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
Tuesday, June 6. 2017
A note from Vermont: Natural, shmatural - Mother Nature might be lovely, but moral she is not. She doesn’t love us or want what’s best for us
Those Who Dare to Criticize Ugly ‘Lace Shorts for Men’ Are Being Slammed as ‘Intolerant’
The Doctor Is In. Co-Pay? $40,000.
Mad Dog’ Mattis Rolls Back Obama-Era Decision To Let Transgender Individuals Serve in Military
The Paris Climate Deal Was A 'Fraud' And A 'Sham' ... Until Trump Decided To Ditch It
Future warming is, we hope, a possibility
WASHINGTON POST COVERS UP LEFT-WING VIOLENCE IN PORTLAND
Portland police shutter anti-Trump demonstration, make arrests after protesters throw bricks - Pro-Trump free speech rally not involved
DePaul revises speech policies to promote social justice
CNN Creates #FakeNews in London Following Terror Attacks, Stages Anti-ISIS Muslim Protesters
After London Bridge, The World Is Sick Of Politicians Downplaying Terrorism
Islamists want to impose sharia law on the West — which means all Islamists are ‘extremists.’
MacDonald: Run, Hide . . . Blame Trump - After yet another terror attack, liberals remain angrier about the president’s efforts to curtail immigration than about the jihadis in their midst.
You can say anything you want about any religion you want, except for Islam.
Surveillance in the Obama Era = Senator describes another potential abuse of intelligence powers, media yawns.
Trump’s Air Traffic Control Proposal Is Better for Safety, Cost, and Congestion
Israel: Six Days and 50 Years of War
Israel’s 1967 Victory Is Something to Celebrate
73 years ago: ORDEAL OF OMAHA BEACH
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Thanks for the D Day reminder, Must be very few vets left from that day. Time to watch "The Longest Day"
Mrs. Hodgdon did an excellent job of taking down the cult of "organic" and non-GMO with government collusion until the last two paragraphs where she falls into the same ditch. All of a sudden, FDA regulations are that stand between her and a serious case of food poisoning by forcing us all to consume pasteurized products. So, she's not really a believer in a free market that would happily cater to all types, those who don't care about GMOs and those who believe it's the devil and those who prefer to consume raw ingredients and those, like her, with compromised immune systems.
Consuming unpasteurized cow body fluids is a form of Russian roulette. However I am in favor of allowing people to consume them if they so choose. The problem is that common sense says that we cannot allow that "raw" product to accidently or intentionally get into any of the food distribution channels. So I think the government should allow individuals to buy the product directly from the dairy farmer and they must provide their own container (not a commercial milk container) if they want to remove it from the dairy.
I agree that I would rather have pasteurized products, but I don't care what other people put in their body.
You also fall into the ditch a bit. Why is it any business of yours if the farm or the consumer provides the container? What is a "commercial milk" container? If there is any regulation involved it should only be around fraud. The seller should not be selling something as pasteurized when it is not, &c.
If the unpasteurized milk is in a milk container then you and I and someone preparing food for guests or customers cannot know if it is raw milk or pasteurized milk. This "mistake" has taken lives in the past and caused serious illnesses. So it is a simple requirement to keep the questionable product out of the regular food chain. To not do so would be the equivalent to allowing rubbing alcohol to be sold/packaged in vodka bottles. The one place that the federal government does have both the right and responsibility to act is to set standards across all 50 states (57 to you Democrats) that insure health and safety. This is not an intrusive or unconstitutional requirement; it is a simple common sense precaution.
Again, what is a "milk container" or "commercial milk container"? Do you often mistake half gallons of OJ for milk for heavy cream for lemonade? They all come on opaque, wax paper cartons. How do those who keep kosher only for Passover keep it all straight? If you have a guest that you know has a deadly peanut allergy, how do you keep from serving them foods that might contain peanut contaminants? I would presume that anyone who takes responsibility for themselves will inquire at purchase time and take extra precaution when preparing.
We are all better off when the federal government is focused on saving us from foreign threats and interstate squabbling instead of saving us from ourselves. If it is a good idea to require people to bring their own jerry cans (Are you not worried they will not mix it up with gasoline? What is proper approved raw milk container?) to collect their raw milk purchase, then the states can and will adopt such standards.
Now you are getting silly. A milk container looks like a milk container and it says milk on the side. Mine says 2% milk and I have never confused it with orange juice.
