Wednesday morning links

Ken in NH: It's the Lutherans. They have been a problem since their leader physically attacked the Wittenberg church back in 1517.

To be fair, they've calmed down a lot in the last few years.

#1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-07 10:42 (Reply)

Dream Hoarders??? Just a rehash of Marx & Engels by a puerile, envious "victicrat"

#2 mike m on 2017-06-07 10:58 (Reply)

"Not only are knife-related crimes surging, but the perpetrators and victims of such crimes are increasingly younger and increasingly female."

And once again, women are simply expected by leftists to "take one for the team".

Just whose team is it, anyways?

#3 JM01 on 2017-06-07 11:08 (Reply)

Hypocrisy is not destroying the Democrats. Hypocrisy is a matter of privately violating the principles you publicly preach and the Democrats aren't actually making principled arguments. Defending Bill Clinton for actually doing the things you're condemning Donald Trump for merely talking about? Expressing outrage and horror that Trump would say he might refuse to accept the results of the election and then turning right around and proudly refusing to accept the results of the election? That's not hypocrisy, it's just opportunism, saying whatever it takes to win the argument. "Hypocrisy" is like "racism", "Islamaphobia", "homophobia", "misogyny" - just smears used by the left against conservatives designed to shut down any real discussion or debate and it's only useful against people who think the charges are actual arguments that need rebutting.

#4 Jerryskids on 2017-06-07 11:17 (Reply)

Birddog, as the proprietor here, you likely have a good understanding of the specific issues that the Zachs are paid to troll.

I assume you are intentionally activating the Zak, as clickbait. As of this posting, there are 89 comments in your previous posting, with the highest plurality of entries being zachcrap.

Zachs are likely paid by the number of posts in specific areas its sponsors want to disrupt or confuse, perhaps defined by contract. Because this is Zachs actual job, other commenters who have other things to do, do not have the time to continuously debunk the zachcrap.

If you can't ban this disruptor, perhaps you can you share with us the issues you have associated with zachtrolling?

Others here, lets build an outline of the Zachs troll-payment topics. Il'' start.:
1. Oppose any meme that does not support moving toward a global government to tax carbon to give money to corrupt/lefty organizations and fascist government dictation to stop imaginary "global warming".
2. Oppose Western Civilization and its religious institutions.

#5 jaybird on 2017-06-07 11:35 (Reply)

jaybird: 1. Oppose any meme that does not support moving toward a global government to tax carbon to give money to corrupt/lefty organizations and fascist government dictation to stop imaginary "global warming".

Anthropogenic global warming is substantiated by the scientific evidence.

jaybird: 2. Oppose Western Civilization and its religious institutions.

Actually, we strongly support traditional institutions of Western Civilization, including religious institutions (though not necessarily specific actions of those institutions). As a philosophical conservative, we believe that upending long-standing mores and traditions should be undertaken with great care, that there will inevitably be unforeseen consequences of doing so, and that graduated reform is nearly always (but not always!) better than revolution.

--
OFF-TOPIC

jaybird: the Zachs are paid to troll.

Actually, our positions are our own, and freely given. You're welcome!

jaybird: If you can't ban this disruptor

We don't try to disrupt, but to add to discussions. It turns out that the views often posted by others on this forum are not without rebuttals, e.g. the claim that global warming is imaginary. Those rebuttals don't disappear just because you ban them.

#5.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-07 12:26 (Reply)

Z: that graduated reform is nearly always (but not always!) better than revolution.

See the Prudence Clause of the U.S. Declaration of Independence for when revolution rather than graduated reform may become necessary.

#5.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-07 12:31 (Reply)

Yo yo yo homie. Dat clause in the Doclaration ob Independent ain't no binding law in de USobA. No clause am. sheeeeee....

#5.1.1.1 Antwone on 2017-06-07 16:24 (Reply)

Antwone: Dat clause in the Doclaration ob Independent ain't no binding law in de USobA.

We didn't cite the U.S. Declaration of Independence as binding law, but as a rational discussion of when revolution may be justified.

#5.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-07 16:27 (Reply)

yo ass be caught lyin, homie.

