User talk:RobSmith

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

[edit] A little reading material that we can discuss when you return

Fucking third world. Acei9 01:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

the idea that the United States is the envy of the world when it comes to free markets and business? Wrong .
Yep. see what the goddam commies did when they took over the government, schools, and teacher unions? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 05:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
NZ is much further to the left than the US yet better in nearly every metric. Acei9 05:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well sure. NZ hasn't had the burden of global security on its shoulders. So what else is there to do other than drink and watch the daisies grow? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 05:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Pardon my snarkiness. We should turn this into something productive. It seems that nutbag Ron Paul's proposal was prophetic: a German court has ordered an accounting of its gold held in the United States. Looking at that chart, I decided to peek at NZ's. Now, if we can understand what's going on here, maybe it will help when the time comes (soon) to write re-Ron Paul's article. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 05:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah - nothing to do with the conversation at hand. So your so called 'third world NZ' is better than the US by nearly every metric you can name and has a more progressive government which is further to left than your democrats. Check mate, Smith. Acei9 05:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Nothing to do with the conversation at hand? New Zealand's Central bank gold reserves are bone dry and your trying to convince somebody NZ has a stable economy and a high standard of living. Let me tell you what an empty vault means in this era of extended global recession: (1) NZ doesn't have a fucking dime to its name to show for its many generations of hard work; (2) NZ doesn't have the collateral to put up to borrow foreign money for private sectgor investment or government operating deficits; (3) NZ is not the place the rest of the world considers safe, secure, or a good place to invest (create jobs) in or just hoard cash. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend
For all your gold we beat the shit out the US in business freedom, education, health etc etc etc. Ho ho ho. Acei9 06:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Business freedom? there's a limit to how much goat cheese Japan want's to buy. The rest is wp:parochial intrests or just plain inbreeding. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 06:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry the USA is such a backward place. Acei9 06:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes. We are progressively moving backwards. Hg nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 12:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
No your not - Barack Obama is further to the right than any NZ party. We have been over this Rob, don't be daft. Acei9 18:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not. I'm asking if you wish to put forward a rational explanation why NZ'z Central bank gold reserves are depleted so when the Ron Paul article get's updated (per this and this we can work together. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend
So in light of NZ being a significantly better place to live and work than the US all you have got is "Yeah - but we have more gold". Gold is not relevant to this discussion, Smith. Acei9 19:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
NO. We don't have more gold. All the gold mined in existence since ancient Eygpt only amounts to 7 months total annual output of the United States, And as everyone knows, the US. Govt. is in debt to 12 months total annual output (let 'splain in simple terms you can understand: the U.S govt owes alomst twice as much money as the total value of all gold ever mined in existence). Now NZ's debt, output, and reserves are just a pitance of all gold ever mined, but the governing principles are the same. Comparinng living stanrds or politcal ideologies IMO are extraneous. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 00:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
you were the one trying to argue NZ was third world, knob-end. Now that nz has been shown to be fully superior to the USA you decide that discussions on living standards are extraneous? You fool. Acei9 00:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
What happened to NZ's gold? how long do thing NZ can keep up the veneer of a 21st century civilized country if they collaterized the gold to purchase the veneer of a modern nation with and can't repay the debt? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 00:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
longer than the USA that's for sure. For all that gold you guys are fucked. Acei9 01:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Amen to that. cp:Backdoor entitlements bankrupted us. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Conservapedia is not a valid source. Acei9 03:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Can I assume that you voted for Ms. Brown?

Or at least her party? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, is there no end to these fuckheads? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 19:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Just heard something about that on the radio. My guess is she's trying to tighten the rape and incest loophole before any states regulations on abortion get pessed, putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. I've been more interested in following this on going scandal regarding conflict of interest and double dipping by the Democratic Majority Leader (I don't think this article says she's the party leader). nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 00:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
An "ongoing scandal" POSTED AT 3:00 PM ON DECEMBER 17, 2011? (all caps in original). Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Yup. The bitch legislature's Democratic Leader is still double dipping out of government couifers while she takes a paid leave of absence from the public schools to serve in the legislature, and vote herself a pay raise in both positions. What? did you expect our elected legislators to reform this abuse? or an ethics probe by a subcommittee she appointed to investigate? And we haven't even discussed the union aspects of this crap, either. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice anti-woman blast there, Robbie. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
You read the link. The corrupt Democrtic Majority Leader is a racist scum. And she's African-American, too. What an example to our children. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't read the link. I stopped when I saw you were trying to pass off a story more than a year old as "news." None of that excuses using a gendered insult, though. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Is that all you can bitch about now? Typically off topic. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Off topic? I started a thread about a piece of anti-abortion legislation that happened today, and you replied with something about God-knows-what from more than a year ago that is completely unrelated except that it also took place in New Mexico. You are dense, Robbie. Dense. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
You posted a link about an obscure state rep from some backwater who's legislative proposals are going nowhere in a Democratically controlled legislature, and asking me if I voted for anyone of the same party; I responded with a link about unethical behavior and corruption of the person Democratic state legislators elected as their leader. You're as dense as molasses, or used reconstituted motor oil, at least. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 02:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Is that really how your "brain" "works"? Let me ask you something -- how old are you? I'm beginning to suspect that you may have taken too much of the brown acid back in the day, and it messed with your cognitive skills. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 02:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll bite. You're link and discussion presumably was related to (a) some nutbag's ill-considered legistaltive proposal; and (b) the fact that she evidently was elected on the GOP ticket. And this, in your mind, means that anyone who votes Republican likewise thinks that more women would be crying rape if abortions are banned. Hence logically, voting for a racist corrupt Democratic (or at least a Democratric legislator who will elect a racist corrupt leader as spokesman for the party) is the rational thing to do. Is that it? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 02:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────. Wow. Did you actually put the words "women crying rape" into print and then hit "save page???" That bit of horrific misogyny aside, how the hell could I have been thinking about how it would be better to vote for " a racist corrupt Democratic... legislator" when I'd not ever heard of that story, and still don't really know what the hell you're talking about? So no, that's not it. Here is what "it" is, in small words. 1. An elected official in New Mexico came up with a horrible bit of anti-woman legislation. 2. She is a Republican. 3. You live in New Mexico. 4. It would not surprise me if you voted Republican. 5. Therefore, I was curious if you supported this bit of legislation. 6. You still have not commented on the legislation which is the subject of this thread. 7. You've gone off on an unrelated tangent. 8. And managed to imply that you think women who are the victims of serious crime are "crying rape." 9. and that women who are accused of doing bad things are "bitches." 10. I do not find nos. 8 or 9 to surprising. 11. Let me repeat, I had, and still have, no knowledge of the scandal that you would rather discuss so 12. any comparison between the two cases is your comparison, not an attempt on my part to argue about which electoral choice is more "rational." Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 03:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

So that is what wp:To Kill A Mockingbird is about -- misogyny. Thanks for clearly articulating that about one the greatest American books and films of all time. Now specifically to Point 5: I was curious if you supported this bit of legislation. Fat chance, consdidering the corrupt Democratic Majority Leader is too busy lining her own pockets from the public treasury while engaging in racist attacks against the Chief Executive, she will never allow it to come to the floor for debate and a vote. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 04:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Rob, you better pray the return on involuntary institution backed by some Conservative groups doesn't pass or you're gonna find yourself wearing one of those cool jackets with sleeves that tie in the back within a week. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 22:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Rob, you still haven't answered the question of whether you supported the legislation or not. Why haven't you answered that question? Don't worry about all the other angst that you and other people are so keen to bring up, just answer the damn question. Please. DamoHi 01:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The bill's been withdrawn, as I understand. Why would I or should I comment on a bill that's been withdrawn? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't follow. What impediment would that make to your answering the question of whether you support the proposed change to the law that the bill would make? DamoHi 01:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC):
Do not be a complete jackass. There are no proposed changes to the law. The bill has been withdrawn. The bill had nine sponsors -- all women. The bill's author claimed a transcriptional error in drafting and it's being rewrittten. So what the fuck kind of hate and nonsense are you spewing now since there is nothing to consider or comment on? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 17:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
It is a perfectly sensible question. Do you support the principle that a women who has been raped cannot have an abortion because this would amount to tampering with the evidence? Yes/No. --DamoHi 23:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, the bills author who withdrew it does not support that position. So it's a moot point. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 23:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Rob I am not asking about the bill's prospects. I am asking about whether you support the principle that was in the bill. Your refusal to answer such a simple question is intriguing. I can't work it out. DamoHi 23:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
What is the intent of the law? Obviously what you've latched onto no one supports, not even the woman author and its nine women cosponsors. According to her hometown newspaper, she's rewritting what the intent of her proposed legislation is. But you, ignoraing the facts, have latched onto some gigantic, "Brown should resign!" movement. The questions here have been about Ms. Brown & party affiliation. IMO, you are just a sexist pig who cannot tolerate intelligent, strong women like Ms. Brown and the nine women cosponsors in positions of power, and will stoop to any means and innuendo to destroy her. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 23:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I never ever said that anyone should resign. Nor do I think that someone who proposes legislation that I disagree with should resign. I was just asking a simple question. I have no clue why you are calling me a sexist pig, none whatsoever. I was only barely aware that the bills author/principle sponsor was a women - that was not my concern. I don't know why you are being so hostile to me. I think I have been perfectly polite and reasonable in this conversation. Back on point. Can I infer from your answer that you are not against abortion in the result of pregnancy from rape? DamoHi 23:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
You are referring to legal or sanctioned abortion. So, can apprehension and conviction of an accused rapist be accomplished in the first trimester? If not, suppose a fetus is brougfht to term anmd DNA matches occur between child and father but the mother has since changed her mind on the allegation of rape? You are not asking, I presume, whether abortion should be legal in the case of rape, you as asking if abortion shouild be legal based upon a woman's allegation of rape, isn't that correct? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
To be honest I was just trying to start up a conversation. I wasn't sure where it would end up. Conversations with you are more about scoring points than having a free exchange of ideas aren't they? I am not inclined to doubt many people who claim they have been raped. Obviously many allegations of rape cannot be proven to a courts satisfaction, but that does not mean that a rape did not take place. A rape is a rape even if it is unproven. Is it your position that abortion should be permitted in cases of legitimate rape, but not otherwise? DamoHi 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No No No, a rape is not a rape if you're on the recieving end of the charge and you are innocent. Not in the legal sense of the definition of rape. Ands that is what we are discussing -- legal abortion. You seem to be more in the position of scoring points to sell a product to younger voters with buzz words and phrases, such as "in cases of rape". The facts are, abortion is legal in cases of rape. You're language attempts to change the legal definiton of rape based soley one person's testimony without granting the accused a trial. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well abortion is legal in most cases, not just those based around rape, thank god. As someone who works as a criminal defence lawyer I am perfectly aware of the point you are making about something not being a crime unless it is proven. However, as I'm sure you would agree if you thought about it, a person can be raped and yet no person is convicted of that rape. In much the same way that a person can be murdered, but no murderer is ever convicted. The fact of whether someone is raped or not is a fact that is not dependent on what a court finds. I understand that you are against abortion, for whatever reason. I was just wondering if you were against it in all cases, such as when the intercourse was non-consensual. Am I right in thinking that you wouldn't be, but only if the case had gone to trial and a conviction enabled? If so, that is an arguable position, and I don't know why it has taken you so long to say it. You could have said this 5 or 6 replies ago. DamoHi 02:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
ok so we're clearing the air. I'm speaking about, for want of a better term, "the rape loophole". All a woman/girl needs to do in some jurisdictions is show up at a clinic, claim her beloved husband/boyfriend, whom she is still carrying on a romantic relationship, "raped" her, and voila, the doctor & clinic get to bill the state or private insuror for services. Would you agree (a) this is an area for state regulation; and (b) this is an area of potential abuse? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 02:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but there are plenty of legal burdens other than 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Balance of probabilities might work (ie is the person more likely than not to have been raped) or perhaps even a lower threshold such as having to establish an evidentiary burden, beyond which the onus would shift to someone who wished to deny it. In any case, the issue of who should pay for the abortions is not really what I was concerned about. DamoHi 02:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
So what our non-Americans readers of this discussion may not realize is, when common buzz words like "cases of rape" or "abortion on demand" are bandied about in national media, there 50 different definitions and regulations from 50 different states that apply to those terms . In some states "abortion only in cases of rape" is the same as "aborton on demand", despite what's been argued in candidate debates for the past 40 years. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 03:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Sheryl

A close friend of the families and someone I have worked hard for in every election. The "carrying water" remark not the smartest move but she is certainly not "double dipping" or violating any rules or laws in regards to her APS pay. It is a straight up witch hunt from channel 13, made obvious by a full blown Larry Barker special about a parking space at the performance art center. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a peculiar question; cause it would be the state legislature that would have to address the question of reform, and she is the Majority Leader that would muster the votes, make committee appointments to propose reform, etc. How would there not be conflict of interest in voting for teacher payraises, as I beleive she also holds some important union post there, too (I may be mistaken). At a miniumum, it should be recognzed there are legitimate ethical concerns, which only a House Committee, that she has undo influence with, could look into. The Courts and Executive Branch don't have any say here. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 03:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Except she was not the majority leader nor a teacher. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Majority Whip and on the Rules Committee, which if NM is like the feds, oversees ethics probes of members. And of course the whip whips up any votes for action. The Rules Committee was spared any further embarassment when APS itself voted to stop paying employees eelected to the legislature. And it still seems she violated APS's employess rules handbook. None of this looks very good for a person in a party leadership position, particulalry her attitude, that she doesn't really care. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 05:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The fact that they had to vote to change the rules should inform even the most dense that it wasn't the rule before. The handbook policies specifically exempted certain classes of employees administrators being one. NM is a citizens legislature there is very little "pay" involved and APS allowing paid time off for legislative service was an attempt to allow teachers and educators to actually be able to serve and have a role in shaping education bills and funding. Something Martinez and her ilk would certainly like to see gutted. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is a citizen legislature. But I was under the impression was also a union rep of sorts. Whether she is representing other teachers to her employer (the state legislature) or not, there is a conflict of interest there in voting payraises and funding. As a legislator, yes she can vote herself a payraise. But voting on scholl funding puts her in a COA with taxpayers who pay the bills. And it just doesn't look good for the party to re-elect her to a leadership role where it seems her narrow objective is to milk the taxpayers and public purse of every dime, at every opportunity. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 14:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
So what your saying is that anytime a piece of legislation might effect someones "day job" they should recuse themselves? Tort reform? No lawyers allowed! Medical care? No doctors allowed! Certainly a minority position your thumping there. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
This isn't just something that affects the industry she's employed in, it affects funding directly earmarked for her employer. APS, which is the recipient of legislative appropriations, had someone on its payroll in a leadership position to whip the votes into line, Campaign financing, donations, and lobbying are controversial enough, but a paid leave of absense--paid to her personally, not a campaign committee, looks atrocious. A doctor or lawyer serving in the legislature who continues to draw a salary from their practice serving clients that are direct recipients of government funds would be in a similiar position. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 19:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a party line issue thumped from Martinez who wants to gut public education. Denying educators the right to serve in state legislatures because they are educators is what "looks atrocious" to me. That is a party line issue though I guess, the main point of this thread, which you seem to have conceded was that there was not policy or rules violations. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's the facts: "APS employee handbook ruled such leave should be unpaid." Stapleton took $167,000 anyway. When it became public, the school superintendant changed the rule to allow her to keep the cash. Under this cloak, the school board later changed the rule again and she stopped taking cash. None of these facts answer the question (1) where was a state House ethics probe in all of this, and (2) what was her role in supressing House action on ethics reform. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 20:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course in the end her district voted to return her by a very healthy margin, both in the primaries with a hand picked Martinez funded challenger, and in the general (though Yntema and Landry were not exactly cream of the crop, but there is a fascinating story behind Landry deciding to run, actually screwed up her petitions too didn't have signatures from the right precinct). Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Nice to meet you

I guess we're an endangered minority on this site. I'm afraid I probably won't last too long, it seems certain users can't stand the idea that others disagree with them. ProudTory (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As I've told you more then once, you're being extremely confrontational on a site where you're the ideological minority. Of course people are having a negative reaction to you!--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
We're here! We're Queer! We're here! We're Queer! We will not hide in the shadows! etc. ProudTory (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Why are you implying that I'm homosexual? It is groundless (infact there's evidence against that in my userpage), and isn't a very good or original insult.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... I was rather messily trying to compare our position as minorities (see above) with that of the gay rights movement. Its a funny juxtaposition since conservatives supposedly want to exterminate gay people, so you know... ProudTory (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
So, you're being an idiot? Got it.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Get a sense of humour. Or are you uncomfortable with your sexuality or something?ProudTory (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice to meet you. Tory (btw, Tory in American English used to mean "traitor", as Benedict Arnold was a Tory; now in American English "socialist" means traitor. So whether England is ruled by tories or socialists, they all have a burden to bare in American eyes). You'll get along fine if you stick to issues. Don't take the bait. Resign yourself to being a racist hatemonger, and if you complain that's unfair, it's just more evidence how ignorant and brainwashed you are. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 22:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, the original meaning of Tory was a Irish rural bandit but later came to refer to monarchists in the House of Commons. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 17:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I still have a chip on my shoulder about you lot breaking away (ungrateful SOBs :-) ProudTory (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The Dream of Cecil Rhodes was "the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire". Sounds like Rhodes Scholar-One World-Illuminati stuff. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, Rob, how do you feel about gay marriage?

I'm curious if your fascination with Kara Duhe had any knock-on political effects. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 19:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Silly ToP - that Kara Duhe incident was just a big joke Rob was playing on us. You should feel silly for falling for it. Acei9 20:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
In a word, gay marriage is an oxymoron, but I could be wrong. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 17:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Silly!!!!

Going to a dead wiki to create a page attacking Trent is low. Even for you. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Dead? I thought it was the future. Attack? it should be flattering, being compared to a ledgendary figure. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 17:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Other than you and spambots, that place has been dead since December. I'm placing a bet that Tisane did, as he was threatening, violate probation and is back in jail, to be honest. He vanished from the web completely on December 3rd. He's not even active on MisesWiki anymore. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This is news; both Ratwikiwiki and Ratewikiwikiwiki are dead? What's next? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 08:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Why Conservapedia, of course! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Your thoughts requested

...Am I correct here, more or less? Polar Bear In the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 02:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes yes, Andy is the advocate for the underdog. But it's a catch-22, the argument goes the underdog's views really are mainstream. And once the underdog's views are recognized as mainstream, then the backbiting and backstabbing ensues. Some mainstream underdog's views aren't underdog or mainstream enough, like neocons & RINOs. He knows his views, like the America First isolationism he inherited from his mother, lost influence in the Republican party with election of Eisenhower. His view of what a "conservative Republican" is. is not the mainstream GOP. So he feels he's giving voice to what a "traditional conservative" is, not only in the GOP, but to independents, opponents, non-partisans, and the whole planet as well. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 02:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
And the (non-political) part, "He wants the ideas that rationalists accept as dogmatic (in his eyes) like an old earth or evolution to be subject to the same kind of scrutiny that a young earth or creationism are subject to in the academy/on places like Wikipedia, etc. ... he sees that as championing a kind of intellectual freedom in which all ideas are equal. " is very well paraphrased, and really common in redstate America. Even Limbaugh says basically the samething (whom Andy now consigns to being a "RINO backer"). nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 02:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Ha

Ha — Unsigned, by: GhostofTK / talk / contribs

[edit] Putinophilia

You know, the only other people I've seen exhibiting such behavior were rabidly left-wing, knee-jerk USA-haters. Horseshoe theory in action?--ZooGuard (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely. The lack of leadership from America creates a global vacuum, so Putin steps up to fill the void. nobsJesus loves you and I love you, but nobody else does. 19:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Waaay hey

Rob's back. How's it all going? Acei9 20:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Life sucks. It's like being in hell, you should know that. That's where your gonna spend eternity, isn't it? nobsJesus loves you and I love you, but nobody else does. 20:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey what's up Rob. Long time no see. Holler. Nutty Rouxnever mind 04:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hell? I'll see you there, Rob my boy. The lord looks dimly on those with lust in their hearts. Acei9 05:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Just an opinion. Maybe if you had some personal responsibility to improve your life instead of blaming everyone else for your mistakes it would be less like a living hell. I doubt the lord would make every waking moment in life so painful if you were doing what the lord actually approved of.

I have. I've converted to Islam and carrying on jihad against the godless commies and and those who bring a disreputable name upon Islam. All Praise be to Allah! nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 22:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be as adept at driving all the commies out as you were being a sysop at Conservapedia. That kind of failure would certainly make most people feel like their lives are a living hell.
Communism is sorta like Ebola: you're never gonna eradicate it and closer you get to treating it risks deadly infection. So yes, it is a living hell. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 01:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Powerhouse

Quite right Rob. You were such a respected intellectual powerhouse at Conservapedia that your banning caused your fans to leave in droves. Acei9 23:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] I'd like your thoughts on something

Hey Rob. As one of RationalWiki's most authentic conservatives, I'd like your opinion on this article about the Tea Party. I've heard every damn liberal opinion up the wazoo, but I'd like to know how the other side of the fence feels for once. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting how these spin-offs take on a life of their own. A parallel phenomenon happened to the Democratic Party in the 1980s with Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, which was hijacked in 1988 by Lenora Fullani's Rainbow Tour, which later became the basis for Ross Perot's Reform Party ('92 & '96) having achieved ballot status in 50 states. By 2000 Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nadar were struggling for its control.
The original Tea Party was founded by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and as its name implies was exactly that -- a tax protest movement. Armey, an economist, was one of the first to begin separating the economic conservatives from the social conservatives. Social conservatives tend to be married to a lot of losing issues, like anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-gay rights, school prayer, etc etc. Armey rejected the House Speakership (he was next in line when Gingrich quit) and gave up being Majority Leader to form a grassroots tax protest movement called the Tea Party. GW Bush's big government Prescription Drug benefit was probably the last straW. Armey wanted to organize a reform movement of economic conservatives against the GOP establishment that campaigned on fiscal responsibility, but acted like Democrats when in power.
Of coarse his movement attracted the rednecks, too. The link you provide is in error, cause the original Tea Party predates Obama. Some of these rednecks brought with them their social issues, like being anti-immigrant, which of course made it easy for Democrats, liberals, communists, and journalists to paint what was originally a tax protest movement as racist (some of these rednecks probably are among the 47% Mitt Romney calls deadbeats who don't pay taxes, either).
So the link you provide shows some of the corruption of these spinoff groups (which even Sarah Palin has been associated with). But none of them have any relationship, really, with Dick Armey's Freedom Works, the original parent group of the tax protest movement. nobsOne who's been there. 04:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I did not actually know that the Tea Party had been around that long. I knew Dick Armey was the force behind its creation, but not that it had started back during Bush. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Tea Party was always a reform movement within the GOP, something opponents of the GOP you'd think would encourage. nobsOne who's been there. 03:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Property article

