Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists

[caroljane]

Just now, caroljane said:

Sorry, I meant "retweeting racist material, then periodically deleting them when the Ambien was it? wore off. I wasn't aware that Ambien was an anti-truth serum."

And I thought, though perhaps I amalone in this , that the subtext of her Jarrett joke was quite racist, even if aimed at a white person, implying that whoever it was would look as described - i.e. were black or black sympathizers.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

You need to change your brand of bubble gum.

I know it's hard to believe when chomping on this one brand, but there are millions and millions of people who honestly thought Jarrett was white until this media shit-storm.

Nobody has ever talked about her blackness in the mainstream because she didn't, nor did anybody among the power elite. And that was among all those people around Obama who talked about the blackness of everyone who was black. 

There's a strong feeling about this underground, and the backlash from ABC closing the show includes this element. I suspect, it's a major component.

It's hitting the people who didn't know Jarrett was black like a false accusation to get rid of her for supporting Trump, ABC being in bed with Obama and all.

In other words, it's OK to get rid of her for political reasons (although it's irritating), but to falsely accuse her of racism to cover it over since she was so popular is way too much bullying for most of the people I am talking about to forgive.

I know I don't forgive it. 

Michael

[caroljane]

I was and am a big fan of Roseanne's talent and sad to see what her expressed views have been that we were not aware of before.

I agree Michael, that she is crazy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[caroljane]

I will change my brand of bubble gum if you will lay off the Kool-Aid.

[KorbenDallas]

55 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Disney was right to fire him.

I agree with this.  Freedom of speech is a right, but Gunn entered into a contract with Disney and typically these contracts have clauses to fire if they aren't representing the brand.  Those tweets are horrendous and disgusting and Disney is well within their rights to fire him.  Whether Disney knew/didn't know, or evaded them, or possibly asked him to delete them is another matter for inspection.  But there's no way in hell I would have hired him if I saw those tweets.

[Peter]

It may be a cliché but "morality clauses" are also supposed to be in entertainment contracts.

[caroljane]

6 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

I agree with this.  Freedom of speech is a right, but Gunn entered into a contract with Disney and typically these contracts have clauses to fire if they aren't representing the brand.  Those tweets are horrendous and disgusting and Disney is well within their rights to fire him.  Whether Disney knew/didn't know, or evaded them, or possibly asked him to delete them is another matter for inspection.  But there's no way in hell I would have hired him if I saw those tweets.

Two thumbs up.  

  We can only hope there is enough talent out there to replace all the other Gunns and Barrs who ought to be fired forpolluting tweets..

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

42 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Whether Disney knew/didn't know, or evaded them, or possibly asked him to delete them is another matter for inspection.  But there's no way in hell I would have hired him if I saw those tweets.

Korben,

I have already inspected, but I would have to dig to get you links. Here's just an obvious one. In 2012 Gunn made a big splash in the press with an apology for similar material (if not worse) on a blog he had (see here). Does anyone believe Disney didn't have lawyers looking into that stuff? There's a little thing called corporate liability.

The thing is, companies who cater to the children's market have always hired pedophiles when they thought they could get away with it. (Here's a small list of pedophiles in the child entertainment industry I took right off the top of a Google search just to give a few examples.)

Why do they do that? If you think about it, the answer is obvious. It takes a lot of cunning to get a child to agree to have sex and not melt down. Pedophiles have to entertain children much more than other adults do out of sheer necessity, and they have to play on the emotions of children at the child's level, so they become wicked good at it. Getting them to do kiddie shows is almost a guarantee of success. Pedophiles represent a major kiddie entertainment talent pool.

It's sick, but that's the way it runs.

If you want an example, take a look at Dan Schneider of Nickelodeon. (See the RedState article, too: Famed Nickelodeon Producer OUT After Years Of Pedophilia Rumors.) Now take a look at a paragraph I chose almost at random from the Wikipedia article his name is linked to in this paragraph:

Quote

In 1993, Hecht, now head of production for the network, hired Schneider to work on a new sketch-comedy show for children called All That. After writing the pilot episode, Schneider worked as producer, executive producer, and writer on the show. Schneider quit All That after the first four seasons to run The Amanda Show. The show's ratings soon declined, and it was cancelled in the 2000–2001 season. Nickelodeon then asked Schneider to come back and revamp All That in 2001. Schneider agreed, and All That returned to Nickelodeon in 2002. It ran for another four seasons until 2005, bringing All That to the end of its 10-season run.

Without the pedophile and his "expertise" in goosing children's emotions to entertain and dazzle them, the show, All That, tanked. After they brought him back on board, it became successful again.

We're talking big bucks, so there is a lot of protection these guys get in the children's entertainment industry.

Think of it this way. If you want to learn how to be nice to people and get them to respond to you quickly, wouldn't it make sense to study with a conman? That's a standard part of his arsenal. How are you going to con anyone if they don't take a liking to you?

Ditto for children and pedophiles. If you're an adult running a show-business venture and want to be successful at entertaining a wide audience of children, who better to hire than a pedophile? That's all he thinks about 24/7.

Once again, sick, but that's the way it works.

Also, these companies get very, very, very good at damage control...

Michael

[Peter]

Black sympathizers? Did you mean black synthesizers? Black is the absence of color, which requires light to be viewed. The only thing worse than black is the jolly roger skull and crossbones. Who puts dead people on flags? Did those flags ever actually exist or is that a Hollywood cliché?    

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, caroljane said:

Sorry, I meant "retweeting racist material, then periodically deleting them when the Ambien was it? wore off. I wasn't aware that Ambien was an anti-truth serum."

And I thought, though perhaps I amalone in this , that the subtext of her Jarrett joke was quite racist, even if aimed at a white person, implying that whoever it was would look as described - i.e. were black or black sympathizers.

Um, WTF? Could someone please try to explain the above idiocy to me? Have I gotten it wrong? If someone expresses the opinion that a specific white person has physical characteristics which resemble fictional characters in a movie which were created to resemble apes to a wide variety of degrees ranging from very apelike (like the character Attar) to less apelike and more humalike (like the character Ari), Carol's position is that the person who is expressing the opinion is a racist because he is saying that the white person looks like an ape, and therefore that the white person looks like a black person, because Carol believes that black people look like apes?!!! And Carol's view is not that SHE is racist, but that whoever compares this white person to an ape is racist, because anyone making such a comparison must believe what Carol believes, which is that black people look like apes?!!! Jesus H. Criminy. Seriously, what in the everliving fuck?!!!

Carol, do remember that I recently posted images of celebrities who looked like various animals? Harrison Ford, Putin, Steven Tyler. So, in your fucked up brain, the idea of comparing Tyler to an ape is racist against black people? Do I have that correct? That's the repulsive shit that you believe?

Which races does your twisted brain believe are being insulted when someone compares a white person to a dog, cat, or horse?

J

[caroljane]

28 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Um, WTF? Could someone please try to explain the above idiocy to me? Have I gotten it wrong? If someone expresses the opinion that a specific white person has physical characteristics which resemble fictional characters in a movie which were created to resemble apes to a wide variety of degrees ranging from very apelike (like the character Attar) to less apelike and more humalike (like the character Ari), Carol's position is that the person who is expressing the opinion is a racist because he is saying that the white person looks like an ape, and therefore that the white person looks like a black person, because Carol believes that black people look like apes?!!! And Carol's view is not that SHE is racist, but that whoever compares this white person to an ape is racist, because anyone making such a comparison must believe what Carol believes, which is that black people look like apes?!!! Jesus H. Criminy. Seriously, what in the everliving fuck?!!!

Carol, do remember that I recently posted images of celebrities who looked like various animals? Harrison Ford, Putin, Steven Tyler. So, in your fucked up brain, the idea of comparing Tyler to an ape is racist against black people? Do I have that correct? That's the repulsive shit that you believe?

Which races does your twisted brain believe are being insulted when someone compares a white person to a dog, cat, or horse?

J

speaking of above idiocies,

Yes, you got it wrong.

[KorbenDallas]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

I have already inspected, but I would have to dig to get you links. Here's just an obvious one. In 2012 Gunn made a big splash in the press with an apology for similar material (if not worse) on a blog he had (see here). Does anyone believe Disney didn't have lawyers looking into that stuff? There's a little thing called corporate liability.

The thing is, companies who cater to the children's market have always hired pedophiles when they thought they could get away with it. (Here's a small list of pedophiles in the child entertainment industry I took right off the top of a Google search just to give a few examples.)

Why do they do that? If you think about it, the answer is obvious. It takes a lot of cunning to get a child to agree to have sex and not melt down. Pedophiles have to entertain children much more than other adults do out of sheer necessity, and they have to play on the emotions of children at the child's level, so they become wicked good at it. Getting them to do kiddie shows is almost a guarantee of success. Pedophiles represent a major kiddie entertainment talent pool.

It's sick, but that's the way it runs.

If you want an example, take a look at Dan Schneider of Nickelodeon. (See the RedState article, too: Famed Nickelodeon Producer OUT After Years Of Pedophilia Rumors.) Now take a look at a paragraph I chose almost at random from the Wikipedia article his name is linked to in this paragraph:

Without the pedophile and his "expertise" in goosing children's emotions to entertain and dazzle them, the show, All That, tanked. After they brought him back on board, it became successful again.

We're talking big bucks, so there is a lot of protection these guys get in the children's entertainment industry.

Think of it this way. If you want to learn how to be nice to people and get them to respond to you quickly, wouldn't it make sense to study with a conman? That's a standard part of his arsenal. How are you going to con anyone if they don't take a liking to you?

Ditto for children and pedophiles. If you're an adult running a show-business venture and want to be successful at entertaining a wide audience of children, who better to hire than a pedophile? That's all he thinks about 24/7.

Once again, sick, but that's the way it works.

Also, these companies get very, very, very good at damage control...

Michael

Well, this post looks like conspiratorial thinking to me, it starts out with a conspiratorial statement,

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The thing is, companies who cater to the children's market have always hired pedophiles when they thought they could get away with it.

Then there is a statement that is factual, outside of any conspiracy,

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It takes a lot of cunning to get a child to agree to have sex and not melt down. Pedophiles have to entertain children much more than other adults do out of sheer necessity, and they have to play on the emotions of children at the child's level, so they become wicked good at it.

So then the factual statement is used to substantiate the conspiratorial premise stated earlier,

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Getting them to do kiddie shows is almost a guarantee of success.

Now here is where I run into a problem.  It's doesn't necessarily support the conspiratorial premise stated earlier, that "companies who cater to the children's market have always hired pedophiles when they thought they could get away with it."  Still, continuing the thinking a statement is made to concretize it,

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If you want an example, take a look at Dan Schneider of Nickelodeon. (See the RedState article, too: Famed Nickelodeon Producer OUT After Years Of Pedophilia Rumors.) Now take a look at a paragraph I chose almost at random from the Wikipedia article his name is linked to in this paragraph:

Quote

In 1993, Hecht, now head of production for the network, hired Schneider to work on a new sketch-comedy show for children called All That. After writing the pilot episode, Schneider worked as producer, executive producer, and writer on the show. Schneider quit All That after the first four seasons to run The Amanda Show. The show's ratings soon declined, and it was cancelled in the 2000–2001 season. Nickelodeon then asked Schneider to come back and revamp All That in 2001. Schneider agreed, and All That returned to Nickelodeon in 2002. It ran for another four seasons until 2005, bringing All That to the end of its 10-season run.

Without the pedophile and his "expertise" in goosing children's emotions to entertain and dazzle them, the show, All That, tanked. After they brought him back on board, it became successful again.

And now I'm utterly confused.  It's a rumor that Dan Schneider was outed because of pedophilia, but the factual statement is again being used to substantiate the rumor---yet this rumor was supposed to be a concretization.  It doesn't add up.

To end the post this statement is made,

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Also, these companies get very, very, very good at damage control...

Note first that nothing was proven or evidence shown to support the original claim, yet this coverup claim serves to tidy things up nicely, to complete the conspiratorial thinking.  And note secondly that this concluding statement doesn't contribute to proving anything or supporting the claims made earlier, either.  This claim should be handled by itself and needs to be proven as well, in other words, where is the evidence for such a cover-up?  But of course!  It is damage control so the coverup would leave no evidence...  hence, a conclusion to conspiratorial thinking.

I would just say to reverse this conspiratorial thinking, one should ask, "Does each element in this context have to do with each other?"  In other words, are these things separate or together?  Nathaniel Branden talks about epistemological separation in his book The Art of Living Consciously.  Not everything has to be "together", and "oneness" isn't necessarily epistemologically valid.  In other words, there is integration and differentiation.  Not everything in the world is connected.  It's our job to find them, figure out what the differentiations are and why they are, and make the necessary epistemological differentiations according to what's out there in the real world and what is logical.  Otherwise, one can be doing a thought exercise and it have nothing to do with reality.  I think that is what happened with this post I just went through.  Thinking about possibilities related to the original premise---but perhaps one should ask themselves if taking that action (the thought-action) of doing so is valid in itself.  What does that thought-action do?  Does it explore possibilities on some kind of conspiratorial premise, or does it uphold epistemic objectivity and use reality and a proven process of logic?  What is the end result between these two, epistemologically, psychologically, and health?  In other words, does that conspiratorial thinking result in something of value, or would some other kind of thought-action be more appropriate?

These are my thoughts about this, and since this is the conspiracy theory thread...

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, caroljane said:

speaking of above idiocies,

Yes, you got it wrong.

Explain. What did I get wrong? I read your words. You wrote them. You wrote that if someone calls a white person an ape, then they are calling him a black person or a supporter of Black Lives Matter. Disgusting racist bullshit.

[caroljane]

8 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Explain. What did I get wrong? I read your words. You wrote them. You wrote that if someone calls a white person an ape, then they are calling him a black person or a supporter of Black Lives Matter. Disgusting racist bullshit.

It was you who brought up Black Lives Matter, not me, but no matter.

You have decided that I write disgusting racialism, and am not worth respect or consideration. I have become someone you have contempt, even hatred for, because of politics.

Because I speak against a public leader who is probably less intelligent or knowledgeable than you are, whom the evidence of my senses tells me is a bad human being who cares nothing about you or anyone else except as blind worshippers, you have decided I must be derided and hated , because of politics.

So because of politics , in retaliation I have to hate you too while you cuff me out of the way on your Yellow Brick Road.

And in general, I never bother with people I hate.

Call me a tramp if you like.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Well, this post looks like conspiratorial thinking to me, it starts out with a conspiratorial statement,

Korben,

This is why I am not going to engage with you too much on this issue.

I have worked in the entertainment industry and seen this stuff with my own eyes. I have personally known pedophiles who have invited me to participate with them. I always brushed them off, but a couple of times, I've even seen them calling kids. I've seen them change their personalities right in front of me when they talk to the kids. I've listened to them explain to me that having sex with kids is a form of rejuvenation so I should try it. I know of at least three famous American popular music groups that came to Brazil who had pedophiles among them. And I mean the lead singers. Two were targeted to the youth audience and one was an oldies but goodies group. How do I know they were pedophiles? I used drugs with them and they asked if I could hook them up with people who were into that stuff.

When you use drugs the way I did back then, you get to see things people not in the club don't get to see.

Back then, pedophilia was not a hot button issue like it is today. So I didn't give it much thought nor did I judge these people. My head was into my own vice--crack cocaine. Live and let live and all...

So I know what I am talking about. I know it because I lived around it. You obviously don't know anything at all about this stuff, preferring to deduce reality from a principle rather than trying to look with your own eyes. Yeah, you've told me about your law enforcement experience, but from what I can tell, it was extremely limited. You haven't seen anything of the world.

You are way too quick to present your certainties. When you don't know something, my advice is to make sure you have identified the relevant parts correctly before judging it. But you tend prefer the contrary because it needs to peg to some abstract set of rules in your head that are more appropriate to a courtroom with a formal indictment than a discussion or even common understanding. (This isn't the first time I have noticed this.)

I could ask, what good are those rules if you haven't observed much and there are lots of people who are bearing witness to the contrary because they have? But I have discovered it is useless when people prefer their certainties to looking, or especially to listening to those who have looked. Can all those people be wrong? Some sure. But when gobs of them are attesting to the same thing, something is going on.

That's just common sense when dealing with reality rather than word games.

I don't care if you think I'm a conspiracy theorist. From what I've seen so far, epistemologically, you are the one who has a mindset that works identically to the way you imagine the minds work in the conspiracy theory people you like to criticize. You tend to prefer your fantasies to reality and selectively blank out what doesn't fit.

Think about it.

As for the rest, since law enforcement is finally cleaning up this pedophile swamp here in America, I am on a thing right now to expose as much of it to the sunlight as I can. Once people know what to look for, maybe they can contact law enforcement themselves when they see something bad going on. Maybe, just maybe, some kid's life will not be ruined into a hellish existence that otherwise would be so some pervert can get his jollies.

You don't have to participate if you don't want to. Keep calling me a conspiracy theorist and thinking I'm crazy if you like. I don't care. I'm still going to do what I am doing. I'm right and I'm doing right. So lame attempts at peer pressure isn't going to stop me.

Do carry on...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Explain. What did I get wrong? I read your words. You wrote them.

Jonathan,

I can see where someone can interpret Carol's words the way you did. In fact, when the hyperbole is removed, the logic is all there.

However, i don't read her words the way you do.

Here is how I read her words, at least in that post.

Before writing, get into a foggy out-of-focus frame of mind where things like consistency don't matter.

Then go: Mumble mumble mumble against Trump good mumble mumble for Trump bad mumble mumble mumble Trump sucks mumble mumble our side does same thing as Trump? doesn't matter 'cause against Trump good mumble mumble mumble Trump sucks mumble mumble.

Of course, I'm reading the subtext when I do that...

 

Michael

[caroljane]

27 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

I can see where someone can interpret Carol's words the way you did. In fact, when the hyperbole is removed, the logic is all there.

However, i don't read her words the way you do.

Here is how I read her words, at least in that post.

Before writing, get into a foggy out-of-focus frame of mind where things like consistency don't matter.

Then go: Mumble mumble mumble against Trump good mumble mumble for Trump bad mumble mumble mumble Trump sucks mumble mumble our side does same thing as Trump? doesn't matter 'cause against Trump good mumble mumble mumble Trump sucks mumble mumble.

Of course, I'm reading the subtext when I do that...

 

Michael

Michael, I don' t remember being any foggier or out of focus when I replied to J's post than when I read it.But Trump does suck, so you could be right, for all my conscious mind tells me.

I emphasize, you Michael personallydo not suck! Just to be as clear as I can

Mistily,

Carol

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 minutes ago, caroljane said:

I emphasize, you ichael do not suck! Just to be as clear as I can

Carol,

I hope you are in better focus when you say that than when talking about Trump.

 

(btw - Banter aside, the feeling is mutual.  )

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

53 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You obviously don't know anything at all about this stuff, preferring to deduce reality from a principle rather than trying to look with your own eyes. Yeah, you've told me about your law enforcement experience, but from what I can tell, it was extremely limited. You haven't seen anything of the world.

Well I don't know.  I had to scan confiscated computers as a job requirement for pedophilia a few times and finding those images was hell.  Later around the victim's advocate department, which was a counseling and deposition department for victimized children, I unfortunately saw children and parents/guardians crying and distraught after their appointments.  And I heard about cases as well, people working cases.  Different, but still contextual.  I have had friends personally affected by it, so I do know some of the impact it can have.

53 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

This is why I am not going to engage with you too much on this issue.

I have worked in the entertainment industry and seen this stuff with my own eyes. I have personally known pedophiles who have invited me to participate with them. I always brushed them off, but a couple of times, I've even seen them calling kids. I've seen them change their personalities right in front of me when they talk to the kids. I've listened to them explain to me that having sex with kids is a form of rejuvenation so I should try it. I know of at least three famous American popular music groups that came to Brazil who had pedophiles among them. And I mean the lead singers. Two were targeted to the youth audience and one was an oldies but goodies group. How do I know they were pedophiles? I used drugs with them and they asked if I could hook them up with people who were into that stuff.

Okay, but don't take this as pressing, but this expertise still doesn't give reason to why Dan Schneider or the list of pedophiles in the children's entertainment industry that you posted earlier are actually pedophiles.  What it does mean is you have met some disgusting people that should be investigated.  I'm not saying that these people aren't pedophiles, but how does one see a rumor that someone is a pedophile and start pointing fingers like they are?  I don't get that.

57 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You don't have to participate if you don't want to. Keep calling me a conspiracy theorist and thinking I'm crazy if you like. I don't care. I'm still going to do what I am doing. I'm right and I'm doing right. So lame attempts at peer pressure isn't going to stop me.

Well you have said before on OL that you are a conspiracy theorist!!!  So theeerrreeee!!!!      Do I think you're crazy?  No, but I do think some of the stuff posted is crazy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

26 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Okay, but don't take this as pressing, but this expertise still doesn't give reason to why Dan Schneider or the list of pedophiles in the children's entertainment industry that you posted earlier are actually pedophiles.

Korben,

It sure as hell gives a reason. It may not be court-proof, but it is a reason. I am fully capable of credibly bearing witness to identifying what I see when it is identical in fundamentals to what I have seen.

Here. You like words. Look at these words. This is from the people behind An Open Secret. (We now have a thread here on OL about on An Open Secret: An Open Secret - One Bad Dark Side of Hollywood.) 

READ THIS from a victim of Dan Schneider of @Nickelodeon There are names who are ready to talk about child sex abuse at Nickelodeon, though this is not one of them. @entylawyer https://t.co/yXTlnxJRte https://t.co/a5OYAm5MeC

— An Open Secret (@AnOpenSecret) March 27, 2018

The link goes to here:

Blind Item #13 - Her Words

From that link:

Quote

thank you for all of your ongoing support. i Don’t know how Any of these meN sleep at night, but if there’s one thing that i Do know Is that what’s Done In the dark, always comes to lighT! xoxo

Sorry, I thought it was clever unfortch I will obviously not be making any comment whatsoever (for obvious reasons) and unfortch I feel as though the only way that legitimate stories can make the headlines regarding ____ is if others publicly speak on his behavior. _____ was truly like a 2nd father to me. But things changed. After the 2nd incident, i don’t know if I will ever be able to have children or have the family of my dreams.

People have been picking this scab for years. I just won’t be the one who finally rips it off. 

There is lots of this kind of stuff out there.

Notice that the Open Secret people said "There are names who are ready to talk about child sex abuse at Nickelodeon." That means they are living this stuff. They know the kids. I believe them, too. They made one hell of a movie naming names, showing faces, and even interviewing some of the pedophiles.

