Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/03/2020 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    MSK wrote: "Brant, Damn you. Too often you manage to say in a sentence or two what it takes me paragraphs and paragraphs to say" (link). I will summarize in a few sentences what took you paragraphs and paragraphs to say. You find fault with the messenger, e.g. citing the CDC or WHO or CNN. You believe that entitles you to dismiss the entire message as propaganda, falsehoods, and garbage. That’s despite any facts or merits in the message. You even cite a fact and then concoct a slur. You don’t have enough interest to discern what is relevant and objective from what isn’t. It’s so much easier and convenient for you to trash the entire message and the messenger. At the same time, you exempt Dr. Simone Gold’s message from any of your “analysis” and slurring her.
  2. 2 points
    Bingo - only change the word "cannot" to "pretend not to" - and put "on our side" in scare quotes: "The self-proclaimed principled people 'on our side' who [pretend not to] see the Deep State for what it is are beneficiaries of the elitist ruling class." Ellen
  3. 2 points
    It means employees will get more in their paychecks. Yes, 16% is due. So if the pay to an employee is $100, then the gov't wants $16. Yes, the employer pays $8 of that and the other half is taken out of the employee's check, and then the $16 is forwarded to the gov't. (And, yes, it is fair to say that in actual fact the employees are the ones paying all $16, if we track the consequences carefully.) Trump's order says the employer will no longer have to forward $16, but only their half, $8. He is not giving employers a holiday for their half, but only the employees, for theirs. So, unless they want to go viral, the employers will stop taking the $8 from the employee's checks. Once made permanent after his re-election the overall effect will be to cut this tax in half. (It will still be true that employees really are the ones paying it, as it comes out of the higher rate of wages they would be getting in the absence of the tax.) But that doesn't change or diminish the fact that the overall effect will be to cut this tax in half.
  4. 2 points
    Trump today: "I am providing a payroll tax holiday to Americans earning less than $100,000 per year. In a few moments I will sign a directive instructing the Treasury Department to allow employers to defer payment of the employee portion of certain payroll taxes from the first of August. ... "If I am victorious on November third, I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax. ... "I will terminate that tax."
  5. 2 points
    Chloroquine for SARS-CoV in vitro is quite different from hydroxyhloroquine (HCQ) for SARS-CoV-2 in humans. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fauci-quote-hydroxychloroquine/
  6. 2 points
    Woo hoo! A halftime show! Kanye West Will Appear on Colorado’s Presidential Ballot Now we need to get Kanye on one of the debates. Can you imagine what would happen if Biden refused to show up for a debate, so President Trump and Kanye West debated instead? It would be a classic bash-fest on Biden with the whole world tuning in. If the debates are ultimately cancelled because Biden's people manipulate the system, I think President Trump should schedule a debate of his own with Kanye just for the hell of it. Michael
  7. 2 points
    LOL... Do not get Polly mad. Cory Doctorow is an all right science fiction writer, but he's lousy at understanding individuals. In fact, I have tried to read his science fiction and I couldn't get into it because the characters seemed so bland and/or unbelievable emotionally. Doctorow is good at technological theory from a narrow specific angle, but lousy at human nature. In fact, I doubt he would consider Polly's zinger to be magical thinking at all. But it is if you look at it from a reality standpoint. Human nature is reality and Polly knows about human nature. And she knows about good and evil. And she knows a thing or two about QAnon. All Doctorow and that idiot Ferguson he mentioned (the one who made the video) knows is they are superior lifeforms to humans who follow such conspiracy theories as Q. I saw some of that video and, as Ferguson said sarcastically in the video (with title card for emphasis), "It's always gotta be pedophiles." Well, yes... It does. When people are pedophiles. Including elitists and other superior lifeforms when they are pedophiles. Here's some more magical thinking by people like Doctorow and Ferguson: Everybody knows there is no pedophilia or blackmail going on in the ruling class. See? Say it out loud and it's magic. (btw - The video is not getting all that many views. I bet it's stunning to them that it hasn't gone viral from the moment it was uploaded.) Michael
  8. 2 points
    Some dumb leftist today said to Kayleigh McEnany during her press briefing question period that he has never heard of the government getting a percentage of private transactions. He really said that. He asked her to explain how that would work because he has never heard of such a thing and it sounds fundamentally wrong to him. How did Trump get them to open that conversation? Tik-Tok is a spy and data theft operation of the PLA (People's Liberation Army) of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). It will soon be ended as a data theft and enemy spy operation. Microsoft is buying it and will be subject to privacy law, storing data only in U.S., etc. Negotiations got pretty hard for Microsoft (the sellers want fifty thousand million dollars) so Trump pointed out publicly he can and will ban it in the U.S. as soon as he feels like doing that. Of course, that would destroy the value of the social media app before a deal and so the CCP grew more agreeable, negotiations sped right back up. Trump then says the U.S. government should get a percentage of the deal from Microsoft, for helping facilitate, . So anyway, the dumb leftist today at the briefing can't stand that the CCP's operation is being shut down and openly questions "the government receiving a percentage of private transactions."
  9. 2 points
    Bwook is a mowon. His modus operandi is a goofy variation on Rand at her worst when she was being driven by aesthetic tastes and pretending that it was purely objectively systematic philosophy that she was doling out. It's his little feelings about what he's heard other people express in their feelings about someone else's emotional reaction to their willful misinterpretation of something that they misheard that Trump said. Anyway, I hope that Bwook is living comfortably while shredding that last of what remains of Rand's coattails.