Do you think the article should also mention how things like licenses and permits have been protected by Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence as some of the "property" found in substantive due process rights? Granted, it would seem like most people would consider that strange, but legalese can sometimes differ drastically from normal usage and I think it aligns nicely with Madison's position. Also, what about carbon credits? They're pretty property-like, but I think they exist in a sort of limbo. — Melab (Talk) 06:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Great points. Perhaps differentiating (as American tax law does) between business property & personal property. Then getting into licenses and permits (licenses on the airwaves is a great example - a broadcaster does not own the radio frequency - it is public property - licenced to an individual or enterprise. This has large ramifications down to cell phones, remote controls, and now drones, as well. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 20:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This is just my personal view and I wouldn't suggest including it in the article, but I don't think the airwaves are property of any kind. I consider them, like many other things, to sui generis and that legislation was crafted to handle it. Would you say the airwaves were public property before the rise of radio? I wouldn't.
The way I view things is that the public realm (public property) is a kind of "default" and private property exists as an exception to it. The "exception" part is important. For instance, you can't drive drunk on public roads, but (this is where the exception comes in) you can drive drunk on a private lot.
I think drivers' licenses and occupational licenses would be two other good examples to go with broadcasting licenses because they're so ubiquitous.
Do we have an article on civil asset forfeiture? If we don't then maybe we should mention it. I just watched John Oliver's video on it and I didn't know how bad it was until then. In rem is probably one of the dumbest fucking legal concepts I've ever heard of. Suing a piece of property. How preposterous. Although it did initially arise to deal with the real problem of unknown owners. — Melab (Talk) 06:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Wisconsin

Almost 5 hours of repeated editing of the article on Wisconsin? How much of a life do you not have? Your life is a living hell if you can spend that much time screwing around repeatedly with a single article.

It was a stub and since the previous GOP Vice Presidential candidate and the next President are both from Wisconsin, people may be interested why Wisconsin can provide the vision, the leadership, and the way forward in these dark and troubling times. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 05:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Why you responding to some dickless shit who doesn't have the courage to post from his regular account? Nutty Roux (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
How many dickless shits are active on this wiki monitoring others activity for five hours? Call him the Ken DeMyer of Rationalwiki. And there's whole shitloads of personal obsessions and traits he has in common with Ken. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 05:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

...or it could be listed on the most recent changes link on the front page when some obsessive is wanking on a single article :-) You have been here how long and haven't figured out what's there?

Doubled down, eh? Anonymous trolling is weak, but you knew that or you would have used your regular account to say "Hey neat! Rob spent his own time researching and writing an RW article. Thanks Rob! I don't always agree with you, but darnit you're a better editor than I am!" Because you obviously lack the balls to rag on Rob to his face. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, why wouldn't I want to be a part of a website where users think I am a lesser human being if I don't have a penis? THAT's the place which inspires me. Rob was talking about how his life is hell, and I'm an asshole for unpleasantly pointing out that this obsession is why. The 6 archives of others at RW insulting him, the talk space on another account boldly saying he is never coming back, and a main-space article filled with worse insults with his real name and his shitty job are perfectly fine. Very inspiring again. I don't see how making a stupid nickname is to someone's face. You can keep that enlightened view to yourself, like I wish you had about telling strangers about how much you like dicks. The plus side of being anonymous like this is that Ken seems to be getting the blame.
Nice cowardly non-response. I love how RW's so permissive that this kind of shit from anonymous troll is almost embraced. That's the kind of place that inspires nobody. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice attempt to question people's manhood to try to get them to do what you want. That works in sporting movies and war films with plucky new kids, while this is real life chump. Rob seems to at least get some enjoyment from the attention he must get no where else in his life even at these places no one likes him. I can at least understand when life sucks you take what you can get. You seem to have at least a few more brain cells than teeth and likely can do other things that would be enjoyable than deal with fuckwits like me. If it's that terrible and constant why are you here? That's really stupid.
Another non-response.You are correct that I've got much better things to do, so I'll leave you with a question. What's satisfying about popping up out of the blue to anonymously attack someone who's done nothing to you? Rob certainly doesn't need my defense, so to give a simple answer your concern about why I'm here, It's because I care about the site more than you do. I care less and less because nobody seems to mind people like you feeling entitled to do what you're doing, or anyone here being entitled to do whatever they want even if it's harmful and having such an incredibly hard time justifying their behavior, to be honest, but I still care. Fair enough? Nutty Roux (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Though, if you just want the response you imagine I should be saying then buy a parrot and teach it what you want to hear. I was an editor that cared many years ago but I have no more history than most others using him as a punching bag daily, and he deserves some crap for trolling his own life to the point of being a living hell (his words) while blaming the world. Although it is hard to compete with the existing insults in [Essay:RobS is Bat-shit Insane] (classy it exists with this hatred of trolls)...but I guess that essay is okay because he posted it with his account. Do what I say and not what I do is pretty standard at RW, and I am sad to see that some of the names may have changed but everything else is the same. I think the editors produce a good things, while a number make sure editors go the way I went and you are going now. Glad I can help make it as pleasant as it was made for me.
Point of clarification: I said, "my life is a living hell..." is a lead in to the gospel. My life is a living hell without Jesus. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 03:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
What you said is recorded on your talk page for prosperity so at least try and hide that before you attempt to re-contextualize it. If you life is an example of one where you reap rewards for being blessed by jesus's love then you are either reviled, or jesus tortures his worshipers. It would be better if you represented yourself as another faith so it would make them look worse. Your life as it has been described now would be a living hell to anyone who is not in jail or on the streets.
My friend, it is the struggle between the natural and the spiritual -- even Jesus went through that. To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Christians go thru these manic phases of wrestling with the natural, which of coarse, is a living hell.
Take for instance an asshole who owes me $50 for sometime now; when I think about all times he promised to square the debt up, and lied to my my face, I get pissed and think maybe the Muslims got a point in cutting off thieves hands; and in this case his lying tongue, too. So that piece of shit makes my life a living hell; thank Jesus I'm capable if understanding, and even forgiving. cause left to myself, I'm a real miserable asshole. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 22:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry if I misunderstood your intentions

Yeah, that definitely makes it more clear. In Uni, I had a great deal of friends, MOST, I'll admit, were Sunni, and a few were Shia. But I really don't think that the average Sunni is devious or out to harm the Shia. That's why the way you wrote it made it kind of seem like you were saying that.

I realize that the death of Ali Ra is still a very sore and uncomfortable topic among modern-day Muslims, but I do think the Shia/Sunni conflict can be overcome and can be progressed in a way that is peaceful for both sides. The problem is that when one side demonizes the other, any hope of peace becomes impossible.Parogar (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Reality is, if ISIS is to be contained or defeated, it is the Sunni living under their control and those threatened to be, who must willingly stand up and fight this evil. It's not American bombs that should do it, but the oppressed Sunni tribes wanting to live peaceably who need and deserve aide. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 02:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Would you like to work together?

I'm not nearly as knowledgeable on this topic as you are, but if one of the chief complaints people are having is that the article comes off as a bit boring, I really think I can help you out. I need to finish some work I promised I'd upload for my readers tonight, but afterwards, I have quite a few Muslim readers, and some of them are writers, too, if we need more help I mean. We can make this article more appetizing, I promise you that much at least.

I think the problem is that it needs to be ... not "dumbed down", but more accessible to people who have no idea what it's about and might feel that they have no reason to care.

They say that the first line of a book is the most important. It's the "inciting" incident. You have one chance to capture your reader with your opening hook, so I'd suggest taking the most powerful and important statement you can think of on this section and opening with it. Make it a powerful blow that is guaranteed to hook in the reader. Parogar (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Basically, we need to make them care. People need to read it and say, "Damn, this shit is serious." Parogar (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful idea. I think the basic outlines of Zarqawi's life are there. It could be expanded in so many ways that could generate new pages and article topics. Yes, I'd love the help. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 04:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm just making suggested changes. Feel free to delete / rollback anything I do. I don't think his early history is so important. Maybe for a researcher, but I think that, for RationalWiki, we need to play up his evil deeds and his authoritarian nature, while trying to condense as much of the "encyclopedia" type content as possible. I think you should make the next section (after the intro) about how much of an authoritarian figure he was Parogar (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree about his childhood. One sentence needs to simply say he was from the streets and not a religious background. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 18:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Hey nobby

You're obviously well-versed in recent Islamic and Middle-Eastern history. Would you recommend any books or websites for somebody seeking to learn more about said items? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 04:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have quite a few, but this one I'm quite impressed with (despite their board of directors); for daily news on the global war, Longwar Journal covers it all; to get specific, inside intell on ISIS, Syria, and Iraq, this young guy who's fluent in English and the local languages is making a big impression writings for Janes, but you can get his stuff free from his blog.
I got more if there's something more specific those don't cover. nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 05:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
All of these look great. Thanks! Off to do malicious things with this additional, useful information. ^_^ Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 05:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Keep it up, buddy

I've been rather enjoying watching you go after various aspects of Islamic fundamentalism. Keep up the good work, man! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. There's more and more interest and material every day, and I hope it becomes useful to a wider readership in coming months and the next few years. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 07:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it going to be expanded to others? It would be nice to have an indepth series into fundamentalism. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you mean; it could be tailored that way, but my knowledge generally is more historical/political/economic/military with a tinge of sociological and not so much in depth analysis of ideologies and theory. How would you suggest we proceed? nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 22:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Just fundamentalism in every faith. There are conflicts around the world as people fight to show their god is the most loving. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
My Islamic friend tells me, quote: "God is love [1 Jn 4:8 as Christians believe] is bullshit". That would be Original Research. I need a good cite for the truth of that statement. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 22:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Um, what? That doesn't follow from the origional question. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
While being proselytized, a Muslim since birth told me "God is love" is Christian and Judaic "bullshit". Allah, and I've heard from the horses mouth, is not a loving God. He is vengeful and wrathful. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 22:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Allah hates his unbelieving enemies, and he expects his people to hate his enemies with the same divine hatred he has, and intention to destroy them. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 22:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
(EC) So you want me to do the work of fact checking a random statement from a random "friend?" Oh...oh hell no, that's hilarious. I just asked your scope. It just seemed too mean to throw in mocking comments like others at RW anymore given what life has already done. It doesn't mean you can assume I'm your friend or errand boy. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
No no no, sorry, I was rushed for time last nite and wanted to get that link to you quick and seriously was interested in what your impression of it was. That's all. No misunderstanding, I hope. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 14:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] An academic source relevant to your essaying predilections

Islam and Human Rights: A Growing Rapprochement? Ikanreed (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and wow. Reading the Abstract, it asks if Islam is compatible with the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Interesting, cause it was Islamic scholars in my research that called to my attention gay marriage violates the UNDHR Article 16 (1), "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." The Islamic scholars I've read so far claim this clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 18:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, as a statement of recognition of rights, rather than a full enumeration, to a sane person that means very little. Ikanreed (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Did you get Ken's message?

He burned it quickly but here is a capture.[1]--Mercian (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am trying to edit the Sharia page, adding credible source, but a mod keeps reverting it.