#5.1.1.1.1.1 Antwone on 2017-06-07 16:45 (Reply)

You may want to read the U.S. Declaration of Independence, specifically the Prudence Clause, which discusses when revolution may become necessary.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-08 08:56 (Reply)

Zachs, do you, or any of you, have a real job other than trolling?

#5.1.2 jaybird on 2017-06-07 12:38 (Reply)

http://zachriel.com/blog/Angels.jpg

#5.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-07 12:50 (Reply)

QUOTE:

. . . we strongly support traditional institutions of Western Civilization . . . . As a philosophical conservative . . .

(catches breath) I shall have to offer a prayer of thanks for the Zach-bot tonight.
I haven't laughed that hard in ages.

(wipes eye).

#5.1.3 aporitic on 2017-06-07 21:21 (Reply)

aporitic: I haven't laughed that hard in ages.

You're welcome.

conservatism, a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.

#5.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-08 08:58 (Reply)

Well done, jaybird.
Now readers can look forward to specious arguments from the kiddies all day.

#5.2 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-07 12:38 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: Now readers can look forward to specious arguments from the kiddies all day.

We always try to support our positions. And we generally only reply to those who want to engage. The blog comments are threaded, so the uninterested can easily skip those discussions.

#5.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-07 12:51 (Reply)

you never support your positions and you run away from all substantive arguments.

you never read the sources you site, as at least a third of them are bad links and this number rises to half concerning your weather fetish.

#5.2.1.1 Fetterman on 2017-06-07 13:08 (Reply)

Fetterman: you never support your positions and you run away from all substantive arguments.

You never support your positions and you run away from all substantive arguments.

#5.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-07 13:11 (Reply)

u trolling brah

#5.2.1.1.1.1 O'dor from Uranus on 2017-06-07 16:13 (Reply)

Thanks kiddies.

Found something that explains why y'all have such a compulsive desire to always have the last word on everything even when y'all are obviously wrong.

This feeling is short-lived as it is only a state of mind, and most people who have any sense of understanding of human psychology knows that people that do this are only doing it because they feel insecure, competitive, hardheaded and lack confidence often in their own intellect or are in need of covering tracks.

http://www.marketingeye.com/blog/culture/why-egomaniacs-have-to-have-the-last-word.html

#5.2.1.2 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-07 13:12 (Reply)

Also, jaybird, a couple simple definitions that tend to be ignored:

QUOTE:

Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy. Subversion (Latin subvertere: overthrow) refers to a process by which the values and principles of a system in place are contradicted or reversed. More specifically, subversion can be described as an attack on the public morale...

And its tactic:

QUOTE:

Distraction is the process of diverting the attention of an individual or group from a desired area of focus and thereby blocking or diminishing the reception of desired information. Distraction is caused by: the lack of ability to pay attention; lack of interest in the object of attention; or the great intensity, novelty or attractiveness of something other than the object of attention. Distractions come from both external sources, and internal sources. External distractions include factors such as visual triggers, social interactions, music, text messages, and phone calls.

Deployed together these dispense with claims of objectivity, contribution, enlightenment, civility, and pursuant them, honest focus or intent.

#5.2.1.2.1 Ten on 2017-06-07 13:58 (Reply)

Good observation, TEN.
A littly bit off topic, but your comment reminded me that I recently saw two plays, within about week, both at previously "highly respectable" theaters. The first had massive deployment of the word F**K and multiple live, fully nude, full frontal male/female coitus scenes, which were completely gratituous to the plot (such as it was). The next was written by an immigrant playwright isolated in New York city. But the play is set to denigrate "the South", about a gay black Baptist student, a lesbian half-Jewish student, a cuckold Jewish father and a southern Belle mother who wants her daughter to tell her how much (sexual) use her dorm bed gets. The characters are stereotyped but do not have the values of their stereotypes (normalizing the anti-normal), and speak in propaganda-type lectures. Of course there is gratuitous nudity for libidinous blocking and diminishing of recognition of the destructive propaganda. I left at intermission, and we likely will not subscribe to the next season because the quality of the theater has gone downhill. I'v concluded that its necessary to vote with my wallet, which I haven't done until this year.

Here, I think the Zachs are so transparently annoying that no damage is done to reality.

But Bird Dog should not let these trolls continue to annoy his audience. Maybe a voting system to vote trolls off the island, or a 1 or 2 comment limitation for trolls.

#5.2.1.2.1.1 jaybird on 2017-06-07 16:50 (Reply)

Some years ago, took student daughter out to a dinner. She was unusually reserved when talking to the waiter. When waiter left, she mentioned that she had seen him the previous week at a uni production, totally nude. Rather put her off her dinner it did.

#5.2.1.2.1.1.1 Frances on 2017-06-07 22:23 (Reply)

The paid clattering lunatic site robot(s) will undoubtedly search its silly little database and lie some rote code about how it seeks to advance whatever nonsense it alone has been programmed to advance, but the fact remains that the paid clattering lunatic site robot(s) has one and exactly one basic function.

That function is to toss off reams of lies in its programmer's hope that dim rightists will engage the paid clattering lunatic site robot(s) as if it were an actual mind. In this way the paid clattering lunatic site robot(s) doesn't have to ever once have a point - the paid clattering lunatic site robot(s) don't have points, of course - while with each of it's bullshit utterances it can appear to be contributing something.

You will note that in this thread the paid clattering lunatic site robot(s) immediately lied and said that its robotic paid clattering lunatic output was critical discourse. Normal people humans and hominoids see through this obvious falsehood but dim rightists have a compunction to engage the paid clattering lunatic site robot(s) anyway, like clockwork, eventually capitulating on one subject after another because they don't have the stuff to stand ground, knowing they're generally right enough to deflect the paid clattering lunatic site robot(s) lies just by treating it as the usual the paid clattering lunatic site robot(s) output.

The paid clattering lunatic site robot has been programmed to use "handwaving" as often as it's dumb operating system has been instructed to deploy it. This should be a clue to dim rightists who engage the paid clattering lunatic site robot. The paid clattering lunatic site robot's output is itself 100% handwaving.

BD isn't going to do anything because BD isn't a hugely talented writer. BD probably wants the page views, and as long as the paid clattering lunatic site robot drives arguments - with paid clattering lunatic site robot line output, not thought - the paid clattering lunatic site robot is a MF feature and benefit, not a bug.

#5.3 Ten on 2017-06-07 12:59 (Reply)

Re: What the AP’s Collaboration With the Nazis Should Teach Us About Reporting the News

Between the yellow journalism going into the Spanish American War, NYT's uncritical embracing of Duranty's lies about the Soviet Union, the AP's collusion (fun new word!) with the Nazis, the chummy relationship between CNN and Saddam Hussein's regime (eerily similar to the AP-Nazi story), and the unsourced innuendo that passes for news today, one wonders why there is any trust in the news at all.

#6 mudbug on 2017-06-07 11:49 (Reply)

While cooperation with repressive regimes is beyond the Pale, you can see a similar dynamic with how media cozies up to politicians in D.C. The media want a story. The politicians want to have have a friendly bent to the story. Reporters and politicians often forget for whom they work.

QUOTE:

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration? You know, fiction!

#6.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-07 12:46 (Reply)

Thanks for amplifying my point.

Of course your Colbert quote describes the press reporting on Democrats. They have remarkably little interest in Obama's expanded surveillance of US citizens (including those running against his favored presidential candidate), his attempted collusion with Putin (caught on a live camera and mike), or funding special interests with fines collected by the DOJ. At the same time, they are bravely going after the Trump administration with stories unsupported by evidence.

#6.1.1 mudbug on 2017-06-07 13:17 (Reply)

mudbug: They have remarkably little interest in Obama's expanded surveillance of US citizens (including those running against his favored presidential candidate)

This was reported on.

Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence (today): “In the nearly 10 years since Congress enacted the (Freedom Act), there have been no instances of intentional violations of Section 702,” Coats said. “I’d like to repeat that: In the nearly 10 years since Congress enacted the amendments to the Freedom Act, the act that established the FISA, there have been no instances of intentional violations of Section 702.”

If you were concerned about how technology is resulting in greater surveillance, then you would be concerned with how to reform the law and institution to allow for security and privacy, rather than simply as a means to club Obama. This is an issue that will continue to be important for a long time to come.

mudbug: his attempted collusion with Putin

This was reported on.

There was nothing extraordinary about the president suggesting that the political dynamic may be different after an election. That's actually how diplomacy works. Each leader lives within a political context. The trick is to satisfy the political needs of the leaders while advancing their mutual interest. However, Putin blew that up when he annexed Crimea, sent little green men into the Ukraine, and meddled in democratic elections in Eastern Europe and beyond.

mudbug: or funding special interests with fines collected by the DOJ.

This was reported on. Most nobody cared.

mudbug: At the same time, they are bravely going after the Trump administration with stories unsupported by evidence.

Trump actions demand attention. He can't seem to help himself. He basically admitted that he fired the FBI Director because he didn't like the Russia investigation.

#6.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-07 13:38 (Reply)

He basically admitted that he fired the FBI Director because he didn't like the Russia investigation.

Did he? Even if so, please inform us of anything that points to any illegality by the President in doing so.

#6.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-07 15:14 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: Did he?

QUOTE:

Contradicting the rationale originally given for firing FBI Director James Comey, President Donald Trump on Thursday said that the investigation into Russian meddling in the election played into his decision.

“When I decided to {fire Comey}, I said to myself, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story,” Trump told NBC News’ Lester Hol

18 U.S. Code § 1505: Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States

This also contradicts the story the White House put out suggesting it was because Comey had been unfair to Hillary Clinton, which was laughable, but that was the reason they put out. In any case, it doesn't have to meet the legal definition of a crime to be considered misconduct.

Trump's best defence is ignorance. Consider what he also said in the same interview, "I said to myself, 'I might even lengthen out the investigation'." But it's not the President's decision to shorten or lengthen federal investigations, especially those that include the President or his close associates. That's an issue for the investigators.

#6.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-07 16:14 (Reply)

In any case, it doesn't have to meet the legal definition of a crime to be considered misconduct.

Keep moving those goalposts, kiddies.

Sooo, once again, point out what was illegal about the President firing Comey.

Specious arguments don't count, kiddies.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-07 16:34 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: Keep moving those goalposts, kiddies.

Our original claim was that Trump "basically admitted that he fired the FBI Director because he didn't like the Russia investigation." This was in regards to why the press seems to be going after Trump. He brings it on himself.

You were the one who asked about illegality. His conduct may arguably be in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 for attempting to "influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law", in the case of Flynn, and in the Russia investigation. However, conviction would be difficult because it requires proving state of mind, and in the case of Trump's mind, well, you know.

It was certainly unethical to suggest that Comey not pursue any appropriate charges for Flynn, or to have fired Comey over the Russia investigation. And it certainly didn't do him any favors.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-07 16:55 (Reply)

So the President did nothing illegal in firing Comey.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-07 17:02 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: So the President did nothing illegal in firing Comey.

Please try to read more carefully: Trump's conduct may arguably be in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505. See also the expert opinion linked to the comment by Fetterman per his request.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-07 17:06 (Reply)

Let's sum up the specious arguments by the kiddies:
-In any case, it doesn't have to meet the legal definition of a crime to be considered misconduct.
-It was certainly unethical to ...
-His conduct may arguably be in violation of...
-"the evidence strongly suggests that the president acted corruptly."
All specious opinions.

And still, y'all haven't pointed out the illegality of the President firing Comey.
Please read more carefully and try harder...

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-07 17:27 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: Let's sum up the specious arguments by the kiddies

Simply claiming the statements are specious doesn't constitute an argument that they are, in fact, specious.

drowningpuppies: And still, y'all haven't pointed out the illegality of the President firing Comey.

As pointed out previously, we didn't make that claim.

-

Z: -In any case, it doesn't have to meet the legal definition of a crime to be considered misconduct.

True.

Z: -It was certainly unethical to ...

The President interfering with an FBI investigation is a violation of ethical standards set after Watergate.

Z: -His conduct may arguably be in violation of...
-"the evidence strongly suggests that the president acted corruptly."

The latter is expert opinion supporting the former.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-08 08:53 (Reply)

spe·cious:

-adjective

-superficially plausible, but actually wrong.
"a specious argument"

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-08 09:37 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: superficially plausible, but actually wrong.

That's the correct definition. You are claiming the statements are specious without providing an argument or reason as to why you believe it to be so. Your comment was just a wordy version of "Is not!"

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-08 09:42 (Reply)

Y'all accused the President of interfering with an FBI investigation.
James Comey testified under oath that the President didn't.

The claim you made was specious.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-08 11:24 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: James Comey testified under oath that the President didn't.

Can you provide an exact citation so we know to what you refer? You are correct on one point, though.

Z: The President {attempting to interfere} with an FBI investigation is a violation of ethical standards set after Watergate.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-08 12:24 (Reply)

Comey has testified several times under oath that the President did not interfere with any FBI investigation.
His latest testimony was today.
Come on, kiddies, find your own citations.
I'll not waste my time searching for y'all.
Your arguments are specious whether y'all want to admit it or not.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-08 12:44 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: Comey has testified several times under oath that the President did not interfere with any FBI investigation.

We know this is difficult for you, but please be specific.

drowningpuppies: I'll not waste my time searching for y'all.

So you can't or won't support your claims.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-08 12:47 (Reply)

No, y'all are just lazy and dishonest.

I'll make it easier for you, please cite where Comey stated, on the record, the President interfered with any investigations.
.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-08 13:12 (Reply)

You can't stop yourself, can you?

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2017-06-08 14:32 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: I'll make it easier for you ...

To make it easy, you would provide a citation to support your claim that "Comey has testified several times under oath that the President did not interfere with any FBI investigation."

drowningpuppies: I'll make it easier for you, please cite where Comey stated, on the record, the President interfered with any investigations.

Today, Comey said that Trump effectively directed him to drop the investigation of Flynn for reasons having nothing to do with the legal process. A few weeks later, Trump fired Comey, first purportedly for the Clinton investigation, then avowedly because of the Russia investigation.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2017-06-08 14:44 (Reply)

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/08/comey-no-trump-didnt-ask-me-to-stop-investigation/

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-08 16:31 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: Former FBI Director James Comey testified before a Senate committee Thursday that President Donald Trump never asked him to end the investigation into Russian election interference.

Trump asked Comey to stop the investigation of Flynn. Then he fired Comey over "this Russia thing with Trump".

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-09 06:32 (Reply)

... this legal opinion brought by zachriels, someone who never tried a case and isn't a lawyer.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.2 Fetterman on 2017-06-07 16:48 (Reply)

Chief White House ethics lawyers for Presidents Bush and Obama: "the evidence strongly suggests that the president acted corruptly."

#6.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-07 16:58 (Reply)

In regard to Ekman, I was in a group that used his work in micro-expressions a couple of decades ago. We weren't looking for lies so much as testing to see if they influenced how voters reacted to candidates.

Anyway, it was interesting to see that the actors [especially Roth] so quickly lost interest in the actual science involved. Remind me again why we should pay any attention to them on any subject involving science?

#7 JorgXMcKie on 2017-06-07 14:07 (Reply)

Not everyone's getting a tattoo.

#8 Randy on 2017-06-07 19:05 (Reply)

When my ancestors were being converted by the missionaries, they were taught tattoos were a barbaric pagan custom.

That's still my opinion.

#8.1 Jim on 2017-06-07 20:02 (Reply)

Tattoos are awesome. Every week some low life criminal gets identified because of his stupid tattoo caught on camera or seen by a witness. Keep tatting yourselves up out there. Oh yeah those vanity plates are good too. lots of crimes solved by easy to remember license plates.

#9 IdahoBob on 2017-06-07 20:19 (Reply)

Yah, persistent little cusses the *zi. We're going to have do something about them one of these days, teach 'em some manners, right now they're just annoying imps, soon they'll evolve to start destroying things in the manner of wayward and unsocialized pets, and we'll have to start putting them down. Just don't wait until one called B1-66ER shows up.

#10 John A. Fleming on 2017-06-08 01:21 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, June 7. 2017

Wednesday morning links