[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Stream stopping at promo - lannydevaney - Jan 17, 2020 - 7:51pm
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Jan 17, 2020 - 7:41pm
 
We need some new car names - kcar - Jan 17, 2020 - 7:32pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - triskele - Jan 17, 2020 - 5:55pm
 
R&R Hall of Fame Show - buddy - Jan 17, 2020 - 5:53pm
 
What the hell OV? - buddy - Jan 17, 2020 - 5:51pm
 
Trump - hayduke2 - Jan 17, 2020 - 5:39pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jan 17, 2020 - 4:15pm
 
DIY - cc_rider - Jan 17, 2020 - 3:27pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - ptooey - Jan 17, 2020 - 3:26pm
 
What are you listening to now? - SeriousLee - Jan 17, 2020 - 12:53pm
 
war is a racket - haresfur - Jan 17, 2020 - 12:47pm
 
how do you feel right now? - SeriousLee - Jan 17, 2020 - 12:43pm
 
Mellow stream - jarro - Jan 17, 2020 - 11:45am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - Red_Dragon - Jan 17, 2020 - 10:22am
 
Canada - westslope - Jan 17, 2020 - 10:07am
 
The war on funk is over! - rhahl - Jan 17, 2020 - 8:25am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Jan 17, 2020 - 5:30am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jan 17, 2020 - 4:40am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 16, 2020 - 8:20pm
 
What makes you smile? - Coaxial - Jan 16, 2020 - 6:14pm
 
Tech & Science - R_P - Jan 16, 2020 - 2:21pm
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - success - Jan 16, 2020 - 1:46pm
 
Fix My Car - cc_rider - Jan 16, 2020 - 1:22pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Jan 16, 2020 - 11:39am
 
Regarding cats - Proclivities - Jan 16, 2020 - 11:11am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - BillG - Jan 16, 2020 - 10:43am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Jan 16, 2020 - 6:07am
 
Music Videos - sirdroseph - Jan 16, 2020 - 4:24am
 
I'm a Dem. Which Republican would you recommend I vote for? - jahgirl8 - Jan 15, 2020 - 8:36pm
 
Stuff I like - Antigone - Jan 15, 2020 - 5:07pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - triskele - Jan 15, 2020 - 4:43pm
 
Private messages in a public forum - jahgirl8 - Jan 15, 2020 - 4:19pm
 
Impeachment Time: - kurtster - Jan 15, 2020 - 3:38pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - Antigone - Jan 15, 2020 - 2:57pm
 
Amazon Echo/Alexa stream not working - piratesbaseball44 - Jan 15, 2020 - 1:23pm
 
Books - R_P - Jan 15, 2020 - 1:03pm
 
Anti-War - westslope - Jan 15, 2020 - 11:58am
 
Breaking News - buddy - Jan 15, 2020 - 8:34am
 
Maps • Google • GeoGuessr - Red_Dragon - Jan 15, 2020 - 7:34am
 
Drinking Establishments - Coaxial - Jan 15, 2020 - 7:00am
 
LOVIN The ONION - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 15, 2020 - 6:59am
 
Star wars with a twist - sirdroseph - Jan 15, 2020 - 4:17am
 
Things You Thought Today - sirdroseph - Jan 15, 2020 - 2:21am
 
Iran - R_P - Jan 14, 2020 - 8:08pm
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 14, 2020 - 3:01pm
 
Photography Chat - haresfur - Jan 14, 2020 - 2:50pm
 
Internet Speed Test - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2020 - 11:33am
 
audio codec - BillG - Jan 14, 2020 - 10:33am
 
Are you ready for some football? - Coaxial - Jan 14, 2020 - 5:18am
 
Name My Band - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2020 - 5:05am
 
Australia has Disappeared - haresfur - Jan 14, 2020 - 12:16am
 
Guns - R_P - Jan 13, 2020 - 9:01pm
 
Sweet horrible irony. - R_P - Jan 13, 2020 - 2:31pm
 
Amazing animals! - kurtster - Jan 13, 2020 - 2:24pm
 
OUR CATS!! - jahgirl8 - Jan 13, 2020 - 2:12pm
 
help me - jahgirl8 - Jan 13, 2020 - 1:50pm
 
Republican Wingnut Freak of the Day - miamizsun - Jan 13, 2020 - 1:49pm
 
Big Brother - success - Jan 13, 2020 - 8:59am
 
Things Women Should Not Be Allowed to Do - success - Jan 13, 2020 - 8:14am
 
Posting pictures - RabbitEars - Jan 13, 2020 - 7:53am
 
Democratic Party - sirdroseph - Jan 13, 2020 - 5:18am
 
Tartaria And The Mud Floods - success - Jan 13, 2020 - 4:30am
 
RP Windows Desktop Notification Applet - gvajda - Jan 13, 2020 - 4:01am
 
The Obituary Page - westslope - Jan 13, 2020 - 3:03am
 
Band Names !!! - sirdroseph - Jan 13, 2020 - 2:58am
 
Android App not working on cellular? - jarro - Jan 12, 2020 - 8:36pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - SeriousLee - Jan 12, 2020 - 4:37pm
 
