excellent political rant

ote:

ote:

a perfectly respectable conventional politician, if you respect convention al politicians.

-respectable politician

no more disreputable than a typical Republican politician - Newt Gingrich comes to mind.

prepared to claim that she is "trustworthy", or at least are prepared to sa y that they think she's trustworthy.

n power. Politics is the art of the possible, and what they might have hope d to be possible when they were on the campaign trail always turns out to b e only partially attainable when they get into power. You could - in theory - elect trustworthy politicians who wouldn't be able to get anything to ha ppen, but in practice the electorate is a trifle more realistic.

peat over and over and over and over...again. The woman is the most blatant crook ever to hit politics at the national level, aside from the semi-huma noid riffraff from places like Texas and Arkansas.

you weren't a card-carrying misogynist, you wouldn't see her as unusually c rooked, and in fact she's probably less crooked than the average US politic ian because between being married to Bill Clinton and having been secretar y of state for years she's decidedly famous, and doesn't have to curry favo ur quite as enthusiastically as the average politician.

Actually her criminal activity is unprecedented:

And her pr machine keeps touting her experience when the reality is her per formance was seriously lacking and dismal.It's all part of that "fail upwar d" idiocy only the U.S. is wasteful enough to maintain.

e-payer health care:

realistic, or "politically infeasible." Reality: It's true that single-paye r health reform faces formidable opposition, especially from the private in surance industry, Big Pharma, and other for-profit interests in health care , along with their allies in government. This prompts some people to conclu de that single payer is out of reach and therefore not worth fighting for. While such moneyed opposition should not be underestimated, there is no rea son why a well-informed and organized public, including the medical profess ion, cannot prevail over these vested interests. We should not sell the Ame rican people short. At earlier points in U.S. history, the abolition of sla very and the attainment of women's suffrage were considered unrealistic, an d yet the movements to achieve these goals were ultimately victorious and w e now wonder how those injustices were allowed to stand for so long.

and affordable health care, and control costs, in a system dominated by pri vate insurers and Big Pharma."

ged year after year by the crooks in Congress bought out by the for-profit interests:

" probably as regards campaign finance reform, but we see time and time aga in just exactly how campaign finance corruption is central to so much dysfu nction in the U.S. government. It therefore should be a central issue.

akes him unelectable. Too many of the idiots who post here equate "socialis m" with "communism" and it's going to take a while before that bit of brain washing looses it's effectiveness.

, no matter how urgently necessary it is. Granting the lunatic extremism of the Republican candidates, the middle ground is already hers - she won't g et any more votes in the presidential election by moving to the left.

But a posturing buffoon that is smarter than you, richer than you. went to a university that did not have instructors that spouted nonsense, and who missed only 6 days of work by being laid off in forty years.

Dan

But I am still smarter than you, richer than you, do more critical thinking than you, Went to a university that did not have instructors that spouted nonsense, and who enjoys life more than you.

Dan

ared to claim that she is "trustworthy", or at least are prepared to say th at they think she's trustworthy.

wer. Politics is the art of the possible, and what they might have hoped to be possible when they were on the campaign trail always turns out to be on ly partially attainable when they get into power. You could - in theory - e lect trustworthy politicians who wouldn't be able to get anything to happen , but in practice the electorate is a trifle more realistic.

But is it not strange that all the other politicians are deemed more trustw orthy? Hillary is in a class by herself.

Still thinking more critically than you.

Dan

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:43:48 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@krl.org" Gave us:

With one critical flaw being that you 'converse' with him at all.

It is more like poking him with a sharp stick.

Dan

e:

ough to bother proving it.

just do not care enough" makes you a posturing buffoon, and if you had any idea what critical thinking involved you wouldn't have made quite such as a ss of yourself.

o a university that did not have instructors that spouted nonsense, and wh o missed only 6 days of work by being laid off in forty years.

A posturing buffoon who think that he is smarter and richer than I am, thou gh he has no evidence to support either claim, and who went to a university where he didn't notice when the instructors were spouting nonsense, and ha s been so unadventurous in his choice of work that he's only been laid off for six days in forty years of work.

One thing is perfectly clear - he never got to work out what constitutes ev idence, and how it differs from opinion. Same disease as krw.

e:

e:

rote:

charged with anything, which rather suggests that there isn't anything that they can actually be charged with.

caught. It does not suggest there is no illegal things done.

ught is not to do anything that's technically illegal in the first place.

l behaviour is immoral, but morality is posturing buffoon territory, and th e law demands critical thinking - which isn't your strong suit.

ng than you, Went to a university that did not have instructors that spout ed nonsense, and who enjoys life more than you.

If you can't do critical thinking, you can make yourself happy by telling y ourself stuff that probably isn't true. This rather cuts into your claim to be smarter than me, though there are plenty of clever people who can't - o r won't - do critical, evidence-based thinking. My guess is that they would n't like the reality that that kind of thinking is likely to expose.

If you can't - or won't - do critical thinking, being smart doesn't help al l that much. You eventually get flattened by consequences that you were unw illing to contemplate. I've seen it happen.

e:

epared to claim that she is "trustworthy", or at least are prepared to say that they think she's trustworthy.

power. Politics is the art of the possible, and what they might have hoped to be possible when they were on the campaign trail always turns out to be only partially attainable when they get into power. You could - in theory - elect trustworthy politicians who wouldn't be able to get anything to happ en, but in practice the electorate is a trifle more realistic.

tworthy?

That isn't part of the evidence with which we've been presented. You've fai led critical thinking 101, again. If you want to claim that all other polit icians are deemed more trustworthy - a new claim - you have to come up with the evidence that supports this new, stronger, claim.

Evidently. Ex-president's wife and ex-Secretary of State. It's an exclusive club.

Once again demonstrating that you don't know what critical thinking is, mak ing it clear - once again - that you are a buffoon.

Dan, as self-deluded as ever, thinks that his demonstrations that he can't do critical thinking - and doesn't actually know what it is - are "poking me with a sharp stick".

They are more like handing me a stick with which I can beat his sorry ass.

ough he has no evidence to support either claim, and who went to a universi ty where he didn't notice when the instructors were spouting nonsense, and has been so unadventurous in his choice of work that he's only been laid of f for six days in forty years of work.

evidence, and how it differs from opinion. Same disease as krw.

Oh, I have evidence. Just not bothering to display it. As far as being u nadventurous, I changed jobs a number of times. Some of the times were bec ause I was perceptive enough to see layoffs coming and left before they occ urred. Some were just because things got boring. Some were because I want ed more money and someone offered more money.

Your critical thinking skills just are not up to perceiving there could be lots of job changes with little time lost to unemployment.

Dan

king than you, Went to a university that did not have instructors that spo uted nonsense, and who enjoys life more than you.

yourself stuff that probably isn't true. This rather cuts into your claim to be smarter than me, though there are plenty of clever people who can't - or won't - do critical, evidence-based thinking. My guess is that they wou ldn't like the reality that that kind of thinking is likely to expose.

all that much. You eventually get flattened by consequences that you were u nwilling to contemplate. I've seen it happen.

Fortunately I do not have those problems. I base my claim to being smarter , partly because I know the odds are very slim that your IQ is higher than mine. And this is confirmed by reading your posts.

And it is fairly obvious that I am smart and able to think critically , bec ause I have not been flattened , but instead have prospered.

Dan

And there is Bill demonstrating once again that he is not very perceptive.

Dan

ailed critical thinking 101, again. If you want to claim that all other pol iticians are deemed more trustworthy - a new claim - you have to come up wi th the evidence that supports this new, stronger, claim.

Read any of the polls that ask if the politicians are trustworthy.

ve club.

Bernie Madoff is in an exclusive club too.

aking it clear - once again - that you are a buffoon.

But an intelligent , rich buffoon that is smarter and richer than you.

Dan

though he has no evidence to support either claim, and who went to a univer sity where he didn't notice when the instructors were spouting nonsense, an d has been so unadventurous in his choice of work that he's only been laid off for six days in forty years of work.

s evidence, and how it differs from opinion. Same disease as krw.

Sure. And the cheque is in the post. More to the point, you make claims tha t you haven't got the evidence to support, and should be aware that you hav en't got the evidence to support, which rather undermines your claim to be smarter than me.

f the times were because I was perceptive enough to see layoffs coming and left before they occurred. Some were just because things got boring. Some were because I wanted more money and someone offered more money.

Sounds familiar.

be lots of job changes with little time lost to unemployment.

Nope. I don't have to perceive it - since I can can remember doing it - qui te often. I've had jobs with twelve different employers. Before I turned fi fty, I didn't lose any time between jobs. Ageism is a problem in the UK, an d I spent a couple of weeks under-employed between jobs 7, 8 and 9. It's a worse problem in the Netherlands and I spent about six months under-employe d at 58 between jobs eleven and twelve.

My guess is that you did most of your job-changing when young, when it does go faster. Most people do.

Dan does enjoy his little delusions - he's rather krw-like in that.

failed critical thinking 101, again. If you want to claim that all other p oliticians are deemed more trustworthy - a new claim - you have to come up with the evidence that supports this new, stronger, claim.

Why should I bother? Political polls tell you what the people who organised the polls want them to tell you - you don't have to be all that subtle in structuring them to get the answers you want.

sive club.

One that he isn't allowed out of.

making it clear - once again - that you are a buffoon.

Or a buffoon that thinks that he is smarter and richer than I am. The riche r is possible - there are quite a few people around who are richer than I a m, though it is a minority of the population.

The intelligence you are displaying here isn't of a high order. You aren't as dumb as Jamie or krw but you aren't all that much brighter. James Arthu r supports his silly ideas with rather more ingenuity, and better grasp of what critical thinking might look like, though his ideological blinkers do prevent him from understanding most of what his evidence actually means.

hat you haven't got the evidence to support, and should be aware that you h aven't got the evidence to support, which rather undermines your claim to b e smarter than me.

Wrong again. I have the evidence to support my claim. But I at not givin g you the evidence. Too bad you are not intelligent enough to know the dif ference.

d be lots of job changes with little time lost to unemployment.

uite often. I've had jobs with twelve different employers. Before I turned fifty, I didn't lose any time between jobs. Ageism is a problem in the UK, and I spent a couple of weeks under-employed between jobs 7, 8 and 9. It's a worse problem in the Netherlands and I spent about six months under-emplo yed at 58 between jobs eleven and twelve.

es go faster. Most people do.

You are correct. Most of my job changes as far as changing companies were before I was 40. At forty I decided it would be good to stick around to ge t a pension. How ever I did change jobs a number of times within the same company from age 40 to age 63 when I retired ( except I did work for a cou ple of times after I was 63 because the company needed some help.).

Dan

I enjoy my facts too.

Dan