You accept that behavior; you indulge in it hourly, without pause for breath, let alone for meals. It is observable, after this gap of years, that you are beyond a little bitch. I dub you therefore Micro-Bitch, to more nearly describe your neurotic badness of temper -- and your lifelong substitution of intemperate verbiage for action, either heroic or despicable.

Remember from this hour forward: all insults are personal to you, for you suck them to you like a Shop-Vac, and like that vacuum, store them up in your cylindrical belly.

Inventiveness -- well, that's mine. What you merit through your words and actions, that you shall receive. Best not to continue your plaints. But you don't know that, and wouldn't care to.

Something else we should remember about auto technology: General Motors, or Big Auto:

It's been noted that GM was never hit with an antitrust suit -- but for decades on end, GM behaved as if it were in mortal fear of being so. A culture, rather than a smokefilled-room conspiracy, grew up of Chevy not outdoing Pontiac too hugely (in dollars, I think, not so much cars off the lots), and Pontiac not crushing Dodge, and so on round and round the GM ambit. That is, competition was not pushed à outrance; that spice was missing from the mix.

Innovation comes through competition, and is the more stimulated the more intense the competition is. GM thought it found reason to avoid that, when perhaps a more cutthroat approach might have been nearer the ideal for service to the end users, the customers.

But who needs any conspiracy when you have the subtler debilitations of a culture? It doesn't even have to be consciously recognized by anyone, insider or out.

I expected the above kind of fallback argument to appear, that tw might salve his ego; again, tw does not seem to sufficiently recognize a) this power density dates back fourteen years and there's nothing at all to say it doesn't date farther back yet, and b) we bought that VW for 14Kdollars if I remember. Not exactly big auto money; not an especially low price either. The vehicle, used, had very modest mileage on it. It now wants some work done on its valve cam timing -- we won't know if it's just the cam gear or if it's the timing chain (a quite critical component, and timing chains or belts are durable but they aren't immortal and the car now has 155 K miles on it) until our mechanic goes in there.

Thank you for the reminder. I just changed my registration to Democratic.

The good news is Chelsea loves you. The bad news is Ivanka hates you. If looks were everything, it'd be bad news all around.

At least now you'll have the opportunity to get someone in who might actually win (as opposed to Billary) by voting in the primaries.

But what happened to being Independent? You never know, another Lincoln may come along to unseat Trump.

Hi back! You've been missed. Let's get back on track.

I want to say at the outset that I have two posts. One is a response to your ad hominem attacks on dwellars. The other addresses your take on the political news, in this thread and in others.

They overlap considerably, and I find that unfortunate. Your attacks on the people here are really just a petty distraction, though at times they can be very petty and very distracting. I have little desire to engage you there. But you also use that tactic when discussing matters I find interesting and important. Still distracting, still petty.

They belie a weakness, an unsoundness to your arguments. Giving Hillary Clinton the label "The Unindicted Felon" is just cheap name calling. Obviously you could use her name, or her title "Secretary", those are descriptive and non pejorative. But you don't. Why don't you? I think it's because you dislike her and also because you have a mean bent. But that bend gets in the way of your arguments, reducing their persuasiveness to any not already swimming in your kool-aid. Of course I've seen this from you for years, and I try to edit it out so that I can more clearly see what you're trying to say. This is difficult for me and often I'm left with only a pile of insults among the scraps. The lacy remains of your argument can easily be seen through.

Y'know, maybe you could give us a TL;DR executive summary of your take at the beginning of these flames. I appreciate your writing, you're as mean and cutting as the best of them. But I'm also interested in hearing the ideas from someone who "stopped voting Democratic a while back". Not just the clickbait--I can get enough of that shit from Hannity et al. Show me your work. I struggle to know what's outside my bubble. You, you are outside my bubble. And I can hear you. I want to know what you have to say.

Yeah not a big fan of Chelsea or Ivanka,it's about the primaries.

So GM repeatedly ran to government to get protection - so that innovation could remain stifled. And then those innovations appeared in patriotic American vehicles from Mercedes Benz, Hyundai, Toyota, BMW, Honda, Nissan (once called Datsun), and others.

Once they stopped running to the government for protection, then Ford also began to innovate. But they have a long way to go to catch up.

The 70 Hp per liter engine was ready for production in GM in 1975. But stifled until patriotic companies were selling it starting about 1992. They innovate because they have competition. GM has a repeat history of running to government for protection AFTER innovation terminated sometime after 1970. Facts are indelible.

This time Trump (apparently) listened to his generals. It appears a pin prick finally attacked something significant - a research facility for bio-chemical weapons. And the command center that launched those weapons.

Also interesting are what Russians did. They were told what airspace would be used. Russian air defense systems apparently did nothing. Implying that Russia is also pissed at Assad for using bio-chemical weapons. And appreciates what the attackers did to protect Russians.

Not attacked were sites that store binary components. Binary because those components are not that dangerous until mixed with the other binary agent. If Russia, et al was really denying those weapons existed, then attacking them (and resulting deaths) would have to be explained. We can assume those storage and loading facilities were not attacked because Russia (or Iran) tacitly admitted (not openly admitted) those facilities exist. Therefore resulting deaths could not be justified. If denials fully existed, then those facilities (and resulting deaths) were fair game.

Sean fucking Hannity.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/b...en-client.html

Anti-absurdity.

It makes some of his other remarks previously absurd sounding, less absurd sounding by adding this context. OF COURSE, he wants to have it both ways--"you can't reveal my name, I decline to consent to be named since I have attorney-client privilege" AND SIMULTANEOUSLY "I never retained Michael Cohen in any traditional sense". Fucking typical. These rules don't apply to me.

That might be the end of Sean Hannity.

This is fucking surreal man.


Guys, c'mon now - you've had your fun. It's been a proper giggle, and no mistake. And, we were all having a lovely time watching the incredulous gaze of the world at large turn away from our Brexit and towards the White House (seriously, our politicians are strolling about the world engaged in serious diplomacy and hardly anybody is laughing at them) ... but come on now. This is serious - like, seriously serious.

Time to admit it was all a gigantic hoax.

Time for the President to stand on the White House lawn, unzip the latex suit and peel off the fake flesh to reveal Obama, big grin on his face yelling, 'Surprise, Motherfuckers!'

I wish it was. Some times I dream about what it would be like if Bernie had won,but he didn't stand a chance Hillery really is crooked. And Trump is a nut case.

I enjoyed this perspective from Charlemagne ("Tha God") from last night's Colbert (relevant portion starts about 2:20):

I doubt it; his audience won't care, and failing to disclose a conflict of interest isn't the type of scandal that typically would lose advertisers.