Senator Lee Schoenbeck (R-5/Watertown) sweetens my faint pleasure at seeing Republicans police themselves and primary some of their own wingnuts out of office with his own direct sagacity:
Schoenbeck spent more than $15,000 in personal and campaign committee funds. The money went to back Republican candidates he says are solid public policy people.
“To put our state back in a little different direction,” Schoenbeck says. “The legislature needs more credibility. To get there it needs good people. There are a lot of good people there, but there have been these aberrations. We need to get past that.”
Schoenbeck says he backed primary candidates running against members of an alternative Republican caucus—sometimes self-described as ‘ultra conservative.’
Schoenbeck disputes it’s a moderate versus conservative distinction.
“There’s a difference between conservative and crazy,” Schoenbeck says. “Some people are just crazy” [Lee Strubinger, “How One Current, One Former Lawmaker Are Reshaping the State Legislature,” SDPB, 2020.06.15].
Democrats, take note: Lee Schoenbeck doesn’t have to be nice to his fellow Republicans when they advocate crazy policies. He calls them what they are, and in more primaries than not, he wins the argument with the voters.
Idiots are idiots. Crazies are crazies. Calling bad politicians what they are isn’t mean or counterproductive or a sign that you can’t get along with others and get things done in Pierre. It’s a sign that you don’t want crazy idiots running your state and writing your laws. All candidates should be as passionate and forthright as Senator Schoenbeck about avoiding crazy-idiotocracy.
Now if only we could also avoid the one-party rule bolstered by Schoenbeck’s crafty crazy purge and concomitant marginalizing of the opposition party.
Lee, please go after Fred Deutsch and his sexual nuttery. Pleeaasseee.
District 35 could sure use some Schoenbeck help in this regard.
Replacing wingnuts is going on across America, but not in a good/positive way, unless all the new candidates lose to Dems.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/gop-is-quietly-purging-right-wing-members-to-replace-them-with-even-more-radical-politicians/
I appreciate Schoenbeck’s position here. Thanks for sharing, Cory. His comment on the crazies is (in my perception) timely after having read for the last hour some intriguing conspiracy theory/theorists information.
I started with a browser recommendation explaining scientists proved a fundamental cognitive problem referred to as “illusory pattern perception” drives people to believe conspiracy theories. – https://getpocket.com/explore/item/conspiracy-theorists-have-a-fundamental-cognitive-problem-say-scientists?utm_source=pocket-newtab. Familiar with the idea for many years, I quickly became critical when the article first made that claim and linked it to people who deny climate change, believe in Pizzagate, and seek truth behind the 9/11 events, as if the three stand on even contention.
In response I searched the Project Censored site for articles regarding 9/11, and read an article opening with “With fewer than half the US population believing the official World Trade Center narrative, a New York Grand Jury is being called to investigate unprosecuted 9/11 crimes.” – https://www.projectcensored.org/as-cost-of-war-on-terror-hits-6-trillion-ny-grand-jury-looks-anew-at-9-11/.
The article cited for that opening clause includes a link to a Chapman University study suggesting a majority of Americans don’t believe that official narrative which states “The most likely person to believe in a conspiracy theory (or many) is a Republican who is employed, but has a lower level of income and education.” – https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2016/10/11/what-arent-they-telling-us/
As one who stopped believing the official 9/11 narrative around a decade ago, I was initially surprised the grand jury news escaped my attention until now. Only initially, because keeping up with everything these last couple years has become increasingly difficult, and I firmly believe dubious people have flooded our awareness with obviously false conspiracy theories to distract us from actual conspiracies and current policy developments. I have long wondered if certain members of our legislature have created stupid, costly bills to also distract us from the latter, acknowledging some may have been misled into doing so while others may have intended so.
Well, Mike’s link tells us the GOP is marginalizing themselves. Keep it up, you lunatics. They’ll soon have an absolute choke hold on 20% of the population. Eventually they’ll choke themselves to death. Buh-bye.
Caleb, the phrase “the official 9/11 narrative” is a bit ambiguous. Can you be more specific which particular narrative you question? And what particular sources do you believe creates your personal doubt?
bearcreekbat, I appreciate your observation and questions, because I’m a lifelong laborer who has studied the subject (among quite a few others) in depth through more sources than I can possibly remember, so still have much in my head to clarify and improve communicating, such as who claimed what, when, and why.
Were I more careful, I’d have said “narratives”, because various officials have made various claims. I specifically disbelieve: our federal government had no warning of such attacks, our federal government did everything possible to prevent what damage resulted, the attackers and their supporters acted only in religious fanaticism and hate of our freedom, war in Afghanistan and Iraq were primarily a response to the events of 9/11, the PATRIOT Act was a reasonable compromise of our liberties for the sake of security. I can’t presently remember much more.
When our government waged war on Afghanistan and later Iraq, and the general public (parroting prominent news source’s basic talking points) around me saw that as a proportionate response to the 9/11 attacks, I became skeptical of official narratives of that day and that response. One forum alone was my dissenting media source for many years, but at the time I perceived 9/11 conspiracy theories as a tool designed to drive more people into or further into believing all government is corrupt and the Republican party is that problem’s only answer.
That changed when someone on that forum posted Wikileaks’ “Collateral Murder”, which turned my general faith in soldiers’ collective integrity for protecting human rights and lives upside-down, opening my mind to reconsidering some theories. Even so, I didn’t come across much I felt trustworthy until after the 2016 election, when Adam Curtis’s “Hypernormalization” and some Noam Chomsky lectures prompted revising my understanding of our nation by studying its history from the beginning to now through the lenses of war, propaganda, and covert operations. In that long process full of cross referencing many sources, I believe Robert Scheer interviewing former intelligence officials on his KCRW show, “Scheer Intelligence”, was the first source compelling me to 9/11 related beliefs I now hold.
Learning so much in these few short years while building a small business from scratch at the same time, and the content of that learning, has disposed me to anxiety and panic attacks, things I never suffered before the 2016 election. As a result, in anticipation and experience of far increased demand, I’ve ignored most news the last six months, so any other clear link between those 9/11 related beliefs and sources currently eludes me. I suspect some of Chomsky’s books, “National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood” by Matthew Alford and Tom Secker, tomdispatch.com, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the Citations Needed podcast, the Eyes Left podcast, various stories on truthdig.com (Robert Scheer is editor-in-chief), The Intercept, the Revolutionary Left Radio podcast (mostly focused on political history and political philosophy), various documentaries on thoughtmaybe.com, and Project Censored (which partners with academic staff and students for much of its work), among more I can’t remember, have all contributed in one way or another.
Speaking of the last, last night I also read another Project Censored article, from 2016, pertinent to 9/11. I haven’t had chance yet to investigate all its claims, but it is very much in line with my last few years’ intense study. I’d love to see your thoughts on it – https://www.projectcensored.org/911-permanent-war-transnational-capitalist-class/ – if you’d please take the time to read it and respond.
Caleb, thanks for your response. That is a lot to digest. I will get back to you a bit later on your query about the article you linked. It raises some very interesting questions and points.
Okay Caleb, since you ask, my first observation about the projectcensored piece by Peter Phillips is that his article is filled with jargon, sinister sounding acronyms and buzzwords, that really don’t say much of anything useful, such as: private corporations; Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC); superclass; capitalist elite; military empire; deep state actors; US/NATO empire; Corporate media; public relations and propaganda (PRP) firms; mega PRP corporations; PRP-military-industrial media empire; global government; neo-feudal police states; population containment zones; G4S; private military contractor (PMC); neoliberal imperialism; privatization of state police; neo-fascist corporate world; etc., etc. Such terminology is designed to confuse and trigger emotional responses, which makes me immediately question the article’s sincerity. let alone credibility.
The themes of the article seem to be: there are a bunch of rich people with power; democracy threatens the power of the rich people so they use the military and wars to protect their wealth and power; the rich caused 9/11 as means of justifying ongoing wars; the rich control the media; the rich use the media to conceal the truth from the world; the rich who already control the world want to change it to feudal police states; the rich use private security forces; and 99% of people are not rich and are in great danger from the nefarious plans of the rich, which apparently is to cause the human race to become extinct, but on the way to evolve “into a new dark age of neo-feudal totalitarianism.” Have I missed anything?
All in all this article seems nothing more than a form of gaslighting and offers nothing substantial in the way of useful information. For what it is worth that is my take, and remember, my opinion and two bucks can get you a latte at Starbucks.
Meanwhile, I have to ask upon what basis have you concluded such writers as Peter Phillips, Adam Curtis, Noam Chomsky or Robert Scheer are more credible sources than other sources, such as well known news media. How do you evaluate and verify to your satisfaction what these authors publish?
bearcreekbat, thank you for your sincere answer in which I perceive a markedly different tone compared to every other post of yours I recall reading. I appreciate it potentially enriching my understanding you.
I did not say any source is more credible than anything else. Note my words referring to sources were “much I felt trustworthy”. I make the distinction, because while I may trust something, I will neither trust it absolutely nor believe others will trust it at all. I therefore care not to consider whether a source is credible, as in believable, or compare credibility between sources. If, however, you were to ask why I find them more trustworthy than “well known news media”, I have three general answers. 1) Regarding my key issues, such as foreign affairs, the sources I find more trustworthy have provided me a broader information scope, and subsequently more context, perspective, and claims to fact check. 2) The sources I find more trustworthy have documented many cases in which “well known news media” have lied, skewed truth, anyway otherwise misled their audience, or simply misunderstood something on which they took a confident or arrogant position. 3) My lifelong experience interacting with a wide variety of people tells me most “well known news media” portray a very narrow view of reality and human views.
In an attempt to prevent and/or minimize my own confirmation bias, I have rarely sought any particular type of news source, so evaluating and verifying sources to my satisfaction usually starts by reading/watching/hearing a piece while trying to assess the author’s prompt (whether assigned or internally created), bias(es), intended audience, explicit conclusions, implicit conclusions, possible intended subliminal impact (not just emotional), referenced material, and claims countering the author’s, as well as my own biases informing my interpretation of all those things. From there I consider the same regarding their publisher, and expand consideration to who owns the publisher, what funds the publisher, the nature of the publisher-author relationship, the nature of the publisher-public relationship throughout history, and with whom/what organizations the publisher associates. But just as the above paragraph had general answers, being a laborer in an entirely different field, I can’t always be systematic in my approach to vetting sources, so the process is sometimes broken, and some sources I haven’t yet analyzed as much as others.
Given that the likelihood of my consuming every piece from any author or publisher is low, even after concluding a source does or does not satisfy my requirements, I keep my mind open to that opinion changing. Moving on…
Yes, I think you missed something. Phillips did not claim the rich plan to extinguish humanity. Instead he implied that “the continuing concentration of wealth under capitalism” drives us toward extinction, with the added qualifier of “at least to life as we know it”. (side note: if you care to share why you chose the phrase “human race”, I’ll be thankful.) Regardless, you acknowledge all the other themes you mentioned, in my perception, as though you think them all baseless or useless. What’s your opinion, if you care to share, on each theme you suggested?
Anyway, since that implication of extinction raises the ultimate material consequence and ultimate fear to many – death – back to your assertion of words designed to confuse and trigger emotional responses I go.
Phillips used “Private corporations” once to claim they (as opposed to, for example, democratic and/or public institutions) control most the world’s power and control.
Phillips cited who coined the “Transnational Capitalist Class”, and even shared that person’s definition, (albeit in far from full detail), so please explain why you believe the phrase useless or not substantial. Phillips used “superclass” as a noun for that specific group, as in the class of superlative global capital control “at the absolute peak of the global power pyramid”. Similarly, “capitalist elite” is yet another description of that group.
I believe Phillips used “military empire” and “US/NATO empire” as obvious reference to the global position of US and NATO military. If you think the phrase outlandish, please look at how many bases and how much military equipment the US military alone has across the world.
Phillips used “deep state” twice: first “deep state actors” and then “deep state intelligence”. I believe the latter suggests he merely referred to people within intelligence agencies, and given the timing of his speech, I suspect he used the phrase to prevent Trump and Trump’s supporters from having complete and misleading control of its use…by linking the phrase to real parts of our federal government that have time and again betrayed US citizens. Since I have found no other mention of “deep state” by Phillips, I can say that with no certainty, though.
I believe Phillips meant “Corporate media” as reference to media owned and controlled by a corporation.
Firms which manage information between individuals/organizations and the public exist. Some of them create propaganda in their work, as do other types of firms. “Public relations and propaganda firms” refers to them. I believe adding “mega” before the phrase is how Phillips chose to characterize the larger firms he mentioned.
Since he mentioned the “PRP-military-industrial media empire” after stating the “CIA uses its Hill & Knowlton connections to “… put out press releases and make media contacts to further its positions. … Hill & Knowlton employees at their Washington office and elsewhere distributed this material through CIA assets working in the United States news media.”, the “National Security Cinema” book I referenced in my last comment comes to mind. I don’t know to what Phillips refers with that phrase, but in that book, the authors write of how Hollywood directors and producers have worked with the CIA and DOD for many films, and how each year the relationship grows in number of films. Hollywood approaches either for access to military equipment, facilities, etc. for a film, giving the film’s script to the DOD or the CIA’s Entertainment Liaison Officer for review and contingent approval/denial of that access. The latter may require script changes, and in some cases have essentially rewritten scripts to the extent that they reverse themes. The authors based the book on files, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act request process, which show government censorship in 814 films from 1911 to 2017, and say “If we include the 1,133 TV titles in our count, the number of screen entertainment products supported by the DOD leaps to 1,947. If we are to include the individual episodes for each title on long-running shows like 24, Homeland, and NCIS, as well as the influence of other major organisations like the FBI, CIA and White House then it becomes clear that the national security state has supported thousands of products.” I’d suggest starting with that book for a look at what Phillips may mean by “PRP-military-industrial media empire”.
Perhaps you didn’t notice Phillips, in the single instance of using “global government”, said the TCC does not seek one.
Phillips explains what he means by “Neo-feudal police state” in the sentence containing that phrase, and that sentence makes clear he considers “population containment zones” places where “strict control on local citizens”, while “capital is free to go unrestricted anywhere in the world”, restricts most peoples’ travel. If you find all those phrases useless or insubstantial, I recommend looking at how many border walls, some of them featuring high-tech surveillance and weapons, exist around the world, and keep in mind Trump and his base pushing for one at our southern border.
Likewise, Phillips states precisely what G4S is:” the largest private military contractor (PMC) in the world with 625,000 employees spanning five continents in more than 120 countries.” “Private military contractor” is simply a private party that performs contract work for military.
“Neoliberal imperialism” is imperialism through neoliberal policy and ideas.
“Privatization of state police” refers to private security forces replacing public police forces.
“Neo-fascist corporate world” refers to a world in which corporations replace states (comprised of public institutions) and wield fascistic control.
So…
You have suggested such simple terminology is designed to confuse and trigger emotional responses. As one who in my early teenage years concluded Fox News and the Republican party base most their strategy on fearmongering, and who more recently recognized the subtle ways in which the Democratic party and their prominent supporting sources sow fear (while both mostly distract from threats we face every day) I disagree with that assertion. As for gaslighting…I perceive no basis for that claim but acknowledge you and I may have different ideas of what the word means. Please expound if you’d like.
Lastly…
I was unfamiliar with Phillips until this one article. My opinion of him is still wide open, though like I said, the piece resonates with what I’ve learned in recent years (and, I should have added before, with perspective gained through my life’s varied path).
Adam Curtis is a documentarian who has made his films using BBC archival footage and his narration. I’ve seen most his films, some of them many times. I acknowledge his use of particular music, tone of speech, pace, framing, etc may be manipulative, but I appreciate the films for showing me prominent historical figures’ and the corresponding public’s actions and speech, and thereby more to discover and study.
Noam Chomsky is primarily a linguist, and possibly the most renowned of the world, so I’m a bit dumbfounded at your possible offhand dismissal of him amid your insistence of terminology design. Perhaps feeling dumbfounded came from misinterpreting your question, though.
Robert Scheer has been a journalist since the ‘60s, has travelled to many sites of war, and has interviewed every president from Nixon through Clinton. Like Chris Hedges, he was a highly regarded journalist until he spoke against post 9/11 warmongering, something for which he may have well lost his job.
Keep in mind, though, that like your opinion adds no dollar value to those two bucks, everything I said above about things I’ve not directly witnessed is based on faith/belief, no matter how rooted in my direct experience that faith/belief may be. So thanks for reading. Sorry if I overwhelmed or annoyed anyone. Take care, all.
Caleb, I offer a few comments in response to your lengthy post.
For what it is worth, to me credibility and trustworthiness seem pretty much synonymous. And when I asked how you judged the credibility of the four sources you mentioned I did not intend to imply that I thought they were not credible. I merely wondered how you thought you could reliably make that determination about any particular news source. Your first reason makes sense – context and greater information do shed light on these issues. The other two, however, do not help much in my view.
Knowing in fact when a source typically considered trustworthy or credible by a majority of people has “lied, skewed truth, anyway otherwise misled their audience, or simply misunderstood something on which they took a confident or arrogant position,” strikes me as a form of begging the question – e,g., I know they lied because I know they lied, or possibly circular reasoning – I know they lied because someone told me they lied.
Depending on one’s personal “lifelong experience interacting with a wide variety of people” to conclude “most ‘well known news media’ portray a very narrow view of reality and human views,” seems to really be no more than relying on a stereotype to form a judgment, which seems to me always a mistake.
Your third paragraph is a bit confusing to me, but some of the factors you describe certainly could bear on the trustworthiness of any source of information.
To answer one of your questions, I guess I equated the “human race” with Phillips’ use of the term “humankind” in the following sentence of his article: “In actuality, humankind is faced with extinction, at least to life as we know it.”
I don’t think I said Phillips claimed “the rich plan to extinguish humanity.” Instead, I somewhat inartfully tried to write that Phillip was claiming the execution of the plans by the rich to
as described in the article, constitute plans that will “cause the human race to become extinct.” This could be a distinction without a difference, but it would probably be a bit irrational for the rich to intentionally plan to extinguish humanity since they are part of humanity (unless perhaps they hope to be raptured).
As for the rest of you comment, it simply seems to confirm that you disagree with my opinion, which is not particularly surprising since you initially linked Phillip’s article as “very much in line with [your] last few years’ intense study.” Thanks for elaborating on your views.
bcb, thanks for not giving up on me.
Your response made clear where I, with a full head stuck on certain lingual loops, failed at clarity: instead of saying “sources I find more trustworthy”, I should have said “sources I trust more”, because I was trying to emphasize my diligence against projecting undeniable objectivity upon any source.
On my second reason, I think you got ahead of any evidence. Without examples, you couldn’t know if I worked from a presumed conclusion to reach my understanding of anything. Nobody needs to presume a source has “lied, skewed truth, anyway otherwise misled their audience, or simply misunderstood something on which they took a confident or arrogant position” in order to perceive documents which disprove their claims, documents which show censorship within that source, and/or documents which show collusion between that source and another entity with a vested interested in that source censoring itself as evidence that source has done so. If someone tells me another has lied, I’d ask how that someone knows that other lied, and weigh the expressed evidence against everything else I know, rather than assume that other lied just because that someone told me so.
I appreciate you raising my possibly stereotyping “well known news media”, because you doing so makes clear my statement suggested I do. Please forgive my lack of specificity – I meant my answer within the context I thought you asked it, that being 9/11 and other themes and subjects in Phillips’s article. I still read/watch/hear news from prominent media, but given how little time a day provides, don’t prioritize those sources, and meanwhile keep in mind they don’t generally challenge dominant powers, but instead serve those powers, quite often by mischaracterizing dissidents, something I wouldn’t recognize if not for my life’s travels and living among the marginalized. And when the issues under scrutiny are militarism and capitalism, those prominent sources generally have nothing illuminating to say, but instead more distraction and bias confirmation, whether in a liberal or conservative direction, to keep public discourse far narrower than the full scope available to us all.
My third paragraph was wordy, so I wouldn’t blame anyone for feeling confused by it. If you have specific questions about it, I’d be glad to try clarifying.
I had guessed you just meant “humankind” or “humanity” by “human race”, but couldn’t be sure. Regardless, I specifically asked, because I understood “race” as being something within humanity, rather than applying to the whole, and wondered if you had a different understanding of the word.
I took “the nefarious plans of the rich, which apparently is to cause the human race to become extinct” as indication you believed Phillips claimed the rich planned to make the human race become extinct. By “extinguishing humanity”, I meant the same as making it become extinct.
Regardless, I once again emphasize his qualifier of “at least to life as we know it”, because as far as I can tell, his raising the idea of human extinction points heavily to two types of consequences. One is unintended consequences of what the richest humans are doing, as in their ambitions could blind them from consequences that could hit everyone, including them. The other is their intended consequences, as in they’ve known and controlled many human trajectories for decades, and prepared accordingly to ensure they keep and build control while the many fall more and more under their control, thereby putting their survival before that of the many when climate change, resource distribution, and mental health may make civility rare.
That said, I shared the article only because it’s one of few pieces which summarize not only what these last few years have taught me, but also which lifelong wonders (because my mind generally holds more questions than answers) these last few years have confirmed in me. As another attempt at challenging my confirmation bias, I hoped you, someone whose comments I have seen as a sign you give deep consideration to any thing before you, might have deeper and wider insight on the content. I elaborated on the things you mentioned, because I thought you overlooked the substance you claimed wasn’t there. So maybe I projected too much on you to begin with. Sorry I burdened you in that way.
Caleb, going back to 9-11 for a moment might help explain one seeming internal contradiction in Phillip’s claims. If I recall correctly, he wrote that the rich caused 9/11 as means of justifying ongoing wars, or something to that effect.
Unless, the claim is that the physical destruction and death of 9-11 never happened, which seems unlikely based on the apparent physical evidence, the claim that the rich caused 9-11 to advance its goals of justifying more wars seems inconsistent with Phillips other claims about the power and resources of the rich.
Phillips apparently claims the rich have the ability to use the military and wars to protect their wealth and power. The rich also control and use the media to conceal the truth from the world. If the rich control the military and the media why would they need to take such radical steps as secretly murdering so many people with 9-11 simply to justify their ongoing wars? Wouldn’t simply being in control of the military allow the rich to direct the military to start whatever wars the rich wanted? And it would seem that public images would not even be a concern, but to the extent image is important why not just use the media and PRP firms and mega PRP corporations to shape public images with whatever lies and false stories proved most effective?
After all, Phillips describes the rich as an elite Transnational Capitalist superclass that controls a military empire, including the G4S, the deep state, a US/NATO empire, and global neo-feudal, neo-facist police states using privatized police forces. (Note that these terms are included the loaded terms used by Phillips to trigger readers’ responses that I described earlier).
Given all this power and control over the military, governments, the media, etc, it seems odd that the rich would need to fake an attack wrecking buildings, property and killing thousands of people to justify ongoing wars.
Why wouldn’t the rich simply declare war on whoever they wanted whenever it suited them, using the power and resources Phillips described in his article.
bcb, the more you describe Phillips’s article, the more I think you have skim-read it rather than carefully read it, because:
1) Nowhere in the article did he claim “the rich caused 9/11”.
2) Nowhere in the article did he claim “the rich control the military”.
3) Nowhere in the article did he claim the jet planes colliding into the Twin Towers, the Twin Towers collapsing, and the thousands of subsequent human deaths never happened.
4) Nowhere in the article did he suggest anybody “secretly murder[ed]” anybody.
5) Nowhere in the article did he claim “the rich control and use the media”, as if media is a singular entity as opposed to a body consisting of hundreds or thousands or more organizations.
6) Nowhere in the article did he refer to “the rich” in such a vague way as you have.
By now I wonder if you can’t see the trees for the forest, as in you’re so focused on one overarching point you can’t closely investigate each singular point, because you disagree with the presumed overarching point. The questions you sincerely and rhetorically raise point to a glaring ignorance of military still harnessed under a system of votes, military being a body of people who want to fight against real rather than manufactured threats, and military being scrutinized under a public that has in the past risen up in mass protest. The terms and phrases you refer to as loaded are no more loaded and emotion triggering than most terms and phrases in government and political discourse, but I can understand you may think they are if you are unfamiliar with them (side note: I still can’t believe you suggest “G4S” is a confusing or loaded term when it’s the name of a company). Phillips has pointed to a massive power, but not in the place you assume it lies.
Please…study the history of interplay between public relations, militarism, and money – in some ways “the rich” have “simply declare[d] war on whoever they wanted whenever it suited them, using the power and resources Phillips described in his article.”
“Expressed” evidence-annoying style. Chomsky, Scheer?
Is the initial “censored” article by students?
Tiresomely verbose thread? Yep
Lee? I don’t agree with him after experience, but appreciate his occasional comments from the enabling right.
Didju ever followup on the cite re: Sec 702 Pelosi “sin” or whatever it was?
Caleb, your comments indicate that I failed to grasp the same meaning and implications that you understood from statements in the Phillip’s article such as:
In any event, other readers can judge for themselves what they think Phillips is saying. I have no vested interest one way or the other, but you did ask for my “thoughts on it.” which I shared with you. Thanks for an interesting discussion.
Rather than call them the frightening made-up TCC, name the 161 individuals/families. Putin? MBS?
Two election issues:
1. Climate change
2. Economic inequality, .000001, BLM, whatever. They all fall in line.
When we win, if Caleb’s of the nation vote, unlike Bolton, someone like Vanita Gupta Esq can help lead Biden to the monumental change a muscular Democratic party must initiate, execute and show the world Americans of good conscience can create a new bold democracy the stops political/corporate/militarized corruption and protects the vulnerable. Amicus podcast @50:00 “Race, Police and the Law”6.10.20
Minnesota has our own Steve Kingian racist misogynist idiot to kick out of Congress. Rep. Jim Hagedorn, R- MN3, is in his first term serving (ahem) the state’s southern border.
________________________
“The Democrat ‘Black Lives Matter’ Party, along with armies of rioters, are at war with our country, our beliefs, and western culture. Their radical movement is orchestrated and growing. We must never let them take power. We must stand up and defend our country, our nation’s identity, our Judeo-Christian values, and our American way of life.”
Oh yeah, he’s appalled that images of a blonde and blue-eyed Jesus is considered racist. But, JESUS! 🤯 Riiight. We’ve all seen many blonde and blue full blooded Jews.
is.gd/E5Y4fB
This sleaze ball won a very close election last time and the same Democrat is running against him again. Check the link to read other slimy things he’s said. I knew he was bad, but I didn’t know he was this bad.
On behalf of 75% of Minnesotans, I apologize.
leslie,
1) Yes, “expressed evidence”, as in evidence someone expressed. I can’t know something is indeed evidence until I’ve investigated what someone claims is evidence, hence I say “expressed evidence”. If you find that annoying, I’m sorry you let annoyance get in your way of appreciating my determination at not being duped, and by “sorry”, I don’t apologize, but instead exude sorrow for the general state of discourse these days, wondering why you, among many, apparently can’t trust I’m genuine.
2) “Chomsky, Scheer?” What do you mean by that question?
3) No, students did not write the Project Censored article I linked.
4) Your opinion that this thread is “tiresomely verbose” did nothing to raise my awareness of my inclination to verbosity. I doubt anybody else wanted or needed that stated opinion, either.
5) I was the last to comment on the thread in which Section 702 came up, and I hope you’ll review it, because just as you before misrepresented what I said, I made no claim of “sin”: https://dakotafreepress.com/2020/06/01/antifa-not-an-organization-not-terrorists-just-good-americans/
6) I suggest your cryptic comments help nobody but yourself. Once again, I suspect you’d be surprised at how much we think alike if you’d be more clear. If you don’t care to be more clear due to time constraints or whatever else, you can always refrain from saying anything (but I don’t mean that as discouragement from expressing yourself in any way you feel compelled).
7) I would like to see those 161 names, as well. Even so, I’m not sure I’d be comfortable sharing those names if I were Phillips. Ethics aren’t static and simple, after all. So go ahead and dismiss the article on the basis those names weren’t shared if you wish, or you can recognize a phrase is easier to express than is 161 names, and that a phrase can more clearly convey what separates those people from the rest of us, as in…not everyone can flee violence and scarcity by traveling to another country by private jet. What you see as frightening doesn’t necessarily frighten anybody else.
8) I hope to hear that Amicus podcast episode you referenced sometime, but for some reason it won’t play when I click the play button.
bcb, whether or not I did before, I thank you for your thoughts and time. Cheers!
Critical addition folks seem to have overlooked: the Project Censored article is a transcript of a speech Phillips once gave. Imagine reading 161 names in front of an audience…