Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

I think the sudden “infighting” of the alt media personalities is a sign that we are getting close to something big.

Jon,

I hope you understood (in fact I think you do) that when I wrote about Corsi, "Jerome Corsi is such a kook and so discredited, he will be on After Words and interviewed by Sharyl Attkisson," that I was being sarcastic. But it occurs to me I might have been too cute for my own good.  So here is a bit more information, if not needed for you, at least for the reader.

C-SPAN is where the kind of intellectuals you see in the New York Review of Books hang out. In other words, these are the more elite kind of intellectuals.

Sharyl Attkisson is one of the best journalists on the planet, especially integrity-wise. She was a former CBS reporter who won several Emmy's and all kinds of awards. She has two recent best-selling books: 

1. Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington. 

2. The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote.

She's the journalist Obama's administration hacked and she proved it by recording her computer operating without her input. Computer experts also looked into her system and found evidence of keylogger software, too. Then Obama's folks went into cover-up mode and got ridiculous about it, even claiming she was using backspace too much, so she now has a massive lawsuit running against the Department of Justice. The way it is unfolding, I predict she is going to be one very rich woman after a while.

In other words, Corsi is going to be interviewed by the top in journalism--in my opinion, the very best in America right now--on a platform reserved for intellectual elites. I posted this news with sarcasm to counter the image being portrayed in this thread that Corsi is a crank and crackpot not to be taken seriously. The fact is, he is being taken seriously by a huge number of serious people. Critics may laugh, but then again, they once laughed in the same manner at a presidential candidate with orange hair who, according to them didn't stand a chance in hell of even finishing the primaries.

Now, about your comment I quoted.

In addition to this event you see coming, some of the alt infighting is due to a rift between Glenn Beck and Alex Jones, of all things. Back when Beck was on Fox, I was a huge fan, but once in a while, I would get a feeling that something was off. I would see him do a show where he would present something as his, but not credit where it came from. Also, people like Breitbart distanced themselves from him for this same reason. Sarah Palin, after doing his "Restoring Honor" event in Washington DC distanced herself from him because he used sensitive private information from her without asking. There were others, all saying the same thing.

Once a real loud warning bell went off in my mind when Beck did a show themed on Apollo and Dionysus. Guess what it was about? You guessed it, the Apollo moon shot and Woodstock. And he did not mention the name Ayn Rand once during the show. He practically plagiarized Rand and didn't even mention her essay. To be fair, he also promoted Rand at times. But one does not excuse the other. 

Then Beck moved from New York to Texas. At this time, I rarely watched Alex Jones, but guess where Alex is situated? Texas. Then I discovered that a lot of Beck's inside information came from Alex, who constantly put (and still puts) a shit-ton of stuff out there and says take what you will. Alex is on a mission to make the world better, not just a quest for fame and fortune.

Alex is in thick with Christian Texas millionaires, although, according to him, he does not take money from them, and those millionaires are exactly who Beck targeted for investments when he arrived. All this time, Beck kept bad-mouthing Alex both on his show and off.

Time went on and Beck, for whatever reason, started opposing the very audience he built up. He became fanatically anti-Trump and finally ran The Blaze into the ground as his audience deserted him (and me along with them).

Now another Alex hater has appeared, Ben Shapiro. He has arrived courting the same Texas millionaires and offering to buy The Blaze. Everything was going fine until Ben Shapiro started bad-mouthing Alex and asking important guests to not appear on his show. So Alex got pissed off and started fighting back, both on screen and off--including with the millionaire backers. Since Alex's connection is spiritual and intellectual, not monetary, he has a lot of clout. Why Beck and Shapiro want to bad-mouth him, I don't understand. Alex never bad-mouths people like them unless he is fighting back against their attacks.

