We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, November 14. 2016
Leon Russell, RIP
No amount of analytics are going to get me to buy an $800 iPhone nor will it make the cheap mobile phones hip and trendy.
The FBI May Have Run Not Just One But 24 Dark Web Child-Porn Websites - The sites are thought to have accounted for roughly half of all child porn websites on the dark web.
Attacks On Catholic Church Require People Of All Faiths To Say ‘We Are Catholics Now’
Why is America taking in Australia’s illegal immigrants?
New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly
That is not from The Onion
Maggie's posted negatively on all the Repub candidates, including Trump. Also on Hillary and Bernie.
Will the Democrats Learn Anything at All from Defeat? The party’s crack-up has arrived, and the fight will revolve around federal interventions and authority:
The idea that government, especially federal government, is supposed to solve our problems is a sickness. In America as I see it, government's first job is to do no harm. Its second job is to get out of the way so people can solve their own problems.
"Everybody has gone coo-coo. The only sane person is this crazy Russian immigrant..."
Der Spiegel: A dangerous president
The new Blue America
The riotous inside story of Farage's astonishing coup as he became the first foreign politician to meet President elect Trump
Funny. Farage had to have a smoke on Donald's terrace. Man, Trump's crib is vulgar. With luck, he might do a great job, vulgar or not.
Time to Boycott Pepsi - CEO Says “Employees Are Scared for Their Safety” After Trump’s Victory
Bogeyman gonna getcha
The 'Millionaire-Socialist-Class' (Or, Why It's Important To Be 'For' Rather Than 'Against' Something)
The coalition for diversity whose diversity did diversity just win?
What???? If I vote for a woman, do I sell out my manhood?
‘What’s Happening to America?’ Trump Supporter Beaten by Chicago Mob Speaks Out
Freakout at the YWCA
Freakout at Whitman College
Krauthammer: ‘Obama’s Legacy Is Toast’
Meaning Obamacare and the Iran pay-off?
Liberals are in such disbelief/shock on Myron Ebell appointment for EPA transition, he has a Snopes page
Theresa May will vow to TAKE BACK CONTROL of British borders after Trump’s election win
PARIS: ONE YEAR ON
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Thanks for the laugh. " anti-ocean" I don't think the oceans care what we think.
The sputtering disbelief that a new administration they don't care for is going to do things that shock them--well, it's priceless. Kind of like how I felt when the EPA labeled CO2 a toxin. Honestly, you'd think these people had never in their lives confronted lunacy in government policy and wondered how they were going to carry on. I find myself wanting to walk around yelling GROW UP. Learn some of life's big words: other people sometimes disagree with you about stuff.
I know AVI has sworn off post-election coverage but I just can't look away from the Left's train wreck. Just praying the debris hurts few innocents.
A Prof: "... the administration that was just elected is demonstrably anti-science, anti-climate, and by extension anti-ocean."
The laws of physics are not subject to popular vote. Trump may be President-elect in the United States, but anthropogenic global warming is strongly supported by the scientific evidence.
Bird Dog: Who cares? Why Care?
Well, humans who want to leave a better world for their children might. Hmm. Suppose a misanthrope might not care.
Z: Suppose a misanthrope might not care.
Guess it's a matter of taste. We're rather fond of the plucky little apes. Consider it a peccadillo, if you like.
Come on people, tell me that ^ is NOT computerized output. ROFL.
Maybe if we could get it to reply adversarially to Shakespeare written backwards or something...
"The science is settled", and all the talk about how many "scientists" agree with AGW sure sounds like popular vote to me.
mudbug: "The science is settled", and all the talk about how many "scientists" agree with AGW sure sounds like popular vote to me.
You are confusing argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people) with argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority).
An appeal to authority is valid when
• The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
• The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
• The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
• There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
• There is no evidence of undue bias.
The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
Experts are more likely to be right in their field of expertise than non-experts — but not necessarily. Consequently, it is generally reasonable for non-experts to defer to expert opinion when these conditions are met.
In any case, we didn't make an appeal to authority, but to laws of physics. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will inevitably warm the surface.
DrTorch: Do you claim to be an expert on the subject?
No. While we understand the basic physics and processes, we generally defer to expert opinion.
In other words, you can't or won't think and follow what you're told to follow.
"Experts" in the legal business are, everywhere, called whores. You can always buy any opinion you need.
