Liberal Truth Vs. Facts


  1. T-Ray commented on Bahamas in Trouble.
    in response to gman:

    It appears Cat 5 Dorian will slam the Bahamas. Gonna be a rough one for them.

    I have never said climate change is not occurring. It changes constantly. The question is is man responsible for the current change in climate? If so what can we do about it if anything?
    I said above that we live in a P. T. Barnum time. Everything is described in superlatives mostly to get people worked up and to sell whatever product is being offered whether it is newsprint or a politician. This constant hype has created a hysteria that is irrationally and not productive and possibly dangerous to our economy and future well being.
    Let’s review the current state of affairs:
    1) We have been bombarded for over 30 years with a constant list of predictions of gloom, NYC and the Maldives under water, the Arctic ice cap gone, no snow in the Himalayas, storms will be stronger and more frequent, forest fires will be more frequent and severe, polar bears will die, … None of these predictions came true.
    2) The models all, except one, significantly over predicted the last 20 years. As a result, they fail validation and thus have no predictive ability.
    3) Over the last 20 yrs CO2 has gone up linearly but temperature has been relatively constant.
    4) There is strong evidence that NASA has doctored the historical temperature data suppressing the early part of the 20th century while enhancing the more recent years.
    5) Tornados, hurricanes, droughts are not statistically more severe or frequent in the last 20 years.
    6) If the US went instantly to ZERO CO2 emissions, we would reduce the global temperature by an inconsequential 0.14°C.
    7) If this was truly about CO2 reduction we would be building nukes and dams.
    8) Sea levels have been rising 3 mm/yr for the last 150 yrs with no acceleration.
    9) People thrived during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and starved during the Little Ice Age.
    10) The current warming period is in the noise compared to the long term temperature changes experienced by the earth.
    11) The 97% science consensus absolute baloney and proven so. In fact most physicist and geologist do not agree with the catastrophic predictions and the AGW theory. It is the “climatologists” who gain grant money who push it along with the politicians who hope to gain power from it.
    12) If they are so certain about their findings why not encourage debate rather than suppress it?
    13) Studies have shown that they have over predicted the CO2 feedback by 6x putting in doubt the predictions of catastrophic warming.
    14) The one model that works is the orbital-solar cycle model which is ignored by most climatologists. It predicts the next 40 years will be abnormally cold. Was this past year a harbinger of that?
    15) CO2 makes up just 0.04% (0.0004) of the atmosphere. Man’s contribution to that is 3% so we can control only 0.0012% (0.000012) of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Molecular absorption is a logarithmic function hence 0.0012% is miniscule.
    I could go one. I am a skeptic for all of these reasons and many more. The press and politicians are fomenting a mass hysteria that is counterproductive and can lead only to a loss in wealth and freedom. We are scaring our kids to the point that they feel doomed, hence do not even want to have children. This is a bigger mass hysteria than the Salem witch trials. The earth and mankind will not end in 12 years. In fact we may be looking turn up the heat.

  2. @Mathius, As far as the Alabama and the media totally being WRONG, the August 27 spaghetti storm projections (all the lines of different models) actual did have Alabama getting hit by the TAAS model. It’s at the 2:40 mark

    You can apologize to your President now 😀

    • The “spaghetti map” from NOAA was issued several days before his tweet. At the time of his tweet, Alabama was not considered at risk. Some early projections did, indeed, include Alabama. But at the time he tweeted, the current projections did not.

      To drive this point home, consider that within 20 minutes the Alabama branch of the National Weather Service tweeted out a correction that Alabama would not see any effects.

      So this was a mistake on Trump’s part.

      For whatever reason, whether he was simply wrong, whether it was a brain fart, or remembering / using outdated information or whatever, he said Alabama was at risk at a time when Alabama was not considered to be at risk.

      That’s a mistake.

      And it’s no big deal.

      It’s totally fine to be wrong.

      He was doing the right thing, trying to warn people, trying to spread awareness. And he included one state too many.

      SO WHAT?!

      No big deal.

      What I’m raising an eyebrow at is him releasing a video several days later with a doctored map.

      He took the map from the time of his tweet and added Alabama to it. (or someone in his administration did). And then he held it up for us to see that “yes, look, see, I was right all along!”

      That’s not just lying to CYA, that’s an actual action.. a deliberate altering of a government document and presenting it to the American public as though it were part of the historical record, thus proving him correct. This is a deliberate spread of misinformation to the public. The subject might be minor and unimportant, but the fact that he’s altering documents and showing them as “originals” should be take a bit more seriously.

      It’s also a CRIME:… and that makes this… an impeachable offense!

      But it’s Trump – a Republican – so you’ll never admit that he did anything wrong.


    I have to say this rather surprised me. Not that I think a meat free diet is healthy, at least, not without a great deal of planning and work. Something most people simply won’t do.

    • A good rule of thumb is “all things in moderation.”

      Not that I follow this rule myself ( ::chugs second Red Bull of the morning:: ), but it’s a good rule nonetheless. Meat is not just delicious, but something we evolved to consume, at least opportunistically. Without fully understanding all the biological mechanisms at play, it’s hard to imagine that there wouldn’t be some consequences to the decision to remove it entirely.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        In the book I am now reading the author drives home the point that we evolved as hunter/gatherers for far longer than our agrarian habits have existed. And in fact, our health has declined since developing agriculture as we moved from a more diverse diet to one of very few foods which we could grow.

        Yes to moderation but also variety.

    • Cool! But waaay too early to get excited.

      I remember having a conversation about this kind of thing with Black Flag in ye olden tymes… he asserted that the first person who would live to be 1,000 had probably already been born. We took the same view that biological exhaustion would be treatable within the next few decades, letting people live long enough to see it get eliminated / cured. If I make it to 70, that’ll be in 2053… the tech then should be sufficient to easily let me make it to 100.. and that’ll be 2183… the tech then should be sufficient to easily let me make it to 150… and that’l be 2153.. and by then, this whole “biology” thing should be all figured out, so living to 1,000 should just be a question of “not getting killed.”

      ‘course… by that point, I plan to have multiple offside redundant backups of my brain and a medical plan that grows me a new body in the event of my death.. so good luck killing me then!

      • Oh, I think some of that is already here… far, everyone in my family has lived to be in their 90’s as far as 101……………… age 65, my dad had a heart attack, blockage in two arteries including the old “widow maker”…..they cracked his chest for double by pass surgery. At age 64, 6 years ago, I had 99 percent blockage in the old “widow maker”…and 34 % in another one….they stuck a stent in there and I was home 72 hours later with no restrictions. The other blockage is being disolved with oral medication that was also not available 30 years ago. So, improvements are already here.

        So, living long is going to be here before you know it…..Already 60 is the new 40,,,,and at 71 next month, I do not feel it at all.

        • Well I, for one, no longer feel like I’m in my 20’s, but I think that has far more to do with having kids and a 60+ hour a week job I hate than anything else.

          But I figure by the time I’m 71 (and you’re 106) (and SUFA is ~45), I’ll be as spry as a teenager.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        But Mr. Heinmlein, in testimony before a senate committe on health and aging said, when we extend life beyond 150 years we had better invent a new way for the mind to store information othrwise we will all be babbling idiots!

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          And if ya don’t believe that just ask Joe Biden! By the way that’s Heinlein not Heinmleim wherever that came from.

  4. Mathius….a question for you. I was watching some interesting graphs yesterday and there were also some interviews with several wanna be Potus folks…..the over riding thing that was said was that Trump is the most dangerous President of all time but none of them could point to anything that made him dangerous. No one could point to anything that he has done that other President’s have done. The only thing that I got out of them was the things that he sometimes says that upsets people……but he has done nothing.

    Several pointed questions were asked. (1) Are his tariffs with China dangerous. The answer not dangerous and long overdue but the way he did it was dangerous. His cavalier approach is dangerous. (2) Has he over turned Roe v Wade…the answer was no, he hasn’t but he might. (3) Has he started a war with any one? They answered, no, but his rhetoric is war like. (4) Has he fired a nuke like everyone thought he would? No, but he might.

    The questions went on and on……but in the bottom line, from what I saw, he has done nothing out of the ordinary except put America first. At least, no one could point sepcifically to anything that makes him dangerous.

    So, I am asking you, Sir Mathius, can you put your bias hat away and answer me on this….

    And I am asking YOUR viewpoint….not talking points or democratic points….I am asking young Mathius…….

    Why is this President dangerous and…can you point to any specific item that makes him dangerous. (Please drop the liar liar pants on fire routine because that does not make him any more dangerous than any other past POTUS or future POTUS or and politician).

    So, please sir, what makes Trump dangerous…..and has anything he done even approach “dangerous.”

    • I don’t know if “dangerous” is the first word I would necessarily use to describe him… I mean, I guess it could fit, but it’s not what I would choose. I think, in many ways, Bush II was far more dangerous. Bush gutted our freedoms and marched us into unending wars and pushed for Christian theocracy. That’s dangerous. Trump hasn’t really done that.

      I think he is “dangerous” in the sense that he’s destroying the norms of this country. I suppose he is “dangerous” in that he is setting a precedent that “truth does not matter” or “the President can lie all he wants without consequence.” Though it’s not entirely original to Trump, I’d say his “fuck the half of the country that didn’t vote for me” attitude is dangerous.” I guess.

      I might argue that his denial of climate change is dangerous. That his pushing for increased use of fossil fuels is dangerous. That his roll-back of the Bush policy on incandescent light bulbs is (albeit mildly) dangerous. That his opening up of Alaskan wilderness to oil exploration is dangerous.

      I might argue that his attitude and behavior toward our allies has alienated them and isolated the US and that is dangerous.

      I would certainly argue that his trade war is stupid and “economically dangerous.”

      I could argue that putting a know-nothing like DeVos in charge of education is dangerous to the long term health of the country.

      I think his cult-of-personality and the fact that ~40% of the country cannot every admit ANY wrongdoing by this President is dangerous.

      But I would argue that his labeling of the media as the enemy of the American people is reckless and dangerous as well. Especially in that he regards any critical coverage, even if accurate, as “fake news.” Truth be told, this is probably the only thing that I would really point to and say “this, here, is where Trump is actually really dangerous.” He is an autocrat who acts and thinks that the media should serve the President, not hold him accountable. That is dangerous.

      I think he’s a terrible president. I think he’s profiteering from the Presidency. I think he’s filling the swamp with alligators worse than anyone in my lifetime. I think he’s a grade-A asshole. I think he’s a grade-A-plus liar (and, even then, only because there’s no higher grade to give him). But “dangerous” has more to do with his ability to actually “do” things than “who” he is. And, while what is actually “doing” is bad, it’s not as bad as it could be.. as bad as it would be if he were more disciplined and competent. His lack of “follow through” is what servers most to mitigate his “dangerousness.”

      • You call DJT dangerous because he calls out the MSM for the liars they are after we just had 3 years of the Russia hoax that cost us millions of dollars? They call Trump supporters all kinds of names nightly. This is half the country. They gave Obama a pass on all the scandals that involved him after not properly vetting him in the first place. They have missed the biggest story on political corruption in my lifetime. In fact, they actively participated in it. They push the Charlottesville hoax knowing full well that it is a lie. They lied about the kids at the Lincoln Memorial. They were deceptive about the crowd size at the inauguration. When Trump said he was being wire tapped, they called him a liar. His people were being wire tapped. For you to defend this bias and malfeasance of the press is well beneath your intelligence.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Truth….Tonkin Gulf!

        Nothing that DJT has said, no lie that you think he told can ever get past the Tonkin Gulf lie. There are 50,000 some names on a black wall in DC because of that lie.

        Then there is “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. Not saying that Bush the Younger did that one but somebody under him sure as hell did. So the dying there is still going on, how many hundred thousand?

        Then thee are the Khadaffi Lies and teh Assad lies of Barack. More bodies piling up!

        I’m afraid Mathius that you have too much Trump occuping your brain pan! Cannot see things clearly any longer.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          He is not really criticizing Trump. Well kinda.

          He is criticizing SUFA and all those Republicans/Conservatives who howled about Obama.

          • Thank you, sir!

            I mean, I’ll take my shots at Trump when I can ’cause, frankly, I don’t like the guy, but he’s really ancillary to my main issue.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Me, me, me, me, please pick me………………

      He has exposed the swamp for what it is. This could create political turmoil and chaos in the country for decades. It might lead to Civil War. That is the dangerous thing that he has done.

      “We can’t handle the truth”. The irony is that it took a Snake Oil Salesman who can’t tell the truth if it hurts his ego to UNVEIL the pit of lying, cheating, stealing and manipulative vipers that inhabit the upper echelons of Govt and the media.

      Thank you, thank you very much. Taking bow in response to standing ovation. Thank you.

  5. Mr. The Colonel,

    Mr. “the law is the law and the law must be obeyed!”

    Let us assume the following: Donald J. Trump personally edited the Dorian weather map he showed on his video Wednesday to include Alabama in order to retroactively support his tweet.

    GIVEN THIS, let us consider the following law:

    Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the Government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.

    (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

    What should happen next?

    • Nothing! There is no harm in him warning a state to be prepared. Just like there is nothing wrong with you going 10 over the speed limit and not getting a ticket for it. Besides its not like he was trying to fool anyone with his black Sharpie. Shit like this is why Trump is president.

      • Anita,

        It’s very interesting to me that I have REPEATEDLY asserted that I don’t care about his mistake of warning people who weren’t in danger. It’s no big deal. He had a brain fart, or whatever. Who cares?

        That he can’t admit he was wrong is.. ok, whatever… that’s just par for the course now.

        But he showed a doctored map as an original map from NOAA – that very clearly seems to be a violation of the law I referenced.

        Now, I know that some people here cannot see any harm in anything that Trump ever has or ever could do, and therefore any efforts to enforce the law on him are really just grandstanding by the left in order to persecute your poor victimized Dear Leader. But that’s why I asked Mr. Law-and-Order Colonel.

        You see, Mr. The Colonel here has a long history of not caring who violated the law or what that law is or what their reasons might be. He’s an “uphold the law” kind of guy. So, given that Mr. Donald J. Trump presented a falsified map attributed to NOAA, it seems that he is in technical violation of this law.

        And, being in violation of this law, I would like to see what he has to say about that.

    • Nothing

      Falsifying documents is a criminal offense that involves the altering, changing, modifying, passing or possessing of a document for an unlawful purpose. It is considered a white collar crime and can be called by different names depending on your state, or be included as part of other collateral crimes.
      Falsifying Documents | LegalMatch

      Not seeing an unlawful purpose.

      • Question back to you……is intentionally eliminating facts as presented by DOE or CBO used in National addresses to the public a violation of law or executive privilege, when used to present State of the Union?

    • If he is guilty of this as you surmise…..and that is IF he is….then the law is the law although Obama, Bush II and Clinton did far worse than a map with a drawing……..BUT….the law is the law.

      First, I do not think that Trump did the drawing…..but if he took that map, pulled out his magic marker, and drew the line…..he is guilty of violating the law as it is written and should suffer whatever consequences there are….and then comes your argument (not mine) of selective enforcement.

      Secondly, if he was given a map with this previously drawn in and was “briefed” that this was indeed a fact, then he is not guilty. ( If I were given false information like that and told that it was factual, and then I presented it as factual when it was not, I am not guilty but that advisor or that aide would immediately be fired and prosecuted by me).

      Third, if Trump told an aide to draw that in and he knew it to be false at the time, he, Trump, is guilty.

      Now, here is the question, by using that map did falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, happen?

      • Thanks, Colonel, I knew I could count on you!

        Agreed: Obama and Bush both did FAR worse. Trump has, too, of course.

        Agreed: Prosecuting him for this would be selective / arbitrary enforcement of an obscure law.

        Agreed: Though you didn’t say it, there are just too many damned laws!

        Disagreed: “First I do not think that Trump did the drawing”.. on what do you base this? He is well known for wielding sharpies and is clearly impuslive enough to modify the map and narcisistic enough to feel the need to do so. NOAA and the NWS have denied supplying the map to him. So he is the likely culprit in my mind. That said, while I have no evidence to “prove” this, you assert that you “do not think” he did it… suggesting you have a better argument to the contrary – that someone in his staff did it. If so, what is your reasoning?

        Agreed: If he believed he was presenting an unmodified map, then he has done nothing wrong (on this topic.. he’s still done plenty wrong overall).

        Agreed: If his staffers modified this, they should be hunted down, fired and then jailed. In my administration, the “firing” would be a literal firing out of a cannon.

        Agreed: If Trump told an aide to do it, it’s no different than if he, himself did it. The “crime” isn’t marking up the map – it’s presenting a doctored map as though it were official. Here, I’ll mark up a map right now, come get me!

        Now, here is the question, by using that map did falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, happen?

        I would argue it did.

        I think the law is written pretty broadly.. I don’t see where it says it has to be a “current” map… and it’s clearly edited… and it was presented as the original… and it features a NOAA logo… so.. yea… I think it “falsely represents the forecast.” That’s not what the forecast was. It’s just not.

        THAT SAID, were I on the jury, I believe I would be forced to agree that he had violated the law.. BUT.. the law is misapplied in this case. This law exists, presumably, to prevent dissemination of false FUTURE weather forecasts which might be used maliciously (say, to prevent voter turnout, or drive electric generator sales). The law does not exist to stop people covering their asses for a harmless mistake. To that end, CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR Mathius would find that his speech, while false, is protected by the First Amendment (in spite of existing SCOTUS precedent to the contrary).

        JUROR Mathius would make use of a little known tool in legal circles called “jury nullification” which roughly translates to “yea, we know you did it, but we don’t think it’s right to punish you for it, so we’re going to find you innocent anyway.” His actions were wrong, deceitful, and immoral.. but they did not violate the “spirit” of this law and the law, as applied, violates his First Amendment right to (harmlessly) lie his ass off. Rather this law would be used, in this case, to selectively prosecute him. And, as we have established, Mathius will have no truck with that.

        But CITIZEN Mathius is perturbed that the President of the United States is presenting altered documents in order to prove that he is right rather than admit error… CITIZEN Mathius is also highly perturbed at the number of people twisting themselves into knots to act as though he did nothing wrong.

        Lastly, LEFTY-LIBERAL Mathius wonders aloud if people here might not be shitting a brick were it a Democrat who presented this map rather than a Republican.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Not me. Either way I WOULD NOT CARE.

          Because this map was not shown PRIOR or part of any briefing of the public as part of the warning. It was shown only in response to BS media and political criticism. So NO. It was a petty attack and a petty response, now matter what suit POTUS wears. So NO.

          My feelings on the subject would be the same.

          P.S. Claims of illegal doctoring of an official govt. document are more than likely bogus as well. The intent of the law is to prevent someone from misrepresenting govt. information that has real bearing on people’s lives. The stupid black line was added after that phase of announcements and only produced to cover Trump’s ego. I am not even sure that the copy of the map he showed would be considered an official document, except that he showed it and he is the Govt. as well.

          PETTY BS all around. I DO NOT CARE.

          • I’m pretty sure you just agreed with everything I said…..

            The stupid black line was added after that phase of announcements and only produced to cover Trump’s ego.

            THAT SAID, isn’t this a problem?

            It’s the fact that we apparently need to modify maps – even forgetting everything about law or presenting it to the american people or who said what when – just the fact that, to appease his ego, he had to modify the map so that he was right? Isn’t that troubling? Is that functional adult behavior?

            And the fact that, regardless of law or anything else, that he was willing to show the american people people his modified map… isn’t that a LIE? A deceipt? And a super petty one at that? Isn’t it troubling that he’s willing to edit documents to make them support him, and then showing those to people as if he’s supported by them?

            I’m not asking you to condemn him or say he should go to jail… I just… isn’t this behavior… wouldn’t this worry you if it were a family member or a subordinate or a superior or a friend?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              “THAT SAID, isn’t this a problem?”

