Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/25/2019 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    Well, I think you deserve a lot more than a pork chop. Just to let you know: I might not be able to be responding to anything further for a couple days. I have a dental operation scheduled for early tomorrow. Oh, such fun. Ellen
  2. 2 points
    I have begun to wonder if Obama is running the Deep State behind the scenes. He might be an Acting President, everyone in the Federal civil service working hard to oust Trump. Sort of makes sense. Obama lives in Washington. Be interesting to have NSA metadata on who he talked to last week, and whether he personally directed Lynch and Comey to bury the Hillary evidence. Anything is possible.The caravans were a stroke of genius. Motor voter registration and driver licenses for illegals. Yep. Recent history has Obama's fingerprints all over it. Rush Limbaugh speculated that NATO diplomats agitated for an FBI counterintelligence putsch to smear candidate Trump. No way. It was an Obama White House op, start to finish.
  3. 2 points
    Jon, tks, tsk. You are a naughty child. Might be? You said, "Might Be?" So you don't know. But you are just fine saying things without any proof. How do you know Richard Branson? How do you Richard knew NXIVM? People lie all the time, and they can EVEN lie under oath or they can fool a lie detector. You lack credibility.
  4. 2 points
    That guy is a Christian Nazi. He should stay away from the holy smoke if he wants to be a rational holder of public office. I despise people who want to wed their religion to public law. Even with a powerful Episcopalian entity in England, there was some separation of church and state going back to earlier times, which was reinforced in the U.S. Constitution. Back then, you couldn't be an atheist without being lynched or booed in the mid to late 1700's but you could be a Deist. And the more intelligent of the West's leaders and intelligentsia called themselves Deists.
  5. 2 points
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  6. 2 points
    Many of them sincerely believe, it’s just that they want you to die, first. They want your home burned down and turned back to prairie. Then they can enjoy earth with a smaller, sustainable population. How many who oppose pipelines have turned off their pipeline? None. That would be suicide.
  7. 2 points
    Ayn Rand would never agree to open immigration from today's context, which is war. --Brant
  8. 2 points
    Makes sense. I wasn't thinking in terms of strategy and financial benefit re Japan. Jon, an issue I've raised before in your accounts is the "total control" bit. Can't be acquired. Brainwashing, blackmail, bribery, whatever - no method turns a human into a complete automaton with no power of choice. And regarding Iran, are you indicating that the Ayatollahs aren't in fact Islamic fanatics? Ellen
  9. 1 point
    On Infowars: Blacklist: MSM Ignores Project Veritas Bombshell Google Exposé And there follows screenshot evidence. It's quite a show. Another quote from the end. I believe it correctly states what most Trump supporters--and even some anti-Trumpers--think about all this. But there is someone who did notice. The Google lady busted in the video: This is not how I expected Monday to go! by Jen Gennai She doesn't like it when the crap lands on her. She cried foul because people decided to do this covertly. But when you listen to the video, she likes it when it lands on others, especially when Google does it covertly. At least she said this: Imprecise language? Heh... Well done? She should know... Michael
  10. 1 point
    Jon, We disagree on this. But, once again, that's what we're here for. Humans disagree. I'm fine with disagreeing. (Most of the time. ) Michael
  11. 1 point
    Jon, I think that Peter just looks at whatever pops up in the "Activity" feed and plops down his letter streams on whatever's handy. I think your impression that he's specifically following you results from statistical artifact. You happen to be doing a high percentage of the posting these days. I agree that Peter would be well advised to just not respond to your posts if he wants to be left alone by you But in a way, you're engaging in threat tactics: "Don't respond to me or I'll call you names." I hope it needn't be said, but I'll say it anyway: I do not want you off OL. Your posts are of much interest to me. Ellen
  12. 1 point
    “Grabs some popcorn.” hahaha?
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
    Transference [trans-fer´ens] in psychiatry, the unconscious tendency of a patient to assign to others in the present environment feelings and attitudes associated with significant persons in one's earlier life; especially, the patient's transfer to the therapist of feelings and attitudes associated with a parent or similar person from childhood. The feelings may be affectionate (positive transference), hostile (negative transference), or ambivalent. Sometimes the transference can be interpreted to help the patient understand childhood attitudes. end quote A person who transfers their personal feelings into an attack on another person, attributing what they are ashamed of, to that other person, is not a good characteristic and should not be condoned. Take each instance of name calling or slander and wonder, “Is that what they are really like?” Perhaps, Ellen Stuttle may be one person with an opinion on this, but anyone, please feel free to contribute. Peter
  15. 1 point
  16. 1 point
    Jon, Thank you for the above post. That gives me a much better idea of the specifics of your views on "the Gang." I'll answer somewhat out of order. I think you're probably right about the "thousand points of light" as a "back-of-a-napkin estimate" of critical mass. I also think that Trump's managing to get elected President of the United States threw the calculations and assumptions into uproar. It was an election that shouldn't, that couldn't happen, so the Gang elites thought. But it did happen, and they're in a tizzy as to how to proceed now. Thinking over my "Doesn't everyone know it?" has led me into memory-lane explorings of when/how I began to think that there were groups attempting to engineer world events. A major suspicion arouser for me was a job I had for a year, late '70-late '71, working as secretary/research assistant on a study of foundations. The job workplace was at the Russell Sage Foundation. The Ford Foundation was much featured in the study. I hardly remember any details of the report that resulted, but I remember my increasing feeling of unsavory stuff going on, and much being "understood" which wasn't said. There, I'm agnostic. I think that there are coteries and alliances, but I'm doubtful that there's a central core leadership. That brings me to your statement: "I’ve never myself to my knowledge been anywhere near them or anyone who has gotten near them." I have been near persons who I think are among them, and not just in the United States, in Hungary and Vienna. I think that the people I encountered in Europe aren't under the leadership of American chiefs and are rather disdainful of American elites. I'm talking impressions, not something I know for fact. Maybe I'll learn more later this summer on a forthcoming Vienna trip. Ellen
  17. 1 point
    Um, I think something I said didn't communicate accurately to you if you think that I ever placed no plausibility on what you're saying. I've placed a lot of plausibility on it all along. My asking questions about details - and entering correctives on certain wordings you've used (such as "total control") - isn't meant as questioning the fundamentals of "Gang" existence and goals. I have no doubt of the reality of those. Ellen
  18. 1 point
    Thug life. "Fuck off, pedophile."
  19. 1 point
    And may have been an ultraclever ruse to elicit just the revealing reaction it did elicit from Pelosi and Schumer. Ellen
  20. 1 point
    I am back to not reading Army Ants posts so I don't know what you are satirizing. But thanks anyway, Brant.
  21. 1 point
    Of interest? Posting Guidelines 1. Objectivist Living is a community of people with shared interests, people who are mainly interested in discussing Objectivism from all aspects (including checking basic premises from time to time), the Brandens, fine arts and creating works. Members also present articles and links to their own activities and items they find interesting to share. Thus the tenor is slanted toward understanding, discussion and sometimes education, not preaching or conversion. 2. The practice of good manners is a value sought and encouraged on this forum. Obnoxious and offensive behavior is not welcome. Excessive profanity, trash talk, bigoted remarks and such should be avoided. Should members start insulting each other (flame wars), the site owners will take discreet measures to resolve the issue. If this fails, harsher measures will be used. This should not be seen as a harness on anyone’s intellectual ideas and expression. It is merely a standard for behavior between posters and the bar is fairly high on this forum. 3. As Internet copyright laws are often vague (as of this writing) between what the law states and its application, we request users to use common sense in posting materials that might be copyrighted. If possible and when in doubt, posters should request permission from the owner first. Our intent is not to infringe the law and any material posted that blatantly infringes USA copyright law will be removed. (See Statement of Policy about Plagiary and Copyright Infringement.) 4. The site owners, at their discretion, may delete offensive or improper posts or parts of them, including links. Also, posts and threads may be moved on this forum from one place to another as new sections open up or if a topic is found to be more suited to a different section. Site owners and moderators may also edit posts to correct issues such as font size, typos, spelling errors, broken links, or other minor formatting issues, just as a matter of . . . .
  22. 1 point
    There may be kids who are fans of Rand reading these posts, and Jon's filthy language may have been heard by them in the schoolyard but I don't think his language is appropriate. This does not require any true censorship of his ideas just of his low, gutter language.
  23. 1 point
    And you know coooos, Frenchy? How do you know coooos? You do know drunken gutter English, Jon. Poor soul has lost his way.
  24. 1 point
    And you know this how? What branch of the military were you in soldier? What was your MOS?
  25. 1 point
    I went back to page six on this thread and below I show some of Jon’s sources. I caution all readers of Jon’s to beware the X-files quality of his research. I don't trust him, his outrage, or his supposed self righteousness. Deflect. Scream. Explode. Attack. Those are his methods and I do not think he is fit to be on OL. But nuts are still fun to watch. Peter Here are the sources. RodSneaky. Storm is upon us. Tampa Bay dot com. The DC patriot.com/bombshell. Natural news. Huff Post. Twitter. News punch. Travis View. Gre search. Anonymous. Martin geddes. Real Jeffry P. Page 6. Frank report. Imgflip. Tony Ortega.
  26. 1 point
    Look at your sources man. RonSneaky? If you read it on the net or hear it on the telly, must it be true? Can you converse without getting emotional and worked up?
  27. 1 point
    You were viewing "What's Up With." Damn. You got scared.
  28. 1 point
    Aha! From the site, Necker Island: Necker Island is a 30-hectare island in the British Virgin Islands just north of Virgin Gorda. The island's land is entirely owned by Sir Richard Branson, chairman of the Virgin Group, and is part of the Virgin Limited Edition portfolio of luxury properties. The whole island operates as a resort and can accommodate up to 34 guests, with additional room for , , , , So, if you own a resort and Che shows up, you are a communist?
  29. 1 point
    Natural News is reputable? Can anyone find other sources accusing or proving Jimbo Wales is corrupt? I have heard before about him being chummy with the Clintons, but he also proudly states he is an objectivist, and those two facts don't jibe. Richard Branson and Jimbo are both rich so there is that "country club pal" factor involved. I do wonder why Jimbo moved to London, but I don't plan to look for answers further. Until more evidence appears from reputable sources I will continue to think of Jimbo and Richard as "decent" sorts even though they both seem to be Brits now. Joke. Since I rarely look at porn I will Not hold Jimbo's porn connections against him. I remember someone mentioning the nude site Domai years ago and I saved about a thousand nude "artistic" photographs of women from it. It's artistic I tells ya. edit. I see my earliest mention of the nude female site Domai was in 2010 but I don't say which objectivist recommended it, so it could have been on an older, defunct site.
  30. 1 point
    I don't recommend a first strike at this time and certainly no nukes. We could flatten the country in a few hours, killing most of their people and destroying all bases and ships with conventional weapons in a week.
  31. 1 point
    I'd agree with you except she didn't spend any of it on me. --Brant disgruntled
  32. 1 point
    Oh my God! A rich woman spends money. Call the police! Michael
  33. 1 point
    From Peter Wade in Rolling Stone: Ivanka Trump Cashed $4 Million From Her Father’s D.C. Hotel in 2018
  34. 1 point
    “Wales attended George Soros's birthday.“ This is much like attending Hitler’s birthday and suggests he could well be a fully made member of The Gang.
  35. 1 point
    From Owen Daugherty at The Hill: Trump campaign says it will handle foreign intel offers on 'case by case basis' 🦀 🐙 🦊 🦅 🦃 🦈
  36. 1 point
    From: Jimmy Wales To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: David Kelley on civility Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:33:13 -0800. Here's a fairly long quote from David Kelley that is directly applicable to questions about why a civility policy is a good idea on a mailing list which makes an effort to be creative, open, and intensely intellectual. From “Unrugged Individualism:” The Selfish Basis of Benevolence. p. 38: The forms of civility, and the broader realm of manners, are therefore dismissed by some people as arbitrary. "Why should I confirm to arbitrary social standards? I am an individualist." But while the forms are conventional, what is conveyed through those forms is not. If my argument so far has been correct, then it _is_ objectively important to acknowledge each other's independence in some way or other, whether by saying 'please,' or 's`il vous plait," or by some gesture understood to have that meaning. It doesn't matter which forms we use to convey this, any more than it matters which sounds we use to express a given concept in language. But insofar as civility has a communicative function, it does matter that we use the same forms. Someone who does not practice these forms is rude. We can assume that his failure to comply reflects indifference to what the forms express (unless he is ignorant, as in the case of a foreigner). A similar answer can be given to the complaint that the forms of civility are inauthentic. "What if I don't like the present Grandma gave me and I don't really feel any gratitude? Am I not falsifying my feeling if I say _thank-you_ nonetheless?" The purpose of that thank-you is not to convey one's specific feelings about the gift, or the person who gives it. Its purpose is to acknowledge that it was a gift, from an autonomous person, not something owed one by an underling. (If Grandma wants more than this, and makes it clear that she really wants to know whether one liked the gift, then one should tell her, as tactfully as possible.) Civility, then, may be defined as _the expression -- chiefly through conventional forms -- of one's respect for the humanity and independence of others, and of one's intent to resolve conflicts peacefully_.
  37. 1 point
    Here's an interesting aspect of story wars when on defense. It's in a transcript of a Rush Limbaugh segment on his radio show. We Need to Call Out Journalistic Malpractice — And Name Names There is stuff in this transcript that deals with the news of the day, but the gist of the story wars part is that blatantly fake news stories that attack individuals in the culture--when busted--mostly get pegged to their platforms, not to the lying authors who do the attacking. In other words, say someone at CNN attacks a blogger with a stupid story that was made up. After being busted, the news in the culture will say that "CNN" attacked the blogger. It will not mention (or barely mention) the author. What will happen to CNN after it apologizes, if it does? Not much. CNN will always be there until it does this crap so many times it destroys its credibility to the extent it is no longer viable as a business. But that number is huge and CNN backers have deep pockets. Now look at the blogger who gets slimed. What happens to the blogger? Well, if the story involves a hot button issue, the CNN fake story will spread like wildfire and the blogger will be damaged through degraded reputation, death threats and the like. These effects do not go away after "CNN" makes a retraction. In sum, nothing much happens to CNN for putting out a fake story, but the blogger gets destroyed or greatly damaged no matter the remedy. From that angle, why wouldn't CNN abuse that power to promote its agendas? With rare exceptions (like President Trump ), this form of dishonesty is extremely effective against individuals and the cost is extremely low for getting busted. So Rush's advice is that when you oppose a fake news story, do not just mention the platform. Mention the author of the fake information and, if you can, mention the person at CNN (or communications company) who approved this garbage. Pin it on the individual or individuals, not just the company. Obviously, this applies to any news or communications organization that spreads fake news or propaganda. There is one caveat, though. At MSNBC, there is a talking head host named Lawrence O'Donnell who attacks individuals regularly on gotcha stories. His credibility is awful since he puts out so much fake news, but when he is right, he turns his report into a nonstop harangue against the individual who was wrong and/or dishonest. He drones on and on and on forever and repeats his gotcha ad nauseam, each time in a melodramatic and overly accusatory manner. I believe his way of reporting on an individual who promotes fake information is not effective (except for hardcore fanatics) because the viewer experience of receiving this information is stomp down awful and painful. So that way is an exception. But in general, name the names of the phony-baloney fabricators. That stings on their hides whereas bashing a company does not. It's far easier for a collective like a company to defend the malpractice of one of its employees than it is for an individual to defend his or her own malpractice. This works well when said busted individual has a good reputation and prominence. This is great advice from Rush when doing battle in the story wars theater. Nail the lying SOB, not just the company where the lying SOB works. Michael
  38. 1 point
    Ha! I'm not the only one to see it. Michael
  39. 1 point
    YouTube lashed out, though. It will not suffer principle lightly. YouTube ends monetization of conservative commentator Steven Crowder's channel, several others after left-wing outrage Then some deeper intentions became clear--YouTube wants to ban--not just demonetize--people of certain thoughts on the platform: YouTube will remove thousands of videos supporting white supremacy, Nazis and conspiracy theories that deny the existence of mass shootings and other violent events (GOOG, GOOGL) And, of course, you can't make omelettes without breaking eggs. YouTube boots journalists seeking to expose white supremacists and extremism YouTube deletes award-winning history teacher's World War II videos in 'hate speech' purge Man are people pissed off--both sides. Everybody is yelling at everybody. But, as usual, there is always the real story behind the story. Youtube To Step Up Suppression Of Videos That Don’t Violate Any Rules, Promote News Outlets The deal is money from crony communications corporations that both advertise on YouTube and need audience. The ideology is a ruse to get at smaller news content creators with humongous audiences--the ones the crony communications corporations think they can get by cheating. Now why would they want to cheat, I wonder, I wonder? After all, they have the big budgets for their fake news. To answer that, we have to go back to Vox and see the real real story behind the story. This is why they tried to stir up controversy with a shitstorm at this moment. Some of the mainstream fake news outlets can't pay their bills anymore. YouTube wants to save them by killing their non-crony-corporate competition. When you look at the plot points of this unfolding story, you are seeing a Randian story play out right before your eyes. Add the philosophy, a Randian hero, and make the villains look a little more weaselier than they do on the surface (like Ellsworth Toohey, Orren Boyle, etc.) and you have a story worthy of Rand herself. Actually, the Vox dude, Carlos Maza, already looks and acts like a youngish Randian villain without any tweaking. Michael
  40. 1 point
    Pound for pound unborn baby parts are worth more. It's psych-ops to normalize later abortions( post 1st trimester). Threats of infanticide are a canard , a negotiating point to pull back from.
  41. 1 point
    Thank you, William. I looked around and, among people who I have been following, their opinion of ifastnet is not great. Most say its support sucks. If I understood correctly, it seems to be an Argentinean hosting company. However, I imagine for small beginning sites it is quite good. If the specs it advertises are only half true, it looks better than Hostgator. There are several places I've been reading around about hosting. There's lots of misinformation out there. (I've since learned that "unlimited" never means unlimited and specs always come with a hidden story. ) One of the most helpful and more reliable places I've found is a Facebook Group called "WordPress Hosting." They talk about a lot of different hosting companies in pretty good detail without being a place for geeks. I'm seriously looking into Incendia (https://www.goiww.com/) and Cloudways, although this last is still confusing to me. People say such nice things about it, but it seems clunky when I start looking. I'm still reading and learning, though. Michael
  42. 1 point
    My take on Rand was more her emotional response than her intellectual justification re her attitude toward American Indians. In today's context Moslem terrorists would be worse than the worse of them, real or imagined. My intellectual orientation is all property in this country, including real property, belongs directly to private citizens or is held in trust by the government for them. The purpose of that government is to protect the citizens and their property and therefore control access to same through citizenship and it's ancillaries and visas. Private parties cannot do this for none can control their guests sufficiently to keep them in non-rights'-violating line. It's the exigencies of the modern world that made me come up with this formulation. I think Rand would have done the same albeit spitting between each word. Regardless, no ideology can overcome the go to war to save our asses need of the general population which is human biological. Trump up ideas down. This is the age of the "businessman" vrs the left entire including the left libertarians. We are a long way from brains (ideas) and so close to Mexico. --Brant
  43. 1 point
    Quote Mark: I believe Amy mentioned on the debate with Ed Mazlish and Crazy Stuart that her friend Sunny Loehmann told her how unpleasant Minneapolis was becoming because of Somali immigration. Amy has since unfriended Sunny.
  44. 1 point
    Don't interpret, using your bias. Read what the Koreans and Japanese think.
  45. 1 point
    Port-a-pottie mouth Jon wrote, "Billy, is this you???" No. It was a ghost, Pepe Letendre, and you are a skunk. You have the soul of everything you have accused others of being. At the least you are psychologizing others and deliberately trying to initiative violence or coercion against others here on OL.
  46. 1 point
    What IS your evidence based conclusion to call William a pedophile?
  47. 1 point
    As I said over on the five-minute phobia thread, you are using stolen concepts here. If empirical studies are as unreliable as you say, I have to wonder what you would consider good evidence and why that is better. How you would prove such a claim without empirical evidence is beyond me. In any case I did not say that controlled studies are "the only way" to gather information. In the passage you quoted I expressly mentioned that testimonials (about sentence-completion, for example) could be of some value. Speaking from an amateur literacy in the field, I should think that a good followup would include standardized tests, self-reports and interviews with duly blinded investigators, and maybe other techniques as well. As a matter of fact I've read several of Branden's books. The theoretical part was impressive. The exercises struck me the same way folk-dancing does: harmless fun if you're into it, but not for me.
  48. 1 point
    No, everyone is just breathing a sigh of relief that there is no high-level obnoxiousness at that moment :-) Jim
  49. 1 point
    That which I think has been most harmful to the Objectivist movement: Objectivists who think that Objectivism must be accepted in its entirety, that it is a perfect, integrated system, and that to disagree with any "essential" aspect of it is to reject Objectivism, and, therefore, to become an "enemy of Objectivism." This view seems to cause people to behave in self-limiting and self-destructive ways. It causes them to publicly declare things like, "If you're not purely Objectivist (as defined by us), we don't want you, we don't need you, so fuck off." (Attractive slogan, no?) Those who think that Objectivism must be accepted in its entirety often seem to think that it also must be promoted in its entirety, which means that formal educational programs must be the primary means of spreading Objectivist ideas. It seems that even conversations must come as close as possible to resembling a lecture: an Objectivist Crusader usually can't discuss, say, a current political event or a work of art without mentioning Objectivism, quoting Rand, quizzing his opponents on their knowledge of Objectivism, and making suggestions about how they might study Objectivism better. One can't "leave them hungry and begging for more" - one can't be clever and original in an argument, inspiring his opponents with new ideas and new ways of looking at things, and wait for them to ask what his intellectual influences were. No, in all intellectual discussions, a proper Objectivist Crusader must tie the issues and arguments to the whole of Objectivism immediately. In effect, he must change the subject of every conversation to Objectivism. (And from what I've seen, he must also lecture his opponents about Objectivism even after they've repeatedly told him that they are bored out of their freaking minds, no longer listening, and sick and tired of his intrusive, pompous, condescending behavior.) Since no two people will ever agree precisely on what is "essential" to Objectivism, I think that the "Objectivism must be accepted in its entirety" approach is a major cause of the movement's extreme sectarianism and sycophancy. Objectivists often seem to see everyone beyond their insular little cliques as attacking Rand and Objectivism (even strictly personal conflicts are treated as attacks on Objectivism). The movement is full of petty, abusive and manipulative behavior, lies, "airbrushing," public excommunications, denouncements and betrayals -- usually over minor, esoteric differences or purely personal issues -- and ridiculously overblown senses of self-righteousness and self-importance. All of it very public, all of it in the name of "defending" Objectivism, and all of it seen as highly heroic only by those indulging in it. J PS - This (which I've posted elsewhere a few times) is what I think that radio commercials would sound like if businesses borrowed the Objectivist movement's theory of marketing: "The McDonald's on 3rd and Maple is evil. They don't understand or practice the true McDonald's methods and recipes. They are false friends of McDonald's. For one thing, they don't correctly arrange the reconstituted onions on their Big Macs. And their Special Sauce applicator is totally inconsistent. Sometimes the amount of sauce it squirts out is too much or too little by up to 8 percent! If you want a ~real~ Big Mac, eat at our McDonald's out on Highway 18. We are the only true defenders of Ray Kroc's vision. Be forewarned that before ordering, we will expect you to sign an oath that you will never eat at the evil 3rd and Maple McDonald's. They are piece of shit lying scumbag fuckheads who are trying to destroy the purity of of the McDonald's name. We will not sanction your sanctioning them."
  50. 1 point
    Barbara, I have to disagree even that it's "an intelligent and valuable argument." The one point she makes which is important to try to make is that if the energy restrictions desired by the AGW (anthropogenic global-warming) proponents are instituted, this would mean severe consequences for the quality of living of multitudes, and literal death for many -- the exact consequences and figures are speculative, but they'd certainly be draconian. However, she goes so far over the top in her demonizing of liberals, she loses credibility even on the nugget of truth in what she's saying. And I think "embarrassing" isn't the word for what her views on evolution make her look like in scientific circles. There's no way I'd even bring up that article, let alone recommend it as "worth reading," to any of the scientific types I know. And the problem it presents from Larry's standpoint is that the scientists he's trying to persuade to look more carefully at the scientific issues pertaining to AGW are only too likely to hear of the article (not from him) and to bring it up in just the vein Brant described, as indicating that only "the freaks and nutcases" are taking the anti-AGW side. Ellen ___