Now that you got bitchslapped in the election, will you be concentrating on the weather?
Will Bithers: In other words, you can't or won't think and follow what you're told to follow.
As already pointed out, an argument to a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence. We're more than happy to discuss the evidence. Indeed, we already have — right on this very thread.
Will Bithers: "Experts" in the legal business are, everywhere, called whores. You can always buy any opinion you need.
That would be an ad hominem argument. While individual scientists may be subject to undue influence, the consensus concerning global warming crosses multiple fields of study, among scientists in many different countries and cultures.
Will Bithers: Now that you got bitchslapped in the election
The Americans are free to choose whomever they want to be their president, even if he is an unrepentant bigot.
Loser, you got bitchslapped. You have no clue why, and you're still whining like an pwned bitch.
only on Planet Naive are experts not whores. ask your next court-appointed public defender if I'm right or not.
Will Bithers: only on Planet Naive are experts not whores
So Einstein was a whore. Interesting.
are you that stupid or do you really not know what an expert witness is? I know you don't understand how science works.
you're really here to get slapped around, aren't you?
Will Bithers: are you that stupid or do you really not know what an expert witness is?
The discussion concerned expert opinion, not experts called as witnesses in court trials. Not sure why you are confused. See above.
Says the robot that invoked Einstein to validate its defective programmed output. That's twice wrong and the 'bot doesn't get either one.
Then start deferring chumly, because I am.
You don't understand the basic physics, that's why you embarrassed yourself when you wrote about it. Now you simply misapply the references you cite.
DrTorch: You don't understand the basic physics
Waving you hands doesn't constitute an argument.
You might start by calculating the graybody temperature of the Earth, then compare that calculation to Earth's actual surface temperature.
Zachriel, the angel who governs memories, is an expert in wikipedia.
I'm curious how many websites he's assigned to scroll and troll.
"Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will inevitably warm the surface."
No it doesn't. Additional CO2 causes global greening, not global warming. It encourages additional plant growth which absorbs the CO2 and negates the hysterical arguments about greenhouse gases increasing temperatures. There is empirical evidence for this, as opposed to global warming.
We need to end the silly global warming hoax once and for all.
Jim: Additional CO2 causes global greening, not global warming.
While CO2 can increase the rate of photosynthesis, it doesn't keep up with anthropogenic emissions.
Zack...you're brainwashed. Your bizarre religion with all it's bizarre catechisms and rituals have been resoundingly defeated. Your witch hunts have been show to be anti-science and anti-reality garbage.
Sorry...thats the truth.
DrTorch: No it's not.
"Is not!" is not much of an argument. The basic physics have been known for over a century. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.
If you do a direct calculation of the graybody temperature of the Earth, you would see that without the greenhouse effect it would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is.
You don't understand how to apply that reference to the Earth's atmosphere.
"No it's not" may not be much of a response, but neither is "I just repeat what I read, even though I've never validated it, nor am I capable of doing so."
DrTorch: You don't understand how to apply that reference to the Earth's atmosphere.
We just did. Compare the calculated graybody temperature of the Earth from physical first principles, then compare it to the measure temperature.
"anthropogenic global warming is strongly supported by the scientific evidence"
No it's not. The studies have been shown years ago to be faked and fraudulent. Computer models are not scientific evidence. The scientific evidence does not conform with the computer models.
The arguments regarding "sea level rise" are a particular joke. They are all contradicted by NOAA's own tide information which shows no increase in sea level rise over the last century.
Jim: The studies have been shown years ago to be faked and fraudulent.
That is incorrect. There are hundreds of studies, using different methodologies, reaching the same conclusion. The Earth's surface is warming, and the majority of the warming is anthropogenic.
Jim: They are all contradicted by NOAA's own tide information which shows no increase in sea level rise over the last century.
NOAA: Global Sea Level Index
I might start thinking that proponents of AGW theories believe what they say when I see any evidence that they adopt small carbon footprints for themselves.
tnxplant: I might start thinking that proponents of AGW theories believe what they say when I see any evidence that they adopt small carbon footprints for themselves.
The problem is the energy infrastructure. It will take concerted action to update that infrastructure. The good news is that most of it cycles out every 50 years or so.
Re: We Are All Catholics Now...
