Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/18/2020 in Blog Comments

  1. William, Exactly. Trump Derangement Syndrome, ergo MAGA Derangement Syndrome, fits this perfectly. You make a mistake, though, in thinking that one must see ONLY one thing and one thing only to be able to evaluate it. One can look at the products and views of a person or organization over years, detect a strong bias, then see a new product come out featuring the very thing they are biased against, then make an educated guess that this is more of the same old shit. In other words, "never sees it" is not quite accurate if one has seen the same people produce the same bigotry over years. Having HBO do a documentary on QAnon is akin to having David Duke do a history of African-American achievements in the world. Would you want to watch that for information? If one were black, would a black person really have to look at that shit in order to be informed of what being black means? Duke has made it clear where he stands about blacks over years. Ditto for HBO. And this is reinforced by the comments to the documentary, which are nothing but sniggering and mocking Q people. You get your information from there if you wish. I have better things to do. I don't want to watch propaganda by bigots and call that information. Michael
    1 point
  2. The thing I find funny about the "QAnon Shaman" is that he is treated as a Q influencer by lefties, but I can't think of a single MAGA person he influences. And among the MAGA people I know, he's treated as an attention getter and fruitcake. By attention getter, I mean in the sense of a drunk dude wearing a lampshade at a party and thinking he's funny. This is one classic case of incorrectly identifying someone. Of course, this incorrect identification is done on purpose by the propaganda machine for, well... propaganda. Michael
    1 point
  3. William, Exactly. Rules to follow instead of using your brain to identify. According to your own explanation, algorithms are rules used for calculations and problem-solving. That means measurement and human-designed processes. That does not mean core identifications. As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. That's what algorithms get you without correct identifications. You don't use an algorithm to see if it's day or night when you want to go out. You look out the window. You don't use an algorithm to identify whether it's a snake in the grass or a water hose. You observe more closely. And do on. The closest thing you can use as an algorithm for basic identifications in order to not fall into brainless (literally) bigotry is to ask yourself, (1) What do I know? and (2) How do I know it? But there is no way to make the rules themselves (the algorithm) give you the answer automatically. You yourself have to do the thinking. You might want to do that when waging your campaign to ridicule Q. What do you know about Q? Not much apparently. You know the fringe and that's about it. The rest is generalities you get from others. How do you know it? You restrict your observation (the kind that shows you the difference between the snake and the garden hose) to the most quirky and loopy examples you can find. If you see something more serious, you ignore it. This is what I have seen in your writings on Q. There is no algorithm to provide you with a method that will make all people who find value in Q become like the loopy and quirky ones. There is only bigotry. And that is based on faulty identification, habit as a learned response to "What is it?", and a strong negative emotional imprint as frame. (Incidentally, that correctly describes TDS and any other form of blind hatred or blind contempt brought to the social level. That goes for all sides, too.) An algorithm is a tool for the brain. It is not a replacement. On a more fun level, Ray Bradbury once wrote a short story ("There Will Come Soft Rains") about an automatic house in an automatic neighborhood system that went through its day fixing meals, cleaning, making repairs, chiming the time, and so on. Except there were no humans left on earth. Only shadows left on the walls, presumably from a nuclear explosion. All of the "algorithms" and robotic routines they governed were designed for human activities, but there were no humans anymore. The thing just churned on and there was no meaning to the activities anymore. That, to me, is a great metaphor for how many people seek to use their brains. Michael
    1 point
  4. For the record, I have followed Q for years and I never heard of GhostEzra until now. I looked on BitChute just now where a huge number of well-known Q people and Q-friendly people regularly post videos. There were 3 videos that mentioned GhostEzra (and were not by him), 2 from about a week ago and one from 7 months ago (see here). Here is a screenshot in case more videos get posted later. Heh. Some influence. And get this. Bitchute has real Nazis on it, the kind who sing praises to Hitler for real. Nobody pays any attention to them but they are there. (It's a free speech thing.) Now Vice is telling us that this dude with the funny moniker is "one of QAnon's biggest and most antisemitic influencers." Heh. Double some influence. Har-dee-har-har. Not even the friggin' Nazis know who he is. Vice is probably putting out some horseshit as misdirection from The Great Dismantling that is currently underway. That's what I think is going on. For those who like this sort of thing, have fun. It means nothing other than a prompt for a yawn. Here. Let me go Q for a sec: Noting can stop what is coming. Michael
    1 point
  5. Sorry for flying off the handle and smearing General Flynn. Doesn't any source spreading the news report facts any more?
    1 point
  6. Ah, yawn, back to normal in dear old Canuckistan. Maybe I should start up Canadian Boring again,to soothe today's anxious spirits with the comforting monotony of politics in days of yesteryear..once upon a time in the North...
    1 point
  7. OK. I do believe in double checking the authenticity of whatI find difficult to accept as fact, but I do admit I tend to trust in CTVs reliability as in this instance. It will be tiresome to record every news story that catches my interest and research all the participants, but I ll do it if I want to participate in discussing it henceforth if I can. Luckily l am on fairly good terms with some expert researchers here on OL !
    1 point
  8. Carol, If that is your intent, you have to double check everything coming from the fake news media. Everything, as the saying goes, even the words "the" and "and." The story they are selling you is false. They call it "controlling the narrative." And big tech social media constantly deletes evidence to the contrary and bans people who insist on posting it. Fake news media does not present it. Social media giants delete it. Then people like you--who only look at those sources of info--are left to wonder why certain information is not more public when you are caught spreading totally false info. Never forget, you got that totally false info from them. They integrated it into the core story they propagandize you with. So if you sincerely don't want to knowingly present things you believe to be untrue, double check it all when something comes from the mainstream. After you get debunked repeating their lies enough times, if you continue to repeat their lies without double checking, you will be presenting things you know are likely untrue. btw - My position about double checking is the same when the left is lied about. Except during the current phase, the mainstream media does not lie about the left. It did lie a lot against the left back during "weapons of mass destruction" phase and the Iraq war. Michael
    1 point
  9. Just botching it. Giving impressions of a sound bite Tv interview on a subject on which I didn't,t have any knowledge. I should not have bothered to post it. I really didn't know he had presented the evidence publicly on other occasions, but I should have. So I apologize to Mr. Wood unreservedly. I never, ever knowingly write anything here which I believe to be untrue, unless in obvious sarcasm . Nor do I write it elsewhere come to that.
    1 point
  10. Carol, How can you possibly say things like this? Good God! He's said where in countless places on many occasions. Hell, I started a thread right here on OL solely for presenting solid evidence from different places (many of which Lin has mentioned). Are you lying on purpose or just faking it and botching it? Michael
    1 point
  11. Many thanks for this, the arguments he has are pretty much clear from this forceful statement. The arguments themselves are kind of unforceful to me, and sometimes inadvertently comical. "Rod Rosenstein who is trying to protect hHillary Clinton who is trying to protect Mike Pence."Mr. Wood says. he continues, "I didn't say that." Sure, I lifted the text out of its surroundings there, but I couldn't resist this time. And the names of course are accurate and boy, talk about strange bedfellows. Besides instructing the legally uneducated in his audience about consistent consistency's important place in building credibility, he mentions documents which have disappeared and mountains of hard evidence which no judge would look at,but he doesn't tell the audience where they can look at it either. If it has been around the block so many times, why isn't it available to public view? Why was the guy threatened and tortured, To make him keep quiet?And since he wouldn't keep quiet why can't he accuse his torturers now, since he is resolved to face whatever happens bolstered by his faith? It seems ,to me with all the public nexposure he would be!/safer to do so now than never before. Just my reactions and maybe way offbase, but I'm a stranger in these parts.
    1 point
  12. All Polls are Wrong.....? "Republicans by double-digit margins said they are willing to ditch their party to follow former President Donald Trump if he breaks out on his own, according to a new poll released Sunday. Members of the GOP by 46 percent to 27 percent said they would put the Republican Party in the rear-view mirror if Trump creates his own, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll found." Source: https://nypost.com/2021/02/21/republicans-willing-to-break-from-party-to-follow-trump-poll/
    1 point
  13. Pro-Trump Objectivist and psychologist Dr. Michael Hurd weighs in on the matter of Q: "Why Conspiracy Theories Steered Us So Wrong" Excerpts: "Consider the events of 2020 and early 2021. Conspiracy theories told us the Chinese Communist Party and the Democratic Party (same thing) plotted and brilliantly carried out a scheme to impose coronavirus on America, to destroy America’s economy and divide the country. While there’s no doubt Communists in China and America WANT to do this, they’re not nearly that brilliant. If they were that brilliant, they wouldn’t be Communists. What’s much more likely is coronavirus came on the medical radar, just as similar viruses had in the recent past, and they decided to create a panic. They gambled that the American public would buy it, and then they’d have control over the citizens they never dreamed of getting in Obama’s terms of office. You know the rest." --- "Conspiracy theories also give the good guys too much credit. How many counted on Trump to “do something” to stop the obvious — and first — political coup d’état to take place in the United States of America? Trump is very smart and amazingly courageous. If anyone COULD have pulled it off, I’m sure it’s him; but it simply wasn’t possible. The bad guys, while irrational and not very smart, could count on the fear and ignorance of millions of people, something that people on Trump’s side obviously underestimated. America is no longer America; we know that because if it was, we wouldn’t be in this situation. Nobody can overcome that...." --- "Bottom line: You can’t fix stupid. If too few Americans are enlightened or courageous enough to embrace liberty and reject totalitarianism, then no grand conspiracy — orchestrated by Donald Trump, or anyone else — can rescue us." https://drhurd.com/2021/02/21/why-conspiracy-theories-steered-us-so-wrong/
    1 point
  14. Negotiations broke down, but here I pledge to send OL fifty bucks if Donald Trump is inaugurated on January 20 for a second term in office. I will also publish a "Why I was wrong and MSK was right."
    1 point
  15. And I want you to include the term " deus ex machina" in your open letter to our fearless leader too.
    1 point
  16. Lolllll shows you the extent of the freaking bullshit when it's so freaking premeditated!!!!!!
    1 point
  17. William, Can you enumerate ruling class? Or how about oppressed class? Can you enumerate bureaucracy? Or how about White Male Christians? How about Antifa? Can Antifa be enumerated? See the problem when one refuses to accept the nature of one kind of category and wants it to have the nature of a different kind? Just because it doesn't fit where it doesn't belong doesn't mean it's not a category. You can force a gotcha, I suppose, but it won't have any teeth since it will be only semantics at a subjective level. I suggest learning what the category means according to the way people use it. But, hey, that's me. Michael
    1 point
  18. The Politico Poll is here: PowerPoint Presentation (politico.com) See also the poll featured at "SEVENTEEN PERCENT of Biden Voters Said They Wouldn’t Have Voted for Him if They Knew About Media-Censored Scandals": PowerPoint Presentation (mrc.org)
    1 point
  19. Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Poll: 79 Percent of Trump Voters Believe ‘Election Was Stolen‘ breitbart.com/2020-election/…via @BreitbartNews They are 100% correct, but we are fighting hard. Our big lawsuit, which spells out in great detail all of the ballot fraud and more, will soon be filled. RIGGED ELECTION! Percent of Trump Voters Believe ‘Election Was Stolen’Politico’s 2020 Voter Priorities Survey shows that a vast majority of Trump voters believe the election results are fradulent.breitbart.com November 24th 2020
    1 point
  20. T, Yup. Here's how I said it on another thread a day or so ago: Michael
    1 point
  21. Just for the reader: Q clearance. This is a super-high-level government security clearance, not QAnon. Michael
    1 point
  22. And dontcha know Tony B has a Q clearance , and for some reason he told Tucker that his sister-in-law, who unfortunately passed away after a battle with cancer died at 6:38 . So that's weird.
    1 point
  23. Why "coordinated national" voter fraud? Is that all that they're looking for? They're okay with voter fraud on a less-than-national level? In Trump's criticisms of mass-mail voting, and his suspicions of Democrats' motivations, did he specify that he thought that it would only happen on a nationally coordinated level?
    1 point
  24. Was five years sentencing enough for that time he entered a woman's home and held a gun to her baby while his cohorts robbed her? Why exactly should anyone mourn the earth being cleansed of him? Police brutality bad, but they are saluting his casket. How long do you really think the world will tolerateyour satanic and masonic bullshit and evil?
    1 point
  25. Ellen, Maybe there's a little of that. But I have difficulty aligning the idea of cowardice to what I have seen over many moons--William not backing down against very strong hostility, going back to the Perigo days. I don't recall ever seeing him back down out of fear. He may have, but I haven't seen it. On the contrary, I've seen him thrown off sites several times because he didn't back down. (He can be quite a gossip, too. ) From what I have seen, his "slithering" (btw - I really like that description ) is always substance related, not fear related. He postures for audiences--even if the only audience is himself at times, and rarely signals directly to the person or persons he is interacting with, i.e., groveling or whimpering or things like that. Even on the positive side, he doesn't laugh with others, not even when he is amused at the same things and in the same manner they are. William is always on stage and audience-directed. The person he talks to is a prop. So winning and losing arguments is not about fact. It's about perception of hierarchy by the audience. Better to win or tear down with a lie than admit defeat with the truth, or, at least, one has to look like a martyr no matter what the case. Why doesn't he provide the science related stuff (repeatable results, consistent predictions, falsifiability, etc.) Jonathan constantly asks for? Based on your words, you see him cowering because he knows it doesn't exist. I agree he knows it doesn't exist (otherwise, he would have served it up with fine gesture), but I see him fudging to buy time because any day now, just like with the Rapture and the Second Coming, the science will magically spring into existence and his tribe will breathe a big sigh of relief. Until then, he has to keep the faith and gain converts--hopefully enough converts to enact laws that will force everyone to obey... Otherwise, the evil, greedy, and/or blind people like us will destroy the planet for all future generations... The very survival of humanity is at stake, woman! The whole goddam planet! That's what I see--mostly faith of a religious nature, quirky and whatever, but still faith... added to a striking incompetence at getting new converts. Michael
    1 point
  26. William, There must have been some kind of miscommunication. I thought it was clear--for a long time now--that everyone on OL speaks for himself or herself. And OL-Speak is not a thing. Also, about QAnon, you keep quoting me from the early times and totally forgetting that I said after that, but still a long time ago, I lost interest because it had been infiltrated. Thus I can't tell, or even reasonably presume, that the same person is presenting the information. Since I can't tell anything for sure, I just don't talk about it. Jon likes it. So what? It's reasonable to challenge him on it if you want. But, without going into QAnon's reliability or whatever, the issues QAnon brings up are very interesting precisely because the elitists (and the big government idiot power mongers you tend to support) don't want those issues discussed. So I kinda like that Jon likes it. I like that those issues get discussed. Let's keep the sunlight on them and see what happens. As to motley issues, other people on OL talk about matters of food, Aristotle's wheel paradox, music of all sorts, a fantasy world here and there, politics of course, (I don't know if you've noticed, but I tend to favor President Trump ), hell, you yourself promote your manmade climate change religion. Sometimes you are challenged on it, sometimes not. But I don't see a nonstop mocking of manmade climate change rubes (of which there are counteless--much worse and much more numerous than the backwater Christian survivalists you like to mock). I don't see one thread after another with few people posting on them about how stupid and retarded and funny-looking and wacko-talking the people who believe in manmade climate change are. You seem to like doing that about QAnon, so whatever. It's your delight, not mine. I'm just noticing that it's akin to masturbating in public. Nobody's going along with you and nobody even wants to look. I assume you want more, so that's why I'm noting your total inability to propagandize with any kind of effectiveness. You do not do the basics. Even on a relevancy of QAnon level, you don't talk to Jon much about it. You try to address the entire forum as if the forum itself speaks with one voice, and that voice is the one you like to mock. OL is a forum of individuals, not groupthink. So you're not talking to the right person. That's primary for propaganda. Identify your target people correctly and address them, not something in your head and only in your head. Sorry, dude. People who think as individuals are not interested, especially if you are not interested in them enough to even try to see if they are interested. Just look at the numbers. Nobody's showing up to your party except some tiny, tiny slim pickings. So, no. Nobody is studying to avoid talking about QAnon like you said. You are boring them and they don't give a crap. That's what's really happening. If nonstop Mission from God bashing of QAnon followers gives you your jollies so you can feel all superior and stuff about Objectivism, the people around here, or whoever or whatever you need to look down on as a measure of your own identity, knock yourself out. The only one laughing is you. Well... sometimes Carol shows up to give two or three claps at a time. But even Korben ain't showing up for a high-five anymore. Not about this. Apparently, you bored him, too. Anyway, who needs an audience, right, mah mayannn? Popularity and influence are such badges of vulgarity. I mean pandering to the commoners and all that. Who has the time? Harrumph... Having an audience is so passé, mon cher... n'est pas? So when do you think you will be ready for prime time? Getting close? Michael
    1 point
  27. I stopped at 31 seconds with the jar of dirt analogy
    1 point
  28. Weird - there is no "quote" function here. Had to use copy and paste...so, here are my comments: I think that's how it's going to end up, too. Except it will be just the beginning of the end... REB What are you guys going to do if it turns out to be a landslide for Drumpf as president against Hillary? Rend your garments? Mend your evil ways? Do the unthinkable and say, "I was wrong?" 1 Interesting that MI(chael)ST(uart)KE(lly) = MISTAKE is so preoccupied or concerned with what "you guys" are going to do if OUR predictions are wrong - but I haven't seen anything from him (though I haven't read all the past 83,632 posts) about what HE will do in such a case. MISTAKE wonders whether and how we will prostrate ourselves and admit that our predictions were incorrect. As if it wouldn't be obvious without our also admitting it. What's obvious is that admitting our fallibility is not the point, but humbling ourselves before his (MISTAKE's) MAGNIFICENCE and CORRECTNESS. I'll tell you what I am "going to do" if Drumpf wins a landslide: the same thing I'm going to do if he wins by a modest or narrow margin, or Hillary wins by a narrow or modest margin or landslide. I'm going to take whatever practical steps I can to offset the fact that if EITHER of them is elected, America will be less prosperous and less safe than we are now, which is less prosperous and less safe than we were 8 years ago. which is less prosperous and less safe than we were 16 years ago. It is pitiful, naive, self-deception to think that Drumpf is going to be any better for the economy than Hillary - and in particular, for the economic well-being of average citizens, who depend on getting the most affordable prices they can for the things they need, which will become more expensive under Drumpf's proposed tariff/balance of trade policies. And if he's not going to enact those policies - and the other alleged reforms he is appealing to Yahoo-America with - then why the hell vote him in? If he "keeps us out of war" and degrades our ability to defend ourselves (by pulling out of NATO and by not restoring the strength of the military, which Obama has gutted), then how are we more secure - just because he says he will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it? Rush and Sean seem to have hitched their wagon to whoever has the best chance of beating Hillary AND being nominated. Yet, all the polls show that Drumpf is the dead last guy in line for beating Hillary. So, his function - like Goldwater's in 1964 - would be simply to give the ruling statist clique the middle finger and turn the White House, Congress, and Supreme Court over to the Democrats, but worse, at a point in history when we simply cannot afford for that to happen. (Though it's going to happen anyway, whether we can afford it or not.) Cruz may be able to beat Hillary, and the outcome might be somewhat better for the country, though I doubt he can or that it would. Kasich might be able to beat Hillary, though I think she would rip him to shreds in the debates - and that even if he did somehow beat her, nothing much would change from how it is now. Plus, he would nominate "moderate" (i.e., liberal) judges for SCOTUS, so there goes the High Court. I'm sure there are thousands like me, if not more, who see it this way - and it may be the case that the combined effect of our negativity and pessimism (though I call it realism) will have the appearance of a voodoo hex on the future outcome of the election and our country's well-being. But that makes about as much sense as blaming the people who sold short in 1929 for causing the stock market crash and the Great Depression. As if our saying nothing negative would keep anything negative from happening - subjective "wishing will make it so" or, in this case, "not predicting, will make it less likely to happen." I don't know how much of this superstitious rot plays into people's thinking, but I wouldn't be surprised if some GOP folk, even CINO, LINO, and OINO (conservative, libertarian, Objectivist in name only) entertain such mental goofiness. But to wind up my comments: no, it is not unthinkable to admit I was wrong. I admit it every day and twice on Thursday. But our friend MISTAKE, I'm worried about. He seems to rapturously cling to the inevitability and desirability of Drumpf. He explains away all of Drumpf's bad ideas and minimal thinking processes and points to buildings and businesses he has built, as though that qualifies him to repair a seriously damaged country. No principles, just anger and arm-waving and threats to China, Mexico, and the Establishment and vague promises to workers and middle-class Americans and people afraid of terrorists and illegal immigrants destroying their communities and taking their jobs. I'm sorry if this all sounds like repetitive talking points, but I'm rapidly approaching the point where I simply don't want to talk about politics any more. So many of our libertarian and Objectivist comrades either want to embrace the most convenient alternative to a known demoness - or to abandon their principles as "not applicable" in the present situation (we need a "transitional" President) - or both. I think that is a very dangerous policy. We've had a transitional President for 8 years now, transitioning us to full-tilt, mixed socialism-fascism. What would a President Drumpf transition us to? What would be better in the direction we want to go, under his leadership and policies? As noted above, I don't think he's going to do much more than reshuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic, while waving his arms and demanding that people make a deal with him, or they're "fired." REB P.S. - William, you may use any portion of this for a submarine transmission that you like, changing or omitting names to protect the clueless where appropriate.
    1 point