The Left's New Darling Dingbat


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hey, hey, hey, hey, hello. This is Jimmy Fallen, late night host and excellent replacement for Jay and Johnny. Thanks to you, The Roots for that mash up of my opening song, “Here I Come,” and Alexandr

Meanwhile, where it matters ...  

Posted Images

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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. :) 

Tim Pool thinks AOC punked Pelosi big time, albeit inadvertently.

Instead of my millennial brain quip, he called her "fickle." :)

Essentially, she roped Pelosi into this impeachment thing by taking a leadership stance with the press behind her, but now that it looks like it's going to backfire like "muh Russians!" she says she is bored and walks away leaving Pelosi holding the bag.

:)

Michael

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

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

Michael,

I know how much you like or have liked them (as have I) so I’m sorry about how this is going to land but I think I currently have this partial list of fake on-our-siders:

Jones, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh.

(When did Napolitano turn? I noticed maybe two days ago that he did.)

I have thought this about Rush since before Trump got the nomination. He stood out to me at that time as not being part of Trump’s movement and as faking what he knows.

Rush was McStain-positive, for example, long after it was plain to everyone at his level of engagement and knowledge that McStain was a very shitty individual.

He’ll turn on Trump, very late, but we’ll see it. 2nd term.

I pulled this from the Rush link you gave:

“He (LaRouche) was absolutely insane. (LaRouche believed that) Henry Kissinger was the seat of the New World Order — and he pronounced his name “Kiss-singer.” He’d said, “Kissinger is going to destroy the world, Kissinger and his crowd.”

It was all rooted in the New World Order from the Trilateral Commission and all that.”

Kissinger is the seat of the New World Order and they were planning to eliminate 90% humanity* and both the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission had Jeffrey Epstein and Kissinger for a members. (These orgs have CIA and FBI Directors for members as well, so it is a bit more uncomfortable than usual claiming ignorance of what Epstein was about.)

I don’t know exactly who was in charge of whom in their big sick world, but we need more attention on it, not the belittling that Rush engaged in, and at this late date it is inexcusable.

I know it sounds thin, a small tell, but it is another in a long, long series. He is Operation Mockingbird. His job will be to tear a bunch of Trump supporters away from Trump when the shit hits the fan. (His job has been fake opposition to [Them] to fill the space that real truth-tellers could fill and pose no actual harm by restricting to screaming loudly only that which had already gotten out and was being discussed anyway. This way no real opposition, only ineffective “opposition puppets” you control and who will not hit you anywhere soft and yet who your targets by the millions take for sincere voices of their movement.)

Speaking of Op Mockingbird and Council on Foreign Relations, many, many mass media personalities, authors, newscasters are members. This list appears to be ten or fifteen years old, but will do:

Many of our major network news anchors and media members belong to the CFR. 

NBC's Brian Williams is a member. So is CBS's Katie Couric, ABC's Diane Sawyer, and MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski. Former anchors Dan Rather (CBS) andTom Brokaw (NBC) are also members. Other media members include Bob Schieffer (CBS), Barbara Walters (ABC), Judy Woodruff (CNN), Paula Zahn(CNN), Lesley Stahl (CBS 60-M Minutes), George R. Stephanopoulos (ABC),Jim Lehrer (PBS), David R. Gergen, (CNN), Fareed Zakaria (CNN), Terry Moran(ABC), Charlie Rose (PBS), Rupert Murdoch (NewsCorp/FOX), Bernard Kalb(CNN), Morton Kondracke (The McLaughlin Group/Roll Call), and Garrick Utley(NBC/CNN).

Print journalists and columnists include Katrina vanden Heuvel (The Nation),Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal), David Schlesinger (Reuters), Judith Miller(NY Times), Gene Lyons (Salon),  Charles Krauthammer (Columnist), Marc A. Thiessen (columnist), David E. Sanger (NY Times), David Remnick (The New Yorker), Jack Rosenthal (NY Times), P.J. O'Rourke (Columnist), James L. McGregor (Journalist), Jon Meacham (Newsweek/PBS), Daniel P. Henninger(Wall Street Journal/FOX), Jim Hoagland (Washington Post), David B. Ensor(Journalist), Monica Crowley (Talk-Radio), Sidney S. Blumenthal (Salon), andMark Helprin (Time)

* For example, see Georgia Guidestones. Masons talk a lot about over-population, too. Who erected it and who controls that land is not clear to me. But rumor is that it is Turner, Ted Turner (CNN)

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

I know how much you like or have liked them (as have I) so I’m sorry about how this is going to land but I think I currently have this partial list of fake on-our-siders:

Jones, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh.

