Open thread

    • Anything from anybody any time, any length, any subject, any format, and no rules beyond those set by the site managers but at the same time encouraging the interactive tone they strive for. I will probably often use this space as a link dump as there are many articles on the net which I find both interesting and informative but shouldn't push links off the "In the News" section.  Also, I often am inclined to post some short comment that fits nowhere in particular and which I don't want to invest in a separate blog post to express, so I will just put it here but it will remain an open thread for anything as described above.



    Just for a start: "Hillary, Trump, and War with Russia: The Goddamdest Stupid Idea I Have Ever Heard, and I Have Lived in Washington", by my favorite curmudgeon, Fred Reed. 

    From your link:

    A good reason to vote for Trump, a very good reason whatever his other intentions, is that he does not want a war with Russia. Hillary and her elite ventriloquists threaten just that.  Note the anti-Russian hysteria coming from her and her remoras.

    I read your article looking for evidence to support that "note." I found none. Your first task is to actually support the contention that Hillary is promoting war with Russia. You haven't done that, not with evidence, not even with a reasonably convincing argument. All your linked articles simply assume it as a premise. It's a premise I find ridiculous and unsupported by any of the articles I read. While I agree with your link's contention that war with Russia would be foolish I see no evidence that Hillary is planning to invade Russia as your link contends.

    You have not "noted" the onslaught of demonizing propaganda aimed at Putin for the last couple years? Was Hillary's comparing Putin to Hitler intended as a diplomatic gesture? The article by Reed, like every article published short of a doctoral thesis, assumes some common knowledge. 

      Policies and/or actions can bring about war even if actually going to war was not the intent. That is the threat of aggressive policies such as putting military forces right on the border of a country whose leader you are demonizing daily. Reed did not say that Hillary promotes war but that she will risk it and that is the threat I see him referring to and it is a threat to everyone on the planet. 

    All your linked articles simply assume it as a premise. 

    Absolutely wrong. Most of the articles I link to suggest that Hillary is more of a Hawk than Obama and that her expected policies can be expected to increase the likelihood of war, not that she hopes to start one. I don't think Hillary is promoting war, she wants to win without war while using our military as a constant threat and thinks she can do so and so she risks war, but I also think she is not afraid of war and if that is actually the case she will take chances she doesn't understand and that makes her a person I believe is not mentally qualified to pick up when the red phone rings at three in the morning. 

    It's a premise I find ridiculous and unsupported by any of the articles I read.

    You must read an exceptionally narrow range of articles but his would be a good place to link to one of them. 

    "comparing Putin to HItler" was actually comparing the occupation of Crimea to the occupation of Sudetenland.

    I know details confuse...

    Congrats - Marine Le Pen is on your side. Everything that rises must converge, eh?

    Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is no longer needed now that Julian Assange has adopted his anger and his core followers, even as Hillary's adopted much of his platform.

    There is not going to be a war over the Ukraine. Hillary will attempt to tighten economic sanctions on Russia if Putin makes a move. Trump seems to be willing to turn a blind eye if Putin becomes more aggressive in the Ukraine. Where do you see troops headed to Moscow?

    Quotes from Fred Reed's ('God damnnest stupid idea..) other two lead posts on

    On Milwaukee riots:

    To avoid admitting that we are seeing a racial insurgency, the media insist that the police are the problem.  They are not. Blacks are unmistakably gripped by a powerful racial hatred of white people. If the police were perfect, nothing would change....

    On our government:

    When people realize that they really have no country, only a collection of rapacious interests, history becomes…creative. In theory, Congress and the President have the well-being of the nation at heart and at least to some extent seek to effect the betterment of the whole. Really they are carrion birds picking the carcass clean and, perhaps, planning flight to the French Riviera....

    Fred Reed, another American loudmouth idiot with a website.

    Thanks for reading the article so that I wouldn't have to.

    Thank you for this lead.  Reed is a wonderful curmudgeon and a delight to read.

    Kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with.....discuss race wars, war with Russia, guillotines and how America is like 18th century France....delightful?

    Yeah, I've enjoyed a couple of his books too as well as his insights on living in Mexico and on the gringos living there. I think he is probably a guy I'd like having a beer with. 

    Holy Sacramento...

    That author appears to have a brain of a gusano drenched in tequila (sorry to worms everywhere).

    This is a real hoot...

    "...since Russia is not going to invade anybody unprovoked, Washington would have to attack. See above, the three forms of military stupidity."

    And those three forms are?

    "Ordinarily stupid; really, really, really stupid; and fighting Russia. Think Charles XII at Poltava, Napoleon after Borodino, Adolf and Kursk."

    Where's the Boxer Rebellion? That's always good for an eye opening hoot.

    I recall reading a few years back that Reed is like a parody of stupid reactionary conservatives.

    I'm not sure about that, although throwing crap against the wall and seeing what sticks is NOT the highest form of intelligent journalism.

    But what does one expect from a writer with the brain of a very drunk worm?

    Bottom's up ...




    People are saying that she not only wants to start a war with Russia, but Hillary wants to destroy the Real Estate industry by tearing down all of our Cities.  Imagine the hundreds of billions of dollars that will be lost when Hillary and her allies replace our cities with villages.   That's right.  She's on-record as saying we need villages and knowing her, she will do anything to get them, including destroying every town and urban landscape in America.  Can you imagine how many Real Estate tycoons will suffer?  (Okay, that was a trick question, there are only 7 Real Estate tycoons in the United States), But never mind that, they will all suffer HUGE losses as Clinton's minions ruthlessly bulldoze our skyscraping paradises into oblivion in order to build some sickeningly bucolic villages in which to foster her Socialist utopia.  Well,.feh.  Save the Chrysler building!  Vote for ... Oh hell, I can't do it.  I can not get my fingers to type the words vote for ... You know who.   Even in jest, there are some things I just won't do.    Oh well.   .

    Tearing down the cities and replacing them with villages isn't the worst of it. Hillary will take all the children, your child, away from you and give them to those villages to raise. She's on record stating, "It takes a village to raise a child"

    You should publish this stuff with Zackheims Penguin line , it has been called an 'incredibly profitable business of binding and selling wingnut hatespeech to bigots and morons'.

    And for $8.99 a year you could rant about it in your own .org website at GoDaddy, a la Fred Reed, as GoDaddy says .org:

    What can a .ORG do?

    Build trust. .ORG conveys credibility. It's the domain people most commonly associate with charities and other non-profit institutions.

    Provide valuable, well-intended information. .ORG websites are known for containing valuable, unbiased information.

    But funny thing is the .org didn't do any of that for me at  because he is FOS...


    Just to clarify, technically, isn't a POS also FOS?   I'd hate to discover, down the road, that my description of the Republican nominee was FOS, when I called him a POS.  

    I shall continue to think POS-itive and FOS-ter a POS-itive attitude.

    Correct. I think you could probably get a pro bono .org with that attitude...!

    Latest Comments