Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 2,971 through 3,000 (of 4,288 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Russian Hacking evidence #62927
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    More BS. Dems had that video all along and chose to release it during the debates for maximum effect.

    bnw, please refrain from calling what I post “BS.” Instead, try to disprove it. Demonstrate, with evidence, why you think I’ve posted something that’s not true.

    And what on earth does your comment about withholding the release of the video have to do with anything in this thread? Not seeing the relevance, at all. Or the proof that it happened as you describe. Or why you think hoping to maximize the effect of Oppo-Research is something only Dems do. It’s actually standard fare, going back centuries and centuries. Do you think Trump’s trotting out those four women before the debate wasn’t done to maximize the effect for him?

    in reply to: Russian Hacking evidence #62921
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Yet in the report its stated that no evidence of Russian tampering with voting machines was found.

    And… statement 1 covers a much broader range of things than statement 2 does.

    1: We did not make an assessment of the impact of Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election.

    2: Yet in the report its stated that no evidence of Russian tampering with voting machines was found.

    Statement 1 is not about or just about voting machines. And in terms of statement 2, saying there is no evidence of a particular action existing is not the same as making an assessment.

    The 2 are not equivalent statements.

    Oh yes they are when taken in the context of what Trump said. He said that the Russians had no effect upon the election. As in votes. That is fact.

    Trump lied about what the report and the intel agencies said. He tried to make it sound like they agree with him. They don’t. Far, far from it. They said, yes, the Russians hacked our system and tried to impact our election. Their purview did not include a study of “did this work or not?” So Trump lied when he claims they said it didn’t impact the election. They were never tasked with an analysis about that and never said it did not.

    And you don’t need to gain control of voting machines in order to change the election results. It’s pretty obvious that the endless attention spent by the media on the emails, along with the GOP’s, did change voters’ minds. They actually told us it did.

    So, logically, yes, what they did DEFINITELY impacted the results.

    Trump just can’t accept the truth, and as a habitual liar, keeps gaslighting the country.

    Complete BS. Trump told the truth. Maddox was again caught in a lie, er FAKE NEWS.

    The emails are a big deal. Just like the grabbing pussy video. But crickets about all the time given to that video. Such hypocrisy.

    Trump lied again, and the evidence is beyond argument about that. We have the report itself, and his response on tape. There is no way to spin that, bnw, unless you buy into his frame which is a lie to begin with.

    It’s a lie to say the report and the intel agencies said there was no impact on the election. Again, they never made that claim or remotely implied that. It wasn’t their job to analyze the actual results of the hacks. As in, did it work or not, and, if so, how much. That was never their task.

    As for the relative media time spent on the emails versus the Access Hollywood video? If you take in the entire campaign period, nothing received more time than the emails. Nothing came close. And when Comey broke all precedent and brought it up again at the eleventh hour, it dominated the news again.

    There is nothing “hypocritical” about stating the facts. And the facts tell us Trump lied, again.

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter.

    For the life of me, I don’t know why that wasn’t the end of Donald Trump right then and there.

    In any event, here is the President of the United States getting into a pissing contest with an actor. An actor. What kind of guy does that?

    It is who he is. He cannot help himself. He is going to continue to be an embarrassment, and at some point – inevitably – he is going to do something that is finally the last straw.

    I do not think he will make it four years. I think he will eventually piss off enough Republicans, and they will impeach him. There will be ample things to impeach him for, and they will choose one, and they will remove him.

    And then we will have Mike Pence, who might be even worse.

    I agree with all of that, Zooey.

    And that part in bold? I have a gut feeling that’s the case, too. He’s going to finally push things too far and his own party is gonna impeach him. But they’ll both do a ton of damage before that happens and, like you say, Pence might even be worse.

    Unlike Trump, he’s fully capable of hiding his despicable nature, and his plans.

    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Trump wasn’t up for a Golden Globe so Streep politicizing the event is pathetic. Hollywood can’t wrap itself around the reality that they lack influence with the american voter.

    I’m sure they realize they don’t have influence when it comes to the minority of voters who voted for Trump. That’s a given.

    And I love that Streep spoke out. It’s the American thing to do. Voice one’s dissent when one knows things are really bad. And Trump is beyond that. He’s a sociopath, a serial liar, a rapist, a serial sexual predator, a bigot, xenophobe and charlatan, all wrapped into one, thin-skinned narcissistic, fascist wannabe.

    I only wish the Democratic Party had the guts to speak out like Streep, and back it up with actions. I have little hope that they’ll do much more than the usual: rail away at the GOP before the election, and then jump into bed with them after it.

    In short, we need a hell of a lot more people with the guts to tell truth to power like Streep just did.

    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    I cannot understand why anyone even cares what countries hacked the info that Clinton hacked and stole the primary. Palast was all over Trump’s interstate (30 of them) crosscheck scam that won him the election and CNN.clinton.corp. said nothing instead pushing this bullshit that the Russians did it.

    It’s both/and. Plus a lot more.

    I think a better candidate could have overcome all of that, regardless. All the shenanigans Palast talks about, plus the Russians, plus Wikileaks, plus Comey.

    Trump is easily the most unpopular president-elect in our history, and the Clinton/Trump choice broke records for that as well.

    Democrats tell me she lost because of several factors, but they refuse to consider the most important one: HRC and the legacy of the centrist Dems. Some say it’s because of Sanders’ voters and Stein voters and that if they had just voted for HRC, she would have won. Ironically, they make the case for a Sanders nomination, instead of Clinton, but can’t take that logical step.

    If the difference truly was the disaffected Dem who wanted Sanders, or the disaffected lefty who wanted someone to his left, Sanders would have pulled in enough young voters and the disaffected, PLUS Dems who vote Dem no matter what, to win.

    Trump would have been defeated by Sanders and a dozen other Dems, in my view. His support is so thin it wouldn’t have been tough. The “anti-Clinton” vote was bigger than the “pro-Trump” vote, by light years.

    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    This is really going to be an ugly four years. Trump is easily the most thin-skinned, narcissistic, not-ready-for-prime-time president-elect in our history. He can’t let ANY criticism go, and when he tweets back, he invariably provokes the kind of hate that launches death threats against the object of his anger.

    He’s going to get someone killed. Probably a lot of someones, including journalists.

    I can’t stand the Clintons or a goodly part of the Democratic Leadership, or the duopoly itself. It’s not a legitimate entity, IMO, and doesn’t represent we the people. But Trump is just a whole nuther level of bad. Really, really bad. And the GOP unleashed is ten times worse than the Dems. With the Dems, you at least get some respect for science, some environmental stewardship, some attempt to mitigate for capitalism’s evil. Not anywhere close to enough. Not within light years. But at least some.

    Trump and the GOP have made it abundantly clear they’re gonna give a big old fuck you to science, the environment, minorities, civil rights, voting rights, the public sector, etc. etc.

    There really is a difference between “rotten” and “catastrophically rotten.”

    in reply to: Russian Hacking evidence #62902
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Yet in the report its stated that no evidence of Russian tampering with voting machines was found.

    And… statement 1 covers a much broader range of things than statement 2 does.

    1: We did not make an assessment of the impact of Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election.

    2: Yet in the report its stated that no evidence of Russian tampering with voting machines was found.

    Statement 1 is not about or just about voting machines. And in terms of statement 2, saying there is no evidence of a particular action existing is not the same as making an assessment.

    The 2 are not equivalent statements.

    Oh yes they are when taken in the context of what Trump said. He said that the Russians had no effect upon the election. As in votes. That is fact.

    Trump lied about what the report and the intel agencies said. He tried to make it sound like they agree with him. They don’t. Far, far from it. They said, yes, the Russians hacked our system and tried to impact our election. Their purview did not include a study of “did this work or not?” So Trump lied when he claims they said it didn’t impact the election. They were never tasked with an analysis about that and never said it did not.

    And you don’t need to gain control of voting machines in order to change the election results. It’s pretty obvious that the endless attention spent by the media on the emails, along with the GOP’s, did change voters’ minds. They actually told us it did.

    So, logically, yes, what they did DEFINITELY impacted the results.

    Trump just can’t accept the truth, and as a habitual liar, keeps gaslighting the country.

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    in reply to: on mod actions #62899
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    A book thread? Thats what this has morphed into?

    …ok, I’m reading an old fantasy escape book – Perdido Street Station,
    by China Mieville.

    WV,

    I’ve never read China Mielville. But have heard he’s great, and a leftist to boot.

    Thanks for the video.

    in reply to: on mod actions #62898
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    PA,

    It’s very different from any of his other works. And it’s fairly short. I really like White Noise. It’s one of my favorite books. But I can see how others wouldn’t. Zero K has a much different feel to it. It creates this really cool buzz and mood. And sends you into all kinds of different directions of thought. It’s a lot “quieter” than most of his stuff, too.

    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Trying to boil this down, cuz, well, it’s pretty obvious I have an issue with that.

    ;>)

    When you do this kind of mass action, cast this kind of wide, indiscriminate net over just one party, you’re going to hurt the dolphins along with the sharks, too.

    Better idea: Just go after the sharks.

    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Well to me, you are the one thats blocked and not hearing. So again we disagree. To me, you are “quibbling”. Yes, they went after “half” the neoliberals. Fine. Thats worth an “enh” to me.

    Someone asked Chomsky about the Russian issue and he basically went “enh, yeah they were probly doing stuff”

    They went after half the system and supported the Trump-half of the system.

    Enh.

    The Russian-powers-that-be are Gangsters. The US powers-that-be are gangsters. They all spy and hack and screw the poor and weak.
    I cant work up any outrage about what the Russian-gangsters did to the Dem-Gangsters. To me it’d be like focusing on how bad Al Capone treated Lucky Luciano.

    w
    v

    But what are the results? Did they leak anything that went beyond the banal? No. Did they divulge any information that advances “social justice”? No. Did they leak anything that stops a war, prevents more pollution, more destruction of the planet? No.

    They just leaked a bunch of wonky nothingness that tells us nothing we couldn’t have guessed without it before the leaks. But because they only leaked one party’s banality, it gave many Americans the impression that only the Dems do stuff politicians do, or that their staff acts like political staffers typically act.

    To me, it’s not about one gangster clan going after another. It’s that an unelected, highly autocratic, fiat-driven outfit chose sides to help one gangster clan rise above the other. And by doing this, they put the lives of innocent people at risk, as we’ve already seen in this case:

    Man opens fire in restaurant targeted by anti-Clinton “PizzaGate” fake news conspiracy

    There are far better ways to expose corruption. There are ways to do this without risking the lives of the innocent, too.

    I’m for that.

    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    . There is nothing “democratic” about them and what they do. They don’t attempt to build egalitarian, democratic, participatory foundations, or seek information others freely give to them.

    The people who have worked with him and gone public about what a dick he is cement all this. Assange is a right libertarian and he treats all people, especially those who work with him, like crap.

    By way of analogy. Napoleon did not advance The Revolution. Napoleon KILLED The Revolution.

    Agreed. This may be a terrible generalization, but to save time and millions of lives (h/t Animal House):

    Some folks on the left, and a huge number to their right, confuse right- and left-libertarianism. I know WV doesn’t. He could probably write a book on the difference. But it is pervasive, and it does cause confusion, and I’ve witnessed some prominent media figures — like Glenn Greenwald — fail to see the difference for a time. And then they unfail. But in the supposed name of “freedom and the open flow of ideas,” they’ll miss the intent to undermine systems that at least cling to a semblance of “democracy,” however tattered it may be. And they generally — those right-libertarians and their followers — don’t want to replace the tatters with the real thing; they want to replace the tatters with an all-private, all-for-profit, Ayn-Rand vision of things.

    And they think playing swashbuckling pirate will help achieve this. I think Assange is that sort of pirate.

    Tragically, it looks like Trump is a wannabe objectivist, too, and is filling his cabinet with Ayn Rand devotees.

    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Sorry, I wrote the above before ZN posted.

    I don’t want it to seem like piling on. But in this case, I agree with ZN to a large extent. I think he’s done a good job of dealing with the many sides of this issue.

    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Well again my own view is:
    1 heck yeah the Rooskies probably did a lot of shit
    because they preferred Trump (because Hillary was warmongering against them)

    2 Other political organizations/nations have also done exactly the same thing.
    We live in a world of hacking and spying and lying. Why all the outrage about this one case involving Russia? Cause Russia went after the Neoliberals?

    3 wikileaks is a separate subject and no-one has proven any connection between Wikileaks and Russia. Also as far as i know, no-one has ‘ever’ in the history of wikileaks shown that ANY of their info has been WRONG. I like wikileaks, and i like that they give the public accurate info. If its ‘selective’ its selective.
    Thats something to think about and consider and factor in — while we are perusing their ACCURATE info.

    4 And of course a related issue is — The Powers-that-are-complaining are responsible for all kinds of hacking and spying etc.
    Juan Cole on NSA Hacking:http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/those_times_the_nsa_hacked_americas_allies_20170107

    w
    v

    WV, if stealing and then leaking “the truth” gets people killed, you’d be against it, right? If “the truth” destroyed innocent lives, you’d be against staling and leaking it, correct?

    If we hold governments and corporations accountable for their actions, including “collateral damage,” and we must, shouldn’t the same hold true for outfits like Wikileaks?

    And did you see the article I posted about Assange’s threat to steal personal, private info from Twitter, create a database to keep tabs on “verified users.”

    I would think any and every leftist would be aghast as the criminality of this, of the potential for tremendous harm of the innocents, and of the obvious potential for abuse.

    Also: Wikileaks acts in an autocratic manner, by personal fiat, with Assange at the helm. There is nothing “democratic” about them and what they do. They don’t attempt to build egalitarian, democratic, participatory foundations, or seek information others freely give to them. They either steal or receive stolen information and decide, without public debate, to use it, with zero regard to the consequences.

    Exposing secret invasions, etc. etc. is one thing. Stealing and leaking indiscriminately, with zero public benefit, is another. It’s been many years since Assange and company have come close to the former.

    in reply to: US Diplomats becoming weapons salesmen #62878
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Obama Sold More Weapons Than Any President Since WW II
    link:https://popularresistance.org/obama-sold-more-weapons-than-any-president-since-ww-ii/

    …“What’s changed during the Obama administration is that increasing arms sales has become a standardized component of diplomacy at all levels of government, not just in the defense department,” Bockenfeld told Motherboard. “For US diplomats to become the salesmen, that has been a new element which really increased exports.”…

    Not just weapons. The State Department went after public, non-profit infrastructure, especially in Central and South America, on behalf of our capitalists. To force those much, much weaker nations to privatize.

    That is unconscionable and should be illegal. As with the weapons proliferation.

    in reply to: on mod actions #62876
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    PA Ram,

    I noticed your DeLillo siggy. Have you read his latest?

    It’s really, really good. One of his best novels, evah, and he’s no spring chicken anymore at 80 years young.

    http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Zero-K/Don-DeLillo/9781501135392

    I read most of it up in the mountains, sitting on a bench near my favorite spot, and that only added to the magic of the book. I highly, highly recommend it.

    in reply to: Russian Hacking evidence #62874
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    The ‘russians’ may have accessed Rep stuff, but that doesn’t mean wikileaks had an agenda. We dont know where wikileaks got its info from.

    Moreover, i dont care if wikileaks had an ‘agenda’. What if they ‘did’ prefer Trump over Hillary? Its not a crime. Its just an agenda. And since they only told the truth about Hillary, it doesn’t seem out of line to me. I mean telling the truth while having an agenda is not the worst thing in the world.

    w
    v

    WV, I’m with you on most things political, and have learned a lot from you over the years. In some cases, it took me awhile, but I eventually got there.

    ;>)

    But in this case? I’m not seeing it. And what Assange and the Russian hackers did actually is a “crime.” They stole private information without permission and, as mentioned, none of it, not one iota of it, as far as I can see, tells us anything that benefits us, the planet, the country, or advances the public interest in any way.

    For me, it would be different if the exposure included the things I mention above. If it exposed dark and sinister secret plans to wreak havoc on the innocent and the planet. But nothing that came out comes close to any of that. It just gives people the general sense that “these people are uniquely corrupt!” even though no individual email actually shows anything beyond the banal. And the only way that generalized feeling could take hold is the absence of similar leaking of GOP emails.

    Chomsky (and ZN) could describe the “semiotic” rationale behind that a hell of a lot better than my feeble attempts. But we humans basically understand the world through language, and we understand language in relation to itself and the world. When language is lopped off in midstream, and given to us in fragments, without context, our understanding is distorted. The more lopped off and fragmented, the more distorted it gets. We need to see X in relation to Y and Z and every other letter to really get a sense of what X means. Throw it out there all alone, and humans can’t “get it.”

    In short, I think what Assange, Wikileaks, the Russian hackers, et al did was immoral, unethical and dangerous for the country. It was theft without any benefit to the public whatsoever (in my view), and it helped give us Trump and the hard-right GOP.

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    in reply to: Russian Hacking evidence #62873
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Btw, I know some of my fellow leftists are certain that the MSM was in the tank for Clinton, and that Trump got a raw deal. In reality, the MSM spent the vast majority of its time — and this has been fully documented — on the emails. And it wasn’t close. No other topic was given as much coverage, and none of it was positive for HRC.

    Assange and Russia were determined, whatever their reasons, to put Trump in the White House. And they, along with Comey, helped do that. Though, as I keep telling the Democrats I know, the majority of this goes on Clinton and the Dems. Going back, in fact, at least forty some years, when they decided to abandon the working class and embrace neoliberalism.

    But if they had run Sanders, or pretty much any other candidate, none of it would have mattered. Assange, Russia and Comey wouldn’t have been enough to make up for how horrible Trump is, and everything we’ve learned since the election shows that, in my view.

    in reply to: Russian Hacking evidence #62872
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Well, i dont know what ‘Russia’ did or didn’t do,
    but i do know the Hillary/Podesta wikileaks emails were true and accurate.

    So assuming for the sake of argument that russia or some other group leaked,
    true and accurate info to the American Public….how is that such a bad thing?

    w
    v

    If you do that selectively you have an agenda. I mean it really is that simple.

    If they had leaked republican stuff TOO, I could see your point.

    But they did it selectively, so it is absolutely inescapable that they had an agenda. In short, they took sides. (BTW the Russians DID access republican material. They just chose not to release it.)

    And btw on to another point … I am both against the USA interfering in elections abroad and foreign powers interfering in american elections. One doesnt justify the other. To me if you’re against one you should be against the other. And that’s regardless whether or not we personally like or dislike the target.

    I agree with this. As much as we may dislike the duopoly, reject it completely, want to replace it in total, the old adage “two wrongs don’t make a right” is especially applicable in the case. And I think it’s incumbent upon leftists, of all people, to remember this. I identify as a leftist primarily as a moral and ethical stance. First and foremost I see leftist philosophy as morally superior, with the essential component of “compassion for others” very close to the top. I don’t see anything about the hacks, the theft of personal data without permission, and the selective leaking of that data as having one iota of moral and ethical support.

    Main reason why I say that? We learned nothing from those emails that will benefit the public in any way, shape or form, and nothing we couldn’t have guessed before the hacks. Oh, like, political operatives act like political operatives. And, like, politicians do a lot of stupid shit in order to win elections.

    We already knew that.

    This wasn’t the leaking of a secret invasion to topple a government; handbooks on torture and its black sites; exposure of corporate pollution; exposure of secret funding of terrorist groups . . . . etc. etc.

    This was the most banal, everyday, wonky nonsense, exchanged between normal, everyday folks, but because there was no exposure of the GOP’s exchanges, it gave the appearance of singular, unique, “Democrat only” chicanery and buffoonery. And that likely tipped the election in favor of someone far worse, with a party even more destructive than the Dems.

    It wasn’t justified.

    in reply to: Twitter redox: JAssange is not your friend. #62752
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Just a couple of notes.

    Referring to routine mod actions as “censorship” is being antagonistic. The onus is on the poster to make it clear they are not attacking another poster. If nothing else say “this is not directed at posters but at….”

    And, BT, pushing someone for answers is not productive. It creates a charged atmosphere and personalizes discussion (though obviously it’s not the same as a personal attack.) On a politics board, it is possible (in theory) either that there’s complete miscommunication that won’t be amended by pushing, or the person chooses not to answer, or they think they did answer. So I guess I am just saying, don’t push people in ways they can or do on other boards. Just a suggestion. The idea is we’re here for the long haul and something dropped today can be picked up again later in other ways, so “demanding an answer” (scare quote not real quote) just isn’t productive, really, and can cause sparks.

    Okay, ZN. Understood. Will let it go.

    Take care, everyone. Enjoy this icy cold day.

    in reply to: Twitter redox: JAssange is not your friend. #62751
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Because in this case we have the luxury of Assange answering those very questions you for some reason seem intent upon asking me and when I continually respond with Assange’s own replies which are somehow never enough for you.

    No, bnw, Assange can’t possibly answer the questions I posed. He doesn’t and can’t speak for you. And I’ve read his spin, his excuses and rationalization already, long before I asked my questions about your views.

    I couldn’t care less what he has to say about his theft of private information, his hacking, his playing god with the lives of innocent people. I already know where he stands.

    I’m trying to find our where you stand on this, in your own words. I wouldn’t have asked otherwise.

    in reply to: Twitter redox: JAssange is not your friend. #62733
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    And I’m still waiting for you to actually answer a single one of my questions.

    I answer your questions. It is you who ignores my questions. So why should I continue to extend such courtesy when I am routinely censored? Again enjoy and run with your safe space!

    No, bnw, you haven’t answered my questions. Like:

    They don’t “shine the spotlight on government corruption, malfeasance, lies etc.” If they did that, we would have had a massive leak about the Republicans too. Who controls Congress, bnw? Who controls most of the states?

    Do you honestly believe “corruption, malfeasance, lies, etc.” only comes from the Democrats?

    Why do you support the leaking of private information without permission when Assange does it?

    For starters.

    Listen to the very recent Hannity interview of Assange in which your questions are answered by Assange.

    I bid you good day in the other thread, but will respond here before I go:

    How can Assange answer those questions for you? I wanted to know your view of these things.

    in reply to: Crybully #62727
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    OK, since nobody guessed, I was thinking that Trump fits the term “crybully” to a T.

    and, crybully is easier to say than “thin skinned winy little bitch”.

    I like it.

    Agreed, TSRF. He’s the poster-child for that. And it’s what Mob bosses tend to do as well. Trump has serious Mob ties, and he’s going to be, in effect, our first Mob boss-in-chief.

    If I were a religious man, I’d say “heaven help us all!”

    in reply to: Crybully #62725
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Again, bnw, no safe space is needed for anything I’ve said. And I’ve never needed it to make my case or debate things here or in the real world.

    Au contraire.

    Then state your case and let’s see. One-liners don’t count as debate. Can’t make a decent argument or back it up that way.

    Go for it.

    Safe space. Run with it. By design I have no such luxury.

    You are free to do what I’ve done, which is to be truthful about public figures and the political right. That doesn’t go against board rules, because it’s not directed at posters.

    You can do the same. Post anything you want about public figures and any politicians you disdain. You have here, on multiple occasions. No censorship. The mods only step in when we posters make it personal. If we refrain from that, they tend not to step in.

    In short, you’re every bit as free to say what you want here as I am.

    in reply to: Crybully #62719
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Again, bnw, no safe space is needed for anything I’ve said. And I’ve never needed it to make my case or debate things here or in the real world.

    Au contraire.

    Then state your case and let’s see. One-liners don’t count as debate. Can’t make a decent argument or back it up that way.

    Go for it.

    in reply to: Tilikum, the star of the documentary "Blackfish" has died. #62717
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Tilikum died at the age of 36. Can’t help but wonder if the stress of living in a tiny tank contributed to his death.

    This is Tilikum in his living quarters…
    ss

    Wild orcas can live to 90 and one wild orca called “Granny” has been missing for several months and is presumed dead. She was 106.

    If you’ve never seen “Blackfish” I highly recommend it. It shines a light on the cruelty these animals are subjected to while living in confined conditions in marine parks. There are no documented cases of a wild orca killing a human. Tilikum killed three. This is most likely due to the stress of living in confinement.

    That seems self-evident. They’re not supposed to be couped up like that. And it’s monstrous what we do to animals, in all kinds of ways. Zoos, aquariums, theme parks, etc. etc. The food chain, etc.

    I should become a full-on vegan. Though I do my best to buy sustainable, organic, “free range” whenever possible. But it’s not enough, I know.

    Freedom for animals, hopefully, becomes a big time social justice issue. Social justice can’t be just about us, obviously. Living in harmony with the planet has to become a part of that as well.

    in reply to: Crybully #62715
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Again, bnw, no safe space is needed for anything I’ve said. And I’ve never needed it to make my case or debate things here or in the real world.

    in reply to: Twitter redox: JAssange is not your friend. #62713
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    wikileaks empowers the increasingly threatened whistle-blower who can at least through wikileaks shine the spotlight on government corruption, malfeasance, lies etc. It is what the press used to do.

    They don’t “shine the spotlight on government corruption, malfeasance, lies etc.” If they did that, we would have had a massive leak about the Republicans too. Who controls Congress, bnw? Who controls most of the states?

    Do you honestly believe “corruption, malfeasance, lies, etc.” only comes from the Democrats?

    And I gave you all kinds of proof that wikileaks has harmed innocent people, even gotten some killed.

    We can shine the spotlight on all the things you believe need transparency without doing that. Assange obviously couldn’t give a shit about “collateral damage.”

    They leak what they have and can verify. You should listen to the Hannity interview of Assange.

    Hannity is one of the worst media figures in the history of this country, and can’t get through a single sentence without lying. Why on earth would I want to watch him interview Assange? A person who, btw, Hannity and his fellow right-wing pundits (not long ago) said should be executed.

    It’s only because Assange went after Clinton and the Dems and didn’t lay a glove on Trump and the Republicans that he’s now suddenly their hero.

    The hypocrisy on display when it comes to Assange is off the charts.

    in reply to: Crybully #62709
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    I would respond and in the same vernacular but again I would be accused of name-calling. Enjoy the safe space.

    Unless I misunderstand the board rules, it’s not out of bounds to criticize public figures here. That’s what I did. And I speak the truth about them.

    It is, however, out of bounds to engage in “name-calling” with fellow posters. Again, if I understand the board rules. And I didn’t do that.

    No “safe space” needed for what I wrote.

    BS. Just keep believing that.

    I post facts, not BS. And facts about right-wing BS. The right floods us and overwhelms us with so much BS, day after day after day, it becomes nearly impossible to keep up with. Which is the point. And it’s making the country crazy. Which is also the point.

    Oh, like the one about Podesta being a satanist, or that the leaked emails prove Clinton and company were running a child sex-trade operation out of that little pizza shop, or that Podesta used “password” as his email password. All of that has been thoroughly debunked. It’s all bullshit, lies and more bullshit.

    And the really sad thing? The tragic thing for America? There is plenty of real stuff to expose about the Dems — and the GOP. There’s absolutely no need to invent shit about them in order to achieve the “public good.” We have more than enough very real horrors to deal with, like war, the surveillance state, capitalism, environmental destruction, mass inequality, etc. etc.

    It hurts all of us when the right produces mass quantities of bullshit and people buy it.

    And it needs to stop.

Viewing 30 posts - 2,971 through 3,000 (of 4,288 total)