3
0

Will America ever turn Commie with just 50.00015% of the population voting for it?


 invite response                
2018 May 17, 11:16am   3,792 views  34 comments

by Tenpoundbass   ➕follow (7)   💰tip   ignore  

I mean we're basically an even divided country ripped right down the middle. That is if we just ignore the Trump effect for a moment and pretend the 2016 elections never happened. And we're still a 50/50 nation that can't agree unanimously on anything.

I can't see America shifting to a Socialist government over night based on one Election outcome. It would take a 80% majority or more, and I don't ever see that happening in my life time. The poor kids our Liberal education system is trying to Marxistize might buy into it in other 20 years if they don't get round up and fired or shot first.

I think we'll see our 2nd Revolution before we're ever allowed to be dominated and oppressed by Marxist bastards and Fucknuts like Germany, France and the UK are so trampled so. This is why it is more important than ever to defend the 1st and 2nd amendment, and vote Republican. Your future depends on it.
Don't you think?

Comments 1 - 34 of 34        Search these comments

1   FortWayne   2018 May 17, 11:45am  

Funny that those who want socialism, ignore every nation where it failed and put everyone into misery.
2   edvard   2018 May 17, 1:07pm  

One thing is sure: America will never turn into the fascist, repressive regime you on the right fantasize about...
3   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 May 17, 1:32pm  

Amerikkka! Will not recognize my Two-Spirit Gender on the Census! Muh Human Rights are being violated by the Fascist Trump Regime!
4   edvard   2018 May 17, 1:47pm  

Make Murica' Great agin! Yeah- take dat, Lib-rals... My life sucks and because I'm too fuckin' lazy and stupid to fix my own problems I'll believe whatever some orange man in a suit tells me since I'm incapable of thinking for myself.... Sure- my life still sucks.... But whatever, so long as I can stick it to da Lib-Tards!
5   justme   2018 May 17, 5:50pm  

Ah, yes. A rightist that thinks that Democracy should be suspended when the rightists lose an election.

What else is new.
6   marcus   2018 May 17, 6:17pm  

Listen to Jordan Peterson. He talks a lot about the failures of Marxism and the ways that identity politics has replaced it.

I believe that identity politics is a problem. But also that it will not grow to overpower the democratic party, or if it does we will have new parties.

I also believe that government control of the means of production is not something that is close to happening here nor will it any time soon. (the actual definition of socialism)

On the other hand, capitalism is flawed and leads to increasing inequality. Having the government address that in some way is not automatically communism. If things get to where there aren't enough decent paying jobs, due to automation, then the government might need to intervene. Possibly government jobs (separate from the corporate world) will be part of the solution. Possibly a guaranteed minimum income (but not enough to support a family) will one day be necessarily. Certainly some kind of government health care will eventually exist here as it does everywhere else in the developed world. Maybe the government will have to intervene on housing - not that I'm advocating anything articular.

Being open to possible solutions to problems is what made America great in the first place. For now, we no longer have that ability of government to solve problems.. The powers that be seem to be afraid to let us solve problems, so instead we play games with increasingly dishonest media and increasingly uninformed citizens that don't even have a clue as to how our government is supposed to work.
10   marcus   2018 May 17, 6:22pm  

Listen to Jordan Peterson. He talks a lot about the failures of Marxism and the ways that identity politics has replaced it.

I believe that identity politics is a problem. But also that it will not grow to overpower the democratic party, or if it does we will have new parties.

I also believe that government control of the means of production is not something that is close to happening here nor will it any time soon. (the actual definition of socialism)

On the other hand, capitalism is flawed and leads to increasing inequality. Having the government address that in some way is not automatically communism. If things get to where there aren't enough decent paying jobs, due to automation, then the government might need to intervene. Possibly government jobs (separate from the corporate world) will be part of the solution. Possibly a guaranteed minimum income (but not enough to support a family) will one day be necessarily. Certainly some kind of government health care will eventually exist here as it does everywhere else in the developed world. Maybe the government will have to intervene on housing - not that I'm advocating anything articular.

Being open to possible solutions to problems is what made America great in the first place. For now, we no longer have that ability of government to solve problems.. The powers that be seem to be afraid to let us solve problems, so instead we play games with increasingly dishonest media and increasingly uninformed citizens that don't even have a clue as to how our government is supposed to work.
11   justme   2018 May 17, 6:24pm  

Ahchooooo!
Ahchooooo!
Ahchooooo!

Must be my allergy to straw and strawmen
12   HeadSet   2018 May 17, 7:24pm  

marcus says
I also believe that government control of the means of production is not something that is close to happening here nor will it any time soon. (the actual definition of socialism)

Absolutely wrong. Government ownership of the means of production is textbook Socialism. Government control without ownership is called Fascism.
13   Reality   2018 May 17, 7:40pm  

To answer TPB's original question, I will cite two analogies:

1. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what the founding fathers had created, he answered:"A Republic, if they can keep it."

2. When a child asks his parents "will I die someday?" The answer is yes.

However, staving off the eventual death and destruction for as long as possible (so long as doing so is still enjoyable) is a worthy fight, for each individual and for a society/civilization.

A society/civilization has a life cycle, just like an individual. This cycle started with the fragmented Europe, where various princedoms were more like landlords than governments, and people (especially merchants) could vote with their feet. Competition among prince-landlords kept the ancien-regimes (and attendant "free cities") relatively lean, so capital acummulation could take place even when technological progress was slow. This was analogous to Ancient Greek City States. Since late 19th and early 20th century, the cumulative productivity gains have enabled parents to send their kids to schools to have a leg up on other people's kids, massive growth of schools and bureaucracy (monopolies enforced by force) and global wars (fighting over the enforcement of bureaucratic monopolies); the analogous time period was the Pelopennesian Wars pitting massive alliances against each other, Plato's Academy, etc., eventually some Alexander will appear (historically he was a student of Aristotle, who was actually quite critical of Plato's communistic leanings), trying to conquer the entire known world. Romans eventually did it, and that was an utter disaster to the Mediterranean: trade/commerce/division of labor were replaced welfare/bureaucracy(including academic bureaucracy)/warfare to fight over the control of the bureaucracy. It didn't even matter plebian vs. patrician, the end result was the same: bigger centralized state that eventually destroys itself due to its own weight and inefficiency.

Massive stifling bureaucracy / communism is indeed the end-state in every cycle: death, when to each his desire (which is nothing in death) and from each his ability (which is also nothing in death). Only fools would want to bring that end-state sooner or celebrate its eventual arrival.
14   marcus   2018 May 17, 7:41pm  

HeadSet says
Absolutely wrong. Government ownership of the means of production is textbook Socialism. Government control without ownership is called Fascism.


Splitting hairs in my opinion.

I think of fascism as corporate ownership/control of the government.
15   HeadSet   2018 May 17, 7:52pm  

marcus says
HeadSet says
Absolutely wrong. Government ownership of the means of production is textbook Socialism. Government control without ownership is called Fascism.


Splitting hairs in my opinion.

I think of fascism as corporate ownership/control of the government.



No, Fascism is gov control of corporations, and this control is maintained by the use of force. When the corporations control government, that is corruption, and can only happen when the politicians are bribe-able.
16   marcus   2018 May 17, 7:53pm  

Aphroman says
Once it was obvious that Obama was incapable of saying Islamic Terrorism, American was dead right there and then


That's at the top of my list of the stupidest things said about Obama. He used terms to distinguish between Ismamists, Isil, Alqueda etc versus the overly general Islamic terrorism. I think it's because that would be doing what the terrorists want.

If I think that even one in one thousand Americans didn't know exactly what Isis, Isil, ALqueda are, that is radical fundamententalist Islamic groups, then you might have a point. But the fact that all 1000 of every 1000 know, makes the point seem so far beyond stupid to me. I can't begin to fathom how this means anything to you.
17   Tenpoundbass   2018 May 17, 7:53pm  

Reality says
To answer TPB's original question, I will cite two analogies:

1. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what the founding fathers had created, he answered:"A Republic, if they can keep it."

2. When a child asks his parents "will I die someday?" The answer is yes.


Yes but the Paradox of a Communist America spured on by the Socialist Left.
Those voting for it, will be voting for the benefits side of it, those voting against will be defending themselves against Slavery to finance a Sloth class of shiftless able bodied fucknuts sitting on their asses waiting for the fruits of those that have to work to hand it over to entitlement

That's worth a lot more than most Democrat voters can afford to pay.
18   marcus   2018 May 17, 8:01pm  

Tenpoundbass says
Those voting for it, will be voting for the benefits side of it, those voting against will be defending themselves against Slavery to finance a Sloth class of shiftless able bodied fucknuts sitting on their asses waiting for the fruits of those that have to work to hand it over to entitlement


I'd rather live in a world where our politics was about finding ways to minimize the extent to which laziness sets in, to shiftless numbnuts, for example requiring work of some kind even if it's some sort of work that doesn't cause a well defined short term profit to some entity that exceeds the amount paid to the person. Politics could address that. Everyone wants dignity, and to hold their head up with pride that they contribute something to the world. If not, they can learn.

That would be better than living in a world of slavery and suicide. But we don't have to address it until automation finally does take over so much of the work out there, that it's obvious that the system no longer works for the people as it once did. That day may come sooner than some think.
19   Reality   2018 May 17, 8:02pm  

Tenpoundbass says
Yes but the Paradox of a Communist America spured on by the Socialist Left.
Those voting for it, will be voting for the benefits side of it, those voting against will be defending themselves against Slavery to finance a Sloth class of shiftless able bodied fucknuts sitting on their asses waiting for the fruits of those that have to work to hand it over to entitlement
That's worth a lot more than most Democrat voters can afford to pay.


Agree. However, the dimwits voting for socialism would only be impoverishing themselves in the long run; e.g. "free college" means more pay for administrators and no jobs (due to high taxes) for graduates down the road; "free medicine" means waiting to die for the "beneficiary" while prompt high quality service to politicians and those who can pay "cash" (whatever form that eventually takes); "free housing" means subsidy to landlords (who are actually cheaper than officials in charge of public housing, as landlords have to compete against each other to a higher degree than bureaucrats in charge of cases have to); etc. etc..
20   Reality   2018 May 17, 8:05pm  

marcus says
I'd rather live in a world where our politics was about finding ways to minimize the extent to which laziness sets in, to shiftless numbnuts, for example requiring work of some kind even if it's some sort of work that doesn't cause a well defined short term profit to some entity that exceeds the amount paid to the person. Politics could address that. Everyone wants dignity, and to hold their head up with pride that they contribute something to the world. If not, they can learn.


Let me rephrase it for you:

"I'd rather live in a world where our legalized armed robbery/protection racket was about finding ways to minimize the extent to which laziness sets in, to shiftless numbnuts, for example requiring work of some kind even if it's some sort of work that doesn't cause a well defined short term profit to some entity that exceeds the amount paid to the person. Organized armed robbery/protection racket could address that. Everyone wants dignity, and to hold their head up with pride that they contribute something to the world. If not, they can learn."

Where can we find those enforcers who don't need to be paid, fed, housed, clothed, or having their own kids going to expensive schools? Are you sure they don't deserve better pay, better food, better housing, better clothes and better education for their kids, than for people allegedly under their care? Who has the guns to enforce privileges anyway? Oh, right, those "officials" are anointed by the new god named "The People." It's the divine right of the clowns in official costumes!
21   marcus   2018 May 17, 8:25pm  

I don't get it.

I guess I have to assume that any type of government "make work" be it in health care, or on the job training, or whatever it may be, if it's paid for by the taxation of landlords (or taxation of other "rents"), or Amazon, or some highly automated corporations, etc,. it's what you call armed robbery protections rackets ?
22   Reality   2018 May 17, 8:31pm  

A competitive market place delivered internet and iPhone, whereas neither Soviet government nor Japanese government throwing tens of billions of dollars at computer technology produced anything useful.

Non-profits and Charities can serve people who are in need, and donors can pick and choose which charity to donate; even for-profit merchants and service providers deliver the real goods and services that people want, competitively (i.e. people can shop elsewhere if somewhere else does the same thing better) . . . whereas government bureaucrats are monopolistic, and fundamentally little different from the old mafia trick of forcibly collecting donations in the name of windows and orphans. Government bureaucrats consume 87+% of tax collected for welfare, whereas the alleged target recipients receive less than 13% of the budget.

BTW, Amazon (and Walmart, and other merchants and private sector service providers) has benefited far more Americans than welfare bureaucrats have. In fact, if not for the bureaucrats bidding up prices and taking resources away, the average American consumers would have benefited even more from Amazon, Walmart, and etc..
23   marcus   2018 May 17, 8:37pm  

Reality says
anointed by the new god named "The People." It's the divine right of the clowns in the costumes of the officialdom!


So you don't believe that the people can elect leaders with good innovative ideas that can work if those ideas aren't some application 1960s policies in a 2150 America and a 2150 world ?
24   Reality   2018 May 17, 8:41pm  

marcus says
Reality says
anointed by the new god named "The People." It's the divine right of the clowns in the costumes of the officialdom!


So you don't believe that the people can elect leaders with good innovative ideas that can work if those ideas aren't some application of 1960s politics and economics onto 2150 America in a 2150 world /\?


Do you think iPhone would have been made if millions of consumers voted on drawings that can get past DNC and RNC? Instead of private/corporate funds controlled by Steve Jobs? Innovative ideas hit a very small number of minds first; that's why they are called geniuses! Haven't you heard the expression "a horse designed by a committee"? That's a committee of a dozen people; now try a committee of 350,000,000! People are only good at voting with their feet and voting with their own wallet. People suck at voting other people's wallet or "public purse." That's when you get "bridges to nowhere."

Mass voting precludes innovation; otherwise, the thing would already have been there.

Political leaders are not elected for their innovative ideas, but their ability to change their own proclamations to track polls.

Also, most government bureaucrats are in tenured positions, not subject to voting by public at all.
25   mell   2018 May 17, 8:56pm  

Reality says
Innovative ideas hit a very small number of minds first; that's why they are called geniuses! Haven't you heard the expression


That's the problem though the left promotes (maybe even believes) the asinine idea that the more diverse people work on a project the better it turns out instead of avoiding too many cooks in the kitchen and simply let the few talented main contributors reign. This has had devastating effects such as crumbling bridges with death toll or once successful open source software projects turning to shit after main contributors were harassed out of the project for some private opinion. For them the committee really is the holy grail while in reality it turns everything to shit they touch and extorts the taxpayer under threats of violence and losing their freedom.
26   marcus   2018 May 17, 10:49pm  

Reality says
Mass voting precludes innovation; otherwise, the thing would already have been there.


I dissagree. Mass voting got us Trump.

Now in TRump's case it's mostly lies and a con job. But none the less, I consider this proof that someone with the ability to promote a great idea, or not even sharing all his ideas yet, but promoting himself as Trump did, could get in a position to implement some great and innovative ideas.

Or am I wrong, and we only have Trump becasue it was sanctioned by the plutocracy/corporocracy ?
27   monkframe   2018 May 18, 7:20am  

"I mean we're basically an even divided country ripped right down the middle."

Not really. Ms. Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 election by 3 million votes. If rampant voter suppression in places like Michigan was lessened, it wouldn't have even been a question of Trump "winning."
28   bob2356   2018 May 18, 7:46am  

Reality says
A competitive market place delivered internet


Earth calling to space dweller. Look up arpanet sometime. The government funded and developed network that became the internet. Being ignorant of history doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Reality says

Do you think iPhone would have been made if millions of consumers voted on drawings that can get past DNC and RNC? Instead of private/corporate funds controlled by Steve Jobs?


Do you think IPhone,Ipad,Ipod would have made millions if government labs hadn't invented the touch screen? Or the military hadn't put up the GPS network? How many satellites did Apple put into space for it's IPhone customers?

Read The Entrepreneurial State, by Mariana Mazzucato for an increadibly well researched book about the dependence of industry on government spending and research.
29   Tenpoundbass   2018 May 18, 8:24am  

monkframe says
Not really. Ms. Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 election by 3 million votes.


Well you don't get to make that claim yet, just wait until after the midterms when Trump will have the backing to actually clean up the voting rolls.

In Broward in my little corner of America Brenda Snipes was just found out for a fact, to have destroyed the ballots days after the election.
Broward has so many illegal voters at least over 500K there are probably over 1 million illegal voters in South Florida alone. North East has another 1.5 million and west California and other blue enclaves have about 2 million illegal voters.
30   Reality   2018 May 18, 11:34am  

bob2356 says
Earth calling to space dweller. Look up arpanet sometime. The government funded and developed network that became the internet. Being ignorant of history doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Darpa was/is an organization of only about 100 people. It's not a research outfit, but more like a government-run hedge fund surveying what's in the market place and what type of research might be of critical importance to military therefore can be exclusively bought for the benefit of the defense department for a few years / decades. It's a little like National Inquirer buying some stories in order to keep exclusive rights to the stories (sometimes not to publish it!). The story/invention was out there or about to come out anyway.

What enabled internet as a system beneficial to the wide cross-section of society (instead of a mere intellectual curiosity in the ivory towers) was the wide availability of inexpensive personal computers and the phone network, both brought about by the market place. Neither the Soviets nor the Japanese were able to do that despite their governments spending far more money than the US government did in the 1980's on research into making more powerful computers. The soviets were obsessed with building super computers to calculate the "fair" price for every item based on how much labor going into it. The Japanese government just had money to burn and wanted the title of having the world's most powerful computers.

bob2356 says
Do you think IPhone,Ipad,Ipod would have made millions if government labs hadn't invented the touch screen? Or the military hadn't put up the GPS network? How many satellites did Apple put into space for it's IPhone customers?



The original iPhone did NOT have GPS receiver inside. Its location information came from triangulating cellphone towers. Yes, even the original iPhone made millions, proving your thesis false.

The US government/military put the GPS satellites into space in its role as a landlord, in competition against other landlord-goverments (such as that of the former Soviet Union), not in its capacity as "the government" providing GPS location service to the public. The government didn't make or sell any GPS receiver for civilian use.

The private sector did not launch any satellite during the Cold War because it was against the law for any private citizen to launch a space vehicle (until circa 1998, long after the GPS satellites were already in place and proven nearly a decade earlier during the First Gulf War).

Some government-sponsored hack invented an utterly impractical way of making a touch screen on a scope in the 1960's, and it didn't go anyway. It was the 1980's independent invention and marketing of devices made by private companies (including HP) that ushered in what we today know as useful touch screens. The government-apologists are essentially making the claim that Erik the Red discovered the New World 500 years before Columbus. Erik the Red had nothing to do with the massive explosion of commerce that came after Columbus' discovery of the New World. Heck, some ancient Greek inventor demo'd a steam boat in a bath tub, and Leonardo Da Vinci drew the sketches of a helicopter . . . only the stupid ivory tower academics would give the credit of inventing the Steam Engine to ancient Greeks 2500 years ago, and that of the functional/marketale helicopter to Leonardo Da Vinci 500 years ago.



Read The Entrepreneurial State, by Mariana Mazzucato for an increadibly well researched book about the dependence of industry on government spending and research.



It's not surprising to see another female author with a slave mentality, probably given the opportunity to publish a book and make some dough after sleeping with some insiders of the propaganda ministry.
31   bob2356   2018 May 18, 2:25pm  

Reality says
bob2356 says
Earth calling to space dweller. Look up arpanet sometime. The government funded and developed network that became the internet. Being ignorant of history doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Darpa was/is an organization of only about 100 people. It's not a research outfit, but more like a government-run hedge fund surveying what's in the market place and what type of research might be of critical importance to military therefore can be exclusively bought for the benefit of the defense department for a few years / decades. It's a little like National Inquirer buying some stories in order to keep exclusive rights to the stories (sometimes not to publish it!). The story/invention was out there or about to come out anyway


It was about to come out anyway because you say so? and it would have had one set of standardized protocols that all worked to together seamlessly and became endlessly scale-able? Like so many technologies that are seamless between companies? Like all the seamless lan protocols? Like ethernet, token ring, atm, fddi, that all worked together? ROFLOL. Without DARPA and the standards they created plus the military adopting tcp/ip as their standard in 1980 then switching arpanet over from ncp to tcp/ip to in 1983 there would have been no internet around the world.

Reality says
What enabled internet as a system beneficial to the wide cross-section of society (instead of a mere intellectual curiosity in the ivory towers) was the wide availability of inexpensive personal computers and the phone network, both brought about by the market place.


I'm taking it you never heard of the bell breakup or the history of the phone company prior to that.

Reality says

The original iPhone did NOT have GPS receiver inside. Its location information came from triangulating cellphone towers. Yes, even the original iPhone made millions, proving your thesis false.


The original IPhone didn't have a touch screen? I never knew that. God it's a great day for learning new things on patnet

Reality says
It was the 1980's independent invention and marketing of devices made by private companies (including HP) that ushered in what we today know as useful touch screens.


E A Johnson invented the capacitive touch screen at the Royal Radar Establishment government research center. Capacitive touch screens are still used today in things like ATM's. So much for being utterly impractical.

Resistive touch screens were invented by G Samual Hurst at University of Kentucky. Cheap and rugged commonly used in restaurants, factories, hospitals, and low end cell phones. So much for being totally impractical.. I never knew University of Kentucky was a private company. God it's a great day for learning new things on patnet.

The multi touch CAPACITIVE (as in exactly the same capacitive touch screen invented by E A Johnson, so much for utterly impractical) screen, which makes dragging and pinching on tablets and smart phones possible, was invented at the university of toronto. The university of toronto is a private company? God it's a great day for learning new things on patnet.

Reality says
It's not surprising to see another female author with a slave mentality, probably given the opportunity to publish a book and make some dough after sleeping with some insiders of the propaganda ministry.


Nothing like nah, nah, nah your mother wears army boots as a well reasoned intellectual argument. I can see why fox and bretibart do so well.
32   Reality   2018 May 18, 5:18pm  

bob2356 says
It was about to come out anyway because you say so? and it would have had one set of standardized protocols that all worked to together seamlessly and became endlessly scale-able? Like so many technologies that are seamless between companies? Like all the seamless lan protocols? Like ethernet, token ring, atm, fddi, that all worked together? ROFLOL. Without DARPA and the standards they created plus the military adopting tcp/ip as their standard in 1980 then switching arpanet over from ncp to tcp/ip to in 1983 there would have been no internet around the world.


LOL! Where was the government/military when the numerous standards were established in order for all the parts of your computer to work together? How can USB devices and HDMI displays ever connect to any computer without the heavy hand of government/military?

Do you think industry standards drive technology or technology drives industry standards? Is writing up "industry standards" now considered "technological innovation"?

bob2356 says
E A Johnson invented the capacitive touch screen at the Royal Radar Establishment government research center. Capacitive touch screens are still used today in things like ATM's. So much for being utterly impractical.


Johnson's "touch screen" on a storage scope was in the 1960's! Where were your practical implementations of the technology all through the 60's and 70's? The two decades of non-use proved his approach was impractical. Like I said, the government-apologists are like the idiots who claim Ancient Greeks invented the Steam Engine and Leonardo Da Vinci invented the helicopter. They can't tell the difference between an iPhone vs. a Newton (the previous failed attempt at personal digital assistant from Apple/Steve Jobs, a decade earlier) vs. Lisa with a Wacom digitizer (another decade and half earlier from Apple / Steve Jobs, in the early 1980's); to those idiots, they are all networkable touch input devices.

I will tell you the difference: iPhone was a device that could garner more revenue than the cost of engineering therefore more advanced versions of iPhones could be researched and developed. Whereas Lisa and Newton were devices that were too early for their time, too costly and couldn't recoup initial investment, therefore if persisted with government subsidy would have meant some other iPhone-like sustainable developement would have been prevented from taking place due to taxation! Eventually, of course we will have something far more advanced than today's iPhone; however, timing is of the essence. Wasting more resources on Newton and Lisa would have dragged down the bigger enterprise and have delayed the arrival of something like the iPhone; that sort of priority error is precisely what government intervention does, and what private enterprise (with their own survival and profitability at risk) and competitive market place and the whole market pricing mechanism correct for the society.

What the big-government-apologists are doing is like pointing at the ME-262 and V-2 rocket and claiming the world wouldn't have jet plane or space rockets if not for the Nazis! What they are missing is that: if not for the drafting and waste of resources by Nazis, those same scientists and engineers may well have advanced the jet engine and rockets even faster and for more beneficial civilian use!

BTW, apologists for NASA were even more absurd than Nazi apologists: after hiring the very same former Nazi scientists, they claim NASA invented plastics! Never mind Henry Ford already used plastic for the interior of his cars in the 1920's, long before the Nazi scientists worked for even the Nazis in the 1930's and 40's, never mind them working for NASA in the 1950's and 60's.

bob2356 says
It's not surprising to see another female author with a slave mentality, probably given the opportunity to publish a book and make some dough after sleeping with some insiders of the propaganda ministry.


Nothing like nah, nah, nah your mother wears army boots as a well reasoned intellectual argument. I can see why fox and bretibart do so well.


Find out for yourself what her husband does. The whole family was/is "plugged in" the propaganda industry.
33   bob2356   2018 May 19, 4:55am  

Reality says
LOL! Where was the government/military when the numerous standards were established in order for all the parts of your computer to work together? How can USB devices and HDMI displays ever connect to any computer without the heavy hand of government/military?

Do you think industry standards drive technology or technology drives industry standards? Is writing up "industry standards" now considered "technological innovation"?


Babble much? No one,no matter how many histrinonics you produce, believes that government should set standards for every minor technology. Who cares if there are multiple ways to connect an accessory to a computer. IEEE does that. There is a big difference between some simple connection vs doing research and setting standards that allow large scale implementation of technologies. Things like the electric grid, air traffic control, and the internet. Silly argument.

Reality says
Johnson's "touch screen" on a storage scope was in the 1960's! Where were your practical implementations of the technology all through the 60's and 70's? The two decades of non-use proved his approach was impractical.


You need to recheck your history. Touch screens started being used shortly after Johnson published in 1967. Air traffic controllers were the first use of capacitive. Resistive were used in the university systems all through the 70's in teaching kiosks. I'm not sure how first paper in 1967 to wide scale usage in the late 70's constitutes two decades. There is some time lag between invention and practical affordable implementation. The hard disk was invented in the mid 1950's but didn't become widely used by consumers until pc's in the 1980's. Does 3 decades of use limited to very large organizations prove the approach was impractical? .

Reality says
I will tell you the difference: iPhone was a device that could garner more revenue than the cost of engineering therefore more advanced versions of iPhones could be researched and developed.


So the first iPhone didn't have a touch screen. I never knew that.

Reality says
What the big-government-apologists are doing is like pointing at the ME-262 and V-2 rocket and claiming the world wouldn't have jet plane or space rockets if not for the Nazis


History deficits again. Rockets existed long before the nazi's and almost everyone, with one notable exception apparently, knows that. The first recorded use of rockets as weapons was indians against the british in the 1792 Siege of Seringapatam. German jet engines were based on Whittle's 1930 patent. If it wasn't for the utter stupidity and bureaucratic incompetence of the British military the allies could have entered WWII with jets and wiped out the german air force very quickly. Two more silly assertions. No one would make any such claim. No one would be foolish enough to claim NASA invented plastic either. Plastic was in wide use in WWII, NASA didn't even exist until 1958. It would seem however that there are people are silly enough to try to sell the narrative that "apologists for NASA" did said it.

Reality says

Find out for yourself what her husband does.


So your well documented thoughtful evaluation of the alleged inaccuracies of the book comes down to find out what her husband does. Very intellectual. ROFLOL.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions