Trump

[pritch]

FOX tried to lay the blame for Jan 6th coup attempt anywhere except with the RWNJs where it belonged. Remember the Antifa and BLM people wearing red hat disguises?
Yeah, that was unhinged enough, but Tucker Carlson has excelled himself. Noting that among the court papers relating to the hundreds of people now facing charges from the events of that day, there is frequent mention of "unindicted co conspirators", Carlson has decided that this phrase indicates that the person is FBI.
So you see the insurrection was an FBI plot all along. Apparently.

Meanwhile back on Earth, Andrew McCabe, former head of the FBI, said on CNN that the description unindicted co conspirator can mean many things: the prosecutors are still seeking proof, or are seeking additional proof, or it can mean the person is cooperating with prosecutors, etc. He said it would be illegal to describe fBI staff or informants as unindicted co conspirators.

My favourite part of all this is that in the court case arising from the payment of hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels that sent trump's lawyer Michael Cohen to jail, Trump is described as Individual number 1. Individual number 1 is an unindicted co conspirator. Using Carlson's logic Trump is FBI. Didn't see that coming.

[FJRider]

If you want everyone to be equal, the only way to do that is to reduce everyone down to the lowest common denominator. And the only way to do that is through absolute Tyranny.

Where I come from ... equality is having equal rights. And equal right of access to the basic necessities of life.

Like the provision of healthy food ... comfortable housing ... and medical help as and when it's actually needed.

In a system that where the Government provides all ... employment should be based on work that the citizen CAN do ... not based on the (so called) worth of their occupation. Thusly ... personal wealth in such (perfect) Marxist systems is not accumulated.

When I state that they followed Marx's teachings to the Letter, I mean it. That it fails to achieve the hypothetical end-goal is not my concern. That it always ends up in the same situation is merely grounds for me to point out why the theory is so demonstrably flawed.

From ...

When I say they followed it to the Letter, I don't mean in accordance with the impossible dream outlined by Marx, I mean in accordance to the reality of attempting to achieve such a Dream.

To ...

When I state that they followed Marx's teachings to the Letter, I mean it. That it fails to achieve the hypothetical end-goal is not my concern.

What happened to reality .. ??

The reality is ... there was no attempt to "follow it to the letter" ... so the system was doomed from the start. Your use of "the hypothetical end goal" term ... is proof the system could not be "Followed to the letter" and achieve anything anywhere near the (to use your words) "Hypothetical end goal". Something you are obviously aware of ... but not (apparently) the leaders of those in the various Governments that (try to) use this system of Government. Any idea why this could be ... ??

You are looking at the end-state of Communism (which Marx believed would eventually come via Socialism) of a Classless Moneyless society - then looking at all the failed attempts and making a variant of the phrase:

'See, that wasn't REAL Communism' - a Phrase which I find to be utterly detestable.

I'm looking at a system YOU stated they "Followed to the letter". They didn't ... couldn't ... and will never actually do so. Simply because those at the top of the ranking in those societies ... have far too much to lose.

My point is that every time someone does what Marx says to do, it doesn't end up where Marx says it will. This does not mean that it hasn't been tried or that it wasn't tried correctly - on the contrary, the real-world examples both at the Macro and the Micro level (e.g. Entire Countries and small Communist Communes) bear this fact out.

Nah ... it means (as I stated above) that Human nature of Political leaders (at ANY level) cannot allow it. Not because of any perceived loss of rights ... but plain and simply a potential loss of privileges.

Back in the early 1980's ... I agreed to do a bit of work in a small commune near Otaki (lower North island). As a favour for a friend who lived there. The place was run as the perfect all are equal society. No private money to be held by any member. All had a say in what was needed done ... and when. The evening meetings were almost laughable. And the chatter during the day was equally laughable. "Favours" offered for support of schemes planned were commonplace. Just prior to a necessary trip into town for needed parts for the project I was involved in ... five members gave me money (but no "private money allowed remember) to get items for them in town. In fact for the whole period I was there ... it seemed a continuous process of all members trying to gain an advantage of privilege over the others. I left the place as soon as I did what I had promised I would.

Be it a commune or country ... everybody wants more privileges than the others. Human nature. Many just see themselves as just more equal than others.

So I repeat my earlier claim - that yes, it was done exactly as Marx said to do it, but in reality it did not produce what Marx said it would.

Repeat it until the cows come home ... they don't do it as Marx said to do it. Following to the letter means ACTUALLY following it to the letter.

They DON'T. Resulting in a FAIL to achieve the intended result.

Those are not conflicting statements and the lack of the latter does not invalidate the former.

Your comment ...

So I repeat my earlier claim

You "Claim" a lot ... but (as always) ... it's just bullshit.

No ...

Outcome and Policy are two wildly different concepts.

"Outcome" is reliant on on actual practice ... not policy.

"Policy" isn't even "the rules". Policy is just preferred practice. In actuality ... policy isn't even always followed.

And this is where the contention is. You are implcitly saying that because the Policy didn't produce the Outcome, the Policy wasn't tried.

As above ... Policy is NOT actual practice. In ANY Business ... business managers prefer it when policy is followed.

In reality ... this is not always the case.

If YOU believe "Policy" is ALWAYS followed to the letter (anywhere) ... you are not as bright as you may believe you are.

My statement is that the Policy was tried, but it didn't produce the outcome because the ideal that drove the policy is fundamentally wrong.

Policy must be FOLLOWED ... not just tried. Human nature is such ... some don't try as hard as they could. Thus ... some results may vary.

Those may be Human Rights, but not Natural Rights. Since Health, Employment and Education requires a 3rd party.

In New Zealand ... access to help for medical ... employment and education assistance ... is freely available. As it should be also in any Marxist Regime ... equal rights and all that ... for the good of their society etc.

Or do equal rights to the above not exist in a Marxist regime .. ??

It's not my quote, it's from Marx... So you'll have to take the Sexism up with him.

A bit of sexism I can live with ... but who gets to decide the urgency or importance of those needs .. ???

Do they really get more education or medical help they ask for ... or see/believe their urgency of either .. ??

Ironically, in your critique of Me, you've actually pointed out one of the many issues with Marx - namely Who DOES decide what someones Needs are?

So ... who actually does decide ... (asking for a friend)

Again, I agree with you - and all what you are saying is a further reinforcement of the problems with Marx's theory.

So ... when you stated ... "According to "HIS" needs" ... you have no idea how when or if ... those needs will be met ... ??

Or maybe just Marxist Policy to state that .. ?? (see above for my thoughts on POLICY)

Specifically Health Care - certain Genetic Groups have Genetic predispositions and higher risks to certain conditions. On that point, a case can be made from the Liberal position, that someone who has something over which they have no control (their Genetic make-up) shouldn't be 'penalized' on certain conditions by having the same standard of care as one who doesn't have a predisposition.

I think my world has crashed ... I might actually agree with that ...

I agree that in general, Access to Public Services should not be dependent on a particular Group identity. Do you remember the furor that this raised: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/unlice...K6KGEU6ZYRFIE/?

I'm old and my memory has the odd issue. But I remember that.

BUT ... would it happen in a Marxist society ... ??

So it's not like there isn't precedent to say that some social institutions haven't had issues with 'positive discrimination' (which is still discrimination and wrong) - and I will quite merely point you to the body of Academic literature that says that this is a good thing, and then I'll point to the chain of citations with Glee as it leads back to Marx.

When at times Social Institutions tell us smacking is evil ... I ask myself why that is so. Is it evil to punish for a wrong-doing .. ?? If a wrong-doing goes unpunished ... does that mean your wrong-doing should (will .. ??)continue to go unpunished .. ??

You miss the point. When accessing a Public service, we should both get the same level of Care. I've been to Hospitals, admittedly not with Bill Gates, but definitely with some people who are *quite* well off, they are treated by the Nurses and Doctors mostly the same as the person who is on the Benefit (The mostly being contingent on their Attitude, not their Social Status or any other group)

The same level of care ?? No.

Qualified medical help YES.

Qualified specialized medical help delivered in the same time frame NO. (Ever been on a "Waiting List" .. ?? I have. )

Would Bill Gates ever be on any waiting list .. ??? NO.

And I doubt you would have the same ability of access to specialized medical care as Bill Gates has.

And if you believe those in a Marxist Regime would have a health care system to match ours ...

See above. The more you try to hammer home this point, the more you are vindicating the point I was making that the Policy was implemented as per Marx, but the Outcome was vastly different.

It is now YOU that missed the point. See (well) above for my thoughts on the differences between Policy and Practice. Neither are LAW. It depends on how the differences Policy and (ACTUAL) practice are implemented.

It matters not, only that I'm free to make the decision as I see fit and as works best for me at the current time.

I was told you were a fat useless cunt ... which (if true) ... might have some bearing on that statement. I don't know you ... so can hardly comment on it's truth.

Just saying ...

And yet, I have recorded original Music, which by extension gives me automatic copyright in NZ.

Time stamped and certified by whom ... ??

Everything I write here - could be considered Original, so the fact I reply to you with my own words (which you acknowledge are mine) kinda disproves your point.

Do I send YOU a bill for every time you quote me .. ??

And your words are seldom original.

I hold the opinion that Capitalism is purely an Economic System, not a Political System. Often those who wish to see it as a Political System do so that they may attack on a Political Basis (generally Devotees of one aforementioned Marx)

The wording in your original post was misconstrued. My apologies.

In terms of whether it's a reality or not - My opinion is that the Capitalist free market gives the most amount of people the most amount of freedom, with perhaps the only exception being those who live a purely Anarchist lifestyle/outside of any system of Governance.

If they act and trade within the bounds of current existing NZ legislation and LAW .. they are bound to conform to such. Be it to their advantage ... or not.

Although you could make the argument that those people are oppressed by Nature/Life in a way that the Capitalist system isn't - but that's a different story.

Not necessarily ... but a GOOD story though ...

The ANCAPs would like a word.

Financial advantage comes in many forms ... and not always obvious.

Have to? No sir. They do not. They do so under the fiat of force from the Government (Taxation) and that when people have nothing to loose and everything to gain, it makes for tempting targets.

That was the area of "Force" used to support the existing NZ welfare system ... that I was meaning.

As for which am I? I've been a net-tax payer (that is, I pay more in Tax that I consume in services from the Government) since I was in my mid twenties.

I have on occasion sat on both sides of the Social welfare system ... both helping provide for ... and receiving.

I never felt the receiving should be a lifestyle I could live with.

Necessity can be a bitch ...

A Social Democracy (not the Socialist usurping of the word) is also known as the Nordic Model - basically it's a system of Government with High Taxation and a high focus on good quality public services.

It refers not to the make up or assembly of the governing system, but more towards the style of government - hence why it doesn't make your list.

New Zealand Public services seem more focused on profit margins and productivity ... rather than QUALITY PUBLIC SERVICE.

In plain terms ... everybody that needs help gets it. But seldom as much help as they feel they need ... or are (read: should be) entitled to.

None, because since the Queen is our Head of State, we are a Constitutional Monarchy

You need glasses ... the line six down below "Originally Posted by FJRider" ...

As above, those words describe the architecture of the Governing structures, not the Policy objectives of the Government

I sit corrected.

And conversely, I think you should allow yours a little more.

I deal with reality. It often takes a good imagination to deal with that.

The best advice I could ever offer (regardless of the subject) ...

1.) Think outside the square. There is more room to move outside the square. Inside a square you are limited in movement.

2.) Logic is not a certainty. Just an assumption. Assume nothing if it is not a known fact.

3.) For every rule there are exceptions.

[TheDemonLord]

Remember the Antifa and BLM people wearing red hat disguises?

But when it's ANTIFA and BLM, it's RWNJ's in Black-block Disguise....

[husaberg]

[pritch]

Seems about right...

[husaberg]

Yet with Bengazi there was never any incitement by an US high-ranking politician for people to enter and kill the US govt officials and security.
Only that "not enough was done to protect the ambassador from terrorists. "

Shortly after the Benghazi attack, Secretary of State Clinton commissioned an independent Accountability Review Board to investigate, chaired by retired ambassador Thomas R. Pickering with vice-chair retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen. The Board released their final report on December 19, 2012. It made 29 recommendations to the State Department on how to improve its operations, which Clinton pledged to implement. As part of this investigation, four career State Department officials were criticized for denying requests for additional security at the facility prior to the attack. By the end of 2012, Eric J. Boswell, the Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security, resigned under pressure, while three others were suspended. None of the other Benghazi investigations identified wrongdoing by any individuals.

There were ten investigations into the Benghazi matter: one by the FBI; one by an independent board commissioned by the State Department; two by Democrat-controlled Senate Committees; and six by Republican-controlled House Committees. After the first five Republican investigations found no evidence of wrongdoing by senior Obama administration officials, Republicans in 2014 opened a sixth investigation, the House Select Committee on Benghazi, chaired by Trey Gowdy. This investigation also failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing by senior Obama administration officials

[sugilite:Me]

So, to be clear - you are claiming that the BBC (with a demonstrable left-wing Bias) is promoting Fake news in favour of Trump?

I have already made it perfectly clear that I accept husa's well researched tsunami of stats over your wee bbc anomaly.

As I pointed out - Fauci was originally responsible telling people not to wear Masks, even begrudgingly admitted by various left-wing 'fact-checking' sites.

The opposition to the mandatory enforcement of Mask wearing rules, however, does not come from either Trump or Fauci - but from a principle of Freedom.

I cut Fauci some slack for chopping and changing as new information came to light regarding the virus. In fact after reading a sample of the emails that were recently released my respect for the man went up. He was given ample opportunities to bury the knife in Trump, but he chose not too and focused on doing his best for the American people in a terrible situation. What a shame Trump did the exact opposite.

Yes... As you know I help manage IT systems, I can assure you - I've had to investigate multiple charges to peoples cards for various reasons. The part you are missing is the proof that this is due to a deliberate action, as opposed to error.

You need another can of gloss.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybe...h=1f5aa1c258a3

I mean from the beginning I said without user interaction, it wasn't going to get a lot of traction, the point is however that Trump has been written off as having no hope at achieving something, so I'd be a little hesitant about dismissing him out of hand.

We will see won't we, I'm sure you are just pushing your talking point and have pretty much the same view as me if push were to come to shove. If you seriously think he has a chance at producing a FB or Twitter killer, then your TDS is worse than I thought.

So, I will expand on this in my responses to FJR - but let me be clear - I do explicitly mean it.

I see FJ gave you further schooling in this area. I'm just not dedicated enough to delve deep into political ideologies when I know human greed will just shoot it all to hell - no matter the flavor being offered up.

Many people have been critical of Senator McCain, both before and after his Death. And the loudest of those critics have been Republicans.

However, https://www.politico.com/story/2015/...aptured-120317

That was in 2015, McCain died in 2018, So he was very much alive and kicking.

I'm sure McCain respected that coming from captain bone spurs.

Well, hang on a second there Bud - there's something we need to get straight.

Do you believe in Equality of the Sexes? I'm going to presume you do. That is to say that I, You and Trump should treat Men and Women the same?

Would have the same exact view if Trumps shit was aimed at say - your wife? Look honey he is treating you to a lovely barrage of equality, what a guy!

I personally think the Planet and Humans are far more resilient and so even if we did manage to catastrophically fuck it up, we'd still survive and eventually thrive - it just might suck quite a lot in the short term.

Life is a lot more fragile than most humans think it is. I hope you are right.

[pritch]

Bloomberg is reporting that lawyers employed in the Trump administration are having trouble finding a new job. Nobody wants a former Trumper on their team it seems.
My heart bleeds.

Some of them may yet find employment defending themselves against Justice Dept charges. If there is a God, Barr will.

[husaberg]

I have already made it perfectly clear that I accept husa's well researched tsunami of stats over your wee bbc anomaly.
.

Trump supporters that ignore all clear evidence no matter how overwhelming yet cling to anything no matter how obscure that can help support their preconceived notions remind me of this.


Then again when the kb trump supporter and appoligist who has zero legal or national security expertise claims to know more about the US law than a supreme court judge or more about US security than the FBI you have to question his sanity..................

The annual increases in GDP under Trump were broadly similar to what they were during the final six years under his predecessor, Barack Obama. And GDP growth under Trump was well below that of prior presidents.

If you adjust GDP to take account of population, the picture remains weak for Trump. Calculations by Burtless found that inflation-adjusted GDP per capita increased 1.9% annually under Trump, which makes this three-year period the 16th highest among the past 30 non-overlapping three-year periods — right about average compared with his predecessors.

The overall unemployment rate, however, decreased under Obama, with a steady decrease occurring in his second term. When Obama was inaugurated in Jan. 2009 the overall unemployment rate was 7.8% and when he left office in Jan. 2017 it was 4.7%, its lowest rate during his presidency.

under Trump the overall unemployment rate started at 4.7 and reached the highest rate since at least the 1940s, as it hit 14.7% in April 2020

[sugilite:Me]

American politics - a study in hypocrisy.



Someone will be along on Monday with a can of gloss and a free pass for trumps utterances in the above

[pritch]

Glenn Kirschner a former US prosecutor of some 30 years experience has commented on some quastions asked of insurgents being investigated for the events of January 6th.

One question was to the effect, Have you been in contact with anybody in Congress?

Kirshner says that's interesting because the FBI don't usually ask such a question unless they already know the answer. They will have the meta data from the subject's phone, they probably also have his emails. If he lies that's another charge, potentially an extended prison sentence. What is really interesting about that question though is that it implies the FBI are actually investigating politicians. The politicians who encouraged or helped facilitate the coup attempt are under investigation themselves.

Fucking good job. I hope he's right.

One of the Proud Boys is facing charges and the DoJ have lodged the court documents. The most notable charge is one of terrorism as defined in US law. It would seem that as charges are laid for others the charge of terrorism may not be uncommon. That also implies that the people who encouraged the events of Jan 6th could be charged with inciting terrorism.

Today is a good day.

You don't need to wade through all this, (5) (A) & (B) ii and iii show which way the wind is blowing.

§2331. Definitions
As used in this chapter—
(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

(2) the term "national of the United States" has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3) the term "person" means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and

(6) the term "military force" does not include any person that—
(A) has been designated as a—
(i) foreign terrorist organization by the Secretary of State under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); or
(ii) specially designated global terrorist (as such term is defined in section 594.310 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations) by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury; or

(B) has been determined by the court to not be a "military force".
(Added Pub. L. 102–572, title X, §1003(a)(3), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4521; amended Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §802(a), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 376; Pub. L. 115–253, §2(a), Oct. 3, 2018, 132 Stat. 3183.)

[sugilite:Me]

Trumps inexperience in the job ensures the poor Iranians have a hardliner government for years to come.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/20/m...ntl/index.html

[F5 Dave]

The Shah was a dork and the US and Brits badly mishandled the situation trying to keep status quo because it suited them to believe it was possible. It would have been a good step to making amends.

At some stage financial incentives to stop militaristic states becoming more hardline (dangerous to themselves and others) and tend to feeding and employing their people has got to be a good investment.

[pritch]

The formerly anonymous Congressman Clyde has assured himself of a degree of notoriety.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwQVPTA3-Eg

Then we have a photograph of him manning a barricade to keep the 'tourists' away and another of him looking anything but calm and collected which is now deseredly a meme.

[TheDemonLord]

I have already made it perfectly clear that I accept husa's well researched tsunami of stats over your wee bbc anomaly.

I'll come back to this in a separate post - with more than just the BBC - and I'll make a point of citing my sources from Left-leaning sites (so there can be no accusation of Pro-Trump interpretation).

I cut Fauci some slack for chopping and changing as new information came to light regarding the virus. In fact after reading a sample of the emails that were recently released my respect for the man went up. He was given ample opportunities to bury the knife in Trump, but he chose not too and focused on doing his best for the American people in a terrible situation. What a shame Trump did the exact opposite.

I've not said a whole lot about Fauci - if I'm being charitable, he seems to have tried to do his best in an evolving situation - but again what Fauci said one day and then recanted the next was never a concern of mine (except perhaps the Wuhan lab theory suddenly becoming not a conspiracy when it's said by Biden and not Trump...).

What concerned me is mandating behavior, from the State, based on dubious evidence that infringes on an Individuals Rights and Freedoms.

You need another can of gloss.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybe...h=1f5aa1c258a3

Interesting Article - the one thing that particularly caught my eye was the fact that the Payments were handled by a 3rd party...

We will see won't we, I'm sure you are just pushing your talking point and have pretty much the same view as me if push were to come to shove. If you seriously think he has a chance at producing a FB or Twitter killer, then your TDS is worse than I thought.

If you'd asked me this 10 years ago, I'd have agreed with you. Even 5 years ago I'd probably still agreed. However in that time, there has been a marked increase in Censorship by the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter et al. against Conservative positions.

Take a topic like Abortion for example - for the record, I'm pro-choice (and in case you are wondering - I consider that a Feotus becomes a 'life' when it's capable of surviving outside of the Womb) - Therefore I disagree with the absolutist Pro-Life argument (that Life begins at conception). Despite my disagreement, I would never want the Pro-Life advocates to be subject to invisible and arbitrary censorship with no oversight or means to have your case judged and appealed (like there is in a Law Court).

The constant tampering with recommended algorithms to appeal to Left-wing sensibilities has alienated a large number of Conservative content creators. If we take the most extreme example - Alex Jones (who I have said on many occasions that I think he's an absolute Cunt) - where does that person and that audience go? We've seen the likes of Parler, Gab, Minds, Bitchute etc. start to grow organically and we've also seen that as FB, Twitter, YT etc. enact more censorship their memberbase has increased.

What is missing however from those platforms is a critical mass of users and a flagship user. You may remember when Twitter was starting to get introduced, Twitter was paying High profile individuals (Celebrities) big money to use Twitter - these individuals were the Flagship users that encouraged the regular user to start using it.

Getting back to Trumpbook or Trumper or YouTrump - If Trump could get a functional social Media platform built and If it was structured in such a way as to conform with principles of Free Speech and If it had a number of high profile users (and Trump would certainly be a high profile user) - then it's possible.

I see FJ gave you further schooling in this area. I'm just not dedicated enough to delve deep into political ideologies when I know human greed will just shoot it all to hell - no matter the flavor being offered up.

Schooling? Most of FJ's critiques validate my position, not contradict or refute them. When I've got a bit more time (soon...) I'll reply to FJ.

However on what you've said - two points:

The first is a paraphrase that I think applies to your statement that 'I'm not dedicated enough':

You may not spend your time thinking about Political Ideologies, but Political Ideologies spend ALL of their time thinking about YOU

And the second is on Human Greed - Enter the Capitalist system: If you want something, you have to do things for other people - Selfish Altruism that self-motivates the individual to do things for other people so that those other people will exchange their resources - and thus if everyone buys into the system (Pun fully intended) then it generates a prosperous Society.

Would have the same exact view if Trumps shit was aimed at say - your wife? Look honey he is treating you to a lovely barrage of equality, what a guy!

If he insults my wife the same way he insults a man, that's equality.

Just like it's equality if he receives a tap on the nose for doing it in (from Me or Her...) the same way as if anyone else said it...

Again, the point here is that if you are equally rude to everyone, that's not discriminatory nor is it evidence of a particular dislike of one group. It may not be nice or polite, but if you tried everyone badly, it is equality.

Life is a lot more fragile than most humans think it is. I hope you are right.

If anything, I think Life is far more Robust that Humans think it is - I mean we have the Eskimos/Inuits/whatever-the-correct-term-is, We have Bacteria that lives off on Sulfur in the bottom of the Ocean.

Of course, it might not be Life as we know it, or want it, but it would be Life.