Search results

Heh. I saw the header and said to myself this will be about AJ in a flash. What do I win? I'm afraid to ask what "standard" views are, although I'm guessing your own view yours to fall under that umbrella. Regardless, this smacks of an fbi hatched deal back to front.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I was only referring to a round of throw the bums out. To be sure it would just be a new set of bums put in or watch the well-meaning non-bums be bummed by the system, which is rotten to the core. So I agree with you re the lack of change.

The idea that the US is a still as free a country as it has traditionally been is as off base as it being a tyranny. But there is no question that our liberties are being eroded in many ways and the apparatus for marital law and the police state that people are concerned about is coming into...

Oh, I would imagine that there's going to be something of a shakeup in the next elections as folks experience the effects of Obamacare. The dems are saddled with this albatros and it is showing signs of being the grift that keeps on giving.

He's right, you know. There's no need to label it inaccurately.

I suppose any case could, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this one. The secrecy aspect to this one, however, did not appear with the report. It's been a question all the way. This isn't going to change that, nor will speculating as to why the state's attorney is acting as he is. And to...

You could be right, but you yourself are engaging in a fine display of non-ct spin. You set it up as spinning the secrecy angle, as if that is crazy talk, but regardless of whether one believes it a ff or not, there's no question it has been shrouded in secrecy. Some see that as suspicious...

But isn't that all you've been doing with your own cherry picking re IW/AJ?

Wow. That was a straight up hit piece. I have no clue if anything he says is true or not, having never watched AJM, but he didn't provide a single example re any point he made and that's just bad form.

No, it wasn't an op-ed piece. It was about "is" not "ought." You are confusing spin with an op-ed piece. All articles are spun, it's virtually impossible not to do so anymore. But his piece was about what was going on, not about should it be going on or who was right about this or that. But...

Right. It's called psyops. But to hear it told round here by some, that stuff is a figment of ct loony land.

I would be so bold as to say that I examine the idea more than most here. I'm quite aware of the head I win/tales you lose dynamic and rail against it wherever it pops up. I see it a lot here. That's just it. What you describe is what I do as a rule. I never just take a single source as gospel...

I trust them for all sorts of things. Just not everything. Same with alternative stuff. As I've said from the jump, it's about discrimination, not blind acceptance or dismissal. Why this simple point eludes, I have no idea. Well, ok, yes I do. Because a cter is putting it forth and we all know...

Does that mean you didn't read it or you read it but don't accept it? I didn't think that at this late date that it was a point of contention.

Not necessary. This is either good enough to do the job or nothing else will. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89489923 Nearly four years ago, a Los Angeles Times writer revealed that according to a study of the invasion published by the U.S. Army, the statue toppling was...

As an aside, how did you feel upon learning that that whole iconic toppling was an orchestrated bit of psyop theater and not the spontaneous event it was billed to be. Is that an acceptable practice as far as you are concerned?

I'm sorry, but no. Please don't take offense, but this is wholly irrational and demonstrably so. You throw around this rational evidence and confirmable evidence stuff all the time, but you do not practice what you preach and when confronted with such just slide right by it and repeat the same...

They acquiesced? How so? They still find every and any way around them and even factor in being fined in their risk ratios. If it's more beneficial to ignore the regs and take the penalty, fine and dandy. You may say that many people will do the same and you would be correct, but many wouldn't...

That isn't the original story or the original author. That's from Breitbart. The original is from the Portland Trib and is no longer linked. This is the beginning of the original story as was quoted in your link and it is what the rest of the articles are referring to: Verenice Gutierrez...

Oh, I"m sure I am. I'm also sure nobody could coherently explain what is impolite about it or even see the irony involved were they to seek to do so, given the point I am making by using it in the first place. This is supposed to be the reason and logic and evidence wing of the world, but it's...