Yesterday - Bundy Ranch

[babe]

Yeah... I'd steer(get it?) clear of Fox News too.

you really need to coach your humor?

Actually, I've listened to NPR, PBS, and other corporate schill/media retailers all my life. I know some folks have a problem with conflicting ideas, psychologists call it fancy names like "cognitive dissonance" and such. I don't think Fox is particularly challenging, really. Why should people avoid asking questions/knowing different views of the news??? That's usually, in conscious observers of life, just the starting point of something called "thinking".

It's worth doing.

 

[sirkickyass]

No, I am not imparting any additional information at this time. Imo, the side deals are criminal conspiracy.

Hard to evaluate those kinds of statements when there's nothing to show us.

And your little jab is lame.. the joke around here is "I'll tell you tomorrow.." but I have shared more info with this board before it was news than any other.

Sorry, I think your stuff is more Wizard of Oz than most people on the board.

What I see in this thread is a general total failure to engage. You'll post articles (sometimes with attribution, sometimes without), I (and others) will write responses or ask questions and any engaging with the ideas you put forth is generally ignored or simply bypassed entirely to talk about the next topic. For example, in this thread I responded to your 105 page court decision, which I actually read about 70% of omitting only portions of testimony whose import was accurately summarized in footnotes, by pointing out that this was about another rancher's situation and the court case had to do with arbitrary denials of grazing permits by the BLM. Further I asked what the analogous arbitrary action by the BLM was in this instance, largely because the factual differences between the two cases appear to be very prominent and extremely pertinent to the judge's ruling. There's a reason the facts and testimony of the case take up 70+% of the judge's decision.

You completely bypassed this in its entirety, although later continuing to push up this decision as proof of something nefarious with respect to the BLM and the Bundy's; including making comparative points about how this judge's ruling (in a different case with different facts) should be just as valuable as a judge's ruling with respect to the actual Bundy case.

So yeah, I think you're just talking and not providing meaningful content. Your participation in the thread is more like a personal voyages blog than an actual discussion.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Hard to evaluate those kinds of statements when there's nothing to show us.



Sorry, I think your stuff is more Wizard of Oz than most people on the board.

What I see in this thread is a general total failure to engage. You'll post articles (sometimes with attribution, sometimes without), I (and others) will write responses or ask questions and any engaging with the ideas you put forth is generally ignored or simply bypassed entirely to talk about the next topic. For example, in this thread I responded to your 105 page court decision, which I actually read about 70% of omitting only portions of testimony whose import was accurately summarized in footnotes, by pointing out that this was about another rancher's situation and the court case had to do with arbitrary denials of grazing permits by the BLM. Further I asked what the analogous arbitrary action by the BLM was in this instance, largely because the factual differences between the two cases appear to be very prominent and extremely pertinent to the judge's ruling. There's a reason the facts and testimony of the case take up 70+% of the judge's decision.

You completely bypassed this in its entirety, although later continuing to push up this decision as proof of something nefarious with respect to the BLM and the Bundy's; including making comparative points about how this judge's ruling (in a different case with different facts) should be just as valuable as a judge's ruling with respect to the actual Bundy case.

So yeah, I think you're just talking and not providing meaningful content. Your participation in the thread is more like a personal voyages blog than an actual discussion.

- I'm not here to satisfy your requirements for how I should communicate.
- Things will come out shortly.. I am going on a radio show today to, for the first time, share some details publicly.

 

[Harambe]

you really need to coach your humor?

Actually, I've listened to NPR, PBS, and other corporate schill/media retailers all my life. I know some folks have a problem with conflicting ideas, psychologists call it fancy names like "cognitive dissonance" and such. I don't think Fox is particularly challenging, really. Why should people avoid asking questions/knowing different views of the news??? That's usually, in conscious observers of life, just the starting point of something called "thinking".

It's worth doing.

The emphasis was supposed to be that most plebs on the board wouldn't know humor from idiocy. But that appears to be wasted on you right now... you know better.

I don't have an issue with conflicting ideas. Sharing those ideas is how progress is made. But when releasing huge news(possibly impacting the direction of the country), it's entirely lost to large groups if not coming from the middle instead of an extreme.

In the event you haven't noticed, Hannity is an extreme.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

T minus some odd days until PKM gets audited.

 

[Dr. Jones]

T minus some odd days until PKM gets audited.

One aspect of this that I am sincerely weighing..

 

[Dr. Jones]

The emphasis was supposed to be that most plebs on the board wouldn't know humor from idiocy. But that appears to be wasted on you right now... you know better.

I don't have an issue with conflicting ideas. Sharing those ideas is how progress is made. But when releasing huge news(possibly impacting the direction of the country), it's entirely lost to large groups if not coming from the middle instead of an extreme.

In the event you haven't noticed, Hannity is an extreme.

I actually agree with this. Hannity would not be my first choice of place to start, but start somewhere you must.

 

[babe]

The emphasis was supposed to be that most plebs on the board wouldn't know humor from idiocy. But that appears to be wasted on you right now... you know better.

I don't have an issue with conflicting ideas. Sharing those ideas is how progress is made. But when releasing huge news(possibly impacting the direction of the country), it's entirely lost to large groups if not coming from the middle instead of an extreme.

In the event you haven't noticed, Hannity is an extreme.

This particular stand on "releasing huge news" is invalid. I don't think Hannity is extreme because his radio program is actually very centrist. Republican, yes, but pretty much moderate to centrist Republican advocacy.

Rhetoric coming from folks who use the "extreme" epithet recklessly to try to marginalize criticism of a "status quo" claimed wholeheartedly by marxist "progressives" is just that. . . rhetoric that is so far removed from the truth that anyone who is actually aware of the facts is gonna reject it.

Someone like a pro-Russian or pro-Chinese socialist. . . . as is the case with Lyndon LaRouche. . . . can believe in big government being the people's government under an ideal schema of giving the folks more technology, better health care, a creative sort of "education" that fosters personal imagination and appreciation of the arts while seeing our corporate fascism as a British oligarchal "empire" sort of thing that needs to be taken down, starting at the top with outright royalty figures like the Queen of England and her consort Prince Philipp. That's "extreme" in comparison to folks who support the big bank bailouts and Dewey socialist "education" consisting of training the lower classes to accept menial jobs and serve the corporate paymasters without questioning their policies. . . . folks who believe "Common Core" is the way the go with nationalized education. . . .

Point is, anybody can be called "extreme". In the above example, I bet you'd find another true socialist, even one with some marxist ideals, "extreme". Wouldn't be the first time different "big thinkers" tried to manage the human herd with different methods ever had a falling out and glared at one another with "extreme" hatred, or used political power to throw one another in jail.

I could draw some examples from your so-called "right-wing" sorts as well, but it wouldn't be as useful in trying to show my point to you, I would suppose.

I am sure most folks with opinions developed in any consistent manner who care to articulate them on the public airways might seem "extreme" to anyone who just doesn't care to understand their views.

Hannity is pretty mild on his comments compared to many, many others, and he is very intent upon supporting mainstream "Republican" sorts of political ideals and personalities. He supported Romney while criticizing Ron Paul, for example.

My point stands because it is factual.

 

[Dr. Jones]

This particular stand on "releasing huge news" is invalid. I don't think Hannity is extreme because his radio program is actually very centrist. Republican, yes, but pretty much moderate to centrist Republican advocacy.

Rhetoric coming from folks who use the "extreme" epithet recklessly to try to marginalize criticism of a "status quo" claimed wholeheartedly by marxist "progressives" is just that. . . rhetoric that is so far removed from the truth that anyone who is actually aware of the facts is gonna reject it.

Someone like a pro-Russian or pro-Chinese socialist. . . . as is the case with Lyndon LaRouche. . . . can believe in big government being the people's government under an ideal schema of giving the folks more technology, better health care, a creative sort of "education" that fosters personal imagination and appreciation of the arts while seeing our corporate fascism as a British oligarchal "empire" sort of thing that needs to be taken down, starting at the top with outright royalty figures like the Queen of England and her consort Prince Philipp. That's "extreme" in comparison to folks who support the big bank bailouts and Dewey socialist "education" consisting of training the lower classes to accept menial jobs and serve the corporate paymasters without questioning their policies. . . . folks who believe "Common Core" is the way the go with nationalized education. . . .

Point is, anybody can be called "extreme". In the above example, I bet you'd find another true socialist, even one with some marxist ideals, "extreme". Wouldn't be the first time different "big thinkers" tried to manage the human herd with different methods ever had a falling out and glared at one another with "extreme" hatred, or used political power to throw one another in jail.

I could draw some examples from your so-called "right-wing" sorts as well, but it wouldn't be as useful in trying to show my point to you, I would suppose.

I am sure most folks with opinions developed in any consistent manner who care to articulate them on the public airways might seem "extreme" to anyone who just doesn't care to understand their views.

Hannity is pretty mild on his comments compared to many, many others, and he is very intent upon supporting mainstream "Republican" sorts of political ideals and personalities. He supported Romney while criticizing Ron Paul, for example.

My point stands because it is factual.

I agree with this too.

See? I can be a centrist..

 

[TroutBum]

I long for a post from babe that doesn't include the words "progressive" or "socialist". I do, however, enjoy reading babe defend Hannity in this thread at the expense of every argument he's ever made about people who believe the main steam media. As long as they are saying something that you agree with, it's all good, brother.

 

[TroutBum]

PKM, is there a station or link that we can listen to?

 

[Harambe]

This particular stand on "releasing huge news" is invalid. I don't think Hannity is extreme because his radio program is actually very centrist. Republican, yes, but pretty much moderate to centrist Republican advocacy.

Rhetoric coming from folks who use the "extreme" epithet recklessly to try to marginalize criticism of a "status quo" claimed wholeheartedly by marxist "progressives" is just that. . . rhetoric that is so far removed from the truth that anyone who is actually aware of the facts is gonna reject it.

Someone like a pro-Russian or pro-Chinese socialist. . . . as is the case with Lyndon LaRouche. . . . can believe in big government being the people's government under an ideal schema of giving the folks more technology, better health care, a creative sort of "education" that fosters personal imagination and appreciation of the arts while seeing our corporate fascism as a British oligarchal "empire" sort of thing that needs to be taken down, starting at the top with outright royalty figures like the Queen of England and her consort Prince Philipp. That's "extreme" in comparison to folks who support the big bank bailouts and Dewey socialist "education" consisting of training the lower classes to accept menial jobs and serve the corporate paymasters without questioning their policies. . . . folks who believe "Common Core" is the way the go with nationalized education. . . .

Point is, anybody can be called "extreme". In the above example, I bet you'd find another true socialist, even one with some marxist ideals, "extreme". Wouldn't be the first time different "big thinkers" tried to manage the human herd with different methods ever had a falling out and glared at one another with "extreme" hatred, or used political power to throw one another in jail.

I could draw some examples from your so-called "right-wing" sorts as well, but it wouldn't be as useful in trying to show my point to you, I would suppose.

I am sure most folks with opinions developed in any consistent manner who care to articulate them on the public airways might seem "extreme" to anyone who just doesn't care to understand their views.

Hannity is pretty mild on his comments compared to many, many others, and he is very intent upon supporting mainstream "Republican" sorts of political ideals and personalities. He supported Romney while criticizing Ron Paul, for example.

My point stands because it is factual.

https://wonkette.com/539816/sean-hannity-leaving-new-york-because-mean-gov-cuomo-doesnt-love-extreme-conservatives-enough

So extreme he takes offense to others talking about right wing extremists. If he takes offense, clearly he considers himself extremist.

So, on a personal level, he claim's he's extreme.

https://thinkprogress.org/politics/2008/09/11/29022/hannity-meltdown/

Has been known to have meltdowns on the air

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KJhqLxeEPE

He's been targeted by Olberman, who at least was the king of the extremist left, and has been known to take aim at extremist right.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/02/sean-hannity-headlining-tea-party-event-183722.html

Last but not least, he's headlined Tea Party events.

What about him exactly isn't extremist? What's he gotta do to cross that line? Talk about the next American insurrection? Claim that a year from now is Obama is still in office I'll either be dead or in Jail?