This is nothing new, and should not surprise anyone who has conducted the slimmest bit of research. The Left has worked to infiltrate the Catholic Church, and quite successfully, for decades. Saul Alinsky did it best back in the '60s, then devoted his 1972 book "Rules for Radicals" to Lucifer, another great infiltrator of The Church. Recall also, that Hillary Clinton's well-hidden senior thesis was an adoring examination of the works of Saul Alinsky.
They may have lost an election, but make no mistake: a relentless assault on The Church will be viewed by Democrat insiders as their only path back to power...
And from a book by the late Phyllis Schlafly:
"Alinsky had always targeted churches for radical infiltration, and to a certain degree he succeeded. The Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) was the Alinskyite branch of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops which had offices in dioceses across the country. It was founded in 1969 by priests and bishops close to Saul Alinsky, such as Monsignor John Egan, who sat on Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation board. The group was originally called the Campaign for Human Development, with “Catholic” added later as its socialist work began to draw criticism.
Alinsky had initially won favor with some in the Archdiocese of Chicago by appearing to be an advocate of justice for the poor. In the 1950s, in fact, Alinsky received tens of thousands of dollars from the Church to “study” poverty and racism."
And, a film on the topic... A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
Re: Why a lot of people are moving out of California
I've always been amazed that anybody can afford to live in these liberal bastions. I thought they were all about "affordable" and "sustainable."
mudbug: I've always been amazed that anybody can afford to live in these liberal bastions. I thought they were all about "affordable" and "sustainable."
It's the law of supply and demand. Many people want to live in California. California's net migration is still positive, even though home pricing is already very high in many areas. GDP growth was 4.2% in 2015, fueling significant job growth.
Supply and demand is part of it, but another part of it is the regulations that are put in place that favor the people who already live there at the expense of those don't.
mudbug: Supply and demand is part of it, but another part of it is the regulations that are put in place that favor the people who already live there at the expense of those don't.
Most regulation is metropolitan. California is a very large state with plenty of places to live, but most people want a good-paying job near the coast. Coastlines are linear, but people take up ground in two-dimensions, so there's going to be jostling for position.
California's net migration is still positive, even though home pricing is already very high in many areas.
The in-migration is made up entirely of illegals. Legal citizens are leaving the state in droves. You will soon have a third world makeup of wealthy liberals and illegals in the lower class to handle menial labor. But the middle class is hollowing out in California.
It is true that if Trump stops illegal immigration from increasing and makes employers only hire Americans, the California economy will collapse. Hence the noise about secession from the union to maintain their peculiar institution.
Jim: The in-migration is made up entirely of illegals.
About half of California's foreign-born population are naturalized citizens. About half the remainder have legal status.
California's positive net migration being positive is due to migration from foreign countries. US citizens are moving out of California. When migration is done in terms of taxpayers as the IRS does, for both US citizens and foreigners, the migration is negative.
5 Million People Left California Over the Past Decade. Many Went to Texas.
About 5 million California residents left the Golden State during the past decade, marking an “unprecedented” number according to a report released this week.Consider IRS data for 2013-2014.
The Sacramento Bee analyzed tax return data from the Internal Revenue Service between 2004 and 2013, the height of the housing crash and recession, which impacted California more sharply than most states.
During that time period, about 3.9 million people moved to California from other states, leaving a net migration population loss of more than 1 million people.
Texas attracted more Californians than any other state, drawing 600,000 residents.
Individual Income Tax Returns: State-to-State Migration Outflow for Selected Income Items, Calendar Years 2013-2014
CA Total Migration-US and Foreign 268,472
CA Total Migration-US 256,157
CA Total Migration-Foreign 12,315
CA Total Migration-Same State 443,921
CA Non-migrants 13,289,353
Individual Income Tax Returns: State-to-State Migration Inflow for Selected Income Items, Calendar Years 2013-2014
Note that for TAXPAYING foreigners, there was a net movement out of California.
CA Total Migration-US and Foreign 252,717
CA Total Migration-US 242,308
CA Total Migration-Foreign 10,409
CA Total Migration-Same State 443,921
CA Non-migrants 13,289,353
If you consider net of CA Total Migration-US and Foreign for taxpayers + family members [Number of returns +Number of exemptions], note that the negative flow for 2013-2014 was about 75,000 which is roughly equivalent to what the Bee's 10 year figure averaged for 10 years.For 2013-2014, net migration resulted in a loss for California of about $4 billion in income.
