PDA

View Full Version : Watchers watching watchers



Dreamtimer
11th January 2018, 14:04
I've come to know many personalities in this alternative community. Often, these personalities examine each other. The subject of liberal/conservative or right/left often comes up despite the fact that we're all mostly alike. Of course it's not a black and white issue.

I have seen Sargon of Akkad here. I haven't seen David Packman. Sargon has apparently discussed David several times and is critical of his positions. David has decided to address these criticisms. He does it with a fine examination of the history of right and left.

The first really juicy tidbit for me comes at 10:12. Has anyone ever heard of the book Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder? I hadn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERT5xVU48ws

I have had a lifelong experience of talking facts and common sense and getting called liberal. Does anyone else experience this? It did not turn out that I was biased or deluded. I was talking simple facts and common sense. And I would just get called liberal. Maybe it's an American thing.


At 16:00. "I don't want to live in a far left, anarchist society that has no government or police or markets."

Common sense.

NotAPretender
11th January 2018, 14:56
lol, the definition of contemporary right wing is 'flight from reality'. It is consistent with the authoritarian contempt of truth and contempt of anyone that adheres to the sanctity of truth.

NAP

Aragorn
11th January 2018, 16:43
At 16:00. "I don't want to live in a far left, anarchist society that has no government or police or markets."

Common sense.

I wouldn't call that common sense, Sister. I would call that "ultraconservative, pro-capitalist and right-wing bigotry".

In a world where every member of society is a respectful, responsible and conscientious being, there wouldn't be any need for an authority in the form of a government or a police force, and there would also not be any need for markets, because everything would be free.

The argumentation of most conservatives — and especially so when it comes to the US-specific branch of conservatism — is almost exclusively founded upon fear. Fear of change, fear of the unknown, fear of anything that is different from themselves and their automated, conditioned and indoctrinated way of living.

Furthermore, it needs to be said out loud that what Acronymian political culture calls "left-wing" — i.e. the US Democrats — is still very much to the right of the vertical center line of the political horizon when compared to other nations, and very much above the horizontal line between authoritarianism and libertarianism. Both the US Democrats and the US Republicans are in the top right corner of the political compass. And therefore, they also both feel inclined to refer to what would be on the vertical center line as "the far left".

In having spoken to many mainstream US Acronymians in the past, I have also learned that the vast majority of them doesn't even understand what socialism or communism are. They merely have this vague idea, completely and utterly based upon Cold War anti-communist propaganda. And of course, countries like North Korea aren't exactly exemplary of what true socialism was meant to be. They've tried to go so far to the left that they've come full circle and exited the tunnel again on the far right. :p

NotAPretender
11th January 2018, 16:49
A study was done regarding left and right 'philosophy'. The study learned that by removing 'fear' and making the right feel 'safe' it could turn a rightie to a leftie... Everybody says it and 'feels' it, but there you have it in shiny empirical research.

Dreamtimer
11th January 2018, 20:48
I watched a couple of other videos by this guy. He talks about different kinds of socialism addressing in particular what has worked in them. I personally am not advocating him, I think he thinks things through very well.

If what I hear as common sense is really ultraconservative then I really don't know where I fall on the spectrum. I still get called liberal when I speak simple facts and logic. And thanks for pointing out how skewed our ideas of left and right really are. As usual, we have to get to nearly falling off the edge before we realize we've gone too far. [I've begun to realize that people really were gearing up for civil war and Trump was ready to pour plenty of fuel on that fire. Maybe this political chaos is actually better than what surely would have led to war around the world. Maybe buttons and rocket men won't be quite as volatile.]

In an ideal society where all people respect each other, you're right, Aragorn, we don't need government or police. I'm pretty sure I said something just like that not too long ago right here.

And we need to move in that direction. So this guy wants to be progressive without undoing capitalism and I think he does a pretty good job delineating what he sees as the difference between liberal, what is perceived as liberal, and what is progressive. In America, people, especially conservatives, conflate the two but they are not really the same.

I found the part about anarcho-syndicalist very interesting.

I think he and I both see that the ideal of natural respect for each other is still quite far down the road.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k79wCaFgU40

Dreamtimer
11th January 2018, 21:18
Brain chemistry, eh? Carlton Pearson went from mega preacher to being abandoned by all who loved him when he began to preach his Gospel of Inclusion. I listened to his story on "This American Life:", I believe. Only one of his 50 priests-in-training stayed with him. They interviewed this man. He said straight out that the thing that keeps people coming to church every Sunday is the fear of Hell. If you don't spread that fear and keep it coming, you'll lose parishioners. That's just how it is. With the mega-churches anyway.

My concern with them is simply their desire for some kind of theocracy. If they believe they'll go to hell otherwise...

Wind
11th January 2018, 21:24
Just last night I was listening to Jordan Peterson, he has a fascinating mind.

Can humans ever get past the tribalism? The ridiculous us vs "them"-mindset.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo3gOoOSdhY

WantDisclosure
12th January 2018, 12:40
I still get called liberal when I speak simple facts and logic.
Is there ever such a thing as simple facts and logic?

Without exception we're all speaking simple facts and logic as we understand them to be.

Dreamtimer
12th January 2018, 12:53
We do the best we can do. Sometimes things aren't as simple as they seem.

But a simple statement like saying that Gingrich spearheaded the move to stop dialoguing with Democrats and liberals gets me labelled and worse. It's true. He did it. For years. He was proud of his accomplishment. He's bragged about his success.

And his team is now wailing and moaning that the liberals and democrats won't dialogue. What did they expect?

The same dynamic happens in this community. Corey changed his story numerous times. And yet, pointing out that simple fact might get you labeled Dark Alliance.

It seems to come down to choosing belief over actual empirical evidence. And that phrase about arguing with fools keeps coming up. I'm looking for non-fools.

WantDisclosure
12th January 2018, 13:03
Corey changed his story numerous times.
Maybe he did; I don't know; I wasn't here.

But from my point of view, a person who has been through a black project where he is abused and has witnessed unspeakable acts is going to have a hard time sorting things out rationally.

NotAPretender
12th January 2018, 13:56
Is there ever such a thing as simple facts and logic?

Without exception we're all speaking simple facts and logic as we understand them to be.

good point and the answer is yes there is...empirical reality is true period. Anything beyond that can be questioned... :)

WantDisclosure
12th January 2018, 14:08
. . . empirical reality is true period.
I agree but only God knows what it is, and none of us is God.

We have a spark of God in us, but overall we're not perfect.

Aragorn
12th January 2018, 15:09
Corey changed his story numerous times.

Maybe he did; I don't know; I wasn't here.

But we were. :p


But from my point of view, a person who has been through a black project where he is abused and has witnessed unspeakable acts is going to have a hard time sorting things out rationally.

If there is even any truth to that at all. Schizophrenics and people with schizotypal personality disorder cannot tell truth from fantasy.

At this point in time, I'm still under the impression that Corey would be afflicted with schizotypal personality disorder, and in that case, the actual abuse comes from those who are egging him on to tell more, either because they themselves want to believe (e.g. Wilcock and Salla), or because it serves their commercial or other agenda (e.g. Gaia TV, Corey's wife, et al).

I've known Corey well for just under a year, and I don't think that he himself would have any ill intentions. His entourage on the other hand, that's a whole other story... ;)

WantDisclosure
12th January 2018, 15:22
Schizophrenics and people with schizotypal personality disorder cannot tell truth from fantasy.
That diagnosis for Corey would be very difficult for a forum member to determine with any accuracy.

I prefer to trust my judgment based on numerous hours listening to and observing Corey's testimony.

I also have confidence in Michael Salla's bona fides as a competent investigator.

Aragorn
12th January 2018, 15:46
Schizophrenics and people with schizotypal personality disorder cannot tell truth from fantasy.

That diagnosis for Corey would be very difficult for a forum member to determine with any accuracy.

Corey and I primarily communicated off of any forums, and we spoke about lots of things, but never about the alleged Secret Space Program. Or at least, not beyond that one question that I asked him once regarding the weapons technology used by the SSP and their enemies when both he and I were still members at Project Avalon. Everything else we talked about were down-to-earth matters, even though he was certainly enthralled with the idea of going on TV with David Wilcock.

In addition to that, whether you believe it or not, I happen to have the credentials and the experience to cast such a diagnosis — tentative as it may be. And just as in your case, people generally dismiss what I say. But as it just so happens to be, they then generally also have to admit later that they were wrong and that I was right.

I can only tell you what I know. I cannot make you agree with me. Besides, that would be pointless for so long as you yourself cannot see the writing on the wall yet.

This is not about being right or wrong, or about who gets to "win" the bet. It's about waking up and seeing things for what they are.


I prefer to trust my judgment based on numerous hours listening to and observing Corey's testimony.

There is a difference between thinking critically and consuming a narrative. When you listen to Corey, you're consuming the narrative, because you want to believe. Just like Salla and Wilcock.


I also have confidence in Michael Salla's bona fides as a competent investigator.

Based upon what, exactly? The fact that he has written a few books?

WantDisclosure
12th January 2018, 16:09
Corey and I primarily communicated off of any forums, and we spoke about lots of things, but never about the alleged Secret Space Program. Or at least, not beyond that one question that I asked him once regarding the weapons technology used by the SSP and their enemies when both he and I were still members at Project Avalon. Everything else we talked about were down-to-earth matters, even though he was certainly enthralled with the idea of going on TV with David Wilcock.
When you say “spoke,” I’m assuming you’re talking literally that you’ve heard his voice. And I accept that this is your personal testimony about him based on experience. I will file it away as a piece of the puzzle of what’s really going on in this world.


In addition to that, whether you believe it or not, I happen to have the credentials and the experience to cast such a diagnosis — tentative as it may be.
I have little confidence in mainstream psychiatry.


Based upon what, exactly?
His work.

Aragorn
12th January 2018, 16:28
Corey and I primarily communicated off of any forums, and we spoke about lots of things, but never about the alleged Secret Space Program. Or at least, not beyond that one question that I asked him once regarding the weapons technology used by the SSP and their enemies when both he and I were still members at Project Avalon. Everything else we talked about were down-to-earth matters, even though he was certainly enthralled with the idea of going on TV with David Wilcock.

When you say “spoke,” I’m assuming you’re talking literaly that you’ve heard his voice. And I accept that this is your personal testimony about him based on experience. I will file it away as a piece of the puzzle of what’s really going on in this world.

Actually, no, I had not heard Corey's voice until I saw a couple of the videos in which he was talking to David Wilcock.



In addition to that, whether you believe it or not, I happen to have the credentials and the experience to cast such a diagnosis — tentative as it may be.

I have little confidence in mainstream psychiatry.

I'm not just talking of my knowledge (and understanding) of psychiatry, but also of my experience with people with various psychiatric afflictions, and how those afflictions affect their consciousness and their thinking.



Based upon what, exactly? The fact that he has written a few books?

His work.

And what exactly would then constitute "his work", in your opinion? Collating rumors without a shred of evidence and bundling them into a narrative that he himself feels happy believing in? Because that's about all there is to "his work".

If you want to hear about real research, then look into Richard Dolan. He's a scholar — he's a trained historian — who can back up anything he says with hard evidence, and if he doesn't know about any particular thing, then he will also say so.

There is research, and there is woo-woo. Richard Dolan is a researcher. Michael Salla, David Wilcock, Alfred Lambremont Webre, Bill Ryan and Kerry Cassidy are in the woo-woo business. Think "science documentary" versus "science fiction movie".

Dumpster Diver
12th January 2018, 16:38
Since Donk says I have to screw up every thread, I'll say,

"do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."

"Capitalism is the product of money based economy, a money based system will tend towards fiat money."

"Money is the root of most evil."

"Small societies tend towards socialism. Large societies tend towards capitalism."

Fred Steeves
12th January 2018, 17:55
Furthermore, it needs to be said out loud that what Acronymian political culture calls "left-wing" — i.e. the US Democrats — is still very much to the right of the vertical center line of the political horizon when compared to other nations, and very much above the horizontal line between authoritarianism and libertarianism. Both the US Democrats and the US Republicans are in the top right corner of the political compass. And therefore, they also both feel inclined to refer to what would be on the vertical center line as "the far left".

And both sides are shameless world champion defenders of free speech, so long as it is speech they approve of.


In having spoken to many mainstream US Acronymians in the past, I have also learned that the vast majority of them doesn't even understand what socialism or communism are. They merely have this vague idea, completely and utterly based upon Cold War anti-communist propaganda. And of course, countries like North Korea aren't exactly exemplary of what true socialism was meant to be. They've tried to go so far to the left that they've come full circle and exited the tunnel again on the far right. :p

Yep, when Left and Right take it to the extreme, they wind up rounding the far turn and holding hands on the courting swing again.

WantDisclosure
12th January 2018, 19:14
. . . my experience with people with various psychiatric afflictions, and how those afflictions affect their consciousness and their thinking.
I agree that that is valuable.



And what exactly would then constitute "his work", in your opinion?
His investigations and well thought out articles on his website, along with his perspective as demonstrated in interviews and roundtable discussions.

The secret space program is not going to be uncovered by the work of people such as Richard Dolan without the input of people like Michael Salla, who listens to whistleblowers and uses his education and life skills to evaluate and connect dots.

Dreamtimer
13th January 2018, 02:52
...they wind up rounding the far turn and holding hands on the courting swing again.

I'm in love with this phrase. It's coming full circle but with such beautifully romantic language. I recall as a kid being confounded by how if you went to either extreme end of the scale you got some kind of dictator. It's a mind frack.

NotAPretender
13th January 2018, 14:21
Since Donk says I have to screw up every thread, I'll say,

"do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."

"Capitalism is the product of money based economy, a money based system will tend towards fiat money."

"Money is the root of most evil."

"Small societies tend towards socialism. Large societies tend towards capitalism."

Fiat money is the only money that makes sense. It is transitional to a system that actually is morally sound.

NotAPretender
13th January 2018, 14:34
And both sides are shameless world champion defenders of free speech, so long as it is speech they approve of.



Yep, when Left and Right take it to the extreme, they wind up rounding the far turn and holding hands on the courting swing again.

Those not leftist due to programming believe in free speech that is not counter-productive to the progress of civilization. Civilization is comprised of individuals that are in a natural two-way bind, in some sense it could be equated to quantum entanglement. What one does has an impact on the other, the question is do we believe in a higher morality that impels us to serve the greater 'good'? If so, then we are bound to support speech that is geared toward that goal. It doesn't matter if that speech precipitates conflict but it must be in harmony with the natural law of altruism as a win/win survival mechanism.

It only makes sense!

I was watching a CG video last night and I was getting impressions of organic brain disease...

Fred Steeves
13th January 2018, 15:37
Those not leftist due to programming believe in free speech that is not counter-productive to the progress of civilization. Civilization is comprised of individuals that are in a natural two-way bind, in some sense it could be equated to quantum entanglement. What one does has an impact on the other, the question is do we believe in a higher morality that impels us to serve the greater 'good'? If so, then we are bound to support speech that is geared toward that goal. It doesn't matter if that speech precipitates conflict but it must be in harmony with the natural law of altruism as a win/win survival mechanism.

Thank you Adam, for demonstrating so perfectly what I was pointing out how the Left, will squash speech it considers "inappropriate" every bit as quickly as the Right will.

I have a question: Who's your date at the courting swing this evening, Nikki Haley? :)

NotAPretender
13th January 2018, 17:53
Hey Fred,

So we shouldn't worry about Hate speech not being free...it takes a toll on so many innocents? Don't we have a social obligation to support the dignity of all humans? I, for one, choose to be on the side of those that would shut up those whose deepest impulse is to destroy not build. That is an easy one for me. I'll take that badge of dishonor.

The constitution be damned God/nature/spirit doesn't exist to destroy, it exists to create...ostensibly beauty in its course to perfection. Would you not agree with that?

The moral difference is exceedingly clear.

Aragorn
13th January 2018, 19:57
Fiat money is the only money that makes sense. It is transitional to a system that actually is morally sound.

Money doesn't make any sense at all, and fiat money only makes the rich and powerful more powerful, while the poor and powerless get poorer and even more vulnerable.



http://users.telenet.be/stryder/Junk/banks.jpeg

NotAPretender
13th January 2018, 20:28
I say we do it...

Wind
13th January 2018, 20:35
Welcome to the planet where black is white, up is down and insanity is sanity.

NotAPretender
13th January 2018, 20:37
And I always laughed at Bizarro Superman...he should have been my hero... :)

Fred Steeves
13th January 2018, 22:09
I, for one, choose to be on the side of those that would shut up those whose deepest impulse is to destroy not build. That is an easy one for me. I'll take that badge of dishonor.

That's no badge of dishonor, it's simply and honestly telling us how you would run things in a "moral" fashion, by shutting down those who you deem to be "immoral". You may consider that a Left wing utopia, I consider it textbook tyranny.


The moral difference is exceedingly clear.

No, it's not...

NotAPretender
13th January 2018, 23:45
How could I possibly argue that, we live in different Universes... It's just my opinion but it seems that most moral centers would include a desire for fairness, justice, peace, and benelovence. Lacking that, I'm not sure one classifies as human and consequently represents a potential danger to those around them. That's a laugher isn't it...we see that played out every day. :)


Actually, I just realized that you betrayed the ultimate sticking point...I wouldn't run things, if I did, then I would have to raise my level of moral distinction to an undesirable level of ambiguity.

Lemual
14th January 2018, 04:16
What I don't get about those that identify as "left" or "right" is that both are necessary. These political ideologies basically break down to progressive and conservative. Clearly (well at least to me) both are necessary at certain times. To consider yourself one or the other is very limiting. What is even more disturbing to me is the lack of willingness to listen to the "other side", to the point where people feel personally slighted by someone who holds different views to them. I don't necessarily mean on this forum but in general.

Of late I've been, what I call, slaughtering my sacred cows. IE Anything that I feel I believe strongly I put to the test and try to disprove it to myself. Some things have fallen by the wayside (many political structures and ideologies) others have only gained integrity (UFO related things). In fact most of my life I've "believed" in UFO phenomena and every couple of years I like to"check" myself.

Dreamtimer
14th January 2018, 04:19
We can talk about racism and all kinds of other issues. When opinions become belief and faith and people won't talk anymore what is there to do? How do we get past closed minds to dialogue?

If someone believes all people on welfare are black, how do you convince them otherwise? If someone believes brown-skinned people are naturally dumber how do you talk about that? It's pretty obviously not true. All one needs to do is take a look around the world and at history. What if they don't want to?

How do you get someone to dialogue who wants to send Americans born here "back" to somewhere they never lived?

If someone says "Socialism has never worked" can you get them to even watch a video like the one posted above?

If the people on the extremes cannot be dialogued with, how do the majority of us in the middle talk and work together to stop the extremes from destroying us in their wars?

Aragorn
14th January 2018, 04:28
We can talk about racism and all kinds of other issues. When opinions become belief and faith and people won't talk anymore what is there to do? How do we get past closed minds to dialogue?

If someone believes all people on welfare are black, how do you convince them otherwise? If someone believes brown-skinned people are naturally dumber how do you talk about that? It's pretty obviously not true. All one needs to do is take a look around the world and at history. What if they don't want to?

How do you get someone to dialogue who wants to send Americans born here "back" to somewhere they never lived?

If someone says "Socialism has never worked" can you get them to even watch a video like the one posted above?

If the people on the extremes cannot be dialogued with, how do the majority of us in the middle talk and work together to stop the extremes from destroying us in their wars?

There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. Perhaps my reaction is the wrong one, but I tend to walk away from those people and leave them to their madness, because I know all too well how futile it is to pour energy into trying to get them to see the error of their ways.

That is, of course, for so long as they are not harming anyone through said madness. :hmm:

Lemual
15th January 2018, 00:24
but I tend to walk away from those people and leave them to their madness, because I know all too well how futile it is to pour energy into trying to get them to see the error of their ways.

I find you can try to convince people of something until your blue in the face but it's never going to stick as well unless they come to "it" themselves. The best I think we can do in those situation (if we have the patience) is to open people up to other possibilities. Even if they reject it outright to begin with maybe it will plant a seed.

Dreamtimer
3rd February 2018, 13:51
Jordan Peterson has recently become quite well known, to the point of being at a possible career change. He still teaches and he's reaching vastly more people than at university.

This is about his interview with Cathy Newman. It's from The Atlantic. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/)


Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying?


My first introduction to Jordan B. Peterson, a University of Toronto clinical psychologist, came by way of an interview that began trending on social media last week.


[W]hat struck me, far more than any position he took, was the method his interviewer employed. It was the most prominent, striking example I’ve seen yet of an unfortunate trend in modern communication.


First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd.


And the Peterson interview has so many moments of this kind that each successive example calls attention to itself until the attentive viewer can’t help but wonder what drives the interviewer to keep inflating the nature of Peterson’s claims, instead of addressing what he actually said.


Perhaps she has used that tactic to good effect elsewhere. (And the online attacks to which she’s been subjected are abhorrent assaults on decency by people who are perpetrating misbehavior orders of magnitude worse than hers.)


Newman relies on this technique to a remarkable extent, making it a useful illustration of a much broader pernicious trend. Peterson was not evasive or unwilling to be clear about his meaning. And Newman’s exaggerated restatements of his views mostly led viewers astray, not closer to the truth.

In example:


“So you’re saying,” Newman retorts, “that women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity.” But that’s not what he said. He posited a vested interest, not a duty.


Newman: So you’re saying give people equality of opportunity, that’s fine.

Peterson: It’s not only fine, it’s eminently desirable for everyone, for individuals as well as societies.

Newman: But still women aren’t going to make it. That’s what you’re really saying.

That is not “what he’s really saying”!


The conversation moves on to other topics, but the pattern continues. Peterson makes a statement. And then the interviewer interjects, “So you’re saying …” and fills in the rest with something that is less defensible, or less carefully qualified, or more extreme, or just totally unrelated to his point.


Actually, one of the most important things this interview illustrates—one reason it is worth noting at length—is how Newman repeatedly poses as if she is holding a controversialist accountable, when in fact, for the duration of the interview, it is she that is “stirring things up” and “whipping people into a state of anger.”


To conclude, this is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of Peterson’s views. It is an argument that the effects of the approach used in this interview are pernicious.


This has been one of the top tools of the right-wing media in America.

NotAPretender
3rd February 2018, 13:57
Dreamtimer, you are on to something very interesting here and you are absolutely correct and the technique is 'MADDENING' to me...it makes me almost homicidal... :)

Dreamtimer
3rd February 2018, 14:10
It's a large part of why I can't watch Fox. Maddening is the word. I like being sane (-ish).

Dumpster Diver
4th February 2018, 22:39
It's a large part of why I can't watch Fox. Maddening is the word. I like being sane (-ish).

Well, it's not just Fox; everything else on TV news is unwatchable. I'm ready to cut the cable but the GF is holding out mainly because of Rachel Maddow. !BUT! $90 monthly cable bills are winning the argument for me.

Dreamtimer
4th February 2018, 23:42
I haven't taken the wise mendicant path yet and I live in a system wherein I have responsibilities to several people therefore I must keep track of what's going on. And I need to look at all sources rather than cherry pick.

Rachel is great because she tells a story. And she doesn't do the fallacy thing.

It's just as important to keep abreast of the mainstream media as it is the alternative. To know what people are believing/motivated by. To know where the ignorance and enlightenment is. To know where the new energy is coming from and who's responding.

And we have to pay for cable to get the internet. Because in the land of opportunity there are monopolies around every corner. :fpalm:

Lemual
5th February 2018, 03:54
Rachel is great because she tells a story. And she doesn't do the fallacy thing.

I'd have to strongly disagree with this. I really dislike the woman (well her TV persona anyway). I would say that she's either a bad journalist or a shill (maybe even mockingbird-esque)

I've seen many videos taking her apart but this is the first one I could find (If you hate Abbey Martin then there's plenty of others you can find):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkjIpgthWs

Dreamtimer
5th February 2018, 04:02
Abby taking apart Rachel? It's on! This should be good.

Just so I'm clear, I'm not wedded to any particular persons or positions. I'm all for working out our crap and not blowing ourselves up in war. Which means that we can talk about why Rachel sucks or doesn't.

:thup:

Dumpster Diver
5th February 2018, 04:43
Well, by having Google News and Flipboard, I can stay abreast of most, if not all the major talking head points on TV, and waste much less time watching that drivel thus saving the money. Direct TV is $90 (with a bunch of movie channels I think) on top of higher speed internet which is about $50.

Lemual
5th February 2018, 05:13
Abby taking apart Rachel? It's on! This should be good.

Just so I'm clear, I'm not wedded to any particular persons or positions. I'm all for working out our crap and not blowing ourselves up in war. Which means that we can talk about why Rachel sucks or doesn't.

:thup:

And this is why I love you guys :h5:

Octopus Garden
5th February 2018, 18:38
MSNBC and Rachel Maddow are compromised by the corporatocracy. I would fade them and fast. And yes her ridiculous rant about 911 was so over the top amd wrong headed, it was a red flag that the woman can't think logically outside of her comfort zone.

The facts point to an inside job of some kind.

NotAPretender
6th February 2018, 00:35
I'd have to strongly disagree with this. I really dislike the woman (well her TV persona anyway). I would say that she's either a bad journalist or a shill (maybe even mockingbird-esque)

I've seen many videos taking her apart but this is the first one I could find (If you hate Abbey Martin then there's plenty of others you can find):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkjIpgthWs

It's hard to take someone apart if they are not present to respond. I have to say though, one REALLY should consider that RT is a Russian propaganda vehicle. Incidentally, Martin is accurate about the violence motivation...I don't see where she actually cites any 'realities' to contradict the resident Rhodes Scholar beyond 'it's mainstream propaganda'. Don't listen to endless reams of what Aragorn properly calls b.s. We have to do our own research and not be led by Russian propaganda.

enjoy being
6th February 2018, 03:05
40 years.
70 years.
400 years.
Just sneezes. Hardly long enough to even start turning on one single tap in the tangled plumbing of the universe.
First world problems? How about short time zone concerns from minuscule gnats linked together to form singular grains of sand in an hour glass?
See them line up and strut with importance as they parade in formation, such poise and pomp for such temporary office. Doing nothing meaning nothing, affecting nothing. The station of observance to count the ticks which add up to nothing, the huge epic epoch of an age, filled with many individual poos. All carefully chewed and packed and paid for, but not spoken of. The motions of millions, adding up to very little, apart from tonnes of sewerage. Lifetime upon lifetime seeking value, producing nothing but sewerage and distraction between trips to the lavatory. The bright ages of humanity, a series of comedies, based largely on nothing.

Aragorn
6th February 2018, 04:29
MSNBC and Rachel Maddow are compromised by the corporatocracy

I take it that you do know what the "MS" in "MSNBC" stands for, right? And for anyone who doesn't know, look at the colors of their logo. ;)



http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/themes/leanforward/images/site-header/msnbc-logo-card-twitter.png





It's hard to take someone apart if they are not present to respond. I have to say though, one REALLY should consider that RT is a Russian propaganda vehicle. [...] We have to do our own research and not be led by Russian propaganda.

If you think that Abby Martin has ever engaged in Russian propaganda, then I'm afraid you still haven't shaken off your own programming. Abby's show was called Breaking The Set, and even though it was broadcast on RT, Abby did on numerous occasions criticize the Russian government — among other things, with regard to the Russian military intervention in Crimea — on her show, with full editorial freedom.

As the matter of fact, all of the mainstream media talking heads had noticed that Abby was openly condemning the Russian military intervention in Crimea on her Breaking The Set show on that very same — yes — Russian-state-sponsored RT network. And it was quite a shocker to the likes of MSNBC, CNN and even Fox News that the balloon of their favorite prejudice about Abby Martin — who had time and time exposed all of them as hypocrites and shills of the corporate-fascist empire — suddenly got popped on camera by that very same Abby Martin.

Abby Martin is a very thorough investigative journalist who takes her job seriously, and she is an incredibly brave young woman whose integrity cannot be bought. Writing off her work as pro-Russian propaganda — or herself as a pro-Russian shill — is not just plain wrong, but it's also very bad taste to boot, not to mention a cheap shot. The girl's a heroine, and she deserves your respect — much more so than Rachel "proud to carry a US Democrat Party membership card" Maddow.

enjoy being
6th February 2018, 04:41
*In true modern western style*

"Yerp it stands for Oprah Winfrey! Yah Oprah, Oprah for President!"

(Oprah isn't afraid to admit to pooing)

NotAPretender
6th February 2018, 15:24
I take it that you do know what the "MS" in "MSNBC" stands for, right? And for anyone who doesn't know, look at the colors of their logo. ;)



http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/themes/leanforward/images/site-header/msnbc-logo-card-twitter.png






If you think that Abby Martin has ever engaged in Russian propaganda, then I'm afraid you still haven't shaken off your own programming. Abby's show was called Breaking The Set, and even though it was broadcast on RT, Abby did on numerous occasions criticize the Russian government — among other things, with regard to the Russian military intervention in Crimea — on her show, with full editorial freedom.

As the matter of fact, all of the mainstream media talking heads had noticed that Abby was openly condemning the Russian military intervention in Crimea on her Breaking The Set show on that very same — yes — Russian-state-sponsored RT network. And it was quite a shocker to the likes of MSNBC, CNN and even Fox News that the balloon of their favorite prejudice about Abby Martin — who had time and time exposed all of them as hypocrites and shills of the corporate-fascist empire — suddenly got popped on camera by that very same Abby Martin.

Abby Martin is a very thorough investigative journalist who takes her job seriously, and she is an incredibly brave young woman whose integrity cannot be bought. Writing off her work as pro-Russian propaganda — or herself as a pro-Russian shill — is not just plain wrong, but it's also very bad taste to boot, not to mention a cheap shot. The girl's a heroine, and she deserves your respect — much more so than Rachel "proud to carry a US Democrat Party membership card" Maddow.

actually, I did look up her bio...not a russian propagandist but has an agenda of some kind...i think she's a cross between Patty Hearst and Paris Hilton... :)


*In true modern western style*

"Yerp it stands for Oprah Winfrey! Yah Oprah, Oprah for President!"

(Oprah isn't afraid to admit to pooing)

Not exactly an intellectual heavyweight, though ... all we need to succeed the Anti-Obama is the Anti-Trump... no thanks, really.

Dumpster Diver
6th February 2018, 15:29
It's hard to take someone apart if they are not present to respond. I have to say though, one REALLY should consider that RT is a Russian propaganda vehicle. Incidentally, Martin is accurate about the violence motivation...I don't see where she actually cites any 'realities' to contradict the resident Rhodes Scholar beyond 'it's mainstream propaganda'. Don't listen to endless reams of what Aragorn properly calls b.s. We have to do our own research and not be led by Russian propaganda.

I’ll believe RT sooner than anything posed by the MSM, except in the inverse, i.e. invert what the MSM says.

As I recall, the MS is MicroSoft courtesy of our old pal Billy Bob Gates:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC

...so if I ever had a reason to hate on MSNBC, that’s it.

NotAPretender
6th February 2018, 15:37
I never watch MSNBC anymore...I realized that I was doing myself no favors by listening to myself and still being frustrated by the lack of cogent questioning by the talking heads...BUT, Maddow is hard to sneeze at, a Lesbian Rhodes Scholar, a definite candidate for inclusion in the ranks of the intelligentsia. She also is a speaker of good old, god-given commonsense. The alternative world is ripe for exploration and rife with confusion, collusion, coercion, and kalliopes (hell, I don't know), marching bands perhaps. It has to be digested with a generous helping of discretion. If not taken in this fashion, it just doesn't work at all in my inverse

Dreamtimer
6th February 2018, 15:53
The MSM is already an inverse of itself. If you reverse what it says you have no meaning at all. Fox and the rest cancel each other out and the alternative media seems to have the same issues as the mainstream.

There's a sea of sludge which is each and every bit of the media and we have to figure out what's what, imo.

Aragorn
6th February 2018, 15:59
If you think that Abby Martin has ever engaged in Russian propaganda, then I'm afraid you still haven't shaken off your own programming. Abby's show was called Breaking The Set, and even though it was broadcast on RT, Abby did on numerous occasions criticize the Russian government — among other things, with regard to the Russian military intervention in Crimea — on her show, with full editorial freedom.

As the matter of fact, all of the mainstream media talking heads had noticed that Abby was openly condemning the Russian military intervention in Crimea on her Breaking The Set show on that very same — yes — Russian-state-sponsored RT network. And it was quite a shocker to the likes of MSNBC, CNN and even Fox News that the balloon of their favorite prejudice about Abby Martin — who had time and time exposed all of them as hypocrites and shills of the corporate-fascist empire — suddenly got popped on camera by that very same Abby Martin.

Abby Martin is a very thorough investigative journalist who takes her job seriously, and she is an incredibly brave young woman whose integrity cannot be bought. Writing off her work as pro-Russian propaganda — or herself as a pro-Russian shill — is not just plain wrong, but it's also very bad taste to boot, not to mention a cheap shot. The girl's a heroine, and she deserves your respect — much more so than Rachel "proud to carry a US Democrat Party membership card" Maddow.

actually, I did look up her bio...

Actually, I don't believe you.


not a russian propagandist but has an agenda of some kind...

Yes, she does. It's called "investigating the facts and exposing the truth" — something your Rachel Maddow and her other corporately sponsored colleagues aren't exactly particularly good at, their undoubtedly very royal salaries notwithstanding.



i think she's a cross between Patty Hearst and Paris Hilton... :)





http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server4700/52rdl7sd/product_images/bs_logo.png


https://3yq63w3tvb6c1innxc1hzsya-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/screen-shot-2013-08-13-at-1-07-13-pm.png



Given that you seem to have a habit of dismissing facts out of hand in favor of your preconceived notions and prejudices, I think the time has finally come for me to exit this thread — and the US-centric party-political loyalties that almost every discussion of late here at the forum seems to come down to.



:getcoat: :tiphat:

:holysheep:

:fpalm:

Fred Steeves
6th February 2018, 16:06
*In true modern western style*

"Yerp it stands for Oprah Winfrey! Yah Oprah, Oprah for President!"

(Oprah isn't afraid to admit to pooing)

Now there's a scary thought, the exact mirror image of Trump and *his* angry and unquestioning followers.

Dreamtimer
6th February 2018, 16:30
I wish Oprah had never asked Trump if he'd be president. I thought it was irresponsible. I always have. He didn't need anymore ego stroking and he always said he likes his life and he was made for business, not government.

But it gets good ratings to ask Trump if he wants to be president.

At least she had the sense to say that running for president is not for her.

NotAPretender
6th February 2018, 16:37
Actually, I don't believe you.



Yes, she does. It's called "investigating the facts and exposing the truth" — something your Rachel Maddow and her other corporately sponsored colleagues aren't exactly particularly good at, their undoubtedly very royal salaries notwithstanding.








http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server4700/52rdl7sd/product_images/bs_logo.png


https://3yq63w3tvb6c1innxc1hzsya-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/screen-shot-2013-08-13-at-1-07-13-pm.png



Given that you seem to have a habit of dismissing facts out of hand in favor of your preconceived notions and prejudices, I think the time has finally come for me to exit this thread — and the US-centric party-political loyalties that almost every discussion of late here at the forum seems to come down to.



:getcoat: :tiphat:

:holysheep:

:fpalm:

Calm down, Aragorn...I can see she's a favorite of yours. I did look up her bio and yes, perhaps I am being prematurely dismissive. I apologize for crossing your line. She may have depth, in fact, she certainly does, but one of my problems with reporting are the 'theatrics' that come along with it. I don't believe serious investigation and 'look at me pound the table' belong together. Just a personal bias that in no way reflects on your judgment of her, her abilities and her motivations.

Fred Steeves
6th February 2018, 16:57
At least she had the sense to say that running for president is not for her.

So she says. We shall see. :)

enjoy being
6th February 2018, 22:02
In fact I did see something very recently that was priming the masses for Oprahs presidency...
She was asked that question again and she changed her tune from no to maybe. Hence the tongue in cheek comment.

MSN Messenger. The little Cluedo figurines. The brave new world of digital communications. Those were the days, before catfish was a term and twitter was just onomatopoeia.

Fred Steeves
6th February 2018, 23:30
Haven't seen that, but I'm not at all surprised. My sense is the overall general strategy is to wait until even the hillsides start begging her to run, and she would thus "grudgingly" do so. Out of duty to country of course, always out of duty to country...

Then again as always, we shall see.

enjoy being
6th February 2018, 23:37
Oh actually I can't find the no to maybe bit, I am sure I saw it there following all the media fizz over her golden globe award speech. Such examples of the buzz was.. https://www.dailywire.com/news/25500/oprah-winfrey-announces-shes-running-president-joseph-curl or ... Google (https://www.google.co.nz/search?source=hp&ei=Jzt6WrGQCYWc0gT1o56ICw&q=oprah+says+yes+to+presidency&oq=oprah+says+yes+to+presidency&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i21k1.2049.26429.0.26737.30.28.0.1.1.0.599 .5898.2-1j9j3j2.15.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..14.14.5113...0j0i10k1j0i22i30k1j33i22i29i30k1j 33i160k1.0.R2SDF2PU9UE)

NotAPretender
7th February 2018, 00:43
Haven't seen that, but I'm not at all surprised. My sense is the overall general strategy is to wait until even the hillsides start begging her to run, and she would thus "grudgingly" do so. Out of duty to country of course, always out of duty to country...

Then again as always, we shall see.

This is just my opinion of course, but her statement that running or being POTUS was not in her DNA pretty much says she is self-aware enough to recognize that she is 'popular' but that it doesn't translate into qualifications for what should be one of the world's more demanding jobs.

Dumpster Diver
7th February 2018, 19:14
The only qualification for US President is:

ability to follow orders.

...Oprah may not be able to do that.

Octopus Garden
7th February 2018, 19:39
Oprah appeals to the common man and more to the common woman who feel for some f'd up reason that she represents them.

She is purely a product of the corporate age. And although lovely in her own way, she must, in order to appeal to the zeitgeist, if nothing else, reduce everything to simple mythologies that ignore the role of the military industrial complex, and top down class war. Her golden globe award speech put me off.

Fred Steeves
9th February 2018, 11:28
Her golden globe award speech put me off.

Me as well, she came off ready to take up the sword and lead a crusade. I'll bet you a nickel the hard Left would take up that sword with her and follow as blindly and fiercely as the deplorables follow Trump.

I can see the banners waving now: "Something Must Be Done!"

Dumpster Diver
9th February 2018, 13:56
Me as well, she came off ready to take up the sword and lead a crusade. I'll bet you a nickel the hard Left would take up that sword with her and follow as blindly and fiercely as the deplorables follow Trump.

I can see the banners waving now: "Something Must Be Done!"

Instead of using the mantra “Hope” like Obummer, Oppie would use “Cope”

Dreamtimer
9th February 2018, 14:13
We go down these paths and then wonder how we got there.


It used to be Christians eschewed voting because it was beneath their spiritual goals and way of life.

It used to be Christians valued having enough and not pursuing or flaunting wealth. Now we have the Prosperity Doctrine.

And Christians highly active in politics.

Our VP says he's Christian, Conservative, and Republican, in that order. That doesn't sound like someone who puts the Constitution first to me.


There's always a backlash. An Oprah backlash would not be a good thing. And people are continuing to fail to acknowledge their role in bringing us down these paths.

We champion someone like Sarah Palin who quit when the going got tough, blamed the liberal media, ran for VP with no experience, spoke in word salads, and more.

And yet we're shocked when we find ourselves with a President who speaks in word salads, has no experience, fills our agencies with people with no experience, or simply fails to fill positions, and more.

The people who have been championing smaller, more efficient government keep choosing people who don't even know how to do it in the first place.

Every successful President has surrounded himself with experts in what they do. This one says he doesn't need experts. He's his own best expert.


And because we don't collectively know how to take responsibility, we continue to play the blame game.

And if this is what most people are doing, it matters. We don't live in a vacuum sealed bubble where we're removed from the mainstream. We have to deal with it as it is in order to change it.



I personally believe that we've inadvertently found the cure to the malaise in voting. People are going to be running for office and voting in record numbers. It should be quite interesting.

NotAPretender
9th February 2018, 15:40
Me as well, she came off ready to take up the sword and lead a crusade. I'll bet you a nickel the hard Left would take up that sword with her and follow as blindly and fiercely as the deplorables follow Trump.

I can see the banners waving now: "Something Must Be Done!"

Hey Fred,

That would be a good test to see 'another' difference between the two factions. All I can say is, I hope not...if so, then even the 'symbolic' differences would mean less. It will be interesting, but honestly, my money is on the 'smarter' and less regimented reps