Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/18/2019 in Posts

  1. 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.
  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
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  4. 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.
  5. 2 points
    Ayn Rand would never agree to open immigration from today's context, which is war. --Brant
  6. 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
  7. 1 point
    Jules, Take it to Parler and maybe Minds. Maybe even Steemit. These three are not nearly as big, but they are growing daily like the dickens. So you have a chance to create your public and watch it grow as the platform grows. I am not suggesting any of the the other alt social media platforms I sometimes talk about for beautiful photography like yours because they are 100% devoted to free speech and, as early proponents of free speech, got all the bigots and fringe people that were thrown off the major platforms (in addition to others not so bigoted and fringe like Infowars). I have accounts at these other places, but I rarely post to them because I have to look at some really goofball shit on the feeds. If you don't mind putting your beautiful photos in environments like that (Gab, Bitchute for video and so on), go for it. Believe it or not, many of these goofballs appreciate fine things, they spend money, and almost all of them have family members who do not share their extreme views. The logic of many people who are migrating to the alt social media sites is that they will keep using the mainstream platforms so long as they are not censored, but they are setting up a backup at the alt sites and growing them in a way to eventually become their principal social media presence. Once I start posting a steady stream of commercial content in a project I am setting up at places outside of OL, I, personally, will post that stuff to all of them. And if a bigot buys my stuff, I will say, "Howdy" and "Thank you." I won't do politics or discuss his crazy stuff with him, though. Even if he does Ayn Rand (as quite a few of them do). Michael
  8. 1 point
    Although it is virtually-impossible to embed a Brighteon or Bitchute video here at OL (even with a Twitter sample), several dozen 'republishers' on the Youtube platform try to keep each of his broadcasts available. This is the slightly-longer version of the Bitchute video Michael linked to above.
  9. 1 point
    I'd agree with you except she didn't spend any of it on me. --Brant disgruntled
  10. 1 point
    Oh my God! A rich woman spends money. Call the police! Michael
  11. 1 point
    From Peter Wade in Rolling Stone: Ivanka Trump Cashed $4 Million From Her Father’s D.C. Hotel in 2018
  12. 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.
  13. 1 point
    From Owen Daugherty at The Hill: Trump campaign says it will handle foreign intel offers on 'case by case basis' 🦀 🐙 🦊 🦅 🦃 🦈
  14. 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_.
  15. 1 point
    From Kevin Poulsen, contributing editor at the Daily Beast: Political Hoaxers Beware: These Scientists Have Declared War on Your Deepfakes "It’s frighteningly easy for just about anyone to unleash high quality video fakery of whomever they want to smear. But researchers now have a tool to make it a bit harder."
  16. 1 point
    Eliminate all them Christians, bro! Get 'em all! If people can't see 'em, maybe they'll stop existing... (I'm being sarcastic, of course.) I don't want to defend Christianity, but that's just plain gross. Even more, it's just plain stupid. These idiots think this kind of bullying will win a culture war. btw - You know what Christians have in the US that social media doesn't? What social media will never have? Churches. Physical churches where people go using their cars and legs and feet to get there, not a mouse or a keyboard. And, boy are there churches in America. Lot's of 'em. In every city, in every suburb, in every patch of country. And guess what? Christians vote. I almost feel sorry for the social media giants. They are committing suicide right in front of our eyes without even realizing it. They are smart people in doing social media platforms, but man are they as dumb as a bag of left-handed hammers about how to use their platforms to persuade. Michael
  17. 1 point
    LOL... Carpe Donks 'em again: The Magic Wand of Trump... Michael
  18. 1 point
    Poisoning the well? Psychologizing?
  19. 1 point
    Helping Billy to escape his cultish beliefs is difficult. When I try to use the methods that he himself has advised, he resists. His primary tactic is to clam up, to simply not acknowledge the uncomfortable bits of reality that have been presented to him. Perhaps he'll post some new advice on how to reach people with his mindset, and we can then try out that method too. J
  20. 1 point
    It's kind of funny seeing lefties sound like Rand. I don't mean the SJW lefties who are so thin-skinned, they can't handle poo-poo-head-like insults and need safe spaces. You know, the ones who clamor for police protection against contact with ideas that go against their indoctrination. I'm talking about the "burn this shit to the ground and rebuild it in our image (with us in power)" lefties. Jimmy Dore is the last kind, although I believe there is a good side to him. (He's the kind that makes me think of the aphorism: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.) His video below really bears watching. Take away Jimmy Dore's enemy-bashing comments for audience applause and listen to what he says against Maza re free speech. These comments are as Randian as anyone could ever want, and they are getting just as much applause as the other crowd-pleasing comments--from a progressive audience! In the leftwing stuff of not too long ago, you never heard a leftie preach in favor of free speech for their enemies. Sometimes they would mouth something in that direction as a ruse or a gotcha, but what is happening with Dore and so many like him is not a ruse. These lefties literally want free speech for their enemies and they mean it. Later, if they get massive power, they might want to torture and kill their enemies, or lock them up in reeducation camps and so on (after all, power does corrupt), but for now, free speech for everybody, including their enemies, is a legitimate part of their platform. (As an aside, this free speech principle will make it hellishly difficult for them to get absolute power like they did in Soviet Russia, Communist China and so on, but that's another topic.) Talk about moving the Overton Window within the leftie world... That's something. And, of course, you know I'm going to say it. President Trump was a major influence in doing that. PC censorship had been growing by the time President Obama took office, but Obama massively ramped up its implementation--intellectually through his COBS elitists (Consortium of Behavioral Scientists) and logistically through his crony elitsts in power. Sometimes, hell often, he would use plain vanilla thugs for intimidating opposing voices. President Trump came along and shut down covert PC censorship by socking it in the nose--hard--and made the rats come out of the shadows. Now that people can see the rats, people fight them--and, lo and behold--even diehard progressive lefties fight them, and fight them on principle at that. At root, Ayn Rand has her finger in that, too. Michael
  21. 1 point
    Peter, Actually, law enforcement is doing quite nicely. It's taking time, but law enforcement has been putting away many active pedophiles and is coming for the rest. In fact, just as common sense for not getting caught, active pedophiles would do well to tone it down and knock it off rather than go "trololololol-lololol-lololol" in the face of everybody. Michael
  22. 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
  23. 1 point
    Ha! I'm not the only one to see it. Michael
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 1 point
    There are also those who know full well that it's a crock and who are pushing it mendaciously for population-reduction (and other) goals. Ellen
  27. 1 point
    Crowder won for now. Michael
  28. 1 point
    Yeah, they're all still here despite their promises to flee to Canada. Words versus actions. It's much the same as people who "believe" in human-caused global warming, and preach it, but have a larger carbon footprint than the average person. J
  29. 1 point
    This is too delicious. Yesterday, when President Trump was meeting with the Queen of England, the fake news media was lamenting the lack of protests, but projecting this was the case because today the protesting would be ramped up. They would show Trump, that's for sure. They would show him. Well, this happened today: Here is the video of the crime: Looks like it was a pissy little rally anyway. There's just not much enthusiasm in England for protesting President Trump when he is there, I guess. What can one do? Oh dear, oh dear... Throw another milkshake at Farage? Michael
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 1 point
    Brant, That's an interesting point. I could never see Rand agreeing with open borders during war time. That would be an invitation for enemy soldiers and sympathizers to walk right into the country without a fight. If the enemy uniforms would be a problem, they can change clothes once they are inside the US. I can't see Rand agreeing with this logically, practically or ideologically. But think about this. George Bush declared a "War on Terror" right after 9/11. On May 23, 2013, President Obama announced on that the Global War on Terror was over. That's a technicality. Still, I can't see Rand agreeing with allowing wholesale communist immigration to the US in an open borders policy. Ditto for Islamist. Taking the logical chain from there, you have to arrive at a conclusion that there is a reality-based need to set legal immigration standards if a country wants to survive as a country. Rand loved the US, so I doubt she would have agreed to its destruction by foreign governments using mass immigration as a weapon. I would love to call Brook stupid for his views, but he is not. In posture, he is an Objectivist, but, politically, I see him as a proponent of globalist values more than Objectivist ones. Michael
  33. 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.
  34. 1 point
    Don't interpret, using your bias. Read what the Koreans and Japanese think.
  35. 1 point
    Those democrat buzzards talk like they have all had a few beers. They are belligerent, mean, and spoiling for a brawl. We need to fight back. We need to fight fire with fire. Are the Democrats getting serious about impeachment? Perhaps it is time for the President to “get serious” too. PDQ. For those of you in Yorba Linda “PDQ” means pretty damn quick. I am getting sick of Pelosi and company. Their obstruction is going on and on. They are hurting America. If there are crimes committed by Democrats in The Mueller Report the Justice Department should indict them. Sure Obama had his critics and lampooners when he was running for his first term. Where was his family from? Was it Borneo, Indonesia, or Africa? Was he a cannibal? Was he even an American? But remember how nice the Republicans were during the 8 years of the Obama Administration? Of course there was the usual political discord, but it was with the gloves on. It was NOTHING like the first three years of the Trump Administration. They hate Trump for his success. They hate Trump like they hated the Vietnam War. They are beginning an era of Lethal Politics, which may carry on during President Trump’s second term in office. Consider what tactics may be needed in 2020. And then, until the end of President Trump’s second term. Peter
  36. 1 point
    Here's a little meme I just now slapped together. Michael
  37. 1 point
    That episode was infuriating, but Ashley Judd was invigorating. She is, and was, beautiful. "Darmok" is the 102nd episode of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: The Next Generation, the second episode of the fifth season. The episode features Paul Winfield, who previously played Captain Terrell in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and Ashley Judd in her debut acting performance. It describes an incident in which the crew of the Enterprise is unable to establish meaningful communication with the crew of an alien vessel, which is resolved by the struggle of the ships . . . .
  38. 1 point
    Lexington told us a couple of days ago that our book is now in production and will be released on (or about) June 15 in hardcover and Kindle formats. They say that a paperback version will be released sometime during the winter, probably January 2020. REB
  39. 1 point
    I can see some advantage to The Gang in propping up the Ayatollah regime. But North Korea? Why? What Gang advantage is there in a country with a mad man at the helm and a nuclear button within his reach and the West Coast of the US within range? Ellen
  40. 1 point
    Thanks again William. I went to the site and Pierre is really funny. And so is our guy. He just posted an obviously fake video of Pelosi that makes her look drunk and feeble. Ha! I wonder what life would be like if we had “stayed with England” like Canada and Australia? Are we freer than countries affiliated with Great Britain today? I suppose so. So home, home on the range, and “Give me liberty or give me death!” But England and its colonies didn’t turn out so bad. I have been watching “The Crown” and “Victoria” on our public broadcasting channel. On “Victoria” some episodes were from 1848, and England seemed more civilized than we freer people did back then. What a weird dilemma. I don’t know. If we wanted a monarch in our country’s history could we do better than Vicky or Eliza? Maybe not. If anyone wants to see a very funny skit from Saturday Night Live just type in something like “Lindsey Lohan pretending to be Hermione Granger from Harry Potter” and watch it. Behzinga! Yow! That soup is hot, hot, hot! Obviously I am also a big fan of classy English Lit like we get from J.K. Rowling. I had a bad thought when I watched it though. I remember she was arrested for DUI and possession and I think those male SNL guys might have corrupted her. Boo! Hiss! Peter An excerpt from Pierre Trudeau’s famous Washington Press Club speech regarding Canadian policy and the United States, comparing the situation to "sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly or even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."
  41. 1 point
    This is the political criteria of the social media giants these days. What a joke they are in politics. Michael
  42. 1 point
    Let's have some fun with the electoral college. Hillary Clinton was extremely bitter about the fact that she received more votes than President Trump, most of them in California. Setting aside voter fraud, let's look at what the country would look like without the electoral college: Now let's look at what the good people of California are doing today to see who would be electing the new President if the electoral college ever gets abolished: Medieval diseases? Wow. Now that's a remarkable achievement. California is restoring ancient history in real time. Imagine being able to do that with the whole country. Michael
  43. 1 point
    I'm sure you did clarify. However, since I've slept many times over since 2014, and I haven't worked in agriculture in 3 years, I have no basis on which to continue debate. :-)
  44. 1 point
    Re Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorists, as the title says: Yup: I've been thinking about writing songs again. These days, I've been thinking about the title of my first in a long time. How about this? I Wanna Be Big Brother Michael
  45. 1 point
    Brant, Actually, an idea like this starts in places like OL where it is discussed and hashed out. Once someone prominent gets wind of it, it grows. If it is framed in a form that hits the cultural zeitgeist correctly, it starts becoming a real thing. After that, it's just a matter of fighting it through the legal structure. Think of this. Even one year ago, would you have imagined that entire states would outlaw abortion--signed into law? The idea to do that started somewhere. That somewhere was small places like churches, forums and so on. I have no illusions my formulation will happen just because I say so. I have a big head, but not that big. But working out the idea is productive. Once it is honed, it can be shopped around to people with large audiences. In the age of the Internet, all it needs is one such person to get things rolling. Michael
  46. 1 point
    S, Robert used to be a friend of mine and we are still cordial. It's a term of affection (even when we disagree). Lighten up. In fact, I can do this the other way. Why do you feel the need to do micromanaging PC language control freak behavior on everyone? You make terrible presuppositions about people you don't even know. Michael
  47. 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.
  48. 1 point
    What IS your evidence based conclusion to call William a pedophile?
  49. 1 point
    The Fourth Reich isn't going to just give up Britain.
  50. 1 point
    Samson, if you said specifically what you think the point is, I missed it. Or perhaps didn't understand it. Brant may have come close, but I often don't understand him. Since I missed the point, I will belabor it. It could be said that the farmer doesn't even have full ownership of his crop. There are rules about the disposal of harvest "by-products" just like there are rules about restaurant food that was prepared in advance but not sold. Even if the producers of those goods wanted to give them to the poor, they often can't.