People in the alt media are now taking sides in this dispute, even when they don't mention the names of Alex and Shapiro. Basically, Beck and Shapiro are representing the more elitist establishment side of the Republicans who can't stand President Trump without going full neocon (and, meanwhile, trying to drag evangelical Texas millionaires along with them so they won't fund the Trump-friendly folks). Alex is a true Trumpian kind of alt media personality. And the alt media people on the right are starting to fall into these two categories. 

So this is going on in addition to the explosion you see coming. 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

About Q-Anon:

Michael

[9thdoctor]

14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Dennis,

You forgot the hot dogs with walnut sauce.

 

"Probability distribution" is not the way ruling class assholes work when they are intent on exploiting a disaster for evil.

For example, do you think all the money they stole from the Haitian disaster worked according to a "probability distribution"?

 

You're pivoting.  I don't dispute that the Clintons used the Haitian disaster for their own ends.  I'm focusing on the Silsby case.  I'm asking, given that we don't have full knowledge, what probabilities you assign to the two proffered explanations: pedophilia vs. religious zeal?  

The way I see this case: religious zeal led these people (Idaho 10) to break the law, a pedophile attorney (Cuello) offered them his services, initially for free (so we're told), he was unmasked within a week or two, then the Clintons got involved to get the Idaho 10 off the hook.  What's not clear is whether the Idaho 10 had a prior relationship with Cuello.  If so, that would increase the probability that they were agents hunting for fresh meat to feed some evil network of pedophiles.  Increase from vanishingly small to, let's say, 10% max.  Nothing I've read points to this.  Also, I've found no connection between Cuello and the Clintons.  They're now being subject to guilt by association, and that association is non-existent.  There's plenty to vilify them for, how about sticking to the solid cases? 

This is innuendo-mongering worthy of a Michael Moore film. 

PS I tried looking up the walnut sauce reference, and...say what?  I found pages of lunatic material, but I gather it goes back to what looks like a truly innocuous exchange:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43113

[Peter]

14 hours ago, caroljane said:

I think Rush should stick to music, they are too old to become political commentators in a foreign country.

Isn't the group Rush from America? I was talking about the The talk show "Rush." Mr. Limbaugh is on from 12:08 to 3pm, from Monday to Friday, on 92.7 The Beach. If you live in paradise. You'se Canadians probably have your own short wave channels to listen to. Do you guys get good TV with your tinfoil antennas up there? I don't know if I could survive on Spam, snow, and seal meat. 

[Peter]

The suggestion that North Korea could be as prosperous as South Korea may have had some affect on Kim Jun Un. Satellite photos show he is dismantling his nuke sites and may be finished by the end  of May 2018, this month!     

[william.scherk]

"Is there a special significance to walnut sauce on pasta?"

2 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You forgot the hot dogs with walnut sauce.

 

 I'm focusing on the Silsby case. [...] I tried looking up the walnut sauce reference, and...say what?  I found pages of lunatic material, but I gather it goes back to what looks like a truly innocuous exchange:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43113

 

Spoiler

 

Edited May 12, 2018 by william.scherk
Walnut sauce from Liguria? Isn't that an alien base?

[Peter]

What is walnut sauce code for? 

[william.scherk]

'What is "walnut sauce" code for? Choose one from column B, two from column C.'

10 minutes ago, Peter said:

What is walnut sauce code for? 

[Peter]

"The Vigilante" played by Charles Bronson. Good guy who works for Social Services is a secret agent of justice. After he and his agency have pulled abused kids from their horrors, The Vigilante goes back to visit "the molesters." You can run but you can't hide from the vigilante.  

 

[KorbenDallas]

"The Vigilante"  = fiction

PizzaGate = fiction

[Peter]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

"The Vigilante"  = fiction

PizzaGate = fiction

Maybe The Vigilante should be played by Bruce Willis.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

This is innuendo-mongering worthy of a Michael Moore film. 

Dennis,

OK, I'll play. You want to do this with snark? I'll play.

Let's start...

7 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

The way I see this case: religious zeal led these people (Idaho 10) to break the law...

