Things the left must no longer say. (Trump edition.)
No self-respecting member of the left would sound like Trump, right?. So, if Trump expresses a sentiment that those on the left have been expressing, members of the left must cease expressing that sentiment in order to (a) not sound like Trump and (b) mock Trump for saying things members of the left have been saying for years, maybe for decades.
Those on the left used to claim that elections were rigged, stolen, etc. A poster on another board opined in a pm that elections have been stolen since the 1960s, when voting machines first showed up at polls. Candidly, I always wondered why she thought that only the elections Democrats lost were rigged, but never mind that now. The important thing is that those on the left must now stop staying elections are rigged, stolen, etc. Henceforth, all elections are strictly fair, unless, of course, Russssssiansssss hack an election by making information that is totally accurate available to American voters. Got it? Better misleading information and impressions from Americans than accurate information from foreigners! (See how very left that sounds?)
Members of the left have also long said that US mainstream media is not only biased toward the establishment (or toward the right, pick one), but serves as its propaganda arm. Trump said media was biased against those not members of the establishment. Now, members of the left must say that mainstream media is a venerable US institution that is lofty and unsullied by agendas.
While I am on this subject, please indulge me in a couple of asides. Aside one. Remember when Bushco got caught delivering government-produced tapes of news stories to mainstream media, which ran them as is and as though they were ordinary news stories? What does a news program have to offer, other than its cred? Why did news programs risk losing their cred that way? Simply because using someone else's tape--anyone else's--was cheaper, or was government paying media nice money to run government videos as ordinary news stories, with no disclosure to viewers? If so, has government stopped doing that? How would we know?
Aside Two. In a similar vein, I find a number of my local news stories to be suspiciously like product placement we see in films and TV. (EVERY cast member on every reality show on every station flashing a laptop to a camera that lingers on the Apple logo can't be sheer coincidence.) For instance, is it really local news, or any kind of news, that McDonald's, a global entity, is offering a new type or size of sandwich? Or is it a paid advert that is supposed to appear to me to be a local news story? If it is a paid, deceptive ad, does it cost McDonald's more or less than an overt ad? No matter, I guess, since members of the left can no longer question the purity of media. Never mind.
Members of the left used to say that government did not necessarily always tell Americans the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Sometimes, government did not even provide citizens with a modified, limited hangout's worth of truthful information. And sometimes government even affirmatively misled Americans, by selective leaks and other deceptive modes, or by outright lying. On some of those occasions, someone with information about the deception would reveal it, as with the Pentagon Papers.
Obama infamously ran THE most secretive administration in US history, which somehow made opacity acceptable to some Democrats and made whistleblowers the villains, instead of the heroes they had traditionally been to the left. In any event, given record levels of secrecy, what was the purpose of the Obama-era statute that expressly authorized the US government to propagandize US citizens?
I mean, most countries, including the US, have been propagandizing their citizens since time immemorial, anyway, haven't they? We didn't invade Iraq on bad intel; we brought democracy to the Middle East. (Lebanon and Israel are not the droids Middle Eastern democracies you're looking for.) So, the statute authorizing the US to propagandize US citizens had to have been passed to cya administrations for doing something well beyond the usual, no?
Seriously, what was that statute about? Something even worse than delivering government-prepared tapes of news stories for stations to air without attribution to the government? Worse than lying the country into war? Inasmuch as the US government does not need a statute to empower it to tell its citizens the truth, wouldn't the US government need such a statute only for propaganda that deceived US citizens about something important? And wouldn't that be....my fingertips barely dare even type it....fake news?
No matter. Don't even whisper such things, my friends. The instant Trump says something, those on the left must stop saying it. In fact, mere silence is not enough: whatever Trump attacks, members of the left must support unconditionally. Trump attacked our revered institutions, like the election process, media and government, which means they are now above reproach. Shame on Trump and anyone else who attacks them! As for what the left said in the past, that's what the memory hole is for. Do Winston Smith proud!
As new speech taboos come to my attention, I will try to apprise you of them. You're welcome.
Comments
Lord knows...
we can't speak the truth to 'some people'. That would be rude of us.
And, as today's OT tells us, we must parse our words as to not offend.
Someone is going to have to 'bend a knee' to me on that one too.
Nice job summarizing all this HAW.
I want a Pony!
