Posts by nathanbedford

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Math Myth: And Other STEM Delusions

    06/30/2016 7:09:45 PM PDT · 33 of 38
    nathanbedford to Mr Rogers
    A totalitarian society is indifferent to the opportunities for individual fulfillment but rather seeks to maximize collective performance.

    If North Korea needs nuclear scientists and rocket scientists to pursue its aggressive international ambitions, it might well conclude that the best way to identify and nurture math capable students is to force all students to pursue mathematics. A free society society, in contrast, might well conclude that the liberty of the individual to refrain from exposure to higher mathematics is a higher value.

    Assuming (a great unproven assumption) that requiring students to advance relatively high in the mathematics discipline actually produces more "useful" engineers and scientists or even actually produces more mathematicians with advanced skills, are we as a liberal (true use of the word) society at risk either militarily or economically if we fail to do the same as our potential military or economic rivals are doing? We ought not to forget that the original justification for taxing the whole of society to benefit somebody else's children with an education was the belief that educated children grow up to be productive adults who more than compensate society for the cost of their education. Is it "illiberal" to compel the students to endure the rigors of mathematics in order to identify the potential Einsteins in a given generation when when it is society who bears the cost of their education?

    If we review the results of our existing educational establishment, leaving aside the atrocious failure rate and concentrating only on our need as a modern society in an increasingly technological world to produce technologically savvy graduates, are we going to be able to wage war in cyberspace, or outer space, or under the seas with our future crop of graduates? Are we now compensating for domestic failures to produce these kinds of people by importing foreign educated individuals? Has America not always done so to some degree?

    America, following the model of great Britain, undertakes to provide a "liberal" education in an effort to produce a Renaissance Man in an increasingly technological world. I have three sons currently in college, two in Europe in one in America so I observe college-level education in Europe and conclude that the objective here is to produce a competent technician. Our American graduate level education is increasingly funded by the federal government or at least subsidized to a great degree by federal and state taxpayers. To a great degree, great universities are in the business of selling high level research to the federal government but a lot of money also goes to producing women's studies majors or graduates who are well-equipped to write eloquently about Emily Dickinson. The decision about the allocation of money is not debated in the general public but it is ad hoc and, in my judgment, too often left to the universities themselves. If the matter is determined in Congress, we have the people's representatives making these decisions but in the real world we know that politicians are motivated by self-interest as much as by the public need. Academicians are certainly no better.

    The Libertarian might argue that the curriculum should be left to the individual who will choose his academic and therefore his likely career path free of interference from both the education establishment and the political class. In the end, the market will cause those choices to be in line with need and opportunity or, better put, supply and demand. We are only distorting the process with our subsidies in student loans.

    The conservative might well argue that while it certainly matters that we are in an increasingly technological age, the overriding point is that we must have citizens and leaders of virtue and our education establishment has abandoned the 18th and 19th century notion that the point of education is to produce virtuous citizens. As the technological world turns over at an increasing rate, it is hopeless to train a student today in the technical skills he will need in 20 years. Rather, he should be exposed to internal verities, to classical renderings concerning ultimate values, to Christian and Jewish tradition because when the crunch comes it is not a mathematical formula but character which will save us. It will save us, for example, from becoming North Korea.

    The academic tells us that you cannot have one without the other, that we must simply endure the waste and cost and silliness of our modern college-level education because a college with a laboratory only is not a college, the place needs the influence of Renaissance Man to become something more than the technical school.

    Common sense tells me that we can do better.

  • Bill Clinton Up to No Good Visiting Attorney General Loretta Lynch

    06/30/2016 9:41:43 AM PDT · 49 of 85
    nathanbedford to jazusamo
    The best face which can be put upon this encounter is that stands as a gross breach of the indispensable need to maintain the appearance as well as the substance of in the impartial administration of justice. The second highest law enforcement officer in the land is conferring in private with a former highest law enforcement officer of the land who is himself perhaps a conspirator in a case potentially involving treason, bribery, breach of obligation to maintain records, and many other felonies which has profound implications for the upcoming election as well as for the rule of law.

    The Attorney General must enjoy the confidence of the nation as she stands ready to pass on moving an indictment against Clinton and his wife in which it is not at all improbable that they are named as conspirators to betray and sell Hillary Clinton's office. At worst, it is not a matter of appearance but a matter of actual corruption in which the Atty. Gen. was arranging a pardon for Hillary Clinton or, even worse, negotiating a quid pro quo, a deal in which Hillary and Bill keep silent about misfeasance by Barack Obama including but not necessarily limited to the illegal e-mail server.

    We simply cannot know but we are entitled to know.

    Where are the renewed cries from the Republicans demanding the appointment of a special prosecutor? The Atty. Gen. by her egregious lapse of judgment has forfeited her claim on the confidence of the nation. If the nation cannot believe that the rule of law is pursued objectively, how can the people the asked to respect the results of this election, assuming a victory by Hillary?

    So it is not only a question of maintaining the appearance of propriety and the maintenance of the rule of law, it is a question of respect for the electoral process which the Atty. Gen. by her recklessness has put at risk. She has forfeited her claim to office. She must go, at minimum she must recuse herself in the Clinton investigation.

    The people are entitled to know that justice is being done and they are entitled to have confidence that their "president is not a crook."

    Cromwell's dismissal of the Rump Parliament comes to mind:

    "It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

    "Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"

  • Not so sunny: Miami tops list of the 50 ‘worst cities to live in’: report

    06/29/2016 7:59:56 AM PDT · 15 of 25
    nathanbedford to C19fan
    How do you say, "diversity is our strength" in Spanish?

  • Alan Dershowitz: ‘Problem’ To Be A Democrat And Care About American Exceptionalism, Israel

    06/28/2016 3:09:37 PM PDT · 12 of 17
    nathanbedford to pleasenotcalifornia
    Our attitude toward defending Israel should not depend entirely on which candidate we support but rather on a sober analysis of America's national interests. Israel is only one of a string of nations around the world who might draw us into war, even thermonuclear war. Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Singapore, India, are all threatened by China (and/or North Korea) and all could prove that it is they rather than we who determine whether or not the United States goes to war. Do we really want our declarations of war to be made in Tokyo, Manila, or Seoul?

    Equally risky at this time and for the same reasons are our commitments in Eastern Europe. Are we really ready, much less able, to defend Estonia? What are our commitments to Ukraine? What does Russia understand our commitment to be? Finally, does this administration know what its commitment is?

    It is one thing to consider America's vital national interests are tied up with Great Britain and northern European nations like Germany and quite another to permit nations like the Philippines or Vietnam to commit us to war. One thinks of the unraveling of diplomacy in 1914 leading each country in turn into a conflict which was to destroy the world order forever.

    It seems we're facing three enemies at least (ignore Cuba for the moment): Russia, China, Islam. The mere fact that we are facing three enemies, two with nuclear weapons and one with 1.6 billion adherents, means that we are vulnerable to the facing two of these enemies at once and that in turn implies that our resources are inadequate so we must have allies. But it does not do to have allies who are more liability than asset. One is reminded of Napoleons reply when asked what sort of enemy he would like to fight, "allies." Clearly Trump is onto something when he signals that the age of America paying any price, bearing any burden, meeting any hardship, supporting any friend, opposing any foe alone is drawing to a close simply because we are broke. Our allies rank as the third, fourth and fifth economies of the world yet they have somehow maneuvered us into bearing the burden almost exclusively.

    In this atmosphere we have to decide whether we have allies or something closer to the Austro-Hungarian Empire proving a liability to Wilhelmina Germany. It was not for nothing that Ludendorff noted, "we are shackled to a corpse." What I'm trying to say is that we need our allies but they also need us and, like trade deals, the age of rolling over to every demand has passed.

    The war on terror is a different matter altogether because this enemy can either be appeased, intimidated, or reasoned with. The truth is we simply do not know how successfully to wage war against jihad. It seems to me the first step, even before we decide who can be an ally and how they can contribute, is to consolidate an agreement on proper policy domestically. The argument over failure to call militant Islam by its name is really about motivating the country to wage war against militant Islam. We are not psychologically ready to do so and that must be changed. It cannot be changed so long as our president, whether Obama or Hillary, is ambivalent about waging and winning such a war. This administration is utterly cynical, it knows that if it identifies any portion of Islam as an enemy it's stratagem to "transform" America with immigration simply will not be tolerated.

    Our mistreatment of Israel is not a one-off problem rather it is simply symptomatic of an incoherent, perhaps traitorous foreign policy rooted in the belief that America is not worthy of preserving. Trump is right, we must make America great again, and then we can attract allies, cause them to fairly contribute to mutual security, and intimidate enemies. The starting point is at home.

  • No, The Polls Aren’t Biased. Clinton Really Is Leading Trump

    06/28/2016 12:36:13 PM PDT · 180 of 182
    nathanbedford to Luircin
    Let the reader judge the exchange as it appears in this thread. Better yet, let the reader review your posts and determine how many must be read through to find one affirmative, edifying post; one most read a long way to find anything except vigilantism, triumphalism, and a very petty mind.

  • No, The Polls Aren’t Biased. Clinton Really Is Leading Trump

    06/28/2016 9:25:12 AM PDT · 178 of 182
    nathanbedford to Luircin
    In your first attack against me, contained in your post #164, you say: YOU again?!

    More sore loser bloviating too?

    Having read your post attacking me I concluded you have two objections:

    1. You object to my mere presence.

    2. You object because you believe I am "bloviating" which I take to mean empty verbosity. Let's consider whether my post is empty.

    Unwilling to accommodate your first objection, I sought to answer your second criticism in my reply #172 in which I referred you to an article which happily had just appeared as the subject of a companion thread talking about data mining. As I indicated in my original post, I have been on this subject of the new electoral technology of data mining for some time and I have been warning about the perils of ignoring this new campaigning technique several times, citing the MIT Technology Review article which describes and purports to explain Romney's defeat. The criticism I level against those who do not data mine and couple it with the latest techniques, was explicitly aimed, not at Donald Trump as you seem unreasonably to infer, but clearly against Romney and the Republican Party.

    Contrary to my clear statements, you allege that my "comments are all variations on the theme of "Trump sucks…" Clearly that was not the case and your criticism is well off the mark. For the record, I never said "I am awesome" nor did I say "you're all stupid." Am I supposed to defend myself against things that I did not say but have been falsely accused of? Here is what I did say in praise of Donald Trump:

    We are depending on Trump's charisma, the power of his personality, and his unique ability to crystallize an issue and make it understandable and unforgettable to the mass of the voting public.

    You suggest that I could have better exhorted all of us to stop dismissing the polls as false and work harder etc. to have done so would be to merely state the obvious and really to be guilty of condescension. I do not waste words or engaged in "bloviating" to waste time stating the obvious. Rather than engage in self deceived cheerleading which diverts us from working harder, I adduced reasons why we are in the place we are in as conservatives who want Trump to be elected:

    1. The landscape of the electoral college. By this I mean that there are a few battleground states and Trump must run the table of these states or lose the election. It is possible that he can change the landscape of the electoral college in the rust belt etc. and I alluded to that describing the man's charismatic ability to frame issues. That has been one of the arguments in favor of his nomination all along. We shall see. It is a development devoutly to be wished for because it could change the slow and fatal constriction of the Republican Party and the conservative movement to an ever diminishing number of winnable states.

    2. The undeniable fact, indeed the admitted fact, that the Trump campaign has very little money.

    3. The media is against us.

    4. That we have seen these polls (described by me as a "movie") several times before with a bad result. (This is in accord with what you say you want).

    5. The undeniable fact, indeed the admitted fact, that Trump has not staffed up adequately for a national election.

    6. The campaign is running out of time.

    7. The undeniable fact, indeed the admitted fact, that the Trump organization is simply not set up for data mining and is unequipped with the technology. By the Way, Trump himself has admitted that he is personally unacquainted with the new developments.

    8. The Republican National Committee claims that it is up to speed on the new technology but both the National Committee and Mitt Romney have grievously disappointed us in the past.

    9. That data mining (as alleged by those who developed it and successfully applied it for Obama) can win any election that is within two or three points.

    I don't post replies for the sake of reading what I dictate, I try to offer value added. I have listed 9 facts (and several more reasons) which make it clear that the words were not "empty." Indeed in a previous post I pointed out that a new thread popped up on the very subject of data mining, thus confirming its relevance.

    Do you want an amen chorus or do you want value-added? You certainly can object to my reasons or to my argument but you don't do that, you object to me. I want Donald Trump to win this election as I have always said I would if he were to become the nominee. My post is offered not as mindless cheerleading but as my thoughts for how he might do that. Let the reader judge who abuses fellow conservatives, who posts empty words, who turns the political into the personal and who tries to advance us to the election of Donald Trump.

  • No, The Polls Aren’t Biased. Clinton Really Is Leading Trump

  • Brexit: Why the Globalists Lost

    06/27/2016 9:57:07 PM PDT · 74 of 74
    nathanbedford to DuncanWaring
    Sorry for the wrong LINK Here is the corrected version.

  • No Speaking Slots? Ted Cruz and John Kasich Brush Off Trump’s Threat

  • Brexit: Why the Globalists Lost

    06/27/2016 8:49:12 PM PDT · 73 of 74
    nathanbedford to DuncanWaring
    I found Roger Moore's recital of "Tommy" to be somehow profoundly moving.

  • Trump Starts Tracking, Targeting Fans With Web Ad Software

    06/27/2016 8:26:10 PM PDT · 15 of 59
    nathanbedford to ProtectOurFreedom

  • No, The Polls Aren’t Biased. Clinton Really Is Leading Trump

    06/27/2016 8:21:44 PM PDT · 172 of 182
    nathanbedford to Luircin
    Evidently, I am not the only one "bloviating"

    Concerning the larger theme of polls, Limbaugh yesterday warned us not to be self deceived concerning the polls.


  • No, The Polls Aren’t Biased. Clinton Really Is Leading Trump

    06/27/2016 10:59:31 AM PDT · 118 of 182
    nathanbedford to TangledUpInBlue; Maceman
    I remember TONS of articles about polls showing Romney behind Obama and the same logic was put forth: oversampling of Democrats. Problem is, all the polls turned out to be spot on, and then some.

    Of course we have seen this movie before and the ending does not change no matter how many times we replay it. The electoral college landscape is set up against the Republican nominee and we must acknowledge that the electoral college is simply the starting point.

    The problem is compounded in this election because, unlike Romney, Trump does not have adequate money in the till (even assuming he can get it) and he does not have anything resembling an up to speed campaign staff. His time to remedy these potentially fatal deficiencies is running out. Another rarely commented upon factor which could decide this election assuming Trump and bring it close, that is within two or three points, is the utter absence in the Trump of data mining and its application. I have been posting on these threads for years the reports which were originally published by MIT Technology Journal describing the revolutionary application of digital technology to electioneering. It seems clear that if the election is within two or three points the candidate who has mastered this art will prevail.

    The Republican national committee claims that it has mastered the art but it made the same claim four years ago and not only did the assurances ring hollow on election day but the party and the candidate were both utterly humiliated when the computers literally crashed on election eve. Trump himself has no such expertise in his camp but there are assurances coming from the Chairman of the National Committee that the Republicans have digital mining completely mastered and they are cooperating with Trump to apply the technology. We shall see.

    My fear is that lack of money, the lack of staff, the lack of technology, and the lack of time, singly and combined, present new obstacles to a Republican candidate who already suffers from a huge handicap simply by accepting the party's nomination and carrying the standard.

    We are depending on Trump's charisma, the power of his personality, and his unique ability to crystallize an issue and make it understandable and unforgettable to the mass of the voting public. He must identify and crystallize the issues such as immigration trade etc. which make the affirmative case for his election and he must crystallize the evidence which disqualifies Hillary. He must do this in the teeth of a hostile media, yet another obstacle.

    We will often hear that we are early in the campaign season. I emphatically disagree. This is the season in which Trump and Hillary, although to well-known figures for decades in American culture, will be defined. Hillary has the money and she is spending it to define Trump. This is a particularly dangerous time for Trump because of Nathan Bedford's first maxim of American politics: all politics in America is not local but ultimately racial. Hillary is defining Trump as a racist and a bigot. If that definition sticks, the obstacles to election will become daunting indeed.

    Trump made a great speech to define Hillary, but free media alone is probably not enough. We will often hear that free media might be enough in the primary contest starting with 17 contestants but it is not sufficient for a national election. I think that is clearly true.

    As for the general election, we conservatives must always understand that we do not represent the voting public. We know the issues, we know the arguments, we certainly are not swayed by some television commercial which superficially distorts the underlying realities with which we are so familiar. Joe sixpack is an entirely different voting animal. He has feelings rather than convictions, he votes emotionally rather than analytically, he is not a party loyalist or, better, loyal to a philosophy, he is a habitual party line voter disinclined to break habits but when he does so it is for a superficial and likely transitory motivation.

    That is not to denigrate the voter, he has other things in life which are more important to him but it does illustrate the power of television and, more recently, the power of digital mining.

    There is a great resentment and unease smoldering just below the surface of America. No one is better equipped by virtue of his persona to fan those smoldering embers into a blaze which can win the election. But that is the only way he can win the election.

  • Germany makes fracking verboten

    06/26/2016 6:29:46 AM PDT · 44 of 46
    nathanbedford to Olog-hai
    Perhaps you are unacquainted with the position of the standardbearer of our party concerning biofuels?

  • Germany makes fracking verboten

    06/25/2016 11:52:29 PM PDT · 33 of 46
    nathanbedford to EagleUSA
    The German population harbours a deep suspicion towards fracking and fears its impact on the environment and, in particular, drinking water resources.

    It seems we both have selected the above quotation to express the essence of the situation. As one who lives in Bavaria I can tell you that the matter is not one open for intellectual debate but rather it is a settled matter of received truth just as valid here as the proposition that the world is not flat but round.

    I meet with Germans at least once a week and we discuss current affairs. When I advanced the proposition that there was no evidence, repeat "evidence," of fracking ever causing any damage in the United States I was rounded upon by my German friends and told I was flatly in error. Next week I photocopied all of the reports emanating from the governmental agencies in the United States, some having evidence statewide and some extending to multistate level, showing on the letterhead of the United States there was no evidence of damage caused by fracking.

    When I presented these papers, they were dismissed as lies of America. These people had seen with their own eyes flaming water coming out of the tap and that was simply dispositive of the issue. That movie has done damage, similar to the damage caused by Columbine. In Germany there is no platform with reach to the whole demographic such as conservatism has in America in talk radio. In the absence of organized resistance, one sees the fixing of national opinions and the same one-sided result occurs on the issue of global warming.

    As one FReeper pointed out, this will cost the Germans (and me) more for our utilities, (our electric bills are already the highest in Europe) and more to heat our homes. It will leave the Germans in a place in which they are far more likely to link up with Russia and turn their faces away from America, an eventuality which has precipitated at least one world a minimum, it will sustain the price the Russians get for their gas and oil and inhibit efforts to contain Putin's Russia and his petro producing ally in Iran.

    Before we rejoice in our own wisdom and congratulate ourselves for not being as foolish as the Germans, reflect for a moment on our policies regarding subsidies for biofuels and let us ask ourselves why do we persist in these policies, cui bono? Are we any wiser?

  • Brexit: Why the Globalists Lost

    06/25/2016 3:21:06 AM PDT · 9 of 74
    nathanbedford to sockmonkey
    The oratorical brilliance and charisma of Nigel Farage not diminished, it was the in-flood of refugees that crystallized the choice for Britains just as it has crystallized the choice for Americans in this electoral season.

    We conservatives love to blame Barack Obama for turning Brits to vote against the European union, but we much better might thank Angela Merkel for it was she who in a mindless spasm of political correctness invited the whole world into the whole of Europe. Oddly, Britain had less to lose than other countries because it had a certain insulation from the open borders of the whole European Union and it had retained its own currency. But Angela Merkel's diktat in effect robbed every European of a voice in shaping his own cultural, economic, political destiny. In short, her open borders policy robbed every soul in the European Union of liberty.

    The English have withstood continental threats successfully since shortly after 1066 coming from the Spanish, the French, the Germans, and the Russians. They have earned their reputation as the Mother of Parliaments and they have led the way in defining liberty as an individual matter. It is no accident that England gave us John Locke. So it is not surprising that ordinary Britons reverted to character and stood for liberty and sovereignty and stood against an insidious threat perhaps more dangerous for its insidiousness than an armada, a Napoleon, a Hitler, or Karl Marx.

    The point of open immigration, of course, is essentially diabolical. It serves not just a world utopian vision of open borders and the withering away of the state by the imposition of one Über state, it keeps leftists in power and assures the ultimate destruction of a culture which reveres liberty and which understands viscerally, if not cognitively, that liberty and sovereignty are inextricably connected.

    Small wonder Barack Obama as one of his first acts as President of the United States rankly insulted the English people and their exceptional heritage by returning the bust of Winston Churchill, he knew an enemy people when he saw them.

    Despite two generations of waves of alien cultures immigrating into Britain, there was evidently enough left of this stubborn English-Speaking People to summon up a faithful respect to their unquestionably unique heritage. This is hardly a populist heritage, it is a constitutional heritage, a constitutional heritage running back 1000 years but without a written document which we Americans rightly boast of. This was not an aggressive populist demonstration, rather it was an example of decent people asserting their claim to representative democracy against a grand scheme cynically calculated by leftists who despise representative democracy to destroy a government system because it destroys its culture. It was hardly a populist economic revolt, indeed I'm sure many Brits who voted against the European Union did so with the assumption that they would pay some degree of economic cost to retain their liberty. They are all the more to be admired for it.

    We should honor the British People for their profound choice as an example of representative democracy and not confuse it with a paroxysm of populism.

    The victory in Britain does not certify a victory for Trump in America anymore than a thermometer causes a fever but the result in Britain, coming as it does in the wake of Trump's remarks and paralleling as it does Trump's effective campaign against unrestrained and dangerous immigration, tells us that the fever for liberty in Britain might well exist in American. The irony would be delicious, we conservatives have so often watched in despair as one European socialist nostrum after another (think Obama care) have been inflicted on America. Now we are perhaps beginning to see principles of conservatism awakening the conscience of a Great People.


    06/24/2016 6:40:00 AM PDT · 120 of 245
    nathanbedford to Trump Girl Kit Cat; Fresh Wind

    I've always said I would support Trump and I am supporting him now.


    06/24/2016 3:48:05 AM PDT · 25 of 245
    nathanbedford to Fresh Wind
    Well said indeed! Trump strikes exactly the right note abroad and exactly the right note while he is in Great Britain, considering our intimate history with our closest ally.

    When he returns home, Trump should revert to campaign mode and attach Hillary to Obama's petulant and a wholly gratuitous policy of dissing our closest ally.

  • Top conservatives meet at secret dinner to discuss Cruz's future

    06/16/2016 9:25:05 AM PDT · 288 of 375
    nathanbedford to bushwon

    I will be looking to vote the same way and that is why I long ago stated that that I would vote for the nominee, including Trump, for the good of the country. I did not take an oath to countenance outrageous libel against Cruz and the true cause of conservatism.

  • Top conservatives meet at secret dinner to discuss Cruz's future

    06/16/2016 5:54:57 AM PDT · 277 of 375
    nathanbedford to Fantasywriter
    One can but sympathize with your plight, endlessly confronted as you've no doubt are with paranoid Cruz supporters who cannot be reasoned with, who insist on dealing with facts, who persist in nagging, nagging nagging, yeah begging even for one measly example.

    Small wonder you spend a very long paragraph lamenting of their condition rather than feeding them one morsel, one little tidbit of genuine fact because you know it will only stimulate their addiction for more. No doubt you are doing it for our own good.

    Alas, science even in the twenty-first century has not yet found a cure for the lamentable mental disorder which afflicts these wretched Cruz supporters.

    Pass me the Ritalin.

  • Top conservatives meet at secret dinner to discuss Cruz's future

    06/16/2016 1:54:39 AM PDT · 263 of 375
    nathanbedford to RedWulf
    So many excuses for Ted utter lack of honor.

    Are you utterly incapable of recognizing your own hypocrisy? How do you define the insinuations of murder of the President of the United States of America which are utterly without factual foundation and cynically made to advance one's personal political ambitions? Honorable?

    How many votes for Trump will you win by advancing this definition of "honor?"

  • Top conservatives meet at secret dinner to discuss Cruz's future

    06/16/2016 1:45:08 AM PDT · 260 of 375
    nathanbedford to WVKayaker

    As always, plenty of childish antics and visuals but no provable lies. Rather the Goebbel’s playbook: repeat and repeat and repeat.

  • Top conservatives meet at secret dinner to discuss Cruz's future

    06/16/2016 1:28:58 AM PDT · 258 of 375
    nathanbedford to WVKayaker
    As always, plenty of childish antics and visuals but no provable lies. Rather the Goebbel's playbook: repeat and repeat and repeat.

  • Top conservatives meet at secret dinner to discuss Cruz's future

    06/16/2016 1:13:32 AM PDT · 256 of 375
    nathanbedford to bushwon
    You can repeat your assertions for the hundred and fifth time but it will not change the fact that in the first debate Trump declined to agree to the pledge. Later, when he thought the landscape was favorable he took the pledge.

    The game is not played that way. In any event, if Trump had betrayed himself as a traitor after making the pledge, certainly Cruz would be relieved. The principle stands, the pledge is conditioned on civil behavior by the nominee. Do you expect the Democrats to continue to support Hillary if she is indicted? Of course not, even among Democrats the behavior of the nominee relieves the pledgee.

    I can think of no more egregious a lie American politics in the last twenty-five years than the insinuation of culpability in murder of a fallen President and that includes false allegations of serial adultery made by the same candidate.

  • Top conservatives meet at secret dinner to discuss Cruz's future

    06/16/2016 1:06:53 AM PDT · 255 of 375
    nathanbedford to WVKayaker
    Ted Cruz is a sleazy lying losing lawyer.

    One thing Ted Cruz assuredly is not is a lawyer who habitually loses. His record before the Supreme Court is phenomenally successful.

    I have read post after post which claims that Ted Cruz has lied but I have yet to see one particular example. If you're not busy this morning perhaps you might indulge me with an example not grounded in opinion but in provable fact.

    If you are ignorant enough to ascribe to the advocate the sins of the litigant, I doubt you are in fact the businessman who has appeared in court that you purport to be.

    The rest of your reply, including the animation, is utterly childish.

    You might consider how you're going to convince anyone that you are adding to Trump's vote count with these antics.

  • Top conservatives meet at secret dinner to discuss Cruz's future

    06/16/2016 12:18:52 AM PDT · 247 of 375
    nathanbedford to bushwon
    Glad I don’t have business dealings with you.

    If you take time to reflect, I am quite sure you do not want to get into that discussion concerning your candidate.

    Those who have had business dealings with me, and I might add with Ted Cruz, have managed them and managed to stay out of court.

  • Top conservatives meet at secret dinner to discuss Cruz's future

    06/15/2016 11:53:39 PM PDT · 244 of 375
    nathanbedford to bushwon; sargon
    Trump insinuated in the most vile manner because it was so devious that Raffael Cruz was complicit in the most heinous assassination that occurred in America since that of Abraham Lincoln. No one of decency can expect a political candidate to robotlike fulfill a political promise made to a third-party in the teeth of that outrage.

    Moreover, at the time that commitment was made by Cruz, Trump had not yet reciprocated and committed himself, therefore it was not binding on Cruz. Trump cannot hold Cruz to a promise he has not made and only made as and when the wind blows fair for Trump to make the same promise.

    Cruz was not bound at the time, he is not bound now, and even if he ever was committed, he was relieved of it by one of the most despicable lies in American politics.

  • Top conservatives meet at secret dinner to discuss Cruz's future

    06/15/2016 8:35:08 PM PDT · 233 of 375
    nathanbedford to lodi90
    Trump never said such a thing.

    What "thing?"

    Be careful, I said that Trump "insinuated" complicity in the assassination and that he cynically and cleverly did. You are the one who is projecting like a Democrat.

  • Top conservatives meet at secret dinner to discuss Cruz's future

    06/15/2016 8:30:30 PM PDT · 231 of 375
    nathanbedford to lodi90
    Of course I at tact Trump where he is vulnerable when he was competing against Cruz, and quite properly so, but now he is the putative nominee of the party and I refrain from criticizing him. However, as and when it becomes necessary to criticize Trump to uphold the truth about Ted Cruz I will do so because my commitment to support Trump did not include traducing real conservatives or lying. The commitment always explicitly carried the condition that the support must be consistent with self-respect.

    Ted Cruz deserves every bit of criticism he is getting for participating in this disgraceful Anti-Trump performance by the GOP establishment. Minimizing his sabotage reflects on you, FRiend

    There is no disgraceful anti-Trump performance done by Ted Cruz.period.FULL STOP.

    Obviously someone whom you believe is "enabling the Butcher of Benghazi" is not your "FRiend" and I certainly have no desire to be one.

  • Top conservatives meet at secret dinner to discuss Cruz's future

    06/15/2016 7:51:03 PM PDT · 224 of 375
    nathanbedford to sargon
    I will consider your concerns over party loyalty a lot more sympathetically when when Trump and his supporters apologize for insinuating that Raphael Cruz is somehow complicit in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the most recent example of which occurred even on this very thread.

    I would not blame Ted Cruz for an instant if he declines to publicly support Donald Trump if Trump fails to apologize because every such commitment to support the nominee carries with it an implied condition that the nominee behave within civilized norms.

  • Top conservatives meet at secret dinner to discuss Cruz's future

    06/15/2016 7:34:08 PM PDT · 220 of 375
    nathanbedford to lodi90
    I uttered not a word against Donald Trump but against the fools who believe that tearing down Ted Cruz after the fact somehow builds up Donald Trump, against those who have distorted conservatism.

    Your outrageous allegation that I am somehow "enabling the Butcher of Benghazi" is a perfect example of what is wrong not with your candidate but with you.

  • Top conservatives meet at secret dinner to discuss Cruz's future

    06/15/2016 6:52:27 PM PDT · 212 of 375
    nathanbedford to jpsb
    There is no GOP nominee.

  • Top conservatives meet at secret dinner to discuss Cruz's future

    06/15/2016 6:32:54 PM PDT · 202 of 375
    nathanbedford to Nita Nupress
    I would say most people in that room see him as the leader of the conservative movement.

    Donald Trump won about 6% of the potential vote in this country, Ted won somewhat less. There simply is not enough data to justify the sweeping judgments so confidently made on this thread about whom conservatives so emphatically support or whom conservatives so emphatically despise.

    There is no end to the list of people who must be trashed in order to uphold Donald Trump. Ted Cruz now stands at the head of the list just ahead of former Senator DeMent. The trashing never ends even when Trump bots are given no fresh occasion to vent their bottomless well of venom.

    If Trump loses, the same Trump bots on this thread who traduced Ted Cruz will be rummaging around for a new man on horseback to represent them. They will redefine conservatism once again and stand it on its head to make it into something it never was in order to rationalize support of the next charismatic figure.

    About the only thing on this thread that makes any sense whatsoever is the idea that we should support Trump now because he is all we got at this point. Traducing Ted Cruz for no reason is hardly the way to gain more votes for Trump.

  • The ‘magnanimous, bipartisan and dignified’ letter George H.W. Bush left for Bill Clinton before ...

    06/15/2016 12:30:45 PM PDT · 34 of 45
    nathanbedford to EveningStar

    The perfect illustration why George HW Bush and George W. Bush are so wrong even as they are so decent.

  • Censorship Is More Dangerous Than Hate Speech

    06/15/2016 11:52:19 AM PDT · 5 of 22
    nathanbedford to Kaslin

    Hypocrites take pause before posting.

  • Democrats mount gun control filibuster

    06/15/2016 11:44:27 AM PDT · 43 of 59
    nathanbedford to PROCON
    With the help of Rino Republicans, Democrats are about to extricate themselves from a losing trifecta. The Democrats have three ways to lose but they needn't worry because the Republicans are about to deliver them from the exposure they deserve.

    The massacre in Orlando did more than starkly write in blood the abject failure of the Obama administration to cope with Islamic terrorism, it forced the left to choose between two of their favorite constituent groups: gays and Muslims. Orlando occurred partly because Muslims despise gays. This Muslim despised gays partly because he was a self hating Muslim homosexual. If Obama and Hillary are not careful they might end up offending both groups.

    If Obama soft-pedaled the terroristic proclivities of Muslims, he risked offending the LBGT "community" for callous disregard of real human suffering. If he blamed the Muslims for the brutal affair, he risked offending them. All of this in an election year in which his administration is deservedly being excoriated by Trump for its failures abroad respecting terrorists and its failures at home respecting border security.

    Obama's and Hillary's solution? Blame the forty-nine deaths and 100 casualties on the Second Amendment. It isn't Muslims or Muslim fanatics who are at fault but inanimate objects, the means by which the atrocities were committed: "weapons of war."

    Now comes a lone backbench Democrat Senator launching a filibuster to co-opt the national discussion and focus it on gun control. Consider a few years back when a lone conservative senator from Texas commenced a filibuster to defund Obama Care. Some of the very same senators who failed to come to his assistance on the floor of the Senate, indeed who came to the nearest microphone to criticize Ted Cruz, are now falling all over themselves looking for ways to accommodate the filibusterer.

    In the process they are making legitimate not just the filibuster but the whole argument that it is not the fault of the Obama restriction, it is not the failure of the Obama administration to police our borders, it is not that the Obama administration cannot even identify and name the source of this evil, it is the Democrats perennial campaign platform for abolishing the Second Amendment which is made legitimate as guns are made the culprit. Not incidentally, Republicans who have historically failed support gun control now risk sharing the guilt of the lone gunman.

    When put to the wall Democrats fight back, when put to the wall Republicans cave. When the chips are down expect Republicans to devour their own like a ravening pack of wolves.

  • Clinton call for ban on AR-15s

    06/13/2016 11:14:08 AM PDT · 35 of 111
    nathanbedford to MNnice
    This is the second major speech delivered by Hillary Clinton in recent days concerning foreign policy and terrorism. First, an observation concerning only the tone and manner of delivery of the speeches.

    Shrill Hillary has learned how to modulate her voice and how to work effectively with teleprompters. She was very effective and has gone far to dispel the image of herself as a termagent whose presence in our living room for four or eight years is more than offputting. She was composed, her voice was modulated, her delivery was nearly flawless. Reading from a Teleprompter, it is not surprising that she made no gaffes.

    If Hillary is able to continue in this mode she will go a long way toward improving her image and she will present a greater challenge to us.

    When we analyze the content of the speech, we must understand that we live in a bubble and there is nothing she could say that would persuade us to vote for her. But we are not her audience, she seeks to energize the base and to capture independents. Considering the tone and content of the speech she is advanced those objectives.

    For the first time she has referred to terrorists as Islamicists, no doubt to defray criticism from Donald Trump, and her calls for arms controls while unpalatable to us, are not so over the top as to turn off those who might be persuadable on the issue.

    She put forth a reasonable proposals to combat these lone wolf attacks demonstrating to those who don't know better, that is, those who are ignorant of her character and biography, that she is competent.

    Donald Trump is up in a few minutes and we will see if he can win the battle of the teleprompters.

  • Is Newt Gingrich Running For Shadow President?

    06/11/2016 7:00:43 AM PDT · 69 of 85
    nathanbedford to Artcore

    Toilet humour, or scatological humour, is a type of off-colour humour dealing with defecation, urination, and flatulence, and to a lesser extent vomiting and other body functions. It sees substantial crossover with sexual humour, such as dick jokes.
    Toilet humour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • EU to tighten guns rules despite concern it will restrict hunters, collectors

    06/11/2016 12:53:15 AM PDT · 21 of 41
    nathanbedford to Olog-hai
    A few hours ago an article appeared concerning the impending Brixit vote potentially withdrawing Great Britain from the European Union. While I was writing the reply which appears immediately below, the thread was pulled because of problems with its provenance. I have added a few words at the bottom relevant to this thread.

    At a time when it has become fashionable in America to denigrate both our founding fathers and the framers, it is refreshing to understand that they accomplished something that is extraordinary in human history. They built us a country based on a constitutional system which lasted for 80 years and survived after a devastating civil war to go on to become the most powerful country on earth and the envy of the world.

    We must grant that the formation of the European Union was more of a process over time than the gift of gifted statesman such as blessed America in the summer of 1787. The challenges were different, for example they were attempting to build a political entity out of a polyglot list of nations while the framers enjoyed a monolingual advantage. The framers were working with states that had recently been colonies and so had not centuries of fixed sovereignty to defend contrary to the map which confronted those who formed the European Union. The framers were building a Constitution and a country which had survived the war against a common foe but the European Union had to build a union among nations which had been at war with each other several times within a century and many many times throughout history.

    But our founding fathers turned to the Enlightenment for inspiration while the Europeans flirted with Karl Marx. With all its flaws, the American Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution have evolved into a social compact which is remarkably fair although it has been distorted and ignored in recent years. The European effort produced a top-down elitist organization too far removed from the people and too much committed to statism. The solution for the European Union is to turn toward a representative democracy and away from a top-down elite. Alas, they lack but one indispensable commodity: patriots.

    As one who lives most of the year in Germany and has done so for some time, the potential breakup of the European Union would no doubt run adverse to my self-interest so I am conflicted about the prospect. On the one hand my conservative soul yearns for the kind of freedom that can only come in a genuine representative democracy adhering to a meaningful Constitution and on the other hand I enjoy residency rights etc. because of the European Union Treaty. So I want to see the union abolished yet I want to see it continue.

    I would like to recount the feelings that have been expressed to me both by American ex-pats with whom I engage and by my German neighbors here in Bavaria. Generally, Bavarians and Germans are equally fascinated and appalled by American gun ownership. When I tell them I have a very good friend who has dozens of firearms and tens of thousands of rounds stored in his home in America, they are dumbfounded. They instinctively connect guns to crime and they are proud of their low murder rate but they do not consider the homogeneity of their culture which is fast disappearing. The European has been famously described as someone who considers his prerogatives according to the following test: if it is allowed he may do it. The American judges his rights according to this test: if it is not prohibited he may do it. The European looks to the government to protect them from his neighbor and the American hopes to enlist his neighbor to protect him from his government. A strange mindset to me for people who live with the legacy of fascism.

    The European Union is based on the concept of the collective which we hear Hillary Clinton calling for in every speech and which was really the essence of her book, IT TAKES A VILLAGE. The American ideal, expressed in the Bill of Rights, is a society built on the atom, the individual. I believe it is from these fundamental divergences that the paths part concerning gun ownership. I have written long replies (no surprise there) concerning the evident paradox in conservatives' and liberals' views of the rights of gun ownership running contrary to the idea that liberals view man as essentially good but conservatives view man as essentially fallen. It is the conservative who trusts the fallen individual with the gun and the liberal who mistrusts the essentially good being with a gun.

  • Is Newt Gingrich Running For Shadow President?

    06/10/2016 6:55:03 PM PDT · 31 of 85
    nathanbedford to marron
    Newt Gingrich is doing nothing more than stating truth.

    So long as Donald Trump demonstrates that he is incapable of controlling his mouth he will incur defection among the Republican elites and, ultimately, among Republican rank and file voters. Worse, he will be undermining conservatism in America with every foolish utterance.

    Politicians are businessmen they are in the business of politics and, like all businessmen, they are intent on protecting their brand. There is nothing in politics today more toxic than to be labeled a racist. No Republican, no intelligent conservative, associates himself or even tolerates any gratuitous remark which can legitimately be described as racist.

    No one has been more adamant on these threads than I have that phony claims of racism are the stuff of Democratic Party politics and must be opposed where ever encountered. That argument can be seen in my decade-old about page. It is a contributing reason why I use the name and avatar which I use. I repeatedly advance Nathan Bedford's first maxim of American politics:

    All politics in America is not local but ultimately racial.

    The problem here is that Trump's remarks were not merely gratuitous, the problem is not that they were stupid-which they indisputably were-but that they were ultimately selfish because they placed Donald Trump's personal interest above the cause which is campaign represents. In other words, Trump's reaction was ego driven because he was willing to court a charge of racism in order to combat charges that he committed fraud. In resorting to this defense, or at least in resorting to it in such a clumsy manner, his ego ran over common sense. The damage down ticket to conservatives running for inferior offices is potentially very great if Trump cannot get his ego and his mouth under control. These remarks are dispiriting to those of us who have committed to support Donald Trump in this election. We want him to win but he is needlessly making a very daunting task for any Republican candidate even more difficult for himself and for those of us who wish him well in this election.

  • Trump's unconventional approach to building a ground game

    06/09/2016 8:35:20 AM PDT · 29 of 35
    nathanbedford to Beautiful_Gracious_Skies

    In his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama commenced a new form of electioneering based on data mining. By 2012 he had advanced his methods to the point where it revolutionized American political campaigns and demonstrated it can control the results of an election if the matter is within two or three points.

    I have posted on this phenomenon for more than a year when it became clear that Romney’s forces simply did not know what hit them in places like Ohio. It was more than the fact that Romney’s machinery broke down on election eve, by then the game was over anyway, it was that Obama’s forces had fashioned what in military terms might be described as a coordinated, combination of forces which in many ways succeeded counter intuitively. Obama’s data mining efforts are marked by their intensity and depth of research which enables them to a individualize the electorate literally to the individual level. The research included profiles, psychological profiles of actual individual voters, and scenarios which would convince subjects to go to the polls on Obama’s behalf. The scenarios were then brought personally to the subject by a vast army of foot soldiers who were not simply set loose as door knockers but equipped with data and arguments individually crafted to appeal to an identified individual when made by a neighbor or at least someone who was no longer a stranger. The combination of forces, much like the German Wehrmacht of 1939 combining armor, air and mobility revolutionizing warfare, introduced a whole new paradigm into electioneering.

    It is utterly hopeless to expect Trump to put together an organization which could duplicate what the Democrats had perfected by 2012. It is within the range of the reasonable that the Republicans who insist they have been busily setting up their own data mining operation will be in a position to cope with the Democrats’ blitzkrieg. However, it must not be forgotten that the Republicans swore that they had digital electioneering well in hand for the 2012 election and the result was a grotesque humiliation when the system simply broke down. Furthermore, it is not clear that the Republicans will cooperate with Trump in view of his recent remarks but the probabilities are that the instinct of self-preservation will cause Republicans in swing states to conclude that they must hang together or tthey will assuredly hang separately.

    If the election is not a blowout one way or the other, and it is clearly too early now to make an intelligent projection, any state that is close will probably be won by that campaign which has mastered the new art of digital election warfare.

  • Trump Reassigns Lyin' Nickname to Hillary

    06/04/2016 8:20:58 PM PDT · 45 of 48
    nathanbedford to ClearCase_guy

    Your help is urgently needed on the Renee Elmers thread.

  • Donald Trump endorses Renee Ellmers

    06/04/2016 7:48:10 PM PDT · 32 of 43
    nathanbedford to ConservativeTeen

    Elmers has F rating from conservative review.

    Comments from Conservative Review:

    Ellmers’s liberal evolution following her election seems inexplicable. Girding herself for a recount battle after election night 2010, Ellmers turned to the National Republican Congressional Committee for help. Rebuffed by the group, Ellmers slammed the group for its failure to support her throughout her campaign (Politico). Yet two months later, Ellmers would embrace the very institution that snubbed her, cozying up to leadership and doing its bidding.

    In 2010, Ellmers ran on cutting spending and dismantling Obamacare, but quickly fell in line with the GOP leadership. She voted to increase the debt limit twice and opposed the 2013 defund Obmacare effort. Ellmers heaped praise on Speaker Boehner after the debt limit increase battle of 2011, which she helped whip support for: “The speaker has given the freshman class everything we’ve asked for. I have no reason to be indifferent.” (Politico)

    Ellmers even went so far as to threaten to rescind her membership in the Republican Study Committee after members accused the group’s staff of encouraging outside groups to attack members of Congress who supported the 2011 debt limit increase. (Politico)

  • Effort to Expose Russia’s ‘Troll Army’ Draws Vicious Retaliation

    05/30/2016 11:50:23 PM PDT · 13 of 45
    nathanbedford to sargon
    Certainly Ted Cruz as a believing Christian has been placed in a grave moral dilemma by the shameless duplicity of Donald Trump.

    As a Christian, Cruz must choose between honoring his pledge to support the nominee of his party or to turn his face away from the commandment to Honor His Father who has been shamefully traduced by Donald Trump in insinuating that the senior Cruz was culpable in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

    The Trump insinuation is so outrageous in my view as to release Cruz from any commitment. I do not feel released from my commitment to support Trump when he becomes the nominee, but I could fully understand Cruz declining to do so. If my father were libeled in such a way, I too might be reluctant to endorse the man who slandered him.

    Let the swarm continue.

  • Effort to Expose Russia’s ‘Troll Army’ Draws Vicious Retaliation

    05/30/2016 11:04:30 PM PDT · 4 of 45
    nathanbedford to Berlin_Freeper
    Thank God that has never happened here.

  • Five Reasons Ted Cruz Fans Should Support Donald Trump

    05/11/2016 11:46:01 AM PDT · 118 of 153
    nathanbedford to Godebert
    If you can only find a real live judge somewhere who agrees with you, you might just hear him say that you have a point.

  • Five Reasons Ted Cruz Fans Should Support Donald Trump

    05/11/2016 7:16:34 AM PDT · 87 of 153
    nathanbedford to SamAdams76

    I see you did not address the fact that Ted Cruz has been “all talk, no action”.

    I am speechless.

  • Five Reasons Ted Cruz Fans Should Support Donald Trump

    05/11/2016 5:08:03 AM PDT · 55 of 153
    nathanbedford to SamAdams76; sargon
    Cruz is no longer a candidate as long as his campaign remains suspended but the historical record should be truthful. The idea that Cruz was not specific in his programs is utter rubbish. He was quite clear about his tax proposals, his healthcare proposals, his regulatory reforms etc., far more clear and specific than Trump has deigned to be.

    For those who are distressed about the truth when they are confronted by it, insisting that objective analysis be suspended on behalf of their candidate, it is worth noting that conservatives should be loyal to principles and not personalities. As stated during the campaign I am willing to hold my nose with one hand, pull the lever for Trump with the other hand while falling on both knees beseeching Almighty God to forgive sunshine conservatives for forcing this choice upon us but I am not willing to distort reality or permit a historical record to be distorted.

  • Five Reasons Ted Cruz Fans Should Support Donald Trump

    05/11/2016 4:14:46 AM PDT · 21 of 153
    nathanbedford to Biggirl
    In an election in which a Ted Cruz supporter is compelled to choose among a Marxist, a felon, and charlatan, this conservative will abide by his commitment and support Donald Trump not as an affirmative vote for Trump but as a vote against the Marxist and the felon and for the reasons articulated by the author.

    I suspect that this commitment will not get easier to keep but more difficult. So far we have had to ignore support for increasing subsidies for biofuels, support for increasing the minimum wage, confused position on taxes, and confused position on the debt. We have had to soldier on in support of this candidate with precious few specifics about how he will actually "make America great again." And we are now confronted with hires reflecting the very worst of the Washington Insiders and the Goldman Sachs crony capitalism axis the oppositon to which had been a cornerstone of the candidacy.

  • Sowell: Dry Rot in Academia

    05/10/2016 4:10:32 AM PDT · 18 of 18
    nathanbedford to IrishBrigade
    I am afraid the rehabilitation, if it exists, of Dr. Sowell has come too late to save you draining a bitter cup in November.