On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 12:35:14 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:14:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:35 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:29:16 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>> >
>> > > I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly.
>> > Only from you and kucinich.
>> >
>> > "the vietnamese surrendered, ending the vietnam war"
>> > "the rebel army won every battle in the US civil war before the emancipation proclamation"
>> > "there was no recession before Barack Obama took office"
>> >
>> Prove that I said a single word of that, numb nuts. You’re a routine false accuser.
>> >
>> > the list of gems from you two trolling idiots is nearly endless....
>> > > >
>> > > Andre Jute
>> > > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
>> > Yup, he makes it up as he goes along.
>> >
>> The winners always write history. So what?
>> >
>> Unsigned out of contempt
>> >
>
>"That’s the concept behind the claim that General Vo Nguyen Giap, the chief Vietminh military leader in the war against U.S. forces (and later minister of defense and deputy premier of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam after the fall of Saigon in 1975), penned memoirs in which he maintained that the North Vietnamese realized the war was unwinnable and were prepared to give up, but they ultimately prevailed because negative public opinion in America (fomented by anti-war protesters and hostile..."

I believe that this is another of Tommy's delusions.

After all Giap led the Vietnamese forces that captured Hanoi in 1945
and largely engineered the defeat of the French in 1954, and in the
"American war" the North Vietnamese never surrendered, they agreed to
a truce and a negotiated peace in 1973.

Years after the Vietnam "escapade" I met a chap who had been a member
of the U.S. negotiating team, he described his position as a "pencil
sharpener and document carrier", and he pointed out that when they all
went to Paris the Americana rented suites in hotels while the
Vietnamese bought houses. He said that was an example of the intent of
the two parties. The "Americans" wanted to "hit 'er a lick" and go
home while the Viets were prepared to stay for ever, or until they got
what they wanted.

Incidentally, in later years Giap wrote extensively on military theory
and strategy. His works include Big Victory, Great Task; People's
Army, People's War; Ðien Biên Phu; and We Will Win.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 13:22:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:14:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:35 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:29:16 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>> >
>> > > I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly.
>> > Only from you and kucinich.
>> >
>> > "the vietnamese surrendered, ending the vietnam war"
>> > "the rebel army won every battle in the US civil war before the emancipation proclamation"
>> > "there was no recession before Barack Obama took office"
>> >
>> Prove that I said a single word of that, numb nuts. You’re a routine false accuser.
>> >
>> > the list of gems from you two trolling idiots is nearly endless....
>> > > >
>> > > Andre Jute
>> > > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
>> > Yup, he makes it up as he goes along.
>> >
>> The winners always write history. So what?
>> >
>> Unsigned out of contempt
>> >
>The Great Recession began with the election of a Democrat majority to Congress Up to the election of Barrack Obama it was little more than a MILD recession. Almost instantly the economy fell into the tank. Until Biden, Obama had absolutely the worst economy of the post war years. Truman was almost as bad but he had the excuse of the war recovery years. The economy of Jimmy Carter was dreadful but Obama had HALF the performance of Carter making a peanut grower look intelligent in comparison. Flunky shows himself to be nothing more than the stalker as was suggested to me. I continue to see that he wants to suck me every time one of his postings is copied to me. https://www.hudson.org/research/12719-obama-s-historically-bad-economy "Obama’s best year? 2.6 percent in 2015. That’s so weak that it is beneath the post-WWII average of 2.9 percent." No9 wonder Frank and Flunky dislike me so much. They cannot stand facing the truth.

Goodness Gracious! And here I had always read that the "Great
Recession" was a result of sub-prime mortgages, largely in California,
failing. Brought about by the passing of the Monetary Control Act
(DIDMCA) in 1980... under a Republican President.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:39:57 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 11:18:37 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
><fiultra1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:56 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:29:16 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> > Andre Jute
>>> > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
>
>>> Well it clearly is obvious that Frank, Russell, SMS, Flunky and Jeff obtain every iota of knowledge they have from their Google searches they do "for the truth".
>
>>That’s as fine a definition of a delusory personality as I’ve ever seen. —- AJ
>
>For what little it seems to be worth to you, I use Wikipedia
>references because:
>1. They're easy to find and cover a wide range of topics.
>2. They're mostly accurate.
>3. They provide me with accurate spelling (and pronunciation).
>4. They provide interesting background material and additional
>references in the footnotes.
>5. They're readable by mere mortals unschooled in political catch
>phrases and jargon.
>6. They provide links to the source material.
>
>However, if you want me to use references other than Wikipedia, I can
>easily provide some really obscure sources. Is that an improvement? I
>noticed that Tom, and possibly you, have solved the problem of
>providing adequate sources, properly attributed quotation, and expert
>opinions, by simply not providing any of these. I see very little in
>the way of attributions, links and sources from you and none from Tom.
>Do you expect your readers to accept your word at face value? I can't
>speak for the others, but I certainly don't. Without backup, sources,
>and maybe a consensus, most of the amazing facts presented by Tom are
>his opinion, his imagination, and all too commonly, a fabrication. You
>do quite a bit better than Tom, but I would still like to see some
>corroberation or perhaps a link to someone with similar opinions.
>
>I don't have any plans to abandon my use of Wikipedia references. If
>you wish to dispute my conclusions or Wikipedia sources, you are
>welcome to do so. If you find a Wikipedia article to be inadequate,
>I'm sure the authors and editors would be interested in your input.
>However, I'm not willing to throw out the best reference material
>available on the internet and am quite willing to tolerate a few
>errors and differences of opinion in the content.

It is my understanding that anyone can "register" in some manner and
make corrections to Wikki articles although unfortunately for Tommy
and his friend, the Wikki editors strangely insist on reference to
prove statement made by the authors.

Maybe we should popularize a site called, maybe, "ikkiw" where people
could post their delusions, for all the world to see.

"Hey! Look! I'm on Ikkiw!"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:58:56 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:29:16 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 9:57:47 PM UTC+1, Andrew Smith wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 6:49:28 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > > "Poll Reveals Astonishing Percentage Of Democrats Support Unparalleled Covid Tyranny For Unvaccinated"
> > > >
> > > > According to the respected pollster Rasmussen:
> > > > "Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine."
> > > >
> > > > See more extracts from the report at:
> > > > https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2022/01/15/rasmussen-poll-reveals-astonishing-percentage-of-democrats-support-unparalleled-covid-tyranny-for-the-unvaccinated-n2601911
> > > >
> > > > Andre Jute
> > > > I was born in South Africa,
> > >
> > > Sorry to hear that.
> > >
> > > >where the British invented the Concentration Camp.
> > >
> > > Nope, the British did not invent the concentration camp.
> > >
> > > The British used concentration camps in the Second Anglo Boer War which happened 1899 to 1902.
> > >
> > > Here are some camps setup by Imperial Spain in 1896 in Cuba
> > >
> > > http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/reconcentrado.htm
> > >
> > > '225,000 Cuban civilians died in 18 months 1896-97'
> > >
> > > See also http://amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagld003.php
> > >
> > > It contains an account of the Spanish camps
> > >
> > > 'Concentration Camps of Cuba 1895-1898 re South Africa, Boer, Tainos, Red Cross, Senator Redfield Proctor
> > > Excerpt from Clara Barton 1899, "THE RED CROSS" American Historical Press. Published? by American National Red Cross, Washington, D.C. USA- pages 534-539'
> > >
> > > 1896 is before 1900 isn't it?
> > >
> > > > I'm therefore familiar with the deep, generations-long societal scars such a policy would create.
> > >
> > > Yes, all my life I've heard South Africans claim that the British invented concentration camps, both
> > > from Boojers, and also left wingers.
> > >
> > > Non-South Africans will probably not be surprised to learn that this claim is Nazi propaganda.
> > >
> > > "of all the misleading Nazi propaganda, no lie was more successful than the one which suggested that concentration camps were an invention of the British and that the Germans had only developed and expanded a concept which had its roots in the British Empire. The idea that the British invented concentration camps had sedulously peddled during the 1930s by the leaders of the Third Reich. In February 1938, for example, Sir Neville Henderson, British Ambassador to Germany, had a meeting with Hermann Goering. In the course of their encounter in Berlin, Henderson denounced the "loathsome and detestable" taking place in concentration camps such as Dachau and Buchenwald. For answer, Goering went to a bookshelf and took down the volume of a German encyclopedia covering the letter K and showed the ambassador the entry for 'Konzentrationslager', which began "First used by the British in the South African War..."
> > >
> > > "Throughout the 1930s, Minister for Propaganda Josef Goebbels had also fostered the notion that concentration camps were a British invention.
> > > Postcards purporting to show the grim conditions in the camps run by the British during the Boer War were circulated. A film, Om Paul, was
> > > subsidised by the German government."
> > >
> > > British Concentration Camps: A Brief History from 1900-1975
> > > By Simon Webb.
> > >
> > Thanks for the history lesson. Andrew.
> > >
> > It may interest you that a recent British action film, The Kingsman, also suggested the Kitchener invented the concentration camp as blackmail on the Boer side, specifically because the British way of war couldn’t cope with the guerilla tactics of the two Boer Republics.
> > >
> > I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly.
> > >
> > Andre Jute
> > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
> > >
> Well it clearly is obvious that Frank, Russell, SMS, Flunky and Jeff obtain every iota of knowledge they have from their Google searches they do "for the truth".

Does it matter where the truth comes from? Isn't the truth the truth? Whether you get your history from the paper encyclopedia (My family had the World Book Encyclopedia) or the paper Wall Street Journal or from Wikipedia today or online Vanguard mutual fund prices today, it should be the exact same truth. Kind of like the Civil War. The battles and results are the same whether from a paper history book or from a Google search. Just much easier and maybe more up to date to use the internet.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 3:22:41 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:14:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:35 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:29:16 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >
> > > > I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly.
> > > Only from you and kucinich.
> > >
> > > "the vietnamese surrendered, ending the vietnam war"
> > > "the rebel army won every battle in the US civil war before the emancipation proclamation"
> > > "there was no recession before Barack Obama took office"
> > >
> > Prove that I said a single word of that, numb nuts. You’re a routine false accuser.
> > >
> > > the list of gems from you two trolling idiots is nearly endless....
> > > > >
> > > > Andre Jute
> > > > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
> > > Yup, he makes it up as he goes along.
> > >
> > The winners always write history. So what?
> > >
> > Unsigned out of contempt
> > >
> The Great Recession began with the election of a Democrat majority to Congress Up to the election of Barrack Obama it was little more than a MILD recession. Almost instantly the economy fell into the tank.

So using Tommy boy LOGIC, the Democrats took over the Houe of Representatives on Jan 1, 2019. Therefore, Covid-19 is all because of the Democrats.

> Until Biden, Obama had absolutely the worst economy of the post war years.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=US
Tommy boy, look at 2009, Obama's first year. Negative GDP of 2.5%. Also look at 2020, Trump last year. NEGATIVE GDP of 3.4%. Now I realize you are uneducated and have no mathematics ability at all. But -3.4 is LESS than -2.5. Trump did WORSE than Obama in 2020 GDP.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-growth-rate
This has GDP in US from 1961 to 2022. Not all of the post WW2 years, but most. 2009 is -2.54%. 2020 is -3.49%.

> Truman was almost as bad but he had the excuse of the war recovery years. The economy of Jimmy Carter was dreadful but Obama had HALF the performance of Carter making a peanut grower look intelligent in comparison. Flunky shows himself to be nothing more than the stalker as was suggested to me. I continue to see that he wants to suck me every time one of his postings is copied to me.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-gdp-growth-3306008
This one has all the US GDP back to 1930. Jimm Carter has GDP of 4.6, 5.5, 3.2, -0.3. Very good overall. Obama had GDP of -2.6, 2.7, 1.5, 2.3, 1.8, 2.3, 2.7, 1.7. Other than the first bad year of -2.6%, the rest were OK. Not great but not bad either. Average more or less. Then Trump came starting 2017 and ending 2020. Trump GDP each year were 2.3, 2.9, 2.3, -3.4. On average, Trump did about like Obama. No better or worse. Trump more or less tied Obama on GDP. But Trump clearly had the very worst GDP in history post WW2. MINUS 3.4%. Or Minus 3.49% according to the link above I posted.

> https://www.hudson.org/research/12719-obama-s-historically-bad-economy "Obama’s best year? 2.6 percent in 2015. That’s so weak that it is beneath the post-WWII average of 2.9 percent." No9 wonder Frank and Flunky dislike me so much. They cannot stand facing the truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute
"The Hudson Institute is a conservative American think tank based in Washington, D.C."

Personally I think they are a bit liberal with their use of the term "think tank". But anyway, Tommy, I and many others have told you about your use of sources. Use reliable, honest, unbiased, sources if you want people to believe you. You posting some right wing kook source does no one any good.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 7:47:57 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 13:22:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:14:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:35 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:29:16 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly.
> >> > Only from you and kucinich.
> >> >
> >> > "the vietnamese surrendered, ending the vietnam war"
> >> > "the rebel army won every battle in the US civil war before the emancipation proclamation"
> >> > "there was no recession before Barack Obama took office"
> >> >
> >> Prove that I said a single word of that, numb nuts. You’re a routine false accuser.
> >> >
> >> > the list of gems from you two trolling idiots is nearly endless....
> >> > > >
> >> > > Andre Jute
> >> > > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
> >> > Yup, he makes it up as he goes along.
> >> >
> >> The winners always write history. So what?
> >> >
> >> Unsigned out of contempt
> >> >
> >The Great Recession began with the election of a Democrat majority to Congress Up to the election of Barrack Obama it was little more than a MILD recession. Almost instantly the economy fell into the tank. Until Biden, Obama had absolutely the worst economy of the post war years. Truman was almost as bad but he had the excuse of the war recovery years. The economy of Jimmy Carter was dreadful but Obama had HALF the performance of Carter making a peanut grower look intelligent in comparison. Flunky shows himself to be nothing more than the stalker as was suggested to me. I continue to see that he wants to suck me every time one of his postings is copied to me. https://www.hudson.org/research/12719-obama-s-historically-bad-economy "Obama’s best year? 2.6 percent in 2015. That’s so weak that it is beneath the post-WWII average of 2.9 percent." No9 wonder Frank and Flunky dislike me so much. They cannot stand facing the truth.
> Goodness Gracious! And here I had always read that the "Great
> Recession" was a result of sub-prime mortgages, largely in California,
> failing. Brought about by the passing of the Monetary Control Act
> (DIDMCA) in 1980... under a Republican President.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

The DIDMCA was signed in March 1980 by Jimmy Carter, President. Unfortunately many, many people seem to think the year of the election means the person elected was President. The USA elections are in early November. Reagan did not take office until January 20, 1981. So all of 1980 is attributable to Carter. Reagan's presidency ran through the years 1981 to 2008. Everything in those years is Reagan.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 8:29:05 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:39:57 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
> >On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 11:18:37 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
> ><fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:56 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:29:16 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> > Andre Jute
> >>> > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
> >
> >>> Well it clearly is obvious that Frank, Russell, SMS, Flunky and Jeff obtain every iota of knowledge they have from their Google searches they do "for the truth".
> >
> >>That’s as fine a definition of a delusory personality as I’ve ever seen. —- AJ
> >
> >For what little it seems to be worth to you, I use Wikipedia
> >references because:
> >1. They're easy to find and cover a wide range of topics.
> >2. They're mostly accurate.
> >3. They provide me with accurate spelling (and pronunciation).
> >4. They provide interesting background material and additional
> >references in the footnotes.
> >5. They're readable by mere mortals unschooled in political catch
> >phrases and jargon.
> >6. They provide links to the source material.
> >
> >However, if you want me to use references other than Wikipedia, I can
> >easily provide some really obscure sources. Is that an improvement? I
> >noticed that Tom, and possibly you, have solved the problem of
> >providing adequate sources, properly attributed quotation, and expert
> >opinions, by simply not providing any of these. I see very little in
> >the way of attributions, links and sources from you and none from Tom.
> >Do you expect your readers to accept your word at face value? I can't
> >speak for the others, but I certainly don't. Without backup, sources,
> >and maybe a consensus, most of the amazing facts presented by Tom are
> >his opinion, his imagination, and all too commonly, a fabrication. You
> >do quite a bit better than Tom, but I would still like to see some
> >corroberation or perhaps a link to someone with similar opinions.
> >
> >I don't have any plans to abandon my use of Wikipedia references. If
> >you wish to dispute my conclusions or Wikipedia sources, you are
> >welcome to do so. If you find a Wikipedia article to be inadequate,
> >I'm sure the authors and editors would be interested in your input.
> >However, I'm not willing to throw out the best reference material
> >available on the internet and am quite willing to tolerate a few
> >errors and differences of opinion in the content.
> It is my understanding that anyone can "register" in some manner and
> make corrections to Wikki articles although unfortunately for Tommy
> and his friend, the Wikki editors strangely insist on reference to
> prove statement made by the authors.
>
> Maybe we should popularize a site called, maybe, "ikkiw" where people
> could post their delusions, for all the world to see.

Trump and his Truth social thing already beat you to that. And I believe Qanon have websites and other nonsense too. And of course every Republican member of Congress has a website.

>
> "Hey! Look! I'm on Ikkiw!"
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 1:51:19 AM UTC-5, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 7:47:57 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 13:22:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:14:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:35 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:29:16 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly.
> > >> > Only from you and kucinich.
> > >> >
> > >> > "the vietnamese surrendered, ending the vietnam war"
> > >> > "the rebel army won every battle in the US civil war before the emancipation proclamation"
> > >> > "there was no recession before Barack Obama took office"
> > >> >
> > >> Prove that I said a single word of that, numb nuts. You’re a routine false accuser.
> > >> >
> > >> > the list of gems from you two trolling idiots is nearly endless.....
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > Andre Jute
> > >> > > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
> > >> > Yup, he makes it up as he goes along.
> > >> >
> > >> The winners always write history. So what?
> > >> >
> > >> Unsigned out of contempt
> > >> >
> > >The Great Recession began with the election of a Democrat majority to Congress Up to the election of Barrack Obama it was little more than a MILD recession. Almost instantly the economy fell into the tank. Until Biden, Obama had absolutely the worst economy of the post war years. Truman was almost as bad but he had the excuse of the war recovery years. The economy of Jimmy Carter was dreadful but Obama had HALF the performance of Carter making a peanut grower look intelligent in comparison. Flunky shows himself to be nothing more than the stalker as was suggested to me. I continue to see that he wants to suck me every time one of his postings is copied to me. https://www.hudson.org/research/12719-obama-s-historically-bad-economy "Obama’s best year? 2.6 percent in 2015. That’s so weak that it is beneath the post-WWII average of 2.9 percent." No9 wonder Frank and Flunky dislike me so much. They cannot stand facing the truth.
> > Goodness Gracious! And here I had always read that the "Great
> > Recession" was a result of sub-prime mortgages, largely in California,
> > failing. Brought about by the passing of the Monetary Control Act
> > (DIDMCA) in 1980... under a Republican President.
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > John B.
> The DIDMCA was signed in March 1980 by Jimmy Carter, President. Unfortunately many, many people seem to think the year of the election means the person elected was President. The USA elections are in early November. Reagan did not take office until January 20, 1981. So all of 1980 is attributable to Carter. Reagan's presidency ran through the years 1981 to 2008. Everything in those years is Reagan.

Woops!!! Reagan presidency was 1981 to 1988.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:02:46 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>Does it matter where the truth comes from? Isn't the truth the truth? Whether you get your history from the paper encyclopedia (My family had the World Book Encyclopedia) or the paper Wall Street Journal or from Wikipedia today or online Vanguard mutual fund prices today, it should be the exact same truth. Kind of like the Civil War. The battles and results are the same whether from a paper history book or from a Google search. Just much easier and maybe more up to date to use the internet.

Sources do matter and the truth varies not only by the source but by
the authors and editors of the story. Different sources have
different biases and frequently butcher a story into something the
favors their biases, politics or point of view. The internet is also
full for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc party reporting, which take other authors
writings and "personalize" them to match their biases politics and
viewpoints. I've seen such serial editing produce a story that was
unrecognizable from the original event.

I often suggest that one should not judge the source, only the
content. However, when confronted with limited available time and a
deluge of too much information to filter, it's often tempting to judge
the source first. Also, it's easy to fact check a topic we
understand, but not so easy to deal with one outside our areas of
expertise and experience. That's what inspired the creation of "fact
check" web sites. It's easy enough to fact check people like Tom,
where 99.999% of his amazing facts are wrong or misleading. It's not
so easy to fact check a self proclaimed internet authority, who is
clever enough to write accurate and factual background information,
but tweak perhaps 2% of the facts to fit their agenda. Internet
doctors do that constantly. They will write a brilliant diagnosis and
analysis of a patients problem, complete with references and
footnotes, and then recommend a highly profitable cure in the form of
whatever elixir, diet or gadget they are promoting. When faced with a
preponderance of information that seems correct, it's difficult to
identify incorrect insertions. So, we fall back on judging the source
or the individuals history.

I also disagree that "battles and results" are uniform across
different sources. My personal experiences have shown otherwise. When
I was much younger, I had the bad luck to be present at several news
worthy events. Later, I read newspaper, radio and TV reports. Many
years later, I read accounts from documentaries, blogs, web pages,
Wikipedia, etc. Accounts of one particular incident varied widely
depending on the media source. Subsequent theories about the
motivations of those involved and the likely cause were totally wrong.
(Details if you really want them). I learned several lessons from
this incident. The important one is that the truth cannot be obtained
by comparing or conglomerating the available information. Consensus
does not provide proof. I have to pre-judge which source is accurate,
which source is honest, and/or which source is telling the truth. All
the others are discarded.

I had this problem when I discovered that I had prostate cancer. It
grew slowly, so I had some time to do some research. The problem was
there was so much to read and filter, that I would never be able to
extract anything useful from enormous mass of available information.
So, I had to filter the sources and only look at "reliable" sources. I
didn't like doing that, but that was my best options. So, what do I
look for? I immediately eliminated any paper or report that was
selling or pushing something that would profit the organization or
individual involved. I skimmed 2nd hand reporting, but always read
the source material carefully. Peer reviews ware nice, but not
mandatory. What remained were university funded independent research
papers. In theory, the authors had little or no reason to fabricate
their results or promote some agenda. This proved wrong later, but at
the time, it seems reasonable. The problem is that most were the
least professional, most impenetrable, and badly written reports I've
ever had the displeasure of reading. Comparing notes with my doctors,
my filtering method was good, and much of the stuff found was very
current. By judging the source, I was able to make some medical
decisions that I knew were at least mostly based on honest research.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:51:17 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 7:47:57 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 13:22:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:14:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:35 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:29:16 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly.
>> >> > Only from you and kucinich.
>> >> >
>> >> > "the vietnamese surrendered, ending the vietnam war"
>> >> > "the rebel army won every battle in the US civil war before the emancipation proclamation"
>> >> > "there was no recession before Barack Obama took office"
>> >> >
>> >> Prove that I said a single word of that, numb nuts. You’re a routine false accuser.
>> >> >
>> >> > the list of gems from you two trolling idiots is nearly endless....
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > Andre Jute
>> >> > > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
>> >> > Yup, he makes it up as he goes along.
>> >> >
>> >> The winners always write history. So what?
>> >> >
>> >> Unsigned out of contempt
>> >> >
>> >The Great Recession began with the election of a Democrat majority to Congress Up to the election of Barrack Obama it was little more than a MILD recession. Almost instantly the economy fell into the tank. Until Biden, Obama had absolutely the worst economy of the post war years. Truman was almost as bad but he had the excuse of the war recovery years. The economy of Jimmy Carter was dreadful but Obama had HALF the performance of Carter making a peanut grower look intelligent in comparison. Flunky shows himself to be nothing more than the stalker as was suggested to me. I continue to see that he wants to suck me every time one of his postings is copied to me. https://www.hudson.org/research/12719-obama-s-historically-bad-economy "Obama’s best year? 2.6 percent in 2015. That’s so weak that it is beneath the post-WWII average of 2.9 percent." No9 wonder Frank and Flunky dislike me so much. They cannot stand facing the truth.
>> Goodness Gracious! And here I had always read that the "Great
>> Recession" was a result of sub-prime mortgages, largely in California,
>> failing. Brought about by the passing of the Monetary Control Act
>> (DIDMCA) in 1980... under a Republican President.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>The DIDMCA was signed in March 1980 by Jimmy Carter, President. Unfortunately many, many people seem to think the year of the election means the person elected was President. The USA elections are in early November. Reagan did not take office until January 20, 1981. So all of 1980 is attributable to Carter. Reagan's presidency ran through the years 1981 to 2008. Everything in those years is Reagan.

Well, I admit my guilt. I googled "president+1980" and got Reagan (:-(
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:02:46 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:58:56 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:29:16 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 9:57:47 PM UTC+1, Andrew Smith wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 6:49:28 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>> > > > "Poll Reveals Astonishing Percentage Of Democrats Support Unparalleled Covid Tyranny For Unvaccinated"
>> > > >
>> > > > According to the respected pollster Rasmussen:
>> > > > "Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine."
>> > > >
>> > > > See more extracts from the report at:
>> > > > https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2022/01/15/rasmussen-poll-reveals-astonishing-percentage-of-democrats-support-unparalleled-covid-tyranny-for-the-unvaccinated-n2601911
>> > > >
>> > > > Andre Jute
>> > > > I was born in South Africa,
>> > >
>> > > Sorry to hear that.
>> > >
>> > > >where the British invented the Concentration Camp.
>> > >
>> > > Nope, the British did not invent the concentration camp.
>> > >
>> > > The British used concentration camps in the Second Anglo Boer War which happened 1899 to 1902.
>> > >
>> > > Here are some camps setup by Imperial Spain in 1896 in Cuba
>> > >
>> > > http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/reconcentrado.htm
>> > >
>> > > '225,000 Cuban civilians died in 18 months 1896-97'
>> > >
>> > > See also http://amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagld003.php
>> > >
>> > > It contains an account of the Spanish camps
>> > >
>> > > 'Concentration Camps of Cuba 1895-1898 re South Africa, Boer, Tainos, Red Cross, Senator Redfield Proctor
>> > > Excerpt from Clara Barton 1899, "THE RED CROSS" American Historical Press. Published? by American National Red Cross, Washington, D.C. USA- pages 534-539'
>> > >
>> > > 1896 is before 1900 isn't it?
>> > >
>> > > > I'm therefore familiar with the deep, generations-long societal scars such a policy would create.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, all my life I've heard South Africans claim that the British invented concentration camps, both
>> > > from Boojers, and also left wingers.
>> > >
>> > > Non-South Africans will probably not be surprised to learn that this claim is Nazi propaganda.
>> > >
>> > > "of all the misleading Nazi propaganda, no lie was more successful than the one which suggested that concentration camps were an invention of the British and that the Germans had only developed and expanded a concept which had its roots in the British Empire. The idea that the British invented concentration camps had sedulously peddled during the 1930s by the leaders of the Third Reich. In February 1938, for example, Sir Neville Henderson, British Ambassador to Germany, had a meeting with Hermann Goering. In the course of their encounter in Berlin, Henderson denounced the "loathsome and detestable" taking place in concentration camps such as Dachau and Buchenwald. For answer, Goering went to a bookshelf and took down the volume of a German encyclopedia covering the letter K and showed the ambassador the entry for 'Konzentrationslager', which began "First used by the British in the South African War..."
>> > >
>> > > "Throughout the 1930s, Minister for Propaganda Josef Goebbels had also fostered the notion that concentration camps were a British invention.
>> > > Postcards purporting to show the grim conditions in the camps run by the British during the Boer War were circulated. A film, Om Paul, was
>> > > subsidised by the German government."
>> > >
>> > > British Concentration Camps: A Brief History from 1900-1975
>> > > By Simon Webb.
>> > >
>> > Thanks for the history lesson. Andrew.
>> > >
>> > It may interest you that a recent British action film, The Kingsman, also suggested the Kitchener invented the concentration camp as blackmail on the Boer side, specifically because the British way of war couldn’t cope with the guerilla tactics of the two Boer Republics.
>> > >
>> > I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly.
>> > >
>> > Andre Jute
>> > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
>> > >
>> Well it clearly is obvious that Frank, Russell, SMS, Flunky and Jeff obtain every iota of knowledge they have from their Google searches they do "for the truth".
>
>Does it matter where the truth comes from? Isn't the truth the truth? Whether you get your history from the paper encyclopedia (My family had the World Book Encyclopedia) or the paper Wall Street Journal or from Wikipedia today or online Vanguard mutual fund prices today, it should be the exact same truth. Kind of like the Civil War. The battles and results are the same whether from a paper history book or from a Google search. Just much easier and maybe more up to date to use the internet.

But can you use "Tom" and "truth" in the same sentence?
(without adding a negative, that is :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 2:39:45 AM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:02:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Does it matter where the truth comes from? Isn't the truth the truth? Whether you get your history from the paper encyclopedia (My family had the World Book Encyclopedia) or the paper Wall Street Journal or from Wikipedia today or online Vanguard mutual fund prices today, it should be the exact same truth. Kind of like the Civil War. The battles and results are the same whether from a paper history book or from a Google search. Just much easier and maybe more up to date to use the internet.
> Sources do matter and the truth varies not only by the source but by
> the authors and editors of the story. Different sources have
> different biases and frequently butcher a story into something the
> favors their biases, politics or point of view. The internet is also
> full for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc party reporting, which take other authors
> writings and "personalize" them to match their biases politics and
> viewpoints. I've seen such serial editing produce a story that was
> unrecognizable from the original event.

OK. I understand what you are saying. But I was referring to more straight forward things. Like the actual number for the S&P 500 or Dow Jones when Obama took office and when he left office. To prove EVERYONE, except Tommy of course, made lots of money while Obama was in office if they were invested in the stock market. Or using Google Maps to determine the distance in miles from some little base in the middle of the Pacific Ocean to Saigon to wonder why a toolbox carrier like Tommy would have been on a sight seeing flight. Facts that are the same fact no matter where they come from. Like the earth is round. Tommy probably thinks its flat.

>
> I often suggest that one should not judge the source, only the
> content. However, when confronted with limited available time and a
> deluge of too much information to filter, it's often tempting to judge
> the source first. Also, it's easy to fact check a topic we
> understand, but not so easy to deal with one outside our areas of
> expertise and experience. That's what inspired the creation of "fact
> check" web sites. It's easy enough to fact check people like Tom,
> where 99.999% of his amazing facts are wrong or misleading. It's not
> so easy to fact check a self proclaimed internet authority, who is
> clever enough to write accurate and factual background information,
> but tweak perhaps 2% of the facts to fit their agenda. Internet
> doctors do that constantly. They will write a brilliant diagnosis and
> analysis of a patients problem, complete with references and
> footnotes, and then recommend a highly profitable cure in the form of
> whatever elixir, diet or gadget they are promoting. When faced with a
> preponderance of information that seems correct, it's difficult to
> identify incorrect insertions. So, we fall back on judging the source
> or the individuals history.
>
> I also disagree that "battles and results" are uniform across
> different sources. My personal experiences have shown otherwise. When
> I was much younger, I had the bad luck to be present at several news
> worthy events. Later, I read newspaper, radio and TV reports. Many
> years later, I read accounts from documentaries, blogs, web pages,
> Wikipedia, etc. Accounts of one particular incident varied widely
> depending on the media source. Subsequent theories about the
> motivations of those involved and the likely cause were totally wrong.
> (Details if you really want them). I learned several lessons from
> this incident. The important one is that the truth cannot be obtained
> by comparing or conglomerating the available information. Consensus
> does not provide proof. I have to pre-judge which source is accurate,
> which source is honest, and/or which source is telling the truth. All
> the others are discarded.
>
> I had this problem when I discovered that I had prostate cancer. It
> grew slowly, so I had some time to do some research. The problem was
> there was so much to read and filter, that I would never be able to
> extract anything useful from enormous mass of available information.
> So, I had to filter the sources and only look at "reliable" sources. I
> didn't like doing that, but that was my best options. So, what do I
> look for? I immediately eliminated any paper or report that was
> selling or pushing something that would profit the organization or
> individual involved. I skimmed 2nd hand reporting, but always read
> the source material carefully. Peer reviews ware nice, but not
> mandatory. What remained were university funded independent research
> papers. In theory, the authors had little or no reason to fabricate
> their results or promote some agenda. This proved wrong later, but at
> the time, it seems reasonable. The problem is that most were the
> least professional, most impenetrable, and badly written reports I've
> ever had the displeasure of reading. Comparing notes with my doctors,
> my filtering method was good, and much of the stuff found was very
> current. By judging the source, I was able to make some medical
> decisions that I knew were at least mostly based on honest research.
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:02:46 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:58:56 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:29:16 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 9:57:47 PM UTC+1, Andrew Smith wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 6:49:28 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>> > > > "Poll Reveals Astonishing Percentage Of Democrats Support Unparalleled Covid Tyranny For Unvaccinated"
>> > > >
>> > > > According to the respected pollster Rasmussen:
>> > > > "Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine."
>> > > >
>> > > > See more extracts from the report at:
>> > > > https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2022/01/15/rasmussen-poll-reveals-astonishing-percentage-of-democrats-support-unparalleled-covid-tyranny-for-the-unvaccinated-n2601911
>> > > >
>> > > > Andre Jute
>> > > > I was born in South Africa,
>> > >
>> > > Sorry to hear that.
>> > >
>> > > >where the British invented the Concentration Camp.
>> > >
>> > > Nope, the British did not invent the concentration camp.
>> > >
>> > > The British used concentration camps in the Second Anglo Boer War which happened 1899 to 1902.
>> > >
>> > > Here are some camps setup by Imperial Spain in 1896 in Cuba
>> > >
>> > > http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/reconcentrado.htm
>> > >
>> > > '225,000 Cuban civilians died in 18 months 1896-97'
>> > >
>> > > See also http://amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagld003.php
>> > >
>> > > It contains an account of the Spanish camps
>> > >
>> > > 'Concentration Camps of Cuba 1895-1898 re South Africa, Boer, Tainos, Red Cross, Senator Redfield Proctor
>> > > Excerpt from Clara Barton 1899, "THE RED CROSS" American Historical Press. Published? by American National Red Cross, Washington, D.C. USA- pages 534-539'
>> > >
>> > > 1896 is before 1900 isn't it?
>> > >
>> > > > I'm therefore familiar with the deep, generations-long societal scars such a policy would create.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, all my life I've heard South Africans claim that the British invented concentration camps, both
>> > > from Boojers, and also left wingers.
>> > >
>> > > Non-South Africans will probably not be surprised to learn that this claim is Nazi propaganda.
>> > >
>> > > "of all the misleading Nazi propaganda, no lie was more successful than the one which suggested that concentration camps were an invention of the British and that the Germans had only developed and expanded a concept which had its roots in the British Empire. The idea that the British invented concentration camps had sedulously peddled during the 1930s by the leaders of the Third Reich. In February 1938, for example, Sir Neville Henderson, British Ambassador to Germany, had a meeting with Hermann Goering. In the course of their encounter in Berlin, Henderson denounced the "loathsome and detestable" taking place in concentration camps such as Dachau and Buchenwald. For answer, Goering went to a bookshelf and took down the volume of a German encyclopedia covering the letter K and showed the ambassador the entry for 'Konzentrationslager', which began "First used by the British in the South African War..."
>> > >
>> > > "Throughout the 1930s, Minister for Propaganda Josef Goebbels had also fostered the notion that concentration camps were a British invention.
>> > > Postcards purporting to show the grim conditions in the camps run by the British during the Boer War were circulated. A film, Om Paul, was
>> > > subsidised by the German government."
>> > >
>> > > British Concentration Camps: A Brief History from 1900-1975
>> > > By Simon Webb.
>> > >
>> > Thanks for the history lesson. Andrew.
>> > >
>> > It may interest you that a recent British action film, The Kingsman, also suggested the Kitchener invented the concentration camp as blackmail on the Boer side, specifically because the British way of war couldn’t cope with the guerilla tactics of the two Boer Republics.
>> > >
>> > I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly.
>> > >
>> > Andre Jute
>> > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
>> > >
>> Well it clearly is obvious that Frank, Russell, SMS, Flunky and Jeff obtain every iota of knowledge they have from their Google searches they do "for the truth".
>
>Does it matter where the truth comes from? Isn't the truth the truth? Whether you get your history from the paper encyclopedia (My family had the World Book Encyclopedia) or the paper Wall Street Journal or from Wikipedia today or online Vanguard mutual fund prices today, it should be the exact same truth. Kind of like the Civil War. The battles and results are the same whether from a paper history book or from a Google search. Just much easier and maybe more up to date to use the internet.

But can you use "Tom" and "truth" in the same sentence?
(without adding a negative, that is :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 2:14:31 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:35 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:29:16 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> > > I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly.
> > Only from you and kucinich.
> >
> > "the vietnamese surrendered, ending the vietnam war"
> > "the rebel army won every battle in the US civil war before the emancipation proclamation"
> > "there was no recession before Barack Obama took office"

I didn't write that _you_ did, shit bag. That was all tommy the twerps' rambling. The point that your bloviated ego obviously missed was that you have the temerity to write:

"I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly. "

whilst allowing your mutual sychphant to write:

> > "the vietnamese surrendered, ending the vietnam war"
> > "the rebel army won every battle in the US civil war before the emancipation proclamation"
> > "there was no recession before Barack Obama took office"

completely unchallanged. Cognitive dissonance much, skippy?

At least Andrew has the integrity to call out tommy when he's very clearly wrong.

> >
> Prove that I said a single word of that, numb nuts. You’re a routine false accuser.
> >
> > the list of gems from you two trolling idiots is nearly endless....
> > > >
> > > Andre Jute
> > > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
> > Yup, he makes it up as he goes along.
> >
> The winners always write history. So what?

Yes, they do, perhaps you and tommy should try listening to the people who actually wrote the history, rather than excreting your lunacy here.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 3:35:16 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:14:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:35 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:29:16 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >
> > > > I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly.
> > > Only from you and kucinich.
> > >
> > > "the vietnamese surrendered, ending the vietnam war"
> > > "the rebel army won every battle in the US civil war before the emancipation proclamation"
> > > "there was no recession before Barack Obama took office"
> > >
> > Prove that I said a single word of that, numb nuts. You’re a routine false accuser.
> > >
> > > the list of gems from you two trolling idiots is nearly endless....
> > > > >
> > > > Andre Jute
> > > > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
> > > Yup, he makes it up as he goes along.
> > >
> > The winners always write history. So what?
> > >
> > Unsigned out of contempt
> > >
> "That’s the concept behind the claim that General Vo Nguyen Giap, the chief Vietminh military leader in the war against U.S. forces (and later minister of defense and deputy premier of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam after the fall of Saigon in 1975), penned memoirs in which he maintained that the North Vietnamese realized the war was unwinnable and were prepared to give up, but they ultimately prevailed because negative public opinion in America (fomented by anti-war protesters and hostile..."

Thanks for proving my point.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 8:47:57 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 13:22:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:14:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:35 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:29:16 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly.
> >> > Only from you and kucinich.
> >> >
> >> > "the vietnamese surrendered, ending the vietnam war"
> >> > "the rebel army won every battle in the US civil war before the emancipation proclamation"
> >> > "there was no recession before Barack Obama took office"
> >> >
> >> Prove that I said a single word of that, numb nuts. You’re a routine false accuser.
> >> >
> >> > the list of gems from you two trolling idiots is nearly endless....
> >> > > >
> >> > > Andre Jute
> >> > > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
> >> > Yup, he makes it up as he goes along.
> >> >
> >> The winners always write history. So what?
> >> >
> >> Unsigned out of contempt
> >> >
> >The Great Recession began with the election of a Democrat majority to Congress Up to the election of Barrack Obama it was little more than a MILD recession. Almost instantly the economy fell into the tank. Until Biden, Obama had absolutely the worst economy of the post war years. Truman was almost as bad but he had the excuse of the war recovery years. The economy of Jimmy Carter was dreadful but Obama had HALF the performance of Carter making a peanut grower look intelligent in comparison. Flunky shows himself to be nothing more than the stalker as was suggested to me. I continue to see that he wants to suck me every time one of his postings is copied to me. https://www.hudson.org/research/12719-obama-s-historically-bad-economy "Obama’s best year? 2.6 percent in 2015. That’s so weak that it is beneath the post-WWII average of 2.9 percent." No9 wonder Frank and Flunky dislike me so much. They cannot stand facing the truth.
> Goodness Gracious! And here I had always read that the "Great
> Recession" was a result of sub-prime mortgages, largely in California,
> failing. Brought about by the passing of the Monetary Control Act
> (DIDMCA) in 1980... under a Republican President.
> --

the great recession had its roots in the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act - the banking deregulation act with three republican namesakes and passed overwhelmingly by the republican controlled senate and house in 1999. Tomy's delusion also leads him to believe the democrats held both houses during bush JRs last two years, when they only controlled the house.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:22:41 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:14:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:35 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:29:16 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >
> > > > I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly.
> > > Only from you and kucinich.
> > >
> > > "the vietnamese surrendered, ending the vietnam war"
> > > "the rebel army won every battle in the US civil war before the emancipation proclamation"
> > > "there was no recession before Barack Obama took office"
> > >
> > Prove that I said a single word of that, numb nuts. You’re a routine false accuser.
> > >
> > > the list of gems from you two trolling idiots is nearly endless....
> > > > >
> > > > Andre Jute
> > > > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
> > > Yup, he makes it up as he goes along.
> > >
> > The winners always write history. So what?
> > >
> > Unsigned out of contempt
> > >
> The Great Recession began with the election of a Democrat majority to Congress Up to the election of Barrack Obama it was little more than a MILD recession. Almost instantly the economy fell into the tank. Until Biden, Obama had absolutely the worst economy of the post war years. Truman was almost as bad but he had the excuse of the war recovery years. The economy of Jimmy Carter was dreadful but Obama had HALF the performance of Carter making a peanut grower look intelligent in comparison. Flunky shows himself to be nothing more than the stalker as was suggested to me. I continue to see that he wants to suck me every time one of his postings is copied to me. https://www.hudson.org/research/12719-obama-s-historically-bad-economy "Obama’s best year? 2.6 percent in 2015. That’s so weak that it is beneath the post-WWII average of 2.9 percent." No9 wonder Frank and Flunky dislike me so much. They cannot stand facing the truth.
>
That scum doesn’t just dislike you, they hate you, Tom, for not subscribing to their mindless basket of pinko-commie-fellow-traveller perversions of the truth. Ask them if they believe men can give birth, and see if you can get a straight one-word answer or a torrent of abuse from those slimy clowns.
>
Andre Jute
Not impressed by the Limp Left
>

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 9:31:03 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:22:41 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:14:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:35 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:29:16 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly.
> > > > Only from you and kucinich.
> > > >
> > > > "the vietnamese surrendered, ending the vietnam war"
> > > > "the rebel army won every battle in the US civil war before the emancipation proclamation"
> > > > "there was no recession before Barack Obama took office"
> > > >
> > > Prove that I said a single word of that, numb nuts. You’re a routine false accuser.
> > > >
> > > > the list of gems from you two trolling idiots is nearly endless....
> > > > > >
> > > > > Andre Jute
> > > > > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
> > > > Yup, he makes it up as he goes along.
> > > >
> > > The winners always write history. So what?
> > > >
> > > Unsigned out of contempt
> > > >
> > The Great Recession began with the election of a Democrat majority to Congress Up to the election of Barrack Obama it was little more than a MILD recession. Almost instantly the economy fell into the tank. Until Biden, Obama had absolutely the worst economy of the post war years. Truman was almost as bad but he had the excuse of the war recovery years. The economy of Jimmy Carter was dreadful but Obama had HALF the performance of Carter making a peanut grower look intelligent in comparison. Flunky shows himself to be nothing more than the stalker as was suggested to me. I continue to see that he wants to suck me every time one of his postings is copied to me. https://www.hudson.org/research/12719-obama-s-historically-bad-economy "Obama’s best year? 2.6 percent in 2015. That’s so weak that it is beneath the post-WWII average of 2.9 percent." No9 wonder Frank and Flunky dislike me so much. They cannot stand facing the truth.
> >
> That scum doesn’t just dislike you, they hate you, Tom, for not subscribing to their mindless basket of pinko-commie-fellow-traveller perversions of the truth. Ask them if they believe men can give birth, and see if you can get a straight one-word answer or a torrent of abuse from those slimy clowns.
> >
> Andre Jute
> Not impressed by the Limp Left
> >

Well I have to admit that probably not one of them understands that sex is a matter of DNA and not a state of mind.

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 12:31:03 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:

> That scum doesn’t just dislike you, they hate you

Hate is an action most practiced in direct proportion by those most willing to accuse others of it.

> Tom, for not subscribing to their mindless basket of pinko-commie-fellow-traveller perversions of the truth.

Oh like "45% of Democrats want Concentration Camps for Unvaccinated"?

or "If you cycle, you're a Neo-Nazi, says MSNBC"?

Or this calumniated quatrain?:
"UK Government also says Tom Kunich Right, you Monkeys Wrong
New York Times says Tom Kunich right, RBT monkeys wrong
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky says Tom Kunich right, you monkeys wrong
Tom Kunich was right about that careerist fraud Fauci"

> Ask them if they believe men can give birth, and see if you can get a straight one-word answer

no.

> or a torrent of abuse from those slimy clowns.

Abuse is an action most practiced in direct proportion by those most willing to accuse others of it.

> >
> Andre Jute
> Not impressed by the Limp Left

Neither are we, and even less impressed by the snowflake rightwing antics of kunich and jute.

"The [National Review] has been everything the speakers tonight have so kindly said it was–is. It is preposterous to suppose that this is so because of my chancellorship. How gifted do you need to be to publish Whittaker Chambers and Russell Kirk, James Burnham and Keith Mano, and reject the psuedo-intellectual horse manure of Andre Jute without comment?" - William F. Buckley Jr. on the 35th anniversary of National Review, on October 5, 1990, at which he announced his retirement as editor-in-chief.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:22:41 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The Great Recession began with the election of a Democrat majority to Congress Up to the election of Barrack Obama it was little more than a MILD recession.

Sure, that's why John McCain suspended his presidential campaign to work on getting TARP legislation through congress and bush signed it into law before the election - A 1 trillion dollar aid package for a "mild" recession. Those buffoons at Hudson are just as deluded as you are.

> No9 wonder Frank and Flunky dislike me so much. They cannot stand facing the truth.

If you had any familiarity with the truth that might be a point worth considering.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 7:40:04 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 11:18:37 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
> <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:56 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:29:16 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> > Andre Jute
> >> > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
>
> >> Well it clearly is obvious that Frank, Russell, SMS, Flunky and Jeff obtain every iota of knowledge they have from their Google searches they do "for the truth".
>
> >That’s as fine a definition of a delusory personality as I’ve ever seen. —- AJ
> For what little it seems to be worth to you, I use Wikipedia
> references because:
> 1. They're easy to find and cover a wide range of topics.
> 2. They're mostly accurate.
> 3. They provide me with accurate spelling (and pronunciation).
> 4. They provide interesting background material and additional
> references in the footnotes.
> 5. They're readable by mere mortals unschooled in political catch
> phrases and jargon.
> 6. They provide links to the source material.
>
> However, if you want me to use references other than Wikipedia, I can
> easily provide some really obscure sources. Is that an improvement? I
> noticed that Tom, and possibly you, have solved the problem of
> providing adequate sources, properly attributed quotation, and expert
> opinions, by simply not providing any of these. I see very little in
> the way of attributions, links and sources from you and none from Tom.
> Do you expect your readers to accept your word at face value? I can't
> speak for the others, but I certainly don't. Without backup, sources,
> and maybe a consensus, most of the amazing facts presented by Tom are
> his opinion, his imagination, and all too commonly, a fabrication. You
> do quite a bit better than Tom, but I would still like to see some
> corroberation or perhaps a link to someone with similar opinions.
>
> I don't have any plans to abandon my use of Wikipedia references. If
> you wish to dispute my conclusions or Wikipedia sources, you are
> welcome to do so. If you find a Wikipedia article to be inadequate,
> I'm sure the authors and editors would be interested in your input.
> However, I'm not willing to throw out the best reference material
> available on the internet and am quite willing to tolerate a few
> errors and differences of opinion in the content.
>
+1

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 12:40:04 AM UTC+1, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 11:18:37 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
> <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:56 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:29:16 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> > Andre Jute
> >> > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
>
> >> Well it clearly is obvious that Frank, Russell, SMS, Flunky and Jeff obtain every iota of knowledge they have from their Google searches they do "for the truth".
>
> >That’s as fine a definition of a delusory personality as I’ve ever seen. —- AJ
> For what little it seems to be worth to you,
>
Not “little”, Jeff, zero. An encyclopaedia, to be worth anything at all, must be a recourse of last resort, from which every statement must be impeccably true. A “crowdsourced” encyclopaedia by definition is an ungodly, untrue, lowest common denominator of street corner ignorance and the bias of the most active political group.
>
>I use Wikipedia
> references because:
> 1. They're easy to find and cover a wide range of topics.
>
A copy of the most authoritative edition of the Britannica, published in 1911, is available from Gutenberg free of charge.
>
> 2. They're mostly accurate.
>
“Mostly accurate” contains its own condemnation. Furthermore, for weak minded and lazy wannabe polemicists like your undereducated pal Flunky, “mostly accurate” is an invitation to pick and choose among the “facts” to suit their political bias.
>
> 3. They provide me with accurate spelling (and pronunciation).
>
I’m not impressed. That is the lowest step of knowledge. Educated people already know how to spell and pronounce words.
>
> 4. They provide interesting background material and additional
> references in the footnotes.
>
See passim in my response about “bias”.
>
> 5. They're readable by mere mortals unschooled in political catch
> phrases and jargon.
>
Who cares if Wikipedia is written in babytalk if it spreads misinformation and lies?
>
> 6. They provide links to the source material.
>
If the links are as biased, as ignorant, as uneven as the content of Wikipedia. — which is not surprising, given that the links have been plagiarised on the whole by ignoramuses and further mangled by amateur “editors” — then the links are as useless as the entries in Wikipedia.
>
> However, if you want me to use references other than Wikipedia, I can
> easily provide some really obscure sources.
>
I’m perfectly capable of forming my own judgement of your knowledge in the one subject on which I might need your help, electronics. The truth is that your responses give me as much information as I need, after which the links become irrelevant and I don’t waste any time on them.
>
I suspect anyway that the clowns on RBT, most whom are clearly tenth-raters, think that “references” (from Wikipedia, Jesus help me!) will make them appear ejicated, an impossible task because no coat of paint, however thick, can hide their innate viciousness. Genuinely cultured people are usually not vicious.
>
>Is that an improvement? I
> noticed that Tom, and possibly you, have solved the problem of
> providing adequate sources,
>
Are you for real, Jeff? On politics and economics, I am not only an adequate source but a sufficient or overwhelming source, depending on context and audience. Same applies on subjects as widely divergent as automobile design and motivational psychology, literature and colour theory, etc.
>
Next we get to this bit of silliness
>properly attributed quotation, and expert
> opinions,
>
You’re starting to sound like an idiot instructor who told me when I was an undergraduate, “A proper academic paper has the same length of references as the main content.” I had him removed to teaching numbskulls, whence he was soon shifted out of college teaching altogether, and at the dinner to celebrate his departure, the Faculty Chairman said, “I have a list. Now if Andre could manage to trip up a few more no-hopers left over from the previous management.”
>
>by simply not providing any of these. I see very little in
> the way of attributions, links and sources from you and none from Tom.
>
Tom can speak for himself from the palatial residence he’s built in the heads of your little group of street corner bullies. But I see no reason to play your game that you lot shouting down anyone who dares to differ is an academic discussion. This is a social medium and you clowns aren’t sociable, so I shan’t be amenable to your preferred forms.
>
> Do you expect your readers to accept your word at face value?
>
Of course I do. This whole group has been trying for more than a decade to catch me in a lie and haven’t caught me in a single lie.
>
>I can't
> speak for the others, but I certainly don't.
>
That’s your privilege. Exercise it wisely, because it is pretty near calling me a liar, which is more than enough for me to add you to my shitlist. You should note that I’ve always taken you at your word.
>
>Without backup, sources,
> and maybe a consensus,
>
A “consensus” of who? Mentally and morally subnormal fuckwits like Krygowski and Flunky and the Thai Turd and RussellSEaton who got his economics, such as they are, from a toilet roll wrapper? I can get you a gig writing comedy routines for second-rank standup comics.
>
>most of the amazing facts presented by Tom are
> his opinion, his imagination, and all too commonly, a fabrication.
>
You should take your opinion up with Tom so that he can patronise you some more. I merely note that through the Chinese Pandemic, Tom turned out, in the light of later discoveries and admissions by criminals like Fauci (possibly also a traitor — what do you call a man who subsidises the development of biowar substances by the nation’s number one enemy? — to be far, far more right than you lot who swallowed the lies you were told wholesale. I also note that, instead of apologising to Tom for your wrongful abuse (which that wretched jerk-off Krygowski now excuses as believing the government)), you simply distorted the facts and kept on abusing him after a small hiatus when those milder than me pointed out what I knew all along, that Tom knew more about these matters than the whole bunch of you together. Tom does science. Your gang are, at best, jumped-up technicians.
>
>You
> do quite a bit better than Tom, but I would still like to see some
> corroberation or perhaps a link to someone with similar opinions.
>
Then go find it.
>
> I don't have any plans to abandon my use of Wikipedia references. If
> you wish to dispute my conclusions or Wikipedia sources, you are
> welcome to do so. If you find a Wikipedia article to be inadequate,
> I'm sure the authors and editors would be interested in your input.
>
I know. Someone made a page for me on Wikipedia. When I complained that it was loaded with inaccuracies, lies and offensive material they said airily that I could change whatever I liked. When I responded that I wouldn’t want my name soiled by association with such an inaccurate source as Wikipedia, they replied that I could make one change a day. Considering that a restraint of my free speech, I rolled over these wannabe somebodies by explaining that for starters I would send six hotshot, hungry young reporters to audit Jimmy Wales and the entire Wikipedia Board’s expensive accounts once a month, but I would permit Jimmy to make one change a day, after publication, of course. They saw the sense of removing the entry about me chop-chop, which they claimed earlier was impossible to do under any circumstance.
>
> However, I'm not willing to throw out the best reference material
> available on the internet and am quite willing to tolerate a few
> errors and differences of opinion in the content.
>
See, the difference between me and the scum you run with is that I’m a liberal (not the perverse American kind, who stole the name of real liberals). I have no interest in telling you what you should do or what you can believe. Having failed to make me behave and think like a lowest common denominator peasant such as they are, that little gang of slow-learning scumballs are now trying it on Tom, at this stage rather forlornly because after more than two years of zero success it must surely have sunk into their thick heads that they’re on another loser and had better go back to bullying Ridealittle — and even him they failed to subjugate!
>
What I’m telling you is that using Wikipedia as your source makes everything else that you say suspect. Of course, that is my opinion, but it my opinion based on direct experience, above, which I’ve merely never bothered to share with you. And, of course, it is the opinion of Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger. Since you insist on references, a teaching moment comes up (I’ll explain later what is being taught here):
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2022/04/27/wikipedia-bias-n2606403
>
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
>
Andre Jute.
Liberal
>

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 6:57:32 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 9:31:03 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 9:22:41 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:14:31 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:58:35 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:29:16 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I certainly hope you’ll stick around to correct the vast swathes of perverse “history” a certain contingent here spreads weekly.
> > > > > Only from you and kucinich.
> > > > >
> > > > > "the vietnamese surrendered, ending the vietnam war"
> > > > > "the rebel army won every battle in the US civil war before the emancipation proclamation"
> > > > > "there was no recession before Barack Obama took office"
> > > > >
> > > > Prove that I said a single word of that, numb nuts. You’re a routine false accuser.
> > > > >
> > > > > the list of gems from you two trolling idiots is nearly endless.....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Andre Jute
> > > > > > Who doesn’t get his history from Wikipedia
> > > > > Yup, he makes it up as he goes along.
> > > > >
> > > > The winners always write history. So what?
> > > > >
> > > > Unsigned out of contempt
> > > > >
> > > The Great Recession began with the election of a Democrat majority to Congress Up to the election of Barrack Obama it was little more than a MILD recession. Almost instantly the economy fell into the tank. Until Biden, Obama had absolutely the worst economy of the post war years. Truman was almost as bad but he had the excuse of the war recovery years. The economy of Jimmy Carter was dreadful but Obama had HALF the performance of Carter making a peanut grower look intelligent in comparison. Flunky shows himself to be nothing more than the stalker as was suggested to me. I continue to see that he wants to suck me every time one of his postings is copied to me. https://www.hudson.org/research/12719-obama-s-historically-bad-economy "Obama’s best year? 2.6 percent in 2015. That’s so weak that it is beneath the post-WWII average of 2.9 percent." No9 wonder Frank and Flunky dislike me so much. They cannot stand facing the truth.
> > >
> > That scum doesn’t just dislike you, they hate you, Tom, for not subscribing to their mindless basket of pinko-commie-fellow-traveller perversions of the truth. Ask them if they believe men can give birth, and see if you can get a straight one-word answer or a torrent of abuse from those slimy clowns.
> > >
> > Andre Jute
> > Not impressed by the Limp Left
> > >
> Well I have to admit that probably not one of them understands that sex is a matter of DNA and not a state of mind.
>
In a century — probably less — people are going to laugh, and ask, “Can you imagine an era so ridiculous that adults needed to discuss whether men can give birth?” — AJ

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 4:55:39 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
< his typical invective, lies, half-truths, and his usual self-aggrandizing>

But then there's this little gem:

"I have no interest in telling you what you should do or what you can believe."

from the sycophantic little puke who demanded that we apologize the kunich and accept his (and your) ignorant rants instead of the science.

"Tom does science."

Tom does bullshit, which he feeds to you, and you lap up unquestioningly.

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 2:43:47 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 2:14:31 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >
> > > "the vietnamese surrendered, ending the vietnam war"
> > > "the rebel army won every battle in the US civil war before the emancipation proclamation"
> > > "there was no recession before Barack Obama took office"
>
> I didn't write that _you_ did, shit bag.
>
Prove it or apologise for accusing me falsely.
>
Unsigned out of contempt for a spittle-spraying false accuser.