Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/11/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Ted (in) Lieu (of fill in the blank) pulled out his cell phone and on the Congressional record called Candace Owens a ****er lover. I saw it !
  2. 2 points
    I’m not knowledgeable or passionate about art but I have followed many of your conversations with interest. When you point out the inconsistency that music doesn’t fit her criteria but she called it art anyway, they break into gibberish or avoid the issue, it’s comical, I’m always entertained by it. I also don’t get the either–or rigidity regarding whether this or that discipline is art, say, architecture. Keeping water out is utility not art, but a textured roof that looks like waves of wind over tall grass and costs three times a traditional roof and raises the cost of the home by 8% is art because it was done for contemplation and aesthetic consideration, the essential characteristic of art. Insisting on the absence of utility strikes me as definition by exclusion. We can make distinctions, we can call it fine art or pure art when there is no utility at all. But if someone’s favorite sculpture turns out, unbeknownst to them, to be a personal aircraft — you press this button here and wings fold out and you can fly away in the thing — then now they have to pick a new favorite sculpture because this one isn’t art anymore? Seems like definition by non–essentials to me.
  3. 2 points
    President Trump Prime Minister Trump King Trump 2020 , and let’s get 2024 for Ivanka !!!!! God bless POTUS
  4. 2 points
    Ellen, I see some. The Notre Dame Cathedral is definitely a human species thing. It was not built by one man or woman. It was a group effort over generations--the best of mankind--from the 1100's (with history continuing to be added over the centuries). The ancient building was in a form--a concrete, not abstract, form--anyone could walk into today. Walking into it (before the fire) was not like looking at artifacts from an archaeological dig, but was walking into a fully functional building in use in today's society. When you do that, all you can do is marvel about the human species (and about God for the religious) that it was built about 900 years or so ago. Knowing that things like that exist gives most people comfort on a deep "I came from that" level. That's what I feel. I think that is a species-related emotion although I don't recall Bloom talking about this particular emotion. But, to me, seeing that building go up in flames left me feeling like my great grandfather, who was in perfect health yesterday, just died. (That's a hypothetical to demonstrate the emotion.) The comfort of belonging to a historical lineage is something so much a part of me and underground in my mind, I never verbalized it properly. And hanging around Rand-world drove it further underground except as banter about coming from hillbillies and things like that. Now, one physical proof of my inner certainty of belonging to a long line of humans who strive for greatness has gone away. No wonder it's bothersome. It makes me sad and melancholy and really pissed off when I think it may have been arson. As an aside, Bloom says people who wither away and die of depression are suffering from a species emotion (my paraphrase since I'm going by memory--I think his words were different, but the concept is the same). Super-depressed people don't feel like they are worth anything to the species, to anyone else, or even to themselves anymore. Bloom says this self-destructive shutting-down emotion is built into all of us, meaning it can manifest under the right conditions in anyone, so the species can be culled of useless members like cells of a body organ die. The dead get replaced by the new. I find this thought fascinating and--for now at least--it sure seems like this mental mechanism (including for other emotions as well) is one of the core components of human values. For a fiction writer, this opens up a whole world of compelling nuance in big picture events and character motivations--nuance that will resonate universally in others as it does in me. Like I said, I don't believe this species thinking is either-or with individualism. Humans are both individuals and members of the human species. Good and evil exist for both the individual and the species. Ditto for illness and health. If some of Rand's scope excesses can be reduced to a size where their validation can be checked by observation of anyone, and room made for the stuff pertaining to individual human nature she left out, I think this kind of species thinking aligns perfectly with her kind of thinking. At least, I intend to pursue this path until it leads somewhere good or bad (or both ) in my writing and my own thinking. Michael
  5. 2 points
    You've probably heard of the concept "man cold" or "man flu." I've heard it mentioned in pop culture for a few years now, and have been observing it with interest. And I just experienced it firsthand for the first time. I'm not talking about the cold, but about certain women's reactions to it. The glee. The superiority. I have a cold. I'm still up and about. I've taken the standard over the counter remedies, but I'm coughing and sneezing, my nose is running, and my voice is a bit rough. Despite going about my life as normal, I've been ridiculed by a few women whom I barely even know. They're very excited about mocking me for having a "man cold," even though I'm not actually displaying the behavior that defines it (staying in bed, doing nothing, moaning -- in other words, being affected by it, where women with colds are said to not be affected, or are strong enough to not allow colds to affect them). It's very psychologically fulfilling to them to verbally kick men when they are experiencing illness or weakness, and to derive a sense of superiority from doing so. There's no accompanying interest in science or comparing symptoms and ailments. It's just pure psychological thrill of belittling the enemy. Anyway, it reminded me of this thread, and the excitement that Billy seems to experience in focusing on right-wing conspiracy believers, but not so much left-wing conspiracy believers. Seems to have a lot of similarities to the "man cold" relishers. J
  6. 2 points
    Her white nationalism is settled consensus.
  7. 2 points
    Yeah, but I've heard that she loves Hitler. They say that she's a black white-nationalist, and was caught on tape admitting that she wants another holocaust. Why would they say stuff like that if it wasn't true? Huh?
  8. 2 points
    Second that. Partly second that. Jon's form of trash talk doesn't bother me in the circumstances in which he's using it. He doesn't use it indiscriminately. I'd use a different metaphor for William. Insidious poison. Slithery. Never quite coming out with a thing. Insinuating. I've seen that for some while. Ellen
  9. 2 points
    One of the general differences between those on the left and right is that the right understands the left's views... You can see this with their parody and satire. Leftist characters are portrayed accurately, and sometimes, right-wing media creators can even explain the left's views better than actual leftists. The parody and satire created by leftists, though, is consistently egregious--like the description of Jussie Smollett's attackers, for example (pretty much every right leaning person knew it was bullshit immediately). Again, it's a generalization. Obviously not all right-wingers understand the left's talking points, but for the most part, they get it... while for the left, the opposite is true. They can't even conceive of what they are arguing against. So what you end up with is ignorant, and possibly stupid, people who the right is gently trying to point out as ignorant and stupid... which reaffirms the leftist's belief that people on the right are immoral (mean). Obviously accusing someone of being immoral is worse than accusing someone of being stupid... so it's insane. This is pretty much just venting... but it's really annoying that this is the case. Politics has become a chore where people with good ideas have to hold the hands of their attackers to help them see what they're missing.
  10. 2 points
  11. 2 points
    Vote fraud in Texas and Illinois elected the Kennedy-Johnson ticket in 1960. Massive vote fraud has made California a state completely dominated by the Democrat Party. If not for the Electoral College California would have made that criminal bitch Hillary President. Whether the Electoral College will do the same next time is problematic. It could give the Senate to the Dems. I find your naivete hard to get my brain around. ---Brant
  12. 2 points
    Jonathan, It's funny. When you ask for repeatable scientific results re Climate Change, you always get blah blah blah and they never use the term "repeatable results." It's like going into a small eatery and saying, "Do you have an ice cream cone?" And the person says, "Here's some tasty steamed octopus." You ask, "What about an ice cream cone?" The person says, "Look at these green beans and mashed potatoes. How big a portion do you want?" "But I want an ice cream cone." "Well, you've come to the right place. Our mac and cheese is amazing." "Don't you have ice cream cones?" "Only stupid people think we don't have hamburgers." "You really don't have ice cream cones?" "True believer idiot. The dinner rolls are right in front of you. God, some people..." He throws a stack of menus in your face--ones that do not list ice cream cones... And on it goes. It's amazing to watch. Michael
  13. 2 points
    I love "on the sidelines" of #TrumpKimSummit. He's negotiating peace with a nuclear—armed country, ending a state of war that has existed between us for the last 70 years. While doing that he scores a deal for $12.7 billion of planes, then goes out for a smoke break with Phu Trong and a few of the Bamboo guys and returns with an additional $2.9 billion dollars. Best President ever.
  14. 1 point
    Page 194 has the rabbits running off in all directions:
  15. 1 point
    As I said on Monday, you aroused my curiosity enough, I bought the books. (I also bought The Muhammad Code.) The books arrived via Amazon Prime on Tuesday. I was just taking a look through them when Larry told me the news about the Notre Dame Cathedral fire. I've been definitely upset by that news, and I'm wondering about my emotional response in relationship to Bloom's ideas. Feel free to comment or not as you have time and desire. I'm not of the Christian or any other religious persuasion. I decided that I was an atheist when I was twelve. I've never been to Paris and don't expect ever to go there. Notre Dame is a building I've never seen and had no expectation of ever seeing in physical actuality, only in photographs and drawings and paintings. So why do I feel that its having been badly damaged is terrible and that its total destruction, which apparently was narrowly escaped, would have been horrifically terrible? Do you see Bloom's thesis about group evolution as relevant? Ellen PS: I didn't feel about the World Trade Towers coming down the way I feel about Notre Dame's being badly damaged. The Trade Towers attack was an outrage and appalling for the loss of life, and I sometimes think with shuddersome horror of people's having to decide whether to die by fire or by jumping. But I disliked the buildings. (For a few years when I was living in the Brighton Beach area of Brooklyn and working in Manhattan, I saw those a couple times a day during the week, while crossing the Brooklyn Bridge on the "D" line.)
  16. 1 point
    Where did Cher learn all that right–wing drivel from? Doesn’t she know that unlimited immigration is a boon to all? They come here “to work” and every lover of logic and reason knows they could have no other motivation to come. They bring their energy, creativity and enthusiasm. And they enrich us culturally. What’s this nonsense about them needing help or being a burden in any way? To hear Yawon Bwook explain it, she should personally take them all in and thereby have all the wonderful benefits of immigration for herself. She doesn’t seem to understand how mass immigration works and how good it is.
  17. 1 point
    Named dumb asshole spent about two years faithfully, breathlessly believing in the stupidest conspiracy theory ever. It hurts, and of course, he doesn’t deal with anything gracefully. My favorite was when he pointed his finger at me at said “at least I don’t believe in false ideas that cause harms.” Hilarious! This from the same asshole who pushes the false manmade warming conspiracy theory “the solution” to which is called mass murder. And Muh Russians! In control of American elections! Impeach! Assassinate! Hold no ideas that cause harms!
  18. 1 point
    Nice scholarship, of course, but I question the practice of triangulating a story. Snyder always annoyed me. I'm a "discovery" author. There's an outline subject to change, which it often does, because dramatic necessity flows from moments that are impossible to script in advance and which force characters and subsequent tensions and resolutions to shift. Compare 'The Easiest Thing In The World.' If I had to name the first principle of successful writing, I'd say crank out the right stuff at the right time with a network to plug it, publish it, and sell the film rights, not unlike Ayn Rand in her day, but more importantly Rowling's captive bombardment of middle grade classrooms via Scholastic and Suzanne Collins' tween blockbuster franchise Hunger Games topping Harry Potter. I can't count the number of 'help wanted' posts on Upwork seeking ghostwriters to do LGBTQ pulp novels for hire.
  19. 1 point
    Peter, from what modest amount I've read of some system-philosophies, it seems the very thing required of one is a broad acceptance of whatever view the philosopher-genius shows you. *He* had these personal epiphanies about existence, emanating from his own mind - they remain *his* concluding principles that you swallow and follow. His product is everything. He writes for other philosophers, later students decipher the work and pass it down to the public. However, the process which led to this product of his inspiration is a mystery one cannot or will struggle to replicate for oneself (and would likely fall apart, if one could). Which, blindly accepted this way is cultish- religious, since you have to believe a philosopher's outcomes on faith. While there was - necessarily - very much of that transcendent and authoritative vision from Rand, you may agree she places equal responsibility on one to work this philosophy-for-life out for oneself, to gradually build it from the same blocks available to her from perceptual reality, and make the vision your own. Quite, beginning with the axioms she laid down and using her methodology--but, both proving themselves by dint of and in the course of their usage. Objectivism is mostly a cohesive method. Has there ever been a philosophy such as this, that places the weight of independent effort back onto its subscriber? Here is a "DIY" system taken from real things which one needs compare with and will apply back to further real 'things'. Reality = the philosophy, and the other way round. When they don't correspond, one's made a mistake. Most critics of O'ism - of course - resent the hoi-polloi being directly presented with a 'useful', non-ivory tower philosophy which bypasses their revered authority figures, one that eventually liberates the individual even from his mentor. In fewer words, I'll second MSK.
  20. 1 point
    So, then you are saying his desire to "debunk" crimes is a crime deserving of slander and libel?
  21. 1 point
    Calling someone a horrible name, and then saying, "Since the person doesn't deny it, then it must be true," is a fallacy of some sort but I forget the Latin term for it. Using this false logic is the product of a deranged or fill in the blank mind. Something is wrong in O'ville and it is Jon Letendre. I am not sure of William's sexual leanings but that is his business and does not invite ridicule if he is or is not homosexual.
  22. 1 point
    How long do you think it will take to forget the name of the judge overseeing this decision, I'm not even aware of the name now. Any bets that person retires in say two years, just to be safe, and lives remarkable well on a judge's pension (?) , or am I just too cynical.
  23. 1 point
    Just Jussie escaping justice ...
  24. 1 point
    Yeah, dumbass, for emotionalism. Co–conspirators are guilty of every crime the conspiracy commits. For example, if your role is to arrive in the getaway car and all you do is drive that car, you are going away for a long time for bank robbery. If one of your co–conspirators shoots a teller, even though that was against the plan, you are going away for murder. If one of your co–conspirators murders someone years later, in order to keep the robbery hidden, then you can be put away for that murder, as well. Maddow can and will be put away for any number of acts of sedition and other high crimes committed by her and her Mockingbird handlers.
  25. 1 point
    We can check—off Mueller exoneration.
  26. 1 point
    I agree it is odd that few people have heard of him, outside of scholars. I'd say Comte observed and approved of the sacrifice sickness always visible in society, and uplifted the concept (and named it). An idea precedes, outlives, and is larger than the thinker. Like philosophers do, he had spin-off influence on others e.g. on Marx (!) and Mill and Spencer. Robert Campbell has a very good essay in OL somewhere, on Comte and altruism, wrt Rand's take on them. He confirms she got it precisely right. Wiki: Influenced by the utopian socialist Henri Saint-Simon,[4] Comte developed the positive philosophy in an attempt to remedy the social malaise of the French Revolution, calling for a new social doctrine based on the sciences. Comte was a major influence on 19th-century thought, influencing the work of social thinkers such as Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, and George Eliot.[6] His concept of sociologie and social evolutionism set the tone for early social theorists andanthropologists such as Harriet Martineau and Herbert Spencer, evolving into modern academic sociology presented byÉmile Durkheim as practical and objective social research.
  27. 1 point
    It's worth it dude if you want to spoof the world. Wayne's World. Wayne's World.
  28. 1 point
    I find this to be a slippery slope. Hiroshima was a product of humans. Just because we evolved in nature and utilize parts of isn't a safe implication that what we are doing isn't destructive. Human history is quite frequently filled with humans acting as if there were no repercussions for their actions when in hindsight we realize how ignorantly we acting. I absolutely agree that adding to the shared knowledge base is key to human growth. Seems a bit pointless to do so, however, when given access to the information individuals simply disregard the warnings in favour of their own whims.
  29. 1 point
    Treason is cruel and unusual. If you violate your oath of office by trying to overrule the Constitution that is very unusual. During a time of war traitors in the Army were shot by firing squads, and a "rebellion" would be a time of war. In modern fiction, a segment of the Army is "recruited" to fight against the legitimate government but it would not happen in real life. So where would a hypothetical leftist, rebellious army come from? A small segment of The National Guard? A private army? Now Pelosi's army might "think it" but they would not act on those treasonous thoughts. I still remember the violent 60's, black rebellion, and the protests / rebellions against the Vietnam War and that is the closest we will ever come to rebellion. My wish is that a policy of "endless war" is no longer on the agenda either. It is not on the Trump republican agenda and I don't think jokes slash serious candidates like Beto O'Rooked are going to advocate war. Is there still a military - industrial complex and conspiracy to keep fanning the flames of war? I don't see it. America has evolved. We are becoming more like our Founding Fathers wished. Four more years! Four more years! And then another eight years of someone else who is a decent, honorable, sort as Commander In Chief and we will have fewer troops abroad. Though we probably will never have zero troops abroad, since we are a part of intelligent alliances like NATO. but no one on our side will be initiating violence or foreign "take overs." We will be out of Afghanistan and other foreign ports. Perhaps out of Germany, South Korea and Japan? I think so.
  30. 1 point
    Yes, I agree there is uncertainty. The most recent work is looking like the total feedback is positive. That's why I specifically quoted their work (saying 'likely positive') as well as provided a link to their paper (albeit paywalled) and provided the key diagram that supports their assertion.
  31. 1 point
    Thanks for the question. First, a link. Yes the number they are using is 6m, rather than .5m, but there are other assumptions being made by your question that are inaccurate. So I'll focus on those inaccuracies. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-could-rise-at-least-6-meters/ Yes, for 2C warming the middle of the road number is around .5m of SLR (sea level rise). This is not the amount of SLR you can expect once you've reached 2C warmer, it's the amount you can expect once the system has fully equilibriated and is back to being in dynamic balance. I say all that because we aren't there. We've warmed over 1C already, and there's currently another 1-1.5C of warming in the pipeline if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow. As we continue to increase co2 concentrations we are only adding more warming into that pipeline. I guess my main point here is it's an ok assumption that we might only rise .5m in 80 yrs, it's not ok to think that that is all the SLR that will occur. I also agree that 80yrs seems like a while for humans to migrate and adapt. However, many of the towns, cities, and villages that do lie within this danger zone of SLR aren't going to be salvageable. One can't simply relocate the city of Miami for example (although their issue is partly subsidence, I hope it's illustrative of the issue nonetheless). The other things that is glossed over by these statements and questions revolves around the inherent chaos of storm systems in these areas. Many coastal towns have been built to account for these storm surges safely. Be it through barriers or simply proximity to the coastline in more remote parts of the world, these natural and man-made barriers or going to prove to be less effective. This raises the long term costs and damages associated with SLR. Now, will we rise 6m? I hope not. That's very drastic change given the timespan. That's the key issue and concern behind AGW after all. It's not whether or not the ice caps have disappeared in the past, they have. It's not whether or not we've been warmer in the past, we have. It's not about whether or not co2 has been higher in the past, it has. The issues surrounding the current changes to the system is how quickly they are changing. The most recent mass extinction (PETM - Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum) event seems to most likely have been driven by a very large outgassing of methane. Methane is a more potent ghg than co2, however it has a relatively short lifecycle in the atmosphere. That's because methane (ch4) breaks down into co2 and water, and the co2 has a very long adjustment time in the atmosphere. So this co2 can have a very long and persistent effect. My reason for mentioning the PETM is the current rate of change far exceeds the rate's seen in the PETM. The 1C warming we've witnessed over the last 100yrs would have taken 2500yrs during the PETM, and it wiped out approx 50-60% of the biosphere. These mass extinction events don't happen literally overnight, only figuratively. Too much of the dismissal by individuals on the basis of lack of evidence, I think , is due to not witnessing a catastrophe due to AGW during their individual lifetime. My personal thoughts on it is that the human lifespan and experience isn't long enough for any individual to realize the full impacts of what is happening. Each subsequent generation going forward will see a slightly less productive, slightly more shallow biosphere. There won't be a morning that comes where all of humanity to wake up and realize something terrible has happened, like a bomb going off. It will be a much slower and more gradual slide and to me, that's more dangerous because it simply leaves the doors open to individuals to dismiss as some other cause.
  32. 1 point
    Michael, you wrote, in the linked post: "This event hasn't been the first rodeo over here about this topic. One of our members, for example, Ellen Stuttle is personal friends with Richard Lindzen and her husband is a scientist who works in the field. She doesn't post much anymore, though. She's been suffering from an illness that precludes her looking long hours at a computer screen. " Rats. I'm going to have to break down and post something on William's blog, which I'm very reluctant to do. But, Michael, since you made that statement publicly, I think I'd best publicly correct an implication and a fact. I'm not "personal friends with Richard Lindzen" in the way your statement might sound - the kind of relationship where one chats about personal things, etc. I know him, through my husband. I've had conversations with him a number of times at conferences, sat with him, and his wife if she was attending, at the dinners, been to his home in Boston once for a climatology-conversation-geared get-together. I like him and I think he's enjoyed his exchanges with me. I respect him enormously as a scientist. He has a mind for physics, he could have gone into one of the prestige fields and been a big name. Instead, he went into climatology, from love of the subject. It was not a prestige subject when Dick went into it, and he never had any expectation of ending up a limelight person in a battle against scientific corruption. Larry, my husband, is not "a scientist in the field," i.e., climatology. He's a full professor of physics, with special interests in mathematical physics, symmetry, and relativity. He started studying climate issues in 2004, out of concern about the scare prognostications. He didn't need long to discover how shoddily-based those were. He's become a minor expert on climatology, just through his own studies, but he isn't "in the field." The main draw for him, which keeps him involved in climate disputes, is hatred for the scientific corruption and the creeping erosion of scientific honor. (The selling out on scientific integrity spreads to other fields, even to unrelated fields where researchers look the other way and give lip service to climate alarm because their universities are getting climate-related research funding, also from PC motives which can affect scientists like other people.) As to the physical problem which keeps me from spending long hours at a computer, that's correct, I do have such a problem, but it isn't the only reason I hardly post these days. There are also some nefarious doings I'm involved in helping with trying to counter (things related to reducing human population). I'm kept busy with explorings - which I don't want to talk about publicly. As to the rest of your post: Bravo! I think you did a really good job of explaining to Brad the situation regarding William's OL activities. Cheers, Ellen
  33. 1 point
    It's a natural reaction to the Meatpuppet strategy, and less distasteful and cowardly. J
  34. 1 point
  35. 1 point
    Which question? Lots to scroll through so yeah, I just kinda hopped in somewhere.
  36. 1 point
    I'd think if the secretary didn't burn them they weren't burned (destroyed). But I don't think anybody was Hoover's master. I do think he was PR oriented, however, and he didn't mess with the Mafia or the drug trade. I sent him a letter once and got a nice reply. --Brant now you've got me wondering
  37. 1 point
    Not supported by the evidence, Jon, sorry. By 'confession' do you mean the note of retraction posted at Infowars and cited above? I guess what I don't understand is why one might believe the retraction and apology cannot cohere with the truth. In other words, if Corsi says "I relied on a bunch of shit that has been retracted," then why is that suspect? Is it because Corsi himself is suspect? So, do you think Corsi is entirely making up what he relates in the retraction/apology? This seems to imply that Corsi was tortured. Where is the evidence of torture? Jon is a Mueller defender -- he says Mueller is a white-hat. Does that factor in to your own opinion? Speaking of zealotry.
  38. 1 point
    To leave another person alone, and not bothering them, does not in my unhealthy obsessed mind, include occasionally quoting their public posts. Something like leaving multiple obscene voicemail abusive threats would be bothering them, or seem obsessive maybe to the recipient.... but we rational beings don't do that, do we?
  39. 1 point
    While we're asking stuff, I ask you to get a thorough psychiatric evaluation, and if you don't do it, I might call you such terrible names that you will go mad with terror and turn into a raving liberal. (Such are the heights of rational discourse on OL these days, apparently).
  40. 1 point
    Hell, I don't mind if all the people in the entire country become supporters of President Trump. That would stop all the ills of partisan prejudice as warned in the article. Michael
  41. 1 point
    Former Trump White House lawyer calls Mueller 'American hero,' says probe is no witch hunt.
  42. 1 point
  43. 1 point
    I do NOT dislike you. ---Brant we just aren't best buds I do like Carol (we just aren't best buds)
  44. 1 point
    Ed, If you know me, you know that would make me very proud. Michael
  45. 1 point
    Ooops, sorry, I just saw your post after what I posted what you see below. But I'll keep it up now for the record as we seek some understanding! ....... Michael - Assuming Jon is not a troll (you'd know better than I), he kind of make my point. Schultz sees far left Dems discrediting his party. Folks can point to the extremists and say "See these crazies! That's the Dems. I rest my case." So Schultz offers an alternative. David Kelley decades ago saw the dogmatic Objectivists discrediting the truly rational, open Objectivists. Folks could point to them and say "See these crazies! That's Objectivism. I rest my case." So David offered an alternative. Someone like Jon makes it easy for our opponents to say "See that crazy! That's Objectivist living. I rest my case." It is sad that after all these decades, these types are still infest Objectivist circles. I always appreciate Objectivist Living though I don't get here much anymore now that I'm doing more public policy. But keep up the example, Michael, of what Objectivism can be and should be!
  46. 1 point
    If the lawyer knew of such a crime he would have called the cops, even if anonymously, and saying "I have suspicions that . . . ."
  47. 1 point
  48. 1 point
    Fake man. ---Brant
  49. 1 point
    Jon, They never stop, either. These people are blinded by their own cockeyed core stories. And those who are not blind are evil manipulators. When reality does not fit their story, they try to alter reality by deception. And here's the rub. Even the blind know they are deceiving when they are deceiving. Man, are there a lot of these suckers (both types) in the fake mainstream media and fake mainstream social media. Michael
  50. 1 point
    William, I bought a book a while back about communist propaganda in the USA and I read a couple of chapters, but I rearranged things here at home and it went the way of the wild goose. For the life of me, I couldn't find it or remember the title. Well finally! I just found it again. It is now on my current reading pile again. Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism by Ronald Rychlak and Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa I poked around a little about Pacepa and there is a lot of controversy surrounding him. But he actually was a high-ranking defector so that is to be expected. I got this book because the Russians were masters of propaganda (they still are) and it looks like some of their techniques are in this book. Pacepa takes Russian disinformation infiltration in America from the beginning on up through Putin (2103, when the book was published). Michael