Whether you are black, and have a 79 IQ, or white, and have a 79 IQ, you WILL be discriminated against. Nobody should say that you are "under-represented" amongst a population of neuro-surgeons. But if you are one to make such judgements based upon skin colour, national origin, or ethnicity alone, you are apt to be talking out of your ass. For there are also profound differences in group distribution of IQ amongst such factors, and you can infer nothing about a single individual's intelligence from their group's average IQ.
If you are born rich having a low IQ doesn't matter as much. You can even become president of the United States. Although you will need help from Russia. You do still need to be a White male, however.
ReplyDeleteThat explains Joe Biden.
ReplyDeleteJoe Biden won't be president until we eject the low-IQ moron from the White House. It is good to see you have a positive attitude about that, however. Dotard MUST go!
ReplyDeleteWikipedia: Biden's father was wealthy but had suffered several financial setbacks by the time his son was born. For several years, the family had to live with Biden's maternal grandparents, the Finnegans. When the Scranton area fell into economic decline during the 1950s, Biden's father could not find sustained work. In 1953, the Biden family moved into an apartment in Claymont, Delaware, where they lived for several years before again moving to a house in Wilmington, Delaware. Joe Biden Sr. subsequently became a successful used car salesman, maintaining the family's middle-class circumstances. [end Wikipedia excerpt]
Joe Biden wasn't born rich and isn't receiving any help from Russia. Dotard is Putin's puppet.
You're right. Joe and Hunter's support comes from Ukrainian oligarchs who up until 1989 were 'Soviets".
ReplyDeleteI am right. Joe Biden has received NOTHING from Ukrainian oligarchs. Whereas Dotard has had 2 Billion in loans secured by the Russian band VTB. Hunter took a job he shouldn't have but did nothing illegal. And his employer got no special treatment for hiring him. Whereas Dotard continues to do Putin's bidding.
ReplyDeleteReally? $900k in consulting services for Joe isn't nothing! And Hunter got millions PLUS a billion dollar Chinese investment stake.
ReplyDeleteBullshit. As per Giuliani (the person making the allegation) "funds in the amount of $900,000 were transferred to the US-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners". That is a Hunter Biden co-founded firm. You have evidence that Rosemont then paid Joe Biden? Present it. And it's got to be more than documents from Ukraine (documents that will likely have been manufactured by Russia). There needs to be a money trail that shows the 900k going from Rosemont to a bank account of Joe Biden (or a bank account he has access to). And eventually ending up in Joe Biden's hands. Unless that happens (which I seriously doubt) you can STFU.
ReplyDeletefyi, Hunter Biden got ZERO re the "Chinese investment stake". As per Hunter Biden's attorney, George Mesires, "Hunter has not received any return on his investment or compensation on account of his position on the board of directors" (re his dealings in China).
lol! Who OWNS the PRIVATE equity firm Rosemount-Seneca? Heinz & Biden. Who received the loans, the Trump CORPOration. There is ZERO difference in the chain of payment.
ReplyDeleteTrumps personal worth is didly. But as the owner of the Trump corporations, he's a billionaire. Ditto for Heinz/Bidens... only they are only worth millions.
ReplyDeleteIf Rosemount-Seneca changed it's name to Heinz-Biden, and Trump changed his companies name to MAGA Inc, would that make Trump a penny poorer or Biden a penny richer?
ReplyDeleteAccording to an email revealed as part of a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation, Rosemont described themselves as “a $2.4 billion private equity firm co-owned by Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz,” with Devon Archer as “Managing Partner.”
ReplyDeleteHunter Biden and Joe Biden are different people.
ReplyDeletebtw, you have no proof that Dotard is a billionaire. I say he is a millionaire... at best. This is one of the reasons he refuses to show his tax returns.
ReplyDeleteHunter Biden hasn't sold his company...yet. And you can be sure that Joe's already been cut more than one Rosemount- Seneca check.
ReplyDeleteNo betting. PROOF. And not from Rudy by way of Ukraine (manufactured by Russia).
ReplyDeletelol, Not by the means by which it came.... so not by any German banks alleging Russian securitization. :)
ReplyDeleteNow the conspiracy against Dotard includes Germany? LOL. There is no real proof implicating Joe Biden of corruption. As with HRC, you're hoping allegations alone will derail his bid for the White House. Why Dotard only wanted Zelensky to open (but not conduct) an investigation.
ReplyDeletebtw, I've heard that Mike Bloomberg is using his wealth to compile oppo research on the corruption of Dotard's spawn. You come after Joe Biden with lies and we're going to go after the Dotard spawn with the truth. This time we will be prepared.
Or at least I hope so. Thus far Joe Biden's response has been lacking. Although (as you know) Biden is the candidate Bloomberg wanted all along. So he is sure to get STRONG support from Bloomberg. And, regarding a battle of billionaires, I say the real billionaire (Bloomberg) wins and the fake one (Dotard) loses.
So what will Joe Biden owe to Bloomberg in December? The state of NY?
ReplyDelete...Epsteins island harem?
ReplyDelete...a Comet Pizza kiddieporn dungeon?
ReplyDeleteWhere are the charges/convictions re the "Comet Pizza kiddieporn dungeon"? Either the Dotard DOJ is falling down on the job to the point of being complicit, or what you're talking about never happened (no proof being why there have been no charges). The ONLY person convicted (and in prison) was a moron who believed the lies and shot the place up.
ReplyDeleteExactly. DOJ will lose the charges, like the did with Hillary's e-mail server. Bloomberg bought his Get Out of Jail Free card.
ReplyDelete...or as the Chinese would say, Mr. Bloomberg has a dragon's egg.
ReplyDeleteDotard has joined the "deep state"... LOL.
ReplyDeleteEven Trump can be conned by a so-called "expert".
ReplyDeleteThe adage that, "you can't con a con man" isn't true. He's just incredibly more adept at spotting the qui bono in the con.
ReplyDeleteHe's a modern Cicero.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Dotard is a con man. Also a moron. Clearly not the kind of person who should be president. At least a majority of us recognize this fact.
ReplyDeleteEvery US President is a conn man. And the best Presidents are the one's that conned the best. As I said on the bridge of the USS McKean (DD-784) on my last Naval Reserve deployment, "This is Lt. FJ, and I have the conn!"
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn your world there is no such thing as truth and the facts can not be known. I don't live in your world. Only 4 percent of the US population does (the number of sociopaths that walk among us).
ReplyDeleteYou mean those who socially distance themselves from the herd? Those who have no need to virtue signal their self-destructive and socially suicidal tendencies to the rest of the betas.
ReplyDeleteYou need to learn the difference between candor, parrhesia and truth telling, and the meaning of the following expressions:
ReplyDelete"Candor and generosity, unless tempered by due moderation, leads to ruin." - Tacitus
or this one:
"Entire generations of Americans have come of age since the ancient time when the president's power was constrained by a duty of candor to the American people." - James Bovard
Trump is ALL parrhesia in the Foucaultian sense. The American people are no longer accustomed to it.
"Innocence in genius, and candor in power, are both noble qualities." - Madame de Stael
from Wikipedia: Foucault (1983) sums up the Ancient Greek concept of parrhesia as such:
So you see, the parrhesiastes is someone who takes a risk. Of course, this risk is not always a risk of life. When, for example, you see a friend doing something wrong and you risk incurring his anger by telling him he is wrong, you are acting as a parrhesiastes. In such a case, you do not risk your life, but you may hurt him by your remarks, and your friendship may consequently suffer for it. If, in a political debate, an orator risks losing his popularity because his opinions are contrary to the majority's opinion, or his opinions may usher in a political scandal, he uses parrhesia. Parrhesia, then, is linked to courage in the face of danger: it demands the courage to speak the truth in spite of some danger. And in its extreme form, telling the truth takes place in the "game" of life or death.[16]
and
To summarize the foregoing, parrhesia is a kind of verbal activity where the speaker has a specific relation to truth through frankness, a certain relationship to his own life through danger, a certain type of relation to himself or other people through criticism (self-criticism or criticism of other people), and a specific relation to moral law through freedom and duty. More precisely, parrhesia is a verbal activity in which a speaker expresses his personal relationship to truth, and risks his life because he recognizes truth-telling as a duty to improve or help other people (as well as himself). In parrhesia, the speaker uses his freedom and chooses frankness instead of persuasion, truth instead of falsehood or silence, the risk of death instead of life and security, criticism instead of flattery, and moral duty instead of self-interest and moral apathy.[17]
Foucault (1984) sums up that:
The Parrhesiastes is the person who says everything. Thus, as an example, in his discourse "On the Embassy," Demosthenes says: It is necessary to speak with parrhesia, without holding back at anything without concealing anything. Similarly, in the "First Philippic," he takes up exactly the same term and says: I will tell you what I think without concealing anything.[18]
You've become too much like the Apostle Peter. You worship your Aristophanian gods, "The Clouds". You would deny your true G_d three times before the cock crowed to win their admiration/ acceptance.
ReplyDeleteAristophanes, "The Clouds"
ReplyDeleteSoc. Have you ever, when you; looked up, seen a cloud
like to a centaur, or a panther, or a wolf, or a bull?
Strep. By Jupiter, have I! But what of that?
Soc. They become all things, whatever they please. And
then if they see a person with long hair, a wild one of
these hairy fellows, like the son of Xenophantes, in
derision of his folly, they liken themselves to
centaurs.
Strep. Why, what, if they should see Simon, a plunderer
of the public property, what do they do?
Soc. They suddenly become wolves, showing up his
disposition.
Strep. For this reason, then, for this reason, when they
yesterday saw Cleonymus the recreant, on this account
they became stags, because they saw this most cowardly
fellow.
Soc. And now too, because they saw Clisthenes, you
observe, on this account they became women.
Strep. Hail therefore, O mistresses! And now, if ever ye
did to any other, to me also utter a voice reaching to
heaven, O all-powerful queens.
Cho. Hail, O ancient veteran, hunter after learned
speeches! And thou, O priest of most subtle trifles!
Tell us what you require? For we would not hearken to
any other of the recent meteorological sophists, except
to Prodicus; to him, on account of his wisdom and
intelligence; and to you, because you walk proudly in
the streets, and cast your eyes askance, and endure many
hardships with bare feet, and in reliance upon us
lookest supercilious.
Strep. O Earth, what a voice! How holy and dignified and
wondrous!
Soc. For, in fact, these alone are goddesses; and all
the rest is nonsense.
Trump is ALL parrhesia in the Foucauldian sense.
ReplyDeleteThat's only a good thing to people who admire autocrats. People like you. That will change after Dotard is out of power. One way or another. This also proves you lied earlier when you said you don't force your views on anyone. You clearly relish it. At least by proxy.
When did I ever say I was a moral man? I advertise that I'm a tit-4-tat man. Does that sound moral to you?
ReplyDeleteI can only hope that if you are ever in need of mercy that NONE is given. If anyone deserves to be kicked when they are down, it is people like you.
ReplyDeleteAnd I can only hopy that you end up like Titus, who granted metcy so broadly and indiscriminately that it lead to his ruin. :)
ReplyDeleteMe, I prefer Don Giovanni's fate. :)
ReplyDeleteThere is a middle ground.
ReplyDelete...and there are the moral hazards created by the Democratic Party (open borders, UBI, etc. etc.)
ReplyDeleteWe don't have either of those. Nor do Democrats want either. Certainly not in sufficient quantities to get either enacted into law. I'm certainly strongly opposed to "open borders" and would bet most Democrats agree. Anyway, something that ISN'T can't create anything.
ReplyDeleteFox Nooz, 7/7/2019: Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said Democrats always have supported stronger security measures at the southern border and denounced the notion of their desire for open borders, calling it a myth.
ReplyDeleteMerkley appeared on "Meet The Press" Sunday to discuss a possible compromise between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration and listed possible changes to the asylum laws, which may bring both sides to the negotiating table.
"Well, let’s get rid of the myth that Democrats are for open borders. We've supported border security", Merkley told host Chuck Todd. "That's a red herring thrown in there".
lol! If it were entirely untrue, the charge wouldn't sting.
ReplyDeletebtw - Didn't take long for you to advocate for putting border kids in cages...
ReplyDeleteThere is no "sting". It is Libertarians who want open borders, not Democrats. And White Nationalists like you want to cage the brown kids whose parents bring them over the southern border.
ReplyDeleteObama built the cages. Own them.
ReplyDeleteYou're full of shit. Dotard's White Nationalist adviser Steven Miller said we needed to punish the children to deter more parents from coming.
ReplyDeleteQuote: [under Obama] ...use of the "cage" detention housing method was supposed to be temporary, and that under the law, children were only supposed to be kept in those facilities for 72 hours before being transferred to the care of the Department of Health and Human Services... [end quote]
Then why were many of those photo's published of children in cages sourced to the Obama era?
ReplyDeleteQuote: [under Obama] ...use of the "cage" detention housing method was supposed to be temporary, and that under the law, children were only supposed to be kept in those facilities for 72 hours before being transferred to the care of the Department of Health and Human Services... [end quote]
ReplyDeleteDid Obama actually enforce ANY of those policies? lol!
ReplyDeleteThe FBI was also suppossed to follow the Woods Procedures in FISA Court application. Oooops. The IG Audit Report shows the differnce between what was and what should have been under the Obama Administration.
ReplyDeleteOOG Report
ReplyDeletePresidential candidates aren't supposed to collude with foreigners. Has Dotard been held accountable? Looks like the Dotard administration isn't doing it's job. Efforts to stop Dotard aren't anything I'm going to get upset about. Aside from the fact that the efforts failed.
ReplyDeleteOut of 42 applications, the report says, 39 included major defects.
ReplyDeleteWill you hold former FBI Directors Mueller and Comey accountable for their 93% corruption rate?
I have no ability to do so. That's Toady Barr's job. And it doesn't look like he's going to do it (only months remaining before Dotard is booted from office).
ReplyDeleteSleepy Joe will never get elected to another public office. You can take THAT to the bank.
ReplyDeleteIt's going to take a LOT of cheating to overcome the fallout from Dotard's bungling of the Coronavirus pandemic. Even more cheating than what it took to steal Dotard a first term. Where is all the winning Dotard promised? WAY too much losing is what we got instead. #worstpresidentever.
ReplyDelete