Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
wvParticipant“Investigative journalism, at least in the national security area, is prettymuch dead, in this country.”
Bill Binney (in part two)wvParticipant…if nothing else check out the 16 minute mark. He says he worships the holy virgin, the “patroness of killers.”
w
vwvParticipantwv, link to the image you want to post… I will try to get it
What do you mean? I can see the image. Does it not show up for you?
w
vwvParticipant
wvParticipant
wvParticipantwvParticipantOne mans view (i agree with him, so maybe its two men’s views:) )
nation:https://www.thenation.com/article/what-weve-learned-in-year-one-of-russiagate/
wvParticipantHe was/is very sensitive. I dont think he could have played for Martz.
Long also noted that TB ‘cultivated’ the dum-image somewhat. I assume that was TB’s defense-mechanism. He played with the image, joked about it, took it on in a way to take the sting out of it. Maybe like blacks redefining the N word, or gays redefining the Queer word. …funny, i can easily type Queer but not the N word. The N word still has so much…somethin.
w
vwvParticipantIts gonna be hard to duplicate the offseason Snead had last year.
There’s lots still to do on this team:
1 Sign Aaron Donald
2 Sign Aaron Donald
3 Sign Aaron Donald
4 Solve the Critical LT no-depth issue
5 Depth at Center
6 Run stopping DT
7 LB, CBwvParticipantI think he has the best hands on the Rams.
=============
Woods and Watkins have great hands. And that was one of those A-to-Z improvements Mc-Snead made, I think.
w
vFebruary 10, 2018 at 10:55 am in reply to: Why Are Conservatives More Susceptible to Believing Lies? #82705wvParticipantThere’s a lot there i agree with.
I’d layer it with other topics though. Like the topic of “growing up in a culture of lies.” Ie, an ever-expanding, ever-evolving ‘corporate-machinery’ has evolved (advertising, PR-firms, Damage-control firms, Psy-ops…etc etc) that simply LIE to people. Various kinds of lies. Yes, conservatives may be more vulnerable to this machinery, but the culture/technology-of-Lies is something that needs to be studied to. Both ends of this ‘system’ need to be examined. The Lying-machine and the victims-of-the-lying-machine. (and the ‘resistence’ to the lying-machine.
w
vBut that doesn’t answer…WHY conservatives tend to accept lies more.
That implies that if the mass media and gov’t institutions were more truthful, would those same conservatives even believe or listen to them?
That is, one’s perceived political interests and values dictate what one believes.
One difference is that leftists tend to value accuracy, honesty, good analysis, and debating information as part of their political interests.
That sounds superficially self-serving but I think it’s a defensible claim.
….
…===============
Agreed. Yes, we dont really know the ‘why’ of why righties are more easy to lie to.
We know they ‘are’ easier to lie to, but the why of it is tricky. Worth studying.
We dont know the ‘why’ of why are some folks so vulnerable to ‘religious lies’ either. Why are fundamentalists so easy to lie to. How do they ‘get that way’. Etc.I tend to blame Fisher.
w
vwvParticipant49ers will be one of the most intriguing teams of the coming year.
Will they win the division? Finish 2nd? Third?
Just how good are they? They came very close to beating the Rams twice.
btw, i was listening to the car-radio, and someone was questioning the big QB deal. They quoted Garopollo’s stats in his games with the 49ers. And then they quoted Kaepernik’s stats with the 49ers over his last six or seven games with the niners — the stats were almost identical.
w
vFebruary 10, 2018 at 9:55 am in reply to: Why Are Conservatives More Susceptible to Believing Lies? #82698wvParticipantThere’s a lot there i agree with.
I’d layer it with other topics though. Like the topic of “growing up in a culture of lies.” Ie, an ever-expanding, ever-evolving ‘corporate-machinery’ has evolved (advertising, PR-firms, Damage-control firms, Psy-ops…etc etc) that simply LIE to people. Various kinds of lies. Yes, conservatives may be more vulnerable to this machinery, but the culture/technology-of-Lies is something that needs to be studied to. Both ends of this ‘system’ need to be examined. The Lying-machine and the victims-of-the-lying-machine. (and the ‘resistence’ to the lying-machine.
w
vwvParticipantMight as well put this here:
The russia meme is now influencing the Oscars.
link:https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-02-09/guardian-now-putin-is-hacking-the-oscars/wvParticipantWell, how can Dungy blame McDaniels and then let Kraft off the hook? Kraft also knew that if he encouraged McD to back out of the Colts deal, the assistants in question would/might be screwed.
w
vwvParticipantHow do i know this isnt fake news?
w
vwvParticipantThis is an excerpt from Jonathan Cook’s facebook, and it sums up my own big complaint about ‘russia-gate’. Its not that i think ‘russia’ didnt/hasnt tried to influence amerikan ‘elections’. As Noam matter-of-factly said a long time ago, “I’d be surprised if they didnt.”
