The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Trump, Sweden, and Our Ableist, Insulated Media
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
SwedishRiots

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Fake News story of the week also offered insights into just how insulated from reality our Goodwhites are. It started with President Trump telling a rally in Florida last Saturday that:

You look at what’s happening in Germany. You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden! —Who would believe this? Sweden! They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible …

‘Last Night in Sweden’? Trump’s Remark Baffles a Nation, By Sewell Chan, NYT, February 19, 2017

The problem here: The President is a careless speaker, with a loose grasp of sentence structure and syntax.

I don’t mind this, personally. There are many worse things a President might be: He might be an Affirmative-Action mediocrity obsessed with proving how black he is, or he might be an evangelical romantic with a mission to convert the Heathen to Jeffersonian democracy, or he might be a slick sociopath who boffs interns across the desk in the Oval Office, or … Well, you get the idea. Poor speaking skills are not, for me, a deal-breaker.

This weakness sure does leave the President open to his enemies, though. Announcing his candidacy a year and a half ago, he famously observed that

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.. And some, I assume, are good people.[Links added]

Full text: Donald Trump announces a presidential bid

By Washington Post Staff June 16, 2015

There are at least three lapses of sense in that, which is a lot to get into 48 words. That “with us,” for example, in the fourth sentence, should be either “to us” or “with them.” “They’re bringing those problems with us” makes no sense.

And then, “they’re rapists.” It always gets printed in the media as t-h-e-y-apostrophe-r-e “they’re.” It could just as easily be t-h-e-i-r “their,” keying to “their best” in the first sentence.

That actually makes better sense. If he meant “they are rapists,” what was he doing in the next sentence saying that some of them are good people?

My best guess: Trump’s brain got the two meanings of [ðɛə] tangled in his mind because of their occurrence close together in his first sentence, “they’re not sending their best.” I’ve caught myself hitting the same speed bump occasionally—a lot more than occasionally when trying to speak foreign languages.

So the President’s underlying idea was: “They are not sending their best, they are sending their rapists.”

See, there might be only seven rapists in all of Mexico, but those are the kinds of people we’re getting: their rapists, t-h-e-i-r. I seriously doubt the President believed that all Mexicans are rapists, or even all illegal immigrant Mexicans. That would be nuts; and you don’t have a business career as successful as his if you’re nuts.

That’s y-o-u-apostrophe-r-e “you’re,” not y-o-u-r “your,” y-o-r-e “yore,” or y-a-w “yaw.”

Language is a minefield, and English is by no means the worst case. Last week I signed out Radio Derb with a pop song in Cantonese, a language in which any syllable can be pronounced in seven different tones, each with a different meaning. Let’s give thanks our President doesn’t have to address us in Cantonese.

These homophones—”there/their/they’re,” “your/you’re,”—are in fact massively confused by writers of English. Read a few comment threads, even at august outlets like the New York Times. It’s plain that half the population, or at any rate half the comment-posting population, can’t distinguish between y-o-u-apostrophe-r-e “you’re” and y-o-u-r “your.” How that half of the population breaks down by voting preferences, I’ll leave to the psephologists to research.

So, forward to last Saturday and the President saying that, “You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden.” It happened that Tucker Carlson over at Fox News, which the President is known to watch, had done a segment the evening before about crime among Muslim immigrants in Sweden. Plainly the President meant to say: “You look at what’s happening in Sweden, as I saw last night.” That sentence is syntactically more complex, though, so his mind fed his tongue something simpler.

It can happen to anybody. I’ve had embarrassing experiences, and so have you.

When it happens to a politician who is loathed by a ninety-five-percent-hostile Main Stream Media, though—a media who are relentlessly vigilant for the tiniest infractions on the President’s part–we have a news story.

The real news story here, it seems to me, is what a bubble our media elites live in.

I don’t have a column in a broadsheet newspaper, or a smirk-o-rama TV show to whip up blue-state metrosexuals into gales of laughter against redneck hillbilly Badwhites. I’m just a guy who browses the internet every morning looking for interesting news stories to pass comment on. Still I’ve been aware for years of the horrible disaster that mass Muslim immigration has brought to Sweden.

Why wouldn’t I be? It’s been all over the European papers, and they’re all on the internet. For years.

I’m not just talking about garish populist tabloids, either. In thirty seconds of searching I found this story from the London Guardian, which is a serious heavyweight newspaper with an editorial line to the left of Walter Ulbricht. Date: May 23rd, 2013—al most four years ago. Headline: Swedish Riots Rage For Fourth Night Opener:

Hundreds of youths burnt down a restaurant, set fire to more than 30 cars and attacked police during a fourth night of rioting in the suburbs of Stockholm, shocking a country that dodged the worst of the financial crisis but failed to solve youth unemployment and resentment among asylum seekers.

Yes, it’s all “youths” and “teens” in the first few paragraphs. This is a broadsheet newspaper, though, so eventually they have to name names. The first person they name, other than a police spokesperson in paragraph five, is one Selcuk Ceken in paragraph six. That’s a Turkish name, not a Swedish one. The next is Rami Al-khamisi in paragraph nine.

Mr. Al-Khamisi tells the Guardian that the problem is, wait for it…”institutional racism.”

ORDER IT NOW

Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. One thing, however, is surely beyond dispute: No amount of “institutional racism” would have led to riots and the burning of restaurants in Sweden if the Swedes hadn’t been such damn fools as to open their borders to hundreds of thousands of unassimilable Third Worlders.

Those 2013 riots weren’t a one-off, either. Rioting Muslims are a regular feature of Swedish life nowadays.(In 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2016– not an exhaustive list.) I read the newspapers, including the European ones, every day. I could have told the American media folk about it, if they’d asked.

Or they could have tried reading the papers themselves…No, I guess that would be too much to expect.

In fact, there was another Muslim riot last weekend, even as the TV smirkers were smirking at how dumb our President is. I’d like to tell you that Steven Colbert and crew were embarrassed; but these guys don’t embarrass easy. They just ignored the riot. See, if our media elites don’t talk about something, it didn’t happen.

believenothingGoing back to the President’s speech issues at last, my suggestion to him would be to play the victim card. He should start putting it out that he’s suffered from dyslexia since childhood. Then our media watchdogs are guilty of what is apparently called “ableism,” making fun of a disabled person [klaxon alarm], just as they have accused Trump of doing—falsely, of course.

That should get Meryl Streep choked up at the next awards ceremony.

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He’s had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, Donald Trump, Immigration 
Hide 65 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. The President is a careless speaker, with a loose grasp of sentence structure and syntax.

    I think that this is either a conscious strategy, or a style of communication that he has learned to be effective over time. If Trump had carefully polished every detail of his presentation re the immigration crisis in Europe, it would have simply been ignored. Only loyal Trump supporters who listened carefully to the speech and professional wonks would have even known that he addressed the issue. Because of the “sloppy mistake” he opened himself up for an attack on the very narrow grounds that he “misspoke.” The idiot media blew this up into several news cycles of hysteria on an issue they desperately want to bury. Since the essence of what he was saying is 100% correct and of great significance, this ended up being a huge win for Trump. This scenario has occurred and reoccurred many times since he announced for the Presidency.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    That is a great point, it makes a lot of sense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jderbyshire/trump-sweden-and-our-ableist-insulated-media/#comment-1779634
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I honestly listened to Feb. 25, 2017 issue of Radio Derb, and liked it.
    But I was unable to get the difference in pronunciation of

    These homophones—”there/their/they’re,” “your/you’re,”
    —are in fact massively confused by writers of English.

    Even to hear the difference.
    Best to magnificent Derbyshire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    But I was unable to get the difference in pronunciation of


    These homophones—”there/their/they’re,” “your/you’re,”
    —are in fact massively confused by writers of English.

    Even to hear the difference.
     
    I might be missing a joke here - I haven't listened to the podcast - but there isn't a difference in pronunciation. That's what homophone means.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Trump has now also been criticized for comments about Paris. Paris’s mayor, Anne Hidalgo, has sought to ridicule Trump for suggesting that Paris isn’t what it used to be and that a friend of Trump’s is now hesitant to visit Paris. Paris has, of course, changed dramatically and for the worse since the 1980s. The authorities plan to build an 8-foot high wall around the Eifel Tower. There were riots this last week in the 20th arrondisement. W couple of weeks ago there was a stabbing in the Louvre. Armed soldiers patrol the streets with rifles (Vigipirate). I lived there from 2011 until 2014 and have been back several times since; the entire place has an air of menace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fitzGetty
    Paris is not Paris anymore ... we stopped going there three years ago ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Their rapists. That certainly is an interesting theory that I hadn’t considered, but it makes sense. Even if true, it would not make a dime’s worth of difference to the Trump haters, who are now making up things out of whole cloth (“he said there was a terror attack in Sweden”) in order to destroy him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. These homophones—”there/their/they’re,” “your/you’re,”—are in fact massively confused by writers of English. Read a few comment threads, even at august outlets like the New York Times. It’s plain that half the population, or at any rate half the comment-posting population, can’t distinguish between y-o-u-apostrophe-r-e “you’re” and y-o-u-r “your.”

    I’ll tell you something, Mr. Derbyshire, about this, that I learned only recently. I had thought, as you do, that people who make these homophone errors are all just not well read. Someone who makes a lot of spelling errors especially makes me think less of his whole writing, as these errors aren’t likely made from people who do/have done a lot of reading, and that makes me lose confidence in the rest of it, even if it is good writing otherwise.

    I learned from blogging and commenting on blogs that when I write my fingers turn a sound into words. That’s the key to this; I’ve noticed that I make these same homophone mistakes in writing if a) I’m writing quickly, like a bloggers gotta do AND b) I don’t check my work.

    I would never have thought those errors would be they’re there [SEE!] in my writing, but sure enough I’ll check and find some. I try to be more forgiving about this now. However, for an article in the old Lying Press, for which their there [DAMMIT!] are editors, then one must assume that the NYT is indeed full of imbeciles (something we hear here new knew way back from getting Steve Sailer to read it for us.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    My theory is that when that happens we are, in effect, "dictating to ourselves", and "mishear" a word. It's a natural psychological effect - fascinating for scientists to study, no doubt.

    BUT... as a serious writer who has turned in well over a million words of pay copy, I have a system that is quite effective at squeezing out typos.

    First, I usually re-read each sentence (or paragraph) as soon as I have written it. (Perhaps this began partly because I never learned to touch-type, so I have to look back from the keyboard to the screen to see what - if anything - my typing has accomplished).

    Second, I almost always review the whole piece of writing - whether it's a book chapter, an article, or a reply like this one - before posting it. I much prefer those blogs that allow one to edit one's comments after posting. Slashdot, for instance, doesn't - once posted, it's set in concrete for eternity.

    As well as squeezing out inadvertent mistakes, reviewing has another big benefit. It's remarkable how often you see a better way of expressing your thoughts, or of compressing a passage that's redundant or just unnecessary.

    If you care about your readers and the effect your writing can have on them, it's wise to remove all errors you possibly can. Of course, those of us who were lucky enough to have proper spelling, grammar, punctuation and vocabulary pounded into us before the age of ten have an unfair advantage. But I can't help feeling that anyone who publishes text riddled with mistakes is perhaps over-estimating the importance of his thoughts, relative to the way in which they are expressed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Randal says:
    @Anonymous
    I honestly listened to Feb. 25, 2017 issue of Radio Derb, and liked it.
    But I was unable to get the difference in pronunciation of

    These homophones—”there/their/they’re,” “your/you’re,”
    —are in fact massively confused by writers of English.
     