  10. 2 points
    If anyone needs some quick corroboration for Mark's article linked in the opening post, I just saw an 8 minute extract from a Yaron Brook video dated July 15. I imagine most people don't have time to watch videos that run for an hour or more just to see if something someone said is right. So they take the person at face value or reject the person at face value. Here is an easy-to-check thing from the horse's mouth that does not take much time. This is unbelievable. Brook's biggest beef and fear in the beginning is that Tucker Carlson could become a successful Republican politician in the future. At lease Brook is aware that lots of people say he (Brook) has Trump Derangement Syndrome. He openly said so. I could have a field day with each boneheaded thing out of his mouth in this video, but I prefer to note the rhetorical pattern. Think about this pattern when you watch the video. It's amazing how it just loops over and over. The Rhetorical Pattern If there is something bad in the world that has happened during President Trump's term of office, Brook claims that's an indication of Trump's true intention, or it is the inevitable outcome of Trump's philosophical, moral and/or character defects. If someone brings up something good President Trump has done, Brook uses the BUT Eraser. This is when you state something, you then say, "BUT..." and proceed as if what you said earlier got erased and no longer exists. It's a rhetorical blank-out tool. The way Brook mostly sounded using this blank-out tool went something like this: "Yeah yeah yeah, Trump did XXX. BUT... [fill in the blank with anti-Trump stuff]." That's it. That's the pattern. It's not very complex or philosophical, is it? Remember kindergarten and elementary school playground fights? Any time I feel like giving Brook the benefit of the doubt in the future, I am going to try to remember this video excerpt (and Mark's article, of course). Unless Brook owns up to how irrational he is in this video and his call to elect Biden in general, I am going to assume the brain in his skull still works like this. In the current situation the world is in, with a real threat of war with China--a situation Biden not only helped orchestrate, he made a financial killing at it--Brook's video and call to elect Biden have not aged well. And that's only after a little over two weeks. At least few people are watching this mess. There are only 1,345 views since July 15 as of this post. Michael
  11. 1 point
    Jon, It's tough trying to explain my state of mind re the credibility of the liars to people who are emotionally wedded to the Ruling Class Establishment institutions. They want to keep talking about these institutions and people as if there were something serious to gain from it. To me, it's like trying to tell them I don't find anything the spirit cooking lady says about, say, Ayn Rand's fiction credible to people who do and who regularly consume art made with semen, blood and honey. If they want to consume that art, that's their business. But I want nothing to do with it and have very little interest in the spirit cooking lady's views on anything. The WHO, CNN and so on are like the spirit cooking lady to me. Michael
  12. 1 point
    Our Great and Dear President Trump is reminding the Democrats of the last time they threw a big tantrum, but still lost their slaves (and new nation.) He is discussing giving his acceptance speech at Gettsyburg, where the battle which ended that tantrum took place.
  13. 1 point
    But Michael, some people are a certain way and liars do not turn them off. Liars are not "them" to them. They see generous liars as practicing normal exchange of ideas. They won't be offended until the liars damage them personally.
  14. 1 point
    Merlin, Of course I do. They are proven liars. Do you need a list of their lies, or are you already aware of their lies? Why on earth do you find them credible? This is horseshit. That entitles me to dismiss anything coming from those liars as propaganda, falsehoods, and garbage. Why? Because when I rely on them, I have to guess what is true and what is false. This is kinda obvious, no? Let me put it clearly in case this is difficult for you to understand. I don't listen to liars because they lie. Frankly, neither should you. But that's your choice. I've made mine. Michael
  15. 1 point
    Some obviously knowledgeable people created the document at hcqtrials.com. However, “knowledgeable” does not mean honest or trustworthy. Lying and misrepresenting with lots of statistics and a very complex model is easy to do. It will be interesting to see if Rush Limbaugh does a show about the alleged massive study, or not. He has a slew of researchers and money to check it out before he pontificates. He has touted HCQ several times.
  16. 1 point
    Yes, Professor Moriarty, she did. Her tweet grossly misrepresented reality by omitting pertinent, important facts.
  17. 1 point
    That's fine. I'll take the HCQ.
  18. 1 point
    Yes for "voluntarily": http://click.messages.webmd.com/?qs=a12869d9d5f8da25b88582f9c3162cbdeb09e924b21ac35e5bd4e3d90ecdfa8c2643eb693ef5ff020180a534c2f4e7e5d91bfae6b6ddf2fe6d022c56bbdd86c0
  19. 1 point
  20. 1 point
    I walked into that music video in all innocence. No frame other than let's see what is the top trending thing on YouTube. Boy did I step on a sinkhole. Let's call the video one extreme. Here is the other extreme, a discussion of this video by Owen Shroyer of Infowars. Owen calls these two singers, Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion, "prostitutes for Satan" and he's not wrong. They are open about what they are doing and I believe they would love the designation. Owen presents much truth, but he also goes way too far in the other direction, saying stupid shit like a woman will never be happy unless she learns how to take care of a man. Seriously, you can't make this up. But he is right that a lot of teenage girls will be influenced by this to become like this and then do stupid things they will bitterly regret later in life. He didn't say the following, but it's obvious that all their mistakes will all be on the Internet in selfies and will not go away. That includes filming themselves performing explicit sex. A Different Frame But rather than go into a Christ versus Satan frame, I want to look at something more contextual. Christ versus Satan is not the motor of the recording industry. Money is. If people are buying it, they are selling it. So I stepped back a bit. Why the sudden emphasis on Satan and demonic themes? I mean, there has always been some of that with heavy metal and things like that. But why the sudden explosion in popularity? Then it hit me. Kanye. Of course. He's the top selling rap star and now he's doing Christ. So, if I were a typical music industry person, I would thing that if somebody does Satan, maybe they will make boatloads of money. And there it is. That makes sense to me. Katy Perry Incidentally, I haven't thought in these terms when Katy Perry did a witch coven with benefits during the 2014 Grammy Awards with the song "Dark Horse," but I bet there was a similar cultural influence where Christianity was making oodles of mainstream money. Actually, I paused after writing that and looked it up. Yup. A 2013 TV series ratings juggernaut called "The Bible" sparked a spate of Christian religion-themed movies and other entertainment like Noah, God's Not Dead, Heaven is for Real, Son of God, and so on. But even then, the impact of Perry's witch coven was peanuts compared to the Ancient Egypt treatment she did for the official video of "Dark Horse." (If you are not familiar with Perry's different thematic versions of "Dark Horse," here are links to the YouTube videos: Witch Coven version and Ancient Egypt version.) Why? What happened in the world back then? Oh yeah. Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood had recently (2013) been overthrown in Egypt and new elections were happening. Thus, for all practical purposes, this spelled the end of the "fundamentally change the world" effects of the 2010 Arab Spring, Obama's pet project. All with Obama openly and frequently bitching about it. This was an open wound at the time in American culture on all sides. And the recording folks made indecent gobs of money from it by Perry appealing to magic mixed with Ancient Egypt--emotionally giving one side a feeling of surging power and the other side a feeling of looming malignant threat. There was also a feeling that Hillary Clinton would be the first female president, so Perry's Cleopatra theme touched on that feeling. Whoever orchestrated Perry's career at the time knew how to turn the emotional focus of the world into serious moolah. The proof is they set aside the coven, despite all the moolah being made from a Christian revival in the mainstream, and went with the more universal collision zeitgeist at the time, the political vision for the world--which will triumph? They hit it at just the right time and in just the right place. Back to Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion In the terms I just talked about with Katy Perry, there is much to say about Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion. The world events are mostly Trump-related these days, but the cultural issue driving the particular success of their song is Kanye-related. Dueling pop stars. Big deal. But it is a big deal in real world effects. The popularity of their song is is going to damage a lot of young girls. It's feeding them a visceral message that doing porn and worshiping the devil to get power over men is the way life should be. Why is that damaging? It's happening at the moment their bodies are being swamped with new sex-related hormones from the normal human growth cycle. In simple terms, if they are healthy, they are horny and not thinking straight at that age. This is a perfect time for imprinting their subconscious in a Howard Bloom manner. He lays it out in his book Einstein, Michael Jackson & Me: A Search for Soul in the Power Pits of Rock and Roll. Basically, his theory (a sound one in my opinion) is that when sex, attention and music convene in a moment of perception where all three are intensified to the max and you get a a feeling of leaving yourself and becoming part of a universal flow, this imprints your subconscious with an image and behavior you will imitate from their on out without even realizing it. This works more on the young than it does on more mature humans, but it still works on all. If you are interested, I made recent post giving an overview of imprinting on OL here. In a certain sense, the popularity of this song is child abuse through peer pressure. (Man, do I sound like an old fogy when I say that. Dayaamm! ) Michael
  21. 1 point
    Peter, All depends upon the teachers. (And every adult in any field). Those who consider themselves at higher risk or under their docs' advisement, with weak immune systems, would we'd assume, choose to stay away and should lay low. Until a vaccine were produced. That children can be asymptomatic transmitters is in fact the good news. First, that their and all healthy adults' chances of death are minute. Second, that Covid is (predictably) turning out to be actually more widespread than the 'test and trace' method could initially establish. When the statistical dust will finally settle, the rate of mortality to cases will be shown to be ¬much¬ lower than initially predicted - and dramatically publicized. That the virus is "difficult to contain", like every virus, should have been the prime driver of the epidemiologists' methodology instead of the draconian controls we have seen. Most have been inept, at the very least, perhaps self-serving or politically motivated, also. The analogy merjet and I pursued: if one drives a car with bad brakes, tires, suspension, etc. and has poor eyesight and reactions - it is he alone who should stay off the roads for his own good. Everyone else must not be disallowed from driving and the acceptable risks that accompany road use . To penalize the vast majority - because of that scary, stigmatized, altruistic insinuation, "transmissibility"- from getting on with living active lives, amounts to a sacrifice of the able-bodied and their choices to others on a scale, and in incalculable ways, we won't see the end of.
  22. 1 point
    I know what you mean about libertarians, but Amash is not failing to snap out of anything, but is a member of the team fighting for its life against Trump who is coming after them with a hangman's noose in hand. He is not a commentator, that is just a role for our consumption.
  23. 1 point
    TG, More. Trump knows money. Economists know models, percentages, jargon, projections and bullshit. Michael
  24. 1 point
    Amash deduces reality from principles as opposed to inducing principles from reality, then checking their extent and validity through observation and deduction. To people like him, peacetime and wartime are the same contexts. He's the guy on the sinking Titanic enforcing the chess rules of some men who were playing the game. He's not a bad man. He's just got a serious case of hardening of the categories. Michael
  25. 1 point
    Tell them to calm down, extract their head from their ass and note his words: "If I am victorious on November third I will terminate that tax." If they can't do that, tell them to fix the fairness issue they are having -- vote for Biden to ensure no one gets a tax cut, or freedom or a future.
  26. 1 point
    HOLY SHIT!!! HE JUST DID IT!!! Watch him give a press conference saying almost what I just said (without the "no need to campaign" part) and then sign the Executive Orders right in front of everyone. He pulled the goddam trigger... Cash money is coming to the American people and it looks like this week. (I've set the video to start when he comes in.) The press just sat there stunned. Then during the Q&A, there were a few timid questions from reporters. You could almost see these poor deers looking at headlights of vehicles speeding right at them. But then someone in the press (I don't know who, yet) woke up and realized what just happened. She started out reasonable, but soon (like within a few seconds) went into a full blown panic badgering President Trump about why he won't negotiate with Congress, what happens if he gets sued, yada yada yada... even talking over President Trump as if there was still time to get to a different outcome that would favor the Dems. After this went on a bit, Trump pointed to the Executive Orders and said, "There it is, right there." She still would not shut up, even after he indicated to her several times that her time was up. Boy was she yapping... So President Trump just said thank you and walked away. If you want to see the press go DEFCON 5 apeshit and anti-Trump heads explode all over TV and social media videos, not to mention the sheer quantity of written bile that is coming, go get your popcorn and settle in. This is going to be one hell of a show. Michael
  27. 1 point
    btw - I still think it is a very good possibility that Biden dies or becomes incapacitated at some point and Hillary Clinton comes swooping in out of nowhere funded by Bloomberg. How about a Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama ticket? How's that for an October surprise? Michael
  28. 1 point
    Re Kanye West, Yahoo News’ White House Correspondent Hunter Walker (what a name): Trump: 'I'm not involved' with push by Republicans to get Kanye West added to presidential ballots I think Kanye should get some treatment for his bipolar disorder. The Elvis Syndrome may be in operation ...
  29. 1 point
    I just watched this video by Tim Pool because of the title. I wanted to see what he thought of the ominous words from President Trump saying people might not see him for a while, that he has some rich and powerful enemies who are not happy right now. But what a pleasant surprise. Not about Trump's ominous words. Those could mean this or that. We still have to wait and see. (My favorite speculation is that the shit is going to hit the fan big-time with many powerful people and AG Barr is going to have to take the brunt of the initial heat surge, so the best thing Trump can do at the moment to let Barr get the job done (and done right) is get out of his way. I like that image. And that is the way Trump thinks re specific projects once he has a competent person he trusts working for him.) The pleasant surprise is what Tim and his peeps said about President Trump not being part of the swamp and taking on the whole world as a champion of the American people. As soon as it looks like he has pissed off so many powerful people his life is in danger, he goes after more of the elitists. And then more. And more. And he pisses off all of them in an ever-growing number. All his efforts have one theme--they are geared towards defending the American people against being exploited by the elitists, against their different exploitation rackets, including endless war for profit. And the only thing Trump has between him and destruction by the elitists is the massive solid support of the American people. Man, did they gush--even Tim, who always qualifies whenever he says good things about Trump. This time he didn't qualify. Or if he did, I missed it. Michael
  30. 1 point
    How many Whirlpool boxes behind him?
  31. 1 point
    ... such as cancers ...
  32. 1 point
    TG, President Trump is still on Twitter slugging it out. Later today I will go through the transcripts of Rush Limbaugh's show. He undoubtedly will cover the statement. Michael
  33. 1 point
    Peter, I only got through half of that selection. But I think I did understand something that has puzzled me since I first started posting online. Ellen Moore's thinking is cockeyed in the same manner I have encountered at times and never understood. Setting aside the vanity issues of being told she is wrong (NONE of us likes that) and where she responded with more belligerence than logic, once she calmed down and started expressing coherently what she really believed, her words started seeming--to me--totally beside the point. Or worse, not even in the same neighborhood as the point. (btw - I never knew Ellen Moore. My comments about her are based solely on the excerpts from Atlantis you post and the opinions of people who did know her.) My Article The first time I came across this form of thinking in O-Land was back in 2005. I had posted an article to SoloHQ called, To Turn or Not to Turn - A Question of Cheek. I wasn't an experienced writer of prose back then, so I outlined the article as best I could (introduction, stating what I wanted to do, the problems I encountered, and so on and ending with a conclusion). Then I riffed in each section trying to make as much sense as I could while still being interesting and entertaining. And I wanted to include stories so I told one from my past. The point of my article was that, in trying to spread Objectivism, we should try to find common ground with religious people if we want to convince them to look at Rand's ideas. That, to me, was a better approach then denouncing them as evil to their faces. And one good way of finding common ground was reframing the different principles in each and seeing if and where they apply to the other side. The article was focused on only one such principle: turning the other cheek. I had intended to write more on this theme later with other principles. (btw - I no longer want to do Objectivism missionary work and now think it is a bad idea, but not because I think spreading Rand's ideas is bad or that cross-pollinating different systems of thinking is a bad idea. Those things are great ideas. I just no longer want to save the world in the name of Objectivism. There are several reasons for that, but the main one is if that ever got close to happening out in reality, you can count on Objectivists to fuck it up. In general, they don't know how to run things on a large scale. Just look at the shambles the Objectivist movement is in. Imagine the whole goddam newly "saved" world like that. ) I just now reread my article and parts of it made me blush due to a certain awkwardness and stylistic rigidities beginners have, but I was clear in what I wanted to say and told the story well. The Kaboom Then, as people who are familiar with the history of this article well know, a huge kaboom followed. The comments to my article per se were almost all gushes. Then one of the site's owners, Lindsay Perigo, wrote a rebuttal article ("This Cheek's Not For Turning") mischaracterizing much of what I said and denouncing me as evil. And, of course, many of the comments to his article denounced me as evil, too--some of them the same people who had gushed. Well... there were people who were perplexed about the mischaracterizations and gratuitous insults. It certainly had people yacking... I didn't mind the controversy or even the fickle crowd behavior since I had worked in classical music and show biz. Crowds are crowds and I had seen all kinds. But there were certain people who looked at that article and took it to places I did not understand. That is the identical feeling I got when I read Ellen Moore above. Here's a good example of what I am talking about. In the comments to the Perigo article (denouncing me as evil), the other site's owner, Joe Rowlands, wrote a summary of my article: He also mischaracterized much of what I said and denounced me as evil, but that's beside the point. My problem was that I didn't recognize my article in his summary. Just like people talking with Ellen Moore above didn't recognize their own words in her mischaracterizations. And there is no fixing it in the minds of these kinds of people, either. (I recall a saying that you can't reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into...) I saw pieces of my article, but not the skeleton or any semblance of a whole. It was as if, in describing me as a person, someone talked about the position of the sun when they saw me, the house down the road from where I was standing, the color of my pants, the dog that was running around that day, the shadows from the tree behind me, and so on. All of that might have been there when he saw me, but it does not give an idea of me. So I responded to Rowlands: I Backed Off At that time, this mental fog of Rowlands impressed me--it left a mark--much more than the controversy or hostility. I haven't written very much about that article since then. I think most people who know the story think I let it go as a misfire. But that was not my problem. I was literally taken aback by the sheer boneheadedness of "Objectivist leaders" mischaracterizing my ideas to bash a strawman, then showing clearly they not only did not understand what I was saying, they weren't interested in understanding. They just wanted to denounce someone from the safe space of pre-approved jargon. What's worse, I couldn't figure out if they were faking it or not. Both cases were bad, though. I thought back then, how in hell was I going to belong to a movement when the leaders did that crap? But it wasn't with the clarity I just said. I was also confused and struggled to believe what I was looking at. I didn't know what made them tick. I could deal with their crap easily in terms of emotions or power or prestige or vanity or anything like that. I could check that off to the human condition (like I did with vanity in Ellen Moore's case above). My problem was that I literally wondered what damage they had done to their brains epistemologically to deform their reason to such an extent. Did they do that to themselves by using Objectivism incorrectly? Is that something Objectivism can cause? That was a hell of a doubt to harbor all of a sudden for someone as committed to Objectivism as I was back then. And I didn't know the answer. But I did know these idiots had no answers for me any longer. They didn't know how to think. What's worse, I didn't know why and couldn't figure it out, especially since they had studied Objectivism and were self-proclaimed experts and leaders. They even had a following. So that drove me to leave this article and episode in the drawer all these years. I thought I would get back to it once I understood things better. The Answer Well, now I do. In fact, now I know the answer to what and how these people think and why nobody can get through to them. People like this replace reality with a core story of the future. They do not see ideology as a projection of an ideal future to help them make choices today. (That's basically what all ideologies are.) They see ideology--their story of an ideal future--as a replacement today for today's reality. So when they see something, they peg it to that story about the future, not to what their eyes are looking at today. They don't perceive reality the way you and I do. They literally replace present reality in their minds with an abstraction of an idealized something yet to come. In Ellen Moore's case, part of her core story was deifying Rand. In her ideology, all of mankind is supposed to eventually fall down and worship Rand as the greatest human being who ever lived and utopia will reign on earth forever and ever. And, of course, she--Ellen Moore--was to be recognized as one of Rand's greatest disciples--one who helped this paradise come about. That was her ideal future that she brought into the present. (I'm basing this on what I've read of her.) And that caused her denouncing George Smith (and others) so harshly when they talked about the pros and cons of Rand's ideas. This was sacrilege to her, but her arguments of Rand's ideas always seemed beside the point. That's why she mischaracterized what George and others said so often, but offered rebuttals that didn't make any sense. Put all that in the light of her core future story replacing reality and it all makes perfect sense. What's a little fudge or nastiness here and there when paradise for all humans on earth is at stake? In the case of the Duo who Couldn't Shoot Straight on my article, part of their ideology was that they were reformers of the corrupted Objectivist community and they were the true keepers and bearers of the Randian torch. They, not who most people thought of as Rand's heirs, would save the world with themselves on top of it. That's what drove them and that's what they hoped for in the future. But that future is what they brought to the present as if it were the present. My article back then (and its initial popularity among their flock of sheeple) threw all of that into irrelevance and that freaked them out. That's also why so many people--including me--were perplexed by their reactions. They weren't interested in the ideas I actually brought up. They were only interested in ideas that resulted in their personal projected futures according to their core story. They were on their stump right in front of everyone denouncing evil with certainty, but everything they were saying was beside the point. In order to make things fit that didn't fit, they had to mischaracterize it. That way they could denounce it and keep their certainty schtick rolling. Now I can recognize this. For example, many people among today's elitist ruling class--including the fake news media--are dishonest scum, but others (ones I am now pretty good at identifying) suffer from the delusion I just mentioned. They believe their own bullshit so much, they think it is reality. Why? Neuroses? Insecurity? Power lust? Delusions of grandeur? Resentment? Something else? I guess this varies from individual to individual. But the desire to see reality as it is does not belong to the reason or their motivations. Anyway, I'm glad to get that out of my system. Sign Off I hope this helps one or more of you out there to see something in a different light that might be confusing you. Maybe, I hope you can keep from wasting unrecoverable hours of your precious life running in circles trying to understand or fix someone close to you who has a deformed outlook on reality like I just described. But that's all I can do--describe it and look a bit behind the curtain based on some pretty hard personal living and learning. I can't tell you how to fix it. I fixed it in my own life by getting away from those kinds of people. I wish I had a more profound fix than that, but that's the best I've got. Michael
  34. 1 point
    Check your assumptions. See this post written by Ellen Stuttle. My post was about Ellen Moore.
  35. 1 point
    Doctorow has a way with words. If something like "Magical Thinking" exists ... 'The Apophenic's Curse"! "When people are pedophiles" and "when they are pedophiles" ... relates immediately to accusations and false accusations. How can you tell the difference between a false and a true accusation? Is Chrissy Teigen a pedophile? Every accusation is true and well-founded -- except for the accusations that are false and unfounded. Again, using a cognitive before normative framework, is Chrissy Teigen guilty of child sexual abuse? Yes or no? Magical thinking. The video cued to "it's always gotta be pedophiles." Q is a hoax and a scam.
  36. 1 point
    Thank you, Peter, for bringing Barbara back to life. She last officially visited OL on March 28, 2012, my 68th birthday. --Brant
  37. 1 point
    One more? This may have appeared on OL but not for a long time. Notice the spelling of Patrecia. I wonder what she is doing. Peter BBfromM Wed 8/23/2000 2:48 AM atlantis Here we go again! Ellen Moore wrote, "The simple fact is that I do not believe that Barbara wanted to 'humanize' Ayn Rand. I do not believe that love and admiration was, or is, her purpose. I had a meaningful but brief association with Alan and Joan Blumenthal, with Barbara's sister-in-law, with MaryAnn Sures, with Leonard Peikoff, with Edith Packer and George Reisman, as well as with many other friends of Rand over the years. None of them treat Ayn Rand's personal characteristics with the maliciousness of the Brandens. There are still many left who can "tell the tale," and they knew the Brandens too. I know how to judge the difference between objectivity and subjectivity when the facts are retold by those from all sides of a conflict. Most of the people on Atlantis naively believe only the Brandens, so I judge them as being willing dupes of malicious intent." How nice of Moore to judge most of the Atlantis members as being "willing dupes." Is it just possible that such "dupes" recognize the truth when they see it, and are no one's "willing dupes?" No, love and admiration for Ayn Rand, although I feel them, were not my purpose in writing PASSION. My purpose was to tell the truth. Ellen's "meaningful but brief association" with the people she names need to be more meaningful and less brief. She will find that, particularly but not only in the case of the Blumenthals, their understanding of Ayn Rand is perfectly consistent with mine and in fact their judgments are more harsh than mine. Why don't you find out, Ellen Moore? That's a rhetorical question; I know perfectly well why you don't find out. Moore also wrote, "Remember that Rand withdrew from him {Nathaniel Branden} personally when he wrote her a repugnant letter in July '68. . . " Do you care to say what were the contents of that "repugnant letter," Ellen? Apparently not. The letter was a tortured effort to explain, as you well know, that the age-difference of twenty-five years, now that Ayn Rand was in her 60's and he still in his 30's, had become an insuperable barrier to a sexual relationship, despite his love and admiration for her. She had wondered if that were the reason for his emotional withdrawal, and he confirmed it. Surely most women would have accepted and understood the inevitable change in their relationship. Ayn Rand did not. Ellen Moore states that Ayn Rand "repudiated" me when she learned of my past lies and deceptions. Not so. She did not repudiate me when she learned that I had been covering for Nathaniel; she accepted that and made excuses for me that I would not have made for myself. It was only when I refused to attend a kangaroo court of her choosing that she repudiated me. It's a good idea to have your facts straight, Ellen, before you hurl accusations. But then, you might not be able to hurl them, and what would be the purpose of your life if that were taken away? Ellen wrote, "And even if Rand had been hurt by the truth that he loved Patrecia, that fact could have been resolved between them by some private agreement. " You must be joking! It was precisely when Ayn Rand learned of Nathaniel's love for Patrecia that she turned on him and informed him that if he had an ounce of morality left he would be impotent for the next twenty years! Ellen wrote, "I have never understood, and I disagree with those who condemn the 'Affair.' I understand their agreement about having an affair, and I do not think that the affair destroyed their relationships." Oh, Ellen, there go the facts again! Of course the affair destroyed our relationships. How do you think Frank O'Connor felt, as only one example, when Nathaniel twice-weekly walked into the apartment Frank shared with his wife and he had to go out in order to allow them to experience love and sex? Despite Nathaniel's repeated suggestions, his pleas, Ayn Rand had refused to allow him to take an apartment--in the same building if she wished, since she was terrified of the affair being known--where they could have time together without putting Frank O'Connor through the hell Ayn Rand insisted on putting him through. Who, I wonder, has the greater allegiance to Ayn Rand and Objectivism--you, who insist on ignoring the facts and/or twist them out of all recognition, or I, who am concerned only with the facts? Although this letter is addressed to Ellen Moore, I know better than to think she is open to reason. It is intended, rather, for "the willing dupes" of Atlantis whom I respect and many of whom I admire, and who wish to separate facts from Moore's fantasies. Barbara
  38. 1 point
    I may have shared this before but Whew! Here’s the tough side of Barbara Branden. Be sure to read the last sentence. Peter Re: ATL: Re: evil ideas and moral judgments – Barbara. BBfromM Fri 5/5/2000 12:43 AM To: atlantis. Oh, Ellen Moore, there's no point in calling me the same names all over again. You wrote: Rand did say in '68, "I cannot say as much for Barbara Branden." She did indeed say it, in an article in which, terrified that truth about her affair with Nathaniel Branden might be revealed, she flailed out blindly, irrationally, and dishonestly at the two people who knew the truth. But you see, I do not agree with Ayn Rand--or with Ellen Moore--about the moral necessity of being judgmental. I am able to say that although what she did was certainly wrong, I feel and always have felt great sympathy for the agony that led her to do it. By the way, Ayn Rand also said the following, as quoted by Nathaniel Branden in "In Answer to Ayn Rand:" <On Mrs. Branden's parents' copy of Atlas Shrugged, Miss Rand wrote the following inscription: "To Reb and Johnny — the parents of a girl who has the spirit, the ambition and the talent of the best characters in this book. Affectionately, Ayn." <When Mrs. Branden was interviewing Miss Rand, in preparation for the writing of Who Is Ayn Rand? (the interviews were tape-recorded), Miss Rand made the following statement: "As far as you're concerned, career-wise, the turning point was when I saw the first few pages of that short story which you started and didn't finish. It was those pages that convinced me that you're going to be a great writer, and, as you see, I was right. . . . Up to then, I thought that you were very intelligent, and since you talked about writing intelligently, that you probably would be a good writer, but one has to see the real work. And it's those pages that made me think that this is something of enormous size."> Sorry, Ellen, but one must tell the truth, mustn't one? Ellen also wrote: <"You cannot bring yourself to take me seriously" ??? Truth is, Barbara, you always do take me seriously; I know it and you know it. > Oh dear, Ellen, you're reading my mind again, after you said <<I am not qualified to tell her the content of her mind because I cannot conceive of a mind that is so evasive about facts and moral judgments. >> Ellen wrote: <You may wish to preen and glow in the likes of Roger's and Jay's support and sanction of you. . . > I haven't been doing a lot of preening and glowing, but thanks for the suggestion. Ellen made another suggestion: <<You are free to continue to exist as you have in the past by advocating this inconsistent, subjectivist, anti-moralism position on judgments, and non-principled libertarianism, but after that you cannot claim to be an advocate of Objectivism - while betraying its author and the fundamental principles that constitute its philosophical identity.>> Ellen, do you want to know the exact value to me of your nonsense? It’s that occasionally you provide comic relief. Now I have a suggestion for you: If you want to convince people that I'm a worthless human being, you would do better to be a tad more subtle. Ranting and raving doesn't work. I will now step out of character and say what I never have said to anyone, and have not wanted to say even to Ellen Moore: Ellen, you are a hostile, presumptuous, spiritually ugly, hate-filled, intellectually pretentious woman. Barbara
  39. 1 point
    I just saw a YouTube comment on Matt Christiansen's stream: "I heard corona deaths exploded in Lebanon."
  40. 1 point
    I got the meme below from James Woods. Like him, I hadn't thought about this. But it sure as hell makes sense. Michael
  41. 1 point
    A dog, sure. They patented a mouse. It is mentioned in the CBC article I linked to earlier. They genetically modified the naturally-occurring mouse genome, making it more susceptible to cancer, and patented that new line of mouse.
  42. 1 point
    Jon, In other words, we can patent a new breed of dog if we make one? That's just plain wrong on so many levels... I know a dog is not a lifeform similar to a bacteria or virus, but we all know how the law always expands to include more and more cases. So, eventually, how about an enhanced human being through genetic manipulation--meaning once that new race can reproduce with the altered gene? We can patent such a human race? This whole line of thinking needs to be challenged. Michael
  43. 1 point
    The 'researcher' did not think to include a link to the patent site from which she took screenshots. This item is accessible via the Patent number, in this case 10,130, 71. Direct link: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=10,130,701.PN.&OS=PN/10,130,701&RS=PN/10,130,701 [Added: How to find the above link on your own ... start at the USPTO website: https://www.uspto.gov/]
  44. 1 point
  45. 1 point
    Agreed. The cops were trying to be reasonable with Floyd and not go out of their way to do violence. Chauvin's carelessness is reprehensible, and so, too, were the officers standing by. Long before Floyd stopped moving and grumbling they should have checked his condition and rendered aid. They were so ignorant they didn't even realize he was no longer moving or even breathing--and still pressing down on his neck. It didn't even occur to Chauvin that he was pressing down on an unconscious person, let alone a dead one. In a similar situation many years ago, I was working security one night in Las Vegas and got a call about suspicious activity in one of the parking lots. I was clean on the other side of the property and started making my way over. By the time I arrived, someone had already called the cops and there were six of them surrounding a familiar SUV in the parking lot. Someone had seen the man sitting in his car acting strangely and called the cops. The man had locked himself in the vehicle and refused to open up for the cops. He wasn't violent, but goofy, looking drunk and sluggish, putting a potato chip bag over his head and jeering at the cops, laughing, unconcerned, staring at his dash board and other nonsense. The cops were screaming, "Open the fuckin' door!" and starting to get excited, the testosterone was exploding into gang violence. Guns were drawn. One of them walked over to a cruiser and opened the trunk to fetch a battering ram to smash out a window. The cops just didn't take the time to realize this guy was unaffected by their presence and oblivious to anyone or anything going on around him. Their ignorance was astonishing. It was too easy to see. Then I realized who the guy was and intervened. "Wait, guys, wait! I know this guy. He's a regular here and he's diabetic. He's probably hypoglycemic right now." I sent one of our security to the cafe to fetch a large orange juice with five sugars in it. The cops looked at me doubtfully, shooting glances at each other, but thankfully they stopped hopping around like kangaroos and let me go on. They kept their eyes on him and their guns out and kept the vehicle surrounded. I stepped beside the driver's door and talked to him through the window, smiling, "Hey, bro', open the door for me, will ya? I gotta get something out of the car I forgot in there. It'll only take a second." My play worked. "Uh, oh, yeah, sure, man, here ya go." At that he reached over and popped the lock. The cops shoved me aside and opened the door, pulling the man out of the car and face down on the asphalt, cuffing him. He did not put up a fight. The poor fella looked more confused than anything else. Finally our security arrived with the orange juice and sugar. We sat him up straight and I asked if he was diabetic. He nodded his head, "Yeah, I got it pretty bad. I did something really bad, didn't I?" He was still nonsensical. I asked him if he wanted to drink. He did. We managed to get him to slam the entire glass of OJ and sugar and he started to come around but was nowhere near fully functioning. I summoned an ambulance to our location. The cops finally calmed down and put their guns away. The ambulance arrived quickly and took over, putting glucose packets into him. Still he wasn't coming around fully, but wanted to get up and walk around. A good sign. I convinced the cops to remove the cuffs and we got him to his feet. We walked around the parking lot with him, but he was still out of it. Finally, they gave him glucose intravenously and that did the trick. He came to and looked around. Suddenly fully aware of himself and his surroundings he asked, "What happened?" We explained to him what just occurred. He started to cry and apologized. We explained there was nothing for him to apologize for. He said he had come to the casino to get the famous Wednesday night chicken dinner and the last thing he remembered was arriving and parking his car. I told him he had come to the right place and dinner was on the house tonight. He agreed and went inside to sit a while and eat. I got him a booth and had his dinner served so he didn't have to wait on the usual long line. Had I not known this guy and stepped in he probably would have been killed. In a similar situation, Las Vegas Metro pulled a guy out of his car on the Strip and thumped on him badly for no reason other than they knew they could all get away with it. Which they did. But their victim sued and it cost the taxpayer 14.5 million dollars. Be careful out there. Cops are not trained to care and don't care one bit for your well being. The proof is in the training. You do what you train. Period. In their minds, in their training, everyone is suspect and a cockroach. Everyone. If I were a praying man, I would encourage everyone to pray hard that you never get arrested or have a bad run in with a cop.
  46. 1 point
    Jonathan, Another one. LOL... Michael
  47. 1 point
    Man, I know so little about the country I live in right now. How in hell can someone patent a fucking virus? Good God... That's just plain wrong... Michael
  48. 1 point
  49. 1 point
    Floyd's death may have been prevented if Officer Chauvin and other officers would have checked Floyd's condition from time to time. They did nothing instead. The death was not intentional, but an obvious lack of regard for Floyd's well being was amply demonstrated by all concerned. Cops know better. They just don't care. They are backed by the courts in even the most heinous situations. And they are under no obligation whatsoever to protect anyone. They are there for one reason: to enforce the law. Officer Chauvon did just that. Hooray. Hope it was worth it, guys. But none of this would be any concern to anyone had Floyd been a White man. More than double the number of White persons have been murdered by cops than black in the last 365 days. And no one cries or riots for this outrage. No one cares. And the riots, allegedly kicked off because of what happened to Floyd, were going to happen anyway. And there's more to come. Lots more. Brace yourselves. Prepare. More violence. More riots. More deaths. Forced innoculations. Economic free fall. Mandatory lockdowns--for whatever excuse they dish out. Get out of the big cities if you can. Not a good place when the proverbial turd hits the fan. Here in South Dakota, we were the least locked down and the least affected by Covid nonsense. Go figure.
  50. 1 point
    Incidentally, I just watched the George Floyd arrest video from the cop's bodycam. On being approached by the police, he became terrified, non-cooperative, and was crying and yelling he can't breathe from the moment they made him stand up and walk around. He was high or nuts or both because he wasn't acting rational. He only went to the ground after they put him in the back seat of the police car. He went out the other side. He claimed he was claustrophobic, so he could not get into a car. However, the police had pulled him out of his own car, or at least the one where he was behind the steering wheel. The cop who killed him was totally wrong, but he didn't kill Floyd him out of racism, systemic or personal. He killed him because Floyd had said he couldn't breathe so many times while upright, I think the cop just didn't believe him. Here is the video. The article: EXCLUSIVE: Police bodycam footage shows moment-by-moment arrest of George Floyd for the first time This doesn't matter any more, though. This incident stopped being important to the riots ages ago. I wonder if George Floyd's name even comes into the heads of most people in BLM and Antifa these days unless prompted. Michael