Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/21/2019 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    Jon, And of course being bullied, right? That's the subtext everyone is responding to. And that's rich coming from you. Since when do you stand up for social justice warriors, anyway? Talk about weird and bizarre. You wanna do tough-guy talk, tough guy? Here's some tough talk. Tone it down. I mean it. My patience is wearing thin. Michael
  2. 2 points
    Moonlighting or Kool-Aid? That is the question. Michael
  3. 2 points
    They're being softened up for committing ritual suicide. Ellen
  4. 1 point
    "Not being able to handle criticism" doesn't necessary imply banning the other person. It could also mean "always insisting on having the last word", or "not being able to say 'lets agree to disagree'" for example.
  5. 1 point
    Jon, You claim that Michael can't handle criticism. (I suppose that's what your "You [MSK] don’t do even the mildest criticism" means.) Then why does Michael tolerate your presence with your chronic criticism of how he runs his list? Ellen
  6. 1 point
    Deanna, Ah, come on. I ask a simple question about what you see, and even tell you I am curious for my own reasons dealing with my studies, and you're not sure you see the point? I even tell you I am not judging anything with this question? Well, here's the point since it is not clear to you: Exchange of information. It's simple. You know something I don't and I would like you to tell me so I can know it, too. I even said that. How is that not clear? But this phantom dude comes here and opens with a crapload of negative assumptions about Rand's flaws, and ours for that matter based on no knowledge at all, and you do see the point? Jeez, Louise... On another issue, I looked up Socratic Circle since I had not heard of it and looked at a few search entries. I happen to like the Socratic method of digging information out of the right brain and underbelly of the mind in order to verbalize it through questions and discussion. (I can give you great books that discuss how this happens, starting with Iain McGilchrist's book on the divided brain. But there are many more I have read.) Much of the info in the brain has not been recorded in memory in verbal form, nor even the processing of it is in verbal form. So with questions and discussion, things often emerge and appear like they are new. And they are--in words. But the info was there all along. Also, the Socratic method allows the creative impulse to be added to that process so some truly new paths and dot-connections happen. (Apropos, Rand used this method in a solitaire-like manner in her creative writing and later in her nonfiction. She would list a string of questions as they came to mind, then proceed to answer them as if they came from someone else. After she did that, she would choose what to pursue and what to discard.) In my search, I saw a lot of things mentioning Common Core when they talked about Socratic Circle. So maybe I never heard of this because it's a new jargon term from that system. I don't know... I will look deeper over time. From what little I read, I didn't find any meaningful connection with how this phantom guy opened--talking about what he is not nor ever could be--presuming that that unfortunate state was what we were, and how flawed and foolish the things he wants to discuss are, etc., as he seeks wisdom from all this. That's the Socratic Circle way? Really? (All right, all right, that was a friendly poke in the ribs...) I want to ask you how you think the mental and emotional immaturity of a 15 year old can apply to college graduates because I'm still curious and I'm still not sure what you see. When I look at what goes on in the news on college campuses, with their safe spaces, bullying by collectives, conviction by accusation, intolerance of the boogiemen they have been indoctrinated to hate (mostly America and white males), etc., I can see the possibility. But, frankly, I am looking even deeper. Maybe you're not interested. Whatever... As part of what I see, I got into my stepson's head and, even though he is on the autistic spectrum, his IQ is now recorded as much higher than before--in fact, now it's at an average level--and he is going to college.* That tells me the system that coddled him and molded him into a special needs sausage was screwed up, not him. I've tested him on his college lessons and in everything I walked through with him, he was spot on. Hell, I even screwed up the math on one thing and he corrected me. You have no idea how proud of him I am. Anyhow, enough of that. There's no point, right? I sincerely hope this phantom guy does not apply for a job or things like that using the same approach he used here to introduce himself to strangers on a forum. I don't predict he will be very successful if he does. Michael * Note: I do not believe his IQ increased since that rarely happens and the increase is small when it happens (although within normal parameters of how much it can increase, it may have), but I do believe the earlier testing was incompetent--the testing when he was being shaped into a special needs sausage. And that resulted in a very low score. He has a slow response time for thought to become bodily expression, including speaking. Some people take this to be evidence of lack of cognitive ability and, to be fair, it often looks like that. But it isn't. The proof is in his results when he gets the amount of time he needs and has actually done the work. I always suspected this and that's the way it worked when I coached him on writing and so on, or when he taught himself wikicode, but it finally came evident in college where, by some miracle or other, they do allow him extra time. In special needs, they kept him doing super-easy tasks and silly shit. All. Day. Long. This went on all through his public education. To say that I am angry at the system is an understatement. Fucking technocrats and government ass kissers playing at teaching to collect a paycheck...