You mean like going into the middle of chaos in another country in order to kidnap a bunch of little children, lying their assess off to authorities while doing it, and hiring a sex trafficker to defend them? That kind of breaking the law? I break the law when I run a traffic light. I guess kidnapping is the same kind of breaking the law, huh?

Why the euphemistic way of saying this if spin is not the motive? That kind of spin is worthy of a Michael Moore film.

7 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

The way I see this case: religious zeal led these people (Idaho 10) to break the law, a pedophile attorney (Cuello)...  What's not clear is whether the Idaho 10 had a prior relationship with Cuello... Also, I've found no connection between Cuello and the Clintons.

Especially if you don't spell the name of Jorge Puello right, misspell it 3 times in the same paragraph, and don't spell it right anywhere else.

How can anyone research something properly with the wrong name?

That kind of trick in presenting a summary of "evidence" is worthy of a Michael Moore film.

7 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

They're now being subject to guilt by association, and that association is non-existent.

From what you have written so far, It doesn't seem to me like you've looked much further than mainstream news--the very same mainstream news that lies to get us to accept wars, lies their assess off every day of the week about everything, and even sporadically fires their employees for lying when their lies are so blatant, the public detects them as lies. That mainstream media. Does that make lesser known sources credible? No. But it sure as hell doesn't mean the mainstream news should the the only thing you look at, either, not if you are going to make statements of fact like "that association is non-existent."

So I started looking into Puello, but the path is getting awfully cold. Anyway, let me help you.

The first thing you should do is look into search engines other than Goggle, like Duckduckgo. They don't track you or run algorithms formatted to your interests, meaning only what they want you to see. At least, that's what the Duckduckgo people say. I've found this search engine--which is not as powerful as Google (and might even run on a Google API for all I know)--to be useful at times when Google simply gets impossible on providing useful information--and Google seems to be getting worse at this for normal users as time goes on.

From there, I decided to look into Jorge Puello to see if he had any connections to the Clintons. I found a good place to start, a site called The Daily Bastardette. The following two articles are from 2010, but they have references and information not given in the mainstream. (In other words, they have breadcrumbs to follow...)

WHO IS JORGE PUELLO?

WHO IS JORGE PUELLO, PT 2: JUMPING DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE

There are a few more articles about Jorge Puello on that site, but these two are good for a start. However, since I am not eternal, I will only look at one rabbit hole for this post. But there are a crapload to follow for those with real interest.

The link (http://puello-consulting.com/home-english) to Puello Consulting/Abogados Consultores at Avenida Duarte 359, in Santo Domingo, no longer works (surprise, surprise). And it is almost scrubbed from the Wayback Machine--but not totally scrubbed (I wonder who screwed up?). As of this post, you can see the boilerplate text of their activities here, and it includes, among their services, such goodies as:

"Acquisitions, Mergers & Alliances, Banking & Finance, Business Counseling, Constitutional & Special Procedures, Consumer Protection & Antitrust, Corporate Service, Credit & Collecting, Environmental Procedures, Family  Procedures, Immigration & Naturalization, Incorporation & Establishment Of Companies, Intellectual & Industrial Property, International Trade, Investment & Tax Benefits, Litigation, Arbitration & Negotiations, Notarial Services, Public & Private Contracting, Real Estate Transactions & Development, Trust & Asset Management"

... with descriptions of each. In other words, this is crock of BS and a total copy/paste job from some legal site or other. But on their about page, (I'm giving these links, but I don't expect them to last, so I have provided some of the text), you get the following:

Quote

Origen y Vocación

"Hemos consolidado uno de los más prestigiosos bufetes de Republica Dominicana por haber seguido siempre nuestro principios esenciales: la profundidad en el análisis del Derecho; la honestidad, la decencia y el respeto a las reglas eticas y deontológicas; en resumen, la búsqueda absoluta de la excelencia en todos los niveles de nuestra actividad".

Lic. J. Yoram T. Puello

Puello Consulting, Abogados Consultores.
tiene su origen en la union de los abogados Alejandro Puello y Jorge A. T. Puello. En la actualidad tenemos oficinas asociadas en la Republica Dominicana, Estados Unidos, Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, España, Centro y Sur America. Nos destacamos por nuestra presencia en los mercados de servicios profecionales latino ameicano, donde asesoramos en Derecho Dominicano, Estado Unidense, Canadiense y latino Americano.

Nuestro despacho presta asesoramiento jurídico en todas las áreas del Derecho de los negocios, Laboral, Penal y de Migracion.

PUELLO CONSULTING ha estado siempre muy unido al mundo academico, Especialmente en las universidades, y colabora con frecuencia en proyectos humanitarios. 

Here's a quick Google translation (not corrected or anything):

Origin and Vocation

"We have consolidated one of the most prestigious law firms in the Dominican Republic for having always followed our essential principles: depth in the analysis of law, honesty, decency and respect for ethical and deontological rules, in short, the absolute search for the excellence in all the levels of our activity."

Lic. J. Yoram T. Puello

Puello Consulting, Lawyers Consultants.
has its origin in the union of lawyers Alejandro Puello and Jorge A. T. Puello. At present we have associated offices in the Dominican Republic, the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Spain, Central and South America. We stand out for our presence in the Latin American service markets, where we advise on Dominican, United States, Canadian and Latin American Law.

Our firm provides legal advice in all areas of Business Law, Labor, Criminal and Migration.

PUELLO CONSULTING has always been very close to the academic world, especially in universities, and frequently collaborates in humanitarian projects.

Now that sounds more like it. A company that claims to have offices all over the place, is "very close" to the academic world and "frequently collaborates in humanitarian projects" sounds in the ballpark of the Clinton Foundation. Whoever has messed with international finance on the secondary market knows full well what "humanitarian projects" means. It means a cover for funneling and laundering money, usually from the government.

This is not proof of anything, but the idea of a relationship is no longer in the realm of "nonexistent" or even ridiculous. That is exactly the kind of sleazy law firm and/or front group someone or some organization like the Clinton Foundation wanting to do something sleazy would hire. 

I initially started looking at this law firm to see if it listed its former clients. That list, if they had provided one, would have been another breadcrumb on the way to finding a connection. Alas, they did not, but they did put something else interesting, the name of Alejandro Puello. I've read elsewhere that he is Jorge Puello's cousin and brother in different articles, so his family relationship is vague. What is not vague is that he is Jorge Puello's partner.

So instead of running down Jorge Puello, who is covered with a mountain of disinformation at this stage, I think it would be far more fruitful to look into Alejandro, then connect stuff from that search back to Jorge.

See how searching for real works? It's a little different than looking at a Wikipedia article and claiming to be expert enough to issue hard facts based on political feelings. 

A total lack of interest in this kind of research while issuing a statement of fact in an arrogant tone decreeing the impossibility of something is, in itself, worthy of a Michael Moore film.

7 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

What's not clear is whether the Idaho 10 had a prior relationship with Cuello.  If so, that would increase the probability that they were agents hunting for fresh meat to feed some evil network of pedophiles.  Increase from vanishingly small to, let's say, 10% max.

This is a crock. These people hired a sex trafficker and, just because you can't find a previous connection between them and that particular sex trafficker, this means, to you, only a 10% chance they were looking for a sex trafficker. 

I repeat, what a crock.

How about concluding that people who actually hired a sex trafficker to defend them wanted to hire a sex trafficker? What are the odds on that, I wonder? Is it in the realm of possibility? Come on...

A super-spun conclusion like the one you gave, with low percentage and all, is worthy of a Michael Moore film.

Shall I go on?

I'm not eternal, though. So I'm not going to chase down everything in order to play at "win an argument" with a person who slants up a storm. I don't believe you are interested in actual information, but instead in winning an argument regardless of the information. And that bores me.

So I don't expect to convince you of anything about this case. From the way you have framed it, your mind is already made up and it's all over except the preaching.

I only put in all this writing for the reader. No, I haven't proved anything except this is not as simple as you made it out to be, and nobody who looks at it and doesn't agree with your take on it is as stupid as you insinuate. 

Let readers read your stuff, read my stuff and this other stuff, then follow the rabbit holes (or not) if they like, and then come to their own conclusions. I, for one, trust them. I'm not the one trying to gaslight them by claiming, as fact, that guilt exists or doesn't exist, and whoever thinks otherwise is a loon.

As for my own conclusion at this point, to me, everything points to Silsby being involved in sex trafficking, either as an active participant or as a patsy. To others, it might not seem so. And that's as it should be.

What's not as it should be is grandstanding with declarations that this information does not exist and whoever looks at it and considers the possibility of sex trafficking is being duped like with a Michael Moore film.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - Here are a couple of links on pedophile jargon: here and here.

The second link is far, far better than the first and has links to places like the Urban Dictionary.

There are some inconsistencies, though. For example, the first link says walnut refers to a black person, but that seems like typical disinformation or someone making shit up to sound good. Or it could be used that way by some pedophiles. I'm not an expert, so I don't have information on that level of nuance.   Because of sourcing, I'll go with the description in the second link, though: walnut means an "immature vulva, before the labia have developed." 

3 hours ago, Peter said:

What is walnut sauce code for? 

"Walnut sauce" means an orgy with very young girls. See the links at the top of this post for further description.

As to "innocuous" Podesta emails on WiliLeaks, my favorite Podesta line is in the second link above: "Ps. Do you think I’ll do better playing dominos on cheese than on pasta?"

Either Podesta is a total moron about how to play dominoes, or he is talking about something else. I mean, who plays dominoes on top of food?

Michael

 

[9thdoctor]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As for my own conclusion at this point, to me, everything points to Silsby being involved in sex trafficking, either as an active participant or as a patsy. To others, it might not seem so. And that's as it should be.

What's not as it should be is grandstanding with declarations that this information does not exist and whoever looks at it and considers the possibility of sex trafficking is being duped like with a Michael Moore film.

Michael

Whoa, calm down my friend.  I read the Daily Bastardette articles yesterday, among other things.  And between then and this morning, when I wrote my post, I got Puello’s name messed up.  Nothing nefarious about that.  You didn’t write any of the innuendo-laden pieces, you merely linked to one.  So I wasn’t accusing you of Michael Moore’s practices.  At worst, of having fallen for them in this case. 

Concerning “going into the middle of chaos in another country in order to kidnap a bunch of little children”, note that I haven’t defended that.  I’ve been focused on the likely motives of the Idaho 10, especially how plausible it is that they were connected to a pedophile network.  None of the material you shared in your latest post added any relevant information.  No prior relationship has been established between Puello and the Idaho 10, Daily Bastardette is clear on that (BTW, I don’t detect slant in the coverage there).  Nor has a relationship been established with the Clintons.

The way I see the relationship being established (most probably) is that the Idaho 10 were arrested, they became a news item in the Dominican press, they were sitting in jail, and this man, posing as an attorney, came to them.  They didn’t know better, and lacked the resources to research him.  He started off saying he’d represent them for free, then switched to demanding lots of money.  Rather like a con-artist.  They got rid of him within two weeks, by which time the Clintons had gotten involved. 

Alternately, there was a prior relationship, so their first phone call from behind bars went to Puello.  Who they may or may not have known was a sex trafficker.  We don’t know.  Hence, probabilities.  If they had the prior relationship and knew he was a sex trafficker, well, obviously that clinches it.  But those two elements are not in evidence. 

