All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. What did Beck fight Trump over? You probably talked about it plenty at the time, but....I've forgotten what Beck's declared grievances with Trump were. Ellen
  3. The following video is why I admired Glenn Beck so much a few years ago. It's a hell of an inspiring rant. I have a caveat, though. Glenn broke my trust once before. Maybe he just now saw the true nature of the people he got in bed with on his little boneheaded adventure to become an Old Testament prophet. If he keeps the fire in this video up, I may start liking him again for real. But it's hard to forget that Glenn Beck fought Donald Trump tooth and nail as America was coming out of the collectivism death-spiral of the Obama administration. There's a saying about power that people who fight in a revolution are not the same who can govern a country in peace. Maybe Glenn is one of these folks. He's a great fighter in a war. And then when peace, or the illusion of peace comes, and he just wimps out and turns into mush and bullshit. Right now, we need public voices like the one in this video, though. And, in the hopes he keeps this style up, at least during the take-down of the Deep State (after which, he can go back to being mush and bullshit for all I care), I say bravo to his words in this video. May those words of his be mine. Michael
  4. No... it's not a simple circuit. It's not straight forward causality, there are multiple causes. There are different parts (based on 3 brain theory) of our brain that give us conflicting information... emotions are one form of information. Sometimes they are right sometimes they are wrong.
  5. We can work on unity after the thousands of traitors and coup-plotters have hanged. It won't even be work, it will just be. All the lies, propaganda and manipulation will end when the parties who need it to stay alive are dead.
  6. Here's a longer answer from Rush Limbaugh today: Unity Isn’t Possible with People Against Making America Great. It's time for Mattis to go back to a cocktail party or something and look down his nose at normal Americans. He embarrasses himself when he comes out for a walk. Michael
  7. LOL... I just caught a quote from Rush Limbaugh today. Michael
  8. Ellen, When I wrote that, I was so tired, I didn't complete what was on my mind--I had to look up some things to be sure and I think my subconscious closed it all down out of laziness. I meant that I doubt it because her hubby, George Farmer, is the son of Lord Farmer, a peer in the British House of Lords. I imagine this comes with some kind of protection detail. Also, George runs a huge hedge fund, Red Kite. That probably pays for some rip-righteous body guards. But, of course, you are right to be concerned. There is no doubt in my mind there are many who would be willing to assassinate her if they could manage it. She's stepping all over their power. Michael
  9. Peter, Or he just may be a social-climbing swamp creature who got disgruntled because how dare that inferior commoner thing from the American livestock, Donald Trump, fire him? Good God! A thing like that... Fire HIM?!!! Chaos? Mad Dog? The legend? And he needed to stroke his petty vanity because it was making him crazy like a toothache... Michael
  10. The problem of arresting antifa members who are committing violence is that there may be a legitimate protest going on with thousands of people involved, and that interferes with Americans’ rights to protest and demonstrate. It would be difficult (for the police on the scene) to identify violent characters and antifa members because many “innocent protesters” are also wearing masks and milling around. It helps that hundreds of cell phones may be filming the action and the videos are being posted. Those cell phone videos could be scrutinized quickly back at headquarters or on the scene, and arrests could be made. But would that be evidence usable in court? At least those identified, violent, law breaking looters and arsonists could be yanked off the street. I saw General Mattis is protesting the use of "active" U.S. troops, not the National Guard, to quell the violent rioting and he may be historically and legally correct, but what if HIS home was being torched and his family being killed? I thought the potential for the White House being burned to the ground in the District of Columbia could be used as a legitimate reason to use American troops . . . there and in that situation. Peter Notes. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a CBS and BBC legal analyst . . . . A president does not have power to declare an entity to be a terrorist organization. Such a designation under federal law is confined to “foreign terrorist” organizations — and for that reason, these designations are made through the U.S. State Department. While many have dismissed the possibility of a terrorist designation for antifa because it is a domestic movement, the administration could make a slim, if highly challengeable, claim that antifa has international reach with supporters in other countries. It would be a stretch, but people should not assume that such a designation is impossible. The administration could also move to bar travel and entry of those associated with the movement, including foreign associates. Most worrisome, such a designation can allow a broader crackdown, and even criminal charges, for those deemed to offer “material support” to the movement. That, of course, raises serious constitutional concerns. This terrorist designation would raise chilling implications for free speech in the United States . . . We do not need to use the designation of terrorist organizations to curb acts of violence in this country. When antifa members or others engage in criminal acts, we have ample criminal laws to use against them. Indeed, cases currently being prosecuted by the Justice Department for throwing Molotov cocktails in New York, including charges against two young attorneys, are likely to be framed as domestic terrorism without any formal designation . . . .
  11. I don't doubt that there''s reason to be fearful for Candace Owens' safety. Like you, Michael I hope that she'll be the first female US President. But she has to be alive to become that. Ellen
  12. Michael, I do share your optimism and enthusiasm about what the future could look/ be like with people like Candace in it. This still IS America, the narrative that it is over or even that America was never a shining city on a hill is false. I suppose my pessimism stems from the bridge laying/knee bending supplicants and what some may do to prove their fealty to the "cause". T
  13. Oh my... don’t fill me with false hopes like that. A living example to explode so many of the false narratives in identity politics and a sane voice to reject socialism and encourage right thinking (up to a point) ?? That really would be awesome!
  14. T, I doubt it. I think it's quite plausible she will be the first female President of the USA in a couple of decades or more.. Michael
  15. It sure looks that way, at least for Roger Stone. Michael
  16. There is a theory going around that one of the reasons President Trump was so eager to get the National Guard going was to save lives. In this past month alone, I saw somewhere that there have been over 2 million new gun owners. A good chunk of them are liberals, some of whom never owned a gun in their lives. Gun stores and manufacturers are having a bumper crop season with the fake news-sponsored riots. In places where the population is well-armed, there will come a point where their patience blows out. After all, they have work to do, not just babysitting some assholes who want to destroy their stuff. And if Antifa & Co. get to staring down the barrels of guns owned by neighborhood people protecting their property, then someone makes a bad move, it will not go as well for them as it would the National Guard. This is a theory, but it makes plenty of sense to me. Michael
  17. Michelle too. https://twitter.com/michellemalkin?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
  18. "The bodily manifestations must first be interposed between". Why? Does the body then control and dictate the emotion? Yes, that's what he says. Here's someone who, contrary to "common sense" believed that physical disturbances, elevated heart rate etc., (caused by brain chemistry, we know) are the determining factor of - and precede - emotions. Why? Well clearly, he recognised emotions are what you most strongly FEEL in the moment. That is why the person responds instantly, and is 'designed' that way by Nature. But how can you feel fear if you have no experience whatsoever, not even anecdotal - of e.g,. a bear? And there, in his notion of cause and effect, he went wrong. Better he'd have gone with common sense. What he's saying outright is that the first perception of an 'exciting' fact directly corresponds with the body. Which somehow causes the relevant emotion. No interposed consciousness required, of what it is or what value it has for you. For him, you feel the fear ~because~ you run. (We lose our fortune ~because~ we weep? Well...) And you strike someone for no apparent reason, but feel the anger afterwards..? "Purely cognitive in form, pale, colorless, destitute of emotional warmth". That sums up James' dismissive attitude to the human intellect, detached from and inferior to emotions.
  19. Candace is awesome , she is courageous and intellectually rigorous, do we need to be fearful for her ?
  20. So you say. "Behavior" (etc.) causes modification of emotion, and which in turn precedes thinking. I haven't convinced you that thought dominates. Simply: Identifying - valuing - an emotion - physiological responses. The causality has been reversed by other intellectuals. The theory, behaviorism, is not anything new. The behaviorist William James: ("We feel angry because we strike") Our natural way of thinking about these standard emotions is that the mental perception of some fact excites the mental affection called the emotion, and that this latter state of mind gives rise to the bodily expression. My thesis on the contrary is that the bodily changes follow directly the PERCEPTION of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur IS the emotion. Common sense says, we lose our fortune, are sorry and weep; we meet a bear, are frightened and run; we are insulted by a rival, are angry and strike. The hypothesis here to be defended says that this order of sequence is incorrect, that the one mental state is not immediately induced by the other, that the bodily manifestations must first be interposed between, and that the more rational statement is that we feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble, and not that we cry, strike, or tremble, because we are sorry, angry, or fearful, as the case may be. Without the bodily states following on the perception, the latter would be purely cognitive in form, pale, colourless, destitute of emotional warmth. We might then see the bear, and judge it best to run, receive the insult and deem it right to strike, but we could not actually feel afraid or angry.
  21. DT, Welcome to OL. Before I get to your questions, a word about Mark and me. We go back and forth at times, but more recently we have mellowed toward each other (until the next flare-up ). Right now I have been a bit hands off because Mark did a brilliant job exposing what Carl Barney was all about, especially his early Scientology activities, but I differ with Mark on his take on Scientology and its effect on ARI. This is not because I was ever part of Scientology or a sympathizer of said church. I studied it as a great example of a modern-day cult, teasing out what ideas attracted people to it, where the bait and switch points were, and so on. I have consumed much about Scientology, especially by dissenters, but some official things I found online and a few books I picked up at used books stores. My beefs with ARI are more along the lines that they bowdlerized practically everything they published by Ayn Rand that had not been published before and they tend to operate in an authoritarian manner. I don't like authoritarian control freaks. I really don't like them no matter who they are or in whose name they speak. Some people call ARI a cult, but I don't agree. ARI doesn't hold a candle to Scientology in that regard. ARI has done some good things, too, so I am not as furious at them as Mark is. However, I value Mark's scorched earth work. He's a bulldozer plowing through the structures of bullshit and smokescreens ARI found necessary to erect for some damn reason. Bulldozers are not precision instruments, so I would never rely on him for nuance, but man do bulldozers let the light in when it looks like there is no way a wall without windows can be breached. I'm a huge fan of bulldozers when they are needed. Now, about your questions. Back during the time of this thread (2007), I would have responded differently than I will now. I was new at writing back then and feeling my way around O-Land. So I would have probably gone in a Randian Hadith approach--that is, look what she did in her own life and take guidance from that. (btw - Don't mind me. I can be a smart-ass at times. ) Then I would have mentioned her thoughts on getting an education from a government college and so forth. She basically said it's moral to go to a government college, especially if none others are available, so long as you end up promoting the right ideas. And I would have dug up a few other example I learned over the years. Nowadays, I see the problem differently. I came to understand that all the money I own came from the hand or hands of someone else. That means relationships, no matter how distant. And that means every penny I own constitutes a relationship. Man, did that perspective do a number on my head. So the question about source of funding becomes, to me, how much do I want to police the relationships of other people? If I tried to isolate myself from all people who have relationships I don't approve of or find immoral, I would end up entirely alone. There's a scope problem, too. To go by way of example, I, like other people, have a bank account, but never at a bank that I know handles money from crime on a large scale. All banks handle money from crime (drugs, embezzlement, political corruption, and so on), whether they are even aware of it. (But banks being banks, they are always aware of it. ) Some handle more than others. If I made them not doing this a strict condition of my own banking business with them, I would not have a bank account anywhere. Nor would I ever have one. For the most part, I treat the morality of my own relationship with the institution I interact with as far more important than their relationships with others. That's because I don't have the time or interest to snoop around in everyone's business. (Barring a little gossip now and then... ) And God knows, I have had my phases I am not proud of. It's possible to fall and get back up and I am a huge proponent of redemption. So I'm mostly live and let live and accept that people are not static. However, when an environment gets too sleazy, I simply move on. (Apropos, this means it is entirely possible for me to return interacting with an institution today that I found sleazy yesterday because they cleaned up their act. But even then, I am no different than most humans. Once someone breaks my trust, it's hard for me--in my head--to get things back to the way they used to be. Fortunately, there are a lot of humans in the world, ) Now relating this thinking to ARI, they are in a difficult position because they were funded in a large chunk for years by a guy who did Scientology in his earlier days, but even more egregious for me, gamed the student loan business for most of his wealth. His money relationships were with middlemen who knew they were saddling students with massive loans from an institutionalized scam, but it looked like his relationships were with the students. Was it legal? Yes. Do I admire that? Hell no. I don't channel Ayn Rand, but I don't think she would have liked this money relationship shuffles to promote her ideas. What's worse, I believe the ARI people knew this for years, too, with this level of clarity. But they liked the money more. On the other hand, ARI does some good, especially by getting Rand's fiction into the hands of young people. So how did I, personally, deal with my differences with ARI? I made my own forum. I don't begrudge ARI its existence, for as flawed as it may be. But I don't consider it a good example of how Objectivism should be implemented in the world. When I need something credible, I don't use ARI all that much. They have the Rand archive and some decent lectures (for example, I really like Shoshana Milgram's lectures on fiction, even when I don't agree with her), but for the most part, I stay away. Incidentally, if I were ever in a position to manage Ayn Rand's intellectual property, including the use of her name and trademark, I would never run ARI on donations. For just one idea, I would go around to the top luxury goods companies in the world and license her name to them for an "Ayn Rand collection." Luxury watches. Yachts. Perfume. High fashion. Jewelry. And so on. There are plenty of rich folks who would love this and it would bring in far more money than ARI would ever need for doing lectures and the stuff they like to do. Notice that this is a purely capitalist enterprise. And it would not infringe on Rand's image. On the contrary, it would complement it. Just look at that gorgeous and elegant signature of hers... I'm not posturing when I say ARI is simply not that important to me. It's hard enough to keep up with the world in the Internet age. I don't need the headaches a relationship with them would bring. I know myself and I can get loud-mouthed at times when I don't like something. Besides, I promote ARI Watch (in my own way) and am a huge highly vocal fan of President Trump (in moral terms at that ). So I'm probably not on their top 10 list of favorite people, either. My advice, if the questions you asked bother you, is to accept what value you can, even from places that have corrupt sources of funding, but don't stick around if that makes you uneasy. Find other sources. And when none others can be found for something specific you want or need, go there, get the value and don't hang around. And don't worry about condemning them to warn other people off, unless you feel the calling to do so like Mark does. They will wreck their reputations all on their own. I propose you go after your own values for your own life. You sound like a wonderful person who has a life well-worth living. So shine with your own light and stay out of the shadows of others unless you have to be there--or happen to like it (no accounting for taste...). Michael
  22. This. The video is embedded from Facebook and I haven't figured out how to make it smaller yet. George Floyd had a long rap sheet. Including invading the house of a pregnant woman at gunpoint and holding her hostage as his cohorts ransacked her house, And including many stints in the joint. Also, he was a serious druggy. Candace doesn't think he needed to die, but she is sick at heart that this guy is being held up as a black hero in the press and by many in the black community. He wasn't. He was a small time criminal. Michael
  23. From the web. “No Time to Die.” The next James Bond film will be released in 2019. The next James Bond film has been officially announced, with the new movie set to hit cinemas in November 2019. Ooops. Because of the coronavirus it will premier in The United States on November 25, 2020. Daniel Craig will play James Bond. Both Craig and his wife, Rachel Weisz were British citizens but now they are citizens of the United States.. Hmmmm? Who is the best James Bond ever?
  1. Load more activity