Since you can discern the difference between a carton of milk and a carton of orange juice by the text, could you not do the same with pasteurized and raw milk?
No. It was not Russian roulette. Far too many people today are so totally removed from agriculture that they do not know what is dangerous or unsanitary on the farm. Growing up in the 50's and 60's on a farm, all of us kids in the community drank unpasteurized milk except for the town kids who bought store milk. Bangs testing of dairy cattle was required to prevent any chance of "milk maid fever" that is so promoted as Russian roulette by todays heath authorities. Todays health and diet authorities are getting people killed for lack of fat in the diet and protein from eggs and simple salt. The Amish still live just as we did back in the day.
The "I did it and look at me I'm still alive" theory is a logical fallacy. I could not tell you all the things I did in my youth that were stupid, dangerous and could have ended my life. Do you think for a second I would allow my grandchildren to do it simply because I survived?
If unpasteurized milk is safe today as you claim because of the improved dairy sanitary conditions and required testing then lets simply sell all milk as raw milk. Get the scientists and doctors to go along with it and I'm good to go...
But you can't. You know you can't because the scientists and doctors know something that you are in denial about. They wouldn't approve it because you are simply wrong. Today with modern methods the dairy milk is indeed 98% of the time safe. No reason to pasteurize. But about 2% is not safe. Lots of different reasons for this and often it changes from being safe one day to being deadly the next. Why would any responsible person take that risk???
Yes I know the claims/fantasy about raw milk somehow being better for you with some unknown and unknowable something extra that is destroyed by pasteurization, yadda yadda. But that is pure BS thought up by some hippy dippy food bigot who also won't eat meat and will only eat eggs from free range chickens. There is literally no reason to not pasteurize milk and ample reason to pasteurize it. Why wouldn't we???
By all means drink pasteurized milk...just allow those that want raw milk consume raw milk. That's really quite an easy concept to understand unless you demand that all people submit to your ideas. The history of medical establishment research into diet and disease is not free of disasters. By all means skip the use of butter, eggs, peanut butter or any other items they consider unsafe...and that includes guns, just ask the CDC.
We are in agreement. By all means let people choose to drink raw milk. I am simply saying that steps must be taken so that it does not get into the food chain. Don't sell it in stores and don't put it into containers that people will confuse with safe milk.
I would also add that this should be an adult choice and providing anyone under 18 with raw milk should have consequences.
...the cult of "organic" and non-GMO with government collusion...
But it's entirely acceptable that entire agencies are virtually owned by the milk and meat cabal, isn't it? And that US farmers are highly subsidized. And that you bacon-and-grease health food faddists are, um, a lifestyle cult.
I love when rightists erect their voodoo dolls and stick pins in them as if they aren't guilty of the same collectivizing sins. Actually, I take that back. The "cult of 'organic' and non-GMO with government collusion" people are a fraction of good ole Republican socialists as a ratio of agency capture, aren't they?
[blockquote]But it's entirely acceptable that entire agencies are virtually owned by the milk and meat cabal, isn't it? And that US farmers are highly subsidized.[/blockquote]
Nope, I never said anything like that did I? If you want to eliminate regulatory capture and subsidies, be my guest. I will be and am your most vocal supporter.
[blockquote]And that you bacon-and-grease health food faddists are, um, a lifestyle cult.[/blockquote]
Wow. I did not see that straw man hiding there. Thank you for hacking him to death before he got me!
[blockquote]I love when rightists erect their voodoo dolls and stick pins in them as if they aren't guilty of the same collectivizing sins.[/blockquote]
Voodoo dolls are just tiny straw men. So, I read an article that complains of organic food nuts "collectivizing sins", but then ends with a rant about how pasteurization should be enforeced at the point of a gun. The one criticism I have for the article is that it ultimately "collectivizes sins", albeit a different one, and you read that as I want to "collectivize sins"?
[blockquote]Actually, I take that back. The "cult of 'organic' and non-GMO with government collusion" people are a fraction of good ole Republican socialists as a ratio of agency capture, aren't they?[/blockquote]
Republican, socialists, and strawmen, oh my! I'm not sure where you got the words "Republican" or "socialist" from my comment, but if you are implying that the impulse to nanny happens on both sides; well you won't get any argument from me.
Cognitive dissonance is not your friend.