To me though, thats the small story. The big story (to me) is how the deep-state/corporate-media/Dem-Party is USING the story to shut down LEFT wing dissent. They are using russia-gate to kill whats left of the left on the Internet.
THAT to me is the story. Not that Putin wanted Trump over Hillary or that Putin interfered in some way with the phony amerikan elections.
Here’s the excerpt. Fwiw.
“This piece by Prof Cas Mudde on the supposed “fake news” problem is the best I have come across in the corporate media. I agree with all the points the author makes. But he neglects to mention two vitally important additional concerns.
1. The moral panic about “fake news” is far more cynical than he suggests (and would be allowed to suggest in a corporate media outlet like the Guardian). It is at worst being engineered, at best being exploited, by the corporate media to maintain their own dominant, fake news narrative – a narrative that keeps voters uninformed and docile in the face of the corporations’ ever-more entrenched hold on power in supposedly democratic western states.
2. The problem of “fake news” in social media (as opposed to the corporate media) is, as the author suggests, predominantly a feature of far-right sites. But the hysteria about “fake news” is being chiefly weaponised to damage leftwing and dissident sites, not far-right ones. That is why western political and media elites are so ready to conflate “fake news” with Kremlin-bots and Russiagate. This is about manufacturing a consensus that the progressive left in the west is a modern incarnation of the “fellow traveller” and the “Red under the bed” – a scare story so that the coming crackdown on “fake news” can be used to silence us.”
—————-So if you agree that Cook is right on those two points, one question would be, “Ok, how SHOULD the media cover russia-gate so that the facts can be laid-out and light can be shown on the issue?”
My own answer is, it can…not..be…done….unless the issue is put in a broader historical context. IE, How is corporate-news any different than ‘fake news’ and what other forces (beside russia) influence american ‘elections’ and how often and when and where have other nations influenced American elections, and how often and when and where has the US government influenced other elections….etc.
Without that context the issue just becomes propaganda imho. Propaganda to further the notion of american exceptionalism and to shut down leftwing-dissent.
w
vwvParticipantwvParticipantIts gonna be inter esting to see what happens with the Pats
when the two B’s retire.What if they keep winning? What then?
w
vwvParticipantI never heard of Rohit Khanna.
wiki
Rohit Khanna /ˈroʊ ˈkɑːnə/ (born September 13, 1976) is an American academic, lawyer, and politician serving as the U.S. Representative for California’s 17th congressional district as a member of the Democratic Party. Khanna defeated eight-term incumbent Congressman Mike Honda in the general election held on November 8, 2016, after he ran unsuccessfully for the same seat in 2014. Khanna also served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary in the United States Department of Commerce under President Barack Obama from August 8, 2009, to November 2012.Khanna only accepts donations from individuals and is one of only six members of Congress who does not take campaign contributions from Political Action Committees (PACs) or corporations.[1][2][3]
…
..Khanna has called on his colleagues to adopt a more progressive economic platform.[41][42] He is an original co-sponsor of Senator Bernie Sanders’ bill to make college affordable to all.[43] He also has proposed $1 trillion expansion of the earned income tax credit,[44] financed by a financial transaction tax, to help working families across America.[45]
In the Budget Committee, Khanna pointed out that President Donald Trump was for a single payer healthcare system in 2000.[46] He now supports a bill to provide “Medicare for All” in the House.[47]
Fred Hiatt, the editor of the Editorial Page of the Washington Post, has suggested that Khanna is a thoughtful and new economic voice for the Democratic Party.[48]
NO PAC CaucusRepresentative Khanna founded the NO PAC Caucus[49] in Congress, with two other members : Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.) (currently three other members of Congress refuse all contributions from political action committees : Phil Roe (R-TN), Francis Rooney (R-FL), and John Sarbanes (D-MD)).[3] These members do not want to fill out questionnaires and pledge positions to political action committees in exchange for contributions. Khanna also introduced with Representative Beto O’Rourke a bill to ban PACs from giving contributions to members of Congress.[1][50]
Representative Khanna worked with leading constitutional scholar Bruce Ackerman to propose a plan for Democracy Dollars. Under the proposal, Every American citizen would get $50 to spend on federal elections.[51]
Khanna has worked across the aisle with Congressman Mike Gallagher on reform proposals.[52]…
wvParticipantThis is what I am talking about. The ‘russia-gate’ stories are being ‘used’ by the usual-suspects to accomplish the usual shit:
w
vFebruary 7, 2018 at 3:58 pm in reply to: The legacy of Jeff Fisher – controversial and complex #80968wvParticipant“You [Fisher] have been bluff-charged by a cow moose and chased by a black bear.”