(When did Napolitano turn? I noticed maybe two days ago that he did.)

Jon,

Man, do we disagree.

Except maybe about Napolitano. I saw him turn months ago. He got it into his head that President Trump was going to nominate him for the Supreme Court and, when that didn't pan out, he turned. Now he's probably taking money generated by the anti-Trump wing at Fox (led by Murdoch's kid).

Each of the people you mentioned have their own personal problems, with emphasis on personal, but each of them follow their own stars. To me their stars are bright.

I don't see them collectively as Operation Mockingbird-like elitist wolves in sheep's clothing like you do--tools of the CIA. I see them honestly believing in what they do.

I can get pissed at times with what they believe in (like Beck suddenly taking on the role of an Old Testament prophet leading his flock to the promised land), but I see a basic goodness in all of them.

And even when my total trust has been broken like with Beck, I can still appreciate how he gets the right ideas distilled into layman's language and injected into the mainstream.

Like it or not, the American market actually works as it is supposed to. The crony stuff is a cancer on it, but the market itself exists. Each of the people you mentioned (except Napolitano, who took a ride on the media of others) made their fortunes doing it the old fashioned way of creating a product people in a target market love and putting in a shitload of hard work to sell it. Even Sarah Palin did that in her own manner.

That's what President Trump did, too.

I admire them all.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon,

Specifically on Rush, if you try to see his work through his eyes and not yours, you will see what he is getting at.

He believes the only way to fix the world is defeat the Democrats since they are the biggest expression of a worldview he finds toxic. He is all in with the Republican Party as his bedrock, but gets pissed at them when they wimp out. It's like a family thing where you get pissed at your brother for acting like a fool, but he's still your brother. 

Defeating Democrats and the political influence of their worldview for him is foundational. First principle level.

I don't see an Operation Mockingbird connection with him at all and I'm pretty good at spotting this.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

MICHAEL wrote: Defeating Democrats and the political influence of their worldview for him is foundational. First principle level. end quote 

I don't listen to Rush like I used to, but I haven't heard him say something I disagreed with for a number of years. I found an old letter I sent to Rush from about ten years ago, saying I did not like McCain but the only way to defeat Obama was to get together a John McCain and Hillary Clinton as VP ticket but I still have trouble not gagging  when I say that. Would McCain and Clinton been better than Obama? That is a tough on

This is from another letter I sent to Rush about McCain.

Joe Lieberman would be a good running mate for McCain because Joe is a mensch. Joe Lieberman would be a good running mate for McCain because Jews are rich 🐵 A lot of Jews live in New York, and as you may know, Joe is a Jew. He is a certified Jew. McCain may not be able to carry New York but it would still help with his popular vote. What if Hillary’s home state went for McCain? Hoorah!

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

Jon,

Specifically on Rush, if you try to see his work through his eyes and not yours, you will see what he is getting at.

He believes the only way to fix the world is defeat the Democrats since they are the biggest expression of a worldview he finds toxic. He is all in with the Republican Party as his bedrock, but gets pissed at them when they wimp out. It's like a family thing where you get pissed at your brother for acting like a fool, but he's still your brother. 

Defeating Democrats and the political influence of their worldview for him is foundational. First principle level.

I don't see an Operation Mockingbird connection with him at all and I'm pretty good at spotting this.

Michael

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Sounds like Rush is at the place where Jon says he was four/five years ago - seeing things as presented on the surface.

Ellen,

That would presuppose unawareness by Rush.

And that would be a mistake. He has frequent interactive access to a lot of heavy hitters, I would say most of them. Even his enemies.

If you look at the current cultural slide into the collectivist muck as a war and Rush as a general focused on a critical stronghold of the enemy, say a major logistical supply chain (which can be a kind of halfassed metaphor for the Democratic Party), and like a good soldier, he stays focused on his objective, it would be inaccurate to claim this focus is an indication that he is clueless that a war is going on and that other generals are targeting other objectives.

He merely lets other generals fight those other battles.