Have I denied the possibility that Silsby was “involved in sex trafficking, either as active participant or patsy”?  Nope.  But I do assign it a very low probability.  And with more facts, that would be subject to change. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

But those two elements are not in evidence.

Dennis,

And should there be if these folks are involved in human trafficking (active or patsy)?

Funny thing, that, about people who break the law.

They tend to hide things and cover their tracks...

You think it's a low probability that child kidnappers aren't covering their tracks for something darker (because they are religious, I guess). I think it's a much higher probability that people who know how to kidnap children in another country and are well-connected to the Clintons (see the emails) know how to hide their tracks.

So we disagree. I'm fine with that.

At any rate, going forth, I think it is reasonable to leave Michael Moore out of this one.  

Michael

[9thdoctor]

38 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Dennis,

And should there be if these folks are involved in human trafficking (active or patsy)?

Funny thing, that, about people who break the law.

They tend to hide things and cover their tracks...

You think it's a low probability that child kidnappers aren't covering their tracks for something darker (because they are religious, I guess). I think it's a much higher probability that people who know how to kidnap children in another country and are well-connected to the Clintons (see the emails) know how to hide their tracks.

So we disagree. I'm fine with that.

At any rate, going forth, I think it is reasonable to leave Michael Moore out of this one.  

Michael

Given that the Wikileaks emails made it out, I have to disagree about their ability to cover their tracks.

I suspect you're not giving due weight to one fact that is incontrovertibly in evidence: Puello is a con-artist.  A fairly skilled one.  Though not too skilled, after all he's been busted multiple times (bank fraud, then sex trafficking, then this (posing as a lawyer)). 

Concerning kidnapping, I lived through another episode in my backyard:

There were endless arguments about the welfare of the child...whether it outweighed parental rights and so on.  A very emotional topic.  So I can see religiously inspired types going to Haiti to try to save children from starvation/disease, and acting without due respect for the legalities.  And I see that as more probable (much more) than them going there to find fresh meat for a pedophile network. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

26 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

So I wasn’t accusing you of Michael Moore’s practices.  At worst, of having fallen for them in this case.

Dennis,

And I emphatically reject that I was falling for them, even at worst.

We have an entire thread here on OL discussing the epistemology of conspiracy theories. 

I have said over and over that dot-connecting is the start of disclosure, not the end point. So we have to take those who charge out front with a grain of salt, always. People like Alex Jones are bulldozers who dig up everything the powerful want to hide. Sometimes they hit a water mains or sometimes they dig up cute animal dens. That's just the nature of being a bulldozer that runs 24 hours a day.

But whenever the first reaction to what they dig up is mockery, I don't find the mocker any more intelligent than what he or she believes they are mocking.

When I posted that Zero Hedge article (which I didn't find full of ridiculous innuendo, although I did perceive slant), I did so in answer to mockery--this post in particular, which I don't think is a good philosophical argument on a philosophy board:

On 5/10/2018 at 10:28 AM, william.scherk said:

"What is the evidence Laura Silsby was child sex trafficker?"

My purpose was to show that intelligent people, not just loons, think sex trafficking in the Silsby case is worth considering. I don't think the articles reposted in ZeroHedge fall to the level where mockery and dismissal are the only reasonable answers to them.

And speaking of that, look at the site where the article came from and see if it is trying to dupe anyone: Disobedient Media. I don't see it. 

Since it has an update for the article (the one I linked it to on ZeroHedge), here is the original: The Clinton-Silsby Trafficking Scandal And How The Media Covered It Up.

I know the title is aggressive against the media and we would never want to think the media covers up anything for the Clintons, now would we?

Despite all the links in that article, this very discussion here on OL shows how easy it is to cover up the facts. However, I don't think it is done intentionally here. Even with flare-ups, I love the people on OL. I don't sense evil lurking around here.  

As a human being, though, I know there is a cognitive bias about normal institutions like the media. In the minds of normal people, the media have always been there and worked before, so the idea that they are corrupted to the point of outright betrayal is foreign to the thinking and belief systems of almost everybody. How long does it take for a spouse to believe the other cheated on them? A long, long time. So imagine that about an institution you turn to for information every day...

Even after media betrayal is proven over and over and over, there is still this underlying belief in most people that the betrayals were momentary lapses in an otherwise good and traditional service. It's hard for folks to see just how far the mainstream media have fallen and accept it. This is almost like cutting off one's own arm.

But pedophilia is a hot-emotion issue. So good people end up talking past each other (like we do sometimes). Well... imagine what people (like the mainstream media folks) who want to manipulate others can do with it.

Then just look. You don't have to imagine anymore. They do it.

That's what I saw in the article about the media cover-up. I don't have to agree with all of William Craddick's conclusions (he is the author), but I reject I was duped "at worst" by Craddick because, from everything I read, I don't think Craddick was trying to dupe anyone. And even if he was, my approach to conspiracy articles does not permit me to swallow any of them uncritically or treat them as end-points.

Sorry to be a stickler on this, but I want to help make respectable room for conspiracy thinking. We don't have to go far for why. Just look at the Snowden case and remember all the mockery against those who warned of a surveillance state. That is, they mocked until Snowden came out with the proof. (I don't recall many apologies from the mockers afterward, either.)

How many times do we have to fall for government crap (including mainstream media crap) to realize that government crap is a distinct possibility? Isn't looking and considering conspiracies when massive power and money are involved a good idea? Or should we just trust big brother?

I say there is a way to do it rationally. And that is to situate it epistemologically as a starting point, not a falsifiable end point. This way you can consider an idea, even an outlandish one, but not be subjected to fear of being seen as stupid to your peers.

Pointing is not throwing a spear. And nobody rational wants to throw a spear at everything everyone points to. Sometimes they point to shadows or nothing at all. Sometimes the pointers will growl at the wind. But if nobody points, ever, if everyone just lives in mainstream media bubbles, hardly anybody will throw spears at the bad things until too late. 

To me, conspiracy thinking makes sense if you do it right.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

I suspect you're not giving due weight to one fact that is incontrovertibly in evidence: Puello is a con-artist.  A fairly skilled one.

Dennis,

Me not giving due weight?

Hardly. It's one of my main considerations.

Being a skilled con-artist is a resume enhancer for being hired by the Clintons.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

Given that the Wikileaks emails made it out, I have to disagree about their ability to cover their tracks.

Dennis,

In other words, if one thing gets discovered, the person hiding that thing has no competent ability to hide anything else?

I don't think like this.

Michael

[caroljane]

6 hours ago, william.scherk said:

"Is there a special significance to walnut sauce on pasta?"

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Fine recipe, but is it sauce for the goose, or sauce for the gander?  We are tired of being ignored and oppressed, and demand a transparent answer. We are lawyered-up.

Coalition of transgender,  female-identified at birth fowl affiliated with Cocks united, (CTFACU)

C. Little, Alarmist -in- C hief

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

Do not expect to see many transgender geese on the menu at Mar-A-Lago.

It's probably not even because of President Trump.

It's the chefs...

Michael

[william.scherk]

"Legendary Goose Dies At Forty"

Quote

Coalition of transgender,  female-identified at birth fowl affiliated with Cocks united, (CTFACU)

Edited May 12, 2018 by william.scherk
Resized image of Thomas the goose and his lovers

[caroljane]

12 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

"Legendary Goose Dies At Forty"

I thank whatever gods there be

for my  invincible,  and 

indegestible soul!

Thomas

[9thdoctor]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Dennis,

In other words, if one thing gets discovered, the person hiding that thing has no competent ability to hide anything else?

I don't think like this.

Michael

Going forward they will up their game.  It's like an arms race. 

[Jon Letendre]

The President knows what happened in Haiti.