TED Talks - Red_Dragon - Jan 12, 2020 - 2:51pm
 
Films you're excited about. - islander - Jan 12, 2020 - 2:18pm
 
Iraq - R_P - Jan 12, 2020 - 1:27pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Jan 12, 2020 - 12:35pm
 
RP App for Android - rtrt - Jan 12, 2020 - 12:15pm
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Red_Dragon - Jan 12, 2020 - 9:12am
 
Class in America - sirdroseph - Jan 12, 2020 - 9:11am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Impeachment Time: Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 40, 41, 42  Next
Post to this Topic
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 28, 2019 - 7:20am



 sirdroseph wrote:
 

21st Century Wire is a conspiracy and conjecture site run by Patrick Henningsen. Henningsen has ties to both Infowars and Alex Jones, also known for fake news and broad conspiracies. They also seem to have ties to, or at least to be pro-Russian in much of their content. Specifically Russian Today (RT) the state run Russian news outlet.
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 28, 2019 - 5:29am

Hunting for Hunter: Evidence Reveals Biden, Burisma Ukraine Bond Scandal, Tied to U.S. Firm


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 27, 2019 - 5:01pm



 kcar wrote:
Kurt:

1. Yes, you're right. We do not have hard incontrovertible proof that Zelensky lied for Trump. We may never get such proof on the matter. I'm sure the Ukrainians want to run away from this fiasco as far and quickly as possible and won't provide such proof.

2. I've already conceded this in my post from 2 days ago. I quote myself:


"The only way we're going to know Zelensky's knowledge and state of mind is if he tells us or one of his aides tells us with evidence what was going on in Zelensky's head. That holds true with Zelensky's above claim and with Zelensky's willingness to go on Fareed Zakaria's show to announce the investigations only to cancel his appearance once the military was released. The best evidence I can give you about Zelensky's lying is to lay out the facts surrounding his statements and pointing out that the evidence doesn't show that Z could have credibly believed what he said and was about to say. That's not absolute proof but it's pretty strong; as you said the scenario that Z was likely is "highly likely." We're only going to get circumstantial evidence on this matter, but I believe that's mostly the case when dealing with lying and other states of mind. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to get a conviction in criminal trials."


3. 
Reasonable, informed adults willing to look at the impeachment matter should look at the evidence presented and conclude without knowing for certain that Zelensky has lied that Trump tried to use a threat and bribe to turn Zelensky into his re-election tool over the course of some months. Juries in criminal trials, dealing with a far higher bar of a preponderance of the evidence being beyond a reasonable doubt than Senators face when considering removal of an impeached official, regularly and rightly convict defendants even though the juries don't know for certain whether the defendant lied or not. Congress does not  need to know whether Zelensky lied to impeach and remove Trump.


4. You need to get a life.

5. Have a great Thanksgiving and good luck tracking down more info on the P-4 crash and the Bay Bridge Hump.
 
1.  Thank you, I'm good with this now.

2.  I see that now that it is isolated.  Saying it like you did now in 1 would have made it easier to ferret out and made what came after unnecessary.

3.  We still disagree over your first sentence.  Partisan point of view.  The last sentence I agree with.

5.  May you and everyone else have a great Thanksgiving.  The crash and the Hump are just examples of how the Internet is an incomplete source for information.  Yes, the P-4 is a trainer version of the F-4, also P is for Pursuit IIRC.  I am done searching for any further information on these matters.   I am not obsessed with them. They were just examples for my point that I will use again for the purpose of illustrating how the Internet is not complete.  I know the P-4 crashed because I saw it happen even if there is no proof.   I know the Hump existed because I rode over it many times even if there is no proof for it.  They only matter to me, no one else and I have moved on.

4.  I do have a life.  I am at the end of it.  I have experienced a full enough life in my mind and have a sufficient collection of memories to tide me over to the end.  Does not mean that I am done learning.

Please enjoy the following song.  It is one of my favorites by the boys, who I have had the luck to enjoy live many times.  I even had the good fortune to be a local roadie for the day for the band when they played the old Kent State gym in March,1973 for the DSOTM tour.


kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Nov 26, 2019 - 1:13pm

Kurt:

1. Yes, you're right. We do not have hard incontrovertible proof that Zelensky lied for Trump. We may never get such proof on the matter. I'm sure the Ukrainians want to run away from this fiasco as far and quickly as possible and won't provide such proof.