              Legally speaking, I do not think so. For reasons I stated somewhere here today. It is no more actual counterfeiting than if I used a sharpie to add two zeros to my 1 dollar bill. The is illegal by the way because of “defacing” the bill.

              Personality/behavior wise, of course it is. But it is not new and since everyone is on to it I don’t know if it really is a big deal. That is with respect to his functioning as POTUS. If you know someone lies then you are always questioning every thing they say. If it turns out it is not a lie then all the better.

              You raised this “functional adult” argument the other day. YES, it is something that could happen with a functional adult. In fact, many many many functional adults as well as children suffer from the same problem. Perhaps you are imposing a standard of “functional adult” which is really your personal standard for “presidential”. Just sayin you might think about htat a bit.

              So there is no confusion. YES it is “troubling” to me. The real problem is that I see nobody running against him that is much better. Maybe in their “outward” behavior but not in their actual behavior. Trump is kind of like the King walking around naked instead of in a suit. The King (current know politicians) do not change when they have clothes on. But when they are naked we see them for what they are.

              • Legally speaking, I do not think so.

                Me neither!

                Personality/behavior wise, of course it is.

                Perhaps you are imposing a standard of “functional adult” which is really your personal standard for “presidential”. Just sayin you might think about htat a bit.

                Perhaps. I’ll mull that.

                I just.. I don’t think it’s too high a standard to expect people not to be constantly lying about everything for no good reason and then blaming other people when they get caught.

                The way I look at it is this: would I consider this acceptable behavior from my children, or would I sit them down and teach them better?

                So there is no confusion. YES it is “troubling” to me.

                The real problem is that I see nobody running against him that is much better. Maybe in their “outward” behavior but not in their actual behavior. </b.

                I'd vote for Canine Weapon over Trump, but I take your point and, while I think literally anyone in the Democratic field is (probably) better… I’m not currently thrilled with the prospect of a Biden Presidency.. but -I- certainly would take it over Trump.

                Trump is kind of like the King walking around naked instead of in a suit. The King (current know politicians) do not change when they have clothes on. But when they are naked we see them for what they are.

                Again, your point is well taken.. but I still think it’s not too much to ask that the President not constantly lie to everyone.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I learned last night the law is not the law. The GOVT can impose upon you the rules as they claim “meet the spirit of the law”.

        Got that??? The law is the law, and some bureaucrat or elected officials personal view point of what is the SPIRIT of the law, is the law.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Let me deal with the “legal” issue head on.

      He did not issue a “counterfeit” document, per the law. NO CRIME.

      Note, the stupid black line is not in the legend. It is a mark that matches no other. That is not counterfeiting and official document.

      • JUROR Mathius disagrees with you.

        Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the Government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.

        Did he “issue” it? Yes.
        Was it a “warning of weather conditions”? Yes (stipulated, a past warning, but a “warning” nonetheless, and the law does not specify).
        Was it “false”? Yes.
        Was it represented as coming from NOAA? Yes.

        This forecast (with the modification) is not one issued by the weather service. It’s not even that it’s “annotated,” but rather “changed”.. and I the JUROR find that he did falsely represent a forecast as official when it was not.

        I, the JUROR, also also refuse to convict on the grounds that the use of the law in this manner is bullshit and an abuse of power by the judiciary and selective prosecution and a violation of his First Amendment right to lie his ass off (providing he does so harmlessly).

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Well then it is a hung jury. Although I am reporting you to the judge for ignoring the instructions regarding the actual law and instead using your own interpretation.

          You are now off the jury, replaced with Anita. Tough cookies, bwahahahhaha.

  6. A political truism: It’s rarely It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up that gets you.

    No one gives a shit that Trump made a mistake on his tweet… but he presented altered government documents to the American people in order to try to cover up that mistake, so…………….

    • Nobody cares about that either. Except you and others who want to throw shade for the sake of throwing shade. I would maybe give it some concern if he altered the chart by extending the line of fire in WHITE…not the obvious BLACK.

      • So, just to be clear: he’s not in trouble because he’s bad at lying? 😛

        I care far more about the willingness of people to bend over backward to defend his obvious malfeasance than I do about the actual actions in this case.

        There is no “harm” in what he actually did… but the sheer fact that he was willing to hold up a doctored map to retroactively prove himself right… and the fact that you, and Gman, cannot admit that he was wrong to do so… that’s interesting to me.

        If I gave wrong information to my boss about something minor and then went back and changed a file so that it looked like I was right, then handed that to him, I wouldn’t just be fired – I would be blackballed from the entire industry. It wouldn’t matter that the issue, itself, was minor. If I’m willing to falsify data for the little things, I can’t be trusted on anything. My career would be over. Over.

        But it’s Trump, and he’s “only” the President of the United States.. so no biggie.

        • I want to point out that in your first post about this you said, that Alabama wasn’t included in the reports about the storms path, then you said it was a few days after they removed Alabama from the forecast. Then you said it was only 5 or 10 % of Alabama in the storms parh. Now the only reason I bring this up, is because it represents the level of media coverage on this “issue”. Alabama was included in the path of the storm . Trump didn’t lie , yet the media accused him of lying. I know it was forecast on the 29 and the Alabama National Guard was assuring the people of Alabama that they had their back on the 30. The guy who updated Trump on the storm swears Alabama was a part of the briefing the morning of the first, so claims of lying seem unfair. So whether you care o r not isn’t the point, the point is the media either made a mistake of lied. Now I want you to read this:

          And please tell me why I shouldn’t walk way from the “oh so unimportant, yet so important, character shaping, chaos creating, immoral sin of afelony” issue, shaking my head and claiming it is all ridiculous BS from beginning to end. I also have no problem saying the silly little curve shouldn’t of been added to the map, because it was stupid to do so. But it is not a crime. And the media shouldn’t of lied either.

          • I stipulate everything you said.. the coverage has been garbage and evolving… I modified from “never” to “at one point, 5-10%” when shown evidence to that fact… all true.

            And you have a very fair point!

            But, from the beginning, I have not cared one bit about whether he was right or wrong in his initial tweet. The best information AT THE TIME was that Alabama was safe, and that is supported by the NWS correcting him 20 minutes later. So his TWEET was wrong, but his justification for being wrong appears valid (that it was in a potential path previously, it’s just that things change). Again, so what? I’ve said since the begining this is a nothingberger.

            (and, to be fully fair, if he’d left Alabama off and it turned out that a corner was hit, he’d have been beat up for that as well.. so erring on the side of caution seems perfectly reasonable!)

            I also have no problem saying the silly little curve shouldn’t of been added to the map, because it was stupid to do so. But it is not a crime. And the media shouldn’t of lied either.

            I agree it’s not a crime… or rather, it might be technically a crime (as discussed elsewhere), but not one he should ever be prosecuted for.

            Still… assuming – ASSUMING – he did edit the map – and I think that’s a reasonable assumption seeing as we’re not a court here – then he lied to us… again… and he did it by falsifying a historical government document to make himself appear (more) correct.

            If he’d held up that map with the 5% overlap, there would be no discussion here.

            But he didn’t. He took a map which didn’t support him and changed it so that it looked like it did (and included more of Alabama than the 5% one did) and then he presented that as though it were the truth.

            And that’s not ok.

            It’s not the mistake. It’s not the explanation. It’s that he’s (seemingly) willing to deliberately falsify data and present it to the American People as fact. That is troubling.

      • Sept 1, Trump says to FEMA Alabama could be hit under the current forecast. Sept 2, some ABC yahoo throws shade AFTER the forecast changed. Trump explains why he said what he said using the map that was his reason for saying it and someone added a black mark on an OLD forecast that has long changed. Liberal media and Mathius blow a fucking gasket because they are petulant petty people who still are BUTTHURT that Trump won. This insanity will keep Trump in office another 4 years and could easily keep the Right in the Whitehouse for the foreseeable future. The Left has ZERO to offer but whining and hate and name calling. This is what 4 year olds do when they don’t get their way.

        Relax Anita, Trump is in their heads so bad they can’t help themselves anymore. They will misrepresent anything they can throw and hope it sticks. At least Trump hasn’t lied about something as important as ones healthcare insurance, something far more important than an outdated weather prediction map used to explain his previous position. Petty, but that’s what the Left has become.

  7. Something interesting I learned about today:

    “False Statement of Fact” is an exception to the First Amendment protections for Free Speech. The government can make laws other than slander and libel criminalizing lies, provided such lies are not directed toward a “public figure.”

    Whereas libel and slander require you to say something “harmful” and false, a false statement of fact can just be merely false. And the government can criminalize it.

    For example, they can say something like “you cannot disseminate false weather maps attributed to government agencies.” Even if no harm is present, this is still not covered by the First Amendment. (this kind of law is generally used for something like stopping you from collecting money for a fake charity).

    However, if that false statement of fact (read: lie) is directed toward a public figure, unless it falls under slander/libel (in which case it would still face a higher bar), is still legal.

    Which is why I can say “Donald Trump’s favorite flavor of ice cream is “cheeseburger” and he forces his kitchen staff to make him a gallon every night, which he eats in the Oval Office in his tighy-whiteys.”

    And there’s not a damned thing anyone can do about it.

    But the President can go to jail for showing fake weather maps.

  8. Americans are in harm’s way and the president is laser-focused on … covering up a small mistake he made. Narcissism is not leadership. America deserves better.— James Comey (@Comey) September 5, 2019


    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Comey is a f—–g asshole liar!

      Unfortunately his crimes will not be addressed and I fear my dear Mathius that in your lifetime and that of my children and grandchildren, his coup attempt will be successfully carried out by someone following his “noble” example and your democratic/republic will go the way of the Roman Republic. He, unpunished, is unfortunately a “precedent” now along with the CIA and DIA chiefs.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I will only say “It takes one to know one”…………

  9. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    By the way, since there is no question that the Alabama Guard got the alert, the President was RIGHT.

    Why are we wasting time on this when the seventh case in two months of an illegal alien in a sanctuary county (Montgomery Cty. MD) raping/molesting young girls and a little boy has occurred and the killer of Kate Stiley (a felon in a Sanctuary City) who was a felon using a stolen, illegal gun to kill her has had his conviction for using the illegally obtained gun overturned? And whatever happened to the dumbassed FBI agent who did NOT secure his weapon and started the chain of events. Did he get his promotion and raise?

    Nothing but goddam disinformation.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    From the Seattle Times, in this morning’s Spokesman Review:

    A new marine heat wave has formed off the West Coast that is similar to “The Blob” that devastated sea life and ravaged runs of Pacific salmon.

    Although the similarities are striking, whether the new system will cause the same havoc is yet to be seen.

    Like The Blob, which formed in 2014 and peaked in 2015, the new mass of warm water emerged over the course of a few months. A persistent weather pattern has becalmed winds that typically stir up the ocean’s surface to keep it cool. The heat wave is relatively new and right now mostly has affected the upper layers of the ocean. If weather patterns shift, it could break up rapidly, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    “It looks bad, but it could also go away pretty quickly,” said Nate Mantua, a research scientist at NOAA’s Southwest Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla, California, in a news release Thursday.

    The Blob upended the West Coast marine ecosystem, resulting in the deaths of millions of animals, from seabirds to sea lions. Salmon runs cratered, adding to the stress on animals that eat them, including endangered southern resident killer whales.

    The new expanse of unusually warm water is eerily similar: It has quickly grown in much the same way, in the same area, to almost the same size, stretching from roughly Alaska to California. It is the second-largest marine heat wave in terms of area in the northern Pacific Ocean in the last 40 years, after the earlier Blob.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Now regarding this event. The AGW crowd tries to claim that the ocean temps are due to absorption of “heat” from global warming. T-Ray and BF on this site have provided actual chemistry and physics arguments that cast a huge shadow of doubt on that claim. Frankly, I have a hard time believing it as well. Largely because this supposed “warming” of the ocean has been so sudden while the air temp increases have bee slow and steady.

      In this story we see, for the first time I know of, a theoretical connection between weather patterns and the ocean temp. Weather patterns are a reflection of climate, especially over longer periods of time. So if climatic changes cause these changes in weather patterns then we are going to have a real problem with respect to marine based fisheries, let alone the other connected aquatic species.

      Please remember, the environment doesn’t act like a mathematical geometric or even linear progression. It is more like the Stock Market. Look at a graph of the market over 100 years and you will see up and down, up and down, but over the long haul, the average direction is up.

      Mathius said I believe in Climate Change. That is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. It is not just a “belief” but a fact I KNOW for certain. The climate has been changing ever since it got warm enough to melt the ice sheet that covered the northern hemisphere, about 10,000 years ago. The climate fluctuated after that then hit a long period of relative stability. It has now become more erratic, or higher degrees of fluctuation if you will. This situation, per the climatologists who taught me in the masters forest ecology courses, is actually the more normal. Not the period of stability.

      One should also note that during this more “stable” period we still experienced years or period of severe weather, like drought, hurricanes and floods. But in geologic terms it was far more stable than before and probably what is coming. This PhD who taught us this explained all this in 1982. He warned that wild times were ahead and we should recognize this while thinking about forest management decisions based on assumptions reaching out a 100 years or more. And not once did he link this change in patterns to CO2.

      Which means that if CO2 does in fact have the affects claimed by the AGW side of the debate, it should be analyzed in light of the new norm, meaning very old norm, not the past couple hundred years. But of course it is not. It is compared to the past 100 years, or worse the past 50 years.

      So YES, Climate changes and I am pretty confident that the climate is changing again. Actually I think it started changing in the 70’s and was becoming real noticeable in certain areas by the 80’s. The evidence of climate change will not show up every where all the time. Because weather fluctuates annually and climate is classified over decades. During that time one part of the world might seem fairly normal while others see radical changes. Like reductions in snow pack combined with increases in rainfall.

      The biggest weak link in a rational discussion of “climate” is the word itself. It is kind of an ethereal type of word. It has no real meaning in the present except to classify large areas as Rain Forest of Savanna. Which obviously is dictated by some kind of Warm Wet vs. Warm Dry climate.

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    Remember when much of SUFA was making this argument? Remember when many of the Obama/Dem types accused us types of being “conspiracy nuts” because of our stance.

    Yes, Mathius it is a bit of a generalization and in fact some Conservative types were joining in on the Conspiracy Nut accusations.

    I could not find the links but I also remember when some folks filed suit against this list and were told by the courts to pound sand. So whats the difference now? Could it be that they were white and Christian while this group is Muslim? I really wonder if that had a psychological affect on this judge.

    Regardless, it is a GOOD DAY FOR LIBERTY.

    P.S. The abuse of this list occurred during the last administration and Mr. Comey’s fingerprints are on that as well.

    Now comes the challenge of making the Watch List something that is truly meaningful and effective.

    I hope Mr. Trump’s admin hurries to resolve this. Cause when the Dems get back in, every gun owner will be on the list. Bwhahahahahaha

  12. Just A Citizen says:


    Is the defense of Mr. Trump by people who criticized Mr. Obama really hypocrisy?

    Definition of hypocrisy
    1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel
    His hypocrisy was finally revealed with the publication of his private letters.
    especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion.

    I am thinking that we need a different term to explain the contradictions that Mr. Mathius is constantly pointing out. Maybe that word is “political” or “politics”. Not sure.

    Let me give an example of what I am thinking.

    A Republican Senator screaming against deficits who then signs onto a bill which increases deficits is a HYPOCRITE. Saying he believes one thing and doing another.

    A SUFA citizen who screams against deficits but votes for or defends a Republican who votes for higher deficits is NOT a hypocrite. Because their support is not a direct link their belief on this one issue. They may have no other rational choices given the basket of things important to them. Just as Mathius is doing the same when he says he supports some dingbat Democrat because “they are better than the other lousy options”.

    • I am less concerned with “I had to vote for X because Y was even worse.” I don’t even begrudge Trump voters doing that… Clinton was terrible, and it’s easy to see how many of them saw / see Trump as the best option in a sea of garbage.

      No, it’s more of the tribal myopia.

      For 8 years, I bashed Obama. CERTAINLY, not nearly as hard as you guys, but I did. I criticized him plenty.. got myself banned from a few liberal blogs, too, as a “troll” in the process.

      When Clinton took the lead in the field on the left, I groaned right along side you, and when I voted for her, I held my nose and did what I felt I had to do.

      But, yes, to be fair, I found myself defending Obama far, far more than I was attacking him here. And I felt that much of the criticism was malign, overblown, petty, belligerent, or ODS of one flavor or another. But I do think I did a good job of keeping an open mind and calling the balls and strikes with some impartiality. Maybe “left-leaning” but never an “Obama groupie.”

      What’s getting me is that I don’t see reciprocity on that. Other than “his style is bad,” what is one thing that he’s been criticized for around here by anyone other than you or me?

      Has anyone noticed that he filled his cabinet with industry hacks? That just the other day, Joe Balash, a Trump appointee at Interior, who pushed to expand drilling in Alaska joined an oil company there? Has anyone complained about his self-dealing in suggesting that the G8 be held at his own country club? That he’s charged the Secret Service hundreds of thousands of dollars just for golf cart rentals? Where did all that endless whining about the deficit go? Or golfing? Or vacations? What about the subsidies that he’s handing out to farmers hurt by his trade war (which means that they’re being subsidized by non-farming states which just so happen to be not his base.. hmm)? Or that those subsidies haven’t been paid in time and are actually accruing interest penalties that you and I will shoulder? Or that all those tax breaks he said would spur hiring, and which the left said would spur stock buy-backs, have spurred stock buy-backs and not hiring? How about “ordering” private companies to change their supply chains is a horrific invasion of the free market? What about his promise that Mexico would pay for the wall? What about hiring Betsy DeVos for education? What about Scott Pruitt’s abuse of government resources? What about voter suppression? What about actually doing something about the broken health care system? What about North Korea? What about Iran? How ’bout restoring some of the freedoms we lost under Bush? Where’s the massive infrastructure bill we were promised? What’s the plan for rebuilding the inroads to China our companies he’s destroyed over the last few weeks? Has Social Security be shored up? We don’t seem to be enforcing anti-trust laws anymore – is that a good thing or bad? Is Amazon a threat to the health of our local economies – what can we do about that? Have we closed Gitmo? Can we fix the mess that marijuana laws are in? Maybe free the millions of non-violent offenders? For profit prisons are evil (and not economical), but he reversed Obama’s decision to close them – is that a good idea? He reversed Bush’s light bulb policy, and that one of the few good policies of the Bush Era? How ’bout Net Neutrality? How ’bout the way Ajit Pai blatantly ignored public input on that issue? What are we doing to prevent foreign interference in the next election? His climate change denial? What about wealth inequality?


      It’s not the hypocrisy.. it’s the bias and the tribalism, and the focus on the evils of the “other” side while ignoring those on your own.

      Trump’s a piece of shit.

      And if he were wearing a blue shit, they would be all over him on these issues and more. But they can’t barely even admit that he lied when he’s dead to rights, so what hope is there to discuss bigger issues?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        “But I do think I did a good job of keeping an open mind and calling the balls and strikes with some impartiality. Maybe “left-leaning” but never an “Obama groupie.”

        Yep, your strike zone for Obama was like the one Nolan Ryan got towards the end of his career. It the ball looked like it was intended to hit the corner that was good enough. But definitely not a groupie.

        The presence of tribalism is no reason to ignore bigger issues. Sometimes you find more common ground there than on the makeup of tribal leadership.

        I do think you are overplaying the “they ignore their own” part. Most people here have admitted to Trump’s flaws. And that they do not care because there is nothing better.

        • Yep, your strike zone for Obama was like the one Nolan Ryan got towards the end of his career. It the ball looked like it was intended to hit the corner that was good enough

          Well said! Ha!

          But definitely not a groupie.

          I appreciate that… it’s one of the reasons I’m here.. to try to keep myself honest.. so if even you wingnuts don’t consider me an Obama Groupie, then I must be doing ok..

          The presence of tribalism is no reason to ignore bigger issues.

          And yet… where is the conversation here about those topic I mentioned? That first one, “Joe Balash, a Trump appointee at Interior, who pushed to expand drilling in Alaska joined an oil company there” – in any other administration, that kind of grifting would be the lead topic here for three days.

          I do think you are overplaying the “they ignore their own” part. Most people here have admitted to Trump’s flaws.

          I don’t know that this is true…

          They certainly admit that he has “style” issues. I think that, to deny this would be an admission of kool-aid induced insanity.. but I don’t see anyone around here except the two of us (and, to a much lesser extent, D13) saying he has any actual flaws or missteps other than style.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        As I was going over your list I was thinking back to a city council meeting I attended last night. One lady was ranting about how the recall election caused our town so much grief because without a council for almost 5 months nothing got done.

        I told the lady next to me………. I didn’t notice a thing did you? She replied, nope! To which I of course added, “Well maybe we don’t need them so much after all.”

        For me Mathius, much of your list is in the I DO NOT CARE category. Not all, but much of it.

        I will add that some of your issues are beginning to be addressed by Trump’s court appointees. Freedom? How about you will no longer be fined by the Fed Govt. for not having health insurance? Des Vos? Good appointment, especially if she gets nothing done. Cause the Dept of Ed should be ABOLISHED.

  13. Just A Citizen says:
    • Canine Weapon says:

      The current Democratic field:

    • Canine Weapon says:

      Trump voters:

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Interesting how you poked at the Dem field but then poked at voters on the other side, instead of Trump. Kind of summarizes the problem with politics today. Thanks dog.

        Now if you change that to Dem/Rep voters or Dem/Rep Field, either one and I could probably vote for you at the next Kennel Club show. Best in Show

        • Canine Weapon says:

          I was looking for an appropriate Mongo gif, but stumbled on this first and it was too good to pass up, I’m sorry for failing you.

          Here, let me make it up to you…. Here’s Trump’s inner monologue…

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Much betta………

          • Just A Citizen says:


            How come yours show the pic and mine the link??

            How do you do that?

            • You have to post a link that ends in .jpg or .gif or .png or some other image format. If you post the page containing the image, it won’t work, you need the link to the image itself. The easiest way to get this 9 time out of 10 is to right click on the image and say “open image in new tab” and then copy that URL.

              If there’s a bunch of crap after the .jpg (or whatever), often times you can just delete that. But if you leave it in there, WordPress won’t recognize it as an image, so it’ll just past the link.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Followed with

        via GIPHY

  14. Just A Citizen says:


    Another reason some folks are having a hard time with Global Warming. The abuse of science.

    You have to read into the comments section to get more detailed information. Which includes Mann’s response to the court’s ruling. Remind you of anyone???

    I am thinking Mr. Mann is the Trump of AGW. bwahahahahahaha

  15. Just A Citizen says:


    Mine: The argument against Term Limits is that we get to kick them out when they come up for re-election. But if there is no primary………. what choice do we have?

    • Thoughts- this is totally unacceptable!!!!!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Something to offer. Some time back we discussed who should foot the bill for “primaries”. Along with Caucus vs. election.

        Maybe the Parties can do what they want BUT……….. the State should hold an open primary. If a party wants a particular candidate they can do whatever to identify them as the R or D on the STATE’s primary ballots.

        • I guess who has to pay for it matters,but first, how does one deal with the fact that the parties don’t have to allow everyone to run as a republican or a democrat?

        • How ’bout we abolish all parties, primaries, and just throw open the door to whoever wants to run. Do a ranked vote in the general and let the chips fall where they may!

          • a la CA’s jungle primary system? It stinks when there is one party rule.

            • Ranked voting would break the back of the one-party rule systems. If I can “safely” vote for a minority party without handing victory to the opposing party, I will do so. And then the minority parties would start getting representation and we wouldn’t be one-party anymore. Everyone wins… except the RNC and DNC. And screw them.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                No it won’t. And California is a good example. There are enough people of one party to make sure that their people finish in all the top spots.

                Just think about all those NON PARTISAN seats at the state level. Like Judges. How come on the R affiliated ones win in Idaho and the D affiliated ones win in California?

                Most people do not realize that their State Laws provide for the creation of and the operating rules for political parties. These laws were written by the two parties, alternating back and forth depending on which was in power. ELIMINATE GOVT> SANCTION of parties.

                You want to organize and pick your people…………fine. But they go on the ballot with everyone else. Then go ahead and do your ranked voting system to get down to lets say 5 instead of 2 or 3.

                I still think that GOOOH system, or what ever it was called, had promise. Start with small area elections and work up to the State level, depending on office. Each election is one for a particular region with local/regional reps running off in the end. Picked from the ground up. Biggest draw back was the number of elections. The are not cheap to run these days.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Maybe use your system to get the Party person selected for the general. Each party could run its own. Then each party is represented in the general, no matter how small, depending on legal requirements. I mean you should have to have more than the kids and chickens in your “designated” party to qualify.

  16. Alright, folks… prove me wrong….

    OTHER THAN “STYLE” ISSUES (including his incessant lying), name one thing that Trump has done “wrong” in his Presidency.

    Trump, personally, did a thing that was bad. It was ____________________.

    (you will be awarded zero points if your “bad” thing is something like “he said he’d work with Democrats” or “he praised Pelosi.” The question is something he did as President that was bad or wrong or immoral or bad for America or unacceptably partisan or inappropriately taking advantage of his position, etc. Something you think he deserves criticism for. No “inaction” is permitted – only looking for things he “did.”)

    • The first thing that comes to mind – he supports corn ethanol fuel.

      • Sure.. ok… partial credit, and this is my fault… in hindsight, I should have restricted this a bit more.. This is a continuation of a bad policy.. just entropy. Can you think of anything he did.. a bill he signed.. a new policy he instituted.. or an existing policy he made worse..?

        I’m looking more for “he did something bad” than “he let something bad continue”.. if that makes sense..

    • Just A Citizen says:

      He signed the last budget deal AFTER saying last year he would never do that again.

    • How about what he recently just did about trying to control the election process of banning the primaries……albeit, every POTUS has done this for decades…, no, that is not a good choice…..

      Ok how about the tariff issues with China…those policies………….no, I cannot go there because I agree with taking on China no matter how bad it hurts in the short term….

      Ok how about his constant belching of “fake news:…, I cannot go there because I do NOT find it dangerous…I find it refreshing and it is my opinion that the media is not trust worthy
      Wait, I know…I got it…the America forst campaign…..and upsetting our allies…….not there either. We need to tell more of them to go to hell….

      Wait, I will find one….hang on….Ok, I got it….surrounding himself with lackies….business people and such…….naw….cant go there either, every POTUS surrounds himself with cronies..and you said not to use a continuation…..sorry ’bout that…

      Ok, I found one……I DO NOT LIKE ORDERING or trying to order business to change their supply chain……I DO NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL AND I CALL HIM OUT ON IT.

      OK….I got another one……””He’s (John McCain) not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” I am not a supporter of RINO John McCain…..but what Trump said in the above quote is as wrong as it can be and I called him out on it.

      I Got another one…….I do not like the fact that Trump placed his holdings in the hands of his son and should have placed his holdings in a Blind Trust as other Presidents have done for decades.

      Here is another one I do not like about Trump and called him out on it….It gained no traction here, however. Trump barred all employees of the Environmental Protection Agency from posting on social media or speaking with reporters about their work. I am no lover of the EPA…instead, I think it is a waste of air but they have rights.

      Here ya go….I do not like Trump’s double standard on the Muslim travel ban. He was wrong….not on the ban (which I support) but on the fact that he did not put the same ban on the Muslim countries where he held business interests….

      I can go on……but there are plenty of things that Trump has done I disagree with……..

      • Just A Citizen says:

        All true my brother from another mother but………..Sir Mathius laid down the criteria of

        BAD What did he do that was BAD.

        Personally I have had a hard time coming up with something other than busting the budget even more than before.. But I think that is because the Swamp undermined him so much he hasn’t really got any of the BIG things that could be BAD done.

        He has done a lot I disagree with and has disappointed me as well. Even though I did not hold high hopes in the first place. But nothing is as BAD as the ACA for example.

        • Bad….huh……well, sir, that is as bad as I can get…..right now.

          • There is nothing bad Trump has done to make me not vote or vote for anyone of the Dem prospects. There is plenty that I am upset with him over……but, he is not the same old politicians we have had for decades……

            • I think you have touched on why he is so popular, despite his flaws. He is not the same old politician that we have always been stuck with. This may be the one thing that the media has overlooked, to their detriment.

              • They haven’t missed it, they are trying to make it his worse feature. He’s changing our norms. Those norms died a long time ago, all that remained was a false veneer.

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                I kind of enjoy the evangelical take on Trump and the comparison of his flaws to the guy God chose to be the King of Israel….David. Man, Trump,. on his worst day, had nothing on King David.

    • Hiring Jeff Sessions as the AG at the beginning of his Presidency. You can’t drain the Swamp when you hire a Swamp creature to do the draining..

  17. Canine Weapon says:

  18. I will say this for ol’ Donny.. he is injecting so much volatility into the market that my options are basically just printing money at this point. I just cashed out my September calls, moving on to my December positions…

    • Just A Citizen says:
      • My thoughts are that this article WILDLY mis-characterizes what is happening here.

        Trademark conflicts are happening constantly across every industry. Petitioning to cancel a trademark for another company when you want to use that mark is as common as it gets.

        This article presents it as though Obama were using some big “Chicago-style” bullying far outside the scope of business as usual and that simply is not the case. Their names conflicted, (they probably tried and failed to reach a settlement), then they filed to cancel the other guy’s trademark. Anyone with a trademark will tell you that you may have to defend them from time to time.

        IP law is expensive, and defending their patent might be beyond their means. Attacking the mark is often a “lawful but awful” way of forcing them to come to the settlement table. It’s not nice, and it’s not pretty, and it’s not “fair,” but it is common.

        This article calls it “Chicago-style” and an “outrageous bid” and “deplorable behavior” and said “but nobody tells the Obamas ‘no’ ” and says they “demanded” the mark be cancelled and “going for the jugular” and “seeking to expropriate” and “little people just need to get out of the way” and “outrageous” (again) and baselessly speculates that the Obamas might use illegal means if they don’t get their way and calls it a “muscle act against little guys” and “disgusting” and “socialist” and alleges they will “stop at nothing to steal every last thing a little guy has got.”

        Wow… that’s a super LOADED and BIASED article.

        Again, I want to be clear. This kind of thing happens all. the. time. It’s not a David vs Golliath question. It’s not a “Chicago-style” mobster maneuver. It’s just business in America. Don’t like it? Sure, that’s fine. You’ve got a very good argument there. But to paint this as if it’s Obama doing something mafia like and outrageous is just biased journalism. It’s a hit piece.

        Perhaps the most interesting thing in here is the half sentence they allocate for Obama’s justification. That Obama claims the mark is invalid due to its non-use at the time of issue. Now, the question of this claim’s efficacy and accuracy are beyond my expertise because (A) I don’t have all the information and (B) I’m not an intellectual property attorney. But if the mark is invalid, then it’s invalid, and it’s not really anyone’s fault if they point that out. I find it highly telling that the ONLY point in this whole article mentioning this fact shares its sentence with blaming Obama by way of excuse “[…] but that probably was a function of the Obama economy, when little startups couldn’t get the capital they needed. What an irony if true.”

        Half a sentence allocated to Obama’s side, and that is shared with an attack which blames Obama for the circumstances. And even that is wholly without support.

        I’m an intermittent fan of AmericanThinker… it’s definitely got a bias, but it’s frequently an interesting read which is well thought out and presents an interesting argument. But this… this is the kind of crap I’d expect from Breitbart.

        Also very telling, I had to look pretty deep into the comments to find even a single dissenting view. I would have expected far more pushback on an AT article this terrible.

        (Disclaimer: My father in law is a prominent trademark and patent attorney at a major NY law firm. He represents a few large clients and many small ones. He frequently regales us with some (very interesting) stories. Though I can’t get into them here for confidentiality’s sake, believe me when I say that there are several which are quite similar.)

        • Trademarks need defending…..all the time. We have a Trademark we use and it gets infringed upon all the time…..we use a Centaur with bow and arrow….have had it since 1949 and defended it 9 times so far.

          • Thank you, sir.

            So what is your take on this article?

            • If the article is correct, it is a David and Goliath scenario. The Obama’s have a history like that of the Clinton’s. They will use their name…..being turned down once by the appeals process should end it.

              The person that owns the name has a right to it whether or not it is used. So, after the appeal process, if the Obama’s are going to court……this is wrong. So I do not see it as a hit piece….I see it as something that is likely to happen simply because the Obama’s want it. This is not a normal proceeding.

              When we have defended ours, it was quite simple. Since the Centaur with the bow and arrow is rather unique, several people have tried to use it and some may even be using it now but we would never know it unless we got a piece of mail by mistake or unless it was something national….what we have is actually a logo that goes with the company name.

              That said, the article is pointing out what likely will happen and since it does involve the Obama’s, it has the appearance of using the hammer. If you are asking me if this is normal procedure in Trademark Law….I would say no, on one hand, but yes on another.

              But, if this happens, it is a true David and Goliath issue.

              • They will use their name…..being turned down once by the appeals process should end it.

                I’m reasonably certain this is incorrect, or my father-in-law would not be where he is.

                But maybe I’m misunderstanding something. I’ll confirm with him at first opportunity (though it might not be until the weekend).

                The person that owns the name has a right to it whether or not it is used.

                This is absolutely false.

                Trademarks are not like patents, in that they are not “property” per say. They are couched in the idea of avoiding consumer confusion, which is to say that I can sell my goods in such a way that the consumer knows they’re buying MY product and not that of a competitor.

                Failure to use the mark for (insert correct amount of time) absolutely voids your rights to enforce it. Similarly, you cannot register a mark and then not use it for (insert correct amount of time) – this is what the Obamas seem to be alleging.

                So, after the appeal process, if the Obama’s are going to court……this is wrong.

                Wrong how? Morally? Legally?

                I’m at least 90% sure that it’s perfectly legal and that, further, it’s done this way all the time.

                This is not a normal proceeding.

                Support that assertion, sir!

                That said, the article is pointing out what likely will happen and since it does involve the Obama’s, it has the appearance of using the hammer.

                I think this is faaar less of Obama “using the hammer” than “Company B has enough money to hire a competent lawyer and pursue the matter aggressively.”

                Put another way, this is only a story because Obama is involved.

                I would say no, on one hand, but yes on another.

                Care to elaborate?

                But, if this happens, it is a true David and Goliath issue.

                Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know how much Obama is willing to throw at this. I don’t know how much this other company has to throw at this. If the other company has strong proof, it could be far easier (cheaper) to defend. There’s a lot I don’t know here, and neither do you.

                But, sure, on the face of it, as presented by that horribly biased article, Obama is the Goliath in this scenario. But, if you remember that story, Goliath lost.

                But, if this happens, it is a true David and Goliath issue.

                But, again, would we be talking about this if Obama weren’t involved? I’d wager that Apple does this once or twice a week.

                In faaaacct….. ::hops in way-back machine:: …. when Apple launched their iPhone in 2006, they launched it with an operating system called iOS. Someone at Apple dropped the ball, however, because that trademark belonged to Cisco Systems… for over two decades.

                Apple tried to license the rights and [something something behind closed doors] wasn’t able to make a deal. So Apple filed to invalidate the trademark claiming that the “i” portion of iOS was common enough to be meaningless and therefore the mark wasn’t defensible (they claimed that, like “xerox” or “kleenex,” it’s become a generic term). This spooked the crap out of Cisco who promptly returned to the negotiating table and accepted a small mountain of money in exchange for shutting the hell up. [disclaimer: written from memory… actual facts may vary slightly. But the gist is accurate.]

                So… as I say.. this kind of thing happens all the time. We only ever take notice when it’s big and flashy (like Apple vs Cisco) or politically loaded (Obama vs anyone). Do you think we’d be talking about this now if it were just some random multi-millionaire trying to publish his documentary series?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I should’ve known the direction you would go without some guidance. I was looking more for your thoughts on an ex POTUS taking someone to court over a trademark of something that was to them nothing but a book title. Or was it simply a speech title. Either way, I find it pretty petty.

          To me the bigger issue is the one the lawyer raises right at the start. Their actions contradict their words. Looks to me like the Progressives are just greedy Capitalists.

          As for the rest of your analysis…….right on. It is a hit piece based primarily on hypothetical assumptions.

          I looked into trademarks once some time back. Back then you had to show the “mark” or “slogan” was being used and not just some small local market. So if this was still true during the Obama Admin then their claim it was not used cannot be true as it would not have been granted in the first place.

          • I should’ve known the direction you would go without some guidance. I was looking more for your thoughts on an ex POTUS taking someone to court over a trademark of something that was to them nothing but a book title. Or was it simply a speech title. Either way, I find it pretty petty.

            AH Well that changes things!

            Is it petty? YES!

            Is it stupid? YES!

            Couldn’t he have just picked a different name? YES!

            Why isn’t he picking a different name? Because it’s expensive and time consuming and blah blah blah blah.

            Well, then why didn’t he check that it was safe beforehand? I DON’T KNOW!

            Why am I yelling? I DON’T KNOW!!!

            Shouldn’t he just change now? I guess? I don’t know all the facts.

            Shouldn’t this little company just accept a licencing deal? Probably!

            To me the bigger issue is the one the lawyer raises right at the start. Their actions contradict their words. Looks to me like the Progressives are just greedy Capitalists.

            Which words are those?

            He could very realistically have a point.

            I would be shocked – SHOCKED – to find that a politician said one thing and did another!

            As for the rest of your analysis…….right on. It is a hit piece based primarily on hypothetical assumptions.

            Then we agree on something!


            Just to add on.. it’s not just the “assumptions” but the implication that this is Obama action out of the ordinary for this kind of legal action… as though he were a mafioso rather than just another litigant trying to use the legal system this way.

            Back then you had to show the “mark” or “slogan” was being used and not just some small local market. So if this was still true during the Obama Admin then their claim it was not used cannot be true as it would not have been granted in the first place.

            My GUT says that they wouldn’t make such a baseless claim. If they were using it, then it would be pretty easy to show proof. In fact, in such frivolous lawsuits not only can you (sometimes, and with extreme difficulty) force one making the claim to pay your legal fees, but if it’s especially egregious, the lawyers making the claim can face disciplinary action. (this can take a long time, but the trademark courts are swamped and get pretty pissy when you waste their time).

            My GUT says that they probably were in some narrow / technical violation of the rules for granting the mark or that it’s a bit of a gray zone for some reason.. basically that, whatever the actual argument is, it won’t get laughed out of court.

            The point, almost certainly, is to present expensive litigation which makes the option of settling more favorable to the mark holder. You can’t do that if they’ve got you dead to rights.

            My GUT says that Obama is technically correct. There’s a reason the term “lawfare” exists. But just because this is a standard enough action doesn’t change that it’s “lawful but awful,” nor that we wouldn’t ever be talking about this if it weren’t a high-profile politician.

            • Beg to differ…..but I only can go with the issues we have had….and….we constantly use ours.

              It is ours to use once we follow the correct procedure to “renew” our “license” (read trademark) when it is time to renew. Failure to renew, of course, renders the point moot. However, if you renew, (as I am told but you can confirm with your relative) that it is yours as long as you are in “good standing.”

              We had some folks come after us under the “local” rule that no one knows us outside of Fort Worth, Texas. So, using our trademark, or a close resemblance, would not hurt us. We differed, of course, and pointed out to the courts satisfaction, that being local was not an issue in this case but that a close resemblance of our trademark “COULD” open us up to some un-necessary liability through a mistake. Now, we do not have signs and we do not advertise nationwide. But we do have billing and letterhead and logos on all our equipment. We are also registered in several states. ( I do not know if this makes a difference or not.)

              Anyway, I am under the impression, that if our paperwork is all in order and we have properly renewed our trademark……it is ours.

              • As to the other point of David vs Goliath………………………if one has deep pockets and the other does not…………… not this point “MORALLY” an issue? Especially if the appeals process has been run and the Obama’s lost.

                However, you are quite correct, I assume, that in a big boy’s game….it is hardball….things that are morally and ethically wrong but legally right…..well, you know the outcome. Appearances, you understand.

                (Now, admit it, if Private citizen Trump were doing this after his term, would you not say the same thing….especially where his money is involved?)

              • Beg to differ with your differing, sir…

                However, if you renew, (as I am told but you can confirm with your relative) that it is yours as long as you are in “good standing.”


                A mark shall be deemed to be “abandoned” if either of the following occurs:

                (1) When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use. Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for 3 consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment. [emphasis added] “Use” of a mark means the bona fide use of such mark made in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark.

                (2) When any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes the mark to become the generic name for the goods or services on or in connection with which it is used or otherwise to lose its significance as a mark. Purchaser motivation shall not be a test for determining abandonment under this paragraph.

                Look, I’m no attorney.. I just have a family tree full of ’em. But it seems pretty clear that ‘not using it” for 3 years means you’ve abandoned it and anyone else can swoop in.

                We had some folks come after us under the “local” rule that no one knows us outside of Fort Worth, Texas.

                I would like to buy a slab of your finest. Please be sure to bill me (the friends and family rate!) and use your company letterhead so that you can establish your national presence.

                We had some folks come after us under the “local” rule that no one knows us outside of Fort Worth, Texas.

                But this goes to my point, actually… they wanted your trademark, so they tried to cancel your mark.

                Sure, they used the local rule rather than alleging it was abandoned, but that’s a question of “how” they sought to do the same thing.. and that’s just a question of “what is the mark holder susceptible to?”

                Anyway, I am under the impression, that if our paperwork is all in order and we have properly renewed our trademark……it is ours.

                Just to recap: It’s “use it or lose it.” I am quite certain of this. You may also need to renew.. but if you don’t use, it won’t matter.

                ***Contact your attorney to confirm before taking legal advise from (near) strangers on the internet.

              • (Now, admit it, if Private citizen Trump were doing this after his term, would you not say the same thing….especially where his money is involved?)

                I’d probably argue the same thing: “lawful but awful.”

    • The federal agency that oversees the National Weather Service has sided with President Trump over its own scientists in the ongoing controversy over whether Alabama was at risk of a direct hit from Hurricane Dorian.

      In a statement released Friday afternoon, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated Alabama was in fact threatened by the storm at the time Trump tweeted Alabama would “most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated.”
      Referencing archived hurricane advisories, the NOAA statement said that information provided to the president and the public between Aug. 28 and Sept. 2 “demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama.”

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Just had a deja vu moment.

        Remember back when I got into it with Mathius, Buck and maybe Todd over the timing of Romney’s criticism of Obama over the uprisings in the middle east, aka Benghazi.

        Just like this, it all came down to reporting of the timeline and who “should have known” what and when. I will admit the Romney thing was of greater consequence, being tied to an election and ongoing events that eventually resulted in dead Americans. But at its core, it is the same kind of stupid political issue. PETTY

    • Again, “weather” (hehehehe) he was right or wrong in his tweet is wholly beside the point.

      I have – REPEATEDLY – called it a nothingburger. I was under the impression that he was wrong you (I think it was you) showed me otherwise, I changed my position. That’s how things are supposed to work.

      He was “technically” correct in that there was a 5-10% chance than Dorian would nick a tiny corner of Alabama. That makes what Trump says technically correct.

      WHO CARES?

      You keep defending that he was right when I never complained that he was wrong. It’s almost as though you’d rather debate that than what I’m objecting to…

      The thing I’m objecting is is him holding up a chart which he called an original which was modified in order to make him look correct.

      Falsifying government documents to prove you were correct is a problem. It doesn’t matter that you were in fact correct. He still held up a doctored chart to the American people. If Obama had done that, your head would have exploded all over your computer screen.

      (and, by the way, that doctored chart included more of Alabama than did the advisory you posted here)

  19. This one made me think of Mathius. 🙂

  20. WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Democrats have been criticized for calling on others to reduce their carbon footprint while they themselves drive SUVs, fly around in private jets, and own multiple homes.

    Well, at long last, one of the candidates isn’t just talking the climate change talk: in a solemn ceremony Friday, Bernie Sanders leaped into a wood chipper to eliminate his carbon footprint once and for all.
    “It would be wrong of me to call on women in third-world countries to have abortions when I myself am a huge net polluter,” said Sanders in a speech before the big event. “Can you imagine if I were to sit there and lecture everyone on climate change and population control, but then not be the first to volunteer? How hypocritical would that be!? No, I am a man who stands behind my beliefs.”
    Finally, after a long, running start and a push from his aides, Sanders hurled himself into the chipper, screaming, “PLANETEERS—THE POWER IS YOURS!” just before disintegrating to a red mist, his harmful effects on the climate ended once and for all.
    Inspired by Sanders’s example, other Democratic like Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker (he’s still running, right?), and Elizabeth Warren have all volunteered to off themselves in order to jumpstart their population control policies.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Except, of course, for the extra Carbon burned to run him through the chipper.

      Typical hypocrite leftists. He should have just slit his wrists and laid down on the compost pile. Although, I am not sure any plants could later grow in the medium containing his toxic remains. They say compost will convert almost anything to plant food, but not everything.

  21. Things I do not like about Trump:

    1) I have never liked the DJT character, the bragging, self aggrandizement, womanizing, etc. I do understand that his job for 40 years was selling his brand which is himself. I never watched his TV show for these reasons. However, if you look through the history here you will find my comments on the candidates after an early 2015 series of speeches in Iowa. At that time, I picked Trump as different, refreshing, and someone to seriously watch.

    2) I do not like the most recent budget deal. We need to get spending under control. The tax cuts were the right thing to do. It repatriated a lot of money, encouraged domestic growth, increased employment, increased government revenues, and reduced welfare and food stamp outlays. However, spending also needs to be cut as well as the size and scope of the Federal government. We need to address the entitlements. Mathius, you’re a financial wizard. What is the cost of “waiting” on reforming entitlements?

    3) I did not like the bombing is Syria because it is unclear whether the gas attacks were a false flag. It did send a message that Trump would act and he had to be taken seriously.

    4) I do not like government by executive order. I see the need for it because Congress will not act on common sense solutions to many of our problems. I do like the fact that Trump boxes Congress in and does allow them time to act before issuing the EOs. It is clear where the fail lies. Obama did EOs as well. I did not like them either.

    5) I have been very disappointed in some of the cabinet picks. Most were potentially good men but they failed to act or align themselves with Trump. These include Tillerson, Sessions, and few others.

    6) At the first cabinet meeting, I did not like the loyalty statements extracted from the cabinet members. This was embarrassing. I would have a general statement of goals for their departments from each secretary. These goals should have been aligned with Trump’s.

    7) I detest name calling. Trump assigns sarcastic, demeaning names to his opponents. This is meant to belittle them while still being slightly humorous. However, the other side also calls names that are far worse. We hear white supremacist, x-phoebe and y-ist applied indiscriminately to half the population. These are very mean spirited lies meant to silence the opposition.

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    Let me say one thing. I cannot think of a single thing Pence has done that deserved this editorial or the deliberate efforts of foreign politicians and diplomats to shame him. In my view, the shame is on them.

    • Wow, from what I just read it does seem like they were the ones being confrontational and bores. I think I would have wanted a large defense detail too. Staying at Trumps hotel, I’m kinda 30 /70 on that one. His reasons seem reasonable, but it was still a bad idea.

      • Reading that, one would think only Ireland was living in 2019, but nothing has changed in Britain. And all the problems between Ireland and the British were about gay rights.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        On the stay at TRUMP facilities, absolutely the optics are awful. Although I think they offer a great opportunity for the President.

        He could order his Son to offer all Govt officials staying there on business free room and board. It wouldn’t cost him all that much and those left screaming about it would look even dumber. Since he offered one of his facilities for an international confab, his Son should announce that the fees for attending member would be x% LESS THAN THE AVERAGE for all other facilities in the area.

        Instead we have another story today about an air force crew staying at his resort in Scotland on their way to and from the Middle East. The cost of jet fuel at the local airport was far higher to the Air Force than their own fuel from a nearby US base. The crew reported that meals and drinks alone were far over their per diem rate. Now Congress is accusing Mr. Trump of being enriched, that is paid, by US GOVT military funds. Which would be a violation of the law.

        Here is where the failure to use a blind trust hurts even though I don’t think it would have stopped the accusations. Because blind or not, Mr. Trump would still be telling people to “why don’t you stay at my place” and “let me offer my place for the next meeting”. Frankly I believe he does this because he believes his places are the BEST and he wants to offer the BEST to those he like or he is negotiating with. I really do not think that he is thinking about the potential income.

        • Mathius brought up the golf carts the other day. From memory those carts were so expensive because they had to be modified to fit the security details needs, but I also have a vague memory that the business wasn’t allowed to give them for free and I’m guessing a reduced price would also be considered an illegal gift.. Need to check my memory , tobe sure and whether or not the different situations would be considered the same. But I think they would be.

          • If my memory is working, the golf cart stuff was debunked because the company was not owned by Trump that provided the special carts. I also remember that Trump owned properties charge “at cost” and get no profits. If the latter is true, then he is saving the US money while losing money for the company.


    Okay,what does this ,mean ? Are they having impeachment hearings ,or just hearings to decide if their going to have impeachment hearings, I’m confused. What are the proper steps supposed to be?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      What I got from it is they are going to vote to decide what the scope of the impeachment investigation will be. I am putting my money on “obstruction of justice” relative to the Russia investigation conducted by Comey, et al.

      They have been screaming about so many things they need to narrow the focus or they will look even more foolish.

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    I know some of you were scratching your heads over me ripping on Trump for not doing anything about the Bahamas. Part of that was offering bait to the Dems, cause I thought we would actually hear such criticism from them. But part was the opportunity to do something good that would also help image/optics.

    Nothing happened and now Mr. Trump has once again failed to capture the flag when he could. Not it will be because others acted and he “re-acted”.

    This should have been offered the day the hurricane hit the Bahamas. These are TRUE REFUGEES.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Now here is what I was talking about. Funny how this was not covered by the media immediately. Why would Mr. Trump have to make a statement for them to reveal what was happening? Because they know they will not have a negative spin until he speaks. And therein lies his biggest problem. He cannot speak without handing them a negative on a silver platter. Because that is how they (left, dems and media) are wired today.

      Mathius will think I am overstating. Well I urge you to read the comments to the story. It is really, really, sad.

      More detailed analysis: This is how his speaking style gets him in trouble. “He thanked the US and me”. A little more prep and he could have said “He thanked me for the USA’s help”

      • I swear I wondered the other day why I wasn’t hearing much of anything about what we were doing in t he bahamas. Could they really be not talking about breaking news because of Trump. Breaking news, wow, I hope that’s not true, but I don’t doubt it.

    • I agree and it certainly wouldn’t hurt to remind people that refugee actually does have a definition.


    I have several relatives who have stopped smoking by vaping. Two of them were having real problems from smoking but now they are much better. So I don’t see the harm and I do not think they would have quit without vaping being available. So unless one is going to make smoking illegal getting rid of vaping , isn’t gonna help, it’s gonna hurt.

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    More info on the whole Climate Change (AGW) debate. I see an opportunity for the White House……but I hear the sound of crickets.

    • I think he should save the CC stuff until the real debates and rally’s when they will really count. Arguing with idiots now is a waste of energy 😀

  27. NEW YORK, NY—Major League Baseball has banned all red baseball caps as “symbols of hate.”

    The league wanted to ensure that no one will feel uncomfortable, should they mistake the red hats of teams like the Angels, the Reds, the cardinals, and many others for a MAGA hat.
    “Effective immediately, there’s a $10,000 fine per player who wears a red cap during a game or in public,” said MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred. “We want every Major League Baseball game to feature a welcoming, inclusive atmosphere, and we can’t do that when people are being triggered by these red caps.”
    Any red shirt with a slogan on it is also banned, as people from hundreds of yards away might see them and think they are a Trump supporter, causing the viewer to fall on the ground and convulse and then maybe even die.
    “We welcome everyone,” said Manfred. “So anything that looks like a MAGA hat is not welcome.”
    Teams formerly wearing red ball caps are encouraged to instead wear inclusive headgear like rainbow-colored hijabs, blue Coexist cabby hats, or mullets with a heart shaved into them.

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Good grief. Talk about an over reaction. When did a simple statement that someone might have overlooked some other information, either way in my view, turn into THE SKY IS FALLING.

    Future forcasts will be questioned and lives threatened? Really????? I think the ones who need to apologize and genuflect to We the People are the dopes making all these statements. Clearly it is ALL POLITICAL.

  29. Antonio Brown released by the Raiders, loses 29 million in guaranteed money.


    Dang, I remember when girls were Forced to wear dresses or skirts, now they want to force us to conform and only wear pants—– For EQUALITY. In so many ways we are going backwards in this Country under the banner of going forward. It really is a shame.

  31. Clarification- this hasn’t happened in this Country, yet, as far as I know. My statement remains the same.


    Here you go Mathius. What the neck is this! It contradicts everything the administration has been saying. It seems like it would hurt brexit. So what is going on?

  33. The Saturday Night Joke

    Two very active seniors (Jacob, age 92, and Mary, age 89), living in The Villages, are all excited about their decision to get married. They go for a stroll to discuss the wedding, and on the way, they pass a drugstore. Jacob suggests they go in. Jacob addresses the man behind the counter, “Are you the owner?”

    The pharmacist answers, “Yes.”

    Jacob says, “We’re about to get married. Do you sell heart medication?”
    The Pharmacist: “Of course we do.”

    Jacob: “How about medicine for circulation?”
    Pharmacist: “All kinds.”

    Jacob: “Medicine for rheumatism?”
    Pharmacist: “Definitely.”

    Jacob: “How about suppositories and medicine for impotence?”
    Pharmacist: “You bet!”

    Jacob: “Medicine for memory problems, arthritis, and Alzheimer’s?”
    Pharmacist: “Yes, a large variety. The works.”

    Jacob: “What about vitamins, sleeping pills, Geritol, antidotes for Parkinson’s disease?”
    Pharmacist: “Absolutely.”

    Jacob: “Everything for heartburn and indigestion?”
    Pharmacist: “We sure do.”

    Jacob: “You sell wheelchairs and walkers and canes?”
    Pharmacist: “All speeds and sizes.”

    Jacob: “Adult diapers?”

    Pharmacist: “Sure, how can I help you?

    Jacob: “We’d like to use this store as our Bridal Registry.”

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      It doesn’t take much. Twenty odd years ago, everybody was going to Mexico. Within five years, THOSE plants went to China.

      Last week I finally decided to replace the twenty or so left hand work gloves I own (the right handed ones are out there somewhere along with all those missing socks). So, we were in Costco and I see a package of three pairs of all leather work gloves for $ 18, a decent price if they hold up.

      I always check the place of manufacture and would have passed on China. BUT! Lo and Behold, the very first time I have ever seen it ANYWHERE!


      Holy Haile Selassie!

      Needless to say, I grabbed them.

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    Man oh man, there are some really good young QB’s in college football this year. Watched 1/2 of the USC BACKUP shredding Stanford. Who has a good one themselves.

    Then there was the Texas-LSU paring. Got tired watching those two. The kid at WSU, Boise St has a Freshman along with Oregon and Nevada, even though Oregon wound up shutting him down in the 2/2.

    • The LSU and Texas Qb’s damned near combined for 1000 yards passing and 8 touchdowns between them……and the 2 defenses are not slackers……needless to say, I was not happy but what a game.

  35. G man…did you get my article?

  36. Any questions?

  37. Just A Citizen says:


    Since you have raised the question of super delegates before: On the new Warren/Clinton bra relations.

    Warren may still not be able to stand Clinton, but Clinton is useful to Warren for rigging the Democratic nomination.

    According to NBC:

    More important, an explicit or implicit blessing from Clinton could help Warren if she finds herself battling for delegates and superdelegates at a contested Democratic convention next summer.

    “Hillary Clinton would absolutely have influence over a number of delegates to this convention,” said Deb Kozikowski, the vice chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

    • Yes, JAC…..this is an area that is over looked, in my opinion. It is the only way that Clinton beat Bernie Boy…………

      • Just A Citizen says:

        But this time they can’t use them to stop the momentum prior to the convention. Not without being caught out in the open…red handed.

        Of course, if the elite’s person is not winning then all they need to do is get the first convention ballot to show NO Winner. Then the Super Delegates kick in.

        Frankly, I think Biden will be toast before the convention. The Dem base is motivated, angry and WAY LEFT of center.

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    Democrat Krystal Ball, and MSNBC pundit, comments on the media bias that is hiding Dem candidates from the public eye.

    When you are a threat to the political establishment, you are inherently a threat to the careers of journalists who rely on access to that political establishment. There may not be an edict coming down from on high to “destroy” those candidates who threaten the system, but there are natural defense mechanisms that kick in. And so, strange graphics are made that just happen to exclude you, fact checks are written that don’t seem to arrive at the facts at all, coverage vacillates from total blackout to wild smears.

  39. Better send the address one more time, please….I thought it matched and deleted it… This time I will save it.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Here is an aspect of the govt price fixing relative to drugs and the Canadian market which I had not considered before. Interesting:

    “Even the socialist price controllers understand this dynamic. Recently, wild-haired socialist Bernie Sanders led a field trip to Ontario where he led Americans to (illegally) purchase Canadian drugs subject to price control rates. The Canadians, however, have been broadcasting their concern, telling the American press they do not support Americans buying drugs from Canada.

    Why? Because their price controls are an indulgence that exists only as long as there is still a large incentive for drug companies to produce and manufacture drugs in the first place. The incentive exists mostly because of the United States, the world’s largest and most important drug market.”

    • I have a question, If America is the main manufacturers of drugs, and Canada can use price controls to lower their prices doesn’t that mean that our manufacturers are giving Canada lower prices, which makes it’s necessary for them to raise our prices?

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Yes! Yes! Yes! YOU and I are paying for the R&D plus subsidizing the rest of the frigging universe!

      • Just A Citizen says:


        It is not always due to price controls on the other’s end of the deal. All US manufacturing tends to cover their fixed costs with USA prices and then they can lower prices to cover variable costs + profit with foreign trades. But we are not the only ones who do this. The Canadians do the same thing with lumber and I think some dairy. Who knows what else.

        The point being that the TOTAL Cost and Profit picture has to be understood instead of just focusing on one factor, like US drug prices or “cheaper in Canada”. Got to keep exchange rates in mind as well.

        Now why would the Progressives whine? After all, the US is wealthier than Canadians and others so should WE be paying more, according to their formula??????

  41. Sent it again, gman….to aol address

  42. no worries… got it then?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      This much is true. The Fourth Estate is We the People. As stated in the article, newspapers etc is just one means for We the People to express ourselves. In reality, “The Press” has always represented the opinions of those who owned the “press”, or “station” or “network”, etc. etc etc.

      The internet changed that. So if you look really close at all the internet fighting you will see it amounts to an effort to SILENCE all those voices that suddenly found an outlet. The Fourth Estate, as in MEDIA, is trying like hell to put the Genie back in the bottle.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Again, it is the abysmal lack of historical knowledge. Jeez part of our two year high school American History curriculum was learning about Greeley, Hearst and Pulitzer and what THEY were capable of.

      My own awakening came while I was taking the second year of that course. That coincided with both the opening shots in an expanded Viet-nam war as well as the LBJ-Goldwater campaign. Did not take very much for me to see the press trying to both influence and USE us. Poor LBJ must have been beside himnself when the press went from pro to anti-war!

%d bloggers like this: