Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
Your host, PM 'Papa' Carpenter
Biden

***

  • ***

********


« Forget, for a moment, his authoritarianism. Just as a chief executive, Trump stinks. | Main | »

June 23, 2018

Comments

But Trump did bring his reputation with him to his little photo op and Kim Jung Un knew it very well: Trump's reputation as a cheap con man who's also an easy mark.

Yes, exactly. We got taken.

Now would be a good time for David Eisenhower to speak out.

You know who didn’t have a vast array of nuclear weapons and intercontinental delivery systems back in 1953? China didn’t. But they sure do now. And everyone knows that any sort of nuclear strike or even a non-nuclear strike on an NK nuclear facility cannot fail to bring China into this.Almost everybody knows this. Except maybe the Trumpers and certainly Trump himself does not know this. That is the scary thing. Kelly probably tried many times to tell him things like that.

I guess this is off topic, but I am waiting on the folks that frequent this sight to condemn Fonda. By maybe child rape ,and rape in general is ok with you , , as long as the women/children are on the right.

Sure, I think Henry Fonda shouldn’t have been doing ads on TV late in his career. But that’s just me.

There you go again, defining yourself by your hatters and resentments.

Oh it was despicable. So no one thinks what you suggest we do. It is pretty much universally agreed here that the children of political figures are off limits. But if it consoles you to think so go ahead. I hadn’t heard about it until today and I was too busy laughing about Sandra Huckabee’s restaurant refusal to do much more than just think he was being an asshole. Now the Sandra thing is interesting for it seems the restaurant owners have acted on their deeply held religious convictions to deny service to people who advocate and defend the torture of children. We should order them a celebratory cake. And I know just the bakery to commission to do it. The irony is palpable.

Max, you're one of the maddest hatters ever. I can't see where you're coming from. You lay into people like there's no tomorrow and you have zero tolerance for shades of opinion. Trying (as you do) to change minds by suggesting that people don't know their own thinking is arrogant. Calling people names does you no favours. As Tony (thanks, I remember you now) says, and it's harsh, we don't tune in to hear from you. This is a double act. PM and PG. They're the intellectuals around here.

I'm totally fed up with the abusive exchanges that happen around here, routinely. I don't have any stake in this rubbish anymore. But I'll say this, listen to other people.

Before you even start up DA, let me tell you that I couldn't care less. You're an intellectual pygmy, a fraud and a bully. Unfortunately for you, you have no credibility because your stupidity shines through.

Peter G, before the inevitable shit storm kicks off can I just say that I like to read your thoughts. You're pretty darn clever and insightful. Any stuff written before about your arrogant swagger and your all encompassing knowledge about everything, is kind of okay with me. You're a know-all who knows stuff, so I'll let you off.

To our kind host who treads a fine line here, may I say that I'll still look in. You do a fine job here under difficult circumstances and I like you.

Dear Boring Old Woman: I would have to have a heart of stone not to be amused by your attempts to control what people write here. Toodle-loo!

I would have to disagree with you about Max and DA and many others here. We have wonderful and quite intense debates about just about everything. I would not bother if I didn’t consider them worthy allies and occasionally debating adversaries. Does Anne J consider herself an intellectual? I hope so for I agree with her observations almost without exception. She sees very clearly. I welcome your own observations for the same reason. The value lies in the variety of personal experience and the ability to articulate it. I come here to learn how people think including you. How else can you test what you think you know?

But, and this is the big but, I like many others here, have little tolerance for those who would have us tolerate that which we should not. Or offer false arguments or whataboutisms that are utterly irrelevant and intended only to insult the intelligence. What are we to do with commenters who start with the argument asylum seeking children are criminals who derserve to be punished with incarceration, proceed to Obama did it too and end with Obama is making us be terrible human beings. What could anyone learn from such intellectual dishonesty. Or do anything but mock it.

You have a nice day, too, Mary.

I see this treatment that the Trump administration has been given by the public lately as case of "getting back what you give".

