On 01/08/2024 16:17, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 01/08/2024 11:50, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 31/07/2024 21:16, D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <who cares?>
>>>>>>
>>>>> <k00ksnip>
>>>>
>>>> I think that races is not such a foregone conclusion. Trump V Biden was
>>>> the least worst., Trump V Harris is much more a devil and the deep blue sea.
>>>>
>>>> Kamala will be a disaster for America,
>>>
>>> :-D
>>>
>>>> Trump might be a disaster for
>>>> Europe and the rest of the free world.
>>>>
>>>> Which ultimately is bad news for the USA as well.
>>>
>>> Econmists tend to believe that Trump's stated policies will increase inflation,
>>> if not cause a recession.
>>
>> Economists are all closet communists who believe in state control, not
>> the free market Otherwise they lose their jobs and status
>
> You mean like Alan Greenspan? :-D
>
I hadn't noticed him
(a) being around these days
(b) being any use when he was.
(c) being as libertarian as he claimed.
He was directly reposnsible for interest rates, not the market.

--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On 2024-07-31, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com>
wrote:

> Trump has promised to do away with elections and to be a dictator
> from day 1.

Actually, he said he'd be a dictator _on_ day 1, not _from_ day 1.
However, history shows us that at the end of day 1 there are always
a few loose ends left to tie up, so he'll have to be a dictator on
day 2 as well. And at the end of day 2 there will be just one more
problem to fix, so now we're into day 3. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I can already hear the slogan for the next election: "No 22 in 28!"

(i.e. there will still be some final tweaks remaining, so we can't let
some little thing like the 22nd Amendment stand in the way of getting
the job done)

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On 8/1/24 03:50, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Why do not people maintain a filter against this RWNJ Troll?
>
>> On 31/07/2024 21:16, D wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> <who cares?>
>>>>
>>> <k00ksnip>
>>
>> I think that races is not such a foregone conclusion. Trump V Biden was
>> the least worst., Trump V Harris is much more a devil and the deep blue sea.
>>
>> Kamala will be a disaster for America,
>
> :-D

May for his class of American it would be a disaster especially if
Harris is able to move the Biden Tax Reforms onward. The bid disaster
that might happen is if a Republican Senator said before Barack
Obama did anything but be sworn in that this person must be a one
term President and yet he got two terms because the people saw that
the right wing in the Congress and Senate obstructe his reforms but
he still got a crippled Health Care bill through the Congress.

>
>> Trump might be a disaster for
>> Europe and the rest of the free world.
>>
>> Which ultimately is bad news for the USA as well.
>
> Econmists tend to believe that Trump's stated policies will increase inflation,
> if not cause a recession.
>
Trump's policies plus Project 2025 will result in a Fascistic America
ruled by theocrats who general have failed to read the bible.
Otherwise they would know that it condones abortion and that Transgender
people are mentioned as "those who become Eunuches for the sake of God."

I went to 3 different Protestant churches and one Catholic
High School where antisemitic preaching was an event held in the
Gym. I am neither an atheist nor an agnostic but it was not due
to anything I was taught in those religious places.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>>> He has no problem with
>>> *every* aspect radical leftist agenda being enforced.
>
>Ha, this clown knows only a little bit about me.

Yet not one denial of my point. Not one counter-example.

On 8/1/24 08:17, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 01/08/2024 11:50, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 31/07/2024 21:16, D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <who cares?>
>>>>>>
>>>>> <k00ksnip>
>>>>
>>>> I think that races is not such a foregone conclusion. Trump V Biden was
>>>> the least worst., Trump V Harris is much more a devil and the deep blue sea.
>>>>
>>>> Kamala will be a disaster for America,
>>>
>>> :-D
>>>
>>>> Trump might be a disaster for
>>>> Europe and the rest of the free world.
>>>>
>>>> Which ultimately is bad news for the USA as well.
>>>
>>> Econmists tend to believe that Trump's stated policies will increase inflation,
>>> if not cause a recession.
>>
>> Economists are all closet communists who believe in state control, not
>> the free market Otherwise they lose their jobs and status
>
> You mean like Alan Greenspan? :-D
>
Well you have the stomach for the RWNJ that i do not.
Inflation has been caused by the long term Trickle Down polices
endorsed by the Republicans and the failure to tax the beneficiaries
of War and Economic Crisis at the proper rates. Poor folks die
in wars and wealthy people profit, as they did in 2008 and in
in the Covid-19 restrictions. If it hurts the poor the rich
are generally raking it in. This goes back to JFK, a rich
Democrat, cutting the taxes on the wealthy, aka his set and
continued thru Reagan, Bush I and Bush II and hopefully
ending with Trump 45.
The billionaires of today are fearful of a Wealth Tax
which might get more money back into circulation among the
least well-compensated who generally do jobs in the food and
hospitality industries.

But the un-Natural Philospher is just a mindless
repeater of slurs, otherwise he would be paying attention
to real science and demanding more electric cars for the
sake of reducing climate changing emmissions.
bliss - no race but the multi-hued human race is worth discussion.

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

Chris Ahlstrom wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> The U.S., let alone the world, is roiling with issues all over the map.
> There's no sensible way to present a solution to it all, no way to satisfy
> everyone. Throw stupid statements, propaganda, and fscking lies into the mix,
> and it gets difficult to think straight.
>
> I do get a laugh about "the most liberal", as if that's necessarily a bad
> thing, given the benefits that have accrued from some progressive policies over
> the decades.
>
> And to call any member of the U.S. Congress a "radical leftist" is just
> asinine. (The same people might call the Democratic and Republican parties "the
> Uniparty", go figure).

More:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/how-kamala-harris-can-fight-the-too-liberal-label.html

The “old ranking” in question was a one-year profile of senators from GovTrack
in 2019. It was a very dubious enterprise that rated senators as “liberal” or
“conservative” strictly on the basis of how many bipartisan bills they
sponsored or co-sponsored; it did not factor in actual voting in the Senate or
differentiate between significant or insignificant legislation. The rating was
discontinued after 2019. Its deployment as a campaign weapon is highly
reminiscent of the use of a National Journal rating in 2004, which labeled
Kerry as the “most liberal senator.” At least in Kerry’s case, the rating was
based on his voting record rather than the meaningless metric of bill
co-sponsorships. But it also failed to distinguish major from minor
legislation.

Harris critics will be on firmer ground in attacking specific policy positions
she has taken, particularly during her presidential campaign; like nearly every
other Democratic candidate in the 2020 cycle, she backed decriminalizing (but
not indiscriminately allowing) border crossings. And she co-sponsored Bernie
Sanders’s Medicare for All bill while later supporting Medicare expansions that
did not preclude private health insurance. During her candidacy, Harris briefly
supported a ban on fracking but walked that position back after joining Biden’s
ticket.

To a large extent, Harris’s issues profile is right in the center of her party,
and Republicans waving the “too liberal” banner may just simply excoriate
positions very common among Democrats, such as support for what the Trump
campaign calls the Green New Scam and federal abortion-rights legislation.

.. . .

But just as Republicans went directly after Kerry’s military record to
undermine a source of strength and perceived moderation, they will now go after
Harris’s record as a prosecutor in Oakland, in San Francisco, and as attorney
general of California with demagogic zeal. They will use every bit of real and
manufactured evidence to suggest that like famed “rogue” California prosecutors
Chesa Boudin and George Gascon, Harris is a crime abettor, rather than a crime
fighter, and a radical advocate for defunding the police and emptying the
prisons. It is worth noting that one of the main impresarios of the
“swiftboating” of Kerry in 2004 is now Trump’s co–campaign manager Chris
LaCivita.

--
You're currently going through a difficult transition period called "Life."

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>And to call any member of the U.S. Congress a "radical leftist" is just
>asinine.

Really? Even "the squad"? It's assinine to deny that they are
radical leftists.

Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> I went to 3 different Protestant churches and one Catholic
>High School where antisemitic preaching was an event held in the
>Gym. I am neither an atheist nor an agnostic but it was not due
>to anything I was taught in those religious places.

Maybe it was due to yours truly being in alt.drugs.psychedelics!

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 8/1/24 14:55, chrisv wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> And to call any member of the U.S. Congress a "radical leftist" is just
>> asinine.
>
> Really? Even "the squad"? It's assinine to deny that they are
> radical leftists.
>
That depends on the meanings you assign to "radical" and to "leftist."
The Republicans consider all labor activists to be "Leftists".
And the Republicans consider everyone who supports progressive
taxation and realistic taxation to be "radical". So that means that
Biden is a radical leftist. Not by any means a real Communist but
certainly far enough to the Left to be demonized by Republicans of the
Trump stripe (yellow right down the back for Mr.Heel Spurs.)

These days the Republicans tend to violate the voting remarks
in the Constitution that every citizen is entitled to the franchise
(aka the vote). Of course citizenship has been extended to include women
and people other than white, but they resist allowing the darker skinned
to vote without harassment both at the polls and at home.
Was reading earlier today the testimony of Democrats in red states who
had their cars vandalized for the Democratic bumper stickers. Vandalism
was basically tire slashing.
Not even i do that to Trumpians though we don't have too
many in our hilly city. Heel spurs are very uncomfortable going
up or down hill on foot.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>>And to call any member of the U.S. Congress a "radical leftist" is just
>>asinine.
>
>Really? Even "the squad"? It's assinine to deny that they are
>radical leftists.

No, Chris A. was correct, and you are, as usual, a snippy and stupid
little boy.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Bobbie Sellers wrote:

> That depends on the meanings you assign to "radical" and to "leftist."
> The Republicans consider all labor activists to be "Leftists".
> And the Republicans consider everyone who supports progressive
>taxation and realistic taxation to be "radical". So that means that
>Biden is a radical leftist.

The usual made-up nonsense from the left. It takes far more than
those things to be called a "radical" leftists.

The left is far worse, of course, often calling people "white
supremacists" simply for voting Republican!

On 8/1/24 15:48, Joel wrote:
> Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> I went to 3 different Protestant churches and one Catholic
>> High School where antisemitic preaching was an event held in the
>> Gym. I am neither an atheist nor an agnostic but it was not due
>> to anything I was taught in those religious places.
>
>
> Maybe it was due to yours truly being in alt.drugs.psychedelics!
>

No it is due to dreams. I had one after my mother was murdered
and another after my dear friend was killed in an automobile accident.
Those two dreams are why I maintain an open mind on questions releted
to souls and spirits including the question of the Big Guy.

I will say that most of the speculations found in theology
is nothing if not blasphemy or simply irelevant nonsense.

The creator of the vast Universe in which we are lucky
enough to be conscious beings is obviously beyond human ken. Actually
the process of creation is quite obscure and we still are unaware
of the of the true nature of the Universe. But to me it resembles
the Natural processes in which thousands of offspring are created
in order that a species may continue. However the underlying laws
in our reality seem to indicate some possible planning in order
to attain bio-chemical life. But the main matter permitting
the evolution from inert matter to bomb-making idiocy is
duration and a touch of chaos.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

On 8/1/24 21:36, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 8/1/24 15:48, Joel wrote:
>> Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>>     I went to 3 different Protestant churches and one Catholic
>>> High School where antisemitic preaching was an event held in the
>>> Gym.  I am neither an atheist nor an agnostic but it was not due
>>> to anything I was taught in those religious places.
>>
>>
>> Maybe it was due to yours truly being in alt.drugs.psychedelics!
>>
>
>     No it is due to dreams. I had one after my mother was murdered
> and another after my dear friend was killed in an automobile accident.
> Those two dreams are why I maintain an open mind on questions releted
> to souls and spirits including the question of the Big Guy.
>
>     I will say that most of the speculations found in theology
> is nothing if not blasphemy or simply irelevant nonsense.
>
>     The creator of the vast Universe in which we are lucky
> enough to be conscious beings is obviously beyond human ken. Actually
> the process of creation is quite obscure and we still are unaware
> of the of the true nature of the Universe. But to me it resembles
> the Natural processes in which thousands of offspring are created
> in order that a species may continue.  However the underlying laws
> in our reality seem to indicate some possible planning in order
> to attain bio-chemical life.  But the main matter permitting
> the evolution from inert matter to bomb-making idiocy is
> duration and a touch of chaos.
>
>     bliss
>
What makes you think there is a creator?

On 7/28/24 5:18 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>>> Been using XFCE for many years and am very happy with it. When it
>>> comes to distributions without a woke or socialist code of conduct
>>> I've found the following:
>>>
>>> OpenBSD by far the best in terms of refusing to have one and focusing
>>> on shut up and code.
>>
>>
>>  The BSDs are good ... Open maybe more good. Alas their
>>  drivers may not be very up to date and I think SAMBA
>>  is still stuck on v1.
>
> That's what happens with a smaller community. Fortunately for me, I tend
> to work in linux only environments, and don't use smb at home either, so
> personally that is not a problem. =)

Depending, drivers CAN be a significant issue, esp with
new hardware/protocols coming out so quickly now.

SAMBA really IS better than No File Security system - much
more fine-grained control. Better Win compatibility - which
is important in typical corporate environs - as well.

But, for a terminal/ssh-only file/mail/whatever server,
OpenBSD is probably your safest option at the moment.

>>> Then you have debian and free and netbsd, I think they are kind of
>>> alright.
>>
>>  Deb WAS great - until WORM. I think they hired some
>>  Canonical rejects ... now POINTLESS complications and
>>  changes and abandonment of LONG-standing Linux norms
>>  for a lot of stuff. Went to Manjaro because of it.
>
> What happened? I use bookworm on my kodi tv computer and haven't noticed
> anything out of the ordinary. On the other hand, it is not my work
> platform, so I haven't looked that closely.

Let's see ... I do a lot with security cams, but the
/dev/video devices constantly switch all around. That
was just the start. The networking setup went all
wonky too ... I actually had to post where the new
files were and some ez templates for those who used
it without a GUI. The CLI utility SUCKS. A surprising
number of people here do NOT add a GUI, esp for Pi
implementations. Anyway, a bunch of very annoying
little things - so I've just DUMPED Deb. Hoping for
an "original fork" distro - kinda Devuian+ - soon.
Just NOT gonna waste any more time with it.

>>> Slackware and Artix I think are also distributions without too much
>>> CoC bullsh*t.
>>
>>  'Artix' or 'Antix" ??? Antix is super-simple - which
>>  CAN be good. Antix IS writ by very depressive communist
>>  Greeks alas ...... MX is an improvement.
>
> Artix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artix_Linux .
>
>>> You probably also have seen that Lunduke wants to start his own
>>> distribution with CoC b.s. so that could be promising as well! =)
>>
>>  What's that gonna do - "correct" your pronouns by
>>  default/mandate or something ? Wouldn't put it
>>  past 'em .....
>
> YES!
>
>>  Operating systems are SUPPOSED to be about pure
>>  function. No politics or neo-sociology.
>
> Jokes aside, that is his idea as far as I understand it. A distribution
> that focuses on the technology and not the woke B.S.

Let us hope.

Though that all might be banned if Harris and
friends gain control ... thou SHALL adhere to
the approved groupthink .....

I want a Linux that sticks VERY close to the
systems you could get a decade+ ago ... the
ones 95% of the online docs so helpfully
explain. There was nothing wrong, and a lot
right, about that sort of Linux.

Arch derivs like Manjaro are still kind of
there. Haven't fooled much with Slack since
I bought an early distro off the shelf at
WalMart (barely any internet then).

DID have substantial annoyances with Manjaro
trying to get an xrandr command to execute
on login ... but all distros are kinda weird
about that kind of stuff, hide everything way
on down and the docs aren't always super
helpful. Seems like it never dawned on the
writers that people might want/need a clean,
standard, way to make that work. ROOT, no
prob, but individual user accts .......

On 8/1/24 16:08, chrisv wrote:
> Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>
>> That depends on the meanings you assign to "radical" and to "leftist."
>> The Republicans consider all labor activists to be "Leftists".
>> And the Republicans consider everyone who supports progressive
>> taxation and realistic taxation to be "radical". So that means that
>> Biden is a radical leftist.
>
> The usual made-up nonsense from the left. It takes far more than
> those things to be called a "radical" leftists.

Not made up at all as that is the power behind Trump
as he offered billionaires assurance of further tax cuts at
Mar al Lago recently for only a donation of a mere Billlion
dollars to his campaign funds.

>
> The left is far worse, of course, often calling people "white
> supremacists" simply for voting Republican!
>

Not if the Republican they are voting for is a tool of the
Dominionists who really intend and they may not ever succeed in
creating a White Chistian Nationalist Theocracy in the USA. Have you
looked at the text of Project 2025?

This WCNT has been in the works for a long time and 40
years ago I was reading about the attempts to build up their media
presence. They really believe despita all historial evidence
to the contrary that the Founding Fathers were Christians.
Yes you will find their names in church membership but that was
the time when the Colonists were forced into support of the
Anglican Church by the British laws. That is the reason for the
rule that Congress shall not Establish any religion. The reason
behind that were the murderous and wasteful European religious
wars that ran on and on. The Founders were aware of that history
and did not want to repeat it on the American Continent.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

On 01/08/2024 20:56, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>  But the un-Natural Philospher is just a mindless
> repeater of slurs, otherwise he would be paying attention
> to real science and demanding more electric cars for the
> sake of reducing climate changing emmissions.

No. as a true engineer I am aware that electric cars will not reduce
emissions one iota, *overall* and that carbon dioxide emissions are a
minor problem compared with trying to run a civilisation off windmills
and solar panels, as people like you will see if they continue to try
and do it.

Ultimately the mindless repeating of slurs like 'climate denier' is
coming from the anti- science political climate alarmist Marxists, not
from scientists

The civilisation that takes over the world will do it using nuclear
power and hydrocarbon fuels, and all the 'Green' nations will be
colonised and enslaved by them

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 01/08/2024 22:39, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> The U.S., let alone the world, is roiling with issues all over the map.
>> There's no sensible way to present a solution to it all, no way to satisfy
>> everyone. Throw stupid statements, propaganda, and fscking lies into the mix,
>> and it gets difficult to think straight.
>>
>> I do get a laugh about "the most liberal", as if that's necessarily a bad
>> thing, given the benefits that have accrued from some progressive policies over
>> the decades.
>>
>> And to call any member of the U.S. Congress a "radical leftist" is just
>> asinine. (The same people might call the Democratic and Republican parties "the
>> Uniparty", go figure).
>
> More:
>
> https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/how-kamala-harris-can-fight-the-too-liberal-label.html
>
> The “old ranking” in question was a one-year profile of senators from GovTrack
> in 2019. It was a very dubious enterprise that rated senators as “liberal” or
> “conservative” strictly on the basis of how many bipartisan bills they
> sponsored or co-sponsored; it did not factor in actual voting in the Senate or
> differentiate between significant or insignificant legislation. The rating was
> discontinued after 2019. Its deployment as a campaign weapon is highly
> reminiscent of the use of a National Journal rating in 2004, which labeled
> Kerry as the “most liberal senator.” At least in Kerry’s case, the rating was
> based on his voting record rather than the meaningless metric of bill
> co-sponsorships. But it also failed to distinguish major from minor
> legislation.
>
> Harris critics will be on firmer ground in attacking specific policy positions
> she has taken, particularly during her presidential campaign; like nearly every
> other Democratic candidate in the 2020 cycle, she backed decriminalizing (but
> not indiscriminately allowing) border crossings. And she co-sponsored Bernie
> Sanders’s Medicare for All bill while later supporting Medicare expansions that
> did not preclude private health insurance. During her candidacy, Harris briefly
> supported a ban on fracking but walked that position back after joining Biden’s
> ticket.
>
> To a large extent, Harris’s issues profile is right in the center of her party,
> and Republicans waving the “too liberal” banner may just simply excoriate
> positions very common among Democrats, such as support for what the Trump
> campaign calls the Green New Scam and federal abortion-rights legislation.
>
> . . .
>
> But just as Republicans went directly after Kerry’s military record to
> undermine a source of strength and perceived moderation, they will now go after
> Harris’s record as a prosecutor in Oakland, in San Francisco, and as attorney
> general of California with demagogic zeal. They will use every bit of real and
> manufactured evidence to suggest that like famed “rogue” California prosecutors
> Chesa Boudin and George Gascon, Harris is a crime abettor, rather than a crime
> fighter, and a radical advocate for defunding the police and emptying the
> prisons. It is worth noting that one of the main impresarios of the
> “swiftboating” of Kerry in 2004 is now Trump’s co–campaign manager Chris
> LaCivita.
>

From my perspective across the pond, the perception is that she is a
hand wavey full of promises piece on incompetent wokery, who will make
decision based on ideology because she is too stupid to figure stuff out
pragmatically.

At least the Donald has, albeit not very successfully, run businesses.

Kamala may well win, simply because she inst Joe Biden and she isn't
Donald Trump, but that is hardly a ringing endorsement of her leadership
or managerial qualities.

As far as policies go, well it will all change as soon as the election
is over.

This sort of comes to mind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg7Cmny2ZAo

--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On 02/08/2024 02:24, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 8/1/24 16:08, chrisv wrote:
>> Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>
>>>     That depends on the meanings you assign to "radical" and to
>>> "leftist."
>>>     The Republicans consider all labor activists to be "Leftists".
>>>     And the Republicans consider everyone who supports progressive
>>> taxation and realistic taxation to be "radical".  So that means that
>>> Biden is a radical leftist.
>>
>> The usual made-up nonsense from the left.  It takes far more than
>> those things to be called a "radical" leftists.
>
>     Not made up at all as that is the power behind Trump
> as he offered billionaires assurance of further tax cuts at
> Mar al Lago recently for only a donation of a mere Billlion
> dollars to his campaign funds.
>
And the Democrat campaign is spotless?
No one wins elections without billionaire backing

You do seem to be rather naïve...

http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20and%20Politics/dilemma.jpg

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, 1 Aug 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 31/07/2024 21:11, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>>> By the very nature of them being unanswerable, the connection between
>>>> them and the world is nil.
>>>
>>> Completely wrong.
>>> Consider the statement 'everything is caused by some other things'
>>
>> Already here we go wrong. Since we do not know _everything_, that
>> statement makes no sense.
>>
>> Let me instead focus on the question, can we prove causation. I offer
>> the following:
>>
>> Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs): The gold standard for proving
>> causation is through randomized controlled experiments. In an RCT,
>> participants are randomly assigned to either a treatment group or a
>> control group. This randomization helps ensure that any differences in
>> outcomes can be attributed solely to the treatment being tested, thus
>> providing strong evidence for causality.
>>
>> Observational Studies with Instrumental Variables: When RCTs are not
>> feasible, researchers often rely on observational studies. Here,
>> identifying instrumental variables—factors that influence the treatment
>> but do not directly affect the outcome—can help establish causal
>> relationships. For example, if a new policy is implemented at a specific
>> time affecting only certain groups, comparing outcomes before and after
>> can provide insights into causal effects.
>
> They prove nothing.
>
> Other than causality seems to work.

Of course they prove it. It seems your ideas and mine are so far apart,
that the meaning of proof and what we are talking about is not the same.
Therefore this discussion will become meaningless.

>>>
>>> This assumption cannot be proved to be true. It is a metaphysical
>>> statement, and yet it is the basis for all classical science.
>>
>> I already disagreed with your sentence, and offered 2 ways in which we
>> can prove causation.
>
> They are both faux ways.
> They prove nothing

No, that's proof. If you cannot accept it, you are in solipsist and
terminal skepticist land, and it is meaningless to discuss this topic
with you.

>>
>>>> We have hypothesis and experiment that tells
>>>> us there is an external world which such certainty, that the burden of
>>>> proof is on the one who does not believe in the external world, to
>>>> disprove the external world, and no one has so far succeeded at that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Irrelevant in this context. An external world is a simple way to explain
>>> our lack of total freedom to be what we want and experience what we want.
>>> Doesnt mean its true, juts means its a very good and useful explanation.
>>
>> If you do not accept it, then you have the burden of proof. Prove to me
>> an alternative to the external world, and I'll gladly read this first
>> break through in philosophy since it began.
>>
> here you go again with 'proof'
> There is no proof of anything in metaphsyics. Proof is impossible with
> inductive logic.
> Only deductive logic can prove that given a set of assumptins, certain
> results are inevitably true.
>
> That never however validates those assumptions.
>
> Ith indictoive logic, There are only models that work, and models that don't.
>
>
>
>> Meanwhlie, in terms of the external world, let me present you to G.E.
>> Moore and the "hand".
>>
>> The argument takes the following form:
>>
>> Here is one hand,
>> And here is another.
>> There are at least two external objects in the world.
>> Therefore, an external world exists.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand .
>>
>
> Again its trite and misses the actual point.
>
> You are hung up on the classic idealism/realism debate. Things moved on with
> Kant.
>
> The problem is neither the scientists or the woke crowd moved in with him.

No. You are the one stuck in the idealist camp. Do note that a vast
majority of philosophy ph.d. support the fact that an external world
exist and that science is the best way to obtain knowledge about it.

I will not stop this conversation, since it is meaningless to talk about
this with you.

The paper if you are interested is What Do Philosophers Believe? by David
Bourget and David J. Chalmers.

On Thu, 1 Aug 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 31/07/2024 21:16, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>>> You are what you are, and coming to terms with it is called 'growing up'
>>>> and rubbing other peoples noses in it is just childish.
>>>
>>> Forcing people to play with you and by your rules is the ultimate form of
>>> bullying. Threatening to get people fired or have their life destroyed
>>> because they are not surrendering to what you've imagined is what we can
>>> expect from these pedophiles.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that is the sinister and dagenrous truth. Just like in Nazi
>> germany, or the soviet union, if they get control over society, society
>> will soon self destruct.
>>
>> But Trump will at least save the US from that fate in the autumn, so
>> that's a small relief! =)
>
> I think that races is not such a foregone conclusion. Trump V Biden was the
> least worst., Trump V Harris is much more a devil and the deep blue sea.
>
> Kamala will be a disaster for America, Trump might be a disaster for Europe
> and the rest of the free world.

No... Trump will be extremely good for europe! Trump will force europe to
build up its own defense and not freeride on the US.

The economy of europe is about 15x the economy of russia, and the
population is 450 million compared with russias 150 million.

So if europe got its act together, it can outspend russia 15 times, and
out fight russia 3 times and the war would be over pretty quick.

My hope is that by Trump having a hard line towards nato and europe,
europe will finally act together to depose Putin.

If Cackles should win, I'm sure she would continue with the current way
things are, and europe could play the "saint" avoiding having to do
anything and just off loading that responsibility to the US as always.

On Thu, 1 Aug 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 01/08/2024 11:50, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this copyrighted missive and expects
>> royalties:
>>
>>> On 31/07/2024 21:16, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <who cares?>
>>>>>
>>>> <k00ksnip>
>>>
>>> I think that races is not such a foregone conclusion. Trump V Biden was
>>> the least worst., Trump V Harris is much more a devil and the deep blue
>>> sea.
>>>
>>> Kamala will be a disaster for America,
>>
>> :-D
>>
>>> Trump might be a disaster for
>>> Europe and the rest of the free world.
>>>
>>> Which ultimately is bad news for the USA as well.
>>
>> Econmists tend to believe that Trump's stated policies will increase
>> inflation,
>> if not cause a recession.
>>
>
> Economists are all closet communists who believe in state control, not the
> free market Otherwise they lose their jobs and status

This is the truth! To balance out mainstream politics, have a look at
fee.org and mises.org.

On a personal note, I have always invested against mainstream economics
and have profited handsomely by utilizing austrian economic thinking as a
framework against which I make decisions. Another favourite of mine is
contrarian thinking.

On Thu, 1 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2024-08-01 6:50 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this copyrighted missive and expects
>> royalties:
>>
>>> On 31/07/2024 21:16, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <who cares?>
>>>>>
>>>> <k00ksnip>
>>>
>>> I think that races is not such a foregone conclusion. Trump V Biden was
>>> the least worst., Trump V Harris is much more a devil and the deep blue
>>> sea.
>>>
>>> Kamala will be a disaster for America,
>>
>> :-D
>>
>>> Trump might be a disaster for
>>> Europe and the rest of the free world.
>>>
>>> Which ultimately is bad news for the USA as well.
>>
>> Econmists tend to believe that Trump's stated policies will increase
>> inflation,
>> if not cause a recession.
>
> Economists also believe that there are no negative repercussions to Keynesian
> economics and believed that there was no reason to worry about banks in 2008.
>

It is also possible to check inflation during Trumps last tenure and
Sleepy Joes. I think it should be pretty obvious who's politics leads to a
stable and prosperous economy, not propped up by fake public sector jobs.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>The civilisation that takes over the world will do it using nuclear
>power and hydrocarbon fuels, and all the 'Green' nations will be
>colonised and enslaved by them

That's China's plan. Once they have Taiwan back, we'll be completely
at their mercy.

On Fri, 2 Aug 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 7/28/24 5:18 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 28 Jul 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>>> Been using XFCE for many years and am very happy with it. When it comes
>>>> to distributions without a woke or socialist code of conduct I've found
>>>> the following:
>>>>
>>>> OpenBSD by far the best in terms of refusing to have one and focusing on
>>>> shut up and code.
>>>
>>>
>>>  The BSDs are good ... Open maybe more good. Alas their
>>>  drivers may not be very up to date and I think SAMBA
>>>  is still stuck on v1.
>>
>> That's what happens with a smaller community. Fortunately for me, I tend
>> to work in linux only environments, and don't use smb at home either, so
>> personally that is not a problem. =)
>
....
> But, for a terminal/ssh-only file/mail/whatever server,
> OpenBSD is probably your safest option at the moment.

Yes... the more crazy the linux world is becoming, the more I am leaning
towards OpenBSD. I wouldn't be surprised if I actually did base my
company servers on openbsd in the end. It seems robust, small and well
thought out.

>>>> Then you have debian and free and netbsd, I think they are kind of
>>>> alright.
>>>
>>>  Deb WAS great - until WORM. I think they hired some
>>>  Canonical rejects ... now POINTLESS complications and
>>>  changes and abandonment of LONG-standing Linux norms
>>>  for a lot of stuff. Went to Manjaro because of it.
>>
>> What happened? I use bookworm on my kodi tv computer and haven't noticed
>> anything out of the ordinary. On the other hand, it is not my work
>> platform, so I haven't looked that closely.
>
> Let's see ... I do a lot with security cams, but the
> /dev/video devices constantly switch all around. That
> was just the start. The networking setup went all
> wonky too ... I actually had to post where the new
> files were and some ez templates for those who used
> it without a GUI. The CLI utility SUCKS. A surprising
> number of people here do NOT add a GUI, esp for Pi
> implementations. Anyway, a bunch of very annoying
> little things - so I've just DUMPED Deb. Hoping for
> an "original fork" distro - kinda Devuian+ - soon.
> Just NOT gonna waste any more time with it.

Interesting. Thank you very much for the review.

>>>> Slackware and Artix I think are also distributions without too much CoC
>>>> bullsh*t.
>>>
>>>  'Artix' or 'Antix" ??? Antix is super-simple - which
>>>  CAN be good. Antix IS writ by very depressive communist
>>>  Greeks alas ...... MX is an improvement.
>>
>> Artix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artix_Linux .
>>
>>>> You probably also have seen that Lunduke wants to start his own
>>>> distribution with CoC b.s. so that could be promising as well! =)
>>>
>>>  What's that gonna do - "correct" your pronouns by
>>>  default/mandate or something ? Wouldn't put it
>>>  past 'em .....
>>
>> YES!
>>
>>>  Operating systems are SUPPOSED to be about pure
>>>  function. No politics or neo-sociology.
>>
>> Jokes aside, that is his idea as far as I understand it. A distribution
>> that focuses on the technology and not the woke B.S.
>
> Let us hope.

We can only pray!

> Though that all might be banned if Harris and
> friends gain control ... thou SHALL adhere to
> the approved groupthink .....

That could definitely be true. In europe, many socialist countries like
sweden, are using nudgeing to teach people to become more socialist and
companies too. For instance, there are legal requirements that you must
have a gender plan, a "green" plan etc. and if you do not have it, you
are banned from doing business with the public sector.

Also, in order to get government money as a non-profit, you have to
conform with democratic principles, which of course in europe means,
woke:ism as well.

> I want a Linux that sticks VERY close to the
> systems you could get a decade+ ago ... the
> ones 95% of the online docs so helpfully
> explain. There was nothing wrong, and a lot
> right, about that sort of Linux.

Maybe slckware would be your best bet in the linux universe? I am
getting more and more convinced that for a stable, no-nonsense
environment, the BSD:s are the ones that change the least and stick the
most to the basics.

> Arch derivs like Manjaro are still kind of
> there. Haven't fooled much with Slack since
> I bought an early distro off the shelf at
> WalMart (barely any internet then).

What a conincidence. It was my first, store bought distro too. I bought
a double CD set at some local linux shop, and that was my start with
linux. Hmm, maybe I should check it out myself. It still looks pretty
basic on the surface.

> DID have substantial annoyances with Manjaro
> trying to get an xrandr command to execute
> on login ... but all distros are kinda weird
> about that kind of stuff, hide everything way
> on down and the docs aren't always super
> helpful. Seems like it never dawned on the
> writers that people might want/need a clean,
> standard, way to make that work. ROOT, no
> prob, but individual user accts .......
>

On Fri, 2 Aug 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 01/08/2024 20:56, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>  But the un-Natural Philospher is just a mindless
>> repeater of slurs, otherwise he would be paying attention
>> to real science and demanding more electric cars for the
>> sake of reducing climate changing emmissions.
>
> No. as a true engineer I am aware that electric cars will not reduce
> emissions one iota, *overall* and that carbon dioxide emissions are a minor
> problem compared with trying to run a civilisation off windmills and solar
> panels, as people like you will see if they continue to try and do it.

This is the truth! If anyone here wants to look at the environmental
impact of EV:s, a pro tip is to look at the entire life cycle from mine to
parking lot to scrap heap.

Add to that the fact that the source of the electricity is frequently
ignored, and, that we have no good answer (yet) to large scale battery
recycling.

Another factor, is more soft, but that is the financial loss due to
shorter range, longer charging times, and of course the expansion of the
power grid and generation, if society as a whole would move to electric,
which in europe (at least) is not feasible at the moment.

When it comes to wind mills and solar, it is not the answer, due to our
current ability to store energy cheap, for a long time, is not near
enough.

It can be added as a complement, but basing countries on it, will lead to
brown outs and black outs.

> Ultimately the mindless repeating of slurs like 'climate denier' is coming
> from the anti- science political climate alarmist Marxists, not from
> scientists

As long as the term Climate denier persists, we have a clear signal that
the green camp has no intention to listen to facts and science. It is a
cheap shot aimed at connecting rational beings who are not hysterics, with
holocaust deniers. I find the term revolting, and it does not make for
good discussion.

Eco-fascism is a control tool, which is built like the medieval church
with the intent of making the population hand over all power to
eco-priests (politicians and corrupt scientists). Only they will allow you
to attone for your sins by higher taxes and a medieval lifestyle, while
they still travel with private jet.

> The civilisation that takes over the world will do it using nuclear power and
> hydrocarbon fuels, and all the 'Green' nations will be colonised and enslaved
> by them

Let's hope for this result. When ideology and reality clash, sooner or
later (hopefully sooner) reality wins as all marxist and socialist
countries eventually find out.