The Deplorables

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:14:48 -0700, dcaster@krl.org wrote:

> You are not always wrong.  But you are often wrong when you state that I
> think a certain way.  I am not sure, but I think my IQ is about 20
> points higher than yours. 

Wow. I *never* would have guessed your IQ is only 20!

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 1:39:05 PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 16:52:56 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
> 
> > Surveys now show Trump with about 20% of the black vote!
> 
> Blacks couldn't possibly be any worse off with Trump than they would be 
> with Hillary and hopefully they'll do considerably better.

I would have to agree. What we need is jobs, NOT government jobs. We need to impel those with money to start more businesses, especially those that export. And Blacks are perfectly willing to work, and might even make better employees than many Whites with that sense of entitlement and laziness. In certain jobs it is better to be smart and lazy than to be energetic ans stupid but I am sure plenty of Blacks can figure out how to work smart, not hard. 

Right now, alot of the working Blacks are working for the government or huge companies. But they are doing their jobs. I see in the grocery stores more Whites using a food card and more Blacks paying cash, at least around here. This is an especially economically depressed area and things are a bit slewed, but that is the way it is. Let them learn and earn, give them a decent job and they will work. 

Trump University might have been a flop, but earning power starts with learning power. He is not the brightest bulb on the tree, but that enterprise was not started as a scam. And we do need a fundamental change or we get more "This Is Are Story". Throwing money at it doesn't work. Maybe Clinton would say "I am doubling the school budget" but that means students will know even more about the mating habits of a tse tse fly. They will not know that you cannot have a $250,000 house for $565 a month. 

Trump will probably try some almost crazy ideas, and not be disuaded by advisers. Used to being a boos he'll probably tell them "I don't wany to hear it, we are doing it, now get to work on the best way to implement is or go pick up your fucking welfare check". (which there are none unless you got kids)

This is the change people wanted from Obama but didn't get, except for the worse with the ACA piece of shit. Who the fuck wrote that ? What did they get for writing that ? They should have got executed. 

In other words, the devil we know has gotten so bad that the devil we don't know is preferable. 

And Sloman will be here to tell us how she has never been convicted, totally ignorant of the fact that well over half the crime in this country is unsolved. He thinks that if you live in Chicago and someone steals one of the daisies out of your landscaping that the cops will launch a full scale investigation with forensics and everything. 

The fact is, unless you are a public figure they usually don't even bother to investigate murders. If your olady gets killed and you have a good alibi it stops there, unless it is a big enough deal to make the news. 

The only time the cops ever solved any crime as far as I can see is they recovered two stolen cars and both of them were beaters. One was used in a robbery and I was pissed off because I just filled the BIG gas tank and they ran out ¾ of it, and gas was not cheap at the time. The thugs were caught robbing a house. They wouldn't give me the names because they know me and they know that I owuld do something about it. At least at that time. 

That is how we are here. If they had given me names I would definitely be a murder suspect, although there is a good possibility they would have looked the other way. 

This is how "justice" is here. People in other countries have a hard time understanding it. That is because they are civilized. well when the rest of the people in this country get civilized then I will get civilized. Until then, I got lead, fast moving lead, no waiting.

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 2:52:19 AM UTC+10, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 7:45:55 AM UTC+10, jurb...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 11:49:25 AM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso
> >> wrote:
> >>> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>>> I haven't quite figured out why it's always liberals that want to
> >>>> stir up racial tensions.
> >>>
> >>> They believe that history is a class struggle.  They see everything
> >>> as haves and have-nots.  I've said before that this explains a lot
> >>> of their behavior.
> >>>
> >>> Some of them won't admit they believe in the basic tenets of
> >>> Communism, but most of them don't know where their philosophy comes
> >>> from.
> >>
> >> Zactly.
> >
> > In fact it is a misleading formulation. Tom del Rosso doesn't seem to
> > know that the Communists got that philosophical element from broader
> > socialist thought.
> 
> Yes, I'm aware of the division in philosophy that goes back to the 
> Enlightenment, and I'm aware that you're on the wrong side of it.

Your awareness of a division in philosophy that goes back to the Enlightenment may be real, but since you don't specify precisely what division in philosophy you are referring to it isn't any kind of useful statement.

Claiming that I'm on the wrong side of that division may be emotionally satisfying, but since you haven't identified the division, it's just as useless.

If you were somebody who knew the basics, you might be referring to the split between the Moderate Enlightenment and the Radical Enlightenment, but if you knew that much you'd be aware that the Radical Enlightenment turned out to be the useful side of the split and now forms our collective world view.
 
> It is you who disemble, as in pointing out the origin of the divide 
> while avoiding the fact that you're on the wrong side.

The divide between the proto-communists and the democratic socialists happened in 1870, long after the Enlightenment, and was all about the leading role of an enlightened elite trumping the preferences of the population as a whole.

I'm on the side of the "everybody gets to vote" crowd, and if you want to argue that that's the wrong side, you are lining up with any number of unpleasant people, and unfortunate consequences.

You would appear to be an ignorant twit, and your claim that I'm "disembling" is total nonsense.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 4:33:39 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 20:06:04 -0700, bill.sloman wrote:
> 
> > John Larkin has less scientific education, and chooses to believe
> > everything he read in the Murdoch media - which is an other way of being
> > irrational.
> 
> You'll be delighted to hear that Fox in the US and Sky in the UK have 
> taken a Left turn and are no longer promoting common sense and sound 
> reason. Murdoch is now on your side, Bill.

It may look that way to you. The Murdoch media in Australia still looks as right-wing as ever, but somebody as right wing as you may notice the editing of some of the more florid idiocies which you imagine to be common sense and sound reason.

> He's done a deal with the Devil by the looks of things.

Only if the Devil could buy advertising in his newspapers. Murdoch is interested in money, not abstract ideals like truth and accuracy.

> I wonder what they could possibly have offered him?

Money. 

> Eternal life in some form or another I would guess. Nothing 
> else is going to have much appeal at his time of life.

All his kids seem to be running bits of his empire. He may be interested in keeping them wealthy. Parents are like that. Granting your personality, your own parents may have been less supportive.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 2:14:51 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 11:09:32 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> 
> > Dan does like to think I'm wrong. One of his  many transparently foolish mistakes. It's not that I'm never wrong - just not often enough to keep Dan happy, or plausible.
> 
> You are not always wrong.  But you are often wrong when you state that I think a certain way.

I think I've given up saying that you think - that would dignify the processes going on in what brain you've got.

> I am not sure, but I think my IQ is about 20 points higher than yours.

You've told us that before. About all that might mean is that we are both bright enough that IQ tests say we score a lot better than average - once you are couple of standard deviations away from the mean they stop working the way they were designed to work. What IQ tests measure most reliably is your capacity to pass exams - and they aren't all that good at that - and using an IQ test score as if it were a synonym for intelligence isn't clever.

> Not all that significant, but I am much more sceptical than you.

Yet you believe that Hillary Clinton is crooked, when she has never been convicted of any crime - and had Ken Starr sniffing through her and her husband's background. In effect you are parroting Republican election propaganda, which isn't the behaviour of a sceptic.

If Hillary Clinton is crooked, Donald Trump has to be downright criminal - haven't you heard about Trump University?

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 4:48:01 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:14:48 -0700, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> 
> > You are not always wrong.  But you are often wrong when you state that I
> > think a certain way.  I am not sure, but I think my IQ is about 20
> > points higher than yours. 
> 
> Wow. I *never* would have guessed your IQ is only 20!

Cursitor Doom in fine form. If he knew anything about IQ scores he'd know that university graduates rarely have IQ scores below 110.

If he knew a bit more he might be aware that Clive Sinclair was chairman  of MENSA UK for 15 years and is now it's honorary president, which gives him an IQ above 150. Mensa does exist to prove that scoring well on an IQ test doesn't mean that you can think, and my favourite Clive story - from my Cambridge days - was of somebody failing to persuade Clive that using a number of very cheap - and unlikely to be good - components in a piece of kit was likely to cost you money, because any one of them could stop the piece of kit from working well enough to sell, and finding one dud component was more expensive than buying only better quality parts in the first place.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 4:41:49 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 04:42:10 -0700, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
> 
> > And nobody in their right mind could vote for Hillary, if they knew how
> > crooked she is.
> 
> A proven crooked, evil, demented warmonger.

Cursitor Doom gets it comprehensively wrong. Hillary Clinton has never been convicted of anything, so she's not a proven crook, and the US didn't declare war on anybody when she was Secretary of State, so she's not a war-monger.

There are tests for dementia, but nobody would bother administering any of them to Hillary Clinton - she's not remotely demented.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder, and since Cursitor Doom considers anybody to the left of Genghis Khan to be an evil-left-winger, he probably does think that she's evil. He's wrong - good and evil aren't useful concepts to use in discussing US politicians, where the "religious right" includes any number of extremely nasty pieces of work. 

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 10:47:45 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

> James Arthur is particularly prone to selective memory.
> 
> He's just had Ben Franklin being anti-democracy when when he was actually being anti-monarchy, and exiled, when he was a US Ambassador to France.