No offense intended, Ken. That 'organic cult' thing is, however, a classic, standard, go-to bellweather and utter, blatant non sequitur for dim rightists here and elsewhere and you have to admit, it holds no water at all. It's dumb and presumes things just not in evidence, even a little. It's a lifestyle signalling jerk of the knee to counter - with enormous effectiveness if you look at the political and cultural landscapes lately - leftist psycho virtue-signalling.
And yes, regulatory capture is more or less interchangeable with Republican socialism so you don't have to act like you don't know they're no different. Truth be told, rightist statism is actually more to blame for statism in general, although again, you'll see no talk of that brooked by any right-thinking, right-leaning, rights-capitulating rightists right over on the merely, weakly, and purely ostensible "right".
No offense taken. I find your replies chuckle inducing. Especially since you still seem to be trying to grind your ax on the wrong wheel here. I get it. You don't like most things "right" or "Republican". They get you into a lather and apparently I spoke the trigger words.
But yes, there is a cult of organic. That does not mean everything about "organic" is wrong or bad or that people who prefer organic are wrong or bad. They are only wrong when they want to push their agenda on me at the point of a gun. Can we agree that anyone wanting to push their agenda on us at the point of a gun are almost always wrong to do so and get back to true federalism?
(My proof for the cult of organic BS: http://www.organicauthority.com/mojo-foods/organic-salt-may-save-your-life.html. Organic salt? Really? Where's the carbon? As for GMO, almost everything we eat is GMO unless you're picking wild berries and hunting wild game. They're afraid of the mechanism and I agree we should tread lightly, but gene sequencers didn't give us the Africanized Honeybee. That was good old fashion, organic breeding.)
Speaking of grinding axes, huh Ken? And counter-signalling.
Does the psycho left really bother you that much, assuming you're, um, strawmanning phantom evangelical organic cultists as leftists. Do they race over from Whole Foods in Priuses to Clemdiddlesville and accost you in the Walmart? Because that would be bad.
Because here's the thing: The right, being feckless, aimless, slothful, and lifestyle patriots nearly to a man, lost an entire nation to the lie of progressivism. Not with a bang but with whimpering. Proudly. While signalling.
And there we go. It's never evangelizing when the right does it, even when it's evangelizing.
Here's a tip: Proportionality.
You really should meditate on the term cognitive dissonance. It will do you good. Failing that, perhaps a search of my comments for "leftist" will leave you scratching your head.
You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
What's more telling is your casting aspersions where you haven't either the background or intellectual horsepower for them, all the while deceiving yourself that you know who or what you're talking to or about. But you haven't the capacity to grasp this and it's obvious.
Being well past that, Ken, and knowing the subject and behavior and history as well as I do, when I find that kind of rank intentionalism and an overly casual, even sophomoric misuse of a classic fallacy or a blundering try at projecting a psychological division that isn't there, I tend to know I'm dealing with a fumbling junior leaguer. You're throwing something you heard against the wall, seeing what happens. Call it trial by error.
It's boring. Predictability always is.
Back it on up Ken, before you get it stuck. Or, as the case may be, don't. But as you're headed, you're well out of your depth.
As amusing as this has been, I fear for your blood pressure or your sanity. I do not even know what you want me to back up. Either I have been writing about leftists and righties or I have not. Quick quiz, at what point have I claimed a position on the political spectrum or claimed a party affiliation in this thread? That is a rhetorical question for you and you alone to answer. As for me, I am done with this thread.
The amusing thing about cognitive dissonance, Ken, is that it's not uncommon for those deploying it fallaciously - evidently without knowing what it is - to realize how handy it is for reflection. I'd advise not trying to rhetorically weaponize something one doesn't know enough about to prevent oneself coming off more than a little ironic about it.
Another difference between us is that I really don't care. When folks can't see the point and instead try and fail to suss out some other intent or trajectory to what I'm saying, I can easily make such points stick in the abstract anyway and not really care if anybody gets it. Which means that whenever some rightist goes off on one of those tears about the evils of organic hippie vegan tofu and how Jeezus hates those who hate Monsanto over on Wall St, I can point at their usually free-range beefhead pork-butter religion or whatever they're generally on about and raise my eyebrows, whether they find themselves a proud Pubbie or 'Murican or not.
And since you evidently have to appeal to similar crowds, probably, realize that I don't. The truth and being set free and so forth.
Maybe bravely running away is best. I'm touched how you can turn that into faux concern and amusement. Both of which, I'm sure, serve well the average rightist as he grapples with how he actually failed his duty to all the things he only thinks he holds dear...
"Mother Nature might be lovely, but moral she is not. She doesn’t love us or want what’s best for us..."
Nature doesn't care.
I love it how you types ascribe an intent to nature so you can nobly fight it back. Funny, peoples vastly humbler than the typical westerner generally have far gentler views of this nature you speak of.
The Paris Climate Deal Was A 'Fraud' And A 'Sham' ... Until Trump Decided To Ditch It
If one person thinks the Paris Agreement didn't go far enough, it doesn't mean some other person doesn't think it's a good first step. Nor is thinking he Agreement didn't go far enough the same as thinking the Agreement should be abandoned.
A study in the peer-reviewed journal Global Policy said that even if every country lived up to its CO2 emission reduction promises through 2030
As the Paris Agreement includes cuts in emissions after 2030, Lomborg's paper doesn't analyze the actual commitments of the Agreement.
While the Paris Agreement doesn't prevent warming greater than 2°C, it does commit the world to substantial reductions. As technology is developed to meet the current goals, it is quite plausible that further reductions may be possible.
Bird Dog: But what if most of us want it warmer?
The overall effects of warming over 2°C will be deleterious.
You would be inflicting the economic and environmental cost of your shortsightedness on others.
But would it? What evidence do we have that the effects would be deleterious? What if the effects were not deleterious? What if the effects were hardly measurable? When in the course of recorded human experience has such a worldwide catastrophe occurred? If these are model based projections, where is - to borrow from the movie title - the "minority report"? Is there no minority report? Why?
Paris Accord is global rent-seeking at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. Everything else is just window dressing.
BornSouthern: What evidence do we have that the effects would be deleterious?
There would be multiple effects associated with warming above 2-3°C. One of the major effects would be rising sea levels, which would inundate many low-lying coastal areas, resulting in mass migration, and the attendant social and political tensions. There is a long delay in sea level rise, so total rise might take centuries; however, the evidence suggests that without mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions a rise of about one-half to one meter or more during the current century can be expected. A lot depends on the stability of the Antarctic icecap. See DeConto & Pollard, Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise, Nature 2016.
Other expected effects include the melting of glaciers, which are critical for fresh water availability in many regions, ocean acidification and oxygen depletion, more extreme weather events including prolonged drought, disruption of agriculture, changes in patterns of disease carried by insect vectors, continued pressure on ecosystems, and continued mass extinction.
Which is why you and your ilk are doing your utmost to get China and India to cut back on their CO2 emissions, right?!?
You duplicitous pussy.
Bill Carson: Which is why you and your ilk are doing your utmost to get China and India to cut back on their CO2 emissions
Both China and India have already started the process of greening their energy infrastructure. China has canceled over a hundred new coal plants, and has committed to reaching peak carbon emissions by 2030, but with strong efforts in renewables, should reach that goal early. India has committed to reduce emissions by 1/3 by 2030, and is also ahead of schedule. Meanwhile, China and the E.U. have agreed to step up their efforts in the wake of the U.S. pullout from the Agreement.
Meanwhile, China and the E.U. have agreed to step up their efforts in the wake of the U.S. pullout from the Agreement.
Then why not the full court press to get them to step up their efforts prior to the U.S. pullout? Do you understand what utmost means?
Bill Carson: Then why not the full court press to get them to step up their efforts prior to the U.S. pullout? Do you understand what utmost means?
That's what the Paris Agreement was all about, pushing the nations of the world towards addressing the problem of anthropogenic climate change. Updating the energy infrastructure has to be balanced against economic growth and development. The Paris Agreement was the best that could be achieved politically, but represented a significant step.
Although arguing with the deranged clattering site robot(s) and it's imaginary resource minions is all the rage - you can see staunch but dim rightists all over these threads capitulating to it(s) daily, keeping it plugged in and electricity paid by Soros - it(s)'s still a deranged clattering site robot(s).
So here's the thing. The idiotic toothless Paris Accord and all that Koyoto crap et al are deranged clattering leftisms for admitting to the planet that democracy - yeah, democracy - is impotent. If democracy worked, after all, we'd be over here doing deeply progressive and proactive things like singling out a pipeline out of a thousand as the mascot insane people can dump a ton of trash on wildlands protesting, or electing a deranged clattering potus to put an entire industry of disfavored domestic white red-staters into insolvency, bankruptcy, and onto welfare - an act of supreme aggression against American sovereigns, not exactly democracy - because they dug flammable black stuff out of the ground and kept us all alive.
But no. That's not enough. We need Paris. Uh uh, Paris. Because deranged clattering assholes with one of their kind democratically elected couldn't be green without being captured, in thought, livelihood, and destiny, by their neo-puritan righteousness, a scientifically fraudulent, global for-profit cabal.
Silly deranged clattering robotic(s) leftists and their democracy. If you ever needed proof these assholes are not even remotely capable of deploying their convictions themselves there you are.
Extrapolating the present well into the future is virtually guaranteed to be wrong. Especially when the mechanisms are not fully understood and the only chance to tune the model is to go back over the same historic data over and over.
jay: Extrapolating the present well into the future is virtually guaranteed to be wrong.
Overgeneralization. Some future events are predictable, some not, some only in terms of probability. There will be a solar eclipse on August 21, 2017. Craps! It will probably be sunny tomorrow in Marseilles.
jay: Especially when the mechanisms are not fully understood and the only chance to tune the model is to go back over the same historic data over and over.
The mechanisms of global warming are not completely unknown. The largest uncertainty is called climate sensitivity. A doubling of CO2 will directly lead to a warming of about 1°C. Warmer air can hold more water vapor, so this effect is expected to be amplified. A variety of empirical measures; e.g. studies of volcanic eruptions, ice ages, and the Earth's energy budget; indicate that climate sensitivity is probably in the range of 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.
While we have high confidence in the degree of anthropogenic global warming, we are much less sure about how this heat will be distributed in terms of regional climate change.
God and mother nature have been inflicting changes of temperature in excess of 2 degrees for millenniums. Nature requires you adapt to the change or go by the wayside...just as you adapt to earthquakes, volcanos, asteroids, floods, germs, and viruses. The vulnerable disappear and life goes on for the adaptable. You DO believe in Darwin...right?
indyjonesouthere: God and mother nature have been inflicting changes of temperature in excess of 2 degrees for millenniums.
Global mean temperatures have been relatively stable since humans settled into permanent communities. However, there have been wide regional variations, which have often contributed to the downfall of civilizations. Is that what you mean?
Yes, humanity will survive climate change. But why cause damage to civilization and permanent harm to humanity's natural inheritance when it is preventable?
Well, if you can't be specific, then there is probably nothing to see then.
Handwaving doesn't provide empirical evidence of your claim.
drowningpuppies: Handwaving doesn't provide empirical evidence of your claim.
We've provided empirical evidence, in this very thread.
We will easily survive climate change as we have survived it in the past and don't forget the hurricanes, tornados, and tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanos. The greatest danger is if we can survive the global socialist elite pushing all the climate change mantra that demand more of our money and more power for themselves as they demand our submission to their religion.
I want it warmer. however, we must discount the scourge of global warmerin by the growing risk of asteroid hitting Earth
if we get smashed to pieces by an asteroid, what matters the comin' ice age?
seriously, dude, get a grip.
"You can say anything you want about any religion you want, except for Islam."
In this regard, Islam is a useful benchmark for assessing artistic poseurs.
A crucifix suspended in urine, elephant dung stuck to an image of the Virgin Mary? How daring and avant-garde! But no similar sort of "art" based on Mohammed?
Comedians having fun with paedophile priests or womanizing evangelical ministers? Cutting-edge humour indeed! But no stand-up routines involving Mohammed?
Christianity is an easy target of course; Islam is another matter entirely. As the folks at Charlie Hebdo discovered the hard way.
Indeed...it is free will vs submission. There is a reason antifa and academia are so tolerant of Islam. They all demand submission to their ways.
Future warming is, we hope, a possibility ... An average of 15 reconstructions of temperatures in the very recent past, the last 900 years
The first chart only shows Jun-Aug extra-tropical temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, and doesn't show the instrumental record for comparison. The Northern Hemisphere's temperature anomaly exceeded 1°C in 2016.
All colleges, public or private, have one particular thing that they all require; accreditation. The accreditation organizations hold power over colleges and can impose curriculum changes on them by threatening to withhold accreditation unless the schools comply. They are part of what is pushing schools to the leftist extreme.
Where do they get this power? On what basis are they constituted and have the legal right to do as they do? To whom are they accountable (they're not for profits, so they are accountable at least to the IRS)? Perhaps they can be forced to force changes such as the adoption of the University of Chicago's free speech principles.
"After London Bridge, The World Is Sick Of Politicians Downplaying Terrorism"
If nothing else, I am really and truly fed up with politicians calling Islamic terrorists cowardly.
Whatever else they may be, there is absolutely nothing cowardly about them or their suicidal acts.
What if they are under siege and refuse to acknowledge it? What if there was demonstrable evidence that there is a portion of their population of indeterminate size that actually wishes to do the vast majority of them harm?
you would think this is funny.
what's the deal, not enough dead for you to take it seriously.
Fetterman: not enough dead for you to take it seriously.
Panicking is not the same as taking it seriously. About the only ones who seem to be panicking about the attacks in Britain are the right-wing in the U.S. and the U.S. president.
Mancunians after the Manchester and London attacks
Panicking is not the same as taking it pretending to take it seriously. FIFY.
Kodak doesn't optimize film back in the day for a tiny sliver of potential black customers: PANIC!
Islamist savages hack folks in London to death (fresh on the heels of the Manchester bombing): Hey now, let's keep a cool head here.
It would be funny were it not so sad.
Bill Carson: Hey now, let's keep a cool head here.
By "precisely" you mean "Please panic only about things that Zachriel feels are worth panicking over": nitpicking, bullshit ephemeral things which none the less advance the Leftist narrative. People being blown up and hacked apart in the streets, on the other hand, please keep a cool head regarding those, as those drive an obvious stake through the multi-culture scam. And you wonder how you got (and will get more of, good and hard) Donald Trump?!?
An analogous thing occurs when a liberal comes out "against hate". It's not that the liberal in question has no use for hate, far from it: liberals hate more and better than anyone else. No, what the liberal really wants is for you to hate what they hate and with equal ferocity.
Bill Carson: "Please panic only about things that Zachriel feels are worth panicking over"
No. We're applying the Evie Mills standard. Bill Carson panics. Evie Mills, age 14, despite being multiply wounded, refuses to cower.
No. We're applying the Evie Mills standard either dissembling or exhibiting the Stockholm Syndrome. Bill Carson panics calls it the way he sees it. Evie Mills, age 14, despite being multiply wounded, refuses to cower submits.
Now you're talking.
Islam is a political ideology disguised as a religion. They are at war with the West (actually anyone not Muslim). They intend to win and they intend to use our stupidity (zach and others like him) and our laws against us. So far they are winning. Our leaders have one goal, that is they are singlemindedly committed to using their power to enrich themselves and to also do nothing that might threaten their power. They do not give a fig about you or who kills you as long as it doesn't prevent them from getting reelected. The Muslims killed last week, they killed this week and they will kill next week and every week after. The only problem that this cause for the political leaders is how can they keep this from "panicking" people such that the votes might turn against them. The secret is to assure everyone, hold candle vigils, sing songs at commemorative concerts and weep in front of the cameras.
The bottom line is England and Eastern Europe is in deep shit. It will get worse with every new wave of Muslim immigrants. They are at war with us and they intend to win. The ONLY solution is unthinkable; that is to round up all the Muslims and return them to Muslim lands. England and Europe won't do this of course so they will instead have weekly and eventually daily terror attacks killing innocent people where ever they are found. Those are your choices. And the leaders don't give a fig about it or the citizens.
IdahoBob: They are at war with the West (actually anyone not Muslim).
The vast majority of Muslims live peaceful lives, and Muslims are much more likely to be victims of terrorism than any other group. By the way, which country has the largest Muslim population?
“Is it upset? Yes. Is it pissed off? Oh, you fucking bet it’s pissed off,” he said. “But to say it’s ‘under siege’ and that its people are ‘reeling’ is to imply that it’s somehow weak enough to be brought to its knees by three monumental assholes. And that, as an idea, is insulting.”
Upset just like it was after that soldier was butchered in the street in broad daylight, after little girls and their mothers were blown to bits with a nail bomb after a pop concert, after the London Bridge incident, etc. London, John Oliver et al. keep getting upset and not reeling and the Muslims keep slaughtering Brits.
Pardon me for thinking that said butchery was the "insulting" thing!
Poor Britain - it went from a nation of Spitfire pilots to one of stupid and smarmy John Oliver femboys in approximately half a century.
Bill Carson: John Oliver et al. keep getting upset and not reeling and the Muslims keep slaughtering Brits.
Reeling (to lose one's balance and stagger) implies you are losing the fight.
Modern Brits know that more than 40,000 of their citizens died during the Blitz in WWII. Yet those Brits didn't fall into a faint. If the current attacks can make Britain reel, then they are losing the fight.
Bill Carson: Upset just like it was after that soldier was butchered in the street in broad daylight, after little girls and their mothers were blown to bits with a nail bomb after a pop concert
And yet thousands of those targets, including Evie Mills, who was injured in the attack, met again in Manchester to show that they won't be intimidated. And yes, they smiled and laughed and cried.
Reeling (to lose one's balance and stagger) implies you are losing the fight.
And how, precisely, is the U.K. winning this fight given the recent carnage? I guess folks there haven't yet resorted to cannibalism, so I guess that's a win.
And yes, they smiled and laughed and cried.
Ahhh, that's how you win! Those smiles, laughter, and tears will magically shield the next batch of little girls from the explosion and hurtling shrapnel. Forget about deporting those engaging in terrorism - hit 'em with smiles, laughter, and tears!
"How many divisions you got? Fuck that, we got us some smiles, laughter, and tears!"
Bill Carson: Ahhh, that's how you win!
She refused to cower, even after having personally lived through a devastating terrorist attack.
Bill Carson: Forget about deporting those engaging in terrorism
You don't deport people engaging in terrorism, but capture or kill them. At least that's how they do it in Britain.
I guess after WWI and WWII, many of the Brit males were culled, leaving mainly the white feathers.
CNN Creates #FakeNews in London Following Terror Attacks, Stages Anti-ISIS Muslim Protesters
What's the evidence that the demonstration was staged?
Y'all cannot be that obtuse.
Check the video, kiddies, then disbelieve your lyin' eyes.
Having watched the video, what do you see that indicates that CNN staged the demonstration?
Uh, well,... the staging.
Please be more obtuse.
Well, if you can't be specific, then there is probably nothing to see then.
I think the part where the news folks told the protesters where to stand (uhhh, the staging part) was what tipped folks off.
Bill Carson: I think the part where the news folks told the protesters where to stand
staged: planned, organized, or arranged in advance (often of an event or situation intended to seem otherwise).
Directing a group into camera shot is not unusual for media at public events. The event was real.
Oh, it was Snopes "real"!
Well, there you have it, kiddies.
Could y'all be more obtuse.
drowningpuppies: Oh, it was Snopes "real"!
Waving your hands does not make the evidence go away. "The vigil was not a media invention. It was organized by the London Fatwa Council, a legitimate Islamic organization whose members have taken a vocal stand against terrorist attacks."
Citing Snopes does not make it "real", kiddies.
The video "speaks" for itself.
You're both right: the demonstration was real and CNN joined in.
drowningpuppies: The video "speaks" for itself.
There's nothing in the video which suggests more than setting up a shot.
That's a matter of opinion, kiddies.
drowningpuppies: That's a matter of opinion, kiddies.
Actually, you indicated there was evidence, however, you haven't been able to point to it except to wave your hands in the general direction.
Uh, yes, ... the video. It's all over the internet.
Have y'all actually watched it?
drowningpuppies: Have y'all actually watched it?
Yes. So, we'll ask again. What's the specific evidence you think you see on the video that indicates that the demonstration was staged?
They already had all the cameras, lights, support cables, crews set up. And also cables and equipment directly in the area where they are going to have them stand.
They already have the police posed. They already have signs pasted to the pillars. They then directed the other people how to pose and where to stand. They are given the signs to hold. They told them where to move to get a better camera angle. There's no one else there.
Looks pretty staged to me.
It's all straight out of Bonfire of the Vanities. "Shuuuh-mun!"
Jim: They already had all the cameras, lights, support cables, crews set up. And also cables and equipment directly in the area where they are going to have them stand.
As it was a planned vigil, and the event was publicized by the actual organizers, of course the media knew where the gathering was going to be. The protesters requested permission to cross the police line in order to meet with the media.
Jim: There's no one else there.
BBC: "The London Fatwa Council organised a small march at Borough Market on Sunday in solidarity with the victims of the attack."
"73 years ago: ORDEAL OF OMAHA BEACH"
D-Day: The beginning of the end for Nazi Germany.
In a conflict where the strategic objective was victory.
Washington Post covers up left-wing violence in Portland: Truth dies in darkness, and this be DARKNESS.
Criticizing the ugly lace shorts for men....I don't think they would look one bit better even accessorizing with a lace pussyhat.
I surely would love to forward this to Ann Althouse, who just HATES men in shorts.