2. I've already conceded this in my post from 2 days ago. I quote myself:


"The only way we're going to know Zelensky's knowledge and state of mind is if he tells us or one of his aides tells us with evidence what was going on in Zelensky's head. That holds true with Zelensky's above claim and with Zelensky's willingness to go on Fareed Zakaria's show to announce the investigations only to cancel his appearance once the military was released. The best evidence I can give you about Zelensky's lying is to lay out the facts surrounding his statements and pointing out that the evidence doesn't show that Z could have credibly believed what he said and was about to say. That's not absolute proof but it's pretty strong; as you said the scenario that Z was likely is "highly likely." We're only going to get circumstantial evidence on this matter, but I believe that's mostly the case when dealing with lying and other states of mind. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to get a conviction in criminal trials."


3. 
Reasonable, informed adults willing to look at the impeachment matter should look at the evidence presented and conclude without knowing for certain that Zelensky has lied that Trump tried to use a threat and bribe to turn Zelensky into his re-election tool over the course of some months. Juries in criminal trials, dealing with a far higher bar of a preponderance of the evidence being beyond a reasonable doubt than Senators face when considering removal of an impeached official, regularly and rightly convict defendants even though the juries don't know for certain whether the defendant lied or not. Congress does not  need to know whether Zelensky lied to impeach and remove Trump.


4. You need to get a life.

5. Have a great Thanksgiving and good luck tracking down more info on the P-4 crash and the Bay Bridge Hump.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Nov 26, 2019 - 6:50am

Ex-White House lawyer McGahn ordered to comply with subpoena
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 26, 2019 - 6:15am



 westslope wrote:
kcar, 

I wonder if you just helped kurtster hi-jack the thread.    Actually I think you hi-jacked the thread and kurtster played along.   <g>   With little or no effort we could spin this into a sinister plot that kurtster had been planning since he witnessed his White Knight getting into trouble.

Maybe just as well, as I'm reasonably sure that most folks posting to the RP political threads — despite the range of views — are sad, morose, depressed and feeling largely frustrated and helpless in the face of the Impeachment Inquiry findings to date.   What a colossal downer.  


 
I cannot speak for kcar, but I can speak for myself.  I'm just trying to make a point.  The point is that kcar in particular  constantly objects and  chides me for presenting "barking" opinions based upon observations and dot connecting.  I am stopping and calling out his doing the same with his claim that Zelensky lied because Trump forced him to do it.  He refuses to admit that it is his opinion and not a fact. 

He goes into great detail to point out his collection of observations to support his claim and say that his "circumstantial evidence" is proof of his claim rather than admit it is nothing more than just support for his opinion.  Citing circumstantial evidence is nothing more than dot connecting.  Again, his steadfast and stubborn refusal to admit that he is doing what he criticizes me for is what this whole exercise is about.  I even offered an olive branch when I said that that I can understand how he and others can conclude and believe that Zelensky lied for Trump without any proof based upon simple observations and dot connecting, but that it is nothing more than just that, opinion based upon dot connecting.  No one has stood up and  said, I know for a fact that Zelensky lied because I was there.  No testimony  nor transcripts or emails or anything written has been shown as proof.  Yet he conducts himself as if he has access to this proof, yet cannot produce it.  No one has yet.  Until then, it is all only an opinion.

He can do it, yet he will not allow others who disagree with him to do it.  Worse, he refuses to admit that he is doing it.  He dismisses my last comments as nothing more than "barking".   Yet he barked out his opinion that Zelensky lied for Trump as a cold hard fact.

That is what this is all about.  You can criticize me all you want but I draw the line when one does what they accuse me of and denies it.

If this does not make my point I do not know what will.

This is just two dogs barking at each other through a fence.  Except that one dog will not admit that it is also barking because  ... because of why or what I don't know or pretend to know.

I guess that I will continue to be that barking dog and he will be the complaining neighbor whose own dog barks at times too but will not admit it.

I'm done and over with all of this.

Woof, woof.  Don't eat the yellow snow where the huskies go.



sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 26, 2019 - 5:50am

Start watching at 52.00 minutes.  Listen and take Biden at exactly what he is saying or be obtuse and try to twist it.  Whatever you want to do, it is what they do in Washington.  

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 26, 2019 - 4:26am

How to stop overthinking.

Like all habits, changing your destructive thought patterns can be a challenge. But with consistent practice, you can train your brain to think differently. Here are six ways to stop overthinking everything:

1. Notice when you're stuck in your head.

Overthinking can become such a habit that you don't even recognize when you're doing it. Start paying attention to the way you think so you can become aware of the problem.

When you're replaying events in your mind over and over, or worrying about things you can't control, acknowledge that your thoughts aren't productive. Thinking is only helpful when it leads to positive action.

2.- 5. ? 

Let's get the basics down first.

6. Change the channel.

Telling yourself to stop thinking about something will backfire. The more you try to prevent a thought from entering your brain, the more likely it is to keep popping up.

Change the channel in your brain by changing your activity. Exercise, engage in conversation on a completely different subject, or work on a project that distracts you. Doing something different will put an end to the barrage of negative thoughts.

Train your brain.