So don't worry your little heart about it. When everything gets formatted in a manner it can't be squashed by the pedo-protection machine, they will release it, just like they did the movie. And it will make a difference.

btw - The Open Secret folks constantly receive death threats. Cernovich always did, too, but since making James Gunn lose his gig, this has ramped up to people now threatening to rape and kill his young daughter and so on.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

36 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

... finding those images was hell.

Korben,

So pedophiles like to hide their stuff, do they? And they do it well?

Imagine that...

 

Michael

[Jonathan]

4 hours ago, caroljane said:

You have decided that I write disgusting racialism, and am not worth respect or consideration. I have become someone you have contempt, even hatred for, because of politics.

Because I speak against a public leader who is probably less intelligent or knowledgeable than you are, whom the evidence of my senses tells me is a bad human being who cares nothing about you or anyone else except as blind worshippers, you have decided I must be derided and hated , because of politics.

You're dodging. Why is that? You're trying to turn the tables, play victim, and turn me into a bully, rather than offering an explanation of why your stupid comments weren't racist.

You're trying to smear me and assign loyalties and motives to me  than I don't have. Trump wasnt my candidate. I've both praised some of his policies and have been critical of others. You say he's probably less intelligent or knowledgeable than I am. My view is that Obama was much less intelligent and knowledgeable than Trump. He really didn't know anything other than a wrongheaded ideology. His ideas and policies were destructive failures, but, despite all of that, he was apparently very good at posing as being brilliant and civil and caring. Trump, despite his flaws and his stylistic blundering and ugliness, is a big step up from Obama. Obama is the one who actually cares nothing about anyone else except as blind worshippers. Heh. His idea of making the world better is to clone himself. He wants a million more if himself. A million community organizer poseurs who produce nothing but impediments, don't deliver what they promise, and actually achieve the opposite of what they promise. Heh, and Trump is your worry? 

The hatred that you attempt to assign to me, and to Trump, to his supporters, to the Koch brothers, and to anyone else who has produced, succeeded, and doesn't accept your ridiculous vilification of them, doesn't exist. Your need to vilify them is your issue, not theirs.

And I think that your stupid racist comment is an example of it. It slipped out. You revealed more of your true self. You equate black people with apes, and you project that view on to others in your ongoing quest to vilify them.

If you had an explanation, as I challenged you to give, you'd be giving it. You don't have one, because you meant what you wrote. Now you're just stalling for time, tossing out diversions and distractions, and playing poor little victim.

Its not working.

You wrote what you wrote. Hating on me isn't going to erase that or distract anyone. So, quit with the dishonest tactics, and address the issue of your racist idiocy.

 

 

[Jonathan]

How would Carol react if Trump had tweeted exactly what she wrote here? Imagine that she hadn't made her comment, but that Trump did.

"And I thought, though perhaps I am alone in this , that the subtext of her Jarrett joke was quite racist, even if aimed at a white person, implying that whoever it was would look as described - i.e. were black or black sympathizers."

Carol and her fellow hyperventilating TDS sufferers would be apoplectic. They'd interpret it exactly as I did, only they'd be much more aggressive in response than I've been, no?

[merjet]

17 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Explain. What did I get wrong? I read your words. You wrote them. You wrote that if someone calls a white person an ape, then they are calling him a black person or a supporter of Black Lives Matter. Disgusting racist bullshit.

The obnoxious ignoranus has a strong habit of delusions and then regarding his delusions as reality.

[caroljane]

20 hours ago, Peter said:

Black sympathizers? Did you mean black synthesizers? Black is the absence of color, which requires light to be viewed. The only thing worse than black is the jolly roger skull and crossbones. Who puts dead people on flags? Did those flags ever actually exist or is that a Hollywood cliché?    

lol".Black or  ISIS sympathizers, " I thought I wrote but obviously not. Still, to a racist the term "black sympathizer " would probably be a ephemism for a less polite term ,used for white  ant-segregationists  back in the ol pre-MAGA days. Both ways Barr's joke was racist ,