I would like to know the reason for it being reverted and how do I edit the article without someone reverting it.

Thank you

[edit] Gentleman!

A message for you.... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Shariah

Hello. I am trying to edit the Sharia page, adding credible source, but a mod keeps reverting it.

I would like to know the reason for it being reverted and how do I edit the article without someone reverting it.

Thank you — Unsigned, by: 104.236.71.177 / talk / contribs

[edit] Holy heck!

Welcome back, Rob! Gooniepunk (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Geez there's a load of updating to do on jihadists and Islamic articles; don't know if I'm up to the task... nobsI'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think.... 02:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, why haven't we demoted you? I mean, sure you're an arch conservative, but we've demoted for nastier. CorruptUser (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Demoted to what? He is a sysop. Gooniepunk (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The s in the strike tag is for "stupid" CorruptUser (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Rob should obviously be demoted to Supreme Bureaucrat. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:08, 11 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
I nominate Rob for 2017 Mod? One can never start to early on the campaigning. @NotaBon, despite how useless of a title that is, Crats can still edit all user rights but Rob ain't no Joe Steel right? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid he'll have to settle for "benevolent master." Will you accept being our benevolent master, Rob? Gooniepunk (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Peacemaker is the highest calling, that's what a Mod is, right? nobsI'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think.... 02:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Peacemakers are evil, though. Says so in the bible, Lahey and Jenkins told me so. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
That's Pacemakers. Pacemakers are evil, because by turning humans into cyborgs we are one step closer to the robocalypse. CorruptUser (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Not sure my views are arch-conservative anymore, more just an observer of events with an effort to explain the mindset. Trump supporters for example are like ISIS jihadis, disenfranchised and pissed off. nobsI'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think.... 02:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
So what was your story, if you don;t mind the question? I mean, when were you in Iraq, and for what? CorruptUser (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
You don't have to be a Trump supporter to be Conservative, Rob. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a dumbass. Real conservatives are backing Cruz Bush Santorum slowly away from the Republican party in shame. CorruptUser (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Trump's not really a conservative, just part of a Clinton plot to destroy the Republican Party. nobsI'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think.... 02:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've heard that theory before, and I actually don't think it's that far fetched. But if he's going to do that, Republicans need to get smart. Organize a boycott of EVERYTHING Trump owns, and maybe the major banks he does business with. Hit him in his money. CorruptUser (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Voting for Trump.

I see that you stated that you intend to vote for Trump to be President of the United states. As you are the only Trump supporter I am aware of, I wonder if I could ask you a couple of questions about this.

First of all, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he wouldn't be your first choice of Republican presidential candidate - though if I'm wrong please tell me.

So if another right-wing candidate who was not Republican nominee - but who was a lot closer to you ideologically - were to run would you vote for this candidate or stick with Trump, the official Republican candidate?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not in the tank - yet - for Trump. I'm waiting to hear what Ryan (who represents my home district, incidentally) says after Thursday's meeting. I see Cruz thinks Nebraska primaries could jumpstart his campaign. I definitely would have voted for Cruz over Trump, however now it's Cruz being the problem child cause it is time to mend fences in the GOP. Baring something like Trump being indicted from an FBI investigation, looks like we're stuck with him. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 19:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't follow US politics in detail. But does you reply mean "Yes, I would vote for another right-winger if one stood"?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
It's too late now. The issue is decided. The remaining issues now are unity & expansion. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 19:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Why not vote for a third party candidate? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm what you call a "party regular" (John Kasich is a "party regular"). So the question is, what's more important, ideology or party? Ideology perhaps, but the GOP in todo has not gone off the rails yet.
Liberals should love Donald Trump, cause he is one of them. From a strategic/analytical view, Trump has acted brilliantly. He shirked the "RINO" label early and effectively neutralized the anti-immigrant group seizing their top issue and neutralized their candidates. He brought in Democrats & unaffiliated voters at the same time, and seized a second top issue in so doing, anti-free trade. Now he has to win conservative Republicans, after he's seized the nomination already.
Third parties are fruitless and futile. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 20:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

AS I understand it one of his major campaign pledges is to build a wall between the US and Mexico - and have Mexico pay for it. Do Republicans in general really believe this will happen? Do you believe it?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The typical response to this is the classic Clintonite tactic <shouts in your face>, ALL POLITICIANS LIE!, or as George Stephanopolus says, "he kept all the promises he meant to keep". So, what pray tell, would cause a Clinton-backer to believe Donald Trump is a man of integrity? or that he means what he says? nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 21:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea. But do you believe he will build the wall?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
(I'm afraid my cut-n-paste answer from the 90s will be misconstrued as an attack on the Clinton's). No, he can't. What he is proposing is illegal. Only an idiot would believe such bullshit. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 17:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. So do you think this is a problem for the (presumptive) candidate?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. ALL POLITICIANS LIE! Why on earth would you believe Donald Trump speaks the truth? nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 18:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Lately I've not been convinced he knows whether or not he's speaking the truth. It looks like he's either deliberately sabotaging himself and doesn't intend to actually compete in the rest of the election, or he's going off the rails. If one assumes he's reasonably competent, then he's certainly not behaving as if he wants to win over undecided voters. B) talk 03:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Oddly, I was just thinking about this today. Trump evidently does not listen to advisers, even the second-string jr. varsity he's assembled. How a candidate runs their campaign is a picture of how they run their administration. He's over confident in himself. Hillary at least listens and learns, sometimes even from her opponents (not often). She's seem to get the best in the business, no matter how screwed I may think their conclusions and advice may be. So that's a tally mark in her favor, and Trump seems to be big gamble. If only he could show some understanding how the world works rather than this constant shoot-from-the-hip nonsense, it may not be a gamble a rational, level headed informed individual may want to take.nobsI fuck sheep. 07:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
And in this sense, Trump can be criticized for the same faults many criticize Obama for: he does not listen to nor follow the advice of his top advisers. Both think they are so much smarter and follow their own instrincts more than their expert advisers. Gates, Panetta, Hegel, and others have all said as much of Obama. The one time Obama allowed a flunky to talk him into something-in this case Hillary Clinton in Libya-he openly regrets and only reinforces his feeling of infallibility. Obama & Trump share a air of smug self-righteousness, so it wouldn't be that much of a change. Hillary will delegate foreign policy back to the neocon experts.nobsI fuck sheep. 18:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
"Obama & Trump share an air of smug self-righteousness, so it wouldn't be that much of a change." As an "air" is a subjective experience based on the observer's impression, I won't debate you there; that said, citing an air of smug whatever as evidence that their presidencies would be similar isn't compelling. Like Bob I'm truly curious and don't intend to be self-righteous myself, but do you actually believe that? Someone's words and, even better, their actions tend to offer a better look at their character than the impression you get when you look at them. A couple things they don't share:
  • explicit racism and sexism and general bigotry, and if that's too strong then at very least incendiary rhetoric that pits demographics against one another
  • as we were just talking about, behavior that suggests either 1) he (Trump) is being entirely disenguous about his intentions and doesn't realize or care about the harmful side effects he's having, or 2) he's not competent enough to realize the havoc he's wreaking on his own campaign
I could go on but you get the point. B) talk 01:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Amen. I'm talking about personality or character traits, not ideology. Trump & Obama I'd call self-righteous egoists; but Hillary has suffered a host of personal indignities to get where she is today. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab!. 01:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Announcement

I've finally made my mind up. I am voting against Hillary Clinton for one reason only: I'm tired of the lawyers running this country.

In my lifetime, we've had JFK, Nixon, Ford, Clinton, and Obama - all lawyers. All these goddamn lawyers surround themselves with is lawyers, and appoint too many lawyers to government posts and regulatory positions. By contrast, Ike (military), Johnson (teacher), Carter (farmer), Reagan (actor), Papa Bush (business), Baby Bush (business), presidents whose network of friend are more diverse, more in line with common experience, and less conspiratorial, we seem To do better. nobs 20:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You'd have a much stronger argument if your sequence wasn't completed with Trump (erratic loon). Robledo (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Doug SchoenWikipedia's W.svg, I'm voting against a constitutional crisis. "Why would we willing do that?" And this is the logical position of the center-left center-right Hillary purports to occupy. nobs 22:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
1/10. If you can forgive yourself for voting for such a demonstrably unqualified, narcissistic, populist prick, then knock yourself out, son. Robledo (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia

Ref [2]. You may want to warn your loyal friends at CP.

[edit] Your comments

Cut the obscene crap. It doesn't matter whether you really mean it or it's your bizarre performance art. Now be a good boy and apologize to Hentropy. --Ymir (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment. --Ymir (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Coop

There's a case about you at the chicken coop. PBfreespace (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Update: I see I am a little late. PBfreespace (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Fun:The B-52's

Do you know anyone who's a fan of this band and can help me add stuff to this article?--HolUp (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] So are you going to vote for Trump?

Yo seemed to be hedging your bets last time round and I'm wondering if you want him to be president?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Truthfully, I'm inclined to do so, but I'll probably wait til October to decide Trump, Hillary, or abstain; I'm trully troubled by the whole matter cause abstaining is a piss-poor way out of avoiding a difficult responsibility. I will say, of all the stupid statements Trump (& Hillary) have made, Trumps comments on NATO are the most troubling. That, I think will decide his fate among the Republican base. nobsBern baby bern 20:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
OK. He's obviously not convincing. Even your friends at CP can't bring themselves to call him more than the "presumptive" candidate!--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Have you read Trump's proposals?

On his campaign site he says that he would end student visas and invests that money in urban communities, help homeless youth find homes using money from the refugee program, and require American workers be hired first. He also proposes to use a mandatory minimum of 5 years for any armed crime. He has proposed these reforms from the beginnig so I consider them to be his true proposals. I was curious of your thoughts.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually no, I don't really follow Trumps' proposals or speeches. But what you've thumbnailed there seems to support my contention Trump is a RINO or liberal. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 19:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think anyone can follow his proposals on the campaign trail since they are inconsistent but these were from the very beginning of his run. Him being open to Keynesianism is irrefutable.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't doubt it.
What kind of president would Trump be? Probably more in the mold of FDR, Reagan, or Baby Bush, hands off, a delegator. One who sits and dictates in broad outlines the direction he'd like to see the country go, then find the people to work out the details and implement his broad vision (kinda like his role in the Apprentice). He wouldn't be a hands-on manager, like Nixon sitting in National Security meetings, or Papa Bush, Johnson, Carter, and Hillary, micromanaging details. Hillary, like Nixon, is a clutz on the campaign trail but wonkish on details behind closed doors.
Trump's problem now is, he'd have to mend fences later with the GOP party and its national security establishment to find anybody capable or qualified to serve in his administration. (Obama has been criticized likewise by Panetta, Gates, and Hegel for surrounding himself with incompetent idealogues and idiots on the White House staff who blocked their access and input to the president). nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 20:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Ironically, at least for liberals, Clinton was the one who fought Hegel the most while Gates and Panetta will be quite comfortable.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Panetta's on board already with Clinton (laying open the rift with Obama over Syria). For my money, Panetta is the best guy alive the Democratic party has to serve in any job, especially president. He's proven himself over and over again in judgement and integrity. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 21:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Meh, Panetta is a warmonger but he would be a better pick than Clinton's likely pick, Michele Flournoy, a neocon. That brings up another irony of Clinton since she seems to oppose detente with Russia while trying to get Kissinger to endorse her; Kissinger, as well as her husband's Secretary of Defense, William Perry, have criticized our foreign policy and Kissinger has been a close friend of Putin's since he was a mayor.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
It's time for "the vision thing". Once every so many years, a "visionary" president comes along who sees the mess the world is in, and has a "vision" of 30, 40, 50 years down the road of what the world could be like. These guys were Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, & Nixon. The presidents that follow them only follow the vision. Kissinger is just the man to explain all this to Hillary, if she were willing to listen.
At the time of the break up of Soviet Union, Russia itself wanted to join NATO, but the powers that run NATO nixed the idea, I guess thinking China would view it as threatening at a time the rest of the world was courting a new relationship with China. So the advesarial relationship between NATO & Russia was set in concrete.
Then the West overplayed its hand. Putin wants good relations and an alliance, (1) to fight their jihadi enemies (who may or may not be the same as our jihadi enemies), and (2) as a counterweight to China whom they share a common border with. Russian fears of China go back as far as Detente, and were personally expressed to Kissinger by Kosygin (maybe it was Brezhnev, I don't remember). So there is the basis of a relationship there and some common ground. The US just has to get off its hobby horse that always links free trade with democratic values. We've seen this done in lifting the Iranian sanctions. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 02:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Well the US has had a hypocritical definition of "democracy" but I would rather trade has a free trade agreement with Russia and Europe than China but we don't need to alienate either. I would say realism was abandoned with Reagan and his vision has prevailed so far so I doubt that either candidate will end this vision. If NATO is so necessary, as Clinton seems to believe, then it needs to be reformed and we must include Russia. We also need to work with Iran and Russia and to stop giving weapons to the Syrian rebels but this also seems to be something Clinton is unwilling to do.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Would the last one also mean throwing the Kurds to the wolfs?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 04:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 04:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't consider the Kurds in Rojava to be "Syrian rebels" since they are motivated by the desire for an aautonomous state rather than by the overthrow of Asssadd and/or the persecution of religious minorities.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
As if Assad would let them without them fighting got it.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 21:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 21:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
It's close to decision time. Reform begins with overhauling the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council. Among several options, add Iran; perhaps combine the French & British seats into one EU member; possibly add India. The big change here is to annoint Shi'a Iran as representative of the Muslim world. They seem to want the job and somebody has got to do it. The radical Sunnis have already declared war against UNSC and anyone who participates in UN, parliamentary, or democratic institutions as an idolator and enemy of God. So, Iran already has an allies among non-Muslims, notably Putin & Russia.
NATO reform begins with swearing-off any further poaching on former Warsaw Pact or Russian Federation Republics. Then a clarification of its reason for existance. It originally was founded solely to counter Russian expansion; it continues its existance with ambiguous objectives and purposes. Here Putin could play a role of world statesman and visionary - to convince Eastern European and Western powers Russia is not a threat. That its only territorial designs are in its Near abroadWikipedia's W.svg in Caucus and Black Sea region. The Baltics could become "Finlandized", or some such solution. Central Asian Republics, predominantly Muslim, become the sphere Russia and its ally Iran oversee.
Nothing's said here is definitive, of coarse. But Trump needs to prove he can find the Baltics on a map first, before we go any farther.
@KS, adding Iran to the permanent UNSC doesn't mean abandoning Saudi Arabia and its allies, the Kurds. The best we can hope for is Iran acting more responsible toward Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Kurds in their new role as Superpower. They know they can't rule such a vast area beyond their borders by force. They just want respect from the majority Sunni, and the rest of the non-Islamic world. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 05:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Going to bed with Assad and with the Kurds at the same time? How long willü that work? Or will it work at all?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 21:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 21:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Again, this is where the vision thing comes into play. The more important debate is what is the function of NATO, why does it exist, and what is its future role if it continues to exist.
This is an extremely important question. NATO activities have not only distressed Putin and Russia, much of Putin's behavior can be seen as a response to NATO. Indeed, a case can be made Putin's rise to power was a response to NATO. The irony is, Putin wants an alliance with NATO in the global jihad - on his terms.
Specifically to your question now, NATO doesn't know what its purpose is or why it exists. We saw this in Libya, when only 12 of 28 members participated. The other 16 members certainly did not appreciate being blamed for an action they opposed and refused to participate in. Don't you find it frightening, or a little bit disconcerting, that such a large and powerful military establishment can exist with such undefined purposes, doesn't know itself why it exIsts, and lends itself to such easy manipulation? nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 17:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] "Gary Johnson for rehab"

Funny you should say that. What do you think is more dangerous, someone smoking a blunt in the oval office or an admitted alcoholic getting a relapse in the oval office? To add to the consideration, please take into account that Alcohol is known to make people aggressive and that alcohol kills thousands of Americans every year whereas THC does not. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

At least weed wouldn't be worse or much worse than a cigarette, if you're just walking on your own two feet and not driving a car while smoking ganja.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 21:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC) 21:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Well the President is "at the wheel" at all given times, so to speak. The "nuclear football" is never too far away from him. So I would decidedly not want that man or woman to be in any kind of stupor, whether drunken or potted up on weed (to use a technical term). But if I had to chose, you know what I'd probably prefer. And it ain't cocaine. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Gary Johnson is a good example of the mind destroying affects of marijuana. Don't get me wrong now, I've used and abused my share of both starting at age 12. I swore off both about 30 years ago (moreless), but on balance I think alchohol has less lingering effects, for me. Of coarse each person is different, their metabolism or tendency to over indulge. So its a difficult question to answer.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 04:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
For a native speaker of English you have a surprisingly casual attitude towards correct written English. Mixing up affect and effect to start with, "of coarse" instead of "of course" and "moreless" instead of "more or less". Your point is of course false without that, but being careless with one's language is not known to entice people to take one seriously. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
ok, so I got high last nite. See what happens? nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 04:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you by any stretch of the imagination secretly a proponent of English spelling reform? Your idiosyncratic orthography seems to indicate so. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, the other day after reading Advisor and Adviser were both acceptable, I said "fuck it", we're gonna rewrite whole goddamn language then. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 15:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Your impression of one person you've probably never met can't be an example of anything beyond the confines of your own mind, and it definitely can't be evidence of anything. What about Gary Johnson makes you think his mind has been damaged somehow? Also, this is something I'm quite interested in, so have you seen any serious evidence suggesting cannabis has a negative (or positive, or otherwise) impact on the brain? I'd love to see it if so. I'd like to see a plethora of research in the area tbh, but there doesn't seem to be much at all. B) talk 17:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
TBH I can't tell whether Rob's crusade against ganja is trolling or not.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 17:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC) 17:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Has he commented on the subject before? I haven't seen anything B) talk 17:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
He did, but I forgot where (either the Saloon Bar or one of the election-related article talkpages).--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 17:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC) 17:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let me qualify this: I voted for Gary Johnson in New Mexico in the 90s. Here's the link. Here's the context: during the Ebola crisis 2 years ago, it was announced the only hopeful treatment was derived from the tobacco plant - the only positive news the tobacco industry has had in 50 years. Gary Johnson was interviewed the next day, and seemed to get tobacco and cannabis confused. Then without a wiff of science, claimed treatment for ebola was analogous to AIDS. Johnson repeatedly refers to canabis as "the ultimate treatment" for AIDS. I doubt marihuana has ever cured anyone of AIDS. This is exactly the type if pseudoscience RW should go after. If dope hasn't totally destroyed his mind yet, you should at least learn don't smoke a joint before going on camera like this.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 17:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't get wrong on Johnson, however. He at one point in the late 90s advocated legalizing heroin and cocaine as a sitting governor, and made a solid arguement how existing laws forced the breakup of families when a heroin addicted mother was sent to prison and her children placed in state custody, which created a whole new set of more serious problems for the society and the state. Johnson was free to talk like this in his second term when he wasn't running for re-election. His approval ratings sank from 64% to 32%. But he was truthful and correct on many salient points, as I've witnessed first hand in New Mexico.

And his courage on the issue was like Nixon going to China, coming from a Republican. Even Democrats are scared shitless of this issue, the two worst offenders being Bill and Hillary Clinton (as outlined the book, The New Jim CrowWikipedia's W.svg. Johnson's career in New Mexico was finished, but he became a national figure. When he first ran for president, he had to walk the legalized narcotics position backwards. But he held onto the legalized cannabis position obviously because (1) it's less controversial with a larger constituency, (2) he's now taken employment in that industry. So now he suffers a COI, it's obvious he smokes and indulged himself, and his original, rational, forthright and heartfelt reform message is lost.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 20:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone ever tell you?

That your editing patterns are a bit like User:Conservative's? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Fuck, I hope you don't you don't mean content, And hey, I dont delete my stuff (and others). I write for the ages. .nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't mean the content. Just the serial small edits on essays that seem to stretch back into infinity. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I've come to suspect User:Conservative as a sock of Andy. It's interesting; the Schlafly cabal of Goldwaterites (A Choice, Not an Echo) holds to the anti-Hillary movement based on Mama Schlafy's Kissinger On the Couch; my whole premise here is based on the fact Hillary never repudiated Goldwater and went on to embrace Kissinger wholeheartedly. IOW, Hillary's more mainstream conservative then the Schlafly's.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 18:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Trump

This is the most interesting piece I've read on him. You're pretty fucking nuts at times, but not sufficiently nuts to vote for this dilettante prick. Robledo (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Good read, and probably definitive for his biogrsphers. It us everything I always suspected of Trump since 1986 when I first heard of him. Unfortunately, the discriptions of his impulsivity and short attention span make him more reflective of a typical American than Hillary. And all the self-aggrandizement, egoism, ambition, manipulation, and social pathology are exactly present in Hillary Clinton, only she's more plodding and not impulsive. That Nee Yorker article and this one by Michael Moore give us a oretty good picture if who he is.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 18:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I have been thinking of your voting dilemma and the only thing they may help you may be reading The American Conservative since they are the only conservative outlet that hasn't debased itself by endorsing Clinton and Trump.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Watched the whole Commander-in-Chief Forum last night. Realistically, we saw Trump's short attention span and egoism as cited in the New Yorker on display. But the guy is much smarter than people give him credit for, plays dumb as a "negotiator" not wanting to tip his hand, and does have an understanding of some of the broader issues and historic context. Hillary was an exercise in damage control, trying to walk back admitted mistakes while projecting judgement and leadership to repair her own mistakes. She stands by the Libyan intervention, which even Obama calls his worst mistake. I don't believe a word she says about defeating ISIS, but Trump doesn't understand the full ramifications of the conflict with ISIS. I think she has a better grasp of it at the moment. Both of their speeches on ISIS are only bluster, a response to popular outrage (like after 9/11, but ISIS didn't attack the United States).
Hillary's section on veteran suicides (which is a social issue unrelated to the job of Commander in Chief) was very moving, heartfelt, and sincere (I see many veterans in Christian ministry work).
All criticism aside, I wish we had a commander in chief combining the best elements of both of them, her wisdom and experience learned through success and mistakes over decades, and his determination to bring about reform and change, not just in the US national security establishment, but in our global alliances. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 19:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] A thanks

I'd like to thank your for your good contributions on the Syria page, even if I disagree with you on everything. pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Well thanks. I've been scratching my head on that Syria and Syrian war page for a few years now. It looks much better now than it did a year ago thanks to other editors. But with a new president (whoever) all of its going change very quickly. Neither Hillary or Trump will be content to sit on their hands for 5 years and let it fester as Obama has.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 07:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Trump might just nuke Syria because he thinks Putin would like that. And Hillary is not exactly a pacifist, so I do think you are right, nobs. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I actually suspect Trump's policy on Syria is closer than Obama's than Hillary's. He seems to be a lot more pro-Russian than even Obama is, so I think that he might start bombing ISIS areas near the front lines with the Syrian government, something that both Obama and Hillary would not do. I also think Trump would support the Kurds a lot more than both Hillary and Obama. I doubt he'd use nukes or carpet bomb, but I can't absolutely rule it out. I think something like a ground invasion is more likely. PBfreespace3 (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
You really cannot predict what Trump will do. But I think in any "tough negotiations" with Putin on one side and Trump on the other (and remember, negotiations are not always at a table and they don't always end with any formal result) Putin would crush Trump. Putin has been a KGB officer and a Judoka. Trump was a bloviating businessman who inherited a fortune and a foot in the door from daddy. Putin's mental and physical health appear to be in top condition. Trump is the seventy year old son of an Alzheimer's patient. And if you look at Trump's public statements, his words are getting simpler and more grandiose. This may be tactics, or it may be mental decay. If Putin wants to Trump to do a certain thing, he will be better equipped to get that than the other way round. I am not the Ombud's man 23:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The primary issue in US/Russian relations is the Missile Defense system, whoever is president. Understand what this is: its a costly, longterm program, like the Manhatten project of the '40s, the space race of the '60s, Star Wars of the '80. It's a next step, next generation technology race, replete with all sorts of commercially viable spin offs to stimulate and drive the economy. AKA an arms race. The Russians have played this game before, and lost badly. Putin does not want to get into another costly arms race.
That's the economics of it. Now the strategic/geopolitical view. The US knows in the long run, China will surplant it as the dominant world economic power. Fine. But is the US willing to give up its dominant military power, as well? If not, this will lead to an imbalance globally, not just in military might but economically. The US will end up looking like Saddam or North Korea, figuratively speaking, wearing boots to big for its size (to use a metaphor). If the US/Nato get to cozy (which Putin wants), China msy feel threatened and accelerate its defense program, again creating global economic imbalances.
Which brings us to Nato. Everybody wants in Nato, but nobody can tell you why it exists. If Nato exists as a world policeman, why does ISIS fester for 5 years? So we're back to the Russian bogeyman. And Putin's willing to play his part to keep everybody employed. Without him, we would 't need defense contractors or next generation missile techology to keep our technological edge, and the global economy would collapse.
What's needed now is a world statesman, a strategic visionary in thr mold of Napolean, Metternich, Bismarck, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, and Richard Nixon. Someone to forge alliances and agreements to keep the peace - longterm, beyond his/her natural life. Who are the candidates for this roll? (assuming one his willing to step up). Hillary, Trump, & Putin. The Chineese guy is settled on domestic affairs right now, and they're not ready to assert global leadership yet. I suppose Theresa May, Angela Merkel, Hollander or somebody else could be considered, but none of them have expressed an interest.
Of course, there's alot more that could be said.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 07:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Look at Craig Murray's take on the Russian hackers conspiracy theorists efforts to block Trump's Russian-reset:

The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries – including of course bigger budgets for the CIA...
nobs 17:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on the Middle East

Hi Rob. As you know, I'm that flaming communist pothead you met a few months ago on here. I'm very knowledgeable about the Middle East, and I'd be curious to hear what a someone intelligent conservative's opinion on it is. I think we may share a lot of the same views. pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You could start by reading his essays (which I helped, barely).
Worldview of ISIS jihadis
Global Jihad
From the Ottomans to ISISCorruptUser (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Trump's sexual assaults

You always seem to bring up Bill's sexual history and Hillary's supposed lesbianism but you never seem to bring up how much of a sexual predator Trump has been. Why is this?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Truthfully, I've paid as much attention to these claims now as Clinton apologists did to charges against Clinton in the 90s. Based on my limited understanding of Trump, I think he figured if Bill get's away with it, he surely could as well. And the charges against Trump pale in relation to what is known and documented regarding both Clintons. Even Roger Stone, author of the Clinton War on Woman, who says "I myse!f am a libertine", makes a pretty solid case agsinst the C!intons.
Before you go down this road, do you have any evidence at all, that Trump and surrogates waged a deliberate war of attack and smear of peoples reputations? Or that the Trump organization used threats and violence against accusers? Seriously, answer this question first.nobs 01:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not some partisan hack so I was aware of Hillary's disparaging comments about Lewinsky and some of Bill's sexual escapades but I wasn't aware of the extent before this election. I now know that, at least, 40 women have accused both Trump and Clinton of sexual assault or rape. Trump has recently threatened to sue his victims but I am unaware of any past methods of intimidation; I do know that he has a history of frivolous lawsuits, so it wouldn't surprise. I am also aware that both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump had a relationship with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and that Bill Clinton had given him his email address and 21 phone numbers; Trump has praised Epstein for his taste in women while Bill visited him 26 times on his plane while president.. Trump was accused of having sex with a 13-year-old on one of his trips with Epstein.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
This H.A. Goodman who contributes to CNN, HuPo and of late RT, and was a Sanders backer and now Jill Stein, seems right on top of this. According to him and his sources, the Weiner discoveries link the Clinton Foundation to sex trafficing from Haiti (not far from Epstein's Virgin Is!and retreat). Epstein claimed to be co-founder of the Clinton Foundation. Don't see Trump tied to any of that, yet. nobs 03:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I saw that early but Goodman cites a Daily Beast article but that article doesn't claim that there was a sex ring, only that the missionaries were kidnapping kids and falsely claiming that they were adopted. Regardless, my intent here wasn't to compare and contrast Bill and and Trump's depravity but, rather, to understand why you seem to be silent on the allegations against Trump.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I have basically ignored them all and treated them as bullshit, as the Clinton machine, supporters, and media did from 1992 to when Clinton was finally impeached in 1998. Should I be accused of bias for following precedent? nobs 04:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it is fair to be skeptical, in varying degrees, of any claim of sex crimes but to dismiss them all outright will force you into a corner; it is also fair to believe that the allegations are being used politically, which is also heinous, but it doesn't make the claims untrue. It certainly makes you a partisan hack to only concentrate on the opposition's fault when someone on the other side is tainted by the same shit. I have doubts on various claims against both candidates but they both sicken me, as does the apologises by their supporters.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
What drew my attention to the Clinton sex scandal accusations in the 1990s was not the victims clammoring for media attention, which they did not get, but when the Clintons starting blaming ME & "the Republicans" for it (Clinton told Jennifer Flowers on a recorded phone call to just blame it all on the Republicans; she wasn't sucking my dick or any other Republican I know, so why should we sit still under these baseless lies and attacks? Clinton ran a hate campaign appealing to Southern bigots against Republican yanks) I had nothing whatsoever to do with it, nor any other Republican I know of. That may be how politics is played in a one-party state like Arkansas, but this is the real world. People fight back. When the C!intons didn't back down from their lies and slander, the gloves came off. I don't see any parallal to that going on now. nobs 07:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
And we're back on the Whataboutism trail! Rob can be guaranteed to start talking about Bill Clinton whenever questions are asked about Trump's sexuaal activities.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────These accusations are the daughter of Willie Horton.

1992 was a contested election. The incumbant Republican had a challenger. The Democrats fielded several candidates. Bill Clinton went on Nightline to explain away the "draft dodger" allegations. I ignored the earlier Flowers fiasco and was non-judgemental toward Clinton. I set my stopwatch. 35 seconds into the broadcast he dropped the word, " Republican". This was a very serious charge he was making in the post-Watergate era, accusing the GOP of dirty tricks and tampering in a Democratic primary, while at same time the GOP establishment had a challenge in its own primary. Virtually all establishment Republicans realized, there and then, we were dealing with a dangerous demigogue.nobs 15:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] I'm going to guess you're not an atheist

-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

God no! Jesus saved me from the blind hopelessness of atheism and I thank him for that.nobs 00:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I respect your belief.-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Though some non-believers likely do find atheism blind and hopeless, I suspect that many experience it differently. B) talk 06:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
There are no atheists in foxholesWikipedia's W.svg, as they say. nobs 18:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
They say that because lies are easy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
No wonder we haven't won a war since 1945 (discounting the 1991 Gulf War as simply an opening salvo for all the conflicts we've had since 2001). nobs 18:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Tell that to Latin America.--Owlman (talk) p(mail) 18:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Latin America loves us. Why do you think they all wanna come here? nobs 18:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif-Yo my name is Donnie TrumpI make a million every time I take a dump! 00:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Wait! America only loses wars because some soldiers are atheists?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Soldiers today don't sit in foxholes; they sit in Nevada unarmed playing video games whacking people with drones. Shit, you'd have to be an atheist with no conscience to do that. nobs 08:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Your response is a non-sequitur. Do you really maintain that the US loses was because a proportion of its soldiers are atheists?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm saying an atheist is a mercenary. He'll kill for money, but I doubt he'll die (like Jesus) so others might live, or so that he can stand before his maker and say he gave his life for God's righteousness. nobs 15:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
It's still a non-sequitur. When a user pointed out that there were atheists in the military you wrote: "No wonder we haven't won a war since 1945"
Are you now denying your wrote that or what? I mean, it's just a few lines up. Your suggestion that your God makes the US lose wars because some soldiers are atheists is really kind of weird.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 22:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm saying it's rational to believe an atheist has no motivation other than self interest and a sadistic desire to kill. And God has slowly given the US up to its enemies since it collectively has become motivated by no other cause than self and a sadistic desire to kill. nobs 10:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. So you are not going to back up your suggestion that your God makes the US lose wars because some soldiers are atheists. I fully understand that you'd rather switch the conversation somewhere else as it's an obviously barmy idea. But it would be nice if you acknowledged this rather than constantly fishing for red herrings.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
What would make an atheist willing to give his/her life for others? Seems rather irrational. nobs 20:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
What I'm asking you to entertain is that there is nothing we need to believe on insufficient evidence in order to have deeply ethical and spiritual lives. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
BFD. Is throwing yourself on a hand grenade to save your buddy's life the ethical thing to do? That attitude is meaningless. nobs 05:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
So you contend that the burden of proof has an ethics problem? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm saying sacrificing one's life so others might live is an irrational, supernatural act. It has nothing to do with ethics. nobs 19:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough; if it has nothing to do with ethics, then that clearly constitutes a retraction of your prior question regarding if "X is the ethical thing to do". Back to your latest statement — referring to something as a "supernatural act" is an oxymoron as acting is inherently natural, while supernature is definitionally separate from all there is (i.e., the natural world). Furthermore, since you brought up irrationality — rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action. In the first case, any references to invisible deities clearly goes out the window, as there's no logically sound reason whatsoever for anyone to believe in those (for anyone but a fideistWikipedia's W.svg, because a fideist holds a position that overtly steps away from rationality). In the second case, all that is required for rationality is that my goals conform with my actions. Thus, my actions are deductively rational provided that my actions reflect my intention with said actions. Thus, if my intention is to save others by sacificing myself, acting in order to achieve this is rational per definition. Say, by throwing myself on a grenade, since a human body laid on top of a grenade would hopefully — due to empirical (and not supernatural) reasons, based on observed interactions between bodies and grenades — soften the blast enough to save people who would otherwise be caught in the blast radius. Faithful and atheist alike — the practical reasons for attempting such a thing would ultimately boil down to the physics of explosives, in the hope that the defensive action in question works — no metaphysics required. Never mind the fact that acts of bravery are observed in atheist soldiers all the time. Swedish soldiers, for example, are present in the middle east as loyal US allies, fighting alongside your soldiers. I'm not saying they're better (or worse) than faithful US troops. I'm not even ruling out (though not accepting) your claim that faithful soldiers are more likely to perform acts of bravery and self-sacrifice. But it's clearly ridiculous for you to definitionally rule out that atheist soldiers could not, in any instance whatsoever, perform even a single act of blemish-free self-sacrifice without requiring "irrationality" or "supernatural intervention". You do this, of course, because once you have conceded — at least in principle — the fact that no essential kind of ethics is exclusive to unfounded belief, the jig is up. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

OK, call me a fideist, with qualifications; faith and reason are not necessarily polar opposites. Reason, or rationality, does not lead us to a set of preconceived notions. Your choice to buy a Honda may be the perfect, rational thing to do, whereas my choice to buy a Toyota may be the best rational coarse for me. Throwing yourself on a hand grenade gives little time to make a rational choice or justification - unless a person approached that moment with some instinct how to react to a certain situation with little thought. But even the impulse, let alone the action, is not the natural coarse most people would choose.
Not to sound like a Bible thumper, but I'm gonna rely on my two teachers, Dr. Cyrus Ingram Scofield and Dr. J. Vernon McGee. The first instance in "recorded history" (at least in biblical terms) of self-sacrifice occurs in Genesis 43:9 where Judah says, "I will be a surety for him, of mine hand shalt thou require". This ground breaking incident, where Judah guarantees the life and safety of his brother at the cost of his own life, is the first instance of a man willing to die for his brother. Prior to that, going back to Cain, humans were self-seeking, self-dealing cut throats who deemed it insanity to die for someone else, which is how the "natural mind" thinks. And Judah's bloodline became "heirs of the promise", overstepping the law of primogeniture and the priestly bloodline. nobs 03:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

So you are really going to abandon without further comment your contention that God causes the US to lose wars because - atheists? Can't say I blame you.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

No. I'm saying we're relying on too many soldiers without God's blessing. And a victory in the name of Satan ain't worth a shit. nobs 13:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Wow! After asking six or seven times and getting your multiple evasions - FINALLY the insanity speaks! So what's your solution Rob? A religious test for soldiers before then can enter the American army? Because unless they are both Christian and the right sort of Christian I guess that your God will keep making The US lose?
It's just disclosure. Taxpayers need to know they are entrusting their security to a bunch of devil worshippers and paying their lifetime addiction to oxycodone when they leave active duty.nobs
Not that the overwhelming majority of poor oxycodone users in rural America are Christians or anything. Another question is in which sense the act of not worshipping anything is suddenly considered worship (never mind of the Devil, of all things)? Specifically not worshipping can hardly be construed into a form of worship. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
So you're just in denial of reality. We all have our own little self-desceptionss. nobs 19:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Devil worship? Holy shit, Rob. 94.1.169.201 (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Good question. What is, "the devil"? nobs 19:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
You tell me — you just brought it up. I would literally reconsider my atheism if you could somehow demonstrate that my non-worship is in fact active worship, never mind of a particular, malignant entity (identified by you as the Devil). Note also that any reference to any second unproven entity additively shoulders you with an additional burden of proof. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I've never found a satisfactory definition of "worship", and most of them I've read or heard from the pulpit are pretty lousy. I'd define worship as whatever thought, word or action a person dedicates themselves to. As to the devil, there actually are two; (1) is the master devil, i.e. Satan, and (2) each person has a devil (as in Rom 6:6, called "our old man"). Dr. Scofield describes it best in his Believers Two Nature's. nobs 03:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This got heated fast....-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Music undo

Why is the reference-superscript-whatever at the top of the paragraph rather than after the Armstrong line? Slocknog (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

huh? nobs 18:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Nobsy

Dear Nobsy,

My gay friends in Alabama are terrified that the federal government is going to annul their church-conducted, Under-God marriage and seize their child, born through a surrogate. What I want to know is, do you support the use of the power of the federal government to forcibly divorce people that are legally married, and if so, what is it like to live completely and utterly without empathy for people who aren't your own self? Hugs and kisses, Semipenultimate (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't a clue. Sounds like a states rights issue and, as everyone knows, opposing big government is racist. So no, I probably don't, but it also depend on how money the LGBT was willing to donate to my election fund, too. nobs 20:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
So what I'm hearing is, while you don't support the right of the federal government to annul their marriage, you do support the state of Alabama's right to do so. Does Alabama then have the right to annul other marriages that the elected officials of the state might also disapprove of? Semipenultimate (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you mean like between blacks and whites? Nice try on the race card, but fuck off.nobs 20:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Nope, not fucking off now, not fucking off ever. People's lives are already being ruined by your man Trump and the hateful, cruel pieces of human shit he's empowering like the scum that run the NoM. It's not the fucking 'race card', nobs, it's the fucking fact that fucking Alabama still had their fucking anti-miscegenation law on the fucking books until 16 fucking years ago in hopes that Loving V. Virginia could still be overturned. Families are going to be literally ripped apart and you can't be moved to give a shit. Fucking ice water in your veins. Semipenultimate (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
You will note I prefaced my response with "honestly", and went on to condemn racism. Are you calling me a fucking liar now? The day both Obama & Hillary come out of the closet and publicly admit they are gay is the day I will be in total agreement with them that homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of. nobs 21:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The honesty was appreciated, yes. And the condemnation of racism was too, until the 'race card' crack. It's not that I'm calling you a liar, nobs, but 40% of Alabama voters were determined to keep the racist-as-hell anti-miscegenation law in place. It's not a far stretch to assume that the 40% of the voting population of Alabama that are racist enough to vote to keep a blatantly-unconstitutional and extremely racist law on the books would be able to make enough ugly noises to get support up above 50%, or suppress the vote enough so that their 40% share increases. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, important question, how do you like your barbecue? Semipenultimate (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank God I don't live Alabama (although I have many friends from Alabama; in fact, some of the nicest, most loving, Christian people I have ever had the honor to meet are from Dothan Akabama. And I'm referring to personally meeting and dealing with hundreds, if not thousands of them). Maybe this explains why the Republican party was founded to go down to Alabama and kick some Southern redneck ass. nobs 22:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that it is entirely possible for nice, loving people to be unreasoningly hateful of others and not see any kind of inconsistency in that behavior. My own father is a great example - loved his kids, never raised a hand to his wife, worked damn hard welding pressure vessels to get the bread, both of his kids went to college and are fully-functional members of society. And yet, at the same time, he explicitly opposed Obama for 8 years because he believes that blacks are inherently inferior. (And this isn't an inference, either - just ask him, and he'll tell you directly, at great length.) You, and others like you, need to strongly disavow groups like the KKK who didn't get the memo this year about Republicans being the anti-racism pro-LGBTQ party. President-Elect Trump just saying 'Stop it' over the weekend is entirely insufficient. Supporting laws to the effect of labeling groups like the Klan and the ANP as terrorist organizations would be a better start. Postscript: my gay friends have decided to move and are not without resources, so they are getting the house ready to be listed and figuring out where to relocate. Also, I notice you keep dodging the real question here: how do you like your barbecue? Semipenultimate (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Says who? Virtually every racist I've ever met in my 50+ years of active involvement in American politics is a Democrat. Virtually all are among the 47% Romney says pay no taxes. IOW, the federal government and the Democratic party support racism and keep racists economically dependent on them. Virtually all hate Ronald Reagan and both President Bushs'. A few are ambivalent toward Richard Nixon. Try as I may, I can not recall ever meeting a Republican racist, at least none that stand out in memory. The KKK is, was, and will forever remain, a Democrat party terror organization.
Further, anyone who voted for Obama for no other reason other than that he was black, is racist, of which Democrats boast they have millions, both black and white. nobs 13:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
P.S. luv BBQ, especially mesquite.nobs 15:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] The GOP's future

Assuming the electoral college doesn't make the unprecedented move of voting against their states, Donald Trump has become the president. We have had conversations about Trump's contradictory beliefs with the GOP's ideas but his 100-day plan seems to be along the party lines. His comments about the possibility of his SCOTUS nominee overturning Roe v. Wade appear to be centrist at best, but he doesn't want gay marriage banned again. He is surrounding himself with Dubya's boys, other establishment Republicans, lobbyists and financial CEOs so it appears doubtful that he will "drain the swamp". Based on what is known now, do you think that the soul of the GOP is lost?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps somewhat less conservative, more mainstream centrist big tent. It's early, barring scandal or a national emergency, which historically can derail a party's agenda. But the coalition's in the GOP, like the among Democrats, are paper thin. As for Trump, we await is "coming out". He really is not the obnoxious Trump we've all got to know and hate. 16% blacks voted for him, more than any GOP candidate since Ike. The Dems seem on the path to further marginalize themselves for quite an extended future. But the divisions within the GOP coalition are very real, and apt to explode at anytime. To understand Trump, one needs to study traditional, successful, New York RINOs, Rocky, Lindsey, Giuliani, Bloomberg, et al, because that is the mileau they a born from. They tend to learn how to win the confidence of Democratic voters and work with Democratic officials.
The program seems doable: (1) renegotiate trade agreements w/Canada, Mexico, and China; (2) banking regulatory reform to get small banks lending again; (3) corporate tax cuts from 30% to 15%. By 2019 there ought to be an entrepreneurial boom and jobs finally coming back. nobs 19:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I am surprised by your reaction since you believed that the Republican party you knew was dead. Are you okay with the reintroduction of anti-Semites into the Republican party? Aren't you concerned about the Republican party's abandonment of small government since Trump plans to expand the surveillance state, continue to federalize and militarize the police, and expand the budget by building a bigger border wall; such a border wall will likely require eminent domain which he seems to be okay with using against in order to help private companies build oil pipelines. Aren't you concerned with the Republican party's blatant disregard for religious liberty since Trump wants to register, monitor, deport, and ban people based on their religious beliefs?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not certain what your sources are on some of this stuff, and some of it sounds like the same bullshit sources people have been listening to the past 18 months. But I think we have finally turned a corner on the likes of the NYT, CNN etc. As to finishing President Clinton's border wall, I doubt Congress will fund it entirely over 8 years; and I pledge to support its construction when it is properly renamed "The Clinton Border Wall".
With all those crossover racist Democrats, the GOP is less conservative, more mainstream now. But will it endure? Maybe. Trump has "the vision thing", which is a prerequisite for any successful real estate developer.
Oh, is Islam a religion? I thought it was a political system. If it's a religion, it's like Scientology, it's involuntary and one gets a death sentence for trying to quit.
And when has it ever been known the GOP would propose such massive stimulus, infrastructure, and deficits as are being considered (and likely to take effect) in a non-recessionary year? It's symptomatic of the Democrats disastrous failure to address jobs & recovery from the worst economic crisis in 80 years. Eight years of neglect. nobs 12:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Cryonics

What was your problem with my cryonics edits? Bongolian (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nada nada. I'm terribly sorry, it was a mistake. nobs 07:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I have un-reverted it. Bongolian (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] My apologies