    Even to hear the difference.
    Best to magnificent Derbyshire.

    But I was unable to get the difference in pronunciation of

    These homophones—”there/their/they’re,” “your/you’re,”
    —are in fact massively confused by writers of English.

    Even to hear the difference.

    I might be missing a joke here – I haven’t listened to the podcast – but there isn’t a difference in pronunciation. That’s what homophone means.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I wanted to say that I do not hear the difference between
    bed
    and
    bad;
    forget about pronouncing those words differently.
    I thought that there (in Derb's podcast) was some difference,
    and I just was unable to hear it.
    Sorry, English is not my native language.
    Best to estimable Randal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Ted Bell says:

    Grammar:

    The difference between knowing your shit, and knowing you’re shit.

    Read More
    • LOL: jtgw
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    People who pay enormous attention to the grammar tend to despise really important things. My business baby!!1 ^.^

    When Tramp say: "They are rapists" he wrote your sentence of stupidity.

    No matter if this troglodyte way to say is the common language of their target electors. Nothing matters when we use our blessed capacities to spread injustices.

    If he learned to use terms like "tend" and in this specific case, even better: There are a disproportionate cases of rapists among "mexican" immigrants" would be very difficult to the (((media))) to attack him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Sunbeam says:

    There’s another angle to this whole thing.

    My belief is that there are a bunch of people who don’t give a tinker’s damn about whether someone makes a minor or homophonic (that a word?) error. As long as the meaning is clear.

    And as far as meaning goes… again a personal take is that I personally don’t give a flaming rip if someone doesn’t rigorously analyze everything before they make a statement. Just the way I roll.

    I do care that someone doesn’t do something stupid, because they said something, then realized it was dumb and decided not to do the stupid thing. As opposed to having an attitude like “So let it be written, so let it be done.” Then doing something stupid because the scribes just put it on stone, and hey what are you gonna do then?

    We’ll just have to … not agree but just live with each others differences. It matters to you. I do not care at all.

    And I think my numbers of like minded citizens are… LEGION. We just don’t care at the end of the day as long as the … uh “legions” come home and that wall gets built (man I’m in love with “… dots” today, but I’m feeling it and I love every one). Actually we didn’t care in the middle of the day either.

    And I cheerfully invite everyone in California or New York who views Trump’s verbal pecadilloes as proof of anything, to teabag my nuts. (Darn grammar; I’ve never “teabagged,” I think I got who does it as an action wrong, but I do want to reiterate my personal distaste for the average Californian or New Yorker.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    And as far as meaning goes… again a personal take is that I personally don’t give a flaming rip if someone doesn’t rigorously analyze everything before they make a statement. Just the way I roll.
     
    Well, yes, but context is everything. If you are a professional communicator or writer, you presumably want to be able to communicate your ideas as unambiguously as possible--if you are any good at your job.

    If you are a lawyer or doctor, you probably are going to have to adjust your mode of speech or writing to the comprehension level of the person you want to communicate with.

    However politicians are often deliberately ambiguous or vague in what they say, the idea being that they will offend as few people as possible and avoid committing themselves to a clear line of action.

    For example, there is no doubt that Trump wants to expel illegal aliens from the US, but he has never made a clear and unambiguous statement about the beliefs underpinning the theory.

    Yes, people from the Seven Banned Nations might be inclined to terrorism, yes, there are probably some undocumented Mexican rapists, purse-snatchers, and snatch-pinchers around, yes, using a fake social security number is a crime that merits deportation (though it also leads to social security contributions that will never be cashed in, so that is paying one's debt to society after a fashion), but there is no clear-cut unified theory, or at least none that has been shared with the public.

    [If you really want to get rid of all illegal aliens in the US, how about jailing anyone who employs one? Why not forgive student loans after students or graduates perform a specified spell of National Service agricultural labor, thus killing two birds with one stone?]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Randal

    But I was unable to get the difference in pronunciation of


    These homophones—”there/their/they’re,” “your/you’re,”
    —are in fact massively confused by writers of English.

    Even to hear the difference.
     
    I might be missing a joke here - I haven't listened to the podcast - but there isn't a difference in pronunciation. That's what homophone means.

    I wanted to say that I do not hear the difference between
    bed
    and
    bad;
    forget about pronouncing those words differently.
    I thought that there (in Derb’s podcast) was some difference,
    and I just was unable to hear it.
    Sorry, English is not my native language.
    Best to estimable Randal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. I think Derb is pretty much correct about what Trump meant to say about last night in Sweden, but this is precisely why politicians needs to watch what they say and stick to prepared remarks that are broadcast to and relayed to millions of people.

    One might also say the same about Trump’s remark that the removal of illegal immigrants being a ‘military’ operation. Probably he just meant that it was being done with military precision, or what a civilian might perceive as military precision, and that the term ‘military’ was supposed, in his mind, to be flattering in sense of meaning ordered and competent.

    Incidentally, I also think that when Obama ‘promised’ that people with Obamacare would be able to ‘keep their doctors’, he was just speaking loosely and without a really detailed understanding of the minutiae of medical care networks, although a great deal was made of it. After all, the majority of people who signed up for Obamacare didn’t have health care insurance before.

    I think one of the reasons why Trump gets so angry with the press is that he believes they often try to distort what he says, or enthusiastically jump on ambiguous phraseology to make him look bad, which is probably true to some extent. But that is what happens if you make off-the-cuff remarks and tweets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    But that is what happens if you make off-the-cuff remarks and tweets.

    Like they did with Obama? Oh wait that was only done by the alt-right media and people like Rush Limbaugh. That might be the difference the double standard in the MSM.
    , @Ted Bell
    Regarding the Obamacare analogy, there's a huge difference between something said once, off the top of one's head, and something repeated ad nauseum, in prepared remarks. You may be correct that Obama simply didn't understand the details of the program. But, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," was a focus group tested slogan, which he read off a teleprompter. If Trump repeatedly, over several months, told us there was a massive riot in Stockholm, on February 16th, then I doubt you'd hear anyone defending it as imprecise speech.

    Regarding said imprecise speech, it's clearly what got him elected. People are tired of politicians using all the right words, while saying absolutely nothing. When you ask Trump a question, he answers it. He might be wrong, he might be exaggerating, he might be completely off subject, he might even be lying. But it's plainly HIS answer, not one written by a political team more concerned with making him look presidential than with answering questions. If he spoke like normal politicians, as you suggest he should, he would have been as much of an irrelevant joke as the media tried to convince themselves he was. He wouldn't have made it past the primaries, much less the general election.

    I wouldn't be surprised if, as Tim Howells suggested above, Trump's sloppy English is a consciously designed strategy, honed over a lifetime of high stakes negotiating. If nothing else, just making your opponents underestimate your intelligence can be very useful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. MarkinLA says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    I think Derb is pretty much correct about what Trump meant to say about last night in Sweden, but this is precisely why politicians needs to watch what they say and stick to prepared remarks that are broadcast to and relayed to millions of people.

    One might also say the same about Trump's remark that the removal of illegal immigrants being a 'military' operation. Probably he just meant that it was being done with military precision, or what a civilian might perceive as military precision, and that the term 'military' was supposed, in his mind, to be flattering in sense of meaning ordered and competent.

    Incidentally, I also think that when Obama 'promised' that people with Obamacare would be able to 'keep their doctors', he was just speaking loosely and without a really detailed understanding of the minutiae of medical care networks, although a great deal was made of it. After all, the majority of people who signed up for Obamacare didn't have health care insurance before.

    I think one of the reasons why Trump gets so angry with the press is that he believes they often try to distort what he says, or enthusiastically jump on ambiguous phraseology to make him look bad, which is probably true to some extent. But that is what happens if you make off-the-cuff remarks and tweets.

    But that is what happens if you make off-the-cuff remarks and tweets.

    Like they did with Obama? Oh wait that was only done by the alt-right media and people like Rush Limbaugh. That might be the difference the double standard in the MSM.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Sunbeam
    There's another angle to this whole thing.

    My belief is that there are a bunch of people who don't give a tinker's damn about whether someone makes a minor or homophonic (that a word?) error. As long as the meaning is clear.

    And as far as meaning goes... again a personal take is that I personally don't give a flaming rip if someone doesn't rigorously analyze everything before they make a statement. Just the way I roll.

    I do care that someone doesn't do something stupid, because they said something, then realized it was dumb and decided not to do the stupid thing. As opposed to having an attitude like "So let it be written, so let it be done." Then doing something stupid because the scribes just put it on stone, and hey what are you gonna do then?

    We'll just have to ... not agree but just live with each others differences. It matters to you. I do not care at all.

    And I think my numbers of like minded citizens are... LEGION. We just don't care at the end of the day as long as the ... uh "legions" come home and that wall gets built (man I'm in love with "... dots" today, but I'm feeling it and I love every one). Actually we didn't care in the middle of the day either.

    And I cheerfully invite everyone in California or New York who views Trump's verbal pecadilloes as proof of anything, to teabag my nuts. (Darn grammar; I've never "teabagged," I think I got who does it as an action wrong, but I do want to reiterate my personal distaste for the average Californian or New Yorker.)

    And as far as meaning goes… again a personal take is that I personally don’t give a flaming rip if someone doesn’t rigorously analyze everything before they make a statement. Just the way I roll.

    Well, yes, but context is everything. If you are a professional communicator or writer, you presumably want to be able to communicate your ideas as unambiguously as possible–if you are any good at your job.

    If you are a lawyer or doctor, you probably are going to have to adjust your mode of speech or writing to the comprehension level of the person you want to communicate with.

    However politicians are often deliberately ambiguous or vague in what they say, the idea being that they will offend as few people as possible and avoid committing themselves to a clear line of action.

    For example, there is no doubt that Trump wants to expel illegal aliens from the US, but he has never made a clear and unambiguous statement about the beliefs underpinning the theory.

    Yes, people from the Seven Banned Nations might be inclined to terrorism, yes, there are probably some undocumented Mexican rapists, purse-snatchers, and snatch-pinchers around, yes, using a fake social security number is a crime that merits deportation (though it also leads to social security contributions that will never be cashed in, so that is paying one’s debt to society after a fashion), but there is no clear-cut unified theory, or at least none that has been shared with the public.

    [If you really want to get rid of all illegal aliens in the US, how about jailing anyone who employs one? Why not forgive student loans after students or graduates perform a specified spell of National Service agricultural labor, thus killing two birds with one stone?]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Ted Bell says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    I think Derb is pretty much correct about what Trump meant to say about last night in Sweden, but this is precisely why politicians needs to watch what they say and stick to prepared remarks that are broadcast to and relayed to millions of people.

    One might also say the same about Trump's remark that the removal of illegal immigrants being a 'military' operation. Probably he just meant that it was being done with military precision, or what a civilian might perceive as military precision, and that the term 'military' was supposed, in his mind, to be flattering in sense of meaning ordered and competent.

    Incidentally, I also think that when Obama 'promised' that people with Obamacare would be able to 'keep their doctors', he was just speaking loosely and without a really detailed understanding of the minutiae of medical care networks, although a great deal was made of it. After all, the majority of people who signed up for Obamacare didn't have health care insurance before.

    I think one of the reasons why Trump gets so angry with the press is that he believes they often try to distort what he says, or enthusiastically jump on ambiguous phraseology to make him look bad, which is probably true to some extent. But that is what happens if you make off-the-cuff remarks and tweets.

    Regarding the Obamacare analogy, there’s a huge difference between something said once, off the top of one’s head, and something repeated ad nauseum, in prepared remarks. You may be correct that Obama simply didn’t understand the details of the program. But, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” was a focus group tested slogan, which he read off a teleprompter. If Trump repeatedly, over several months, told us there was a massive riot in Stockholm, on February 16th, then I doubt you’d hear anyone defending it as imprecise speech.

    Regarding said imprecise speech, it’s clearly what got him elected. People are tired of politicians using all the right words, while saying absolutely nothing. When you ask Trump a question, he answers it. He might be wrong, he might be exaggerating, he might be completely off subject, he might even be lying. But it’s plainly HIS answer, not one written by a political team more concerned with making him look presidential than with answering questions. If he spoke like normal politicians, as you suggest he should, he would have been as much of an irrelevant joke as the media tried to convince themselves he was. He wouldn’t have made it past the primaries, much less the general election.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if, as Tim Howells suggested above, Trump’s sloppy English is a consciously designed strategy, honed over a lifetime of high stakes negotiating. If nothing else, just making your opponents underestimate your intelligence can be very useful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    I think you have a point:
    "But it’s plainly HIS answer, not one written by a political team more concerned with making him look presidential than with answering questions. "
    Trump is not a professional politician: a business man does not usually have to worry about his syntax, his every spoken word.
    However, I'm not sure that Trump's English is "consciously designed". I think he's on a steep learning curve...& I suspect his language will - when needed- become increasingly sophisticated: which is a double sided sword: as many commentators have suggested -- it's Trump's "home-spun" language which is such a strength with his supporters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Tim Howells

    The President is a careless speaker, with a loose grasp of sentence structure and syntax.
     
    I think that this is either a conscious strategy, or a style of communication that he has learned to be effective over time. If Trump had carefully polished every detail of his presentation re the immigration crisis in Europe, it would have simply been ignored. Only loyal Trump supporters who listened carefully to the speech and professional wonks would have even known that he addressed the issue. Because of the "sloppy mistake" he opened himself up for an attack on the very narrow grounds that he "misspoke." The idiot media blew this up into several news cycles of hysteria on an issue they desperately want to bury. Since the essence of what he was saying is 100% correct and of great significance, this ended up being a huge win for Trump. This scenario has occurred and reoccurred many times since he announced for the Presidency.

    That is a great point, it makes a lot of sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Svigor says:

    I agree with the other two commenters, to the extent that if Trump’s habit of getting Big Media to widely broadcast his minor errors and major messages is accidental, then he’s a very lucky fellow.

    I think one of the reasons why Trump gets so angry with the press is that he believes they often try to distort what he says, or enthusiastically jump on ambiguous phraseology to make him look bad, which is probably true to some extent. But that is what happens if you make off-the-cuff remarks and tweets.

    Right. A lying Big Media is like a law of physics.

    Well, yes, but context is everything. If you are a professional communicator or writer, you presumably want to be able to communicate your ideas as unambiguously as possible–if you are any good at your job.

    As unambiguously as is practicable, anyway. Being as unambiguous as possible would probably rule one out for any job communicating anything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    TV smirkers have been smirking about how dumb Trump is for a long time. Has gotten them nowhere. In fact, now we smirk about how dumb they are: http://www.captiongenerator.com/376232/Meanwhile-at-the-CNN-headquarters

    Read More
    • Replies: @fitzGetty
    ... and, they can't even organise properly the leftist annual film fest anymore ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. OT, but John, when you were researching the American Civil War did you happen to read Statesmen of the Lost Cause by Burton Hendrick? I recall your having mentioned several books but can’t remember if this was one of them. At any rate, a really good history about the administration, finances etc of the Confederacy. Unique because battles aren’t really the focus except as they influence broader policy. Well written, very readable.

    One of the points that surprised me was the revelation that the firebrands calling for secession hailed not from the “Old South”; they weren’t descendants of the founding families of the original colonies Virginia and North Carolina but rather were relatively recent transplants into the more recently settled “southwest” states of Mississippi and Alabama. And that more than one of them had migrated down from the north to take up cotton farming which they saw as the fast lane to riches. Their method of farming was rapacious, basically strip mining the soil.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. What bothers me about Trump’s remarks about Germany and Sweden is that he seems to believe that the refugee crisis is what is causing the problems. The truth is Europe’s negative experience with immigration started decades ago. It is not “refugees” bringing crime and terrorism to France, it is mostly North Africans, and often second generation North Africans who were born in France. The Pakistanis abusing English women weren’t refugees, and even after Brexit will still be allowed to come the UK in large numbers. In Germany German born Turks are the ones holding rallies for Erdogan, making public schools a shambles and turning places like Duisburg into Dar al-Islam. The commonality is not “Islam” it is low IQ, inbred, tribal societies. We need immigration restrictions based on IQ and culture, not religion or overblown fears of terrorism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fitzGetty
    The in-breeding issue must be addressed - cousin marriage costs England's health service 40M per annum due to long term care needed by the disabled offspring of their incest unions ...
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't always agree with you, Peter, but that is a good point. Donald Trump wasn't in politics (I don't mean local NYC politics) his whole life and is not a scholarly type into history and such. Therefore, I don't think he really knows all the history behind these problems and many other issues like domestic ones in the US.

    However, he sure does seem to use sense and act like an American in leaning the right way when he does learn about or speak to experts (say, ex-Senator Sessions) about, a problem. That's what I like about him, he does not think politicians and the elite have the answers, and he won't say or believe things just to fit in with that crowd.

    Definitely, the Moslems in Europe thing is not just a recent deal with Merkel opening the to the rapeugees, but this last stage is making it very much more urgent.

    , @RadicalCenter
    Perhaps.

    If we focus on "IQ and culture", though, won't we end up prohibiting the grant of residency or even tourist visas, to people from every sizeable Muslim-majority country in the world?

    That would be fine with me, just wondering whether you think that any Muslim-majority country has a suitable culture and sufficiently high average IQ to allow immigration or tourism from that country.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. fitzGetty says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Trump has now also been criticized for comments about Paris. Paris's mayor, Anne Hidalgo, has sought to ridicule Trump for suggesting that Paris isn't what it used to be and that a friend of Trump's is now hesitant to visit Paris. Paris has, of course, changed dramatically and for the worse since the 1980s. The authorities plan to build an 8-foot high wall around the Eifel Tower. There were riots this last week in the 20th arrondisement. W couple of weeks ago there was a stabbing in the Louvre. Armed soldiers patrol the streets with rifles (Vigipirate). I lived there from 2011 until 2014 and have been back several times since; the entire place has an air of menace.

    Paris is not Paris anymore … we stopped going there three years ago …

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Can't say I blame you.

    Sadly, I've never visited Paris or London. As a child, like many Americans at the time, I dreamed about seeing all the European capitals someday. Now, my wife and I are very much in doubt as to whether we will ever risk a visit to Paris or London -- or, for that matter, the Scandinavian cities -- especially with our children in tow.

    Certainly we would no longer recommend or encourage any of our kids to do a semester abroad (high school) or a year abroad (college) in those places until and unless things change pretty drastically, particularly our girls.

    Desperately hoping that my ancestral lands -- Germany and Italy, primarily -- will wake up and expel the Muslims and Africans so that we and our children can safely and enjoyably visit those places, as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. fitzGetty says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    What bothers me about Trump's remarks about Germany and Sweden is that he seems to believe that the refugee crisis is what is causing the problems. The truth is Europe's negative experience with immigration started decades ago. It is not "refugees" bringing crime and terrorism to France, it is mostly North Africans, and often second generation North Africans who were born in France. The Pakistanis abusing English women weren't refugees, and even after Brexit will still be allowed to come the UK in large numbers. In Germany German born Turks are the ones holding rallies for Erdogan, making public schools a shambles and turning places like Duisburg into Dar al-Islam. The commonality is not "Islam" it is low IQ, inbred, tribal societies. We need immigration restrictions based on IQ and culture, not religion or overblown fears of terrorism.

    The in-breeding issue must be addressed – cousin marriage costs England’s health service 40M per annum due to long term care needed by the disabled offspring of their incest unions …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    "cousin marriage costs England’s health service 40M per annum due to long term care needed by the disabled offspring of their incest unions …"

    Dunno about incest (cousin marriages are IIRC allowed by the church), but that expense is probably dwarfed by the diabetes costs. The English diet doesn't seem to do much good to non-English. "BME" people tend to develop type 2 diabetes earlier in life, as well, and it brings all sorts of other complications in its wake.

    "British people of South Asian, African or African Caribbean descent are significantly more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes than their European counterparts, researchers have warned. Half had developed the disease by the age of 80 in a study of 4,200 people living in London - approximately twice the figure for Europeans. The researchers said the rates were "astonishingly high"."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19545697

    "The current (2012) cost of direct patient care (treatment, intervention and complications) for those living with diabetes is estimated at £9.8 billion (£1 billion for type 1 diabetes and £8.8 billion for type 2 diabetes)."

    http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/04april/pages/nhs-diabetes-costs-cases-rising.aspx
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. fitzGetty says:
    @Anonymous
    TV smirkers have been smirking about how dumb Trump is for a long time. Has gotten them nowhere. In fact, now we smirk about how dumb they are: http://www.captiongenerator.com/376232/Meanwhile-at-the-CNN-headquarters

    … and, they can’t even organise properly the leftist annual film fest anymore …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Photo-shopped fire = Fake News
    DinduSwedes are scientists like in (((Hollywierd)))

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. @Peter Akuleyev
    What bothers me about Trump's remarks about Germany and Sweden is that he seems to believe that the refugee crisis is what is causing the problems. The truth is Europe's negative experience with immigration started decades ago. It is not "refugees" bringing crime and terrorism to France, it is mostly North Africans, and often second generation North Africans who were born in France. The Pakistanis abusing English women weren't refugees, and even after Brexit will still be allowed to come the UK in large numbers. In Germany German born Turks are the ones holding rallies for Erdogan, making public schools a shambles and turning places like Duisburg into Dar al-Islam. The commonality is not "Islam" it is low IQ, inbred, tribal societies. We need immigration restrictions based on IQ and culture, not religion or overblown fears of terrorism.

    I don’t always agree with you, Peter, but that is a good point. Donald Trump wasn’t in politics (I don’t mean local NYC politics) his whole life and is not a scholarly type into history and such. Therefore, I don’t think he really knows all the history behind these problems and many other issues like domestic ones in the US.

    However, he sure does seem to use sense and act like an American in leaning the right way when he does learn about or speak to experts (say, ex-Senator Sessions) about, a problem. That’s what I like about him, he does not think politicians and the elite have the answers, and he won’t say or believe things just to fit in with that crowd.

    Definitely, the Moslems in Europe thing is not just a recent deal with Merkel opening the to the rapeugees, but this last stage is making it very much more urgent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Randal says:

    What’s up with this then? Haven’t the Turks been keeping up with the “expert” consensus in the US sphere mainstream and leftist (but I repeat myself) media that border walls can’t be built and don’t work anyway?

    Turkey builds more than half of Syrian border wall

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. peterike says:

    Well, of course the media doesn’t fail to understand Trump. They quite deliberately “misunderstand” him. Just as during the campaign they would act as if his obvious jokes were serious statements of policy.

    This media strategy also fits into the whole mockery-as-news that’s come about from the Jon Stewarts and Colberts of the world. The Progressive mantra is, “I sneer, therefore I am.”

    Our media is devious, duplicitous and degenerate. The frightening thing is they are now also fully aligned with the Deep State, and all of them are out to get Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. trump lies, get over it. he lied during that speech, blatantly. no need to beat a dead horse.

    every president lies, trump just does it more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Nobody knew health care could be so complicated

    Here is another example where people are pretending not to understand Der Pres.

    Firstly, Trump was clearly speaking ironically. Why do doctors have to go to school for six years? Because healthcare is complicated.

    What Trump really meant is that the FINANCING of health care is not really so complicated, unless people deliberately make it so.

    For example: Health insurance is compulsory for the whole population in Germany. Salaried workers and employees below the relatively high income threshold of almost 50,000 Euros per year are automatically enrolled into one of currently around 130 public non-profit “sickness funds” at common rates for all members, and is paid for with joint employer-employee contributions. The sickness funds are mandated to provide a unique and broad benefit package and cannot refuse membership or otherwise discriminate on an actuarial basis. Social welfare beneficiaries are also enrolled in statutory health insurance, and municipalities pay contributions on behalf of them.

    Cost? The health insurance premium is the same across all statutory insurers – 14.6% of your gross income, but only up to a certain income level. The employer and insured employee share the costs equally, paying 7.3% each. Non-earning spouses and children are covered without additional premium.

    There are no “deductibles”.

    How simple is that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    That's not simple at all. How bout real simple, but too simple for most statists like yourself. See, we make all governments stay the hell out of our business. Then we pay for health care as needed at market cost, making a competitive market for doctor/nurse care, hospital stays, etc. Then entrepreneurial guys will start insurance companies to let people spread the risk for unexpected expensive health care needed for accidents and serious diseases.

    Keep it simple, stupid.
    , @Sunbeam
    But what controls costs in that environment? I'm not German, nor do I care to be. But what they or Swedes can pull off in their cultures is different from what we can.

    I can't imagine that cost padding that would become endemic if that system were adopted by Americans (and we have it now, even with private insurers trying to make their filthy lucre in a system frankly far friendlier to them).

    It's not just lawyers, insurance companies and the like. Hospitals, Drug companies, doctors themselves are in on it here.

    What would keep it under control? Single payer would be about the only kind of entity I can think of with enough muscle to wave a bottle of Stool-Smasher 5000 under Pfizer's nose and say "Hey Bub, I'm paying you $1 a bottle for this, that's it. And no I don't care how much money you just gave Lindsay Graham."
    , @Astuteobservor II
    are you saying trump wants the german system? how can you even tell from just his weird disjointed speeches?

    I agree with sunbeam that single payer system is the way to go.

    OT. check this out: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/full-video-richmond-virginia-focus-group/
    check out the awesome rationalization about "fake news" of the lady second from the right on the front row :P she actually makes excuses for trump :) if that is a typical trump supporter, trump can do whatever he wants :) this is awesome because they are real people.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Jonathan Mason

    Nobody knew health care could be so complicated
     
    Here is another example where people are pretending not to understand Der Pres.

    Firstly, Trump was clearly speaking ironically. Why do doctors have to go to school for six years? Because healthcare is complicated.

    What Trump really meant is that the FINANCING of health care is not really so complicated, unless people deliberately make it so.

    For example: Health insurance is compulsory for the whole population in Germany. Salaried workers and employees below the relatively high income threshold of almost 50,000 Euros per year are automatically enrolled into one of currently around 130 public non-profit "sickness funds" at common rates for all members, and is paid for with joint employer-employee contributions. The sickness funds are mandated to provide a unique and broad benefit package and cannot refuse membership or otherwise discriminate on an actuarial basis. Social welfare beneficiaries are also enrolled in statutory health insurance, and municipalities pay contributions on behalf of them.

    Cost? The health insurance premium is the same across all statutory insurers – 14.6% of your gross income, but only up to a certain income level. The employer and insured employee share the costs equally, paying 7.3% each. Non-earning spouses and children are covered without additional premium.

    There are no "deductibles".

    How simple is that?

    That’s not simple at all. How bout real simple, but too simple for most statists like yourself. See, we make all governments stay the hell out of our business. Then we pay for health care as needed at market cost, making a competitive market for doctor/nurse care, hospital stays, etc. Then entrepreneurial guys will start insurance companies to let people spread the risk for unexpected expensive health care needed for accidents and serious diseases.

    Keep it simple, stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Sunbeam says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Nobody knew health care could be so complicated
     
    Here is another example where people are pretending not to understand Der Pres.

    Firstly, Trump was clearly speaking ironically. Why do doctors have to go to school for six years? Because healthcare is complicated.

    What Trump really meant is that the FINANCING of health care is not really so complicated, unless people deliberately make it so.

    For example: Health insurance is compulsory for the whole population in Germany. Salaried workers and employees below the relatively high income threshold of almost 50,000 Euros per year are automatically enrolled into one of currently around 130 public non-profit "sickness funds" at common rates for all members, and is paid for with joint employer-employee contributions. The sickness funds are mandated to provide a unique and broad benefit package and cannot refuse membership or otherwise discriminate on an actuarial basis. Social welfare beneficiaries are also enrolled in statutory health insurance, and municipalities pay contributions on behalf of them.

    Cost? The health insurance premium is the same across all statutory insurers – 14.6% of your gross income, but only up to a certain income level. The employer and insured employee share the costs equally, paying 7.3% each. Non-earning spouses and children are covered without additional premium.

    There are no "deductibles".

    How simple is that?

    But what controls costs in that environment? I’m not German, nor do I care to be. But what they or Swedes can pull off in their cultures is different from what we can.

    I can’t imagine that cost padding that would become endemic if that system were adopted by Americans (and we have it now, even with private insurers trying to make their filthy lucre in a system frankly far friendlier to them).

    It’s not just lawyers, insurance companies and the like. Hospitals, Drug companies, doctors themselves are in on it here.

    What would keep it under control? Single payer would be about the only kind of entity I can think of with enough muscle to wave a bottle of Stool-Smasher 5000 under Pfizer’s nose and say “Hey Bub, I’m paying you $1 a bottle for this, that’s it. And no I don’t care how much money you just gave Lindsay Graham.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Peter Akuleyev
    What bothers me about Trump's remarks about Germany and Sweden is that he seems to believe that the refugee crisis is what is causing the problems. The truth is Europe's negative experience with immigration started decades ago. It is not "refugees" bringing crime and terrorism to France, it is mostly North Africans, and often second generation North Africans who were born in France. The Pakistanis abusing English women weren't refugees, and even after Brexit will still be allowed to come the UK in large numbers. In Germany German born Turks are the ones holding rallies for Erdogan, making public schools a shambles and turning places like Duisburg into Dar al-Islam. The commonality is not "Islam" it is low IQ, inbred, tribal societies. We need immigration restrictions based on IQ and culture, not religion or overblown fears of terrorism.

    Perhaps.

    If we focus on “IQ and culture”, though, won’t we end up prohibiting the grant of residency or even tourist visas, to people from every sizeable Muslim-majority country in the world?

    That would be fine with me, just wondering whether you think that any Muslim-majority country has a suitable culture and sufficiently high average IQ to allow immigration or tourism from that country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @fitzGetty
    Paris is not Paris anymore ... we stopped going there three years ago ...

    Can’t say I blame you.

    Sadly, I’ve never visited Paris or London. As a child, like many Americans at the time, I dreamed about seeing all the European capitals someday. Now, my wife and I are very much in doubt as to whether we will ever risk a visit to Paris or London — or, for that matter, the Scandinavian cities — especially with our children in tow.

    Certainly we would no longer recommend or encourage any of our kids to do a semester abroad (high school) or a year abroad (college) in those places until and unless things change pretty drastically, particularly our girls.

    Desperately hoping that my ancestral lands — Germany and Italy, primarily — will wake up and expel the Muslims and Africans so that we and our children can safely and enjoyably visit those places, as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Jonathan Mason

    Nobody knew health care could be so complicated
     
    Here is another example where people are pretending not to understand Der Pres.

    Firstly, Trump was clearly speaking ironically. Why do doctors have to go to school for six years? Because healthcare is complicated.

    What Trump really meant is that the FINANCING of health care is not really so complicated, unless people deliberately make it so.

    For example: Health insurance is compulsory for the whole population in Germany. Salaried workers and employees below the relatively high income threshold of almost 50,000 Euros per year are automatically enrolled into one of currently around 130 public non-profit "sickness funds" at common rates for all members, and is paid for with joint employer-employee contributions. The sickness funds are mandated to provide a unique and broad benefit package and cannot refuse membership or otherwise discriminate on an actuarial basis. Social welfare beneficiaries are also enrolled in statutory health insurance, and municipalities pay contributions on behalf of them.

    Cost? The health insurance premium is the same across all statutory insurers – 14.6% of your gross income, but only up to a certain income level. The employer and insured employee share the costs equally, paying 7.3% each. Non-earning spouses and children are covered without additional premium.

    There are no "deductibles".

    How simple is that?

    are you saying trump wants the german system? how can you even tell from just his weird disjointed speeches?

    I agree with sunbeam that single payer system is the way to go.

    OT. check this out: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/full-video-richmond-virginia-focus-group/
    check out the awesome rationalization about “fake news” of the lady second from the right on the front row :P she actually makes excuses for trump :) if that is a typical trump supporter, trump can do whatever he wants :) this is awesome because they are real people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Are you saying trump wants the German system? How can you even tell from just his weird disjointed speeches?

    I agree with Sunbeam that single payer system is the way to go.
     

    Well, I agree with you. Before he was elected Trump seemed to be hinting at a single payer system, but you know, I don't care if the future system is single payer or multiple payer. I know that The American Way is to have corporations doing these things rather than civil servants on the basis that corporations are more flexible and do it better.

    I had health insurance through a private company (Somers Isles) when I lived in Bermuda for more than a decade, and I was totally happy with it. Moderate premiums, no deductibles, etc. I also paid for insurance for my whole family (4 of us) when I lived in the Dominican Republic for a few years, and was again totally satisfied with what I got for my money's worth.

    What we need is a method of financing health care that is for everyone, and is affordable for everyone. Whether it is provided by single payer or by corporations is irrelevant.

    Obamacare is ridiculous. For my wife and two kids it is $500 per month with a deductible of $2500 for each person insured, meaning that I have to spend a minimum of $8500 per year before the insurance will provide a cent's worth of health care for them. (I also have to pay for Medicare for myself, so another $1500 or so per year plus deductible.) My wife recently had a lab test done for a minor infection. The bill is $1170, and Obamacare won't pay a cent of it due to the "deductible".

    Obamacare is probably fine for people who have long term conditions like diabetes or seizure disorder, or mental illness, but not for average families.

    Anyway, the point of my earlier post is that if Trump does not speak clearly, then one can interpret his meaning any way one likes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Sunbeam says:

    What is this nonsense about “disjointed” speeches?

    Trump gives great speeches. Actually they are the best speeches we’ve heard from a President, in a long, long time.

    And the big reason for that is HE ISN’T PARSING HIS ASS OFF to fit the sensibilities of, or win style points from people in San Francisco. Screw those guys. Screw ‘em to hell. I’m sure they’ll love it, but screw ‘em anyway.

    And as far as fake news goes… you know what keeps the average CNN or network TV announcer from being an utter liar?

    The fact that they are too stupid to realize that what they are saying isn’t true.

    You ever seen one of these things (been done a number of times) where they play short clips of news announcers across the country, talking about the exact same thing, and using the exact same phrasing.

    Yeah, the news isn’t fake. Right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    wow, ahah, you actually like, love trump's speech style? ahahah

    as for fake news, you need to watch the video when it comes to the lady in question :P

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Sunbeam
    What is this nonsense about "disjointed" speeches?

    Trump gives great speeches. Actually they are the best speeches we've heard from a President, in a long, long time.

    And the big reason for that is HE ISN'T PARSING HIS ASS OFF to fit the sensibilities of, or win style points from people in San Francisco. Screw those guys. Screw 'em to hell. I'm sure they'll love it, but screw 'em anyway.

    And as far as fake news goes... you know what keeps the average CNN or network TV announcer from being an utter liar?

    The fact that they are too stupid to realize that what they are saying isn't true.

    You ever seen one of these things (been done a number of times) where they play short clips of news announcers across the country, talking about the exact same thing, and using the exact same phrasing.

    Yeah, the news isn't fake. Right.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9x-yDyN78

    wow, ahah, you actually like, love trump’s speech style? ahahah

    as for fake news, you need to watch the video when it comes to the lady in question :P

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Astuteobservor II
    are you saying trump wants the german system? how can you even tell from just his weird disjointed speeches?

    I agree with sunbeam that single payer system is the way to go.

    OT. check this out: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/full-video-richmond-virginia-focus-group/
    check out the awesome rationalization about "fake news" of the lady second from the right on the front row :P she actually makes excuses for trump :) if that is a typical trump supporter, trump can do whatever he wants :) this is awesome because they are real people.

    Are you saying trump wants the German system? How can you even tell from just his weird disjointed speeches?

    I agree with Sunbeam that single payer system is the way to go.

    Well, I agree with you. Before he was elected Trump seemed to be hinting at a single payer system, but you know, I don’t care if the future system is single payer or multiple payer. I know that The American Way is to have corporations doing these things rather than civil servants on the basis that corporations are more flexible and do it better.

    I had health insurance through a private company (Somers Isles) when I lived in Bermuda for more than a decade, and I was totally happy with it. Moderate premiums, no deductibles, etc. I also paid for insurance for my whole family (4 of us) when I lived in the Dominican Republic for a few years, and was again totally satisfied with what I got for my money’s worth.

    What we need is a method of financing health care that is for everyone, and is affordable for everyone. Whether it is provided by single payer or by corporations is irrelevant.

    Obamacare is ridiculous. For my wife and two kids it is $500 per month with a deductible of $2500 for each person insured, meaning that I have to spend a minimum of $8500 per year before the insurance will provide a cent’s worth of health care for them. (I also have to pay for Medicare for myself, so another $1500 or so per year plus deductible.) My wife recently had a lab test done for a minor infection. The bill is $1170, and Obamacare won’t pay a cent of it due to the “deductible”.

    Obamacare is probably fine for people who have long term conditions like diabetes or seizure disorder, or mental illness, but not for average families.

    Anyway, the point of my earlier post is that if Trump does not speak clearly, then one can interpret his meaning any way one likes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II

    I know that The American Way is to have corporations doing these things rather than civil servants on the basis that corporations are more flexible and do it better.
     
    obama care was concocted by the health insurance companies you know? that is why I hate it. retard obama basically want it to pass no matter how bad it is. the insurance companies blocked it and bought ads saying obama wanted a death panel before obama finally caved.

    this is health care, don't make a business out of it. this is literally our lives. you want to put it in the hands of greedy sobs at some boardroom?

    Anyway, the point of my earlier post is that if Trump does not speak clearly, then one can interpret his meaning any way one likes.
     
    I expect my president to be coherent and smart enough to make his points in a speech without sounding like a bumbling retard. hell, complete sentences.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Jonathan Mason

    Are you saying trump wants the German system? How can you even tell from just his weird disjointed speeches?

    I agree with Sunbeam that single payer system is the way to go.
     

    Well, I agree with you. Before he was elected Trump seemed to be hinting at a single payer system, but you know, I don't care if the future system is single payer or multiple payer. I know that The American Way is to have corporations doing these things rather than civil servants on the basis that corporations are more flexible and do it better.

    I had health insurance through a private company (Somers Isles) when I lived in Bermuda for more than a decade, and I was totally happy with it. Moderate premiums, no deductibles, etc. I also paid for insurance for my whole family (4 of us) when I lived in the Dominican Republic for a few years, and was again totally satisfied with what I got for my money's worth.

    What we need is a method of financing health care that is for everyone, and is affordable for everyone. Whether it is provided by single payer or by corporations is irrelevant.

    Obamacare is ridiculous. For my wife and two kids it is $500 per month with a deductible of $2500 for each person insured, meaning that I have to spend a minimum of $8500 per year before the insurance will provide a cent's worth of health care for them. (I also have to pay for Medicare for myself, so another $1500 or so per year plus deductible.) My wife recently had a lab test done for a minor infection. The bill is $1170, and Obamacare won't pay a cent of it due to the "deductible".

    Obamacare is probably fine for people who have long term conditions like diabetes or seizure disorder, or mental illness, but not for average families.

    Anyway, the point of my earlier post is that if Trump does not speak clearly, then one can interpret his meaning any way one likes.

    I know that The American Way is to have corporations doing these things rather than civil servants on the basis that corporations are more flexible and do it better.

    obama care was concocted by the health insurance companies you know? that is why I hate it. retard obama basically want it to pass no matter how bad it is. the insurance companies blocked it and bought ads saying obama wanted a death panel before obama finally caved.

    this is health care, don’t make a business out of it. this is literally our lives. you want to put it in the hands of greedy sobs at some boardroom?

    Anyway, the point of my earlier post is that if Trump does not speak clearly, then one can interpret his meaning any way one likes.

    I expect my president to be coherent and smart enough to make his points in a speech without sounding like a bumbling retard. hell, complete sentences.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Tom Welsh says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    These homophones—”there/their/they’re,” “your/you’re,”—are in fact massively confused by writers of English. Read a few comment threads, even at august outlets like the New York Times. It’s plain that half the population, or at any rate half the comment-posting population, can’t distinguish between y-o-u-apostrophe-r-e “you’re” and y-o-u-r “your.”
     
    I'll tell you something, Mr. Derbyshire, about this, that I learned only recently. I had thought, as you do, that people who make these homophone errors are all just not well read. Someone who makes a lot of spelling errors especially makes me think less of his whole writing, as these errors aren't likely made from people who do/have done a lot of reading, and that makes me lose confidence in the rest of it, even if it is good writing otherwise.

    I learned from blogging and commenting on blogs that when I write my fingers turn a sound into words. That's the key to this; I've noticed that I make these same homophone mistakes in writing if a) I'm writing quickly, like a bloggers gotta do AND b) I don't check my work.

    I would never have thought those errors would be they're there [SEE!] in my writing, but sure enough I'll check and find some. I try to be more forgiving about this now. However, for an article in the old Lying Press, for which their there [DAMMIT!] are editors, then one must assume that the NYT is indeed full of imbeciles (something we hear here new knew way back from getting Steve Sailer to read it for us.)

    My theory is that when that happens we are, in effect, “dictating to ourselves”, and “mishear” a word. It’s a natural psychological effect – fascinating for scientists to study, no doubt.

    BUT… as a serious writer who has turned in well over a million words of pay copy, I have a system that is quite effective at squeezing out typos.

    First, I usually re-read each sentence (or paragraph) as soon as I have written it. (Perhaps this began partly because I never learned to touch-type, so I have to look back from the keyboard to the screen to see what – if anything – my typing has accomplished).

    Second, I almost always review the whole piece of writing – whether it’s a book chapter, an article, or a reply like this one – before posting it. I much prefer those blogs that allow one to edit one’s comments after posting. Slashdot, for instance, doesn’t – once posted, it’s set in concrete for eternity.

    As well as squeezing out inadvertent mistakes, reviewing has another big benefit. It’s remarkable how often you see a better way of expressing your thoughts, or of compressing a passage that’s redundant or just unnecessary.

    If you care about your readers and the effect your writing can have on them, it’s wise to remove all errors you possibly can. Of course, those of us who were lucky enough to have proper spelling, grammar, punctuation and vocabulary pounded into us before the age of ten have an unfair advantage. But I can’t help feeling that anyone who publishes text riddled with mistakes is perhaps over-estimating the importance of his thoughts, relative to the way in which they are expressed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    I started using the internet around 97, have made it a point to never correct my grammar on any and all internet postings. it is how I distinguish it from real life. don't know why that intent just stuck with me for ever and never changed, but there it is :P it is a calculated effort for the sake of my own peace of mind :) it isn't arrogance, carelessness or malevolence :)

    never thought grammar could become "I can’t help feeling that anyone who publishes text riddled with mistakes is perhaps over-estimating the importance of his thoughts, relative to the way in which they are expressed." that is few levels above grammar nazi :)
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    You are a serious writer, Tom, while I am just an errand boy sent by grocery clerks ...

    ... or something.

    I do try to proofread, but I'm often in too much of a hurry, as again, I'm not getting paid for it. I will do my best, but days or weeks later, I may see small omittences (see spell check doesn't know that one!) of articles, a few basic typos, or some of the homophone* errors as we've been discussing. I will edit my posts to correct them whenever I see them. If I were getting paid, I think I would give a friend a few bucks to check again, as 4 eyes are better than 2 (not saying this as advice, just what I would do myself - you said you had it under control).

    On my blog, unfortunately for now, there is no provision editing once the post goes into the database, but then the commenters don't care too much, as there only 3 of us for now, haha. This particular site we're on has about the best system I've ever seen, but I don't get all around the internet as much as I've been around the real country.



    As well as squeezing out inadvertent mistakes, reviewing has another big benefit. It’s remarkable how often you see a better way of expressing your thoughts, or of compressing a passage that’s redundant or just unnecessary.

     
    That is a good point too.

    Thanks for the great reply, Tom.


    * Oh, I had thought that meant one of those new pink Samsung devices they sell out in the Castro District of San Francisco. See, there's another thing I learned today.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. berserker says:

    ‘ can’t distinguish between y-o-u-apostrophe-r-e “you’re” and y-o-u-r “your.”’

    - There is another one that seems to have appeared out of nowhere: the inability to distinguish between who’s (who is) and whose.
    - As far as distinguishing between you’re and your, how much of the blame lies with text messaging where people are used to typing “ur”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. @Ted Bell
    Grammar:

    The difference between knowing your shit, and knowing you're shit.

    People who pay enormous attention to the grammar tend to despise really important things. My business baby!!1 ^.^

    When Tramp say: “They are rapists” he wrote your sentence of stupidity.

    No matter if this troglodyte way to say is the common language of their target electors. Nothing matters when we use our blessed capacities to spread injustices.

    If he learned to use terms like “tend” and in this specific case, even better: There are a disproportionate cases of rapists among “mexican” immigrants” would be very difficult to the (((media))) to attack him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Ted Bell
    Regarding the Obamacare analogy, there's a huge difference between something said once, off the top of one's head, and something repeated ad nauseum, in prepared remarks. You may be correct that Obama simply didn't understand the details of the program. But, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," was a focus group tested slogan, which he read off a teleprompter. If Trump repeatedly, over several months, told us there was a massive riot in Stockholm, on February 16th, then I doubt you'd hear anyone defending it as imprecise speech.

    Regarding said imprecise speech, it's clearly what got him elected. People are tired of politicians using all the right words, while saying absolutely nothing. When you ask Trump a question, he answers it. He might be wrong, he might be exaggerating, he might be completely off subject, he might even be lying. But it's plainly HIS answer, not one written by a political team more concerned with making him look presidential than with answering questions. If he spoke like normal politicians, as you suggest he should, he would have been as much of an irrelevant joke as the media tried to convince themselves he was. He wouldn't have made it past the primaries, much less the general election.

    I wouldn't be surprised if, as Tim Howells suggested above, Trump's sloppy English is a consciously designed strategy, honed over a lifetime of high stakes negotiating. If nothing else, just making your opponents underestimate your intelligence can be very useful.

    I think you have a point:
    “But it’s plainly HIS answer, not one written by a political team more concerned with making him look presidential than with answering questions. ”
    Trump is not a professional politician: a business man does not usually have to worry about his syntax, his every spoken word.
    However, I’m not sure that Trump’s English is “consciously designed”. I think he’s on a steep learning curve…& I suspect his language will – when needed- become increasingly sophisticated: which is a double sided sword: as many commentators have suggested — it’s Trump’s “home-spun” language which is such a strength with his supporters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Miro23 says:

    The real news story here, it seems to me, is what a bubble our media elites live in.

    In Soviet style, the news is selected and distorted to conform to the political line (Progressive Counter-Cultural) and enable comfortable self-confirmation in the echo chamber.

    Discordant news is simply excluded, for instance:

    This month alone – February 2017 – 30 farm attacks have taken place, resulting in 15 murders of the most gruesome kind. One woman even had he eyes gouged out after being stabbed more than 20 times, and an elderly farmer was tortured for two days before dying in hospital.

    https://www.thesouthafrican.com/revenge-crime-the-first-step-towards-civil-war/

    And eventually when it’s so big that it can’t be ignored, it’s also shoehorned into CCP ( Counter-Cultural Progressivism).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. Agent76 says:

    Dec 8, 2016 We Are Watching The Long Game to Total Censorship Play Out

    Maybe we should just start titling our videos something totally random and innocuous like, “Puppies frolicking in a daisy field” or “Look at this cute cat named Bob!” or “I like cheese”… Thoughts?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. @Tom Welsh
    My theory is that when that happens we are, in effect, "dictating to ourselves", and "mishear" a word. It's a natural psychological effect - fascinating for scientists to study, no doubt.

    BUT... as a serious writer who has turned in well over a million words of pay copy, I have a system that is quite effective at squeezing out typos.

    First, I usually re-read each sentence (or paragraph) as soon as I have written it. (Perhaps this began partly because I never learned to touch-type, so I have to look back from the keyboard to the screen to see what - if anything - my typing has accomplished).

    Second, I almost always review the whole piece of writing - whether it's a book chapter, an article, or a reply like this one - before posting it. I much prefer those blogs that allow one to edit one's comments after posting. Slashdot, for instance, doesn't - once posted, it's set in concrete for eternity.

    As well as squeezing out inadvertent mistakes, reviewing has another big benefit. It's remarkable how often you see a better way of expressing your thoughts, or of compressing a passage that's redundant or just unnecessary.

    If you care about your readers and the effect your writing can have on them, it's wise to remove all errors you possibly can. Of course, those of us who were lucky enough to have proper spelling, grammar, punctuation and vocabulary pounded into us before the age of ten have an unfair advantage. But I can't help feeling that anyone who publishes text riddled with mistakes is perhaps over-estimating the importance of his thoughts, relative to the way in which they are expressed.

    I started using the internet around 97, have made it a point to never correct my grammar on any and all internet postings. it is how I distinguish it from real life. don’t know why that intent just stuck with me for ever and never changed, but there it is :P it is a calculated effort for the sake of my own peace of mind :) it isn’t arrogance, carelessness or malevolence :)

    never thought grammar could become “I can’t help feeling that anyone who publishes text riddled with mistakes is perhaps over-estimating the importance of his thoughts, relative to the way in which they are expressed.” that is few levels above grammar nazi :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I will respond to Tom's thoughtful comment in a bit here, but I will say this is response to yours:

    It is all in the reader, really, as whether your mistakes of these kind matter When I see a bunch of these type errors that Mr. Derbyshire wrote about above, the homophone ones, or worse, grammar and serious non-typo misspellings, it makes me think the reader is not "well read". "Well read" sounds like something a snob would say, but it's just that many of the spelling and minor grammar mistakes come from people who don't read a lot. If you read a lot, you have seen the words and arrangements so many times, that they go down on paper, or up onto the screen much easier and normally correct.

    Though the writer may really know his stuff well on the subject, my impression will be that he many not know much, as the guy doesn't read much. That means much of what he learned MAY be from TV (and I'm not saying you can't get a lot of garbage from reading, but if you read a lot, chances are you read some serious non-fiction also). Again, this is just the impression that the mistakes in a post give me - I'm not saying I should believe this impression. Also, one can have much knowledge from experience, and still be a bad writer with very important things to write about, with accurate information.

    All I just wrote is much more important for the writing of the blogger, not other commenters, especially if one already knows them.

    One more thing is egregious errors in the subject itself that make the writer sound like an idiot, even though one knows he is not. I wrote this about one guy who freaked out over a correction:

    * BTW, don't confuse this guy with Brandon Smith, also featured a lot on ZeroHedge. Brandon Smith has a good website called Alt-Market which features much of the writing on the Global Financial Stupidity that both ZeroHedge and OfTwoMinds also do. My only one-time dealing with Brandon, however, when writing a comment to correct a small error, resulted in him wiping out the comment and figuratively foaming-out-the-mouth about it. I had praised the article and just told the guy that fixing the obvious error (the Confederate Army did not march on Ft. Sumter, seeing as how it's a coupla miles into the Charleston harbor from the battery) would avoid turning off readers only due to their lack of trust in his literacy.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Sean says:

    Enoch Powell spoke in sentences, didactic like. He failed.

    https://philosophyinatimeoferror.com/2010/04/02/interview-with-graham-harman/The most masterful speakers and writers we know are those who do not make their subject directly present, but indirectly. One example is metaphor. If you take Max Black’s example of a (rather mediocre) metaphor, “man is a wolf,” there is no way to parse that metaphor in prose. You cannot exhaust the metaphor with a set of discursive statements such as “man is savage, moonstruck, and travels in violent hierarchical packs,” because none of these statements ever get at what the metaphor communicates indirectly. The same goes for rhetoric. Aristotle thinks they key to rhetoric is the enthymeme, which is when you say something without saying it. A trivial example: if I say “the Third Army then marched on Baghdad,” I don’t have to say “the Third Army then marched on Baghdad, which is the capital of Iraq, and during this war their goal was to capture the capital.” The latter part of this is unnecessary and boring, because it is already known to the listener without being stated. Language is riddled with enthymemes, because we are never able or willing to spell out exactly everything that we are trying to communicate. What metaphor and rhetoric teach us is that clear, plain language are not only impossible, but also self-defeating. Reality itself is not the kind of thing that can be parsed in a set of clear discursive statements. Something shadowy remains in the background of every topic, and we have to allude to it rather than bluntly stating it sometimes.

    Trump is speaking in enthymemes, the enthymeme is the key to rhetoric, which is why Aristotle spent so much time teaching his students it. Because it worked, and it still does:-

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-language-idUKKCN0VQ035

    To his supporters, Trump is a politician who doesn’t sound like one: He says what he thinks, happily insults rivals and can appear unscripted, particularly when he leaves his thoughts to trail off unfinished or peppers sentences with ambiguities.

    Take his comments during a recent Republican debate in which he defended his call for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States: “I talked about Muslims,” he said. “We have to have a temporary something, because there’s something going on that’s not good.”

    It was left up to the listener to decipher what Trump was saying. What this means in practice is that supporters can tailor his statements to their own beliefs, rhetoric professors said. It also allows Trump, consciously or not, to avoid boxing himself in with quotes that rivals can use against him.

    Strictly speaking an enthymeme is a form of argument in which at least one premise remains unstated. The concept isn’t new – it was described by the Greek philosopher Aristotle – and has been used in American politics in the past.

    In practice, enthymemes come in various forms, including dramatic pauses, unfinished sentences and the place-filling “somethings” Trump employs, according to the experts, who study U.S. public and political speech. In each case, listeners fill in the blanks.

    Trump has used enthymemes when taking on Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and one-time rival Carly Fiorina; he has used them in describing his opposition to a New York City mosque; he routinely uses them in speeches when talking about subjects ranging from immigration to trade wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Albert Hazread
    En Thy Memes We Trust!
    , @Curle
    Really great comment!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. kek says:

    Globalist lies can only be perpetuated with willing underhanded media censorship. The globalists worldwide are losing their grip, that’s why they are trying so desperately to control internet traffic.

    Globalists have the Main Stream Media (TV, News Print, Hollywood, Politicians) in their pocket but are having problems in the US and Europe totally controlling cyberspace.

    Totalitarian countries like China will just ban traffic from coming in at the internet trunk port.

    Semi Totalitarian PRE-Trump USA target individual users on Social Media.

    I’m waiting to see some class action lawsuits against Twitter and Facebook for 1st amendment violations; should be an interesting 4 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Not to be too much of a blog-pimper here, but I wrote about this myself here:

    These people globalist/lefties are just not used to losing. They didn't count on the internet. It's not really that they had some big plan, but the globalist elite types really don't like a middle class that can get in the way of their dreams. They like the idea of the American middle class being replaced, as they will have more control then, but they need to keep this kind of on the down-low.

    That worked pretty good once traditional media was suitably infiltrated (all that you mentioned, kek). The internet was like a glass of cold water in the face to them, however.

    Well, read my post if you would. Per the discussion here, please bring up any spelling/grammar errors, as I don't want to sound like an uneducated nit-wit. Please, I don't want grammar Nazis or grammar Soviets, but I don't mind grammar strongmen or grammar bureaucrats.
    , @OilcanFloyd
    "I’m waiting to see some class action lawsuits against Twitter and Facebook for 1st amendment violations; should be an interesting 4 years."

    I'd love to see NSA records regarding terror/potential terror watch-lists opened. It would be great to see exactly how those lists were compiled, and by whom. Apparently lots of people wound up on those lists who should never have been viewed as any kind of threat, and many by accident of name. Those people should have full access to their files, and the people responsible for reporting them should definitely be made to answer for their actions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. You know the Swedes must be feeling good about themselves not needing gun ownership or a right to keep and bear. Perhaps they haven’t yet made the connention that YOU CAN’T BE RAPED if your would be assailant is lying on the ground with their brains splattered all over the street. Simply impossible for that to happen. And should the Swedes decide to purchase arms (probably black market – plenty of sellers I’m sure ready to take their orders) and defend themselves a number of times you might just wind up with a whole slew of ‘refugees’ FROM Sweden rather than TO Sweden which I believe would bode better for the Swedes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Styx
    I'm pretty sure hunting is a big deal in Sweden and gun ownership accordingly common.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Astuteobservor II
    I started using the internet around 97, have made it a point to never correct my grammar on any and all internet postings. it is how I distinguish it from real life. don't know why that intent just stuck with me for ever and never changed, but there it is :P it is a calculated effort for the sake of my own peace of mind :) it isn't arrogance, carelessness or malevolence :)

    never thought grammar could become "I can’t help feeling that anyone who publishes text riddled with mistakes is perhaps over-estimating the importance of his thoughts, relative to the way in which they are expressed." that is few levels above grammar nazi :)

    I will respond to Tom’s thoughtful comment in a bit here, but I will say this is response to yours:

    It is all in the reader, really, as whether your mistakes of these kind matter When I see a bunch of these type errors that Mr. Derbyshire wrote about above, the homophone ones, or worse, grammar and serious non-typo misspellings, it makes me think the reader is not “well read”. “Well read” sounds like something a snob would say, but it’s just that many of the spelling and minor grammar mistakes come from people who don’t read a lot. If you read a lot, you have seen the words and arrangements so many times, that they go down on paper, or up onto the screen much easier and normally correct.

    Though the writer may really know his stuff well on the subject, my impression will be that he many not know much, as the guy doesn’t read much. That means much of what he learned MAY be from TV (and I’m not saying you can’t get a lot of garbage from reading, but if you read a lot, chances are you read some serious non-fiction also). Again, this is just the impression that the mistakes in a post give me – I’m not saying I should believe this impression. Also, one can have much knowledge from experience, and still be a bad writer with very important things to write about, with accurate information.

    All I just wrote is much more important for the writing of the blogger, not other commenters, especially if one already knows them.

    One more thing is egregious errors in the subject itself that make the writer sound like an idiot, even though one knows he is not. I wrote this about one guy who freaked out over a correction:

    * BTW, don’t confuse this guy with Brandon Smith, also featured a lot on ZeroHedge. Brandon Smith has a good website called Alt-Market which features much of the writing on the Global Financial Stupidity that both ZeroHedge and OfTwoMinds also do. My only one-time dealing with Brandon, however, when writing a comment to correct a small error, resulted in him wiping out the comment and figuratively foaming-out-the-mouth about it. I had praised the article and just told the guy that fixing the obvious error (the Confederate Army did not march on Ft. Sumter, seeing as how it’s a coupla miles into the Charleston harbor from the battery) would avoid turning off readers only due to their lack of trust in his literacy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. There are no riots in Sweden. It’s all psy-ops!

    By now, it is pretty obvious that something has gone wrong in Sweden. Something is definitely kosher in the state of Sverige.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. @kek
    Globalist lies can only be perpetuated with willing underhanded media censorship. The globalists worldwide are losing their grip, that's why they are trying so desperately to control internet traffic.

    Globalists have the Main Stream Media (TV, News Print, Hollywood, Politicians) in their pocket but are having problems in the US and Europe totally controlling cyberspace.

    Totalitarian countries like China will just ban traffic from coming in at the internet trunk port.

    Semi Totalitarian PRE-Trump USA target individual users on Social Media.

    I'm waiting to see some class action lawsuits against Twitter and Facebook for 1st amendment violations; should be an interesting 4 years.

    Not to be too much of a blog-pimper here, but I wrote about this myself here:

    These people globalist/lefties are just not used to losing. They didn’t count on the internet. It’s not really that they had some big plan, but the globalist elite types really don’t like a middle class that can get in the way of their dreams. They like the idea of the American middle class being replaced, as they will have more control then, but they need to keep this kind of on the down-low.

    That worked pretty good once traditional media was suitably infiltrated (all that you mentioned, kek). The internet was like a glass of cold water in the face to them, however.

    Well, read my post if you would. Per the discussion here, please bring up any spelling/grammar errors, as I don’t want to sound like an uneducated nit-wit. Please, I don’t want grammar Nazis or grammar Soviets, but I don’t mind grammar strongmen or grammar bureaucrats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Good thread.

    FWIW, I can proof read other people's writing reasonably well. I have trouble proofing my own because I think that I "read" what I thought rather than what I wrote.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    The real divide isn’t between conservatism and liberalism but between core-ism and peripheral-ism, between essentialism and trivialism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Franklin
    The real divide is between pro-constitution, pro-limited federal government people and all left wing people.

    Left wing people in the US are democrats, neocons, communist-anarchist, national socialist, SJW, and some libertarians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @kek
    Globalist lies can only be perpetuated with willing underhanded media censorship. The globalists worldwide are losing their grip, that's why they are trying so desperately to control internet traffic.

    Globalists have the Main Stream Media (TV, News Print, Hollywood, Politicians) in their pocket but are having problems in the US and Europe totally controlling cyberspace.

    Totalitarian countries like China will just ban traffic from coming in at the internet trunk port.

    Semi Totalitarian PRE-Trump USA target individual users on Social Media.

    I'm waiting to see some class action lawsuits against Twitter and Facebook for 1st amendment violations; should be an interesting 4 years.

    “I’m waiting to see some class action lawsuits against Twitter and Facebook for 1st amendment violations; should be an interesting 4 years.”

    I’d love to see NSA records regarding terror/potential terror watch-lists opened. It would be great to see exactly how those lists were compiled, and by whom. Apparently lots of people wound up on those lists who should never have been viewed as any kind of threat, and many by accident of name. Those people should have full access to their files, and the people responsible for reporting them should definitely be made to answer for their actions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Styx says:
    @Robert Dunn
    You know the Swedes must be feeling good about themselves not needing gun ownership or a right to keep and bear. Perhaps they haven't yet made the connention that YOU CAN'T BE RAPED if your would be assailant is lying on the ground with their brains splattered all over the street. Simply impossible for that to happen. And should the Swedes decide to purchase arms (probably black market - plenty of sellers I'm sure ready to take their orders) and defend themselves a number of times you might just wind up with a whole slew of 'refugees' FROM Sweden rather than TO Sweden which I believe would bode better for the Swedes.

    I’m pretty sure hunting is a big deal in Sweden and gun ownership accordingly common.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @fitzGetty
    The in-breeding issue must be addressed - cousin marriage costs England's health service 40M per annum due to long term care needed by the disabled offspring of their incest unions ...

    “cousin marriage costs England’s health service 40M per annum due to long term care needed by the disabled offspring of their incest unions …”

    Dunno about incest (cousin marriages are IIRC allowed by the church), but that expense is probably dwarfed by the diabetes costs. The English diet doesn’t seem to do much good to non-English. “BME” people tend to develop type 2 diabetes earlier in life, as well, and it brings all sorts of other complications in its wake.

    “British people of South Asian, African or African Caribbean descent are significantly more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes than their European counterparts, researchers have warned. Half had developed the disease by the age of 80 in a study of 4,200 people living in London – approximately twice the figure for Europeans. The researchers said the rates were “astonishingly high”.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19545697

    “The current (2012) cost of direct patient care (treatment, intervention and complications) for those living with diabetes is estimated at £9.8 billion (£1 billion for type 1 diabetes and £8.8 billion for type 2 diabetes).”

    http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/04april/pages/nhs-diabetes-costs-cases-rising.aspx

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Tom Welsh
    My theory is that when that happens we are, in effect, "dictating to ourselves", and "mishear" a word. It's a natural psychological effect - fascinating for scientists to study, no doubt.

    BUT... as a serious writer who has turned in well over a million words of pay copy, I have a system that is quite effective at squeezing out typos.

    First, I usually re-read each sentence (or paragraph) as soon as I have written it. (Perhaps this began partly because I never learned to touch-type, so I have to look back from the keyboard to the screen to see what - if anything - my typing has accomplished).

    Second, I almost always review the whole piece of writing - whether it's a book chapter, an article, or a reply like this one - before posting it. I much prefer those blogs that allow one to edit one's comments after posting. Slashdot, for instance, doesn't - once posted, it's set in concrete for eternity.

    As well as squeezing out inadvertent mistakes, reviewing has another big benefit. It's remarkable how often you see a better way of expressing your thoughts, or of compressing a passage that's redundant or just unnecessary.

    If you care about your readers and the effect your writing can have on them, it's wise to remove all errors you possibly can. Of course, those of us who were lucky enough to have proper spelling, grammar, punctuation and vocabulary pounded into us before the age of ten have an unfair advantage. But I can't help feeling that anyone who publishes text riddled with mistakes is perhaps over-estimating the importance of his thoughts, relative to the way in which they are expressed.

    You are a serious writer, Tom, while I am just an errand boy sent by grocery clerks …

    … or something.

    I do try to proofread, but I’m often in too much of a hurry, as again, I’m not getting paid for it. I will do my best, but days or weeks later, I may see small omittences (see spell check doesn’t know that one!) of articles, a few basic typos, or some of the homophone* errors as we’ve been discussing. I will edit my posts to correct them whenever I see them. If I were getting paid, I think I would give a friend a few bucks to check again, as 4 eyes are better than 2 (not saying this as advice, just what I would do myself – you said you had it under control).

    On my blog, unfortunately for now, there is no provision editing once the post goes into the database, but then the commenters don’t care too much, as there only 3 of us for now, haha. This particular site we’re on has about the best system I’ve ever seen, but I don’t get all around the internet as much as I’ve been around the real country.


    As well as squeezing out inadvertent mistakes, reviewing has another big benefit. It’s remarkable how often you see a better way of expressing your thoughts, or of compressing a passage that’s redundant or just unnecessary.

    That is a good point too.

    Thanks for the great reply, Tom.

    * Oh, I had thought that meant one of those new pink Samsung devices they sell out in the Castro District of San Francisco. See, there’s another thing I learned today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    Thanks for your kind reply, Achmed. Though are much too hard on yourself! It is true that I am a professional writer, but I am also a nit-picking perfectionist. And getting old. When I was in school, you had all those things imprinted in you by the time you were ten. Nowadays, most schools just don't bother.

    There's a spectrum of opinions about good writing, and more and more young people prefer to do their own thing "as long as the meaning is clear". But that's the whole point. Every small mistake makes the meaning that little bit less clear. (Which is Mr Derbyshire's main point in the article, if I'm not mistaken). It's like grit in your oatmeal - it certainly doesn't make it inedible, and it still tastes good, but...

    When you read a lot (as I do) and when you are very keen to understand exactly what the other person is trying to express, the clearest possible writing is very helpful. That's why I aim for it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. In every day communication a bit of clumsiness is to be expected, and a cooperative listener will seek out the speaker’s meaning beyond the clumsiness. Occasionally, the “murkiness” of speaking or of hearing will result in confusion. Normally when that happens, the confusion will be acknowledged, and clarification will follow, bringing speaker and listener back to some degree of congruence of thinking. That’s the normal situation, when the discourse is between regular folks.

    But politics is a blood sport, and “murkiness” of meaning will be seized on as an opportunity to damage one’s political rival by a clever and malicious misinterpretation of the actual meaning. “Trump talk” is a “rich target environment” for this sort of political sniping. And we have witnessed the anti-Trump forces mining Trump’s rhetoric for juicy bits and then beating him over the head with them. But it’s also something of a delicate matter. A political “bombshell” can just as easily blow up the bomb-throwers political fortunes as those of the intended target. The American people are becoming ever more alert to this sort of “fake news”, ever more sophisticated. You can still “fool some of the people all of the time”, but it’s getting harder, in large part because the public have had their eyes opened, and just aren’t buying the MSM’s propaganda like they used to.

    So now, Trump says “X”, regular folks understand what he meant, say, “sorta X”, so then when the media twist “X” into “Y”, some of the people see what’s going on, and blow the whistle on the dishonesty, raising the cry of “Fake News”.

    A couple of examples: When Trump made his “they’re rapists” comment — I believe “they’re” is what he meant — what wasn’t mentioned, the ***essential*** context, was that Trump had just met with the Border Patrol folks on the Mexican border, who had reported to him of their experience policing the border. And what is a border cop’s experience? Drugs, crime, murder, beheadings, cartel warfare, human trafficking, sex slavery, and rape. Then Trump takes to the podium and makes his comments. Comments which within that context make perfect sense. Whereupon Trump’s adversaries turn it into a nasty anti-Mexican smear. That smear worked nicely. I’m not aware of anyone other than myself noticing the context. I’ve never seen it mentioned/published anywhere.

    Another example: the Muslim Ban, the first one back during the campaign. Typical “clumsy” — which is to say not politically adept — comment. Turkey had opened its borders and Syrian refugees as well as migrants from across Islam, were streaming into Europe. And the media all-too-often depicted dark, bearded, menacing young men in the images they broadcast. The invasion! In the discussion around Trump’s comment Dr. Carson smartly noted that it would be “terrorist malpractice” not to have ISIS agents infiltrate the refugee stream. Trump assessed the situation and concluded the obvious: “ban” the terrorists by shutting off the source, the Muslims streaming from the chaos of the Mideast. Despite the self-evident security issue — valid or not — the MSM has milked this for anti-Trump push-back by reframing it as Trumpian religious bigotry. Which is self-evident nonsense. Trump has never had the time much less the inclination to be an Islamophobe. But “Trump the bigot” finds willing believers in the opposition.

    This is the way the game is being played.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. @Sean
    Enoch Powell spoke in sentences, didactic like. He failed.

    https://philosophyinatimeoferror.com/2010/04/02/interview-with-graham-harman/The most masterful speakers and writers we know are those who do not make their subject directly present, but indirectly. One example is metaphor. If you take Max Black’s example of a (rather mediocre) metaphor, “man is a wolf,” there is no way to parse that metaphor in prose. You cannot exhaust the metaphor with a set of discursive statements such as “man is savage, moonstruck, and travels in violent hierarchical packs,” because none of these statements ever get at what the metaphor communicates indirectly. The same goes for rhetoric. Aristotle thinks they key to rhetoric is the enthymeme, which is when you say something without saying it. A trivial example: if I say “the Third Army then marched on Baghdad,” I don’t have to say “the Third Army then marched on Baghdad, which is the capital of Iraq, and during this war their goal was to capture the capital.” The latter part of this is unnecessary and boring, because it is already known to the listener without being stated. Language is riddled with enthymemes, because we are never able or willing to spell out exactly everything that we are trying to communicate. What metaphor and rhetoric teach us is that clear, plain language are not only impossible, but also self-defeating. Reality itself is not the kind of thing that can be parsed in a set of clear discursive statements. Something shadowy remains in the background of every topic, and we have to allude to it rather than bluntly stating it sometimes.

     

    Trump is speaking in enthymemes, the enthymeme is the key to rhetoric, which is why Aristotle spent so much time teaching his students it. Because it worked, and it still does:-

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-language-idUKKCN0VQ035

    To his supporters, Trump is a politician who doesn't sound like one: He says what he thinks, happily insults rivals and can appear unscripted, particularly when he leaves his thoughts to trail off unfinished or peppers sentences with ambiguities.

    Take his comments during a recent Republican debate in which he defended his call for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States: "I talked about Muslims," he said. "We have to have a temporary something, because there's something going on that's not good."

    It was left up to the listener to decipher what Trump was saying. What this means in practice is that supporters can tailor his statements to their own beliefs, rhetoric professors said. It also allows Trump, consciously or not, to avoid boxing himself in with quotes that rivals can use against him.

    Strictly speaking an enthymeme is a form of argument in which at least one premise remains unstated. The concept isn't new - it was described by the Greek philosopher Aristotle - and has been used in American politics in the past.

    In practice, enthymemes come in various forms, including dramatic pauses, unfinished sentences and the place-filling "somethings" Trump employs, according to the experts, who study U.S. public and political speech. In each case, listeners fill in the blanks.

    Trump has used enthymemes when taking on Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and one-time rival Carly Fiorina; he has used them in describing his opposition to a New York City mosque; he routinely uses them in speeches when talking about subjects ranging from immigration to trade wars.
     

    En Thy Memes We Trust!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Alice Cooper said he noticed rock was full of Peter Pans, but there was no Captain Hook. That gave him his chance.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCxFZLNuwGk

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i4EnjRKVQw

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. nsa says:

    Forget the syntax and consider the content……Trumpster was right on the Mex rapist stuff. Anyone care to guess the age of consent in Mexico? 14? Nope. 13? Nope. 12? Yup. Rape is so common south of the border, it is seldom prosecuted or even investigated. Want justice? You must provide it yourself and settle accounts outside of what passes for a legal system in the narco hellhole to the south.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. Curle says:
    @Sean
    Enoch Powell spoke in sentences, didactic like. He failed.

    https://philosophyinatimeoferror.com/2010/04/02/interview-with-graham-harman/The most masterful speakers and writers we know are those who do not make their subject directly present, but indirectly. One example is metaphor. If you take Max Black’s example of a (rather mediocre) metaphor, “man is a wolf,” there is no way to parse that metaphor in prose. You cannot exhaust the metaphor with a set of discursive statements such as “man is savage, moonstruck, and travels in violent hierarchical packs,” because none of these statements ever get at what the metaphor communicates indirectly. The same goes for rhetoric. Aristotle thinks they key to rhetoric is the enthymeme, which is when you say something without saying it. A trivial example: if I say “the Third Army then marched on Baghdad,” I don’t have to say “the Third Army then marched on Baghdad, which is the capital of Iraq, and during this war their goal was to capture the capital.” The latter part of this is unnecessary and boring, because it is already known to the listener without being stated. Language is riddled with enthymemes, because we are never able or willing to spell out exactly everything that we are trying to communicate. What metaphor and rhetoric teach us is that clear, plain language are not only impossible, but also self-defeating. Reality itself is not the kind of thing that can be parsed in a set of clear discursive statements. Something shadowy remains in the background of every topic, and we have to allude to it rather than bluntly stating it sometimes.

     

    Trump is speaking in enthymemes, the enthymeme is the key to rhetoric, which is why Aristotle spent so much time teaching his students it. Because it worked, and it still does:-

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-language-idUKKCN0VQ035

    To his supporters, Trump is a politician who doesn't sound like one: He says what he thinks, happily insults rivals and can appear unscripted, particularly when he leaves his thoughts to trail off unfinished or peppers sentences with ambiguities.

    Take his comments during a recent Republican debate in which he defended his call for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States: "I talked about Muslims," he said. "We have to have a temporary something, because there's something going on that's not good."

    It was left up to the listener to decipher what Trump was saying. What this means in practice is that supporters can tailor his statements to their own beliefs, rhetoric professors said. It also allows Trump, consciously or not, to avoid boxing himself in with quotes that rivals can use against him.

    Strictly speaking an enthymeme is a form of argument in which at least one premise remains unstated. The concept isn't new - it was described by the Greek philosopher Aristotle - and has been used in American politics in the past.

    In practice, enthymemes come in various forms, including dramatic pauses, unfinished sentences and the place-filling "somethings" Trump employs, according to the experts, who study U.S. public and political speech. In each case, listeners fill in the blanks.

    Trump has used enthymemes when taking on Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and one-time rival Carly Fiorina; he has used them in describing his opposition to a New York City mosque; he routinely uses them in speeches when talking about subjects ranging from immigration to trade wars.
     

    Really great comment!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Tom Welsh says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    You are a serious writer, Tom, while I am just an errand boy sent by grocery clerks ...

    ... or something.

    I do try to proofread, but I'm often in too much of a hurry, as again, I'm not getting paid for it. I will do my best, but days or weeks later, I may see small omittences (see spell check doesn't know that one!) of articles, a few basic typos, or some of the homophone* errors as we've been discussing. I will edit my posts to correct them whenever I see them. If I were getting paid, I think I would give a friend a few bucks to check again, as 4 eyes are better than 2 (not saying this as advice, just what I would do myself - you said you had it under control).

    On my blog, unfortunately for now, there is no provision editing once the post goes into the database, but then the commenters don't care too much, as there only 3 of us for now, haha. This particular site we're on has about the best system I've ever seen, but I don't get all around the internet as much as I've been around the real country.



    As well as squeezing out inadvertent mistakes, reviewing has another big benefit. It’s remarkable how often you see a better way of expressing your thoughts, or of compressing a passage that’s redundant or just unnecessary.

     
    That is a good point too.

    Thanks for the great reply, Tom.


    * Oh, I had thought that meant one of those new pink Samsung devices they sell out in the Castro District of San Francisco. See, there's another thing I learned today.

    Thanks for your kind reply, Achmed. Though are much too hard on yourself! It is true that I am a professional writer, but I am also a nit-picking perfectionist. And getting old. When I was in school, you had all those things imprinted in you by the time you were ten. Nowadays, most schools just don’t bother.

    There’s a spectrum of opinions about good writing, and more and more young people prefer to do their own thing “as long as the meaning is clear”. But that’s the whole point. Every small mistake makes the meaning that little bit less clear. (Which is Mr Derbyshire’s main point in the article, if I’m not mistaken). It’s like grit in your oatmeal – it certainly doesn’t make it inedible, and it still tastes good, but…

    When you read a lot (as I do) and when you are very keen to understand exactly what the other person is trying to express, the clearest possible writing is very helpful. That’s why I aim for it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Sean says:
    @Albert Hazread
    En Thy Memes We Trust!

    Alice Cooper said he noticed rock was full of Peter Pans, but there was no Captain Hook. That gave him his chance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Anon
    The real divide isn't between conservatism and liberalism but between core-ism and peripheral-ism, between essentialism and trivialism.

    The real divide is between pro-constitution, pro-limited federal government people and all left wing people.

    Left wing people in the US are democrats, neocons, communist-anarchist, national socialist, SJW, and some libertarians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. iffen says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Not to be too much of a blog-pimper here, but I wrote about this myself here:

    These people globalist/lefties are just not used to losing. They didn't count on the internet. It's not really that they had some big plan, but the globalist elite types really don't like a middle class that can get in the way of their dreams. They like the idea of the American middle class being replaced, as they will have more control then, but they need to keep this kind of on the down-low.

    That worked pretty good once traditional media was suitably infiltrated (all that you mentioned, kek). The internet was like a glass of cold water in the face to them, however.

    Well, read my post if you would. Per the discussion here, please bring up any spelling/grammar errors, as I don't want to sound like an uneducated nit-wit. Please, I don't want grammar Nazis or grammar Soviets, but I don't mind grammar strongmen or grammar bureaucrats.

    Good thread.

    FWIW, I can proof read other people’s writing reasonably well. I have trouble proofing my own because I think that I “read” what I thought rather than what I wrote.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Guardian, which is a serious heavyweight newspaper

    Wait, what? The “news” paper that employs the likes of Jessica Valenti is a “serious heavyweight”? Is this a sly attempt to demonstrate how words can be used in a seemingly common but actually confusing, unclear way?

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Agree. The Guardian became unsalvageable under application of a tender care from "intelligence" agencies: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/01/no_author/cia-runs-msm/
    "Mainstream Media Is Completely Fake: "We All Lie For The CIA:" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-28/top-german-journalist-admits-mainstream-media-completely-fake-we-all-lie-cia
    Off-Guardian is doing a fine job of exposing the presstituting Guardian: https://off-guardian.org/category/guardian-watch/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. annamaria says:
    @Oleaginous Outrager

    Guardian, which is a serious heavyweight newspaper
     
    Wait, what? The "news" paper that employs the likes of Jessica Valenti is a "serious heavyweight"? Is this a sly attempt to demonstrate how words can be used in a seemingly common but actually confusing, unclear way?

    Agree. The Guardian became unsalvageable under application of a tender care from “intelligence” agencies: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/01/no_author/cia-runs-msm/
    “Mainstream Media Is Completely Fake: “We All Lie For The CIA:” http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-28/top-german-journalist-admits-mainstream-media-completely-fake-we-all-lie-cia
    Off-Guardian is doing a fine job of exposing the presstituting Guardian: https://off-guardian.org/category/guardian-watch/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I listened in the early morning hours of 2017 / 03 / 04 fresh Radio Derb.
    I was happy to hear John Derbyshire saying “Invade the World, Invite the World”
    with some words strongly disapproving such policy of USA.
    Bravo, Mr. D. !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS