Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

And the drip of saliva down the side of the chin...

:) 

Carol,

If you think I'm going to let William live this down, you gotta nuther think cumin' .

Imagine me standing in the endzone, the opposing players are a long ways off and a pass is just floating down into my arms.

If I didn't catch that one and score, I don't think you guys would respect me anymore.

:) 

Michael

I wouldn't respect you anyway!   If you were standing in an end zone of what seems to be a sports field, why were you not wearing skates like a real man?z

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There goes Michael Cohen's reputation:

07.25.2018-10.57.png

Link goes to here at The Daily Mail: 'What kind of a lawyer would tape a client?' Trump unloads on Michael Cohen after recording shows the pair discussing campaign-season payoff to bury old affair with Playboy model

I wrote about this elsewhere on OL:

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I guess we have to talk about this tape because the anti-Trumpers in the media are in chatter overdrive hoping this time they've got him.

But there's no there there.

President Trump said the word "cash" to his lawyer when talking about hush-money to a Playboy model.

And people are going apeshit splitting hairs on what this means.

yawn...

Hell, President Trump released attorney-client privilege on all 12 tapes, so the only reason CNN got the scoop is because they were given formal permission to attack from the person they are attacking. :) 

I swear, this could not have been better engineered by Trump and Giuliani themselves to make the chattering class look ridiculous to most of the country.

Now if we were talking about pallets of cash, billions and billions of dollars in cash, by secret airplane delivery at night, that might be different.

Cash me outside... howbow dah?

:) 

Cohen is a disappointment, though. A lawyer who secretly tapes private conversations with his client and gives the recording to third parties to denigrate his former client is not much of a lawyer.

Cohen's a big boy, though, and President Trump has a history of eating lawyers for breakfast. After all, he's been in constant litigation for decades and beaten lawyers far more cunning than Cohen. So Cohen won't be able to complain later he didn't know what hit him.

And, once the kerfuffle is over, Americans in general don't like the archetype of Benedict Arnold. So I don't see a bright future for Cohen, at least for a long time.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can a person really be economically coerced, or is it simply a choice? Was Cohen using the tapes for insurance or a way to blackmail President Trump? Can he be disbarred? In Maryland I don’t think you can record someone unless they know what your are doing. Peter

 From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:29:41 -0500

a.d. smith wrote: "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force. I was wondering how my fellow Atlanteans would reply to this argument I think I did a fairly good job in elucidating the differences between physical force and "economic coercion," but I could have done better. What would you guys have said in this situation?”

I find that well-constructed examples and counter-examples can sometimes communicate the distinction better than abstract arguments, or at least serve as an introduction to them. Many years ago, during a college seminar on Marxism, my professor gave the following popular example: Suppose I am stranded in the middle of the desert, and I run across the only oasis in my vicinity. It is privately owned, and the owner tells me that I must (a) work for him at fifty cents per hour, or (b) stay off his property. And since he is charging $5,000 for the food and water that are required to sustain my life during the remainder of my journey, this means that I am being economically coerced -- indeed, enslaved -- since I must either accept the offer or face certain death.

I responded by changing one condition of the example. The same oasis owner has more money than he knows what to do with, so (as before) he tells me that I must take a job to earn my supplies, but he now offers me $10,000 per hour instead of fifty cents. So now I can earn what I need in 30 minutes (during which the owner, who is starved for intellectual companionship, only requests that I talk to him about philosophy) and even walk away with a handsome surplus.

The professor then protested, "But that's not a realistic example."

"Neither is your example," I replied, "but that's not the point. The purpose of the example is to isolate the key elements that generate what you call economic coercion. If your example, in which I am economically coerced to work for 50 cents an hour is valid, then so is my example where I am economically coerced to work for $10,000 per hour by discussing philosophy. I didn't change anything essential in the hypothetical; all I did was change some details, which should be irrelevant to the point you are making. So if you claim that my example doesn't qualify as economic coercion, then why doesn't it? I will die just as surely if I turn down the offer for $10,000 as if I refuse to work for fifty cents. What's the difference? According to your definition, I am being coerced in either case -- but it sounds a little strange to say that I am being 'forced' to work at the higher wage. You are loading the example in your favor by including very low wages, but the amount of the wage is immaterial to the point you wish to make. Surely the validity of your argument should not depend solely on its emotional appeal, so it should make equal sense to take about a wage-slave who is forced to discuss philosophy at $10,000 per hour."

I don't remember my exact words, of course, but the preceding is a fair representation of my argument. It took the discussion in some interesting directions that might otherwise have been overlooked – such as whether the CEO of a multinational corporation is also economically "coerced" to accept his multi-million dollar salary -- and the discussion ended when the Marxist professor said, "Well, I'll have to give some additional thought to your example."

That's about as close to an unconditional surrender as a student is ever likely to get from a professor. Ghs

From: BBfromM To: atlantis  Subject: Re: ATL: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 04:40:33 EDT

A. D. Smith wrote "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force.”

There is no such thing as "economic coercion." We owe it to people not to use force against them; we do not owe it to them to supply them with employment nor to keep them employed if we do not choose to. People have a right to seek jobs; they do not have a right to *have* jobs if the employer finds them unsuitable. So to threaten an employee with firing is in no sense of the term "coercion." The job is not his by right, but only by the decision of the owner of the business. Barbara

From: "a.d. smith" To: "George H. Smith" Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 05:06:07 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, George H. Smith wrote: The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later. These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it.(I pointed that historically most examples of land speculation of this type were made possible by the state, but his point was that even in a stateless society, this type of engrossing could be possible. My reply was that under a system of competing governments, a protection agency that enforced an obviously illegitimate claim to unimproved natural resources would likely arose the anger of the community at large).

From: "William Dwyer" To: Atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:34:02 -0700

a.d. smith wrote, >The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later.  These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it. >

I fail to see how this is an argument against capitalism, since capitalism doesn't sanction this kind of unearned appropriation.  In order to acquire property under capitalism, you need to mix your labor with a previously unowned resource, or acquire the property from its previous owner by mutual consent.  Obviously, there are issues with regard to the specifics of acquiring previously unowned land, but these cannot form the basis of any serious argument against capitalism.

I

n any case, the Coase Theorem in economics (for which Ronald Coase was given the Nobel Prize) states that if property rights are clearly defined and transaction costs are low, resources will tend to flow towards their highest valued uses, regardless of who owns them.

In other words, even assuming that people could appropriate land without mixing their labor with it, in a free-market economy, the land could be bid away in exchange for money. The highest bid would tend to reflect its most profitable uses, by reflecting what consumers would be most willing to spend their money on.  Thus, under capitalism, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference how the property is initially acquired.  It will eventually be allocated toward its most popular and desired uses.

If laissez-faire capitalism existed in Latin America, for example, the large landed aristocracies would not last, because they would either be induced to sell their land at an exorbitant price, or to use it in ways that are the most profitable and consumer-friendly. Bill

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This:

No tariffs and subsidies is free and fair trade, not crony manipulations in backrooms.

Now all we need is for the rest of the world to understand this is the end game, that is, if the EU pulls it off.

I think it will, but we can always count on elitists to fuck up something that is good for everybody, so let's see what happens.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2018 at 10:32 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

I did some more digging just to get some of the nuance straight.

The person who actually funded the original Steele stuff was billionaire Paul Singer, owner of The Washington Free Beacon (a neocon journal). He backed Jeb at first during the primaries and during that time (around June 2015) hired Fusion GPS (who hired Steele) to dig up dirt on Trump. After Trump won the primaries, Singer bowed out, but handed the ball off to Clinton in disgust. But it had to be hidden. Enter the law firm Perkins Coie, Obama's and Clinton's lawyer pals. Singer and Perkins Coie did their thing, then Clinton and Perkins Coie did their thing. Then surprise surprise, Perkins Coie hired Fusions GPS (thus Steele) for getting dirt on Trump for Clinton. What a coincidence! :) And everybody has plausible deniability.

Since then, both Singer and The Washington Free Beacon have sworn on a stack of Bibles that the dirt they paid Steele to get for them was not the same dirt Steel got for Clinton. So, according to them, nothing Singer paid Fusion GPS (thus Steele) for went into the Steele Dossier (paid for by Clinton to Fusion GPS, thus Steele). Yeah, right... Neocons and spooks would never lie... We can trust them... :) 

Now get this. Around October 2015, to Jeb's chagrin, Singer switched his support over to Rubio and kept the Fusion GPS contract running in overdrive. This is probably when the Dossier started taking shape for real rather than just earlier stuff about women, Trump University, and so on. That only stopped when Trump won the primaries. But that explains the following from yesterday:

Rubio: Carter Page FISA Surveillance Was Justified By More Than Steele Dossier

TaDaa!

Can't let a big-ass donor like Singer look like the fool he is...

:) 

But don't think Jeb and Steele aren't friends and this was all Rubio. They are all close neocon buds. So this move by Singer of sending Fusion GPS and Steele through Perkins Coie to Clinton was sanctioned by Jeb and all the Bushes. And by Rubio, for that matter...

Singer would not have done it otherwise.

I can get you links if you like, but you have to dig through a lot of extra stuff before this gets clear. It's all there, though...

Michael

Hi Michael,

Long time no see. Thanks for fixing my display name --- I'll be checking in a second to see if it is actually fixed --- and thanks for doing some background research on FISA warrant. I wasn't aware of the entire backstory. The right leaning news sites tend to only focus on the Clinton/DNC connection to Fusion GPS and Steele. I'll have to dig up what they said again.

Oh, BTW, I ended up voting for Trump. I couldn't bear the idea of the criminal Hillary being president. So never say "never" I guess. I've actually been pleasantly surprised by his policies. I've also found myself defending him from the relentless assaults of the left-leaning press.

Have a good evening.

Darrell

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,

I was looking at an article in the Daily Caller and that article says that Bush denied any connection to the Steele Dossier. More significantly, it says that the articles in the Spectator and BBC that said Bush was behind the dossier subsequently retracted their claims. The linked Reuters article seems to back up that assertion.

I also seem to remember reading elsewhere that no Republicans had anything to do with dossier. That it was purely a creation of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Not sure what you think about that.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/12/jeb-bush-allies-hit-back-at-reports-ex-governor-is-behind-the-trump-dossier/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-steele-idUSKBN14W0HN

Darrell

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darrell,

Great to see you again!

9 hours ago, Darrell Hougen said:

Oh, BTW, I ended up voting for Trump. I couldn't bear the idea of the criminal Hillary being president. So never say "never" I guess. I've actually been pleasantly surprised by his policies. I've also found myself defending him from the relentless assaults of the left-leaning press.

:) 

(That smiley is not gloating. It's an indication that I am happy for you, and for me, of course... Enjoy the prosperity that is coming your way and our way and everybody's way... :) )

8 hours ago, Darrell Hougen said:

I was looking at an article in the Daily Caller and that article says that Bush denied any connection to the Steele Dossier. More significantly, it says that the articles in the Spectator and BBC that said Bush was behind the dossier subsequently retracted their claims. The linked Reuters article seems to back up that assertion.

I also seem to remember reading elsewhere that no Republicans had anything to do with dossier. That it was purely a creation of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Not sure what you think about that.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/12/jeb-bush-allies-hit-back-at-reports-ex-governor-is-behind-the-trump-dossier/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-steele-idUSKBN14W0HN

Well, if the child whose face is smeared all over with some brown stuff says he didn't mess in the chocolate, we have to believe him, right?

:) 

The story generally goes like this in the press.

Jeb (through Paul Singer, meaning SuperPacs and front groups) hired Fusion GPS (and thus British spook Christopher Steele) to dig up dirt on Trump. Front man for the money, Paul Singer, as we all know, would never ever ever ever under any circumstances here on earth talk to the Bushes. Especially about this. And much less be in cahoots with them. NEVER! NEVER I SAY! :) 

Fusion GPS (and thus British spook Christopher Steele) turned over a lot of dirt (made up, creatively embellished, etc.) on Trump to the front groups, who then turned things over to a law group, Perkins Coie (Obama's pals).