Thank you, Arrows.
What real collusion looks like....
---
---
Also see: https://caucus99percent.com/content/presidential-weekly-address-july-21-...
for what the FAKE U.S. News Media is not telling us.
Lefties are not allowed to wish our enemies harm.
Even when they actively wish us harm. We can be beaten, gassed, shot, hit by large vehicles, blown up and just straight murdered, and we must still wish our enemies the greatest of health and respect. They after all, are either "Just Following Orders" or "A poor innocent victim of oppression" and therefore we must not only endure the abuse we suffer, but actively praise it and adopt the language of our violators.
We are not allowed to ever, EVER think of ourselves as a group, without clarifying every single smaller group that must be also acknowledged for their great contributions. If we forget any we must immediately make reparations and apologies, promise to do better and show proper contrition for YEARS. (Right wingers do not have to do this. At worst, they have to do ONE public statement, and will be forgiven for all past offenses. [see first rule])
We are not allowed to ever ask for money. EVER. On the left, we must always act selflessly, and dedicate ourselves to our noble purpose... AFTER all our other responsibilities are taken care of. If you're broke, you shouldn't be an activist, and asking for any kind of help just shows that you're a lazy bum who should be out working. There are NO excuses. Anybody asking for money on the left is by definition a "Con-Man".
Aaaaaand...
You can never, ever state that Russia ever did anything good. Even suggesting that those calling for the murder of all Russians are overreacting is a sign of Russia-philia and a sign that you're a traitor. Bringing up past US alliances with Russia is verboten as well. In fact, ve vant to know eversink about you association vis Zem.... VE VANT NAMES!
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Maybe they raised me wrong, but, so far,
I've been incapable of wishing anyone harm. Not that I've tried to wish anyone harm. It's just not how I think or feel.
Asking for money? I just posted yesterday that the only way we are going to accomplish anything at all is to raise money--lots of it--and volunteer.
I am also non-violent. In the revolution, I will take a bullet for you, but I won't hurt anyone. Which brings me to something much more controversial: If the revolution ever does get here, the left will be the only ones unarmed. I am not sure yet how I feel about that.
While not in the Constitution, as is bigotry, hating Russia after the Russian revolutions is in our national DNA. As soon as the Communist Party of America formed, Congress trumped up reasons to investigate it. https://caucus99percent.com/content/presidential-elections-and-liberals-... After all, those Russkies had overthrown their government by violence and had grabbed the property of the erstwhile ruling class, much as had American colonists. (oops)
I claim no moral superiority on this one.
I freely admit I would like to see evil people suffer the same indignities and harm they inflict on others. There's a reason most of us don't want to see bad things happen, and that's because we have empathy. However, those that are insulated from the consequences of their decisions, ensuring they never feel the pain that results? Fuck em. They deserve every bit of pain and more.
Ah, see but if you don't raise money SPECIFICALLY for political causes, only, through total altruism, and volunteer your time freely with NO support outside of yourself, you are a con-man looking only for a quick buck. (If you're poor, you don't get to talk. At least that seems to be the attitude when people who receive social support speak about politics. Essentially it becomes "Shut up, you don't get to talk if you openly need help.")
I am a pacifist, but my pacifism has limits. We are rapidly approaching the point where the lack of threat to the PTB just encourages them. The only reason they gave us the New Deal in the first place was that they knew that the next action was going to be rich assholes heads on pikes.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
I wish I had written that!
Emphasis gleefully added!
I write better when I'm pissed off.
Because I tend to lose my concern for how every single word "COULD" be perceived.
It's an old habit from TOP and Twitter, and I'm trying to lose it. Fortunately, my twitter followers are pretty good people about not being jerks when I'm just being honest, and as far as TOP goes...
Well, I'm not there anymore.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Aid for anyone with Twitter jitters
As many of you know, I am practically unafraid to say anything--you know, bite first, question later. So, I invite any c99er with help disinhibiting a proposed post or comment. Of course, I would do this only with your consent and only charge almost nothing.
Dr. Alligator! First, do no harm.
I agree about the New Deal. Same for the Great Society.
However, you are wrong about the poor. It's not that they don't get to speak. It's that they ceased to exist years ago. Listen to Democratic politicians. They never mention the poor anymore. Only the rich and the middle class--most the middle class. Surely, if the poor still existed, at least one Democratic politician would mention them.
@HenryAWallace Money follows trust.
Money follows trust. People are very untrusting right now, and for good reason. Allies are dropping like flies and changing sides like, well, a politican on the campaign trail. People I trusted less than 20 months ago I no longer trust, at least to the extent that I won't rely upon them. A terrifying number of people are willing to lie either for their "team" (blue or red) or for their own personal enrichment or both.
Establishing credibility is key. Establishing countermeasures to the corruption tactics of the establishment is equally so.
The left needs to face certain truths about the tactics that are being used upon us by the powers that be, and we need to incorporate those truths into any actions we take. It remains to be seen whether we can or are willing to do that. Mostly people want to end the conversation when I start talking about such things.
But if we can't do that nothing, including raising money, is going to do us any good. Right now, the establishment can co-opt just about anything. Most people solidly trust very few sources, because you never know when one is going to turn out to have been a sheepdog, or inexplicably collapse and start bleating about Russia, for instance.
So attempts to raise money are likely to be less successful than they may have once been.
It's sometimes difficult not to be angry at Bernie for this. He could have circumvented a lot of this. But the same conditions apply to him as to everything else.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
CSTMS: we need political jujitsu
In keeping with your comment, I could not count on my fingers and toes all the previously reasonably thoughtful analysts independent of duopoly mania, who now crawl on their bellies, like well..., to the trough (ouch, what a mixed metaphor!). Let us start a quick list:
1. Rachel Madcow, whose integrity was stolen more than 20 months ago
2. hard-hitting Chris Matthews of hard balls fame
3. Cenk Uyghur and his Armenian side-kick (genocide! What genocide?)
4. Sam Seder who left the Passover service to soon to know he was becoming an Egyptian
5. David "computer game" Pakman
Political jujitsu is turning the opponent's energy against him/her/it getting them off balance WITHOUT resorting to their tactics. In the words of every fucking establishment Dim, we need better messaging to throw these assholes off balance; and then, pardon my uncouthness, stomp them in the head.
AE, I don't know what happened 20 months ago, but, IMO,
Rachel Maddow lost her integrity well before that, if she had any--and I am not even going to qualify that with something like "IMO" as is my habit.
During the Bush era, the left was so damned grateful for any media voice--and any vehicle at all-- that was not Republican, even message boards, like KOS and Democratic Underground. But, after Obama hit the scene, who was a liberal, who was a Dembot shill and who was simply earning a living started to become more and more obvious.
Not too long after she started at MSNBC, there was a strike. Without solidarity, unions are impotent. That's union 101. Therefore, no self-professed liberal with a scintilla of integrity crosses a picket line, even if it means getting fired. Every single MSNBC anchor was on air during the strike. That was a huge tell.
Aside from that, MSNBC has long used Rachel's show to give their newest Republican commentator her imprimatur, talk them up and "welcome to MSNBC, my friend." That way, her audience thinks they must be okay. The first I remember was Michael Steele. His wiki says he joined MSNBC as a regular political analyst in 2011, but I thought it was even earlier than that. And he was by far not the worst Republican for whom she cheerfully shilled on MSNBC.
While she claims to be a liberal, she, of course, shills for centrist Democrats every day she works. She sure did not have a lot bad to say about Obamacare and did not exactly seem overwhelmed with relief that Bernie was challenging Hillary.
I think she follows the agenda of whichever employer is signing her paycheck at the time. I don't fault anyone for earning a living without breaking the law, but that's not my definition of integrity and I doubt it's yours.
@HenryAWallace Wow, I never knew
Wow, I never knew this:
Not too long after she started at MSNBC, there was a strike. Without solidarity, unions are impotent. That's union 101. Therefore, no self-professed liberal with a scintilla of integrity crosses a picket line, even if it means getting fired. Every single MSNBC anchor was on air during the strike. That was a huge tell.
If I'd known that, she would have been dead to me long ago.
It's not like she's someone working minimum wage who'd be homeless if they refused to cross the line and got fired.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I think, at that time, Ed Schultz disappointed me most.
He had covered clinics giving free care, seemed very pro-union, etc. However, I forgave him after he would not back down on Bernie, which is why I think (imagine?) he lost his job.
Getting people to trust you when you are unknown is hard.
It's also hard getting people to trust you after they've been burned a few times. After 2008, I thought I never donate to or work for a politician again. Then along came Bernie. In my early days here, I wrote several essays trying to sort out my feelings about his run, but I still am not sure how I feel about all that. (I am, however sure about how I feel about La Revolución https://caucus99percent.com/content/la-revoluci%C3%B3n (Feminine noun--interesting!)
Familiarity, though it may breed contempt, is one of many reasons reason why I think our best bet may be using one or more existing vehicles.
Totally Off Topic, I enjoyed your intolerable acts reference in your bend the knee essay, but I forgot to include it in my reply to your essay.
@HenryAWallace Well, to be honest,
Well, to be honest, I wasn't consciously making a reference--unless you mean to the rather disgusting events themselves!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Maybe it was subconscious?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts
@HenryAWallace Oh damn! Wow.
Oh damn! Wow.
Good old collective unconscious, working for you and me!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@detroitmechworks Oh, you saw that.
Oh, you saw that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
scripted news
No journalism...just read the teleprompter
Case in point -
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZVv2AOCnaA]
I don't like little tiny hands, but it pisses me off when they don't report his small successes.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&...
The media is the real culprit all the way around. During the election no honest coverage of T-rump and his shady business practices...they wanted the revenue for his appearances. Now they want those Russiagate ratings like Rachel is getting. Rachel's Russia rhetoric reminds me of T-rump's birther nonsense.
Want a good conversation about Russia? Listen (or read the transcript) of Matt Taibbi's interview.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&...
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
I wished they had let one of the talking heads finish each of
those stories, so we could try to figure out what the agenda was. Who the hell is scripting the news (or whatever it is) for scores of news programs?
Originally, actual top tier newsmen for newspapers got news anchor positions on radio and TV. Now, we have "television personalities" or "talent" as it's known in the biz, reading the teleprompter, as you said. I have to give some props to those who at least gave a shot at making it seem spontaneous.
It's not about him. WE deserve accurate, non-hysterical news coverage. Yes, he's the most embarrassing President I can recall. (Whodda thunk I'd say that so soon after Bush the Lesser?) But they have been relentless since Election Night. Is every single tweet he sends really the end of the world as we know it? And isn't anything else going on in the world?
Once again, Henry, you have uncovered another Dim weak point
Of course that is not too hard because most of the Dim bodies (literally and figuratively) lie buried in shallow graves OR on top of the dirt. The MSM has completely overlooked the greatest accomplishment of the Trump Administration (of which there have been and will be few more).
Cooperation with Russia, tacitly allying with Syria, ending Hussain's funding of ISIS/A-Q and other "moderates", including rolling back CIA and Pentagon funding for such sedition are in the current NWO-NeoCon NeoLib agenda of dying ideas superb accomplishments.
No, I am not a Russian, though I knew a couple. Oops, guilty by association! Ya got me, Tovarisch.
Thanks, AE, but I cannot tell a lie. Lookout, caucus99percent's
weekly news maven, pointed it out first. I merely replied.
Congratulations to Lookout--and to you
That, I'll take! Thanks.
Just following the ratings.
or so they say.
Absolutely true. The media has never had a problem with Trump from the time he entered public figure status in the 80s until someone decided RUSSIARUSSIARUSSIA would make for better ratings. I mean, the guy has been a documented creep for as long as he's been around. It's just when the media decided this was the better storyline, they flipped.
(Of course, you could argue that the media turns a blind eye to a lot of shady dealings by public figures in all walks and all political stripes until the point where propping them up isn't profitable anymore, but that's an argument for another day.)
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
I don't believe what they say about ratings.
Didn't believe it during the primary, either. Conglomerates are not dependent upon the ratings of news programs; and Comcast is not dependent upon the ratings of MSNBC. They have more to gain by getting the government they want than they do by getting a few points more in the ratings.
I started to write something about this, but only got as far as part one of the series. So many things I want to write about, so many series I've not yet finished, so little time.
ratings are invented
concocted in the same lab as the rest of the disinformation we are fed
I'm sure you're right
I just know that's the defense always used in cases like this. Would love to read more thoughts if you ever get the time (I can relate).
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
@Lookout Rachel is the Father
Rachel is the Father COughlin of 21st century America. She is a major propagandist who is insidiously dishonest.
Made me google, didn't you, you wascally poster!
I remembered something about a liberal priest that the Vatican ordered out of politics, but from what you said about Coughlin, I knew it couldn't be him. (Turns out, I was thinking of Father Drinan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Drinan)
Wow--and not in a good way--is all I can say about Coughlin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin
sounds like the propaganda office has been at it again
I read this clergy fellow as being anti-capitalist while advocating for nationalisation of banking and utilities. Maybe his socialist policies led to his demonisation, hence the popular slurs of the time...shut down by the government for subversive activities during wartime. Can't have socialist ideas floating around during national security control of thought during dangerous times, ya know...cull the herd. no contrary thinking is allowed in the name of defence. Now it is re-written in wikipedia to make the man a monster. hmmm truth may lie somewhere else methinks.
I think you're talking about democrats aren't you?
Although I try not to refer to myself as a lefty anymore, if I did this certainly wouldn't apply to me and some other non-democrats here.
I would never mock 99ers like that.
PS. As best I can determine, the voice of the establishment
wrote that essay, speaking to all members of the left. Some will obey; some won't.
Mocking the voice of the establishment is a good thing, even if Martha Stewart might beg to differ.
@HenryAWallace "OK, have your henchmen
"OK, have your henchmen let us go and stop talking to us through Charles. We know it's you talking to us--or whatever is talking through you."
--Calvin O'Keefe
A Wrinkle in Time
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Ya got me. I did write that essay!
@HenryAWallace Not what I meant.
Seems to be the people who are particularly het up about Trump, either for or against, who still believe it's all about the pols. They're gonna party like it's 1799.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Just a lame attempt at mild humor, CStMS.
@HenryAWallace Sorry. The
Sorry. The Internet has made me overly literal and explanatory, because it's so easy to misunderstand and be misunderstood here.
Sorry to have dropped a water balloon on your joke.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
No worries whatever. No water balloon, either.
Your comments are always interesting and appreciated.
Democrats don't steal elections ?
Growing up in Chicago in the 60s and 70s during the Daley Machine era whose motto was ( vote early and vote often ) Yeah its been going on since at least the 60s. In 1968 when I was 9yrs. old, some guy ( probably a ward committeeman ) drove through the neighborhood a few times and paid us kids a nickel or a dime for every Nixon sign we tore down and turned in to him.
Hillary said she canvassed for Nixon at 13.
That was when he ran against JFK.
Bless her heart.
It IS possible to beat it
Hell, Hillary has nothing on me. In 1964, I worked for the local GOP and/or the John Birch Society in the Goldwater campaign. Like Kristofferson said about serving in Vietnam, "Got the check; cashed it." I even had my own personally signed copy of None Dare Call It Treason!
What happened to me then?
1) I grew up.
2) I read. I read a lot.
3) I looked around and noticed my views were wrong.
4) Therefor, I changed my thinking.
Evidently, none of these things happened to Hillary.
I don't care if Hillary claims to have become a Dem
before meeting Bill. I will never buy her carefully-crafted story of seeing the light the same year she attended the Republican National Convention. Nothing will ever convince me that the President of College Republicans at one of the most liberal colleges in the US at the time became a Democrat before she went to law school, where she met Bill. But, how would it look for an alleged feminist to have been a Republican because of her Daddy, then becoming a Republican because of her hubby?
Not that there's anything wrong with that...unless you bs people about it.
Dear Pro Left, I too grew up in Chicago
during the reign of King Richard no-neck the first. I got outta town before his son, who actually has a neck, inherited the office. Now with Rahm "fuck you" Emmanuel in charge of selling off Chicago, I will rarely return.
Supposedly, Rahm did not want to be Obama's chief of staff.
However, supposedly, Rahm's dream job was Mayor of Chicago, which is owned by the Daley's. Yadda, yadda, Rahm left the White House October 2010, to run for the seat of Dick Daley, Jr., whereupon Rouse was acting chief of staff until Bill Daley, seventh son of Dick Daley, Sr. took over.
Coincidence? Maybe. After all, Rahm and Daley were both Clintonites and Obama infested the Executive Branch with Clintonites. However, I think Raham cut a deal before accepting the appt. as chief of staff and Obama complied and worked it out with the Daleys, whereupon Rahm accepted.
Bless you for this.
It's getting too foul to breathe out there.
There's more than one war going on here, and one of them is about basically, though not exactly, the same issues that lay between Joseph McCarthy and Edward R. Murrow.
It's a war over human perception, human imagination: will these things submit to absolute control or not? Can such control be engineered with tech and constant propaganda? Can it be achieved with the destruction of communities and trust? Can it be made to happen by making the public sphere a wretched hive of character assassination, and misinformation? By putting people into a condition where they can no longer trust any source, and shut down in mental self-defense?
It's horrible that so many of our former allies have changed sides in this war.
You just struck a solid blow for our side.
Good on ya.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Both sides (or more, if there are more) sides of argument
must be attended. Truth is to be mined wherever it is found. For instance, gasp! horror! I read Breitbart, Judicial Watch, conservative YouTube channels regularly.
This has two purposes:
1. To find out what the conservative viewpoint is on any issue. This lays a foundation of knowledge for RATIONAL discussion. This looking beyond the "approved sources" has generated some heat for me, yet I know several others who agree with this approach--thank you for your openness.
2. To discover information suppressed by the MSM. Political implications of the information's source is irrelevant. An educated person, such as those here at c99, can make their own analyses, independent of any partisan slant.
@HenryAWallace @Alligator Ed I'm definitely
I'm definitely willing to judge most information on its merits rather than on how I feel about the speaker/source. That's one of those customs without which laws are empty, to paraphrase the motto of the place I got my PhD. Leges sine moribus vanae.
I did have a problem with that one fellow, James O'Keefe, but it wasn't because he's right-wing; it was because he had previously done a hatchet job (on Acorn), based largely on lies. The thing is, I don't therefore assume that everything he's going to say after that is a lie. In fact, I suspect the things you reported (using him as source) were likely true. But one thing that happens if a source lies in public is that a lot of people will never trust it again--and I can't exactly blame them.
I remember at the time being profoundly annoyed that it couldn't have been any of a number of other right-wing sources who conveyed the information (I wasn't annoyed at you, but more in a "why did it have to be him?" sort of way). In fact, I was annoyed at O'Keefe himself for not understanding that his previous actions had made him the wrong person to send out this information. He should have handed it off to a right-winger who hadn't engaged in baseless character assassination (and there are some). But that level of moral principle seems to be almost unheard of in this day and age.
Regardless of all that, I deeply appreciate the work you do here. You do a lot more work than I've been able to do in the horrible aftermath of last year. It's taken me this long to get back on my feet. I'm very appreciative of those here who were able to pull themselves together quicker and serve the community while I was (metaphorically) still trying to push my intestines back inside the gaping stomach wound last year's politics left me with.
As Lily Tomlin once said, I keep trying to be cynical, but I can't keep up.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
"No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to
keep up." Lily Tomlin
This is one of the quotes I post most often.
Oh, if only I had the power to strike a solid blow for our side!
But thank you very much.
@HenryAWallace
Gee, and I was just (as always) thinking that people like you and Can't Stop The Macedonian Signal wielded deadly sword-pens cutting right through the faked
defensesexcuses of The Psychopaths That Be...The People, once United under factual information and awareness of existing conditions of gross exigency, Will Never Be Defeated by a mere fraction of the 1-percenters and their hired thugs.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Thank you.
Posting on message boards may serve some good purposes, but I am not among those who believes it impacts real life very much. To the contrary, it may take away from impacting real life.
@HenryAWallace Like I said, there
Like I said, there's more than one war going on. In the war on human imagination, message boards are important. In the war between the power of law and the power of wealth, not so much. In the war on, well, everybody not of the .01%, particularly the bottom 80% of the economic ladder, again, not so much.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Were it not for message boards like this
I would undoubtedly think that I was one of a very, very few people thinking these thoughts. That would make me less confident in expressing them to others. In addition, "message boards" have provided some of the most solid real news and help for me putting together my own real news. Getting the extra help also makes me a lot more confident when I speak to others.
I would say the war of ideas is in many ways quite a bit more important than the war of power, money, and guns. In the end, there are not enough plutocrats to control the rest of us. It is only the ideas they preach daily in MSM that make it work.
If "message boards" like this one don't fight the flood of fake news then who will? I completely agree with you.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard