Well, voice recognition would really improve telephone communication, which is the most widely deployed "terminal", and destined to become even more the main interface. At least people have lowered expectations, and limited scenarios, for its eventual deployment.
I think the main barrier to voice recognition success is that people are unforgiving of less than perfect machine response. We're much more forgiving of humans - our standard of recognition is unrealistically high, but we let it slide, try again, just stay calm and enjoy the ride. If we can get computers to feed back better, keep the channel open, get humans interested in making "small talk", we'll get better cooperation. The results will be surprisingly good. Especially compared with current computer interaction, which is too structured, too explicit, for most humans to be comfortable with.
Humans aren't going to say anything smarter once machines are listening. We'll multiply our speech, the way we've multiplied our documents. But we will get the feeling that something is doing what we say, even if not what we want. Computers aren't going to change the human condition too much.
Maybe. But the similarity mainly ends there. Besides, what kind of "political dynasty" has a senator beget a president and attorney general, both assassinated? The kind of dynasty that the Bush dynasty has assassinated, of course. Partly because the Kennedy "dynasty" was doing too much to destroy racism and integrate America.
Besides, "George Bush doesn't care about Black people."
It would be interesting to see "the other side of the screen", the actual scenes that unfold when I post something that gets trollMod'ed down. Do they coordinate? Are they spontaneous? Do they read the posts? Ever click the links? Just see my userID and burn some modpoints? Are they angry? Sad? Happy?
Actually, "interesting" only in the aggregate, in a sociological way. Like gnats hitting the windshield. Engaging wiper fluid...
My point is that you are talking gibberish - cryptogibberish. You are also talking about how you are a casual user of VDARE's website, which suggests that you are a racist. Your comment is sympathetic to VDARE, even saying their "hate level" is the same as "CNN or Reuters", and says that "hate bans" favor "a certain way" - which you refuse to identify, though pressed, weaseling around by saying it's somehow (not specified) "my way", based on 24 comments I've made on Slashdot recently.
You made no point, except that you're afraid to say your actual point, while making inflammatory statements based on it.
A "certain kind" of inflammatory statement: reducing VDARE's kind of bigotry to mere "controversy", on par with "CNN and Reuters". Cut the crap. You're a bigot, a cryptobigot, talking in endless circles without coming out to defend your bigotry.
I think you are the digital equivalent of a racist in a white robe and hood who talks in code in church about getting rid of "sinners": people who don't look like you.
But even though I can't be sure, I can be sure that you are a coward who doesn't believe what you say enough to come out and say it.
I'm not afraid to say it, even if you hid like a scared child far out on a series of responses so no one would see me calling you a bigot, deep in the subthreads.
Still ontopic to VDARE, another bigoted hate org that pretends it's merely "controversial". Vapid only in your lame cowardice. And political only because people like you are so committed to your bigotry that your small numbers are overrepresented as you game the political system with cowardly tactics like the one you've hid behind here all day.
Why don't you stop talking out of your fucking ass, and just read my post which makes clear how my system makes it totally easy for the user?
I said the trust servers, and vouchers for those servers, would ship with defaults. All a casual user would do would see whether a given page is trusted, as a function of those two layers they'd never see. More sophisticated users could set their "vouch servers", probably by their organizations tech support. Even more sophisticated users could pick their own trust servers. Or make their own trust servers, or their own vouch servers. An open system with defaults that "just work" for everyone, unless they're inclined to tinker. With a simple mechanism for delegating the decisions of who to trust.
My privacy scope keyed to trust, automating form completion, makes it even easier for the casual user to decide what to do (or not), once trust levels are established. It becomes a matter of seeing a page asking for info, and just saying "OK/"Cancel" when the browser just says "This page is asking for your creditcard info, but YOUR_FINANCE_MAGAZINE says you shouldn't trust it. Do you want to do it anyway, or get more info before you give it to them?" Also with open configs, so for casual users it "just works", but more support/sophistication can use others' input into the trust web.
Distributed trust is complex. My system, drawing on decades of people working out how people trust and what's easy to understand, makes it easy for the 99.9999% who want to trust, and blame the people who vouched when it goes wrong. While accommodating the few, including me, who understand how to tailor trust even better.
You are clearly part of the "six nines" who need it totally dumbed down, or you get scared into confusion. Just step away from the keyboard while pros do the hard work, and you'll get your simple, trustworthy interface. Getting in the way of the machinery can be dangerous for mere normals like you.
Congress is split about that evenly, barely favoring the TrollMods, which is one reason why we're getting so many 12 minutes in Iraq, and no DARPA Grand Challenge prizes.
In a few weeks, you'll get a chance (if you're an American voter) to pick your representative in the House, and probably your Senator, too. Decide whether they agree with your preference for DARPA or Iraq. Vote Tuesday, November 7 2006. You'll be stuck with the result for at least a million minutes in Iraq, through 2008.
Why does Opera have to own the servers? Why can't it include several defaults, like its own servers, for "trust ratings", factoring in webserver certificate status (exists, expired, corrupt, etc)? And let users choose which "trust servers" they want to use to validate trust. Even better would be another layer which reviews trust servers for trustworthiness, to which users can subscribe to decide how much to trust which webservers.
If Opera also integrated structured personal info into trust levels, completing the circle for users, it would become much more popular among people who want convenient trust. We all finally need to be able to look at a page requesting personal info, and know who says which info is safe to deliver, by just agreeing to send "disposable email address", or "existing email address", or "name, email and phone#", or "postal address info", or "creditcard validation info", as requested, packaged, and vouched by trusted parties.
If Opera owns the infrastructure, eventually conflicts of interest and scales of operation will take it down, leaving people relying on it with none. Instead, a Firefox plugin, that manages all that personal info and trust by pointing to remote servers with intelligible user interface terms, will win the day.
"They also mention it could be used for things like voice recognition."
Every time Microsoft introduces another new platform, whether OS, Office, HW, game console, or new executive, they promise voice recognition. Of course they never deliver.
Even the dedicated voice recognition researchers and developers don't have real voice recognition on any HW. MS doesn't do the kind of basic research necessary to move further down the road. And it doesn't even productize the R&D done by others - it copies or buys products from competitors. Or it keeps doing it wrong every time, until expectations are low enough that small improvements are declared victory.
The people who deliver useable voice recognition will work it out in the open telephony world, which has enough focus, money, constraints and momentum to actually get across the threshold to universal, untrained voice recognition that does something limited, but at least as perfectly as humans do.
Next we'll hear that these chips will be good for a "database filesystem"...
I am familiar with my comment history. Why don't you drop the mystery about your veiled allusions? You said
"There is a historical pattern of the "hate" bans leaning "a certain way," if you know what I mean, and with a broad brush"
and I asked what you mean. What are you hiding? What are you ashamed to explain? What are you talking about? To whom are your insistently cryptic comments directed?
If you're going to talk in some kind of code in public, you should expect to explain yourself when asked. Not just make ambiguous references to the questioner's history. Explain your own.
Why doesn't Microsoft spend $200M promoting their games and everything else by making a Halo movie? It couldn't be any worse than the Doom movie. Which lost about 50% of its $70M budget in theaters, but is making plenty more in endless cable/TV syndication.
If MS went that route, and had the same "success", it could be spending a couple-few dozen million on marketing Halo to the much wider audience of moviegoers. Since Halo is still a more popular brand than was "Doom" when its movie was released, it could even show a profit in theaters+cable.
And of course the marketing value to MS could be enormous. For all its ubiquity, the MS product line is rarely featured, or even product-placed, in scenes in movies. MS could reinforce its brand across the board, across the world, even projecting it into people's imaginations of "the future", by making a movie.
Since so much of MS is just for show anyway, this seems a natural project, even long overdue.
I'd prefer famous influential books to be presented as images of the original, left/right pages as in the original, with controls to swap the images in place with digital text. That would let me recreate the experience of contemporary readers with the layout of the original volume. Some subtle info is contained in the pageturning, especially in books with images, sidebars, or other layout features influenced by the surrounding context.
Of course, selectable revisions/annotations, and hyperlinking the original/digital text to internal references, commentary, reader discussions and searches are great features. As are new pagination, including personal bookmarks and compilations, different file formats, etc. But they don't need to discard the original layouts, with the original info they contain.
I'll go out on a limb on a series of "ifs" (and maybe a bag of physics naivetes), but let's say we perfect this manner of imperceptibly "derefracting" light. And let's say we also complete the ambitious work identifying and manipulating gravitons, still hypothetical. Could we "cloak" spaces and matter from any interaction with our universe, not just electromagnetic? Maybe the Stong and Weak Forces would remain for interaction, but practically, outside the tiny diameter of a nucleus, could anyone notice?
Could a "gravity cloak" create subspaces operating as independent universes? Could we contain matter too highly interactive for current use safely? Like a tiny black hole conveniently near a device it's powering, or a pair coupled into a wormhole for "faster than light" travel through custom-folded space? Vast amounts of stuff crammed into pocketsized spaces.
Maybe the old playground philosphers choosing between "teleportation or invisibility superpowers" will finally have a lab to figure out which is really better.
Denying unlicensed Windows instances access to security upgrades does to the Internet ecosystem just what denying poor people access to vaccines and other public health does: it creates incubators for plagues. The "underground" class of unlicensed Windows instances will offer criminals, vandals and spies a cesspool in which to multiply, and launch attacks on everyone. Since Microsoft cannot exterminate completely the global unlicensed Windows population, nor ensure licensed instances are invulnerable to these attacks, their WGA program is making everyone less safe.
Yes, of course we should live by a cop's advice on how to avoid picking a fight with a homicidal maniac, through secrecy. It sounds like he's marketing to encourage more copwork.
How about not picking a fight with a homicidal maniac, either in person, on the phone, over an "audio link" (like VoIP), email, the Web, in Letters to the Editor... Unless you can take them. I recommend a garbage can lid, a can of mace, and a sawed off shotgun.
I didn't attribute anything to George Bush Jr except an asshole grandfather. But now that you mention it, "George Bush doesn't care about Black people" sure sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Anonymous political hack Coward, leave politics aside when judging George Bush? Karl Rove, is that you?
"George Bush doesn't care about Black people." - sound familiar?
JFK's father running illegal drugs with the mob is certainly important when judging JFK's life - and death, by the mob (and the CIA, and George Bush Sr, but not for "eugenics").
Bush's father was a president, his grandfather (in question) was a Connecticut senator. The handing down power within a dynasty certainly makes the extreme anti-American actions of the patriarch notable in the history of the current president. But more relevant to the context in which I replied (another poster reminding readers that eugenics has a long history in America) is that the old racist Prescott managed to get his son into Congress and the White House, and his grandson into a governorship and the presidency, too.
I say you're a Bush worshipper because you invented an "argument" that you said I was making about Bush Jr, when I mentioned him for context. You can take all the inferences you want about any Bush Jr racism - I certainly do - but there's no implication in my words. Your jumping to defend Bush Jr from a nonexistent argument speaks of an irrational defensiveness about Bush Jr. That's what worship is like, despite your protestations about your disapproval of him. Don't flatter yourself into thinking I looked up some Facebook profile, or care about whether you're a "Christian". Though people as insecure as you are about your Christianity have a conflicted relationship to worship, government, and their combination.
So I admit that your kind mixed messages about Bush is confusing. And that you're confused about the source of your ideas about how Prescott Bush reflects on George Jr. Pointing out the big part his family has played in American racism isn't so much "digging up dirt" as it is telling the truth. Like "George Bush doesn't care about Black people". He doesn't care about White people who don't vote for him, either. And apparently, according to new stories, he doesn't care about White Christians like you, either, even when they do vote for him. So get straight about Bush, and stop defending him from arguments that you have in your mind at least as much as I have in mine.
Strawman. I said nothing about Bush Jr, except that his grandfather was a bigot (and a Nazi collaborator), to show just how much a part of America's exclusive power systems is racism. There was no therefore anywhere, except in your inference.
Thanks for the chance to say something new, like "George Bush doesn't care about Black people."
I point out that Prescott Bush funded Nazis and eugenics, you post that link to an article that's part of the culture war recruiting black ministers (like the author) to wedge against feminsts and abortion rights, and I am "politicizing good and evil"?
America was founded by slave owners. Today we don't have slavery. What kind of political power does Margaret Sanger's grandchildren have? None. The Bush family is a different story.
FWIW, I'm don't have any respect for either Bush to respect their patrician clannish "christian names" difference. The old one is Sr, and the stupid one is Jr. Sue me.
In point of fact, I said nothing about George Bush Jr except that his grandfather was an asshole. And I backed up that attack on Grampa Prescott with facts. Prescott Bush isn't just some random person, he's the patriarch of Bush Jr's rich and powerful political family. When I replied to comment on the continuing status of the history of American eugenics in which Prescott Bush looms so large, of course it was worth mentioning that the eugenics patriarch is also the current president's patriarch.
So your strawman argument, that I somehow made any "argument" about Bush Jr, let alone an "ad hominem" argument, is specious. Useless. "Absolutely nothing", it's sometimes called.
Except commentary on Bush worshippers like you. So scared of your own shadow that you jump out of your skin when your worst fear, the skeletons in Bush Jr's closet, rattle you into defending from arguments that weren't even presented.
The article author downplayed the involvement, but the facts they cited speak for themselves. Not just the early investment helping Hitler's rise in the 1920s, but the much more serious "Trading with the Enemy" crimes during WWII:
"The central charge against Prescott Bush has a basis in fact. In 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the U.S. government seized several companies in which he had an interest."
Bush funding Thyssen's 1920s Nazis wasn't an accident - not when the Nazis were working on the same fascist and racist program as Bush. After the US was at war with the Nazis, after the Nazis had taken over most of Europe and their Japanese allies the other half of the planet, there was no pleading ignorance of what their earlier clients had become.
There is no benefit of the doubt left for these people. They are thugs.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, voice recognition would really improve telephone communication, which is the most widely deployed "terminal", and destined to become even more the main interface. At least people have lowered expectations, and limited scenarios, for its eventual deployment.
I think the main barrier to voice recognition success is that people are unforgiving of less than perfect machine response. We're much more forgiving of humans - our standard of recognition is unrealistically high, but we let it slide, try again, just stay calm and enjoy the ride. If we can get computers to feed back better, keep the channel open, get humans interested in making "small talk", we'll get better cooperation. The results will be surprisingly good. Especially compared with current computer interaction, which is too structured, too explicit, for most humans to be comfortable with.
Humans aren't going to say anything smarter once machines are listening. We'll multiply our speech, the way we've multiplied our documents. But we will get the feeling that something is doing what we say, even if not what we want. Computers aren't going to change the human condition too much.
Maybe. But the similarity mainly ends there. Besides, what kind of "political dynasty" has a senator beget a president and attorney general, both assassinated? The kind of dynasty that the Bush dynasty has assassinated, of course. Partly because the Kennedy "dynasty" was doing too much to destroy racism and integrate America.
Besides, "George Bush doesn't care about Black people."
It would be interesting to see "the other side of the screen", the actual scenes that unfold when I post something that gets trollMod'ed down. Do they coordinate? Are they spontaneous? Do they read the posts? Ever click the links? Just see my userID and burn some modpoints? Are they angry? Sad? Happy?
Actually, "interesting" only in the aggregate, in a sociological way. Like gnats hitting the windshield. Engaging wiper fluid...
My point is that you are talking gibberish - cryptogibberish. You are also talking about how you are a casual user of VDARE's website, which suggests that you are a racist. Your comment is sympathetic to VDARE, even saying their "hate level" is the same as "CNN or Reuters", and says that "hate bans" favor "a certain way" - which you refuse to identify, though pressed, weaseling around by saying it's somehow (not specified) "my way", based on 24 comments I've made on Slashdot recently.
You made no point, except that you're afraid to say your actual point, while making inflammatory statements based on it.
A "certain kind" of inflammatory statement: reducing VDARE's kind of bigotry to mere "controversy", on par with "CNN and Reuters". Cut the crap. You're a bigot, a cryptobigot, talking in endless circles without coming out to defend your bigotry.
I think you are the digital equivalent of a racist in a white robe and hood who talks in code in church about getting rid of "sinners": people who don't look like you.
But even though I can't be sure, I can be sure that you are a coward who doesn't believe what you say enough to come out and say it.
I'm not afraid to say it, even if you hid like a scared child far out on a series of responses so no one would see me calling you a bigot, deep in the subthreads.
Still ontopic to VDARE, another bigoted hate org that pretends it's merely "controversial". Vapid only in your lame cowardice. And political only because people like you are so committed to your bigotry that your small numbers are overrepresented as you game the political system with cowardly tactics like the one you've hid behind here all day.
Bigot coward.
Why don't you stop talking out of your fucking ass, and just read my post which makes clear how my system makes it totally easy for the user?
I said the trust servers, and vouchers for those servers, would ship with defaults. All a casual user would do would see whether a given page is trusted, as a function of those two layers they'd never see. More sophisticated users could set their "vouch servers", probably by their organizations tech support. Even more sophisticated users could pick their own trust servers. Or make their own trust servers, or their own vouch servers. An open system with defaults that "just work" for everyone, unless they're inclined to tinker. With a simple mechanism for delegating the decisions of who to trust.
My privacy scope keyed to trust, automating form completion, makes it even easier for the casual user to decide what to do (or not), once trust levels are established. It becomes a matter of seeing a page asking for info, and just saying "OK/"Cancel" when the browser just says "This page is asking for your creditcard info, but YOUR_FINANCE_MAGAZINE says you shouldn't trust it. Do you want to do it anyway, or get more info before you give it to them?" Also with open configs, so for casual users it "just works", but more support/sophistication can use others' input into the trust web.
Distributed trust is complex. My system, drawing on decades of people working out how people trust and what's easy to understand, makes it easy for the 99.9999% who want to trust, and blame the people who vouched when it goes wrong. While accommodating the few, including me, who understand how to tailor trust even better.
You are clearly part of the "six nines" who need it totally dumbed down, or you get scared into confusion. Just step away from the keyboard while pros do the hard work, and you'll get your simple, trustworthy interface. Getting in the way of the machinery can be dangerous for mere normals like you.
Moderation 0
50% Interesting
50% Troll
Congress is split about that evenly, barely favoring the TrollMods, which is one reason why we're getting so many 12 minutes in Iraq, and no DARPA Grand Challenge prizes.
In a few weeks, you'll get a chance (if you're an American voter) to pick your representative in the House, and probably your Senator, too. Decide whether they agree with your preference for DARPA or Iraq. Vote Tuesday, November 7 2006. You'll be stuck with the result for at least a million minutes in Iraq, through 2008.
Why does Opera have to own the servers? Why can't it include several defaults, like its own servers, for "trust ratings", factoring in webserver certificate status (exists, expired, corrupt, etc)? And let users choose which "trust servers" they want to use to validate trust. Even better would be another layer which reviews trust servers for trustworthiness, to which users can subscribe to decide how much to trust which webservers.
If Opera also integrated structured personal info into trust levels, completing the circle for users, it would become much more popular among people who want convenient trust. We all finally need to be able to look at a page requesting personal info, and know who says which info is safe to deliver, by just agreeing to send "disposable email address", or "existing email address", or "name, email and phone#", or "postal address info", or "creditcard validation info", as requested, packaged, and vouched by trusted parties.
If Opera owns the infrastructure, eventually conflicts of interest and scales of operation will take it down, leaving people relying on it with none. Instead, a Firefox plugin, that manages all that personal info and trust by pointing to remote servers with intelligible user interface terms, will win the day.
"some new DoD-related legislation"
We can't spend $2M on DARPA, which gives us results like the Internet, GPS, etc. We've got to spend it on 12 minutes in Iraq.
"They also mention it could be used for things like voice recognition."
Every time Microsoft introduces another new platform, whether OS, Office, HW, game console, or new executive, they promise voice recognition. Of course they never deliver.
Even the dedicated voice recognition researchers and developers don't have real voice recognition on any HW. MS doesn't do the kind of basic research necessary to move further down the road. And it doesn't even productize the R&D done by others - it copies or buys products from competitors. Or it keeps doing it wrong every time, until expectations are low enough that small improvements are declared victory.
The people who deliver useable voice recognition will work it out in the open telephony world, which has enough focus, money, constraints and momentum to actually get across the threshold to universal, untrained voice recognition that does something limited, but at least as perfectly as humans do.
Next we'll hear that these chips will be good for a "database filesystem"...
I am familiar with my comment history. Why don't you drop the mystery about your veiled allusions? You said
"There is a historical pattern of the "hate" bans leaning "a certain way," if you know what I mean, and with a broad brush"
and I asked what you mean. What are you hiding? What are you ashamed to explain? What are you talking about? To whom are your insistently cryptic comments directed?
If you're going to talk in some kind of code in public, you should expect to explain yourself when asked. Not just make ambiguous references to the questioner's history. Explain your own.
Why doesn't Microsoft spend $200M promoting their games and everything else by making a Halo movie? It couldn't be any worse than the Doom movie. Which lost about 50% of its $70M budget in theaters, but is making plenty more in endless cable/TV syndication.
If MS went that route, and had the same "success", it could be spending a couple-few dozen million on marketing Halo to the much wider audience of moviegoers. Since Halo is still a more popular brand than was "Doom" when its movie was released, it could even show a profit in theaters+cable.
And of course the marketing value to MS could be enormous. For all its ubiquity, the MS product line is rarely featured, or even product-placed, in scenes in movies. MS could reinforce its brand across the board, across the world, even projecting it into people's imaginations of "the future", by making a movie.
Since so much of MS is just for show anyway, this seems a natural project, even long overdue.
Which way? The way that I just asked you to explain a completely cryptic comment at the center of your entire point?
"There is a historical pattern of the "hate" bans leaning "a certain way," if you know what I mean, and with a broad brush"
No. What do you mean?
That article mentions power savings a lot, but never boils them down to raw consumption numbers.
If a standard current notebook 40GB HD were replaced with 10 standard 4GB Flash drives, how much less power would the Flash consume than the HD?
I'd prefer famous influential books to be presented as images of the original, left/right pages as in the original, with controls to swap the images in place with digital text. That would let me recreate the experience of contemporary readers with the layout of the original volume. Some subtle info is contained in the pageturning, especially in books with images, sidebars, or other layout features influenced by the surrounding context.
Of course, selectable revisions/annotations, and hyperlinking the original/digital text to internal references, commentary, reader discussions and searches are great features. As are new pagination, including personal bookmarks and compilations, different file formats, etc. But they don't need to discard the original layouts, with the original info they contain.
I'll go out on a limb on a series of "ifs" (and maybe a bag of physics naivetes), but let's say we perfect this manner of imperceptibly "derefracting" light. And let's say we also complete the ambitious work identifying and manipulating gravitons, still hypothetical. Could we "cloak" spaces and matter from any interaction with our universe, not just electromagnetic? Maybe the Stong and Weak Forces would remain for interaction, but practically, outside the tiny diameter of a nucleus, could anyone notice?
Could a "gravity cloak" create subspaces operating as independent universes? Could we contain matter too highly interactive for current use safely? Like a tiny black hole conveniently near a device it's powering, or a pair coupled into a wormhole for "faster than light" travel through custom-folded space? Vast amounts of stuff crammed into pocketsized spaces.
Maybe the old playground philosphers choosing between "teleportation or invisibility superpowers" will finally have a lab to figure out which is really better.
Denying unlicensed Windows instances access to security upgrades does to the Internet ecosystem just what denying poor people access to vaccines and other public health does: it creates incubators for plagues. The "underground" class of unlicensed Windows instances will offer criminals, vandals and spies a cesspool in which to multiply, and launch attacks on everyone. Since Microsoft cannot exterminate completely the global unlicensed Windows population, nor ensure licensed instances are invulnerable to these attacks, their WGA program is making everyone less safe.
Yes, of course we should live by a cop's advice on how to avoid picking a fight with a homicidal maniac, through secrecy. It sounds like he's marketing to encourage more copwork.
How about not picking a fight with a homicidal maniac, either in person, on the phone, over an "audio link" (like VoIP), email, the Web, in Letters to the Editor...
Unless you can take them. I recommend a garbage can lid, a can of mace, and a sawed off shotgun.
I didn't attribute anything to George Bush Jr except an asshole grandfather. But now that you mention it, "George Bush doesn't care about Black people" sure sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Anonymous political hack Coward, leave politics aside when judging George Bush? Karl Rove, is that you?
"George Bush doesn't care about Black people." - sound familiar?
JFK's father running illegal drugs with the mob is certainly important when judging JFK's life - and death, by the mob (and the CIA, and George Bush Sr, but not for "eugenics").
Bush's father was a president, his grandfather (in question) was a Connecticut senator. The handing down power within a dynasty certainly makes the extreme anti-American actions of the patriarch notable in the history of the current president. But more relevant to the context in which I replied (another poster reminding readers that eugenics has a long history in America) is that the old racist Prescott managed to get his son into Congress and the White House, and his grandson into a governorship and the presidency, too.
I say you're a Bush worshipper because you invented an "argument" that you said I was making about Bush Jr, when I mentioned him for context. You can take all the inferences you want about any Bush Jr racism - I certainly do - but there's no implication in my words. Your jumping to defend Bush Jr from a nonexistent argument speaks of an irrational defensiveness about Bush Jr. That's what worship is like, despite your protestations about your disapproval of him. Don't flatter yourself into thinking I looked up some Facebook profile, or care about whether you're a "Christian". Though people as insecure as you are about your Christianity have a conflicted relationship to worship, government, and their combination.
So I admit that your kind mixed messages about Bush is confusing. And that you're confused about the source of your ideas about how Prescott Bush reflects on George Jr. Pointing out the big part his family has played in American racism isn't so much "digging up dirt" as it is telling the truth. Like "George Bush doesn't care about Black people". He doesn't care about White people who don't vote for him, either. And apparently, according to new stories, he doesn't care about White Christians like you, either, even when they do vote for him. So get straight about Bush, and stop defending him from arguments that you have in your mind at least as much as I have in mine.
Strawman. I said nothing about Bush Jr, except that his grandfather was a bigot (and a Nazi collaborator), to show just how much a part of America's exclusive power systems is racism. There was no therefore anywhere, except in your inference.
Thanks for the chance to say something new, like "George Bush doesn't care about Black people."
Anonymous Bush worshipper racist Coward.
I point out that Prescott Bush funded Nazis and eugenics, you post that link to an article that's part of the culture war recruiting black ministers (like the author) to wedge against feminsts and abortion rights, and I am "politicizing good and evil"?
America was founded by slave owners. Today we don't have slavery. What kind of political power does Margaret Sanger's grandchildren have? None. The Bush family is a different story.
FWIW, I'm don't have any respect for either Bush to respect their patrician clannish "christian names" difference. The old one is Sr, and the stupid one is Jr. Sue me.
In point of fact, I said nothing about George Bush Jr except that his grandfather was an asshole. And I backed up that attack on Grampa Prescott with facts. Prescott Bush isn't just some random person, he's the patriarch of Bush Jr's rich and powerful political family. When I replied to comment on the continuing status of the history of American eugenics in which Prescott Bush looms so large, of course it was worth mentioning that the eugenics patriarch is also the current president's patriarch.
So your strawman argument, that I somehow made any "argument" about Bush Jr, let alone an "ad hominem" argument, is specious. Useless. "Absolutely nothing", it's sometimes called.
Except commentary on Bush worshippers like you. So scared of your own shadow that you jump out of your skin when your worst fear, the skeletons in Bush Jr's closet, rattle you into defending from arguments that weren't even presented.
Time to fall on your lightsaber.
The article author downplayed the involvement, but the facts they cited speak for themselves. Not just the early investment helping Hitler's rise in the 1920s, but the much more serious "Trading with the Enemy" crimes during WWII:
"The central charge against Prescott Bush has a basis in fact. In 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the U.S. government seized several companies in which he had an interest."
Bush funding Thyssen's 1920s Nazis wasn't an accident - not when the Nazis were working on the same fascist and racist program as Bush. After the US was at war with the Nazis, after the Nazis had taken over most of Europe and their Japanese allies the other half of the planet, there was no pleading ignorance of what their earlier clients had become.
There is no benefit of the doubt left for these people. They are thugs.