dancing and celebrating, "because 911 attack." What really happened was that a camera crew at some rally on an unrelated topic started throwing candy to the kids and incited a "happy riot," and the resulting video was picked up for propaganda purposes.
This is how I understand it as well. Along similar lines, but different, the pull-down of the statue of Saddam in Firdoz Square Iraq was made possible by Rendon Group PR a few US military vehicles, and the 'crowd' was an almost empty square when the camera panned back. Rr
So Trump probably misremembered that as footage from New Jersey. Not that I think this matters in the least, or detracts from the fact that Donny mouthed off that inflammatory bullshit for the same reason he always does: To provoke a hate/fear reaction in both his supporters and detractors. That's what he does: Proves his importance by pissing people off.
:o/
On 10/22/2016 09:34 PM, Razer wrote:
On 10/22/2016 04:14 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
On 10/22/2016 05:04 PM, jim bell wrote:
Inline Comments: *From:* John Newman <jnn@synfin.org>
And Trump is a bastion of truth :)
A lot of the media feel the need to call Trump a "liar" when I don't think the label applies. For one example, about a year ago, Trump claimed that he had seen (on video) crowds of Muslims in New Jersey applauding and celebrating when the Twin Towers were attacked and fell in September 2001. This was called "a lie". But a "lie" is a deliberate falsehood. This statement, made in 2015, was about 14 years after the facts. People generally don't realize how unreliable human memory can be, including their own. (Mostly, I suspect, because there is usually nobody else challenging them on their memories. Few errors are corrected. The vast majority of errors remain uncorrected.)
I do remember the most likely basis for Trump's statement: FOX or some other overtly Fascist outlet broadcast a video of Palestinians dancing and celebrating, "because 911 attack." What really happened was that a camera crew at some rally on an unrelated topic started throwing candy to the kids and incited a "happy riot," and the resulting video was picked up for propaganda purposes.
This is how I understand it as well.
Along similar lines, but different, the pull-down of the statue of Saddam in Firdoz Square Iraq was made possible by Rendon Group PR a few US military vehicles, and the 'crowd' was an almost empty square when the camera panned back. Rr
Yeah, a narrow wedge of "crowd" covering exactly the camera's field of view. There's a picture from a high angle opposite the "official" camera's position that shows the empty square. I seem to recall that a lot of the same faces were also spotted in other publicity photos showing the happy Iraqis greeting their Amerikan liberators. Damn that Internet. If people ever start paying attention, it will be hard for a propagandist to earn an honest living. Fortunately, there's no risk of THAT happening. :o)
participants (10)
-
Cecilia Tanaka -
James A. Donald -
jim bell -
John Newman -
juan -
Mirimir -
Razer -
Razer -
Steve Kinney -
Zenaan Harkness