Perkins Coie turned the project over to Hillary Clinton's folks. Fusion GPS (and thus British spook Christopher Steele) dug up dirt--DIFFERENT DIRT, he says, he says--on Trump and made the Dossier.

Jeb and Hillary say they didn't talk to each other about this. Ever. Meaning never. Don't know what you're talking about. They didn't even think about it in their wildest dreams. (heh) (Meanwhile, daddy Bush was preparing to vote for her, but that's another story. :) )

And Jeb's folks (Singer & Co., who by then was more Rubio's folks) say the Trump dirt Steele handed to Clinton had nothing--nothing at all, not even the words "the" and "and"--to do with the Trump dirt Steele handed to them. It's just a wild once-in-a-lifetime coincidence Steele worked for them both and, of course, Steele has such integrity, he would not double dip. Never in a million years. Spooks never lie. (Double heh.)

Anyway, most everything we know about this comes from the credibility-challenged press, legacy and alt, so I imagine the best place to get the whole story is in the following book which just came out:

The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump by Gregg Jarrett

I'm not sure Jarrett coves the original Steele dirt, but he probably does. People who have seen the book, including Rush Limbaugh, say it is sourced up to the gigi and written in easy layman style. At the very least, he will have to mention Paul Singer, Perkins Coie, etc. for something. And if he does not connect Jeb, what he does present due to the massive targeted sourcing will be one hell of a solid foundation for those who come after to finish the job. Might they end up discovering Jeb is as innocent as a baby in a manger? Maybe... Facts will emerge one way or another. And facts always tell the best truth.

I just got the audiobook, so I will be able to say more later. Oddly enough, the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon for that book is weirdly misbehaving right now. I can't even see the Table of Contents to find out if there is a preliminary pre-Clinton chapter. President Trump has been tangling with Bezos, so minor sabotage (by someone) is not implausible.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems somehow wrong ... Trump meeting with Nazi Leader of the European Union. What gives?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Darrell Hougen said:

InfoWars? Really?

Darrell,

I am Infowars friendly.

Alex Jones has a massive audience, believe it or not, far bigger than the mainstream news. Each show of his gets over 10,000,000 views. And Alex is always on.

People who do not watch Infowars do not believe this until they look, but each broadcast goes to all the social media sites, about 290 radio stations all over America, and God knows what else. Further, Infowars does not enforce copyright of its material. On the contrary, it tells people to use its stuff for free. So there are people all over the place retransmitting and rebroadcasting Infowars stuff.

There are staunch fans of Infowars all over the heartland. Much more than you might suspect.

More importantly, the guest lineup of Infowars would probably surprise you. Tucker Carlson, for instance, was interviewed there. Matt Drudge himself showed up one day. During the election, Alex interviewed then-candidate Trump. Experts of all sorts go there.

It has caused some cognitive dissonance with many people that I do not mock Infowars with tin-foil hat and so on. But when I look at something, people say it is one way and what I see is another, I go with my eyes.

I've talked about it before, but I'll mention it here since you have not followed this stuff. Sometimes you need a bulldozer to go in and flatten everything. That's Alex. Then you go in behind for nuance, further digging, etc. More often than not, Alex does a real good job of clearing the land. Once in a while he'll hit a water mains, then that's all his detractors will talk about. But not his audience.

Think of this. Every member of his audience votes.

Why do you think Hillary Clinton attacked Alex Jones by name late in the campaign? It finally dawned on her that she was getting her ass kicked in the heartland. Right now, there is a full frontal assault on Infowars by the mainstream media. CNN, for just one example, formally asked Facebook to remove Infowars from the platform. Facebook refused, but promised a form of shadow banning. Despite that, the CNN folks were pissed. If Infowars was nothing but a bunch of kooks, why would CNN bother?

If a person is interested in influencing the world, shouldn't he--at the very minimum--look at a massive audience like Infowar's to see what those people think? Or would it be better to make some dismissive comment or other about conspiracy theories, not think about it anymore, then be surprised at election results?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I am Infowars friendly.