Paying attention to the way you think can help you become more aware of your bad mental habits. With practice, you can train your brain to think differently. Over time, building healthier habits will help you build the mental muscle you need to become mentally stronger.

kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Nov 25, 2019 - 10:46pm



 westslope wrote:
kcar, 

I wonder if you just helped kurtster hi-jack the thread.    Actually I think you hi-jacked the thread and kurtster played along.   <g>   With little or no effort we could spin this into a sinister plot that kurtster had been planning since he witnessed his White Knight getting into trouble.

Maybe just as well, as I'm reasonably sure that most folks posting to the RP political threads — despite the range of views — are sad, morose, depressed and feeling largely frustrated and helpless in the face of the Impeachment Inquiry findings to date.   What a colossal downer.  


 

Yeah, he's done this sorta thing before. Part of me thinks he's just trying to distract us from the daily march of impeachment inquiry news by planting a "gotcha"—to believe the push for impeachment, you have to believe that Trump and Zelensky are lying—and then railing about lack of evidence about Zelensky's state of mind or difficulty in finding evidence to support his beliefs. He goes off on serious tangents.

Kurt, you're not a dumb fella. So if you are spieling, you should stop because it doesn't distract the rest of us from reading and commenting about the revelations coming from the inquiry. I'm not going to accommodate your off-topic barks anymore.

"I'm reasonably sure that most folks posting to the RP political threads —despite the range of views — are sad, morose, depressed and feeling largely frustrated and helpless in the face of the Impeachment Inquiry findings to date."

Hey, be thankful and/or happy! You're watching the American form of democracy and the power of the Constitution at work. Imagine if we didn't have a Constitution governing a president's behavior or civil servants dedicated to acting on their sworn oath to defend the Constitution. Also, if Trump and Giuliani had been more careful, they could have succeeded in turning Zelensky into Trump's campaign tool by making him smear Joe Biden and we would have realized the bribery/blackmail too late.

It'd be nice if we had a president with integrity, honesty and a sense of duty to the Constitution and rule of law. It'd be nice if Fox News weren't such a propaganda mouthpiece for Trump and the GOP. It'd be nice if Republicans in Congress had more commitment to the truth and rule of law than their own sorry careers. But the first step in fighting corruption is to expose corrupt acts to public scrutiny. America has survived worse than Trump.


westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Nov 25, 2019 - 10:01pm

kcar, 

I wonder if you just helped kurtster hi-jack the thread.    Actually I think you hi-jacked the thread and kurtster played along.   <g>   With little or no effort we could spin this into a sinister plot that kurtster had been planning since he witnessed his White Knight getting into trouble.

Maybe just as well, as I'm reasonably sure that most folks posting to the RP political threads — despite the range of views — are sad, morose, depressed and feeling largely frustrated and helpless in the face of the Impeachment Inquiry findings to date.   What a colossal downer.  


kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Nov 25, 2019 - 5:34pm



 kurtster wrote:


 kcar wrote:


 You've even claimed that the Internet doesn't have info on the things you personally experienced (upon which you base opinions) and that my challenging you on such opinions de-legitimizes you. 

IIRC you've also claimed that you're not experienced in digging stuff up on the Web.


 


Ok, here's one for you. 

In the summer of either 1967 or 1968, most likely 1967, I was an eyewitness to a P-4 jet crash just off my beach in which the two men onboard died.  They  were cited as heroes  for going down with the jet rather than ejecting, to prevent anyone on the ground from being killed.  They crashed just a couple hundred yards offshore from the Moro Beach trailer park on PCH in the what is now the Crystal Cove State Beach Park area.  I remember seeing it come from inland with flames coming out of the exhaust which soon turned to just black smoke.  There was anther P-4 following next to it.  It flew directly overhead and turned south where it went into the water.  It exploded  with a mighty splash on impact because of the intense heat and the cold water of the ocean.  A friend, Greg Mauer, the son of my 10th grade Geometry teacher just happened to be out in his Boston Whaler a little north of where I was and headed immediately to the site.  He was one of the first people to arrive at the crash site.  He pulled a helmet out of the water with the decapitated head of the pilot still inside.  I just asked the wife if she remembers the crash and she sure as hell does.  She did not witness it but clearly remembers it.  So does our current house guest who was living just north of us in Huntington Beach at the time of the crash.  I just asked her as soon as she got back from an errand.  I have mentioned this story before here a couple of times.  

I have just spent at least two hours searching the Internet for anything about it.  Local newspapers, military archives and crash site records.  There is not a single mention of it to be found anywhere.  Just the wiki site itself is very detailed  List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1960–1974) , nowhere is it mentioned.  A downed military aircraft with fatalities. 

Here is another archive ... ACCIDENT DATABASE which includes  All civil and military airship accidents involving fatalities.  I looked through this one in the years 1966,67 and 68 to be thorough.

How does this happen ?  You tell me since you say can find anything on the Internet.

That is now me and two other people who remember this incident that I have just spoken with in the past hour. So we're all deranged or misinformed ?   Go ahead, tell me it did not happen because I cannot find a source for it. It was this accident that taught me the difference between an F-4 and a P-4.

