.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Cory1848
-
Posts
691 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Cory1848
-
-
18 hours ago, Jingthing said:
Similar melody, innit?
One of the scariest scenes in the movies. This one's a bit lighter:
-
Probably a compulsive shoplifter. I’m sure he didn’t desperately need the money. How many wealthy celebrities have been caught shoplifting? -- Lindsay Lohan, Winona Ryder -- Jennifer Capriati, if anyone remembers her, walked off with a $15 ring from a kiosk somewhere. I guess she just couldn’t resist. Get this guy to a shrink.
-
12 hours ago, gemini81 said:
So then why support her?!
Because she's more than qualified. But neither she, nor anyone else, is going to perfect. If Franklin Roosevelt or Lincoln were running, or if Obama were running for a third term, perhaps I would support them, but that's not an option. Trump is not fit for office. It's an easy decision really.
-
3 hours ago, Pimay1 said:
Trump is absolutely right on this one. Even if I was a Clinton supporter I would be against the no fly zone. Shoot down one Russian plane and it would all start.
I agree. I'm totally a Hillary supporter, I've already cast my vote and think she'll be a good president. However, the no-fly zone is not a good idea. Putin is not stupid, and he's not Hitler, and he doesn't want a general war any more than anyone else does, and letting him have his share of influence in Syria doesn't amount to a Munich-level capitulation. I think something can be worked out, and I hope I'm not proven wrong ...
-
1 hour ago, USNret said:
I have never seen a candidate campaign against someone who isn't even running for office.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-expands-attacks-to-include-george-clinton
-
I don't think Trump needs to worry too much about De Niro; it's when Joe Pesci chimes in that he'd better start looking behind his back!
-
1 minute ago, OMGImInPattaya said:
It's been nice have a civil debate with you...so different than the juvenile taunts and insults that passes for debate with so many others here.
Likewise -- bye for now --
-
13 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:
So that's why she voted for the Iraq war...you're not helping your case here. Hillary has been in government in one capacity or another for 30 years and we know her record...failed healthcare reform, repeal of Glass-Steagal (techincally on Bill's watch but are you going to argue they didn't have pillow-talk conversations about decisions he made), unalloewed support for Wall Street and the rape of the US Treasury and taxpayers during the lead up to and after the 2008 financial collapse, her support for the ouster of the Quadafi regime in Libya and all that has followed from that. The point is that Hillary has a record in government and it isn't a good one...and I'm not one to support giving her up to 8 more years at the very tip-top of that government.
PS: Please note I'm not even taking into account her collosal misjudment in the emal server fiasco, which again shows the bad judgment that follows this woman around like a bad rash...I know I know, she has appoligized for that too after the fact and eqivocating on it for months so that makes it ok I guess.
I'll just say that she has a mixed record -- some good, some bad, and I do have reservations about her, particular the closeness to Wall Street. I think she has the potential to be a good president, however. And, given the choice, she could grow actual horns out of the sides of her head and I'd still choose her over her opponent, whose flaws I see as overwhelmingly worse.
Oh My God in Pattaya! I've frittered away half the day on this forum and have to get to work so am signing out. Perhaps we'll quarrel again! --
-
3 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:
That's just campaign rhetoric...you've heard the term: "Campaign in poetry...Govern in prose."
No it's not -- it's what he said, on several occasions. And it's not very poetic, at least to my ears! Trump supporters consistently claim that Trump's plainspokenness, his no-BS approach, is what they admire most about him. So suddenly, when he says something screwy (which is 95 percent of the time), it's all just rhetoric and poetry, in other words BS? Why shouldn't I take him for his word? Isn't that what's so great about him?
One thing that's clear, though, is that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. On some occasions, rather than the US plundering foreign oil, he's suggested that Russia should take care of ISIS. On other occasions -- private meetings with defense advisers, which should be campaign-rhetoric-free zones -- he's asked repeatedly why the US can't use its nuclear arsenal. I honestly don't believe, should he somehow find his way in the White House, that he'd lead us straight to nuclear war -- I'm not a total alarmist, and someone would manage to put a lid on him -- but the whole picture here is one of a man who has no idea whatsoever what he's talking about.
-
4 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:
I'm not arguing that her single vote was the cause...only that her judment was bad...very bad...and that while it's nice she finally admitted that and apologized for it a decade later, that still doesn't erase the original error in judgment not did either action do anything to ameliorate the past and continuing damage that was done. It also shows, as you seem to admit, that she's certainly no "profile in courage" and to me that eliminates her from serious considderation for the presidency.
Well, OK, I agree -- she exercised bad judgment, in that vote; I wish she had voted otherwise. I wish that she had made stirring speeches in the Senate against the resolution, even in a losing cause. I think some Democrats probably did make such speeches; I don't recall. But hers was not a "profile in courage" on that occasion.
But if you count this as reason to disqualify her, whereas you seem happy to vote for Trump -- to my mind, to think of Trump as some sort of "profile in courage" is more than a little ludicrous! -- well, I simply disagree with your logic. Clinton has intelligence, knowledge, and the ability to reason; Trump, an empty shell, has none of these things.
-
23 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:
Well I base mine on what they've DONE...especially when they are in government and acting in my name...so let's start with the vote for war in Iraq and the untold death, destruction, and cost that has caused the nation...and weigh that against calling someone fat and copping a feel...and I could go on and on.
And further to the above, here's what Trump has proposed doing in Iraq. He wants to bomb ISIS back to the Stone Age and steal the oil as spoils of war. How he proposes to do this he hasn't specified, but it sure sounds like plenty of death, destruction, and cost. This is how Trump proposes to act "in your name" should he win the election, at least as far as Iraq (and Syria) are concerned. Does this sound like a good idea to you?
-
7 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:
Well I base mine on what they've DONE...especially when they are in government and acting in my name...so let's start with the vote for war in Iraq and the untold death, destruction, and cost that has caused the nation...and weigh that against calling someone fat and copping a feel...and I could go on and on.
Fair enough -- Hillary Clinton was one of 29 Democratic senators who voted for the Iraq resolution (21 voted nay; and Republican senators were 48 to 1 in favor). People tend to forget the patriotic fervor that was foisted on the nation by the Bush administration at the time -- I was in the US at the time, it was ugly and pervasive -- and politicians were under considerable pressure to express the will of their constituents, at least as they perceived it.
That's no excuse; Clinton's vote was wrong. However, she's admitted that; she's admitted that she was wrong. And to somehow imply that her single vote among scores of others (hundreds, include House votes) was solely responsible for the "death, destruction, and cost" that followed is a bit of a stretch. I would put the bulk of the blame for the mayhem in Iraq squarely where it belongs -- the neoliberal fantasies of the Bush administration.
-
19 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:
The point is that she didn't see such a serial sexual predator unfit for the presidency and insist he resign forthwith...but says someone who called a woman "fat" 20 years ago is unfit for the same office.
But, no, that’s not the point at all. Despite Bill Clinton’s affairs, by most accounts he was a not bad president and tremendously popular (despite well-founded criticisms of his repeal of parts of Glass-Steagall, perhaps his biggest screw-up). Some posters here have mentioned Kennedy, who was an inspiring president despite being a notorious womanizer. Trump, on the other hand, misogyny and bigotry and vileness of character aside, has shown no evidence that he would be anything but an utterly horrendous and destructive president -- his “policies” such as he’s been able to articulate them are either incoherent or absent. This “pussygate” business as one poster called it makes for a convenient flashpoint and is indeed revealing of character, but in the end it's other things that should qualify or disqualify a candidate from the presidency.
-
11 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:
That is about the lamest excuse. I had to laugh out loud when I read it. And when Trump violently raped his first wife, was he a card-carrying member of the Bronx Library? Maybe we can then blame the library for his sexual aggression towards women.
The few Trump fans who are left, are trying to paint this 'pussygate' thing as being his only transgression. That's like saying Hitler's only transgression was kicking his dog once in anger. Sorry folks, Trump has a long sordid history of screw-ups. If in doubt, do some research - it's all over the web like a broken gallon bottle of molasses on the bathroom floor.
Holy smokes! "Like a broken gallon bottle of molasses on the bathroom floor"! That's fantastic, man! Been reading your Faulkner, or something -- cheers!
-
13 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:
About 50% of your fellow Americans (assuming you are one) disagree with you...maybe you should listen more and spout liberal shibboleths less.
Forty percent and rapidly shrinking. As for "liberal shibboleths," I base my opinions on what the candidates actually say, and on what they've actually done. Every time Trump talks, his stupidity rings loud and clear. And please don't preach to me about "listening"; I listen plenty, and what I hear from diehard Trump supporters I find discouraging and unsettling.
-
23 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:
That they care about the future of the country in 2016...not whether a candidate groped somebody's wife over 10 years ago or made borish comments about women
Precisely. While Trump's misogyny, racism, and casual bigotry have no place in America, it's his complete ignorance about both foreign and domestic affairs, how government works, how the courts work, what separation of powers means, what conflict of interest means, that I object to most. I care deeply about the future of the United States, which is why Trump should get no closer to the Oval Office than on a White House tour with the other tourists. Because that's all he is -- a tourist and a poser. (And a pig.)
-
9 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:
Funny, if I said that about the fat lady in the loud pantsuits I'd get a forum suspension...but post it about a white male and it's all good. In any case, thank you for your keen insights on the election and enlightening contribution to the discussion.
The "pig" comment merely imitates Trump's own preferred style of speaking. As for forum suspensions, I've never quite been able to figure that out. I was scolded once for criticizing (by name) a building company in [unnamed northern Thai city] that screwed up my house on the grounds that I would be sued for it, even if what I wrote was truthful. The company [REDACTED, REDACTED, and REDACTED]. However, it was apparently OK to post comments praising the company. Which, of course, results in a one-sided discussion. A head-scratcher for sure!
-
4 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:
I hate to be the one to have to break it to these women, but 93% of men say these things about women when there're among themselves (the other 7% are gay and say the same things about men but the body parts are different). As Trump said, it was "locker room talk." Your shock and horror is misplaced, and if such talk is a real concern of yours, you need to have a talk with your own husbands, boyfriends, and sons who talk about women in the same way when you're not around.
And keep in mind, we're electing the president of the most powerful country in the world...not a church choir director.
I marvel at your loyalty. Just a few points -- and I haven’t read through all nine and counting pages of this discussion, so apologies if I’m repeating what other people have probably already said.
1. Trump is a pig. His statements from thirty years ago, twenty years ago, ten years, and last week all demonstrate this. You may try to write it off as “locker-room banter,” but it’s clear that he sees women as the playthings of powerful men such as himself. There’s no place for that kind of cave-man attitude in American presidential politics, especially given that half the electorate is female. However, Trump might do well to put on a turban, travel to Al-Raqqa, and run for president of ISIS. Seriously. His views on women are more in line with those of ISIS, or the Taliban, than they are of mainstream America.
2. If you believe that Trump’s propensity for hurling insults and innuendos makes him some kind of alpha person and will give him a leg up in negotiations with Putin, Xi Jinping, Netanyahu, Hassan Rouhani, or Elizabeth Warren for that matter, you’re sadly mistaken. All of these people and countless others besides will play Trump for the fool he is. They will manipulate his vanity and gleefully run circles around him. The only person I can think of on the international stage whom Trump might match up with is Duterte of the Philippines; they might have a few good laughs together, some locker-room jokes perhaps.3. Lifelong Republicans are leaving Trump (if they haven’t already left). The one Republican of the past ten years whom I have perhaps the most respect for, Jon Huntsman, has called for Trump to stand down and for Pence to lead the ticket. It’s not too late for you! Nobody would blame you if you did the same! Think about it!
4. Trump is a pig.
-
23 hours ago, pkspeaker said:
temperature record from the British Antarctic Survey, temps taken at the Antarctic Pennensula: [ www.theaustralian.com.au%2fnews%2fnation%2fantarctic-cooling-after-decades-of-warming-say-scientists%2fnews-story%2fb69b61d71286ae3668301baa33ab0eb1/RK=0/RS=atSQMPeQXWXulTlKqben4wNWX74- ]
antarctic cooling for 20 years
and it's corroborated by more ice in Antarctica: [ http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses ] and also by Antarctic sea ice extent records broken in 2013 and 2014 & BAS recorded lowest temperature ever at antarctica at -55.4*C in August 2014.
Asia glaciers "mysteriously" expanding
http://www.livescience.com/48256-asia-karakoram-glaciers-stability.html ..and more 'mystery' expanding glaciers in South America: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090622-glaciers-growing.html
Arctic Ice has just very recently started to rebound http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.8.html http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.10.html http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.4.html http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.12.html http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.7.html
http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
NO GLOBAL WARMING ON SATELITE OR RADIOSONDE FOR 18 YEARS
where's your winning argument and scientific consensus now?
The scientific consensus is as I stated, about 97 percent of climate scientists upholding, through real science, that global warming is man-made. Here's a website debunking several specific arguments made by climate change deniers, including some of those you mention above, with a link to lots more:
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/
Also, you cite the website <www.climatedepot.com>, which is run by a fellow named Marc Moreno. His history and lack of credentials speak for themselves:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano
Happy reading!
-
1 hour ago, Neurath said:
Yawno - it's enough to make me want to watch Apprentice re-runs. They both have average hair and I'm pretty sure neither can tweet. Average taxpayers without hot wives an no hotels. Sleepy....
Although Kaine himself was pretty hot when he was young.
-
23 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:
The American government alone is spending 22 billion this year on fighting mother nature. LINK
And that is just the government. imagine how much private citizens and corporations are contributing as well. And then consider all the other governments and corporations and citizens around the world. It gets into trillions. Wouldn't it be nice to be on the receiving end of that avalanche of cash.
So you ask who benefits, well, the entire discipline of climate science for one. Wouldn't it suck for all of those climate scientists, to have world to find out this is a natural event which can't be altered.
And then you have politicians who really love to have a threat to save people from. And then you have the socialists who want to punish all capitalists. And then you have the globalist one world government people who find this to be an excellent platform to eradicate the sovereignty of nations. And so on...
<sigh> When the topic shifts to one-world-government conspiracy theories, my eyes just glaze over ... sorry ...
-
12 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:
You offer up things that can be falsified through scientific method. Anthropogenic warming of the earth cannot be simulated in a lab. The link to cancer by tobacco can be seen through countless medical histories. Earth's history shows that warming of the earth causes increases in CO2 and not the other way around. Like today's fake scientists are trying to show.
At least you understand that fake (junk) science is a real thing.
I am not a scientist. Offhand, I cannot debunk nor confirm your statement about C02, and I have no idea where you get your information from. However, something like 97 percent of climate scientists do believe, through research that they have conducted, that global warming is real and man-made. I think it's entirely unreasonable to conclude that 97 percent of climate science is junk science, and the remaining 3 percent is what we should bank on.
Another way of looking at this is to follow the money, and here the example of the tobacco companies is instructive. Who profits from the notion that global warming is man-made? Manufacturers of solar panels perhaps? Last I looked, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not a major global industry. But who profits from debunking the notion that global warming is man-made? Industries that, I think, are among the most profitable in history, certainly profiting enough to buy off a few scientists and raftloads of politicians.
Drill, baby, drill!
-
3 hours ago, canuckamuck said:
And it is very good scientific method to declare the debate is over and to demonize any alternate point of view, right. Isn't that how science works? By winning the argument through mockery, shaming,and refusal to consider alternatives? And of course alternate views are also proper grounds for losing your right to be elected.
Progressive Liberal democracy in action.
No, by winning the argument through overwhelming scientific consensus. Would you also like to argue, for the sake of having an "alternative view," that cigarettes are not carcinogenic (as the tobacco companies' fake scientists tried to do for a while), or that the earth is flat, or that the moon is made of green cheese?
-
9 minutes ago, Scotwight said:
You probably have him on your ignore list and didn't see I was responding to a poster who was discussing America and the legality of porn which of course has nothing to do with the topic but......
No, I don't have anyone on my ignore list (is there such a thing?), just felt like chiming in anyway! Sorry if my response was off target.
Trump thanks Russia's Putin for slashing U.S. diplomatic staff
in World News
Posted
Except, of course, no one loses a job. If embassy staffers are sent home from a post for any reason, they hang out at the State Department in Washington until they get reassigned somewhere else. It's nearly impossible to fire a US government bureaucrat. Trump's comment about welcome "payroll cuts" is just another glaring example of his utter cluelessness about how government works.