Sometimes he branches out and fights a different battle. For example, he believes (as do I) that an entire generation has been indoctrinated through the educational system here in the US into thinking that socialism is the best political system ever created and that the US is the cause of all evil in the world. So to combat that effectively, he doesn't focus on the lost generation. Instead, he targets those who are even younger by teaching them American values. To do that, he wrote and published a string of massive bestsellers aimed at young people, the Rush Revere series.

Notice that Rush does not have a social media problem. He doesn't use it. He does not have a cable TV news problem. He mostly stays away. Yet his popularity and influence is massive in the heartland--on the friggin' radio. It's so massive that major politicians often often schedule announcements to fall within the time he is on air or outside of it, depending on what their goal is. And we're talking about radio. Rush made radio this powerful of a political weapon. This is an indication of an extremely disciplined mind that knows how to stay focused.

I accept Rush for who and what he is, not for who and what he does not target. Within the restrictions he has put on himself, he is doing brilliant work.

No one will ever see him run for president. It's not within what he has chosen for his life. Also, I have yet to see someone take apart the thinking of Democrats and the culture that drives them to act politically better than him.

I think President Trump sees him exactly in this manner, too.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

For people interested in the dingbat, Tim Pool just did a pretty good wonky discussion of her political electoral situation right now.

The big news from this video is where she gets her campaign money.

Less than 2% comes from her district.

Guess who are the biggest contributors to her campaign?

Google
Facebook
Amazon

Think about that for a minute.

Isn't that weird?

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

While AOC is in scrambling mode during the House impeachment clown show, here's a cute tangent.

On 3/11/2019 at 5:33 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I used to subscribe to The Young Turks on YouTube (I eventually unsubscribed for the obvious reasons)...

I didn't think the reason was this bad, though...

That's good ole Cenk when he was a bit younger.

I wonder if he has refined his pedigree...

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 5:55 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I didn't think the reason was this bad, though...

Yup.

Bernie withdrew his endorsement.

Cenk, through Justice Democrats, managed to field AOC to primary a Dem dinosaur in NYC and remove him, then help her get elected (right before he got thrown out of Justice Democrats), but with a past like Cenk's, I doubt he himself is getting elected anytime soon for anything. Sex with animals is just too much, even for goofy Californians.

And here is Jimmy Dore's view just in case you want more details about Cenk and Bernie (Jimmy used to be part of The Young Turks).

Funny how Jimmy doesn't mention the sex with animals thing, though...

I like Jimmy, but man does he have a soft underbelly, even as he blasts other progressives for constantly caving.

(Not that I ever want any progressive not to cave. :) )

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On July 17, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Jonathan said:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls Israel occupiers of Palestine:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/socialist-darling-ocasio-cortz-trashes-israel-calls-them-occupiers-of-palestine-video/

And, then, under the tiniest pressure of a request for clarification, she taps out instantly. No más, no más! Oopsie, tee hee hee, I'm not the expert on geopolitics, hee hee.

I imagine that she was refering to Israel's settlements. It might be appropriate to call that an occupation (which is not to say that Israel should "sit back and take it" when it comes to missile attacks that penetrate into non-settlement portions of Israel and so forth). 

On July 17, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Jonathan said:

[…]she's a socialist despite having a degree in economics.

This shouldn't mean anything. "You don't understand economics" is the biggest gripe that I have with common political discourse. Economics is a science and as such it has nothing to say regarding normative questions. She can be a socialist and believe that the labor theory of value is wrong. Someone could be themselves a libertarian and think that the labor theory of value is correct.

On July 17, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Jonathan said:

Imagine the mess she'd make of herself when facing substantive challenges from a candidate who wants to win, and not a kid-gloved reporter.

Well, she went on to win the Democratic primary and eventually the general election.

I've been paying attention to her. She's an interesting person me to follow in national politics.

(I feel like I need to clarify—though I wish I didn't feel like I need to—that none of the above is to say what positions of hers that I favor, if any, or which statements of hers I concur with, if any.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Samson Corwell said:

I imagine that she was refering to Israel's settlements. 

A kind appraisal. But fraid not (seldom, and unless someone specifies only the settlements) The disingenuous statements by pols and many others shrewdly mask an opposition to the very existence of a Jewish homeland, as a whole. When pushed, she/he can claim Oh but I meant the settlements..!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anthony said:

A kind appraisal. But fraid not (not unless someone specifies only the settlements) The disingenuous statements by pols and many others shrewdly mask an opposition to the very existence of a Jewish homeland, as a whole. When pushed, she/he can claim Oh no, I meant only the settlements!

Tony, you're declaring perfectly normal parlance to have a coded meaning. Palestine today is comprised of Gaza and the West Bank. Israeli settlements are occuring in that collection of territory (at least in one of those three regions). That's common meaning, so I can expect to not have to bend to pedantic people about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anthony said:

A kind appraisal. But fraid not (not unless someone specifies only the settlements) The disingenuous statements by pols and many others shrewdly mask an opposition to the very existence of a Jewish homeland, as a whole. When pushed, she/he can claim Oh no, I meant only the settlements!

Look at what I get when I search for Palestine on Google Maps. And look at the non-historical maps that I get when I perform an image search on Google. No specificity required when I use Palestine to refer to Gaza and the West Bank.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Samson Corwell said:

Tony, you're declaring perfectly normal parlance to have a coded meaning. Palestine today is comprised of Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. Israeli settlements are occuring in that collection of territory (at least in one of those three regions). That's common meaning, so I can expect to not have to bend to pedantic people about it.

None in Gaza, some in West Bank, and all of the Golan. Spoils of war. "Land for peace" was refused  ("common" knowledge too) to the Israelis by the PLO and PA, after several offers. and that's where things are stuck. Advise you not be taken in by deceitful pols who condemn Israel's existence to curry favor with Muslims - and Islamicists. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism is the interjection of force into human economic and social relationships by the governing body. If someone says they're a socialist that's what they're about or they're stupidly ignorant. One is entitled to assume they aren't stupidly ignorant for the sake of civil discourse.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

People can do sloppy work loaded with opinion and call it economics just as people can do sloppy work loaded with opinion and call it thermodynamics, but economics is a science.

 

”Fundamental opposition to classical and Austrian economics came from the German historical school, whose members denied the very possibility of a science of economic laws. This group included Wilhelm Roscher (1817–94), Gustav Schmoller (1838–1917), Lujo Brentano (1844–1931), and Werner Sombart (1863–1941).”

...

”Economics has been defined in a variety of ways. In the nineteenth century it was typically defined as the science of wealth or of exchangeable wealth. In the twentieth century, it has typically been defined as the science that studies the allocation of scarce means among competing ends.


“I define economics as the science that studies the
production of wealth under a system of division of labor,
that is, under a system in which the individual lives by producing, or helping to produce, just one thing or at most a very few things, and is supplied by the labor of others for the far greater part of his needs. The justifica- tion of this definition will become increasingly clear as the contents of this book unfold.”

George Reisman, Capitlalism

http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/CAPITALISM_Internet.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

If so we can have a "science" of political laws also. The presence of economic and other truths don't in themselves make truth a scientific truth. A philosophical truth isn't a scientific truth. There is no scientific truth in economics hence no science. Throwing statistics into the mix isn't enough.

--Brant

economic laws are not physical laws and science is all about physicalities unto themselves subject to verification through observation and experiment upon some of which inventors can create and act if not now maybe later 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s nothing wrong with reserving “science” for the natural, experimental sciences.

I took my first university economics class, intro to macro, during my junior year of high school and my second one, intro to micro, that summer, and my third one, History of Economic Thought, during my senior year of high school.

Most of modern economics is awful but classical economics is straight up deductive process. There is coherent, logical methodology, laws built upon basic principles of human nature, needs and behavior. To the extent that human nature and needs are natural facts, the study of the principles and laws they imply can even be seen as a natural science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Economics is not a science. It's a hodgepodge of ideologies, opinions and descriptions.

--Brant

We have to distinguish between two senses of “economics” :

1) The proper study of 

2) the current state of the field

Your assertions apply to 2, but not to 1.

It’s not a hodgepodge field of study just because some do shitty work. Many have turned climatology as practiced today (2)  into a laughable fraud. But that does not invalidate climatology as a scientific study (1) of climate. “Climatology is a lot of ideologies and opinions” may be true of (2) but it cannot be true of (1). Likewise, “economics is a lot of opinions” can be true of (2) but cannot be true of (1).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now