Peter I thought you might enjoy this, from a great Canadian writer, Adam Gopnik:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-justin-trudeau-is-able-to-stand-up-to-donald-trump

The more I think about it, the more I realize you're right. It is off topic. Did you know that LBJ picked his dogs up by their ears?

I didn't know that. But that's only due to my lack of knowledge on the subject so thank you for enlightening me. Did China make their own nukes or did they buy them?

They made their own and exploded their first in '64. At a subsequent Presidential Cabinet discussion on this matter, LBJ stood up, took out his, ahem, johnson and declared, "Old Chairman Mao won't get any of this." At the time the Cabibet were all Kennedy appointees.

By the way, I agree with Peter: you are a true intellectual, Anne, the real deal.

Thank you, Max it means a great deal coming from the both of you, it really does. Now excuse me while I go try to contain the swelling of my head.

Ha! One reason I love you is that will never happen!

Yessiree, let's go focus our attention on an old Hollywood star who made a nasty tweet and take our eye off the fact that the US Government is taking children from their families and locking them up like fucking criminals just because those families are seeking asylum in the US (which they have every fucking right to do).

And why? Because Donald Trump and company hate anyone who isn't white.

Take your faux concerns and cram 'em up the poop chute, Keith.

Thank you, Max and Peter for your kind words. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for both of you and I really enjoy learning from you. I have to admit that Keith's off topic comment here made me fight the urge to drop nuclear grade f-bombs all over this comments section, but I refrained, because one, I wasn't about to give him that satisfaction, and two, because his comment was not worthy of the dignity of a response. Responding, especially in anger would have been giving him exactly what he wants. Like Duff, he trolls here, simply for the sake of trolling with all the obvious intellectual dishonesty that goes into the "simply offering a different point of view" defense. I agree that children of presidents are normally off limits, but not the children who are part of that president's administration. However, I also feel no obligation to take responsibility for some idiotic comments made by other people. To demand that we be held to account for something Peter Fonda said is not only hypocritical in the face of 25 years of Hillary hate, and 8 years of not even recognizing Obama's birthright citizenship, it also reveals a monumental sense of entitlement. No, we do not owe Keith any apologies or explanations someone else's words or actions. If that's what you want, go directly to the source.

Look on the bright side Anne, Keith has given us some common ground. No we don’t think attacking children is right. Whether it be John McCain attacking the child Chelsea Clinton. Or racist attacks on President Obama’s children or any other of the instances that have outraged conservatives. I am sure he agrees now that attacking children for any reason is despicable no matter who does it.

David Brooks probably has an uninteresting column about civility this week. You may be more comfortable there.

No the manager said one of her queer employees felt threatened. But if this manager is also the owner , I have no problem with asking MRs. Huckabee to leave. The owner should be able to deny service to any one. Freedom of association , means freedom of disassociation.

Then there is this

Veteran filmmaker David Lynch believes President Donald Trump could be remembered as one of the greatest presidents in American history because of the way he has shaken up the political establishment.

PG ,,, had not heard about dipshit Mc Cain and Chelsea , was that recent ? Chelsea put herself in the fight in the last few years. B Os girls being attacked is also news. Links ?

Yet still more whataboutism. Who cares what David Lynch said. Trump shaking up the establishment? Sure, giving $1.5 trillion to the wealthiest. Oh wait - that must be "fake news."

Didn’t see your question sooner Anne. They have built their own, initially with Russian help. Later when tensions between China and the Soviet Union developed they expanded that program massively. Few nations can put astronauts into space. China can. And they are building their own military satellite GPS system.

Peter G, Anne is not an intellectual. She's super clever woman who would have been, in different circumstances, a professor. Anne, I won't talk behind your back. You're just as clever as many around here who've had their thinking, writing skills, honed to the nth degree. Raw intelligence is very difficult to fake, or hide under a bushel because it's obvious, and you may not like me much and that's okay, but you're every bit as intelligent as anybody around here who's been at uni for sixteen years. Don't be grateful or subservient because you shouldn't be, and you're not.

Just (all you lot) stop with the invective 24/7 or risk driving the undecided into Trump's arms. You're the guys who will get him re-elected. I truly believe that.

That’s the daftest thing I’ve heard this year, outside of Fox News. T

Intellectualism is not about one's intelligence or accumulated knowledge or any level of education and degrees. It's about *attitude* towards what one knows and doesn't know. (In this sense, you can see how, for example, George Will, who fancies himself as an intellectual, is actually anti-intellectual.) So for my money, Anne is certainly a fine intellectual.

Why is America anti-intellectual? D'oh, I dunno.


Now Fred’s an intellectual, brings a book to every meal.
He likes the deep philosophers, like norman vincent peale.
He thinks the army's just the thing,
Because he finds it broadening.
It makes a fella proud to be a soldier!

Thank you. I actually do like you. Don't like everything you say, but not always because I disagree. I didn't like when you said I was angry, but there was no way I could disagree with you either. It is hard for me to fight the urge to answer the trolling with anger so I usually just write a separate comment. I will let our host be "the Decider" (Sorry, P.M.) over who may and may not comment here. It may be unpleasant, and Keith's "queer" remark above may have made me feel angry and slightly threatened, ( it just goes with being the mother of a gay son) but at least Keith put himself out there to expose who he really is and what he's about, and to be honest I like when people put their hate on full display and is the very reason I value the First amendment so much. It makes it easier to figure out how to deal with certain people. I do like you, please don't stop commenting.

She could stop with the attacks on other commentators, for a start.

Take a look at her attacks on other commenters, Anne. She was nicer when she was Mary. The moniker Tony gave her (yes it was Tony) seems to now fit, unlike prior.

OTOH, to paraphrase Thucydides, a nation that makes distinctions between its fighting man and its thinking man will have its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards. The man who might have been our 35th president was killed in action in '44. Back then everyone served - including the elites. But not by Vietnam. The 2S deferment - college - made the Vietnam war possible.

I agree with what you've said here, Anne. You have a natural inclination to honesty. And when you see it in others, you appreciate it.

I will also say that B.O.W. is right about how several here jump on others way too quickly and easily. But I should clarify ---it's not that they jump on what others say but rather it's the meanness and sarcasm and name-calling with which they do it. I find that unnecessary and counter-productive. And sometimes downright tiresome, as does Mary. Like you, I like it when others, even "trolls" put their true thoughts and feelings out there. I learn from that --in the sense that I learn what they really think, and for me, that is constructive learning. And I much prefer to take what someone says and ask them further questions, in order to see, if possible, from where they derived their opinions. And asking them questions forces them to think, or remain silent.

I could certainly do without reading insults flung at others. If commenters here find a "troll's" comments of so little value, why not just ignore them altogether? It would save us all much tedium.

L. Reeves, let me start by saying you are waaaayyyy nicer than I am! I'm of two minds when it comes to dealing with trolls. I never know whether to completely ignore them or insult them for trying to insult the intelligence of others. One thing I could never do that you do is try to engage them in a courteous and respectful manner, which as far as I'm concerned they don't deserve. They don't treat others with respect when they come here with their insults and false equivalencies, and I personally see no point in showing respect to people who have no intention of showing you any. But I don't want to get into pissing contests either, so I just "let the asshole" have the last word sometimes. To engage or not engage, that is the question.

Anne J , I am gonna try again. I assumed that since we had a q in LGBTQ , that queer was currently acceptable. I have an aquaitence that identifies as queer. I did not mean to offend ot hurt you in any way
I stated previously that PMC is the host of this party, one word from him and I pull a Huckabee. I will assume if this post doesn’t show up I am, dismissed from the plat ground

FWIW, I did not take offense to that. Other things, yes, but not that, and I have deep ties with the LGBTQ community.

Thanks, Anne. I think. :)

One major problem I see though is that it's too easy to misjudge or prejudge someone. As we all know, the written word is fraught with misinterpretation. We are fools is we assume we always know what someone means or what their intentions are. And as I said, if in doubt, ignoring is always an option (as you say, too).

I guess I am way too nice then. I'll take that. If I'm going to err, I prefer it to be in the direction of patience and kindness than in the direction of impatience and aggression.

He’s now at a 55% disapproval rating. Seems reality doesn’t conform to your
liking—is that why you’re so bitter?

Thanks for the solidarity Anne J and L Reeves. You understand me.

Probably one of the most hilarious comments here comes from DA when he suggests, in all seriousness, that I should stop attacks on other commenters. Seeing as he hasn't let me write a word, for months, without attacking me...whaaaat?

It's been suggested many times that ignoring a tormentor is the way to go but I'm not so sure. When presented with such a giant target, take aim. DA, have you considered the possibility that you're the one bringing the ratings down? When I was about five, fighting with my brother I used to say that he started it.
You started this crap. I'm just throwing it back.

L Reeves you are very nice indeed, Much nicer than Anne J, loads nicer than me. There' a big space in this world for those who are naturally kind and sensitive. You see both sides and that's a great thing.

Still, there's room on this forum for the people who are quite horrid (even after a name change, more horrid). I'm surprised Anne, that you didn't like me calling you angry. For me, it's the emotion that comes through what you write and I don't blame you. You should own it. Forget that, you do own it. That's a good thing. I really enjoy your commentary because it's bold, honest and it makes me think.

Thanks for the non-hostile feedback, Mary. Your concern about my turning people off of this site is rather silly and even a bit paranoid. I’d have myself looked at by a brain care specialist, if I were you.

I know D.A. won't like reading this, or simply won't care, but I was also taken aback when he, of all people, admonished you for attacking others. People who live in glass houses...

I don't believe D.A. fights "fair." Or at least not kindly. To me, it gets old.

Thanks for your honesty, B.O.W. Sometimes you get a bit attacking, too. I guess we all do --myself included. But I do agree that D.A. takes aggression and sarcasm to new levels. And now I will be in his sights again (or he'll say something like, no, I'm not worth his time). Maybe he'll surprise us though! :)

Sometimes I think that I'm just not tough enough for these discussions. In fact, I know I'm not. I don't even aspire to be an intellectual. I admire those who are but all I can offer are my own insights, thoughts, etc. Maybe I need to develop a thicker skin or a greater tolerance for the aggression of these discussions here. But before I would do that, it's more likely that I would just bow out.

I find everyone's comments interesting, including D.A.'s of course. But I do hope he and others consider a gentler way of making their points. A way that is less sarcastic and flippant --at least less so toward actual commenters who live at this site, or who come to visit it.

To quote Calvin Coolidge, “You lose.”

Cute. And in that spirit, "You win."

Because I have no interest in such silliness.

Bitter Old Woman demands nothing less than cessation of my comments here, and I responded to that demand with all the seriousness that it deserves. If either of you can make a rational case to Paul as to desirability of booting me
Off of here, I promise on my mother’s grave that I will accept such booting gracefully.

If you or BOL have anything further to say to me, my e-mail is [email protected]

I’m done with you, here.

True to form, D.A. You tend to overreact. If B.O.W. did in fact call for cessation of your remarks, which I don't believe she did (am I wrong on that?) then I would wholeheartedly disagree with that. I don't believe PM should censure you --not for one minute! I'm suggesting that perhaps you censure yourself just a bit. Really, your knowledge is helpful and great. It's just your meanness (and in this case your pouting) that other commenters could do without.

Sorry to be so blunt but I think it was due.

Please keep commenting. If anyone bows out, it will and should be me.

I've never noticed DA to be paticularly nasty, certainly not as bad as the dishonest trolls who come here. Personally, I find your kindness towards them maddening and undeserved.

Anne, I don't go out of my way to placate people; I simply behave civilly and ask them to explain themselves. The problem I find here is that many won't even sit back and listen for one moment. I believe that asking people to explain themselves is often the best way to get them thinking about what they have chosen to say and believe. If they can't or won't, one can simply ignore them.

D.A. can be very particularly nasty, in my humble opinion. But he is not entirely alone here.

Btw, I'm curious about your thoughts toward Keith who said he wanted to try again (appealed to you) and he asked you in this thread about your seemingly negative reaction to his use of the word, "queer."

Look, it's a small group who comment here and I think that's a bit problematic. I welcome others' thoughts, and I don't think it would hurt this site one bit.

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate it.

Well, she finds fault with my sources and my style, so technically speaking if she just doesn’t want me to be here, technically speaking. I would only call out sources that are nonsense or discredited, but that’s just me.

From this thread: Probably one of the most hilarious comments here comes from DA when he suggests, in all seriousness, that I should stop attacks on other commenters. Seeing as he hasn't let me write a word, for months, without attacking me...whaaaat?

Dark Avenger, when you've finished quoting George Bernard Shaw, stopped using wikipedia as your main source of info, given up insulting anybody with whom you disagree,

http://www.pmcarpenter.com/2018/06/a-life-ends.html#comment-6a00d83451bc2169e2022ad377b340200d

Now, wouldn’t you find that intolerable? Maybe she was triggered by Shaw being an Irish writer, but I’m not going to change based on BOL’s wishes.

Thanks, D.A. I went back and looked at that and I couldn't honestly make much sense out of it. Here's the thing --yes, B.O.W. has attacked at times. I have, too. So have you --a lot! I don't think you'd want me to go back and create a log of yours. Just today your last comment to B.O.W. was, "I’d have myself looked at by a brain care specialist, if I were you." Not necessary to say, is it? And just now you said of yourself, "I would only call out sources that are nonsense or discredited, but that’s just me." No, you don't just call out sources that are nonsense or discredited; you often add personal insults.

Again, let me say that your knowledge is great, and useful. For whatever it's worth, I agree with most of what you say, and the others here, too. I just don't like to see people pre-judge others and hurl insults and sarcasm. Like you suggested, stick to insulting the administration, the sources, etc., but not the individuals who participate here. If Donald Trump himself commented here, I would hope you'd have the control to ask him pointed questions rather than lash out at him. Why, you ask? Because it's the best way to make your points, to get yourself heard --even though we know it would not penetrate Trump's head, and the same can be said of many others who might come to the site but consider that those specific people may not really be your audience, after all. Maybe it's someone reasonable but just uninformed who happens to be listening in, reading. It's all those people who are your audience, and I hope many are here in the wings reading, listening --or that there will be many.

Thanks again. I do appreciate your thoughts.

You seem to have difficulty understanding me. I do not deny that I attack and am a meanie when I comment here. I didn’t suggest that I see my only role here as to debunk sources used by others. If you or anyone thinks I or anybody commenting here crosses the line here, then the thing to do is to communicate that to Paul instead of being a self-appointed thread/site Monitor and play Aunt Pitty-Patty over a third party here in the comments.

When I was a lad, a wise man once quoted me this to tell others my goals if I was perceived as being a troublemaker or nuisance.

“I am in earnest. I will not equivocate. I will not excuse. And I will be heard!”

Toodle-loo!

EXACTLY my feelings, D.A. No one is asking you to stop commenting here or PHIL to stop you from commenting here. But we reserve our right to talk back to you when you hurl insults, and to tell you what we think --even if telling you we think you're sometimes mean and petty and insulting. And if you insult us or others, we are likely to say something to you about it. All of us can stay here and comment unless PHIL bans us. Your way of acting like, as you call it, a site monitor, is to verbally spit on people. You've done it to me, more than once.

So we, or I should speak for myself and say, I --I am in earnest too. You do NOT hold a monopoly on earnestness. And I will not equivocate either. And I will be heard too!!

So yes, Toodle-loo. And even as you insult others and mock them, I will probably keep reading. I hope others might too. For our host's sake if no one else's.

Never accused you of wanting to silence me, I deliberately formulated a general statement to apply to anyone here in case they have a problem
With another commentator. I find it a bit tiring to have to spell everything out for you. And that is not sarcasm

Oh? Then why when we tell you what we think, do you suggest to us that we should take it up with PM? Can't you engage or disengage without suggesting we need to go talk to the host about our "complaints?" When you've insulted me or others, I don't send you the go-take-it-up-with-PM suggestion. I talk back to you instead.

Talk to us or ignore us. And if you talk to us, talk to us in any way you choose. We will do likewise. Fair enough?

I was making a general statement, and you still want to act as though it was about me. How little you really understand, I’ll never quite know myself.

Your "general" statement suggesting that we take up complaints about you with the host did not materialize from nothing, D.A. You issued it in response to criticism from others (in this case from B.O.W.) of things you wrote here. You claimed she wanted to censure you. And today and previous times you mock me and others like B.O.W. for acting as site "monitors" and playing "Aunt Pitty Patty" for other commenters here.

Be clear, D.A., you try to silence others. You do, as much or more than anyone does.

Just keep expressing yourself and so will we. Of course you are free to go talk to our host if you find me or others "intolerable" (gee, I think that's what you said earlier) but I'm fine with you expressing yourself --dishing it out. As long as you're willing to take it when it's dished back at you.

And in your last two messages, you've once more insulted me as being slow on the uptake and understanding so little. Tsk, tsk.

No, it's all good, D.A. I'm glad we had this give and take.

Right now there are actual interesting and vital things happening in our country --that involving justice Kennedy's announcement of his retirement. And as always, I look forward to reading what you and others have to say about it.

Take care.

You like to take stuff and spin it to your advantage. I find you increasing irritating and would prefer that you just quit beating me over the head with the same tired complaint, and just let it go. I assure you on my mothers’ grave that I will never respond to you here again.

Whatever, D.A. You're really a pouter, aren't you?

You find me irritating, do you? I think many find you irritating when you insult and mock.

You can respond to me or not. I'm not beating you over the head anymore than you've beat me and others over the head --today included.

Again, I wish you no ill will. Really. Comment away. Mostly you have smart, insightful, knowledgeable things to say. But I will fight fire with fire, attack back if need be. Remember? I, like you, am in earnest. And I, like you, will not be silenced.

Again, thank you. No ill will. I mean that.

Sorry for my aggressiveness, D.A. Yesterday I got into it with a store clerk, too. So maybe I'm just in a fighting mood. So, though I mean what I say and I am indeed in earnest, I don't want to be overly aggressive. For whatever it's worth, I apologize for my own part in dragging this out. And to the other readers, if they've even subjected themselves to this, my apologies, too.

Let's just allow each other to comment, whatever those comments are. And I'll try to develop a thicker skin for such discussions.

L Reeves, you didn't drag anything out. You just refused to surrender which is a completely different matter. This medium is vey harsh and unforgiving and for someone like you who's obviously a gentle soul, it's difficult. You definitely shouldn't take stuff to heart. People who are as meek and mild as they come take on a different character from behind a keyboard. Don't worry about things and if you do need to bow out of a particular exchange in order to preserve your sanity that's the way to go. DA says he'll ignore you from now on. If he'll do me the same favour this will be a happier place to visit for all concerned.

Thanks, B.O.W. It's true that I didn't really drag things out but answered D.A. item for item. Still, I began to feel bad for him when he said that he'd prefer that I quit beating him over the head. I go soft when I picture someone beaten down.

And thanks, yes I know that I can bow out. We'll see how it all goes. But maybe I'm slowly learning to develop a tolerance for how commenters can be. I don't know if that's good or bad.

I only meant that you can bow out of a particular thread if it's all getting too nasty. No way should you take yourself out permanently. You're needed around here, not least for your role as peacemaker for which you are uniquely qualified. You're going nowhere.

Very true, in the American idiom she’s just spinning her wheels.

The comments to this entry are closed.