I'm not a man who thinks he's above admitting when he's screwed up — which I did, here. I'd just like you to know that — while I do mean to perpetuate the spread of liberal deceit by poking some fun at your worldview — I don't mean to actually put words in your mouth. Again, my mistake. I hope you can forgive me. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I probably overreacted, my apo logies, too. I can go back years with diffs critical of Alex Jones and InfoWars.
InfoWars is at its peak right now and about to take a nosedive. My advice: get focused on facts. 10 years ago Donald Trump held a fundraiser for Chuck Schumer to help Democrats retake the Senate. You Trump-haters are off entirely on the wrong track and are gonna be embarassed bigly as events develop. nobs 17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if you could give a timescale on that? Would you say this big embarrassment will start in a question of weeks or months? By June perhaps?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@nobs Appreciated (and apology accepted); no hard feelings bud.
And nobody is happier than me if Trump were to pick up some momentum in the Rockefeller Republican/RINO department. We're looking at 4 years of Trump; might as well dream of a silver lining where the guy unleashes his inner liberal and disappoints Andy.?
I hope you're right about InfoWars. Would you believe that I actually donated money to Alex Jones as a teenager? The rumors of my (relative) competence have been greatly exaggerated, as you no doubt already realize. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Jones is getting more daily clicks than the New York Times right now. Trumps first interview after the election with Jones may be the last, although Trump needs the audience for reelection. Any success Trump has by June he will owe to Reince Priebus and Chuck Schumer. It's pretty obvious he hasn't drained the swamp. Jones will either have to moderate his rhetoric to align with Trump (not likely) or slowly begin repudiating Trump and his broken promises. Softening Jones' rhetoric would destroy his audience, being incendiary and critical of Trump would keep some of it. The only other alternative is gridlock among Republicans, which idiots like Jones and the Democrats might like. nobs 18:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
You have a source on InfoWars clicks? I don't doubt it, though — America, you crazy diamond... I think that ultimately, Jones can't cozy up to power. As much as he loves having people with impressive sounding titles on his show, he's not just populist (as in "people vs the power") but openly conspiratorial — the guy thinks that actual mass shootings are either faked with "crisis actors" or inside jobs. His mindset, and that of his audience, is based on perpetual agitation. For all the manipulation they think your typical "feel-good story" might convey, all him and his listeners do is jack off to disaster — real or imagined. I say this with a long sigh, but — trust me as a former daily InfoWars reader. Facepalm.png Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Shit, you would ask that, wouldn't you. Now you're making me work.
But here's the proof Trump owns Schumer. "Trump has donated more to Chuck Schumer than to any other senator". Trump began investing in Schumer when he was a lowly Congressman. You'd think a newsman like Jones would have looked into that before. nobs 19:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I can be a nuisance with asking for sources sometimes... Heh. Thanks for the link, though — but the claim I was actually interested in a source on was (quote):
"Jones is getting more daily clicks than the New York Times right now."
Regardless of how InfoWars fares compared to the NYT, though — I just looked up InfoWars on Alexa, and it's ranked at about #1250 globally in terms of "popularity". That is disconcerting. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, now see if you can follow this: the CIA owns WaPo through its Amazon.com intermediary/front; Amazon also owns Alexa. nobs 19:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
...what's that, boy? Trouble? Trouble, where?? The old mill?? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Now I just heard on the Public Radio International 50% of Hillary Cinton voters think Russians hacked, not into John Podesta's emails, but into the voting machines to rig the election for Trump. WaPo did its job good. nobs 20:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] I'm sorry

I'm hammered Gaul Dernitt (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Textbook EUI, in other words. Sir, do you have any idea how fast you were snarking back there? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] A nickle for your thoughts

I wrote this, I hope you can see past the snark and give it the ol' fair reading. Do you think Alex really speaks to top brass inside the Pentagon, for starters? If so, what the hell is going with your country? And if Alex is a crook, what's your view on the POTUS being on InfoWars for an exclusive interview to begin with? Was Reagan really the best president ever? And so on. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This interview is pre-election. I saw about 5 minutes of his day-after election on InfoWars which I thought was the only one he had with Alex Jones. Here's my theory: Trump started collecting Generals as consultants on his payroll as they were fired by the Obama administration for criticizing Obama's lax approach to ISIS. When Trump speaks on foreign policy like this, it is the views of Flynn, Adm. Sweeney, Mattis and others. His claim of foreknowledge of 9/11 is a re-hash of Richard Clarke'sWikipedia's W.svg, Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US memo. Trump is playing to same anti-neocon voters Obama had success with when exactly 6% of Americans opposed the Iraqi operation. Trump is claiming the same "clean hands" and strategic vision Obama had in 2008, with a dig at the Bush administration. As a Manhattan landlord, Trump must be familiar with the tragic tale of John O'Neill, the former FBI counter-terrorism expert who was killed his first day on the job as head of the Twin Towers security. The business of Muslims "celebrating" Trump admits is hearsay, but stories abounded at the time of Muslims in the West and across the world saying the US deserved the attack. As for Jones in communication with "Pentagon" people, it is very likely Flynn and his staff channeled information to InfoWars. Bannon is probably the mastermind of using Jones, Roger Stone the point man, and Flynn the author of policy analysis.
One thing Trump says which is absolutely true and Trump/Flynn will likely make a priority is, China is the biggest recipient of Persian Gulf oil for which Americans have shed much blood and treasure.
Another point is Trump refers to the Muslim immigration ban as "priority number one", reinforcing my view Trump scapegoated Mexicans for votes, but his real target is Muslims, so the US doesn't end up like Europe right now. This again, is probably Flynn having Trump's ear.
I may have more comments later. nobs 04:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments re UBI

Hey Rob, thought I'd get your thoughts on this. In the Saloon Bar you state: 'Two problems with it [UBI]: (1) there is no way to implement it equally; and (2) it fundamentally goes against human nature. Human beings are built to work, strive, contribute, and better themselves, not to sit on their asses and leech." I won't debate your first point, as I do see that as a legitimate challenge (substituting "fairly" for your "equally"). On your second point, though: 1) assume you are correct, and humans are built to work strive, contribute, and better themselves. Why do humans need to be forced to do those things by a coercive social order? If those qualities were truly innate, wouldn't humans be diligent workers by nature, even in a non-coercive environment? Isn't the coercion, which causes human suffering, redundant and cruelly unnecessary? Or when you say "built", do you mean "humans should be coerced into doing these things" instead of "humans are naturally given to do these things"? And 2), have you read Max Weber? He's controversial but thought-provoking. B) talk 21:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This view came about by an amalgamation of many things, but I'd say Adam Smith's reference to the human "propensity to truck, barter, and exchange", which separates human's from animals, was an eye opener. "No one ever saw two dogs exchange one bone for another," he says. "Give me that which I want, and I will give you this which you want," is how humans derive by far the "necessities and conveniences of life" which virtually no one can construct for themselves by their own labor.
There's an inherent sexist argument in my statement both men and women might make, but I'll leave it alone. Women are driven to better themselves by nature, even if they are a kept mistress.
By "coercive social order" I'm assuming you mean capitalism, communism, or some other system. Here we're speaking of opportunities, or the lack of opportunities. The essence of entrepenuership is to find, or very often create one's own opportunities if the opportunities are missing in the social order of one's environment. And to find or create those opportunities harkens back to Smith's "propensity," which requires at least one other human being, or a market potentially of millions of human beings.
In sum, I'd hate to say it all depends on an optimists vs a pessimists view, but when faced with survival, I'd don't see how anything but the optimists view should prevail. Work is an opportunity, not a burden.
Cultural factors weigh. I for example, was raised by a father who treated work as a form of punishment (which was probably a common attitude in his generation and before). So after many years of trying to avoid work and punishment, and being a social misfit, I was incredibly grateful when an opportunity finally came along and I could redeem myself from not only being a social misfit, but attitudes and habits passed along in error by several generations. Work is nothing but fun, unemployment is misery. (I'll add the caveat, I've worked jobs I hated, and hated myself for doing. To this day I've sworn a promise to myself I will never force myself to work a job I hate or can't have fun at doing. So yes, it takes a personal commitment to want to better oneself, and not passively accepting a "coercive social order").
Oh, and Weber. I've never sat and finished one of his works, but have read extensive tracts usually cited by or in other works. As time goes by, I get more interested all the time. What's always frustrating, it seems, I can never find the original work cited to him when I need it.
For many many years I've wanted to read Philip_Dru:_AdministratorWikipedia's W.svg side by side with contemporaneous works of Weber to get a better understanding of pre-World War I attitudes of civil service and foreign policy experts.
Hope this helps. nobs 22:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Hi...

I enjoyed your gloating, but you should try to find a way to acknowledge the origin of the pictures you use in accord with the license: you may attribute it to RonLar ;-) --larron (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Will do definitely. Good work! nobs 23:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] "Liberals elevated Edward Snowden to celebrity hero status."

[3] I would post this on Conservapedia but it would be pointless, I would be blocked and it would be oversited before you had the chance to read it. Edward Snowden was elevated to celebrity status on Conservapedia by Andy Schlafly. He did not care that Snowden broke numerous laws all he cared about was that Snowden was damaging Obama. This was during your CP sabbatical so you may not be aware but all the evidence is there. To say it was liberals who elevated Snowden to celebrity hero status is rich to say the least.--Mercian (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Andy's naive. You're seeing it now with his defense of the liberal darlings McCain & Graham and the national security state. nobs 15:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Andy's too pinko for you?
Kindly drink some bleach. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
He calls McCain a RINO yet backs McCain's Congressional investigation. He just as well could move in the house with Barack, Michele, and Jarrett. nobs 16:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Again he calls Le Penn a conservative. I am in no doubt, If Andy had been around in 30/40s and Muslims had been Hitler's main target instead of Jews he would have supported the fucking holocaust.--Mercian (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Even when you checkmate somebody, you have to allow them to save face. You don't force them to say "uncle", too. nobs 23:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Mitch McConnell Limerick

There once was a senator named Mitch
Whose policies favored the rich.
Then along came a Trump,
Who spoke on the stump,
Then he made poor McConnell his bitch.

Just in case you want an idea. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh man, I can't top that one. Great work! nobs 23:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Andy blaming everyone but Trump.

I have read Ryancare, Priebuscare, Rinocare and Obamacare-lite but never Trumpcare, your insights?--Mercian (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump backed the bill, which was basically his own HHS Sec. (forgot his name) and Ryans work. Trump knows diddly squat of the details and could care less. Meantime, Andy's a paid consultant of the AAP, which opposed the bill, and uses CP as a forum to attack it. When the Tea Partiers, aka the Freedom Caucus, which Andy backs shot it down, Andy posts Trump's tweet thanking the Tea Party for saving Planned Parenthood on MPR. I guess cause the tweet included a swipe at Democrats, Andy was running a victory lap. Go figure.
Andy hasn't figured out yet Trump has said "fuck the Tea Party", and will now turn to Shumer in the Senate, get Gorsuch passed by letting Democratic Senators name liberal judges in their states to the federal bench, and try to get Shumer and those Democrats to weigh on Pelosi and House Democrats to work with Ryan & the HHS Sec to write a bill that will pass.
We'll know the size of the future majority consensus in the Senate by the number of Democrats who vote for Gorsuch. Then those same Democrstic Senators will lean on their state delegations in the House, seeing there are jobs to be had for their staffs, friends, and contributors as part of the Trump adminisration if they work with Ryan & Trump on passing a healthcare reform measure.
If this scenario don't play out, we're all fucked. nobs 02:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I misspoke. Here's the Trump tweet:
Democrats are smiling in D.C. that the Freedom Caucus, with the help of Club For Growth and Heritage, have saved Planned Parenthood & Ocare!
Here's what Andy's been up to. You tell me if you can make sense of it. nobs 02:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools