The Lexical Criterion of Government Hay Speech

There is a certain movement in academia to persuade people that select words implicitly are intended to cause harm. That is, particular words are rigid designators invariably designed to harm individuals as if they were nerve agent. Therefore the reasoning goes, use of the words regarded as hay speech should be pejoratively sanctioned by the ruling class in order to prevent further injury from consumption. If someone used such words, irrespective of context and actually meaning such that the words were et up and hayt, their intention was to excrete harm on individuals and was not just use of such words in fair arguments to support reasonable political opinions within constitutionally valid criteria.

What is harm? What is the relationship between a word and delivery of harm? Consider this example… In Jean Paul Sartre's short story The Condemned of Altoona prisoners were held in a fascist basement during the Spanish civil war waiting to be taken outside and executed. Plainly if one is tied to a post with eleven soldiers pointing rifles at you the utterance of the word fire by the commanding officer will cause harm to the prisoner being executed, yet only if there are bullets in the weapons, and only if they if hit their target, and only if… There is an eleatic infinitude of alternate and contingent relationships and responsibilities that might be made to describe the relationship of word to object, yet everyone knows what the word fired does in that context. It was not hate speech, though it did cause harm in commanding others to shoot, and the shooters killed the prisoner.

Language and logic together reinforce words producing meaning. In advanced human societies some efforts are made to control thought through control of language. Some words are proscribed as hate speech amidst lexical lists of examples that are pejoratively regarded as being in opposition to insider, colonial power.

In a sense all insider groups in a heterodox social environment act as colonialists with a proprietary lexicon regarding outsiders. Jean Paul Sartre described that context in his Critique of Dialectical Reason. Controlling language use; disarming the capability of outsiders to express independent ideas that might be construed as opposition and non-supportive of insider goals (as in anti-state or anti-Soviet activities) became a common theme of dystopian novels as well as in the Soviet Union, not to mention Hitler's Germany, in the 20^th century. State terrorism directed against its own citizens, sometimes through intermediaries, to control public thought and speech is always a problem.

Languages are built up from phonemes and morphemes into syllables and words following rules of construction called grammar. Lexicons are lists of words that form a language. Meanings are the values those words represent. Any given lexicon may or may not be understood equally well by those using it for communication. One lexicon's meanings are not always, necessarily translatable into another lexicon.

Words thus may be regarded as abstract units with characteristic associated with each word in a given lexicon. Sounds are often given to spoken human languages although generally not to computer languages. Meanings appear to follow contextual application of a word. Meanings are not however what Kripke called 'rigid designators' in regard to particular words.

Nominalism and realism are two basic ways of viewing words. Nominalism regards word meanings as circumstantial and contextual given through use while realism regards words as having a Platonic realist nature that is more or less timeless. Actually meanings may differ from words, and meanings may be more or less constants if not timeless while words may be regarded as vehicles that carry meaning temporally and even variably.

Word meanings considered in the abstract are simply designators. The word points to an object that is its meaning. An example might be the word 'galaxy'. While the word 'galaxy' could have evolved to mean a lawn or a car, it generally came to refer to stellar clusters of stars of large scale such as the Milky Way or Andromeda. Today the meaning of galaxy is as fixed or rigid as the long lived galaxies or star groups they refer to. Some might consider the meaning of the word galaxy rigid and even Platonically real.

It is alternatively possible to consider the word galaxy as a non-rigid designator, for some day all of the galaxies may fade away and in effect dissolve into their smallest constituent parts (given enough time). Then the word galaxy would refer to no real thing, except perhaps to a photograph of a galaxy in an old astronomy text. In the meantime the word referring to the star clusters called galaxies may have changed millions of times. Meanings are probably more rigid designators than referent words. In fact Kripke apparently thought that in some way, perhaps existentialist-phenominalist, since galaxies once existed and there was a meaning designator referring to galaxies, they would always exist (at least in the mind of God) at least as a meaning, even if the actual referent object ceased to exist.

A recent political controversy concerning the most fundamental social establishment in the history of western civilization- marriage, brought the issue of hate speech to the fore. Hate speech as a concept wherein classes of words are socially proscribed for being implicit rigid designators expressing the emotion hate was a paradigm employed quite a bit by the proponents of homosexual marriage. They regarded the words 'fagot' and often 'queer' as examples of hate speech. Proponents of homosexual marriage inclusion in the heterosexual institution of marriage believed that just words approved by themselves such as 'gay' were acceptable public forms for describing the homosexual behavior.

Context of word use is important in a free society. Words that are used to work within the system for or against a political issue, and that do not advocate crimes, can hardly be said to be hate speech. For hate speech to exist there must be some actual individual that is hated on. That is, there must be an actual victim for there to be an actual crime. If people in opposition to homosexual marriage call it queer or those supporting it (in the abstract) as fagots, that is as legitimate of language use as calling communists 'reds' or democrats 'jackasses'.

If there are people that interpret each use of the word 'fagot' as a kill command, and if it were, then that would be hate speech. While the word 'queer' simply describes a deviation from normal heterosexual behavior, for some the word 'fagot' has a deeper, frightening meaning connoting stomping under foot. Since the person stomping a cigarette butt under foot is usually the one that sucked on the cigarette that interpretation seems inherently absurd' a queer would be required logically to crush the fag. Needless to say it is a silly issue as most that use the word regard it as no more than a synonym for 'queer'.

Controlling public speech is a characteristic of the powerful. The powerful can hate society and its democratic institutions preferring imperial power. Hate speech may be done without any use of particular offensive words; it can be done with no more than intentionally faulty and damaging directions for example. To hate others and seek to harm them through word use does not require swear words, it could be accomplished with compassionate sounding, lofty and inspiring phrases leading people to support the rise of civil war in a foreign nation where none existed, or to corrupt and end the primary social institution of western civilization- marriage, and replace it with a godless, scientific, new establishment that could evolve to something like the bonding of lizards.

Homosexuals never were slaves in the U.S.A. They have no valid claim to have liberated themselves from captive bondage, forced labor and considered as property. There were laws against homosexuality that arose in the mists of time for some reason or other. Those laws evolved away in the United States although not in much of the rest of the world. The United States has a history of strong tolerance for individual freedom and self-determination if others are not directly and adversely affect. That is probably the reason why in an era of pervasive media presence armed with evolution theory laws against homosexual behavior were overturned by the courts. There is absolute no valid reason why citizens should not oppose homosexual marriage however since that is not individual behavior; it is instead a macro-social establishment in direct conflict with the history of the civilization of the west. It was possible to avoid the destruction of a normal core establishment with creation of new contract based relationships for homosexuals that wanted some social legitimacy for their bonding. A rational society considering world sensibilities might have preferred a more sober approach that did not directly adulterate the historical context of marriage.

In the context of defense of marriage from homosexual expropriation approbations against the behavior and corruption of marriage by the high court with approval and homosexual marriage were not hate speech when they were used in the political and theoretical context. It is churlish to say that the use of such words as fagot and queer sought to harm in-themselves when they were used as nominal designators within a political context with real political issues such as the Pentagon's 'don't ask, don't tell' and the corruption of marriage act. To say that such use of those words were hate speech is nothing more than a winning side's boasting and swollen follow up efforts to victimize their political opposition on the issue. That is 'hate speech'.

In the future, one hopes that the Orwellian regard for words such as Canuck and bitch will not go so far as to decree that use of the words necessarily seeks to inflict harm on others as Platonically real rigid designators. A cruel woman who treats children like dogs may deserve being called a bitch (when read about in a newspaper). A Presidential candidate that is a citizen of Canada might rightly be called a Canuck spoiler since his citizenship is a direct attack on the integrity of national democracy of the U.S.A. Yet neither use urges violence against the bitch or the Canuck any more than saying a fort is poor would stimulate congress to dump bucket loads of cash on the fort. Pacifist non-use of words where all violence against others-even some abstract violence of words-is eschewed-may have been possible for those that could float like a butterfly and sting like a marshmallow yet for mere mortals sometimes would be unrealistic.

Robots May Be the Next Wave of Assassins

Human assassins seem to have maxed out their ability to trick the secret services and get in close for a shot at a President. Robots on the other hand may be the next wave of leap over a building in a single bound, cold blooded, accurate as the devil, human resembling assassins.

For some time robot makers have tended to shy away from making robots with a lot of intelligence that are outwardly replicas of humans. While the Terminator series demonstrated some of the problems and potentials of killer robots of the future with all sorts of shape and appearance changing ability, the present ability to pack a robot stomach full of c-4 and have it look like a Miss Universe yet run faster than Hussein Bolt and shoot more accurate than an Olympic Biathalon riflewoman could occur sooner than one thinks.

The potential for assassin robots to HALO jump without oxygen or warm clothes, glide accurately to the White House roof and be somewhat bullet resistant could be surpassed by their fence jumping-window crashing skill.

Really though, I thought I would get a post out of the topic before something similar is available for sale some Christmas marketed as a smart home security robot with the issue then being very cold.

Donald Trump and the One-Party System

Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign ran aground again in the shoal waters of accusations of sexually groping women without permission. Following the release of a video where he bragged about having done exactly that (later recounted and ascribed to locker room boasting (perhaps so high society didn’t think he was a dinky, shyterish lover of money in-itself rather than a bold man of the world sleeping about recklessly as a youth cranked up with the designer dope of the day), Trump’s republican Party support continued to abandon ship like rats running from a fire below deck.

Many Americans for some time have believed the inside the beltway crowd is a Harvard leaning clan running puppets as yes men for Wall Street and/or the British and recrudescent imperialism. Bill Clinton as a Waco Christian burner that required Oval Office fellatio from student interns to grease his loquacious speech making is sort of the same old kind of stuff already impeached. Some wonder why Trump isn’t given a chance to be impeached for-himself-by-congress so Mike Pence can move up as an exemplary conservative.

In Alaska the two U.S. Senators that claim to be Republican have jumped ship from State Party Leadership so they too can avoid supporting Trump. The one-party system that would make men slaves of Hillary Clinton and force homosexual marriage upon the world as best as possible probably as a step in scientific population reduction and generous corruption of individual rights within a planetary neo-imperial economy concentrating wealth seems supported as an actually existing fact by the recrudescent Clinton campaign and the worst Presidential campaign run in the U.S.A. since maybe the 19^th century by the potentially nation-saving billionaire Trump. 

Do American voters really believe a moral, intelligent candidate with good policy ideas could actually be nominated by a major party? One wonders what moral standard U.S. politicians should be comparatively held to? Don't the policies matter at least as much to citizens as a candidate's morality?

If one was poor and trash talked by the Democrat party and wanted political economic change would such a voter care more about getting a candidate elected that would advance his or her economic interests rather than one that was not caught lying, cheating or in some non-sanctioned sexual activity? Sure it would be great if politicians in the U.S.A. never cheated on taxes, didn't lie, were never getting millions from Wall Street for making an ass kissing speech for a half hour, and didn't use dope or have sex before marriage etc. Yet if voters somewhat delusionally look in that direction instead of their national economic and secure interests they may suffer attrition to those, though they elect a leader that can claim never to have been in as morally compromising of a situation  as the other.

I must wonder how a nation that approved-even via Supreme Court force-or rather tolerated homosexual marriage can be concerned about morality as an issue. They also tolerate abortion, support for the construction of protracted civil war abroad- murder in a sense, allow the federal Reserve to provide trillions of dollars for nothing to the wealthiest banks via zero interest loans-theft in a way since it gives to the rich and pisses on the poor, destroy the world ecosphere, live as examples of spoilt over-consuming, irresponsible sycophants of wickedness too much etc.

There is no mistaking the fact that many Americans consider this the last U.S. election with a chance to conserve the nation’s borders and people. Even so the Reagan administration probably was the last real American administration. Like that following the Antonines of ancient Rome the subsequents seem incapable, corrupt, inclined to concentrate wealth, promote moral decay and or so forth. The people as well vote for superficial characteristics of candidates (though race and gender are not superficial they are not indicators of good or bad policy as might lizard behavior be thought to be consistent with physical characteristics.

Democrat voters and Republicans seeking to provide effectively a third and fourth term for the impeached Bill Clinton as confident that his wi8fe can lean on him for advice and support for every critical decision she must make about how to mollify American voters as they become poorer and lose national advantages while concentrating wealth better; not easy decisions to make.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37650500

Quantum Multiverse Theology (video)

I
read from my science fiction short story 'Point Omni' in this voice
over video, of topics concerning implications of a level four
Multiverse theologically.

Terminus Paradigmata For Syrian Civil Conflict

If Syrians could have seen the future of the next seven years in the year 2010 would they have voted on a referendum for a civil war? Virtually any reasonably well in formed individual could have known that a Syrian civil war would be bloody, protracted and cause a flood of refugees from the nation. So why did the Obama administration consistently promote the escalation of conflict providing support for rebel forces that had the foreseeable unintended consequence of providing weapons and training to ISIS?

Stimulating civil wars by sponsoring favorite elements does not seem like a terribly moral activity for many circumstances in which conflicts could arise. The Syrian situation was and is complex socially, and not like a simpler peer conflict such as was the American revolution where white people revolted against other white people that regarded themselves as of a higher empirical or legal class. For practical purposes George Washington was the first (for lack of a better word) nigger revolutionary in the U.S.A. to effectively lead a nigger revolt against slave owners, a.k.a. royalty. Unless it be God, royalty are Satan's devices against which niggers need revolt to be free. A human habit is to transform positions whereby they administer political power into royalty enfeofment even issuing trillions of zero interest loans to co-conspirators so they may cascade new e-dollars of their own.

The Syrian conflict did not involve such a social situation. In fact the Sunni are intolerant of Shia and Alawi believers and find it convenient to kill them now and then. To purge Syria of Alawi, Shia and Christians was the effectual consequence of a successful Sunni rebellion against the Assad regime.

While social stratification and segregation are implicitly reprehensible, it is none the less necessary as a security measure now and the for some cultures, in order that they may exist safely. Economic segregation is a camouflaged form of racial and ethnic segregation obviously. A false cry to end segregation with rebellion may in some instances be used as a device for aggressors to expropriate the land and wealth of the righteous. If there are two sorts of people in the world; aggressors and non-aggressors, those aggressing at any given time are the actual aggressors and the defenders the defenders.

It is remarkable how often in modern times especially with broadcast media accomplices aggressors present themselves a overthrowing oppressors.

The end of the first world war brought the allied powers to redraw the boundaries of the Middle East that had been controlled by the occupation of the Ottoman Empire. France was given a mandate to rule Syria for a time before it became independent. In the more disorganized condition of people in the second and third world before the transistor was invented, followed by computers and cell phones, it was not necessary to partition the Sunni and Alawi/Shia/Christians of Syria. Eventually the sectarian issues along with trans-national politics and terrorist/liberation movements transformations as well as support from the Obama administration created ripe conditions for a Syrian civil war. Plainly it might be better to partition Syria today in order to end the conflict.

A reasonable partition might be one for the Assad forces, one for the Kurds along the Turkish border and adjoining Iraq, and one for the Sunni such that it shares a border with at least one other Sunni nation.

Those seeking to dominate all of Syria might be forging a lasting instability regionally and even globally. The next U.S. President should pursue a strong partition for Syria and rebuild the reformed nation as soon as possible. It is not to early to create a Marshall Plan for a Reformed Syria.

An Ecosphere Conservative Political Philosophy (Minimum Income)

A Political Philosophy and Points for Guaranteed Minimum Income

The arguments against a guaranteed minimum annual income for all citizens of the U.S.A. are fairly well known.

1) Promotes laziness

2) Lives off the work of others

3) Requires high taxation

4) Allows lower classes to reproduce until food supply is exhausted

All of the points were developed in the era before effective birth control was invented. It has been demonstrated since the late 1960s that women with adequate income and birth control devices choose to have 2 or fewer children. Ricardo’s Iron law of wages is not valid in a modern post-industrial economy generally.

In the U.S.A. today more than 100 million Americans are unemployed; non-working adults. Fifty percent of the populous is already receiving some sort of federal payment even if just food stamps. Much of the banking sector and corporate world was sustained with zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve. Much of what I suggest in the following actually already exists in a grossly imperfect, unbalanced form. Rectification of ways and means to govern responsive to manifest political, environmental and social challenges is the point of the following ideas.

With a full planetary population living in an ecosphere believed by the cognoscenti to be able to sustain just two billion souls at the present level of resource use, and the population being presently north of seven billion people, leadership in finding new ways to adapt free enterprise and its genius for invention to the real social criterion is needed. New political philosophy products ought to provide practical ways to adapt free enterprise and democracy to optimize democratic values within the given condition of the ecosphere and demographic facts.

This paper is intended to sketch some ways to change from the present global system, led by the United States and Wall Street, moving inertially as evolving corporatist plutonomy with de facto imperialism wherein free enterprise is reduced by over-powerful corporate and government suppression while democracy is suborned to the power of wealth. That system probably leads to quasi-imperialism with the slavery of royal leadership regardless of the titles they bear (i.e. Politburo of the Communist Party, King of France, CEO of Syndicate Soft). It could leads to mass oppression and possible extirpation of the human race. There is a choice between human and inhuman forms of government-the latter perhaps preferable for a generation of pseudo-scientific atheists stimulated by Skinnerianism.

With a guaranteed minimum income citizens are relieved from the excess leverage of the market on labor. The blind pursuit of money leads to much intra-social corruption in relationships. Values promoted simply to get money may and have corrupt better social investments in upgrading physical infrastructure, recovering lost environment and so forth.

With a guaranteed minimum income citizens would have comparable level of sustenance to that they might produce for themselves in a natural environment as hunter-gatherers or farmers without being trod upon by social aggressors plundering for power. Citizens would also have less spinelessness when it comes to making moral choices between good economic-environmental values and bad where the bad pays more, or is even the only source of money for the poor or working class.

Citizens would also have less compelling cause to exploit the environment themselves to wrest a living from it. Examples might be taking of valuable furs, cutting down wild forests, building tract homes and valuable wild and farmland, driving polluting automobiles because everyone else seems to be.

With a guaranteed minimum income and a sober awareness of the need for secure boundaries socially in regard to nature, it would be desirable to vet free enterprise projects before they get started. Regulations for conforming to optimal resource use with ,low impact and entropy would exist as business zoning laws any new business would need to conform to. Business with fewer than 30 employees would be basically free to go ahead, yet business with more, up to a cap of 5000 employees, would have to pass a popular vote, perhaps with business juries, reviewing the value to society of the new business on environmental and production value criteria, before passing into law. *

It would be useful to limit the size of corporations regarding employee numbers in order to promote efficiency. Corporations with greater efficiency would return greater profit to shareholders and society. Corporations would as well remain more competitive and unable to accumulate too much economic and political dominance such that it would corrupt the democracy with its influence.

A modern and efficiency ecological economy with a free enterprise and democratic criteria should support the annual economic and social stabilization for all citizens. It former generations its was the case that family and jobs could endure through a lifetime without displacement from the creative destruction of the market. While creativity is necessary it need not be destructive within a more suitable political philosophy practically applied. Value theory should conform to real social values in its application. Democracy should not suffer value to define it’s behavior. Value should be created by social will for excellence.

Taxation would limit the accumulation of wealth so as not to interfere destructively with democracy, free enterprise, social well being and ecological health. The most wealthy could earn no more than 300 times that of the poor (average) at the minimum income. Social values and material production should promote a more compassionate ecospheric spartan society with Christian spiritual values unburdened by theocracy with excess wealth being neither necessary for raising a family, inventing or producing new materials etc. In fact social designs of physical structures for living health, security and privacy should be post-modern minimalist with a modicum of ecospheric hedonistic enjoyment of the natural ecosphere, as it is given by God-in-the-Universe and is good.

Inventors would receive exclusive patents for just five years and thereafter 10% royalties from anyone producing their works for the market. That benefit would be for life and for the life of their first generation heir then pass. Society needs to be able to generically reproduce valuable new technology and business methods, keep a profit motive, and advance society even as the ecosphere is restored to health and brought to new, barren worlds.

When the wealth of inventors surpasses the 300 times individual capital cap the excess income is also diverted to government that must itself neither go in debt or keep much capital excess.

The government would provide capital excess for loans for individual development and health, explore and colonize space, provide for public education even if that is through private schools.

* Rationing Mass per Citizen for Human Fabrication in the Distant Future?

Feb 6, 2014

Human society without achieving a critical level of creative, adaptive thought may evolve toward maximum exploitation of available mass converting it to a high entropy format depleting environmental sustainability or even the existence of a given planetary body clumped together under the influence of gravity. Thus one may anticipate distant future political efforts to counteract the noted characteristic of purely egoistic use of mass without consideration of the concatenating social effects.

Human society evolving like bacteria in a Petri dish consume all available food or mass available to process it adding entropy in order to provide comfort, prestige and so forth. Yet unlike uncreative bacteria human society and numerous individuals have bursts of creative, inventive thought, thus they are capable of consuming and adding entropy to mass at a far higher rate than that of bacteria. Not simply consuming food and reproducing more of their own kind to deplete resources human beings convert orderly environmental mass into vast tonnage per person of luxurious dwelling, automobile and so forth accelerating the irreversible conversion of mass with low entropy into mass with high entropy.

One might consider that human beings in an unregulated social environment might eventually be conformed by external forces in the processed environment into a maximum density format such as crystal structures determined by a coefficient of technological capacity, minimal spacing and remaining resources. The alternative to that might be species depletion by elites to provide liberal time for existence of the remnant former minority with quantitative easing of the resource tension via controversial means (if they were debated) such as holocausts. In times of resource tension extreme measures historically arise.

A future society with substantial remaining unprocessed mass and a viable environment might limit the tonnage per individual for fabrication including housing, transport and so forth demanding the most extreme inventive thought materially from its citizens if they are to get the most out of the mass quota. I would guess that a vast, thin polymer geodesic sphere computer absorbing sunlight and floating in zero gravity might be an efficient direction if it were capable of sustaining human life inside. It’s hard to say. Yet it is interesting to thinking about what sort of physical social environment would develop if forethought and intelligence were required of builders rather than mass-producing housing tracts with low, low creative thought involved as if they were farming for-themselves adding so much non-ecospherically sustainable structure at unreasonable rates of interest.

Clinton Benefit From Trump's Sex Chat

Donald Trump's recently released sex talk recording from a private conversation not intended for public disclosure was a positive gain for the Democrat leader, Hillary Clinton, who supposedly has had her husband on a short leash since the Monica Lewinsky affair blew through the White House.

From some points of view Trump's comments are the moral equivalent of slavery and something that the Klan might say. Women never chat about anything vulgar and so are rightly offended.

Sunday evening it is possible that a Donald Trump vs Bill Clinton record may take center stage besides Hillary Clinton's claim that she didn't understand that tens of thousands of classified materials she passed on an unsecure private server were classified (what did that C mean?).

http://www.sportingnews.com/other-sports/news/donald-trump-sexual-assault-tape-treatment-women-team-owners-sterling-george-shinn-nba-clippers-hornets/1g6v3d9n6en2517sku87x2ouha

Trump can't just go on like a BLT Dr. Ruth Westheimer on Colorado dope using his own language about vagina monologues. Sex language with inappropriate terminology is hate speech plain and simple. If Trump actually used the f or p words without appropriate Democrat Party approval, or at least that of a Canadian citizen, he ought to be keelhaul around an inflatable or compelled to write on his wife's butt in whip cream 'I will not use that foul language again'.

http://www.espn.com/olympics/summer/2012/story/_/id/8133052/athletes-spill-details-dirty-secrets-olympic-village-espn-magazine

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/gallup-poll-reveals-ameri_n_3354778.html Americans nix adultery, give moral ok to divorce (and probably abortion)

The casualty in the we didn't actually move beyond sex as a disqualifying campaign issue issue of Donald Trumps dirty talk and maybe even sex acts is the economy. The Clintons and Bushes are poison for the U.S.A. and not until the Democrat Party dumps the Clintons will it have any chance of moving away from open border giveaway globalism and back to nationalism. At least that Democrat fellow with the Congressional medal of honor- that Bob Kerry fellow who ran against Bill in 1992, might not have thought of nationalism as a dirty word.

In a nation with 20 trillion of debt and more than a 100 million unemployed, where the federal Reserve in effect licenses big banks to mint 5 e-dollars for every e dollar the Fed lends them at fractional interest when not 0%, where the Federal Government is a corporate enabler and accomplice in global corporate government, how would one expect national infrastructure to be renewed when the taxes on the rich were cut by a Democrat President and when no one on the street gives a damn about infrastructure?

Wall Street invests in China or wherever cheap labor and profit exists and they must because the Fed gives them all that free money to keep it expanding. it need invest wherever there is anything to buy, and would not generally have an interest in building things that require new infrastructure in the U.S.A.

Even if the public is shocked that the nice Donald Trump who has had white clothes since his bar mitzvah used vulgar language and is a kind of Wilt Chamberlain of the board room dooshing hoops or whatever the language is-maybe even making eyes at Bruce Jenner (not really-just hyperbole for dramatic purpose) or whatever her name is- the nation needs to focus on the economy rather than the rare sex sins of politicians.

Sure it might be fun to hang em all not even discriminating against the women with their duplicitous ethics regarding sex ranging from loose slots to nun and everything in between not leaving a trace while requiring male politician alpha males to not use locker language in public, can being a weaner really be a reason to elect the corrupt Wall Street deregulating Clintons that created the structure for the 2008 U.S. financial mortgage and banking collapse and let the Al Qaeda Gang get their flight training wings in the U.S.A.?

The 2016 Presidential election contest seems like a puppet show to benefit Wall Street. At least the Democrats have the excellent border security leader, Donna Brazil, to look out for working class jobs. What if Hillary and Donald call a truce and both drop out of the Presidential race letting their V.P. picks run against each other...really, that is something the public would like.