To answer your question, those "ones" would be the same kind of lowlife scammers at least..
Speaking of scams, around noon a robot voice on my home phone told me something is wrong with my social security.
Bah! Humbug!
Me dino hung up before I was asked for my social security number. Had company I was trying to talk to in the house anyway.

I don't know. Maybe you should: look up credentials; watch for contradictions (that is, self-contradictions). (For instance, those who in the 1970's threatened a "nuclear winter"--are they not the same ones who talk about "global warming" now?)

OMG! Big time upchuck yuck!
As we all know, The Donald has by far better taste than dingbat Darth Cackles The Evil Hag,
That even includes greedy whores he has paid extortion to.
Oh, yeah, that reminds me, what goes around comes around.. Bwahaha!
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/11/us...

Thanks, ;^) ;^) ;^)

Came across this version (enjoy),
https://youtu.be/jaBB0nmBpnM

Those generations get progressively spoiled by the Jackass Party.

I'd agree with that in general. There is also the network effect, but that is hardly conspiratorial. ;) I also suspect it is a result of the hardships they had as a people. As a people experience an easier and easier life their work ethic tends to take a nose-dive.

You can see this in the metrics on immigration n the U.S.. Legal immigrants from hard-life countries tend to have a high work ethic (legal immigration has a self-selection bias in this regard), but their immediate children have a bit less, and their grandchildren even less. By the third generation it is no indistinguishable from those who have been here any longer than that. Quite noticeably, this is the same pattern - and magnitude - that we see among newly minted rich people: each successive generation squanders more and more of the wealth generated to get them into that class and are progressively worse at both work ethic and skill in managing money.

I think that the success of the jews is in large part due to their work ethic

Well, how aboutt the whole "swift boat' thing they sprung on Kerry? tit for tat, eh? allegations from both sides are vicious and suspicious the closer it is to voting time. I don't pay any attention to any of it. Tarely I vote early by mail and ignore the rest.

If me dino ain't mistaken, the politicians of Venezuela are still trying to make socialism work, still trying to make socialism work, still try to make socialism work, still trying to~pant! pant!~make socialism work, ad nauseaum.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union must of kept trying to make socialism work the same stubborn way right up to the time their Marxist implementations finally just plain broke.

Got a whale of a tale to tell you lads, a whale of a tale or two!

Dammit, Mike. Now that I see you have a blog and are a technical writer I'm going to have to crawl through it while I resist the urge to ask you questions about, or potentially commiserate over, what I view as the extremely poor state of "science writing" these days. >.<

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

That is one of the more interesting things to learn about JFK and his battle for the tax cuts: the difference in the opposition now vs. then. The Democrats opposed them because they understood that if people were experiencing economic growth they would be less hostile to black workers; which is one of the reasons Kennedy referenced it as a civil rights issue. It was one of his reasons for pushing for it before the broader civil rights agenda.

Everyone at the time acknowledged that the progressive tax reduced economic growth by design and that it hurt the lower rungs of the ladder the most back then. Now (mostly due, IMO, to LBJ) that exact structure is supposed to help them. The Republicans opposed it because they expected it to cut revenue and lead to debt. To be fair to them, what JFK was pushing for in 61-62 was a major cut and was unprecedented as far as I can tell. I can excuse people for thinking that would happen the first time.

But just as the segregationists wanted minimum wage to discourage employers from hiring black people, the tax structure was explicitly implemented to cut growth. Yet today we have this crazy notion that only more spending and taxes can do that. Yet every time the mix JFK pushed for (solid dollar, "tight money", and lower taxes across the board) has been implemented it has resulted in significant revenue increases (especially for non-federal governments) through economic growth.

Politicians don't make the same mistake. They like to make it dozens of times just to be sure. Then try it again just in case.

When I was an Alabama teenager during the mid-60s, there was a Dixiecrat who worked in a office for my father at a company that made tricycles, swing sets and even baby cribs.
He liked to call JFK Der Fuhrer due to that POTUS's efforts to end segregation.
That office worker once fought the Germans as a fighter pilot during WW2.

She isn’t wrong. ;)

If you really want to have your mind blown, look at how the Democrats and Progressives treated JFK until he was killed. It, too, will be familiar. They called him “worse than Hitler”, fascist, isolationist, and one even said he would go down as one of the worst human beings in history. Why? Because he wanted to oppose communist influx, make all out broad permanent tax cuts, and find the least amount of government that would still work to secure liberty and “prosperity through growth”. His campaign slogan? Get This Country Moving Again.

Granted, he was something of a military interventionist, but that isn’t what they went after him for.

Very familiar indeed.

Hehe, if it wasn't for the frequency with which it happens, looking back at what was bandied about then would be an eerie thing given its occurrence today. As it is it merely demonstrates that the recent uproar over things and tactics aren't new.

Rather, through his team and report, made an allegation based on phony documents. Rather than own up they shifted the responsibility for validating those documents from themselves to saying others had to prove them false. Yup, guilty until proven innocent writ large for the public decades ago - but only for Republicans. They even aired the interview with the secretary who wrote them where she outright said they were not genuine (ie. forgeries). That whole thing was as much as a sham as the recent allegations regarding Kavanaugh and most of them regarding Trump.

It may be poor memory, but I seem to recall there being discussion or documents from the debacle along the lines of they thought Kerry would win and thus little to no fallout from it. Oops. Perhaps history doesn't necessarily repeat, but it has an uncanny knack for rhyming. ;)

[Edit] Recap: Rather's team went right to "sources" who were politically connected to Kerry and vociferously anti-Republican, got docs, and used them as proof even when not proven accurate. When pressed and found to be lacking evidence they claimed it was their target who needed to prove their innocence rather than they prove his guilt. Sure sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Me dino loves how intensely serious those Jackass Party puppets look as they incessantly spew their brainless blather.

I've noticed since me dino adolescence that people like to look down on some others as inferior because it causes them to feel superior.
During my late 20s I recall a small town flower shop lady I liked comparing gossips to vultures who swarm down on a body so they can proudly spread their wings and squawk.

Political reasons? Bah! Humbug!
Tis the season to be scoffing.
Falalalala!

I'm not sure if you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it. I wouldn't. If it's the truth, you only have to say it once. Repeating it only dilutes its value as far as I am concerned. Of course, I raised sons.

NONE! I watched CNN??? the other evening and thought it was a comedy show.

This is all just my thinking about it briefly, not that I have anything to support it, but I think it comes down to three main aspects.

First, I suspect there is a lingering effect of the "split" between Judaism and Christianity - recall that Jesus did not meet the Jewish criteria to be the Messiah. Historically this was a big problem for many Christians. If this was enough to establish a habit of disdain I can see it persisting across generations. Think if it as analogous to mom cutting ends of the meatloaf off because her mom did that.

The second aspect would be basic "other". Combined with the relative success of Jewish persons this can engender additional suspicion. Hitler used this to extreme effect when he correctly noted the "overrepresentation" of Jews in positions of power or privilege, but then assigned that to conspiracy and "supremacy". This leads into the third aspect: collective scapegoating.

This and the previous are tightly intertwined. People tend to want someone else to blame for their misfortune or lack of success on someone other than themselves. However, we have a difficult time applying that to specific individuals, likely because there is a reasonable pressure to at least try to prove that specific person actively did something. However, there is no pressure to "prove" a group did something - mostly because it can not be done. For the Leftists/Progressives of today this is a "feature" because they dislike having to prove anything.

Note that I do not think any of this justifies such behavior, merely that it may explain some, or most, of it.

He resigned, yes. However he insisted the reporting was accurate even if the information it was based on was not. To this day he still insists that the "report" was "true". He also maintained (probably still does) that CBS hung him and those involved out to dry for political reasons.