Hi Michael,

I guess I've gotten burned by InfoWars inaccuracies before, so I generally steer clear of them. Of course, if your goal is to see what other people are looking at, then you should go where everyone else goes. My goal is to try to find accurate information.

I like Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller. The Daily Caller probably has some other good reporters too. Breitbart has been hot and cold. So has PJMedia. I like it when they have original material and not just opinion pieces or regurgitated material from the left-stream media.

The Daily Caller broke the story about Stefan Halper trying to spearfish George Papadopolous and Carter Page for example. They were the first outlet to release Halper's name and did original reporting based on a source familiar with the situation. I also trust their veracity. InfoWars, not so much.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/25/george-papadopoulos-london-emails/

Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Darrell Hougen said:

Of course, if your goal is to see what other people are looking at, then you should go where everyone else goes. 

Darrell,

My main goal isn't even that, although that is one of them.

I've noticed in the general public, and even here in online O-Land discussions, that people have a predisposition for believing absolute crap if it is served up by the mainstream media and/or endorsed by powerful people.

Think of really disastrous political crap like Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction as justification for an invasion, or an anti-Islamic YouTube video was the reason for the Benghazi attack where Americans diplomats and others were killed, or more recently, a nonstop barrage of phony-baloney crap about Trump colluding with Russians. A list of this crap goes a mile long. These all can reasonably be called "conspiracy theories," except they were promoted ardently in "respectable" venues and consumed as "credible" news by the public.

How many times does someone have to be caught in a lie before people start to believe he is a liar? Well, if the liar is an institution of power, the answer is a good chunk of people will never believe he is a liar. They will go back to the liar time and time again and accept information from him as the truth by default. When called on to justify their beliefs, they will cite the liar as source and proudly congratulate themselves on being well-informed. When they cannot avoid acknowledging some blatant act of deception by their beloved lying institution, they will try to find a scapegoat employee or simply blow it off as a temporary screw-up.

 

Hard Wiring

Humans are practically hardwired to believe in the integrity of governing institutions (there is an automatic hierarchy detection thing that evolved in human brains). People get really uncomfortable when someone attacks an institution in anything other than general terms that can be blown off as venting. The possible collapse or abandonment of an institution makes them feel insecure. This is a default emotion.

Now, the problem with institutions is they are run by elites by definition. When the elite is a good person, everything runs along well. When the elite is an elitist, which I define as someone who innately feels superior to the rest of humanity and feels entitled to rule over them, treat them as livestock or laboratory animals, treat them as cannon fodder to promote endless war for profit so they can sell their stuff, laughs at them for cheap entertainment, and seeks ruling insider clubs as ends in themselves simply because they, as members, see each other as metaphysically entitled over everyone else, such an elitist will corrupt his office and count on other elitists to cover for him. This kind of person is garbage. When people like that are leaders of institutions, they have plenty of opportunity to squash individual voices. Which makes getting at the truth about them damn hard.

 

Question authority? Who, me?

Not to question authority is contrary to the American can-do opportunity-for-all spirit. There's a book I suggest called Conspiracy Theory in America by Lance deHaven-Smith. He's a Professor Emeritus at Florida State University. It's an eye-opener, not so much about this or that specific conspiracy theory. It's about the manipulated attitudes the public has had when an actual conspiracy has been unfolding right before their eyes. They are not given answers. They are induced to shut down their own questioning.

The term, "conspiracy theory" itself, as used currently, was engineered by the CIA to get people to stop questioning the Warren Report on the Kennedy assassination. Mr. deHaven-Smith presents the memo the CIA sent all over promoting this idea and requesting government press offices act accordingly . (The actual name "conspiracy theory" for this concept entered the public lexicon a little later. It does not mean identification of some idea, which it had meant when sporadically used before. Instead, it became a rhetorical device to get people to stop talking about something on pain of public ridicule.) 

Another point Mr. deHaven-Smith makes is that being suspicious of those in power is essentially one of the American attitudes that has kept the country strong. Hell, the entire country started as a conspiracy among elites, so there is no reason to suppose elites are all good guys who would not conspire with each other. They do it all the time, all of them, for good and bad. And in both cases, good and bad, benign and toxic, they like to keep their conspiracies hidden.

 

Enter the attack dog

When elites have bad guys among them, and these bad guys are powerful by definition of being an elite, how is a normal anyone to question them in public? If an individual speaks up, he is destroyed and never even knows what hit him. The only way is to get high-energy attack dogs who organize themselves, are constitutionally protected to use their free speech, and don't give a damn about being persecuted.

That is Alex Jones. Oh, he gets too zealous at times, and is way too quick to accuse from inference (which, oddly enough, he constantly mentions when he asks a guest to keep him honest), but that is a quality of a person who passionately runs on a "mission from God" mentality. And make no mistake about it. Alex, in his mind, is on a mission from God. He even uses the rhetorical speech patterns and tones of revivalist backwater preachers at times.

And he's good at what he does. Damn good. If you ever look deeper than surface at the major scandals erupting among the powerful these days and trace their public exposure back to the roots, you will almost always see the fingerprint of Alex Jones there. He has one hell of a track record. (Roger Stone, who has become a regular commentator at Infowars, likes to brag about this. He says you tune into Infowars to get the news before it's news.)

Does Alex get things wrong at times? Sure. How could he not since he runs 24/7 in overdrive. But his misfires are is the only things the mainstream media likes to focus on. The truth is, though, Alex gets a lot more right than wrong. And that explains why intelligent people from all over America and the world tune in. I'm not talking about truck-drivers and the like, either. (Nothing wrong with truck drivers, but they tend to not be intellectual.) I'm talking about people who would shock you to know they tune in. Government officials. Industry leaders. College professors. And so on. They all want an attack dog to sniff out elitist rot.

 

Alex the pit bull

If you want to see someone constantly nipping at the heels of the powerful and see what the elites, and especially the elitists, are possibly hiding, Alex is your man. And he's colorful as hell. Just that "Bill Clinton is a rapist" campaign was enough to turn me into a fan.

This happened during the Trump campaign. Alex offered cash prizes for people who managed to get interviewed live as a person-in-the-street on places like CNN, then include the phrase "Bill Clinton is a rapist" in the interview. Or for people who used a "Bill Clinton rapist" tee shirt and photobombed live broadcasts by the fake news as they were covering pro-Clinton stuff. Man, did he piss them all off. :)  Somebody should make a collection of takes because there were a hell of a lot of them.

I believe it was Alex (or someone close to him) who came up with the term "triggered." The purpose is to get power mongers (including control-freaks of all types, including social justice warriors) to lash out irrationally in irritation, thus make them look stupid. One of the funniest was when he put his hand on the shoulder of Karl Rove as if he were an insider of Rove's. They were in an airport and Alex said, "So what's happening, turd blossom?" or something like that. "Turd blossom" was a comical, but affectionate term George Bush used for Rove. Man did Rove get pissed and went off on a rant while Alex then looked all innocent, shuffled his feet, and said, "Oh, sorry..."  :) 

We need people who dig into what the elites and elitists want to hide. We will never get that from the fake news media.

That's why I use him for an indication of where to look, misfires and all. Alex is not the final word on proving a case. He's for opening of an investigation, so to speak.

 

My view

As you might be aware from this post alone, I love it when pompous sanctimonious elitists who tell me (and the general public) not to even think about something, and who lie in our faces about what we should not even think about, get taken down a peg or two and it pisses them off. :)  Alex does this well.

In my American can-do with opportunity-for-all attitude, a person occupying an elite position has to earn it, not be granted it because he's a higher form of human life than I am. This means his ethical purity has to be maintained by the fire of exposure, which burns off the bullshit. Alex is one of the best fires around for that. If an elite person feels that is not good for him, that his integrity should never be questioned just because he's awesome, and his backroom dealings should never be exposed, in my view, he should not seek elite office. I want the attack dogs at the door looking at him and snarling right as he goes in. After all, this man or woman is seeking office to rule over my life.

Also, I don't succumb to the idea that I should be embarrassed that I use Infowars among the places I look at for information. I look at a lot and I am reasonably well-read. Frankly, if nobody else is doing a certain job, you take what you can get to get the job done. People like Peter Schweitzer are not found on every street corner, and besides, for as much as I value this man, he's nowhere near a colorful media personality who can gin up a big audience.

And what's the job? Keeping an eye on the powerful to make sure they don't develop nasty things and get away with it. Especially, to be able to start looking and probing and asking inconvenient questions before it's too late to stop them.

That, to me, is the value of Infowars.

I highly recommend it for this use. I don't recommend if for turning you brain off and just believing what you're told, though. Alex does misfire at times.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2018 at 8:21 PM, Darrell Hougen said:

I also seem to remember reading elsewhere that no Republicans had anything to do with dossier. That it was purely a creation of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Not sure what you think about that.

Darrell,

I have just finished Chapter 7 of The Russia Hoax by Gregg Jarrett and I'm up to Chapter 8. Harrett addresses Fusion GPS during the primaries. He did not mention the Bushes, Marcos Rubio. Paul Singer or The Washington Free Beacon. He just said that Fusion GPS was originally hired by a conservative site to dig up dirt on Trump. And maybe other candidates... I am listening to the audiobook and I didn't focus on that distinction when he talked about it. It's a bitch trying to find an exact spot in an audiobook to check, so all I can say is maybe right now.

However, I have since read a lot more online and it's commonly reported that Singer and The Washington Free Beacon hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on several Republican candidates in the primaries (meaning not just Trump), although I have not read anyone say who they are. (Guaranteed, that list would not include Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. :) )

As to Christopher Steele, Jarrett said, almost as a throwaway line, that Steele was hired by Fusion GPS only after Clinton hired Fusion GPS. The other places I looked online say about the same thing (and, of course, Singer himself does.) The would mean that Steele was not on board for the first go around, and that means you are right and Jeb most likely had nothing to do directly with the Dossier.

There's still that damn Perkins Coie connection, though. Both Singer and Clinton used Fusion GPS and Perkins Coie. And both used them for dirt on Trump. That's a lot of coincidences. (Not to mention the closeness of the Bushes with the Clintons.)

I'll let you know what I find if I ever find anything else. I'm not digging on this issue as a priority, but my antenna is up as I read. So something might pop up.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Darrell Hougen said:

InfoWars? Really?

Heh. Why pick on InfoWars? Sure, it's often goofy, but it's really no more goofy than anything else. CNN, New York Times, Time. It's equal to or possibly a little less goofy that The View, Dan Rather and any of the former Democrat politicians and operatives who are now calling themselves "journalists" (like George Stephanopoulos, for example). Why single out InfoWars? MSK is supposed to be embarrassed by his goof balls while the other side reveres theirs and pretends that they're not good balls?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

? No prob. Seriously, all of these media people are advocates to one degree or another, and have their ups and downs when it comes to delivering valid information and analysis versus going off on a goofball tangent. I really don't get the singling out of InfoWars.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

How many times does someone have to be caught in a lie before people start to believe he is a liar?

Trump?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,

I hear you on Alex Jones. I guess I don't have enough hours in the day to listen to or watch InfoWars, so I'll let you do that for me. I also agree that the so called "MSM" is often less than accurate --- that's for you Jonathan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/05/brian-williams-lied-about-his-copter-being-shot-down-in-iraq.html

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-en-dan-rather-truth-20151229-story.html

Triggered

I think the term "triggered" came out of academia --- from leftists in academia to be more precise. As I understand it, the term was originally used in a serious manner to characterize the response of people who have been traumatized in the past by an awful experience such as rape to a stimulus that might cause them to relive their memory. It's the way a person with PTSD responds to certain stimuli. It causes psychological distress in some people when exposed to certain stimuli.

The problem started when leftists started claiming that people on the right were triggering psychological distress by putting forth their theories on politics or society. They then started suggesting that right-wingers be banned from speaking or that they at least be required to give a "trigger-warning" before being allowed to say anything. In short, it became an attack on freedom of speech. Never discussed was the idea that people with PTSD might want to stay away from speakers or events that might cause them distress.

Of course, the backlash has been to mock the idea of being triggered --- I think that most of the people using that as an excuse to shut down speech with which they disagree deserve to be mocked --- and I think that's when the term "snowflake" came into usage.

Fusion GPS

I did read an article on Fox News from last November that the Washington Free Beacon had originally hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump. However, according to the Beacon, "The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign."

https://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/fusion-gps-washington-free-beacon/

Cheers,

Darrell

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Trump?  

Climate change scientists?

Obama?

Hillary Clinton?

Do you really want to play this game?

:) 

We're talking about news organizations, not politicians. All politicians lie, including climate change scientists.

:evil: 

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Climate change scientists?

Obama?

Hillary Clinton?

Do you really want to play this game?

:) 

We're talking about news organizations, not politicians. All politicians lie, including climate change scientists.

:evil: 

Michael

Recent example of climate douchelords lying:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/26/shocker-national-geographic-admits-they-were-wrong-about-starving-polar-bear-video/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Background: some speculation erupted in the Fake News that Tony Podesta would be offered immunity as a witness in the federal court proceedings against Paul Manafort -- which will kick off in Alexandria on July 31. Emphases added ...

On 7/23/2018 at 5:44 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 7/23/2018 at 2:11 PM, william.scherk said:

What the hell was Caroljane talking about?  I thought we had almost finished taking her to the woodshed, and now this. 

Oh, right, it was a comment on "The Best Days of the Trump Presidency" ... still, fun to have excited OL's leader's curiosity or awe.

On 7/19/2018 at 8:53 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 7/18/2018 at 12:49 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Apropos of nothing relevant except tangentially, Mueller is now trying to get immunity for 5 witnesses in the Manafort investigation. I wonder if one of those is Tony Podesta... 

Looks like I got my wish.

[Added by WSS: I separately embed the tweet MSK remarked upon. I don't know what gives that account a baseline credibility, but here the anonymous account almost quotes Fox.]

Podesta didn't get immunity and that means Fox News is the worst of the worst of the horriblest fake news that ever existed?... Right?... [...]

Perhaps if one lives on a metaphorical equivalent of the Island of the Color Blind ... and one is prone to swinging from one extreme to the other, bearing in mind the fallacy of the excluded middle. There are other possibilities, I would say.

Quote

So I think on Tony Podesta, who according to anonymous sources, still has an offer of immunity on the table.

Thinking on is good, I think.  There is a Reuters story going the rounds that pretends it knows about a Witness List.  Thinking on ...

Quote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller on Friday submitted a list of 35 potential witnesses for the trial of President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort due to begin next week in Virginia, including bankers and accountants likely to testify regarding charges of bank and tax fraud.

[...]

Manafort has pleaded not guilty to 18 counts of bank and tax fraud and failure to file reports of foreign bank accounts. The charges largely pre-date the five months when Manafort worked on Trump’s campaign in 2016.

A large number of the witnesses are executives at banks that lent Manafort money, the accounting firm that did his taxes and others involved in financial dealings who could be asked to corroborate documentary evidence showing the alleged bank and tax fraud at the heart of the case.

[...]

The list also included people at businesses where Manafort spent money such as the director of ticket operations at the New York Yankees baseball team, the head of a landscaping firm and an executive at a Mercedes-Benz dealership.

[...]

Five of the witnesses, all financial professionals, were identified previously when they were granted immunity to testify.

[...]

I don't know if Manafort can be forced to be on trial in two different places at the same time -- once we get closer to that scheduled date (in September) in DC there will be more information spilling. So I will still my speculation about Tony Podesta and a possible 'immunity' deal until the DC trial convenes  and/or Manafort and the prosecution release or file the lists of expected witnesses.

Here another Fake News report, this time with moving lips ...

-- here is notable legal commentator Styxhexenhammer666 helpfully giving us the gin.

 

Edited by william.scherk
Added video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack...

Steve Bannon is going to be on Sean Hannity weekly in order to break down individual midterm elections.

His opinion is that in the current context, this election is a referendum on President Trump. The focus is on the big picture, not the local one, so it's OK if you're a Trump supporter to hold your nose and vote for RINOS. The context of this election (but not later elections) makes that a good thing.

Just get out and vote.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...