Re: Trump to Win?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

Seeing this neocon assclown at the brink of sobbing brings joy to my heart.

Almost as much as this poor Christian woman's persecution.

Looks like the Woodsman Strategery is working.




GO TRUMP! MAGA! GO TRUMP!

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to Win?

You stopped reading? Too bad.

TN, this is the essence of Woody's BS. Don't buy into it.

[vt]

Re: Trump to Win?

Kind of like those that find a racist behind every tree

Joe Scarborough Lashes Out At The Media, Defends Trump's Refusal To Say Whether He'd Accept Election Results


Scarborough: "It's Just Another Example Of The Media Having To Find A Little Phrase And Freak Out"

JOE SCARBOROUGH (CO-HOST): What was [Trump's] exact quote?

MIKA BRZEZINSKI (CO-HOST): He said I will leave you in suspense.

WILLIE GEIST (CO-HOST): He said I will look at it at the time and keep you in suspense.

HAROLD FORD JR.: So that means he is not willing to say I will accept the outcome.

SCARBOROUGH: No, what that means is he will look at it at the time. I love everybody saying -- I woke up to these screaming headlines saying, "Donald Trump will not respect election results." He actually said I will look at it at the time. I'll see.

FORD JR.: Has there ever been a presidential candidate to say that?

SCARBOROUGH: If there are voting irregularities, then any presidential candidate, anybody --

MIKE BARNICLE: What would you have said? What would your response be to that question?

SCARBOROUGH: I'd say yeah, I'll certainly respect the outcome of the election. I of course would want to make sure that's fair. I will want to make sure that it's fair, it's on the up and up.

BARNICLE: Well, he didn't say that.

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah but you know what? This is an example the media got something they can absolutely freak out about and claim that he is an agent of Vladimir Putin and destroying democracy in America. And it's just another example of the media having to find a little phrase and freak out. When as a Republican I have listened to Democrats talk about the only two times we won the White House in like 800 years that we stole both elections. I had to sit through Fahrenheit 911 and a lady was sobbing violently behind me on the Upper West Side about the election being stolen from George Bush and I patted her halfway through. I go, it's all right, it's all right, ma'am. It's all right. It's all a lie anyway. Democrats have been whining for 16 years, they are still writing articles about how Bush stole the elections in 2000 and 2004. So this holier than though attitude about, "this is the first time anyone has suggested that the election is not a sacrosanct process," it's a joke. So you guys bathe in that hypocrisy if you want to, I'd just like to hear how the debate went. Go ahead, bathe.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to Win?

Hey, they found a liberal J.D. Vance and this dude really hates the GOP, Trump and WORMs (White Old Rich Men). Still it's a good read and I especially liked where it aligned so well with the Woodsman strategery.

But Thai, what about this Lansdale "Quiet American" myth you say has been debunked? You have a source published before February 23, 1987 (RIP)?

Greene denied that Lansdale was his inspiration, but I have to speculate he simply didn't want to give the bastard the satisfaction. Certainly the "Air Force officer" himself seemed to think he was the model. Jonathan Nashel's "Edward Lansdale's Cold War" (2005) is still the canonical biography and in reading it again, two things seem clear. They hated each other and Lansdale knew Greene would stick it to him in print.



But in the ensuing years the old advertising man instincts kicked in and Lansdale tacked. By the time the pre-production started on the film version of the book, we have Lansdale and the Agency reworking the script with Hollywood screenwriter Joseph Mankiewicz into what Greene called a pro-American travesty. Lansdale seems to be actually encouraging the idea in his correspondence with Mankiewicz.

Writing in the period of the Hollywood Blacklist, Mankiewicz began his adaptation with the same concern to appease the patriotic sensitivities of the Production Code Administration (PCA) censors - who fancied themselves protectors of our “National Feeling” and virtue. So by the time Lansdale/CIA's editorial efforts were through, Graham's narrative essentially was turned inside out with the bad guy becoming a good guy (played by World War II hero Audie Murphy, no less).

And then there's the matter of "Colonel Edwin B. Hillandale."

for starters, just off the cuff...go for it

https://books.google.co.th/books?id=...20rare&f=false

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

for starters, just off the cuff...go for it

Do you have another cuff? Because none of it is contradictory of anything I noted. It's also published after Lansdale's death.

Starting on pg 410, the narrative seems to support all I wrote (paraphrased, to be precise), especially the "dirty dog" incident at the Continental Hotel and the correspondence between the screenwriter and Lansdale.

The authors simply assert that Lansdale did not inspire the Pyle character and note as I did Greene's denial in his 1980 autobiography. But then they go on to show all of the similarities between Pyle and Lansdale, referencing the same sources I did (Nashel and Currey). They offer nothing definitive except to say "people will believe what they want to believe," seeming to do precisely that themselves.

You want to find it definitive and that's fine by me. But you started by calling it a "myth" where your own source demonstrates that it really is far less ethereal than that. And so it might be that to believe what you want to believe, you require a level of evidence somewhat less than the methods and practice of history and historiography demand before achieving that degree of certainty.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

TN, this is the essence of Woody's BS. Don't buy into it.

But why truncate my quote and so attempt to alter my meaning? I wrote:

You stopped reading? Too bad. Orwell called that "crimestop." He considered it a form of "protective stupidity."

Is it because what Orwell wrote about "crimestop" so much resembles you and your cohort's argumentation since the two of you kicked off this fracas?

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

I think so.

[jk]

Re: Trump to Win?

Kind of like those that find a racist behind every tree

Joe Scarborough Lashes Out At The Media, Defends Trump's Refusal To Say Whether He'd Accept Election Results


Scarborough: "It's Just Another Example Of The Media Having To Find A Little Phrase And Freak Out"

JOE SCARBOROUGH (CO-HOST): What was [Trump's] exact quote?

MIKA BRZEZINSKI (CO-HOST): He said I will leave you in suspense.

WILLIE GEIST (CO-HOST): He said I will look at it at the time and keep you in suspense.

HAROLD FORD JR.: So that means he is not willing to say I will accept the outcome.

SCARBOROUGH: No, what that means is he will look at it at the time. I love everybody saying -- I woke up to these screaming headlines saying, "Donald Trump will not respect election results." He actually said I will look at it at the time. I'll see.

FORD JR.: Has there ever been a presidential candidate to say that?

SCARBOROUGH: If there are voting irregularities, then any presidential candidate, anybody --

MIKE BARNICLE: What would you have said? What would your response be to that question?

SCARBOROUGH: I'd say yeah, I'll certainly respect the outcome of the election. I of course would want to make sure that's fair. I will want to make sure that it's fair, it's on the up and up.

BARNICLE: Well, he didn't say that.

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah but you know what? This is an example the media got something they can absolutely freak out about and claim that he is an agent of Vladimir Putin and destroying democracy in America. And it's just another example of the media having to find a little phrase and freak out. When as a Republican I have listened to Democrats talk about the only two times we won the White House in like 800 years that we stole both elections. I had to sit through Fahrenheit 911 and a lady was sobbing violently behind me on the Upper West Side about the election being stolen from George Bush and I patted her halfway through. I go, it's all right, it's all right, ma'am. It's all right. It's all a lie anyway. Democrats have been whining for 16 years, they are still writing articles about how Bush stole the elections in 2000 and 2004. So this holier than though attitude about, "this is the first time anyone has suggested that the election is not a sacrosanct process," it's a joke. So you guys bathe in that hypocrisy if you want to, I'd just like to hear how the debate went. Go ahead, bathe.

matt taibbi made an interesting comment about trump's refusal to say he'd honor the election results. taibbi said that it was the perfect thing to say on a reality show, to make sure everyone tuned in for the final episode. he added that trump apparently doesn't have the ability to recognize that in real life one might want to act differently.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

matt taibbi made an interesting comment about trump's refusal to say he'd honor the election results. taibbi said that it was the perfect thing to say on a reality show, to make sure everyone tuned in for the final episode. he added that trump apparently doesn't have the ability to recognize that in real life one might want to act differently.

And you think elections are "real life?"

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to Win?

Do you have another cuff? Because none of it is contradictory of anything I noted. It's also published after Lansdale's death.

Starting on pg 410, the narrative seems to support all I wrote (paraphrased, to be precise), especially the "dirty dog" incident at the Continental Hotel and the correspondence between the screenwriter and Lansdale.

The authors simply assert that Lansdale did not inspire the Pyle character and note as I did Greene's denial in his 1980 autobiography. But then they go on to show all of the similarities between Pyle and Lansdale, referencing the same sources I did (Nashel and Currey). They offer nothing definitive except to say "people will believe what they want to believe," seeming to do precisely that themselves.

You want to find it definitive and that's fine by me. But you started by calling it a "myth" where your own source demonstrates that it really is far less ethereal than that. And so it might be that to believe what you want to believe, you require a level of evidence somewhat less than the methods and practice of history and historiography demand before achieving that degree of certainty.

Jeez, man, read up, read up. Who are you kidding? Where did your conviction come from? Give us your complete autobiography. Blow us away in real time. Sing your best song and sing it long.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

You betcha!

[wayiwalk]

Re: Trump to Win?

I came across a commenter on another website that made a keen observation. Trump's reply to the question during the last debate, would you accept the results....should have been, "...and if I win the election, will the MEDIA accept the results?"



So true.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

The Woodsman strategery rolls on as detailed in this article. Although I would say the piece is slightly misnamed. It's not Wikileaks that poisoning the relationship. It's Hillary that's doing all the poisoning and the fissures in the party will only grow wider as she starts paying back the many IOUs she's taken out this season.

Fun and games ahead for both of these odious parties.

LAS VEGAS — Donald Trump is pointing to a stream of hacked emails as proof that Hillary Clinton would be a compromised president, but a surprising number of progressives are drawing similar conclusions — albeit for totally different reasons.

Some of the left’s most influential voices and groups are taking offense at the way they and their causes were discussed behind their backs by Clinton and some of her closest advisers in the emails, which swipe liberal heroes and causes as “puritanical,” “pompous”, “naive”, “radical” and “dumb,” calling some “freaks,” who need to “get a life.”

There are more than personal feelings and relationships at stake, though.

If polls hold and Clinton wins the presidency, she will need the support of the professional left to offset what’s expected to be vociferous Republican opposition to her legislative proposals and appointments.

But among progressive operatives, goodwill for Clinton — and confidence in key advisers featured in the emails including John Podesta, Neera Tanden and Jake Sullivan — is eroding as WikiLeaks continues to release a daily stream of thousands of emails hacked from Podesta’s Gmail account that is expected to continue until Election Day.

Liberal groups and activists are assembling opposition research-style dossiers of the most dismissive comments in the WikiLeaks emails about icons of their movement like Clinton’s Democratic primary rival Bernie Sanders, and their stances on trade, Wall Street reform, energy and climate change. And some liberal activists are vowing to use the email fodder to oppose Clinton policy proposals or appointments deemed insufficiently progressive...

WikiLeaks poisons Hillary’s relationship with left

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to Win?

you require a level of evidence somewhat less than the methods and practice of history and historiography demand before achieving that degree of certainty.

And THAT is the definition of irony.

That bit of unintentional humour really made my day. Cheers!

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

And THAT is the definition of irony.

That bit of unintentional humour really made my day. Cheers!

See, spreading joy wherever I go. And you spelled humor wrong, 007.

"Thursday October 13, 2016: The U.S. military launched cruise missile strikes on Thursday to knock out three coastal radar sites in areas of Yemen controlled by Iran-aligned Houthi forces, retaliating after failed missile attacks this week on a U.S. Navy destroyer, U.S. officials said.
U.S. military strikes Yemen after missile attacks on U.S. Navy ship


"Tuesday, October 16, 2016: The Pentagon declined to say on Monday whether the USS Mason destroyer was targeted by multiple inbound missiles fired from Yemen on Saturday, as initially thought, saying a review was under way to determine what happened."
Pentagon voices caution on latest Yemen missile incident

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to Win?

See, spreading joy wherever I go. And you spelled humor wrong, 007.

That's actually how we spell it in the "Queen's English" out here in the Commonwealth Alex Jones.

We are a global community are we not?

Since when did "taking the high road" include silly stabs at others' correct use of grammar?

Your evidential "bar" lowers and rises like the tide.