  7. 1 point
    Brant, We all get pissed at times, but at least we have real men on this forum. (Real women, too. ) As opposed to sissies who need to be coddled... Michael
  8. 1 point
    I had a similar thought, that he's a candidate for a Fake News team - if even they want someone so poor at communicating. He isn't a "prof," just a college graduate. He was nebulous in his first post as to whether he was still in college or had finished undergraduate work: "...nor am I a philosophy major" indicates someone still in college. "I did not study philosophy" indicates someone who's finished college. The "B.A." degree affirms the latter. Ellen
  9. 1 point
    That prof was full of Peter Keating shit. --Brant
  10. 1 point
    MSK’s claim: “One of the most devastating effects of pedophilia on the culture at large is when people who practice it gain power and influence among the elites.” How would you say that is going, Korben? I ask sincerely. It has been a year and three months since you asked for proof and a lot of evidence has since come in about the elites and how abuse of children ties them together. You have followed postings here about Epstein, Bill Gates, Council on Foreign Relations, Harvard, MIT, etc., etc.? Are you as skeptical as the first time you heard the assertion? How would you rate the plausibility or the truth-status of the assertion today?
  11. 1 point
    Don't worry. Billy is going to save us. He has enlisted, and is right now packing up his shit, and heading over there to straighten it all out. He's taking printouts of his posts with him, and a PLS container full of tracers. Fuck yeah! J
  12. 1 point
    If it were a youtube video it would probably have been titled "phanom000 destroys pouncing randian sycophants"
  13. 1 point
    Oh, but Jonathan, ABC’s error was a common and innocent one, just ask Mike Rat’schild, who explained it all while also exposing the dangerous and disturbing conspiratorial mindset behind your kind of thinking, in the latest at Billy’s Q blog.
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    Who is Alexandra Chalupa? So, how do we fit together Manafort, Giuliani, Parnas and Fruman, 2014, 'dirt,' 'black ledgers,' prison, guilty pleas and the churn of reporting? Shukin, Yanukovych, Zarrab, Flynn, Gates ... Sometimes it just feels right to take a breath, retreat to an information island, where any harpies in the air are "our (side's) harpies." The fundamental attribution error covers all situations.
  16. 1 point
    Who 'placed' Manafort into Trump's camp? Q never got around to the details ...
  17. 1 point
    Jon, Give it time. btw - Did you watch the video? Your comment makes no reference to anything it deals with. Michael
  18. 1 point
    That is indeed the Dem, Progressive, elite fear. Which is why they expend so many resources on pumping class, gender, race, income, Party, age, etc. divisions. They keep us at each other’s throats so we don’t notice we are being bled by slavemasters we could easily dispatch before breakfast.
  19. 1 point
    Wow... They got Giuliani this time. He's got got. I mean got real good. He's toast. He's going down and he's going to take Trump with him. This time they got them all, goddammit. That's what you might believe if you read the press right now and believe all the yelling. When the dust settles, all this will all boil down to... Wait for it... Are you ready?... Marijuana farms. Seriously. And some kind of Dinesh D'Souza-like railroading on campaign violations in the past. It's a Soros organization making all the stink. None of this has anything to do with the Ukraine stuff the news reports are all yelling about. At issue is the fact that the two guys are connected in the Ukraine and introduced Rudy to some big shots over there to help in his investigations. Yawn... It's not even worth debating this crap. Michael
  20. 1 point
    I think that Minneapolis manchild mayor Frey played a part in generating the large turnout. I hope that he and the rest of the left continue to not learn anything, and keep on trying the same stupid tactics. J
  21. 1 point
    Each post/comment has a "report post" link attached. One can click that link and file a complaint that the admin will deal with. In any case, posting information, links and tweets is what almost all of us active OLers does. The other thing to consider is that OL has a "silent" readership.
  22. 1 point
    Unfortunately, Billy doesn't have any answers, and, as Ellen has successfully argued, he doesn't understand the questions and their relevance to science. He doesn't grasp any of it. J
  23. 1 point
    Ya gotta love the fact that they still think that their Narratives™ are working. J
  24. 1 point
    Their describing Trump as a threat to "our" way of life is macabrely ironic. He's a threat to their way of killing. However, what's new about the Tweet announcement you posted? Hasn't it been known for a long time that the Bush administration didn't have evidence of Iraq's possessing weapons of mass destruction? The tweet leads to an unsigned story at True Pundit, which has at its bottom a "Read More" link that leads to ... a 2015 Jason Leopold story in VICE: The CIA Just Declassified the Document That Supposedly Justified the Iraq Invasion Leopold is now a 'senior investigative reporter' at BuzzFeedNews.
  25. 1 point
    This recording has been one of my earliest inspirations as a composer and songwriter. It is a love song to the city of Vienna, written by Rudolf Sieczyński, sung by Elisabeth Schwarzkopf.
  26. 1 point
    If that's the way Rush sees things, then the issue wouldn't be his being a plant ("Operation Mockingbird") but instead his being partly a dupe. Reality is pretty much Democans/Republicrats - both run by behind-the-scenes higher-up global dominionists. Sounds like Rush is at the place where Jon says he was four/five years ago - seeing things as presented on the surface. Ellen
  27. 1 point
    Jon, Your Bill Gates analogy is a good concrete way to show how ridiculous Barney is being. I shall steal it. The rumor you heard about the bulletproof vest may have been based on what Yaron Brook was doing at the time. Search Who’s Who on ARI Watch for “bulletproof” and you’ll find a firsthand account, not a rumor, by the late Steve Reed (OL’s Greybeard). MSK, Yes, Barney “dove into the tar pit” noticing his critics in public. As you say, in his circle I am a nobody. The explanation, I believe, is the extraordinary self-righteous self-deception of these Obleftivists. (Perigo isn’t my cup of tea but he hit a home run with that neologism.) Barney really believes he is innocent. To quote ARI Watch: Iago, rubbing his hands with glee at his own iniquity, is strictly a work of Shakespeare’s imagination. In real life evil is always self-righteous. You cannot tell the heroes from the villains by the emotional noises they make. Barney’s letter contains lots of legalese – perpetrated, malicious, defamation, harmed, damage, reputation – and it’s easily construed as the precursor to a lawsuit, designed to shut up critics even if he doesn’t go through with it. I wrote the New York Times headline parody to make fun of the idea. David and Goliath describes the situation pretty well. Of course if he did sue I would (1) make sure the New York Times knows about it, (2) counter-sue for calling me a liar and a merchant of hate good grief, (3) create a website detailing every step of the battle. But all this is a daydream. He’s no fool, anyway not fool enough to raise on a busted flush. Does anyone believe Craig Biddle’s story that Barney wrote him this letter and he convinced Barney to let him publish it? Mark
  28. 1 point
    Here is Rush Limbaugh's take on AOC's Eat The Babies townhall meeting. He talks about Larouche and everything. Who Knew the Green New Deal Was a Cookbook? The one thing I didn't know is that AOC has "moved on" from impeachment and said so in the townhall. It took too long for her millennial brain attention span and she got bored. That actually sounds about right. Michael
  29. 1 point
    You don’t have to read this, you don’t have to know what is going on in your world, it’s a choice. “When I was a little girl in my native Belgium, I was put to work as a sex slave.” “Around my sixth birthday, in 1969, I was taken to an orgy for the first time, in a castle. I was used for an S&M show, on a low stage, chained up with an iron dog collar, and made to eat human feces. Afterwards, left lying there like a broken object, I felt so humiliated, I had to do something to save my soul, or else — and this I knew for certain — I would have withered and died.” “I raised myself up, and stood looking at the bizarre crowd of aristocrats dressed up as hippies, swaying to the music in various levels of sexual interaction, busily availing themselves of little pills and pre-rolled joints passed around on silver trays by sober waiters. I trembled in fear, but my body straightened and stilled itself like a bow in suspense before the shot, and I heard my voice as though it were not my own, chiding the adults, telling them that this was wrong – that I was going to tell on them, and that they would all go to jail. “Trippy, spacey music was oozing through the atmosphere and most people were too high to notice me. One man, wearing a business suit, caught my eye. He looked scared, but he held my gaze for a brief moment, and seemed to feel for me. Then he was gone. I never saw him again in the network, but years later I did spot him on TV. He became a prominent Belgian politician. “I was quietly led away and taken to a cellar. I was certain that I was going to be killed, but instead I was shown the fresh body of a young murder victim. I was to remain silent.” “This interaction started the most intense year of my life, in which I would feel more than ever loved, seen, and understood, and would be more than ever abused, all by that same young man. A year later, when he was through with me, I was of no use to the network anymore, and was to be killed. When my torture began, he stood watching, laughing.” “I was led away to a small room, and strapped onto a butcher's block. The man who tortured me was one of the defendants in the notorious Dutroux case, which, when it broke the news in 1996, was believed it would blow up the Belgian pedophile network. But instead, eight years later, only Marc Dutroux received a life sentence. I should have died that night in 1974 on that butcher's block, but my life was saved at the last minute.” “While I had been tortured, the young man had been negotiating with the politician in charge of the network. They made a deal: he would work for the politician, extend his shady services in exchange for my life. This one good deed eventually cost him his own life. In this milieu, any shred of humanity is a deadly weakness.” https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/anneke-lucass-harrowing-tale-of-sex-trafficking-am/
  30. 1 point
    Emphasis added. [...] I didn't see the video William posted except for the opening strawman it set up. After that, I didn't think it was worth watching. I don't mean that in a snobbish manner. It's just why watch a half-hour of debunking a strawman? What was the opening strawman, as you perceived it after watching an introductory minute or two?
  31. 1 point
    Intriguing video that explains how robots/AI at Youtube automate de-listing and de-indexing and de-monetization.
  32. 1 point
    Just to be clear on one thing, I am not in denial about this impeachment thing. It is going nowhere and, no matter what happens, even if by some miracle, the House passes Articles of Impeachment, it will die in the Senate and serve to reinforce President Trump for the 2020 campaign. But I don't think it will pass the House. If you are a Trump supporter, don't listen to the media until this dies down a little. The media is in on the scam. All the noise is a propaganda bluff. Better yet, get your news from some social media personality or personalities you resonate with. Even if the person has a wacky side, it won't be more wacky than what we have seen in the legacy media the last three years. At least going the alt path, you will not have an expectation of being at the right place and expectation of seriousness that a traditional institution instills by default in your subconscious. President Trump ain't going anywhere. But the Deep State is... And so is the legacy media... Michael
  33. 1 point
  34. 1 point
    Jon, Before Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in 2016, the left (and the establishment) laughed at the idea of Russian meddling and at Russian anything else that seemed sinister. For example, Obama openly derided Romney during election debates for saying Russia was a major threat. After the 2016 election, the left has gone into a McCarthyism mode that would have embarrassed old Joe McCarthy himself, and now the left red-baits galore and acts like there is a Putinesque Russian under every bed. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much. The conservative/libertarian leaning anti-Trumpers (especially the establishment sort) were a bit different. They always were against Russia. The left merely took their concerns and raised them to DEFCON 5. Some of the Republican establishment anti-Trumpers have even gone along with the left's anti-Russian hysteria. All those attitudes were reflected by the left-leaning here on OL, too. Precisely to the timeline. Michael
  35. 1 point
    German League Of Girls https://spartacus-educational.com/2WWgirls.htm In 1930 the Bund Deutscher Mädel (German League of Girls) was formed as the female branch of the Hitler Youthmovement. It was set up under the direction of Hitler Youth leader, Baldur von Schirach. There were two general age groups: the Jungmädel, from ten to fourteen years of age, and older girls from fifteen to twenty-one years of age. All girls in the BDM were constantly reminded that the great task of their schooling was to prepare them to be "carriers of the... Nazi world view". (1) ... Members of the BDM later recalled that they welcomed the extra power they had over their parents: "As a young person, you were taken seriously. You did things which were important... Your dependence on your parents was reduced, because all the time it was your work for the Hitler Youth that came first, and your parents came second... All the time you were kept busy and interested, and you really believed you had to change the world." (22)
  36. 1 point
    Wanna see a tidbit, a harbinger? Try the post right above from Jon: State Senator, granted, but it's a tidbit, not the banquet table that's being set. Michael
  37. 1 point
  38. 1 point
    Jon, Wait until the progressives prove that the Trump tweet below, the one he just made not a half an hour ago, was compiled from a deep fake. I mean, Biden saying those things on camera has to be deep fake, right? He would never say those things. Then, just think. Once they nail Trump on using a deep fake, they can nail him on interference with the 2020 election in addition to fraud, libel, treason, and God knows what all else, including being Trump and stealing the 2016 election from the C woman. Michael
  39. 1 point
  40. 1 point
    I want to see the movie now, too. We talked about the anger of the left. I didn’t know anything about Sorbo until today, I gather he is Christian, he said, “when I talk with Hollywood people, the ones you can talk with, I ask why are you all so angry? About something you don’t even believe in anyway.”
  41. 1 point
    Oh...here I had my hopes up and you meant to erm...cancelllll cancel him jfk style...
  42. 1 point
    This is exactly what mapping out a new story feels like. For the writer, it comes with an emotion of weariness, too. Michael
  43. 1 point
    Rand's most naïve view (or advocacy to the reader) is that there are no idealational conflicts among those who are "rational." This is derived from human perfectibility. How to counter the perfect Soviet Man (or Nazi Man)? The perfect Randian Man. She was trapped in the binary. Before you advocate for what should be you need to know what is. Rand knew collectivism and its ideology. So she countered with individualism and it's ideology. Great! But she didn't know the non-ideological masses. Therefore Objectivism is reactive to what people ideologically shouldn't be as opposed to reactive to what people in toto really are. Yes, she had some in-betweens. Of Objectivism's four pillars--reality and reason, morality and politics, it's the morality where it therefore mostly falls short and left libertarians short. They didn't buy the center. They had the politics without enough of the morality politics needs. The morality in individual rights is in or from rights only cutting libertarians off from humanity even more than official Objectivism does. Now that we are engaged in cultural warfare--there is no more Age of Reason for now--people of ideas are out of work while the conservatives and hoi American polloi fight it out with the left. We can join the conservatives or sit on our rumps, for this is the Age of Trump. --Brant not sayin' what to do
  44. 1 point
    Candace just did it again. The progressive clowns in Congress just won't learn. They cannot call her before Congress to humiliate her. The following happened right at the end of another hearing on white supremacy, this time by the House Oversight Joint Subcommittee (Oversight and National Security). This hearing happened today. You just don't get to make up crap about Candace and have her sit there and take it like a bitch. She will throw your crap right back in your face, which wakes people up, then restate her agenda priorities, which spreads her message to people who might not have otherwise noticed. And she is so clear, she ends up convincing many who disagree with her. Besides, she's entertaining. Take a look at 2:53 where she triggered the Chairman of the House Oversight Joint Subcommittee (Oversight and National Security), Jamie Raskin: CANDACE: ... you know that white supremacy and white nationalism is nowhere near, ranks nowhere near the top of the issues that are facing black America, and the reason that you are bringing them up in this room is because it is [an] attempt to make the election all about race, as the Democrats do... RASKIN (cutting in): Not in my case Ms. Owens. (there is some crosstalk) CANDACE: Please don't cut me off. RASKIN: Please don't mischaracterize my motives. Then order was restored. But look at this marvel of cluelessness. This last comment was said by a man who spent an entire House Joint Subcommittee meeting (almost three hours) trying to mischaracterize Candace's motives. Shortly thereafter, and running off problems that are "actually harming black America," to quote Candace, like father absence, the education system and the illiteracy rate, illegal immigration and abortion, she also chided the subcommittee: CANDACE: ... this hearing, in my opinion, is a farce. And it is ironic you're sitting here and you're having three Caucasian people testify and tell you what their expertise are. Do I know [what] my expertise are? Black in America. I've been black in America my whole life, all thirty years. And I can tell you that you guys have done the exact same thing every four years ahead of an election cycle, and it needs to stop. btw - Look at Jim Jordan when she finished. (This is a screenshot from the full video posted on YouTube by Fox News at 2:57:20.) He looks like he's trying hard to keep from busting out laughing. Man did they get it back in their faces and now it's in the Congressional Records. Michael
  45. 1 point
  46. 1 point
    Michael, Why exult in the sliminess of Roger Stone? You know, Donald Trump has still not released his tax returns. His excuse, that he is audited every year and is being audited this year, has been exposed as bogus. Besides perhaps revealing that Trump is worth less money than he claims to be, or is in more debt than he admits being in, or gives less to charity than he says he does, would the returns inform us about continuing employment (not by his campaign) for Roger Stone? I learned a couple of interesting things about Paul Manafort, who seems to have taken over control of Trump's campaign. One, Manafort helped Jerry Ford get more delegates than Ronald Reagan in 1976, before he changed sides and recruited delegates for Reagan in 1980. (He also worked later on for Bush Sr., Bob Dole, Dubya, and John McCain, when not cleaning up on K Street.) Two, Manafort worked, on and off, between 2004 and at lest 2010, for Victor Yanukovych, the kleptocratic Putinian puppet in Ukraine. Claimed credit for engineering Yanukovych's comeback victory in 2010 (though, as we know, that didn't end well for Yanukovych). Apparently was taking money from McCain and Yanukovych at the same time in 2008. Robert
  47. 1 point
    I see you have provided the middle with the Kroft interview. Clearly, Soros was never a Nazi, never turned in his fellow citizens for cash. That you would casually make such an allegation on a serious thread is shocking to me, frankly.
  48. 1 point
    The second "take" on history, which you edited in after I asked my question, is so incompatible with the first that I can't perceive any reality in the middle. Either the Nazis chose a 14-year-old Jewish boy as their henchman, or they didn't. He betrayed his "fellow citizens" and profited from their murders, or he didn't. You quote the "stories" and indicate that you believe them based on the evidence you have. Is this so?
  49. 0 points
    All of the unobserved readers listen to one or another of us. They are unobserved readers. 😀
  50. 0 points
    Mickey Mouse Disney has their "Club 33" that costs $40,000 to join and $15,000 annual dues. 33 is the number of the freemasons, who worship Lucifer, who also happens to demand human sacrifice.