BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........

Subject: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Mr Red
Date: 29 Oct 17 - 05:18 AM

like all predictions/warnings it never quite paints the right colours, the correct vista even though it looks in the right direction.

In the Trump election I warned "Be afraid, America, be very afraid!" - not because I could see the future. But after the Arab Spring, Brexit, and all those ads that follow your recent surfing and some pretty extreme idiocy from a "friend" who posted the most egregious crap he obviously believed - I glimpsed the gears grinding.

Call me paranoiac but this lady on TED.com explains it better, and at length. We're building an artificial intelligence-powered dystopia.

It is why we are getting left-field political results. Because the movers understand Goggle and Fakebook better and use them better. It is also polarizing people. We are more than ever a divided society.

And my chosen appellations for them are a heads up, not a whimsey.

My solution? Not much of one, but intend to browse for the most uninteresting (to me) stuff. Give them algorithms some serious noise.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Iains
Date: 29 Oct 17 - 05:56 AM

Mr Red. Your approach is not very sporting. You are supposed to play by their rules. A joker in the pack is a definite no-no!

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Oct 17 - 07:03 AM

Aw diddums

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Oct 17 - 07:13 AM

I wouldn't have expected you, Richard, to have any interest in the preservation of free speech.
Your printed history here has been dedicated to the concealment of any societal problems.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Oct 17 - 08:18 AM

In short this section will die"

Bring it on.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Oct 17 - 09:13 AM

I suppose "Artificial Intelligence" is better than "No Intelligence"

Then why are you so fond of President Id-Baby?

Poor, poor pitiful you.

Now, back to the subject of the thread.....

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Iains
Date: 29 Oct 17 - 09:58 AM

I think we are way past 1984. Here you can say what you like-so long as you toe the party line. The ministry of truth rules OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 17 - 10:21 AM

I understand the media criterion, digital structure and psycho neuro linguistics that Mr. Red alludes to in the nationalism comparisons to '1984'.

In fact I have been banging that gong for years, with little or no response. I do not blame people for misunderstanding. Frankly my background is almost too unbelievable for rational people to easily accept. So to is the manipulation that is being used.

I am a science based secular liberal and have found I am not believed by the left. The right knows what I harp on really works and are using the techniques full speed ahead;
DIGITALLY fcbk glgl
LOCALLY Sinclair
NATIONALLY cable
CONGRESSIONALLY
AND PRESIDENTIALLY

Here is the rub, the manipulation technique is profound but is hampered by a temporary effectiveness. However by the time it wears off or is exposed, it is always too late.

Some US folks here have to go take more (oxy) Soma rather than think about this seriously.

Most people only think of the final stages of fascism using extortion and murder but rarely think about the initial techniques of subversion which are far more psychological and powerful when backed by billions of dollars.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 17 - 10:30 AM

The role artificial intelligence plays is just one part of the equation in the loss of democracy and humanity. But it is the scariest and most easily understood part.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 17 - 08:05 PM

mr. red did you mean left field for rhetorical purposes only.

the playing field is tilted to right field.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Iains
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 03:10 AM

It is tilted precipitously to the left on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 04:37 AM

The one called Donuel:
I don't know if you are to be addressed as such in forums, do you have a name you prefer to go by in direct address (like Sam, Martin, Rory, etc.)
I don't know if you are relevant, i.e. truthful, but I like your way with words, which is reminiscent to me of an old friend who would send me postcards from distant places full of words strung not haphazardly but with a definite surrealist tang. (He also wooed his wife this way to her utter mistification). I suspect you sometimes but not always go for thus in order to be more truthful than standard sytax allows.
In any case, keep it up, there are way too many 'normal' people in the world.
If I am seriously misunderstanding you, please set me straight as I am not trying to offend (in this case).

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 04:51 AM

Orwell of course wrote "1984" as a cautionary tale and arrived at the title by transposing the date he wrote at, 1948, and basing his tale on what he saw happening across the Iron Curtain. His was a more sci-fi take on "Darkness at Noon" by Koestler, who tried to get into the mind of a true believer of the type put on trial during the Stalin purges of the latter 1930s. Another sci-fi take was more biological in nature: "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. Both Orwell and Huxley owe a lot to Zamyatin, who penned "We" in the 1920s. Original language, Russian, but not published until 1924 in English in the States.

The "Time of Trump" is actually not up to these great works of fiction, as Trump is a product of a selfish, whiny, very UN-ideological frame of little thought. I think Jack Johnson has come closer to the current age with "My Mind is For Sale"

When Orwell wrote "1984" his concerns were far broader than mere Trump notions: His work was one of the most important in the 20th century and anticipated the use of technology as much as he was capable, but the scariest part of his book to me was the appendix in which he discussed the use and propagation of Newspeak to limit the possibility of forming certain thoughts. This was a direct attack on the miserable philosophy of Dialectical Materialism but went on to generalize the problems that it posed.

Thomas Friedman has observed that this is an age where the internet foists not Big Brother but many many Little Brothers with much the same result: a stultification of free thought.

Trump not only stultifies by his ability to monopolize mulit-media by trivialities and diversion from the relevant facts of life, but in drawing knee jerk responses from his would-be opponents which lowers the overall field of discourse.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 07:28 AM

Robomatic's last post is up to the high standards of a columnist.
I certainly believe it is his own. There is no doubt that Trump is not an ideal big brother or that our contemporary new speak is not as cohesive and organized by a single powerful agency as it is in 1984. Dismissing Journalism and critics with a phrase like 'fake news' comes close to new speak. The purpose of short phrases to invert the truth is the same for propaganda, brainwashing, new speak and some political correctness.

PS
call me anything or anytime you want. About one in ten of us deal with language the way I do. Robo clearly sees the difference. The thing is, human beings like myself find it too difficult or embarrassing to express themselves in a post or read in the first place. When I speak for others it is to prove we are not stupid.

We are here, our language is quirky*, get used to it.

* overly; eloquent, awkward, abbreviated, misspelled, with word/thought gaps and an unfortunate life long inability to recall lyrics instantly.

If you have no challenges of your own you are fortunate or haven't looked closely enough.

Donuel was my original birth name. My original middle name is
Webster. Ironic huh?

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 08:13 AM

In my opinion, Orwell was perfectly correct, he referred at the time to totalitarianism.....but today we see before us a different king of totalitarianism which makes use of the old tools like "newspeak" to mould a new society in the image of the powerful groups in politics and the media. President Trump is no totalitarian, the real danger to society is the so called democratic left led by the media and the establishment politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 09:46 AM

President Trump is no totalitarian, the real danger to society is the so called democratic left.

An analysis by the chairman of the Raving Looney Party.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 11:52 AM

George Orwell's bus has arrived in our present a little late but the passengers have unusual things like i phones and virtual reality. Oxy and Soma are virtually as predicted. George Orwell almost got it perfectly correct except oxy is fatal and Soma was not.

I suspect that the main issue Mr. Red bought up is A.I. and is going undiscussed due to overwhelming ignorance to the dangers.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 01:26 PM

I'll never forget an article I read in Playboy in the 1970s. I have forgotten the date, the author, and the interviewee, and my elementary efforts to check Playboy for an index of any kind has met with no success. Apparently i'd be better off looking for a panorama of flesh tones.
Anyhow, it was 1974, Nixon had resigned and we were facing with fear and uncertainty a presidency of someone whom we all knew had been described as a man who could not walk and chew gum at the same time. But the interview in Playboy specifically was quoted as saying that "Ford was definitely intelligent enough for a job as unimportant as President of the United
States.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 02:53 PM

One lesson from 1984 was that leaders weak at home can compensate by bigging up "enemies" overseas. Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon had Vietnam. Reagan had Iran and Central America. Thatcher had the Falklands. Blair and Bush had their bogus war on terror. Western foreign policy, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 03:08 PM

In the na?ve 70's I saw FBI and CIA documents that were shocking.
Today I realize the outrageous statements were from ass hole analysts who believed their job was to write things their boss wanted to hear.
While attitudes influence policy it is not actual policy. They sweat the small stuff but missed the fall of the USSR.

Today's Presidential policy of internal destruction is unhelpful and dangerous.

Next week Trump goes to S.Korea and will not meet our ambassador because we do not have one. He never appointed one, but fired the existing ambassador appointed by Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 04:06 PM

Of course there's the cautionary movie "Wag The Dog" which posits a situation where the U.S. President, faced with a significant personal scandal, seeks some international confrontation to 'bury the lead' as the newsfolk say. Would have been easier to watch if there was anything at all humorous in it, which there wasn't.

And of course these days I'm reminded of the term "Seagull Management":

-Fly in, crap all over everything, fly out-

That now seems to be a brand of politics which manages by mismanagement leading us to disbelieve that government can set and accomplish positive goals.

Not everyone can remember the Roosevelts, Truman, Eisenhower, and some of LBJ's more positive accomplishments, and even true of Nixon (EPA, China policy).

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 06:07 PM

Yep Nixon had many surprisingly humane programs like WICK but then again he let HMO's get a foot in the health care "industry" door.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 06:26 PM

Politics today is really not about "humane policies" whatever they may be, but about encouraging growth in the economy to keep the populace, or a portion of them, in the standard of living to which they have unfortunately become accustomed.
Keeping an ageing population, treating newly diagnosed ailments, physical and mental, defending workers rights, health and safety in the workplace, educating idiots, etc etc, while fewer and fewer of us contribute to the economy.
THAT is the great problem which must be solved.
Ideas on a postcard please.....as they may be deleted otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Oct 17 - 06:57 PM

The candidates that specifically addressed those issues were Bernie and Eleanor. As Hillary advocates did their best and worst the most humane voices were out shouted.

Why the obsession with post card brevity? This format already calls for abbreviation. Its like one step longer than Twitter. Perhaps I am conditioned to not write deletion bait but its been a long time since I have cared if deleted or not.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 02:58 AM

I think you know perfectly well WHY you don't get deleted Don.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 05:17 AM

I gave up on ad hominin insults, conspiracy theories and sarcasm?

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 06:53 AM

Ake, a while back I realized that bad guys usually had bad guys as fathers or at least morally ambiguous dads. There are brand new bad guys certainly but they are few. They all tend to make a hell they live in and die in. There will always be bad guys and there will always be a prosecution of some of them so why bother concentrating only on the bad guys?

Better to help the victims which are most numerous and deserving.

I see a bit of the victim in you, but if you are as bad as you say, remember it has always been up to you to wise up and not continue with the sunken costs of the bad path.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 08:28 AM

1984 began when they started calling military people peacekeepers.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 10:00 AM

I think you know perfectly well WHY you don't get deleted Don.

Poor, poor pitiful Ake.....oh the persecution!

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 10:21 AM

You are quite right Don, Mr sanders could probably have won the election instead of Donal-John, but who undermined him?

The Clintons and the Democratic Party!   No sign of a Russian anywhere. Not even a furry hat.

Everyone outside the bubble knew that Mrs Clinton was extremely unpopular and her record in office at State, abysmal.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 07:19 PM

jeez just when I assumed you were a victim of fake news.

People assume they are rational 90% of the time and rarely irrational. It is the other way round in reality. But Ake you are damn near 100%

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Nov 17 - 01:46 PM

Hi Don, do you mean 100% rational or irrational?
I don't think my last post contained anything which was untrue or irrational. The facts regarding the undermining of Mr Sanders are well documented.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Nov 17 - 11:20 PM

"The Clintons and the Democratic Party!   No sign of a Russian anywhere. Not even a furry hat.'

Untrue and profoundly ignores the whole 30,000 emails, DNC Russia Hack, Wikileak Trump Jr, lock her up crap.
I just don't feel there is a conscious adult behind your words
Its just Klingon troll shit looking for toilet paper

learn - think - Think again - say

ITS NOT say & learn what you think.

I don't know maybe the problem is drink

or you're a kid eating over the kitchen sink.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 03:18 AM

I'm afraid it's you who are being irrational Don.

The Democrats undermined Mr Sanders although he had a positive momentum, simply because Mrs Clinton was a creature of the establishment and would do their bidding.
They were much more afraid of Sanders being elected than Mr Trump who they thought was a clown with little real support.
I said many times during the run up to the election
that the Democrats were backing the wrong horse, the horse with too much political baggage.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 09:32 AM

I'm not your tutor but I'll give you a C on that post.

I'm using the word rational in an Economic or opinion application.
ex. People rationalize or make excuses for their backward intellectual opinions which in fact are irrational to begin with.


More predictive novels https://theportalist.com/9-freaky-predictions-from-dystopian-novels-that-have-come-true

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 09:56 AM

Sun Tzu's first and foremost advice in Art of War is foreknowledge is forewarned. Advance knowledge can be your most powerful ally. This has always been my shtick. We are taught this even as kids. "Be Prepared" is a phrase to look to the future. Some of us see the future better than others. But that is only half the equation. What you do with foreknowledge is your decision.

Predictions flow in non linear ways contrary to our cultural concept of time. It may come from inductive or deductive thinking and even stranger means.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 11:08 AM

Donuel,

As any rational person would understand, the Clinton problems are of her own making.

First, for the purpose of her own convenience and desire, she illegally used her private server, including putting classified data on it. This is a felony. She placed herself above the US for her own gain, as a Cabinet officer sworn to support the Constitution. This makes her more of a traitor than RE Lee, who at least resigned his Federal commission before going back to serving Virginia.

She then lied about it to the FBI, and destroyed evidence. Not very well, but the attempt is a felony.

Any investigation of Russian involvement in the elections should also look at the payments to that known rapist, Bill Clinton, and the Clinton Charities in the "Pay for Play" while Hillary was the Secretary of State.

Any sexual abuse that Trump has been accused of has been charged to, and often settled with large sums of money, by Bill Clinton. How much did Hillary's support of her rapist husband advance the cause of women? Yet that was fine with the empty barrels in Congress, and the ones here who still support the Clinton Mafia.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 11:30 AM

Bearded Bruce has just illustrated the value of "fake news" to the Trump administration. He believes that shit and is still flogging it, even as Trump's cast start to go down for the third time. He and Ake are also trying to change the subject. Trolling is not an attractive behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 11:32 AM

she illegally used her private server

Sorry, BB- not illegal.

more of a traitor than RE Lee

Wrong again, BB- Lee violated his sacred oath to defend the United States and the U.S. Constitution.

Any investigation of Russian involvement in the elections should also look at the payments to that known rapist, Bill Clinton, and the Clinton Charities in the "Pay for Play" while Hillary was the Secretary of State.

And wrong yet again. Your made-up and idiotic anti-Clinton nonsense- even if there was any substance to the allegations, which there is not (by the way, why did you leave out the bogus uranium BS as well??) have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Russia investigation.

Any sexual abuse that Trump has been accused of has been charged to, and often settled with large sums of money, by Bill Clinton.

May be a Trumpist/alt-right wet dream, BB, but no substance in fact.

You're 0 for 4 at this point - why not quit wile you're behind?

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 11:55 AM

GregF,

she illegally used her private server

Sorry, BB- not illegal.


Wrong. The use of private email to send classified data is a CRIME.

I have held clearances, and anyone who has will realize the rtruth of this statement.




more of a traitor than RE Lee

Wrong again, BB- Lee violated his sacred oath to defend the United States and the U.S. Constitution.

A- He resigned his commission BEFORE any possible violations, UNLIKE the traitor Hillary Clinton, who remained in office, after putting her own interests above those of the US.




Any investigation of Russian involvement in the elections should also look at the payments to that known rapist, Bill Clinton, and the Clinton Charities in the "Pay for Play" while Hillary was the Secretary of State.

And wrong yet again. Your made-up and idiotic anti-Clinton nonsense- even if there was any substance to the allegations, which there is not (by the way, why did you leave out the bogus uranium BS as well??) have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Russia investigation.

The Uranium connections are well established, and supported by FBI reports.




Any sexual abuse that Trump has been accused of has been charged to, and often settled with large sums of money, by Bill Clinton.

May be a Trumpist/alt-right wet dream, BB, but no substance in fact.

Broaddrick, who was known as Juanita Hickey at the time, first met Clinton when he made a visit to her nursing home during his 1978 gubernatorial campaign. Clinton was Arkansas Attorney General at the time. Broaddrick wanted to volunteer for the campaign, and says Clinton invited her to stop by the campaign office in Little Rock.[7] She contacted the office a few weeks later while in the area for a nursing home conference. Clinton said he would not be in the campaign office that day and suggested they meet at her hotel?s coffee shop instead. Upon his arrival, however, he allegedly requested that they instead have coffee in her room to avoid a crowd of reporters in the lobby. Broaddrick agreed.[3]

Broaddrick says the two spoke briefly in her room, with Clinton describing plans to renovate a prison visible from her window if he became governor. Then, according to Broaddrick, Clinton suddenly kissed her.[3] Broaddrick says she pushed Clinton away and told him she was married and not interested, but he persisted. As recounted in the NBC interview:[3]

    Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip ? He starts to, um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ?No,? that I didn?t want this to happen but he wouldn?t listen to me. ? It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ?Please stop.? And that?s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip. ? When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says ?You better get some ice on that.? And he turned and went out the door.?

When asked if there was any way Clinton could have thought it was consensual, Broaddrick said ?No, not with what I told him and with how I tried to push him away. It was not consensual.?[3]

Broaddrick shared the hotel room with her friend and employee Norma Rogers. Rogers attended a conference seminar that morning, and says she returned to their room to find Broaddrick on the bed ?in a state of shock,? her pantyhose torn in the crotch and her lip swollen as though she had been hit.[7] Rogers says Broaddrick told her Clinton had "forced himself on her."[7] Rogers helped Broaddrick ice her lip, and then the women left Little Rock. Rogers said that Broaddrick was very upset on the way home and blamed herself for letting Clinton in the room.[3] Broaddrick says she did not tell her husband, Gary Hickey, about the incident, and told him she accidentally injured her lip. He told NBC he did not remember the injury or her explanation.[3][8] David Broaddrick, however, has said he noticed her injured lip, and she told him that Clinton had raped her when he asked about it.[3] Three other friends confirmed that Broaddrick had told them about the incident at the time: Susan Lewis, Louis Ma, and Jean Darden, Norma Rogers? sister.[3] Broaddrick did not recall the date of the alleged incident, but said it was spring of 1978 and that she had stayed in the Camelot Hotel. Records show Broaddrick attended a nursing home meeting at the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock on April 25, 1978.[3][8] The Clinton White House would not respond to requests for Clinton's official schedule for the date,[9] but news reports suggest that he was in Little Rock that day, with no official commitments in the morning.[3]

aula Corbin Jones (born Paula Rosalee Corbin; September 17, 1966) is a former Arkansas state employee who sued U.S. President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment. The Paula Jones case precipitated Clinton's impeachment in the House of Representatives and the subsequent acquittal by the Senate on February 12, 1999. Charges of perjury and obstruction of justice were brought against Clinton. Eventually, the court dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit, before trial, on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. However, while the dismissal was on appeal, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement by agreeing to pay Jones $850,000 (equivalent to $1,250,000 in 2016).[1]

Also Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky


But after all, according to you and Hillary, any woman wh0 is assaulted, raped, or abused is asking for it, and must be trailer trash.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 11:59 AM

GregF,

So, 4 for 4.

Why don't you go back to your lies about how you think that "all Black Democrats" are "Dumb Ni**ers", since YOU stated that they are the same thing to you?

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 12:10 PM

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497291071/a-brief-history-of-juanita-broaddrick-the-woman-accusing-bill-clinton-of-rape


NPR a biased enough source for you?

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 12:28 PM

I'll admit NPR is probably biased towards the left.
Because facts are biased towards the left.
And nobody - not even his own minions - trust what Trump says.

Trump won the election.
Hillary, the email server, and the anti-Bernie conspiracy is old news, and the only reason that stuff is harped upon by the right is that it helps them not talk about everything Trump and the deplorabasket of swamp dwellers that make up the current administration have done/are doing/will do wrong/immorally/illegally.

These broken-record subjects (remember Benghazi?) are nothing more than distractions. Go fish for the pretty red herring...

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 12:33 PM

Vashta,

"Trolling is not an attractive behavior. "

True- and attacking something without providing anything other than your opinion, unsupported by facts, is the worst kind of trolling.

Maybe you should find some fact to counter my statements, rather than calling it "fake news" when you have not established THAT statement as true.

YOUR belief or non-belief is not a valid indicator of truth or validity.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 12:41 PM

Jeri,

When the choice is between a slimy NY businessman of dubious morals, and a proven traitor who used her Federal office for personal gain, one has to hold one's nose and take the chance that the slime will be at least not a traitor.

My first post on this thread was in reply to
"Untrue and profoundly ignores the whole 30,000 emails, DNC Russia Hack, Wikileak Trump Jr, lock her up crap.
I just don't feel there is a conscious adult behind your words
Its just Klingon troll shit looking for toilet paper"


Just ignore all the facts that do not support this: "These are not the droids you're looking for" , Donuel.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 01:10 PM

Jeri,

"Because facts are biased towards the left."

The FACT that Bill Clinton is an accused rapist is neither left nor right. It is a fact.

Your statement is false as stated. FACTS are not biased, only the interpretation of them can be.

And I agree that in general NPR has a left-leaning bias in it's interpretation of the facts. As does most of the media- MSNBC being farther left of center than Fox is to the right of center. But it seems that only the media that supports the left is acceptable here, and is supposed to be taken as unbiased fact, while Fox is not allowed as a source of information. ALL reports are biased- ONLY by looking at both sides can an approximation of TRUTH be realized.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 01:18 PM

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elizabeth-warren-says-2016-democratic-224556384.html

Seems more like 1984 than anything Trump has done yet- but it must be ok, since only the Right can be criticized.



What does one call a group that says someone who makes crude comments about women in a locker room is unfit to be president, but a president who rapes and abuses women is just fine?

DEMOCRATS

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 01:37 PM

"And that brings us to a third, incandescently obvious fact: The Clintons will always abuse, exploit, deceive and make fools of their biggest fans and friends, the press, the public and even each other."

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/11/02/clintons-just

But that was just one tile in the rich mosaic of deceit that is the Clinton Way. Bill, who earned the nickname "Slick Willie," always believed he was smart enough to talk his way out of anything ? and he was often successful. But what came naturally to Bill took study for Hillary. He was an improvisational deceiver. She had to prepare. The net result was always the same, though: Their failures were always somebody else's fault. (Since the election, Hillary has blamed everyone from the DNC to Bernie Sanders to woman-haters everywhere for her loss.) And the people who put faith in the Clintons and defended them always end up holding the bag.

But the lies were always a symptom of a deeper pathology. The Clintons saw themselves as better than the institutions they were supposed to serve, from the White House and the State Department to the Democratic Party and even the country. The rules are for other people. That's why Clinton Inc. collected millions upon millions of dollars from foreign governments, Wall Street and Hollywood while demonizing their opponents as shills for corporations and wealthy interests. That's why Hillary flouted the rules for her email server. That's why Bill flouted the rules for pretty much everything.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 01:51 PM

Jeri...why do you think we are "trolling"? This is an open thread with numerous paths to explore...Do you really think that I would waste my time constructing readable posts ....to wind people up?

I am a long term member, my views are as valid here as any other, I do not "troll", I firmly believe what life has taught me. I see power being wielded unjustly here and I have always respected you, who have in most cases been fair and reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 02:12 PM

Where did I say anything in this thread about "trolling"?

Ake, you occasionally say something on topic, but then bitch about moderation in the same post. You don't have to be here.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 03:27 PM

salt and pepper bearded bruce

1- You are using the word rational opposite to my meaning.
2- A private server is not a crime, it is breaking a departmental rule.
3- The last candidate to not schmoose the DNC early on was Carter
4- This thread is about predictions
5- Don't tell my wife but I like Hillary less than Bill who I couldn't stand

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 03:28 PM

Looks as tho Bruce needs a nap - he's getting cranky and throwing an alt-right tantrum: no facts need apply- Just like Trump & the Trumpists.

Move along- nothing to see here.....

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 03:42 PM

Donuel,

"2- A private server is not a crime, it is breaking a departmental rule."

The use of ANY PRIVATE email for CLASSIFIED information IS A CRIME.

You misstating the crime does not make it go away.

She lied to the FBI about it, tried to cover it up by destroying evidence, and it was caught. Three felonies, yet no prosecution by the Obama DOJ.

I hope you remember that when the crimes of this administration are uncovered, and apply the same rule to them- ie, let them off with no punishment. Otherwise, you are a total hypocrite. If you demand that this administration obey the law, but will not hold the previous one accountable for their crimes, there may well be a new civil war- and the innocent will make up the greatest number of the dead and injured.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 03:42 PM

Ake your post at 1:44 gets partial credit. If you are going to pass this course you will have to study, not sites, but books.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 03:59 PM

The worst punishment 'server wise' is termination, still not a crime. A link to the front page of the NYT is marked CLASSIFIED in emails depending upon the sender.

You know how to make a Federal iPhone secure after use is ended? A hammer. You are operating only on the manicured spin version of the truth. Perhaps the real world operation of work would shock you as contractor employee. The Fed is different.

I predict in the future you will also defend Trump's use of Nuclear weapons. (swerving back on the road)

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 04:13 PM

" If you demand that this administration obey the law, but will not hold the previous one accountable for their crimes, there may well be a new civil war- and the innocent will make up the greatest number of the dead and injured."

Its the law it is not optional based on personality.
I analyze news. There are alt right accusations that Antifa is promulgating CIVIL WAR. Now you threaten me with civil war and that I should feel guilty and respondsible for your revenge to defend Trump.   I refuse.

I predict as I have for 10 years that the right will claim something like a second civil war to come. In reality it will be another Klan resurgence with assault rifle terrorism.

I hear you bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: 1984 was right, but not quite...........
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 17 - 04:48 PM

I hear you bruce.

Everyone hears him. That's unfortunate.

The good news is, only similar truth-and-fact challenged individuals agree with him.

The bad news is, said individuals make up ca. 33% of the U.S. electorate.

The good news is that it isn't a greater percentage.

The bad news is that it isn't a smaller percentage.

But cut Bruce a break. He's only following the sterling example of the psychopathic,sexual-assaulting, pathological liar in the White House.