Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $29,554
Woo hoo!! And the first 33% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by GJones2

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Munich gunman fixated on mass killing, had no Islamist ties

    07/23/2016 9:37:20 PM PDT · 84 of 91
    GJones2 to Enchante

    > It certainly did not look like he shot 36 people in front of the McDonalds. Probably there was shooting inside as well as outside.

    He went across the street to the mall and parking garage.

    I’m not sure that no shooting took place inside McDonalds, but the usual expression in the news reports is that the shooting started “at” a McDonalds, not “in” a McDonalds. Also the McDonalds video starts with pedestrians walking up to him in front of the building. If there had already been shooting, you’d think some of them would have heard the shots or screams.

    (It’s odd that somebody is already making a video, but nothing seems to be happening for the first few seconds. If the camera person knows a shooting has already taken place, why doesn’t he yell out a warning to the pedestrians who are approaching the shooter? And run himself? When the shooting does start in front of McDonalds, the person making the video turns and runs within a second or so.)

    I’m continuing to check the news, but mostly I just get rehashed statements of what we’ve already heard. The authorities should know by now exactly where the people were shot. Maybe eventually we’ll hear about it.

  • Munich gunman fixated on mass killing, had no Islamist ties

    07/23/2016 9:33:28 PM PDT · 83 of 91
    GJones2 to Enchante

    > What possible motive could she have to make up such a story???

    To make herself seem important? (The part about having been right next to him fits with that.) And her son too (for allegedly having seen him in the bathroom before the shooting)? The “Allahu ackbar” part could be to discredit Islam (or just to make the event seem more important than an ordinary shooting).

    Someone else, with a Muslim name, claimed that he heard the shooter insult immigrants. I don’t believe him either because that claim doesn’t fit with the shooter’s ethnic background, or with his statements in the video on the parking garage roof. I suspect that “witness” was trying to take the blame off Muslims and shift it to anti-Muslims. People often lie about events like this for various reasons (initial accounts of the Jefferson shooting are an example).

  • Munich gunman fixated on mass killing, had no Islamist ties

    07/23/2016 8:35:14 PM PDT · 82 of 91
    GJones2 to Twinkie

    You make a response like that and have “JOHN 3:16” as your tag. :-)

    As I said, I’d like to believe the claim myself, but don’t want to be taken in by a story that seems implausible. (I criticize the other side for citing lies as evidence, and would rather not be guilty of the same thing.)

  • Munich gunman fixated on mass killing, had no Islamist ties

    07/23/2016 4:46:06 PM PDT · 77 of 91
    GJones2 to Enchante; headstamp 2; Mrs. Don-o; JesusIsLord; Nifster; Twinkie; SE Mom; Kid Shelleen
    > "It sounds totally credible and I see no reason to doubt the veracity of this witness."

    What's significant is that he was an Iranian-German who held dual citizenship, and that the shooting was not a rightwing reaction to immigration, as some persons had suggested. On the other hand, the claim that he shouted "Allahu akbar" is doubtful, to say the least.

    The claim stems from the telephone remarks of someone identified only as Lauretta. She was found soon after the initial attack when a reporter called businesses in the vicinity of McDonalds in hopes of finding a witness.

    I'd like to believe what she said because it serves the cause of anti-Islamization, but she makes several claims that bring her testimony into question. 1) That her son saw the shooter loading his pistol in the bathroom, and that she herself was only "two centimeters" away from him when he started shooting. That's possible, but unlikely.

    As for the loading, the shooting hadn't started yet. Why wouldn't he have brought his gun from home already loaded? And would he have started shooting with someone just "two centimeters" away, and possibly in a position to subdue him (or, at least, impede him enough to allow others to do so)? I doubt it.

    2) Most important -- she claims that he shot children inside McDonalds -- "the children were sitting to eat". As far as I know, no one was shot inside. A video shows him standing outside, in front of McDonalds, and firing at people who are approaching. If anyone has information that bodies were found inside, please post it. Until then I'm forced to assume that her story is a fabrication.

    Two CNN YouTube videos (each contains part of the story): How the supposed witness was found, "Allahu Akbar" claim.

  • A Right-Wing Attack??

    07/22/2016 8:52:35 PM PDT · 78 of 78
    GJones2 to GreyFriar

    > I Take all early reports with a skip loader of salt and caution.

    Yes, it’s wise to reserve judgment when hearing the early reports (though chances are, it’s just what you expected).

  • A Right-Wing Attack??

    07/22/2016 6:28:13 PM PDT · 74 of 78
    GJones2 to GJones2
    Several other German sources are reporting that the shooter was an Iranian-German (e.g., Die Welt, Zeit Online). "Es handle sich um einen 18-jährigen Deutsch-Iraner aus München, sagte Polizeipräsident Hubertus Andrä am frühen Samstagmorgen vor der Presse."
  • A Right-Wing Attack??

    07/22/2016 6:18:07 PM PDT · 73 of 78
    GJones2 to GreyFriar; Toliph
    > ...have German eyewitnesses stating that the shooter was shouting, in German “I’m a German. F**k foreigners!”

    I heard the video, and all he says is "Ich bin Deutscher" (I am German), no comment about foreigners. He himself may be of Iranian ancestry. A German news source says that the police (the "Polizeipräsident") have identified him as an 18-year-old Iranian-German from Munich ("18-jähriger Deutsch-Iraner aus München).

  • Vanity-Any bets on Cruz endorsing Trump?

    07/21/2016 4:03:35 PM PDT · 118 of 118
    GJones2 to nevergore

    > You’re giving Cruz way too much latitude......

    Actually I agree that my word “disappointed” was too weak. “Disgusted” better describes how I feel. I can understand why Cruz would retain an animosity toward Trump for some of the things he said about Cruz’s family, not to mention about himself. This is no time, though, to put hurt feelings over the welfare of the country. A patriot wouldn’t do that. In fact, an ordinary decent person wouldn’t do that. I’m disgusted with Cruz.

  • Vanity-Any bets on Cruz endorsing Trump?

    07/20/2016 7:46:22 PM PDT · 113 of 118
    GJones2 to nevergore

    I supported Cruz over Trump in the primaries (because of his opposition to the political establishment over the years), but am disappointed that he didn’t go further in supporting Trump. He made some points about the issues that will help Trump, but his non-specific comment (”Vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution) wasn’t good enough. He didn’t have to say “I endorse Donald Trump”, but should have said something similar to what Wisconsin’s governor Walker said — “Let me be clear: a vote for anyone other than Donald Trump in November is a vote for Hillary Clinton”.

    Gingrich has just referred to Cruz’s comment, and pointed out that some persons in the convention may have misinterpreted it, and that there’s no doubt that Trump should be trusted over Hillary to be faithful to the Constitution. I don’t know whether this follow-up by Gingrich was set up ahead of time to allow Cruz to avoid explicitly endorsing Trump (and thereby avoid antagonizing those among his supporters who oppose that), and still have Trump derive considerable benefit from it. In any case, I’m going to support Trump — not only because I support at least some of his positions — but because as Walker said, “a vote for anyone other than Donald Trump in November is a vote for Hillary Clinton”.

  • RNC official cites 'My Little Pony' to defend Melania Trump

    07/20/2016 4:48:49 PM PDT · 41 of 44
    GJones2 to wingtip; roadcat
    Allow me to update this thread with some new developments:

    "Writer Meredith McIver Apologizes for Copied Phrases in Melania Trump’s Speech" [WSJ]

    From the released statement: "In working with Melania Trump on her recent First Lady Speech, we discussed many people who inspired her and messages she wanted to share with the American people. A person she has always liked is Michelle Obama. [Wow! Few on this site would share that feeling.] Over the phone, she read me some passages from Mrs. Obama's speech as examples. I wrote them down and later included some of the phrasing in the draft that ultimately became the final speech. I did not check Mrs. Obama's speeches. This was my mistake..."

    That's worse than I'd thought. We learn that Trump's wife includes Michelle Obama among the persons who have "inspired" her, and that she has "always liked" her. (I was hoping that this time we'd have someone in the White House who isn't inspired by Michelle Obama.)

  • RNC official cites 'My Little Pony' to defend Melania Trump

    07/19/2016 7:41:44 PM PDT · 36 of 44
    GJones2 to roadcat

    I don’t know how close Michelle’s passage is to Alinsky’s, and neither does most of the American public. That’s not what the media are publicizing. The plagiarism in Melania’s speech is hurting, not helping.

  • RNC official cites 'My Little Pony' to defend Melania Trump

    07/19/2016 7:21:13 PM PDT · 33 of 44
    GJones2 to roadcat

    I’m both angry and discouraged that Melania or anyone on the Trump campaign staff would be so stupid as to plagiarize a passage from Michelle Obama — of all people! By the time I was twelve-years-old I had enough sense to know the difference between using a common expression (such as “your word is your bond”) and copying an entire passage, just changing a few words.

    “There’s no cribbing of Michelle Obama’s speech. These were common words and values...,” Manafort said. “To think that she’d be cribbing Michelle Obama’s words is crazy.”

    Yeah, sure. I’m dumbfounded that they’d copy from her speech too, but it obviously happened.

    Not that copying a few lines in the speech of the nominee’s wife has much importance compared with the important issues that face us — and, of course, the Democrats have plagiarized in the past too, most notably, Biden — but it’s of vital importance that Hillary Clinton be defeated in November. That the Trump campaign would give the opposition an opportunity for criticism in what should have been a risk-free speech doesn’t inspire confidence. How are we going to win an election when we have people involved in the campaign who are so stupid that they’d copy a passage from Michelle Obama (and others who transparently lie about it)?

    The only consolation I have is that the Democrats do foolish things too. They have the media to cover for them, though.

  • Is Hillary off the hook?

    07/16/2016 7:41:27 PM PDT · 15 of 27
    GJones2 to ruthles
    > "That was contradicted by the Director of the FBI yesterday when he claimed that a 'very small number' of her emails were in fact classified at the time. The New York Times then determined that that number was just two. And now the State Department has confirmed that the two emails in question weren’t actually classified at the time, and had merely been marked incorrectly during the course of the investigation. In yet another development which helps make clear that Clinton did nothing demonstrably wrong with her email, the two emails sent to her by her aides in 2012 were harmless in nature. "

    Nonsense! That's a distortion of what happened. FBI director Comey stated publicly -- at the end of a long investigation -- that "From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received." 110! [Transcript of his statement]

    The New York Times has not reduced that total to zero -- F.B.I. Findings Damage Many of Hillary Clinton’s Claims

    Even if two were mistakenly labeled classified, that still leaves over a hundred that were correctly labeled classified. Clinton did do something "demonstrably wrong" with her email.

  • Online English Vocabulary Size Test

    07/15/2016 6:00:52 PM PDT · 137 of 139
    GJones2 to LambSlave


  • Online English Vocabulary Size Test

    07/14/2016 7:51:31 PM PDT · 126 of 139
    GJones2 to kosciusko51; rdcbn; Yaelle

    > The test they used on DU is completely different. The “test” gives you two pages of words and ask you to check the one you know. So, as usual, they can make outrageous claims without the need to prove them.

    That test does include more difficult words, and it’s possible to receive a higher score (higher vocabulary estimate). As you point out, though, you yourself check the words you know, so if you think you know some but are mistaken (and don’t verify the meaning in a dictionary), your score will be deceptively high.

    I missed “avulse”, and got 30325 on the test in this thread. On the one in the other thread, I left these words unchecked — epigone, embonpoint, cantle, oneiromancy, williwaw, funambulist, hypnopompic, opsimath, sparge — and got 41900.

  • Online English Vocabulary Size Test

    07/14/2016 7:38:25 PM PDT · 122 of 139
    GJones2 to libertylover



  • Online English Vocabulary Size Test

    07/14/2016 6:39:11 PM PDT · 105 of 139
    GJones2 to Jed Eckert

    My first result was “Your English Vocabulary Size is: 30325 Top 0.01% You are Shakespeare!”. Apparently Shakespeare wasn’t familiar with “avulse”, though, because I looked that one up afterward, and realized that I’d answered wrong.

    Just to see how the score would change, I took it again and gave the right answer for “avulse”. “Top 0.01%” was the same, but this time the vocabulary size was 30500. That may be the highest score they give. Though they ask many questions, I don’t believe there are enough hard ones to measure the top few percent well (and certainly not the top hundredths of one percent).

  • Rick Perry on Trump's border wall: Never going to happen

    07/11/2016 6:31:10 PM PDT · 48 of 82
    GJones2 to okie01
    I'm rather sympathetic to the idea of a wall, but think this line of Perry's points out something worth noting. "If you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good." I imagine there are ways of getting over walls, if there are no guards nearby --- and even if there's high voltage on them, ways of breaking or insulating oneself from the current.

    Maybe it would be more effective just to hire more border patrol agents, and improve the electronic surveillance. If Trump builds an "electronic wall" -- and it's effective -- he can count that as having delivered on his promise.

    Perhaps more important than the wall itself, though, is to stop the acceptance of illegal aliens once they get inside. If they know they'll be sent back, they'll quit coming. (Except for terrorists, of course, who have no intentions of staying -- the ones backed by sophisticated organizations will still be able to come in by plane or boat, as with illegal drugs. With borders as long as ours, there's no practical way to wall ourselves off from everything. We can, though, stop the mass influx of illegal aliens.)

  • Why is the media ignoring the fact there were OTHER killers beside racist Micah X Johnson?!

    07/09/2016 6:50:23 PM PDT · 64 of 72
    GJones2 to The Continental Op

    The ;-) meant that I wasn’t serious. As someone pointed out earlier, a large number of police were involved, and if there were good evidence that more than one shooter was involved, I believe that evidence would come out. The police wouldn’t stand for that information being suppressed. They’d want vengeance on everyone involved.

  • Why is the media ignoring the fact there were OTHER killers beside racist Micah X Johnson?!

    07/09/2016 6:25:30 PM PDT · 58 of 72
    GJones2 to Vesparado

    > The narrative certainly doesn’t add up. It was initially reported multiple shooters from “elevated” positions.

    Probably from a grassy knoll. ;-)

  • Dallas attack: The 'Pigs in a Blanket' crowd got what they wanted

    07/08/2016 7:42:51 PM PDT · 25 of 28
    GJones2 to dfwgator

    I agree that slavery was a repulsive institution. Jefferson, a slaveholder himself, agreed as well, and denounced it eloquently. He foresaw the problems that trying to integrate two diverse populations into one free country would bring, though, and favored repatriation to Africa.

    Lincoln too favored repatriation for much of his life, and even after emancipation reassured Northerners that if the freed blacks started swarming north, they could simply be refused entry (though there’s nothing in the Constitution about that, and it didn’t turn out that way).

    A little diversity usually helps a country, but having large subgroups tends to cause problems. After centuries of living together, though, American whites and blacks should be able to get along within the borders of the same country, and even within the same neighborhoods — and most of the time we do. (Our cultures have long been intermixed. As a child in the 1950s, I played with the children who lived in the black neighborhood across the back road, listened to black singers and musicians on the radio, and with the integration of major sports, rooted for black athletes.)

    A peaceful association isn’t easy to preserve, though, when you have a race industry working full time inciting hatred against whites — and a government and mainstream media that act as accomplices. (BlackLivesMatter was founded on lies -— publicly exposed lies — about what happened in the Ferguson shooting, yet most of the American people still don’t know it.)

  • Dallas attack: The 'Pigs in a Blanket' crowd got what they wanted

    07/08/2016 6:45:41 PM PDT · 21 of 28
    GJones2 to dfwgator

    > Well. Had it not been for slavery, would these folks have been here?

    Had people in Africa not captured them and people from New England brought them here, they wouldn’t be here either.

  • Dallas attack: The 'Pigs in a Blanket' crowd got what they wanted

    07/08/2016 6:22:51 PM PDT · 14 of 28
    GJones2 to dfwgator; jsanders2001

    > Times like these really make me mad at the slave-holders. They got to reap the economic benefits, while the future generations got stuck with the bill.

    Let’s take down some more Confederate flags. That’ll solve the problem. ;-)

    Why not blame the Northern ship owners who brought the slaves over? Or the Africans who captured them?

    Slavery ended in this country a century and a half ago. Though oppressed for a long time afterward, American descendants of slaves are better off now — both economically and in terms of freedom — than most persons in Africa who aren’t descendants of slaves. When looking for someone to blame for current problems, I suggest you look more closely to our own time.

  • Baghdad attacks kill 126, including 25 children; ISIS claims responsibility

    07/03/2016 6:52:11 PM PDT · 24 of 24
    GJones2 to heterosupremacist

    > I would like to see a different scenario; total extermination of molsems. Am I being insensitive? So be it...

    When no one objects to a remark like that, it makes this forum look bad. Rather than help, it serves to discredit the opposition to Islam. See these posts.

  • Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It

    06/27/2016 5:09:57 PM PDT · 82 of 141
    GJones2 to SaxxonWoods

    > The Constitution can and has been amended many times. It speaks to today just fine and will continue to do so.

    Yes, by being relatively short and speaking mostly in general terms, it allowed for most specifics to be defined by legislation, and modified to adapt to changes in conditions (within the intent of the original Constitutional provisions). For major changes it provided for amendments to the Constitution itself.

    What the Founders didn’t foresee, though, was that unethical judges would brazenly lie about the meaning of the Constitution, or have the temerity — as this jerk has — to explicitly reject what he swore to uphold. We no longer live in a constitutional republic (because traitors have betrayed it. They now make up the establishment itself at nearly all levels of government, and are the dominant force in public and private institutions.)

  • Cousin Marriages Major Cause of High Infertility in GCC: Report

    06/25/2016 7:11:20 PM PDT · 42 of 43
    GJones2 to Yollopoliuhqui

    I agree with your general point in the other thread about the harmful effects of the Muslim custom of first-cousin marriage (as opposed to isolated first-cousin marriages). I’d like to call your attention, though, to what I said in posts
    and about the Judeo-Christian attitude towards first-cousin marriage. I wouldn’t want inaccuracies about that to detract from the more important point about the custom itself.

  • Cousin Marriages Major Cause of High Infertility in GCC: Report

    06/25/2016 7:02:56 PM PDT · 41 of 43
    GJones2 to elcid1970

    > Inbreeding is only part of what makes the Muslim Problem what it is.

    I agree.

  • Cousin Marriages Major Cause of High Infertility in GCC: Report

    06/25/2016 6:39:34 PM PDT · 39 of 43
    GJones2 to elcid1970
    > Look up the Spanish Habsburgs & King Charles the Bewitched. Inbreeding had consequences among the European aristocracy.

    Yes, I cited first-cousin marriage among the European aristocracy in response to the inaccurate claim that first-cousin marriage had been prohibited in the Judeo-Christian tradition since the days of Moses. Neither the Old nor New Testament prohibits it, and the early Catholic Church didn't either, though it did for hundreds of year later (with dispensations to get around the ban, though). The main Protestant churches have never banned it.

    I wouldn't want that point, though, and the fact that there's no evidence that occasional first-cousin marriages pose a significant risk -- to overshadow the more important point that the custom of marrying first cousins over generations does pose a significant risk. Note this information from Wikipedia: "...a Pakistani immigrant population making up 1.5% of the British population, of whom about 55% marry a first cousin." "The BBC also states that Pakistani-Britons, who account for some 3% of all births in the UK, produce 'just under a third' of all British children with genetic illnesses." [Wikipedia]

    And "Although isolated cousin marriages may pose little risk, repeated consanginous marriages within a group are more problematic. After repeated generations of cousin marriage the actual genetic relationship between two people is closer than the most immediate relationship would suggest." [Wikipedia]

    That does present a serious problem, and is a liability that needs to be calculated -- along with the other liabilities -- when considering the effects of large-scale Muslim immigration.

  • Cousin Marriages Major Cause of High Infertility in GCC: Report

    06/24/2016 7:35:53 PM PDT · 37 of 43
    GJones2 to Himyar

    Yes, one generation of first cousins is probably not much of a problem.

  • Cousin Marriages Major Cause of High Infertility in GCC: Report

    06/24/2016 5:58:10 PM PDT · 35 of 43
    GJones2 to Blood of Tyrants
    > 1400 years of inbreeding

    > "This practice [first-cousin marriage], which has been prohibited in the Judeo-Christian tradition since the days of Moses..." [quotation from the link]

    I didn't recall myself, but had my doubts about it because marriage between first cousins was commonplace among the European aristocracy. Here's a link that specifies exact relationships along with Biblical passages, and concludes that the prohibition of marriage between blood relatives didn't include first cousins.

    [Of course, if Adam and Eve were accepted as the ancestors of all of us, all of us would be blood relations -- natural selection too posits common ancestors -- but it would be a matter of where to draw the line in closeness of relationship.]

    Though many other relationships were specifically forbidden in the Bible, that of first cousins was not. (Yet that would probably be one often brought into question in small-population ancient societies, so the silence on that probably indicates that it was accepted or, at least, tolerated.) "Conclusion:Scripture does not prohibit marriage between first-cousins."

  • Cousin Marriages Major Cause of High Infertility in GCC: Report

    06/24/2016 5:27:58 PM PDT · 33 of 43
    GJones2 to afraidfortherepublic

    > I question this study. Cousin marriages were quite common in the US in the 1800s, and before and are still legal in many states. There was no infertility noted as a result.

    I think they may be exaggerating the effects too. In Europe first-cousin marriages were fairly common back then too, among the upper classes. In the U.S. I’m aware of two first-cousin couples from the first half of the last century, and neither had problems with fertility or with the physical or mental state of the children. Of course, they came from large populations, though, so they probably didn’t have additional genes in common.

    > I suppose if it continued generation after generation, there could be a problem...

    Yes, in small populations in which the general population has shared genes for generations, first-cousin marriages would probably represent a considerably closer relationship than that of the individuals themselves.

  • CPD notifed Sinead O’Connor threatening to jump from bridge

    06/23/2016 7:24:54 PM PDT · 56 of 91
    GJones2 to Zirondelle

    > Did Dennis Day really show contempt for audience? Seemed like such a nice boy!

    I wondered about that too. I see nothing about it in his Wikipedia article. Maybe part of the joke is that he would be an unlikely person to do that.

  • There Is No Choice But to Support Trump to Beat Hillary

    06/23/2016 12:18:04 AM PDT · 57 of 61
    GJones2 to M. Thatcher

    That kind of response is the reason I added “probably more” to my remark.

  • There Is No Choice But to Support Trump to Beat Hillary

    06/22/2016 11:56:45 PM PDT · 55 of 61
    GJones2 to GJones2

    supports — support

  • There Is No Choice But to Support Trump to Beat Hillary

    06/22/2016 11:51:05 PM PDT · 54 of 61
    GJones2 to M. Thatcher

    Trump. He needs all the support he can get.

    Saying my supports matters as much as yours (probably more) isn’t much of a brag. I’m a nobody in terms of national or international reputation, but can vote — at least once — and write lucidly, I hope, in support of whichever candidate I favor.

  • There Is No Choice But to Support Trump to Beat Hillary

    06/22/2016 11:18:53 PM PDT · 52 of 61
    GJones2 to Kickass Conservative

    > Completely disagree. I’m a former Cruzer...I saw more of the Never Trump contingent here rearing its head long before the Trump supporters got upset with Cruz.

    I didn’t compare their relative likelihood not to support the nominee, just drew my conclusions about Trump supporters from some of the comments I saw here. Let’s hope nearly all the Cruz supporters end up voting for Trump, else we’re in trouble.

  • There Is No Choice But to Support Trump to Beat Hillary

    06/22/2016 10:53:23 PM PDT · 49 of 61
    GJones2 to Williams


    > I do not consider it a valid reason for anyone to vote yea or nay.

    I don’t either (but some persons may).

  • There Is No Choice But to Support Trump to Beat Hillary

    06/22/2016 10:37:51 PM PDT · 46 of 61
    GJones2 to Williams

    How about reading my posts again, and seeing if your response makes sense?

    > I couldn’t care less if someone stays home in the presidential election because I criticize Mark Levin.

    Why not? That person’s vote is worth as much as yours.

    > I don’t recall turning control of my opinions over to anyone.

    I’m recommending a strategy — and giving reasons for it — not dictating it.

  • There Is No Choice But to Support Trump to Beat Hillary

    06/22/2016 10:32:14 PM PDT · 45 of 61
    GJones2 to Let's Roll

    > ...but Trump may actually do some of the things he says he will.

    Yes. I’m not sure he will, but I know he’ll do better than the alternative.

  • There Is No Choice But to Support Trump to Beat Hillary

    06/22/2016 10:30:23 PM PDT · 43 of 61
    GJones2 to M. Thatcher

    > I am so tired of you little rebels acting as if your support or non-support matters...

    I’m not little, and my support matters as much as yours (probably more).

  • There Is No Choice But to Support Trump to Beat Hillary

    06/22/2016 10:26:13 PM PDT · 42 of 61
    GJones2 to vette6387
    I agree with much of what you said in that post. I'm not a country-club conservative (closer to a radical now than a conservative). I think this nation is going seriously astray, and that the establishment is both misguided and corrupt. We can probably agree about that. I just think that letting off steam, as opposed to building unity to help Trump defeat Hillary, is not a good idea.

    I realize that this is an in-group forum where people like to let off steam. Still, it's read by -- or indirectly influences -- millions of persons. It's important that Cruz supporters, even Bush supporters and Kasich supporters, show up on election day and vote against Hillary -- that is, for Trump (the only viable alternative). We all know that persons in the opposition disagree about many things. A little restraint in the insults until after the election, though -- not a total cessation of criticism, of course -- may serve to bring about a better result.

    Taking Rush as an example, that's exactly what he does. It doesn't guarantee victory, but it's better than tearing ourselves apart, and allowing Hillary to march on to victory against a weakened opposition.

  • There Is No Choice But to Support Trump to Beat Hillary

    06/22/2016 10:15:48 PM PDT · 39 of 61
    GJones2 to Williams

    > And your vote will be decided based on comments from Trump supporters here?

    I said, “I’m trying not to let that happen with me” (and expect to succeed — if annoyed enough, I’ll just quite reading them). I myself said that doing so would be unwise.

    You’re free to say what you wish, of course. Just as many Trump supporters wouldn’t have supported candidates who attacked Trump, though, insulting persons such as Rush and Levin is likely to push some of their more hotheaded admirers over the edge into not voting for Trump (though I doubt that a significant number would vote for Hillary).

    Hillary is a relatively weak candidate. The main obstacle to her defeat is that many who dislike her may stay home and not vote because they dislike Trump — and his supporters — too. (If the same percentage of Republicans had voted for Romney as had voted for McCain in the previous election, Obama wouldn’t have been re-elected.)

  • There Is No Choice But to Support Trump to Beat Hillary

    06/22/2016 10:10:29 PM PDT · 38 of 61
    GJones2 to Electric Graffiti

    > Rush and the fake one Levin

    Both argued much more effectively against Obama than anything I’ve seen from you so far. Phrases such as “marxist muslim coup” are good for letting off steam, but they don’t weaken Obama as much as the kind of opposition that Rush and Levin provided (for the persons who listened to them — unfortunately the low-information voters never heard them).

    Rush isn’t a NeverTrumper. I haven’t listened to Levin in the last week or so, but I’d be surprised if he turns out to be. Anyone who has heard his positions on the issues knows that they are closer to those of Trump than to those of Hillary. I don’t doubt that he’ll criticize Hillary more than he does Trump between now and the election, and be surprised if he doesn’t explicitly recommend voting for Trump.

  • There Is No Choice But to Support Trump to Beat Hillary

    06/22/2016 8:58:01 PM PDT · 34 of 61
    GJones2 to vette6387

    > For me, Rush is still a disgrace (and so is that worthless turd Levin).

    The more obnoxious remarks I see from Trump supporters the harder it is for me to support him. I have no doubt that if Trump hadn’t won the primaries, many of his supporters would have refused to support the Republican nominee (many said so on this forum).

    Letting personal antipathies affect your vote, though — and take precedence over the good of the country — isn’t wise. I’m trying not to let that happen with me. The more obnoxious remarks I read from Trump supporters, though, the more difficult that is. That kind of stuff doesn’t help him. Why not save your hatred of actual and potential Trump supporters for after the election?

    [Actually, you’ll probably need it for Hillary, the next President, if many of the persons you’ve been insulting don’t decide to oppose her.]

  • There Is No Choice But to Support Trump to Beat Hillary

    06/22/2016 8:36:54 PM PDT · 33 of 61
    GJones2 to HarleyLady27

    > Limeball is losing his crowd, he can’t have that...he picked the wrong candidate for this time... We, the American Voters are smarter than the talk show hosts

    Smart people understand the importance of unity in defeating Hillary Clinton and don’t continue to insult persons (and their supporters) when they join in that effort. The idea that Limbaugh would only support Trump to avoid losing his listeners is absurd. There was never any doubt that he’d support whichever Republican candidate won in the primaries. Why? Because Hillary is worse (the same reason he supported McCain and Romney, both of whom he’d criticized, over Obama).

    American voters are not so smart (after all they elected Obama twice, and have filled up the Senate and House with corrupt and incompetent clowns). Most of them know very little about politics or anything else, and allow their emotions to sway them in irrational ways. (The only reason representative governments tend to do better for people as a whole — in the long run — than dictatorships by elites is that elites can’t be trusted to look out for the interest of the people. Still, there’s a limit to how foolish the people can be. No system of government is fool-proof.)

  • First openly gay Miss Missouri crowned

    06/22/2016 7:21:08 PM PDT · 74 of 121
    GJones2 to little jeremiah

    > “one eye very different from the other”

    If one eye is different from the other, then wouldn’t the second eye be different from the other too? :-)

    I don’t find her to be especially attractive, but can’t be sure based on a couple of photos. I’m reserving judgment until I see the porn videos.

  • Conservationist dies after rattlesnake bite at nature preserve

    06/13/2016 8:03:03 PM PDT · 20 of 53
    GJones2 to yarddog

    > Probably age and poor health contributed to his death. I pretty much stay out of the woods during the Summer months here in NW Florida.

    What makes this especially unexpected isn’t just that only about half a dozen persons are killed nationally yearly. It’s that a grown man bitten by a rattlesnake on the lower leg died within fifteen minutes (and apparently collapsed earlier). The bite caused stress, and perhaps the venom contributed to the death, but almost certainly something else was the primary cause.

    I’m in South Carolina and often take walks in the woods in the summer. I’m careful where I step, of course, but sometimes it’s hard to avoid stepping near underbrush in which a poisonous snake could be lying. I consider the risk low, though.

    Maybe where you are there are more rattlesnakes, but in decades I’ve only encountered two. One rattled before I saw it, then slithered away. The other was crossing a trail. I kept my distance, but managed to get it to stop and coil, so that I could get a better look. Then I let it go on its way. I wouldn’t want one near my house, but out in the woods I don’t think they pose much of a risk.

  • The Opening Ceremony of the World’s Largest Tunnel Was a Bizarre Occult Ritual

    06/07/2016 5:28:00 PM PDT · 32 of 46
    GJones2 to GJones2

    > ...killing them or — even worse, killing innocent persons — wouldn’t be necessary.

    Should be: ...killing them — or, even worse, killing innocent persons — wouldn’t be necessary.

  • The Opening Ceremony of the World’s Largest Tunnel Was a Bizarre Occult Ritual

    06/07/2016 5:16:30 PM PDT · 28 of 46
    GJones2 to Robe

    > I predict a great tragedy will occur in this tunnel with great loss of life. Do not mock GOD

    Wouldn’t it be more efficient for God to kill the persons directly responsible for the mocking — say, with a lightning bolt during the ceremony itself — rather than rely on a tunnel collapse or massive car pileup later? Later losses of life would mostly kill persons who had no connection with the ceremony.

    Actually, if a supernatural hand would just reach down from the heavens and slap people around a little during the ceremony itself, killing them or — even worse, killing innocent persons — wouldn’t be necessary.

    Face it. As it says in the New Testament, “...he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” On earth there’s no supernatural power apportioning blessings to the good — who, in fact, sometimes suffer horrifically — or cursing persons who are evil, some of whom prosper. (Or, if it does happen, it’s only sporadically, with little semblance of justice.)

  • A 1500-Year-Old Underground Byzantine Church Is Found in Turkey

    05/11/2016 5:58:30 PM PDT · 25 of 25
    GJones2 to GJones2

    The accent on the “i” of “Gaudi” is not displaying properly in my browser — “Cappadocia hermitages of early Byzantine monks remind me of Gaudi [with accent] church”.