More Excuses.
w
vwvParticipantCheck out Matt’s words at about the 40 minute mark. I found it interesting. I think this is ‘must listen’ type stuff, myself.
I started this at the 40:10 mark:
wvParticipantwvParticipantSome Matt Taibbi. Just for the heck of it 🙂
wvParticipantI think you’re making a much more sensible argument than most of those videos you post. Unlike them, in general — with exceptions — you readily admit that Trump and the GOP are also guilty of X, Y and Z . . . and then you zoom out big picture to say that national borders aren’t important. It’s the corruption shared by political actors, the degree of corruption, the quid pro quo of it all, etc. It’s the gangsterism of it all. Their venal “weddings.”
If I read you correctly, that is. Which is a pretty good argument for total repeal and replacement of our current system. I think you and I both want full democracy instead, egalitarian, free from concentrations of wealth and power, and oh so green, clean and sustainable . . .
=================
Well probly the no.1 voice I’m echoing is Chris Hedges. He sez Trump is a monster, but he aint buying into Russia-gate or Syria-gate. I agree with him. Again, he KNOWS trump is a monster. He’s not saying Trump is not a monster — but he doesnt like the WAY the russia-gate story is being written and told. Too much is being left out. Too much context is left out to make sense of the story. The way the story is being told by the Dem-MSM is merely going to lead to another Hillary/Obama/Goldman-Sachs.
1) Yes Trump is a monstrous-monster.
2) But the MSM reflects the Deep State agenda — and that agenda is not to get at the truth or talk about the truth. (truth being the big picture, context, empire, etc)
3) And without that big-picture-context, any MSM stories about Trump — end up being Propaganda. Add the big-picture-context and then, yes, the stories about Trump might make the bewildered-herd into actual functioning citizens.I would not have said this about five or six years ago. I would have said something like “a story about Trump is perfectly fine if its narrow and only about Trump”. But now, I see it differently. Now i see that the OMISSION of context leads to idiot-citizens. It just does. The way the MSM tells stories just leads to the idiot-voters voting for Hillary…or Trump…or Obama…or Bush…or Reagan…or…Clinton….
There’s no real, useful, comprehensible ‘truth’ as long as what I’m calling ‘the context’ is being left out. (and its being left out for all the reasons Noam and Herman talked about in Manufacturing Consent)
Among knowledgeable, critical thinkers with high POLITICAL IQs (leftists like you)
these MSM stories can be understood and critiqued and used. But among the bewildered Herd these stories about Russia-gate (and i would argue Syria as well, and a gazillion others) amount to nothing more than deep-state Propaganda.…ps — and one teeny tiny pet-peeve that annoys the hell out of me. And it points to what I’m talking about in a very small way — WHY does the MSM use the word “Oligarchs” to describe rich russians but not billionaire Americans? Why would that be? They want us to go in search of enemies. They want us to think in terms of Nationalism and borders. They do not want us to think in terms of power. Who has it, and who doesnt.
w
vwvParticipantPS — Aronofsky said reading “The Giving Tree” was a prerequisite for watching the movie. Fwiw.
w
vwvParticipantWhen you get the time, I still would like to hear what you think did happen, during the campaign, with Trump, Russia, and the whole deal. Not about the false narrative you think is being presented. But what you believe actually happened instead.
==========
Billy, I dont think anything ‘worse’ happened than whats happened with Obama or Clinton or Bush, with regard to…say…Israel. And i dont hear a firestorm from either the Dem-MSM or the Rep-MSM about ‘that’.
Thats not the ‘kind’ of answer you are looking for, I know, but thats how wv-brain looks at this stuff, nowadays.
You noted some of the vids i post almost make it out that Trump is a ‘victim’ — well, i dont think he’s a victim, i think he’s a monster, but i totally ‘get’ the subtext among some radicals that he’s a victim. They are picking up on the fact that the MSMs didnt go after Obama or Bush or Clinton for ‘their’ various collusions with mega-powers. Be they Israel or Mega-toxic-Corporations (I dont see the difference btw, in ‘colluding’ with Russia or colluding with Monsanto or Exxon. See the famous movie ‘Network’ speech — you know the one 🙂
PS — as for the specifics of the Trump and Russia thing — I dunno what happened. I dont think we ever get to know the full extent of these kinds of gangster weddings. I’m sure Trump and his evil henchmen got in bed with all kinds of other National and Corporate gangsters and Oligarchs. But i just dont see what they did as any more harmful than what Obama did getting in bed with Goldman Sachs, etc. I mean you can say the russia thing was “illegal” and the Goldman Sachs thing is all nice and “legal” — but are ‘you’ satisfied with that kind of distinction? 🙂
We are being fucked to death…by…”powerful forces of Nature, Mr Beale” 🙂
w
vwvParticipantWell theres a whole lot there that you are asserting is true or proven. You and i would have to take each assertion one by one, and look at the actual evidence. But I doubt we would end up agreeing because I doubt i would trust your sources.
Plus there’s parts of this that just dont ‘bother’ me. Like Assange favoring Trump over Hillary. I dont care if he did. Its not illegal for him to favor Trump over Hillary. He called them both diseases, btw, as we know. Though, from day one, i suspected he favored Trump. I mean why wouldnt he. He knew Hillary wanted him in prison. He didnt know what Trump would want at the time.
My main point though, is, i dont trust the sources you are relying on, to tell us the facts/truths. Its a big issue for me now. Loss of trust in sources of info.
It changes things for me.w
vOn trust: I don’t accept anything blindly, and I question everything. But when patterns emerge for me, and check out with a variety of sources, I think we’ve gotten close to the truth. And when it comes to Trump over the course of the last two years or so, the patterns are there.
Boiled down, they first denied any contacts with the Russians, whatsoever. News sources prove that to be false. Trump or his spinners walk back their story, little by little, but claim it’s not important because they supposedly talked about something trivial.
News sources give us more specifics. Trump or spinners walk back previous stance and try to say those specifics aren’t important and on and on. IOW, they end up confirming what the news sources have been publishing. They end up admitting they were right all along.
So I’m going to generally trust news that ends up being accepted even by the people who initially denied everything, because they were under fire, etc. Sources like the New York Times, the WaPo, the New Yorker, the Intercept, the Atlantic, Mother Jones, to name a few . . . they’ve all gone through that process when it comes to Trump and his campaign.
Donny Jr’s meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower is a great example of that game. They ended up actually publishing the email chain after they were caught by the NYT. They lied and denied until they couldn’t anymore, and then finally admitted it was true.
This has happened literally hundreds of times in the last coupla years. I think it’s safe to trust these sources, while always being open to other possibilities.
===================
Well I wouldnt wipe my but with the New Yorker, the NYTimes, the Wash Post,
the NY Review of Books, Time, The Atlantic, The BBC…I could go on 🙂I used to think ‘layering’ lots of sources brought us a decent picture of things, but now i think if we just layer sources like i just listed, we just end up with layered-propaganda.
Why in the world would i trust ‘news’ from Corporate-Sources owned by the same Mega-Corporations that are bonded with the Deep-State/Corporotacracy?
Its a problem. (for me) Where are sources i can trust?
I tend to trust people who have built up trust (with me) over years and years. Chris Hedges, Max Blumenthal, Noam Chomsky…I tend to trust other radicals. Radical Journalists/Activists. Course thats problematic too…..blah blah blah.
Its a problem.
w
vwvParticipantWV,
Adding a bit more to what I think happened and why:
Trump’s business was massively in debt. Still is. He’s gone bankrupt six or seven times, and was no longer able to borrow from anyone, really, but the Russians. He has a terrible reputation for stiffing his business partners, workers, suppliers, banks, etc.
Putin and his oligarchs are rolling in money. Hundreds of billions. Trump wanted, desperately needed a piece of that. Putin wanted help with sanctions. Also, desperately. It was a “marriage of convenience,” transactional, opportunistic.
So they “colluded” on the election. I think Kushner gave the Russians help with micro-targeting via his Cambridge Analytica, and Russia did the heavy lifting via stealing the emails, flooding the zone with “fake news,” twitter and facebook bots, and endless attempts to game google. Wikileaks, we now know, was directly involved in favor of both Trump and Russia. We have that paper trail. Assange offered direct help to the Trump campaign, and they exchanged emails. Roger Stone had direct connections to Gucifer 2.0 and bragged about it.
Long story short, I think it’s a slam dunk that Trump or his campaign broke our election laws, lied about it, lied about his connections with Russia, got caught, tried to cover it up, and has been extremely busy trying to kill the investigation. Mueller likely has him on several counts.
================
Well theres a whole lot there that you are asserting is true or proven. You and i would have to take each assertion one by one, and look at the actual evidence. But I doubt we would end up agreeing because I doubt i would trust your sources.
Plus there’s parts of this that just dont ‘bother’ me. Like Assange favoring Trump over Hillary. I dont care if he did. Its not illegal for him to favor Trump over Hillary. He called them both diseases, btw, as we know. Though, from day one, i suspected he favored Trump. I mean why wouldnt he. He knew Hillary wanted him in prison. He didnt know what Trump would want at the time.
My main point though, is, i dont trust the sources you are relying on, to tell us the facts/truths. Its a big issue for me now. Loss of trust in sources of info.
It changes things for me.w
v -
AuthorPosts