I have searched for other things and come up empty such as the process of lowering the top deck of the tunnel in the middle of the Oakland - San Francisco Bay Bridge on Yurba Buena Island when they where redoing the bridge to make the top deck and bottom decks one way after taking out the train tracks on the bottom deck.  It was a big deal because they had to lower it so there was enough clearance for trucks on the top deck.  All trucks used to have to use the lower deck both ways back then.  It took over a year to do this, IIRC.  A feature of this operation was called The Hump as they went through the tunnel.  The operation was complex because they had to keep the roadway intact to allow traffic to keep moving during the operation.  Cars were getting launched into midair because they were going too fast when they hit it.  There were pictures of flying cars going through the tunnel.  They made a big deal out of it to spread awareness of the situation.  Of course there were some who launched their cars on purpose just to get a rush.  I haven't done any searching for it for a few years now.

I can understand the lack of any mention of the cars flying through the tunnel during the construction project, but the crash of a military aircraft with fatalities ? 

I'm sure that you have an explanation for that one, right ?



I do know how to get around on the Net, but I will only go so far sometimes because things I may be looking for simply are not to be found and I quit looking.  Shoot me.


 


"I have just spent at least two hours searching the Internet for anything about it. Local newspapers, military archives and crash site records. There is not a single mention of it to be found anywhere...How does this happen ? You tell me since you say can find anything on the Internet."

I do know how to get around on the Net, but I will only go so far sometimes because things I may be looking for simply are not to be found and I quit looking. Shoot me.




I applaud your Rory Gilmore-like thoroughness, buuuut:

1. I don't recall ever saying that you can find anything on the Internet. If I did, that was a sloppy statement. You can find information on almost any subject on the Internet, but

2. Not all subjects are going to be covered! Not all instances of a subject are going to be covered! There's no organization controlling and monitoring information on the Web or completeness and accuracy of information on the Web. Wikipedia for instance is not all-encompassing. IIRC anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry although I imagine there a safeguards in place to prevent false information from being placed in most accurate entries or from replacing those accurate entries entirely. Wikipedia has spotty information in a bunch of areas: its contents and focuses are based on what people are interested, not an organized or disciplined approach to gathering and providing information on all subjects.

3. Interesting that you could not find mention of the P-4 crash, especially given the crash took place near civilian areas and involved at least one death. Maybe there are gaps in the Wikipedia and planecrashinfo.com databases. Is a P-4 a training or patrol version of the F-4? I did a quick google but can't find mention of a P-4 variation on an F-4 jet.

If you're interested in persisting in your search for mention of the crash on the Internet, you might try going to a public or university library and asking a reference librarian for help. Reference librarians are amazing. They obviously don't know everything but they know how to structure and refine a search for information.

You might also try going to the horses's mouth and asking the relevant branch of the military for info. Try figuring out which military base the P-4 was flying out of and look for a history of accidents or deaths connected to the base. Or try searching the newspaper archives for that time and area. Try the newspapers for articles on The Bay Bridge Hump as well.

3a. I can't guarantee that the Internet will hold info on those two events. But if you do keep looking for info on the Web (if you have time), you'll gain experience and confidence in looking for stuff. And if you get a reference librarian talking, you can learn all sorts of stuff. Most people are great to talk to  but only up to a point. People like RLs are better because they are well-informed and well-trained, they like to help and they have great curiosity.

3b. The Internet holds a lot of info but even with good search engines like Google, it can be hard to find stuff. You can get bogged down in endless search results. A reference librarian can help you narrow or widen an originally unsuccessful search.

4. Personal experiences profoundly shape our approach to and opinion of current events but we have to examine whether our association of those personal experiences with current events is backed up by evidence. Someone may have had a bad personal experience with court-ordered busing and that experience may  nudge her towards thinking such busing is bad policy, but if reliable empirical evidence contradicts that person's judgment, she ought to consider whether she should change or adjust her opinion about court-ordered busing in general.

5. We all have conceptual frameworks or mindsets that guide our thoughts and opinions. I think that one of the main reasons pro- and anti-Trump people clash so much is that they have different, conflicting conceptual frameworks. For instance they probably have different opinions on the integrity and effectiveness of the federal government. That might explain their different takes on the impeachment process. Trust in the federal government I believe is generally higher in the Northeast than in the South. We should try to examine whether our frameworks, like our personal experiences are causing to have a bias on an issue.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 25, 2019 - 9:36am



 kcar wrote:


 You've even claimed that the Internet doesn't have info on the things you personally experienced (upon which you base opinions) and that my challenging you on such opinions de-legitimizes you. 

IIRC you've also claimed that you're not experienced in digging stuff up on the Web.


 


Ok, here's one for you. 

In the summer of either 1967 or 1968, most likely 1967, I was an eyewitness to a P-4 jet crash just off my beach in which the two men onboard died.  They  were cited as heroes  for going down with the jet rather than ejecting, to prevent anyone on the ground from being killed.  They crashed just a couple hundred yards offshore from the Moro Beach trailer park on PCH in the what is now the Crystal Cove State Beach Park area.  I remember seeing it come from inland with flames coming out of the exhaust which soon turned to just black smoke.  There was anther P-4 following next to it.  It flew directly overhead and turned south where it went into the water.  It exploded  with a mighty splash on impact because of the intense heat and the cold water of the ocean.  A friend, Greg Mauer, the son of my 10th grade Geometry teacher just happened to be out in his Boston Whaler a little north of where I was and headed immediately to the site.  He was one of the first people to arrive at the crash site.  He pulled a helmet out of the water with the decapitated head of the pilot still inside.  I just asked the wife if she remembers the crash and she sure as hell does.  She did not witness it but clearly remembers it.  So does our current house guest who was living just north of us in Huntington Beach at the time of the crash.  I just asked her as soon as she got back from an errand.  I have mentioned this story before here a couple of times.  

I have just spent at least two hours searching the Internet for anything about it.  Local newspapers, military archives and crash site records.  There is not a single mention of it to be found anywhere.  Just the wiki site itself is very detailed  List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1960–1974) , nowhere is it mentioned.  A downed military aircraft with fatalities. 

Here is another archive ... ACCIDENT DATABASE which includes  All civil and military airship accidents involving fatalities.  I looked through this one in the years 1966,67 and 68 to be thorough.

How does this happen ?  You tell me since you say can find anything on the Internet.

That is now me and two other people who remember this incident that I have just spoken with in the past hour. So we're all deranged or misinformed ?   Go ahead, tell me it did not happen because I cannot find a source for it. It was this accident that taught me the difference between an F-4 and a P-4.

I have searched for other things and come up empty such as the process of lowering the top deck of the tunnel in the middle of the Oakland - San Francisco Bay Bridge on Yurba Buena Island when they where redoing the bridge to make the top deck and bottom decks one way after taking out the train tracks on the bottom deck.  It was a big deal because they had to lower it so there was enough clearance for trucks on the top deck.  All trucks used to have to use the lower deck both ways back then.  It took over a year to do this, IIRC.  A feature of this operation was called The Hump as they went through the tunnel.  The operation was complex because they had to keep the roadway intact to allow traffic to keep moving during the operation.  Cars were getting launched into midair because they were going too fast when they hit it.  There were pictures of flying cars going through the tunnel.  They made a big deal out of it to spread awareness of the situation.  Of course there were some who launched their cars on purpose just to get a rush.  I haven't done any searching for it for a few years now.

I can understand the lack of any mention of the cars flying through the tunnel during the construction project, but the crash of a military aircraft with fatalities ? 

I'm sure that you have an explanation for that one, right ?



I do know how to get around on the Net, but I will only go so far sometimes because things I may be looking for simply are not to be found and I quit looking.  Shoot me.


westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Nov 24, 2019 - 5:13pm

Just caught up to Bloomberg.com headlines.    This outlet does not like President Trump, that is rather clear.  But these headlines, could anybody make up this stuff?



Nunes Defiant as Giuliani Associate Connects Him With Biden Dirt

Trump Inquiry Won’t End With Impeachment Report, Schiff Says

Giuliani: Biden Files to Be Released ‘If I Disappear’

Impeachment History in the Making: Confusion, Expletives and ‘Quid Pro Quo’


Naturally this begs the question as to why Rudy Giuliani, America's Super Mayor, has not already released these damning files on the Biden family.  Is he simply saving the juiciest bits for the end of the hour-long TV special?  

When is 30% of the white adult American population going to wake up and finally realize that their  chosen leaders are treating them like inexperienced children?
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Nov 24, 2019 - 1:34pm



 kurtster wrote:


 kcar wrote:
Kurt, I plead laziness for not independently digging up links/sources relevant to the matters under dispute between us. However, I think that this one WaPo piece will help resolve those matters.

24 defenses! It's like something out of a stoner/kung fu movie! Or Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant"! 

...
Please note that the excerpt for defense #22 contains a link embedded within the words "laying the groundwork for impeachment." That link sends the reader to the Vanity Fair article by Emily Jane Fox which Lazy8 linked to in an earlier post; I rebutted/responded to the points of that piece in my own earlier post in this thread. 
 
I'm not going to go back and find the original chain so I will just refer to it.

The bone of contention or point of order I'm trying to make is that you claimed that Zelensky was lying for Trump.  There is absolutely no proof of that anywhere to be found.  I asked you to provide proof for your claim only because you ask me for proof of my claims.  You still dance around that and will not admit that there is no proof.

Now here is the point I am really trying to make with you.  In order to defend your accusation you brought up a bunch of dots and connected them with only your logic for proof of your claim.  When I do this, you cry foul.  You are holding yourself to different standard than me, a lower one.  

Not once did I say that your conclusion was wrong, right ?  I only said that you have not shown any proof, and only because you insisted I show you proof of my claim of Schiff's denial of contact or knowledge of who the whistleblower is.  I rarely, if ever, ask anyone here for proof of a claim, unless they ask the same from me.

So let's get things straight here.  I will recognize that you have put forth a highly likely scenario that Zelensky lied for Trump.  And I can understand where and how you would conclude that.  See what I just did there ?  I allowed you to make your conclusion and agreed with its feasibility.  While you may be right, you still do not have any real proof, yet.  I will often do the same thing as you have done but where it is different, you shoot down my assertions as bold faced lies without any possibility of them being true unless I show you proof. 

We can all move forward together if we recognize each other's dot connecting as legitimately plausible based upon appearances and observations where there is no proof one way or the other.  You do not see all the things that I see and vice versa.  If you watched the testimony between Vindman and  Williams, both who actually listened to the famous call, they disagreed on whether or not Trump demanded action from Zelensky.  Vindman, based upon his military perspective said it was a clear cut demand while Williams who works in the civilian domain said it was not clear at all.  She does not consider asking a favor to be a demand while Vindman, based upon his military perspective, said that when you ask a favor of someone with a lower rank than you it is actually to be interpreted as an indirect-direct order.

So let's give us all a little space here to disagree while at the same time recognizing that the thought processes involved are or could be valid, not attempts to lie or deceive to make points in these here threads.  Asking for proof on every little thing  proves little in the big picture and stifles conversation.  Unless that is your intent.

I yield back to you, Chairman ...

 

"I will often do the same thing as you have done but where it is different, you shoot down my assertions as bold faced lies without any possibility of them being true unless I show you proof."



I don't believe I've ever accused you of lying. I do believe that you frequently state things without backing them up with evidence. Often you fail to even respond when asked for evidence. You've even claimed that the Internet doesn't have info on the things you personally experienced (upon which you base opinions) and that my challenging you on such opinions de-legitimizes you. IIRC you've also claimed that you're not experienced in digging stuff up on the Web.

As for Zelensky stating that he felt no pressure from Trump or didn't perceive a quid pro quo during the call, I still consider that a lie. IIRC Volker texted one of Zelensky's assistants right before the phone call of 7/25 and told him that the White House visit would happen if the investigations into Burisma/Bidens and the DNC server were announced. I believe the long WaPo piece with 24 defenses linked to another WaPo article on that. I don't see how Zelensky couldn't perceive a quid pro quo during that call given that Volker text. The only excuse Zelensky might give as I see it is that his side didn't tell him of the Volker text before the call started.

The only way we're going to know Zelensky's knowledge and state of mind is if he tells us or  one of his aides tells us with evidence what was going on in Zelensky's head. That holds true with Zelensky's above claim and with Zelensky's willingness to go on Fareed Zakaria's show to announce the investigations only to cancel his appearance once the military was released. The best evidence I can give you about Zelensky's  lying is to lay out the facts surrounding his statements and pointing out that the evidence doesn't show that Z could have credibly believed what he said and was about  to say. That's not absolute proof but it's pretty strong; as you said the scenario that Z was likely is "highly likely." We're only going to get circumstantial evidence on this matter, but I believe that's mostly the case when dealing with lying and other states of mind. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to get a conviction in criminal trials.

I believe I've responded your justified challenge fully. In contrast I note again that you often fail to respond to challenges to your assertions. I will be more careful in backing up my assertions. I ask you to make more effort  on the same front. 
  Can't find the emoji with raised glass... Found it! Let's go get a Happy Meal!

As to the source of our disagreement, I don't think you even have to consider Trump's or Zelensky's knowledge or state of mind during the 7/25 call to conclude that there was a demand (military aid) and inducement (White House visit) as quid pro quos in play and therefore that there was an impeachable offense. This whole matter has expanded far beyond the July 25 call. Trump, Giuliani, Sondland and others were working on a months-long project to use Zelensky as a Trump campaign tool. That's impeachable. It's as simple as that.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Nov 24, 2019 - 9:48am

Defense nr. 10 rehashed.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 24, 2019 - 9:14am



 kcar wrote:
Kurt, I plead laziness for not independently digging up links/sources relevant to the matters under dispute between us. However, I think that this one WaPo piece will help resolve those matters.

24 defenses! It's like something out of a stoner/kung fu movie! Or Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant"! 

...
Please note that the excerpt for defense #22 contains a link embedded within the words "laying the groundwork for impeachment." That link sends the reader to the Vanity Fair article by Emily Jane Fox which Lazy8 linked to in an earlier post; I rebutted/responded to the points of that piece in my own earlier post in this thread. 
 
I'm not going to go back and find the original chain so I will just refer to it.

The bone of contention or point of order I'm trying to make is that you claimed that Zelensky was lying for Trump.  There is absolutely no proof of that anywhere to be found.  I asked you to provide proof for your claim only because you ask me for proof of my claims.  You still dance around that and will not admit that there is no proof.

Now here is the point I am really trying to make with you.  In order to defend your accusation you brought up a bunch of dots and connected them with only your logic for proof of your claim.  When I do this, you cry foul.  You are holding yourself to different standard than me, a lower one.  

Not once did I say that your conclusion was wrong, right ?  I only said that you have not shown any proof, and only because you insisted I show you proof of my claim of Schiff's denial of contact or knowledge of who the whistleblower is.  I rarely, if ever, ask anyone here for proof of a claim, unless they ask the same from me.

So let's get things straight here.  I will recognize that you have put forth a highly likely scenario that Zelensky lied for Trump.  And I can understand where and how you would conclude that.  See what I just did there ?  I allowed you to make your conclusion and agreed with its feasibility.  While you may be right, you still do not have any real proof, yet.  I will often do the same thing as you have done but where it is different, you shoot down my assertions as bold faced lies without any possibility of them being true unless I show you proof. 

We can all move forward together if we recognize each other's dot connecting as legitimately plausible based upon appearances and observations where there is no proof one way or the other.  You do not see all the things that I see and vice versa.  If you watched the testimony between Vindman and  Williams, both who actually listened to the famous call, they disagreed on whether or not Trump demanded action from Zelensky.  Vindman, based upon his military perspective said it was a clear cut demand while Williams who works in the civilian domain said it was not clear at all.  She does not consider asking a favor to be a demand while Vindman, based upon his military perspective, said that when you ask a favor of someone with a lower rank than you it is actually to be interpreted as an indirect-direct order.

So let's give us all a little space here to disagree while at the same time recognizing that the thought processes involved are or could be valid, not attempts to lie or deceive to make points in these here threads.  Asking for proof on every little thing  proves little in the big picture and stifles conversation.  Unless that is your intent.

I yield back to you, Chairman ...

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 24, 2019 - 8:45am



 Proclivities wrote:


 kurtster wrote:
 
Who has seriously claimed that Trump is trying to steal our money?   Has anyone here,
in the media, or in the political arena ever suggested that?  (Though he has spent a lot of Federal dollars playing golf.) Did Obama and Hillary (who was never President) somehow receive tens of millions of American tax dollars - i.e. "our money" because they ran for President?   This is another typical, right-wing, straw-man misdirection.   He is being investigated for abuse of power, and with the dozens of malfeasances he's committed since taking office that's all they got as a meme to defend him?  Odd that it showed up in this thread, but there are so many threads that it is kind of tangled.  Maybe they're vaguely referring to the emoluments clause (which he says is "phony" since he knows absolutely nothing about The Constitution).
 

Backscroll please.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 24, 2019 - 8:44am



 SeriousLee wrote:


 kurtster wrote:
 

On the other hand, it can make Trump look more guilty of 'stealing our money'. Since his net worth has gone down, he has 'probable cause' to get it back. (I'm no lawyer, so not sure if i said that right, but you know I'm getting at?)

Besides, with a net worth of 4.5B you are more likely to lose some than someone with a net worth of 3M or 480K. (I could be wrong, but hey this is just a meme so consider my post likewise
)
 
Yep, it's just a meme.  I don't take them seriously either.  Evidently many do.  That is why there are so many these days.

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Nov 23, 2019 - 5:44pm

Trump on impeachment: 'Frankly, I want a trial'
US president slams public impeachment hearings and defends his use of personal lawyer Giuliani for Ukraine policy.


Of course you you want a trial, Mr. Reality TV personality and star extraordinaire.   You have lost control of the narrative and a public trial is the only remaining way that you can possibly redeem yourself Mr. President.

All you have to do Mr. President, is convince the Senate to hold a trial.  

We might have had our differences in the past but on this one, we are all in total agreement.  Once again, you are so right Mr. President.  

-signed one among a legion of fans of yours, Sir, in the territory of Canada to the north.   God bless.  




haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 22, 2019 - 9:45pm



 kurtster wrote:



I'm still watching and waiting for proof of an impeachable offense.  I have so far seen examples of poor judgements made in all kinds of places by all kinds of people, but that is all so far.

Impeachment is supposed to be reserved for actions that take place while POTUS, not before. 
At least that is what I got out of my Civic's classes back in high school in the 60's.  That seems to have changed evidently as well as the presumption of innocence.  Now a simple indictment is considered proof of guilt.  Such as the Russian agents indicted by Mueller, which you cited below, right ?  Who will never stand trial by the way, leaving those indictments standing and  unchallenged and in our new world order, considered proof of guilt moving forward.  As you have actually just done yourself.

So where do you draw the line ?
 
That's sweet. The administration is saying that the president can't be indicted for actions before or during his taking office - that impeachment is the only remedy. So your contention means there is no way to do anything about any illegal behaviour prior to his taking office. 

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 40, 41, 42  Next