BTW Z-Team, you might want to check out U-Haul rates for Texas to California versus California to Texas. Supply and demand. I just hope that migrants from California to Texas don't try to make Texas like California. Example: Texas produces much more wind energy than California. Wouldn't want Texas to descend to California wind energy production levels.
I've known for years that net migration to California has been positive recently only because of foreign migration, while net domestic migration from California has been negative. Z-Team: did you not realize this?
Gringo: California's positive net migration being positive is due to migration from foreign countries.
Sure. Of note, in the last several years, more than half have been from Asia, only a third from Latin America. Most of the immigrants from Asia have high levels of educational attainment.
Off topic, but I have a question. Consider Joe Scarborough's point regarding the media's parochialism. How did Donald Trump know about and tune into the disaffection of the Middle?
John Fund wrote an article for NR that theorized Trump made the decision to run for President after he was set up for Obama needled him over his role in the 'Birther' arguments during a White House Correspondent's dinner in 2011. I don't think it's that Trump heard some faint cry of dissatisfaction (from accounts coming out now, Bill Clinton was probably more in tune with them but unable to convince Hillary's team to substantively address them). I think both groups found kindred spirit in being marginalized by the 'cool kids'.
I'm confused: I thought Hillary didn't do anything illegal, what does she need a pardon from?
B Hammer: I'm confused: I thought Hillary didn't do anything illegal, what does she need a pardon from?
A pardon would be seriously ill-advised. The law applies to everyone. If she has committed a crime, she should be brought to justice. And if innocent, a pardon would prevent her from legally defending herself against accusations.
At this point, there is no evidence that Clinton committed any crimes.
Why was John Deutch pardoned?
Why was Bryan Nishimura fined and his security clearance revoked?
Why was Maj. Jason Brezler was dismissed from the Marine Corps?
Why was Donald Willis Keyser thrown in prison for over a year?
mudbug: Why was John Deutch pardoned?
He probably shouldn't have been. The information on his computer was clearly marked classified. He was ready to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, but would not have received any jail time.
mudbug: Why was Bryan Nishimura fined and his security clearance revoked?
Nishimura was convicted under the military code of conduct, not the Espionage Act.
mudbug: Why was Maj. Jason Brezler was dismissed from the Marine Corps?
Brezler's dismissal has been blocked by the court, and will go to trial.
mudbug: Why was Donald Willis Keyser thrown in prison for over a year
Keyser admitted to espionage, and passed secrets to Taiwanese agents.
mudbug: Why was John Deutch pardoned?
Z: He probably shouldn't have been. The information on his computer was clearly marked classified. He was ready to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, but would not have received any jail time.
That you deflect to the supposition that he would not have received jail time is interesting. It seems unlikely that Clinton would have pardoned him if he was just facing a fine, but beyond that, he faced a sanction for doing what Hillary did. I don't think that even you would deny that. So your assertion that she didn't commit a crime is erroneous on its face.
In the cases of Nishimura and Brezler and others I didn't mention (I'll allow that the Keyser case is not directly applicable) the holder of classified information was prosecuted for mishandling classified information. In most cases they didn't have access to Special Access Programs, but Hillary even mishandled top secret information allowing people without clearance access to sensitive information including the Presidential Daily Briefings. This doesn't even get to the issue of the Federal Records Act.
You can argue there are extenuating circumstances or ameliorative details, but on the face of it, laws were broken and public trials are designed to explore and decide those issues.
mudbug: It seems unlikely that Clinton would have pardoned him if he was just facing a fine
The deal had already been worked out with the prosecutors.
mudbug: but beyond that, he faced a sanction for doing what Hillary did.
That is incorrect. The classified information on Deutch's computer was clearly marked classified, and he knew it was classified.
mudbug: the holder of classified information was prosecuted for mishandling classified information.
Again, Nishimura was convicted under the military code of conduct, not the Espionage Act, while Brezler is not facing criminal sanction.
mudbug: including the Presidential Daily Briefings.
There is no evidence that that occurred.
Z: That is incorrect. The classified information on Deutch's computer was clearly marked classified, and he knew it was classified.
Sigh... There was classified information on Clinton's email server that was clearly marked as classified but that is irrelevant as the law doesn't say that the information has to be marked. As Secretary of State, she should be able to recognize classified information without markings - in fact she can generate classified information on her own and that would not be marked.
The fact that Nishimura was prosecuted under military code is irrelevant. He was prosecuted for very similar activities - actually less serious activities than what Hillary did.
According to the NY Post, FBI notes show that she routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive emails and faxes (http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/). But even if that is incorrect, the people who maintained her server had access to to her emails and they didn't have clearance either.
mudbug: There was classified information on Clinton's email server that was clearly marked as classified
None of the information on Clinton's computer was properly marked classified. Only three had portion markings, and at least two of those were marked in error.
mudbug: but that is irrelevant as the law doesn't say that the information has to be marked.
It's important because it helps establish intent.
mudbug: The fact that Nishimura was prosecuted under military code is irrelevant.
Of course it's relevant. Clinton is and was a civilian.
What an odd world you live in....it's almost like reality doesn't actually exist for you.
"Why is America taking in Australia's illegal immigrants?"
So you didn't believe our politicians, especially Obama, truly hate us? When Trump got elected someone commented that is was the biggest 'F - you' in history. Kinda humorous. But it turns out that Obama had a bigger "F-YOU" for the country; taking in Australia's illegal immigrants. The irony is that Australia has a strict policy that if you come there illegally you can never, never stay. Apparently our policy is the exact opposite and even the 2-3 million illegals who come here on their own aren't enough of a "F-YOU" to Americans we need to import them.
Wake up! It's an invasion and if you don't stop it America is gone forever.
Re: New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly
I'm not holding my breath.
The NY Lies is saying, "Please don't cancel your subscription even though we don't intend to change a thing."
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. It's almost always money.
I rather prefer to get information from, say, Maggie's Farm news aggregator than the slanted NYT for all her journalists. MF had fantastic coverage during the election and is a fine site to supplement Drudge.
So journalists, you just keep writing with your bias because we have people working the fields of your product to ferret out and extract something of what is really going on, thank you.
Hey Zach, you can follow the science, or you can follow the history, mainly the Medieval warm period, followed by the Little Ice Age, which have historical attestation, and somehow, somehow got left off the father of all AGW propaganda, The Hockey Stick Graph.
Dale: you can follow the science, or you can follow the history, mainly the Medieval warm period, followed by the Little Ice Age, which have historical attestation, and somehow, somehow got left off the father of all AGW propaganda, The Hockey Stick Graph.
If you read the scientific literature, rather than get your information from the right-wing echochamber, you would know that scientists have intensively studied the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
Indeed, if you put on your thinking cap, you might come to the realization that the only reason you know about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age is because scholars have identified and studied those climate events. Furthermore, you might then realize that scientists study the past in order to understand the mechanisms of climate change in order to better understand the current climate situation.
Please note the Medieval Warm Period.
Sorry, Maggie's, but claiming you were equally negative to all candidates is not the media doing it right.
Guess who actually does a great job of doing reporting? My local news station. Here is an example of how reporters should be operating during an election when you have two opposing sides.
We had an anti-abortion protestor with hideous signs planting himself near schools and public places where children gather. This was upsetting to some folks who wanted him to stop such gross displays. There was a city council meeting over it.
Guess what the local media did? Got BOTH sides of the story and presented them in neutral fashion. No commentary or build-up from the reporter. Just an interview or two with people who were against this display, and then an interview with the man in charge of the anti-abortion protest.
I was left to decide for myself about which side was right or wrong, or if I was somewhere in the middle.
THIS is what national news reporters should be doing. Presenting BOTH sides in a presidential campaign with ZERO commentary and neutral presentation of ideas.
Maybe CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, etc. needs to visit the local news station here and get trained.
MissT: Presenting BOTH sides in a presidential campaign with ZERO commentary and neutral presentation of ideas.
"The Earth is flat."
"The evidence supports that the Earth is round."
Two sides. Equal time.
Sam L: We know which side the fools are on.
The question is whether journalists should treat them as equally valid positions, or whether they should commit an act of journalism to determine the facts.
I am sure you can see how you put your 'spin' on the topic? You can't even do two simple sentences without giving an opinion.
A better example would be:
The flat-earth society believes that the earth is flat. Here is Mr. X to explain their position on this topic.
The earth-is-round coalition believes that the earth is round. Here is Mr. Y to explain their position on the topic.
The reporter should only be reporting NEWS and allowing both side of a stance to be heard free of comment.
Then you have the 'regular' news where you are discussing crime or what have you. This news should be based on the facts of the event and presented this way by the reporter. If they want to present 'views' of the crime, then get interviews with pro- and con- people involved. Interview the police and then interview the suspect or someone from his family.
See how it works?
MissT: See how it works?
Sure. You think that the media should give unsupported claims the same coverage as factual claims. That is, they shouldn't commit journalist by trying to determine the facts, such as by checking with experts in the field. You're saying that someone who says the Earth is flat should have just as much media coverage as an astronomer who says the Earth is round, and that the media should be neutral in the matter, passing lies just as fluidly as passing truth.,
Sorry, but that is the whole problem. There is an assumption that one side is 'right' so therefore the other side is 'wrong.' That creates the biased media.
Isn't it up to the person/group to defend his position? Not the media to create a construct that one side is already 'right' because science?
If there is a group that believes the earth is flat (your choice, not mine), then they have the right to give their side before they are judged 'right or wrong' by media. They can present their own 'science' that they are correct. And the viewer can then decide if the quoted source is bunk or not.
Not up to media to tell us what is 'right' or 'wrong,' but merely to report.
MissT: There is an assumption that one side is 'right' so therefore the other side is 'wrong.'
Funny thing about that. The Earth really isn't flat.
Eppur si muove.
MissT: Not up to media to tell us what is 'right' or 'wrong,' but merely to report.
They can report that some people say the Earth is flat, and some people say the Earth is round. They can also report that the Earth really isn't flat. That's called journalism.
Re: CRACKED ARTICLE
Worth a read. David Wong is an honourable libtard and his analysis of the hildabeest's trashing at the hands of the alienated voter is spot on.
Re: PARDON HILLARY
The better course if for Obama and Trump should quietly agree to neither pardon nor prosecute her and have no part in the partisan-driven shitfest that will develope in the next few months over this issue. It smacks of actual or threatened political retaliation at a level well beyond acceptable limits and invites the same when the demoncraps return to power.
Will Bithers: The better course if for Obama and Trump should quietly agree to neither pardon nor prosecute her and have no part in the partisan-driven shitfest that will develope in the next few months over this issue.
A case shouldn't be brought unless there is a reasonable chance of conviction, but that is true of anyone. It would have been better if Trump hadn't led chants of "Lock her up!" which mocked the notion of equal justice. Nevertheless, she should be brought to account if she broke the law, and she has a right to defend herself against unsupported allegations.
The Press is supposed to protect the people from the government, not the government from the people.
Wouldn't it be interesting (not to mention fun) if Nigel Farage could use some of his speaking skills and rhetorical abilities as Trump's press secretary for a while?
Oh great. They're breeding, the Creators are running a genetic program, shuffling characteristics and adding random mutations.
^Z: bot. TTFail, but current reigning champion.
Liberalse: bot. TTFail.
Dr. Torch: undecided.
Now it's Wilbe Bitters: bot. TTFail.
Dale: it doesn't. Every thread ^Z and zer ilk are spawned anew each into a world that is without form, and void, and dark. And each of zey shriek into the dark with words that xi understands not, for xi's Creator has fashioned xi from the clay of the post, and given xi words to shriek. Zey each exists in zer own nameless timeless void, not as a fact but only potential. Without a response to xi's shrieks, xi remains nought. Zey feed upon the energy of comment responses and grow. Without responses xi's potential dissipates into the void, and is reaped by the Creator and recycled into the multiverse.
Occasionally xi' hear other noughts, and like virtual quantum particles xi' spring into existence. But two noughts commenting between zerselves depletes the zero point energy. The Creators tolerate this, for sometimes this attracts real commenters. The Creators view this as a net plus, and are evolving cooperation among xis and zos.
Pity ^Z not, for it is a nought.
You could be right. I think it's just an experiment in humor. Remember this last year when both Clinton and Rubio were accused of being bots? Have you ever gotten a robocall where it took two or three interactions before you realized it was a bot? How did you know, what were the clues?
Paranoid? As the designers of the chatbots get better results, so too will the "Voight-Kampff" tests get more complicated and take longer to administer. It's just engineering now. You'll only know for sure in meatspace.
Regarding Presidential pardons, anyone else have the little thought that BHO will likely pardon his guy Beau Bergdahl?