I admit skipping your intervening screeds--but as I recall, you'd stated
as a fact that Franklin had been sent off to France to prevent his adding
"more democracy" to the Constitution.

You'll find his signature on the document along with the rest of
Pennsylvania's delegation--

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_zoom_4.html

Franklin's being in Philadelphia for the signing--and records of him
participating in the Constitutional Convention--would seem modestly
inconvenient to your theory that he was exiled, in France.

But do carry on.

Cheers,
James Arthur

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 11:14:02 AM UTC-4, Frnak McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 16:15:02 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com <dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 12:24:50 PM UTC-4, Frnak McKenney wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 14:40:47 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com <dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 1:33:18 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 08:10:05 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 11:17:47 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> 
> >> > It's pretty interesting how that came about.  I recently read
> >> > "Recollections of 92 Years, 1824-1916," by Elizabeth Avery Meriwether,
> >> > a southern woman who lived through the thick of it.  I was very
> >> > surprised to read of the Civil War from a Southerner's perspective.
> >> 
> >> For another viewpoint, try Eric Foner's "Nothing But Freedom:
> >> Emancipation and Its Legacy" and (a bit longer and more detailed)
> >> "Forever Free: The Sory of Emancipation and Reconstruction".
> >> 
> >> ( The pulp-and-text-challenged can find an AHTV (C-SPAN3) interview of
> >>   Foner here:
> >>   The Civil War: Politics of Reconstruction
> >>   https://www.c-span.org/video/?401420-1/politics-reconstruction
> >> )
> >> 
> >> One of Foner's key points is the conflict between the plantation owners'
> >> desperate need for cheap manpower and the ex-slaves' reluctance to work
> >> under the conditions the former slave-owners wanted: long hours of hard
> >> labor for little or no pay, and subject to the same kind of punishment
> >> they had experienced prior to the war.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Frank McKenney
> >
> > Thanks -- I listened to the video.  His was a pretty standard description
> > of /what/ happened and /who/.  Meriwether's was the first account (and a
> > first-hand account at that) I'd seen of /why/ the Southerners acted as
> > they did, from the Southern perspective.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > James Arthur
> 
> Ah. I missed that. Yes, "Nothing But Freedom" gets into the differences
> in (I can't believe I'm using this term in a sentence) world view
> between the newly-freed slaves on the one hand, and their former masters
> and much of the South on the other. If one has been brought up on a
> steady diet of "Negroes aren't fully human and can't be trusted",
> suddenly finding one's self in a world controlled by "that kind of
> people" must have been incredibly frightening.
> 
> Anyway, thank you -- my local library lacks any of Ms. Meriwether's
> works, so I've ordered a copy from Amazon.com. I also found a clip in
> the C-SPAN video library specific to "Nothing But Freedom" if you're
> curious:
> 
>   <https://www.c-span.org/video/?190803-1/forever-free-story-emancipation-reconstruction>
> 
> Not all authors can both write well and speak clearly about their subject
> material; Mr. Foner appears to be one of these.

I have a couple books on reconstruction in my stacks, but I confess that
the seemingly imminent destruction resulting from the last handfuls
of years has grabbed my attention instead.

I'm not sure exactly what happens when a large number of nuclear-armed
countries simultaneously run out of other people's money, ala
Greece or Venezuela, but scanning the horizon, it looks like we're well
on the way to finding out.

Cheers,
James Arthur

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 11:30:52 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

- once you are couple of standard deviations away from the mean they stop working the way they were designed to work.

Cite?   

 What IQ tests measure most reliably is your capacity to pass exams - and they aren't all that good at that - and using an IQ test score as if it were a synonym for intelligence isn't clever.

And what do you think is a better way to tell the intelligence of people?

> 
> > Not all that significant, but I am much more sceptical than you.
> 
> Yet you believe that Hillary Clinton is crooked, when she has never been convicted of any crime - and had Ken Starr sniffing through her and her husband's background. In effect you are parroting Republican election propaganda, which isn't the behaviour of a sceptic.

You do not seem to be very sceptical.   Because someone has not been convicted, does not mean that they are honest.  It could easily mean that they are clever at avoiding being convicted.
> 
> If Hillary Clinton is crooked, Donald Trump has to be downright criminal - haven't you heard about Trump University? 

I have heard of Trump University.  But using your logic, Trump has not been convicted,  so therefore he must be honest.  You should really learn to think.
Obviously you are not all that intelligent.

                                     Dan

 
> 
> -- 
> Bill Sloman, Sydney